Re: Even Singer Doesn't Like BJ!

webhead2006 Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:38 am

Oh look another failure from the block of wood routh.

thecolorsblend Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:37 am

Apologist Puncher wrote:You know, if I couldn't STAND the guy, I'd almost feel bad for him being such an utter, utter failure:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=crookedarrows.htm

Crooked Arrows
Release Date: May 18, 2012

Domestic Total as of Jun. 11, 2012: $1,585,381

I wonder if the Apologists still make fun of Tom Welling's films these days.

Apologist Puncher Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:14 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:I wonder if the Apologists still make fun of Tom Welling's films these days.

Nah. Too busy blaming EVERYTHING ELSE for BJ's numerous failures, except him.

When that CBS show is cancelled after it's first season, you won't see BJ in ANYTHING ever again.

Mark my words.

thecolorsblend Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:21 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:Nah. Too busy blaming EVERYTHING ELSE for BJ's numerous failures, except him.

When that CBS show is cancelled after it's first season, you won't see BJ in ANYTHING ever again.

Mark my words.

You have to hand it to Hollywood though. They tried basically everything to prop the guy's "career" up.

non_amos Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:59 am

thecolorsblend wrote:
Apologist Puncher wrote:Nah. Too busy blaming EVERYTHING ELSE for BJ's numerous failures, except him.

When that CBS show is cancelled after it's first season, you won't see BJ in ANYTHING ever again.

Mark my words.
You have to hand it to Hollywood though. They tried basically everything to prop the guy's "career" up.

New career goal:

Even Singer Doesn't Like BJ! - Page 2 Do_you11

Too tired to look up bowling alleys & bartenders. Wink

webhead2006 Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:16 am

This is related to bj the bartender so thought it was fitting to post this here. First if you haven't got to see the film ted. It was funny as heck. So spoiler warning on this:

Spoiler:

Apologist Puncher Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:34 pm

From what I've gathered, he says something like:

Spoiler:

Seth MacFarlane is one of us!

webhead2006 Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:18 am

Ya thanks for the more direct quote when I heard that man I loled so hard. And woot for seth on our side.

non_amos Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:04 am

Ain't he the guy that looks like Peter Brady?

Apologist Puncher Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:09 pm

non_amos wrote:Ain't he the guy that looks like Peter Brady?

Even Singer Doesn't Like BJ! - Page 2 Family-guy-totally-looks-like-brady-bunch-christopher-knight

non_amos Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:
non_amos wrote:Ain't he the guy that looks like Peter Brady?

Affirmative.

Scarecrow Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:48 am

How could anyone blame singer for Routh's lack of a career?

had singer not chosen him because bore a slight resemblance to Reeve then Routh might never have had any kind of fame.

Apologist Puncher Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:46 pm

Scarecrow wrote:How could anyone blame singer for Routh's lack of a career?

had singer not chosen him because bore a slight resemblance to Reeve then Routh might never have had any kind of fame.

The same people who say he is a "good" actor...

webhead2006 Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:36 pm

And since sr bj has shown how lousy of an actor he is in chuck, scott pilgrim, and other stuff. And like ap has said before watch the new show he is in this fall will probably crash and burn in a few episodes.

James Stocks Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:12 am

I thought he was great in SCOTT PILGRIM, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good actor. Routh's one of those limited actors that can only work for a certain type of role like Casper Van Dien and Paul Walker. They're not versatile like the greats but if you put them in the right role in the right film you might get something worthwhile. SUPERMAN RETURNS was the wrong film on every level for Routh. It was like casting George Lazenby in the James Bond film ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE which had much more emphasis on character development and romance. A more gung-ho SUPERMAN flick that focused purely on action and spectacle might have been the better film for Routh to make his debut it, without any of the drama and complicated romance that Singer put in.

Not to deny that he failed in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Ultimately I lay the blame on Singer who had everything under his control the day he was hired.

thecolorsblend Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:32 am

James Stocks wrote:I thought he was great in SCOTT PILGRIM, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good actor. Routh's one of those limited actors that can only work for a certain type of role like Casper Van Dien and Paul Walker. They're not versatile like the greats but if you put them in the right role in the right film you might get something worthwhile. SUPERMAN RETURNS was the wrong film on every level for Routh. It was like casting George Lazenby in the James Bond film ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE which had much more emphasis on character development and romance. A more gung-ho SUPERMAN flick that focused purely on action and spectacle might have been the better film for Routh to make his debut it, without any of the drama and complicated romance that Singer put in.

Not to deny that he failed in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Ultimately I lay the blame on Singer who had everything under his control the day he was hired.

