Quote Originally Posted by hareluyafan1 View Post
I'm sure they did, but at the same time a lot of people didn't.
And a lot of people don't like the trunks. Guess consensus is impossible with stuff like this.

Suit yourself (no pun intended). but you're missing out. Even if you don't agree with the view presented it's still a fascinating video made by someone who really knows his stuff and makes some very good points. Plus it's only about seven minutes long so it won't cost you a ton of time or anything.
Eh, I'm using my phone's wifi hotspot to connect my laptop to the internet, which leaves some speed issues during the day, leaving me to devote much of the night to download various things. Pretty much until I get better wifi if it isn't a movie trailer I tend not to watch (also it may have been a tad late when I made that post and my eyes just weren't up for a glaring chunk of video).

Not so. There are far better and deeper reasons than mere nostalgia. See below.



That's not the point. The point is what the trunks represent culturally and artistically. See below for details.



That makes no sense to me and it didn't make any sense decades ago.

Firstly trunks are only part of a line of adornments traditionally meant to signify power. In the Renaissance men wore codpieces, today many men wear big belt buckles.
Superman isn't the type who needs to signify power, he's a good natured guy who'll fight and win, but doesn't feel the need to show off his might. Plus he probably wouldn't want to focus that much attention to his crotch area either, modest son of farmers that he is. Plus I always thought the people with huge belt buckles were compensating for something, and Superman shouldn't be compensating. (Seriously, "look at my crotch I'm powerful" isn't the kind of cultural thing we want to perpetuate with Supes.)

Secondly, please explain to me how trunks are "dated?" What do most modern-day wrestlers wear? What do most modern-day bodybuilders wear? That's right, they wear trunks. Hence the continued cultural relevance and association with power and strength.
A lot of people kind of view wrestling and bodybuilding as cheesy and silly. Don't get me wrong, I used to watch the hell out of the WWE some years back, but I watched it because it felt like good corny trashy fun. It's not what I want from Superman though. Trunks make sense in wrestling, but no one, in comic books or elsewhere, should be taking fashion advice from wrestling.

Without the trunks Superman is basically wearing a onesie, making him look like a giant baby. Notice for example how in "Man of Steel" (where Superman is without trunks) he is indecisive and unsure of himself, lacking his traditional strength of character. That's no coincidence.
It is indeed a coincidence and a huge stretch. Snyder didn't get Superman and wanted him indecisive and unsure, and would have directed him as such even with the trunks. The lack of trunks didn't signify him as being more baby-like, and if you really want to call the costume without the trunks as a onesie, you have to also acknowledge that many people would compare the red trunks to looking more like a pair of diapers.

Besides, there are ways to ditch the trunks and not give off a onesie appearance. Make the top and bottom halves different shades of blue so they look like separate pieces, make the bottom half less form fitting yoga pants and more loose around the legs like normal pants, how you draw the belt, etc.

Also, colour balance is important in a costume as it conveys the idea of sturdiness and reliability. The big red S on the chest and cape make Superman look top-heavy, like he may topple over at any time. The red trunks provide an appropriate colour balance, making him look stable and centred. Without them he looks unbalanced.
Color balance is the only argument I give credence to, and there are multiple ways to achieve it without the trunks. Differing shades of blue in his costume, the design and color of his belt, various other design elements from seams and wrinkles to armor and lines. Artists have a lot of options on how to figure it out without resorting to the big red undies.

Next we have the psychology of colour. The blue signifies stability and depth while the red signifies determination and the will to take action. With too much blue and not enough red Superman again appears reluctant and indecisive, lacking the passion to be heroic. Again, look at "Man of Steel."
Again, your issue with Superman being indecisive in Manb of Steel can be laid at the feet of Snyder. Snyder would have had Superman act that way even if he had been wearing trunks, and better directors would have had Superman acting like Superman even without the trunks. I'm not going to argue color psychology because I just don't know anything on that subject, but there are other ways to add red to the suit without drawing it all on his crotch.

You may prefer Superman without them, but the trunks are important from both an aesthetic and psychological point of view and their absence diminishes Superman considerably.
We'll have to disagree. The absence of many things could diminish Superman, but trunks to me just isn't one of them. In fact, I'll always think they've held him back a bit.

Yeah sorry about that.
Eh, don't be. We wouldn't hound on this subject like we do if we didn't care for the character so much. Blame DC for making a character we can love enough to waste hours debating over what he wears over his butt of all things.