• 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for captainomnitron
#1 Posted by CaptainOmnitron (63 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for mightykalel
#2 Posted by MightyKalEl (2209 posts) - - Show Bio

I am a fan of Jim Lee's art, but this picture doesn't appeal to me. Trunks for one issue is fine, but it shouldn't be made permanent IMO. Reborn suit is perfect. Btw, you can discuss about Supes in the main discuss thread, contribute to the discussion there :)

Avatar image for jogga
#3 Posted by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for captainomnitron
#4 Posted by CaptainOmnitron (63 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for life_without_progress
#5 Posted by Life_Without_Progress (24716 posts) - - Show Bio

But the Reborn suit was perfect already! It had this feel of being classic yet ideal look already!

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#6 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

Low sales are back!

Avatar image for paragonxxx
#7 Posted by ParagonxXx (4161 posts) - - Show Bio

It was only a matter of time before they returned. Glad to see them are finally making a come back in Action Comics #1,000. ^_^

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#8 Posted by SaintWildcard (21845 posts) - - Show Bio

Are the back or is it just for that issue?

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#9 Posted by SaintWildcard (21845 posts) - - Show Bio

Few artists have ever made me love the classic look. Lee was never one, but he's gotten worse at drawing over the years. THis was not his best attempt at it

Avatar image for jogga
#10 Posted by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@saintwildcard: It's in the article. It's a new costume. That's why Lee included the cuffs you barely see.

Avatar image for outside_85
#11 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

So who hits Superman hard enough for him to think this is a good way to dress?

Avatar image for royal_warrior
#12 Posted by Royal_Warrior (5059 posts) - - Show Bio

That is one of the worst looking superman faces I've ever seen drawn

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#13 Posted by SaintWildcard (21845 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@saintwildcard: It's in the article. It's a new costume. That's why Lee included the cuffs you barely see.

It doesn't flat out say it's the suit going forward so I wasn't sure. It just states it's a design for the occasion

Avatar image for jogga
#14 Posted by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@saintwildcard:

"And lest there be any confusion, a statement from DC describes the trunks look as a "new costume," so this is not just a clever variant to celebrate 80 years."

Yep, it does say it as such.

Avatar image for mightykalel
#15 Posted by MightyKalEl (2209 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for orangebat
#16 Posted by OrangeBat (961 posts) - - Show Bio

@captainomnitron: I'm indifferent to the trunks but did Lee REALLY need to add those godawful cuffs? Just admit that you want to bring the trunks back, don't try and weasel around it by making a pointless addition and calling it "new".

Avatar image for magian
#17 Posted by Magian (151791 posts) - - Show Bio

Αποτέλεσμα εικόνας για no gif

Avatar image for charan_
#18 Posted by Charan_ (1400 posts) - - Show Bio

Those cuffs are ridiculous.

Avatar image for zandalf
#19 Edited by Zandalf (471 posts) - - Show Bio

Let's hope the trunks will stay just for AC # 1000 otherwise:

We will have to say goodbaye to the perfect costume
We will have to say goodbaye to the perfect costume

....however since DDclock happens one year in the future we should still get the reborn suit even after ac #1000, right?

Avatar image for lvenger
#20 Edited by Lvenger (36338 posts) - - Show Bio
@buttersdaman000 said:

Low sales are back!

C'mon now we both know the low sales during the 2008-2011 period were due to bad writing and editorial mismanagement of the character. Some New 52 Superman comics dropped below 30K during the Truth crossover, that's an embarrassment not reached during the Pre Flashpoint era.

@outside_85 said:

So who hits Superman hard enough for him to think this is a good way to dress?

The same people who think Superman is somehow an embarrassing and boring character if he's wearing his trunks and acts like a nice guy. And for the record I'm not a huge trunks advocate, I liked the Smallville Season 11 and Reborn trunkless costumes.

Avatar image for outside_85
#21 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

Low sales are back!

C'mon now we both know the low sales during the 2008-2011 period were due to bad writing and editorial mismanagement of the character. Some New 52 Superman comics dropped below 30K during the Truth crossover, that's an embarrassment not reached during the Pre Flashpoint era.

