Where does he actually hide the cape? That's unrealistic, so let's please also ditch the cape, okay?
Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)
- Thread starter Obiwanshinobi
- Start date
In this movie, the cape is made of an organic material with shapeshifting properties. When Superman is in his Clark Kent guise, the cape wraps itself around him and morphs into contemporary Earth clothing.
I read the script. There is a key race-against-time sequence in which Superman fails involving Taco Bell, White Castle, and Kryptonite (and I heard a later revision deleted the kryptonite).
I don't understand what is so hard about this. Superman has a readily identifiable and established look that doesn't need to be messed with and has worked very well for decades, granted with minor tweaking for each project. Yet in SR they gave Supes the pleather look and the wrong shade of red and now they're making him the blue rubber man.For me this is now one black eye for this production.
I don't understand this argument. Take a look at Batman. He has an established look in the comics. Yet in all of his movies (discounting the animated productions and, to some extent, the Adam West version), the costume very different. Even in the Nolan films, which you have previously claimed to enjoy, the costume is the furthest away from its comic counterpart than all the other adaptations. The deletion of the red trunks seems like such a minor thing when compared to the Nolan Bat-changes. It is one thing to dislike the change, but it seems a little melodramatic to call it at all a "black eye for this production."
Once you go black, you never go back!
How come no one ever complains about the Flash who has an "endless sea" of red?
I know, right? The other day, I wore my trunks outside to see the children off to their first day of school. Granted, I didn't wear anything else, but if it is "all-out boy scout", how come the police had issues with it?
I'm sure you're average woman could and would easily imagine that.
In the comics, isn't Bat's cape designed to give off more of the "creature of the night" look?
As Superman apparently does in this movie. Your point?
I read the script. There is a key race-against-time sequence in which Superman fails involving Taco Bell, White Castle, and Kryptonite (and I heard a later revision deleted the kryptonite).
I don't understand what is so hard about this. Superman has a readily identifiable and established look that doesn't need to be messed with and has worked very well for decades, granted with minor tweaking for each project. Yet in SR they gave Supes the pleather look and the wrong shade of red and now they're making him the blue rubber man.
I don't understand this argument. Take a look at Batman. He has an established look in the comics. Yet in all of his movies (discounting the animated productions and, to some extent, the Adam West version), the costume very different. Even in the Nolan films, which you have previously claimed to enjoy, the costume is the furthest away from its comic counterpart than all the other adaptations. The deletion of the red trunks seems like such a minor thing when compared to the Nolan Bat-changes. It is one thing to dislike the change, but it seems a little melodramatic to call it at all a "black eye for this production."
Once you go black, you never go back!
There is no "wrong" shade of red...the suit has been redesigned so many times we're going to have to expect it to continue to do so.
RAMA
Exactly so. Superman has been colored so many different ways over the past 75 years that there isn't an "official" shade to his costume.
I'm just thinking here, but could you imagine if they decided to go with the earliest Golden Age costume? I don't know if militant fans would rejoice or go even more berserk.
wait. so, an alien who can fly, shoot lasers from his eyes and lift a jumbo jet is believable...but wearing a cape under civilian clothes, that's where you draw the line?
I was joking.
But yes, I indeed draw the line somewhere there. Superman is alien and somehow manages to fly, have super strength, and heat vision. That's a given. That's the fantastic element.
But why should that have an influence on the realism of the world he interacts with? What is it with this silly "it's fiction, of course it's unrealistic" logic?
Example: Superman - The Movie. The helicopter falls of the building, and Superdude catches it with one hand. That he has the strength to do that, that is perfectly fine. But what is not okay? The way the helicopter "sits" in his hand. He grabs it by its landing skit, totally off balance. That's unrealistic. It should actually tilt. And the skit would probably bend by the sudden stress. Etc...
Now we have Superman Returns: added realism. Superman grabs the airplane by the edge of the wing. And the wing breaks off. He then stops the plane by pushing its nose, and the entire structure is compressed by the sudden impulse. And he can't keep the plane stable in that position, he can only let it fall down (not like in the Donner movie: just grab it somewhere and it will be stable). That's realistic.
Also when a person falls 200 meters and he just stops the fall by catching them. It would kill them. I don't like that. Instead they should make an effort to let Superman catch and slow them down smoothly.
Or let's take Superman 4. There's one scene where Nuclear Man kidnaps a girl and takes her to the moon. And she fucking can breath. I mean what the hell where they smoking? I know it's fiction, but this is seriously stupid.
And in a way, the fact that his cape appears out of nowhere does bother me. The whole Clark Kent - Superman transition is an integral part of the story. The fact that nobody recognizes him just because he wears glasses is already hard to swallow. But where the fuck is he hiding his cape? And where is he hiding his normal clothes?
Again, Superman Returns made an effort to add realism: one scene showed how he simply strips his normal cloths off in an elevator shaft. I really liked that. But the cape still came totally out of nowhere.
I hope you get what I mean.
John Byrne also added the tactile telekinesis thing.
It's more intimidating than just swinging in out of the night suddenly, masked, in black body armor with spikes on your gloves?
They oughta claim that the cape has some kind of advanced stealth qualities that confuse the aim of dudes firing guns at close range.
It's more intimidating than just swinging in out of the night suddenly, masked, in black body armor with spikes on your gloves?
They oughta claim that the cape has some kind of advanced stealth qualities that confuse the aim of dudes firing guns at close range.
You'd be amazed at how much breaking up the human silouette does to screw with a shooter's aim.
thought you might be but i wasn't sure.I was joking.wait. so, an alien who can fly, shoot lasers from his eyes and lift a jumbo jet is believable...but wearing a cape under civilian clothes, that's where you draw the line?
Nowhere Man
Commodore
I kinda figured the cape was in Clark's brief case. He could quickly dispose of his clothes in an alley or something or put them in the brief case.
It's more intimidating than just swinging in out of the night suddenly, masked, in black body armor with spikes on your gloves?
They oughta claim that the cape has some kind of advanced stealth qualities that confuse the aim of dudes firing guns at close range.
A while back, some artist got into trouble for DC as he was selling painting of Batman. However his Batman was naked expect for his cowl, boots and gloves. Think about how scary that would be - you are mugging some guy in an alley and then some naked hooded guy with a hard-on comes rushing towards you!
Sorry, but I didn't see any sort of belt in the pics posted.
I hate the way people are saying it looks more 'modern' as a positive. Why do we need it to look more 'modern'? Maybe Superman should have a faux hawk as well. That's modern, right?
I personally believe the Superman outfit should be timeless, trunks or no trunks.
Similar threads
