I think it depends on the nature of the threat. Superheroes are not just dealing with everyday criminals. They are dealing with people who have unnatural powers, or extensive connections that allow them to reach in to many different facts of their opponents lives. One need only look at Daredevil and Kingpin to see just how deadly that world can be. Also, and this was an odd memory, when Spider-Man tells Mary Jane in the animated series she throws herself off the precipice they are on to see if "he would be there to catch her." Let's not pretend that people in superhero world are perfectly rational beings.
The second one would be my thought, but it's a weird way to do since it's pretty clearly not part of the mask, especially in HD. I'm with you on just letting the skin show, I don't really see why it would be a bad thing. It's not like that tiny bit of skin is going to give anything away, other than maybe their race, and that's not really enough to give away their identity.
Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from The Dark Knight, when Commissioner Gordon still doesn't know that Bruce Wayne is Batman. "That was a very brave thing you did." "What? Trying to catch the light?" "You mean, you weren't protecting the van?" "Why? Who's in it? Shouldn't I go to the hospital?" "You don't watch a lot of news, do you, Mr. Wayne?" That's been a standard convention of live-action interpretations of Batman for 30 years now. I don't mind it, even if it doesn't make sense, it still looks right. Remember that scene from Batman Returns where Batman removes his mask in front of Catwoman? His eyes were missing the make-up in that shot and they looked really weird. Adam West could get away with no eye make-up because the eye holes were smaller and better shaped for his eyes. Agreed. For another example, look at the first Spider-Man movie. Mary Jane didn't know that Peter was Spider-Man but it didn't matter because Norman Osborn knew and kidnapped her in order to get to him. Now, it's possible that Norman would have gotten to her no matter what. But keeping Mary Jane in the dark didn't protect her at all. That just proves that there are deleted scenes, not that there's a finished edit that's in any shape for a commercial release. That said, I wouldn't mind if they released an unfinished workprint just to give us an idea of what might have been. There's a precedent for that, since rough, unfinished cuts were included on the DVD releases of Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters and Highlander: Endgame.
And I've been watching superhero TV for over 45 years now, so it still feels like a novelty, and it's still very weird. (I was listening to Shirley Walker's 1990 The Flash soundtrack earlier, and I was amazed to realize that was 30 years ago. I still think of the '90s as a relatively "new" period.) I wouldn't mind so much if they actually had the eye shadow on when they took the cowls off. It's the way these things magically disappear that drives me crazy. I have the same issue with the Flash's current costume in the show. It used to be that his cowl folded back like a hood when he wasn't wearing it. The "cowl off" costume was actually a different piece of wardrobe than the "cowl on" version, with a more flexible, hood-like cowl, but at least it was a believable illusion that they were the same. But now, the cowl is of a piece with the body when it's on, but when it's off, the outfit has a flat collar with no trace of a cowl attached. Daredevil's costume on Netflix had the same problem -- when his cowl was on, the rigid red part was obviously being worn over a black hood that was attached to the shirt as a continuous piece, but when he took the cowl off, the hood magically disappeared and the shirt collar just had a flat edge on top. The Raimi Spider-Man's costume had that cheat too, though it was a bit less noticeable.
Of course there's a lot of trickery used in cinematic and theatrical costumes, but there's a difference between a costuming trick that looks believable on camera and one that is blatantly, obviously physically impossible. The audience's suspension of disbelief is not mandatory. It has to be earned with a convincing illusion. Nobody's going to enjoy the illusion that the magician is levitating the assistant if the wires are thick and obvious. It's not about whether it's realistic, it's about how skillfully it sells the unreality.
James Gunn was recently asked which of his screenplays was his favorite, and he responded with The Suicide Squad. So hopefully that's a good sign for the movie.
So ... WT actual F is this all about? https://www.channel24.co.za/The-Juice/News/demi-leigh-nel-peters-lands-her-first-movie-role-20200227 https://www.channel24.co.za/The-Jui...girl-filmed-in-bolivia-in-6c-weather-20200302 It's got to be BS -- I mean, clearly they're not shooting a Supergirl movie without announcing an official production green-light, director, stars, anything -- but what weird and random BS for this former Miss Universe to make up.
Yeah, that is really bizarre. Are there any other female superhero movies filming? Maybe she just has her characters mixed up somehow.
A few possibilities: - they’ve officially started filming the movie and somehow kept the casting and other decisions under wraps - they haven’t made any major decisions yet but the writer had this specific scene in mind and it didn’t require an actual main director because it’s so short/minor in nature - she’s actually referring to the SG series - she mixed up SG with another superhero - it’s not THAT Supergirl, maybe it’s a lower budget independent or foreign film of the same name - she’s straight up lying None of these seem particularly likely though but it’s the best I can come up with. Salt desert would make a good backdrop for Antarctica and the FoS though...
Then again, with a name like Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters she should be playing Kryptonians with names like Zor-El.
Ryan Unicomb, who is in the midst of making a documentary on George Miller's unfilmed "Justice League: Mortals" has posted a photo on Instagram of the cowl Armie Hammer was to wear as Batman.
I noticed that too. The design is underwhelming to say the least. This movie seems to have been something that would have been a disaster if it had been completed--but it is forever doomed to be a wistful beacon for those who haven't liked the direction the DC movies finally did take.
They're frown lines, not age lines. It's sculpted as an intimidating glower. Ben Affleck's Batman cowl also had scowly frown lines sculpted into it, just a bit more subtly: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/get-close-look-ben-afflecks-bat-cowl-dawn-justice Moviemakers have this odd desire to sculpt anatomical features into their Batman costumes, whether it's muscles or frown lines or nipples. Heck, even Adam West's Bat-cowl had Bat-eyebrows drawn on it.
I actually like that cowl very much. Looks very Alex Ross-ian. In any event, I'm definitely looking forward to this documentary. I loved the late Jon Schnepp's documentary on Tim Burton's Superman, and this movie was similarly close to going into production, so there should be a lot of material. Plus, I actually read the screenplay that's floating around online, and it was really good. Not perfect, obviously, otherwise the writers' strike wouldn't have affected production as it did, but the movie still had the potential to be fantastic.