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.
Listen to Ep. 1359. Cliff Chiang makes the same comment when talking about WW's trunks.
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.
Listen to Ep. 1359. Cliff Chiang makes the same comment when talking about WW's trunks.
You can ask pretty much any comic book artist who takes the time to study design, and get the same response. I’ve heard it from a lot of guys. In the case of Cliff and the Wonder Woman design, he was mostly talking about the New 52 long black pants making her design bottom-heavy which affects the reading of her figure a little differently than an all-blue Superman. But they both boil down to the same basic principles.
For some characters solid colors work great. I think Batman is a good example. He’s a character who is supposed to blend in with the darkness (except for the bat logo on his chest, which serves to draw fire to the heaviest protected part of his suit). With Batman, though, you can use the cape to express mood and action. You don’t have to rely on the actual figure drawing as much. In fact, you generally want his figure kind of hidden to add that air of mystery around him. Plus the ears of his cowl give him an easily recognizable silhouette.
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.
Listen to Ep. 1359. Cliff Chiang makes the same comment when talking about WW's trunks.
You can ask pretty much any comic book artist who takes the time to study design, and get the same response. I’ve heard it from a lot of guys. In the case of Cliff and the Wonder Woman design, he was mostly talking about the New 52 long black pants making her design bottom-heavy which affects the reading of her figure a little differently than an all-blue Superman. But they both boil down to the same basic principles.
For some characters solid colors work great. I think Batman is a good example. He’s a character who is supposed to blend in with the darkness (except for the bat logo on his chest, which serves to draw fire to the heaviest protected part of his suit). With Batman, though, you can use the cape to express mood and action. You don’t have to rely on the actual figure drawing as much. In fact, you generally want his figure kind of hidden to add that air of mystery around him. Plus the ears of his cowl give him an easily recognizable silhouette.
Batman's a bit of a cheat when it comes to superhero design. You mentioned the ears. Not only do they give the character a recognizable silhouette. They speak to the archetype of people with horns adding a level of supernatural malevolence to the character. He's a wonderfully plastic creation, because in the end if all you have is a silhouette with pointy ears and a scalloped shadow, you've got Batman.
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.
Listen to Ep. 1359. Cliff Chiang makes the same comment when talking about WW's trunks.
You can ask pretty much any comic book artist who takes the time to study design, and get the same response. I’ve heard it from a lot of guys. In the case of Cliff and the Wonder Woman design, he was mostly talking about the New 52 long black pants making her design bottom-heavy which affects the reading of her figure a little differently than an all-blue Superman. But they both boil down to the same basic principles.
For some characters solid colors work great. I think Batman is a good example. He’s a character who is supposed to blend in with the darkness (except for the bat logo on his chest, which serves to draw fire to the heaviest protected part of his suit). With Batman, though, you can use the cape to express mood and action. You don’t have to rely on the actual figure drawing as much. In fact, you generally want his figure kind of hidden to add that air of mystery around him. Plus the ears of his cowl give him an easily recognizable silhouette.
Batman's a bit of a cheat when it comes to superhero design. You mentioned the ears. Not only do they give the character a recognizable silhouette. They speak to the archetype of people with horns adding a level of supernatural malevolence to the character. He's a wonderfully plastic creation, because in the end if all you have is a silhouette with pointy ears and a scalloped shadow, you've got Batman.
Exactly. The cape was played with in the Golden and Silver Ages, but Neal Adams took it to the next level in terms of changing the length and weight of the cape to fit the scene. But we digress.
Trunks or no, he doesn't look like he clanks around when he walks, and he doesn't have the priest collar. This costume is far and away better than what he's wearing in the comics right now, and that's all I really care about in terms of Super-tailoring.
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?
I'm not failing it -- they've simply earned a minus-star this far into the production and they will be counted in my final tally. I may wind up enjoying the main of the film, but that costume is definitely going to take away from any full enjoyment. It's that bad looking.
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?
M
Which one?
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
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?
M
Which one?
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
I concur with the 90s movies when it comes to the suits (I refuse to comment on the 60s series because its not Batman to me), but I think Nolan's series mostly got it right. The original suit from BB with the modified cowl from TDK were great. The modified suit in TDK & TDKR seemed TOO detailed when you got a good look at it. I did like how the modified suit left him more cessible to knives & bullets; so he wasn't invulnerable to those attacks like in the 90s movies.
