My 4 year old has seen Avengers (I sat with her, explained what was happening and we watched it together). Her favorite scene is the Hulk smashing Loki.
I'm quite sure if the movie is really good nobody will give a shit about the costume.
My 4 year old has seen Avengers (I sat with her, explained what was happening and we watched it together). Her favorite scene is the Hulk smashing Loki.
I'm quite sure if the movie is really good nobody will give a shit about the costume.
Oh, I guarantee that I will, no matter how good the movie may prove to be.
My 4 year old has seen Avengers (I sat with her, explained what was happening and we watched it together). Her favorite scene is the Hulk smashing Loki.
I'm quite sure if the movie is really good nobody will give a shit about the costume.
I think you're right. Even though I prefer the red trunks-like portion be on the costume, THAT will not stop me from seeing the movie. On the same token, if the biggest criticism I can muster or what defines why I think the movie sucks is that the costume isn't old school style, then I am really only nitpicking to nitpick.
I think the Dark Knight Trilogy is the best film version of Batman. I can find faults with each movie and the theme throughout the trilogy, but they are mostly only nitpicks.
"I gotta give Superman thumbs down due to lack of red underwear outside his pants." Could you imagine?
Joe Shmoe of THIS NEWSPAPER gave Man of Steel 1/2star out of four, citing: "the effects and story were amazing. Nolan's team gives us a new take on the character that stands on its own, but" he continues "I couldn't get past the missing red in the Superman costume. The lack of crimson distracted me to the point I could not enjoy the movie...ANY of it."
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well. Most importantly though, I love that it looks like they are taking it seriously, and not hamming it up, or making slapstick like jokes. Looks epic, everything down to the music has me so amped to see this
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
Damn man. That's a harsh rule. So you're basically saying it has to be a 4 star movie just to earn 3 stars in your book?
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
Damn man. That's a harsh rule. So you're basically saying it has to be a 4 star movie just to earn 3 stars in your book?
I was thinking the same. Like having a no farting tolerance.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well.
Yeah, and it makes no sense there either. The idea of Superman wearing armor, Kryptonian or not, is just stupid, as well as missing the point: he's Superman! He shouldn't need any frickin' armor! I'd be a Superman too if I were wearing Kryptonian armor!
I'm 44 and grew up in suburban South Jersey. I am a middle class, Breakfast Club , white guy and I listened to Paul Harvey on syndicated radio every day. The Rest of the Story and his news reports also. I get that Matt who is probably at least 10 years younger does not know him but I disagree with the notion that he is not a national figure. He may not be important or even relevant but he was bigger than just a "fly over" country spokesman. Now you know the rest of the story........
Flyover Country is the nation!
For Superman, the entire world is "flyover country". :)
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
Damn man. That's a harsh rule. So you're basically saying it has to be a 4 star movie just to earn 3 stars in your book?
Yes.
If it wants 4 stars, then it's going to have to be a mind-blowing blockbuster five-star movie to make us all forget the first two Christopher Reeves films and last year's Avengers.
And back to the Underwear, I think the underwear is iconic and they shouldn't change that, but the young audience, who didn't grow up with Superman I and II (I didn't) just think it's silly and dumb and to be honest, many people I talk to don't like Superman just because of the underwear.
For some reason, I don't think there are THAT many people who dislike Superman "just because of the underwear". I don't know who these people are you're talking to, but do they have any other odd quirks about them in common? Any of them wearing tin foil as headwear, or have a fear of pickles?
I think those who do not like Superman are more likely to not like super hero comics in general, or maybe find him too boring or wholesome. Or maybe don't like comics at all.
But don't like him because of one element of his costume? Don't buy it. Sorry.
What is it with that damn costume? Yeah it's not the iconic Superman costume you love, at least not exactly, but a costume like this is hard enough to pull off, put in the underwear and it really looks silly espacially if they're going for a more serious tone with this.
In my opinion, there was nothing out of place looking with the Christopher Reeve costume. As a matter of fact, I see it as "correct", and Snyders suit looks goofier, like a unitard, or footy pajamas. Needs a belt, at least.
Don't get me wrong... I don't mind the Snyder costume... it's maybe a little better than the Nu52 version.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well.
