Printable View
[QUOTE=SixSpeedSamurai;3783469]This one has always puzzled me. If she can punch someone like Superman really hard, her skin should be able to withstand a bullet or a blade.[/QUOTE]
It's the power of nostalgia. She needed to do the bullets & bracelets thing in the 40's so by golly, she will do it forever, even if it doesn't make sense anymore.
Considering Superheroes in armor tend to get torn apart as quickly as those without armor, I'm for whichever looks the best visually.
[QUOTE=Carabas;3783660]It's the power of nostalgia. She needed to do the bullets & bracelets thing in the 40's so by golly, she will do it forever, even if it doesn't make sense anymore.[/QUOTE]
It still looks really cool though :).
Wonder Woman is like a tennis pro--bullets & bracelets is her sport. Sure tennis players could just grab that ball and throw it over the net, but what would be the fun in that?
Even if there's some in-story reason for armour, I think it undermines the point about invulnerability in such a visual medium. If it wasn't for community standards that frown on this sort of thing, I would like to see all the invulnerable super-heros naked. They wouldn't wear anything more than body-paint. That would get the point across in a visual way that they can withstand anything and don't need any protection.
As for Batman, the armour might make sense (even if you can explain why it doesn't weigh him down), but it decreases the sense of danger. The idea that Batman isn't proteced against attacks increases the risk, which makes it more exciting and gives him a greater challenge. He's a daredevil and would rather depend on his own skills to avoid harm, rather than hamper himself with armour.
Comic book stories don't exist to make crime-fighting look like a walk in the park. Otherwise, Batman could just drive a tank and never have to worry.
[QUOTE=Johnny Thunders!;3782450]Wonder Woman is the one that mystifies me. She can withstand blows that level buildings but can be wounded by conventional weapons?[/QUOTE]
I think it all depends on who's writing Diana and how said writer fits her overall powers into a particular storyline.
[QUOTE=Carabas;3783660]It's the power of nostalgia. She needed to do the bullets & bracelets thing in the 40's so by golly, she will do it forever, even if it doesn't make sense anymore.[/QUOTE]
It's also a distinctive brand image. Ugly as it is to say, that generally has a more durable value than most individual stories.
I've always written Wonder Woman handling pummeling, but needing bracelets for bullets off as crush proof and puncture proof being two different things. Admittedly, I formulated that notion as a child, but it still works for me.
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;3783903]Wonder Woman is like a tennis pro--bullets & bracelets is her sport. Sure tennis players could just grab that ball and throw it over the net, but what would be the fun in that?
Even if there's some in-story reason for armour, I think it undermines the point about invulnerability in such a visual medium. If it wasn't for community standards that frown on this sort of thing, I would like to see all the invulnerable super-heros naked. They wouldn't wear anything more than body-paint. That would get the point across in a visual way that they can withstand anything and don't need any protection.
As for Batman, the armour might make sense (even if you can explain why it doesn't weigh him down), but it decreases the sense of danger. The idea that Batman isn't proteced against attacks increases the risk, which makes it more exciting and gives him a greater challenge. He's a daredevil and would rather depend on his own skills to avoid harm, rather than hamper himself with armour.
Comic book stories don't exist to make crime-fighting look like a walk in the park. Otherwise, Batman could just drive a tank and never have to worry.[/QUOTE]
So Batman wearing armour (that isn't indestructible) destroys tension but superheroes who are so invulnerable they can walk around naked don't?
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;3783903]Even if there's some in-story reason for armour, I think it undermines the point about invulnerability in such a visual medium. If it wasn't for community standards that frown on this sort of thing, I would like to see all the invulnerable super-heros naked. They wouldn't wear anything more than body-paint. That would get the point across in a visual way that they can withstand anything and don't need any protection.[/QUOTE]
Well, that'd make the books more interesting, but I don't see too many xxx theaters left for the next live action superhero blockbuster.:p
The thing is a lot of the actors who appear in the super-hero movies really are doing the work to get their bodies fit and muscular--but you can't see that through clothes. So they still have to wear padded suits and get digital augmentation, for audiences to see the muscle. Whereas, I'd maintain that if they were allowed to walk around in their birthday suits, that would be an impressive display.
