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

[KalMart]

Greater heights of what? He's looked like that for years. His look is the standard for what superheroes look like. If you Google the term, the majority of pics you'll see are based off his template. It's not like MOS would be liked less thus far if he had the trunks. It really isn't the issue people make it out to be. Just something to quickly make a joke about that isn't even funny.

They're making their own newer version of Superman....this one without trunks.

 

[Lencho01]

They're making their own newer version of Superman....this one without trunks.

Yeah, I know that. But, I think it's silly/funny to say that without the trunks, Superman would be taken more seriously than if he did have them.

 

[KalMart]

Yeah, I know that. But, I think it's silly/funny to say that without the trunks, Superman would be taken more seriously than if he did have them.

By what reasoning? Is it somehow a badge of authority in the eyes of humans? Like presidents and prime ministers...or even firefighters and cops...with undies incorporated into their uniforms?

There's no sensible reason to keep them really aside fro their graphic design value, which I like and actually prefer. And really, the cape and boots are no less outlandish either. But within the context of a powered being amongst a civilization that thinks the way that we do for the most part, they won't be missing anything without the trunks. It is a design aspect that these newer storytellers decided not to use....purely an aesthetic choice which has no innate or essential functionality vital to the presentation. Luckily, they made a new suit design that works well with no trunks. Had it been like Reeves or even the Routh suit, with just no undies, it'd be different.

 

[Lencho01]

By what reasoning? Is it somehow a badge of authority in the eyes of humans? Like presidents and prime ministers...or even firefighters and cops...with undies incorporated into their uniforms?

There's no sensible reason to keep them really aside fro their graphic design value, which I like and actually prefer. And really, the cape and boots are no less outlandish either. But within the context of a powered being amongst a civilization that thinks the way that we do for the most part, they won't be missing anything without the trunks. It is a design aspect that these newer storytellers decided not to use....purely an aesthetic choice which has no innate or essential functionality vital to the presentation. Luckily, they made a new suit design that works well with no trunks. Had it been like Reeves or even the Routh suit, with just no undies, it'd be different.

I'm not really talking about reasons to keep the trunks. I and many others have said them in the past. What I'm saying is if they kept them, it wouldn't really turn people away from the film. So, it's not really an issue in terms of getting people to watch the film or not. The film's marketing and own merits will be the major influence.

 

[KalMart]

I'm not really talking about reasons to keep the trunks. I and many others have said them in the past. What I'm saying is if they kept them, it wouldn't really turn people away from the film. So, it's not really an issue in terms of getting people to watch the film or not. The film's marketing and own merits will be the major influence.

But I don't think their concern was turning people away, it's what worked better for them. Lois not having black hair or Perry White not being caucasian probably won't turn people away either or be a deciding factor as to watch the film or not. They went for something in their own way.

 

[Compi716]

I quite like the idea of a the suit being something that Superman's mother made for him. That seems to fit the character very well: his costume is of humble origins, but he makes it heroic. The trunks aren't really a problem if that approach is taken- it's the kind of addition well-meaning mothers are liable to make.

All the same, the alien origin for the MoS suit is also fine, and it looks good.

Ditto this. I love the fact that in the pre-New Martha made the suit. It always added something endearing to the character. Clark's costume represented the joining of his two heritages and cultures. There's nothing more Superman than that.

This has always been one of my favorite Superman moments, and I'm sad we won't see it on screen...at least for the time being.

 

[DKDetective]

I love that panel as well, but let's be honest where we see humble and touching, Joe Six-Pack sees "lame" and "cheesy".

 

[Mad Love]

Superman could still say it except this time maybe he means Lara!

 

[Lencho01]

But I don't think their concern was turning people away, it's what worked better for them. Lois not having black hair or Perry White not being caucasian probably won't turn people away either or be a deciding factor as to watch the film or not. They went for something in their own way.

Well, I think the design had more to do with the Superman litigation than anything else.

But, the comments I've seen said here and at other sites in regards to no trunks allows Superman to be taken more seriously and/or more appealing are just funny to me given that he's a pop culture icon and the template of how superheroes look pretty much goes back to him. Trunks or not, he still looks "silly" since no one normally dresses like that. Thus, it's not too much of a concern in terms of appealing to people.

