Younis Page & Other Boards Follies

Here's this losers "improvement" of the Superman suit:





"yay! i have photoshop! yay!"

AP, do you suppose this guy is 'Steve' though, the one & only Archangel? I realize anyone can probably claim 'Save Superman' but the way this guy delivers his 'presentation', if you will, including his wording style, well, it just makes me wonder if it's once again 'Steve' trying to dupe more suckers, like he did over at the now-defunct Counting Down. You remember how 'Steve' does? Claims to have some unique 'vision' for Superman, & in our case, he supposedly even had his own 'script'. He also claims 'insider information'. Now, this guy here, I don't know enough about to know everything he's supposedly said but the whole, "Hey, I started SAVE SUPERMAN over here you guys!" Well, as Scotty said on the original Star Trek TV series, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on ME!"

What do you think?

Father Finian wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:I think maybe a cameo in some other movie but otherwise... nothing.

Oh yeah, one of Kevin Smith's "Hollywood in-jokes"...casting Ruth as an out and proud homosexual. Great move for a "leading man" who was surrounded by as many gay rumors as a couple of well known Scientologists.....

Actually, I heard Smith pouring shit on Singerman again recently on his Smodcast. He must be a genuine Superman fan. He clearly still feels the pain too.

Got a link for it?

Always fun listening to Smith rant on about SR.

No, sorry. I caught up with some listening whilst I was laid up a little while back

From the "Welling would consider doing a Smallville movie" posting...

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9904#comments

Apologist asshole wrote:#17 | Newseditor on June 15, 2011 9:00am EST
Somehow I really doubt Tom actually meant anything in that interview. If he wasn't going to actually don the real suit for 10 bloody minutes at the end of the show, somehow I doubt he'll do it for a movie.

As many have said already, a Smallville movie will be just like the show: Bad acting, bad lines, too much romance and not enough Superman in a real costume fighting real-LIVE bad guys.

Ironic criticisms coming from an Apologist. If Welling had worn a pleather fetish suit, hid in trees and stalked Lois, this ass-munch would probably call it the definitive version of Superman.

As ever, I don't need some Apologist hoser to criticize SV. Not saying the series was perfect (I'd never make that claim) but that old "clean up your own house first" adage comes to mind.

Did you see this one by one of their long-time apologists at that same link?:

#19 | Daniel McIntosh on June 15, 2011 10:17am EST
Since his tv show hell cats got canned I am guessing he has no income and is desperate for some work.. pretty much the only thing he can get work in cos he is so bad at acting.. IMO

Back to that 'Welling can't act' crapola I reckon. And as usual 'Whogaman' puts in his 'two cents' about 'Metroville' that's not even worth repeating!

Peace.

non_amos wrote:Did you see this one by one of their long-time apologists at that same link?:

#19 | Daniel McIntosh on June 15, 2011 10:17am EST
Since his tv show hell cats got canned I am guessing he has no income and is desperate for some work.. pretty much the only thing he can get work in cos he is so bad at acting.. IMO

Back to that 'Welling can't act' crapola I reckon. And as usual 'Whogaman' puts in his 'two cents' about 'Metroville' that's not even worth repeating!

Peace.

Wow, the show ended about a month ago and Welling's supposed to have his next twelve years planned out? These people are a bunch of clowns.

Ah well, unlike a certain pleather-clad wannaba I could mention, Welling at least has the virtue of being set for life based on his per-episode pay as well as other residuals. Can BJ Blandon say that? I don't think so.

non_amos wrote:AP, do you suppose this guy is 'Steve' though, the one & only Archangel? I realize anyone can probably claim 'Save Superman' but the way this guy delivers his 'presentation', if you will, including his wording style, well, it just makes me wonder if it's once again 'Steve' trying to dupe more suckers, like he did over at the now-defunct Counting Down. You remember how 'Steve' does? Claims to have some unique 'vision' for Superman, & in our case, he supposedly even had his own 'script'. He also claims 'insider information'. Now, this guy here, I don't know enough about to know everything he's supposedly said but the whole, "Hey, I started SAVE SUPERMAN over here you guys!" Well, as Scotty said on the original Star Trek TV series, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on ME!"

What do you think?

Nah, but it MIGHT be one of his brain-dead minions from over at that flushed-turd CountingDown.