@outside_85 said:

So who hits Superman hard enough for him to think this is a good way to dress?

The same people who think Superman is somehow an embarrassing and boring character if he's wearing his trunks and acts like a nice guy. And for the record I'm not a huge trunks advocate, I liked the Smallville Season 11 and Reborn trunkless costumes.

Welcome, the year is 2018 and a grown man decided to take to the skies wearing his underwear outside of his pants.

Avatar image for lvenger
#22 Posted by Lvenger (36338 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85:

No Caption Provided

We're talking about an alien who can fly, push planets and gets his powers from a yellow sun. Him wearing trunks is somehow weirder than all this? 'The trunks are stupid' comments got real cliche a long time ago. Not to mention the design is one of the most iconic and colour balanced superhero costumes ever. Many fans have felt Superman without trunks looks weirder.

Avatar image for outside_85
#23 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

@outside_85:

We're talking about an alien who can fly, push planets and gets his powers from a yellow sun. Him wearing trunks is somehow weirder than all this? 'The trunks are stupid' comments got real cliche a long time ago. Not to mention the design is one of the most iconic and colour balanced superhero costumes ever. Many fans have felt Superman without trunks looks weirder.

Let just remember that the design made sense, in 1940 and based off circus strongmen. As far as I am aware, it has been a very long time since Superman had anything to do with the 1940'ties in-canon. It's also very long time since 'strongmen' stopped showing up in their underwear if they are even a feature at all.

So please enlighten us why a man that grew up in the relatively modern ages of the 70'ties and 80'ties now, would dress up like this? Why would Ma Kent do that?
Secondly, if we use the other origins for his outfit, why would an interstellar civilization design something that looked like this?

#NoTrumps

Sorry, that was wrong:

#NoTrunks

Avatar image for lvenger
#24 Posted by Lvenger (36338 posts) - - Show Bio
@lvenger said:

@outside_85:

We're talking about an alien who can fly, push planets and gets his powers from a yellow sun. Him wearing trunks is somehow weirder than all this? 'The trunks are stupid' comments got real cliche a long time ago. Not to mention the design is one of the most iconic and colour balanced superhero costumes ever. Many fans have felt Superman without trunks looks weirder.

Let just remember that the design made sense, in 1940 and based off circus strongmen. As far as I am aware, it has been a very long time since Superman had anything to do with the 1940'ties in-canon. It's also very long time since 'strongmen' stopped showing up in their underwear if they are even a feature at all.

So please enlighten us why a man that grew up in the relatively modern ages of the 70'ties and 80'ties now, would dress up like this? Why would Ma Kent do that?

Secondly, if we use the other origins for his outfit, why would an interstellar civilization design something that looked like this?

#NoTrumps

Sorry, that was wrong:

#NoTrunks

That's exactly why the trunks were demanded to be given back to Superman, because of the origin and heritage of the costume. It doesn't work nearly as well without them because usually Superman looks too blue without something to break up the colour. And I believe some strongman shows still wear trunk style shorts when they perform.

Firstly, it gives Clark a distinctive and bold look as Superman to take away from the mundane mild mannered clothes of Clark Kent. It's literally the ultimate contrast between the normal and extraordinary.

In the Silver Age, that was the Kryptonian fashion style. Simple as that.

You're welcome to dislike the trunks as much as you want but they are an important and popular part of Superman's costume and have been for decades. If they could survive for over 70 years before the New 52 removed them and replaced them with that atrociously ugly armour, they can survive longer than your petty whining and complaining. If they didn't work, why have so many fans demanded their return since 2011? Fact is the trunks have more appeal and work better than you seem able to give them credit for.

Avatar image for zandalf
#25 Edited by Zandalf (471 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

Low sales are back!

C'mon now we both know the low sales during the 2008-2011 period were due to bad writing and editorial mismanagement of the character. Some New 52 Superman comics dropped below 30K during the Truth crossover, that's an embarrassment not reached during the Pre Flashpoint era.

of course we can tell the same for the truth storyline which was abslolutely the lowest point of the whole new-52.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#26 Edited by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

Low sales are back!

