Re: Younis Page & Other Boards Follies

non_amos Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:03 am

Here's what those 'chicks' probably look like at the other end of their computer:

Younis Page & Other Boards Follies - Page 19 Solari10

I didn't know Solaris 'posed'. Wink

webhead2006 Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:42 pm

They will never learn huh. Sr tanked and since then wb/dc has not want any assoication with it. If they really thought there was more to it. We pprobably would have had a sequel then a full reboot and what not. Where as sv showed it was the better franchise and has still more staying power.

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:33 pm

Originally, I was content to let this go but one other member completely destroyed one of the Apologists

A non-Apologist??!? wrote:
#25 | Certainshades on March 3, 2012 12:59pm EST
I have no intention of derailing this thread but I'm sorry the following statement has to be addressed because I'm tired of the false information.
Just another Apologist douchebag wrote:PLEASE!!!

The ONLY reason that show said on that long was because the CW had NOTHING better to fill that spot with.

A rating of 2 million per show is considered by network standards a flop.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

The reason Smallville remained on the air for 10 years was because it is the SECOND HIGHEST GROSSING FRANCHISE IN TIME WARNER HISTORY.

Look, I don't care if you love it or hate it. I personally loved it even knowing and admitting that it had many flaws but personal feelings about the show are not relevant. These are facts, ok? The show is the second highest grossing television franchise EVER for Time Warner worldwide. It is considered to be not just a success for Warner Bros but a HUGE raging success financially. That's why the Chief Executive of Warner Bros. television was the person negotiating Tom Welling's contract to get him back for the later seasons. (An exec. would normally NEVER be in on those contracts people.) Peter Roth was the person handling it because Smallville (and by proxy Tom Welling) was worth millions of dollars to WB. Smallville is now back in syndication again on TNT ( it was on ABC family prior) and is making even more money for them. The DVD box set for Season 9 was one of the highest selling DVD sets period for the year after being on the shelves for like 3 months.

This the age of DVR and Itunes and massive cable programming. approx. 3.5 million viewers (which is what it was when you counted DVR not 2 million) on a FRIDAY NIGHT for a show that has been on the air for 10 years is unheard of. It was the highest rated show on the network consistently for a decade.

Huge networks like ABC and NBC can't even get the huge numbers that they used to anymore due to DVR and Itunes and Hulu and Netflix. YEs, 3 million people is considered a BIG audience now for a cable network. Shows like Mad Men that WIN EMMYS don't even get that kind of audience.

The CW hated Smallville because it was a product from the old network, the WB and because it had a wider demographic than the CW's target market. Smallville's audience was split pretty equal down the middle between men and women and targeted different age groups as opposed to just teenagers. (A demo that DC Comics could probably stand to learn from.)

The CW hated Smallville because no matter how many other shows they produced--no matter what night they moved the show to---it continued to succeed. The show was a huge success. You don't have to like it. You don't have to watch it. But to deny that it was a huge success at this point is just ridiculous and insults my intelligence on every level.

Now...to the issue at hand...

And then he/she goes on to talk about Henry Cavill as Superman. I don't know that person's views on Singerman but with intellectual honesty like that, they might fit in pretty well around here. It ain't about whether you liked SV or hated it, IT'S ABOUT FACTS. Facts have a funny way of cutting through the bullshit excuses (any Apologist's specialty) everytime.

non_amos Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Colors, that wouldn't have happened to have been you by any chance now would it? Wink

The reason I ask is that you said you signed up for duh Eunuch page again but I remember you stating that you signed up as 'thecolorsblend'. Then I didn't hear anything else about it. I looked on there one night on the news item comments to see if I saw your ID but I didn't. It made me wonder if you'd already been banned again? I mean, using your ID from here would be a red flag for 'swrighty' if no one else. So I just have to wonder if that was you or not that destroyed this apologist?

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:52 pm

non_amos wrote:Colors, that wouldn't have happened to have been you by any chance now would it?

The reason I ask is that you said you signed up for duh Eunuch page again but I remember you stating that you signed up as 'thecolorsblend'. Then I didn't hear anything else about it. I looked on there one night on the news item comments to see if I saw your ID but I didn't. It made me wonder if you'd already been banned again? I mean, using your ID from here would be a red flag for 'swrighty' if no one else. So I just have to wonder if that was you or not that destroyed this apologist?

