What do you think of the new Superman costume

[Llama_Shepherd]

I was gonna, but they're all either low quality, or sans cape. That is the best that has both features, followed maybe by this one:

[Dangerman]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I was gonna, but they're all either low quality, or sans cape. That is the best that has both features, followed maybe by this one:

I was thinking these photos here which shows in detail the outfit.

[Spike_x1]

If they got rid of the collar and the black colored \S/ on his cape, I'd just kinda shrug my shoulders and move on. I can live with the rest of the changes (and might eventually get used to that dumb way he changes clothes now ), but those two simple elements annoy the hell outta me. Black should not be anywhere on his costume. Unless he's mourning after OWAW, but that was a special circumstance, not his regular look.

And I'd say to cut back on the number of lines/pointless seams, but that seems to be slowly happening naturally as more and more artists are tasked with drawing him and subsequently streamlining at least that particular element of the suit.

[Czar Colossus]

Superman's classic costume design was perfect. This is change for the sake of change, to separate DC's current Superman interpretation from Segal's & Shuster's. It is DC protecting itself as a result of the lawsuit. That is pretty much the impetus for deconstructing Superman. I have already stated there is enough info out there to support this hypothesis.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by The Question

You know what was nice? When his mom made it for him. It was simple, easy to understand, and said a lot about the character.

This is none of those things.

Yeah but it's 'cool' :sarcasm:

[Llama_Shepherd]

Getting rid of red underoos will not separate the DCnU Superman from the Siegel and Shuster's. If it would, they'd have done that years ago.

Let's look at the Superboy copyright issue.

DC's Superboy was a clone of Lex Luthor and Superman.
He had no Kryptonian powers.
He looked nothing like the S&S Superboy.
He had a different support cast, city of operation.
He was a completely different character.

S&S' Superboy was simply Superman as a child.

S&S won the copyright battle for Superboy, the character was killed off and an "original" character based on Superman, but with the Superboy name (Superboy-Prime) had to be renamed.


If this case was based on just the Superman of now, and the DC deal with the creators, the heirs would win.

[Czar Colossus]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Getting rid of red underoos will not separate the DCnU Superman from the Siegel and Shuster's. If it would, they'd have done that years ago.


If this case was based on just the Superman of now, and the DC deal with the creators, the heirs would win.

Actually from a legal copyright standpoint it does.
And....
Not necessarily....the legal dispute has been going on for years, that's part of the reason for a period of time DC could not use Superboy (as Superman as a boy).

[Llama_Shepherd]

Changing the collar and underoos wouldn't prevent a loss of DC's character because he would still be a derivative of the original Superman creatively and therefore infringe copyright. Captain Marvel, a character entirely different from Superman, was considered a derivative, copyright infringement and he could no longer be published.

The Superboy lawsuit was a different case to the Superman one and the rights belong 100% to Joe Shuster's estate.


If WB are going to lose this lawsuit, they will lose the character they have now, unless they come to a settlement, which is still very, very likely as Disney will not buy the character to publish under Marvel Comics. Worst case scenario is that the Siegel and Shuster estates will continue to loan out their 55% of the rights to WB for royalties while Marc Toberoff has to cautiously sell his rights out with the fear that if a creator so much as hints to an aspect WB are in control of, they'll be sued.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

Superman's classic costume design was perfect. This is change for the sake of change, to separate DC's current Superman interpretation from Segal's & Shuster's. It is DC protecting itself as a result of the lawsuit. That is pretty much the impetus for deconstructing Superman. I have already stated there is enough info out there to support this hypothesis.

If DC wanted to separate their interpretation of Superman from Siegel and Schusters' interpretation, they would have made him dramatically different from their interpretation not bring him more in line with it.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Also, this is how he puts on the suit now:

I haven't read any of the comics. So, I'm not sure if I'm looking at this correctly. But, does he wear a shirt that becomes hard like armor, covers his whole body(nanites or some little robots?), and the \S/ becomes raised like in the SR and MOS films?

[Phatman]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Also, this is how he puts on the suit now:

Note to Superman: Iron Man wants his bleeding edge Extremis armor back.

I still love how he's wearing armor but he has bare hands.

The classic Superman costume was perfect, trunks and all.

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

Superman's classic costume design was perfect. This is change for the sake of change, to separate DC's current Superman interpretation from Segal's & Shuster's. It is DC protecting itself as a result of the lawsuit. That is pretty much the impetus for deconstructing Superman. I have already stated there is enough info out there to support this hypothesis.

