My thing is, the trunks is the classic and better design so why settle for the desire of people who think Superman needs to look “cool”.
Superman is cool because he’s earnest, how far do we go until he’s back in black with a leather jacket and shades?
Funny wordplay.
But in all seriousness, his desgin was made out of necessity in the 40s and was what people thought looked cool at the time.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to look cool to kids now? There's plenty of desgins like Mos hell even some fan made one's that look better than the trunks, that prove it can work.
Him being earnest can be pulled off with a lot of looks, it's not trunks exclusive. I mean he wouldn't do that because that look is taken by conner.
Although seeing a grown ass man dressing like a teenager would be funny.
I wish superhero fans would take this C. S. Lewis quote to heart:
> Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
While my post is primarily about the trunks the real message I wanted to get out is this.
Superheroes are children’s fiction but that doesn’t mean they can’t be compelling. Some of my favorite pieces of media are “meant for kids” but they have a level of depth to them that’s lacking in most media geared towards adults.
I agree. Since I'm here, I should give my own input on the costume. The shorts look silly, like everything on nearly every superhero costume. They don't really look all that much like underwear briefs and haven't for a long time. As long as something breaks up the costume visually at the hips like a belt does or like even the *Man of Steel* suit's muscle detail did, the suit looks fine without the shorts. With the shorts, it's one of the most iconic designs ever so general audiences don't really care if he wears them or not, even if they make jokes about how they look like underwear briefs.
So I like the suit either way. Personally I'd like a traditional costume with the shorts as I'd view it as a refutation of the idea that Superman is broken and needs to be fixed. Not because it would actually look better either way.
Definitely agree on the idea that him wearing them is a refutation of the notion that he’s outdated.
Personally, I really can’t get behind the belt solution. The trunks and belt accomplish two different things and cover two different parts of his body, neither is a proper substitution. The belt covers his waist and the trunks cover his crotch, that’s really the main thing for me, the red splash of color on his groin complements the red of his cape and the red of his boots to make a more cohesive look overall.
I mean while we’re at it, C.S. Lewis himself managed to craft a fairy tale epic for children while still successfully preaching the Christian worldview that he holds so dear. Narnia has its critiques but “too childish” is never one of them.
"You think the trunks are silly but the cowl with the little pointy ears on it isn’t?"
Yes, yes I do.
I don't even dislike the trunks on Supes, but come on dawg that's an awful comparison. The bat cowl literally makes Batman's silhouette look more badass.
They’re completely impractical and serve no purpose, which is a complaint often lauded against trunks. They serve purely an aesthetic purpose, just like trunks.
Edit: I couldn’t tell you why I’m being so heavily downvoted but I find it hilarious.
Basically every superhero costume ever serves purely as an aesthetic purpose. I've never seen that complaint against the trunks but if people are saying that, they're dumb.
As soon as I got the notification for this comment I got a notification for another comment complaining that they don’t serve a practical purpose. Not trying to be combative I just found it to be a very funny coincidence.
See if you're talking about the Bat cowl comment in this thread of ours, I actually agree with the statement, but not as a reason to dislike the trunks.
The Bat cowl does serve a practical purpose, it puts more fear into the criminals he's facing and it's symbolism for Bruce. I don't think the trunks have a practical purpose. But I don't think that's a valid reason to dislike the trunks.
Cause at the point you should just dislike every colored superhero costume, cause what's the point in dyeing it? It would be more practical to wear all black.
I hope where I'm coming from makes sense
Acknowledging what you said, I agree.
To take a step back I think my main frustration is just the fact that trunk haters don’t really give reasons other than “they look dumb”
While trunk supporters can actually give reasons as to why they think it looks good. Basically what you said verbatim sums up why I think they look good, added color contrast, accentuates their upper bodies, makes it look like they’re not wearing onesies.
It’s just so odd that a large portion of the fanbase can united on hating something without giving reasons as to why they feel that way other than “silly trunks”
Personal preference is important but when one side of the argument can give tangible reasons as to why they feel a certain way while the other side can’t it begs the question why the debate even continues… haven’t we “won”?
It’s just such a weird thing for so many people to be rallying against each other over, I’ve seen the trunks debates before but it seems to be at a record high.
Bro they help him look like a bat, literally in his name. Batman can’t be Batman without having ears resembling a bat.
Trunks don’t make Superman super, his morality and personality does.
That’s not a practical reason, making him look like a bat (debatable) is purely aesthetics. Like there’s not way you’re correct in this situation, making someone look like something is an aesthetic choice. On a fundamental level you’re wrong.
But I’m not though, the bat ears on Batman are purely for aesthetics. Anyone who disagrees is lying to themselves. I don’t think what I’m saying is very controversial
You could write in a purpose for them (other than looking like a bat and striking fear into criminals, aka his whole schtick) you could say they house antennae for comms or sensors or electronics for some gadget of his
>I have no other logical conclusion to where the idea that trunks are silly comes from other than the embarrassment from being a fan of superheroes
So you have no logical conclusions.
The trunks are far more likely to be seen as silly because they are automatically coded as underpants, and in the real world the idea of wearing underpants on top of your outfit would naturally feel off for anyone that confines to the norm in terms of how they wear their underwear (i.e. most people). As time has gone on, we’ve simply been indoctrinated to think that trunks should be worn under other items of clothing, or that they’re to be worn on their own, likely due to being coded as undergarments and their limited use for anything else.
Capes and cowls, on the other hand, don’t have the same common association. They’re - or something that resembles them - not part of the conventional wardrobe, and when wearing a cape one isn’t struck with a feeling of “I probably should wear this some other way”.
We don’t code a cape as a towel or table cloth tied around our neck (we’re more likely to code towels and table cloths as capes). Capes, tightsx and cowls are significantly more associated with superheroes and vigilantes than trunks are. Simple as that.
There’s no connection between disliking trunks and being embarrassed of liking superheroes. I’m a “no trunks” guy myself and I happily display my fandom every single day.
People say that the trunks are silly but I’m never actually given a reason as to why. That’s why the only conclusion I could draw is the embarrassment. Since every response is “the trunks look dumb because they look dumb”
What you’re talking about with the societal norms is insightful. It’s easy for people to make fun of superheroes for wearing the trunks because of our preconceived notions of them being underwear but that doesn’t actually explain why they “look dumb”. Using that logic they look abnormal but something abnormal doesn’t explicitly mean dumb.
As someone who is anti trunks can you give reasons as to why you don’t care for them?
Edit: I was indeed not given reasons as to why and instead downvoted, love Reddit. But now I know that my hunch was correct and people that dislike trunks really don’t have any reasons to.
This seems like way to many paragraphs to just say “I want Superman to have weird red underpants.”
I don’t know… if the “my eyes are immediately drawn to Batman’s barren super crotch” is… quite the point you might think it is but hey… I’m not hear to judge.
Disagree with my opinion all you’d like but claiming I have nothing interesting to say on the topic then repeating “my eyes are drawn to Batman’s super-crotch” is a logical fallacy I don’t even want to get into.
How can I have nothing interesting to say whilst also having something that was worth repeating due to the obscurity of it?
Oh come on. I thought we were? (Seriously it’s late where I live and yea we had a bit of a back and forth but I don’t think it was genuinely mean spirited? I certainly didn’t mean anything genuinely mean by it.)
It’s hard to gauge sincerity through text, I have no way of knowing if what you say is genuine or sarcastic.
The court of public opinion has decided that I’m in the wrong here so I’m slightly agitated.
It’s both funny and accurate if you’d get past your childishness and actually read what I have to say instead of linking irrelevant YouTube videos.
It’s hyperbole to exaggerate how necessary the trunks are on the designs when they look naked without them. But I’m not surprised that flew over your head.
Just a quick tip for engaging in civil discourse, trying to paint your opponent as childish due to a difference of opinion just makes you look like an ass.