On the Eunuch page, there's a link about an interview with Harris and Berganza, re: costume changes.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9908#comments

Sometimes in life, you read something so fucking preposterous that you have to wonder how many times this shit-stain got dropped on his head as a baby.

Below is one such remark.

Another Apologist fuckstick wrote:#14 | xobik on June 16, 2011 7:48am EST
I realy don't see the problem in this new suit.
They have changed the S Shield for decades and it wasn't no problem.
And if we think a little, how can Martha Kent design a suit that resists to lava, magma and other things more powerful.
Superman resists to all of that but his suit is not indestructible.
I think that they should put a story where Superman asks to a new suit without disrespect the suit that his mom made for him.
I think Superman will continue to be Superman and nothing else more.



This suit is amazing

better than this

Putting aside the broken, semi-concious "English" up there... how can Martha Kent design a suit resistant to that stuff?

That would be a valid question if the comics hadn't answered that question time and again. And again. And again! And once more for good measure! And again!

Seriously, wtf?! Remember how I'm always saying "not all opinions are 'equally valid'"? Shit like this is why.

I mean, it's one thing to simply prefer the redesigned version over The Suit. I'll never relate to that but, as Singerman handily demonstrates, there truly is no accounting for taste in life. Fine, whatever. You're wrong, but whatever.

But basing the above preference on textual "problems" like the origin of his outfit? Hey, not everyone is big into comics so it's no sin not to know the answer but don't fucking tell me this has EVER been a problem in the story. Because it never. Has. Been. Not ever!

In the Pre-Crisis era, Martha made the suit from Clark's baby blankets. She unwove the material and then rewove it into a body suit.

In the Byrne Age, Martha, Jonathan and Clark all designed The Suit together from common, Earth-based fabrics. Clark putting on the outfit encased it in his body's bio-electric aura, which made the body suit indestructible. The cape could and would take damage but The Suit itself would be unscathed most of the time because of said aura.

Those are not complex explanations, and neither of 'em require The Suit to be redesigned to better appeal to the Pepsi Generation.

Of course, I'm probably way overthinking this. That nimrod's butchery of common grammar and usage probably says everything you need to know about how seriously he should be taken.

The one conceit I'm willing to make in all this is the Siegel lawsuit likely affecting DC's presentation of Superman. There's no way that isn't a factor. I'm not arguing that DC wouldn't have changed The Suit anyway (who could?) but to me there's a HUGE mitigating factor here, esp when Aquaman, Batman and Wonder Woman don't look all that different from their usual depictions.

That doesn't make it okay. In fact, it only amplifies every point I've ever made about the threat the Siegel Parasites pose to Superman as a brand/corporate entity. But it does give DC a handicap in all this and at least that much should be acknowledged.

One unexpected bonus in all this is all the movie lovers losing their shit over Sucky Origin apparently going the way of the do-do. They were exultant and mocking when the Byrne origin was officially put out to pasture. But now Sucky Origin looks to be gone too. Be careful who you laugh at, motherfuckers!

I actually saw that same post earlier at duh Homopage but I see so much stupidity over there I can't possibly even consider posting everything I see. Nevertheless it was so obviously a joke that the moron even suggested that the new DC suit could even compare to the cover of 'SUPERMAN #6'! Sure, the Joe Shuster artwork is primitive by today's standards but..........it still looks more like Superman than all this crap DC is churning out now!

'NUFF SAID!

I like the comment from one of the clowns behind this..."Keep an open mind. It's like opening TV Guide and finding all new shows" or some such.

What a crap analogy. It's like finding all your favorite shows have been retooled and recast!

non_amos wrote:I actually saw that same post earlier at duh Homopage but I see so much stupidity over there I can't possibly even consider posting everything I see. Nevertheless it was so obviously a joke that the moron even suggested that the new DC suit could even compare to the cover of 'SUPERMAN #6'! Sure, the Joe Shuster artwork is primitive by today's standards but..........it still looks more like Superman than all this crap DC is churning out now!

'NUFF SAID!

Somebody buy this man a freakin beer already.

People can say whatever they want about Shuster but (A) his Superman was iconic even then and (B) it's pretty damn good even now. He looks powerful and majestic but at the same time he doesn't give off a vibe of being an aloof, unapproachable demi-god (Jim Lee, take note).

