It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
He looks like he’s about to perform a ballet or something. Not good.
Does Bryan Singer have final say over poster design?
It’s going to be a real shame if this movie is good and doesn’t quite get the audience it deserves because of mediocre marketing. I felt the same way about Batman Begins last year.
This is a little better than the Batman posters, but DP is right. And I wouldn’t have noticed the Florida thing, but it’s all I can see now that it’s been pointed out.
He’s so out of this world. Just sssuper.
LOL — You guys need to lay off the porno.
The poster is just fine… smashing together both the lonely and epic sides of this story.
Besides, pervs, the dude’s crotch is almost completely in shadow. How could anyone set on gay subtext leave that one out?
“This is a little better than the Batman posters, but DP is right. And I wouldn’t have noticed the Florida thing, but it’s all I can see now that it’s been pointed out.”
Sorry, I have to disagree. The Batman Begins Posters campaign is way better than this.
For “supposedly” straight people, you guys think way too much about gay stuff.
The poster is good, so get a grip.
Funny how this “gay sensibility” stuff only gets harped on when the director is openly gay.
It’s a gayish poster, but the Florida thing is a biiig stretch of the imagination.
^ I concur.
I dunno, on second thought, he looks like Storm from X-Men about to call down a lightning strike.
I’m with Crow and wb….you guys are reading waaaay too much into that poster. I think it’s cool.
I gotta go watch Food Network now and file my toe nails….
the thing that kills it is the cape – its clear he is falling – not flying up.
that’s a very anime/videogame pose. They get the arched back and float into the sky with hands out like that palms up. Usually happens in a beam of light, but generally means something kick ass will happen.
I didn’t see the florida thing, but something about the fingers bugged me.
And it does have a ballet look to it as well, no where near the ‘cool’ factor of the batman posters last year. Both of these films had teasers that resolutely refused to rally up folks with a true money shot, using shadows and slow build up to explain what the movie is. There’s no batwing-in-front-of-the-moon/upside-down-kiss moment in any of the trailers for either film. Batman was such a strong film it recovered from the marketing, I hope the same is true for superman, because I love the full trailers for both films, although they don’t seem to have the wide appeal of the Spider-man marketing.
What the hell, Poland? I’ve been posting here for months and now you’re reviewing all my comments and letting none of them through? The hell?????
Are they selling Calvin Kleins or a superhero movie?
What an indecisively blank-looking Superman this is. It comes across like the schmo has no idea what to do with his hands. Seems like Superman could use a bit more muscle tone as well — but please refrain from the protruding nipples and cod piece.
This is the FIRST thing that has actually made me think I might want to see this film. (And, yes, Mr. P, I suppose you would consider me a “girl,” although believe me, I am all woman.)
I’m in the middle. I can see the sexual innuendos but I don’t know if others will unless they’re told. I wouldn’t have noticed them.
It’s an incredibly homoerotic subtext. What are WB thinking with this film? Folks have been going on about the heavy gay overtunes from the stills of this film for MONTHS now. True–it might only be the small internet audience. Nevertheless, this only heightens the whole “Gay director, gay outfit, gay Superman, and now GAY POSTER!” cheer from all over the net. Poland pretty much nailed it. What teenage boy wants to see the movie attached to this poster?
All that being stated; I have no problem with any of this. I simply have a problem with that TRAILER. How exactly does something like that fly in 21st century? Too much ham and cheese for my liking.
I wonder if this is going to be Bryan Singer’s “King Kong”… I can’t imagine why anyone would need $200 million to make a “Superman” movie.
I don’t like how the cape is floating but I don’t see how it’s gay. I must admit I haven’t seen a lot aliens flying with capes in my life and I can’t tell which one is gay and which one isn’t…
I suspect that, thematically speaking, the poster is probably perfectly representative of the direction Singer is taking the film/character.
People are reading way too much into the gay angle. This film is basically a Superman as Jesus Christ analogy, from what I can gather. The poster is perfectly in keeping with that angle.
The poster is a Christ image. If you look at many Italian reniassance paintings of Christ, or even Salvador Dali’s famous Christ painting, the image is remarkably similar. The outstretched hands, the head bowed down ect. In fact, I think the inspiration for the poster has to be to be Dali’s ” Christ Of St John Of The Cross”, because Dali has Jesus floating in space (but on a Cross).
