superman's costume

[stressed76]

hey guys and gals just sittin around with some bud's of mine and we are watching Superman II...started talkin Superman trivia and was wondering if someone could tell me where superman got the materials for his costume and who made it for him....as well, if the materials came from Krypton, how did they sew the materials?

And another quick question....how does superman shave, and cut his hair

whoever answers this....YOU ROCK!!!

Thanks,

Stressed76

[Jack Zodiac]

His costume's made of spandex. The cape, most likely just cloth. His mother made it for him. Years later, writers and fans would become stupid-anal and seriously wonder why Superman can sometimes swim through lava without burning his suit to a crisp. Explanations ranges from anything as ridiculous as an invulnerability aura to special Kryptonian material being used for his suit. In that version, his mother sewed him a suit out of the cloth he was wrapped in during his voyage to Earth.

Superman gets his hair cut at a barber shop. Then, someone decided that suspension of disbelief wasn't worth the time and made Superman start shaving himself and cutting his own hair with a mirror and heat vision.

[David Atkins]

"Suspension of Disbelief," if used to explain Superman getting a haircut in a barber shop and swimming through lava in a spandex costume, is nothing more than a cop-out to be utilized by lazy writers.

The invulnerability aura was the best explanation offered for Superman's made-on-earth-of-earthbound-materials costume. I believe the invulnerable kryptonian material has been retconned back into continuity, however (evidenced in the Superman/Batman: Supergirl storyline when Kara first wears her costume).

[Jack Zodiac]

Meh. It's all !@#$% to me. If a writer wants to write a story where Superman fights some monster in a volcano without burning his suit to a crisp, I could give a !@#$% whether it's explained or not so long as it's a good story. It's crap like that that leads to people trying to explain why Wally's eyes were brown in one panel in some comic a decade ago.

[MaxofSteel]

All I know for sure is that in the most recent retelling of Supes' origin (Birthright), Clark's costume is made from the cloth of the Kryptonian Flag.

Its uncuttable with the tools the Kents have so Clark uses his heat vision to cut/sew it together.
And later in the story, When Supes is exposed to Kryptonite, his suit somehow weakens as well and some enemy dude tears it off his emblem(I dont have the book with me to describe the details).

[David Atkins]

Meh. It's all !@#$% to me. If a writer wants to write a story where Superman fights some monster in a volcano without burning his suit to a crisp, I could give a !@#$% whether it's explained or not so long as it's a good story. It's crap like that that leads to people trying to explain why Wally's eyes were brown in one panel in some comic a decade ago.

So being inquisitive and curious is a bad thing and inevitably leads to idiotic obsessing over an obvious coloring mistake?

Suuuuuuuuure.

"Suspension of Disbelief" means "Superman can fly!" Not "Superman can fly and that's all anybody needs to know about it."


All I know for sure is that in the most recent retelling of Supes' origin (Birthright), Clark's costume is made from the cloth of the Kryptonian Flag.

Its uncuttable with the tools the Kents have so Clark uses his heat vision to cut/sew it together.
And later in the story, When Supes is exposed to Kryptonite, his suit somehow weakens as well and some enemy dude tears it off his emblem(I dont have the book with me to describe the details).

Everytime I start getting used to the idea of Birthright and almost talk myself into maybe picking it up and at least giving it a read, somebody unearths yet another brain-breaking detail like this. Blaaaarg!

[MaxofSteel]

Everytime I start getting used to the idea of Birthright and almost talk myself into maybe picking it up and at least giving it a read, somebody unearths yet another brain-breaking detail like this. Blaaaarg!

Heheh, it really not as bad as it sounds. Overall I thought it was a great read, albeit for a couple of plot aspects here and there. I recomend picking it up. Plus Leinel Yu's art ain't too shabby.

[Jack Zodiac]

So being inquisitive and curious is a bad thing and inevitably leads to idiotic obsessing over an obvious coloring mistake?

If the shoe fits. The fact that's it's happened before is proof enough. Superman's had two seperate retcons about his suit's origin while his stories go lacking in substance. Yes, when a writer starts worrying about how to explain why Superman's hair doesn't move in the wind or how his cape doesn't tear to shreds flying faster than light, I think that's a "bad thing."

[David Atkins]

If the shoe fits. The fact that's it's happened before is proof enough.

The fact that an extreme few became obsessed over a coloring error damns inquisitiveness and curiosity in all fans? Heh. Suuuuuuuuuure.


Superman's had two seperate retcons about his suit's origin while his stories go lacking in substance. Yes, when a writer starts worrying about how to explain why Superman's hair doesn't move in the wind or how his cape doesn't tear to shreds flying faster than light, I think that's a "bad thing."

