Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Remember Superman The Movie (1978)? I recently bought the extended version on DVD (146min). What a classic! The creators had enough foresight to stick to the original comic book version of the costume, which in my opinion, was key.

A few comments on the new costume (Superman Returns):
1. The 'S' on the chest - WAAYYY too small - it diminishes the character. I imagine Christopher Reeve would have looked as ridiculous if he had a  miniature 'S' on his chest.
2. The 'S'- belt buckle. This is a blatant move away from the costume that has stood the test of time for the last 68 years. It seems like overkill. A BOLD 'S' on the chest and the yellow emblem on the cape is more than sufficient. There's no mistaking the character - its unnecessary to advertise it.
3. Is it me or did I notice a red 'S' embedded on the heel of each boot? Come on guys - what's going on here? Is this 'superman' insecure or what?
4. The neckline on the costume is too high. It looks like it suffocating him.

These are the obvious diffirences that I picked out. I don't mind the darker colors, but to go and re-invent certain details of the costume sees like a gross infringement on an iconic figure.

There's no doubt that the movie will be big (I think), but I think the costume is ridiculous. It makes him look like a schizophrenic ballerina.

No doubt a lot of you will disagree. However, I'm sure there will be many die-hards that will reflect my views on this.

I agree with you: the S on the chest should be a lot bigger, but I rather like its embossed look. As for the one on the belt buckle, well, that's just silly, a completely unnecessary repetition of the symbol, as if he were Napoleon or something, desperately putting his initials on everuthing. I suppose this 21st century Superman has a tag, too, and that Clark Kent wanders around everywhere with a bunch of marker pens in his pocket.

I don't understand all the fussing about the new Superman Returns costume.  ALL the costumes through the years have been different.  

As far as the S being too small.  How about this?

http://www.comiccollectors.net/g_Med/Superman-6-5.5-DET-5092.jpg

These costumes are differnet too.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/serials/i-kirkalyn2.jpg

http://images.allposters.com/images/mmph-e/172114.jpg

http://www.supermanimagery.com/images/promo/superpose4.jpg

http://members.aol.com/lanekent/SUPERDC.jpg

All these costumes look different to me.  They also all look like Superman.

The "S" belt-buckle is nothing new either:

http://www.metropolis1.net/Superman/Superman%20Painting.jpg

Nor the high collar and small chest emblem:

http://superman.nu/a/images/fans.jpg

I've got a couple more costume links here

http://superman.nu/fos/thescreen/returns/costume.php

All-in-all, I like the costume.  It's a good combination of a streamlined 1930s look (similar to Fleischer and Kirk Alyn), with a little Curt Swan tossed in; yet it's also something modern and new.  Very contemporary.

:s:

Yeah, but that is only one of the most famous Superman Paintings of all time, that proves nothing ;)

Most of the people are complaining are doing it because it doesn't look like the suit in the current comics.

(http://images.aintitcool.com/images2006/Supes1.jpg)

Thank Rao for small miracles! ;)

People might also want to check-out this page

http://www.kal-el.org/suit.html

and this one

http://www.kal-el.org/action1.html

:s:

I like the SR suit for the most part, although I wish the emblem was a little bigger. As for the belt buckle, I read that it's supposed to replace the missing \S/ from the cape (which was left off because it was too hard to CG).

Heh, I guess we're just talking about what fashions we like here. Personally, I think the more open-necked tunic works better, but then, I prefer collarless, open-necked shirts for myself. I suppose I just like to show off my clavicles, which look like two rolling pins grafted onto my body.

Don't know if you guys visit the DC forums at all, but the views expressed there are pretty interesting and thought-provoking.
They discuss, among many other topics, the diffirences between the Reeve and the Routh look. Apparently many people think that Reeve looks more like a man than Routh. The narratives used to describe Routh were "boyish" and "looks like a fag". Sorry about that last remark, but that was a quote. I don't want to dwell on contentious or explosive issues, but I agree that Reeve pulled off the look a lot better.
Another interesting exercise they did was to digitally enhance a photo of Brandon Routh in the new costume to make it look more like the current look in the commics, i.e. the 'S' emblem was bigger, the belt buckle oval, the neck-line lower and the colors brighter. The diffirence is phenominal! The after pic makes Routh look like the real Superman. He looks somehow a lot more powerful in the 'enhanced' costume. This is a classical example of where the clothes makes the man. It's a pity I couln't find that picture again, cause there were loads of positve comments about it.
Another interesting point was raised with reference to director Singer's sexuality (Apparently Singer is gay. /this according to the DC forums/.Who knew.I certainly didn't.). Please believe me when I say that this isn't an attemt at gay-bashing, but you can't ignore the connection with the "gay look" that the DC-forum was talking about.
With that said, let me attempt to bow out gracefully; hopefully I will manage to escape a mountain of hate-mail.

