Has Batman hurt the genre where costumes are concerned?

[Chris Wallace]

Nevertheless, regardless of the material, it's the integrity of the design that's important. And that should be maintained whenever possible.

 

[The Question]

Nevertheless, regardless of the material, it's the integrity of the design that's important. And that should be maintained whenever possible.

I guess. Honestly, there's nothing inherently wrong with a redesign if it still looks good, although I will admit that in most cases where they changed the costume a lot, I would have preferred something closer to the original. However, most of the cases where I disliked the change were cases where the change made less sense than something truer to the original (Nite-Owl's movie costume couldn't have existed in the late 60s). I think it largely depends on how good/iconic the original design was. Bullseye and Elektra's outfits, for example, didn't bother me one way or the other

 

[jmc]

Another way to look at things is to simply accept a character can have more than one iconic design, a Film/TV design and a comic book design, both being equally valid a representation of the character granted they share similar characteristics and/or design elements. If Batman has done anything in regards to costume it's proven that you can have more than one iconic look for a character across different mediums.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I guess. Honestly, there's nothing inherently wrong with a redesign if it still looks good, although I will admit that in most cases where they changed the costume a lot, I would have preferred something closer to the original. However, most of the cases where I disliked the change were cases where the change made less sense than something truer to the original (Nite-Owl's movie costume couldn't have existed in the late 60s). I think it largely depends on how good/iconic the original design was. Bullseye and Elektra's outfits, for example, didn't bother me one way or the other

No, there IS nothing wrong if it still ooks good. But I think we're accepting more change than necessary. Did the Dark Knight costume TRULY look good? I think they went overboard for the sake of neck mobility & the suit looked robotic. Moreso than the much-maligned Green Goblin suit.

 

[El Payaso]

No, there IS nothing wrong if it still ooks good. But I think we're accepting more change than necessary. Did the Dark Knight costume TRULY look good? I think they went overboard for the sake of neck mobility & the suit looked robotic. Moreso than the much-maligned Green Goblin suit.

Which wasn't even noticeable btw.

 

[Figs]

Which wasn't even noticeable btw.

Hahaha!

Seriously! Just watch the scene near the end when his sonar vision goes out and he's somewhat frantically looking left to right, he still moves his entire upper frame instead of just his neck.

 

[El Payaso]

Hahaha!

Seriously! Just watch the scene near the end when his sonar vision goes out and he's somewhat frantically looking left to right, he still moves his entire upper frame instead of just his neck.

Yeah, I still recent the Luicius Fox's neck mobility joke!

 

[Chris Wallace]

Which wasn't even noticeable btw.

No, not really. I have to agree. Which makes it a waste.

 

[cerealkiller182]

DD, Elektra, Bullseye, Watchmen, Spawn, GG2, Ock, Steel, JSA (on Smallville), Punisher (War Zone)

DD- not spandex but still very accurate design.

Elecktra and Bullseye- not accurate but no evidence that it is Batman's fault.

Watchmen- Very accurate except for the changes made to Ozy and Nite-Owl which were made specifically to reflect the Batman movies just like the source material reflects the comic industry.

Spawn- For what little I read, I recall him always referring to it as "armor"

GG2- The whole movie was a mess. There was very little logic put into anuything GG2 did.

Ock- Uses plain clothes but no evidence Batman is too blame.

Steel- I remember them dropping the Superman elements only which was reasonable. And than of course the exposed mouth which was just easier than the human face on metal.

JSA- Looked reasonably accurate in previews. Im thinking a lot could be chalked up to television budget and qualty

Punisher - Seemed pretty accurate. Not all variations dressed in spandex.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I'm not going to reiterate all the examples of comic accurate costumes used since Batman, as the other posters have pretty much covered all of them.

The point is, it's all a case by case basis.

And I don't think you can tie any of them directly to Batman.

Armored or not, Batman had a definite "costume". So did his villains. The Burton/Schumacher movies are the last place to look for realism/anti-costume sentiment, heh.

In almost every instance, "costumes" were revoked because, for whatever reason, the particular filmmaker deemed it unnecessary or illogical for the character.

Case in point: Sam Raimi. Obviously, he's not anti-costume. Spider-Man has a nearly flawlessly comic-accurate costume. Why does he have a costume? Because he's a young man looking to make an impact on New York's criminals and citizens, to strike a vivid image. The Goblin, on the other hand, does not have a "costume" in the traditional, or comic-accurate sense. Why? Because it's not natural to the story at hand. Or at least, Raimi didn't believe it was (let's not get into whether or not we agree with this decision here; for now I'm talking intent, not quality). Repeat Ock. Repeat New Goblin. None of these characters, unlike Spider-Man, had the intent of making a statement. They're utilitarian.

