Superman Costume Evolution: The Early Years

The Man of Steel’s costume, despite what you might think, has come a long way since Joe Shuster first introduced him to us in Action Comics #1. It actually evolved in a very short time, but evolve it did.

If you know the background of the development of Superman, then you know that he began—sort of—as the featured villain in a Jerry Siegel story for which Shuster drew illustrations. In it, the ‘superman’ has psionic powers, for lack of a better term, instead of mostly physical ones, and, of course, he’s bald. For whatever reason, either Shuster, Siegal or both thought that a good way of indicating villainy was to depict a character as bald, which will cost Luthor his locks (yes, he had them, and, no, there was no ‘Lex’ when the character was first introduced) very soon. After deciding a heroic superman might see better, the character’s appearance underwent various and sundry transformations as Siegal kept pitching the character, but when he and Shuster reunited (after an understandable spat, since Siegal had tried to shop Superman around with other, better known artists), and got an offer to publish a story, they decided on this:

Action Comics (1938) #1 “The Coming of Superman”

What’s the first thing I noticed when I read this comic? No boots! Or boots colored the same as his tights, anyway. Superman appears to be wearing a footed onesie with red trunks pulled over it, but if you look carefully, you can see what appears to be some sort of high sandal straps wrapping around his calves. I’m assuming those straps were meant as a nod to Hercules, since his and Superman’s powers are pretty much the same at this point. (and although I may be the first to make the costume link, I’m certainly not the first to make the comparison: See Action #1)

From the same page:

Whoops! Forgot to color in his trunks! Scandal! Scandal!

The ‘S’ on Superman’s chest is a small triangle and completely golden with a red ‘S.’ In bigger panels of later comics some red can be seen, but not much, and sometimes the emblem will appear completely golden. The yoke of Superman’s shirt is rounded, too, and from his front, you can’t see where his cape attaches. Finally:

There’s no ‘S’ on his cape at all.

That’s pretty much it. Superman already sports his familiar golden belt and red trunks (most of the time. Haha!), and the colors are the same, but I admit that when I first read these stories (back when I bought a giant-sized anniversary edition of the first Action comics), I was a bit surprised.

On the cover, which Shuster drew earlier than he did the first story in Action, Superman has boots instead o the sandal-things (or booties. For cryin’ out loud, Joe!), and they are red, not blue, although I think I can see the strap lines, too. Possibly Shuster made the footwear blue in the comic to slightly simplify his work? (Or whoever was the colorist did; I can’t find a credit anywhere save for the cover, where it’s Jack Adler of Green Lantern (Silver Age] and other fame.)

Action Comics (1938) #1 cover art

Also, the ‘S’ is definitely red. It is often yellow and the emblem a simple triangle in the comics, again, most likely, to make the task of drawing and coloring the character more simple, but here Superman proudly bears a wide golden shield with a big red ‘S’ on it, a harbinger of things to come.

Indeed, changes would be coming soon, but not too soon. In fact, in Action #3, “Superman Battles Death Underground,” a story about exposing a skinflint mine operator in which our hero poses as an immigrant miner, Superman doesn’t even wear his costume. Hard to believe now, I know, but it makes sense in the climate of comics at the time. The other pages of Action Comics were filled with hardboiled characters of various stripes who all operated in everyday clothes, except for Zatara the Master Magician (one of several characters so billed in Detective Comics, Inc.’s and other companies’ stables, although Zatara would endure, after a fashion, much longer than most), a refined type who always wore a tux and top-hat. Admittedly, since Zatara’s ‘day job’ (more like night job, as his heroics mostly occurred in broad daylight) was performing in clubs as a stage magician, such garb was part of the tools of his trade, even if he seems slightly overdressed when Zatara’s merely having lunch with friends. In any case, given the types with whom he shared the magazine, Superman dressing as a regular person probably didn’t seem out of place at all.

So… Superman can’t fly and doesn’t wear his costume. I can’t help thinking that Jon Peters would be so very happy!

In Action #6 we first see Superman wearing proper boots within a comic:

Action Comics (1938) #6 “Superman’s Phony Manager”

And, though difficult to see (sorry for the bad scan), the ‘S’ on his chest is definitely red. After this, sometimes the colorist would forget or not bother because of tight angles, but overall, the ‘S’ will remain red.

