Superman: Big Changes Ahead
Super-Menace
http://blastr.com/2011/07/dcs-changes-to-superman-w.php
Summary: Action Comics will center on Superman stories set early in his
career. The Superman title will be about the present-day Superman --
that is to say, the rebooted Superman.
This new Superman is primarily Kal-El of Krypton, an alien trying to
find his place in our world.
The younger Superman can leap tall buildings, but his ability to fly
"is in its infancy." His first costume is a T-shirt with the \S/, a
cape, jeans and work boots. This look will evolve over time into a
suit of armor evocative of Krypton's past.
The present-day Clark Kent has never been married to Lois Lane. She is
dating someone at the Planet.
Ma and Pa Kent are both dead.
KalElFan
news:180720111658014087%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
This is all very heavily influenced by the copyright litigation,
so I've added crossposts to the groups where a couple of
threads on that are ongoing. Super-Menace's post was
also made a few days ago before today's news that the
Man of Steel movie has been pushed back to 6/14/2013.
If there's a deal with the estates, I have no problem with a
new take on Superman in this comics reboot. What I do
have a problem with is if there is no deal with the estates
and Warners/DC attempts to subvert the intent and spirit of
the law, and the ruling, with this nonsense. As I mentioned
in one of the other threads or subthreads, they're trying to
to thread a needle in one of the rulings they may think exists,
but doesn't by any fair reading of it in context.
They can have a strongman character. But the description
here, as in "Man of Steel" the movie and all the reporting,
is not of a strongman character. It's the iconic Superman,
and the minute they name him that I think they're directly
violating copyright starting 2013 (absent a deal).
With the comics, they could retcon the backstory and have
him be from some different planet, kill off Lois Lane, name
him PowerMan and change the S to a P over the next year
or so. Then change the title of the Superman comic to
PowerMan in time for April 2013. In Action Comics they'd
be okay leaving that title alone. Toberoff could still sue
based on the history of the character from #1 to #18 very
clearly being a derivation, and by extension still being that
even after the changes. But I think they probably get to
have their PowerMan at that point, and Toberoff "loses".
How's it a win, though, for Warner Bros.? Is Nolan and
the rest of the cast on board with this game of chicken?
Do Costner and Adams and Crowe really want to get in the
middle of a prolonged unresolved legal fiasco? Does even
the comics market of 40,000 fanboys want to see the next
Electric Bluperman bastardization of an iconic character
by Time Warner?
I hope they're negotiating a deal with the estates as we
post. If we get a nice announcement that all that's resolved
and then the reboot and production of the movie, then I
think it might all work out. I'm not sensing much enthusiasm
from the comics side, but it's probably inevitable that the
issue #1s for the 52 titles sell huge.
Tom
> On rec.arts.sf.superman, "Super-Menace" wrote in messagenews:180720111658014087%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://blastr.com/2011/07/dcs-changes-to-superman-w.php
>
> > Summary: Action Comics will center on Superman stories set
> > early in his career. The Superman title will be about the
> > present-day Superman -- that is to say, the rebooted Superman.
>
> > This new Superman is primarily Kal-El of Krypton, an alien
> > trying to find his place in our world.
>
> > The younger Superman can leap tall buildings, but his ability
> > to fly "is in its infancy." His first costume is a T-shirt with the
> > \S/, a cape, jeans and work boots. This look will evolve over
> > time into a suit of armor evocative of Krypton's past.
>
> > The present-day Clark Kent has never been married to Lois
> > Lane. She is dating someone at the Planet.
>
> > Ma and Pa Kent are both dead.
>
> This is all very heavily influenced by the copyright litigation,
> so I've added crossposts to the groups where a couple of
> threads on that are ongoing. Super-Menace's post was
> also made a few days ago before today's news that the
> Man of Steel movie has been pushed back to 6/14/2013.
>
> If there's a deal with the estates, I have no problem with a
> new take on Superman in this comics reboot. What I do
> have a problem with is if there is no deal with the estates
> and Warners/DC attempts to subvert the intent and spirit of
> the law, and the ruling, with this nonsense.
According to a very close friend who is a DC insider... the reboot is
all about the lawsuit. The Seigels and Shusters will own certain
aspects of Superman and DC will own others. Each time DC uses some
element of Superman the S&S estates own, they have to pay. If they
don't use any of these elements, DC doesn't pay.
For example, one thing he stated was we won't see the name Krypton
mentioned very often in the comics. He said that is an example of an
element the estates own. He also said that is why the upcoming movie
is so Krypton centric... the movie contracts were signed before the
ruling, thus the copious use of Krypton and Kryptonians in the movie.
It is his opinion that DC/WB will engage the estates in a war of
attrition, so to speak. After no royalty money rolls in, the estates
will cry 'uncle' and settle for a lump sum payment.
Tom
Red Cloud
> On rec.arts.sf.superman, "Super-Menace" wrote in messagenews:180720111658014087%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
>
>
> >http://blastr.com/2011/07/dcs-changes-to-superman-w.php
>
> > Summary: Action Comics will center
HOLY COW!!!!!
Super-Menace
<1fa473f8-bf6d-47ea...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> It is his opinion that DC/WB will engage the estates in a war of
> attrition, so to speak. After no royalty money rolls in, the estates
> will cry 'uncle' and settle for a lump sum payment.
I absolutely believe that. One side is a diminishing number of aging
human beings, and the other is a number of corporations.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt. My only strong opinion is
that, if the case were really as simple and well-defined as Kal has
been telling us, it would have been settled around 1980.
