DJ Kris

The lame name they gave for last night's Live Smackdown.

Ok, so what was special about it? Why was it live? Just a random thing?

No it is, it was unveiled in January as the new outfit. I dont know if its actually been used yet though, maybe they are timing it to enter around the same time as the film.

 

Just quickly googled it, that image is the cover of Superman #1: The Man of Tomorrow. Have they started that line yet?

 

http://comicbook.com/blog/2011/06/11/new-s...stume-revealed/

Hmmm, intreguing. I actually don't mind the suit there, I prefer a yellow belt, but at least the colours are right and it really doesn't look too different. Don't get what's going on with the glowing red eyes though? I see on the link there's a cover for Action Comic #1 which shows him in jeans, but with a Superman t-shirt and cape, bit odd. Doesn't seem to be going down well looking at the feedback.

I did read further down that page that DC lost the rights to some of his story in a law suit with the heirs of his original creators and therefore have to change things. Anyone know anything about that?

Looks like they are using the new suit.

 

 

 

 

 

At least in part, judging by the lack of red pants.

That looks better than the one from the movie but only because everything else about the suit seems to be right. However, I don't think that's actually Superman. Look at his eyes!

The hair could grow on me, but that suit, GAH! I like it even less now. The lack of red pants and yellow belt really make me angry. I want a Superman film I can love, not one that makes me wanna scream at the screen!

I'm actually suprised at the amount of love other people have for it.

I think he looks cool, it means a lot to me that they're still trying to make him look like the comic character we all know and love and recognise, every filmmaker seems to want to make comic book movies so realistic and reinvent them that I thought our next Superman would be Will Smith in a black trenchcoat.

Only just seen this. He doesn't look like the comicbook character though. I get what you mean about drastic changes they could make, and I also get that his look has evolved through the comics too. But He just feels wrong to me. Just look at his first ever appearance...

Bright red, blue, red pants! Ok, the shield on the front has changed since then, but the basics are there.

EDIT: Off topic, but I actually have the full version of that comic at home, interesting read, especially descovering how his origin story has altered.

Now his first appearance with his own comic

Again the shield is still not as we know it now, but he's got the bright red boots, cape, pants combined with the blue suit.

As he came to be known

This is probably the most iconic look he had and probably the most loved. It's almost the same as his first appearence, just a little tidying up. The biggest difference being the shield. It's a look that did him well though multiple TV Shows and movies. Why mess with that?

EDIT II: Brighten up the red and yellow a bit and there's not a lot wrong with the Superman Returns suit

EDIT III: I've played around with the new suit a bit, shame he's not got the cape on in this pic, but I think this looks much better

Unfortunately I can't add the red pants without making it look shit though

What is Super Smackdown?

Do you think we're soft on crime Kris?

In some cases we are. In some cases we don't even bother. An example of my own, a few years ago my car got damaged in the town centre while I was working in the club. It was only a few feet away from CCTV. I contacted the police via email and was pleased to receive a swift reply. Sadly it was to tell me there was no point in looking at CCTV as at night they don't really pick much up unless the operator zooms in on something, and since nothing had been reported by the operator then they won't have anything. Clearly I was disappointed, but appreciated the honesty of the response. What I didn't appreciate was seeing in the local paper sometime later closeups of the faces of people who had dropped litter. The paper was appealing for people to grass them up so they could be fined. The photos came from the CCTV on the same street and some of them were taken on the same night!

I have a friend who was on a tag for a month, he broke his curfew 18 times and he got an extra 3 hours community service. He's actually a very good lad, but he handles his problems the wrong way and frankly he needs to learn a lesson. I no prison isn't the right place for him, but fuck me, 3 hours community service for pissing all over his tag seems to basically say, fuck it do what you want and get away with it!

Funny you should say that. Someone just got convicted for posting this on facebook:

 

"I think we should start rioting, it's about time we stopped the authorities pushing us about and ruining this country. It's about time we stood up for ourselves for once. So come on rioters

So everyone who stole something during the riots, including the woman with the case of water and the guy with the bag of rice, should get the maximum 10 years?

I believe I did say treated on an individual basis. But it should be in the context of what was going on. As in why were they there in the first place? Is it your bog standard slap on the wrist shoplifting offence or were they actively taking part in the riots but water/rice happened to be all they stole? Were they bashing in windows?

I realise this but anti-terror laws weren't introduced to allow coppers to strong-arm 80 year old men shouting 'rhubarb' at politicians yet it's happened. You must have greater faith in the police/government that I do.

When did this happen?

See this type of thinking worries me, the idea that the student nicking bottles of water gets six months, as a way of punishing those setting houses on fire, really does scare me. If I squint my eyes I can just about see why the guys trying to organise a riot got so long, bottom line what you're trying to create is a crimewave and for that intent I can see an argument for a very high sentence. But for those on the outskirts, as it were, this all seems a bit much.

I think you've misunderstood me here. I'm not saying everybody involved in the riots should get the same sentance. I'm saying everyone should face the full force of the law to send a clear message that they are not untouchable. By this I mean as individuals, just as these 2 being given 4 years have been.