No, I wouldn't self-congratulate like that. Or if I did, I'd make it obvious it was me. My "thecolorsblend" handle got banned some years ago for taking some of Herr Bailey's comments and "points" apart. He didn't take kindly to that ("Singerman is better than Donner!!!") so rather than admit he's a complete dillhole, I got banned. It was no more than I expected, I knew what would happen going into the thing and it played out more or less like you might've guessed it would.

That isn't to say I'm opposed to activating a membership and posting there to be a total gadfly. I think there's a lot to be gained from posting stuff guaranteed to lead to flame wars specifically so that Eunuch will be forced to ban people he makes a living off of.

webhead2006 Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:02 pm

Man we need to get that guy over here. We would defiantely all get along here well. He was informed well.

Apologist Puncher Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:31 pm

This, THIS is Apologist retardation at it's "finest":

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=365399

Today, 10:10 AM #20

Bruce_Begins
Side-Kick
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fifth Dimension
Posts: 1,333

Re: What Did Singerman Peeps Get Right?

The scene towards the end, where Sups talks to Jason in his room while Jason is sleeping was done very well, Brandon made it look good (IMO.), now Christopher Reeve was a good actor but I just cannot imagine him doing that scene that well.

Now, you would THINK he would be the ONLY fucking dipshit to say something this unbelievably stupid, right??

Wrong.

Today, 04:01 PM #21

El Payaso
sucking d.i.c.k.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb until firm.
Posts: 14,004

Re: What Did Singerman Peeps Get Right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins
The scene towards the end, where Sups talks to Jason in his room while Jason is sleeping was done very well, Brandon made it look good (IMO.), now Christopher Reeve was a good actor but I just cannot imagine him doing that scene that well.

I think exactly the same. That scene alone blew almost anything acting-wise I had seen in this franchise.

Younis Page & Other Boards Follies - Page 19 Epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1208222805

thecolorsblend Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:52 am

Those guys can fuck off. Okay? Seriously. First of all, anybody who ever uses a variation on "BJ Blandon did WHATEVER better than Reeve did/would've/could've" or whatever INSTANTLY loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It'd be like meeting some ass-nugget who thinks GNR is only better without Slash. You know there's at least one dipwad out there who believes that and it's just an idiotic fucking opinion. "All opinions are all equally valid"? Reading bullshit like that puts the lie to that little PC bit of nonsense.

But the other thing is that Reeve totally rocked dialogue scenes in all his films that I've ever seen. Had he been saddled with a scene that required him to sneak into a little boy's bedroom without his parents knowledge or permission, he would've done the lines in a way that makes you somehow forget how creepy the whole enterprise is. For crying out loud, the guy was a Julliard-trained ACTOR. To this day, one major regret I have about his Superman movies is that he and Brando never really had a proper scene together in the purest, most traditional sense because they truly were peers with one another. Reeve might've been nervous as hell about doing a scene with a legend like Brando but you would've been hard-pressed to guess it. In fact, the only dialogue scene I've ever really seen Reeve struggle with is the FOS bit in Donner's S2 where he gives up his powers. And based upon the imperfect hair, the flat lighting and Reeve's overall sketchy delivery, it seems obvious that Donner just bashed that scene together as a placeholder with the intention of coming back to it later on and doing a proper job of it.

That's IT. That's the ONLY Reeve scene I've ever seen where you could maybe argue he didn't deliver the goods. And like I said, it sure looks like he has a completely understandable handicap to mitigate his questionable performance.

But ya know what? That FOS scene, as incomplete and just empty as it feels, runs rings around anything and everything Blandon The Bartender did in Singerman. To put it another way, Reeve, under-rehearsed, rushed and under pressure, is better than a polished and prepared Routh. By this point, the jury is in. The historical record proves me right.

Apologist Puncher Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:05 am

Anyone who claims BJ "pedarasting" it in that little boys bedroom is better than THIS needs to get fucked-up. Permanently.

The man doesn't say WORD ONE, but still said all he needed to say.

To this day, when I see this scene, I get goose-bumps. Hell, I got them TWICE just from copying & pasting from YouTube to here.

webhead2006 Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:53 am

Boy they won't ever get it huh.

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:11 pm

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=11156&c_start=0

The Eunuch wrote:Jeff Trexler, an attorney who has been closely following the Superman legal battle for years, weighs in with his thoughts on the latest development in the on-going dispute over the rights to Superman.

The latest Time Warner brief isn't a substantial change in legal strategy. Seeking a trial was central to DC's cross-appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the outset.

