Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Superman 'Too Big' for the Big Screen 427

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-always-thought-hal-would-be-the-hung-one dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Superman 'Too Big' for the Big Screen More

Superman 'Too Big' for the Big Screen

Comments Filter:

  • Lies! (Score:5, Informative)

    by xmuskrat ( 613243 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:46PM (#14285419) Homepage
    This is totally untrue. The actually designed the suit with that in mind, and added padding to deal with it.

  • obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#14285432)
    I for one, welcome our well endowed, super hero overlord

  • Umm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bhtooefr ( 649901 ) <[gro.rfeoothb] [ta] [rfeoothb]> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#14285435) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • Diet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mike Peel ( 885855 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#14285436) Homepage
    They could have just got him to lose a bit of weight before they did the filming...

    Oh, wait, that bulge.
  • They don't call him Superman for nothing...

  • False. Debunked. On Tuesday. (Score:5, Informative)

    by loggia ( 309962 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:48PM (#14285442)
    link [darkhorizons.com]

  • But on the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:48PM (#14285445)
    ...he's faster than a speeding bullet. Everybody has issues. :-)
    • Peter: Hey, what are you doing here?
      Superman: I killed a hooker. She made a crack about me being faster than a speeding bullet so I ripped her in half like a phonebook.

    • Re:But on the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:56PM (#14285511)
      T.S. Quint: But they're engaged.
      Brodie: Doesn't matter, can't happen.
      T.S. Quint: Why not? It's bound to come up.
      Brodie: It's impossible, Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle the sperm? I guarantee you he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back. What about her womb? Do you think it's strong enough to carry her child?
      T.S. Quint: Sure, why not?
      Brodie: He's an alien, for Christ sake. His Kyrptonian biological makeup is enhanced by earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan the kid could kick right through her stomach. Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. The only way he could bang regular chicks is with a kryptonite condom. That would kill him!

  • I'd just (Score:2, Funny)

    by cpt_rhetoric ( 740663 )
    I'd just write it into the story line. The bulge is a effect of pink kryptonite.

  • Funny How (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spytap ( 143526 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:50PM (#14285458)
    Funny How a rumor becomes fact just through repeating it everywhere...

    • Re:Funny How (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Audacious ( 611811 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:02PM (#14285913) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.

        Here's a better example : Because Macs cost more, they must be better, right?

        By the looks of those photoshop benchmarks, you must be right!

    • Re:Funny How (Score:5, Funny)

      by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:30PM (#14286063)
      By the way, we went to Iraq to liberate its citizens, piracy hurts the artists and stagehands more than the movie execs, those who need privacy have something to hide, rise in global temperature since the Industrial Revolution is just coincidence, and I'm really really good in bed.

  • Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:50PM (#14285459) Homepage Journal
    Falling for viral marketting.
    • Falling for viral marketting.

      Indeed. Isn't it great that we have all the kiddies running around screaming that Americans are prudes when it seems to be that this story isn't even true? I guess people don't see cheap (and fake!) publicity when they see it. I guess any chance to take a cheap shot at Hollywood/Americans/corporations/etc is a good enough of a reason to get it posted on slashdot.

  • Brandon Routh must be loving this (Score:5, Funny)

    by blaberski ( 215844 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:50PM (#14285461)
    Even if the movie tanks, he will be remembered as the man that was so well endowed that they had to shink him digitally.

  • MPIAA request (Score:5, Funny)

    by Markintosh ( 883912 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:51PM (#14285474)
    It was an MPIAA request, cuz they didn't want any competition in the "being a big dick" department.

  • Alas... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kikta ( 200092 ) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:52PM (#14285478)
    The Sun's source said: "It's a major issue for the studio. Brandon is extremely well-endowed and they don't want it up on the big screen.


    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 feel so sorry for him (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have the same problem.
  • Maybe they shouldn't have hired Ron Jeremy to cast Superman

  • I, for one (Score:5, Funny)

    by Leffe ( 686621 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:53PM (#14285488)
    I, for one, will be waiting for the bulging uncensored version!

  • Obligatory Niven Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by __aagctu1952 ( 768423 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:53PM (#14285489)
    Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex [rawbw.com]

  • You be the judge (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrLudicrous ( 607375 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:55PM (#14285503) Homepage
    Here is a link to a pic [brandonrouth.com].
    • a moment ago I was happilly coding and now I am downloading pics of male actors to check out their bulges? something went horribly wrong with the news today.

  • Pixellation. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:59PM (#14285533)
    For the entire movie they should cover his crotch with pixellation effects as used in "the Sims" game when the CG characters take a shower or use the toilet.

    It would serve to please the radically prudish, entertain anyone otherwise bored with the movie, and also demonstrate how blatantly ridiculous the US sense of morality has become.
    • > and also demonstrate how blatantly ridiculous the US sense of morality has become.

