Whether it be by second hand or first, Superman's costume has been one of the seminal superhero costumes for all comic book superheroes that followed. Tights, cape, emblem on the chest, coloured belt and underpants on the outside.
This formula or many elements of it have been adopted by many superheroes who followed. Batman wears almost exactly the same format, save for his cowl. Spiderman has his trademark spider symbol on his chest, as does Captain America and all the Lanterns, regardless of their colour. Even modern, more humorous takes on the genre have their underpants on the outside, like the Incredibles from Brad Bird's 2004 film of the same name.
One thing has distinguished Superman's costume over almost all other superhero costumes, however: it has not changed. Through all media, from comic book to movie to television and cartoon series, the 'S' shield, red underpants, blue tights and red cape have not changed (save for a brief period in the early 2000s where Superman Red/Superman Blue saga sent fanboys off on a massive rage).
The constancy of Superman's costume is something of a small wonder. The only other superhero whose costume has retained consistency for a comparable amount of time that comes to mind is Spiderman. Green Lantern, the X-Men and even the beloved Batman have gone through costume changes as their comic books have evolved and their stories have been adapted to film. The X-Men films went from yellow to black tights and the Batman comics adopted the new, more modern looking Bat-crest without the yellow background. These changes have been accepted and even lauded as welcome modernisations of their appearences.
Through all of this, however, Superman in every film and cartoon representation has retained the same appearance, with exactly the same costume each time (with some slight colour tone or shape changes). And the change that came with the Superman Red/Superman Blue saga was met with vehement dislike and rage - a lesson that all people who have portrayed him since have learned well. He is a symbol of the archetype Superhero. The Superhero. He along with his costume is symbol of idealism in heroism that characters not only in his universe but that also writers and critics outside of the comic book genre have all been fascinated with and acknowledged.
This will all change with the DC Universe's New 52 comic-book reboot and Zack Synder's Man of Steel film reboot. Both the main Superman comic-book line and the new Man of Steel movie will see Supes having his blue crotch area exposed, uncovered by his traditional red "Kryptonian overpants". DC Comics will now portray Superman has wearing blue "Kryptonian Battle Armor", a tact that leaked photos of Henry Cavill on-set seem to indicate that Zack Snyder is going toward as well.
To be fair on both of these machinations, the change is subtle with many classic elements remaining. The 'S' is still (more or less) the same and he still sports a red cape. However, I have a couple of issues that my friends have noticed as well with both these designs.
Let us focus on the DC Comics battle armor first. DC have made the decision with their New 52 reboot to specifically modernise all their major superheroes in order to try and attract a new and younger audience. The notion of a battle armor, with its sleek lines and high collar, then, would make some amount of sense. The same logic was applied with how Batman was depicted from simply looking like he was wearing tights to the armored kevlar in all of the Tim Burton, Joel Schumaker and Christopher Nolan Batman films. Form fitting armor with sleek assembly points looks cool.
There are two issues however. Firstly the colours - ditching the yellow belt and red underpants. The seeming silliness of having your underpants on the outside has been the butt of most Superhero jokes for as long as there have been smart-alec primary school boys. And the explanation of this as being Kryptonian fashion in the form of "over pants" is a slight stretch of the imagination. On an aesthetic level, though, it has always worked. Balancing the predominantly blue colours of his suit with the red pants and yellow belt always made his outfit look more appealing and less same-y than the battle armor's blue dominance.
Secondly - the high collar, and the idea of the armor altogether. Half of what has made Superman so appealing and fascinating as a superhero is that he has to change from Clark Kent to Superman in a flash. Meaningful character development, plot points and even humour has been derived from the costume change phenomenon. This works because his costume is low collared and is a pair of tights that would fit discreetly under a business shirt (ignoring the null-space where his cape must be stored). The tights are workman's clothes - simple sleek and they get the job done. He's not trying to cover up - he's just getting comfortable for super powered shenanigans.
Fundamentally, Superman is a superhero who doesn't need too much fancy equipment on hand. The appeal of Superman is that he is able to do his thing because of his natural abilities. He's not a technological genius who is using money and technology to fight crime. He doesn't even derive his power for some object or plot device that was bestowed onto him with great responsibility. He was born with the powers of a God, and instead of abusing them, he's decided to use his natural, unaided abilities to help mankind. And I'm not entirely sure why the Man of Steel needs armor, unless he's fighting the likes of Doomsday or other Kryptonians on a daily basis.
And what of Henry Cavill in the new Man of Steel film? The obvious muscle suit, muted dirty colours of his 'S' shield, odd decorative emobossing and reptilian-like texture to his costume all adds up to one thing: too much. Superman is supposed to be simple and majestic and idealitsic, not a dirty sweaty John Rambo-esque macho man. And the Red Underpants would have hidden the obvious sock he's stuffed down the front of his trousers.
