What If the glasses are gone!

[Boosted]

Originally Posted by Showtime

We're talking about a man from another planet who can fly and shoot beams out of his eyes, I think the discussion of whether or not his glasses are a good disguise for Clark is ironic.

i always think this is a copout answer. I prefer not to think everyone in a comic universe is an idiot. You can't make the glasses thing sound reasonable in anyway, you just have to go with it and say it's traditional.

[Blue Sugar]

It's all about making it work in context and suspending your disbelief to it. I love the glasses personally.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by JAK®

I had no trouble at all believing that Brandon Routh's Clark Kent was a convincing disguise;

I always felt Dean Cain looked pretty different with glasses as well

[Boosted]

cane looks more different than routh did.

[Prime]

They both look the same. And so will Cavill's CK and Supes if they don't do anything drastic with the whole disguise thing.

[LibidoLoca]

Right-Oh, gents. It's another case of conjecture gone mad, so murder and mayhem, standard procedure.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Boosted

i always think this is a copout answer. I prefer not to think everyone in a comic universe is an idiot. You can't make the glasses thing sound reasonable in anyway, you just have to go with it and say it's traditional.

Yep. Supernatural/fantastical stuff like boy wizards, giant robots or superpowered heroes are genre conventions we agree to as special “internal rules.” But we still expect that the surrounding, mundane details will conform to common experience. If there are telephones or cars (or eyeglasses), they have to work in the familiar way. In other words, consenting to the fantastic on some things doesn’t mean suspending disbelief on everything. Otherwise, you can excuse any number of bad ideas with the “it’s just fantasy” defense.

[Rust]

The glasses-thing is not black and white. It can work fine as long as they're just part of a bigger disguise-concept. That said, glasses alone can actually change a person's appearance quite a bit.

I dont see the big issue. It's not really that hard a sell.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JAK®

I had no trouble at all believing that Brandon Routh's Clark Kent was a convincing disguise;

It was enough for the movie. At least there Lois didn't care for Clark at all. But they look quite similar. Except, you know, for the glasses.

Originally Posted by JAK®

Because they look and act different enough that if you didn't know they were the same person you would never catch on.

It's very easy to call a disguise obvious when you know it is a disguise.

It's obvious because we all have porobaly had someone we know that starts wearing glasses and you still know who he is.

Originally Posted by Showtime

We're talking about a man from another planet who can fly and shoot beams out of his eyes, I think the discussion of whether or not his glasses are a good disguise for Clark is ironic.

Not actually. If someone in the movie had a red shirt and then in the next shot the shirt is white you couldn't explain that due to Superman's inherent fantasy nature. That doesn't cover everything.

In Superman's case, yes, the glasses thing is like tradition but in a movie is far less convincing than in other media.

Originally Posted by JAK®

But she has no reason to suspect they are the same person. People see what they expect to see.

Stranger things have happened.

Again, I didn't expect to see this old friend with glasses and a suit. I saw him. I tell him, lol, you look so different. I still know it's him.

[CLARKY]

Originally Posted by Superman141

I'm sure you guys have seen the video where Zach kinda makes fun of the glasses clark wears.... So What if they dont have clark wear them in MOS?? How will they change the story to protect his identity? Any Ideas?? After that video and the fact that there are zero photos of clark with glasses and the fact they wanna make this flim seem more real and make more sense, I truly think they went a new route.

Drop the glasses, it is so out of fashion!
I mean, everyone has been complaining for years about how ridiculous Clark's disguise is, how unrealistic it is.
I mean, it is like the trunks, unrealistic and ridiculous. They make this Superman like a vocal majority wants him, isn't it fine?!? As long as they make him realistic, who cares about what's inside the comics?
Drop the glasses!

[Blue Sugar]

The glasses have always been an equally symbolic disguise as a real one. The biggest thing in making him different from Superman has always been personality, voice and stature. In live-action I think both Reeve and Routh did fantastic there.

[RachelDawes]

If you drop the glasses, what's left to hide his face? A flimsy disguise is better than none.

[Nevaratoiel]

The thing that annoys me the most are all the changes that seem to be made:

- Different costume (almost unrecognisable)
- Redhead Lois
- No Lex Luthor
- No glasses (rumoured)

What else? As a sort of a fan, I liked Superman the way he was, and how Christopher Reeve put him up on the big screen. This whole new age Superman just doesn't do it for me at all.

