Superman's New Tights (Man of Steel)

[Batman]

I'm on record for routinely being wrong on 'hating the suit' vs' quality of the movie'. I'll be delighted to be wrong another time. But sorry, the suit design in addition to what they depicted in the trailers insinuates to me that yes, they're going grimdark, at least for a large part of the movie.
IF they break out the traditional suit, or even better, the perfected Reeve one, and play The Superman theme, at the end you get to say 'I Told You So' until the heat death of the universe (or I get tired of it, whichever happens first.)
But for the time being and going by the trailers I've seen and the costume they're apparently standing by, yes, I think they're going grimdark.

[rhoenix]

Just to be sure we're using the same idea here Batman, could you define "grimdark" for us?

[Batman]

Human speech is so given to hyperbole. There is no evidence that the Superman movie is going grimdark in specific, as the term is taken from Warhammer 40k's tagline of, "In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war."

This is relevant why, exactly? The term 'grimdark' may have originated there but that's it. MOST of humanity (correction-most of humanity I interact with online) take this to mean well, grimdark. As in what happened in Batman comics before they ruined everything with the new 52. Bats got his back broken, Jason got killed (except not), Steph got killed (except not), that sort.
The only one that was seriously bad was 'The Quest for Peace'. One was brilliant, and managed to have the origin story AND more action than Returns, II was meh but at least had some superhero fighting, and all four of the Reeves movies had a nearly perfect Superman outfit. Returns did not, the suit stunk to high heaven, but they at least used The Theme.
So far, The Man of Steel doesn't have either.

[Batman]

Just to be sure we're using the same idea here Batman, could you define "grimdark" for us?

I think I just did but feel free to ask for qualifications.

[frigidmagi]

But sorry, the suit design in addition to what they depicted in the trailers insinuates to me that yes, they're going grimdark, at least for a large part of the movie.

But sorry the suit design means jack and shit. Look you don't like it? That's perfectly fine Bats! You're well within your rights to not like that suit and I will defend your right to do so. But it is no evidence for Grimdarkery. Neither is the trailer which has only shown us Superman doing a Birthright style world tour incognito (yes, he did that in Birthright, keeping his superness hidden. Birthright was the opposite of Grimdark!). We see an alien invasion, which is not evidence of grimdark, it's evidence of action. And we see Lois and Supes talking in either a military base or a police room... Still not seeing the grimdark.

But for the time being and going by the trailers I've seen and the costume they're apparently standing by, yes, I think they're going grimdark.

Think what you like, but the rest of us are going to call you silly for building a mountain range out of a heap of dirt.


Moving on...

I've found out today that the nonwhite population of the UK is 8%. 8%!!! All this screaming and whining and whinging and weeping that armageddon has come to England... Is because .8 people out of 10 aren't white. God save me, that's not a demographic problem. That's not even much of a voting block. 8%! That's fucking Tuesday! Shit given English gun laws, even if the EDL and etc were right about them all being hive mind manics, the white population of England could still win this fight with fucking rocks! 8%! Bah!

[Lys]

This is relevant why, exactly? The term 'grimdark' may have originated there but that's it. MOST of humanity (correction-most of humanity I interact with online) take this to mean well, grimdark. As in what happened in Batman comics before they ruined everything with the new 52. Bats got his back broken, Jason got killed (except not), Steph got killed (except not), that sort.

The relevance was my attempt to try to bring clarity to the discussion due to my belief that you were using the term "grim dark" hyperbolically. Anyway, your examples don't mean much to me because i don't follow comics, but grimdark generally means a setting filled with hopelessness and despair, or stuck in a spiral of self-destruction that nobody seems capable to stopping, not that bad shit happens every so often. If you want to say a setting or story is dark, you say it's dark, to say it's grimdark is to go even further.

There's always the setting alignment chart, which can be useful in these sorts of discussion. The Noble-Grim axis is about the people, while the Bright-Dark axis is about the aesthetics and scenery. Most Supes movies thus far were Noble Bright, Man of Steel is probably going for Noble Dark. It would seriously surprise me if it's Neutral Dark, and i'll eat my hat if it takes any spot on the Grim row.

