Batman: The Killing Joke- about as no win as it gets

Oh fanboys. We really are the greatest example of people who don’t know what we really want. We want something, but we only want it a certain way. If that certain way is not met in even the tiniest degree, then the rest is garbage. We have really yet to grasp the idea that beggars can’t be choosers.

A classic example of this is the animated adaptation of the Alan Moore comic Batman: The Killing Joke. With the recent surge of popularity that comic book heroes, particularly Batman, have been getting, as well as a renewed interest in seeing animated movies about these beloved characters, we all knew it was only a matter of time before The Killing Joke was at least mentioned, if not produced. With various stories revolving around the Red Hood, the Suicide Squad and even the New 52’s Court of Owls storyline, many people were wondering if we were ever going to get a movie based on The Killing Joke. Well, before long, our questions were answered. Not only were we getting a full movie, not only was it going to be animated by the same team as the acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series, but it was also going to feature the voices of who many of us see as the OG Batman and Joker, Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. In addition, it was also confirmed that the movie would be rated R, which at the very least meant that they wouldn’t subtract anything from the dark, violent, graphic and downright bleak source material.

Here’s the problem, the graphic novel is actually not that long. If you wanted just an adaptation of the book and nothing more, you’re essentially looking at an episode of the television series mixed with Hannibal. In an effort to be fair, let’s play a little devil’s advocate with the studio. Keep in mind, this is a graphic novel everybody has an opinion on, so naturally they are going to have some strong things to say about the movie.

-So we make it longer, we expand the story, flesh out the characters, add a few twists and turns to make the mystery more intriguing and-

-Yeah, I’m gonna stop right there. See, while that may seem like the logical route, and probably would have been the best choice, you have to consider that you are talking about comic geeks. Ones that are pining over a novel that is 30 years old. You saw how intense my hatred was over Batfleck being a trigger happy cold blooded killer in BvS. Imagine how a less reasonable person would feel if you suggested that to them in regards to The Killing Joke.

-Okay, so what do we do? We can’t touch the actual novel itself, and we sure as crap aren’t going to spend this much money on making essentially a standalone episode of the show. How about we tack on a prologue at the beginning?

-Okay, we could do something involving the Joker, I mean this is afterall his story, we could get a history of his and Batman’s relationship through his eyes, maybe we can gain some sympathy for him.

-OR… Or we could add a whole subplot involving Batgirl and her relationship with Batman. Keep in mind, Robin is not around in this story.

-Wait why are we doing that? Barbara has little to do in this story. Her one scene is her getting shot.

- True but if that’s all we give her to do in our movie, then people will get pissed off at us and call us sexist. And there are the Batgirl fans to think about.

-First of all, feminists hated the graphic novel as it is, so you are walking into a no-win already. Second, why would a batgirl fan want anything to do with The Killing Joke? It’s not gonna end well for them either.

-Well we need to remind people of who she is as Batgirl and why this is such a tragic moment.

-True, it is a tragic moment, but we don’t need reminding. How many comics, movies and even the video games exist that show us how badass she is and the relationship she has with the Bat family? Hundreds? Maybe thousands? We don’t need reminding that she is an important aspect of the Bat canon. Hell, the show did a pretty good job of cementing her relationship with Batman and Robin.

-Exactly. We are going to draw from her character in the Animated Series.

-Well, I’ve heard of worse options

-Remember how she had a thing for Bruce Wayne in the Animated Series?

-….. Vaguely. It wasn’t really explored THAT much. Keep in mind, most of the time, their relationship is seen more as being paternal than anything else. Sure, she has a functioning and close relationship with her father, Jim, but Batman is also something of a surrogate father.

- So how about we have them hook up in the prologue?

- You’re losing me.

