|
It's amazing how every little thing someone says makes this sound and more tone deaf.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Black Mage Knight posted:So does the movie even end with Batman strangling Joker? Because that was kinda part of the point of TKJ (alongside why it was meant to just be a what if story). That alongside exploring Jokers backstory it was showing what it would take for Joker to get Batman to finally kill. That isn't what happened in the book. We have actual script pages showing that. SonicRulez posted:I've never thought Batman killed Joker cause that's not what he does and "Show him our way works", but to act like the ending isn't intentionally ambiguous is pretty pretentious. It's up for debate and has been for like 30 years. The only reason it's become certain that Batman didn't kill Joker is because later writers decided to (stupidly) fold The Killing Joke into standard DC canon. If it had stayed an Elseworlds story, it would be much more likely that Bats had had enough. No it isn't. We have the script of The Killing Joke. quote:“Now just a half figure or head and shoulders shot of the Batman from the front. The absurdity of the situation comes homes to him, and one corner of his mouth twitches upwards. He and The Joker are going to kill each other one day. It’s preordained. They may as well enjoy this one rare moment of contact while it lasts.” It isn't ambiguous. The reason it became a 'thing' is because Grant Morrison brought it up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Dude chill. I'm not fond of the Batman kills the Joker thing, but it's a work of art and it's open to interpretation. It's a Black Gatsby type deal. There's nothing on the page to explicitly support it, but it's not an invalid reading. It is an invalid reading when you're going "it's intentionally ambiguous, these people misunderstood the story, how dumb are they?!" I have no problems with alternate readings of stories but when it devolves into "my reading is right 100% and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then it stops being an alternate reading and starts being asserting a one correct reading. And when you start asserting a one correct reading then it's very different indeed. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:The script isn't in the copy of The Killing Joke that I read. That's not really relevant. Same way that the story being canon and Joker being alive is irrelevant. No, it is absolutely relevant. You're free to have your own readings of a story. That is a good part of fiction. When you say "it was INTENDED to be (x) and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then you're speaking for the author and at that point the author's word becomes relevant. (That said these guys poo poo all over the story anyway so... welp.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:You got hung up on the least important part of my sentence and you put words in my mouth. Then I legitimately don't know the point you're trying to make, sorry. A Gnarlacious Bro posted:You are the comic book nerd, from the simpsons Yes, the comic book guy from the simpsons is well known for... I don't even know what you're trying to reference here actually? Equilibrium posted:I think people react badly to this because it's cynical and that's fair, but it's just one guy's idea of the final Batman story. It's not canon. I never much liked The Killing Joke either. I don't think there's any reason to react badly to that interpretation to be honest. It's not even an uncommon one. (Basically every other Batman Elseworlds is "Batman kills The Joker/vice-versa") I'm not even sure it's cynical in that even if you assume Batman kills The Joker, Gordon shows that he escapes the cycle. It's a Batman story about how Batman is fundamentally doomed to failure but at this point I think that's kind of accepted as being an inevitable ending for Batman. Even the most optimistic of the optimistic Batman stories never really assume a 'happy' ending for Batman. The happiest is probably The Dark Knight Rises where he retires and gives up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:You being a shrill dweeb Man, you went for the comic book guy for "'shrill dweeb" over all the better choices in The Simpson? Shameful. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
A major flaw with artistic interpretation is people's habit of deciding in 'invisible' content. Content that isn't there but COULD be there with the implication that it was 'hidden' from the audience but completely and utterly changes the story. It's a fun fan theory but it gets frustrating in discussion of artistic analysis because you're effectively arguing against something that ISN'T there. The joy buzzer example above is one of those. "Look, at no point is Batman shown holding a joy buzzer but there's a scene where he looks at his hand ergo he's secretly holding it all along but it is never shown at any point!" It's effectively acting like every story is hiding a Secret Message and the goal is to puzzle out a Clue Pattern to shown the hidden message underneath. Rather than discussing the open themes of the book it becomes "what's the hidden secret?!"which tends to ignore large chunks of content. For example "Batman looking at his hand" ignores that he's holding his hand to his face in the previous panel after being attacked and in the panel just before that you clearly see him clasping his hand to his head! He's pulling his hand away from his head, not staring transfixed at a nonexistent object in his hand. Rather than discussing alternate themes or readings of the book it just becomes "here is the secret twist!" There's nothing wrong with going against author intent when reading a story but too often it seems like it's a prelude to a Cracked.com "the REAL story of (X) you'd never have guessed" article rather than examining the themes and ideas of the work in a different light. Jack Gladney posted:It is possible for a reading to discover implications for cultural formations and events unknown at the time of first publication. It doesn't mean that anyone was thinking about it while writing, but that the past sometimes hits on ideas relevant to the present. This is also very true. Older stories don't suddenly lose value. It just means that they might mean something different depending on who reads them. Hell, it isn't even just older stories. Something relevant to a Chinese reader might not have the same meaning to an American one which might not have the same meaning to a Russian one. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
