Superman Through the Ages! Forum

(http://www.newsarama.com/movies/SupesHi_001.jpg)

read all about it here:

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32253

Maroon?  Are you kiddin ' me? :roll:

Also check out this article in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-04-22-super-man_x.htm).

Their picture doesn't look as bad because the short shorts are cut off:

(http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/04/22/inside-superman.jpg)

I never thought it before, but in this case, those trunks really do look like underwear.  I hated it when people used the term, and now it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I also think the S logo on the belt buckle is pushing it.  One is enough.

That outfit looks so... *pale*.

And does this guy have *brown* hair, or is it just the light?!

Whoa -- at first I thought my montior settings got skewed.   :?

Forget the maroon for a moment, what do you think about that BLUE?  Ugh.

I kind'a LIKE it...  

You KNOW it's Superman, but it's different enough from all of the OTHER incarnations to stand on its own.  

Nothing at ALL against the Christopher Reeve movies, but I wish they hadn't decided to do a "sequel" of sorts to Superman II.  I'd've rather let this movie start at the beginning and stand or fall on its very own.  

Gernot...

I don't think this will be the offical costume. It looks like a costume test photo, which the WB most likely released to see what people's reactions are.

From what I've read, most the reactions are negative. So I do think there will be another costume. This isn't uncommon. Spider-Man costume went through several prototypes.

Look at Supergirl. Originally she was going to look like this in the movie.

(http://superman.nu/phpBB2/images/avatar_gallery/Supergirl/sgavatar16.gif)

But then they changed it to this.

(http://www.angelfire.com/anime2/ladyultra/moviestv/supergirl1.jpg)

That could be, but hasn't shooting already started?  If so, I would think that it's a bit late to switch costumes.

Anyways, I'm glad the S is finally smaller again.  And at least they kept the spandex - certainly could have been a lot worse!

I like the new outfit, although like Grant the feedback hasn't been good, we will probably see some more change to the costume.

I do like the way The S shield is more 3 dimensional and not just a part of the body.

The Ceb-Man!

 :cry:


Honestly, my enthusiasm for the picture sank the moment I saw this pic.

I know that sounds very unfair to the director and the script, but for a movie like this the visual is part and parcel with the overall appeal.

It's a remarkably underwhelming take on the costume.  The belt design just looks awful.  They did the exact opposite of what they should have done with the colors. They lightened the blue and darkened the reds when it should be the other way around. The reds have this brown look to them which is just totally uninspiring. The yellow/gold parts just look orange.

I don't mind the fabric texture or even the raised \S/. I actually liked the design of the sheild itself at least.

The close-to-the-neck collar makes it look unauthentic. Rather like one of those halloween costumes you can buy for adults.  The smaller \S/ contributes to that too.  It would be an alright size if you were doing a live  action version of the Fleisher toon sheild.  I think ideally you never want to go larger or smaller than the Reeve sheild.  With the extremes being Rouths as too small and Alex Ross as too big.


Theres a very John Haymes Netwon as Superboy effect going on here.  Even down to Rouths hair. Too long and parted to the left (instead of the right with a kind of wave going with the curl). The curl is just kinda gelled on.  He really just looks a guy in a Superman halloween costume going to a party and not THE Man of Steel in the flesh.

Both Batman Begins costume and this one have been major disapointments for me.  Now I'm only partially looking foward to either picture.

I would take the same basic design and fabric textures only darker blue, brighter, richer red.  Make the collar bigger, Reeve size. Make the yellows actual gold. Loose the loops on the trunks and just have the belt running along the top ( much like Alan Davis did with Superboy in Superboys Legion). I would either drop the entire belt design or at the very least have a diamond shape but take the sheild off.  It's totally redundant to have it on the front of his costume twice.  It's bold and on his chest. The statement is already made! With his hair part is the other way and make it shorter above the ears and in the back.

Alas, not to be.

I COMPLETELY AGREE with KUUGA. I don't remember if you mentioned the italy boots but they are really to low making them look like socks.

I just can't believe they keep making these mistakes in comic adaptations. They have GOld with the Reeves design, but they have to change it, why do they always have to  change it. Most of the time i think these film people are making a movie for a select few and not the fans. Then they're shocked at boxoffice disasters like DD/elektra/punisher/batidiot 345. Jesus help these idiot in hollywood. All they care about is the merchandise. I bet some fool pitched the idea "ya we can make the 3d "S" a button and he can squirt red water out of his eye's"

MOROONS

I mean SUPERMAN is an ICON a figure that has stood strong throughout generations. We want "THE MAN OF STEEL" not "PRADA SUPERGUY 2006".

Seriously they went classic with the clark kent look, I'm just so pissed that they changed the costume so much. I NOT GONNA SEE IT... ok maybe.

