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

[ElDuderino]

Well, here's a smaller version of the picture that was posted on the last page.

Man, that's amazing. They've created a distinct, yet familiar design that just ... works.

 

[Rocanrol]

It feels alien.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Man, that's amazing. They've created a distinct, yet familiar design that just ... works.

It feels so much more like Superman than the new comics suit as well

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Well, here's a smaller version of the picture that was posted on the last page.

This looks great. Kudos to making it smaller.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

That Hot Toys Superman goes for about $200, and just released. You think that's too much, wait until about a year from now, it'll probably be $500 or more.

I ordered one months ago from Comics Infinity out of Florida for 189.00 pre-order when I saw an advertisment for it pop up on these forums. Then I find out that Sideshow Collectibles has the same item but with an 'Exclusive' Kryptonite necklace for 200+. I ordered that as well (wouldn't have got two if I'd gone to SS first) but fortunately there are some many ways of posing/displaying it that having two isn't that bad beyond the extra expense.

I think the Superman: The Movie figure ships in December as SS just debited $70 from my account for the first flex payment.

I hope Sideshow and/or Hot Toys make a decent MOS figure, although I doubt we'll see anything for a year or so. Sideshow's polystone statues are amazing and very pricey, but hey that's what tax refunds are for lol!

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

This looks great. Kudos to making it smaller.

I'm surprised WB's haven't released more official pictures of Henry in full costume yet. Anyone care to guess when something else might surface? Perhaps we'll get a small teaser attached to Sherlock Holmes 2, like the DK ones, where they had dialogue from the movie over the bat symbol. Anything, no matter how small, would likely help to start a buzz for the MOS with the GA.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

But the movie is over 18 months away, it would have made sense to have more stuff out if it were still coming in 2012, but it's not. At the very earliest I'd expect some more publicity around March.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

But the movie is over 18 months away, it would have made sense to have more stuff out if it were still coming in 2012, but it's not. At the very earliest I'd expect some more publicity around March.

I'd be surprised if we didn't see some sort of trailer next summer with the DKR, and that'll be a year away from the release date. Attaching it to the DKR just seems logical imo.

 

[Kurosawa]

It appears to me that you're suffering symptoms relating to an obsessive purist ideology.

The trunks are a meaningless piece of cloth. They are not symbolic, in any form.

As it's been uttered, grow up the **** up.

No, like TTTC said, usually people who want the trunks gone want Superman to kill, want Clark to be the real person, etc, etc. One leads to another.

And since you added a personal insult, welcome to the ignore list.

 

[Laufey]

No, like TTTC said, usually people who want the trunks gone want Superman to kill, want Clark to be the real person, etc, etc. One leads to another.

Which of course is a completely ridicolus thing to say. As many members here have already pointed out, one doesn't have to lead to the other. But you will just keep on ignoring that and keep to your ignorant views on the rest of the fanbase.

 

[DKDetective]

No, like TTTC said, usually people who want the trunks gone want Superman to kill, want Clark to be the real person, etc, etc. One leads to another.

And since you added a personal insult, welcome to the ignore list.

One does not lead to another. Yes, there is correlation but no causation. There is correlation because people who are open-minded about one thing tend to be more open-minded about other things.

Even you have admitted that the probably most criticized aspect of the suit by non-fans is the trunks. People say they look like underwear, they look silly, feminine, etc. I personally don't agree with that. I like the trunks. I think they do a great job of breaking up the blue and giving the suit a sense of balance.

But sadly, we are not normal people. We are a bunch of pop culture/comic book nerds posting on a forum. We know that the trunks are inspired by the apparel of circus strongmen and are meant to convey strength and athleticism. Unfortunately, it can be argued that in mainstream consciousness the trunks no longer have those connotations. To many, they have the opposite visual.

Just because someone doesn't like the trunks, it does not follow that they do not care about the artistic intentions of Siegel and Shuster. Because of the changes in popular culture and fashion since 1938, trunks worn over tights no longer are associated intimately associated with athletic apparel. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion and LOYAL opinion to believe that for Superman's suit to have the visual effect on the audience intended by its creators, their design might need to be modified. The suit is supposed to make Superman look powerful, strong, brave, dashing, etc. That was Siegel and Shuster's intention and purpose in making it look the way it does.