The reason: the lower court district court key points were decided via summary judgment, a ruling without a trial. In filing its appeal last year, Time Warner took the position that summary judgment was inappropriate, inasmuch as material facts remain in dispute. DC's appellate brief is the standard way all parties to an appeal explain their positions to the court, and it had long been scheduled to drop last Friday.

The brief and trial request may not have been a surprise, but they do help to highlight how DC has sought to reframe the case since Hollywood super-attorney Daniel Petrocelli replaced the company's previous outside counsel. From the brief's initial argument to its close, DC seeks to redefine the real conflict. This isn't a mega-corporation versus two deserving heirs - rather, DC is targeting predatory businessmen who use the law as cover for victimizing their clients.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/03/30/the-legal-view-facebook-vs-superman/

Here's the beef. That link there? It's just text. The link within directs you to

Younis Page & Other Boards Follies - Page 19 April-10

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/april-fools/april-fools.jpg

So this is a joke. Or is it? Turns out that http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/03/30/the-legal-view-facebook-vs-superman is a real page with actual content. Is the content therein now part of the Eunuch's "sense of humor"? Or is it for real and, like any Apologist, the Eunuch has no fucking idea how to tell a joke?

I ask because Trexler is advancing what looks like a perfectly kosher legal argument to me. Hell, I think some of us have made similar points on this board time and again. On the one hand, you want to think the comicsbeat.com article is for real. For one thing, it's insightful above and beyond what most Apologists are capable of writing. But it's still now associated with the Eunuch's complete dumbass sense of humor.

Or was that the idea? Does the Eunuch come down on the side of the Siegel Parasites? Given his support of Singerman and his treatment of Realists over the years, the fucking idiot has a clear history of backing the wrong horse. Was his intent to discredit his own reporting?

Or is he just totally incapable of telling a joke?

The world may never know.

webhead2006 Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:24 pm

Would suck if it was a joke article. Though on the link thing. Maybe he/who ever else does posting/linking to site could have had links crossed. Maybe they where working on fools stories and mixed up posting.

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:26 pm

webhead2006 wrote:Would suck if it was a joke article. Though on the link thing. Maybe he/who ever else does posting/linking to site could have had links crossed. Maybe they where working on fools stories and mixed up posting.

Except it's April Fool's day in Australia. And yes, the posting of this thing is credited to the Eunuch so he's the one I hold responsible. Although it's his page anyway so I'd hold him responsible no matter what. He's the editor of the damn website, after all.

There's no way to excuse this. And I'd be willing to bet Trexler probably isn't very happy for the confusion this will inevitably cause.

non_amos Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:42 pm

There's something you need to know about duh Homopage. I may have brought this up before last April Fool's Day. If I did I'm unsure where the post is, possibly this thread? Anyway, Eunuch is notorious for pulling these stunts every year at this time. Now maybe this item is legit but just go to his site tomorrow when it's 4/01/2012 here in the US. I bet you'll see a number of different articles sparking controversy, that is, until you click on the link that is. Didn't he pull this one last year, something like Henry Cavill had been fired & that BJ the Bartender was being reconsidered for the role? If memory serves me correctly, I believe he did. So just pay him a visit tomorrow & you'll see what I mean.

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:20 pm

non_amos wrote:There's something you need to know about duh Homopage. I may have brought this up before last April Fool's Day. If I did I'm unsure where the post is, possibly this thread? Anyway, Eunuch is notorious for pulling these stunts every year at this time. Now maybe this item is legit but just go to his site tomorrow when it's 4/01/2012 here in the US. I bet you'll see a number of different articles sparking controversy, that is, until you click on the link that is. Didn't he pull this one last year, something like Henry Cavill had been fired & that BJ the Bartender was being reconsidered for the role? If memory serves me correctly, I believe he did. So just pay him a visit tomorrow & you'll see what I mean.

I guess I totally forgot about that so I checked out his little archive. And sure enough, that bit is missing. Not too surprising. Even so, it did kind of ring a bell a little bit. What would you like to bet he'll post a big bunch of intentionally provocative and flame-inducing bullshit "news stories" specifically intended to piss off everybody (Realists, Apologists, comics fans, the ACLU, the liberals, the conservatives, the rich, the poor, the Jews, everybody) and threaten to ban people who "take it the wrong way"? 10:1, an apology won't escape his lips.