Father Finian wrote:I like the comment from one of the clowns behind this..."Keep an open mind. It's like opening TV Guide and finding all new shows" or some such.

What a crap analogy. It's like finding all your favorite shows have been retooled and recast!

Funny you should mention that, when I read the comment, my thought was "it'd be like Buffy The Vampire-Slayer getting retooled. Y'know, fewer vampires, less supernatural stuff, less of Buffy's superhuman abilities and more about Rupert Giles struggling to stoke interest among the students in his library in the age of computers and the Internet while trying to assimilate in this strange, new American culture into which he's found himself plunged."

Because, y'know, that'd be fascinating fucking television.

Shit, it's a good thing DiDio and co. weren't involved in that show, eh?

URL- http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9904#comments

Eunuch page post where Welling muses about a Smallville movie.

As ever, the comments are... well, they're something else.

#68 | borikua on June 16, 2011 9:58am EST
I kinda laugh when I read comments like "You can't blame Tom Welling for the suit decision, it was the producers!"

I mean if only Tom had been an Executive Producer on the show...then maybe he could have done something or had a say...oh, wait a second (insert forehead smack).
Maybe you should research exactly what the role of an Executive Producer does, BEFORE passing judgment. If only someone within the industry can help you...oh wait, I am in the industry, I can help you.

Your confusing the role of an Executive Producer. An Executive producer has NO control over technical, creative, visual or musical aspects of a show/movie. Instead he's responsible of the overall project and legal/business issues in a production. It can also be just to bestow a title to a celebrity (in this case Tom Wellings) to increase the value of the production and the celebrity. It doesnt mean he has creative control of the project. No. Thats up to the Head writer, Writers and directors. The writers are the first to blame. Than the director. So in this case we should blame Brian Peterson & Kelly Souders (Writers/Head Writers) and then the blame should fall to Greg Beeman who is the director and said nothing to voice any concern.

Heh, yeah. Right.

Look, I'm not in "the industry". Am not. But. It sounds to me like this nitwit is confusing TV production with film production. Which makes sense, they're SO easy to confuse with one another.

What he says about exec producers sounds pretty much spot on for films and movie studios and whatnot but, to my understanding, the exec producers of a TV show are the creative overseers in that medium. Casting, primary story elements, cinematography style and other heavily creative issues are addressed by them. Sure, the writers and the episode directors have their input but those tend to be more in the realm of "fine details" while the exec producers are handle the big picture creative stuff and also liaise with the TV network.

To run with the SV model, let's say Al and Miles come up with a show concept where Hal Jordan comes to Smallville back in season 6. Assuming the show can even get permission to use the character, Al and Miles first approve of the episode concept, (at some point) do a casting call for Hal and they make the decision on the actor who'll play the part.

But let's say the writers want to throw in a sly reference to Guy Gardner through characters' dialogue at some point (Hal saying something like "I guess my ultimate job would involve something with minimal responsibility. I wouldn't want to have to take care of this entire solar system, esp not if I had to work with some pompous, blowhard asshole day in and day out to do the job"). That's a detail-oriented decision and something Al and Miles probably wouldn't give two shits about either way. Hell, assuming I even understand this process, it's 50/50 that they would even know about it in advance or understand the reference even if they did.

On the day the scene is to be shot in Vancouver, the director says "that line about minimal responsibility/entire solar system thing is retarded. I'll rewrite it to come up with something better." So he rewrites it so that Hal says something like "sorry, I don't wear jewelry of any kind, especially rings". Al and Miles wouldn't be involved in that decision and neither would the staff writers back in LA. He's at liberty to make that change.

So. To finalize the example, Al and Miles came up with the idea of bringing Hal onto the show and maybe three or four plot points for the episode, the staff writers hammered out the script based upon those notes (the entirety of the story, the dialogue, everything) and then the episode director made fairly minor modifications to the finalized script during shooting. Each plays a crucial but DIFFERENT creative role.

In a movie, it's different. The exec producers handle business, finances and probably some level of logistics while the key creative decision-makers are (1) the director and (2) the screen writer.

Again, I could be TOTALLY wrong about all of the above but such has been my understanding about the differences in TV production vs. film production.

