I love this kind of shit...geeks making wagers. Sounds like a friday night at the pub with my buddies!

I'm with Harry on this one... is this not an origin story? Is Caviezel not too old? This is internet nerd battling to the XTREMEEEEE!

defense fund my ass. they still do what they wanna do. they just love to moan. Frank Miller may be a a genius but he aint a put-upon genius. and he's loaded to boot. he should stop whining and start drawing. when was the last comic HE put out?! grumble grumble ;)

If Jesus portrays Superman, $500 goes to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. If he doesn't, $500 goes to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. Its a win-win situation.

It wasnt set up for superstar writers and artists. It was set up, for example, for comic shop owners in backwards towns who get sued for selling "mature" books to their target audiences....adults Read about them here: http://www.cbldf.org/

Singer should've completed his X-trilogy first!! Okay, I'll come out of the closet right now: I NEED BRYAN SINGER TO COMPLETE THE X-MEN TRILOGY!! Singer is perfect for Superman, but there is this gut feeling in me that says that he should have completed the GREATEST SUPER HERO TRILOGY EVER (tm) first and then go on to other movies. Just a thing. I kinda like what he wants to do with Logan's Run... Are all hopes on Whedon for X-Men now? (P.S. Singer will make a great Superman film, I think, but without the Jesus-guy, please).

I just can't picture the guy pulling off Clark Kent. And I remember seeing him on Bob Costas a while back and it doesn't seem like something he'd be that interested in anyway. But WTF is up with the Comic Book Defense Fund? I know this is a bet about a comic book movie but couldn't you pick one with a bit more of a humanitarian angle?

harry says caviezel will not appear as superman in "a bryan singer directed film." this means harry's source is singer camp? and perhaps millar has WB source? could this mean power struggle? this is better than the movie will be.

not sure whom is right, but millar can at least spell "caviezel" too much to ask harry to do, it appears.....

but those poor donkeys always break my heart. people are meant to suffer for their art. otherwise it isn't art, it's product.

hope you're wrong about Welling.

Harry loses this bet.

I dunno, Caviezel has this swarthy, southern European look about him, and a somnabulent personality. (I think he is half Romansch Swiss, half Irish)I don't see him as Superman. But, it is being reported all over the place today that he is being cast for it. Who knows? As far as Singer goes, moviemaniac is right: Bryan Singer should complete his "X-Men Trilogy". It was a big mistake for him (and for Fox) to not finish what he started with the X-Men. Big mistake. And the shame is that he COULD have done BOTH the next X-Men AND the new Superman film, if the scheduling had been set up and done right. It is a shame. Singer is a good filmmaker, and he is responsible for some of the best comic book movies ever adapted/made: the X-Men movies. It really doesn't make that much sense to me why he would abandon his committment to one superhero movie just to go off and make another, yet entirely different, superhero movie. He probably just got offered more money. Not that I think Singer won't do a good job with Superman; he probably will. It's just that he should have done a final X-Men movie before he went off to do something else. He is leaving his X-Men fans hanging. We expected a good third X-Men movie from him (and maybe even a fourth shot simultaneously with the third). WE've been left in the lurch from Singer. I, for one, don't appreciate it. I wish Singer would pay attention to the movie fans on this sort of stuff. This move makes him come off as kind of self-interested. I know it is his own career and such, but fans and loyal audiences are the ones who buy the tickets and help to make good movies successful. I have been following Singer's career since The Usual Suspects (as have many movie buffs), and stuff like this just leaves me feeling disinclined to go go see Singer's movies, which is too bad, because I have been looking forward to see what Singer does after X-Men (I was expecting Logan's Run, a good choice). Now I am simply less interested. Oh well...

Perhaps it doesn't have the same impact on how we view the universe, but then again maybe it does. As usual i'm backing Harry. Obviously his source has a DIRECT(hint hint) influence on the casting of the movie.

I read about this on CHUD this morning and I honestly didn't think that Harry would respond to it, let alone match the bet. Kudos AICN for going all in. May the best source win. Hopefully it's Harry's. It would be a crime to see James Caviezal TRYING to be Superman. For one, he looks old. Not the gray hair, wrinkly kind of old. But the too-mature-and-wise looking to pull off fledgling, trying-to-cope Clark Kent. Secondly, he doesn't have the right build AT ALL. And build isn't something you can magically fix by working out. I'm not saying I'd love to see Tom Welling as Superman (though he'd be much better than Caviezal), I'd rather see an unknown. And for the love of God, Singer- do not cast Johnny Depp as anything in this movie. He belongs in indies.

Reading this article was like talking to a burned-out hippie.

