Jon Bogdanove talks industry insider chatter regarding Superman (might be major)

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Its because I'm glad my son has stopped telling me that superman needs to stop wearing trunks on the outside. He hates it in mainline comics and Batman should never go back to trunks again. He hasn't had them in years and doesn't need them.

Even when many fans want them back? If the majority of fans want them back, they should come back. But either way, why is it still a big deal to establish that, yes, Superman wore his trunks in the past??

[superduperman]

I have a feeling the lawsuits are never going to formally go away. That's why I think it's odd they gave themselves an out and retracted it. Superdad was probably the most effective solution to the lawsuit problem they ever conceived. Or will conceive. It's also the only one fans will ever accept because it's still the same basic premise. Let him keep the beard, maybe give him a more traditional suit, and move forward from there. I feel like a lot of this is just setting themselves up for another lawsuit down the line over the Clark Kent identity.

[Sacred Knight]

Even when many fans want them back? If the majority of fans want them back, they should come back. But either way, why is it still a big deal to establish that, yes, Superman wore his trunks in the past??

Problem is you'll never get an accurate account of who's the majority and who's the minority. Only thing that tells you one way or another what's working or not is sales, and with trunks or sans trunks there's virtually no difference. In the end it'd be easy for anyone on either side of the debate to say they represent the majority.

As far as just having them in the continuity, I don't think there's any problem with it. In fact I wholly expected it and am still rather surprised that it looks more and more like he'll have always worn the current suit.

[RedWhiteAndBlueSupes]

I mean, if you really want to get into the weeds, any superhero wearing a costume at all is outdated/corny, especially one that draws attention to itself with gaudy primary colors and announcing ones​ "Superness" lol. Even Connor's "S" t shirt could be considered corny. The fact he wears said costume under a suit (who wears suits anymore anyway?) and conceals his identity behind glasses!? could also be argued to be lame. I mean get some contacts dude, the 60's happened lol. Trunks or no, there is a lot about Superman that waxes nostalgic. His trunks aren't the first thing that springs to mind. Nostalgia is by and large a huge driving force in the industry, nothing wrong with that for me.

Even when many fans want them back? If the majority of fans want them back, they should come back. But either way, why is it still a big deal to establish that, yes, Superman wore his trunks in the past??

yeah I mean marketing 101, go with what people like. Superman's not the first property to be caught up in a situations like this. Can't say for sure, but I find it very believable the heirs would come to some kind of agreement, presumably already have in regards to marketing. Personally it would be really interesting to read that lawsuit, I think it would explain a lot.

Neal Adams basically said the same thing back in '13, when he was asked by some college kid about bringing back the trunks at a signing event, strongly suggesting that the change in his look and portrayal was to do with the lawsuit. It used to be on youtube, he was promoting his "Coming of the Supermen".

[RedWhiteAndBlueSupes]

I'm mostly interested in the aspect that New52 really was just the result of trying to distance itself from a possible bad lawsuit result; the downplaying of Lois Lane and hooking him up with Lois Lane, the repeated separations of Clark from the DP (fakes his death in Morrison's run, quits and starts a blog in Superman, then his secret ID is outed and he's forced out of the DP) and so forth was all about how to cull as much of the Action Comics #1 material as possible from the stories.

Well, yeah I agree, I got the same feeling from reading early new 52 stuff, there was definitely a concerted effort to downplay as much of the AC#1 stuff as possible. I don't think the reverse is true however, I think gold 'ol fashioned populism can be attributed to that one, fan's liked the pre 2012 portrayal better, had more attatchment to it, sales fell, DC brought it back.

I mean it's interesting though. Perry White and Jimmy didn't appear in AC#1, George Taylor did, but he wasn't named anyway. Personally I don't think the Planet staff is impacted by it. I think the "S" on the back of his cape would have been fair game though had the "S" symbol not been changed since AC#1.

[beetee]

I'd be fine with no trunks if they at least acknowledged that at one time he did wear them.

