It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's the Superman Costume Thread! - Part 2

[elgaz]

Originally Posted by The Shield

Like so! This is perfect, imo. It "breaks up the blue" (for which I didn't see necessary) and stays away from giving him trunks (for which stylistically and modernly aren't necessary).

So for those who feel there needs to be a break up, this is more than sufficient. And if those people can't be satisfied with this, then it's nothing more than a fan missing the trunks themselves.

The only thing I didn't like was where the red meets the blue. Because his yellow belt line only extends around his waist a little (and not fully), there's nothing really acting as a divider between the red/blue and I think it looks a little wrong.

I tried extending the belt right round to the circle/buckle area, but it didn't really look right IMO - what do you think? I also made the primary colours of the suit a bit more defined in this one, with a brighter red more like what Thor has in his cape.

I'm going to try the same effect on a proper picture of Henry Cavill in the suit, it's just hard to get one where he is standing straight on and not blocking the crotch area with his hands. There's a few manips but I'd rather not use someone else's work.

[The Shield]

Originally Posted by elgaz

The only thing I didn't like was where the red meets the blue. Because his yellow belt line only extends around his waist a little (and not fully), there's nothing really acting as a divider between the red/blue and I think it looks a little wrong.

I tried extending the belt right round to the circle/buckle area, but it didn't really look right IMO - what do you think? I also made the primary colours of the suit a bit more defined in this one, with a brighter red more like what Thor has in his cape.

I'm going to try the same effect on a proper picture of Henry Cavill in the suit, it's just hard to get one where he is standing straight on and not blocking the crotch area with his hands. There's a few manips but I'd rather not use someone else's work.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Yeah, I had the same issue and wanted there to be a boarder to some degree. It works but I agree it doesn't quite marry it properly. Still looks good tho. Maybe instead of using the yellow belt, the hip design could keep going as a thin piping running under the belt, across the pelvis just under the buckle to the other side.

*And btw, those colors are gorgeous.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by elgaz

Like so?

Awesome!

[LaughingMage]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Then it would look like he's wearing feetie pajamas. It's not really that huge an expanse of blue, because there's the red and yellow S-shield on his chest that draws the eye. The red cape being big enough to drape behind the whole thing kind of inherently balances it all out. It's a constant visual presence behind the blue.

Agreed, that's why I would have replaced the red boots with a variation of the silver blue piping design. To me the red boots pull the eye away from the shield and if you eliminate them the only eye catcher so to speak is the Shield. With the red boots it looks to me a little bit like a nude guy wearing a pair of boots. ^^;

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by LaughingMage

Agreed, that's why I would have replaced the red boots with a variation of the silver blue piping design. To me the red boots pull the eye away from the shield and if you eliminate them the only eye catcher so to speak is the Shield. With the red boots it looks to me a little bit like a nude guy wearing a pair of boots. ^^;

Well if the boots are distracting you from the shield and they are 4-5 feet away, how do the trunks not become more distracting when they are half the distance?

[Dr.]

From the previous thread…

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Here's the bottom line: People's misgivings about the trunks, or even the cape, the boots, or whatever....all of these issues have a common origin. That origin is very simply that Superman was conceived without compelling reasoning behind the suit. It was meant to be appreciated more on a symbolic level rather then a literal one, similar to Uncle Sam in many ways. However, the appeal of brands that draw their allure from symbolism tend to be very subjective because ultimately there in many cases is no literal real world underlying reasoning for the specifics of the aesthetic. It just kind of "is what it is." Superman was meant to be a colorful catharsis representing the unlimited potential for good and heroism in humanity. Who cares where he got the suit?

As far as I know, not even the revisionists are suggesting truly radical revisionism (e.g., Superman in a track suit - because, hey, that’s way more realistic than ye olde tights and cape.) I think most folks (the general public, as well as fans) accept the “symbolism” and the genre convention of the (super)hero donning some manner of distinct and outré uniform. Moreover, and notwithstanding modernization, there’s almost always some allegiance to tradition. E.g., Burton’s “new” Batman costume still retains the cape, the eared cowl, etc. Ditto for Thor, CA, Green Arrow, etc. And while there will always be debates about where the right “tradition/modern” balance is, most seem to accept that a balance - of some kind - is necessary.

