Recusant said:
Ramzal said:
I think it's a fuss over nothing. People/characters can wear whatever they want to wear. It annoys the crap out of me however when people come over from both ends and either go "SHE'S WEARING TOO MUCH! REVEAL MORE!" or "SHE'S NOT WEARING ENOUGH! COVER HER UP!" In the five years I've known a group of my friends, this occurred and my only answer to it is "Why don't you shut the fuck up and let people or art be? If someone wants to show skin and they think it's fine than cool but if they want to wear longer clothes, that's fine too. It's not your body and you aren't the person who draws what we're watching so stop trying to get people to do what you want when you don't even have your own shit in order."
And no, it shouldn't matter what some random person who didn't matter before they opened their mouth says--whatever they have to say is not important. No matter where you go or what you make, people are going to judge it because they think they know better.
A little secret: They don't.
To the contrary; they do. It's not about art, at least in this case, it's about economics. Making a comic book is relatively cheap; you also get to dodge some of the limits live-action imposes. Costumes that would be wildly impractical for an actor, never mind a non-superpowered crimefighter, work just fine when nothing has to move. When you make changes, however, you often end up altering more important things; an outfit, especially one worn as a one-off, usually doesn't really matter, but it often reflects deeper aspects of character, which very much do. Comic book fans are often very passionate people- and that's not a bad thing. You change too many things, they won't support you- and if that means they won't go see the movie, then you've lost a big chunk of your potential revenue stream right there.
So yes, they actually do know better, and while it doesn't really matter what they say, that usually reflects how they act- and for the adaptation, not only does that matter, it's all that matters.
Cheap you say?
http://www.jimzub.com/the-reality-of-mainstream-creator-owned-comics/
Yeah, no. It's actually more financially consuming than you assume. Unless you're assuming that the penciler and inkers don't get paid and in reality they're paid $100 (US currency) on per page. So you're extremely wrong there even when considering how many different titles are published weekly. Marvel and DC have almost gone bankrupt in their publishings on several different occasions, so.... I don't know where you seem to think that making comics are cheap.
To be frank, you are over analyzing the situation. Comic book characters have extremely skin tight outfits because it's easier for artist to draw them and less time consuming. And I agree that being passionate about your hobby is a good thing, we're on the same page there but the issue is that too many people feel entitled to the point where they believe their opinions are fact and that because -they- don't like how character A is dressed, then that means everyone else must feel the same way and we must join in outrage.
It's a pretty silly phase we're going through when we say we want individuals being shown to be individuals in fiction but we stomp down anything that does not meet a certain criteria. Should some looks change with the times? Yes. Take Spider-woman's outfit change:
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/02ed4db8bccbd6fffd4e79de6071a3cdb9177333/c=0-57-1843-1443&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/2014/12/18/USATODAY/USATODAY/635544606069587059-Spider-Woman-compare.jpg
The left looks extremely aged. Very 1970's but it needed to be updated. Which they did and I am so very happy with the new look because it fits with the more modern times. This is the kind of change that's awesome because they even worked it into the story where she was having an overall lifestyle change where she felt like she was living in the past too much and needed to move forward. Great. Fantastic and it fits. If they just up and changed the outfit suddenly both inside and out of the comic just to fit this idea of what is "acceptable", it would have been pandering. There's a quote that I am positive that I am butchering but it states:
"Listening to the audience leads to a path of mediocrity." The masses ultimately don't know what they want which is what makes the masses the masses and the artist the artist. If you looking at art, you are the one looking at it and you are not the one who made it. It is not YOUR expression that is being put out to the open, it's someone else who is expressing something out to the world. There is a clear line between the two, however this day in age has brought on this idea that those who view or partake in art should have a say in it.
They shouldn't unless they are creating something of their own. Comment on it, and come to your own conclusions for sure but you shouldn't lead yourself into believing that you have the right to tell other people how to handle their own art. To do so puts you in the role of the oppressor rather than that of the viewer.
All of this being said; my opinion is that we should have a mixture of all types of heroes. Some who wear too much (See most anime heroes for what I mean here), some who would "wear too little", some who would in actuality be wearing nothing at all (Bayonetta and Ned Flanders), or some who are generally oppressive. Diversity isn't "everyone get your jeans on and a nice winter coat," it's seeing a variety of different outfits and characters.
Which is why I love the New Avengers vol 1 so much because you had Spider-man in a full body suit standing next to Luke Cage in civilian clothing and Jessica Drew that would either be in her costume or civies depending on what's going on.
