CLARK KENT says Hi! - Page 2

I agree with the talk about the shield being a little small, but the suit is already growing on me.

I think the overall problem I have with the suit is the same one I had with the Reeve's suit, the color of the hulk, or Wolverine's yellow duck outfit. The blue red and yellow is a holdover from the original four-color printing process of early comic books and should have no bearing on what the suit looks like today. Supes also had black and blue hair. I don't think that's such a good idea to translate to film either. I understand that Singer's trying to be faithful to the films as well as the books, but in general, the suit should have darker deeper colors. Not to be too much of a fanboy about it, I don't care that much. But the larger point about how primitive printing has become an arbitrary standard for comic book films is relevant here.

Um, you realize that when they show black in Comic Books it's usually with Blue highlights. It doesn't mean it's Black & Blue ... it's just to give the black a more 3-Dimensional feel without having to have a solid black mass. Same with say, Venom's costume.

And a gigantic robot spider. Am I right?

I guess my point is that there is a difference between a publicity photo and a publicity portrait, which is why I used the term. Technically, any image given out by a studio to the media qualifies as a "publicity" photo, regardless of what the original intention or purpose behind the photo was. A picture of Routh sitting in a chair reading his script would be a publicity photo if the studio handed it out. What I mean by publicity portrait is a photo that is carefully designed to recreate the look and feel of the character as they will appear in the context of the film. A good example would be the individual shots of the Sin City cast used for the posters and given to the media. These shots were designed to give the viewer the impression that they were looking at a frame grabbed from the actual film, even if that wasn't the case. The shot of Routh is more like a "Ok, we've got Brandon out here with his costume on. Lets take a couple of rolls to see how he looks." That's just my impression. Why do I think this? Well, if you have a hi-rez copy the picture, zoom in really close on Routh's face. Now unless they plan on going with a brown-eyed Superman, one would have to assume that a) This wasn't meant to be the official Superman portrait. b) The shot was taken before Routh could be fitted with blue contact lenses. or c) The studio media relations people figured we'd all be too blind or stupid to notice. I still stand by my assertion that this shot was taken some time ago and that Routh will be at least a bit bigger when we see him on screen. I totally agree with mastronikolas that Superman doesn't HAVE to be overly muscular because the source of his powers is the yellow sun. But ask yourself, does the average moviegoer/non comic geek know this? For these people, having Superman be as powerful and imposing looking as possible will be a positive.

Ok, everyone. I know it hurts but repeat after me. "Devin was right. He does look gay."

Someone wearing an electric blue pair of tights looking gay? I'm shocked!

Has anyone ever heard of the hair-part theory? It claims that the way you comb your hair reveals your confidence/assertiveness/masculinity. If you part your hair on the left, that is, comb it to the right, you are projecting a more masculine and assertive persona. And you are projecting just the opposite if you part your hair on the right, that is, comb it to the left.


Why do I bring this up? Because in at least the first Superman movie, Clark Kent would part his hair on the right, revealing a weaker persona, while as Superman, the hair-part would change, and he would project the more masculine and confident inner Superman. I don't know if the filmmakers prescribed to this notion, and did it on purpose, or if it was just some kind of coincidence. But it's there.

But now it seems it's not there? Apparently Singer doesn't know about it, or maybe purposefully chose not to go along with it. Will this subconciously affect the audiences next summer? Are we not going to believe in the Man of Steel because he appears too effeminent? I don't know if I believe the theory myself, but it's interesting to see how things are developing here as opposed to the original film.

uh...yeah. I know that. My point is that that's another workaround to the limitations of old school comic book printing, just like almost all the colors of early superhero books. I'm not very attached to any of the original costume's colors when they adapt comic books, in fact I prefer it when they take some creative licsense.

Christopher Reeves, by way of contrast, did NOT look gay.

That's funny because I remember as a kid that I parted my hair on the left because that's how Superman did it. I wonder what influence this movie will have on the next generation. Headline: Gay Breaks Out At Movie Theater, News at 11.

We're pretty much projecting. If we didn't know that Singer is gay and if we haven't heard the rumours that he wanted a gay actor for Superman, we wouldn't really find this to be more gay than it really is. Much like we treated all other Supermen, including Dean Cain.

Although, the Superman suit, pretty much like any superhero suit that's faithful to its comic book origins, is inherently gay.

