TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

Why NBC’s Wonder Woman Should Seem Much More Familiar…

Is there a word for the opposite of anticipation? Is dread really the word I’m looking for? Whatever the correct term would be for what I’m feeling, Thursday’s casting news for NBC’s Wonder Woman brought that feeling out in spades. Why isn’t anyone else getting DC Comics deja vu about the car crash this project is turning into?

Here’s the thing: For a while there, I really wanted to be enthusiastic about David E. Kelley’s Wonder Woman. Sure, the script doesn’t look that good, but it’s being reworked, and there are many shows that have terrible pilots and then turn into pretty good series in the end. Also, I have a love-hate relationship with Kelley’s work that left me hoping that, just maybe if Kelley could get over his love affair with whimsical cuteness and letting his politics — which I happen to agree with — overwhelm his writing, something interesting might come out of his attempting to get outside his comfort zone a little with an Amazon warrior princess. And then … and then it turned into Catwoman.

You remember Catwoman, right? 2004 movie starring Halle Berry and Sharon Stone? Complete and utter train wreck that everyone involved, right down to DC Comics themselves, like to pretend never happened?

Consider the evidence: Catwoman‘s lead, Halle Berry, was considered an unexpected choice for the role who doesn’t exactly match the picture most people had in their minds of the character, but nonetheless, someone who wasn’t necessarily a bad choice — just like Adrianne Palicki, the lead in Wonder Woman. Catwoman was campy as all get-out, unlike the tone of the comics at the time, and Kelley’s Wonder Woman — exec by day, crimefighter by night and a woman who just can’t get her love life in order no matter what! — is … well, just the same. And then there’s the villain.

I’d be the first person to say that Liz Hurley is no Sharon Stone. For one thing, Liz is known more for her fashion choices than her career choices — although, sure, beyond Basic Instinct and Casino, I’d be hard pressed to remember too many of Sharon’s career choices — and for another, at least Sharon can act. But both starring as the villains in their respective projects just seems like stunt casting, the idea of “Let’s get these two hot women fighting! There can be a catfight at some point! Awesome!” instead of … well, anything else, like whether or not they make sense for the role or seem credible as über bosses or whatever. Sensationalism over substance.

More than anything else, the casting of Liz Hurley convinces me that Wonder Woman will be cheesy camp, lazily substituting cattiness and familiarity for anything worthy of the character and her history. I’ve been disappointed by Catwoman before, and don’t really need to go through that again with Wonder Woman, you know?

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    I too thought of Catwoman and Sharon Stone when I read about this plot.

    I’d say that if the show followed the guidelines from the Rucka run on the comic book, with the focus on the daily going-ons at the Themysciran Ambassy and Diana’s role as a peace ambassador from Paradise Island, then people might be more receptive to the show.

    You could have Etta Candy as the ambassy’s US military liason or something, and Mindy Meyer as their press secretary, and you could still have the direction Kelly has come up with.

    It’s the triple ID idea and her role as a corporate businesswoman that people find idiotic.

  • Darknessatnoon

    Seems fine to me. More poor journalism and analysis from Spinoff.

  • CBR guy

    Can you not write something that isn’t speculation? Add something constructive to this site, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

  • The Gentleman Gamer

    Jesus wept. Liz Hurley? Surely there must be an available actress out there somewhere with decent credentials who won’t either ham it up or camp it up.

  • Ill_made_knight

    I will never understand why every time there is a female lead that the writers always feel that her lovelife needs to be one of the top stories or motivations. I think this is what has pushed me away from many women led stories that I have tried over the years. A male character will probably get a love interest at some point if a story progresses, but it never seems to be the first thing that needs to be done. I am not a huge fan of Wonder Woman, but what I have read or seen does not have her chasing after some man so that her life is in order. Just that little blurb of what the show’s basis is sounds scary to me, and I have little hope for the show.

  • Tired of inane nonsense

    Oh for pity’s sake…could you at least wait until it’s actually made before reviewing it? This is such nonsense, all this ridiculous negativity. Comic book fans are great at fulfilling their stereotype!

  • Vidocq

    That’s bullshit. You can’t condemn a show before the damn thing is even shot just because it has plot elements similar to Catwoman’s. Also Wonder Woman has female enemies. What are you saying, that they should have casted a guy as Circe or as Cheetah just to avoid a catfight?

  • http://twitter.com/drunkjack00 Jack Derunk

    *yawn*
    Yet another editorial not marked as such.

    I don’t care what you think. Just give me the facts, dammit.

  • kalorama

    It’s a blog, not the NY Times, so it’s fine for him to give his opinions. That said . . . his opinions are based entirely on speculation, fear, and parallels drawn out of thin air without any actual evidence to back them up.

    Wonder Woman is headed towards camp? Really? And you know this how, exactly? Have you seen the pilot? Of course not, because it hasn’t been shot yet. Because Adrianne Palicki is just like Halle Berry? Huh? Liz Hurley is just like Sharon Stone? Wha?

    Look, there’s every chance in the world that WW will turn out to be a turd. But there’s no more chance of it than it is with any other TV (which, granted, ain’t sayin’ much). But there’s no basis, from where we stand right now, for making a blanket ironclad prediction that it’ll suck. And there’s certainly no “evidence” to support such a prediction.

    Look, it’s one thing to write a piece full of pre-emptive paranoid nerd rage about the WW TV show, that’s the writer’s prerogative. But don’t pretend like there are actual, objective facts to back it up. Because there aren’t.

  • kozmik

    “I’d say that if the show followed the guidelines from the Rucka run on the comic book, with the focus on the daily going-ons at the Themysciran Ambassy and Diana’s role as a peace ambassador from Paradise Island, then people might be more receptive to the show.”

    I think you mean comic book fanboys will be more receptive to the show.

  • Ultras28

    What an ironic post.

    It’s not like we can’t predict how this will end. The real question is how many episodes will are before it’s pulled.

  • http://storywiseguy.com/ Chris Buckley

    Yep.
    I am not looking forward to this.

  • Kelly

    Happy to hear you’ve seen the pilot before anyone else has.

  • JRB

    No worries. NBC will pull the plug on this before it has a chance to get off the ground like they do the rest of their genre shows.

  • Maphillips

    I agree the show has be “concerned”, but saying Adrianne Palicki doesn’t fit the casting seems a bit silly to me I guess. She has the build and the looks. She’s proven her acting chops on FNL, Supernatural, and she was even the “fake Kara Zor El/Supergirl” on Smallville. But yes, nothing else has exactly been reassuring about this.

  • Cover55555

    I finally got the train wreck out of my DC mind, now to fear over it again is not what I wanted.

  • Anonymous

    I always thought Halle Berry looked a lot like the way Darwin Cooke and David Mazzuchelli drew Selina, but thats beside the point.

    I too am dreading this, because if it fails, that may be another nail in the coffin for a proper movie adaptation.

  • http://twitter.com/SuperHera She Isme

    Thank you, EPICALLY, for saying this. I am a Wonder Woman fan to the fullest. When I say fullest I mean from the LIMITED EDITION WW Reebok Sneakers in my closet right on down to the Bruce Timm WW tattooed on my arm. Anything WW, I buy. Every comic book, I have read. I am not saying this so you can go, “Yeah, we get it… you like Wonder Woman.” I am saying this so you understand that the moment Kelley was mentioned as running this show I was ready to give away and sell ALL of my WW Memorabilia. Why? Because JIM LEE threw her into an epicFAIL outfit and JMS gave her a lame ‘I’m an angry, superpowered Teen’ storyline and what I didn’t need was Mr. Ally McBeal to then go and make her a Corporate exec who likes to be cheesy 24/7 so she can get a boyfriend. I hate to say it, but too many men are in charge. A female voice needs to step up and say, “This is all kinds of wrong.” I doubt anyone would appreciate it if Superman started doing construction and painting landscapes, while Batman decided to become a stay-at-home dad. These people are superheroes for a reason: They are NOT like us. Stop trying to make them like us. And that includes making Wonder Woman like every other boring 20-something I know.

  • http://twitter.com/sillymander sillymander

    I’m still waiting for facts regarding David E. Kelly’s Comic Book Credibility. None in evidence as of yet.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Superman is not doing construction and landscape, that be stupid.

    Instead he is a 35 year old man who wears clothes based on the attire used by 12 year old children on Krypton, which is MUCH better (at least according to the Silver Age-obsessed annoying, little eager-beaver fandorks).

    No, Superman is not a construction worker, he is a character who has been deconstructed and reconstructed (i.e. rebooted multiple times) for no reason other than to pander to nostalgia for the past and give those fandorks something to fanwank over.

    Even Superman must know how bad it is that he wears 12 year old boy clothes.

    When Brainiac made fun of his clothes, he lied and told him that his costume was based on the Kryptonian flag. Later, though, in Secret Origin, we learned the truth.

    I guess that Superman no longer believes in “truth” in his motto to fight for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”. Now he only tells the truth when it’s convenient (if he does at all).

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    ..

  • Lesya

    yawn

  • XK

    So… the “evidence” that this is going to be the tv version of Catwoman is that you don’t like Liz Hurley?

    Uhm… ok.

    And the only reason WW’s villain would be a hot female is because the producers want “two hot women fighting”?

    Weird… I remember a large part of Wonder Woman’s rogue gallery being hot women. Way to invalidate the idea of a woman villain existing for any reason other than scene candy. Sexist much?

    Wonder Woman may indeed end up being the worst thing ever to come to television, but nothing in your article gives a substantive reason why beyond lazy assumptions based on your own personal bias. F- for effort.

  • Joe S. Walker

    Short of eating the script, they couldn’t do much more to guarantee that this thing is going to emerge as a turd.

  • Duxman

    Why are your editorials never positive? Every time you post one of these, it seems like its about how wrong everything is and why things are going to suck/fail. Why?

  • Grant

    If the show is terrible it will be on it’s own terms rather then a vague connection to a movie that came out 7 years ago.

    Remember when everyone (myself included) freak out over the Battlestar Galactica reimagining especially when they went the “cheap human cylon” route. Not saying Wonder Woman will end up being as good as that show but it’s early yet and they might actually end up getting this to work. Worst case scenario it doesn’t work and it just frees up the character for something else.

    Can we give the panic attack editorials a rest? What purpose do they really serve other then to get attention and hits?

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Not necessarily. I’d be surprised if non-comic book readers didn’t think that Kelley’s direction is idiotic and unnecessarily confusing.

    Rucka’s version is very TV-friendly and it doesn’t require a PhD on Wonder Woman continuity, just a general understanding of the concept.

  • http://sledgehammerproductions.wordpress.com Todd Matthy

    I haven’t read any of the plot information so I really can’t comment on it. I think the addition of Liz Hurley gives the show some much needed star power and when I heard she was Veronica Cale, my impressions are that the show was going to have a Westwing/Smallville kind of vibe. Which could work with a good writing staff.

  • http://sledgehammerproductions.wordpress.com Todd Matthy

    When you think about it, Warner Brothers has THREE avenues they can explore with “Wonder Woman.”

    They can base a movie on the first six issues of George Perez’s run. Rucka’s run has the potential for a prime time TV series (hopefully what we’re getting) and Gail Simone’s run could provide the basis for an animated series. Agree?

    Also, I think Lynda Carter would make a perfect Myndi Mayer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    Why is that the real question? This show could be a smash hit. Then it won’t get pulled at all.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    If they kept the costumes for those characters from the comics, yes… That’d be hilarious.

  • http://www.catfightreport.com Johnny Ringo

    I love the catfights. Run a big site that covers them. I’m hoping they do go with more female fights this time in the Wonder Woman series and make the fights serious and not so campy and goofy. It would be nice to see a female villian whoop Wonder Woman from time to time and visa versa. I know fans on my side of the fence would absolutely love it.

  • demoncat_4

    hopefuly they will learn from catwoman and not turn wonder woman out like that espically given that David has taken part of batmans back ground the fighter by night exec by day to wonder woman. one can only hope the thing pulls of a miracle and does not turn into another catwoman.

  • Matches107

    I never understood the reasoning behind taking a well known story with a built in fan base and then tossing out the whole story that had that fan base to make a mediocre picture. Now truthfully I felt the casting of Halle Berry as a sweet call back to Eartha Kitt was inspired, but the fact that two african american women had played catwoman was all the film actaully had to do with the mythos of catwoman.

    Of course breaking Mythos isn’t necessarily bad at times, the Incredible Hulk Series became a classic which changed the understanding of the Hulk in the Comics too, but generally speaking you have far more Reb Brown stories than Lou Ferigno ones.

    Now I don’t follow Wonderwoman, so I don’t know. Is she a CEO/ambasador to a mystical people in the way Namor was in the 90’s? If not it just seems like a way to make the character rich enough to inhabit the first world problems that David E Kelly is used to writing about.

    Comfort zones are great for writers, but nothing good ever gets written in them. When you take an established character from their mythos and transport them into your comfort zone you’ve pretty much guaranteed that the project will be a failure.

  • Jonesy

    Graeme, your reasoning is spotty at best and completely specious at worst. Once again you’ve taken a dump on a property through faulty speculation and just whined about something that hasn’t even come out yet because you’re sure it will suck. Your editorials should really be marked as such so that we can avoid them.

  • Anonymous

    Issues maybe?

    Superman’s costume is in reality derived from early C20th Circus wear, the kind of thing a strongman and acrobat would have been wearing when a couple of young boys ( Siegel & Shuster ) visited the Big Top.

    The origin of said costume has changed over the years, “deconstructed and reconstructed” Siegel originaklly stated it was made of invulnerable material invented by Superman himself.

    As far as “deconstructed and reconstructed” YMMV – if you don’t like mythic characters whose stories are retold time and again, that is your subjective choice, but the success of Bond, Dumas’ Three Musketeers and Robin Hood for example shows more people appreciate the theme, which much like the Greco-Roman Myth that Wonder Woman particularly draws from goes back a long way.

    The thing about Superman’s costume, which is no more ridiculous than anything Buster Crab ran around in Flash Gordon, or later cropped up in Star Trek or Star Wars for that matter. is that it is iconic and recognisable, in fact it ranks up there in terms of recognisability with the Coca Cola logo and Mickey Mouse.

    Changing something just because it doesn’t fit your personal POV on cool, be that Superman’s 30’s Strongman acrobat get up, or the Wonder Woman Costume debuted on the cover the feminist tome Ms. – images that are so recognisable the world over would be very dumb IMO.

    Finally lamp shading Superman’s costume as Kryptonian day ware is actually a logically consistent explanation within the fictional narrative. You may have worn short trousers still when you were 12, but my choice of clothes, jeans and t-shirt, were no different from guys in their 20’s.