 

[KalMart]

Well, I think the design had more to do with the Superman litigation than anything else.

It's not exactly a new idea or sentiment that hasn't ever been suggested before the movie, though.

But, the comments I've seen said here and at other sites in regards to no trunks allows Superman to be taken more seriously and/or more appealing are just funny to me given that he's a pop culture icon and the template of how superheroes look pretty much goes back to him. Trunks or not, he still looks "silly" since no one normally dresses like that. Thus, it's not too much of a concern in terms of appealing to people.

Because it's not just an arbitrary 'trunks or no'. It's an entire redesign of the suit which they elected to have some elements like preceding ones and some not, all of which to address their preferences and sensibilities. It's just as arbitrary to say they should stay because everything else is rationally as 'silly'. The important thing is that even without the trunks, the design choice was made with respect to what has been, not with dismissal or non consideration.

 

[JAK®]

For casual people? Yes, it's a joke.

Jokes are jokes. People make fun of Batman's voice. They make gay jokes about Sam and Frodo. They call you a loser if you're a Trekkie. They still turn up in droves to watch the movies.

 

[Lencho01]

It's not exactly a new idea or sentiment that hasn't ever been suggested before the movie, though.


Because it's not just an arbitrary 'trunks or no'. It's an entire redesign of the suit which they elected to have some elements like preceding ones and some not, all of which to address their preferences and sensibilities. It's just as arbitrary to say they should stay because everything else is rationally as 'silly'. The important thing is that even without the trunks, the design choice was made with respect to what has been, not with dismissal or non consideration.

I know, but when you have Snyder saying he showed them plenty of concept with the trunks and still being told they had to go, gives the impression that the litigation was an issue for WB at the time. So, I won't be surprised if they return in the comics some time in the future.

I don't know. The trunks seem to be the thing that people bring up more than any other difference this suit has in comparison to the standard suit. I don't see much comments online about the \S/, padding, piping or whatever you want to call it, or the length of the cape from those who take the time to comment on the suit. If the MOS suit had trunks, the only difference I feel we'd see are the talks about it.

Or maybe this was all part of the plan...

 

[Dr.]

I know, but when you have Snyder saying he showed them plenty of concept with the trunks and still being told they had to go, gives the impression that the litigation was an issue for WB at the time.

It’s possible that WB was interested in making certain changes to Supes - so as to indicate to the opposing lawyers that they (WB) were prepared to move forward with some alternate version of the character (whereas, S&S were pretty much locked into the contents of Action #1). But the trunks - specifically - were never a point of litigation (they aren’t copyright-able). In any case, a court ordered that a Superman movie should be produced in order to satisfy a complaint by S&S (who would benefit by such a production). So there was no sense that WB could pull-a-fast-one over S&S by, say, redesigning the costume.

 

[KalMart]

I know, but when you have Snyder saying he showed them plenty of concept with the trunks and still being told they had to go, gives the impression that the litigation was an issue for WB at the time. So, I won't be surprised if they return in the comics some time in the future.

I'd have to see what was said...it could have been more than just the trunks, but an easy way to distinguish ones from others while recounting.

And hey...if they do return in the comics...they're back! (which I actually prefer design-wise as well). But as far as these movies go, it would seem they stay trunkless unless they give him a new suit or something.

I don't know. The trunks seem to be the thing that people bring up more than any other difference this suit has in comparison to the standard suit. I don't see much comments online about the \S/, padding, piping or whatever you want to call it, or the length of the cape from those who take the time to comment on the suit. If the MOS suit had trunks, the only difference I feel we'd see are the talks about it.

Or maybe this was all part of the plan...

The trunks are the most obvious difference. The rest are things that more subtly highlight those other aspects that we've seen before...and moreso on closer examination than from a distance. The removal of trunks is sort of the leading/more immediate change as a 'design statement'.

 

[Lencho01]

It’s possible that WB was interested in making certain changes to Supes - so as to indicate to the opposing lawyers that they (WB) were prepared to move forward with some alternate version of the character (whereas, S&S were pretty much locked into the contents of Action #1). But the trunks - specifically - were never a point of litigation (they aren’t copyright-able). In any case, a court ordered that a Superman movie should be produced in order to satisfy a complaint by S&S (who would benefit by such a production). So there was no sense that WB could pull-a-fast-one over S&S by, say, redesigning the costume.

