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