Man of Steel: What The Revisionists Still Don't Get

Man of Steel: What The Revisionists Still Don't Get

As more attention is given to the actor portraying the iconic role, or to the script, cast, special effects and even the sequel....this is the pink elephant that just won't go away. The costume is STILL the deal killer. Learn more in this commentary from Ricky David Tripp

Editorial Opinion
By magicrick - Nov 29, 2011 04:11 AM EST
Filed Under: Superman



While there will continue to be those among us who throw their hands in the air at the agonizing of writers like me over the changes to the “iconic” Superman costume in the upcoming feature film, “Man of Steel,” what is emerging from the controversy over the unbelievable -- and even ridiculous -- changes is a major rift in American society itself.

It seems that there is a segment of our culture that has just become bored. They find no satisfaction in anything unless there is constant change and alteration of everything around them. The vast majority of us revere tradition, and find both comfort and reassurance in things familiar to us. We celebrate those things that take us back to a simpler time, when everything seemed new and exciting.

And while Superman, as a uniquely American character, went through some gradual metamorphosis from his inception at the hands of two teenagers, by the late 1940s and 1950s, the costume that would define him took a very definite and precise form. Throughout the 1960s and beyond, it was cemented into our collective minds and that form was reinforced by virtually every conceivable product except one -- the never-to-be-explained Ben Cooper Halloween costumes that did exactly what Man of Steel and Superman Returns producers have done. They deleted the belted trunks (not “underwear” or “shorts” as some have described) and squared off the belt buckle while including an “S” on it.

Even the classic Superman playsuits that were advertised in the comics and sold year round included the trunks, albeit minus belt loops that would have added an additional production step. But even the yellow belt was there (with a standard brass buckle, not an oval), and the boots were hinted at by bands at the calves.

I remember, as a child of the 1960s, searching for anything that might be out there in the form of a “perfect” costume. I knew at the age of 8 what Superman was “supposed to look like,” and rejected any change of the beauty of it. It even bothered me a little bit as a kid when I noticed that George Reeves’ suit had a red-and-yellow emblem on the cape, as opposed to the yellow one with a simple black outline.

I won’t go into the features of the suit that we all too familiarly know. Through the years, only the Lois and Clark producers made a tiny revision to the otherwise iconic design -- they squared off the darned buckle again. But except for that, no one dared revise the costume we’d all come to know and love.

And then, it began with the atrocious revisions of Louise Mingenbach, and the defiance of Bryan Singer, who responded to outcries over the Superman Returns costume revisions with the defiant question, “Which costume?”, referring back to the short run of revisions in the 1930s and 1940s before the costume took full form and became an icon. Even then, the absurd changes to the colors, the rise of the trunks (not yet deleted), the chiseling of the emblem and the awful fabrics used, were such a departure that virtually the entire product line associated with this movie were as much of a failure as the movie itself.

And now, DC and Warner Brothers want more of the same?

The rustlings I’m hearing out here in the field is that merchandisers, who would normally tie in product to the images presented in the film, are already shrinking from commitments to the “new” image, suspecting the same sales losses they experienced with Superman Returns. Coming out of the age of Star Wars, most of us realize how important these product tie-ins are to motion pictures’ profits, with as much in the marketplace as possible subtly or openly promoting the film.

What makes that part of Man of Steel’s merchandising particularly daunting is the fact that any merchandising done on behalf of the film that presents the “new” costume is immediately on the same collision course that SR merchandise experienced with “iconic” (read that as “real”) Superman product already in the merchandising pipeline, produced under longtime license that manufacturers see no need to change.

I’ve told the story before of how I watched two young boys in a Walmart store during the SR fiasco quietly deliberating over which Halloween costume to buy. The SR version and the traditional Superman costumes were literally side-by-side on an aisle rack. The boys were looking at each other, and at the costumes and after a brief check of each, quietly put the SR version back on the rack and headed to their parents with the traditional one.

