Costumes! Discuss them Here!

[Headless Knight]

I've was browsing through WB concept art all through high school and my only tie was that a sound editor's son was in my class and a failed hack wannabe of a director milked that tie. That's how I got to see movies while they were being edited too. And how I got screener DVDs. It's not that hard. Besides, as has been stated Batman Begins was already using the same basic concept.

What.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible for Snyder to have access to concept art. He is a famous director, he must have access to lots of crap.

What I find hard to believe is the supposed epiphany he had, i.e. "I could make Nite Owl's costume a commentary on the new Batman movies!"

I just don't buy it. Sorry.

Of course he's adding the sugar on in heaping portions, but you are being a jackass.

Jackass = realistic?

Btw, why are people constantly throwing rocks at my direction? Jackass, not a very smart person... did I offend anyone? If I did, I assure you it wasn't intentional. Is just that my grasp of the english language isn't without its faults.

If he didn't like it, he didn't have to say anything. He's not under contract to promote the film.

But what if he liked most of it, but wasn't so pleased with a couple of things? Would he mention these things? Of course he wouldn't. He wants the fans to be excited, he wants the movie to succeed.

If he did honestly find every. single. thing. incredibly good, more power to him. I just disagree.

No, but you brought Gibbons into the argument.

In a completely unrelated matter (the process of creation of the original material and how it relates to other works from the same period).

I assumed his opinion should count for something.

It's not enough to change mine, that's for sure.

 

[The Guard]

So, which one is it? He's trying to make them look more modern and cool, but at the same time he wants to make a meta-commentary on modern superhero movie aesthetic?

I'd say he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's actively using the very thing he's criticizing. He wants to have it both ways, and for that I say he's full of s***.

Why can't it be both? He's not criticizing the costumes, he's saying the original designs have a naivete to them that people won't get. They'll just think they look downright silly.

original plan was to use the recently bought Charlton characters, but DC wanted to shove them into continuity. If Moore got away with what he originally intended, the character designs would be exactly the same as the original designs for Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, The Question, etc.

Since he had to create new characters, he decided that they would be archetypes of the Charlton characters he originally intended to use. That's it. That's where the look of the characters comes from. They look like generic superheroes because they were based on specific superheroes that were somewhat generic.

Then the faithful translation of character designs should become even less important. Because according to you, they were ripoffs of generic suits anyway.

The whole book is a commentary on superheroes in general (among other things), but the designs of the costumes weren't created with this specific goal in mind.

Who cares? Does that mean the flm costumes can't?

Anyway, I would like to see some comparisons between the Watchmen movie costumes and those of "past better known superheroes of the movie industry". If it's that obvious, it shouldn't be too hard.

But I want enough of them to make a solid point. A couple of Batman costumes won't fly.

Aside from the Batman costumes, you also have elements from the Daredevil and the Spider-Man suits. And of course, the same basic "generic color scheme" that many superheroes have always had. That's more than enough to make a valid "commentary" on recent superhero movie culture.

So you're basically saying that in the book this is irrelevant.

More or less.

Regardless, the one in the book looks clearly less laboured.

So does the Batsuit in the Batman comics compared to any movie suit. What's your point?

Of course he would put himself to some trouble, but that much trouble? Think about how time-consuming it would be for a single man to produce that kind of stuff. Yeah, yeah, he made an owlship. But an owlship needs to fly. You have to spend time making it, or else it won't work. An owl-suit works regardless of feather-patterns or metallic tints. It doesn't need that. It wouldn't be productive.

And yet, even though it wouldn't be productive, he bothers to make his owl ship resemble an owl. Complete with feathering. What's your point, exactly? That he seems to have put more work into making his suit "look" a certain way than he did in the comics?

Who cares?

This is a character PROVEN to put work into strictly visual elements already in the comic.

People are loving to say his suit is commenting on the Batman Begins suit, but remember that one was made from several pieces of military apparatus that had to be order separately and by the hundreds to avoid suspicion. Lucius Fox didn't build it by himself with the crap he had hanging on the basement.

What about "the man has a lot of money" don't you understand? You just seem to assume that because he has a secret identity that he sits in the basement putting this together piece by piece by himself. What are you basing that on?

Near the end, when he's terrified because they are about to face Veidt, he says to Rorschach something like "Now I know how normal people feel around us".

He's talking about the weird nature of Veidt's surroundings.

He did look menacing.

On what planet? He looks ridiculous.

When he and Rorschach are out investigating, the guys at Happy Harry's are scared ****less of them.

No, they are scared ****less of Rorschach, because he has a history of coming there and hurting people.

Granted, it could be because they are known vigilantes with a history of assault and a hovering owlship with a flamethrower outside, but come on, the costumes are a big part of it.

Or maybe being known vigilantes with a history of assault is part of it.

In Under The Hood, Hollis talks about this. He says the only thing he made sure about when making his costume was that it wouldn't constrict his movements, but subsequent vigilantes took appearance very much into consideration.

What's your point?

Less restrictive? It looks totally stiff. The one in the book at least looks flexible.

No it doesn't. It looks like a man wearing a quasi-armored suit. You can't make a call on how "stiff" it looks until you have seen it in action. This one has obvious "joints" built into it, so saying it's not flexible makes little sense at this point. Less restrictive in the sense that his cape is now not all around him, and he no longer has the cumbersome "hood attachment".

