A delightful scene from “Jack and Jill.” (Tracy Bennett/CTMG)

Jack and Jill” was not the No. 1 movie at the weekend box office. That honor went instead to “Immortals,” which proves that Adam Sandler in a dress is no match for Henry Cavill — our future Superman — with no shirt.

Still, “Jack and Jill” managed to open in the No. 2 spot, with $26 million, compared with the $32 million raked in by “Immortals.” Considering that the movie was widely slammed by the media — including this blog, in which I described it as “borderline epic in its awfulness” — this is a semi-impressive debut, even if it falls below the usual threshold for a typical Sandler opening. (Actually, what’s more, um, impressive is that audience members gave the film a Cinemascore grade of B. What does it take to merit a D, America? I ask again: What does it take?)

But what are the deeper implications of the movie’s box office performance? Let’s assess further, using data from Box Office Mojo.

“Jack and Jill” marks the weakest opening for Sandler since 2009’s “Funny People.”

Of course, “Funny People,” though wildly uneven, was still a much better movie. So that’s not good.

“Jack and Jill” made more in its opening weekend than “Punch-Drunk Love” did during its entire theatrical run.

The brilliantly off-kilter Paul Thomas Anderson movie — in which Sandler argued with a whole posse of sisters, none just one who also was played by Sandler in drag — earned just $24.4 million. Total. This makes me weep for the cinematic choices of this great nation.

“Jack and Jill” is the second strongest opening for a movie co-starring Katie Holmes.

The biggest (obviously) was “Batman Begins.” In third: 2003’s “Phone Booth,” which debuted with $15 million. No, I would not have guessed that, either.

“Jack and Jill” is also the second strongest debut for a movie co-starring Al Pacino.

I must preface this information with the caveat that these figures have not been adjusted for inflation. That said, the only Pacino picture that amassed more dollars in its first weekend was “Ocean’s Thirteen,” which barely counts since it was a massive ensemble piece. Is it weirdly possible that “Jack and Jill” was an in­cred­ibly smart career move for Pacino? And if so, can I assume that the world is about to turn upside down, dogs will soon develop warm relationships with squirrels and that peanut butter is on the verge of tasting like chocolate and vice versa? Because frankly, those all seem like rational assumptions under the circumstances.

Even in a world gone mad, it seems unlikely “Jack and Jill” will rise to the top of next weekend’s box office based on positive word-of-mouth from all those people who gave it a B. Why? Because the unstoppable “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1” opens Friday. But put in your box office prediction two cents by voting in the poll below.