C'mon now we both know the low sales during the 2008-2011 period were due to bad writing and editorial mismanagement of the character. Some New 52 Superman comics dropped below 30K during the Truth crossover, that's an embarrassment not reached during the Pre Flashpoint era.

Which is exactly what bringing the red trunks back signifies. It's all about moving backwards with Superman, never forward for too long and the trunks are a symbol of the old status quo. And the old status quo for Superman is low sales. And on that, why 2008? I would say his low period in the 2000's was from 2004/5 - 2011. And before that most of the 90's were also a low period...Get used to it again I guess.

And Truth was trash, no arguing there. It doesn't surprise me that it dipped that low, but lets be honest, pre-flashpoint averaged low sales, whereas Truth was more of a outlier.

Avatar image for jogga
#27 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: There wasn't any moving forward with losing the trunks to begin with. So this "moving" backwards is faulty by default.

The New 52 is the past now with not even a decade to its name thanks to a botched execution.

Avatar image for heist
#28 Posted by Heist (25 posts) - - Show Bio

Eww.

Avatar image for farkam
#29 Edited by Farkam (12036 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree, the trunks look stupid. Its 2018, time to leave the trunks behind. It's not going to fit stylistically with other characters too unless everybody is getting underwear now. I don't like a lot of changes they made to characters design for the sake of Rebirth; Aquaman is back to looking like a doofus. Give Aquaman his glowing golden scales and collar, he looked much more powerful, badass, and kingly that way.

No like.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS MUCH SINCE THE EVIL OF BENDIS IS HERE.

Avatar image for jogga
#30 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

It doesn't have to fit stylistically with other characters.

Every character is distinguished from the other, which makes their union more appealing.

Superman doesn't "fit" stylistically with Batman, even with the trunks back then. But they compliment each other, which makes way for better chemistry.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#31 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: There wasn't any moving forward with losing the trunks to begin with. So this "moving" backwards is faulty by default.

The New 52 is the past now with not even a decade to its name thanks to a botched execution.

What? Yes there was. It signaled a change in the Superman status quo, starting from one of the most basic, recognizable aspects of the character. Superman has been pretty much the only character who hasn't even been allowed to alter his costume a bit over the years, so losing the trunks was obviously an indicator of more changes to come.

Believe it or not, the only thing that botched n52 is the very same logic that led us back to the trunks. The most vocal fanbase constantly clamored for a return to status quo and every time a storyline showed hints of not being great, that clamoring grew louder. Besides Truth, i'd easily rather read consecutive n52 Superman issues than do the same with post crisis Superman. The latter version has more stand out collections, but he was also allowed to last for 15-25 years depending on how you see him.

Avatar image for jogga
#32 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: Changing the status quo has been ingrained the the DNA of the comics industry since the start. So the idea that Superman is the only character that hasn't been allowed to change his costume is false.

We had Electric Blue Superman, we had Superman changing the color of his shield, we had Superman using Kryptonian clothes during the Kandor arc, and we had Superman with a damn mullet. And that was just a fraction of Post-Crisis.

None of those were permanent changes, rather they are looked back as part of a silly attempt by DC to cater to a younger audience.

Giving Superman armor? Giving him a buzz cut and a Harley?

Please...

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#33 Edited by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: Changing the status quo has been ingrained the the DNA of the comics industry since the start. So the idea that Superman is the only character that hasn't been allowed to change his costume is false.

We had Electric Blue Superman, we had Superman changing the color of his shield, we had Superman using Kryptonian clothes during the Kandor arc, and we had Superman with a damn mullet. And that was just a fraction of Post-Crisis.

None of those were permanent changes, rather they are looked back as part of a silly attempt by DC to cater to a younger audience.

Giving Superman armor? Giving him a buzz cut and a Harley?

Please...