Is there a complaint department... or a SInger suggestion box. ANyone want to start a petition. I don't care if they started shooting, IT"S BLASPHEMY

I"M JUST ANGERY

p/s cool forum

*Sigh* Not here, too....

People, the pic is desaturated. Routh's skin tone is completely off. And the reds are a lot brighter in other versions of the pic.

http://tinypic.com/4lilox

This is much more accurate to the color scheme.

As for the tweaks to the design...it's still Superman, the design is still pretty much the same, what's the big deal? A belt buckle change, raised emblem, and tweaked costume tones are not going to hurt the look, and they don't.

King Krypton... ok so the pic was a little desaturated in a fairness

http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.php?s=5fe4f57da63f0d3dbbf38404aa2a6251&t=2024
http://www.brandonrouth.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=1

click the pic to get a real clean hhi res version of the pick. The color are better and who cares about the little details, boots belt balh blah blah

B U T and I say but...

perfect example look at the top right of the screen the superman Birthright pic. that is the "MAN OF STEEL" difference, the "S" plain and simple. THe small "s" makes the whole idea of the character small.

Clark kent is smalltown, SUperman is ... S U P E R Man. BIG S

Plus as you imply with "*Sigh* Not here, too.... " then there alot of fans complaining, why not give us the what we want... the people who aren't complaining won't complain and the complainer will shut up and be HAPPY!

still unhappy

Personally, I like the costume.  It's not what I would have done with it but it still looks like Superman.  The people who are bellyaching about this are the same people who moaned and groaned about the Green Goblin costume in Spider-Man.  I didn't care much for it either but I didn't let it ruin the movie for me.
I look at it this way.  If the movie stinks we still have the original Christopher Reeve flick.

I appreciate where you are coming from King. I really do.

I know you deal with alot of negativity on a regular basis given the boards that you travel.  But I'm sorry, I have to disagree.  

The look *is* hurt. The suit looks cheap and design wise a real step down from the Reeve suit even in spite of the advanced materials. Like I said before, it looks like a average joe in a Halloween costume.  Wheras with Reeve, it looked like he walked off the comic page and into our realm.

Obviously a big part of that was the man himself. I don't deny that Brandon Routh has the look and even the build. But Reeve was also helped through a very well done and mindful costuming (not to mention his hair as well).

Are these ultimately just tweaks to the iconic look? Sure.  

The \S/ on Reeves costume not having the knob at the end. That's a tweak.

Dean Cain having a darker shade of blue for his body suit. That's a tweak.

Alex Ross giving Superman a wider collar with the cape attached just at the very ends of it rather that the square Roman cape look that is often depicted. That's a tweak.  

Black belt with a silver or ice-blue buckle. That's a tweak.

But that doesn't really do anything to excuse them from an arguement about wether or not these "tweaks" work or don't. I agree they are using the iconic look, but all the "tweaks" that they have come up with work against the look.  

When dealing with a simple and iconic design like Supermans though, every detail counts because theres nothing to fall back on.  Even something like the length of the cape or what shades of the classic colors can make a difference.  If tweaks didn't make a difference, Superman would still have Roman sandals on and his \S/ would just be all yellow.

Is the \S/ on the belt as bad as say, Dean Cains kindergarden art-project buckle? Maybe not, but it still doesn't work. It's redudant. I don't know maybe it's too make up for how small the sheild is on his chest.

The very friggin least they could've done is gotten his hair right, had the sheild be a bolder size and given him a cloth cape.  The thing is so heavy it can't even billow out behind him. It's like he has a tarp on his back.

Hi,

Well, the thing that displeases is that in comics and artist renditions, it changes.  While a movie with that budget, it can kill future projects - this is it - the movie people have been speculating on for years.  Now - like I said on my site - this is a design from a director who's thinking X-Men not Superman.  
There's something about Superman that you can't fool around with the costume.  It's either perfect or completely bad.  Now, the trunks make it look like a poster boy - I betcha the back of the slip is a g-string...  Ok the insignia - you want to make it a little different no prob - but - I also have a problem with the size of it.  Finally the boots are not high enough and they look cheap.  I'm sure they paid a bundle for it but they look cheap.  
Finally, I really hope that Bryan Singer & WB are taking the pulse all over the web because the suit is at best "accepted" by 3 or 4% of the people who see it...

Visit my site homepage to see my opinion on it...

Friend

Because they don't deserve what they want. They don't even KNOW what they want. Some won't be happy unless it's the Alex Ross suit. Some won't rest until they get the Reeve suit. Still more won't accept anything other than Cain's suit. Still others want THEIR personal visions of the suit. Anything WB conjures up would take the same amount of ignorant, hateful, unjustified, and baseless abuse the current suit is getting.

