Want me to mail you the book?

First of all, I think putting all the different ways the mystery of Reeves' death could have gone down was a great storytelling device. It enabled you to see all the possible different angles of how it might have happened.

But where I disagree and yet agree is that I do think they actually do put forward a conclusive theory. I think it's not done up in a 'aha that's how it is' bow, but I think it really in the end the film concludes George Reeves committed suicide. It's the last theory given--which automatically has more weight-- and all the pieces in the film-- Simo viewing the footage of Reeves doing Judo on film, the choice of doing more Superman via a wrestling tour (and in real life he was going back to do it on TV), even Simo's decision to shape up and be a father to his son and not fail in his eyes like Superman did for him, all come together around Reeves simply being tired of the treadmill he had wound up running. It certainly made me change my mind: my armchair detective had always favoured the theory it had involved Leonore Lemmon; I now find myself in the suicide camp.

It seems that despite the fact that the film was made by WB and has the Superman logo in it heaps of times

First of all, as stated before, WB didn't make Hollywoodland. Focus Features did. They could use the 's' logo and Superman in Hollywoodland because it was apparently under the terms of fair use. However, they couldn't use the 's' logo and Superman in the trailer or to promote the movie because that would have been using a Warner owned trademark to sell someone else's picture.

The movie was, in fact, originally titled Truth, Justice and the American Way but even that ran afoul of Warner.

George Takai says he sent an invitation to Shatner via Shatner's agent. Either Shatner never received the invite, or he's playing the situation in order to feed his own insanely warped ego.

Mary Ann > Ginger.

Re Hollywoodland: I'm disinclined to cut filmmakers any slack for knowingly including debunked myths simply because they supposedly make a better film. People are swamped with stuff they know that simply isn't so -- show of hands, how many folks here think Al Gore *actually* claimed to have invented the Internet? -- then consider how much harder it is to convince people that something they "know" happened didn't really happen when they think they saw it with their own two eyes?

It would have been a much more responsible thing to do -- and a more entertaining film -- had they dropped the supposed historical element and fictionalized the story with invented characters, as you suggest.