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

[camp Blood]

power rangers didn't have trunks either

 

[Kurosawa]

No, if the movie fails it won't be because Superman is wearing a costume that screams shame and rejection of Joe Shuster's design with ridiculous patterns on the side, it will fail because it is just a remake of Superman II much like Superman Returns is just a remake of Superman The Movie, and because it is being made by Batman guys who always fail when it comes to Superman because Superman is too much for them to handle. Regardless, the costume still looks like crap on Cavill, and if the trunks were there it would look a ton better. But this is 2011, and Siegel and Shuster are just two old dead guys who get no respect when they should be revered.

And as for the Batman costume losing the trunks in the movies, I will say once again: in my opinion, every live action Batman costume ever has completely and totally sucked. And except for Superman Returns, every live action Superman costume until MOS has looked either good (Cain) or great (Reeve, Reeves, and the two different Superboy actors). Superman's classic costume has worked well in live action since the 40's.

Nothing but absolute faith to the comics designs is ever acceptable to me in live action films, especially with the level of effects today.

 

[Lencho01]

The general public will not give a ****. They won't be going "Oh, where is his trunks! This is lame!".

You can't be serious.

They're still going to notice that it's missing since it's not the way Superman has been shown for the general audience.

Either way, he still looks "lame" when it comes to the real world. So, why not let him look like he always has? It really isn't going to make him any cooler without the trunks.

 

[DKDetective]

No, if the movie fails it won't be because Superman is wearing a costume that screams shame and rejection of Joe Shuster's design with ridiculous patterns on the side, it will fail because it is just a remake of Superman II much like Superman Returns is just a remake of Superman The Movie, and because it is being made by Batman guys who always fail when it comes to Superman because Superman is too much for them to handle. Regardless, the costume still looks like crap on Cavill, and if the trunks were there it would look a ton better. But this is 2011, and Siegel and Shuster are just two old dead guys who get no respect when they should be revered.

And as for the Batman costume losing the trunks in the movies, I will say once again: in my opinion, every live action Batman costume ever has completely and totally sucked. And except for Superman Returns, every live action Superman costume until MOS has looked either good (Cain) or great (Reeve, Reeves, and the two different Superboy actors). Superman's classic costume has worked well in live action since the 40's.

Nothing but absolute faith to the comics designs is ever acceptable to me in live action films, especially with the level of effects today.

How do you know any of this? Any of the quotes I've read regarding Nolan or Goyer's take on Superman is that they think Batman and Superman are strongest when interpreted similar to what made them popular in the first place. (I call that respect for the creators) That quote by Goyer you have posted in the past regarding Goyer being hesitant about interpreting Superman is respectful if anything. He is saying that he's not sure he can do Superman justice. If he thinks that, obviously, he thinks highly of the character and wants to make sure an adaptation is good. There is no rule saying that Batman guys get Superman wrong. Don't cite Frank Miller, because his Batman isn't that good either, you have said so yourself.

What reason do you have to believe this film will be a rehash of Superman II? The Dark Knight used the Joker and it wasn't a rehash of Batman 89? If anything Nolan and Goyer have been inherently original and creative in their Batman films while remaining respectful and faithful to the characters and their creators.

 

[Herolee10]

How do you know any of this? Any of the quotes I've read regarding Nolan or Goyer's take on Superman is that they think Batman and Superman are strongest when interpreted similar to what made them popular in the first place. (I call that respect for the creators) That quote by Goyer you have posted in the past regarding Goyer being hesitant about interpreting Superman is respectful if anything. He is saying that he's not sure he can do Superman justice. If he thinks that, obviously, he thinks highly of the character and wants to make sure an adaptation is good. There is no rule saying that Batman guys get Superman wrong. Don't cite Frank Miller, because his Batman isn't that good either, you have said so yourself.

What reason do you have to believe this film will be a rehash of Superman II? The Dark Knight used the Joker and it wasn't a rehash of Batman 89? If anything Nolan and Goyer have been inherently original and creative in their Batman films while remaining respectful and faithful to the characters and their creators.

Agreed!

Not that I’m saying that TDK was a rehash of the first Batman film, but with things like the Joker and Harvey Dent being on it, Joker taking over the Mob Forces, and being responsible for killing someone close to Bruce (89 film it was his parents; 08 it was Rachel); then yeah, negative posters could have used those if they had wished to do label TDK as a failure and a carbon copy (none of which being true imho of course).

