Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[jaguarr]

Hadn't thought about that. IMDB is legendary in its unreliability.

Bingo.

Maybe we don't want crowds of kids and parents in the movie theatre, but Warner would be more than happy to have them.

Exactly what I fear WB will do, too.

I gotta back dnno1 on this one. A single movie's box office cannot be an arguement, casting, budget, production, hype and other flukes could explain a single movie's success... but when the successes outweigh the flops, or worse, there's just a single string of successes, one has to wonder: If he's not making good movies, what is it that he's always doing right then? Or is he just the luckiest man alive and he'll make a crappy Flash movie that will make a load of money?

Well, one thing I've noticed about his films is that they tend to get released at very choice, opportune points in the season they're targeted for and they get HUGE marketing pushes from the studios that back them. That certainly doesn't hurt his chances as audiences have been trained to spend their money where they're told to by slick, heavy marketing campaigns. Doesn't always work and sometimes audiences see through the B.S., *cough*Catwoman*cough*, but more often than not it does which in of itself is worrisome. At any rate, box office isn't always the best indicator of a movie's quality by any means. Yes, pulling good dollars is important if you want to see more movies, but it begs the question; if a movie really sucked but still made money do I really want to see a sequel anyway? Levy specializes in banality, mediocrity and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Not qualities I'd like in a director working on a film about a character I care about.

jag

 

[mathhater]

What I'm curious about is his knowledge and/or care of the character...or lack thereof. I'm dreading the fact that WB just gave him the project and he could care less about The Flash.

But maybe the opposite is true, and he's involved mostly because he does like the character, and he wanted to give it a try?

The answer to this question could go a long way in discerning how bad of a movie this could turn out to be...or how surprised we could be, given his past directing credits.

 

[GL1]

Well, one thing I've noticed about his films is that they tend to get released at very choice, opportune points in the season they're targeted for and they get HUGE marketing pushes from the studios that back them. That certainly doesn't hurt his chances as audiences have been trained to spend their money where they're told to by slick, heavy marketing campaigns. Doesn't always work and sometimes audiences see through the B.S., *cough*Catwoman*cough*, but more often than not it does which in of itself is worrisome. At any rate, box office isn't always the best indicator of a movie's quality by any means. Yes, pulling good dollars is important if you want to see more movies, but it begs the question; if a movie really sucked but still made money do I really want to see a sequel anyway? Levy specializes in banality, mediocrity and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Not qualities I'd like in a director working on a film about a character I care about.

The fact that marketing pushes DON'T always work is reason to believe that Levy is making good films. Fortunately this is not an abstract conversation and we can easily verify that films like "Cheaper" and "Night" were of much higher quality and utility than Catwoman or Elektra. And the dramatic amount of money raised across multiple weeks suggests good word of mouth, not just media hype.

Now as much as I disliked the 'lowest common denominator' aspects of Ben Stiller's comedy and Steve Martin's Cluseau, there's simply nothing 'Lowest Common Denomonator' about Cheaper by the Dozen. Nothing mediocre about "Night" and nothing banal about Big Fat Liar. I understand you don't like the man's films, but your analysis does not seem based in reality.

Again, the numbers are consistent and drastic. We can say 'mainstream' or we can say 'lowest common denominator,' but the guy is making movies that a lot of people seem to like. Period.

That said, I would love it if Flash was a masterpiece, something forward thinking and innovative, and that will not happen under Levy... but honestly, I blame WB's indifference to their DC properties... I'm pretty sure they're going to rush WW and Flash through for the bucks and call it a night.

 

[jaguarr]

Now as much as I disliked the 'lowest common denominator' aspects of Ben Stiller's comedy and Steve Martin's Cluseau, there's simply nothing 'Lowest Common Denomonator' about Cheaper by the Dozen. Nothing mediocre about "Night" and nothing banal about Big Fat Liar. I understand you don't like the man's films, but your analysis does not seem based in reality.

I could not disagree more. All of those films are mediocre and banal as hell.

That said, I would love it if Flash was a masterpiece, something forward thinking and innovative, and that will not happen under Levy... but honestly, I blame WB's indifference to their DC properties... I'm pretty sure they're going to rush WW and Flash through for the bucks and call it a night.

