- 23
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
oh my bad i meant to say lens crafters prescription bifocals. thats supermans disguise. some dapper dan hair pomade and 20$ reading glasses. thats how everyone in metropolis is fooled. lol
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by Battousai701
superman returns was actually pretty good, could have been a lot better
kate bosworth's acting, the whole plot of superman and lois lane having an illegitimate child, lex's luthors unoriginal real state plot, and basically not enough action for an actual action movie.
most people wanted more from the film and left witha "that's it" feeling.
hopefully man of steel at least lives up to expectations.
his disguise is a pair of reading glassesOriginally Posted by Falcon4567
There are three people who know both Clark Kent and Superman and spend any significant amount of time with them:
Lois - Who finds out the secret eventually
Jimmy - Who, if he knows, isn't going to say anything to anyone
Lex - Who can't fathom someone with Superman's powers wanting to pretend to be normal so he doesn't even think he has a secret identity.
Most people don't know what Clark Kent looks like. Do you know what any random writer for the New York Times or Wall Street Journal looks like? Even if they have a Pulitzer it'd be hard to pick them out of a line up. Superman interacts with people when he's saving them or flying past them if you ever look at him you're probably not in the emotional state to recognize minute details about his face. And even if people thought Clark Kent and Superman looked alike so what? A lot of people do; they're both tall, well built dudes with black hair and blue eyes. Guess what? There's a crap ton of guys who look like that. Kent's not bulging out of his suit and towering over people, he's a former high school football player who grew up on a farm, no one thinks him being muscular is weird.
Superman also tells everyone where he lives and what his real name is anyway. His name is Kal-El and he lives in the Fortress of Solitude; he also doesn't wear a mask so no one thinks Superman is hiding anything so they don't go looking for anything
Originally Posted by FIREPOWER23
Saw the teaser trailer and to be honest there was nothing in there that really wowed me, it's almost a carbon-copy of of the SR trailer if anything with the Jor-El voiceover etc. Only difference seems to be that they are going for an angst/struggling to find his place in the world approach rather than Donner's "father becomes the son" theme this time around.
Still not convinced about Henry Cavill or Michael Shannon yet either -again, I'll need to see more footage to get a feel of how they're gonna play it and of course how Shannon is actually going to look as Zod with he CGI and everything. Personally, I don't need to have Faora in there as well, I can't help but feel she was added for the T&A appeal only -would've preferred Zod to be a psychotic/loner, more akin to the Smallville portrayal.
I want to get excited, I really do but the pessimist in me is holding back until I see more.
Originally Posted by RFX45
Originally Posted by Battousai701
superman returns was actually pretty good, could have been a lot better
kate bosworth's acting, the whole plot of superman and lois lane having an illegitimate child, lex's luthors unoriginal real state plot, and basically not enough action for an actual action movie.
most people wanted more from the film and left witha "that's it" feeling.
hopefully man of steel at least lives up to expectations.
I feel that the film wasn't so bad, just needed to get rid of the kid, punch someone and cut the film by 15-20min. Although I liked the idea of Supes being hospitalized and the people uniting for his recovery and such, it felt it really dragged and seemed unnecessary.
the only time superman is gonna go all out is when he fights doomsday or darkseid. now when they make that into a live action film, then its gonna beOriginally Posted by Battousai701
Originally Posted by donmega
Any word if the film would be inspired by a certain arc or one shot (like Batman Begins is to Year One)?
That'd be nice! I really hope that this incarnation would do wonders for the franchise. I was never that big of Superman fan, but I think the next generation would need a "Superman" they can somewhat relate to... or call their own. Kind of like what Christopher Reeves (and to a certain extent, Dean Caine) is to mine.Originally Posted by RFX45
Originally Posted by donmega
Any word if the film would be inspired by a certain arc or one shot (like Batman Begins is to Year One)?
Snyder stated it is a mash up of different Supermn arc and there was no focus on one single arc. Take it with a grain of salt though.
The only unique angle presented (something we truly haven't seen before) is a Superman movie set in a post 9/11 environment. How the world, under those circumstances, would react to an all-powerful, human-looking alien flying around the world wearing a foreign suit with an unidentifiable language.
The questions people would ask, "Why is he here?" and most importantly, "Is he a threat?" That is interesting.
And I agree, that is an interesting concept that most of us can relate to. The concept does have some Nolan-eque feeling to it so we'll see how it translate on the big screen.
But both articles specifically mention the costume part involved in the case though. Are we gonna act like the underwear is the only thing different about this current costume? If you were specifically reading both articles looking for the word underwear like that's not directly associated with the word costume I don't know what to tell you, seems like semantics.Originally Posted by RFX45
I did read all you've posted and the links and it said nothing specific about underpants at all. All my response is base on that.
But eh, I'm just a "glass is half full" and a "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy, I don't necessarily look for what is wrong in everything.
The point is the underwear and that is what you pointed out and why they removed it. If the point is to change the costume to comply, then they'd have to remove the \S/, the most important and significant part of the suit. But that isn't the case. I see it as a design change by Snyder and Nolan and DC/WB and not due to legal actions because it make no sense to change tidbits when they have the rights to everything still. I see it as simple as that. Plus if I were WB/DC and I know this might be the last I get to represent Superman with the iconic look, then I wouldn't change it at all and go out swinging because as you said, there are no re-precautions. I'll capitalize and make money on it as much as I can. Obviously DC/WB are confident in getting the rights back because from the articles I've read, it seems that it is just the Siegel/Schuster lawyer that is causing all the problem. He even hid some documents and files that he didn't want used in the case, which DC won so they'll be able to use it for their defense.Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ
But both articles specifically mention the costume part involved in the case though. Are we gonna act like the underwear is the only thing different about this current costume? If you were specifically reading both articles looking for the word underwear like that's not directly associated with the word costume I don't know what to tell you, seems like semantics.Originally Posted by RFX45
I did read all you've posted and the links and it said nothing specific about underpants at all. All my response is base on that.
But eh, I'm just a "glass is half full" and a "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy, I don't necessarily look for what is wrong in everything.
Again if you're still saying this I don't think you read my post. I already addressed that twice.Originally Posted by RFX45
The point is the underwear and that is what you pointed out and why they removed it. If the point is to change the costume to comply, then they'd have to remove the \S/, the most important and significant part of the suit. But that isn't the case. I see it as a design change by Snyder and Nolan and DC/WB and not due to legal actions because it make no sense to change tidbits when they have the rights to everything still. I see it as simple as that. Plus if I were WB/DC and I know this might be the last I get to represent Superman with the iconic look, then I wouldn't change it at all and go out swinging because as you said, there are no re-precautions. I'll capitalize and make money on it as much as I can. Obviously DC/WB are confident in getting the rights back because from the articles I've read, it seems that it is just the Siegel/Schuster lawyer that is causing all the problem. He even hid some documents and files that he didn't want used in the case, which DC won so they'll be able to use it for their defense.Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ
But both articles specifically mention the costume part involved in the case though. Are we gonna act like the underwear is the only thing different about this current costume? If you were specifically reading both articles looking for the word underwear like that's not directly associated with the word costume I don't know what to tell you, seems like semantics.Originally Posted by RFX45
I did read all you've posted and the links and it said nothing specific about underpants at all. All my response is base on that.
But eh, I'm just a "glass is half full" and a "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy, I don't necessarily look for what is wrong in everything.
But I already gave up. You win. You aren't getting what I am saying and your logic isn't making much sense to me. No one is going to win so it's best to end the conversation on the subject now.