Spoilers Supergirl - Season 2

[nx1701g]

Just happy I was guide surfing

 

[Commander Richard]

• I'm glad that we're getting both Clark Kent and Superman on the show.
• I like the way Lois & Clark did the Superman costume. It was a homemade outfit that Ma Kent put together. No need for complicated Kryptonian tech or outfits with too much detail and texture.
• I think we'll see Cat Grant more than we think. If they do have to reduce her role significantly, I still like the idea I mentioned a while back... Make her Lynda Carter's VP. Where do you go after you've founded CatCo.?

 

[The Old Mixer]

I was criticizing the poster.

Please criticize the post, not the poster.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

• I like the way Lois & Clark did the Superman costume. It was a homemade outfit that Ma Kent put together. No need for complicated Kryptonian tech or outfits with too much detail and texture.

In theory, sure. In practice, it was one of my least favorite interpretations of the classic costume -- the material was too shiny and the S-shield way too big. It looked garish.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Dean had a nice body.

He did not need articulated plastic bumps.

 

[nx1701g]

You know I like the idea of her being the Vice President...

 

[Christopher]

Remember the repeat episodes on CW start tonight.

Darn, I found out too late to record the pilot. I had been wanting to rewatch the season before the premiere. I'm recording the rest, and hopefully the pilot will be on demand or online.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Flockhart will be in season 2, though as a recurring guest, like many expected.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Which is a straw man, because I'm talking about judging it at this point.

...which is what i'm talking about--at this point--a BTS photo compared to another BTS photo. Fair comparison.

Exactly. I was criticizing the poster. I explicitly said more than once that my criticism of the poster had nothing to do with my expectations for the movie. I explicitly said more than once that I actually have a great deal of confidence about the movie and was criticizing the poster (which was made by different people, of course) because I felt it didn't live up to what I expect from the movie.

Aside from its acceptance here, even the media (usually sensitive about such matters) is not analyzing that poster. They're just accepting it for what it was meant to be.

 

[theenglish]

• I like the way Lois & Clark did the Superman costume. It was a homemade outfit that Ma Kent put together. No need for complicated Kryptonian tech or outfits with too much detail and texture.

That costume too was based on the comics of the day. The Byrne era had the idea that Superman emitted an aura that augmented or indeed was his invulnerability. This aura protected his costume, which kept it from burning up. I think it may even have been designed with his mother, but I could be remembering incorrectly. That was the era when he went through a lot of capes.

Prior to that, his costume had been stitched together from the blankets he was wrapped in when he was sent to earth.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I just don't think the costume looks complete without the trunks. Superman's costume is an iconic design, effectively unaltered for seven decades. I don't think it looks silly and needs fixing, I think it looks like Superman, and that's enough. I don't see a reason to change it. It's an overreaction to the silly "underwear on the outside" jokes, which were either not meant seriously to begin with or were too ignorant to be worth paying attention to, because there's a clear difference between trunks and underwear.
.

But someone once said that adaptation means change, adapting to current conditions. Wait, wasn't that you?!?!

I grew up with red trunk Superman, but appreciate the need to let that part go. No where near as iconic as the cape or especially symbol

ALso, Batman used to have trunks, but that too has changed over time, as has Wonder Woman going from bathing suit to Greek-Armor-like skirt. If we can take changes in the other two of the Big Three, why not Superman?

I mean, if any part of the costume is silly, surely the cape would take the prize.

Not really. Capes, if done right, can "look cool". Kids have been using towels or whatever to imitate capes when playing superheroes for decades. Do you know anyone who put briefs on the outside while pretending to be a superhero?

But comedians started making the underwear joke because it was an easy target, and as is so often the case, once the joke became a meme, people forgot that it wasn't intended seriously.

People have made jokes about the red underwear before common folk used the internet, let alone a meme.

I also don't think any of the recent overcomplicated, armor-like versions look cool. Again, I think the classic design looks cool because it looks like Superman. So the idea that looking like Superman is something that needs to be apologized for and corrected is intrinsically saying that Superman isn't already cool, and that works against making him cool. Besides, this is supposed to be something Clark wears under his street clothes. It should be basically a leotard.