It's in the interest of the estates to settle because there's no other
avenue for them. The only question is whether the estates will be
offered a lump sum or participation. My guess is Warner doesn't want
the estates anywhere near production or policy, so it'll be a lump sum,
or perhaps an annuity. But an ongoing cut of the profits? Probably
not. I think any deal Warner makes with the estates will relieve them
of their copyrights.
I think Warner will wear the estates down. With Joanne Siegel dead and
the estates' lawyer under fire, I'm expecting a settlement to happen
sooner rather than later. The next generation has no good reason to
keep this thing going.
Arthur Lipscomb
I just hope they don't change the plot (for the worse) to avoid using
elements they'd have to pay for.
Duggy
> In article
> <1fa473f8-bf6d-47ea-9862-b4f3cc2e8...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It is his opinion that DC/WB will engage the estates in a war of
> > attrition, so to speak. After no royalty money rolls in, the estates
> > will cry 'uncle' and settle for a lump sum payment.
>
> I absolutely believe that. One side is a diminishing number of aging
> human beings, and the other is a number of corporations.
The other side has no children?
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
news:220720110644402069%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
> ... My only strong opinion is that, if the case were really
> as simple and well-defined as Kal has been telling us, it
> would have been settled around 1980.
The latest copyright extension from 75 to 95 years didn't
take place until 1998 and DC doesn't lose Shuster's 50%
until April 2013. The situation in 1980 is just a ridiculous
comparison.
> It's in the interest of the estates to settle because there's
> no other avenue for them.
They have court rulings in their favor and are pro-actively
seeking to confirm and expand those in the 9th Circuit, one
step below SCOTUS. Their case is scheduled to be heard
within six months. They're on the verge of total control
of Superman derivative works. They have what various
other players in this have described as a billionaire pain
in the ass pit bull of a lawyer, with a record of winning in
cases not dissimilar to this.
Meanwhile, you're living on some planet where they're
as helpless as poor Jerry and Joe were back in 1980.
> The only question is whether the estates will be offered
> a lump sum or participation. My guess is Warner doesn't
> want the estates anywhere near production or policy...
Warners wants this, Warners wants that... you're missing
the central point that Warners has to negotiate a fair deal
if they want the rights starting in 2013. What's fair can't
be dictated when the other side owns what they want,
and "Frack you, take what we say or we'll steal it" is not
a viable solution for a multi-billion-dollar company. It's
fine for shills and sycophants on Usenet who blow any
stupid stuff out their ass, but for Bewkes and the Board
and Time Warner shareholders it'd be the Mother of All
Bad Ideas.
> ... With Joanne Siegel dead and the estates' lawyer
> under fire...
"We'll keep slinging mud that won't stick, and all you
motherfrackin' heirs to the motherfrackin' creators will
all motherfrackin' die off, DIE OFF WE TELL YOU, before
we'll pay a dime more than the token amounts we'll
dictate. We've already run up $25 MILLION in legal fees,
and pissed that shareholder money down a rathole
with frivolous arguments the judge smacked down one
after another. Ya think we're stoppin' there, even though
we see the writing on the Ninth Circuit wall a-comin' at
us! We'll steal the damn thing if we have to! Frack the
courts! We won't stop 'till we're all in jail and Toberoff
owns our motherfrackin' company.
"Motherfrackin' estates..."
Quadibloc
> In article
> <1fa473f8-bf6d-47ea-9862-b4f3cc2e8...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > It is his opinion that DC/WB will engage the estates in a war of
> > attrition, so to speak. After no royalty money rolls in, the estates
> > will cry 'uncle' and settle for a lump sum payment.
That is what RCA did to Armstrong, of course. But the law has changed
since then, and copyrights are not patents, to boot. So there's no
antitrust concern, no obligation to charge "reasonable" fees...
> I think Warner will wear the estates down. With Joanne Siegel dead and
> the estates' lawyer under fire, I'm expecting a settlement to happen
> sooner rather than later. The next generation has no good reason to
> keep this thing going.
If all they have to do is wait, and eventually the courts will force
Warner to pay up every single penny that the previous courts intended
it to pay, that would seem a good enough reason. And I would *not*
consider this to be a highly unlikely scenario.
John Savard
Super-Menace
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> "Super-Menace" wrote in message
> news:220720110644402069%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
> > ... My only strong opinion is that, if the case were really as
> > simple and well-defined as Kal has been telling us, it would have
> > been settled around 1980.
>
> The latest copyright extension from 75 to 95 years didn't take place
> until 1998 and DC doesn't lose Shuster's 50% until April 2013. The
> situation in 1980 is just a ridiculous comparison.
>
> > It's in the interest of the estates to settle because there's no
> > other avenue for them.
>
> They have court rulings in their favor and are pro-actively seeking
> to confirm and expand those in the 9th Circuit, one step below
> SCOTUS. Their case is scheduled to be heard within six months.
> They're on the verge of total control of Superman derivative works.
> They have what various other players in this have described as a
> billionaire pain in the ass pit bull of a lawyer, with a record of
> winning in cases not dissimilar to this.
>
> Meanwhile, you're living on some planet where they're as helpless as
> poor Jerry and Joe were back in 1980.
The estates are fighting a multinational conglomerate with endless
resources, and it doesn't want to share the ownership of Superman. It
will stall and stall and stall for as long as it has to until it gets
the outcome it wants. That, in fact, is exactly what Warner has been
doing all along, and nothing will change.
> > The only question is whether the estates will be offered a lump sum
> > or participation. My guess is Warner doesn't want the estates
> > anywhere near production or policy...
>
> Warners wants this, Warners wants that... you're missing the central
> point that Warners has to negotiate a fair deal if they want the
> rights starting in 2013.
