Superman Through the Ages! Forum

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dc-comics-revamp-retailer-letter-110531.html

Story at link. Basically, everything is being rebooted, 50 or so titles getting new #1 issue, and includes both Superman books after Flashpoint. Retcon Johns and Jim Lee to work on the JLA revamp. Look foward to massive delays on that one.

This makes what? At least 8 revamps of Superman in as many years?

Because if your problem is that fewer and fewer people are willing to spend $2.99 and up for your comics, asking them to spend $150 to start over again will solve all your problems.


Everybody look at us!  We've reached number 900 with Action Comics, the Grand Old Dame of American Comics!  Aren't we great? Woo-hoo! Yeh, and by the way we're rebooting with a new #1.

From the link:


All determined, no doubt, after careful consideration of what would be best for the characters and remain most true to their original vision.

Translation: our lawyers have told us just how much we need to change to get out of paying the Siegels anything.


...because we specialize in re-tellings, not new ideas.


Because nothing says "real world" like running around in spandex and capes, and shooting laser beams out of your eyes.  Also, as we all know, the key to creating timeless characters is to root them firmly in the headlines and trends of the moment.  That's why the Latino break-dancing hero "Vibe" is still one our greatest triumphs.

DC Letter To Retailers, Short Version:

As of September, you're officially screwed.  Depending on your lease, you may want to consider not re-signing.  As for the rest of you, might we recommend converting your shop into a pet store?

It was the next natural step - they'd gotten Superman back to where he was before Crisis - then comes a reboot.

I'll be interested in the new costume, though.  No red trunks, new boots.  It might work for the new century, we'll see how long it lasts.  It's possible all the new costume designs are to make them more Hollywood-blockbuster friendly; they all have a molded, 3-d appearance, like from the Batman and X-Men films.  I also suspect that Wizard's "Ultimate Superman" proposal generated some interest in a revamped Superman costume (note the similar collars) - but in general it was a very popular idea (http://superman.nu/FanArt/concept.php).

(http://superman.nu/portal/History/2000/ultimate.jpg) (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2000/#costume)

(http://superman.nu/images/new-outfits.jpg)

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/05/31/flashpost-the-new-superman/


I don't know how accurate these designs from bleeding-cool are; the belt doesn't match that given in DC's officially released picture.

More info on the reboot there:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/05/31/flashpost-dc-confirms-full-reboot-september-brings-52-first-issues-and-day-and-date-digital/

CBR's article on the September reboot - http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=32566 - states that there will be "A new title starring Superman written by Grant Morrison."  No info on whether or not Action and Detective will start over at number 1 or will continue with the current numbering.

I don't plan to follow the reboot in general; but I will continue reading Superman, Action, and also pick-up Grant's new title - even if it's called Adventures of Superman.

I think the fact that Geoff Johns is running "DC Entertainment's" (formerly "DC Comics'"?)  creative office and is a co-producer on the new Green Lantern film explains why this is happening.

I'd say there's two reasons:

1) to make it easier for the movie to go with a new look (this might even be it...photos of Cavill in costume should be in our near future)

2) to distance the character from his origins at the hands of Siegel and Shuster.  Note the announcement that some characters will have their origins re-done, this time I'm guessing more than cosmetically.  I think we are seeing the first steps toward separating Superman into two entities: one controlled by DC and the other by the Siegel heirs.

Either way, as always, I'll leave it to you guys to let me know how it goes.  If it's decent, I may pick up a trade in a year or so.  Or not.

how much money did jim lee get to give all the DC Heroes V neck collars?

I like Jim Lee...he isn't a great character designer

anyways, who cares? Superman hasn't been good in 20 years (some bright spots here and there of course)

I'll check out Morrison's superman

also as far as "everything going back to issue 1" I'd expect it to last less then a year and everything goes back to original numbering...that is unless this is a "one month" type of deal

In a way, I approve.  If they're not going to write the character so I can recognize him, then they may as well draw him differently, too.

What gets me, though, is the marketing strategy; does DC really believe the thing that's keeping readers away is the numbering on the books?  Or the desire of readers to "start at the beginning" instead of wading through tons of continuity?  Because they don't have a continuity that extends back more than three or four years and haven't for decades, thanks to the continual reboots, so I can't imagine that being a major hurdle.  No, what's keeping potential "new readers" away is more devastating; plain old-fashioned indifference.  Numbering and reboots aren't going to change that.  The general public just isn't interested in traditional-format comics any more (by which I mean monthly floppies).

DC and Marvel  have painted themselves into a corner by catering increasingly to an ever-shrinking niche audience, and IMHO they're too far gone now to reverse that.   Their main (possibly only) audience is 30-somethings and up who, I'm betting, won't take kindly to a wholesale reboot of books they've invested years in, and even if they do hang around it won't be in any greater numbers than DC is seeing right now.