What the revisionists still don’t get is that the “real” Superman will continue to be out here in the field. He won’t go away. The Kirk Alyn and George Reeves and Chris Reeve DVDs won’t quietly disappear. The lunch boxes and pajamas won’t either, nor will the myriad of books produced. The magnificent artwork of Alex Ross will continue to stun us with its depth and power, all featuring the so-called iconic costume. For many of us, it’s the only one.

How can a “new” Superman survive the comparisons? Since when did the feelings of the revisionists matter at the expense of the rest of us? When do we get the film that we want -- the one that celebrates Superman as we all remember him best, while giving us a story we can sink our teeth into?

Revisionists immediately do the same thing that political revisionists do when defending Obama and the “change” he hoped to bring to America. They criticize writers like me as hopelessly dated and old, stuck in the past, unwilling to venture out and give new things a chance. They attack the image of Superman that I have always loved, that captured the imagination of millions, and claim that he won’t fit in a 21st century world. They call the belted shorts “underwear” and express their hatred of them, calling them stupid or silly. They offer an imagined idea of the suit being “armor” when trying to explain away the spongy, wet, sculpted look of it and the still chiseled but more traditional emblem on the chest.

They even attempt to ignore the more irritating aspects of the suit, including the inexplicable tendrils wisping around his midsection and thighs where the trunks and belt have been deleted altogether and rave about “how good Henry looks in the costume,” praising his physique and overall look, as if the nightmarish changes will all be forgotten out of loyalty to the actor wearing them.

They try to redirect the discussion to other aspects of the film, such as the casting or the proposed script. Others snarl about the predictable special effects that they believe will dominate and save the film, while branding anyone who even remotely objects to an African American Perry White as racists.

This film is doomed. I’ve taken that position repeatedly here and elsewhere through the months since poor Henry was first shown wearing his monstrosity of a costume. You get one chance at a first impression, and most people saw through the strategic release of an initial image near a bank vault that had Henry posing in such a way that the midsection was obstructed from view.

They’ve known from the gate that they would be taking a hit over the revisions, but defiantly went about it anyway. What the revisionists inside and outside of DC and Warner Brothers still don’t understand -- but will -- is that there are fans like me who simply won’t accept the changes. We don’t view these as revisions or improvements. We see them as mistakes.

The explanations and justifications are often presented more as attacks than as an attempt to win us over. It falls on deaf ears when revisionists argue that we should simply “wait until the film comes out and give it a chance.” Why? Why should we, when a significant element of the character has been changed so dramatically, rendering him almost unrecognizable?

Why should we embrace changes that we didn’t welcome in the first place? It’s as if we might attend the film and be so moved by the story or the special effects or Henry Cavill that we leave the theatre saying it was a great movie, forgetting all about the costume. That’s simply not going to happen.

The changes are ALL anyone is going to talk about leaving the theatre. Through the entire film, it will be the pink elephant right in front of the screen that fans will be struggling to accept through compromises in their reviews of the film, praising certain actors or specific details of the script, all the while trying to ignore the awful costume that Henry is being forced to wear.

And then the failures will come. Lackluster reviews or dead pans of the film will show up in major magazines. Fan pages will reflect on negative aspects of the production or casting choices. First week receipts will wane by Week 3, and theatres will begin almost immediately trimming back feature times in favor of other, stronger films. Other studios will undoubtedly be planning some kind of blockbuster timed carefully for Man of Steel’s week of release, further eroding its impact in the marketplace.

Any merchandisers who signed on will be scrambling to recover, and MOS product will land squarely in clearance areas of any store it’s found in. Rubies and other costume manufacturers will wisely hedge their bets, continue selling the traditional costume and try to unload the dust-covered remains of product from the SR film.

Will DC and Warner Brothers wake up and smell the coffee? Probably not. Could this fiasco in the waiting be saved? Yes, but at tremendous costs that they aren’t likely to incur. After all, they don’t even know they’ve made an error.