It's not a question of money; it's a question of (yes) practicality. Having money means nothing when you can't hire people to do your work for you. He sure wouldn't have a lack of materials, but does he really want to spend most of the time in his basement fixing stuff when he could be... oh, I dont know... fighting crime?

Again, how do you know that he didn't hire people to do some of his work for him? He's not going to fighting crime ALL the time.

See above. He has to do everything on his own, because of that little thing called secret identity.

Where is that written?

Don't be so naive, people. When the first Dark Knight pics came about they were already making Watchmen.

At the same studio. Who probably had control over the designs. And it wouldn't matter anyway, because let's face it, the "overly sculpted/slightly high-tech muscles" look has been a part of Batman movies, and superhero movies in general for years.

It's like this: Comedian, Rorschach and Silk Spectre look almost exactly like their original designs.

Almost.

That means they can't logically be a commentary on anything current (right?), so they're right out.

They're clearly meant to be commenting on something. Look at how fetishized Laurie's costume is.

That leaves us with Nite Owl and Ozymandias. Now, first of all, that's two characters. Do you honestly think that constitutes an important subtext? I don't.

Why can't it?

But let's go further: Ozy's suit may resemble the "sculpted" style of modern superheroes, but his suit (like the original) is almost not superhero-ish at all.

It's got the "briefs", the sculpted belt...the sculpted rubber armor, the cape...

I think it's clearly more relevant that his chest piece is almost identical to some pieces of greek/roman armor that I've seen posted here. His suit is a commentary on the character itself much more than anything else.

It's a comment on both that and the nature of modern superhero suits.

So the only one you could make a really strong case for is Nite Owl's. That's one character, people. Come on. This "commentary on modern superhero aesthetic" thing is BS. Is just something Snyder said so he could give the fans a reason for updating the costumes.

Oh come off it. He didn't need to give a reason for updating them at all. He could have updated just because, and he did so, and he admitted to it already. He's already said he updated them for various reasons. So this "commentary" statement isn't some "smokescreen" he's created to justify doing so.

 

[The Guard]

What I find hard to believe is the supposed epiphany he had, i.e. "I could make Nite Owl's costume a commentary on the new Batman movies!"

I just don't buy it. Sorry.

It doesn't neccessarily have to be just Batman. You can LOOK at the suit and SEE how it ties in with "modern superhero outfit". He's got the overdesigned muscle look that the Batman movies began and almost every superhero project since has adopted, the "texturing" seen on the Spider-Man and Superman outfits, the "strike points" found on the Batman and Daredevil suits, there was a zipper on the Daredevil costume, the headpiece has been altered to make it more "mobile", which is a modern concern.

 

[Headless Knight]

Why can't it be both?

It's like this, I'm gonna make a comment on the futility of war in my movie, so I make the main character a soldier that goes to war and sees his buddies die horrible deaths. But at the same time I make the war scenes cool and exciting, and I make the guy a hero that everybody roots for and cheers when he blows up enemy heads.

So what am I saying? Am I saying "war is hell" or "war is fun"?

What is Snyder saying? What is the "comment"? What exactly is he saying about modern superhero costumes? What Moore was saying about superhero costumes was that they look silly and it takes a certain kind of person to wear them. Is that what Snyder is saying? Ok, but didn't he make them that way because he wanted the characters to look cool?

Hence, the contradiction.

He's not criticizing the costumes, he's saying the original designs have a naivete to them that people won't get. They'll just think they look downright silly.

People (at least moderately smart people) would get it, if they saw the movie. But they wouldn't see the movie if they thought it would be silly.

Therein lies the problem. A movie is not a comic book. They want millions of people to go see it. Including stupid people who wouldn't "get" naiveté. So they decided to make things a little cooler, to attract that lowest common denominator. It's a purely commercial decision, which I completely understand. I just don't have to be happy about it.

Then the faithful translation of character designs should become even less important. Because according to you, they were ripoffs of generic suits anyway.

Remember what I said near the end? How It Came To Be is irrelevant in face of What It Is.

They weren't specifically conceived as a comment because that wasn't necessary. Superhero suits are superhero suits. They would work as needed regardless of how they looked, as long as they looked superhero-ish.

I mean, god, this is so obvious.

Who cares? Does that mean the flm costumes can't?

I'm not arguing with "can", I'm just saying "aren't".

Aside from the Batman costumes, you also have elements from the Daredevil and the Spider-Man suits. And of course, the same basic "generic color scheme" that many superheroes have always had. That's more than enough to make a valid "commentary" on recent superhero movie culture.

What are these elements from the Daredevil and Spider-Man suits? I honestly don't see them.

And "generic color scheme" is embedded on superhero culture since 1938. There's nothing modern about it.

So does the Batsuit in the Batman comics compared to any movie suit. What's your point?

I'm not even sure anymore.

I guess what I'm saying is "Nite Owl's movie suit is too overdone and cool-looking, and I would prefer if it were a little more plain and silly."

I believe that's not a preposterous statement.

I mean, even if you don't agree with me, you can see where I'm coming from.

Right?

And yet, even though it wouldn't be productive, he bothers to make his owl ship resemble an owl. Complete with feathering. What's your point, exactly? That he seems to have put more work into making his suit "look" a certain way than he did in the comics?

Who cares?

This is a character PROVEN to put work into strictly visual elements already in the comic.

Ok, here you are probably right. I was waaaaay off, rationalizing things like that.