Action Comics (1938) #6 “Superman’s Phony Manager”

The chest emblem is also larger, although still a simple triangle instead of the more familiar stylized pentagon. Also, the cape is attached to the neck of Superman’s shirt at the front instead of somewhere in the back. although this will revert to the older way in the next issue. Ironically, this image is not of Superman, but an actor pretending to be him as part of a scam. That guy’s handler must’ve been on the ball, since he put his protégé in a costume Superman hadn’t even been wearing yet!

In Action #18 Superman’s cape is now attached to the edges of his shirt in the front the familiar manner (he must’ve liked the look) and will remain that way. The yoke of his shirt is now more of a slight curve than an arc, too. That pesky ‘S’ is still so small, though!

Action Comics (1938) #18 “Superman Meets the Ultra-Humanite”

In Superman #4 (Yes, our hero is now popular enough to get his own bimonthly magazine with three stories or more of his own while still keeping the star spot in Action), we see the golden ‘S’ emblem on his cape for the first time (it will be red and gold, too, from time to time until someone, probably management, finally settled on gold), although we still have ‘triangle S’ on his chest. The cape emblem and the more elaborate cape flow were both the work of Paul Cassidy, whom Shuster hired to do inking and detail work as Shuster’s workload increased. The work below is of another artist, Leo Nowak, who followed Cassidy’s lead on both:

Superman (1939) #4 “The Invisible Luthor”

And finally, in Superman #5 (and at some point thereabouts in Action, too) we see a full-sized stylized ‘S’ emblem on his chest, also the contribution of Cassidy. Cassidy was also responsible for the making permanent the ‘modern’ look of attaching Superman’s cape to the sides of the front of his shirt neck. which you can also clearly see below in this panel, penciled and inked by Cassidy:

Superman (1939) #5 “The Slot Machine Racket”

I must confess: I love seeing that big, stylized red ‘S’ at last! Thank you, Paul!

The tops of Superman’s boots now angle up from the back of his calves and end, not with a point on his shin, but with a small indent, and they are double-stitched at the top, too, as you can see below in these panels penciled by Wayne Boring and inked by Paul Lauretta.

Superman (1939) #5 “The Slot Machine Racket”
Superman (1939) #5 “The Slot Machine Racket”

Superman’s boots will retain this design even up until today.

And that, as they say, is that, except that by now Joe Shuster, as you can see, had several other assistants helping him draw, ink, and color the stories, among them Paul Cassidy, Leo Nowak, John Sikela, Ed Dobrotka, and Wayne Boring, who would soon concentrate on the new Superman daily newspaper strip. Instead of working for Detective Comics, Inc., though, although that would gradually change, at first these fellows worked directly for Joe Shuster in what would be called the Shuster Shop. For details on these artists and others in the Shuster Shop, look here.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

Batman Costume Evolution: the 1940’s

When Bob Kane and Bill Finger presented the Batman to the world (okay, pretty much just the U.S., but eventually…) in the lead story in issue 27 of Detective Comics, Finger had already convinced Kane to give up his original idea for a costumed adventurer to help capitalize on the craze started by Siegal and Shuster’s Superman in the sister magazine Action Comics. As Finger recalled:

…[Kane] had an idea for a character called ‘Batman’, and he’d like me to see the drawings. I went over to Kane’s, and he had drawn a character who looked very much like Superman with kind of … reddish tights, I believe, with boots … no gloves, no gauntlets … with a small domino mask, swinging on a rope. He had two stiff wings that were sticking out, looking like bat wings. And under it was a big sign … BATMAN. (Wikipedia, “Bob Kane”)

Of course, most readers will recognize the germ of another character, Robin, in that description.

At any rate, Finger convinced Kane to go with a full cowl and scalloped cape. He also suggested Kane leave the eyes blank white with not visible pupils in order to add a sense of mystery (one of the best things animated films have over any cinematic form of Batman, I think, is that they retain those blank, somewhat-creepy eyes).