  • Anonymous

    No, this doesn’t remind me of the Catwoman movie- not yet anyway. While Hurley might not have been my first choice for Cale, I think she can pull it off. What does worry me is that the script sounds more like “Batwoman” than “Wonder Woman”. Then again, WW has notoriously been hard to write (supposedly) and has had many versions, including as a spy. So who knows? This might not turn out to be 100% true to the mythos, but might be good anyway. We’ll see.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “Superman’s costume is in reality derived from early C20th Circus wear, the kind of thing a strongman and acrobat would have been wearing when a couple of young boys ( Siegel & Shuster ) visited the Big Top.

    The origin of said costume has changed over the years, “deconstructed and reconstructed” Siegel originaklly stated it was made of invulnerable material invented by Superman himself.”

    Irrelevant and nothing to do with the point.

    It’s one thing when Clark comes up with his costume when he is a 27-30 year old man and uses it to be Superman, It’s quite another when his mom sees a 12 year old kid wearing the same costume on Krypton and makes one for HER 12 year old kid and he ends up wearing the same exact costume 20 years later.

    Even when DC did “young Wonder Woman” stories in the 60s, they would give her a costume that was completely different from the one she would wear as a grown woman. Same goes for when they did stories that showed Bruce as a hero when he was a kid. There’s one that comes to mind in which he is shown wearing what would become the Robin costume.

    What inspired the costume in real life has ZERO bearing on it being pathetic for Superman to wear the exact same costume since he was 12 years old up to when he is 35 years old. The look of the costume should change, it should evolve with the times, not remain the same forever.

    As for the countless revisions, they weren’t done to enhance or imrpove the character, they were done out of hatred for the 80s and 90s, and to pander to nostalgia for the 60s and 70s by fanboys with a grudge against the former and a hard on for the latter.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    You could always just look at the byline.

  • Anonymous

    “Irrelevant and nothing to do with the point.”

    What point?

    You disparage the costume YMMV but as a recognisable and marketable image the costume is very important.and sells product.

    The fact is Superman has almost always been shown as a boy wearing the same costume back to the 1946 first Superboy story.
    By your logic it’s ridiculous that a kid and a man wear the same clothes, I don’t get it, that’s not true now, wasn’t true then.

    The reality is that as soon as the Byrne reboot happened DC diluted the revisions made, heck there was a Superboy TV show premièring at the same time Superboy had been written out in the comics, during the 80’s and 90’s which is just 15 years, lots of elements that had been stripped out by the reboot made there way back in like Supergirl
    Right now I can’t think of anything that has stuck from Byrne, except maybe the Kent’s getting to live.

    Get over it. 10-15 years is pretty much the average for “deconstructed and reconstructed” in comics. From the first retelling of the origin in the late 40’s to the latest secret origins, there has been lots of tweaks and changes, and you know what hasn’t changed that much, the costume, a bit like the Stars and Stripes, and Santa Claus it stayed because it works.

    The exact same argument applies to Wonder Woman’s duds.

  • Comics Please.

    So they take away everything that makes Wonder Woman Wonder Woman, turn her into a mock-Bruce Wayne/Batman meets Ally McBeal and then cast eye-candy in every role imaginable.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “You disparage the costume YMMV but as a recognisable and marketable image the costume is very important.and sells product.”

    Wrong. I disparage the use of the costume when the character is 12 and his still using it when he’s 35.

    It’s pathetic. Even the editor of the comic admitted to me via the SupermanHomepage that he has to ignore that fact in order to make sense of it.

    “The fact is Superman has almost always been shown as a boy wearing the same costume back to the 1946 first Superboy story.”

    It’s not 1946 anymore. Update your calendars.

    Clark stopped being Superboy over two decades ago. The only reason he’s Superboy again is because fans with a hard on for the 60s can’t let go of their childhood.

    “By your logic it’s ridiculous that a kid and a man wear the same clothes, I don’t get it, that’s not true now, wasn’t true then.”

    What’s pathetic is a man who dresses like a 12 year old boy… unless you think that’s okay.

    “The reality is that as soon as the Byrne reboot happened DC diluted the revisions made, heck there was a Superboy TV show premièring at the same time Superboy had been written out in the comics, during the 80’s and 90’s which is just 15 years, lots of elements that had been stripped out by the reboot made there way back in like Supergirl”

    The TV show came about because the producers had the licensing rights to the character. since the 70s, before the Byne reboot occurred When WB, the owners of the character rights, made a deal with ABC to produce Lois & Clark, they made sure to get the Superboy show canceled first.

    NO SINGLE WB-endorsed production of Superman, be it in toons, movies, or TV, made since the Byrne reboot has acknowledged the Superboy era. The Salkind produced TV show was the last time that character has ever been seen outside of comics.

    The CBS toon, Lois & Clark, the 90s toon, Smallville, and Superman Returns all portray Clark as becoming Superman when he’s a grown man, not when he is a child.

    “Get over it.”

    Same applies to the Silver Age fandorks… instead of getting over it, they allowed their hatred for the 80s to determine what they’ve done lately.

    It is true that things are revised constantly, but it’s also true that what we see NOW is not true change, it’s a rehash of the past.

    For things to trully change they have to be different from what came before.

    Byrne’s work was different from Maggin’s work, which was different from Weisenger, which was different from Siegel. What we see now, and have seen since Loeb in 2000, Waid in 2004, and Johns and Busiek since One Year Later is not different, it’s a rehash of the past.

    All of those people have rehashed Weisenger comics, Maggin comics, and Donner’s movies. None of them have provided anything that could be considered original the same way that Byrne and Wolfman did.

    Byrne’s birthing matrix and Wolfman’s Lex Luthor had never been done before until they created them.

    The same is not true of Johns’ Superboy, or Waid’s Lex (a rehash of the version from the Maggin comics), or Loeb’s Supergirl.

    None of them have done anything as revolutionary to what Byrne, Wolfman, and Carlin did. All they did was steal their ideas from old comics and movies.

    The true 21st Century version of Superman appeared not in comics but on TV in a show called Smallville, which, while far from perfect, accomplished what 10 years of comic book reboots failed to do, which is to provide an audience with a version of Clark Kent and Superman that, while familiar, was something they had never seen before.

  • Ziggy

    Not Spinoff, just Graeme McMillan.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    In Smallville they turned Green Arrow into a proxy for Batman, so why not?

  • The Anti-Bieber!

    I’d rather have something along the lines of the animated dvd from 2009 but with more of a Greek myth theme and modern day action/adventure on the big-screen.
    This tv version will end up like The Cape and The Bionic Woman.
    Wonder Woman deserves more.

  • Invasionforce

    Why all the negativity? We’re are talking television, not a feature film. Most television is simply entertainment, and has no pretensions of being art. I think the casting thus far is quite promising. Liz Hurley once had hopes of being a film star, and probably wouldn’t do just any television show. We don’t even know what character she is playing. I’m sure Hurley could play Ceres, for instance, quite well. Cary Elwes is someone who should have had a film career, but whose career went wrong somewhere along the way. I think he is a promising addition.

  • Royce Earnest

    I’m in the “Hopeful but we’ll just have to wait and see boat” but to TRY to review something before it comes out is just stupid.

  • Anonymous

    Getting back to your point, which I’m struggling with.

    By your logic it’s ridiculous that a kid and a man wear the same clothes, I don’t get it, that’s not true now, wasn’t true then.

    “What’s pathetic is a man who dresses like a 12 year old boy… unless you think that’s okay”

    Of course it’s Okay for a twelve year old boy to dress like a man. See what I did there. You have got this back to front.

    Your being ridiculous, in one breath “Byrne’s work was different from Maggin’s work, which was different from Weisenger, which was different from Siegel.”

    And in another breath you put all this emphasis on the latest Johns Secret Origins treatment of the costume – it’s just his retelling which “rehashes” stuff. It’ll be redone again differently in all probability in the next movie next year in any case.

    For the record I think Ma Kent running up the costume was lame when it was in the Superboy comics, lame when Bryne “rehashed” it again, and lame when done again in Secret origins and Superman Year One.

    The best way of Lampshading the Costume IMO is to make it entirely Kryptonian ie it comes with baby Kal in the spaceship, thataway the S gets to be a glyph. If not an alien suit, then Siegel’s original treatment is good.

    Of course in reality is that the costume has largely been the same since 1938, and like Santa’s red and white suit is instantly recognised.

    Your amazing insight on this longevity is “It’s not 1946 anymore. Update your calendars.”

    LOL Last time I checked “12 year olds” have been wearing jeans since the 1870 ‘s and the dinner suit / Tux / black tie since 1860’s, some fashions change, some don’t so much, and some like double breasted jackets come and go.

    As for the revolutions of Byrne, lets say Perez’s Wonder Woman was everything Man of Steel was not – Superman shaking with fear on a mountain top because he couldn’t cope with an enthusiastic crowd? Killing the pocket Universe Criminals? Frankly I’m glad to see the back of such ‘Revolutions’

    The birthing matrix is about as important an idea as the Supermobile, and King Pin Luthor, is well just a slimmer version of well the King Pin. Arguably Siegel’s technological terrorist Luthor is more relevant post 911 than organised crime King Pin Luthor.

    For the record I think Superboy flying around Smallville in his super duds doing public super feats is silly. However Superboy in the future with the Legion is a good story, and fixes a big hole in continuity.

    Smallville is a mixed bag, but what is good ‘rehashes’ Superboy comic lore, eg Clark and Lex being friends. But even the most diehard fans of the show admit the rigid application of no flights no tights rule – which was good when the show was confined to Smallville – fast became ridiculous several seasons ago. Smallville is not a C21st version of Superman. It is a C21st version of Superboy.

  • Fugu

    tldr; Wonder Woman the TV show is just like Catwoman the movie because the choices for the respective lead roles were unexpected and the choices for the villains were stunt casting.

    Well, on that basis, Wonder Woman is also exactly like a hundred other movies.

  • Joe S. Walker

    I seriously think casting a guy as Wonder Woman could work.

  • Joe S. Walker

    Q: Why does Superman wear his costume?

    A: He just does.

    That is ALL the explanation needed.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “Of course it’s Okay for a twelve year old boy to dress like a man. See what I did there. You have got this back to front.”

    The 12 year old isn’t dressing up like a man, the man is dressing up like a 12 year old.

    “Your being ridiculous, in one breath “Byrne’s work was different from Maggin’s work, which was different from Weisenger, which was different from Siegel.”

    And in another breath you put all this emphasis on the latest Johns Secret Origins treatment of the costume – it’s just his retelling which “rehashes” stuff. It’ll be redone again differently in all probability in the next movie next year in any case.”

    Johns’ retelling doesn’t offer anything new, it’s stuff he stole from old comics. At least Byrne and Wolfman strived to do stuff that hadn’t been done before.

    “The best way of Lampshading the Costume IMO is to make it entirely Kryptonian ie it comes with baby Kal in the spaceship, thataway the S gets to be a glyph. If not an alien suit, then Siegel’s original treatment is good.”

    Why would the ship have a costume and superhero insignia? Jor-El didn’t send Kal-El to Earth to become Superman, he sent him to Earth to survive Krypton’s destructio.

    Becoming Superman was Clark’s decision.

    One of the best things Byrne did was make it so that Superman could not exist without Clark, the Kents, and Lois.

    Clark is the man in the suit, Pa Kent came up with the symbol, Ma Kent came up with the costume, and Lois came up with the name. The superhero identity becomes the synergy of both worlds.

    Waid and Johns cheapened that by having the whole thing come from Krypton. It takes Earth out of the equation and makes it seem that Kal-El would become Superman no matter what planet in the universe he lands in.

    “LOL Last time I checked “12 year olds” have been wearing jeans since the 1870 ‘s and the dinner suit / Tux / black tie since 1860’s, some fashions change, some don’t so much, and some like double breasted jackets come and go.”

    The suit is not a pair of jeans, it’s the Kryptonian equivalent of the type of clothes worn by children. Martha in SO made the suit specifically for Clark when he was a boy, otherwise she would have made it based on what men on Krypton wear.

    Why else settle on clothes worn by a 12 year old Kryptonian and not an older man?

    Superman is a grown man in kid clothes like the ones seen in Mexican TV shows that you can see in the States on Telemundo or Univision.

    “As for the revolutions of Byrne, lets say Perez’s Wonder Woman was everything Man of Steel was not – Superman shaking with fear on a mountain top because he couldn’t cope with an enthusiastic crowd? Killing the pocket Universe Criminals? Frankly I’m glad to see the back of such ‘Revolutions'”

    Byrne’s Superman was more human, hence he actually had emotions. As for his executing the PZ criminas, A) they were guilty of global genocide (courts execute mass murderers for much less), B) it wasn’t what he wanted, he would have preferred to send them to the PZ but couldn’t because the projector was destroyed, C) it would have been too dangerous to bring them back to his Earth since, being Silver Age Kryptonians, they were much more powerful than him.

    I do agree that Perez’s WW is awesome.

    “The birthing matrix is about as important an idea as the Supermobile, and King Pin Luthor, is well just a slimmer version of well the King Pin. Arguably Siegel’s technological terrorist Luthor is more relevant post 911 than organised crime King Pin Luthor.”

    I won’t argue with that.

    “For the record I think Superboy flying around Smallville in his super duds doing public super feats is silly. However Superboy in the future with the Legion is a good story, and fixes a big hole in continuity.”

    By creating about a hundred more, and turning Superman into a 35 year old man in a child’s clothes. Again, Martha made the suit based on what little children wear, not grown men.

    “Smallville is a mixed bag, but what is good ‘rehashes’ Superboy comic lore, eg Clark and Lex being friends. But even the most diehard fans of the show admit the rigid application of no flights no tights rule – which was good when the show was confined to Smallville – fast became ridiculous several seasons ago. Smallville is not a C21st version of Superman. It is a C21st version of Superboy.”

    And in the 21st Century “Superboy” is “The Blur”, and he doesn’t wear clothes worn by 12 year old children on Krypton, he wore a black suit and a red leather jacket.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    It’s not enough for fanboys like Waid and Johns, who in trying to assign additional meaning to the suit only managed to leave the character without an origin and negate one of the most fundamental aspects of his core.

    What is it that Reeve’s Superman told Kidder’s Lois in the movie? “I never lie”…. well, in the Brainiac story arc Superman told Brainiac that his suit is based on the Kryptonian flag, yet in Secret Origin we learned that it’s actually based on clothes worn by 12 year old Kryptonian children.

    Johns turned Superman into a liar… for what? So that he could bring back the old Silver Age version of Superboy back into continuity?

