Man of Steel feet (soles)

[gbmcleod]

Henry Cavill, in one of the beginning scenes on an oilrig, falls into the water, and they photograph him from below arms outspred and feet showing CLEARLY.
There are only sole shots, although you can see his individual toes stretched out (you can see in between his toes) as he gently falls ever deeper into the depths. Looks like he has big feet. No top shots, though...
Thought you sole-oriented guys would want to know (I'm a tops/toes guy myself), but his feet looked nice from that angle.

[blnkmonine]

Henry Cavill, in one of the beginning scenes on an oilrig, falls into the water, and they photograph him from below arms outspred and feet showing CLEARLY.
There are only sole shots, although you can see his individual toes stretched out (you can see in between his toes) as he gently falls ever deeper into the depths. Looks like he has big feet. No top shots, though...
Thought you sole-oriented guys would want to know (I'm a tops/toes guy myself), but his feet looked nice from that angle.

I just saw this movie and was so glad for this scene and Cavill. I personally think the movie was not very good at all in terms of story line, dialogue and character development. That being said, the one thing that got me through it was the booming effects and staring into the protagonists magnificent face.

[akeel]

That scene can be seen in one of the earliest trailers for the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4


and that shot made Footbuddies' Different Celebs thread all the way back in Dec 2012.

http://www.footbuddies.com/forum/showpost.php?p=66478&postcount=9529



They tell the same freakin' story over and over again with these Superman reboots, which baffles me (I'll take the original 1978 Reeve movie anytime anywhere). But I like Cavill (I REEEEEEEALLY like him - more than I ever did Routh) so when I have nothing to do one weekend and the hoopla calms down, I'll take an afternoon and see it.

[gbmcleod]

which most people don't.
One of my friend found the long fight scene at the end 'boring' but knowing that these are two Kryptonians with equal powers means it isn't going to be a 10-minute fight scene.

I've been reading Superman comics since 1961, so I'd guess my perspective is different.
Superman killed Zod in the comics around 1995, and he'd always vowed NEVER to take a life. He was haunted by it (don't know why, 'cuz Zod is a mean, vicious killer). Yet in the movie, as soon as he comes out of his 'closet' he encounters Zod and kills him, and since this is when Superman is first known to the world, the timing of it, to me, as a Superman fan, is bizarre. The first time he gets into a battle, he kills someone. It's about 40 years earlier than it happened in the comic books,which these days, are anything BUT comical.
Someone seems determined to make a new version of Superman.
Incidentally, although I liked the Christopher Reeves version at the time, it now appears cheesy and second rate to me. All the mugging Reeves does - not as Clark Kent, but as Superman - is foolish. Reeves was just likeable and that's what people seem to remember.They ignore that Superman could circle the Earth 30 times in 1 second (as he shows at the end of the first movie, ironically, when he goes into the past by exceeding the speed of light to save Lois' life). Why the hell couldn't he have reached the nuclear missiles in .0000001 seconds then? Right, to draw out the tension. The first movie was rife with contradictions such as that. The current one, too, since Superman's been hit by asteroids and doesn't even blink, or, as Brandon Routh played him, in the opening sequence when the plane loses its wing, he flies right through it without blinking. So, why, when het gets hit with a bus in the current movie, does he end up in the dirt, shaking his head to clear out the cobwebs.
He's hardly truly Super in this movie; more like a man with considerable power, but not phenomenal power, as he has in the comic books.
My thing is, why can they never make a straight adaptation. Why do they pander to the masses, who aren't really fans? Oh, right. Money.
Knowing nothing about the comic books and seeing any superhero in a movie always brings about the inevitable, "I don't understand why..." it's the same as not having read the Wizard of Oz books. Glinda is not a beautiful young witch, as played by Billie Burke. In the book, she's old, wizened, and barely taller than the Munchkins. And that's not even half the difference between the book and the movies. Yet the movie is not only a Classic, but a beloved Classic. Fortunately, in those days, the audience wasn't full of critics...

[seansea]

Keep in mind Cavil was also barefoot and occasionally sandaled the entire time in "Immortals" in case you need a Cavil foot fix. There are a few quick shots of the tops of his feet too. I'm not so much into dirty feet, but if you happen to be you'll be in monkey spankin' heaven.