- Well, you said that you remembered her having a thing for Bruce in the animated series. We can expand on that to say that at one point, they did have a relationship but it went south because of who they are as people and therefore she can have a stronger effect on Batman after she gets crippled by the Joker. We’ll write the scene so it’s more of a built up release, a heated moment of passion. Like when 2 normal people have a one night stand, or when a couple takes things too far too soon in the relationship. The effect will be less about the act itself and more about the fall out. It’ll be as much Batman’s fault as it is Batgirl’s fault. And then afterward one of them will want to talk about it, while the other doesn’t want to. Both are clearly kicking themselves over it, and are not really sure how they are going to get past it. Since things were left on a sour note las time they saw each other, that’s what will add depth to the tragedy of her shooting.

-First of all, I said I vaguely remembered it. How well do you think the other fanboys are going to handle it? Secondly, I think everybody shipped her with one of the Robins, usually Dick Grayson or Tim Drake. I mean, I see what you’re going for, and I can appreciate the effort, but that’s not the way I’d do it. And I think you are going to piss off some die-hard fans with that. Keep in mind, people always see them as being more father/daughter, so there is some serious Oedipus complex vibes going with this approach.

-But what’s the point of adapting something if we aren’t allowed to put our own spin on it? Like you said, we can’t add anything to the original story itself, we can’t make a thirty-minute movie, and if we aren’t going to put some kind of creative stamp on it, then we might as well not make the movie and just let people stick to the graphic novel, if that’s all they really want.

-I guess what we can take from this is that you’re screwed no matter what you do. Either you keep things the way they are, and get criticized for just sticking to your guns, or you try to add something, and you get criticized for butchering the lore.

Sidenote: It should be noted that audiences reacted differently to this addition. When the crowd saw it at comic-con, they were calling for the heads of all involved. When we saw it the other night at a fathom events screening, people had more time to digest and wrap their heads around the news. That being said, while we still weren’t on board with the Batman/Batgirl scene, we could at least appreciate what they were trying to do, even if it wasn’t the most ideal way.

As far as the actual story of The Killing Joke itself, it’s about as faithful an adaptation as you can get. The script is almost word-for-word from the book, some of the shots are ripped straight from the panels of the comic, combined with beautiful animation and the voice work of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t without room for improvement. There are moments that could have used more time, the two greatest examples being when the joker first emerges from the chemicals and sees his new reflection in the water and finally cracks. Keep in mind, this is the joker at the end of his “one bad day” that finally made him who he is. He has gone through loss and failure and in his desperation has gone off the deep end before he actually goes off the deep end. So the moment when he rises from the chemical waste, only to see the drastic transformation that he has undertaken, there could have been a few beats between him seeing his reflection and that first laugh as the joker. The other moment is when Commissioner Gordon tells Batman that he wants things done “by the book!” This is a man who just went through torture, both physical and mental, and humiliation. He has every right to want the joker beaten to a pulp and shot, but he never waivers in his convictions, and is mentally sound as ever, always grounded in his faith in the system, in humanity and that “our way will work”. So when he says the line “I want it done by the book!” it could have used some more dramatic weight in its delivery.

With all that said, the movie does deliver in some ways while coming up short in others. The animation, like I said, is beautiful and if I was going to hear anybody voice Batman and The Joker, for this adaptation, I wouldn’t have wanted to hear anybody but Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. To many of us, they are the definitive voices. It doesn’t matter which comic I’m reading, if I’m looking at Batman and the Joker, those are the voices I always hear when they are talking. If you liked The Killing Joke when you read it, then this should live up to your expectations. If you didn’t like the book, then this won’t do much to sway you.

Ghostbusters (2016)

No film has had to travel through quite the winding road as did Ghostbusters. Not many people know but initially the plan was to actually make a third Ghostbusters movie following the two with Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson and company. However after multiple scripts getting bounced around, Bill Murray saying he did want to be involved, then saying he didn't want anything to do with it, and Dan Akroyd acting all kooky, nobody could really say for sure when they were going to make Ghostbusters 3. Finally, after the death of Harold Ramis, I think they all just said screw it. Of course, knowing Sony, they were not going to relent so easily. Even if literally everybody involved with the first 2 movies said they weren't going to make a third, they were still going to make a third. And thus, Ghostbusters 2016 was born.

The story is much more complicated than that, but that's about as cut and dry as I can make it. Also, Akroyd thinks that aliens planned to visit us, but then 9/11 happened and they said "Yeah... No".


