So maybe give it a rest since you've already said all you can say about it?
Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)
- Thread starter Obiwanshinobi
- Start date
So maybe give it a rest since you've already said all you can say about it?
Some people get labeled "haters" and "sticks in the mud" because that's the way they behave, not because of what they like.
In fact, the way they're treated has nothing to do with what they like. It's a response to the amount of energy they expend and attention they try to command for their repetitious complaints about everything they don't like - which is generally anything that isn't already familiar to them. The basic position is that any change to a bit of entertainment in which they're emotionally invested is a personal insult, disrespectful of them as people and deeply hurtful.
They just repeat those complaints over, and over and over, seemingly always alert for a new potential assault on their sensibilities as a fresh opportunity to take loud and personal offense.
There are only a couple of posters I can think of on this board who strongly dislike Star Trek TOS or the last forty years of Superman comics and the like. In fact, most the people on this board who are most enthusiastic about Abrams's Star Trek movie really like the original Star Trek - which simply makes sense, if you give it a moment's thought. Likewise just about everyone getting excited by what they see of the new Superman movie adore the character and his history; many have read those comics faithfully for decades.
On the other hand, the most persistent and vocal objectors to new versions of stuff speak of it and often of the people who like it in the most dismissive and arrogant ways. "Ruined," "trash," "aimed at impatient kids with the attention spans of moths" are some of the creative ways in which they express their unwillingness to let other people enjoy what they don't. They start topics bemoaning the "desecration of popular culture icons" and wondering rhetorically what's wrong with the world that it's so determined to change "for the sake of change" when that makes them so unhappy and uncomfortable.
And they do it at the very first sign on the horizon of something new that they don't like - the first bit of news the first image associated with a new project which suggests that they might not be getting exactly what's already familiar to them.. The language and reasoning which they employ to express the unacceptability of change almost define the notion of "contempt prior to investigation."
And when they're called on it then suddenly it's "six of one, half dozen of the other," "live and let live," "different strokes" and so on. No one is fooled. You have on the one hand a lot of people who are pleased and excited when they get news about upcoming movies and tv shows...and you have another group who react to anything new and unfamiliar as an unbearable attack on their personal values and world view. To pretend that when you compare extreme examples of the two positions you find some kind of symmetry is a joke.
In fact, the way they're treated has nothing to do with what they like. It's a response to the amount of energy they expend and attention they try to command for their repetitious complaints about everything they don't like - which is generally anything that isn't already familiar to them. The basic position is that any change to a bit of entertainment in which they're emotionally invested is a personal insult, disrespectful of them as people and deeply hurtful.
They just repeat those complaints over, and over and over, seemingly always alert for a new potential assault on their sensibilities as a fresh opportunity to take loud and personal offense.
There are only a couple of posters I can think of on this board who strongly dislike Star Trek TOS or the last forty years of Superman comics and the like. In fact, most the people on this board who are most enthusiastic about Abrams's Star Trek movie really like the original Star Trek - which simply makes sense, if you give it a moment's thought. Likewise just about everyone getting excited by what they see of the new Superman movie adore the character and his history; many have read those comics faithfully for decades.
On the other hand, the most persistent and vocal objectors to new versions of stuff speak of it and often of the people who like it in the most dismissive and arrogant ways. "Ruined," "trash," "aimed at impatient kids with the attention spans of moths" are some of the creative ways in which they express their unwillingness to let other people enjoy what they don't. They start topics bemoaning the "desecration of popular culture icons" and wondering rhetorically what's wrong with the world that it's so determined to change "for the sake of change" when that makes them so unhappy and uncomfortable.
And they do it at the very first sign on the horizon of something new that they don't like - the first bit of news the first image associated with a new project which suggests that they might not be getting exactly what's already familiar to them.. The language and reasoning which they employ to express the unacceptability of change almost define the notion of "contempt prior to investigation."
And when they're called on it then suddenly it's "six of one, half dozen of the other," "live and let live," "different strokes" and so on. No one is fooled. You have on the one hand a lot of people who are pleased and excited when they get news about upcoming movies and tv shows...and you have another group who react to anything new and unfamiliar as an unbearable attack on their personal values and world view. To pretend that when you compare extreme examples of the two positions you find some kind of symmetry is a joke.
Last edited:
Is the change in costume really 'change for change's' sake?
Part of me now suspects that the suit redesign (in both the comic and the movie) is part of the legal battles surrounding DC and Siegal and Shuster estates.
Indeed, isn't that why this movie is getting made in the first place?
EDIT:
Perhaps the costume change was less of a creative decision to contemporise the Superman character and more to do with corporate legal wranglings.
Part of me now suspects that the suit redesign (in both the comic and the movie) is part of the legal battles surrounding DC and Siegal and Shuster estates.
Indeed, isn't that why this movie is getting made in the first place?
EDIT:
Link
Perhaps the costume change was less of a creative decision to contemporise the Superman character and more to do with corporate legal wranglings.
Last edited:
It may be one thing that kick-started the schedule for a new movie, yeah.
I'm not sure that getting rid of the Speedo would clear them in any way from a legal point of view, though, as long as they're holding on to things like the big red cape. Arguably none of the now-familiar versions of Supe's emblem are so close to the original 1939 design to present a problem, but the cape and blue outfit sure are.
Interestingly enough, though (I suppose this may be a spoiler of some kind, to someone <sigh>
I'm not sure that getting rid of the Speedo would clear them in any way from a legal point of view, though, as long as they're holding on to things like the big red cape. Arguably none of the now-familiar versions of Supe's emblem are so close to the original 1939 design to present a problem, but the cape and blue outfit sure are.
