Does superman really need to be reinvented

Dc has control of superman and dc does update superman every now and then for whatever reasons.

Not really. I think the character is fine as it is. Most people who have problems with Superman usually aren't fans at all and don't know much about him

This is honestly a bad place to post this. I doubt many Superman fans are going to say yes.

Anyway, I say a resounding no.

I agree, perhaps develop different aspects of his personality but I'm happy with him

Nope. I'm fine with Superman the way he is. At least the modern Pre Flashpoint version of Superman. New 52 Superman has been bearable thanks to Grant Morrison but hopefully Snyder can develop him even more. Anyway the core concept of Superman is one that does not need to be changed in any way IMO.

It doesn't and shouldn't be reinvented, but updated? Sure. There's a lot you can do with the character without fussing with the core of it. Superman should be a big character doing big things while still having a relatively simple moral core.

NOPE

Yes, definitely. (But only his outfit.)

Not really... But if there is something to change, I do hope it's the way he hides his identity. I know we get all these posture and covering of the eye colour and people not really thinking Supes has a secret identity but it's still too forced.

Personality and the boyscout attitude must always stay.

Nope.I am fine with the current Superman.

No, Superman is the first Superhero---total leeway for anything.

Having said that his characterization isn't crappy or anything either. It has been in some ways updated with the modern era I mean we barely here "THE AMERICAN WAY!" anymore. I like him the way he is.

Does he need a colorful suit and a cape?

@zardu: You seriously compared Hancock to Superman?

Well, both ARE flying bricks and superheroes...though, admittedly, Hancock started off as pretty much Chester A. Bum and has much weaker showings...

Define reinvented (though, preemptively with the response I think you're going to give me, I'll go with: no).

If that means that he has to become a quote unquote "dark" character, than no. Superman should not be a quote unquote "dark character" (in the mainstream anyways) because then, he wouldn't REALLY be Superman, would he? Now, that's not to say that he hasn't been or isn't currently a "serious" character (as dark and serious are not inherently intertwined and it is quite possible for light stuff to be serious) and that he hasn't had quite the fair share of "serious" moments, but making him "dark" just seems iffy in the mainstream of things.

Costume wise, I'd just get rid of the armor portions for his current suit and make it more colorful.

@hewhosees: Powerset may be the same but what they stand for are pretty different.

@ssejllenrad: I was referring to the Superman suit.

@zardu: Yes and that is exactly why Hancock can manage to wear something that is not regal enough. Superman stands for something that is ideal hence the noble representation of the red cape.

Not really, even when Hancock is a drunk asshole he still helps save people. Why should he? He has no obligation to them to save them and it would save him trouble for them complaining later.

Hancock according to the writer of it was written with the intent of doing a more realistic Superman story. In fact Smith was offered a Superman role but turned it down due to him being black and not wanting to offend people by being a Black Superman.

Do I think he needs to be Reinvented.. He could be redone to fit the modern age and used to take a new look on the world and what morals and ethics we have now.

If that is the basis then most superheroes stand for pretty much the same thing regardless of the powers. Yes, he may be a more "down to earth" Superman and that is exactly how he becomes not Superman. As I said earlier, Superman stands for something that is ideal that is why it makes sense for him to look regal. Hancock stands for something that is moral yet practical and so he can afford to look casual.

@ssejllenrad:It may be that his clothing is a sign of his royal origin, but that does not change the lack of seriousness. The suit is out of fashion. Noble ideals don´t need clothes.

@zardu: Aesthetics still mean a great deal with the public. There is a reason PR consultants are paid so much. Ideals may not need clothes but it still helps to stand out. Especially to the eyes of the innocent children. I don't think we'll agree on this one, really. To each his own, I guess.

@ssejllenrad: We don´t have to agree. Opinions are different. If you want to keep the cape, then the suit should be changed. There are many ways to change the cape/suit combination to look modern:

Here's a scene from the movie Chronicle. It shows that superheroes does not necessarily need colorful suits. Yes, I have understood the meaning of Superman's suit and I can accept it in certain circumstances. Yet this scene shows that Superman can also be dressed differently:

no and if you think he does then you don't understand the character...not even in the slightest

These are my feelings.

Morrison aside though, I really don't care for New 52 Superman. And that's not my N52 prejudice talking, as Superman was one of the characters I felt could have really benefited from the "revamp" (see; reboot).

@danhimself: The question is: Does Superman really need to be reinvented? So if he would be re-invented, the meaning of his suit is no longer relevant. But I understand you. However, one must not to be a Superman fan or a Superman expert to have an opinion about his suit. I do not like his classic suit. I want a modern Superman, a hero that fits into our time and not someone who act like a foreign body, something that does not comply with our modern notions.

@Zardu Superman's costume does not need redesigned because it has already been redesigned. Also he doesn't act as a foreign body and I don't know where you got that from.

this.

@z3ro180: I'm German. Maybe I chose the wrong words. The word foreign body I refer to his appearance (his suit). The outfit was taken from the circus.

