Yay or Nay to the Red Trunks Returning?

[Last Son]

The suits represents a 1930's view of what "a man from tomorrow' might look like.

It's not the 1930's anymore.

So do you think people are going to dress like Rebirth or New 52 Superman in the future? The fact is, every extravagant notion sci-fi artists have about how people will look in the future is usually too over-the-top to ever come true. A modern, sleek Superman suit is no better a prediction of futuristic fashion than this was:

35y5hywq43.jpg

Why even try? Decades ago, the Superman suit stopped being thought of as futuristic or alien fashion and simply became a pop culture icon. And besides, slapping a stylized belt on Superman just makes him look like every other character that ditched trunks and replaced them with a fancy belt, or characters such as Captain Marvel who had the the caped and trunkless look to begin with.

[jimmy]

I don't buy the notion that Superman has to change his suit every so often in order to stay true to the "Man of Tomorrow" nickname.

(With, trying to appeal to and satisfy someone's preconceived notion of what someone should look like - while attempting to market to them all, aside)....

Superman, has an unwavering and unique quality to him and does not need to change his costume look, at all.

Besides, it is not the costume that needs to changing!

[stephens2177]

Ed benes and Tyler kirkman drew the new 52 suit actually really well.

Never liked the S shield on the belt EVER

The classic suit can be drawn really well,but also really badly,I just hope DC keeps the suit looking good going forward with it

[Powerboy]

Nay.

Proper hate them. The Man of Tomorrow doesn't know how underwear works.

If we're honestly into the 'classic' look, then why is no-one clamouring for the yellow police badge and red slippers?

But we all know the answer to that...

I assume it's because that was the original look, not the one that became the classic look.

Although, strictly speaking, I think the original would be blue boots and even yellow once with no cape insignia before finally settling on red boots or slippers. For that matter, I think the cape insignia was originally blue.

At any rate, the costume isn't really a big deal. Heck, I liked the blue jeans and the shirts he had made for him locally. [And, gosh, in no way was that also promoting the Superman shirts sold in stores in the real world]. I like some versions more than others. I like the original. I like the classic. I like some newer versions. The only ones I don't like have nothing to do with the specific design. But I hate it when they have a dark or drab color scheme instead of bright and vibrant.

[jimmy]

I assume it's because that was the original look, not the one that became the classic look.

Although, strictly speaking, I think the original would be blue boots and even yellow once with no cape insignia before finally settling on red boots or slippers. For that matter, I think the cape insignia was originally blue.

At any rate, the costume isn't really a big deal. Heck, I liked the blue jeans and the shirts he had made for him locally. [And, gosh, in no way was that also promoting the Superman shirts sold in stores in the real world]. I like some versions more than others. I like the original. I like the classic. I like some newer versions. The only ones I don't like have nothing to do with the specific design. But I hate it when they have a dark or drab color scheme instead of bright and vibrant.

Original 1938 vs Classic 1945 plus - The red / blue pattern was established from jump street, boots were made solid by the next issue or so, however, the "S" would continue to fluctuate over the first 7 or, so years of Superman's costume life, it was a real, Work-In-Progress, as by the mid to late 40's the "S" took it's more familiar shape and changes after that were minor and subtle.

[Jim Kelly]

The original Shuster art was for a black and white comic strip. That art was cut and pasted up for a comic page. But you can tell the strip panels by Joe’s excessive use of hatching. As soon as he had colour, Joe didn’t need to do all that shading, since the colour filled the bill.

You can see that once Shuster knew the art was for a comic book and not a daily strip, he changed his approach and did less detailed inking to open up the space for colour. This was the prime selling point of comic books—all in colour for a dime—and Joe tweaked his design to best exploit the colour.

The laced boots might look cool but all that detail work is hard to colour (for a mass market comic) and it was easier to use one colour—so a simpler boot design was best for the colourist. Likewise, the overly detailed shield doesn’t come out good on the colour page, whereas a tweak to the design allows simpler contrasts (such as red against black, or red against yellow).

Even with the S on the cape being all yellow, this is a solution that fits the colouring of the day. It’s just easier done.

But these are tweaks and not substantial changes. To change the chest logo design is one thing, but getting rid of it completely would be a substantial change that would cause a storm of controversy, even in the general public. And it’s such a trademark of the Man of Steel that DC would be crazy to abandon it.

[Agent Z]

That's pretty much how I felt. I didn't mind so much that they gave Superman a new suit, though I didn't like the New 52 suit for reasons that went beyond the lack of trunks, but I hated being told that the old look was dated, obsolete, couldn't work in the modern era, and that bringing them back would represent creative stagnation and regression. Geez people, lighten up, if you really think the suit doesn't make the man, quit complaining about the trunks coming back.

