|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 3, 2017 1:00:18 GMT
See original post regarding Psylocke. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 2:50:23 GMT
She's wearing stockings. Same goes for 2/3 of JLaw's Mystique appearances. They shied away from Black Canary's costume. Hawkgirl was fully covered. They turned Harley Quinn into an actual stripper. I hate the overly sexy Harley Quinn. Even in the comics and games. Can't think of a MCU character that could go the overly sexy route. Maybe Mantis. I think they went the "these women are sexy, let them be sexy" route. Gamora, Black Widow, Quake, May, Mera, Faora, Mantis, Nebula, the Carters, Sif, Maria Hill, Mockingbird, Wanda, Ayo, Vanessa Fisk (also Lara in MoS)... List goes on. Skimpy does not equal sexy. Harley Quinn was not sexy in those booty shorts. Especially since Margot Robbie doesn't have the body to pull it off. yeah...........I know she's wearing stockings........because if not.......i'd be very concerned about her disjointed skin pigmentation. and i'm not just including Jennifer Lawrence, but also Stamos's. and who is talking about sexy? we're just talking about the amount of clothing, there's a correlation, but not a causation. and........yeah while not properly dressed, I thought Margot wore the short shorts well. :/ Well, having a booty should be a prerequisite to wearing booty shorts. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 2:55:16 GMT
Now really looking at it... The swimsuit and a piece of chest "armor" on top (probably was on the original suit). They threw that together to appease her. Seen better cosplayers. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 3:29:50 GMT
Well, if they aren't sexier then what is the point of applauding skimpy? [Edit] Also, I'm kinda wishing that Munn wore the newer Psylocke uniform. Because they just gave her anything. I bet they didn't even do a fitting for that. [Edit2] And I'm not talking about sexier than other movie's characters. I mean the character wearing an alternative outfit. I think he's making an observation, no more no less. munn pushed for that outfit. Again: the point? DC (and Fox) is trying to get people in on sex appeal, but are people really coming for that? Did Harley's shorts help get people to like Suicide Squad? He says that DC doesn't shy away from skimpy outfits, but could the reason for that be because they want to distract you from what they brought to the table? Harley gets naked in front of everyone. Harley breaks a window and the camera shows her bending over to get... something. Too distracted to care. Munn championed for that costume, but you can tell she was uncomfortable in it. You can tell it was a last minute thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 3, 2017 5:55:47 GMT
^ the point is to discuss that DC is willing to dress their female characters in skimpy clothing, skimpier clothing than the norm from other studios. That's all there is to it. That should be simple enough to understand no? If you want to put additional meaning into it then that's up to you. You can say there's a sexiness aspect to it, or we can also say they're just going for a more comic accurate representation. I also noticed how you seem to be only fixated on Harley. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 3, 2017 13:30:20 GMT
yeah...........I know she's wearing stockings........because if not.......i'd be very concerned about her disjointed skin pigmentation. and i'm not just including Jennifer Lawrence, but also Stamos's. and who is talking about sexy? we're just talking about the amount of clothing, there's a correlation, but not a causation. and........yeah while not properly dressed, I thought Margot wore the short shorts well. :/ Well, having a booty should be a prerequisite to wearing booty shorts. I think she has nice butt. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 14:04:14 GMT
Well, having a booty should be a prerequisite to wearing booty shorts. I think she has nice butt. If you like surfboards. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 14:07:22 GMT
^ the point is to discuss that DC is willing to dress their female characters in skimpy clothing, skimpier clothing than the norm from other studios. That's all there is to it. That should be simple enough to understand no? If you want to put additional meaning into it then that's up to you. You can say there's a sexiness aspect to it, or we can also say they're just going for a more comic accurate representation. I also noticed how you seem to be only fixated on Harley. Why? Because she is the skimpiest and they keep reminding you of it.  No. And more comic accurate? They went away from what and who Harley is. They went away from Black Canary. Enchantress. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 3, 2017 14:51:49 GMT
^ the point is to discuss that DC is willing to dress their female characters in skimpy clothing, skimpier clothing than the norm from other studios. That's all there is to it. That should be simple enough to understand no? If you want to put additional meaning into it then that's up to you. You can say there's a sexiness aspect to it, or we can also say they're just going for a more comic accurate representation. I also noticed how you seem to be only fixated on Harley. Why? Because she is the skimpiest and they keep reminding you of it. No. And more comic accurate? They went away from what and who Harley is. They went away from Black Canary. Enchantress. I'm not saying they're more accurate. I'm saying we could just as easily start discussing that as much as sexiness. Anyway, I think you're letting your hate for Robbie's Harley detract you from the main point of this thread. Yes, she had a skimpy outfit. Glad you agree. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 3, 2017 15:44:19 GMT