The fans are also traitors of the worst kind. They were more than willing to sell Superman down the river when the JJ Abrams "Krypton doesn't blow up and Luthor's Kryptonian" script was still going full-steam ahead, even launching flame wars against anyone who could see the disaster coming. Some have been vicious in their attacks on any Hollywood incarnation that isn't Smallville, even demanding that Smallville become the official canon at all costs. Others have flatly condemned anything and everything that isn't an exact copy of John Byrne's Man of Steel, and will not accept anything else. They have nothing but the highest contempt for anything that isn't THEIR pet version, and they'll gladly shaft the character's entire history just to get their own way. And every single one of these camps is at each other's throats all the time. "Give the fans what they want"? Are you kidding? The fans are so mind-bogglingly stupid that they can't agree on anything! They not onyl don't know what they want, they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to expect to get it. Their hatefulness toward Superman's history and their blind selfishness makes their demands forfeit. Not only should they not be listend to, they should NEVER be listened to ever again. Any group of people willing to backpedal and happily support a script that by all rights they should have been fighting is totaly unworthy of my respect.

And the "Singer cheapened the outfit" line is patently false, plain and simple. Emblem buckle? HJ Ward did it first. Darker costume colors? "Exile" (Spring 1989), "Our Worlds at War," Kingdom Come, the Max Fleischer cartoons...it's been done in the past to great success. Smaller emblem? Golden/Silver/Bronze Age, Fleischer, Alyn, Reeves...nothing new. Higher collar? Golden Age, Alyn, Dean Cain's suit from the Lois & Clark pilot...been there before. Two-toned cape? Fleischer and Dini/Timm both did it (their capes were darker on the inside). There's a grand total of three things new with the costume: texture on the boots, a slightly raised emblem, and a diamond pattern on the fabric. Everything else has been done before! And the suit is still the traditional Superman, just slightly updated. I fail to see how any sane, rational human being can claim that the costume's been "ruined" or "cheapened."

I have not one whit of respect or sympathy for all this nitpicking. The new costume is fine, end of discussion. If they'd totally screwed with the design, then I'd see a reason to gripe.  :evil:

Apparently, this movie is in an alternate universe that still has phone booths! :o
http://www.brandonrouth.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=19&pos=15

Regarding the suit: It isn't what I would have come up with, but no one pays me (or likely ever will) for fashion advice. I am impressed by the difference between Clark and Superman. Maybe the tagline for the movie could be, "You'll believe a pair of glasses and a different hairdo are a good disguise!"

Superman is confident, inspiring, humble, and unwavering in his dedication to justice. Rather than worrying about the suit, I'm more concerned that they get the character right.

I can live with the outfit.  It's far from perfect (and I suppose it should be perfect, given that it probably cost several thousand dollars per suit), but as we've seen with the Batman franchise, it could have been soooo much worse! (Don't forget it wasn't that long ago Jon Peters wanted a capeless Superman and thought, for some odd reason, that the suit was PINK!!!)

The big thing I'm going to have to get over is Brandon Routh.  He looks like a little kid in this picture!  I guess I always knew the day would come when an actor playing Superman would be younger than me, but I really, really wish Hollywood had some grown-up looking talent to offer.  Youthful is one thing, child-like is something else again.  I just watched "Captain Blood" again on DVD (just out, and highly recommended!) and it's hard to believe Errol Flynn was only 26 when he made it!  He was so young and yet still came off as mature and a leader of men.  Where are all these guys today? I'm not part of the Tom Welling crowd, but if you're just going to replace one teenage-looking actor with another, what's the point?

And isn't Superman supposed to be 6 years older than Chris Reeve was in 1981?

Think Ill just reread some old silver ages and dream.....BLAARG

Yeah, my impression is that this movie won't take place in any specific year, but in a non-specific generic 20th century.  It'll have some 1940s elements, some 1970s elements, etc.  Kind of like the same approach they took with the first Batman movie.

Agreed, that's really more important than anything.

Well, if Errol Flynn could pull it off, who's to say that Brandon Routh can't?

He's Superman, he ages really slowly.  Besides, all that high speed space travel makes him more youthful.  It's a relativity thing.  :wink:

More interesting news:  Jack Larson (the 1950s Jimmy Olsen) has apparently been cast as a bar tender.  He'll be joining Noel Neil as one of the super veterans in the flick.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is that some of you are having with this new costume. It's pretty much the standard Superman look we all know and recognize, although just a tad updated. I mean, this film is about Superman's return. Why not tweak the costume just a bit for the New Age? But it's still, basically, the same costume we've always known.

He looks great. He'll be great. Bryan Singer knows what he's doing.

What I've feared has come to pass. Instead of Superman ... we got Superboy.  :evil:

And the cycle continues ... but anyway, on to my critique of the uniform itself.

I'm not crazy about the size of the emblem itself. In my opinion, it's too small. However, I do like its design. It's very modern without losing any of the traditional flavour. And I like the fact that it's more of a plate than an imprint or a cloth design ... adds to the modernization.

