Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[Leo656]

It's because the whole "It's not fashionable and out of date" argument is STUPID. NOBODY ever dressed like that! Even in 1938, Superman's look was in no way "hip" or "contemporary"! It's a super-hero costume, it's supposed to be garish and eye-catching, not "practical" or any other nonsense. People over-think the f*ck out of these things.

Meanwhile, as has already been stated, there's a secondary function in that super-hero costumes look like sh*t without something in the middle to break up all that space. That was the entire reason they were always drawn that way in the first place. Granted, it makes way more sense to anyone who's studied drawing or art theory, but it is A Thing. Also, modesty. Regardless of movie suits being rubberized "armor", in print they've almost always been spandex, ostensibly. And anyone wearing a spandex onesie should definitely wear something like trunks over it before they go outside. It's not the most flattering look, to be sure.

I'd say, the fact that people Liked the look of super-hero costumes for 80 consecutive years, and it's only very recently that people started in with the whole "Underpants on the outside! How silly!" critique, means that the "classic" looks is fine, but people nowadays will pick any damn thing to nitpick. It's a complaint that says nothing about what's being critiqued but a whole lot about the person saying it.

Also, more personally, a lot of that stuff comes from people who don't even read comics in the first place, and I'm not about to listen to a single thing those people say about MY characters, anyway.

But yeah, multiple reasons that go far beyond "nostalgia". It's just a better look, and ALL the reasoning Against is immature nitpicking from people who don't know anything about comics, color theory, or clothing design. Simple as that.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's because the whole "It's not fashionable and out of date" argument is STUPID. NOBODY ever dressed like that! Even in 1938, Superman's look was in no way "hip" or "contemporary"! It's a super-hero costume, it's supposed to be garish and eye-catching, not "practical" or any other nonsense. People over-think the f*ck out of these things.

Meanwhile, as has already been stated, there's a secondary function in that super-hero costumes look like sh*t without something in the middle to break up all that space. That was the entire reason they were always drawn that way in the first place. Granted, it makes way more sense to anyone who's studied drawing or art theory, but it is A Thing. Also, modesty. Regardless of movie suits being rubberized "armor", in print they've almost always been spandex, ostensibly. And anyone wearing a spandex onesie should definitely wear something like trunks over it before they go outside. It's not the most flattering look, to be sure.

I'd say, the fact that people Liked the look of super-hero costumes for 80 consecutive years, and it's only very recently that people started in with the whole "Underpants on the outside! How silly!" critique, means that the "classic" looks is fine, but people nowadays will pick any damn thing to nitpick. It's a complaint that says nothing about what's being critiqued but a whole lot about the person saying it.

Also, more personally, a lot of that stuff comes from people who don't even read comics in the first place, and I'm not about to listen to a single thing those people say about MY characters, anyway.

But yeah, multiple reasons that go far beyond "nostalgia". It's just a better look, and ALL the reasoning Against is immature nitpicking from people who don't know anything about comics, color theory, or clothing design. Simple as that.

You took the words right out of my mouth and organized them to make sentences I agree with.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's because the whole "It's not fashionable and out of date" argument is STUPID. NOBODY ever dressed like that! Even in 1938, Superman's look was in no way "hip" or "contemporary"! It's a super-hero costume, it's supposed to be garish and eye-catching, not "practical" or any other nonsense. People over-think the f*ck out of these things.

Meanwhile, as has already been stated, there's a secondary function in that super-hero costumes look like sh*t without something in the middle to break up all that space. That was the entire reason they were always drawn that way in the first place. Granted, it makes way more sense to anyone who's studied drawing or art theory, but it is A Thing. Also, modesty. Regardless of movie suits being rubberized "armor", in print they've almost always been spandex, ostensibly. And anyone wearing a spandex onesie should definitely wear something like trunks over it before they go outside. It's not the most flattering look, to be sure.

I'd say, the fact that people Liked the look of super-hero costumes for 80 consecutive years, and it's only very recently that people started in with the whole "Underpants on the outside! How silly!" critique, means that the "classic" looks is fine, but people nowadays will pick any damn thing to nitpick. It's a complaint that says nothing about what's being critiqued but a whole lot about the person saying it.

Also, more personally, a lot of that stuff comes from people who don't even read comics in the first place, and I'm not about to listen to a single thing those people say about MY characters, anyway.

But yeah, multiple reasons that go far beyond "nostalgia". It's just a better look, and ALL the reasoning Against is immature nitpicking from people who don't know anything about comics, color theory, or clothing design. Simple as that.

