All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 49

[DarthDorranceBane]

I'm just wondering how will they address the issue from people who've seen Clark's face pre-disguise, like people he's been with in Smallville. This is one huge hole untouched with Earth One and the Smallville TV series.

 

[flickchick85]

Love. So easy to throw around.

It is not about taste.

That's exactly what it's about.

Condescending is what happens when someone brings up what they don't like about the suit.

It's also what you just were when someone said how much they loved it. It's not a one-way street.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No condescending is what happens when one arrogant poster treats everyone with a positive opinion about something he dislikes as though they are stupid, blind or in denial. A poster like you.

And don't be ridiculous. Of course a man in cargo shorts wouldn't look like Superman. We're talking about a man in a Superman suit, that has a few changes you don't like... don't straw man me

It is not a straw man. If it is simply a matter of taste, then what agrees with someone's taste, can apply. It is no different then when on Smallville Clark ran around with his deconstructed version of the suit.

Just like how I really like Morrison's young Clark suit (one of my favorite takes on the suit in general), even though I wouldn't dare say it was definitive Superman.

I know you said the trailers. I am saying that I think those two images look more 'Superman' than anything seen in the trailers.

And if you're going to be ridiculously pedantic, you're just going to continue coming across... as you are...

How is that pedantic? Is it the full suit or not?

And stills are one thing. That is why I didn't bring them up. They aren't even the same color grading as the film as shown in the trailers. Though I really like both images.

No, I mean precisely what I said.

The new 52 suit looks like something someone would actually wear as armour for protection. Like Batman's suit in the TDK triology or Iron Man suit. The MOS suit is something that is worn under armour, but it is completely incapable of actually protecting a person without powers... it would be entirely pointless wearing it as armour if you were human... therefore it is not 'base level armor'... it's more like underwear for armour.

Just because it is texture in a chain mail effect, doesn't mean it IS chain mail...

Batman's armor in TDK, as opposed to Begins, is based on sectional pieces of light armor over chain mail. Just like Faora's.

In terms of armor, anything you put on that is made to go on underneath heavy armor, possibly even to add a layer of protection between you and the heavy armor itself, is armor. Including padding and other such equipment used in various science fiction. What the Master Chief wears under his big green suit, is also armor.

MoS suit is clearly capable of taking massive damage. How else do you explain how it isn't torched, ripped apart or destroyed the second Superman gets into combat, or even flies? We see how his normal, non-armor clothing handles such abuse and, well it leaves him looking like the Hulk.

In the trailer we see him get shot, jump into an explosion, take what looks like a full on blast from the Black Zero, and get snatched by huge metal claws. He is wearing armor.

 

[DKDetective]

yeah maybe true.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/04/11/does-man-of-steel-blow-supermans-origin/

''I do know this: Warner Bros loves this movie. They think they're winning 2013 with this film. Everybody who has seen it has come back beyond excited. I have heard nothing but great things about the movie, with the scope of the action being what really has everybody buzzing - this is the first film to ever truly bring us the godlike physical abilities of Superman. I guess I can take a change in Superman's themes in exchange for Superman finally really punching the **** out of stuff. ''

What change of themes? All of the themes I am picking up on have been a part of Superman comics for decades. I see a movie about hope and optimism. Furthermore, the issue of Superman's loneliness isolation in the world goes way back. Even Kurosawa agreed with that. It is part of why he hated the post-Crisis change of keeping Ma and Pa Kent alive because it undermined in his opinion that aspect of Superman's original characterization.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's exactly what it's about.

Well then my point stands. As long as it fits your taste, anything could look definitively like Superman.

It's also what you just were when someone said how much they loved it. It's not a one-way street.

You are right. I apologize.

What change of themes? All of the themes I am picking up on have been a part of Superman comics for decades. I see a movie about hope and optimism. Furthermore, the issue of Superman's loneliness isolation in the world goes way back. Even Kurosawa agreed with that. It is part of why he hated the post-Crisis change of keeping Ma and Pa Kent alive because it undermined in his opinion that aspect of Superman's original characterization.

I assume he meant music.

