Superhero costumes...

[RJDiogenes]

Superheroes live in a fantasy world where there are superheroes who wear costumes. While I enjoy nods to verisimilitude and story points derived from real-world speculation, attempting a realistic approach to superheroes is inherently wrongheaded, except in certain specific situations (ironically, the best-known realistic approach to superheroes, Watchmen, works because the writer understood this). The self-conscious obsession with realism is one of the reasons live-action adaptations of comics seldom interest me. As far as I'm concerned, the best approach to live-action superheroes would be something that looked like the 60s Batman, but was written on the level of Thomas, Englehart, Busiek et al.

 

[Shazam!]

/\ Agreed, although I think I'd prefer my Batman to look a little more Batman: Dead End than Adam West. I detest the Nolan Batsuit.

 

[The Lensman]

Superheroes live in a fantasy world where there are superheroes who wear costumes. While I enjoy nods to verisimilitude and story points derived from real-world speculation, attempting a realistic approach to superheroes is inherently wrongheaded, except in certain specific situations (ironically, the best-known realistic approach to superheroes, Watchmen, works because the writer understood this). The self-conscious obsession with realism is one of the reasons live-action adaptations of comics seldom interest me. As far as I'm concerned, the best approach to live-action superheroes would be something that looked like the 60s Batman, but was written on the level of Thomas, Englehart, Busiek et al.

Exactly! Once you start down the road of "realism" where do you stop? If you want realism, then nobody's wearing costumes, or has powers, etc, etc. So what makes X more realistic than Y? As I said before, there are certain concepts where the more realistic you try to make them, the more apparent the flaws are.

Superheros were not created to be "realistic". They were not created for middle age men. They were created for children. They were never meant to be taken anywhere near as serious as they are taken now.

They are pure escapist fun and should mostly be treated as such. Yes, there are exceptions and different interpretations, but by and large they work best as escapist adventure.
Hal Jordan doesn't get recognized with that tiny mask because he doesn't. That's all you need to know.

If you can't handle that, or think it's not "realistic" then you should find something else to while away the time. And frankly, those who do superheros should stop trying to convince you that you'll like it if only they make it more and more like the world outside your door. Doing that strips away the thing that made it appealing in the first place.

Very much agree with the last couple of sentences, and can only hope to see something like that one day.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I wish somebody would give it a try, but I don't think it would survive current fashions in pop culture; maybe someday, though.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I think that when most people talk about realism, they're referring to those nods to verisimilitude. I don't think that a distinction beween the two is usually made. So why have as much realism/verisimilitude as possible? Some people want more of a "what if this actually happened" quality to go along with the fun. In fact, the more grounded "what if" approach itself can be the fun. That's pretty much what superheroes are all about aren't they? They're all about asking "what if someone actually had powers or a suit of armor or could fly? etc". Personally, as much as I like the 60s Batman, I wouldn't want that to be the standard for superhero movies. It's what I'd describe as too light for my tastes.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I wish somebody would give it a try, but I don't think it would survive current fashions in pop culture; maybe someday, though.

Batman: Dead End is about as far as I'd want to go.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zn53yhjsDM[/yt]

 

[RJDiogenes]

Personally, as much as I like the 60s Batman, I wouldn't want that to be the standard for superhero movies. It's what I'd describe as too light for my tastes.

Note that I said visually like the old show, but written like a real comic (well, a real good comic ).

 

[23skidoo]

I think for Superman it really comes down to the actor wearing the costume. It's a matter of presence, quiet dignity and confidence. George Reeves and Christopher Reeve had it and made it work. The darker tones and embellished "S" couldn't help Brandon Routh just as Dean Cain always looked self-conscious in costume. The jury is still out (for another two years!) on Henry Cavill, but I can't say I care for what I see so far.

...

I think much the same thinking applies to Wonder Woman. A lot of it has to do with the actress and how she "wears" the role.

Agree 100%. Lynda Carter not only owned Wonder Woman, she owned her so thoroughly that no one has been able to match her, no matter how they try.

I hear tell that film and TV makers often change a superhero's costume either for logistic reasons - they feel it's physically impossible to replicate - or because they don't think the audience will buy it.

Hogwash to both, as anyone who has seen quality cosplayers at work can tell you. Power Girl is one of the most physically exaggerated superheroes ever created, and her costume isn't exactly the most practical. If they ever made a movie they'd surely change both aspects. Yet go on Flickr and search for Power Girl, or watch I'm Power Girl, Dammit on YouTube and you'll see women who could be put in front of a camera tomorrow and sell the look and the character. (Edit: forgot all about Carrie Keegan's appearances as Power Girl on G4's Attack of the Show. Nuff said. Ditto Olivia Munn's Wonder Woman)

Likewise, there's a group called Gotham Public Works that makes dead-accurate impersonations of characters like Catwoman and Harley Quinn. They really sell it, and anyone who has seen video of them or met them in person buys into the costume and the look without a problem at all.