This poses interesting problems 70 years later. Superman's power as a symbol has waned over the years, and lots of other heroes, while owing their existence to Superman, still are honestly better conceived and more creative. Such is the territory that comes with building upon and refining an original idea. The ideas behind a lot of the newer heroes make more sense in a real world context. We love these characters and want them to exist so badly that we've made them uber-realistic. Regardless though, Superman still appeals to people and imprints like a hot brand on young kids. Children don't give a crap that he wears his underwear on the outside. And when they grow up, they seem to generally fall into 1 of 3 categories: a.) they grow out of comics altogether, b.) they continue to love superman as they first saw him, or c.) having become conscious of social trends, other interests, and education begin having a tough time taking the character seriously and become critical of him, demanding he evolve with them so that they can hang onto their appreciation.

I still go back to this foundational principle: Superman was conceived as a dashing, romantic, “cool” hero. S&S weren’t going for laughs or doing satire; in their minds, the classic Supes costume was supposed to be impressive, imposing and worthy of a larger-than-life champion. In other words, the costume is merely a representation or symbol for a larger concept. So if, over the course of time, some elements of the costume (e.g., the trunks) become (for whatever reason) stigmatized, you alter them - because the first duty is to the concept and not the superficial details.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

Originally Posted by Dr.

I still go back to this foundational principle: Superman was conceived as a dashing, romantic, “cool” hero. S&S weren’t going for laughs or doing satire; in their minds, the classic Supes costume was supposed to be impressive, imposing and worthy of a larger-than-life champion. In other words, the costume is merely a representation or symbol for a larger concept. So if, over the course of time, some elements of the costume (e.g., the trunks) become (for whatever reason) stigmatized, you alter them - because the first duty is to the concept and not the superficial details.

That's a very cerebral yet accurate way at looking at changes in comics characters as a whole, but is there still really a need to eliminate the trunks as this no trunks debate never really picked up steam until Cavill's suit debuted/the new 52 BS happened? Granted, no trunks may be better for the design they went with but not overall. I mean if Superman suddenly had a pompadour how many people would like the idea?

[Kal-El.9859]

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS

That's a very cerebral yet accurate way at looking at changes in comics characters as a whole, but is there still really a need to eliminate the trunks as this no trunks debate never really picked up steam until Cavill's suit debuted/the new 52 BS happened? Granted, no trunks may be better for the design they went with but not overall. I mean if Superman suddenly had a pompadour how many people would like the idea?

People have been calling for Superman to lose the trunks way before he actually did. I was not one of them, but I'm glad we got the suit we did for Man of Steel....I hate the New 52 suit. No thanks to that pos

[LaughingMage]

Originally Posted by Krumm

Well if the boots are distracting you from the shield and they are 4-5 feet away, how do the trunks not become more distracting when they are half the distance?

That's actually a good question, I can't say 100% but it might be that with the trunks (ore red around the abdomen) the red areas to me seem more evenly distributed across the board so it becomes more of a pattern. The red doesn't seem as much an eye draw on the classic suit while on the MOS the patches of red stand out much more from all that blue. That's why the red boots irk me visually. You got the red on his symbol that makes it pop and then you got the red boots which equally stand out but which are just empty, symbolically speaking and completely unimportant. Like I said it reminds me a bit of a nude cowboy just wearing his boots. ^^;

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by LaughingMage

That's actually a good question, I can't say 100% but it might be that with the trunks (ore red around the abdomen) the red areas to me seem more evenly distributed across the board so it becomes more of a pattern. The red doesn't seem as much an eye draw on the classic suit while on the MOS the patches of red stand out much more from all that blue. That's why the red boots irk me visually. You got the red on his symbol that makes it pop and then you got the red boots which equally stand out but which are just empty, symbolically speaking and completely unimportant. Like I said it reminds me a bit of a nude cowboy just wearing his boots. ^^;

That pattern idea makes sense. I still find my eye drawn to the trunks (in comparison to MOS), but I can see how others aren't bothered by it.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by Dr.