But they will find out soon enough.

What die-hard fans need to understand is that we aren’t losing Superman. His image is indelibly burned into the American landscape, largely through that unintentionally competing merchandising I referred to earlier. There’s too much of him out here for any of us to forget. In movie form, we still have two out of four Chris Reeve films still worth watching when it’s time to introduce our kids and grandkids to the character (and they won’t even mind the two bad ones.)

Superman will endure because he’s too good not to, and there are still artists out here who respect the iconic look, while fan film producers will continue to post their efforts on YouTube. You simply cannot take away something that we’ve all loved for 70 years and decide for the rest of us that some changes are in order.

Changes are in order alright, and I’m going on record right now that those changes will be coming, but not in Superman. We’ll be seeing changes at DC and Warner Brothers, when those dismal sales figures hit the books. My hope is that one day, we will see Superman return to the screen in all of his glory for new audiences to enjoy while old ones celebrate.

This film will be forgotten as the 21st century trudges on, but Superman never will be. Up, up and away…….
SUPERMAN Promo Features A Touching Exchange Between Clark Kent And His Pa For Father's Day
Related:

SUPERMAN Promo Features A Touching Exchange Between Clark Kent And His Pa For Father's Day

SUPERMAN Early Box Office Forecast Revealed; New A Day At Work With Jimmy Olsen Video Released
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Early Box Office Forecast Revealed; New "A Day At Work With Jimmy Olsen" Video Released

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
marvel72
marvel72 - 11/29/2011, 4:29 AM
i prefer the iconic superman look to superman,but the new one has grown on me.
magicrick
magicrick - 11/29/2011, 5:22 AM
The first two comments say it all. I'm with Dawnelido. You have to wonder what the costume designers were thinking when they dreamed this up. You also have to imagine how anyone could model it, and how the production team could all start applauding, crying "Bravo!" at the sight of it. It's pathetic, and yes, it's still a deal buster. Sorry, marvel72, it hasn't grown on me and it won't. He might as well be wearing a pink cape as a red one. It's not him, so how any enjoyment of the film could follow that fact is beyond me. The costume is a monstrosity.
magicrick
magicrick - 11/29/2011, 5:27 AM
And for those who will immediately jump me for being one-dimensional, arguing that an entire film cannot hinge on a single costume but must be taken in context along with casting, production, special effects and script, I would simply say this: LOOK AT SUPERMAN RETURNS. All of the same praise was heaped on its equally awful costume. All of the same hoopla was given to its casting. All of the same predictions of excellence were made. The review on the back of the DVD describes the film as "not just super. It's superb." And it WASN'T. That's part of my point here. The story has already been told about revisionism and lousy scripts, expecting CGI and special effects to carry the day. The centerpiece of this film is SUPERMAN, and if doesn't look like him, the film is OVER. NOTHING will save it. Plus, I would point out to you that when a misjudgment of this size and scope is made, it is usually followed by other missteps by the producers, writers, directors or special effects crew. Brace yourselves, kids. This one is going to be a major bomb, and disappointment.
magicrick
magicrick - 11/29/2011, 5:29 AM
And Dawnelido, they are NOT underpants. They are belted trunks.
WesMantooth
WesMantooth - 11/29/2011, 6:51 AM
I see your point, but its tired. In this article, and your previous one, you continue to make the "This is why Superman Returns failed!" argument. And its faulty. SR was just not a good movie. And for all the praise you say was heaped on the SR costume, there was plenty of bashing as well.
WesMantooth
WesMantooth - 11/29/2011, 7:01 AM
"Why should we embrace changes that we didn’t welcome in the first place? It’s as if we might attend the film and be so moved by the story or the special effects or Henry Cavill that we leave the theatre saying it was a great movie, forgetting all about the costume. That’s simply not going to happen. "

Its pretty plain you don't like the costume. Its also pretty plain that no matter how good this movie might be, you're just not going to get over the costume change. Thats sad. Your nostlagia for what was will not allow you to accept what is. And because of that, you'll miss out.

