The Hot Blog

Well... I don't really see the problem, other that using Defamer as a legit source. But Defamer often has a hand on the pulse [does that sound too gay?] of buzz.

Thing is, mainstream media, ie. TM, is afraid of discussing gay themes in popular culture. BBM was a specialty film and such, easy to talk about.

Superman is about as mainstream and low brow as it gets, and I don't think the expected teen boy audience is going to read a highbrow story in the LA Times. Nor a low brow story either, but that's another topic.

I could care less about this film or it's vapid star. It doesn't interest me on any level except for how much the thing cost to make, when potentially great films can't get funding because they're not about superheros.

So this _isn't_ the most expensive film ever made?

I have more of a problem with journalists (traditional or other) superimposing a director's sexuality onto his work before they've even seen it.

I'm sure Bryan Singer is so glad that he came out with all this crap going on. I'm thinking it wasn't an issue when he made The Usual Suspects or Apt Pupil, and it's only become a big deal since the correlations between mutants and homosexuals in X2 were pointed out. (But they could have been there from the comics where mutants are persecuted for being different, much like those of different race, religion or sexual preference have been for years.)

Hey EDouglas, it actually was an issue when Apt Pupil came out. There were some unsavory accusations about the shower scene in the boys' locker room, but I don't remember the specifics.

It's not unfair to discuss the homosexual subtext of Singer's films, after he deliberately placed them there.

Other than the Apt Pupil problems, I would say that Singer's sexuality has not been a hurdle for him. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a more successful gay director. Considering that he has a productive working relationship with some of Hollywood's most talented gay actors, I would even suggest that it has helped him at times.

What about George Lucas?

(You're telling me a straight man cast Hayden Christensen?)

Wachowski Brother...

Josh: Lucas doesn't have the style to be gay.

Palmtree: You've probably got me there.

Could anyone be more ploddingly hetero than George Lucas?

Don't forget Schumacher, who hasn't had a movie as big as Superman, but who has been around for a very long time. Hell, in that case, how about Cukor.

I think David hit the nail on the head. The story is disingenuous. It's not: is the new "Superman" movie gay? Rather, it's: do people think the new "Superman" is gay? As if having that artifice of mediation somehow precludes any actual conclusions being drawn. It's not about the movie, it's about people's opinions. Remind me again what those opinions are about?

This sort of indirection works well in some instances, but that's when something else is being used as a substitute for the issue at hand. Here it's not as if something else is standing in for homosexuality. It is the issue. So it stands in for itself. Which is plain bizarre.

There are _lots_ of people out there who never got the gay subtext of X-Men and would be surprised and annoyed if it was pointed out to them.

Jeff: I remember years ago reading a letter to the editor in Playboy a couple months after the magazine ran a long Q&A with Tennessee Williams. The letter stated -- no kidding -- "I can't tell you how disgutsed I am to learn that Tennessee Williams is a homosexual." WTF?

I'm sure you're right Jeff, but it would take a special kind of capital-M Moron to miss it in "X2."

I don't disagree with you. Nonetheless, _lots_ of people.

David, for chrissake! Singer IS on record as being gay. In about every interview, for both X-Men and X2, he says that he was attracted to that comic book because he's also an outcast, being Jewish and gay. I don't know how you could've miss that and run a movie news site for so long...

That has to be one of the most ignorant pieces I've read.

Here's the real problem - the gay subtext does not take precedent until a gay director decides that is his preferred approach. Once that occurs, the hetero audience could walk. Not over homosexuality, per say, but over the manipulation of an established concept.

Singer does not get this because he is not a lifelong fan of any superhero, any comic book. He is a diehard Trekkie, though. Someone should posit this hypothetical before him - how would he react if someone took over the Trek franchise and decided that the universal exploration context was a good platform to proselytize. I don't think he be offended by the religion itself, but I'm sure he'd flipped at the manipulation of Trek for this purpose.

The one thing I've always given Avi Arad credit for is that he understands the core audience is the *only* reason these characters/concepts have survived for decades. Singer understood this when he made the first X-Men because DeSanto was around to remind him, and as he put it once, he approached these characters with the respect he would want someone to approach Trek.

The point this article misses is not is Superman gay, but did Singer make him gay or just gay-friendly.

Star Trek has always been on the preachy side.

What was X2 prosletyzing? Tolerance? And that's somehow a warping of the comic book?

Not everything Singer has done is infused with gay subtext. I'm hard pressed to find it in The Usual Suspects, Public Access, House...

