Are the red trunks being banned again?

[Adekis]

Banned? Not that I ever heard of. Nor should they be.

But I do prefer him not to wear them in contemporary set stories.

[JAK]

How can anybody treat it seriously when the writers themselves treat it like some dorky costume cosplay.It's just a celebration of modern geek culture.while,i admire the attempt at being authentic (i mean, it's me).The problem with this becoming mainstream i find to be nothing but pure hedonism and escapism.In superman's case, it's not even a celebration of his individuality in a society that deems it uncouth anymore like the xmen and superman himself back in the day(superman is just a thing clark does.it's not who he is).To put it simply running away from doing responsibilities by clinging on to your inner child.By being honest about the dorkyness they get moral pass to do it.More importantly it doesn't feel genuine and is just fake..It doesn't scream Clark's personality(yo! corrupt authorities here is a sheild that's worth something..right here on my chest)

It's a flying nearly-invincible man in a cape. If he existed in real life, he could wear nothing but a tutu and people would quickly learn to love that tutu when they see it on the man coming to save them. He would have a tangible effect on so much more than people realize. But not many really talk about that, either.

Superman may not be who Clark "is" per-se, but it's the expression of a massive part of his personality. While that's not the same as "who he is," it's pretty close. Some writers have made it an expression of his individuality but largely in passing - I'd agree that making that more of a thing would be a solid decision, especially given the era we're living in now.

batman's costume is treated as a superstitious madman's desperate attempt at vengeance sometimes.When he is a swashbuckling hero in stories like nolan movies.it is a ninja-esque stealth gear with no trunks.Regardless,for batman's strongman suit(the trunks gear) hardly ever connected to what he is in stories.it wasn't important and barely noticeable.Physical Strength is not bruce's Forte.it's stealth, theatricality and agility.Batman's attire is something that's a left over from him taking inspiration from superman..

That's a good point, taken in reverse. If Superman is the first (or among the first) super-hero again, why *not* have Batman make exactly that costume decision for that very reason? His cape and logo placement are largely inspired by Superman, too - so it makes logical sense to have that be in the narrative, as well. Superman came forward and set (or re-set, if we're going with the JSA doing it first) the standard that others initially followed.

But all of that doesn't negate the point I was making earlier - at a time when people were giving Superman crap about his costume, nobody I saw (in magazines, reviews, online, etc) was saying squat about Batman's armor trunks in the Arkham games - and it certainly wasn't stopping people from being absolutely obsessed with the games. My point is that the overall social hubub around Superman's trunks has largely been hypocritical and singular. Most comics fans aren't saying "I can't take Dr. Manhattan seriously because no grown man should go around with his junk hanging out." People can have preferences, of course - that's completely fine and subjective. But usually the attack on them is tied to larger social mores that aren't applied to other characters. Superman is the biggest (in a larger cultural sense) so he gets the brunt of it and that's fine, but it's in no way consistent - that's my point.

Coming to superman.If you are gonna have superman wear the trunks suit.Just produce an origin that treats it differently than "silly costume his mom made".That's just my opinion.No, it's not a slight at his mom making a costume for clark.But,the sheer feeling of nostalgia, escapism..etc being invoked.The suit came from the circus.There can be something deeply alien to that setting.It can even horrifiying.Especially,since those things are of the past.And i do believe that,the suit and character are meant to evoke different feelings.And like you,i do believe the trunks can have thematic implication(duh! Superstrength is his thing).But,has it ever been utilised in that way?no.If it does have anything to do with true strength and Clark's mission statement..(i fight for those who can't...yata!yata).Then it can be taken seriously,atleast by me.otherwise, it's not serious at all..

First, imo there's not a thing wrong with having dashes of nostalgia and escapism with Superman - even in the 30's, escapism and power fantasy were part of the package. And Superman has been a cultural icon for *decades,* so callbacks and some things being more simplistic shouldn't be an issue. I do agree that nostalgia often emphasized too much. It has to be threaded in carefully, but it can be done (Superman & Lois is doing it fairly well overall, honestly).

That said, I agree that I'd love to see Clark have an affinity for circus strongmen as a kid or tie the costume choices even deeper to his personality and expression.

It's kinda wierd how a guy in bird suit and clown attire has been taken seriously...nobody ever did anything with superman of that sort..

Overall, maybe.. but "nobody" is a rather blanketed statement. And, as much as you may feel it hasn't aged well, I could point to the first Donner Superman film. The in-universe characters poked fun at the suit a bit, sure, but they did take the man seriously; and the modern superhero film basically exists because of it. For the time, it was absolutely a serious take.