But - and i mean no disrespect - maybe its time to get over it. And if you can't get over it, maybe its time to at least stop commenting on it. How much energy do you plan on putting into bashing a movie you'll never go see?

You use a lot of "we" phrases when you write, as if you represent the majority. You don't. Even people that loved the Donner films, and loved the classic costume, are going to see this movie. And hopefully, it will be a success. If it is, i'm sure you'll write some long winded piece about how awful Warner Bros is for ruining Superman and how society sucks for being shallow and paying money to see the film. If its not, you can slap on your Reeves-era Superman costume, and march down the street screaming "i told you so" to whomever is there to hear you.

But until then, let it go, dude.
raoadi1014
raoadi1014 - 11/29/2011, 9:27 AM
Chris reeves had big balls!
SigmaCenturion
SigmaCenturion - 11/29/2011, 9:51 AM
I do see this movie failing big time.
SigmaCenturion
SigmaCenturion - 11/29/2011, 9:52 AM
I see this movie failing big time. or at least getting harsh reviews due to the costumes
crimsoncrusader
crimsoncrusader - 11/29/2011, 10:03 AM
I agree with WesMantooth and TheGODDAMNSUPERGUY completely. Don't get me wrong, this is a well written article. However, your argument seems to be hinging on the ONLY fact that since the MoS suit isn't up to the classical standards, the movie will certainly fail. But wait! Superman 3 and 4 used the same classic costume but they failed didn't they? People didn't flock to the theaters to catch those flicks as they did for the first two. Why was that? Because the stories were subpar!
Superman Returns didn't work for me not because of the suit (although I must admit, the undersized S shield and the maroon cape and trunks did bother me a bit), but because the story was severely lacking.
It's not ALL about the suit. Christian Bale's Dark Knight updated suit is certainly not visually appealing and I personally wouldn't prefer my favorite superhero wearing it, but what got me seeing that movie multiple times that summer was the story, not the suit! If the story is good, the people will see this film. There is no doubt about that.
Also, like WesMantooth mentioned, you keep on saying “we” when referring to people who don’t like the MoS suit. Are you referring to the people on this site? If anything, the majority of comicbookmovie members seem to be in favor of the MoS suit. Don’t believe me?
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=43706
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=45622
If you’re referring to the general public, I’m fairly certain that they won’t really care if the trunks are missing, considering the fact that they aren’t Superman fans/purists to begin with.
JosephKing
JosephKing - 11/29/2011, 11:13 AM
A lot of crying. Decent and rational arguments? None.

Please, guys, if you don't like the costume, show the reasons with some reasonable logic. "It's bad because it's not the way I learned to like" isn't a valid argument. Stop bitching like children. Grow up!

Anyway, I enjoyed the costume for several reasons, the principal one is because it really looks like alien stuff. I mean, it's not like something that your mother can sew up for you, looks like something that some distant civilization would wear, and I think that's a good point for the film to approach.

About the red underwear, It's a dated reference, I think that maybe makes sense their choice to take it out.
Frogman
Frogman - 11/29/2011, 12:45 PM
Really... bad reviews because of costume? Maybe from fanboys but if the film is well written, acted and edited and has a good story why would a measly thing like the trunk removal give it bad reviews?
SHHH
SHHH - 11/29/2011, 1:14 PM
I Like The Look.. Something New... And What Frogman Said...
gunslinger13
gunslinger13 - 11/29/2011, 1:21 PM
Actually costume changes have already seemingly worked rick. The new batman's costume isn't the iconic version and nobody has lambasted those movies for it. And in actuality, the SR costume had a different material and slightly different color scheme then the "iconic" (read this as "iconic" only) version of the costume. My favorite super hero is superman not because of the costume, but because what the character represents and his skill set. To completely judge a movie based on a costume is ignorant. For all you know, the new superman has the greatest story line of any superman movie. Maybe somebody wins an academy award, who knows? But to say a movie isn't going to be good when you know so little about it? I have my reservations about the movie too, but I at least plan to save my oppions till a legitimate reviewer has seen it. I'd kinda like to ask the editor who let's you continuously write articles about a movie 99% of people know nothing about. But you keep thinking buddy.
jjmeylar
jjmeylar - 11/29/2011, 2:24 PM
The costume needs a red belt. That's all. It's great as it is, aside from that. The trunks are pathetic.
JustinMSalvato
JustinMSalvato - 11/29/2011, 2:38 PM
Tom Welling says:


