No trunks. Your Johnny on the street doesn’t get it,and even for those of us who are aware it was inspired by strong men and wrestlers are also aware that no one wears different colored trunks over tights anymore.
So I say either no trunks or outlines of trunks but the same color as the pants. If you want shirts or action figures of the classic look,sure,I like the classics too,but for a modern 2019 comic book trunks stick out like a sore thumb
1 Like
No trunks.
Underwear goes underneath.
It makes everything look so clownish when the trunks are on top imo. I saw someone in one of the DC Universe specials say comic fans like to take the characters seriously and the trunks outside messes that imo. It’s not pro wrestling.
I always tried to rationalize it because I like the characters but it’s work. “Well, Superman is an alien so maybe it’s just different on his planet. Right? Those are the robes (or whatever they’d call them on Krypton) of another culture”. See how far I had to push that?
I feel the same way when they use the word costume a lot. From the characters p.o.v. it just doesn’t work for me. In real life we’re used to people who are not suspending disbelief and following the premise and logic of the story saying that but why would the characters themselves? When a fire fighter suits up do you think they call their equipment a costume? Why would the character? Bruce Wayne wants Batman to be feared but his drawers are outside of his pants? Especially if it’s supposed to be functional.
Words like gear, equipment and occasionally suit work much better imo. My point being that words like costume and the underwear being on the outside don’t fit the idea that someone who takes whatever they are doing seriously enough to risk life and limb and possibly die about it wouldn’t be matter-of-fact about it and take seriously. So, Superman is an alien. What’s Batman’s excuse for putting his drawers on wrong? It hurts the suspension of disbelief imo.
Since all the other trunk-defenders seem to have vanished from this thread: Superheroes wear costumes because it looks cool. I like the trunks because they break up what would otherwise be very plain uniforms (Green Lantern and Aquaman, for example, don’t really need them because their bodysuits are not single-color like Superman’s and Batman’s). Like I said, it might be better if they extended further down the legs so they didn’t look quite so much like underwear (I’d even settle for removing the blue/grey and just having Superman and Batman wear red and black pants, respectively), but no trunks looks plain and ugly. If the intent were to make the costumes look serious and practical, every hero would run around in camouflaged tactical gear. The tights and capes are a genre convention that nobody questions most of the time, so I actually find it somewhat baffling that the trunks in particular get singled out all the time.
I also don’t mind the word “costume” because as clothing meant to disguise one’s identity and represent a concept or “character,” that’s literally what they are. I guess that’s just a preference thing, though. So are the trunks, but I just feel a bit more strongly about that.
1 Like
With Batman no trunk, I’m fine with that, but Superman needs trunk, he look better with it in my own opinion. 
1 Like
@texasblaque
Even in wrestling,no one does it anymore. The trunks are the same color/design as the legs.
This reminds me of the days when too many people would tell me to get a hair cut, when my hair was too long for their preferences. 
It was my hair, not theirs. It was up to me to have it long, or short, not them. I feel the same applies to what clothes, or costumes, a person chooses to wear. If their sense of style has gone out of style, it is still their choice to wear what is right for them, regardless of all the fashion police out their, and their opinions.
Personally, I like the old-style look, it works for me. I am not apposed to Superman changing his look every now and then, but the one that still works best, for me, is the one with red trunks.
And by the way, trunks are not underwear. They are more like swimming trunks than underwear.
MACJR
2 Likes
Trunks for super man helps separate the blue and is more aesthetically pleasing for Batman it works more but still do prefer trunks it gets tiring of everyone trying to make it more “serious” and “real world”
1 Like
The ones with super human powers don’t need camo. Firestorm can’t help but to be conspicuous for example. His head and hands are on fire. Desert, ocean and jungle camo don’t function in cities either. Batman’s all black or his black and grey work especially for someone who feels he does his best work from the shadows. His blue and grey not as much. A disguise is a disguise. The character would call it that from their perspective. The crime fighting vigilantes need to hard to spot or realistically menacing especially the Batman. Things that take away from that take away. Like Speedos on top of clothes.
1 Like
Still no trunks
I’ve been reading comics again and it bring something said in here back to mind. Someone said the trunks are because they’re characters. Really? How could you tell? I was wondering why they were only in the book in my hand or the images on my screen. Is that the thing keeping Batfleck from doing what Arnold S. did in “The Last Action Hereo” or jumping up out of the comic?