Yes, that is a bad thing. However, it is also a bad thing to tell a story that reads like 'Superman did this and this and this and this and this' while taking no time to highlight the details that naturally inquisitive and curious fans are definately going to wonder about. A good writer will tell good stories by exploring various aspects of a character's overall story, from the events of universal proportions to the minute stuff that will have very little, if any, impact on Superman's next throw-down with Darkseid.

Also, it should be noted that any lack of substance you may note while reading a Superman comic could probably be cured by removing DC's resistance to allowing any lasting change/evolution to occur that allows a character to grow beyond a certain point.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Also, it should be noted that any lack of substance you may note while reading a Superman comic could probably be cured by removing DC's resistance to allowing any lasting change/evolution to occur that allows a character to grow beyond a certain point.

That's a tricky balancing act that can often lead to the characters losing something essential. Look at Spider-Man.

Back to the issue at hand, however, I don't see anything wrong with explaining why Superman's suit is invunerable and how he cuts his hair as long as it makes for an entertaining story. I always thought the idea that Ma Kent made his costume from Kal-El's baby sheets was pretty cool. The haircut/shave idea that Byrne introduced was also pretty clever and worked within the story he was telling.

[The Batman]

Ultimately this is one of those 'nerd puzzles' that we've been discussing over in the community forum. Sure it's fun to geek out and wonder about Superman's costume but when how Superman's costume doesn't get destroyed everyday becomes a major issue in the books I think that maybe we've got our priorities out of order and we're asking the wrong questions.

[David Atkins]

That's a tricky balancing act that can often lead to the characters losing something essential. Look at Spider-Man.

Back to the issue at hand, however, I don't see anything wrong with explaining why Superman's suit is invunerable and how he cuts his hair as long as it makes for an entertaining story. I always thought the idea that Ma Kent made his costume from Kal-El's baby sheets was pretty cool. The haircut/shave idea that Byrne introduced was also pretty clever and worked within the story he was telling.

I'm not advocating giving Superman an ugly costume! :p

Admittedly, if they were to allow Superman to grow beyond that certain point they probably would have a hard time trying to stay true enough to the character that they didn't alienate long-term fans and make it difficult for somebody like myself whom took several years off from comic book reading to get back into a beloved title.

However, removing the character from this virutal stasis he seems to be locked in would necessarily make his books seem more vibrant and alive. It happens every so often, but DC never fails to back pedal when a change that could be acceptable and lasting comes into play.

It's only fair to note that if they had taken that attitude from the start, Superman wouldn't be able to fly today.

As far as the baby blankets explanation... I never really cared for that one. I'm not sure, though, if that is because I dislike the idea itself or if my brain breaks over the 'invulnerable costume' concept. I could probably live with it if the cloth were still just cloth, regardless of the planet from which it originated.

[Jack Zodiac]

The fact that an extreme few became obsessed over a coloring error damns inquisitiveness and curiosity in all fans? Heh. Suuuuuuuuuure.

No, not just that, but that and the fact that fans and writers felt like it was necessary to explain how and why Superman doesn't have five o' clock shadow, or why his suit doesn't disappear every time he's blasted by somebody.

Like The Batman said, when you worry about crap like that, it becomes a "nerd puzzle," where one writer will have Superman dive into lava and come out fine, but later has him shot in the chest with a laser destroying his emblem. Then fans foam at the mouth about incongruity and ruin the story for themselves. Another writer notices this, then explains that Superman has an invulnerability aura that protects his suit, sometimes, which is later retconned into being a suit made of special Kryptonian material that is nigh-invulnerable, and both are constantly pointed out ruining the story for people who don't give a damn about that crap.

People can't take a story at face value, and that blows.


Also, it should be noted that any lack of substance you may note while reading a Superman comic could probably be cured by removing DC's resistance to allowing any lasting change/evolution to occur that allows a character to grow beyond a certain point.

Nope. In fact, I contribute most of the crappy writing I've noticed over the past decade to people trying to force Superman to be stuff he's not. Red/Blue and Electromagnetic Superman, for instance. Who really thought these ideas would last, or have any significant impact on the character at all besides a dip in sales? Let Superman be what Superman is, just get people who can write decent stories without having to "shake things up."

[glennsim]

No, not just that, but that and the fact that fans and writers felt like it was necessary to explain how and why Superman doesn't have five o' clock shadow, or why his suit doesn't disappear every time he's blasted by somebody.

In many cases, these explanations took a little as two panels, or at most were the basis for a story in which something else happens, and the explanation is given along the way.

Which is still creating a story for a questionable reason, but not any different than Julius Schwartz commissioning wacky covers and then having the writers create a story to match the cover. Which was the practice during some of the height of Superman's popularity.