Later!

You're not going to get any hate mail, chris6909.  We don't do that at this message board.  We just agree to disagree.   :)

Don't worry, Chris, this is one site where people don't tend to flame, at least in my experience.

My problem with Routh isn't particularly that he looks gay (and how does one do that? One of my closest friends is gay, and he just looks like a fat guy with a beard), it's just that he looks too young. I can't help worrying that the whole Superman Returns film is a Youth Culture thing. The director's videoblogs, the actors... Is it just me, or do all these people seem too young to know what they're doing? I always like to think of Superman as a fellow in his late thirties: the guy who could be your science teacher.

I know I'm going to watch this film, and when it inevitably comes out on DVD and UMD, I shall buy that, but frankly, I don't think I'm going to enjoy it. My personal view is that this flick will be more of the same, and not the stuff I like. It'll be like going to a chain restaurant: you may not like it, but hey, chow down. It's food.

Funny; when Christopher Reeve starred in the first film, I had a lot of these same concerns.  I was only 14 myself, but I thought he looked "too young."  MY Superman was George Reeves, the essential father figure who, to my young mind, began life at 40 and went up from there.  Casting a 20-something seemed like a bad idea to me...how could he have the all-knowing, supreme confidence Superman needed?  Was this all being done to offer up a new "sex symbol" at the expense of character? (And yes, Chris looked a bit "gay" as well to my young mind...he had a pretty, smooth face and he wore body-hugging spandex, where old George had a busted nose and wore a wool suit).

And while we're on the costume...Chris' outfit had a bigger "S" than the one in the comics of the time, and other little things that made it look "off" to me (like not being a true blue...a sacrifice made to facilitate the flying effects).  The reason the "S" is bigger now in comics is because Byrne knew Superman from films and not comics, so it seems ironic to turn that full circle against Singer.  

I'm still a bit worried that Routh looks too young, and for the record I still think Chris looked too young (!).  But I'm a bit more concerned about his lack of experience.  Rarely is a just-starting-out actor given such a major role in a huge production...once in a blue moon that gets us an Errol Flynn in "Captain Blood" but more often we get a George Lazenby in OHMSS.  But I've been through this all before and I've learned that you can't judge anything til you see the film.  I didn't like the Batman Begins suit in early pictures but now I've seen the movie I can live with it...I won't say it's any prettier than the first time I saw it but the movie made it seem functional, which is what mattered more than aesthetics.  Maybe Routh and Singer can sell me on this new/old look for Supes as well, by giving me a film where I don't sit there bored for two hours second-guessing the costume department.

Don't forget Chris Reeve was an unknown too and he was able to pull it off.

Let's hope Routh can do the same.

He still looks too young though. He shouldn't be wearing the red trunks; maybe a red diaper instead?

If it was Superinfant Returns...........brilliant!!!

Well, maybe I'm being prejudiced. If Singer and Routh pulls it off, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. We can can only hope.........

Well I don't know if I'd go that far.  At least Routh looks like he could age into the role, unlike Dean Cain, who even when he hits 50 will still look like a teenager.

I guess my concern is that we're going to get another Hayden Christiansen here, a guy chosen for his youthful sex appeal who couldn't act his way out of a Sunny-D commercial, much less carry a major motion picture.  I understand the desire to snag a new talent willing to sign a multi-picture deal because he doesn't have a career yet (and one who's looks might hold up for the 6 years it takes to unfold a trilogy), but the potential problem here is that Singer seems intent on making this a sequel, even if only in spirit, to the first two Donner movies.  Routh *might* pass for someone old enough to be a reporter on a big city paper, but from what I know of the plot, we need someone who looks six years older than Chris Reeve was in Superman 2.  And there's no way he can pull that off.

On the other hand, Lois is a mere mortal and those missing 6 years have REALLY been kind to her...she looks like her own daughter!

After watching this recent interview with Brandon, I think he'll do a fantastic job as both Clark and Superman:

Quicktime: http://iesb.net/videointerviews/brandonrouthggqt.php
Windows: http://iesb.net/videointerviews/brandonrouthgg.php

Everytime you see him adjust his forelock, just imagine that he's adjusting his glasses...

:s:

That's the first live interview I've seen with Routh.  I'm anxious to see him playing the part.

Another reason it was scrapped was because of the way the cape was designed: it's got pleats and folds all over it, and a cape shield would be distorted to the point where it wouldn't even look like an S-shield. (The choice of fabric may also have played a part--it's high-grade French wool with a latex overgloss to give it weight.)