Well, the armor is skin tight (a little too much on the newer versions, a least from what we see for Supergirl)...I would just like it to be a bit brighter.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

They're called trunks. Like what swimmers and runners wear. The "underwear" line is an old, old joke that was not meant to be taken literally, and it wore out its welcome a very long time ago.
.

To normal people, it looks like underwear. And more like briefs rather than boxers (which trunks normally are)

Swimmer and runners usually wear trunks and not have something under them (that's visble).

Indeed, since Superman's costume is meant to be worn under his street clothes, doesn't that make the whole thing underwear?

.

No, Underroos

 

[Christopher]

But someone once said that adaptation means change, adapting to current conditions. Wait, wasn't that you?!?!

I will never understand people who conflate general arguments and specific arguments. Of course change in general is not intrinsically bad, but that does not mean that every individual change is automatically good. Change should be for the sake of improvement, not just for the sake of change. I think that a change like casting a black actor as Perry White or Jimmy Olsen is good, because it corrects a deficiency in the original work. I think a change like toning down Superman's power levels is good because it creates more drama if there's a risk he could fail (and because it means you don't have to overuse kryptonite). But I think that a change like eliminating Superman's trunks is bad, because it doesn't serve a constructive purpose. It's just overreacting to an old cheap joke that's been mistaken for a serious concern, and it doesn't actually look better because it robs the costume of a significant part of its balance and contrast. And I think a change like putting Superman in some kind of alien armor is bad because putting armor on Superman is silly and pointless.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There are certainly things about Superman, or any comic-book character, that could benefit from change. This is not one of them. Superman's classic costume is the archetype of the entire category, iconic in its own right. And none of the recent, overcomplicated, armor-like redesigns has looked as good to me as the classic. Objecting to this specific change is not about the entire concept of change, any more than saying "That turkey sandwich I had last night was too dry" is an indictment of the entire concept of sandwiches.

ALso, Batman used to have trunks, but that too has changed over time, as has Wonder Woman going from bathing suit to Greek-Armor-like skirt. If we can take changes in the other two of the Big Three, why not Superman?

Because, again, the specific and the general are two different things. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merits. Saying that my turkey sandwich needs more mustard does not mean that your peanut butter sandwich needs more mustard.

Besides, I'm not that fond of the recent Batman redesigns either. As I said, they're all of a piece -- it's just the trend to imitate movie costume styles, and to make male characters look more like armored warriors. And a lot of it is just Jim Lee's particular design sensibilities, since he's the one who came up with the New 52 redesigns. And his costume designs are far from universally beloved. They tend to be overcomplicated and cluttered. His New 52 Supergirl costume in particular is one of the most awful designs I've ever seen.

Do you know anyone who put briefs on the outside while pretending to be a superhero?

Trunks. They're called trunks. Swimmers wear trunks when they swim. Runners wear trunks when they run. It's not underwear, it's athletic wear. As I said, the classic superhero costume was modeled on what 1930s acrobats and weightlifters actually wore. The trunks were worn over the tights for the sake of modesty and decorum.

People have made jokes about the red underwear before common folk used the internet, let alone a meme.

Exactly -- jokes. Cheap shots. Not meant to be taken seriously as evidence of a genuine problem.

To normal people, it looks like underwear.

And you just lost all credibility. "Normal people?" Who defines what's "normal," and why should only people who conform to that standard be allowed to have an opinion? Comic fandom is not made up of "normal people." We're the geeks, the nerds, the outsiders, the eccentrics. And comic-book heroes have usually been outsiders and eccentrics themselves, the champions of the outcasts. Superman is an immigrant, created by the sons of Jewish immigrants. Siegel & Shuster weren't considered "normal" by the people around them, and they were persecuted for it. Superman was their response to that persecution, a character who had great power and used it to protect and defend all people, not just the status quo imposed by the powerful who defined what "normal" was.

 

[Guy Gardener]

His trousers are blue.

The sky is blue.

A bird strike in the cock at mach 15 hurts even Superman.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I will never understand people who conflate general arguments and specific arguments. Of course change in general is not intrinsically bad, but that does not mean that every individual change is automatically good. Change should be for the sake of improvement, not just for the sake of change.

