Man of Steel (Superman Movie Thread) - June 14, 2013 - NEW Trailer pg20

[rfx45]

Yah just saw a crappy leaked footage, really gets me psyched for the film. Now I just need to find a leaked teaser for IM3.

As for the suit color, depending on the light, it looks a bit brighter though as bright as the older suits. And the no undies is really growing on me, I just love the giant \S/ shield.

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

oh look they gave superman a garter belt

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by RFX45

Yah just saw a crappy leaked footage, really gets me psyched for the film. Now I just need to find a leaked teaser for IM3.

 

[dmoney82]

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by DMoney82

Nolan set the bar for these reboots. Everything will be darker... the way it should be. Not that kiddy crap. This will be EPIC. Mark my words.

But it's kinda hard to make Superman a dark character. It's easier for Batman bc of the nature of the character. W/ Batman, u get excited to see the new gadgets and action scenes. W/ this I feel it's gon be them usin kryptonite half the movie to stop him from usin powers.

I feel u. I meant as far as the story not the Superman Character. I think there should be more violence, fighting, gore ect. Really get in depth.. show what Superman is really capable of and how the world is today.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

iirc the reason Supes doesn't have the underwear on the outside is cuz somebody else own s the rights to that style or look and WB doesn't want to pay extra for it. Same reason New 52 Supes has that unitard look now with the belt.




That doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[falcon4567]

They took the modesty shorts off just because. Superman still has them in Earth One and Young Justice and in some of the shorts they're running during DC Nation.

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

Originally Posted by DMoney82

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by DMoney82

Nolan set the bar for these reboots. Everything will be darker... the way it should be. Not that kiddy crap. This will be EPIC. Mark my words.

But it's kinda hard to make Superman a dark character. It's easier for Batman bc of the nature of the character. W/ Batman, u get excited to see the new gadgets and action scenes. W/ this I feel it's gon be them usin kryptonite half the movie to stop him from usin powers.

I feel u. I meant as far as the story not the Superman Character. I think there should be more violence, fighting, gore ect. Really get in depth.. show what Superman is really capable of and how the world is today.

If you want violence they needed to do something like intergang/apokolips and lead into a darkseid confrontation as a later movie.  Zod better bring the ammo to make this darker.  I agree superman should remain semi-pure and not tempted into extreme violence until something dramatic happens in front of his eyes to spur him into murking fools.

I think the suit is the best they could have come up with.  It's sort of a rip off captain america's suit imho but it's an improvement.  Personally I think they should have ditched the cape and worked with a full body suit atleast until a JL movie.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by RFX45

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

iirc the reason Supes doesn't have the underwear on the outside is cuz somebody else own s the rights to that style or look and WB doesn't want to pay extra for it. Same reason New 52 Supes has that unitard look now with the belt.

That doesn't seem to be the case.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...;feature=player_embedded

That dude is lying to save face. Has nothing to do with a modern look or looking sleeker or alien

[h2][/h2]

[h2]Bizarre legal battle could result in TWO competing Superman pics[/h2]



0digg

375Share

By the time Man of Steel comes out in 2012, it will be six years since the last Superman movie. But thanks to a bizarre legal battle, there could be TWO Superman projects up and running by 2013.
http://
Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, is scheduled to come out in December 2012. But less than a year after that, according to Variety, certain rights pertaining to the character will revert back to the families of Superman's original creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Notice we said "certain rights." Not everything will belong to Siegel and Shuster's heirs. That's because, the way this has played out legally, everything that the pair invented for Superman before they began working for DC Comics will be owned by their families. Everything they came up with for the Superman mythology after DC starting paying them will still belong to the comics giant (which is owned by Warner Bros. Pictures).

As a result, the Siegel and Shuster estates will own the rights to Superman's costume, as well as his ability to "leap tall buildings in a single bound." Other iconic aspects, like his ability to fly and most of his rogues' gallery, including arch-nemesis Lex Luthor, came into being under the DC Comics umbrella and therefore belong to the company.

Now, this is where the Variety article gets deep into the legal weeds, but the bottom line is that theoretically, starting in 2013, the families and Warner Bros./DC could both proceed with their own Superman movies. However, a Siegel/Shuster movie would essentially be based around elements created in 1938, before they began working for DC, while a Warner Bros. movie would be based on what the article calls the "modern Superman." A 1938 movie could not show Superman flying, while a "modern Superman" film would not have access to the classic costume.