Ya know, it's weird. I don't want to excuse Blandon from anything. Yeah, Singer has worked with some talented actors so you'd have thought he'd have rejected a plank of wood like Routh out of hand. But he didn't. And honestly, Routh had the same opportunity Reeve did way back when. He wasn't widely known so he had the freedom to bring the character to life without having to deal with baggage from other roles. I don't completely buy into that Dick Donner talking point to begin with anyway though. If you can't mentally separate an actor in the current movie from a previous role he's done, well, don't blame me because you've got a shitty imagination. But whatever, point is the guy had as blank a slate as any actor could dream of going into a role. Henry fucking Cavill doesn't have the same chance Routh did.

But Routh still dropped the nachos.

And the people who want to blame that for being forced into a Reeve impression... look, either that's another figment of the popular imagination or the guy's an even shittier actor than I'm giving him credit for because I see absolutely zero relation to Reeve, either in his face or in his performance. Reeve obviously had a ball playing the role (or at least gave the impression that he did, which comes to the same) but he never once acted as though the work was somehow beneath a Julliard trained mega-talent like him. Routh certainly never took a superior view either but at the same rate you never got the idea that he brought the same joy mixed with innocence mixed with authority mixed with whatever the hell else Reeve could convey just by raising his fucking eyebrow.

If time, space, mortality and good taste were not objects and Reeve had been in Singerman, I can virtually guarantee most fans would hold it in higher esteem just because of Reeve. The STM script had problems, the tone of the movie changes from a serious character drama to a bit too slap sticky, goofy the minute Otis bungles into view of the camera, Margot Kidder is not attractive and Lois was written poorly, on and on and on. It's a damn good thing that's about the point that Reeve's screen time starts because there was a fair amount of trouble to overcome in STM... but he overcome it he did and it sure looks effortless.

Routh had that much more to overcome with Singerman, to be sure, but what I'm driving at here is that the dude just didn't pull it off. He could've been the magical elixir that made the rest of the movie work (or at least suck less) but instead he is, I would argue, the nadir of the movie. He had the same chance to put something special together just like Reeve did. As far as the leading roles go, what we see in STM and Singerman is the difference between a real actor with real talent making the best of a something-less-than-ideal situation and a cover boy for a Vanity Fair issue swaddled in pleather.

Sorry, not trying to blow up at you here but obviously this is a kind of touchy subject...

webhead2006 Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:28 pm

I still think routh is a bad actor in general. He is monotone speak, dull, no charm and i seen that in chuck, and scott pligrim. He been the same across the board. And yes singer made alot of bad mistakes/calls with SR, but routh in general is a bad actor. Plus look at all the stuff he done bomb too that shows that folks dont care about him at all.

James Stocks Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:31 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:Sorry, not trying to blow up at you here but obviously this is a kind of touchy subject...

No need. I agree he failed in SR, but like you said it was Singer that for some odd reason chose him, probably because he thought he looked like Reeve and just went along with that. Laughing

And to be honest I think the name calling on Routh is rather childish. He failed as a lead, and that's as far as I'll ever go with criticisms. Beyond that he's largely come off as a really swell guy in real life that I can't truly hate him and go further. If he had a more authoritative role in the making of SR then I might have a more hostile opinion of him as an actor. But since that's not the case, I'll just say he tried and failed and move on.

Also. Funny you mention the lack of resemblance. I remember reading about how not only Singer thought he resembled Reeve but so did his widow of all people. I personally do not see it, at all. Laughing

Going by his face he looks like a generic Superman but he does NOT look like Reeve. Never once bought that. It's just further proof that the Donner worshiping was the wrong way to go.

Gonna get in defense of STM. I do agree Lois is poorly written in parts (the Freudian slips are an eye roller) but I thought Kidder's performance was fantastic enough for me to overlook those flaws. However, she's pretty terrible at telling that poetry. I have no problem with the poetry itself, but Kidder sounds like she's drunk.

Apologist Puncher Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:17 pm

James Stocks wrote:No need. I agree he failed in SR, but like you said it was Singer that for some odd reason chose him, probably because he thought he looked like Reeve and just went along with that.

Not to mention he had a crush on him...

And to be honest I think the name calling on Routh is rather childish. He failed as a lead, and that's as far as I'll ever go with criticisms. Beyond that he's largely come off as a really swell guy in real life that I can't truly hate him and go further. If he had a more authoritative role in the making of SR then I might have a more hostile opinion of him as an actor. But since that's not the case, I'll just say he tried and failed and move on.