Just because the guy is pro-Welling or pro-SV doesn't mean he isn't an idiot.

My friends, I give you the ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery:

http://fortressofsolitude.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=superman&action=display&thread=3216&page=3

Here is what this little moron said to ol' BJ Routh at the 'Superman Celebration" in Metropolis, IL:

MAVERICK
Captain
Proud Member Since 1997
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,737

Re: 33rd annual Superman Celebration
« Reply #68 on Jun 15, 2011, 3:00am »

"Mr. Routh, It's an Honor to get to speak to you today.
This isn't so much a question as it is a statement of gratitude.
Ever since the triumphant return of Superman in 2006, there has been alot of incorrect internet revisionist history concerning Superman Returns.

Firstly, the reviews & reactions from critics & fans was very positive & remains so to this day, despite its few, but vocal detractors.

Secondly, the film made ALOT of money all over the world, even though it's budget was unfairly burdened with debt from previous attempts at making a Superman film.

Lastly, not only did the film have plenty enough action for my taste, but it also had the the most important ingredient that a Superman film has to have: HEART. And you Sir, are the Heart & Soul of that wonderful film.
People who need nonstop, mindless, shallow action in their movies can have the Zach Snyder movie. As for me, I like my heroes with emotional depth, & you brought that & so many new layers to the Man Of Steel. Thank you for giving us the Majestic & Thoughtful movie known as: Superman Returns."

Seriously, I am going to let you guys digest this before I tear this thing apart.

Oh, and here's a picture of this moronic douche-nozzle:


Nope, doesn't fit the Neal Bailey/Apologist archetype AT ALL....

Ha boy is that dude way off about the film.

Looks like 'Superboy' on the right has a boner for him too!

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:MAVERICK

Hm, one of the not-gay-at-all Tom Cruise's most famous movie characters. And he's an Apologist. I'll let you guys read between the lines on that one.

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:
Re: 33rd annual Superman Celebration
« Reply #68 on Jun 15, 2011, 3:00am »

[i]"Mr. Routh, It's an Honor to get to speak to you today.
This isn't so much a question as it is a statement of gratitude.
Ever since the triumphant return of Superman in 2006, there has been alot of incorrect internet revisionist history concerning Superman Returns.

Firstly, the reviews & reactions from critics & fans was very positive & remains so to this day, despite its few, but vocal detractors.

Oh? Critical opinion, esp of an icon like Superman, counts for "jack" and "shit" in any discussion. They love iconoclasm and, thus, loved Singerman. The fact that Singerman is a critical darling is arguably it's most damning trait.

As for fans, yeah, as if. The fans loved it sooooooooooo much that Fuehrer Eunuch and Herr Bailey had to ban dozens and dozens of Eunuch page members (99% of whom were stridently anti-Singerman) just to keep the peace. Such is a pattern on numerous other forums and boards. The Apologists had a funny way of always coming out on top. It's only been in the past year or two that fan opinion has begun to shift towards an even more anti-Singerman sentiment with Apologists being left out in the cold more and more often.

So as far as Singerman is concerned, hero-hating critics loved it and it has split the fanbase even to this day.

These are not the marks of a great film, you Apologist douche.

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:Secondly, the film made ALOT of money all over the world,

"ALOT" is relative. What's certain is that it didn't make a profit. Speaking of which...

even though it's budget was unfairly burdened with debt from previous attempts at making a Superman film.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. WB had been working for years to produce a Superman movie. For better or for worse, Singerman is the eventuality of that. We can argue that previous costs shouldn't be considered, Singer shouldn't be beholden to previous failed efforts, etc. Guess what? That ain't how business works. Writing that shit off might not even be legal.

But let's say you did. Just for the sake of argument, let's say WB counted ONLY the cost of the Singerman production itself. It wouldn't matter because it STILL was a moneypit. The least anybody can agree on is that the movie cost about $215 mill to produce. Look at the domestic figure; Singerman lost money. Then look at the international figure; Singerman lost money. The only way Singerman can be argued to turn a fucking nickel is if you count only the worldwide gross.

But even that's bullshit that doesn't take you very far because you've got distribution fees, exhibitors' costs, that $100 fucking million marketing campaign, so on and so forth.

Oh yeah, and remember the IMAX release? What, you think that's done for FREE?

