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

[Comics N' Toons]

I googled it. I guess it's like a ripoff character, like Family guy to American Dad and that thing.

....


But the only one of those for Superman I can think of is Captain Marvel, who's different enough to not be considered one, and who DC shouldn't own anyways.

Obviously Captain Marvel, like most superheroes, was created as an obvious cash in on the success of Superman, but I don't think Captain Marvel was a direct plagiarism of the Superman character

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I think over time, things change pertaining to what's a ripoff and what isn't. Back when there were next to no other superheroes as we know them today, Captain Marvel could be seen as plagiarism, just for the fact that he was a guy in a costume and cape with superhuman strength and a secret ID. So many characters have those traits now that it doesn't seem like grounds for plagiarism anymore. Spider-Man probably would have been called a ripoff too if he were created in 1939. But over time, things changed and that combination of traits sortof became public domain, and thus a genre was born.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

That just does not look right,

 

[TheDragonator]

 

[Motown Marvel]

eww!

 

[TheDragonator]

I like it.

 

[Kurosawa]

Just doesn't work without a different color in the \S/, not to mention the costume always fails without the trunks.

 

[DCnightwing23]

I gotta agree with some of you on here, the symbol does not look right without some yellow or gold in there. Other than that the design with just a belt does work imo

 

[epc11223]

overall i think it's a great manip, but i think that without the designs/armor/metallic look, it looks like it's missing something. plus these pictures with gary frank and john byrne we've seen before, so while it's a good manip, we know what it looks like with trunks and it may be difficult to have a different version of a picture that so ingrained in our mind. it's also not exactly what the new suit looks like. by not adding the armor look to it, it just looks like tights with no trunks, but the new suit is not just simply tights and no trunks. this gives it an added look to it and more things to see. hopefully i'm making some sense because i have a little bit of a headache lol.

 

[Lencho01]

I don't think it's so much a matter of us knowing what those pics look like with the trunks.

The trunks simply just help balance the suit better than the busy armored look he has in the comics now or the odd design they've given him in MOS in place of the trunks.

 

[camp Blood]

hope you dont mind dragonator but i add a few of my own mods

 

[Motown Marvel]

people need to stop thinking they they can improve upon something that is already iconic, classic, timeless, and more or less perfect.

 

[camp Blood]

I want classic as well but since we're not getting it it's fun to play around in photoshop and come up with alternatives we'd like to see that is if we absolutely cannot have trunks which apparently we can't

 

[El Payaso]

Just put yellow in the symbol and the belt.

 

[camp Blood]

here

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Looks OK, actually.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

hope you dont mind dragonator but i add a few of my own mods

i like it i'd like to see it with the yellow back in the symbol

 

[Kurosawa]

people need to stop thinking they they can improve upon something that is already iconic, classic, timeless, and more or less perfect.

I know but try telling that to the jackasses in charge at DC or the producers of MOS.

 

[epc11223]

i'd hardly call the people in charge jackasses when sales of superman comics have improved. yes its early, and if sales start to take a huge dip, they may go back to the more traditional suit, but that is probably quite awhile. superman sales are better than it's been in quite some time and the reception/sales for mos is still a ways off. profit is really the only thing that's important, and they are in the business to make money, not try to please the few people who are so upset about having everything exactly the same and not having any evolution in the characters. some people should watch this weeks voltron. there's this crazy fan who's obsessed with having everything stay the same. here's a clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlokxlzJ3OM


if the traditional suit was so perfect, the trunks would have been less of an issue than it is now bc that's really the only thing missing from the mos suit. every other aspect of superman's suit is intact. i remember when people first saw thor's costume, they said he looked silly with the leather pants and thor was the big hit of the summer. fans were originally upset with captain america's suit and that was a huge success. green lantern was probably the most faithful and that was a bomb. pretty much, if the movie is good, it will be successful and that's all the creators want. a successful, profitable movie. for the record, i highly enjoyed green lantern, captain america, and thor )

 

[not_a_victim]

I really don't understand why people think Superman Returns is such a bad movie. Sorry, but I really don't understand.

Most of the time I blame it on the fanboys & girls (which can be taken in a patronising way, but hey, whatever floats your boat) not being able to take on something that's completely out of league with the comics. It happened with X-Men Origins Wolverine, even with the X-trilogy and at the top of my head, at 1am, I can't think of anything else.

But I firmly believe you do not mess with Superman's costume. You just don't.

The major problem I had was SInger's seeming attempt to modernize the character and concept, but anchoring the movie firmly in the 1970's by paying way too much homage to the originals.
However, it may boil down to a conflict between script and direction...
The script was both so desperate to shout out that this was a NEW Superman, "Where did he get that new suit?", and at the same time, firmly holding on to the original movies, by quoting one of them line-for-line, "..flying is the safest form of travel."

Then, visually, you had a man who was being held up as a Reeve clone, given an outdated 1970's haircut, then dropped into a modernized version of the costume.
It's like both the script and the visuals had multiple personalities.
And, the most literal incarnation of the scattershot feel of this film is Clark's son. He's a wheezy, fragile kid who then flings a piano at a bad guy. I'm sure they intended to stretch his character out a bit, possibly show he was either faking the sickness, or feeding on the negativity of his mother to produce the illness. I have the feeling this sub-plot/concept was deleted through editing...
So yes, it is a bad movie. Apply these issues to any movie outside of a superhero movie, and you have a bad movie.

