Well, now, they’ve gone and done it. Yet another extreme alteration of Superman’s iconic costume is apparently coming to the big screen. It is said to mirror the equally extreme makeover that DC has planned for the character, all done in the name of “updating“ it and (to coin an increasingly tired term) make it “edgier.”
Who are they doing this for? And to what purpose? Does it “refresh” the character or make him different in some way? Does it make his story more compelling? Does it make the film (and the products connected to it) more saleable? Or does it simply leave out a lot of us who have been with the character for decades?
DC and Warner Brothers have to know that there will be a backlash to this decision. After all, the Superman that I grew up with (I’m 56 years old) has been solidly in place for 45 to 50 of his more than 70 years of existence with no significant changes. Other than Daniel Boone, it has been said, Superman has been one of the most enduring American folk heroes of all time.
I own, not one, but two adult-sized Superman costumes, one of theatrical quality that was custom made, and while others have larger Superman collections, mine is still formidable, filling an entire portable trunk to its capacity. I am unapologetically a fan, and own all of the DVDs of the Superman legend, from Kirk Alyn to George Reeves to Christopher Reeve to Dean Cain. Reluctantly, I added “Superman Returns” but only after Walmart put the widescreen version in the $5 hopper.
But here’s a newsflash for DC, Warner Brothers, Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, and David S. Goyer: I have already made my decision, as has my traditionalist 31-year-old son. We will not be attending your movie, nor will we be purchasing or renting the film when it is released in DVD form. A boycott, you say? Nope. Just staying away from a film we already know is going to make us angry, making a choice about what we want to see or don’t want to see.
There are many films I have never seen, such as “Saw” or any of the sequels. I will not be viewing “Bridesmaids” or any film featuring Justin Bieber. “Man of Steel” joins them.
And I would suggest that for millions of others, a similar decision will be made. What I hope to do with this article is explain to the revisionists why I think that “Man of Steel” has a huge hill to climb (I expect the film to be a dismal failure), while validating those who share my views and arming them with arguing points that will stand with other fans.
At the start of this, let me just quietly dismiss all the chirpy revisionists on the web who have declared Cavill’s Superman to be “badass,” talking in superlative terms about how the “speedos” had to go and how much they like the costume. Tradition is lost on them. They have no emotional investment in the character, and many of them who have already noted my confessed age will dismiss me as a dinosaur who is resisting change. But change isn’t always good. Some of us out here have a history with Superman. We bought many comics before they were born. We watched the TV series with George Reeves. We dreamed we were Superman before they could dream at all.
Those who are pleased with this stripping down of Superman could have arguably been happy if the cape had been blue instead of red. Or if other accessories, like the boots, had vanished. Or if the costume was just one big red “S” and nothing else, or looked like it was printed on his body instead of being a costume. Then the rest of their focus would have been on the CGI, special effects and any moment in the film when something was destroyed or exploded.
What I’m seeing, and what many other traditionalists are seeing, is the emergence of a tired formula of filmmaking that has the same angles, views, effects and devices with just a change of characters. “Sin City” and “The Spirit” were enticing for their graphic pulp imagery until that mode of filmmaking also became self-parodying, lackluster and tired. Now, any film made in that style immediately takes me back to the others, lacking in imagination, storytelling and -- let’s say it -- joyful fun. Special effects do not a movie make.
You would think that DC and Warner would have learned that expensive lesson from “Superman Returns,” but it was not meant to be. (I often referred to Routh’s Superman as Supershowercurtainman, because that is what it looked like to me, covered in little tiny “S” symbols.)
So let’s get to the business of how the costume that defines Superman in the first place becomes a deal-buster when pitted against what is largely lauded as a sterling cast, in hopes of a compelling and exciting storyline.
Why isn’t it the same as the revisions on Batman, taking away the trunks and the two-tone nature of the costume and just spray painting him black from head to toe? It isn’t the same because of the fact that Superman was defined in PRIMARY COLORS with design features far more intricate and compelling than the Dark Knight’s. His costume was always on the darker side, designed to instill fear in his enemies, incorporating a mask and a scalloped cape, drawing on images of blood-sucking bats.
Superman was based on exhilaration, and the fact that he could fly. Unlike Batman, Superman has always been a kind of messianic figure, an only son sent by a benevolent father to save the world. The costume went through some metamorphosis but landed solidly in the 1950s in finished form, and has remained with us ever since, adorning everything from lunch boxes to T-shirts to Halloween costumes to gift bags.
Superman -- as he was seen before Superman Returns -- has been an indelible image in American popular culture for more than half a century.
So the first real argument against Cavill’s costume is that you aren’t simply going to sweep away what is now being referred to as the “classic” costume just by claiming that it was time for an “update.” We’re connected to that costume. We’ve seen it or envisioned it literally thousands of times.
What is being sold as an update simply isn’t one. Skipping the rubbery textures and the 3D emblem, what immediately strikes the viewer is that something is missing -- the trunks -- and there’s a belt where one isn’t needed. The contrast is gone, a splash of red color where we expect to see it has been removed.
We’re left with the feeling that “something just isn’t right.”
And for me, growing up, part of the whole thing was noticing when someone screwed with it or “got it wrong,” as was the case for the highly collectible but always dreadful Ben Cooper versions of the costume at Halloween.
They were made from a stiff, shiny, inferior fabric designed to catch light and reflect some of it back to cars as kids walked unfamiliar roads on cold nights wearing masks. The cape was always void of a yellow “S” symbol, and was always too short to feel majestic. The emblem was only artistically similar to the one in the comics, with too much curve and not enough angle, laid over a yellow diamond-shaped field that allowed for a yellow border all the way around. No belt loops on the….where were the trunks? Could this have been a shadow of things to come?