Those blanked-out eyes became heavily influential; while masked characters in comics before Batman had clearly visible eyes, many characters such as the original Atom (Al Pratt) and Green Lantern (Alan Scott), and even Mr. America, the character created when rock ’em-sock ’em adventurer Tex Thompson turned superhero, also had blank white eyes, and it has continued as a tradition in comics drawn by all artists to this day (although some character like the second Green Lantern [Hal Jordan] only have blank eyes when he’s drawn at a distance, and even some Batman artists occaisionally show his eyes through the mask in close-ups).

Besides these changes, the revised Batman costume dropped red in favor of black and gray colors befitting a mysterious creature of the night and added gloves, although, as we’ll see, Kane wasn’t initially sold on that part. And thus we have this:

Detective Comics (1937) #27 “The Case of the Chemical Syndicate”

Two issues later, though, we see these:

Detective Comics (1937) #29 “The Batman Meets Doctor Death”

Not only gloves, but the Batman’s utility belt is closer to the more modern version: the same vials (which the Batman initially used quite frequently to spread gas, acid, etc.) but with a square buckle instead of a rounded one:

Detective Comics (1937) #29 “The Batman Meets Doctor Death”

…right up until Frank Miller got hold of it and stuck some Rob Liefeld style pouches on it (no, I’m still not happy about that). Also, whoever is doing colors is using blue for highlights instead of coloring the cape and cowl completely in black. This was done because the coloring limits of early comic books made details impossible to render without a highlight color. Wikipedia simply chalks the change up to ‘coloring schemes,’ but I, having read a great many 1940’s and later vintage comics, am inclined to respectfully disagree, or at least go into more detail. Abandoning black-on-black was not simply a ‘scheme,’ but absolutely necessary. Given the coarseness of the cheap printing used in comics at that time, all black was simply not going to supply the ability to make the images two-dimensional; a more distinguishable contrast color was needed for that. It is improvements in printing tech, up to and including our own digital age, have made the return to black I will mention later possible without drastically raising the printing costs.

Some things still remain the same, such as the Batman’s cape flaring into a ‘real wings’ shape.

Detective Comics (1937) #29 “The Batman Meets Doctor Death”

Then, in issue #31 of Detective, in “Batman vs. the Vampire, Part 1,” a story with a script freely cribbed by Gardner Fox from Mathew ‘Monk’ Lewis’ 1796 novel The Monk, (if you ever wonder about the Batman’s Gothic origins, since Fox was a frequent writer of his exploits over the years, look no further) Kane has the gloves extending up the Batman’s arms. I can only assume we’ve Bill Finger to thank for that. Also, Kane is veering away from the ‘spread’ ears of the cowl to the more vertically oriented ones we’re familiar with today.

Detective Comics (1937) #31 “Batman vs. the Vampire, Part 1”
Pictured are (r-l) the Monk, The Batman, and Bruce Wayne’s first flame/fiancé, Julie Madison.

By Detective #33, the costume’s vertical ‘ears’ and full gauntlets are here to stay:

Detective Comics (1937) #33 “The Batman Wars against the Dirigible of Doom”

In the last panel you can see that Kane has drawn the cape closer to the manner with which most Batman readers will be familiar, as stylized bat wings, whether it makes any physical sense or not: a suggestive but not quite so obvious effect, as opposed to the ‘stiff,’ possibly wire-supported ‘points’ Kane had previously been drawing. Also, note that while the Batman has a hot-rodded car—what is that, a V-16?—it’s by no stretch of the imagination a ‘Batmobile,’ although we have seen a ‘bat autogyro,’ one with robot controls that is capable of crossing the Atlantic, in “The Monk” by this point.

And finally, in Detective #36, behold! we have bat scallops/spikes on the outer edges of the Batman’s gauntlets instead of the flared cuffs. Also, the blue tones are now being used on the cowl and upper side of the cape instead of just the underside, the boots, and the gloves. That coloring will last until 1986 in The Dark Knight Returns, (which was printed using a ‘high end’ process that made this work) during which Batman will revert from a costume with blue tones to one with the original black. After that, black will again become the norm for more and more of his appearances.

