Birds of Prey Announcement

[Karkull]

Does any of this bother you? There's this ugly trend in comic-book adaptations where, in order to be made, comic book properties either 1) lose the costumes (Smallville, Witchblade) or 2) the villains (The Tick). They're selling off the soul of the property in order to make it big, bad Hollywood.

It's been going on for a while now. Ever since the 60's Batman television show creative teams were scared of putting two costumed characters against one another on the screen. That's why the Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, and The Hulk didn't fight their comic book adversaries on their television shows.

Same with the Superman movies--why didn't Luthor look like Luthor? True, the Phantom Zone criminals had those black outfits, but they didn't have actual costumes to begin with--they dressed like regular Kryptonians would. Then there was Nuclear Man--who was an invention for the movies, not a genuine comic book villain--who just roared and looked stupid (costume was okay, though).

The Batman movies had the right idea, but Schumacher screwed it up. You know how. Then, when they started doing another Superman movie, the executive producer [Maxie Zeus remembers his name] gave Kevin Smith the ridiculous demand that Superman not fly and not wear his traditional costume.

See a connection?

Now to the present day. Smallville's "no flights, no tights" rule limits the comic book scope of the series. It's not Superman--it's Roswell with Superman's name attached to it to get their audience. The Tick, however, had his costume, but lost all of his colorful villains (all we really got was their bastardized version of the Red Scare, who had not personality). Now we've got a potential Birds of Prey show--which sounds to me like doing Batman without Batman--that has the announcement that they're not going to do costumes or supervillains, but in order to sucker their audience in they're going to keep the names of DC Comics characters--Oracle, Black Canary, and [the Silver Age] Huntress.

When you take away the costumes and costumed villains away from a superhero show you're no longer doing a show about superheroes, period. The names are the same, but you're cheating the established conventions of the genre. Could you do a real Western without guns and horses? What about a historical drama without the history? A film noir without crime? All I'm saying is that the superhero genre we've got is cutting corners and cheating the source material.

[The Guard]

Does any of this bother you? There's this ugly trend in comic-book adaptations where, in order to be made, comic book properties either 1) lose the costumes (Smallville, Witchblade) or 2) the villains (The Tick). They're selling off the soul of the property in order to make it big, bad Hollywood.

It's been going on for a while now. Ever since the 60's Batman television show creative teams were scared of putting two costumed characters against one another on the screen. That's why the Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, and The Hulk didn't fight their comic book adversaries on their television shows.

Same with the Superman movies--why didn't Luthor look like Luthor? True, the Phantom Zone criminals had those black outfits, but they didn't have actual costumes to begin with--they dressed like regular Kryptonians would. Then there was Nuclear Man--who was an invention for the movies, not a genuine comic book villain--who just roared and looked stupid (costume was okay, though).

Umm...Luthor DID look like Luthor. Gene Hackman was perfect, and remember when he TOOK OFF HIS WIG, revealing that he was bald?

The Batman movies had the right idea, but Schumacher screwed it up. You know how. Then, when they started doing another Superman movie, the executive producer [Maxie Zeus remembers his name] gave Kevin Smith the ridiculous demand that Superman not fly and not wear his traditional costume.

I don't remember this from SUPERMAN LIVES. Read the script. Superman does a lot of flying. Yes, they DID tinker with the "S" design for his return from death, but Superman would have definitely flew.

See a connection?

Now to the present day. Smallville's "no flights, no tights" rule limits the comic book scope of the series. It's not Superman--it's Roswell with Superman's name attached to it to get their audience.

SMALLVILLE is not SUPPOSED to be Superman. It's SMALLVILLE. It's about a teenage Clark Kent discovering his powers. It's not SUPPOSED to have costumes. You want that, go find some old SUPERBOY episodes.

The Tick, however, had his costume, but lost all of his colorful villains (all we really got was their bastardized version of the Red Scare, who had not personality).

Now we've got a potential Birds of Prey show--which sounds to me like doing Batman without Batman--that has the announcement that they're not going to do costumes or supervillains, but in order to sucker their audience in they're going to keep the names of DC Comics characters--Oracle, Black Canary, and [the Silver Age] Huntress.

Well, since it's been mentioned that Barbara was BATGIRL in the BOP TV show, I'll bet we WILL see some costumes, at least in flashbacks. As long as Huntress looks semi-non civilian, I'll be happy. If the show's any good. :)

When you take away the costumes and costumed villains away from a superhero show you're no longer doing a show about superheroes, period. The names are the same, but you're cheating the established conventions of the genre. Could you do a real Western without guns and horses? What about a historical drama without the history? A film noir without crime? All I'm saying is that the superhero genre we've got is cutting corners and cheating the source material.