The red colouring appears a little too drab. It makes the whole suit look too plain ... like it's missing something. And the blue should be a little richer, too.

The trunks are too small. What's up with that?!! However, I do like the styling of the belt ... and I love the emblem for the buckle. It harkens back to a lovely painting of the Golden Age Superman that appeared in the 1940s. I also like the fact that it goes more for a gold colour rather than a stark yellow.

The boots need to be thrown out. They're too low-cut ... not enough of a "swashbuckler" look to them, as Ma Kent once said. And the double seam at the top is missing.

Overall, it's not a bad attempt ... but there's definitely room for improvement.

Um ... Iraq?  Oh, you mean movie stars?! :oops:   Good question!  I have a hard time seeing any Hollywood type under 40 as a leader --the 50-something George Clooney is the youngest that springs to mind (I just saw Ocean's 12).

I guess what I'm saying is Hollywood used to value "maturity" and now they value youth above everything.  Whereas in the old days a young man had to act older, now it's reversed.

Look at the stars of the past; Flynn, Gable, Cooper, Grant.  These were guys who even when they were young never looked like little kids.  It was a liability back then to have a baby face.  I remember Jeffrey Hunter turned in a great performance as Christ in "King of Kings," but because he looked so young (he really wasn't), the critics blasted the film and re-named it, "I Was A Teenage Jesus".  :shock:

Now jump ahead to recent films.  Nobody questions why these guys who look like little kids are saving the world.  Mission: Impossible featured the likes of Tom Cruise and Emilio Estevez.  Why weren't the critics saying, "Impossible Mission Force?  More like 'The Babysitter's Club!'". Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Brandon Fraser, Brad Pitt and so on...these are guys pushing (or over) 40 and they still look like they're 18.  When they stop looking 18, they'll have to either segue into "supporting" roles or get out of the business altogether.  What is going on?

Superman's the same way.  For me, George Reeves was the ultimate father figure; self-assured, all-knowing, patient.  And most of all, mature.  It was a major adjustment to accept Chris Reeve in the role, as he was obviously in his 20s and picked for his "young stud" appeal.  Now we've got a guy who looks (and is) even younger!

All of which is not to say I'm writing the movie off entirely, or pre-judging Routh's ability to act (I've never seen him in anything and I dare say few people ever have!).  In fact, I thought Matt Damon looked too young to play Jason Bourne, but he blew me away in those movies.  My fingers are crossed.

But still, the point is if you want to talk about being put off by the looks of things, I'll adjust to the suit faster than Routh's youth.  All things considered, things still look better for this film than "Batman Begins," I don't care what anyone says.

Hi,

They probably figure that they want to do sequels so, it wouldn't be too good if they choose Pope Panzer to do the first movie... :shock:
I'll tell you guys what makes it look bad - the boots are too short, s too small, trunks too short - it's like we get too much focus on the body in the blue suit.  If they balanced it better - it would fill the suit...

Friend :D

Maria Schell has passed away... :cry:
Front page on my Superman site...

Actually, Chris Reeve was 24 when he got the part.  Brandon Routh is 25.  So Reeve was about the same age when he played Superman.  
Nobody knew who Reeve was then or if he could act either.

Yeah, but at least Chris Reeve looked like SuperMAN, not SuperBOY (even though he was in his twenties when Superman: The Movie first came out).

See that's the thing. I think Routh could look like SuperMAN but with this costuming and hair he just looks like SuperBOY.  He looks eerily like John Haymes Newton.  :cry:

Man this stinks. Theres a new Superman and a new Batman movie coming out and in all honesty I'm looking more foward to Legend of Zorro than either of them.

Well, this should make you guys happy:

The buzz on this movie is officially worse than Catwoman. The teaser trailer debuted to standing ovations at the SDCC, but the Internet community had the exact opposite reaction, skinning the SDCC-goers alive for being "traitors" and "not true Superman fans." Further, WB released another blog for the project about the flying FX, including footage of Routh shooting a flaying sequence at sunset, and the reaction was like something out of a Stephen King novel. EVERYBODY hated it, and their hatred of Routh only got worse. The hate campaign against this movie has reached critical mass, ans the bad buzz is spreading like wildfire.

This movie is pretty much doomed, thanks to the Superman fanbase being so blisteringly egotistical, dismissive of its own history (every single incarnation of Superman pre-Byrne has been condemned as inherently worthless in order to discredit Singer--especially Siegel and Shuster, who are now held as usurpers of what's rightfully Byrne's credit), nakedly ignorant of even worse antics pulled in the comics (it's OK for Lois to emotionally abuse and mistreat Clark for over a decade, but it's not OK for Lois to be a single mom during Superman's absence of many years?), and being whiny that THEIR pet incarnation didn't get put on film. For years I've had a sneaking suspicion that the Superman fandom was a cesspool of arrogant, selfish filth. Now I know it is.  :evil:

You mean Iron Age fans.