What about "the man has a lot of money" don't you understand? You just seem to assume that because he has a secret identity that he sits in the basement putting this together piece by piece by himself. What are you basing that on?

On the book. I think it's established he made everything by himself. He's a lone inventor. I don't think employees are mentioned at any point.

He's talking about the weird nature of Veidt's surroundings.

Yes he is.

More precisely, he is making an analogy, i.e. "these surroundings make me as nervous as a normal person must feel when he/she is around one of us".

Therefore, they make normal people nervous. Thus, they are menacing.

On what planet? He looks ridiculous.

I bet you wouldn't say that if you ran into him in a dark alley.

No, they are scared ****less of Rorschach, because he has a history of coming there and hurting people.

Mostly, but come on, you're not giving Dan enough credit. When he hears about Hollis and looses his cool the guy begs for his life.

Or maybe being known vigilantes with a history of assault is part of it.

Yeah... as I mentioned. What's your point?

In that world, if you are a criminal and you see a person with a costume coming at your direction, it usually means trouble.

What's your point?

My point is, apart from Hollis, most vigilantes took things other than movement into consideration, one of those things being intimidation, which was a big part of their business.

No it doesn't. It looks like a man wearing a quasi-armored suit. You can't make a call on how "stiff" it looks until you have seen it in action. This one has obvious "joints" built into it, so saying it's not flexible makes little sense at this point. Less restrictive in the sense that his cape is now not all around him, and he no longer has the cumbersome "hood attachment".

It looks like Dan would have a very hard time touching his toes, even if he was in perfect shape.

Again, how do you know that he didn't hire people to do some of his work for him? He's not going to fighting crime ALL the time.

I can see him paying someone to build internal generic parts of Archie or something, but do you honestly see a tailor calling him and going "Your Halloween owl-costume is ready, Mr. Dreiberg, when can you come and get it?"

Where is that written?

I was going by common sense, but if it needs to be written somewhere, then you got me.

At the same studio. Who probably had control over the designs. And it wouldn't matter anyway, because let's face it, the "overly sculpted/slightly high-tech muscles" look has been a part of Batman movies, and superhero movies in general for years.

Yes, it has.

It's not a comment, though.

At least not a relevant one.

They're clearly meant to be commenting on something. Look at how fetishized Laurie's costume is.

As was the original. What's your point?

The fetishization of Laurie's costume has nothing to do with anything "modern". Superheroine costumes were fetishized since the first time Wonder Woman got tied up on a rocket or something.

Why can't it?

Because it's too vague to really be saying anything. If they wanted to make a statement, they should've been more coherent

It's got the "briefs", the sculpted belt...the sculpted rubber armor, the cape...

Granted, Ozy's costume looks more like a superhero costume than it did in the book, which is nice, because he is the guy who sells toys of himself.

I guess you could say it was partly inspired by the modern superhero look.

Or maybe it uses the modern superhero look in exactly the same way as other modern superhero movies without saying anything relevant about it?

It's just that sculpted rubber looks better in movies.

It's a comment on both that and the nature of modern superhero suits.

What is the nature of modern superhero suits and what is Ozymandia's suit saying about it.

Oh come off it. He didn't need to give a reason for updating them at all. He could have updated just because, and he did so, and he admitted to it already. He's already said he updated them for various reasons. So this "commentary" statement isn't some "smokescreen" he's created to justify doing so.

In my opinion, it is exactly that.

If he didn't say something like that, the fans would be pissed. Think about it. "Hey fans, I updated the costumes, because the originals were totally naive and silly and people wouldn't get that. So I made them really cool and snazzy, you're welcome".


While adding that the update is also (and more importantly!) a "commentary", he is assuring the fans that "we are totally in the same frame of mind you guys" (that is, the frame of mind of people who think movies and comics should make "commentaries" on things, e.g. Alan Moore fans).

But I'm just guessing. Maybe he did want to make a commentary, in which case he did not quite succeed.

 

[Headless Knight]

It doesn't neccessarily have to be just Batman. You can LOOK at the suit and SEE how it ties in with "modern superhero outfit". He's got the overdesigned muscle look that the Batman movies began and almost every superhero project since has adopted, the "texturing" seen on the Spider-Man and Superman outfits, the "strike points" found on the Batman and Daredevil suits, there was a zipper on the Daredevil costume, the headpiece has been altered to make it more "mobile", which is a modern concern.

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

 

[Manic]

Here's what I thought when I saw Nite Owl II's costume: Batman. In the comic, I immediately saw a Batman parallel. Everything about it just screamed "this is Batman as a brown owl."

Then I saw the picture for the movie costume. You know what I thought? "Movie Batman." It gave me the exact same feeling that Nite Owl is an analogue of Batman, only this costume paralleled Batman's movie costume.

The whole "the costumes are supposed to look ridiculous" thing just doesn't fly with me. The costumes in that comic looked like typical superhero fair, especially for the Silver Age. What made them so ridiculous was that the characters admitted that they were ridiculous. That's really what I'm expecting from the film. The costumes for this movie look like typical superhero movie fair. Nite Owl in the comic didn't look any more ridiculous than Batman in his own comics, and the Nite Owl in this movie draws the same comparison to Batman in the recent Bat-films.

The key is the awareness. Batman thinks he looks like a badass, walks around like a badass, and thus looks like a badass to us. Nite Owl knows he looks silly, will (hopefully, if this movie is done right) walk around feeling silly, and will thus look silly to movie-going audiences.

