"External Panties" or: Does Superman's costume need a contemporary makeover?

moonmaster said:
How many Kryptonians have you met?

Because I've met exactly six.
Click to expand...

I met one on the train once , he looked like bearded , smelly , dirty , homeless man. I saw through his clever disguise and so to prove my theory I shot him. He was convincing I'll admit he lay on the floor in a pool of what I will say was "fake flood" until I left..

But his dedication is not tricking me , I know he looked "too homeless" (like Clark looks too mild-mannered) to be homeless and so was a Kryptonian!
 
What if Zod was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us.
Just a stranger on the bus,
Trying to make his way home.
 
Last edited:
Bass said:
When people remove the overpants he seems, at least to me... less. The serendipity, the mythical innocence of the character fades and he becomes neo and stylised and 'cool'. But I don't think a cool, modern costume is what Superman, as a character, would want to wear, and I don't think it's appropriate for him to do so. I think whenever Superman appears he shouldn't become a 'cool' guy.
Click to expand...
I am completely in agreement with this.

Coolness and innocence are in most senses, diametrically opposed. A 'cool' look is one that is sophisticated, clever and full of savvy. An 'innocent' look does not mask vulnerability, and invites trust.

Superman is supposed to be all colors and a handsome face. To dress him up in the functional gear of today's government-sanctioned metahumans or the stylishly fashionable look of post-John Woo action heroes would be yes, practical and shows a sophisticated understanding of what his clothes should allow him to do.

In short, it would be 'cool'. By being 'cool' he becomes less an exemplar of virtue and trust, a man whose battles are merely incidental to upholding that simplicity and open heart. By being 'cool' he becomes a man who is self-reliant, guarded, and dressed to expect danger from any quarter and be prepared for any threat. By being 'cool' he becomes everything Superman is not.

Also... Bass compared the external panties look with that of circus strongmen. He's right. Circus strongmen don't dress to look fashionable or cool. They dress to accentuate their form - regardless of whether it is well chiseled or merely bulky - even if that means looking a tad ridiculous. Why? Because they're emphasizing the BODY that does these great feats, and wearing a cloak and dress pants or a tuxedo would be wrong in that regard.
 
I think Superman's underwear keeps you from seeing what that tight blue costume looks like "down there". In complete and total seriousness, I believe that that is its function. It's the male equivalent of that little skirt thing on girls' bathing suits.
 
Last edited:
I felt the neeed to add this


 
Last edited:
ourchair said:
I am completely in agreement with this.

Coolness and innocence are in most senses, diametrically opposed. A 'cool' look is one that is sophisticated, clever and full of savvy. An 'innocent' look does not mask vulnerability, and invites trust.

Superman is supposed to be all colors and a handsome face. To dress him up in the functional gear of today's government-sanctioned metahumans or the stylishly fashionable look of post-John Woo action heroes would be yes, practical and shows a sophisticated understanding of what his clothes should allow him to do.

In short, it would be 'cool'. By being 'cool' he becomes less an exemplar of virtue and trust, a man whose battles are merely incidental to upholding that simplicity and open heart. By being 'cool' he becomes a man who is self-reliant, guarded, and dressed to expect danger from any quarter and be prepared for any threat. By being 'cool' he becomes everything Superman is not.

Also... Bass compared the external panties look with that of circus strongmen. He's right. Circus strongmen don't dress to look fashionable or cool. They dress to accentuate their form - regardless of whether it is well chiseled or merely bulky - even if that means looking a tad ridiculous. Why? Because they're emphasizing the BODY that does these great feats, and wearing a cloak and dress pants or a tuxedo would be wrong in that regard.
Click to expand...

10/10 I say! 10/10!

It's the same for professional wrestlers and the lucha libre.

Superheroes are a somewhat childish concept, but are lovable with their innocence and uniqueness. When they become 'realistic' and stylized and 'cool', they can lose both and become more and more ridiculous, in my opinion. I think this is what mainstream crossovers and the movies are like (though not completely so - Spidey and Superman, for example, both had moments of terrific innocence and uniquenss, but they also were ridiculous).
 
Bass said:
10/10 I say! 10/10!

It's the same for professional wrestlers and the lucha libre.

Superheroes are a somewhat childish concept, but are lovable with their innocence and uniqueness. When they become 'realistic' and stylized and 'cool', they can lose both and become more and more ridiculous, in my opinion. I think this is what mainstream crossovers and the movies are like (though not completely so - Spidey and Superman, for example, both had moments of terrific innocence and uniquenss, but they also were ridiculous).
Click to expand...
I take all my cues regarding the polarization/dichotomy of Cool versus Innocence from this essay of Chris Crawford's: http://erasmatazz.com/library/Miscellania/Innocence.html
 
ourchair said:
I know exactly what you mean.

Look where reading all your posts has taken me now... still unemployed.
Click to expand...

But if you were employed you wouldn't have time to search the internet for things like "Dakota Blue Richards's O-Face." :lol:
 
SSJmole said:
But if you were employed you wouldn't have time to search the internet for things like "Dakota Blue Richards's O-Face." :lol:
Click to expand...
Who said I did a search?

I studied the 5-minute Comic Con Trailer for Golden Compass, FRAME by FRAME to get this avatar, damnit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top