21 ARGUMENTS AGAINST SUPERMAN'S RED TRUNKS REBUTTED: WHY SUPERMAN NEEDS HIS REAL COSTUME

​21 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RED TRUNKS -- REBUTTED! AND WHY SUPERMAN NEEDS THEM:

Here I will address pretty much everyone's "criticism" with the trunks (that they're "dated", "silly", "corny", etc):

1) "THE TRUNKS/LEOTARD ARE DATED"

How are they any more "dated" than a cape? People haven't worn capes since the 1600s, yet the cape remains for now.

So if your argument against the red trunks is that they're "silly and dated" and therefore shouldn't be there, then you'll have to get rid of pretty much the entire superhero genre as well since both of those criticisms apply to it.

And yes, strongmen still wear trunks. Here are several modern real world examples of them and their use:

2.) "THE TRUNKS/LEOTARD ARE SILLY"

Flying and getting powers from the sun is "silly". Freeze breath is "silly". Mr Myxyzptlk is "silly". But we have to draw the line at a red section of Superman's costume?

We live in a world where a man has won a woman of the year award, and people identify as food and dogs, and this is all done with a straight face..... Yet Superman "can't wear red trunks because they look like underwear". This is ridiculous. There's no logical reason to remove them, other than people are too closed minded to accept them. They don't want to believe they'll work because they've been told that they won't by people who don't understand their significance in the first place.
 

THE DESIGN REASON FOR THE TRUNKS:

The red trunks/leotard balances the colors. The costume goes red (cape), blue (shirt), red & yellow (symbol), blue (bottom of shirt), yellow & red (belt & trunks), blue (pants), red (boots).... Removing the red trunks makes the suit look too blue. Just giving him a red belt makes the yellow in his symbol seem out of place because there's no more yellow on the costume.
 

THE PRACTICAL REASON FOR THE TRUNKS:

Superman has a force field around his body from the yellow sun that makes him appear invincible, the closer clothes are to his body, the more protected by this aura emanating off of him they are, which is why he wears a skin tight suit. Wearing a skin tight suit means there are certain things that will be defined that you don't want so visibly outlined for modesty reasons (your junk), so the red trunks help remedy this while still remaining form fitting (equestrian vaulters even wear trunks for this reason, so there is your "realism" people are so pretentiously obsessed with now).

They're not "underwear", Superman wears his underwear underneath his costume/clothes, like a normal person does, they are instead "overwear" and serve an entirely different purpose. (Oh, and the cape is the only part of the suit that should be from Krypton (the blanket Jor El & Lara wrapped him in) and therefore has its own protective aura like Superman, it is worn for fashion reasons and because it's invincible and he can protect people with it like in the Fleischer cartoons).
 

3.) "THE TRUNKS ARE AGAINST COMMON SENSE!"

The reason he wears the red trunks is for common sense: Supes has a force field around his body from the yellow sun that protects him and makes him appear invincible. The closer clothing is to his body, the more protected by the aura it is, therefore, he wears a skin tight suit. Wearing a skin tight suit means that his private parts will also be as defined as his muscles, so for modesty reasons, he wears a pair of form fitting trunks over them. He colors them red and wears a yellow belt to match the cape, boots, and symbol. This is common sense for the character, and is a practical reason for the suit.
 

A VISUAL REASON FOR WHY SUPERMAN AND BATMAN NEED THEIR TRUNKS/LEOTARD:

In this gif, they actually ARE underwear, and still they serve the purpose of the trunks on Superman and Batman: they hide the noticeable outline of dick, something you will always get on a skin tight suit.

Allow me to direct your eyes to the crotch section on the actors, note how when the underwear are pulled up over the pants/tights, there's no visible dick outline, but when they're pulled down, there is....

Well, that's pretty much the practical reason for why Superman (and Batman) wear the trunks/leotard in the comics. It's for modesty.

Additionally, the suits look better from a design standpoint because with where the colors are on the Superman and Batman suits, it makes the suits look more balanced when they have those colors represented in those specific areas of the costumes. It's not really that hard to figure out, guys.