Hardly. You're missing the point that Warner has the time and
resources to do whatever it wants to frustrate and thwart the other
side. In the meantime it will do whatever it wants -- as, for example,
it is doing with the current revision of Superman. You hate hearing
that, but it's absolutely true. Warner can tie this up in court for
decades to come, and it is prepared to do so. There will be plenty of
Superman in 2013 and beyond, and it will all be from Warner and its
licensees.
> What's fair can't be dictated when the other side owns what they
> want, and "Frack you, take what we say or we'll steal it" is not a
> viable solution for a multi-billion-dollar company.
This isn't about "fair" and it never has been. It's naive to think
that any outcome here will be "fair." At the end of the day Warner
will control 100% of Superman, and the estates will get some money out
of it. How that happens was what I was trying to talk about, but you
won't have that, so fine. As for theft not being "a viable solution
for a multi-billion-dollar company," that's plain nonsense. It happens
all the time.
Nobody is ever going to publish Superman comic books and get away with
it except for Warner -- not for decades to come, anyway, and not until
Superman finally goes into the public domain.
No, this isn't about "fair." This is about the estates, creatures of
the real world, getting whatever cash they can out of this.
> It's fine for shills and sycophants on Usenet who blow any stupid
> stuff out their ass
And it's at this point that I leave you to this, because nobody's
paying me to submit to stupid insults.
This particular sycophantic shill thinks Warner can wait out the
estates until hell freezes over ... but I live in the real world, not
on "some planet."
Rest snipped.
Quadibloc
> The estates are fighting a multinational conglomerate with endless
> resources, and it doesn't want to share the ownership of Superman. It
> will stall and stall and stall for as long as it has to until it gets
> the outcome it wants.
Actually, it's about who is running the country. The corporations, or
the U.S. government. Even Warner is not big enough to defy the law
with impunity.
John Savard
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hardly. You're missing the point that Warner has the time and
> resources to do whatever it wants to frustrate and thwart the other
> side. In the meantime it will do whatever it wants -- as, for example,
> it is doing with the current revision of Superman.
You think part of the dumb revise might be to try to change it 'just
that much' from the original? "Look, your Honor, no red underwear"
"Case dismissed!"
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Super-Menace
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <230720110911445773%fort...@arctic.com.invalid>,
> Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hardly. You're missing the point that Warner has the time and
> > resources to do whatever it wants to frustrate and thwart the other
> > side. In the meantime it will do whatever it wants -- as, for example,
> > it is doing with the current revision of Superman.
>
> You think part of the dumb revise might be to try to change it 'just
> that much' from the original?
There's already at least one quote to that effect from someone inside
DC Comics. We still haven't heard anything much from ComicCon about
it, but I'm pretty sure we will.
I have in mind what DC's done with Superboy over the past few years.
What a mess they've made of him. He's dead, he's not dead, he never
existed, he's an adult but now he's not, there are two of them, there
are *three* of them, we're completely ignoring one of them from now on,
etc., and almost all of it has been dictated not by editorial, but by
DC's lawyers. With the Connor Kent Superboy back and in his own book,
I think DC must be pretty confident about its position that it owns
Superboy. Even the Clark Kent Superboy was back, at least until this
latest reboot.
> "Look, your Honor, no red underwear"
> "Case dismissed!"
Nothing would surprise me. The new "Iron Man" suit is a departure from
the traditional look, which at its root goes back to the art of Joe
Shuster, so maybe it's a ploy.
The new suit doesn't look right to me with a cape, but I guess they
felt they had to keep it.
Super-Menace
<e7fce262-1c95-437e...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
They're not defying the law. They get a ruling, they appeal it, they
fight on, they win some and they lose some. That's the process. Every
case plays out ... eventually. In the meantime, the estates get
nothing. The next generation of relatives has to be looking at the
prospect of more years of seemingly endless litigation.
Duggy
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-FDD2E7.09025123072...@news.easynews.com>,
>
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <230720110911445773%fortr...@arctic.com.invalid>,
> > Super-Menace <fortr...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Hardly. You're missing the point that Warner has the time and
> > > resources to do whatever it wants to frustrate and thwart the other
> > > side. In the meantime it will do whatever it wants -- as, for example,
> > > it is doing with the current revision of Superman.
>
> > You think part of the dumb revise might be to try to change it 'just
> > that much' from the original?
>
> There's already at least one quote to that effect from someone inside
> DC Comics.
I think that will backfire.
That makes this costume derivative of the original suit. If they
created a new Superman with this suit they could pretend it was new.
===
= DUG.
===
Hunter
>
> On rec.arts.sf.superman, "Super-Menace" wrote in message
> news:180720111658014087%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
> > http://blastr.com/2011/07/dcs-changes-to-superman-w.php
> >
> > Summary: Action Comics will center on Superman stories set
> > early in his career. The Superman title will be about the
> > present-day Superman -- that is to say, the rebooted Superman.
> >
> > This new Superman is primarily Kal-El of Krypton, an alien
> > trying to find his place in our world.
> >
> > The younger Superman can leap tall buildings, but his ability
> > to fly "is in its infancy." His first costume is a T-shirt with the
> > \S/, a cape, jeans and work boots. This look will evolve over
> > time into a suit of armor evocative of Krypton's past.
> >
> > The present-day Clark Kent has never been married to Lois
> > Lane. She is dating someone at the Planet.
> >
> > Ma and Pa Kent are both dead.
>
> This is all very heavily influenced by the copyright litigation,
> so I've added crossposts to the groups where a couple of
> threads on that are ongoing. Super-Menace's post was
> also made a few days ago before today's news that the
> Man of Steel movie has been pushed back to 6/14/2013.
