Blue Underpants

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 costume remains the same - Depictions of Superman over the years

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.

Superman's new blue battle armor (left) and Henry Cavill's blue tights (right)

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.

Superman from Brian Azzarello's For Tomorrow mini-series - possibly the most perfect visual depiction of superman to date.

Arctic Oasis Monkeys

Recently, Noel Gallagher released an album that would mark his first solo work since the disbanding of Oasis, Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds. Much to the chagrin to my friends, Oasis holds something of a special place in my heart. Wonderwall made me first pick up the guitar and actively want to learn music (a path that would eventually end in Zeppelin). So what do I think after a month of listening to the much praised High Flying Birds? I think that the Arctic Monkeys are pretty damn good.

Allow me to explain. Listening to High Flying Birds made me nostalgic for britrock (or 'britpop' to its deriders). The Arctic Monkeys had tickled my fancy a little when I listened to Whatever People Say I am, I'm not and Favourite Worst Nightmare back in high school. I figured that after however many years of not following them, I'd give their two recent albums, Humbug and Suck It and See, a try.

The result of the last month's worth of listening to these three albums on repeat is that I have struck upon exactly why Oasis whimpered out after What's the Story Morning Glory (a behemoth of a second album).

In High Flying Birds, Noel continues upon the path that Oasis would have trod if they had simply agreed to Noel's songwriting leadership. You can hear that Noel is trying to make himself mature musically by breaking out of the rock and guitar based framework that Oasis was steeped in. Gone are the heavy guitar riffs, the wall-of-sound power chords and simple-ass basslines. Tracks like The Death of You and Me and Soldier Boy and Jesus Freaks now incorporate keyboards, big bands, string ensembles, backup singers and almost dance-like beats.

To be fair on Noel, it's not a bad effort. The songs come out as being catchy, well produced and well executed. Reviews to his album have been quite welcoming in light of the burning pile of fail that Beady Eye (Liam Gallagher's little side project) turned out to be. It is solid, well executed and all those other adjectives that, sadly, fall short of what really good music should be - captivating, impressive, infectious, intense, and make you put songs on repeat. This is where the Arctic Monkeys come in.

The Arctic Monkeys had the same 'musical maturity' mantra that Oasis and Noel Gallagher were trying to aim for. The difference with the Monkeys, though, is that they didn't feel as they needed bells and whistles in the form of strings and trumpets to make their music interesting. Thanks in no small part to the influence of Josh Homme (of Queens of the Stone Age fame) Humbug and Suck it and See achieve musical maturity with just guitars and drums.

A case study: All My Own Stunts, Track 7 off Suck it and See. Here is a track where everything comes together and does what all rock music should be doing. The guitars aren't just playing three power chords and there is more than just one riff through the whole song. The drums don't just keep the beat, they speak with the guitars and define the pace of the song. The song isn't just chorus-verse-chorus-verse, it changes mood, moves into sections and takes you on a ride. And the bassist isn't just the kid drooling in the corner who couldn't play guitar.

This holds true for almost every track off Humbug and Suck it and See. And they're not all in the same style of 'desert rock' that the Arctic Money's direction has been labelled as. Reckless Serenade manages to combine pub and surf rock into quite a nice and lackadaisical piece. And they go into high school prom territory with Piledriver Waltz.

So, what's the point? The point is that Noel Gallagher has done okay, trying to become better at music the way he has - but only okay and not in a way that injects any great deal of hope into the genre. Whether this is because the medium of his improvement is slightly unfocussed or because he himself is limited as a musician, I'm not entirely sure. The Arctic Monkeys, on the other hand, have been quite ambitiously unambitious and managed to prove themselves a great deal more than Noel has, while sticking to the same instruments. It's proof that good musicality can be achieved by being more creative with ordinary tools, and that you don't need the bells and whistles, or rather, record scratches and sampled synth that dominates a metric ton of other popular music.

I don't listen to music because of cool sounds, catchy rhythms or even technically complex guitar solos. I listen to music because it takes me on a ride.

Be simple, be good.

Arctic Monkeys - garage band

On Facebook

"Being added as a friend has always meant very little. Being deleted however seems to mean a lot - why would you delete someone from your facebook unless you truly disliked them? We seem to have come to the conclusion that adding someone is such a casual and disinterested action that to delete someone must suggest some kind of abnormal dislike." - CC

This post is in response to a recent blog post by CC. In it, she speaks of Facebook within the context of the internet deadening our connectedness with the real world, be it socially with other people, or in a more physical sense wanting to explore the world outside and experience real things. It is a thoughtful post, and you should read it - it'll put this post into somewhat better context.

In order to contextualise my own viewpoint on this matter, though, I will start with something of a personal anecdote. 

The internet was not a friendly place in high school. I had started a blog and participated in a forum here or there because, for the same reason I started this blog, it seemed like harmless fun. What I didn't count on, though, was two things: one - how brutal people (particularly teenagers) can criticise each other out of either spite or their own need to feel superior or dominant in some way; and two - how tender I was to this kind of criticism, being a teenager myself. 

I was hurt, more than I should have been, and I retracted myself from the interwebs. For a very long time I refused to put any of my personal input into the internet.

