« PRODUCT SHOP NYC | The Big Party Announcement | Main | New York Times Critics Picks of 2005 »

December 23, 2005

Comments

ev

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

GET OUT O' MY FUCKING FACE!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

GET OUT O MY FUCKING FACE!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!
GET OUT O MY FUCKING, FACE!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

DROP THE LEASH!
WE ARE YOUNG!

DROP THE LEASH!
WE ARE YOUNG!

DROP THE LEASH!
WE ARE YOUNG!

NOW, GET OUT OF MY FUCING FACE!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

GET OUT OF MY...

MY...

DELIGHT!
DELIGHT IN OUR YOUTH!

OW!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

DROP THE LEASH!
DROP THE LEASH!

GET OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE!

OOOH, OH!

Lloyd

I think this manufacturing of an issue out of the bulge of Bradon Routh's penis (in the Superman costume) is representative of two things; the repressive, puritan nature of America's perception of and about sexuality and a pretty low-ball attempt to trash Bryan Singer's reputation.

This is nothing new in Hollywood. When Judy Garland starred as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, the studio made sure to "strap down" her breasts during filming lest the audience be exposed to (gasp!) a young woman with a noticeably shapely rack. Taken in today's context, I think this is likely an issue created by those in the Hollywood establishment uncomfortable with the idea of a "Velvet Mafia"; homosexual men in positions of pwoer in the film industry.

While I didn't bother wasting my money or time seeing "The dukes of Hazzard" moive, I find it interesting that there didn't seem to be any controversy surrounding the production shots/stills of Jessica Simpson bent over the Genreal Lee inbikini-jeans shorts with her breasts all but hanging out of her shirt; I mean why leave anything to the imagination, they should've just had her pose in a two piece bikini with a g-string..

And that's fine, I got no problem with that. She's an attractive woman with a shapely body. Period. Where's the crime? But when I read the article on this site about Brandon Routh, I wonder what the "unamed studio powers that be" think audiences are going to find so repulsive. I mean it's a portrayal of a comic book chacter who wears a skin tight suit; wouldn't it be strange if we did NOT see any outline of his package?

This is not a Ken Doll, it's an actor in a tight suit. Isn't it curious that the same people who want to "digitally remove" the bulge of this guy's johnson live in a society that spends almost a trillion dollars a year on porn?

It's Superman, he's got big arms, a big chest...he's probably got a good-sized shlong, so what?

I think this has more to do with "allegations" against Bryan Singer and jealously of his success as a filmaker. I conclude with this. I'm a male heterosexual actor who was in "Apt Pupil". These portrayals of Byran Singer as some lisping, candy-ass skipping around in a tu-tu have absolutely nothing to know with the person I know and work with. He is a professional on-set and a highly astute, intelligent student of film off set who enjoys his success. What does his personal life ahve to do with what's on the screen.

Those allegations related to the shooting of the shower scene are simply bullshit. Just fact taken totally out of context. Period. Second-hand repetition of rumour like I just read is essentially fiction. If you read crap like that and believe it, you're just really far from truth. Believe me.
L.


The comments to this entry are closed.