It's a new take on superheroes. Period. Experience has "taught" TV people that costumes=corny. They are of course, wrong. Costumes don't equal corny, bad scripts equal corny...

[BeyondGotham]

I am also bothered. The costume thing doesn't bother me. It's the fact that it's the silver age Huntress, the fact that Batman exiles himselve. (I don't think he would do that) Prob no Nightwing..Robin. You can make a Birds of Prey TV show, and go along with the comics. Instead of making them in Gotham, have them Travel. Or for that matter...lets just have a Bruce Wayne Series and do things right.

[Karkull]

Originally posted by The Guard
It's a new take on superheroes. Period. Experience has "taught" TV people that costumes=corny. They are of course, wrong. Costumes don't equal corny, bad scripts equal corny...

You're missing the point. The question is where does it stop? How much of the superhero genre can you strip away and still have it stay true to the materials? Superheroes are about the costumes, the gaudy villains, the powers, the gadgets, etc. Without them they're just a bad suspense film.

And I don't care how many people love Smallville, I still think that it's a cheap attempt to draw in an audience with a bastardized concept. Smallville is nothing more than Dawson's Creek with superpowers, period. Just like Lois and Clark was Moonlighting with superpowers. It's not Superman.

[The Guard]

It's not Superman.

And what IS? A Superman with wall-rebuilding vision? Or the ability to change the past by turning the Earth back? (WHAT ABOUT THE MISSLE, AND THE DAM? WOULDN'T THAT HAPPEN AGAIN TOO?)

You cannot expect a literal translation. If it was just comic stories and situations we all know by heart, what would be the point in watching? Just go with it. Think of it as ULTIMATE SUPERMAN. If you don't like it, fine. But it's got as good a cast as I've seen in a long time, great characterization, and it's ENTERTAINING.

[The Mad Hatter]

A little thing about The Tick... the creator, Ben Edlund, has said that the live-action Tick show is a lot closer in spirit to the comic. And I've read the comic and I'll have to agree... many times there weren't any villians in it, just Tick and Arthur trying to live the daily lives of superheroes. This isn't a new trend too, this was back in the early 90s.

The Tick villians were cool in the Fox series, I've got to admit, but they were there because the network thought kids would get bored if they just sat around and lived their dysfunctional lives. Personally, I enjoy the approach of the live-action series... yesterday's episode didn't have any baddies in it, but the concept that Arthur had to "come out" about his superhero-ness to his family... priceless!

[Karkull]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
A little thing about The Tick... the creator, Ben Edlund, has said that the live-action Tick show is a lot closer in spirit to the comic. And I've read the comic and I'll have to agree...many times there weren't any villians in it, just Tick and Arthur trying to live the daily lives of superheroes.

I read the original comic too and there were tons of villains in it! True, they weren't the main focus of the series, but that's one of the conceits of the comic: you're going about your business and, suddenly, a maniac with a chainsaw pops out of nowhere and attacks you! There was a villain in just about every story arc of the original 12 issues.



Originally posted by The Guard
And what IS? A Superman with wall-rebuilding vision? Or the ability to change the past by turning the Earth back? (WHAT ABOUT THE MISSLE, AND THE DAM? WOULDN'T THAT HAPPEN AGAIN TOO?)...

Technically, the movies that you reference were based on The Silver Age Superman who was ridiculously powerful and had stupid powers and, yes, it didn't translate well on screen. But don't tell me that they couldn't put together a decent movie that's faithful the the current Superman comic book.

[The Guard]

Technically, the movies that you reference were based on The Silver Age Superman who was ridiculously powerful and had stupid powers and, yes, it didn't translate well on screen. But don't tell me that they couldn't put together a decent movie that's faithful the the current Superman comic book.

I don't remember there ever being wall-rebuilding vision or electro-power draining s shields in the comics...

[JusticeLeagueLegion]

Originally posted by The Guard
It's not Superman.

And what IS? A Superman with wall-rebuilding vision? Or the ability to change the past by turning the Earth back? (WHAT ABOUT THE MISSLE, AND THE DAM? WOULDN'T THAT HAPPEN AGAIN TOO?)

You cannot expect a literal translation. If it was just comic stories and situations we all know by heart, what would be the point in watching? Just go with it. Think of it as ULTIMATE SUPERMAN. If you don't like it, fine. But it's got as good a cast as I've seen in a long time, great characterization, and it's ENTERTAINING.

