Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
I want a barber shop with barber chairs that drop into the ground.
AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2012
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
- Status
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Would you settle for a banana cart?
Would you settle for a banana cart?
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
It will also film in Ohio:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/167237-the-avengers-to-film-near-cincinnati-too
It will also film in Ohio:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/167237-the-avengers-to-film-near-cincinnati-too
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Yeah, that looks MUCH more retro than the outfit that was actually designed in 1940.
Yeah, that looks MUCH more retro than the outfit that was actually designed in 1940.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Spandex didn't exist back then. Think circus strongman.
Spandex didn't exist back then. Think circus strongman.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Exactly - there was no more attempt to design Cap's original outfit with any contemporary sense of either fashion or function that there was to design Superman's tights as suitable attire for a Manhattan dinner party. The current movie design does look a great deal more like it fits the 1940s time frame than Kirby's red-white-and-blue chain mail with the silly little white head wings did.
Everything about this movie looks better than Thor or - sad as I am to say - Green Lantern. Other than GL this is the movie I'm most looking forward to - and I've never cared that much one way or the other about Captain America. This just looks like a fun movie with some real feeling behind it.
Exactly - there was no more attempt to design Cap's original outfit with any contemporary sense of either fashion or function that there was to design Superman's tights as suitable attire for a Manhattan dinner party. The current movie design does look a great deal more like it fits the 1940s time frame than Kirby's red-white-and-blue chain mail with the silly little white head wings did.
Everything about this movie looks better than Thor or - sad as I am to say - Green Lantern. Other than GL this is the movie I'm most looking forward to - and I've never cared that much one way or the other about Captain America. This just looks like a fun movie with some real feeling behind it.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Yeah. Shame that Cap's costume was so silly-looking that comic readers of the day made the character such a massive flop that 70 years later, he's nearly forgotten.
Really, the eagerness of comic fans to dump on basic conventions of the superhero genre boggle my mind. Why do you read the things if you think the characters look so ridiculous?
Yeah. Shame that Cap's costume was so silly-looking that comic readers of the day made the character such a massive flop that 70 years later, he's nearly forgotten.
Really, the eagerness of comic fans to dump on basic conventions of the superhero genre boggle my mind. Why do you read the things if you think the characters look so ridiculous?
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Either way, neither is very practical for a soldier.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Answer number one: if I'd picked up my first superhero comic at the age of thirty rather than the age of five, I might well not have found it worthy of my time.
Answer number two: I don't expect different media to treat subject matter in an identical fashion. That is one reason and one respect in which different media are, you know, different. As I posted in reference to an exchange about colors in the Green Lantern thread, one Dick Tracy movie, once in a very great while, is more than sufficient.
Funny thing - Stan Lee and his artists thought superhero outfits looked pretty dorky, when they first began creating the Marvel characters. That's how the Fantastic Four wound up at first in jumpsuits that bloused and wrinkled, Iron Man clomped around in a bulky suit of armor and the introduction to the very first Spider-Man story referred mockingly to such characters as "long underwear characters." That they eventually yielded to artistic convention doesn't diminish the fact that the initial aesthetic response of the people creating many of the most successful superheros in comics history was very much like that of the folks you're criticizing now.
If you don't think Cap's costume looks ridiculous - well, good for you. I think a literal translation of it would be stupid as hell and would be mocked by anyone who isn't already a fan (and, you know, if a whole lot more people worldwide don't go to see these movies than have ever read the comic books, the studio is screwed) and I'm sure glad they have the good sense to ignore purists. That's what the Batman folks have successfully done - Superman just barely gets away with his outfit, probably because unlike Captain America he actually is a figure who has been recognized visually the world over for decades.
Yeah. Shame that Cap's costume was so silly-looking that comic readers of the day made the character such a massive flop that 70 years later, he's nearly forgotten.
Really, the eagerness of comic fans to dump on basic conventions of the superhero genre boggle my mind. Why do you read the things if you think the characters look so ridiculous?
Answer number one: if I'd picked up my first superhero comic at the age of thirty rather than the age of five, I might well not have found it worthy of my time.
Answer number two: I don't expect different media to treat subject matter in an identical fashion. That is one reason and one respect in which different media are, you know, different. As I posted in reference to an exchange about colors in the Green Lantern thread, one Dick Tracy movie, once in a very great while, is more than sufficient.
Funny thing - Stan Lee and his artists thought superhero outfits looked pretty dorky, when they first began creating the Marvel characters. That's how the Fantastic Four wound up at first in jumpsuits that bloused and wrinkled, Iron Man clomped around in a bulky suit of armor and the introduction to the very first Spider-Man story referred mockingly to such characters as "long underwear characters." That they eventually yielded to artistic convention doesn't diminish the fact that the initial aesthetic response of the people creating many of the most successful superheros in comics history was very much like that of the folks you're criticizing now.
