I just happened to run across some photos of the new Superman, Henry Cavill, and it looks like, once again, the comics are making the bad decision to follow the lead of a super-hero movie in changing their characters. At least, I see a few similarities between the movie costume and the new Superman suit that's been making the rounds, and I doubt the movie is picking up the influence from the comics.
And, as usual, I'm not sure the movies understand what they're doing. They seem to realize they can't mess with the blue and the emblem, but otherwise, they hate, hate, hate those red trunks, so they're gone, and they're going to make him a little cooler by dulling down that primary blue into almost a navy blue-ish.
But the WHOLE POINT of the costume is to be bright and almost gaudy, to attract attention and let citizens and criminals know he's there--the complete opposite of Batman! Once again, they keep trying to improve on Christopher Reeve, and they keep failing miserably. At least, IMHO.
-- MSA
Replies
I have no problem with this Henry Cavill. He does look the part and is ruggedly good-looking. I saw other pictures and I thought he had red trunks but now I'm not so sure! They could have put red patches or stripes or expanded the belt to break up the blue. Funny that the trunks are deemed cliched but not the admittedly cool yet also-admittedly useless cape! And if it is a one piece bodysuit, why have a belt at all?!
I'm sure now that altering the Superman image for the new movie and the comics is a result of the Siegel family court ruling! There is no other plausible explaination!
That's why the trunks work; they break up that onesie look, which is made dumber by adding a belt that holds up nothing.
Gil Kane didn't like trunks or the top/bottom look, and he avoided it with both The Atom and GL (as did Infantino with The Flash, but that was fairly organic due to Flash's sleek/fast style). But without them, a one-color costume like Superman's is pretty boring. Without that central, balancing red, red boots look kind of strange; but if they're blue, it's too much. That's why the comics add that useless belt as a visual balance.
I'm not sure it's based on the SIegel suit; a better explanation (to me) is to make it so this Superman is "not your father's Superman!" which is always the goal with every change they make to older characters. They live in fear that young guys (as if there were any young guys reading comics) won't think the heroes are hip and now.
The trunks are SO 20th century, so they gotta go, even though they are iconic and make a decent visual image. It doesn't seem to matter that it isn't better, it's enough that it's different.
I think he makes a pretty good-looking Superman, too, albeit a drab one in that toned-down costume. Whether he can pull off the personality and the Kent dichotomy will depend on how he acts, so we'll have to see. I'm crossing my fingers, but when I see photos like this, I have my doubts.
-- MSA
They have altered Batman's costume before as well as Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Green Lantern's. When they gave Tim Drake a new Robin outfit in the 90s, I was shocked! Pleased but shocked! But besides that one, which has been changed several times, the rest always reverted back to their classic look, more or less.
Even Superman sported a couple of alternate outfits: the Black suit, the Man of Energy phase (Blue AND Red), the Krypton Man, but it never lasted long. Now we have to wait and see....
Here's another look at the costume in a side view, showing more of that *wonderful* leg decoration:
I would guess the guy in the picture is wearing some kind of motion-capture outfit. I sure hope so. They can certainly alter the proportionate height of people around him if they want to keep him majestic in size. I agree that he should be the tallest of the super-heroes; it's a visual cue.
Alex Ross always makes Barry Allen the shortest, which I also have no problem with. Certainly, they should show them at different heights, and it would be ideal if they were consistent. WW's height in particular seems to vary, because she's a majestic super-hero but she's also, well, a girl.
-- MSA
Why does the costume have to have decorations? Being the strongest man on Earth should be flashy enough without the bells and whistles!
In the comics, the costume wasn't spandex or armor. It was cloth, Kryptonian cloth, just as indestructible as the Man of Steel. Why can't it look like "normal" fabric? It's not really protecting him anyway!
I much prefer the movie costume to the Jim Lee one. I'm a fan of the the traditional costume but the movie version doesn't really bother me. I think the actor looks terrific in it.
I think the colourist of the "How Superman would win the war" story from Look Magazine thought Superman's legs were bare. Presumably he drew the wrong conclusion from the trunks.
I'm actually with Mr. SA on his arguments as to why the trunks are a good idea. Their absence just doesn't ruin the movie costume's look for me.
Why does the costume have to have decorations?
I agree, I'm not sure why there is gray pinstriping that ends in a little button at his abdomen; it looks like he's got an outie belly button. It would make more sense if it was red, especially in that muted red they're using for the cape. All of that makes him look a bit frou-frou or overly concerned about detailing, and that shouldn't be Superman.
In the comics, the costume wasn't spandex or armor.
To be fair, in the Earth-1 version, the costume, as you say, was Kryptonian cloth, which was stronger than armor (as anyone who happened to put it on found out), so it didn't have to look tough to have that attribute.
In the post-Earth-1 version, it was kept indestructible by his aura (so they could make it look cool by ripping up his cape without always having him in tatters otherwise). But that still meant a thin costume without a bunch of trappings.
The movie version has a rubbery look to it that even the Routh version didn't have. I imagine it's too make it look skintight while pumping up the muscled look, but it hasn't been needed in the past.
I'm surprised by the Perez version on the Superman #1 cover, which looks like he's got knee pads and padded/armored boots of some kind. That's just silly.
OTOH, the belt looks like it might be functional in some way. I have no idea what kind of gadgets a guy like Superman might need to carry with him, but it would at least create a rationale for having the belt holding up nothing.
I realize I'm complaining about stuff based on very little information, but I think it's justified, because it's what DC has put out as what it wants us to base our initial opinion on. My initial opinion is that, once again, the costume is worse because it doesn't work with Superman's image.
I won't hold the entire movie against them based on the costume designer, but that's the director's decision, and if he thinks that costume expresses who his Superman is, I'm worried about the rest. The last version (ie, Brandon Routh) also had a somewhat dulled-down palette and am even more "embossed" look to the emblem. And that movie had such a bad interpretation of Big Blue that it's hard not to be concerned this time, too.
On the comics side, these are the first issues of the comics, and maybe the costume will evolve in the first few issues and settle down. I'm not sure the Perez version and the one in my opening shot are the exact same costume in any event. But I don't know that the artists' usual mindset is to simplify as time goes on.
With so many other 90s vibes to what I've seen, I'm remembering Daredevil's armored period...
-- MSA
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next