Eh, whatever floats your boat.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

So many people have mocked the undies on superheroes that it is kind of like "hmm that is dumb..." and also wearing undies over your clothes is like wearing a t-shirt to go swimming, it just looks dumb.

[Candy Kappa]

Pretty sure it's not actually underwear, it's a part of the costume in a different color to break up the monotonousness off otherwise boring and off putting costumes.

Seriously, that joke is just as overused as people joking about wares being free that have bar codes that won't scan in a cash register. Heard it a million times, and it wasn't funny the first time.

[Leo656]

Yep. As earlier stated, it's the one thing that stands between "That guy's a super-hero! Cool!" and "That guy is wearing a cape with his scuba suit. How odd." The sans-trunks look seems incomplete, especially with stuff where they don't even give Superman a belt. Your eye tells you something is "supposed" to be in that dead space.

In MoS, they even shot him almost entirely from the waist up, in a clever attempt to make sure that the change wouldn't be in any way distracting. Which is neat, but it begs the question, why change it at all, then? When you're 9/10s "perfect", just go ahead and be "Perfect". Y'know? Seems silly not to do that last little bit of work when you're already there.

[Slade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's because the whole "It's not fashionable and out of date" argument is STUPID. NOBODY ever dressed like that! Even in 1938, Superman's look was in no way "hip" or "contemporary"! It's a super-hero costume, it's supposed to be garish and eye-catching, not "practical" or any other nonsense. People over-think the f*ck out of these things.

Meanwhile, as has already been stated, there's a secondary function in that super-hero costumes look like sh*t without something in the middle to break up all that space. That was the entire reason they were always drawn that way in the first place. Granted, it makes way more sense to anyone who's studied drawing or art theory, but it is A Thing. Also, modesty. Regardless of movie suits being rubberized "armor", in print they've almost always been spandex, ostensibly. And anyone wearing a spandex onesie should definitely wear something like trunks over it before they go outside. It's not the most flattering look, to be sure.

I'd say, the fact that people Liked the look of super-hero costumes for 80 consecutive years, and it's only very recently that people started in with the whole "Underpants on the outside! How silly!" critique, means that the "classic" looks is fine, but people nowadays will pick any damn thing to nitpick. It's a complaint that says nothing about what's being critiqued but a whole lot about the person saying it.

Also, more personally, a lot of that stuff comes from people who don't even read comics in the first place, and I'm not about to listen to a single thing those people say about MY characters, anyway.

But yeah, multiple reasons that go far beyond "nostalgia". It's just a better look, and ALL the reasoning Against is immature nitpicking from people who don't know anything about comics, color theory, or clothing design. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Turo602

You took the words right out of my mouth and organized them to make sentences I agree with.

I'll do a third with this here.

[TLP]

This is probably my most anticipated movie for next year, along with Civil War.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by TLP

This is probably my most anticipated movie for next year, along with Civil War.

That avatar is pretty awesome.

Anyway, the no trunks thing is indicative of a wider problem with escapist movies of late, and that's an unthinking drive for bogus realism.

They insist that they are making movies that are 'grounded in reality', and so they eliminate elements that they categorise as outdated or silly, but then go on to create something that is just as ludicrous, but in a different way. Like the most recent Batman movies. I like them a lot, but I'm not a huge fan of the Batman design, which is someone's idea of a 'real-world' version of Batman. OK, a wealthy guy in grey spandex isn't going to work in the real world, but neither is a wealthy guy in fake rubber body armour. There is no way he's jumping around in all of that stuff, so why make him ugly for no good reason.

They did the same thing to James Bond, and while I like those movies too, the smug insistence that they are gritty and realistic turns me off a little. So James Bond isn't driving around Venice in a hover converted gondola, fine, but he is still jumping off of construction cranes without breaking his legs, and shooting foreign nationals in-front of a consulate full of diplomats without starting WWIII.

Superman looks good in trunks and that's all the reason you need as far as I'm concerned. In the featurette where they discussed removing the trunks, they said they did it because they wanted to 'update' the design and no one could think of a reason to keep them. Lame! They wanted to 86 the cape at one point too - I wouldn't have watched it if they had done that.

[Slade]

As much as I wish they'd put the trunks back on him, the Man of Steel suit is a millions times better than the t-shirt and jeans look......

[Leo656]

You ain't kidding on THAT one, son. More nonsense trying to woo the Marvel fans. Marvel fans ain't getting into Superman, period, on the whole they're way too cynical. They need to stop going for that audience. It's an Elvis/Beatles thing; you simply can't like both equally and you can't "convert" people who like the other one more.