I'll give you the X-Men films and Apt Pupil, but I still don't see it in Superman -- unless you find the character of Superman inherently gay.

X-Men was also always about the characters being outcasts, which must have been how Singer pitched his vision in the first place. I could never figure out why Fox would give the Usual Suspects guy a big comic-book franchise movie, but that must have been part-and-parcel, with Avi Arad's approval, from the beginning.

"Someone should posit this hypothetical before him - how would he react if someone took over the Trek franchise and decided that the universal exploration context was a good platform to proselytize."

That's exactly what "Star Trek" was, especially the original series and TNG. In the old days you'd set stories like that on some undiscovered island in the far Pacific. Once that became impossible, since the oceans were charted, the stories migrated to the next uncharted realm, as it were, outer space.

By the way, keep away from Jeff Wells' site unless you want to read a pretty big Superman Returns spoiler.

Proselytize - by definition, it means to convert to one's religious faith. It is not the same as advocacy, which is what Trek could be guilty of. Preachy, yeah, but on a myriad of subjects. When one proselytizes, it is for one thing.

James - I did not say X2 was proselytizing anything. I said Singer's approach to superheroes - emphasizing a homosexual subtext - would be akin to someone taking over Trek and using its universal exploration storyline as a venue *to* proselytize. A really good example of overextending subtext is Alien Resurrection. Whedon and Jeunet thought it would be smart to bring Ripley's maternal subtext from Aliens to the forefront.

James - "I'll give you the X-Men films and Apt Pupil, but I still don't see it in Superman -- unless you find the character of Superman inherently gay".

That's the thing - I don't. Not even close. Superman is an obvious immigrants story, but it's also Classical Greek mythology, (a god hiding among mortals).

But Singer...he got the X-Men gig because he showed he could balance a film with multiple characters and he understood it was sci-fi. His love of Trek was part of the sell. Arad and Donner had said this during production of the first film.

But during X2, after he came out thanks to McKellan, he wanted to push the homosexual subtext. The script he had written by Dougherty and Penn was a cross between the graphic novel "Man Loves, God Kills" and the Legacy Virus. The writers were upfront about it being an AIDS motif. DeSanto flipped because it was boring and altered the X-Men to be solely a gay metaphor. He convinced Arad to have a second script written while Singer's draft was re-worked. The two were then fused for what became X2. Singer never forgave this, so he went after Superman, (Horn did not approach him).

Look, the one thing commonly known about Singer is that he is calculating. The guy has no real love for Superman. He likes the Donner movies, period. His sell to Horn was based on that. And his goal from day one was to get the Trek franchise, using X and Superman as stepping stones. The guy got Shatner and Picard to commit to his Trek project during X3 pre-production, but neither he not Berman/Braga were willing to work together. So he went after Superman, realizing Berman's contract would be up around the time he was done. It was, but Abrams beat him to the punch since he was already inside Paramount.

In Alien Resurrection, it _was_ a good idea to extend the maternal subtext from the previous movies. It just also happened that there was a lot of other stuff wrong with that movie.

Martin, I've heard similar except that it was Dougherty & Harris who wrote the "AIDS draft," revising a script compiled from drafts David Hayter and Zak Penn wrote indepedently. Do you know who DeSanto got to write the second script?

Jeff - I think we'd agree it was the approach that sucked for Alien:R. How you create a new Alien hybrid and not have it designed by Giger, is beyond my understanding.

Martin S, I don't know where you got your infos that Singer left because he was angry at DeSanto because they don't make any sense.

1- DeSanto was not involved with X-Men 3.

2- DeSanto is a relatively small fish who could never get the head of a powerful director like Bryan Singer. He was among the last signed for X2.

3- It is common knowledge that they intended to finish the X-Men franchise together. After X2, DeSanto kept talking about their plans for the Phoenix storyline. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't assumed (like everyone else) that they'd both be back.

4- Singer didn't intend to leave the X-Men franchise, he did so because Superman became available. That happened because of two events impossible to predict:

a) Singer's negociation with Fox took WAY longer than one would expect.

b) Superman's director left because he was afraid of flying.

I'm much more inclined to believe AICN's explanation that Bryan Singer's problems were with Fox in general and Tom Rothman in particular. That's a big fish. That's a guy that could make you leave a tested franchise for a troubled project.

JBM "I've heard similar except that it was Dougherty & Harris who wrote the "AIDS draft," revising a script compiled from drafts David Hayter and Zak Penn wrote indepedently. Do you know who DeSanto got to write the second script?"

You're right. Dougherty & Harris. I'm thinking Penn's re-write of Hayter's treatment was what DeSanto had done, then a fusion of the two.

