While I appreciate the literal translation from page to screen and the actor wears it well, the costume still looks cheesy in live-action, especially in regards to what the character is suppose to be (a soldier). Comic fanboys might love it; general moviegoers will laugh it off the screen.
That must be why that first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve flopped so horribly.
Oh,
wait...
Sigh.
Clearly, you didn't bother to read my earlier post. Here, I'll quote if for you (I bolded the relevant phrases so you can follow along):
Don't get me wrong. I love Cap. He's my favorite superhero. However, what is drawn and looks cool on paper doesn't always translate to live action in a movie made for mass audiences. Very few characters are able to pull that off. Cap isn't one of them.
With Superman, it works given who he is and what the character is capable of.
It should also be noted that, going by your logic, the earlier Cap movie should have been a wide success because the costume was like the comic counterpart. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't even released in theaters in the US. But the costume didn't make the difference there (actually, in most of the film, he either wasn't in it or was covering it up). In any event, what the character wears bears little, if any relation to the quality of the film.
And there is also my claim (which you ignored) that for a movie for general audiences (not only comic fans), a character wearing a costume like that, who is suppose to be a solider during one of the most violent conflicts in history, is going into battle wearing tights. I'm sorry, but that breaks the suspension of disbelief to far for a mass audience.
