Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Ben Affleck will be SUPERMAN, not UPERMAN in HOLLYWOODLAND!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... Just got this wonderful wonderful news. Ben Affleck's George Reeves' SUPERMAN will have his "S"! Both in the Black & White suit and the Technicolor Suit! Which means - we get to see both suits with their blissfully draped capes!!! SUPERMAN!!! More SUPERMAN!!! In case you haven't noticed... I'm exquisitely happy about this Detective story about a non-comic tragedy regarding SUPERMAN! Ok, time to shower - it is that time of the year.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 6, 2006, 3:39 p.m. CST

    awesome

    by drstinkfinger

    awesome

  • July 6, 2006, 3:40 p.m. CST

    I like the Legion of Super-Heroes

    by FiendishMilt37

    I used to spank it to Phantom Girl and pretend I was Ultra Boy. What with penis and all.

  • July 6, 2006, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Where the hell is Andy Richter Rules the Universe?

    by Uncle Stan

    Still waiting! And for that matter, where are Lucan, Quark, Manimal, Car 54 Where are you?, and Beauty and the Beast?

  • July 6, 2006, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Too Oon!

    by Lance Rock

  • July 6, 2006, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Yay Superman!

    by Spaz_Monkey

    Thank God DC relented. The preview of the non-'S' uniform just looked lame!

  • July 6, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Kitchen Confidential is gone, but Reba goes on and on!

    by Uncle Stan

    I'd like to see one half-wit defend Reba. I suppose the same viewers are eating up According to Jim, or continue to bemoan the loss of Full House and Family Matters. Nutty as North Korea.

  • July 6, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    I like the idea of this film, almost like Auto-Focus...

    by SouthSide_2010

    Without all the sex. A story like this has me wanting to fork over another 8 bucks at the multiplex. See ya'll over there...

  • July 6, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    The Dupont Early Review

    by Alex Douchepot

    *Insert Meaningless Metaphor Here* Ben Afflek's return to form, oh but wait he never had a form. *Pause for laughter* Okay now as much as I like cornflakes, sometimes you bite one that tastes like infected yeast. *Insert rambling about attractive lesbians* This movie had me going sometimes, but sometimes it DIDN'T HAVE ME GOING. Here's what happens. *Insert Meaningless Metaphor* ------End

  • July 6, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Who cares?

    by AlgertMopper

    It's Ben Affleck, who the fuck cares? Kevin Smith cocksuckers?

  • July 6, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    YackBacker: More than you think

    by ByTor

    More people know George Reeves than you think -- especially folks who've been adults longer than a week or two. My wife, my brothers-in-law, and my parents all know who Reeves was, and none are comic-book fans, sf fans, genre fans, or fall into any of the other geekly categories encompassing aicn visitors.

  • July 6, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    AlgertMopper took the words right out of

    by Jugdish

    my mouth. Big Deal.

  • July 6, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    jay and silent bob strike back...

    by BloodStaind

    everytime i see affleck i just picture him saying "how you like them apples bitch?"

  • July 6, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    Ye !!!!!

    by casinoskunk

    that is very good news. did Hollywoodland have to pay and arm and a leg to get the "S"? or are they making it a different symbol?

  • July 6, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST

    still doesnt mean im gonna like ben affleck

    by tripp5

    seriously, he suuuuuuuuux.

  • July 6, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Affleck will reign supreme!

    by jack_noisewater

    One day the Fleck will give an outstanding performance that will silence all the naysayers. He can be a great actor if he wishes it, he only lacks the light, oh and then several monkeys will fly directly out of my ass.

  • July 6, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Affleck with the "S"

    by Snookeroo

    http://tinyurl.com/p62bt -- just sayin'.

  • July 6, 2006, 4:23 p.m. CST

    It's really nice to see...

    by Harysuxafat1

    something original come out of that shithole people call Hollywood. I'm genuinely looking forward to this. Perhaps with SR flopping hard at the BO WB though it would be good to get some more exposure.

  • July 6, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    I wonder how many people are going to confuse George...

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    ...with Christopher and wonder why he gets murdered in this film instead of paralyzed in a horse riding accident.

  • July 6, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Man Harry really *loves* superman...

    by brycemonkey

    I mean *LOVES!*

  • July 6, 2006, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Two words...

    by zacdilone

    Woeful. Miscasting.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Wasn't Liev Shreiber directing this?

    by BayouWilly

    And I do believe the crazy, obsessive wife of a producer that he was banging shot him when he tried to end things. From what I can remember from whatever TV special I watched, he just got a part in a movie and they renewed Superman, so he had no reason to do himself in.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST

    by kbass

  • July 6, 2006, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Big Red S

    by kbass

    That's great news about the "S." It just wouldn't have looked right without it.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    If you are American, you were BANNED from work on this

    by lettersoftransit

    Surprised that no one on this site seems to care that all these wonderful projects shooting in Canada were made under agreements that stipulated YOU must not be considered for work on it. That is, if you're an American citizen. It is an ongoing crime that affects each and every person who works or wants to work in the film business and who also happens to hold US citizenship. Yet you How can it be that you're all so interested in seeing the story of the crime commited against George Reeve and apparently not interested in the crimes being commited against you and your chances at working in the industry? Ben Affleck himself showed more concern about your livelihoods than you do, when he appeared the Democratic National Convention and implored American studios to stop outsourcing productions to Canada, which designed its subsidies program to help everybody outside the US get work and to make sure that Americans would be banned from working on a shitload of American films (try more than a third of our films, and three-quarters of our longform TV shows) You like science fiction? Want to work on a science fiction show? Try looking into how nmany of them are done in Canada, and then try to understand that each of those shows is produced under written agreements stipulating that you-- mr or ms american wanna work in showbiz -- you are to be banned from working on it.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Terriffic, now just do something about the Affleck

    by modlight

    and they might be on to something.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    AFFLECK

    by THE KNIGHT

    I have nothing to offer to this conversation....

