Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
  1. #16
    Elder Member MajorHoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    here
    Posts
    18,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodOps View Post
    wow................
    But, remember who made that comment . . . perhaps Babsgirl's #1 supporter around here.

    An intense dislike of The Killing Joke then makes a lot of sense.

  2. #17
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trallis View Post
    I didn't love the killing joke, but anything with Mark Hamill as the animated joker is probably a good idea. Contrary to popular belief, Mark Hamill was born for that role.

    Edit: On second thought, I refuse to sign it on the basis that it is not signable, not a petition, not really anything at all. Facebook like pages have been known to get millions of people to favor the stupidest most worthless ideas, and are generally as powerful a statement as those black t-shirts with white lettered sarcastic statements from the early nineties. When someone starts a real petition I will give my full name and e-mail address no problem. Also.. you might want to rephrase it. It looks like where trying to convince Mark Hamill to take the role. The petition should be to get someone to make the thing. Mark Hamill has probably already dreamed of playing the role.
    Actually Hamill stated he'd like to do a book on tape while promoting Arkham City, and the Facebook thing popped up a few months later. Hamill has already shown interest and endorsed it in a tweet, it's actually the Facebook page that is misleading.

    Also, I did say it's not the best place for a petition, but it is the one that's gotten the most notice. I looked around for a real petition, there's one that's 8 months old with 20 "signatures". But let's face it, DC isn't something you have to be elected into, if it gets 10 billion hand written signed petitions they are not obligated to do anything if for some reason they don't want to. The idea is to get enough attention and just hope that someone in DC will take notice.

    For everyone else who has issues specifically with TKJ... don't know what to tell you. You're entitled to your opinion but it's the comic Hamill choose. It wasn't the fan's choice.

  3. #18
    Almost a Member Roldan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Not in Sweden
    Posts
    884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajorHoy View Post
    Actually, I don't know if I'd want him to do Joker's voice in that.

    It's a version that's a bit grimmer and more sadistic than what I associate with the Joker of Hamill.
    And if I heard him in that, I'm not sure I would be able to enjoy his other animated adventures as the Joker ever again.
    What about his portrayal in the Batman Beyond movie? He tortures Robin and he killed a couple of people.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roldan View Post
    What about his portrayal in the Batman Beyond movie? He tortures Robin and he killed a couple of people.
    If you think about it, what he did to Tim Drake's Robin is disturbing, but it is presented in a way that is still on a level of taste that would be presentable to children who happened to catch the cartoon. and he recovers, we see he is alright by the end of it.
    Whereas if you present the Joker shooting a woman through the spine, undressing her, and then showing the pictures to her father, there is no getting away from the fact, you don't have to think about that much at all for it to be disturbing, especially to younger viewers.

    Unlike the other Moore adaptations, this is an actual comicbook that he regrets writing in the first place, in retrospect, he felt it was too heavy for the subject matter of Batman and the Joker, and maybe he was right.
    An animated adaptation is very different from a book, which you have to actually buy, and will have far fewer casual fans seeking it out. But as soon as a KJ cartoon was made, it would be all over the net, accesable to all ages, it's maybe a bit too much for the Batman animated franchise.
    Last edited by listenuscrewheads; 05-14-2012 at 08:36 AM.

  5. #20
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by listenuscrewheads View Post
    If you think about it, what he did to Tim Drake's Robin is disturbing, but it is presented in a way that is still on a level of taste that would be presentable to children who happened to catch the cartoon. and he recovers, we see he is alright by the end of it.
    Whereas if you present the Joker shooting a woman through the spine, undressing her, and then showing the pictures to her father, there is no getting away from the fact, you don't have to think about that much at all for it to be disturbing, especially to younger viewers.
    Under the Red Hood opened up with a kid getting beaten do death.

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post
    Under the Red Hood opened up with a kid getting beaten do death.
    I haven't seen it yet, so can't comment on how that was handled, how graphic it was.
    But, with the added graphic content of the Joker stripping Barbara(which could also give the implication that he raped her off-panel), I still think that is on a higher level of potentially disturbing a young mind.
    They could get confused with any sense of titalation they get from seeing a woman being undressed, along with their revulsion at the crime, and it is also a crime commited in the home, I think that could also add some disturbing thoughts to the young viewer.