How about the impetus is people make fun of the way the suit looks more than any other popular superhero? Or the fact that many characters have gone through major costume changes at one point or another? Even Batman lost the trunks for a while back in the late 90s, was that because of a lawsuit too? How about the fact that Superman wasn't the only character changed by the reboot? Lets just assume the worst, that DC is losing Superman and the character is #$@!ed permanently.

[Czar Colossus]

O.K.; here it is........again.

"Superman to split - not again?! Lawsuit Update
CBN › News › Movie News

Have you been following the super lawsuit that sees the heirs of Superman creators Siegel and Shuster pitted against the goliath known as DC Comics?

The case has been going back and forth for a few years over the rights returning to the creators, based on the Copyright Act of 1976. The Act basically states after a certain period, creators can reclaim the rights to their creations, albeit with certain stipulations.

From what I gather, only part of the Superman mythos would be returned to the family, and the "modern" aspects of Big Blue would stay with DC.

Variety reports that a recent article in the Columbia Law Journal, by Anthony Cheng, puts forth the notion that the Superman issue could be resolved similarly to the "Spawn vs. Medieval Spawn" case of Todd McFarlane vs. Neil Gaiman. It was ruled each character was different enough to warrant a separate trademark, as the two characters were "sufficiently distinct."

Cheng writes this could be the basis for the decision to let both sides in the Superman lawsuit continue to use Superman. As stated above, the DC Comics version would uitlize the "modern" aspects, and the Siegel and Shuster heirs the more "original" -- giving us two versions of Superman.

Furthermore, Variety states that this reclaiming of the trademark would only be applicable in the U.S., and DC would still own the international rights.

Beginning to sound a bit ridiculous?

The Siegel and Shuster family would have a "Superman" they could only use in the U.S., who couldn't fly, no Lex Luthor and company - but they would have the costume (wonder if JMS will be on board? [sarcasm]).

Meanwhile, DC would have a "Superman" that could fly, with Lex and company - but would need a new origin and costume (hmmm...now the story in Action Comics #900 where Superman renounces his American citizenzhip is beginning to make sense [sarasm - sorta]).

The status of the case is currently up in the air, as the attorney for the family is appealing to try to get a ruling to determine who owns what.

The obvious question is: Why hasn't there been some sort of settlement? That's up in the air as well, as DC is suing the attorney representing Siegel and Shuster on the basis of interference.

The feud over the rights is also the basis for the upcoming Man of Steel movie from Zack Snyder, as it was ruled Warner Bros. must begin filming a new Superman movie by 2011 or the family could sue to recover damages based on filming rights.

Obviously, there is a whole lot going on here which would take a series of articles, but do we need a split Superman...again? Hopefully, this gets settled."

pic

Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Share13

[Llama_Shepherd]

That's incorrect. Currently, the Siegel and Shuster estates own:

Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El (including the original and Joe Shuster's final costume)
Lois Lane, and her fiesty personality
Jor-El/Lara
Superman being rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton as a child
Clark Kent/Lois Lane/Superman love triangle
Clark and Lois working for the Daily Planet/Daily Star and under a gruff editor
K-Metal (the precursor to Kryptonite)

Basically the first couple years of Superman's publication.

Warner Brothers own:

Expanded super powers
Expanded origin
Jimmy Olsen
Lex Luthor
The name "Kryptonite" not the effects

Basically everything that came after that wasn't created by Siegel and Shuster.

The DCnU Superman:
Is Clark Kent/Kal-El from Krypton, whose parents Jor-El and Lara rocketed him to Earth from Krypton. He works for the Daily Star and is the rival of Lois Lane who works for the Daily Planet. He wears an all blue suit with red boots, a red cape and a red pentagon and S with yellow negative space.


All of that infringes on the Siegel and Shuster copyright, so all that would have to change too.

Here's the updated article from the same website:

http://comics.cosmicbooknews.com/con...rypton-origins

[Czar Colossus]

Interesting....thanks for that update. Whatever the case this is really f***ed up! All this legal and corporate BS involving Superman could really end up doing more harm than good as far as the fans are concerned. Decisions controlled by the motivation of money not creativity and love for the character. I do feel bad for about the Siegel & Shuster situation.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

That's incorrect. Currently, the Siegel and Shuster estates own:

Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El (including the original and Joe Shuster's final costume)
Lois Lane, and her fiesty personality
Jor-El/Lara
Superman being rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton as a child
Clark Kent/Lois Lane/Superman love triangle
Clark and Lois working for the Daily Planet/Daily Star and under a gruff editor
K-Metal (the precursor to Kryptonite)

Basically the first couple years of Superman's publication.