Yeah, and it makes no sense there either. The idea of Superman wearing armor, Kryptonian or not, is just stupid, as well as missing the point: he's Superman! He shouldn't need any frickin' armor! I'd be a Superman too if I were wearing Kryptonian armor!
And back to the Underwear, I think the underwear is iconic and they shouldn't change that, but the young audience, who didn't grow up with Superman I and II (I didn't) just think it's silly and dumb and to be honest, many people I talk to don't like Superman just because of the underwear.
For some reason, I don't think there are THAT many people who dislike Superman "just because of the underwear". I don't know who these people are you're talking to, but do they have any other odd quirks about them in common? Any of them wearing tin foil as headwear, or have a fear of pickles?
I think those who do not like Superman are more likely to not like super hero comics in general, or maybe find him too boring or wholesome. Or maybe don't like comics at all.
I think that's a little extreme. Like saying "if you don't like Manga, you don't like comics." Supes was never one of my favorites; seemed too unrelatable & 'soft.' That doesn't mean I don't like comics though.
I can't speak for the new52, but I don't see the movie's costume as an armor. It looks like its modeled off of Krypton's attire (a restrained Zod seems to have something similar), with the symbol for hope. Since none of the Krypton scenes have people with capes, maybe that's based on something the Kents gave him when he was growing up (reference the scene in the yard.) Just another perspective.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well.
Yeah, and it makes no sense there either. The idea of Superman wearing armor, Kryptonian or not, is just stupid, as well as missing the point: he's Superman! He shouldn't need any frickin' armor! I'd be a Superman too if I were wearing Kryptonian armor!
Ok point taken, but I think it does make sense. Normal clothes would rip off of him due to the intense battles and feats he does as superman (as shown in action comics by Grant Morrison). It also makes sense that Kryptonians would have armor because on Krypton, they are not "super," and superman wearing that sort of clothing is him embracing his culture. (I love the fact that the s shield means hope). What makes no sense whatsoever is in modern day a dude who is a hero wearing spandex tights with red underwear over his pants. I mean we all understand why they changed that right? same reason they changed the costumes for Avengers, and Batman, and every other iconic hero in movies. IDK, i guess I just expect them to make changes like this, and as long as it looks cool, I have no beef with it
I think those who do not like Superman are more likely to not like super hero comics in general, or maybe find him too boring or wholesome. Or maybe don't like comics at all.
There have been a lot of bad Superman comics over the years, so I don't fault anyone for not liking the character. I remember as a kid occasionally picking up a Superman title, but never coming back the next month for more. But I would buy Batman, Fantastic Four, New Teen Titans, Avengers, etc month after month.
just to clarify, I am not trying to start a new vs old argument. I am just really really pumped for this movie, and want to throw some positive support its way
There is nothing wrong with the costume. I love the classic costume as it just reminds me of my youth and the original movie and there is something iconic about it. Having said that, I like the new costume as well. Why can't it be armor? Someone said that on Krypton, they aren't super people so why wouldn't they have armor? Considering in the old 52 how often Superman's iconic costume would get ripped, maybe the armor would take care of that. The colors are still there. The look for the most part is still there. The iconic "S" is still there. It's still Superman.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well.
Yeah, and it makes no sense there either. The idea of Superman wearing armor, Kryptonian or not, is just stupid, as well as missing the point: he's Superman! He shouldn't need any frickin' armor! I'd be a Superman too if I were wearing Kryptonian armor!
Ok point taken, but I think it does make sense. Normal clothes would rip off of him due to the intense battles and feats he does as superman (as shown in action comics by Grant Morrison). It also makes sense that Kryptonians would have armor because on Krypton, they are not "super," and superman wearing that sort of clothing is him embracing his culture. (I love the fact that the s shield means hope). What makes no sense whatsoever is in modern day a dude who is a hero wearing spandex tights with red underwear over his pants. I mean we all understand why they changed that right? same reason they changed the costumes for Avengers, and Batman, and every other iconic hero in movies. IDK, i guess I just expect them to make changes like this, and as long as it looks cool, I have no beef with it
And I think the backstory is getting in the way of the iconic symbology. His connection to his past (the reason for his adopting their fashion in choosing his costume) shouldn't be that important. The idea is that he look like a Superman, not a futuristic knight. I just don't believe he's all that super when I look at him in that suit. As fragile and as common-looking as the homemade outfit was that he wore in the early issues of Grant Morrison's run, I thought the t-shirt, jeans and work boots were a much better costume -- because he looked like an Everyman, and when he leapt tall buildings or outran speeding automobiles, he looked fantastic. Put him in the suit that he wore for nearly three-quarters of a century and he looked iconic.