    When I was a kid, I saw Death Wish when I was far too young to be watching it, and when those crooks followed the wife and sister, and raped and killed them in their own home, that freaked me out for quite a while, when my mum would be getting worried about my sister coming home, that was the scenario I always thought about.

    Kids know about kids getting beaten up, they know people can die, they know beatings can go too far and kill people, what they generally don't think about, is a psycho showing up at their front door, shooting their mum/sister, and then undressing them/raping them, and having a few laughs about it.
    Generally that kind of distrubing image/scenario has to be introduced to their minds through the media, and it will be too much for some of them to handle. Everytime they watch Batman and the Joker, they could get flashbacks to that scene.
    edit: It won't be just on watching TKJ that will enter their minds, as someone else on the thread said, they don't want their viewings of the animated series being bismirched by Hammil playing that part, so imagine how it would be for a kid re-watching the animated series, and being reminded of such disturbing images.
    and of course, flashbacks could extend to any permutation of Batman and the Joker they view afterwards, as such imagery can easily burn itself into a young mind, as they are not used to, or prepared for, such horrors of the world.
    Last edited by listenuscrewheads; 05-14-2012 at 08:56 AM.

  7. #22
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by listenuscrewheads View Post
    I haven't seen it yet, so can't comment on how that was handled, how graphic it was.
    I can.

    But, with the added graphic content of the joker stripping Barbara(which could also give the implication that he raped her off-panel), I still think that is on a higher level of potentially disturbing a young mind.
    First of all, not all of these movies are not aimed at any "young mind." Red Hood was rated PG-13. Two, they don't have to adapt the graphic novel panel for panel and be every bit graphic the GN was.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post

    First of all, not all of these movies are not aimed at any "young mind." Red Hood was rated PG-13. Two, they don't have to adapt the graphic novel panel for panel and be every bit graphic the GN was.
    As I said, it's Batman and the Joker, every kid who hears about a Batman movie that is too disturbing for them to see is gonna go round to their pal's house to watch it illegally on the net.

    and we can only speculate on the content of the book being made readily avaliable as an animated film, so that is what I am doing.
    But, even if they kept her clothes on, I still think it is a bit too much for a *Batman* animated film.
    We can cite ratings, how 'comics are not just for kids' these days, how it is an actual animated 'film' intended for older viewers...but at the end of the day, it is a Batman cartoon, Batman started out as a children's character, he is still beloved of children all over the world who watch his cartoon shows, and ratings don't mean a thing when everything is avaliable at the click of a button on the net.

    I don't think that type of tale needs to be told in the context of a Batman cartoon, keep it for some kind of adult animation if you are gonna animate such a grisly tale.
    What is the point of animating it? We already have the book, and at least that will not be as readily availiable to children.
    edit:
    the animation adaptations are just bonus features of the books, there is no real point to animating them apart from bringing Batman to an audience who don't like reading comics.
    and in this case, a lot of that demographic will be kids who just like to watch the cartoons and movies.
    Last edited by listenuscrewheads; 05-14-2012 at 09:11 AM.

  9. #24
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    If little kids can handle watching "Batman Returns" and "The Dark Knight", they can handle "Under The Red Hood" and "The Killing Joke". In the case of the latter, they can get around the nudity aspect. Really, only the kids who aren't desensitized will be bothered by TKJ. A lot of young kids watched "Mask Of Phantasm" which had three deaths, one body seen on screen, a bloody Batman and Joker, a Joker with his tooth knocked out, Andrea Beaumont being punched in the gut by the Joker and two scenes of Bruce and Andrea kissing, they can handle this. They also handled "Return Of The Joker" despite the fear of WB animation execs.

    "Under The Red Hood" had Jason being beaten, but he wasn't shown as battered as his comic counterpart had been. But it was every bit like in the comic. They even retained Jason's decapitated heads in a duffel bag scare tactic. "Year One" got around Skeevers snorting coke when Bruce smashed into his apartment. "The Dark Knight Returns" is getting an adaptation, which will be suitable for PG-13. And that was pretty harsh.

  10. #25
    Junior Member bobellis75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by listenuscrewheads View Post
    As I said, it's Batman and the Joker, every kid who hears about a Batman movie that is too disturbing for them to see is gonna go round to their pal's house to watch it illegally on the net.

    and we can only speculate on the content of the book being made readily avaliable as an animated film, so that is what I am doing.
    But, even if they kept her clothes on, I still think it is a bit too much for a *Batman* animated film.
    We can cite ratings, how 'comics are not just for kids' these days, how it is an actual animated 'film' intended for older viewers...but at the end of the day, it is a Batman cartoon, Batman started out as a children's character, he is still beloved of children all over the world who watch his cartoon shows, and ratings don't mean a thing when everything is avaliable at the click of a button on the net.

