Recent posts

#61

Joker 2: Folie à Deux / Re: Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Last post by The Dark Knight - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 04:18

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.

 

I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.

#62

Joker 2: Folie à Deux / Re: Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Last post by The Joker - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 01:41

Unfortunately, I don't really foresee that many people changing their minds about Joker 2.

I can understand someone's viewpoint in that this sequel didn't really need to exist, but at the same time, I seem to recall that very same opinion often being reciprocated when it was initially announced that a Joker "Origin" movie was green lighted many years ago. Same holds true with the notion of a solo "Venom" movie as well. The sequel didn't need to exist, and apparently the 1st film didn't need to exist either. Until it was seen/successful.

In some ways, I was admittedly kinda surprised that "Joker (2019)" received such a warm reception since it was primarily dealing with elaborating on the Joker character and having a background and origin. Especially given that Post-The Dark Knight in 2008, the parroting of the The Killing Joke quote; "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" was constantly referred to ad nauseam. Especially in comparing Ledger to previous cinematic incarnations. However, "The Killing Joke" was published in 1988. At that point, the Joker character had existed for nearly 50 years. So what was his background? He was a mysterious criminal mastermind known as "The Red Hood" who dove into a vat of chemicals to evade capture, and emerged disfigured with chalk white skin, and his hair bleached green. As per co-creator Bill Finger. As far as I know, this had no push back from subsequent writers/editors throughout the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, and to Alan Moore's credit, he also didn't really want to tamper with too much when writing "The Killing Joke" as the Red Hood criminal mastermind background for the Joker was accepted and understood. Personally, I like "The Killing Joke" as much as the next guy, but I think it's undoubtedly lifted up by Brian Bolland's amazing artwork than the story itself to be perfectly honest.

"Joker (2019)" certainly had it's share of influences from TKJ, but I could never really and truly see Arthur ever becoming a live action facsimile of the comic book Joker given the influences from TKJ failed comedian background choice with the depiction (I still have nitpicks with the failed comedian background and being bullied into the Red Hood guise that TKJ highlighted but whatever), and realism the film was going for. There's nothing wrong with that either, and Phoenix proved to be a very worthwhile addition to outstanding cinematic Jokers that we've seen thus far.

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.

 

#63

Graphic Novels / Re: The Dark Knight Returns

Last post by The Joker - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 00:50

Interesting interview.

Snyder is a Miller/Moore disciple through and through, and although Snyder has been more associated with Frank Miller thanks to "300" and clearly being influenced by Miller with Snyder DCEU films, it's kinda a shame that "MiracleMan" was sold to Marvel rather than DC, ect. I think Snyder would've likely made a earnest adaptation of Moore's MM tenure, where a MM movie is even less likely to ever be explored under Disney in the foreseeable future.

#64

Graphic Novels / Re: The Dark Knight Returns

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 01:40

Zack Snyder interviewed Frank Miller for Inverse.com, and they talked in depth about superheroes being a modern-day mythology. This interview is more about Miller looking back at his career and his work influenced comics as a more sophisticated medium, and DKR bore a chunk of the conversation.

Some of the highlights include Snyder and Miller on "deconstruction", rebuilding Batman and the differences between him and Superman:

Zack Snyder: I have this theory that in the modern world, we lost myth, and so we use comics and superheroes to kind of decode the problems of our times. That is to say, in the ancient world, if a volcano went off, you'd be like, "Oh, there's a god in that mountain and he's mad." Now, if a terrorist flies a plane into the World Trade Center, it's harder to make a myth out of it, but comics might allow that sort of thinking. I don't know how you feel about that.

Frank Miller: Well, I believe the birth of religion and mythology was basically a cave dweller not understanding lightning and having to anthropomorphize nature. Religion was the precursor to science.

Along the way where all these gods and heroes were created. The Greeks just couldn't stop puking them out. They had a legion of superheroes going on their own, and those really stayed in people's heads. And the superhero universes essentially are this wild amalgam of sort of recreated Greek, Nordic, and Hebrew mythologies.

Zack Snyder: Yeah, they've really endured. And so, is your feeling that to talk about mythology in comics is really kind of 101, because we're all still living in the shadow of those gods? So maybe that's what it is, if you deconstruct, you kind of peel away, and by peeling away you really get to the mythological part of it.

