A question I've been pondering...

[Chris Wallace]

Do you think that the bad adaptations of the past have contributed to the elaborate, yet not all that faithful costumes that we're seeing in movies? There's a small but vocal number of comic fans who complain about the armored Batsuits & raised webbing on Spider-Man's movie costumes. But I look back on the TV shows that we've had for these exact same characters, & I think part of the filmmakers' motive is to distance the movies from those shows as much as possible. If even the slightest visual reference calls to mind what we've seen before, they've failed.
Discuss.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Do you think that the bad adaptations of the past have contributed to the elaborate, yet not all that faithful costumes that we're seeing in movies? There's a small but vocal number of comic fans who complain about the armored Batsuits & raised webbing on Spider-Man's movie costumes. But I look back on the TV shows that we've had for these exact same characters, & I think part of the filmmakers' motive is to distance the movies from those shows as much as possible. If even the slightest visual reference calls to mind what we've seen before, they've failed.
Discuss.

Filmakers tend to adapt material so that it works for film.

Not everything that works well in comics tend to work well in film.

Examples would include certain colours or acts that go contrary to well established laws of physics or just the simple visuals of certain acts.

For example, though Wolverine with his admantium claws can slice through railroad ties like butter in the comics, we know that ain't gonna work in real life.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm aware of that. I've been saying for years that what you can draw & what you can put on a human being are two different things. But as laughable as these looks are to us now,

they are admittedly closer to the original comics than these.

Not that I want the former to return-I just wonder what we would've gotten if they didn't have those images to compare it to?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Do you think that the bad adaptations of the past have contributed to the elaborate, yet not all that faithful costumes that we're seeing in movies? There's a small but vocal number of comic fans who complain about the armored Batsuits & raised webbing on Spider-Man's movie costumes. But I look back on the TV shows that we've had for these exact same characters, & I think part of the filmmakers' motive is to distance the movies from those shows as much as possible. If even the slightest visual reference calls to mind what we've seen before, they've failed.
Discuss.

Actually, I think most filmmakers strive to keep a comic-based film as close to the source material as possible. However, becaue they are different mediums, there's things in each that will and won't work. For example, Bryan Singer felt very strongly that a mass audience wouldn't accept the heroes and villains in brightly-colored spandex for a live-action film, especially one with such a contemporary storyline. So, in an effort to give the team a unified style, they all wore black gear, with unique aspects (Cyclops' visor, Wolverine's gloves, Storm's cape, etc.) included as nods to the classic staples.

Also, Singer said one of his beefs with the whole "X-Men" concept was the lack of any real "school setting" in the comics. His solution to that was to make some characters significantly younger than their illustrated counterparts (such as Rogue, Iceman, and Kitty Pryde). This would, in turn, allow him to present them as "new recruits" during future installments. It was a blod move, and I think it worked for the most part...but there were drawbacks as well (like having Mystique and Nightcrawler at roughly the same age in "X2", while in the comics she's his mother).

In the end, it all comes down to the fundamental differences between comics and film. The first is primarily visually-based, and because of that, there's not much restriction placed on the stories...you could draw practically anything, after all.

But with film, there's all sorts of rules, boundaries and limits which don't exist with the written word. From the shooting and lighting, to camera angles, ADR recording, music scores, sound and video effects...it becomes a huge jigsaw puzzle, and everyone has their opinion. As a result, the films often retain the "essence" of the original creations, but many specifics are either altered or trashed completely (for various reasons).

 

[Chris Wallace]

In defense of Mystique, she has always looked young in the comics. But then, she can look any way she wants.

 

[Joker]

Mystiques abilities also include slowed aging, so as was said, even in the comics she looks like she's in her mid 20's when she's really probably closer to being about 80 at this point.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I didn't even know that until that story arc where she lost her powers as a result of the High Evolutionary undoing all mutations; in her natural form, sans blue skin & yellow eyes, she still looked young.

 

[rogue trooper]

The following are two very underlooked, excellently adapted costumes between the post-Donner's Superman and pre-Raimi's Spider-Man times:

 

[Walker]

Agreed, Rogue Trooper. Also, Billy Zane was born to play a superhero. That costume would have looked silly on most other actors, but he carried it with dignity and enthusiasm. Great actor.