Besides that's not really Superman anyway, The REAL Superman was last seen in Action Comics #583, everyone knows that :D

I am looking forward to the new film  8)

The problem is, the "Iron Age" fans ARE the fandom these days.

I've seen countless MBs where Siegel and Shuster's work has been trashed viciously and Byrne's been touted as the true creator of Superman, or at least the savior who "rescued" Superman from the ignorant hackwork of 1938-1986. (Batman fans have done the same thing, disowning Bob Kane and Bill Finger and touting Frank Miller as the true creator of Batman.)

I've seen every single incarnation of Superman pre-1986, be it in the comics, cartoons, movies, and TV, condemned as "inherent garbage" because it's [a] from an earlier era, it was aimed at a young audience instead of a clique of adult fanboys, and [c] it was space opera rather than the Byrne-instigated soap opera.

I've seen Kirk Alyn and George Reeves disowned from the character's media history, with Chris Reeve in the process of being disowned himself. All of a sudden, the once-maligned Dean Cain is held up as the true Superman because he played the Byrne-instigated version, and Tom Welling, whose disdain for the adult Superman is no secret, is held up as the only actor fit to carry the role. If Reeve gets any credit at all, it's because he befriended Welling when he gueststarred on Smallville. His portrayal of Superman is despised rather than revered.

I've seen Lois & Clark and Smallville held up as the only valid media versions of the character, with anything outside of them regarded as trash. FoLCs assert that any Superman that doesn't religiously follow the Lois & Clark rendition "isn't worth bothering with," and the Wellingites (the group name of the hard-core Smallville fans) assert that the mythos should be altered to fit Smallville's telling and that it should be the ofifical version in all media, including the comics. The Dini/Timm cartoons have been flayed to the gills for daring to be the oppsoite of both these shows (and yet they're superior in nearly every way).

Where does this put people who may not like Byrne-Jurgens, Lois & Clark, and Smallville, or people who don't like them exclusively? Where does this put people who like the other incarnations of Superman? Where does this put people who respect the entire history of the character?

Nowhere. They've been cast out of the fandom.

And Superman Returns is being made by a filmmaking team whose influences range from 1938-1978. The era where Superman was created and came to full flower. An era the fanbase has disowned and wants to see buried and forgotten. So what do you do in that case?

The Iron Age, unfortunately, IS what Superman's been reduced to. And if you try to buck the fandom, God help you. The SDCC-goers found this out the hard way when the Internet community crucified them for even DARING to like what Singer presented. The Superman fandom has become a selfish, egotistical clique that would rather see Superman die with them than embrace the history and move forward with it. They don't even want new fans coming in; they've come right out and said new fans aren't necessary or wanted. So where do you go from there?

They can come here, that why this site was created in the 1st place. They can also keep buying reprints and hope that All-Star Superman lives up to the hype. ;)



The only thing I didn't like about the Superman in the The Dini/Timm cartoons is that he was TOO depowered, which was very annoying. However, what I did like about them was that his personality and the stories were well written. They were also way better than those two other shows, IMHO.



As far as Iron Age fans, or Dark Age fans or whatever people want to call them, is that they are the only ones who are still buying comics these days and DC are therefore too scare to rock the boat not to cave in and give them the crap that they love. Notice All-Star Superman will not have much effect on the main Iron Age Superman comics. I have personally talked to a famous DC editor who has a fan following here about this. Sorry, I don't want to drop names so I can't go into detail about what was said without giving away who he is, but he pretty much said the same thing you did, the fans are nuts, LOL! Also, people also need to understand that DC and by DC I mean people running the show, above the editors, the editors do not run the show anymore, those days are LONG GONE, don't care, DC couldn't care less. To them, Superman and Batman are not looked upon as characters, because they are not, they are not even mascots, they are just trademarks and copyrights, intellectual property, nothing more, nothing less. The real money is in the TV Shows, Cartoons, Films, Video Games and Toys. Not the comics! They couldn't care less about what happens in the story, it doesn't matter. Notice how much care is put into these other mediums compared to the comics. Superman isn't the most famous fake person next to Mickey Mouse because of his comics! Most people ONLY know Superman from all the TV shows over the years, all the cartoons over the years and films over the years. Most of those fans never even read the comics and never plan to, but they will go see that new film. The new film isn't going to bomb because 125,000 Iron Age fanboys refuse to watch it and want to whine and cry like little babies on-line, because there are MILLIONS of people who love Superman and who don't ever read the comics, who would vomit if they ever read the current comics, who to them the old Superman movies are the true Superman, who can't wait to see it. Why else would DC allow the movie to be made that way, to be part of the storyline of the old films? The fanbase for the film and for the comics are very different. DC couldn't care less what those Iron Age fanboys think, as long as millions of movie fans show up opening weekend.