  • July 6, 2006, 5:41 p.m. CST

    forumfatale.com

    by THE KNIGHT

    You are a cunt.... I don't see any reason you have to pick on harry... Bitch...

  • July 6, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Transit!! Really?!

    by modlight

    I can't imagine a country in this day and age, in north america of all places, wanting to keep jobs from immigrant workers from the south. Crazy man, crazy. Its like they think that Hollywood has bullshit work ethic and unions that make things not as cost effective. Well I live in Hollywood and it just isn't true. We're starving down here! Effin Canadians.

  • July 6, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST

    *generic harry shower joke*

    by digital8

  • July 6, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Who the hell cares about this movie?

    by Darth Evil Dead

    There are no Snakes in it!! If they made it so that Superman was killed by Snakes with Kryptonite Venom.. Then whe have a movie there. It will be Brody trying to find the myster of the Snakes Kryptonite powers and find out that Lex Luther and the producer of Gigli were behind the Death of Superman !!! http://www.youtube.com/user/DarthEvilDead

  • July 6, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Modlight -- BELIEVE it!

    by lettersoftransit

    Our country (USA) is more than happy to bring immigrant workers in the South, so long as they agree to be abused. And our country is just as willing to let corporations from the North abuse our workers by mandating they are cut off from opportunities to work on US films. Check out the Canadian sites for CAVCO (Canadian Audio Visual Certification Office), and the Canadian Television Fund, etc. You may have to wade through a sea of arcane looking rules but they add up to this: The Canadian government will pay you money if you agree to refuse to hire Americans. (supposedly it is just to help Canadians,but they "make allowances" if you are a member of the EU -- or just about anything else besides an American. (they don't come out and say it's designed to hurt Americans; they just say it's designed to help everybody else BUT Americans). If you're an American you might be qualified to do the job, you might be willing to show up at the site and pay your own way, you might even be the guy who wrote the original script in the first place. You might even have all your papers in order to work in Canada. But the Canadian government will insist that so long as you are an American, the production will be financially penalized for hiring you, evne if it's an American production. Hell, even if you wrote the oritginal script. So just how many of you think that you've got a fair shot at working in the industry so long as there is a foreign government saying "we'll pay you millions of dollars to help shoot your film -- so long as you agree not to hire that American."

  • July 6, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Tens of Thousands of Canadians

    by lettersoftransit

    ...that are here so they can be available for jobs on American films that they know they have a good shot at it becuase their American neighbors are banned from consideration for those same jobs. If this was happening to any other group we'd be outraged. Hell, we'd be outraged if it was Canadians being banned from work on US productions just because they're Canadians. So why is there no outrage amongst Americans that they are being banned from work on American films not just despite being Americans, but BECAUSE they are Americans. It's supposed to be illegal for any company to take money in exchange for a promise not to consider hiring someone because of who they are. Yet we're allowing it to go on. Do you want to spend your life writing posts to AICN or do you want to have a fair chance at actually working in the industry? If so then you can either demand that the industry stop allowing people to ban you from working or, I suppose, you can shrug and say my country has become such a corrupt bag of shit that I may as well pack it in and become one with the hosers.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:05 p.m. CST

    well harry...

    by calami-shami

    what changed their minds hmm? I dont remember seeing the shield in the trailer that was in front of Supes returns. Does that mean its going to be digital or was erased?

  • July 6, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    The Canadian Issue

    by getleethomas

    I assume here that your argument stems from the canadian tax break system for foreign productions (thus american productions) to gain an economic advantage - tax break - concluding in money returned to a production that would ordinarily be spent as taxation. Such 'breaks' require a certain level of expenditure in the territory whether it be on indigenous talent e.g. canadians working in the US, and/or directly within the territory (within canada) on goods, services, locations, local crew and ammenities. This requirement isn't so that the USA can be excluded but rather to promote the spending of funds in the country/territory/canada. Why wouldn't any self respecting government not offer such incentives - it drives inward spending. Why would studios/producers not take up such offers? They are incentivised for spending money in Canada - they are not told 'do not employ any Americans' rather they are asked to balance their spend between the US and Canada, and the more they are spending in canada the more they will see returned to them (which can amount to millions on bigger budgeted productions). This is a business people. We don't have a right to go spending millions of dollars on making films - the industry is just what it says - an industry. It's a machine to generate money. It's ridiculous to think of commercial, popcorn fodder as anything but product. SUch incentives from Canada and many other countries around the world allow for money to be genearted easier, or rather allow in an accounting sense to for it to go further or be returned faster. On the flipside of this, many independent productions find such incentives a blessing and a neccesity. Struggling to collate private finance or distribution deals. These tax breaks often float a cash pot to an acceptable level to begin production - loans can be taken against the amount of money they are set to receive back from such a tax break/incentive.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:15 p.m. CST