We can also be forgiven for viewing all this with a healthy dose of skepticism, considering how much DC has invested in the traditional images of their characters.  It's hard to imagine all those school supplies, underwear, sneakers, bed sheets, lunch boxes and assorted toys suddenly dropping the "old school" look for Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman in favor of this new stuff. Because the old look is what Mom and Dad recognize and will shell out money for.  So we're back where we started with two versions of every character: (1) the one 95% of the world knows from merchandising and media and (2) the "official" one known only to that small segment of the world that reads new comics.

I think it's entirely possible -- if not dead certain -- that in a year's time the whole thing will have been reversed, making this DC's version of Marvel's old "Heroes Reborn" debacle.

There was a recent article in The New York Times explaining DC's upcoming reboot by trying to explain 1986's Crisis on Infinite Earths to mainstream readers.

I didn't read the article, but I see an incredibly similar problem:  Back in 1986, DC claimed that their books were too staid and boring; the multiverse too confusing; the old continuity too arcane and limiting.  So they did Crisis to clear everything out, then gave Byrne the chance to do a complete reboot (http://superman.nu/portal/History/end.php) with a goal of streamlining, simplifying, and updating for modern readers.  DC went out of their way to say that all that old stuff (Krypto, Kandor, various colors of Kryptonite, etc) was garbage, that it never happened, and that it was being thrown away and ignored.  They said this on TV and in newspapers.

Yet two years later, 1988, was the Fiftieth Anniversary of Superman's first appearance in Action Comics #1.

(http://superman.nu/portal/Fifty/cover.jpg) (http://superman.nu/portal/Fifty/time.php)

(The link is to my edited version of the article (http://superman.nu/portal/Fifty/time.php), Time Magazine's original version as published is here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966978,00.html))

The media was trying to celebrate Superman's extensive history and legacy, at the same time that DC was trying to deny it.

Now in 2011, after the introduction of a Multiverse, we've got a Superman reboot - as part of a complete DCU reboot - happening in a couple of months.  Yet in two years - 2013 - it will be the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of Superman's first public appearance.  How will DC respond to a 75th anniversary celebration, given that they just did a reboot?

I'll be curious to see what they do.

Blah. You can't change the costume. You can't get everyone and his brother to pretend that there were no comics about Superman between '38 and 2011.

I saw this in the news briefly and I absolutely thought, it's not even worth mentioning.

What I have done, which makes much more sense, is buy Reeves' "Adv. of Superman" seasons one and two on DVD that I saw together in a shop.

This is what I feel.  I've thought for a while that DC was going to drop the elements their lawyers says the Siegels own rather than split the American profits with them.  I do think we are ultimately going to see two different versions of Superman much the way (at least for a while) there was a Marvel version of Captain Marvel and a DC one.

I find it difficult to believe that DC will drop Superman entirely if they couldn't reach a deal wit the Siegel heirs or that they would revamp Superman again in 2013, which seems to be the cutoff point when the rights totally revert.

Again, the key is what the Warner lawyers say should be changed.  Keep in mind DC has trademarked Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and various other things (including the  S shield).  As DC could call the original Captain Marvel "Captain Marvel") inside, DC may very well be able to use a number of elements so long as they alter various things from the Shuster/Siegel original version.

It's too bad there isn't one those homage comics around anymore like Big Bang or Supreme.

I really enjoy Kirby: Genesis, but there's only been one issue to date.  Don't know how it'll pan out.

havent picked up Kirby genesis yet, it looked pretty cool though.

really a reboot to explain why superman is younger?
how about just draw him younger???

and his new uglier costume?
just say he made a new costume

all of this to explain why he isn't married to lois???
just come up with a stupid plot to unmarry them!!! like its all that difficult. it was a dumb gimmick to begin with

PS its weird that when comic book fans were kids they could read about an older superman , but now when comic book fans are older we need to read about a younger superman

Is Superman REALLY being jerked around for money more than ever?

It's hard to tell...especially in the face of fading sales of comics.

But I have to say that there were some pretty big changes in the 50s, 60s ...and to my chagrin (because I didn't like them), the 70s..

At the same time, changes in Superman in the early to mid 60s generated BIG money.

But the Wesigner changes in the Superman titles and what Schwaretz did with The Flash and his titles was to create a layered continuity.

And as For the Siegel & ShutseR heirs getting Superman popular media's been getting the facts wrong -- they get the right to what was brought to DC before Action 1 which had editorial changes from Vin Sullivan and Dc edit0orial team.

