RDU Neil

I understand everyone has an opinion, and I agree AoU was highly flawed in many ways... but to say it got EVERYTHING wrong?
 
It got Hawkeye right in everyway, especially his bit with Scarlet Witch. I loved the scene with his family.

It nailed the Vision, and made him an incredibly compelling character.
 
The Iron Man vs. Hulk fight was absolutely spot on.
 
They may not have given Pietro enough of a personality, but they used his speed really well, keeping him powerful, but not out of control, nor needing to do stupid things in order to not be infinitely powerful. Super speed is one of the most difficult things to manage in a balanced way, as it really is the ultimate super-power, but how they showed him using it in bursts, and being exhausted afterwards... that was well done.
 
I personally don't mind the "downfall of Stark" as a meta-theme, and the tension between him and Rogers has been there since Avengers 1, the ego is always there.
 
And I personally thought the first half of Ultron's portrayal was brilliant, but the second half made no sense. But to say it is the worst portrayal of Ultron? I'm assuming you've read the originals? The later 70's appearances and Jocasta? I mean... I loved those as a kid, but c'mon... they are pretty darn ridiculous.
 
Again... AoU was flawed in many ways, but not everything was awful. To see everything awful, check out GotG2. Ugh.
 

I think this is a good time to summarize what we have discussed thus far.  All of the options are designed to add a bit of realism (tongue in cheek) while keeping with the cinematic feel of a roleplaying game firefight.  I have modified some of the entries from their original presentation based on comments and my own thoughts.
 
Disclaimer: I am not mandating nor even suggesting that any of these ideas be used in your game.  I am merely presenting my opinion and ideas for your consideration and as possible seeds for changes you may want to incorporate.  Use them at entirely at your discretion.  I will not be held liable for any fallout that arises from the use or abuse of any of these ideas.  If you plan to play in one of my games in the future (provided I overcome my current blah attitude toward GMing) understand that I reserve the right to incorporate some or all of these rules into that game.  Your agreement to participate in said game is your binding word not to whine, complain or otherwise try to dissuade me from my set course of action.
 
Muzzle Energy Based Damage - Base Damage is directly linked to Muzzle Energy (in Joules)of Round.  This is subject to be altered based on Shape of the Round, Composition of Round (material) and/or Characteristics of the Round Firearms Damage DC Joules Example Kdamage 1 50 Pellet Gun 1 pip 2 100 .22 Long Rifle 1/2d6 3 200 .380 ACP 1d6 4 400 9mm, .45 ACP 1d6+1 5 800 .357 Magnum 1 1/2d6 6 1600 .44 Magnum, 5.56mm 2d6 7 3200 7.62 2d6+1 8 6400 .458 Win Magnum 2 1/2d6 9 12500 .50 BMG 3d6
Killing Damage Intricacies - Breaks down incremental damage between Damage Classes for increased diversity of damage. Killing Damage Breakout Points Kdamage Range 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1d2 1-2 9 1d2 1-2 10 1d3 1-3 11 1d3 1-3 12 1d3 1-3 13 1d4 1-4 14 1d6-1 0-5 15 1d6 1-6         Armor Piercing Optional Use - Armor Piercing does not reduce the defense to half its value.  Instead it pierces through an amount of defense equal to the BODY damage rolled on the attack for a +1/2 Advantage.  Semi Armor Piercing is thus 1/2 of the BODY damage rolled on the attack for a +1/4 Advantage.  This can be made Standard Effect and therefore pierce through an amount of defense equal to the Damage Class of the attack at the Player/GM's option. Pistol vs. Rifle Rounds - Rifle rounds act as Semi Armor Piercing vs. Soft Body Armor by default.  This is a characteristic of the Real Armor Limitation and does not qualify for an additional Limitation. Body Armor - All Body Armor will use Sectional Coverage Rules based on the area that is armored.  Additionally the Requires a Roll Limitation will be used to define the amount of that body part covered.  Soft Body Armor will follow the write-ups in the RAW with the addition of the definition above with regard to Rifle Rounds.  Hard Body Armor will be constructed using the rules for Barrier.  This will mean that if a round does not penetrate no STUN damage will carry through.  A sample write-up follows Trauma Plates - Level IV Ceramic:  Barrier 8 PD/8 ED, 2 BODY (up to 1m long, 1m tall, and 1/2m thick), Personal Defense (+0), Hardened (+1/4), Persistent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Sectional Defenses (Covers Locations 10-12; 36.57%) (-1), OIF (-1/2), Ablative BODY Only (-1/2), Requires A Roll (11- roll; -1/2), Half Mass (-1/2), Real Armor (-1/4) 14 Real Cost Autofire Optional Use - Autofire is amended so that 1 additional shot will Hit the target for each point that the shot hits by.  This will also affect the cost of Autofire as follows: 2 Shots - +1/4 Advantage, 3 Shots - +1/2 Advantage, 5 Shots - +3/4 Advantage, Each doubling of Shots is a +1/2 additional Advantage.  When firing more than one shot the Range Modifier is doubled if the weapon is not mounted. Multiple Attack Optional Use - Multiple Attacks will be done at a -1 OCV per shot after the first instead of the -2 in the RAW.  Range Modifiers are doubled as with Autofire above.  The number of Multiple attacks allowed is limited by weapon type (i.e. Revolvers - 2, Low Caliber Semi-Automatic - 4, High Caliber Semi-Automatic - 3, etc.).  Additionally each attack is performed individually, so while in the RAW if you miss the first shot you miss the rest, this will not be the case with this option. That is what we have covered so far.  Your mileage may vary, use at your own risk.  Next up: Hit Locations, Grace Under Fire, Blowthough and Knockdown...
 
