The new Superman costume (the Lee one, not the Rags' version) grates on me. He's invulnerable and they've got him wearing armor?
while that is somewhat of a conflicting issue... it sure as fuck makes more sense than wearing a body stocking.
Why? The main purpose of clothing (other than modesty) is protecting the vulnerable areas of the body (from injury, heat, cold, etc.). Superman doesn't need that protection. On other hand, a "body stocking" can be worn under his civilian clothes. As such it the tights make more sense for Superman. In fact, he might be the only superhero where tights makes the most sense.
Quote:
the batman and superman "redesigns" are basically the original versions with changes that everyone has been begging to have for decades: no undies, more streamlined, more like "suits" than "costumes".
I've got no problem with the Batman redesign and can live with the WW costume. Furthermore, the general color scheme of the Superman suit (no yellow belt, no red underoos) is fine.
My only beef is, as noted above, is that, rather than be more streamlined, it's actually clunkier, due to the armored look.