Same with Elektra. Same with Bullseye. Not with Daredevil though, who again, has a specifically designed "costume" for a purpose. To look like a devil.

Same with the X-Men. Singer's rational had nothing to do with Batman. It was all about the internal logic of the world he created. The X-Men are a covert group made of outcasts; there is literally no logical reason for them to wear colorful spandex, except to specifically placate fans. There was no reason for Wolverine to wear a mask, because, as Singer says, he's not hiding his identity from anyone. The only reason to include would be because of the comics precedent, and the fact that it looks cool. (Again, we can argue with whether or not we think this was a good decision, but that's the reason WHY the decision was made).

And why didn't Magneto wear it? Because Ian McKellan is really old, haha. Simple as that. He couldn't wear a muscle suit, it'd look ridiculous. And for what it was, his suit turned out to be very respectably accurate, despite this.

Next, the FF. You said it yourself, the FF themselves have their straight-up spandex suits. Because it's explained within the internal logic of the film, and it makes sense. Why does Doom look like crap? Because the movie is crap, and they screwed up Doom from the ground up. The costume is the least of his problems.

Finally, the new Batman movies. COULD Bruce wear a suit that was a more Spider-Man-like material and yet still be explained by Lucius as some sort of space age material? Sure. And by all accounts (from Begins pre-production reports), they dabbled in that. But for whatever reason (we can't say for sure, we've never seen the tests), Nolan decided the armored look looked better. And ultimately, it's his call to make, being...you know, the director. Scarecrow? Didn't make sense for him to wear a straw-filled costume. He's a doctor, doing illegal experiments on the sneak. He has a mask because its easy to hide in his briefcase. Two-Face? He's a deranged man on a revenge run, who doesn't have time to go to a tailor to have a two-tone suit made, and probably wouldn't be interested in making such a fashion statement anyway. Joker? He's a loud, outrageous personality, so he does get a "costume". That's my point. It's not a blanket decision. The characters for whom it makes sense get a costume. Those that it doesn't, don't.

And the whole black thing? That predates Batman. Watch Trial of the Incredible Hulk and you'll find a black-clad Daredevil. Not saying that it goes back specifically to Daredevil, just that it's a trope. A standard black is just considered more dramatic and less silly than the colors of a comic book costume. Is that right? Is it fair? That's for you to decide.

It's also all about iconography. Don't screw up the basics, and I think we've seen that most of these filmmakers, even the most inept ones, realize this. Audiences embraced a black-clad Batman, because they recognized that Batman is a dark character. Even though he's always been seen in gray and black/blue, the black just worked. That, coupled with the Bat-necessities (ears, gauntlets, cape) formed a recognizably iconic Batman. Had Superman been in black, audiences would've likely rejected it, recognizing that it's betraying his essential iconography. And that's why you see that the biggest change was for the X-Men, who had, arguably, the least familiar iconography. Audiences accepted the leather costumes because their comic costumes were not as ingrained as Superman's or Spider-Man's. The most iconic elements ( Wolverine's claws, Cyke's visor, Prof's bald head) remained.

Really, when you get down to it, most of these movies have been remarkably faithful, all things considered. I think we've been relatively lucky (I hope I'm not sounding like a dog picking up scraps, heh).

 

[afan]

30 years ago, we had absolutely no problem whatsoever going to see a movie whose lead character was dressed head-to-toe in colorful spandex. Fast forward to 1989, we see for the first time a Dark Knight type Batman-one whose battle gear, while based on the garb he sports in the comics-is radically changed. The filmmakers deem his grey tights "silly & unrealistic". And we, the fans, buy into this for the most part. But now so many movies & TV shows are taking such drastic liberties & taking characters' looks further and further away from their pulp counterparts. We, the fans, debate these decisions relentlessly-some of us defend it, others are totally against it. But if not for Batman's black rubber, would we all eagerly run to see the colorfully clad characters without any regard for how "silly" they looked?

See I blame the casting of Keaton, which was a result of Burton as director. His lack of any physical stature whatsoever demanded the exclusion of "tights", and unfortunately gave inspiration to the parade of rubber enhanced costumes that followed for many heroes.