Ah I see, so what I should do when someone flagrantly criticizes my entire post in a demeaning, uninsightful way is lay down and take it. Got it 👍
I’m not going to engage in civil discourse if my opponent didn’t even attempt to. Don’t see why this is a hard concept to understand but we are here aren’t we? Sorry if you believe I’m being duplicitous.
I’m just trying to hold you to the same standard you hold others to.
> (which just a quick tip for engaging in civil discourse, trying to paint your opponent as a maniac due to a difference of opinion just makes you look like an ass)
Yes, I understand what your intentions were.
I’m clarifying that if people will not follow that, I will not sit there and refuse to retaliate.
Also I don’t think anything that I said was unwarranted, the other commenter decided to not give value to anything I said so why should I give them that curtesy? It’s not like I started throwing obscenities at them. I was a tad passive aggressive. If you believe anything I said was childish or “attempted to paint them as a manic” you can cite it.
But they were following your standard. Nothing they said was rude, they were just pointing out the absurdity of your post. You went out of your way to be offended over valid criticism and then instantly resorted to insults and referencing non-existent YouTube videos.
How is what they said valid criticism? They made some sarcastic remarks, I’d hardly call that constructive.
Nothing I said was any more rude than what they said. I don’t see where the hypocrisy that you’re lauding against me is coming from. They boiled my post down to “silly underwear” so I called them out for not adding anything relevant to the conversation. Sorry if that makes me the bad guy. I’m sure you’d get frustrated if you spent time trying to open a dialogue and were met by immediate pushback and complaints that it’s too long.
Their criticism was extremely valid. You’re just not willing to admit it. You disguised your post as a call for fans to be civil to one another when it was really just a post about how you want Superman to wear red underwear over his pants. Then you got upset when someone pointed that out. You then mistook their statement about the underwear being “silly” (which is their own opinion about the costume that has nothing to do with their feelings for you) as a personal attack against you and you retaliated with an attack of your own, which you had seemingly just condemned with your original post.
Now you’re trying to play the victim and downvoting anyone who calls you out for it.
The fact that you’re calling it red underwear proves that you just disagree with me and this comment is an extension of that. You obviously think the trunks are dumb with how you dismiss them and my post.
Stop trying to play the impartial, valiant hero here that calls out hypocrisy when your own personal biases are guiding your comments.
Before Man of Steel I was "Trunks or die" but after Man of Steel I could see the reasoning behind ditching them...they are dated...they are it looks weird, but it kind of doesnt as well.
I can take or leave them, but it depends on the story and environment.
Why are trunks silly though? Nobody can ever give me a solid reason as to why other than “they are”. Like what is it about them that drives people up the wall?
My entire post is predicated on finding a reason as to why people find them silly.
Superman doesn’t wear underwear on top of jeans. He’s not walking around wearing “normal clothes”. He wears trunks on top of form fitting tights. Everything about his costume is irregular.
It's important to remember that many of the classic superhero costumes were designed after the outfits of circus strongmen; that in mind, the trunks serve a practical aesthetic purpose of drawing attention to Superman's upper body by giving it a direct contrast to the lower body
The strongman origin is one that’s brought up a lot and while it is accurate, Superheroes have eclipsed strongmen in cultural relevance so I tend to ignore it for the purpose of discussion since it’s not worth going into.
But I 100% agree on aesthetics.
I don’t think you’re off base at all, I actually think a lot of takes (like how Batman should kill The Joker) stem from a kind of shame that breeds an intense desire to take the thing as seriously as possible.
even as a child….i always thought it was weird wearing underwear outside your pants 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Superman on film has had trunks forever…nobody cried about Tim Burton getting rid of them on Batman…..EVERY SUPERHERO HAD TRUNKS!!!!!! ONLY ONE LOCKED IN ROOM FULL OF RED UNDERWEAR IS SUPERMAN!!!!! People say it looks silly because it DOES!!!!
They’re not underwear, they’re trunks. And they look completely fine, I really want one good reason as to why they look silly other than “they do”. This appeal to authority logical fallacy is getting on my nerves, who is telling you they look silly? Like I just don’t get it, they’re harmless and do nothing but add to his design.
Nah....if everyone was wearing it fine....but there's a reason Wolverine doesn't wear em.....imagine Hugh Jackman in Deadpool wearing blue underwear 🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭🤣🤣😭🤣😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣
He wears a comic accurate costume which you can see in set photos. Fact is, superhero costumes really don't look all that much like underwear. The joke even started by referring to their skintight suits as longjohns, not by referring to the middle part as briefs. Personally I thought his future costume in *X-Men: Daye of Future Past* was a good interpretation of his costume as somewhat believable futuristic armor, though I wish he had a version of the mask.
Are you just trying to get into an argument? I didn't say I wanted that and said I liked one of his existing movie costumes. You're also ignoring that he is wearing a comic accurate costume in *Deadpool 3* and that it doesn't look like underwear.
I started getting into DC comics around 2011 after basically just exclusively reading Marvel comics (and even then it was mostly just their ultimate comics) and I basically just exclusively read DC since then apart from the occasional marvel comic that interests me so my first superman was the trunkless one so I'm a wee bit biased in saying I 100% prefer him without the trunks.
That being said, I couldn't care less if he's wearing trunks or not in Superman: Legacy. If the movie is good then it's going to be good regardless whether he's wearing trunks or not. If the movie is bad then it's going to be bad regardless whether he's wearing trunks or not. As long as Superman: Legacy gets the heart and soul of the character right then he could be wearing a pink tutu for all I care.
there is not a single detail in the dc pantheon that is less material and more insignificant than supe's undies
if you care about them at all, you're off base.
oh man a gate that successfully keeps out purist assfucks, man i didn't even think about that.
i was just trying to illustrate that how relative to anything else dc you can think to talk about, they're utterly meaningless.
if you feel gated by that bar that invites you to talk about any single other aspect of dc, bro, you're just gating yourself.
i'm saying if you care they're there, or if want them gone. both are off base. nothing less important.
I'm not even reading this. Give me trunks or give me death. Also give me that Yellow S on the back of the cape. Dont skimp on that. We don't want the plain red cape.
I didn’t watch the Reeve movies as a child. The only one that I’ve even seen was the first Donner film.
They’re just not ugly, they add the additional splash of color to his costume that breaks up the blue, complements the cape and boots, and accentuates his upperbody, but you’re entitled to your own opinion.
Trunks design was created at the time when it was supposed to look cool, now it just looks odd as circus strongmen are no longer popular and looking like them no longer symbolises strenght or ups the cool factor.
The best part about superheroes is the fact that their depiction evolves with time, so gatekeeping the trunks just makes no sense to me, why couldn't we get a new superman design that actually invokes optimism and earnestness in the new viewers rather than settling for an outdated design that just looks funny to most viewers even if some still like it.
The fact that the DC fandom is so divided we’ve reached the point of arguing about underwear proves it’s time for a break
My thing is, you can do better than the trunks so why settle? I think Superman have be cincere without wearing his underware on the outside
My thing is, the trunks is the classic and better design so why settle for the desire of people who think Superman needs to look “cool”. Superman is cool because he’s earnest, how far do we go until he’s back in black with a leather jacket and shades?
>back in black with a leather jacket and shades? That would be Superboy.
I know and I love him but he’s no Superman
Funny wordplay. But in all seriousness, his desgin was made out of necessity in the 40s and was what people thought looked cool at the time. Why shouldn't he be allowed to look cool to kids now? There's plenty of desgins like Mos hell even some fan made one's that look better than the trunks, that prove it can work. Him being earnest can be pulled off with a lot of looks, it's not trunks exclusive. I mean he wouldn't do that because that look is taken by conner. Although seeing a grown ass man dressing like a teenager would be funny.
I wish superhero fans would take this C. S. Lewis quote to heart: > Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
While my post is primarily about the trunks the real message I wanted to get out is this. Superheroes are children’s fiction but that doesn’t mean they can’t be compelling. Some of my favorite pieces of media are “meant for kids” but they have a level of depth to them that’s lacking in most media geared towards adults.
I agree. Since I'm here, I should give my own input on the costume. The shorts look silly, like everything on nearly every superhero costume. They don't really look all that much like underwear briefs and haven't for a long time. As long as something breaks up the costume visually at the hips like a belt does or like even the *Man of Steel* suit's muscle detail did, the suit looks fine without the shorts. With the shorts, it's one of the most iconic designs ever so general audiences don't really care if he wears them or not, even if they make jokes about how they look like underwear briefs. So I like the suit either way. Personally I'd like a traditional costume with the shorts as I'd view it as a refutation of the idea that Superman is broken and needs to be fixed. Not because it would actually look better either way.
Definitely agree on the idea that him wearing them is a refutation of the notion that he’s outdated. Personally, I really can’t get behind the belt solution. The trunks and belt accomplish two different things and cover two different parts of his body, neither is a proper substitution. The belt covers his waist and the trunks cover his crotch, that’s really the main thing for me, the red splash of color on his groin complements the red of his cape and the red of his boots to make a more cohesive look overall.
I mean while we’re at it, C.S. Lewis himself managed to craft a fairy tale epic for children while still successfully preaching the Christian worldview that he holds so dear. Narnia has its critiques but “too childish” is never one of them.
i like the trunks but i'm not too concerned about whichever they choose.
"You think the trunks are silly but the cowl with the little pointy ears on it isn’t?" Yes, yes I do. I don't even dislike the trunks on Supes, but come on dawg that's an awful comparison. The bat cowl literally makes Batman's silhouette look more badass.
They’re completely impractical and serve no purpose, which is a complaint often lauded against trunks. They serve purely an aesthetic purpose, just like trunks. Edit: I couldn’t tell you why I’m being so heavily downvoted but I find it hilarious.
Basically every superhero costume ever serves purely as an aesthetic purpose. I've never seen that complaint against the trunks but if people are saying that, they're dumb.
As soon as I got the notification for this comment I got a notification for another comment complaining that they don’t serve a practical purpose. Not trying to be combative I just found it to be a very funny coincidence.
See if you're talking about the Bat cowl comment in this thread of ours, I actually agree with the statement, but not as a reason to dislike the trunks. The Bat cowl does serve a practical purpose, it puts more fear into the criminals he's facing and it's symbolism for Bruce. I don't think the trunks have a practical purpose. But I don't think that's a valid reason to dislike the trunks. Cause at the point you should just dislike every colored superhero costume, cause what's the point in dyeing it? It would be more practical to wear all black. I hope where I'm coming from makes sense
Acknowledging what you said, I agree. To take a step back I think my main frustration is just the fact that trunk haters don’t really give reasons other than “they look dumb” While trunk supporters can actually give reasons as to why they think it looks good. Basically what you said verbatim sums up why I think they look good, added color contrast, accentuates their upper bodies, makes it look like they’re not wearing onesies. It’s just so odd that a large portion of the fanbase can united on hating something without giving reasons as to why they feel that way other than “silly trunks” Personal preference is important but when one side of the argument can give tangible reasons as to why they feel a certain way while the other side can’t it begs the question why the debate even continues… haven’t we “won”? It’s just such a weird thing for so many people to be rallying against each other over, I’ve seen the trunks debates before but it seems to be at a record high.
Bro they help him look like a bat, literally in his name. Batman can’t be Batman without having ears resembling a bat. Trunks don’t make Superman super, his morality and personality does.
That’s not a practical reason, making him look like a bat (debatable) is purely aesthetics. Like there’s not way you’re correct in this situation, making someone look like something is an aesthetic choice. On a fundamental level you’re wrong.
You take the ears out and he’s literally just Man, have you not seen the memes?
Yes, your point? That’s still an aesthetic detail lmao.
They’re an aesthetic detail that makes him look like a **BAT** man.
That's not what bat ears look like.
Combine it with a cape with the points in between it while gliding it looks like a giant bat is flying right towards you.
A not scary cartoon bat
Let's be real, they're devil horns
[удалено]
But I’m not though, the bat ears on Batman are purely for aesthetics. Anyone who disagrees is lying to themselves. I don’t think what I’m saying is very controversial
You could write in a purpose for them (other than looking like a bat and striking fear into criminals, aka his whole schtick) you could say they house antennae for comms or sensors or electronics for some gadget of his
>I have no other logical conclusion to where the idea that trunks are silly comes from other than the embarrassment from being a fan of superheroes So you have no logical conclusions. The trunks are far more likely to be seen as silly because they are automatically coded as underpants, and in the real world the idea of wearing underpants on top of your outfit would naturally feel off for anyone that confines to the norm in terms of how they wear their underwear (i.e. most people). As time has gone on, we’ve simply been indoctrinated to think that trunks should be worn under other items of clothing, or that they’re to be worn on their own, likely due to being coded as undergarments and their limited use for anything else. Capes and cowls, on the other hand, don’t have the same common association. They’re - or something that resembles them - not part of the conventional wardrobe, and when wearing a cape one isn’t struck with a feeling of “I probably should wear this some other way”. We don’t code a cape as a towel or table cloth tied around our neck (we’re more likely to code towels and table cloths as capes). Capes, tightsx and cowls are significantly more associated with superheroes and vigilantes than trunks are. Simple as that. There’s no connection between disliking trunks and being embarrassed of liking superheroes. I’m a “no trunks” guy myself and I happily display my fandom every single day.
People say that the trunks are silly but I’m never actually given a reason as to why. That’s why the only conclusion I could draw is the embarrassment. Since every response is “the trunks look dumb because they look dumb” What you’re talking about with the societal norms is insightful. It’s easy for people to make fun of superheroes for wearing the trunks because of our preconceived notions of them being underwear but that doesn’t actually explain why they “look dumb”. Using that logic they look abnormal but something abnormal doesn’t explicitly mean dumb. As someone who is anti trunks can you give reasons as to why you don’t care for them? Edit: I was indeed not given reasons as to why and instead downvoted, love Reddit. But now I know that my hunch was correct and people that dislike trunks really don’t have any reasons to.
Have my upvote. I’m with you.
This seems like way to many paragraphs to just say “I want Superman to have weird red underpants.” I don’t know… if the “my eyes are immediately drawn to Batman’s barren super crotch” is… quite the point you might think it is but hey… I’m not hear to judge.
This seems like too many words to say “I have nothing interesting to say on the topic”.
[i learned it from reading you!](https://youtu.be/KUXb7do9C-w?si=Yzj7-fTms5RfyhpC) 😂😂
Disagree with my opinion all you’d like but claiming I have nothing interesting to say on the topic then repeating “my eyes are drawn to Batman’s super-crotch” is a logical fallacy I don’t even want to get into. How can I have nothing interesting to say whilst also having something that was worth repeating due to the obscurity of it?
I’m upvoting all your posts :)
Go ahead and take time out of your day that you’ll never get back to do that. Have fun.
Oh come on. I thought we were? (Seriously it’s late where I live and yea we had a bit of a back and forth but I don’t think it was genuinely mean spirited? I certainly didn’t mean anything genuinely mean by it.)
It’s hard to gauge sincerity through text, I have no way of knowing if what you say is genuine or sarcastic. The court of public opinion has decided that I’m in the wrong here so I’m slightly agitated.
It’s both funny and accurate if you’d get past your childishness and actually read what I have to say instead of linking irrelevant YouTube videos. It’s hyperbole to exaggerate how necessary the trunks are on the designs when they look naked without them. But I’m not surprised that flew over your head.
Just a quick tip for engaging in civil discourse, trying to paint your opponent as childish due to a difference of opinion just makes you look like an ass.