Spin the numbers any fucking way you like but NOBODY can credibly argue the movie made a cent in profit. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was still in the red.

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:Lastly, not only did the film have plenty enough action for my taste,

That says everything I need to know about YOUR fandom, you Apologist prick.

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:but it also had the the most important ingredient that a Superman film has to have: HEART. And you Sir, are the Heart & Soul of that wonderful film.

That's no credit to him.

The Apologist Puncher wrote:Seriously, I am going to let you guys digest this before I tear this thing apart.

Have at it, I probably missed at least a few things.

"People who need nonstop, mindless, shallow action in their movies can have the Zach Snyder movie."

Cheers mate, thanks for that.

Honestly, Colors has pretty much said it all.

Maverick, what a comic genius.

If there was an ounce of truth in anything he said, his beloved Ruth wouldn't need to selling his autographs at a convention.

Wanna do something with your Superman connection Ruth? Get out and raise some money for the Reeve Foundation.

thecolorsblend wrote:

The ULTIMATE in Apologist retardation and fan-wankery wrote:MAVERICK

Firstly, the reviews & reactions from critics & fans was very positive & remains so to this day, despite its few, but vocal detractors.

Cheers mate, thanks for that.

Check out this review of Dylan Dog.........Hilarious..and spot on...."Brandon Routh, is just as miscast as a droll, world-weary “investigator of the undead” as he was as a boy-Man of Steel back in 2006"....it gets better.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2011/04/movie-review-dylan-dog-2.html

This Maverick clown needs to wake up. A few "vocal detractors"........sheesh

AP, that piccy had me in stitches. Who is the idiot on the right supposed to be? Super-Ringo?

Asnd most seem to forget too that it took its full theatical run of 4months to even get the total box office figures. Where as we seen with other films like the pirates movies, thor and others do it better and under 2 to 3 weeks into there runs.

Father Finian wrote:"People who need nonstop, mindless, shallow action in their movies can have the Zach Snyder movie."

Cheers mate, thanks for that.

Yeah, 'Maverick', that's the one I'll take, the non-stop, mindless, shallow action film by Zack Snyder. That's the one I'll take! But don't forget, 'Maverick', this shallow mindless film is being produced by Christopher Nolan, whom I'm fairly certain that you adore. I'm sure you thought that TDK was 'duh bomb'! And that Heath Ledger was the living incarnation of the Joker. And I'm sure you also eat up anything that David Goyer does. So think before you shoot off your mouth!

non_amos wrote:

Father Finian wrote:"People who need nonstop, mindless, shallow action in their movies can have the Zach Snyder movie."

Cheers mate, thanks for that.

Yeah, 'Maverick', that's the one I'll take, the non-stop, mindless, shallow action film by Zack Snyder. That's the one I'll take! But don't forget, 'Maverick', this shallow mindless film is being produced by Christopher Nolan, whom I'm fairly certain that you adore. I'm sure you thought that TDK was 'duh bomb'! And that Heath Ledger was the living incarnation of the Joker. And I'm sure you also eat up anything that David Goyer does. So think before you shoot off your mouth!

Yeah, and that's some more bullshit right there, innit? Most Apologists I know about tend to also be fans of the Nolan Batman movies (fandom of which isn't exclusively Apologist territory, I realize, I'm just making a connection). It's funny how Zack Snyder is literally the only aspect of MOS they can bash on. Nolan, Goyer (for better or worse), Cavill and the other cast members, so on and so forth, they're all above reproach. But the Apologist sure do THINK they can criticize Snyder since criticizing anybody else will expose their intellectual vacuum of an argument.

The fact of the matter, THE ONLY ASPECT OF THIS ARGUMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTED, is that the Apologists are still pissed off about not getting Stalkerman 2- Man of Pleather. They can frame their hating of MOS in whatever other terms they like but the mere existence of the reboot is the REAL issue.

thecolorsblend wrote:The fact of the matter, THE ONLY ASPECT OF THIS ARGUMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTED, is that the Apologists are still pissed off about not getting Stalkerman 2- Man of Pleather. They can frame their hating of MOS in whatever other terms they like but the mere existence of the reboot is the REAL issue.

Yep, "Maverick" is just another broken hearted apologist. Funny stuff.