I would like to question something about the physical portrayal of super heroines.

[Parasondox]

This is the part where I come up with a witty or strange intro.

In the past few years, I have been getting to comics more and more and enjoy a good read with visual story telling. Characters of all walks, shapes and life being put into situations that they must fix out suffer a great loss. When I go onto sites like Comic Book Movies and a female is portray in live action, the first thing that comes up is, "She's not showing enough flesh" or "she's not hot enough". WHAT?! Shouldn't the acting come first rather than if the person hot or not? Does it need to be "she must be hot" first and acting second or nowhere near the top 5?

Okay this topic is about what female super heroes wear and would they really suit live action. If a live action Power Girl movie were to be made, would comic book fans be annoyed if she covered up a bit? With the recent photos of Super Girl being released, which I like, many have questioned why they didn't go for something with a bit more "flesh". As someone pointed out, "Her flying around in a skirt, where every would be looking up, wouldn't really translate well".

What do you think? A fuss over nothing? Showing flesh is a must for a super heroine? Thor should only wear short shorts to make it even? Some people just need to move with the times? or ever "PC gone mad" blah meh?

 

[Redryhno]

To be fair, comics are a mainly visual medium, say what you will about writing in them, it still lives or dies on the quality of the illustrations for the most part. And the thing that alot of people complain about from my experience is not so much that the "showing enough flesh" bit(honestly, I've never seen or head anybody coming up with that as reason for their dislike of it) as it is that the easiest part to transfer from comic to film is the look of the character and how many times it's completely screwed up.

Everyone agrees that Superman's underpants are sorta weird, but it's a part of the character that has existed over countless iterations for decades, and so it's expected that it will transfer along with the rest of the suit(he seriously has no need for a cape, and MoS showed that the other Kryptonians looked just as good without it as well while flying around, as well as him having some sort of trouble wearing it. So why just stop at the underpants?)

On the other hand, everyone loves Hugh Jackman because he spent alot of time and effort to look like Logan/Wolverine in addition to the make-up artists and their contribution. The silly things with his hair styled the way it is and the sideburns are still there. Not to even mention Anna Paquin and her looking and sounding much the same as Rogue is supposed to, as well as the extra little touch at the end of the first movie with her hair starting to turn white.

And yet again, you've got the Fantastic Four films and Jessica..Biel(? I can't remember her name) as the Invisible Woman. There was alot of talk at that point of them using her clothes disappearing and the resulting embarassment too liberally as a punchline because it took away from her portrayal in the comics as a strong character, not to mention being filler more often than anything else.

Then, you've got the Ghost Rider movies, everytime the Rider is on the screen, it's considered good, Cage, not so much. He's proven he can act pretty well(and I mean that seriously, everyone remembers his crazy, over-the-topness more than anything I wonder if the people on this site never heard of him before Wicker Man and Face-Off), but his Johnny Blaze is either boring, or exceedingly eccentric and on the edge of "WTF-ville"

Overall, it's a question of consistency and changing superficial things while still keeping the majority of the stupid in the costumes and look while urging people to take the character more seriously because they changed something.

Overall, the actor chosen should be the one that can act the best yes, but the majority of being a character is in the way they carry themselves, their movements, and all the other million things you see a thousand times more than you see them talk in the comics. So, in alot of ways, the way they look is just, or more, as important as their acting ability. But I'll repeat, I have no idea where you're getting the "she's not hot enough" people.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I think this relates to an issue I had long ago with MovieBob. In his Dark Knight review (from way back, before he was even on the Escapist), he went on a little tangent where he wondered why live action Batman always wears what looks effectively like full body kevlar instead of... whatever tights he wears in the comics. This is where the difficulties in adaptation between mediums becomes screamingly apparent. What looks good in comics, on still panels, does not usually look good in motion if adapted 100% accurately. Actors portraying male superheroes would effectively have to be wearing body paint to get the exact look of the comics costumes, and be roided up like the fucking Incredible Hulk. Same goes for superheroines: not only are they usually portrayed with impossible physical proportions, but the way just normal everyday physics would screw up their costumes will inevitably doom any attempt to adapt them 100% accurately to the screen.

Supergirl wears a skirt? Well, a gust of wind will take whatever badass qualities that has and turn it into fanservice. Spawn has a badass cape? Imagine if you tried to film him just trying to get through a door. Spider-Woman (and it seems 90% of all other superheroines as well), wears a skintight bodysuit? Have her run through a bush and she'll come out wearing about 50% of her uniform.