If you don't think Cap's costume looks ridiculous - well, good for you. I think a literal translation of it would be stupid as hell and would be mocked by anyone who isn't already a fan (and, you know, if a whole lot more people worldwide don't go to see these movies than have ever read the comic books, the studio is screwed) and I'm sure glad they have the good sense to ignore purists. That's what the Batman folks have successfully done - Superman just barely gets away with his outfit, probably because unlike Captain America he actually is a figure who has been recognized visually the world over for decades.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
That said, the costume and soldier aspects of the film dont really bother me. I'm looking forward to it.
Thing is, Captain America is not a soldier. Steve Rogers was, but not Cap. In the comics of the 40s he fought spys, saboteurs and criminals. He didnt even get out of America all that often and I'm not even sure he was even shown on a battlefield back then. It olny in recent years that we've seen Cap in the 40s portrayed as a frontline soldier.
That said, the costume and soldier aspects of the film dont really bother me. I'm looking forward to it.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
So what makes his original portrayal more legitimate than his more recent one? Either interpretation of the character is equally valid. The movie's clearly chosen to interpret Cap as a soldier. Which seems like a better choice for a living piece of propaganda, anyway: "Watch as Captain America leads our troops on to victory in Europe! Want to help Captain America bring down the fascist war machine? Buy war bonds!"
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
That makes total sense, since for most of its existence the superhero genre had a primary audience of children. If you were beyond that age and still enjoyed superheroes, great, but you weren't the target audience. It's only in the last 20 years or so that comics have started to exclusively cater to 30-year old fanboys. And sales are lower than ever.
Neither do I. But I do expect the main elements of a property to be adapted accurately and not changed willy-nilly at the director's whim. I don't think that's too much to ask.
You are obviously are having trouble distinguishing between Stan Lee & Co. having fun with the characters and their costumes and the actual distain for them that some of the filmmakers are showing.
One of the reasons Superman worked onscreen is because Christopher Reeve wore the outfit with conviction. He acted like the Superman costume was the most natural thing in the world for him to wear, and so, in the context of the movie, it was. When the filmmakers and stars of a superhero movie are stating in interviews how silly the comic costumes look, it's no wonder that a lot of the audience ends up agreeing with them.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Because it was the interpretation of the character's creators?
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
The costumes were not designed to be worn by real people; Kirby and co. didn't give that a second's thought. Some things have to be changed to accomodate the realities of different media, and these changes are hardly radical. It retains the overall look of Captain America's outfit, including the colour scheme, but is given more functional touches.
The costumes were not designed to be worn by real people; Kirby and co. didn't give that a second's thought. Some things have to be changed to accomodate the realities of different media, and these changes are hardly radical. It retains the overall look of Captain America's outfit, including the colour scheme, but is given more functional touches.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Just because something came before, that doesn't always mean it's better or more valid than what came after.
They should have just ended the comic book after its creators left it, then, I suppose.
Just because something came before, that doesn't always mean it's better or more valid than what came after.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Pretty much irrelevant with any art - popular or "high" - that survives for more than a generation or two. The work stands on its own.
Pretty much irrelevant with any art - popular or "high" - that survives for more than a generation or two. The work stands on its own.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
I'm fine with the film's interpretation of the character.
They'd have to wait a few years to see Cap lead any forces to victory in Europe though.
Did you miss the second half of my post?So what makes his original portrayal more legitimate than his more recent one? Either interpretation of the character is equally valid. The movie's clearly chosen to interpret Cap as a soldier. Which seems like a better choice for a living piece of propaganda, anyway: "Watch as Captain America leads our troops on to victory in Europe! Want to help Captain America bring down the fascist war machine? Buy war bonds!"
I'm fine with the film's interpretation of the character.
They'd have to wait a few years to see Cap lead any forces to victory in Europe though.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Yeah, sorry, I did see the other part of your post, but I just wanted to comment on your first part anyway. My response wasn't intended to be directed at you specifically, but more to the general topic. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, sorry, I did see the other part of your post, but I just wanted to comment on your first part anyway. My response wasn't intended to be directed at you specifically, but more to the general topic. Sorry for the confusion.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
I'm not sure I see your point. Something can be designed in 1940 to look futuristic; something can be designed in 2011 to look old-fashioned. But I think Dennis and others have more than adequately addressed all these issues already.
Incidentally, I gave you a civil and straight-up answer to your question. I don't know why you felt the need to insert roll-eyes.
Yeah, that looks MUCH more retro than the outfit that was actually designed in 1940.
I'm not sure I see your point. Something can be designed in 1940 to look futuristic; something can be designed in 2011 to look old-fashioned. But I think Dennis and others have more than adequately addressed all these issues already.
Incidentally, I gave you a civil and straight-up answer to your question. I don't know why you felt the need to insert roll-eyes.
- Status