Color pattern for Superman:

RED (cape)
BLUE (top of shirt)
RED & YELLOW (chest symbol)
BLUE (bottom of shirt
YELLOW (belt)
RED (trunks/leotard)
BLUE (pants
RED (boots)

Point is, there's red and blue at the very top, red & yellow in the middle twice, and then blue and red at the bottom again. It begins and ends the same, and both the upper and lower parts of the middle section share the same colors.

Batman is the same way:

BLACK (cape & cowl)
GRAY (top of shirt)
BLACK & YELLOW (symbol)
GRAY (bottom of shirt
YELLOW (belt)
BLACK (trunks/leotard)
GRAY (pants)
BLACK (boots)

Again, note how the bottom of the suit ends with the same colors that the top of the suit begins with, and the upper and lower middle [arts of the suit share the same colors.

Obviously the colored trunks rule does not apply to all characters, like Captain America and Spider-Man, for instance. While Spidey, I'm not sure of, Cap and even the FF have always been drawn with their pants looking "trunks like" in the "underwear" area for again, modesty reasons. Only difference is that Superman's and Batman's are colored differently there to match/balance their costumes, and Cap's is not colored differently from the rest of his suit because it would throw his design off.

It's about patterns, coordination, and balance, which is why the Superman and Batman suits were perfect in their designs, and have yet to be topped.

The original Coca-Cola bottle was designed to be instantly recognizable even when broken. Superman's costume is, or should be, similarly iconic.

Ask your friends who this is:

Then ask a separate group of people who this is:

THE SPIRITUAL REASON FOR THE TRUNKS:

The trunks have their roots in the circus strongmen (equestrian vaulters, swimmers, and wrestlers also still wear them to this day). This is obviously what the Superman suit is inspired by from a historic creative standpoint, but examining that real world history of the costume through the eyes of the character you come to find that "Superman" is actually the performing identity of Clark Kent for the world (and in a way, the "new" Clark Kent that he created for the Daily Planet is also a performance of sorts, in that he has to downplay many aspects of himself). "Superman" is Clark's stage name/identity that he's created that allows him to use his powers when needed and then disappear. Superman IS a "performance" in a sense by Clark Kent -- not the morals or heroics -- but the costumed character who shows up, helps, then disappears, so Clark can still have a private life. That is a "performance". So it only makes sense that, yes, Superman is dressed like a performer, and the world is his circus. Superman * is * Clark's circus performance.

But what are people's reasons for wanting to get rid of the rest trunks? Simply because they've been around for a long time. The "grandfather's clothes" doesn't hold because there was never a time in history where people ran around town or malls dressed like Superman, or in red trunks. They are not bell bottoms or poodle skirts or dated because they have never been a fashion statement. People for some reason feel like they have to dislike them because they've been around for a long time, therefore = "dated" to them. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is dated. The secret identity, glasses, powers, and the rest of the costume are just as old as the trunks...yet no one has chipped away at them as vehemently as they do the trunks (yet). I especially don't understand the Superman "fans" so willing to bend over and change the character to appeal to people who don't like the character, rather than explain to to them -- or show them -- why the character is cool and works the way he is, why we like Superman, and yes, why the costume his creators intended for him to have is great and perfect and makes sense the way it is.

Fans and creators should be embracing the character and showing the world why Superman is awesome as is....rather than changing the character and the things that make him iconic and converting the character into his imitators or whatever the flavor of the day is to "convert" people who don't like or understand the character (because they've never been really given a chance to know why he is great thanks to so many poor media adaptations in recent years) into fans. Because if you do that to Superman and remove the iconic things about him because you don't understand them or know what to do with them, and you do this instead of embracing them to show people why he is cool and get them to like him, if these people decide they dig that character you show them, it's not really Superman that they're liking. It's some watered down thing custom made to condescend to them. They haven't been "changed" into Superman fans, Superman has been changed and disguised as something they already thought was cool, VS something they DIDN'T KNOW was cool. And it's not really creative or imaginative to do that and change the character to cater to the whims of trends and handle him from the outside. While a good sense of self awareness is important because it can let you brush up on areas of the character that aren't the strongest, what's creative and imaginative is getting inside of the character and making him work as is and rediscovering why he was great in the first place, and finding something maybe you hadn't noticed before and approaching the character that way.