Warner Brothers own:

Expanded super powers
Expanded origin
Jimmy Olsen
Lex Luthor
The name "Kryptonite" not the effects

Basically everything that came after that wasn't created by Siegel and Shuster.

The DCnU Superman:
Is Clark Kent/Kal-El from Krypton, whose parents Jor-El and Lara rocketed him to Earth from Krypton. He works for the Daily Star and is the rival of Lois Lane who works for the Daily Planet. He wears an all blue suit with red boots, a red cape and a red pentagon and S with yellow negative space.


All of that infringes on the Siegel and Shuster copyright, so all that would have to change too.

Here's the updated article from the same website:

http://comics.cosmicbooknews.com/con...rypton-origins

Actually Siegel and Shuster created Luthor and Jimmy Olsen too, but they did it as a work for hire for DC and so the rights to them cannot be challenged.

[Lunar_Wolf]

I like the look of the suit, but I dislike how he puts it on...ugh!

[The Question]

Honestly, when Seigel and Shuster were alive, yeah, they deserved a lot more than they god and DC screwed them. But seeing as how this is a legal battle between Dc and their estates (meaning their grandkids), I don't know, I'm less sympathetic. I guess I don't really feel like the descendants of a creator have any more claim to that creator's work than the general public.

That being said, I'm kind of mentally picturing these families being comfortably middle class (they seem to be able to afford a lot of lawsuits agains a massive media conglomerate, so that seems reasonable to assume) but if they're really poor then I'd probably take everything I just said back out of liberal guilt.

In the end, though, I think if DC loses the rights to Superman, it should be because he enters the public domain. That I really want to see happen.

[Kurosawa]

Read Men of Tomorrow and you'll feel differently. Siegel and Shuster made the guys in charge of DC millionaires and themselves lived in poverty. Screw WB/DC.

But the attorney the heirs have is a major league douche himself.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

He works for the Daily Star

Post-Flashpoint Superman works for the Daily Planet, not the Daily Star where he's the top reporter

and is the rival of Lois Lane who works for the Daily Planet.

He and Lois aren't rivals in the post-Flashpoint DC Universe. Lois is the head of the media division of the Daily Planet after WGBS took it over.

He wears an all blue suit with red boots, a red cape and a red pentagon and S with yellow negative space.

And don't forget that his characterization is more along the line of Schuster and Siegels' interpretation of Superman. He's more rough and aggressive. In Action Comics he fights for the common working man and lower classes while fighting corrupt politicians and industrialists, wife beaters, and various social injustices. He uses his Clark Kent persona to expose various injustices throughout Metropolis such as Intergang, the homeless, etc.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Read Men of Tomorrow and you'll feel differently. Siegel and Shuster made the guys in charge of DC millionaires and themselves lived in poverty. Screw WB/DC.

But the attorney the heirs have is a major league douche himself.

Well, like, no, I probably won't, because again the heirs aren't the original creators and I'd rather see Superman become a public domain character.

I mean, I know all about how Siegel and Shuster were screwed, I wrote an essay about it once.

[Czar Colossus]

I guess should have been more specific.....it is indeed Jerry and Joe I felt bad for. They deserved better. Now Superman is a very lucrative brand and product. All this legal maneuvering has the potential to really f*** things up. I hate how Captain Marvel can't use his own name because of such matters. I know the bottom line is $$$, but we the fans stand to lose the most.

[Spade]

I like the new Earth-2 Superman's suit more than the armored one. It looks modern and pays homage to the classic circus strongman look. It's a shame, really, that it'll be worn by another alternate reality "killer Supes." As if Superman is somehow more interesting when he kills people.

[Anton Furst]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Holy hell, well in that case, many happy returns! But this new suit is not what they are using for the new movie, Man of Steel will be sporting this suit:



Which I think is perfect for a modernisation and it uses my second favourite \S/ symbol.

Why is it so dark?

Superman is supposed to be a beacon of light and hope, isn't he? I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't be dark, but Superman shouldn't.

[Wesley Dodds]

Personally, I think changing Superman's costume is comic book blasphemy of the highest order.
If you think it's red trunks or it's bright colours are silly or ridiculous then I'm sorry, but you have no business making a Superman film.
This new outfit looks dirty, it looks unfinished and the grey gilding glued all over it is completely unnecessary, the kind of superfluous affectation that "extreme 90's" redesigns were fond of and smacks of an over-earnest costume designer who's trying too hard.