Post by driver1980 on Feb 2, 2024 5:33:18 GMT -5
I’ll be disappointed if Slam_Bradley doesn’t have a humorous comment ready for me if he reads this topic. The idea for this topic came to me after reading the latest Superman Homepage newsletter.
I believe it’s a fool’s errand to try and work out what is canonical in DC now (I expect we’ll see another Crisis] next year). Suffice to say, I know explanations about Superman’s costume have changed over time. I’m open to clarifications and corrections, but most, if not all, explain that his costume is invulnerable due to its extraterrestrial origins, with the cape not being as robust due to its earthly origins.
(I cannot remember whether Dean Cain’s Superman had a costume with any invulnerability, of if it was made entirely by Martha)
But haven’t there been stories where the costume was earthly in origin, but a bio-electric aura (or some such designation) was used to protect it? Do we really need such an explanation? Isn’t simply making it Kryptonian in origin enough?
This leads me to a wider point: over-complicating things, which possibly could have started - at least at Marvel - with the OHOTMU. I’m sure DC isn’t blameless, either. Fact is, for me, and I suspect others, less is more. Keep it simple. I can enjoy Frankenstein without too deep an explanation as to how he was brought about. A megalomaniac Dr. Frankenstein and his use of lightning is enough for me. I don’t feel like I require more.
At times, technobabble is enough for me. I bet a scientist could pick apart some of the technobabble in Star Trek, but it’s not needed. Data or La Forge going on about “dilithium crystals” and “tachyon particles” is enough for me. If mention of either of those moves a story forward, I’m fine with that. A semi-realistic explanation is better than no explanation at all, and I feel it’s better than an over-complicated one.
So, on a personal level, all I feel I need to know is that Superman’s outfit is invulnerable due to its Kryptonian origin. I really don’t feel any value is added by explanations pertaining to a “bio-electric aura” or some such thing.
I believe it’s a fool’s errand to try and work out what is canonical in DC now (I expect we’ll see another Crisis] next year). Suffice to say, I know explanations about Superman’s costume have changed over time. I’m open to clarifications and corrections, but most, if not all, explain that his costume is invulnerable due to its extraterrestrial origins, with the cape not being as robust due to its earthly origins.
(I cannot remember whether Dean Cain’s Superman had a costume with any invulnerability, of if it was made entirely by Martha)
But haven’t there been stories where the costume was earthly in origin, but a bio-electric aura (or some such designation) was used to protect it? Do we really need such an explanation? Isn’t simply making it Kryptonian in origin enough?
This leads me to a wider point: over-complicating things, which possibly could have started - at least at Marvel - with the OHOTMU. I’m sure DC isn’t blameless, either. Fact is, for me, and I suspect others, less is more. Keep it simple. I can enjoy Frankenstein without too deep an explanation as to how he was brought about. A megalomaniac Dr. Frankenstein and his use of lightning is enough for me. I don’t feel like I require more.
At times, technobabble is enough for me. I bet a scientist could pick apart some of the technobabble in Star Trek, but it’s not needed. Data or La Forge going on about “dilithium crystals” and “tachyon particles” is enough for me. If mention of either of those moves a story forward, I’m fine with that. A semi-realistic explanation is better than no explanation at all, and I feel it’s better than an over-complicated one.
So, on a personal level, all I feel I need to know is that Superman’s outfit is invulnerable due to its Kryptonian origin. I really don’t feel any value is added by explanations pertaining to a “bio-electric aura” or some such thing.