The only one that was seriously bad was 'The Quest for Peace'. One was brilliant, and managed to have the origin story AND more action than Returns, II was meh but at least had some superhero fighting, and all four of the Reeves movies had a nearly perfect Superman outfit. Returns did not, the suit stunk to high heaven, but they at least used The Theme.
So far, The Man of Steel doesn't have either.

All the Reeves movies except II were impossibly silly to me and i could not take them seriously, even as a child. Most of II was also impossibly silly, it's pretty much General Zod alone who saves the movie from being awful, just like Lex Luthor saves Returns from being awful.

You really care about those suits, don't you? Didn't even know the Returns suit was different until you mentioned it just now. In fact, looking up pictures... still can't see the difference. The cape's a little darker maybe? Anyway, it's evident you like things to fall within your comfort zone and hit the iconic points you're familiar with. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with a bit of wanderlust, so long as neither is taken to excess. So you don't like it because it looks too different, and i like it precisely because it looks different.

Look, you should probably give the movie and chance and see how it sits. The trailers show a Clark Kent who is still an incredibly noble soul with no malice in his heart. The man willingly surrendered to the US military even though they have no power over him, that says a lot about who he is. If it's done well then we'll probably all like it.

[rhoenix]

This is relevant why, exactly? The term 'grimdark' may have originated there but that's it. MOST of humanity (correction-most of humanity I interact with online) take this to mean well, grimdark. As in what happened in Batman comics before they ruined everything with the new 52. Bats got his back broken, Jason got killed (except not), Steph got killed (except not), that sort.

The relevance was my attempt to try to bring clarity to the discussion due to my belief that you were using the term "grim dark" hyperbolically. Anyway, your examples don't mean much to me because i don't follow comics, but grimdark generally means a setting filled with hopelessness and despair, or stuck in a spiral of self-destruction that nobody seems capable to stopping, not that bad shit happens every so often. If you want to say a setting or story is dark, you say it's dark, to say it's grimdark is to go even further.

There's always the [ur=http://s34.photobucket.com/user/clavdiv ... s.jpg.html]setting alignment chart[/url], which can be useful in these sorts of discussion. The Noble-Grim axis is about the people, while the Bright-Dark axis is about the aesthetics and scenery. Most Supes movies thus far were Noble Bright, Man of Steel is probably going for Noble Dark. It would seriously surprise me if it's Neutral Dark, and i'll eat my hat if it takes any spot on the Grim row.

Wait, wait, wait - you wear a hat?

The only one that was seriously bad was 'The Quest for Peace'. One was brilliant, and managed to have the origin story AND more action than Returns, II was meh but at least had some superhero fighting, and all four of the Reeves movies had a nearly perfect Superman outfit. Returns did not, the suit stunk to high heaven, but they at least used The Theme.
So far, The Man of Steel doesn't have either.

All the Reeves movies except II were impossibly silly to me and i could not take them seriously, even as a child. Most of II was also impossibly silly, it's pretty much General Zod alone who saves the movie from being awful, just like Lex Luthor saves Returns from being awful.

You really care about those suits, don't you? Didn't even know the Returns suit was different until you mentioned it just now. In fact, looking up pictures... still can't see the difference. The cape's a little darker maybe? Anyway, it's evident you like things to fall within your comfort zone and hit the iconic points you're familiar with. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with a bit of wanderlust, so long as neither is taken to excess. So you don't like it because it looks too different, and i like it precisely because it looks different.

Look, you should probably give the movie and chance and see how it sits. The trailers show a Clark Kent who is still an incredibly noble soul with no malice in his heart. The man willingly surrendered to the US military even though they have no power over him, that says a lot about who he is. If it's done well then we'll probably all like it.

In all seriousness (much as it goes against my momentum for today), I have to agree with Lys here. I see no indications in the trailers whatsoever to show that Superman is being presented as grimdark, even with the extraordinarily vague definition Batman gave of "people die and get permanent injuries."

I'll be seeing it next week for myself, during my vacation - in fact, I actually have more desire to see it than the new Trek movie.

[Lys]

Wait, wait, wait - you wear a hat?