 

[StorminNorman]

Moore's original plan was to use the recently bought Charlton characters, but DC wanted to shove them into continuity. If Moore got away with what he originally intended, the character designs would be exactly the same as the original designs for Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, The Question, etc.

But if you think about it - even those Superhero's are based off of the same Superheroes that Nite Owl, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan are compared to. And just because Moore was going to use "established" characters, it does not mean he was not going to made their characteristics resemble other popular, similar characters. Is it really hard to see someone using a character like Blue Beetle to make an allusion to Batman?

Since he had to create new characters, he decided that they would be archetypes of the Charlton characters he originally intended to use. That's it. That's where the look of the characters comes from. They look like generic superheroes because they were based on specific superheroes that were somewhat generic.

This assumes that Alan Moore had a raging hard on for Charlton characters. Is it no possible and possibly even probable that once Alan Moore realized he was not going to use established characters he utilized this new restriction, rather than felt constrained by it? What real motivation did Moore have from basing them off the Charlton characters? Their looks played a far greater use than "well they were Blue Beetle knock offs" - you give Mr. Moore (and to a lesser extent Mr. Gibbons) far too little credit.

The whole book is a commentary on superheroes in general (among other things), but the designs of the costumes weren't created with this specific goal in mind. What Moore did was say to Gibbons "Now, this guy is our 'Blue Beetle', but he is actually an Owl. This other guy is The Question, but instead of having no face, his mask is like a constantly shifting Rorschach Board."

How can you not look at Nite Owl II and NOT see a reference to Batman. And, again, Alan Moore is not the type of guy to constrain himself simply because an idea fell through.

Those design similarities were meant.

And so on. And then Gibbons designed them as he saw fit, and Moore approved these designs. The final costumes are very "gibbonesque" and, as I said, you just have to read something else drawn by Dave Gibbons to see that.

Again - this argument holds no water.

Well, it's impossible to say what the true intentions really were, but I already stated my opinions on Snyder's declarations on this matter in my response to Wolfman's post.

Your opinions on Snyder are unfounded and are generally rebutted by almost anything he releases on this movie.

 

[StorminNorman]

Here's what I thought when I saw Nite Owl II's costume: Batman. In the comic, I immediately saw a Batman parallel. Everything about it just screamed "this is Batman as a brown owl."

Then I saw the picture for the movie costume. You know what I thought? "Movie Batman." It gave me the exact same feeling that Nite Owl is an analogue of Batman, only this costume paralleled Batman's movie costume.

The whole "the costumes are supposed to look ridiculous" thing just doesn't fly with me. The costumes in that comic looked like typical superhero fair, especially for the Silver Age. What made them so ridiculous was that the characters admitted that they were ridiculous. That's really what I'm expecting from the film. The costumes for this movie look like typical superhero movie fair. Nite Owl in the comic didn't look any more ridiculous than Batman in his own comics, and the Nite Owl in this movie draws the same comparison to Batman in the recent Bat-films.

The key is the awareness. Batman thinks he looks like a badass, walks around like a badass, and thus looks like a badass to us. Nite Owl knows he looks silly, will (hopefully, if this movie is done right) walk around feeling silly, and will thus look silly to movie-going audiences.

]

You can go ahead and frame this post. I want it over my fireplace.

 

[Katsuro]

What I find hard to believe is the supposed epiphany he had, i.e. "I could make Nite Owl's costume a commentary on the new Batman movies!"

I just don't buy it. Sorry.

Lmao. So let me get this straight. Snyder says he's changing the costumes to be a commentary on modern movie costumes. Then the costumes come out, and they're a commentary on modern movie costumes. Then you think he just made that up?

You're right though. Snyder probably was like "haha!! i'm gonna make the costumes all differenet and make up some crap about being like modern costumes to fool the fans!!! I really just wanna make the costumes different cuz it'll anger fans! it's genius!!!"

Seriously?

 

[Sandman138]

What.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible for Snyder to have access to concept art. He is a famous director, he must have access to lots of crap.

What I find hard to believe is the supposed epiphany he had, i.e. "I could make Nite Owl's costume a commentary on the new Batman movies!"

I just don't buy it. Sorry.

I don't think I ever implied anything like that. However, if Snyder already wanted to go the Batman Begins angle I would imagine the art department would have had access to the concept art. They started only a month apart it wouldn't have been hard.

Jackass = realistic?

No, I'm calling you a jackass because you cherry pick the words of all the people involved to fit what you think their motivations are and then hinge your argument on what you imagine to be the motivations of a fictional character, and you can't really back either of those arguments up. Snyder said from day one what his intentions were when he was asked.

A lot of graphic novels and comic book heroes have been made into films since 1985 and despite how cool "Watchmen" is, it needs an ever so slight tweak for today's audience. If "Watchmen" were the first comic book movie made, I don't think it would be a problem, but at this point you have to be aware of what everyone else has done a little bit.

So we know already that the changes were in an attempt to acknowledge the way the superheroes in cinema had changed since 1985. Now what he said later had more finesse but it is the same basic sentiment. Now, a lot of us thought the costumes were already obvious allusions to conventions in superhero movie costumes. People said we had nothing to back it up with and it was just us making excuses. Snyder says his intention was to comment on superheores, and now he's making excuses. You may not like his reasons, but to say that his word is somehow tarnished and that this brings anything he's ever said into question is ridiculous.