Perhaps my bottom line is what MovieBob also said a long time ago, in his Halo Legends review if I remember correctly: When you're adapting something from one medium to another, sometimes you have to rip its guts out to get it to work. When making superhero costumes in live action, you shouldn't be trying to replicate what's on a still page, you should make a version of it that looks plausible and good in motion. One of the better examples of how ridiculous accurate translations of superhero costumes look in live action was in the first Captain America: his propaganda uniform is accurate, and it's used as a punchline. Give me his badass dark blue silver star uniform from Winter Soldier over that any day.

Edit: Oh, and to anyone genuinely upset about superhero costumes not being portrayed accurately: Get the fuck over yourself. If this is a problem in your life, then hallelujah, you must have reached Nirvana, because you apparently no longer possess the ability to worry about earthly things.

 

[Ramzal]

This is the part where I come up with a witty or strange intro.

In the past few years, I have been getting to comics more and more and enjoy a good read with visual story telling. Characters of all walks, shapes and life being put into situations that they must fix out suffer a great loss. When I go onto sites like Comic Book Movies and a female is portray in live action, the first thing that comes up is, "She's not showing enough flesh" or "she's not hot enough". WHAT?! Shouldn't the acting come first rather than if the person hot or not? Does it need to be "she must be hot" first and acting second or nowhere near the top 5?

Okay this topic is about what female super heroes wear and would they really suit live action. If a live action Power Girl movie were to be made, would comic book fans be annoyed if she covered up a bit? With the recent photos of Super Girl being released, which I like, many have questioned why they didn't go for something with a bit more "flesh". As someone pointed out, "Her flying around in a skirt, where every would be looking up, wouldn't really translate well".

What do you think? A fuss over nothing? Showing flesh is a must for a super heroine? Thor should only wear short shorts to make it even? Some people just need to move with the times? or ever "PC gone mad" blah meh?

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.

 

[Scarim Coral]

There is a huge different between the character apperance in the comicbook and in real life-

Movie Thor never worn the helmet cos it look silly if he wear it for long as evident from his ceremony scene.

The X-Men worn those leather as oppose to the yellow stripe spandex as again it look silly and they even make a joke on it in the first film. Ok sure they did kind of wear it in First Class but still.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is at the end of the day, the character apperance in the film or tv series will be judged by the general public

 

[Erttheking]

I'm one of those insufferable pricks who thinks that costumes should match their characters. You wouldn't have the Punisher running around in hot pink and bunny ears because it completely contrasts with his character. Just make the costume match the character. Frankly I just don't think a mini-skirt matches someone whose supposed to be an unstoppable force of nature.

 

[Aurion]

Practicality matters.

Most superhero/superheroine costumes aren't really the sort of thing you can put on/take off like normal clothes, and that makes accurately modeling the costumes in live-action adaptations kind of a fool's errand.

Traditionally, Supergirl wears a skirt. Supergirl, as a character, was formulated a long time ago and in the world of comics the Magic Skirt tends to be in full force. That's not really doable in real life. So I can't say I care about her movie redesign.

Also, there's much better reasons to mock the Balebat movies than the costume.

 

[Seishisha]

I suppose the most obvious factor is the target demographic of the comic books, alot of them are aimed at teenage boys so ofcourse the female characters and gonna be skanty, despite the fact that wearing less clothes than a supermodel in a swimsuit photoshoot is not practical for fighting crime. Seriously one protuding nail away from 'exposure' would never be practical for anyone male or female but it is the defacto goto for designing characters, skintight body suit or what is basicly a lycra t-shirt. Designed to show every curve and contour either muscle bound pecks or impossibly firm tits.

The movie's and television shows however are aiming for a larger demographic and will make alterations to costumes to make the characters more appealing to women and men of all ages not just the hormonally driven teens. Also the fact that extremely tight form fitting clothing is probably damn uncomfortable to wear for hours while filming.

The numerous problems a costume like powergirl's would give are not difficult to imagine, tight around the crotch and having a large hole in the chest, the chance of malfunctions happening when running around, punching or kicking, getting thrown about as superheroes and heroines tend todo. It's easy to understand why something like that wouldnt be practical for filming in.

Personaly i couldnt care less how accurate a costume is to it's original comic, everything is open to interpritation and sometimes a style change can make a character look even better. As long as the overall aesthetic is good and the character is iconic then it doesnt matter.

*Edit* apparently i like the word practical.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I think it would depend on the character.

I personally don't like the new Supergirl outfit because a skirt is supposed to look cute and carefree. Hers looks like a shrunken nun's habit, AND she has leggings AND boots that go beyond her knees. She doesn't need armor or covering, she's a bulletproof alien that has microwave eyes. If they really felt that a skirt would be impractical, then they should have removed it and replaced it with something else, like what they did with Arrow. Instead of the Robin Hood hat that would just be a hassle to keep on, they gave him a hood.

