Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Non Speaks on Singerman!

<-- Non says "You Suck Singer!"

Recently, Jack O'Halloran, who played the mute Kryptonian villain "Non" in Superman The Movie and Superman II, did an interview with the website Ringside Report about his life in the boxing ring and Hollywood. O'Halloran talks a bunch about playing Non, what went down on the set of the first two Superman movies, and he also gives his thoughts on the recent Singerman movie, Brandon Routh, and Bryan Singer.
GM: What do you think of the new Superman movie: Superman Returns, that came out in 2006?

JO: You know, I thought that the kid (Brandon Routh) got away with it, but I think that Bryan Singer is too much of a CGI guy. I think that they ruined and wasted a lot of very good talent. It is very difficult to replace Gene Hackman, but the kid ended up doing a good job as Superman.
now they do this new film, and they change the costume, which I thought was a bad idea. There was too much CGI. You had great actors in Kevin Spacey and Frank Langella, who didn’t have enough screen time.

There wasn’t enough screen time for Clark Kent as Clark Kent. The kid should have been Kent a lot more, and the storyline sucked.
I think he meant to say "Christopher Reeve" at the end not "Gene Hackman." But this is interesting to hear. It's the honest opinion of a guy who worked on the classic films who no longer has any ties to W.B., etc. and can actually speak his mind on the topic without worrying about who he offends. Needless to say we couldn't agree more with his assessment. I wonder if he knows about the $10 million of CGI that was left on the cutting room floor? Now we just need to find out what Terrence Stamp and Sarah Douglas think.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Finally a Nomination Worthy of Singerman!

Singerman may have been shut out of any nominations for any of the big Oscar categories, but dont cry in your pudding just yet folks. There may still yet be some hardware in their future. The nominations for the 27th Annual Golden Raspberry Awards, or Razzies as they're more commonly known, were released the other day, and snagging a nomination for Worst Supporting Actress is none other than Singerman's gal pal Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth! (Wasn't she a lead actress BTW? We use that term loosely of course). The Razzie press release reads as follows:

Any honest Academy member will admit that Oscar voters are dealing with slim pickings for 2006. But at the other end of the quality scale, voters for this year's 27th Annual RAZZIE® Awards had literally dozens of deservingcontenders to choose from. And choose they have…and RAZZ the nominees they will,in ceremonies to be held at 7:30pm/PST on Oscar eve, Saturday, February 24 at Hollywood's Ivar Theatre.

RAZZIE® regulars Jenny McCarthy and Carmen
Electra are competing with LOST star Michelle Rodriguez, Kristin Chenoweth and Kate Bosworth (as an ultra-lame Lois Lane in SUPERMAN RETURNS) for Worst Supporting Actress.

It's nice to finally see someone from the film getting the recognition they deserve. We'll all be keeping our fingers crossed for her.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Apparently the Academy Laughed as Hard as We Did

Don't fret friends, we're back from a minor vacation and full of some great stuff coming at you in the next couple days. Well it looks like nominations for the Oscars came out today, and guess who was conspicuously absent from any of the relevant nominations? Yeah, Singerman. Despite WB's silliest efforts, Singerman didn't sniff a single nomination for any of the top categories. Not that anyone here thought they would mind you. Well OK maybe that guy in the comments who keeps insisting the sequel is now in production did, but hey, a guy can dream can't he?

Though like we predicted they might they did snag a nod for visual effects. Though if I were them, I wouldn't be beating my chest. When you make a $210 million film wouldn't you think the special effects would be something "special?" If only we could say the same for the directing, writing, acting, music, costume design, etc., etc., etc. And hey check out who they're up against! That super-mega hit Poseidon!! and Pirates of the Caribbean 2...again. Seriously does anyone really think this award ISN'T going to POTC2? Was anything in Singerman even remotely as good as the CG Davey Jones?

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Good Writing to Get Rid of Bad Writing

I was contacted recently by some people who have started up a letter-writing campaign to oust Singer and his cronies and change the direction of the Superman movie franchise . They advocate even doing a "Hulk-like" reboot where they wait a couple years for everything to die down and then go in a new direction if that's what it takes to get it right. Since the film is a disappointment both artistically and financially, and there seems to be some internal difference of opinion with the franchise, and no firm commitment has been made to a Singerman sequel at this point other than Singer signing on to do a script, I thought this could be just the right time for something like this to get some attention.

