http://images.fandango.com/r101.0/Im...250x375_r5.jpg
Trailer:
[]
IMDb / wiki / RT
Official website
Printable View
So apparently the Comic-Con Q&A didn't go so well. It ended with Brian Azzarello calling a writer from Bleeding Cool a "pussy." On the mic. In front of the audience.
With spoilers:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/...ego-screening/
http://www.metafilter.com/161159/one...0-year-history
This whole project would have been a clusterflock no matter what but it sounds like they actively made it worse.
Little disappointed that Bruce Timm, Kevin Conroy, and Mark Hamill agreed to it.
I don't understand the hate this is getting. I thought people liked this book?
I thought the same as Milky Joe. All of a sudden there is all this hate going on for it. I've heard nothing but praise for it until the last few days. Kind of ridiculous.
Have you read the reasons for those opinions yet? For the record, I have read the book but not seen the film yet, but people had been wondering how they were going to adapt a thin book into feature-length, and it seems the material they add to pad the story is kind of icky.
I just read the encounter and the scene in question.
It's certainly up for debate.
[]
Bwahaha. That's what people are upset over?
The comic itself was never universally loved.
Alan Moore himself kinda led the charge in getting people to consider its treatment of Batgirl vile. Which is bizarre since it was his idea.
Barbara Gordon starts wearing the costume in order to attract the attention of Batman—not just for crime-fighting, but to fuck him. Then Batman ignores her... then the events of the Killing Joke occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
More context from Tom Spurgeon:
Also, Bruce Timm interview:Quote:
I don't have a ton to say about how corporate-property cartoons explore issues touching on sex and violence because I assume they'll do so in a crass way, be strongly criticized for it and then make money anyway.
I am interested that anyone would feel compelled to adapt The Killing Joke, which was to serious graphic novels of the 1980s what "Runaway Train" was to the grunge music era: the successful project that made people stop and wonder if things hadn't ended about a half-year earlier. It's a work the project's writer admitted was deeply limited and problematic. Because they're using the DC standard cartoon approach, you lose 80 percent of Brian Bolland's contributions. And because you're rewriting and expanding it, you stand a pretty good chance of losing a big chunk of craft that Alan Moore might bring as a writer. What you're left with is the idea that a Batman story can handle these delicate issues in the course of doing what it usually does. I think in this case at least, we'll learn it can't.
http://www.comicsreporter.com/index...._killing_joke/
[]
I've never had a love affair with that book. Some interesting ideas, but I don't want to know a Joker backstory.
It's kind of hilarious to read Bruce Timm say, I never liked this comic, I had a lot of problems with it, but you know, it's considered a classic, so I'm just gonna do it without putting any spin to how it's translated to screen. He pretty much stopped short of saying this is a company-demanded obligatory adaptation that he doesn't really give a shit about.
It continues my fascination with this story, because it is regularly cited as one of the greatest Batman stories ever, but half the comic creators and journalists I know and respect seem to dislike it (I guess I'm counting Timm in this now).
Also this is playing in theaters tonight and I looked it up and tickets are $22 a piece. LOL.
Got my tickets for this tonight. Only cost $13 here, which is the typical price for these sorts of one time "special event" releases. *shrug*
Yeah, this was really underwhelming to me. So the core of the story itself was rather thin apparently, so instead of trying to naturally expand upon it in order to lengthen the movie to a more appropriate feature length, they instead shoehorn in what's essentially a Barbara Gordon-helmed short film leading into it, though it's presented as if it's merely the opening act to this longer story.
The thing is, they go to certain places in this story that are never once again mentioned or even referenced again later on in the story, places that definitely require being revisited to some capacity, if that's where they wanted to go with this story. But they don't, it's all instantly dropped and they move right along as if it never happened, which makes this segment stand out all the more as being disconnected filler, and ill-advised filler at that, which really just comes across as lazy. They could have easily found a way to more naturally incorporate some of this stuff if this is where they wanted to go with the story, have some of the Joker-centric stuff start out earlier on as well, so it's all more organically integrated with one another as one whole coherent story. But they chose the laziest and sleaziest route possible, which was really just frustrating, because there were so many other obvious options available to tackle the issue of the core story being too short.
But anyways, despite all that, the story itself I suppose was decent enough for the most part. I'm familiar with the graphic novel, though I've never actually read it, but I know what all happens in it and all that. But even so, there are certain things here that I don't think worked. Such as, attempting to give the Joker a definitive origin story. Even with the line of him remembering it one way or another, it comes across as false. This was handled so much better in The Dark Knight, because there, he actually was recalling it different ways each time. But here, the origins aspect is presented in a matter-of-fact sort of way, and I'm sorry, but I just didn't buy a lick of it at all.
And I know the ending is something that's supposed to have been up for debate, did Batman kill Joker or not? But here, they give a definitive answer, and it's one that leaves us off on a very flat note, and I even had people on my row asking "... that's it?" as the credits rolled. The comic had the benefit of being able to stylistically play with the colors, making the panel red, so as to obscure whether the puddle of water was actually perhaps a puddle of blood. But here, the two share a laugh, then as the camera pans down to the water, Batman just keeps awkwardly laughing by himself, credits. Really, if they were going to go this route and not take the stance that Batman killed Joker, they shoulda at least done a better job of keeping the scene ambiguous, because as is, it, again, just doesn't work.
Overall, there are moments here and there that I enjoyed, but this felt like a really lazy adaptation, and needlessly so. Also, though it got an R rating, it's barely that. Like, there's a little bit of blood here and there, but nothing that I haven't seen far worse in PG-13 movies. And as far as language, they skirt around actually dropping the F-bomb so many times you'd think it was a PG-13 anyways, so I'm a little confused by the R rating.
I actually liked this. I think it has two major flaws:
1. The prologue doesn't fit in tonally very well with The Killing Joke. I have no problem with the Batman/Batgirl backstory (although Bats certainly has a lot of explaining to do to his friend Jim) per se but it doesn't merge very well with the structure that comes after it. The villain hasn't been well thought out (Paris Franz? really?) and the dialogue sounds clumsy next to Moore's prose.
2. What TGM said about the ending is accurate. I'm amongst those who had never actually understood the ending until Grant Morrison pointed it out on a radio show and then had my mind blown. I think it's a case where, if you're a fan of the character, that interpretation of the scene is blocked by your expectations of him. But the way the film does it is awkward. It erases that interpretation completely from the mind while at the same time not allowing the moment itself to breathe long enough for the other interpretation to sink in.
Otherwise, I thought it was a cool adaptation. I understand it's hard to animate Brian Bolland's art and I accept the compromise, which makes the movie seem kind of old-timey here and there.
Eh, that video does raise some very valid points, though. There's more than one way in which the adaptation is clumsy or misses a good opportunity to make a point which is right there in Moore's writing, and the Arkham walk is a stand out.
This video is incredible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLFGWAyajU
When I watched this back in the summer I came out of this thinking one thing and then I started reading the reviews and realized I will never be the usual batman fan. I had never read the comic book so I didn't know what to expect and because I didn't know what to expect I loved the first half and hated the second half. The best Batman stories to me are the ones where Batman is a secondary character. He works really well for me in that role and so having a Barbara Gordon story was really interesting to me and then when they was over it went back to ordinary and used up Batman vs. Joker.
But I will never be the intended audience of a Batman story.
I think the fact that you describe what you saw as "ordinary and used up Batman vs. Joker" proves this is not a good adaptation.
I love Batman, but I love the sidekicks more. As a kid I never felt like I could be Batman, he's too good, ALL the time. But I could be a Robin (through the mindset of a kid). Nightwing is favorite comic book character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirdmango
I read the book a few years ago and thought it was quite bad. Moore's name may have led to some unrealistic expectations, but beyond its significance to Batman canon (due to Bat-girl), I'm not sure there's anything particularly interesting about the story itself. Making it a feature does seem like a stretch. (Haven't seen the film.)
This is a big fat meh. I thought the comic was great but I haven't read it in years.