The Official Costume Thread - - - - Part 13

[Stephen K. Hone]

I think this post pretty much sums up the thought process behind the decision to ban in such a case.

"I didn't like it, told them to stop, and banned them when they didn't."

That would be an egregious abuse of power, in my opinion. But like in most cases, the person abusing the power can likely rationalize the abuse in their own mind.

Why do you say these things to C.Lee, when you know that he will kill(ban) you for them?

 

[C. Lee]

One other point. Is it not against the rules to call people homophobic, racist, or pricks?

Or is that okay as long as you agree with their opinion on the subject matter being discuss?

No that is not Ok...the guy I assume you are referring to in this thread has been infracted and warned. Perhaps if you took the time to find out about the people you want to make accusations about....you would find that I have the hardest stand of any moderators against trolls, name callers, racists, homophobes, and trouble makers in general. I put up with NO crap from the posters on here.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Actually, no you were not "just giving your opinion". You stated that if someone prefers no briefs then they do not like the way Superman has been depicted historically. In that sense, you're also telling people what their own opinions are.

You've also said that you agreed with a post that called people homophobic, racist pricks if they prefer no briefs.

That's far from "just giving your opinion."

Really? I was agreeing with the comment about the trunks being integral to the rest of the legs. If I posted that whole quote, and it seemed like I was endorsing everything in that post I apologize.


I actually I unapologize. I just went back and re-read my post and it is quite clear I was agreeing with one little part of Kurosawa's post about the trunks not being worn over the costume, but actually being an integral part of the below the waist part of the costume.

 

[ElDuderino]

No that is not Ok...the guy I assume you are referring to in this thread has been infracted and warned. Perhaps if you took the time to find out about the people you want to make accusations about....you would find that I have the hardest stand of any moderators against trolls, name callers, racists, homophobes, and trouble makers in general. I put up with NO crap from the posters on here.

That's good to hear. There was no public admonishment, as with the "panties" poster, so that went unknown. Would seem to me that the calls of racism, homophobia, and outright use of profanity would be more deserving of public admonishment, but I'm glad it's coming to light nonetheless. Thanks.

Really? I was agreeing with the comment about the trunks being integral to the rest of the legs. If I posted that whole quote, and it seemed like I was endorsing everything in that post I apologize.

I'm glad we could clear that up. It was shocking to me that so many people were agreeing with those sorts of sentiment. I apologize for incorrectly attributing those things to you.

 

[C. Lee]

That's good to hear. There was no public admonishment, as with the "panties" poster, so that went unknown. Would seem to me that the calls of racism, homophobia, and outright use of profanity would be more deserving of public admonishment, but I'm glad it's coming to light nonetheless. Thanks.

I'm glad we could clear that up. It was shocking to me that so many people were agreeing with those sorts of sentiment. I apologize for incorrectly attributing those things to you.

It always amazes me how people think this works.

I log on this afternoon and start checking my history. I had made a post in this thread about the use of the word "panties", so I checked it...I come across responses to it that need addressing, so I spend time doing so. I then look through the thread and find another post that needs addressing (but since I had already spent time on the first one....I now of course get accusations that since nothing has been done with that one, I agree with them.....the face palming around here never ends).

 

[Sabaoth]

The trunks may be gone, but if they are on the costume it won't be Superman that looks silly, that'll be you.

Why?
I'm perfectly fine if there are trunks on the costume
What you refuse to understand is that fans who are open to a trunk-less costume are not anti-trunks. That being said, as I predicted for months, there are no trunks.

 

[The Red Hood]

Calling trunks "panties" would get someone banned?

Talk about overzealous mod behavior. Sounds like it's more based on someone disagreeing with the position than "trolling".

No, it's not.

Calling the trunks (which is what they are, TRUNKS, a distinctly different article of clothing than underwear/panties) "panties" is indeed trolling and is being done out of disrespect for those of us who want the entirety of the classic look preserved in any non-comics media adaptation of Superman's uniform.

If you can't accept that or don't like it, find another message board where trolling is allowed.

 

[ElDuderino]

No, it's not.

Calling the trunks (which is what they are, TRUNKS, a distinctly different article of clothing than underwear/panties) "panties" is indeed trolling and is being done out of disrespect for those of us who want the entirety of the classic look preserved in any non-comics media adaptation of Superman's uniform.

If you can't accept that or don't like it, find another message board where trolling is allowed.

They're actually briefs. Trunks are shorts, which can be either briefs or long shorts.

If you think "panties" is disrespecting you, it seems to me you should consider assigning your self respect to some other, more important things in life.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Why?
I'm perfectly fine if there are trunks on the costume
What you refuse to understand is that fans who are open to a trunk-less costume are not anti-trunks. That being said, as I predicted for months, there are no trunks.

You being silly refers to the fact that more often than not you present things as 100% fact, when it's just opinion/supposition on your part based on the available data or information. Whether you're okay if he has trunks is besides the point. You have stated numerous times that the the trunks 'Are gone' and you deliver those statements in an unequivocal and definitive, it's not open to debate fashion imo. I tend to think the costume will ultimately have the trunks, but I don't know that with complete certainty. If you like Trunks or don't mind if they are gone I can certainly respect that, but it isn't a fact that they are gone until we see other pictures clearly showing their absence.

 

[C. Lee]

They're actually briefs. Trunks are shorts, which can be either briefs or long shorts.

If you think "panties" is disrespecting you, it seems to me you should consider assigning your self respect to some other, more important things in life.

