The Official Costume Thread - - - - Part 13

[Zachhelms]

MOS is by far the best in my opinion. And if it wasn't for the super small S in SR, that'd be my second. But I guess Reeve's costume was good for the time. Lois and Clark had the worst suit in my opinion.

 

[Saint]

I am just saying it is impossible to translate a costume from the comics with "100% Accuracy" when it isn't completely consistent. Of course they all follow the same basic stencil. Blue Suit, Red Trunks, Red Cape, etc. Guess what, Superman Returns followed this "basic design" you speak of to the letter, and people were still pretty unhappy. Every artist draws Superman a little differently. The size of the \S/, the neckline, the cape attachment, the trunks, the boots, the belt, the length of the cape, the suit's texture, how high his boots go up his leg, piping on the suit, the design of the shield itself, Shades of Red, Blue and Yellow.

So how are you gonna approach the concept of 100% accuracy buddy with all these differing factors?

I actually never said a word about "100% accuracy," but really, if you're accurate to those design elements that have definitive qualities, that's 100% accuracy. Things like the size of the shield have no definitive values, ergo they do not enter into accuracy (unless one goes outside the accepted range).

If you really need a roadmap as far as what stylistic flourishes to use, well, it's pretty easy: you do what suits your actor. The Superman Returns suit was almost as accurate as it gets (though not quite), but it was designed and proportioned in ways that didn't suit Routh's physique. It made him look lanky and small and awkward, and that's why it was bad. It had nothing to do with accuracy.

 

[7heBoss]

I actually never said a word about "100% accuracy," but really, if you're accurate to those design elements that have definitive qualities, that's 100% accuracy. Things like the size of the shield have no definitive values, ergo they do not enter into accuracy (unless one goes outside the accepted range).

If you really need a roadmap as far as what stylistic flourishes to use, well, it's pretty easy: you do what suits your actor. The Superman Returns suit was almost as accurate as it gets (though not quite), but it was designed and proportioned in ways that didn't suit Routh's physique. It made him look lanky and small and awkward, and that's why it was bad. It had nothing to do with accuracy.

I commented on Kurosawa's idea of 100% Accuracy, and then you jumped in. I am holding you to the original premise.

And who says that the size of the shield has no definitive value? You? Who makes you the authority on this? Every single detail of the suit from the size of the shield to the shades of color contribute to the overall look so why wouldn't you assign them value? If I made a 1 inch x 1 inch shield and presented that on the suit, would you call that accurate? What are these acceptable boundaries you speak of if size doesn't matter? And what of all the other details I mentioned? Those have no definitive value either?

If someone came up to me and said, "I want you to create the Mona Lisa with 100% accuracy." Could I hand them some half@ss piece of work and say "Well its follows the same basic design. It has all the important details like black hair, no eyebrows, content smile. All the other details have no definitive value so I would call this 100% accurate." Uh, no...

 

[roxette]

I am just saying it is impossible to translate a costume from the comics with "100% Accuracy" when it isn't completely consistent. Of course they all follow the same basic stencil. Blue Suit, Red Trunks, Red Cape, etc. Guess what, Superman Returns followed this "basic design" you speak of to the letter, and people were still pretty unhappy. Every artist draws Superman a little differently. The size of the \S/, the neckline, the cape attachment, the trunks, the boots, the belt, the length of the cape, the suit's texture, how high his boots go up his leg, piping on the suit, the design of the shield itself, Shades of Red, Blue and Yellow.

So how are you gonna approach the concept of 100% accuracy buddy with all these differing factors?

what's so hard? here:

 

[7heBoss]

what's so hard? here:

Hmmmm... Well if the picture you post is a 100% Accurate to the comics than why are the colors, the boots and the cape attachment different? Why isn't your cape as large? Why doesn't your suit have two tones or piping? Why doesn't your suit have gold/yellow around the shield? Why isn't the \S/ exactly the same?