So, truth be told, even though I enjoy the original Ghostbusters very much, I wouldn't really consider myself a "fan". Or rather, I don't fit the fan community's definition of a true fan. For example, I had no idea until last year that everybody disliked Ghostbusters 2 as much as they did. I mean yeah, the first is obviously better, but Ghostbusters 2 didn't make me seethe the way other people did. I mean it's not a great movie but it's enjoyable. And I wasn't clamoring and anxiously waiting to hear any news regarding a third movie like others were. I figured if they hadn't made it by 2000, then it probably wasn't getting made. I actually kinda saw reboot as the natural step to take. Or rather, the natural step for the studio to take. I would have continued the sequel route, but in a JJ Abrams sense. The original cast is still there, but they play a smaller role so to let those who take the baton have their moments in the spotlight.

Anyway, my hopes were not really all that high going into the theater. I saw both trailers and wasn't really impressed. I liked all the leading ladies and thought they were great choices to play the new team, but I was afraid that their talents would be wasted on a script that was all about throwbacks and wink winks to the original. So before you start calling me misogynist, which it took me 3 attempts to spell correctly, just know that that was my position going in.


So after all the hype and the rage and the debates and the mud slinging, how did the final movie turn out?

















In my opinion, surprisingly okay.

It starts out very weak and even after it picks up it still has its weak moments. There are a number of cameos that I thought could (should) have just been left out, and I noticed a trend that all of the male characters are either assholes or dopes. The villain I thought was kinda weak and not really memorable at all. And I couldn't get over the fact that everybody was just so cartoony. I mean yeah, they're a little unhinged but do we need them to all be looney toons?

With that said, there are a number of hilarious moments. The best lines are delivered by Chris Hemsworth, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. Of course Kirsten Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are always great and they have great chemistry together. On top of that, the actual ghostbusting equipment was really cool with some cool new tech and weapons and the look of the ghosts themselves were actually a nice upgrade. And it was nice to see Slimer upgraded with modern effects.


I feel kinda bad that I don't have a whole lot more to say about the final product, but in actuality the majority of what there is to talk about regarding this movie has more to do with what's surrounding the movie rather than the movie itself. It's hard to talk about it without being labeled. If I say the movie sucked (which it definitely did at times), I'm sexist. If I say that I enjoyed this movie (which I did at times), then I get told that I'm not a true fan of the original and that I've bought into Hollywood politics. Well, like I said, I don't really fit into that idea of a "fan", and as someone on the outer fringes of the debate circle, I'd have to give this movie a C. Not totally sucky, but still not all that great either. Put away the pitchforks guys.

DC vs Marvel: Why it's Bull

It's one of the most intense rivalries in all of geekdom. Which comics do you prefer? Marvel or DC? This isn't anything new, ever since there was such a thing as science fiction or fantasy, there have always been rivalries between fans. Star Wars or Star Trek? Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings? George Orwell or Ray Bradbury? Okay maybe that last one was just me but you get the idea.

The difference is that I've noticed the Marvel/DC is much more intense. It's actually treated like a rivalry. In the case of Wars/Trek, you mostly find that even though someone prefers one, they still respect and see the appeal of the other. In the case of Potter/Rings, you find that most of the time, people are fans of both, but still say they just happen to like one more than the other. So why is DC/Marvel actually seen in this light?

If you look at the comics themselves, you find that there really isn't that much of a difference. Most people think that DC tends to be more dark and gritty while Marvel likes to be lighthearted.

Oh yes, Marvel so lighthearted and kid friendly, with great warm and fuzzy moments like this shot of Wolverine decapitating Red Skull with Captain America's shield.

(I just googled Wolverine: Old Man Logan, and this was on the second row)


And DC, being so dark.

(Third image that showed up on Google)


Okay, so maybe that stance stems more from the movies and shows that these characters produce. Afterall, movies like The Dark Knight and Batman V Superman had a noticeably darker tone than say Guardians of the Galaxy.