With all due respect, I think it's because it feels like when it's a change you approve of you will often defend it by saying "Adaptation means change, there's no point in doing an adaptation unless you make changes". It comes across as if you are using the general argument itself to defend specific changes.

 

[Ovation]

Or maybe some (many, perhaps most?) people don't have a problem with the specific change in this case? I've been reading/watching Superman for decades--the new versions are fine with me. I can't imagine I'm part of a tiny minority, even if I won't claim to be in the majority.

 

[Morpheus 02]

With all due respect, I think it's because it feels like when it's a change you approve of you will often defend it by saying "Adaptation means change, there's no point in doing an adaptation unless you make changes". It comes across as if you are using the general argument itself to defend specific changes.

THANK you!

I will never understand people who conflate general arguments and specific arguments. Of course change in general is not intrinsically bad, but that does not mean that every individual change is automatically good. Change should be for the sake of improvement, not just for the sake of change. I think that a change like casting a black actor as Perry White or Jimmy Olsen is good, because it corrects a deficiency in the original work. I think a change like toning down Superman's power levels is good because it creates more drama if there's a risk he could fail (and because it means you don't have to overuse kryptonite). But I think that a change like eliminating Superman's trunks is bad, because it doesn't serve a constructive purpose. It's just overreacting to an old cheap joke that's been mistaken for a serious concern, and it doesn't actually look better because it robs the costume of a significant part of its balance and contrast. And I think a change like putting Superman in some kind of alien armor is bad because putting armor on Superman is silly and pointless.
.

The "trunks" (I am calling them OverRoos now) are THAT iconic? I would say way way less that the diamond logo or the red cape or the blue portion of the suit...or heck, even the YELLOW belt. I don't see you complaining about that iconic piece!.

If walked down the street with a red cape, blue shirt & blue pants, people would know who you are. Heck, even just a red cape, and you get get a lot of "Hey Superman". Red trunks -- um,no.

The OverRoos , as you rightly explained, made a lot of sense at the time. But now, not so much. It looks as silly and out of date as the TMP uniform, or most especially, McCoy's disco outfit when he rejoined Enterprise. We would NEVER see that again for quite a while.

Armor , to a certain degree, actualy does make sense -- some kind of super suit that can go through the rough stuff Superman can... "realisitically" (using that lightly), his uniform would get destroyed too often. (See Flash's clothes in the pilot episode as an example why) An armor-ish type of suit makes more sense. That is constructive... far more realistic than simply being Kryptonian cotton. Superman gets into heavy duty battles -- he needs to wear something that can accomodate

 

[John Clark]

Armor , to a certain degree, actualy does make sense -- some kind of super suit that can go through the rough stuff Superman can... "realisitically" (using that lightly), his uniform would get destroyed too often. (See Flash's clothes in the pilot episode as an example why) An armor-ish type of suit makes more sense. That is constructive... far more realistic than simply being Kryptonian cotton. Superman gets into heavy duty battles -- he needs to wear something that can accomodate

I was thinking along those lines too. Given the scrapes that our Kryptonians get themselves into, you wouldn't want something too easy to damage. Kryptonian cotton might actually work, but for the Supergirl series (except for the cape), they've never mentioned where it came from have they(except for Winn making it)?

Hmm, if Kryptonian cotton is strong enough - how would WInn have gone about sewing it?

 

[JD]

Remember the repeat episodes on CW start tonight.

They also posted the first two episode on the CW app, and website.
As for the updates to Superman's costume, I'm more than happy to get rid of the trunks. I've always thought they were outdated and goofy, so I was glad when they got rid of them. It might have worked in the 1940s, but that was almost 70 years ago, and fashions and styles have changed a lot in that time.

 

[Samurai8472]

The iconic shirt rip!

I actually could see a Superman TV show in the next two years.

 

[dahj]

I actually could see a Superman TV show in the next two years.

I couldn't at first, but then I took a magnifying glass to the screen and yeah, this tiny guy does look like he could play Superman in the long run if they CGI him up a size or two.