And while we're on the subject of all the costume elements preexisting, the textured fabric and tricked-out boots are something the comics have dabbled with in recent years, the embossed logo and visible seams were first done by Lee Bermejo for the Azarrello Lex Luthor series, and the darker colors have been a recurring motif for years (Flesicher, "Exile," Kingdom Come, and the post-OWAW comics). The only thing Singer's done that's new is fusing all these elements into one costume. However, try to explain this to the naysayers, and they retaliate by sneering that every incarnation of Superman pre-1986 is garbage and has no right to ever be referenced again. Believe me, I've seen this too many times to count.

I hear you. I,ve considered the possibility that this costume might look diffirent to me if it was filled with someone more adult-looking. I,ve said before that this (Routh) is a case where the clothes makes the man. A modern version of the costume would have made him look like more of a Superman. However, the man can also make the clothes. Put the right person in that suit and it would propably look right. Wouln't a modern version of the costume AND the right person be preferable?

If I look for clothes, or any one for that matter, what is the preferance? Old outdated clothes? Or modern and up to date?

I guess at the end of the day it's a valid take on the suit, I just still don't think it is a very good one. It really feels like a step down from what they were able to do with the costumeing on Chris Reeve.

I realy hate the designer saying things like "we didin;t want the cape to look like a peice of cloth on his back". Dude, what the hell do you think a cape IS?Oh so it's better that he looks like he has a brownish tarp on his back instead?

I really think what they should have done was take the basic design of the Reeve suit and simply advanced the science of it with some modern materials and techniques.

Exactly, why tamper with the basic, "modern" design of the last 20 years??

I'm guessing that if Singer read similar forums prior to the costume design phase, it wouln't have made a diffirence anaway, cause he already had HIS look in mind. I doubt whether the opnions of the general fan-base were ever brought into consideration or even thought of.

In my opinion, if the above statement is accurate, the director, producers and designers of this new version of Superman are gargantuan, foolish nincompoops.

From Dreamwatch #138:

So all those little micro-S's make sense.  In the movies, the costume is from Krypton, so like Superman's fortress, it's really a big crystalline growth.  ;)

:s:

Singer and his team would have been "gargantuan, foolish nincompoops" if they'd listened to so much as a peep out of the idiots who form the bulk of the fanbase these days. They never would have been able to make ANY kind of Superman costume if they relied on fan feedback. Some wanted Dean Cain's suit resued. Others wanted Reeve's reused. Others wqanted the costume to be an exact copy of their pet artist's rendition. Others wanted the suit radically altered and offered their own redesigns. Singer was smart to ignore them. Otherwise he'd never have gotten any work done, because he NEVER would have been able to please anybody.

And since when did the John Byrne-onward suit visualization become the end-all be-all standard? Superman's been around longer than that, and Singer's costume is based on those earlier versions (Fleischer, Alyn, Reeves, and the HJ Ward paintings). I fail to see how Singer's a "gargantuan, foolish nincompoop" for taking his design inspiration from Superman's golden years. I actually think he's showing Superman a huge amount of respect by acknowledging and being inspired by the older stuff. You might as well castigate those older versions for the smaller emblem and collar, the Fleischers for the darker colors, and Ward for the belt buckle. And you might as well crucify Spider-Man and Fantastic Four for introducing the upgraded costuming techniques Singer used.

Give it a break, please. Superman doesn't look radically different from any other live-action version. If anything, it's a huge upgrade from the Halloween suit Dean Cain had.

And no matter what he did he wasn't going to please EVERYBODY.  From what I've heard there were people who didn't even like Chris Reeve's costume.  It's a no win situation.  Most fans these days if it isn't done exactly their way it's no good.

Gents, sadly, in my opinion, you are missing my point.
Agreed, the FF and Spidey suits looked great. Especially the Spiderman suit looked fantastic. I've got no problem with a "multi-dimentional" costume with raised or accentuated insignia etc. With Spidey at least the proportions were kept largely intact.
Nor did I imply that Singer should be taking orders from the fans. I merely suggested that it would have been better to at least get their opnion on something as important as this, especially if you plan to make a couple of references to costume designs that dates back. Surely this will cause some controversy, hence all the discussions on this topic. And if you think I'M blasting this cossie, you should read some comments on other forums. Believe me, I'm still being kind.
Furthermore, to suggest that most of the current fan-base are idiots, is idiotic. Not to mention ignorant and arrogant.
There's good reason why designs evolve. I'm betting that I reflect the majority opinion. Does the majority opnion mean that it's right? I'd be the first to admit - not necessarily. But its worth some very serious consideration - if only from a revenue-based perspective.
There's a lot to be said for sentiment; more so modern sentiment, as this is what will make Superman survive.