Different strokes. Something tells me you aren't as passionate about Superman as we are. And, I don't think you were there for the "battles" we here went thru to get this reboot and not a sequel to Singerman.

Call it "childish" if you'd like. I call it well-deserved.

Also. Funny you mention the lack of resemblance. I remember reading about how not only Singer thought he resembled Reeve but so did his widow of all people. I personally do not see it, at all. Going by his face he looks like a generic Superman but he does NOT look like Reeve. Never once bought that. It's just further proof that the Donner worshiping was the wrong way to go.

He doesn't look like Reeve.

At all.

Gonna get in defense of STM. I do agree Lois is poorly written in parts (the Freudian slips are an eye roller) but I thought Kidder's performance was fantastic enough for me to overlook those flaws. However, she's pretty terrible at telling that poetry. I have no problem with the poetry itself, but Kidder sounds like she's drunk.

They should have just used Maureen McGovern's version of the song, since Kidder couldn't sing.

That's why we got the poem.

James Stocks Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:13 am

Apologist Puncher wrote:
James Stocks wrote:And to be honest I think the name calling on Routh is rather childish. He failed as a lead, and that's as far as I'll ever go with criticisms. Beyond that he's largely come off as a really swell guy in real life that I can't truly hate him and go further. If he had a more authoritative role in the making of SR then I might have a more hostile opinion of him as an actor. But since that's not the case, I'll just say he tried and failed and move on.

Different strokes. Something tells me you aren't as passionate about Superman as we are. And, I don't think you were there for the "battles" we here went thru to get this reboot and not a sequel to Singerman.

Call it "childish" if you'd like. I call it well-deserved.

As far as the battles were concerned I was sort of in between. Back then I thought SR was okay but mixed (thinking some great moments in the first act, then it went downhill and hit rock bottom in third act) and yet was open to the idea of Singer doing a second installment because I was confident it would be more action heavy and those "Wrath of Khan" comments gave me a bit of hope, like how X2 raised the stakes. However, I was also open to the idea of nuking everything that happened before and starting from scratch that way the filmmakers aren't confined to where SR left off (hell, where the fuck was the whole thing with the kid going to go anyway?). I used to be a member of CountingDown.com where Emi resided, and I remember Superman Homepage used to be a war zone when the prospect of a Singerman sequel was still in the air. I'm glad all of that is over and that everyone for the most part is just looking forward to the Snyder film. It's no surprise the SR fanbase dramatically dwindled.

thecolorsblend Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:21 am

James Stocks wrote:And to be honest I think the name calling on Routh is rather childish.

To me, the name calling is spiking the football. It's our "fuck you" to the really weird cult of personality that's popped around Blandon. But apart from that, the Apologists behaved in a completely juvenile and immature way, picked fights and created conflict where none ever needed to exist. I truly believe the Superman fanbase today would look 100% different if the Eunuch had either let us all tear each other apart on his little message board or if he'd exercised the same degree of censorship over his Apologist flock as he did the rest of us. Playing favorites as he did, banning anybody who dared question Singerman's unprecedented brilliance, is what caused all the lines to be drawn. If he'd been the fanbase watchdog he thinks he is, things would've played out a whole lot differently. Anytime one of us says a derogatory name like that, my hunch is the rest of us remember all the unnecessary trouble and drama from that period... and are happy as all fuck that the Apologists are getting exactly what they deserve.

The New 52 has wiped out a lot of the Donner stuff that was introduced in comics starting in 2006 and the Singer stuff from 2007'ish while MOS is under a year away and Smallville continues as a very successful comic book. Meanwhile, all traces of Singerman are slowly but surely getting expunged from the record.

The Apologists are getting exactly what they deserve.

James Stocks wrote:Funny you mention the lack of resemblance. I remember reading about how not only Singer thought he resembled Reeve but so did his widow of all people.

Clearly I remember. At the time, it made absolutely no sense to me that she'd say that. But in hindsight, I think she was just being a company man about the thing. It's no more complicated than that. Staying involved with Superman matters meant attention was still being paid to the Reeve Foundation. I'm not implying that Dana was being exploitative, only suggesting that she was being diplomatic. There's nothing in it to rock the boat, right?