I think I made it pretty clear my issue was that Superman always goes back to the status quo....he lost the red pants, gets them back. He became blue Superman, went back. Changed the color of his shield, went back. Had a mullet, went back. No matter what you tell me, he always goes back to the status quo. Even most of his 52 adventures were written out. The only thing to remain static about post crisis Superman is his relationship to Lois Lane. He's dug down so deep I don't see any way to explore other relationships without heavy backlash, as we already saw. Other things change, like you mentioned, they just always go back.

And therein lies part of the problem. DC is always trying to cater to someone with Superman instead of just moving the character forward.

I'm starting to think you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I clearly said Truth sucks :/

Avatar image for thekinfing
#34 Posted by TheKinfing (11793 posts) - - Show Bio

New 52 suit >> this thrash.

Online
Avatar image for jogga
#35 Posted by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: I'm more arguing that the decision to cater to "changing" the status quo in the first place has been more motivated by cynical catering towards a perceived demographic, making him more DATED than any piece of cloth could ever do. A phase a teenager or a middle age man would go through rather than some organic evolution of the character.

Also as far as I'm concerned, having a son is a better breach of the status quo than taking away some undies ;)

And I never said you liked Truth, dude, I slapped the entire New 52 under the label of some tryhard phase.

Even so I like the Truth shirt for all it's worth *shrug*

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#36 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: I'm more arguing that the decision to cater to "changing" the status quo in the first place has been more motivated by cynical catering towards a perceived demographic, making him more DATED than any piece of cloth could ever do. A phase a teenager or a middle age man would go through rather than some organic evolution of the character.

Also as far as I'm concerned, having a son is a better breach of the status quo than taking away some undies ;)

And I never said you liked Truth, dude, I slapped the entire New 52 under the label of some tryhard phase.

Even so I like the Truth shirt for all it's worth *shrug*

I don't really know what you mean by that. Are you saying the failed changes made Superman more dated than the red underwear? I'm not following at all.

Superman has had children throughout the post-crisis years. I reckon the only reason Jon was even allowed to flourish as he did is because of the absence of Connor. He is a good status quo change, however, my point here isn't about who can cherry pick changes throughout Supermans publication history. My point is that red trunks signify a return to the old, where they should be embracing the new. But I guess it makes sense since DC seems to have dug themselves even deeper with the Lois Lane marriage :/

Truth isn't representative of the n52 so I don't know why you did that.

Avatar image for lvenger
#37 Edited by Lvenger (36338 posts) - - Show Bio
@buttersdaman000 said:
@lvenger said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

Low sales are back!

C'mon now we both know the low sales during the 2008-2011 period were due to bad writing and editorial mismanagement of the character. Some New 52 Superman comics dropped below 30K during the Truth crossover, that's an embarrassment not reached during the Pre Flashpoint era.

Which is exactly what bringing the red trunks back signifies. It's all about moving backwards with Superman, never forward for too long and the trunks are a symbol of the old status quo. And the old status quo for Superman is low sales. And on that, why 2008? I would say his low period in the 2000's was from 2004/5 - 2011. And before that most of the 90's were also a low period...Get used to it again I guess.

And Truth was trash, no arguing there. It doesn't surprise me that it dipped that low, but lets be honest, pre-flashpoint averaged low sales, whereas Truth was more of a outlier.

I think you're giving too much meaning to the trunks in that regard. This claim that they're a symbol of the old status quo is an unfair definition for the trunks considering they've been around during most of the highs and lows of Superman's sales history. They do not represent low sales for Superman by any objective measurement or sales figures. That's just an opinionated statement from you. I specifically chose 2008 because of the New Krypton crossover and that leading into Grounded which was a sales slump hence Didio making Johns' Flashpoint story into an event that would restart the DCU via the New 52. Moreover, you think the 90s were a low period? I checked the 1997 October sales at random and the lowest selling Superman comic, Adventures of Superman, sold an estimated 58,040 copies. With only a 3K-4K difference between the highest selling Superman comic. And that's just a random pick. So you're mistaken on the 90s being a low selling period for Superman.

Neither of us can predict the future so you can't say for certain that Superman sales will fall after this. Superman sales have stayed consistently in the mid-high 40K range so they're stable and steady right now.