    The VERY first thing a writer learns is that he has to be honest to the character. Hell, one of the very first things you see in a writer’s ‘ submission guidelines for ANY publisher is the question “is the character consistant throughout the story?”.

    In Johns’ case, the answer is clearly NO.

  • http://twitter.com/frankiethirteen Frankie Thirteen

    I’m one of the fortunate few who has never seen Catwoman, but I think Birds of Prey would be another appropriate comparison.

  • Anonymous

    That script was an early draft. It may well have changed. The casting for the show has been amazing. I think Liz Hurley and Tracie Thoms will be extraordinary in the supporting cast. I love how everyone reads this and judges. 10 years ago did you not think the same of Smallville? Now look at Smallville? For me it is my most revered tv show of all time and I have gotten my non comic friends to watch it and they are going to watch this show if it goes to tv. There was nothing wrong with Greg Rucka’s run. It was extremely accessible and Veronica Cale is an excellent villain. Artemis is also part of this script. There are far more comic characters in this version than the Lynda Carter version which I am not detracting from. But won’t it be great to see these characters step of the page onto the screen? Just look at Smallville – we’ve had Mxyplyzyk, Brainiac, the Legion, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Stargirl, Starman, Sandman, Black Canary, Cyborg, Supergirl, Superboy, Granny Goodness, Glorious Godfrey, Desaad, Darkseid, Zod, Faora, Zor El, Virgil Swan, Doomsday, New Kryptonians and more recently Ultraman, Rick Flagg, Deathstroke, Deadshot, Max Lord and Amanda Waller.
    Did we ever think we could see these characters on tv? I never did!! Hell we even got furies!! How cool was that! My main point!
    Don’t knock it. If it goes to series then the follow up episodes are usually radically different to the pilot. Give it a chance.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    In certain instances, networks have been known to tweak a pilot after it has been shot, either changing storylines or recasting actresses (we saw that with Birds of Prey).

    At present, this pilot sounds idiotic, but who knows what might happen once it’s shot. They might see how idiotic it is and make changes based on that before it even airs.

    Networks sometimes also shoot two TV pilots when the first one is not up to par.

  • kozmik

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Anonymous

    Look your whole argument that suit is child’s wear is based on *your* interpretation of John’s work, I read it, and I saw various images of Kryptonian’s wearing capes, and pants over the leggings, and few other combinations. ALL of which IN REALITY are backward workings either of Superman’s costume, or earlier art work from the Mythos. I don’t even see what you see in Secret Origins, and even if it were so, it’s just one writers take, and one that doesn’t supersede 70 plus years of Mythos.

    For the last time the suit was created by Superman as an adult by Siegel, it has always been adult clothing. That Superboy ( who DC created without consulting Siegel who was at war ) wore it has no bearing on it’s age appropriateness, just as my wearing a dinner suit at 12 didn’t make my dad look an idiot in his Tux.

    The Kents coming up with the suit is a ridiculous idea, completely stupid. Why would they choose to dress Clark, indeed why would Clark choose to dress in clothes that are in actuality early C20th century circus wear – that look like the kind of duds that Buster Crabb wore in Flash Gordon?

    The only sensible way to lampshade the costume is to make it Kryptonian fashion. That Kryptonians wear 30’s pulp SF style is just the way they roll. Plus if it’s Kryptonian it explains it’s durability – and that of the cape. Nothing was a stupid as the ripped Superman cape.

    The ‘S’ shield has been Kryptonian since Marlon Brando insisted on wearing it in the first Movie. That’s Supeman, ideas come in from all sides. Like Jimmy Oslen and ‘Kryptonite’ from the Radio show.

    I’m sorry I I don’t rate Bryne’s Superman. I hated that he was so stupid he couldn’t outsmart Batman, Siegel’s Superman would have punched his smug mug and smashed his Batmobile in the pavement. Byrnes Superman was really Superman-boy, who after wandering around the world for years, still needed his mum and dad to work out his secret ID. If he’d been Peter Parker say 15 years old it might have been okay, but he was 25.
    Siegel’s Superman did all the suit and secret ID by himself.
    As for turning him into a Murderer, that was Byrne – he wrote the story, he set up the constraints and the narrative, it was so awful it has been retconned out thank god.
    Byrne’s Superman just wasn’t Superman.

    Finally Byrne and Wolfman recycled just as much as Johns, and what they did introduce hasn’t really stood the test time. Heck just look a Brynes retelling of Lori Lemaris tale, it’s almost panel for panel a copy of the silver age version. The Steel Age Superman rusted, and I’m glad that he’s gone.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    You have to stoop looking at this as backwards designs based on Superman’s uniform and see it for what it is.

    Also, you should look at the images that Martha looks at again because in one of them there is a Kryptonian boy who is wearing the same suit she makes for Clark when he is a kid (or pretty similar).

    She didn’t make the suit based on what adults wore, she made it based on what she saw one particular kid wear.

    http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/ManofTheAtom/sco1.jpg

    You can clearly see the kid – who seems to be a GIRL – between the two adults. S/he is wearing a suit similar to what Martha makes for Superboy. Red cape, blue suit, red shorts, and red boots, without any of the additional designs seen on the other Kryptonians.

    Either that is a blonde Kryptonian boy, or Martha made Clark a girl’s dress.
    The suit doesn’t need to be Kryptonian to explain its durability, the aura Byrne came up with did it just as well without being a rehash of something from the 60s.

    The S being from Krypton is one of the most stupid things they ever came up with. The S is a letter from the human alphabet, not the Kryptonian alphabet.

    The “Steel” Age (which is not the proper name, even Mark Waid acknowledged it as the Modern Age is a trading card set DC did with Skybox) was done away with out of hatred and nostalgia, and the fanboy writers haven’t been able to come up with anything better to replace it with, which is why they keep rebooting the character again and again.

    Whether it’s Superboy Prime’s punches or dismissing Birthright as a result of Supergirl suffering from Kryptonite poisoning, nothing they’ve come up with has made sense.

    Are we supposed to believe that everything Superman experienced in For Tomorrow and other stories that featured elements from Birthright were things that Supergirl imagined? It’s bs.

  • Anonymous

    Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, Steel Age, and Mercury Age. Because everything is in flux. I’d agree there are some criminal ideas – Superboy Prime punching reality is one of them.

    Really it doesn’t matter what DC wants to call these ages, it’s what the fans decide that really matters IMO. YMMV

    I understand what you think Martha based the costume on, however IMO the kid you refer too looks like he hasn’t leggings ie bare legs – so that was changed for a start. But I’ve already said I think the Kents coming up with the costume isn’t logically consistent.

    Lots of things in Superman aren’t – that’s a problem, but I’d rather have SuperMAN jumping the shark,than Superman-boy. I’d rather have had a hard reboot than the soft one we’ve endured, but that’s what they did.

    Byrnes ideas regarding Superman’s aura and telekenesis have merit, I prefer the related concept that it’s about manipulating the mass of himself or other objects. The problem with the aura remains the cape, the Sr-71 flew a darn sight slower than Superman is imagined moving, but it had to built of titanium to stand the velocity. Simply a cape made of cloth couldn’t cope. Worse it removes an important aspect of his skill set, the capes durability meant he could reasonably protect human beings at super speeds, and use it in other intelligent ways.

    The S may look like an S to you, but it didn’t to me or Byrne as kid either, in this we agree! Lol Byrne always drew the S in reverse, ie as some odd shaped yellow fish swimming on a red background. That’s what I saw as a kid too.

    So it actually makes sense that it’s an alien glyph that looks like an S – it’s no stranger really than Aquaman’s A or Greek Omega looking like an O

    More over if we’re going to have Lois Lane come up with the name ‘Superman’ then why would Clark or the Kents choose an S as the logo, before Lois comes up with however it’s logical for Kal-EL’s Kryptonian day ware to have his houses crest on it, and for Clark to wear this Pulp SF duds because it’s the only thing that can stand the pace of him being super, and then Lois sees the symbol thinks it’s an S – thinks “Okay what does S stand for?” and comes up with Superman.
    IMO Clark Kent is too humble to call himself something as self important as Superman ;)

  • smith11 11

    “DREAD” is the exact word for it! I was very excited when the project was announced only to have that excitement crushed with the revelation of the story details. It seems they are trying to make her more like Batman, when she’s really more like Superman. From what I understand (and I may be wrong) this Wonder Woman has a entirely new origin??!! No longer immortal, no longer royalty, no longer SUPER strong!? WTF? I hope they rework all of that! And if it sucks, give it a reboot like they gave the Hulk after the first disaster of a movie.

  • Rene

    While I don’t get Michael’s obsession with the origins of Superman costume, I agree with him that the constant reboots just show that the last comic book version of Superman that really “took” was Byrne’s, even though it’s much maligned by fans of the Silver Age.

    I am not really bothered by the obvious Silver Age nostalgia that fuels the latest changes, but why can’t they just decide on a new take and keep it? It seems like there is a new Superman origin every week.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    I meant to reply to your post, not like it, heh (not that there aren’t things in it I didn’t like. lol).

    The thing here is that you want a Superman that is made of teflon, one whose costume can’t break or rip and cape is always neat. That’s boring.

    Let us say for the sake of argument that there is merit in the notion that Krypton should inspire such things as Superman’s costume and insignia. When Krypton is based on a predetermined superhero design, that is no longer possible because instead of the alien race inspiring the hero, the hero is inspiring the alien race, and that has always resulted in crap writing, be it the indestructable costume or the glasses that can hyptnotize people into thinking that Clark looks different than Superman.

    “More over if we’re going to have Lois Lane come up with the name ‘Superman’ then why would Clark or the Kents choose an S as the logo, before Lois comes up with however it’s logical for Kal-EL’s Kryptonian day ware to have his houses crest on it, and for Clark to wear this Pulp SF duds because it’s the only thing that can stand the pace of him being super, and then Lois sees the symbol thinks it’s an S – thinks “Okay what does S stand for?” and comes up with Superman.”

    In the Byrne version the Kents came up with the S as a symbol AFTER Lois dubbed him Superman, not before.

    Let me put it like this. In versions of the origin where Lois coins the name AFTER she sees the S on his chest, her coming up with the name Superman is rather simplistic. She might as well come up with other names that start with an S based on that letter, like Samaritan or Supreme, if you will.

    When it’s done in reverse, and Lois coins the name FIRST based on what she sees Clark do before he don a costume, then the name carries a larger meaning because it’s not inspired by something as arbitrary as a letter S but instead it is inspired by the deeds that the man performs.

    As for the look of the uniform, I’ve heard it say that in certain versions of the origin Pa Kent suggested the colors and design based on his experiences as a young boy watching the members of the Justice Society of America, which, understandibly, would have been boyhood heroes of him.

    Now, that version I’ve just told you can only be true of the Post Crisis continuity for the following reasons.

    In the Pre Crisis, the Superman of Earth 2 debuted before the rest of the JSAers, so they couldn’t have inspired his costume, while on Earth 1 there was no such thing as JSAers since they were native to Earth 2 and did not crossover with it until both Supermen were adults.

    I for one do prefer this version of the story, with Lois coning the name, Pa Kent suggesting the costume based on his childhood heroes, and Ma Kent sewing the whole thing up.

    Compared to ALL the other versions we have seen in the last decade, as Rene points out, that’s the one that “took” on the first try. It did not require multiple reboots in the span of two to three years in order to be justified… and, mostly, it did not degrade Clark down to a grown man who wears clothes inspired by 12 year old Kryptonian girls or boys.

    It made Superman someone whose look and name is inspired by the heroes of the world that adopted him, both empowered heroes like the JSAers and human heroes like Lois Lane.

    The whole point of the excercise here is that Superman can only come into existence if his ship lands on Earth and he is raised as one of us. If everything that makes him Superman comes from the ship and Krypton, then it doesn’t really matter where he ends up, he’ll still be Superman, and that cheapens the story.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    As for the topic at hand, Graeme does have reason to worry. Hurley may be more like Judd Nelson in Steel, Stone in Catwoman, and Hackman in Superman than like Neeson in Batman Begins or Rosenbaum in Smallville.

    DC supervillains do tend to be very comic booky.

  • RJT

    Never leave us, Michael Sacal. You’re hilarious. You do such a spot-on impersonation of a crazy fanboy, the way you pretend to be mono-maniacally obsessed with Byrne’s Man of Steel, the way you hyperbolically exaggerate and distort events from Secret Origin to make some point that only you understand–sigh, you’re like a Sidney Mellon for the 21st Century. Comedy gold.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Unless you’re blind, the image from Secret Origin is clear, so there is nothing to misinterpret.

    You know who’re hilarious, though? The Silver Age fandorks that hold the 60s as gospel and everything else as sinful.

    The fact that the Silver Age is a second-grade interpretation of Superman clearly escapes you.

  • RJT

    GOLD! COMEDY GOLD!

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Troll, Silver Age fanboy troll! Notice how it was an SA fandork that chose to derail the thread with personal attacks instead of contribute anything to the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    “a Superman that is made of teflon, one whose costume can’t break or rip and cape is always neat. That’s boring.”

    No. This is where Byrne went wrong – where you’re both erecting false walls, and so creating strawman arguments.

    What I’m talking about is a costume that is *invulnerable* ie in the story that really means highly durable = like Superman himself. It’s about logical consistency, there is nothing as boring to me as when a story jumps the shark because really obvious to a child stupid concepts.
    The regular cloth cape is exactly that, it wouldn’t cope with the air friction of high speed flight, end of argument.
    The cape & costume being highly durable like Superman simply means to break it you have to introduce a Superman level threat that can hurt and harm Superman. It doesn’t mean it will never rip or be cut. If it did that would mean Superman would never be harmed or cut. Which is silly.

    “instead of the alien race inspiring the hero, the hero is inspiring the alien race, “

    That doesn’t make sense at all to me. I think your saying that if the S, colours and suit are Kryptonian somehow that makes Superman less of a hero. That doesn’t make sense – are Irish Americans wrong or Italian Americans wrong when they adopt national symbols and dress, are Jewish Americans wrong when they remember their roots? So why is it wrong for Superman to embrace his heritage.

    “In the Byrne version the Kents came up with the S as a symbol AFTER Lois dubbed him Superman”

    Okay that order makes narrative sense, however it also makes Superman look dumb. Byrnes Superman-boy can’t come up the idea of a secret ID without Lois and the Kents. What a pussy.

    “experiences as a young boy watching the members of the Justice Society of America”

    Ah. Here is the crux of the matter. I don’t think you really like Superman – not the character that has existed for most of the last 70 + years. I don’t see how anyone who is genuinely a fan of Superman would approve of stripping him of history and importance. Superman was created in the 30’s introduced in 38. ALL comic book heroes owe their existence to Action #1.

