rainingcrow
Civilian
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
This keeps popping up time and time again. An adaptation gets made and inevitably the costume wars proceed.
batman comes up almost immediately on both sides of the argument. the spandex suit vs the rubber suit vs the armor suit etc. Some people want blue in the suit, some want a gray suit, some like the all black.
I wanna start with the color issue for Batman specifically. No doubt lots of you have seen cartoons and read comics hopefully.
Yes when you look at the suit in some illustrations, its blue.
That does not mean the suit is blue. I know I just lost some of you there, let me explain the way my art professor would have.
"cool colors (meaning those with a primary base of blue) are used for shadow"
it doesn't mean shadows are blue, or purple or green etc... it just means that aesthetically those colors translate as lowlight objects when used properly. In much the same way that a spotlighted building at night might be colored yellow or orange, a shadowy figure may be colored in blues. gray and black, can be blue. just like the blue streaks in supes hair, or the blue streaks in WW's hair as well...
granted that some artists took extreme liberty with this practice and eventually turned his costume into a questionable amalgam of colorful delights (yes sarcasm, how new)... The basics of this is that his costume is dark, drab, dull, and blends with shadows. It was designed that way. So that's my 2 cents to the costume color police that have those types of arguments.
I'm not saying color doesn't matter, because it very much does. I expect loyalty to color in costume interpretations. Green lantern must have a green costume, superman wears blue and red with some yellow tossed in etc... But for the people arguing for literal translation of illustrations done in ink back in the days of a limited color printing palette... please consider thinking before crying out to the world that your fave character has been butchered. Art has context.
Ok I just had to get that out.
Next would be the armor issue. I'm outspoken on this one. I say that if the character is not superpowered, invulnerable, or otherwise just extremeley tough... armor would be up to what makes sense. If the character has the resources and will, to make it but its never explicitly mentioned... I figure they're just smart enough to have it under the costume. because lets face it... if they have a secret identity, the costume was 9 times out of ten...homemade.
Each character is different and works with what seems appropriate. If the movies explanation doesn't directly counter the source material... some leeway is expected... If the green lantern doesnt wear spandex in the movie... that seems fine to me, his outfit is alien in origin the book never calls it spandex. It just happens to be form fitting in appearance. Personally I'd rather it look like an interstellar flight suit than the outfit of a boxer from the 30's
The next argument I always hear is about updating... sometimes no one argues it because it just kicks that much ass or is worked straight into the story (IRON MAN)... Other times when a costume gets updated to fit with a modern take (green arrow) some people have a fit...
The litmus test of this for me is one question... Is the character still instantly recognizable as who they are supposed to be?
If the answer is yes, then its nothing new. Every time a new artist takes over something is going to change. Whether it be the font of a symbol, the size of a jaw or the tread they draw on the shoes it happens. Translating from paper to film this is expected to some extent. But if the character still looks like themselves and you don't have to ask who it is... then the iconic bits are obviously prevalent enough that you saw them.
If the answer is no however... then yes someone should be fired.
I'm sick of hearing about how supes sheild was to small, or we didn't like that it was 3d etc... Dude it still looked like superman, he still looked all whatever, and they even kept his ******ed boxing undies part on him, shut up about it. You didn't make the movie and none of it countered the comics (costume wise anyway). If I had done that thing the undies would have been the first thing to go, and his boots wouldn't have little shields on the tread. which was every bit as campy as the bat tread on the tires in batman and robin. Heroes are supposed to iconic, not gimmicky.
The bad side of updating is what they decided to do to x-men... sure they became recognizable as a team, but all of them pretty much lost their identities in the process. So much so that there was debate over who certain characters were in the third movie. "well she has this like so and so, but their powers are different so it cant be" Seriously wtf???
Anyway what got all of this started for me today? what set me onto this topic...
legacy characters.
We can all name a few characters that took over the mantle from previous incarnations.
the flash, the second flash, impulse etc... the costumes changed because the people that wore them were different. Makes sense
green lantern... each one looks a little different and that's with an actual uniform guideline for them to follow
batman, batman beyond... different guy, different time, same basic idea, but a necessary change for the character to individualize.
... now there is a movie that is fast approaching its US air date which is getting never ending flack for costume deviation...
A movie with a new and original legacy character, not seen before in the comics. No continuity is being changed or disrupted. The original costume is even present in the film...
To me its like putting the batman beyond batman into Bruce's batsuit... Or hal jordan into alan scotts... Or even superboy into supermans, But apparently most fans are unhappy that the new guy isnt going to be wearing the old outfit.
he's keeping the symbol, colors, weapons, and training under the same standards... but making his own costume with every resource he has available. He has no superpowers and no experience... so the new costume is armored.
I have looked over the entirety of the costume so many times now... and it makes complete sense to me. Every component having a purpose. But the complaint seems to be inevitably persistent.
So lets have some serious rational and mature discussions here
lets talk about costumes, positive and negative.
batman comes up almost immediately on both sides of the argument. the spandex suit vs the rubber suit vs the armor suit etc. Some people want blue in the suit, some want a gray suit, some like the all black.
I wanna start with the color issue for Batman specifically. No doubt lots of you have seen cartoons and read comics hopefully.
Yes when you look at the suit in some illustrations, its blue.
That does not mean the suit is blue. I know I just lost some of you there, let me explain the way my art professor would have.
"cool colors (meaning those with a primary base of blue) are used for shadow"
it doesn't mean shadows are blue, or purple or green etc... it just means that aesthetically those colors translate as lowlight objects when used properly. In much the same way that a spotlighted building at night might be colored yellow or orange, a shadowy figure may be colored in blues. gray and black, can be blue. just like the blue streaks in supes hair, or the blue streaks in WW's hair as well...
granted that some artists took extreme liberty with this practice and eventually turned his costume into a questionable amalgam of colorful delights (yes sarcasm, how new)... The basics of this is that his costume is dark, drab, dull, and blends with shadows. It was designed that way. So that's my 2 cents to the costume color police that have those types of arguments.
I'm not saying color doesn't matter, because it very much does. I expect loyalty to color in costume interpretations. Green lantern must have a green costume, superman wears blue and red with some yellow tossed in etc... But for the people arguing for literal translation of illustrations done in ink back in the days of a limited color printing palette... please consider thinking before crying out to the world that your fave character has been butchered. Art has context.
Ok I just had to get that out.
Next would be the armor issue. I'm outspoken on this one. I say that if the character is not superpowered, invulnerable, or otherwise just extremeley tough... armor would be up to what makes sense. If the character has the resources and will, to make it but its never explicitly mentioned... I figure they're just smart enough to have it under the costume. because lets face it... if they have a secret identity, the costume was 9 times out of ten...homemade.
Each character is different and works with what seems appropriate. If the movies explanation doesn't directly counter the source material... some leeway is expected... If the green lantern doesnt wear spandex in the movie... that seems fine to me, his outfit is alien in origin the book never calls it spandex. It just happens to be form fitting in appearance. Personally I'd rather it look like an interstellar flight suit than the outfit of a boxer from the 30's
The next argument I always hear is about updating... sometimes no one argues it because it just kicks that much ass or is worked straight into the story (IRON MAN)... Other times when a costume gets updated to fit with a modern take (green arrow) some people have a fit...
The litmus test of this for me is one question... Is the character still instantly recognizable as who they are supposed to be?
If the answer is yes, then its nothing new. Every time a new artist takes over something is going to change. Whether it be the font of a symbol, the size of a jaw or the tread they draw on the shoes it happens. Translating from paper to film this is expected to some extent. But if the character still looks like themselves and you don't have to ask who it is... then the iconic bits are obviously prevalent enough that you saw them.
If the answer is no however... then yes someone should be fired.
I'm sick of hearing about how supes sheild was to small, or we didn't like that it was 3d etc... Dude it still looked like superman, he still looked all whatever, and they even kept his ******ed boxing undies part on him, shut up about it. You didn't make the movie and none of it countered the comics (costume wise anyway). If I had done that thing the undies would have been the first thing to go, and his boots wouldn't have little shields on the tread. which was every bit as campy as the bat tread on the tires in batman and robin. Heroes are supposed to iconic, not gimmicky.
The bad side of updating is what they decided to do to x-men... sure they became recognizable as a team, but all of them pretty much lost their identities in the process. So much so that there was debate over who certain characters were in the third movie. "well she has this like so and so, but their powers are different so it cant be" Seriously wtf???
Anyway what got all of this started for me today? what set me onto this topic...
legacy characters.
We can all name a few characters that took over the mantle from previous incarnations.
the flash, the second flash, impulse etc... the costumes changed because the people that wore them were different. Makes sense
green lantern... each one looks a little different and that's with an actual uniform guideline for them to follow
batman, batman beyond... different guy, different time, same basic idea, but a necessary change for the character to individualize.
... now there is a movie that is fast approaching its US air date which is getting never ending flack for costume deviation...
A movie with a new and original legacy character, not seen before in the comics. No continuity is being changed or disrupted. The original costume is even present in the film...
To me its like putting the batman beyond batman into Bruce's batsuit... Or hal jordan into alan scotts... Or even superboy into supermans, But apparently most fans are unhappy that the new guy isnt going to be wearing the old outfit.
he's keeping the symbol, colors, weapons, and training under the same standards... but making his own costume with every resource he has available. He has no superpowers and no experience... so the new costume is armored.
I have looked over the entirety of the costume so many times now... and it makes complete sense to me. Every component having a purpose. But the complaint seems to be inevitably persistent.
So lets have some serious rational and mature discussions here
lets talk about costumes, positive and negative.