I think Singer is really trying to do something interesting with his theme. Whether it works or not, remains to be seen.
I would imagine that a number of those teenage boys are gay. And a lot of the golden age comics did have a very unsubtle gay subtext. Maybe they’re just trying to cover all their bases.
hes about to piss on all the right wingers who bought the florida election..
seriously guys this is a great, lyrical, strong beautifully drawn poster and in some ways looks like chris reeve and is an homage to reeve – i have no problem with it
poster doesnt worry me – lets hope 200 million buys more than a 20 minute action scene with a plane and a space shuttle
Oh my God! This is a serious reach for what is a surpringly poetic poster from WB. Would we even be having this conversation if Ratner had directed it? Straight people’s obssession with seeing the gay in this project has gotten wildly out of hand.
And I love the people bemoaning how gay the costume is. Uh? If anything, it’s toned down from the Christopher Reeve version! Oh, but I forgot, Bryan Singer is gay, so the movie must be totally gay and we should totally be afraid of that.
easily the lowest point of the hot blog or hot button ever. For god’s sake, let it go.
Realistically, he should be pissing on idiots like me who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and pulled votes from Gore.
That’s right folks, all of the country’s problems over the last five years oddly boil down to Darth Nader’s candidacy.
(also, this is me smacking jeffrey boam’s doctor in the head)
The problem I have with this poster is two fold
1) It is, as a writer said above, a very passive image. There is nothing dynamic about it – it sort of looks like Superman is in some kind of suspended animation.
2) The cape is a big problem – DP captured it perfectly when he said Phantom of the Opera.
When the last trailer was released most of the positive fan reaction centred on the fact that Superman was all about whiz-pop action and romance, that it didn’t have quite the lyrical or darker edges that Batman does so the slight feeling of superficiality in the trailer was warranted. But this poster tries to tap into a similar vein to Batman and it doesn’t work – its a mixture of message and tone which has been a persistent problem with the marketing of this film since the beginning of the year.
“Straight people’s obsession with seeing the gay in this project has gotten wildly out of hand.”
Really? I always saw it as a gay obsession with finding gay subtext in things like Spongebob, Bert and Ernie, superheroes, etc. As a straight person, I find the practice annoying.
And I agree that Singer’s sexual preference has something to do with the hunt for gay subtext.
Homophobia. Seriously, just because the director is gay. Get over it.
This is a cool looking poster, and the film looks like it will rock.
Bryan Singer is one of the best directors of our time. Superman fans should count themselves lucky that WB turned the film over to Bryan Singer and not to some mediocre movie-maker who merely connects the dots.
The marketting is weak, but frankly Superman won’t need the marketting. Singer’s films are not about opening-weekend box office numbers. They’re about longevity. Go pop in The Usual Suspects and tell me his movies dont have a longer shelf life than Mick Jagger.
And as for the homo-erotic undertones in the poster: well they may be intended, and they may not be. Its not the first time, certainly. Anyone with marketting knowledge knows the sneaky ways sexual themes are visually laced into ostensably un-sexual products. To say sex sells is to reaffirm the old cliche, but its true.
Superman is a symbol of virility and masculine prowess. He has been from his conception. This is undeniable. He’s called “The Man of Steel”! Give me a break! He flies around at ravishing speeds, wears a skin tight outfit, is really hard, his sole obsession is a woman…he’s a giant dick! Should Florida surprise you?
And don’t go blaming it on Bryan because he’s gay. This has been Superman’s image before he ever made it to the big screen. Directors often have no control over the marketting campaign anyways. Marketting is about profits, and that is the studio’s main concern. So Bryan might not even have had a say in it.
but whoever said it was right: if the film was directed by a straight man, none of you would be complaining about the “gayness”. Children all.
and on second thought: the penninsula is also very likely a mistake.
Lets say their concept for the poster was to have superman gracefully lowering himself down over the USA from Space. That means they’ll need this overhead shot, and he’ll have to be receeding in space like he is. But the US only really looks like the US at the Florida penninsula. Otherwise, its just a blobby land mass that could be anything. so they need to put Florida in there. And Florida just so happens to fit around his mid-section. It actually cant be moved anywhere else.
