So, I finished my MA essay draft about five minutes ago. It is therefore a perfect time for me to write some more! ... ... Oh my life.
Anyway, this is fun in my brain writing, not academic writing and that makes all the difference in the world.Important piece of info so I only sound slightly crazy, not psychologically disturbed: I RP Kara "Starbuck" Thrace in an LJ RP community. So when I say that there's a fighter jock in my head, it's not a comment on multiple personalities, it's just a pup
Today, the lovely and talented Geek Girl Diva
posted a link on Twitter to a new statue of a character from Zach Snyder's upcoming film, Sucker Punch
. I will confess off the top that I knew exactly 0 about the film going into this (I now know slightly more).
The blurb about the sculpt includes the information that this includes "authentic flight suit costuming". The badass Viper jock in my head fell out of her chair laughing and couldn't stop. The detail-oriented feminist (that would be me) started to catalogue the things that are wrong with this picture, from the perspective of that Viper jock.
Why in the universe would you want to wear fishnets in the cockpit for hours on end?
The chaps would just chafe in awkward places
There's nowhere to put an emergency you've-been-on-CAP-for-7-hours bathroom alternative (VERY IMPORTANT)
The laces up the sides mean that it must take ages
to get into and how is that good when the alert is called and you should be out of bed and in the cockpit in 20 minutes or less?
It's not like there's a) air or b) heat in the cockpit, so having a bare midriff is the stupidest thing ever. (Even if you're an atmospheric pilot not a space pilot, there's a reason there's a flight suit, and that reason is protection. This suit? No protection. If there's a spark and something on your instrument panel catches fire, do you really want a toasted tummy?)
Corsetry? When you're stuffed into a ship for hours?
If you have to constantly switch between rudder and thrust and braking pedals, why would you wear HEELS? (Also applies to crash situations where who knows what conditions you're hiking through)
She has a gun, but she doesn't appear to have anywhere to keep it, which is just dumb. (Sidenote: If there is in fact a shoulder holster on her other side, it's still dumb because how do you handle the controls when there's a gun restricting your arm movements on your left side?)
The crossed straps in the back would be easy to tangle which is not good for speed dressing, and if they got tangled and then you were forced to lean back on them for a 5-7 hour CAP shift?
Plus, who wants something that buckles behind them?
The low zip on the top provides 0 protection against things like bullets in ground situations
Kara ejected into space and crashed on a low atmosphere desert moon. If she had been wearing this, she would be extremely dead. (Once again, even if you fly in atmo, this suit is going to offer you no protection against sharp things, hard things, being slammed around by crash forces, or anything else)
If she was being dragged along by her 'chute and caught her knee on a sharp rock (as happened to Kara and could happen to any ejecting pilot) she wouldn't've broken her knee, she would've lost everything below that knee wearing this.
Your flightsuit should be at least semi-comfortable because you shouldn't be thinking about the thing digging into your boob when you're pulling 3 or 4g's.
It has no pockets. Where are you supposed to keep your pencil and notebook and cigars and lighter and gum and first aid kit and stuff?
Now, I did look up the film after all the ranting. Jess suggested that the movie is based on a comic, which wouldn't be an excuse, but it might be an explanation at least. It isn't though, it's an original from the guy who brought you 300
Here's an actual promo shot of the costume:
I read the plot synopsis which sort of answered some questions and brought up a whole set of new ones. Apparently a lot of the movie takes place in the imaginations of a group of girls in an asylum in the 50s. So, imagination kind of helps with the practicality issues, from a design standpoint. It's unlikely that a girl in the 50s is going to imagine her flightsuit with appropriate practical military details. On the other hand, this is what I'm supposed to believe a girl, a young girl according to the plot summary, in the 1950s imagines a pilot looks like? Seriously?
(From a feminist film analysis perspective, notice that the outfit divides her body up into convenient bits, reducing her from a whole person to a collection of girl parts.)
And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am a third-wave feminist. I absolutely believe that women have the right to dress how ever they want to. If a woman wants to wear skintight and low-cut, more power to her. But this is pure fantasy material. If nothing else, it says that the girl doing the imagining is more interested in showing skin than in being able to do the job she imagines herself doing.
@GeekGirlDiva, yeah, if you're into that look, sure it's sexy. As a "sexy pilot" Halloween costume, sure. But in a major motion picture release that's touting being a film with all female leads (Congrats, Warner Bros., do you expect a gold star for that?) it's titillating without substance. Do we really need another woman prancing around in her underwear in a movie directed by a guy who's not exactly known for his sensitivity to female characters? Do we need another female character dressed like she'd fit better in a lad mag than anywhere else?
And exhausted. I'm going to put on some Mythbusters and go to sleep.