The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[The Morningstar]

The main thing is I said IF, not WHEN. If it is just a rehash like Superman Returns was of STM, it will fail. And if it is not, then it may succeed.

The bad costume won't make the movie fail, because even though it looks bad, it doesn't look THAT bad. And a better costume wouldn't make the movie succeed. What a better, more faithful costume would do is it would let the public know that the producers of this movie are not ashamed of the source material. As soon as you see a major element changed, altered or deleted-like the trunks-the immediate assumption is that they are gone because there is something wrong with them. The got rid of the trunks because it made Superman look too much like a comic book superhero. What in the ****ing world do they think Superman is??

How does it mean they are ashamed of the source material? They are simply bringing some new ideas to the table for an ADAPTATION of the source material.

I guarantee the true essence of the Superman character, his attitude, his ideals, his personality, will be what the producers of this movie will strive to get right. Whether they get it right or not remains to be seen.

Yes the costume is different. But it's still inherently Superman. It's not as though they have dumped the shield, the cape and changed the entire colour scheme.

I'm sorry, but your idea that any change to the Superman character is a slight against the original creators is beyond ridiculous. Shuster and co themselves probably wouldn't be this self righteous and defensive over Superman as you are.

 

[Kurosawa]

Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but given the specificity of your rant, it seemed like the "if" only applied to the first statement. eg. If the movie fails, it won't be for this. new statement: it will fail for .....

I don't think what they have done with the costume at all shows great disrespect for the character. It is arguable based on other attempted designs of the suit, that Snyder and his team are trying very hard to draw inspiration from the source material. So many of the details are very right and faithful.

If what you say about them removing the trunks because they don't want the character to look like a comic book superhero is true, that decision can honestly be based in respect and admiration. They think so highly of the character that they are trying to make him appeal beyond the world of comic book fans.

Like my post on the last page, it is arguable that periodic visual/stylistic updates are in accordance with the creators' intentions. You have stated that in designing the costume, Siegel and Shuster drew upon circus strongmen and pulp science fiction for inspiration. They did so because those design elements had certain thematic conatations. (strength, otherworldliness, etc.) It is arguable that altering the suit's design to bring it more in line with modern athletic apparel (eg. the trunkless unitards of modern strongmen and Olympic lifters) and modern science fiction costuming conventions furthers the creators' artistic intentions. These things are the modern equivalents of the images/designs used by Siegel and Shuster for inspiration. By drawing on them, modern interpreters are attempting to stir the same themes and imagery in the minds of the audience that Siegel and Shuster were in 1938.

I hate to use the LOTR example again, but are you aware that the Jackson films are incredibly different visually from the novels and Tolkien's well-documented intentions (through the books, illustrations and commentary). Tolkien specifically intended that the arms, armor, clothing, and architecture of Middle-Earth should be based upon that of Anglo-Saxon culture in the dark age. For instance, most of the armour is described as chainmail and the swords are gilded and jeweled broadswords. What we see in the Jackson films is very different. The arms and armour is far advanced, evocative of Late Medieval/Renaissance technology. Nevertheless, you think that the LOTR films are respectful and faithful. They draw their inspiration from artists and fans like John Howe who completely reinvented the visuals.

There is more leeway with LOTR because it was a novel and not a comic. Although I certainly would have been happier had the costumes been closer to Tolkien's descriptions. Also, none of the visuals described in the LOTR novels are as iconic visually as Superman's costume. The only other image in American culture that even comes close is Mickey Mouse, and even his visual pales in comparison to Superman's fantastic costume. Superman's classic costume is the single greatest design in the history of fantasy literature and nothing else comes even close. That's why changing it is such a joke and is so lame. You can't improve on perfection-and the MOS and DCnU costumes prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Of all the revisions, only the T-Shirt and Jeans costume is even near acceptable as a starter costume, as some of Joe Shuster's early designs looked more like street clothes. If that costume was his first then it gave way to the classic, I could live with it. Instead it is replaced in the comics by that Jim Lee monstrosity and in the MOS movie by the ballet outfit that looks more like Black Orchid's costume than Superman's.

 

[Kurosawa]

How does it mean they are ashamed of the source material? They are simply bringing some new ideas to the table for an ADAPTATION of the source material.

I guarantee the true essence of the Superman character, his attitude, his ideals, his personality, will be what the producers of this movie will strive to get right. Whether they get it right or not remains to be seen.

Yes the costume is different. But it's still inherently Superman. It's not as though they have dumped the shield, the cape and changed the entire colour scheme.

Please. They changed one of the two elements of the costume that idiots have ridiculed over the years-the cape and the trunks. They should have changed NOTHING and told people to deal with it. That is showing pride in a property. Instead they split hairs trying to make everyone happy. It's weak and cowardly.

