MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Basis For Superman 4.0:Superfamily United?

superdad.jpg
From Superdickery.com

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “The Basis For Superman 4.0:Superfamily United?”

  1. RoyBatty says:

    DP – first feel free to delete this post, as it is OT. However, I did not see a link for e-mail addy on the blog page.
    Have you seen Falwell’s comments that in order to be successfull in Hollywood you must be homosexual? If anything screams “Start a new thread” it’s this latest idiotic announcement from the Rev.
    At last, I understand why I have yet to achieve success out here. It has nothing to do with the fact I haven’t written a new script in years – it’s because I don’t smoke cock.
    And here I was thinking just being a regular type sex pervert would get me in….

  2. RoyBatty says:

    Then again, considering all the “How gay is SUPERMAN RETURNS” chatter, perhaps it is a little more on topic than I first thought.

  3. JckNapier2 says:

    The best Superdickery entry involves the cover in which Superman and Batman talk about discovering a time machine. The caption makes perfect arguments about what could be done about such a time machine. It’s worth looking for.
    Scott Mendelson

  4. jeffmcm says:

    Speaking of gay, I liked the one where Superman emanated rainbows from his hands.

  5. anghus says:

    i love that site.
    in the movie when superman throws the ball like 8 miles, and the dog stops and whines, i thought it was an homage to the site.
    Superman really is a dick.

  6. Lota says:

    heh heh. Gives me confidence for Never liking superman comics and always opting for Iron man.
    When I looked at superdick 4, my first impression was Katie Holmes was Lois, Tom Cruise was Superman, and Titanman was “insert manly-but-disturbed A lister who wants to marry katie Holmes…and is wearing mask to hide botched plastic surgery”
    ha ha. move on up there Katie.

  7. Aladdin Sane says:

    http://www.superdickery.com/dick/15.html
    Now that’s classic.

  8. Josh Massey says:

    Falwell was right – homosexuality is a slippery slope that directly leads to bestiality!
    http://www.superdickery.com/images/dick/1027_4_098.jpg

  9. JckNapier2 says:

    Still my favorite…
    http://www.superdickery.com/dick/6.html
    Scott Mendelson

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

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” — 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 — 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 — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — 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 named—” “Yeah, sure — 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 I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s 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 didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — 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. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s 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