On the other hand, I would be completely fine with a covered up Power Girl. Her assets are definitely very distracting. Pretty sure a lot of people would be pissed if they had characters like Giganta, Cheeta, or Starfire in a TV show or movie looking exactly the way they do in the comics.

 

[mecegirl]

The thing with Supergirl in particular is that the chracter has had a LOT of costumes. In one era the character used to design new costumes just for fun. They even had readers send in costume designs for the character.

Why the cheerleaderish skirt stuck around as the default I'll never understand. Seeing that they put her in tights they may as well had used the costume on the right.

Just give her back the shorts. Its cute, its "girly", and youthful. I'd also dare to say that it could be modified in a way that it wouldn't look hokey in live action.

On the wider topic at hand, the way it looks/works in live action is always the reason why female superhero costumes are changed for live action. Comic book fan's hate change but the are such a small demographic that movie and tv makers can safely ignore their opinion.

 

[FalloutJack]

A wise man in the audience of a Dara O'Briain stand-up once said "Fuck PC! Let's go for it!".

I don't care about the skin or not skin of a female superheroine in a comic or whatnot. If she's that good, and if I really need it that much, I have a pretty good imagination to fantasize no matter WHAT you do. It doesn't even matter.

 

[The Madman]

Comic books are escapism, their protagonists generally meant to be idealistic portrayals of various ideals. I have no problem with them looking buff or sexy or dramatic or even silly when it suits their persona and the tone of the story they're trying to tell, that's part of the appeal of that sort of pulpy genre and I would have it no other way.

With that said however there's also something to be said for diversity and equal representation. I don't think it's 'PC gone mad' for people to desire a hero that better represents them personally or for them to better admire. I don't agree with some people demanding existing characters be changed to suit those purposes, but I've also no problems with new characters being introduced or twists in stories to introduce new elements or tones in order to help broaden the genre's appeal to a new audience.

It's a tricky balance to strike but it's worthwhile to at least try I figure, even if it does result in some duds every now and then.

 

[Recusant]

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.

 

[mecegirl]

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.

No. No you don't loose a big chunk. Comic fans are not that numerous. People that like comic book characters are, but the ones who are really invested in the comics themselves, and thus more likely to care about changes, are not. Comics don't sell nearly that many copies to be that big of a deal. The issues sold rarely top 150,000 copies and that's just for the most popular books. That's nothing compared to the fans of a very popular print book, like say Harry Potter.

If it looks cool enough people other than comic fans will watch it, which is why The Walking Dead has thousands of more tv watchers than comic readers.

 

[Recusant]

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.

No. No you don't loose a big chunk. Comic fans are not that numerous. People that like comic book characters are, but the ones who are really invested in the comics themselves, and thus more likely to care about changes, are not. Comics don't sell nearly that many copies to be that big of a deal. The issues sold rarely top 150,000 copies and that's just for the most popular books. That's nothing compared to the fans of a very popular print book, like say Harry Potter.

If it looks cool enough people other than comic fans will watch it, which is why The Walking Dead has thousands of more tv watchers than comic readers.

Let's take a look, shall we? The readers of the comic are a small number compared to the total potential audience of the movie, true. But they're a huge chunk of the audience who need no further prompting to see the movie beyond "it's a movie of [Insert adapted material here]". It's certainly possible for something to be a lousy adaptation, alienate the core fans who consequently don't see it, and still be a great financial success, I don't dispute that. But that's not the way commercial moviemaking works in this time and place. Every movie made by a major studio is targeted at a specific demographic- you can and certainly will seek to expand beyond that demographic, but if you ignore it entirely, your funders are going to get spooked and pull the plug. If test audiences reject the changes you make to the source material, you're probably going to have to change it. If you don't (and sometimes you can get away with that), the people you've angered aren't going to see it- and likely, neither will their friends, nor any of the other fans they discuss it with (like I said, these tend to be very passionate people).

You don't lose a big chunk of revenue as a direct result, that's true. But you lose a lot of the opening weekend crowd, and lower opening weekends lead to shorter runtimes in theaters. Even if you achieve beloved cult icon status in the home video market, you're still only seeing a fraction of what you could've in theaters. So, yes. Yes, you do lose a big chunk of revenue.

 

[visiblenoise]

What's wrong with a bit of superficiality? It is partly for the eyes, after all. Not everybody is predisposed to give a crap about believability...in a superhero comic...