What the heirs have copyright is not the current or pre-reboot "S" ensigna, a Superman with nameless parents - both on Krypton and Earth, who works for the Daily Star and wears lace up boots.

The real reason DC is doing a reboot is comic sales are in the shitter...'holding the line at 2.99" -- hah ha - 

Does this mean that the families that are a millstone around the neck of Superman have finally been dealt with? Are they satisfied now? Will they all go away and get real jobs?

As for costume changes, etc. It will all last five minutes.

Why is that, MEL?

Although I am a big fan of fan of Superman in the 1960s, I am an even bigger fan of his in the 1970s, especially when Murphy Anderson was inking Curt Swan's pencils.

Yes, from '71 up to late-70s......... A great period. He's never again reached those heights. That's the zenith of Superman in comics for me.

The 70s were not a zenith for me. I disliked the seriousness of the stories and more backstory than I wanted for a comic hero.

But that's just me. The point is that people create comics and that they do change - often to hold on to sales in the face of competition. We're just at a point where it's no longer working in print media - Superman selling a tiny fraction of what it did in the late 60s.

They were the modern comics (contemporary) when I was a little kid, so that's what had an effect on me... (although I was reading a lot of Silver Age Superman as well, which I love).

I think the other factor that gives 70s the edge for me -- Lee already touched on it -- is the art. Swan - Anderson - Oksner.......... Superman and his supporting cast just never looked so darned good. The art in this period has never been equalled.

Have a look at the opening comics to Sand-Superman Saga then compare with Byrne or any other later period. The masters were at work in the period I mention, '71 to late-ish 70s.

But they never had to reboot Superman to make those changes. Heck, even Electric Superman was done without a reboot.

If you want to tell a different kind of story, you just have to go ahead and tell a different kind of story. But you shouldn't have to eliminate every other comic that came before just to do that.

Agreed.  They can't see the trees for the forest.

DC: "We need more people to buy our books.  The problem is there's too much history piled on and it makes it hard for new readers to get into them.  We need a fresh start; change Superman's costume and origin, make him younger with a Justin Bieber haircut, and start over with a new #1."

POTENTIAL NEW READERS:  "What is that?  It says 'Superman' but it sure doesn't look like him.  Pass."

Even Julian might remember that I thought the original Crisis was clever. Poorly done, but clever. DC was universe "happy" - to the point of creating a unverse of "real life" (Earth Prime) and then not even resisting the temptation to make THAT universe different (its own heros and alternate timeline).

I do have to say that while I can't argue that Swan was at his greatest in the Bronze Age, making Clark a TV reporter, having stories of him at his apartment, tossing in a "relevant" Lois and Lombard, Olsen "Man of Action", and making Superman some sort of intergalactic force of destiny was almost like a "reboot" to me. Exciting to some, but it just didn't appeal to me. I was not recognizing him.

It's funny, I bought the "Sandman" saga and the next issue after - and never bought another Superman comic since.

It was fun catching up on the 70s storylines to work on "Supermanica" - but nothing makes me like them like the simpler, self-contained stories of the 60s.

I kept reading DC, I just re-read my brother's comics from 1959 - 1968, and my own from 1968-1971 over and over.

Are they seriosly revamping him!I had no idea.!!!!When are they and are they seriously changing his costume!!!!!!!!!!You should never do that.It is superman.Sob.I was starting to like modern supes.Sob.

Yes, it's for real - and here's some cover art and info that DC released today:

(http://superman.nu/images/reboot-action-comics-1.jpg)

Action Comics #1 - by Grant Morrison and Rags Morales; who give Superman's new origin. (looks to me like it could be very Golden Age in approach - ref this picture (http://superman.nu/portal/Novels/feather.jpg) from the Lowther novel (http://superman.nu/portal/Novels/adv.php))


(http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-1.jpg)

This title is either called Superman #1 or Superman: The Man of Tomorrow #1, depending on the news source.  Looks like the belt is red, which, design-wise, I think is an improvement over the yellow shown earlier.  Creative team is George Pérez and Jesus Merino.

thanks for the pic. yeah, the costume look's awesome for some temporary character but what about the classic underpants!!!!So what willhappen to er....pre flashpoint ( I guess that's what it'll be called) superman?

I do like the new Supergirl costume.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/10/superman-first-look-action-comics-takes-flight-with-new-man-of-steel/

(http://latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/supergirl.jpg)

Huh? That reminds me of an image Harris Ejaz drew for that Supergirl costume redesign contest a couple of years ago. The solicitation seems to read like someone at DC took an interest in it.

(http://maidofmight.net/gallery/8579-3/supergirl_remix_by_Harris_ejaz.jpg)

You know, that type of just total arrogance is exactly what I saw when I looked at that new Supergirl costume. Honestly? I hope they use it that way. It'll be new and interesting, especially as a counterpoint to Clark's total human-loving.