    That DC has done this shows their continued depreciation of both Seigel and Shuster and their own historic heritage.

    “The whole point of the excercise here is that Superman can only come into existence if his ship lands on Earth and he is raised as one of us.”

    Only that isn’t true. In many many imaginary or elseworlds stories Superman comes into being without the Kents.

    Krypton is a narrative Mcguffin that allows us to suspend disbelief that a man can fly and shoot lazy beams out of his eyes.

    We can argue the issue about nature vs nurture as a side issue, but for Superman the story is almost always where ever he is, be it Apokolips or a Amish farm, he mans up and puts his manpants on, that is the costume Siegel gave the ADULT Superman back in Action #1

    The bottom line is everything that enables him to be Super comes from Krypton, it’s logical that the suit and suit design should come from there too IMO.

    What makes him Superman is however the decision to use his powers for the good of humanity. What cheapens the story is making him a reluctant hero or manchild that has to run to a mountain top to sulk or sneak back into his bedroom at home to sulk when he’s 25. Worse he’s then too dumb to come up with the secret ID.
    Worse still is contrary to every adopted / immigrant person I’ve ever known is to make him less than proud of his heritage.

  • Anonymous

    Superman lies all the time LOL. He lies to everyone when he pretends Clark Kent is human.

    But aside from that moral ambiguity, for the record I disagree with your interpretation of Johns work.

    The panel you refer too clearly shows a child wearing clothes that resemble the other ADULT kryptonian fashions. More over the Superman costume includes leggings – where the child appears to be in just shorts – IF your assertion was true, why would Ma Kent include the leggings IF the costume is meant to be a child ONLY design.

    Also If you look at the preceding panel there is an adult wearing the same style of cloak as the classic costume and another adult wearing the leggings shorts and boots. Johns has gone to considerable lengths to reference all styles of Krypton imagined in the past, including the star wars influenced Bryne once.

    But in the end the argument is facile since all this is a writer lampshading the fact Superman wears a costume designed in the 30’s copied from ADULT strongmen and acrobats by Shuster. This design like Tuxedo, or Santa Claus’s suit or Wonder Woman’s duds is timeless a design class

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “No. This is where Byrne went wrong – where you’re both erecting false walls, and so creating strawman arguments.

    What I’m talking about is a costume that is *invulnerable* ie in the story that really means highly durable = like Superman himself. It’s about logical consistency, there is nothing as boring to me as when a story jumps the shark because really obvious to a child stupid concepts.
    The regular cloth cape is exactly that, it wouldn’t cope with the air friction of high speed flight, end of argument.
    The cape & costume being highly durable like Superman simply means to break it you have to introduce a Superman level threat that can hurt and harm Superman. It doesn’t mean it will never rip or be cut. If it did that would mean Superman would never be harmed or cut. Which is silly”

    You have to keep in mind certain things.

    If exposing Kryptonian material, like cloth and metal, to yellow sun radiation made them indestructable, then there would be no need to build spaceships to escape Krypton’s destruction, all that Jor-El would have to do to save himself, Lara, Kal-El and anyone else he wanted to is expose them to a yellow sun generator that could make them invulnerable.

    Remember, prior to Byrne, Kryptonians gained superpowers upon instant exposure to yellow sun radiation. Byrne was the one that introduced the idea that Kryptonians need extended exposure to yellow sunlight to develop superpowers.

    Loeb introduce the idea that Kryptonians like Zor-El could build yellow sun generators, so all that Jor-El would require to save people is to do the same and expose not only them but also their clothing and houses to yellow sun energy to save them from Krypton’s destruction.

    Imagine if instead of building a rocket, Jor-El had built a miniature yellow star, and then released in into the atmosphere to expose all of Krypton to its radiation in order to save the populace.

    In the Silver Age, Bronze Age, and versions of the origin derivate of them (like Loeb’s Return to Krypton – in part 2 we saw Jor-El gain powers instantly after being exposed to Earth’s sun – Birthright, and Secret Origin – Chris Kent, Zod, and the 100,000 Kryptonians all gained powers instantly upon arriving on Earth, while Kristin Wells and her crew gained instant powers from a yellow sun bomb) everyone could survive Krypton’s destruction by simply being exposed to a yellow sun generator that gives them superpowers and makes all of their posessions invulnerable.

    In the Golden Age, the Kryptonians already possessed superpowers without being exposed to a yellow sun, meaning that there was no reason why they couldn’t have survived Earth’s destruction.

    One had to keep an eye on the big picture when thinking up things for the character.

    Every single excuse used to have multiple Kryptonians or make Superman’s clothes indestructable is just one plan that Jor-El didn’t think of to save himself and Lara,be it the Phantom Zone or indestructable clothing.

    All he had to do survive was use one of Kristin Wells’ yellow sun bombs to make his house and his family indestructable so they could survive Krypton’s destruction.

    Byrne got it right by imposing limits on how fast Superman gains his powers and by limiting just what from Krypton gets powers from the sun.

    Remember, because this is important, the idea here is that Superman – and by extension all Kryptonians – are living solar batteries. The cells in their bodies are what retain a charge from being exposed to yellow sunlight.

    How the hell can clothe and metal do the same when they are not alive? (IF they were to develop a version of the story in which Krypton uses organic technology THEN it would make sense, but so far they have not, and Superman’s costume is not said to be alive, neither is his ship. Now, I may be misremembering, but the crystals, I think, were said to be somewhat alive, so they could become indestructable in yellow sunlight, but not the cloth from his costume or metal from his ship).

    “That doesn’t make sense at all to me. I think your saying that if the S, colours and suit are Kryptonian somehow that makes Superman less of a hero. That doesn’t make sense – are Irish Americans wrong or Italian Americans wrong when they adopt national symbols and dress, are Jewish Americans wrong when they remember their roots? So why is it wrong for Superman to embrace his heritage.”

    He doesn’t come from a race of superheroes, he supposedly comes from a race of scientists that have conquered the secrets of the universe and become masters of their world only to have that world betray them, remember?

    There is nothing wrong with Superman embracing his roots, what is wrong is when those roots are altered to turn Kryptonians into superheroes just because Clark has chosen to become one.

    Again, Jor-El did not send Kal-El to Earth to become a superhero, so why would he send him with an indestructable costume and glasses that can hypnotize people so they don’t recognize him in his secret identity? It’s stupid.

    “Okay that order makes narrative sense, however it also makes Superman look dumb. Byrnes Superman-boy can’t come up the idea of a secret ID without Lois and the Kents. What a pussy.”

    So Clark in Smallville must be a piussy too since Lois is going to help him come up with the identity there as well.

    Get with the times, Charles. It’s not the 1960s anymore, things are different, and no matter how badly fanboys turned writers want it to be, it will never be the 60s again.

    The Silver Age is past history, and you do remember what they say about history, right?

    ‘Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it’. The idea here is to NOT repeat history, but to move FORWARD. Onwards to the future, not backwards to the past.

    “Ah. Here is the crux of the matter. I don’t think you really like Superman – not the character that has existed for most of the last 70 + years. I don’t see how anyone who is genuinely a fan of Superman would approve of stripping him of history and importance. Superman was created in the 30’s introduced in 38. ALL comic book heroes owe their existence to Action #1.”

    I don’t like the Silver Age Superman because it’s shit. The Golden Age Superman is much better, and of all the versions of Superman we have seen since Crisis, the Byrne version is the one that comes closest to the original.

    He wasn’t Superboy, he is the only Kryptonian,, he is a respected journalist who’s given important assignments (the original Clark was assigned the story of the century, to uncover who Superman really is, which is what Byrne’s Clark did. He would also be sent to cover wars in other countries. He would arrive at crime scenes before the cops did and not have to pretend to be an idiot when talking to them. It’s all in AC #1).

    The Loeb Superman, the Waid Superman, and the Johns/Donner/Busiek Superman are all rehashes of the 60s. The 60s version is the second version, and therefore the inferior version as are those derivative of it.

    The Silver Age did not come about as an evolution of the medium, it came about as a result of fear, paranoia, and hatred, and the comics of the era – specially DC’s – reflected that fear.

    Superman used to be a vigilante that beat up people. The plot of the story included such things as a husband that beat up his wife, who Superman stopped using violence. And let us not forget that the first time people even saw Superman he was breaking in by force into the governor’s mansion and beating up his butler just so that he could save the life of a man wrongly accused of murder. Superman was not intended to be the person we saw in the 60s.

    That kind of stuff doesn’t happen in Silver Age and Silver Age-derivative comics, because it’s too mature for the simple minded children they are aimed at.

    “That DC has done this shows their continued depreciation of both Seigel and Shuster and their own historic heritage.”

    Again, using the Silver Age IS what deprecates on Siegel’s vision. Ignoring it is what moves things back on track.

    “Only that isn’t true. In many many imaginary or elseworlds stories Superman comes into being without the Kents.

    Krypton is a narrative Mcguffin that allows us to suspend disbelief that a man can fly and shoot lazy beams out of his eyes.”

    That may be true of old imaginary stories, but post Crisis, in Elseworlds, we’ve seen Kal-El become other kind of heroes that aren’t Superman when he lands on other worlds or even other places on Earth and is not raised by the Kents.

    In some, he does become Superman after he meets Lois, like in Speeding Bullets or the Elseworld Annuals DC published in the 90s.

    Since the 80s, Lois has always been at the crux of turning Clark into Superman, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    “We can argue the issue about nature vs nurture as a side issue, but for Superman the story is almost always where ever he is, be it Apokolips or a Amish farm, he mans up and puts his manpants on, that is the costume Siegel gave the ADULT Superman back in Action #1″

    Not always. There are many stories in which he doesn’t become Superman if the Kents and Lois are not around. He becomes SOME sort of hero, but not always Superman. He dons the blue suit in stories that are derivative of the 60s that go on the notion that he brought a superhero costume on his ship from Krypton with him. In other stories, that’s not the case.

    “The bottom line is everything that enables him to be Super comes from Krypton, it’s logical that the suit and suit design should come from there too IMO.”

    I disagree, it’s not logical for Kryptonian clothing or metal to become indestructable under the light of a yellow sun, and I’ve given you my reasons for that above.

    “What makes him Superman is however the decision to use his powers for the good of humanity. What cheapens the story is making him a reluctant hero or manchild that has to run to a mountain top to sulk or sneak back into his bedroom at home to sulk when he’s 25. Worse he’s then too dumb to come up with the secret ID.
    Worse still is contrary to every adopted / immigrant person I’ve ever known is to make him less than proud of his heritage.”

    What mountain top? Which issue are you thinking off? It’s not from Man of Steel. In MoS he didn’t go to a mountain top after he rescued the space shuttle, he went back to the farm to talk with his parents.

    You don’t want him to be violent (i.e his execution of the PZers, which is something the Golden Age Superman would have done without thinking twice about it. After all, he used to drop criminals into airplane engines. Executing three criminals guilty of global genocide would have been a MUCH easier decision to make for him), and you don’t want him to be human (i.e. consult with his parents, have Lois help him, etc)… so what do you want him to be?

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “Superman lies all the time LOL. He lies to everyone when he pretends Clark Kent is human.”

    Since the mid 80s, Clark is who he is, Superman is what he does, so he’s not pretending to be Clark and therefore he is not lying.

    Additionally, when he puts on the costume, he not only becomes Superman but he also becomes Kal-El.

    When Lois interviews Superman and asks him where he comes from,, he tells her that he is from Krypton, a planet 50 LY from Earth, he doesn’t tell her that he’s from Smallville, KS.

    Post Byrne, there was a clear divide between Clark and Kal-El/Superman. Clark is the reporter from Smallville who works at the Planet and is friends with Lois and Jimmy, while Superman/Kal is the alien from Krypton who works at the JLA ambassy or whatever and is friends with Batman and Wonder Woman.

    When Superman tells people that he is Kal-El, that’s not a lie. Has anyone ever asked him if he is Clark Kent?

    You should check out The Late Mr. Kent, from the 90s animated series. That episode clarifies things a lot.

    “The panel you refer too clearly shows a child wearing clothes that resemble the other ADULT kryptonian fashions. More over the Superman costume includes leggings – where the child appears to be in just shorts – IF your assertion was true, why would Ma Kent include the leggings IF the costume is meant to be a child ONLY design.”

    Because she was making a costume for Clark Kent, not Dick Grayson. Everyone knows that only Dick Grayson gets to wear leggings on his legs, duh… :P

    You have to keep in mind that things on a comic book panels are not there at random. In order for Frank to have drawn a kid dressed in a Superboy-type costume, Johns had to put it in the script, just like he put in Martha’s comment about it.

    The only reason to put a Kryptonian child in Superboy-type clothing on the panel for Martha and the audience to see is to show what exactly inspired her design.

    In Birthright, Waid’s script described adult Kryptonians whose clothes inspired the design because, at that point in the story, Clark was becoming Superman, not Superboy.

    In Secret Origin, he is becoming Superboy, so, therefore, the script shows us, the audience, what a Kryptonian child of Clark’s age wore on Krypton, and that is what inspires Martha to create his costume.

    Leggins aside, the clothes the girl/boy is wearing are an almost exact replica of Superboy’s costume. It certanly doesn’t look anything like what anyone else in that picture is wearing.

    The cape hanging off the collar is the same, the red boots are the same, the length of the cape is the same, the blue suit and red shorts are the same. The only differences are the symbol on his/her chest and the lack of leggins. The symbol we know is different becausse Martha surmised that the S belongs to Clark’s father, while the leggings may be different because the kid is a girl and not a boy (and because she’s making a costume for Superboy and not Robin :P)

    “Also If you look at the preceding panel there is an adult wearing the same style of cloak as the classic costume and another adult wearing the leggings shorts and boots. Johns has gone to considerable lengths to reference all styles of Krypton imagined in the past, including the star wars influenced Bryne once.”

    An adult may very well be wearing the same style of cloak, but this particular child, leggings and symbol aside, is wearing an exact copy of Superboy’s costume.

    Martha didn’t pick and choose different things from different characters in the images, she picked a specific design, why else shows us, the audience, this kid? What purpose would it serve to the narrative? Why dress this kid in an almost exact duplicate of Superboy’s costume (except for the leggings and symbol) if for no other reason than it directly inspired Martha’s design?

    “But in the end the argument is facile since all this is a writer lampshading the fact Superman wears a costume designed in the 30’s copied from ADULT strongmen and acrobats by Shuster. This design like Tuxedo, or Santa Claus’s suit or Wonder Woman’s duds is timeless a design class”

    Right now, within the fictional narrative (which is what we’re discussing) Superman wears a uniform inspired by what Kryptonian children wore on Krypton.

