Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JoeZhang, Jul 20, 2013.
Seems like it would defeat the purpose of a diaper.
Middling is another word for average or moderate. Not terrible. Would you agree with moderate box office returns? Because that's what exactly I said.
Here's BoxOfficeMojo's take on the film's numbers.
Here's an analysis from Forbes.
Haven't movies always been shown on the screen in "HD" though (or at least something close to it)? It's only TV technology that's been lagging behind all these years, and I doubt the producers are only designing these costumes with much later TV broadcasts in mind.
Poor choice of words then. But, no, the current one doesn't look like long johns at all. It looks like a weird alien flight suit kind of thing. Maybe a swim suit at the outside (it has a sort of almost atlantean vibe to it).
It's not meant to be 'accurate', it's meant to be descriptive.
Tights are by definition flimsy and ridiculously form fitting, with the clothes not adding or changing the shape of the body at all. The current costume does not fit that, and I can count the number of superhero movies that have included tights (seriously, not as a parody) on one hand.
Its a form fitting suit that contours to his body. You can almost tell his religion.
Have you seen a diaper? How many are form fitting with belt loops and a belt?
Again, its a form fitting suit that contours to his body. You can almost tell his religion. It's textured tights or perhaps thermal underwear.
Since I said, superheroes and not movie superheroes, my statement stands. Though Affleck's Batman costume is looking very "tights".
The above quotes are subjective to the respective author's expectations of how much a Superman movie should make and how it should be received. Captain America TWS didn't break $300 million domestically and that film had Capt America TFA, Avengers and Agents of Shield to add wind to it's sails. When you say middling BO returns I point to Superman Returns. That film had a budget of $260 million and only did $391 million worldwide. That is a moderate success and that's me being generous with the term success.
Adding Ben Affleck to the cast isn't a sign that TPTB were worried about the sequel. A Batman/Superman has been in the works since Batman Begins and Superman Returns back in 05/06. Only one of the aforementioned films was greenlit for sequels while the other (Returns) was not. Returns' failure caused WB to reboot the franchise. Batman v Superman was announced at San Diego Comic Con 4 weeks after MOS debutted in theaters. TPTB were obviously satisfied with the results.
This is what the President of WB's Production said back in 2008 regarding Superman Returns.
"Superman Returns didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to. It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. Now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all".
So we have Returns which didn't get a sequel because it didn't position the character the way WB wanted and you have MOS which apparently satisfied WB to want to see more of Snyder's direction for the character.
If you look at the BO grosses of other blockbusters, E.g Transformers, The Marvel Phase 2 movies (IM3, TWS, TDW), Avengers, Frozen etc. The international market is what pushed those films over the top in terms of financial success. Remember we are comparing MOS, the first movie in a new franchise. Against films that have been around for years and have established foundations that audiences are familiar with. Batman v Superman will probably break a $800 million to a billion now that audiences have been reintroduced to the character and his franchise.
That's a pretty big exaggeration. It's designed to show off muscles, bit it stills feels like a much thicker, more formidable material and is definitely not perfectly form fitting.
How much do you truly resemble resemble a drowned rat when you come in from a rainstorm? Language is a funny thing.
Disagree. Also, my statement was always about film superheroes. Obviously cartoons and comics follow different rules, since there are no actual people in the suits.
Its funny when you say this
followed by this.
Thing is, the only way is resembles a diaper is it covers the pelvis. "looking like a drowned rat" is an idiomatic phrase. Diaper for anything covering the pelvis, not so much.
My statement was about Superheroes.
Keep in mind that that $260 million figure somewhat absurdly lumps in the cost of previous failed attempts to get a project off the ground together with the cost of making the actual film they released. It is only by this measure that the film seems to fail by traditional studio math.
I pity the poor superheroes who have to wear those bulky, texturized, leathery outfits underneath their street clothes. Must get real hot for them during the summer.
and winter and fall and spring.
Yeah I always wondered about that. On boxofficemojo the state the budget is $260 million. On thenumbers.com, it's recorded as $230 million.
Collection of Superman costumes.
Cavil is certainly the best by far. The other two are awful. :P
^^Too bad, then, that they won't actually let him look like Superman.
Btw, as to "the old costume looked like underwear", well, maybe you've noticed in MoS how the suit Superman wears is basically what Jor-El and Zod wore underneath their armor, so, the MoS suit was literally Kryptonian underwear.
Have you seen Superman recently?
he looks like this now...
So really not that different from the Man of Steel version.
The MOS version is better than the New52 one.
It is, but that doesn't make it good.
I loved the Reeve \S/uit but the MoS one is my favorite.
Separate names with a comma.