#at the end of the day it’s a comic being adapted into a tv show | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mamuzzy · 7 months

Text

I only wanted to answer in reblog but it got so long i decided to make a separate post. But it had me thinking about media consumerism and how it could affect the open-mindedness for different shows soooo...

Here is a guide to...

HOW TO GET SOMEONE TRAPPED IN THE CLONE HELL

... not entirely a guide but more like an observation.

If we want to look at the problem with the fast-paced media consumer viewpoint, I think starting with the Bad Batch it's actually not a bad idea for someone who never watched Star Wars animated media before. It's sad but cartoons, animations can repulse people to watch things because they link them to child stories, something only a child would watch, also most of the people prefer live action instead of animated stuff. Especially if the said movie/series is quite old. cont. under the cut...

There could be a reason why people are not interested in clones

If a friend, family member, boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever only saw the movies and were not interested in TCW before, had not seen it as a child on TV, they will probably have prejudice against the clones. - They weren't the main characters in the movies therefor we have not seen them interacting that much with the main cast. - But even if you don't know star wars, you will probably know the clones for Order 66, white armored assholes who murdered the jedi aka good guys. And when the movies came out, inhibitor chips weren't in the picture. ---> this observations came while watching TCW with my dad who didn't like the clones because for this exact same reason: the clones basicly serve antagonist without question in a world where rules were set: jedi are good, sith are evil. -> I don't care that it is more complex that. It is what was shown. While he enjoyed the clone-centric episodes, he still stood at his point. They killed the jedi. End of story. - People have different interests :'(((((((

THE CLONE WARS 2003

Why do I recommend this first.

You can always say it's made by the same guy who made Samurai Jack. Strategically speaking Clone Wars 2003 would be a good starting point despite not being canon anymore because TCW is adapting some of the stories shown here. It recaps well what happened between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. Also this is the first media where Asajj Ventress and Grievous were introduced, and where you can actually see Grievous in his prime, an absolutely terrifying foe who actually can mop the floor with the jedi. Lots of jedi were introduced here which later also appeared in TCW. Why is this important: Having familiarity with the characters shown in memorable scenes helps that you will recognise them later in other media. Like... Hey it's the jedi dude who stripped in the middle of a fight! Hey, aren't these the same guys who mutated an entire village out of fun who kidnapped Echo??? And so on. TIME: 25 x 5 minutes episodes full of action so it keeps up the interest, and... FORDO. 5 minutes of full clone badassery. While TCW emphasises on the theme that the clones are living, feeling human beings who can die exactly like a human, in CW2003 they are shown like really the badass super soldiers (especially the ARC Troopers) who were bred for war. How much time it takes an episode to watch is an important factor. Because someone who binge watches 10 x 1 hour long netflix series under one day without sleep, drink, eat is not a guarantee that they will be able to sit through 133 x 22 minutes episodes. The sheer numbers will scare them away, nobody has a time watch 133 episodes when you can watch like... 5 different series instead! STORY TELLING COMPARED TO TCW: CW2003 goes for mostly visual story telling instead of talking. It's suspenseful, it's scenic, it's extreme, sometimes silly (rocket-launcher clone in the elevator with zero fuck given is still my favorite) but it's guarantee that you will remember. TCW episodes are varying from episodic to two-to-four episode arcs, it has silly comic relief episodes, it has serious dark episodes, obligatory beach episode, obligatory valentine day episode, obligatory school festival episodes obligatory-just kidding lol , so the lenght of one story can be varying, so is the quality of them. So unless you have a hyperfixation, or are a completionist, or interested enough, the episodes - in psychologycal term -, won't urge you the continue. Because in one 22 minutes episode you got a complete story without cliffhanger it won't make you think, because all the questions asked in the beginning of the episode was answered at the end. It won't rush you to continue, because you know that probably the next episode will be about an entire different conflict. You can stop anytime without the feeling of "just one more episode, just one more episode". Also, it doesn't help that you know how the story will end if you saw Revenge of the Sith. The forementioned uglyness... It took me years to finish TCW. I hated when it came out back in 2009 despite loving Star Wars and CW2003 and only after a decade picked up my interest again, it still took me years to finish it anyway. Back then, I really hated how everything got quickly 3D in neglection of 2D. But can't say it's ugly because it's old, it was ugly when it came out! You really have to force yourself to accept how it looks until you are fine with it, because your eyes got used to it. Also some episodes were boring, not entertaining, I just lost interest and only came back later to continue and I even forgot what happened before. I can't remember most of the arc expect those I was interested in to rewatch it again in the last years. Yes, the quality will improve. Season 7 is beautiful. The visuals of Bad Batch is also beautiful. But between season 6 and season 7, years passed.

THE BAD BATCH

Why do I recommend TBB for someone who ain't got time for shit™:

- TBB season are 16 episodes long. It's friendlier than 133 number wise. - There are only a few main characters to follow. It's important because when there are a large cast of characters, it's easy to get confused who is who and with literal CLONES as main characters, it's hard to distinguish them from each other. I know I can distinguished them, because I'm so fixated on them that every single verbal and non-verbal gesture they make will shoot me into outer space. - The Batch uses popular character tropes, different looks, different voices and tones, so they are recognisable, therefore, you will remember them for the rest of the show. So it will be a chance that you will fall for at least one member of the batch. And then you'll be thirsting mess over one character and eventually you'll be staning all of them, and eventually you will seek out more contents,fanfics, fanarts, headcanons with them that will attract TCW characters or events as well that will lead further deep down into the clone-hell. --> You can start showing the Bad Batch arc TCW where Jesse, Kix, Rex, Cody is also present, so there are plenty of topic and characters to talk about later. Also... Who is this Echo guy, how did he end up here? You can show the Domino Squad episodes, Kamino arc, citadel arc... - This could be a double-edge sword, but TBB are shown resemblance to Delta Squad, Omega Squad and Null ARC troopers. You know Delta Squad from the Video Game, Republic Commando, while the Omegas and Nulls are the main characters of the book series with the same name by Karen Traviss. I say it's double edged, because without these fantastic characters we wouldn't have The Bad Batch, but also I can understand the fans who wanted the Deltas adapted properly instead. - In season 1, the "fillers" add to the story and the characters as well and they won't get episodic-amnesia. (they may have TCW amnesia though... yes, I look at you Echo.) - In Season 1, there is a clear conflict which shadow always lingers even if the plot of the episode does not directly touches it. - Returning characters from TCW like Rex and Gregor could make the consumer ask the questions: who are these guys and why are they important? Rex is cute, is there more episodes with him? Oh yes, my dear prey friend, there is a whole series about him. - I only say season 1 because I'm not entirely satisfied how season 2 were handled while I enjoyed the first one. My hyperfixation for TCW last year literally started with Bad Batch. The trailer was so misleadingly awesome I wanted to watch it before season 2 would come out, but I wanted to finish TCW first (finally!). Season 6 and Season 7 were basicly binge watch and it got me interested again in the previous seasons too.

STAR WARS: THE CLONE WARS 2008 (movie)

Why do I recommend this before TCW - It has Fox - Because sitting through a one-night movie is still easier than watching 133 episodes while maintaining the same quality of the show. - It has Fox - It shows the story how Ahsoka is introduced as Anakin's padawan the first time and we get a glimpse of their initial relationship and dynamic. - It has Fox - Basicly two arc in one movie but the introduced characters stay the same the entire time so you have time to get to know them, recognise them, and later you can remember them. - It has Fox - It has Fox.

TALES OF THE JEDI

It has that one episodes with the clones where they train Ahsoka. Possible questions could be asked: wtf happens at the END? Where is the rest of it? You can instantly show the last arc of season 7. Which would lead to another questions: wtf are the mandalorians, why Maul is here, wtf happening with Rex during O66, why is he hesitating to shoot Ahsoka? Now you can show the Chip conspiracy ARC with Fives! This Fives is a nice guy, is there more episodes of him? Oh boy~

And if they are interested in watching TCW with you..