I'm not saying they're more accurate. I'm saying we could just as easily start discussing that as much as sexiness. Anyway, I think you're letting your hate for Robbie's Harley detract you from the main point of this thread. Yes, she had a skimpy outfit. Glad you agree. The point is glorifying that DC would show more "skin"* than Marvel. But what I'm saying is: Why is that a good thing? Especially in why and how they are doing it. Also, there is no hate for Margot's Harley. I'm indifferent, because she does nothing for me. I don't find her appealing. Especially when she makes this face.  My Harley has always been this petite, spitfire of a character who's sexiness came from how out there and cute she was. She's not this stripper, booty shorts wearing woman that would change her clothes in front of a bunch of people and is pretty much an oblivious airhead. If there is any hate, it would be for the people that turned her into that. Now, back to DC and Marvel's skimpy outfits. I think it shows more on what they think of these characters and what they can bring. The sexualization of their characters is really telling in how they want to bring people in. The difference, though, is that X-men (Mystique) did it and had something to offer besides that. *For tightness in outfits, also. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 3, 2017 17:05:28 GMT
I'm not saying they're more accurate. I'm saying we could just as easily start discussing that as much as sexiness. Anyway, I think you're letting your hate for Robbie's Harley detract you from the main point of this thread. Yes, she had a skimpy outfit. Glad you agree. The point is glorifying that DC would show more "skin"* than Marvel. But what I'm saying is: Why is that a good thing? Especially in why and how they are doing it. Also, there is no hate for Margot's Harley. I'm indifferent, because she does nothing for me. I don't find her appealing. Especially when she makes this face. My Harley has always been this petite, spitfire of a character who's sexiness came from how out there and cute she was. She's not this stripper, booty shorts wearing woman that would change her clothes in front of a bunch of people and is pretty much an oblivious airhead. If there is any hate, it would be for the people that turned her into that. Now, back to DC and Marvel's skimpy outfits. I think it shows more on what they think of these characters and what they can bring. The sexualization of their characters is really telling in how they want to bring people in. The difference, though, is that X-men (Mystique) did it and had something to offer besides that. *For tightness in outfits, also. Sexualization of characters? Other than Harley and Halle's Catwoman, I'm pretty sure the other female DC characters were no more sexualized than they were in the comics. And putting someone in a skimpy outfit doesn't necessarily mean sexualization, sometimes it can also be for ease of movement. For example, it's much easier to do high kicks in a short skirt than in tight leather pants. |
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 3, 2017 18:48:11 GMT
I think she has nice butt. If you like surfboards. ? she has a nice butt. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 4, 2017 15:58:39 GMT
My bad. I'm black. That's an ironing board. You can make flat bread on that. She might as well be Asian. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 4, 2017 16:49:21 GMT
The point is glorifying that DC would show more "skin"* than Marvel. But what I'm saying is: Why is that a good thing? Especially in why and how they are doing it. Also, there is no hate for Margot's Harley. I'm indifferent, because she does nothing for me. I don't find her appealing. Especially when she makes this face. My Harley has always been this petite, spitfire of a character who's sexiness came from how out there and cute she was. She's not this stripper, booty shorts wearing woman that would change her clothes in front of a bunch of people and is pretty much an oblivious airhead. If there is any hate, it would be for the people that turned her into that. Now, back to DC and Marvel's skimpy outfits. I think it shows more on what they think of these characters and what they can bring. The sexualization of their characters is really telling in how they want to bring people in. The difference, though, is that X-men (Mystique) did it and had something to offer besides that. *For tightness in outfits, also. Sexualization of characters? Other than Harley and Halle's Catwoman, I'm pretty sure the other female DC characters were no more sexualized than they were in the comics. And putting someone in a skimpy outfit doesn't necessarily mean sexualization, sometimes it can also be for ease of movement. For example, it's much easier to do high kicks in a short skirt than in tight leather pants. That's why the martial artists in the MCU don't wear tight leather pants. That has been a complaint about the X-men movies (hell, most of the Fox movies) since the beginning. Have you ever seen the video of the 1st night of shooting for X-men? They did the Statue of Liberty scene 1st and that was the 1st time they wore those suits. They had to stretch them out and couldn't get over a 2 foot wall. They all kept falling. That should have been the 1st sign for the movie makers that it didn't work. But of course they saw Blade and The Matrix and wanted that look. Which is funny because they really didn't wear much leather that restricted (was designer suits in The Matrix and his coat in Blade). None of the other characters were sexualized? Enchantress? She wears way less than her comic counterpart. They got a model for the part and used that. And how about... Now I'm trying to think of any other skimpy outfitted character and can think of no others. What was the point of this again? 4+2 out of a bunch of characters. Mostly villains. |
|
pete8680
Sophomore
Yo!
@pete8680
Posts: 464
Likes: 448
 
|
Post by pete8680 on Jun 4, 2017 19:08:46 GMT
For those who say Mystique is naked ask yourself this. Do you consider an alligator naked?
I don't consider her naked 4 the same reasons I don't consider Chewbacca naked. She is covered with scales. Chewy is covered with hair.
|
|
