Made for kids, so having the women dressed like strippers isn't perhaps the best idea. If you want to see stuff like that I suggest you go to porn hub.
The costumes in the comics are meant to titillate. I can remember Rogue in the X-Men running around the Savage Land in a bikini top and cut off shorts in the 90's. Even the dude's outfits look like they're painted on. But I could see why they wouldn't want to adapt some of the women's costumes or lack of.
Yup. The dudes' shoulders are broad, the girls' waists are tiny, rinse and repeat. Then you get into the Rob Liefeld years and things get weird.
The MCU Spider-Man films are by far the least accurate portrayal of Spider-Man in movies. Here are some of the reasons: 1: Stan Lee said he invented Spider-Man to be the first teen superhero who wasn't a sidekick. The MCU destroys Stan's original intent by literally making him a sidekick, even joking that he's "Iron Man's ward" at times. You can't get more antithetical to who Spider-Man is than that. This is literally THE most important, foundational and fundamental aspect of Spider-Man's character. It was groundbreaking and it's why he became the most popular teen superhero. 2: Uncle Ben is not an explicit part of the story. It absolutely destroys who Spider-Man is to not make Uncle Ben central to the story. Uncle Ben is everything. He's the reason Spider-Man became a superhero. He's the origin of the all-important "with great power comes great responsibility" line. 3: Spider-Man isn't a super-suit character. He isn't defined by constantly getting new suits, armors and weapons. Almost all his powers come from his spider bite. And whatever gadgets he has, such as the web shooters, are made by himself, not gifted from benefactors. The change in the Raimi movies was to not make him invent any gadgets at all, which at least helped him keep the key part of his identity, rather than making him into more of an Iron Man or Batman-style hero. 4: Spider-Man's Aunt May was meant to be frail and unable to support herself. She added to Peter's burdens in life because he had to support and take care of her. This added to the tragedy of the death of Uncle Ben. Peter was responsible for taking care of her because he was responsible for Ben's death. It's very important that he has burdens at home as well as everywhere else. He is supposed to be constantly overwhelmed with personal and professional problems. 5: Peter was always vitally protective of his secret identity, including to his close friends and other superheroes. He guarded it with his life. Here he makes stupid, clumsy mistakes that reveal it to people and rips off his mask just to have a conversation with people. It's pathetic, laughable and cringe-inducing because of how absolutely un-Spider-Man-like it is. There were always the tiniest amount of people who ever found out his identity, and these would be incredibly dramatic and consequential moments in stories. 6: The supporting cast is all wrong. Spider-Man doesn't have a weird, goofy best friend who knows his identity. The name Ned Leeds was of a very different character in the comics. There was no reason to apply it to a high school friend of Spider-Man's. Similarly, there's no reason to apply the name "MJ" to a character who doesn't resemble Mary Jane in any way, shape or form. There's very little that's accurate in how characters like Liz or Flash are portrayed. And J. Jonah Jameson wasn't used in the stories so far, who was another vital component that added to Peter's stress and angst in life. JJJ was literally there from Amazing Spider-Man #1. Exactly. I had been reading for a few years by the time of the marriage and I loved it. The marriage was a perfect evolution for the character. It was a great milestone of achievement for him that was a long time coming, but also brings with it a brand new set of potential personal problems. The idea that Marvel eventually had to "un-marry" him later is just complete nonsense. It's pure, unimaginative stupidity for any writer to claim a character can't be exciting or relatable if he's married. John McClane in Die Hard is one of the all-time iconic modern movie heroes, and he was married in his first two, and most popular movies. As for the Clone Saga, it ties right in with when Marvel Comics went to hell in general, and the industry crashed. It was absolute garbage and indicative of the comics downfall of the '90s when gimmicks replaced creativity. Why can a comic book have more "mature" material than a movie? I don't remember Princess Leia as Jabba the Hutt's slave getting the movie an X-rating. Or all the scantily clad Bond girls.
Okay. I think your not even on the mark of understanding what I said/posted. I said they can still have success (money) , I also said the lightning in a bottle when it was happening in real time I think had passed, as the actors/characters will be different, I also say they have every opportunity to have success because Marvel Comics has immense amount of great stories and characters, I also said choosing which will be crucial. Also I mention shenanigans that have happened can cause more problems with getting A List talented actors, directors, writers, people....etc. What the heck read my posts before making a comment that I feel/think is painting a a picture of my words and opinion to be your narrative against my opinion and your talking about subscriptions, money,success and the public perspective (which I had mentioned "marketing can turn almost anything platinum", just like music was in the 80's, bands are more money on one album and song then the Ramones did in their whole career. You are so far off the mark of my points, options, views. So much so a grenade wouldn't be close. Weak, very weak. But have it your (the only way) and please don't talk reply to my stuff if you do not plan to address the points I state in them before you make a blanket opinion that was no where near marks I have sited. If you want to tell me how they are going to green light and ink such as came before with stories, actors, creators, then please do explain how who and what and why. Otherwise please do not spew irreverent to the key points of my posts. Good luck. I wish Marvel the same. Add note: I have 5 or more posts in hear covering this over almost 5 months. Read them!!!!!
