The Official Costume Thread - - - - Part 13

[ElDuderino]

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!

People might get offended.

 

[Kurosawa]

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.

I will:

The costume has a shirt and pants, the trunks are part of the pants, and he can remove the shirt and keep the pants on. That's why there is a belt.

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.

Exactly. The costume looks "right" in the first picture because people fill in the darkened area with what they know is supposed to be there-the trunks.

And I have always maintained and continue to maintain that although the trunks are my first choice, that if they are removed and some sort of substitute design in there, and it works, then I am okay with it. I've yet to see one that I think looks good, but it is possible. I feel that's a reasonable stance.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

To me, it just looks like he has trunks over the pants.

 

[Project862006]

^that's exactly what it is lol so much for evidence

 

[hopefuldreamer]

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....

I believe there is a trend in Superhero films at the moment to alter the traditional appearance of the hero to something more functional, in what seems to be an attempt to make the whole idea of putting on a costume to fight crime more realistic.

That's my theory.

I am in no way complaining about it. I very much enjoy Nolan's style, and I enjoy realism in general within films, especially superhero films as we are now entering a time when they are taken a bit more seriously as legitimate quality cinema.

All I am trying to do is provide people (like myself) who wanted the trunks in place in this film, with a logical and perhaps understandable reason as to why they are gone.

Because I don't accept that 'They just don't really look right'. I think that statement indicates a complete lack of imagination. And as many problems as there was with the SR suit, it had trunks, and they looked just fine.

So I don't understand people with this way of thinking.

As for the first comment, I don't see how recognising that some Superhero films are more concerned with being realistic than others is myopic at all... you may have to expand on that one...

 

[ElDuderino]

I will:

The costume has a shirt and pants, the trunks are part of the pants, and he can remove the shirt and keep the pants on. That's why there is a belt.

The question wasn't whether the shirt and pants were separate, but whether the briefs and pants were separate.

Plus, there's goes your "unitard" argument right out the window. As long as there's a belt, the pants and the top can be separate.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's very obvious that the trunks are not over anything. The pants start with the trunks and then the legs are blue. Otherwise, the belt would make no sense-why would he wear a belt to hold up trunks that he is wearing over pants? It's all one piece.

As for a costume with a belt and no trunks, if the belt has loops then it is clearly not a unitard. Since we've yet to see the full design, we don't know.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I don't how to explain it, but I just think its trunks over his pants.

 

[blueboy2010]

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.

Excellent.
This whole 'panties' thing is absolutely pathetic. Funnily enough alot of the anti-trunks brigade seem to go out of their way to belittle anyone who wants the complete traditional Superman suit in MOS. Ridicule seems to be their main tactic in the debate.
It still completely baffles me that so-called fans of this character can spend so much time mocking his appearance, as it has been for over 70 years.
If you think the costume can look cool without trunks, fine. But don't be a total *****ebag by going out of your way to mock the character's costume as it has looked up until now.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's not, because the costume is an extension of Clark's baby playsuit:

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

They could have just made the trunks out of the blanket. Just looking at Superman's suit, the pants does not look like a once piece at all.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Excellent.
This whole 'panties' thing is absolutely pathetic. Funnily enough alot of the anti-trunks brigade seem to go out of their way to belittle anyone who wants the complete traditional Superman suit in MOS. Ridicule seems to be their main tactic in the debate.
It still completely baffles me that so-called fans of this character can spend so much time mocking his appearance, as it has been for over 70 years.
If you think the costume can look cool without trunks, fine. But don't be a total *****ebag by going out of your way to mock the character's costume as it has looked up until now.

Well said. It's all that pent up nerd-rage I guess.

I love Superman in whole, not mostly but not the trunks or some crap like that. The trunks to me is apart of the whole package and is as important as the cape or curl is to me. If you don't like elements of the costume then there's no need to be insulting to people who do. I was never a Cavill fan or supporter and I still think they made the wrong choice, but I don't go pissing all over the casting decision every chance I get, because I love Superman and support it because it's him.

The christians have their Jesus, I'm an atheist so I love my Superman.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's pretty clear the pants are one piece, but of course that cuts into the anti-trunks side of things. The panels from the Luthor fight makes it clear: Superman's pants are red trunks and blue legs.

 

[BlueLantern]

I believe there is a trend in Superhero films at the moment to alter the traditional appearance of the hero to something more functional, in what seems to be an attempt to make the whole idea of putting on a costume to fight crime more realistic.

That's my theory.

I am in no way complaining about it. I very much enjoy Nolan's style, and I enjoy realism in general within films, especially superhero films as we are now entering a time when they are taken a bit more seriously as legitimate quality cinema.

All I am trying to do is provide people (like myself) who wanted the trunks in place in this film, with a logical and perhaps understandable reason as to why they are gone.

Because I don't accept that 'They just don't really look right'. I think that statement indicates a complete lack of imagination. And as many problems as there was with the SR suit, it had trunks, and they looked just fine.

So I don't understand people with this way of thinking.

As for the first comment, I don't see how recognising that some Superhero films are more concerned with being realistic than others is myopic at all... you may have to expand on that one...

Functionality isn't the reason why they took the trunks away. They just didn't seem right on the suit they had in mind. Hell, considering the way they showed the suit, it still might have trunks.

If something doesn't look good there's no reason to find out why it's not been used beyond that. It's not about functionality since none of the suit really serves function. It's all aesthetic.

To be honest with you I thought the Superman Returns suit in general was terrible. The trunks even just looked weird as hell.

The problem I have is that everything's being attributed towards realism. What happens then is that anything that isn't good is blamed on realism. Suit not good? Realism. Characters not similar to the comics? Realism. It becomes a bee in people's bonnet. And that's silly.

 

[Godzilla2014]

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....