We could see very well that Henry Cavill was muscular in his shirtless scenes. Just paint an S on his chest.
Of course, when Mamoa stars in AQUAMAN, he'll get a chance to flex his muscles. And I'm sure if and when the Rock appears as Black Adam, it will be all natural.
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;3785232]The thing is a lot of the actors who appear in the super-hero movies really are doing the work to get their bodies fit and muscular--but you can't see that through clothes. So they still have to wear padded suits and get digital augmentation, for audiences to see the muscle. Whereas, I'd maintain that if they were allowed to walk around in their birthday suits, that would be an impressive display.
We could see very well that Henry Cavill was muscular in his shirtless scenes. Just paint an S on his chest.
Of course, when Mamoa stars in AQUAMAN, he'll get a chance to flex his muscles. And I'm sure if and when the Rock appears as Black Adam, it will be all natural.[/QUOTE]
I somehow suspect that the mainstream isn't quite ready for superhero movies where everybody is almost entirely naked with a bodypainted costume, even though it would be comics accurate.
[QUOTE=Carabas;3783660]It's the power of nostalgia. She needed to do the bullets & bracelets thing in the 40's so by golly, she will do it forever, even if it doesn't make sense anymore.[/QUOTE]
You know, i always used to think that maybe bullets caused her a bit of discomfort, which is why she blocked them with her braces. I mean Luke Cage and Wolverine have been shown to tank almost anything while still expressing some level of pain. Different physiologies, i guess.
[QUOTE=The Anti-Geek;3785399]You know, i always used to think that maybe bullets caused her a bit of discomfort, which is why she blocked them with her braces. I mean Luke Cage and Wolverine have been shown to tank almost anything while still expressing some level of pain. Different physiologies, i guess.[/QUOTE]
In the Smallville comic she's bullet proof but she says she doesn't like getting shot nonetheless.
But the thing is, no character in the DCU has proved to really be invulnerable. Not even heavy weight such as the Specter or the Anti-Monitor. All of them have been beaten at least once so having armor as an extra layer of defense isn't a bad idea.
Superman sure does run into kryptonite quite a bit. Kryptonite, other Kryptonians and red sun radiation weaponized in some way. He's not safe at a JLA meeting if Batman gets a little twitchy, so I would make armor at this point. I thought the New 52 suit would protect from some of that as well. I was betting the armor would be his ship from krypton with an a.i. but I guess that was too Iron Man. Maybe Superman already has enough tools to handle red sun radiation, magic, and kryptonite? Near everything else is a nice compensation. Still with all the evil Kryptonians he meets, you think he would also have also weaponized kryptonite and red sun radiation while also "armoring" himself. At least carry a phantom zone projector!
Wonder Woman was recently shot during the Priest run in JLA. It was jarring for me because I figured she was just like Captain Marvel, Superman, and whoever. I don't see bullets hurting J'onn or Arthur (though they use to)! In the end I guess I just say she is magic and she has magic rules. I like the idea that she is not invulnerable but her lasso, bracelets, tiara, and other metal are invulnerable. When she moves with the speed of Mercury and her bracelets, she is effectively invulnerable because she moves so fast she creates a virtual force field of "everywhere at once bracelets." That's why she can give the Flash a run for his money to my mind. Gods of speed should mean something and if she has the speed of Mercury? Anyways, she can take a uppercut from Doomsday because that works by her magic rules, but if she gets hit with a ricochet her magic invulnerability doesn't work? It's got a mythic quality. I need to think of these characters less as video games in someways.
What kind of armour stops Kryptonite? Unless Superman put himself inside a can of lead and closed the lid, the lethal radiation would get to him no matter what. And in Weisinger times, if something was made on Krypton it had the same properties as Superman--so any Kryptonian armour would fold like a cheap suit when green K came near.
I would have Doc Magnus cook me something up with a just one or two New Genesis squiggles thrown in for good measure. The thing could walk itself over!