T

So, since I am using many of these suggestions, (many implemented independently) I can say that I feel I've been successful in actual play at creating more of a "feel" that captures both the cinematic "hail of lead" and realistic "more shots increases likelihood to hit" sense we've been talking about.

I did NOT change to the 10- base, as I don't think we'd remember that basic change in the heat of combat after 38 years of playing Hero based on 11-.

But I did lowere Multiple Attack minuses to -1 (simple change), but limited the number of MA that can be attempted based on type of attack (complexity here, but that is fully on me as GM to officiate. If you are fighting with a short knife, yes, you can do up to 3 MAs... you are fighting with a Halberd, nope... ain't happening. For guns, automatics get up to 5 shots, revolvers only 3, larger load .44 and up, only 2.  Any increase beyond that means -X to every shot, where X is the number of shots fired. So you can theoretically try to fire 6 shots with your Berretta 9mm, but it will be at -6 per shot. Whereas 5 shots would be -4 per shot, etc.)
 
I also factor in different skill levels and the OCV bonuses on guns, so that you get a cool swath of different CSLs applying in different situations. (I rule that inherent OCV modifiers on a gun only apply when braced and set and/or to offset MA/Autofire penalties).
 
I also double range mods (and already use more strict Danger International range mods) when doing a MA or Autofire. Unless braced or set, which encourages bi-pod or other emplaced weapons when firing AF at range.
 
I also encourage the use of +1 OCV for every 3 rounds of Autofire, only able to hit once, if firing on a "position." So at medium range, braced, going full auto (10 shots) is a +3 to hit, offsetting the range mods, increasing hit probability, etc.
 
None of these are perfect, but they work.
 
Yes, they require "training" the play group as well. We've needed to run a few firefights, and one PC died (not because of these rules, but dead nonetheless) but the group has started to embrace them. They see the added benefit to multiple shots, and also appreciate the danger of trained opponents firing back.
 
These things, in general, have the players much more likely to be firing multiple shots in close quarters, absolutely finding cover when fire is returned. Using multiple shots and spending clips (if not as fast as I'd like, then faster than before), etc.
 
By the way, the +3 for 10 shot burst is a great equalizer for lower skilled bad guys taking on the higher skilled PCs. It gives them a chance to hit, and creates very cinematic scenes where often the players are dodging, diving for cover, while bullets tear into the surroundings, etc.
 
Fun stuff!

So, since I am using many of these suggestions, (many implemented independently) I can say that I feel I've been successful in actual play at creating more of a "feel" that captures both the cinematic "hail of lead" and realistic "more shots increases likelihood to hit" sense we've been talking about.

I did NOT change to the 10- base, as I don't think we'd remember that basic change in the heat of combat after 38 years of playing Hero based on 11-.

But I did lowere Multiple Attack minuses to -1 (simple change), but limited the number of MA that can be attempted based on type of attack (complexity here, but that is fully on me as GM to officiate. If you are fighting with a short knife, yes, you can do up to 3 MAs... you are fighting with a Halberd, nope... ain't happening. For guns, automatics get up to 5 shots, revolvers only 3, larger load .44 and up, only 2.  Any increase beyond that means -X to every shot, where X is the number of shots fired. So you can theoretically try to fire 6 shots with your Berretta 9mm, but it will be at -6 per shot. Whereas 5 shots would be -4 per shot, etc.)
 
I also factor in different skill levels and the OCV bonuses on guns, so that you get a cool swath of different CSLs applying in different situations. (I rule that inherent OCV modifiers on a gun only apply when braced and set and/or to offset MA/Autofire penalties).
 
I also double range mods (and already use more strict Danger International range mods) when doing a MA or Autofire. Unless braced or set, which encourages bi-pod or other emplaced weapons when firing AF at range.
 
I also encourage the use of +1 OCV for every 3 rounds of Autofire, only able to hit once, if firing on a "position." So at medium range, braced, going full auto (10 shots) is a +3 to hit, offsetting the range mods, increasing hit probability, etc.
 
None of these are perfect, but they work.
 
Yes, they require "training" the play group as well. We've needed to run a few firefights, and one PC died (not because of these rules, but dead nonetheless) but the group has started to embrace them. They see the added benefit to multiple shots, and also appreciate the danger of trained opponents firing back.
 
These things, in general, have the players much more likely to be firing multiple shots in close quarters, absolutely finding cover when fire is returned. Using multiple shots and spending clips (if not as fast as I'd like, then faster than before), etc.
 
By the way, the +3 for 10 shot burst is a great equalizer for lower skilled bad guys taking on the higher skilled PCs. It gives them a chance to hit, and creates very cinematic scenes where often the players are dodging, diving for cover, while bullets tear into the surroundings, etc.
 
Fun stuff!

Reminds me of my first ever D&D game in 1979.  I roll up a fighter with good stats.  We explore a tower.  I see webs in the ceiling, get out my sword ready to attack any giant spiders that came out.  I missed by a mile, get bit, need to roll a saving throw vs. Poison at +2, critically fumble, was allowed to roll again (being my first time playing), critically fumble again and die on the spot with 1 hp of damage and a failed poison check.  Total game time, 5 minutes.

Bolo's tale reminded me of an incident with an unlucky player in a Spacemaster campaign I ran about twenty-five years ago.
 
The group was a bunch of mercenaries working for House Devon who came across another bunch of mercenaries working for House Colos. During the ensuing firefight, one of the players grabbed a blaster rifle off a dead Colosian (because it was quicker than reloading his own weapon, as I recall). His first shot was a fumble, and the Spacemaster fumble chart result was that it was a dead power pack. He then grabs a second rifle and promptly rolls another fumble with the same dead power pack result coming up again.
 
The player's next words were totally in character, "Cheapjack Colosian s**t" as he tossed the defective weapon aside and finally got a working weapon to keep shooting with. After that, I wrote it into the campaign that Colosian-made weaponry had a reputation among soldiers as being poorly-made junk that couldn't hold a power pack charge.

Decades back, I played in a Top Secret game where the 3-man team I was on was trying to locate a nuke that had been stolen from the military and was being auctioned off to some scary terrorist types.  I had weaseled my way into being security for one of the bidders so we could keep an eye on the auction, while my teammates were searching the structure (a heavily revamped Sealand, with a casino/hotel added on) for the nuke itself.  They found it just as bidding ended, with my ersatz employer being the one who had the winning bid.  So the winning bidder and his security detail (including me) were heading down to pick up the nuke while my actual partners were trying to figure out how to sneak it out.
 
As soon as the elevator opened on the sub-level where the nuke was, we could see the Sealand security guards my partners had already taken out, so I was sent forward with two other bodyguards to see what was up.  Since I had warned my partners we were coming, they were waiting with assault rifles ready.  As soon as I rounded the corner, I hit the ground and (to keep my cover just in case) fired a shot over my partners' heads with my pistol.  Meanwhile, my partners opened fire on the rest of the security detail.
 
The first one rolled a crit fail that jammed his rifle.  The second also rolled a crit fail that jammed his rifle.  Luckily, they had partial cover and the bodyguards' first shots missed.
 
Thinking that the bidder's security detail was about to turn my partners to hamburger, I swore, rolled onto my back, and aimed at one of the security detail.  And rolled a slightly less horrible fail that caused a misfire.
 
Luckily, one of my partners tossed his rifle aside, drew his pistol, and helped take out the two bodyguards.  But I was certain the dice were trying to kill us.

Dude, chill...it was a statement not an accusation.  As we all mentioned before, missing a lot ain't fun.  Frankly I am just trying to work within the system to address some of the perceived inadequacies.  Ultimately it probably isn't worth fixing since it works okay as it stands but if I can help someone improve their game why not try?  I am not proposing that any or all of what I put out there is used in any way shape or form.  I am just throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks. 
 
My solution actually addresses the issue you presented and helps with what RDU Neil is trying to do (get the characters to put shots down range).  I would probably suggest using a 10- Basic targeting breakpoint to begin with as well.  This would skew things a bit from the "you are supposed to hit" mentality to a more even outlook. 
 
Even I know that there is no perfect way to simulate reality in a roleplaying game.  As a GM I am generally looking for a certain "feel" in a game and I am not afraid to adjust the rules to get as close to that "feel" as I can.  Oftentimes, as you can undoubtedly attest, it is an ongoing series of adjustments.
 
I personally don't see the complexity you're speaking of.  I feel that the solutions that I have presented are no more complex than the original rules, just different.
 

I don't think increased rates of fire should do more damage.  Instead, I think increased rates of fire should ADD to an already low hit probability in order to improve it -- because that's how it basically works in the real world.  
 
i.e. A NYPD officer has an abysmal hit rate if fire is being returned, but s/he is statistically more likely to hit his/her target if s/he sends more rounds downrange at the target.  Thus, if we want to emulate that bit of reality, we need mechanics that improve hit probabability when multiple rounds are fired at a target.
 
Unfortunately, the autofire rules do the exact opposite by penalizing the hit rate when more shots are taken.  Multiple Attack does the same thing with its OCV penalties.  This is because the game's base mechanics try to make hits more likely than misses … which is completely backward for gunfighting.  So, if you want to add proper realism to gunfights, you need to adjust your house rules so that most shots are misses … and then rework autofire and multiple attack rules so that taking more shots will improve the odds of a hit rather than reduce them.
 
I am, of course, talking about aimed shots, here.  Spray&Pray (i.e. Suppression fire) entails no aim, so its hit rate should suffer despite the volume of lead going downrange.  That said, I've always felt its hit rate was set a bit too low.

I liked AoU and am not sorry I paid to see it in the theater.

Fake nipples, no.  Real nipples exposed by cutouts in the costume, let's talk.

The obsession with costume detail is weird to me.

Do you look at that costume and see Captain Marvel? I sure as heck do... what else matters? Stitching? Foil embroidery? What is this, a sewing club?
 
People argue over different Batman costumes, etc. Is it dark blue, or black, or what. Why does it matter? It is iconic and has a certain "vibe" or feel or general look, that is all that matter. Pointy ears, generally dark blacks (blue was just how they colored things back then) ... bat symbol... you have Batman. Same with all the rest.
 
Costumes in movies need only do two things... evoke the basic concept of the character look... and not look stupid. Sometimes you can make both work, but the latter is WAY more important than being "faithful" (a horrible, conservative word). And faithful to what exact artist, at what time period, with what particular coloring scheme based on paper weight, available inks, etc,??
 
Cap in the first Avengers movie looked stupid. Tolerable for one movie, but not good. At least with the helmet/cowl on. Going forward, they've done a much better job, and in no way does he lack in being a proper visual representation of Cap brought to life. Most comic book costumes were designed by immature artists with minimal skills, rushing simplistic work out the door quicklky, without expectation to do anything more than create simplistic drawings with awful color combinations that set the main character apart from others. To hold to that tradition as some kind of ideal is... weird at best... angrily obsessive at most.

Spider-man is full CGI, and works for the most part, but just because one costume translates relatively well, doesn't mean every one should.

From my wife (who I sent your words above)
 
"you can't make emotional shifts like that without warning 
when so many viewers of whatever media (books, movies, etc.) are invested emotionally and it is what drives them to consume said media, it feels like a betrayal that stuff demands set up so we can adequately prepare" 

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

The obsession with costume detail is weird to me.