Super Menace's post sounds like they are using Superman as he was originally
conceived in the Golden Age. If so he won't have the tremendous, gi-normous god
like strength of the Silver Age version Superman in which he can move entire
planets. He probably "only" have the strength of "10 men", to what Spiderman
has today. Also true he could only jump, not fly and only something like an 1/8
of a mile. He also likely won't have the more exotic powers and he won't be
totally invulnerable. Anything bigger than a "bursting artillery shell" could
hurt him. And yes originally before he became Superman Man and Pa Kent were
both dead. They would've taken Clark to the orphanage after they found him then
taken him in when the orphanage called him when he tore up the place. Clark
didn't become Superman until after he moved to Metropolis full time and had a
job at the planet.
It sounds like it could be an interesting change of pace if they stick to it.
One other thing: this original Superman wasn't as nice as later versions so
look for the crooks to be roughed up a bit "Batman" style :-)
(snip)
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Lilith
wrote:
>It sounds like it could be an interesting change of pace if they stick to it.
>One other thing: this original Superman wasn't as nice as later versions so
>look for the crooks to be roughed up a bit "Batman" style :-)
>(snip)
Woah. Sounds more like the way Siegel and Schuster wrote him. Some
enterprising heirs should see if they can't sue over re-use of the
character.
--
Lilith
Bill Steele
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Clark
> didn't become Superman until after he moved to Metropolis full time and had a
> job at the planet.
IIRC, in most versions Ma Kent makes him the suit out of blankets he was
wrapped in in the spaceship. So he had decided to be a hero before he
went to Metropolis, and chose the newspaper job as a place to keep in
touch with what was happening.
Super-Menace
Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
That's pretty much it. Clark Kent looks for a job where he'll get
first word about any emergencies, and in those days that meant a
major-city newspaper office. (It also may have had something to do
with Siegel trying to sell the strip to newspapers. Her certainly had
to change the name of the Daily Star to the similar Daily Planet
because the Superman strip ran in papers that competed with the local
Daily Star. The only real-life Daily Planet I know of is in Telluride,
Colorado. (Must be fun to work there, calling around on stories. "Hi,
this is Joe Blow from the Daily Planet." Click.)
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
In fact, is there a version where Hunter is right? Even if the world in
general didn't know about him, Supes is pretty much always Supes before
he moves to Metropolis. Certainly any version where he was Superboy.
George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, both had the costume before the move.
Michael
Byrne's Man Of Steel mini-series has him saving the space-plane/shuttle
and I think being dubbed "Superman" before running back home (since he
hadn't planned on being spotted that well). Ma, Pa, and Clark came up
with the costume and secret identity ideas and he went back to
Metropolis to be an "out there" superhero.
Michael
Super-Menace
<this...@for.rent> wrote:
Yes. In Man of Steel 001, Pa holds up a copy of the Smallville Post
with the front-page headline MYSTERIOUS SUPERMAN SAVES SPACE PLANE. At
the end, Clark is in costume for the first time and takes off from the
Kent farm (presumably heading for Metropolis) and refers to himself as
Superman.
Then, at the beginning of the following issue, Perry White refers to
"the 'superman' who saved the space plane."
Ma Kent makes the outfit in almost every telling of the tale. (It
seems to appear out of thin air in the first Reeve film.) The Man of
Steel mini-series is the only case I can think of where Superman makes
his first public appearance without wearing (or even having) the suit.
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
Right, but Hunter said:
> > >>>>Clark
> > >>>>didn't become Superman until after he moved to Metropolis full time and
> > >>>>had
> > >>>>a
> > >>>>job at the planet.
Man of Steel was the closest I could think of too, but it's still wrong.
In every detail.
Len-L
wondered:
>
>> > In article <MPG.289ae0876...@news.optonline.net>,
>> > Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Clark
>> > > didn't become Superman until after he moved to Metropolis full time and
>> > > had
>> > > a
>> > > job at the planet.
>> >
>
>In fact, is there a version where Hunter is right? Even if the world in
>general didn't know about him, Supes is pretty much always Supes before
>he moves to Metropolis. Certainly any version where he was Superboy.
>George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, both had the costume before the move.
Well, he's half right about the radio version. In the first episode,
Superman goes to Metropolis, has his first rescue in constume and then
decides to become a newspaper man.
Michael
How so?
Clark's been helping people here and there secretly. He gets outed in
the Space Plane save and dubbed "Superman". After conferring with Ma &
Pa they all decide that this could allow him the best of both worlds:
Giving him a stable "normal" life as well as a chance to cut loose and
help people. So he moves back to Metropolis (now prepared with a
costume) gets a job at the Planet and the fun begins.
Michael
Bill Steele
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
One other version: The Kirk Allyn serial. Ma Kent makes the costume just
before he leaves for Metropolis, and he says "I'll only wear it when I'm
Superman."
It may be a trick of memory, but I think in the comics the newspaper was
originally called the Daily Star (presumably because S&S had started off
trying to sell it to the Toronto Star) and changed after a while to the
Daily Planet. In retrospect a great choice because the name became
iconic along with everything else.
Super-Menace
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
Yes. In Man of Steel, Superman operates in Metropolis for a short
period of time (at least two days) before faking an interview with
himself and getting the job at the Planet.
Super-Menace
Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> It may be a trick of memory, but I think in the comics the newspaper was
> originally called the Daily Star (presumably because S&S had started off
> trying to sell it to the Toronto Star) and changed after a while to the
> Daily Planet. In retrospect a great choice because the name became
> iconic along with everything else.
It was changed to the Daily Planet because the newspaper strip was
running in newspapers that competed with "the Daily Star" in their
cities. The Daily Planet name was closely allied and almost unique.
Why they changed George Taylor to Perry White, though, I have no idea.
