The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - Part 18

[camp Blood]

Yeah, it's a very dark brown now -- pretty darn close to black.

thanks , I would say that's pretty much it for dark brown any darker and it would be jet black

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

The immediate reaction to the DCnU costume and the MOS costumes without the trunks from the MSM and it's readers has been crotch jokes and ridicule...Superman and superheroes are always going to be seen as silly childish things to a degree. Watch MSM coverage of SDCC-it's basically, "hey let's laugh at the nerds." Running from their roots as bright fantasies for children is a mistake, especially in the case of Superman. Superman should be a film made for children first.

Yeah, but you're leaving out a good percentage of people who actually like the new costumes as well as others who may grow to like them later on -- when the first couple of trailers are shown and so forth. As for those who don't care for the new direction, that's fine. Criticism generally follows anything anyone ever does.

And who cares what the mainstream media thinks about SDCC and/or comic book fans? Even the highest office in the land doesn't get the respect it deserves anymore. FYI, when people laugh at or ridicule others in excess, it's often a reflection of their own insecurities. Those people need to worry about their own personal baggage, which is likely a lot more bizarre than reading comics.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

This is why I don't give a **** about political correctness. Political correctness is the fascism of the 10s.

It really is crippling. I was once editing a population statistics article and someone told me you can't use the word 'race' anymore. "You have to say ethnicity." I was like, "Uhh.. but they have different meanings." The person then responded, "Yeah, but race is too charged a word to use nowadays." Scary stuff.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Running from their roots as bright fantasies for children is a mistake, especially in the case of Superman. Superman should be a film made for children first.

Modernizing Superman so as to make him more accessible to other audiences can certainly be done without abandoning the roots of the character. Everything doesn't have to black and white. Moreover, Superman is an ongoing publication. As such, the comic book and its various adaptations continue to evolve with the times. The old/original stories will always be there for longtime fans to go back and read. Wanting something to remain exactly as it was (specifically when you liked it best) is selfish and unrealistic though.

 

[Super Kal]

the fact of the matter is, the new suit polarized fandom.

there will be those who will love it, and there will be those who will hate it

 

[Aluchak]

I love the new suit.

 

[Kurosawa]

No. Superman should not be made for children. These films, when made for children, are made poorly, because children have very low standards, so filmmakers don't try very hard, resulting in crappy films.

Star Wars-the original and it's two sequels-were made for children. The Lion King was made for children. And so were the classic Superman comics.

Yeah, but you're leaving out a good percentage of people who actually like the new costumes as well as others who may grow to like them later on -- when the first couple of trailers are shown and so forth. As for those who don't care for the new direction, that's fine. Criticism generally follows anything anyone ever does.

And who cares what the mainstream media thinks about SDCC and/or comic book fans? Even the highest office in the land doesn't get the respect it deserves anymore. FYI, when people laugh at or ridicule others in excess, it's often a reflection of their own insecurities. Those people need to worry about their own personal baggage, which is likely a lot more bizarre than reading comics.

The new costume exists for two reasons: the lawsuit where the continued exploitation of the Siegel and Shuster families has resulted in Superman's legacy being torn apart, and because of modern fans who have allowed people to cower them into shame over being fans of superheroes. And for nothing. Ditch an iconic costume that is 70 years old and looks awesome still over a pathetic pursuit of acceptance from people that will never accept superheroes. Better to be defiant and proud of what it is. Slap those primary bright colors, trunks and cape up there I say.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

The new costume exists for two reasons: the lawsuit where the continued exploitation of the Siegel and Shuster families has resulted in Superman's legacy being torn apart, and because of modern fans who have allowed the MSM to cower them into shame over being fans of superheroes. And for nothing. Ditch an iconic costume that is 70 years old and looks awesome still over a pathetic pursuit of acceptance from people that will never accept superheroes. Better to be defiant and proud of what it is. Slap those primary bright colors, trunks and cape up there I say.

That's a pretty broad generalization there. The new suit, to my knowledge, wasn't created by 'modern' fans. I guess you're assuming that we've influenced its formation to some degree though. That I don't know for sure. I can only speak for myself. Although, I'm fond of the Superman character, I've never been overly thrilled with the entire costume -- even as a child. I think you can be a fan of something without supporting every single aspect of it -- kind of like a favorite rock album with one or two songs you aren't crazy about. And with comics, there's so much you can be drawn to even if you're not into a particular character's costume design from inception. Of course, with you, it seems to be all or nothing.

Your viewpoint is interesting, but you assume too much. It's certainly quite possible that 'modernizing superheroes' has broadened their appeal to mainstream audiences on at least some level. In my opinion, it has. If you take away all the color and theatrics from comics, they're often just well written mystery or action tales. Likewise, when you make a superhero movie of substance (e.g., Xmen: First Class, The Dark Knight), I think you're going to have a certain number of mainstream audience types (non fanboys/fangirls) who are willing to give the comics a try even if it wasn't initially their cup of tea. I know one thing for sure: Comic-to-film adaptations are a lot more popular nowadays than they were when I was growing up.

 

[Garzo]

That's a pretty broad generalization there. The new suit, to my knowledge, wasn't created by 'modern' fans. I guess you're assuming that we've influenced its formation to some degree though. That I don't know for sure. I can only speak for myself. Although, I'm fond of the Superman character, I've never been overly thrilled with the entire costume -- even as a child. I think you can be a fan of something without supporting every single aspect of it -- kind of like a favorite rock album with one or two songs you aren't crazy about. And with comics, there's so much you can be drawn to even if you're not into a particular character's costume design from inception. Of course, with you, it seems to be all or nothing.