  • Propertymanager1

    David E Kelly + Liz Hurley. come on, people, we don’t need to wait until it’s shot, we all know it’s going to be camp garbage. yeah, it’s speculation, deal with it.

  • Anonymous

    “Remember, prior to Byrne, Kryptonians gained superpowers upon instant exposure to yellow sun radiation.”
    That isn’t completely true. Long before Byrne it was established that Superman’s prolonged exposure to yellow sunlight gave him an advantage. See http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/3108248505_4201033ffc_b.jpg
    “If exposing Kryptonian material, like cloth and metal, to yellow sun radiation made them indestructable”
    That isn’t what I am suggesting. I’m saying the costume is highly durable by virtue of it’s advanced technology see Clark’s Third Law.
    “then there would be no need to build spaceships to escape Krypton’s destruction.”
    That is in itself a problem but not for the reasons you state. Bryne came up with the “genetic” reason why Krptonians couldn’t leave. Historically the reason was Krypton’s vast gravity made exit velocity very hard.
    However the same objection you raise “Jor-El would have to do to save himself, Lara, Kal-El and anyone else he wanted to is expose them to a yellow sun generator that could make them invulnerable.” could be levelled at the means Jor-El used to get around the “Genetic” problem.
    It really is absurd to suggest that an entire Kardashev II scale civilisation would be wiped out by a single planetary explosion. This needs to be readdressed IMO.
    “Byrne was the one that introduced the idea that Kryptonians need extended exposure to yellow sunlight to develop superpowers”
    Nope he rehashed it and gave the solar battery concept more prominence but it still isn’t applied logically, if it was simply exposing Superman to ‘Red’ Sun radiation wouldn’t instantly depower him.
    I agree wholeheartedly that Kryptonians powering up over night is ridiculous. This is one of the reasons I disliked the New Krypton story.
    “In the Golden Age, the Kryptonians already possessed superpowers”
    True but the basal power level was much lower, a planetary explosion would have killed the Golden Age Kryptonian. Superman’s greater powers were lampshaded by the introduction of the ‘magic’ effect of yellow sunlight vs red sunlight.
    Thus logically even if Superman’s super battery was run down, his basal state in Earths Lower gravity should be Golden Age levels. And logically the strongest Zod, or the New Kryptonians could be would be Golden Age levels of power, and it should take a ‘lifetime’ for their power to increase to Superman levels. This is implied by the fact older versions of Superman are usually shown to be More Powerful.
    Jor-El did not send Kal-El to Earth to become a superhero, so why would he send him with an indestructable costume and glasses that can hypnotize people
    Not talking about the glasses hypnotising people, that’s one story in the 70’s that came and went.
    Why wouldn’t he send him with as much tech as he could? That’s one thing the Movie did well, Jor-El included a ‘letter’ to his son in the shape of the Crystal, the Crystal builds the Fortress. Jor-El didn’t simply abandon his son, he gave him tools by which he could better survive.
    Also the charactisation of Jor-El ( Smallville and Byrnes dystopia excepted ) has always been Heroic, from Heroically standing up to the Science Council to try and save Krypton to saving his son. He may not have sent Kal-El to Earth with the express intention of making him a Superhero, but it is a misrepresentation of the Mythos to suggest Jor-El didn’t want him to be Heroic, the best man he could be.
    “Get with the times”
    Actually I’m more with the times that you, it seems to me you’re stuck in a timewarp when DC had a confidence crisis and tried to reboot itself and Superman as second rate copies of the more successful Marvel competition.
    “The Byrne version is the one that comes closest to the original.”
    LOL that is ridiculous. Byrnes version is nothing like the gritty supersmart Golden Age Superman. He is dumb manchild in comparison.
    “I don’t like the Silver Age Superman because it’s shit”
    I know – Like I said, you don’t actually like Superman. There are some fantastic stories told in the silver age. Bryne thought so, he retold the Lori Lemaris story panel for panel.
    “It’s all in AC #1”
    It’s all in Superman #1 as that is the full version of the heavily edited Action #1 story, here Clark says “Reluctantly Clark Kent adheres to his role of weakling” When Butch Madison cuts in on him dancing with Lois, he plays the role of a coward so not to give away his identity.
    Byrne’s Clark has nothing to do with Siegel’s but was a rehash of the Reeves version from the old TV Series. George Reeves refused to play Clark as a coward because he didn’t want to act a weakling. This influenced Byrne.
    “What mountain top? Which issue are you thinking off?” http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5356912473_7f28236614_b.jpg
    Man of Steel #1 Quote Byrnes Clark “So I flew away, far away. I sat on a mountain top in Tibet, and shook with outrage and FEAR.”
    Siegels Superman punched out a crowd in his debut story, Byrnes Superman runs away. Says it all.
    “You don’t want him to be violent (i.e his execution of the PZers, which is something the Golden Age Superman would have done without thinking twice about it. After all, he used to drop criminals into airplane engines.”
    No he didn’t. Show me a single panel in any Golden Age comic where Superman is shown killing.
    You won’t find any. I’ve read them all – looked at them all. People die because of their own actions, plains crash and cars crash, but the text does not confirm they died.
    Never said I didn’t want him to be gritty and tough.
    “and you don’t want him to be human (i.e. consult with his parents, have Lois help him, etc)… so what do you want him to be?”
    LOL again you leap tall buildings of assumptions.
    Clark at 25 shouldn’t need his mom to wipe his nose. The Kents work was done BEFORE he becomes an adult. I talk to my Dad and mum, I don’t let them dress me.
    Lois Lane help? I don’t know which stories you’ve read but Lois Lane invariably needs saving, she’s a perennial damsel in distress. Sure she is a Mentor in terms of Clark’s journey in Metropolis, but she rightly has nothing to do with the genesis of Superman, to make her crucial to Superman’s identity reduces him as a strong independent adult.

  • Anonymous

    Your being deliberately obtuse.
    Clark lies every time he walks down the street pretending he isn’t Superman.
    “It certanly doesn’t look anything like what anyone else in that picture is wearing”
    You are blind. It does. It looks the same as the guy is wearing in the panel directly above on the same page.
    Give this crap up. You are flogging a dead horse.
    “Martha didn’t pick and choose different things from different characters in the images, she picked a specific design,”
    Crap if that was the intention of the Writer and artists then the costume would have been an EXACT copy of the one the child wears, not something that brings together various elements from various ADULT costumes shown including the S shield.
    “Superman wears a uniform inspired by what Kryptonian children wore on Krypton.”
    No not even within the fiction, not in reality, in no way. Superman wears a uniform inspired by Krytonian day wear, worn by both ADULTS and children, just like we wear jeans and a t-shirt or a suit and tie.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “That isn’t completely true. Long before Byrne it was established that Superman’s prolonged exposure to yellow sunlight gave him an advantage. See http://farm4.static.flickr.com

    What Byrne did didn’t focus on an advantage, but on the slow development of the powers to get around the idiocy of Superbaby and Superboy. No powers, no baby and no boy.

    “That isn’t what I am suggesting. I’m saying the costume is highly durable by virtue of it’s advanced technology see Clark’s Third Law.”

    It may not be what you’re suggesting, but it is what we’ve seen in the comics. Neither Waid, nor Donner, nor Busiek, nor Johns have suggested that the cloth is durable because it was created by aliens, they all claim that it’s indestructable because of its exposure to yellow sunlight.

    As for your suggestion, the argument remains the same: why would Jor-El pack a superhero costume (or enough material for Clark to make one) in the ship?

    In the Golden Age Lara sent a second ship with dippers and a teddy bear. Should Superman have made his costume out of Kryptonian dippers? Why would Kryptonian babies need more than one dipper if the technology is advanced enough that cloth doesn’t get dirty? Wouldn’t the waste just slide off the dipper?

    But seriously, you do admit that, from time to time, Superman would face up to foes strong enough to destroy Kryptonian cloth, right? With that in mind, do you have any idea how much material Jor-El would have had to send in the ship for Clark to have enough spare indestructable suits each time that happened? Again, unless the technology were organic and could regenerate, Superman’s durable costume would be history the first time he met someone like Darkseid. After that he would need to wear a costume made of regular cloth found on Earth.

    “That is in itself a problem but not for the reasons you state. Bryne came up with the “genetic” reason why Krptonians couldn’t leave. Historically the reason was Krypton’s vast gravity made exit velocity very hard.”

    And yet Kal-El’s rocket made it. Jor-El could have attached the engine to his house, expouse the building to yellow sun radiation to make it indestructable, and then both he, Lara, and Kal could have survived. Dev-Em survived inside a shack made from the discarted pieces from Kal’s ship….

    “However the same objection you raise “Jor-El would have to do to save himself, Lara, Kal-El and anyone else he wanted to is expose them to a yellow sun generator that could make them invulnerable.” could be levelled at the means Jor-El used to get around the “Genetic” problem.”

    You forget that Kal-El was born free of the genetic link to Krypton, and you also forget that there are a couple of Elseworlds stories in which Jor-El did exactly what you suggest. He enoculated all of Krypton with his serum to free them from the link to their world. In both instances the results were catastrophic. The Kryptonians conquered Earth – and before you think about saying that only Byrne Kryptonians would be “evil” enough to want to conquer Earth, I’ll remind you that we recently saw Johns’ SA-derivative Kryptonians lead by Allura try to the same exact thing.

    “It really is absurd to suggest that an entire Kardashev II scale civilisation would be wiped out by a single planetary explosion. This needs to be readdressed IMO.”

    Byrne addressed it in a clever way by introducing the planetary link, which made it impossible for them to escape Krypton’s destruction.

    “Nope he rehashed it and gave the solar battery concept more prominence but it still isn’t applied logically, if it was simply exposing Superman to ‘Red’ Sun radiation wouldn’t instantly depower him.”

    Which it didn’t! Prior to the Birthright reboot, Superman still retained his powers while exposed to a red sun. Even Loeb applied that in Return to Krypton, in which we saw Superman slowly lose his powers while exposed to a red sun, not instantly.

    The rehash of him losing his powers at the moment of exposure is fairly recent, and due to the Silver Age-derivative stories. Prior to them, he would only lose his powers gradually while not within range of a yellow star.

    “True but the basal power level was much lower, a planetary explosion would have killed the Golden Age Kryptonian. Superman’s greater powers were lampshaded by the introduction of the ‘magic’ effect of yellow sunlight vs red sunlight. Thus logically even if Superman’s super battery was run down, his basal state in Earths Lower gravity should be Golden Age levels. And logically the strongest Zod, or the New Kryptonians could be would be Golden Age levels of power, and it should take a ‘lifetime’ for their power to increase to Superman levels. This is implied by the fact older versions of Superman are usually shown to be More Powerful.”

    Silver Age Kryptonians and their derivaties are at the top of the power chart, with the Golden Age Kryptonian at the bottom and Byrne-era Kryptonians in the middle.

    “Why wouldn’t he send him with as much tech as he could? That’s one thing the Movie did well, Jor-El included a ‘letter’ to his son in the shape of the Crystal, the Crystal builds the Fortress. Jor-El didn’t simply abandon his son, he gave him tools by which he could better survive.”

    Material to create a superhero costume wouldn’t help him to survive. IF it were a living costume that could grow with him and protect him from the harsh environments, then it would make sense, but that is not the case and it has never been the case.

    “Also the charactisation of Jor-El ( Smallville and Byrnes dystopia excepted ) has always been Heroic, from Heroically standing up to the Science Council to try and save Krypton to saving his son. He may not have sent Kal-El to Earth with the express intention of making him a Superhero, but it is a misrepresentation of the Mythos to suggest Jor-El didn’t want him to be Heroic, the best man he could be.”

    That has nothing to do with being a superhero. Kal could have grown to be a politician and he could still be seen as heroic. Or he could have grown to be an explorer, and he could still be heroic. The cloth used to make his costume wouldn’t have helped him with either endevor, it would only help him if he chose to become a superhero.

    Answer this, why would Jor-El send him out to Earth with a baby blanket if he was so concerned about his prolongued safety? why not pack an entire suitcase of clothes for when he grows up? something for him to wear in his teens and something for him to wear when he grows up? Given the current take of the origin, in which Kryptonians are split into guilds that dressed a particular way, why wouldn’t Jor-El send Kal-El to Earth with the suit of his guild? Speaking of that, how come Jor-El and Lara can switch guilds? In Last Son they sported the look of one guild and then in SO they changed to another guild. Furthemore, which guild does Superman’s costume belong to? He was born into the science guild, but for all Martha knows she based his costume on the clothes worn by the Janitor Guild.

    “Actually I’m more with the times that you, it seems to me you’re stuck in a timewarp when DC had a confidence crisis and tried to reboot itself and Superman as second rate copies of the more successful Marvel competition.”

    No, I just find Byrne’s take to be far more honest of the concept that anything we have seen in the last decade,which has been poorly written comics that are devoted to the 60s. Smallville has done a far better job of updating Superman than anything Johns, Donner, Busiek, Waid, or Loeb did in the same span of time, and it did it with less reboots and less contradictions.

    “LOL that is ridiculous. Byrnes version is nothing like the gritty supersmart Golden Age Superman. He is dumb manchild in comparison.”

    It doesn’t have to be. The concept is closer even if the interpretation differs. But, again, you and other Byrne-haters don’t seem to want Superman to be gritty. Other haters whine that Superman in MoS flipped a female bank robber that was holding a pack of dynamite in her hands and all of them whine that he executed the PZers. You don’t want Superman to the way Siegel envisioned him, beating people up, you want him to be more like he was in the 60s.

    “I know – Like I said, you don’t actually like Superman. There are some fantastic stories told in the silver age. Bryne thought so, he retold the Lori Lemaris story panel for panel.”

    I like Superman, I don’t like the 60s Superman. Why do you insist that to like Superman one has to like the Silver Age? It’s not neccessary in the least. And yeah, Byrne did redo the Lori story – not panel per panel, he made changes to it – but he filtered it through the new origin.

    “It’s all in Superman #1 as that is the full version of the heavily edited Action #1 story, here Clark says “Reluctantly Clark Kent adheres to his role of weakling” When Butch Madison cuts in on him dancing with Lois, he plays the role of a coward so not to give away his identity.”

    And in the same issue his editor gives him the task of uncovering the story of the century, who is Superman. Editors don’t give assigments like that to the office retard.

    “Byrne’s Clark has nothing to do with Siegel’s but was a rehash of the Reeves version from the old TV Series. George Reeves refused to play Clark as a coward because he didn’t want to act a weakling. This influenced Byrne.”