“Reader” ?
David?
Can you tear yourself away from Photoshopping twigs and berries onto the summer movie posters for a second?
Defamer has responded:
http://tinyurl.com/e5ghz
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/superman/superman-ready-to-fly-back-into-the-hetero-mainstream-174428.php
It is gay… the poster is Greg Louganisey…
And with the Florida Cock, it’s ridiculous.
Why not a gnarlier, darker superman holding an atomic bomb over his head… oh wait, that might be gay too.
Come on, let’s stop the “you only see that because the director is gay” conversation. Are you telling me Schumacher didn’t homoeroticize his two “Batman” films? And that Singer’s “X-Men” flicks didn’t have a VERY clear gay metaphor in place (especially in “X2,” when the son had to “out” himself as a mutant to his family!?).
I’ve gone back and forth about wanting to see this movie or just seeing it because everyone else will… and with this poster…we’ve entered wonderland.
What the hell Warner Bros.? Was a shot of Superman standing on top of a building to frickin’ simple??
But where is it in Superman? I haven’t seen any homoerotic subtext in the trailer…the buzz seems to be solely because the openly gay Bryan Singer cast a young, attractive man as Superman, conveniently forgetting that straight horndog Brett Ratner attempted to cast the virtually interchangeable Matthew Bomer in the role. Is there a dishy Jimmy Olsen I’m missing? Skin shots of Supes? Is there anything from the footage (besides, perhaps, the presence of Parker Posey) that indicates an overtly gay sensibility at work here?
Also, the poster is clearly referencing the iconic image of Superman in space that is the cornerstone of the trailer and TV ads. I don’t get Phantom of the Opera from it…the Phantom doesn’t even wear a red cape (he wears a tuxedo).
On the Batman Begins Two-Disc DVD, there is a poster gallery with posters that put the FINAL Batman Begins poster to shame. I wonder, if this film, will also have countless better posters. That the WB decided to go against for this piece titled; “NUTSACK FROM THE HEAVENS WITH FLORIDIAN SCHWANTZ IN THE DISTANCE.” Nevertheless, it’s just a crap poster. It might establish the theme of the film but gayness or no gayness–this poster fails on every level.
The homophobia thing is a bit much, even if the gay take on the film is sometimes overstated.
In a PC world, movies targetting black audiences exclsuively are “urban,” Jews are not dominant part of the Hollywood culture (though really, we have been supplanted by corporations, but like gay, we are in much higher numbers here than in other industries), and Jessica Alba has made a career based on acting and not her face and body.
I am completely resepctful of someone not seeing a pretty gay image in that poster. We all see different things in all art that includes symbolism. But to call “homophobe” is silly.
Does Bryan Singer’s sexuality – and according to his public positioning, he’s straight – mean that gay subtext and/or sensibility cannot be part of his work? Is he off the hook?
Is Steven Spielberg not called out for the jewish themes in many of his films?
I understand the resistance. Films get put in boxes. It isn’t right. Even certain bald co-stars of a certain summer film feel they have to pretend they are straight. As stupid as that is, one has to respect and be displeased about his belief that it matters.
The “Got Milk” ad is still funnier, super hard bones and all…
You know what else was funny? Sam Jackson playing (vocally) a Whigger on The Boondocks. But ooooohhh… that’s so racist!
“I can’t imagine why anyone would need $200 million to make a “Superman” movie.”
Maybe because we expect a Superman to be filled with effects work and large scale production value. Otherwise, it’s just Smallville
“It’s going to be a real shame if this movie is good and doesn’t quite get the audience it deserves because of mediocre marketing.”
I think they gave themselves an uphill battle to be “good” (and I notice the OP doesn’t use the word “great” – diminished expectations already…?) when they announced the cast. Kate fucking Bosworth? Even Spacey seems like a bad choice. He is basically supposed to be playing a version of Gene Hackman playing the role, right? That shot of him in the parka inside the Fortress of Solitude makes him look like he just wandered over from the Se7en set and got cold.