 

[DKDetective]

MoS suit is clearly capable of taking massive damage. How else do you explain how it isn't torched, ripped apart or destroyed the second Superman gets into combat, or even flies? We see how his normal, non-armor clothing handles such abuse and, well it leaves him looking like the Hulk.

In the trailer we see him get shot, jump into an explosion, take what looks like a full on blast from the Black Zero, and get snatched by huge metal claws. He is wearing armor.

So Superman's pre-Crisis suit was armour by your definition then? Since it was made of nearly indestructible Kryptonian materials and never tore or ripped or suffered damage?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

First off, the new 52 sucks because it is armour and, thus, detracts from what the character is all about. The MOS suit is NOT armour. You know why? Because Zod and company are still wearing their undersuits while on trial and are manacled. You do not allow prisoners to wear body armour and that is a fact.

Second, the most distinctive part of the classic Superman suit, besides the S shield, is the collar/cape attachment. Other heroes have capes, boots and belts. Very few of them have the same cape/collar region. By giving Superman a generic Mandarin collar the uniqueness of his appearance decreases greatly. Mandarin collars are an overused staple of scifi fashion seen from Green Lantern to Star Trek to Star Wars to Neo in the Matrix trilogy.

Those are two pretty big differences. You may not agree with us about the effect of those differences, but you can't stay you don't understand our position anymore.

So Clark is walking around in underwear? Wow, I actually like that. It makes the "underwear aren't cool" thing seem pretty hilarious.

And while I can hear an argument for the collar being distinct, I think it is more then safe to say there is another part of the suit, which has been around since its inception and has thus been copied many, many, many times, that has been lost.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It is not a straw man. If it is simply a matter of taste, then what agrees with someone's taste, can apply. It is no different then when on Smallville Clark ran around with his deconstructed version of the suit.

Just like how I really like Morrison's young Clark suit (one of my favorite takes on the suit in general), even though I wouldn't dare say it was definitive Superman. .

Firstly, I don't believe there is such a thing as definitely Superman. Many artists have drawn him, and he's evolved a whole bunch since the first one... is the first one definitely Superman? Or is Reeve's suit definitely Superman? Or Kingdom Come's?

How do YOU decide what's definitely Superman?

Secondly, we're talking about tastes regarding a Superman suit (you know, the 's' shield, blue and red costume, cape, boots etc). Not tastes in what he wears in general.

You don't like certain parts of the piping. Another person does.

That is absolutely a matter of taste.

Suggesting that if someone likes the piping, then it's also argueable they could say they wanted Superman to wear a pair of shorts and that'd be a matter of taste is absolutely a straw man argument. Because a pair of shorts is not a Superman suit... and we're all discussing how we'd like a Superman suit to look.

How is that pedantic? Is it the full suit or not?

And stills are one thing. That is why I didn't bring them up. They aren't even the same color grading as the film as shown in the trailers. Though I really like both images..

It's pedantic because you know precisely what I mean and why I included that shot as one that shows off the suit in full lighting, head on. It includes the part of the costume that you have expressed you hate, and yet I still consider it one of the two most 'Superman' images relating to this film so far. Whereas you were suggesting the only shots that are Supermanlike are ones that hide those features.

Also, it's a bit difficult to compare shots that hide those features to shots that don't when looking at the trailers, because there happen to be no full body shots of Supes in the trailers.

And no, I do not think that's because they are trying to hide the suit.

Batman's armor in TDK, as opposed to Begins, is based on sectional pieces of light armor over chain mail. Just like Faora's.

In terms of armor, anything you put on that is made to go on underneath heavy armor, possibly even to add a layer of protection between you and the heavy armor itself, is armor. Including padding and other such equipment used in various science fiction. What the Master Chief wears under his big green suit, is also armor.

MoS suit is clearly capable of taking massive damage. How else do you explain how it isn't torched, ripped apart or destroyed the second Superman gets into combat, or even flies? We see how his normal, non-armor clothing handles such abuse and, well it leaves him looking like the Hulk.

In the trailer we see him get shot, jump into an explosion, take what looks like a full on blast from the Black Zero, and get snatched by huge metal claws. He is wearing armor.

How does Superman's suit EVER take so much abuse? There have been many theories, one obvious one being that Kryptonian material is affected by earth's sun as well.

