The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 21

[The Morningstar]

No not wrong ideas. Ideas that don't match up with what you like.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

No not wrong ideas. Ideas that don't match up with what you like.

In 1986 Superman was turned into a completely new character. Fact.

Stop the relativism ****, that each take is equally valid.

 

[KyleDW2]

My arguments are totally valid, as unlike the people who want to change Superman, I actually know what I'm talking about. I don't debate stuff like GI Joe or Transformers because I am not into them and know next to nothing about them. But I've read Superman comics since 1973, and I've studied the character and his history and read plenty of Superman stories from all eras. the real costume worked for 70 years, now suddenly it's not good enough.

Okay, let's talk about this. I was an 80's kid. I grew up loving Transformers and G.I. Joe and post-Crisis Superman and all that stuff. I can talk about Transformers. I know both the cartoon and comic continuity frontwards and backwards. And you know what? I would never be so insufferable a fan as to demand that Transformers never changes from what it originally started as. Let's talk about the designs, since this is the costume thread and that part of the discussion is relevant. Optimus Prime is almost as iconic to kids from the 80's as Superman was to earlier generations. He is always the big, boxy tractor trailer...

Except when he is a gorilla. Or a fire truck. Or a flying firetruck. Or a long nose with flames. Or a younger, more stylized version of himself. Or a long nose without flames. And he isn't very boxy. Or he is super boxy in design. Or he is covered in fur, because he is a freaking gorilla.

You know why I can accept that Optimus Prime can have different designs? Because its the same reason that I don't mind if Megatron is a gun, or a tank, or a T-Rex, or a giant mechanical dragon, or an alien space ship. Or a giant alien race car. Or a giant alien tank. Or a tractor trailer. Or a helicopter. Its because I recognize that the concept of Transformers is inherently silly. There is no logical reason for giant alien robots to want to turn into vehicles on Earth. None. But its a cool, if silly, story that was primarily written for young children. So when people try to bring it back and, more importantly, reach a wider audience than young children, they give it a new spin to attract new people to it, people who don't just go along with the silliness because of nostalgia or their young age. That's why the characters keep on getting face lifts. They're trying to find the right balance between silly and cool.

Megatron can't be a gun, so he's a tank now. Optimus Prime might work better as a fire truck. And Superman has no reason to wear red trunks on the outside of his pants if he were to create the Superman persona in the summer of 2007 as is the current continuity in the comics, or in recent years according to the movie. But he still needs the flashy red and blue costume, so we give him alien armor or clothing or whatever. And like I said, I'm okay with that. Because it allows Superman to continue on in a new generation where people don't have the same tastes as young children did in the 30's and 40's. I'd rather see a few well done tweaks done to a character I like than hold onto him, clutching and screaming and crying that change is bad while he sinks beneath the water like a dying Leonardo DiCaprio who is rethinking the direction his love life has taken him.

 

[KyleDW2]

In 1986 Superman was turned into a completely new character. Opinion.

I changed that so you don't sound like an egotistical fanatic or anything. You know, just wanting to help.

 

[KyleDW2]

As I've said over and over, what's done is done and I've accepted it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it, and I have my right to say that I think it sucks and explain exactly why I think it sucks. It's not my fault that people respond to my reasoning with insults because admitting that I could be right upsets them.

But your not just saying your opinion. You are saying your opinion and then decrying everyone who dares to disagree with you, insinuating that only those who share your opinions are true fans of the character and that only you know what the right thing to do with Superman is.

Here, let's try an experiment. I am going to say something, then you tell me how you feel about it. Ready?

The only valid version of Superman is the one from 1986 to 2011. Anyone who disagrees with that doesn't understand the character and is spitting on those that truly made him great.

Now, how does that make you feel? If you become perturbed, insulted, even a little big angry, congratulations, you now have empathy for those on the other side of every argument you have ever conducted here. Because there is a difference between saying, "I like X," and, "I like X, and if you like Y then you are wrong and your opinions are horrid and I am now going to lecture you like the petulant child you are."

 

[The Morningstar]

In 1986 Superman was turned into a completely new character. Fact.

Stop the relativism ****, that each take is equally valid.

Each take is equally valid. Just because you and Kuro prefer the "pulls powers out his ass to convenience the plot" Silver Age Superman, doesn't mean that is the only take on Superman that is accurate or true to the character.

You guys prefer that take, that's cool. But don't pull this "the version i like is the only true version" ********.

Yes Supes was changed in 86. Good. Silver Age Superman wasn't even a character, he was a deus ex machina who ****ing sneezed solar systems out of existence and pulled chains of planets through space at 10000000 xFTL speeds. There is a reason the Crisis happened.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

No, he is right since the Iron Age Superman was built on a very rotten ground and sadly enough this rot still creeps in from time to time today. Superman's image has been destroyed forever, people have been polluted with wrong ideas about him since 1986.

