Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm not familiar with the Falcon's outfits. The Marvel movies have played pretty fast and loose with the superhero costumes, though, haven't they? A literal adaptation of Rocket Raccoon to the big screen from comics doesn't mean that all adaptations should be or could be literal.

 

Besides, the red outfit would look cheesy. In fact, all comic superhero outfits look cheesy. Even Superman's. But that's just me - I don't like comics, and don't think the original look from the comics needs to be replicated in a different medium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, my point is that Big Bang Theory sucks and should go die.

My utter disdain for Alex Ross makes agree. That said, I'm not a fan over every superhero post Matrix having the same outfit. Check out Mass Effect cosplayers, motorcross gear, and any live action Jap

That's fair, that you have a level of cheese that comics over reach.

 

However at what point does an adaptation of a comic stop being that if element after element of what made it a property to be adapted is thrown away?

 

If someone adapts Sense & Sensibility and then sets it in Germany, then decides it's about Mr. Darcy and not the Dashwood Sisters then is it really Sense & Sensibility?

 

Comic Book Movies are;

 

Dropping the colors (because colors don't work irl?!)

 

Dropping the tone (because no one could possibly enjoy being superhuman?!)

 

Dropping names, mixing characters, reimagining characters, gender bending characters (because no one can possibly relate to someone else if they aren't just like them?!)

 

Dropping the messages, morals and meanings (because explosions just are that cool and or do we actually want people not to care about life? We want one person to rise up and decide might equals right, that the judge the jury and executioners should be one?!)

 

At what point does Superman slip into being a villain instead of a hero?

 

This is the slope Hollywood sits on when they start insisting DareDevil should just be a guy in jeans, that the color red is cheesy. That for some reason Jimmy Olsen is a better character as a girl. It's cooler if Optimus Prime just murders all his enemies.

 

I think it all comes down to a lack of respect for the creativity and stories told by very talented people in this medium. Any fan of literature, even if they can't get into comic books, should feel something when such disregard is shown to these works of art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comic books and movies are two different media. I could complain that comic books don't move enough and have no sound tracks, therefore are less immersive and compelling. But I don't, because comparing across media is not fair. It's apples and oranges.

 

Bright colors work on a comic's page, but not so well in movies. Who dresses in bright primary colors on a daily basis (without being an object of ridicule)? Movies of late are simply trying to hew more closely to reality, and in a story that is closer to (but not exactly) reality, most superheroes wouldn't have the means or motive to maintain a bright spandex "super-suit" as their costume. Can you imagine the athlete's foot that would develop when sweating in a body-sock while fighting super-criminals? Spidey would be laid up for a week recovering after each battle from the crotch-rot alone!

 

What's so great about being superhuman? it's a weighty responsibility, causes isolation from others, and I don't think I'd trust someone who didn't feel a little bit of anxiety when they have that much power at their disposal. Those kinds of people would end up as villains - the Red Skull, the Green Goblin, etc, really enjoyed their superpowers, but didn't care about the human part of being superhuman.

 

Given the change in story-telling medium, naturally different elements of the story have to be emphasized. Hulk was a great translation of a comic to film, but it was too good a translation. Few people want a literal comic book on the screen, where most of the story is still imagery or multiple overlapping panes. The only reason to change a story's medium is to use the strengths of the new medium. There's a reason Ang Lee's Hulk got a soft-reboot. The idea was sound, the execution was wrong.

 

I think gender-swapping is an interesting way to explore the heart of a character - what is it about Superman/Batman/Spider-man that makes them who they are? Their genitals? Hardly! Though I think in Man of Steel that Jenny was not intended to be Jimmy Olsen, but a different character altogether.

 

I'm a fan of the Dune series of books (the works of Frank Herbert only - I've not read the extensions of the canon by KJA and Brian Herbert) - but most of the time the story doesn't translate well to the screen. That's just due to the nature of the story, though. Dune on screen isn't necessarily bad, just not complete compared to the novels. Making a movie of Dune isn't disrespectful of the novel, though, no matter how poorly executed. Who would take the time to make a movie of a story they didn't like? What kind of unbalanced personality would put the time and effort into filming a story they disrespected? I'm sure Nolan absolutely hated Batman, which is why he devoted years of work to make those three movies. Even if it were done out of hate rather than love, the translation doesn't destroy the original.