    Not a rehash perse, but certainly influenced by it. I forget who it was, if Siegel or Reeves, that based Clark on Cary Grant in a movie which name escapes me. Would you accuse them of rehashing Grant in their take on Clark? Of course not. Just like Whether it was Siegel or Reeves that were inspired by Grant, so Byrne was inspired by Reaves’ take on Clark.

    “Man of Steel #1 Quote Byrnes Clark “So I flew away, far away. I sat on a mountain top in Tibet, and shook with outrage and FEAR.” Siegels Superman punched out a crowd in his debut story, Byrnes Superman runs away. Says it all.”

    So you would have wanted him to punch people? would you have wanted him to stick around and talk to the press? Would you have wanted him to proclaim himself Superman and have people adore him? I don’t understand what you would have prefered him to do instead of leave. As for his going to a mountain top and shaking with fear, that would be a HUMAN reaction to what had just happened. Again, you don’t seem to want Superman to possess any human attributes, be they positive ones or negative ones. Fear is human attribute.

    “No he didn’t. Show me a single panel in any Golden Age comic where Superman is shown killing. You won’t find any. I’ve read them all – looked at them all. People die because of their own actions, plains crash and cars crash, but the text does not confirm they died.”

    So Superman never dropped people off buildings or into airplane engines?

    “LOL again you leap tall buildings of assumptions.
    Clark at 25 shouldn’t need his mom to wipe his nose. The Kents work was done BEFORE he becomes an adult. I talk to my Dad and mum, I don’t let them dress me.
    Lois Lane help? I don’t know which stories you’ve read but Lois Lane invariably needs saving, she’s a perennial damsel in distress. Sure she is a Mentor in terms of Clark’s journey in Metropolis, but she rightly has nothing to do with the genesis of Superman, to make her crucial to Superman’s identity reduces him as a strong independent adult.”

    No it doesn’t. And Clark’s mom hardly wipes his nose.

    Again, you seem to want Clark to just magically decide to become a superhero based on his rescue of the Constitution for no other reason that he has the tools at his disposal, something like “now that I have saved that space shuttle, I will fashion my baby blankets and dippers from Krypton to create a superhero costume and will use my family’s crest as a symbol of my new name, Superman!” Come on, it’s lame.

    Having said THAT, I would be VERY curious to know the EXACT circumstances under which the Golden Age Superman decided to become a superhero.

    I know that it happened after he lost his parents, but what made him decide on the name and costume? What was he thinking of? Keeping in mind that, back then, he had no idea about his Kryptonian roots, and neither the costume nor the shield had anything to do with Krypton.

    What were the circumstances of the creation of the Golden Age Superman’s superhero identity, ignoring the introduction and subsequent retcon of Superboy that came down the line?

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    See below, last new post by me.

  • mdk

    It’s David E. Kelly. Dude is married to Michelle Pfeifer! A little nepotism, in this case, would be a GOOD thing. And yet he casts Elizabeth Hurley??? FAIL!

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “Your being deliberately obtuse. Clark lies every time he walks down the street pretending he isn’t Superman.”

    No he doesn’t because he is neither pretending to be Superman nor pretending to be Clark. Neither identity is a mask, they can both be real. Clark is the primary identity that creates the Superman identity to give himself an outlet to explore his Kryptonian heritage and use his powers in the open to protect people as Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, which is the name people know Superman as besides his title.

    “You are blind. It does. It looks the same as the guy is wearing in the panel directly above on the same page. Give this crap up. You are flogging a dead horse.”

    I just looked at the page and NO ONE on it is wearing anything that can be found in Superboy’s costume except for the blonde kid in the leggings. Martha didn’t choose that guy’s cape, that guy’s shorts, that guy’s boots, and that guy’s top when making the costume, she settled on the suit worn by the blonde kid, which is an almost exact replica of the Superboy costume… BUT let’s put that aside and say that you’re right, that she took the cape from the man… so she combined one man’s cape and a little kid’s clothes. HOW does that change the fact that she based 90% of the suit on what a KID, a CHILD that may very well be a GIRL wears on Krypton?

    Superboy is still wearing a suit based on what children wear and MAY possibly, but not definitely, be using a cape worn by an adult.

    “Crap if that was the intention of the Writer and artists then the costume would have been an EXACT copy of the one the child wears, not something that brings together various elements from various ADULT costumes shown including the S shield.”

    It doesn’t bring in various elements from various ADULT costume. It is a child’s suit that may or may not have included a grown man’s cape. Whether it does or it doesn’t, the fact remains that the shorts, the blue suit, and the boots are still the same ones worn by the blonde kid.

    “No not even within the fiction, not in reality, in no way. Superman wears a uniform inspired by Krytonian day wear, worn by both ADULTS and children, just like we wear jeans and a t-shirt or a suit and tie.”

    Prove it. Prove how what the blonde kid is wearing is not the same as Superboy’s costume.

    The color is the same. The design is the same. The only difference is the leggings, and that’s not enough proof that the kid’s clothes were not the primary inspiration.

    Matt Idelson, the editor of the Superman comics, admited to me that Martha based the costume on a CHILD’S clothing, so why can’t you accept that?

    http://www.supermanhomepage.com/inter-action/inter-action.php?topic=ask-editor/ask-matt-0410

    Michael Sacal (Email address withheld by request) asks:

    Matt, according to SECRET ORIGIN Clark’s costume is based on his mother’s observations of typical Kryptonian children’s clothing in holographic recordings contained in Jor-El’s rocket. Since the costume he wears as a child is the same one he wears as a grown man, doesn’t that mean that now Superman is a grown man dressed as a child? Don’t you think that makes the character slightly pathetic?

    Matt: Bwahahahahah!!!!! That’s a hilarious (if horrific) observation, Michael! You actually made me spit up my coffee with that one! The way I prefer (or at least NEED) to look at this is that while yeah, that’s what Ma based the costume on, Superman subsequently served as something of the template from which many other heroes followed. Kind of the way people of all ages seem to wear their baseball caps backwards these days. Damn, that was funny, though.

    There is absolutely no question that Martha based the costume on what the blonde kid is wearing, so why are you arguing this?

    If anything, Matt is telling us that ALL superheroes whose costume Superman inspired dress like 12 year old Kryptonian children.

  • Eric

    I actually think the casting of Liz Hurley as Veronica Cale makes a lot of sense. If you look back at her acting in the movie BeDazzled you can kind of see where she could play the evil villianess with some camp, but some evilness mixed in. I actually am very very impressed with their casting choices as a whole and can’t wait for this show to air.

  • Anonymous

    LOL you take something as gospel because a DC editor tells you?

    This is the same DC that said Superman was a rough Sketch under Siegel until other writers filled him out. LOL

    You made a funny quip, that amused Matt, the fact it can be made shows inherent weaknesses in this origin for the costume, but I’ve never pretended to like this treatment.

    I’ve told you I prefer to see the suit being entirely Kryptonian, Failing that I prefer Superman inventing it.

    “The color is the same. The design is the same. The only difference is the leggings, and that’s not enough proof that the kid’s clothes were not the primary inspiration.”

    The principle difference between Adult mens clothes and boys clothes in the C20th century for a long time was the use of short trousers for boys, ( eg Robin ) in fact one became a man when you got your first pair of long pants.

    The absence of the leggings suggests that it *is* child clothing using this old fashioned cultural trope, however therefore the inclusion of leggings ie pants in the Superman costume means that his costume is intended to be an adult long trousered version.

    The colours are a red herring in the context of the illustration which is in blue wash any way, the point IMO of these panels was to show the costume was ‘inspired’ by the various styles of fashion worn on Krypton by both Adult and Children.

    Arguably the fusion is this. The colours from those provided – ie from the blankets – Martha had little choice in the colour scheme. The Cape from Man (left) in the second panel, combined with the costume style of the Man on the right ie shorts over leggings and boots, plus the emblem on the shirt – which is a common feature in t-shirts and sweat shirts for decades – taken from the man on the left of the third panel.

    Was this aspect of the story well executed? – No, it wasn’t – I maintain making the Costume entirely Kryptonian is a more elegant solution.
    Does the panel support your assertion “that ALL superheroes whose costume Superman inspired dress like 12 year old Kryptonian children.”
    No it does not. Neither in terms of the fiction or the reality, which as I have already explained more than once is from the 30’s Pulp SF style.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “He didn’t. How many different ways can I say that. ALL the kryptonian cosutmes are in REALITY a replica’s of Superman’s costume.FFS ( Except Brynes ) The childs costume resembles Superman’s adult suit not the other way around.”

    Within the NARRATIVE, it’s the OTHER way around, with Superboy’s costume resembling the child’s clothes.

    Martha made Superboy’s suit based on what she saw the child wearing. The child’s mother did NOT make her child’s suit based on what Superboy wears.

    Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
    “The difference between the Adult Superman suit and the childs costumes are as great as the differences between the Adult Kryptonian Costumes and Supermans Costume. The same styling cues are seen in all the Adult Costumes as are seen in the childs. All look like Superman’s suit, because FFS it came first.”
    The child’s suit is an almost exact REPLICA of Superman’s costume. The same is NOT true of what other Kryptonians are shown wearing.

    The colors are the same. The length of the sleeves and cape are the same. The style and color of the shorts is the same.
    The only differences based on society and gender, mainly the crest, the leggings, and the shape of the V on the boots. All that tells us is that Martha made the necessarily alterations to turn a girl’s suit into a boy’s suit and to make it reflect the house of El.

    “I give up. I said at the outset kids wear the same style of clothes as adults in the real world.”

    SHOW IT. Provide an image of an adult in the same exact suit. You can’t, because there isn’t. All the suits are variations with little to no repetition. The suit THIS child wears is an almost exact replica of the one Martha makes.

    “Crimes you are blind on the cover the cape ends below the knees.”

    The cape ends where the boot begins in both outfits.

    “Look I’m done discussing this. you are hell bent on ignoring all the other costume designs, and hell bent on insisting Johns wants us to think Superman’s costume is a childs romper suit.”

    I didn’t say that Johns wanted us to think that, I said that that is what he ended up doing.
    You keep ignoring the facts that are staring you right in the face. You keep insisting that because Martha added pants that negates her primary inspiration for the outfit.

    “Non of that makes anysense.atall.

    You can dislike the costume if you like YMMV but believe me you have only succeeded in convincing me that your argument has absolutely no merit whatsoever.”

    I never said I dislike Superman’s costume. PAY ATTENTION. I said that I dislike that it’s inspired by what Kryptonian CHILDREN wear, and that Superman should not be a 35 year old man that dresses like a child, let alone a little girl.

    “Go ahead have the last word, because I’m sure if Geoff Johns called you himself to tell you that Superman doesn’t wear a childs romper suit you’d argue the toss”
    The editor himself agreed with me that he does. The one in the wrong here is you. Both the editor and I are telling you that the costume is based on what Martha saw children wear.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “You made a funny quip, that amused Matt, the fact it can be made shows inherent weaknesses in this origin for the costume, but I’ve never pretended to like this treatment. ”

    I’m at a loss as to why you keep arguing with me on this if you agree that this treatment is flawed.

    The point I originally made is that Superman is a grown man who dresses like a Kryptonian child, and nothing you’ve said has dismissed that point.

    I’ve shown you an image that proves Martha got her primary inspiration for the costume from a child and I’ve shown you an admission from the editor himself admitting that it is in fact said primary inspiration.

    Personal preference (which is something you accused me of in your first post) has no bearing on this fact, which is that Superman is a 35 year old man whose clothes are based on those worn by 12 year old boys (or girls) on Krypton.

    EVERY single item of clothing worn by that kid is an exact duplicate of the costume Martha made for Clark to wear as Superboy. You bring up the point that she had no choice of color given the material at hand… wouldn’t you agree that that is because the material at hand was a BABY blanket and, thefore, we can infer that both tots and children of a certain age on Krypton were limited to wearing those colors?

    For all we know, that is the standard style of garb for children on Krypton before they reach the age to decide what guild they want to be a part of it, like a Jewish boy and girl that turn 13 and celebrate a Bar and Bat Mitzvah that signifies that they have become a man.

    The fact here is that Superman is screwed on both sides. First, his clothes are made from a baby’s blanket and, second, the design is inspired by the clothes worn by children, meaning that, for all we know, within Kryptonian society his attire signifies that he has not reached manhood.

    “I’ve told you I prefer to see the suit being entirely Kryptonian, Failing that I prefer Superman inventing it.”

    Then why are you arguing against my observation/point that the costume, as it is NOW in current continuity, is based on what children were? This is an undeniable fact. Just because other characters in the image wear capes it does not mean that Martha based Clark’s cape on theirs, SPECIALLY when the girl/boy in the Superboy-ish costume is also wearing a cape.

    As I’ve pointed out before, and you haven’t been able to counter, the ONLY differences between the child in the image and Superboy is the lack of leggings and the S shield on his chest. It’s the pretty clear that the latter is due to Martha concluding that the S on Jor-El’s chest is a family crest, while the latter can pretty strongly be inferred to be a design decision she made so that her son would not look ridicolous. The guy was pretty adamant from the get go that he would not wear suit, so it can be inferred that he would have refused to wear at all had it included the leggings.

    “The principle difference between Adult mens clothes and boys clothes in the C20th century for a long time was the use of short trousers for boys, ( eg Robin ) in fact one became a man when you got your first pair of long pants.”

    Irrelevant as we are not discussing Earth’s cultures, we are discussing Kryptonian culture.

    “The absence of the leggings suggests that it *is* child clothing using this old fashioned cultural trope, however therefore the inclusion of leggings ie pants in the Superman costume means that his costume is intended to be an adult long trousered version.”
    I’d argue that you’re making the wrong inference. For one thing, you are assuming that Martha had material to create the leggings included in the baby blanket…. What if she didn’t? Then she would not be able to make them, right?

    I’d argue that the blonde child in the image may very well be a girl and that the material Martha had at hand was a BOY’S baby blanket, which would, therefore, mean, that there would be no leggings.

    “The colours are a red herring in the context of the illustration which is in blue wash any way, the point IMO of these panels was to show the costume was ‘inspired’ by the various styles of fashion worn on Krypton by both Adult and Children.””
    For one thing, that’s not what the editor admitted to. He made it clear that the design was inspired by the child’s clothes.
    For another, you are basing your conclusion on his long pants and the assumption that Martha got the cape from someone other than the child, which isn’t necessarily true since the child is wearing a cape of their own.
    “Arguably the fusion is this. The colours from those provided – ie from the blankets – Martha had little choice in the colour scheme. The Cape from Man (left) in the second panel, combined with the costume style of the Man on the right ie shorts over leggings and boots, plus the emblem on the shirt – which is a common feature in t-shirts and sweat shirts for decades – taken from the man on the left of the third panel.”

