DC Revamp

[nightwing]

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.

[Great Rao]

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

Here's what Grant Morrison and company wrote back in 1998 in the Superman 2000 proposal:

"We'd like to tweak the costume by finally getting rid of the red trunks.  This gives us a new look which somehow recovers the more classic, Golden Age, 'primal' 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, 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 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...  

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



Then this:



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 and other eras, I'll enjoy reading about the Superman of 2012.  Another exciting piece in Superman's millennia-spanning legacy.

[DBN]

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.

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.

[India Ink]

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

[Great Rao]

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:

- Running faster than a locomotive
- Leaping tall buildings at a single bound
- Ability to repel bullets
- The "blue leotard"
- A reporter co-worker/potential romantic interest named "Lois"

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

[Adekis]

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.

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.

[nightwing]

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.

[India Ink]

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.