I'm curious what "traditional" you're referencing. If its a blue & grey color scheme I think that'd take away from the 'dark knight' effect. If its a spandex type suit, well, that'd just look stupid in the live action movies. Stupid, impractical, & cartoonish. Characters like Batman & DareDevil can't wear spandex tights & really be taken seriously. DD can get somewhat of a pass with the leather suit because he has some level of superpowers, but it wouldn't fly for Batman.
As much as you're criticizing Man of Steel with Supes' costume, I think you'd have more people (especially the casual viewer) get turned away from a live action Batman movie featuring a blue & grey spandex suited Dark Knight.
This is my personal breakdown of the trailer. I may have gone a little overboard examining the images, but I was having so much fun I couldn't stop. Maybe the hype machine has gotten to me..........
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?
I'm not failing it -- they've simply earned a minus-star this far into the production and they will be counted in my final tally. I may wind up enjoying the main of the film, but that costume is definitely going to take away from any full enjoyment. It's that bad looking.
Whelp. I guess we're just gonna have to "agree to disagree" on this. The costume from what we know now isn't how I would prefer it. I'd like it better if the colors were more primary. However, after seeing it move around in the trailers, I think I prefer this one to the Superman Returns one with the weird coloring and the weirdly small, 3 dimensional S. But that's not why I didn't like SR and it won't be the reason I do, or don't, like this movie.
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?
M
Which one?
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
I concur with the 90s movies when it comes to the suits (I refuse to comment on the 60s series because its not Batman to me), but I think Nolan's series mostly got it right. The original suit from BB with the modified cowl from TDK were great. The modified suit in TDK & TDKR seemed TOO detailed when you got a good look at it. I did like how the modified suit left him more cessible to knives & bullets; so he wasn't invulnerable to those attacks like in the 90s movies.
I'm curious what "traditional" you're referencing. If its a blue & grey color scheme I think that'd take away from the 'dark knight' effect. If its a spandex type suit, well, that'd just look stupid in the live action movies. Stupid, impractical, & cartoonish. Characters like Batman & DareDevil can't wear spandex tights & really be taken seriously. DD can get somewhat of a pass with the leather suit because he has some level of superpowers, but it wouldn't fly for Batman.
As much as you're criticizing Man of Steel with Supes' costume, I think you'd have more people (especially the casual viewer) get turned away from a live action Batman movie featuring a blue & grey spandex suited Dark Knight.
M
I really like the Nolan Bat-suit,and Matt i agree that this real world take is spot on, and really what they have been saying it is in the comics since the 80's, they have been saying for years the tights look have just been a cipher for kevlar body armor. If there could have been one tweak to the Nolan suit, I think it would have been cool to give it a slightly lighter shade of grey in the body, sort of like a darker looking version of how Batman looks when Jim Lee draws him in Justice league.
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?
M
Which one?
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
I concur with the 90s movies when it comes to the suits (I refuse to comment on the 60s series because its not Batman to me), but I think Nolan's series mostly got it right. The original suit from BB with the modified cowl from TDK were great. The modified suit in TDK & TDKR seemed TOO detailed when you got a good look at it. I did like how the modified suit left him more cessible to knives & bullets; so he wasn't invulnerable to those attacks like in the 90s movies.
I'm curious what "traditional" you're referencing. If its a blue & grey color scheme I think that'd take away from the 'dark knight' effect. If its a spandex type suit, well, that'd just look stupid in the live action movies. Stupid, impractical, & cartoonish. Characters like Batman & DareDevil can't wear spandex tights & really be taken seriously. DD can get somewhat of a pass with the leather suit because he has some level of superpowers, but it wouldn't fly for Batman.
As much as you're criticizing Man of Steel with Supes' costume, I think you'd have more people (especially the casual viewer) get turned away from a live action Batman movie featuring a blue & grey spandex suited Dark Knight.
M
I really like the Nolan Bat-suit,and Matt i agree that this real world take is spot on, and really what they have been saying it is in the comics since the 80's, they have been saying for years the tights look have just been a cipher for kevlar body armor. If there could have been one tweak to the Nolan suit, I think it would have been cool to give it a slightly lighter shade of grey in the body, sort of like a darker looking version of how Batman looks when Jim Lee draws him in Justice league.
I'm a bit more forgiving with the Nolan outfit because the films do take a more realistic edge. But I'm not in favor of this as a general thing because this isn't about real life -- it's an interpretation of a comic book. I can forgive a lot of things when it goes that direction. Frankly, I have far more trouble accepting that Batman can get around wearing so much body armor, let alone be able to move freely enough to swing from a batrope or make ballet-like martial arts moves in a hand-to-hand fight -- I find that taxes credulity to the near-breaking point.
