The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - Part 17

[Shabadoo]

That deserves a round of applause

Thanks.

 

[Shabadoo]

There's only one thing I wanna know from the past couple of pages of Director's ridiculous tirade that moves this thread backwards.


Where did this come from and who made it?

Bonus points to anyone who has more info about it.

Looks like it came from DeviantArt. The artist's name is ~alejit0:

http://alejit0.deviantart.com/art/Superman-toon-155216053

 

[Showtime]

Material cloth....

Now let's stick w/ the topic of the trunks/trunkless

Has it been confirmed that it is trunkless not because of creative choice, but because of the lawsuit?
According to Showtime:


If that is the case, and it is because of the lawsuit, than why is everybody thinking that the trunkless was chosen for creative 2012 hip/cool decision?

why is Superman vajazzling? since everybody is saying Superman is wearing underwear over his pants, I'm going to start the trend of Superman Vajazzling. MARK MY WORDS!

Because there are other aspects of the suit and character that they are keeping which they wouldn't have rights to after the lawsuit:

http://comics.cosmicbooknews.com/content/superman-lawsuit-family-own-rights-krypton-origins

If changes in MOS were purely driven by the lawsuit, none of these would be in the movie either.

And also, Zack Snyder has said as much:

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/superman-2012-zack-snyder-shoots-down-cgi-man-steel

You guys aren't getting it. They are making changes to the suit in both the comics and film so they can show that Superman is evolving and is different than the Superman created decades ago. You're focusing on the trunks, the trunks just happen to be the change because they've had plans to change the trunks for years. It could have been another visual change, but it happens to be the trunks. The point is, changing the character, helps their case. Doesn't matter what Zack Snyder says.

 

[souperman]

In fairness, 'infantile giggling' is sometimes the only way to lighten up a debate that has gotten this stupidly serious, repetative and sometimes vicious, about something so utterly unimportant.

I appreciate you having to put a stop to it, but your comment did sting a bit (especially because I was someone who was 'giggling like an infant' at a lighthearted joke someone made in order to highlight how silly this whole debate is in the first place).

The video of a girl dressed as Batgirl laughing at a codpeice gets to stay, but a manip illustrating how he'd look without it doesn't?

hope you didn't choke on your dinner too much... thanks for the support. as you said, I thought it would lighten the mood. pink elephant's and such..


moving on...

 

[Majik1387]

Thanks Shabadoo! Cookies for you!

 

[Krumm]

Don't want to be treated by small children?

Then stop acting like them with these kind of conversations.

Well the real irony of the whole thing is that a mod comes in and hands out warnings and rules, and then everyone gets talking about that instead of the topics at hand.

How 'bout the posts deleted quietly and we can move on. Those people who disobeyed get a PM and the rest of us can talk about other things like nothing ever happened.

HOW BOUT A SUPERMAN CARTOON!? YEAH!

 

[Showtime]

Well the real irony of the whole thing is that a mod comes in and hands out warnings and rules, and then everyone gets talking about that instead of the topics at hand.

How 'bout the posts deleted quietly and we can move on. Those people who disobeyed get a PM and the rest of us can talk about other things like nothing ever happened.

HOW BOUT A SUPERMAN CARTOON!? YEAH!

How about we do the modding and you do the posting.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

hope you didn't choke on your dinner too much... thanks for the support. as you said, I thought it would lighten the mood. pink elephant's and such..


moving on...

PM me the manips if you can. I really needed that laugh today, so cheers

 

[hopefuldreamer]

HOW BOUT A SUPERMAN CARTOON!? YEAH!

Is that technically on topic for the official costume thread?

 

[Shabadoo]

HOW BOUT A SUPERMAN CARTOON!? YEAH!

Give me this, and I'll be happy:

Is that technically on topic for the official costume thread?

If the cartoon sports the new costume!

 

[souperman]

You guys aren't getting it. They are making changes to the suit in both the comics and film so they can show that Superman is evolving and is different than the Superman created decades ago. You're focusing on the trunks, the trunks just happen to be the change because they've had plans to change the trunks for years. It could have been another visual change, but it happens to be the trunks. The point is, changing the character, helps their case. Doesn't matter what Zack Snyder says.

I think it is also an evolution/modernizing of the character.

Even if it were the lawsuit, no one could or would say.

Do you think Ma Kent made this (law) suit too? ...discuss

 

[Super Kal]

The point is, changing the character, helps their case

i wont be buying their merchandise... that doesn't help their case
*shrugs shoulders*

call me a purist, but i dont like it when Superman changes simply for the sake of change... electric Superman anyone?