Now, 70 years later, to many, the trunks give the opposite impression. Many fans are justified in arguing that removing the trunks better serve the visual intentions of Siegel and Shuster. It does not mean they don't understand the character. In fact, the arguments Kurosawa gives for keeping the trunks (like the appearance of masculinity) are often the same ones given for getting rid of them. This means that both sides get the character. They think Superman should look dashing, powerful, etc. People just disagree about how best to achieve that in 2011.

 

[moviedoors]

I'd be shocked if we got a trailer before The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[moviedoors]

No, like TTTC said, usually people who want the trunks gone want Superman to kill, want Clark to be the real person, etc, etc. One leads to another.

And since you added a personal insult, welcome to the ignore list.

You call people "sick", you accuse people of not being fans, and you have the gall to act insulted when someone calls you on it and then act all innocent?

 

[ElDuderino]

Trolly troll is trollish.

 

[Krumm]

Ugh, I can't believe this crap is still going on.

Somebody call me when it's over.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

One does not lead to another. Yes, there is correlation but no causation. There is correlation because people who are open-minded about one thing tend to be more open-minded about other things.

Even you have admitted that the probably most criticized aspect of the suit by non-fans is the trunks. People say they look like underwear, they look silly, feminine, etc. I personally don't agree with that. I like the trunks. I think they do a great job of breaking up the blue and giving the suit a sense of balance.

But sadly, we are not normal people. We are a bunch of pop culture/comic book nerds posting on a forum. We know that the trunks are inspired by the apparel of circus strongmen and are meant to convey strength and athleticism. Unfortunately, it can be argued that in mainstream consciousness the trunks no longer have those connotations. To many, they have the opposite visual.

Just because someone doesn't like the trunks, it does not follow that they do not care about the artistic intentions of Siegel and Shuster. Because of the changes in popular culture and fashion since 1938, trunks worn over tights no longer are associated intimately associated with athletic apparel. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion and LOYAL opinion to believe that for Superman's suit to have the visual effect on the audience intended by its creators, their design might need to be modified. The suit is supposed to make Superman look powerful, strong, brave, dashing, etc. That was Siegel and Shuster's intention and purpose in making it look the way it does.

Now, 70 years later, to many, the trunks give the opposite impression. Many fans are justified in arguing that removing the trunks better serve the visual intentions of Siegel and Shuster. It does not mean they don't understand the character. In fact, the arguments Kurosawa gives for keeping the trunks (like the appearance of masculinity) are often the same ones given for getting rid of them. This means that both sides get the character. They think Superman should look dashing, powerful, etc. People just disagree about how best to achieve that in 2011.

I agree with much of this post except for the part where you suggest that liking comics is somehow abnormal. I get what you're saying to an extent, but everyone has unique hobbies they're passionate about. Obviously some are more mainstream than others, but who cares? Mainstream doesn't always equate with good or better. Just look at popular music!
Aside from that, though, great post! You can learn a lot on these message-boards. I, for one, had no idea (until recently) that the trunks were influenced by circus strongmen. It's a good piece of info.

 

[M.O.Steel]

it wasn't so much the trunks themselves, but the entire suit as a whole

 

[Kurosawa]

One does not lead to another. Yes, there is correlation but no causation. There is correlation because people who are open-minded about one thing tend to be more open-minded about other things.

Even you have admitted that the probably most criticized aspect of the suit by non-fans is the trunks. People say they look like underwear, they look silly, feminine, etc. I personally don't agree with that. I like the trunks. I think they do a great job of breaking up the blue and giving the suit a sense of balance.

But sadly, we are not normal people. We are a bunch of pop culture/comic book nerds posting on a forum. We know that the trunks are inspired by the apparel of circus strongmen and are meant to convey strength and athleticism. Unfortunately, it can be argued that in mainstream consciousness the trunks no longer have those connotations. To many, they have the opposite visual.

Just because someone doesn't like the trunks, it does not follow that they do not care about the artistic intentions of Siegel and Shuster. Because of the changes in popular culture and fashion since 1938, trunks worn over tights no longer are associated intimately associated with athletic apparel. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion and LOYAL opinion to believe that for Superman's suit to have the visual effect on the audience intended by its creators, their design might need to be modified. The suit is supposed to make Superman look powerful, strong, brave, dashing, etc. That was Siegel and Shuster's intention and purpose in making it look the way it does.

