Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[TemporalFlux]

Superman really needs some red to break up the middle of that blue one-sey. It don't have to be panties; just put some red there.

[CorporalClegg]

Skywalker wrote:

---

You're the first person in this thread to ask that question.

I don't know about entire body armor, but I was under the impression that the lead-lined shield was standard fair now, if not practical.

It's not crazy to think they'd go the extra step and make some kind of "lead-fiber" suit.

[CorporalCaptain]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I don't think Faora has one...I haven't been able to find one for her either on anything yet. The figures that Sammy posted above are the 1:4 scale NECA figures. They are going for $84.99 on Big Bad Toy Store (yep you can pre-order them already).

Well, here she's standing on a symbol that's neither Zod's nor Jor-El's and Kal-El's. Since the other symbols have been identified as theirs, respectively, I was basically assuming that the one she's standing on is hers.

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

[Trekker4747]

Really, I hate the removal of the red portion of the tights. It's an iconic symbol of Superman that's been there for the better part of 80 years. Why get rid of it now.

Oh, because it "kinda, sorta, looks like underwear if you think about it a certain way and squint."

[Admiral_Young]

Maybe Clark will tinker around with his costume and it'll be there in the sequel (if we get one). He's not quite the Superman that we all know and love in this film...perhaps he adds some kind of insignia later on or something. *Shrugs*.

@Corporal Captain I totally wasn't paying attention to her base LOL. I was looking at just her suit. In that case yeah that seems to be her house crest. I am liking these new designs. Zod has never really had a definitive crest/symbol for any of his incarnations...I guess the one that "Smallville" came up with is the closest we can get to one, so I like that the film has given them something new and distinguishable.

[sojourner]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Really, I hate the removal of the red portion of the tights. It's an iconic symbol of Superman that's been there for the better part of 80 years. Why get rid of it now.

Oh, because it "kinda, sorta, looks like underwear if you think about it a certain way and squint."

Get off my lawn!

[Trekker4747]

Well, I may hate it, but I'm not going to denounce the movie for it. Hell, it's a movie I'm very much looking forward to. I just don't agree with the decision to remove the "red trunks" from the costume, or the similar decision to do so with the New52 Superman.

[Admiral_Young]

The only thing that bothers me about Superman's suit in the New 52 (aside from the high collar) is that while the outline of the crest is present on the belt...I feel like it should contain the House of El symbol in it. LOL. It's a minor nitpick of mine, but the suit's actually grown on me a lot since I first saw it.

[sojourner]

I like the existence of the belt in the new 52. I just don't like the design of it.

[A beaker full of death]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Really, I hate the removal of the red portion of the tights. It's an iconic symbol of Superman that's been there for the better part of 80 years. Why get rid of it now.

Oh, because it "kinda, sorta, looks like underwear if you think about it a certain way and squint."

I hate that. Really miss the red trunks.
I hate the rubber texture.
I hate the muted colors.
I hate the raised shield.
I LOVE the Earth-2 "S" emblem.
I think Cazeiv uh Cavaxzie uh, Jimmy Jesus looks very good as Superman.
If he says his name backwards, does he disappear?

[Greg Cox]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

I think Cazeiv uh Cavaxzie uh, Jimmy Jesus looks very good as Superman.
If he says his name backwards, does he disappear?

Um, I think you may be confusing Jim Caviezel (who played Jesus) with Henry Cavill, who is playing Superman in MAN OF STEEL.

Just to avoid confusion, they're not the same guy.

[davejames]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Really, I hate the removal of the red portion of the tights. It's an iconic symbol of Superman that's been there for the better part of 80 years. Why get rid of it now.

Oh, because it "kinda, sorta, looks like underwear if you think about it a certain way and squint."

I certainly wouldn't have minded if they kept the trunks, but by this point I've gotten so used to his new look (both in the comics and the new movie) that the trunks really ARE starting to look a bit silly to me.

Especially in live action. In comics, I think they still work perfectly fine, because you can get away with much crazier outfits and designs there (like all those skimpy female costumes, which would look cheap and trashy as hell on a real girl).

[Nerys Myk]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Is that what that is? I thought the Borg had invaded Metropolis!
why is Superman wearing armor?

I didn't see Superman in armor. I saw Kryptonians in armor. On Krypton they might need it, since they aren't super there. When they arrive on Earth, they might keep it on.

[A beaker full of death]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Um, I think you may be confusing Jim Caviezel (who played Jesus) with Henry Cavill, who is playing Superman in MAN OF STEEL.

Just to avoid confusion, they're not the same guy.

oh. Crap. What's Cavill been in?

[Nerys Myk]

These films and TV programs