[Myskin]

Now, there is also buzz that Dan Jurgens, and others in the company, have campaigned hard in favor of the traditional, classic, populist brand, appearance and costume– and that Diane Nelson or someone up top recognizes the dollar value of that brand as being worth much more than what it costs to rent the shorts from the heirs.

This buzz suggests that Superman will be restored to his true self in ACTION #1000– which would be awesome in the extreme— an historic comics event tantamount to “The Death of Superman”. I think it would heal and restore a great deal more than just #Superman. I think the effects would be restorative across the industry. I would expect a revamp and revitalization of the movie franchises to stem from it, eventually– worth millions in revenue.

Again, just rumors and speculation. I could be wrong. Have I mentioned that yet?

But, checking out the vibe at DC these days, I have to say I detect a gathering of life force. I think DC is getting its head out of the old “everything must be Batman” days and getting its mojo back, folks. Mark my words and stay tuned!

Creators, fans and insiders have been speculating about Superman's return to greatness and the rebirth of the ultimate Superman since forever.
I'll believe it when I see it, quite frankly.

[Last Son]

I still don't buy it. At least, I'll need a lot more than something that's heavily qualified as being strictly rumor. It all sounds kinda optimistic in a sappy and unrealistic way, to be honest. Especially that bit about it revitalizing the movies and the whole industry. A pair of trunks will do that? Let's get real just a little bit.

I still think its the simple idea that those with the most power within DC/WB don't want them and that's the main reason they're gone. I have no doubt there are some within the company who want them back, we know Jurgens does for a fact because he's not shy in saying so, but I highly doubt anyone high up on the chain does.

I think this is just going to get some people's hopes up for nothing. My money still says Action #1000 comes and goes with no costume alterations.

I think considering the trend over the past 20/30 years to modernize superhero and supervillain costumes by removing trunks and other similar garments that it was bound to happen to Superman eventually with or without a lawsuit.

[Myskin]

By the way, I think that people are giving too much credit to the theory that the New52 was born because of the Superman lawsuit.
SOMETHING is probably true - maybe the renumbering, the look etc. But I really don't think that it has something to do with the Lois Lane romance or the TRUTH storyline or Wonder Woman.
Also, it's not that Superman was the most important character in the new52, or even the most important series. It was very important for the very first issues at the beginning (I think that DiDio said something like "AC and JL are the kingpin of the new52", but this was proven true only with JL, not Action Comics), when nobody really knew what the New52 was about. Some characters had their continuity changed even more than Superman.

[Robotman]

So that's the way DC/WB will celebrate Action Comics 1000? By giving him his underwear back?

[Atomic Man]

The latter of your post about Superman being the heart of the DCU I agree with, and I hope they restore that. As for the trunks, I still don't agree that they are necessary besides nostalgia reasons. Especially when IMO the suit we have now is perfect and the trunks are not needed. You can keep posting all you like that the trunks are necessary and a unique combination and I still won't buy into that.

I will continue to post it and you will continue be wrong. You clearly fail or refuse to grasp the significance of Superman's iconic uniform. You are wrong, as proven by the bulk of almost a century of publication and associated media. The suit we have now is incomplete and therefore imperfect. I will never "buy into that."

Time and again, myself and others have said nostalgia has nothing to do with the iconic uniform.

[HsssH]

I really can't wrap my head around how someone could have legal problems over underwear, but be fine with everything else about the character. And to avoid these problems DC intentionally tanked one of their main characters, rebooted entire universe, just to misdirect people also rebooted multiple other important characters (Flash, Wonder Woman, entire concept of Justice League and Teen Titans to name a few), but now they are going to be totally fine with it all once #1000 rolls out. And return of underwear will signal revitalization of entire Superman franchise.

I understand that some people really love classical look of Superman with every small detail being there, but this is a bit crazy. Its not far from something you'd hear from Alex Jones.

Ultimately, I think this final chapter of the war— this final case— came down to a fine-tooth, point-for-point argument over specifically which defining characteristics of Superman were actually created by Jerry and Joe before they came to DC and started laboring as “work-for-hire”.