- Watching together as spending time together usually helps. I think discord also has a function where you can stream movies to others. - You don't have to watch it in the exact order the episodes came out - Show arcs. There are lot of clone centric arcs. I literally collected all the episodes where Echo and Fives are present. --> Dad remembered Echo the whole time and he felt sorry for him. I showed the episodes in such order that his story could be followed easely. ------------- I know. I get it. Every episode is awesome. Every character is awesome. They are. They are all blorbos. They are our blorbos.

#this is probably my longest english written post lol #tcw #clone wars #the clone wars #star wars meta #clone wars meta #star wars #the clone wars 2003 #tales of the jedi #the bad batch #tbb #republic commando #repcomm

45 notes · View notes

avidbeader · 19 days

Text

Okay, I am two episodes into "Dead Boy Detectives" and I am loving it. It's blending its own mythos into the Sandman-verse nicely. it's got lovely banter and conversation that doesn't tip over into I'm-Joss-Whedon-and-I'm-so-clever territory. Everyone in the main cast is brilliant in their role.

Some potentially spoilerish thoughts below for both the "Sandman" comics and "Dead Boy Detectives", along with a dash of salt.

I think I'll finish watching the season first, but I am definitely curious about reading the original comics and seeing whether the developing slow-burn between Edwin and Charles was ever a thing when the characters died at 12 years old vs. 18. There's one scene in the comics that shows that boarding-school students were screwing each other frequently, so canon-in-comics Edwin was obviously aware that queerness is a thing. And I'm guessing TV Edwin probably knows the theory as well, but never considered it for himself, with being stuck in hell for so long and then focusing on avoiding Death and finding purpose with the agency. But as we've seen with "Sandman" and "Good Omens", Gaiman and the people he chooses to work with him are very deft in adapting the comics to television, hanging onto the core elements without clinging to them. At first I was rolling my eyes a bit at the massive popularity of shipping Dream with Hob Gadling on the strength of one episode, knowing that Gadling-in-comics is only shown in romantic relationships with women. But after seeing the directions they've gone in with "Dead Boy Detectives", maybe they will do something with that...even though it will still end with Dream dying. And a bit of salt that occurred to me: I have no idea if the antis have discovered DBD yet and await their mental gymnastics over their pet fake grievance of ages - do they count as two 18-year-olds because of when they died? Or is Edwin perceived as decades older than Charles because he's existed longer in death? Is that the makings of a dreaded power imbalance? And do they even take into account that the original comics characters died at 12? Will they consider Edwin a pedophile in the case of Esther's crow, given he is only days old as a human? And the answer is no, of course they won't, because they always try to pick what they think will be canon and slander all other options with lies and deliberate misreadings like the hypocrites they are. Anyway, salt over and I'll watch more tomorrow.

#dead boy detectives

10 notes · View notes

tyrantisterror · 21 days

Note

If you were ever given the keys to directing or writing a Spider-Man story (or write a Spider-Man fanfic), how would you handle each of Spider-Man’s villains? I’d love to see a more heroic take on The Lizard!

I'm afraid I don't really have a clever take for Spider-Man - I'd probably end up just doing a fairly predictable rehash of the 60's comics, with a dash of some of the newer characters thrown in, like a less good version of Spectacular Spiderman (the cartoon, not the various comic runs of the same name).

Like, I wouldn't change anything about Green Goblin, he's perfect as is. I wouldn't change Sandman or Electro or Rhino from their OG 616 takes, I like them as goons with varying degrees of humanity between them. I'd probably have the most fun with Mysterio by way of doing a lot of Occult and B-Movie homages for Spider-Man to scooby doo his way through. Dr. Octopus would take a lot from Alfred Molina's portrayal because it's my favorite of all of them.

It'd be very unpopular, but I would not portray Kraven as an "honorably hunter," but a vainglorious braggart in the vein of those survivalist reality TV show stars that were so popular a decade ago - with the dated-ness of that being part of his motivation to do something bold to get back into the spotlight.

Lizard would just be a bestial animal in lizard mode rather than an Inherently Evil Reptile Man, and not even a particularly aggressive or vicious animal at that - more a hazard because he's large and scared than predatory.

I would buck the current tradition and portray the symbiote as not necessarily evil/corruptive, with its breakup with Peter being a result of poor communication and Peter being freaked out at how closely he's bonding with an alien parasite than a result of the symbiote turning him malicious. That's how it was originally portrayed, and I like the idea that the symbiote is (initially) a neutral figure and only becomes a threat because of a bad breakup, with Eddie, its second host, being the one who brings genuine hostility into it.

I would make Carnage very silly and hammy while still being destructive - like Johnny the Homicidal Maniac but with goo monster powers.

Kingpin and the Enforcers can continue to be elaborately themed Mafia supervillains, there's nothing that needs to change there.

I wouldn't do Black Cat because she's literally just a Catwoman ripoff and I'd rather focus on rehabilitating Mary Jane when it comes to Peter's love interests.

Spot would be done ala the Spider-Verse films because it's a great take on him and let's be honest, no one's going to un-see that version of him when he's brought up.

MCU Vulture being a scavenger of superhero tech was a cool take that gives his names more meaning than "is a bald guy with robot wings," so I'd go ahead an adapt that too.

And there's dozens more but I think at this point you've got the jist, none of it's very interesting. I'm not exactly a fanfic writer, most of my creativity is funneled to my own stories these days, and has been for a while now.

#It's not even a “how I'd ruin it" situation #More of a “how I'd make a serviceable but kind of dull adaptation of it”

10 notes · View notes

etaleah · 9 months

Text

My Sonic Predictions and Hopes for 2024

Admittedly some of these are things I want to see happen rather than things that are likely to happen, but what the heck, I’ll list ‘em out and see if any of them end up coming true. 🤷🏻‍♀️

A one-shot for the comics involving either springtime or Valentine’s Day. I think spring is more likely since (1) they’re avoiding romance and Valentine’s Day is a romantic holiday, and (2) having a springtime one-shot nicely follows the trend of having Endless Summer and Winter Special one-shots.

I’m pretty pessimistic about the third movie still happening in 2024 given how stubborn the studios are being about the strikes, so I’m guessing the release date will be pushed back to 2025. However, I do think 2024 will bring us a trailer/teaser with some news about casting and whether any new characters besides Shadow will feature.

Part 3 of Sonic Prime, which will likely involve something bad happening to Shadow for reasons explained here. PLEASE LET THIS ONE BE TRUE I NEED PART 3 NOW

A DLC, update, or some kind of “Plus” pack for Sonic Superstars since that seems to be the trend now.

I doubt we’ll see much more for Frontiers since it won’t really be a new game anymore and will have already had a big update. Maybe a few minor tweaks like a new outfit or pair of shoes.

A new Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games title since 2024 will have the Paris Olympics.

More Sonic Symphony tour dates, one of them probably being New York since that’s a really big city for them to leave out.

More merchandise, possibly featuring Shadow to tie in with the third movie.

The Knuckles TV show released on DVD (hopefully).

The comics will take a darker turn again. They seem to alternate between dark, serious arcs and fun, light-hearted arcs. Right now, they’re on Misadventures, which is fun and light-hearted, so I suspect that at some point in 2024, things will turn serious again.

I also suspect that Starline might be revealed to have survived after all, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part since I like his character and was sad to see such a cool villain go so quickly.

Another visual novel or some kind of storybook thing that builds on the success of Murder of Sonic the Hedgehog. No way is something that successful gonna be a one-time deal.

A remaster or re-release/port of an older game. The titles I think are most likely are Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic Heroes, and Sonic and the Black Knight. Adventure 2 would tie nicely into the release of the third movie (especially if they’re adapting its storyline) and they clearly know how popular it is since they released a new figure for it and put City Escape in one of their other games. Heroes is possible since it’s 20+ years old, had some songs included in Frontiers, and the franchise as a whole seems to be leaning toward having more playable characters and team/partner-based play. Murder and Superstars lean into this hard, Origins added Amy, and Frontiers will soon have other playable characters too, so I think they’re testing the waters for a game with an ensemble cast. The launch of the Fast Friends comic series on their socials also shows a lean in this direction. Black Knight is possible since 2024 would be the game’s 15th anniversary, the storybook setup was well received in Murder, and they seem to be calling attention to it by putting its characters in their mobile games.