Now if they nail everything else about him, then I'll just ignore the crappy costume and say the movie was good except the costume sucked.

 

[The Morningstar]

Or maybe they changed the costume for, you know, artistic purposes? There doesn't have to be some insidious scheme behind everything.

If they truly were ashamed of the source material and the character then they wouldn't be putting all this money and effort behind the production. This is gonna be a mega budget movie, if their hearts were not in it then, well, they're idiots and it'd be set to fail from the get go.

 

[Herolee10]

Or maybe they changed the costume for, you know, artistic purposes? There doesn't have to be some insidious scheme behind everything.

If they truly were ashamed of the source material and the character then they wouldn't be putting all this money and effort behind the production. This is gonna be a mega budget movie, if their hearts were not in it then, well, they're idiots and it'd be set to fail from the get go.

Agreed; and Chris Nolan was the one who pitched the idea to Warner Bros. and if he wasn't impressed with the story itself, then I don't think he would have gone through that trouble, let alone attach his name to this project unless he had some faith that the story that was being told was great.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Chris Nolan also helped write the story. Considering the writing staff, director and acting talent, there is nothing indicating that anything other than greatness will come from this movie. The Dark Knight had a terrible, terrible batsuit, but I love that film, X-Men 2 had awful suits, I love that film. Spider-Man 3 had a near perfect Spider-Man suit. That film was absolute testicles.

 

[sf2]

Or maybe they changed the costume for, you know, artistic purposes? There doesn't have to be some insidious scheme behind everything.

If they truly were ashamed of the source material and the character then they wouldn't be putting all this money and effort behind the production. This is gonna be a mega budget movie, if their hearts were not in it then, well, they're idiots and it'd be set to fail from the get go.

well,just speaking on the artistic / aesthetic point, it doesn't look better. it looks different. it looks worse than the traditional suit in fact.

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't think it does. I think it looks better, but it's not perfect. The blue could have and should have been broken up more.

But not with an archaic design feature such as trunks...

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Or maybe they changed the costume for, you know, artistic purposes? There doesn't have to be some insidious scheme behind everything.

yeah, right...

If they truly were ashamed of the source material and the character then they wouldn't be putting all this money and effort behind the production. This is gonna be a mega budget movie, if their hearts were not in it then, well, they're idiots and it'd be set to fail from the get go.

They are putting all this money in this movie... to make even more money. It's that simple. Blockbuster movies are made because of this.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, and when there is no passion or respect for the source material but a mega budget you end up with Green Lantern...

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

well,just speaking on the artistic / aesthetic point, it doesn't look better. it looks different. it looks worse than the traditional suit in fact.

Says who? You? I'm sorry, but when did you (or anyone else) become the world's spokesperson on this topic?

 

[DavidTyler]

Had it been limited to DKR, then yes, I could dismiss it easier. Unfortunately due to DKR's incredible success, that portrayal of Superman also began to appear in the DCU proper, partially because John Byrne coordinated his Superman reboot with Miller's DKR portrayal. That is where the image of Superman as the "Big Blue Boy Scout" and government/establishment stooge came from. Superman would no more take orders from the POTUS or any leader than he would from a flea.

Byrne did not create the 'Big Blue Boy Scout' thing. It was actually first spoken by Gene Hackman as Luthor in the Donner films. Would you please knock it off with the Byrne-hate.... it's really gotten to the point where I'm expecting you to blame the holocaust on him.

I'm sorry that you didn't like that DC wanted Superman powered down and that the more ridiculous elements be removed so that they could be reintroduced in a more believable context. Byrne basically took Superman back to his roots but with some of the elements of the Donner film ... like Superman being a big boy scout. If you look at some of Byrne's Generations series, you will see the Superman you talk on and on about.

Geez, I like you, brother, but your credibility gets worse each time you go on a rant.

I propose you try an exercise where you look at Byrne's Superman work and find just three things about it that you like. There has to be at least three or you're just dismissing him completely with no regard to anything but his name.

Can you do that? I mean there are people I'm not a fan of who I can give them this or that point and there are people I am a fan of who have made mistakes I can easily point to. No one is perfect and no one is completely bad.

 

[Crazymaverick]

This was done by WAMS I think:

This is AWESOME! Kudos WAMS or brohawk!

I love how it has a Jose Luis Garcia Lopez quality about it! I love that guy's work, he's my favourite Superman artist!

Also, maybe someone could make a small change around the belt area and add some red to make it look a little more like this?

 

[DavidTyler]

As to the new costume... I was prepared to hate any costume that wasn't the classic. I really loved Christopher Reeve in that costume. It was comics perfect. I even liked the taller boots (although it did take me a little time to get used to them>).

When people posted their ideas of what the costume would look like without trunks, I hated each and everyon one of them. ...