Oh yeah, because of exactly what I've been saying, Superman is drawn differently from artist to artist. So you even get what I am saying. Earth One Superman will look different from All-Star Superman, or Alex Ross' Superman, or Birthright Superman, or Superman for All Seasons, or Secret Origin Superman, Kingdom Come Superman. How can you be 100% Accurate when they all have differing details?

 

[Saint]

And who says that the size of the shield has no definitive value? You?

You do. That was the argument of your previous post; that the size of the shield or the height of the boots are variable (in that different artists draw them differently), which is to say they have no definitive value.

Who makes you the authority on this? Every single detail of the suit from the size of the shield to the shades of color contribute to the overall look so why wouldn't you assign them value?

This seems to suggest that you feel I was talking about worth, which is not the case. I'm talking about value the way the size of something, or the measurements of something are values.

If I made a 1 inch x 1 inch shield and presented that on the suit, would you call that accurate?

No, and I accounted for that--I wrote that such variations would be acceptable within the accepted range. That is to say, there is a range in which such variables (like the size of the shield) fall in Superman's design, and falling outside that range would constitute inaccuracy.

What are these acceptable boundaries you speak of if size doesn't matter?

I did not say size doesn't matter, I said it has no definitive value.

And what of all the other details I mentioned? Those have no definitive value either?

Correct.

If someone came up to me and said, "I want you to create the Mona Lisa with 100% accuracy." Could I hand them some half@ss piece of work and say "Well its follows the same basic design. It has all the important details like black hair, no eyebrows, content smile. All the other details have no definitive value so I would call this 100% accurate." Uh, no...

Your comparison doesn't follow (in fact, it's completely backwards); there is only one Mona Lisa, and thus every element of the Mona Lisa does have a definitive and unchanging value. If da Vinci had painted a hundred different Mona Lisa's in a hundred different styles, then this would not be so, and yes, then an accurate recreation would depend on duplicating the core design and definitive elements, not on particulars like the exact shade of her dress or exact length of her hair--because, with a hundred interpretations, those things would no longer be exact.

I'm going to try and make this as clear as I can. The height of Superman's boots, the size of his shield , the length of his cape--these are not exact. They do not have exact values associated with them. They have general values. Ergo, a costume that fulfills those general values, falls within those parameters (some being more specific than others) would be entirely accurate.

I understand that you think the variable nature of Superman's appearance makes perfect accuracy impossible; my position is that it makes perfect accuracy much easier, because few exact values need be adhered to, as they do not exist.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Hmmmm... Well if the picture you post is a 100% Accurate to the comics than why are the colors, the boots and the cape attachment different? Why isn't your cape as large? Why doesn't your suit have two tones or piping? Why doesn't your suit have gold/yellow around the shield? Why isn't the \S/ exactly the same?

Oh yeah, because of exactly what I've been saying, Superman is drawn differently from artist to artist. So you even get what I am saying. Earth One Superman will look different from All-Star Superman, or Alex Ross' Superman, or Birthright Superman, or Superman for All Seasons, or Secret Origin Superman, Kingdom Come Superman. How can you be 100% Accurate when they all have differing details?

Are u even serious? The colors, boots, cape attachment and cape are exactly like the comics Superman`s suit doesnt have two tones of blue, nor a gold round the shield.

Earth-One and KC are a bit different because they are different stories but the rest is basically the same.

 

[7heBoss]

You do. That was the argument of your previous post; that the size of the shield or the height of the boots are variable (in that different artists draw them differently), which is to say they have no definitive value.


This seems to suggest that you feel I was talking about worth, which is not the case. I'm talking about value the way the size of something, or the measurements of something are values.


No, and I accounted for that--I wrote that such variations would be acceptable within the accepted range. That is to say, there is a range in which such variables (like the size of the shield) fall in Superman's design, and falling outside that range would constitute inaccuracy.


I did not say size doesn't matter, I said it has no definitive value.


Correct.