    It's technically a "costume"

    by Rinse

    ..not an "uniform," right? It's not like there's an organized group of super heroes running around wearing matching briefs on the outside. If there is, they should modify their charter and make dressing less douchey in public a priority.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST

    I would laugh...

    by lynxpro

    if this movie made more money than *Superman Returns*.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Canadian-shot movies ALWAYS look cheap

    by Charles Grady

    Think Magneto rallying the troops in a fucking forest. Think Elektra the assassin who works in... British Columbia? Think murky grey skies and douglas firs in every shot. Canadian-shot movies are a slap in the face of the viewer, who's just paid full price to see a wack-ass, low-budget filmed-on-the-cheap hack job. Notice how few MAJOR directors shoot in Canada; It's always some Fox superhero skimp fest or Elie Samaha hack job.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Grady...

    by getleethomas

    Incidentally all the above mentioned movies are pretty much the typical popcorn muncher - the product - money making exercises. Ideally we shouldn't be watching or paying to see these movies. Instead we should be watching the indies - but sadly this is not the case. And so incentives setup to support film-makers are usually hit by bugger companies who can turn a faster buck. Look at what happened in the UK with their tax break system it had to be completely overhauled because larger companies were taking the tax break across the whole budget of the film and yet not spending adequately in Britain thus negating the effectiveness of the incentive.

  • July 6, 2006, 7:58 p.m. CST

    Canada is not the problem...

    by brightidea

    Hey Transit, Instead of railing against the product or the Canadians who are letting movies get made, Write the unions, and government agencies here in the states and tell them to wake up. People are bitching about losing jobs but there is an economically more viable situation out there, and since this is show business the guys with the money are using it. Unions complain their members are losing jobs yet their rules "force" you to hire twice as many people as you need for the job and at higher rates. Government overs tax relief, but allocated in insane ways. The Canadians aren't trying to hurt us, they are trying to help themselves. Too bad we aren't doing the same.

  • July 6, 2006, 8:31 p.m. CST

    The American-Canadian issue ...

    by chrth

    WHO THE FUCK CARES?!?

  • July 6, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    canada can suck my balls

    by tripp5

    but only after affleck is done with 'em

  • July 6, 2006, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Aint it Why-are-you-reporting-this News?

    by chickychow

    Is this geeky or just plain wasting fucking space?!

  • July 6, 2006, 9 p.m. CST

    Why does "it's a business" mean it should not obey laws

    by lettersoftransit

    The Canadian "tax breaks" are not tqax breaks at all. They are financial kickbacks. And they are not simply about drawing money into canada. They are designed to make it possible for citizens of virtually every country to participate in the production. Unless you are a citizen of the U.S. And when this issue arises there is always somebody -- and always somebody who is benefitting -- who asks why wouldn't a country do this? Well, there's an answer to that. Because it's illegal, for one. The program is engineered to do harm to Americans. It rakes taxpayer money from other sectors in Canada and uses it to underwrite salaries for film and TV professionals -- and to give kickbacks to US producers who hire them and further guarantee that Americans will not be given equal opportunity, even if it's an American production. It is the polar opposite of free trade, and I can guarantee you that nobody who defends it -- here or elsewhere -- would defend it if the rules excluded them. Writers have been strongarmed into signing away their credits and letting Canadians put their names on scripts. Directors have been forced off projects they nurtured with the writer and producers. Actors have been forced off projects they shephereded along. And producers have been told they cannot hire the people they want to hire. They've even been told they must fire the people already on a project -- if the Canadians come calling with money in hand. Why wuold a country not do this? BecAuse it's a concerted and deliberate attack on a sector of people. Americans are not the collateral damage here. They are the target. The whole thing was designed to prevent YOU from getting work. That is, if you're an American. The system is designed to make sure that citizens of just about every other country can manage to get equal treatment. But not Americans. Why would a country not do this? How about because it's wrong? How about because we don't do it to their citizens? How about because it's illegal in numerous ways? We are not talking about people saying shoot in our country and we'll benefit just because you're here. We're talking about people (a country, actually) deliberately setting out to ruin thousands of lives and careers here in America. And don't tell me that it's okay just because some unions have rules about time and a half. Some of the people arranging these deals are pulling down eight and nine figure salaries, and we're supposed to believe that films cost too much because a union gaffer might actually make enough to live like a human being if he works eighty hours a week? That's not the problem. I know the facts and figures behind numerous canadian content productions and the budgets on the official books are equal to and even greater than they were before they went Canadian. And why is that? Because the Canadian kickbacks don't go into the budget. They go into the pockets of the people who set up the deal. And get this -- the Canadian government promises you they will not tell anyone they gave you the money. So great piles of money get funneled to offshore accounts -- not only failing to show up in the budget, or in the coffers of the studio (read: public owned company) but also failing to show up on twx returns. I have no beef with any government -- even Canada -- using their money to make their own films. But they have pussied out completely and don't do that. So, instead of having their own industry they break a shitload of laws (and cause Americans to break even more by taking the money) and wage a war on the decent hard-working people whose only sin is that they want to retain their U.S. citizenship and don't want to have to give it up so they can have a fair shot at being employed. The Canadian program is not free trade. But if you are among those who think anything a country does to make money for its people is okay, and that it doesn't matter so long as somebody making money off it, then I hope you have the consistency of moral position to say it doesn't matter why a country singles out people for harm. It should be okay then, for a European group to offer money in exchange for hiring people of european (i.e. WASP) descent. And it should be okay to you that they will deny the same benefits to anyone who is of different (i,e. African) descent. Hell, if it's okay for a commpany to deny a person's legal right to equal opportunity just because somebody else pays you to deny them that oppportunity, then somebody should start a fund offering bucks to anybody who guarantees they will never hire a person who's posted on AICN. Or anybody who's fat or got red hair. After all, why shouldn't the people who hate AICN or hate people with red hair be free to offer cash to anybody who will discsiminate against them? It's just business, right? The Nazis at nuremberg took the wrong defense by saying they were following orders. According to your logic they coulkd've and should've gotten off by saying "we made a shitload of money doing this." Let's change all the rules to say anything goes so long as somebody can stand up and say they made a buck. Would make international rade simple, not to mention our legal code.