From the previous thread…


As far as I know, not even the revisionists are suggesting truly radical revisionism (e.g., Superman in a track suit - because, hey, that’s way more realistic than ye olde tights and cape.) I think most folks (the general public, as well as fans) accept the “symbolism” and the genre convention of the (super)hero donning some manner of distinct and outré uniform. Moreover, and notwithstanding modernization, there’s almost always some allegiance to tradition. E.g., Burton’s “new” Batman costume still retains the cape, the eared cowl, etc. Ditto for Thor, CA, Green Arrow, etc. And while there will always be debates about where the right “tradition/modern” balance is, most seem to accept that a balance - of some kind - is necessary.

I still go back to this foundational principle: Superman was conceived as a dashing, romantic, “cool” hero. S&S weren’t going for laughs or doing satire; in their minds, the classic Supes costume was supposed to be impressive, imposing and worthy of a larger-than-life champion. In other words, the costume is merely a representation or symbol for a larger concept. So if, over the course of time, some elements of the costume (e.g., the trunks) become (for whatever reason) stigmatized, you alter them - because the first duty is to the concept and not the superficial details.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's much harder to quantify good/clever/cool changes to a costume that was designed more for symbolism rather then function. The rubric for such judgements is far more subjective. For a suit that has a given purpose or function like Batman's, you can more easily judge cool changes to the suit because you can measure them against the suit's purpose. This I think is the essence of modernity in superhero costumes. The general audience puts a premium on reasoning behind everything, or at least the illusion of reasoning behind everything.

[747]

As a fan of what ifs, I wonder, if Siegel and Shuster never had put trunks on the suit to begin with and this movie would have added trunks, wouldn't it have been just as controversial? Isn't it more about conserving what has mostly been than the actual contextual look of it all? Personally it's all about context and execution. For me there is no clear answer that says either "no trunks look bad" or "trunks look bad".

And why is Superman so much more sensitive to this trunk issue than other superheroes? Characters like Batman and Cyclops has lost their trunks in different contexts before Superman without it being such a huge deal or being too called out as looking bad or with comments like "nothing to break the main color up" etc.

Just pondering.

[The Boy Scout]

Originally Posted by 747

As a fan of what ifs, I wonder, if Siegel and Shuster never had put trunks on the suit to begin with and this movie would have added trunks, wouldn't it have been just as controversial?

Probably. To our eyes, it would look like they took a pair of underwear and stuck it on the costume for no good reason. There would probably be complaints that Nolan and Snyder aren't taking the character seriously.

And why is Superman so much more sensitive to this trunk issue than other superheroes?

Because he's a lot more iconic than most other superheroes. The only other heroes who are on his level are Spider-Man and Batman. Spider-Man never wore briefs and Batman's costume is supposed be functional, so removing the briefs makes sense from a logical standpoint.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by 747

...And why is Superman so much more sensitive to this trunk issue than other superheroes? Characters like Batman and Cyclops has lost their trunks in different contexts before Superman without it being such a huge deal or being too called out as looking bad or with comments like "nothing to break the main color up" etc.

Just pondering.

Again, it's because Batman's/Cyclop's suits have had a certain logic behind them from the beginning that can be used to measure whether or not the changes are cool or make sense. Superman's does not.

[The Boy Scout]

Right. That said, there is definitely a certain logic that can be found behind Superman's costume. He does a lot of dangerous things on a fairly regular basis. He needs an outfit that can withstand all that. However, that doesn't dictate the actual design of the outfit. He could just as easily make an outfit out of kevlar or fashion a T-Shirt and jeans out of his baby blankets.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

Right. That said, there is definitely a certain logic that can be found behind Superman's costume. He does a lot of dangerous things on a fairly regular basis. He needs an outfit that can withstand all that. However, that doesn't dictate the actual design of the outfit. He could just as easily make an outfit out of kevlar or fashion a T-Shirt and jeans out of his baby blankets.

