Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

Exactly so. The changes aren't being made to please Superman.

Why in the fuck would he start wearing this outfit to begin with? That's always been just one of the things that stretch credulity about these comics, they keep trying to explain it in one way or another, and goofiness like the red Speedo doesn't help.

Apparently he's losing the Speedo in all the toy merchandising and so on. In this example it looks like the manufacturers just made the single change at the last minute - everything else about his costume is "traditional:"

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/02/friday-runaround-from-turf-to-trunks/

 

The Superman figure sure has a strange expression on his face!

 

I can't help it. I just... love... pants!!

 

And that's exactly the problem. They're embarrassed by their own characters. Superman wore the trunks, X-Men wore the spandex, etc., with conviction, without bothering to explain anything, until some 15 years ago. It only became "goofy" when the creative forces behind them thought they were goofy. That's why what Donner and Raimi gave us didn't look goofy - because they had faith in the source material (pun intended).

 

He just got a look at the photos on Supergirl's FB page. This is a brave new world.

 

Thank you. This is what I was getting at but was too tired to articulate it.

 

Hubba Hubba,. Check out those gams

 

The fact they want to modernize the costumes and bring them into the 21st century hardly means they're "embarassed" by the characters. They just want to see them evolve with the times (as so many other characters have in both Marvel and DC).

Would you like it if the comics were still telling stories like in the 40s and 50s too? Clearly those had to change, so it only makes sense that other aspects might as well.

And in any case, I would argue what REALLY makes Superman iconic is the cape, shield, and red and blue color scheme. The freakin trunks don't even cross my mind.

 

Gawd, not this old chestnut, without even getting into the fact that many popular creators including Stan Lee used pseudonyms because they were saving their names for 'proper' or 'serious' adult work, they were *always* explaining away large aspects of this stuff.

Take his secret identity, the idea that nobody could work out that Clark Kent is Superman was considered hokey decades ago. 30 years ago they were saying that superman was using super-hypnosis on a sub-conscious level to make him look different as Clark Kent. Before that, they said that he used shape-shifting powers to look slightly different (Superman was even taller than Clark Kent).

 

I actually would not be opposed to a Superman movie set in the 1930s-1950s or at least having that tone and look with costuming and architecture while also being set in modern times. Heck, on some levels Superman: Returns had that going on.

 

They did a revised version and revival of the musical "It's A Bird, It's A Plane...It's Superman!" a couple of years ago at the Dallas Theater Center. They set it in the 1930s. It looks wonderful, and I'd like to have seen it.

You'll notice that the shield on his costume there is true to the period, and therefore is very different from the one that people are caterwauling over and claiming is the "real eternal forever and ever" version.

Other than as grounds for harboring a resentment there's no evidence or basis for the nonsense assertion that the DC people are "embarrassed" by the characters that they put so much effort and money into bringing to life and promoting. The truth of the matter is much simpler and straightforward:

Everything changes with time and fashion. Yes, even comic book characters.

After fifty years they took away Superman's Speedo. BFD.

Embarrassed by the characters? If they read teh Intarwebs they might be embarrassed by some of their "fans."

 

I found this thing over here, thought I'd add it to the mix. I don't believe I saw it posted



Personally I like the new movie suit and the way Cavill looks in it just fine.

 

Sure, I wouldn't mind if Lois Lane wore flats. High heels are little more than a piece of fetish wear that the whole society's bought into. I mean, I like ballgags as much as the next guy, but I don't expect women to wear them to work.

...Am I missing the point?

 

^ Possibly.

 

Most likely yes...
And I would have welcomed it if my old boss wore a ballgag at work

 

So, the woman in high heels is standing next to a guy in a skin-tight costume - Spandex or armor or rubber, depending on your preferred version - with trailing red cape and she's in fetish wear?

 

^ He's her gimp.