As far as Nite Owl's motivations, you talk about practicality. When did Dan Dreiberg ever once come off as practical? He built a flying ship, an exo-skeleton, suits to deal with everything from underwater excursions to radiation, and countless other gadgets to take down muggers, drug dealers, and the occasional magician turned bank robber or midget mob boss. He even comments to Laurie how silly the whole thing was and how he should just scrap the junk, but Laurie totally understands why he does it. She calls him a magician, and from everything else we've seen it's obvious why he does it. He liked comics as a boy, he idolized the original Nite Owl (notice how the feather pattern resembles the original Nite Owl's tunic?), and he wants to live out that fantasy. Do I believe somebody like that could spend hours making a detailed costume? Yes. Because countless people on this very forum do just that. Look at the amount of labor some cosplayers put into their costumes.

Look at this man for ****s sake:

Btw, why are people constantly throwing rocks at my direction? Jackass, not a very smart person... did I offend anyone? If I did, I assure you it wasn't intentional. Is just that my grasp of the english language isn't without its faults.

Because instead of debating the direction they are taking you act as if they are all trying to cover up some big plan to **** up the entire project and you back this up with cherry picked lines from explanations, your own conjecture as to the inner machinations of people you don't know, and petty attacks at the credibility of Snyder and Gibbons.

I have extreme reservations about this film. I'm not sure if Goode can pull off Ozymandias. As much as I like what I hear from Snyder about how he's approaching this, I'd really like to read the script they shot because the last draft I read was horrid. I am worried about how the political themes of Watchmen will be adapted. Unlike you, though, I'm not calling Snyder a liar because he did exactly what he said he did, and I'm not denying the existence of direction being taken because it's not the direction I would have taken. I was iffy about Nite Owl and Ozymandias and they certainly aren't how I would have made them, but I can judge them based on what they were trying to achieve and they work in that regard while staying remarkably close to the original designs, all things considered.

But what if he liked most of it, but wasn't so pleased with a couple of things? Would he mention these things? Of course he wouldn't. He wants the fans to be excited, he wants the movie to succeed.

He mentioned Nite Owl plenty of times.

If he did honestly find every. single. thing. incredibly good, more power to him. I just disagree.

See, that's fine. Much better than implying he's a sell out.

In a completely unrelated matter (the process of creation of the original material and how it relates to other works from the same period).

Watchmen was a calaborative effort. They developed the idea together back when they were still going to use the MLJ characters. Given just how close Nite Owl I looks like the first Blue Beetle, Silk Spectre I and II mirror the evolution of the Phantom Lady's costume, and everyone associate Nite Owl II with Batman to some degree it seems much more likely that he intended the costumes to allude to certain familiar costumes at the very least. Further, if the super patriot character decked out in a gimp mask isn't commentary, I don't know what it.

It's not enough to change mine, that's for sure.

Again, that's fine, just don't use Gibbons and hypothetical reenactments to justify your opinion.

 

[Headless Knight]

Here's what I thought when I saw Nite Owl II's costume: Batman. In the comic, I immediately saw a Batman parallel. Everything about it just screamed "this is Batman as a brown owl."

Then I saw the picture for the movie costume. You know what I thought? "Movie Batman." It gave me the exact same feeling that Nite Owl is an analogue of Batman, only this costume paralleled Batman's movie costume.

The whole "the costumes are supposed to look ridiculous" thing just doesn't fly with me. The costumes in that comic looked like typical superhero fair, especially for the Silver Age. What made them so ridiculous was that the characters admitted that they were ridiculous. That's really what I'm expecting from the film. The costumes for this movie look like typical superhero movie fair. Nite Owl in the comic didn't look any more ridiculous than Batman in his own comics, and the Nite Owl in this movie draws the same comparison to Batman in the recent Bat-films.

The key is the awareness. Batman thinks he looks like a badass, walks around like a badass, and thus looks like a badass to us. Nite Owl knows he looks silly, will (hopefully, if this movie is done right) walk around feeling silly, and will thus look silly to movie-going audiences.

We can only hope.

But if you think about it - even those Superhero's are based off of the same Superheroes that Nite Owl, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan are compared to. And just because Moore was going to use "established" characters, it does not mean he was not going to made their characteristics resemble other popular, similar characters. Is it really hard to see someone using a character like Blue Beetle to make an allusion to Batman?

No.

He does have some similarities with Batman.

This assumes that Alan Moore had a raging hard on for Charlton characters.

Lets not discard this possibility just yet.

Is it no possible and possibly even probable that once Alan Moore realized he was not going to use established characters he utilized this new restriction, rather than felt constrained by it? What real motivation did Moore have from basing them off the Charlton characters?

He pretty much utilized it, yes.

Watchmen obviously wouldn't be as good as it is if he used the Charlton characters. They would constrain the story. The only good thing about using them would be the shock of seeing known traditional characters trying to rape and kill each other. But that would only work on people who read Charlton Comics.

Their looks played a far greater use than "well they were Blue Beetle knock offs" - you give Mr. Moore (and to a lesser extent Mr. Gibbons) far too little credit.

Of course they did.

But I still think I'm giving them just the right amount of credit when it comes to the creation process of the costumes. I honestly don't believe Moore and Gibbons discussed their deeper meanings extensively.

The guy whose post you want to frame said "the costumes in that comic looked like typical superhero fair". If that was the goal, what else was there for Moore to say?

