Skip to comments.First Look: Henry Cavill as Superman in ‘Man of Steel’
Posted on 08/04/2011 10:02:12 PM PDT by tlb
With all the unofficial set photos that have been popping online from the sets of The Dark Knight Rises and Zack Snyders Man of Steel, Warner Bros. has jumped the gun and provided our very first, official, look at Henry Cavill as Superman in the June 14, 2013 film. Check out the full, high-resolution version, after the jump.
Choosing this image, Superman protecting a smokey safe, as our first official look at the film says a lot about what Snyder is going for here. What does it say exactly? Thatll Ill leave to you all to discuss.
Supermans hair is definitely on the table for discussion as well. We saw yesterday in these photos that Cavill can certainly rock the trademark curl but this photo makes him look more like an 80s Wall Street trader. Maybe the hair changes over the course of the film?
Finally, theres the suit itself. A far cry from Christopher Reeves or even Brandon Rouths duds, Cavills costume seems to have an almost living, Spider-Man quality about it. Blow up the image and look at the textures. Is it a departure? Yes. But the almost reptile consistency of it makes perfect sense when you realize these are clothes from another planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at slashfilm.com ...
Our Truth, Social Justice, and the UN Way!
What, that’s not what’s going to come out of this? Then I’ll be pleasantly stunned (not stuned)...
Thumbs down on the widows peak and receding hairline combo. Superman should look like male baldness does not exist on Krypton.
Don’t like the dark costume either.
How true. I did not notice the hair but you are right. Hollywood has been doing real good with comic book movies lately so I will go see this.
IIRC he was based on Jesus.
Back when he was invented, he didn't have all these powers. For instance, he couldn't fly, he could only leap tall buildings in a single bound. He just got more powerful as each writer gave him more abilities.
Marvel movies are good.
DC movies are not so good.
Although Nolan has done a great job with the only decent main character DC ever created.
My understanding is that the textured costume allows for a better transition than a smoother suit when doing CGI shots. Not happy with the hairline or darker colors but the git the s symbol correct as well as the cape attachment points. Be interesting if they try to make him a darker character ... He’s always been the juxtaposition to batman and one of the few characters, being an alien, to put on a costume in his civilian life instead of the other way around.
A short sample of DC & imprint based movies:
- A History of Violence
- Road to Perdition
- The Dark Knight
- V for Vendetta
- R.E.D. (Retired, extremely dangerous)
Movies based on Marvel comics
- The Punisher
- Ghost rider
- Fanstastic Four
In all honestly, in terms of movies being 'good' that can be judged using various metrics. One is box office sales (DC wins that one, with a movie like The Dark Knight alone beating all Marvel movies combined apart from the Spiderman movies), in terms of academy awards (again, DC wins that one), and in terms of reviews (another homerun for DC). Where Marvel rules is in movies directed for a certain demographic, primarily the 13-19 year old demographic (e.g. Wolverine and X-men fans), with the only shift from that demographic being the Spiderman movies that had a much wider audience. However, in that limited niche of comics books, Marvel really doesn't hold a candle to DC. Especially when you have some comic books from DC (e.g. The Dark Knight Returns, The Sandman, and The Watchmen) making it into the New York Times Bestseller list. No Marvel comic has ever come close. Actually a comic like The Sandman, have won awards traditionally meant for books.
Anyways, different tastes for different folks, but when it comes to the big three ways of determining what movies are 'good' (namely box office returns, awards received, and critical reception) DC easily takes all three.
However, if I had a 7 year old that I wanted to take for a movie, and I have to chose between a DC grown-up movie like Road to Perdition (based in the Great Depression and starring Tom Hanks as a mob enforcer trying to survive with his son against a mobster) or another DC movie like A History of Violence; or take my kid to a Marvel movie like the Fantastic Four (four people, one who is a rock, another can turn into fire, another invisible, and the last can stretch really far) or Ghostrider (a guy whose face is a flaming skull and rides a bike) ...well, I would take my kid to watch the Marvel movies.
He wasn’t. Both creators were jewish, there is some debate on whom he was based on (some think Moses), and some debate on the influence of Nietzsche (which may be more due to them hearing the term from other writers, they themselves weren’t familiar with him). Either way, they didn’t model him after Jesus, but, and this is a big but, other writers may have.
That’s why those “crossover” comics from the 70s didn’t work for me. Superman versus Spiderman? Superman could just kill Spiderman with one punch if he wanted to. He’s TOO powerful, so kind of boring. I generally liked DC comics more than Marvel, because some of the heroes were humans, with powers that came from ingenuity or hard-core training, like Batman or Green Arrow.
I beg to differ with your box office statement. Spiderman 1 set records.
He looks like a young Patrick McGoohan.
george reeves never had the ‘s’s curl in the hair either and i wish they would do a cgi version of him in a movie.
Yes, Spiderman set records. Dark Knight beat them.
In terms of box office receipts in the US, Spiderman 1 had US$403.7 million, while Dark Knight had US$533.4 million. That is a difference of 130m.
In terms of opening weekend, Spiderman had US$114m while Dark Knight had US$158m.
Now, when you go to world wide total, Spiderman had US$ 822 million, while Dark Knight had over US$ one billion.
Dark Knight beat out Spiderman 1, 2 and 3 (and SM3 did better than 1 anyways, but still loses to Dark Knight).
Agreed. That’s always been the problem with some of DC’s more powerful characters (like Superman and the Justice League). You have characters so powerful that the only way you can come up with viable adversaries for them is by reallllllyy getting off the reservation (either by creating enemies that are basically gods, or scripting a lot of nonsense even for a comic book, like Lex Luthor being a threat to a being that can see through the earth’s core, hear an ant in Papua New Guinea, and has more powers than your average X-men team). However, where DC really did well is, as you mentioned, in the ‘human’ characters like Bruce Wayne and Green Arrow, who were basically ‘normal’ humans that got where they were by hard work and dedication. Marvel really never did that ...even the characters it has that come closest to ‘normal’ (e.g. Captain America, Black Panther and Dare Devil) are actually super powered (Cap America via super steroids ...erm, I mean a ‘super serum,’ Black Panther by eating some sacred root dedicated to some African panther deity, and Dare Devil by developing a ‘radar sense’ when a chemical accident destroyed his vision as a boy. They could have left Dare Devil as simply a man who develops his other senses to compensate for his blindness, but they had to seep in ‘radar sense’ into the mix. Anyways, the really powerful DC characters are for kids (in much the same way as many of the Marvel characters like the X-men and all the other spandex wearers with funny names), but DC has some interesting works that are quite adult (such as some stuff from Vertigo).
I, for one, cannot wait for the movie about the SuperMonkey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.