That's all they should be doing in the comics (and movies, etc): keeping the basics, but examining what made Superman's stories so exciting and successful when they were fresh. What made Supes popular to begin with. People will say "well it wasn't the trunks", but the thing is that that's a part of the character. The red trunks are an ICONIC element to Superman, and, like it or not, trunks and a cape are the "standard" superhero look when someone thinks of a superhero. That's because of Superman.... this is not something to be ashamed of. They also think of the secret identity, which is something else the character should always have that people have been chipping away at for sometime.

Anything that is knee jerkingly distinguishable as/associated as "Superman" is what needs to always be kept with the character. If it's not "cool", it's because the caretakers haven't done their job. They control the character, and the way they see him will always be reflected in stories. If there's something "not cool" about someone as iconic as Superman, their job is to take that and present a new angle at which it is cool, and breath new life while staying within the bounds of everything that icon is. And that's where DC -- both the movies and comic people, and really everyone except the Bruce Timm animated series people, honestly -- have failed in recent years: they don't believe in the character enough to make him work the way he is. There is always this creeping doubt within them that the character cannot work, and everything they do with the character reflects that. Enter New 52, enter Grounded, enter Man Of Steel, etc.

We didn't get things like Superman: The Movie, Superman: The Animated Series, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, and the Byrne era Superman (and yes, All Star Superman) from people who didn't believe in the character the way he was and wanted to just go in and make him fit the mold of whatever it was they perceived as popular at the time. The greatest Superman pieces have ALWAYS come from people who fully embraced the character for what he is and transcended the people that told them the character was "silly" or "uncool" or unrealistic or "wouldn't work". Like Superman, the makers of those pieces overcame adversity by being true to who Superman is. Their hope and optimism is with the character, they believe he is great and will work great the way he is if allowed to, and if people are shown the character so they can understand him. That's never going to happen when people from the movies to comics to all over don't seem to agree on or want to celebrate anything that the character actually is, but instead want to make a list of what they can goes out and how little they can be true to. Yes, I know I've been ranting, but the red trunks is and always will be a part of all that.

It's not a question of "old vs new". It's a question of quality vs crap (or "less quality), or "good vs bad" if you prefer it that way. I'm not 70 years old. I'm in my early 20s. There are plenty of things from old comics that are bad and silly that I don't want to see referenced or preserved or mentioned again, not because they are "old", but because they are bad. Superman's red trunks/costume is not one of those things. It's not that I like it because it's "old" and "I like all things as long as they're old", it's that I like them because they are good, look the best for Superman, and make the most sense for Superman. Superman was best the way he was because he was already perfect how Siegel & Shuster intended him to be, not because he was "old".

If there is a case to be made that it's "silly" to not "support" the NU Superman simply because he's missing the trunks/leotard, then there is an even bigger case to be made that it's silly to not support the character simply because he had the red trunks, since I am not the person demanding that Superman change what he is to accommodate me, rather, I am simply asking that Superman be what he's always been. And if the trunks "really aren't that important either way", then why not let Superman keep them?

The suit with the red trunks makes for a better design. Everything after just looks like a knock-off, trying to capture the classic and doing nothing genuine. It would have been cool to see a totally new design, like was done with Godfall or the Krypton Man....I even liked the Electric suit, but none of those suits were trying to have it both ways. I can accept completely different but not "so close but not the real deal". It's "so close but not" that frustrates me more than anything. Just BE the darn suit, or don't be it! It's why I can enjoy things like Justice League: Gods & Monsters, yet hate things like the New 52, because things like New 52 and these awful costume redesigns want to be the 'real' costumes/characters, so we're constantly comparing them to them, but they lack the little threads that tied everything about the old ones together and made them work. We're simultaneously both reminded of the real costumes (which makes us miss them) while looking at things like the New 52 designs, while resenting the New 52 designs because they're not the correct suits.
 

4.) "IF THE TRUNKS COME BACK, EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE IN THE FIRST APPEARANCE SUITS"

Not so, people always try to use the excuse of "Well, if the trunks come back, the entire suit needs to look just like it did in Superman's first appearance!", overlooking the fact that Superman's creators finalized the look they wanted Superman to have by the early/mid 40s, and that's the way they intended him to look, simply a finalized version of the first appearance suit, which he wore for nearly 70 years (and again, for the folks who claim they're "dated", look at the radical fashion changes in the way people dressed in each decade, the Superman suit was never "in style" because nobody ever walked around dressed like Superman, they didn't wear red trunks to go places, etc -- if the suit is "outdated" today, then it was "outdated" in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as well, but it is not. As for the question of when were "trunks" worn for anything, well, they still are worn for things today: equestrian vaulters, swimmers, and wrestlers still wear them...when was the last time anyone wore a cape? The 1600s?).

5.) "THE FIRST APPEARANCE SUIT IS STUPID, THE 'S' SYMBOL LOOKS A ONESIE COOKIE CUTTER, GUESS YOU WANT THAT TOO":

Not so, the "S" symbol there actually looks like a SHIELD, which is what badges are based off of, to symbolize PROTECTION. Which is why Superman puts one on his costume: to symbolize he's here to protect. The meaning for many of the things on Superman's costume is lost when it's just an alien suit from space instead of something Clark Kent creates with the Kents. So much of the psychology of the character is tied to the creation of the suit.

Everything on Superman's costume has a logical reason for being there, and revisited and examined, the suit makes perfect sense the way it was designed. People are too uneducated now so the meaning goes over their heads and they think "Oh, it's a cookie cutter, oh, it's underwear", when it's not. Instead of dumbing the character down to match the audience, they should educate the audience and show them why he's cool, instead of diluting him for people who just haven't been shown any better.

Truthfully though, I'd prefer the strappy boots & shield badge first appearance Superman suit to be the first suit Superman makes with the Kents when he first shows up as Superman, and for it to evolve into the iconic suit that he had by the early/mid 40s that stayed the same for nearly 70 years when he redesigns it. That'd be a great way to visit the character's design history from Siegel & Shuster but through the eyes of the story, and it'd make sense.

And I'd always prefer the first appearance suit to be the costume Superman wears all of the time over the awful New 52 one and the New New 52 "Rebirth" one they've got him in now.
 

6.) "SUPERMAN'S COSTUME HAS WENT THROUGH MANY CHANGES OVER THE YEARS!"

Not really, the shape of the "S" has varied, the boots went from strappy to the "M" for "man" boots early on, and if you really want to split hairs, the cape length has always varied from artist to artist (and depending on the artist sometimes there is or isn't an "S" on the cape), but the whole of the suit has stayed the same: red cape, blue shirt with red & yellow "S" symbol, yellow belt, red trunks, blue pants, and red boots.
 

7.) "THE CAPE IS ICONIC, THE REST OF THE SUIT AND THE TRUNKS ARE NOT!"

Like it or not, the red trunks are one of the most famous aspects of the character, and part of the standard "superhero" look thanks to Superman. In media, almost whenever there is a mascot that imitates a superhero as an advertisement for a company, the trunks are always there, because superheroes are derived from Superman, and Superman wears trunks. Trunks -- along with a secret identity and cape -- are an earmark of superheroes, thanks to Superman:

8.) "THE TRUNKS NEED TO GO SO PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE JOKES ABOUT SUPERMAN WEARING HIS UNDERWEAR OVER HIS PANTS ANYMORE!"

Well first of all, Superman wears his underwear on the inside of his suit like a normal person does and always has. If anything, what they're referring to are overwear, and as mentioned, they serve an entirely different purpose. The people who call them "underwear" are ignorant and uninformed. But right, so this is the argument of a Superman cuck, where they basically think the character should cave to the people picking on him, saying that he's uncool, almost like peer pressure, rather than being accepted for the way he is, and showing them there is a logical, sensible, and artistic reason for it. Rather than educate and inform the public and get behind the character, the character has been diluted to condescend to dumbed down audiences who have never been shown any better, they've never been told or shown why things about the character are the way they are.

This is the problem with current DC in both the films and the comics. They're all too eager to throw things away rather than examine them from a different perspective, or why they worked in the first place. Instead, they always gravitate to the quick and easy short term solution of "well let's just throw it out"...eventually, you always run out of things to throw out.

Playing devil's advocate, where do you draw the line with what is and isn't okay to change with Superman? It sounds to me like you're one of the people who think it's all in the writing and personality/characterization, and that the visual aspect of the character isn't equally as important, when I say it is because Superman is a COMIC BOOK hero. Comics are VISUAL. He's not a literary hero, but a cartoon one, therefore, the way he looks matters. Why is it okay to get rid of the red trunks to you, but not the cape or shirt, since they are just as od/"dated", and how do arguments against the trunks not apply to those aspects for you? What makes one part of the costume any less important than the other to you, as far as what his creators intended for him to be in goes?

I say they bring the 'real' costume and character back and start believing in and embracing that again instead of deconstructing it.

9.) "ZACK SNYDER SAID HE TRIED TO KEEP THE RED TRUNKS AND CLASSIC SUIT, BUT NO MATTER WHAT HE DID, THEY NEVER CAME OUT RIGHT AND IT DIDN'T LOOK GOOD TO HIM"

Again, these are empty platitudes, and just words people throw around without any real basis. "It just didn't look right" isn't really anything substantial when -- despite many societal fashion changes -- the costume has looked that way for 7 decades.

But let's examine that, Snyder said the costume "didn't look right" with the red trunks in the concept art. I vehemently disagree, I actually think it looked great in the concept art.

Sure, the hair isn't right, and the suit looks alien/organic in its design, kinda like how the Ryan Reynolds GL movie suit did, the artwork itself is trying hard to be "dark/moody/edgy", but there's no reason at all why the suits below wouldn't have worked if they wanted them to. It actually looks better with the red and yellow in those areas than the bare looking MOS/BVS suits that are giant onesies.

Personally, since Snyder sounds like he's just parroting the company-wide mandate of "trunks are bad cuz dey are old and remind me of underwear" and not any sort of genuine, creative, artistic conclusion, this leads me to believe that it was actually WARNER BROS' decision, and Snyder is just defending it because he wants to keep his job, and was told to say it was his "vision" as a filmmaker so it sounds like WARNERS hires such creative "Nolan selected" auteurs for their projects instead of puppets who will do what they're told (remember when Snyder's justification for going ahead with a Batman VS Superman film instead of a MOS solo sequel was "I have to do what WB tells me"?). Kinda like how Geoff Johns can talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Again, Snyder is a man who gave King Leonidas and the 300 Spartans stylish trunks/leotards and red capes, despite no such historical evidence on which to base that interpretation. A man running around in literally just "underwear", a helmet, and a cape, is acceptable to him, but a character who has red "trunks" on his circus-inspired costume and has been iconically depicted that way for over 70 years "just doesn't work" suddenly for him. I'm calling bullcrap, regardless of whose idea it was to remove the trunks. It was always a terrible and dumb idea, change just for the sake of change.

To Snyder, this is okay:

Besides, haven't we learned by now that Snyder's one of the last people anyone should listen to on Superman? He thought it'd be cute to shoot Jimmy Olsen in the head in the first five minutes of the film, make Clark let his dad die in a tornado, claimed Superman has to kill to learn not to kill, said he'd have Batman get raped in his version of Batman Begins, made Clark steal from poor people, and sees Clark Kent as an expendable element of the character... Not to mention he cast a guy who has more in common with Linda Park than Barry Allen or Wally West as The Flash, and turned Lex Luthor into Jesse Eisenberg after claiming his take on Lex was that of a Richard Branson meets Brad Pitt combination.

Zack Snyder is the LAST person who's opinion on Superman should matter.

But let's look at the concept art for Tim Burton's Superman Lives real quick, even that suit, while looking plastic-ish, still had the right colors and areas on the suit, and it looked pretty good! Step outside of the self inflicted paradigm of "we can't like da trunks cuz dey have been around for a long time and remind me of underwear" for a moment, and just look at this from an artistic color perspective, of balance, and tell me that the boldness and the balance of the colors on Nic Cage's suit here, the red, yellow, and blue, doesn't look great. It looks fantastic:

10.) "FAN ART THAT TAKES THE MOS SUIT AND PUTS THE TRUNKS ON DOESN'T WORK OR LOOK RIGHT OR LIKE THEY BELONG THERE"

That's because fan art is usually awful and even the best of it cannot compare with what is done by an actual studio with a million dollar movie budget. So that criticism is very unfair.
 