Your viewpoint is interesting, but you assume too much. It's certainly quite possible that 'modernizing superheroes' has broadened their appeal to mainstream audiences on at least some level. In my opinion, it has. If you take away all the color and theatrics from comics, they're often just well written mystery or action tales. Likewise, when you make a superhero movie of substance (e.g., Xmen: First Class, The Dark Knight), I think you're going to have a certain number of mainstream audience types (non fanboys/fangirls) who are willing to give the comics a try even if it wasn't initially their cup of tea. I know one thing for sure: Comic-to-film adaptations are a lot more popular nowadays than they were when I was growing up.

I totally agree. I love the classic Superman costume but I also believe it looks better on the comic book page than it does on the big screen. The same with Batman. Adapting a comic book superhero to film is not easy. The costumes became irrelevant in the great X-Men films. Christian Bale's Batman looks nothing like the Adam West version, whose costume is probably the most accurate of all the live-action Batman incarnations.
Adaptation usually means change. The classic Superman will always exist in the comics, in art, in merchandise, etc. At the same time there will always be new incarnations, such as the new DC version and the new film version. We are not losing the classic Superman but rather gaining additional versions.
I don't think the film's costume has anything to do with the ongoing lawsuit. I really can't believe that the Siegel family would put some kind of injunction on Supes' red briefs. I think it was just an aesthetic decision by the filmmakers in an effort to adapt a comic book to screen and offering something new and modern.

 

[Lencho01]

A film like Superman is going to want to appeal to as large of an audience as possible I would assume. How they market it will reflect who they're going for. You can still have something appeal to children or be aimed at them and have be enjoyed by those who aren't children. Avatar: The Last Airbender was made for kids, but I think it's one of the best shows I've seen, period.

I don't think how "modern" or "cool" TBTB try to make them plays too much into things as far as the audience goes. In a way, trying to be modern could "age" them over time. Just as long as the film looks entertaining. And they're all going to look silly on some level.

 

[sf2]

I think the trunks should stay gone. They are just an archaic design feature of years past used to break up all that blue. There is other ways to break up the blue on the costume.

pls show us.

actually i don't mind a new design with the trunks removed as long as the new design looks better than the traditional design.

however, the MOS design isn't better. it just looks weird as a whole. why still wearing the red boots??? simply bad and bad... doesn't go together will the new design at all. and those added lines... yuck!!!
the upper body is cool though.

 

[moviedoors]

Star Wars-the original and it's two sequels-were made for children. The Lion King was made for children. And so were the classic Superman comics.

No, they were made for everyone. Children are important for certain properties, but you don't have a real gargantuan hit unless you can appeal to the adults who have to take those kids to the movies. That's a fact. Star Wars and The Lion King made all kinds of top 10's and award ceremonies, and it wasn't because they were "good for kids" it's because they were good period.

 

[Rust]

Never saw Star Wars as particularly kids-orientated.

 

[camp Blood]

same here, i knew it was also meant for younger people mid teens the youngest

but no way kids oriented, i mean luke's family is burned alive in the first movie

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Yet Star Wars had massive appeal to children. Many of them grew up to be those famed Star Wars nerds. Many of whom camped for weeks outside of movie theaters for the opening of teh Phantom Menace.

 

[camp Blood]

it may have had appeal to children proof of that is me and my brother but that doesnt mean it was meant for children

my niece is 3 and has watched aqua teen ( aqua unit ) with me why because its a colorful cartoon with funny characters but its not meant for kids

 

[TruerToTheCore]

No, they were made for everyone. Children are important for certain properties, but you don't have a real gargantuan hit unless you can appeal to the adults who have to take those kids to the movies. That's a fact. Star Wars and The Lion King made all kinds of top 10's and award ceremonies, and it wasn't because they were "good for kids" it's because they were good period.

A movie for kids can be good, you know, it's merely a matter not of talking down to your audience. But yes, Star Wars, Superman, Batman and co. are essentially kid stuff, it's just well-made kid stuff.

 

[Godzilla2014]

No, they were made for everyone. Children are important for certain properties, but you don't have a real gargantuan hit unless you can appeal to the adults who have to take those kids to the movies. That's a fact. Star Wars and The Lion King made all kinds of top 10's and award ceremonies, and it wasn't because they were "good for kids" it's because they were good period.

Agreed.

 

[Lencho01]

A movie for kids can be good, you know, it's merely a matter not of talking down to your audience. But yes, Star Wars, Superman, Batman and co. are essentially kid stuff, it's just well-made kid stuff.

Yep. Once they start talking down to the audience, you can see how lazy TBTB are.

And based on what's been done with Star Wars, at least when Lucas is more involved, I'd say he thinks it's for kids too.

 

[El Payaso]

No, they were made for everyone. Children are important for certain properties, but you don't have a real gargantuan hit unless you can appeal to the adults who have to take those kids to the movies. That's a fact. Star Wars and The Lion King made all kinds of top 10's and award ceremonies, and it wasn't because they were "good for kids" it's because they were good period.

I agree. I don't see a children movie that lasts 2 hours and a half and then takes 45 to 60 minutes to show the main character.

 

[Lencho01]

I agree. I don't see a children movie that lasts 2 hours and a half and then takes 45 to 60 minutes to show the main character.

I don't see how that'd be hard for a kid. Especially if we're dealing with an origin story of some sort.

 

[camp Blood]

don't most kids these days have the attention span of a caffeinated squirrel with adhd

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Don't underestimate kids.

 

[camp Blood]

I said most not all

i could also say not all new jersey-ans are greasy italian meat heads with spray on tans and dbag haircuts

I wish I could move back to brooklyn

 

[Lencho01]

I wouldn't doubt their attention spans when they're interested in what they are seeing.