The Official Costume Thread - - - - Part 13

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't understand why everyone insists on putting the world realism in inverted commas.

It's unbelievably annoying and seems to be a get-out clause to explain anything that isn't up to the fantastical description in the comics or up to the individual fanboy's imagination.

Ultimately the Captain America suit in the film looks good. The Superman suit looks good. So does the Batman suit and many others as well.

I don't get the point of making the suits look exactly like the comics because the same way that a story may not transfer over as well from the comics, the same way some of the set-pieces wouldn't either.

Get over it. It's life.

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.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

i prefer the trunks but in the end to me it doesn't matter

im not about to get up on a soapbox and preach to the world that superman needs to be wearing trunks

i just dont like people complaining about the panties thing and in the end a little discretion on the part of the "sans trunks" side of the argument could solve the problem

I prefer Superman with trunks 100% so it really does matter to me, however if he doesn't have them in the movie it's beyond my control so I would have to live with it.

 

[Kurosawa]

Could it be that the costume is a two-piece uniform and that the belt is holding up his pants? That would certainly make sense and also make putting on and taking off the costume much easier.

That's what the classic costume is. He doesn't wear trunks over the costume, the pants start with red trunks then have blue legs. So people who claim Superman wears "his underwear on the outside" just once again prove that they don't know anything about the character.

My stance remains the same: trunks are the best option, but if they are removed, then the costume needs some sort of visual replacement to break up the blue. They get away with no trunks in the Batman movies because the suit is black, although I think the movie costumes have all sucked, to be honest.

 

[ElDuderino]

That's what the classic costume is. He doesn't wear trunks over the costume, the pants start with red trunks then have blue legs. So people who claim Superman wears "his underwear on the outside" just once again prove that they don't know anything about the character.

My stance remains the same: trunks are the best option, but if they are removed, then the costume needs some sort of visual replacement to break up the blue. They get away with no trunks in the Batman movies because the suit is black, although I think the movie costumes have all sucked, to be honest.

Link?

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

That's what the classic costume is. He doesn't wear trunks over the costume, the pants start with red trunks then have blue legs. So people who claim Superman wears "his underwear on the outside" just once again prove that they don't know anything about the character.

My stance remains the same: trunks are the best option, but if they are removed, then the costume needs some sort of visual replacement to break up the blue. They get away with no trunks in the Batman movies because the suit is black, although I think the movie costumes have all sucked, to be honest.



Agreed 100%. Most of the opposition to Superman being true to his roots is a mix of homophobia, ignorance, and racism.

I agree. The trunks are actually just part of the whole below the waist part of the costume, and are not seperate items. Part of it is red, and part of it is blue. The trunks are not worn over a blue unitard, but are integral to the leg portion of the costume, as depicted in many Curt Swan drawn panels.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Link?

You need a link, because you don't know the history.

 

[Project862006]

is this gonna turn into another if you dont like trunks you are not a real superman fan

cut this crap

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

is this gonna turn into another if you dont like trunks you are not a real superman fan

cut this crap

No, it just means that you don't 100% like Superman the way he has been depicted for most of his 70+ years.

 

[ElDuderino]

You need a link, because you don't know the history.

If it's in the history, I'm sure there's a definitive official source on this. If there's not, then I'll just take it as one fan's wishful thinking.

 

[ElDuderino]

No, it just means that you don't 100% like Superman the way he has been depicted for most of his 70+ years.

It's entirely possible that the briefs worked well 70 years ago and to love that character. It's entirely possible that the briefs worked well 30 years and to love that character. It's entirely possible that the briefs do not currently work well and to love this current character without the briefs.

To say that you can only love one or the other is pretty narrow minded thinking.

 

[camp Blood]

Wow. So if someone prefers no briefs, they are a "homophobic prick"? See, I would think THIS type of behavior is banworthy.

Talk about discretion.

I would agree that calls for a temporary ban

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

If it's in the history, I'm sure there's a definitive official source on this. If there's not, then I'll just take it as one fan's wishful thinking.

I'm sure at some point Kurosawa will provide a visual for you.

In about two weeks all will be revealed in regards to the trunks as I read in another thread that they are shooting some Superman/Zod stuff on location in late August early September. Not long now.

 

[Project862006]

why are people surprised it is natural progression

does batman and magneto look like this in the movies?

both ditched the trunks and superman will follow

 

[camp Blood]

that shoot sounds awesome

i there is practical wire work

 

[Kal-El.9859]

you say potatoe I say potato...trunks, briefs, panties...whatever the hell you wanna call them, to me I prefer it if he has them. He looks off putting without them and has WAY too much blue together that needs to be broken up. But if he doesn't have them in the movie it's not going to ruin it for me as long as the rest of the movie is bathed in badassery

 

[Lead Cenobite]

why are people surprised it is natural progression

does batman and magneto look like this in the movies?

both ditched the trunks and superman will follow

True, but it goes to show that Superman isn't the only one to carry on a supposedly long dead tradition. Those are both relatively recent illustrations.

 

[ElDuderino]

I'm sure at some point Kurosawa will provide a visual for you.

