Originally Posted by Infinity9999x
This is a good point, but I don't think it applies to the trunks argument. This world has already established heroes wearing overly flamboyant
costumes. Trunks aren't really going to make them look any sillier. Were this a Superhero world like the original Xmen films, then I would agree. But we already have Superman in a ridiculous outfit.
This world has only established one hero so far and he has no trunks. Heck, not just any hero but the hero that the general public associate trunks with the most. If he doesn't have the trunk, neither should Batman.
EDIT: I just had this thought right now. If they thought the trunks weren't necessary for the one superhero that was associated with them the most by the general public, why would they think the trunks are necessary for Batman?
Originally Posted by Bathead
Even if that was the only argument. so what? That's as good a reason as "the trunks look stupid."
And as to the point in your first paragraph, I would argue the opposite point, if no-one (I blame Burton for this specifically) had ever done a Bat-suit without the trunks would we be having this argument now? No, we wouldn't. Since we have had both with and without, your point (and mine by extension) is invalid.
Technically, the symbol does serve a purpose. Literally all superheroes in comics that look human
(this is key; characters like Hulk don't count because they don't look human) have an iconic symbol they are identified by. On the other hand, not all superheroes wear trunks. In fact, I think most Marvel characters had no trunks at the time of their inception and the same goes for all DC characters created in the 1970's/80's and beyond. On top of that, a lot of the DC characters that originally had trunks (Aquaman, Hawkman, Green Arrow) had them dropped way before even the New 52.