The thing that separates MOS from SII is the fact that MOS is a origin story and not a sequel, and they’re approaching this film without being chained down by the past films like SR was.

We haven’t even seen footage of this yet, let alone heard about some of the major plot details going on, so I don’t know why some people are quick to bash this film.

For what? I mean just because Superman isn’t wearing the traditional outfit? Just because Superman isn’t presented as some perfect God like entity on Earth who always knew who he was from the beginning?

Personally, one thing that I’ve learned from being a fan of this genre is that no comic book film will ever BE perfect, since the source material has had decades of mythology and changes where many fans have enjoyed certain takes throughout those time periods. For me, if a comic book film can take the best of everything and find a way to balance them while telling a great story that makes sense and makes me care about the character that I’m seeing, then I say: Mission accomplished.

 

[Krumm]

Personally, one thing that I’ve learned from being a fan of this genre is that no comic book film will ever BE perfect, since the source material has had decades of mythology and changes where many fans have enjoyed certain takes throughout those time periods. For me, if a comic book film can take the best of everything and find a way to balance them while telling a great story that makes sense and makes me care about the character that I’m seeing, then I say: Mission accomplished.

I'm glad that some people actually understand this... with everyone else, it's like talking to wood.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Are you trying to suggest the belt held the trunks?

That seems to be case.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

This material (similar to under-armor/biker wear or swim wear) is perfect for the average superhero costume because it looks like fabric without resembling spandex and just looks like it could be a direct translation of a comic book costume

 

[souperman]

I agree. A film is an animal all its own. The source material is great background and can be interpreted well, or not.

I'm not sure if you take some of those original vintage comics and brought them to life that it would have a very big audience.

I try to keep an open mind and judge each media separately. If I leave the theater feelin good I am happy. If not.... then I tear it apart and complain that they handled it all wrong and a monkey with a concussion and a camcorder could have done a better job and hope that in ten years we get another reboot.

All I'm saying is that we will have plenty of time to hate it later.

...give peas a chance.

 

[souperman]

That seems to be case.

Hey thanks for the reply! I missed that post.

Remember... With great belt loops come great belts.

 

[souperman]

 

[Superark]

Are you trying to suggest the belt held the trunks?

That seems to be case.

Hey thanks for the reply! I missed that post.

Remember... With great belt loops come great belts.

"My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?"

 

[Kurosawa]

How do you know any of this? Any of the quotes I've read regarding Nolan or Goyer's take on Superman is that they think Batman and Superman are strongest when interpreted similar to what made them popular in the first place. (I call that respect for the creators) That quote by Goyer you have posted in the past regarding Goyer being hesitant about interpreting Superman is respectful if anything. He is saying that he's not sure he can do Superman justice. If he thinks that, obviously, he thinks highly of the character and wants to make sure an adaptation is good. There is no rule saying that Batman guys get Superman wrong. Don't cite Frank Miller, because his Batman isn't that good either, you have said so yourself.

What reason do you have to believe this film will be a rehash of Superman II? The Dark Knight used the Joker and it wasn't a rehash of Batman 89? If anything Nolan and Goyer have been inherently original and creative in their Batman films while remaining respectful and faithful to the characters and their creators.

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??

 

[Krypto]

A lot of People here stuck in the middle of 1930-1990.... they really need the trunks... they don't accept changing.... they want their Superman wearing trunks... but this is New Millenium guys.. WE DON'T NEED TRUNKS.... WE NEED STORY..ACTION..SUPERVILLAIN and NEW SUPERMAN SUIT...!!!!!

 

[Kurosawa]

No, we need Superman to be himself, with pride and no apologies. They further they have taken Superman from his roots, the more he has failed. That's why Post-Crisis Superman was a failure.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

No, we need Superman to be himself, with pride and no apologies. They further they have taken Superman from his roots, the more he has failed. That's why Post-Crisis Superman was a failure.

Kuro, don't rap me in the mouth for this, because I know how you feel about Byrne's reinterpretation, but c'mon, the post-Crisis Superman was originally a return to the golden age roots (as much as DC would allow) before Stern, Ordway, Simonson, Kessel and Jurgens took over and built him into the modern Supes.

