Origin Of The \S/ symbol

[Nightwing1983]

Sorry those are from a japanese spider-man show, here's the american version:

I actually think the Japanese one looks pretty good, and I don't really agree that a suit made out of cloth is necessarily inferior to milskin, especially when they put a lot of extraneous details in a milskin costume.

 

[Kurosawa]

The aura thing is not lame. It`s reality.

"When you revamped Superman and gave him a force-field around his body, did you do that because you wanted to get away from the "indestructible" costume thing? Did you catch much slack for this new "power"?

JB: No, to both. A few months before I started work on Superman, I'd read a book called "The Secret House" (which I highly recommend, though I sadly cannot remember the name of the author.) This book tells all about the strange and amazing things that happen in the world around us, things of which we are mostly oblivious (How they make chocolate cake, for instance. Shudder.) One of the things that was most interesting was the fact that the bioelectric energy of the human body generates a field of energy around all of us, very low wattage and very close to the skin. (This is not Kirillian photography, btw. This is real science.) Apparently, were it not for this field, we would be covered with dust and grime all the time. I extrapolated this for Superman, as a justification for him wearing a skintight (to be inside the field) costume. (4/25/1998)"

Best explanation ever for the costume. I`d rather this than some ridiculous notions of indestructible material from Krypton... One more thing post-crisis improve on Pre-crisis concepts.

I don't see it as an improvement at all. It's just too clunky.

Every one of his powers exists because of his exposure to our sun. That's why he loses them when he is exposed to red sun radiation that drives the yellow sun one out, like carbon monoxide does to the oxygen in our bloodcells. And that's why your gravity explanation doesnt work.

Furthermore, the force field isnt really an X-men type of forcefield, but rather its his invulnerability that projects a mm from his body. The sun radiation gives him this invulnerability and its so much that it projects a tiny bit around him. A punch by Brainiac/Darkseid/Mongul would actually hurt him and hurt his aura, leaving his suit vulnerable.
So you see, the aura doesnt make him untouchable. He makes the suit untouchable. Your version of things adds an indestructable suit to an indestructable man.So his suit can do that? And that doesnt make him Unus the Untouchable?

His powers exist because of the sun AND because of Earth's lesser gravity. And yes, the force field is exactly like Unus. It's the exact same principle. And it's not the costume that makes him invulnerable, its that the costume itself is invulnerable as well as him. But hey, force field, celophane \S/, face shifting powers, memory kiss, hypnotic suggestion he doesn't look like Clark Kent with glasses on...Superman's had his share of stupid powers over the years. To me Superman is invulnerable because his tissue, his skin is just that hard. I certainly don't need 5 minutes of explanation in a movie of why he has a force-field or some such crap.

Awesome post! A super advanced race like the Kryptonians had trouble launching a spaceship?

In Birthright they had a hard time getting the ship off of Krypton because the gravity was so great. The point was that Kryptonians HAD to become a super advanced race and civilization to even make it on Krypton because the environment was so harsh.

I will say this, and from here on I want to quit arguing with you guys because at least we all share a fandom of Superman, even if we don't agree on details much if at all:

I don't feel Byrne's revisions should be completely purged from the comics. I didn't like it when they got rid of the Earth-One and Earth-Two versions and replaced them with Byrne's character, and I don't think it would be right to do that to guys like you two that grew up with that character. I DO feel a lot of the Pre-Crisis explanations are more iconic and play better in a movie because they are simpler. A lot of the stuff we discuss and debate won't even be addressed in the next movie and don't need to be.

I think the current Superman: Secret Origin is a pretty fair attempt to create some balance between the two versions, but I'd just as soon they keep what you guys like and go with that, but at least treat him with some respect. I don't see a Pre/Post-Crisis hybrid making anyone happy. The Byrne version is not my ideal Superman but he's still A version of Superman and the images of seeing him as a punk and a wuss pisses me off.