Here's the deal: Superman needs to have an unthreatening, non-sexual masculinity. He shouldn't be rugged and he shouldn't be too sexy. It's a tough slot to fill, and unfortunately Singer has gone with a metrosexual Superman here. He's non-threatening but awkwardly sexual.

Honestly, I think that Ashton Kutcher would have made a good Superman if Singer wasn't looking for someone who could be a Reeves clone.

I LOVE the suit. It's A-one pure Action Comics. So is Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane, for that matter.

Sorry, but I don't think so because I didn't really know that Routh was gay prior to your post. (a) Him, (b) in that costume, looks gay. Is it ironic that to think it doesn't look gay is a version of denial?

It looks like the cape is made of leather. That's an interesting choice, but I could just be saying that because I'm used to a cloth cape. I think the costume looks fine. It's Superman's suit, what else are they going to do with it? I just wish the shield was a bit bigger.

You might want to get that looked at...I hear the same thing happened to Spidey when he got a new suit.

To be fair, I have no idea if the guy i gay or not. Those were just rumours of Singer wanting to create a homosexual role-model.

I like the darker colors, but I'm going to play parrot and reiterate that, yes, the shield should be bigger.

He just does not look heroic at all.

Is it just me, or does Reeves' Superman just look more... Superman?

Routh looks like a big kid dressing up as Superman for Halloween. Gotta agree with the poster that pointed out the open cuff at the neck... here, Routh look like he put a bedsheet on as a cape.

Strange photo. He looks beefier as Kent than he does in the suit. The small S and neck don't help matters, but what is with the Calvin Klein shorts hanging down to his asscrack? The low riders make his mid-section appear long and his body gaunt...


SUPERMAN! PULL UP YOUR PANTS!!!

I feel alone on this, but I adore the small shield - it really feels like it was ripped out of the 1930s iteration.

I'm one of the few in here that actually like the suit. ALOT. Minor details like the darker tone for the red, the belt, or the symbol being slightly smaller than the Reeves suit don't detract from my overall happiness in seeing the Superman suit rendered in such a faithful fashion. I think Routh definitely looks the part and his look as Clark is equally satisfactory. Lets face it guys, if you honestly believe that Routh looks "gay" in this suit then there is no way i can take your claims of Reeves looking like the Ubermensch seriously at all. It's practically the same suit. Now if he was belting out songs from "The Boy From Oz" while shaking marracas, then it'd be a totally different story.

Concerning the original picture posted of Routh as Clark, the paste under his nose is make-up applied to get rid of the shadow above the lip that would otherwise appear distracting in the film. I'm surprised no one else mentioned that yet since it's a pretty common technique in film.

As for the picture of him as Supes, he looks more like Superboy. I think it might be early on in the production as well since his hair wasn't dyed yet and he didn't have the blue contacts either. However, I don't think he's gained any weight since that shot.

Also don't be confused by his bulk as Clark Kent in the other set pics. He's wearing baggy clothes and in some shots where he's running and the clothes stick to him, you can see he's still kind of scrawny. I don't think he's anywhere near the size Christopher Reeve was when he portrayed Superman. Routh has a thin neck and a slight build. It's not that he's skinny, he's muscular but more in the androgynous, Calvin Klein model type of way, and not all like the Man of Steel. He could have shared some workout tips with Christian Bale.

Wait for the director's cut.

You're out of your mind. Kutcher's presence can't generate an ounce of authority. Especially not with his full juicy lips.

Hilarious! I think the guy who runs The Superficial shares the same sentiments as Devin regarding Routh as Superman. Here's what he had to say along with the photo:

"Honestly, I think that Ashton Kutcher would have made a good Superman if Singer wasn't looking for someone who could be a Reeves clone."

Oh fucking brilliant. Considering all the namby pamby asshats on here already crushing Routh for not being muscular enough lets throw "dude wheres my car" in the super suit. Yeah. Right.

The low riding shorts definitely increase the gayness level by 63%.

Hilarious!

THe suit just accentuates all the wrong things. I think most people wouldnt be calling gay on this if the briefs were higher and the neck was lower. The small shield along with the low rise briefs just reeks of Calvin Klein model. They needed someone slightly more muscular and with a much more mature face. Plus, red should never be dulled down as that is a color that looks best vivid.

What's funny is that you'd figure singer might take the same chance he did on x-men by changing the suit at least a little bit. Maybe the x-men changes weren't entirely his idea then?

Either way, he had to of seen the same extra we saw on the dvd, the part where they have someone dress up in the old wolverine outfit?

