Superman Returns Have your thoughts about the suit changed?

[Metropolis_Man]

I really don`t like the grandpa briefs of all the previous suits. I really don`t understand how people complain about the briefs being too low. The neckline is the only problem with suit, in my opinion. It looks its asfixiating Routh, it makes the cape attachment look bad and it makes Routh neck looks skinny when it is not.

Yeah, i think the lowered trunk like looks better as well. Yet another modern touch to it.

 

[Michael Corleone]

I'd have to say that it's growing on me. There were things that I didnt like but I basically just added it up to my own fanboy reactions. Best part about it though is I'm not really worried about it anymore. All I see is Superman.

 

[The Kid]

I don`t think so. I like the new briefs and belt much better than the current version in the comics. Its modern and it looks more alien.

Wait wouldn't it look less modern if it were alien? It'd look foreign wouldn't it?

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Yeah now I'm just seeing it as Superman again finally, and excited that a new movie is coming out.

 

[TwilightPro101]

Nope, I've been digging it since we first saw it.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Nope, I've been digging it since we first saw it.

Nice. I wish I could say the same. I really like it a lot now though. Just took some time for me.

 

[CGHulk]

In Sandy Corolla's own words!
"Superman's costume is already designed, it just needs to be translated into a different medium, from the page, to the screen. Nothing needs to be "updated", changed, or re-designed. Granted, little things have to be figured out and modified to make the costume work physically on film, but you don't need to change it that drastically. The original film, not to mention, my little promo proved that for sure."
http://popcultureshock.com/features.php?id=942

 

[skruloos]

In Sandy Corolla's own words!
"Superman's costume is already designed, it just needs to be translated into a different medium, from the page, to the screen. Nothing needs to be "updated", changed, or re-designed. Granted, little things have to be figured out and modified to make the costume work physically on film, but you don't need to change it that drastically. The original film, not to mention, my little promo proved that for sure."

That just makes me laugh. His litte promo proved the exact opposite to me. It showed me further how it could not work on the big screen. Oh poor deluded Sandy.

 

[lujho]

That just makes me laugh. His litte promo proved the exact opposite to me. It showed me further how it could not work on the big screen. Oh poor deluded Sandy.

But his Superman looked silly becuase of the actor and the same cheapo materials the suit was made of. Being faithful to the comics had little to do with it, other than the fact it used an S shield that was towards the bigger end of the spectrum of what we see in the comics, and a collar/cape that was toward the low end, and just not all that well designed.

If you based a suit on someone else's comic version, like say, Jim Lee's or Stuart Immonen's or Michael Turner's or some elements of Frank Quitely's... rather than Alex Ross it'd look great.

Sandy is right that you don't have to change the design drastically from the comic... but he's wrong that his film proved that. There are better versions to model after than Alex Ross'.

 

[dark_b]

drastically?
we all know that singer didnt do that. he just used pieces fro mdifferent costumes. so basicly he did use everythign from the comics. just because he didnt use teh suit that is NOW that doesnt mean that he changed it drasticly.

 

[lujho]

drastically?
we all know that singer didnt do that. he just used pieces fro mdifferent costumes. so basicly he did use everythign from the comics. just because he didnt use teh suit that is NOW that doesnt mean that he changed it drasticly.

See, people like to point out where various elements of the suit come from on previous versions of Superman, as if that proves anything.

Firstly, a lot of the inspriration comes from the George Reeve's suit. How does that make it faithful to the comics when that suit in itself wasn't entirely faithful? How does that prove it actually looks good? Borrowing elements from *sucky* versions of the suit makes it faithful to a sucky version, not the comics... I mean, George Reeve's cape/collar looked crap then, just like Brandon's does now - the fact that it's appeared somewhere before proves nothing, except that someone made the same mistake twice.

Yeah, the Fleischer cartoons had a darker red than is usual... but that doesn't neccessarily prove that Brandon's isn't too dark, it just proves that it's been done before - and in a minority of cases.

Batman once had little purple gloves in the comic - thus, having little purple gloves in a film would be faithful to the comic, would it not? But would that automatically mean it looked really great, as great as it could have? No, because after quite a short time (a few months), the creators of Batman realised that that didn't look as great as it could, and the design of the gloves evolved - to a point where it has remained essentially unchanged.

Faithful to the comics really means being faithful to the way it has looked most of the time, with perhaps a bias towards more current versions. Not the odd anomolous times or early developmental stages where the suit had elements that were significantly different from the norm. Now there's still a lot of room for interpretation within the parameters of "how it's looked most of the time", but the Returns suit goes out of those confines.

Simply pointing out that the things that have been done to the suit have been done before... does nothing to prove that aesthetically, it looks as good as it could have. And it doesn't.