I do think there is a market for Superman as I see him, and the commercial and critical success of All-Star Superman supports that. And I will always maintain that showing characters' creators respect and taking their vision into consideration when dealing with a character is a good idea and the right thing to do.

 

[Kurosawa]

The aura thing is not lame. It`s reality.

"When you revamped Superman and gave him a force-field around his body, did you do that because you wanted to get away from the "indestructible" costume thing? Did you catch much slack for this new "power"?

JB: No, to both. A few months before I started work on Superman, I'd read a book called "The Secret House" (which I highly recommend, though I sadly cannot remember the name of the author.) This book tells all about the strange and amazing things that happen in the world around us, things of which we are mostly oblivious (How they make chocolate cake, for instance. Shudder.) One of the things that was most interesting was the fact that the bioelectric energy of the human body generates a field of energy around all of us, very low wattage and very close to the skin. (This is not Kirillian photography, btw. This is real science.) Apparently, were it not for this field, we would be covered with dust and grime all the time. I extrapolated this for Superman, as a justification for him wearing a skintight (to be inside the field) costume. (4/25/1998)"

Best explanation ever for the costume. I`d rather this than some ridiculous notions of indestructible material from Krypton... One more thing post-crisis improve on Pre-crisis concepts.

I don't see it as an improvement at all. It's just too clunky.

Every one of his powers exists because of his exposure to our sun. That's why he loses them when he is exposed to red sun radiation that drives the yellow sun one out, like carbon monoxide does to the oxygen in our bloodcells. And that's why your gravity explanation doesnt work.

Furthermore, the force field isnt really an X-men type of forcefield, but rather its his invulnerability that projects a mm from his body. The sun radiation gives him this invulnerability and its so much that it projects a tiny bit around him. A punch by Brainiac/Darkseid/Mongul would actually hurt him and hurt his aura, leaving his suit vulnerable.
So you see, the aura doesnt make him untouchable. He makes the suit untouchable. Your version of things adds an indestructable suit to an indestructable man.So his suit can do that? And that doesnt make him Unus the Untouchable?

His powers exist because of the sun AND because of Earth's lesser gravity. And yes, the force field is exactly like Unus. It's the exact same principle. And it's not the costume that makes him invulnerable, its that the costume itself is invulnerable as well as him. But hey, force field, celophane \S/, face shifting powers, memory kiss, hypnotic suggestion he doesn't look like Clark Kent with glasses on...Superman's had his share of stupid powers over the years. To me Superman is invulnerable because his tissue, his skin is just that hard. I certainly don't need 5 minutes of explanation in a movie of why he has a force-field or some such crap.

Awesome post! A super advanced race like the Kryptonians had trouble launching a spaceship?

In Birthright they had a hard time getting the ship off of Krypton because the gravity was so great. The point was that Kryptonians HAD to become a super advanced race and civilization to even make it on Krypton because the environment was so harsh.

I will say this, and from here on I want to quit arguing with you guys because at least we all share a fandom of Superman, even if we don't agree on details much if at all:

I don't feel Byrne's revisions should be completely purged from the comics. I didn't like it when they got rid of the Earth-One and Earth-Two versions and replaced them with Byrne's character, and I don't think it would be right to do that to guys like you two that grew up with that character. I DO feel a lot of the Pre-Crisis explanations are more iconic and play better in a movie because they are simpler. A lot of the stuff we discuss and debate won't even be addressed in the next movie and don't need to be.

I think the current Superman: Secret Origin is a pretty fair attempt to create some balance between the two versions, but I'd just as soon they keep what you guys like and go with that, but at least treat him with some respect. I don't see a Pre/Post-Crisis hybrid making anyone happy. The Byrne version is not my ideal Superman but he's still A version of Superman and the images of seeing him as a punk and a wuss pisses me off.