Again, these are just guesses and I could be wrong about all of them. We shall see… 👀

#sonic the hegehog #sonic franchise #sonic games #sth #sonic movie #sonic comics #sonic idw #sonic prime #shadow the hedgehog #sa2 #sonic heroes #satbk #sonic frontiers #murder of sonic the hedgehog #sonic superstars #mario and sonic at the olympic games

29 notes · View notes

milowing · 1 month

Text

i just finished binging the dead boy detectives show, and i need to get my thoughts out, warning for spoilers

no spoilers tldr: its rlly good please go watch it i need a season 2.

now, onto the review(??):

it is very VERY different from the comics. this isn't *necessarily* bad, in fact i have no problems with pretty much any changes the show made, i just get antsy about cbms/tv shows changing the source material, bcs that happens all the time (i love the blue beetle movie but i will never forgive it for victoria kord). so here are some changes i liked: i liked the explicit queerness, i liked niko, i liked the fact that there were people in the afterlife actually looking for them, i liked how they wrote tragic mick (i love him so much), and i liked the setting change; some i didn't mind but would hate in the comics: edwin's magic, the whole brains/brawn thing?? (istg if a single one of you decides to portray charles as stupid, i will kill you), crystals personality & dynamic with the boys (she was fine but so drastically different from her comic self i would've preferred her to be an oc tbh), the removal of squooshing, the fact that the dead boys don't take cases from the living, edwin's hell being so much more violent, and the fact that they actually call themselves the dead boy detectives (i could be wrong but i've read all of their solos and i don't think they've ever done this??). the only change i really outright dislike is charles' death. i loved the part where edwin took care of him and read to him, but him being killed by the same bullies who killed edwin in the same place is just so much better than the lake. also, once again, crystal was a fine character, but that is just *not* the crystal palace surname-von hoverkraft i know!! where is her obsession with video games? where is her tech savvy? where are her insane parents?? i hope that one day we get an accurate cartoon adaptation of the toby litt run.

now moving on to the show itself!! i really liked the plot, the fact that it was semi-episodic, the cast of characters and actors was incredible. i just really liked it lol. tbh the literal only part of the show i didn't like is the fact that edwin and charles didn't kiss by the end. like... not even once. i wouldn't mind this if this wasn't a netflix show that wasn't getting much buzz, because i'm 99% sure this show isn't going to be renewed. also it felt kind of... idk, queerbait-y?? like there's obviously queer characters and content, but it feels like i watched this *for* edwin and charles' relationship and then they never got together. i feel like shows do this a lot, where, yes, there's a queer character, but they just aren't allowed to be in a happy relationship and get with the person they love. like idk it just makes me kind of angry, especially since we're probably not getting a season 2. i liked literally everything other than that, but it's just such a big scar on my enjoyment of the show that i can't help but mention it.

i don't really have much else to say other than: i really liked it, go watch it.

#dc #dead boy detectives #charles rowland #edwin paine #crystal palace #the sandman #milowing

17 notes · View notes

persbaderse · 2 years

Text

okay okay okay i think i figured it out

so since the sandman came out, some truly audacious people have directly tweeted or messaged neil gaiman complaining that the show has “forced diversity” or a “woke agenda” and so on because of actors of color and queer characters.

now i’m white so i won’t comment right now on the inclusion of poc (except to say: hooray!), but i have been really thinking about the complaints about queer characters in the tv show from people who read the comics. there are a few added queer moments (Alex and Paul being a couple where in the comic they weren’t, Johanna instead of John dating Rachel, etc), but so many others (Judy from the diner, The Corinthian, Hal, Desire, etc) still appeared, and as I keep reading the comics, there are even MORE queer characters (RIP Wanda you would have loved Lady Gaga).

But I think I understand now. You see, before like, God, even 10-15 years ago? Queer rep was often on the fringes. If there were gay or trans characters they were usually not the main character, they weren’t usually in a mainstream show/book/etc, and they often died (and were often white cough cough). the places queer characters could be found in abundance, and with the non-queer characters actually liking and befriending them, was in counter-cultural spaces. The Sandman was a Dark™ story, it was Edgy™, and that darkness sort of lent it the freedom to just have gay people existing (and, to homophobes and transphobes, their disgust of queer people added to the Seedy™ feeling of their experience reading). we existed in comic book stories, we just weren’t, well, in the way in the eyes of many cishet readers. they could ignore us.

so fast forward to present day, and those same people who read the comics and the Gays™ within are watching The Sandman show, but the change in medium has changed the context of how they’re viewing the characters and their interactions. what was once a facet of a Dark™ Edgy™ Comic™ Book™ is now in a hit show on McFreakin Netflix, what could be called niche is now mainstream, and the cognitive dissonance is too much to handle. the homos, who belong on the fringes, have now taken over!!!! it’s the gay agenda!!!!!! time to personally message Neil Gaiman and complain because my opinions are just that important!!!!!!!!!!!

it’s truly, truly insane seeing the reaction of so-called fans of this comic to a really good adaptation, but guess what?? they’re wrong!!! the show is good and so are queer people!!!!!! i thought i would have something smart to say by the end but i’ve got nothing thanks for reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#the sandman #if you're a person of color and want to add to this post feel free to

125 notes · View notes

colleendoran · 10 months

Note

Hi!! Congratulations on absolutely smashing that Kickstarter! I was actually wondering the same thing the other person asked about: in the hopefully extremely unlikely scenario of Amazon depriving us of season 3, could we potentially crowdfund it? We did conjure up a million in a day, there's no telling how much we could amass for our happy ending. Do you think that this would be an option?

I am definitely not the person to ask. Only those who own rights to the show have the ability to act on any of this.

Even if they did want to do a Kickstarter to raise money, I wouldn't know what their contract with the studio says about the matter. If Amazon chooses not to renew, remember they may still hold the rights for some time after, which could prevent the project from being moved elsewhere for awhile.

Or not. I don't know.

I am not privy to these matters. I am adapting the book to graphic novel, and nothing else.

Publishing, licensing, and film/TV deals are incredibly complicated. I used to be a creator rights advocate, and yet I was always running into new iterations of horror whenever I read a contract. Agents and managers are there for a reason. They have to stay on top of these things. One sentence in a contract can change your life.

And since I'm also a former self publisher - one of the creators who was part of the original self published comics boom of the early 1990's - I have plenty of experience with just how complicated creating and producing a major print project by yourself is.

It's expensive, and time consuming, and when I was doing it all, I barely had any time left to create the art.

I can say this: a million dollars is only a fraction of the amount that would be needed to produce one episode of Good Omens.

That would be one mighty Kickstarter, though.

The Good Omens fandom is a powerful and glorious force.

But right now, the show is out of my hands and above my pay grade.

kickstarter

#good omens #good omens season 3 #renew good omens #good omens graphic novel #terry pratchett #neil gaiman

29 notes · View notes

which-star · 8 months

Note

Can not believe Silk was only introduced in 2014 by the way, thought she's been around way longer than that for some reason. Do you want to see her in any other major pieces of media like the MCU or BTSV?

ah yes, she's a pretty new character. I totally understand why you would think she'd be older though! Personally, I would love to see her in live action and btsv but particularly not the mcu? There's definitely a way for it to be done really well! I don't know if I trust them to, but the appeal of seeing Silk on the big screen is really high -- not gonna lie -- so I will probably be more forgiving if the mcu does decide to adapt her and fumble the bag. But with the whole Sony stuff, they might never be able to -- oooh a Sony adaptation could be cool! I really liked Venom!

BTSV I'm 100% gunning for. I was praying she would be in the ATSV trailer and I still have hope she'll be in the next one. I really want to see what sort of art style they'll choose for her along with her movements! There's so many cool things that separate her from the others (and the one, bunker-sized thing) and she played such a big role in the original spiderverse comic event that it feels unfair if she doesn't make an appearance at all. I have a small theory that since the third movie is going to be about disproving Miguel, we'll get the intro cards ("My name is Cindy Moon, and for the last however-long-it's-been, I've been the one and only... SILK") to spider-characters that have nothing to do with the original Peter Parker origin story.