Can't say I'm a big fan of Superman's new costume though. If there's one guy in the universe who doesn't need armor, it's Superman.
I kinda prefer the costume on Action Comics. Jeans and an "S" shirt with a cape... Not terrible.
If Morrison goes for Golden Age type stuff, I'll be a very happy fan.

It's possible that they are splitting Superman up into two characters... I kinda hope they both don't suck. It's always a possibility. Dumb legal battles...

Maybe, but I think the case is that it's the same character from different eras. I have to wonder if they are going to pull something similar to Alan Moore's Supreme revamp with the character debuting in the '30s, leaving, and then returning to the modern era.

I hope not.
I may not like the idea of two separate Supermen, but the same one living for the better part of a century? I'd rather the real Superman stay in one era. There's just something about the idea of Superman being effectively immortal that I just can't stand. A little longer lived, maybe, but not enough that he'd be able to live from the 1910s to the 2010s and still look twenty. And being born in one era and living your life in another strikes me as Captain America's thing, even if Supreme pulled it off, I wouldn't want the Real Steel Deal to try it.

Ha. I guess I'm just unpleasable. Oh well. I'll probably buy them anyway.

Well, maybe he could be caught in some sort of temporal thingee and come back years later, like Captain Kirl.  Or...um...Captain America.  Yeah.

Of course none of that would explain why he looks younger in the present than he did 80 years ago.  But if whatever made him go away scared him bad enough, it could explain why "modern" Supes is covered neck to toe in armor.

Maybe he gets stuck in the Marvelverse.  That would explain how he got hold of Beta Ray Bill's boots.

I get the feeling that a lot of people here don't like Superman's new costume.

Here's what Grant Morrison (http://superman.nu/portal/History/grant.php) and company wrote back in 1998 in the Superman 2000 proposal:

"We'd like to tweak the costume (http://superman.nu/Costumes/S.php) by finally getting rid of the red trunks.  This gives us a new look which somehow recovers the more classic, Golden Age (http://superman.nu/portal/History/VersionI.php), 'primal (http://superman.nu/portal/History/Version0.php)' Superman look and feels like an update.  The move also has instant media appeal:  Finally, Superman is smart enough to wear his shorts UNDER his pants."

Although the proposal was eventually leaked (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2000/), the accompanying costume sketch(es) never made it out, and I'm glad to finally see just what they had in mind.  It's even possible this is the exact same costume that was part of that proposal.

There have been a few rumors of what the new Superman will be like (no more marriage with Lois, the new costume, etc.) that, taken together, make me think this "new" Superman might not be so new.  I suspect he'll be very similar to the Superman 2000 (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2000/#elements) Superman; but with the back-story gymnastics that they had to do in order to tie it into 1990's continuity stripped out.  I know how much we all love 1990's continuity...  :P

Regarding the alleged "padding" and the high-collar.  Take a look at this:

(http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-sans-mini-1.jpg) (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2011_relaunch.php)

Then this:

(http://superman.nu/tales2/adventurestrip/2.gif) (http://superman.nu/portal/origins/1939.php?page=2)

Then tell me there's no similarity in costumes.  To me, Superman's new look would fit right alongside the Rocketeer, Flash Gordon, or any other Golden/Pulp Age hero.

Just as I enjoy reading about the Superman of 2965 (http://superman.nu/tales3/2965/) and other eras, I'll enjoy reading about the Superman of 2012 (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2011_relaunch.php).  Another exciting piece in Superman's millennia-spanning legacy (http://superman.nu/portal/400/).

I really have no preference towards Superman's aging. Just depends on the story. What mainly points me towards this theory is Morrison's consistent use of elements from the One Million storyline. First, connecting it with the mainline DCU and later with All-Star Superman. Superman Prime was, after all, effectively immortal.

It just wouldn't surprise me if this were the case. It makes more sense than two Supermen in one era.

Even though Shuster's illustration of Jor-El is in black and white, it's safe to assume that Joe intended it to be two different colours. And if you look at it that way, you see how well the colours would balance out.

You can see this in the design of the original Superman, as well. Probably one of the reasons they gave Superman red boots and changed the chest symbol was to give it some more balance.

Shuster would not have removed the shorts without readjusting the illustration so there was more balance in the colours.

That's why his design was so good. If you take away one element, it throws off the whole design.

In redesigning Superman, they needed to start from scratch and come up with a design that looks classic and says Superman, but still is fresh in its own way.

That is, if you buy the argument that the costume has to be redesigned, which I don't

Fair enough.  I don't mind the concept of a redesign, and I've long supported the elimination of the red trunks--but I was baffled when I first saw the 3-d molding effect.  Although I now think it can work, initially it just seemed wrong.