To make a long point short - the Superman costume was fine as it was. I respect both DC comics and Synder's desire to make it more modern and hip to the young kids, but his costume is a timeless classic that has been a beloved symbol for a very long time. I think that the classic costume can still work for a modern audience.
It seems as though the change is being made purely for the of change rather than any real unhappiness with how his costume looks. A headline, showstopper to get people in comic stores and buying issues to see what the new Superman is like. I have yet to see where this new series will go, and perhaps it will 'reinvent' him in a meaningful and and exciting way. It will take time after the hype has died down to really see if the New 52 turns out good things for the blue boy scout.
And change is bad. We fear change.
 |
| The costume remains the same - Depictions of Superman over the years |
Through all of this, however, Superman in every film and cartoon representation has retained the same appearance, with exactly the same costume each time (with some slight colour tone or shape changes). And the change that came with the Superman Red/Superman Blue saga was met with vehement dislike and rage - a lesson that all people who have portrayed him since have learned well. He is a symbol of the archetype Superhero. The Superhero. He along with his costume is symbol of idealism in heroism that characters not only in his universe but that also writers and critics outside of the comic book genre have all been fascinated with and acknowledged.
This will all change with the DC Universe's New 52 comic-book reboot and Zack Synder's Man of Steel film reboot. Both the main Superman comic-book line and the new Man of Steel movie will see Supes having his blue crotch area exposed, uncovered by his traditional red "Kryptonian overpants". DC Comics will now portray Superman has wearing blue "Kryptonian Battle Armor", a tact that leaked photos of Henry Cavill on-set seem to indicate that Zack Snyder is going toward as well.
 |
| Superman's new blue battle armor (left) and Henry Cavill's blue tights (right) |
Let us focus on the DC Comics battle armor first. DC have made the decision with their New 52 reboot to specifically modernise all their major superheroes in order to try and attract a new and younger audience. The notion of a battle armor, with its sleek lines and high collar, then, would make some amount of sense. The same logic was applied with how Batman was depicted from simply looking like he was wearing tights to the armored kevlar in all of the Tim Burton, Joel Schumaker and Christopher Nolan Batman films. Form fitting armor with sleek assembly points looks cool.
There are two issues however. Firstly the colours - ditching the yellow belt and red underpants. The seeming silliness of having your underpants on the outside has been the butt of most Superhero jokes for as long as there have been smart-alec primary school boys. And the explanation of this as being Kryptonian fashion in the form of "over pants" is a slight stretch of the imagination. On an aesthetic level, though, it has always worked. Balancing the predominantly blue colours of his suit with the red pants and yellow belt always made his outfit look more appealing and less same-y than the battle armor's blue dominance.
Secondly - the high collar, and the idea of the armor altogether. Half of what has made Superman so appealing and fascinating as a superhero is that he has to change from Clark Kent to Superman in a flash. Meaningful character development, plot points and even humour has been derived from the costume change phenomenon. This works because his costume is low collared and is a pair of tights that would fit discreetly under a business shirt (ignoring the null-space where his cape must be stored). The tights are workman's clothes - simple sleek and they get the job done. He's not trying to cover up - he's just getting comfortable for super powered shenanigans.
Fundamentally, Superman is a superhero who doesn't need too much fancy equipment on hand. The appeal of Superman is that he is able to do his thing because of his natural abilities. He's not a technological genius who is using money and technology to fight crime. He doesn't even derive his power for some object or plot device that was bestowed onto him with great responsibility. He was born with the powers of a God, and instead of abusing them, he's decided to use his natural, unaided abilities to help mankind. And I'm not entirely sure why the Man of Steel needs armor, unless he's fighting the likes of Doomsday or other Kryptonians on a daily basis.
And what of Henry Cavill in the new Man of Steel film? The obvious muscle suit, muted dirty colours of his 'S' shield, odd decorative emobossing and reptilian-like texture to his costume all adds up to one thing: too much. Superman is supposed to be simple and majestic and idealitsic, not a dirty sweaty John Rambo-esque macho man. And the Red Underpants would have hidden the obvious sock he's stuffed down the front of his trousers.
To make a long point short - the Superman costume was fine as it was. I respect both DC comics and Synder's desire to make it more modern and hip to the young kids, but his costume is a timeless classic that has been a beloved symbol for a very long time. I think that the classic costume can still work for a modern audience.
It seems as though the change is being made purely for the of change rather than any real unhappiness with how his costume looks. A headline, showstopper to get people in comic stores and buying issues to see what the new Superman is like. I have yet to see where this new series will go, and perhaps it will 'reinvent' him in a meaningful and and exciting way. It will take time after the hype has died down to really see if the New 52 turns out good things for the blue boy scout.
And change is bad. We fear change.
 |
| Superman from Brian Azzarello's For Tomorrow mini-series - possibly the most perfect visual depiction of superman to date. |