On this, you and I are in agreement and share the same fears.

jag

 

[dnno1]

I gotta back dnno1 on this one. A single movie's box office cannot be an arguement, casting, budget, production, hype and other flukes could explain a single movie's success... but when the successes outweigh the flops, or worse, there's just a single string of successes, one has to wonder: If he's not making good movies, what is it that he's always doing right then? Or is he just the luckiest man alive and he'll make a crappy Flash movie that will make a load of money?

Thank you for your support.

 

[dnno1]

[in reference to this post]
How does that work, exactly? I mean, you are aware people pay for their tickets BEFORE they've seen the film, right?

I think in most cases you make the decision to either watch the film or not before you buy the ticket(s). There are a lot of factors that may aid in the decision making process (most of the time advertising, sometimes word of mouth, sometimes reviews, and sometimes a favorite actor or director). There are a few times where a person by chance sees a film that he doesn't like and wishes that he didn't spen the money one it, but I would think that is rare compared to the amout of times he/she has watched films or have passed them up.

Besides, as pointed out the majority of tickets bought for this film were screaming kids and their parents. Is that the kind of audience you want The Flash pandering to?

Who said that? I don't know if the data on that is in yet. Although the film "Night at the Museum" was more than likely targeted to family audiences most of the positive reviews that I have seen were from adults. Keep in mind that the majority of all US comic books and comic book characters are targeted towards young adult readers and kids. Having their parents (as well as adult fans) come along only increases the market size and the potential for increased revenue.

 

[dnno1]

So give the man props for knowing how to make money. That's not proof that he's a good director. And when you're making a big budget comedy, it's pretty OBVIOUS to cast names like Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.

Stiller and wilson have been in unsuccessful movies before (remember "Duplex", and "Around the World in 80 Days"?). I think you need a good screenplay and a good director as well to make a great picture. You just don't make $447 million dollars on a film off a $110 million budget and call it bad. I'm sorry. In fact there is no good and bad because there is no true way to measure that. It all depends on what the viewer's tastes will be, which is often hard to predict. What you can measure is wether a film is successful or not and that can be determined by wether or not it got its money back.

I assume you mean it "wouldn't" have made so much money. But there are a LOT of factors that go into how much a movie makes besides quality:

-advertising
-big name stars
-weak competition
-date of release
-whether kids will drag their parents into seeing it

The same is true for ANY movie. What's important is what the general consensus is. And that consensus is that the movie is an ok (leaning good or bad depending on who you are) comedy that's light on plot, but should appeal to kids.

All I can say is that the last four films that Levy directed made more than its money back, so that shoud be an indication of the type of director he is. His most recent one made $447 million (which could equate to 70 million viewers if you want to look at it that way). According to a 2005 MPAA report on theatrical market statistics, a Neilson Entertainmen study held in August of that year showed that 81% of movie goers believed that their entertainment experience was money well spent, so I would lean to the belief that most of those people enjoyed the film in spite of what got them there.

No, it's not. It's also not as inaccurate as you try to make it out to be (dismissing it as about as relevant as the horoscope). Still, what are we tallking about? Appealing to wide audiences, or quality? Fantastic Four made money, but many fans say it was mediocre, forgettable fluff. But being a big budge summer superhero movie that's lighthearted (safe for kids) made it a financial success.

Look, I'm certainly not going to go or not go to a film because some film critic said so and I would certainly hope that you are an independant thinker as well. I have learned that lesson years ago. "Different strokes for different folks". I am going to go because I am interested in the genere or the story or some other element in the film. Yes, we are talking about appealing to wide audiences here because it betters the studio's chances of making money (because of the larger market size). I thought "Fantastic Four" was entertaining and my kids liked it too. I even own a copy on UMD for PSP and they watch it all the time. Those fans that say it was mediocre should be grateful that it made money else we wouldn't be getting an even better sequel.

WOW. The reviews of a mere 16 fans who were actually inclined to make a vote refutes over a hundred big name critics. Even IMDB, which is nothing but user reviews (only an actual meaningful sample of them, currently 9,930), only gives the movie a fair 6.4 rating. I would say from my experience that even IMDB is slanted by fans of the movie being more inclined to vote than everyone else, but it shows that people didn't think the movie is that great.

Well, if you look at those reviews as a sample, out of the 16, only one disliked the film, "Night at the Museum". That and the fact that the film had 70 million or so viewers ought you tell you something about that critics review.

Weren't the guys who wrote Beavis and Butthead Princeton graduates?