Nope, my philosophy is to never bet anything you may have to make good on.

[Batman]

Some people would call it not only unethical but potentially dangerous to bet something you don't actually have you know. What happens if you lose and the winner wants to collect? If it's just a hat you'll probably get away with being called a damned cheat and a sullied reputation, but there's people who take serious exception to people trying to weasel out of a debt.
If I was using the term grimdark in a hyperbolic manner, it wasn't intentional, as I have routinely seen that term used to describe modern Batman comics, WH40K, Judge Dredd and the Nolan Batman movies. But if merely dark is more appropriate, I'll happily stand corrected.

And I am in no way saying that since the suit sucks so will the movie. Nevermind that the near perfect Clark suit didn't save Superman IV from being abominably bad, I hated every Nolan suit but the last, and 'Begins' and 'TDK' were awesome while 'TDKR' was...okay, 'Batman Returns' stunk despite having a much better suit than 'Batman' so the connection between my appreciation of the suit and the movie quality is at best tedious and if anything tends to point towards me disliking the suit being an, if not necessarily perfectly reliable, then at least pretty good indicator that it's going to be a good movie.

You are right, I want things to fall into my comfort zone, and Clark in agrimdark uniform is WAY outside that. And I can't believe you see no difference between his 'Superman Returns' duds and his standard uniform. Wrong shade of blue, wrong shade of red, no yellow S shield on the cape?

[General Havoc]

Batman. I have seen the movie and you have not and you're wrong and that's the end of it.

I'd debate the matter more fully, but there's simply nothing to discuss here. You have no points for me to refute. You are wrong. And the world continues.

[Batman]

Really. My only points this far have been 1)I hate Clark's duds and 2) the movie seems to be pretty dark. On the theme of the movie, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as you have apparently seen it and I haven't, but sorry Clark's duds still scream 'dark' from all evidence available to me.

[Hotfoot]

DARKER SUITS MEANS DARKER MOVIE RAAAAWR!

Or, you know, not.

[Lys]

Some people would call it not only unethical but potentially dangerous to bet something you don't actually have you know. What happens if you lose and the winner wants to collect? If it's just a hat you'll probably get away with being called a damned cheat and a sullied reputation, but there's people who take serious exception to people trying to weasel out of a debt.

It's not weaselling out of a debt when you do exactly what you offered. In this case i don't have a hat, ergo i don't have to eat anything. It's like offering to cut off your hair when you're already bald. On top of that "i'll eat my hat" is never considered a serious gamble, and someone trying to enforce it is far more likely to have their reputation sullied. In short, it's a no-lose gamble, the only kind worth making. ~_^

If I was using the term grimdark in a hyperbolic manner, it wasn't intentional, as I have routinely seen that term used to describe modern Batman comics, WH40K, Judge Dredd and the Nolan Batman movies. But if merely dark is more appropriate, I'll happily stand corrected.

It can often times be a matter of opinion. For example i wouldn't call the Nolan Batman movies grim dark, or even grim neutral like in the setting alignment chart. They're dark movies, yes, but it's not like the world seems to be full of horrible people. In terms of the chart it better fits neutral dark, or in colloquial terms they're just a dark take on Batman. In many ways people have taken to saying grimdark instead of just dark for the same reasons people say use hilarious to describe things that are merely amusing. Hell, the word amusing itself once upon a time meant much the same that mesmerizing does today, but people overusing it caused the intensity of the word to drop. For the time being, though, grim dark means extremely dark just the same that hilarious means extremely funny.

And I can't believe you see no difference between his 'Superman Returns' duds and his standard uniform. Wrong shade of blue, wrong shade of red, no yellow S shield on the cape?

After bothering to take a close look here are the differences: Darker red, slightly different blue, smaller chest shield, chest shield in relief, no shield on cape, S-shield buckle instead of oval buckle, smaller underoos, texturing on suit, tighter higher neckline, shorter boots. The differences are small and subtle. It took me staring at pictures of both the Reeves and Return suits while deliberately looking for discrepancies to notice them. Frankly, most of the audience probably didn't notice either. Incidentally, the Returns suit looks slightly better to me, except for the chest shield which looks glued on and flimsy.