Detective Comics (1937) #36 “Professor Hugo Strange”

That pretty much completes the Batman’s costume as we will see it for some time, although at some point (fairly soon, actually, in Batman #2) the ‘ears’ will get shorter. I never have understood the reasoning behind that, except that Kane was being pushed harder and harder to keep up with demand, and he insisted on doing all the pencils until, of course, he couldn’t. Perhaps shorter ‘ears’ made drawing faster? Or did Jerry Robinson, who was doing the inking by then, shorten the ears over Kane’s pencils?

Of course, twenty years later during editor Julie Schwartz and legendary comics artist Carmine Infantino‘s tenure, the blue tones will have both lightened and pretty much taken over the dark parts of the costume, and yellow circles will suddenly surround the bat on the Batman’s chest, but it may take me some time to get there.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here

Robbins Draws the Batman

I have already mentioned Joe Kubert as a writer-artist for DC’s version of TarzanFrank Robbins usually wrote the Batman in Detectice Comics (as well as Batman), but in some issues he handled the art duties as well. Robbins gave the Caped Crusader a rather unique, almost harsh look, especially when you remember that Neal Adams and Dick Giordano (especially Adams) had already established a ‘clean,’ action-oriented Batman that, if one discounts the look produced by Frank Miller and Klaus Janson (whose influence, especially in storyline, I confess not to particualry like, even if I admire their work), after being solidified by Jim Aparo, pretty much endures even now. Here are Adams and Giordano sharing art duties. 

Compare them to Robbins’ Batman:

Robbins’ art is much more noir, I suppose, which is in keeping with his writing. Considering these styles occur only issues apart at times, however, it can be rather jolting switching from one to another and back again.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

Kubert!

Back when DC had the rights to Tarzan, the incredible Joe Kubert delivered some fantastic art to the series, in which he was usually penciller, inker, and letterer, the colors being done by Tatjana Wood and the plots, at least in the story arcs below, being adapted from Edgar Rice Burroughs‘ original novels of the same title. These pages are nothing short of magnificent. I will add that Kubert also did a better than usual job of translating Burroughs’ world, including a good reflection through the art itself of his prose, into the comics medium. 

From “The Origins of Tarzan”
From “Tarzan and the Lion Man: Part 2”
(Note: Tarzan is impersonating an actor, Stanley Obroski, who, ironically, was in turn chosen for his strong resemblance to Lord Greystoke to star in a film about Tarzan.)

I confess to avoiding my usual practice of using small clips. I couldn’t bear to slice up such works of art, so I instead chose to present these glorious pages whole. If you like what you see, Dark Horse has now reissued Kubert’s Tarzan work here and perhaps elsewhere as well. (I own copies of the original issues as well as the digital, and I promise every page is just as wonderful)

Greetings, Mortals!

Haha! Seriously, Hi, folks. What you’re about to read, or perhaps are already reading and flipped back to see what all this crazy writing is about, is the highlights of a long love affair between myself and comics.

Yes, comics. Specifically, superhero comics. Oh, I’ve read other types over the years, and I enjoy them, too, but my first and main love has always been superheroes. Why? Search me. Larger than life? Able to fix rotten situations relatively easily (Which, incidentally, might explain why I prefer older comics to the ‘latest and greatest’)? I don’t know, and I haven’t asked my analyst, so for right now let’s just go with ‘I like ’em.’ Perhaps as you read this blog, you can decide and tell me.

So what’s in here? Oh, a little bit of everything. I’m interested in both how characters came to be as they were, are, and will be as well as making up reasons for what I read that are often silly, but fun, too, at least for me, and I hope for you. I’ll cover things like costume development, from Batman’s cape to Lois Lane’s hats (yes, hats: you won’t believe it), how the character changes and why I think that happened, For example, did you know that when Superman began, he operated much like the Batman? No cozy relationship with the police (the Batman’s has ebbed and flowed over the years), no particular compulsion against threatening people, and you got the sense that he really meant it, too. I haven’t followed Superman in recent years much outside of one collection (I have some more lined up to read now , though), but I know that wasn’t the case through the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, or even the 90’s. 