But there is a theory being discussed on the CBR forums that could explain the reason DC allowed the redesign:  The theory is that this new Superman is an effort on DC's part to eliminate all portions of the Superman character that will be reverting to the Siegels.  One portion of the character that Siegel & Shuster legally created (quoting from the Findings) is Superman's "cape and tight-fitting leotard with briefs."  Change the fabric from leotard to body armor, remove the briefs - it's no longer the costume they created.

The complete list of what Siegel and Shuster "own" is:


So we could very well end up with a re-launched Superman that has none of the above.

Prime Superman doesn't really count as Superman being immortal for me. I mean just straight up immortal just because he's Kryptonian, that's what bugs me. Prime Superman is him after a massive power upgrade, and I don't have too much of a problem with him living forever, especially since he eventually (833 centuries later) has Prime Superwoman (more commonly known as Lois Lane) to keep him company.

I just don't like it in stories where he ages so slowly with his normal powers he's basically immortal anyway.


On another topic, I really hope this legal battle thing is ended decisively. I don't think people deserve to own any part of Superman when none of them have ever had part in his creation or adventures, ever.
On a more basic level, I don't want to lose Lois, locomotives, single bounds, and bullets that bounce off his chest! Though I must admit, I don't think Superman's ever worn anything than can described as a leotard. And it could be worse. I heard they own Clark Kent. I really hope you're right and they don't though, to me he's the balancing factor all of Superman's awesomeness.

A Superman without Lois Lane? Maybe I'm in after all. :-)

I don't really care about the "underwear on the outside" thing.  Batman made the switch a long time ago and it didn't make him a better character, but what the hey.  I do think that in addition to the "dodge the Siegels" strategy we could also be seeing a merge between DC's comic and film branches -- after all, they are "DC Entertainment" these days -- and these comics may well be laying the groundwork for the unveiling of Cavill's suit for "Man of Steel."  It certainly has that "Hollywood" vibe to it, ie: make the star work out twice a day for three months so he's ripped, then put him in a rubber suit that makes it irrelevant.

The shorts are not as off-putting to me as the armor, which just feels wrong.  Superman doesn't need armor, for one thing, and for another, so much of the Superman image spins around that "rips his shirt off to reveal a thrilling costume" routine.  As the Batman movies proved, if you need armor to go into action, then suddenly the "spur of the moment change" is a thing of the past.  Now you have to go to your secret hideout, retrieve your armor from a vault or something and don it piece by piece, hoping all the while that the crisis will wait for you to get back.  Yes, super-speed will help with that, but you still lose the great visual of the "quick change to battle togs."

The Kirby/Simonson boots alone would have to be transported in a steamer trunk.

Since tight fitting clothes seems to be the requirement of all super-heroes, I don't know how you get around that. But personally I would like to see loose fitting clothes for a change.

There are a few different ways you can add red to the middle of the suit, so it has more balance. But I can't just whip up an image here on the spot. Maybe when I have some time, I'll try my hand at it.

I thought that taking the blue shorts away from Batman also made his outfit look bad. But since they are now colouring the whole thing mostly grey and black, it doesn't have as much of an impact (but now Batman isn't as entertaining, either).

There is one way to do this that I've mentioned a few times in the past. Think of The Spectre. Or think of the classic John Carter character. Superman's outfit should be like that (though in the Burroughs novel, Carter was naked--but comic artists usually give him a loin cloth or shorts). Except all Kryptonian are blue skinned, with blue hair, and blue eyes. Kal-El has a chameleon power that allows him to change his colouring. So the infant changes colour when Martha touches him. Clark Kent looks like his adoptive parents (white skin, brown hair, brown eyes)--but when he changes to Superman he becomes blue skinned, with blue hair and blue eyes. He doesn't wear a blue outfit--that's his skin! He therefore wears red shorts, because he doesn't want to parade around naked like Dr. Manhattan. He wears a harness (a la Hawkman or Martian Manhunter) with a red S symbol on it, and the cape attaches to the harness. And red boots.

About that high V-collar: note a number of the other characters will sport them, as well.  i know I saw them on Aquaman and GL, at least.  So either Jim Lee just lacks imagination, or there's going to be some sort of tie between these characters.  Maybe it's as simple as a way to say "JLA" (the way X-Men costumes used to be united by the inclusion of an "X" somewhere in the otherwise unique designs), or maybe all the origins of the new heroes will be linked in some way?

Anyway, the most jarring thing for Superman is that haircut, which lies somewhere between Justin Bieber and Moe Howard.  And there seems to be a deliberate attempt to make him younger than the other heroes, which is a real head-scratcher.