11.) "THE ZACK SNYDER SUIT IS ICONIC TOO!"

Not really, it looks very much like a product of the early-mid 2000s "everyone must be in plastic/vinyl-looking armor", there isn't much timelessness about it.
 

12.) "IN SNYDER'S VERSION, SUPERMAN'S SUIT IS AN UNDERSUIT ON KRYPTON, SO HE ALREADY IS WEARING 'UNDERWEAR', THEY JUST COVER HIS WHOLE BODY"

Which again, only illustrates my point that even when taking the laziest route with the costume which is to say it's just an alien suit from Krypton and that's how people dressed there, Superman having the red "trunks" or the trunks area on the suit being red still makes sense because it's an alien suit, and who's to say what they'd look like? We can accept a humanoid alien that just happens to speak a language that sounds like English, but god forbid he have something resembling red trunks because that breaks the illusion? Gimme a break.
 

13.) "THE TRUNKS WORKED BACK THEN BUT THEY DON'T NOW CUZ THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE ANYMORE"

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it any less false. Again, this argument also applies to the cape. Nobody wears capes now. Go wear a cape in public and people will think you're a weirdo, or that you're a weirdo pretending to be a superhero. Go wear colorful "trunks" in public and you'll get the same response.

Again, it can be accepted that there is an alien that looks and acts like a human, and speaks a language that sounds like English, and that he even dresses in earth based garments like a cape, boots, shirt, etc, with an English letter "S" on his chest....but suddenly what makes it all not work is if he has red trunks on his costume. THAT argument doesn't make any sense. Neither the powers nor costume are dated.
 

14.) "WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST CHANGE? YOU WANT TO KEEP THE CHARACTERFROZEN IN NOSTALGIA AND DATED!"

Again, it's not about "Old vs new", it's about "quality vs crap", or "good vs bad". It is not a question of age so much as it is a question of what looks best for the character.

It's not about being against "change" in general. "Change" itself isn't inherently good or bad, it's what kind of change that's being made and what it's being done to that will determine the quality of change it is. I'm not against change; I'm against THAT change. To frame people who like the 'real' Superman costume as being "against change" is rather small minded. Clark Kent types on a computer now. He cannot change in a phone booth anymore. He has to watch for drones that will spy on him...these are changes that keep pace with the times and make the character contemporary. Changing his costume and abilities is not, because there isn't anything "dated" about either, since, again, it was never a fashion statement.

People claim we live in an "un-silly time" now, so the real Superman and his costume can't work.... but were the '30s a "silly" time? Were the '70s? Nope! In fact, Superman thrives in times where things are at their darkest just the way he is, which is another reason the real Superman and his real costume need to return.
 

15.) "IT REALLY IRRITATES ME THAT YOU SAY THE RED TRUNKS ARE A PART OF WHAT THE CHARACTER IS AND MAKES HIM SUPERMAN!"

And it irritates me when you pretend that the red trunks are not part of his iconography as an image and status as visual art, when they very obviously are. You personally disliking them doesn't change that. Just like Superman is known for having dark hair, wishing it was blonde or blue doesn't change that dark hair is something iconically associated with Superman, and therefore part of his image.
 

16.) "YOU'RE SAYING JUST THE RED TRUNKS MAKE SUPERMAN ICONIC!!! ARGUMENT INVALID!!!! SUPERMAN FANS ARE SO DUMB!"

No, not JUST the trunks, but the trunks are a part of it. There's a certain non-conformity about the trunks too that make Superman special. In a world that has had skinny jeans, bell bottom pants, crop tops, giant shoulder pads, and many other fads that have came and went – why must we get rid of a superhero trope that has lasted over 70 years, while so many fashion statements have changed so much, decade to decade? If anything, the longevity of the Superman costume, merely by holding its own and existing the way it has for so long, has already proven its timelessness and iconography. It's only the people now that have lost faith in the character because they've got so caught up in what his imitators are doing.

It’s really just a confidence thing, with both DC comics and Superman. If you think the red trunks are silly, so will everyone else. Treat it with the respect it deserves. This is truly a guy who shouldn’t care what other people think.

Superman is the most powerful man in the world, time to own it, and the costume.
 

17.) "THE MCU CAN CHANGE THE COSTUMES ALL THE TIME, WHY IS THAT OKAY?"

Except that argument about the MCU doesn't apply when 1: the MARVEL heroes were never as iconic and beloved as Superman, and 2: the MCU actually does capture everything iconic about the MARVEL comics characters it represents. 9/10 times, all of the major MARVEL heroes physically resemble their comic book counterparts. Cap has wings on his head, the "A" on his cowl, red & white stripes, and red boots and gloves....color-wise, Cap still has all of his comic book colors in place. The same can be said with Iron Man and pretty much everyone else. The personalities, characterizations, and basic stories and themes are all accurate.... They are not filtering all of their characters, even the lesser popular ones, through the strengths of their most popular character, like DC does by trying to make everyone as Batman-ish as possible. There is no comparison between the snyderverse and the MCU.

The MCU films are to superhero movies what the Bruce Timm DC animated shows are to cartoons (okay, maybe not that good, but still), in that they are true to all the iconic/definitive elements of the characters, but are telling new stories and introducing new elements that still agree with and don't contradict what those characters are. The Bruce Timm cartoons didn't follow the comics completely, but the new things it introduced made sense and only enhanced what was already in the comics. Things like the batcave design, the score, Toyman, are comparable to JARVIS being a robot and the Abomination being an attempt to recreate the super soldier serum.

The MCU is to movies as the Bruce Timm DC cartoons are to superhero cartoons, and the Snyderverse films are sadly to movies what many of the MARVEL cartoons have been to superhero cartoons -- actually, that's being too kind to the snyderverse, because even the lousiest of MARVEL cartoons with Herbie replacing the Human Torch have still managed to remain truer to the characters than the snyderverse has.
 

18.) "THE TRUNKS WILL NEVER COME BACK! GET OVER IT, FANBOY!"

We don't know that, and maybe they won't if nobody asks, which is why I'm asking and putting forth arguments in their defense.
 

19.) "YOU NEED TO SEE THE LIGHT AND REALIZE THAT LIKING THE RED TRUNKS IS A DUMB ARGUMENT TO WASTE ENERGY ON"

Well Alex Ross, Mark Waid, Bruce Timm, and many other comics artists, creators, and filmmakers share my opinion on the costumes/characters, they don't see the argument as dumb or worthless, and they're pretty cool to me, so I won't be changing my mind any time soon.
 

20.) "NO ONE WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY IF YOU DEFEND THE RED TRUNKS!"

This sounds familiar. In fact, it sounds just like what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were told for almost a decade when they tried to sell Superman, that "no one would take this seriously!". So I'm in pretty good company if people who don't believe in defending the character are the ones that won't take me "seriously".
 

21.) "STOP DEFENDING THE TRUNKS! THEY'RE GARBAGE!"

No. I'll never stop fighting for the 'real' costume, because there's just no darn good reason to get rid of it. I will never give up hope for Superman to look as his creators intended. The ideals, the personality, the story, and the costume, ALL are what makes Superman SUPERMAN.

If you live with something your whole life, you don't always understand and appreciate its value. Sometimes backing up from that thing gives you a better sense of what it is. Almost like in relationships where they tell you if you love something to let it go, and if it comes back it's yours... Superman is in a similar place right now. The people chipping away at all the things that make Superman great have got their wish in the last decade or so: They got rid of his costume, got rid of his personality/characterization, got rid of his powers...and their "utopia" of a Superman who is more like his imitators isn't here. The comics weren't best sellers, the movies performed mediocrely, and now gradually and quietly, bits of the 'real' character are beginning to return. People didn't realize how much they missed SUPERMAN until he was gone (and some still haven't, but hopefully will).

DC may have killed him in the early 90s, but he was never really dead until the New 52 and snyderverse (dead while "alive", even worse). I probably would never have been so inspired to research and defend the Superman costume so much had there not been such a crusade to rid it from existence, but in doing so, I too, have acquired an appreciation for it in a way that I hadn't quite had before.

Hopefully, the world eventually will too, and Superman -- the costume and character -- will return.