Messages

Miller trying to re-litigate the cathedral stuff (which I opaquely referenced in my review) is the major sticking point I have. The other issues have mostly washed away with a second and now third read.

My issue is that it never needed explaining why the Joker's goons were in the cathedral, which the book ends up admitting at the end, conceding that 'yeah the cathedral was always the Joker's exit strategy'. And I'm like 'duh'.

Joker knowing Batman's identity is also a simple explanation. Batman purposefully revealed it by quoting Jack's tagline back at him using Bruce Wayne's voice. Easy. And once again the book obsesses with finding the answer only for it to just hand wave it away at the end. 'The Joker babbles incoherently anyway. Who Cares?' Well, you did, apparently. It was better keeping to the simplest explanations or better to just not bring it up if the answer is ultimately that you, the author who drew attention to it, do not care.

I, like the commentators above, also expect that BATMAN REVOLUTION will fare better not leaning so hard on the first adventure. Returns established a very stand alone tone for the franchise. I think that ought to make a comeback. Are we allowed to talk about that yet? I don't want to spoil.

Another huge spoiler I think will be a big topic of discussion: The Batman '89 comic is definitely canon, which is a tad odd considering that Miller went out of his way to say that it wasn't necessarily canon, but that Resurrection wouldn't step on its toes. Batman'89 is absolutely canon, as Drake Winston of Royal Auto has a cameo. Also, it should be noted that something the current run of the '89 comic has been hinting at now makes sense. '89: Echoes has referenced Hugo Strange several times as Crane's former mentor and Bruce keeps mentioning that Hugo worked for him in the past. This now makes sense and also explains why the comic has been delayed several times: These two stories overlap. Hugo did in fact work for Wayne...in Resurrection under the alias of Hugh Auslander and is the principle villain of the novel. So, yeah, these stories literally cross over with each other. I expect the final issues will lay this out.

Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"

Anyway it will be interesting to hear what people thing about that.

Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.

However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.

Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.

Yes, TDK, you are correct. The scene would have played better if Bruce had to makeshift a disguise or put on a balaclava mask during this daylight scene. Instead it has to explicitly be a daylight batsuit with gray on it because gray is comic book. End spoiler.
As for Batman, I accept some of the character expansions because it does allow for understanding why the GCPD endorsed this version and the scene where it is most prominent involves children who are in need of rescue, so I can only complain so much. It really is a solid book that I'm anxious to discuss. Waiting on you guys!

I've read the entire novel. My thoughts in brief are that it is a very solid book that is not in line with your typical tie in books, which are typically breezy, thin, afternoon novellas that can be devoured quickly. This book is much more in line with that of a proper novel, ambitious in its telling, embellishing the world and the head spaces of the main characters. However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned. He's much closer to the mark than Hamm's comic, but you still see it run off course. The novel stumbles when it needlessly tries to answer what it thinks are dangling questions from the first film, questions that frankly already had sufficient answers in the film or didn't need addressing.

I'd still give the prose and the crisp, professional hand of John Miller praise enough to give this a solid 7.5 out of ten and a hardy recommendation to ardent 89 fans.

Also, be on the look out for the just announced sequel, also penned by Miller, entitled BATMAN: REVOLUTION...spoiler likely a Riddler story.. That's all from me until we get into discussions.

Biehn is a great choice. He has very similar qualities to Keaton, especially where Burton's ideas for Batman are concerned. It all boils down to 'what kind of person has to dress up as a bat'. Biehn has a reputation for being a guy who can play tough, troubled characters despite not having the physical presence of a Schwarzenegger. Burton's direction is that this guy isn't Superman and has to pretend he is more than what he is, which of course is just a guy. He's unassuming at a glance, but when you add the troubled psychology (IE good acting chops) and the suit then POP there you go! Batman!

I feel like the audience response is very similar, almost the same in fact, to the response toward Glass. What's baffling in both cases is we have a series that is an unconventional foray into the world of comics-- very unconventional. The series and its creator are very upfront about that and that's actually (one of the reasons) why people love it, but when the series sticks to that instead of embracing convention in its final act, which is what Joker 2 is, the audience turns on it. This counts double because the Batman fandom is especially horrible. Now J2 is stuck with a rabid and toxic fan base that is furious because it stuck to the intentions laid out for it, and also because it interrogates the first movie, and that pisses off the 'Joker is Right' people. In fact, that's the best thing it does as the first film makes up its mind early and fails precisely because it allows Joker to be right in the absence of rebuttal.

For my money, I don't love Joker 2. I think, like the first film, it is a deeply flawed film that only ever manages very baseline observations, but is a masterpiece of technical aspects that celebrates the indulgent but passionate Hollywood of yesteryear. That's why despite being a C+ movie, Joker 1 captivated. It got shots, not 'coverage.' It's a movie, not content. However, J2 also suffers because it plays like one giant anticlimactic final act and cannot capture tension and flow like the first film and thus is a far more ponderous experience.

