I've got nothing against it personally, I'm just curious why the choice was made. I've heard people say it's because her clothes don't transform with her, but in the comics she can shapeshift no problem while still wearing her own clothes. Unless she fabricates her own outfit like she does when shape-shifting into someone else.
shareA rare case of a movie change that makes sense and became more well known than the source. It worked for the character in a lot of ways: logistics, demonstrating her bold confident personality, showing her total commitment to embracing being a mutant and not being willing to hide it when not disguised, looked a lot better in the fight scenes, etc. I wasn't a fan of the overuse of the scales. But look at it like this, when Jennifer Lawrence kept insisting on doing it less and less didn't the character seem suddenly wrong?
shareYeah that makes a lot of sense. Do you know if the scales are true to the character as well? I've never seen her drawn that way, but maybe it's a detail that got abandoned at some point. I definitely agree with what you're saying about Lawrence too. Rebecca Romijn was very committed.
shareShe was never naked in the original comics. She always wore clothes. The only reason she was always naked in the movies is what Otter said. To get people aroused. Of course comics Mystique lead the Brotherhood when Magneto was in prison. She was not his lackey like in the movies. Rogue is the worst thing about this series though. Hope Marvel does her better.
shareI think Marvel Studios has potential to do all the characters better to be honest. I'd like to actually see Rogue start off as a villain this time around.
shareHow do you know she actually wore clothes, and didn't just take the shape of a person wearing clothes?
Did the comics show her her actually taking off the clothes she was wearing when she changed shape, or did she say she was actually wearing clothes? Because if she didn't do either of those I would assume she just took the shape of someone wearing clothes.... which made changing shape much quicker and more convenient, as well as cheaper.
I admit I have only read a few comics with her and though you make a point, anytime she was in her regular blue form she formed clothes on herself. She certainly wasn't walking around naked all the time like in these movies. Then again in the comics I read she was the leader of the Brotherhood while Magneto was in prison.
shareAs to why she wasn't wearing or appearing to wear clothes in the movies - comic books are officially made for kids and don't allow nudity, while movies are trying to sell tickets to adults! A beautiful woman wearing nothing but body paint and a few shreds of latex must have been a draw!
I can't imagine what Romaijn (sp?) went through, I've heard it took six hours to paint her all over and stick the scales onto all the more personal spot. And how did she go to the bathroom? If her butt touched the seat or she wiped, did they have to re-do everything?
No, the scales were created for the movie character and I think they detracted from the look to be honest. The scales unfortunately contradicted the notion of her being unashamed because she would have presumably controlled them being there. Romijn rocked the look and seemed perfectly fine with the extended nudity of the character. I think without the scales but maybe some light texture to break up the blue, more evenly distributed. Maybe mix something with the paint. Getting outside my expertise here. But I definitely hate what Lawrence insisted be done with the look, namely clothes and CGI make-up on the face. It looked awful.
shareI think they put the scales on her, because if they'd just painted her bright blue... she would have looked like a regular woman painted bright blue. The scales made her look like... something else.
Using skin tones not found on humans is a LOT easier to pull off in comic books than in movies!
True which is why I say to add some kind of texture to the paint, of find a way to give overall texture. The scales just looked too reptilian which isn't part of her ability. That's the part that felt weird to me. Especially the face.
shareWell, I'm trying to think of some way to add texture to her skin so it wouldn't look like regular human skin painted blue... and I'm drawing a blank. They could have made her look crusty or something, but then she'd just look grubby or repulsive, instead of alien.
The thing is, comic book art allows for a certain kind of unrealism, most of which doesn't translate visually to the screen. Like the brightly colored spandex clothes, which would look either ridiculous or like gym gear, if put on screen as originally concieved.
I know and I get that, but we have had aliens/mutants/whatever people with colored skin that does work if they don't go a single shade of that color. Think Avatar, where there is a pattern but still not actually scales. Even without a pattern they pull it off if they allow for shading, and letting contours have depth. So yeah, certainly not just a monotone blue. Something about the scales just never felt right on that particular character because the mutation has no connection to anything with scales.
shareWell, as Otter said, it was a sex appeal thing, I'm guessing, but because they gave her such an alien, otherworldly appearance, it did help give her a certain, uh...well, I want to say mystique, but it seems so obvious... She was strange, bizarre (uncanny!), and unsettling. She was sexy, dangerous, and a little off-putting, and I think the effect they achieved was greater than what was, in all likelihood, a decision made from the groin.
shareI find it awfully funny that Patrick Stewart was in at least two movies that feature a hot woman who spends much of her time on screen walking around naked. Rebecca Romijn as Mystique in X-Men and Mathilda May in Lifeforce from way back in 1985.
shareSo...you're saying I should watch Lifeforce?
Should we count the CamelTroi his ship's counsellor was constantly sporting in her skintight suit on Star Trek: TNG?
Because comic books now cater to manbaby nerds who think that putting tons of sex, nudity and profanity in these adaptations makes this stuff mature.
shareThey now cater to that audience? If anything, comics are now more progressive and have a lot less sex, nudity, and profanity.
shareI haven't caught up with the comic book world in awhile (too old), so I have no idea what's happening currently. But the hyper-sexualized stuff I've seen coming out of conventions tells me differently.
shareWhat you've seen is stuff from smaller comic companies and is more of a niche than anything. The big ones like Marvel aren't like that. Considering this is a Marvel film, I assumed that's what we were talking about.
shareBecause Jennifer Lawrence has to be naked at some point in every movie she is in
shareI ain't complaining.
shareBecause wearing clothes limits her. If you read the comics, she always shifts into the usual costume of who she wants to look like - including their clothes. That tells me she likely ALWAYS was a nudist at heart. I mean, think of Odo from Star Trek: Deep Space 9 - he did the same thing. When you can control your skin appearance, why not just look like you're wearing whatever is fashionable at the moment?
I remember there was a comic where she actually shifted her clothes into bladed armor, so it was padded so that she wasn't hurt as bad when hit and had claws similar to Wolverine when she attacked.
Appreciate it!
share