In fact, it has little to do with what looks real and more with what looks believable. I don't find the over-armored Batman to be believable.
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?
M
Which one?
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
I concur with the 90s movies when it comes to the suits (I refuse to comment on the 60s series because its not Batman to me), but I think Nolan's series mostly got it right. The original suit from BB with the modified cowl from TDK were great. The modified suit in TDK & TDKR seemed TOO detailed when you got a good look at it. I did like how the modified suit left him more cessible to knives & bullets; so he wasn't invulnerable to those attacks like in the 90s movies.
I'm curious what "traditional" you're referencing. If its a blue & grey color scheme I think that'd take away from the 'dark knight' effect. If its a spandex type suit, well, that'd just look stupid in the live action movies. Stupid, impractical, & cartoonish. Characters like Batman & DareDevil can't wear spandex tights & really be taken seriously. DD can get somewhat of a pass with the leather suit because he has some level of superpowers, but it wouldn't fly for Batman.
As much as you're criticizing Man of Steel with Supes' costume, I think you'd have more people (especially the casual viewer) get turned away from a live action Batman movie featuring a blue & grey spandex suited Dark Knight.
M
I really like the Nolan Bat-suit,and Matt i agree that this real world take is spot on, and really what they have been saying it is in the comics since the 80's, they have been saying for years the tights look have just been a cipher for kevlar body armor. If there could have been one tweak to the Nolan suit, I think it would have been cool to give it a slightly lighter shade of grey in the body, sort of like a darker looking version of how Batman looks when Jim Lee draws him in Justice league.
I'm a bit more forgiving with the Nolan outfit because the films do take a more realistic edge. But I'm not in favor of this as a general thing because this isn't about real life -- it's an interpretation of a comic book. I can forgive a lot of things when it goes that direction. Frankly, I have far more trouble accepting that Batman can get around wearing so much body armor, let alone be able to move freely enough to swing from a batrope or make ballet-like martial arts moves in a hand-to-hand fight -- I find that taxes credulity to the near-breaking point.
In fact, it has little to do with what looks real and more with what looks believable. I don't find the over-armored Batman to be believable.
I don't know if one of us is misreading the suit. I dont see the suit as a suit of armor like a knight. It also doesnt seem to be that cumbersome. Soldiers, firefighters, & law enforcement all wear some type of protective armor; all can move about with it. Hockey players & football players wear protective equipment and can still move about. Its not too hard to fathom using a high priced ballistic material (not armor) to create protective equipment that allows Batman to move fluidly & not like RoboCop.
I guess I'm pretty forgiving of design changes. I do care about the art, but I feel that is separate from a design change. I was fine with Superman's black S after OWAW. I was fine with electric Superman, liked it even. Because even though his costume and powers changed so dramatically, he was still him. He was still superman, still clark kent, still a journalist. Still did Superman type stuff. I was fine with the New 52 change because I don't see it as the kind of armor that you or I might where in battle, I see it as something he wears thats not gonna get torn to shreds when he's fighting stuff.
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
I guess I'm pretty forgiving of design changes. I do care about the art, but I feel that is separate from a design change. I was fine with Superman's black S after OWAW. I was fine with electric Superman, liked it even. Because even though his costume and powers changed so dramatically, he was still him. He was still superman, still clark kent, still a journalist. Still did Superman type stuff. I was fine with the New 52 change because I don't see it as the kind of armor that you or I might where in battle, I see it as something he wears thats not gonna get torn to shreds when he's fighting stuff.
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
I thought the force field explanation was genius -- and based on true fact (though inflated considerably to make it work for Superman). The old, original explanation of the suit being rewoven from Kryptonian blankets left in the rocket worked fine for decades. They were simple explanations, not meant to be looked at too closely, but still worked well enough to satisfy the curious and not get in the way of a good graphic of bombs bursting off of Superman's chest.
I guess I'm pretty forgiving of design changes. I do care about the art, but I feel that is separate from a design change. I was fine with Superman's black S after OWAW. I was fine with electric Superman, liked it even. Because even though his costume and powers changed so dramatically, he was still him. He was still superman, still clark kent, still a journalist. Still did Superman type stuff. I was fine with the New 52 change because I don't see it as the kind of armor that you or I might where in battle, I see it as something he wears thats not gonna get torn to shreds when he's fighting stuff.