 

[Superman_200]

The major problem I had was SInger's seeming attempt to modernize the character and concept, but anchoring the movie firmly in the 1970's by paying way too much homage to the originals.
However, it may boil down to a conflict between script and direction...
The script was both so desperate to shout out that this was a NEW Superman, "Where did he get that new suit?", and at the same time, firmly holding on to the original movies, by quoting one of them line-for-line, "..flying is the safest form of travel."

Then, visually, you had a man who was being held up as a Reeve clone, given an outdated 1970's haircut, then dropped into a modernized version of the costume.
It's like both the script and the visuals had multiple personalities.
And, the most literal incarnation of the scattershot feel of this film is Clark's son. He's a wheezy, fragile kid who then flings a piano at a bad guy. I'm sure they intended to stretch his character out a bit, possibly show he was either faking the sickness, or feeding on the negativity of his mother to produce the illness. I have the feeling this sub-plot/concept was deleted through editing...
So yes, it is a bad movie. Apply these issues to any movie outside of a superhero movie, and you have a bad movie.

And yet, for the most part, the movie did manage to get decent to good reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

It always seemed strange to me, a movie that had decent reviews, but the majority of fans did not care for (including me) and it is considered a failure, even though it did make decent money and got decent reviews.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

So it made $200 million instead of the $500 they had hoped for and so it failed? That's just so much bull to me. 76% of the critics gave it a thumbs up and 67% of the fans. That's still most of them. It's all about money these days, nothing more and nothing less.... It frustrates me.

 

[elgaz]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing too.

As a huge Superman fan, I was totally hyped about seeing Superman Returns, and I chewed up ever piece of news, every spy shot and every trailer and TV spot that came out before the film's release.

And I came out of the cinema pretty impressed, I felt like I enjoyed the film a lot. But I'll happily admit now that I was probably swayed a lot by the fact that this was the first big-screen Superman adaption in 20 years, and also by the few epic & memorable moments in the film - the plane save, lifting New Krypton, etc.

The film just does not stand up to subsequent viewings. It's only on subsequent viewings (and never the first viewing) that you get little deeper into the story and dialogue, and can look at the film as a whole without the anticipation of how it might end or without the WOW factor of seeing a brand new Superman up on that big screen.

I've watched it 6 or 7 times since that first showing, and each time it irritates me a little more and I find myself fast-forwarding through some of the more plodding scenes. Why does it irritate me? The CGi is poor. The kid should just not be in the story at all. Superman as a glorified peeping-tom/stalker goes against a lot of what the character stands for. The lack of action. A bad portrayal of Lois Lane. A dubious storyline with Superman deserting Earth for 5 years, which doesn't seem like something he'd do. Yet another evil real-estate plan by Lex Luthor. Superman/Christ parallels so obvious they almost hit you in the face. Disastrous colour filters which ruin the look of the Superman suit and give the whole a film a sickly sheen. Too many Donner references.

The whole concept of linking this brand new Superman film, with a new cast, a new director, and an updated look ................... to two previous Superman films from 20 years before - whilst simultaneously ignoring Superman III and IV- is so obviously flawed that it's crazy to think we fans pretty much bought it at the time.

The film has some good moments, but they're heavily outweighed by the bad.

 

[Superman_200]

So it made $200 million instead of the $500 they had hoped for and so it failed? That's just so much bull to me. 76% of the critics gave it a thumbs up and 67% of the fans. That's still most of them. It's all about money these days, nothing more and nothing less.... It frustrates me.

I think that is what it was. That maybe it made less money than projected. But when you look at other films that have similar ratings, for the most part, a better portion of the audience liked it than 67%. In fact, I think most of the time when almost 80% of the critics like it, a much bigger majority of the audience liked it, something like around 80% or so. It is odd to see that the audience didn't care for it as much as the critics, especially when it comes to a summer movie. Most of the summer action movie blockbusters get so-so reviews. Like for example with 300, where it had a "rotten" rating, 59% but 90% from the audience. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/

Or with Transformers http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_dark_of_the_moon/ the audience still liked it better than the critics, but the opposite happened with Superman.

Maybe the critics are not looking for in a Superman movie the same things that the comic book fans are looking for in a movie and the general audience may also be looking for something different in a Superman movie. Critics may want one thing, general audience another, and the comic book fans even another thing.

 

[Dr.]

So yes, it is a bad movie. Apply these issues to any movie outside of a superhero movie, and you have a bad movie.

That’s contentious. In debates about SR, I’ve seen firm critics concede that many of its elements (the alleged “peeping tom” scene, Supes wooing an engaged Lois) would scarcely raise eyebrows in another film. These would simply be accommodated as dramatic complications. Yet, they were deemed highly inappropriate for Superman. Well, fair enough. But this raises an implicit distinction between (what works for) “most films” and what’s acceptable for a “Superman story.”

As Superman_200 mentioned, SR earned a 76% aggregate approval on RT. I’d wager that the majority of these reviewers weren’t particularly Superman fans or experts; they were just judging “a movie.”