All these years later whenever I see this drawing I just have to shake my head. Just awful. "Heroes Reborn" was when I finally gave up buying comics. Marvel interrupted a mighty fine Captain America run by Waid and Garney and served up this steaming hot pile of proportion-impaired crap instead.
With one caveat being the black symbiote suit era, and I'm biased since an issue from back then was one of the first Spider-Man comics I ever read. The black costume paid off a long-running subplot from Secret Wars and even led to the creation of Venom (great time to be reading the books). Ever since then they've had him occasionally changing to increasingly gimmicky costumes, none with as nearly as good a design as the black suit: I don't mind the supporting cast that much, they are there to provide comic relief I guess. The Ned thing is weird, but he's more like Ganke the best friend from Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man. I don't mind Flash Thompson in these movies being a preppy snob--not really the classic take on him, but it works. Zendaya I find to be great and they should have just called her Mary Jane and quit screwing around with it. JJJ is back finally as of the end of the last movie, and they knew they couldn't replace the irreplaceable so they got JK Simmons back.
Yes, #252 is the earliest issue I bought in the stores for cover price. It actually came out before the costume appeared in Secret Wars, as they put a time gap in all the main titles that was later filled in over the next year by Secret Wars. The black costume wasn't a "super suit" in terms of technology, so it's not really the same thing. It was a cosmic entity. And it was introduced as part of a larger storyline. They managed to come up with a good design for the suit that was quite different from his original costume, which is a pretty rare event in comic books, especially for a title character. Of course, this story was already adapted in the Raimi movies, rushed as it was. They shouldn't make decisions that close doors like that when doing an adaptation. It's very short-sighted. Did they not think they might want to do a Miles Morales movie later? Now they've taken one of his supporting characters and used it in the wrong movie. And might they not want to bring Spider-Man's most important love interest into these movies later? Now they'll have to bizarrely give her the same nickname as this completely different character.
This is a really simple obvious thing and I can’t fathom why people seem to have trouble comprehending it. Comics are comics and films are films. You can’t take everything verbatim from a comic and put it into a film. It needs adapting. One of those things is obviously how they characters are drawn. Both the men and women have exaggerated forms, which works fine in the comics, but we look unnatural in live action. Then the costumes. Again, they look ok in the comic as they are drawn, but in real life they would look silly. For example everyone loves Wolverines yellow costume but they have never made him wear that in the films as it would look strange. Most female characters are drawn in rather skimpy outfits (we know why) but if you had someone wearing that in a film it would look bizarre. Firstly pure physics. Take Vampirella, looks great on the page because they can draw it so her costume always stays in place. In reality she would be popping out of that all the time and it would be falling off. Now anyone can buy her comic but ever seen someone co-playing her? Some of them have been banned from conventions as it is a little too sexual to be walking around a convention in with young children. So there is a difference in what you can portray in real life as compared to the comics. Comics are an exaggerated medium, what we consider normal in a comic would seem out of place in real life. Emma Frost looks wonderful in the comics but who would dress like that in real life. Who would think when they woke up ‘I will put on thigh length boots and a white bikini’. It’s ridiculous. Some of the outfits are ok but many others not. Finally it’s just basic common sense. If you are dressing for a combat situation, whatever powers you may have, you need clothes to protect you. No one would go into battle in their bra and knickers and high heels ffs. You would at least aim for some kind of leather suit with non-heeled boots. That is why they dressed the X-Men the way they did in the films. They have combat suits, obviously! So comics do tend to show more flesh, and they are drawn more sexually. Most artists are male and they liked to draw butts and breasts, the poses we take for granted in comics would get ripped to shreds if a director chose those angles in a film. Just look at artists like Adam Hughes, who is amazing, he loves drawing sexy women. So although comics are for kids, content wise they tend to be more sexual that the films, although because they are just drawings and we are used to them being drawn that way we are conditioned to accept them.