For example, Superman’s red boots replaced his Greek lace-ups AFTER Jerry and Joe signed him over. Likewise, the “S” emblem continued to evolve from the original while Jerry and Joe were under contract, as did much of his likeness and appearance– EXCEPT for the modesty briefs. Apparently, that’s the one original characteristic that persisted unchanged from before the boys ever approached DC until the resolution of this case.

I also wonder how this works with characters like Supergirl. They were created much later, but they are recognized as variations of Superman and their every issue includes infobox with explanation on who created Superman. I think some writer/artists was even denied creator credits for one of such characters, because DC argued that its not really a new character, but a variation of already existing one. So in this case I also doubt that some changes to S symbol over the years makes it completely okay when characters like Supergirl are still not treated as separate characters.

[Atomic Man]

Its because I'm glad my son has stopped telling me that superman needs to stop wearing trunks on the outside. He hates it in mainline comics and Batman should never go back to trunks again. He hasn't had them in years and doesn't need them.

Batman doesn't really "need" the bat symbol on his chest either, does he? His silhouette IS the symbol. The Flash doesn't need wings on his cowl either. They're stupid; I mean, who knows anything about the mythology that inspired those wings these days, anyway? Don't forget Wonder Woman, that lasso is pretty lame compared to the sword Jim Lee gave her so she could carve up Parademons. Aquaman should really get rid of that stupid gold shirt and just go shirtless. He's underwater a lot and when he's not, he can show off the tattoos he should get to look like the Aquaman from the movies.

And hey, Superman doesn't need that stupid cape, either. What good does it really do? He didn't have it when he was a powerless badass with a buzzcut and jeans, why should he have it now? Come to think of it, the tights are pretty dumb, too. He should wear a Kryptonian battle-suit without a cape so he'll look like those badass Injustice designs. He should also stop being such a pansy and take out a few of his bad guys. He could kill Luthor with the flick of a wrist, and he should have thrown Doomsday in the sun years ago.

[Agent Z]

Yet again, you insult the people who want the iconic uniform back AND the character I assume you claim to care about.

The reason to bring back the trunks has NOTHING to do with nostalgia, it has to do with restoring the first and truly unique superhero uniform to the genre. The trunks are NOT dated, as they can't be seen as separate from the whole of the uniform. That uniform was a unique combination never before seen; trunks were not worn as part of strongman outfits, despite the erroneous argument often used in an attempt to dismiss them. Siegel and Shuster combined shirt and pants with trunks and a cape, creating a new look that directly inspired the look of just about every character created since, especially the Bat-Cash Cow.

As for the lack of trunks returning after being gone for a few years, it's only a small group of cynical, hipster fanboys who hate them and want them gone. As I've said many times in this forum before, I speak to non-fans every day about Superman, as they know I'm a huge fan. They NEVER mention the trunks as being "stupid" or "out of date," they just see them as part of his look. They may call them "underwear," but they don't have the problem with them that the Frank Miller, Chris Nolan, and Alan Moore-worshipping cynics do.

Finally, there is still the matter of restoring Superman's place as the heart and soul of the DCU, something only just begun in Reborn. Much of the next year of Rebirth will likely deal with the fallout of Reborn and its ramifications on the DCU, especially since the last issue made it clear that Manhattan will not be happy about his attack on Superman being undone.

With Action #1000, 80 years after his debut, Superman will be fully restored to his iconic self, including the trunks. They may have some visual tweaks to update them, but Superman will once again look as he did for 73 of his 80 years of existence. That's what DC seems to be realizing it has lost with ditching the trunks, and they seem (if Bogs' speculation is correct) to be ready to undo the mistakes of the last 6 years.

ow

Question: d the people you talk to actually miss the trunks or are they simply indifferent to them? Cause if the latter, the lack of trunks isn't that much of an issue and is completely separate from Superman being the "heart" of the DCU.

[HsssH]

Batman doesn't really "need" the bat symbol on his chest either, does he? His silhouette IS the symbol.

Are you seriously comparing Superman's underwear to Batman's bat symbol on his chest..?