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

[Project862006]

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."

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.

superman without costume is Dr.Manhattan

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

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.

Of course, tastes will always be subjective and individually valid. But we can (and do) give weight to consensus - a kind of (provisional) “objectivity.”

So for instance… while you can’t call my love for disco leisure suits wrong, you can say that I’m out of step with consensus. And you can legitimately advise that if I dressed my cool hero in a disco leisure suit, I likely wouldn’t get a favorable reaction from audiences.

By the same token… (and this is entirely hypothetical ) if a majority of people think of the red trunks as passé, the object of ridicule or otherwise distracting, then this is a fact about popular opinion.

So what to do? One option is to just ignore consensus - decide that tradition is more important than popularity. The other is to adapt and evolve (in order to preserve the original, underlying “meaning” that I alluded to earlier).

[BATS N' HORNETS]

Everyone does have a right to their opinion. In that case I choose to decide that tradition is more important. Lack of trunks IN MY OPINION is just wrong. It's not the same as when the width of the belt, the size of the S shield, the shape of the boots, the S curl, or the length of the cape changes. Those are all subjective according to the artist or designer. But I believe (with the exception of Cavill's suit as it has actually grown on me) that trunks are essential.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Of course, tastes will always be subjective and individually valid. But we can (and do) give weight to consensus - a kind of (provisional) “objectivity.”

Totally agree.

Originally Posted by Dr.

So for instance… while you can’t call my love for disco leisure suits wrong, you can say that I’m out of step with consensus. And you can legitimately advise that if I dressed my cool hero in a disco leisure suit, I likely wouldn’t get a favorable reaction from audiences.

True, without context, disco suits are passe. However, if you were a disco dancer trying to emulate the 70's, or if you're filming a period piece that takes place in the 70's, I'd likely have no problem with your choice of outfit because it makes sense for what you're trying to do. You're giving a context in which it's acceptable. Dressing a super hero up in a disco outfit wouldn't make sense because it's completely out of context.

...Unless it's a satirical superhero that supposedly lived during the 70's and was a vigilante or something. I can think of a few scenarios where it would make sense actually.

Originally Posted by Dr.

By the same token… (and this is entirely hypothetical ) if a majority of people think of the red trunks as passé, the object of ridicule or otherwise distracting, then this is a fact about popular opinion.

Agreed, but it doesn't address the reasoning why they find it passe. Today's audiences need logic and context. Without context then sure, they look silly and literally like he's wearing underwear on the outside. However if there's a reasoning and logic behind the design choice, people would be able to buy it more easily.

The dilemma is that I can't think of a logical creative reason why Superman would wear red trunks on the outside. Not saying it's impossible, but regardless, that would be the key to getting people to lay off the trunks hate.

Originally Posted by Dr.

So what to do? One option is to just ignore consensus - decide that tradition is more important than popularity. The other is to adapt and evolve (in order to preserve the original, underlying “meaning” that I alluded to earlier).

You can swing the concensus with logic though. If you're brilliant enough to give a logic to the tradition, then it's win win for everybody. If not, then the only way to adapt without completely alienating the traditionalists or the public is to come up with a really cool origin for the suit and a reasoning why it looks the way it looks.

Personally I like it the way it is, but that's just me.

[spidermanJLA!~]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Totally agree.





You can swing the concensus with logic though. If you're brilliant enough to give a logic to the tradition, then it's win win for everybody. If not, then the only way to adapt without completely alienating the traditionalists or the public is to come up with a really cool origin for the suit and a reasoning why it looks the way it looks.

Personally I like it the way it is, but that's just me.

Theory 1
Okay, he wears his trunks on the outside because when he came to earth he grew up near the circus and was inspired by the strongmen. He knew about his strength by now,fyi. So, he goes home and dresses up like them and wears his trunks on the outside. When he grew up, he wanted to inspire and be almost an imaginative figure, so he kept this tradition.

Theory 2
While making his costume, Ma Kent puts his trunks on the outside based on the circus strongmen he used to look up to. Clark always thinks it's ridiculous, but he honors his mom's costume for him.

Theory 3
That's how the Kryptonians do things.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by spidermanJLA!~

Theory 1
Okay, he wears his trunks on the outside because when he came to earth he grew up near the circus and was inspired by the strongmen. He knew about his strength by now,fyi. So, he goes home and dresses up like them and wears his trunks on the outside. When he grew up, he wanted to inspire and be almost an imaginative figure, so he kept this tradition.

Theory 2
While making his costume, Ma Kent puts his trunks on the outside based on the circus strongmen he used to look up to.

I wasn’t around in the 30s and 40s (). But I assume that the circus was much more popular and the image of the circus “strong man” more familiar and normalized. Therefore, there was a certain rationale in S&S evoking a similar look. And textually, there was “logic” to a 1940s Clark or Ma Kent being inspired by the “strong man” (for the tights and trunks) and the dashing Errol Flynn (for the cape).

However, the tricky part for the Superman legend is that its origins are perpetually updated for new generations. So a Supes who first appears now would have come of age in the late 90s or early 00s. And it seems extremely implausible that Barnum & Bailey or Errol Flynn could have been much of a cultural or stylistic influence.

Theory 3
That's how the Kryptonians do things.

In a modern context, I think this is the only way you can “internally rationalize” the traditional (with trunks) costume - as alien fashion.

[DarkKnight FTW]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Totally agree.



