Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
bit late, but my problem with Wonder Woman, and the reason it's so hard to bring her to the big screen is that people aren't willing to let go of the absurd costume.
There was a time when all superheros had absurd costumes and during that period, WW flourished on TV. It was also a period known as "Superhero movies don't make money."
A period that pretty much ended when they put Wolverine in a pair of jeans and threw in a one liner about yellow spandex. Really it probably started earlier when Burton added a whole "I collect Japanese armor" thing to batman to convert his grey spandex to bat armor, but notice post X-men that turned into the much more palatable Christian Bale "I took high grade body armor and painted it black".
Some of them really can't do without spandex...like spiderman. But the ones that can....Spandex is goofy. It was goofy in the 1930's when they wore those costumes as a way to draw muscles without the folds of normal clothes and it's still goofy.
As a kid during the spandex superhero age, I didn't give much thought to wonder woman. I liked the show. It had a superhero in it and that was good enough for me. Nowadays though, I'm not as willing to accept the whole "Someone is committing a crime! Quick find me a leotard and some glitter!" aspect.
I really don't even accept the "It's iconic" argument. Yellow spandex is iconic too. It's also stupid. Ditch it and do something Really revolutionary: have a female on screen who isn't trying to fight in shoes that say "She's ready for anything...unless you try to push her over or have her walk in grass"
edit: tldr: costumes need justification. There has to be a reason they change clothes and "I'm kind of a Drama queen and don't want to fight crime without looking FABULOUS!" isn't really a reason unless it's a spoof.
There was a time when all superheros had absurd costumes and during that period, WW flourished on TV. It was also a period known as "Superhero movies don't make money."
A period that pretty much ended when they put Wolverine in a pair of jeans and threw in a one liner about yellow spandex. Really it probably started earlier when Burton added a whole "I collect Japanese armor" thing to batman to convert his grey spandex to bat armor, but notice post X-men that turned into the much more palatable Christian Bale "I took high grade body armor and painted it black".
Some of them really can't do without spandex...like spiderman. But the ones that can....Spandex is goofy. It was goofy in the 1930's when they wore those costumes as a way to draw muscles without the folds of normal clothes and it's still goofy.
As a kid during the spandex superhero age, I didn't give much thought to wonder woman. I liked the show. It had a superhero in it and that was good enough for me. Nowadays though, I'm not as willing to accept the whole "Someone is committing a crime! Quick find me a leotard and some glitter!" aspect.
I really don't even accept the "It's iconic" argument. Yellow spandex is iconic too. It's also stupid. Ditch it and do something Really revolutionary: have a female on screen who isn't trying to fight in shoes that say "She's ready for anything...unless you try to push her over or have her walk in grass"
edit: tldr: costumes need justification. There has to be a reason they change clothes and "I'm kind of a Drama queen and don't want to fight crime without looking FABULOUS!" isn't really a reason unless it's a spoof.
Last edited:
I'm pro-spandex and I accept that conceit as part of the comic genre. I don't feel as if the stories need to be veiled in "reality" to make them palatable. The very convention of people with superpowers is absurd from the very start and putting them in jeans only places the character in a sort of uncanny valley.
It's no less absurd to appreciate a Hollywood (or Bollywood) musical where people break into song. Superhero films, like musicals, remain true to the essence of storytelling which is about relationships, emotions and basic human motive.
Granted, poorly done spandex-drama is dumb. But I think many films have shown that it can actually be done well and remain true to the comics (e.g. The Avengers).
It's no less absurd to appreciate a Hollywood (or Bollywood) musical where people break into song. Superhero films, like musicals, remain true to the essence of storytelling which is about relationships, emotions and basic human motive.
Granted, poorly done spandex-drama is dumb. But I think many films have shown that it can actually be done well and remain true to the comics (e.g. The Avengers).
Last edited:
drcraig13
Sr Member
AJTaliesen The costumes aren't spandex. Back in the 30's when Comics started to be drawn these costumes are basically what the strong men at the circus would wear. Spandex wouldn't be invented for quite some time. WW's costume is really designed around the S&M undertones in her creation and early stories.