 

[Lily Adler]

Looks like it came from DeviantArt. The artist's name is ~alejit0:

http://alejit0.deviantart.com/art/Superman-toon-155216053

Thanks! t:

 

[Krumm]

Is that technically on topic for the official costume thread?

HA! Touche! I've been bouncing around and thought I was in the All Things Superman.

HOW BOUT THAT COSTUME!?

 

[Showtime]

I think it is also an evolution/modernizing of the character.

Even if it were the lawsuit, no one could or would say.

Do you think Ma Kent made this (law) suit too? ...discuss

Which is in their best interest regarding the character of Superman and the ongoing court case.

i wont be buying their merchandise... that doesn't help their case
*shrugs shoulders*

call me a purist, but i dont like it when Superman changes simply for the sake of change... electric Superman anyone?

That does suck. At the same time, because of the new movie and the new character in the comics, other will take your place and buy the new look most likely.

 

[Lily Adler]

I personally can't wait to see the suit in full action. I just want to know, will we see any battle damage?

 

[souperman]

maybe it will be damaged and he will "make" a new/different suit.

Clark/Superman does seem to be portrayed as young in this film, maybe he evolves as well.

 

[Shabadoo]

You guys aren't getting it. They are making changes to the suit in both the comics and film so they can show that Superman is evolving and is different than the Superman created decades ago. You're focusing on the trunks, the trunks just happen to be the change because they've had plans to change the trunks for years. It could have been another visual change, but it happens to be the trunks. The point is, changing the character, helps their case. Doesn't matter what Zack Snyder says.

So then why JUST a visual change? The costume is a very small part of the lawsuit, so why do another origin story (or a story with origin elements) where including them makes it a near necessity? What you're saying makes no sense. If they want to "help their case", then just do a straight up Superman story and include as little of those elements as possible... A story where you don't have to go to, or mention, Krypton, Jor-el, Lora, Kal-el, etc. If they're relying on these to tell a story they'd actually be HURTING their case, according to you.

And what Zack Snyder says matters a great deal since he's the director. He could've tip-toed around the issue when he was asked in the interview (ie. "Ahh, I leave they lawyering to the lawyers", etc), but he flat out says the lawsuit wasn't an influence. I see no reason to not believe him.

Thanks Shabadoo! Cookies for you!

No problem! I prefer oatmeal/chocolate chip. t:

Thanks! t:

Welcome!

I personally can't wait to see the suit in full action. I just want to know, will we see any battle damage?

I hope so. I'm picturing an arm on the suit missing from the elbow down, and the cape tattered to shreds.

 

[souperman]

I also don't understand how the lawsuit can be so limited anyway. The character of Superman (and company) was created by S&S not just the look. What if it were a novel with no pictures? Someone could use the character because they didn't draw it up? Not likely. Not that that stops anyone from suing anyone else of course.

IF S&S extended their copyright after the initial term, they would have 95 or 99 years of protection. (can't remember)

In 2038, it's a free for all! I think I'll make my own version... royalty free!

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I personally can't wait to see the suit in full action. I just want to know, will we see any battle damage?

I hope we do personally.

But I suppose it all depends on whether the material is kryptonian and unbreakable, and what level of power Supes is portrayed as having.

I mean, i'd love to see his shock at seeing his blood for the first time as well, after a particularly nasty punch from Zod. But i'm sadistic like that

 

[Lily Adler]

I'd like that! I guess I'm a little sadistic, too.

 

[Shabadoo]

I also don't understand how the lawsuit can be so limited anyway. The character of Superman (and company) was created by S&S not just the look. What if it were a novel with no pictures? Someone could use the character because they didn't draw it up? Not likely. Not that that stops anyone from suing anyone else of course.

IF S&S extended their copyright after the initial term, they would have 95 or 99 years of protection. (can't remember)

In 2038, it's a free for all! I think I'll make my own version... royalty free!

I think S&S's employment status with DC at the time complicated things. I think their work after a certain point was DC's and anything predating that really belonged to S&S, but DC kept using it. That's my (limited) understanding of the suit, but I could be wrong.

EDIT: According to Variety:

The first Superman story was published in 1938 in Action Comics No. 1. For $130, Jerry Siegel and co-creator Joel Shuster signed a release in favor of DC's predecessor, Detective Comics, and a 1974 court decision ruled they signed away their copyrights forever.

In 2008, the same court order ruled on summary judgment that the Siegels had successfully recaptured (as of 1999) Siegel's copyright in Action Comics No. 1, giving them rights to the Superman character, including his costume, his alter-ego as reporter Clark Kent, the feisty reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet newspaper working for a gruff editor, and the love triangle among Clark/Superman and Lois.