Maybe they were trying to imply that Clark had switched to another
paper without actually saying so. Maybe there was a real George Taylor
who wasn't amused.
grinningdemon
I think Lois & Clark handled things very much like this too.
Lilith
<fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>Ma Kent makes the outfit in almost every telling of the tale. (It
>seems to appear out of thin air in the first Reeve film.) The Man of
>Steel mini-series is the only case I can think of where Superman makes
>his first public appearance without wearing (or even having) the suit.
My guess there was that the costume was somehow provided by the same
crystals that nutrured him, the ones that built the fortress.
--
Lilith (who wants to know why he didn't go bonkers from cabin fever)
Super-Menace
<lili...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:23:02 -0400, Super-Menace
> <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Ma Kent makes the outfit in almost every telling of the tale. (It
> >seems to appear out of thin air in the first Reeve film.) The Man of
> >Steel mini-series is the only case I can think of where Superman makes
> >his first public appearance without wearing (or even having) the suit.
>
> My guess there was that the costume was somehow provided by the same
> crystals that nutrured him, the ones that built the fortress.
Maybe, but why those colors? Or any colors? All the Kryptonians wore
that white glowing stuff, except for the three Zoners, who were wearing
black.
Harold Groot
The comic books I remember had Krypton as a riot of brilliant colors.
Why the movies decided to make it black-and-white, I can't say. But
it's certainly within reason that people in certain positions might
have a uniform of sorts. If you go before the Supreme Court in the
USA, the 9 Justices all wear the same color robe. Whatever that group
of Kryptonians were, they were a tribunal of some sort. So wearing
essentially the same thing (except for a family symbol) makes sense to
me.
(Ma Kent making the supersuit was a very, VERY long and tedious
process. The baby blankets being from Krypton, the threads were
impossible for her to cut in any way. She had to unravel each thread
individually, then weave all those threads together in a new form.)
Super-Menace
<que...@infionline.net> wrote:
> The comic books I remember had Krypton as a riot of brilliant colors.
> Why the movies decided to make it black-and-white, I can't say. But
> it's certainly within reason that people in certain positions might
> have a uniform of sorts. If you go before the Supreme Court in the
> USA, the 9 Justices all wear the same color robe. Whatever that group
> of Kryptonians were, they were a tribunal of some sort. So wearing
> essentially the same thing (except for a family symbol) makes sense to
> me.
Lara wasn't on the tribunal but was dressed in the same style as Jor-El.
Harold Groot
Could be spousal privilege.
Or better yet: Jor-El and Lara are secretly members of the underground
Color Movement. They still have to dress up in white all the time so
they aren't suspected, but they provided baby blankets in illegal
primary colors for their only child. But with the Monochrome Brigade
about to raid their house, they sent him off to Earth where they knew
that "Colored" children were accepted. It wasn't any internal atomic
reaction that destroyed Krypton, just the Monochrome Brigade getting a
little out of hand with their weapons when trying to make the
high-profile arrest.
:)
But I miss the Jewel Mountains, the Flame Geysers, the Red Tower
(Krypton's counterpart to our White House) and the various other
gloriously colored attractions on Krypton that the comics had. The
Krypton in the comics was a place of great vitality, wonderment and
beauty. It was a place you really wanted to visit. The movie version
was so drab and dreary (both the planet and the people) that you
almost rooted for it to be blown up. Some sort of "Galactic Renewal"
project to improve on blighted stellar neighborhoods.
Anim8rFSK
que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
And then Byrne wasn't allowed to use that Krypton for some reason, so he
created an even more unpleasant Krypton that somebody - maybe Wendy
Pini? - said of "congratulations, you've created a Krypton that deserves
to be blown up"
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
Exactly. Hunter is wrong in every detail, as you just recounted.
Hunter says "Clark didn't become Superman until after he moved to
Metropolis full time and had a job at the planet." As you just said, he
got the suit and the name before he moved to Metropolis full time, and
before he got the job at the Planet.
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
In Superman the Movie, they're still the baby blankets; look at the
stuff in the ship when they put the infant Kal-El aboard, and in the
burned ship when Ma and Pa find him. Red, blue, and gold blankets.
Super-Menace
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
Oh, of course, but why are the blankets the only thing we see with any
color in them at all? I'm not saying there's no reason, but the only
one I can think of is that the blankets have to be there so Ma can make
the costume ... except Ma doesn't make the costume in that version. It
just sort of ... appears, as if the Fortress made it.
Super-Menace
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
Replying to myself: If Jor-El is the mind of the Fortress, then maybe
Lara is its heart? Maybe the Fortress is actually a manifestation of
both of Kal-El's parents, and not just his father?
Michael
IIRC, I think part of the reasoning was to make Krypton more "alien",
thus increasing Superman's emotional ties to Earth.
Michael
Michael
Mom did show up in Superman II, so that could be a good point.
Michael
Super-Menace
<this...@for.rent> wrote:
> Super-Menace wrote:
> > Replying to myself: If Jor-El is the mind of the Fortress, then maybe
> > Lara is its heart? Maybe the Fortress is actually a manifestation of
> > both of Kal-El's parents, and not just his father?
>
> Mom did show up in Superman II, so that could be a good point.
She did, but I was dismissing that because they had to reshoot all the
Brando stuff. I was looking at the original intent of what the
Fortress in the film was actually supposed to be. In all these years,
I never thought that Lara might have been part of it all along.
We comic-book heads knew the Fortress as a clubhouse built by Superman
for him to get away from it all, do experiments, and store his stuff
(like the Titanic and the Interplanetary Zoo). In the Reeve films,
it's actually a surrogate parent -- or parents, as I'm now thinking --
programmed to build itself by Jor-El and, perhaps, Lara, and it brings
Kal-El into adulthood and creates Superman. (We really know nothing
about the movie Lara; she might have been Jor-El's partner as well as
spouse.)