My addendum to CC's thesis on the effects of connectivity is that both benefits and detriments of this phenomenon are strongly affected by the way in which we, the user, choose to receive them. This is not to say, though, that the responsibility of all the rage and emotive content that is inspired the internet lies solely on the reader. 'Social Enabling' tools and particularly Facebook have evolved to a point where we are being unintentionally drawn toward certain things in ways which we can't resist because of how subtle they are. 

Inevitably, the more 'user friendly' or 'easy' posting your thoughts on the internet become, the more what you do and read is manipulated by social trends. The solution to handling this is to maintain an awareness of what is going on and then by your own judgement choose how to receive information. I hope that this blog post will raise that awareness, if only by a little.

Over time, the successive developments of Usenet, Blogs, Micro-Blogs and finally Facebook have each successively been touted as the downfall of thoughtfulness in print. 

Usenet and the start of the internet were (admittedly very mildly) seen as opportunity for uncensored, unedited and unthoughtful content to be published. This occurred to the ire of those who believed in the robustness of hard print. The ease with which Usenet allowed for people to 'post' their thoughts into a widely proliferated medium lacked the editorial processes that hard print used to filter out the crap. The logic was that the hard work you put into trying to get something printed in a book or in a newspaper meant that not only was your work reviewed (and therefore worthy of being distributed), but that you earned it. No wonder then, that people in the early 80s would view this as a sad descent into anarchy with the masses being given an accessible tool to proliferate their unfettered thoughts and opinions.

The rebuttal to this argument, however, is a phrase (that may or may not be stolen) that I often utter to my friends in this situations: "there have been long haired youths since the beginning of time". The point being that however debaucherous higher ups view whatever is happening now in society, once upon a time they were in that situation with their progenitors, and in about 10 years time something will come along that will make this all seem civilized in comparison anyway.

For the most part this has rung true as 'opinion proliferating' has become easier and easier with the invention of more enabling media. Once Blogging became a thing, blogs then became the target of this level of criticism. Where Usenet, forums and website-making required some foreknowledge of how and where to write things down, Blogging meant that any person with a web browser could write basically anything.  Then, micro-blogging in the form of Twitter made this even easier - 'thoughtful' sentences with a click of a button and hundreds, even thousands of followers instantly read and digest. 

Twitter - short and apparently significant ramblings

But so far, this is (relatively) okay. Control for us users remains clear because we can identify what content is genuinely intellectual and what isn't particularly thoughtful. It's still relatively clear on what level we can choose to react to these things by judging their form or theme. This selectivity, however, has become infinitely less clear with the union of social networking and micro-blogging that is Facebook. 

Facebook is a complex beast. The concept of 'social networking' by itself was a complicated enough process without the internet stepping in and shoving in our faces things that we might not otherwise see. As CC points out, most of the content is made up of in-jokes that can fly over our heads, the 'friend-defriend' dynamic becomes randomly complex and we become depressed when our witty remarks don't garner attention from our supposed 'friends'.

The shiny 'f' that makes Facebooking so easy

A particularly interesting point comes from the fact that a lot of these Facebook emotional by-products come as a result of what Zuckerberg and others in the Facebook think-tank are doing to prevent it. Although much of Facebook's success can be attributed to the nature of the user interface and (supposed) accessibility much of the website's sticking power comes from the metric that governs what gets put into the top of your 'feed'. The website has evolved to the point where it employs complex but rather effective algorithms that essentially deem what has happened in your 'social network' that should be most important to you.

Facebook distinguishes between what is a 'top story', and everything else

The critical mistake with this is that in order to invoke an 'effective' algorithm, you need to generalise the emotional response of very individual human beings. The result? For a lot of users, fun, meeting people and starting conversation - as the website makers intended. But for others (who make up a significant portion of Facebook) alienation, sadness and ennui for a number of different reasons. As sophisticated as the Facebook programming can be, it will not be able to predict exactly what will make us feel better in moments of non-typical emotion. And sometimes it can step badly wrong.

I am not arguing that Facebook will be 'the downfall of this generation' as some older stuffier schoolteachers (who are now on Facebook) have preached to me in the past. At the end of the day I have gotten a great deal out of Facebook - some of my greatest friendships were initiated by 'friending' them after meeting them casually (an exercise without which I possibly would not have continued further contact). I was connected to my ex-girlfriend via a mutual acquaintance through Facebook - what turned out to be a happy and long relationship.

So how are we to treat Facebook then? We treat it like how we have treated micro-blogging, blogging, the internet, newsprint and television - with necessary and selective detachment. As self-serving as it may seem, I emotionally connect with Facebook when it makes me happy, but as soon as something that provokes an unsavoury emotion from me crops up, I remind myself that it's 'just Facebook'. It's harmless to use these things to amuse ourselves day to day, but we should leave serious discussion and the confrontation of our own emotions to more severe forms of communication.

Those who are happiest using something like Facebook will by and large have healthy lives off the internet and with real people. At the end of the day Facebook should be treated like any other media which is slightly mindless - as harmless entertainment. Nothing more.

Take Facebook with a grain of salt.