I think the word is GAYER. The superman outfit has always looked, well......pretty gay.

It looks like a soap opera actor in a Superman costume.

As long as the colors come across well with the film/lenses/whatever they choose to use, I see no reason to complain.

I'll reserve final judgment 'till I see footage of Superman in action, but I have to say, there's something "off" about Routh as Superman. I had to check IMDb and Routh is 26, so he's about the same age as Christopher Reeve (there's no s in his last name) was when making the 1978 Superman - but there's just something too immature in his presence, in my opinion. The 1978 suit was silly too, but Reeve made it work. I'm hoping Singer and Routh will prove us nay-sayers wrong. I still have to get over my dislike of Kate Bosworth, though.

Gay or not gay... who cares.

The problem is that Reeve, at 26, looked like a man. A grown-up.

I think I could kick this guy's ass. He has the unserious slacker look to him... looks like he's 26 going on 16. And this is the guy who's been exploring the galaxy for a couple years before the movie begins... his balls haven't even dropped yet.

(If you would look ridiculous wearing a beard then you are not ready to play Superman.)

BrandonRouth.com actually has a super-duper-duper high res shot of the picture, where you can see the actual texture of the suit, which is actually pretty cool looking. And you can see the cape is definitely a cloth, not leather.

Yeah the guy playing Clark Kent on Smallville looks ten years older than him.

He doesn't look like he would have the determination to want to save anyone.

The only person in America who ever really was born to be in the Superman suit was Al Gore. The guy looks just like him. Although it does make me laugh out loud to imagine his delivery. Darryl Hammond should to an "Al Gore as Superman" sketch.

I fight for truuuth, juustice, and the Amarican way."

I always thought during the time that Seinfeld was on the air that Patrick Warburton (Puddy) would have made a great Supes, and clearly Jerry, a big Superman fan, agrees, or he wouldn't have had him do the voice and stand in work for all those commercials.

He had that big physical presence but he also had a lovable lunk quality that made a lot of the more earnest Superheroes, Superman included, so appealing to their readership. I also think that if he had played the Tick more in this manner as opposed to the sort of crazed way he did that show might have been more successful.

I'm not saying they should have gotten him per se, especially since he's at least eight to ten years too old for the part now, but I do wish they would have tried to get someone with the same qualities. yes, it's generally agreed that the Reeve version of the character is great and iconic- but it was hardly the first incarnation of Superman to be so. I think it would have been more interesting to go back to basics than to try and carbon copy a version from 25 years ago, especially since Batman's been given a relatively fresh start (Black Suit notwithstanding) when it would have been easy for WB to use the Elfman theme, the Burton Batmobile and any number of recognizable accoutrements in an effort to appeal to the fans.

I mean, Routh looks and sounds sorta like Reeve, but out of respect for both the source material and Reeve's memory i'm not necessarily interested in seeing someone try and do the same thing he did.

All that said, I'm looking forward to this with cautious optimism because it really could go either way. Singer surprised me with the X-Men films, which made me care about characters I actively disliked as a kid, so I'm willing to see how he does with a character I've been a life-long fan of. Obviously there are already things about the project I dislike but it could be much, much worse, and it will probably be worth it just to see Spacey's take on Luthor.

I think as fans we spend so much time and energy anticipating a film that we forget that two hours and ten bucks isn't a huge investment to make in the grand scheme of things, and even as film lovers we should be mature enough to be able to deal with disappointment. And yes, that applies to you Star Wars nerds, too.

He does have the blue contacts in, if you go look at the bigger pic at aint it cool news you can see that his eyes are blue and not brown.

I stole this photoshop from a link in the Ain't it Cool talkback about this story. This take on the costume is so much better... click on the picture for the large version...

Enough with the "gay" shit already!

Can't you fucking assholes find some other derogatory word to use?

fruity?

That official costume "S" is way to small. If thats the costume in the movie I will feel embarrassed for Singer.

Though he made the mediocre X-Men movies so I expect pre release media letdowns. Why boring directors keep getting franchises is a mystery to me.

Maybe he should have flashed that picture in front of fans before he signed off on it.

Unless the costume changes after he returns from being "missing", that's the costume you're going to get in the movie. I don't think this photo is a prank or some test outfit put out there because Singer and Co. want fan input.

Another Photoshopped version with a lower neckline, bigger shield, longer trunks, and lighter cape and boots:

From another forum I visit, a few of us (mostly them) did some photoshop work on the picture: