Cockrum on Stan Lee and Ms. Marvel's Costume

105 views
Skip to first unread message

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 10:41:42 AM8/20/01
to
Just came across this story from Dave Cockrum and thought it appropriate to
post in light of the discussions lately:

"CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?

Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too. Remember
she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure a
rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must have
gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally I
did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
Shiny leather and tits & ass!"

(From the Fall 1999 "Comic Book Artist," No. 6, page 31)


George F. Grattan
grat...@bc.edu

"...in the end they just ask you those crappy little questions."
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men

Matt Adler

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 11:58:30 AM8/20/01
to
"George F. Grattan" <grat...@bc.edu> wrote in message
news:B7A699E6.E641%grat...@bc.edu...

> Just came across this story from Dave Cockrum and thought it appropriate
to
> post in light of the discussions lately:
>
> "CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
>
> Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too.
Remember
> she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
> open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure
a
> rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
> needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
> 'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must
have
> gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in
different
> colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally
I
> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
like:
> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"

Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!

--

"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."

"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"

-- As told by Adam Cadre


Shawn Hill

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 11:46:29 AM8/20/01
to
George F. Grattan <grat...@bc.edu> wrote:

: gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different


: colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally I
: did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
: said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
: Shiny leather and tits & ass!"

: (From the Fall 1999 "Comic Book Artist," No. 6, page 31)

Well, sorta undoes our whole "what a tasteful costume" concept, huh? :)


Shawn

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 2:35:39 PM8/20/01
to

Somewhat. I mean, Cockrum doesn't quote Lee saying- "Butt floss or you're
fired!" or "Fine, but make sure everyone draws her from the back." :-)

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 2:37:37 PM8/20/01
to
on 8/20/01 11:58 AM, Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:

>> Finally
> I
>> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
>> like:
>> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
>
> Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!

In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at
many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.

Matt Adler

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 2:48:44 PM8/20/01
to
"George F. Grattan" <grat...@bc.edu> wrote in message
news:B7A6D130.E6BC%grat...@bc.edu...

> on 8/20/01 11:58 AM, Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:
>
> >> Finally
> > I
> >> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> >> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
> >> like:
> >> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
> >
> > Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!
>
> In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at
> many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.

Well, we all want to have this grandfatherly image, but the truth is, sexism
was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.

Shawn Hill

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 5:24:39 PM8/20/01
to
Matt Adler <mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
: "George F. Grattan" <grat...@bc.edu> wrote in message

:> In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at


:> many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.

: Well, we all want to have this grandfatherly image, but the truth is, sexism
: was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
: the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
: gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.

Just look at the Calendar girls, or Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe
in any context. It's not that different today, in some ways.

Shawn

Andrew Krepela

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 9:17:48 PM8/20/01
to
In article <B7A6D130.E6BC%grat...@bc.edu>,

George F. Grattan <grat...@bc.edu> wrote:
>on 8/20/01 11:58 AM, Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:
>
>>> Finally
>> I
>>> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>>> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
>>> like:
>>> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"

And that's why they call him Stan THE MAN! ;-)


--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |\ zZZZ ,,,---,,_ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ Andrew /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ www.eskimo.com/~icebrkr @@
@@ Krepela |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Enjoy Your Shoes! @@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ /---''(_/--' `-'\_) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Matt Deres

unread,
Aug 20, 2001, 9:41:30 PM8/20/01
to

George F. Grattan wrote in message ...

>Just came across this story from Dave Cockrum and thought it appropriate to
>post in light of the discussions lately:
>
>"CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
>
>Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too. Remember
>she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
>open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure a
>rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
>needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
>'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must
have
>gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
>colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally
I
>did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
>Shiny leather and tits & ass!"


Of course, he *did* do that one from the start; he just called her
Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
York called Beers.


Matt


George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 12:13:23 AM8/21/01
to

I'm not sure of the chronology here- does Cockrum's re-design of the Ms.
Marvel costume pre-date Phoenix? (It certainly pre-dates Oracle, if so.)

Menshevik

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 2:52:38 AM8/21/01
to
>> Of course, he *did* do that one from the start; he just called her
>> Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
>> Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
>> is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
>> York called Beers.
>
>I'm not sure of the chronology here- does Cockrum's re-design of the Ms.
>Marvel costume pre-date Phoenix? (It certainly pre-dates Oracle, if so.)

The new costume first showed up in 1978, in Ms. Marvel #20
(cover dated October 1978) and Marvel Team-Up #76 (December).
Phoenix (green costume) first appeared in UXM #101 (October 1976)
and Oracle of the Imperial Guard in UXM #107 (October 1977).
And yes, I really am surprised Cockrum went through 50 designs,
as the Ms. Marvel costume really is a fairly standard Dave Cockrum
design of the era

Tilman

.
"Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die
Flipperwaldt gersput."

coondawg

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 10:24:53 AM8/21/01
to
me and you both stan, you and me both


Grant Enfield

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 2:16:05 PM8/21/01
to

"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9lrbcl$vac$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...

> Well, sorta undoes our whole "what a tasteful costume" concept, huh? :)

I'd been assuming there was a "by comparison" in that claim there somewhere.
. . . :)


grant


George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 2:18:02 PM8/21/01
to

Exactly.

Shawn Hill

unread,
Aug 21, 2001, 11:14:30 PM8/21/01
to
Matt Deres <mde...@mybodyhairhome.com> wrote:

: Of course, he *did* do that one from the start; he just called her


: Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
: Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
: is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
: York called Beers.

Well, think of some of his other base model costumes. There's the
Shrinking Violet/Polaris one; the one with long sleeves but bathing suit
shorts like Projectra and her Imperial Gaurd analog; the Shadow
Lass/Saturn Girl/Storm one; the big Phantom Girl ponytails and bell
bottoms; and all the variations he came up with for the Futurians, etc. He
had more than one trick in his bag, and many of them wouldn't have worked
any better for Carol than her original, belly-exposing one.

Shawn


Jack Bohn

unread,
Aug 22, 2001, 12:12:12 AM8/22/01
to
Shawn Hill wrote:

>Well, think of some of his other base model costumes. There's the
>Shrinking Violet/Polaris one; the one with long sleeves but bathing suit
>shorts like Projectra and her Imperial Gaurd analog; the Shadow
>Lass/Saturn Girl/Storm one; the big Phantom Girl ponytails and bell
>bottoms; and all the variations he came up with for the Futurians, etc. He
>had more than one trick in his bag, and many of them wouldn't have worked
>any better for Carol than her original, belly-exposing one.

Hmm... I wonder if those are the variations he went through that Stan
Lee sent back.

--
-Jack

CleV

unread,
Aug 22, 2001, 5:54:18 PM8/22/01
to

>Matt Deres <mde...@mybodyhairhome.com> wrote:

The Phantom Girl/Princess Projectra hole-cut-into-sleeves one, which
either Cockrum or Byrne once gave Misty Knight.

I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...

CleV

unread,
Aug 22, 2001, 5:54:49 PM8/22/01
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 04:12:12 GMT, jack...@bright.net (Jack Bohn)
wrote:

>Shawn Hill wrote:

The thing was that the exposed belly was gotten rid of quite early
anyway.

KurtBusiek

unread,
Aug 22, 2001, 10:49:48 PM8/22/01
to
>>I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...>>

McCloud and I called 'em "shoulder-crescents."

And Chameleon Boy had 'em.

kdb

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 22, 2001, 11:08:51 PM8/22/01
to
> Well, we all want to have this grandfatherly image, but the truth is, sexism
> was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
> the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
> gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.

Agreed. George Bush Sr. wanted America to be more like the Waltons and
less like the Simpsons. What he apparently didn't remember was that
America was never like the Waltons. Pop culture is a much more accurate
depiction of our time than that of the 60's.

People think television has degenerated, for example, but look at All in
the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!

-Steve

Shawn Hill

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 1:31:22 AM8/23/01
to
CleV <CL...@baljunkcab.ch> wrote:

: On 22 Aug 2001 03:14:30 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

:>Matt Deres <mde...@mybodyhairhome.com> wrote:

: The Phantom Girl/Princess Projectra hole-cut-into-sleeves one, which


: either Cockrum or Byrne once gave Misty Knight.

: I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
: Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...

Yep, the character who became Leviathan. Colossal Boy?

He also had a goofy head/mask/thing for awhile.

Shawn

BritReid

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 10:58:19 AM8/23/01
to
<< : I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
: Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...

Yep, the character who became Leviathan. Colossal Boy? >>


Dave Cockrum's Futurians featured several designs that didn't make it into
Legion or X-Men (and at least one character, Silkie, I think.)
And, his redesign of Menthor as a woman for Wally Wood's T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents
also had the shoulder "pads"
-B

Ivan

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 2:09:35 PM8/23/01
to
CL...@balJUNKcab.ch (CleV) wrote in message news:<3b842956...@news.balcab.ch>>
> I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
> Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...

Epaulets, dude.

Ivan

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 2:57:19 PM8/23/01
to
on 8/22/01 11:08 PM, Steven Horton at sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu wrote:

>>
>
> People think television has degenerated, for example, but look at All in
> the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!
>

Agreed- it's far too intelligent.

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 3:00:14 PM8/23/01
to

Nope. Those are what Captain Nazi has on his shoulders, I believe. The
Colossal Boy/Chameleon Boy/Nightcrawler/Colossus design isn't an ornamental
(military) attachment on top of the shoulder pad area, it's an extension of
the tunic up to a pointed end over and off the shoulder entirely.

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 5:41:37 PM8/23/01
to
> > People think television has degenerated, for example, but look at All in
> > the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!
> >
> Agreed- it's far too intelligent.

I was thinking more along the lines of "racist" "shrill" and "irritating."
A whole hour of a family that hates one another arguing at the top of
their lungs while insulting anyone and everyone who wasn't them. How did
this show become popular again?
Only in the 70s, I guess...
-Stev

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 9:54:40 PM8/23/01
to

When people understood social satire, yes, apparently. When 3/4 of the
social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.

In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
off topic, too. :-)

Grant Enfield

unread,
Aug 23, 2001, 11:24:18 PM8/23/01
to

"George F. Grattan" <grat...@bc.edu> wrote in message
news:B7AB2C20.EE1D%grat...@bc.edu...

Just call me "Hypercorrection Man."

> Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.

Archie's *views* and expressions of those views are supposed to be
detestable. All in the Family works so well because Archie has redeeming
qualities and values that viewers can identify with. He's not a cartoon. ;)

grant


Menshevik

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 1:22:10 AM8/24/01
to
>> Epaulets, dude.
>>
>Nope. Those are what Captain Nazi has on his shoulders, I believe. The
>Colossal Boy/Chameleon Boy/Nightcrawler/Colossus design isn't an ornamental
>(military) attachment on top of the shoulder pad area, it's an extension of
>the tunic up to a pointed end over and off the shoulder entirely.

Maybe there's a Japanese word for it? It does seem to be
a feature of some Kabuki costumes.
BTW, it should
count as "masculinity-enhancing " as it does make the wearer's
shoulders appear more broad...

Tilman

George F. Grattan

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 1:29:22 AM8/24/01
to

Point taken. You're right, of course: if Archie had no redeeming qualities
whatsoever, the viewer could utterly dismiss him and not see his/her own
worst tendencies reflected in the character.

Menshevik

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 10:55:17 AM8/24/01
to
I forgot to add that someone (could have been Chris Claremont)
once remarked that one of the problems with Ms. Marvel's original
costume was that, as a direct take from Captain Marvel's it was really
inappropriate to her body (the black area flaring out
towards the top emphasised the width of the shoulders and
the narrowness of the hips).

Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
to indicate cold weather.

Grant Enfield

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 11:34:58 AM8/24/01
to

"Menshevik" <mens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010824105517...@ng-bj1.aol.com...

> Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
> Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
> was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
> besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
> to indicate cold weather.

I don't think they're *scarves*--they're *sashes*.

And I can't see anything "cold-weather" about a sash. :)


grant


Menshevik

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 1:16:12 PM8/24/01
to
>> Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
>> was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
>> besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
>> to indicate cold weather.
>
>I don't think they're *scarves*--they're *sashes*.
>
>And I can't see anything "cold-weather" about a sash. :)

They looked as if they were meant to keep her neck warm.

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 2:25:35 PM8/24/01
to
> When people understood social satire, yes, apparently. When 3/4 of the
> social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
> otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
> 90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
> everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
> no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
> network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
>
> In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
> off topic, too. :-)

All in the Family was social satire? I think you lost me. People liked the
show because it was shocking and true-to-life, something many other shows
of the day (such as the Brady Bunch) couldn't pull off. I doubt people
tuned in because of the biting social criticism. I think you're vastly
overestimating the show's target audience at the time.

It's telling when the show got a name change and moved to a different
network (becoming Archie Bunker's Family) in the early 80s, the racist
jokes and insults were toned down considerably.

-Steve (I remember Mad Magazine making fun of this fact)

R. Tang

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 3:39:53 PM8/24/01
to
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu>,

Steven Horton <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> When people understood social satire, yes, apparently. When 3/4 of the
>> social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
>> otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
>> 90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
>> everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
>> no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
>> network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
>> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
>>
>> In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
>> off topic, too. :-)
>
>All in the Family was social satire?

Yup. Pretty evident.

And all the more evident, if you read the statements by the show's
creator.

I think you lost me. People liked the
>show because it was shocking and true-to-life, something many other shows
>of the day (such as the Brady Bunch) couldn't pull off. I doubt people
>tuned in because of the biting social criticism. I think you're vastly
>overestimating the show's target audience at the time.
>
>It's telling when the show got a name change and moved to a different
>network (becoming Archie Bunker's Family) in the early 80s, the racist
>jokes and insults were toned down considerably.
>
>-Steve (I remember Mad Magazine making fun of this fact)
>


--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 4:10:52 PM8/24/01
to
> >All in the Family was social satire?
>
> Yup. Pretty evident.
>
> And all the more evident, if you read the statements by the show's
> creator.