For example, here's the poster for Batman v Superman, next to the poster for Guardians of the Galaxy

   

While they both look like movies with a ton of action, one of them clearly looks like it's going to be more fun.

Except wait, see that's not even fully true because when you think about it, the X-Men movies have been pretty dark too. And those are not so much about defeating a one-off villain, they are more about conflicting ideologies and worldviews. Kind of hard to make a kid sit through that.

 And what about the tv shows? This is again where people would assume that DC's shows are more broody and violent while Marvel are more upbeat and optimistic. Oh really?

  
There's no need for a caption. If you've seen the shows, you know what I'm talking about.

Compare that to DC shows...

   

I know that Arrow looks kind of intense, but come on, it's on the CW, when have they ever done anything that dark? Even Supernatural has more than its fair share of funny moments.

But going back to the movies, the distinction between them is that DC has charged the wrong man with their expanded universe. That being Zack Snyder. See, while Joss Whedon, James Gunn and many others have had the chance to really take their Marvel properties and really expand on them, letting the characters develop on screen the way that they did on the page, Snyder is less concerned with the story and more concerned with making shots that look cool. He doesn't take into account the purpose of the shot, nor the story behind it, or if it even makes sense, he just sees that it looks cool and moves on.

Take this shot for example. If this were in a comic, you could assume that he was there for like a second or this is him descending on them to rescue them. But in actuality, he just hovers there for like a minute. Hey Supes? You gonna save those people? You're supposed to be faster than a speeding bullet, think you can maybe hit the throttle on this? People are only drowning, I'm just saying. Seriously, f*%$ this movie.

Forgive me, I digress. As far as the films go, DC thinks that if they are going to make an expanded universe, then they have to carbon copy the two movies that really did it right. Problem is, Snyder is not very good at copying.

  

Dark tone? Let's make it darker than Schindler's List! With no humor or even a smile throughout our entire movie!
(even The Dark Knight and Vendetta had some humor in it)
Weird cast choices that actually work out in the end? Let's do Zuckerberg as Lex Luthor!
(I said that actually worked out in the end. I still want a Bryan Cranston Lex Luthor)
Long run time to develop the story and give a fuller understanding or characters' motivations? Let's make it 3 hours, with a director's cut, and cram as much set up for Justice League as possible!
(Have you even been paying attention?)
Present characters in a new light that still finds a way to stay mostly faithful to the source material? Let's have Batman use so many guns Charlton Heston is going to have to take a cold shower! And let's make the entire Suicide Squad cast look like Hot Topic employees!
(I'm done with you)

 Seriously Snyder? Do you even Batman?!

Marvel on the other hand, let's all their movies feel a little different. Captain America 2 and 3 for example feel like political thrillers. Ant Man came off almost like a heist movie. Iron Man 3 felt like something Tom Clancy would write.


Movies aside, the rivalry between Marvel and DC really flabergasts me because with the other rivalries, there is a clear distinction, and knowing what people prefer tells you a little more about them. With Marvel and DC, there really isn't that much distinction between them, they both have their darker moments and they both have there fun times. For every Killing Joke, there is Teen Titans, for every Avengers, there is Deadpool.

And for those that say that Marvel makes better movies than DC, just remember that while for every Dark Knight, there is a Green Lantern, Marvel also has this on its track record.

 

Do I need to go on?... Yeah, I think I'll go on.









 



Say what you will about DC's failures, but they never screwed up so bad that they had to reboot the same franchises multiple times and erase whole movies from the continuity. Also, they don't have Howard the Duck.


So truth be told, if you were to ask me if I was a Marvel fan or a DC fan, I would say that I'm both and I'm neither. I like and read comics from both sides, I have eagerly awaited to see movies from both sides, and in terms of the actual comics themselves, I don't really see much of a distinction as to start such an intense battle over. They both have their awesome movies and the both have their Green Lanterns.

Though, if there were a gun to my head and I was forced to pick one, full disclosure, I would pick DC because of


THIS


NOT THIS



THIS


NOT THIS



THIS



NOT......... THIS



When you're a comic book fan, you have to take what you can get.