Precisely. If one comes up with compelling logic for the costume, then you're more capable to make changes that everyone can agree are cool because there's a reason for them besides the entirely subjective, "it just looks good."

The question is, what's the most compelling reason one can invent for why Superman wears a costume? Personally, all the ideas that writers have come up with to fill this gap have been lackluster imo.

[The Boy Scout]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Precisely. If one comes up with compelling logic for the costume, then you're more capable to make changes that everyone can agree are cool because there's a reason for them besides the entirely subjective, "it just looks good."

Exactly. And since the logic of Superman's costume is to protect itself (instead of protecting him or aiding him in his crusade), the changes that are made to it are going to be scrutinized much more heavily in comparison to characters like Batman or Daredevil. You could keep the suit as is and simply say that it's made out of a very durable alien material.

The question is, what's the most compelling reason one can invent for why Superman wears a costume?

It's the only thing he has available that's able to withstand a lot of damage.

He wants to stand out as a dramatic example.

He purposely wants to present himself as the antithesis of Zod and prove that not all aliens are bad. That, even though he is dressed as "one of them," he is still "one of us."

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

Exactly. And since the logic of Superman's costume is to protect itself (instead of protecting him or aiding him in his crusade), the changes that are made to it are going to be scrutinized much more heavily in comparison to characters like Batman or Daredevil. You could keep the suit as is and simply say that it's made out of a very durable alien material.



It's the only thing he has available that's able to withstand a lot of damage.

He wants to stand out as a dramatic example.

He purposely wants to present himself as the antithesis of Zod and prove that not all aliens are bad. That, even though he is dressed as "one of them," he is still "one of us."

I think this element would have to be played up to explain the cape. Which unlike the costume which can be argued is needed due to it's "invulnerability" perhaps?

The cape is clearly just a fashion statement.

[The Boy Scout]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

I think this element would have to be played up to explain the cape. Which unlike the costume which can be argued is needed due to it's "invulnerability" perhaps?

An invulnerable suit is definitely needed if Superman is going to be saving people from fires and the like.

The cape can be used to shield people from the flames.

The cape is clearly just a fashion statement.

"Why the cape, Clark?"

"Are you kidding me?! Tell me that **** doesn't look cool blowing in the wind!"



EDIT: But seriously, though. Tony Stark painted his suit red and gold because he thought it looked cool. I don't see anything wrong with Clark keeping/adding the cape for that very same reason.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

An invulnerable suit is definitely needed if Superman is going to be saving people from fires and the like.

The cape can be used to shield people from the flames.

Just like he saved Lois from the HOT MOLTEN LAVA in the VOLCANO cartoon!

[The Boy Scout]

Exactly what I was thinking of.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

Exactly what I was thinking of.

Yeah. One of the truly great Superman moments!

[titansupes]

That cartoon - and that episode specifically - was my first exposure to Superman. One of my very earliest memories. If they paid homage to that in anyway, I may wet myself.

[AnneFan]

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS

Yeah. One of the truly great Superman moments!

Now that would be a sight to see. I'd prefer the invulnerable cape concept over the cape frequently getting torn to shreds in combat.

[titansupes]

Originally Posted by AnneFan

Now that would be a sight to see. I'd prefer the invulnerable cape concept over the cape frequently getting torn to shreds in combat.

I much prefer the superstrong costume, cape included. But having Superman's costume torn in combat would be quite an impactful thing if done right. But only once, against someone that seems basically impossible to defeat.

EDIT: Like Bane breaking Batman's cowl in TDKR. We'd never seen his suit damaged like that (or even at all) in any previous movie, and it was a big 'Oh, *****' moment.