That's impression I got from the whole situation. WB was showing they could and are willing to have a Superman that was different from before if they really needed to and keep pretty much all the money to themselves. But, now it's all moot since they won their Superman and Superboy battles.

 

[KalMart]

edit

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I suspect they did ditch the trunks because of the legal battle but I honestly don't care what the reason was I love the new trunkless costume.

I understand that their are people still attached to them and I wouldn't have hated if they came back but in live action I perfer them to not be there. That's just me though.

 

[regwec]

Jokes are jokes. People make fun of Batman's voice. They make gay jokes about Sam and Frodo. They call you a loser if you're a Trekkie. They still turn up in droves to watch the movies.

This is possibly the most important post ever written on these boards.

We shouldn't worry about 'Joe Six Pack', because he is a moron who laps up whatever movie studios force down his throat. His job is to help fund the movies that we want to see. We are the nitpicky, fussy section of the potential audience, and is us who will generate bad buzz because Alfred Pennyworth's tie is the wrong colour. We shouldn't worry about the feebly asserted disdain of Joe, because he is going to gulp it down anyway.

 

[Skrilla31]

People are still hung up on the trunks? It's 2013. The job of this movie is to re-introduce the general public to a modern day Superman, not your father's or your grandfather's Superman. If you want the character to endure a timeless existence, then you have to allow the character to change and adapt with the times.

The younger generations are the ones with all the power. They're the ones who are going to dictate the future of this character. If you don't give them something they feel they can call their own, then your dooming the character to an early grave. Superman will become less and less cool and become more and more a thing of the past until he no longer resonates with anyone at all.

Yes, the trunks absolutely had to go. The character's image needed to be re-invented.

 

[Bruce Malone]

They're not even using the briefs in the comics anymore both batman and superman, so it would only make sense not having them for their on screen versions.

 

[Compi716]

People are still hung up on the trunks? It's 2013. The job of this movie is to re-introduce the general public to a modern day Superman, not your father's or your grandfather's Superman. If you want the character to endure a timeless existence, then you have to allow the character to change and adapt with the times.

The younger generations are the ones with all the power. They're the ones who are going to dictate the future of this character. If you don't give them something they feel they can call their own, then your dooming the character to an early grave. Superman will become less and less cool and become more and more a thing of the past until he no longer resonates with anyone at all.

Yes, the trunks absolutely had to go. The character's image needed to be re-invented.

I'm 24. The Superman with the trunks was MY Superman...AND my dad's. That's what creates timelessness: something that maintains a consistent level of quality that any generation can be attracted to. Why is timeless literature, or timeless films, considered so? Is it because they "change and adapt with the times?" Or is because they were spectacular to begin with?

Youth has nothing to do with it. Youth is, and this is a bit of a generalized statement so I apologize, inherently stupid. They work on instinct, whereas older individuals have the life experience and wisdom to make important choices. There's an age restriction on being President of the United States for a very good reason. Something as perfectly timeless as Superman, who is the epitome of American mythology, should not bend to suit the whims of a the "younger generation" who think they define what's "cool."

Mark my words: Superman will be getting the trunks back in the near future. Like fashion, the work on these characters, and our general feelings and experiences with them, is cyclical.

 

[KalMart]

This is possibly the most important post ever written on these boards.

We shouldn't worry about 'Joe Six Pack', because he is a moron who laps up whatever movie studios force down his throat. His job is to help fund the movies that we want to see. We are the nitpicky, fussy section of the potential audience, and is us who will generate bad buzz because Alfred Pennyworth's tie is the wrong colour. We shouldn't worry about the feebly asserted disdain of Joe, because he is going to gulp it down anyway.

Joe may also do your taxes, defend you in court, save you from a fire or mugger, or treat your illnesses...but who can't?

 

[regwec]

Joe may also do your taxes, defend you in court, save you from a fire or mugger, or treat your illnesses...but who can't?

Not sure you bothered to read my post, but I don't seek to denigrate whatever Joe wants to do with his life. I only point out that he is not a fickle individual whose ill-informed opinions need to be pandered to by a film studio, because Joe doesn't care. He just wants to be entertained.

 

[KalMart]

Not sure you caught the smiley at the end.

 

[KalMart]

It's after the "can't".