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

[TruerToTheCore]

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.

I also finance the police. Doesn't mean that I should have any influence on them. And of course, smart creators don't give the public what they think they want because that always results in failure. Of course, for most of the pre-crisis days the audience was totally different, way younger and way more fluctuating with losing and winning lots of readers each month. And let's be serious: The post-crisis Superman has never been accepted but still people are pushing for it.

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.

No one has voted for the new costume yet.

Let me see it like that: Superman Returns was a horrible Superman movie and as a movie rather mediocre, yet it wasn't a real flop or something (only if you count the money that has been spent all those years trying to set up the movie). A better movie would have made a lot more and it has the traditional costume (well, at least trunks and stuff...).

What also baffles me, when it comes to most characters people always tell that they like it when they go back to the roots. But as soon as you want a Superman close to his roots and creator's intention ****storm occurs.

Well, let's see how this movie turns out...

 

[Kurosawa]

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.

My earlier post showed exactly the differences between Byrne's reboot and the Golden Age Superman. Who has taken Superman back to his roots is the great Grant Morrison. Byrne did nothing of the sort-all he did was cut Superman's power, and then he and Frank Miller grafted elements from the Donner movies onto him in order to make him the "Big Blue Boy Scout" caricature that he was.

Three good things about JB's Superman? Well, the artwork in the books was nice, as he has always drawn excellent action scenes and is a very good storyteller. I don't like any of his designs-hideous Krypton, Kingpin Luthor, *****y Lois, the new villains he created like Bloodsport looked like crap. But the work itself was very well done. Some of the new supporting characters he added were pretty good characters that have developed into fine characters over the years. And I liked the one team up he did with Superman and Hawkman in Action Comics.

I also finance the police. Doesn't mean that I should have any influence on them. And of course, smart creators don't give the public what they think they want because that always results in failure. Of course, for most of the pre-crisis days the audience was totally different, way younger and way more fluctuating with losing and winning lots of readers each month. And let's be serious: The post-crisis Superman has never been accepted but still people are pushing for it.



No one has voted for the new costume yet.

Let me see it like that: Superman Returns was a horrible Superman movie and as a movie rather mediocre, yet it wasn't a real flop or something (only if you count the money that has been spent all those years trying to set up the movie). A better movie would have made a lot more and it has the traditional costume (well, at least trunks and stuff...).

What also baffles me, when it comes to most characters people always tell that they like it when they go back to the roots. But as soon as you want a Superman close to his roots and creator's intention ****storm occurs.

Well, let's see how this movie turns out...

Bolded for truth. Very few people want a "Me Tarzan, You Jane" Tarzan if they know anything about Burroughs' novels, and most people want a more Fleming-type James Bond as well, but for some damn reason people do not want Superman to go back to his roots and go back to what he was when he was actually popular and relevant. It's almost as if they want him to fail.

 

[Krumm]

What also baffles me, when it comes to most characters people always tell that they like it when they go back to the roots. But as soon as you want a Superman close to his roots and creator's intention ****storm occurs.

This is the costume thread. Just because they want the character to be brought back to his roots doesn't mean the costume needs to be.

His characterization and costume are not inextricably linked.

 

[Dr.]

Very few people want a "Me Tarzan, You Jane" Tarzan if they know anything about Burroughs' novels, and most people want a more Fleming-type James Bond as well, but for some damn reason people do not want Superman to go back to his roots and go back to what he was when he was actually popular and relevant. It's almost as if they want him to fail.

I’d say most folks want Supes to be successful – either artistically or commercially (both would be ideal, I venture to say).

And “relevant” strikes me as an ambiguous and, therefore, unhelpful buzzword. What was relevant in the 1940s ain’t necessarily so in the 21st century. Therefore, it could well be argued that maintaining the character in his 1940s mode is the very opposite of keeping him relevant. If that's not what you mean, might be better to use clearer terms.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

This is the costume thread. Just because they want the character to be brought back to his roots doesn't mean the costume needs to be.

His characterization and costume are not inextricably linked.

Krumm speaks truth.

Those who want to talk about how completely awesome Byrne is go take it to the all things superman thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=363259&page=22

 

[DKDetective]

I also finance the police. Doesn't mean that I should have any influence on them. And of course, smart creators don't give the public what they think they want because that always results in failure. Of course, for most of the pre-crisis days the audience was totally different, way younger and way more fluctuating with losing and winning lots of readers each month. And let's be serious: The post-crisis Superman has never been accepted but still people are pushing for it.



No one has voted for the new costume yet.

Let me see it like that: Superman Returns was a horrible Superman movie and as a movie rather mediocre, yet it wasn't a real flop or something (only if you count the money that has been spent all those years trying to set up the movie). A better movie would have made a lot more and it has the traditional costume (well, at least trunks and stuff...).

What also baffles me, when it comes to most characters people always tell that they like it when they go back to the roots. But as soon as you want a Superman close to his roots and creator's intention ****storm occurs.

Well, let's see how this movie turns out...

Other than the loss of trunks and some minor detailing, much of this suit is going back to the roots and basics. Can you folks at least understand why some fans aren't outraged without saying we don't care.

Faithful design choices based on the character's roots and appearance in the early stories:

1. We have a color scheme reminiscent of Action Comics 1 and the Fleischer cartoons.

2. We have the return of gauntlets from the golden age... and the suit material's pattern could be even said to be inspired by the shading techniques used in the early stories.

3. The S Shield is based off of one of the golden age designs, which eventually became the shield for Earth-2 Superman.

4. As shown above, there originally was no S on the back of the cape and its length changes from panel to panel. In the cover of Action Comics 1, it looks full length like Cavill's cape.