BUT... I actually really like the new Snyder costume. In fact, I would go so far to say I really love it. The new emblem isn't so far from the classic and incorporates the one from the early 40's. I've got to confess that I never really liked the little ball on the bottom of the S. It's gone and I don't miss it. The lack of trunks being made up for by the ribbing... I do like it. Not especially fond of the ribbing that runs down his leg but I'm OK with it. I love the blue gauntles on his wrist.

At my desk at work I have a pic of Christopher Reeve as Superman and it's right next to the Pic of Henry Cavill in the new costume. I have to admit that the new one just looks more powerful and more interesting while the old one does look a bit dated and kind of like a really good adult Halloween costume. I'm not knocking it really because I still love it .. but I'm excited by the new one.

 

[Dr.]

Well said. The new costume will get more ridicule than the classic ever did. When you see the trunks, you think, "superhero", "wrestler" or "strongman"-but when you see the MOS costume with the silly patterns on the back and waist, and the huge lump in the crotch, you think "ballet dancer" or "bar ****".

I’m almost positive that, in prior posts, you praised the general aesthetics and configuration of the MOS costume. I think you said it would work just fine for some other (hypothetical?) superhero. It was just highly inappropriate for Superman; the changes to the traditional iconography were simply too radical – for that character. Well, that’s fair enough.

But on other occasions (like above), you ridicule the design with disparaging comparisons and colorful insults. This would suggest that the intrinsic aesthetics are flawed. That, too, is fair enough. But it obviously contradicts the first analysis.

Rhetorical persuasiveness is enhanced by a consistent argument.

 

[KRIM]

yeah, right...

They are putting all this money in this movie... to make even more money. It's that simple. Blockbuster movies are made because of this.

Would their "artistic merits" have changed had they kept the trunks? The nature of these films do not alter based on what classic elements they decide to keep.

 

[Crazymaverick]

Here's my stab at it:

Original art by Brohawk posted at deviantart

 

[fixxxer1022]

Nope. No one needs to accept that a few people are unhappy, because some of us are getting the Superman movie we want, and there will always be haters. You need to accept that this is a different version and all your hatred and pessimism won't change a thing.

yeah i guess ill keep my opinions to myself so i don't ruffle the fanboys feathers on here.

 

[C. Lee]

To paraphrase Martin Luther King.....I have a dream, I have a dream that one day fanboys will accept the fact that people are allowed to have opinions that differ from theirs....and that having those differing opinions it makes them no better or worse than anyone else....for they simply have a different opinion.

People are allowed to like the suit with trunks.
People are allowed to not like the suit with trunks.
People are allowed to like the cape with the S on the back.
People are allowed to not like the cape without the S on the back.
People are allowed to like the minimalistic belt design.
People are allowed to not like the minimalistic belt design.

People are allowed to like things you do not.
People are allowed to dislike things you do not.



I have a dream..........

 

[Crazymaverick]

[Joe Swanson]Ha! [/Joe Swanson]

 

[TruerToTheCore]

To paraphrase Martin Luther King.....I have a dream, I have a dream that one day fanboys will accept the fact that people are allowed to have opinions that differ from theirs....and that having those differing opinions it makes them no better or worse than anyone else....for they simply have a different opinion.

People are allowed to like the suit with trunks.
People are allowed to not like the suit with trunks.
People are allowed to like the cape with the S on the back.
People are allowed to not like the cape without the S on the back.
People are allowed to like the minimalistic belt design.
People are allowed to not like the minimalistic belt design.

People are allowed to like things you do not.
People are allowed to dislike things you do not.



I have a dream..........

Allowed they are. But ignored they should also be when it comes to make decisions. Comic book characters are not a democracy.

 

[C. Lee]

Allowed they are. But ignored they should also be when it comes to make decisions. Comic book characters are not a democracy.

My point was....you can discuss, debate, argue, or ignore the other guys opinion....as long as you do it civilly.

 

[egarza]

 

[DKDetective]

Allowed they are. But ignored they should also be when it comes to make decisions. Comic book characters are not a democracy.

It is a democracy because comic books are a commercial art form. Fans and the general audience "vote" with their money, with the ticket they buy, with the comics they buy, etc. Even Pre-Crisis, writers, editors, and artists changed things depending on popular response.

The whole reason why Superman is an icon and we are even having these debates is because he won the "election". His character appealed to the masses in 1938 and thereafter.

Even if you take a less cynical view, the point of Siegel and Shuster creating the character was to connect with others, tell a story that others would want to read. They made changes to the character dependent on reader response, editorial commands, and other less than perfectly artistic reasons. Hell, some of the things that might define the character for you could have been prompted by necessity, greed, etc. That is the nature of pop art.

We are not talking about some great artist or poet purely pursuing his or her artistic dream, regardless of its popularity or mass appeal.

 

[Krumm]

You speak sense.