Otherwise, I still have a candle lit for the Silk Amazon TV show that is rotting in developmental hell right now. I think Silk is a character that would do well in a live action and I would love to see it executed well, along with a different interpretation of her character. There's so many ways they could take her character and great runs to fall back on, from the original iconic 2015-2016 run with all the tension with Black Cat to the recent 2021 and 2022 runs that are more conducive to shorter seasons but still serve as a good jumping off point. I could go on about the different ways they could represent Cindy's Korean-American identity, but thats not the point of the ask.

More than her appearing on screen is that I wish she would have more runs! Marvel is treating her like a reserve character right now and only giving the big names ongoings (only bringing her out every AAPI month and maybe a mini), which is affecting her negatively in sales, popularity, etc. I think that working on her library of iconic runs will be more beneficial overall, because when she is adapted to the screen, the writers there will have more to go off of! I think the fact that we're getting yearly minis is good, since it means that Marvel hasn't forgotten about her, but I wish they would take the plunge to give her a loooong ongoing because it WILL pay off in the end. She'd be so much more popular if they did!

Thanks for the ask, I love answering them! This ended up being a lot longer than I expected it to be, but most things do. I hope you had an enjoyable day, anon, and/or continue to!

#cindy moon #which comics #ask #there are some great silk-in-the-mcu fics out there if anyone is interested #I recommend unboxing intro by silver-inked or don't be a stranger by ambivalentangst #both should be in my ao3 bookmarks :))

18 notes · View notes

twistedtummies2 · 5 months

Text

Year of the Bat - Number 15

Welcome to Year of the Bat! In honor of Kevin Conroy, Arleen Sorkin, and Richard Moll, I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Episodes of “Batman: The Animated Series” throughout this January. We’ve officially entered the Top 15! TODAY’S EPISODE QUOTE: “Kids these days. No respect.” Number 15 is…Legends of the Dark Knight.

One of the great things about many famous comic book characters is their adaptability. Some of these characters were created nearly a century ago; Batman, for example, first appeared in the late 1930s. (He actually turns 85 Years Old this very year!) Some characters that old who were popular then have, for one reason or another, not stood the test of time. Batman has, and part of this is because his creators found him easy to adapt and reconfigure as times changed. Bruce Wayne and his universe have been portrayed more seriously or more goofily over the decades, and have been made to appeal to adults and children alike time and time again. “Batman: The Animated Series” is widely considered the most definitive take on the Caped Crusader and his world specifically because the writers who worked on this show understood this, and had a deep love for ALL sides of Batman’s world. The show, therefore, hits a near-perfect balance, overall, between silly superhero shenanigans, and dark, complex, sometimes downright brutal storytelling.

“Legends of the Dark Knight” is an episode that exemplifies not only the skillful balance of tone the Animated Series managed for the majority of its run, but acts as a tribute to the long and storied history of Batman, and the adaptability of the character. The plot focuses on a group of random children, living in Gotham, all of whom are gossiping about the mysterious Dark Knight. Through their banter, they start to share stories and theories about what Batman is really like, all of which pay homage to different past incarnations of Batman. Some of these references are relatively brief; for example, a passing friend of theirs named “Joel,” and his bizarre, strangely effeminate fixations on Batman, are meant to be a joking reference to Joel Schumacher’s much maligned film versions of the character. Another case is one young man who makes insinuations of Batman being some monstrous vampire, a reference to the Elseworlds “Batman & Dracula Trilogy” written by Doug Moench.

The most notable of these homages, however, are two long sequences of the show, acting essentially as stories within a story. The first is a tribute the late Golden Age and the Silver Age of comics, as well as to the Adam West 1960s TV series. It features an original adventure, with Batman and Robin battling the Joker, when the Clown Prince of Crime tries to steal the original score of the opera “Pagliacci.” The second sequence is taken directly from the pages of Frank Miller’s somewhat controversial (but highly influential) masterwork, “The Dark Knight Returns.” This one adapts and combines two scenes from the graphic novel, where Batman faces the despicable Mutant Leader. I love both these sequences; it’s neat to see the way the animation style changes for each to match the decade and story style (I especially love how the first sequence so accurately captures the look of Dick Sprang’s famous aesthetics). Interestingly, they also bring in new voice actors to play the characters in each one; instead of Mark Hamill, for example, Michael McKean plays the 60s-era Joker. Meanwhile, Michael Ironside – who would later play the devilish Darkseid for the DCAU – voices Frank Miller’s Batman. Both are perfect casting.

The episode ends with the kids bearing witness to the real Batman – Conroy’s vocals and all – duking it out with the villainous Firefly. I used to love this episode a lot more, but upon revisiting it, I felt I had lost some love for it, and I think part of it is this final sequence. While I love the idea of the kids encountering the real Batman after all that, and I suppose such a thing was inevitable with a plot like this…something about it feels underwhelming after the spectacular sequences we saw earlier in the episode. It’s hard for me to say what the issue is, but I don’t think that was the intention, based on the way things are set up and described in-story. Still, it’s not necessarily a bad ending, for various and probably obvious reasons. It’s a great episode that showcases a different perspective (several different perspectives, in fact) on Batman and the City as a whole, and if you’re as much of a fan of the history of this character – and the duality of the Animated Series itself – as I am, you owe it to yourself to give this one a quick peek. That is, of course, presuming you haven’t already.

Tomorrow we move on to Number 14! Hint: “This used to be a beautiful street. Good people lived here once.”

7 notes · View notes

docexe-mx · 1 month

Text

I wasn’t exactly fan of X-Men ‘97 adapting elements from stories that appeared in the comics after the 90’s, like it did in episode 5 with elements from the storyline “E is for Extinction” that was originally published in New X-Men in 2001.

Putting aside that I haven’t really been fan of a massive number of the storylines published in X-Men comics during the 2000’s and 10’s, the primary reason why that troubled me is that it felt like it ran counter to the stated mission and intention of the show: Being a faithful revival and continuation to the X-Men 90’s animated series.

However, I guess it was inevitable that the writers would take some story bits that appeared in the comics later than the established time period of the show. After all, there has been more than 25 years of stories between the end of the original 90’s series and the present day. It’s just too tempting to pull from subsequent comics rather than limit the range of the source material strictly to anything before the current century.

That being said, most of my objections and concerns actually evaporated in episode 7, once it was revealed who was the mastermind behind the events in Genosha and what storyline they were intending to adapt afterwards (and indeed, spent the entire season building up towards as the grand finale). I have to say it’s actually even clever, considering that storyline was published precisely on 1997.

All in all, the show has honestly been fantastic so far. Not only a worthy continuation of the original animated series, but overall just one of the best X-Men TV shows. If they manage to stick the landing in the final arc of the season, it might actually become one of the best Marvel adaptations ever produced.

It’s just clear that everyone involved in the production has genuine respect and love for this particular rendition of these characters, and that definitely shows in their work.

#x-men #x-men '97 #marvel #marvel animation #criticism #analysis

4 notes · View notes

popculturebuffet · 2 months

Text

Batmarch Finale: Batman (1989) Review: At Long Last Joker Dancing on Parade Float

Hello all you happy batpeople and it's time for the finale of Batmarch! It's been a fun ride that really made me love the character again and it ends here with something i've been wanting to do since the start of this blog: IT's time to talk about Tim Burton's Batman, the 1989 classic blockbuster that created the first superhero movie boom, solidified the caped crusader as a dark brooding vigilante in the public eye, and gave us not one but two iconic scenes of joker dancing to prince music that live rent free in my head forevermore.

Batman took almost a decade to get going, with Producer Micheal Uslan, a comic book historian who taught a succesful course on comics as literature, wanting to take batman back to his earlier days as a mysterious figure of darkness. His timing was great as by the late 70's when he started his crusade for the caped crusader, Batman had been on a course back to those very roots thanks to the works of Neil Adams and Denny O'Neil. Comic fans ate up a darker batman and Batman returned to being a creature of the night.