Arrow -

Believe who you want. I did media anaylsis work for the 90's. One of my companies was Marvel. We could go article-by-article at AICN and I could point out the spin from fact. I wasn't trying to get a gig from Marvel, (unlike some people who cover them). Tracking them was my job. It's called objectivity.

Here's the X history - FOX bought the X-Men rights for Cameron in the early 90's. Cameron only wanted Wolverine, but it was a package deal. Soon after, the Donner's took over the property. The best draft ever written was by AK Walker in '94/'95. The Donner's could never get a greenlight because the budget was always huge. When Perlmutter bought Marvel, Arad came on board, and after Blade was released, they reorganized license control so whatever studio was involved had to get Marvel approval. FOX was annoyed and wanted a return on development so they could get the hell out. DeSanto was brought on because Arad wanted someone who knew the X canon. Singer was chosen because he understood it was serious sci-fi and Usual Suspects showed he could work with a large ensemble. The guy had no pull at the time but was able to get Stewart to sign on because he sold the Trek angle. DeSanto laid out the skeleton of the story and Singer filled in the beats. Hayter wrote the draft which was then sliced down for budget. Singer wanted the black outfits, DeSanto felt it was too Matrix. It goes on...

X is released and surpasses FOX expectations by a mile. Everyone inside thought it was going to be a bust. Contracts are rushed out but neither Singer nor Berry want the other back, (she believes he cannot direct women and made her look bad). The Oscar gives her a ton of clout which FOX is afraid of losing, (they still think she is a massive draw for the series), so Arad gives her character approval and the option of a spin-off film, (the same for McKellan due to LOTR). Singer signs after he is given what he believes is final script approval.

Dougherty & Harris are brought on by Singer to do the Man Loves, God Kills/Legacy script. But DeSanto had already mapped out a larger storyline with Hayter that lead to the Phoenix Saga and all parties thought that was the course. Berry backs DeSanto. Mckellan backed Singer. Hayter leaves and Zak Penn is brought in to merge the two. Singer feels this is b.s but goes forward. Shooting is ugly between Singer and Berry.

X2 is released to huge business. Singer starts looking at other projects while X3 goes into pre-production. He gets Shatner and Stewart to back him on a play for Trek but Berman/Braga box him out. Singer begins to look at Logan's Run. Arad pushes X3 hard. Singer signs for Logan's Run. Horn fastracks Logan's to beat X3's date. Singer than pitches his idea for Superman to Horn while still negotiating X3. Horn bites, Singer leaves X3. McG was asked to leave, flying issues or not, after Singer's pitch.

DeSanto was a big piece of the puzzle as to why Singer left, but not the whole deal. I'd say, DeSanto being removed from X3 was probably an early appeasement to Singer, but I'm not sure. Berry was a major factor, though. His dislike for Rothman comes from the guy's support for Halle. Singer used script control as his excuse to drag things out, but he never intended to direct X3. You can believe his "I wish I could", but everything points otherwise. X3 was going to be made one way or another. If he was so intent on being involved, why the hell was he pursuing numerous projects that he *knew* would conflict with the X shooting schedule? He could have told Horn, "I'll only do Logan's after X3", but instead, it was fastracked to beat X3's production date. X3 was locked. The guy had a job waiting for him. I think the director dance X3 went through proves it.

I don't think you really see the bigger issue Arrow, - Singer left Marvel to relaunch Superman for DC. Just taking the Logan's Run gig freaked Arad out, especially after WB grabbed Goyer in the middle of Blade for Batman Begins. DC is the only real competition for Marvel in the superhero movie world. Arad has had numerous smaller superhero projects squashed at studios he's involved with. Watchmen's Paramount demise was the last obvious example. Only a monster like Spielberg or Cameron could direct for both companies back-to-back.

JBM - Hayter or Penn came back for the final merger, so one of them worked it on two separate occassions. I would tend to say Hayter since he was Avi's boy at the time, but Im not sure if he had the freetime since he had inked the Watchmen deal then. Penn would have been more involved by that point, also.

Martin S, I'm not an insider, I'm just a guy who reads a lot of infos on the Internet. Still, I do my best to separate the facts and the rumors and some facts I know don't add up with your explanations.

First, Tom DeSanto himself is the guy that insisted to have Bryan Singer on board because he had worked with him on Apt Pupil. He said so himself. It's not like they met on the set of X-Men and didn't like each other.