  • July 6, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    "Truth, Justice, and sell out your sponsor country"

    by Kenny8

    "Superman Returns" shot in Australia, "Smallville" and "Hollywoodland" shot in Canada...no wonder they dropped the "..American Way" line, America has sold out the supposed American icon: Superman to support other countries film industries and save Hollywood a buck!

  • July 6, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Who else thinks lettersoftransit needs a girlfriend?

    by chrth

    Or a hobby? Or something? Do we honestly care about an issue that impacts at most a couple thousand people? Big flippin' deal dude.

  • July 6, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Feel free to get me a girlfriend if my wife agrees

    by lettersoftransit

    And my hobbies include the film and TV industry, which the people on this site not only care about but care about deeply. Many of them are in it or would like to be. At least they would like to know they have a fair shot and that nobody will bribe the studios to keep them out.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:27 p.m. CST

    by tz247

    America-- the only place in the world that hates Canadians, and the only place in the world everybody else loves to hate. If that means I don't ever visit America, it's no big loss to me, there are plenty of other places in the world that welcome Canadians with open arms. How many places would do the same for Americans? zero. Not to mention, most productions are going to Australia now because it's cheaper then Canada. Where's all the hate for Australia stealing jobs from Americans? They have the same laws there about film crews.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Read this article. It will piss you off royallly.

    by lettersoftransit

    ...if you are American, or if you're a Canadian who would rather see your tax dollars used more appropriately. Or if you're just a person who believes in fair play or fair trade. To the would-be filmmakers who also happen to be American, here's a link to the article in which some Canadian moosefucking bastard gloats about Ben Affleck being whipped for daring to speak out in favor of keeping Hollywood (or should I call it Hollywood South?) a place where you might have a chance of getting work. %This the only the tip of the iceberg, talkbackers. These passive aggressive pussy weasels freely thumb their noses at you for not having a government that looks out for you at all, while theirs looks out for them too much. He just loves that our corporate weasels take money and break laws to fuck you and that you don't even have the balls to stand up and say anything about it. Read it carefully. That is your future he's gloating about destroying.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Actually, HERE'S the link

    by lettersoftransit

    http://hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=1334

  • July 6, 2006, 10:49 p.m. CST

    lettersoftransit

    by BAMF

    Shut the fuck up. You're worth being banned for. I can always add another exclamation point. You, however, will always be an asshole.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Canadians Please Dont Think...

    by Alex Douchepot

    ...that every American is a fucking whack job like LetterofTransit here. Most Americans probably dont really give a shit about anything he's talking about, because most of us just type on message boards, and dont really have a whole hell of a lot to do with the Movie Industry. Boohoo, rich actors and rich directors might not get a job that they dont need. Give me their addresses I'll send every one of them a box of fucking tissues.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    ok transit

    by exador

    its true. you've caught us......there IS a vast Canadian conspiracy to undermine the entire US entertainment industry. In the years to come, we will slowly but surely gain control of every IHOP in every state (who controls the maple syrup?...WE DO!!!!!) once we've got TV, Movies and pancake houses, we own you..body and soul.________you heard it hear first.

  • July 6, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Lettersoftransit isn't hatin on Canadians

    by Arche Logos

    He's pointing out a legitimate fucking fact of life that really screws things if your actually trying to make a bare bones living in this business. I have two friends that live in Seattle, both are American's but one has kept dual Canadian citizenship. The guy with the dual citizenship never went to school for theater/film, heck he started acting as a hobby only a few years ago, yet he can go up BC and get as much work as he wants. My other buddy has a fucking MFA and crazy skills but can't get an audition to save his life. How pissed off would you be if your job was shipped to Mexico and even if you were willing to work for Mexican wages you couldn't even apply. Oh, and Affleck can lick my balls as well.

  • July 6, 2006, 11:01 p.m. CST

    no worries Alex....

    by exador

    hey man...don't worry...i'm a canadian, and i've been coming to Aint it Cool for a very long time....i've seen this dude post this stuff before....i thought he was a wack job then...still do now....HOWEVER , we really are out to get you americans....please wear a maple leaf on your jacket, and leave a cold beer on your porch tonight, and you'll be spared. (and do try to say 'eh' after every sentence....we'd appreciate it) ;)