Indeed. That was the first place they disappeared from -- Cooper’s costumes -- and that was the first thing I thought of when I saw Cavill’s suit. It’s the 1960s all over again. Except that Cooper’s awful suit had a belt that looked more like a gun belt, with vertical ridges across the front, with a SQUARE BELT BUCKLE with an “S” on it (no symbol, just the letter “S.”) When I first saw Routh’s costume, it was the 1960s Cooper printed-on belt that I thought of as I contemplated that costume’s ridiculous belt.
Keep in mind that these were not the analyses of some prejudiced, backward thinking adult, but the keen awarenesses of a 12-year-old boy in the 1960s. When they got the costume “wrong” even back then, I protested loudly. I wanted Superman kept pure. It made me feel secure, knowing that my hero looked the same from day to day. Even at an early age, I understood the maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But that’s apparently how DC and the film’s backers and writers saw him -- broken and in need of repair. And by stripping him out of his trunks and belt, the character is going to be revived? Not so. Instead, it’s going to alienate and isolate all of us who thought that everyone else got it right before Man Of Steel came along, from Christopher Reeve and director Richard Donner forward.
Christopher Reeve’s costume -- which the revisionists can never erase from the collective consciousness of fans -- is part of their problem.
Why? Because it was literally perfect to the design we came to know and love in every way, perhaps too much so today. Every appointment of the costume, from the way it fitted him to the colors and the cape worked brilliantly. That it was so perfect, and that Richard Donner actually figured it out and knew how Superman was supposed to look is the strongest validation for the position I’m taking here. It’s proof that I’m not crazy, backward thinking or stuck in a bygone era in need of updating.
It’s proof that I’m right. You simply do NOT allow the marketplace to drive a character and determine how it is going to look. You don’t do polls and sampling and see what color belt that the fans seem to like best. Siegel and Schuster gave us the character and magnificent artists from Curt Swan to Alex Ross brought him to full fruition and development as an iconic image.
And now, the short-sighted (if not desperate) owners of the copyright and a defiant studio are going to screw with it even worse that Louise Mingenbach did in the last film. Apparently, they didn’t hear the stories I heard about marketing studies done on the toy lines that came out of Superman Returns, where little boys ages 7-12 looked at SR-based toys and figures of Brandon Routh and shocked researchers with variations on the phrase, “That’s not Superman!” We know how that one turned out. Every product related to Superman Returns tanked, being rushed to clearance tables as fast as they could be carried from the top shelves. Both widescreen and full screen DVDs of the film wound up in Walmart’s $5 rack.
But that is part of what is driving this image change for Man Of Steel, the need to separate the new film’s image from the iconic one so that products ranging from dolls to lunch boxes will stand out and tag back to the film. Otherwise, the “new” Superman is only Cavill’s head and neck pasted on the body. It is an immediately offensive motive, altering the character’s look as a marketing move.
For that to actually work, you’d have to wait about 100 years for my generation to die off completely, for the youngest among us to die of extreme old age and for their children to grow old enough to forget what great-grandpa’s Superman looked like. All lines of products bearing the image would have to find the trash dumpster or the antique store. All memories would have to be erased for it to work.
And even then -- in 2113 -- would it work? Would removing his trunks and changing his belt and rendering his costume as a rubbery looking mess with a 3D emblem make the character or the comic or the film any better than letting him remain what Siegel and Schuster created in the first place, an image that captured the imagination (and wallets) of millions of fans?
What some of us will be witnessing in 2013 will be an exercise in arrogance, in marketing gone awry, in revisionism gone wild, in creative vision sacrificed at the altar of polling and sampling. And speaking of polls, it is worthy of note that one conducted on the ComicBookMovie.com website has mixed result, misinterpreted by the pollster as “most of you think it’s time for change.” Wrong. Do the math while keeping in mind the relative youth of the audience of the poll:
“Great decision, I love this costume!” -- 44.74%
“It looks okay, with or without them.” -- 27.91%
“I hate it and think they need them (the trunks)!” -- 27.35%
In fact, that puts those either in opposition to the change, or those wishy-washy about it in the majority -- 55.26% -- and this isn’t even a scientific poll to begin with, made up of mostly voters under the age of 40. (This same group of voters liked Marvel best over DC, it should be noted.)
We saw some tweaking over the years. Kirk Alyn’s costume had an oddity or two, given the limited materials available to them. George Reeves cape had a heaviness about it, but his emblem was simple and evocative while he looked magnificent wearing the suit. Chris Reeve brought it all home with the most beautiful and perfect costume imaginable at a time when nobody would have dreamed of doing what they’re trying to do now. Even Dean Cain’s costume was a bit shiny for some of us, with an overly stylized emblem that was a bit too large but close enough, and a rectangle belt buckle that blended in well enough to escape notice.
None of these were extreme enough to kill the films or TV shows under the costume. But this time, to use one of the most famous euphemisms of all time, they’ve gone too far. With a release date in 2013, some of us can only hope that they Mayans got it right when they stopped their calendars in December 2012.
But if they were wrong, Superman will endure long after Man Of Steel has tanked like its predecessor, Superman Returns, and all of the Henry Cavill toys have gone to the clearance table at 75% off. For those like me, who need the occasional thrill of seeing Superman in the flesh, actually flying and fighting Zod, we always have the immortal Chris Reeve to turn to for that fix.
The real Superman. Trunks and all.
And as a P.S. for those sold on the reboot costume, consider what this compromise might have been to the film (hats off to the artist, Michael Stribling at www.michaelstribling.com):
Who among you could not have accepted this image as Superman? It would have satisfied both traditionalists and revisionists by giving him a "new look" and at the same time preserving the design that made him iconic.