True, without context, disco suits are passe. However, if you were a disco dancer trying to emulate the 70's, or if you're filming a period piece that takes place in the 70's, I'd likely have no problem with your choice of outfit because it makes sense for what you're trying to do. You're giving a context in which it's acceptable. Dressing a super hero up in a disco outfit wouldn't make sense because it's completely out of context.

...Unless it's a satirical superhero that supposedly lived during the 70's and was a vigilante or something. I can think of a few scenarios where it would make sense actually.



Agreed, but it doesn't address the reasoning why they find it passe. Today's audiences need logic and context. Without context then sure, they look silly and literally like he's wearing underwear on the outside. However if there's a reasoning and logic behind the design choice, people would be able to buy it more easily.

The dilemma is that I can't think of a logical creative reason why Superman would wear red trunks on the outside. Not saying it's impossible, but regardless, that would be the key to getting people to lay off the trunks hate.



You can swing the concensus with logic though. If you're brilliant enough to give a logic to the tradition, then it's win win for everybody. If not, then the only way to adapt without completely alienating the traditionalists or the public is to come up with a really cool origin for the suit and a reasoning why it looks the way it looks.

Personally I like it the way it is, but that's just me.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[LaughingMage]

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...

I think it the difference are the "iconic" elements so to speak. Batman's iconic elements are the cape and cowl and to an extend the glove scallops, not so much the color or actual costume. You could take every reasonably shade of grey, black, blue or add stuff and the figure would still retain what is important about Batman's design. The same with Cyclops, as long as he has the one visually iconic element of his design, the visor, you can put him into pretty much everything.

Superman's costume doesn't have unique iconic elements like that that's why design and color are such defining elements of Supes suit imho.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by DarkKnight FTW

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

DarkKnight FTW ftw

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

You can swing the concensus with logic though. If you're brilliant enough to give a logic to the tradition, then it's win win for everybody. If not, then the only way to adapt without completely alienating the traditionalists or the public is to come up with a really cool origin for the suit and a reasoning why it looks the way it looks.

Personally I like it the way it is, but that's just me.

I think if you come up with some explanation for the trunks, then you're just going to draw attention to it. Either have or don't and make no mention of it.

[Young Superman]

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS

Everyone does have a right to their opinion. In that case I choose to decide that tradition is more important. Lack of trunks IN MY OPINION is just wrong. It's not the same as when the width of the belt, the size of the S shield, the shape of the boots, the S curl, or the length of the cape changes. Those are all subjective according to the artist or designer. But I believe (with the exception of Cavill's suit as it has actually grown on me) that trunks are essential.

I agree with you my friend.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by Krumm

I think if you come up with some explanation for the trunks, then you're just going to draw attention to it. Either have or don't and make no mention of it.

If the explanation makes sense, then what does it matter?

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

If the explanation makes sense, then what does it matter?

Because it'll just be going out of it's way to appease those who don't like them. It'll probably stick out like sore thumb. If it's tongue and cheek, then maybe but with a serious explanation, I'm not too sure.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by Krumm

Because it'll just be going out of it's way to appease those who don't like them. It'll probably stick out like sore thumb. If it's tongue and cheek, then maybe but with a serious explanation, I'm not too sure.

Haha, I'm nowhere near suggesting some wooden, George Lucas-ish exposition about why Superman must wear trunks. In such a situation then yeah, of course I'd agree with you.

[spidermanJLA!~]

I know this makes Superman a little more awkward, but what if he were actually around since the 30's and has seen it all? What if the JL wasn't until recently? This would make him more of a cultural legend, and put him at odds with other, more up-to-date characters with his old fashioned ways. Age can be pretty interesting sometimes.

[dabilee01]

Originally Posted by spidermanJLA!~

I know this makes Superman a little more awkward, but what if he were actually around since the 30's and has seen it all? What if the JL wasn't until recently? This would make him more of a cultural legend, and put him at odds with other, more up-to-date characters with his old fashioned ways. Age can be pretty interesting sometimes.

...so, Captain American and the other Avengers, basically.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by dabilee01

...so, Captain American and the other Avengers, basically.

That's kind of what I was thinking

[Kal-El.9859]

I think I'm lost....

[spidermanJLA!~]

Originally Posted by dabilee01

...so, Captain America and the other Avengers, basically.

Oh, yes very true. It'd probably be unnecessary anyway. It was just a thought, as I've always liked Superman being an active member rather than a social outcast of the group.

[StarvingArtist]

Originally Posted by Kal-El.9859

I think I'm lost....

About what?

[Young Superman]

I think a simple explanation for the trunks on Superman's suit is simply to destact people from looking at Clark's face.

[The Boy Scout]

Which would imply that he's far more comfortable with people looking at his junk. Which would be...kinda weird.

[spidermanJLA!~]

Originally Posted by Young Superman

I think a simple explanation for the trunks on Superman's suit is simply to destact people from looking at Clark's face.

Makes sense, but man, Clark comes up with some crazy ideas.

[Kal-El.9859]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

About what?

nevermind...I came in on the tail end of a convo. Sorta

[sf2]

Why just on the trunks? What are the reasons superman wearing the red boots? He can’t fit his shoes in to disguise. Man doesn’t wear red boots. It looks tacky. Why red cape??? It’s neither for protection nor flight. It’s troublesome in fact. Why dark blue tights??? Why not white, black or gold???
Simply put, To explain the suit / the trunks is wasting the precious screen time. Because people will still complain and not buying the explanation.