Right because the people who wanted them back were so rational in their response.

[Agent Z]

The first time they took the trunks away from Batman in the comics, it looked real goofy to me. And it’s not like he was wearing the armour from the movies.

But that look didn’t stick for long. And with all the tweaks and changes to Batman’s style, there’s not anything that’s likely to stay for long. So it doesn’t trigger the same response.

I expect Batman to keep changing. And probably wear trunks.

If Superman’s new look was downplayed, then few would care if he was trying something else for awhile. It was the hardline taken by some fans and DC—that the trunks should never ever return—that triggered an equal and opposite response.

If we’ve learned anything from social media it’s that the easiest way to polarize debate is to take up an extreme and rigid position—forcing others to retreat to their corners and never allowing a middle ground.

Way U remember it, the "hardline" from the anti-trunks crowd was in response to the pro-trunks crowd crying blood.

[The Darknight Detective]

But these are tweaks and not substantial changes. To change the chest logo design is one thing, but getting rid of it completely would be a substantial change that would cause a storm of controversy, even in the general public. And it’s such a trademark of the Man of Steel that DC would be crazy to abandon it.

The chest logo and cape can never, ever go. Unlike the trunks, they actually made a real connection with people.

[Jim Kelly]

The chest logo and cape can never, ever go. Unlike the trunks, they actually made a real connection with people.

I wonder if plastering something on your chest was common before Superman made it popular. Are there examples of others doing this?

I’d think that was the most unusual bit at the time. Capes were quite common—cops and nurses both wore them. And as has been discussed ad infinitum, shorts over leggings were common (and still are).

I don’t know as you can judge the quality of what connects with people. Either to emulate or to mock, people will do all the things. Tie towels around their neck, parade about in swimwear or put shorts over their trousers, wear T-shirts with logos (sometimes under dress shirts), make spit curls in their hair, wear fake glasses, put their arms akimbo.

How much this shows love or disdain for the character is impossible to measure.

I think the argument that the anti-pants crowd were making was that the red overwear connected too strongly with folks. And that’s why it had of to be gotten rid. People made too much of it, rather than too little.

But irony is a difficult thing. In fashion, people do stuff to mock, then it catches on and becomes so universal that it loses the sense of an ironic statement. Are Marvel characters mocking the tropes of super-hero comics (as they once did) or have they now become the definition of the trope?

[The Darknight Detective]

I don’t know as you can judge the quality of what connects with people. Either to emulate or to mock, people will do all the things. Tie towels around their neck, parade about in swimwear or put shorts over their trousers, wear T-shirts with logos (sometimes under dress shirts), make spit curls in their hair, wear fake glasses, put their arms akimbo.

Of the things you mentioned, Jim, there have been countless references in the media of the cape, logo, and glasses over the years (I would also mention the blue and red of his outfit). The spit curl and arms akimbo, not as much. As for the trunks, the only time I remember them referenced is fairly recently and almost always negatively.

[jimmy]

I wonder if plastering something on your chest was common before Superman made it popular. Are there examples of others doing this?

I’d think that was the most unusual bit at the time. Capes were quite common—cops and nurses both wore them. And as has been discussed ad infinitum, shorts over leggings were common (and still are).

I don’t know as you can judge the quality of what connects with people. Either to emulate or to mock, people will do all the things. Tie towels around their neck, parade about in swimwear or put shorts over their trousers, wear T-shirts with logos (sometimes under dress shirts), make spit curls in their hair, wear fake glasses, put their arms akimbo.

How much this shows love or disdain for the character is impossible to measure.

I think the argument that the anti-pants crowd were making was that the red overwear connected too strongly with folks. And that’s why it had of to be gotten rid. People made too much of it, rather than too little.

But irony is a difficult thing. In fashion, people do stuff to mock, then it catches on and becomes so universal that it loses the sense of an ironic statement. Are Marvel characters mocking the tropes of super-hero comics (as they once did) or have they now become the definition of the trope?

Superman, really has been reduce to a court of public opinion for his attire - now, that in itself is amazing bit of irony. However, having such disdain just makes no sense, as these people come precondition to absolutely despise an article of clothing, which is base on a false notion to begin with.

Alright, its a Two-Way Street so - What happens when some individual of the "Anti-trunks" crowd is ridiculed and made fun of for their hero's taste in clothes and costume or, their very own attire, for that matter - how would they (you) react and what would they (you) do?

Would you; Cower and conform to someone's else(s) protocol or, embrace it, and Rock the Casbah!