Mike Judge, the creator of "Beavis and Butthead" went to UC San Diego.

All of which were comedies that don't prove he has what it takes to direct a superhero adventure film.

But it does show that he can direct successful films. Keep in mind that he is not writing, but directing here and he did say that he was not going to make a comedy for "The Flash".

The Disney Channel kids show?

They have made some good movies and TV shows you know. "The Famous Jett Jackson" being one of them.

Which sucked and was canceled after one short season.

That is a matter of opinon. I thougt the series was good (as good as "Smallville") and was not given a chance. The period that it was aring was just not the right time for that particular show and there were fans that wanted more of The Batman.

I don't think he'll direct a flop. But I think it is possible that he'll turn out a mediocre, safe-for-the-kiddies, piece of fluff like Fantastic Four.

Which is a conservative way to get a sequel from a film about a weaker DC character.

Again, I have nothing to prove that he will suck, so I won't say he will at this point. But on the other hand, there is also no evidence that he'll be good, just because his movies make money.

I rest my case.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Stiller and wilson have been in unsuccessful movies before (remember "Duplex", and "Around the World in 80 Days"?).

What is the point of this statement? Even A-list stars have their flops. My point was that Stiller and Wilson are big names in comedy, and box office draws.

I saw Duplex. It was horribly unfunny, and it was also dark. The main characters of the movie actually lose it and scheme to MURDER an old lady they don't like. Not the kind of movie that parents would take their kids to, unlike Museum.

I haven't seen Around the World in 80 Days, but AFAIK Owen Wilson is a mere cameo in that movie. The stars were an over-the-hill Jackie Chan (not in an action movie which people like to see him in) and Steve Coogan (who?). The ads and trailers did not prominently feature Owen Wilson. In fact, the trailer looked horribly kiddie with fake-looking visual effects.

I think you need a good screenplay and a good director as well to make a great picture. You just don't make $447 million dollars on a film off a $110 million budget and call it bad. I'm sorry. In fact there is no good and bad because there is no true way to measure that. It all depends on what the viewer's tastes will be, which is often hard to predict. What you can measure is wether a film is successful or not and that can be determined by wether or not it got its money back.

So you believe that if a movie is profitable, it's good? I believe the profits and the actual quality are two different things.

All I can say is that the last four films that Levy directed made more than its money back, so that shoud be an indication of the type of director he is. His most recent one made $447 million (which could equate to 70 million viewers if you want to look at it that way). According to a 2005 MPAA report on theatrical market statistics, a Neilson Entertainmen study held in August of that year showed that 81% of movie goers believed that their entertainment experience was money well spent, so I would lean to the belief that most of those people enjoyed the film in spite of what got them there.

Uh, what the hell? A study in 2005 about what movie goers thought about movies in general is supposed to show that people thought Night at the Museum was good?

Look, I'm certainly not going to go or not go to a film because some film critic said so and I would certainly hope that you are an independant thinker as well. I have learned that lesson years ago.

I don't go to movies based on what any one critic says. But when the majority of them say a movie sucks, that's a red flag to me. Experience has shown me that when so many people are in agreement over how bad a movie is, they're usually not that far off.

"Different strokes for different folks". I am going to go because I am interested in the genere or the story or some other element in the film. Yes, we are talking about appealing to wide audiences here because it betters the studio's chances of making money (because of the larger market size). I thought "Fantastic Four" was entertaining and my kids liked it too. I even own a copy on UMD for PSP and they watch it all the time. Those fans that say it was mediocre should be grateful that it made money else we wouldn't be getting an even better sequel.

They should be grateful that they got a movie that wasn't very satisfying to them, and butchered Dr. Doom?

Well, if you look at those reviews as a sample, out of the 16, only one disliked the film, "Night at the Museum". That and the fact that the film had 70 million or so viewers ought you tell you something about that critics review.

Do you not understand that 16 people is not a meaningful sample? If I show you a small group of people who loved Battlefield Earth or Gigli, does that mean anything?

But it does show that he can direct successful films. Keep in mind that he is not writing, but directing here and he did say that he was not going to make a comedy for "The Flash".

Tim Story didn't intend to make a "comedy" out of FF, but that didn't mean he knew how to make a good superhero movie either.

That is a matter of opinon. I thougt the series was good (as good as "Smallville") and was not given a chance. The period that it was aring was just not the right time for that particular show and there were fans that wanted more of The Batman.

