New Superman movie costume picture looks like what was designed in the past decade
The BBC reported on the reactions to a picture published of actor David Corenswet sitting in a living room putting on the Superman costume:
VG247 says people need to relax, because this is just old drama anew. Which is true, though it certainly doesn't tell enough about whether the film will end up a PC mess or not. For now, what they want to say is:
And if a previous report I found suggests anything, the upcoming Corenswet movie may not really stand on its own, nor will it be woke-free. Something else that may have to be considered is that James Gunn did cause offense years before, and what he did in past years isn't so easy to overlook. If he's listed in the film credits, those with common sense who watch it will really have to take it with grains of salt, and separate art from artist. Besides, when the comics are collapsing in PC, what's the use of making a big deal out of movie adaptations?
It's hard to please everyone, especially with an iconic character like Superman and some people aren't completely happy with the reveal.I suppose it might resemble the "chain-mail" look of the early 2000s for Captain America, but that's actually a problem: Cap went downhill as a storytelling vehicle in late 2002 after Joe Quesada forced anti-American metaphors onto Jack Kirby and Joe Simon's classic creation, and the Marvel Knights series in which this took place became unreadable very quickly. If anything, when I first looked at the picture available, it made me think of the time over a decade ago, when DC and WB removed Superman's red tights because they didn't conform with the PC vision being launched at the time, which was shoehorned onto Zack Snyder's Man of Steel movie. In addition, a look resembling plastic toy merchandise was produced for the comics, by Jim Lee. Needless to say, these editorial/studio mandates are very troubling, because they damage creative freedom and license, and above all, they're petty. And those who actually like it? All they're doing is gushing over being "realistic", which has come at the expense of entertainment value.
Some fans posted on social media suggesting it looks "too much like an MCU suit", referencing the Marvel Cinematic Universe and heroes such as Captain America. While others said it looked as if it had been made with AI.
But the new look has also received lots of praise from other fans who say they like that it looks like an actual piece of clothing rather than being completely skin-tight.
VG247 says people need to relax, because this is just old drama anew. Which is true, though it certainly doesn't tell enough about whether the film will end up a PC mess or not. For now, what they want to say is:
It appears that everyone has very strong feelings, positive or negative, about the Superman (2025) costume reveal that James Gunn finally shared a few days ago with David Corenswet in the role. The thing is... we've been here before, but everyone seems to have just forgotten about the announcements of old.Well of course it's not a great idea to make too much of a fuss over certain costume designs in such movies, certainly not if it takes away attention from whether the movie could be soured with wokeness, but all the same, if these were even remotely subject to editorial/studio mandate, that's troubling, because it's but a step denying the writer/director creative freedom. And playing it safe? Well, that's also a serious issue, because they actually are. That's what the figure of speech "wokeness" came to be employed for, as another way of saying "political correctness". Depending what kind of entertainment medium and products we're talking about, there's quite a few where the issue is race-and-gender-swapping for woke brownie points, watering down women's sex appeal, shoving LGBT ideology down the consumer's throats, not to mention potential anti-conservative hostility that could practically dwell on the surface. The part about sex appeal is what seems particularly vulnerable to safe-play, in terms of modern mainstream Hollywood, and Breitbart's John Nolte's made important points about it at times too.
Of course, the first costume reveal that comes to mind is Man of Steel's 'here's your first look at the new Superman moment' back in 2011. I vividly remember all the heavy criticism over a single image, way before we saw the movie in movement for the first time. Mind you, Zack Snyder's DC movies aren't exactly widely beloved, contrary to what recent revisionism might suggest, but almost everyone warmed up to Henry Cavill's portrayal of the character — and the wardrobe that came with him — over the years. Now, after many months of asking for an early look at Supes (this is just a slightly touched-up production still), everyone seems to be mad. Comic book fans never change, I guess.
There's a reason why some studios have chosen over the years to play things safe and simply keep the first-ever looks at new costumes and characters under wraps for as long as possible. While early peeks at the stars of the show may help build up hype even before a teaser trailer is released, unchecked hate campaigns organized by the worst sections of a fandom can spread like wildfire and kneecap projects, regardless of the final quality, before the actual marketing campaigns kick off.
Neither DC nor Marvel are free from scrutiny whenever these reveals come out, and things only get more heated up when the superheroes in question are Spider-Man, Batman, or Superman, arguably the 'Big 3' of the comics medium. In a way, I'm certain these companies are counting on chatter, good and bad, helping in the long run, but, as explained before, we've seen this backfire before. Another 2011 reveal works as a great example of obsessive fandoms rushing to drop whole essays about a yet-to-be-released projects based on just a production still: that of The Amazing Spider-Man, which represented another fresh take on the famous webslinger.At the time, it was surprising the Spidey reboot did as well as it did, but even so, it was already pretty obvious where it'd be going, since, as I'd once noted years ago, I already knew the Spidey origin and the film played out about as could be expected. So, it hasn't aged well. In any case, why anybody feels the need to complain about these movies is anybody's guess, because what makes them so great, but not the zygotes? Why worry about the movie adaptations, but the not the original comics? All these whiners made clear is that they're not comics fans, period.
Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker had to fight an even tougher uphill battle, as Sony Pictures' quick pivot from Spider-Man 4 (which would've brought Sam Raimi and his team back) to a reboot that felt pointless at the time was a bit of a head-scratcher. In the end, the movie performed well enough and spawned a sequel which also featured another big costume change. And the loop repeated itself.
And if a previous report I found suggests anything, the upcoming Corenswet movie may not really stand on its own, nor will it be woke-free. Something else that may have to be considered is that James Gunn did cause offense years before, and what he did in past years isn't so easy to overlook. If he's listed in the film credits, those with common sense who watch it will really have to take it with grains of salt, and separate art from artist. Besides, when the comics are collapsing in PC, what's the use of making a big deal out of movie adaptations?
Labels: dc comics, history, marvel comics, msm propaganda, sales, Spider-Man, Superman