What do you mean you 'don't like the red trunks'?!"


That's bulls---!
canadianturd
canadianturd - 11/29/2011, 4:22 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch! If you want to be taken back to a time when things seemed "new and exciting" then look not further than this new and exciting costume!
valeriesghost
valeriesghost - 11/29/2011, 4:51 PM
The guy who wrote this is hopelessly dated and old, stuck in the past, unwilling to venture out and give new things a chance. ;P
ejkousc
ejkousc - 11/29/2011, 5:43 PM
There are ways to betray Superman other than through altering his costume, sir. Howabout forcing him to fly through a crappy movie?

You're trying to tell me that an altered costume in a (possibly) GREAT Superman film is worse than a loyal costume in a crap film (Superman III)?

This guy's heart is in the wrong place. He fails to see all sides and he's willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not in love with the costume either. I get that they are trying to stay more true to the notion that Superman is an alien, but no matter how much sense that makes there is just something so Americana about his costume that seems imperative. But he has no idea how LOYAL Snyder and co are being to the product other than the costume. It's preposterous that he's essentially blaming SR's failure on trunks being too high. That movie failed because it was terribly written/acted and it was an actionless boring soap opera (with soap opera quality acting to boot). Littered with faces made for TV.

The public is collectively protective of Superman's costume and I think if they changed it way too much then you would see fundamental refusal to support the film even if it was good. But this new costume isn't off-base ENOUGH. It's blue. It's red. It's Superman. Let's just hope the story and spirit honor the character more than the last several movies/TV shows which relied naively and solely on what Donner instituted.

OdinsBeard
OdinsBeard - 11/29/2011, 6:18 PM
MagicRick,
Well I can certainly see that you like the classic version of Superman, your article is just as boring as Superman was for 30 years. Good thing your article didn’t last as long, though I think I’m spotting a few grey hairs that weren’t there before. And yes, I said your article was boring (well written, kudos. But you knew that) so why then did I proceed to read the entire thing and respond? Well just like the version of Superman you hold so near and dear, I’ve read it, I’ve seen it, I’ve given it a fair chance, now I’m responding… Plus this is one of my favorite discussion topics and I am always more interested in hearing people that disagree with my particular view on this…

I’m with you on your views of society. Attention spans are god-awfully short, in ten years it’ll be incomprehensible. The masses are too quick to jump on and off of bandwagons and real human interaction is on a steady decline. I have never had, nor will ever have a facebook, so I get where you’re coming from on the whole society-isn’t-the-same, back-in-my-day stuff.
But when it comes to Superman, respectfully, sir, you need to let it go. I want you to name ONE THING that has stayed the same for 80 years and been better for it. The “Trunks” used to be a symbol of his strength. Back in the 20’s and 30’s weightlifters wore them for… some reason. It wasn’t like Superman invented underwear on the outside. (And let’s face it, its underwear) Now nobody wears them for any reason. It’s like a varsity jacket, if you’re 40 and still wearing it people are going to think you’re out-of-touch. What that represented is now out-dated and/or irrelevant. Same goes for the character himself. Truth, Justice and the American Way do not go hand in hand anymore and we know that. I get that Superman could be a symbol of a simpler time when people valued morals and common human decency. But we haven’t changed all that much, there was always war, poverty, injustice, racism, corruption and scandal. The difference is now we have the internet. We know more now that we have a constant mirror shoved in our faces, showing us how we can be sometimes. So what seems like a simple bye-gone era was really just, for lack of a better word, an ignorant era. And that’s what the “trunks” symbolize – ignorance. (again, for lack of a better word)