I do think there is a market for Superman as I see him, and the commercial and critical success of All-Star Superman supports that. And I will always maintain that showing characters' creators respect and taking their vision into consideration when dealing with a character is a good idea and the right thing to do.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Or they can just write a good superman story and stop worrying about explaining everything. Lets not get pedantic here.
IIRC the aura was explained in L&C with 1 simple sentence that Superman said to Lois. "My body projects a small aura and protects the suit".
Add the electricity explanation from above so that it doesnt sound stupid and we're good to go. How does Clark know? He figured it out through combat experience, or Jor-El taught him in the fortress. Who cares?

yeah i remember the scene from lois and clark, still i'd venture to say most people in the public just think supes is invulnerable because his skin is really tough, like wolverine having unbreakable claws, supes has unbreakable skin. No need to explain it. the only reason i like the aura deal is b/c it justifes the skin tight costume and why it doesn't get destroyed when he does superstuff.

I also would like to see professor hamilton or lex analyze superman if the explaination is used. Having supes explain it or figure it out "oh yeah i have an aura" just sounds odd to me, he doesn't explain his superspeed or flight, he doesn't need to explain his invulnerability either.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I also would like to see professor hamilton or lex analyze superman if the explaination is used. Having supes explain it or figure it out "oh yeah i have an aura" just sounds odd to me, he doesn't explain his superspeed or flight, he doesn't need to explain his invulnerability either.

Nice!

To me Superman is invulnerable because his tissue, his skin is just that hard.

Personally i see it like the yellow sun radiation makes his skin harder. Its not the aura that protects him. The aura is only for the suit. I dont know how it goes in the comics exactly. Is it how i see it, or its all aura?

Anyway, the comics explain the invulnerability with yellow sun radiation, so that when he is exposed to K, or red sun radiation, he loses it and even a knife can kill him. I personally prefer it that way because Superman can become a man. With your version Superman will always be denser than humans and always be invulnerable.

 

[SuperDaniel]

This gravity thing makes no sense whatsover. If the gravity was why he got his powers, he would be like a man on the moon here and wouldn`t be able to walk or even control flight. It makes sense for it to be a bio-field created by his special solar powered cells that gives him all his powers. And where the hell did you see that Gravity was the problem in Birthright? I thought he couldn`t adjust the trajectory to the ship because it always hit something...I might be wrong but i never read like that...

Those old explanations were fine for its time but society has evolved and these Byrne scientific explanations makes so much more sense.

The problem with Superman are these goddamn purist fans who love to leave in the past.

Geoff Johns is in this category because all he does is kiss Donner`s butt and can`t actually have one goddamn original idea for once. Oh, Secret origins had one original idea: Donut Parasite

 

[Mr. Earle]

Superman's powers dont need an explanation the same way that the F4's powers dont need one either. How are you going to explain heat vision, or the ability to suck huge amounts of air into his lungs and what not?
The general audience isnt as pedantic as we are and "yellow radiation" will do just fine. They have learned to accept his powers the same they accept that Jesus could walk on water. Nolan simply explained how and why a normal man turned himself into Batman, but Superman just works that way. He didnt train or buy his powers. The movie shouldnt be a pseudo physics lecture.

The only thing that might need explanation is how his suit isnt damaged, because lets face it, that's not one of his powers and its more of a practical issue. They can choose not to address it, but if they choose, the electrical aura thing makes sense.

 

[Nightwing1983]

The general audience isnt as pedantic as we are and "yellow radiation" will do just fine.

I think that depends on who you're talking about. Hopefully most in "the general audience," wouldn't be, but many in "the general audience" just love to nitpick. To say "the general audience" is or isn't that pedantic is... well... generalizing.

After-all, fans are part of "the general audience."

 

[Webhead2006]

i wouldnt mind if they do explain a little via clark on his own or via emil.

 

[Kurosawa]

This gravity thing makes no sense whatsover. If the gravity was why he got his powers, he would be like a man on the moon here and wouldn`t be able to walk or even control flight. It makes sense for it to be a bio-field created by his special solar powered cells that gives him all his powers. And where the hell did you see that Gravity was the problem in Birthright? I thought he couldn`t adjust the trajectory to the ship because it always hit something...I might be wrong but i never read like that...

