Given the recent encouraging trend of successful, highly entertaining comic-book movies, from the **Spider-Man ** movies to Batman Begins, I’ve been looking forward to the Man of Steel’s return to the big screen. From all I’ve heard, it’s been an extremely rocky road getting a new Superman movie made, and since I’ve always been fond of the character and the mythology, I’d like to see the new film do as well as possible. So it’s probably quite unfair of me to feel so uneasy about the production, based solely on the recent release of a publicity shot of Brandon Routh in the new Superman costume, which draws far too much attention to the Batch of Steel for my tastes.
Is it fair to judge a man based solely on his choice of pants? Perhaps not, but it’s been one of the most commonly employed criteria for thousands of years. Fair or unfair, given a choice between seeking medical help from a paramedic wearing crisp professional scrubs or an equally qualified one dressed in a crude jockstrap made from an inflatable duck pool toy, I would venture to say that most people would choose the former.
It’s certainly fair to point out that Superman’s choice of attire has always been unconventional at best, what with the cape and over-the-calf boots and all. Probably the most comedy-inspiring feature of the ensemble has been the red shorts, and thus it’s perhaps understandable that the costume designer might seek to address this problem by tweaking the classic design a little.
Personally, I have never had a problem with the shorts. They’re a peculiar anachronism, true, but they’ve been a constant feature of the costume ever since the beginning, and they didn’t keep Superman from becoming one of the most widely recognizable icons in the world. The Richard Donner movie wasn’t afraid of the shorts; the costume was translated to the screen with admirable fidelity, and Christopher Reeve demonstrated that the character could indeed convey dignity and credibility while wearing the shorts.
So I see no reason why the shorts should be an issue at all, but if for whatever reason the new movie considered them problematic, then I think they should have handled the costume redesign more honestly. Instead, they seem to be trying to strike a compromise, trying to minimize the shorts while at the same time making them more ‘streamlined’ and ‘stylish.’ Look, if the shorts are an obstacle, then by all means redesign the costume to eliminate the percieved problem. They did exactly that with Batman for the movies and no one seemed to notice, even though the shorts were probably the scariest part of Batman’s entire costume. Being attacked by a psychotic in a giant bat costume is one thing, but being attacked by a psychotic in a bat costume with shorts is infinitely more traumatic, especially if that psychotic is grinning eerily and holding up a giant paper circle for a limber prodigy to burst through, and that prodigy is also wearing shorts. I’d guess that this is exactly the sort of imagery that caused the Baby Boom generation to lose their trust in authority figures. But I digress.
It’s probably not impossible to retain the general iconic quality of the costume without specifically including the shorts. Face the problem head on, and let the fans decide. But don’t go trying to sneak around the issue by including the shorts, only making them really small shorts, because you’re not fooling anyone. This is not one of those situations where making a thing smaller makes it less noticeable. It’s disturbing and counterproductive. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I’m not sure what to make of the rest of the costume, other than to say that it’s not what I would have expected. I don’t have a problem with the classic costumes being redesigned, if it’s done in the right way. I’m not unduly troubled by the movie Spider-Man costume’s divergence from the Ditko version. I thought the newest movie Batman looked great. And whatever one’s opinion of the recent **Fantastic Four ** movie, I think the basic costume design wasn’t a problem for the most part.
The classic Superman costume itself has been tweaked and modified in various ways in the comics, with varying degrees of success. I personally thought that Alex Ross’ variant in **Kingdom Come ** with its sleeker, Fleischer-inspired shield was an extremely dramatic and effective design. So it’s not impossible to finesse the costume a bit without losing the iconic quality.
This new version, though, I’m not sure about. Maybe it’ll look more impressive on the big screen, but just from this one image it looks kind of tatty. Also, this is a publicity still, so presumably they were working as hard as possible to make the suit look just the way they wanted it to, which doesn’t bode well in my opinion. The chest shield looks way too small for one thing, and the tiny belt buckle shield just looks goofy. In fact, the whole belt looks way overthought, with those funky diagonal elements seeming to point directly groinward, saying, “this way to the disturbing bulge!” and thereby exacerbating the whole shorts problem. The cape I don’t really have an opinion on, other than to say that I didn’t realize they made Fruit Roll-Ups that big.
I guess my big question, then, is “Why?” Why were these particular choices made for the costume redesign? The color scheme seems to be somewhat darker than the Reeves movie version, which is not a bad thing in and of itself; although it does suggest that perhaps the filmmakers didn’t feel that a comic-book movie should be too brightly colored, which may hint at a crisis of confidence in the source material. What’s up with the relatively tiny chest shield? Who was it that decided, “The Superman chest logo in the comics is a bit overwhelming, isn’t it? A bit too aggressively visible. Let’s de-emphasize that and see what happens.” I submit that the Power Rangers-evocative relief detailing on the chest shield doesn’t help matters either. For one thing, it makes me think of the Power Rangers, which is not a great association to make if you want people to take your “man-in-a-Spandex-costume-fighting-crime” movie seriously. Add in the distracting effects of the red hip-hugging Euro-swimwear, and what you’ve got is a recipe for trouble.
It’s one thing to tinker with the costume designs of characters whose appearance has itself changed and evolved somewhat in the comics over the years. Batman, of course, has had multiple costume iterations and is no worse for it. Other than the very early Golden Age period of the Triangular Shield and Hercules Boots, though, Superman’s costume has remained extremely consistent over the decades. (I exclude the unfortunate Electric Superman sales event of '98 from my analysis.) In a way, the costume reflects the uncompromising nature of the character’s values, which don’t change merely because the rest of the world may perceive them as quaint or outdated. The classic Superman’s shorts came to represent a massive, naughty bits-concealing bulwark of decency, a Fortress of Solitude, if you will. They were a sacred covenant with his admirers that promised, “Although I dress in tights, I am a force for Good and Protector of the Weak. These shorts are an extra-thick guarantee that, no matter how the vagaries of fashion may change, you will never have to view the outline of my Little Kryptonian.” I’m just not getting the same sense of commitment from the low-rise shorts. It doesn’t seem like he’d be able to effectively wrestle the robotic minions of Brainiac and preserve his dignity at the same time, and that’s always something I was able to trust Superman with before.
I’d like to think that the shorts aren’t a dealbreaker, because I sincerely want to enjoy this new movie. For all I know, it could have a really good story, compelling acting, appropriate humor, dazzling effects. I hope it does. I’m just worried that the suit design will be a distraction from the positive features of the movie, where it really didn’t have to be. Here’s hoping.
Just be glad they didn’t put the Schlong of Steel in the costume of the 