In Super Gods: What Masked Vigilantes, Miraculous Mutants and a Sun God from Smallville Can Teach Us About Being Human, Grant Morrison writes:

"Underpants on tights were signifiers of extra-masculine strength and endurance in 1938. The cape, showman-like boots, belt and skintight spandex were all derived from circus outfits and helped to emphasize the performative, even freak-show-esque, aspect of Superman's adventures. Lifting bridges, stopping trains with his bare hands, wrestling elephants: these were superstrongman feats that benefited from the carnival flair implied by skintight spandex. [Artist Joe] Shuster had dressed the first superhero as his culture's most prominent exemplar of the strongman ideal, unwittingly setting him up as the butt of ten thousand jokes."

"When creating - and outfitting - the first superhero, Shuster was starting from scratch, and the closest version to what he had in mind was circus strongmen." (Rob Bricken) http://io9.com/5966540/in-defense-of-supermans-underpant

Superman wears the colors of the national flag and serves the U.S. patriotism. That was in 1938. At that time, colorful suits and cloaks were cool. Today it works only in comics. But when it comes to movies, it does not work so well. This is one reason why the suit for Man of Steel has been changed. No pants, no belt, no bright colors. However, I would not redesign the suit, but reinvent. But that's just my opinion.

@Zardu Ok first of Superman does not where the colours of the American flag nor does he ''serve'' US patriotism maybe in the golden he did serve the us government but not now, and the reason the MoS costume is darker is because the movie will have a darker tone (not batman dark mind you) and the underwear the was retconned back in September 2011 as part of the new 52 when he was given his new suit.

Reinvented just means give him more powers to make him even more overpowered and ridiculous? often times when companies do this reinvention they don't reinvent anything. They just need to make superman more relatable (as to be honest not many of the big DC characters are anymore.

Yes, I know New 52. Maybe the colors blue and red have a different meaning, I don´t know. I have read that these are the preferred colors of the artist, others have said these are the colors of the US-Flag. I don´t belief that they changed the colors of the suit, because the movie will have a darker tone. They could even took more intensiv dark colors (a dark blue, for example).

@Zardu your probely right about the movie colours but blue ,red and yellow are his colours they have nouthing to do with the American flag. Also you user name sounds like a wizards name :P

@z3ro180: Well, I belief you ;-)

The name Zardu I invented for a fantasy novel. Zardu means flames. It is the name of a forest in my fantasy world called Zarduwald (flames forest) because the treetops of that forest look like flames.

I think the problem with Superman is one with perception than reality.

The Superman of comics is much more complex and nuanced than the popular view of him as a vanilla boy scout.

Education is the answer.

@Zardu so you are a wizard Lol anyway that fantasy world of yours sounds pretty awesome

@z3ro180: Thanks. No, I´m not a wizard. In my world there is no magic :-)

It pains me to say it Fade but after Diggle's run is finished, Snyder is Superman's best hope of getting a good story in the New 52. As much as you dislike him, you have to admit Lobdell having 2 Superman titles in July isn't a pleasant thought. Well Snyder and Greg Pak are Superman's best hope of getting a good story as TheAcidSkull keeps telling me :P

Just because Snyder can't write Batman worth a damn doesn't mean he can't write Superman, so I'm staying optimistic about it =)

You optimistic about something in the New 52? Maybe things can get better.. Oh no wait Didio's still there. So no real progression of characters or obliging fan criteria for a while longer. Some days I wonder why I'm still a DC fan :P

You're still a DC fan because you haven't read enough Dark Horse and Image =P

But nah, I know what you mean. Just because I hate the current direction and the guys in charge doesn't mean I've ever stopped being a DC guy.

Aside from DC and Marvel, I'm more of an IDW guy. They have the license to TMNT and Doctor Who so I go there for other comics :P

Agreed. I guess the only difference between you and I is I somehow see a few good comics worth buying and stay with the hope that DC will work towards improving that universe. They're stuck between this new universe and the old one. They want to have their cake and eat it which isn't working out well.

@lvenger: GI JOE and Transformers too!

I'll start believing good can come once Johns is gone haha

@fadetoblackbolt: Sadly, the optimism I had for Superman has long since fizzled after Diggle had announced his departure from Action Comics. In my opinion, he wrote Superman's best New 52 issue yet. The man understood the characters and personality was something that was severely lacking from Superman since the relaunch.

I dont think he needed to be reinvented as much as they jsut had to move one with his story. They kept him at the same job, swooning over the same person with not real change . Since being reinvented they got him out of his job and away from lois. They could have done that without reinventing him but then Superman would have to get divorced (I think they should have just killed off Lois lane) She is a good character but not one that HAS to be there to make the superman character work

@fadetoblackbolt: I like some of his stuff but I know what you mean. Still he does seem to be around for a while longer unfortunately.

The spandex probably came from Phantom which came from the Robin Hood movies which came from the Robin Hood plays which used lots of spandex same as the Shakespeare plays. The earlier Dr Occult also had spandex for 1 story. Flash Gordon characters also used lots of spandex and this probably also influenced the spandex in both Dr Occult and Superman.