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, I give you all that; I was just saying that Jor-El or Lara or
somebody on Krypton came up with the color scheme. I always thought
that the baby blankets, even unmentioned, were a nice touch.
Arthur Lipscomb
I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0804supes-big.jpg
The head looks a little off to me, with luck it's a fake.
Super-Menace
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
Maybe, but I can't do better than "maybe." Even if it's a fake, it
might be a mock-up from the production company, a prototype they've
done short of actually producing a uniform. Very elaborate; lots of
hard work here, no matter who did it.
We've all seen pics of Cavill at Comic-Con with the curl, and there's
no curl here. His hair is brushed back.
The \S/ is a little Golden-Agey, but it's a good size. I can't tell
whether there's red briefs, but I see some red in there at extreme
magnification. The belt looks like the old belt, with a circular (or
perhaps oval) buckle. It looks like there's a seam down the outside of
the right leg.
All the color is washed out, BTW. I've run the pic through Photoshop
and corrected the color curves based on the white in the magnesium
fires in the upper left, and the black in the lower right corner. Then
I bumped up the intensity a little. I didn't have to touch the hue.
I'm getting a nicely red cape and a blue suit with a little gray in it.
Anyway, here, Henry Cavill sure as hell looks like Superman to me.
There's also no way this is worse than the Routh suit. For that,
they'd pretty much have to put Cavill in Underoos that his mom washed
in Clorox by accident.
Arthur Lipscomb
> In article<j1eau5$rkn$1...@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
> <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> Brace yourselves here's a look at Calvil wearing the new suit.
>>
>> I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
>> first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
>>
>> http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0804supes-big.jpg
>>
>> The head looks a little off to me, with luck it's a fake.
>
>
> Maybe, but I can't do better than "maybe." Even if it's a fake, it
> might be a mock-up from the production company, a prototype they've
> done short of actually producing a uniform. Very elaborate; lots of
> hard work here, no matter who did it.
>
I'm seeing this image reported in multiple sources now. It's looking
more and more legit.
> We've all seen pics of Cavill at Comic-Con with the curl, and there's
> no curl here. His hair is brushed back.
It's too puffy. And he needs the curl.
>
> The \S/ is a little Golden-Agey, but it's a good size. I can't tell
> whether there's red briefs, but I see some red in there at extreme
> magnification.
Didn't they dump those in the latest comic reincarnation? They better
keep them for the movie.
The belt looks like the old belt, with a circular (or
> perhaps oval) buckle. It looks like there's a seam down the outside of
> the right leg.
>
> All the color is washed out, BTW. I've run the pic through Photoshop
> and corrected the color curves based on the white in the magnesium
> fires in the upper left, and the black in the lower right corner. Then
> I bumped up the intensity a little. I didn't have to touch the hue.
> I'm getting a nicely red cape and a blue suit with a little gray in it.
Does the cape look a little big to you? It looks like he'll trip over it.
>
> Anyway, here, Henry Cavill sure as hell looks like Superman to me.
He certainly looks intense.
I do like the set he's on. Maybe in this movie we'll get to see
Superman do something other than lift heavy objects. ;-)
>
> There's also no way this is worse than the Routh suit. For that,
> they'd pretty much have to put Cavill in Underoos that his mom washed
> in Clorox by accident.
The raised texture on the suit is really bugging me. The texture almost
looks like it's something Batman might wear. It looks like they modeled
it after the Routh suit instead of the Christopher Reeve suit.
Super-Menace
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 10:56 AM, Super-Menace wrote:
> > In article<j1eau5$rkn$1...@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
> > <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Brace yourselves here's a look at Calvil wearing the new suit.
> >>
> >> I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
> >> first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
> >>
> >> http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0804supes-big.jpg
> >>
> >> The head looks a little off to me, with luck it's a fake.
> >
> >
> > Maybe, but I can't do better than "maybe." Even if it's a fake, it
> > might be a mock-up from the production company, a prototype they've
> > done short of actually producing a uniform. Very elaborate; lots of
> > hard work here, no matter who did it.
> >
>
> I'm seeing this image reported in multiple sources now. It's looking
> more and more legit.
>
> > We've all seen pics of Cavill at Comic-Con with the curl, and there's
> > no curl here. His hair is brushed back.
>
> It's too puffy. And he needs the curl.
Agreed. He needs the curl. He also needs a real suit. Nobody's made
a suit yet, and I hope they learned from Green Lantern that they have
to make a real, actual suit, because CGI just isn't going to cut it. My
guess is that they're going to keep trying new virtual suits on Cavill
until they get one they're extremely happy with, and then they'll revv
up production. This suit may be it. If so, I'm fine with it.
Cavill's hair at Comic-Con was -- well, I guess calling it "puffy" is
not inapt. It sure was bulked up somehow.
> > The \S/ is a little Golden-Agey, but it's a good size. I can't tell
> > whether there's red briefs, but I see some red in there at extreme
> > magnification.
>
> Didn't they dump those in the latest comic reincarnation? They better
> keep them for the movie.
Agreed there. Maybe a hundred thousand comics fans will be familiar
with the new suit. Hundreds of millions of people already know what
Superman really looks like.
We already know that they tested Cavill in the Reeve suit, and they say
it worked. I don't know why they'd test him in the old suit if they
were going to use that new, armored one.
> > The belt looks like the old belt, with a circular (or
> > perhaps oval) buckle. It looks like there's a seam down the outside of
> > the right leg.
> >
> > All the color is washed out, BTW. I've run the pic through Photoshop
> > and corrected the color curves based on the white in the magnesium
> > fires in the upper left, and the black in the lower right corner. Then
> > I bumped up the intensity a little. I didn't have to touch the hue.