I wouldn't say that the Returns suit as a whole is *drastically* different from the comics, but element by element, some parts are changed significantly, and not for the better. And on the other hand, I believe some of these changes ARE for the better - things that if the early artists had thought of it they'd probably have adopted. Other changes are not inherently better OR worse, but simply changed from the traditional look for no good reason.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Really people,The suit although different is just the next generation of Supersuit.At some point it had to be updated.. but when you look at the costume there isn't much of a change at all..


making a 3d \S/ has done what to the costume? made it less superman? not at all..you have seen worlds finest..a faithfull costume looks awfull on screen..just like Batman before it the suit needed to be modernised..would you have prefured a costume that shows superman inner working of his body?

 

[dark_b]

See, people like to point out where various elements of the suit come from on previous versions of Superman, as if that proves anything.

Firstly, a lot of the inspriration comes from the George Reeve's suit. How does that make it faithful to the comics when that suit in itself wasn't entirely faithful? How does that prove it actually looks good? Borrowing elements from *sucky* versions of the suit makes it faithful to a sucky version, not the comics... I mean, George Reeve's cape/collar looked crap then, just like Brandon's does now - the fact that it's appeared somewhere before proves nothing, except that someone made the same mistake twice.

Yeah, the Fleischer cartoons had a darker red than is usual... but that doesn't neccessarily prove that Brandon's isn't too dark, it just proves that it's been done before - and in a minority of cases.

Batman once had little purple gloves in the comic - thus, having little purple gloves in a film would be faithful to the comic, would it not? But would that automatically mean it looked really great, as great as it could have? No, because after quite a short time (a few months), the creators of Batman realised that that didn't look as great as it could, and the design of the gloves evolved - to a point where it has remained essentially unchanged.

Faithful to the comics really means being faithful to the way it has looked most of the time, with perhaps a bias towards more current versions. Not the odd anomolous times or early developmental stages where the suit had elements that were significantly different from the norm. Now there's still a lot of room for interpretation within the parameters of "how it's looked most of the time", but the Returns suit goes out of those confines.

Simply pointing out that the things that have been done to the suit have been done before... does nothing to prove that aesthetically, it looks as good as it could have. And it doesn't.

I wouldn't say that the Returns suit as a whole is *drastically* different from the comics, but element by element, some parts are changed significantly, and not for the better. And on the other hand, I believe some of these changes ARE for the better - things that if the early artists had thought of it they'd probably have adopted. Other changes are not inherently better OR worse, but simply changed from the traditional look for no good reason.

i will not argue. because you have a point.

but still a lot of the parts of the suit was in the comics. plus the george reves suit plus the fleicher and you have the SR suit.

 

[lujho]

Really people,The suit although different is just the next generation of Supersuit.At some point it had to be updated.. but when you look at the costume there isn't much of a change at all..


making a 3d \S/ has done what to the costume? made it less superman? not at all..you have seen worlds finest..a faithfull costume looks awfull on screen..just like Batman before it the suit needed to be modernised..would you have prefured a costume that shows superman inner working of his body?

But the 3D S isn't a change from the comic - it's just an embellishment, a logical extrapolation. It looks great, it doesn't hurt the costume. It makes perfect sense.

The neckline and cape, however, just look crap. Not an improvement over the comics - no-one's going to start drawing it that way - if it looked obviously better than what people are drawing now, they would, but it doesn't.

People might say that Reeve's collar was too low/big, that his boots were too high - and I'd agree completely - but they can be higher and lower respectively and still be much more faithful to the comics than Routh's suit is and look much better than both Reeve AND Routh's suit.

"You have seen worlds finest..a faithfull costume looks awfull on screen"? Absolute ****ing nonsense - a faithfull costume CAN look awfull, and it CAN look great. That goes for ANY superhero with an inherently great design.

This whole issue is NOT about the suit not looking just like Reeve's - it's about not combining the absolute BEST versions of the traditional/classic designs seen in the comics.

Show me a 20 year run of comics where the suit looked just like Brandon's because it had organically evolved into the best looking design, and I'll take it all back. Pointing piecemeal to where some elements, on the odd occasion, on various suits from here and there, looked like what is on the Returns suit... doesn't cut it. It's still Superman, but it's not the absolute best Superman can look, not even close, and that's what Superman deserves.

 

[DavidTyler]

Lujho, I won't copy your post to here but I just wanted to say 'great post' and you raise a lot of the arguments that I've always had.

The version of the suit that I was hoping to see was the comics version that has been virtually unchanged since the late 50's straight through to today.

I would call that the classic costume as it's stood the test of time. Anything prior was the costume in development.