At least he's got the dramatic look and feel, don't know about his comedic qualities.. You're going to need that to match Reeve's superb Kent. Something I think Brendan Frasier could pull of (and he did *look* the part in George of the Jungle) Anyway Check out these Caviezel images (and tell me he doesn't look like someone we know and love in the second pic!): http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/news/atores/jim_caviezel.jpg http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00049/greven_49599a.jpg http://www.celebrity-exchange.com/celebs/photos47/james-caviezel2.jpg

Sorry, I meant the THIRD pic! http://www.celebrity-exchange.com/celebs/photos47/james-caviezel2.jpg (Smack my ass and call me Judy..)

I can safely say that here without fear of retalliation-unlike his message boards.

Unfort- those images just truly confirmed it for me. He should NOT be Superman. Look hold OLD and (almost) exotic he looks. Clark Kent is All-American. Always has been, always will be. Cyberfury- look at this picture and tell me if you want this guy to be our Superman. http://imdb.com/gallery/granitz/2471/Events/2471/JimCavieze_Grani_2860844_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Caviezel,%20James

Though I dearly would like Cavaziel as Superman ... Millar has a gift for making crap up and I don't know if he's ever told the truth when it comes to this kind of thing. From the Fantastic Four movie to Orson Welle's Batman, the guy likes to make up stuff just to see people froth at the mouth. What is $1000 worth to him? Answer: The fun of watching people go crazy over Cavaziel as Superman. If it were a $10,000 bet, I'd be more apt to believe the little liar. $1000 is nothing to him. Cavaziel is perfect for Kent/Superman. I'd like to see some flashbacks that involve Tom Welling, though.

I think now Welling will be Superman sadly since I think if they did do that wait a little longer and end Smallville and then do Superman but studios can't wait. Also about X-men I don't exactly think Singer let anybody down by doing this but it still sucks I guess because when X3 comes it will have a new style and view which might blow but who knows maybe someone can come along and make it better then the first two. I'm just afraid they will try and hire Brett Ratner to do it and it will be the worst comic book movie ever. I only say this because it seems that Hollywood is pushing Ratner to be huge with that stupid movie with James Bond in it called After the Sunset or some crap which it looks like the other heist movie with a James Bond movie in it called Entraptment. So yeah get James Cameron to do X3 lol and somebody beat the crap out of Bret Ratner and let Jackie Chan be Superman, wait what?

The scene in Monte Cristo sold me with Caviezel in flowing cape: www.angelfire.com/celeb2/j_caviezel_2/photos-count/images/count531.jpg http://romanticmovies.about.com/library/graphics/countpicsk.jpg

If I remember, Singer wanted JC for Cyclops, but he turned down the role, so Bryan's definitely a fan of his work.

...Mark Millar is writing the best SPIDER-MAN stories I've read in 20 years. I have a feeling Harry is more in the know here, but Caviezel is a good choice.

...because the director can't. Caviezel-Schmezel. Singer? The guy who wouldn't have Storm flying because it isn't realistic...like controlling the weather and that hair IS realistic? The guy who dressed the X-MEN in leftover DUNE costumes and told us the only alternative was yellow spandex? The guy who wanted human sized Sentinels or Sentinels that resembled the rolling Battle Droids from EPISODE 1, because "giant robots won't work on screen the way they will in a comic book" ... except in SKY CAPTAIN & THE WORLD OF TOMMOROW.

The way you just "can't see" Caviezel as Supes... as if any of you would have chosen Keaton to play Batman back in 1989. You would have called it a sign of the apocalypse. Give Caviezel some credit for being a decent actor. That's what "acting" is all about... having the range to play different characters and types. I'd rather see a good strong actor like him in the part instead of a half-assed, pretty-faced rookie with no chops.

Harry, love the site -- but give me a break. With all the people TRULY suffering in the world from diseases, the BEST you could come up (if you win) is the fucking Comic Book Legal Defense Fund? Hey, if someone needs legal representation for having published something that crossed the line, they can go get a lawyer or a public attorney. Or stick the bill back to the publisher. Sorry, Harry, but IF you win, quite frankly, the money you made would be FAR better spent even simply going to your local hospital and buying teddy bears or presents for children in the burn or cancer ward -- which would be an act truly human, touching and ACTUALLY emotionally affecting and uplifting.

If Harry loses this bet, I'm selling my rocket.

If you lose Harry (and I hope you don't, seriously -- Caviezel ist the wrong choice for Supes), I will call Domino's of Austin and have an XL pizza with your smiling mug drawn out on the top of cheese with mini-sausages. It's the least I could do.

