LibriumArcana.Games

Hollywood won. Even if I never watch 'The Man of Steel' in theatres (which I rather suspect I will despite my severe dislike for Clark's costume) they're going to make money off me, because if I get the chance to I very much intend to buy one of the T-shirts, one of the PJ shorties(or whatever they're supposed to be) and both pairs of boxers.

!	Message from: Dark Silver
	Split from Venting #40 in Down Below.

I rather suspect I will despite my severe dislike for Clark's costume

Huh? It's a normal Superman costume with a bit of texturing to make it look tougher, and minus the underwear on the outside. Surely outside underwear wasn't that important, was it?

On second thought, a red belt to break up the blueness of the suit wouldn't be amiss.

Personally, I'm more okay with a superhero who can manage to wear his underwear beneath his pants, and not on top of them.

I mean, if he's had a rough day and puts on his underwear outside of his pants once or twice going to work, then fine, it's understandable. Despite the fact that it's Superman we're talking about here, at least one person would get up the courage to say "uh... dude, your underwear's outside of your pants."

But to have his underwear on the outside be purposefully part of his costume? No.

Lys wrote:

I rather suspect I will despite my severe dislike for Clark's costume

Huh? It's a normal Superman costume with a bit of texturing to make it look tougher, and minus the underwear on the outside. Surely outside underwear wasn't that important, was it?

Yes it was, at least to me. And it's not a normal Superman costume by any definition I'm willing to accept. The blue's too dark, the red's too dark, there's no yellow S shield on the cape. And not only don't I see how the pointless texturing makes the suit look tougher, why would it need to? The one who's invulnerable is Clark, not the suit. He's gone through a fuckton of suits even since I started reading superhero comics again leave alone the three quarters of a century before and from what I can tell it's Clark that makes the suit invulnerable (except when it is dramatically required that the suit be damaged while Clark is not, of course), not the other way round.

rhoenix wrote:Yes it was, at least to me. And it's not a normal Superman costume by any definition I'm willing to accept. The blue's too dark, the red's too dark, there's no yellow S shield on the cape. And not only don't I see how the pointless texturing makes the suit look tougher, why would it need to? The one who's invulnerable is Clark, not the suit. He's gone through a fuckton of suits even since I started reading superhero comics again leave alone the three quarters of a century before and from what I can tell it's Clark that makes the suit invulnerable (except when it is dramatically required that the suit be damaged while Clark is not, of course), not the other way round.

Okay look dude comes from a different culture and we don't have to be judgmental okay?

Josh wrote:Okay look dude comes from a different culture and we don't have to be judgmental okay?

Psh. I will judge anyone harshly who wears their underwear on the outside.

Batman wrote: Yes it was, at least to me. And it's not a normal Superman costume by any definition I'm willing to accept. The blue's too dark, the red's too dark, there's no yellow S shield on the cape. And not only don't I see how the pointless texturing makes the suit look tougher, why would it need to? The one who's invulnerable is Clark, not the suit. He's gone through a fuckton of suits even since I started reading superhero comics again leave alone the three quarters of a century before and from what I can tell it's Clark that makes the suit invulnerable (except when it is dramatically required that the suit be damaged while Clark is not, of course), not the other way round.

This is fucking idiotic. Batman's costume changes far more radically than this Superman suit. Batman goes from black to grey to blue and everyone is fucking cool with it but somehow it isn't Superman if the blue is darker than some arbitrary shade. And texture? Batman goes from Robobat armour to spandex.

And this is without mentioning Spiderman and his suits.

Anyone who brings up the Amazing Spiderman and the lens-flare web shooters will be shot.

General Havoc wrote:Anyone who brings up the Amazing Spiderman and the lens-flare web shooters will be shot.

I would totally do this just to annoy you, had I any frickin' clue what it's about.

(Never saw the latest movie.)

*Shots Josh on principal*

(for Havoc)

As CLEARLY outlined in my crossover fan fiction between Spiderman and Little House on the Prairie, Spiderman's costume is red and green and blue CLEARLY showing his allegiance to the downtrodden and oppressed People of the Prairie which he kept for three hundred and seven years (because he found the sacred golden tablets and became immortal LOL) so over time Spiderman added different kinds of cloth and sea anemones to his costume to keep up with the times (and feed his super-advanced web spinners that turn sunlight into spider webs like you see on TV because they eat grapefruit and badgers mostly) but he added different colors to the costume so people would think he's passing on the title of Spiderman to the next worthy stable-worker because Spiderman CLEARLY rides horses in this time period (since his magical spider powers recharge with the sun because CLEARLY they were a gift from the Egyptian spider goddess who took pity on the poor stable-hand and gave him the POWER of the SPIDER so he always rides horses LOL) but as time went on and he didn't age he decided to add burgundy to show sympathy for the downtrodden people of Antarctica after Johnny Cash defeated the evil penguin empire's vast armies with the power of bluegrass and tequila (because penguins are magical and have burgundy blood which proves they're benevolent aliens planted on earth to watch over humanity) so Spiderman got a car and defeated the mobsters in New York so he added more black to his costume to show his protest of EVIL but now his costume was given to him by a friendly Hollywood producer who wanted to cover up the story by making a movie out of it and gave the real Spiderman the One True Costume once the movie was done.