The comics are only still being published to keep the copyrights from running out. Artwork? Writing? That doesn't matter one bit. The editor's job is to hire people who are not going to rock the boat and just get hacks who will give the Iron Age fanboys just what they want in order that they can keep taking their money, since they are the only ones still willing to buy overpriced comics with bad art and bad writing anymore. Remember that there actually was a rule that no big names were allowed to work on Superman, no famous writers, no famous artists. That rule was there for years. They broke the rule for Jim Lee, since Batman was selling so well, they saw a chance to make even more money and Iron Age fanboys love Jim Lee and Alex Ross, they would buy anything they work on. While the comics don't really matter other than to keep the copyrights alive, they also do not want to lose money publishing them, so they try to keep the Iron Age fans happy. Now not everyone who works for the big two are hacks, some really try but there is only so much they are allowed to do in that system. Also DC and Marvel are the only two companies that pay enough to actually live off of, so what can they do other than to play along in order to collect that check to pay the bills so they can live? Some stop caring and become hacks, others never cared and were always hacks, others still care and always will and if they are very lucky, they become famous enough that the big ups give them more freedom, not too much freedom, but just enough to keep them happy in order to make more money off of them.

So why All-Star Superman then? Simple, the selling point there with the All-Star line is with the artists and writers aka the All-Stars in question. Those books do not effect the main Superman or Batman books, so the Iron Age fanboys can't cry too much. It will also tap into the market of fans who buy all those TPBs of the old comics who are not buying the current Superman comics. The real money on the All-Star line will be made when they are publish as TPBs three times, LOL Hardcore, Soft cover, then super DX editions :) If they are smart and are by making people wait, the 1st issue will not be release until December. That way they can get people who just can't wait anymore to actually buy the single issues and then once again TPB later. Oh and the collectible DC Direct figure and statues based on them, the old school market likes those, note how just how much Sliver Age stuff makes it into there.

:s:

OH NO!!!  My favorite version of Superman is the radio show!!  I'm not worthy!  I'm going to have to throw out my entire Superman collection!   :cry:  

LOL!!!

There are versions of Superman I do like and there are versions of Superman I don't like.  Superman has been around long enough that I'm sure there's something out there to suit everyone's taste.  I'm going to wait until I see the new movie to decide whether it's a version I like or not.

If the whining fanboys out there on the internet hate it and aren't going to see it then, GREAT!!  That just means there will be more seats available at the theater.  Super Monkey is on the right track.  A few thousand people aren't going to make or break this flick.

As far as the costume goes, it looks like Superman to me.  For those who are bellyaching about this and that being different just look at all the other costumes.  From Kirk Alyn down to Dean Cain ALL the costumes have been different.

P.S.  I thought Batman Begins was terriffic!   :D

It does give me pause to think that actual readers of new Superman comics number only around 100 000 people or less, whereas the number of people familiar with the concept is, what, a billion?  And the typical audience for a big-budget Hollywood movie is in the tens of millions, not to mention DVDs, etc.  That's a lot of Superman fans who never heard of John Byrne (or Grant Morrison, for that matter).

Take a trip over to the Smallville boards, or the Justice League cartoon fan sites, and you'll find thousands of Superman fans who have never read a Superman comic book.  Mind-boggling.

In this day and age I don't find that very surprising.  I have a hard time finding people who read at all anymore.  I wish I read more.

You'd be shocked how many Smallville fans hold the mythology in the highest contempt. To them, Smallville should end like this:

- Lois gets written out of the mythos completely, or dies and Chloe assumes her identity and moves out of town. Clark marries Lana instead because "they're meant to be."

- Clark and Lana stay in Smallville as a happy farm couple. "Screw Metropolis and the Daily Planet." (Yes, that's an actual quote from the AOL Smallville forums during a heated debate over whether Smallville should follow the mythos or rewrite it completely and make the comics follow suit.)

- Lex Luthor remains a good guy and Clark's bestest buddy because "that's how it should be." Lionel Luthor takes over as Clark's arch-nemesis.

- Lana gets magic bracelets and becomes Wonder Woman.

- Pete gets a power ring and becomes Green Lantern.

You'll also find that many Smallville fans think that since the comics are an ongoing storyline, there's still hope that they'll conform to the Wellingites' [group name for the hard-core Smallville fans and Routh haters] desires and hook Clark up with Lana once and for all, redeem Lex, and all the other stuff they so want.

Getting back on topic, a number of comic book pros are actively against Superman Returns: John Byrne, Jon Bogdanove, Alex Ross, and DC fan-film director Sandy Collora. Byrne, Bogdanove, and Ross are throwing hissy fits because Singer's not doing Superman and his costume exactly the way they themselves would do it (and Ross is an active Wellingite whose disapproval of Routh's casting is well known), and Collora's angry because he wanted Singer's movie to be a live-action translation of Alex Ross' paintings all the way (which Collora himself attempted with Michael O'Hearn in World's Finest). Jim Lee's tried to come to the film's defense (indeed, Routh's costume and hairdo bear some of Lee's influence), but he's been derided as a no-talent hack who couldn't draw a decent Superman in a month of Sundays.