Frank Miller: That's the best way to put it. I've always found "deconstruct" to be a problematic term because people usually assume that when you deconstruct something, you're tearing it to pieces, and that's only half of what deconstruction really is because it's tearing its essence and then rebuilding it stronger than ever before. I mean, I wrote Batman cynically, in order to mock the character. I basically was just looking to get rid of all the sh*t and restore him to the kind of stature he had in my mind when I was seven years old.

Zack Snyder: The Dark Knight Returns is often credited with revolutionizing how Batman is perceived. But also my takeaway from Dark Knight Returns is exactly the same as you just stated it. Some people would say it's deconstruction, and I understand that you might say that, but for me it was restorative. I'm like: That's my Batman. The Batman I want to see is that Batman, not the bullsh*t Batman who's a joke. What were your key influences when creating a darker, older, more psychologically complex Batman?

Frank Miller: The notorious old TV show, the one with Adam West and Burt Ward. I mean, that was a goof. It was basically a snide take on stuff that I remember that I absolutely loved. I loved the comic book characters and the TV show was constantly telling you how stupid the comic book was.

Zack Snyder: Yeah. Because it was counterculture against authority and they sort of saw Batman as the man. And so I just felt like they were making the man out to be sort of an idiot.

Frank Miller: Yeah. So, without question, I was rejecting that damn show more than anything when I did Dark Knight Returns.

Zack Snyder: You were like, literally, this is the opposite. This guy is the opposite of what you think he is.

Frank Miller: Yeah, this guy is no joke.

Zack Snyder: One of the things you do in Dark Knight Returns with the voiceover, in the sort of very specific language that he uses in combat and how he analyzes the combat that he's in, you go like, "OK, this guy is 100% more complicated in his combat style even, than you you can imagine."

Frank Miller: I look at Batman as the self-made superhero. Bruce Wayne made himself Batman by studying, training, and exploring. Extraordinary feats come easily to Superman. He can fly and then the rest. I mean, just in terms of Superman, it's like you think you can do it. He can fly for god's sake. Whereas Batman needs a goddamn car. I enjoy an effort.

Zack Snyder: The one thing I really loved about the way you did Superman also was, he's sort of a tool of the U.S. government, but the Superman also in your version is self-aware. He knows what he's doing. Because everyone's like, "Oh, he's like a big boy scout." Well, it's like, no, he understands the political complexity of the whole thing, and he's just done the math and goes, "Look, this is the only way we are able to exist is if we do it this way."

Frank Miller: Superman is an apologia worrywart and he's concerned with keeping the world from blowing itself up. Batman's this Dionysian character who's out for blood, and they're perfect opposites in that Batman is the reckless ego and Superman is the fearful superego.

Zack Snyder: That's cool. I really love it, because I love that Superman is in charge of keeping this... In a lot of ways, the children are tearing the preschool down, they're setting it on fire, and they're out of their minds, and he's really just trying to wrangle us so we don't kill ourselves and Batman's just like, "No, that's what it is to be alive," you know? That's cool.

Frank Miller: Batman is the happier character.

Zack Snyder: 100%. Yeah! 100%.

Another exchange involves Snyder and Miller talking about canon and their criticism over absolute rules for characters only stifle creativity. In this instance, Miller explains his thought process behind Batman using guns in DKR.

Zack Snyder: That's cool. Look, you know how I feel about the work. It's incredible. So, the heroes in your stories are often morally ambiguous or even sometimes antiheroes. How do you view the evolution of the hero in modern storytelling, and why do you gravitate toward these more complex heroes?

Frank Miller: I regard defining the hero as being the center and purpose of my work, and in order to find something you have to test it, prod it, attend it, and find new ways to portray it. And I find sometimes having a hero do wrong or take a wrong course is the best way to ultimately define what a hero is, especially with my Daredevil and my portrait of Superman. It's again the deconstruction thing where you can get to a character's essence by having them wander far astray. With Daredevil: Born Again, he essentially has a nervous breakdown. He loses control of his violence and his darker tendencies and essentially has to lose everything before he can turn into a better character.

Zack Snyder: Yeah, that's cool. For me, if someone says in a hero's canon, he's not allowed to do blank, I immediately want him to do that thing because I feel like if a character can't withstand breaking his own canon, then he's not really worth anything, you know?

Frank Miller: Right. And then what defines him? I mean, at first, Zack, I approached this kind of thing almost like just a rebellious adolescent. I was told Batman could never fire a gun. I was told by the editor with absolute conviction. So, I came up with an excuse for him to fire a rifle, even though it was just a grappling hook into the side of a building, but it was just to get that picture of him holding it. I don't like these absolute dicta.

