Comics are Awesome III

[Sparky Prime]

Aquaman should be colorful, we're going to have a hard time seeing him underwater, and his look is based on fish which are often colorful. There should be some room for interpretation but not so much that the character's iconic appeal is lost, that's all half the DC lineup really has.

Look at Wonder Woman's movie costume color change:
http://io9.com/wonder-womans-costume-in ... 1699013166
There was color and character integrity, then they removed it, a closer look:
http://comicbook.com/2015/04/21/batman- ... er/#Image1
It's like they're ashamed of where they come from, turning Wonder Woman into 300 in pursuit of "grim and gritty". The leather of the X-men suits was meant to be armor, but why does Wolverine need armor? It'll just slow him down. Look at Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Guardians, these successful comic book films adapt without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the outfits are still colorful and alive.

Why would we have a hard time seeing Aquaman under water just because he isn't wearing particularly colorful clothes? I'd say that'd have more to do with the lighting of a scene than what they're wearing. If it's that dark it's hard to see him, then it's not going to matter what colors he's got.

The X-Men costumes weren't meant to be armor at all. They were just uniforms, meant to be more realistic for live action. And in large part, I think that's the direction DC is going for, a more realistic take for live action. But still, they aren't exactly devoid of color like you're making them out to be.

[andersonh1]

Aquaman should be colorful, we're going to have a hard time seeing him underwater, and his look is based on fish which are often colorful. There should be some room for interpretation but not so much that the character's iconic appeal is lost, that's all half the DC lineup really has.

Look at Wonder Woman's movie costume color change:
http://io9.com/wonder-womans-costume-in ... 1699013166
There was color and character integrity, then they removed it, a closer look:
http://comicbook.com/2015/04/21/batman- ... er/#Image1
It's like they're ashamed of where they come from, turning Wonder Woman into 300 in pursuit of "grim and gritty". The leather of the X-men suits was meant to be armor, but why does Wolverine need armor? It'll just slow him down. Look at Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Guardians, these successful comic book films adapt without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the outfits are still colorful and alive.

I think DC Comics editorial are ashamed of where they came from, two months of Convergence not withstanding. Look at how hard they try to tweak and change the classic costumes, or to make their characters more trendy. I'm not sure what end result they're trying to achieve, other than to try and rid themselves of the "underwear on the outside" jokes. But I don't see that actually doing that has made Superman or any of their other characters more popular. They have the most well-known and iconic super-heroic characters, and they should promote that, not try to downplay it. As you say, Marvel tweaks the costumes for live action, but the characters on the screen largely look like the characters on the page.

The X-Men were Fox, not Marvel Studios, so there are different creative choices going on there.

The colorful costumes are a part of the genre. People who don't like them are probably reading the wrong books, IMO.

[JediTricks]

Why would we have a hard time seeing Aquaman under water just because he isn't wearing particularly colorful clothes? I'd say that'd have more to do with the lighting of a scene than what they're wearing. If it's that dark it's hard to see him, then it's not going to matter what colors he's got.

The X-Men costumes weren't meant to be armor at all. They were just uniforms, meant to be more realistic for live action. And in large part, I think that's the direction DC is going for, a more realistic take for live action. But still, they aren't exactly devoid of color like you're making them out to be.

You're wrong.

I think DC Comics editorial are ashamed of where they came from, two months of Convergence not withstanding. Look at how hard they try to tweak and change the classic costumes, or to make their characters more trendy. I'm not sure what end result they're trying to achieve, other than to try and rid themselves of the "underwear on the outside" jokes. But I don't see that actually doing that has made Superman or any of their other characters more popular. They have the most well-known and iconic super-heroic characters, and they should promote that, not try to downplay it. As you say, Marvel tweaks the costumes for live action, but the characters on the screen largely look like the characters on the page.

That's a good point, it's not like people see DC in any better a light since New 52 and that sort of thing.