So can't Warner Bros./DC cut the families a nice fat check and get everyone on board
together? That's not so easy either. The lawyer for the Siegels and Shusters, Marc Toberoff, is aggressively pursuing an appeal to establish who owns what, while WB/DC is suing him, claiming that he has destroyed the relationship between the company and the families (the dealings between Warner Bros. and Toberoff have the makings of a legal thriller on their own, according to a separate article at the Hollywood Reporter).

So unless this gets sorted out somehow, Man of Steel could be the last "true" Superman movie we ever see. Sequels may or may not be able to feature Kal-El in his trademark costume, while a separate set of movies could introduce a costumed Superman in 1938, unable to fly, battling whatever criminals Siegel and Shuster created before DC starting cutting their paychecks.

Both possibilities sound, frankly, like cinematic Kryptonite to us. What do you think should happen?


http://blastr.com/2011/05...d-there-be-competing.php

I wish I could find the article specifically stating why DC would stop using the og costume with the red underwear. Here's another more detailed article

I don't really mind the OG creators/their families getting the rights back and it'd be interesting to see them have no ties with DC and attempt a Superman comic or movie based off the OG Supes before DC was created.

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

They took the modesty shorts off just because. Superman still has them in Earth One and Young Justice and in some of the shorts they're running during DC Nation.

The court case isn't over yet. The rights are going to revert back to the families of the creators and if they don't come to a settlement they'll have to phase all of that out.

 

[rfx45]

As Falcon said, they still have the red undies in other Superman comic books so obviously they are still using it. Plus that says the rights go back to Siegel & Schuster estate in 2013 but the film was scheduled and costume finalized before the film was even moved up (article still has the film coming out in December). I also imagine that the \S/ would be in Siegel & Schusters rights and that would have to disappear as well but apparently it is still an integral part of the suit, obviously. Either way, I highly doubt that is the reason why there is no underpants.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

They took the modesty shorts off just because. Superman still has them in Earth One and Young Justice and in some of the shorts they're running during DC Nation.

The court case isn't over yet. The rights are going to revert back to the families of the creators and if they don't come to a settlement they'll have to phase all of that out.

Again, if this were the case, they'd ask to remove more in the Superman film including his whole suit and color scheme and the \S/ shield. I highly doubt the red underwear being removed is due to this case at all. It makes no sense to remove that as if that is more important to Supermans look than the \S/ or his mythos or even the name. It's ridiculous to single out the underpants like that is the reason they might have a problem with the Superman right not being owned by DC/WB. 

 

[|A-Man|]

IMO if you're having a legal case where you may lose some of Superman's most important and iconic things about the character and lore it makes perfect sense to get ahead of it just in case. I really don't believe these two things are coincidences.

2013 is the year it'll revert without a settlement so of course there'd still be some things out there with the OG look.

Taking out the underwear would just be for a clear distinction just in case there is no settlement and the heirs actually go through with a Superman flick with the OG look. Otherwise it'd be a complete cluster**** to have two guys in the same suit and name. It'd already suck that DC could lose Lex Luthor among other og villains.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

IMO if you're having a legal case where you may lose some of Superman's most important and iconic things about the character and lore it makes perfect sense to get ahead of it just in case. I really don't believe these two things are coincidences.

2013 is the year it'll revert without a settlement so of course there'd still be some things out there with the OG look.

Nah, that is definitely reaching. If they are having legal case and will have a problem, the whole movie wouldn't come out and the Siegel & Schuster state simply wouldn't be satisfied with the underpants being gone. They'd hold up the whole film. Plus ig they know it'll be a problem by 2013, they wouldn't have pushed the film back and released it on December of this year to avoid any problems. 
Simply put, this has nothing to do with the exclusion of the undies. Just accept it, it was a design choice and stop trying to bring conspiracy into the films decisions. 

 

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Read the article man. It says as long as MOS comes out before it reverts back certain things already established in the film may stay for possible sequels but a reboot would not be possible.



Again, the discussion is specifically about underpants and if that were the case where it wouldn't matter if they had it or not then they wouldn't have removed it at all unless it was their vision to not have it. You saying they removed the underwear because of legal problems due to rights is somewhat ridiculous. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by RFX45

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

IMO if you're having a legal case where you may lose some of Superman's most important and iconic things about the character and lore it makes perfect sense to get ahead of it just in case. I really don't believe these two things are coincidences.

