Re: It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's the Superman Costume Thread! - Part 2
Originally Posted by Dr.
I still go back to this foundational principle: Superman was conceived as a dashing, romantic, “cool” hero. S&S weren’t going for laughs or doing satire; in their minds, the classic Supes costume was supposed to be impressive, imposing and worthy of a larger-than-life champion. In other words, the costume is merely a representation or symbol for a larger concept. So if, over the course of time, some elements of the costume (e.g., the trunks) become (for whatever reason) stigmatized, you alter them - because the first duty is to the concept and not the superficial details.
That's a very cerebral yet accurate way at looking at changes in comics characters as a whole, but is there still really a need to eliminate the trunks as this no trunks debate never really picked up steam until Cavill's suit debuted/the new 52 BS happened? Granted, no trunks may be better for the design they went with but not overall. I mean if Superman suddenly had a pompadour how many people would like the idea?
Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.