I'm not saying they're right to complain (that is irrelevant because this is a matter of taste) - I'm just saying that their "complaints" are not meant to be taken as the high criticism it's being made out to be, as opposed to criticizing the acting.

 

[Lilani]

What do you think? A fuss over nothing? Showing flesh is a must for a super heroine? Thor should only wear short shorts to make it even? Some people just need to move with the times? or ever "PC gone mad" blah meh?

There's a thing called The Hawkeye Initiative [http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/] which takes the often ridiculous and sexual poses female superheroes are put in and redraws them with men in their place, often wearing the same outfits. Obviously this leads to some pretty silly and awkward images of men. It also mocks the idea that the images are supposed to be "empowering" to women, as it makes it clear the poses are more sexual than powerful.

Not all of the comparisons are fair and many take it to a bit of an extreme, but I still think one would have to be blind to see that a good portion of not most female superheroes are designed to be enjoyed by men rather than women.

As a female, my main concern is that we just be honest about it. If your main audience is men, then respond to such criticism with "Hey, this one is for the guys." I've heard that in regard to Power Girl and her boob window, [http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/53da948ae4b067cbb1f4db8a/1406833802285/tumblr_n9in0dkM131qg8i80o1_1280.jpg] there was once a storyline made which explained the boob window by it having to do with her taking some kind of an emblem off of her costume because she was abandoning that title or something (I don't read the comic so I don't know the whole story). So the hole was left there when she ripped the emblem off her costume.

To me, that is not okay. It's clear why the boob window was made--it was a stylistic choice to show off her cleavage. It is not acceptable to insult the intelligence of your audience by trying to tell them it has some greater meaning after the fact. Let's call a duck a duck--if you want to design a character from the ground up to serve as eye candy, then don't be afraid to own up to it. Twilight intertwined its explanation for the chiseled wolves and vampires into the story, they didn't trot them out shamelessly and then at some arbitrary point afterward make up an excuse to try and cover the obvious.

This is also part of a greater problem regarding female superhero outfit apologists. There are SO MANY excuses for why female superheroes dress the way they do--it's to distract male enemies, it's because they're SO CONFIDENT in themselves they don't feel the need to cover up, it's because they're designed to be ideal figures of women--just as the chiseled men of comics are designed to be ideal figures of men.

But that's exactly what these things are--excuses. If distraction by physical appearance is such an effective strategy then why doesn't Batman strip down if he's going after Catwoman or Harley Quinn? Why is this strategy exclusive to female characters? Why are so many convinced the only thing keeping women from running around naked is confidence in their body? Does that mean the male comic book heroes who are fully clothed are all extremely insecure? If both male and female comic book heroes are designed to be "ideal figures," then why is sexuality not as integral to male comic book character design as female?

Again, I don't mind eye candy characters. Both sexes deserve them and need no excuses. But what I absolutely cannot stand is people retroactively trying to make excuses for the eye candy, or trying to pretend it's not there. Playboy has been around forever and people stopped complaining about it a long time ago, but Playboy has also not pretended to be anything other than what it is. And if you want to take a character which was originally designed for sex appeal and give them a greater purpose, then don't try to make a bunch of excuses for the past. Do what they did with Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider series and just start from scratch. New character design, new costume, new everything--all sticking with the new purpose you want to give that character. Leave the past in the past and move on.

 

[Parasondox]

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.

No. No you don't loose a big chunk. Comic fans are not that numerous. People that like comic book characters are, but the ones who are really invested in the comics themselves, and thus more likely to care about changes, are not. Comics don't sell nearly that many copies to be that big of a deal. The issues sold rarely top 150,000 copies and that's just for the most popular books. That's nothing compared to the fans of a very popular print book, like say Harry Potter.

If it looks cool enough people other than comic fans will watch it, which is why The Walking Dead has thousands of more tv watchers than comic readers.

Let's take a look, shall we? The readers of the comic are a small number compared to the total potential audience of the movie, true. But they're a huge chunk of the audience who need no further prompting to see the movie beyond "it's a movie of [Insert adapted material here]". It's certainly possible for something to be a lousy adaptation, alienate the core fans who consequently don't see it, and still be a great financial success, I don't dispute that. But that's not the way commercial moviemaking works in this time and place. Every movie made by a major studio is targeted at a specific demographic- you can and certainly will seek to expand beyond that demographic, but if you ignore it entirely, your funders are going to get spooked and pull the plug. If test audiences reject the changes you make to the source material, you're probably going to have to change it. If you don't (and sometimes you can get away with that), the people you've angered aren't going to see it- and likely, neither will their friends, nor any of the other fans they discuss it with (like I said, these tend to be very passionate people).