[shauner111]

If you want that Superman you can always watch those old movies and read the comics. i dont understand people. If you want things to move forward, evolve, have directors who are going to bring something fresh to Superman, there are certain elements thatll have to be thrown away. You really want Lex Luthor in EVERY single movie?? A different costume?? its the same costume and it screams superman even without the stupid trunks. He looks like a wrestler with the trunks. That's something they can toss out and itll make the entire costume better as a result. No glasses? it may or not work. It's a stupid, lazy idea to begin with. I dont care who thinks otherwise, but that's why we're trying to come up with some ideas as to Clark PERHAPS not using the glasses. You want Christopher Reeves with the trunks, the glasses, with Lex Luthor as the villain and a brunette Lois? Go watch the first movie.

[Nevaratoiel]

Originally Posted by shauner111

If you want that Superman you can always watch those old movies and read the comics. i dont understand people. If you want things to move forward, evolve, have directors who are going to bring something fresh to Superman, there are certain elements thatll have to be thrown away. You really want Lex Luthor in EVERY single movie?? A different costume?? its the same costume and it screams superman even without the stupid trunks. He looks like a wrestler with the trunks. That's something they can toss out and itll make the entire costume better as a result. No glasses? it may or not work. It's a stupid, lazy idea to begin with. I dont care who thinks otherwise, but that's why we're trying to come up with some ideas as to Clark PERHAPS not using the glasses. You want Christopher Reeves with the trunks, the glasses, with Lex Luthor as the villain and a brunette Lois? Go watch the first movie.

Puh-lease... talk to the hand!

Improvements. Yes.
Changing everything we know and make things unrecognisable. No.

I want a new and improved story. There is nothing wrong with the initial costume, brunette Lois and Lex Luthor... Make the story interesting, not just change the whole thing from A to Z.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

Puh-lease... talk to the hand!

Improvements. Yes.
Changing everything we know and make things unrecognisable. No.

I want a new and improved story. There is nothing wrong with the initial costume, brunette Lois and Lex Luthor... Make the story interesting, not just change the whole thing from A to Z.

What's unrecognizable? I recognize everything just fine. Everything "Superman" related thus far. And we really haven't been shown much at all. I agree about wanting a new and improved story, but u have to shake the boat a bit.

You don't need Lex Luthor or a different hair color for an actress to achieve a story thats interesting. Thats close-minded. Amy Adams is the best actress they've ever had in a Superman movie. And one of the best going today when you look at all the comic-book films coming out.

There's plenty of great villains to put in these movies. You do NOT need Lex Luthor. You'll probably get him in the 2nd or 3rd movie and the build will be better for it. Hell, they can go 4 movies without the damn character and still pump out cool ****. General Zod, Brainiac, Darkseid, Doomsday off the top of my head could alllll be done before we see Lex next. Won't happen but the point is..some things have to change. Or everything becomes repetitive.

[Prime]

The suit is not even close to being unrecognizable, that is just literally wrong. There is not 1 person that knows what the S symbol means and what Superman is that would not recognize the MOS suit as Superman. First time I heard/read such a thing.

Of course I wont even bother posting pictures of a ginger/redhead Lois Lane's of the past or the fact that Luthor was not in every single Superman storyline of the past because of course everyone has their own idea of what Superman is and a Superman movie should be and not everyone is going to like something different from their perference. But thinking their preferences are the only correct ones from 75 years worth of material and saying something is unrecognizable just because they don't like it...heh, all right.

[shauner111]

exactly.

[XEdge]

if there are no glasses...........will Superman's identity be public?

or maybe the glasses will debut at the end, when Clark realizes that he needs a better disguise if he's going to be Superman full time.

[shauner111]

He should just pull a Tony Stark if they're not gonna have the glasses or a proper disguise. Just tell the world he's Superman. He'll get laid by flocks of women within 2 minutes of that announcement!

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by XEdge

if there are no glasses...........will Superman's identity be public?

or maybe the glasses will debut at the end, when Clark realizes that he needs a better disguise if he's going to be Superman full time.

I have the feeling this will be like this new "way" to make movies in which the first is the very first days of the hero. I heard that that Robin Hood movie with Russell Crowe was like that.

[Rust]

You being ironic? Hasnt this been very clear since we learned about the new origin they're doing? That MOS would focus a great deal on Superman prior to becoming Superman? That's the idea I got early on myself.

[LibidoLoca]

Well, they could always go with Plan B:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

[Rust]

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

I wouldnt mind if they did a scene like that. A young Clark stalking a thug.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Just as a general question: To the people who say drop the glasses/Clark Kent persona, what should it be replaced with?