The problem was for most audiences.. he was a creature of camp. While I adore the Adam West Batman, i'm honestly shocked i've only covered ONE episode of that gloriously goofy series, it left a mark on the character, with everyone assuming "Well that's what batman is". It's a common trait in comic book adaptations: TV and Movies reach a wide audience. It's why most people think Scott Summers is a plank of wood instead of a tatctical genius with a lot of baggage.

Thus studios either flat out rejected them or wanted a comedy in the vein of the adam wast show. Or rejected it for reasons like "It would be called Batman and Robin and we just had a film with robin in the name tha tbombed" or "It and Annie are both "from the funnie" pages and Annie just bombed (yet did INCREDIBLY well on home video)"

Thankfully the film got rescued as, with John "Giant Mechanical Spider Peters" getting on board, he suggested they do what they did with superman: promote the hell out of the film and the script they had and hope someone buys into the hype. Sure enough it worked as Warner Bros picked up the film and to my suprise they already owned DC Comics, the rights simply got sold off for the reasons film rights to properties often do

So Warner was eager to get the property back in house and profit off it.

With that it was time for a full script by Tom Mankiewicz who based it largely on Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers short but memorable run on Detective Comics I wasn't aware of till doing research for this review, but now happily own. Rogers was even brought on to do concept art. The script went through NINE revisions according to wikipedia, but all were based largely on tom's original. Directing wise Joe Dante and Wes Craven were both considered and i'd loved to see what their version of the film would've been like. Ivan Reitman also was, but wanted a comedy starring billl murray with the studio eyeing eddie murphy for robin.

Thankfully the success of Pee Wee's Big Adventure lead Warner Bros to go with their new golden boy, who was just coming off production of another soon to be hit, Beetlejuice, Tim Burton, pictured here looking like Batman's goth best friend he takes in the batmobile to get him out of the house.

I'd pay so much to see that version of this movie.

Burton wasn't a comic fan , but upon getting the project was a fan of recent hits The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke, and was fascinated with what batman could be. Meanwhile Warner brought in Englehart himself to make a draft. Burton then brought in Sam Hamm, a rookie screenwriter and HUGE fan of the character who quickly proved to be the perfect fit, tightening up the screenplay: he removed Robin (something no one was sad about as he was a studio mandate), replaced Silver St Cloud (Bruce's love intrest during the Englehart Run) and Rupert Throne with Vicki Vale and Carl Grissom and the script was set.

So casting began. After a number of more traditional leads were considered, Burton went with Micheal Keaton at the suggestion of Peters, who felt Keaton has the tortured quality batman needed. It was a great call as he fit both sides: he was stoic and comanding as batman, but as bruce was perfectly absentminded, as if he was far away, yet still charastmatic and likeable. It was a good contrast and also made it easy to see why no one suspect this guy was batman.

Unfortuantely the fans.. were not pleased. Yes even then peopl ewere liable to throw hands over casting decisions before seeing them proper. I've not been imune to this: I liked Ben Affleck but wasn't sure he fit batman, only to be proven wrong when he was easily one of the saving graces of Batman V Superman and it's regretful he couldn't be batman in a better movie.

Fans worried that Keaton , who up to this point had mostly been in comedies, meant the film would be camp like the tv series and film again, to the point this MADE HEADLINES. The studio even breifly considered reasting, but burton held firm.

If your curious other actors considered were Pierce Brosnan (who had no intrest in doing a comic book movie), Mel Gibson (dodged a bullet there), Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen (Another bullet dodged, too much tiger blood to be a bat man), Tom Selleck, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid. None of these really.. feel right, and it's burton's first choice before realizing Keaton was it , the green goblin himself Willam Dafoe, that woul'dve worked with what he was going for. None of these actors are bad, even sheen and gibson are good actors just..awful human beings, they just don't fit the part. Sheen in paticular feels like the worst timeline and I pity the earth that got saddled with frat bro batman.

Naturally every hero needs a good villian and while another row of talent was considered, the studio and Peters heavily pushed for Jack Nicholson over other competiors such as Brad Douriff, Tim Curry, and David Bowie, all versions of this film i'd LOVE to see in some other timeline. That said Nichelson was the perfect choice.

How they finally nailed him down is my faviorite story I found from the documentary: So Nicholson was open to it, liking the part but to lock it down wanted them to meet him for horseback riding. Burton , nature's perfect indoor kid, was naturally deeply uncomfortable on a horse and i'd pay good money to get the picture they claimed existed of Tim Burton on a horse with Jack Nicholson. I find it fascinating in of itself that Jack Nicholson rides horses and has a deep love of horses. That's a thing that fits, but just never occured to me. The most uncomfortbale horse ride ever netted him the part and Nicholson trusted burton completely on set and spoke highly of him in the documentary.

The final main cast addition came due to , of all the possile reasons, a horse riding accident. No it wasn't tim burton himself, but Sean Young, who'd been cast as Bruce's reporter love intrest Vicky Vale and had to bow out, replaced by Kim Bassinger.

Rounding out the cast we have Robert Whul as local reporter and only one digging into this batman case Knox, Cool School owner and operator Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent, Pat Hingle as Comissioner Gordon, acting legend Jack Palance as crime boss and the joker's boss Carl Grissom, and Tracey Walter as Joker's NUMBER. ONE. GUY. Bob.

Promotion for the film was something unique. Nowadays we're used to big, omnipresent ad blitzes with our blockbusters, a huge swath of adds to let you know THIS FILM'S A COMIN. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THIS FILM. I DON'T CARE IF YOUR AMBVILENT ABOUT ARTHUR AND THE KING YOU WILL GET 20 ADDS FOR IT JACOB. THE HYPE MACHINE HATH SPOKEN.

To start Jon Peters helped cut a teaser trailer, wanting to get SOMETHING out to show that no, this wasn't going to be like the Adam West show stop calling me about it dennis. The trailer was only a minute and a half, had no music behind it, something I only found out, and is clearly just whatever clips they had that were ready. You can find it here. It's throughly intresting.

It also.. works. While it's only a short teaser, it gets across what this film is, shows both joker and batman enough to get hyped, all while not spoiling the film. Granted they probably didn't have enough footage yet TO do that but still, it's a well done teaser with only one or two bits feeling like their just.. thrown in there and given the time crunch to get this in front of a teast audence, I can salute that it's still works.

And it worked MASSIVELY. People bought tickets JUST to see this teaser, bootlegs of it sold like hot cakes. It was meant to get people hyped up for what this film actually was.. and it DID, erasing doubts Keaton wasn't batman and showing people just what they were getting.

Warner then went all in promoting the hell out of this film, to the point Marvel's she hulk did a parody of this where a new super heroine does a simliar add blitz: There was cereal, tiger games, merchandising of all kinds. It was a huge gamble as if the film failed to live up to the hype... it'd be a joke NOTHING could live down, would sink the careers of everyone involved from production on down, and possibly destroy warner.

Naturally though.. it didn't. The gamble paid off. It's almost like if you actually RELEASE a film and have faith in the creators, you'll make money. The film was a massive success leading to three more films in this series and a mind boggling 11 theatrical and 60+ total films JUST starring the batman. That's not getting into team movies.

So join me under the cut as we see if , after 35 years of excellence, this film still lives up to the hype in a genre now packed with classics.

Bat Class and Bat Style:

Starting out with the style of the film, it can't be overstated the sheer impact this film had on Gotham city as a place. Before this it was mostly a standard city, just more of a crime hole than most. It was weird reading some of that very Steve Englehart run I mentioned and seeing Gotham. .as a pretty standard metropolis, if not obviously THE metropolis.

Batman is where , to my shock, Gotham was first portrayed as this art deco 40's style hellscape, a city of old buildings with the crime built into it's very foundations: a city of frequent nights, heavy shadows and plenty of places for an up and coming here ot perch and brood. It's an atmosphere that almost feels consuming: you can't escape gotham and it won't let you. It's a monster as much of a city. Batman the Animated series would build on this, making this what gotham was: a city with it's dark history seeped into it's stone that feels massive and endless, like no matter how much batman does the city is almost too big for him to ever fully save.