You'll notice that Ryan Reynolds has that kind of collar in the Green Lantern movie. I much prefer the classic collar on GL, but I guess it was impractical for the movie (but wasn't the whole costume done with CGI?).

So probably Lee saw that and decided to incorporate it into his designs.

Turns out that Superman #1 cover mock-up (http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-sans-trunks-1.jpg) that I posted was a fan-created image (http://jprart.deviantart.com/art/DCnU-Superman-212825407) that I fell for.  The only official images released by DC are these covers to Action, Superman, and JLA:

(http://superman.nu/images/reboot-action-comics-1.jpg)

(http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-1.jpg)

(http://superman.nu/images/new-outfits.jpg)

So there may not be as much of an "armor" effect as in the fan image; and the bad haircut is just Lee's style.

As far as the high V collar, I think they're trying to say that it's the new Superhero outfit standard - just like back in the 70s, a snug body-stocking was the Superhero outfit standard.  I think the real reason is that Jim Lee likes them and he's now the co-publisher of DC.

You may be right about the collar.  One thing that stays true in any "age" is that everyone tries hard to look like everyone else until the next trend comes along. 

Also reassuring about the haircut; Perez' version is a lot better, even if it does look like his Dick Grayson.  But this makes two images so far that show Superman looking to be in his late teens/early 20s (with Lee that may be accidental, but Perez can draw kids and grown-ups, and has chosen the former here).  So it looks like the rumors are true he'll be extra young for some reason.

Perez' image sure looks like armor to me, and needlessly elaborate armor at that.  I always have to wonder why artists do redesigns that are more complicated, instead of less so.  You'd think they'd realize whatever they come up with, they'll have to draw about 100 times each issue.  That's another reason the old costume worked so well; it was simple.

Just had a thought!  Notice your list of stuff the Siegels "own" includes "ability to repel bullets."  Suddenly the armor becomes essential, after all, eh?  A Superman without invulnerability?  That'll take some getting used to.  Plus it's the end of another signature image: the bullets bouncing off the chest gimmick.  Of course he could always melt the bullets with those ever-present red eyes.  Maybe the new Superman's weakness will be Visine.

I keep coming back to the "Lois" thing, though.  You've got to think they'd work out some sort of arrangement with the Siegels over that.  Especially since they've cast the part already for the new film.  Even if I could gladly do without her, for most people "Lois Lane" is as big a part of Superman as the red cape. 

The first image with the T-shirt and pants looks much more like Superman to me than the other images.

Perez needs to give him the spit curl. And they need to quit it with the red eyes. This whole robotic look does not say Superman.

Really I think it's some kind of Kryptonian technology and not a real human being.

I'll throw in my own 2 cents and theories about the Superman revamp.

1)  Since the eyes are red in both pictures I suspect his eyes are always red naturally and the glasses make them look normal somehow, hence a reason for the glasses disguise and people not suspecting Clark is Superman.  Note that Warner's owns the vision powers.

2)  From what I've read Warners has trademarked Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane.  Hence, they can legally call characters by those names as long as they aren't the same as the ones "owned" by the Siegels. I have a feel the jobs and relationships will change for Kent and Lois, making them "different" characters.  DC was able to publish the original Captain Marvel and Marvel their own version of Captain Marvel, due Marvel trademarked the name.  As a result, DC couldn't call the original Capt. "Captain Marvel" on the cover.  They had to remove "The Original Captain Marvel" from the Shazam covers as a result.   

3)  The Shuster Estate doesn't "own" anything right now.  They have filed for copyright termination but some people say the estate doesn't fit the legal definition of "heirs", hence it's not a given that they will reclaim the other half of the copyright.

4)  Nightwing mentioned the armor.  I also thought that his armor was due to him not being invulnerable now.  Again, thought, how many characters can repel bullets and are "invulnerable"? 

I still feel there's a strong possibility that DC will remove aspects of the character the Siegels own, as a way of forcing them to the table and negotiating a settlement.

Also - in the three covers that DC has released (Action (http://superman.nu/images/reboot-action-comics-1.jpg), Superman (http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-1.jpg), JLA (http://superman.nu/images/new-outfits.jpg); shown above), Superman is sporting the flat, 2-dimensional old-school traditional "S" logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superman_shield.png) (complete with thick black lines between the red and the yellow) that DC has trademarked since 1944.  Warner Brothers is even using this version of the S in their promotional material (http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/superman-man-steel-2012-logo-licensing-expo) for the upcoming Superman film.