      Surely no more ridiculous than a man running around in blue tights and a red cape.

  • WORST-JOB-EVER (Score:5, Funny)

    by ncin_az ( 939762 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:01PM (#14285548)
    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
    • > Am I the only one who feels really sorry for the guy spending the whole editing process digitally reducing supermans bulge?

      If he has inadequacy concerns he will probably enjoy it.
  • Why else do you think they call him Mr. Fantastic?

  • That reminds me... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This article reminded me of an old joke I once heard:

    Superman was flying around the city and saw Wonder-Woman laying naked and spread-eagle on a rooftop. Superman thought that he would be able to fly down, screw her, and leave without her even knowing what happened. Sure enough, he did just that. Afterwards, Wonder Woman said, "What the hell just happened?" The invisible man, laying on top of Wonder-Woman replied, "I don't know, but my ass hurts like hell!"
  • You must all know what I'm talking about. Doc Oc in the second Spiderman movie was quite "well endowed" too. Could this be a sign "normal" and "normal American" proportions are spilling over into the "flawlessness" that is Hollywood?
    • It may also be worthwhile to take into account tha fact that averages vary by country, the USA average is slightly less than the UK average, which is slightly less than the Australian average. None of the images so far posted in this thread seem like anything more than average to me (UK).

      Either that, or me and all my regular swimming partners are "extremely well-endowed", which statistically isn't likely. I know I'm above average, but I also know people with similar looking bulges who are far closer to aver

  • with digital effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by S3D ( 745318 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:11PM (#14285612)
    If it would be surgical that would be a real news.
  • Seems like this is just publicity, it worked for the Lindsey Lohan apparent 'breast reduction' in Herbie and they are trying it again here. Simple concept really, create a bit of naughty controversy over the size of main actor/actresses' breast/penis size and watch the film hype itself before it even hits theaters.
  • It's a Blimp! It's an armadillo! It's Superman!!!!

  • Lucky Bastard (Score:5, Funny)

    by Necrotica ( 241109 ) <cspencer@nosPAM.lanlord.ca> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:32PM (#14285736)
    FTFA:

    The Sun's source said: "It's a major issue for the studio. Brandon is extremely well-endowed and they don't want it up on the big screen.

    I would KILL for advertising like that!

    Headline from next week's people: "Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson, and J-Lo break up with boyfriends and husbands to view for the love of the new Superman"
  • . . . Brandon Routh to open for Lenny Kravitz.
  • ...he is in the wrong sort of movies.
  • "They'll never get that to fit on the album cover!"

    (From the Cheech & Chong "bailiff, whack his pee-pee" skit.)

  • Wonderful slashdot, just wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:43PM (#14285797) Homepage Journal
    Yah we're not supposed to grouse over rejected submissions but,

    HOLY FUCKING HELL THIS IS A STORY ABOUT A BULGE IN A GUYS COSTUME!!! What the hell /. editors, i've submitted at least a 1/2 a dozen stories more on topic with being "news for nerds" than this one.

    Taco, do male bulges turn you on? Michael? Any other /. editors want to comment? Is this a turn on or penis envy? WTF!

    I mean sure, superman IS nerdy to a point. It's science fiction, it was a comic book, maybe we can stretch it out to include Christopher Reeds fetus brain sucking stem cell cheerleading, but "OMFG SUPERMAN HAS A PENIS BULGE!! ROTF LOL!!" is about as nerdy and mature as the turd reports discussion on what he left in the toilet bowl. I'm sorry, it has no place here.

    And before you decide to downmod me, seriously ask yourself, are you happy with this story being posted? Have you, yourself, the moderator had stories rejected in the last few months only to see this stupid childish drivel posted on the slashdots front page? Seriously, this story is about as mature as reading at -1 and GNFOS posts. I'm really disheartened to see a site that started off with such a great concept fall completely into trash journalism.

    Before anyone says "Chill toq, it's parody" Duh!, yes I know it's a parody, but ask yourself, does even a parody about the new superman actor having a super dick even qualify as news for nerds? Didn't think so.

    --toq
    • I think the news for nerds appeal is more this: look at this ridiculous use of technology. Look how far digital effects have come that the possibility of subtly manipulating every frame in which the lead actor appears (for a trivial reason) is accepted.

      Granted I read both this story and the debunking of the story ages ago, so it certainly didn't appear on /. in a timely fashion.

      I understand that you have a strong opinion about this, but there are certainly far better ways to make your point. The instant y
  • Is it a bird? Is it a dildo?

    NO! It's..... Supersizedman!!
  • "Whoa, check out the unit on that guy!"

    Shouldn't Superman have a super unit???