The Shuster estate originally did not participate with the Siegels' case because Shuster has no spouse or children. But his estate later won a ruling of a recapture identical to the Siegels, which will be effective in 2013. At that point, the Siegels and Shusters will own the entire copyright to Action Comics No. 1. That will give them the chance to set up Superman pics, TV shows and other projects at another studio.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269?refCatId=13

 

[Showtime]

So then why JUST a visual change? The costume is a very small part of the lawsuit, so why do another origin story (or a story with origin elements) where including them makes it a near necessity? What you're saying makes no sense. If they want to "help their case", then just do a straight up Superman story and include as little of those elements as possible... A story where you don't have to go to or mention Krypton, Jor-el, Lora, Kal-el, etc. If they're relying on these to tell a story they'd actually be HURTING their case, according to you.

And what Zack Snyder says does matter a great deal since he's the director. He could've tip-toed around the issue when he was asked in the interview (ie. "Ahh, I leave they lawyering to the lawyers", etc), but he flat out says the lawsuit wasn't an influence. I see no reason to not believe him.

It is the most important part of the lawuit, the character and presentation of Superman. If you're WB/DC you care more about the character of Superman than you do other characters. They don't make movies about Jor-El, Lora, or Krypton unless Superman is in them right? "The Last Temptation Of Jor-El", "The Diary Of Lora", "The Wizard Of Krypton." We won't be seeing those in theaters any time soon. See below, these characters have also evolved.

Again, it isn't about the trunks or even necessarily about the suit. It's about making changes. WB/DC are taking steps to show that Superman has evolved and continued to evolve over the years. The argument being without the evolution of the character, the character would not be viable economically. While building a foundation for this case, they are also changing the character both on screen and in the comics. They want to show continued change and want to be the ones changing the character.

How can you think this is a coincidence? I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but that's the case they are presenting.

Remember when Snyder told everybody Zod wasn't going to be in Man of Steel. Nope. If you want to listen to Zack Snyder in regards to the legal issues that the character of Superman and his universe is facing that is fine. I prefer to listen to guys like this, ie lawyers:

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2011/06/17/the-legal-view-super-style-and-the-dcu-relaunch/

This changes in the Superman costume are in themselves not likely to provide a solid foundation for erasing the Siegel heirs’ ownership interest. However, the costume changes and other shifts in continuity are consistent with DC’s arguments for limiting what the Siegels now own.
As we saw in the case review, the Siegels argue that they should be 50% co-owners of the current Superman material, inasmuch as it all substantially derives from Siegel and Shuster original. However, DC counters this by arguing that Superman is a dynamic, not a static character. DC claims that the 1938 Superman is “stylistically dated”–if the company had stuck with the Siegel and Shuster original, the character would now be worthless.

Instead, DC has told the court, the company’s distinct creative contributions are what has kept the character economically viable. Rather than drawing from the outdated material sold by Siegel and Shuster in 1938, the company continues to present “an ever-evolving portrayal of Superman” featuring additional new material and changes in Superman’s appearance. This extends both to the Superman copyright and to the iconic S-shield, which the Siegels claim to co-own as a work derived from the S-shield worn by the character in Action #1.

Judging by what DC has released, the changes made in the Superman relaunch would seem to reflect DC’s strategic emphasis on creative change. Costume alterations may not establish that the character is wholly new, but they do arguably provide evidence of how the company is creating stylistic elements distinct from the character’s original form. Changes in continuity are also consistent with DC’s argument, inasmuch as they underscore the company’s ongoing creative input and quite possibly take the disputed material further away from the key elements present in the co-owned Siegel content.

 

[souperman]

I think S&S's employment status with DC at the time complicated things. I think their work after a certain point was DC's and anything predating that really belonged to S&S, but DC kept using it. That's my (limited) understanding of the suit, but I could be wrong.

EDIT: According to Variety:





http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269?refCatId=13

You are prob right. Poor Col. Sanders lost out with the same type of deal, but he went around badmouthing the chicken until they made a better 'settlement" with him.

If they want to keep the franchise going and have high hopes for this and future films, they should be fair and settle up now. It'll be cheaper in the long run.

I'm sure Zod and co. can rip it up. After all we do see damage in the comics! Where does the comic book Superman get replacement suits?

I personally don't think a Superman, starting his Super career would be wearing the very same suit 30 or 40 years later...

By the way, does Superman age like us?

 

[moviedoors]

Give me this, and I'll be happy:

If the cartoon sports the new costume!

That's awesome.