Or are you saying that his cape is armour too, and that's why that doesn't catch on fire

 

[flickchick85]

Well then my point stands. As long as it fits your taste, anything could look definitively like Superman.

I also think you might want to re-read his post, because I don't see the word "definitive" used in there at all (unless you were responding to a different one of his posts I didn't see). He said he thought the suit was perfect - which could mean "perfect for this movie" or "perfect for live-action" or simply "I wouldn't change a thing about it" - and that it looked more like Superman to him than the New 52 or SR suits. Which, you have to admit, is not nearly so ridiculous a claim when you're talking about an expensive and professionally-made Superman suit than when you're talking about a pair of cargo pants.

I personally wouldn't change a thing about that suit. So in that sense, I would agree with his "perfect." But that doesn't mean I think it's the definitive Superman suit. I just love the way it looks in this movie and don't have any complaints.

You are right. I apologize.

 

[DKDetective]

So Clark is walking around in underwear? Wow, I actually like that. It makes the "underwear aren't cool" thing seem pretty hilarious.

And while I can hear an argument for the collar being distinct, I think it is more then safe to say there is another part of the suit, which has been around since its inception and has thus been copied many, many, many times, that has been lost.

I wouldn't necessarily say that he is wearing underwear, but I do like the symbolism. Would you call the combat fatigues that modern soldiers wear underneath their ceramic and kevlar body armour underwear? They commonly wear those fatigues alone as acceptable public attire. Would you consider a business suit underwear because you wear a coat, scarf and gloves over top when there is inclement weather? I think considering the suit "underwear" is an overly simplistic understanding of clothing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So Superman's pre-Crisis suit was armour by your definition then? Since it was made of nearly indestructible Kryptonian materials and never tore or ripped or suffered damage?

Except there is one big difference here. It has been explicitly stated that the the suit is apart of Kryptonian warrior culture. It is built for battle.That is why the piping is there. And it isn't like the heavy armor covers every last bit of Jor-El. Much is exposed on Jor-El and Faora. The material has to be sturdy.

Now it might not save him from advance Kryptonian weaponry, and would leave him exposed on Krypton, but it is clearly made of tougher material then the more ceremonial or casual garments, like what we see Lara wearing. It is base level armor you could possibly wear under anything (Jor-El is wearing it under his robes, though again he also is wearing shoulder pads so I am not sure if that is proper wear), but is purpose built for putting on the heavy armor over the top. If it is just the equivalent of Kryptonian undergarments, wouldn't she be wearing one during the shot of her reaching for Kal-El?

Also, just because it is Kryptonian, probably doesn't mean it can't be damaged on Earth. How else is Clark going to be able to stop the Black Zero?

 

[DKDetective]

Except there is one big difference here. It has been explicitly stated that the the suit is apart of Kryptonian warrior culture. It is built for battle.That is why the piping is there. And it isn't like the heavy armor covers every last bit of Jor-El. Much is exposed on Jor-El and Faora. The material has to be sturdy.

Now it might not save him from advance Kryptonian weaponry, and would leave him exposed on Krypton, but it is clearly made of tougher material then the more ceremonial or casual garments, like what we see Lara wearing. It is base level armor you could possibly wear under anything (Jor-El is wearing it under his robes, though again he also is wearing shoulder pads so I am not sure if that is proper wear), but is purpose built for putting on the heavy armor over the top. If it is just the equivalent of Kryptonian undergarments, wouldn't she be wearing one during the shot of her reaching for Kal-El?

Also, just because it is Kryptonian, probably doesn't mean it can't be damaged on Earth. How else is Clark going to be able to stop the Black Zero?

I think my analogy to combat fatigues in the real world already answers this this in my last post. No one in their right mind would consider them either armour or underwear. However, they are worn under military body armour and are considered acceptable public attire.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I wouldn't necessarily say that he is wearing underwear, but I do like the symbolism. Would you call the combat fatigues that modern soldiers wear underneath their ceramic and kevlar body armour underwear? They commonly wear those fatigues alone as acceptable public attire. Would you consider a business suit underwear because you wear a coat, scarf and gloves over top when there is inclement weather? I think considering the suit "underwear" is an overly simplistic understanding of clothing.