    I don't think that type of tale needs to be told in the context of a Batman cartoon, keep it for some kind of adult animation if you are gonna animate such a grisly tale.
    What is the point of animating it? We already have the book, and at least that will not be as readily availiable to children.
    edit:
    the animation adaptations are just bonus features of the books, there is no real point to animating them apart from bringing Batman to an audience who don't like reading comics.
    and in this case, a lot of that demographic will be kids who just like to watch the cartoons and movies.
    So that same kid couldn't wander to the graphic novel shelf in his comic shop and read it? Or wander to the graphic novel section in Barnes and Noble and look at it while his parents get a coffee and look at a magazine?

  11. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    If little kids can handle watching "Batman Returns" and "The Dark Knight", they can handle "Under The Red Hood" and "The Killing Joke". In the case of the latter, they can get around the nudity aspect. Really, only the kids who aren't desensitized will be bothered by TKJ. A lot of young kids watched "Mask Of Phantasm" which had three deaths, one body seen on screen, a bloody Batman and Joker, a Joker with his tooth knocked out, Andrea Beaumont being punched in the gut by the Joker and two scenes of Bruce and Andrea kissing, they can handle this. They also handled "Return Of The Joker" despite the fear of WB animation execs.

    "Under The Red Hood" had Jason being beaten, but he wasn't shown as battered as his comic counterpart had been. But it was every bit like in the comic. They even retained Jason's decapitated heads in a duffel bag scare tactic. "Year One" got around Skeevers snorting coke when Bruce smashed into his apartment. "The Dark Knight Returns" is getting an adaptation, which will be suitable for PG-13. And that was pretty harsh.
    I don't think any of those examples are as extreme as the scenario in TKJ.
    Another thing to consider is whether the story would work if you removed the nudity, so is it really worth telling in that form, that is, if you feel so strongly about it being told in the first place?
    Gordon already saw Barbara lying on the deck, shot through the spine, as it happened. The point of the Joker showing him all of those pics of her in the nude was to show her further violated, to push him further over the edge, to possibly drive him insane, so that element of the story would be taken away to a large extent.
    Even if you really wanted to see it animated so badly, that they fudged through that element of the story without it really working now, with her clothed, I still think the whole scenario is a bit too heavy for a Batman cartoon.

    If they made the film, I would watch it, but I wouldn't feel too good about it, it would make me uneasy, and in actual fact, I'm not really sure I like the comic going that far either. I think Alan Moore might be right about that one, that it's not the kind of incident that should be depicted in a Batman and Joker comic. When you take all the components of the tale, there really is nothing to compare to it in any other Batman story(that I know if anyway), it is anamolous in it's unflinching depiction of a crime of that nature, ie deadly sexual assault.
    edit: Those kinds of stories should be reserved for stories and characters that are not so popular with the younger age group. These are characters who have an editorial remit to keep them within a certain parameter of human behaviour, ie keeping them from being entirely realistic, they shouldn't be propping up such grim reality.
    Save that kind of story for specific adult books like Watchmen, that was the headset that Moore was in when he wrote the story, he regrets that now, carrying that over into the Batman universe, and I can see why.
    Last edited by listenuscrewheads; 05-14-2012 at 01:21 PM.

  12. #27
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by listenuscrewheads View Post
    I don't think any of those examples are as extreme as the scenario in TKJ.
    You kidding? Batman throws a mini batarang into the Joker's eye, before breaking his neck after getting stabbed in the gut. The Joker has beaten up Selena Kyle and possibly raped her. You have Bruno who is wearing the swastika on her breast and buttocks. You've got Batman breaking a guy's leg and shooting another with an M-60. References to a cat being nailed to a convent, a guy shooting people in a porno theater, the Mutant Leader biting Batman's shoulder and kicking him in the nuts, a skeleton like Superman, references to a prostitute having her nose cut with a knife and multiple dead kids. Yet it is going to be adapted. And "Return Of The Joker" was so harsh that it was pulled from it's release date and re-edited, by a bunch of execs that got squimish over it. "Batman Returns" had the Penguin biting a guy's nose and "The Dark Knight" had the Joker slicing Gamboli's mouth open similar to how his was done.