Just to let you know...the reason he traveled through time is because he traveled faster than light...not because he moved earth. The reason he flew around the earth was because he wanted to stay there...if he broke the time barrier without circling earth...he'd be a loooonnnngg way from earth by the time he was done...and it woulda been too late for Lois.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by JusticeLeagueLegion


Just to let you know...the reason he traveled through time is because he traveled faster than light...not because he moved earth. The reason he flew around the earth was because he wanted to stay there...if he broke the time barrier without circling earth...he'd be a loooonnnngg way from earth by the time he was done...and it woulda been too late for Lois.

I've always wondered the same thing The Guard did, and your explanation makes sense. But that "earth spinning backwards" has confused more than one person as to what's going on.

[JusticeLeagueLegion]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


I've always wondered the same thing The Guard did, and your explanation makes sense. But that "earth spinning backwards" has confused more than one person as to what's going on.

Well when you move backward in time, every thing else appears to be moving backward.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by JusticeLeagueLegion


Well when you move backward in time, every thing else appears to be moving backward.

I understand that. But since the shot of the Earth was not from Superman's POV but from the audience's objective view, it is very easy to interpret as the Earth itself rotating backwards. That's all.

Actually, it never bothered me. Superman is such a cool movie I was willing to swallow a LOT. Except that hideous "song" during the flying sequence. :D

[Ed Liu]

Howdy all,

Good points raised by all. However, I think Karkull's original point that "superheroes require costumes" deserves some debate/counterpoint. Some questions for forum readers (but especially to Karkull) to consider in response:

1. Do you consider The Matrix a superhero movie or Buffy the Vampire Slayer a superhero TV show? Both conform very strongly to the generalities of the superhero genre (hero discovers/develops super-powers and fights the Forces of Evil with like-minded and like-abilitied comrades), without a costume in sight.

2. I thought that BoP was really about the core team of Barbara G. and Dinah L.; the Huntress doesn't show up until the last story of the TPB. Barb obviously doesn't wear a costume at all, but even Dinah/Black Canary's "costume" is little more than stylized combat armor. Does this lack of costuming help or hinder BoP as a superhero comic?

3. There are a number of heroes in various Comic Book Universes who wear essentially civilian garb: the Question, the Phantom Stranger, the Shadow (as in "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" "Alec Baldwin" =8^), Blade the Vampire Hunter, Jonah Hex, and Hitman. Are these guys any less "super" because of their lack of costume?

4. Consider the Hulk. His original "costume" was little more than a pair of pants at least 3 sizes too small, with the occasional tattered rags over the shoulders. Later, during the "Mr. Fix" period of the Peter David Hulk run, he dressed in suits, ties, and a fedora while acting as an enforcer in Las Vegas, often dealing with supervillians in this capacity. Does either situation diminsh the Hulk as a superhero?

5. Along the same lines, consider the "costumes" for the Thing (unstable molecule Speedo), the She-Hulk (usually leotards and the occasional power-suit when she's playing attorney), Tigra (teeny weeny bikini), the original Black Canary outfit (bustier, fishnets, bolero jacket, and boots), Zatanna (more or less the same as BC, only more formal), and the original Frank Miller Catwoman (kinky sex outfit). All these characters essentially repurpose civilian clothing for superheroic purposes. Are these guys even really IN costumes? If so, what makes their outfits "costumes" at all?

6. Consider a comic book where a cop or a soldier develops super-powers, but chooses instead to stay in the Police Department or the Army to fight Crime and/or Evil, and stays in his/her original uniform to do so. Is this a superhero comic book or not?

7. Mystique from the X-Men movie. Fundamentally, a buck naked blue chick. Supervillian or not?

OK, I've beaten this over the head enough. My point is that costumes in the Batman/Superman/Spider-Man sense have been a part of superhero comics for a long, long time, but I think the costumes are not truly inherent to the superhero genre, or that they don't really have to be.

For a property like Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, I agree wholeheartedly -- losing the costume is tantamount to losing the character. Smallville gets a break here because (IMO) it's about Clark Kent, NOT Superman (whether the show is any good or not is another matter entirely =8^). However, for lesser-known heroes like those in BoP, I don't think losing the costume is a real loss.

Personally, I think the effect Karkull is observing is a broadening of the concept of a superhero story, rather than a concentrated effort to remove "ingrained" aspects of the superhero story itself. I also think the same thing has been happening in the comic book realms as well, with generally less outlandish costumes over time (consider the X-Men, which launched the "Heroes in Jackets" look).

Comments?

-- Ed/Ace