If you ask me, if you're determined to post dumbass news items for April Fools, you'd announce something so outlandish that it couldn't possibly be true. Like, you'd say that Michael Bay is being brought in to replace Snyder. Bay wants to reshoot the movie using the voice cast from STAS but with a warm, heart-felt, character-driven storyline that follows the Lois & Clark continuity. The script will be rewritten by Jonah Nolan, co-starring Megan Fox in an undisclosed role, etc. Something so patently fake and contrived that nobody except utter fucking retards would believe it. But what he did now badly mixes a real life situation with a stupid attempt at "humor" and, in so doing, arguably insults a former contributor to his rinky dink little podcast.

Fucking idiot.

Apologist Puncher Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:02 pm

He fixed the link. It goes to:

March 31, 2012: Examining the Latest Development in Superman Copyright Battle

Now.

So it wasn't a "joke".

Eunuch is just a fucking moron.

#2 | Steve "The Eunuch" Younis on March 31, 2012 5:44pm EST
The link above has been corrected. Sorry for any confusion caused.

thecolorsblend Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:10 pm

Whatever, he can fuck off.

webhead2006 Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:27 am

Guess he really did cross links. Dumbies there. Also decided to check there fools stories some stupid ones.

thecolorsblend Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:35 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:He fixed the link. It goes to:

March 31, 2012: Examining the Latest Development in Superman Copyright Battle

Now.

So it wasn't a "joke".

Eunuch is just a fucking moron.

#2 | Steve "The Eunuch" Younis on March 31, 2012 5:44pm EST
The link above has been corrected. Sorry for any confusion caused.

Fuck him. Too little, too late. Sorry, no, I can't kill enough brain cells to convince myself that this was an accident. The fuckwit did what he meant and meant what he did. He can try whatever bullshit damage control he wants to now but the truth is preserved here. That's the entire reason I put together that meticulous post about this. I knew it would backfire on the guy and he'd want to back out. Too late, Eunuch.

non_amos Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:35 pm

Check this out from Eunuch:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=11161#comments

April 1, 2012: Fire Destroys "Man of Steel" Film Reels
Fire at Warner Bros Studios Reuters reports that a devastating fire within Warner Bros. Studios has destroyed thousands of reels of movie footage, including reels from the up-coming Superman movie "Man of Steel".

In the early hours of this morning a three alarm fire broke out on the backlot of Warner Bros. Studios. The fire started when a worker using an acetylene torch for welding accidentally let it catch fire with the surroundings. The Los Angeles County Fire Department had reported that the Film Vault had burned down, destroying thousands of film reels containing footage from projects in post-production including films such as "Beautiful Creatures", "Jack the Giant Killer", and "Man of Steel". Over 116 fire-fighters from various local fire departments, as well as two helicopters dropping water, had responded to the fire. Four fire-fighters sustained minor injuries.

What this means for "Man of Steel" at this point in time is unknown. Speculation from those inside Warner Bros. is that the movie will be pushed back to 2015 to allow for re-shoots to take place, while others are claiming the project will be scrapped completely.

Update: Watch a press conference video message from director Zack Snyder.

Younis Page & Other Boards Follies - Page 19 Wb-fir10

The 'Update' link he wants you to click on is the April Fool's joke!

And did you know that General Zod is getting his own animated series on the Cartoon Network? Wink

Apologist Puncher Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:44 pm

Wow. Yeah, gonna fool the shit outta ME with that one. Living in Southern California and all.

Eunuch is as stupid as stupid is Eunuch.

Apologist Puncher Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:50 pm

Here's an Apologist ADMITTING we W-O-N:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=11155#comments

#11 | redcape on April 1, 2012 11:15am EST
Disagree with most. I thougt SR was credible. Would have loved a sequel. BS tried to co-mingle the past, present and perhaps the future. But aside from that, SR was torn to pieces by the internet expert critics. Flaws and all SR was supposed to introduce Superman back to main stream audience. Then we would have gotten the battles. I know I will be in the few with this but I liked KB as Lois. I thought she did a very good job.

Yes. Yes it was.

And I smile a lil' every day thinking about the good work we did.

thecolorsblend Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:53 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:Here's an Apologist ADMITTING we W-O-N:

And I smile a lil' every day thinking about the good work we did.

Yep. If any comment I ever posted help some WB dude make the decision to push the kill switch on the Singerman "franchise", I'll wear it as a badge of honor for the rest of my life. 'Course, there's no way to know for sure.