A lot of people thought it sucked, and were displeased by the butchery of the source material (making Huntress a mutant, making the show look like an X-Men ripoff with "metahumans" running around everywhere, Black Canary being a teenager with psychic powers).

BTW, you keep bringing up box office to show that a movie is good. Yet BOP failed in the TV equivalent (ratings). Could it be that *gasp*, the number of people who see something isn't the same thing as how good it is?

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Now as much as I disliked the 'lowest common denominator' aspects of Ben Stiller's comedy and Steve Martin's Cluseau, there's simply nothing 'Lowest Common Denomonator' about Cheaper by the Dozen. Nothing mediocre about "Night"

What?

Cheaper by the Dozen had lots of scenes where the comedy was based on kids screwing with adults and silly pratfalls. Night at the Museum had a very simple, light plot, unsophisticated comedy, and an aborted non-romance between Ben Stiller and Carla Gugino. It's one thing if you liked those movies, but the vast majority of people will disagree with you if you say there's nothing mediocre about them.

 

[SilentType]

dnno1 apparently works at the WB marketing department.
Luckily for him we might get another forgettable, but profitable, piece of tripe like FF.
Yay for the corporate investors…

Oh well, I’ll cross my fingers and hope the guy raises above his pervious work.

 

[Saint]

If anyone has any delusional hope for Shawn Levy's ability to make this film, I kindly ask you to review the Rotten Tomatoes scores for his films. Or, better yet, just take a look at his profile: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/p/1048166-shawn_levy/

That's right, the director the geniuses at WB tapped to direct The Flash has a stellar rating of 27%. Not one of his films made it above the 50% mark, and one rated a disgusting 6%.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the handful of people saying this won't be a disaster should really reconsider. Any hope at all for this film is going to leave you sorrily disappointed. It's just a foregone conclusion: this will rank alongside such efforts as "Steel." It hurts my soul because I love the Flash, but it's the truth and we shouldn't be wasting our time expecting anything different.

 

[SilentType]

If anyone has any delusional hope for Shawn Levy's ability to make this film, I kindly ask you to review the Rotten Tomatoes scores for his films. Or, better yet, just take a look at his profile: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/p/1048166-shawn_levy/

That's right, the director the geniuses at WB tapped to direct The Flash has a stellar rating of 27%. Not one of his films made it above the 50% mark, and one rated a disgusting 6%.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the handful of people saying this won't be a disaster should really reconsider. Any hope at all for this film is going to leave you sorrily disappointed. It's just a foregone conclusion: this will rank alongside such efforts as "Steel." It hurts my soul because I love the Flash, but it's the truth and we shouldn't be wasting our time expecting anything different.

Well, look at the bright side; it will make money, paving the way for more mediocre directors to demolish what’s left of the respectability of comics.

 

[jaguarr]

Well, look at the bright side; it will make money, paving the way for more mediocre directors to demolish what’s left of the respectability of comics.

And there will be plenty of people to lap up their big bowl of cold gruel and ask if they "can have another, please, sir?". The marginalization of our society and culture continues.

jag

 

[dnno1]

What is the point of this statement? Even A-list stars have their flops. My point was that Stiller and Wilson are big names in comedy, and box office draws

My point is that big name actors don't always make the film successful (just look at Tom Cruise). You also need a good director. You are trying to discount the success of Levy by saying that his films have big name actors. Once again the handwriting on the walls shows that he has been able to make a film successful with whatever budget he is given.

So you believe that if a movie is profitable, it's good? I believe the profits and the actual quality are two different things.

No I believe that a movie that is profitable is successful. Being good or not is determined by the viewers and what is good for some might be bad for others (it is all relative and hard to measure or define). I will be honest with you though. I havent seen any of Levy's films, but just based on his track record they seem to be both popular and successful.

Uh, what the hell? A study in 2005 about what movie goers thought about movies in general is supposed to show that people thought Night at the Museum was good?

Yes. If they have seen at least one movie in a year and they say that the entertainment experience is money well spent then I would expect that most of the people who saw NAM would have thought that it was worth the experience. Yes, this is 2007, but the 2006 study is not out yet. I doubt that there will be that much of a difference in a year's time.

I don't go to movies based on what any one critic says. But when the majority of them say a movie sucks, that's a red flag to me. Experience has shown me that when so many people are in agreement over how bad a movie is, they're usually not that far off.