There is nothing wrong with the costume impo.  Since I am probably twice the age of the posters of this forum I can tell you it's pretty accurate and true to superman.... except the person who's wearing it.... stinks.  Or maybe I should say who's not wearing it.

(http://mid.bpcdn.us/1_LQQKIN_4_LUV/smallvillesuperman5.JPG)

chris6909 writes:





I don't think it's standard practice for movie-makers to ask fans how to make a movie, and I wouldn't want to see that precedent set, either.  If Singer did ask for fan input, he'd get all kinds of conflicting advice since there are fans of all ages who know Superman from wildly different periods and looks.  Whatever he did would have disappointed someone, so it's better not to even give the illusion they have a say in the matter.

You're right, not all fans are idiots, but when you get down to it the fans who write into message boards on the internet -- whether to praise or lambaste Singer -- are an incredibly miniscule and negligible portion of this film's eventual audience.  

And don't forget, Singer's a fan, too.  I suspect if most of these people complaining about the film were themselves handed the opportunity to make a big-budget Superman movie, they'd run right out and do it the way they always dreamed of doing it, without clearing everything with their buddies on the internet first.





This new costume isn't the pre-Crisis or Golden Age version, any more than it's the Byrne version.  That, in my book, makes it another step in the "evolution" you refer to.  So you should be happy!

GenCobra writes:



Wow.  All I can say is that for an 80-year-old, you're really handy with Photoshop!  :lol:

I'm 62 next month nightwing.

Ah, that's not old.  Paul McCartney's 62 and he's spry as ever.

I'll be 41 soon, so you're still not twice as old as me.  But you may be the oldest member of this board, sure enough.  And it's a cinch you're the oldest Tom Welling fan I've ever "met"!

He is over twice as old as me, but not by much.

Anyway, welcome to the boards.

IMHO, Tom Welling  is far too young looking to play Superman, Superboy yes, but not Superman.

I just watch too much tv. ha

Well, hell. This is my very first post here, so I may as well make it count. I'm jsut going to say for the most part I don't much care for the Singer interpretation of the costume. What I'd like to see, is a costume that manages to captures almost 70 years of history, and still manages to be contemporary. That means something different to everyone. To me, It says a costume with a colour palette firmly locked into the primaries; not this muddy-neutral scheme that's being shown. His cape and boots are BROWN. I also think the cape should be more flowy and I prefer the open collar. Although it has been done in the comics, the close collar is not common at all, and just looks too staid. Same with the S belt buckle. A simple oval (the classic design) would have been better. A higher up sleeve (cut just above the wrist) would be nicer too (I just prefer it). Singer's shield is too small (should be bigger, though not huge) and not tactile, which I think just presents practical issues under a shirt. Anyway, before I ramble too much I'm attaching an image of what I think ought to be the colours in the film.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/jor_el/superman1.jpg)

I wonder why the 'red' in the suit is particularly darker than usual.

fro

Singer has said that this is what he was going for.



The colors are going to be more like the colors you have in your retouched pic.  The original picture wasn't the best example.  The newer pictures show this.

No, it's not. It's the unvarnished truth. The Superman fandom as its stands is unbelievably stupid, egotistical, and shortsighted. They're the ignorant ones, not me. Point out that Singer's costume is rooted in Superman's history, and they'll either deny that history and claim the costume is totally unrecognizable as Superman or insult the history as inferior. Cite Singer's design influences, and the fandom will condemn them as garbage because of their vintage or because they're not what was done in 1986-1999. Explain to them someof the practical reasons for the costume elements (the plain cape being easier to CGI than tryting to texture a map a yellow sheild distorted by multiplepleats and folds), and they'll scream about how the filmmakers are too "lazy" and "arrogant" to "follow tradition," and then extend that same insult to the cartoon animators who left the emblem off the cape, too. Siegel and Shuster are often dismissed as "getting Superman all wrong" in order to prop up Byrne as the true creator, but they've even been bashed with regards to their early work being used in part for the costume design. Max Fleischer's been insulted as a hack who had no idea how to do a cartoon character design. The fandom is dead-set against Superman's own history. They want an Iron Age Superman, full stop, and they'll tear apart anything that isn't it.