Second, I've already said it but DeSanto was among the last to sign for X2, even after the success of the first film. It was said it was because he wanted producer credit instead of executive producer. I don't know for sure if that really was the hold up (DeSanto refused to comment when AICN asked) but he was still just an executive producer on X2. Still, the fact he had any problems to sign shows how much respect the studio gave him.

Third, while DeSanto is working really hard to get on X2, he announce he is working on a Battlestar Galactica revival with... Bryan Singer. That would've made the third project DeSanto has worked on, X2 the fourth, and all of them were with Singer. That also raises the issue of why Singer and DeSanto worked on X2 separately if they had another common project at the exact same time. The project was later dropped in favor of the current BG series.

Fourth, there was a year between the moment X2 was released and Superman became available. There was no way Singer could've foreseen that an opportunity as big as X-Men would be available. You don't leave X-Men for Logan's Run (who is still quite far from being released, by the way).

Fifth, Singer did not leave X-Men, he just didn't come back. You don't seem to see the distinction: he had no contractual or moral obligations to come back. It would've been easier for Singer to just say "I liked the first two films but now I had enough!". Easier and a great deal less crazy than pretend to negociate for a whole year just to get his revenge.

Again, I'm not an insider but these are undisputable facts, not spins or theories. If I could find a way to work these facts into your explanations, I would consider them but the truth is that at this moment I find AICN's explanations a lot more coherent with what I know.

Singer was looking for another movie to direct in between back-to-back X films, that's why he was positioning Logan's Run as that film. He was sill intending to direct X3 afterwards and was even making House for Fox at the time -- but his office on the lot was abruptly booted by Rothman after Singer signed on for Supes.

DeSanto is still friends with Dougherty, Harris, Singer, et al. His presence on the X films has been really overstated by people to a cnfusing degree.

And did you read the AKW draft, Martin S? I remember the coverage on that deeming it exceptionally unexciting.

James - Walker's script is one of the few I've kept over the years. It's light-years better than anything they shot, IMO. I can see though why it was so expensive a decade ago. He used the original team and Wolverine versus the best Brotherhood possible, (Blob, Juggernaut, Sabretooth, Magneto, + a few more). It's still my favorite superhero screenplay.

Arrow - "Fourth, there was a year between the moment X2 was released and Superman became available. There was no way Singer could've foreseen that an opportunity as big as X-Men would be available. You don't leave X-Men for Logan's Run (who is still quite far from being released, by the way)".

Singer was rumored to be grabbing Logan's Run almost a year before it was officially announced, so he was looking from the get go. Once he got in, *he said* that he, Dougherty and Harris brainstormed a Superman idea, and then he sold it to Horn over a dinner. McG was still on board at this time. Superman did not innocently fall into his lap. As for forseeing - everyone watching WB Superman knew McG was not going to behind the lens once Horn took over physical production. McG was Jon Peters boy from the De Bonventura days and the first thing Horn did was bump Peters from the project. Singer was connected enough to know which projects were in play.

"Fifth, Singer did not leave X-Men, he just didn't come back. You don't seem to see the distinction: he had no contractual or moral obligations to come back. It would've been easier for Singer to just say "I liked the first two films but now I had enough!". Easier and a great deal less crazy than pretend to negociate for a whole year just to get his revenge"

Look at the history of X3. Everyone knew it was a director scramble once Singer left. I can't make you believe it if you don't want to, but he played them. If Arad or Shuler-Donner thought Singer was going to split, they would have told Rothman to hold off on X3 until he was locked. It's not about obligation, it's about dealing in good faith. After Singer signed for Logan's, he and Arad were still telling people it wouldn't effect X3, even though Singer knew Horn was going to fasttrack it - and then he pitched Superman. He knew full well he would never be allowed to do both films. And by this point, X3 was in location and budget breakdown.

As for DeSanto - the producer credit would give him more control and more money than the exec producer position. As for Battlestar, that was a total debacle for Singer and DeSanto and it was hatched during X1 when things were still good. So these guys can still be friendly, but they haven't been working together since the X2 meltdown. If things were aces, they'd have something in the fire together.

I didn't really follow any of the development on X3, so I'm finding this all incredibly fascinating. Just thought I'd interject that.

Eric - if this keeps up, Poland's going to have create a new MCN offshoot.

What is going on now, with Arad leaving Marvel, is mind-blowing. No one saw it coming and the ramifications, especially on the comic industry, might be enormous. I don't think anyone will know for sure until San Diego Comic Con.

I've heard Arad's name plenty of times, both praised and cursed by the AICN crowd. What exactly has been his role in the Marvel movies? And what's the story with his departure?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: