Nice pictures, guys. Just goes to show you that any fanboy with a computer and a few minutes on his hands can put together a DC-inspired project better than the damned WB.
Superman's and Batman's costumes have maintained mass-market appeal for damn near a century. With the exception of a yellow oval here or a slightly larger "S" there, these suits have been consistent even when our own culture's fashion sense has shifted from bell bottoms to Hammer pants, from moon boots to Chuck Taylors, thanks to the artistic vision of hundreds of comic book artists in the DC offices. But since Tim Burton's "Batman" in 1990, the WB has said to them (and us), "Those drawings look good, but not good enough for film. We'll take it from here." And why not? They make millions off of these properties, despite what purists post on the Net. Hell, that Superman pic made the 11 p.m. ABC news here in California.
I think we have to choose our battles wisely, is all. An "S" belt buckle? I'll take that over a couple of nipples. My question is, how did Ma Kent MAKE that chest emblem? And where did she GET that heavy duty leater cape? The Smallville corner store? Batman's silken cape could make sense in the context of Bruce's wealth (if he's accustomed to the finest bedsheets, why not wear them as a cape), but the black body armor is outrageous. When I heard that "Begins" was a "year one" type tale, I anticipated a re-vamp of movie continuity, and as much as they say it is, they've proven it ain't. They still won't touch the villains they've already used, and killed. Michael Caine looks like a younger version of the previos films' Alfred. And Batman isn't sewing his outfit -- he's spray-painting it. Ridiculous.
Still, these things are just cosmetic. Will the CORE of the characters remain the same? I think the only way we can really judge that is when they meet . . . like that fan-pic eludes. If a movie comes off as good as that Photoshop job, we may all be proven wrong. And I've never wanted to BE more wrong.