"This man is not our enemy. "
I thought that was one of the coolest lines/moments from MoS.
I thought that was one of the coolest lines/moments from MoS.
Your favorite live action Superman portrayal
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
There's a big difference between how the filmmakers chose to justify something and whether a viewer thinks it works well. No matter how you excuse it, putting Superman in armor just looks weird and undermines the idea of his invulnerability, and is also just ill-conceived for something that's supposed to be worn under his clothes (and yes, the New 52 Jim Lee design is justified as some kind of shapeshifting armor, but that's just overcomplicating it). Modern Superman costumes on film and in comics are just too overthought and overdesigned. The original was a classic. Look at Reeve in those photos. That costume is perfect the way it is. I don't care about "underwear on the outside" jokes (they're trunks, of course, so that's just ignorant and not worth being influenced by) or the fact that it's based in old-fashioned circus performer outfits (lots of modern clothing elements are based in older things, like ties); it's just the way Superman's costume looks, and I don't think it's something that needs to be messed with.
In Superman Retuns, Routh had cape puppeters to manipulate his cape.
Which, if you ask me, is a much more clever and effective way of using CGI -- to supplement and enhance physical elements rather than replacing them altogether. No matter how photorealistic you try to make it, a CG image is ultimately a drawing, an approximation of reality, and it's never going to have quite the same texture and detail and authentic physics as the real thing. CGI can be a valuable tool for enhancing a live, physical effect, particularly for deleting parts of the image that you don't want seen, like puppeteers. That's something CGI can do that can't really be done any other way, so that's an ideal use for it. But physical objects are better at being physical objects than any CG animation can ever be.
During any flight scene in MOS and BvS, Supes cape is always CGI. So Snyder can get it to flutter the way he wants.
In Superman Retuns, Routh had cape puppeters to manipulate his cape.
How does one become a cape puppeteer? That is a pretty unique occupation.
I think the justification for the MOS costume made sense. It makes sense to me that attire from a planet that harsh, at that period in its development, would appear that way.
I also think it does make sense for Superman to have body armor. Wearing cloth may not cut it if you're up against something as powerful as Doomsday. Superman may be indestructible, but if his clothing is not sturdy it could be ripped clear off.
I like both the new comics version of the costume and the MoS version in the sense that they are both connected to Kryptonian attire. It makes as much sense as previous reasons for his costume being indestructible.
I also really like Cavill's portrayal of Superman. It would be interesting to see people list their ratings of each of the actors out of five stars or something. My guess is that a lot of these guys would get pretty high grades and that they are much closer in fan's appreciation than just naming a favorite implies. CR and HC are clear favorites but I'm willing to bet that many of us really like Routh, Reeves, and Welling (maybe even Cain) as well.
I also really like Cavill's portrayal of Superman. It would be interesting to see people list their ratings of each of the actors out of five stars or something. My guess is that a lot of these guys would get pretty high grades and that they are much closer in fan's appreciation than just naming a favorite implies. CR and HC are clear favorites but I'm willing to bet that many of us really like Routh, Reeves, and Welling (maybe even Cain) as well.
I also think it does make sense for Superman to have body armor. Wearing cloth may not cut it if you're up against something as powerful as Doomsday. Superman may be indestructible, but if his clothing is not sturdy it could be ripped clear off.
When you're dealing with the kinds of things Superman goes up against, even the strongest armor material would be comparatively flimsy. So I don't think that's credible at all.
The Silver Age explanation was that all Kryptonian materials became indestructible on Earth, including the blankets he was wrapped in as a baby, from which his costume was made. The post-Crisis explanation was that his invulnerability was the result of a forcefield extending a couple of millimeters above his skin -- which nicely justified the skintight costume (though his cape was prone to damage in that era). Sure, you could also explain that the costume is made of some super-durable Kryptonian material, but if you're inventing a material with arbitrary properties, why not just make it look like smooth, skintight fabric, as was done in the Golden Age comics and the radio series? Ultimately it's still an aesthetic choice to go for the armor look, not a functional choice.
But it has to be explained and justified. It's like a joke -- if you have to go out of your way to explain it, it doesn't really work.
And again, I'm not talking about whether there's an in-story explanation, I'm talking about the visual itself and the sense it conveys, the first impression independent of any explanations after the fact. You see a guy dressed in body armor and it does not convey the impression that he's invulnerable. Body armor makes sense for Batman and for a lot of other heroes, but putting Superman in it just seems like a poor choice design-wise, just going for a cookie-cutter approach rather than personalizing the design.
Really, though, if we're talking about a look that conveys invulnerability, it'd make more sense to go with J. Bone's proposed redesign...
But it has to be explained and justified. It's like a joke -- if you have to go out of your way to explain it, it doesn't really work.
And again, I'm not talking about whether there's an in-story explanation, I'm talking about the visual itself and the sense it conveys, the first impression independent of any explanations after the fact. You see a guy dressed in body armor and it does not convey the impression that he's invulnerable. Body armor makes sense for Batman and for a lot of other heroes, but putting Superman in it just seems like a poor choice design-wise, just going for a cookie-cutter approach rather than personalizing the design.
Really, though, if we're talking about a look that conveys invulnerability, it'd make more sense to go with J. Bone's proposed redesign...
But ALL of the versions require explanations! I have to disagree here--the body armor is fine IMO.
What about simply flying from point A to point B on a daily basis? That alone would be enough to wear out some old pajamas. It's good to be prepared as best you can.
Aesthetics should be a consideration.
You guys had to quote that image...I'm gonna have nightmares about those puppeteers when I go back to sleep....
My heart says Reeve but I voted Cavill. 
During any flight scene in MOS and BvS, Supes cape is always CGI. So Snyder can get it to flutter the way he wants.
In Superman Retuns, Routh had cape puppeters to manipulate his cape.
Didn't know Kal-El was a Canucks fan...
Which is exactly my point. I think the modern armor-ish designs are overcomplicated and don't work well visually for Superman. His classic costume has been in use with only minor variations for most of the character's existence, across decades of changing fashions. Some designs work so well that they're hard to improve on.
I don't see how the MOS look is overcomplicated, it's basically a one piece modern leotard. If anybody's costume is overcomplicated it's Captain America's. And really Cavill's suit can't be an armor, they were able to get blood out of him.
The Cavill look is growing on me with what I'm seeing from the new movie. It does the positioning and proportioning of classic shared details like the neckline, upper cape, and chest symbol better than the Routh suit, for my money. Routh's was arguably a more traditional version of the suit pound-for-pound, but the redesign was overthought. It just looked wrong.
Also, I get the impression that all of the joking about the "Super-Speedos" was the death knell for the trunks in general.
Also, I get the impression that all of the joking about the "Super-Speedos" was the death knell for the trunks in general.
Reeve forever for, if nothing else, the way he says, "It's common knowledge that you hate children and animals, Luthor."
And that's just sad -- giving in to ignorant jokes like that. Too many superhero films/shows are still embarrassed and self-conscious about their comic-book elements.
Agreed. I'd like to see a return to tradition myself.
I was hoping that when they updated the Cavill costume, they'd put some red in those existing mid-torso details to better break it up and suggest the old trunks. But that's still all blue. As such, it does tie in with the detailing of the cuffs, which in turn evokes details from the original 1938 comics version of the suit that were lost early on.
Similar threads
