Recent posts

#11

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by GBglide - Thu, 14 Nov 2024, 04:02

I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)

The goons hierarchy is shown by the number of Joker cards on their jacket's right shoulder. Bob had five of them. I'll have to go look how many Lawrence had.

Edit: Lawrence looks like he had only two.

#12

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by The Dark Knight - Tue, 12 Nov 2024, 10:19

I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).

In my mind Lawrence died in the film and it's something I never questioned. He jumped through the floor and fell to the bottom. Making him survive lessens the meaning and absurdity of the moment: an exhausted Batman putting energetic foes down with no or minimal effort...before Ray Charles comes in with his greatest hits.

#13

Batman (1989) / Re: Batman: Reanimated

Last post by The Dark Knight - Tue, 12 Nov 2024, 10:00

I no longer yearn for Burtonverse continuations. They just don't stack up, and the two films were all we ever needed. Keaton had his time and so did all the others who followed him. I'll hold on to those childhood memories, but after watching all eight episodes of The Penguin I'm looking towards the future.

#14

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by Slash Man - Tue, 12 Nov 2024, 03:52

Well, Lawrence is the one who jumps down from behind Batman and goes through the floor--he could have easily landed on an intact portion of the stairs and passed out, I think as-much is implied in the book but I don't recall.

I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).

Also, was the Joker gas/Smylex causing Clayface's mutation a reference to how it was done first in The Batman (2004)?

#15

Movies / Re: The Mission: Impossible Th...

Last post by The Dark Knight - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 21:04

Retconning Dead Reckoning Part One into just Dead Reckoning makes business sense to me. Not as many people saw the first part as expected, and those who didn't may not be interested in jumping in for a story they aren't up to date with. Final Reckoning still gives connective tissue but allows it to be sold as a final chapter style film that appeals to a broader audience. I think Dead Reckoning, while great, needed to be a bigger hit to create more positive momentum. It will be interesting to see if the required interest is there.

#16

Movies / Re: The Mission: Impossible Th...

Last post by Silver Nemesis - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 18:08

#17

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by DocLathropBrown - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 15:49

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.

Considering I did without blackout text, I don't see why not, I would just mark spoilers!

#18

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by Gotham Knight - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 15:44

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.

[Denny O'Neil]

#19

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by DocLathropBrown - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 14:55

I'm a slow reader, so I'll be posting some thoughts as I'm making my way through it.

It's apparent early on that Miller is a geek for continuity like the rest of us. I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)

Well, Lawrence is the one who jumps down from behind Batman and goes through the floor--he could have easily landed on an intact portion of the stairs and passed out, I think as-much is implied in the book but I don't recall.

There's also fixation on some points that some consider continuity errors. Funny enough, both seem to be the result of post-production changes. When Batman wonders why there are goons in the cathedral, this was probably a result of Jon Peters adding additional action scenes to the film, seeing as the sequence was not present in the novelization or later scripts. There's only one logical explanation though; they followed the Joker from the parade.

Actually, the cathedral fight with the three goons IS in the novelization, but not all versions of it! In my quest to obtain a hardcover copy of Gardner's book, I ordered a British printing and was shocked to see the cathedral confrontation was the same as Hamm's original scripted version! I'm not sure if it's the only printing that came out in the UK, but yeah, our American version had the finale re-written at the last minute by Denny O'Neil of all people to better reflect the final cut of the movie (and even he gives an easy explanation of why the goons were up there)! Thankfully I was able to track down a US hardcover copy but having both is a fun curio!

The Joker saying he was a kid when he killed Batman's parents seems to be the result of the scene being trimmed down. Batman explained early on how the Joker killed his parents when he was a kid, so he's just referencing that. I think less dialog is better for pacing in the final cut, even if Joker's line may not make the most sense under scrutiny. But one can ascertain that Joker was only killing random people's parents when he was still a lowly mugger.

It's funny for Miller to make such a point out of that moment--I always figured that sure, the Joker vaguely remembered killing some kid's parents twenty-plus years ago, but didn't remember who it was specifically. You get the impression that Napier killed a lot of random people, considering how quickly he just blasted the Waynes (to the shock of his accomplice, even). Jack may have been reading in the paper later on and found out exactly who it was he killed... but clearly the way Nicholson plays it, the Joker is backpedaling to stave-off the ass beating Batman plans on giving him. The book makes something-out-of-nothing.

Nick and Eddie being back on the street seemed to undo Batman's efforts from the film, but I like the explanation that criminals apprehended by Batman had trouble being convicted since it was done without involvement from the Gotham police. This point was also made in Detective Comics Annual #14 where Batman has to find allies within the justice system.

I liked that at least they were scared sh*tless by the encounter, though.

Julie Madison also makes her first appearance here. I wonder if this was intentional to potentially tie it into Batman & Robin.

Considering how this project ties into other products that are meant to bury the Schumacher films, sadly no. Besides, the way Julie is written and performed in the movie is too different from the version in this book!

#20

Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...

Last post by Slash Man - Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46

I'm a slow reader, so I'll be posting some thoughts as I'm making my way through it.

It's apparent early on that Miller is a geek for continuity like the rest of us. I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)

There's also fixation on some points that some consider continuity errors. Funny enough, both seem to be the result of post-production changes. When Batman wonders why there are goons in the cathedral, this was probably a result of Jon Peters adding additional action scenes to the film, seeing as the sequence was not present in the novelization or later scripts. There's only one logical explanation though; they followed the Joker from the parade. The key is the presence of Philip Tan's character's presence in both the parade and the bell tower. I'm still not certain whether Lawrence was at the parade (I may have spotted him holding one of the floats, but I'm not positive). I'm pretty sure Clive Curtis was one of the professional stuntmen brought in for pick-up shots (like the scimitar fighter), so he wouldn't have been present in any previous scenes.

The Joker saying he was a kid when he killed Batman's parents seems to be the result of the scene being trimmed down. Batman explained early on how the Joker killed his parents when he was a kid, so he's just referencing that. I think less dialog is better for pacing in the final cut, even if Joker's line may not make the most sense under scrutiny. But one can ascertain that Joker was only killing random people's parents when he was still a lowly mugger.

Clayface is interesting, and seems to be an amalgamation of the first three Clayfaces from the comics (making the Mud Pack arc of the comics a good read for some background). We have the civilian identity/occupation of Basil Karlo, the abilities of Matt Hagen, and the insanity of Preston Payne.

Nick and Eddie being back on the street seemed to undo Batman's efforts from the film, but I like the explanation that criminals apprehended by Batman had trouble being convicted since it was done without involvement from the Gotham police. This point was also made in Detective Comics Annual #14 where Batman has to find allies within the justice system.

Julie Madison also makes her first appearance here. I wonder if this was intentional to potentially tie it into Batman & Robin.

Overall, I'm enjoying the read so far. There's a lot for existing fans to sink their teeth into. No real conflicts with the continuity, and plenty of opportunity to expand this universe.