  • The exact opposite is probably true, he has nothing going on and they made up this story to explain away any CGI enhancement you notice in that area.
  • has no one here tried wearing skin tight lycra lately? put it on any man and you can see his dick and balls. its bound to be unsuitable for a giant screen family viewing - it's not complicated or unique to this guy. they just have to strap his dick down with tape or something, no digital er.. manipulation necessary (or used, apparently). the root problem is men should not be wearing skin tight lycra, if they are being filmed.. (speaking from experience as a cyclist here).

  • This is insulting. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by torokun ( 148213 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:54PM (#14285860) Homepage
    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).

    • Re:This is insulting. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:24PM (#14286026)
      For some reason there is a huge aversion to male nudity in a lot of countries. I won't single out the US for this because I have seen it elsewhere. The Greeks and Romans didn't seem to have this problem, yet if you go to the main train station in DC (Can't remember the name) they have a gallery of roman/greek style statues around the main lobby. A sign thoughfully points out that shields were added to the statues in the 20th century in order to hide the male genetalia.

      In a similar vein, I was in a photography class where we were shooting nudes. One time we had a male model, and I was laughing at my class mates who had spent all this time happily shooting women, but the site of one nude guy got them all confused, and they were all trying to arrange the angle so hi groin wouldn't be in the shot. Yet to me one of the best shots was a full frontal of the guy.

      I have been thinking (now and in the past) that this is all part of the indoctrination that male nudity equates with homosexuallity, and that homesexuality equates with paedophilia, hence male nudity is bad. Which is a ridiculous and totally line of reasoning. But the media has got us all conditioned as to how we should react.

      This is especially seen in the comparison that woman are allowed to appreciate how other women look, but if guys appreciate how guys look .. well they're gay. (Let alone that lesbianism is more socially acceptable that homosexuality)

      I could rant on about this for a while, but basically I agree with you. Men appear to be dominant in a lot of areas, but everywhere else they are supressed/repressed as much or even more than women. (Check out funding differences between breast cancer and prostrate cancer) But in the areas that men are repressed, society has told us not to look in that direction, so the repression is deemed acceptable.

      • Re:This is insulting. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by torokun ( 148213 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:40PM (#14286133) Homepage

        I agree completely. I would also note that in recent years, due to all the PC stuff going around, males in general seem to be afraid to assert their masculinity.

        There have been some books in the last few years attempting to buck the trend, about raising boys and not denying or disparaging their masculinity.

        People who have come to believe that everything about the nature of men is wrong need to be contraverted. Violence and aggression can be very good things when disciplined and used for the right ends. Toughness and will to overcome weakness and weak urges can make one a strong and powerful leader. And these traits are not bad in and of themselves. In fact, they're necessary to the proper functioning of our social institutions.

      • Re:This is insulting. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @03:59PM (#14286608)
        that male nudity equates with homosexuallity, and that homesexuality

        I think you could have stopped right there and been spot on, since pedophilia is a characteristic that is equally present in both camps.

        I remember watching a PBS documentary called "The Boy Code" (I hope that's right), which discussed the manner which boys are indoctrinated early on not only to reject, but outright destroy (literally or figuratively, depending on the circumstances) anything that threatens the notion of what is masculine. Boys are expected to give up any semblance of emotion, love sports (or anything rough and violent), etc., etc. For those that have a hard time fitting into this mold, they are ridiculed, teased, bullied, etc.

        The irony is that we reap what we sow...we create these people as a society, and then wonder why men are so uh, "challenged" in some ways. It's all quite pathetic, in my opinion, because it doesn't *have* to be this way.

        • Re:This is insulting. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @04:38PM (#14286822)
          I agree and the media and society supresses occurence pedophilia from women and emphasizes its occurence in men.

          The same thing happens with female violence in relationships.

          Only in the last 5 years are we starting to see things turn around.

          I -still- don't have as much of a problem with female pedophilia since I was raised to think it would be one of the greatest things on earth for an older lady to take me as a 13 year old into bed.

          I still have that feeling and the opposite with regard to young girls "preyed" on by men.
          Reality is somewhere in between. There probably are a lot of 13+ (maybe 15+) boys and girls who would not be harmed and enjoy the experience a great deal. There are also probably a lot of 13+ boys and girls who would be messed up by the experience. I think it's a question of power in the relationship and if they seek out someone to have sex with (via a crush perhaps) vs being taken advantage of.

          But clearly, women have gotten a break in the past and they are not going to get it going forward (to which I say DAMN STRAIGHT!). Now they are going to jail if they have sex with a minor just like males were in the past.
      • "male nudity equates with homosexuality" - I'd say it's the other way around. The huge bias against male homosexuality (when compared with the smaller bias against lesbianism) is due to the same cultural deprecation of men and masculinity. Compare the greek system of pederasty, homosexual adult-on-teenager mentoring. That culture lauded the male, and homosexual love was praised for keeping maleness undiluted.