Those old explanations were fine for its time but society has evolved and these Byrne scientific explanations makes so much more sense.

The problem with Superman are these goddamn purist fans who love to leave in the past.

Geoff Johns is in this category because all he does is kiss Donner`s butt and can`t actually have one goddamn original idea for once. Oh, Secret origins had one original idea: Donut Parasite

None of these issues will even be addressed in all likelihood. And they should try to cater to all fans, and that includes purists. But none of this matters...they won't address your aura explanation which you like and they won't address the gravity matter either...there's no time or reason to get into it past "on Earth you will have powers". And I don't see how the classic explanations are dated, but you know where I stand on respecting original creators and the past.

I think Johns is not so much kissing Donners butt as it is that he is a Silver Age fan. It is encouraging to me that Johns has a solid position in the DC Entertainment since he respects comics past 20 years ago and loves the JSA and Hawkman. I think him being where he is will help get a Flash movie made and maybe get the JSA more exposure. Although the Smallville episode was far from perfect, it was still great to see the JSA come to life and be paid respect.

 

[Webhead2006]

well we dont really know if or if not any explaination of superman powers and all that would be in reboot or talked about within the reboot's series. I am sure their could easily be some off mention comments at the least.

 

[DavidTyler]

The blankets were as invulnerable as the rest of him and Jor-El knew that if the ship made it off Krypton and away from Rao that they and the ships interiors would provide ample protection.

Yeah, it would best to just create an Einstein stand-in if that angle were to be used.

Hate everything about the birthing matrix, etc. Pure garbage IMO and glad it was retconned away. Hate the aura idea, it's lame. I much prefer the idea that Krypton's gravity and environment was so insanely harsh that they evolved to withstand it and away from there and from the red sun that Kryptonians are near-indestructible.
I'm neutral on Superboy, although I actually like the character a lot, but I don't feel it's essential.

Of course you do. You're a 1930's kind of fan. I'm not. I've been with the character since the late 50's and I've been a science fiction fan just as long.
There is absolutely no way anyone can convince me that you can slap a baby into the cockpit of a rocket with a few blankets, send him on a multiple light-year journey, and have him arrive as anything other than a dehydrated, starved corpse. As to the Kryptonians being near-indestructible - I'm a fan of Maggin's book, too... but there are problems with that concept as well. Those alien 'astronauts' would have died. There wouldn't have been a Kryptonian race. For arguments sake, let's say they didn't die and went on to breed a race of superbeings as Elliot stated... the death of the planet would have been an inconvenience for them and not the end of their civilization. They would have just gone indoors, shut the windows, and turned on their environmental systems. Supes can withstand amazing explosions... this would just been more of the same.

I do not find the aura lame. In fact, I find it a much more logical approach to explaining Superman's invulnerability. It certainly wins hands-down over generational built-up tolerance to heavy gravity. Again... the first generation wouldn't have survived to birth a second.

And, let me just add one more cord of wood to that fire... baby clark would destroy everything he touches as he would have no understanding of his own strength. The Kents would never have been able to raise him. A hug from a baby who doesn't know his own phenomimal strength would be fatal.

The aura, the charging over his early childhood years... they all make logical sense. Baby Clark couldn't start out superpowered. Not in a semi-realistic world.

There is also absolutely no way anyone can convince me that cloth (which is just dead plant fibers or extruded oil byproduct) can somehow develop superpowers under a yellow sun ... or be so powerful to begin with that it has the invulnerabilities that Supes costume has exhibited over the years. If it were that strong - the ship would have been made out of it.

As for all the other questions about the suit and the blankets, in the classic traditional canon, the blankets and the costume stretched and were as indestructible as Superman himself, the boots, belt and the lenses of his glasses were made from the remains of the rocket's interior. That is how he can use his vision powers without melting his glasses as Clark.

Kal-L designed his own costume and created the materials it was made from in the Golden Age, and I assume the lenses of his glasses as well.

The blanket explanation is by far the most iconic, imo.