    The child in the picture is wearing the same boots as Superman. As stated above, the only difference between his clothes and Superboy’s uniform – leggings aside – is the S shield.

    What leads you to conclude that Martha chose someone else’s pants as inspiration for the costume? She might as well have decided to replace the leggings with pants because Clark was hesitant to wear the outfit… or, alternatively, have you considered the fact that the blankets did not provide her with the material necessary to saw the leggings?

    Furthermore, what if I’m right and the child in the picture is a GIRL (look at her torso). Couldn’t we infer, then, that the blankets, being made specially for a boy, did not come with leggings but with full pants Martha was able to use to create the uniform?

    When judging the final design, we have to consider the inspiration behind it and the available material to create it. If Martha does not have the lining for the leggings, then she can’t make leggings for Clark.

    The point here is that there are PLENTY of reasons why Superboy’s outfit lacks leggings, from “he didn’t want them” to “Martha couldn’t make them because she lacks the material to do it”.

    “Was this aspect of the story well executed? – No, it wasn’t – I maintain making the Costume entirely Kryptonian is a more elegant solution.”

    Then, again I ask, why argue with me when I said that the costume was inspired by a 12 year old child’s clothes? We’re not arguing over preference, but over the states facts in the comics (and what we can infer from those facts).

    “Does the panel support your assertion “that ALL superheroes whose costume Superman inspired dress like 12 year old Kryptonian children.”
    No it does not. Neither in terms of the fiction or the reality, which as I have already explained more than once is from the 30’s Pulp SF style. ”

    Of course it does. Look at the image again. Leggings and S shield aside, the boy/girl is wearing the exact same uniform as Superboy… and even the editor admits that Martha was inspired by that single image, not anything else.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not arguing with you. I’m telling you plainly that there isn’t IMO grounds to conclude Johns intended you or anyone else to conclude that Superman’s clothes are inspired by a child specific outfit.

    You are being deliberately obtuse, ignoring cultural norms time and time again. Plus restating the same argument doesn’t make you right.

    This is a work of fiction hence ALL inspiration comes from reality. So it matters that short trousers are for boys, since such a cultural archetype will influence a writer.

    You seem to have difficulty in discussing fiction coherently – and seem unable to differentiate between historical fact that informs the fiction and so comprehend the overall intention of the artist. Frankly this makes further discussion pointless.

    the reason I know the costume is an amalgam of the various styles is because MOST of those Styles shown ( except Byrne’s ) are derived from Shuster’s Costume design. Ergo this is the way it is.
    Second that the Artist included all these references informs us of this fact.
    If the writer wanted us too conclude the childs clothes are the SOLE inspiration for the costume, then Johns would have put a picture of just a child in there. Instead the comic show us ALL the other examples ALL of which are derived ( apart from Byrne ) from the Original 30’s Pulp SF costume.

    Stepping into the mind of Martha imagined, she sees a variety of images and combines them into the costume. Heck that’s how anyone invents anything.

    “Leggings and S shield aside, the boy/girl is wearing the exact same uniform as Superboy.”

    LOL so that means classic Robin wears the *exact* same costume as superboy bar the leggings and the S shield does it?

    The childs costume is NOT an exact replica of Superman’s – it is similar in some features but very different in others.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “I’m not arguing with you. I’m telling you plainly that there isn’t IMO grounds to conclude Johns intended you or anyone else to conclude that Superman’s clothes are inspired by a child specific outfit.”

    And yet his editor agrees that it is… both he and I reached that conclusion based on what Johns wrote in the script and Frank drew on the page, so how can you say what you say here

    “You are being deliberately obtuse, ignoring cultural norms time and time again. Plus restating the same argument doesn’t make you right.”

    You are trying to judge an alien culture based on human cultures, which is the flaw in your argument. Alien does not mean extraterrestrial, it means something beyond our understanding. How things are done on Earth has no bearing on how they are done in other planets.

    Culture has no bearing on what Johns and Frank did here as their aim was to provide an excuse to bring back the Silver Age Superboy. Clearly their excuse to do so was show Martha Kent the style of clothing wore by children on Krypton so she could use it as the basis for her uniform.

    You keep latching on to the lack of leggings as some sort of proof that she did not base the suit on the child’s clothes despite the fact that, except for the leggings and crest, his/her suit is an EXACT copy of Superboy’s uniform, from the cape, to the shorts, to the boots, to the blue suit.

    “This is a work of fiction hence ALL inspiration comes from reality. So it matters that short trousers are for boys, since such a cultural archetype will influence a writer.”

    You are ASSUMING that Johns based the suit on that line of thinking when, in reality, his goal here was to give Martha an excuse to create a suit for Clark to revive the Silver Age Superboy.

    “You seem to have difficulty in discussing fiction coherently – and seem unable to differentiate between historical fact that informs the fiction and so comprehend the overall intention of the artist. Frankly this makes further discussion pointless.”

    Historical fact has no bearing on this as that is not what informed Johns’ writing. What did was nostalgia for the 60s and looking for an excuse to revive the Silver Age Superman. The tool he used to accomplish this was to show Martha what children on Krypton wear.

    The editor of the comic didn’t content this point both times I asked him about it.

    “The reason I know the costume is an amalgam of the various styles is because MOST of those Styles shown ( except Byrne’s ) are derived from Shuster’s Costume design. Ergo this is the way it is.
    Second that the Artist included all these references informs us of this fact.
    If the writer wanted us too conclude the childs clothes are the SOLE inspiration for the costume, then Johns would have put a picture of just a child in there. Instead the comic show us ALL the other examples ALL of which are derived ( apart from Byrne ) from the Original 30’s Pulp SF costume.”

    And yet the editor agreed, very clearly, that Martha based the design SOLELY on what the child is wearing and nothing else.

    BTW, I don’t recall – and can’t check now – what Zod and the others are wearing in the image, but in Last Son their clothes were based on the Byrne design, just colored grey.

    “Stepping into the mind of Martha imagined, she sees a variety of images and combines them into the costume. Heck that’s how anyone invents anything.”

    That’s your conclusion, yet the image of the child in a replica of the Superboy costume proves you wrong.

    Lack of leggings is not enough to say that Martha came up with the suit based on anyone else, SPECIALLY when NO ONE else in the image is wearing ANYTHING close to what the Superboy suit becomes, except for MAYBE a cape, which the child is wearing as well.

    Why would she take someone else’s cape as inspiration when the child is already wearing one? Why dismiss it?

    “LOL so that means classic Robin wears the *exact* same costume as superboy bar the leggings and the S shield does it?

    The childs costume is NOT an exact replica of Superman’s – it is similar in some features but very different in others.”

    Which ones, besides the leggings?

    http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/ManofTheAtom/sco1.jpg

    http://i.newsarama.com/images/smso_2_0001.jpg

    The color is the same. The length of the cape is the same. The boots are the same. the shorts are the same. The uniform is the same.

    Oh my god, the belt is different!… show me/point me to someone else in the image who has Superman’s yellow belt.

    Edit.

    I just noticed that the boots the man in the image has on have an inverted V design, while the boots the woman and the child with them wear has a V that points up.

    Superboy’s boots have the inverted V.

    Could it be because Men wear the inverted V and women wear the upwards V?

    Damn, Superman is a drag queen! He’s wearing female clothes! lol

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Another observation… neither the woman nor the kid are wearing pants, they both have bare legs.

    That kid is definitely a girl, which answers your question of why Superboy’s outfit doesn’t have leggings. Clearly Martha came to the conclusion that boys wear pants and girls wear short shorts and bare legs, so she made Clark a suit for a boy (though one which design is based on a girl’s outfit).

  • Anonymous

    you use a lot of words to say very little.

    I don’t give a toss what the editor of Superman may or may not have said to you. His opinion is still that just an opinion.

    Unless you can get a quote from Geofff Johns that says. “Yeah I meant you to think Superman is wearing a kids romper suit,” I’m going to base my understanding on what I actually read in the comic.

    You are clearly blind as it’s blatantly obvious to me that child’s costume and Adult Superman costume are as radically different from each other as any of the costumes shown in Martha’s vision except the Star Wars Byrne ones ) which are all in REALITY are inspired by the Superman Costume from 38

    “The color is the same.” The image is blue washed you can’t say that.
    ” The length of the cape is the same.” No it isn’t check out the last page of the comic the cape reaches below the knees as in the adult Male on the right of the second panel of Martha’s ‘vision’ but in the kid’s clothes the cape ends just above the knee.

    The belt is different, Superman is more like the ADULT on the left with a round buckle, the S crest is bigger than the circular crests, the shape of the shorts is different, the kid isn’t wearing pants.

    “Superboy’s boots have the inverted V.” Which proves my point – so do the boots of the adult man on the right of second panel on the page.

    “SPECIALLY when NO ONE else in the image is wearing ANYTHING close to what the Superboy suit becomes, ”
    Patently a false statement. The preceding image clearly shows a man in something that resembles the Superman costume on the right hand side.

    The final costume is clearly an amalgam of most of the costumes shown in this page.

    “You are trying to judge an alien culture based on human cultures, which is the flaw in your argument.”

    This proves you have difficulty in discussing fiction coherently – and seem unable to differentiate between historical fact that informs the fiction and so comprehend the overall intention of the artist.

    There is no Krypton, Siegel made it up, – everything that is Kryptonian is made up by a writer who is informed by their culture and experience.

    Simply you are wrong in your assertion, I do not believe Johns meant you or Matt to assume Suoerman’s costume was inspired by a childs romper suit.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “you use a lot of words to say very little.

    I don’t give a toss what the editor of Superman may or may not have said to you. His opinion is still that just an opinion.

    Unless you can get a quote from Geofff Johns that says. “Yeah I meant you to think Superman is wearing a kids romper suit,” I’m going to base my understanding on what I actually read in the comic.”
    In the comic it’s crystal clear that Martha based the design on what the kid is wearing, which is why Superboy’s costume follows the same exact design to a perfect T.

    “You are clearly blind as it’s blatantly obvious to me that child’s costume and Adult Superman costume are as radically different from each other as any of the costumes shown in Martha’s vision except the Star Wars Byrne ones ) which are all in REALITY are inspired by the Superman Costume from 38 “
    No they’re not, and it doesn’t matter how many times you SAY they are, it doesn’t make it true.

    If you want it to be true, you have to PROVE how they are different.

    The length of the sleeves is the same. The boots are the same (except for the V, which seems to be determined by gender), the length of the cape is the same, and the style of the shorts is the same. The only differences are the symbol on their chest, the belt, and the leggings, which we can infer are also determined by gender.

    If you want to argue that Martha got the belt from someone else seen in the comic, you have to provide an image or panel showing someone with the same exact belt that Superboy is wearing. Absent that, you have no proof to show that Martha based the suit on anyone else other than the child in the image.

    You have to understand a VERY basic rule of writing, which is that if the writer doesn’t put it in the script then the artist will not draw it.

    For that Kryptonian child to be in the image wearing a suit just like the one Superboy wears, her description had to be in the script. Alternatively, it must have been a decision made between the artist and the editor to include a child that is dressed in a replica of Superboy’s costume.

    Had they wanted Superboy to be a mishmash of different people’s clothes, then no single character would have been wearing a suit that so approximates his as much as this child’s does.

    “”The color is the same.” The image is blue washed you can’t say that.”
    Yes I can, I have eyes, and it’s clear that the color is the same.
    “” The length of the cape is the same.” No it isn’t check out the last page of the comic the cape reaches below the knees as in the adult Male on the right of the second panel of Martha’s ‘vision’ but in the kid’s clothes the cape ends just above the knee.”
    And on the cover I provided you the cape ends right where the boots begin, just like on the kid in the image, therefore the cape is the same.
    “The belt is different, Superman is more like the ADULT on the left with a round buckle, the S crest is bigger than the circular crests, the shape of the shorts is different, the kid isn’t wearing pants.”
    The crest is irrelevant as we already said that it belongs to a particular house. The belt I’ll give you. The shorts, however, are the same. As for the pants it’s clear from all the images provided that girls on Krypton don’t wear pants while men do.

    “Patently a false statement. The preceding image clearly shows a man in something that resembles the Superman costume on the right hand side.”
    No it doesn’t. I’ve seen it and that man is not wearing ANYTHING remotely similar to the Superman costume.

    “The final costume is clearly an amalgam of most of the costumes shown in this page.”
    No it’s not, not even the editor argued that–

    “This proves you have difficulty in discussing fiction coherently – and seem unable to differentiate between historical fact that informs the fiction and so comprehend the overall intention of the artist. “
    Again, historical fact had no bearing on this. Nostalgia for the 60s did.

    “There is no Krypton, Siegel made it up, – everything that is Kryptonian is made up by a writer who is informed by their culture and experience.”

    Except for Silver Age fanboys. Siegel didn’t create this Krypton, a fan of the 60s did in order to recreate that era.

    “Simply you are wrong in your assertion, I do not believe Johns meant you or Matt to assume Suoerman’s costume was inspired by a childs romper suit.”
    And yet the image says different. If Johns had not wanted that,then why the hell did they draw a kid in a replica of Superboy’s costume?

  • Anonymous

    “If Johns had not wanted that,then why the hell did they draw a kid in a replica of Superboy’s costume?”

    He didn’t. How many different ways can I say that.

    ALL the kryptonian cosutmes are in REALITY a replica’s of Superman’s costume.FFS ( Except Brynes )

    The childs costume resembles Superman’s adult suit not the other way around.

    The difference between the Adult Superman suit and the childs costumes are as great as the differences between the Adult Kryptonian Costumes and Supermans Costume. The same styling cues are seen in all the Adult Costumes as are seen in the childs. All look like Superman’s suit, because FFS it came first.

    I give up. I said at the outset kids wear the same style of clothes as adults in the real world.

    Crimes you are blind on the cover the cape ends below the knees.

    Look I’m done discussing this. you are hell bent on ignoring all the other costume designs, and hell bent on insisting Johns wants us to think Superman’s costume is a childs romper suit.

    Non of that makes any sense.at all.

    You can dislike the costume if you like YMMV but believe me you have only succeeded in convincing me that your argument has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

    Go ahead have the last word, because I’m sure if Geoff Johns called you himself to tell you that Superman doesn’t wear a childs romper suit you’d argue the toss.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

  • Anonymous

    “SHOW IT. Provide an image of an adult in the same exact suit. You can’t, because there isn’t. All the suits are variations with little to no repetition. The suit THIS child wears is an almost exact replica of the one Martha makes”

    http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5507312914_30a8ae201a_b.jpg

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Thanks for taking the time to prove me right.