MP who fraudulently stole

Randy Orton

David Beckham

Not the same opportunity, there are HUGE differences between schools in certain areas. Some schools have a majority of children that come out with their GCSE's, some have a majority that don't. You're not telling me that this is down to the kids are you? Absolutely ridiculous.

Is it though? Tell me if I've got something wrong, but every child in the country is not only provided with a school place, but it is a legal requirement for them to attend. If they play truent who is to blame for that? Who's responsible? Now if they do go to school every day and still come out of it without even the ability to read or do basic maths then I agree, something is wrong with the school that has to be delt with.

Now when you say there's a feeling of hoplessness, a why bother attitude, I think you're definately right, but that's an attitude that needs to change from within, with the child, with the parents. Someone can say they're can't get a job in a bank, but if they didn't bother with school then they haven't given themselves a chance and of course the job will go to someone from a better area who did bother.

They all have opportunities to better themselves right now if they choose to take those opportunities. Once they've done that and they are qualified and skilled for the job they go for and yet it goes to someone less suitable because they are from a better area, then that is the point someone else becomes responsible.

If you grew up in a foreign language speaking household and have problems with English you can take ESOL classes for free.

This is another thing. A British born child should be able to speak the language of the country they are being brought up in. Ideally people moving here from abroad should make that effort anyway, but they should certainly ensure that they child does.

I think this is a problem in some areas, people moving here are not intergrating into society, rather creating their own little piece of home in parts of towns and citys. Yes, I am aware the English do this too.

But if the streets are safe enough for us to walk them safely without any danger what's he got to worry about as obviously Police are not needed because there is no crime about.

Stop being a tit! You know perfectly well that the Prime Minister and No. 10 are a potential target.

Theresa May really is a flimsy waste of space, isn't she?!

I had never heard of this woman until this thread. Who is she? What is she for?

[banter] Arse ache? Wow. Maybe Bagga's right.... [/banter]

He just gets upset cos I didn't want to munch on his bagette

One thing is for sure, once all of this has eventually died down, a serious look at the social fabric of England, and the wider UK, needs to be looked at. Trying to stifle and shut up any discussion about looking at the underbelly of what has been created leading to all of this, and sweeping it under the carpet will only make it worse in the future.

Definately there are underlying issues here that do need to be looked at. I stand my my previous comments that I don't believe these riots were about drawing attention to issues or about protesting against stuff and many of the rioters who claimed otherwise, I'm afraid I think they were just out to cause shit. However, we do need to look at not only how this was able to happen, but why there are so many people in this county lacking in the moral fiber willing to take part. Why do we have so many people who don't care about right from wrong? With such a lack of respect for anything and anyone?

Find the money. It's needed don't you think?

But where are they supposed to find the money? Labour left the country in a financial mess. I find it hard to get annoyed about any of the cuts because I think it's clear cuts are needed. It's terrible that we're in this position, but that's where we're at. People can bring up the expenses stuff, but again, that was under the previous government. This lot are faced with an impossible task that which ever way they handle things there will be a group of people upset by it.

Yeah, the Cameron love-in is bizarre if it's occurring. He was on holiday, delayed his return as long as possible until it was clear it would look utterly ridiculous if it didn't come back, recalled parliament with no true agenda or direction, then approved the use of rubber bullets and water cannons that the Chief of Police is saying they don't even need and won't use. He's been just as incompetent and bumbling as the rest of them.

There really isn't a Cameron love in though, just people saying that he's doing and saying the right things. As for his holiday, you're talking shit. He came back after the 2nd night of trouble, which seems fair enough to me. One night and you can be forgiven for thinking it might be over, most riots are. In this case it clearly wasn't over so he came back. Most people don't cut their holidays short unless they absolutely have to.

Which, to an extent at least, blows the whole 'unemployed, benefit scrounging' line out of the water.

Not really. Obviously there's people of different backgrounds involved. I just don't like to see the unemployed/people on benefits to be vilified as they usually are in certain circles.

Fair enough but I'm sure you'll recognise that this is being closely associated with unemployed people on benefits, fuelling more prejudice against that group in general, regardless of whether they're involved or not.

Now I've slept since yesterday, but I'm pretty sure it was you who kept making the connection between the unemployed you are unable to get jobs because there aren't any, etc, whilst myself practically everyone else kept pointing out to you that this has nothing to do with unemployment or being poor or any of the other reasons that YOU were giving for it. It's pure mindless violence and greed.

What you were doing was taking people's comments out of context. We're in a thread about a riots, as such and comments are directed at the rioters and not Armchair Willy patiently waiting to collect his benefits. Likewise if there's a thread talking about lazy scrounging tossers who sit on their arse collecting benefits all while having a house and better shit than those of us who go out and work for our money, it's those people we are referring to, not the unemployed who are actively trying to get a job or are unable to work for one reason or another.

I may get some flak for this but I can't help but feel that parts of England were left more vunerable so Cameron and The Met could have a massive show of force in London.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but not only did they take Police from other parts of the country, but it was all over the news as to where they'd taken them from! Hi, I'm going out tonight, the door will be unlocked and the alarm not set.