I have a friend who is a lapsed catholic who has superman figurines, pictures and posters fucking EVERYWHERE. Many times I've told him he's still a catholic, he's just replaced Jesus with Superman. The Virgin Mary with Lois Lane...this would have been my great chance to be proven right. Imagine! Superman washing Lois's feet! Distributing Bread and Wine to a fermented food items hungry earth! Walking on water and seeing the reflection of his woefully underdeveloped red panty concealed "package". Becoming an egomaniacal sacrificial figure for all those atheists out there. If this is the case then I am forced to say that God truly is dead!

or is Jim Caviezel the new Kevin Kostner.

There are orphans starving in Iraqi because Michael Moore ate all their cheeseburgers, and Harry has an opportune moment to lace his political diatribe with some hard cash and this is what we get. Its been a while since the fervor of Fahrenheit 9/11 so I guess we're on to the next flavor. I'm glad that's what this site is no longer about and we can get back to movies.

Why does he get to pick his own charity when he loses? The winner should pick the charity that the loser will pay to. That would be so much more sportsmanlike.

So there!

I only read "Ultimates Vol. 1" and issue #1 of the "Unfunnies" but I dug the hell out of them. I'm just wondering because I haven't heard you voice on modern comic books since, well, ever. Most I ever got was you talkin about Peter David's Hulk run and that was 10 years ago. anyway, just wondering what you were reading of Millar. Doubt this'll get answered anyway, but you never know...

They said he's REALLY interested, and that it's a sure thing, and the interviewee was agreeing with him as he is the perfect choice and blahblah thank God it wasn't Hartnett blahblah Jude Law passed on it blahblah. SO - what's going on?

Having just seen The Highwaymen, I simply can't believe that anyone would think that Jim Caveizal is perfect for the role of Clark Kent/Superman. Like Eric Bana, this guy is boOoring to watch and seems to have the emotional range of a coffee table. There are moments in the film where he actually sounded like he was reading the script aloud for the first time. As for Tom Welling, I think he would be great except for the fact that most people would assume that it would be SMALLEVILLE: THE MOVIE and be completely confused if they saw other actors playing Lex Luthor, Ma and Pa Kent, etc. As they say in Hollywood, "never overestimate the intelligence of the movie going public." There was also mention of the actor who played Colossus in X-men 2 being considered for the role. I do hope that if Bryan Singer is looking to his circle of friends to fill the key roles in his Superman movie, that he consider Famke Jansen for the role of Lois Lane. I think that if they can't find an incredible unkown actor for the title role, they should strongly consider Brendan Fraser for the part. He literally towers over the competition, and would add an instant "likeability" quality to the role. Not only is he physically perfect as Superman, but his comedic acting chops make him the BEST suited actor of the aforementioned group to pull off Clark Kent. I'm looking forward to seeing him and Sandra Bullock in their upcoming film to see if they have any chemistry, since both have been mentioned as possible choices in the past for this movie.

...for a moment and try to hear Chris Reeves' voice in your head when he played Supes. Now try replacing it with Jim Caviezel's. Now just for fun try it with Bruce Campbell... Well, you get the point. It's no good just getting the look right, you have to have the voice. Even George Lucas knows that, or he wouldn't have dubbed Jones over Prowse.

Let's get on with a NON-REMAKE, okay? When are we going to see a screen version of DAMAGE CONTROL? I'd pay good money to see that in a theater.

Harry, would you please stop your hating on a capable and upcoming actor for merely headlining a role for which you have no regard simply because you are an intolerant liberal? - - - - - - - For what it's worth, most fanboys favor him in the role. Other TalkBacks obviate this. For what it's worth, Millar's cause is noble while yours is not. This very TalkBack obviates this.

The winnings should be donated to the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation. Just seems a little more appropriate, don't you think?

Immortal fish, I don't think the word "obviate" means what you think it means... It is INCONCEIVABLE to think that it does. :-)

...and why should I care what he says?

...I want Harry to lose, I want Mark to win, I want those kids to get Harry's money. I don't really care who plays Superman but if kids are helped then rock on.

Sorry, I wouldn't.

Millar said long ago that McG was never gonna do Supes, that it was gonna be somebody big that fanboys would actually be excited about, and that Abrams script was long-since shitcanned. And he was exactly right, and all the while Harry and AICN were still posting venomous rants against the evil WB for hiring McG and how we'd see Beyonce as Lois and all that gibberish. NOW Harry thinks his source is golden? I think you're being played, Harry. Even so, Caviezel is gonna have to hit the gym damn hard if he's even thinking about doing this. Whatever happens, next year looks promising for comic fans as both Elektra and Batman look better and better.

LOL yes I 100 percent agree with u gayzilla . I don't quite understand how Jim getting struck by lightning saw it as a sign god was pleased he was playing Jesus ! Yeah aliens for superman and er... all future Jesus's .