Your comparison doesn't follow (in fact, it's completely backwards); there is only one Mona Lisa, and thus every element of the Mona Lisa does have a definitive and unchanging value. If da Vinci had painted a hundred different Mona Lisa's in a hundred different styles, then this would not be so, and yes, then an accurate recreation would depend on duplicating the core design and definitive elements, not on particulars like the exact shade of her dress or exact length of her hair--because, with a hundred interpretations, those things would no longer be exact.

I'm going to try and make this as clear as I can. The height of Superman's boots, the size of his shield , the length of his cape--these are not exact. They do not have exact values associated with them. They have general values. Ergo, a costume that fulfills those general values, falls within those parameters (some being more specific than others) would be entirely accurate.

I understand that you think the variable nature of Superman's appearance makes perfect accuracy impossible; my position is that it makes perfect accuracy much easier, because few exact values need be adhered to, as they do not exist.

If I were to accept the logic that all these differing factors have no definite value, than it would make no sense for Kurosawa to claim that 100% accurate suit would be better than the SR and S:TM suits. Both the SR and S:TM follow the basic design of the comic books so any accurate recreation now and in the future would have the exact same rating.

Also if most of the details have no value in terms of accuracy, than saying you want 100% accurate suit and having no addition details about it is very vague description of the perfect suit. That is like me claiming, "If the suit was blue, it would be better than both the SR and S:TM suits." Wouldn't I need to provide more details for my statement to have any validity?

 

[7heBoss]

Are u even serious? The colors, boots, cape attachment and cape are exactly like the comics Superman`s suit doesnt have two tones of blue, nor a gold round the shield.

Earth-One and KC are a bit different because they are different stories but the rest is basically the same.

The origin has been told a million times over, so which superman story do I go by? Setting both earth one and KC aside I still provided plenty of differing superman artwork. "Basically the Same" doesn't equal "The Same"

 

[Kal-El.9859]

even in mainstream comics one artist would draw him with the S on the belt in one issue and without it in the next...

 

[sf2]

i feel that over here we are shoved into our throat the trunks-less idea.

no matter what, trunks-less = incomplete suit = asking for troubles / sarcastic remarks.

 

[StarvingArtist]

The origin has been told a million times over, so which superman story do I go by? Setting both earth one and KC aside I still provided plenty of differing superman artwork. "Basically the Same" doesn't equal "The Same"

For the majority of Superman's existance, a comics accurate suit, regardless of artist interpretation, has consisted of the following:

1.) Red cape with S logo in yellow
2.) Blue bodysuit
3.) S logo on the chest with yellow negative space
4.) Yellow belt with oval buckle
5.) Red trunks with 4 belt loops
6.) Red boots with both a beveled edge and V notch at the top
7.) No discernable texture on elements 1 - 6

Dramatically change or remove any of these and it constitutes a certain level of shift from the trademarked design.

What creates a subjective gray area of opinion are the proportions of each element in a given Superman suit incarnation. Some people like a larger S logo, some people like a specific shade of blue or cape length. Given some people like more exotic versions of the suit that have an S on the belt or whatever, but I'm only talking about what constitutes a version most familiar and most often used. Suit versions that have shifted from the classic elements have been either for elseworlds or anomalies that never became permanent.

I think this is the best one can do in describing a 100 percent comics accurate design. It's just that due to the transient nature of 70 years worth of illustration styles, you can never escape personal preference. The real discussion should be about coming to a concensus on what proportions of the classic elements make a kick ass superman costume, which is really what we've all been talking about for the past 100,000 pages. I know I have my own thoughts on the matter.

 

[Saint]

If I were to accept the logic that all these differing factors have no definite value, than it would make no sense for Kurosawa to claim that 100% accurate suit would be better than the SR and S:TM suits.
Both the SR and S:TM follow the basic design of the comic books so any accurate recreation now and in the future would have the exact same rating.

Accuracy isn't the only relevant factor, though. So while the S:TM suit (but not the SR suit) may be perfectly accurate, it's not necessarily the best representation of that accuracy. That was what crippled the SR suit in many respects; it may have been very accurate, but it simply wasn't executed well.

