Fashion Punditry In The DC Wardrobe
Now that we've all got a look at Green Lantern's costume for the upcoming movie (and a wealth of opinions to match), there are a few assumptions we can make about DC's proposed "image"- namely, I feel that all these recent character modifications indicate that the publisher is more aware of its popular presence. We're all still finding our footing with the recent redesign of Wonder Woman, a switch to a more human, 90's aesthetic. I wouldn't be the only one to point out that Diana's new duds seem to be built with a more approachable real-life duplicate in mind. DC certainly wouldn't want their most iconic female character strutting around in boots and a bustier that can be found on most New Jersey boardwalks, not when the character faces so much exposition from the silver screen. In Ryan Reynolds' case, it seems the designers are going for a more "bad-ass" look; Gone are the dainty white gloves, the domino mask is more angular and edgy and the sinewy treatment for the chest aims to make Green Lantern look something like your standard RPG villain. As with any change though, DC is unraveling the iconic status of its established heroes. This poses a fundamental question; Does DC really need to so radically depart from its status quo to make its character set more approachable? Superheroes appear outside their home medium more and more everyday- if their owners feel the need to compromise their appearance, doesn't that propagate a feeling of alienation from the comics genre, where their original designs were accepted?
Rubber Justice
Posted to Movies, Say What? on 15 July 2010
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: costumes, DC, Fashion, green lantern, movies, ryan reynolds
Don't forget, comic books are for kids. That's been the meme since 1938, and no amount of movie or TV exposure, no amount of mature storytelling talent or sophisticated artwork, can ever seem to change or erase that thought from the minds of the general public. Just look at the obscenity cases brought against comic shop owners: it seems all the DA needs to do to win a conviction is remind the jury, subtly or blatantly, that "this is a comic, and we all know comics are made to be sold to kids."
So the make the big bucks (i.e. in media other than publishing) you have to appeal to older teens and adults. Which means you have to remove or obscure, as much as possible, the fact that these well-written, well-drawn, popular characters sprang from...something written "just for kids".
I am all for updating the costumes, especially DC's stable of styles that only reinforce the belief that they are just for kids.
Any design with a cape is ridiculous- they can be used for artistic effect, but they still look cartoonish and completely impractical (Not even when I was 7 did I buy the idea that Batman would wear something that could easily be grabbed and pulled in close combat).
Add to Superman's cape: the granny panties he wears on the outside. Completely stupid, as is the S for Superman on his chest-- retconning that into a symbol for his family helped, but still-- a big icon on the chest just reads as Kids Stuff. Plus, the spandex shorts with no bulge-- drag queens can't tuck as well as Superman apparently can. I realize that given the majority of the comic reader base, we will never see Superman's dick sticking out the way Winder Girl's tits do, but turning him into a Ken doll is not the answer. It only shows how the spandex tights concept is a hopeless relic of the pre-60's world when one didn't acknowledge the existence of such things in polite company; certainly not in kiddie comix.
As for Wonder Woman, she has needed a redesign for years, as she was not to be taken seriously decked out as a male fantasy object-- how can she be a powerful woman when she looks like something that teenage boys would masturbate to? And the retconning to explain the american flag shorts (dressing to honor her host country? weak weak weak) never passed the laugh test.
While I don't like much of the current redesign (so many comic artists seem not to have noticed what real world women have been wearing since 1988 or so), I am good with the act of some kind of redesign.
And I don't like the weird muscle tissue look of the movie GL costume (it looks like he has been skinned-- is this a Clive Barker story?), I don't miss the stupid white gloves (those really need to go in the comic as well).
It seems to me that if these characters are truly iconic, then evolving their looks with the times won't hurt them. The clothes do not make the man/woman in this case.
ps
while we're at it, take those fins off the Flash's head
Sorry-- I meant Power Girl's tits.
There is another aspect to consider--comics are 2-dimensional. What works there doesn't always work in 3D. Stage designers trying to create costumes for anything from Seussical to The Lion King can tell you that you have to change things to make them work when placed on a real human body.
What is wrong with comics being for kids? I read the comics from the silver age, and they are fun. I read the modern ones, and everyone is trying to outdo the grittiness, the misery, and the violence. Not to mention that the older comics didn't redesign the universe every year, which is outright boring.
I think it's interesting that people are so negative about GL having white gloves; the gloves are there because green against fleshtone is muddy. CSI certainly seems to stay adult even when they are wearing those white plastic gloves.