  • July 6, 2006, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Canada is not the Problem

    by RageBYTW

    I am a Canadian who works in the film industry. I have personally seen the books, I know what all the tax breaks and credits look like. Its simple math. If a company is willing to employ a hundred Canadians full time for four months. Then all the tax revenue and money into the canadian economy far outweighs the Credit that the studio gets. People get jobs and the gouvernment gets its money back. The Tax credits are not hidden, they are on the shows budgets and in big letters.IT SAYS TAX CREDITS IN BIG BLACK LETTERS ON THE FIRST PAGE ON ALL THE PRODUCERS BUDGETS.There are no caymen accounts because of this. It is smart economic policy on our gouvernments part, and far from the american "Fuck you do it your self, american dream and apple pie bullshit fiscal policy" The big issue isnt the tax credit its the fact that we have free health care which not only cuts the cost of the labour and the benefits that the film union has to pay, but also the huge film insurance policys that all films must spend upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Thats the reason films come up here and its also the reason that all the auto plans in detroit went down. Why get fucked in America when you can get fucked in Canada for far less And my gouvernment does look out for me a little too much, but at least they are not selling my phone and internet records to the NSA or the CIA. And why are you not boycotting all the film companies that bring there cheap productions down south then. Put your money where your moose is, EH!

  • July 6, 2006, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Ben Affleck?

    by IncompetentNinja

    Who keeps hiring this ass-clown? This guy is has more bombs on his IMDb list than North Korea.

  • July 6, 2006, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Free trade

    by REBEL_SKUM

    don't sit there and fucking preach about free trade as if it affects one industry. You may know a bunch about tv and film production, good for you!!! but honestly the free trade argument goes both ways. Canada fucks you over in the film industry. The U.S fucks canada in the dairy industry (just to name one) do you know how many companies come into canada from the U.S and use and abuse the system to save money. They don't give a shit about the average employee, they care only about the bottom line. Even if what you are saying about the film industry is without a doubbt absolutely true, and that's a big if... even if that's true get past yourself and realise that it's a bigger fucking economy than just the film industry.

  • July 6, 2006, 11:27 p.m. CST

    A whack job is a guy who has the situation wrong...

    by lettersoftransit

    ...not somebody you just don't want to speak because they're telling the truth. When Canada got raped by its own corporate weasels and sold out the right to exhibit films in their own country, that was wrong. Didn't make it right just because some unprincipled Canadians and Americans profited from it. And today, when Americans sell out their own people just because a foreign government pays them money to do it, that is also wrong. The common thread amongst those who defend the "tax credits" is that they are Canadians or Americans who have managed to set up shell companies and get cash once they agree -- in writing by the way -- that they have not and will not hire Americans. (again, they make it feasible to hire europeans and just about anybody else. Just not Americans). As for the Canadian who says the money doesn't go into cayman island accounts, he should look up the history of CINAR, which was raided by the mounties for the unpardonable sin of hirin Americans. And the money they'd taken from the canadian government was in offshore accounts. I have seen official papers from Canada Revenue stipulating that they will not reveal the recipient of the so-called tax breaks, which are issued as checks once production is completed. Those checks generally go to shell corps set up by Canadians and Americans for the sole purpose of receiving the funds and quickly dissolved. There is no conspiracy among Canadians. They are generally good people. The conpiracy, if you can call it that, is among a small number of Canadians and Americans to defraud the majority of Canadians and demoralize or destroy Americans who either can't or won't become Canadians or who either can't or won't bring themselves to discriminate against their fellow citizens. If a WHACK JOB were making these statements, you could verify that easily enough. Go to the official websites for the Canadian organizations that rule these kickbacks. Read the CAVCO (Canadian Audio Visual Certification Office) site. Read the other "incentives" sites and you'll see that it's all designed to keep Americans out of their own country's industry. A whack job would not be able to point out with authority that US laws forbid this sort of thing and that US and Canadian treaties also forbid it. A whack job out to bash Canada would not point out that if in fact Canada were legally in the right, then Canada would have just as much right to nationalize Famous Players and take back the ability to distribute films in their own country. You call me a whack job only because you're benefitting from this and you don't care whether it's legal or right or anything else. You just care that you're benefitting. And there are some studio shills weighing in here. I recognize the syntax they are pulling directly from their "talking points" on this issue. They know it's illegal and they know it's wrong. But they are paid to scream down or destroy anyone who talks about this. And there is plenty of written evidence to that, as well. No need for a whack job to make it up.

  • July 7, 2006, 12:27 a.m. CST

    That should read

    by Monkey Butler

    OSCAR winner Ben Affleck, bitches. Or not, whatever. And as to the trade deal between Canada and the US - yes, it would suck if you were a US citizen being denied work, but that's how capitalism works, big guy - if a company can cut costs without seeing a corresponding dip in profits as a result of cheaper product, then they're going to cut those costs. Why would they care that some little guy is getting screwed?

  • July 7, 2006, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Where do some people get the idea that "capitalism"...

    by lettersoftransit

    ...means there are no laws? Cutting costs is one thing. Committing crimes against people is another. Is it capitalism when tony soprano bribes you to give a job to one of his capos and threatens you if you hire the person you want? Is it capitalism to violate US laws and international trade agreements. That is only capitalism if your definition of capitalism is that money trumps laws. And, sadly, it is not just some ill-informed people who presume that, it's all too often our elected officials. Governments are businesse, too, businesses that have the right to insist that have the right insist on terms that are fair to its citizens, who are essentially the shareholders. Capitalism is supposed to mean that capital -- i.e. money -- forms businesses, as opposed to governments. It is NOT supposed to mean that money controls the government, or that corporate entities have less onligations and more rights than individuals. So often when I see people misuse the term it's just to defend whatever is happening that suits them. If you're benefiting, you say that's how capitalism works. But you'd never say the same if the kickbacks were aimed at preventing you from working because of your nationality, heritage, skin color, whatever. The same twisted logic is used with the term "globalization" which has devolved into a catch-all phrase as if it were the econimic equivalent of a get out of hail free card. No matter what's happening, if it benefits you call it globalization and the injured party has to shut up. Maybe the nexttime somebody tries to pull the globalization gambit, I should yell back "911"!! That's the best "shut up" phrase of all. Means whatever you want it to mean.

