Superman's Red Trunks Are Back

[ZariusTwo]

After a seven year absence, Superman will once more wear his underwear outside of his trousers in Action Comics#1000 this April

[PApagreg]

Now thats what I'm talking about, he is back to OG Superman now.

[Andrew NDB]

Getting rid of the underwear on the outside of Superman and Batman was like the only good thing to come of the New 52. Lame.

[sdp]

New 52 is 7 years old? Wow.

Sorry, I know it was trying to modernize them but they just look of without them.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by sdp

New 52 is 7 years old? Wow.

Six, N52 came to an end last year when Superman Reborn restored the missing ten years

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Getting rid of the underwear on the outside of Superman and Batman was like the only good thing to come of the New 52. Lame.

But... but... but how else will we know that Superman is a hero, bright and shining and cheerful and everything good? How else will we know that he is Clark Kent and Kal-El?

Yeah, red underoos on the outside is outdated and dumb.

[Candy Kappa]

Finally, color balance has been restored.

[Shark_Blade]

It looks fine in comics but laughable in reality. Man of Steel Superman does it right by doing without the underwear tbh.

It's kinda like Wolverine's outfit: Fine in comics but it'd be horrendous in live action film.

[Andrew NDB]

It just doesn't make any practical sense. Think about it. We can probably assume Superman is wearing underwear, right? With leggings on top of them, right? Now he's going to add additional underwear... on top of the leggings? And when he's Clark Kent, he's got slacks on top of that? Four layers total? That's stupid. Why would you do that?

[oldmanwinters]

Anybody wonder if men wearing their underwear on the outside of the pants might be considered a political statement these days?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It just doesn't make any practical sense. Think about it. We can probably assume Superman is wearing underwear, right? With leggings on top of them, right? Now he's going to add additional underwear... on top of the leggings? And when he's Clark Kent, he's got slacks on top of that? Four layers total? That's stupid. Why would you do that?

To stay warm.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

In pre-crisis atleast, the red trunks make sense since his suit has protective qualities and it never hurts to have more protection down, well you know where.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Anybody wonder if men wearing their underwear on the outside of the pants might be considered a political statement these days?

Approves!

[newfan]

nah, he we was just worried about the undie lines showing so thought, 'stuff it, I'll just wear them on the the outside'

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It just doesn't make any practical sense. Think about it. We can probably assume Superman is wearing underwear, right? With leggings on top of them, right? Now he's going to add additional underwear... on top of the leggings? And when he's Clark Kent, he's got slacks on top of that? Four layers total? That's stupid. Why would you do that?

He's an invulnerable alien that is pretty much resistant to extreme temperatures, why on Earth would he worry about practicality.

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

It looks fine in comics but laughable in reality. Man of Steel Superman does it right by doing without the underwear tbh.

It's kinda like Wolverine's outfit: Fine in comics but it'd be horrendous in live action film.

Reeve seemed to pull it off well.

[sdp]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It just doesn't make any practical sense. Think about it. We can probably assume Superman is wearing underwear, right? With leggings on top of them, right? Now he's going to add additional underwear... on top of the leggings? And when he's Clark Kent, he's got slacks on top of that? Four layers total? That's stupid. Why would you do that?

Most super hero costumes don't make practical sense though, changing a suit in a live action movie? understandable but not elsewhere if there's suspension of disbelief.

IIRC I read an article that the underwear is basically just trunks that trapezes used to wear so there's the logic for why they designed them with it.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

https://fthmb.tqn.com/RiiT4502V8Rlv5...54a9f6c7cf.jpg

Reeve seemed to pull it off well.

Yeah, man, in the SEVENTIES.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

It looks fine in comics but laughable in reality. Man of Steel Superman does it right by doing without the underwear tbh.

It's kinda like Wolverine's outfit: Fine in comics but it'd be horrendous in live action film.

Superman's red undies do look pretty ridiculous but I'm not really concerned about them either way as I'm not a huge fan of the character; they can do whatever they want with them.

I agree that Wolverine's costume is absolutely ridiculous; I don't even like seeing it in the comics anymore. As an essentially invulnerable character it doesn't make sense for him to wear something that offers any protection, he doesn't seem particularly ostentatious, he just seems like the type of guy to wear old faded jeans and a dirty white t-shirt.

The modern superhero movie renaissance has made me much more critical of superheros' costumes in their comic books

[Candy Kappa]

It's not actually underwear over his suit, guys. That joke was never funny the first time.

[plastroncafe]

But...what are they then?
Are they like, the things cheerleaders wear under their skirts?
(tillie tights/spankies/bloomers)