Of course Superman is the archetype of which all super heroes are modeled after, But I can’t think of one iconic character that hasn’t had a costume change. Batman – started out with big bat ears, and then had a blue cape and yellow symbol, then an all black suit for a movie, then a black cape with a yellow logo, then black cape with a black logo and Batman has many more fans than Superman. And by that I mean my girlfriend knows the major players in Batman’s gallery without ever having read a single comic. Everyone and their mom knows The Joker, The Riddler and Catwoman. Batman is just entrenched into our culture. Yet no one seems to be mad about a minor wardrobe adjustment. Then we have Spider-Man who I would argue is the second most iconic character, in terms of looks, right behind Superman. That guy goes through more costume changes than Cher and many of those alternate costumes have become fan favorites. The common factor that comes into play when comparing these three characters is that Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne are way more interesting than Clark Kent on any given day, in any given comic. You can change the look of Batman or Spider-Man and people won’t be bothered because they know at least they’re reading the same interesting character. It still FEELS like a Batman comic or a Spider-Man comic because we care about who these people are outside of their costumes. With Superman, if you change one little thing people get all up in arms because they don’t feel like it’s the same Super-Man. Because it’s not. Because Superman is all about the look. And once you take away or change that look he ceases to be who he was – and that, my friends, is the problem. Make Clark Kent/Superman an all-around interesting and intriguing character and he can whoop Lex’s ass in a tutu, at least you’ll still feel like it’s Superman.

As for your critiques of a movie that’s over a year and a half away from release – you can’t be serious. If you think the costume was what ruined SR then you are really mistaken. Little kids would have been fine dressing up as Routh’s version, if Routh’s version was cool and the movie was good. But it wasn’t. Nobody wanted to rep THAT MOVIE, that’s why they don’t buy the merchandise. You think Superman is so special? If Batman Begins would have sucked and paid homage to Burton no one would have bought the toys, if Spider-Man tanked at the box-office no one would have bought the toys. It had nothing to do with costumes. The movies were great so people wanted more. The characters and things that happened became part of that character’s lore because people we’re willing to accept these movie versions and qualified counterparts to their favorite comic book characters. SR sucked, people were not willing to accept it as their new iteration of Superman and I guarantee you it wasn’t because the red was too dark. I think Superman’s asthmatic son, kate Bosworth as kate bosworth – I mean lois lane, and SUPERMAN LIFTING AN ENTIRE ISLAND OF KRYPTONITE MERE MOMENTS AFTER HE COULDN’T EVEN WALK ON IT were responsible for the downfall of that movie. Not a 3D chest symbol.

Good luck introducing your grandkids to Christopher Reeve, it will only enforce the idea of Superman being completely irrelevant to modern society. They’ll think it’s ridiculous, if you can get them to look up from their 3d black boxes long enough.

If you think MOS is going to be the horrible atrocity you say it is – I dare you: don’t buy a ticket. I mean you already know it’s going to be bad right?

and all over this over an 80 year old pair of red underwear huh? seems a little extreme.
MercMatt
MercMatt - 11/29/2011, 7:31 PM
This is a very well written article... But I have to disagree with it. Your love for Superman shows a lot.. But it seems like you care more about the costume, than the man wearing it. Like Odinsbead said... It's underwear. Superman is absolutely not defined by his costume. It's the man inside of it, and his actions. It's what he stands for that defines him. Being so hateful towards a movie that you haven't seen, just because of the lack of underwear is really kind of lame. I'm all for the costume... Given I would have preferred at least a red belt, but the costume is fine none the less. I have the Chris Reeve Superman movies, and They're all great... With the exception of 3 and 4, but They're not perfect. Chris Reeve is not the definitive Superman. He was great in his role, but most people are just too nostalgic. This is not the 70's. We're looking at a movie that will be released in 2013. Spandex and red underwear just don't work, anymore.
MercMatt
MercMatt - 11/29/2011, 7:32 PM
Although... It worked perfectly in Spider-Man.
Ghostt
Ghostt - 11/29/2011, 8:07 PM
nicely written article. My heart agrees, but my brain says change is ok and red underpants (sorry, belted trunks) gotta go.