Does each charity get a grand?

so jesus isn't superman...that must mean it is MOSES!!!!! WOOOO HOOOO CHUCKY HESTON IS BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN!!!!!! STRING UP THE OLD CODGER IN SOME WIRE FUCKIN FU!!!!!! THIS SHIT SCREEEEEAMS FOR McG!!!!! ALL HAIL McG!!!!! DON'T LET SINGER FUCK IT ALL UP BY MAKING IT MAKE SENSE!!!!! THIS NEEDS SOME FUCKING MASSIVE PRODUCT PLACEMENT FOR SOME EMPTY FUCKING STORY!!!!!! YEEESSSSSSSSIRRREEEEEBOB!!!! I NEED ME SOME GODDAMN PRODUCT!!!! LET ME BUY SOME PRODUCT!!! I'LL GIVE MY LEFT NUT AND MY MAMA FOR SOME PRODUCT!!!!!! CAUSE BUSH AND CHENEY TOLD ME TO BUY SOME PRODUCT CAUSE IT IS WHAT THE REAL JESUS WANTS ME TO DO!!!!! GOOODDDD BLESSSS AMMMEERRRRICCCAAAA LLAAANNNNDDD TTHHHHAATTT IIII LLLLOOOVVVEEEEE!!! LLLEEETTTT THE EEEEEEAGLE SOARRRRRRR!!!!...And thus, from my dead cold hands! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

Strangley enough, Christian Bale...who IS playing batman, played Jesus in the TV movie "Mary, mother of Jesus"....And of course, strangely enough, Pernilla August (AKA Anakin's Skywalkers mom, Shimi) played Mary.....

err, you really couldn't have misjudged me more. I AM an artist and musician, and i know the difference between doing personal work and doing work that you can sell. very rarely are the two the same. And i have a huge cmic book collection. so basically, what i'm saying is, doint be such a fucking prick.

so ur right there I remember seeing him as Jesus on some dodgy credit card orderline for those Bible DVD'S made for those of the Christian persuasion. They have an uncanny way of getting actors that just aren't yet that famous, just before they make it big . Either that or they keep it very very quiet ..

Then you'll see how fucking boriing it is and how you really should make an official announcement NOW! At this rate everyone will be so fucking tired of Superman that no one will give a fuck whether the films any good.

first, Bale as Batman, and then McG's out, enter Singer .... now i really need to find out, will WB make it a hat-trick by casting Caviezel as Superman??? Come on!!!CAVIEZEL for SUPERMAN!

Unless you're interested in a not-safe-for-work surprise. sk

Really, I think Matt LeBlanc (Joey from friends) would be the best. Anyone who saw him rise to the occasion in Lost in Space, knows he can act and can pull off the action hero. Not only does he have the build, he looks "All-American"

Don't you get it? The reason Harry chose the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is because it's a charity strongly supported by many of the people Millar works alongside in the comic industry. Harry is shaming Millar in front of his peers by dangling money in their faces that both he and Mark know they're never going to see.

It's a personal decision. Sure, not the one I would have chosen, but then, when I donate to Amnesty International, I don't expect Greenpeace to come bitch at me. Besides, how many of you babies donate to charity, period? Anyhoo, no matter what the charity, this is still a fun exercise. Good show, Harold.

Perfect! http://www.skrattkammaren.com/superman.JPG

Frequency, Passion of the Christ, and now possibly Superman. Why does Caveziel keep picking roles where his father is inhumanly remote?

It definitely should be Caviezel playing Supes. If not him then who? Huh? I don't want a no name hack, nor do I want that young pretty boy from the TV show. So then you tell me......who is left to play the man of steel? I know....lets get Charlie or Emilios opinion.

its a done deal.

(everybody together now...) A WAGER?!?!?!?!?!?....And thus, who's carrying the gold? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

IMDB.com/news "From Super Athlete to Superman?" Michael Phelps, America's new golden boy is currently being tested for the role of Clark Kent/Superman in the Bryan Singer directed film "Superman 5" for Warner Brothers. Apparently Singer, taking the advice of an online website, decided to hire a swimmer for the role of Superman. It's unclear if Phelps arch-rival Ian Thorpe will be cast as Lex Luthor. When Phelps was asked for comment he replied with the following, "I grew up watching Superman as a kid. He is an icon the same way that I have become an icon after the Athens Games. I plan to have fun with the role if I get it. The best decision so far that I read in the script was the removal of any references to Kryptonite. I am glad Brian is updating Superman for our times, he shouldn't be vulnerable to anything." When Bryan (who was booted from X3 by a jealous FOX) was asked about the decision and about the direction of the new Superman film he said the following "I get all my ideas from the internet, and that fanbase is pretty loyal. I plan to bring everything they have been clammoring to see, Warewolves and Vampires, A Tomboy Beanpole as Lois, Hulk Hogan as one of Lex' henchmen, someone raping Clark's childhood, and of course deliver a film on par with the extravagant Van Helsing! I am glad I am still able to work after making 2 overrated comic films. But if Paul WS Anderson can get away with destroying AVP, I can direct Superman!" As for more ideas, he also has the 1st scene mapped out and storyboarded already. "I want to open it with Jor-el and a baby Clark running from Nazi's and having Clark see his father get beat with a rifle by guards. I want to make the first Oscar Winning comic book adaptation!" Superman Returns is scheduled to open Summer 2005.