I have a lot of respect for your position, and I understand it greatly, but it has been a frequent practice all through the history of superhero comics for people to over-think them. DC's position is to sort through those questions that get asked and decide which ones could be answered in an interesting way. If they fail to tell an interesting storywhile answering the question, that's no different than failing to tell an interesting story based on "Hey - Superman hasn't fought the Parasite in a while - do one about that!" which is probably the level of thinking often involved.

The fact that other people wonder about these things won't directly affect the quality of the stories DC publishes, and thus doesn't really hurt you. The stories are either good or they aren't regardless of the source of the idea for the story.

[dupersuper]

I like the Byrne explanations, but agree it's not an important detail

[David Atkins]

No, not just that, but that and the fact that fans and writers felt like it was necessary to explain how and why Superman doesn't have five o' clock shadow, or why his suit doesn't disappear every time he's blasted by somebody.

Like The Batman said, when you worry about crap like that, it becomes a "nerd puzzle," where one writer will have Superman dive into lava and come out fine, but later has him shot in the chest with a laser destroying his emblem. Then fans foam at the mouth about incongruity and ruin the story for themselves. Another writer notices this, then explains that Superman has an invulnerability aura that protects his suit, sometimes, which is later retconned into being a suit made of special Kryptonian material that is nigh-invulnerable, and both are constantly pointed out ruining the story for people who don't give a damn about that crap.

People can't take a story at face value, and that blows.

So, what you're saying is that you don't like those aspects of the story and because you don't like them would like to see them discarded or ignored entirely, nevermind the fact that more than a few people clearly DO enjoy it when the writer explores the minute details without becoming obsessive zealots? In point of fact, the obsessive zealots you mentioned, albeit vocal, are of such a small number (like the number of retcons to Superman's suit's origins when taken in with the number of retcons Superman has suffered overall) as to be largely inconsequential.

So, in short, the writers on Superman should cater to YOU and alienate the rest of the fanbase? Not that DC hasn't done that kind of thing before, but seriously...

And, btw, it's best to stay away from phrases like 'nerd puzzle.' FYI, we're talking about comic books on the internet.


Nope. In fact, I contribute most of the crappy writing I've noticed over the past decade to people trying to force Superman to be stuff he's not. Red/Blue and Electromagnetic Superman, for instance. Who really thought these ideas would last, or have any significant impact on the character at all besides a dip in sales? Let Superman be what Superman is, just get people who can write decent stories without having to "shake things up."

Electro-Superman was one of the worst ideas ever implemented in the history of Superman comic books and I never advocated 'shaking things up.' The problem with writing Superman stories the way that DC apparently prefers is that if you take a character and deliberately stifle any growth or evolution while still expecting frequent (or even semi-frequent) stories to be written concerning that character, the writers will find themselves stuck in loops and unable to do anything but rehash storylines that have already taken place. I can also see them losing interest when they are actually allowed to do something rationally progressive with the character and then having the company force them to undo or ignore it a short time later.

In summary, Change/growth/evolution = Life. Electro-Superman = Idiotic character raping for 'shock' value.

[Sean Whitmore]

And, btw, it's best to stay away from phrases like 'nerd puzzle.' FYI, we're talking about comic books on the internet.

That's funny, that would seem like the perfect time to use a phrase like "nerd puzzle". ;)



In summary, Change/growth/evolution = Life. Electro-Superman = Idiotic character raping for 'shock' value.

Never been largely impressed with people equating rape to something that happens in a comic book. Beyond that, Electro Superman was a neat little story that nobody could honestly have thought was supposed to last.


SEAN

[Jack Zodiac]

So, in short, the writers on Superman should cater to YOU and alienate the rest of the fanbase? Not that DC hasn't done that kind of thing before, but seriously.

In short, yes. Also, if I have to start slapping "in my opinion" at the beginning of every one of my posts, I'm gonna' shove a nerd puzzle up your wowhole. ;)


In summary, Change/growth/evolution = Life. Electro-Superman = Idiotic character raping for 'shock' value.

"In your opinion." :p

Change isn't always bad. It's very rarely good, however, especially sudden and dramatic changes in long-lived characters (i.e. Electric Blue Superman, Parallax, Azbat, most of the mid-Nineties changes). I'm not as opposed to the changes being implemented in 52, for instance, because very few of those changes are huge and being used with characters that have as much history as Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman. Except for Black Adam, who's a very long-lived character undergoing a very dramatic change that, I believe, is actually panning out.

So yeah, change isn't always bad, but it usually is, "in my opinion."

[David Atkins]

Never been largely impressed with people equating rape to something that happens in a comic book.

SEAN

I met a lady on one of my message boards once who got angry because one of my admins told her to stop post-whoring. She thought she was literally being called a whore. Your comment, there, marks the first time in a year and a half that I've been reminded of that incident. ;)


In short, yes. Also, if I have to start slapping "in my opinion" at the beginning of every one of my posts, I'm gonna' shove a nerd puzzle up your wowhole. ;)

"In your opinion." :p

Change isn't always bad. It's very rarely good, however, especially sudden and dramatic changes in long-lived characters (i.e. Electric Blue Superman, Parallax, Azbat, most of the mid-Nineties changes). I'm not as opposed to the changes being implemented in 52, for instance, because very few of those changes are huge and being used with characters that have as much history as Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman. Except for Black Adam, who's a very long-lived character undergoing a very dramatic change that, I believe, is actually panning out.

So yeah, change isn't always bad, but it usually is, "in my opinion."

When I say change is good, I say that meaning that a character should be allowed to learn and grow within the realm of acceptability/reason. Superman, for instance, learned a great deal about life and death and where to draw the line during the Death/Funeral/Reign storylines. It was even highlighted later, especially in storylines like Hunter/Prey where Superman again encountered Doomsday. DC quickly backpedaled on that point and a few short months/years later, we were once again being handed storylines in which Superman's mind was fragile due to the trauma of three specific deaths he'd had to cause from before the Death/Funeral/Reign took place.

In all fairness, however, I have to say that DC swung even further back the other way (the OMGNOKILLINGWHATSOEVER! direction) than they had been before, meaning that a change still occurred either way.

What Superman learned during that storyline did NOT equate a massive change to his character. It did not transform him into a killer or mean that he failed to fight as hard to preserve any and all life. It was, in the end, a minor little modification that was significant only in that it was an example of the character learning from his experiences and growing accordingly.

Massive changes, like Electro-Superman (horrible, horrible and pointless!) or Parallax (which I, for one, liked), are another matter altogether. I certainly feel that writers should be VERY careful in that department, though I would not rule out things like that without due consideration.

In closing... I'm not touching the 'in my opinion' part of the conversation again. 'Cause... ya know... I don't fancy being verbally pwned again. :o You are absolutely right. I shouldn't have called you on that. And while I'm beating my head against the wall and screaming "NURR!!", you can chalk that part of my part of this discussion up to a random bout of morning grumpiness!

[Jack Zodiac]

What Superman learned during that storyline did NOT equate a massive change to his character. It did not transform him into a killer or mean that he failed to fight as hard to preserve any and all life. It was, in the end, a minor little modification that was significant only in that it was an example of the character learning from his experiences and growing accordingly.

Massive changes, like Electro-Superman (horrible, horrible and pointless!) or Parallax (which I, for one, liked), are another matter altogether. I certainly feel that writers should be VERY careful in that department, though I would not rule out things like that without due consideration.

Okay, I agree there. Change doesn't always mean character development, and it's the development upon a character that makes change worthwhile, like Superman being forced to kill, or Batman being broken, and, sadly, Green Lantern being driven insane enough to destroy the entire Corps. Some changes, those that promote good character development, are great. Some, those that would try to reinvent a character completely, suck.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Okay, I agree there. Change doesn't always mean character development, and it's the development upon a character that makes change worthwhile, like Superman being forced to kill, or Batman being broken, and, sadly, Green Lantern being driven insane enough to destroy the entire Corps. Some changes, those that promote good character development, are great. Some, those that would try to reinvent a character completely, suck.

Exactly. Change for change sake isn't a good thing. Again, Spider-Man is a good example. Marvel seems to be hell-bent on constantly changing something major in the character's status quo in order to drum up interest but I don't see a whole lot of thought being put into whether or not the changes they're making a actually making Spider-Man a better or more interesting character for readers.

Gwen Stacy boinking Norman Ozborn may be a big change and very shocking, but how does that make Spider-Man a better character?

Hal Jordan going postal, chopping off hands and wiping out the Corps may get people to sit up and notice the character again, but is the damage you've done equal to the good you've done to the franchise?

Giving Superman a mullet may make him more appealing to the illiterate and hockey enthusiasts, but what about those of us whose fashion sense outgrew the mid-1980s?

[Jack Zodiac]

Hal Jordan going postal, chopping off hands and wiping out the Corps may get people to sit up and notice the character again, but is the damage you've done equal to the good you've done to the franchise?

Good example of major character changes made that the company has to know won't stick. You can't take a character with forty-plus years of constant publishing, make a ridiculously unnecessary and monumental change to them, and expect it to fly with the fanbase. And the result is half-assed, shoddy storytelling for the sole purpose of fixing that mistake a decade later. Or even faster, in the case of Spider-Man and "The Clone Saga."

People don't want to see their favorite characters completely changed. Growth, as Fireface said, can be good, but change doesn't always equal growth. I'd use Civil War as an example, but it isn't nearly done yet; but I'd use the comparison of throwing Miracle-Gro all over your lawn and then going nuts on it with a lawnmower.