Their approach is a bit different than what you've seen here at SSS. They advocate more of a "use honey for the bears" approach, whereas we've been known to just beat the hell out of the bear with a stick. Their site is dedicated to taking a more positive approach to contacting the powers that be at WB, namely Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov, and relaying their disappointment and dissatisfaction with the film in a professional manner. Their website is just up and running and in blog format. It basically just lays out their mission statement, and provides updates, commentaries, and some sample letters that you can use. Their also appears to be an email list of some kind.

Personally I've already fired off a letter to both Horn and Robinov. At first I tried using my trusty Singerman Kryptonite pen however anytime I tried writing the words "action" the pen stopped working, go figure. In all seriousness, I know people have been writing letters to W.B. since the film unspooled back in June, but now might not be a bad time to fire off another one to hammer the point home to the people in the "ivory tower."

Friday, January 05, 2007

More Year End Review Goodness

Now that we've finally awoke from our alcohol induced comas from New Year's Eve, and have taken a look around Al Gore's internet, it appears that a fair number of media outlets were a little "late" with some of their 2006 box office reviews. Go Figure. Here's a look at a little more of the talk going around entertainment circles in year end summaries about just how big of a turd Singerman really was.
  • The New Yorker (NY) - "But “Superman Returns,” with its underwritten script and its bland hero, was not just boring but superfluous: in the digital years since the 1978 “Superman”—which have also seen five “Batman”s, two “Spider-Man”s, and three “X-Men”s—the airborne crusader has lost his wonder. But Warner, in late October, announced that it would make yet another “Superman” film. Variety earlier summed up the situation as follows: “Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What’s more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries, and merchandising—even subsid DC Comics." So there you have it: the business model swallows the studio, which, obliged to supply its conglomerate outlets and subsidiaries, cannot prevent itself from repeating a failure."
  • Movieweb - "2006 will be talked about as a year that was great for the business side, but terrible for the artistic side, and, I've gotta tell you folks, it really wasn't that great in either aspect. Superman Returns, probably one of the most over-hyped and over-marketed flicks in recent history, was the 5th highest grossing movie of the year at just over $200 million... and it LOST $70 million."
  • Hollywood Reporter (CA) - "Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Pictures, which arguably had one of the most anticipated slates of the year, had difficulty delivering and dropped from a first-place market share in 2005 to fourth place because of such misfires as "Poseidon," M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" and a disappointing "Superman Returns," even though the superhero's long-awaited return did climb above the $200 million mark domestically."
  • Fort Collins Weekly (CO) - "It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s the biggest flying turkey of the year. As the Man of Steel, newcomer Brandon Routh did a super impression of balsa wood in tights. "
  • Wilmington Morning Star (NC) - Best wig of the year: Kevin Spacey's, playing Lex Luthor in the five-hour snoozathon called Superman Returns.
  • Austin Chronicle (TX) - Most Forgettable: Superman Returns. I can't remember anything about this picture. Can't remember faces, mise-en-scène, not one damn thing. Somebody flew, right? And I recall now that the remarkable Peta Wilson had a bit role she'd never be reduced to in a just world.
  • The Billings Outpost (MT) - It has its slow moments and gets a little too wrapped up in the psychology of its core characters... He pushes a small continent into orbit, for God’s sake!
  • Monsters and Critics - "The next award goes to ‘Superman Returns’ in the Needs More Action category. I was more psyched to see this movie than the Scarlett Johansson sex tape. On paper the film had everything working for it, an unknown as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Bryan Singer calling the shots. So where’s the action? He’s the Man of Steel, punch somebody already! It’s cool that bullets bounce off your eye, but knock somebody out with more than your kick ass breath!"
  • Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - "'Happy Feet' was a much-needed big hit for Warner, which had been less than overjoyed by the $200 million gross of "Superman Returns."
You noticing a trend here yet?