So why can amateurs pull it off, yet it's so hard for someone to do Wonder Woman in a way that's accepted (or the costuming is left alone)? I saw the pictures of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Certainly an improvement over the Pfeiffer and Berry costumes (though the glasses look silly), but there was really no need not to use the current design.

Alex

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ You're right. Amateurs often do far better with these things than Hollywood does (or they at least show Hollywood how it could be done).

 

[Takeru]

So why can amateurs pull it off, yet it's so hard for someone to do Wonder Woman in a way that's accepted (or the costuming is left alone)?

1. Probably because amateurs don't have 86 executives breathing down their necks who want to make sure that the costume doesn't hurt the box office.

2. Amateurs can get away with much more because quite frankly, the expectations aren't very high. 99% of fan costumes look like shit, so the ones that stand out really stand out. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't call the exact same costume tacky and ridiculous, should it appear in a 150 million dollar movie.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I saw the pictures of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Certainly an improvement over the Pfeiffer and Berry costumes (though the glasses look silly), but there was really no need not to use the current design.

Spoiler: Anne Hathaway's Catwoman Costume

Hathaway's costume, just like the one from Gotham Public Works, looks nearly identical to the comic book version. The only thing missing is the cowl, which might still be used.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

2. Amateurs can get away with much more because quite frankly, the expectations aren't very high. 99% of fan costumes look like shit, so the ones that stand out really stand out. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't call the exact same costume tacky and ridiculous, should it appear in a 150 million dollar movie.

Exactly so. Studios don't make money by catering to serious fans; they do leverage the fact that the hard core will talk about the movie before release and all show up on opening night, which never fails to happen.

 

[Myasishchev]

So why can amateurs pull it off, yet it's so hard for someone to do Wonder Woman in a way that's accepted (or the costuming is left alone)?

1. Probably because amateurs don't have 86 executives breathing down their necks who want to make sure that the costume doesn't hurt the box office.

2. Amateurs can get away with much more because quite frankly, the expectations aren't very high. 99% of fan costumes look like shit, so the ones that stand out really stand out. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't call the exact same costume tacky and ridiculous, should it appear in a 150 million dollar movie.

I dunno if I'd say 99%. People seem to have gotten really good at it the past five or so years.

Or is this sample bias? Since the only ones I've ever seen are what's been pointed out to me.

 

[davejames]

Some of those fan costumes DO look really good, but I still think some extra detail and texture is needed when it comes to movies. The simple, bare material that we saw in the 60s, 70s, and 80s just wouldn't cut it onscreen anymore, especially if you were to surround it with today's rich cinematography and million dollar CG effects.

Fans can deny it all they want, but even Reeve would look a bit ridiculous wearing that same Superman costume onscreen today.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Dean Cain had a decent looking costume, but he looked self-conscious in it. I found it hard to believe him as Superman.

I chalk Cain's self-consciousness in the suit as part of how he approached the role of Clark Kent/Superman, which is more Clark than Superman.

Clark, as in the Byrne-era comics, was the real person and Superman was the "secret identity." So when Clark is in the suit, he is putting on a performance.

 

[Shazam!]

Fans can deny it all they want, but even Reeve would look a bit ridiculous wearing that same Superman costume onscreen today.

No, that's just what we're consistently told despite no-one having ever tried it.

 

[Shazam!]

99% of fan costumes look like shit, so the ones that stand out really stand out. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't call the exact same costume tacky and ridiculous, should it appear in a 150 million dollar movie.

I dunno if I'd say 99%. People seem to have gotten really good at it the past five or so years.

I like how the replica Spider-Man outfit from the Raimi films is more believable and 'realistic' than anything we've seen on film so far.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Fans can deny it all they want, but even Reeve would look a bit ridiculous wearing that same Superman costume onscreen today.

No, that's just what we're consistently told despite no-one having ever tried it.

QFT. A lot of bleating going on.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Fans can deny it all they want, but even Reeve would look a bit ridiculous wearing that same Superman costume onscreen today.

No, that's just what we're consistently told despite no-one having ever tried it.

I thought I read somewhere that Cavill wore a replica of the Reeve suit for his audition.

 

[Cmdr_Blop]

I like how the replica Spider-Man outfit from the Raimi films is more believable and 'realistic' than anything we've seen on film so far.

Truth.

Personally, like I said, I'm really getting kinda disgusted with Hollywood's fetish for "darkening" superhero costumes... it's enough to make me almost wish we never get a film version of Shazam or the Flash, or any brightly-colored hero... I just don't trust Hollywood's costume people to just leave well enough alone.