Superman's Red Trunks Return in Action #1000

[Sacred Knight]

There is a marked difference. The triangle era built and expanded upon the character's mythology, in ways that many of us would probably agree was for the better. From the supporting cast to the main characters, there was a sense of world-building in that era that remains unmatched today.

The triangle era did do all this stuff well. None of that explains why the New 52 was an "abomination". The world-building for Superman sucked in the 2000s too, it took a huge nosedive from what the 90s did. Was that an abomination too?

At least with the 86 Byrne reboot, DC had a well thought plan to reboot not only the character but the entire DC universe. Time, thought, and actual effort went into making Crisis on Infinite Earths and its aftermath what it was. The same cannot be said in any way about the New 52.

No, they didn't. What do you think Zero Hour was for? It was because they did such a poor job rebooting cleanly in '86. And even that didn't fix much. There were tons of holes in the overall DCU lore. Its execution was enough of a mess that its actually quite comparable to the New 52. To claim otherwise is huge revisionist history.

[The Eradicator]

Just because the Crisis reboot (arguably) had holes in it going forward does not mean that hard work did not go into planning it out. It had repercussions that stuck for a very long time, and it was an event that DC was gradually building towards before it happened.

Even Zero Hour, although not a very good story, was better planned out than the New 52, and it had nothing to do with the "poor job" of the 1986 reboot. I'm not the one using revisionist history here.

For Superman, what did ZH change really, in retrospect, other than adding Kenny Braverman/Conduit to the mythos?

[Sacred Knight]

Actually, it does mean just that. That there were such massive holes meant they did not plan and execute everything satisfactorily.

And yes, Zero Hour came about as a concept specifically to fix the holes COIE left behind. This is basic common knowledge.

For Superman, what did ZH change really, in retrospect, other than adding Kenny Braverman/Conduit to the mythos?

It wasn't about fixing Superman. He was pretty much fine, and was not really part of the huge COIE problems. At the time, he got a proper full reboot so there wasn't much contradiction going on with him. It was for fixing other disasters, like the JSA and Hawkman. COIE rebooted some things fine. Other things terribly or not at all. Just like the New 52. COIE was developed over a longer period of time, of course. New 52 was a rush and I'll never deny that. But the results? Not that different.

[The Eradicator]

Actually, it does mean just that. That there were such massive holes meant they did not plan and execute everything satisfactorily.

And yes, Zero Hour came about as a concept specifically to fix the holes COIE left behind. This is basic common knowledge.

Like what? What major change did ZH make to Superman's mythology?

Granted, it erased Joe Chill as the killer of Batman's parents. So what? What else did it do that Crisis didn't already do better?

Nothing really.

Edit: I get your point about the JSA but I just attribute that to the fact that Marv Wolfman was already juggling tons of characters; it's only natural that some fell by the wayside.

[Sacred Knight]

We're not on the same wavelength. I"m talking the DCU as a whole. Not just Superman. As I said before, Superman was mostly fine. But he's not the whole DCU. COIE made massive errors in other areas that had to be fixed. For instance Hawkman, of whom before Zero Hour no one even knew which version was canon. The Legion's lore was in complete disarray because Superman's reboot omitted Superboy from history. They did not execute the 1986 reboot at all in a cohesive manner across the board.

[SiegePerilous02]

There is a marked difference. The triangle era built and expanded upon the character's mythology, in ways that many of us would probably agree was for the better. From the supporting cast to the main characters, there was a sense of world-building in that era that remains unmatched today.

YMMV on that one. A lot of the mythology that was jettisoned in Byrne's reboot was still gone, as far as I'm aware. it was a lot of reduction, not just addition.

Morrison's New 52 embraced elements of the mythology that Byrne ditched almost right out of the gate, and added some of it's own stuff as well.

At least with the 86 Byrne reboot, DC had a well thought plan to reboot not only the character but the entire DC universe. Time, thought, and actual effort went into making Crisis on Infinite Earths and its aftermath what it was. The same cannot be said in any way about the New 52.

They have never had a well planned out reboot. Crisis was relatively better planned than the New 52 as whole, but that's like saying one pile of feces smells slightly better than another. Donna Troy is the embodiment of all of their continuity problems. Honestly, once they realized they didn't want to reboot their Titans cash cow, that should have put the kibosh on the whole thing. But logic be damned, they went through with it anyway.