...so now I have to assume JC is going to be Superman simply because Harry says he's so sure it won't happen. Lately I've been using Harry as my George-from-Seinfeld litmus test on all things entertainment related (doing the opposite of what he thinks is a good idea) and it's been working out very well for me. But this raises an interesting question: If JC is going to be the Man from Krypton and, during the movie some joker hands him red Kryptonite, will he sprout horns and a tail? Or will he take on a sudden and striking resemblance to Curious George (the monkey or the president... really makes no difference). Come to think of it, what was Jesus' Kryptonite? Nails and wood? Ironic that he was born the son of a carpenter, then, ain't it? I'd really like to see JC play a double role in Anderson's upcoming Jesus vs. Superman flick. That'd be cool.

READ HARRY'S POST CAREFULLY: JESUS AIN'T SUPERMAN. You're right. Jesus ISN'T Superman. Jesus is Jesus, Superman is Superman and even though Caviezel played Jesus on screen, he is NOT Jesus. He's an actor, the best male actor working today, IMHO (even if Highwaymen stunk, so Caviezel didn't make the best choice in deciding to take the role). Still, if Caviezel is cast, Harry will say, "I said JESUS ain't Superman, NOT JIM CAVIEZEL". Still, I am so comic book movied out that I have no desire to see a Superman movie unless it has Caviezel in it. PS. I still can't believe they tapped Singer. His X-MEn movies are so overrated... and bad. Can you picture the Superman movie by Singer with an X-Men like opening title sequence and score? Sorry, again, unless this has Caviezel, I'll stick with my classic Donner dvd.

Because he's Jesus Christ SUPER star.

Forget Superman, but Cole Hauser should play Flash Gordon. Or Neal McDonough.

How about Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor (he worked with Singer on USUAL SUSPECTS), William H. Macy(as Perry White), Patrick Stewart (as a Krypton senator), Jamie Kennedy as Jimmy Olsen, Gabriel Byrne (as Papa Kent), and - in flashbacks - Pierce Brosnan as Jor El. As for Lois, well Kate Beckinsale is not a bad choice.

He's got all kinds of range. I understand when some people worry about Caviezel being kind of old if WB wants to make a bunch of sequels. The solution is simple: MAKE THE SUPERMAN MOVIE AND ITS SEQUELS ALL TOGETHER LIKE LORD OF THE RINGS.

looks good here.... http://www.iamdavidmovie.com/

The only thing that could make this movie worse than casting Jim Caviezel (sorry, good actor, but he just ain't Superman) would be to get Michael Kamen or, God forbid, Marco Beltrami to score the flick. Mr. Singer, please get someone with real talent like Gabriel Yared, or at the very least James Horner. Horner may be pop symphony to some but there's no doubt as to his capability to right a rousing piece of music. (Wrath of Khan, Aliens) Beltrami has been generating one crappy score after another. Hollywood is penny pinching certain departments so maybe this guy comes cheap. Oh yeah, one more thing...NO DANNY FREAKIN' ELFMAN!!!! Talented, but since when and why did he become the superhero movie score guy?

have an extra-extra-large set of Superman underwear?

James Caviezel is too old, too scrawny and too boring to play Superman. Gerard Butler, on the other hand...

"The Left hates Catholics." Let's look at this statement for a second and see just how ridiculous it is. I am a liberal. I am also a Catholic. So, therefore, I must hate myself. I, as well as the majority of this country, plan to vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. But wait, John Kerry is a Catholic. Nobody in this country hates Catholics, nobody hates Christians. Does the Catholic Church have a lot of archaeic policies that hurt its member as well as the rest of the world? Hells yes. But that is the fault of the Vatican, not of the Catholic people. Most Catholics, like myself, have reached the age of reason to discover that 1) Gays are not evil 2) Abortion is not murder 3) Birth Control is not evil and 4) Priests should be allowed to marry. Some, if not most of these policies, WILL CHANGE after the passing of John Paul II. Bryan Singer is, according to the conservatives, a faggot. Therefore, why would he want to work with someone who openly hates him? Nicole 21, would you like to work with someone who hates women? If you are a woman, and I kind of doubt that, how can you be anti-abortion and anti-birth control? That's like a black man being pro-segregation. If you are pro-choice, and for God's sake I hope you are, why on earth would you be a conservative? The war in Iraq? If that's the reason, why don't you go down to your local recruiter's office and enlist in the Active Army in one of their line units in the middle east? Why don't I see any of these Republicans over here? We sure as hell need more people. This is their war. The conservatives should be fighting it, not the little people. Come on over Republicans, if you think you're too old or have another bullshit excuse you can always get a waiver. We promise, your Christian views will be safe here!

