IMDB 100 worst movies of all time

beernutz

Hall of Fame
Of course they are at odds with US gross, genius. Last I checked, world wide gross meant WORLD WIDE GROSS. I stated I was referring to the world wide gross quite clearly -- and even underlined it -- in the original post. (And I got those numbers from IMDB, as you did.) So don't get your panties in a wad just because you either misread the original post or have trouble grasping the difference between how much money a film makes just from the US box office versus how much it makes in the entire world.

In any case you are wrong. World Wide Gross for Click = $237million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=sandler.htm

So don't get your panties in a wad just because numbers and facts apparently confuse you.
 
Last edited:

heycal

Hall of Fame
In any case you are wrong. World Wide Gross for Click = $237million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=sandler.htm

So don't get your panties in a wad just because numbers and facts apparently confuse you.

I'm never heard of "box office mojo", girly boy. But I have heard of IMDB -- the same source YOU cited yesterday. If IMDB was good enough for you yesterday, why abandon it today? And why is this new source suddenly more reliable than the source we BOTH used yesterday?... Accurate grosses are notoriously hard to pin down, but it's very poor form for you to dump your original source just because you don't like some of the numbers, just as you don't suddenly try and change the rules of a game just because you're losing.

This is a petty and pathetic attempt to save face on an issue you should have dropped yesterday when you realized you were confused. I can only imagine your desperation as you hunted around on the internet trying to find some different, and lower, numbers to try and prove me "wrong"...
 
Last edited:

beernutz

Hall of Fame
I'm never heard of "box office mojo", girly boy. But I have heard of IMDB -- the same source YOU cited yesterday. If IMDB was good enough for you yesterday, why abandon it today? And why is this new source suddenly more reliable than the source we BOTH used yesterday?... Accurate grosses are notoriously hard to pin down, but it's very poor form for you to dump your original source just because you don't like some of the numbers, just as you don't suddenly try and change the rules of a game just because you're losing.

This is a petty and pathetic attempt to save face on an issue you should have dropped yesterday when you realized you were confused. I can only imagine your desperation as you hunted around on the internet trying to find some different, and lower, numbers to try and prove me "wrong"...

Ok fudgepacker, I look here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389860/business and see the US gross of $137 milliion but no world wide gross.

Where are you getting $400 million?
 
Not sure why you would inject a slur against homosexuals ...feltcher.

...Now be gone, boy.

Ouch, Harsh, man.

I did not notice anything in there that was hard on homosexuals.
I think that poster was referring to the occupation of the other poster, who happens to work in a packaging plant for chocolate desserts. Simple misunderstanding there, man.
 

heycal

Hall of Fame
Ouch, Harsh, man.

I did not notice anything in there that was hard on homosexuals.
I think that poster was referring to the occupation of the other poster, who happens to work in a packaging plant for chocolate desserts. Simple misunderstanding there, man.

Perhaps he was indeed thinking of the other guy. Queernutz seems confused about several matters in this thread.
 

heycal

Hall of Fame
That is a subscription page dumbass. I'm not paying to see what is clearly evident on many other sites, i.e., the WWG of Click was $237 million.

Now crawl back in your hole and take a dirt nap.

That's your comeback? "That's a subscription page dumbass"?? And how would it being a subscription page possibly invalidate a source that you yourself were citing yesterday? Somehow the more comprehensive information available on their professional website is less worthy of being cited than the basic info. on their free site??

You are a moron.

In fact, let's review just how moronic you are:

1) In the midst of a side debate I was having with another poster about the fortunes of "Click", I point out that the film had a world wide gross of almost 400 million.

2) At this point, for reasons known only to you, you decide to interject yourself into this debate to question my figures and point out that "Click" had a U.S. gross of 137 million.

3) I then remind you that I was talking about world wide gross, not U.S. gross, and had even underlined that fact when I mentioned the close to 400 mill figure.

4) Instead of going away quietly at this point like a smart person would have and realizing your error of confusing U.S. and world wide gross, you then decide to prolong the argument, continue to lose the argument while resorting to desperate measures and name calling, and make yourself look more and more stupid with each passing post.
 
Last edited:

beernutz

Hall of Fame
That's your comeback? "That's a subscription page dumbass"?? And how would it being a subscription page possibly invalidate a source that you yourself were citing yesterday? Somehow the more comprehensive information available on their professional website is less worthy of being cited than the basic info. on their free site??

You are a moron.

In fact, let's review just how moronic you are:

1) In the midst of a side debate I was having with another poster about the fortunes of "Click", I point out that the film had a world wide gross of almost 400 million.

2) At this point, for reasons known only to you, you decide to interject yourself into this debate to question my figures and point out that "Click" had a U.S. gross of 137 million.

3) I then remind you that I was talking about world wide gross, not U.S. gross, and had even underlined that fact when I mentioned the close to 400 mill figure.

4) Instead of going away quietly at this point like a smart person would have and realizing your error of confusing U.S. and world wide gross, you then decide to prolong the argument, continue to lose the argument while resorting to desperate measures and name calling, and make yourself look more and more stupid with each passing post.

It is not a comeback, it is a fact you ******, although by now it is not surprising at all that you fail to understand the difference.

I have actually cited a source freely available to anyone--http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=click.htm--even reading-comprehension-challenged egomanics such as yourself, that says the WWG was $237M. Stop flailing about, acting the fool, admit you were wrong (again) and slink off to wherever you losers go to lick your wounds.
 
Last edited:

heycal

Hall of Fame
It is not a comeback, it is a fact you ******, although by now it is not surprising at all that you fail to understand the difference.

There are several facts in play, Beernutz, virtually all of which make you look stupid. Which fact in particular are you citing when you write "it's a fact"?

btw, since you have some bizarre aversion to the more comprehensive subscription service information offered by IMDB, here's the same info. on the free portion of their website you seem to prefer:

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

"Click", at almost 400 million, appears to be in the top 100 all time grossers...
 
Last edited:

heycal

Hall of Fame
It is not a comeback, it is a fact you ******, although by now it is not surprising at all that you fail to understand the difference.

I have actually cited a source freely available to anyone--http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=click.htm--even reading-comprehension-challenged egomanics such as yourself, that says the WWG was $237M. Stop flailing about, acting the fool, admit you were wrong (again) and slink off to wherever you losers go to lick your wounds.

You prefer free sources? Fine. Look at that link I just provided for you above.

The information comes from the SAME well-respected website YOU cited yesterday.

Would someone please tell Beernutz he lost this argument pretty much when he began it, and to please stop making a fool of himself? It's becoming tedious, and he probably doesn't even realize that the precise world wide box office gross of "Click" is irrelevant at this point to why he lost this argument on several fronts...
 
Last edited:
Top