Granted.
Again, though, I doubt it was popular because of this - people watched it
because it shocked them, or because they liked the off-color humor.
-Steve (who thinks racism-as-social-commentary is reprehensible, but
that's just my opinion)

CleV

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 4:31:38 PM8/24/01
to

In the original costume, it was a scarf ... which is still used to
this day as the sash she wears now ...

Jason Michael

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 4:55:51 PM8/24/01
to

"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...

I think you are wrong about this perception-I was 12 years old when the
show started,and I remember even then it was touted as satire.And
remember,Norman Lear also produced Bea Arthur in "Maude" which was an
attempt to show the follies of the other side of the political spectrum
(wasn't she supposed to be Edith's cousin? All these shows were connected-it
was the Leariverse! :) )
And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary" is a bad thing.
Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?

Jason Michael


R. Tang

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 4:59:11 PM8/24/01
to

Oh, I think a lot of people DID watch it because the intent was to
show how foolish Archie's attitudes were.

It's just that a lot of people watched it because they thought it
validated them.

[And no, I do not think it makes racism-as-social-commentary
reprehensible; that's PCism taken to the illogical extreme]

Consul de Designers

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 7:18:47 PM8/24/01
to
Jason Michael wrote:
> And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary" is a bad thing.
> Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
> Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?

Too true. Likewise, Blazing Saddles was brilliant and funny ... and this
generation has Bamboozled
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners
Link at: http://www.dolphins-cove.com

Matt Deres

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 7:19:49 PM8/24/01
to

Menshevik wrote in message <20010824105517...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...

>I forgot to add that someone (could have been Chris Claremont)
>once remarked that one of the problems with Ms. Marvel's original
>costume was that, as a direct take from Captain Marvel's it was really
>inappropriate to her body (the black area flaring out
>towards the top emphasised the width of the shoulders and
>the narrowness of the hips).
>
>Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
>Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
>was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
>besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
>to indicate cold weather.


I'm going to set myself up for some flames by admiting that I actually liked
her original costume. It's totally inappropriate of course (the bare belly
was so needlessly effeminate), but that was just part of its charm :-).


Matt

Consul de Designers

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 7:26:18 PM8/24/01
to
Menshevik wrote:
> BTW, it should count as "masculinity-enhancing " as it does make the wearer's
> shoulders appear more broad...

So then what was the rationalization in the fashion industry to have women's
clothes have them as well?

CleV

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 7:34:33 PM8/24/01
to

The bare belly was closed up pretty early on in her series though.

Grant Enfield

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 8:07:38 PM8/24/01
to

"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...

> -Steve (who thinks racism-as-social-commentary is reprehensible, but


> that's just my opinion)

No thought for holding the mirror up to nature, as 't were?

grant


Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 8:33:32 PM8/24/01
to
> I think you are wrong about this perception-I was 12 years old when the
> show started,and I remember even then it was touted as satire.And
> remember,Norman Lear also produced Bea Arthur in "Maude" which was an
> attempt to show the follies of the other side of the political spectrum
> (wasn't she supposed to be Edith's cousin? All these shows were connected-it
> was the Leariverse! :) )

Perhaps it's today's generation that sees the show this way. I didn't
watch the show when it first aired (I was only a couple of years old) and
have only seen it today through reruns on TV Land.

> And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary"
> is a bad thing.
> Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
> Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?

If a writer is going to expose intolerance through a TV show, then show
that intolerance is wrong. "All in the Family" showed that intolerance was
funny. People laughed at Archie Bunker's behind-the-back comments about
his fellow Blacks and Jews, not because they satirized bigots, but because
they thought the jokes were funny.
-Stev

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 8:38:57 PM8/24/01
to
> Too true. Likewise, Blazing Saddles was brilliant and funny ... and this
> generation has Bamboozled
> --

To quote Roger Ebert's review of "Bamboozled":

That's the danger with satire: To ridicule something, you have to show
it, and if what you're attacking is a potent enough image, the image
retains its negative power no matter what you want to say about it.

My argument is that this very phenomenon took place with "All in the
Family."
-Stev (shutting up now)

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 8:36:24 PM8/24/01
to
> Oh, I think a lot of people DID watch it because the intent was to
> show how foolish Archie's attitudes were.
>
> It's just that a lot of people watched it because they thought it
> validated them.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thank you.



> [And no, I do not think it makes racism-as-social-commentary
> reprehensible; that's PCism taken to the illogical extreme]

Understood; I could be wrong about this. I have yet to see an example of
satirical racism that I enjoyed.

Except for Blazing Saddles. And that's only 'cause I think the best jokes
revolve around how stupid, rather than how racist, the Common Clay of the
New West (You know -- morons) were.
-Stev

Steven Horton

unread,
Aug 24, 2001, 8:28:57 PM8/24/01