 

[Eggyman]

And some bad ones.
And while the examples that you listed are true for the most part, (the radical revamp of Nite-Owl notwithstanding) fans are still to this day up in arms over how the filmmakers dressed Doom, the Green Goblin, the "New Goblin", Elektra (the first time we saw her) and even Venom. And then we look at the extent to which they have now taken Batman. The price for his improved mobility is a suit that looks more mechanical than anything he's ever put on. I'm glad there was no comic adaptation because this thing is an absolute nightmare to draw.
I'd also like to touch on Superman for a minute-particularly the Routh suit; I hate this costume with a passion. The muted color scheme and shrunken symbol, in my eyes, convey a sense of embarrassment. Like they're trying to make him look les noticeable when Superman is supposed to be as ostentacious as they come. What were they going for here? Is this the "new & improved" Superman? And will there be more like this to come?
Again, I agree that it's a case-by-case basis. I sure as HELL wouldn't want to see Ian McKellan's old ass in red tights & purple trunks. I just don't want to come to a point where they start approaching movies the way they did "Wanted"-throw out the costumes & everything else signifying "comic book".

1-BP wasn't exactly who I was talking about, but seeing what he wore in Ultimate Avengers 2 does have me a little worried.
And it's mainly the heroes' looks that I'm talking about, whereas you're citing villains & supporting characters-from a movie which, I hasten to point out, had no problem showcasing its hero in tights. When you think about it, in the Burton/Schumacher films, the villains' costumes were overall more faithful in terms of design than Batman's.
And I agree that it's premature to dismiss the idea of tights altogether. It's more than likely too late for Batman & probably for the best where the X-Men are concerned, but there's still hope for the heroes yet to come, I think.

Make you mind up, sunshine.

 

[Chris Wallace]

My mind IS made up. I'm concerned that the more change & compromise we accept-on the HEROES' side of things-the more change & compromise we can expect.

 

[jmc]

The more important aspect is the character portrayal, the costume is secondary. I'd much rather have a Superman film that portrays a faithful adaptation of the character than one that worries about the aesthetics first and foremost. That's not to say the filmmakers should be given licence to make said character look however they feel, but as long as there is some similarity in design to the comic counterpart of the character, and the characterisation is faithful, really there shouldn't be much to complain about.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I agree, but as I have not personally seen a costume I hated and ended up enjoying the film, I can't discount that there is a relationship between how the filmmakers view the character and how they view the character. If you can't see anything wrong with dressing your hero like this

or this

or this

should we really be surprised that the movie itself is terrible?
And even if they do get everything else right, I don't want to look at a crappy costume for 2 hours.

 

[jmc]

It's all subjective in the end. Personally with the exception of one of two costumes most comic costume adaptations I've got no problem, especially with the trend now of having justification within the film for the costumes.

 

[BlackLantern]

I agree...I understand some people want a full on blue and gold x-men, but bright yellow looks like total ass on film

I think the DD costume is one of the best translations

 

[El Payaso]

I agree, but as I have not personally seen a costume I hated and ended up enjoying the film, I can't discount that there is a relationship between how the filmmakers view the character and how they view the character. If you can't see anything wrong with dressing your hero like this

or this

or this

should we really be surprised that the movie itself is terrible?
And even if they do get everything else right, I don't want to look at a crappy costume for 2 hours.

Well, TDK's bat.-suit was horrid yet the movie was fanatstic.

 

[The Question]

No, there IS nothing wrong if it still ooks good. But I think we're accepting more change than necessary. Did the Dark Knight costume TRULY look good? I think they went overboard for the sake of neck mobility & the suit looked robotic. Moreso than the much-maligned Green Goblin suit.

I thought TDK's suit was fine. Are there alterations they could have made to make it more comics accurate? Yes. They could have covered the armor in some kind of fabric, for starters, but all in all I personally wasn't bothered by it. You couldn't really see the details of it in most scenes anyway because of the dark lighting.

 

[BlackLantern]

I have no issues with the TDK outfit, I think we will see what most fans will consider an "ideal" costume some time down the road

 

[The Question]

See I blame the casting of Keaton, which was a result of Burton as director. His lack of any physical stature whatsoever demanded the exclusion of "tights", and unfortunately gave inspiration to the parade of rubber enhanced costumes that followed for many heroes.

I honestly think that tights just don't make sense for Batman period. They offer no protection whatsoever, not from impact or bullets or even simple things like temperature or the elements, and they get incredibly uncomfortable when wet. Leather and body armor make sense of Batman. You just have to design it properly.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I just felt the TDK suit was overly segmented. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either.

 

[The Question]

I just felt the TDK suit was overly segmented. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either.

The segmented-ness of it made sense in universe. They could have done things to hide it, though.

 

[Chris Wallace]

That's what I mean. They SHOULD have done things to hide it.

 

[jmc]

Within the context of TDK though the armoured/segmented is not just about the functionality, the aesthetics do invoke a medieval armour feel to it which makes perfect sense given the title for the film was The Dark Knight. And I think that's what Nolan wanted to invoke, that urban knight look, having those segmented pieces covered with some other cloth or whatever would lose that effect. It wasn't just done with the thinking 'let's make this look cool to sell toys', look to Batman and Robin for that kind of thinking.