Joker 2 is okay, but you cannot make YouTube videos with titles like that. It either has to be a masterpiece or an abomination, and with Batman fans involved you can't engage without getting filthy in the cesspool. A happy Batman fan is one who limits how much they engage with the fan base. If you can do that, you'll find something here. 

[palpable]

I enjoyed the movie, but it has one big issue, one that is frustrating because it was a simple fix. The thing is, like most modern films it's messy and unfocused, but as I already mentioned, it was an easy fix that wouldn't have required anything but a few cuts and a little re-balancing (more Winter River stuff) to save the day. I don't even think you'd have to shoot new material. I'll code the rest in black because spoilers:

Delores could be dropped entirely and it would improve my 6.9 rating to about an 8. She wonders around and has almost no impact on anything. In fact, if I didn't know better I'd say she was a late addition via reshoots. I know that isn't the case, but the way she is incorporated into the film makes her feel that way. The one way she impacts the film is by demystifying Beetlejuice by having him enter the film way too early and in such a mundane way that it kills the build that they are clearly trying to create in the 'real' world where Lydia sees psychic flashes of the ghost with most and all of it culminating in the 'couples therapy' scene in the model. The thing is this works if you gut the Delores stuff. As it stands Beetlejuice has to be introduced much earlier because he is tasked with doing the heavy lifting to set up Delores as a character. Without her, the story could focus more intently on Astrid and her mom/dad/Jeremy issues (the strongest part of the film), and it would better focus the Dafoe character as the guy chasing after Beetlejuice, who is still a criminal on the run. In that way he could be better used as a heavy who troubles the Deetz's in the afterlife as he seeks to put the cuffs on BJ once and for all.

The only other issue I had was the Maitlands. I long suspected (decades) that a BJ sequel would unavoidably  suffer without Babs and Adam...and it does. The absence is palpable and the film doesn't help itself brushing past them in literal nanoseconds. The Maitland issue needed a proper scene. One that could have been furnished if we didn't have to spend time watching Delores amble down empty hallways. 
 
Anyway, I still liked it, and feel like it is one of Burton's better recent outings. He doesn't have a lot of wins, If anything I'm just glad that this movie is a bonafied financial blockbuster having already smoked it's budget in the first weekend.

I'm expecting Original Sin to have far more mojo to it than Resurrection.

I think I agree. Original Sin has the ability to bypass a lot of issues whereas Resurrection has a mountain to climb. From what I'm hearing DR is supposed to be a multiple season thing, and I cannot imagine how it could be anything but Dexter on the run. I can't even see it trying the NB model again. Dexter sets up somewhere else again doesn't work now that Angel knows he's alive. Maybe they try a spin on 'The Fugitive' where Dexter is in the Kimble spot? Seems like the only thing that could reasonably work without the audience balking at it. 

So I'm just going to be mister contrarian all around it seems. I loved New Blood...like...really loved it. It's damn near my favorite season.

It's my understanding that the big criticism the show draws was for the ending. To an extent I can understand that. They wanted Dexter captured and in Miami, they wanted him to face Angel, Quinn, Mathews, Masuka, and the fine folks at Miami Metro, but here's the thing. New Blood is pulling double duty. It is an ending, but it also has the task of making you feel like the show used to make you feel. It really can't do that if we're in Miami.

I mentioned last time that part of why NB works is because the time and distance removes us from the scar tissue of the original Series' failings. I now realize it is all of why it works. If you wanted to see the show done right before the end, it had to take you back to why it all worked initially. It worked because Dexter moved through two worlds that brushed against one another, spinning a web, and fighting other players, all in close quarters while trying to balance relationships. It was a web, but the web of Miami was too tangled to play in. So, they place the responsibility on Harrison who carries the weight of finally ending it. And it feels right. "Open up your eyes and look at what you've done!" I gaped. No way!

By time of the letter reading my eyes were wet. It was the only way to say goodbye in a way that allowed the show to hold its head up high and say yeah, actually, I was great.

BUT...

HE LIVES!

I'm now very hesitant about Resurrection. How does one reopen what was ended so nicely? If nothing else, it might improve NB's reputation if it all doesn't work out. I'd like to see people come around on it. Until then, if it has Clyde Phillip's name on it as show-runner, and he has as much to do with it as he did with NB, then I'll trust it. No matter what happens, I'm glad to be here for it.

And so we have season seven, a cataclysmic (sorry Colors) disaster

Based on your criticisms, it seems that some elaboration is in order.

Basically, I like the Isaac Sirko aspects of season 07. He's a good villain and for once, a season's villain has a personal grudge against Dexter. Historically, that hasn't been the case on the show. Plus, the viewer is expect some sort of pitched battle between Sirko and Dexter. Instead, Dexter is forced to team up with Sirko to rescue Hannah. Considering that previous seasons usually end with the villain splayed out on Dexter's table, this subversion of expectations is pretty welcome in my book. Because ultimately, Dexter isn't the one who wipes Sirko out.

I like that precisely because of what it says about Dexter. He willingly spared Hannah (who deserved what Dexter was about to do to her) and he was unable to take Isaac out. For me, that says a lot about how much Dexter has lost his way. Turns out, Harry was kind of right when he said that personal relationships would be a distraction for Dexter. His relationships with Rita, Lumen and, ultimately, Hannah took him off his game.

Now, yes, the show never truly addresses that implicit subplot. Or at least, it doesn't entirely resolve it. But the subplot still exists. And for me, that stuff is a big reason why season 07 plays like gangbusters. Because Dexter in season 01 would've taken Sirko out pretty swiftly. But by season 07, he was more than a match for Dexter even tho he shouldn't have been.

I wont even justify the incest plot with an analysis except to say that the story began as an obvious plant late in season six trying to sell you early on the nonsense that was coming.

Apparently, that isn't the case. When I was watching the pilot episode for the first time, I even wondered about Deb. She seemed pretty affectionate toward Dexter considering their adopted sibling relationship. So, I wondered if something was going to happen there.

Jennifer Carpenter claims that she was told literally from day one that Deb was subconsciously in love with Dexter. Because of that, she knowingly incorporated that aspect of Deb's character into her performance. And... I think it adds up. I mean, yes, it's very strange. Adopted or not, they grew up together as kind of siblings. That's not an easy foundation to change.

But I can kind of see it. Deb interpreted Harry's treatment of Dexter as favoritism. It wasn't, obviously, but that's still how Deb saw it. More than anything, she wanted Harry's approval. And she never quite got it to the level that she wanted. So, I think she would be capable of clinging to Dexter as sort of the next best thing. Combine that with losing both her parents when she was barely old enough to drink, and I think it makes a lot of sense that Deb would fall for her "brother".

It also makes sense that she would lash out at first if someone ever questioned her about it. But she would mull all that over and take some time with it. And... in a horrifying moment of self-realization, yeah, she'd realize that's exactly what happened.

Frankly, I buy that subplot. I also buy that discovering Dexter's true nature would put the kibosh on those feelings forever. She would love him as a brother, of course. But anything more than that would be impossible to her.

I mean, incest subplots are very uncomfortable to watch in media. Even if they're between adopted family members. Nobody (hopefully) enjoys that. I'm just saying that I think it makes a certain amount of sense for Deb to feel that way about Dexter. And it makes perfect sense that Dexter would NEVER be able to see Deb that way.

I will admit that I like Ray Stevenson. I think his performance does a lot of heavy lifting, especially since much of his story-line feels like they're writing it as they go, but it isn't helped by Ray's scheduling issues that forced him to wrap up early or the general feeling of a flatness in the writing that has been around since season five. I like the team up, but it all feels extremely contrived. The turning of his underling just kind of happens. It isn't really precipitated by anything, they just need it to be a thing.

One note on Hannah. Dexter might be lost, but the show insists that Hannah is the person who finds him and puts him back on track. Unacceptable, considering who she is. The shows insistence on this dominates season eight and feels like fan fiction. Play all the soft sweet music you want, she was on the table for a reason, a reason that gets waved in the face of a Dexter who refuses to see. Then season eight forgets and decides she's a damsel that needs saving. (Rest in peace Julian Sands.)

As for Jennifer Carpenter's claims, I have no reason to doubt her, but I don't track it at all and I suppose that's the thing, it all comes down to whether you buy it or not. It is the axle upon which all must revolve. If it clicks with you then the season works, and it isn't my place to tell you that you are wrong. You can't really be wrong here. Nobody watches the same movie/tv show. You saw and felt what you did. What I would ask is for you to meet me half way, accept that I never saw it, never felt that from her, and what that would feel like if you didn't see it. Contrived, like you can see the machinery turning and all to keep the cash cow producing. It has nothing to do with feeling uncomfortable, there is so much more to be freaked out by this show than siblings boffing, it's just that that the salesman isn't good at selling and I'm not buying.

And there's that word again. Contrived. Dexter always had this problem and it was a tiger that had to be tamed every season. I suppose it was inevitable that it would catch up and feast, especially since the suits wouldn't let their biggest show go, and of course there was also the mandate that Dexter never die or face consequences. Enter the series finale.

Speaking of which, I saw it and have nothing really to say except that it confirmed my aforementioned suspicions that the suits had way too much say in the creative side of the show. Deb, irretrievable, must be sacrificed so the cash cow can say goodbye for now, but not forever.

I've also seen the first two episodes of New Blood and so far I love it. I know that has a lot to do with it being a belated return that uses the long hiatus, the new location, and new people as a way to lose all the scar tissue of the original series' two year death spiral. Having Clyde Phillips back injects an energy that was absent from the last season, which felt tired, unfocused, and going through the motions. I especially like the cinematography and Clyde's attention to making Iron Lake a character the way Miami felt like one. I  instantly fell in love with the quiet New England setting. Dexter comes to Stephen King Country.

Anyway. On I go!