Similarly, you may find a fan dressed as Spider-Man at a convention whose costume is 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean it's as good as a costume as the equally-accurate Raimi-era suit, right?

Also if most of the details have no value in terms of accuracy, than saying you want 100% accurate suit and having no addition details about it is very vague description of the perfect suit. That is like me claiming, "If the suit was blue, it would be better than both the SR and S:TM suits." Wouldn't I need to provide more details for my statement to have any validity?

It's vague, sure, but not as vague as you suggest. If someone said to me that they wanted a more accurate suit than SR provided, then I would assume they meant a suit with an open collar, an S on the cape, and no S on the belt buckle--the three items on that suit that weren't accurate to Superman's core design.

 

[Dark Knight]

Comparing all the Superman suits over the years, the MOS one is easily the best.

Agreed. It's just the best suit visually for the screen.

 

[blueboy2010]

Agreed. It's just the best suit visually for the screen.

I wouldn't want to put forward that opinion based on one still image with half the suit in shadow.
I do like what we can see of the suit in the picture, but I'm not gonna give it unrestrained praise seeing as parts of it have been deliberately obscured.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I wouldn't want to put forward that opinion based on one still image with half the suit in shadow.
I do like what we can see of the suit in the picture, but I'm not gonna give it unrestrained praise seeing as parts of it have been deliberately obscured.

Agreed.

I'll only feel comfortable saying it's perfect once i've seen it in motion, in a trailer or in the movie itself.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Suit good. Over the top analysis bad.

 

[camp Blood]

i'm not saying its perfect either but IMO its a close second to CR's suit followed by a miles distant 3rd to rouths,

thats in terms of movie suits

 

[Boosted]

i think reeves suit would look bad if it was in anyone but reeves (and it was!), so i'd give nod to MOS or maybe even SR first

 

[Kurosawa]

I'd rank it way over Routh or Reeves if the trunks were there.

 

[BatBat]

But Reeves played the character better than Routh.

 

[X Knight]

I wouldn't want to put forward that opinion based on one still image with half the suit in shadow.
I do like what we can see of the suit in the picture, but I'm not gonna give it unrestrained praise seeing as parts of it have been deliberately obscured.

I agree with this, too.

while I do like what I've seen so far, for the most part, I need and want to see more.

different poses and angles. different lighting. what it looks like in real life "on set" as opposed to a promotional pic.

 

[nocomics]

Hmmmm... Well if the picture you post is a 100% Accurate to the comics than why are the colors, the boots and the cape attachment different? Why isn't your cape as large? Why doesn't your suit have two tones or piping? Why doesn't your suit have gold/yellow around the shield? Why isn't the \S/ exactly the same?

Oh yeah, because of exactly what I've been saying, Superman is drawn differently from artist to artist. So you even get what I am saying. Earth One Superman will look different from All-Star Superman, or Alex Ross' Superman, or Birthright Superman, or Superman for All Seasons, or Secret Origin Superman, Kingdom Come Superman. How can you be 100% Accurate when they all have differing details?

This. Every artist can probably tell you if they draw something that someone else has drawn before them they like to add their own little flare to that drawing their own interpretation or creativity to it. So, the suit isn't the same as CR's,or exactly like the comics(arent' there a variety of suits in the past years of Superman comics?), like it or hate for what it is not whats its not like.
I personally don't know yet if I like this suit, the texture, the 'S', his flipping hair,lol he looks like Ray Liotta, so I'll wait til I see it in some action sequence or something. I liked SR suit except for the neckline,and ya the 'S' could of been a tad, just a tad bigger.

 

[Kurosawa]

But Reeves played the character better than Routh.

Well, yeah acting wise there is no comparison, Reeve created that version of Superman. And his costume was better than Routh's and the MOS suit, IMO, if the trunks are gone.

 

[BatBat]

Well, yeah acting wise there is no comparison, Reeve created that version of Superman. And his costume was better than Routh's and the MOS suit, IMO, if the trunks are gone.

As good as the MOS suit looks (depending on how well he plays the character) I could care less about the trunks at this point.