> > I'm getting a nicely red cape and a blue suit with a little gray in it.
>
> Does the cape look a little big to you? It looks like he'll trip over it.
The Reeve suit had several capes, each one used depending on what
Superman was supposed to be doing at the time. The "Superman standing
around" cape reached almost to the floor. (Same deal with the Dean
Cain suit. For instance, Cain's "flying cape" was enormous. They'd
hang him from wires above the Daily Planet set, put a green screen
behind him, and start wiggling the cape with wires and poles.)
> > Anyway, here, Henry Cavill sure as hell looks like Superman to me.
>
> He certainly looks intense.
>
> I do like the set he's on. Maybe in this movie we'll get to see
> Superman do something other than lift heavy objects. ;-)
True that. Tearing apart a bank vault will get Cavill some street
cred, that's for sure.
> > There's also no way this is worse than the Routh suit. For that,
> > they'd pretty much have to put Cavill in Underoos that his mom washed
> > in Clorox by accident.
>
> The raised texture on the suit is really bugging me. The texture almost
> looks like it's something Batman might wear. It looks like they modeled
> it after the Routh suit instead of the Christopher Reeve suit.
I think they textured it because they think it looks better on a big
screen and adds dimensionality. That was the excuse for the texturing
of the Routh suit, anyway -- that, and the idea that the suit was of
alien origin and so it should look that way. Maybe the same idea is
operating here. It's not *necessarily* bad.
Speaking of which: Is there word yet about whether this film is being
made in 3D? I hadn't thought about that until just now.
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <j1eau5$rkn$1...@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
> <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
> > Brace yourselves here's a look at Calvil wearing the new suit.
> >
> > I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
> > first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
> >
> > http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0804supes-big.jpg
> >
> > The head looks a little off to me, with luck it's a fake.
>
>
> Maybe, but I can't do better than "maybe." Even if it's a fake, it
> might be a mock-up from the production company, a prototype they've
> done short of actually producing a uniform. Very elaborate; lots of
> hard work here, no matter who did it.
>
> We've all seen pics of Cavill at Comic-Con with the curl, and there's
> no curl here. His hair is brushed back.
Maybe Clark wears the spit-curl and Superman brushes it back in this
incarnation. :\
>
> The \S/ is a little Golden-Agey, but it's a good size. I can't tell
> whether there's red briefs, but I see some red in there at extreme
> magnification. The belt looks like the old belt, with a circular (or
> perhaps oval) buckle. It looks like there's a seam down the outside of
> the right leg.
I don't know WHAT'S going on on the leg there. Worst case scenario is
uber stupid gay racing stripes like the horrid new Spider-Man costume.
>
> All the color is washed out, BTW. I've run the pic through Photoshop
> and corrected the color curves based on the white in the magnesium
> fires in the upper left, and the black in the lower right corner. Then
> I bumped up the intensity a little. I didn't have to touch the hue.
> I'm getting a nicely red cape and a blue suit with a little gray in it.
>
> Anyway, here, Henry Cavill sure as hell looks like Superman to me.
>
> There's also no way this is worse than the Routh suit. For that,
> they'd pretty much have to put Cavill in Underoos that his mom washed
> in Clorox by accident.
Yeah, the Routh suit is worse, but this is still no prize.
KalElFan
> Brace yourselves here's a look at Calvil wearing the new suit.
Brace yourselves even more for the 75,075 DC shill and sycophant
defenders that *still* couldn't spin this thing! :-)
> I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
> first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
It's not a Superman suit. It's a Red Kryptonite prank by Mxy, a riff on
Bizarro that crosses Batman, Dracula and Superman together to form...
A. Baperman
B. SuperBatGuy
C. Count Draperman
D. Count Kaluca of Bat-El-Vania
E. Insert Your Own Bastardizated Nomenclature Here
I pick B until something better comes along, but just as his Super-
antihero name. His real secret historical identity name is D,
Count Kaluca of Bat-El-Vania.
Mxy's biggest laugh is that Time Warner doesn't get the joke. See,
in case they lose in the ninth circuit and SCOTUS, they've ordered
up a backup-plan to get around the Siegel & Shuster estates' rights.
That's what the comics reboot is all about. Now we have visual
evidence confirming suspicions that's what this movie is all about
too. But Time Warner thinks this is cool, because it satisfies their
heis... I mean backup plan criteria.
Closer to black than Superman's original blue. Check. Closer to
deep maroon than Superman's original red. Check. No yellow belt
like the original. Check. No red briefs like the original. Check.
Armor-like raised/texturized Kevlar or whatever it is rather than
the original look. Check.
A cape so ridiculously big and long it's not a cape. It's... Kaluca's
Shroud! It's designed to envelop him when he goes out in the
daylight, which won't happen often given the Dark Color Scheme
and Theme. Anyway, "Check" again.
Triple Check on what used to be the crest! It's not a crest, it's the
entire upper torso! What used to be an S now has no bottom to
speak of. Look at the upper right tip, and the whole thing is more
like a snake. It's the Great Seal of the Prince of Darkness himself!
You mentioned his head doesn't look right. Duh! Why would a
Mxy prank with 1/3 Dracula content have a head that looks right?
This is exactly what they want, that otherwordly not right kind of
spooky sensation.
I mean Count Kaluca has the steely-eyed stare going on. He's all
crouched down there ready to leap up like a bat out of Copyright
Hell. The background with the steel there tells you he just broke
out of, and completely twisted around, the metal vault that's held
him for going on 75 years now. What will he do next? Perhaps
bite Lois Lane on the neck, proving that they missed the boat not
casting Kristen Stewart after all.