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
I thought the force field explanation was genius -- and based on true fact (though inflated considerably to make it work for Superman). The old, original explanation of the suit being rewoven from Kryptonian blankets left in the rocket worked fine for decades. They were simple explanations, not meant to be looked at too closely, but still worked well enough to satisfy the curious and not get in the way of a good graphic of bombs bursting off of Superman's chest.
Well, why is it being Kryptonian clothing any different that it being Kryptonian blankets?
I guess I'm pretty forgiving of design changes. I do care about the art, but I feel that is separate from a design change. I was fine with Superman's black S after OWAW. I was fine with electric Superman, liked it even. Because even though his costume and powers changed so dramatically, he was still him. He was still superman, still clark kent, still a journalist. Still did Superman type stuff. I was fine with the New 52 change because I don't see it as the kind of armor that you or I might where in battle, I see it as something he wears thats not gonna get torn to shreds when he's fighting stuff.
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
I thought the force field explanation was genius -- and based on true fact (though inflated considerably to make it work for Superman). The old, original explanation of the suit being rewoven from Kryptonian blankets left in the rocket worked fine for decades. They were simple explanations, not meant to be looked at too closely, but still worked well enough to satisfy the curious and not get in the way of a good graphic of bombs bursting off of Superman's chest.
Well, why is it being Kryptonian clothing any different that it being Kryptonian blankets?
Because the old outfit was cloth. Kryptonian cloth, but cloth. The new suit is armor and it looks like armor. Kryptonian armor, but still 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.
M
That's what I said... that there are several reasons why someone would not like Superman, one of them being that they maybe don't "get" comics altogether, but that his briefs alone would not be a legitimate, actual reason someone would have for not liking the character. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason someone would not like him is if they didn't like comics.
You not liking him because he was "unrelateable and soft" is a specific character trait, like what I meant by "boring and wholesome"...
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.
M
Jor El is wearing a cape in the first scene of the trailer. His action figure has a cape, too.
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.
M
Jor El is wearing a cape in the first scene of the trailer. His action figure has a cape, too.
You're right; I rewatch ed the trailer. I thought it was some type of robe or vestments.
I guess I'm pretty forgiving of design changes. I do care about the art, but I feel that is separate from a design change. I was fine with Superman's black S after OWAW. I was fine with electric Superman, liked it even. Because even though his costume and powers changed so dramatically, he was still him. He was still superman, still clark kent, still a journalist. Still did Superman type stuff. I was fine with the New 52 change because I don't see it as the kind of armor that you or I might where in battle, I see it as something he wears thats not gonna get torn to shreds when he's fighting stuff.
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
I thought the force field explanation was genius -- and based on true fact (though inflated considerably to make it work for Superman). The old, original explanation of the suit being rewoven from Kryptonian blankets left in the rocket worked fine for decades. They were simple explanations, not meant to be looked at too closely, but still worked well enough to satisfy the curious and not get in the way of a good graphic of bombs bursting off of Superman's chest.
Well, why is it being Kryptonian clothing any different that it being Kryptonian blankets?
Because the old outfit was cloth. Kryptonian cloth, but cloth. The new suit is armor and it looks like armor. Kryptonian armor, but still armor.
Now I'm really intrigued with this outfit. I would prefer some more red, but I'm willing to footnote that opinion. My intrigue is if there has been any statement made or printed article mentioning this outfit is Kryptonian armor. Rewatching the trailer, it seems to be the same type of material as seen on Kryton.
I really haven't read any Superman in n52 to know if he's wearing Kryptonian armor in the comics. The movie might be modeled to look like the new design, but I'm not convinced its armor.
Plus, for all we know Kryptonian material originally used in comics is like a steel weave. Maybe its difficult to handle, cut, & sew...like an armor!
I am curious, @chuck_melville, if the red trunks area were on the suit in the movie, does the movie gain that star back?
I don't think it's armor. It's clearly not armor in real life because the actor is wearing skin tight clothing. It's textured. It ain't armor. I also don't think we've been given any indication by the production that its armor. Zod is wearing armor. Superman is not.
I don't think it's armor. It's clearly not armor in real life because the actor is wearing skin tight clothing. It's textured. It ain't armor. I also don't think we've been given any indication by the production that its armor. Zod is wearing armor. Superman is not.
To be honest, I can't tell what the movie outfit is made out of, as most of the images I've seen have been either fleeting or dark, but the outfit appears to have a metallic-like sheen. It looks like it could be some kind of armor, but it might be plastic or rubber instead. It doesn't look like cloth.