Movies aren't real either. What character in action-adventure movies wouldn't wear body armor if they were in that situation in real life? Yet it rarely happens, even in non-sci-fi like Mission: Impossible. Luke and Han went into the Death Star without wearing armor. Movies are not operating on a realistic level. They have a mandate to look cool and make their stars look attractive. We got a Psylocke costume in X-Men: Apocalypse that was fairly comic-accurate. I'm sure if you compare them, it's not as skimpy, but it's still recognizable as Psylocke and doesn't shy away from showing skin. Harley Quinn did some sexy poses in short shorts in Suicide Squad, and the movie grossed a huge amount at the box office. Her costumes have gotten less revealing and frumpier in the two movies since then, and they haven't done nearly as well at the box office. Sex has sold in movies and television for a long time. The Superman movies even just made up Miss Teschmacher so they could have a scantily clad, curvaceous Bond girl type in the movies. Even TV has gone through T&A phases at one time or another, with Charlie's Angels, Love Boat, etc. The Charlie's Angels movies were produced by Drew Barrymore, and still had lots of bikini shots and a scantily clad, sexually charged dance number in them. So it isn't just men who like to do those kinds of scenes. Translating a comic book costume to movies to make it not look silly is of course an art. Didn't work so well in The Phantom movie, but most of the comic book movies have done a better job of it. Going with all-black armor like the X-Men movies was not the way to go. Plenty of people wanted more colorful costumes. They finally gave us some at the very end of X-Men: Apocalypse, and then some fans complained when they just went and abandoned those looks in the next film. Dark Phoenix Has Made A Mistake Ditching X-Men: Apocalypse's Costumes Even by the time Wolvie had his own comic series in the 1980s, they were giving him different costumes without the yellow. That was a case where he evolved into a grittier character after his first appearance, so it's understandable they wanted to make him look grittier. Just like the blues changed into black in Batman's costume over time: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91uITMfR+rL.jpg As for Vampirella, they can be assured of the movie bombing if they ever make a movie about her and give her a costume that covers up her skin. Even Elvira was all about plunging necklines on TV and in her movie. Why is there suddenly all this concern about such things as if the 1980s televangelists were preaching about "smut" again? Emma Frost and the Hellfire Club were based on the Avengers episode A Touch of Brimstone, seen below. And, X-Men First Class did give Emma Frost a sexy costume, without getting much criticism that I recall. So I'm not sure how we get to the point where movies are expected to be more censored in terms of costuming than even TV used to be. Ultimately, it's okay for comic book or sci-fi movies to look ridiculous in some ways. Reality is not the goal. Starro looks pretty ridiculous in The Suicide Squad, but it's a lot of fun as a fantasy character brought to life. The Avengers : Series 4 : A Touch of Brimstone
It’s like ...the dawn of the new puritans. Marvel title anyone lol. As MAE West once said “ Sex SELLS”.
Yep, and like Mae West, Diana Rigg was gung-ho about doing that Avengers episode and pushed for her to be able to wear that costume. There's a narrative out there about "male gaze" and such, that men are the ones who try to put women in skimpy outfits for their own pleasure. Which just isn't the full story. Social media has proven that, as countless women voluntarily show themselves off in skimpy outfits on a daily basis. And frequently it's their female friends who compliment them on how sexy they look. Women are extremely interested in trying to look attractive and get noticed by both men and other women.
Great social observation. Acting / Job. Read recently Scarlet Johansson said she was fed up with constantly keeping her weight down. A few pounds more and you could look bloated on the big screen .. the camera never lies. Eye candy works both ways
They didn't know they were going into the Death Star. Caught in a tractor beam. So they were not prepared. And anyway, if they had planned it it wouldn't be a full on assault. Comic book movies are good now because people are taking them seriously. The writers, directors and actors. They have to be more realistic now and it would be going back to the bad old days if they didn't have combat suits and 'booted up' before going into action. Psylocke costume in X-Men: Apocalypse was dumb and it did get a lot of stick at the time. I'm not a prude at all, I just think we have moved on and it looks kinda silly and breaks the illusion. I couldn't take Emma Frost seriously because of the fact she was walking around in her bra and knickers.
Lol. He is so bad it's unreal. Worst comic artist ever, no contest. For a laugh I bought a Walking Dead comic he did the cover for last week. He can't draw feet (well he can't draw anything but..) so Michonne is stood with a handily placed rock in front of her feet. Hilarious. I think his Captain Amercia run was the very lowest point.
Yep, but men have never been only interested in super skinny or hard-bodied women. The standard of beauty in the media was a lot different up through the 1970s or 1980s. But I think the media changed more than the public did. Black and Latino actresses have quite an easy time being superstars now with larger, curvier bodies. Some white women like Kate Upton have done quite well with it too. Kate Upton got a lot of crap from other models because she didn't have the fit, tight body the industry demanded. But she became incredibly popular with fans anyway. Women can be much more judgmental about other women's bodies when it comes to whether they appear to be worked out or not. But men just like curves. Mainly I think the media has to loosen their standards and restrictions on what body types they consider camera-worthy.
Endgame you had Captain America acknowledging his very own buttt, being attractive. Lordy .. hilarious or what?
I do like Holland and the films he's in but must admit he has become Tony Stark's bitch. The relationship is a combination of father and son and boss and underling. While I can see the narrative reason they did that it is absolutely not in the comics. When they join up in Secret Wars it's more like two colleagues, the dynamic is totally different.