Hopefully no more messing with the S - no more sculpted 3-D S like was in the fan drawing (http://superman.nu/images/reboot-superman-sans-mini-1.jpg), the Bryan Singer film (http://superman.nu/fortress/thescreen/returns/costume.php), or even in some of the recent comics (http://superman.nu/tales5/superman-renounces-u-s-citizenship/?page=9). That, Nightwing, is why I thought that the fan drawing looked more sculpted than the Pérez drawing - it had the sculpted S whereas Pérez's cover doesn't.

I think DC/WB realizes that they need to hang on to the elements of Superman that they still have and use them.  At least that means we might get the real S in the new comics and films.

(http://www.seeklogo.com/images/S/SUPERMAN-S-logo-45E7DD4B3A-seeklogo.com.gif)

Well, the author of that link isn't totally sure the image is related to Man of Steel (and considering there's an image of Aquaman right under it, I'm not either), but you're certainly right that DC needs to exploit what is one of the most recognized logos in the history of civilization.  Especially if the Siegels have no claim to it.  I'd say it's one of the biggest weapons in DC's arsenal at the moment.  Just think of all the school supplies, t-shirts and other merchandise that's sold with no image of the character on it, just that logo.  They don't have to put "Superman" on the label because there isn't a person in the world who won't know what the symbol means.  And there'd be no reason to give a cent in royalty to the heirs.

Conversely, if (which I doubt, but who knows) the family ever decides to launch their own version of the character, they'd be immediately at a disadvantage trying to promote him with an alternate logo...even if they go with the "original", which far fewer people know and anyway wasn't nailed down for a long time.

On the other hand, this would mean the end of "Golden Age" action figures, statues and other merchandise from DC that blurs the line between versions.  And it may even mean an end to action figures with the "red trunks" traditional look, unless the two sides can agree on a split of profits. 

Now it's beginning to make sense to me (I know I'm slow) why DC is pushing so hard to get Man of Steel in theaters at the expense of other characters who've never been adapted.  The money spent on marketing a film, the media exposure from interviews and reviews, and the flood of tie-in merchandise will go a long way to disseminating images of the "new" Superman to the world, reaching a far bigger audience than would hear -- or care -- about comic book changes.  I'm betting "Lee's" design is going to end up pretty close to what we see in the film.  At least it will if they have any sense at all.

But the new Superman that's been shown doesn't have the classic S. They've taken off the bubble on the tail, which was always one of the most distinctive things about the S. It should look like this--

(http://www.comicmix.com/media/2008/09/03/superman-shield.jpg)

You're right, I stand corrected.  I hadn't noticed that.

That's sort of funny... when I first saw that in the Justice League picture, I assumed it was just Lee's style of drawing the S, something he's never done very well. But now it's clear that Perez has that same altered S.

Funny though, in Morrison's, he's still got the bump on the end of the S. Hopefully that means that the other two are just an art bump that'll go away soon. Still, I think it's a small enough difference that I wouldn't probably notice.

Also: very happy that the picture you posted was a fake, Rao. Perez' version really does look less like armor.

I love the character and the mythos of Superman, but I think the character should be public domain. I have never been a fan of these blasted copyright extensions and never will. These laws pay lip service by being in compliance with the wording of the US Constitution, but they very much violate the spirit of it.

The life of the creator plus 70 years may as well be a perpetual copyright as all of us are concerned.

Probably. It's a shame, really. Not so much because of the current continuity, because that is a mess anyway. The post-Crisis DCU had run out of steam by 1999.

And not so much because of the current, toxic comics, which aren't "all ages", family-oriented anymore-- you can't give them your children to read: they're full of sex, horror, nihilism, gore, profanity and blasphemy. Good riddance to bad rubbish. No great "loss" here at all.

No, the shameful thing really is that they restart the numbers at #1-- even ACTION COMICS and DETECTIVE COMICS. So much for comic book history. Didn't they learn anything from the mistakes Marvel Comics made with HEROES REBORN in the Nineties? Now DC too wants to restart their core-books and "Image-initze" them?

I'm really saddened by the re-numbering.

As far as Superman goes, they never give him a chance to be Superman. There's always some big high concept idea being thrown in the way of Superman doing the thing that he used to always do--be a super-hero.

As long as editors keep monkeying with Superman and don't let him have his stories, they're never going to restore him to the place he should be. Reboots aren't going to fix that.

The problem isn't with Superman--it's with the people who publish him.

Me too. It's short-sighted and stupid. It's obscene. Why can't they simply use the existing numbering on its old place, but add a "new" re-numbering (starting "#1" onwards on a place at the right side of the cover? So new readers could tell that those are issues of the "new" Superman et all, yet we "older" readers would get to keep our comic-book history.

Man. Just imagine. A book series that was continuously published for almost 100 years will be canceled and relaunched, starting with #1-- and why? Just because they hope it will sell a couple thousand exemplars more than it does currently. Never mind the fact that that same strategy failed almost 20 years ago by an even more successful comic publisher.