In about two weeks all will be revealed in regards to the trunks as I read in another thread that they are shooting some Superman/Zod stuff on location in late August early September. Not long now.

Clearly these briefs are not part of the pants.

Clearly these are not either.

Ditto for these:

In the comics, you typically just have a black line between the briefs and the pants. No clear indication of whether they're just "part of" the pants or actually separate briefs worn on the outside. But if Superman was originally drawn to resemble the 1920s strongman (as what-his-name claims), then they're most definitely just briefs worn on the outside, because that is what 1920s strongmen wore -- briefs.

 

[ElDuderino]

True, but it goes to show that Superman isn't the only one to carry on a supposedly long dead tradition. Those are both relatively recent illustrations.

I think the point is, no one carries on the tradition in the movies. What works in a comic book doesn't necessarily work in a movie. Freaking out about that is just weird.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Freaking out about their inclusion is weird too. I find it funny that at the same time as Superman gets his new trunkless suit in thie comics, Supergirl gets her own skanky looking, crotch emphasizing suit. Anyone besides me see a double standard?

 

[Kal-El.9859]

Freaking out about their inclusion is weird too. I find it funny that at the same time as Superman gets his new trunkless suit in thie comics, Supergirl gets her own skanky looking, crotch emphasizing suit. Anyone besides me see a double standard?

sex appeal sells...I like her new look

 

[ElDuderino]

Freaking out about their inclusion is weird too. I find it funny that at the same time as Superman gets his new trunkless suit in thie comics, Supergirl gets her own skanky looking, crotch emphasizing suit. Anyone besides me see a double standard?

I don't think many people would have freaked out if they were kept. No, the freaking out here is going on because they've been removed.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

It's entirely possible that the briefs worked well 70 years ago and to love that character. It's entirely possible that the briefs worked well 30 years and to love that character. It's entirely possible that the briefs do not currently work well and to love this current character without the briefs.

To say that you can only love one or the other is pretty narrow minded thinking.

Actually it's called individual preference. I don't tell you what you should like, I just state my preference for a Superman depicted with trunks as most of the World and their mother is familiar with. If you don't mind if he has trunks, or are also fine if he has no trunks, that your prerogative. I have my standards in regards to how he looks, and that calls for the trunks to be present.

If you are going to adopt nearly every iconic element of the costume, (the cape \S/ we also don't know about as of yet) but rendered in cutting edge materials, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to then go and leave the trunks off. At that point, you might just as well modify it a lot more so it doesn't look off, or like something is missing. It would actually look like a whole redesign of the costume, whereas leaving the trunks off is compromising the classic look by omitting an iconic element that gives Superman's overall look cohesion imo.

If Snyder does away with the trunks though, that's his decision, right or preference. This is his movie. I'm sure I'll really like the movie, as everything else about this project looks very promising, but I'd hate to come out going Wow! if the trunks had been on the costume that would have completely knocked it out of the park.

 

[Project862006]

I don't think many people would have freaked out if they were kept. No, the freaking out here is going on because they've been removed.

pretty much this

if trunks were there i would have no problem if they are not i still dont care fine either way for me

but to some people removal of undies is as if they ripped the shield off his chest lol

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Clearly these briefs are not part of the pants.

Clearly these are not either.

Ditto for these:

In the comics, you typically just have a black line between the briefs and the pants. No clear indication of whether they're just "part of" the pants or actually separate briefs worn on the outside. But if Superman was originally drawn to resemble the 1920s strongman (as what-his-name claims), then they're most definitely just briefs worn on the outside, because that is what 1920s strongmen wore -- briefs.

He was drawn to resemble a Circus stongman, not actually to be a circus strongman, so his costume can actually have different construction.

 

[ElDuderino]

Actually it's called individual preference. I don't tell you what you should like, I just state my preference for a Superman depicted with trunks as most of the World and their mother is familiar with. If you don't mind if he has trunks, or are also fine if he has no trunks, that your prerogative. I have my standards in regards to how he looks, and that calls for the trunks to be present.

If you are going to adopt nearly every iconic element of the costume, (the cape \S/ we also don't know about as of yet) but rendered in cutting edge materials, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to then go and leave the trunks off. At that point, you might just as well modify it a lot more so it doesn't look off, or like something is missing. It would actually look like a whole redesign of the costume, whereas leaving the trunks off is compromising the classic look by omitting an iconic element that gives Superman's overall look cohesion imo.

If Snyder does away with the trunks though, that's his decision, right or preference. This is his movie. I'm sure I'll really like the movie, as everything else about this project looks very promising, but I'd hate to come out going Wow! if the trunks had been on the costume that would have completely knocked it out of the park.

You missed the point entirely. The below post is what I was responding to. It's not about having a preference for briefs or no briefs. It's about being able to like both, the classic version, in its time, and the modern version. You don't seem to get that it's possible to hold both opinions. To some people, if someone likes the modern version it suggests they don't like the old version. That viewpoint is what is narrow minded.

No, it just means that you don't 100% like Superman the way he has been depicted for most of his 70+ years.