Newsarama alum Alan Kistler isn’t a fan of Warner Bros’ live-action superhero adaptations ditching fidelity to the comic book:
Marvel Studios, on the other hand, has fully embraced the costume aspect and heightened reality of superheroes, to the point where the characters play them up on screen. Tony Stark customizes the colors of his armor in “Iron Man” simply because he likes “hot rod red.” The Asgardians in “Thor” don’t wear realistic Viking armor; they rock out exaggerated Jack Kirby-like apparel. While Steve Rogers’ battlefield costume in “Captain America: The First Avenger” is utilitarian, it still shouts “superhero.” He even gets a new, brighter outfit in “The Avengers.” Why? Because he’s Captain America and evidently S.H.I.E.L.D. thought he shouldn’t operate without a costume. It’s worth noting that embracing these costumes, capes and heightened realities of technologists in high-tech armor who co-exist with radioactive rage monsters and aliens has not prevented the Marvel Studios films from finding successful box office results.
I’m not sure that the costumes were necessarily selling points or otherwise for the Marvel movies, nor that the lack of costume hurt Smallville any. Kistler points out that fans seemed to dislike the David E. Kelley Wonder Woman pilot costume, as well as the Green Lantern movie outfit, though, which would seem to point out how difficult it is to get superhero-faithful costumes on screen… For my part, as long as the characters work, the costumes aren’t a big deal for me. Far more than the outfits, it’s Marvel’s commitment to the character that is what brings people around, I think… But then, Marvel’s characters are arguably more relatable to most people than DC’s…
October 5th, 2012 at 9:48 am
Honestly? I relate to Peter Parker, but not a single member of the Avengers. Whereas I relate to Clark Kent when done right. So it’s all in the execution.
And in the plot, on the rare occasions anyone bothers with that i a movie now.
October 5th, 2012 at 10:25 am
other than not being bright green and wearing face camo instead of a domino mask, it’s not that different from what we’ve seen Ollie wear in the comics. He’s changed costumes a lot, and for awhile even wore a hood like we see here on the TV show.
Just not seeing this as a deal breaker.
October 5th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
>nor that the lack of costume hurt Smallville any
Smallville is frequently cited to support the “see, we don’t need to follow the source material to be successful” argument. Now, the peopel who say are correct in that Smallville was a successfuly show – but personally, I would contend that Smallville did not succeed BECAUSE it deviated from the source, but in spite of this fact.
Speaking as a comic fan who watched the show (well, seasons 1 & 2 and the last season) I would have enjoyed it more had it followed the source material more closely. Also, I think that if it had followed the source material more closely it might have actually served to increase exposure to the comics (which then feeds back to the TV show, etc, etc).
>fans seemed to dislike the David E. Kelley Wonder Woman pilot costume, as well as the Green Lantern movie outfit
Because they were awful costumes that DIDN’T look like the comic costumes.
>Far more than the outfits, it’s Marvel’s commitment to the character that is what brings people around, I think…
No, it’s Marvel’s commitment to (generally) staying as close to the source material as the media allows. This includes character; but also costumes, origin stories, abilities, etc. For the most part, if you – as a comic reader – went to see a recent Marvel property movie, you saw something that you recognized as being decided from the comic source. By the same token, if your only experience with the properties has been the recent movies and you pick up a comic book, you again are exposed to something familiar. Conversely, if only exposure to the Superman mythos was “Smallville” and you picked up a Superman comic you wouldn’t recognize much of anything in it – and probably would not feel compelled to buy it.
Marvel has, in recent years, done a very good job of getting their properties on the big screen in a way that can feed into comic sales (which in turn can feed back into movies).
>But then, Marvel’s characters are arguably more relatable to most people than DC’s…
I would argue against this point, but this is a never ending argument. Scientists mutated in giant green monsters by gamma rays does not strike me as being are more “relatable” than alien supermen.
October 8th, 2012 at 8:40 am
“I would argue against this point, but this is a never ending argument. Scientists mutated in giant green monsters by gamma rays does not strike me as being are more “relatable” than alien supermen.”
Yeah it would indeed be endless . The whole “Marvel characters being more relatable” schtick isnt about the origins of their powers and how they use them … but usually their behaviors and personality .
And for a select few uber powerful folks , Marvel seems – emphase on “seems” – to always include a crippling weakness , beyond the character’s kryptonite and powers cancellers .
Take even Hyperion and the Sentry , they are usually depicted as a mess , on a psychological or even psychiatric level .