Joe Manganiello's chances were gone when he (quite a few times now) declared how much he wanted the role.
What is real and what is fake?
What is a dream and what is reality?
We shall see.....LOL
no, I thought it fishy..I couldnt see folks not finding it before now if its been out since 7-23.
EDIT: crap...here comes all the you know who for supes pics.....
[/FONT][/FONT]Specifically Nolan wants to start a casting search from scratch. There may be old candidates that get looked at again, but it will have nothing to do with a list of past actors who auditioned for the role. While Singer looked at past hopefuls, this is not the type of casting process that Nolan will be involved with.
[FONT=Bookman Old Style, Book Antiqua, Garamond][FONT=Bookman Old Style, Book Antiqua, Garamond]It is going to be started from the ground up all over again. There are some past candidates that are apparently not on the radar at this time. Henry Cavill who was McG's casting choice (on one of the various failed Superman project attempts) is currently not being looked upon. Matthew Bomer is also not under any consideration at this time. Contray to some web speculation and rumor, there really is no buzz for Matthew Fox star of Lost at this moment. It is still early in the process, but we are going to be hearing some new names soon. [/FONT][/FONT]
And I bet you loved every minute of it eh?![]()
I just read it, says 07/30![]()
I feel like I'm in 2003 again.
The article has been changed. Earlier, the top story entitled NOLAN-ROUTH WILL GET SCREENTEST had a date of 7/23....and the next article entitled POTENTIAL KNOWN CANDIDATES had a date of 7/30 next to and didn't have the notation Continued from same source as last article.
Looks like someone saw the responses about the date and went back and changed it....which means that it isn't a real article.
The article has been changed. Earlier, the top story entitled NOLAN-ROUTH WILL GET SCREENTEST had a date of 7/23....and the next article entitled POTENTIAL KNOWN CANDIDATES had a date of 7/30 next to and didn't have the notation Continued from same source as last article.
Looks like someone saw the responses about the date and went back and changed it....which means that it isn't a real article.