 

In sum, comic book movies are movies not comic books. Appreciate them for what they are, rather than hate them for what they're not, were never intended to be and simply can't be - comic books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since genitals, of course, do not make a hero (unless it's Orgazmo, I suppose) then how does giving Superman a vagina allow you to explore his character more?

 

If you don't see people wearing colors in real life and you would expect color wearing people to be ridiculed, you may have some sort of problem.

 

As for costumes, you're telling me you've never heard of washing machines? Or showers? You're telling me you've never seen any sort of sporting event? Are you telling me that spandex is fictional? Maybe I do live in a fantasy world because I could swear Under Armour was a multi-million dollar company.

 

If you could fly, or leap a tall building, stop a locomotive with your bare hands, you're telling me you wouldn't grin? Oh wait. You must be implying that the weight of the world, the responsibility to make life better, to help others is so great that it's utterly depressing? This must be why I've never once seen a police officer or a doctor or a politician smile. No one takes pride or joy in their ability to make a difference. Crucified Jesus Complexes all of them. My bad.

 

One does not need to dislike something to have been disrepesctful to it. It would appear that Nolan and Bale like Batman. I have never disputed whether they like Batman, nor could I and nor would I want to. They have however talked about how they do not like Robin. Which is apparent in how they treated the premise of a sidekick in the Nolanverse. Well except for when they realized they needed a Robin, so they stubbornly fabricated a character to fill that established role instead of just dipping into the well of lore which is more than 70 years deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... you may have some sort of problem.

I have 7 billion problems. Eh, maybe only 6 billion.

 

As for costumes, you're telling me you've never heard of washing machines? Or showers? You're telling me you've never seen any sort of sporting event? Are you telling me that spandex is fictional? Maybe I do live in a fantasy world because I could swear Under Armour was a multi-million dollar company.

Nope, never heard of these things. Do they only exist in Alaska? I believe civilized people simply buy new clothes daily. Rewearing previously worn clothes? Disgusting. Showers? Don't you have servants to bathe you properly?

 

Crucified Jesus Complexes all of them. My bad.

:lol: There's no level in between? Either a superhero has to be super-happy or super-depressed?

 

One does not need to dislike something to have been disrepesctful to it.

I wonder how you can enjoy anything that was not created by you to your specific tastes, then. How can you find any adaptation of any story that isn't 100% perfectly translated to be bearable?

 

Sorry for the snark, but bottom line - purists ruin their own fun, and usually end up pissing in everyone else's Cheerios, too, by being unnecessarily and unproductively negative about their fan interests. You disagree with Marvel's production choices, fine. The rest of us don't know Falcon from Freakazoid, and don't care about the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely think there is a happy medium and that these characters are perfectly suited to display the full range of emotions. Hollywood thinks otherwise, maybe not so much with the Whedonverse, but definitely every other franchise.

 

I enjoy all sorts of things, I am far from a purist. My favorite comics are ones that disregard canon and instead do their own thing. eg. Elseworld's Finest which puts a 1920s Batman/Superman into a pulp style adventure (with drastically altered bios and costumes).

 

Some of the greatest things in comics have come from drastic revisions. Julius Schwartz, famous DC Comics editor, is just about single-handedly responsible for how the world views the modern DC Universe. He took Flash and stripped away everything that was previously and revamped it into what we know now. He took Green Lantern from a mystical character inspired by Aladdin and turned him into a Space Ranger. The list goes on and on.

 

I am annoyed by things that make no sense. eg. "We hate Robin. Oops, we need a sidekick. fuck Robin, we'll make our own." and "Captain America's costume in Winter Soldier was designed to be darker; stealthy and anonymous." <--which makes total sense because they removed all identifying USA iconography, right? No? So then it's a stupid explanation. They should have just said we wanted a change and this is it.

 

I have preferences, like everyone does. You already noted as such about your levels of acceptable cheese.

 

I prefer my Flash to be red, bright red, but the new costume for the Arrow series looks great anyway. However it is another case in point for annoying inconsistency because the producers apparently wanted darker real world red :rolleyes: but then they put the brightest primary red smack dab in Flash's logo on his chest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the costumes, is there any real "data" showing that a particular choice of costume will impact a film franchise in a negative way? The superman movies from the 80's were well received despite the colorful costume. All of the Spiderman movies (except for mabey the third Raimi film) were pretty successfull despite the fact that Peter Parker wears a colorful costume. Cheesy or not, they were accepted by audiences. If it is the filmmaker's preconception that putting some red in Falcon's outfit is going to turn people off from this movie, I think it is completely unfounded, and kind of ridiculous.

 

That being said, I don't think Falcon's movie outfit looks terrible or anything. My biggest fear is that this will ultimately affect how artists draw him in the comics. Comics have shown a tendency to make changes in order to align themselves more closely with the films. Call me a traditionalist, but I say the films should aspire to mimic the comics, not the other way around! I fear that we will soon lose Falcon's red costume in the comics as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not. We don't have to look back to other decades to find films with superheros wearing bright colors. No one seems to have any real problems with Cap's red, white and blue costume from previous films, or with Spiderman's costume. And yet there is a persistent phobia on the part of film makers about superheros "looking cheesy".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my son and I were having some laughs over realism;

 

Falcon should have a helmet. Of all characters a dude with rocket pack-wings should have a helmet with a HUD. If Captain America needs a helmet, even if they hardly have him in it... you know because they paid for Evan's face so let's see it... then Falcon should absolutely have a helmet. You wanna talk about cheese? There it is. The cheesiest thing of all. No ****ing helmet. Yet another hilarious example of the realism trend being more like a Bad Christian picking and choosing want they want to follow in the Bible. Yep. Realism Fans, you're hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand I agree with Torch, on the other hand I didn't know I was high on cough medicine.

 

But instead of arguing realism (men in flying suits? superhumans?) just argue "I like it 'cause I think it looks cool."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the people that love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine actually have been significantly deterred by him wearing this...?

 

 

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markhughes/files/2013/11/Wolverine-yellow-costume-2.png

 

 

Hell, no. In fact, I'm fairly certain a good chunk of fans would've loved it more if they had actually used it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the cut scene it was a gift from his hot Japanese sidekick girl, no explanation given. Maybe he'd caused enough damage around the world that he needed a disguise so they'd think it was some OTHER dude with claws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It did me, though the lack of the trademark mask bothered me more (no, I'm not an Ultimates guy). To be fair, there was at least a little purple in his Avengers costume. To be honest, the thing that bothers me the most is that so far, they've largely wasted both the character and Jeremy Renner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[imo] Hawkeye's "real world" look was fine. Like Falcon's it also brings in some of the characters' trademark colors as a highlight (Hawkeye has purple lines and Falcon has Cyclop's glasses). Nothing about Hawkeye's movie costume betrays the "real world" design scheme for his character, job or skills. He's an archer, martial artist, an espionage class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly this looks better than any other Marvel Film. It doesn't look or feel like a superhero film, it looks like a high tech political thriller-- which is good. This is making Avengers look like a cartoon. Hopefully the movie holds up to the trailer.

I am not in favor of superhero films running away from their reason to be (in some assbrained Nolan attempt at being "un-comic book-y," dark or seeking false relevance), but I agree with your general idea about the political thriller feel. Cap has enjoyed great storylines using that kind of espionage feel over the decades. His stories worked because he was not an over the top fx machine (Iron Man) or jerk-off material for geeks with anger issues (Wolverine), but someone still in touch with his earthy, moral sense--who just happened to be near-superhuman. It was the marriage of the fantastic with the human--not the rejection of the former--that turned Cap a great character...certainly after his '64 revival.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean superhero movies should ditch their roots, just that they should tell other types of stories. All three Iron Man films are more or less the Marvel style origin story: hubris vs evil. The Avengers fell into the usual save-the-world paradigm most superhero movies do. Even the Nolan film fall into familiar tropes. I'm not talking about being realistic or gritty.

 

Comics figured out a long time ago they could avoid burnout by branching into the tropes of other genres and still have superheroes doing their thing. Some of the best story arcs do this-- Bruce Wayne: Murder was a murder mystery, Year One read like a crime novel, X-Men Brood stories are classic Cold War pod-people tales. Movies can do the same. Instead of saying "superhero movies do this" the conversation needs to be "let's make a _____ movie with a superhero in it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...