rhoenix wrote:(for Havoc)

As CLEARLY outlined in my crossover fan fiction between Spiderman and Little House on the Prairie, Spiderman's costume is red and green and blue CLEARLY showing his allegiance to the downtrodden and oppressed People of the Prairie which he kept for three hundred and seven years (because he found the sacred golden tablets and became immortal LOL) so over time Spiderman added different kinds of cloth and sea anemones to his costume to keep up with the times (and feed his super-advanced web spinners that turn sunlight into spider webs like you see on TV because they eat grapefruit and badgers mostly) but he added different colors to the costume so people would think he's passing on the title of Spiderman to the next worthy stable-worker because Spiderman CLEARLY rides horses in this time period (since his magical spider powers recharge with the sun because CLEARLY they were a gift from the Egyptian spider goddess who took pity on the poor stable-hand and gave him the POWER of the SPIDER so he always rides horses LOL) but as time went on and he didn't age he decided to add burgundy to show sympathy for the downtrodden people of Antarctica after Johnny Cash defeated the evil penguin empire's vast armies with the power of bluegrass and tequila (because penguins are magical and have burgundy blood which proves they're benevolent aliens planted on earth to watch over humanity) so Spiderman got a car and defeated the mobsters in New York so he added more black to his costume to show his protest of EVIL but now his costume was given to him by a friendly Hollywood producer who wanted to cover up the story by making a movie out of it and gave the real Spiderman the One True Costume once the movie was done.

FUCK THE SEVEN GENERATIONS OF YOUR ANCESTORS!

I think back at times.....and I remember Havoc when B4 & I first met him....

he'd go into apoplectic shock whenever someone said a curse word around him....much less had to say one himself....

And he had no idea what Transformers were....

-sighs wistfully-

How they grow up...

frigidmagi wrote:*Shots Josh on principal*

Another week, another clone decoy down.

When they said ethics are expensive, I never thought that'd apply to me.

Batman wrote:Yes it was, at least to me. And it's not a normal Superman costume by any definition I'm willing to accept. The blue's too dark, the red's too dark, there's no yellow S shield on the cape. And not only don't I see how the pointless texturing makes the suit look tougher, why would it need to? The one who's invulnerable is Clark, not the suit. He's gone through a fuckton of suits even since I started reading superhero comics again leave alone the three quarters of a century before and from what I can tell it's Clark that makes the suit invulnerable (except when it is dramatically required that the suit be damaged while Clark is not, of course), not the other way round.

The colours are dark and washed out because the entire movie is dark and washed out. Have you seen the trailers? His normal colour scheme would look ridiculous. The directors made a stylistic choice on the colour of palette of the movie, in part influenced by modern action movie trends, and the costume need to be adjusted to fit. The texturing is probably unnecessary, but it might also be the same deal as the colour in that leaving it as smooth jumpsuit looked weird or out of place with the rest of the set pieces. Doesn't the new comic book superman also have a suit that looks reinforced? This guy here. Maybe they were going for that but it didn't look good on screen so they textured it instead.

The logo in the cape... honestly i'm not convinced anyone other than avid comic book readers even noticed it was gone, which suggests to me it's not particularly iconic or important. Really the only thing that's really amiss is that the chest-to-shins uniform blueness that could probably use a red belt (like in the linked picture) to break it up.

Lys wrote:Really the only thing that's really amiss is that the chest-to-shins uniform blueness that could probably use a red belt (like in the linked picture) to break it up.

And really using the word amiss is too strong, it's more like it would be a possible improvement. They did break up the blue with an oval belt buckle and some grey bits. It's possibly they did try the red belt and it didn't work as well live action as it does in the comic, so they toned it down until they got what's there now. Again, much in movie costuming is down to what does and doesn't work on screen, and frankly given the overall look of the movie they've probably stayed as close to the original as they can.

I don't really have a problem with the movie costume, but frankly I really dislike the new 52 one.

Yes, I've seen the trailers, and yes, I know about current action movie trends, and the movie being all dark, and I think I don't want to see this in a Clark movie. The setting and the [/i]situation[/i] being all grimdark is all right, happens in the comics all the time. That's the very reason Clark must not be. He's the Ultimate Paladin of Hope. I can wear black because I hide in the shadows. Clark is the one who makes the shadows go away. I don't want him to start dressing like me.
Plus I'm peeved I haven't heard a note of the Williams score so far. Dislike 'Superman Returns' all you want (and I dislike it a lot), Bryan Singer has my respect for refusing to do that movie unless he got to use the music.