Put him in armor, and he's lying.
(And, for the record, I hate any time they change or modify costumes for the movies -- especially Batman's.)
(I'll modify that comment a hair -- some modifications in the costumes are necessary to make them work, but all too often they go beyond that and just change them for change's sake, and I hate that.)
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
Damn man. That's a harsh rule. So you're basically saying it has to be a 4 star movie just to earn 3 stars in your book?
Yes.
If it wants 4 stars, then it's going to have to be a mind-blowing blockbuster five-star movie to make us all forget the first two Christopher Reeves films and last year's Avengers.
That costume is a major downer right off the bat.
So, you're basically failing it already. I understand being cautious. I think that's what I'm trying to do based on how unhappy I was with Superman Returns. But I'm not starting it off in the negative column, I'm just trying to not get my hopes up. Like, I'm sure there are some people who have already given this essentially a +1 star because they like Superman or comic book movies. I'm definitely not doing that.
If it comes out, and a week or two goes by and you hear its really, really good, are you gonna moderate you're position on the costume at all? Or do you think you'll still feel that strongly?
There’s a reason Superman (and so many other superheroes) had trunks on the outside of his costume that goes beyond the circus strongman visual reference, and beyond any issue of modesty, and that is that it helps the reader’s eye more easily identify the figure of Superman and what action he is performing. Because the red breaks the flow of the blue costume, we are more easily able to register the 2-D image in our minds, allowing the artists more flexibility in creating readable poses, especially in smaller panels. The trunks provide our brains with a visual cue. By removing the trunks from their heroes, DC has effectively hurt their ability to tell stories, albeit in a relatively minor way.
I think that holds true to a lesser extent with movies shot on film as well. I don’t think the Christopher Reeve Superman would have looked nearly as good on camera without the red trunks. But in today’s HD digital movie-making world, I don’t know that it makes nearly as much difference from a purely technical standpoint. For the new film, it seems to be mostly down to an aesthetic preference. I prefer the trunks myself, but I’m not going to get bent out of shape with them leaving them out in this case. And personally I wouldn’t bother explaining the costume. All the audience needs to know is that the S shield represents his Kryptonian family and heritage. Anything more is extraneous and distracting unless it plays a specific, necessary role in the story.
OK straight up, this looks like it has the potential to be the best comic book movie ever made. The suit looks great too, i don't get what some people are complaining about. Yes, its different, but its modern and it looks like bad ass alien armor, which totally makes sense if its a battle suit from Krypton. An idea that is being used in the comics right now as well.
Yeah, and it makes no sense there either. The idea of Superman wearing armor, Kryptonian or not, is just stupid, as well as missing the point: he's Superman! He shouldn't need any frickin' armor! I'd be a Superman too if I were wearing Kryptonian armor!
Ok point taken, but I think it does make sense. Normal clothes would rip off of him due to the intense battles and feats he does as superman (as shown in action comics by Grant Morrison). It also makes sense that Kryptonians would have armor because on Krypton, they are not "super," and superman wearing that sort of clothing is him embracing his culture. (I love the fact that the s shield means hope). What makes no sense whatsoever is in modern day a dude who is a hero wearing spandex tights with red underwear over his pants. I mean we all understand why they changed that right? same reason they changed the costumes for Avengers, and Batman, and every other iconic hero in movies. IDK, i guess I just expect them to make changes like this, and as long as it looks cool, I have no beef with it
And I think the backstory is getting in the way of the iconic symbology. His connection to his past (the reason for his adopting their fashion in choosing his costume) shouldn't be that important. The idea is that he look like a Superman, not a futuristic knight. I just don't believe he's all that super when I look at him in that suit. As fragile and as common-looking as the homemade outfit was that he wore in the early issues of Grant Morrison's run, I thought the t-shirt, jeans and work boots were a much better costume -- because he looked like an Everyman, and when he leapt tall buildings or outran speeding automobiles, he looked fantastic. Put him in the suit that he wore for nearly three-quarters of a century and he looked iconic.