Now I'm really intrigued with this outfit. I would prefer some more red, but I'm willing to footnote that opinion. My intrigue is if there has been any statement made or printed article mentioning this outfit is Kryptonian armor. Rewatching the trailer, it seems to be the same type of material as seen on Kryton.
I really haven't read any Superman in n52 to know if he's wearing Kryptonian armor in the comics. The movie might be modeled to look like the new design, but I'm not convinced its armor.
The Morrison stories in Action Comics establish that it is, in fact, armor -- it's a variation of the Kryptonian battle-mechs we've seen in the past, but modified in concept by Morrison. I'll admit that I can't tell if the movie version is also armor or not, though it appears to follow the general design.
Comments
For some characters solid colors work great. I think Batman is a good example. He’s a character who is supposed to blend in with the darkness (except for the bat logo on his chest, which serves to draw fire to the heaviest protected part of his suit). With Batman, though, you can use the cape to express mood and action. You don’t have to rely on the actual figure drawing as much. In fact, you generally want his figure kind of hidden to add that air of mystery around him. Plus the ears of his cowl give him an easily recognizable silhouette.
Never mind, I'll answer that: the majority of them are terrible, either in design or in execution, and most are off-model. I've seen all of the Batman movies, including the original serials, and the only one that gets the costume perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) is the first Michael Keaton film. Before that, the costumes looked pretty shoddy -- Adam West's wasn't quite as bad as that, but the cowl, with it's short ears and painted-on eyebrows, looked very cartoonish. (Surprisingly, it was the worst outfit of the entire TV series, as everybody else's outfits and make-up was absolutely spot-on and convincing.) After the Keaton film it just seemed like nobody could leave the outfit alone, adding on layers of plastic armor, noodling the design -- giving it nipples, for God's sake! -- modifying instead of adhering to the basic designs of the comics. I, for one, think they went overboard with the body armor. The films always seem to have some sort of mandate to change the outfit to make it more 'unique' to the film -- personally, I think they suffer from the 'engineer syndrome' once described by Star Trek's Dr McCoy: they just love to change things.
Now the Nolan films aren't perfect either in terms of the costume, but I'm far more forgiving there. The costume is still more body armor than I like to see, but, given the thematic feel of the films, it feels right for the trilogy. Within the context of the films, it works. Still, I would have been much happier to see the traditional outfit, sans armor.
I'm curious what "traditional" you're referencing. If its a blue & grey color scheme I think that'd take away from the 'dark knight' effect. If its a spandex type suit, well, that'd just look stupid in the live action movies. Stupid, impractical, & cartoonish. Characters like Batman & DareDevil can't wear spandex tights & really be taken seriously. DD can get somewhat of a pass with the leather suit because he has some level of superpowers, but it wouldn't fly for Batman.
As much as you're criticizing Man of Steel with Supes' costume, I think you'd have more people (especially the casual viewer) get turned away from a live action Batman movie featuring a blue & grey spandex suited Dark Knight.
M
This is my personal breakdown of the trailer. I may have gone a little overboard examining the images, but I was having so much fun I couldn't stop. Maybe the hype machine has gotten to me..........
I really like the Nolan Bat-suit,and Matt i agree that this real world take is spot on, and really what they have been saying it is in the comics since the 80's, they have been saying for years the tights look have just been a cipher for kevlar body armor. If there could have been one tweak to the Nolan suit, I think it would have been cool to give it a slightly lighter shade of grey in the body, sort of like a darker looking version of how Batman looks when Jim Lee draws him in Justice league.
In fact, it has little to do with what looks real and more with what looks believable. I don't find the over-armored Batman to be believable.
M
Looks like superman to me....
I don't think it makes him any stronger, I just think its something he wears thats durable. I mean, he's flown through explosions or suns, or outer space... how would any normal clothing survive that? Of course there use to be some kind of explanation that his body gave off a force field, but I always found that very distracting.
At least it doesn't have the Priest's collar. And, I like that the cape tucks into the shirt.
... waitaminit.
You not liking him because he was "unrelateable and soft" is a specific character trait, like what I meant by "boring and wholesome"...
M
I really haven't read any Superman in n52 to know if he's wearing Kryptonian armor in the comics. The movie might be modeled to look like the new design, but I'm not convinced its armor.
Plus, for all we know Kryptonian material originally used in comics is like a steel weave. Maybe its difficult to handle, cut, & sew...like an armor!
I am curious, @chuck_melville, if the red trunks area were on the suit in the movie, does the movie gain that star back?
M