To answer the question of the thread: NO!

Side note: I find it amusing when people redesign Superman...it seems that one of the first things to go is the "classic" S on his chest and it becomes something more stylized (and, yes, I know the emblem has changed over the years).  I often wonder, though, if it is because artists have trouble drawing it.  Some of the best in the industry seem to struggle with it (even Alex Toth!).

MPH

It's ludicrous to argue about the panties. What's the diff? The red is there to create a break in the blue body suit, and I'd go further and say that, along with the red S, the rest of the uniform hinges on the panties. It's the only other red aside from the cape and the S, and it's needed. If you just put a red line or design at his crotch, what is the advantage? I like the panties, I like the classic look of the Superman uniform, which is one of the most beautiful and simple and iconic designs ever created. Leave it alone and worry about some great stories. Oh, and bring back the tattered JB battle cape. I love it when the cape gets trashed in a fight.

er..."panties"?

MPH

James, they made Batman's suit all black a few years ago. They've gone back to the black and grey version lately and then of course there is the blue and grey version from several years ago.

Well, the fact that they went back to the classic Batman suit from the movie inspired all black thing goes to show you something.

The bottom line is that changing the suit doesn't make anything happen. If changing Superman's costume inspires a new wave of Supermania that gets kids buying Superman and drives sales up to Golden Age levels, I'm so down with you. But all that's going to happen is 50% of the tiny niche audience of comics will dig it and the other 50% won't. And the majority of people who actually support Superman's publications likely won't. A ton of people who don't care for Superman now aren't going to be driven over to the book because Superman got a different pair of pants. It'll be a novelty news story for a few days and the majority of people who merchandise Superman's likeness will stick with the classic version because it's one of the most recognizable visuals on the planet.

There's nothing to gain. The suit is a bit gaudy and perhaps outdated. But it's Superman. There's better designs out there for the American flag or the Coca Cola logo-- but history and visual recognition mean more than trendiness.

BTW, J Benson, I'm with you 100% on All Star. Best Superman since JB's(except JB did it twice a month as opposed to once every two to four months).

Trunks or panties, you folks are only arguing about a dress code for a fictional character that has existed since June 1938, probably the most recognizable uniform and symbol in any medium, anywhere...I wouldn't hesitate to say more people around the world recognize the red S more than the Chevy symbol. Altering the uniform of such a character, or having him with long hair, or those sweet little cuffs that fit over his hands, is a way of saying, "We hate comic books, really. We'd actually like our version of Superman, because we're an on-demand culture critically bored out of our skulls by traditional superhero comics. The ignorant masses of the past didn't know how stupid those red panties on Superman were."

Well, if you're wearing something that looks like panties, then that's what they are. I didn't think the word immediately identifies the "trunks" as being female if I called them panties. I just don't care to call them "trunks", when to me trunks are shorts. And since everyone seems annoyed by "panties" in relation to Superman, I'm funning you folks. However, since Supergirl used to wear "trunks" under her little skirt back when, are those "panties" because it's a female wearing them, or underwear, or what?

He looks like he's getting ready to give a Tae Bo exhibition EDIT in the non-panty pic. But here:

I'm telling you, devoid of the red crotch cover, Superman loses an integral part of his color scheme.

Somebody get JB to weigh in on this, please.