Iconic - yes - but only for those of us familiar with the comics. For the general public - they wouldn't care if the suit came out of a box of cornflakes. I think it's one of those things we can let go of.

Keep in mind that I grew up with the character, too. Superman was the first comic I ever read and it was late 50's - early sixties. I had all the reprints from the 50's and a lot of reprints from before that. I'm not speaking as someone who's only exposure is Byrne. I grew up reading Heinlien, Asimov, Sturgeon, Clark, and host of others. I want Superman to at least attempt to fit into a world that makes sense. I totallly appreciate what Byrne did with the mythos. He tried to make his explanations believable for a generation too aware of science to believe you could slap a baby into a rocket with a few blankets and shuttle him off to Earth.

 

[Kurosawa]

Of course you do. You're a 1930's kind of fan. I'm not. I've been with the character since the late 50's and I've been a science fiction fan just as long.
There is absolutely no way anyone can convince me that you can slap a baby into the cockpit of a rocket with a few blankets, send him on a multiple light-year journey, and have him arrive as anything other than a dehydrated, starved corpse. As to the Kryptonians being near-indestructible - I'm a fan of Maggin's book, too... but there are problems with that concept as well. Those alien 'astronauts' would have died. There wouldn't have been a Kryptonian race. For arguments sake, let's say they didn't die and went on to breed a race of superbeings as Elliot stated... the death of the planet would have been an inconvenience for them and not the end of their civilization. They would have just gone indoors, shut the windows, and turned on their environmental systems. Supes can withstand amazing explosions... this would just been more of the same.

I do not find the aura lame. In fact, I find it a much more logical approach to explaining Superman's invulnerability. It certainly wins hands-down over generational built-up tolerance to heavy gravity. Again... the first generation wouldn't have survived to birth a second.

And, let me just add one more cord of wood to that fire... baby clark would destroy everything he touches as he would have no understanding of his own strength. The Kents would never have been able to raise him. A hug from a baby who doesn't know his own phenomimal strength would be fatal.

The aura, the charging over his early childhood years... they all make logical sense. Baby Clark couldn't start out superpowered. Not in a semi-realistic world.

There is also absolutely no way anyone can convince me that cloth (which is just dead plant fibers or extruded oil byproduct) can somehow develop superpowers under a yellow sun ... or be so powerful to begin with that it has the invulnerabilities that Supes costume has exhibited over the years. If it were that strong - the ship would have been made out of it.




Iconic - yes - but only for those of us familiar with the comics. For the general public - they wouldn't care if the suit came out of a box of cornflakes. I think it's one of those things we can let go of.

Keep in mind that I grew up with the character, too. Superman was the first comic I ever read and it was late 50's - early sixties. I had all the reprints from the 50's and a lot of reprints from before that. I'm not speaking as someone who's only exposure is Byrne. I grew up reading Heinlien, Asimov, Sturgeon, Clark, and host of others. I want Superman to at least attempt to fit into a world that makes sense. I totallly appreciate what Byrne did with the mythos. He tried to make his explanations believable for a generation too aware of science to believe you could slap a baby into a rocket with a few blankets and shuttle him off to Earth.

If I was interested in realistically explained science-fiction I'd read Asimov and I'd need a coffee IV drip to keep me awake. I'm not interested in realism, I like mythology. The powers/costume things don't really mean as much to me as the complete 360 he did on the Superman/Clark duality which made his character a completely different character as far as I am concerned. Superman being the reality and Clark the construct and him being completely orphaned and therefore completely adult are the core things to me that Byrne dumped and that I felt hurt. All the other stuff-power level, power source, costume origin, corporate Lex, no Superboy, no other Kryptonians, super *****y Lois, etc, are all details and not the core IMO.