    So, aside from certain aesthetic changes that very well may have to do with gender (like the shape of the V on the boots and leggings), Superboy’s costume continues to be an exact replica of the one worn by the girl in the Superboy costume.

    Let’s break down your so-called examples.

    The belt I conceeded to earlier. The girl is not wearing an oval-shaped belt bucklet. That clearly came from the man you point to.

    As for the leggings, I proposed – and you failed to address – that men on Krypton wear pants while women wear shorts or skirts. Granted, your image shows one women in pants, so that dispels that theory. It still doesn’t dismiss the little girl’s suit as the PRIMARY (as in INITIAL) inspiration for the Superboy suit.

    The sleeves on the image of the man on which you wrote text are considerably different in style to the ones in Superboy’s suit in the wrist area, while the sleeves on the little girl’s suit are exactly the same.

    As for the cape, the one in your example is considerably longer than the one Superboy is wearing. It ends after the boot begins, while the cape that Superboy and the little girl have on both end before the boot begins.

    Lastly, the editor himself admits that the clothes the girl has on is what inspired the suit. WHY do you keep arguing?

    Whether you agree with it or not (I don’t agree with it, I think the idea is stupid), that is what they ended up doing. They used a Kryptonian girl’s clothes as inspiration for Superman’s outfit.

    Please stop wasting time denying something that they admit they did. Accept that they did it and then spend your time mocking them for being stupid enough to do it.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    Charles, thanks for taking the time to prove me right.

    So, aside from certain aesthetic changes that very well may have to do with gender (like the shape of the V on the boots and leggings), Superboy’s costume continues to be an exact replica of the one worn by the girl in the Superboy costume.

    Let’s break down your so-called examples.

    The belt I conceeded to earlier. The girl is not wearing an oval-shaped belt bucklet. That clearly came from the man you point to.

    As for the leggings, I proposed – and you failed to address – that men on Krypton wear pants while women wear shorts or skirts. Granted, your image shows one women in pants, so that dispels that theory. It still doesn’t dismiss the little girl’s suit as the PRIMARY (as in INITIAL) inspiration for the Superboy suit.

    The sleeves on the image of the man on which you wrote text are considerably different in style to the ones in Superboy’s suit in the wrist area, while the sleeves on the little girl’s suit are exactly the same.

    As for the cape, the one in your example is considerably longer than the one Superboy is wearing. It ends after the boot begins, while the cape that Superboy and the little girl have on both end before the boot begins.

    Lastly, the editor himself admits that the clothes the girl has on is what inspired the suit. WHY do you keep arguing?

    Whether you agree with it or not (I don’t agree with it, I think the idea is stupid), that is what they ended up doing. They used a Kryptonian girl’s clothes as inspiration for Superman’s outfit.

    Please stop wasting time denying something that they admit they did. Accept that they did it and then spend your time mocking them for being stupid enough to do it.

  • Anonymous

    “The sleeves on the image of the man on which you wrote text are considerably different in style to the ones in Superboy’s suit in the wrist area, while the sleeves on the little girl’s suit are exactly the same.

    As for the cape, the one in your example is considerably longer than the one Superboy is wearing. It ends after the boot begins, while the cape that Superboy and the little girl have on both end before the boot begins.”

    http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5018/5507433098_52292d6e70_b.jpg

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    You can’t see it, can you?

    The sleeve on the man who you claim inspired Martha’s design has a sort of gauntlet on it over the wrist, before the hand.

    Superboy’s sleeves don’t have gauntlets, they are smooth like the sleeves on the blonde girl’s costume.

    The gauntlet on the man’s hands are clearly outlined with a black line that distinguishes them from the rest of the shirt.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    As for the lenght of the cape, your arbitrary line is meaningless. What matters is looking at the cape and where it ends on each character.

    On the kid and on Superboy it ends right before the boot begins. On your example, the cape ends after the boot begins.

    Seriously, Charles, the editor himself conceded this point, so why do you keep arguing?

    The costume is based on the clothes that the girl is wearing.

  • Anonymous

    “your arbitrary line is meaningless. What matters is looking at the cape and where it ends on each character.”

    The cape clearly ends ABOVE the childs knees, It clearly ends BELOW the Clark’s knees.

    My line ISN’T ARBITARY. it passes through both the childs knees and Clarks knees.

    The so called gauntlets don’t alter the length of the sleeve, both the other adults cropped have the same sleeve length, that’s a red herring.

    I’m arguing because you are wrong,- I can’t see how you can look at the image I’ve posted and conclude the childs costume which hasn’t pants, has a different belt, and shorter cape is exactly the same as the one Clark is wearing. O_o

    This really is my last word on the matter.

    If you look at the adult Kryptonians in the cover for superman #682 you can clearly see adult Kryptonians wearing the same kind of leggings pants cape logo on chest as Superman, but obviously in different colours.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “My line ISN’T ARBITARY. it passes through both the childs knees and Clarks knees.”

    What makes it arbitrary is that the figures are not drawn in regards to their stature. Clearly Superboy is larger in size than the boy or the man, so you can’t judge the length of their capes based on a line drawn across the images. They need to stand side by side for a clear comparison. Clearly, the cape on the man ends below the line of the boots top, while the cape the kid is wearing does not.

    Regardless of that, why would Martha chose someone else’s cape when she can use the boy’s, which in fact she does since his cape Is red just like Clark’s!

    “The so called gauntlets don’t alter the length of the sleeve, both the other adults cropped have the same sleeve length, that’s a red herring.”

    The man has gauntlets, Superboy does not. The boy/girl doesn’t have gauntlets, ergo, Superboy’s sleeves are based on the boy’s/girl’s sleeves, not the man’s.

    “I’m arguing because you are wrong,- I can’t see how you can look at the image I’ve posted and conclude the childs costume which hasn’t pants, has a different belt, and shorter cape is exactly the same as the one Clark is wearing. O_o”
    And yet the editor agreed with me. How about that…

    “If you look at the adult Kryptonians in the cover for superman #682 you can clearly see adult Kryptonians wearing the same kind of leggings pants cape logo on chest as Superman, but obviously in different colours.”
    Those adults are not on this image, and this is the only image that counts when determining who Martha based the suit on.

    Did she base it on the kid who is wearing an almost exact replica of it, or on someone else?

    Both Superboy and the kid’s suit have the same colors, same sleeve style, and short. The minimum differences are the crest, the boots, and the belt (the last of which I’ve conceded to you). As for the boots, the difference is in the way the v points up on one pair and down on the other, which could be due to gender (the v on the man’s boots points down, not up like on his companions’).

    Lastly, the leggings. Again, the inference can be made that she put pants on them because Clark was hesitant to use the suit at all, or because she figured that since he is a boy he may not want to have his legs exposed. Who knows… whatever her reasons, it still doesn’t dismiss the fact (to which the editor of the comic admits) that this child’s clothes are what inspired Superboy’s suit.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “My line ISN’T ARBITARY. it passes through both the childs knees and Clarks knees.”

    What makes it arbitrary is that the figures are not drawn in regards to their stature. Clearly Superboy is larger in size than the boy or the man, so you can’t judge the length of their capes based on a line drawn across the images. They need to stand side by side for a clear comparison. Clearly, the cape on the man ends below the line of the boots top, while the cape the kid is wearing does not.

    Regardless of that, why would Martha chose someone else’s cape when she can use the boy’s, which in fact she does since his cape Is red just like Clark’s!

    “The so called gauntlets don’t alter the length of the sleeve, both the other adults cropped have the same sleeve length, that’s a red herring.”

    The man has gauntlets, Superboy does not. The boy/girl doesn’t have gauntlets, ergo, Superboy’s sleeves are based on the boy’s/girl’s sleeves, not the man’s.

    “I’m arguing because you are wrong,- I can’t see how you can look at the image I’ve posted and conclude the childs costume which hasn’t pants, has a different belt, and shorter cape is exactly the same as the one Clark is wearing. O_o”
    And yet the editor agreed with me. How about that…

    “If you look at the adult Kryptonians in the cover for superman #682 you can clearly see adult Kryptonians wearing the same kind of leggings pants cape logo on chest as Superman, but obviously in different colours.”
    Those adults are not on this image, and this is the only image that counts when determining who Martha based the suit on.

    Did she base it on the kid who is wearing an almost exact replica of it, or on someone else?

    Both Superboy and the kid’s suit have the same colors, same sleeve style, and short. The minimum differences are the crest, the boots, and the belt (the last of which I’ve conceded to you). As for the boots, the difference is in the way the v points up on one pair and down on the other, which could be due to gender (the v on the man’s boots points down, not up like on his companions’).

    Lastly, the leggings. Again, the inference can be made that she put pants on them because Clark was hesitant to use the suit at all, or because she figured that since he is a boy he may not want to have his legs exposed. Who knows… whatever her reasons, it still doesn’t dismiss the fact (to which the editor of the comic admits) that this child’s clothes are what inspired Superboy’s suit.

  • pH

    Listen, let’s not drag Liz Hurley through the mud. All the problems with the Wonder Woman relaunch land squarely on the doorstep of David E. Kelly. That script is a mess. Seriously. And it’s understandable, because Kelly has no idea what he’s doing.

    The man simply not geared towards writing this type of TV show. He hasn’t done ANYTHING outside of the lawyer genre since The Wedding Factory. Remember that? Of course not, it lasted 6 episodes. Oh, and it blew.

    Also not helping, combining a a rich tapestry of various DC creator contributions with the old Kelly trope of “she’s skilled at work, but a mess in her personal life.” Does anyone in the world want to watch a show about WW’s love life? Sure, it might be an interesting subplot, but Kelly puts this element at the forefront because he’s under the mistaken belief that he has anything new or interesting to say on the subject. He doesn’t. We have over two decades of televised proof (Ally McBeal, The Practice, et al.) that he’s swimming in the same shallow end of the story/character pool. He’s a writer universal acknowledged for writing “can I have it all?” female characters who appear out of a 1980s timewarp. It’s a match made in hell.

    Now, I think Palicki is great casting. She’s shown she can be a great TV actress, especially when the material is high caliber (Friday Night Lights was nothing if not a well written, acted, and directed program). But no actress will be able to make Kelly’s concept fly. Instead of trying to appeal to everyone, NBC and Warner/DC should focus on making the best product possible first. But too much money is on the line now. NBC is a drowning man, and Warner’s is going to be the lifeguard who gets dragged to the sea floor by a panicked swimmer who can’t see the shoreline.

    Poor Wonder Woman. She’s a pretty awesome chick when you get to know her. Too bad TV audiences will get to know this dreck instead.

  • Wyatt

    Well, I have never read anything from the Silver Age, nor do I care what the origins of Superman’s (or any other character for that matter) costume are/is. So an attempt to attach me to that era is mistaken. That much having been said, you are WAY WAY too far down the rabbit hole. ALL explained origin(s) for ANYBODY’s costume are subject to change every 10 to 20 years. Latching on to one and holding on come Hell or high water is probably not healthy. And if you cannot see the humor in this thread, well imagine if you overheard two sports geeks arguing for over a day about the origins of the pinstripes on the NY Yankees uniforms, because that is equally entertaining.

  • JimMacQ

    Stupid question: in what way is it that Adrianne Palicki “doesn’t exactly match the picture most people had in their minds of the character”?

    I know if I were casting the role, I’d look for an attractive brunette, in her late 20s, tall, athletic, and with some experience performing in genre material such as superhero or fantasy shows. According to the link you provided, Palicki is 27, 5’11” tall, and has appeared in Supernatural and the Aquaman pilot. The IMDB link on that page shows that she played Supergirl on Smallville. She also does cartoon voices and was an athlete in high school.

    In what way does she not fit the role of Wonder Woman? Because she was blonde on her last show? It’s called hair dye.

  • JimMacQ

    You’re really getting worked up about the story somebody made up at least 60 years after the fact to explain Superman’s costume?

    He wears the costume because he’s Superman and that’s what Superman wears. Nobody but the most continuity-obsessed fanboy cares one whit about the in-story explanation for it.

    Please stop. You’re embarrassing comic book readers around the world.

  • JimMacQ

    “Wrong. I disparage the use of the costume when the character is 12 and his still using it when he’s 35.”

    When I was 12, I wore jeans, Converse high-top sneakers, and a Batman t-shirt. I’m 52, and right now, I am wearing jeans, Converse high-top sneakers and a Captain America t-shirt. Are you calling me pathetic?

  • Anonymous

    I thought this article was about the forthcoming Wonder Woman TV pilot so how did it degenerate in to a pointless argument about Superman’s costume, it would be nice if it got back on track.

    So here’s my two cents casting Liz Hurley is a mistake sorry but she can’t act, the costume i have no problem with with them giving WW trousers, (sorry i know Americans refer to them as pants), instead of the butt revealing swimsuit of the comics, i think the top half looks fine and a reasonable adaption of the proper costume but the boots should be red and white not blue which make them indistinguishable from the trousers.

    As for the casting of Adrianne Palicki as WW/Diana Prince the actress I’ve only seen her in the episodes of Supernatural she’s appeared in as the murdered girlfriend of Sam Winchester in which she was fine in but it was only a small part and she’s only been back once or twice since getting bumped off in the pilot and the episode of Smallville she was in as the fake Kara/Supergirl from the end of season 3 which i seem to remember finding her a bit wooden but if she has developed as an actress that’s fine I’ll wait to see her in action before rushing to judgement.

    The script leaked onto the internet seems weak and to centered on her work love life balance which is not what WW should be about Kelley is a great writer on his shows which have all centered on the law his forte and their have been good female characters on them but i fear he could turn her into a caricature.

    What this needs is help from comic book writers who have written for WW but what every WW or even just comic book fan wanted was the Joss Whedon movie or at the very least like i said a comics writer who knows the character and can create a believable version for fans and non fans to tune into week in week out on a series not just a pilot.

    As for the articles’ author and his Catwoman comparison based on casting it’s a fair one to make, that thing was one of the worst movies of all time but here’s a little trick comic fans and DC can do just simply erase it from their minds as it was in no way other than the movie title is it connected to the character from the Batman comics.

    Finally i will watch this and try to avoid seeing the opinions of those who’ll see it before me when it does eventually air so as not to colour my judgement. i hope that the script kinks are worked out as I’d like to see more superheroes make it to the small screen to successful shows as done right it could be where they are better served with the chance to create and develop story lines over episodes and entire seasons.