Nicole 21, thanks for avoiding most of the points I made. I can understand, you didn't have any satisfactory answers. All over the world, all religions, not just Catholicism, are being used to push bullshit political agendas and things that have nothing to do with God. If Bush wasn't pro-life and against gay rights he would lose about 90% of his supporters-including you. Republicans know religion is a valuable tool for them because it allows them to mobilize all the ignorant, intolerant religious people in this country. Why else would anyone who isn't rich want to be a Republican? President after President, regime after regime, they ruin the economy, start unnecessary wars and increase the tax burden on the poor and middle class while giving the rich an even larger piece of the pie. How else can they do this? By mobilizing religious idiots like yourself to vote for them and support their cause. It's not that I hate you, I don't, I feel sorry for you Nicole. Your being used.

Not Jim Caviezal,Harry hates the fact that someone who played jesus in a positive light could pull of the role of superman.Why, who knows,it's not like Jimmy C is a religous fanatic or anything he just played a part. Harry tell the truth,am i wrong? do you think the guy is a horrible actor? He could pull it off and i hope he gets a shot at it,and the comic book defense fund? You couldn't send it to Florida for Hurricane relief,you really are a big piece of SHIT ,I HOPE YOU LOOSE THIS BET AND HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO ALOT OF PEOPLE.

After 9/11 many were making predictions of numerous terrorist attacks taking place in the United States, comparable to the terrorism that has spread like a cancer in Europe, Asia, and of course, Israel. Yet, since 9/11/2001 we have yet to have the predicted terrorist attacks in the United States. Why? Because of the decisions and leadership of President Bush. Even the badly timed 9/11 commission concludes in its report that we ARE safer, although, obviously, not yet completely safe. But who, including the experts, would have predicted that there would be no attacks here, in the United States since the 9/11 attacks; not even a lone suicide bomber. The credit goes to the leadership of President Bush for keeping us safe, so far. His strategy must not be interrupted. In order to have any hope of safety in this country, President Bush must remain in office. Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq is a major part of the strategy that has kept us safe. The terrorists who would have been murdering innocents here are now drawn to Iraq. President Bush has brilliantly moved the battlefield away from the homeland. Despite the lies of Michael Moore and John Kerry, the evidence points to the fact that Iraq was a haven and training ground for terrorists, including Al queada, a fact also confirmed by the 9/11 commission(no, it could not confirm specific cooperation directly for the 9/11 attacks, in terms of evidence, but they found plenty of evidence of a history of cooperation and communication). Under Saddam, Iraq also was not only open about its policy of funding Palestinian suicide bombers to attack Israel, but bragged about it. Moore put a negative spin on President Bush challenging the terrorists to "Bring it on" in the early stages of the Iraq war, but this turned out to be a brilliant move to draw the battle away from the United States, and allow our brave and heroic military to sacrifice and fight the terrorists in their own backyard, and eliminate them before they can reach our shores. Make no mistake, the last thing the terrorists want is a free and prosperous Iraq, based on democratic ideals of individual liberty and a free market, because once a people taste just a little of freedom and prosperity, they are less likely to become desperate and brainwashed suicide bombers who are influenced by those who have no sincere interest in religion but use fundamentalist religion as a tool to hold political power and influence, and expand that power. The true leaders of these terrorist groups do NOT have any sincere belief in the Muslim religion any more than Hitler sincerely believed the Germans were a superior race. They use religion, as Hitler used patriotism, as a tool for control,deception, and slavery of the will. Such tools are more effective against a desperate people who live in the dark ages and aren't allowed to freely participate in the dealings of the rest of the free world. Don't be fooled by those who call this a religious war. This is freedom versus slavery; liberty versus oppression. That is why the terrorists fear a free Iraq, because once freedom spreads, the people will fight for themselves to keep it. Liberals who say the Iraqi's can't handle freedom, and were better under Saddam are racists. Our founding fathers understood that liberty and freedom is a Natural Right, granted by the ultimate authority who created Nature, and is deserved by all people, no matter what race or religion. To portray an enslaved Iraq as some kind of utopia as Moore does is deception. To imply that Iraqi's are better off as slaves, and can't handle freedom, is racist. Defeating Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do on many levels, including being vital in the success of the war on terror and keeping us safe here at home in the U.S.,. President Bush has made us safer and liberated Iraq thanks to his leadership, despite the deception of our so-called "allies". Moore puts forward another deception by claiming that we are less safe because President Bush "alienated" our allies, like France, Germany, and Russia. The fact is, these "allies" along with the United Nations were helping Saddam Hussein oppress his people, as revealed in the oil for food scandal. Michael Moore told Ted Koppel on nightline that an uprising against Saddam should have been initiated, and primarily fought, by the Iraqi people. When Mr. Koppel brought up the comparison of the difficulties of the Iraqi's fight for freedom with the American Revolution, and how America got help from other countries, such as France, Moore argued that it was ok for other countries to fight along side with the Americans because Americans initiated the uprising. What Moore deceptively does not mention is that the Iraqi people DID attempt an uprising, but were overmatched by Saddam's military and weapons of mass destruction. Now , with the facts of the oil for food scandal coming out, we realize that the Iraqi people not only had Saddam's oppressive rule to deal with, but countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, along with the corrupt United Nations. We now learn that all of these forces were against the virtually weaponless Iraqi people, and our supposed “allies” were working with Saddam to keep them down. These are not the allies we need to be relying on to keep our country safe. These so called allies who are sympathetic and appease terrorists and terrorist nations, also would keep a people enslaved to keep their financial interests and conceal their corruption. Don't fall for the rhetoric that we would be safer with these corrupt governments on our side. Thank God for a true leader like President Bush. No one believed President Reagan could defeat communism in the same way no one believes we can win the war on terrorism. Thank God for true leaders like President Bush. God bless our troops and the Iraqi people who are fighting for freedom and individual liberty.

