Because I Can
Someday I would like to be put in charge of something really big, really well known and horribly iconic.
Then, I would change it completely.
Just "because I can".
Hollywood likes to do this alot. Colorization was one of the first big attempts at this. Of course, "Miracle on 34th Street" and "Boys Town" would be much better pictures if they were presented on the big screen in muddy, pixelated color. I don't remember if it actually happened, but I'm sure SOMEONE suggested that they colorize the opening of "The Wizard of Oz", which they could have done "because they can".
Anyway, I'm ranting a bit on this due to the upcoming "Superman Returns". Bryan Singer is promising to do for Superman what "Batman Begins" did for that franchise. Superman IV didn't exactly "schumacher" the franchise but it didn't help.
(Editors Note: To be "schumachered" means that you're bent over and driven to Cleveland the hard way by a French costume designer.)
Anyway, "Superman Returns" deals with Superman leaving Earth in a snit after some foggy references to Superman II and the battle with the Kryptonian criminals. He comes back, and finds a married Lois (with kid in tow, sans the spit curl) and essentially "wins her back". This could be the worst "ex-boyfriend showing up and being an asshole movie EVER".
Alright, so far, not too bad. What's getting me is the costume. The "S" was disgned by, according to artist Mike Vera, Bryan Singer.
Excuse me? It seems to me that this icon was created years before Bryan was an itch in the zipper. Could it be no coincidence that 'Singer' begins with an 'S' as well?
Bryan liked the 'S' "he" designed so much that it's also now on the belt buckle of the suit. Now, I'm about to go out on a limb here and actually put a level of ridiculousness on an outfit with the underpants on the outside. However, this double 'S' looks more like something that would come out of the 90's comic book genre when the X-Men had no less than 30 'X's adorning their costume. The simplicity of the "super suit" just doesn't need that, nor did it really need updating. The image above actually has a very nostalgic look to it as it reminds me of the very classic Fleischer cartoons of the 40's. However, the rest of the suit, from the low-cut bikini trunks (hello, what??) to the "Look at my belt! It's very Thuper!" belt buckle just really takes me out of the moment.
I suspect it was done when someone thought "because I can".
Then, I would change it completely.
Just "because I can".
Hollywood likes to do this alot. Colorization was one of the first big attempts at this. Of course, "Miracle on 34th Street" and "Boys Town" would be much better pictures if they were presented on the big screen in muddy, pixelated color. I don't remember if it actually happened, but I'm sure SOMEONE suggested that they colorize the opening of "The Wizard of Oz", which they could have done "because they can".
Anyway, I'm ranting a bit on this due to the upcoming "Superman Returns". Bryan Singer is promising to do for Superman what "Batman Begins" did for that franchise. Superman IV didn't exactly "schumacher" the franchise but it didn't help.
(Editors Note: To be "schumachered" means that you're bent over and driven to Cleveland the hard way by a French costume designer.)
Anyway, "Superman Returns" deals with Superman leaving Earth in a snit after some foggy references to Superman II and the battle with the Kryptonian criminals. He comes back, and finds a married Lois (with kid in tow, sans the spit curl) and essentially "wins her back". This could be the worst "ex-boyfriend showing up and being an asshole movie EVER".
Alright, so far, not too bad. What's getting me is the costume. The "S" was disgned by, according to artist Mike Vera, Bryan Singer.
Excuse me? It seems to me that this icon was created years before Bryan was an itch in the zipper. Could it be no coincidence that 'Singer' begins with an 'S' as well?
Bryan liked the 'S' "he" designed so much that it's also now on the belt buckle of the suit. Now, I'm about to go out on a limb here and actually put a level of ridiculousness on an outfit with the underpants on the outside. However, this double 'S' looks more like something that would come out of the 90's comic book genre when the X-Men had no less than 30 'X's adorning their costume. The simplicity of the "super suit" just doesn't need that, nor did it really need updating. The image above actually has a very nostalgic look to it as it reminds me of the very classic Fleischer cartoons of the 40's. However, the rest of the suit, from the low-cut bikini trunks (hello, what??) to the "Look at my belt! It's very Thuper!" belt buckle just really takes me out of the moment.
I suspect it was done when someone thought "because I can".
posted by Mkae at
5:34 PM
9 Comments:
I'm willing to "wait and see". I don't mind the look of the costume they picked (even the belt buckle). It's sure better than a shoulder to shoulder "S" that often fills the current comic look. Great in the comics, not so much in real life.
BTW, unless you're in denial, it's time to update the profile to say West Coast. You're in Starbucks Land now, buddy.
By
Michael J. Hercus, at 8:14 PM
Actually, I was in Virginia Beach when I posted that so nyaah!
And yes, I'm willing to do the wait and see. It's exciting that they're going to use both John Williams theme AND Marlon Brando as Jor-el (stock footage and camera trickery) but the supes costume is the one constant that should never change.
By
Mkae, at 10:08 PM
Allegedly, Singer will be using footage from an unreleased version of Superman II. Crazy Margot Kidder says there was an alternate version that was "much better" than what was released.
What I don't understand is why the Batman movie mythology gets a reboot while WB merely extended the Superman movie mythology. Yes, the John Williams theme and Brando's Jor-El are iconic, but those can't be the only reasons.
By
GiromiDe, at 9:10 AM
Oh, and bring back Terence Stamp just for the hell of it. Stamp is The Man.
By
GiromiDe, at 9:11 AM
Superman II had some director changes throughout it and much of the original shoot was tossed in the process.
This is the main reason that Singer has said that the "first movie and a half" will be considered canon for the new movie. Apparently, some of the new "old" scenes will help to let us know which half of Superman II to remember and which half we're meant to forget.
By
Michael J. Hercus, at 9:54 AM
Giromide,
Singer (rightfully) believed that Donner and Salkyind told the origin story correctly so there was no reason to go back there.
As for Terence Stamp, if you watch Smallville, he is the voice of Jor-El. Or so he says....I'm still convinced it's NOT Jor-El but rather Brainiac. Time will tell.
And as far as I've heard, the ONLY stuff they're using from previous movies is some unused (and computer assisted) film of Marlon Brando. Mike is right that there was a completely different cut to Superman II but the fans have thus far been unsuccessful getting WB to let Donner recut it for DVD release.
By
Mkae, at 9:05 PM
I don't think adding a belt buckle is gonna have any significant dramatic impact, which is what determines whether I enjoy what I see. It's a film adaptation of Superman, who is a comics character. Your comics won't evaporate when the movie releases.
(Years of whining The Lord Of The Rings book purists mean I had this response ready.)
By
thisismarcus, at 11:47 PM
You know, they've redsigned his face so he doesn't look like a young Christopher Reeve any more. Is this gonna be a problem? :)
By
thisismarcus, at 11:54 PM
You're missing the point Marcus and the comparison to The Lord of the Rings is invalid.
Superman's shield is one of the most recognized marks in the world. It, and the costume around it, is iconic. Translating a story to the big screen lends room for interpretation, like LOTR. With Supes, you have the blueprint of the costume in about 30,000 comic book appearances.
And by the way, if you look at the pictures of Brandon Routh as Clark Kent, he IS a young Christopher Reeve. :)
By
Mkae, at 5:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home