That's exactly what Singer did. He pulled the costume together from elements of all eras of Superman's history. And he's been skinned alive for it because the idiots who claim to be "fans" don't want Superman's history acknowledged. They point only to Byrne or Alex Ross and say that's the only way to depict the suit. And God help anyone who thinks differently, or who sees the value of Superman's pre-Byrne history and understands where Singer's coming from. It's even gotten to the point where these morons have claimed that the Abrams script where Krypton didn't explode and Lex was Kryptonian or even Burton's whacked-out goth take would be superior to Singer's offerings. If they can't have their Iron Age Superman, they'll embrace a total character assassination over something informed by all the character's history. And this is an opinion I should respect?

I used to think it was the Batman fandom that was the most clueless because of their mindless lemming mentality toward Frank Miller. Butr with this movie, I've come to realize that the Superman fandom is infinitely worse. They're not only deliberately and willfully ignorant and brainless, but they flaunt it like a badge of honor and demand that everyone else be the same way. No, their opinions should never be listened to. They'd sell this character out in a heartbeat, and put bluntly, they're traitors. Every single one. They have no right whatsoever to call thesmelves "fans," because they're too full of themselves to see Superman as more than just 1986-1999.

Wow, King, a bit of a chip on that shoulder, eh?  :lol:

Well, you can take solace in this little fact:  Superman is much, much bigger than his modern comics fan base.  They can't live forever, and when they're gone, their vision of Superman will be forgotten, while the Superman of George Reeves, Christopher Reeve -- and of Jerry and Joe, Curt and Mort et al will live on.

Superman has fans from 5 to 85.  The older ones were not reading comics in the 80s and 90s and the younger ones are coming up in an age where DC is sweeping the 80s "reboot" into the dustbin.  Soon enough Iron Age Superman will live on only in the memories of those fans who were around from 1986-1999...statistically not anywhere near a big slice of Superman fandom.  

Eventually the comics of the 80s and 90s will be seen as a minor blip in Superman's history, featuring some oddball experiments that went in crazy directions but had no lasting effect on the mythos.  Vintage tales gave us idyllic Krypton, the Daily Planet, Lois, Jimmy and Perry, Kryptonite, Kandor, Krypto, Supergirl and so on.  Those things persist and always will, despite all efforts to erase them.  The 80s and 90s gave us businessman Lex, dystopian Krypton, Electric Superman, long-hair Superman, etc...those things are already gone and the 99% of the Earth's population who don't read comics never even knew they were there.  In the grand scheme, those elements of the mythos with merit will last and those elements without merit will fade away.  That's been true in any period of Superman's history.

Most of the world knows Superman through movies, TV shows, cartoons and radio anyway and that's likely to continue.  Singer has the good sense to know this.  He knows he's making a movie for the whole world, not for a statistically insignificant cohort of obsessive comics fans in their 20s and 30s.  Even if every one of them boycotts this film (which they will NOT), it won't hurt the box office one iota.

As to whether they're "idiotic," who can say.  Different strokes for different folks, and if they like the 80s and 90s Superman, that's their choice.  But if they really imagine they have the power to dictate to Warner Brothers how a multi-million dollar film should be made, then yes, they're idiots.

Well - heck, so much fun happening here, why not dive in?

For the record, I think Routh is the most superhero looking Superman yet.  Now, I loved Chris in the role, but up until Routh, Cain was the most muscular Superman (although Kirk didn't do too bad himself).  Chris was a little too skinny for my tastes (until Superman 4 - but that's like... I dunno what.)

I guess they did muscle-pad the suit a bit, but Routh apparently bulked into it where they had to remove the pads because he looked too big.  (Keep you're puns to yourself!)

Chris certainly had the face - but I think Routh has the overall package.

As far as the suit is concerned, I've seen so many versions, I really don't care.  I am quite happy they dropped the "S" on the cape, however.  That was a design element that really never worked for me.  He doesn't need it.  I like a long, and heavy cape on Superman, versus a mini cape.  If you're gonna wear one, make it big - not a towel on your back.  No one is ever gonna mistake who you are when you're swooping down and all they see is a red cape.

The shield, I've always been a fan of a big one.  I think Byrne's and Ross' are the biggest to date.  I think George's was about the same size as Routh's.  So - this will have to grow on me.

The boots are the most clever element yet in any Superman costume.  Finally, something that looks like it has a reason to be scalloped at top.

The belt, again, it needs to grow on me.  The fact is that if there is an "S" on the front, what's the point of another one?

I guess the silkscreen on the costume is lots of little blue shields to give it texture.

Also, I like the darker colors.  There is something more modern about those.

So - I've got lots of faith in what Singer did.  He did alright by X-Men, and kick started the superhero franchise game again.  This time he's doing it with the godfather of superhero movies' blessing - Rich Donner.  And, he made Warner give our boy Supes some more respect and even quite likely bought Smallville another season (which like it or not, it is still Superman and gets people interested).

It's all good.