Zack Snyder: Well, it's cool because if you can create a scenario where Batman has to shoot a gun and someone says, "Well, Batman can't shoot a gun." And you're like, "Well, what should he do in this scenario then?" And then if someone says, "Well, don't put him in that scenario." I'm like, "Well, that's a weak character." You can't have a character where we're modifying this scenario because he can't exist in it. That's not realistic. Now we're just creating scenarios that his morality can work inside of, rather than the other way around.

Frank Miller: Absolutely right, Zack. That's not creative.

Zack Snyder: And I think that's what Dark Knight did for me, it was like, "Oh wait, Batman can actually live in my world," which I think was cool.

Frank Miller: Batman can't shoot somebody dead, he cannot murder, but that's a completely different issue than using essentially a tool.

https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/frank-miller-zack-snyder-interview

It's a great interview. I agree with both men when it comes to the argument that certain characters should never be written in a scenario at all. Looking for a deus ex machina or copping out just to uphold absolute ideas is cheap storytelling. Whether the execution has been pulled off, however, is another story.

I'm still not crazy about the idea of Superman as a government agent, but then again I can still acknowledge he's in a no-win situation - if he overthrows the government, he's abusing his power. I don't necessarily agree with the criticism of the Sixties TV show Batman as an idiot, but like it or not DKR and its impact was a response against the public perception of Batman at the time.

#65

Other DC Films & TV / Re: Christopher Reeve Superman...

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 01:18

With comments like these, you appreciate how Christopher Reeve knew Superman, as a concept, was much deeper than the general consensus gives him credit for. Anyone who views Superman as nothing more than happy-go-lucky is not only doing a disservice to the character, they're doing a disservice to Reeve's portrayal if that's all they see him.

#66

Movies / Re: The Star Trek Thread

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 00:49

I've been listening to small portions of the Star Trek Movie Memories audiobook read by William Shatner, and I listened to Harve Bennett's recollection of Gene Roddenberry giving strong pushback against the premise for The Wrath of Khan. Roddenberry was even suspected of leaking Spock's death to fanzines which initially sparked outrage among the Star Trek faithful.

I learned Bennett watched the original show and picked Space Seed as his favourite episode, and thought it laid the groundwork for a cinematic follow-up, but addressed Roddenberry's opposition to the film by claiming Star Trek isn't a military show and is against violence. Bennett politely rebuked Roddenberry's claims, as Star Trek always had had a chain of command involving admirals, captains, commanders, lieutenants and so on, and the original show had tons of violence in lots of episodes i.e. Space Seed ended with Kirk fighting Khan. Bennett speculated Roddenberry said these contradictory statements because he may have had experienced some new enlightened philosophy that fueled his inspiration for the plot in TMP, which Bennett commended for having.

Roddenberry deserves recognition for creating Star Trek, but he's not infallible. The problem is Star Trek's success on TV is hard to replicate to general moviegoing audiences, and perhaps the existential plotline of TMP not being well-received at the time made him bitter. Even one of the writers who worked on both TOS and TNG - David Jerrold - called him a great revisionist when speaking to Shatner during the Chaos on the Bridge documentary. I understand Roddenberry's frustration, and I understand he felt offended when he lost creative control in the early Eighties, but he would've been better off criticising the premise without making statements that clashed with details in the original show.

#67

Batman (1989) / Re: Michael Biehn's Batman sto...

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 00:18

Not that this character was ever in the mix back in those days, but I reckon Biehn would've been a better fit to play Deadshot. He had this grit and intensity that would've better off with that sort of character than Batman.

#68

Other DC Films & TV / Re: Superman (2025)

Last post by The Laughing Fish - Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 00:06

#69

Animated Batman / Batman Ninja vs. Yakuza League...

Last post by Silver Nemesis - Fri, 18 Oct 2024, 17:47

There's a new Batman anime film coming out. It's a sequel to Batman Ninja, which I reviewed for the site back in 2018: https://www.batman-online.com/features/2018/5/20/review-batman-ninja-2018

Here's the trailer and poster for the new movie.

#70

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

Last post by The Dark Knight - Fri, 18 Oct 2024, 12:33

To tell you the truth I would have liked Resurrection to feature no new villains at all and instead focus on Bruce's ruminations, the remnants of Joker's gang and the beginnings of Max Shreck's string pulling. I have no idea how much time the author is putting in between the two films but I never felt it was terribly large. I like the idea The Penguin being the second villain Batman faced after a period of relative calm following Joker's death. These books rewrite all that if readers are willing to consider them canon.