Are the red trunks being banned again?

[Jim Kelly]

Back in the day, when I first got into super-hero comics, there was no consistency in how Batman and Superman put together their wardrobe--and it drove me crazy.

Batman's cowl was maybe separate or maybe joined to his cape or maybe both were joined to his costume. Superman maybe wore a separate top, or maybe he wore a blue onesie with the red trunks over that, or maybe the leggings were sewn to the trunks. Did Superman's leggings have feet or did they stop at the ankles? And if they stopped at the ankles, why didn't they ride up when he was in action.



It's amazing that some people assume that Superman is wearing a pair of trunks over a body suit--because there was never any evidence that was the case. Since the super-suit was often shown hanging on its own, it seemed like the whole thing was joined together. But then Superman would sometimes take off his cape or his boots or his shirt. And how exactly did he attach his cape to his shirt?

Well, the Captain Action Superman costume made it clear that the top was sewn onto the trunks and the trunks were sewn onto the leggings.

[The Frog Bros]

For me what the New 52 costume needed was no collar, some yellow in the belt, and fewer lines. The latter other artists eventually did, and Fabok did at least minimize the collar. The metallic sheen I didn't mind at all, in fact I was a fan of it. Reborn needed to lose the movie gauntlets, and instead just adopt the New 52 red trim if it wanted a cuff accent. I also prefer the classic oval buckle to the S outline utilized by both.

But I'd really like to see a fan artist take a crack at the Authority suit turned proper costume. Long sleeves, standard S and a cape. There could be something cool there too.

Yeah I think there's potential there too. Like a darker red cape to match the darker two-toned blue could be cool.

I don't necessarily hate the collar if its more muted, but when its rather ginormous its pretty distracting to the look. Almost like a victorian superhero

[Bored at 3:00AM]

5a469-16232352876776-800.jpg

I'm intrigued by the merger of the New 52 suit with the trunks. I wouldn't have thought it'd work, but it kinda does.

[Jim Kelly]

The one thing I want is belt loops. I love them. A simple detail but so good to see. What purpose does the belt serve and what keeps it there? Belt loops answer the call.

[SuperX]

The one thing I want is belt loops. I love them. A simple detail but so good to see. What purpose does the belt serve and what keeps it there? Belt loops answer the call.

Yeah I wouldn't mind just the yellow belt ,but with the belt loops ,with a no trunk suit.

[objectivewatcher2013]

I DESPISE the trunks lol. They're old, outdated, belong in a museum. One of the first things that made me not give Bendis a chance was him putting the tree unks on.

[SuperX]

I DESPISE the trunks lol. They're old, outdated, belong in a museum. One of the first things that made me not give Bendis a chance was him putting the tree unks on.

I wouldn't say all that about the trunks,but I did not like that bendis changed them as soon as he got the character

[Agent Z]

True, but grown men and women wrote the books back then, too.



And that's fine. I'm speaking more on the judgement call than the preference. I remember when "grown man in a superhero costume" was something that was distinctly chastised in the same way, and now "cosplay" is completely a thing.



True. It's also why I make jokes about no one caring about "Batman's blue-black armor panties" in the first 2 Arkham games when Superman's are questioned. Does anyone care? I've seen all of one person mention it, and that was on here. Those games are huge, and it wasn't a problem.

Plus, they're selling He-Man toys in stores again. Those furry man-shorts are definitely a barbarian aesthetic, but imo not *that* far removed from the trunks.

No one claims that Batman's trunks are necessary when they are gone either. If he can go without them, so can Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

I wouldn't say all that about the trunks,but I did not like that bendis changed them as soon as he got the character

I imagine these kind of creative decisions aren't made unilaterally--especially when the writer isn't also the artist and the editor. Even when a writer has a lot of schlep, it would have to involve other people to make it happen. With a character like Superman, the publisher might have a say about that.

[JBatmanFan05]

I'm intrigued by the merger of the New 52 suit with the trunks. I wouldn't have thought it'd work, but it kinda does.

I'm no fan of the New 52 suit, but that is surprisingly the best altered version of it, with the yellow belt and trunks. Too bad DC didn't run with that.

[Sacred Knight]

It looks good but the trunks look a little out of place on the design. Not abhorrently so, I still like it, but it would still look better without them for this particular type of look, where they utilize a slight sheen to the materials.

[Scott Taylor]

Trunks. If its good enough for Kingdom Come Superman, its good enough for me.

[Jim Kelly]

When you look at the New 52 armour design, you can clearly see it's made up of sections. For freedom of movement, it can't be a onesie--he has to be able to move his legs and arms. There's a section that covers his pelvis which is the same as the old school trunks. The only difference is that this section is coloured blue not red and, instead of shaded folds, it has a smooth sheen.



So again I assert it's not the separate pelvic covering that some fans have a problem with--it's the wavelength of light hitting their retina when they look at this section. [620 - 750 nanometers are a no go; 450 - 495 nanometers are a go.]

[JAK]

No one claims that Batman's trunks are necessary when they are gone either. If he can go without them, so can Superman.

Sure. But Batman has his back now, too. My point is that it's not the "oh no I can't take this seriously" thing that it gets accused of being. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City were loved and critically acclaimed, armor panties and all.

So again I assert it's not the separate pelvic covering that some fans have a problem with--it's the wavelength of light hitting their retina when they look at this section. [620 - 750 nanometers are a no go; 450 - 495 nanometers are a go.]

That's a very good point - I actually remember photoshopping those red back in 2011. Which makes the Fortnite costume hilarious, because it's almost exactly what my edit looked like, lol

[manwhohaseverything]

Sure. But Batman has his back now, too. My point is that it's not the "oh no I can't take this seriously" thing that it gets accused of being. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City were loved and critically acclaimed, armor panties and all.

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)

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..

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..

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..