Captain America's Costume - Part 3/41

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 320367

[COAL TIGER]

Which would be better suited for the movie?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9945/xcaptainamericacc11jq9.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2233/ultimateorigins21as6.jpg

[GhostPoet]

those shoulder pads hinder his range of motion with his arms and offer no real protection against bullets so if I were offered I would have to say no.

Shoulder pads hinder movement? He's got freaking super strength. :)

[peterparker0077]

He doesn't have super strenght, he's just as strong as a top notch olympic weight lifter. I don't think that falls under "super" strength, but I could be wrong.

[GhostPoet]

He doesn't have super strenght, he's just as strong as a top notch olympic weight lifter. I don't think that falls under "super" strength, but I could be wrong.

He can fight The Hulk. I don't care which olympic weight lifter it is...no one on earth without enhanced strength could do that and live. :)

[marcvader]

No one outside of comics you mean.

[Mercurius]

This cap makes Cap (hehehe) look like a nutjob. Not to say the costume is all worked up, messy, troublesome.

He is not an icon because of this lack of elegance.

And this is something that people will laugh at in the (near) future, just like we laugh at the previous attempts in depicting Captain America in movieverse.

[peterparker0077]

He can fight The Hulk. I don't care which olympic weight lifter it is...no one on earth without enhanced strength could do that and live. :)

As Capt says himself all the time.. it takes more than brute strength to win a fight...

[Rock Sexton]

Which would be better suited for the movie?


This......

http://uploadpic.org/storage/originals/24s2e3nnrd92fj9frff2sjs49f.jpg

[Morg]

He can fight The Hulk. I don't care which olympic weight lifter it is...no one on earth without enhanced strength could do that and live. :)

Batman did fought the Hulk and he doesn't have enhanced strength, Daredevil also battle the Hulk too

[Whiskey Tango]

This......

http://uploadpic.org/storage/originals/24s2e3nnrd92fj9frff2sjs49f.jpg

Finding a cross-eyed actor with that build who can also act might not be easy...

[peterparker0077]

This is my favorite version

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t-Dy2G2jvCI/S-xf1yiSZqI/AAAAAAAAAMc/ZAwbK7_NCns/s1600/marvel_captainamerica_qjpreviewth.jpg

[scatterax]

ugh. subscribe

[Rock Sexton]

Finding a cross-eyed actor with that build who can also act might not be easy...

..... but it's not impossible!

[Parker Wayne]

Honestly, I keep thinking they're probably going to have the ultimate costume for an update for the Avengers.

[BizarroAids]

I wouldn't mind seeing that suit either. Him getting an updated suit by Fury, is how I'd like to see it play out.

[bunk]

Which would be better suited for the movie?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9945/xcaptainamericacc11jq9.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2233/ultimateorigins21as6.jpg


I like the first one for an Avengers flick. Neither for a movie set in the 40's.

[Wolvieboy17]

And this is something that people will laugh at in the (near) future, just like we laugh at the previous attempts in depicting Captain America in movieverse.

The great Nostradamus has spoken.


Which would be better suited for the movie?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9945/xcaptainamericacc11jq9.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2233/ultimateorigins21as6.jpg

Well the second one essentially is the movie costume, they've just made it less cosmetic and more functional. Instead of scaled chain mail it's an era appropriate body armour type thing, helmet, straps and things instead of aesthetic features (i.e. stripes) and made it all an era appropriate jumpsuit instead of some kind of spandex one piece thing.


This......

http://uploadpic.org/storage/originals/24s2e3nnrd92fj9frff2sjs49f.jpg

Rob Liefeld called, he wants his man boobs back.

[JAK®]

Rob Liefeld called, he wants his man boobs back.
Why are you analysing the person wearing it, instead of the costume itself?

[captainrogers]

I am extremely happy with the suit we got....so far. It looks excellent in static images. I wanna see it in motion before I make my final call, but so far so good. For the avengers I absolutely think the suit should be a little more "elegant" and streamlined, especially if Tony Stark has a hand in making the suit. Howard Stark strikes me as a "function over form" kinda guy...whereas Tony...well we saw the jump in sleekness between the Mark 1 to Mark 3 armor. He'll probably get Cap in something he would say looks "sexier".
For the forties, tho, this suit has that, and I use this term loosely, functionality(and beliveability) a general audience can get behind, while retaining the basic design aspects and elements of the classic Cap suit.
Well done. Again, my opinion, and still trailer pending. I wanna see a more 616 suit as much as the next guy, but Evans is looking sharp for the mo'.

[Galactus123]

I like the first one for an Avengers flick.

It would look like this in the movie
http://www.retroist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/capshiny.jpg

Not good

[Mercurius]

The great Nostradamus has spoken.

It doesn't take a Nostradamus to see that.

As you're the Wolvieboy, your senses are still naturally underdeveloped.

It takes time, you know. :yay:

[B.A. Baracus]

re subbed

[Rock Sexton]

Rob Liefeld called, he wants his man boobs back.

I'm sure you were saying that derogatory crap when the pic was manip'ed with Evans on there .... :whatever:

http://www.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Chris-Evans-Captain-America-525x700.jpg

[JAK®]

I like the first one for an Avengers flick. Neither for a movie set in the 40's.
Funny, because the first costume was designed in the '40s :cwink:

[Parker Wayne]

This cap makes Cap (hehehe) look like a nutjob. Not to say the costume is all worked up, messy, troublesome.

He is not an icon because of this lack of elegance.

And this is something that people will laugh at in the (near) future, just like we laugh at the previous attempts in depicting Captain America in movieverse.

Mercurius! Buddy! How have you been? /Ellis from Die Hard]

How long has it been since I last argued with you? Anyway, that time ends now.

I find it funny that you try to sound smart, and yet you think this film will be a joke because you don't like the suit. Well, I have to tell you that once again, Mercurius, you couldn't be any more wrong. No "it's your opinion," because you're opinion is wrong.

Before I tell you about the film, I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong about the costume. I don't how a costume that's been simplified more than the comic costume could be messy when all that it is a more simplified version of the comic costume. All the basic elements that makes Captain America is there. You have the A on the forehead, the red, white, and blue, the star, the straps, and the wings. Oh? You say the wings aren't 3D? Too bad, because if he actually had the wings on the head then he would actually be laughed at. If you put up a picture of Cap in his comics costume and the film costume, who's going to look like a bigger nutjob?

Captain America is fighting in what has to be the bloodiest and most infamous war in the history of mankind. For the film to be taken seriously, (and when I mean seriously I mean won't be looked at as a complete joke or an over the top film) he has to look like a soldier. The costume had to change in order to have the film be looked at not as a portrayal of an over-the-top version of WWII, but an alternate version of WWII.

Also, I think one of the other reasons they changed the costume was out of respect to the soldiers. Did you ever think that they changed it in order to be respectful to the soldiers that did fight in the war? I don't care which superhero it is, there has to be a level of respect there, and since there are people that are sensitive to that stuff, he has to at least look like a soldier, not a guy in "flag pajamas". I understand Johnston's setiments.

I'm not saying I'm against the comics costume. It fits for the comics. But it just doesn't work for the World War II film version. It didn't work in the 1990 and even with updated materials it would've looked too cheesy. People bring up Spider-man's costume and Iron Man's. Well, both Iron Man and Spider-man didn't fight in World War II. It's a totally different scenario.

But you're right Mercurius, he's not an icon for his lack of elegance. That's because he's not an icon for elegance or strictly for his costume. He's an icon because he stands up for the ideals of America and not only what America should be, but what America can be. And he's a man who always believes that America can go back to ideals that originally made them a great nation. But as much as I love the comics costume, I admit that people won't take him seriously with 3D wings on his head. He has to look like a solider in WWII, and then he can be a superhero in present day with preferably the Ultimate suit.

If you read what Johnston says about the hero instead of whining and criticizing how every aspect of the movie you would have known already that Johnston totally understands what I said before about Cap. He knows what Cap has to be, and knows what Captain America stands for.

If anything, I'd honestly say your comments are more laughable then the film could be.

[Rock Sexton]

Before I tell you about the film, I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong about the costume. I don't how a costume that's been simplified more than the comic costume could be messy when all that it is a more simplified version of the comic costume. All the basic elements that makes Captain America is there. You have the A on the forehead, the red, white, and blue, the star, the straps, and the wings. Oh? You say the wings aren't 3D? Too bad, because if he actually had the wings on the head then he would actually be laughed at. If you put up a picture of Cap in his comics costume and the film costume, who's going to look like a bigger nutjob?

Basic elements do not automatically equate to sufficient representation of what is an iconic, individual look that he's carried for decades. It just means "interpretation" ..... What is also important to the representation is the actual silhouette and form. In regards to the wings, depending on which illustration you've seen of him can determine whether or not it's acceptable to the eyes. Lord knows we've seen a man run around with Bat ears, I dunno how crazy it might be to see tiny wing molds which represent the American Eagle (especially if it's explained why they are there.)

Captain America is fighting in what has to be the bloodiest and most infamous war in the history of mankind. For the film to be taken seriously, (and when I mean seriously I mean won't be looked at as a complete joke or an over the top film) he has to look like a soldier. The costume had to change in order to have the film be looked at not as a portrayal of an over-the-top version of WWII, but an alternate version of WWII.

Except he's fighting Hydra. He's not storming the beaches of Normandy. This film is not about the World War. It's about Steve Rogers and how he became a country's symbol. The idea of Hydra, Skull, Super Solider Serum, Cosmic Cube, etc etc is all really silly if you think about it in context of "portrayal of WWII" .... but again, they're not making a movie about WWII.

Also, I think one of the other reasons they changed the costume was out of respect to the soldiers. Did you ever think that they changed it in order to be respectful to the soldiers that did fight in the war? I don't care which superhero it is, there has to be a level of respect there, and since there are people that are sensitive to that stuff, he has to at least look like a soldier, not a guy in "flag pajamas". I understand Johnston's setiments.

Respect to the soliders? Why? All the other soldiers are accurately depicted. Why would they find any offense? Steve Rogers is pure fantasy. If the respect was based on accurately portraying a soldier, this film wouldn't even have been made.

I'm not saying I'm against the comics costume. It fits for the comics. But it just doesn't work for the World War II film version. It didn't work in the 1990 and even with updated materials it would've looked too cheesy. People bring up Spider-man's costume and Iron Man's. Well, both Iron Man and Spider-man didn't fight in World War II. It's a totally different scenario.

The comics had WWII in it didn't they? The 1990 version should never even be discussed. I don't think there's one person on this board who would suggest it ..... and you're completely wrong about updated materials. That's how you go about making it more "believable" which is what many of you seem to be so worried about.

So a guy like Spiderman in a spider suit is more feasible in modern times than a Captain America in the 1940's? Howso? It's nothing but fantasy any way you spin it.

But you're right Mercurius, he's not an icon for his lack of elegance. That's because he's not an icon for elegance or strictly for his costume. He's an icon because he stands up for the ideals of America and not only what America should be, but what America can be. And he's a man who always believes that America can go back to ideals that originally made them a great nation. But as much as I love the comics costume, I admit that people won't take him seriously with 3D wings on his head. He has to look like a solider in WWII, and then he can be a superhero in present day with preferably the Ultimate suit.

If you read what Johnston says about the hero instead of whining and criticizing how every aspect of the movie you would have known already that Johnston totally understands what I said before about Cap. He knows what Cap has to be, and knows what Captain America stands for.

If anything, I'd honestly say your comments are more laughable then the film could be.

If Steve Rogers is accurately portrayed and the audience buys into his plight, they would accept his garb minus it being some outlandish "flag pajamas" ....... but again nobody was suggesting he run around in light blue tights.

[Rock Sexton]

Funny, because the first costume was designed in the '40s :cwink:

Excellent point.

[Wolvieboy17]

I'm sure you were saying that derogatory crap when the pic was manip'ed with Evans on there ....

Nope, because that image is actually in correct proportion.

[Parker Wayne]

Basic elements do not automatically equate to sufficient representation of what is an iconic, individual look that he's carried for decades. It just means "interpretation" ..... What is also important to the representation is the actual silhouette and form. In regards to the wings, depending on which illustration you've seen of him can determine whether or not it's acceptable to the eyes. Lord knows we've seen a man run around with Bat ears, I dunno how crazy it might be to see tiny wing molds which represent the American Eagle (especially if it's explained why they are there.)



Except he's fighting Hydra. He's not storming the beaches of Normandy. This film is not about the World War. It's about Steve Rogers and how he became a country's symbol. The idea of Hydra, Skull, Super Solider Serum, Cosmic Cube, etc etc is all really silly if you think about it in context of "portrayal of WWII" .... but again, they're not making a movie about WWII.



Respect to the soliders? Why? All the other soldiers are accurately depicted. Why would they find any offense? Steve Rogers is pure fantasy. If the respect was based on accurately portraying a soldier, this film wouldn't even have been made.



The comics had WWII in it didn't they? The 1990 version should never even be discussed. I don't think there's one person on this board who would suggest it ..... and you're completely wrong about updated materials. That's how you go about making it more "believable" which is what many of you seem to be so worried about.

So a guy like Spiderman in a spider suit is more feasible in modern times than a Captain America in the 1940's? Howso? It's nothing but fantasy any way you spin it.



If Steve Rogers is accurately portrayed and the audience buys into his plight, they would accept his garb minus it being some outlandish "flag pajamas" ....... but again nobody was suggesting he run around in light blue tights.

I'm just gonna respond to this as a whole. Let's not play around here, Hydra fights in the war, and I believe it's more likely he runs into some Nazi's than not. It's may not be a film about the war, but it's still a WWII era film. And to many he's still a hero because of his efforts during WWII. They still want to portray him as a hero of WWII. There's a reason the film has been called "Marvel's version of WII".

And about the costume, it's exactly what you said: An interpretation. And a fine interpretation in my eyes. Some things just wouldn't work out as well. You can't straight up translate every little detail from comics to film because it simply won't work. Basic elements make up the suit.

And I wasn't talking about a full-on accurate depiction of a soldier, but at least a respectful one is due, which is what Johnston was probably looking to do too.

Sure it's all fantasy, but the setting is completely different, causing for a different way to approach a comic book film. You can't just say you can do every single hero from the comics the same way when it comes to film. You're not gonna get a literal translation every single time.

[Mercurius]

Mercurius! Buddy! How have you been? /Ellis from Die Hard]

How long has it been since I last argued with you? Anyway, that time ends now.

I find it funny that you try to sound smart, and yet you think this film will be a joke because you don't like the suit. Well, I have to tell you that once again, Mercurius, you couldn't be any more wrong. No "it's your opinion," because you're opinion is wrong.

Before I tell you about the film, I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong about the costume. I don't how a costume that's been simplified more than the comic costume could be messy when all that it is a more simplified version of the comic costume. All the basic elements that makes Captain America is there. You have the A on the forehead, the red, white, and blue, the star, the straps, and the wings. Oh? You say the wings aren't 3D? Too bad, because if he actually had the wings on the head then he would actually be laughed at. If you put up a picture of Cap in his comics costume and the film costume, who's going to look like a bigger nutjob?

Captain America is fighting in what has to be the bloodiest and most infamous war in the history of mankind. For the film to be taken seriously, (and when I mean seriously I mean won't be looked at as a complete joke or an over the top film) he has to look like a soldier. The costume had to change in order to have the film be looked at not as a portrayal of an over-the-top version of WWII, but an alternate version of WWII.

Also, I think one of the other reasons they changed the costume was out of respect to the soldiers. Did you ever think that they changed it in order to be respectful to the soldiers that did fight in the war? I don't care which superhero it is, there has to be a level of respect there, and since there are people that are sensitive to that stuff, he has to at least look like a soldier, not a guy in "flag pajamas". I understand Johnston's setiments.

I'm not saying I'm against the comics costume. It fits for the comics. But it just doesn't work for the World War II film version. It didn't work in the 1990 and even with updated materials it would've looked too cheesy. People bring up Spider-man's costume and Iron Man's. Well, both Iron Man and Spider-man didn't fight in World War II. It's a totally different scenario.

But you're right Mercurius, he's not an icon for his lack of elegance. That's because he's not an icon for elegance or strictly for his costume. He's an icon because he stands up for the ideals of America and not only what America should be, but what America can be. And he's a man who always believes that America can go back to ideals that originally made them a great nation. But as much as I love the comics costume, I admit that people won't take him seriously with 3D wings on his head. He has to look like a solider in WWII, and then he can be a superhero in present day with preferably the Ultimate suit.

If you read what Johnston says about the hero instead of whining and criticizing how every aspect of the movie you would have known already that Johnston totally understands what I said before about Cap. He knows what Cap has to be, and knows what Captain America stands for.

If anything, I'd honestly say your comments are more laughable then the film could be.


Parker Wayne... Parker Wayne... Oh Gawd, sorry, I give up, I really can't remember.

Hope you're not hurt.

Anyway, let's examine your case. :oldrazz:

No matter what they do, that's an over the top version of WWII. I was trying to explain that to another chap awhile back, but it was hopeless, he couldn't read, the poor fellow.

"Respectful to the soldier that fought the war"? It baffles me. I mean, I didn't know they've been offended for - how long? - 70 years of Captain America dressing like that.

That's a scandal.

Truly sorry: let's change for the fluffy nutjob in padded blue, white and brown regalia, and lots of gadgets and whatnots all over his garments, AND his loony cap on. That's it. Now he looks like a REAL rolemodel.

*******************

You checked all the items concerning the costume in your list, and then decided that, as you've found everything, that's a good costume.

So the previous movies. And they were serious crimes against Captain America's dignity.

But, on the other hand, as I don't want to be called disrespectful...

**********************

"He has to look like a soldier".

I was just picturing it.

Follow me: imagine young Kirby in the fourties, coming to publish his war effort, and - I can clearly see it - Mr. Wayne Parker, from Wayne Parker & Bros., says, chewing his cigar:

"He has to look like a soldier, goddammit, gotta git sum respect to the fellers fightin' the bloody war!".