Now, 70 years later, to many, the trunks give the opposite impression. Many fans are justified in arguing that removing the trunks better serve the visual intentions of Siegel and Shuster. It does not mean they don't understand the character. In fact, the arguments Kurosawa gives for keeping the trunks (like the appearance of masculinity) are often the same ones given for getting rid of them. This means that both sides get the character. They think Superman should look dashing, powerful, etc. People just disagree about how best to achieve that in 2011.

Modifying Superman's costume shows no loyalty to Siegel and Shuster or to Superman. It is an admission that the character is somehow "flawed" and it opens the floodgates for more "corrections" to alleged "flaws".

The trunks are stupid leads to Clark as a disguise is stupid, to Superman not killing is stupid, to the Fortress with the Giant Key is stupid, or Krypto is stupid, Jimmy Olsen's signal watch is stupid, etc, etc. It's an entry point for the deconstruction of Superman. If it wasn't the trunks it would be the cape or the \S/, whatever.

 

[DKDetective]

I agree with much of this post except for the part where you suggest that liking comics is somehow abnormal. I get what you're saying to an extent, but everyone has unique hobbies they're passionate about. Obviously some are more mainstream than others, but who cares? Mainstream doesn't always equate with good or better. Just look at popular music!
Aside from that, though, great post! You can learn a lot on these message-boards. I, for one, had no idea (until recently) that the trunks were influenced by circus strongmen. It's a good piece of info.

Poor choice of words, I didn't mean abnormal at all. I just meant we don't/can't see things the same way as the mainstream audience because we're invested in the characters. Trunks look normal to us because we are used to them as a genre convention. That's all I meant, just that we have different perceptions.

Kurosawa, it is loyal. It is not saying that the costume has flaws. It's just responding to changing fashions, points of reference, and popular culture. Take the example of James Bond. Fleming describes in great detail, Bond's choice of suits and tuxedos. The image of James Bond wearing a tuxedo and carrying a Walther pistol is arguably as iconic as Superman's costume. The purpose of those descriptions is to demonstrate that Bond is a very well-dressed man. It relates to his ability to seduce women as well as his ability to blend into environments populated by the rich and powerful. Is the cut of the suits worn by Bond in the films throughout the years the same as those first described by Fleming! NOOO!!!! Of course not, because a business suit fashionable in the 50s would not be in style in the 70s, nor would a 70s suit be fashionable in the 2000s. Sometimes, things might need to change with the times. You and I may not agree with those on the boards holding that position, but they can be perfectly loyal fans and still hold that position.

 

[Kurosawa]

I didn't mean abnormal at all. I just meant we don't/can't see things the same way as the mainstream audience because we're invested in the characters. Trunks look normal to us because we are used to them as a genre convention. That's all I meant.

Kurosawa, it is loyal. It is not saying that the costume has flaws. It's just responding to changing fashions, points of reference, and popular culture. Take the example of James Bond. Fleming describes in great detail, Bond's choice of suits and tuxedos. The image of James Bond wearing a tuxedo and carrying a Walther pistol is arguably as iconic as Superman's costume. The purpose of those descriptions is to demonstrate that Bond is a very well-dressed man. It relates to his ability to seduce women as well as his ability to blend into environments populated by the rich and powerful. Is the cut of the suits worn by Bond in the films throughout the years the same as those first described by Fleming! NOOO!!!! Of course not, because a business fashionable in the 50s would not be in style in the 70s, nor would a 70s suit be fashionable in the 2000s. Sometimes, things might need to change with the times. You and I may not agree with those on the boards holding that position, but they can be perfectly loyal fans and still hold that position.

But Bond still wears the highest of fashion and travels in elegant circles. It's not like he wears hip-hop clothes and bling. That is what this change to Superman feels like. A change to Bond that would be comparable would be what I described.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Modifying Superman's costume shows no loyalty to Siegel and Shuster or to Superman. It is an admission that the character is somehow "flawed" and it opens the floodgates for more "corrections" to alleged "flaws".

The trunks are stupid leads to Clark as a disguise is stupid, to Superman not killing is stupid, to the Fortress with the Giant Key is stupid, or Krypto is stupid, Jimmy Olsen's signal watch is stupid, etc, etc. It's an entry point for the deconstruction of Superman. If it wasn't the trunks it would be the cape or the \S/, whatever.