How can you not look at Nite Owl II and NOT see a reference to Batman. And, again, Alan Moore is not the type of guy to constrain himself simply because an idea fell through.

Those design similarities were meant.

Ok, so he does have a little of Batman in him. Was it intentional? I don't know. But if you think "owl-themed hero", you can't go much different than that, can you? Most people would think of a cape, because owls have wings. And the pointy feathers on the top of the head, that's a no-brainer. Gibbons probably decided he would put a feathery pattern on the end of the cape, and while doing it he was probably reminded of Batman, but no, I still don't think the suit was created with Batman in mind.

Again - this argument holds no water.

Have you gone to the trouble of looking up something else drawn by Gibbons?

It's not gonna hurt. He's a good artist. Google is god.

Your opinions on Snyder are unfounded and are generally rebutted by almost anything he releases on this movie.

I only have an opinion on Snyder as a director, i.e. he has kind of an adolescent sensibility and is at his best when dealing with scenes that involve monsters.

I don't have an opinion on Snyder as a person, because I've never met him. But I do think that on this particular matter of the costumes he's kinda talking out of his

Lmao. So let me get this straight. Snyder says he's changing the costumes to be a commentary on modern movie costumes.

Yes. But before that he says he is changing them so they look cool.

Then the costumes come out, and they're a commentary on modern movie costumes.

They are? How so?

Then you think he just made that up?

No, I think sometime during the process he convinced himself he was actually doing that.

You're right though. Snyder probably was like "haha!! i'm gonna make the costumes all differenet and make up some crap about being like modern costumes to fool the fans!!! I really just wanna make the costumes different cuz it'll anger fans! it's genius!!!"

Seriously?

Not really. He wanted to make the costumes different so they would look cool.

If he did want to anger the fans, he wouldn't have said anything about any commentary on anything.

I don't think I ever implied anything like that. However, if Snyder already wanted to go the Batman Begins angle I would imagine the art department would have had access to the concept art. They started only a month apart it wouldn't have been hard.

I thought I had already made clear I was not in any way arguing with the possibility that the Watchmen production team could've had access to DK conceptual art or even props and stuff if they wanted.

No, I'm calling you a jackass because you cherry pick the words of all the people involved to fit what you think their motivations are and then hinge your argument on what you imagine to be the motivations of a fictional character, and you can't really back either of those arguments up.

Wow, am I a big meanie or what.

I "cherry pick the words of all the people involved"?

Are you high? I didn't "cherry pick" squat. All I did was quote Snyder once. That's one person, one time.

Snyder said from day one what his intentions were when he was asked.

Yeah, he's not shy about it.

So we know already that the changes were in an attempt to acknowledge the way the superheroes in cinema had changed since 1985. Now what he said later had more finesse but it is the same basic sentiment. Now, a lot of us thought the costumes were already obvious allusions to conventions in superhero movie costumes. People said we had nothing to back it up with and it was just us making excuses. Snyder says his intention was to comment on superheores, and now he's making excuses. You may not like his reasons, but to say that his word is somehow tarnished and that this brings anything he's ever said into question is ridiculous.

Look, in all the crap I said there's really just one line of thought that's worth pursuing:

Snyder wanted to update the costumes to make them more accessible to today's audiences (his words), so he makes them more modern, more on par with what today's audiences think is "cool" in terms of superheroes.

So, he is actively using the modern superhero aesthetic in the exact same way other superhero movies use it. He can't do that and comment on it at the same time. It doesn't make sense.

It looks like the Batman suits because people think the Batman suits are cool and Snyder want these people to see Watchmen.

That's it. There's no commentary.

But Manic made an interesting point: in the movie, the characters are going to acknowledge the silliness of the costumes. That is going to be a commentary ("superhero suits look silly"). But the suit in itself? What is the commentary? "Modern superhero suits look like this"? Gee, thanks.

As far as Nite Owl's motivations, you talk about practicality. When did Dan Dreiberg ever once come off as practical? He built a flying ship, an exo-skeleton, suits to deal with everything from underwater excursions to radiation, and countless other gadgets to take down muggers, drug dealers, and the occasional magician turned bank robber or midget mob boss. He even comments to Laurie how silly the whole thing was and how he should just scrap the junk, but Laurie totally understands why he does it. She calls him a magician, and from everything else we've seen it's obvious why he does it. He liked comics as a boy, he idolized the original Nite Owl (notice how the feather pattern resembles the original Nite Owl's tunic?), and he wants to live out that fantasy. Do I believe somebody like that could spend hours making a detailed costume? Yes. Because countless people on this very forum do just that. Look at the amount of labor some cosplayers put into their costumes.

Look at this man for ****s sake:

Yes, people are crazy. You're totally right on this one.

Because instead of debating the direction they are taking you act as if they are all trying to cover up some big plan to **** up the entire project and you back this up with cherry picked lines from explanations, your own conjecture as to the inner machinations of people you don't know, and petty attacks at the credibility of Snyder and Gibbons.

There I go again with my wacky conspiracies.

Jesus, man. Don't have a cow.

A big plan to **** up the entire project? Where in my posts do I mention anything close to that?

We are basically still talking about A Costume here, right?

I have extreme reservations about this film. I'm not sure if Goode can pull off Ozymandias. As much as I like what I hear from Snyder about how he's approaching this, I'd really like to read the script they shot because the last draft I read was horrid. I am worried about how the political themes of Watchmen will be adapted.

