Who Would YOU Pick To Direct A 'Justice League of America' Film?

non_amos wrote:You sure about the Wachowskis? Larry has turned himself into 'Lana'. I kid you not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis

Why do you think i refer to them as "The Wachowski Siblings" and not "Brothers"?

I knew that already.

Rumors that Lana was transitioning gender spread in the early 2000s, though neither sibling had spoken directly on the subject.[7] In 2003 Gothamist.com suggested that "the Matrix films could be read with a whole new subtext with the news of the [female] dominatrix [companion seen with Larry at film premieres]."[8] According to Rovi, Lana completed her transition after Speed Racer (2008).[9] The Hollywood Reporter and the New York Times have referred to the Wachowskis as "Andy and Lana (formerly Larry) Wachowski",[10][11] and Deadline.com has referred to the duo as "Andy and Lana Wachowski."[12] On some documents she appears as Laurenca Wachowski.[7][13][14] In July 2012, Lana made her public debut as a woman, in a video discussing the creative process behind Cloud Atlas.[15]

Andy has been married to Alisa Blasingame since 1991.[16]

And there are other articles online but I couldn't find the specific one I was wanting to right now. Anyway, do you really want something like this associated with a big tent-pole film like JLA? Before all this, maybe. Now? Doesn't have my vote.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Ratner has never shown he is capable of taking on a project with the scale necessary for 'Justice League'.

'X-Men 3' took place in very few locations, with no real scope to it. The Wachowski Siblings at least have made huge spectacle films, with lots of visual eye-candy. I would take them over "The Rat" any day of the week.

Agreed. Ratner is too pedestrian for these flicks. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND was supposed to be about a bigger event happening yet it felt like a TV movie with a budget. He just doesn't have the flair for large scale comic book films, especially JLA.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Rumors that Lana was transitioning gender spread in the early 2000s, though neither sibling had spoken directly on the subject.[7] In 2003 Gothamist.com suggested that "the Matrix films could be read with a whole new subtext with the news of the [female] dominatrix [companion seen with Larry at film premieres]."[8] According to Rovi, Lana completed her transition after Speed Racer (2008).[9] The Hollywood Reporter and the New York Times have referred to the Wachowskis as "Andy and Lana (formerly Larry) Wachowski",[10][11] and Deadline.com has referred to the duo as "Andy and Lana Wachowski."[12] On some documents she appears as Laurenca Wachowski.[7][13][14] In July 2012, Lana made her public debut as a woman, in a video discussing the creative process behind Cloud Atlas.[15]

Andy has been married to Alisa Blasingame since 1991.[16]

And there are other articles online but I couldn't find the specific one I was wanting to right now. Anyway, do you really want something like this associated with a big tent-pole film like JLA? Before all this, maybe. Now? Doesn't have my vote.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Agreed. They have what it takes to make a JLA film and as long as they can pull that off I'm not too bothered. Larry or Lana, the guy/gal directed one of the biggest and most acclaimed action/adventure films of all time. They both earned it. As long as they stick to the comics (and they are huge fan of that genre) we should get nothing less than great.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Ratner has never shown he is capable of taking on a project with the scale necessary for 'Justice League'.

'X-Men 3' took place in very few locations, with no real scope to it. The Wachowski Siblings at least have made huge spectacle films, with lots of visual eye-candy. I would take them over "The Rat" any day of the week.

Agreed. I find myself sometimes in the position of defending Ratner because inevitably someone in the room loves Bryan Singer and doesn't see the contradiction in bashing the hell out of Brett Ratner. But... well, you're right.

non_amos wrote:You sure about the Wachowskis? Larry has turned himself into 'Lana'. I kid you not!

non_amos wrote:And there are other articles online but I couldn't find the specific one I was wanting to right now. Anyway, do you really want something like this associated with a big tent-pole film like JLA? Before all this, maybe. Now? Doesn't have my vote.