(Kidding. Sarcasm.)
The comic books and animation and movies with sfx alone are enough to remind us all that they are just characters and storylines with various types of performers. Underwear in the wrong place isn’t solving a problem for the audience. The fact that it’s fiction doesn’t change the fact that making sense according to the logic set fourth in the story matters. These are good stories though. Obviously, Me and a bunch of other people are still reading and watching after 8 decades plus. They’d be better if I didn’t have to force myself to ignore the same glaringly obvious detail over and over.
Just like with other details that had to be “ret-conned” out after enough time the obviousness of these flaws and time conspire to make something that either worked “way back when” or that used to be so easy to ignore into something so standout that you keep hearing about it. They got rid of the comics code and all the campy stuff from the 60s. Lots of that stuff did t really function so they let it go. I like it better when they give “the trunks on top of pants” that same treatment. Belt loops in trunks? Let all that go too.
I said it before someone in 1 of the docs on here said that comic fans want to be able to take the story seriously. I’d say that is at least true while you are in the act of following the story. I would said, they don’t want the rationale of the story to not have holes in it that undercut the things the setting.
Batman is relentless and he’s a genius. He’s a serious guy who takes everything so seriously that he does nearly everything with expert competence most of the time and who also wants to be menacing and feared but is still wearing Speedos on the outside of his specially made high tech paramilitary body armor that he designed or had designed in secret. The contradiction that messes it up.
Why is he wearing a bat suit and jumping off of roof tops? Easy. He’s crazy. Also, it’s part of his anticrime campaign. He’s crazy and determined. He has more than a few complexes. The writers are clearly going out of their way to put that into the fiction. All his inventions and equipment that take time to make and master. He seems like he’s a master of every form of knowledge that there is. He can’t do all that and sleep and have time for regular things too. Oh, well he has trained his body to sleep only 3 hrs at a time and he lives off of protein shakes or whatever which are made by Alfred so solid food and rest won’t slow him down. Except for dry humor and snark he seems humorless. How does that work? He’s more than a bit single minded. He’s obsessed. He doesn’t do anything but study, invent, build, repair, prepare, train, cover his tracks and be Batman and everything else even parenting either gets included in that or goes ignored.
Why did the writing evolve over time to add more and more details that tie it to real world logic and tech? The writers want to story to work … As in make sense according to the logic set fourth. Also as time goes on people (even young ones) get more sophisticated.
Why else do the real world writers of the fiction go out of their way to demonstrate that he is fixated on his trauma and being driven by it into the amazing anti-crime terror campaign that he wages like he can’t help himself? Why is he so capeable? Oh, that’s real easy. He’s a genius. Another common “go-to” for this type of fiction. He’s not only gifted with intellectual genius he’s one of the top genius minds on their fictional planet. Top 5 or top 3 or something. Well, where does he get all this stuff? He’s really rich. He has however much money it takes to be untraceable and to have what seems like endless resources in today’s world. Used to be millions now it’s billions. Why is he menacing and brutal? He’s trying to punish and frighten criminal badasses who mean others harm. The writers clearly realised that some of the fiction has to be at least somewhat realistic or at least plausible. Why is his tech based on real world things? Same reason. Underwear as outerwear step on that plausibility. Hard. At least imo.
So, why are his drawers on the outside of his clothes? Ummmm … “He’s fiction.” Rips you right out of the story. Just like that. Why bother to pick though modern day tech, science and forensic jargon and details of anatomy like it’s for a procedural crime drama just to contradict yourself? Why won’t all the fictional cops on crime “procedurals” show up for work everyday in Ronald McDonald costumes? They’re fiction too. Oh, because that would mess up the suspension of disbelief for the entire force to wear clown suits everyday despite them being fictional characters. Even the one’s in comics? Yes. Even them.
Why put all that psychology and philosophy into the conflict between Batman and Joker just to undermine it? You can make similar arguments about Superman but not as many.
Why add all that actual real world detail into fleshing out the story just to obstruct my view of that full picture by holding up a near constantly obvious contradiction?
So to whoever says well it’s because it’s a story and they are just characters … I say …“Duh”, “How can you tell?” and “what does that have to do with maintaining the setting?” I already know it’s a character. Can’t miss it. How is distracting me from the story with that fact a good thing? That’s rhetorical and also not meant to be rude either. I’m just saying.
No trunks. Always hated them on most costumes.
Trunks it’s just classic