James Stocks Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:46 am

Makes sense, but out of context it might be interpreted differently. I always stayed out of the war zones, it just wasn't worth it for me because it seemed like it would never end. You couldn't say anything without getting attacked. As for Younis, I always saw him being in a no win scenario. Taking action or inaction, it seemed he and his site was going to get a lot of heat no matter what happened. The Neal Bailey review was especially puzzling because he criticized the shit out of SR when he broke it down (I was in complete agreement with Lois being one of the worst written characters ever, like right down there with Lana Lang in SMALLVILLE) but he gave it a 8.5 score, which I assume was strategically done because it wasn't posted until weeks after SR caused such a divide. At another website a reviewer gave TDK an 8.5 and there were a bunch of Nolanites who took that as a bad thing because it wasn't high enough. Neutral

But whatever. Fanbases always puzzle me. I consider myself a BIG Star Trek fan (Star Trek and James Bond are the two biggest for me), but unless there's a costume party you will NEVER see me go to a convention in costume. I just can't do that. I want to watch and discuss Star Trek, not play dress up. Laughing

thecolorsblend Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:02 am

James Stocks wrote:Makes sense, but out of context it might be interpreted differently.

I'm okay with that.

James Stocks wrote:You couldn't say anything without getting attacked.

Without getting banned, you mean. Puncher and I didn't discuss it much because I guess we assumed we were already on the same page but around here the policy is that it takes a LOT to get banned. Having a different opinion won't cut it. Intellectual honesty is hopefully what separates this forum from the shiny happy mod-protected forums out there.

James Stocks wrote:As for Younis, I always saw him being in a no win scenario. Taking action or inaction, it seemed he and his site was going to get a lot of heat no matter what happened.

He would've probably taken a lot of shit either way. But if he'd been reasonable about it ("no personal attacks or profanities; otherwise, discuss whatever you want"), I think I'd still respect him. Instead, he banned anybody who dared disagree with what became the official party line. Point is that it didn't have to be this way. He could've risen above it; he didn't.

James Stocks wrote:The Neal Bailey review was especially puzzling because he criticized the shit out of SR when he broke it down (I was in complete agreement with Lois being one of the worst written characters ever, like right down there with Lana Lang in SMALLVILLE)

You and me both.

James Stocks wrote:but he gave it a 8.5 score, which I assume was strategically done because it wasn't posted until weeks after SR caused such a divide.

He even went so far as to call it better than Donner. But yeah, that jackoff review of his... if I had any respect left for the guy, that Charles Dickens novel of a review pretty much killed it. Singerman had many of the same flaws he ripped Smallville to fuck over but Singerman got a free pass.

James Stocks wrote:But whatever. Fanbases always puzzle me. I consider myself a BIG Star Trek fan (Star Trek and James Bond are the two biggest for me), but unless there's a costume party you will NEVER see me go to a convention in costume. I just can't do that. I want to watch and discuss Star Trek, not play dress up.

It's part of the culture. It's not obligatory but I'm way beyond looking down on anyone who does it. We live in a world where some fat fuck will go to a football game basically naked, paint his body blue and cheer for a bunch of overpaid prima donna athletes who wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. But as a society, we respect and accept that shit from sports fans but somehow it's weird and off-putting when comic fans do it. No need for a double standard; one will do nicely. But if that's not your scene, hey, who can blame you? I just draw the line at poking fun at such people.

James Stocks Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:19 am

Good point, I'm not that crazy about sports either. Laughing

Live and let live I say.

Apologist Puncher Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:35 pm

James Stocks wrote:Makes sense, but out of context it might be interpreted differently. I always stayed out of the war zones, it just wasn't worth it for me because it seemed like it would never end. You couldn't say anything without getting attacked.

Understandable. But those of us who "stayed the course", and engaged in the "battles" can hold our heads high and say that WE helped make 'Man Of Steel' happen. No matter how small our contribution might seem, I can tell you with 100% certainty that we DID make a difference.

As for Younis, I always saw him being in a no win scenario. Taking action or inaction, it seemed he and his site was going to get a lot of heat no matter what happened. The Neal Bailey review was especially puzzling because he criticized the shit out of SR when he broke it down (I was in complete agreement with Lois being one of the worst written characters ever, like right down there with Lana Lang in SMALLVILLE) but he gave it a 8.5 score, which I assume was strategically done because it wasn't posted until weeks after SR caused such a divide. At another website a reviewer gave TDK an 8.5 and there were a bunch of Nolanites who took that as a bad thing because it wasn't high enough.

Steve Eunuch makes his money off of his website. Let's not kid ourselves with thinking he does it for the "fans". And what is his #1 moneymaker? Shilling merch. So if his corporate handlers were focused on Singerman, and all it's eventually unsold junk, guess what Eunuch was focused on?

He didn't make the choice he did willy-nilly. He saw the $$, and was NOT going to let his corporate overlords see people on HIS site bad-mouthing their "product".

Sponsored content