The rest of the style is after the 40's, a nice nod to batman premiering JUST before they started in 1939. We have large flashes on the cameras, reporters in suits the like.

I also realized this wasn't just a cool style choice, it's a thematic one: Most of Gotham wears these types of clothes, fitting with how Gotham is: a city with a long proud history.. but one it finds itself stuck in. A lot of those men in suits are either helpless goverment types who WANT to make things better but can only do so much like Gordon or Dent, or outright corrupt men like the various mob bosses who control it from the shadow. Even Knox , who tries to go for the scoop, is stuck in the old behaviors of sexisim, hitting on his photographer and creative partner vicki a lot nad being a possesive dick about her romance when it's none of his damn buinsess.

The people who may actually change this city are the ones who come off more with the time: Bruce most of the time wears looser suits or , in one scene casual clothes. The one time he dosen't is to fit in at his own party, to blend in so well Knox and Vale don't even notice he was behind them for a whole scene. When he's himself he's awkward, but also kind and charming. When he's his truest self batman he's calm, intmidating and of course dressed in a lot of rubber. He dosen't fit with Gotham.. but by doing so he can change it for the better.

Vicki is diffrent, fitting in a bit better but her hair and styles tend more toward practical, often wearing her glasses which look neat. Wish I had a pair like that. She brushes off Knox's comments, dosen't want anyone taking ownership of her and rightly calls bruce out for ghosting her (Granted he's also right ot try and get her to stop for one minute so he can tell her she's batman). She's trying to change it more by simply finding the batman, but it's still someone diffrent.

Finally we have the Joker, who stylistically dosen't deviate greately as jack.. but once he becomes something else, he changes. he wears the suit sure... but it's a bright purple with a giant boutiner. He wears makeup, but it's barely covering and by the time of the art heist there more for a joke than actual cover. His attempts to fit in are really more a joke than an actual attempt. Napier never really fit in... he simply stopped putting on the pretense once he became the joker.

Joker's moderness also comes through in othe rways; his biggest scheme heavily involves the rise of cosmetics and the television, using his then modern Smilex adds to stow paranoia. He vandalizes classic art for funsies to a dope prince song. And for his final masterstroke he captalizes on the greedhead nature of the 80's: he correctly figures if you throw enough money at people they'll forgive anything, and throws a ton of money into the crowd in the film's best scene, capering and hamming it up as he prepares to kill them all by luring them into one place. It's telling that the only two places in the film itself Prince's songs show up are with the Joker, who embodies the excess of the 80's while still having his classic 40's born design.

And since we're talking about him...

The Devil in the Pale Moon Light

Nicholson's joker is fantastic. I wasn't big on him for a long time.. but I realized on rewatch it wasn't the performance. Nicholson fucking nails it, having that manic energy hid with a genial calm that makes a good joker to me, that sort of charisma where you geninely can't tell if you'll end the scene as his NUMBER. ONE. GUY. or with a bullet in the belly. He's hammy as hell when he wants to be, deathly calm when he wants to be, and the only one who truly understands himself always.

Nicholson's joker strikes me as a mad Performanceartist, an interpretation I like: his jokes are carefully crafted pieces always done for a terrified audience of some kind. Only one of his kills or crimes post putting a smile on that face dosen't have an audience, Grissom, and he STILL puts on a show for him, shooting him to opera music while giggling like a mad man. Every other crime is a big show, which isn't inconsitant for joker. Every joker has theater kid tendencies, this joker is just the one who has the most thespian energy.

His schemes are also fantastic, props to Burton and the writers: their the right mix of operartic performance art and ghastly crime. From defacing a museum for the attention, to the utterly brillaint smilex ad which parodies the hell out of 80's ad trends and is one of the best joker scenes in media, perfectly capturing his sort of scheme, this versions love of a good performance, and the time it was in. The poor editing and his "Chances are you already own some" and the laugh after.. it's genius. Every piece is great. I also love the pen stabbing which I didn't really pay much attention to before but the mimes, the awesome as hell outfit, the "Uncle bingo" line.. it's so damn fun and the mundanety of the stabbing, feather quill or not makes it a shocker

The two best though are the ones embeded on my mind from childhood to present day: THe art scene is awesome and I love the way he says lawrence, with him just getting into general dicking around shenanigans because it's fun, saving a picture because it's horrifying. I also love his dickish "date" with vicky where he just calls all her glamour photo's crap. You can tell Jack Nicholson is loving EVERY second of this. Granted who wouldn't love grooving to Party Man, which is a truly awesome song. Prince didn't half ass it for this album and while his inclusion is a clear studio mandate Tim Burton didn't seem enthused about in the documentary, Burton still made it work perfectly. It's really hard to not make prince work granted, but it's still flawlessly used.

My faviorite scene of the film though... is Trust aka "Jack nicholson fucking destroys while riding on a blimp" Those hand moves, his expressions, bob and lawrence's grins as they throw money, the banger that is Trust behind him. While Partyman is good and really fits Joker, Trust is a fun banger jam that fits the party atmosphere of Joker's final gambit. The sight of joker throwing money everywhere while mugging is just.. peak joker and one of the best moments of the character and in superhero cinema period.

While Nicholson's joker is mostly celebrated there are two big points of contention, two elephants in the room to tackle.

The first is the fact we get Joker's name at all, that we know anything about him before he became joker as a huge part of his mystique is being this mysterious murder clown who just.. fell in a vat one day and that's all we know before he started chasing batman.

I prefer his past to be a mystery, it adds to the charm and the terror of this guy... but on this watch I felt the Jack Napier version still really works. Nichson does a good job making both Jack and Joker feel like two very diffrent people: Jack was a fairly unambitious hood who WANTED to run everything, but had no real plans for it, content to screw the bosses mistress and be done with it. It's easy to buy into corrupt cop Eckhart's view Jack has no future.. because he didn't. The second Grissom found out what he was doing, he set Jack up to die. Jack ONLY escapes ace chemicals alive due to pure luck: Gordon got informed in time to take over and stop a potetial execution and Bob turned out to be the best guy ever and held said Gordon hostage to get batman to let Jack go. And even then Jack's own impulsiveness nearly killed him, falling into the vat. He's ONLY alive because of sheer luck and knowing a good back alley doctor using tools he got from a dentist who mysteriously died a few decades back.

Jack is an impulsive trainwreck.. the joker.. is Jack with all his inhibitions stripped.. and tha'ts why knowing Jack works. Jack was a pretty common hood: even the Wayne murder, we'll get to that shortly, was just buisness as usual. Jack had ambitious DREAMS, but seemed content to just wait for Grissom to die naturally then take his empire.

Joker by contrast is a mad artist: he sees gotham as his canvas, a toy to play with. He has all of jack's greed and drive, but none of his hesitance to act on it. He's impulsive but unlike jack, he thinks out his impulsive plans. He wants vicky kidnapped, but has his minons bring her, has a bunch of stuff ready and has a whole music video ready after. He barges in on her apartment but brings goons just in case. He's still impulsive enough to be the joker: He dosen't have a plan b for the parade, the pen stabbing comes off as "wouldn't this be neat let's do that", but it's still more than jack ever thought. Jack is truly gone: vestiges of him remain in his new self, he makes sure Grissom dies and wants to control gotham.. but he's now got the higher calling of mayhem: ruling gotham isn't because it's there.. it's because it's FUN. It works because it shows just how FAR joker can go, going from a midly high level enforcer, to a mad god whose only stopped by batman yanking hard enough. Jack works because, ala killing joke, it shows a mostly normal person becoming something far worse. The Joker has an origin and it informs him a bit.. but who jack was is gone by the joker and it's fascinating watching hwat he became.