There are a few other gems in there.

Realist in Apologist's clothing? wrote:#3 | supes101 on March 31, 2012 11:50am EST
After MOS comes out lets put away all thoughts of SR. It was a bad movie for so many other reasons than what was mentioned above. The whole thing was an ego trip for Singer.

No point in bolding just the relevant stuff, it all counts.

Then you get the other end of the spectrum...

Typical Apologist buttnugget wrote:#2 | Kal L on March 31, 2012 4:37am EST
Wow Jeffrey, I honestly had no idea that you felt the same way about Superman Returns as I did. I thought that you would have ripped it apart ruthlessly... I feel like I need to apologize for making that assumption!

Great article. Instead of posting on movies.com, ill post my answer her...

What I would have liked to have seen in a Superman Returns sequel would have been:

Ramifications to the solar system with "New Krypton" now floating around.

A super powered villain, possibly Brainiac, anyone side from Zod!

Death of Jason... Yes I wanted him to die for a dramatic turn for the movie

More Super powered feats by Superman, utilizing todays technology to show some greeat scenes, similar to the Plane Rescue.

More Clark, and more reporting done by Clark.

Clarks apartment

and ofcourse wardrobe updates and for all, especiall the Super suit... fixing up the ugly parts

And shot in technicolour, so it has a more colourfull and brighter look to it!

I'll just deal with the bolded shit.

Really?? The death of a child?? IN A SUPERMAN MOVIE???? Yeah, it'd be the feel good hit of the year!

Clark's apartment... wow, the very fact that this was even brought up in reference to BJ Blandon... affraid

As to the colors, it all starts at the conceptual level. Singer intentionally set up a very bland, monochromatic color scheme. In terms of costuming, you see lots of blacks, grays, drabby browns, off whites, etc. When people say "the [Singerman] costume is always the brightest thing onscreen anytime it's around", yeah, it's true. The problem is that it's not setting the bar all that high. So even if you'd shot Singerman as is in "technicolor", it wouldn't radically improve what's already there. But as if all that wasn't enough, Singer made some post production tweaks (there's a technical term for it, I'm sure, but damned if I know what it is) where the colors were further muted. Look at any BTS or EPK shit showing unfinished Singerman footage. Again, not setting the bar too high but the real life bikini is noticeably more brightly colored than the version in the final product. I'm not halfass defending the Singerman tu-tu, I'm just saying they took a bad decision and somehow -- against all odds -- made it even worse in the final version.

Compare this to SV, which, esp up through season 7, had a very intentional and deliberate color design. The production started using bright colors in many cases and then, in post, brightened them further. Again, check out BTS stuff for SV from that period and then compare it to the episodes. Bright colors on the set, brighter colors in the final episode. By the time of season 7, it really looked like a comic book to me. Yes, there were dull colors like in Singerman (Lex wore a lot of blacks and s) but even then there was still a color decision underlying it. It was all designed to work together and it did... beautifully in many cases.

But of course, there's no using reason and logic with some douchewipe Apologist.

webhead2006 Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:29 pm

His fools stories where pretty bad. When sv was on ksite had some great ones through the yrs. And ironically a handful of then become true at a later point. As for colors yup sr was dab/dark/muted. Sv was always a coloroful show. And clark use of reds/blues/yellows where always bright bbold and the correct color choices.

non_amos Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:32 am

thecolorsblend wrote:

Really?? The death of a child?? IN A SUPERMAN MOVIE???? Yeah, it'd be the feel good hit of the year!

It happened:

I know I mentioned this in the past on these forums somewhere & I'm also aware this is from the TV version from the early 80's. It also exists on the 'RIC' cut which I bought off of eBay. Of course this was a scene directed by Richard Lester which was cut from the theatrical version. And good thing too, right? I remember seeing this on TV back then & although there's no 'gore' or anything I still found it disturbing. Oh, if it was a horror film it'd be business as usual & probably not 'gore' enough. But for a Superman film?! You gotta be kidding me! Sure, it was Non who killed the boy at the direction of Zod, not Superman killing, but still..........? And I think Lester got some flack for this scene too. It was obviously in poor taste.

And to be certain Singer had to be aware of the existence of this footage when he came up with his idea?! Suspect

EDIT TO ADD:

"Embedding Disabled By Request, Watch On Youtube."

Why did this happen?! Oh well, watch it on Youtube then. Fun

Sponsored content