Combat fatigues are a standardized dress code for soldiers. They also go on over undergarments. Though in situations where combat is expected, different colthing is usually used. Just like the difference between when a cop puts on vest over his uniform and when SWAT shows up in purpose made suits.

The business suit analogy doesn't really hold, as it wouldn't be the base layer. Your undergarments would be.

If this was just something you wore underneath all clothing, yes it would be underwear. What we have here is something purpose built for combat, so I don't see it as such.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

*Sniff Sniff* Don't you just smell the love in here?

 

[BH/HHH]

*Sniff Sniff* Don't you just smell the love in here?

I smell it

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Firstly, I don't believe there is such a thing as definitely Superman. Many artists have drawn him, and he's evolved a whole bunch since the first one... is the first one definitely Superman? Or is Reeve's suit definitely Superman? Or Kingdom Come's?

How do YOU decide what's definitely Superman?

Secondly, we're talking about tastes regarding a Superman suit (you know, the 's' shield, blue and red costume, cape, boots etc). Not tastes in what he wears in general.

You don't like certain parts of the piping. Another person does.

That is absolutely a matter of taste.

Suggesting that if someone likes the piping, then it's also argueable they could say they wanted Superman to wear a pair of shorts and that'd be a matter of taste is absolutely a straw man argument. Because a pair of shorts is not a Superman suit... and we're all discussing how we'd like a Superman suit to look.

Do you mean definitively? If so, I don't judge what is definitive Superman. I simple think it includes all the basics. Like the SR suit. This doesn't, though I like it better then the SR suit at this point.

And it is not a straw man for one reason. You are making the jump off that this is a Superman suit. Why? If we all have our own take on what makes up the Superman suit, it is the crux of the argument.

It's pedantic because you know precisely what I mean and why I included that shot as one that shows off the suit in full lighting, head on. It includes the part of the costume that you have expressed you hate, and yet I still consider it one of the two most 'Superman' images relating to this film so far. Whereas you were suggesting the only shots that are Supermanlike are ones that hide those features.

But you were answering me, and there was a reason I used that image and mentioned the trailer.

And I never said only Superman-like. I said the ones that look most Superman.

Also, it's a bit difficult to compare shots that hide those features to shots that don't when looking at the trailers, because there happen to be no full body shots of Supes in the trailers.

And no, I do not think that's because they are trying to hide the suit.

There is the shot of him in space flying, and the shot of him dodging fire, and the shot of him in the handcuffs. The handcuff shot might be the clearest shot of him in full suit in all the trailers so far.

And I said nothing about hiding the suit. What I am saying is that the suit looks most like Superman, when it holds heavy emphasis on the cape and shield. Both of which I think look better and better with each new bit of footage.

How does Superman's suit EVER take so much abuse? There have been many theories, one obvious one being that Kryptonian material is affected by earth's sun as well.

Or are you saying that his cape is armour too, and that's why that doesn't catch on fire

The cape seems to be apart of traditional Kryptonian battle wear. That is why I think Zod and Faora both have one.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And that isn't condescending at all. Though I do think it nicely illustrates my original point. Why even us question marks if you don't want someone to respond?

 

[DKDetective]

Combat fatigues are a standardized dress code for soldiers. They also go on over undergarments. Though in situations where combat is expected, different colthing is usually used. Just like the difference between when a cop puts on vest over his uniform and when SWAT shows up in purpose made suits.

The business suit analogy doesn't really hold, as it wouldn't be the base layer. Your undergarments would be.

If this was just something you wore underneath all clothing, yes it would be underwear. What we have here is something purpose built for combat, so I don't see it as such.

The business suit analogy was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Also, how do you know they aren't wearing underwear underneath the suits? Do you have x-ray vision?