Poor Kirby. He goes back home, erases his precious pencils, and come up with that ... that beauty.

No sales. No memory. No hero.

But lots of respect. I tell you, a whole lot of it. :awesome:

********************

No, Spidey wasn't in WWII, nor was Iron Man. Curiously enough, they were respected.

Darn it, it's quite confusing!

***************

Thanks for enjoying my comments, I hope they're a relief for your gastric pains. A good laugh is the best remedy. :cwink:

[Rock Sexton]

I'm just gonna respond to this as a whole. Let's not play around here, Hydra fights in the war, and I believe it's more likely he runs into some Nazi's than not. It's may not be a film about the war, but it's still a WWII era film. And to many he's still a hero because of his efforts during WWII. They still want to portray him as a hero of WWII. There's a reason the film has been called "Marvel's version of WII".

Hydra fights in the war? According to this upcoming film Hydra serves the Red Skull who has broken off from the Nazi's in order to find and accumulate certain items to create WMD's.

"Marvels' version of WWII" doesn't make the movie about WWII. The film is titled "Captain America: The First Avenger" .... the World War happens to be the reason Captain America enlists and is introduced to the serum. Yet, his efforts are purely fictional/fantasy.

And about the costume, it's exactly what you said: An interpretation. And a fine interpretation in my eyes. Some things just wouldn't work out as well. You can't straight up translate every little detail from comics to film because it simply won't work. Basic elements make up the suit.

Why? Again what elements can't be faithfully translated with updated materials? Again completely disagree. Johnston was so narrow-minded in his approach to the suit that his disgust for "flag pajamas" prevented him from adequately approaching a more faithful translation of it. It's a paratrooper with Cap logos on it. The irony I find in the suit is the palette of blue chosen. Bright blue? I thought Johnston was trying to avoid anything silly.

.... And again with the wings, they're on the helmet now right? Aren't people naturally going to wonder how or why they got there? Naturally they would do that if they were molded onto the helmet as well. If Steve's character is so captivating, the audience isn't going to throw its hands in the air in disgust. The 1940's was as full of imagination as we are now. Seeing wing molds would be no different than seeing bat ear molds.

And I wasn't talking about a full-on accurate depiction of a soldier, but at least a respectful one is due, which is what Johnston was probably looking to do too.

Sure it's all fantasy, but the setting is completely different, causing for a different way to approach a comic book film. You can't just say you can do every single hero from the comics the same way when it comes to film. You're not gonna get a literal translation every single time.

How is it disrespectful of WWII soldiers? Was there disrespect when the comics came out? No. In your words Cap was a hero. If Johnston took artistic liberties with every facet of the 40's and did his best Tim Burton impression, I could understand your argument, but it's simply not the case.

.... and I'm not talking "literal" .... I'm talking "faithful" ..... Cap is far more re-imagined suit-wise then he is faithful.

[Mercurius]

That's the perfect definition for the costume:

"It's a paratrooper with Cap logos on it."

[BizarroAids]

Mercurius! Buddy! How have you been? /Ellis from Die Hard]

How long has it been since I last argued with you? Anyway, that time ends now.

I find it funny that you try to sound smart, and yet you think this film will be a joke because you don't like the suit. Well, I have to tell you that once again, Mercurius, you couldn't be any more wrong. No "it's your opinion," because you're opinion is wrong.

Before I tell you about the film, I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong about the costume. I don't how a costume that's been simplified more than the comic costume could be messy when all that it is a more simplified version of the comic costume. All the basic elements that makes Captain America is there. You have the A on the forehead, the red, white, and blue, the star, the straps, and the wings. Oh? You say the wings aren't 3D? Too bad, because if he actually had the wings on the head then he would actually be laughed at. If you put up a picture of Cap in his comics costume and the film costume, who's going to look like a bigger nutjob?

Captain America is fighting in what has to be the bloodiest and most infamous war in the history of mankind. For the film to be taken seriously, (and when I mean seriously I mean won't be looked at as a complete joke or an over the top film) he has to look like a soldier. The costume had to change in order to have the film be looked at not as a portrayal of an over-the-top version of WWII, but an alternate version of WWII.

Also, I think one of the other reasons they changed the costume was out of respect to the soldiers. Did you ever think that they changed it in order to be respectful to the soldiers that did fight in the war? I don't care which superhero it is, there has to be a level of respect there, and since there are people that are sensitive to that stuff, he has to at least look like a soldier, not a guy in "flag pajamas". I understand Johnston's setiments.

I'm not saying I'm against the comics costume. It fits for the comics. But it just doesn't work for the World War II film version. It didn't work in the 1990 and even with updated materials it would've looked too cheesy. People bring up Spider-man's costume and Iron Man's. Well, both Iron Man and Spider-man didn't fight in World War II. It's a totally different scenario.

But you're right Mercurius, he's not an icon for his lack of elegance. That's because he's not an icon for elegance or strictly for his costume. He's an icon because he stands up for the ideals of America and not only what America should be, but what America can be. And he's a man who always believes that America can go back to ideals that originally made them a great nation. But as much as I love the comics costume, I admit that people won't take him seriously with 3D wings on his head. He has to look like a solider in WWII, and then he can be a superhero in present day with preferably the Ultimate suit.

If you read what Johnston says about the hero instead of whining and criticizing how every aspect of the movie you would have known already that Johnston totally understands what I said before about Cap. He knows what Cap has to be, and knows what Captain America stands for.

If anything, I'd honestly say your comments are more laughable then the film could be.


^ This. I don't think he would know a Cap movie if it hit him in the face. It's obvious he's just trolling to be the "stand out." Parker Waynes single post, made more sense than any of Mercs combined.

[Duker Jay]

I'm curious as to what constitutes the icon of Captain America or what makes a faithful interpretation?

I've heard Mercurius mention the icon and Rock Sexton talk about the design being faithful. I guess I'm curious as to how you guys would define that specifically.

It's seems like you're always going to run into the trouble of it being a subjective thing.

Again, just curious.

(That's sincere, by the way. I'm really asking.)

[Whiskey Tango]

Parker Waynes single post, made more sense than any of Mercs combined.

And he gets it done without all the condescension and smug little insults.

[BizarroAids]

And he gets it done without all the condescension and smug little insults.

I stopped reading them a long time ago.

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm getting there.

[Parker Wayne]

Some condescending crap

I'm trying to take you seriously, man but I can't.

Wow, you just completely missed my point. This has nothing to do with comics, but everything to do with an adaptation of Captain America: Key word: Adaptation. There's a difference between comics and film, something than some people don't understand. When you understand that, get back to me okay?

[Parker Wayne]

Hydra fights in the war? According to this upcoming film Hydra serves the Red Skull who has broken off from the Nazi's in order to find and accumulate certain items to create WMD's.

"Marvels' version of WWII" doesn't make the movie about WWII. The film is titled "Captain America: The First Avenger" .... the World War happens to be the reason Captain America enlists and is introduced to the serum. Yet, his efforts are purely fictional/fantasy.

His efforts are fantasy but he has to be real and feel real to the characters in order to have a great film. Part of "feeling" real definitely has to do with appearance. He has to look like soldier or it won't work. It's not about WWII, but it's a WWII-era film that pictures the US going to war and fighting in Europe. If that's not a war in the 1940s I don't know what is.

Why? Again what elements can't be faithfully translated with updated materials? Again completely disagree. Johnston was so narrow-minded in his approach to the suit that his disgust for "flag pajamas" prevented him from adequately approaching a more faithful translation of it. It's a paratrooper with Cap logos on it. The irony I find in the suit is the palette of blue chosen. Bright blue? I thought Johnston was trying to avoid anything silly.

.... And again with the wings, they're on the helmet now right? Aren't people naturally going to wonder how or why they got there? Naturally they would do that if they were molded onto the helmet as well. If Steve's character is so captivating, the audience isn't going to throw its hands in the air in disgust. The 1940's was as full of imagination as we are now. Seeing wing molds would be no different than seeing bat ear molds.

Color isn't the problem. It's not too bright while keeping the character we know and love. You can't seriously tell me that translated suit isn't Captain America. He looks great. It doesn't have to be faithful in order to be great.

And with the wings, it gets there because as an ungraded version of the USO costume. There's no harm done with wings on the helmet. He stands out because he's seen as the symbol of inspiration within the army, yet he doesn't look to ridiculous and looks like a soldier. The 3D wings is going overboard because everything has to be practical in wartime. You may disagree but if Hydra is a group like the Nazi's what makes you think it's not a war with Hydra too?

How is it disrespectful of WWII soldiers? Was there disrespect when the comics came out? No. In your words Cap was a hero. If Johnston took artistic liberties with every facet of the 40's and did his best Tim Burton impression, I could understand your argument, but it's simply not the case.

.... and I'm not talking "literal" .... I'm talking "faithful" ..... Cap is far more re-imagined suit-wise then he is faithful.

I'm just saying that it could be a reason why not go full on comic book faithful because it will turn people off. I'm not talking about a fully accurate WWII, but there's a has to be some ground of reality in order to attract audiences. You say it's not WWII, but there's

[Parker Wayne]

I'm curious as to what constitutes the icon of Captain America or what makes a faithful interpretation?

I've heard Mercurius mention the icon and Rock Sexton talk about the design being faithful. I guess I'm curious as to how you guys would define that specifically.

It's seems like you're always going to run into the trouble of it being a subjective thing.

Again, just curious.

(That's sincere, by the way. I'm really asking.)

I believe a faithful interpretation has to do with more the character and his actions than his look. Captain America is the symbol of American ideals. He's what a hero should be and a hero that many of the heroes in the Marvel Universe looks up to. He stands up for democracy, and will not stand down for anyone if anyone tries to disrupt that democracy. Once again, Joe Johnston has shown in interviews that he completely understands that, and knows what he's talking about.

With that said, there's still has to be a level of suspension of disbelief and some level of reality in order for Captain America to work. You're right, it is a completely subjective thing.

Hope I answered your question. :yay:

[Rock Sexton]

I believe a faithful interpretation has to do with more the character and his actions than his look. Captain America is the symbol of American ideals. He's what a hero should be and a hero that many of the heroes in the Marvel Universe looks up to. He stands up for democracy, and will not stand down for anyone if anyone tries to disrupt that democracy. Once again, Joe Johnston has shown in interviews that he completely understands that, and knows what he's talking about.

Exactly. Just like other people believe what they believe.

With that said, there's still has to be a level of suspension of disbelief and some level of reality in order for Captain America to work. You're right, it is a completely subjective thing.

Hope I answered your question. :yay:

Suspension of disbelief ..... you mean Cap's outfit could've possibly taken things over the top when you've got Hydra soldiers equipped with weapons well beyond their time, a Cosmic Cube which will open up portals, a man who's face is a Red Skull, and a serum which jacks up a puny weakling white guy into the pinnacle of human perfection?

Again, not buying that argument anymore. It's silly when you consider the aforementioned. Ideal clothing for the 40's isn't about to hold the "suspension of disbelief" in balance.

[Rock Sexton]

His efforts are fantasy but he has to be real and feel real to the characters in order to have a great film. Part of "feeling" real definitely has to do with appearance. He has to look like soldier or it won't work. It's not about WWII, but it's a WWII-era film that pictures the US going to war and fighting in Europe. If that's not a war in the 1940s I don't know what is.

This is not a WWII era film like you're making it out to be. This is a comic book movie that uses the existence of said war to create something that never existed. This is a fantasy take. Cap is not real, he is fiction. I pointed this out before, but if the role is acted well, the audience is not going to write him off because he doesn't look like other soldiers. He's a comic book hero! They're going to head into this film knowing this!

Color isn't the problem. It's not too bright while keeping the character we know and love. You can't seriously tell me that translated suit isn't Captain America. He looks great. It doesn't have to be faithful in order to be great.

The blue is too bright to me actually. He looks like a flamboyant paratrooper who's a fan of Captain America so he slapped on a star, some wings, and an "A" .... the only thing Captain America about the suit is the shield is far as I'm concerned, as that's the only thing they nailed. I'm seriously shocked they didn't go with something more muted in regard to the blue. They did it to the red in his outfit.

And with the wings, it gets there because as an ungraded version of the USO costume. There's no harm done with wings on the helmet. He stands out because he's seen as the symbol of inspiration within the army, yet he doesn't look to ridiculous and looks like a soldier. The 3D wings is going overboard because everything has to be practical in wartime. You may disagree but if Hydra is a group like the Nazi's what makes you think it's not a war with Hydra too?

That outfit he's wearing in the USO is the spandex that not a soul on this board is clamoring for as far as faithful representation. Wings and Spandex would be too much. Toned down wing molds on his helmet if they kept to his look would be just fine. They didn't do that though. They changed it up and gave him that oddly shaped helmet, so I could see why it wouldn't work now.

We know from the story that Hydra is off doing it's own thing. The Skull has broken off from the Nazi's in order to amass all these exotic weapons and powers.

I'm just saying that it could be a reason why not go full on comic book faithful because it will turn people off. I'm not talking about a fully accurate WWII, but there's a has to be some ground of reality in order to attract audiences. You say it's not WWII, but there's

Fundamentally I have no problem with a movie trying to keep accurate with the clothing of the time, if said movie was entirely accurate. Again, it's the spandex that would turn people of. Johnston didn't even give it a chance to go somewhere in between that and the final product. He just uses the spandex in mocking fashion as a lazy way to justify his desire to keep Cap believable, but there are waaaaay too many elements which aren't.

[captaintass]

I'm curious as to what constitutes the icon of Captain America or what makes a faithful interpretation?

I've heard Mercurius mention the icon and Rock Sexton talk about the design being faithful. I guess I'm curious as to how you guys would define that specifically.

It's seems like you're always going to run into the trouble of it being a subjective thing.

Again, just curious.

(That's sincere, by the way. I'm really asking.)

From top to bottom:

Helmet -
3D wings on his head +
Red and white stripes alternating around his entire torso +
Brown gloves and boots -
Red gloves and boots +

[BizarroAids]

So, what I'm getting from all this is;

If Cap doesn't wear his iconic suit, it's not being faithful to the character. And yet currently in the comics, neither Caps are wearing his iconic suit. Does that mean it's not faithful?

At some point you guys have to learn that you're not always going to get a literal translation of the costumes. What best fits the directors vision and the tone of the movie is usually going to win. And having a different costume doesn't make the him less like Captain America. It's still him, it still hits all the points of the costumes look.

[JAK®]

So, what I'm getting from all this is;

If Cap doesn't wear his iconic suit, it's not being faithful to the character. And yet currently in the comics, neither Caps are wearing his iconic suit. Does that mean it's not faithful?

Well the current Captain America isn't Steve Rogers, but Bucky. So, he has a different costume because he is a different character. And Steve Rogers isn't Captain America at the moment, so he's not wearing a Captain America costume. I don't think your point applies to this movie.

[lixdexia]

Well the current Captain America isn't Steve Rogers, but Bucky. So, he has a different costume because he is a different character. And Steve Rogers isn't Captain America at the moment, so he's not wearing a Captain America costume. I don't think your point applies to this movie.
then let's look at captain america as he appears in captain america comics #1. (http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg)here the character is not in his iconic costume (the mask is detached, the stripes don't continue all the way around, the stripes on the shield are multi-colored) though he is steve rodgers. is this version of captain america not faithful?

[Mercurius]

I'm curious as to what constitutes the icon of Captain America or what makes a faithful interpretation?

I've heard Mercurius mention the icon and Rock Sexton talk about the design being faithful. I guess I'm curious as to how you guys would define that specifically.

It's seems like you're always going to run into the trouble of it being a subjective thing.

Again, just curious.

(That's sincere, by the way. I'm really asking.)

Those who presented criticism on the costume (including me) have been very specific, and many times, about the problems.

If you read the post in which I kindly answer to Parker Wayne, there it is.

I wouldn't make Captain America dress that puffy uniform, but a sleek one; he would have his mask, instead of a cap with that stripe tied to his chin, to fix the ugly thing in his head; his gloves and boots would have red instead of brown, and that would match the colours of his shield; he would have white and red stripes alternate, and not something faking it to "allude" to his comic book counterpart.

People have come with all sorts of excuses not to do it properly, let's check them: the soldier excuse, the WWII excuse, the Johnston wants differently excuse (that's, perhaps, the only one which is not an excuse, but the true reason behind the excuses), the cinema version needs to be different excuse, the adults won't watch excuse, etc.

[Mercurius]

I'm trying to take you seriously, man but I can't.

Wow, you just completely missed my point. This has nothing to do with comics, but everything to do with an adaptation of Captain America: Key word: Adaptation. There's a difference between comics and film, something than some people don't understand. When you understand that, get back to me okay?


You know, as you were so kind addressing me as you did, I'm almost sorry for my evil, villanesque remarks. And all your friends so sore about the whole ordeal.

I'm quite moved. How could Mercurius be so rude and smug and peevish with such a gentle poster?

That's outrageous.

[JAK®]

then let's look at captain america as he appears in captain america comics #1. (http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg)here the character is not in his iconic costume (the mask is detached, the stripes don't continue all the way around, the stripes on the shield are multi-colored) though he is steve rodgers. is this version of captain america not faithful?This suit gradually changed into the classic costume. So no, it isn't unfaithful, but if you decided to draw Cap's costume like that in any context other than a flashback then it would be unfaithful, as you are intentionally drawing Cap differently.

Superman couldn't even fly for his first couple years of existence. But if you tried to tell a Superman story today where he couldn't fly you would have a hard time justifying it.

