Superman Returns It's a bird It's a plane It's a... belt buckle?!

first of all, they're not underwear... it's trunks.


there's a significant difference.
 
and I see it as part of the design to break up the blue in the middle.
 
the entire purpose of Superman looking the way he does is to distinguish himself from other superheroes.
 
kakarot069 said:
the entire purpose of Superman looking the way he does is to distinguish himself from other superheroes.
That's a bit hard to believe considering that Superman was created before other superheroes.
 
I think Superman's suit is red, blue and yellow is because they're bright, friendly colours. When you see them, you don't think "Oh noes!!11". They're bright and friendly, like Superman himself.
 
Can I ask why they are importing crap from a FAILED PRODUCT into the comic books?
 
Ya guys its ONLY made 290 million so far.
Sounds like a failure to me.
:rolleyes:
 
kakarot069 said:
the entire purpose of Superman looking the way he does is to distinguish himself from other superheroes.

I always felt it was Jorels idea of attracting attention for his sons cause on earth.
 
XCharlieX said:
I always felt it was Jorels idea of attracting attention for his sons cause on earth.

Thats a good theory. Hey Kakarot, calm down a bit man, haha, its only a comic book. If people wanna call it underwear let them call it that. I'm a big fan of the comics and I collect then and read the stories and I normally call it his underwear. Lighten up! You might enjoy it more :)
 
they are not underwear. I dont know why that's so hard to figure out...
 
kakarot069 said:
they are not underwear. I dont know why that's so hard to figure out...

It could be called, underwear, trunks, briefs, speedo, whatever you wanna name it. Haha. Its not that big of a problem with me though. He wears them, its a staple of his costume, and as someone said earlier, its there to break the blue color, and give it a better look.
 
kakarot069 said:
if no one cares, then why are we talking about it?...




obviously, people do care.

People here care. People in the real world don't give a damn.

The only thing on the suit I really would have changed was the colors. That's it.
 
kakarot069 said:
they are not underwear. I dont know why that's so hard to figure out...
Probably because they look like underwear and always have. This is a criticism of Superman for decades. It's in the pop culture that people think he wears his underwear on the outside. You may not like it but that's the way it's seen by a lot of the world.
 
skruloos said:
That's a bit hard to believe considering that Superman was created before other superheroes.
i know that, but this is just my opinion, but i think he's never really changed is because since he's the original, and almost every other popular hero spawned from him, you should keep him the same.
 
skruloos said:
Probably because they look like underwear and always have. This is a criticism of Superman for decades. It's in the pop culture that people think he wears his underwear on the outside. You may not like it but that's the way it's seen by a lot of the world.
you're rigth, and I'm sory, but it just ticks me off so much because they're not underwear...



they're not whitie tighties or boxer briefs for that matter...
 
^ THat and underwear is technically worn UNDER the clothes making it UNDERwear...really at worst Supes is wearing OVERwear!! :D
 
Retroman said:
For those who think Singer and his costume designer pulled somehow came up with this wild idea of Superman having an 'S' on his belt.

Superman drawn HJ Ward....

wardvg4.jpg

This was the only other appearance in a DC book with that buckle and, frankly, I think this one was done as an homage to the other.

And neither books contained that buckle in the context of the story. Just on the covers.

And it's still not a good idea.
 
also, that's just an "S"... not a full fledged symbol.

There are no pictures in existence (besides Kubert's sketch) that show Superman with a full fledged symbol on the traditional/classic suit.
 
Wow still all of this over a buckle...that wasn't even noticable in the movie...I seen SR 3 times and don't recall seeing the buckle once in any of those viewings.
 
Venom71 said:
Wow still all of this over a buckle...that wasn't even noticable in the movie...I seen SR 3 times and don't recall seeing the buckle once in any of those viewings.
They just hate it because they know it's there. But that's just like me saying the flying looked fake because I knew the wires were there! Doesn't matter if I can't see them!
 
some of the cgi flying does look fake. Singer's never been very good with cgi doubles or wire work.
 
Wesyeed said:
some of the cgi flying does look fake. Singer's never been very good with cgi doubles or wire work.
Maybe to a person who has been following the production and has had the chance to dissect each and every bit of flying footage, it does. But the CGI in this movie was nothing short of stunning.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"