  • July 7, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Actually, the best catch-call is CONSERVATIVE

    by lettersoftransit

    Now there's a word that is useful because it means anything your wallet wants it to mean.

  • July 7, 2006, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Wait a second....

    by RageBYTW

    You said. "The common thread amongst those who defend the "tax credits" is that they are Canadians or Americans who have managed to set up shell companies and get cash once they agree -- in writing by the way -- that they have not and will not hire Americans." I SAY: All the shows I have worked for are employed by a huge American Cast, through huge American studios. The producers and Stars, who are Americans make more money in one damn day then the whole crew makes a year. If they had to hire all canadians then Paul Gross would be Tom Cruise. If your filming in Toronto why in the fuck wouldnt you hire a canadian crew. What are you goanna do? Fly in a bunch of PA's from california to work in a city they've never been in. Great buisness sence. YOU SAY "The conpiracy, if you can call it that, is among a small number of Canadians and Americans to defraud the majority of Canadians and demoralize or destroy Americans who either can't or won't become Canadians or who either can't or won't bring themselves to discriminate against their fellow citizens. I SAY: ITS CHEAPER TO FILM IN CANADA, THE LABOUR AND FILM PERMITS ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE SO THEY COME HERE BECAUSE ITS SMART. FUCK IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR CITIZENSHIP TO WORK IN A VIOLTILE INDUSTRY FOR A MIDDLE CLASS WAGE THEN GO RIGHT AHEAD. THE LABOUR DISPUTE IS BECAUSE OF THE FILM UNIONS WHO ARE PROTECTING THEIR "BROTHERS" NOT SOME EVIL PLOT TO FUCK AMERICA. WALMART AND MCDONALDS ARE DOIN A BETTER JOB OF THAT THEN A MIRAMAX IS. sorry about the caps lock. Some people know too much about fuck all sometimes.... a little caps lock is needed

  • July 7, 2006, 4:04 a.m. CST

    by jagger

  • July 7, 2006, 4:09 a.m. CST

    WHAT THE FUCK?

    by jagger

    I thought this posting was a goof. Is Harry really concerned about this non-event of a film? Afleck doesn't even get to speak until, the end of the trailer and proves why. This movie is a joke..right?

  • July 7, 2006, 4:11 a.m. CST

    by jagger

  • July 7, 2006, 6:55 a.m. CST

    If needed, they could have at least....

    by jrclanto

    put the "S" on the suit then pixilated it out like schrader did in Auto Focus.

  • July 7, 2006, 7:22 a.m. CST

    WHAT? are you talking about Harold?

    by Hate_Speech

    I have no idea what you're blathernig on about.

  • July 7, 2006, 8:37 a.m. CST

    WOW!!

    by supermonkey

  • July 7, 2006, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Canada Will Recant Their Labor Policies...

    by tonagan

    As soon as the US recognizes the awesomeness that is Tim Horton's.

  • July 7, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    WOW...continued...

    by supermonkey

    The number of idiots ALREADY talking shit about Superman's poor box office so far is astounding. Yeah, one week in and it's already made 120 million!! Yeah you guys are right! A HUGE flop! And it hasn't even opened worldwide yet! most folks overseas have to wait until mid to late July. (Insert crying here...yeah but Piiiiraaates is gonna kick ass on Superman....WAAAHHHHH!!) Shut the fuck up. Pirates will make huge dough. Guess what? There's room for both of em' to do well, so zip yer fuckin' yap Supes haters. Jesus!! Oh and the new Affleck movie looks good. He's a likable guy and I hope this gets his career back on track after the J-Lo trainwreck!!

  • July 7, 2006, 9:02 a.m. CST

    I can't believe a Canadian..

    by Borgnine JR

    ...said "Fuck". I thought you guys didn't roll like that.

  • July 7, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    I'm not sure I believe those posters are Canadians...

    by lettersoftransit

    ...but more likely Americans with an agenda to drive down wages here. The guy who turned on his SCREAMING CAPS saying that it's cheaper in Canada skips over the point yet again. What draws producers to Canada is not that it's cheaper but because the GOVERNMENT pays them money. Cheaper is what it is in Mexico, or Romania. Unfair and ILLEGAL is what it is to do business with people who PAY YOU MONEY TO DENY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I know a great more than "fuck all" about this. I know firsthand that the Canadian agencies in charge of these kickbacks will tell you flat out that you have to agree not to hire Americans. And that you have to get rid of Americans already attached to the project. They make allowances for the stars, of course, and stars should be speaking out more about this. They don't like it when they shoot in Canada and they're told they can't bring aboard their friends in supporting roles. But tell me how does it make it okay to commit a crime against the middle class crew worker just because the same crime is not commited against a star. Next time somebody commits a crime against you, should I put on the SCREAMING CAPS and tell everybody that it doesn't matter because I can name people that were not affected by the crime? And, as for the producers, it is well known that producers have been tricked or forced into giving up their stake in projects they nurtured because Canada came calling and said get rid of the Americans. If it is truly cheaper to shoot in Canada WITHOUT the government paying you bribes to discriminate illegaly against Americans, then why does the government pay money to producers and insist those producers refuse to hire Americans and to get rid of Americans who have equity and other rights in the projects? If every country did that in every industry we'd be in a world war faster than you could say globalization. making and receiving payments predicated on agreeing to deny rights to others is not legal. It is not fair trade. And, according to you, it's not even necessary because it's cheaper. If that's how it truly is then you'd have to agree that Canada has no need to make its "tax breaks" contingent upon people agreeing to ban anyone -- American, Canadian, or whomever -- based solely on their nationality. At least not when they're working on a project originating out of and being produced by and for their own ountry. And at least not when the very project originated with the very same person or persons being discriminated against? What would be more reasonable, legal fair and self-evident?