As far as ideology goes, I'm to the right of Rush on most things. So you can probably guess how I view this on a personal level. That said though, the problems I have with the Wachowskis as filmmakers is more that the scripts they bring to the screen sometimes need some more work. As far as direction and vision, I've got basically nothing as far as complaints. And, hey, they're not writing the Justice League of America film. Don't get me wrong, I hatehatefuckinghate playing the PC "it doesn't matter" card with you but when it comes to this... well, it doesn't matter to me, put it that way. Just more of Hollyweird being Hollyweird. But I won't tell you that you're wrong if it bothers you.

thecolorsblend wrote:I find myself sometimes in the position of defending Ratner because inevitably someone in the room loves Bryan Singer and doesn't see the contradiction in bashing the hell out of Brett Ratner.

Comparing X-MEN: THE LAST STAND and SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's a real jumble for me. Bryan Singer is a better director than Brett Ratner, however Singer wasting his energy on a film like SR to me is a bigger crime than whatever Ranter did on X-MEN: THE LAST STAND. With Ratner directing X-MEN you kind of expect the film to be this big stupid generic action film. With Singer you expect something a little more and it's even more disappointing when he fucks it up.

In the grand sense, I say it's FOX to blame for the entire scenario. After the first two X-MEN films being hits, FOX should have let Singer and David Hayter do things their way with X-MEN 3 (with that aside, I would have told Halle Berry to kiss my white ass). Had that happened: There never would have been a dumbed down X-MEN: THE LAST STAND and there never would have been a SUPERMAN RETURNS. Think about that. WB might have looked for someone else to do a SUPERMAN film and who knows where that would have gone. By now we might have had a third SUPERMAN film released two months ago.

I don't see it a problem on larry/lana thing. As long as they/ ie he/she doesn't try to force in gay/lesbians/transgender views on the film or characters. Like we mentioned in sv threads. They had a bunch of writers/producers/directors and even cast members who was gay/lesbian. And that never hurt the show. They put aside there sexual/orienation andd put in good strong work viewsd and never tilted the shows characters/views in one direction or another. Which I am sure larry/lana w would probably do anyway on any project.

thecolorsblend wrote:As far as ideology goes, I'm to the right of Rush on most things. So you can probably guess how I view this on a personal level. That said though, the problems I have with the Wachowskis as filmmakers is more that the scripts they bring to the screen sometimes need some more work. As far as direction and vision, I've got basically nothing as far as complaints. And, hey, they're not writing the Justice League of America film. Don't get me wrong, I hatehatefuckinghate playing the PC "it doesn't matter" card with you but when it comes to this... well, it doesn't matter to me, put it that way. Just more of Hollyweird being Hollyweird. But I won't tell you that you're wrong if it bothers you.

The funny thing is, "Lana" Wachowski is still attracted to women, as far as I have heard.

It's going from Bad to what the fuck?. Maybe.

This is from someone at that idiot FilmRetardJamie's site, so you know how to take it:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=66468

I have another name to throw into this that they haven't mentioned:

J.J. ABRAMS!

Seriously, why not? Sure, he used to get crap for the take he was gonna do on his failed Superman project. However since then he's proven himself imho. I think he did a good job with his TV series FRINGE but even more significantly, look what he's done with the rebooted STAR TREK! And now there's a sequel to that on the way from him. Also remember that Chris Hemsworth seemed to basically have been discovered from his few minutes of performance in the first film. But whether JJ would even want to do this is another concern. I think he'd at least take it seriously unlike someone like Robert Zemeckis.

As for fan reaction to this 'rushed project':

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172439-will-justice-league-preceed-a-batman-reboot

I won't post the article itself since it's basically what's already been posted here but I will include a couple of fan comments:

sackman • 2 days ago

I see fail written all over this "rushed" project.

Knightrider80 • 2 days ago •

Thats it DC, go fcuk up the movie, Marvel'ls Avengers made the build up and stability and use the same actors and everyone gets used to the role they portray on screen until the team up, DC goes and wants to chuck in random people just to make a fast buck with no stability, people will be "ok henry cavill was superman, so who the hell is this guy with the S on his chest?" DC doing what they do best, rushing just because it sounds like a good idea instead of taking there time like marvel did, big mistake guys, remember the TV movie justice league of america, thats what its going to be like, complete and utter sh!t.

So unless this thing is done completely right I don't know whether to have confidence in this or not.

My answer to the suggestion of J.J. Abrams taking on JLA.

FUCK NO.

I'm not denying him because of his scrapped Superman project, it's more to do with the work he actually finished. Especially if he's backed with Orci and Kurtzman, who have done nothing other than to prove that they're the biggest hack script writers in Hollywood.