("Yeah, let's just keep calling Donna Wonder Girl and keep the bracelets and lasso even though Wonder Woman hasn't even arrived on the scene yet. I don't think anybody'll notice!')

[Kuwagaton]

Zero Hour ironically took a Hawkman situation that had gone from outstanding to bad, and made it worse. Superman wise, things were really about the same before and after. I don't really get the insistence that things divorced from where they started in 1986, even if a few things changed. The post crisis era is riddled with cut off points for people, but I'd agree to disagree. Whatever makes them happy and dump on the smallest chunk of Superman.

Likewise, the New 52 Superman was largely worse than the Morrison version by a bit in most cases. But it was still him. I'd cheer if they gave him a spotlight, wish people could feel as pleasant as some of us about the mild gesture that the Superman of the 70 years before him is gonna be portrayed.

[Jokerz79]

Crisis had some dodgy areas specifically with some origins such as Hawkman, Donna Troy, and Legion. But over all DC did a good job with crisis with mapping out what was canon in DC's history and what wasn't while New 52 seemed more of a mess with what was canon and what wasn't and also trying to fit it all into the ridiculous 5 year mandate.

Also to keep on topic again happy too see the the trunks are coming back.

[jimmy]

It is if you are also a fan of the pre-Crisis era. It's always POST-Crisis this and POST-Crisis that, I wish there was more pre-crisis love! At least Post-Crisis ended up resembling Pre-Crisis more by Flashpoint.

Pre-Crisis put me down for that, never thought it should have ended.

The Man of Steel costume was awful. It was basically a big blue (if you can call it blue) onesie with boots and a cape attached. Is that what you consider modern?
You already have people who dress up in a cowl with bat ears on it, or in domino masks, why do you find trunks on the outside so far-fetched? It's part of superhero comics. It figures that what's considered 'modern' involves stripping details off of the outfits and watering them down to basics. That's what trying to 'modernize' superhero fiction does, whether it's aesthetics, writing, or in general.

Precisely – Especially, in this society where there are virtually NO LIMITS! Fashion is a state of an individual’s free form mind.

If you hate the trunks you hate superman period. Seriously the only people complaining about this change aren't actual superman fans.
Yeah no, I don't understand why every hero has to be "taken seriously". Superman had a look that worked for decades.

Although, I can’t say with any certainty they are / aren’t - Superman fans, some people do exhibit a significant bias against, that I’ve read on this board, in expressing their disdain of the classic costume’s belted trunks.

Main reason that this element of Superman’s “signature look” to some, doesn’t not fit into their own personal narrative nor, conform to what they "perceive" modern day "Super-hero" fashion should look like.

Blue Long Johns or Red brief Shorts – besides the length and color, what is difference? I can only answer an individual's perception based on peoples experiences and what they are exposed to.. But actually, they are one in the same a pair of form fitting trousers with the top portion in red and leggings in blue!

Anyone who can do the things, Superman can do - well…. I’d take seriously - no matter what he is wearing, as the look he had for decades GOES ON

I agree about that. Reeve looked great. Routh was pretty nice. As far as translating costumes on screen Superman is one costume which works both in comics and in live action.

I just worry that can it look bad now. If the next film has the trunks it might look bad besides the sleeker costumes. In DCEU it won't be much of a problem. Some like Wonder Woman are neat. Others like Flash are not so good. But when you have Marvel as this game changer can there be a problem now. Those films came out when other super heroes were not so big. Superman was almost the only game in town.

Sometimes i think that this trunk thing is overstated. Superman Returns came out after the likes of X-Men and Spider-man. The film did not face any problems due to the costume itself. The film was the problem there.

JAK – did a marvelous illustration, when he shaded (dyed) the brief area of Superman’s costume for the MOS movie and it looked outstanding, totally improving the overall aesthetics of the Cavill’s - Superman’s uniform, as the pants portion becomes, in essence, two-toned; partially red in the top portion, and blue for the leggings bottom portion while adding a more realistic Gold belt!.

Now, at first glance as you don’t get that automatic feeling that somethings wrong or, missing here. Just lose the superfluous pipping lines around the mid-section and the wrist gauntlets, tweak the color and add a two-tone Yellow-Gold shield on the back of the cape and viola you are 99% there head to toe!

