Holy crap. Linked to from FARK is this RetroCrush article about Underoos. I realize that some of my reading audience may not be old enough to remember Underoos, but I sure do. I'm not embarrassed to say that I had the Superman and Batman sets. They were kick-ass.
But what's up with some of those designs? I didn't even know half of them existed. Star wars characters are fine, but the whole point of putting on Underoos was that you're supposed to look like the character that's on the package. There's no way that Yoda Underoos are going to cut it. I mean, it's just not plausible that someone is going to look at me with a picture of Yoda on my chest and think I'm Yoda. Not going to happen. With Supes, the only things I was missing were the boots and the cape (but I had one of those anyway).
Same thing with everyone's favourite bad guy, Darth Vader. Sure it'd be tres cool to pretend you were a dark jedi master, but a blue t-shirt just doesn't do it. Same goes for the Boba Fett, Chewbacca, and Tonto (?!) sets. I didn't know ONE SINGLE CHILD who would choose to be Tonto over the Lone Ranger, but there's no Lone Ranger Underoos, are there? Nooooooo.
For the girls there was bascially only the Wonder Woman set and the C-3P0 set. Now I ask you, when you were a kid, and even now that you're a (semi-)adult, how many women are interested enough in C-3P0 to dress up like him. What kind of genius marketing descision was it to make C-3P0 into girls' underwear? What does Anthony Daniels think of this? Then there's the Daisy Duke Underoos: do parents really want their little girls dressing up in a pre-pubescent version of Daisy Duke shorts?
Damn, some of the things that came out of the marketing minds of the 80's were messed up...but I sure wanted that Luke Skywalker flight suit.