    Another thing to consider is whether the story would work if you removed the nudity, so is it really worth telling in that form, that is, if you feel so strongly about it being told in the first place?
    Gordon already saw Barbara lying on the deck, shot through the spine, as it happened. The point of the Joker showing him all of those pics of her in the nude was to show her further violated, to push him further over the edge, to possibly drive him insane, so that element of the story would be taken away to a large extent.
    Even if you really wanted to see it animated so badly, that they fudged through that element of the story without it really working now, with her clothed, I still think the whole scenario is a bit too heavy for a Batman cartoon.
    It wasn't even shown in the comic. And as I mentioned, an adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns" is on it's way. We'll see how Timm and company approach Bruno.

    If they made the film, I would watch it, but I wouldn't feel too good about it, it would make me uneasy, and in actual fact, I'm not really sure I like the comic going that far either. I think Alan Moore might be right about that one, that it's not the kind of incident that should be depicted in a Batman and Joker comic. When you take all the components of the tale, there really is nothing to compare to it in any other Batman story(that I know if anyway), it is anamolous in it's unflinching depiction of a crime of that nature, ie deadly sexual assault.
    edit: Those kinds of stories should be reserved for stories and characters that are not so popular with the younger age group. These are characters who have an editorial remit to keep them within a certain parameter of human behaviour, ie keeping them from being entirely realistic, they shouldn't be propping up such grim reality.
    Save that kind of story for specific adult books like Watchmen, that was the headset that Moore was in when he wrote the story, he regrets that now, carrying that over into the Batman universe, and I can see why.
    The DC Animated films aren't targeted at kids. That's why they've all been PG-13 and some of them had harsh language in it. And as noted, TDKR is pretty adult and it's getting adapted. And "Watchmen" had a motion comic adaptation.

  13. #28
    Veteran Member Retro315's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Utica, NY
    Posts
    6,708

    Default

    This would require Conroy as well. It's not just that Hamill's Joker is linked with Conroy's Batman - I mean Conroy can go on being Batman without Hamill as Joker but not the other way around. But also, the last scene ... the two of them laughing. That's how you retire from a role, the final punchline.
    "Everything hs changed. ‘Dark’ entertainment now looks like hysterical, adolescent, ‘Zibarro’ crap." - Morrison, 2008.
    retrowarbird.blogspot.com

  14. #29
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Oh, I'm sure that Conroy would do it if Hamil was involved. The only time I disagreed with a recasting was "JL: Crisis On Two Earths". Not because I disliked William Baldwin, but I feel that Conroy would have been better suited for that one. Especially during the final battle with Owlman and what Bruce says to him, it would sound a lot better with Conroy's voice.

  15. #30
    Totally harmless RubberLotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arkham Asylum
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    I personally don't think that TKJ should be made into an animated feature, mostly because I think that further endorsement of the thing as a standalone work is not the right path to take.

    Pretty much every site I've been to hails it as the ultimate Joker story, which it is on many fronts. But that's the thing: it's ultimate. It should be read last, not as an intro to the Joker.

    On a purely plot basis, TKJ doesn't tie in with any particular Joker story before it, but thematically, it's a total analysis and deconstruction of the Joker as the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and even DKR portrayed him. When TKJ first came out in March of '88, no Joker story before had ever portrayed the Joker as such a petty, disgusting, and downright pathetic individual. The three "ages" typically focused on the "glamor" side of the Joker, and his feud with Batman; both men seemed to enjoy their duels of wits more than anything else, and all those civilians caught in the middle? Well, who gives a **** about them? Even DKR, which arguably kicked off the whole "Joker has a body count the size of Texas' population" trend, portrayed him as a respectable, near-mythical figure - intelligent, charismatic, and a legend among Gotham's criminals even after ten years of vegging out.

    Moore drives a bulldozer through all that, basically going "He's a murderer, for God's sake. He should be hated, or perhaps pitied, but not respected or hailed as some kind of badass." IMO, TKJ is very much a rebuttal to the previous four-and-a-half decades of Joker stories, and it needs to be read in that context to be fully appreciated.

    So... I retract my initial statement. A direct-to-video release might work... but it ought to be packaged with a selection of Joker episodes from DC's various animated properties (from the 80s cartoons to BTAS to Brave and the Bold) for a similar effect to the one described above.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •