Pajiba

I don't know, his hair looks kind of... helmety.

And Superman's outfit should not be a dark blue.

I like it, and let's be honest, no one can argue that it is as bad as new Spider-Man's suit that has the 'made from old basket balls' look

What's with the scales? Is he Superman or Aquaman?

"I get tired of the fucking boy scout look after a while."

Good to know you're not in NAMBLA.

Superman is not a "dark" character.

Superman should not be dark.

That is all.

Plus his costume fabric looks like Toby Maguire's "Spider-Man" outfit. Worked for Spidey, doesn't work for the Man of Steel. YMMV.

But Superman *is* a boyscout. I agree with Green Lantern - Supes doesn't need a dark and gritty reboot.

Routh's suit was textured too, this fabric just might be a bit shinier. Can't really tell everything because he's in shadow, and yes, it's a good cape. My personal preference is when the cape and collar aren't hanging off his trapezius, so that works for me. And don't forget that Superman has a temper.

The character may not need to become dark & gritty but one of the best superman versions is in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Superman here is highlighted as the government attack dog as a critique of truth & justice being solely the American way.

Since I suspect the filmmakers, namely Snyder, have neither the subtlety nor the insight the film will fail by turnin Superman into a dark & gritty character. I hope not anyway!

Seriously, what is with the fabric texture? I bet it's like wearing a loofah. It's not like he needs the suit to be protective. Or is it that constant unitard replacement gets expensive and he needs a material that will not rip or be rent by attacks easily? Let's go with that.

My impression of public opinion is that Superman is the least popular of the tent pole super hero franchises (Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, etc...) If that's the case, why wouldn't you want to shake up his image some? In fact, the most common complaint I hear about Superman is that he is too much of a Boy Scout, so it only makes sense to me to try and darken up his image a bit. "Darker" and "edgier" are words that I normally loathe to hear from studio executives because that usually means corporate Hollywood's interpretations of the words, but making something darker, doesn't necessarily make it dark, just darker than before. If they can broaden the appeal of Superman, without going so far as to destroy the base of the character, I'm all for it.

If the complaint is simply that the costume is too dark, I think we need to be mindful that the colors that work in comics and the colors that work in movies are always the same. If they're going to bother with a live-action Superman movie, they need to do the things that will make it work in live action, and some of these things will necessarily be different from the things in the comics.

Actually, I think the best thing for reviving Superman's image would be a JLA movie. Instead of darkening things about the Superman mythos that weren't really intended to be that way, the dark elements could come from Batman, or some other hero, and Superman could continue to be the boy scout he was always meant to be.

God damn that was long.

The character may not need to become dark & gritty but one of the best superman versions is in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Superman here is highlighted as the government attack dog as a critique of truth & justice being solely the American way.

WOW do I disagree with that. Miller might have wanted to make a political point but using Superman to do it was a big mistake. That was NOT Superman. Superman is a fundamentally moral person who will always, always try to do the right thing. That is why we love him. Casting him as a tool of the government was ridiculous.

I'm not asking for smooth spandex, I just don't like pronounced mesh on Superman. The last costume was textured and looked fine.

How about body paint? Compromise.

But is it really that dark, or is that just caused by the lighting?

Casting him as a tool of the government was ridiculous.

Todd, agree completely. People talk that book up a lot -- it has this grand legacy -- but at the end of the day any book in which Batman uses a gun and Superman is a government lackey is a book that fails to understand fundamentals of the characters.

As for the outfit, I also agree with Green Lantern; Superman is not a gritty character. Are gritty characters more commercially successful? Yeah, they are. So I guess Superman will be less commercially successful, then. We don't need him snarling and draped in heavy capes or dark, achromatic attire. The only intimidation his costume should represent is the implied danger that near-omnipotence represents. His costume says, "I'm here. Go ahead and use your guns on me. Go ahead and shoot your missiles at me. I won't even dodge it. I'm right here."

Superman is the kind of guy who doesn't need to hide in shadows. He can afford to walk right up to you and politely ask you to surrender because he knows that you are incapable of harming him. The better you are able to see him, the more effective he is. The more he makes his presence known, the less he actually has to work for his desired goals.

He is supposed to be abnormally colorful. That is what makes him terrifying. That he doesn't need to hide from the likes of you.

Now. That being said, this is just a teaser poster. The movie won't be made or broken by the color palette used for his costume. It will be dependent upon the script. Release his first conversation with Lois; that will tell me much more than this photo.

Whoa. Heavy.

The door, I mean. It looks pretty heavy.

The scene is expertly lit to hide his super crotch.

It's not mesh. And it's not scales. It's texture. They had to do something to give it visual depth. The suit is fine. Bright blue spandex isn't cute on anyone, even if you're built like that dude. And he could still have a mix of boy scoutishness in there, just a tad more modern. We really don't know if this is a "gritty update" yet, do we? It's a darker shade of blue, for fuck's sake. Take a Xanax.

And Mrs. Julien is correct- there will be billowing. Oh, the billowing there will be.

NOT LOVING THE HAIR. Sleep easy, Brandon Routh. This dude has nothing on your mane.

Is it too much to ask just to pick up a damned comic book and just DO THAT? You already have a costume designed for you, just go with that one for Chrissake!

Don't try to re-stylize the "S" logo, don't mess with the color pallet, don't try to make it textured, don't add shit that wasn't on it for the last 75 years and stop try to improve upon something that has already become a cultural icon as-is. This actually applied to the last Superman movie as well.

I understand all directors want to put their own personal spin on things in their version of a movie, but I think they should concentrate more on the actual execution of the characters and story rather than trying to gussie up the package's wrapping. Maybe the story and actors' performances will do a better job selling it, but as of right now this doesn't feel like Superman. In fact I'd be more inclined to believe this was an evil version of him (a la Superman III or the DCAU's Justice Lords) robbing a vault with the real one speeding to the rescue.

Superman, unlike Batman is not so much a real life character so much as he's a bright beacon of hope- which should include brilliant colors in his costume and an almost Greek god meets benevolent everyman feel. This one just looks dark and pissed off. Now maybe he has a good off-screen reason as to why, but when introducing him for the first time to the viewing public he should look iconic and heroic. I mean for all purposes, he is THE superhero. He should look into the camera as if to say, "Don't be afraid, I'm here to save you all.", not "If you insects get in my way of emptying out the bank I'll play Etch-A-Sketch on your faces with my heat-vision." And yes the costume's alterations add to that vibe.

Maybe future production photos will help alleviate my fears, but so far it's not the best foot to start off on.

...do a little EVIL to do a greater good, that is.

(Damn you, edit button that never was!)

Shut Up!!! (fingers in ears) LaLaLaLaLaLaLa! I Cant Hear You!

I looove Henry Cavill and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind! Unless he honestly killed some kittens or something.

I think we're going to have to get a view of the costume in motion before making too many judgments on how it will actually look in the movie. Obviously we're free to speculate, as many have done here, but that's all it is...speculation.

As for the scaly look, making the costume of a different material might actually help explain why the thing isn't constantly torn to shreds when Superman is inundated with bullets. I guess they could stick with the more traditional spandex look and say it's some kind of Kryptonian space material, but I prefer he finds some thing like Kevlar (just an example) that's just as durable as his body, well at least closer to it than most materials.

And in terms of changing the costume, it's not like this is a complete overhaul. It's still basically red and blue. There's still a big ol' "S" on his chest. His still got a cape, and even though it's obscured by the lighting, I'm assuming he's still wearing his undies on the outside. It's not some complete redesign. If you want to see epic failures in wholesale costume changes, I'll refer you here.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/superman-lives1.jpg

The explanation was given long ago, I think in the first Superman, that the reason his costume doesn't get torn to shreds is because he's wearing it. Somehow he imbues that invulnerability on whatever he's wearing, whether it's the costume or street clothes.

there have been many explanations over the past 7 decades regarding his suit's ability to withstand damage: that his suit was made from the bedsheets found in his rocket, that he invented the cloth himself, that ANY clothing next to his yellow-sun-irradiated skin would be near-indestructible, that superman has a "protective aura" around himself, that his suit is made by martha from standard earth fabrics and then the atoms are altered by a machine kept in the FoS, et al.

So how exactly does portraying Superman as someone who believes he can do more good from inside the system break his character at all? He's still the same morally righteous, altruistic super hero. (I haven't read TDKR, so maybe there's more to it than that. I'm just arguing about basic themes here.)

He's actually so perfect one could consider him an archetype. Using that to portray how even the perfect man isn't always perfect is an interesting way to go with the character. When the most common complaint that I'm aware of is that Superman is too powerful, too much of a boy scout, and just too damn perfect, I fail to see how that kind of development is necessarily bad.

That's not to say they won't fuck it up. Let's face it. It's Zack Snyder. He probably will. But as was said earlier, the public already knows what Superman is about, and they've decided he's boring and they'd rather see some more depth to their heroes. I'm not saying make a Batman movie with Superman in it instead, because that would be stupid. But if you're crafting a story about how even perfection can be flawed, that sounds really interesting.

He looks so... Old. And whatever is up with his hair? Where is the curl on his forehead? Where is the hair-part?!