[Webhead38]

The trailer Superbowl night should clear up the costume application...maybe. Right now though it reads like your typical Joe Johnston mixed bag of ideas. All of his films are like this. Some good points, but ultimately a let down overall. Films like Jumanji, Rocketeer, Hildago, Jurassic Park III, and the Wolfman. Many of those high profile films that ALL underperformed at the box office. Marvel really gambled big bringing this guy on board. And the results speak for themselves. :doh:

[peterparker0077]

then let's look at captain america as he appears in captain america comics #1. (http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg)here the character is not in his iconic costume (the mask is detached, the stripes don't continue all the way around, the stripes on the shield are multi-colored) though he is steve rodgers. is this version of captain america not faithful?

Actually I believe those torso stripes do go all the way around, but I could be remembering wrong. I do remember them not going all the way around, but I thought that was a few issues into the first Capt series. He had the star on the back as well didn't he?

At any rate, the movie suit should work as is. It's not bad, I just wish they put a little effort into making it look more traditional. And yes, that can be done while still keeping it very soldier like and not silly looking. Little things like adding stretch sections to keep those torso portions tighter to his body, etc. He worked his butt off, or I should say, they paid him to be in the gym for several months to get him to look massive for this role, and now they're covering it all up. That doesn't make too much sense to me to me.

I most certainly think that we'll see a major change in the Avengers movie modern Capt suit, to a more stream line, more traditional looking suit.

[Wade Garrett]

The trailer Superbowl night should clear up the costume application...maybe. Right now though it reads like your typical Joe Johnston mixed bag of ideas. All of his films are like this. Some good points, but ultimately a let down overall. Films like Jumanji, Rocketeer, Hildago, Jurassic Park III, and the Wolfman. Many of those high profile films that ALL underperformed at the box office. Marvel really gambled big bringing this guy on board. And the results speak for themselves. :doh:

Well, I remember seeing most of those films when I was kid, and enjoying them. I can't say now if I would or not, I haven't seen them since I was younger, but since this is a comic book movie, one that will most likely merchandise to kids, maybe its a good thing we have a director specializing in family adventure.

[peterparker0077]

I loved the Rocketeer personally...

[Duker Jay]

Those who presented criticism on the costume (including me) have been very specific, and many times, about the problems.

If you read the post in which I kindly answer to Parker Wayne, there it is.

I wouldn't make Captain America dress that puffy uniform, but a sleek one; he would have his mask, instead of a cap with that stripe tied to his chin, to fix the ugly thing in his head; his gloves and boots would have red instead of brown, and that would match the colours of his shield; he would have white and red stripes alternate, and not something faking it to "allude" to his comic book counterpart.

People have come with all sorts of excuses not to do it properly, let's check them: the soldier excuse, the WWII excuse, the Johnston wants differently excuse (that's, perhaps, the only one which is not an excuse, but the true reason behind the excuses), the cinema version needs to be different excuse, the adults won't watch excuse, etc.

If I'm reading this right, it's the comic costume or bust.

Does changing the swashbuckling boots to combat boost destroy that visual icon? Does adding pouches to his belt compromise the icon?

If you were making the costume...and you wanted it sleek, what would you make it out of? Leather? Spandex? I mean, at some point some one does have to translate it into real-world materials. (Of course, they could go with a purely CGI suit.) But, for the sake of discussion, let's say you're in charge of making it. What is it made out of...primarily.

[Duker Jay]

I believe a faithful interpretation has to do with more the character and his actions than his look. Captain America is the symbol of American ideals. He's what a hero should be and a hero that many of the heroes in the Marvel Universe looks up to. He stands up for democracy, and will not stand down for anyone if anyone tries to disrupt that democracy. Once again, Joe Johnston has shown in interviews that he completely understands that, and knows what he's talking about.

With that said, there's still has to be a level of suspension of disbelief and some level of reality in order for Captain America to work. You're right, it is a completely subjective thing.

Hope I answered your question. :yay:

Yeah, I agree. For me too, it's more about the character's actions than his depiction. I'm guessing most here would agree on that.

I'm trying to specifically get at people's ideal version of the costume and the why of those opinions. I guess I'm curious as to how much of Cap's character or identity is dictated or wrapped in the suit. Is it more a story about Cap and his influence on others or Steve Rogers and his desire to do something meaningful for his country (and, by extension, others who can't fight for themselves, etc.)?

[Mercurius]

If I'm reading this right, it's the comic costume or bust.

Does changing the swashbuckling boots to combat boost destroy that visual icon? Does adding pouches to his belt compromise the icon?

If you were making the costume...and you wanted it sleek, what would you make it out of? Leather? Spandex? I mean, at some point some one does have to translate it into real-world materials. (Of course, they could go with a purely CGI suit.) But, for the sake of discussion, let's say you're in charge of making it. What is it made out of...primarily.

If you pay attention, you'll see I said absolutely nothing comparing both boots, nor claiming it should be one of those or nothing.

If they would make a good costume, those boots are fine with me. Let them be red and there you have it. I'm not against adaptation. I'm against BAD adaptation.

When Sexton said it was a paratrooper covered with Captain America's logos, he was right, and the criticism is exactly on the features I pointed out to you, as you asked saying it was an honest question.

But your last question is absurd, for two reasons:

a) I'm not making costumes for a living, and great professionals go exactly to the difficult cases in order to show they can make anything (my point being: these not only have designed a weak Captain, but also went the easier way, which is always to put on some, ah-ham, "realism", translating in baggy clothes, square shoulder pads and all the gadgets, in the present case, not to mention the abhorrent cap);

b) you don't have the thousands of dollars to pay for my answer. :woot:

[Parker Wayne]

Those who presented criticism on the costume (including me) have been very specific, and many times, about the problems.

If you read the post in which I kindly answer to Parker Wayne, there it is.

I wouldn't make Captain America dress that puffy uniform, but a sleek one; he would have his mask, instead of a cap with that stripe tied to his chin, to fix the ugly thing in his head; his gloves and boots would have red instead of brown, and that would match the colours of his shield; he would have white and red stripes alternate, and not something faking it to "allude" to his comic book counterpart.

People have come with all sorts of excuses not to do it properly, let's check them: the soldier excuse, the WWII excuse, the Johnston wants differently excuse (that's, perhaps, the only one which is not an excuse, but the true reason behind the excuses), the cinema version needs to be different excuse, the adults won't watch excuse, etc.

Puffy? I don't see how anyone could call this puffy.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af220/tmathis34/Captain-America_510.jpg?t=1296065214

There's no problem with making it look part soldier uniform. If anything, some of those features you mentioned may be in the update for the Avengers.

More condescending crap

Uh, right...........

[Duker Jay]

If you pay attention, you'll see I said absolutely nothing comparing both boots, nor claiming it should be one of those or nothing.

If they would make a good costume, those boots are fine with me. Let them be red and there you have it. I'm not against adaptation. I'm against BAD adaptation.

When Sexton said it was a paratrooper covered with Captain America's logos, he was right, and the criticism is exactly on the features I pointed out to you, as you asked saying it was an honest question.

But your last question is absurd, for two reasons:

a) I'm not making costumes for a living, and great professionals go exactly to the difficult cases in order to show they can make anything (my point being: these not only have designed a weak Captain, but also went the easier way, which is always to put on some, ah-ham, "realism", translating in baggy clothes, square shoulder pads and all the gadgets, in the present case, not to mention the abhorrent cap);

b) you don't have the thousands of dollars to pay for my answer. :woot:

Forgive my absurdity. I'm just trying to get at the specific vision that you have. I guess I'm having trouble picturing what it would look like because there are a lot of general comments being made.

"If they would make a good costume" doesn't tell us what you think a good costume would look like in real terms.

My question about the boots and such was just an attempt to get specific. I'm not trying to goad anyone or be sarcastic, I just think the discussion is more meaningful or enlightening if we deal in specifics.

[Mercurius]

Forgive my absurdity. I'm just trying to get at the specific vision that you have. I guess I'm having trouble picturing what it would look like because there are a lot of general comments being made.

"If they would make a good costume" doesn't tell us what you think a good costume would look like in real terms.

My question about the boots and such was just an attempt to get specific. I'm not trying to goad anyone or be sarcastic, I just think the discussion is more meaningful or enlightening if we deal in specifics.

Especifically, I think it would've been perfect if: they'd make his costume a sleek one, not a puffy one; if they would go with a darker hue of blue, where it is blue; if the boots and gloves were red; if he had his little wings, and a proper mask, that would please cover his neck; if they would take all the stuff they put everywhere in his costume, keeping the stripes as they are, and the design clean, elegant; no stars on his shoulders, it's too troublesome: he already has a big star on his chest, and that's enough.

[Mercurius]

Puffy? I don't see how anyone could call this puffy.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af220/tmathis34/Captain-America_510.jpg?t=1296065214

There's no problem with making it look part soldier uniform. If anything, some of those features you mentioned may be in the update for the Avengers.



Uh, right...........

Thanks for the pic, Wayne.

As we see above, it could fit his body (it doesn't) as Spidey's costume did.

They could let go of all the little stitches everywhere; the flat shoulderpads; these stupid fake stripes to be only stripes; out with this cap, that also makes his neck look too thin, and cover all that with a proper mask.

A darker blue for the costume. And red that would match the shield colours, which should be obvious; take out all the straps and the gun holster.

Anyway: I hope they be lucid enough to make these changes for the Avengers movie, otherwise Cap is gonna look really awkward among Iron Man's perfect armour and Thor's regal, imposing look.

[captainrogers]

If they would make a good costume, those boots are fine with me. Let them be red and there you have it. I'm not against adaptation. I'm against BAD adaptation.

When Sexton said it was a paratrooper covered with Captain America's logos, he was right, and the criticism is exactly on the features I pointed out to you, as you asked saying it was an honest question.

But your last question is absurd, for two reasons:

a) I'm not making costumes for a living, and great professionals go exactly to the difficult cases in order to show they can make anything (my point being: these not only have designed a weak Captain, but also went the easier way, which is always to put on some, ah-ham, "realism", translating in baggy clothes, square shoulder pads and all the gadgets, in the present case, not to mention the abhorrent cap)

I get that its yours and Rock's and other folks opinion that its a Bad Adaptation, but the more I read your statements, specifically, it almost sounds like you're trying to tell us that we are somehow sheeplike or in the wrong for liking the way its shaped up. You don't like the suit. I get that. I don't wanto to change your mind. You have a right to not like the costume, we've heard your criticisms against it and with regards to what you would prefer to see on screen, you are 100% correct about this suit as compared to what you'd like to see.
I think the design is strong. Im not right or wrong for thinking this. Especially for having a reasoning for my opinion which I have stated before. That's fine if you think the production is doomed. I think people just get a bit riled when you try (and it seems like you are)to be condescending to those that disagree. Im not wanting to silence your opinion. You have valid points in some of your posts to support your preferences.
to me the suit makes sense. To piggyback offa Rocks statement a bit, it does look paratrooperish. But I find that as part of the allure to Cap and him being a part of the Armed Forces.
Ah. It is what it is. You'll probably swoop in, try and deconstruct this post with some wordy highfalootany, and have the last word.
I hope you enjoy the movie.
I hope we all do.

[Parker Wayne]

Thanks for the pic, Wayne.

As we see above, it could fit his body (it doesn't) as Spidey's costume did.

They could let go of all the little stitches everywhere; the flat shoulderpads; these stupid fake stripes to be only stripes; out with this cap, that also makes his neck look too thin, and cover all that with a proper mask.

A darker blue for the costume. And red that would match the shield colours, which should be obvious; take out all the straps and the gun holster.

Anyway: I hope they be lucid enough to make these changes for the Avengers movie, otherwise Cap is gonna look really awkward among Iron Man's perfect armour and Thor's regal, imposing look.

Are you kidding me? Fit his body like Spider-man's costume? Are you aware that Cap needs to wear armor and Spider-man doesn't. Spandex may work for the comics, but for Cap it won't work for the movies.

[Parker Wayne]

I get that its yours and Rock's and other folks opinion that its a Bad Adaptation, but the more I read your statements, specifically, it almost sounds like you're trying to tell us that we are somehow sheeplike or in the wrong for liking the way its shaped up. You don't like the suit. I get that. I don't wanto to change your mind. You have a right to not like the costume, we've heard your criticisms against it and with regards to what you would prefer to see on screen, you are 100% correct about this suit as compared to what you'd like to see.
I think the design is strong. Im not right or wrong for thinking this. Especially for having a reasoning for my opinion which I have stated before. That's fine if you think the production is doomed. I think people just get a bit riled when you try (and it seems like you are)to be condescending to those that disagree. Im not wanting to silence your opinion. You have valid points in some of your posts to support your preferences.
to me the suit makes sense. To piggyback offa Rocks statement a bit, it does look paratrooperish. But I find that as part of the allure to Cap and him being a part of the Armed Forces.
Ah. It is what it is. You'll probably swoop in, try and deconstruct this post with some wordy highfalootany, and have the last word.
I hope you enjoy the movie.
I hope we all do.

This. :yay:

[lixdexia]

Ah. It is what it is. You'll probably swoop in, try and deconstruct this post with some wordy highfalootany, and have the last word.
i resent this statement! the rest of it was fine, but this part...his posts are neither particularly wordy nor highfalutin. no matter how well he may or may not think out his arguments, his spelling and vocabulary simply don't allow for it.

[captainrogers]

i resent this statement! the rest of it was fine, but this part...his posts are neither particularly wordy nor highfalutin. no matter how well he may or may not think out his arguments, his spelling and vocabulary simply don't allow for it.

Ah. Apologies my friend.

[lixdexia]

and just to clear up, that was only a light jab at mercurius, but aimed more at the idea that anytime a poster uses a word not covered in middle school or lower that they are being pedantic. sometimes it's just the best possible word choice.

[wobbly]

and just to clear up, that was only a light jab at mercurius, but aimed more at the idea that anytime a poster uses a word not covered in middle school or lower that they are being pedantic. sometimes it's just the best possible word choice.

Indubitably :cwink:

[Mercurius]

I get that its yours and Rock's and other folks opinion that its a Bad Adaptation, but the more I read your statements, specifically, it almost sounds like you're trying to tell us that we are somehow sheeplike or in the wrong for liking the way its shaped up. You don't like the suit. I get that. I don't wanto to change your mind. You have a right to not like the costume, we've heard your criticisms against it and with regards to what you would prefer to see on screen, you are 100% correct about this suit as compared to what you'd like to see.
I think the design is strong. Im not right or wrong for thinking this. Especially for having a reasoning for my opinion which I have stated before. That's fine if you think the production is doomed. I think people just get a bit riled when you try (and it seems like you are)to be condescending to those that disagree. Im not wanting to silence your opinion. You have valid points in some of your posts to support your preferences.
to me the suit makes sense. To piggyback offa Rocks statement a bit, it does look paratrooperish. But I find that as part of the allure to Cap and him being a part of the Armed Forces.
Ah. It is what it is. You'll probably swoop in, try and deconstruct this post with some wordy highfalootany, and have the last word.
I hope you enjoy the movie.
I hope we all do.

I won't try to deconstruct anything above.

I think your post is perfect, and you're right about both things.

The last word is yours, captainrogers: intelligent and balanced.

[peterparker0077]

As a good example, I think this suit could of looked a whole lot better in my opinion, if they went more the route the movie Daredevil suit went, they could use the same fabrics and such that they did, just make parts of it as stretch sections to keep the suit tighter to his body. The X2 suits also used this idea. But again, it doesn't have to be leather like daredevil and X2, they could use the fabrics they did here. I actually like the fabric choices knowing that the twill on Capt's suit is the exact same pattern they used in WWII flight and paratrooper suits.

As far as the neck goes, Capt's very first suit didn't cover his neck. It was only after he got cut in the neck did he realize that he needed to cover it. I believe that was with in the first 20 issues... but I could be off on that.

And Yes, it's suppose to be Paratrooperish... that's exactly what it's based on.. now let's hope he actually paratroops at least once, if not more in the film...

[Mercurius]

Are you kidding me? Fit his body like Spider-man's costume? Are you aware that Cap needs to wear armor and Spider-man doesn't. Spandex may work for the comics, but for Cap it won't work for the movies.

No. He doesn't need armour. That's Iron Man.

[wobbly]

As far as the neck goes, Capt's very first suit didn't cover his neck. It was only after he got cut in the neck did he realize that he needed to cover it. I believe that was with in the first 20 issues... but I could be off on that.

Much sooner than that. By issue 2 he had changed to the full neck covering and the round shield as well. Neither change was given an explanation at the time with the reason for the neck and the origins of the Shield 'ret-conned' in later.

[Parker Wayne]

No. He doesn't need armour. That's Iron Man.

Wrong. That's all I'm going to say. I don't think I need to even explain why he needs armor.

[peterparker0077]

No. He doesn't need armour. That's Iron Man.

Capt has always had armor.

[Mercurius]

i resent this statement! the rest of it was fine, but this part...his posts are neither particularly wordy nor highfalutin. no matter how well he may or may not think out his arguments, his spelling and vocabulary simply don't allow for it.


And thanks, Lixie. :cwink:

As the ancient and venerable rules of classic composition always say: "dontcha ever be wordy, nor highfalooting".

Master Virgil, Tully and others support the statement.

[peterparker0077]

Much sooner than that. By issue 2 he had changed to the full neck covering and the round shield as well. Neither change was given an explanation at the time with the reason for the neck and the origins of the Shield 'ret-conned' in later.

Ah yes, thanks

[Mercurius]

Capt has always had armor.

Oh did he, my dear boy?

I suppose he did not, and I am fairly certain when I say it, if you allow me to say so.

[Gunga Diner]

Oh did he, my dear boy?

I suppose he did not, and I am fairly certain when I say it, if you allow me to say so.

Thanks for the input, Ian McKellen.

[lixdexia]

yeah, phrases like "my dear boy" come off as condescending and stifle discussion and debate.

[peterparker0077]

Yep, and again Merc, I ask... how old are you??

Yes, he's always had armor, he wears a thin lightweight armor under his outfit. Has always done so since I remember. Plus, he has a shield, which is armor. It's always been that way because he's just at peek human condition, not super human, and definitely not bullet proof.

[Mercurius]

yeah, phrases like "my dear boy" come off as condescending and stifle discussion and debate.

By Jove! I was just, in all naivété, brushing up my Shakespeare - as you, Lixie, frowned upon my poor abilities as a writer - and now that!

You're very difficult to satisfy, you know?

[JAK®]

Captain America wore chain mail on his upper torso, which counts as armour, and in the film he wears shoulder pads - which is also armour on his upper torso. So basically for his movie costume he has lost armour on his chest and gained some on his head.

[Mercurius]

Yep, and again Merc, I ask... how old are you??

Yes, he's always had armor, he wears a thin lightweight armor under his outfit. Has always done so since I remember. Plus, he has a shield, which is armor. It's always been that way because he's just at peek human condition, not super human, and definitely not bullet proof.

I'm 83, that's why it's so urgent that they make a nice Captain America flick now (you know that it isn't polite to ask the age of a person, point blank, don't you?)

"Thin lightweight armour", now we're talking.

Armour, in this case, is poetic licence: he may use that scaled suit, or some thin layer of resistant material.

[Parker Wayne]

Thanks for the input, Ian McKellen.

:lmao:

[Mercurius]

Captain America wore chain mail on his upper torso, which counts as armour, and in the film he wears shoulder pads - which is also armour on his upper torso. So basically for his movie costume he has lost armour on his chest and gained some on his head.

:woot:

[Parker Wayne]

You know you have Mercurius beat in an argument when he starts deviating from the conversation with some condescending crap or supposedly witty remarks that always fail.

[lixdexia]

By Jove! I was just, in all naivété, brushing up my Shakespeare - as you, Lixie, frowned upon my poor abilities as a writer - and now that!

You're very difficult to satisfy, you know?
actually, that can't really be called shakespeare as it's to short a phrase and too widely used to be uniquely identifiable. nor does it improve you ability as a writter, it's a bit of a retrograde as you are seemingly intentionally making your posts less comprehensible. it does however give you excellent practice being a troll, but it seems you are well versed in that already

[Mercurius]

You know, you have to deal with that temper of yours.

[peterparker0077]

I'm 83, that's why it's so urgent that they make a nice Captain America flick now (you know that it isn't polite to ask the age of a person, point blank, don't you?)

"Thin lightweight armour", now we're talking.

Armour, in this case, is poetic licence: he may use that scaled suit, or some thin layer of resistant material.

Great, now what's your real age?

Yes, his duralumin (which is an actual metal btw, that was a top secret Aluminum alloy in WWI, but is still used today in aircraft frames and such, commonly used in a form called Alcad) armor has always been a thin lightweight armor. If you read my posts about the outfit, you would know that I agree with you on the fact that it should of been a tighter fitting outfit. I think the change for Avengers in modern times will be.

[Parker Wayne]

:yay:

:lmao:

[Mercurius]

Great, now what's your real age?

Yes, his duralumin (which is an actual metal btw, that was a top secret Aluminum alloy in WWI, but is still used today in aircraft frames and such, commonly used in a form called Alcad) armor has always been a thin lightweight armor. If you read my posts about the outfit, you would know that I agree with you on the fact that it should of been a tighter fitting outfit. I think the change for Avengers in modern times will be.

Yes, I've read your posts about the suit, we certainly agree on this point.

And I hope they'll do it for the Avengers. Actually I'm pretty sure they will.

[Rock Sexton]

Yes, I've read your posts about the suit, we certainly agree on this point.

And I hope they'll do it for the Avengers. Actually I'm pretty sure they will.

God I hope you're right. It's bad enough that I personally can't stand Evans as an actor. Not getting the iconic suit is overkill for me. Just hope the rest of the film makes up for it.

[C. Lee]

I have a suggestion for many of the posters in here.....stop the condescending attitudes and petty name calling....and discuss things civilly.

[BizarroAids]

C.Lee is mad!! He's about throw some justice on our asses. :hrt::csad:

[captainrogers]

I'm always enthralled by his Doc Savage avatar. I'd love to see that film. (Done well of course)

[the dmg]

Captain America wore chain mail on his upper torso, which counts as armour, and in the film he wears shoulder pads - which is also armour on his upper torso. So basically for his movie costume he has lost armour on his chest and gained some on his head.
Not really, if his midsection is any indication of protection, I'm sure his chest area is well protected.

[The Caped Knight]

I'm still hoping the Classic suit is used in the avengers film.

[BizarroAids]

Psh, he doesn't need any armor on his chest, he's got the shield. :o

[BigThor]

Psh, he doesn't need any armor on his chest, he's got the shield. :o

True, but what about when he throws his shield?

[BizarroAids]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/spideyman05/captain_america_armor.jpg


I'm kidding.

With his agility, he can move quick enough to get to his shield. And he has a gun to give himself some cover fire.

[WildcatNC]

Which would be better suited for the movie?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9945/xcaptainamericacc11jq9.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2233/ultimateorigins21as6.jpg


We'll see the first suit in the USO scenes and i'm glad we will, love the homage. Lets hope they leave out the detailed crotch penciling.

I think we'll see a hybrid of the second one and the movie one for Avengers. Almost like the photoshoped poster earlier in the thread.

[BigThor]

We'll see the first suit in the USO scenes and i'm glad we will, love the homage. Lets hope they leave out the detailed crotch penciling.

I think we'll see a hybrid of the second one and the movie one for Avengers. Almost like the photoshoped poster earlier in the thread.

That would actually be really cool :up:

[Mercurius]

God I hope you're right. It's bad enough that I personally can't stand Evans as an actor. Not getting the iconic suit is overkill for me. Just hope the rest of the film makes up for it.


I think the present costume is more of a Johnston thing, that Marvel has bought because it would ensure a development - quite visible in the different times the action takes place in the two movies - through the difference of the aforesaid costumes.

Of course, Marvel hopes it won't damage the prospects for this movie to be a success, but that's the risk they've taken. And it IS a risk.

I'm pretty sure, though, they'll make a different costume, much more iconic, for the Avengers version. They want the group movie to raise the standards and be a huge success.

***************

Just like you, I'm not happy with Evans as Captain America. But as I said before, maybe we should wait for the movie and see if Evans can be a second Heath Ledger, proving he can completely transform himself.

Let's hope.

[JAK®]

I don't see how the costume puts the movie at risk in any way.

[Duker Jay]

Yeah, I think the success of the movie has more to do with how well it's done from a story-telling and character-development standpoint.

The first X-Men movie was really successful and the costumes looked nothing like the comic versions. If a filmmaker can make the audience care about the story and the characters, the costume will be an after-thought.

In my opinion.

[Duker Jay]

Yeah, I think the success of the movie has more to do with how well it's done from a story-telling and character-development standpoint.

The first X-Men movie was really successful and the costumes looked nothing like the comic versions. If a filmmaker can make the audience care about the story and the characters, the costume will be an after-thought.

In my opinion.

[DACrowe]

I have not been here since the full body shots have appeared but get the sense of huge amounts of negativity and cynicism around here. I think it looks pretty good. It is WWII and the whole spandex thing always would have looked off in the real world (as would the feathers on the mask). I think the full body suit looks great. It looks like WWII gear refitted for Captain America and gives the movie a really refreshing look that embraces it being a period piece and not just a run-of-the-mill superhero movie (cughGreenLanterncough).

However, I do think the helmet is awkward looking. A straight up mask with wings would have looked silly and in theory a helmet turned into a mask makes sense. But this still looks awkward. The regular helmet with motor glasses he wears as seen in the EW a few months ago looks way better.

But I still like it. I'm more worried on a generic/mediocre script and a hollow film than whether the costume works or not. Look at it this way...it looks a lot better than the new Spidey costume in the forthcoming reboot movie out next year.

[Parker Wayne]

I wouldn't say it's been huge amounts of negativity. Just 3 or 4 people continuously voicing their negativity. To be honest I have no problem with that except for whatever the hell Mercurius is saying.

[Rock Sexton]

I wouldn't say it's been huge amounts of negativity. Just 3 or 4 people continuously voicing their negativity. To be honest I have no problem with that except for whatever the hell Mercurius is saying.

It's not "negativity" like I'm running around trying to bring the entire forum down. It's simply an opinion, much the same as those who are positive and constantly re-stating thus.

In regards to what I'm disappointment with, I'm sorry it's just the way it is. To this day I still can't stand the Evans thing and the suit made it worse for me. Just sayin' .... that's all, nothing more nothing less.

[Mercurius]

I have not been here since the full body shots have appeared but get the sense of huge amounts of negativity and cynicism around here. I think it looks pretty good. It is WWII and the whole spandex thing always would have looked off in the real world (as would the feathers on the mask). I think the full body suit looks great. It looks like WWII gear refitted for Captain America and gives the movie a really refreshing look that embraces it being a period piece and not just a run-of-the-mill superhero movie (cughGreenLanterncough).

However, I do think the helmet is awkward looking. A straight up mask with wings would have looked silly and in theory a helmet turned into a mask makes sense. But this still looks awkward. The regular helmet with motor glasses he wears as seen in the EW a few months ago looks way better.

But I still like it. I'm more worried on a generic/mediocre script and a hollow film than whether the costume works or not. Look at it this way...it looks a lot better than the new Spidey costume in the forthcoming reboot movie out next year.


But obviously, there are at least two opinions on the matter.

I'm certainly very extreme in my views because the concept and the costume seem the very contrary: a disaster.

I have always thought that Captain America was the most difficult Marvel character to handle, cause it's easy to slip to a regressively patriotic kinda story, and his costume demands a very ingenuous, and not simplistic, solution.

In a certain sense, when they announced the movie, I was hoping the first shots would surprise me, and not leave the sensation of: "oh boy, here we go again".

That's the problem. I think the movies that one will remember are those in which the whole thing (costume + story) is spot on. Batman is an exception, because his costume is, most of the time, shown in the dark, and it is better when we see it almost black. And, in the Dark Knight, because the movie had a most remarkable, genious performance by Heath Ledger.

And because Batman has seen, even in comicbookdom, different, risked, and very successful interpretations. He is, as the Joker says in the Arkham Asylum, "the mask". He has no face, so to speak.

Marvel, as a studio, has taken a different direction, more akin to its characters, with Iron Man. Spider man, in Raimi's hands, also was quite faithful to the iconic visual (and I agree the new one is truly bad). Captain America, from what I've seen so far, is far away from ideal.

The easy way they took is tainted again with the old cliché of realism (of which it has nothing at all), and it seems a different character wearing some colours and symbols one recognizes being those in Captain America's costume.

It doesn't show enough dedication, enough effort to getting it right, for me. Other movies showed a lot more care. Even Thor, that has a number of departures from the comic book design, looks real good, with very intelligent and distinguished Kirby's features all around.

Again, Captain America looks, for me, like a Johnston invention, semi-period piece, semi-Rocketeer. And, again, not even close to a good depiction.

[GreenKToo]

Wasn't sure where this fit in, so forgive me if its in the wrong place..
FOX news just has a segment on this film and the director..they were pretty outraged that it was going to be called the ''first avenger'' overseas and not Cap America. They said johnston intentionally muted the colors of the suit to get away from the flag feel....
I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

[Ryudoz]

I like the look that's portrayed here and would be just fine with that costume come Avengers. I believe it to be a faithful adaptation that captures what I consider to be the main elements of his look.

To me, what I consider to be the main elements of his look is that he wears a predominantly blue outfit with a white and red midriff that is reminiscent of the stripes on a flag. He bears a star chest symbol, an "A" on his forehead, wings on his temples, and carries a rounded shield of alternating red/white strips with a single star in the middle (surrounded by blue). Essentially, taking the elements of our nations flag and applying it to a uniform and shield. This isn't an exact translation from the comics (it's an adaptation) and yet is still largely representative of those basic elements.

I've seen in many posts around here people questioning why film makers would change the iconic look of a character. Some have posited that those in question are ashamed of a particular work or that they simply don't like it. I say it's perhaps what is iconic or important to the character is something different for these film makers than it is for say myself or another. Perhaps Johnston feels that Cap can still be Cap with brown gloves and combat boots instead of red gloves and pirate boots because they don't seem to resonate with him as they may for someone else.

I enjoy seeing adaptations of a character's look. Other artists interpretations I think can be just as good if not better than the originals. While reverence is generally paid in many respects, often times changes can be just as popular. In short, sometimes the first look isn't always the best. Take Spider-Man for example. His black outfit (both when he had the venom symbiote and after) is a highly regarded look for him that he will go back to on occasion. It's only semblance to the original Red/Blue is that it's skin tight, has a spider on the front and back, and has white eyes.

So I think this is an adaptation of Cap's look that I think works. I can look at it and see Captain America and not think that the designers were lazy or embarrassed by Kirby's original design nor being disrespectful. If that really was the case it's likely Steve would be wearing fatigues and carrying a machine gun like all the other soldiers.

[peterparker0077]

Wasn't sure where this fit in, so forgive me if its in the wrong place..
FOX news just has a segment on this film and the director..they were pretty outraged that it was going to be called the ''first avenger'' overseas and not Cap America. They said johnston intentionally muted the colors of the suit to get away from the flag feel....
I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

The suit looks American..

However, calling it "The First Avenger" only.. and not Captain America... does get under my skin.... they tried the same crap in the Superman reboot with the line "Truth, justice... and all that other stuff".. I almost walked out when I heard that.. and the writer was a friend of mine. I asked him about it and he said they did that for international sales... I was very upset and dissappointed that he wrote that... I still find it ridiculous. We should be proud to be American. I sure am.

[JAK®]

Well the fact is that non-American countries find the whole "proud to be an American" sense of patriotism silly, and a film called CAPTAIN AMERICA sends the wrong message. It indicates that the film is about "YAY AMERICA" and that's a sentiment that isn't popular in other countries. Calling it The First Avenger changes the way the character is presented, in that he is an individual superhero whose name is Captain America, and that's much easier to swallow.

[Mercurius]

And for many countries Captain America represents American international military intervention.

And, of course, sometimes Captain America has been written with that intention, precisely.

They're just avoiding the sore spot and, hopefully, making a movie in which Captain America is more than mere patriotic device, and more of a self-motivated hero.

[peterparker0077]

Well the fact is that non-American countries find the whole "proud to be an American" sense of patriotism silly, and a film called CAPTAIN AMERICA sends the wrong message. It indicates that the film is about "YAY AMERICA" and that's a sentiment that isn't popular in other countries. Calling it The First Avenger changes the way the character is presented, in that he is an individual superhero whose name is Captain America, and that's much easier to swallow.

Fact? Really? I have a ton of foreign friends who would dispute that with you. Do we find it "silly" here when other sports teams or what ever come to this country proud of their own nation? Of course not. As far as films go, we go out of our way to recognize films from other countries and don't find their patriotism "silly" at all, but we uplift it.

Captain America, sends NO wrong message... the film is about "Yay America", why do you think he was given the name Captain AMERICA?? What do you think he stands for? That sentiment is only not popular in countries that don't like us to begin with... that do not like symbols of Freedom and Liberty, etc... my god man.. or woman, not sure what gender you are.

[peterparker0077]

And for many countries Captain America represents American international military intervention.

And, of course, sometimes Captain America has been written with that intention, precisely.

They're just avoiding the sore spot and, hopefully, making a movie in which Captain America is more than mere patriotic device, and more of a self-motivated hero.

Then why don't they call the movie Captain Self Motivator?

Again, some of you really seem to miss the whole concept and idea of who and what Captain America is.

[Mercurius]

Fact? Really? I have a ton of foreign friends who would dispute that with you. Do we find it "silly" here when other sports teams or what ever come to this country proud of their own nation? Of course not. As far as films go, we go out of our way to recognize films from other countries and don't find their patriotism "silly" at all, but we uplift it.

Captain America, sends NO wrong message... the film is about "Yay America", why do you think he was given the name Captain AMERICA?? What do you think he stands for? That sentiment is only not popular in countries that don't like us to begin with... that do not like symbols of Freedom and Liberty, etc... my god man.. or woman, not sure what gender you are.

The problem is that you have to look at it with the eyes of a foreigner. For them the equation freedom + liberty doesn't equal America; many would even say "on the contrary".

They're just avoiding politics to come in the way of the movie.

And to be proud in sports is one thing. They probably feel the movie being called Captain America in some places would send the wrong message as to complicated political issues.

[peterparker0077]

The problem is that you have to look at it with the eyes of a foreigner. For them the equation freedom + liberty doesn't equal America; many would even say "on the contrary".

They're just avoiding politics to come in the way of the movie.

And to be proud in sports is one thing. They probably feel the movie being called Captain America in some places would send the wrong message as to complicated political issues.

And that's all a load of crap. Like I've said, we uplift other's patriotism here all the time, wether it's in film, sports, whatever.. we should not be ashamed to have our own patriotism.

Not to mention.. like I've said, I know plenty of foreigners who feel the exact same way I do.

[JAK®]

Then why don't they call the movie Captain Self Motivator?

Again, some of you really seem to miss the whole concept and idea of who and what Captain America is.
No, we get what Captain America is, but you don't get what other people could think Captain America is, especially in the foreign market where the opinion of America isn't positive.

You don't think a man dressed in a hybrid flag/soldier uniform called Captain America can be taken the wrong way in other countries? You don't think that image, accompanied with the title 'CAPTAIN AMERICA' can make some people refuse to support this movie?

The whole point of calling it The First Avenger is so that people will see it and find out what Captain America really is, rather than them making their minds up before seeing it.

[peterparker0077]

No, we get what Captain America is, but you don't get what other people could think Captain America is, especially in the foreign market where the opinion of America isn't positive.

You don't think a man dressed in a hybrid flag/soldier uniform called Captain America can be taken the wrong way in other countries? You don't think that image, accompanied with the title 'CAPTAIN AMERICA' can make some people refuse to support this movie?

The whole point of calling it The First Avenger is so that people will see it and find out what Captain America really is, rather than them making their minds up before seeing it.

I've already answered these questions.

[afan]

The title is being changed in order to not cause a negative box office overseas, and yet the film is blatantly about Captain America. I don't understand the logic behind this pointless title change. To me it assumes an extremely stupid audience. It seems to me similar to P. T. Barnum's "this way to the egress" scam.
Are they going to also change the dialog to the extent that he will not be called Captain America in the film!?


The whole point of calling it The First Avenger is so that people will see it and find out what Captain America really is, rather than them making their minds up before seeing it.


There really are no lofty ideals or altruistic considerations of nationalistic sensibilities, in play with this change. It's just an attempt to increase the box office, and is that grounds for the self-embarassment exhibitted by the title change.

[R_Hythlodeus]

that do not like symbols of Freedom and Liberty,
America is not a symbol of freedom and liberty. it's a symbol of social injustice, religious nutjobs, invading other countries and fast food.
:woot::woot:

[Mercurius]

And that's all a load of crap. Like I've said, we uplift other's patriotism here all the time, wether it's in film, sports, whatever.. we should not be ashamed to have our own patriotism.

Not to mention.. like I've said, I know plenty of foreigners who feel the exact same way I do.

In Latin America, Captain America was a metaphor for the support that local military dictatorships received from the CIA (the coup d'état on Salvador Allende, in Chile, for instance).

In Europe, he is also seen by many as a symbol of American military interventions around the world. I don't even need to mention Russia or other countries in which the same thing happens.

So, maybe you don't want to see it, but they are just trying to avoid problems with the movie. And, as someone else has also noted, it was a really small list of places in which they'll change the name.

[JAK®]

There really are no lofty ideals or altruistic considerations of nationalistic sensibilities, in play with this change. It's just an attempt to increase the box office, and is that grounds for the self-embarassment exhibitted by the title change.
That's not what I was claiming. Basically, they're calling it The First Avenger so people will say "oh look, another Marvel movie, I'll go see that" instead of "I don't want to see this corny jingoistic movie"

[afan]

That's not what I was claiming. Basically, they're calling it The First Avenger so people will say "oh look, another Marvel movie, I'll go see that" instead of "I don't want to see this corny jingoistic movie"

This is what I don't understand.......how does taking Captain America out of the title mask the subject of the film? How does eliminating the name of our hero obscur the red, white and blue on the shield? It truly is an example of "a rose is a rose". It's pointless and absurd.

[Mercurius]

This is what I don't understand.......how does taking Captain America out of the title mask the subject of the film? How does eliminating the name of our hero obscur the red, white and blue on the shield? It truly is an example of "a rose is a rose". It's pointless and absurd.

Hey, Gertrude Stein's text is not pointless nor absurd. :woot:

[JAK®]

This is what I don't understand.......how does taking Captain America out of the title mask the subject of the film? How does eliminating the name of our hero obscur the red, white and blue on the shield? It truly is an example of "a rose is a rose". It's pointless and absurd.
No, you don't understand, because you're thinking about it completely wrong.

[marcvader]

Some people go just to go and if you can fool them so you can take their money, you fool them. Nothing absurd about that but it is shady.

[marcvader]

Some people go just to go and if you can fool them so you can take their money, you fool them. Nothing absurd about that but it is shady.

[afan]

Hey, Gertrude Stein's text is not pointless nor absurd. :woot:

:yay:

[afan]

Some people go just to go and if you can fool them so you can take their money, you fool them. Nothing absurd about that but it is shady.

Oh, I agree with that. Made the point in earlier post. I's a scam much like PT Barnum's...."this way to the egress" signage.

What's absurd is the notion that somehow removing the heroes name will fool anyone into thinking the film is any less of an American tale, but perhaps I give too much credit to the audience.

[Whiskey Tango]

I like the look that's portrayed here and would be just fine with that costume come Avengers. I believe it to be a faithful adaptation that captures what I consider to be the main elements of his look.

To me, what I consider to be the main elements of his look is that he wears a predominantly blue outfit with a white and red midriff that is reminiscent of the stripes on a flag. He bears a star chest symbol, an "A" on his forehead, wings on his temples, and carries a rounded shield of alternating red/white strips with a single star in the middle (surrounded by blue). Essentially, taking the elements of our nations flag and applying it to a uniform and shield. This isn't an exact translation from the comics (it's an adaptation) and yet is still largely representative of those basic elements.

I've seen in many posts around here people questioning why film makers would change the iconic look of a character. Some have posited that those in question are ashamed of a particular work or that they simply don't like it. I say it's perhaps what is iconic or important to the character is something different for these film makers than it is for say myself or another. Perhaps Johnston feels that Cap can still be Cap with brown gloves and combat boots instead of red gloves and pirate boots because they don't seem to resonate with him as they may for someone else.

I enjoy seeing adaptations of a character's look. Other artists interpretations I think can be just as good if not better than the originals. While reverence is generally paid in many respects, often times changes can be just as popular. In short, sometimes the first look isn't always the best. Take Spider-Man for example. His black outfit (both when he had the venom symbiote and after) is a highly regarded look for him that he will go back to on occasion. It's only semblance to the original Red/Blue is that it's skin tight, has a spider on the front and back, and has white eyes.

So I think this is an adaptation of Cap's look that I think works. I can look at it and see Captain America and not think that the designers were lazy or embarrassed by Kirby's original design nor being disrespectful. If that really was the case it's likely Steve would be wearing fatigues and carrying a machine gun like all the other soldiers.

Ryudoz says things that made me nod my head. Great post.

[wobbly]

Some people go just to go and if you can fool them so you can take their money, you fool them. Nothing absurd about that but it is shady.

You are only fooling them and can then consider the practice shady if what they see is exactly what they thought the film would be under its unchanged name.

That will not be the case here, assuming the market research in those few countries indicated the original name provoked thoughts of the film being a corny jingoistic piece of modern day propaganda.

[Rock Sexton]

Ryudoz says things that made me nod my head. Great post.

I nodded my head too .... but it was more like this ......

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101016225420/taxon/images/0/0c/Shaking_head.gif

P.S. You love my fro.

[peterparker0077]

America is not a symbol of freedom and liberty. it's a symbol of social injustice, religious nutjobs, invading other countries and fast food.
:woot::woot:

riigghhttt.... I hope that was a joke...

[peterparker0077]

No, you don't understand, because you're thinking about it completely wrong.

Maybe you are thinking about it the wrong way

[R_Hythlodeus]

You're right. I forgot jingoism.

these are the first things that come to mind, thinking about the USA.
But that's not what Cap stands for.
So, naturally, the title has to change in those countries where Cap is not known that well.

[Whiskey Tango]

I nodded my head too .... but it was more like this ......

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101016225420/taxon/images/0/0c/Shaking_head.gif

Technically that's shaking your head. It might be Lupus!

P.S. You love my fro.

It's not half bad. :p

[Mr. Earle]

riigghhttt.... I hope that was a joke...
No its not a joke, its the truth. I could write a wall of text but i'll give you one example and leave it at that. Africa has been plagued by war since forever. And i dont mean just people killing people, i mean genocides, cannibalism, torture, rape, etc. Many nations there have dicatoriship and not democracy. And lets not forget about all the kids that die out of famine or easily treated diseases. Didnt see America or Europe or anyone else try to do anything because apart from some diamonds that are already controlled anyway there are no other resources there. So what made Iraq special? Some trillion tons of oil, that's what.

There was a worldwide outcry against this war but i guess local news didnt broadcast that, did they? And dont get me started on human rights and Guantanamo, the violation of human rights of Americans themselves because "hurr terrorists" (if terrorists really targeted your democracy, then they won already because you have compromised it in order to get them), and the fact that even though you are the richest nation in the world, half of your population lives in ignorance, poverty and crime. "Also hurr durr free health care = socialism. I dont know what that is but i bet its evil, like... communism which is the religion of the devil."

Wow i got carried away there.Fact? Really? I have a ton of foreign friends who would dispute that with you. Do we find it "silly" here when other sports teams or what ever come to this country proud of their own nation? Of course not. As far as films go, we go out of our way to recognize films from other countries and don't find their patriotism "silly" at all, but we uplift it.

Captain America, sends NO wrong message... the film is about "Yay America", why do you think he was given the name Captain AMERICA?? What do you think he stands for? That sentiment is only not popular in countries that don't like us to begin with... that do not like symbols of Freedom and Liberty, etc... my god man.. or woman, not sure what gender you are.
:facepalm:

[GhostPoet]

Mr. Earle. You are absolutely correct on those issues.

[Mr. Earle]

double postan

[Mr. Earle]

Thanks a lot!

[BoredGuy]

whoa whoa, calm yourselves people.

We're all just comic fans.

Having blind love or hatred for any country makes us all sound ignorant.
Being born one place or the other doesn't make anybody better than anyone else.
Some people should acknowledge that our governments do not necesarrily represent the majority of its people.
I agree with many of mr. earle's points.
But there's no need to be condescending about it.

[peterparker0077]

You're right. I forgot jingoism.

these are the first things that come to mind, thinking about the USA.
But that's not what Cap stands for.
So, naturally, the title has to change in those countries where Cap is not known that well.

Great, but that's not what America stands for. Captain America stands for what America stands for, and that's why he has his name.

Do you have national pride and patriotism?

Would you throw it away to make people in another country happy or to gain a buck? ... That is not what Captain America stands for.

[peterparker0077]

No its not a joke, its the truth. I could write a wall of text but i'll give you one example and leave it at that. Africa has been plagued by war since forever. And i dont mean just people killing people, i mean genocides, cannibalism, torture, rape, etc. Many nations there have dicatoriship and not democracy. And lets not forget about all the kids that die out of famine or easily treated diseases. Didnt see America or Europe or anyone else try to do anything because apart from some diamonds that are already controlled anyway there are no other resources there. So what made Iraq special? Some trillion tons of oil, that's what.

There was a worldwide outcry against this war but i guess local news didnt broadcast that, did they? And dont get me started on human rights and Guantanamo, the violation of human rights of Americans themselves because "hurr terrorists" (if terrorists really targeted your democracy, then they won already because you have compromised it in order to get them), and the fact that even though you are the richest nation in the world, half of your population lives in ignorance, poverty and crime. "Also hurr durr free health care = socialism. I dont know what that is but i bet its evil, like... communism which is the religion of the devil."

Wow i got carried away there.
:facepalm:

And none of that is what America Stands for. The people here, what justice in Africa. And America is it's people. The people here want us to stop being in other countries like Iraq and such and focus on ours own problems. Those diamonds that are being yanked out of Africa, they're not being taken by the American Government or the nation of America, but by some business folks from Europe and America, and other parts of the world who are just trying to make the all mightly dollar and can't go about doing it in an honest way. I agree with you that it's ridiculous, but that is not what America is or what it stands for. :yay:

And what Bored Guy said is absolutely true, our nation is not always represented by our government.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Do you have national pride and patriotism?

no. I'm literate.

[wobbly]

Captain America stands for what America stands for, and that's why he has his name.

Well, Cap stands for American ideals, and not what any given US government at the time projects to the rest of the world (see Mr Earle's post above), and that is kinda the point you are missing: In some countries, due to current events, history, past animosity, their own political systems and/or beliefs etc, they don't think what America stands for is the same as what you do. And in some countries, what they think America stands for is not something they like.

See, that is what the studios market research has shown them: In the vast majority the international market do get what Cap is about, but in a few they simply do not.

So how are they to know they are getting it wrong when they hear Captain America's name?

The only way to show those few markets that Cap represents American ideals rather than it's government (which like those in most other countries seldom ever lives up to them) is to have them see the film. So if a title change is enough* to help them past their negative first impressions and false pre-conceptions so that they do see what Cap is really all about, then that's a job well done.

*And this won't end with just a title change. In those countries you can expect the marketing for the trailers, press releases, tv spots etc, to be somewhat different as well.

That there is a key word in this matter: Different. Not everyone thinks the same about different things. That's what international marketing is all about in the end: Understanding that truth rather than ignorantly assuming everyone all over is on the same page.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Well, Cap stands for American ideals, and not what any given US government at the time projects to the rest of the world (see Mr Earle's post above), and that is kinda the point you are missing: In some countries, due to current events, history, past animosity, their own political systems and/or beliefs etc, they don't think what America stands for is the same as what you do. And in some countries, what they think America stands for is not something they like.

See, that is what the studios market research has shown them: In the vast majority the international market do get what Cap is about, but in a few they simply do not.

So how are they to know they are getting it wrong when they hear Captain America's name?

The only way to show those few markets that Cap represents American ideals rather than it's government (which like those in most other countries seldom ever lives up to them) is to have them see the film. So if a title change is enough* to help them past their negative first impressions and false pre-conceptions so that they do see what Cap is really all about, then that's a job well done.

*And this won't end with just a title change. In those countries you can expect the marketing for the trailers, press releases, tv spots etc, to be somewhat different as well.

That there is a key word in this matter: Different. Not everyone thinks the same about different things. That's what international marketing is all about in the end: Understanding that truth rather than ignorantly assuming everyone all over is on the same page.
thank you. that was exactly my point.

[afan]

Wobbly, I get all that. How a film is titled is very important for marketing purposes. What I don't get is the effectiveness of removing Cap's name in selling this film to those jaded on America?

[R_Hythlodeus]

Wobbly, I get all that. What I don't get is the effectiveness of removing Cap's name in selling this film to those jaded on America?
What would you think about a movie with the name "Sgt. North Korea"?
Whatever the content of that film may be, you probably have your own vision of what this movie is about.
Now if the same movie is called completely different without any references to North Korea those vision of yours is probably not there anymore.

[Mr. Earle]

And none of that is what America Stands for. The people here, what justice in Africa. And America is it's people. The people here want us to stop being in other countries like Iraq and such and focus on ours own problems. Those diamonds that are being yanked out of Africa, they're not being taken by the American Government or the nation of America, but by some business folks from Europe and America, and other parts of the world who are just trying to make the all mightly dollar and can't go about doing it in an honest way. I agree with you that it's ridiculous, but that is not what America is or what it stands for. :yay:

And what Bored Guy said is absolutely true, our nation is not always represented by our government.
I understand that people =/= goverment but you can see why the rest of the world doesnt really like you. And while that may be true for foreign policy, thinking that free healthcare is the coming of the anti-Christ because "lol i dunno what socialism means" is just ridiculous. Same about people thinking that every muslim is a terrorist, making a big deal about Obama's religion as if he would betray his country, still debating abortions when they re common practice anyway, voting for Palin, Bush, buying guns easier than hamburgers, gang wars, etc. If the government isnt good enough for you maybe you should protest like Europeans often do and demand change. Demand that more money is given to education and common wellfare instead of new bombs and weapons, and so on. See what i'm talking about ignorance and propaganda?

[wobbly]

Wobbly, I get all that. What I don't get is the effectiveness of removing Cap's name in selling this film to those jaded on America?

It might be very effective or have no effect at all. It all depends on how well they can sell what we know Cap is about, rather than what the people in those countries might think he is about. Like I said, that won't end with just a title change (on it's own that would not be enough at all), that will need to effectively carry that point over in any marketing they do in those countries.

That is the goal with this in the end. Having the people in those markets think of Cap as another kick-ass Superhero they genuinely want to see, rather than have them carrying any political baggage they have towards America into the theatres with them (or preventing them going at all).

[Mr. Earle]

The only way to show those few markets that Cap represents American ideals rather than it's government (which like those in most other countries seldom ever lives up to them) is to have them see the film. So if a title change is enough* to help them past their negative first impressions and false pre-conceptions so that they do see what Cap is really all about, then that's a job well done.
1) Those american ideas are mostly western ideas or ideas of the civilized world. Truth, justice, freedom, etc were not invented by americans and are not monopolized by americans. Its ridiculous how you guys think that your country is the bastion of those ideas when like most of the world has them anyway.

2) Cap was created as the ultimate weapon of war against the nazis and a symbol to raise pride and spirits during a difficult period. In other words he is a symbol of "America **** yeah, nuke em!" His role as a symbol for those ideas only came later and only because of the man himself.

[wobbly]

1) Those american ideas are mostly western ideas or ideas of the civilized world. Truth, justice, freedom, etc were not invented by americans and are not monopolized by americans. Its ridiculous how you guys think that your country is the bastion of those ideas when like most of the world has them anyway.

Lol, I'm not American, I'm English :cwink:
You are right though that those ideals are held across the world and have been present as ideas, if not in practice, throughout civilised history. All the more reason to make it clear how much Cap represents them.


2) Cap was created as the ultimate weapon of war against the nazis and a symbol to raise pride and spirits during a difficult period. In other words he is a symbol of "America **** yeah, nuke em!" His role as a symbol for those ideas only came later and only because of the man himself.

For the purposes of the movie they look to be condensing that somewhat: He starts off willing to become their weapon but becomes his 'own man' a good deal sooner (going Awol to rescue Bucky)

[Pumpkin_Bomb]

Things get renamed by the geniuses in marketing departments for much more ridiculous reasons all the time. The title of both the book and movie "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was changed in the US to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" due to the assumption that Americans wouldn't read or watch something that seemed to involve philosophy.

[peterparker0077]

1) Those american ideas are mostly western ideas or ideas of the civilized world. Truth, justice, freedom, etc were not invented by americans and are not monopolized by americans. Its ridiculous how you guys think that your country is the bastion of those ideas when like most of the world has them anyway.

We never said we invented or own them, but America does represent those, the biggest ones being Liberty and Freedom, and Captain America represents all of them.

2) Cap was created as the ultimate weapon of war against the nazis and a symbol to raise pride and spirits during a difficult period. In other words he is a symbol of "America **** yeah, nuke em!" His role as a symbol for those ideas only came later and only because of the man himself.

Absolutely wrong or Steve Rodgers wouldn't of started out as a frail kid who just wanted to help. He was so much more than what just claimed from the beginning.

Edit: btw... where are you from?

[peterparker0077]

no. I'm literate.

lol... I still hope you got my point....

[R_Hythlodeus]

lol... I still hope you got my point....
nope. soryy, but I'll never get the point of patriotism. being proud of being born at a specific place...that's not an achievement. it just happend to you.

[TikkiEXX]

ugh, what the hell happened in this thread? um let me know when we get back to talking about Caps costume. which i think is pretty spiffy myself. wonder how he gets all those nicks and scratches on his shield and helmet?

[lixdexia]

ugh, what the hell happened in this thread? um let me know when we get back to talking about Caps costume. which i think is pretty spiffy myself. wonder how he gets all those nicks and scratches on his shield and helmet?
2nded

[Mr. Earle]

Lol, I'm not American, I'm English :cwink:
You are right though that those ideals are held across the world and have been present as ideas, if not in practice, throughout civilised history. All the more reason to make it clear how much Cap represents them.



For the purposes of the movie they look to be condensing that somewhat: He starts off willing to become their weapon but becomes his 'own man' a good deal sooner (going Awol to rescue Bucky)
We never said we invented or own them, but America does represent those, the biggest ones being Liberty and Freedom, and Captain America represents all of them.



Absolutely wrong or Steve Rodgers wouldn't of started out as a frail kid who just wanted to help. He was so much more than what just claimed from the beginning.

Edit: btw... where are you from?
I agree with both of you. Its just that no other nation is boasting like that. I think Sweden is supposed to be the best country in the world in terms of common wellfare, services and government and yet they dont brag. Sometimes i think that those ideas are the opium of the American people. "We represent freedom and terrorists hate that. Now let me barge into your house without a warrant and tap your phones to catch them."

So anyway lets put this behind us. I dont hate America, i love it in fact but the culture and people, not the politics. Every superpower that ever was has abused its power. Every single one. You either do that or dont stay in power for long.

I'm from Greece btw.

[peterparker0077]

2nded

understood and agreed

if you guys want to talk further about this we can do it over in the negative reaction thread, probably a better place for it, or start a new topic.

[Rage]

Captain America, sends NO wrong message... the film is about "Yay America", why do you think he was given the name Captain AMERICA?? What do you think he stands for? That sentiment is only not popular in countries that don't like us to begin with... that do not like symbols of Freedom and Liberty, etc... my god man.. or woman, not sure what gender you are.

Captain America stands for the ideals that America was founded on... not America its' self. Captain America doesn't go around going "Yay America!!" He stands up and fights for the things that america was founded on. There have been plenty of times, he has disapproved of what America, the army, the president etc have done and would not stand behind them.

Captain America is about an ideal... not the reality. While created to be propaganda, he has since become less about how great America is, but instead... how great it could or should be. He believes in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The right to vote and to stand up to tyranny. He's not about being a cheerleader for anything America does, but instead a role model with character and ideals.

He wouldn't be that popular of a character if he was a one dimensional "Yay America" character. Those were a dime a dozen and none... NONE have had the cultural impact or longevity of this character.

You seem to be selling him short. Its sad that a Canadian like me seems to have a better grip on who this character is... but that could be from over 30 years of reading Marvel comics.

[DACrowe]

I'll say the problem a lot has about it being "too realistic," is partially justified, but not totally. The helmet does look awkward with the mask. However, I stand by the rest looks good because it does look like WWII garb with the Cap America iconography.

I understand some wanted it to be as faithful as Raimi's Spider-Man or Favreau's Iron Man. However, Captain America was in a perilous position no matter what. If they had just set it straight up in the modern day as a typical superhero story....then yeah they could have gone faithful or "authentic" with it. But that doesn't work because a) Cap is such a product of WWII, which is what makes him interesting, b) the fans would revolt and c) the very name Captain America can produce snickers among general audiences in the US much less outside of it, so a WWII setting puts it back when it was much more black and white to root for the American military posterboy. So, WWII it is.

However, now that you are committed to setting it during WWII, most people take that very seriously. This was an event that almost everyone's grandparents or parents were involved in in some way. And it has been visualized in such serious works recently as Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers and The Pacific. Even cheeky, irreverent uses of the period relies on a visual authenticity to the era, such as Inglourious Basterds.

So a guy in bright red and blue spandex (or scuba material a la Spidey) will just look silly on the battlefields of France, the Netherlands and Germany. So, a compromise had to be formed that looks authentic to WWII but keeps the comic book iconography. And other than the helmet, I think they nailed it.

Perhaps in The Avengers he can go the spandex route with a more faithful adaptation.

[JAK®]

It doesn't have to be spandex. It just needs to be form-fitting. The concept art is more form-fitting and it looks far much like the comics as a result.

[Rage]

The Name Captain America has since become a very negative term (in slang) for people who are jingoistic or who are overly "american"

I can see why they would change the title... but to remove his name from the title entirely is stupid.

now on to the costume. I love the fact that the shield's paint job is burnt and chipped. I always wondered how his invulnerable shield had an invulnerable paint job. The shield is bullet proof, not the paint... I love that they made that change in the movie.

[Mercurius]

no. I'm literate.

That was just brilliant. I mean, that and the other ironic and true posts, before that one.

Congrats, Hythlodeus. :cwink:

[Mercurius]

Things get renamed by the geniuses in marketing departments for much more ridiculous reasons all the time. The title of both the book and movie "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was changed in the US to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" due to the assumption that Americans wouldn't read or watch something that seemed to involve philosophy.

Sorcery, on the other hand...

[Rock Sexton]

I'll say the problem a lot has about it being "too realistic," is partially justified, but not totally. The helmet does look awkward with the mask. However, I stand by the rest looks good because it does look like WWII garb with the Cap America iconography.

I understand some wanted it to be as faithful as Raimi's Spider-Man or Favreau's Iron Man. However, Captain America was in a perilous position no matter what. If they had just set it straight up in the modern day as a typical superhero story....then yeah they could have gone faithful or "authentic" with it. But that doesn't work because a) Cap is such a product of WWII, which is what makes him interesting, b) the fans would revolt and c) the very name Captain America can produce snickers among general audiences in the US much less outside of it, so a WWII setting puts it back when it was much more black and white to root for the American military posterboy. So, WWII it is.

However, now that you are committed to setting it during WWII, most people take that very seriously. This was an event that almost everyone's grandparents or parents were involved in in some way. And it has been visualized in such serious works recently as Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers and The Pacific. Even cheeky, irreverent uses of the period relies on a visual authenticity to the era, such as Inglourious Basterds.

So a guy in bright red and blue spandex (or scuba material a la Spidey) will just look silly on the battlefields of France, the Netherlands and Germany. So, a compromise had to be formed that looks authentic to WWII but keeps the comic book iconography. And other than the helmet, I think they nailed it.

Perhaps in The Avengers he can go the spandex route with a more faithful adaptation.


Captain America shouldn't strive for "visual authenticity" other than to the comic. It's pure fantasy. How is a guy allowed to have a red skull for a head? Where's the "visual authenticity in that? Yet. Cap can't wear something more literal to his iconic garb?

You keep bringing up "spandex" but not a person in here is arguing for that, which is the gaping hole in your straw man argument. This boils down to personal taste of Joe Johnston and nothing else IMO. In some ways he forgot what kind of movie he was making.

The movie takes place when WWII occurred. Alas, Cap is not fighting in WWII. He bolts to take on a fictitious faction called Hydra that has stolen a cosmic cube which can open up portals and they've created crazy weaponry with it. Ya, real authentic lemme tell you. Cap is by nature supposed to be a fish out of water. I don't understand the self-induced necessity to attempt to blend him in.

[Rock Sexton]

It doesn't have to be spandex. It just needs to be form-fitting. The concept art is more form-fitting and it looks far much like the comics as a result.

We're seriously going to have to get a power drill and ram it into skulls because it's arguments like his which keep referencing this non-existent desire for spandex.

[Duker Jay]

I understand that people =/= goverment but you can see why the rest of the world doesnt really like you. And while that may be true for foreign policy, thinking that free healthcare is the coming of the anti-Christ because "lol i dunno what socialism means" is just ridiculous. Same about people thinking that every muslim is a terrorist, making a big deal about Obama's religion as if he would betray his country, still debating abortions when they re common practice anyway, voting for Palin, Bush, buying guns easier than hamburgers, gang wars, etc. If the government isnt good enough for you maybe you should protest like Europeans often do and demand change. Demand that more money is given to education and common wellfare instead of new bombs and weapons, and so on. See what i'm talking about ignorance and propaganda?

I'm glad you took out that bit about abortion.

[Mr. Earle]

Captain America stands for the ideals that America was founded on... not America its' self. Captain America doesn't go around going "Yay America!!" He stands up and fights for the things that america was founded on. There have been plenty of times, he has disapproved of what America, the army, the president etc have done and would not stand behind them.

Captain America is about an ideal... not the reality. While created to be propaganda, he has since become less about how great America is, but instead... how great it could or should be. He believes in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The right to vote and to stand up to tyranny. He's not about being a cheerleader for anything America does, but instead a role model with character and ideals.

He wouldn't be that popular of a character if he was a one dimensional "Yay America" character. Those were a dime a dozen and none... NONE have had the cultural impact or longevity of this character.

You seem to be selling him short. Its sad that a Canadian like me seems to have a better grip on who this character is... but that could be from over 30 years of reading Marvel comics.
I agree with what you say and that also applies to Superman. The thing is that the motto "truth, justice and the american way" is still used to this day. But like you said it shouldnt be about the "american way", but what's good and decent in general. The ideals, not the government or even the people themselves. Ideas cannot be owned or monopolized by someone.

[WildcatNC]

People, people. Look at the list of actual countries that it is reported to be changed in. Its not that big of a deal.

The fact that it was on Fox news tells me not to pay it much attention.

[peterparker0077]

People, people. Look at the list of actual countries that it is reported to be changed in. Its not that big of a deal.

The fact that it was on Fox news tells me not to pay it much attention.

And again, I thought we talked about bringing this to another thread to not further derail the costume thread?

[Excelsior.]

Wait, Fox news bothered to cover this? They are gonna be sorely disappointed when they watch this, expecting a flag waving Cap.

[DACrowe]

Captain America shouldn't strive for "visual authenticity" other than to the comic. It's pure fantasy. How is a guy allowed to have a red skull for a head? Where's the "visual authenticity in that? Yet. Cap can't wear something more literal to his iconic garb?

You keep bringing up "spandex" but not a person in here is arguing for that, which is the gaping hole in your straw man argument. This boils down to personal taste of Joe Johnston and nothing else IMO. In some ways he forgot what kind of movie he was making.

The movie takes place when WWII occurred. Alas, Cap is not fighting in WWII. He bolts to take on a fictitious faction called Hydra that has stolen a cosmic cube which can open up portals and they've created crazy weaponry with it. Ya, real authentic lemme tell you. Cap is by nature supposed to be a fish out of water. I don't understand the self-induced necessity to attempt to blend him in.

That's where you're wrong. The movie's first priority is to strive at being good...well actually no. A movie of this size and budget's first priority is to strive to be a hit with mainstream audiences for Marvel and Disney, THEN be a quality picture after that. These two can be inversely related though, so they're both vital (though Michael Bay, among many others, has shown us the latter is not crucial for the former).

....In any case, the movie is set during WWII and with that comes a certain level of expected versimilitude from audiences and the filmmakers alike. A superhero wearing a comic-replica suit in that setting just would look out of place. Now you can argue all you want that it is not spandex but lycra or some other form fitting material (similar to Raimi's Spidey suit, which I did mention as "scuba suit material" in my previous post). However, imagine Saving Private Ryan for just a second. Now imagine Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man swinging around Normandy in that movie.

Even if you take a more tongue-in-cheek (but brilliantly campy fun) rendition of that period in Inglourious Basterds, you still have things like "the Bear Jew," a for-laughs Hitler and Brad Pitt with a thick, bad Southern accent speaking even worse Italian. It ends with Hitler getting blown away and The Third Reich getting burned alive in a movie theater to the image and sound of a laughing head on celluloid being projected onto the smoke of death around them.

But guess what? It still looks like 1944 Nazi-occupied Germany. Shossanna did not dress like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. The Basterds did not pull out katana swords and do kung-fu. Because that is a bridge too far and takes the audience out of the movie. How do you think Raimi's Spidey swinging into the theater and punching Hitler would have looked like?

In putting Cap in a WWII setting he needs to look like he is of the era or people are just going to laugh. Comic fans may be satisfied. But if the movie sucks who cares? Not the general audience and then, consequentially, not the Marvel or Disney CEOs and boards.

So, in actuality, making Cap look authentic to WWII is quite important.

[Rock Sexton]

That's where you're wrong. The movie's first priority is to strive at being good...well actually no. A movie of this size and budget's first priority is to strive to be a hit with mainstream audiences for Marvel and Disney, THEN be a quality picture after that. These two can be inversely related though, so they're both vital (though Michael Bay, among many others, has shown us the latter is not crucial for the former).

Being good doesn't exclude being more faithful to the costume translation.

....In any case, the movie is set during WWII and with that comes a certain level of expected versimilitude from audiences and the filmmakers alike. A superhero wearing a comic-replica suit in that setting just would look out of place. Now you can argue all you want that it is not spandex but lycra or some other form fitting material (similar to Raimi's Spidey suit, which I did mention as "scuba suit material" in my previous post). However, imagine Saving Private Ryan for just a second. Now imagine Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man swinging around Normandy in that movie.

Set during WWII, but not fighting in WWII. That's why he can get away with a little something more with his costume. That's also why they can get away with a guy with a red skull for a head, a cosmic cube, and on and on and on. Saving Private Ryan is not Captain America. Apples to Oranges. Saving Private Ryan was "expected" to be more accurate in it's portrayal. Captain America is a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE.

Even if you take a more tongue-in-cheek (but brilliantly campy fun) rendition of that period in Inglourious Basterds, you still have things like "the Bear Jew," a for-laughs Hitler and Brad Pitt with a thick, bad Southern accent speaking even worse Italian. It ends with Hitler getting blown away and The Third Reich getting burned alive in a movie theater to the image and sound of a laughing head on celluloid being projected onto the smoke of death around them.

But guess what? It still looks like 1944 Nazi-occupied Germany. Shossanna did not dress like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. The Basterds did not pull out katana swords and do kung-fu. Because that is a bridge too far and takes the audience out of the movie. How do you think Raimi's Spidey swinging into the theater and punching Hitler would have looked like?

Inglorious Basterds was not a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE. They would have no reason to deviate from the look of the period. If Spidey was filmed with the era being in the 40's and he punched Hitler I would acceptt it because ..... wait for it ..... it's a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE ..... and a man shooting webs from his palms (especially organically) is fish out of water no matter what time period.

In putting Cap in a WWII setting he needs to look like he is of the era or people are just going to laugh. Comic fans may be satisfied. But if the movie sucks who cares? Not the general audience and then, consequentially, not the Marvel or Disney CEOs and boards.

So, in actuality, making Cap look authentic to WWII is quite important.

According to you it is. Does the Red Skull look "authentic" to a former Nazi soldier with his deformed face? Is it "authentic" for Skull to be able to wear a mask that looks like a real human face? Do the Hydra guys walking around with futuristic flame throwers look accurate to Nazi soldiers? It's funny to me how "selective" your argument is with this need to fit the confines of the WWII setting only to Cap, when the 90% of the film is pure fantasy outside of the fact that it takes place when WWII did. Look at the pics of the Hydra soldiers riding the motorcycles ..... look at the motorcycles too ..... look at that car we've seen in pictures ..... Everything else is exaggerated and more comic book flair, but yet we just HAD to have Cap wear more authentic 1940's garb. It makes literally no sense.

[Excelsior.]

Inglorious Basterds was not a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE. They would have no reason to deviate from the look of the period. So you could deviate from a set time and space as it is a comic hero movie? Everything is up for laughs huh?

[Wolvieboy17]

This whole discussion, which has been going on for months and months, is completely useless. By this stage the people who like the authentic WWII angle have their solid reasons for liking it and the people who don't have their own solid reasons for disliking it. No one is going to change someone elses mind. What does this endless debate actually achieve other than frustrating all parties?

The fact of the matter is, the costumes have been chosen, we've seen them and like them or hate them, thats what they are. Now all you can do is see the movie and judge whether you think in the grand scheme of things whether or not the costumes worked.

[BigThor]

This whole discussion, which has been going on for months and months, is completely useless. By this stage the people who like the authentic WWII angle have their solid reasons for liking it and the people who don't have their own solid reasons for disliking it. No one is going to change someone elses mind. What does this endless debate actually achieve other than frustrating all parties?

The fact of the matter is, the costumes have been chosen, we've seen them and like them or hate them, thats what they are. Now all you can do is see the movie and judge whether you think in the grand scheme of things whether or not the costumes worked.

This is soooo true, even though I'm on the side that likes Cap's costume being adjusted to the WWII time period. Arguing about it doesn't make any sense at this point, everybody has their own opinions on the matter.

[Rock Sexton]

This is soooo true, even though I'm on the side that likes Cap's costume being adjusted to the WWII time period. Arguing about it doesn't make any sense at this point, everybody has their own opinions on the matter.

I have no problem with people liking it. The issue I have is the defense of the costume because it fits the time period better. It's a bogus excuse. There are so many aspects of the movie that are not "within the confines of WWII" and yet for some reason Cap is the only element that couldn't possibly deviate.

[Rock Sexton]

So you could deviate from a set time and space as it is a comic hero movie? Everything is up for laughs huh?

What would be their motive in Inglorious Bastards to deviate from the "look" of the period? There really isn't any. There are no super heroes. There are just normal soldiers with a blood lust for Naaahhhhzi's.

[Mercurius]

I have no problem with people liking it. The issue I have is the defense of the costume because it fits the time period better. It's a bogus excuse. There are so many aspects of the movie that are not "within the confines of WWII" and yet for some reason Cap is the only element that couldn't possibly deviate.

Precisely. :cwink:

[wobbly]

I have no problem with people liking it. The issue I have is the defense of the costume because it fits the time period better. It's a bogus excuse. There are so many aspects of the movie that are not "within the confines of WWII" and yet for some reason Cap is the only element that couldn't possibly deviate.

Well that isn't true.
1) Bucky: Also changed, he is older and will not be wearing his blue and red comic book tights & domino mask either.
2) The Red Skull: Another change. In the books he wore a skull mask and a plain green jumpsuit with a huge swastika on the chest during the war. For the movie he is deformed and wearing an SS officers style variation.

[JAK®]

So they changed costumes which were drawn in comics released in World War II to make them look like they would fit in World War II.

Because people in the 1940's didn't know what World War II should look like.

Is that what people are saying?

[wobbly]

It's far more about preconceptions, what people today think works best in a WW2 setting rather than what the people in the 40's actually did.

Thing is there were no costumed heroes running around WW2 so there's no authentic frame of reference for us now to judge how a genuine hero suit of the War would have looked if Cap had actually existed.

The 'Minutemen' 40's suits they made for Watchmen, or the woollen suits Hollywood did make in the 40's for the early Batman/Superman films, Flash Gordon, etc, are more authentic in that regard as they are examples of what people in the 40's thought worked best and what they (presumably) thought looked good (and I imagine the USO suit we see will not look unlike these).

However, times, tastes and perceptions, change though. Nowadays those kind of costumes are considered horrible, and the idea of someone running around WW2 in those kind of tights crosses the line for many between being able to take the thing in any way seriously or just thinking it's too damn silly to bother. As there is no real life reference to show one way or another what a WW2 superhero suit would have really looked like, Johnson & Marvel have opted for a design they think both works for the period and looks good.

And if we break it down, Johnson has admitted that is the reason they have gone this way for the film. He believes the GA won't be accepting of a literal suit in WW2 and will think it is too silly, with his alternative taking it's cues from existing military attire of the time.

Whether he is right or wrong I guess will remain a subjective thing until someone makes an alternative that proves the matter one way or another.

[Rock Sexton]

It's far more about preconceptions, what people today think works best in a WW2 setting rather than what the people in the 40's actually did.

Thing is there were no costumed heroes running around WW2 so there's no authentic frame of reference for us now to judge how a genuine hero suit of the War would have looked if Cap had actually existed.

The 'Minutemen' 40's suits they made for Watchmen, or the woollen suits Hollywood did make in the 40's for the early Batman/Superman films, Flash Gordon, etc, are more authentic in that regard as they are examples of what people in the 40's thought worked best and what they (presumably) thought looked good (and I imagine the USO suit we see will not look unlike these).

However, times, tastes and perceptions, change though. Nowadays those kind of costumes are considered horrible, and the idea of someone running around WW2 in those kind of tights crosses the line for many between being able to take the thing in any way seriously or just thinking it's too damn silly to bother. As there is no real life reference to show one way or another what a WW2 superhero suit would have really looked like, Johnson & Marvel have opted for a design they think both works for the period and looks good.

And if we break it down, Johnson has admitted that is the reason they have gone this way for the film. He believes the GA won't be accepting of a literal suit in WW2 and will think it is too silly, with his alternative taking it's cues from existing military attire of the time.

Whether he is right or wrong I guess will remain a subjective thing until someone makes an alternative that proves the matter one way or another.

Wobbly, for the last time .... nobody is asking for the tights. Nobody. Johnson was stubborn. He went from one extreme (poking fun at the spandex in the USO) to the other in the actual uniform. There was no faithful attempt at middle ground ..... He's trying to be faithful to a WWII piece when they do nothing in the WWII context. The entire mission, characters, etc. etc. is fiction

[JAK®]

When people assume that we want tights reminiscent of the Minutemen costumes I wonder just how much faith those people have in others.

"You don't want what I want, so what you want must be stupid"

[wobbly]

Wobbly, for the last time .... nobody is asking for the tights. Nobody. Johnson was stubborn. He went from one extreme (poking fun at the spandex in the USO) to the other in the actual uniform. There was no faithful attempt at middle ground ..... He's trying to be faithful to a WWII piece when they do nothing in the WWII context. The entire mission, characters, etc. etc. is fiction

I was referring to tights in regards the examples I noted of actual 40's costumes that were made then (that in turn was a response to JAK questioning what people of the 40's would have thought the costumes should look like). Those things were tights (Btw, Spandex didn't exist in the 40's. They would have been made from woven cotton & wool).

Could Johnson have done something closer to the books without using tights? Sure he could. I have stated before I think he could. But obviously he didn't. He opted for more a soldierish look that is not so faithful but does fit fine within a WW2 context

And when you say 'nothing to do with a WWII context'? Totally disagree (Cap would not exist in the first place but for the War).

Seriously, a story being fiction does not mean no effort should be made to make it fit the the period or conflict it takes place in. You can push this to a certain degree (the Nazi's fascination with the Occult expanded for the Indy movies and Hellboy, or the Hydra tech we will see in Cap), but it still has to look like it fits, even if we know full well it doesn't.

[wobbly]

When people assume that we want tights reminiscent of the Minutemen costumes I wonder just how much faith those people have in others.

"You don't want what I want, so what you want must be stupid"

I'm not assuming you want Minutemen costumes, that's yours and Rocks own assumptions at work there I'm afraid.

I was pointing out those costumes, and the others I noted, are more authentic to the period if we are to go by what the people of the 1940's thought the things should look like.

Today (and yes, that will include both you and Rock), we have different tastes as to what looks good, and different expectations for what works well in the costumes.

Like I said before but I'll repeat it as this seems to have been missed: "It's far more about preconceptions, what people today think works best in a WW2 setting rather than what the people in the 40's actually did".

[DACrowe]

Being good doesn't exclude being more faithful to the costume translation.



Set during WWII, but not fighting in WWII. That's why he can get away with a little something more with his costume. That's also why they can get away with a guy with a red skull for a head, a cosmic cube, and on and on and on. Saving Private Ryan is not Captain America. Apples to Oranges. Saving Private Ryan was "expected" to be more accurate in it's portrayal. Captain America is a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE.



Inglorious Basterds was not a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE. They would have no reason to deviate from the look of the period. If Spidey was filmed with the era being in the 40's and he punched Hitler I would acceptt it because ..... wait for it ..... it's a COMIC BOOK SUPER HERO MOVIE ..... and a man shooting webs from his palms (especially organically) is fish out of water no matter what time period.



According to you it is. Does the Red Skull look "authentic" to a former Nazi soldier with his deformed face? Is it "authentic" for Skull to be able to wear a mask that looks like a real human face? Do the Hydra guys walking around with futuristic flame throwers look accurate to Nazi soldiers? It's funny to me how "selective" your argument is with this need to fit the confines of the WWII setting only to Cap, when the 90% of the film is pure fantasy outside of the fact that it takes place when WWII did. Look at the pics of the Hydra soldiers riding the motorcycles ..... look at the motorcycles too ..... look at that car we've seen in pictures ..... Everything else is exaggerated and more comic book flair, but yet we just HAD to have Cap wear more authentic 1940's garb. It makes literally no sense.

I get that it's a COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO MOVIE, but that doesn't mean that as long as it is faithful it is a good one. Daredevil (other than the costumes) was very faithful to the comics, but it still sucked.

And saying "just because" does not mean it will work. Captain America's costume would look ridiculous in a WWII setting. That has always been the movie's biggest hurdle for setting it in that period. And this will keep people from snickering? It may not matter to you, but to the filmmakers who want to make a good movie that is financially viable, it is extremely important.

[DACrowe]

P.S. Shouldn't Johnston's vision matter to him more than anything else? It's his job to make this work and if it doesn't work for him, that's a problem. He has a view (that I happen to agree with) that to make audiences buy a superhero in WWII that you have to make everything else, in a heightened sense, feel like it is in WWII so that the superhero doesn't come off as a joke. This is similar to why Nolan thinks Batman should wear armor and The Joker should wear make-up. Neither of those ruined his movies, which are arguably a definitive film version of the Batman character even though he is not in grey fighting a clown in permawhite.

Just a thought.

[Excelsior.]

What would be their motive in Inglorious Bastards to deviate from the "look" of the period? There really isn't any. There are no super heroes. There are just normal soldiers with a blood lust for Naaahhhhzi's.

No they are not normal soldiers. They are Tarrantino soldiers. Normal soldiers don't speak eloquently in rapid fire dialogue for 20 minutes before unloading.

[DACrowe]

And given how Tarantino's heroes have acted in the past (think Kill Bill) he was obviously restraining some of his more absurd tendencies.

[Rock Sexton]

And when you say 'nothing to do with a WWII context'? Totally disagree (Cap would not exist in the first place but for the War).

Seriously, a story being fiction does not mean no effort should be made to make it fit the the period or conflict it takes place in. You can push this to a certain degree (the Nazi's fascination with the Occult expanded for the Indy movies and Hellboy, or the Hydra tech we will see in Cap), but it still has to look like it fits, even if we know full well it doesn't.

That's entirely and ironically duplicitous ..... you're given creative leniency when the audience knows the entire film is fantasy fiction, particularly with the comic book genre. The degree to which it's been pushed with other areas of the movie are quintessential examples of why a more faithful design (NON SPANDEX) could've been utilized.

No they are not normal soldiers. They are Tarrantino soldiers. Normal soldiers don't speak eloquently in rapid fire dialogue for 20 minutes before unloading.

Appearances .... talking appearances. Tarrantino took creative liberties with their personalities.

[Rock Sexton]

I get that it's a COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO MOVIE, but that doesn't mean that as long as it is faithful it is a good one. Daredevil (other than the costumes) was very faithful to the comics, but it still sucked.

And saying "just because" does not mean it will work. Captain America's costume would look ridiculous in a WWII setting. That has always been the movie's biggest hurdle for setting it in that period. And this will keep people from snickering? It may not matter to you, but to the filmmakers who want to make a good movie that is financially viable, it is extremely important.

What does Daredevil sucking have to do with Captain America? You blame that on the faithfulness of the costume? I would hope not. The movie was just a giant pile of steaming crap.

You have yet to show that it wouldn't work. You have claimed it would look ridiculous and out of place when AGAIN the antagonist of the film has a freaking red skull for a face. How does that work in the context of WWII and the 1940's? Please explain that to me. Practically every element surrounding the movie screams irony when thinking Cap absolutely had to look like another soldier.

I can see it now ....

Audience member: "That guy has a red skull for a head in WWII. Cool, totally buy into that .... and oh my god he's got a cube capable of opening portals, I buy that too ..... but wait, what's with this guy wearing form fitting gear and not looking like a soldier even though he's hopped up on super soldier serum and vita rays? I don't even know what a vita ray is, but that's it, I'm walking out. Worst $10 I ever spent."

[lixdexia]

That's entirely and ironically duplicitous ..... you're given creative leniency when the audience knows the entire film is fantasy fiction, particularly with the comic book genre. The degree to which it's been pushed with other areas of the movie are quintessential examples of why a more faithful design (NON SPANDEX) could've been utilized.
you're right, they should have went full on faithful and just drawn the character in 2d in post. i mean it is a comic book superhero movie after all so believability doesn't matter at all.

[Rock Sexton]

you're right, they should have went full on faithful and just drawn the character in 2d in post. i mean it is a comic book superhero movie after all so believability doesn't matter at all.

Lix, so lemme guess you believe a man prancing around with a red skull for a head who is harnessing a cosmic cube that opens portals is totally believable right? :whatever:

Acting and story line has more to do with the success of the film. They buy into the actor playing Steve Rogers, you'd be surprised how much they can get away with. In that regards though, that's a big question mark.

[lixdexia]

a deformity that makes your head look similar to a red skull? yes. a cube that opens portals? maybe, i dunno. but i do know that i would take both of those things more seriously than a man running around a battlefield in a leotard.

[Rock Sexton]

a deformity that makes your head look similar to a red skull? yes. a cube that opens portals? maybe, i dunno. but i do know that i would take both of those things more seriously than a man running around a battlefield in a leotard.

Well there's that straw-man argument again ..... although this time I see you've upgraded the mocking to "leotard" .....

His head doesn't look "similar" to a red skull .... it "is" a red skill as we've seen all the art work for it. Laughable that you find portals more believable than a man who might be wearing a more form fitting suit.

I can only imagine the unrest you felt reading the comics.

BTW, what "battlefield" will Cap be running around in? Battle of Stalingrad? Normandy? Battle of Britain? Battle of the Bulge?

[Excelsior.]

Practically every element surrounding the movie screams irony when thinking Cap absolutely had to look like another soldier He ....doesn't?

[wobbly]

That's entirely and ironically duplicitous .....

'Duplicitous'? Lol :yay:

Ok, tell me where I am being 'entirely and ironically duplicitous' in the following (this is what you responded to after all):


And when you say 'nothing to do with a WWII context'? Totally disagree (Cap would not exist in the first place but for the War).

Seriously, a story being fiction does not mean no effort should be made to make it fit the period or conflict it takes place in. You can push this to a certain degree (the Nazi's fascination with the Occult expanded for the Indy movies and Hellboy, or the Hydra tech we will see in Cap), but it still has to look like it fits, even if we know full well it doesn't.

As for the rest....


you're given creative leniency when the audience knows the entire film is fantasy fiction, particularly with the comic book genre. The degree to which it's been pushed with other areas of the movie are quintessential examples of why a more faithful design (NON SPANDEX) could've been utilized.

Bolding in caps something I've already said didn't exist in WW2? What is it with you guys and spandex?:cwink:

Whatever...That's fine, and I even agree with that (not least as it covers what I have already said about pushing things as well)...but....that is not what you said before and what I was responding to there, now is it?

A reminder:
He's trying to be faithful to a WWII piece when they do nothing in the WWII context. The entire mission, characters, etc. etc. is fiction


You are saying 'they do nothing in the WW2 context'. Nope. That is completely wrong: Captain America's origin is a direct result of it's WW2 context. The film takes place in WW2, Cap will be fighting in war torn Europe, etc.

True or false?

[Rock Sexton]

You are saying 'they do nothing in the WW2 context'. Nope. That is completely wrong: Captain America's origin is a direct result of it's WW2 context. The film takes place in WW2, Cap will be fighting in war torn Europe, etc.

True or false?

He's fighting a fictitious faction called Hydra ..... While his origin takes place in WWII, it begins and ends with enlisting. Everything else is fantasy. He's not performing services in actual known battles. He's used to combat the Red Skull and goes rogue to save Bucky.

[C. Lee]

Me personally....I'll wait until after I've seen the whole movie before I argue if it takes place in WWII.

[Rock Sexton]

Me personally....I'll wait until after I've seen the whole movie before I argue if it takes place in WWII.

"- The plot centers around Captain America leading a team of elite soliders known as the Howling Commandos as they go after the Red Skull and the Cosmic Cube."

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2010/11/1/captain-america-story-details-released.html

There was also that french guy involved in the film who did an interview which confirmed this. We're not getting a super hero fighting in known battles of WWII.

[wobbly]

Well, 'The Guns of Navarone', 'Where Eagles Dare', 'The Eagle has landed', 'The Dirty Dozen' etc, were all works of fiction with the fictional characters not fighting in any known battles of WW2.

Would you say they 'do nothing in the WW2 context' as well?

[WildcatNC]

I'm OK with the uniform in the context of the era. I think it looks great.

I would like to see a more form-fitting, streamlined uniform for the modern era and Avengers though.

I think that is what we will get. Cant see how it would be any other way honestly.


The whole "tights" thing is a strawman guys. I've hardly seen ANYONE arguing for tights or a leotard. Just more form fitting. More like a cross between this:

http://www.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Chris-Evans-Captain-America-525x700.jpg

and the one we got in the movie. Thats not unreasonable.

[C. Lee]

"- The plot centers around Captain America leading a team of elite soliders known as the Howling Commandos as they go after the Red Skull and the Cosmic Cube."

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2010/11/1/captain-america-story-details-released.html

There was also that french guy involved in the film who did an interview which confirmed this. We're not getting a super hero fighting in known battles of WWII.So? Like Wobbly says below....many WWII movies have been made about things that really didn't happen during WWII.

Well, 'The Guns of Navarone', 'Where Eagles Dare', 'The Eagle has landed', 'The Dirty Dozen' etc, were all works of fiction with the fictional characters not fighting in any known battles of WW2.

Would you say they 'do nothing in the WW2 context' as well?

Those are just the big name ones...there are scores of WWII movies about events that didn't happen during the war.

[Rock Sexton]

Well, 'The Guns of Navarone', 'Where Eagles Dare', 'The Eagle has landed', 'The Dirty Dozen' etc, were all works of fiction with the fictional characters not fighting in any known battles of WW2.

Would you say they 'do nothing in the WW2 context' as well?

True they were fiction, yet still the wrong genre. Those were dramas. Even though they did not depict the real battles, they went for a faithful approach to the people of that era as you'd expect out of a drama. If you want to lump Captain America in with those film go right ahead though. There were no cosmic cubes, time portals, guys hopped up on Vita Rays and serum, etc. etc. ....

[Rock Sexton]

So? Like Wobbly says below....many WWII movies have been made about things that really didn't happen during WWII.



Those are just the big name ones...there are scores of WWII movies about events that didn't happen during the war.

They weren't comic book super hero movies! They were about normal people! There is nothing in those movies that would even test the boundaries of plausibility like Captain America does.

[wobbly]

True they were fiction, yet still the wrong genre. Those were dramas. Even though they did not depict the real battles, they went for a faithful approach to the people of that era as you'd expect out of a drama. If you want to lump Captain America in with those film go right ahead though. There were no cosmic cubes, time portals, guys hopped up on Vita Rays and serum, etc. etc. ....

For one, they are action/thrillers, not dramas.
And secondly, the superhero genre does not magically exclude the story from the context of any given era in which it is set unless they are flat out saying it's an alternate universe ala Watchmen (in which case anything goes).

In this case they have a specific period of real history in which the title characters very existence is entirely dependent on that context (his country being at war against the Axis powers).

This is like saying the Rocketeer's Nazi spy plot had nothing to do with the impending war, when it is utterly dependent on that historical fact.

They weren't comic book super hero movies! They were about normal people! There is nothing in those movies that would even test the boundaries of plausibility like Captain America does.

You have not seen 'Where Eagles Dare' then...(kidding):cwink:

Look, for better examples of similar style movies being fully aware of the context of the era in which they are set you have the aforementioned Rocketeer, a man who flies with a back jet pack that Nazi spies are trying to steal from him, then you have Indiana Jones fighting against Nazi's for the 'Ark of the Covenant' and the 'Holy Grail' then more recently an alien crystal skull with Soviets replacing the Nazi's.
Outlandish things presented with all due care to the period setting the stories required, working with known history rather than trying to ignore it should apply.

Why? Because they were not daft enough to think the stories 'do nothing' in the context of that era. They respected that fact that they do, as any good storyteller should.

[DACrowe]

What does Daredevil sucking have to do with Captain America? You blame that on the faithfulness of the costume? I would hope not. The movie was just a giant pile of steaming crap.

Because you've been arguing, quite aggressively, that the movie's first goal should be faithfulness to how the character is presented in the comics. Beyond the costumes, the DD movie was pretty faithful to the Frank Miller era of the comic. And it was still a bad movie that people didn't take seriously. Faithfulness does not equate to quality was my point.

You have yet to show that it wouldn't work. You have claimed it would look ridiculous and out of place when AGAIN the antagonist of the film has a freaking red skull for a face. How does that work in the context of WWII and the 1940's? Please explain that to me. Practically every element surrounding the movie screams irony when thinking Cap absolutely had to look like another soldier.

I grant you that the flaming skull is out there and so is the cosmic cube thingy. However, it seems similar to Indiana Jones's religious adventures. But people could take that seriously, because they took Dr.. Jones seriously and could go with the flow of his adventure. A better example, for me, is how Ivan Reitman described his grounding Ghostbusters into as much reality as he can. It starts in a very realistic (if comedic) setting of an elite university starring some crackpot professors and scam artists. We only see one ghost for longer than half a second in the first 30+ minutes. And even so, each revelation is built up to. The suits the ghosts, etc. so that the audience is swallowing it all as they go along until finally he has raised the stakes so much to allow them to accept a 100 ft. marshmallow man tearing up the city.

He got to that point by grounding as much of it in reality as he could so that when the crazy **** happens, the audience could just enjoy the ride because they're so invested. Just as how the religious elements of ROTLA are only hinted at throughout the movie (ominous music here, a look of concern there, lightning and snakes when Indy gets close to the ark). We don't actually see the stuff get fully out there until the very end of the movie. I suspect the flaming school and cosmic cube will also come late into the game.

....

As for explaining what I mean about it looking absurd, here you go:

This:

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/907177_f260.jpg


Set here:

http://s1.moviefanfare.com/uploads/2010/08/Normany-Invasion2.jpg

Rings false, silly or worse.

While this:

http://www.liveforfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/capww2.jpg

Yeah...it's out there and definitely fantasy. But it doesn't come off as a joke.

[Wolvieboy17]

Seriously, is this debate going to keep going right up until the release of the movie?

[lixdexia]

it won't stop then either

[WildcatNC]

it won't stop then either

:woot:


Correct.

[Duker Jay]

Here are my feelings on the costume. And I would extend these thoughts to any costumed super-hero I see on screen.

For me, the evolution and implementation of the suit has to make sense from a story standpoint. There needs to be a reason for the character to put on that costume other than for the reason that superheroes wear costumes.

The reason Iron Man's look translates so easily (and close to comic look) is that it evolves organically from the story. Tony has a very real reason to wear his "costume." He doesn't put it on just because.

It could be argued that Spider-Man's costume isn't as intergral to his story (in the movies, we're talking). But, as an evolution from his wrestling look, with a desire to mask his identity, the spandex costume works well. This is a teenage kid who makes it himself (although that takes a suspension of disbelief) but, being super-powered, his concerns are perhaps more to do with look and personal preference...who knows?

In the X-Men movies, I think the leather costumes are easily justified by the story. This is a covert, paramilitary group relying on stealth at times, etc. To get them all into their comic outfits would require more than I a little explaining, in my opinion. At some point it would just be having superheroes wear costumes for their own sakes.

For Cap, I think it's even harder to get him into his comic outfit. Initially, if he is being used as a propaganda tool with the USO then sure, his look would come first. It would be about selling the icon. As soon as the decision is made for him to enter combat, the design considerations would change. Form takes a backseat to function. To me, it makes sense that he would wear a functional suit...with some of the iconic adjustments coming later to achieve that promotional or inspirational tone. That's why I don't mind this suit for the first film.

Like others, though, I think the costume could use any amount of updating for the Avengers and beyond. In all likelihood, it will.

I'm not saying that the costume designers couldn't make this more form-fitting, but specifics like that get more into personal taste than a right or wrong way to adapt Cap.

[Rock Sexton]

Because you've been arguing, quite aggressively, that the movie's first goal should be faithfulness to how the character is presented in the comics. Beyond the costumes, the DD movie was pretty faithful to the Frank Miller era of the comic. And it was still a bad movie that people didn't take seriously. Faithfulness does not equate to quality was my point.



I grant you that the flaming skull is out there and so is the cosmic cube thingy. However, it seems similar to Indiana Jones's religious adventures. But people could take that seriously, because they took Dr.. Jones seriously and could go with the flow of his adventure. A better example, for me, is how Ivan Reitman described his grounding Ghostbusters into as much reality as he can. It starts in a very realistic (if comedic) setting of an elite university starring some crackpot professors and scam artists. We only see one ghost for longer than half a second in the first 30+ minutes. And even so, each revelation is built up to. The suits the ghosts, etc. so that the audience is swallowing it all as they go along until finally he has raised the stakes so much to allow them to accept a 100 ft. marshmallow man tearing up the city.

He got to that point by grounding as much of it in reality as he could so that when the crazy **** happens, the audience could just enjoy the ride because they're so invested. Just as how the religious elements of ROTLA are only hinted at throughout the movie (ominous music here, a look of concern there, lightning and snakes when Indy gets close to the ark). We don't actually see the stuff get fully out there until the very end of the movie. I suspect the flaming school and cosmic cube will also come late into the game.

....

As for explaining what I mean about it looking absurd, here you go:

This:

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/907177_f260.jpg




The mere fact that you used that picture tells me you're using the straw man argument again. I won't even bother to read all of what you wrote. I knew once you posted that you missed the entire conversation.

[Rock Sexton]

Seriously, is this debate going to keep going right up until the release of the movie?

Yup.... sucks doesn't it? We can't all blindly love everything about the movie.

[Rock Sexton]

:woot:


Correct.

Very "realistic" assertion.

[Rock Sexton]

For Cap, I think it's even harder to get him into his comic outfit. Initially, if he is being used as a propaganda tool with the USO then sure, his look would come first. It would be about selling the icon. As soon as the decision is made for him to enter combat, the design considerations would change. Form takes a backseat to function. To me, it makes sense that he would wear a functional suit...with some of the iconic adjustments coming later to achieve that promotional or inspirational tone. That's why I don't mind this suit for the first film.

Like others, though, I think the costume could use any amount of updating for the Avengers and beyond. In all likelihood, it will.

I'm not saying that the costume designers couldn't make this more form-fitting, but specifics like that get more into personal taste than a right or wrong way to adapt Cap.

He doesn't go "into combat" like many here are alluding to. He's not involved in any of the battles the WWII is known for. The entire plot is centered around the rescue of the Howling Commandos, Bucky, and stopping the fictitious faction known as Hyrda who are headed by a man with a skull for a head and sports a portal inducing cosmic cube. Ya, Cap's costume being more faithful is gonna upset the realism balance. Oooooooooooook.

[WildcatNC]

Very "realistic" assertion.



I like to think my assertion is not "realistic" so much as maintains the "suspension of disbelief".


:rimshot:

[Wolvieboy17]

Yup.... sucks doesn't it? We can't all blindly love everything about the movie.

I don't blindly do anything. For instance, this whole argument doesn't seem to bear any possible fruit yet people have been consistently having it for months. That seems more like 'blind' arguing to me. Although I suppose this is a mass debate and my mum always said that will make me go blind, so there you go.

[Whiskey Tango]

...

[afan]

The Name Captain America has since become a very negative term (in slang) for people who are jingoistic or who are overly "american"

I can see why they would change the title... but to remove his name from the title entirely is stupid.

now on to the costume. I love the fact that the shield's paint job is burnt and chipped. I always wondered how his invulnerable shield had an invulnerable paint job. The shield is bullet proof, not the paint... I love that they made that change in the movie.

It's a nice touch, but I can't help wondering why there is any paint left after a battle, and who does the touch up:cwink:.
I could easily buy an indestructible paint job tho. Some method of infusing the paint with the metal of the shield. Kinda neat to have an enduring red, "white" and blue.

[Brian Braddock]

Seriously, is this debate going to keep going right up until the release of the movie?

>pokes head into thread to see if it's moved on in any way since the last time I was here<

>looks around<

>leaves<


:dry:

[Vartha]

>pokes head into thread to see if it's moved on in any way since the last time I was here<

>looks around<

>leaves<


:dry:
heh hay wait! don't leave me in here!

[Duker Jay]

He doesn't go "into combat" like many here are alluding to. He's not involved in any of the battles the WWII is known for. The entire plot is centered around the rescue of the Howling Commandos, Bucky, and stopping the fictitious faction known as Hyrda who are headed by a man with a skull for a head and sports a portal inducing cosmic cube. Ya, Cap's costume being more faithful is gonna upset the realism balance. Oooooooooooook.

Rock, I think you've set up your own strawman. I didn't say anything about the costume being realistic or trying to be realistic. I said I thought it evolved as a function of the story.

Also, you don't know exactly what battles Cap will be a part of so you can't say he won't be a part of any actual events. Either way, "combat" doesn't have anything to do with whether something is an actual historical battle or a fight against a group of fictitious robots...it's combat.

But you'll probably turn this around to make it seem like I'm after realism and blindly love the costume accordingly.

[Mercurius]

Either way, "combat" doesn't have anything to do with whether something is an actual historical battle or a fight against a group of fictitious robots...it's combat.

If combat is combat, the WWII setting is as good as anything else for the iconic costume.

[DACrowe]

The mere fact that you used that picture tells me you're using the straw man argument again. I won't even bother to read all of what you wrote. I knew once you posted that you missed the entire conversation.

The material (rubber) may look bad, but that is what you want. A form fitting, comic book accurate, bright superhero costume. And that combine with the other two pictures illustrates my point entirely. But just ignore it, easier to do that than consider another viewpoint.

[Wolvieboy17]

I think the Hype has too many Magnetos and not enough Xaviers.

[Rock Sexton]

The material (rubber) may look bad, but that is what you want. A form fitting, comic book accurate, bright superhero costume. And that combine with the other two pictures illustrates my point entirely. But just ignore it, easier to do that than consider another viewpoint.

The irony is we got "bright", which is completely ironic given that JJ wanted the suit to look more of the time period. You'd think the blue would've been muted or darker.

...... but the rubber you're alluding to from that picture is absolutely nothing like myself and a few others want.

[Brian Braddock]

I think the Hype has too many Magnetos and not enough Xaviers.

You've just read my mind. :woot:

[Rock Sexton]

I think the Hype has too many Magnetos and not enough Xaviers.

:cwink:

http://uploadpic.org/storage/originals/22ejl992je3ssu8rff8sj2jdun.jpg

[Brian Braddock]

heh hay wait! don't leave me in here!

The Thor threads have a better vibe at the moment, V - I'll see you in there. :awesome:

[Wolvieboy17]

Haha nice manip Rock.

And for the record, I think there are plenty of Mag's on both side of the debate.

[Vartha]

The Thor threads have a better vibe at the moment, V - I'll see you in there. :awesome:
hehe INDEED!

[Parker Wayne]

Seriously, is this debate going to keep going right up until the release of the movie?

It's more like 2 guys constantly saying the same things constantly about the costume only to be proven wrong each time by everyone else.

I take a few days off and Mercurius and Rock are down to their Kung Fu treachery again!

[Parker Wayne]

The Thor threads have a better vibe at the moment, V - I'll see you in there. :awesome:

Wait for me!

[Mercurius]

It's more like 2 guys constantly saying the same things constantly about the costume only to be proven wrong each time by everyone else.

I take a few days off and Mercurius and Rock are down to their Kung Fu treachery again!

Nothing compared to the always jumpy treachery of Meestair Parking Lane.

[Mercurius]

The Thor threads have a better vibe at the moment, V - I'll see you in there. :awesome:


No wonder: that movie looks like something really good. :oldrazz:

[C. Lee]

The biggest problem I have right now is....I have been a giant Captain America fan for over 40 years....but I can only force myself to come into the Cap forums as part of being a moderator.....there is no fun or niceness or respect in here.

[Rock Sexton]

It's more like 2 guys constantly saying the same things constantly about the costume only to be proven wrong each time by everyone else.

I take a few days off and Mercurius and Rock are down to their Kung Fu treachery again!

Proven wrong? When? We've given you countless number of examples of elements IN THE FILM that directly contradict the necessity of a WWII-esque costume. The only responses we're getting is anecdotal comments about the GA and what they will perceive or think ..... as if a more faithful rendition of the costume would leave the "suspension of disbelief" hanging in the balance.

I'm more GA than the majority of you guys. My knowledge of these characters like Cap, Thor, IM, etc. etc. is very rudimentary. I know them from how they looked in my childhood, cartoons, and a few other very basic elements. I don't own any of the comic books and never have. I use the net to piece together things that I don't know, which many GA members will do come time for this films release. I'm just not buying this idea that the GA's collective mindset is going to go numb from Cap sporting what we're asking for.

[BizarroAids]

It's more like 2 guys constantly saying the same things constantly about the costume only to be proven wrong each time by everyone else.

I take a few days off and Mercurius and Rock are down to their Kung Fu treachery again!

For some reason, people have a hard time believing that his costume has made minor changes over the years; Ultimate, 616. But the movie-verse can't have it's own blend of both. And I agree, if he's in the war, something more like the Kirby costume, would look like a disrespect to the soldiers he's fighting next to.

[lixdexia]

i think it could have been done more faithfully and still looked good on the battlefield, but it wasn't. i like the costume fairly well now, and even if i didn't, the movie is in the can. they're not going to go back and re-shoot the entire movie wither or not i like the costume so it is what it is.

[Duker Jay]

If combat is combat, the WWII setting is as good as anything else for the iconic costume.

But what's the narrative evolution of putting him in a straight-from-the-comic look? Do you have him wear it "just because"?

I'm not saying JJ's adaptation is the only way to make it work but the rationale behind his costume has to come from somewhere...

[Brian Braddock]

The biggest problem I have right now is....I have been a giant Captain America fan for over 40 years....but I can only force myself to come into the Cap forums as part of being a moderator.....there is no fun or niceness or respect in here.

Beleive me, I hear you C.Lee.

Boy, do I hear you. :csad:

[BizarroAids]

But what's the narrative evolution of putting him in a straight-from-the-comic look? Do you have him wear it "just because"?

I'm not saying JJ's adaptation is the only way to make it work but the rationale behind his costume has to come from somewhere...

And the USO plot has him wearing the Kirby style costume. And I'm willing to bet the way they approach that scene is; 1: It's a little something for the fans, and will most likely get cheered. 2: they use that suit to give the scene some comic relief, so by the time he puts on his actual costume, people won't think it's so silly in comparison.

Also, isn't that one of the reasons he puts on the leather jacket during a mission? To not come off as a joke?

[Parker Wayne]

Proven wrong? When? We've given you countless number of examples of elements IN THE FILM that directly contradict the necessity of a WWII-esque costume. The only responses we're getting is anecdotal comments about the GA and what they will perceive or think ..... as if a more faithful rendition of the costume would leave the "suspension of disbelief" hanging in the balance.

I'm more GA than the majority of you guys. My knowledge of these characters like Cap, Thor, IM, etc. etc. is very rudimentary. I know them from how they looked in my childhood, cartoons, and a few other very basic elements. I don't own any of the comic books and never have. I use the net to piece together things that I don't know, which many GA members will do come time for this films release. I'm just not buying this idea that the GA's collective mindset is going to go numb from Cap sporting what we're asking for.

Lets' be honest. None of us are GA. You can argue as much as much as you want that you're GA but the fact is you're still on a superhero website debating about costume.

I'm not GA, or comic book, I'm a movie guy. All I keep hearing you say is that it's a comic book superhero movie. There's no specific definition of what a comic book movie has to be. It doesn't have to be 100% faithful in order to be great, but from what I'm hearing about this film, this film will still be pretty faithful.

So when were you proven wrong? When you keep mentioning that's it's a comic book film and countless others and me before told you that some level authenticity is important. You want complete fantasy, but the feel is important too. He looks out of place within the context of the film. As I keep saying, there's always been a difference between comic books and films.

Not all the visual elements of a comic book will look good on film. It will turn off the GA. High level of ridiculousness is accepted at times, but it takes away from the overall message of the stories though. There's always a line that directors set for how far they want to push suspension of disblief and Captain America is actually a great example.

The comic costume is pushing it because even with the red skull, cosmic cube among everything, he'll stand out in the wrong way compared to all the other characters. Even Red Skull looks military like. You can't have him wearing the comic suit because he even within the movie it looks pretty bad that he doesn't look like a soldier.

EDIT: When you establish a world you don't want to break your own suspension of disbelief. Captain America's look much be on par with Red Skull.

[marcvader]

No, he's AWOL.