I think the outfit - and the upcoming film - sound and look absolutely fantastic. Nowhere to be seen is a matrix-style Lex Luthor who is from Krypton. Nowhere to be seen is retarded coloring book character Doomsday. Superman probably isn't going to die.

The scriptgoers are inspired by the totality of Superman's existence, not the adolescent, clueless excesses of Byrne and his bootlicking lackeys, George Carlin, Dan Jurgens, and Roger Stern (author of a great AVENGERS and SPIDER-MAN run; how the mighty have fallen).

For the Love of God, they're using the Superman music from the Donner picture! They've got phone booths!

John Byrne is against the movie, so that's almost evidence that it's going to be great. It doesn't follow the apocryphal, conceptually divorced and offensive version he parrotted in Man of Steel, which may be the first Superman fanfic to ever be published, years before the internet came into common use. OF COURSE he hates it; John Byrne, the man who reduced the Vision from a loving being with a soul, to, in his own words, "a toaster," the "writer" who has unleashed more damage on either the Marvel or DC Universe - he's against it. John Byrne is someone that wants to leave a mark on comics, but he lacks the talent to do so.

As for Smallville - it is not as cool as ROSWELL, whose time slot it usurped. Superman's teen angst does not interest me in the least.

I prefer the X-files.  My wife prefers Dawson's Creek.   :D  Maybe I just can't get used to the idea of Bo Duke as Pa Kent ...

Contemporary lame superhero comic book "artist" opinions abut movies are the worst, most undignified form of fanboy whining.

No, but he does get hospitalized at one point. Speculation has it that either Luthor tries to knife him to death with a Kryptonian crystal pilfered from the Fortress, or that Superman has a run-in with a kryptonite meteor in a sequence that pays tribute to "Panic in the Sky."

Dead Superman? No. Wounded Superman? Yes. How it happens is open to anyone's guess.



Which is exactly what's getting the fanbase so furious, as they've already decreed that anything before 1986 is lies and that John Byrne gave the world the "ONE TRUE SUPERMAN."

Personally, I think it's better to acknowledge all of Superman's history, using everything that's good and weeding out the bad stuff. But then again, I'm one of the people who's been booted out of the fandom.



That's Mike Carlin. And he's still a bigwig at DC, hence the total stagnation and increasing badness of the books.

I personally think George Carlin would have more respect for Superman, actually, The worst he'd do would be to tell comedy stories with the character.



I liked some of Stern's stories. He's a George Reeves fanboy, so he at least tried to invest Superman with some old-school panache. But once the "event" mentality kicked in with the "death of" mess, Stern got steamrolled. I'm not surprised he's dropped out of comics and is a novelist now. After the editorial mucking he had to put up with on Superman (and that seemingly every writer has to deal with now), I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing.



Which has raised howls of protest. The fanboys don't want the music used at all because of its ties to the "pre-Crisis crap" version of Superman used in the old movies.



This is the only thing I haven't heard complaints about.



And yet it's held as the true gospel of Superman, and to be totally honest, the preferred movie of the fanboys would be a panel-for-panel, word-for-word recreation of Man of Steel, with absolutely nothing whatsoever changed from Byrne's text.

That's what they really want, for Byrne's version to be immortalized on film and made permanent canon. Barring that, they want a Smallville spinoff (which wouldn't happen, since Welling refuses to play Superman and Rosenbaum wants out of the show after this year), a "death of" movie recreated word for word and panel for panel from the comic books, and even the "Krypton doesn't blow up and Lex is Kryptonian" script by JJ Abrams. Not necessarily in that order, but those are the only options they'll accept.



Gospel truth: Byrne even launched a hate campaign against the movie's emblem design because it's not the official logo DC uses in its Superman marketing, and in his mind any emblem that isn't said marketing logo is inherently wrong.

Of course, the fact that even he doesn't draw the emblem to look exactly like the marketing logo went unmentioned. Guess nobody wanted to point out that even he puts his own spin on it....



So I take it you don't subscribe to the "Lana is Clark's soulmate" and "Lex should stay good" dogma?  :lol:

This may possibly be the most hilarious error I've ever made.

It occurs to me I'm being too harsh to Roger Stern, a writer whose work (when he isn't writing with others) that I generally like. Byrne gets a lot of crap because he totally deserves it, but the fact is, he isn't single-handedly, entirely to blame for the fact we've had years of mediocre writing. Mike Carlin is more responsibile, because he institutionalized Byrne's mistakes. Here's the thing about anything being done by committee: it doesn't raise mediocre writers up to the level of the geniuses in the pack. It drowns the geniuses out in a sea of mediocrity.

