I just saw this picture… given the popularity of the Emo Beatdown day thread, and the superman threads, why not combine the two?
Why waste a good lunch?
Bad casting. I don’t care if Bryan Singer does the greatest story ever told, they picked the wrong guy to play him. What’s really sad, is this is now the representation in society of “superman”. Not strong, muscular, or hard edged in any way. The ultimate image of the pop culture male…is now “emo”.
Well, isn’t Clark Kent SUPPOSED to be kinda squirrely and emo? Isn’t that part of the point, so his alter ego doesn’t get outed?
-Dan
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bad casting. I don’t care if Bryan Singer does the greatest story ever told, they picked the wrong guy to play him. What’s really sad, is this is now the representation in society of “superman”. Not strong, muscular, or hard edged in any way. The ultimate image of the pop culture male…is now “emo”. [/quote]
And it’s so very nauseating.
Gimme a BREAK!
Niether “Super”, nor “man”.
Great casting job.
Um is that a man?
That’s pretty goddamn sad.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Well, isn’t Clark Kent SUPPOSED to be kinda squirrely and emo? Isn’t that part of the point, so his alter ego doesn’t get outed?
-Dan[/quote]
clark can be quirky.
clark can be a fucking nerd, or a giant dork.
but why does he have to be a pussy?
Another Hollywood winner!
Why oh why does it seem to be getting worse and worse? They keep finding a way to corrupt something that’s been good…
POP anything fucken BLOWS! I hate it, it’s getting in everywhere and it’s all for the money.
That’s a photo of the actor playing Clark Kent. Not the way Clark looks on screen. So Clark isn’t Emo, even if the actor let the photo shoot’s stylist make him look Emo.
I didn’t like any Superman photos until I saw the trailers. They cast this guy because they are not starting the franchise over again. This follows the plot of 1 & 2. (3 and 4 sucked so they don’t count)
This guy does a damn good Christopher Reeve. His Clark sounds exactly like Reeve’s Clark. This is the new part 3 so why not try to get someone that sounds and acts like Reeves did.
As far as build, he’s about the same size Reeves was when Reeves started Superman.
However, Tobey does have an Emo haircut for the Peter Parker role.
Compare. Christopher Reeve - Brandon Routh
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
buffalokilla wrote:
Well, isn’t Clark Kent SUPPOSED to be kinda squirrely and emo? Isn’t that part of the point, so his alter ego doesn’t get outed?
-Dan
clark can be quirky.
clark can be a fucking nerd, or a giant dork.
but why does he have to be a pussy?[/quote]
This is the Clark that will be on screen. Not Emo, not a pussy. He is a giant dork.
This is emo.
More Clark
Clarks look is dated for a reason. To say anymore is a minor spoiler.
[quote]sugarfree wrote:
Compare. Christopher Reeve - Brandon Routh [/quote]
I have, and among the need for the designer of that costume to be shot for making one that takes away from any muscle he built for the role, Reeves had a stronger look about him beyond just his build. Routh doesn’t have that same look.
As far as those claiming Clark should be a dork from the comics, even in the comics Clark wasn’t small. He was a farm boy. He looked like a stocky guy who wore glasses. Clark Kent was never drawn as frail and weak looking.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Well, isn’t Clark Kent SUPPOSED to be kinda squirrely and emo? Isn’t that part of the point, so his alter ego doesn’t get outed?
-Dan[/quote]
To a point. Does wearing glasses totally change the appearance of his face so dramatically that they can’t recognize him? I think people would notice the striking similiarity facially before noticing whether or not he is muscular. I mean it’s Superman!
I rather see a movie that focuses on the superhero aspect. I still say they should have given the kid that plays Colossus in the X-Men movies the part.
Classic Clark drawing.
One more. The dumbest thing about the original concept, even in the earlier tv shows, is that there really was no difference between Clark and Superman. The original black and white tv show had him as a big who just wore glasses sometimes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Compare. Christopher Reeve - Brandon Routh
I have, and among the need for the designer of that costume to be shot for making one that takes away from any muscle he built for the role, Reeves had a stronger look about him beyond just his build. Routh doesn’t have that same look.
As far as those claiming Clark should be a dork from the comics, even in the comics Clark wasn’t small. He was a farm boy. He looked like a stocky guy who wore glasses. Clark Kent was never drawn as frail and weak looking.[/quote]
I agree and I don’t. Compare Reeves from the start of the first movie to the end of the second. They were made back to back. He gained so much during that shots taken of him at the begginning didn’t match later shots.
I’m sure Routh will be thicker for the next one.
Oh, and it’s not just glasses. Clark Kent’s and Superman’s hair part on opposite sides. OK, it’s weak. But men can’t fly and don’t wear there underwear on the outside of their tights. Let it be. It’s Superman.
At least Lex is bald this one.