No, Brad Bird is still the best possible choice.

So what's wrong with him? And them? Did you even see STAR TREK?!

So much wrong I don't have the time to list them all so I'll keep it brief for now. It's basically the equivalent of a child crashing his toys against eachother. It's about as big and dumb as the TRANSFORMERS. It's Trek for people who don't like Trek. If it was an unrelated Trek film called JIMMY GETS A SPACESHIP then I might be less bothered. Turning Trek into low-brow is about as wrong as it gets. After the awful Berman & Braga years I thought anything else might be an improvement, but Abrams proves otherwise.

A better example of an intelligent sci-fi adventure is Joss Whedon's SERENITY. That's how you properly do it.

James Stocks wrote:So much wrong I don't have the time to list them all so I'll keep it brief for now. It's basically the equivalent of a child crashing his toys against eachother. It's about as big and dumb as the TRANSFORMERS. It's Trek for people who don't like Trek. If it was an unrelated Trek film called JIMMY GETS A SPACESHIP then I might be less bothered. Turning Trek into low-brow is about as wrong as it gets. After the awful Berman & Braga years I thought anything else might be an improvement, but Abrams proves otherwise.

A better example of an intelligent sci-fi adventure is Joss Whedon's SERENITY. That's how you properly do it.

I disagree completely. And I think the general movie-going public disagrees too. The proof is in the pudding as they say. The previous film STAR TREK: NEMESIS was an utter failure & almost the 'death knell' for the franchise. It was 'Batman & Robin' to the Star Trek franchise. So why didn't Trek just die? Simple. JJ & company. It made fans care again. That had a lot to do with bringing back the original characters too. And how you think it compares to Michael Bay & TRANSFORMERS is beyond me!

James Stocks wrote:So much wrong I don't have the time to list them all so I'll keep it brief for now. It's basically the equivalent of a child crashing his toys against eachother. It's about as big and dumb as the TRANSFORMERS. It's Trek for people who don't like Trek. If it was an unrelated Trek film called JIMMY GETS A SPACESHIP then I might be less bothered. Turning Trek into low-brow is about as wrong as it gets. After the awful Berman & Braga years I thought anything else might be an improvement, but Abrams proves otherwise.

A better example of an intelligent sci-fi adventure is Joss Whedon's SERENITY. That's how you properly do it.

I think I've figured you out. I really do.

You don't like watching "fun" films.

Seriously. You tout 'Rises' over 'TDK'. 'Alien 3' over 'Aliens'. You bemoan 'The Avengers' and say it needs a "better" director. And now 'Star Trek' is 'Transformers'? Wow.

Dude, you've got a few wires crossed in the ol' Taste Department.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:So much wrong I don't have the time to list them all so I'll keep it brief for now. It's basically the equivalent of a child crashing his toys against eachother. It's about as big and dumb as the TRANSFORMERS. It's Trek for people who don't like Trek. If it was an unrelated Trek film called JIMMY GETS A SPACESHIP then I might be less bothered. Turning Trek into low-brow is about as wrong as it gets. After the awful Berman & Braga years I thought anything else might be an improvement, but Abrams proves otherwise.

A better example of an intelligent sci-fi adventure is Joss Whedon's SERENITY. That's how you properly do it.

I think I've figured you out. I really do.

You don't like watching "fun" films.

Seriously. You tout 'Rises' over 'TDK'. 'Alien 3' over 'Aliens'. You bemoan 'The Avengers' and say it needs a "better" director. And now 'Star Trek' is 'Transformers'? Wow.

Dude, you've got a few wires crossed in the ol' Taste Department.

You figured wrong. I'm all for fun. That's why I love the original Star Trek series. My problem with nuTrek has more to do with having the dumbest scripts ever written. But what else can you expect from the geniuses of the TRANSFORMERS movies?

James Stocks wrote:You figured wrong. I'm all for fun. That's why I love the original Star Trek series. My problem with nuTrek has more to do with having the dumbest scripts ever written.

And yet, I have never seen you talk about ANY films that are "fun", except to say negative things about them.

Do me a favor and name some that you like. And, feel free to challenge what I like too. I mean, you'll find plenty of examples in the "Recommend A Movie" thread and the "Misc" forum. But I'm not afraid to throw out what I like.

But what else can you expect from the geniuses of the TRANSFORMERS movies?

The one thing you are discounting is: The actors in 'Star Trek' rise above a mediocre script.

Seriously, if you can't enjoy Pine's Kirk, or Pegg's Scotty, and especially Urban's Bones, I don't know what to say to you. They obviously had a blast making it, and it showed on-screen.

And there was nary an annoying "LaBeouf" in sight....

Don't forget Zachary Quinto's SPOCK which was like pure genius & perfect casting. The only concern I've had with him since is that now he too has 'come out'. But other than that I loved his Spock & I'm under the impression we're equally in for a treat this next time as well. Supposedly Spock is fighting some guy who does not succumb to his Vulcan nerve pinch. I think that only happened once in the TV series with the character 'Gary Seven'. Which causes fans to speculate. Anyway, two thumbs up for 'nuTrek'.

non_amos wrote:

James Stocks wrote:So much wrong I don't have the time to list them all so I'll keep it brief for now. It's basically the equivalent of a child crashing his toys against eachother. It's about as big and dumb as the TRANSFORMERS. It's Trek for people who don't like Trek. If it was an unrelated Trek film called JIMMY GETS A SPACESHIP then I might be less bothered. Turning Trek into low-brow is about as wrong as it gets. After the awful Berman & Braga years I thought anything else might be an improvement, but Abrams proves otherwise.

A better example of an intelligent sci-fi adventure is Joss Whedon's SERENITY. That's how you properly do it.

I disagree completely. And I think the general movie-going public disagrees too. The proof is in the pudding as they say. The previous film STAR TREK: NEMESIS was an utter failure & almost the 'death knell' for the franchise. It was 'Batman & Robin' to the Star Trek franchise. So why didn't Trek just die? Simple. JJ & company. It made fans care again. That had a lot to do with bringing back the original characters too. And how you think it compares to Michael Bay & TRANSFORMERS is beyond me!

It's not hard for me to compare them, given they're written by the same guys. I'll agree with you on STAR TREK: NEMESIS, I wouldn't call it the "death knell" (otherwise we wouldn't have another movie!) but it certainly put the Trek films in a coma. The key is putting something on hiatus long enough that people will start to miss this. Back in 2000 Ronald D. Moore in an interview suggested that the best thing that the franchise needed at that time was to be put to rest and revived years later when there was enough demand for something new to give it an injection. The same thing happened with the James Bond films during the 90s where it went on hiatus after it hit its lowest point and that hiatus made people anxious enough to want to see another Bond film again years later.

non_amos wrote:Don't forget Zachary Quinto's SPOCK which was like pure genius & perfect casting.

I can sorta agree with that. Hopefully his character will be better written because nothing about the character he played in nuTrek resembled Spock. He should be a logical pacifist, not an asshole.

I think that only happened once in the TV series with the character 'Gary Seven'. Which causes fans to speculate. Anyway, two thumbs up for 'nuTrek'.

Karl Urban spilled the beans on who the villain is. It's not actually Gary Seven but rather Gary Mitchell, the guest character from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" who acquires God-like powers and they corrupt him. That actually sounds like it could have potential. None of the movies ever featured a villain with great powers like that before so at least it will be refreshing from the terrible villains they've had lately like Shinzon and Nero.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:You figured wrong. I'm all for fun. That's why I love the original Star Trek series. My problem with nuTrek has more to do with having the dumbest scripts ever written.

And yet, I have never seen you talk about ANY films that are "fun", except to say negative things about them.

Do me a favor and name some that you like. And, feel free to challenge what I like too. I mean, you'll find plenty of examples in the "Recommend A Movie" thread and the "Misc" forum. But I'm not afraid to throw out what I like.

I would be glad to. I'll post over there about it.

But what else can you expect from the geniuses of the TRANSFORMERS movies?

The one thing you are discounting is: The actors in 'Star Trek' rise above a mediocre script.

Seriously, if you can't enjoy Pine's Kirk, or Pegg's Scotty, and especially Urban's Bones, I don't know what to say to you. They obviously had a blast making it, and it showed on-screen.

