Slashdot Mirror
Superman 'Too Big' for the Big Screen
Evilelf writes "The new Superman is giving movie bosses a headache - because of the size of
his bulge. They fear Brandon Routh's profile in the superhero's skintight costume
could be distracting, reports the Sun. Hollywood executives have ordered the
makers of Superman Returns to cover it up with digital effects."
This is totally untrue. The actually designed the suit with that in mind, and added padding to deal with it.
activestudios web design
First, who really cares?
Second, this is old news. I heard this on the radio a week or two ago.
Third, as someone else said, you wanna bet tons of chicks are going to see the movie just to get a look at this guy's wang?
They could have just got him to lose a bit of weight before they did the filming...
Oh, wait, that bulge.
link
...he's faster than a speeding bullet. Everybody has issues. :-)
Even if the movie tanks, he will be remembered as the man that was so well endowed that they had to shink him digitally.
It was an MPIAA request, cuz they didn't want any competition in the "being a big dick" department.
I know his pain -- I also suffer from this disorder.
(Can't parents just explain it away by saying that Superman is All Kinds of Super?)
I, for one, will be waiting for the bulging uncensored version!
Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex
Am I the only one who feels really sorry for the guy spending the whole editing process digitally reducing supermans bulge? Not something I'd want on my resume... Ncin
It is sad. I seem to recall Batman and Robin having nipples. Now that was distracting.
Havoc Video
Thank god for someone around here with a tolerant attitude. I'm sick of the fact that Slashdot continuously discriminates against those of us with monstrously large packages. First it was Colin Farrel in Alexander, now this.
Am I the only one slightly pissed off by this?
Women prance around almost naked in both TV and movies all the time. Nipples and boobs stand out way more than any guy's package.
But we can't see even an indirect indication of male genitals? What's the problem? Afraid it's going to come get you? Afraid of the revelation that men actually have penises?
I am not a big supporter of the sexualization of our media - I think it's a race to the bottom, in terms of the quality of content. But neither am I a supporter of some kind of willful blindness or disgust at the natural figure of men.
Here's the fundamental problem: Why is the male figure labeled as obscene, while the female figure is exalted?
Maybe it's all just because men always want to see female sexuality, but women are squeamish about seeing male sexuality.
But when it comes to art, or even a simple bulge, do we really have to pretend that penises don't exist just to make the public 'feel ok'? What is this thing between my legs then, which must be perpetually denied and hidden from view? Some kind of leprous growth?
Do we really want our sons to think their natural bulge is something to be ashamed of???
I say that it's demeaning and insulting to men to censor a natural bulge covered by clothing (even moderately tight clothing).
It's called a Self Fullfilling Phrophecy. If you get enough people to believe what you are saying - then it becomes reality for everyone and everyone believes it. Like everyone saying that IBM PCs are better than Macintoshes. Pretty soon (if your advertising budget is large enough) you have everyone using IBM PCs and thinking Macs are crap whether or not it really is true.
There are a lot of cases where this happenes. The war in Iraq for example. "We have to attack Iraq because they have Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Never found any, costing us Billions each year - but the government got what it wanted - a war. Sadly, it has cost us quite a bit (both in money as well as in people [both us and them mind you]) and is going to continue to cost us a lot for years to come.
Back to the packaged deal. Two things:
1. My wife's brother and his bride to be were given a party to celebrate their pending union. I had know him for a few years. He was a jogger who was skinny as a rail. Well, before the party he had gone jogging and when he came back he was soaked (due to the humidity though and not because he had been jogging). I never realized just how endowed he was until then. It became the talk of the party in whispers since he didn't go directly and change clothes. Finally his dad and myself went over and whispered to him that he might want to change his clothes. When he asked why we were polite but firm in telling him about the situation. He quickly retreated inside and came out in clothes that didn't show anything off. Much to the relief of the ladies who were present. (And his bride to be that was very embarrassed on his part.)
2. Movie studios try whatever they can to raise awareness of their movies and to get people to go to them. Movies that they think will strike it big with audiences they just hype the movie itself. But movies that they think they are not going to make much money on at all they usually try to get things rolling by bringing up some controversial item. (As in the actor's package.) The more hype that surrounds a movie - the worse the movie usually is. The more they stick to just showing you small parts of the film - the better the movie usually is. This is not always true though. It is just a general rule of thumb because as with everything - there are always exceptions to the rule.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
From: "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex", by Larry Niven:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry