Best user comment: "i'm a man, i'm not gay, but his "package" is like right there and even when you try not to look at it you're still looking at it, give that man his underwear back."
Not really sure how I feel about the costume. I want to like that they updated it by taking away the super-panties, like they did with X-men and Batman. But I think the coloring of the costume does make his..manhood...more noticeable, even when you try to look away from it. However, this is just a still, and chances are with all the movements going on, we probably won't notice it on the screen. However, I'm sure we all remember the abortion that was Dr. Manhattan's junk, so...
kronk wrote: Heh. I didn't notice Dr. Manhattan as much on the TV at home, but at the movies on the big screen...
Blue Wang. Blue Wang, everywhere.
And never were the Smurfs more jealous that their return to the big screen wasn't met with colossal blue wang...
Am I the only one who though that his penis was average?
It was average, but it was average wang on a large screen... that's like 3 foot wang!
Yeah, I saw it on the TV and got too bored to even make it to that part, so I had to use Google images to find out what his dick looks like needless to say after everyone saying how big his dick was, I was disappointed.
The "underwear" part of the costume emulated the old 1930s-era circus strongman garb. It's long past time for it to go. It's gone in the comics now too...and I actually like the new comic costume quite a bit. It's still instantly recognizable and retains the old colors, shield and cape, but finally seems more modern overall. Plus it can do some cool things.
FWIW, I've never liked the way the movie costume (or his hair) looks in that shot above. But it seems to look better in the very brief filmed shots that I've seen, and so like usual I expect it'll look better onscreen than in unstaged, stolen shots from some enterprising photographer.
Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
Exactly. There's literally nothing on earth that can take him, except maybe the Ang Lee version of the Hulk (just keeps getting angrier and stronger like a rising storm surge). You have to practically go Star Trek to touch him (would disruptors work on him?) plus he can go back in time. OK.....
Frankly if I were humanity I'd see him as the greatest threat mankind has ever faced and would have plans accordingly. I'd put the efforts under a special organization. In fact we have a general thats perfect Pull up the file for general Ware Monger if you would miss Moneypenny.
Frazzled wrote: I never really liked the Superman character. This helps me like it even less.
Yeah you seem more the jaded anti hero type. Punisher right?
Jim Munny (Unforgiven)
Dirty Harry.
Wolverine.
Frankenstein.
King Kong.
Dr. Cochroach.
Susan aka Gigantica!
Oh I forgot the one I really like...MAGNETO!!!
You're a WOLVERINE fan?! Damn, Frazz, he's like the most cliched hero out there-I figured you'd be one of the first guys in line railing against him. Jeez...at least you redeemed yourself after that by putting forth Magneto. Wolverine hates Texan weiner dogs though! It was somewhere in a comic. Maybe. Probably not. Do you hate him now yet?
To be fair, Hugh Jackman is awesome as Wolverine. I just grew up enough to start hating the one comic book character who is more survivable than Superman.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
I assume the tension from Superman comes from failing to live up to societies expectations and the hope that he remains good rather than the actual danger that Superman feels (which would be very little), also a lot of the time they put in a ludicrously powerful super villain too.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
I assume the tension from Superman comes from failing to live up to societies expectations and the hope that he remains good rather than the actual danger that Superman feels (which would be very little), also a lot of the time they put in a ludicrously powerful super villain too.
Yes but they've never full explained why a super powered alien would give two feths about our expectations. And for every Lobo there's a Lex Luthor. Lame.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
Indeed, that's what kills him for me, conceptually. No matter what his costume looks like, it's still going to be incredibly boring unless we're talking The Dark Knight Returns.
And that's not even really a Superman story per se.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
I assume the tension from Superman comes from failing to live up to societies expectations and the hope that he remains good rather than the actual danger that Superman feels (which would be very little), also a lot of the time they put in a ludicrously powerful super villain too.
Yes but they've never full explained why a super powered alien would give two feths about our expectations. And for every Lobo there's a Lex Luthor. Lame.
But isn't that what makes superman interesting? The fact he has no reason to care for us yet he does.
To me Cheesecat? No, not at all. Partly because he cares about Americans only. If he was truly the savior of Earth and cared about mankind he wouldn't just pick one nation.
It just looks odd without that pants, he looks bare and it's conspicuous by their absence. They look pretty silly anyway though, but that's what you get for having a hero wear red and blue with a cape.
I think when putting back the red undies starts looking like a good idea you've got real problems with your costume design. It's those lines above his crotch that cause problems for me, they're basically pointing at the super wang. Change the direction of those lines and I think it'd change stuff nicely.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
Every superhero is guaranteed to win in their own story. Did anyone watch Wolverine thinking 'oh man this guy is only a minor power, so there's a chance he could actually in his own movie'? That's why stories of 'will he beat this villain with his special powers?' pretty much always suck, no matter who the superhero is. It's why the best stories are about a lot of other stuff, and the action is just part of telling that story. The Dark Knight was great, but it wasn't great because we didn't know if Batman was going to beat the Joker, it was great because we were watching what it cost Batman and what it cost Gotham for that to happen.
But most super heroes arn't invincible. You know they will win, but it is a given that they are not invincible and could lose in a hypothetical situation.
Superman has one weakness, every other hero is simply super extraordinary. But they could still be killed and beaten by "realistic" opponents.
With Superman, you had to have equally outlandish villians for him to fight. And it was never Superman who was in danger, it was other people, unless Kryptonite was involved.
Plus his superhero abilities were all over the place. he can fly, he has super strength, he is bullet proof, he has x-ray vision, he has super hearing, telikinesis, etc...
Quite unimaginitive. Its far cooler to have a hero like Spiderman. Who has a specific set of abilities that he has and has to find clever ways of using them.
sebster wrote: Every superhero is guaranteed to win in their own story. Did anyone watch Wolverine thinking 'oh man this guy is only a minor power, so there's a chance he could actually in his own movie'?
....
I think you sort of just killed super hero movies for me.
Grey Templar wrote: But most super heroes arn't invincible. You know they will win, but it is a given that they are not invincible and could lose in a hypothetical situation.
Superman has one weakness, every other hero is simply super extraordinary. But they could still be killed and beaten by "realistic" opponents.
With Superman, you had to have equally outlandish villians for him to fight. And it was never Superman who was in danger, it was other people, unless Kryptonite was involved.
As I already said, every hero will win. Even if its some guy with the ability to see through corn, it's his movie, he's going to win even though his power is almost completely pointless. So there's no 'oh I hope he wins this fight' no matter how limited or powerful his powers are. Of course he'll win, it's his movie. That leaves you with 'oh how will he win this fight?' which sounds like a promising option for storytelling, but is hardly ever used that well, and really just comes down to fight choreography, meaning there's still about 115 minutes of screen time to fill up.
Which is why the best films have never been as simple as 'this guy with superpowers is fighting this other guy with superpowers'. It's about what that fight costs the hero and those around him. It's about what he has to become to win that fight. Which is just as straight forward to write for Superman as it is for Spiderman or anyone else.
Superman II is good (or at least a lot of it is good) because it shows Superman's conflict over wanting to lead a normal life, and being duty bound to keep his powers to protect the Earth. That's a great basis for a story.
And yeah, Superman has a stupidly long and often goofy laundry list of superpowers... if you think every forgotten but drudged up by the internet pre-war Superman comic is unchallengable canon. But they're free to retcon the guy back to the core powers, and especially to drop that stupid time travelling thing from Superman II.
Apparently removing the panties makes Supe's cock...well a super cock.
But I suppose they could have made arrows point to it, so it could be worse...he could be in a banana hammock.
kronk wrote: Heh. I didn't notice Dr. Manhattan as much on the TV at home, but at the movies on the big screen...
Blue Wang. Blue Wang, everywhere.
And never were the Smurfs more jealous that their return to the big screen wasn't met with colossal blue wang...
Am I the only one who though that his penis was average?
It was average, but it was average wang on a large screen... that's like 3 foot wang!
I like how the he's bent foreward slightly.
Its like he's saying "I can knock the earth out of orbit with a single punch. But even I, the man of steel, struggle under the weight of my own massive steel c k and b s.
Having an invincible hero is fine as long as he's funny or showy enough to be enjoyable to watch despite the lack of drama. Soon I Will Be Invincible did this well, as its descriptions of its invulnerable characters were fun to read in themeselves.
That's why my favourite scene of all the Superman movies I've seen is this one.
In the post crisis reboot the telekinesis idea was, kinda, pushed as for how his powers worked in general and indeed how his suit didn't get damaged -- note this didn't extend to his cape which was frequently shredded and damaged.
Prior to that the whole suit was made from super tough/indestructible kryptonian ..err... super fabric I guess ?
IIRC there was, for a while, a minor plot point with his costume being enhanced by 30thC technology from/during his adventures with the Legion of Superheroes. This was certainly the case when he was adventuring as Superboy although he didn't appear to use this costume when he was an adult.
Currently his cape is made from a nigh on indestructible material and wears some form of kryptonian battle armour.
.. Magneto a hero ..?
Magneto, surrounded by his followers and original Brotherhood member Toad, takes over New York City. Magneto lays waste to the city and engages in multiple acts of mass murder, killing thousands of humans trapped in the city. Magneto also reveals his grand scheme: reversing Earth's magnetic field and remake the planet as "Planet X" in which mutants, the possessors of the "X-gene", ruled over ordinary humans.
"What people often forget, of course, is that Magneto, unlike the lovely Sir Ian McKellen, is a mad old terrorist gakker. No matter how he justifies his stupid, brutal behaviour, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end he's just an old bastard with daft, old ideas based on violence and coercion.
quite.
... so there we have it. Frazz supports terrorists !
Magneto, surrounded by his followers and original Brotherhood member Toad, takes over New York City. Magneto lays waste to the city and engages in multiple acts of mass murder, killing thousands of humans trapped in the city. Magneto also reveals his grand scheme: reversing Earth's magnetic field and remake the planet as "Planet X" in which mutants, the possessors of the "X-gene", ruled over ordinary humans.
"What people often forget, of course, is that Magneto, unlike the lovely Sir Ian McKellen, is a mad old terrorist gakker. No matter how he justifies his stupid, brutal behaviour, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end he's just an old bastard with daft, old ideas based on violence and coercion.
quite.
What Grant Morrison forgets is that that Magneto is an interesting character because he's an extremist with valid complaints. Sabotaging that with character assassination (like having an Auschwitz survivor roll out the crematoriums) is offensively stupid.
Not least as I don't Magneto has been an interesting character for at least 20 odd years.
Magento, from his very first appearance -- you know when he took over the cape Citadel missile base and tried kill loads of people with missiles -- has always been a warped extremist.
The dark irony being that his actions really make him no better than the nazi regime -- all of which was crowbarred in much later of course -- that did such terrible things to him.
I know Stan lee keeps trying to draw comparisons with him and professor X with M.L.KIng and Malcom X, but I don't recall the latter ever trying to wipe out 99% of the worlds population at various times ...? Perhaps that says more about the paucity of lee's writing than anything else though. Was a different era after all and, well... they were/are just comic books.
What is ridiculous is the ham fisted attempts by Marvel over the years to make him into an anti hero or , at times, a good guy, as the character does sell comic books.
Money talks louder than "artistic merit" of course.
IMO the worst "character assassination" he underwent was his appearance in the 9/11 tribute/fund raising issue where he and Dr. Doom appear -- the latter crying IIRC -- and fret about how terribly sad it all is.
WTF ?!
Still given the worthy cause the issue was for one cannot or rather will not complain too much.
Not least as I don't Magneto has been an interesting character for at least 20 odd years.
I think the Magneto of the first two X-Men movies is interesting, and not just because he's played by an actor like Ian McKellen.
Magento, from his very first appearance -- you know when he took over the cape Citadel missile base and tried kill loads of people with missiles -- has always been a warped extremist.
His very first appearance was in the bad old days of the Comics Code Authority, and before they'd come up with his backstory.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone really like Superman? Besides Shaq of course. I never got a superhero with one flaw. And even thats not even a major one. How do your write a guy that is basically instawin everything?
Exactly. There's literally nothing on earth that can take him, except maybe the Ang Lee version of the Hulk (just keeps getting angrier and stronger like a rising storm surge). You have to practically go Star Trek to touch him (would disruptors work on him?) plus he can go back in time. OK.....
Been round this before, but all of that is also dependent upon his power level -- which has fluctuated quite a bit over the years.
Also, the DCU actually doesn't lack for characters -- good and evil -- around his general power level. Heck, you can throw Helspont (formerly of the Wildstorm universe) on that pile now too.
Yep, and emotional attachments are also a key point here.
In the post crisis reboot the telekinesis idea was, kinda, pushed as for how his powers worked in general and indeed how his suit didn't get damaged -- note this didn't extend to his cape which was frequently shredded and damaged.
Prior to that the whole suit was made from super tough/indestructible kryptonian ..err... super fabric I guess ?
IIRC there was, for a while, a minor plot point with his costume being enhanced by 30thC technology from/during his adventures with the Legion of Superheroes. This was certainly the case when he was adventuring as Superboy although he didn't appear to use this costume when he was an adult.
Currently his cape is made from a nigh on indestructible material and wears some form of kryptonian battle armour.
At first I didn't like the return to the "indestructible suit" concept. But it's really grown on me just by declaring it to be a type of armor. The idea that it was made of some self-regenerating hyperadvanced miracle material was never a big stretch (slight pun intended) in the context of Superman and the DCU in general. I think I just had a hard time with that old silly suit sewn together by Ma. It's more clearly a piece of technology now, and that somehow makes it work in my mind. *shrug*
I'm honestly surprised by the negativity to the lack of red underwear. What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
Indeed we have. Every time a Superman thread pops up people run in with the same misconceptions about the character. At this point I don't even think it is worth replying.
gorgon wrote: What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
I like the superman character. He wasn't my favorite (Hal Jordan, Green Lantern was), but I did find him interesting. My biggest issue was in the mid or late 90s when he had 4 monthly comics and the storyline would be followed in each one. You had to get all 4 to stay current.
gorgon wrote: I'm honestly surprised by the negativity to the lack of red underwear. What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
See, that looks good. Snyder's doesn't. The suit in that concept art has enough hard lines to look like body armour - like it does more than stop him violating public indecency laws. If you're not going to wear armour, at least wear something that lets you maintain your dignity.
sebster wrote: Every superhero is guaranteed to win in their own story. Did anyone watch Wolverine thinking 'oh man this guy is only a minor power, so there's a chance he could actually in his own movie'?
....
I think you sort of just killed super hero movies for me.
Its a problem. Of course in most movies the hero wins.
Not least as I don't Magneto has been an interesting character for at least 20 odd years.
Magento, from his very first appearance -- you know when he took over the cape Citadel missile base and tried kill loads of people with missiles -- has always been a warped extremist.
The dark irony being that his actions really make him no better than the nazi regime -- all of which was crowbarred in much later of course -- that did such terrible things to him.
I know Stan lee keeps trying to draw comparisons with him and professor X with M.L.KIng and Malcom X, but I don't recall the latter ever trying to wipe out 99% of the worlds population at various times ...? Perhaps that says more about the paucity of lee's writing than anything else though. Was a different era after all and, well... they were/are just comic books.
What is ridiculous is the ham fisted attempts by Marvel over the years to make him into an anti hero or , at times, a good guy, as the character does sell comic books.
Money talks louder than "artistic merit" of course.
IMO the worst "character assassination" he underwent was his appearance in the 9/11 tribute/fund raising issue where he and Dr. Doom appear -- the latter crying IIRC -- and fret about how terribly sad it all is.
WTF ?!
Still given the worthy cause the issue was for one cannot or rather will not complain too much.
Thats all comic book crap. I've never read an Xmen comic and frankly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Frazzled wrote: Its a problem. Of course in most movies the hero wins.
Which is why 'will the hero beat the baddie?' is a terrible question for movies to be asking. And therefore 'oh no the hero is too powerful it won't be hard for him to beat up the baddie' isn't really a problem for movies that are half good.
gorgon wrote: What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
I was skeptical at first, but I like it as well.
I think the belt helps alot.
Without anything breaking up the natural lines of the body (as well as certain features of the custome in that particular picture) all draw your eyes at the crotch.
The comic has less of the organic lines that your eyes are automatically going to follow to the groin, but it also has a nice bright belt that serves as a natural contrast that your eyes will focus on. I t hink having him wear a belt IRL would help out a lot.
Without anything breaking up the natural lines of the body (as well as certain features of the custome in that particular picture) all draw your eyes at the crotch.
Yeah, like I said earlier, it's the lines pointing to the crotch that does it.
gorgon wrote: What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
I was skeptical at first, but I like it as well.
I think the belt helps alot.
Without anything breaking up the natural lines of the body (as well as certain features of the custome in that particular picture) all draw your eyes at the crotch.
The comic has less of the organic lines that your eyes are automatically going to follow to the groin, but it also has a nice bright belt that serves as a natural contrast that your eyes will focus on. I t hink having him wear a belt IRL would help out a lot.
I havnt looked into this too much, I just hope the villain isnt Lex Luthor AGAIN. This is something that just annoys the ever living gak out of me with these super hero movies lately. Rather then go for a villain thats worth his/her fething salt, they go with a safe, more realistic villain. NO! STOP THAT!! FFS STOP!!!!! Im watching a super hero movie, the guy/gal can fly or toss a tank around or shoot laser beams from their fething eyes, I dont want some random normal guy going toe to toe with them, no matter how clever and rich they are, super strong guy will jump over to them, snatch them up, and toss them a mile. Youre dead being thrown a mile away. Period.
He looks like a mega-dweeb, especially with that silly hair.
I don't know what the appeal of superman is anymore. He isn't relateable. His story isn't particularly dark or edgy. His powers are nothing special, despite him being omnipotent and virtually invincible.
They're actually doing a pretty good job with the character in the comics these days, IMO. I think they're doing a good work tying together Clark the reporter and Kal-El the superhero with the common thread of caring about the average person and having a social conscience. It looks like they *might* be going a similar route in the new movie?
There was a short, but really good (IMO) sequence in Action Comics recently in which Superman wanted the Justice League to get to work addressing the world's problems. Batman -- arguably the most focused member -- predictably didn't want to get involved in that kind of world-saving, after which a disillusioned Superman left the meeting, telling them to give him a call if they need help fighting space monsters.
This is all hardly groundbreaking, but they're at least trying to build a little more depth for the character than he's had in quite some time, and make more sense of the Clark/Kal relationship.
gorgon wrote: What do people think of his new costume in the comics? I think they really nailed it.
See, that works. I think it's simply a matter of balance. The red belt (ninja'd here) breaks up the blue, and the red piping around the collar and the sleeve help establish the color as part of the costume. The boots and cape on the movie costume look..... extraneous. "I can't find my blue cape and boots... oh well let's just throw these red ones on instead."
A red belt looks good, I think the film costume just looks a bit bland, there's nothing there to break it up a little. It's too much blue, it feels like there's something missing.
I don't know what the appeal of superman is anymore. He isn't relateable. His story isn't particularly dark or edgy. His powers are nothing special, despite him being omnipotent and virtually invincible.
Why do we need Dark & Edgy? I mean really, that's every where. Now I'm not really an expert on comics or their characters, and certainly not on Super Man specifically but I feel like these particularly call-outs are missing the point.
You're meant to relate to Superman in terms of his ethics. Unlike say Batman who is fundamentally driven by personal tragedy, and a weird sort of revenge-y take on crime in general, superman is just doing what is right, for that reason alone. While I can't relate to being an alien, that doesn't really seem like a driving factor for superman's character. I can't relate to having my parents murdered which is a very driving factor in batman's character.
I can relate to wanting to help people, within my limits. Superman is far less limited and so does far more helping. I think it you're supposed to be able to look at what he does and think "Yeah, i'd do that too if I had those kind of powers", or at least hope you would.