The colorful costumes are a part of the genre. People who don't like them are probably reading the wrong books, IMO.

"Let's make Superman more accessible to people outside of comics by taking away his cape and his underpants and his powers and his name."

[Sparky Prime]

I think DC Comics editorial are ashamed of where they came from, two months of Convergence not withstanding. Look at how hard they try to tweak and change the classic costumes, or to make their characters more trendy. I'm not sure what end result they're trying to achieve, other than to try and rid themselves of the "underwear on the outside" jokes.

How does tweaking costumes equate shame of where they came from? Updates and changes to costumes have happened plenty over the years. Some more drastic than others. I don't recall anyone accusing them of being ashamed of where they came from when they debuted the electric Superman costume and powers several years ago, despite that being a huge departure for the character, especially when compared to the more recent changes. Or Spider-Man's black costume, which has become just as iconic as his red and blues. And that's not a very colorful costume I might add.

What's so wrong about making a some tweaks just for the simple reason of updating the look? Or making some big changes to highlight events in the story. Or highlight some aspect they're going for with the character? There's plenty of reasons for them to make some changes to the characters costumes, but in no way does it mean they're ashamed of where they came from just because they made some changes.

The colorful costumes are a part of the genre. People who don't like them are probably reading the wrong books, IMO.

I don't think it's a matter of liking or not liking the colorful costumes, it's about finding what they feel works for the project. Take the scraped Nicolas Cage Superman film for an example, which they tried to experiment with completely reinventing the costume (among other things), but eventually, they ended up back at the iconic look before things got shut down.

You're wrong.

You're welcome to your opinion to disagree but that's all that is. I'm not wrong.

[JediTricks]

You're wrong.

You're welcome to your opinion to disagree but that's all that is. I'm not wrong.

It's not about opinion, it's about facts, and you're incorrect about both of those things.

[Sparky Prime]

It's not about opinion, it's about facts, and you're incorrect about both of those things.

Oh, so you already know for a "fact" that it'll be too dark to see Aquaman under water unless he's wearing a colorful costume, and no amount of lighting in the scene could possibly change that? Yeah, no, that's strictly your opinion not a fact. With a properly lit scene, it shouldn't make any difference if he's wearing a colorful costume or not. As for the X-Men costumes, they weren't meant to be armor. At most Brian Singer said that they considered the leather costumes to be more durable than cloth uniforms. Durability =/= armor. So you're the one that's incorrect.

[Dominic]

The problem is that colorful costumes do look kind of....stupid.


The Iron Man suit was designed by a millionaire with a sense of flash. A good chunk of "the First Avengers" was devoted to explaining why Captain America's colorful costume made sense.

The texture on Batman's costume is off. But, Wonder Woman's new costume looks good. (Never much liked her old costume. Why is an emissary of world peace from an uncharted island sporting American colours and imagery on her panties?)

[andersonh1]

Wonder Woman's costume choice is explained in her origin story: she wore the colors of the country she was going to visit in order to honor them. In the 1940 origin from All-Star #8 it was Diana's mother who designed it. That probably changed with later character revisions, I'm sure.

The problem is that colorful costumes do look kind of....stupid.

That's a matter of opinion, surely. Some of them translate well to live action while others don't. Most of the designs look fine in the medium they were designed for, the printed page.

[Sparky Prime]

The Iron Man suit was designed by a millionaire with a sense of flash. A good chunk of "the First Avengers" was devoted to explaining why Captain America's colorful costume made sense.

That's a really good point. Captain America's costume in the film originally came about because he was promoting war-bonds, he wasn't intended to see any real action at the time. And Tony didn't add any color to his armor until he decided the gold render of the mark 3 was too ostentatious.

Same could be said for Spider-Man. His red/blue costume was originally designed with the mindset of using his powers to perform, not for crime fighting.

[andersonh1]

For someone like me, who would like to see some classic characters continue after Convergence, this looks hopeful. This is the cover of Convergence #8.