2013 is the year it'll revert without a settlement so of course there'd still be some things out there with the OG look.

Nah, that is definitely reaching. If they are having legal case and will have a problem, the whole movie wouldn't come out and the Siegel & Schuster state simply wouldn't be satisfied with the underpants being gone. They'd hold up the whole film. Plus ig they know it'll be a problem by 2013, they wouldn't have pushed the film back and released it on December of this year to avoid any problems. 
Simply put, this has nothing to do with the exclusion of the undies. Just accept it, it was a design choice and stop trying to bring conspiracy into the films decisions. 

 

Again, read the article. Right now DC can still do w/e they want. It is only when it reverts back to the heirs that DC can't use most of the OG things. The family can't currently ask WB/DC to not use something in a movie. It is not theirs yet. The movie already has been in production. That's no different than the X-Men being owned by Fox so they make another movie before it reverts back to Marvel/Disney so they can continue to keep it, it's already in the process so nothing can be done. I already gave the reason for why the underwear is gone in the last two posts but I'll say again that it simply helps make a distinction. If DC does not reach a settlement with them the OG Supes reverts back to the heirs and they can do w/e they want and if they were to make a movie had DC not changed the suit you'd have two different Supermen movies with the same look and all that does is increase their chances of actually being successful. Adding that they wanted a new look for an iconic costume that's lasted the past 70 years is one thing but I doubt they'd even come out and say we can't have Supers look like this cuz of a legal matter.

But hey if you think I'm reaching fine, I'll do some digging later and post the actual article I read a few months back stating DC took out the underwear.

 

[rfx45]

I give up, you aren't getting what I am saying. You say the right go back in 2013 and that DC can do whatever they want until then including this film because they are done producing. And knowing this, DC decides to remove the underwear not because they feel it will violate anything because as you said because they can do whatever they want. So it makes no sense to remove the underwear and just the underwear to try and comply with something they don't have to comply with because they still have the rights to it. It's DCs, Snyder, Desginers, Nolans, etc... choice to remove it, simple as that. Why is that so hard to understand and go as far as to accuse the designed of the suit as a liar?

 

[|A-Man|]

It's not me saying all the legal parts, if you read the article from either link you can understand that. As far as the underwear I gave my reasoning behind them changing it because of the case.

You saying it makes no sense to remove the underwear only when they don't have to yet makes me feel you didn't read my posts in their entirety

Those guys lie all the time. Of course they just say they're spinning it especially when they're trying to sell a change. That's nothing new.

 

[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.

Anyways, to those who wants to see a crappy version of the teaser from SDCC here it is since I read that the one that comes with TDKR might be different: http://whatculture.com/fi...-superman-flys-again.php

 

[memphisboi55]

I've never seen a Superman movie.... doubt I see this one either.

 

[430AM]

Hold up blood... Why Superman look like LouDiamond Phillips tho???!!!

 

[myusername]

ehh
never liked superman. since he's an alien he swore not to harm humans which is why i dont think any superman movie will be 'dark' or have him punching someone's head off.
secondly his 'disguise' is lame. a pair of sunglasses and combing his hair and suddenly people dont recognize him.. and his day job = zzzzz

batman >>>>

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by myusername


secondly his 'disguise' is lame. a pair of sunglasses and combing his hair and suddenly people dont recognize him.. and his day job = zzzzz

Not sure I've ever seen Clark Kent wear sunglasses before.

 

[matt53]

Originally Posted by RFX45

Originally Posted by myusername


secondly his 'disguise' is lame. a pair of sunglasses and combing his hair and suddenly people dont recognize him.. and his day job = zzzzz

Not sure I've ever seen Clark Kent wear sunglasses before.

Yeah sorry Action Comics came out in 1938 and was actually a landmark publication back then. Haters gon' hate.

 

[airjordan jb23]

Will be checking this out

I like the different direction being used.

 

[shogun]

Originally Posted by 430AM

Hold up blood... Why Superman look like LouDiamond Phillips tho???!!!

What?  

  He looks nothing like him though.  It's just the hair.  The hair does look cool, need to grow mine out again.

 

[bkzkurse]

Never preferred the red undies
Other costumed heroes wear leotard pants - Nightwing, spider-man, x-men - without the exterior underwear

To me it simply was....underwear worn on the outside