After all, Roger Stern gave the Marvel Universe the gift of the Monica Rambeau Captain Marvel, a brilliantly original character with a unique and interesting superpower (the hardest thing in comics to do is to create a superpower not seen before) with a brilliantly developed personality of assertiveness, self-confidence, and family devotion. To my knowledge, the best strong black female superheroine. It's a pity the Avengers scribes (excluding the always-genius Kurt Busiek) have forgotten her.

And Roger Stern's great run on SPIDER-MAN speaks for itself.

I love it when other people get it.   :D I don't care if I'm booted out of the fandom.



George Carlin!  Another one of my heroes!



Angst doesn't belong in Superman anyway.  If I want angst I read Spider-Man.  As far as Smallville goes, I can't watch it.  I can't get past Tom Welling.  Clark Kent was never meant to be a pretty boy jock that the girls swoon over.  He's meant to be a well meaning nerd with glasses or a Peter Parker without the self loathing.

King Krypton, where do you find all this stuff about the comic and Smallville fans?  It cracks me up!   :lol:

You don't have to look much farther than the various comic book, Lois & Clark, and Smallville message boards across the 'Net. At nearly every one of them, there's attacks on the traditional mythos, condemnation of anything and everything predating John Byrne, and demands that either Lois & Clark or Smallville be the official canon for all things Superman from now until eternity. TO name a few of them, one of the worst offenders is Superhero Hype, whose Superman boards are loaded with Siegel-Shuster haters who think Byrne wrote the book on Superman. And outside of their obligatory movie forum, Kryptonsite is host to a lot of people whose contempt for the mythos is off the scale. And Zoomway's Lois & Clark site makes no bones about despising the comics pre-Byrne and having no use for any live-action/animated Superman that isn't Lois & Clark or a complete duplication thereof. And DC Comics.com has always been plagued with a flood of fanboys who'll lynch anything and everything pre-Byrne and post-Jurgens.

And that's just a tiny sample of how much venom is being directed at the mythos...and ultimately at Superman Returns for being closer in spirit to the original stuff. Like I said, they want either Man of Steel: The Movie, Smallville: The Movie, The Death of Superman: The Movie, or the JJ Abrams script. A Max Fleischer-based movie is the last thing these guys want, because it means they're not getting Byrne's vision, but Siegel and Shuster's.

Heck just mention on some boards (DC's own for example) that you like any non-byrne version of Superman, you get demonized pdq.  Or worse state that Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster were two of the greatest talents in comic's history & not worthless hacks.  The attitude that "my favorite version of my favorite character, must be the only version ever to be used in stories or even mentioned in conversation" :roll:  :?  takes most of the fun out of message boards. :(  :cry:

Well, methinks I spoke way too soon about the 1940s look of Superman Returns not being demonized....

SHH is now devoting an MB topic to the bashing of Singer's decision to go for a retro-style approach to Superman. According to the bashers, a 1940s-flavored setting with phone booths isn't "relevant", and thus is damaging to Superman. Citing Man of Steel and Smallville as the proper source material (big surprise there  :roll: ), the argument is that if Singer was smart, he'd have Superman take place in today's world completely, being contemporary in every single way and specific to this era. In doing so, they claim, Superman would be made modern and "relevant," as opposed to the "outdated" '40s look Singer's using.

If it seems like they're taking more potshots at Max Fleischer...well, it's because that's what this is, pretty much.

I think you need to spend more time here and less time over there, stress is not healthly. I wouldn't worry too much about them, they are not worth the effort or the time.

Thank you, King Krypton.  I might check these MBs out.  I could use a good laugh.   :lol:

One of the reasons I like this forum is because it's friendly.  I like that everyone can have their opinion and agree to disagree.   :D

No comic creator ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Modern Age fans.

The fact that certain talentless writers are so very popular now (you can think of your own, there are so many to choose from) are upheld as geniuses by mouthbreathing, Metallica t-shirt wearing teens, is more or less evidence of this.

No wonder Alan Brennert, one of the greatest writers of the Modern Age, is obscure and undiscovered. No wonder Steve Englehart hasn't been able to get work in years. No wonder Alan Moore left our dimension to become a priest of the Roman snake god Cybele or whatever the hell. No wonder DC used Kurt Busiek's bad case of Mercury poisoning to screw him out of writing JLA. These guys are true geniuses, and the average Modern Age fan doesn't know genius.

The very fact they revile SUPERMAN RETURNS ought to be taken as a sign that it's worth taking a look.

Whats hell-ariopus about those places is then they turn around and bash Byrne too! Like his "old art was better".

I dont even waste my time...if I do I read old comicsand that;s NOT wasting my time.

It's called research! LMAO :shock: