Has Batman hurt the genre where costumes are concerned?

[The Question]

Originally Posted by roach

If going with the initial premise of a world with superheroes and then go with the Red Skull being the top Nazi agent and the government creating the persona and look of Captain America to counterbalance that.

The problem is with the exact nature of the costume. The fact of the matter is that it's kind of goofy looking, and does not reflect military sensibilities, even when it comes to decorative or symbolic things. We don't see Cap's costume as goofy because we're familiar with the greatness of the character and what his costume represents. The general audience isn't. Someone who isn't familiar with the character will wonder why the United States military is putting him in such a goofy get up like that, unless it's introduced in the right way.

What I described wouldn't deprive us of the classic costume. It may delay it being seen in a combat situation until the middle or latter part of the movie, but the costume would be present from very early on and would eventually be incorporated into his field uniform. I don't see what's being lost by taking the time to ease the audience into it.

And doing something like that would be beneficial to the story in other ways as well. It would show Captain America growing from a simple weapon and PR tool into a true hero and symbol of American values.

[The Question]

Although, maybe I am being a little stubborn about my idea. Maybe it wouldn't have to be something so complicated. Maybe all it would take is a few quick lines about patriotism and propaganda with the right build up. But you need some device to explain it. All events in a story need a device to explain them. Even fantastical elements like jet powered armor and super powers have devices to explain them.

[roach]

Originally Posted by The Question

The problem is with the exact nature of the costume. The fact of the matter is that it's kind of goofy looking, and does not reflect military sensibilities, even when it comes to decorative or symbolic things. We don't see Cap's costume as goofy because we're familiar with the greatness of the character and what his costume represents. The general audience isn't. Someone who isn't familiar with the character will wonder why the United States military is putting him in such a goofy get up like that, unless it's introduced in the right way.

Its not supposed to reflect military sensibilities. Its a superhero costume. The general audience isnt going to have an issue with it. I believe the Superman costume is every bit goofy as Cap but I can guarantee you that the next Superman flick will have him in the classic costume.

What I described wouldn't deprive us of the classic costume. It may delay it being seen in a combat situation until the middle or latter part of the movie, but the costume would be present from very early on and would eventually be incorporated into his field uniform. I don't see what's being lost by taking the time to ease the audience into it.

My issue with it stems from my belief that the film makers seem to be embarassed that Cap is going to be in costume.

And doing something like that would be beneficial to the story in other ways as well. It would show Captain America growing from a simple weapon and PR tool into a true hero and symbol of American values.

and that could have been done without the USO angle.

[roach]

Originally Posted by The Question

Although, maybe I am being a little stubborn about my idea. Maybe it wouldn't have to be something so complicated. Maybe all it would take is a few quick lines about patriotism and propaganda with the right build up. But you need some device to explain it. All events in a story need a device to explain them. Even fantastical elements like jet powered armor and super powers have devices to explain them.

I am not saying that you dont explain the suit...its just the USO explanation seems wrong to me. How the movie views the costume is how the audience views the costume. Treat it like a joke and it will be a joke.

[returntovoid]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

The filmmakers deem his grey tights "silly & unrealistic".

I think it's silly of them to call Grey "silly & unrealistic".

Grey like Black is a achromatic color, it's not very bright/colorful and has serious connotations.

As for unrealistic, reality is one of the connotations of Grey and the world is often times called Grey to describe that the difference between good and evil/right and wrong is difficult to define.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by roach

Its not supposed to reflect military sensibilities. Its a superhero costume. The general audience isnt going to have an issue with it. I believe the Superman costume is every bit goofy as Cap but I can guarantee you that the next Superman flick will have him in the classic costume.

Superman is not an agent of the United States Military, he's an average guy and a civilian who's trying to be a super hero. What the general audience will have a hard time with is the idea that the U.S. Army would put their top guy in something like that with no real explanation.

Originally Posted by roach

My issue with it stems from my belief that the film makers seem to be embarassed that Cap is going to be in costume.

They're not embarrassed by it. They simply recognize how storytelling works. From a storytelling standpoint, there's nothing wrong with Captain America having a costume. But that particular costume raises problems with the verisimilitude and tone of the story that need to be addressed, otherwise the movie will seem all over the place in terms of tone.

Originally Posted by roach

and that could have been done without the USO angle.

Originally Posted by roach

I am not saying that you dont explain the suit...its just the USO explanation seems wrong to me. How the movie views the costume is how the audience views the costume. Treat it like a joke and it will be a joke.

The problem with the USO story is that it raises plot holes and causes trouble with the verisimilitude of the story by itself. The basic idea of it, that it's purely a propaganda piece that becomes truly symbolic and becomes his field uniform, works, both as a narrative device and and thematically for the story. But it raises question about military strategy if he's not in the field at all.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by roach

Where do we stop with this????
We remove the cape from Superman because its not logical?????
Silver Surfer no longer rides a surfboard????
Flash in bodyarmor and no head wings???