Oh god, some of the crap I was hearing on Twitter & Texts last night, apparently our Town centre was taking a bashing, so a bunch of us went down to see what was going down.

 

FUCK ALL!

My little town of Stamford had a few rumours being thrown around, however around midnight all that could be seen on the high street was a Police van and a couple of cars.

That one's from the Vancouver riots in June.

 

That was actually a thing of beauty. I'd love to know what happened to the guy afterwards.

Channel 847 being awesome still.

What is 847?

On Sky News it's just said they have arrested someone for the big fire last night and that shop what's been there since 1866

This is actually really sad, place survives 2 wars and get taken out by some scroat who need his nuts kicking

Someone from the Manchester city council is pleading for the parents of the looters to grass up their children. Whilst a great idea in principle, in practice if they are allowing their kids out obviously knowing where they are going, I don't think there is a hope in hell of them doing this.

Some of them might. Lets not forget some parents may not have control of their kids but it doesn't mean they're willingly allowing them to go out and do this. Don't get me wrong, that's bad parenting, but if they don't aprove they might just do it. I know of a parent who got fed up of not being able to control her son, not sure what he did but she picked up the phone and got him arrested.

Now we know this was not the case in this incident I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people who are normally good and haven't stolen anything in the past or done anything illegal at all or even if they have it's only been pretty minor stuff got involved in the looting because they saw everyone else getting away with it so why can't they get some stuff to.

I think there will definately be an element of first timers doing this, but one thing that struck me when listening to the radio was people saying stuff like "They stop n search us for no reason, dis is r way of rebeling ennit" I just though, come on you've blates been in trouble before, you're not some good little boy who's never done anything wrong so it's not suprising the police would pick on you because you are someone who may well be up to something.

I don't think they work harder, I think they have higher intelligence, see openings and take chances. Either way, that's life, live with it.

By working hard I didn't mean physically, but some jobs can be really taxing and stressful on your brain. Some big executives likely put in long hours etc. My Uncle used to earn big money as a Sales Manager but he'd often go on only 2-4 hours sleep.

Why live with it? Why not try and change it? No human being is worth more than another.

I know others have already pulled you up on the stupidity of this, and to a point I get what your saying about how some more valuble jobs pay less than others. I don't really like drawing comparisons between unrelated stuff however, a movie star earns big money, more than someone in the forces, but does that mean the movie star should earn less? If it does then who should earn the money from whatever film they starred in? It's a commodity that people want and are willing to pay for, so if the star of the show shouldn't be getting a good slice of the profits, who should?

Another thing to consider is that if one job didn't pay more than another then people would have nothing to strive for. If certain types of business wasn't big money then people wouldn't bother with it. If movies, music, etc weren't good earners, sure we'd still have singer, actors, etc, but we wouldn't see the level of entertainment so many of us enjoy.

Because it's an unfair society - a cleaner works just as hard as many billionaires yet enjoys 0.000001% of the rewards. How is that right? They should do the right thing and spread the wealth they have that they don't need. Or else we will have to accept an entirely inegalitarian system, and people will get frustrated and simply take what they want.

Oh dear, you're serious? I wonder how life would be if everybody earned the same regardless of what job they did? I think you'll find most billionaires work incredibly hard, quite posibly harder than your average cleaner, unless they're not particularly hands on, but then you have to look at how they got there, plenty will have had to work for it, sure plenty will have had it dropped in their laps too, but that's life.

Well ok Kris, what the fuck would you do if you had 200 people destroying a shop and 20-40 police officers? Go in like John Wayne and see what happens?

I have no idea the best way to deal with this, but I'm liking your water cannon idea right now.

Why not write your own instead of misquoting me?

Because I was trying to make a clear a point that YOU were ignoring, that's why I used your quote.

Well David didn't mention that in his scenario. If there's 200 others there then there's not a lot you can do at the time is there? Without risking injury to police officers.

Can you hear that? That's the sound of heads around the internet being banged against cyber brick walls! Did he need to mention the 200 others? We're talking about a riot situations here, of course there's 200 others, and the rest!

Because, like I have explained twenty fucking times, it is down to MORE CHOICE of being involved in crime, not a fucking certainty! Why do you think the middle class kids from the leafy suburbs aren't out there? It's just beyond me that you could have no comprehension of this.

Why do you think not everyone from the deprived areas of London is out there? What separates the looters from the other people in those communities?

I've modified Whiskey's post about, I believe it's choice that serperates these people. They're not being forced into crime.

Well judging by those comments you couldn't give a fuck about these people. So why should they give a fuck that you want them to stop?

Now you really are making yourself look silly. Do I care that someone down in London is struggling to make ends meet? Yes I do care, I hope things in this country can start to improve. But am I some how responsible for them? am I to blame? No I'm not, but I have a great deal of respect for the lady who's scrubbing toilets to try and put some food on the table, not so much for the one who's sat watching Jezza Kezza waiting to pick up her benifits, not unless she's flicking through the job section at the same time.