“(especially in “X2,” when the son had to “out” himself as a mutant to his family!?).”
Sorry, but Singer set himself for this kind of “Superman movie looks gay” debate with this scene. I remember turning to a friend watching the scene for the first time and saying “WTF? Is he admiting he’s a mutant, or did they switch reels with some Lifetime movie?” and my friend retorted “You just know that Singer wanted this scene in for obvious reasons…”
I’m a big continuity dork, and the casting remains the biggest problem for me. If this film is supposed to take place five years after “Superman II,” why are the actors very noticeably younger? Trust me, I understand they need youth to serve them better in the coming franchise years, but it’s just a little too extreme. That said, I can finally understand why Superman/Clark is attracted to Lois now.
I can’t stand all these jaded nerds. They have no appreciation for anything. As difficult as it was, Bryan turned XMen into a great franchise (which Brett Ratner is on the verge of destroying) and now he’s making something great with Superman. He actually cares about the story and characters in his films and he’s a damn good filmmaker. These idiotic jaded nerds who sit at their computers and criticize everything that they see deserve the kind of crap Ratner is about to unleash on them. I hope Bryan leaves Superman so that the franchise can be taken over by some of the idiots WB had in mind before he signed on. That’s what all you idiots deserve. A piece of crap film with no story and tons of uninspired action. Do you guys even remember the kind of names being thrown around before Singer signed on? Kutcher, Walker, Hartnett and Crowe as Superman? Beyonce as Lois Lane? The poster is great. The trailer is great. You’re lucky a real filmmaker like Bryan Singer is helming this project and not some hack like Ratner or McG. And you should knock off the gay shit. Singer’s probably slept with more women than any of you little nerds ever will.
The X2 “outing” scene was completely appropriate and totally in synch with the comics. People don’t seem to realize that the story of a kid being disowned by his family because he’s a mutant is very common in the X-Men comics, and yes, it is a gay allegory. Bryan Singer didn’t create that allegory but being gay himself – and David, his public positioning is gay, he says so in interviews – he would’ve been foolish not to use it. Does that mean that every movie Singer makes from now on has to have a gay subtext in it? I’m sorry but in everything we saw from this film, there isn’t a whole lot that could have been made differently to make the character more “hetero looking”. It’s not like you could make the costume black and make the character look like a badass.
It just looks like everybody found a way to make fun of the film and they want to milk it as much as possible. I wouldn’t call it homophobic but “immature” seems as good a word as any.
DP, nobody called you a homophobe. I’ve said that people are reading too much into it because the director is gay…that’s not an accusation of homophobia unless you’re severely overreacting.
I think it was a mistake to not show Superman in some terrestrial environment (Metropolis, the North Pole). Seeing him from space doesn’t tell you much about the story except that he’s creepily hovering above all of us. It makes him less relatable.
Images that sexualize men aren’t necessarily “gay.” Brandon Routh in a tight outfit by himself may celebrate his physique, but why would you assume that this poster, or any of the casting or costume decisions, are aimed at gay men
Yeah, what’s up with that flying thing? Can men 18-35 relate to that?
I agree with the above poster who suspects that the character of Superman is an obvious analogy to Christ. My jaw dropped when I saw that teaser trailer– using the Brando voiceover about “…and I have sent them you, my only son,” etc.
I also think it’s fair to say that, intentionally or not, Singer has not been shy about making this a more effeminate Superman. Time– well, box office– will tell if this is not palatable to a wide audience.
Regardless, I expect at least a good movie, if not a great one. The elements are there for it. Singer is rarely so unsubtle that you couldn’t miss the gay stuff if you weren’t looking for it.
Why does “gay imagery” always have to equate to assfucking?
Why can it mean sensitive, thoughtful, graceful, tasteful?
Always with the assfucking!
(this is my penance for disliking Brokeback)
Oh, enough already. Let’s get down to the really important news: VERONICA MARS got a full-22 pickup! Now THERE’S a real super-hero!
Wrong, James.
Flying is in fact relatable because most people have some kind of fantasy of being able to fly. It’s that he’s flying away from Earth, not towards it (as the word “Returns” implies). It’s that the story isn’t about Superman flying in space, but what he does in relation to people on the planet’s surface. Here he seems like a satellite.