See-this is what I mean by casualties! I worry about crap like that happening.
I think as long as the proper care is put into the design & manufacture of the costumes-not the half-@$$ effort we saw in projects like that JLA pilot-we won't see silly, implausible costumes geared toward mindless kiddie fare, which is what Hollywood-and a great many fans-seem to fear.

[Rain Dog]

I know that at one point they were going to do Superman without a cape.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

See-this is what I mean by casualties! I worry about crap like that happening.
I think as long as the proper care is put into the design & manufacture of the costumes-not the half-@$$ effort we saw in projects like that JLA pilot-we won't see silly, implausible costumes geared toward mindless kiddie fare, which is what Hollywood-and a great many fans-seem to fear.

We won't see a Superman without a cape or a Silver surfer without a board, because those things are iconic.

I don't see the trend you are seeing, many costumes like Spider-Man's and Iron Man's were not changed because of the batman costume, even the move FF costumes are fairly similar to the comics ones.

Spidey costume stayed the same because its iconic, Iron Man's stayed the same because its iconic and practical, the X-Men costumes were different because they were not iconic or practical.

So how close your costume is the comic book version has nothing to do with the Batman costume, it depends on how iconic and practical it is.

I mean Hawkeye's 616 costume is not very iconic, so I can imagine it getting changed.

[Chris Wallace]

Not iconic? He's only been wearing it for 40+years!
He is a case of a hero whose look I wouldn't want changed. Especially if they went with the "Ultimate" version; militaristic Bullseye-Lite. Or if they did something along the lines of Smallville's Green Arrow. Ugh. Oh-and what about Superman? His look is as iconic as they come, and there was no practical reason to change it. But they did.
Additionally, I didn't mean that I expected those specific examples to LITERALLY take place. But things along those lines, rather.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Not iconic? He's only been wearing it for 40+years!
He is a case of a hero whose look I wouldn't want changed. Especially if they went with the "Ultimate" version; militaristic Bullseye-Lite. Or if they did something along the lines of Smallville's Green Arrow. Ugh. Oh-and what about Superman? His look is as iconic as they come, and there was no practical reason to change it. But they did.
Additionally, I didn't mean that I expected those specific examples to LITERALLY take place. But things along those lines, rather.

But they didn't, aside from a few minor details. It was just poorly executed. Exactly what did they change? Don't tell me the colours changed, because they didn't. They were still red, blue and yellow, even if they used the ugliest shades possible.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

what about Superman? His look is as iconic as they come, and there was no practical reason to change it. But they did.

How about this for a reason: it looked dated.

[BlackLantern]

Originally Posted by jmc

How about this for a reason: it looked dated.

the one in "Returns" looked dated as well...IMO the best version of the suit was the one Dean Cain had in 'Lois and Clark'

[afan]

Originally Posted by jmc

How about this for a reason: it looked dated.

Aside from materials, these suits pretty much span the 70+ years of Superman productions, exactly which one looks "dated"?

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Not iconic? He's only been wearing it for 40+years!
He is a case of a hero whose look I wouldn't want changed. Especially if they went with the "Ultimate" version; militaristic Bullseye-Lite. Or if they did something along the lines of Smallville's Green Arrow. Ugh. Oh-and what about Superman? His look is as iconic as they come, and there was no practical reason to change it. But they did.
Additionally, I didn't mean that I expected those specific examples to LITERALLY take place. But things along those lines, rather.

Well Super Returns did suck, but that's look at this another way, in SR he still had the boots, the cape, the color scheme, the outside underwear, etc. Frankly there were so many other things about that movie I hated that I didn't care about the costume.

Hawkeye has worn his costume for 40 plus years, but that doesn't mean any thing, iconic not simply being around for a long time. It depends how good your costume is and how much exposure people have to it before it appears on screen. Spidey and even Iron Man have had cartoon series, while Cap has not. Plus some costumes just suck they never looked good, would you really be sad if they went with Ultimate Hawkeye from vol 1 instead of 616 Hawkeye's costume.

Plus I never saw how the wings on his head or the pirate boots were practical for a war zone.

Also there the massive problems with women's costumes in comics, that often seem to exist for no reason besides fan service. Why is Wonder woman supposed to be an ambassador of peace and yet she dresses like a stripper, how is anyone supposed to take her seriously, she could be giving a speech about peace and justice and most of the men in the audience would be staring at her boobs. Why did Ms. Marvel make a costume where her butt is just hanging out of it and why does it have Stilettos? Carol Danvers was in the military, she have an excellent sense why what you should wear in combat, so why does she dress like that.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by JAK®

But they didn't, aside from a few minor details. It was just poorly executed. Exactly what did they change? Don't tell me the colours changed, because they didn't. They were still red, blue and yellow, even if they used the ugliest shades possible.

Using the ugliest shades possible, as well as diminishing his shield, gave it a subdued look. This is actually in line with what I've been saying all along; it conveys the idea that the costume is silly-looking & a person would be embarrassed to be seen in it. So let's minimize that. Make it darker. Give the cape a leather-like texture.
And these changes didn't make it look less "dated" (particularly in a movie whose wardrobe & backdrop was so retro it looked like a period piece)-it just made it look ugly.