What I felt he kept from the core: Superman's nobility, his sense of optimism, his decency, setting and supporting cast and the most iconic costume in comics. Unfortunately the two core things he changed were important, the Superman/Clark duality being the most important to me.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think that the yellow sun explanation for Superman's powers has been used for a very long time. Even Donner uses that explanation. And as DavidTyler points out, it makes a lot more sense than a super dense and strong baby coming to Earth, not to mention that you can turn Superman into a man for story purposes very easily.
This has been so for a very long time and rooting for the "Krypton is a harsh world" explanation is like rooting for Batman to use guns because "that's how they did it in the olden days and if you dont like it you are raping Bob Kane's corpse!"
And anyway, hate it or love it that's how Superman has been in the last decades. That's how he's written and how people know him nowadays. And i suppose that if DC changed the explanation for his powers to this, it must be accepted and loved by the fans since they're trying to sell them comic books. So what Siegel or Kane wrote back in the day is important but only so much.

 

[Webhead2006]

kuro i dont really see why being alone as a adult with no parents means he will still be a boy or what not. What about real people/real heroes like fire fighters/military folks who have their old moms/dads alive. They are not little momma boys at all. The kents could easily be alive and as others pointed out help him design his metropolis look, and then be around once in the great while for clark to talk to and they support what he is doing. He could still be a man and have them alive.

As for the scifi/science fact talk on aura over the gravity-invul thing. Both have their places and both work in my mind with the right story and all that behind it. For me since i am a big scifi fan i enjoy looking at anything is possible type of mind.

 

[Kurosawa]

I think that the yellow sun explanation for Superman's powers has been used for a very long time. Even Donner uses that explanation. And as DavidTyler points out, it makes a lot more sense than a super dense and strong baby coming to Earth, not to mention that you can turn Superman into a man for story purposes very easily.
This has been so for a very long time and rooting for the "Krypton is a harsh world" explanation is like rooting for Batman to use guns because "that's how they did it in the olden days and if you dont like it you are raping Bob Kane's corpse!"
And anyway, hate it or love it that's how Superman has been in the last decades. That's how he's written and how people know him nowadays. And i suppose that if DC changed the explanation for his powers to this, it must be accepted and loved by the fans since they're trying to sell them comic books. So what Siegel or Kane wrote back in the day is important but only so much.

In the Silver/Bronze Age they used both the Gravity and Yellow Sun explanations together. The emphasis on the harshness of Krypton's environment was something first stressed by Maggin in his novels and I find it interesting. And as for how he's been written in the last decades...well Geoff Johns is getting rid of a lot of that and going back to somewhat more traditional explanations, so the Byrne era Superman has pretty much ran its course. And I'd expect the next film to be close to what Johns wants considering his place in DC Entertainment.

 

[Daybreak_st]

i think it's funny that somehow we have to justify superman's invulnerability via an aura. What about any number of heroes/villains who are in his same league? Wonder woman, darkseid, doomsday, mongul, even martian manhunter. Do they all have some sort of an "aura" to protect them? No. Correct me if i'm wrong but they're all just suppose to have incredibly dense skin or whatever. Same with a host of marvel characters.

I just prefer the explanation that the yellow sun fortefies his dense molecular structure making him practically invulnerable.

I think most people who don't read comics would assume this, he is called the man of steel after all.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Also as far as the costume is concerned. I think anyone with experience sewing will tell you that it's doubtful that martha could take those blankets make make them into the skin tight bodysuit supes wears. Just saying. If it was made of all earthly materials then it'd pretty much have to be a unitard as in Lois & Clark.

Also if you want a really cool looking suit in the new movie, something comparable to the spidey suit then going with a homemade route seems counterproductive. And why people think martha is capable of doing something that they assume is impossible for the fortress to accomplish is beyond me

Just look at the fantastic four. You've got a human, reed richards who comes up with unstable molecules so that the costumes aren't destroyed when they use their powers. In the movie the costumes were affected the same as the four were so the costumes remain in tact while they use their abilites.

I don't think it's stretching anything to assume kryptonians (who visited earth before), or clark via the fortress, could simply come up with material that could do the same. Either iteself being really strong, or a material that would inherit the properties of the wearer if it was skin tight.