Despite Kirk being written like an ass, I do think Pine was perfectly cast. He has the right swagger for the role and there were a couple of moments that really reminded me of the character of Kirk with that easy going attitude and authority, particularly during the ending. I really look forward to seeing more of that and less of Frat Boy Kirk (which was wrong, Kirk was a ladies man in his prime but that's not how he started off in his early years).

As for Urban's Bones. I found him to be really odd casting but that's not too much of a biggie, the real problem is how he's written. This Bones is written too much as overly bitter, cynical and ill tempered. It's like they only took one trait of the character and ran with that instead. Bones in the original series is a sweet gentle man who only becomes overly emotional when in situations that call for it such as the possibility of war or lives being lost. He's not just cranky, there's so much more to him and it seems like the writers exaggerated that crankiness as if they only knew of Bones via pop culture references "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a brick maker!"

And Scotty... Boy, they turned him from an eccentric no-nonsense veteran in the TV series to an UTTERLY ANNOYING one note comic relief in the vein of Jar Jar Binks. Chekov works just fine in that kind of role (in fact, I'd say he's even better than the older Chekov!) but Scotty is the one I can say was horribly miscast and horribly written. I love Simon Pegg, but only when he's given a script that compliments his talent and this doesn't do him any favors.

James Stocks wrote:As for Urban's Bones. I found him to be really odd casting but that's not too much of a biggie, the real problem is how he's written.

No kidding! As a casual Trek fan (at best), I enjoyed Urban's performance. I like Urban in general so his being cast in Star Trek could only have been good news as far as I was concerned. I still believe that. But he had a few lines... well, one that immediately comes to mind is when he called Spock a "pointy-eared bastard". If somebody came along to an Italian dude and called him a "Guido bastard", people would call him a racist. And rightfully so.

Well, um, Star Trek takes place in a time when humanity has made racism pretty much obsolete. It's one of several indulgences you have to grant the material in order to immerse yourself in it. Racism is a thing of the past. But Bones calling Spock that name... yeah, it's kind of funny and yeah, it speaks to the conflict between Spock and other characters but the underlying issue there is racism. Bones isn't a racist and he doesn't live in a racist time. Giving him racist language may elicit a chuckle but it justifies the argument a lot of core Trek fans (among which I do not classify myself) that the filmmakers aren't knowledgeable about Star Trek so much as they've seen Wrath of Khan a shitload of times (as the majority of continuity references in ST2009 call back to WOK). Bryan Singer proved it's one thing to be a huge fan of a particular movie but it's quite another to understand the material itself. Hardcore Star Trek fans have made similar (but perhaps less vociferous) criticisms about Abrams and moments like that give them credence.

I guess an equivalent might be a Bond movie where 007 goes to a bar to meet his contact for whatever assignment, a waiter asks if he wants an alcoholic drink and he replies that he never drinks alcohol, never touches the stuff. Well, um, zillions of other Bond movies tell a much different story. Whoever would put something like that in a Bond script doesn't understand wtf he's doing, simple as that.

Bones always gave Spock a hard time but that was usually ball busting rather than flat out insulting. Only times he did actually insult him were when he felt Spock came off callous over very sensitive issues or crossed the line and that was always great for some conflict: Bones' passion vs Spock's logic, and Kirk right in the middle. He would call Spock "inhuman" at the worst when he called him out on something. Trouble is that Urban's Bones is written so overly cynical and bitter, that within that context when he throws a racial slur at Spock it kind of paints a bad picture on him. That's why he needs those gentle moments to tell audiences that he's not some angry bastard but a good man of passion.

It's funny you mention the whole Singer thing. IIRC, he called himself one of the biggest fans of Superman, well, at least Donner's. With Abrams though he seems to change his view a lot. Originally he wasn't going to be directing it, saying he wasn't that big of a fan of Trek and such. Years later when the film is ready to be released he's suddenly talking in interviews about how he was always a fan and such. I'm sure Orci and Kurtzman are Star Trek fans but they only seem to be the casual type. The most they do is throw in a bunch of references in the flick to older shows, just trivial stuff the fans will catch on and not much more.

Here's one part that really bugged me the way Spock is written.