I had script reservations, but the only big problem I had with the last draft I read was the ending, and Snyder already said he's keeping that.

What? I'm believing Snyder now?

Yeah, the thing is, he can't lie about the script because if he does, people will totally call shenanigans when the movie comes out.

Lies about intentions are trickier, however.

Unlike you, though, I'm not calling Snyder a liar because he did exactly what he said he did, and I'm not denying the existence of direction being taken because it's not the direction I would have taken.

I would've probably taken the same direction, seeing as how it will most likely guarantee a bigger audience.

I was iffy about Nite Owl and Ozymandias and they certainly aren't how I would have made them, but I can judge them based on what they were trying to achieve

i.e. looking cool,

and they work in that regard while staying remarkably close to the original designs, all things considered.

Consider this: is Dan's suit going to take too long to get out of before he bangs Laurie on the ship?

He mentioned Nite Owl plenty of times.

I bet he thought he looked cool, huh?

See, that's fine. Much better than implying he's a sell out.

I'm not in any way criticizing him for being a sell-out. Hell, he should get paid. He deserves it more than anyone (considering Moore is a big grumpy old man who doesn't need the money anyway and thus can indulge the luxury of not wanting it).

Watchmen was a calaborative effort. They developed the idea together back when they were still going to use the MLJ characters. Given just how close Nite Owl I looks like the first Blue Beetle, Silk Spectre I and II mirror the evolution of the Phantom Lady's costume, and everyone associate Nite Owl II with Batman to some degree it seems much more likely that he intended the costumes to allude to certain familiar costumes at the very least. Further, if the super patriot character decked out in a gimp mask isn't commentary, I don't know what it.

Uh... yes (?)

When did I disagree with any of this?

Again, that's fine, just don't use Gibbons and hypothetical reenactments to justify your opinion.

Then what should I do when my opinion is that these hypothetical reenactments are more or less what really happened?

Are we not allowed to do hypothetical reenactments anymore? What happened to the First Amendment? Why are you taking away my freedoms? Why are you cherry picking my words to make me look like a villain with petty attacks at my credibility while ****ing MY ENTIRE LIFE.

 

[The Battousai]

Are you arguing simply to argue? It's starting to become the make-up thread in the TDK forum...

 

[The Guard]

What is Snyder saying? What is the "comment"? What exactly is he saying about modern superhero costumes? What Moore was saying about superhero costumes was that they look silly and it takes a certain kind of person to wear them. Is that what Snyder is saying? Ok, but didn't he make them that way because he wanted the characters to look cool?

He seems to be aware that the very nature of the superhero costume has some naievete to it. And that a certain degree of "silly and overdone" has become somewhat "cool", as in the past, another version of "silly" was "cool".

People (at least moderately smart people) would get it, if they saw the movie.

That's a pretty big assumption.

What are these elements from the Daredevil and Spider-Man suits? I honestly don't see them.

The strike points on the gloves hail from the Daredevil, and now the Dark Knight suits. The Daredevil costume was, I believe, the first to have a zipper on the chestpiece. And you know that "texture" the movie Spider-Man suit had? Look at Dan's costume. The Spider-Man movies were the first to use that approach (then SUPERMAN RETURNS did so).

Obviously the suit isn't going to "resemble" any actual superhero movie costumes, but the elements on it certainly do.

And "generic color scheme" is embedded on superhero culture since 1938. There's nothing modern about it.

I never said it was modern. That doesn't change the fact that it serves as a bit of commentary on superhero designs in general.

I guess what I'm saying is "Nite Owl's movie suit is too overdone and cool-looking, and I would prefer if it were a little more plain and silly."

I believe that's not a preposterous statement.

I mean, even if you don't agree with me, you can see where I'm coming from.

Right?

Sure. Although I think this design is plenty "silly".

On the book. I think it's established he made everything by himself. He's a lone inventor. I don't think employees are mentioned at any point.

I don't think the book ever deals with how he makes his stuff. The fact that the book doesn't mention him farming out any of his work doesn't mean that he didn't.

I bet you wouldn't say that if you ran into him in a dark alley.

Depends. His costume would still look ridiculous.

Mostly, but come on, you're not giving Dan enough credit. When he hears about Hollis and looses his cool the guy begs for his life.

No one begs for their life. And the fellow is probably scared because Dan is choking him and going berserk. Their costumes still don't appear all that menacing. Where did this idea that "Nite Owl" is menacing come from?

Yeah... as I mentioned. What's your point?

My point is that they don't look menacing.

In that world, if you are a criminal and you see a person with a costume coming at your direction, it usually means trouble.

Maybe. But their appearance is another matter entirely.

My point is, apart from Hollis, most vigilantes took things other than movement into consideration, one of those things being intimidation, which was a big part of their business.

They still don't look intimidating.

It looks like Dan would have a very hard time touching his toes, even if he was in perfect shape.

What are you basing this on? And why in god's name would he need to touch his toes?

I can see him paying someone to build internal generic parts of Archie or something, but do you honestly see a tailor calling him and going "Your Halloween owl-costume is ready, Mr. Dreiberg, when can you come and get it?"

Use your imagination. It need not be the neighborhood tailor.

The fetishization of Laurie's costume has nothing to do with anything "modern". Superheroine costumes were fetishized since the first time Wonder Woman got tied up on a rocket or something.

It doesn't matter. Look at Laurie's costume. Think that isn't saying something about the costumes of female superheroes?