However, we need to also remember that this is alien society so not all of our rules of clothing apply. Something is only truly "underwear" in our understanding of the term if it is inappropriate to wear alone in public, if its only purpose is to be worn underneath something else. Once again, i would point to the exam of Zod's trial to show that the Kryptonian suits are not underwear because they are being worn in public as the outermost layer of clothing. I don't think Kryptonian society will be depicted as so barbaric that they strip people down to their underwear during a public trial. I think the best analogy I can come up with is that the suits are like dress shirts. They are perfectly normal and relatively formal attire that can be worn on their own but also under many other forms of clothing like suit jackets, sweaters and the like.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And that isn't condescending at all. Though I do think it nicely illustrates my original point. Why even us question marks if you don't want someone to respond?

Sorry, maybe I should have been clear.

That was just me saying this argument is going in circles.

We're obviously not going to agree. And all the points you just made I have already addressed, so i'd just be repeating myself.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The business suit analogy was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Also, how do you know they aren't wearing underwear underneath the suits? Do you have x-ray vision?

However, we need to also remember that this is alien society so not all of our rules of clothing apply. Something is only truly "underwear" in our understanding of the term if it is inappropriate to wear alone in public, if its only purpose is to be worn underneath something else. Once again, i would point to the exam of Zod's trial to show that the Kryptonian suits are not underwear because they are being worn in public as the outermost layer of clothing. I don't think Kryptonian society will be depicted as so barbaric that they strip people down to their underwear during a public trial. I think the best analogy I can come up with is that the suits are like dress shirts. They are perfectly normal and relatively formal attire that can be worn on their own but also under many other forms of clothing like suit jackets, sweaters and the like.

I don't think they are undergarments either, which was sort of my point.

I could see them as basic dress shirts and the like if they weren't seemingly purpose built for combat. In the EW interview it seems that are based in Kryptonian Warrior culture. Now whether that means their warrior culture or that they themselves are a warrior culture I guess is open to interpretation. Either way it fits imo.

Sorry, maybe I should have been clear.

That was just me saying this argument is going in circles.

We're obviously not going to agree. And all the points you just made I have already addressed, so i'd just be repeating myself.

That is fine, though I don't agree. Just look at the cape bit.

 

[DKDetective]

I don't think they are undergarments either, which was sort of my point.

I could see them as basic dress shirts and the like if they weren't seemingly purpose built for combat.

If they were purpose built for combat, Jor-El would not be wearing them as part of his council garb. Yes, I know the robes have pauldrons and a chest plate, but they are ceremonial at best. I think the suits are what they seem, the utilitarian jumpsuits of an advanced society. They are like fatigues in that they can be worn on their own or under armour. Sure, there are slight differences between the ones worn in combat and the ones worn on base, but they are still fatigues and have the same core design and uses. An advanced society like Krypton probably has no need to differentiate between the two types.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That is fine, though I don't agree. Just look at the cape bit.

You mean the part where you completely ignored my question of how you would explain the fact that the cape does not get damaged either?

Yeah, I saw it...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If they were purpose built for combat, Jor-El would not be wearing them as part of his council garb. Yes, I know the robes have pauldrons and a chest plate, but they are ceremonial at best. I think the suits are what they seem, the utilitarian jumpsuits of an advanced society. They are like fatigues in that they can be worn on their own or under armour. Sure, there are slight differences between the ones worn in combat and the ones worn on base, but they are still fatigues and have the same core design and uses. An advanced society like Krypton probably has no need to differentiate between the two types.

But then why isn't Lara wearing one? It is ceremonial, but it could be ceremonial armor.

And I would be with you if not for the piping. That is why it has no correlation with fatigues, because the suit is built for the placement of the armor over it.

You mean the part where you completely ignored my question of how you would explain the fact that the cape does not get damaged either?

Yeah, I saw it...

I explained it. It is a part of battle wear, their armor. That is why they wear it into combat.

 

[DKDetective]

But then why isn't Lara wearing one? It is ceremonial, but it could be ceremonial armor.

And I would be with you if not for the piping. That is why it has no correlation with fatigues, because the suit is built for the placement of the armor over it.

Well, given how freshly born Kal-El looks when they put him in his ship, maybe she is wearing special maternity/hospital wear? Furthermore, just because something is a common form of dress does not mean it has to be universal. Also, how do we know that the piping is purely for attaching armour. If I recall correctly it seems that Jor-El's council robes attach the same way. It could be the Kryptonian equivalent of tucking your shirt into your pants/skirt.