 

[rogue trooper]

Definately.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Flash's costume was too dark & WAY too bulky, IMO-an obvious attempt to steal Keaton/Batman's thunder. And the Phantom-it's got airbrushed designs for a movie that takes place before airbrushing was invented! Not to mention the fact that the movie flopped, & I don't even remember how long "The Flash" was on the air.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Flash's costume was too dark & WAY too bulky, IMO-an obvious attempt to steal Keaton/Batman's thunder. And the Phantom-it's got airbrushed designs for a movie that takes place before airbrushing was invented! Not to mention the fact that the movie flopped, & I don't even remember how long "The Flash" was on the air.

"The Flash" only aired for the 1990-91 season, on CBS; nevertheless, it established John Wesley Shipp as a rising star, and he'd later come to fame as a supporting character on "Dawson's Creek".

As for "The Phantom", it may have failed at the box-office, but in the 12 years since, the VHS and DVD releases have resulted in an exceptional fanbase. Last year, I heard a remake was in the works, titled "The Ghost Who Walks". I hope they get around to it, sooner rather than later.

 

[Kable24]

Flash's costume was too dark & WAY too bulky, IMO-an obvious attempt to steal Keaton/Batman's thunder.

I believe the people who designed Keaton's Batman costume also designed The Flash's. I loved the Flash and thought the costume was fantastic. The show just didn't have the staying power to last long. CBS kept moving it around it's schedule and the storylines got way out there at times. The special effects also went the way of cheapness too. At the time it was the most expensive show ever put on tv.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm sorry. I don't equate "swift & speedy" with "stocky & bulky".
And the pilot, again, was modeled too much after Batman. They made him this dark, mythical creature of the night who people feared. The costume was designed to look menacing. It just didn't work for me.
"Where did you come from?"
"I came from YOU! You made me, when you killed my brother!"
That's NOT the Flash. They even copied the moon/logo bit.

 

[rogue trooper]

http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=paperkp4.jpg

 

[Chris Wallace]

"The Flash" only aired for the 1990-91 season, on CBS; nevertheless, it established John Wesley Shipp as a rising star, and he'd later come to fame as a supporting character on "Dawson's Creek".

As for "The Phantom", it may have failed at the box-office, but in the 12 years since, the VHS and DVD releases have resulted in an exceptional fanbase. Last year, I heard a remake was in the works, titled "The Ghost Who Walks". I hope they get around to it, sooner rather than later.

A flop is a flop. And that goes for both. That's the point I was trying to make; filmmakers want to steer clear of what has failed in the past.

 

[The Navigator]

Do you think that the bad adaptations of the past have contributed to the elaborate, yet not all that faithful costumes that we're seeing in movies? There's a small but vocal number of comic fans who complain about the armored Batsuits & raised webbing on Spider-Man's movie costumes. But I look back on the TV shows that we've had for these exact same characters, & I think part of the filmmakers' motive is to distance the movies from those shows as much as possible. If even the slightest visual reference calls to mind what we've seen before, they've failed.
Discuss.

Not necessarily. Superman and Spider-Man have maintained very consistent images throughout their various incarnations, Singer's design probably being the most radical chage. I think with Spider-Man it was more of a question of Tv show budget and time--they didn't have a lot of either, so the suit isn't tailored very well to the actor's probably less-than-impressive physique. Burton's armored Batman (the first to do so) was done because according to him, that's just how he saw Batman--the guy was black, not blue or gray. He still kept the bright chest logo and utility belt, with slight changes from the Adam West design (B89's, actually being very true to the comics at that point).

I think it's just a question of money and the director's sense of design.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's worth noting that;

A. When the movies make a change generally considered effective, there are few complaints. I've never, ever read one complaint about Batman being black and not grey and blue. Ever.

B. For a period it became this way in the comics, so you could not even say it wasn't faithful to the source now. But the all-black doesn't work for batman in the comic, which perfectly shows the difference between the two mediums.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Never? Not once?
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310104&page=5
THis is just one example. I've seen plenty.