You don't lose a big chunk of revenue as a direct result, that's true. But you lose a lot of the opening weekend crowd, and lower opening weekends lead to shorter runtimes in theaters. Even if you achieve beloved cult icon status in the home video market, you're still only seeing a fraction of what you could've in theaters. So, yes. Yes, you do lose a big chunk of revenue.

Will Fantastic 4 suffer this year because the trailer doesn't appeal to comic book fans cause they made a lot of changes?

 

[Parasondox]

There's a thing called The Hawkeye Initiative [http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/] which takes the often ridiculous and sexual poses female superheroes are put in and redraws them with men in their place, often wearing the same outfits. Obviously this leads to some pretty silly and awkward images of men. It also mocks the idea that the images are supposed to be "empowering" to women, as it makes it clear the poses are more sexual than powerful.

Not all of the comparisons are fair and many take it to a bit of an extreme, but I still think one would have to be blind to see that a good portion of not most female superheroes are designed to be enjoyed by men rather than women.

As a female, my main concern is that we just be honest about it. If your main audience is men, then respond to such criticism with "Hey, this one is for the guys." I've heard that in regard to Power Girl and her boob window, [http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/53da948ae4b067cbb1f4db8a/1406833802285/tumblr_n9in0dkM131qg8i80o1_1280.jpg] there was once a storyline made which explained the boob window by it having to do with her taking some kind of an emblem off of her costume because she was abandoning that title or something (I don't read the comic so I don't know the whole story). So the hole was left there when she ripped the emblem off her costume.

To me, that is not okay. It's clear why the boob window was made--it was a stylistic choice to show off her cleavage. It is not acceptable to insult the intelligence of your audience by trying to tell them it has some greater meaning after the fact. Let's call a duck a duck--if you want to design a character from the ground up to serve as eye candy, then don't be afraid to own up to it. Twilight intertwined its explanation for the chiseled wolves and vampires into the story, they didn't trot them out shamelessly and then at some arbitrary point afterward make up an excuse to try and cover the obvious.

This is also part of a greater problem regarding female superhero outfit apologists. There are SO MANY excuses for why female superheroes dress the way they do--it's to distract male enemies, it's because they're SO CONFIDENT in themselves they don't feel the need to cover up, it's because they're designed to be ideal figures of women--just as the chiseled men of comics are designed to be ideal figures of men.

But that's exactly what these things are--excuses. If distraction by physical appearance is such an effective strategy then why doesn't Batman strip down if he's going after Catwoman or Harley Quinn? Why is this strategy exclusive to female characters? Why are so many convinced the only thing keeping women from running around naked is confidence in their body? Does that mean the male comic book heroes who are fully clothed are all extremely insecure? If both male and female comic book heroes are designed to be "ideal figures," then why is sexuality not as integral to male comic book character design as female?

Again, I don't mind eye candy characters. Both sexes deserve them and need no excuses. But what I absolutely cannot stand is people retroactively trying to make excuses for the eye candy, or trying to pretend it's not there. Playboy has been around forever and people stopped complaining about it a long time ago, but Playboy has also not pretended to be anything other than what it is. And if you want to take a character which was originally designed for sex appeal and give them a greater purpose, then don't try to make a bunch of excuses for the past. Do what they did with Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider series and just start from scratch. New character design, new costume, new everything--all sticking with the new purpose you want to give that character. Leave the past in the past and move on.

They finally made Hawkeye sexy. The sexier Avenger.

Now, I do really enjoy your insight on this matter and I do see a lot of denial and defending. Maybe it's because they are trying to defend their favourite pass time or creation from any negative views. Yes, they should just admit it. Comics are originally aimed at teenagers but adults enjoy the reading too and revealing costumes for female heroes wouldn't be rare.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They finally made Hawkeye sexy. The sexier Avenger.

Now, I do really enjoy your insight on this matter and I do see a lot of denial and defending. Maybe it's because they are trying to defend their favourite pass time or creation from any negative views. Yes, they should just admit it. Comics are originally aimed at teenagers but adults enjoy the reading too and revealing costumes for female heroes wouldn't be rare.

IMHO, and generalising, comics (like video games) are seen as things for kids/teens. Now, that's not necessarily the case, but there's that perception, and lots of fans want their hobby to be seen as grown up. OTOH, though, many of them don't want it to actually grow up.

Now, of course what "grow up" means in context is rather vague. There are endless movies that are puerile rubbish, but the medium as a whole is seen as more mature than comics, for some reason.