 

[Herolee10]

No, we need Superman to be himself, with pride and no apologies. They further they have taken Superman from his roots, the more he has failed. That's why Post-Crisis Superman was a failure.

That's up for debate since there are those who don't see it that and contrary to what some may believe, one person's opinion isn't the universal law.

 

[El Payaso]

That seems to be case.

Very true. Without that belt those trunks would unequivocaly just fall down. Only possible outcome.

 

[Project862006]

That's up for debate since there are those who don't see it that and contrary to what some may believe, one person's opinion isn't the universal law.

dont you know Kuro is only right and anyone who disagrees with him is not a superman fan and might aswell piss on shuster's grave

 

[manofsteel4life]

Agreed!

Not that I’m saying that TDK was a rehash of the first Batman film, but with things like the Joker and Harvey Dent being on it, Joker taking over the Mob Forces, and being responsible for killing someone close to Bruce (89 film it was his parents; 08 it was Rachel); then yeah, negative posters could have used those if they had wished to do label TDK as a failure and a carbon copy (none of which being true imho of course).

The thing that separates MOS from SII is the fact that MOS is a origin story and not a sequel, and they’re approaching this film without being chained down by the past films like SR was.

We haven’t even seen footage of this yet, let alone heard about some of the major plot details going on, so I don’t know why some people are quick to
bash this film.
For what? I mean just because Superman isn’t wearing the traditional outfit? Just because Superman isn’t presented as some perfect God like entity on
Earth who always knew who he was from the beginning?
Personally, one thing that I’ve learned from being a fan of this genre is that no comic book film will ever BE perfect, since the source material has had decades of mythology and changes where many fans have enjoyed certain takes throughout those time periods. For me, if a comic book film can take the best of everything and find a way to balance them while telling a great story
that makes sense and makes me care about the character that I’m seeing, then I say: Mission accomplished.

This....all this

 

[camp Blood]

another cool cavil pic from deviant-art, i like this one because its a full body flying shot

 

[ChickenScratch]

Creepy face!

 

[Vagosnati]

HOW? What myth? There has been many interpretations of the myth. which myth are you talking about?



how? which costume are you refering to. Are you refering to the generic costume (w/ trunks) or the Christoper Reeve's costume?



how? why? The red trunks was perfect to break all the blue.......... now he looks like a naked guy, w/ a cape, wearing a belly ring and waist bracelet.

i am talking about the original myth.That Kal-El is a visitor from another planet.and the new costume looks out from this world.The costume that an alien must wear.I am talking about the original costume,the one that Chris wear also.It never fit,the trunk.but this is my opinion only.I dont agree that he looks like a naked guy,at all.he looks like he wears an awesome costume,not from this world.

 

[Kurosawa]

Kuro, don't rap me in the mouth for this, because I know how you feel about Byrne's reinterpretation, but c'mon, the post-Crisis Superman was originally a return to the golden age roots (as much as DC would allow) before Stern, Ordway, Simonson, Kessel and Jurgens took over and built him into the modern Supes.

No, that is what Byrne claimed his Superman was, but except for the somewhat reduced power level, that couldn't have been further from the truth. Byrne's Superman had no confidence, no social conscience, and it was Byrne who established the extremely wrongheaded and damaging idea that Clark Kent was the real person and Superman was a disguise, along with Byrne leaving the Kents alive so Clark could run home to them for advice and pie, keeping him eternally Superboy. What Byrne claimed he was doing and what he actually did are two different things.

Golden Age Superman:

Superman the real identity, Clark Kent a disguise,
Kents dead
Strong social conscience, anti-establishment champion of the oppressed, strong stands on social and political issues, fighting for unions, the poor, etc.
Confidence bordering on cockiness and near arrogance.
Lower power level

John Byrne's Superman:

Clark Kent the real identity, Superman a disguise,
Kents alive and Clark running there every 5 minutes for coddling
No social conscience, totally subservient to authority, no involvement with social and political issues. He was the establishment.
Self-doubt bordering on timidity and near self-loathing.
Lower power level

All Byrne's Superman took from the original was a lower power level, all the better to beat down and humiliate Superman with.

A real return to the roots of the Golden Age Superman is in Grant Morrison's current Action Comics run. It is his Superman that is the modern day version of the original, and it is great.

"You know the deal Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

THAT is Superman's future.

 

[DKDetective]

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??

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.