Then why are you defending them? I think they got it wrong with NAM because if you look at the numbers it was a popular film. 70 million people is pretty significant (that's almost 1/4 of the population of in the US). The same thing goes for his other films. So what if the think it was bad. There were enough people who went to see the films to make them successful.

They should be grateful that they got a movie that wasn't very satisfying to them, and butchered Dr. Doom?

I don't think they buchered Doctor Doom any more that he has been buchered in the comics (Victor Van Damme decendant of Dracula in the Ultimate titles?). Once again that is a matter of opinion and really had no bearing on the success or failure of the film. Making a darker film would have been more riskier since it would have played to a smaller demographic. By going the conservative route (making a more conservative, family friendly film) they were able to acheive success and get another film.

Do you not understand that 16 people is not a meaningful sample? If I show you a small group of people who loved Battlefield Earth or Gigli, does that mean anything?

I understand that out of a population of 16 users, there was only one that had a negative response. Only one. I also know that NAM now has a worldwide gross of over $465 million (and counting) off of a $110 million budget. People are still going to see it. Get over it! The critics were wrong.

Tim Story didn't intend to make a "comedy" out of FF, but that didn't mean he knew how to make a good superhero movie either.

There was some humor in FF, but I wouldn't call it a comedy. Would you call the Spiderman films comedies?

A lot of people thought it sucked, and were displeased by the butchery of the source material (making Huntress a mutant, making the show look like an X-Men ripoff with "metahumans" running around everywhere, Black Canary being a teenager with psychic powers).

That is true, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Levy has that experience under his belt. He also may have learned from it and knows what not to do to make it in the business.

BTW, you keep bringing up box office to show that a movie is good. Yet BOP failed in the TV equivalent (ratings). Could it be that *gasp*, the number of people who see something isn't the same thing as how good it is?

That is because most of you are quick to say that a film "sucked" because it lost money. Now you are trying to say that it doesn't necessariy mean that it was good even though it made money and tens of millions of people went to see it? I don't think you can have it any way you want here. If a film isn't necessarily good because it made money it shouldn't necessarily be declared bad if it doesn't make money either. In fact let's get away from this good and bad thing because it is difficult to measure. There are a significant number of people who think some bad things are good (take beer for instance). What is good for some may be bad for others. What is good today may be bad yesterday. What was bad 50 years agos is now good today. Now something you can measure is success and popularity and it seems like Shawn Levy has the ability to make those types of films.

 

[dnno1]

dnno1 apparently works at the WB marketing department.
Luckily for him we might get another forgettable, but profitable, piece of tripe like FF.
Yay for the corporate investors…

Oh well, I’ll cross my fingers and hope the guy raises above his pervious work.

Actually I don't even work in the entertainment industry (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Experess). Now as far as investing, I did inherit two shares of TWX when I owned some AOL stock way back when...

 

[maxmccumber]

Ok, I can understand why fans are upset. Comic book whiz David S. Goyer gets booted off the Flash project and is replaced by cheeseball director Shawn Levy. As stupid a move as this may seem, just think about the logic. This is NOT Batman....the Flash is NOT a dark character, out of the big DC icons he's probably the most light-hearted. The shake-up sort of means that the studio is looking to follow the character more closely. Why? Goyer is a dark writer/director, sure he might know a whole lot about all these characters but his tone probably doesn't fit here. I'm not trying to say that Levy is the right man for the job and that it should be a Power Ranger/Batman and Robin/Sky High kiddie movie (that would be a disaster of course), its just that a lighter approach might be more appropriate for the Flash. At least this is going somewhere, Goyer along with Ryan Reynolds were attached to this project for a number of years, and when they got rid of him I was expecting it to be shelved for an even longer time. But right away they got a new director. Maybe Green Lantern is more appropriate for Goyer since its darker than the Flash.

 

[terry78]

Ok, I can understand why fans are upset. Comic book whiz David S. Goyer gets booted off the Flash project and is replaced by cheeseball director Shawn Levy. As stupid a move as this may seem, just think about the logic. This is NOT Batman....the Flash is NOT a dark character, out of the big DC icons he's probably the most light-hearted. The shake-up sort of means that the studio is looking to follow the character more closely. Why? Goyer is a dark writer/director, sure he might know a whole lot about all these characters but his tone probably doesn't fit here. I'm not trying to say that Levy is the right man for the job and that it should be a Power Ranger/Batman and Robin/Sky High kiddie movie (that would be a disaster of course), its just that a lighter approach might be more appropriate for the Flash. At least this is going somewhere, Goyer along with Ryan Reynolds were attached to this project for a number of years, and when they got rid of him I was expecting it to be shelved for an even longer time. But right away they got a new director. Maybe Green Lantern is more appropriate for Goyer since its darker than the Flash.