Bushsux failure in logic is shown in Bushsux's inference that those who sincerely believe in Christianity are automatically intolerant people. By that logic, Bushsux's sincere belief that it is OK to have an abortion, or that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is also intolerance, just by the mere act of sincerely believing these things. Sincere belief is not intolerance. More specifically, sincere belief in Christianity is not intolerance. To be intolerant of other beliefs and people while being Christian at the same time is a contradiction, since such intolerance is a sin. However, sincere belief in Christianity also means a sincere belief in objective right and wrong; the existence of good and evil; the recognition of evil and sin as a rebellion and distance from God. A sincere Christian cannot ignore or fail to recognize a true and objective evil. Yet it is the sin and the evil the Christian cannot tolerate, not the sinner or the evil-doer, for God commands us to forgive. Yet forgiving, logically,implies wrongdoing on the part of the one being forgiven. The objective wrong must be recognized; the evil must be fought(just as one can separate the disease from the patient; one must fight the disease, not the patient; sin is the disease). Christians sincerely believe that abortion is wrong, evil,and sinful, because we learn through revelation that God commands us not to kill, and to end an innocent life is killing. Such a belief is an illustration of a belief in morality, a true right and wrong, NOT intolerance(for, intolerance is a true wrong). Philosophical disagreements about morality are not inherently intolerant. Not allowing one to express their sincerely held moral and religious beliefs is intolerance. Sincere debate about morality is not intolerant or hate speech. However, not allowing sincere debate , by accusing a sincere belief as politically incorrect, is censorship and intolerance. A sincere Christian believes in objective morality, or a true right and wrong, because a sincere Christian believes in the Creator. A Christian can determine specifics about what is right and wrong because a sincere Christian believes that the Creator, God, told us through revelation, and by becoming man in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. These words have been passed through history, and a Christian that doesn't believe in the words of God Himself, recorded by man, is not a sincere Christian, or at least an ignorant one. Those who would deny the historical authenticity of God's word, and call themselves Christians or Catholics, do so inaccurately. Those who would dismiss God's words and characterize abortion as merely a political issue, cannot logically be Christian, whether they choose to call themselves that or not. For the Christian, abortion is a moral issue, and for morality to exist, God must exist. And the reality of God's existence and moral laws come from a sincere belief in the words and life of the historical Jesus, and the reality of his words and miracles, especially his miraculous resurrection. (Miracles, by the way, are logical)

Bale, Singer and let it be Caviezel! we need gravitas people! not some freshface handsome BOYS! CAVIEZEL for SUPERMAN!

Frankly speaking, I hope Millar's right, because the movie's going to suck anyway, so who really cares, and Jim whatever his name is, has been in other movies, I know the only any cares about is passion, and all the other ones sucked bad too. All that aside, Millar fucking rules and Harry well, when I see him write more than one crappy sentence at a time, and write a convencing story maybe I'll care. Until then damn him for getting so much press for this site years back, other wise we'd all be posting on another site that didn't suck as much and would upgrade their lame ass king kong background.

Superman is out to save the world is all

You can now partake on my sack, no you can't safely say that about Millar because unlike you he's written something I like (superman :red son) until you write more than a mere sentence where you basically beg to be attack, you can... that's right partake on my sack.