You don't have to be loyal to the creator of a character to appreciate his/her work. Consider all the young children around the world who love Superman and know little or nothing of Siegel and Shuster -- at least not yet.

And yes, one thing certainly can lead to another. The thing is.. if it's your vision to change too much about Superman in one way or another, it will ultimately be rejected by the majority of fandom. Whether you're a purist or a modernist, I can't think of any comic book fan who would settle for a Tim Burton/Nick Cage inspired interpretation of Superman. Somewhere there's a limit than unites us all as fans even though we may not agree on everything at times.

 

[moviedoors]

But Bond still wears the highest of fashion and travels in elegant circles. It's not like he wears hip-hop clothes and bling. That is what this change to Superman feels like.

Wow. Talk about hyperbole. He lost some trunks. Still looks a hell of a lot like Superman to me.

 

[DKDetective]

But Bond still wears the highest of fashion and travels in elegant circles. It's not like he wears hip-hop clothes and bling. That is what this change to Superman feels like. A change to Bond that would be comparable would be what I described.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. I can completely understand why you dislike the current changes and think they undermine the suit's design. I'm just saying of all of the suit's elements, the trunks are only one that is based on a very time period specific fashion - the fashion of weightlifters and circus strongmen in the late 1800s and first half of the 20th century. Everything else is truly timeless. It is a reasonable and loyal argument to suggest that the trunks don't serve the same purpose they once did. You don't see modern strength athletes wear them anymore, You are more likely to see them wear monochrome tights or tights with a different visual pattern. I'm just saying there is good reason to argue against the trunks and still be a faithful fan mindful of what Siegel and Shuster intended.

 

[moviedoors]

Kurosawa, it is loyal. It is not saying that the costume has flaws. It's just responding to changing fashions, points of reference, and popular culture. Take the example of James Bond. Fleming describes in great detail, Bond's choice of suits and tuxedos. The image of James Bond wearing a tuxedo and carrying a Walther pistol is arguably as iconic as Superman's costume. The purpose of those descriptions is to demonstrate that Bond is a very well-dressed man.

This is an excellent point. What's more important; why Bond attires himself the way he does, or whether his hair is blonde or brunette?

It's a perfect example of missing the forest for the trees. Is this a character we're concerned with or just the window dressing?

 

[Kurosawa]

You don't have to be loyal to the creator of a character to appreciate his/her work. Consider all the young children around the world who love Superman and know little or nothing of Siegel and Shuster -- at least not yet.

And yes, one thing certainly can lead to another. The thing is.. if it's your vision to change too much about Superman in one way or another, it will ultimately be rejected by the majority of fandom. Whether you're a purist or a modernist, I can't think of any comic book fan who would settle for a Tim Burton/Nick Cage inspired interpretation of Superman. Somewhere there's a limit than unites us all as fans even though we may not agree on everything at times.

Some of the same people who are defending the MOS costume would defend the Burton/Nic Cage version. A certain amount of people will defend movie versions no matter what they change, especially before the movie ever comes out.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. I can completely understand why you dislike the current changes and think they undermine the suit's design. I'm just saying of all of the suit's elements, the trunks are only one that is based on a very time period specific fashion - the fashion of weightlifters and circus strongmen in the late 1800s and first half of the 20th century. Everything else is truly timeless. It is a reasonable and loyal argument to suggest that the trunks don't serve the same purpose they once did. You don't see modern strength athletes wear them anymore, You are more likely to see them wear monochrome tights or tights with a different visual pattern. I'm just saying there is good reason to argue against the trunks and still be a faithful fan mindful of what Siegel and Shuster intended.

I'm pretty sure capes are pretty out-of date by this time. The truth is, none of Superman's costume elements fit "modern" styles. They are timeless. That's why Superman did not look out of date in the 60's, or the 70's, or the 2000's. And he doesn't look dated now, and claims that he does are a fallacy. And by this point, when people see trunks on a costume, they no longer think circus strongman or even pro wrestler. They think superhero, because of Superman. Now the character who sat that trend doesn't even have trunks himself. He has armor, or whatever the MOS costume is with the silly patterns, or blue jeans. NOT EVEN SUPERMAN IS ALLOWED TO LOOK LIKE A SUPERHERO ANYMORE.