Avatar image for entropy_aegis
#38 Posted by entropy_aegis (20873 posts) - - Show Bio

Sales wont fall because of trunks lol.

Avatar image for yassassin
#39 Posted by Yassassin (7701 posts) - - Show Bio

I could always do with or without. Sure, it's a visual motif from the 30's, but lets lets not pretend Kal hasn't made his own.

Avatar image for jogga
#40 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: I'm stating that the removing of the trunks and utilizing the New 52 armor is more part of a dated phase of DC rather than any meaningful change of the status quo. It's not like the Mythology boom in the Silver and Bronze Age where the dynamics of the Superman mythos as a whole actually change, nor the 90's and 2000's where permanent new characters like Steel and Conner rose.

If you think that simply getting the Trunks back is a symbol of going back to some non-existent dark age of Superman's life? You're mistaken. Actually wanting the character to evolve and change means you should actually want him to change. Making him young again and literally starting from square one AGAIN isn't moving forward. It's literally the opposite.

It's amazing how you get offended with generalizations like that, considering you have no qualms doing it with the Trunks.

Not only that but I never said that Truth represents New 52, which is why I mentioned the New 52 suit at the same breath, but if you think that the Truth arc isn't a symptom of it than it doesn't really matter.

Avatar image for sanohibiki
#41 Edited by SanoHibiki (3425 posts) - - Show Bio

Ohh myyy... Pfft...

Well, I'm fully expecting triumphant return of "Only Superman is dumb enough to wear underwear over pants" jokes. And they somewhat calmed down in recent years. Joy...

Also, that some half-...sed job from Jim Lee. Seriously, this face just begs for meeting kryptonite brick.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#42 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

I think you're giving too much meaning to the trunks in that regard. This claim that they're a symbol of the old status quo is an unfair definition for the trunks considering they've been around during most of the highs and lows of Superman's sales history. They do not represent low sales for Superman by any objective measurement or sales figures. That's just an opinionated statement from you. I specifically chose 2008 because of the New Krypton crossover and that leading into Grounded which was a sales slump hence Didio making Johns' Flashpoint story into an event that would restart the DCU via the New 52. Moreover, you think the 90s were a low period? I checked the 1997 October sales at random and the lowest selling Superman comic, Adventures of Superman, sold an estimated 58,040 copies. With only a 3K-4K difference between the highest selling Superman comic. And that's just a random pick. So you're mistaken on the 90s being a low selling period for Superman.

Neither of us can predict the future so you can't say for certain that Superman sales will fall after this. Superman sales have stayed consistently in the mid-high 40K range so they're stable and steady right now.

I don't think so. The trunks have always been a point of contention, and on the two sides were people who wanted them to go, and people who wanted them to stay. There were never any pragmatic reasoning behind the logic to keep the trunks. The arguments always came down to them being too classic/iconic to remove, which, basically makes the trunks a clear symbol of the (old/classic) status quo. And I never said they literally represent low sales. I said, bringing the trunks back is a step backwards for Superman. And to me, backwards for Superman, also indicates the return of him falling from popularity which means low sales. Like it or not, the n52 did a lot to bring in NEW Superman fans. Some of them stayed around after the death of n52 Superman, but, lets be honest, they stuck around because Rebirth Superman was different enough from Post-Crisis. Now, it seems like we're moving backwards....will they stay?? There are even people who see the trunks as a barrier to actually reading Superman comics. It's ridiculous, I know, but you've been here just as long as I have. Think back to when the forums were littered with Superman hate post, a lot of which clowned his suit. A move like this clearly lowers accessibility imo.

The Superman comics were in a slump before 2008. I'd say 2004/5 around the time Infinite Crisis started. There's even meta joke about it in there.

I don't think 60k and being in the top 30 of the month is anything to write home about. I also said the majority of the 90's, not the entirety. 1997 is right after the wedding so sale increases make sense.

You're right, neither of us can predict the future. I just think moves like this are indicative of a bad future for Superman.

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: I'm stating that the removing of the trunks and utilizing the New 52 armor is more part of a dated phase of DC rather than any meaningful change of the status quo. It's not like the Mythology boom in the Silver and Bronze Age where the dynamics of the Superman mythos as a whole actually change, nor the 90's and 2000's where permanent new characters like Steel and Conner rose.