 

[Nightwing1983]

i think it's funny that somehow we have to justify superman's invulnerability via an aura. What about any number of heroes/villains who are in his same league? Wonder woman, darkseid, doomsday, mongul, even martian manhunter. Do they all have some sort of an "aura" to protect them? No. Correct me if i'm wrong but they're all just suppose to have incredibly dense skin or whatever. Same with a host of marvel characters.

I just prefer the explanation that the yellow sun fortefies his dense molecular structure making him practically invulnerable.

I think most people who don't read comics would assume this, he is called the man of steel after all.

Well, I think we can assume that with other alien characters, the same principle applies (even if the writers never acknowledge this); but I think that it's just nice when writers and other storytellers at-least have some system in mind when it comes to the quirks of his powers.

But if you're saying we don't need a half-hour of exposition on this aura stuff, then I'm with you.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah that's pretty much what i'm saying. Why analyze one of his powers to death but not follow up with superspeed, superhearing, flight, etc? Lex or Dr. Hamilton could simply explain something in a brief scene if it's needed, but nothing elaborate.

The aura thing works if you care that much about it but, why don't they explain his other powers in that much detail? Vague works better with a fantastical character like supes or you're forced to try an analyze all the other superheroes on the same level and it just doesn't add up.

 

[Kurosawa]

Also as far as the costume is concerned. I think anyone with experience sewing will tell you that it's doubtful that martha could take those blankets make make them into the skin tight bodysuit supes wears. Just saying. If it was made of all earthly materials then it'd pretty much have to be a unitard as in Lois & Clark.

Also if you want a really cool looking suit in the new movie, something comparable to the spidey suit then going with a homemade route seems counterproductive. And why people think martha is capable of doing something that they assume is impossible for the fortress to accomplish is beyond me

Just look at the fantastic four. You've got a human, reed richards who comes up with unstable molecules so that the costumes aren't destroyed when they use their powers. In the movie the costumes were affected the same as the four were so the costumes remain in tact while they use their abilites.

I don't think it's stretching anything to assume kryptonians (who visited earth before), or clark via the fortress, could simply come up with material that could do the same. Either iteself being really strong, or a material that would inherit the properties of the wearer if it was skin tight.

Well in the classic stories and now again in Secret Origin she made it with Clark's help. It's cloth even if it's Kryptonian cloth after all. It's also easier to explain it in a movie that way: why red blue and yellow? Because that's what they had to work with, that's why.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Well in the classic stories and now again in Secret Origin she made it with Clark's help. It's cloth even if it's Kryptonian cloth after all. It's also easier to explain it in a movie that way: why red blue and yellow? Because that's what they had to work with, that's why.

yeah, that would explain the colors more easily.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

As has been mentioned in this thread (and as I believe I and others have explained about a billion times in general) the aura is nothing more than a by-product of the Sun's affect on Clark's physiology. He isn't invulnerable because of the aura, he has an aura because he's invulnerable. In the comics, (Man of Steel #1, as a matter of fact) Martha mentions that she realized that Clarks onesies and other tight baby clothing and underwear, as he got older, never got dirty or damaged, even when his "super activities" shredded the rest of his clothes. We later found this was due to the aura effect, but I don't recall how the aura specifically was revealed.

Personally, I prefer a combination. Superman's strength and invulnerability are mostly due to his dense molecular structure. When you then take that physiology (which needed to evolve to survive under a dim/low energy red star) and place it under the light of a young, vibrant yellow star, it super-charges his cells causing him to become even more invulnerable and even stronger, as well as manifesting in the myriad of other powers he has.
In this case, if he is exposed to red solar radiation, he would be reduced to his Golden Age power set. However, since Kryptonite drives out solar radiation, and then destroys his cells, this can cause him to become as vulnerable as anyone else.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

the origin of the symbol is unimportant

I kind of agree with this... but at the same time... its kind of lame that he wears this and then everyone in Metropolis calls him Superman just because... I like Byrne's idea.

 

[Webhead2006]

kalel-fan i like what u said there.