        If anything I'd say that current harsh attitudes towards men are what has led to this present extrem

      • Re:This is insulting. (Score:4, Funny)

        by JahToasted ( 517101 ) <toastafari AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:42PM (#14287390) Homepage
        Elaine: "Well, the female body is a... work of art. The male body is utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep."
        Jerry: "So you don't think it's attractive?"
        Elaine: "It's hideous. The hair, the... the lumpiness. It's simian."
        George: "Well, some women like it."
        Elaine: "Hmm. Sickies."

    • Re:This is insulting. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:39PM (#14286121) Homepage
      Here's the fundamental problem: Why is the male figure labeled as obscene, while the female figure is exalted?
      Straight men are the ones making the decision about what's obscene, so if straight men have been indoctrinated into believing that "seeing a penis" = "gay", they'll avoid seeing a penis to prove their straightness. In societies where homosexuality wasn't a problem, notably ancient Greece, there are as many if not more male nudes than female nudes.

    • Maybe you don't notice penisses? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:52PM (#14286215) Journal
      You say breasts stand out more. Well yeah. To guys. I in general do not look at men's crotches. Nothing there that intrests me.

      Women on the other hand do look down there. Even if they deny it, it has been shown to be true during research where the movement of the eye was followed and they definitly do a quick check down there when they meet a man.

      Oh and as for the whole size matters. This is what one woman told me. When she masturbates she frequently doesn't even penetrate and when she does she uses at most 2 fingers.

      Now if your penis is no bigger then a woman's finger THEN you got a problem. For the rest, it is skill and the most important piece of knowledge? If you penis might be a bit small, you still got 10 fingers and a tongue. Some women even seem to like this whole foreplay thing.

      Check if you can the most popular masturbation aids for women. A very good seller is always the egg/butterfly devices wich do not even do penetration. They just are smooth rounded objects that vibrate and are used on the outside. The huge 15inch black rubber slongs? Not for solo use. Women on their own seem to prefer simple small designs, the outlandish stuff is usually bought by males (possibly for their girls).

      Think of it like this, if women enjoyed being stretched to the max they would look forward to their pap smear exam.

      How do I know this? Well I worked in a side branch of the porn industry, maintaining those pay porn sites you all know and love. I also dealt with a local guy who owns several establishements in the amsterdam red light district. He makes a lot of money NOT from grubby old men but from females (often tourists) who come to buy a little helper.

    • Re:This is insulting. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:53PM (#14286218)
      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?

      There are 2 things here.

      1) Men and women are not particularly interested interested in looking at a soft dick. Men get excited to some degree seeing a woman naked or in a revealing outfit. I guess its because there is not too much difference between a woman physically between before after/during sex. Nothing as noticeable or physically significant as the difference between a hard and soft penis. Many women paint themselves to look more like they are having sex by adding blush to their cheeks and red lipstick to their lips.

      2) Men are basically in charge of most everything, including movie production, and the quiet smart guy that is paying for or putting together a movie does not want any additional competition for sex by somebody that is already in the limelight. Also, many men for some reason are scared that another man is going to fuck them when they are not looking. This is something I simply do not understand, but homophobia is a pretty common psychological problem for men. Its at least common enough that my spell checker didn't question it.

  • The same thing happened to Burt Ward who played Robin in the Batman and Robin TV series. He was also apparently hung like a horse, and that pissed Adam West off a little bit because he *wanted* to be hung like a horse.

    See Burt Ward's biography "My Life in Tights" for details. Its amazing what went on behind the scenes of that show. The stunts gone wrong, the sex the machinations, the jealousy, the romance. Its a hilarious and interesting read for anyone who liked that show.

  • Lowest Low (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr. Smoove ( 160347 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:00PM (#14285903)
    "reports The Sun"



    This is the lowest low for Slashdot. Treating a piece of nonsense that was proved as un-true five days ago and the source is arguably the worst of the British tabloids, The Sun. Does the Slashdot name and tagline mean anything anymore?

  • nipples that could cut glass (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xeno ( 2667 ) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:36PM (#14286106)
    Awfergodsake... Batman can have nipples that could cut glass on his costume (not to mention the whole matching Robin homoerotic costumerie), the Mystique character from x-men can crawl across the screen buck-ass nekkid but for a few well-placed scaly-things, and even the Spy Kids characters have proto-breasts and pouches to stimulate the (hopefully) 12-year old pervs in the audience. And I'm still scrubbing my brain from watching the characters in Lost in Space.

    And Superman can't appear too male. Jebus. I'm not in favor of having a super-dong waved in my kid's face on the big screen, but come on, the bar is pretty low these days. This is the least of my worries.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close