If you think that simply getting the Trunks back is a symbol of going back to some non-existent dark age of Superman's life? You're mistaken. Actually wanting the character to evolve and change means you should actually want him to change. Making him young again and literally starting from square one AGAIN isn't moving forward. It's literally the opposite.

It's amazing how you get offended with generalizations like that, considering you have no qualms doing it with the Trunks.

Not only that but I never said that Truth represents New 52, which is why I mentioned the New 52 suit at the same breath, but if you think that the Truth arc isn't a symptom of it than it doesn't really matter.

I still don't really know what you're saying. Are you trying to argue the changes to the costume were a dated method of updating and that Superman should just remain the same?? Unless the change is "meaningful"??

Yes, I think getting the trunks back is indicative of a trend to move backwards, therefore leading to the "dark age". As for the bolded, it seems like you got your wires crossed about what change actually is. Like the first part literally makes no sense given your argument. And the second part seems more like a potshot at the concept of the n52 itself. So....since I want the character to evolve and change....we agree?? Or can we not agree since you don't like the concept of the n52??

Where am I getting offended??

You implied it did.....a symptom of what???....lol i'm really not following you at all man.

Avatar image for jogga
#43 Posted by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: I'm arguing that the changes never really updated the character to begin with. At best it was a superficial attempt at marketing and pandering to a broader audience. That's why they were so eager to shake the needle all the damn time. That's why they gave him "armor", that's why they made him young again, and that's why they had to start from the ground up again. That's not going forward. That's going BACK.

If you think going back to an iconic look is indicative of regressing the character, then you're going to have to name what part of the character actually IS regressing, BEYOND superficial change in appearance. Because I've actually listed things about the New 52 that have regressed the character more than you have over some simple Trunks.

You made a sad face dude. lol.

Symptom of the New 52. As in that the failed DCYou phase with the Truth arc is the consequence of The New 52. So you trying to separate the two and pretend that Truth is non-applicable as a whole just because you dislike it is disingenuous.

Avatar image for ready_4_madness
#44 Posted by Ready_4_Madness (16630 posts) - - Show Bio

Lame. 🤦🏾‍♂️Why DC?

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#45 Edited by buttersdaman000 (22862 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: I'm arguing that the changes never really updated the character to begin with. At best it was a superficial attempt at marketing and pandering to a broader audience. That's why they were so eager to shake the needle all the damn time. That's why they gave him "armor", that's why they made him young again, and that's why they had to start from the ground up again. That's not going forward. That's going BACK.

If you think going back to an iconic look is indicative of regressing the character, then you're going to have to name what part of the character actually IS regressing, BEYOND superficial change in appearance. Because I've actually listed things about the New 52 that have regressed the character more than you have over some simple Trunks.

You made a sad face dude. lol.

Symptom of the New 52. As in that the failed DCYou phase with the Truth arc is the consequence of The New 52. So you trying to separate the two and pretend that Truth is non-applicable as a whole just because you dislike it is disingenuous.

I disagree. I think you're just diminishing the changes to bolster your argument against them as being superficial and pointless. When Superman lost the trunks back in 2011 there were news stories published, CV post and more. It was a big change for the character, and an obvious update into modern times. The armour was just the first draft so I don't know why you focus on it. It was pretty much scrapped within a year. I also don't see any logic in how you rationalize these changes as moving backwards. Are you literally arguing that since he was made younger, the character moved backwards? That doesn't make sense. The character was updated. You're basically saying the first crisis was moving backwards because John Byrne reimagined Superman.

I don't think you're following at all. I've repeated this multiple times. I think the return of the trunks are indicative of the Superman lines eventual fall back into pre-52 territory. I never said anything about any other aspect of his character. I just noted that this may be the first domino. You can already see how the vast majority of people range from disappointed to annoyed the trunks are back across various forums. It's not a good move. And, as for what you think you proved with the n52, i'm not seeing it. I don't think you know what regression is in this case given the points I already addressed above.