So that brings us to the OTHER big change: Jack Napier killed Batman's parents. Now this one I agree was a bad idea: the tragedy of the wayne murders. .is that it was just some guy. Some random hood, sometimes named joe hill, shot two innocent people and doing so broke a child and created a bat. It being his future arch enemy feels contrived. Like IT HAD to be someone important because it was his destiny to be a vengeful orphan man! It can't have been just some guy it had to be a number one guy yes yes. It misses the point entirely and it just feels dumb and that reveal clouded my judgement. Jack on his own isn't bad but making him batman's parent's killer is just.. too much. That part sucks but everything ELSE about Uncle Bingo rules and one bad decision, that writer Sam Hamm swears wasn't his idea and came after it was in Burton's hands so blame accordingly, shoudln't negate such a fine performance.

Let's Get Nuts

Speaking of fine performances, let's talk about the Batman of the hour himself. While I went Joker first, Keaton's batman is awesome and has gotten it's due praise over the last few years.

Ironically a lot of what fans hated about him, his everyman looks and not being "muscular" are what make this bruce work. Much like Robert Pattinson's brilliant turn after, this is a Bruce who doesn't really socialize. Unlike Pattinsons he does put in the bare minimum, throwing parties and such... but it's clear while bruce is a known philanthropist, he's not really a big name figure in gotham beyond that. He's an inconspcious guy, so much that Vicky and Knox dont' even notice him or realize it is him. And that suits what he does great: he's so nondescript that once people start looking for batman they won't look there.

Not tha this secret identity being in danger is a big issue at first: Batman's experinced here, but also early enough he's just a myth: Only Knox thinks he's real and even he has no idea what this guy looks like. The criminals know, but both bruce and batman are unknowns at first and prefer it this way.

Bruce is a kind, gentle, down to earth guy: he quickly wins Vicki Vale over.. simply by showing an intrest in her work. It's subtly contrasted with the other two men in her life: Knox first notices her legs, hits on her mildly agresively and is a possesive tool, while Joker outright claims her and tries to kill bruce for stepping on his territory. Bruce wins Vicky over.. because he sees her as a PERSON and not boobs or a prize to be one. Basinger and Keaton have really great chemistry and while the two don't get a ton of scenes together, you see why Bruce takes to her so quickly.. and why he pushe sher away. His war on crime is ALL he has, and he dosen't want her getting caught in it, ironically taking away the agency that brought him to her. It's only when he realizes HOW much she means that he tries to open up. Then a clown shoots him but you know , thems the breka. It's telling when Alfred, to finally break this will they or won't they stalemate, brings her down he's not the least bit mad and is honest with Vicki and continues seeing her.. until she didn't come back for the sequel but that's a review for another day. A christmas day.

I bring up the relatoinship because it's what defines bruce, and while romances can be rushed in these movies.. this one works and fleshes bruce out. It creates a nice divide between the man he thinks he should be, the creatue of the night who scares a cowardly and superstitious lot, who dosen't flinch in any situation and is always calm.. with the all too human bruce who simply dosen't want to be alone. Well he has alfred but he can't rely on his dad forever.

As batman.. there isn't a ton to talk about as he's mostly stoic and badass. Keaton does a really good job of that.. but there's not a ton of expression other than "scowling and it's only in his final confrontation with the joker, his parents murderer he really emotes with pure unyielding rage. It's not bad.

There is one aspect that needs to be talked about though: This batman.. kills. It's a divisive idea as by this point batman's no killing rule was in place... but it's one I get Burton not using. He and those around him based this film on the earliest works, and in those.. Batman had no issue killing if he had to.

It works for me largely because Batman isn't wontonly killing: he uses the machine guns primarily to clear the way and presumibly, like the dark knight returns which is where Burton probably got the machine gun, their likely rubber bullets. The only person he truly tries to kill repeadetly is Jack. Not at the plant, as while it's said he drops him .. it really dosen't come off that way. It's left ambigious if batman did it on purpose or simply COULDN'T hold onto jack much longer. The only person Batman truly wants dead.. is the man who created him. Any other kills are mostly just life or death struggles. I prefer batman not to kill... but one who does so judciously still fits the character.

Finally before we move on we have the way his origin's done: While I said I didn't like the jack part the film tries to treat this as some big mystery.. with the problem being even in a post adam west pre burton world.. most people probably knew batman's parents were dead. It works to a point, but out of all the things in the film.. it feels like padding. We know why he's doing this, we're just waiting for Vicky to catch up and i'd be fine with that but ther'es juts.. nothing really added. She finds out his parents died. A matter of public record he didn't really bury. The only shocking reveal she finds is who killed his parents, which while a decen tswerve, couldv'e been hidden until the reveal. It just.. pads the film slightly, but not so much it obstructs it

The People of Gotham

Now for our side cast. Starting with our third lead we have Vicky Vale, she of the 80's hair, neat glasses and inconstient spelling in this review. Kim Bassinger does a great job with the character and they do TRY to flesh her out: she's been both a war reporter and a fashion photographer, is great at her career and while enamored with Bruce only takes his shit so far.

That being said while I do LIKE Vicky, it's largely down to the performance: Bassinger is a talented actress and i'd like to see her in more films. I mean i've only seen her in this, Wayne's World 2 and bits of Cool World. She did fine in all three, it's just clear she has talent and I hope to see her make a comeback if she wants. She makes a character given just enough sparkle.

That being said... plot wise.. Vicky's just there for exposition and as an object. They give her some depth, being a former war photographer, but the film's unintrested in exploring her as a person, instead having her explore bruce.

And get put in danger three diffrent times. I mean she only gets kidnapped once but it feels like she's mostly there to get scared or romance bruce. The romance plot IS important as it fleshes Bruce out as a person... but it's telling it's mostly to flesh HIM out. Vicky and him have chemistry.. but again that's because her actress is that good. I can kinda see why she didn't want to return for the sequel, and feel bad that her replacement of sorts got way more with her character. Vicky.. deserved better.

Onto Alexander Knox, who is probably confusing those of you who haven't seen the film. Knox is a reporter and is intended as mild comic relief at times. In practice he's aged like fine cheese on a sidewalk covered in radioactive ants and pudding. His first words upon seeing Vicky "Hello Legs"

He then offers to do nudes and in general just.. tends to hit on her often, while she clearly just wants to work with him and is only putting up with her bullshit because she's so clearly used to sexist bullshit and come ons at this point. I DO think some of this is intetional as there's a contrast in how he greets her and how Bruce greets her: Knox recognizes her work, but is mostly interested in

While Bruce you know.. sees her as a person. That said Knox.. is also creepily posessive, telling her not to go out with bruce, not getting what she sees in him, and clearly being jealous. He's just kinda there to set up that batman's been a thing and is mostly seen as a myth then ceases to be relevant but sticks around the film anyway. He does go after some guys with a baseball bat but it's too little too late.

Finally out of our heroes side, we have Alfred. Micheal Gogh dosen't get a ton to do, but really owns the roll, giving you the impression of a man who simply dosen't want to see his surrogate son spend his whole life in a cave. he says as much outright but you can see just how HAPPY he is that Bruce has Vicky and how much he dosen't want him to loose her. He dosen't get to do much.. but his one big action was a source of contention for Sam Hamm, as it was added after. Alfred takes Vicky to the batcave. In Hamm's words "That would be his last day of employment"

Alfred... is Bruce's dad. Not biologically, that we know of, but he raised Bruce. Even by this point in the comics it was clear Alfred was just as much a faithful retainer as he was Bruce's dad. Bruce would get mad about something like this.. but he'd never fire Alfred as a snap judgement, especially when Bruce WAS GOING TO TELL VICKY ANYWAY. Alfred likely knew this. All Alfred did was eliminate a step. It wasn't like Alfred invited his acapella group, the Alfredpellas, down there.

We then have Alicia. Alicia dosen't get much to do as this script REALLY wasn't intrested in women but is intresting. My friend Jess the Vampire pointed out when we watched this she's kind of a proto harley quinn: someone deeply intrested in the Joker despite how he abuses her. At first it's fairly equal: Jack gives her attention Grissom isn't and him becoming joker shocks her but isn't bad. Then he horribly scars her as an art piece, and abandons her for Vicky and the sheer trauma causes her to throw herself off a building. It's a tragic story as she didn't relaly do anything wrong, she just had bad taste in men: first Grissom then Jack then Joker. It's not as layered as poor harley, but it's a good first draft and adds to what a monster Joker is. He just makes her into his horrifying art then throws her away when he's done.