@ odins beard, good job writing a longer and more boring response than the article itself. try writing an editorial next time.
suttie7
suttie7 - 11/29/2011, 8:48 PM
I read the article until this quote :
"rendering him almost unrecognizable?" So when you saw WB official pic, with a guy in a blue suit, with an S on his chest and with a red cape, you didn't know it was Superman because you could not see any trunks? What did you do in Superman 1-4 when the camera only showed from the waste above? You must have been really confused.
I can see where you're coming from though. I'm a big fan of the original suit, I loved it as much as anyone,and I agree with @Ghostt in regards to heart/brain. But having worked with kids for many years I have tired of hearing they don't like superman because of the red "jocks on the outside." They think it's stupid so WB & DC have to appeal to them.

Toys for SR didn't sell well because the movie wasn't liked. It's that simple.

And I hope you aren't married because you would hate your wife if she chose different clothes to what she wore in the 60's.I would still love Superman if he didn't have a cape or even a suit, because thats the way i love him. If you can't handle watching a movie because he has no jocks, then I feel sorry for you and I hope you miss an awesome movie!
bgharcourt
bgharcourt - 11/29/2011, 10:35 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall a story about D.C loosing the rights to the classic image of Superman to the creaters family. Its what started the idea for the relaunch and Supermans new look in the comics. They changed him(out of spite)rather then paying for the use of the iconic look.
incrediblesuperbatspider
incrediblesuperbatspider - 11/29/2011, 11:36 PM
@odinsbeard...thats one heck of a response, very thought provoking too! I think magic rick is a bit on the delusional side, to each his own though. This movie will get made and it will be a success, red tights be damned.
RobertKent
RobertKent - 11/29/2011, 11:52 PM
Seriously people ? come on remember superman is not just the looks or the abilities don't u fans remember Superman for all seasons? Superman Red Son ? I think Cavill can actually perform the best superman yet even better than Chris Reeve, as they say "In Cavill we Trust" the looks it's just part of evolving a character for example batman he was first wearing the yellow oval and the bat ,then he was just wearing a bat, and yes even Superman needs that,maybe to grow and pehaps put him in new kind of situations, by that I mean bringing a darker character and getting over the boy scout thing, and for god sake, easy to make him less perfect!! and by the look of Zod I think you should take a look on Birthright remember how the Supposed aliens were wearing the shield and sharing a very similar look but he still make the differenc and I think it's all 'bout it .


I do believ Zod will wear an S on the chest 'cause remember it's not an S for Krypton it's a sserpentine symbol of power or soething like that don't really remember the true meaning, and yes This will be like the dark knight was for batman this movie will make justice for all the bad ones!ª!!!!
halvor311
halvor311 - 11/29/2011, 11:55 PM
Wow, a five page rant about underwear...
Iphro78
Iphro78 - 11/30/2011, 12:00 AM
"They criticize writers like me as hopelessly dated and old, stuck in the past, unwilling to venture out and give new things a chance." Your right get over it, it's not the
70's or 80's anymore the movie is coming out in 2013 the future is now. I had to adjust to the new suit myself and it didn't take long. I was born in '78 the same year and month that the 1st Superman movie was released and he's been my favorite ever since. As the 'Immortal Dragon' Bruce Lee once said "To change with change is the changeless state."
1 2
View Recorder