So, rolling forward, there should not be a problem for Cavill and Hoelchin and alike...

P.S. Hoelchin those gold band-aids that attaches his cape and make It more like Cavill’s!

[a moment closer]

I understand nostalgia and I'm happy for the fans who love the trunks. I'm just not one of them, since childhood, I've never understood the style choice. I don't know anyone who wears trunks or underwear on the outside of their clothes.

[beetee]

So much drama... so much joy.... so much tears.... so much rage.... so much fanboyism over a pair of trunks. I've read him with the Trunks on, read him with the Trunks off... He's always Superman to me. My only beef is that any costume change should be in universe... why the f/k do you have to blow up the universe, restart time or resort to magic to justify changing his look? Do any of us wear clothing from 30 years ago? (Assuming it still fits). Frankly all D.C. heroes should go with periodic costume changes, with in universe explanations (boredom, changing fashions, the wife made him do it, etc.)

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

And then they'll always get rid of them again to try something new.

And fail.

Says you. Others would disagree. I think Siegel and Shuster would be among them. They evolved the character away from that, but he started out that way under their pen, and nobody here is in any position to disagree with them on Superman.

Yeah, that's the point. Superman evolved away from that. He grew up. That's why most didn't like the New 52. It felt like they were reading a juvenile Superman.

Kind of like how he started out this way in the beginning of the New 52 Run and was on his way to simmering down by the end of the very first trade? Hmmm....

He didn't really simmer down. He was a hothead for 5 years.

I already mentioned the JL run. It was awful. Johns wrote everyone OOC in that. Diana did not act like that in her book AT ALL, and Johns himself wrote Hal and Arthur as being way more mature in their solo books. it's not the like the New 52 incarnations are unique in that they are written differently in the same canon by different authors. I'm not sure why it is relevant.

Yeah, and it was "one of the books that introduced him." Superman should never attack people who he knows on sight just because he's pissed.

You mean like he did? "Glenmorgan Goes Down" is the headline being held by George Tayor, the one that Clark wrote. He used his powers as Superman and his journalism to help bring Glenmorgan down. He should use every power at his disposal to to put an end to corruption. Glenmorgan was using legal loopholes to get away with his crap. Superman is, and always has been from the very beginning, a vigilante who does what he thinks is right and doesn't necessarily agree with the law or authority if it allows people to be hurt.

Is assault and battery one of those powers? Because, if that Superman existed in the real world, he would justifiably be labeled a terrorist.

And while Superman doesn't agree with the law many times, he knows better than to flout the law and do as he pleases just because he has the power to do so. What you're describing are the values perpetrated by Manchester Black or Magog, who murder criminals to stop them from committing crimes they haven't done yet.

He also gave his findings on David Marigold to the cops before going to confront him as Superman.

Therefore, making the assault unnecessary.

And I think a take modeled after the New 52 one, or the Silver Age style Superman it evokes, would be embraced. Because it actually isn't too edgy at all. Especially if the writing/direction were competent.

The general public hasn't gotten that yet, so we don't know how they'd react.

What are you even talking about now? The public already got a New 52-like Superman. The DCEU has been all New 52 inspired. The general public hated it.

[Thor2014]

I understand nostalgia and I'm happy for the fans who love the trunks. I'm just not one of them, since childhood, I've never understood the style choice. I don't know anyone who wears trunks or underwear on the outside of their clothes.

When people put it that way it does sound silly. But when you think about it is it really more silly than wearing a cape? The thing I like about the trunks (and the yellow belt) is that it breaks up the sea of blue. I was okay with the N52 costume for a whle, but it had way too much blue and looked monotonous. IIRC it even had blue boots which was stupid.

[Sacred Knight]

You know what nevermind again, I just shouldn't partake. Its absolutely exhausting. Heels are dug in, minds are made.

[titansupes]

I understand nostalgia and I'm happy for the fans who love the trunks. I'm just not one of them, since childhood, I've never understood the style choice. I don't know anyone who wears trunks or underwear on the outside of their clothes.

That's your reasoning? Do you know anyone who wears a blue leotard, red cape and can fly and lift mountains? Do you know anyone who dresses like a big bat, or shoots spider-webs out of their wrists etc?

I think a lot of people here are forgetting what fiction is all about.