Spock: Captain, what are you doing?
Kirk: Spock, showing them compassion might go a long way to promoting peace between us and the Romulans. It's logic, I thought you'd like that.
Spock: No, not really. Not this time.

That's not Spock. He's better than that. He doesn't surrender to the emotions within and blatantly expose it in front of his peers, even in the face of annihilation. It just seems like the writers pandering to audiences who might have found the older Spock to be too cold and "unrelatable".

non_amos wrote:The only concern I've had with him since is that now he too has 'come out'.

Funny you mention that. When the film came out and the writers tossed in that totally nonsensical Spock/Uhura relationship, many joked that that was purely done just to prove that Spock has a case of the "notgays".

Funny thing how we keep discussing Star Trek when this is a JLA film thread. Maybe someone should start a Trek thread? I'm too tired at the moment. Anyway. Mr. Stocks, I know with all this nitpicking you're doing about ST you may have failed to consider something about this 'nuTrek'. The fact that this is an alternate timeline. That was established once Nero changed time. However, time was changed in the original series but then would be corrected, back to normal. Not so with this new franchise. Not yet anyway. And they probably won't. My guess is that this universe 'diverged' from the main continuity due to Nero's actions. So even though Vulcan was destroyed here, it still exists in the main continuity that old Spock was from. For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, check out BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II. Doc Brown explains it perfectly.

Anyway, I guess since this is an alternate universe, everything is up for grabs, including how the characters interact with each other. New rules, kinda like the 'new 52' at DC, although I think I like Trek's take better.

I still don't want ratner and definately would not want to see mcg either. I take the w siblings, bird, jj, and snyder. Wouldn't mind that fliescher guy heard good things from him. And on the jj note. I diddnt have any big issues with his trek. He got the details, and characters done right and madde a good film. And has success in the genre with the right script he could do jl well. I just hope this doesn't get rushed out and they go with a hack director like ratner/mcg just to get the picture out.

I still think it be best for them to wait a bit more. Get a cinematic universe started with mos with some character/city name drops through the film. Get a flash or ww solo film out first. Along side mos 2. Then do jl and or batman reboot out same yr as jl and go from there.

Ben affleck was never offered justice league:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=66975

Ben Affleck Reportedly Claims That He Was Never Asked To Direct JUSTICE LEAGUE

Despite already denying reports that he is Warner Bros. frontrunner to helm Justice League,the director has apparently completely dismissed the rumours that he was ever even asked at the Toronto Film Festival yesterday. Josh Wilding - 9/9/2012

Not too long ago, fans finally had something to get excited about after Variety reported that Ben Affleck (The Town, Argo) was, "expected to discuss [Justice League] with studio brass in the coming days". Rival site Deadline were quick to call it out as being "bullshit" because, "Affleck’s reps stated that it was not going to happen with him." They too mentioned that he would consider a meeting, but it wasn't until Affleck took himself out of the running ("I'm not working on the Justice League. One of the problems with entertainment web sites is that they need to fill pages, and that’s how rumours get started. Justice League sounds really exciting, but it’s not something I’m working on.") that it seemed like those initial reports really were little more than "bullshit".

Ben Affleck confirmed two things at the Toronto International Film Festival Saturday afternoon. He’s not directing the all-star superhero flick Justice League; he was never asked.

There are currently no specific quotes from the actor, although the excerpt above from a report by O.Canada.com certainly seems like definitive proof that he won't be helming DC Comics' highly anticipated superhero ensemble. Of course, it could just be that he's in very early talks with the studio and wants to keep the focus on Argo (already touted by some as an Oscar contender), but if he's never even been asked, it looks like we're just going to have to wait and see who will bring Justice League to the big screen.

Let this, once again, show just how fucking full of SHIT "FilmRetardJamie"'s website TRULY is....

Apologist Puncher wrote:Let this, once again, show just how fucking full of SHIT "FilmRetardJamie"'s website TRULY is....

*gasp* Are you suggesting that FilmRetardJamie has absolutely no connection to The Biz and just posts a bunch of random bullshit to garner hits?

Seriously though, how the hell that page has ANY credibility is above my paygrade. You'd think people would learn by now that if it's posted there, try to find a second source, even if they tell you the sky is blue.

Was there site one of the "reporting" the first affleck(after variety was it?) news? But ya they have been wrong on many occasions.