This :/ isn't a sad face lol

No, lol Truth is a simply a bad storyline. This is like saying Grounded, a much worse storyline btw, is a consequence of post crisis and is therefore applicable to the entire era. That's not how it works. You can argue that Truth is the reason why the n52 failed, just like Grounded pretty much brought on a massive change with Superman. However, the difference between the two is that the n52 was still young and still hadn't had as many trash runs as the post-crisis. Like it or not, it was a premature end for the n52 Superman.

Avatar image for jogga
#46 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: You can disagree all you like but my point still stands regardless, considering that's all you're actually doing. Just state what I state and disagree, without explains as to why, say, making him younger (Literally regressing his age and demeanor) isn't regressing the character and somehow moving the character forward. You literally had the character start from square one AGAIN, you can't get any more obvious when it comes to regressing the character rather than moving him forward.

I could say YES when you say that I'm claiming that COIE regressed the character, but that's a much more complicated thing to answer and you should be ashamed of bringing that can of worms here lol

You haven't actually explained HOW the Trunks were indicative of a possible domino effect. You've yet to actually explain any regression of the actual character. All you got is a piece of clothing to indicate that to you.

Disparagement is usually what that entails. I don't use faces so I could be wrong.

Jokes on you, because I DO believe that Grounded was a consequence of the Post-Crisis era. And so was the Electric Superman era, and the dopey Mullet era, and the angst-ridden black-background shield era, and the Death of Superman gimmick itself. Never once did I claim that the Post-Crisis was perfect nor was I defending it from critique. I was actually doing the contrary. Shows how much you've been paying attention.

Honestly, I think The New 52 itself is a consequence of the trigger happy nature DC "let's retcon every single thing we don't like away" Comics has been having since the start of this century. But that's besides the point.

The Truth storyline is The New 52's equivalent of Electric Superman era, not grounded. Grounded at best was simply a boring storyline with OOC motivations, kinda like Doomed. Even so, you could label the entire New 52 as some sort of Electric Superman/Death of Superman phase, which I did since the start. Since it follows the same principle of moving the needle.

Avatar image for dernman
#47 Edited by Dernman (26044 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: I have to disagree with you on one point you made. i don't think people would be apposed to other relationships for Superman if it was pre Lois.

Lois is and should forever be the ultimate one but he can have relationships before her. That's what n52 should have been but it got ruined by marketing and writers saying it was never going to happen. If they just pushed it as pre Lois relationship point in his life they could have milked for a decade or more and had him have several different relationships.

I'm a huge Lois/Superman guy. To say they don't eventually get together is blasphemy to me. It's just part of his character for me. Still I wanted to see relationships before he got with her again

Online
Avatar image for dernman
#48 Posted by Dernman (26044 posts) - - Show Bio

@jogga said:

@buttersdaman000: You can disagree all you like but my point still stands regardless, considering that's all you're actually doing. Just state what I state and disagree, without explains as to why, say, making him younger (Literally regressing his age and demeanor) isn't regressing the character and somehow moving the character forward. You literally had the character start from square one AGAIN, you can't get any more obvious when it comes to regressing the character rather than moving him forward.

I didn't read your discussion with butter so if I'm misunderstand something from this understand why.

You realize if you want to keep a character around you have to regress all characters at some point right? You can only go so far before you're stuck with a geriatric aged hero.

Online
Avatar image for jogga
#49 Edited by Jogga (1016 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: Yes.

And we have MULTIPLE Supermen at our disposal.

That's the thing with these Retcons and Reboots.

We don't need them. Address the problem, build off them, then END it and either go forward with another Superman in another universe or continue with Legacy characters and pass the mantel.

Avatar image for fantasyconnect
#50 Posted by FantasyConnect (57 posts) - - Show Bio

Couldn't they go for a stylistically better approach to the trunks? Like have them be integrated into the fabric of his suit? And don't get me started on the belt.

I guess this means both marvel and dc have lost my buys, first the negative Flash arc was handled poorly despite the potential, and now this.

And Invincible is ending, bloody hell...