Now, I’m going to ask one thing of my readers, such as I may have. I fully realize this blog may never be more than something created for my own entertainment, and that’s fine, so no, this is not a pitch for money. I’m not a working writer and may never be, and even if by some miracle I become one, this blog will not be used to boost sales or the like.

No. What I ask of you is this: if you’re intrigued, if you get interested, buy some comics! Support the medium. Don’t just go to the movies: I will confess right now that I have seen very few live action superhero movies, and I’ve not liked any of them much because they nearly always distort the characters in order to ‘broaden the film’s appeal’ and, frankly, they usually accomplish this by dumbing down either the character, his story, or both (I have nothing against Sam Jackson playing Nick Fury, but I do about making Thunderbolt Ross an absolute tool the way he was in the first Hulk movie; that was done to avoid exploring the nuances of his character, which in turn lessens the tragedy of Bruce Banner). Case in point: the Batman’s secret identity used to get exposed in the comics about once every five years, max (if that). However, in the first three films (I’m talking the 80’s and 90’s, kids, not the more recent films), he was exposed in every single film. Tony Stark’s cover is blown in the first Iron Man film and to a villain at that. Oh, I know Stark himself revealed it at the end, too (which I wasn’t too happy about), but I think that was a case of the writers trying to sync with current Marvel storylines. Even so, that first film had diddly squat to do with those. The whole point of The Invincible Iron Man has always been a near-unbeatable being on the surface and a fragile human within the armor. Couldn’t we simply have stuck with that for one film?

Of course, I know why: revealing the secret identity is a cheap, easy plot device. Better yet, as a bonus you get the face of the actor you’re paying a bazillion bucks on screen just a little more instead of a mask that anyone could wear. In other words, Hollywood logic.

Comics don’t have to resort to those tricks because they let you inside the character’s head. You don’t have to see Peter Parker’s face unmasked to know he’s straining to hold a runaway train back.

Why? Because in a comic, you can see his thoughts, and they tell the whole story. And yes, I know, I know, but all the people see how human he is! Sorry folks, but to me, that’s cheap writing and also undermines the problem the character has: he is ‘just a kid’ through much of the early run of the comic, and yet no one knows that, which is why Jameson’s schtick continues to work, kind of. Spider-man lives with that and yet keeps being a hero, keeps saving people every day. That, to me, adds to the depth of the character much more than blowing his identity does.

Of course, as I said, the fact that the drawn Spider-man doesn’t cost 32 something million bucks the way Tobey Maguire did for the second and third films may also have something to do with it. Not that I begrudge Maguire his pay; it’s simply the reality of the thing. If you’re paying for that face and its expressions, then you’re going to want to use them as much as possible and never mind how much you screw up the idea that one of the core concepts of the character is that Peter has strong reasons for always keeping his face concealed when he’s Spider-man.

In a comic, on the other hand, thanks to thought bubbles, you can see spectacular action scenes, see facial expressions when possible, and know what the character is feeling without constantly resorting to unmasking him, all thanks to the combined efforts of a writer and an artist (even when they’re one and the same). It’s a unique medium that is able to convey a story in a unique manner.

But I digress.

Buy and read comics. You have a wonderful medium for them now: it’s as though tablets were made for comics. The colors are bright, the text clear, you can zoom in on panels, and your younger sibling can’t sneak in and snip the UPC code from the covers for some stupid school fundraiser while you’re out of the house the way mine did. If you like them, it’s worth your while, I think, to subscribe to services like Marvel Unlimited. I wish DC had something similar, as their DC Universe collection, last time I looked, was sadly lacking in that area, although it does have all their animated movies and Batman: the Animated Series, which makes it a good deal. You can’t go much wrong with Bruce Timm (Yes, I enjoy animated features, but generally not as much as comics). But with MU, you can dig into the past, see where these characters came from and how interesting and/or silly they were or have become. You don’t have to worry about the mailman messing up your new issues, either the way I did. The only problem is ownership, but I hope someday soon that will be solved, and until it does, it will affect many more things than comics.

Anyway, rant over. Prepare to be amused, astounded, or simply astonished that I would actually find this or that interesting. Either way, to the Comicsmoble, Readin’! We have an odyssey to begin!

(er, Dad joke. Sorry. Blame ZeFrank.)

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.