[roach]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Plus I never saw how the wings on his head or the pirate boots were practical for a war zone.

Practical in a war zone that involved giant robots, dragons,vampires, guys in red skull masks, golems....

[Rain Dog]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Using the ugliest shades possible, as well as diminishing his shield, gave it a subdued look. This is actually in line with what I've been saying all along; it conveys the idea that the costume is silly-looking & a person would be embarrassed to be seen in it. So let's minimize that. Make it darker. Give the cape a leather-like texture.
And these changes didn't make it look less "dated" (particularly in a movie whose wardrobe & backdrop was so retro it looked like a period piece)-it just made it look ugly.

Superman isn't exactly my fav super hero but I wasn't a fan of the changes either. However, I don't understand what makes you believe it conveys the idea it's silly looking and embarassing. These were purely aesthetic choices made by one of the film makers--either the costume designer, art director, director, or some combination of them. I don't know why the diminished "S" is such a big deal--in that image posted by afan, the actor (I can't readily identify him) underneath Routh also has an ensignia that's much smaller than all the others. The image of that actor also appears to be one of the oldest ones in that collage. Why isn't that one as awful as Routh's?

[roach]

The SR suit was an adequate Superman suit. If you look at the suit can you identify BR as Superman? Big \S/ or little \S/ it makes no difference. It was perfect or great but it was adequate

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

See-this is what I mean by casualties! I worry about crap like that happening.
I think as long as the proper care is put into the design & manufacture of the costumes-not the half-@$$ effort we saw in projects like that JLA pilot-we won't see silly, implausible costumes geared toward mindless kiddie fare, which is what Hollywood-and a great many fans-seem to fear.

I don't think that's something to be afraid of. Worrying about the plausibility of Captain America's costume will not take away Superman's Cape or the Silver Surfer's board. There are specific reasons as to why the plausibility of Captain America's costume is called into question that aren't factors with Superman or the Silver Surfer. It's a case by case thing. And as I've said time and time again, no one's talking about ditching Cap's costume. Not even the people making the movie. Captain America will be wearing his classic costume, with maybe some variations in regards to small details. I'm just pointing out, as are the movie makers, that some things you need to take a little bit of screen time to explain to make it a stronger film.

Originally Posted by roach

Practical in a war zone that involved giant robots, dragons,vampires, guys in red skull masks, golems....

Again, that's not the issue. Impractical in a war zone is impractical in a war zone. The existence of dragons and robots does not effect what makes for good footwear.

Also, when was it said that robots dragons and golems were common occurrences in Captain America's war time stories?

[roach]

Originally Posted by The Question

Also, when was it said that robots dragons and golems were common occurrences in Captain America's war time stories?

if you read the original stories this was the case

[The Question]

Originally Posted by roach

if you read the original stories this was the case

I have. I don't remember dragons being a common occurrence on the battle field. There may have been one issue with dragons in it, but not in a field of combat.

[Rain Dog]

Originally Posted by roach

if you read the original stories this was the case

Are you sure? It was my understanding he was strictly a Nazi ass-kicker in the 40's. I dont' think robots and aliens came in until the 50's or 60's.

[roach]

In the original Kirby and Simon comics he fought all manner of strange beings
#1 He fought a mishapen psychic
#2 He fought a giant monster from Tibet
#3 He fought a hunchback creature in LA(incidently the creature was sent there to kill Cap because thats where they were filming the serials), also he fought a giant butterfly and a mummy
#5 he fought the dragon

Yes he was a Nazi ass-kicker but the Nazis used all manner of exotic creatures to fight in the war

the original Cap stories are available for download at marvel.com

and while I am not saying I want to see Cap fighting Frankenstein in the movie...there has to be a purpose behind Cap...he isnt called into fight average Nazi's...he's called in to fight the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Baron Blood, Master Man

[afan]

Originally Posted by roach

In the original Kirby and Simon comics he fought all manner of strange beings
#1 He fought a mishapen psychic
#2 He fought a giant monster from Tibet
#3 He fought a hunchback creature in LA(incidently the creature was sent there to kill Cap because thats where they were filming the serials), also he fought a giant butterfly and a mummy
#5 he fought the dragon

Yes he was a Nazi ass-kicker but the Nazis used all manner of exotic creatures to fight in the war

the original Cap stories are available for download at marvel.com

and while I am not saying I want to see Cap fighting Frankenstein in the movie...there has to be a purpose behind Cap...he isnt called into fight average Nazi's...he's called in to fight the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Baron Blood, Master Man

Major Eaton Raiders of the Lost Ark: "You see for the last two years the Nazis have had teams of archeologists running around the world looking for all sorts of religious artifacts. Hitler's gone nuts on the subject. He's crazy. He's obsessed with the occult. And right now, apparently, there is some kind of German archeological dig going on in the desert outside Cairo."


Cap wasn't alone.