DC Extended Universe

Given how the comics are using Mystique right now, I'll take the movie version any day (though I would like her to be covered up). Besides she grows out of that role by DOFP.

I have no defense for Sue's portrayal in the movies. Though I have to ask what was the point of making her a scientist if they weren't going to do anything with it.

edited 29th Jun '15 9:05:48 AM by windleopard

I actually forgot Batgirl...I blissfully forgot the whole movie for a moment....and Poison Ivy is not only walking sex, she is also a villain, we are talking about heroines. But I take Elektra. She was somewhat clothed.

There's some Fridge Brilliance reasoning behind Mystique's nakedness, however, for the purposes of an easier Willing Suspension of Disbelief— when you have a clothed Mystique, her power has to be, not only changing herself, but also changing any clothes she might have on her at the moment. Sure, her body always adapts into clothes when she changes, and we can assume even when she has the white clothes on she's actually 'naked' like the Martian Manhunter is, but I assume it would have to be easier, when you aren't using the power, to just have your body naturally bare than to keep your 'standard uniform' on at all times.

edited 29th Jun '15 9:12:58 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

Isn't that what Rebeca Romijn said when asked about the character being nude?

It's also oddly progressive in that no one in-universe ever stops or pauses to oggle or even consider she's naked and attractive while being so— the other characters, evil and good alike, keep treating her the same as they would if she were wearing or faking clothes, even characters who in the comics, like major creep-ass Sabretooth, would actually make bad taste comments about it. Even Hank, who was attracted to Raven, would have preferred her to be a 'normal' woman who wouldn't walk around in the buff.

Yeah, but nevertheless Superhero movies have a long way to go...and the X-men franchise is the one which annoys me the most in this regard, because the comics actually have a myriad of divisive characters but all females are reduced to love interests or whiny teenagers in the movies so that they don't disturb the white male sausage feast.

No disagreements from me. Though I confess that Rogue's portrayal in the movies didn't bother me as much as others as I could understand that not being able to touch someone could be hard to live with and at least taking the cure was her choice and not something forced unto her.

I don't see that as particularly progressive. She's blue and scaly. Mystique's lack of conventional attractiveness means that she can walk around naked and nobody in-universe cares a whit. First Class highlights the issue with Beast's encouragement that Mystique be normal, with her rejection of social norms and decision to embrace a life of being a naked, blue, scaly supermodel depicted as her villainous origin.

You don't see Magneto, Blob, or Toad walking around naked to embrace being a mutant, either. There is nothing progressive about the creative decision to make Mystique a blue, naked supermodel. It's pure titillation, and the one time they tried to justify it retroactively - after three movies of it, mind you - by making it a plot point, they body-shamed her into supervillainy.

Film Mystique embodies everything wrong with Hollywood's treatment of female characters.

edited 29th Jun '15 10:43:58 AM by TobiasDrake

Warner Bros. is moving all movies based on Vertigo comics properties except Dark Universe to New Line.

Everything that belongs to DC that isn't a Vertigo title will still be done by Warner Bros.

That makes sense, because they wouldn't mesh with the mainstream DC universe.

I wouldn't have minded Rogue deciding to take the cure if she had been allowed to be badass beforehand. Rogue in the Animated series was a way better adaptation.

It's dissapointing though.

I wanted to see Morpheus being referenced in one of the DC móveis.

New Line could probably reference the WB movies but they probably can't crossover. We should know more when Shazam comes out because that is at New Line. WB said all of the films revealed in that slate exists in the DCCU.

Much as I like the movie, it's worth noting that every single female character in X Men First Class (Mystique, Moira Mc Taggart, Angel, and Emma Frost) is either naked or in her underwear for at least one scene.

Add in Catwoman, Black Widow in Iron Man 2, Pepper in Iron Man 3, and the lack of female superheroes overall, and it's easy to see where the impression is coming from.

edited 29th Jun '15 3:23:58 PM by Galadriel

It's really a factor in most movies sexualizing it's characters, male or female. Female more than male, certainly, but lets not say it's only female. Comic book movies are typically better than comic books, because their clothing doesn't have to fit on a real person. I find Adaptational Modesty a very interesting trope for that reason.

In truth, something I found refreshing about Man of Steel was that the only fanservice was Clark running around bare chested. Lois was very modestly dressed and Faora's armor was not blatantly sexualized (certainly a little slinkier than Zod's, but both utilize skin tight undersuits).

It's really a factor in most movies sexualizing it's characters, male or female. Female more than male, certainly, but lets not say it's only female.

I'm going to probably misquote Kelly Sue DeConnick here: men are sexualized as a power fantasy. Women are sexualized to show sexual availability.

Case in point: Black Widow stripping down to her underwear in Iron Man 2. Was it necessary? No. Can you see that happening to a man? Well, stripping yes, but not in this context.

edited 29th Jun '15 10:08:34 PM by alliterator

Awwww, Del Toro's no longer on Dark? Sad news.

Edit: On the discussion of female heroes, how cool would it be if they adapted the Phantasm character?

edited 29th Jun '15 9:18:20 PM by Cruherrx

Well technically Phantasm was more of an Anti-Hero, but it would still be awesome.

Lest we forget, Dream's an antihero. Alignment shouldn't matter.

I wouldn't expect Dream to be adapted like a superhero either.

He's hopefully being properly adapted (although I still disagree with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's casting). I just meant it as a general comparison.

Phantasm was an antivillain, not an antihero. She was murdering people, and attacked Batman when he tried to stop her. And for some years after that she was a hitman for Amanda Waller.

Honestly, I never had a problem with Mystique's portrayal (at least physically) in the first few movies. She was demoted to being a henchman which was lame, but maybe it's just that those movies were my primary introduction to the character.

I mean, given her powers I think it's justified. And First Class retcons it to be a "mutant pride" thing, which given the extremity of some ~insert minority here~ pride things isn't that far-fetched for someone as passionate as her.

I mean, no one's really criticizing Harley's short shorts or Joker's tattoos because we accept that it's in-character for them (at least that seems to be the general consensus). I'm not that familiar with Mystique's role in the comics (I'll admit her comics costume is just as cool as her movie look), but it seems kind of backwards to approve one form of fanservice that makes sense given the character(s) and disapprove of another that can make just as much sense given the character (at least how she's portrayed in the films).

Ultimately, I look at writing more than physicality. I think Ledger's Joker is a kind of ugly and tasteless design, but the character's written in a really cool way. So Mystique is naked, whatever. If that's all we can focus on, that's the writing's fault in not being able to make us look past the sexy blue surface. It's almost a self-imposed writing challenge.

Focus on her body rather than her character and of course you'll be disappointed in writing you didn't witness.

I mean, no one's really criticizing Harley's short shorts or Joker's tattoos because we accept that it's in-character for them

I'm pretty sure there are tons of people criticizing Joker's tattoos. Harley's shorts, I'm not sure, because she's worn shorts in the comics before.

But in any case, I'm not sure how any of that is "in-character" as their characters frequently change. The Joker barely has a character, he's so mutable.