Then again, maybe Lois has already been bit. Amy Adams did play
that ravenous vampire-like character in the Smallville episode. The
sequel to Man of Steel may even be Man of Twilight.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=80687
You can click the photo on that page and then enlarge it, if you
want a closer look at SuperBatGuy, aka Count Kaluca of Bat-El-Vania.
Look for him in June 2013 because...
If this photo doesn't get Time Warner to pull the plug and kill this
movie and --- aieeeee! -- the sequels, nothing will. Help us Obi-
Wan-Toberoff, you're our only hope!
Arthur Lipscomb
> In article<j1ep3s$588$1...@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
> <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/2011 10:56 AM, Super-Menace wrote:
>>> In article<j1eau5$rkn$1...@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
>>> <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brace yourselves here's a look at Calvil wearing the new suit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to try and reserve judgment until I see it on screen but my
>>>> first impression is this is worse than the Superman Returns suit. :-(
>>>>
>>>> http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/0804supes-big.jpg
>>>>
>>>> The head looks a little off to me, with luck it's a fake.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, but I can't do better than "maybe." Even if it's a fake, it
>>> might be a mock-up from the production company, a prototype they've
>>> done short of actually producing a uniform. Very elaborate; lots of
>>> hard work here, no matter who did it.
>>>
>>
>> I'm seeing this image reported in multiple sources now. It's looking
>> more and more legit.
>>
>>> We've all seen pics of Cavill at Comic-Con with the curl, and there's
>>> no curl here. His hair is brushed back.
>>
>> It's too puffy. And he needs the curl.
>
> Agreed. He needs the curl. He also needs a real suit. Nobody's made
> a suit yet,
What do you mean? Are you saying that's a CGI suit in the picture?
and I hope they learned from Green Lantern that they have
> to make a real, actual suit, because CGI just isn't going to cut it.
Agreed.
My
> guess is that they're going to keep trying new virtual suits on Cavill
> until they get one they're extremely happy with, and then they'll revv
> up production. This suit may be it. If so, I'm fine with it.
>
snip
>
>>> There's also no way this is worse than the Routh suit. For that,
>>> they'd pretty much have to put Cavill in Underoos that his mom washed
>>> in Clorox by accident.
>>
>> The raised texture on the suit is really bugging me. The texture almost
>> looks like it's something Batman might wear. It looks like they modeled
>> it after the Routh suit instead of the Christopher Reeve suit.
>
> I think they textured it because they think it looks better on a big
> screen and adds dimensionality. That was the excuse for the texturing
> of the Routh suit,
And they were wrong then too...
anyway -- that, and the idea that the suit was of
> alien origin and so it should look that way. Maybe the same idea is
> operating here. It's not *necessarily* bad.
>
I don't know. I've looked at it side by side with the Routh suit and
perhaps it's not as bad. The textures on the Routh version aren't as
pronounced as this one and I thought they were. At least it doesn't
have the horrible Routh suit colors. Still, when I see it side by side
with the Reeve suit...well, I still prefer the Reeve suit.
We need to see this in motion (with the curl of course) to fully judge
how well the suit works and he looks wearing it.
> Speaking of which: Is there word yet about whether this film is being
> made in 3D? I hadn't thought about that until just now.
I haven't heard anything about filming in 3D. I'd have to imagine that
Warners insist this gets a 3D post conversion like Green Lantern and
probably an IMAX release too like The Dark Knight.
Super-Menace
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 2:16 PM, Super-Menace wrote:
> > Agreed. He needs the curl. He also needs a real suit. Nobody's made
> > a suit yet,
>
> What do you mean? Are you saying that's a CGI suit in the picture?
Yes. I think it is.
> >> The raised texture on the suit is really bugging me. The texture almost
> >> looks like it's something Batman might wear. It looks like they modeled
> >> it after the Routh suit instead of the Christopher Reeve suit.
> >
> > I think they textured it because they think it looks better on a big
> > screen and adds dimensionality. That was the excuse for the texturing
> > of the Routh suit,
>
> And they were wrong then too...
>
> anyway -- that, and the idea that the suit was of
> > alien origin and so it should look that way. Maybe the same idea is
> > operating here. It's not *necessarily* bad.
> >
>
> I don't know. I've looked at it side by side with the Routh suit and
> perhaps it's not as bad. The textures on the Routh version aren't as
> pronounced as this one and I thought they were. At least it doesn't
> have the horrible Routh suit colors. Still, when I see it side by side
> with the Reeve suit...well, I still prefer the Reeve suit.
The Reeve suit is classic. However, I've seen criticism from some
quarters that it looks "dated." I don't know how they think about
things out there in L.A.
If this is really the Cavill suit, at least it's assembled largely
along traditional lines, unlike the Routh.
> We need to see this in motion (with the curl of course) to fully judge
> how well the suit works and he looks wearing it.
Yeah, he needs to walk and jump around in it.
> > Speaking of which: Is there word yet about whether this film is being
> > made in 3D? I hadn't thought about that until just now.
>
> I haven't heard anything about filming in 3D. I'd have to imagine that
> Warners insist this gets a 3D post conversion like Green Lantern and
> probably an IMAX release too like The Dark Knight.
Makes sense.
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
Maybe because a good looking suit will reasonably fit anybody, but an
ugly Routh suit has to be custom made/fit?
KalElFan
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50679
The initial sycophantic flurry of a dozen or so posts couldn't stem
the tide. Lots of negative posts on the Batman look, the snakeskin
costume, dark colors, the cape, the villain look, Snyder -- clearly
not a good first impression.
Among the better one-liners were the cape looks canniballized
from 300, and in another post "Superman Returns to Stalk Lois".