Last edited by a moderator:
Father
Sr Member
Nailed it. In order to make real people look like comic characters (especially females) they would have to get body builders and porn actresses and literally paint the costume on them to look like the characters drawn do on the pages. Spandex doesn't even adhere to a person so much that it shows ever ripple of muscle.
I think Watchmen nailed it on this one. They show the "good old days" scenes with the costumes and they looked pretty ridiculous. Then you had modern day Night Owl who was all hig-tech and cool.
Bottom line... comic book purists need to loosen up.
Now... to play devil's advocate, there needs to be a happy medium --- Quicksilver from X-Men: DoFP is not it.
I watched all of the X-men movies over the last week and capped it off with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. wolverine looked REALLY dumb in the movies leading up to Origins... mainly because of the dopey leather suit and his hair. He looked natural in X-men Origins. Even better in The Wolverine.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I like the appearance of Batfleck! I'm actually surprised I'm even saying that. But I'm not sorry for saying it! And I refuse to take it back!
cayman shen
Master Member
Something just really clicked with me: Bale has a decidedly Jack Nicholson-esq quality about him in that even when he's being pleasant, you can see the bugnuts crazy in his eyes. That makes him a perfect candidate to be both Bruce and Batman. The guy just exudes unhinged. Affleck is so likable...he looks amazing in the suit, and I like him as an actor, but Bale's barely suppressed lunacy is going to be a tough act to follow. The Keaton to Kilmer transition had the exact same issue. Keaton plays crazy very well. Kilmer didn't have that glimmer of madness. Of course, the movie sucked too so that didn't help :lol
JD
Master Member
You saw a completely different Bale Batman than I did. I didn't crazy, I saw someone disaffected - someone with nothing behind his eyes at all (and not in a good way) - I really got the feeling that Bale didn't want to be there.
Keaton was miscast.
In every film he's all about undermining the potential of gravitas with his natural smarm. As Batman he's no different. Burton, as always, created a film comprised of caricature. Keaton is caricature.
Bale/Nolan was what I wanted in 1989 but didn't get. Most folks at the time didn't understand what I was talking about. After Batman Begins I basically went around to friends saying, "this movie is what I was talking about in 1989." They agreed this was better.
I was never sure with Keaton as Batman,but I will say that I just got the '89 Batman on DVD and after all these years I sat through and watched the whole thing-I really ain't sure I could do that with the Nolan films,even begins has moments I hit fast forward.....
Now granted that movie,and both Keaton and Nicholson,were basically a more serious take on the old TV show (go watch it and compare,really it was like watching West and Romero without the TV censorship) but it was fun and to this day is an enjoyable flick to sit back and see.
So maybe this Superman/Batman thing could be good,I'll give it a chance.
DC still sucks though,and Superman is still stupid.
Now granted that movie,and both Keaton and Nicholson,were basically a more serious take on the old TV show (go watch it and compare,really it was like watching West and Romero without the TV censorship) but it was fun and to this day is an enjoyable flick to sit back and see.
So maybe this Superman/Batman thing could be good,I'll give it a chance.
DC still sucks though,and Superman is still stupid.
The '89 film was a good departure from the TV show but I was already expecting that. All I can say was that in 1989 in the midst of all the hype I wanted to see the batman that was in my imagination - which was more like Nolan than Burton.
As to your last statement ... I'm with you there, man.
seelsa73
Sr Member
What the heck does OP mean?
crabra comander
Master Member
:lol That's L33T speak for Over Powered
Zombie_61
Master Member
And that's the exact reason Kryptonite was introduced into the comic books in *1949--a hero that's completely invulnerable and impervious to everything is boring because there's never any sense that he/she is at risk.
*Kryptonite was first introduced in 1943 in the Superman radio program, both as a plot device and as a way for actor Bud Collyer (who provided Superman's voice) to take some time off.
seelsa73
Sr Member
Ah, ok. And L33T is...?
crabra comander
Master Member
Shhh...teh 1337 speak isn't for N003S...:lol
LEET short for Elite aka "1337"
CB2001
Master Member
Similar threads