Green Lantern has its dark moments, but its' more of a sci-fi fantasy action than a dark brooding thing. I'd actually suggest someone that has experience with war films or action to take on GL.

 

[Katsuro]

Ok, I can understand why fans are upset. Comic book whiz David S. Goyer gets booted off the Flash project and is replaced by cheeseball director Shawn Levy. As stupid a move as this may seem, just think about the logic. This is NOT Batman....the Flash is NOT a dark character, out of the big DC icons he's probably the most light-hearted. The shake-up sort of means that the studio is looking to follow the character more closely. Why? Goyer is a dark writer/director, sure he might know a whole lot about all these characters but his tone probably doesn't fit here. I'm not trying to say that Levy is the right man for the job and that it should be a Power Ranger/Batman and Robin/Sky High kiddie movie (that would be a disaster of course), its just that a lighter approach might be more appropriate for the Flash. At least this is going somewhere, Goyer along with Ryan Reynolds were attached to this project for a number of years, and when they got rid of him I was expecting it to be shelved for an even longer time. But right away they got a new director. Maybe Green Lantern is more appropriate for Goyer since its darker than the Flash.

Wrong. They announced Levy right after the news broke that Goyer was gone, but Goyer was off the project for months before we even heard about it.

 

[The Guard]

I see people downplaying Levy's accomplishments for a variety of reasons, mainly his use of cheap, mass-appeal "pratfall" humor, and making money off films with visual effects. Are you telling me THE FLASH won't have visual effects? And since when was pratfall humor a bad thing? (Could be worse, could be "nice coat" or "Does it come in black"). Some of the most beloved recent classic film series have that kind of humor. INDIANA JONES, BACK TO THE FUTURE, and even STAR WARS from time to time.

Oh no, he hasn't made SCHINDLER'S LIST this early in his career. But he's making THE FLASH, people. Not THE SPECTRE.

 

[Saint]

I see people downplaying Levy's accomplishments for a variety of reasons, mainly his use of cheap, mass-appeal "pratfall" humor, and making money off films with visual effects. Are you telling me THE FLASH won't have visual effects? And since when was pratfall humor a bad thing? (Could be worse, could be "nice coat" or "Does it come in black"). Some of the most beloved recent classic film series have that kind of humor. INDIANA JONES, BACK TO THE FUTURE, and even STAR WARS from time to time.

Oh no, he hasn't made SCHINDLER'S LIST this early in his career. But he's making THE FLASH, people. Not THE SPECTRE.

Humour has nothing to do with it. Of course the film should have humour, but we're talking about a film that should be similar in tone to Spider-Man, which has the ideal blend of action, humour, and drama that would be appropriate for the Flash. Levy might be able to do humour (though very poorly, according to his Rotten Tomatoes scores), but the only thing close to action or drama he has handled is a "Birds of Prey" episode.

You know, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue with you because I've long since learned you and I will never come to any mutual terms. You defend films like "X-Men: The Last Stand," and detract from films like "Batman Begins." It's baffling. I shouldn't be surprised that you defend this disgustingly inappropriate choice of director.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

dnno, give your keyboard a rest...geez

 

[Hunter Rider]

Levy has signed for yet another movie,that makes 3 in 3 weeks,someone likes him lolt:

 

[Steelsheen]

Levy has signed for yet another movie,that makes 3 in 3 weeks,someone likes him lolt:

that wouldnt happen to be Wonder Woman would it?

i know, i'm hopelessly holding out for my Amazon Princess, i cant help myself

 

[dnno1]

that wouldnt happen to be Wonder Woman would it?

i know, i'm hopelessly holding out for my Amazon Princess, i cant help myself

Sorry, Steelsheen. The three films that Levy signed on to are, "The Hardy Men" with Tom Cruise and Ben Stiller, "The Flash", and "Marley and Me".

 

[JackBauer]

Levy has signed for yet another movie,that makes 3 in 3 weeks,someone likes him lolt:

the devil, maybe.