The more and more I read fantatical opinions like this, the more I want to ask -

What would you want from a Superman film? What would make you happy? And why can't MOS surprise you and deliver those things?

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Hmmmmmm
I guess I should read Crisis on Infinite Earths to see what went on...

 

[KyleDW2]

Hmmmmmm
I guess I should read Crisis on Infinite Earths to see what went on...

I'll save you some trouble. The entire universe exploded. Then it didn't. Then Lex Luthor is a business man for some reason and Supergirl and Brainiac never existed, even though their presence is kinda needed for the entire thing to happen. But its still kinda awesome. The end.

 

[The Shield]

Wow... are there really 21 parts to this thread??!!

 

[Dr.]

Indulge a brief tangent…

In the area of the philosophy of art, there is something called the “intentional fallacy.” This is the notion (rejected as false – or at least problematic) that the artist’s intentions (or, more broadly, her personal details) are relevant to how her work should be interpreted and evaluated.

In the case of older works, we often have little information about the author. In other situations, the author may be oblivious to his/her own motivations. Or, s/he may choose not to self-analyze (JD Salinger was a notorious recluse who never gave interviews). Or, s/he may be self-deceived. (The German filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, insisted to her dying day (age 101!) that she was not a Nazi propagandist. But those who have studied her films have a very different opinion.) Bottom line: the work speaks (and should speak) for itself. The other details are for biographers to ponder over.

…

The same applies to Superman. The stories are what count. Present them to an audience and let them stand or fall on their own merits. Maybe the very early S&S output seems like it’s the purest. On the other hand, perhaps the Silver Age is where the mythos hit its stride. Or it could be that the more “mature” contemporary era is where Supes’ innate potential flourishes best. These are judgments – but they properly come down to the actual stories. The fallacy is that expertise on S&S or the mythological antecedents of superheroes or the early history of comic books or the backroom politics at DC in the 80s is a prerequisite to understanding and appreciating the stories. None of that is relevant.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

If Superman had just been invented today, would there be trunks on the costume?

 

[Majik1387]

Nope.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

If Superman had just been invented today, would there be trunks on the costume?

No there wouldn't, but not because people necessarily think them silly.

It is because people generally no longer think of circus strongmen or wrestlers when wanting to depict a powerful person and I would also imagine that in the late 30's there was very much less technology and imagery to pull from than there is today.

But no matter what is said, I still think the trunks served as a great way to break up that ocean of blue. The new suit is really good as it is, but it could have been fantastic with some form of trunks.

 

[Crazymaverick]

...or just some red in the middle to break things up.

 

[Crazymaverick]

Case in point:

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

^
Yeah slightly better, but I think more is needed.

 

[solidsnake86]

Not that I care about the debate about the briefs or no briefs, but why is there a double standard with heroes that basically have a one piece suit like fantastic 4 versus the new superman costume. Those costumes work just fine and I think the new costumes work as well.

I think it will stick this time because it was a company wide change.

 

[Dr.]

Not that I care about the debate about the briefs or no briefs, but why is there a double standard with heroes that basically have a one piece suit like fantastic 4 versus the new superman costume. Those costumes work just fine and I think the new costumes work as well.

Indeed. The clear evidence is that a number of other superheroes sport the "trunks-less look" - and it's not considered laughable or in any way a denigration of the characters. It's extremely difficult, therefore, to claim that the new Supes costume is violating some universal fashion or genre principle.

The best argument for the trunks, I think, is preservation of tradition. The others just don't stand scrutiny.

 

[Lily Adler]

I think it's about time we have this thread closed until we get some news about other costumes (i.e. Zod's armor). It's truly just become the rant thread.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I think it's about time we have this thread closed until we get some news about other costumes (i.e. Zod's armor). It's truly just become the rant thread.

Agreed.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Enough time has passed and (hopefully) heads cooled down to re-open this thread. I don't care what was said, went down, etc. before. All about from here and onwards.

If you can't debate without getting personal with name-calling, eye-rolls without saying anything, posting immature pictures and the such, then don't say anything at all. If not, infractions will be handed out and butts will sit in the sidelines for time out (i.e. probation).

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Are there any pics of Zod's crest yet?

 

[camp Blood]

good question

I came up with this a while ago

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

To kind of put a little twist on what SuperMike has said, what if a trunkless Superman was the original Superman back in 1938 and the suit for MOS had trunks included, would people be all up in arms like they are with today's version of Superman? Which I think, for the most part, the current MOS suit is accepted by most.