  • July 7, 2006, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Why are these "Canadians" screaming about US unions?

    by lettersoftransit

    Canada's one of the most pro-union countries out there. I never once said a thing about unions. And the Canadian kickbacks say nothing about unions. So why is it that whenever somebody points out there is something illegal and wrong going on, there are people poised to scream that you should not be saying anything about that. You should be complaining about the unions? Let's see... anybody have an idea what sort of person would make that leap? Would it be an American who's working or trying to get wotk> Would it be a Canadian filmworker (who's most likely a member of a union himself) No... wouldn't be any one of those.

  • July 7, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Another Attack

    by kbass

    Hasn't Canada hurt the U.S. enough already? After Bryan Adams, I don't see how any more damage could be done....

  • July 7, 2006, 9:45 a.m. CST

    BTW, I have helped Canadians and UKers work here

    by lettersoftransit

    ...and it's easy as shit, because the entertainment industry makes it easy. All you gotta do is HIRE them, and maybe (not always) have to write a very simnple letter saying you chose them because you felt they were the best person for the job. Simple as that. On rare occasions a Canadian has suffered through some paperwork issues, but if they are the best person for the job (or someone just wants to hire them) that is it. They get in. We DO NOT prevent them from working here. And we damn sure never demand a writer, producer or directotr be forced off a project or defrauded of their rights just because they're a Canadian. Plenty of good Canadians have gotten work in Hollywood (South) before the illegal kickback program. If you want to spend public money on films instead of hospitals or other business, fine. Make your own goddamn movies. I can rattle off dozens of good canadian-based stories that your government and your corporations should be spending money to make and put out there in the market. But no. Your government would rather collude with people in our country (and yours) willing to break laws and break our agreements, so they can reap billions and you continue to see your stories go untold.

  • July 7, 2006, 10:56 a.m. CST

    lettersoftransit

    by ManosTHOF

    Don't be so bitter because U.S. municipalities would rather rape a movie production than give them any incentive to film there. And don't be so bitter because the unions are so powerful and bloated at the same time. Everyone does what they have to in every industry. Maybe be more competetive instead of just whining about it. Robert Duvall bitched about "Open Range" being filmed in Canada. He was so incensed he still showed up and collected a paycheck. He didn't blame the producers, the company, Costner, anyone else. He blames Canada. Because no one locally bothered to try and compete.

  • July 7, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST

    ManosTHOP regurges studio talking points

    by lettersoftransit

    I don't recall saying a word about U.S. municipalities. And I certainly didn't say I thought the unions were powerful or bloated. You jumped right into the talking points without having any reference from me that should have sparked them. By the way you forgot to leave out the part where you're supposed to say that US states and municipalities "need to be more aggressive." Re-check the talking points and you'll find that you are always supposed to say that. Unless I just haven't gotten the latest copy. BTW -- I gots no problem with municipalities, or states, countries, for that matter, offering cash to you guys. If it's based on LOCATION. It should not be based on nationality, race or creed, or on union membership, or lack of union membership, or on any other criteria that makes it a huge steaming pile of illegal.

  • July 7, 2006, 12:07 p.m. CST

    I'd rather it be Canada or Britain...

    by lynxpro

    Giving tax breaks and "damaging" the American film industry than the French. At least I can understand our "cousins" when they speak in our common tongue and they aren't snobbish for no good reason unlike one previously mentioned country.

  • July 7, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    however...

    by lynxpro

    It is really sad when the U.S. states that Canada is its largest trading partner when Canada has less of a population than the Great State (nation!) of California yet the U.S. has a population officially of 300 million (and 320 million or more counting all the illegal Mexicans here). Granted, if the EU were counted as a single trading partner, I think it would eclipse Canada in the stats. Hopefully. Otherwise, we really do not trade that much.

  • July 7, 2006, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Whaaaaat???

    by Orbots Commander

    A foreign labor and free trade debate on a movie talkback? Now I've seen it all. And who cares where movies are made? I don't care if BATMAN RETURNS PART 7 were to be completely shot in Timbuktu; I'd still go see it.

  • July 7, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    When shot in black & white, costume was not red & blue.

    by JDanielP

    So, I wonder which way they'll play it. It would be cool to see him in the good ol' red & blue Superman costume. But the red & blue colors were not rich enough color for black & white television, back in the day. (Somebody may have already addressed the issue, here in the talkbacks. I haven't read them, yet.)