Most people would probably pin Clark's Ultimate Paladin of Hope status on his beliefs and actions rather than his costume. If you're all for the setting and situation being grimdark, something that is conveyed in part by the art direction, then you must at accept that most of the audience isn't going to buy his costume looking out of place from everything else. If the world is greyish and washed out, the costume must be greyish and washed out, else the pieces don't fit together aesthetically. You could argue that there are ways to have bright vibrant colours and still have a dark world. Watchmen did it brilliantly for example, but notably its movie adaptation toned down the colours noticeably, which suggests to me that it generally works better in graphic novels than it does on screen. Or rather, that the people making movies believe it works better in graphic novels than it does on screen. Yet, i cannot think of any movie that had a bright, vivid colours and yet was a grim setting.

Then we have to agree to disagree. You're talking all about visuals and movie-making conventions and how Clark's traditional garbs wouldn't fit in, and for all I know you're right. I'm talking about what Clark is all about, and that for most of his career, his costume reflected that. Clark is supposed to wear bright colours, because especially if things are grim and dark, you need to able to look at him and believe that there's still hope. Most of the comics costumes (once they established the now traditional S shields) did that. Most of the animation ones (that I know) did that, and them I can forgive because at the time they were made, the yellow S shield on the cape would have been a pain to animate for, as you said, no good reason, it's not really iconic (which doesn't mean it being omitted doesn't annoy me, but I understand that sometimes it's more economical to do so for something few fans really care about), but you can't tell me it would have been a problem in a live action movie like Returns or Man of Steel, even if the cape is apparently CGI in the latter.
Yes, maybe you're right and Clark's traditional duds (or maybe even the abomination from the New 52) wouldn't have worked in this movie.
But that brings me back to if he needs the grimdark duds for this to work, is that a Clark movie I actually want to see?

I see no evidence of the new Superman movie being grimdark. No offense, but you should keep your cape on and not make such judgement from small things like the brightness of colors in a trailer.

You don't do a Clark movie with a grimdark costume if the movie isn't, and Lys is right about the trailers. And while I've been provided well enough by DC Animation, the last live action Clark movie worth watching was Superman III. IV is best tried to be covered under the Highlander Clause, II was mediocre at best, Returns had as its only saving virtue the Williams theme, and now, they're giving me a Nolanverse Clark. WITHOUT the Williams theme at least as far as I can tell for the time being.
If you you can't work Clark in bright colours into your story, you have no business telling his.

Batman wrote:Then we have to agree to disagree. You're talking all about visuals and movie-making conventions and how Clark's traditional garbs wouldn't fit in, and for all I know you're right. I'm talking about what Clark is all about, and that for most of his career, his costume reflected that. Clark is supposed to wear bright colours, because especially if things are grim and dark, you need to able to look at him and believe that there's still hope. Most of the comics costumes (once they established the now traditional S shields) did that. Most of the animation ones (that I know) did that, and them I can forgive because at the time they were made, the yellow S shield on the cape would have been a pain to animate for, as you said, no good reason, it's not really iconic (which doesn't mean it being omitted doesn't annoy me, but I understand that sometimes it's more economical to do so for something few fans really care about), but you can't tell me it would have been a problem in a live action movie like Returns or Man of Steel, even if the cape is apparently CGI in the latter.
Yes, maybe you're right and Clark's traditional duds (or maybe even the abomination from the New 52) wouldn't have worked in this movie.
But that brings me back to if he needs the grimdark duds for this to work, is that a Clark movie I actually want to see?

I'm going to have to go with Frigid here. I saw no evidence that the new Superman movie is going the "grimdark" route. More grounded in realism (insofar as a comic book character can be) maybe, but not grimdark.

Saying "I don't like how the colors of the costume appear muted" is one thing. Likening that to the movie itself being "grimdark" is a logical leap I'm not following.

Human speech is so given to hyperbole. There is no evidence that the Superman movie is going grimdark in specific, as the term is taken from Warhammer 40k's tagline of, "In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war." You could say Judge Dredd, Watchmen, and a number of other settings are grimdark, but the Superman movie is unlikely to be going that way, nor does it look like it is. What does look like is happening is that they put on a patina of darkness upon the world. This is not, however, mean that Superman's heroism will be at all tarnished. If anything, it may shine all the brighter for having shadows upon which to cast its light.

Let's be honest here, there have been five superman movies, and not one of them was good. They range from mediocre (Superman 2)*, to bad (Superman 1, Return of Superman), to downright terrible (Superman 3 and 4). The bright, simple world that is being menaced by darkness and protected by a paragon of virtue in bright colours hasn't worked out very well. There is really little reason to keep trying this formula, when there are so many other directions in which to take Superman. Man of Steel looks exciting for being different, for promising to be a breath of fresh air, for giving me something not seen before in movie form. It is there that the potential lies for producing something truly great.

*Half of Superman 2 was good, the other half was bad, so overall rating of mediocre.