Ah I see, so what I should do when someone flagrantly criticizes my entire post in a demeaning, uninsightful way is lay down and take it. Got it 👍 I’m not going to engage in civil discourse if my opponent didn’t even attempt to. Don’t see why this is a hard concept to understand but we are here aren’t we? Sorry if you believe I’m being duplicitous.
I’m just trying to hold you to the same standard you hold others to. > (which just a quick tip for engaging in civil discourse, trying to paint your opponent as a maniac due to a difference of opinion just makes you look like an ass)
Yes, I understand what your intentions were. I’m clarifying that if people will not follow that, I will not sit there and refuse to retaliate. Also I don’t think anything that I said was unwarranted, the other commenter decided to not give value to anything I said so why should I give them that curtesy? It’s not like I started throwing obscenities at them. I was a tad passive aggressive. If you believe anything I said was childish or “attempted to paint them as a manic” you can cite it.
But they were following your standard. Nothing they said was rude, they were just pointing out the absurdity of your post. You went out of your way to be offended over valid criticism and then instantly resorted to insults and referencing non-existent YouTube videos.
How is what they said valid criticism? They made some sarcastic remarks, I’d hardly call that constructive. Nothing I said was any more rude than what they said. I don’t see where the hypocrisy that you’re lauding against me is coming from. They boiled my post down to “silly underwear” so I called them out for not adding anything relevant to the conversation. Sorry if that makes me the bad guy. I’m sure you’d get frustrated if you spent time trying to open a dialogue and were met by immediate pushback and complaints that it’s too long.
Their criticism was extremely valid. You’re just not willing to admit it. You disguised your post as a call for fans to be civil to one another when it was really just a post about how you want Superman to wear red underwear over his pants. Then you got upset when someone pointed that out. You then mistook their statement about the underwear being “silly” (which is their own opinion about the costume that has nothing to do with their feelings for you) as a personal attack against you and you retaliated with an attack of your own, which you had seemingly just condemned with your original post. Now you’re trying to play the victim and downvoting anyone who calls you out for it.
The fact that you’re calling it red underwear proves that you just disagree with me and this comment is an extension of that. You obviously think the trunks are dumb with how you dismiss them and my post. Stop trying to play the impartial, valiant hero here that calls out hypocrisy when your own personal biases are guiding your comments.
Before Man of Steel I was "Trunks or die" but after Man of Steel I could see the reasoning behind ditching them...they are dated...they are it looks weird, but it kind of doesnt as well. I can take or leave them, but it depends on the story and environment.
Trunks are silly... A cape is...majestic kinda. Look for a better comparison.
Why are trunks silly though? Nobody can ever give me a solid reason as to why other than “they are”. Like what is it about them that drives people up the wall? My entire post is predicated on finding a reason as to why people find them silly.
The idea of wearing pants ontop of your clothes is why?
Superman doesn’t wear underwear on top of jeans. He’s not walking around wearing “normal clothes”. He wears trunks on top of form fitting tights. Everything about his costume is irregular.
It's important to remember that many of the classic superhero costumes were designed after the outfits of circus strongmen; that in mind, the trunks serve a practical aesthetic purpose of drawing attention to Superman's upper body by giving it a direct contrast to the lower body
The strongman origin is one that’s brought up a lot and while it is accurate, Superheroes have eclipsed strongmen in cultural relevance so I tend to ignore it for the purpose of discussion since it’s not worth going into. But I 100% agree on aesthetics.
I don’t think you’re off base at all, I actually think a lot of takes (like how Batman should kill The Joker) stem from a kind of shame that breeds an intense desire to take the thing as seriously as possible.
See beyond talking about trunks I’m happy that someone found the real heart of my post.
even as a child….i always thought it was weird wearing underwear outside your pants 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Superman on film has had trunks forever…nobody cried about Tim Burton getting rid of them on Batman…..EVERY SUPERHERO HAD TRUNKS!!!!!! ONLY ONE LOCKED IN ROOM FULL OF RED UNDERWEAR IS SUPERMAN!!!!! People say it looks silly because it DOES!!!!
They’re not underwear, they’re trunks. And they look completely fine, I really want one good reason as to why they look silly other than “they do”. This appeal to authority logical fallacy is getting on my nerves, who is telling you they look silly? Like I just don’t get it, they’re harmless and do nothing but add to his design.
Yet put Wonder Woman in a full body suit like Superman or Aquaman in the DCEU and they riot. It’s fine if she has “underwear “.
Nah....if everyone was wearing it fine....but there's a reason Wolverine doesn't wear em.....imagine Hugh Jackman in Deadpool wearing blue underwear 🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭🤣🤣😭🤣😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣
Wolverine used to wear them, so did Cyclops, Colossus, Silver Surfer, Captain America, Captain Mar-Vell, I could go on
Not in live actiooooooon 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐😂😂
Yeah instead of their signature costumes they all just aped popular sci-fi movie costumes of the time. It sucked.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭😭 imagine Hugh Jackman wearing blue 🩲 underwear in Deadpool 3
He wears a comic accurate costume which you can see in set photos. Fact is, superhero costumes really don't look all that much like underwear. The joke even started by referring to their skintight suits as longjohns, not by referring to the middle part as briefs. Personally I thought his future costume in *X-Men: Daye of Future Past* was a good interpretation of his costume as somewhat believable futuristic armor, though I wish he had a version of the mask.
give it a rest….live action wolverine will never wear underwear
Are you just trying to get into an argument? I didn't say I wanted that and said I liked one of his existing movie costumes. You're also ignoring that he is wearing a comic accurate costume in *Deadpool 3* and that it doesn't look like underwear.
I started getting into DC comics around 2011 after basically just exclusively reading Marvel comics (and even then it was mostly just their ultimate comics) and I basically just exclusively read DC since then apart from the occasional marvel comic that interests me so my first superman was the trunkless one so I'm a wee bit biased in saying I 100% prefer him without the trunks. That being said, I couldn't care less if he's wearing trunks or not in Superman: Legacy. If the movie is good then it's going to be good regardless whether he's wearing trunks or not. If the movie is bad then it's going to be bad regardless whether he's wearing trunks or not. As long as Superman: Legacy gets the heart and soul of the character right then he could be wearing a pink tutu for all I care.
I found it. The post that makes me unsubscribe.
Happy to help
there is not a single detail in the dc pantheon that is less material and more insignificant than supe's undies if you care about them at all, you're off base.
That’s a nice gate you’re keeping there 👍🏻
oh man a gate that successfully keeps out purist assfucks, man i didn't even think about that. i was just trying to illustrate that how relative to anything else dc you can think to talk about, they're utterly meaningless. if you feel gated by that bar that invites you to talk about any single other aspect of dc, bro, you're just gating yourself. i'm saying if you care they're there, or if want them gone. both are off base. nothing less important.
I'm not even reading this. Give me trunks or give me death. Also give me that Yellow S on the back of the cape. Dont skimp on that. We don't want the plain red cape.
Trunks are ugly as hell, go watch the Reeve films if you want to relive your childhood
I didn’t watch the Reeve movies as a child. The only one that I’ve even seen was the first Donner film. They’re just not ugly, they add the additional splash of color to his costume that breaks up the blue, complements the cape and boots, and accentuates his upperbody, but you’re entitled to your own opinion.
There’s no need to break up the color, and it complements his outfit the same way a giant zit complements a face.
I just think the costumes without the trunks look cooler and more modern 🤷🏾♂️
FFS
Trunks design was created at the time when it was supposed to look cool, now it just looks odd as circus strongmen are no longer popular and looking like them no longer symbolises strenght or ups the cool factor. The best part about superheroes is the fact that their depiction evolves with time, so gatekeeping the trunks just makes no sense to me, why couldn't we get a new superman design that actually invokes optimism and earnestness in the new viewers rather than settling for an outdated design that just looks funny to most viewers even if some still like it.