  • July 7, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    OH, NO!!!! Singer wants to make "SUPERMAN vs. BATMAN"!

    by JDanielP

    www.superheroyhype.com: Superman Returns director Bryan Singer told MTV that he would consider directing a Batman vs. Superman movie, but only after the Man of Steel establishes his identity more thoroughly. "I've thought about it for a long time

  • Don't blame Canada or Australia for stealing American jobs, blame the studios for selling out their own

  • July 7, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    The Real Superman?

    by MetalWater

    Hopefully this will give us a real Superman!

  • July 8, 2006, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Feel sorry for the Canadians

    by snappy

    They have to live next door to the Americans, among the French

  • July 8, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Ok Here's how you fix the sequel for "Returns"

    by thecomedian

    I know, I know, this a talkback for the George Reeves movie but here's my idea for a Superman Returns sequel that will never happen because Bryan Singer can't even spell "Verisimilitude!" 1st they could bring in Kara Zor El so Superman doesn't feel "alone" anymore. You know it's funny but Supergirl The Movie actually fits perfectly in this film contuity since Superman was reportedly off on a deep space mission in that film too. Nah, better to do Kara from scratch. But they'd have to find someone as angelic as Helen Slater. None of that Britney Spears crap their doing now with her in the comics. I guess they could find another unknown. Lois will be jealous until she finds out that Kara is Superman's cousin in a rooftop interview with her. Kara and Kal fight Zod(Jude Law), Ursa(Helena Bonham Carter), Non(Tyler Mane) and BRANIAC(CGI Robot voiced by Anthony Hopkins). Luthor is done away with in the 1st ten minutes. BTW I H-A-T-E-D Spacey's Luthor because it was just smug, bald Kevin Spacey. The "Lois, I'm Superman" scene is done and taken care of in the 1st half hour too. Because she simply remembers again. The kiss wears off or something and she doesn't tell Clark so essentially she is now the one purpotrating the ruse on him. Maybe she even knew during all of "Returns" and that's why she was so short with Clark in most of their scenes because with the kid she's got bigger fish to fry then all that "Gee, Lois" crap. It would be funny if we cut to a flashback where the kiss wears off and she remembers while she's givng birth to Jason. She's already stereotypical angry, grunting, pregnant woman. Then the realization hits her, she gets superpissed and she writes that stupid article the next day in her hospital bed. Zod, Ursa and Non get their powers back with Braniac's help and they initially want revenge until they realize there is a greater prize in kidnapping and hopefully corrupting the grandson of their jailer(who they can age to twelve or 13 for this film). Of course none of this will happen because Singer has bullshitted the suits at Warner Bros. into thinking he loves Superman when really this is just an excuse to have his very own life sized plastic Christopher Reeve blow up doll. It's a shame that we're in for a boring Superman Franchise unless of course Sam Raimi does a bunch badass cool stuff in Spidey 3 and makes twice as much money as this turkey. Then the studio will pressure Singer to fill the movie with more action(like he did with X2 after Spiderman came out).

  • July 8, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah...

    by thecomedian

    And Richard is killed by General Zod buthe dies nobley protecting young Jason. The Phantom Zone villains learn of Jason's existence from Luthor but they don't bust him out of jail. They simple get the info and leave him to rot. The film ends with a Krytonian battle royal with Kal and Kara facing off against Zod, Ursa and Non not merely in the streets of Metropolis or the Fotress of Solitude but all around the world as Kal and Kara adapt a strategy of luring the Phantom Zone villains away from places where civilians are as Kal remember what happened the last time he fought them. In the end Braniac turns against Zod and unleashed a Kryptonite ray to kill all the Kryptonians at once. Since Jason is immune to Kryptonite he helps his family defeat them. The third film in this trilogy that will never happen would involve Luthor breaking out of jail and unleashing not one but an Army of Metallos(with one guy being the main one)on Metropolis. Pay me WB. I'm way easier going then Singer and his suck boys.

  • July 9, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    At this point in Affleck's career

    by BobParr

    Isn't everything he does kind of unintentionally funny? Doesn't he sort of make you snicker no matter what he is doing? What are the odds he dumps his latest Jennifer and hooks up with whoever is playing Lois Lane in this movie? Do you think Matt Damon changed his cell phone # and didn't tell him?

  • July 9, 2006, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Nonsense

    by Kenny8

    "....Pay me WB. I'm way easier going then Singer and his suck boys."thecomedian That's hysterical! Well done, I can't think of a more confusing plot line

  • July 10, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    kenny8

    by thecomedian

    It's confusing to you because you're an imbecile. Now go put your helmut on and watch Power Rangers Mystic Force.

  • July 10, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    I don't think comedian's plot is confusing...

    by Childe Roland

    ...so much as it's unnecessarily convoluted. But that seems to be what the Superman Returns franchise is all about, so maybe he's got a shot at being Special Creative Consultant to the Director or some similarly dubious title. Good luck with that. As for the movie this talkback's about, I'm looking forward to it. I think Affleck will surprise folks with this one. He's not a completely shittty actor (although he's capable of turning in shitty performances), he just tends to pick shitty projects. Oh, and Harry, it is kind of disgusting to think that you have a specific time of the year in which you shower. What do you do the rest of the year? Tie a moist rag to a stick?

  • July 10, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    This casting, though!

    by Laser Floyd

    In a film FULL Of great actors in all of the other roles- Osama Ben Affleck stars as George Reeves? At least we get to see him die.