Captain America is a Walking Bullseye

"Now get your ass up here. We've got just enough time for me to spray-paint the bullseye on your back. Ah, by bullseye I of course mean, uh,  camouflage..."

- Sarge, Red Vs. Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles

I was mostly quite impressed with how Joe Johnston's 2011 film adaptation of Captain America initially handled how monumentally silly Captain America's costume looks (even by comic-book standards). Steve Rogers, AKA Captain America, is initially recruited by a United States Senator eager to increase the revenue going into fighting World War II and is used as a predictably very cheesy poster boy for the war effort. Essentially, he becomes a mascot for war-bonds

Against the backdrop of gaudy vaudeville dancers singing about the war-effort and capturing the heart of a more impressionable 1940s America, it makes sense then that Captain America would wear the long-johns version of the American flag, don a cap with a giant 'A' on the forehead and carry a shield that's begging to be punched because of how stupid it looks. It's not meant to be functional or even cool - it's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek homage to the original Captain America costume, satirising how silly it all looked.

Then they unveiled his battle costume. And the whole point of the satire kind of went out the window.

Captain America - Joke Costume and Actual. Spot the difference.

In general, superhero costumes are meant to be, well, a bit silly. But I am on the side of fanboys, comic-book readers and cartoon followers when I say that they do (for the most part, at least) have a point beyond the obvious 'look at me' factor. They can be infinitely functional and serve as good identifiers for a brand, much like for the Police or any Emergency Services. And in most of the cases where costumes are showy and gaudy, that showiness and gaudiness has a point.

To illustrate this, I'll take a look at the hero who's appearance is easiest to justify - Batman. Though it started off as being a costume mostly for the sake of being a costume, the Batsuit has evolved over the years into something which has two distinct and very necessary motivations: the armour, and the symbol.

Batman over the years - from silly to functional

Batman's armour plays a major role in Batman's overall abilities. Depending on which versions you happen to come across,  the Batsuit is made from materials that range from specialised and hardened rubber, to armoured kevlar plating. The point of this, of course, is quite simple - to take bullets, punches and hard falls. The amount of acrobatics and sheer violence involved in Batman's day to day activities would necessitate a hard outer shell. Street thugs and your average bank robber wouldn't really stand a chance punching into abs lined with hard metal.

Secondly, the symbol and appearance. Off the bat, its fairly obvious that the colour scheme that Bruce Wayne has chosen is good camouflage for night-based shenanigans in a Gothic inspired city. But beyond that (and a point which works such as Year One and Batman Begins go into a fair amount of detail) is that the Bat and the Bat-crest are a symbol. This symbol is meant to inject fear into the heart of criminals and, to a lesser extent, hope into those who would uphold justice. The prevalence and recognition of this symbol would mean that Batman doesn't have to beat up criminals in order to stop the crime. Criminals don't commit crimes because of the mere threat of being beaten to within an inch of their life by a borderline psychotic.

And besides that, it actually looks pretty damn cool.

Either if not both of these two points hold true for most other superheros. The Green Lantern wears an identifying uniform just like any other law enforcer (domestic or inter-planetary). The acrobatic feats performed by Wonder Woman, the X-Men, Spiderman and the Flash would mean that they need leotard-like tights to allow for certain degrees of freedom in movement. Superman wears a red cape and a giant 'S' on his chest to inspire hope, selflessness and goodwill in others.

Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Cyclops and Spiderman

So what's my gripe with Captain America? Two things.

First is the setting of his story and his acts. Admittedly the World War II setting is something that is particular to the movie and a select number of comic books. Here is a man who is supposedly a super-soldier, participating in convert ops and special tactical missions in order to undo the Nazis. With all of this in mind, you can't help but realise that, especially for someone who specifically is not invulnerable, his costume screams 'Bullseye'. His shield is circular and has very colourful concentric rings to let a lookout know that he's coming from a kilometre away. There's a massive bright white star on his chest to guide a marksman to his vital organs. And you get bonus points if you manage to sock him where the 'A' is on his forehead.

The second point is that it's all just too...American. As much as Superman has been pushed over the years to eschew particularly American values ("Truth, Justice and the American Way"), his appearance and presentation have always maintained a level of flexibility such that he can represent these values from a universal perspective. His 'S', Spiderman's webbing and even the stars on Wonder Woman's undergarments can be removed from the 'American' framework if the writer sees fit to have them represent greater values. Captain America is too closely tethered to the stars and stripes all over his body and his name for that ever to happen.

Maybe, since most of the superhero movie-watching, comic-book-reading public come from America, this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. That's fine. As long as he stays bright and stupid enough for anyone gifted with human sight to pick him off for a distance, the rest of the world will be ok.

Target Practice

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh. The movie does do a good job of trying to circumvent these issues. Steve Rogers isn't fighting so that America is king, he's fighting because he 'hates bullies' - a simple but very noble sentiment. And the dulling of the colours, the removal of most of the red and white stripes and the amalgam of the traditional Captain America tights with a sturdy flak jacket and heavy pants make it all work within the context of a fun action movie... to an extent.

It just seems a little sad that Captain America is too mired his original 1940s identity and appearance for these problems to be overcome.