It's so wrong. ACTION COMICS and DETECTIVE COMICS are an important cornerstone of American history, culture and heritage: they originated the super-hero genre, they launched the original comic book medium in America (Disney and the rest came later, if I remember right), they kept the comic book medium in existence past the late Seventies (and thusly, encouraged kids to read "real books" in a world where TV was quickly becoming the national hobby) and alongside Disney, the Movies and the Loony Toons, introduced people around the whole world to American culture.

And now it will all be thrown away as if so much trash. Because it isn't "contemporary" enough.



True. Cary Bates could create at a moment's notice new concepts that nonetheless could fit seamlessly within the frameworks of whatever series he worked at the time -- but none of the current crop of creators seems to be able to do that. They only can either endlessly recycle old concepts-- or they need to reboot the whole thing, to get "room" to introduce "new" things.

So rather than use the writers who proved their creativity and their ability to work with characters as powerful, complex and near-mythical as Superman for 15-20 years at a time, they want to use "star creators"-- the people who aren't very creative but can work to the media. Typical. And people keep wondering why comics as a medium is fading.

You too, huh? I honestly would have zero problems with Public Domain Superman. I'd love that. He would have been years ago without all these extensions anyway, and arguably should have been. But I would hate to see him in the hands of just the Siegels and their lawyer, or worse, torn apart into two Supermen.

Some news from the DC Retailer Roadshow:


http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/06/19/more-from-the-dc-retailer-roadshow/

OK, I had a thought about this- the new costume isn't really "Armor," it's just that the entire thing is made out of the shards of the rocket that brought the infant Kal-El to Earth.  No one else would be able to move in it, but Superman can because of his Super-Strength.  He just moves and the metal bends.

(http://superman.nu/images/new-costume-origin.jpg)

Better yet, maybe the new costume is made out of lead shielding in order to protect him from all of the Kryptonite meteors that are raining down on Earth.

Also, no more cases of Clark getting his shirt ripped open by strangers (or Lois) to reveal the super-suit underneath.  The shards of the rocket are sentient and when not needed as a "battle suit" they form themselves into the shape of Clark's lunch box.

Guys, please stop putting for horrible ideas for any DC people who might visit. Isn't this crap bad enough as it is?

How long will this costume last?? I'd give it a year (unless its a "legal" thing)

Its pretty much terrible.

I'd have prefered his purple green suit with fishbowl helmet . that was a bad ass suit!!!!!

Here's another view that's been making the rounds

(http://superman.nu/images/new-shoes.jpg)

Seeing the battle-suit version up against the other costumes like this, I've got to say it looks pretty bad.  I still think that losing the red trunks is an OK move (the idea worked very well in the Ultimate Superman (http://superman.nu/Costumes/costumes.php#ultimate) proposal), but the 3D armor, the redesigned S logo, and the go-go boy utility belt -- someone just wasn't thinking.  Keep the outfit skin tight; keep the original boots and the trademarked S logo, lose the belt if you're going to lose the trunks (à la Supreme (http://superman.nu/portal/users/supreme/)) -- then it would have been fine.  There is no other possible explanation except for the legal one.  They have to lose the "leotards."  Can't figure out why they're not using the trademarked logo, though.  That's more not thinking.

who is the artist on that sneaker??

What a great ad!
I don't totally hate this costume, but neither do I agree with what you say... I think the belt is nessecary. If it was just one shade of blue all the way down, it would look pretty awkward. I don't know if I liked it on Supreme either. It's a little high on this drawing, but I do like that they kept the belt.

Obviously, I agree that Superman's action-suit should be skintight. Armour has no place on a man whose skin is harder than solid steel.
Ultimately, I can live with this design. I only hope The Man of Steel doesn't put Big Blue in a rubber Tim Burton Batman version of this outfit. That would be awful, especially because Superman needs to have a full range of movement- the kind that can only be granted by an invincible Kryptonian fabric surrounded by an armourlike Tactile Telekinetic field. Or alternately, tights.  :P  :D

If the trunks HAVE to go, it's not that hard to design a suit without 'em:

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7442/supesredesign.jpg)

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1597/mysupesredesign2.jpg)

In all humility, I think these designs are much better than what we've seen so far.

Nice looking costumes, there are more in this thread (http://superman.nu/smf/index.php?topic=3976.0).

I've embedded DC's recent video about the relaunch on the 2011 relaunch page (http://superman.nu/portal/History/2011_relaunch.php#dc_video) - here's the direct link: http://assets.dccomics.com/media/retailers/DC_TheNew52_RetailVersion.mov