Finally out of the major characters we have Bob. Bob is a quiet MVP in this film, Jack's best friend and #2 and Joker's Number. One. Guy.

What I hadn't noticed before is even pre joker.. Bob is LOYAL to Jack. He gets Eckhart not to shoot jack, and most importantly saves Jack from Batman at Ace Chemicals, holding Gordon hostage. From the go he's invauable to his bestie, helping make up for Jack's impulsivness. And while Jack just kinda shrugs, as he tends to, Joker recognizes this. He instantly makes Bob his NUMBER. ONE. GUY. and unlike grissom, who only said it in jest and as a veiled threat, Joker really seems to mean it. He has Bob stalk vicky for him, lure her to the musuem, all creepy shit sure but all stuff Joker needs vitally done and trusts Bob to do without any ulterior motive. And he does. Bob's also just fun: he capers a lot during partyman and is one of the best parts of Trust, his expression as he's throwing money gives me life. It also makes his death tragic. Bob was not a good guy, again he stalked a woman because he was told to.. but he was loyal and friendly.. and joker kills him simply because he got pissed off. His death is, fitting the joker, hilarious, just the casual way he asks for a gunt hen shoots bob with it, but it's a sad end to a NUMBER. ONE. GUY.

The rest of the side cast.. is pretty one note. Gordon is just the police chief, something that carries over to most other versions we've seen on film, Dark Knight being the exception. He has a great moment at ace chemicals but does fuck all the rest of the film except light up the bat signal. Harvey Dent is there to set up a future role that never comes for Billy Dee Williams. Grissom is memorable thanks to Jack Palance's delivery of "NUMBER. ONE. GUY. ", but otherwise is just a standard gangster man. The rest of the cast is mostly there to do plot and they do do it well but don't do much else.

Conclusion: And with that Bat March comes to a belated end. I enjoyed this review as it made me take a close look at a film I loved... and ended up loving it MORE. Batman has rough edges, some due to age some due to simply being one of the earlier comic book movies, but it' sstill damn good even today. It's a classic, a fun ride with banger performances, a lot of detail and deft direction from Burton. If you haven't watched it in a while, please do. If you have.. well do anyway it's that good.

Thanks for reading and thanks for enjoying batmarch

#batman 89 #batman #michael keaton #jack nicholson #tim burton #kim basinger #alfred pennyworth #the joker #vicky vale #comics #warner bros

4 notes · View notes

feild-null · 2 months

Text

A Few Thoughts on Adaptation

Adaptation is a very tricky art to get right. Most of the time adaptations seem to be worse than the original works, and why is that?

Take for example if I wrote a small passage such as this

“Out in the fields I sat watching the sun dip below the horizon. For a moment each piece of dust in the air and bead of water on the ground lit up in a bright flash. The light hitting everything just right to make that moment one to remember. Now the sun dips even lower leaving the area desolate and dark, but soon the stars will come out and bring the night abuzz again. Another day will pass leaving a moment just as beautiful, maybe even more beautiful, but not for me. My moment has passed, someone else gets to have that dusk to themselves now.”

Well written, and let’s say enough people like it enough for it to get a release as not just the text but with an image this time around. Herein lies the issue. The moment you imagined in your head will most likely look better than what I could draw. So if I added this;

It’s most likely disappointing in comparison to the text on its own. Even if effort was put into changing the media it didn’t have the same magic energy as the original, which could be preferred, but to fans of the original it would be dissatisfying.

Now there are good adaptations, so what is the trick? From my observations there are two main ways to make a good adaptation;

1. Re-contextualize the story

2. Make an adaptation from a work that didn’t work as well to begin with

On the first note, re-contextualizing the story helps to make the adaptations stand out from one another making the two works seem separate enough that fans of the original can appreciate a new direction and it is actually new. For a good example of this take the “The Blob” movies. There are two versions of the movie. There’s the ‘58 and ‘88 versions; the first version is a movie that is inventive but struggles from its technical limitations from the early days of filmmaking, whereas the ‘88 takes full advantage of new filmmaking techniques and technologies. This by itself is good, but the stories are changed, where the original had the title monster come from outer space mirroring the fear of foreign invaders in the Cold War, the remake had the government be responsible for the monster in random with rising anti-government sentiments from Vietnam. If you’re looking for more information on this here’s the video I learned that from

youtube

Another good example is how the Scott pilgrim franchise handles adaptation. The original comic, movie, and tv show are all very different and for different purposes. The comic is more about the relationship and dynamics of characters, where the Edgar Wright movie was more interested in being a fun watch that mostly focused on one arc for Scott. The show. I’m not gonna pretend I liked that show (Scott pilgrim takes off), but it did do well (in the first three episodes) setting up the characterization of the other characters in the series. All have their own fan bases and are all going for different experiences. For a bad example we have our good friend the Disney corporation! The new Disney remakes have been railed on to death so I won’t spend too long on them, but suffice to say, they aren’t different enough from the original to warrant existing or cool enough to rekindle the magic of the original animation. They don’t change with the times, the closest we got was the little mermaid remake’s version of “Part of your World” having a different ending note (which personally I liked), which isn’t a good way to make remakes.

Now what about works that didn’t function very well to begin with? The best examples I can think of are The Thing and Spider-Man. The original Thing movie was titled “The Thing from Outer Space”, which was a longer and less catchy title to begin with, and while being a good watch ultimately wasn’t too remarkable. I’d still recommend watching it, however, that doesn’t compare to “The Thing”. That movie is a modern masterpiece of writing, failing at its release, but being remembered for its amazing portrayal of the story. (If you can’t tell, 90% of this is just recommending movies and tv shows that I liked). What about spider man? Well, while Peter Parker has stayed consistently good, Miles Morales wasn’t always. Miles’s comics personally weren’t very gripping or very good to read, mostly just a filler for the time, but the Spider-verse movies? NOW THAT, THAT IS CINEMA. Those movies made what was an interesting but underwhelming character into one of the most compelling movie protagonists I’ve seen from Sony in a while. Not to mention the “Across the SpiderVerse” movie had a twenty minute opener that was a movie within itself about Spider Gwen.

Now all this is to say adaptations are very interesting to look at. It’s important to remember to judge works of media on their own because a lot of adaptations are going for a different crowd, but also knowing the past of it is important to make progress. Suffice to say it’s complicated and understanding and enjoying media is hard. We want things to be good, but even bad adaptations can teach us things. Netflix’s “Avatar the last Airbender”, Disney’s remakes, and a whole suite of live action remakes show the value of the medium of animation and what happens when you take it out of a story. The remakes of beloved stories that butcher the characters and teach us why Hollywood sucks forget why the story is good show us that you need strong direction for good end products. (Hollywood isn’t actually bad, it’s just an easy punching bag to point at and say that it’s the real problem when the creative bankruptcy and executive pressures are a result of dying markets and competition) Now if you notice I didn’t name a specific franchise for that last example, that’s because that franchise caused me to write this in the first place. And it’s “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts”. And that movie caused this rabbit hole to explain why it’s bad and the worst part is it could’ve been a masterpiece. THATS RIGHT, THIS WHOLE RANT IS ACTUALLY ABOUT TRANSFOMERS!

I could write a whole other dissertation about that movie and why it fails to be a good adaptation of “Beast Wars” and “Transformers” as a whole, but I won’t. This post is already looking way too long but I will say the show “Beast Wars” is one of the best transformers shows I’ve seen, heck even one of the best shows I’ve seen, though that could be due to the fact I saw it as a young kid, but I did rewatch it and it lived up.

No matter, enjoy media, and remember to stay excited for new things, media hasn’t become bad, we simply have to keep up and find the good parts. Goodbye tumblr citizens.

#speedrundition #art #rant #media analysis #nostalgia #the sheer level of caffeine this post must’ve took #you have no idea how many things I wanted to bring up #transformers #Youtube

5 notes · View notes