Interestingly enough, though (I suppose this may be a spoiler of some kind, to someone <sigh>
Morrison is going out of his way to use elements of Superman that date to the very earliest stories published. His "young Superman" cannot fly, and the preview for his first issue shows the kid using tactics on a baddy that are directly borrowed from one of the character's first appearences.
And some people are asses because that's the way they are even though few are willing or allowed to tell it as it is. I find it amusing how some who dissent (and I'm certainly not the only one around here) can get marginalized because they don't follow the majority thought.
And how is a few posts of disagreement equal expending a lot of energy?
Decorum prevents me from expressing how much and how often you piss me off.
I remember people complaining about the now famous Crystal-look of Krypton and the Fortress of Solitude when the Donner movie came out. Also, people complained that Lex Luthor had hair. Shall we go back and have that argument again too?
Same here. Except for the texture, I'm indifferent to the texture. But the Golden Age/Earth 2-\S/ sure looks great.
The texture and the "piping" on whatever on it just doesn't work for me. But, again, maybe the whole thing will work better on screen after going through all of the post-production enhancements/BS. Right now we're making judgements off of candid shots made in less than ideal lighting conditions.
The Earth-2 \S/? Are you kidding me?! They totally screwed that up! Not only are they the wrong shades of red and yellow, but it doesn't have the "bubble" on the bottom of it. And the top right of the \S/ (where it connects the top and lower right side of the "triangle" outer shape) is suppose to be parallel to the to its corresponding side of the "triangle", not all stylized like that. It is also way too thin (same could be said for the bottom of it too). Pfft....way to go, filmmakers! Clearly, they don't get it at all.
Seriously though, there is nothing at all wrong with not liking the suit. I think the problem arises when broad statements like the filmmakers are embarrassed by superheroes or that they don't "get it" are made giving off a sense entitlement or an "I know better" attitude. Not helping the situations is when the other side gets on their case and gives off a "you are stupid" vibe with their retorts. From there, it all turns into petty bickering from everyone over, lets face it, an incredibly stupid issue.
The thing about the muted colors is, I guess, to make him more subtle, less standing out. But if he wear supposed to be subtle, he wouldn't wear a costume at all, would he? He'd just wear street clothes, like Clark did in the first eight seasons of SV (and all the characters on that other show by Tim Kring).
Why doesn't he wear street clothes, why the costume? Because he has to stand out. He wants people to trust him, which is why he doesn't wear a mask, and people in a dangerous situation have to immediately recognize him as Superman, the one who can save them. He has to stand out, and that's why muted colors just don't work for him, in my humble opinion.
Why doesn't he wear street clothes, why the costume? Because he has to stand out. He wants people to trust him, which is why he doesn't wear a mask, and people in a dangerous situation have to immediately recognize him as Superman, the one who can save them. He has to stand out, and that's why muted colors just don't work for him, in my humble opinion.
That's not strong logic, much less an persuasive argument.
First, it's an assumption rather than fact that the intent here is to make him stand out less in a crowd. In that get-up, especially with the huge red cape, there's no place that he's not going to stand out just fine. Secondly, anyone who makes his entrance by flying in through the window has everyone's attention, I can guarantee you that.
If the rationale were that he has to stand out to the maximum degree possible - well, he'd stand out even better if the costume were day-glo and phosphorescent at night. It's not, and the only reason this version seems less eye-catching than the old comic book one is by comparison with what's familiar.
Aside from the fact that the rationale that "he's wearing the outfit to stand out' doesn't make that much sense, it's not a given that this is the reason for it. If that explanation has been offered at some point in the comics -well, so have alternative explanations in different eras. One of the earlier ones was simply that Supes needed an indestructible outfit, and the only material that fit the bill were the red, yellow and blue blankets from his Kryptonian rocket. He was therefore stuck with the garish costume scheme. Apparently the current explanation is that the design of the tights, armor or what-have-you is itself Kryptonian.
All such explanations are reasoning backward from the fact that the character was established as dressing this way for no particular reason. If you were used to seeing him dress in black and silver you'd have accepted the offered explanations for that as given and would be startled by the introduction of bright colors in a movie.
Last edited:
QFTT
People complained with Routh's suit which had the red underwear. They complain without the underwear.
I will say that the "junk" needs to be tucked away more if possible. But the important thing to me isn't the suit but the actor who could sell it. Christopher Reeve sold it. He was perfect and the costume was such a small part of that. It's still to me one of the greatest comic books movies ever.
But it's great if we can discuss the merits of just the suit too. I really enjoy reading everyones comments, whether they are loosing their shit over it or are cuming over it. I'm not offended or hurt by either opinion as long as those opinions discuss the subject at hand and not a bitchfest about people themselves.
Besides if he really is a SUPER man then his junk should protrude in an impressive manner. What's so super about a guy with no willy?
Ok, his meat stick and two potato then.
He's not trying to get laid at a night club though and he's not using it to lift cars over his head.
Does Superman have a dick as we know it? Only Lois Lane and Lana Lang can say for sure.
It might be like the alien crotch-organ Jack Hawksmoor has that makes regular ladies throw up and even the Engineer sort of silently question her life choices.
I don't think we know enough about the movie's plot to be able to say such things with certainty
He's Superman, not Supereunuch. And I'm guessing young Clark took showers after phys ed in school, like all the other boys. No-one noticed that he had an 'S' shaped appendage down there, presumably.
Similar threads