5. We have the classic boots. No stupid heels or loose fitting leather.

6. While small, the belt is its traditional shape and colour.

7. Unlike the Returns suit, we have a perfect traditional cape attachment and neckline that gives Superman a powerful and regal appearance.

Unfaithful design choices:
1. No trunks

2. Weird Alien ribbing

I don't care what planet you are from, that is a costume design that is arguably highly faithful to the character's roots and early appearances. The vast majority of the design is consistent with how Superman's creators depicted him. It is your right as a fan to believe that those two minor changes unsupported by the source material ruined the overall aesthetic of the suit or destroy the overall visual the creators' were trying to achieve. However, it is equally arguable, based on what I demonstrated above, that the MOS suit is very faithful and is, FOR THE MOST PART, an attempt to bring the character back to his roots.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

You know, the good thing about the real costume is that it's just an awesome design and yet very simple. I can draw it.

This new suit is just... well... nothing special and complicated. I cannot draw it.

 

[Krypto]

I Want Them..........

 

[camp Blood]

i would choose the cavill suit over the routh any day

so thats a plus for me

 

[Kurosawa]

You know, the good thing about the real costume is that it's just an awesome design and yet very simple. I can draw it.

This new suit is just... well... nothing special and complicated. I cannot draw it.

The simplicity of the real costume is a great part of why it is the greatest fantasy character design of all time, better than Batman's costume, better than Vader's, better than anyone's. Nothing proves that less is more better than the real Superman costume.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

The simplicity of the real costume is a great part of why it is the greatest fantasy character design of all time, better than Batman's costume, better than Vader's, better than anyone's. Nothing proves that less is more better than the real Superman costume.

Excellent statements, Kuro.

I feel like changing Superman's costume (since he is arguably the most iconic and most well known character in fiction) is akin in many ways to changing the American flag.

 

[egarza]

well they both have changed with the times. such is the way of the world.

a wise man once said 'nothing gold can stay'

 

[sf2]

I Want Them..........

awesome!!! how much?

 

[sf2]

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.

agree only on the more powerful look. as there is a muscle defining suit. and cavill is more mascular / toned. and the cape attachment is done perfectly.

most of the new things is interesting to us. but after a period of time...

 

[El Payaso]

You know, the good thing about the real costume is that it's just an awesome design and yet very simple. I can draw it.

This new suit is just... well... nothing special and complicated. I cannot draw it.

This gotta be gold. TrueToTheCore's ability of drawing denominates what's a good costrume and what's not.

 

[Kurosawa]

Excellent statements, Kuro.

I feel like changing Superman's costume (since he is arguably the most iconic and most well known character in fiction) is akin in many ways to changing the American flag.

It's the comic book equivalent of burning the flag.

 

[The Morningstar]

AHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously?

 

[Kurosawa]

Yes. Changing Superman's costume is treasonous to the superhero genre. It is an admission that it is somehow flawed and silly. Superman is not A superhero, he is THE superhero and by changing his costume, they are admitting that the criticisms and disrespect that comics, superhero comics in particular, have received over the years is valid. Changing any aspect of Superman's costume is a betrayal of his creators and of him.

 

[Laufey]

Better burn every single Superman comic book that isn't the very first then, because the suit has changed somewhat over the years. I mean, the colour and shield design are pretty different from the original Action Comics. Even a slight change like that would surely justify the public execution of every writer and artist that aren't Siegel or Schuster.

 

[Kurosawa]

The costume was changed either by or with the approval of Siegel and Shuster. It was the same from 1945-2011 excepting the insanity of the Electric Superman period.

Siegel was the primary writer on Superman until 1947, and the Shuster studio did the art with Joe Shuster personally checking and approving all that they did. Shuster also said he himself did all the Superman faces.

 

[Laufey]

I really don't see a problem with someone other than the original creators taking a shot at what the costume should look like. And yes, there have been minor changes in the suit even between 1945-2011. Nothing big like taking away the trunks, but still some small changes.

But this talk of betrayal and such is just silly. I don't mind the trunks personally, yet I love the new suit. Opinions don't have to be taken to the extreme, one could like both ways. It's just a shame you can't accept that without insulting anyone.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Spoiler

I Want Them..........

Those are nice. Especially like the dark Superman from SM:III
Hot Toys are something else aren't they? This figure convinced me to buy my first ever one today...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yes. Changing Superman's costume is treasonous to the superhero genre. It is an admission that it is somehow flawed and silly. Superman is not A superhero, he is THE superhero and by changing his costume, they are admitting that the criticisms and disrespect that comics, superhero comics in particular, have received over the years is valid. Changing any aspect of Superman's costume is a betrayal of his creators and of him.

Superman is A superhero.

He's the best IMO, but he's not the only one and coming first doesn't automatically make everything that comes after you lesser just because. That's a matter of taste.

The same can be said of the suit. The old design may have been the first and IMO the best - but that doesn't make any other suit that comes after it lesser just because. And I don't find it offensive when someone tries a new design, as long as it still feels like Superman to me.

I didn't think I'd ever be happy with a trunksless outfit... But they managed it. They managed to design a suit without trunks so well that I really like it.

And my liking it isn't a betrayal or some kind of treason.

I'm a fan. I am not a subject, not a citizen or a soldier of some Superman country. There are no laws of Superman fandom to break, and liking the new costume bears no punishment (unless you count the constant bashing by posters like you).

 

[Wheels]

Where can I get those Reeve Superman action figures?

 

[El Payaso]

It's the comic book equivalent of burning the flag.

AHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously?

I think he is. Many times reality surpasses the limits of any possible parody, leaving us, parody lovers, without any material.