Whenever they interview those costume designers for the Superman movies and TV shows, it's always the same thing as to WHY they start looking to screw with things: "Well, I personally was never a fan of the character..." SO WHY did you get put on this project? There's not someone out there in the WHOLE world who'd actually give enough of a sh*t about Superman, who can also sew, who would NOT want to put their own grimy little fingerprints all over something millions of people enjoy just the way it is? I mean, I f***ing hate Power Rangers. So if someone offered me the job to do designs for Power Rangers, I'd f***ing turn it down. I wouldn't go trying to turn it into "MY version" just because. I get that work is work, but these people can't help but try and "fix" things that don't need any fixin'.

Goes back forever. When they were developing "Lois & Clark" for TV, they had a bunch of ideas, including: All black, no cape, all black AND no cape, black and silver... and at one point, when someone MADE them actually try and get him to look like the comic book, they decided on the red and blue... with BLACK trunks. I assume at that point someone actually showed the costume designer what the costume actually looks like, and that's when they gave up and just gave us the real suit. But yeah, people are always trying to screw with it. And it's always someone who doesn't even care, thus their cavalier attitude. You gotta wonder how much money they waste on all those concept sketches and actual physical mock-ups, when nobody at all complains if you just use the regular suit from the comics. Should be simple. Getting the blue and red correct should be the only "problem" you have. Anything else, you're over-thinking it.

Proactive, you're on point, my dude. I like the Nolan flicks, but that suit was garbage. Batman doesn't look like he dipped himself in glue and rolled around in a pile of scrap metal, "realistic" or no. I'm like, "It's a comic book. They always say he wears all that armor UNDER the costume, why couldn't they have just said that?" Instead we get three movies of that hideous junk. In 2015, we shouldn't be super-pumped that a Batman movie is actually using the suit from the comics! But here we are.

[sdp]

The "underwear" look of Batman/Superman and whatnot is ingrained in our brains since we've been kids so of course it looks really weird to see superheroes without them however as much as I dislike the lack of "underwear" I've slowly come around, it really isn't that bad people just don't want to give it a chance. I'll still take the classic look but I've slowly been able to enjoy their new look.

As far as film, I totally understand the lack of underpants, some things just don't work in live action and while it'll be cool and I'm thinking it'll eventually happen I think it also has a chance of looking as ridiculous as the bat nipples. Remember how awful the "white" eyes looked in The Dark Knight? At first I thought it looked cool but upon repeated viewings it looks bad. Who knows, the trailer for BvS the "white" eyes works but we'll see. That's just an example of how some things from comics just don't translate well to live action. Let's also not forget that Leo will never be happy with anything he enjoys..

[Amaranthus]

I really like the Arkham Knight costume.
Don't hurt me.

[The Stryker]

Buncha pics so spoilered.

Spoiler:

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

Pretty sure it's not actually underwear, it's a part of the costume in a different color to break up the monotonousness off otherwise boring and off putting costumes.

Seriously, that joke is just as overused as people joking about wares being free that have bar codes that won't scan in a cash register. Heard it a million times, and it wasn't funny the first time.

The whole under pants on the outside look is based on Victorian era strong men and classic Greek heroes. It was meant to represent strength.

[plastroncafe]

Anyone else disturbed by the photoshopping of Wondy's neck on the cover image?

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Anyone else disturbed by the photoshopping of Wondy's neck on the cover image?

I'm disturbed by how ridiculously huge Batman looks.

[sdp]

I don't know why I'm still so hyped about this movie when I thought I was all superhero'd out. I guess it's only towards Marvel characters or Marvel cookie-cutter movies? Sorry don't mean to bash Marvel in the DC thread but those pics got me hyped.

[plastroncafe]

See, where as I'm just the opposite.

I couldn't stand "Man of Steel" and while I'm morbidly curious to see Affleck as Bats....because I'm curious to see if he can actually pull off a good Bruce and Batman -- A feat, that in my opinion no one who isn't Kevin Conroy has been able to accomplish -- I have absolutely no interest what so ever in this movie.

And that's not even touching the Wonder Woman aspect of it.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

See, where as I'm just the opposite.

I couldn't stand "Man of Steel" and while I'm morbidly curious to see Affleck as Bats....because I'm curious to see if he can actually pull off a good Bruce and Batman -- A feat, that in my opinion no one who isn't Kevin Conroy has been able to accomplish -- I have absolutely no interest what so ever in this movie.

And that's not even touching the Wonder Woman aspect of it.

So why not just see the movie since its the first one with Batman and Superman together? If you don't like it, don't watch the sequels. But I feel this will be interesting for novelty sake alone.