Comicdom's chief scooper Rich Johnston has more details on the inside story here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13

Okay I realize this is not a political board, but with all you hateful neocons (antoniosbloc,voicebox5, et al)spouting your Bush-loving rhetoric I feel compelled to respond.1st unless your (a) a relegious fanatic or (b) extremely wealthy, you have nothing to gain from supporting this president. He could give a shit about you. He acts like a good ole boy , but he doesn't have to sweat the economy and everyday life like a good ole boy. You are pawns in his game, and he is playing you like a violin. All of you who hate Michael Moore, obviously haven't seen the film. Where Bush says "The haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite, I call you my base."If that doesn't tell you where he stands, then you are beyond hope.2nd,If you consider yourself a Christian, then you are a hypocrite. Christ despised flagrant wealth, judgement of others, and war based on religious principles. The religious right is anything but, and if Jesus came back tommorrow they would nail him up on the cross ASAP because they don't follow his word. Third if you enjoy the freedom to see what you want to see, and do what you want to do, this president is not for you. The FCC is his bitch and it's fines may not affect the shows you watch, but the day it does, you'll be sorry. Want to see Tony Soprano say "darn", Vic mackey say "Aw shucks?". Then go ahead, coz the FCC is planning on regulating cable, and taking your freedom away. Fourth, your all so afraid of terrorism you don't realize the terror in the air you breathe and the food you eat. There's so much mercury in fish, and harmful hormones in meat, that cancer and other maladies are multiplying. Autism is at a record high, and they think mercury may be a leading factor. Well Bush's enviromental policies, facilitate this and your too ignorant to see it. If we're so safe, why are our ports and chemical plants unguarded? Just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, you don't think we can't be again? They don' t rush out and do this, they plan for years before they strike out again. You hear Bush and Cheney go on about Iran, and believe me, that's next on their list. Meanwhile Halliburton does business with Iran (even when Cheney was working there). You think we're liberators? Why don't we liberate North Korea, where human rights violations make Iraq look like Disneyland. Hell they even have Nukes there, and a guy crazy enough to use them. but nah, we're blowing money that could help our economy, our poor, and our health care, on a place that was never a threat to us. You can bitch about Kerry all you want, and make fun of clinton's health problems(but if it was bush or cheney (again) you'd call someone who made fun of them "unamerican" and hateful. Hell I'm not that crazy about Kerry, but faced with the alternative, he can't be any worse, and believe me if Bush wins agai, it will get worse. Finally, whether Bush winsa again or not, you clueless turds are in for a shock. The republican party is gonna shatter real soon. Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, John McCain and many other conservatives have already spoke of it. A lot of Republicans AREN'T eveil or crazy, They are true fiscal conservatives, that believe in less spending, less taxes for small businesses,and other causes that have their merit. But they don't believe in this crazy, hateful,right wing polarizing nonsense that is creating economic and social havoc.They don't like Bush and cheney, and they know if Bush wins, Democrats will win more seats in the House and Senate, and take away their power, because people are sick of being ignored because they aren't rich, don't want church and state merging,etc. So laugh and brag now, your getting ready for a rude awakening.Now I know you won't understand this, because you are sheep, and sheep don't think. You do what your told, and don't give a shit about anybody but yourself. So everyone who is sane vote in november, and get this country's sanity back, or we're gonna have these ideological bullies push us to the breaking point, and then they'll be sorry. by the way, Caviezal would suck as Supes, but Millar's charity should still get the $.

and yeah i saw i made some misspellings, so deal with it. At least it should make you feel more comfortable with the text. I could care less what you think, and what you write back, unless you get your head out fo your ass and see the light. I just wanted those out there who feel like I do, to know some people can call you tools on your bullshit.

if your a Bush supporter, let's see if you can answer this in a forthright way .If Bush is so Christian, and a uniter, the Swift Boat goons for truth are good guys,and bush says Dems take black votes for granted answer me this. when McCain ran against bush for Rep Presidential nominee. Why did Karl Rove and the Swift Boat guys call up likely voters, and ask them is they would want to vote for a candidate who fathered a illegitamate black baby? McCain acknowleged this smear campaign happened against him. First off, McCain has a adopted baby from bangladesh, so the dipshits couldn't even get the ethnicity right. 2nd, how is that a christian, equal opportunity view? Bush knew about it, and had no problem with the tactics. and for such a pro-life candidate, I guess a black baby would be better off aborted, than to have, so as not be a political liability??? Why couldn't it have been a white baby they used to to smear him with??and the dems take black votes for granted? And Bush pisses them away, just like they got thrown out in the last election. Answer me the McCain question please, if you can.

I'd try paging them.