The people who are using the word "panties" mean for it to be used disrespectfully. It doesn't matter if it actually causes each of the people who prefers the trunks/shorts/briefs emotional harm.....but that is the intent for using it. The word is being used in a derogatory way with the intent to embarass and belittle one group of people posting here....so it will cease.

 

[BlueLantern]

I put it in inverted commas sometimes, mainly because I think that the actual meaning of the word and how it's used in the context of a superhero film, are two different things.

I put it in inverted commas because I want people to know I am only using the word lightly, and not implying that they are actually going to try to make an alien being from another world who gets fantastic powers from our yellow sun, realistic.

You wouldn't need to since realism is a very common form of expression in the visual arts. The place you go wrong is boxing the movies into a type. By classifying it realistic for a superhero film or classifying it unrealistic for an adventure film is quite myopic.

The whole perspective of Christopher Nolan's universe of films and the much maligned 'realism' is the fact that he is labeling his films anything. He's making films. Most of Christopher Nolan's films are grounded in realism in one form or the other, whether it be The Prestige or The Dark Knight, just so there's a grip to hold onto. Not to lose control over what can be done and what can't. If you don't like that, fine. It's a form of art. It's subjective.

What's silly is that you seem to come from a school of thought where films must adhere to a particular form. Superman not wearing trunks doesn't come from the fact that it's more realistic just down to the fact that whilst it looks absolutely fine in comics, it doesn't come across looking that great on film. Same reason Batman ditched them in Tim Burton's self-titled representation of the Caped Crusader. They just don't really look right.

Would you argue that Tim Burton's films were rooted in realism? He had a chappy who looked like a Penguin. A woman who if I recall correctly was killed and resurrected by cats. Oh and to top it all off he had a guy dressed in a Bat suit! The lack of trunks has nothing to do with realism, and neither does most of the things that don't happen in these films. If it was then a lot of these films wouldn't get made.

Christopher Nolan's films and for that matter most films exist in a world of their own. In these ordinary worlds certain things happen which are extraordinary.

If you had it happening in an extraordinary world. For example a guy dressed in a Bat suit where everybody dresses in costumes modeled after an animal or symbol. Or a guy who can fly in a world where everyone can fly, then it wouldn't seem so special. It would almost seem too ordinary for that world. Too real....

 

[C. Lee]

Since just deleting posts didn't get the point across.....

EVERYONE STOP THE NAME CALLING AND PETULANT POSTS NOW.

 

[ElDuderino]

Christopher Nolan's films and for that matter most films exist in a world of their own. In these ordinary worlds certain things happen which are extraordinary.

If you had it happening in an extraordinary world. For example a guy dressed in a Bat suit where everybody dresses in costumes modeled after an animal or symbol. Or a guy who can fly in a world where everyone can fly, then it wouldn't seem so special. It would almost seem too ordinary for that world. Too real....

Excellent post overall, but this last quoted bit was particularly good.



From earlier in the thread:

I believe that, when telling a story, everything extraordinary should be grounded in the ordinary (or realism). Otherwise, you lose the "extra". If the characters and the world around Superman feel like a comic book on screen, the fact that he is so super is lost. Have you never stopped and wondered, "What would it be like if superheroes were real?" I think most people have. That's the story that is most interesting, in my opinion. How would my next door neighbor react? What would his parents be like ... in the real world?

 

[Superman_200]

We don't, but if it turns out the MOS costume actually has trunks, that poster (who seems to love to push people's buttons) will be hoisted with his/her own petard.

That is what I thought. We don't know. That picture was done like that just so we don't know. At least he can gauge the reaction and if people don't like it, the trunks (which are already probably designed) can be added or omitted based on the reception. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of backlash over the internet saying "trunks dammit" or anything like that though.

 

[superhey]

the new official Superman costume is a nice slap the new DC comics reboot...lolt:

 

[camp Blood]

I honestly hope the movie influences the comics

 

[superhey]

Agree with you!

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

That is what I thought. We don't know. That picture was done like that just so we don't know. At least he can gauge the reaction and if people don't like it, the trunks (which are already probably designed) can be added or omitted based on the reception. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of backlash over the internet saying "trunks dammit" or anything like that though.

Due to the fact you can look at that picture and see/imagine it has trunks under all that shadow, which is what I see. So potentially, we could be looking at a picture of Superman wearing trunks, but the shadow obscures it. As of right now, for a lot of us fans of the trunks, the picture doesn't look 'Off'. If however they issue a picture that is not heavily shadowed clearly showing the trunks are gone, then you might hear more of a hue and cry about their ommission. Right now everything looks fine from an authentic, Classic standpoint.

 

[ElDuderino]

The picture is clear that there are no briefs.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

The picture is clear that there are no briefs.

Thank you Captain Emphatic!

 

[Sabaoth]

The picture is clear that there are no briefs.

Exactly.
It's a case of a few overactive imaginations spending way too much time concentrating on the shadowed area of a man's crotch.
I guess if you stare at shadows long enough, your mind starts playing tricks on you, perhaps you will see the trunks or maybe the moon. Who knows?

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Exactly.
It's a case of a few overactive imaginations spending way too much time concentrating on the shadowed area of a man's crotch.
I guess if you stare at shadows long enough, your mind starts playing tricks on you, perhaps you will see the trunks or maybe the moon. Who knows?

Or conversely, it could be that you and Elduderino lack imagination??

 

[That person]

Excellent post overall, but this last quoted bit was particularly good.



From earlier in the thread:

Agreed. Kind of reminded me of this old Python bit:

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

Their isn't gonna be trunks. Guys lets me be real.

 

[Sabaoth]

Cavill's hair has its own thread, why don't the trunks get one?
Yeah.
That's it...
The trunks should have their own discussion thread!