I have a question regarding Superman and the red trunks...

[Sacred Knight]

No problem at all. Also in my head I sometimes toy with the idea of using the Fleischer/Truth black S on there. For extra distinction of a different Superman. My art skills though are MS Paint atrocities so I can only imagine it in my head and I'm not sure how it'd look.

[Arsenal]

I take back everything I said about Bruce taking himself way to serious to wear trunks over his pants.

Read some old Detective comic issues and I can definitely believe he’d rock them with pride.

[mrbrklyn]

Fans should get used to see Superman with a new suit sometimes, and many already like that idea. DC should keep doing it more often so more fans get used to it.

I just love this suit and art by Garcia Lopez. Looks like Superman to me. All the main elements are there. Diana has a new suit in the movies and I think it's a big improvement.

Attachment 70897

It is no good without the red trunks. He looks naked (and fixed)

[jimmy]

When you take away a piece of the uniform, and in this case to just to appease some individuals because they have difficulty in accepting the appearance of the "man/character"...now you made the situation (character's appearance) much more about yourself, instead of Superman, and that should -Never- be!

However...

Not only dose the red trunks complete the overall signature look to perfection it, more importantly, makes the entire situation (character's appearance) about Superman, and that is way it should -Always- be!

[Agent Z]

When you take away a piece of the uniform, and in this case to just to appease some individuals because they have difficulty in accepting the appearance of the "man/character"...now you made the situation (character's appearance) much more about yourself, instead of Superman, and that should -Never- be!

However...

Not only dose the red trunks complete the overall signature look to perfection it, more importantly, makes the entire situation (character's appearance) about Superman, and that is way it should -Always- be!

And putting them back to appease people who do like them is about Superman how?

Any "moral" argument you can make against removing the trunks can apply to keeping them.

[Osiris-Rex]

And putting them back to appease people who do like them is about Superman how?

Any "moral" argument you can make against removing the trunks can apply to keeping them.

The trunks were an iconic part of the uniform for decades, just like the cape. If the goal is to "modernize" the look of the character because for some weird reason all of a sudden a "modern" audience
can't accept how the character was created to look then you are just appeasing some imagined group's tastes at the expense of people that enjoyed how the character looked for decades. What
is gained by removing the trunks otherwise? Put putting the trunks back on, the character looks like the character was intended to look. It's not appeasing one group at the expense of another.
It's is just correcting a bone-headed mistake.

[SuperiorIronman]

You need to keep in mind that the original suit had practical purpose to it. Namely in the trunks are present to invoke the image of the body builder, but that fabric of the time was not very good. You ran the risk of rips in the pants all the time when lifting heavy things and straining the fabric, and so the trunks are present to prevent anyone from seeing more than they should if they rip.

That would be what the Superman outfit is directly referencing and why most heroes have that. The fabric is not stretchy enough and it kind of sucks. So slap on a pair of trunks and get to lifting. That is the operating purpose for it. And subsequently why they kept them as they became iconic with the character and retained the strongman image.
Now this isn't a problem in the modern day seeing as times and technology have changed. You can weight-lift in just the trunks now and nobody cares. The fabric for the pants are also much better than before and so you run less risk of rips. Hence why people make fun of the trunks because they just don't get it. They have no concept for why it existed beyond it looking good on a character sheet.

If you want to modernize the costume then have Superman wear the trunks with pride. He would normally be making these costumes himself and might take inspiration from older bodybuilders seeing as Clark balloons real quick. That might be the first thing that pops into his head when he's becoming Superman seeing as heavy lifting might be what he's normally doing.

[mrbrklyn]

And putting them back to appease people who do like them is about Superman how?

Any "moral" argument you can make against removing the trunks can apply to keeping them.

Not the one where Superman was created with the Red shorts as part of the uniform design by Shuster and Seigel.

[mrbrklyn]

You need to keep in mind that the original suit had practical purpose to it. Namely in the trunks are present to invoke the image of the body builder, but that fabric of the time was not very good. You ran the risk of rips in the pants all the time when lifting heavy things and straining the fabric, and so the trunks are present to prevent anyone from seeing more than they should if they rip. .

Actually he made the Shorts red because they looked good that way and also gave him a degree of modesty and a place for his belt.

But mostly, he just liked the design.

[mrbrklyn]

The character that needs to stripped of his shorts is Robin

[Netherman14]

The only version of Superman I like that has the underwear (because they're not trunks, trunks don't have a belt built in) is Flesicher Superman.

But otherwise, they have frankly out-stayed their welcome for way too long a time. since at least 1978.

The Arctic Giant - 1942 - Original Superman - (HD + CC).mp4_20180918_235206.556.jpg

[JAK]

The only version of Superman I like that has the underwear (because they're not trunks, trunks don't have a belt built in) is Flesicher Superman.

But otherwise, they have frankly out-stayed their welcome for way too long a time. since at least 1978.

Underwear doesn't have belt loops. My trunks don't have the belt built in, they have loops for my belt, which helps hold the trunks in place (and gives me a place to hide my phone, lol)

Everybody has their tastes, though. "Edna" here doesn't much like my cape...

IMG_20180825_104252239.jpg
(this is from Wizard World Chicago, this year - had a blast, btw)

[stargazer01]

Batman doesn't wear trunks anymore and he is still Batman. Wonder Woman has an skirt now and she is still her. In fact, she looks better.

Same thing with Superman. The underwear does not define him, IMO.

Also, the 'S' has changed thru the years and it's still Superman. Some change is good.

Evolution-of-the-superman-s-symbol-0.jpg

[jimmy]

Batman doesn't wear trunks anymore and he is still Batman. Wonder Woman has an skirt now and she is still her. In fact, she looks better.

Same thing with Superman. The underwear does not define him, IMO.

Also, the 'S' has changed thru the years and it's still Superman. Some change is good.

Evolution-of-the-superman-s-symbol-0.jpg

Batman - should follow Superman's lead and don the trunks! Back to Basics!

WW- Back to the 1940's we go to "Sensation Comics No 1" with Wonder Woman in a skirt! We've come full circle!

The "S" symbols were - Works in Progress with slight variations on a theme, and artistic renditions (interpretations) - although they could have stop with one symbols in the middle.


You're right, some change is good, but then again, some change is unnecessary and actually a mistake! So you have to ask yourself - why am I changing this or, in this case - who am I changing this for?

[Agent Z]

The trunks were an iconic part of the uniform for decades, just like the cape. If the goal is to "modernize" the look of the character because for some weird reason all of a sudden a "modern" audience
can't accept how the character was created to look then you are just appeasing some imagined group's tastes at the expense of people that enjoyed how the character looked for decades. What
is gained by removing the trunks otherwise? Put putting the trunks back on, the character looks like the character was intended to look. It's not appeasing one group at the expense of another.
It's is just correcting a bone-headed mistake.

Except there were people who didn't like the trunks. Just as there were people who did. Neither is imagined.