Do you look at that costume and see Captain Marvel? I sure as heck do... what else matters? Stitching? Foil embroidery? What is this, a sewing club?
 
People argue over different Batman costumes, etc. Is it dark blue, or black, or what. Why does it matter? It is iconic and has a certain "vibe" or feel or general look, that is all that matter. Pointy ears, generally dark blacks (blue was just how they colored things back then) ... bat symbol... you have Batman. Same with all the rest.
 
Costumes in movies need only do two things... evoke the basic concept of the character look... and not look stupid. Sometimes you can make both work, but the latter is WAY more important than being "faithful" (a horrible, conservative word). And faithful to what exact artist, at what time period, with what particular coloring scheme based on paper weight, available inks, etc,??
 
Cap in the first Avengers movie looked stupid. Tolerable for one movie, but not good. At least with the helmet/cowl on. Going forward, they've done a much better job, and in no way does he lack in being a proper visual representation of Cap brought to life. Most comic book costumes were designed by immature artists with minimal skills, rushing simplistic work out the door quicklky, without expectation to do anything more than create simplistic drawings with awful color combinations that set the main character apart from others. To hold to that tradition as some kind of ideal is... weird at best... angrily obsessive at most.

Spider-man is full CGI, and works for the most part, but just because one costume translates relatively well, doesn't mean every one should.

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

If Evans' discomfort came through in the first Cap movie, it came across (to me at least) as essential to the character of Steve Rogers being uncomfortable with the showmanship and notoriety of Cap, rather than any issue of actor and outfit. I never felt that the WWII movie Cap had a real "costume" as much as a cool, modified army uniform. (Not referring to his USO stage costume.) The fact that Evans pulled off the terrible Avengers costume as well as he did is a credit to his ability to project Cap/Steve no matter what he's wearing.

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

We have an option not to?! Nobody told us that!

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume.

That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it.

There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

I agree on the second part, and would have agreed on the first part, but Winter Soldier came out since then, so...

Would it be fair to say you liked and approved of Captain America's USO show costume in The First Avenger? Because that was nearly as close to the comic-book original as it's possible to get.
 
The various Spider-Man movie costumes do resemble the comic-book versions, although there have always been distinct differences between the media. But Spider-Man isn't physically built like most male superheroes. He's always been depicted as slimmer, more graceful... more like a normal human being, rather than Lou Ferrigno during his Hulk gig. Body type has an effect on how certain costume lines and patterns come across.
 
However, another important factor is an actor's ability to believe in and sell the look of what he's wearing. That was a big part of why Christopher Reeve was so memorable as Superman, despite a costume that by itself looked rather cheesy on a movie screen. Reeve radiated dignity, confidence and conviction in the role, so that's what we all responded to. For that matter, Gal Gadot did the same for Wonder Woman, despite the alterations in her costume from its comic counterpart (and her own frequently-criticized lack of Amazon muscle bulk).
 
To go back to the new Shazam, if Levi is able to project an attitude that matches that outfit, it will work, whether it's closer to the original or farther from it.

The obsession with costume detail is weird to me.

Do you look at that costume and see Captain Marvel? I sure as heck do... what else matters? Stitching? Foil embroidery? What is this, a sewing club?
 
People argue over different Batman costumes, etc. Is it dark blue, or black, or what. Why does it matter? It is iconic and has a certain "vibe" or feel or general look, that is all that matter. Pointy ears, generally dark blacks (blue was just how they colored things back then) ... bat symbol... you have Batman. Same with all the rest.
 
Costumes in movies need only do two things... evoke the basic concept of the character look... and not look stupid. Sometimes you can make both work, but the latter is WAY more important than being "faithful" (a horrible, conservative word). And faithful to what exact artist, at what time period, with what particular coloring scheme based on paper weight, available inks, etc,??
 
Cap in the first Avengers movie looked stupid. Tolerable for one movie, but not good. At least with the helmet/cowl on. Going forward, they've done a much better job, and in no way does he lack in being a proper visual representation of Cap brought to life. Most comic book costumes were designed by immature artists with minimal skills, rushing simplistic work out the door quicklky, without expectation to do anything more than create simplistic drawings with awful color combinations that set the main character apart from others. To hold to that tradition as some kind of ideal is... weird at best... angrily obsessive at most.

Spider-man is full CGI, and works for the most part, but just because one costume translates relatively well, doesn't mean every one should.