Agreed. I would love to see a Superman film with Superman living in a more realistic world. One that reacted to his presence and actions just as ours would. That could be a great Superman film for modern audiences.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Functionality isn't the reason why they took the trunks away. They just didn't seem right on the suit they had in mind. Hell, considering the way they showed the suit, it still might have trunks.

If something doesn't look good there's no reason to find out why it's not been used beyond that. It's not about functionality since none of the suit really serves function. It's all aesthetic.

To be honest with you I thought the Superman Returns suit in general was terrible. The trunks even just looked weird as hell.

The problem I have is that everything's being attributed towards realism. What happens then is that anything that isn't good is blamed on realism. Suit not good? Realism. Characters not similar to the comics? Realism. It becomes a bee in people's bonnet. And that's silly.

Yet again your assuming i'm accusing realism of being a bad thing. I'm not. So it's not my go to aspect for blaming bad things on at all.

The people behind this project have all made it clear that realism is an angle they are aiming towards.

So what is wrong with theorising that a decision like this may have been a part of that thinking?

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Functionality isn't the reason why they took the trunks away. They just didn't seem right on the suit they had in mind. Hell, considering the way they showed the suit, it still might have trunks.

It might still have trunks?? POPPYCOCK! Or at least that's what a couple of posters on this thread would likely say. You my friend must have an over active imagination (like me) if you think that.

 

[BlueLantern]

Yet again your assuming i'm accusing realism of being a bad thing. I'm not. So it's not my go to aspect for blaming bad things on at all.

The people behind this project have all made it clear that realism is an angle they are aiming towards.

So what is wrong with theorising that a decision like this may have been a part of that thinking?

I think you're missing my point. I'm not blaming you. I'm pointing out the gross misuse of the word realism.

I love seeing an escapist film as much as a film existing in a world with a heightened reality. And following that sentiment I enjoy theorizing what happens in the filmmaker's heads as well.

The annoying thing, and you must have noticed it all over the hype and amongst the more sheeplike fans around is that once a notion, an idea creeps into their heads about something, it never lets go.

Forgive the unintentional Inception-like dialogue there.

K. Hone, the image they've released is quite oddly lit don't you think? It's neither here nor there on the trunks debate. I'm going to go with no-trunks, but you never know.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Yet again your assuming i'm accusing realism of being a bad thing. I'm not. So it's not my go to aspect for blaming bad things on at all.

The people behind this project have all made it clear that realism is an angle they are aiming towards.

So what is wrong with theorising that a decision like this may have been a part of that thinking?

It will be interesting to see how they portray a man's abillity to propel himself at almost a limitless speed through the air without any visble means of propulsion, but wearing trunks defies all known laws of the Universe or fashion/functionality. With Superman, I think it'll really stretch Nolan's ability to wrap everything in an air of, "Yeah, now that they have explained it in detail, I totally believe that could happen". With Superman (unlike Batman to some degree) there is a lot that will require the viewer to simply go with the flow and suspend their disbelief.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

K. Hone, the image they've released is quite oddly lit don't you think? It's neither here nor there on the trunks debate. I'm going to go with no-trunks, but you never know.

People say Snyder and his ilk wouldn't read message boards like this, and therefore would have no reason to have some fun by yanking people's chains by issuing a picture deliberately heavily shadowed in that area to create the mystery of "are they there or are they gone?" He is fully aware of the potential ramifications of removing the trunks, and I honestly believe there's a strong chance they could still be on the costume. I don't have proof but months back I predicted a drawn out mysterious reveal like this, and it seems my words were prophetic.

Btw. let's not forget that doing it this way garners way more publicity and talk about MOS than just issuing a picture revealing him with or without trunks in one fell swoop. It's good marketing imo.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not blaming you. I'm pointing out the gross misuse of the word realism.

I love seeing an escapist film as much as a film existing in a world with a heightened reality. And following that sentiment I enjoy theorizing what happens in the filmmaker's heads as well.

The annoying thing, and you must have noticed it all over the hype and amongst the more sheeplike fans around is that once a notion, an idea creeps into their heads about something, it never lets go.

Forgive the unintentional Inception-like dialogue there.

K. Hone, the image they've released is quite oddly lit don't you think? It's neither here nor there on the trunks debate. I'm going to go with no-trunks, but you never know.

I know what you mean. And I think a lot of people use the word realism too flippantly, or in a context that they don't fully understand.

Which basically leads me back to the reason why I usually put realism in inverted commas.

I'm trying to seperate myself from those people by indicating that my use of the word realism is almost reluctant.

It will be interesting to see how they portray a man's abillity to propel himself at almost a limitless speed through the air without any visble means of propulsion, but wearing trunks defies all known laws of the Universe or fashion/functionality. With Superman, I think it'll really stretch Nolan's ability to wrap everything in an air of, "Yeah, now that they have explained it in detail, I totally believe that could happen". With Superman (unlike Batman to some degree) there is a lot that will require the viewer to simply go with the flow and suspend their disbelief.

Agree completely. Which is why i'm glad we have someone like Snyder in a mix, who doesn't give a hoot about realism. He'll balance it out

 

[ElDuderino]

It's pretty clear the pants are one piece, but of course that cuts into the anti-trunks side of things. The panels from the Luthor fight makes it clear: Superman's pants are red trunks and blue legs.

Still waiting for proof. They're just briefs on the outside of pants. That's clear from every film or TV series suit ever put on screen. No one has ever made pants where the waist area was a different color except in comics and fake wrestling.

 

[Sabaoth]

Ok. So should the red trunks stay or go?

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Oh, yes! Supes really does look wrong without them. Naked.

 

[Man of Steel]

Stay, definitely. That's one of the things that makes him Super. He makes trunks look good.