After throwing good money down the rathole to finally rent the crapfest that turned out to be Dark Knight Rises Saturday, I am restating my principle of not seeing comic book movies, absent some other factor.
My only concern at the moment is it's directed by Zack Snyder who's filmography is mainly mediocre although the visuals and action are almost always great (I liked his take on Dawn of the Dead though) but just about everything else falls flat. Also The Dark Knight Rises is a genuinely well
made film great action, strong performances by the actors and actresses, distinct visual style, wonderful sound and music, a fairly interesting story and the logic of the movie makes sense for the most part. It isn't perfect though, like there's a few gaps in the logic of the film and a few eye roll
inducing moments (such as the MacGuffin bomb and the Flying machine was a bit too SciFi to be believable especially considering this is a series that prides itself on being a more realistic superhero film) but most people will probably recognize that the pros far out way the cons and can
see that is indeed a great but flawed film. Here's a more in depth look at the movie (by red letter media).
kronk wrote: The Dark Knight was the best action movie I've ever seen, let alone comic book movie or best depiction of The Joker from the printed medium.
The Dark Knight Rises was rather flat, though.
I think that's the curse of the trilogy...
If the middle film does amazing, the last film can be fantastic but it ends up being overshadowed by the middle for the rest of time...
The middle part of a *planned* trilogy can be a real challenge to write, however. It has to capture the magic of the original but break new ground, all without providing any real conclusion to the overall story. There's a lot of room there to create irritated readers/viewers.
Getting this back on topic, it seems clear they're gonna save Lex for the sequel. Which would make more sense as a villain for a Clark that's comfortably settled in Metropolis, etc. Zod should work nicely as a catalyst for wandering, purposeless Clark to don the "S". But he's not the true and perfect adversary like Lex.
It definitely seems like they're hitting the notion of him having two fathers pretty hard for this one, which also nicely sets up his decision to lead a dual life. There's actually more duality inherent in the Superman character than with Batman.
What about Indiana Jones?? Because the third is arguably the best of the series.
...Or is that different since they don't really run on the same story arc?
On topic - I'm really excited for the new movie, but I'm indifferent about the costume change. I like that it's been updated, but as it was said earlier, it kinda looks like a wetsuit with a cape
d-usa wrote: There are 4 Indiana Jones movies, so it's not a trilogy anymore.
Although you can argue that both middle movies are better than the fourth.
But not with the 4 Alien movies,
I really like TDKR as much as TDK but people just got so caught up with Heath Ledger's amazing performance. Storywise they were around the same level for me IMO
And as for Superman I have some of the comics so it would be different with the new costume but the stroy seems to be set up well (But why does Jor-el Have an S on his chest )
To be fair, I *think* that was meant to be his regeneration suit...more or less the equivalent of that black and silver one he wore in the comics just after resurrecting. That movie was supposed to be loosely based on the Death of Superman storyline.
But it does look like something from Starlight Express.
I was first introduced to this notion from Smallville (TV). I like the idea, but...I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. Oh well, I guess it is better then just him have a big, fancy "S".
I was first introduced to this notion from Smallville (TV). I like the idea, but...I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. Oh well, I guess it is better then just him have a big, fancy "S".
From wiki: S Shield - Representation.
Initially, the S-shield had one meaning: S for Superman. One of the first alternative meanings was presented in Superman: The Movie, in which it was not an S, but rather the S-shaped Coat of arms of the House of El. After the Superman reboot story The Man of Steel, the symbol's story was that it was designed by Jonathan Kent and was derived from an ancient Native American symbol. The symbol was featured on a medicine blanket given to an ancestor of the Kent family by a Native American tribe after he helped to cure them of a plague and was supposed to represent a snake, an animal held to possess healing powers by the tribe (implying that, by wearing this symbol, Superman was a metaphorical healer). In 2004, Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright series says the S-Shield is the Kryptonian symbol for "hope" and Superman believes it may have begun as a coat of arms for the House of El. Later, writer Geoff Johns confirmed it was indeed a coat of arms, as well as a symbol for hope.
Ah, never really went to see the superman movies and won't go near samllville with a 40ft barge pole, the comics do me fine (Back when "S" was for Superman )