 

[lujho]

i will not argue. because you have a point.

but still a lot of the parts of the suit was in the comics. plus the george reves suit plus the fleicher and you have the SR suit.

Which unfortunately equals "passable", "servicable", "okay"... not "great".

Seriously, why are people so happy te embrace "mediocre"? As if all a good Superman suit requires is a checklist of elements that are there, regardless of how it's put together? This is about visual design, not whether something simply has elemets a, b, and c... is it just a divide, as I've speculated before regarding the Batman costume, between visually oriented people and people who aren't?

 

[DavidTyler]

Interesting. I see that there are at least two of us who post while we're getting ready for work in the morning.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Ok then let me rephrase a little..

when you look at the costume do you think "hey look superman?"

Its superman..in an updated version costume for the time.

better materials.

 

[Venom71]

Ok then let me rephrase a little..

when you look at the costume do you think "hey look superman?"

Its superman..in an updated version costume for the time.

better materials.

Yes I Do

 

[TheFalcon]

I was a little disappointed with the suit when I first saw it, but now that I'm used to it I'm starting to like it a bit. I don't have a problem with the smaller and raised S. The only thing I would change is make the red a bit brighter, but it may look brighter in the film if they're adding some sort of color filter in post production.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Ok then let me rephrase a little..

when you look at the costume do you think "hey look superman?"

Its superman..in an updated version costume for the time.

better materials.

Yep, looks like Superman to me. Red Cape, Blue Suit, Red trunks, yellow belt, red boots, and the superman sheild. Thats pretty much what I've known Superman to be. At least this isn't tim burtons supes for those of you complaining, which would've been batmans costume with a superman symbol.

 

[lujho]

Ok then let me rephrase a little..

when you look at the costume do you think "hey look superman?"

Every* drawing of Superman, sculpture, painting or live-action costume is Superman. Does that mean they all look equally great?

Every* car has 4 wheels, two headlights, windshield, etc. They're all cars, do they all look equally beautiful?

Every* woman has two arms, two legs, two eyes, two of... other parts. They're all women, but are all equally pleasing to the eye?

It's not a question of whether it's Superman. It is Superman... and I guess that's enough for some people. It's a question of whether it's as good a Superman as can be. It's Superman, but it's not Superman.

What's so hard to understand about the concept of aesthetic visual design - designs that are the way they are because they look good? Not all designs are equal, not all are classic. Minor variations can harm the whole appearance.

* you know what I mean - please don't point out examples of one-legged women, 3 wheeled cars or very unorthodox Superman designs.

 

[lujho]

Yep, looks like Superman to me. Red Cape, Blue Suit, Red trunks, yellow belt, red boots, and the superman sheild. Thats pretty much what I've known Superman to be. At least this isn't tim burtons supes for those of you complaining, which would've been batmans costume with a superman symbol.

See, this is the perfect example of 2 things:

1) The "checklist mentality" I mentioned above - basically "well, it has all these elements, therefore it must be perfect".

2) The "Could have been a lot worse" mentality - "Gee, at least it's not pink and green with orange stripes - it's not that bad, therefore, it must be totally fine".

Some people just seem to have the bar set low (at the level of "okay") and be happy with that. Or they simply don't appreciate the subtleties of graphic/character design.

I'm just SICK of merely "okay", or "well, it's got all the right bits" or "it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been". Where's the aspiration in that? Where would we be if everyone thought that way?

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

could it be your over reacting just a little?

but i get your point,every person has there own idea..or favourite version of the Costume,Me personally i like the new look.. but i hope the neck attachment is adjusted for the sequel.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

See, this is the perfect example of 2 things:

1) The "checklist mentality" I mentioned above - basically "well, it has all these elements, therefore it must be perfect".

2) The "Could have been a lot worse" mentality - "Gee, at least it's not pink and green with orange stripes - it's not that bad, therefore, it must be totally fine".

Some people just seem to have the bar set low (at the level of "okay") and be happy with that. Or they simply don't appreciate the subtleties of graphic/character design.

I'm just SICK of merely "okay", or "well, it's got all the right bits" or "it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been". Where's the aspiration in that? Where would we be if everyone thought that way?

And some people can't be happy with anything new. I'm not going to get my life tangled up in worrying about what Supermans costume looks like in the movie. It looks like the Superman costume to me and I feel it needed to be updated for this film and I believe it looks really good. Just because you're opinion isn't the same as mine doesn't mean its right bud. Mine isn't necessarily right either, thats why its called an opinion. You can't say I have some sort of "checklist mentatlity" when I sincerely enjoy the way the costume looks. And anyways, its only a movie man, lighten up