Put him in armor, and he's lying.
(And, for the record, I hate any time they change or modify costumes for the movies -- especially Batman's.)
(I'll modify that comment a hair -- some modifications in the costumes are necessary to make them work, but all too often they go beyond that and just change them for change's sake, and I hate that.)
You've peaked my interest here; what's wrong with the movie version of Batman's outfit?
So far as I'm concerned, based on a four-star rating system, the movie already gets a demerit of one star for not using the traditional Superman outfit, so it had better be a damn good movie overall to overcome that deficiency.
Damn man. That's a harsh rule. So you're basically saying it has to be a 4 star movie just to earn 3 stars in your book?
Yes.
If it wants 4 stars, then it's going to have to be a mind-blowing blockbuster five-star movie to make us all forget the first two Christopher Reeves films and last year's Avengers.
That costume is a major downer right off the bat.
That makes no sense. You can enjoy this movie, the Chris Reeves Superman movies and Avengers. Liking one doesn't detract from the others.
Comments
I'm quite sure if the movie is really good nobody will give a shit about the costume.
I think the Dark Knight Trilogy is the best film version of Batman. I can find faults with each movie and the theme throughout the trilogy, but they are mostly only nitpicks.
M
Could you imagine?
M
M
:)
If it wants 4 stars, then it's going to have to be a mind-blowing blockbuster five-star movie to make us all forget the first two Christopher Reeves films and last year's Avengers.
That costume is a major downer right off the bat.
I think those who do not like Superman are more likely to not like super hero comics in general, or maybe find him too boring or wholesome. Or maybe don't like comics at all.
But don't like him because of one element of his costume? Don't buy it. Sorry. In my opinion, there was nothing out of place looking with the Christopher Reeve costume. As a matter of fact, I see it as "correct", and Snyders suit looks goofier, like a unitard, or footy pajamas. Needs a belt, at least.
Don't get me wrong... I don't mind the Snyder costume... it's maybe a little better than the Nu52 version.
=D> =D> =D>
I can't speak for the new52, but I don't see the movie's costume as an armor. It looks like its modeled off of Krypton's attire (a restrained Zod seems to have something similar), with the symbol for hope. Since none of the Krypton scenes have people with capes, maybe that's based on something the Kents gave him when he was growing up (reference the scene in the yard.) Just another perspective.
M
Ok point taken, but I think it does make sense. Normal clothes would rip off of him due to the intense battles and feats he does as superman (as shown in action comics by Grant Morrison). It also makes sense that Kryptonians would have armor because on Krypton, they are not "super," and superman wearing that sort of clothing is him embracing his culture. (I love the fact that the s shield means hope). What makes no sense whatsoever is in modern day a dude who is a hero wearing spandex tights with red underwear over his pants. I mean we all understand why they changed that right? same reason they changed the costumes for Avengers, and Batman, and every other iconic hero in movies. IDK, i guess I just expect them to make changes like this, and as long as it looks cool, I have no beef with it
Put him in armor, and he's lying.
(And, for the record, I hate any time they change or modify costumes for the movies -- especially Batman's.)
(I'll modify that comment a hair -- some modifications in the costumes are necessary to make them work, but all too often they go beyond that and just change them for change's sake, and I hate that.)
If it comes out, and a week or two goes by and you hear its really, really good, are you gonna moderate you're position on the costume at all? Or do you think you'll still feel that strongly?
I think that holds true to a lesser extent with movies shot on film as well. I don’t think the Christopher Reeve Superman would have looked nearly as good on camera without the red trunks. But in today’s HD digital movie-making world, I don’t know that it makes nearly as much difference from a purely technical standpoint. For the new film, it seems to be mostly down to an aesthetic preference. I prefer the trunks myself, but I’m not going to get bent out of shape with them leaving them out in this case. And personally I wouldn’t bother explaining the costume. All the audience needs to know is that the S shield represents his Kryptonian family and heritage. Anything more is extraneous and distracting unless it plays a specific, necessary role in the story.
M
Not.
Undies.