Having said that, the poster is okay from a comic book sense.
Nerds actually appear to be eating this one up. David could have checked the net for this, but instead is thinking kids won’t buy it… Hours after they already have.
They were tired of ‘head’ posters for every other movie.
I think the poster is terrific! of course, I’m a woman. As several have said, it combines the comic/anime look with the “christ figure” look (good catch about the Dali christ, I was thinking the same).
I hated the first trailer *because* of the christ stuff, but actually thought the long trailer looked good.
The more I look at that poster, the more I like it. But it’s definitely more “arty” than “action”.
I’m a big continuity dork, and the casting remains the biggest problem for me. If this film is supposed to take place five years after “Superman II,” why are the actors very noticeably younger?
Actually, only Bosworth as Lois is noticeably younger. Routh is pretty much the same age as Reeve was when Superman was released. He is a mere 2 years younger than Reeve was at the time of Superman 2.
Really? I always saw it as a gay obsession with finding gay subtext in things like Spongebob, Bert and Ernie, superheroes, etc. As a straight person, I find the practice annoying.
I think you’ll find it was a bunch of “straights” who went on and on about Spongebob and Bert & Ernie and superheroes being gay. Us “gays” may pick it up and move along. Surely it’s only the “straights” who continue to fascinate over how Singer turned X2 GAY!
I remember turning to a friend watching the scene for the first time and saying “WTF? Is he admiting he’s a mutant, or did they switch reels with some Lifetime movie?” and my friend retorted “You just know that Singer wanted this scene in for obvious reasons…”
All I have to say to RoyBatty is WTF? Did you go to a studio taping of Will & Grace before you saw X2 or do you pop out witty one-liners all the time half way through movies like X2? lol, give me a break.
It may be that there are some women in the audience that the phallus in this image is aimed toward.
Skip Brilliantine, you simply cannot claim with any factual evidence that ANY women are the target of this film. I don’t see how you can make any connection! What sort of woman on this earth wants to see a single mother character rescued by an extremely attractive man? I KNOW ZILCH WHO WOULD WANT THAT! So stop pretending you know your stuff, alright!
š
I think it was a mistake to not show Superman in some terrestrial environment (Metropolis, the North Pole). Seeing him from space doesn’t tell you much about the story except that he’s creepily hovering above all of us. It makes him less relatable.
Because having him stand around in the fictional city of Metropolis or the non-Santa-related North Pole makes a FLYING MAN FROM ANOTHER PLANET more relatable? That’s sort of thinking is a bit askew.
“Because having him stand around in the fictional city of Metropolis or the non-Santa-related North Pole makes a FLYING MAN FROM ANOTHER PLANET more relatable?”
Kami, I was writing with the assumption that superhero stories are allegories for the human condition in some way. We can identify with them, usually through their flaws or some condition they must endure (Superman’s Clark Kent disguise, X-men’s alienation from society, etc.). By extension, the image of Jesus that is powerful and poignant (ala Passion of the Christ) is this guy getting the shit beat out of him. If that’s askew, then please set me straight. Superhero stories are meant to have no emotional truths?
I’m sure the film will take care of that…why shoehorn it into the poster? The poster is saying “This is a huge event, not some episode of Smallville.”
“I think you’ll find it was a bunch of “straights” who went on and on about Spongebob and Bert & Ernie and superheroes being gay. Us “gays” may pick it up and move along. Surely it’s only the “straights” who continue to fascinate over how Singer turned X2 GAY!”
Not quite…I know and saw plenty of gay men and women who read gay subtext into the Lord of the Rings films. I also would note that the latest issue of the Advocate has a cover story about all the gay sensibilities in this summer’s films-starting with Superman Returns and X3. I don’t think it’s just the straights who obsess on this.
“He is a mere 2 years younger than Reeve was at the time of Superman 2.”
And this is now five years later, so the actor is seven years too young. Aside from that, though, I talking appearances – not what it says on their birth certificate. Routh looks much more than two years younger than Reeve.
^^I agree completely. Reeve had more character in his face as well as a beefier build that’s out of fashion these days unless you’re Russell Crowe. Routh is Superboy.