Heh. Tied up on a rocket. Gotta love symbolism.

I guess you could say it was partly inspired by the modern superhero look.

Or maybe it uses the modern superhero look in exactly the same way as other modern superhero movies without saying anything relevant about it?

It's just that sculpted rubber looks better in movies.

Perhaps. But isn't using it...in itself something of a commentary on the modern superhero movie design?

What is the nature of modern superhero suits and what is Ozymandia's suit saying about it.

Look at the thing. It's a darkened version of his comic book suit, and sculpted rubber armor.

So we know already that the changes were in an attempt to acknowledge the way the superheroes in cinema had changed since 1985. Now what he said later had more finesse but it is the same basic sentiment. Now, a lot of us thought the costumes were already obvious allusions to conventions in superhero movie costumes. People said we had nothing to back it up with and it was just us making excuses. Snyder says his intention was to comment on superheores, and now he's making excuses. You may not like his reasons, but to say that his word is somehow tarnished and that this brings anything he's ever said into question is ridiculous.

Agreed.

As far as Nite Owl's motivations, you talk about practicality. When did Dan Dreiberg ever once come off as practical? He built a flying ship, an exo-skeleton, suits to deal with everything from underwater excursions to radiation, and countless other gadgets.

Exactly.

Ok, so he does have a little of Batman in him. Was it intentional? I don't know. But if you think "owl-themed hero", you can't go much different than that, can you? Most people would think of a cape, because owls have wings. And the pointy feathers on the top of the head, that's a no-brainer. Gibbons probably decided he would put a feathery pattern on the end of the cape, and while doing it he was probably reminded of Batman, but no, I still don't think the suit was created with Batman in mind.

It's clear that both the suit and Nite Owl himself are similar to Batman. He has elements of Bruce Wayne, with a little bit of "Clark Kent" thrown into Dan's personality to mirror that secret identity.

-Noctural animal theme.
-Parents killed by a mugger.
-Wealthy.
-Utlity belt, complete with gadgets.
-"Themed" vehicles.
-Subterranean lair, complete with supercomputer
-Multiple costumes for different conditions (a nod to the Golden Age Batman if ever there was one).

Snyder wanted to update the costumes to make them more accessible to today's audiences (his words), so he makes them more modern, more on par with what today's audiences think is "cool" in terms of superheroes.

So, he is actively using the modern superhero aesthetic in the exact same way other superhero movies use it. He can't do that and comment on it at the same time. It doesn't make sense.

Why not?

How can you comment on something if you don't utilize it?

If there was a commentary on superhero costumes of the time in WATCHMEN, Moore certainly did so by using the exact same or very similar concepts. So why can't Snyder make a commentary on superhero outfits in the same vein now?

It's not like the crew of WATCHMEN just stuck all the heroes in black rubber. They put Veidt in a darker, rubber version of his comic book suit. They put Nite Owl in something that takes elements from the Spider-Man, Daredevil and Batman costumes. They armored up The Comedian more than he generally is. And Laurie's in a "revealing" modern female superhero outfit.

No one said the "commentary" was a brilliant concept. Just that it exists on some level.

Consider this: is Dan's suit going to take too long to get out of before he bangs Laurie on the ship?

No, because he has zippers and so forth all over it.

 

[Freakjokerxxx]

I really like the designs. I want a photo of Dr.Manhattan the most tho.

 

[Artistsean]

I made these to halp compare and contrast the movie costume to the original comic costumes. It was hard to find full body shots though, so I hope this works for you guys.

 

[Closerframe]

They all look fine to me, I love how fans always complain about how a costume looks in a superhero film. They always say why didn't stick more to the comic. If that was the case Batman would still be in spandex wearing a little yellow belt and a blue and gray costume. This is Synder's movie not a fan made video on Youtube.

 

[Wolfman]

Nite Owl would look cooler with the headcape and round goggles, dammit. What we are getting is wrong.

 

[Rust]

Hold dog kæft!

 

[Prefix]

 

[Mercurius]

Nite Owl would look cooler with the headcape and round goggles, dammit. What we are getting is wrong.

In fact, Nite Owl is looking much cooler than his comic book counterpart.

If I would complain of his features (and yes I did) it would be that he doesn't look as awkward as he should.

His character is about a superhero in midlife crisis, paunchy and almost impotent. And how and why he discovers his strenght back again, only to feel shattered with the possibility that it may be too late (not to say out of his league) to solve the dilemma.

Those who read the book know how this whole thing ends.

Bur let's see how it works on a trailer and then make up our minds.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I made these to halp compare and contrast the movie costume to the original comic costumes. It was hard to find full body shots though, so I hope this works for you guys.

i'm not sure what more fanboys can ask for. these are amazing, and as close to the comics as you can get without looking like a halloween party.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Didn't I make a thread for this a long time ago?
Whatever.

Nite-Owls alternate costume (for those like me who are gung-ho about the costumes looking ridiculous):
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t73/pig_****/owl.jpg

 

[Noir]

you probably did. like 10 other costume threads popped up so they got merged with the rate the costumes for an all encompassing thread.

 

[Storm22]

Nite Owl would look cooler with the headcape and round goggles, dammit. What we are getting is wrong.

He'd look stupid with the head cape imo! The movie costume looks alot better.

 

[The Guard]

I don't see why people want Nite Owl to look "cool". Nor do I think that he does. He just looks more modern than he does in the book.