e X posted:Maybe that's just me, but I never really saw the supposed dualism between Batman and the Joker, or the weird moral dilemma that some people see between Batman's non killing policy. It's basically treating fiction as reality and I am generally not a fan of that. But without that, there is no real ambiguity in the ending. Or better, no real need for ambiguity. The Killing Joke is the story that establishes that dualism. Batman and Joker both were defined by a single terrifying tragedy that ruined their lives and turned them into what they are. Joker argues that anyone could be The Joker and that everyone is just a push away from it and Batman is just trying to deny that. Batman is arguing against the nihilism and treats Joker like someone who needs to be helped. This is not just Batman being a good person but Batman denying that he himself is just a more 'productive' version of the Joker, a broken person struggling to justify himself. Thematically they are also Order vs Chaos which is fairly easy. Batman wants to restore the system, Joker wants to destroy it. This is one of the things that has become a central part of The Joker since The Killing Joke. He isn't interested in money or profit. He is entirely a villain who exists to make a point. (Which is also why he's gotten kind of tiresome because he is always refuted.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:The idea that Batman must be a broken person is a bit of an insult to everyone who has gone through a traumatic experience and seeks to do something about that thing that made him sad. He deals with this thing through violence, but honestly violence is a key part of dealing with crime. Why he didn't become a cop is rarely explained in a satisfactory way. In any case, most portrayals of Batman do not show a psychologically unbalanced person. All-Star Batman by Frank Miller did, and we hated it for that. The thing is that Bruce Wayne is a billionaire with a B. Dressing as a man in a cape is literally the last-useful thing he can do for crime, outside of the implausible factor of a single regular dude in a cape being the guy necessary to save the world. The Billionare thing is what sets him apart from a lot of other low-level heroes. It is literally factual he can do more for the world and that is why so many stories go down that route. You don't have to, obviously, but it's not an invalid story to ask "why is he wearing a mask instead of literally anything else." The actual answer is because the latter doesn't make for great wham-bam comics but the in-story reason is more open.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:That's why all the best Bat-adaptations focus on what Batman does for the city in the day time. Funding Arkham or one of the B and C tier heroes dropping that their tech is funded by Wayne Industries. Stuff like that. Right, but even there it's not an answer, not in the least because if Batman gets himself shot stopping a criminal it would be a disaster for Wayne industries and for all of his other things. Obviously he does a lot of good in comic terms but if you're not looking at it in comic terms then it becomes a lot more open to criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Not looking at things in comic terms leads to Maybe, but that's part of what these stories do and to be honest it is important to do that because it's worth taking a took at the things media tell us outside of the context of media. It's a giant glowing red warning sign in the room but the prevalence of 'torture works' in all sorts of things lead to people thinking torture does in fact work, it's just uncomfortable to do. It's okay to suspend disbelief for a story but it's just okay to question if you should be suspending that disbelief in order to make a character appear heroic when they're doing something arguably unheroic. And a lot of great stories can be built on that. Daredevil is a lot more meaningful and interesting if "I'm putting on this suit and beating the gently caress out of people for my own pleasure as much as to do good" is actually a thing because Daredevil plays a lot into the character's own flaws and mistakes. He's at his best when the comic is about Matt's selfishness in addition to his selflessness.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I feel like there is a difference between the story addressing just how much of Daredevil's crusade is altruistic and someone pointing out that Batman would make his fictional world better if he wasn't Batman. Character criticism and an examination of their flaws is great in-universe. I just don't like when real world logic is applied to them from outside the confines of the story. I dunno if I'm articulating it how I want to. It's like I don't mind if Alfred is like "Why don't you just stop being Batman and use the money to fund GCPD" but I absolutely did not enjoy Rises being a story about how lovely Batman is and why it doesn't work. I don't really get the difference unless you prefer it if Alfred is wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:There's a difference to me in using in-universe logic to criticize characters and plot beats and using real world logic to criticize characters and plot beats. The former tells a story, the latter is normally a waste of time. "Batman wouldn't work in real life" isn't really a hot take to me. If it isn't a hot take to you that's fine but it is, in fact, a meaningful take. It can be a metatextual criticism of fiction (as Grant Morrison likes to do) or a more realistic criticism of vigilante violence and torture or an author's critique of escapist fantasy and what the escapist fantasy is teaching people. None of those things don't have value. A story about Superman which is optimistic, hopeful and forthright is just as valid as a story whose central thesis is "Superman is a fun power fantasy but we can't rely on power fantasy to solve problems." Both are taking advantage of the character's innate idea to say something, it just depends on what they're saying. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:No, no it isn't. The central idea behind comic books is that these things would not work in our world. No it isn't. Comic books are power fantasy but they're not centrally based around the idea that 'this is not things that would work in our world' I've talked about Old Captain Marvel comics before and they were inherent a fanciful idea but a major idea of them was to focus on things that COULD be done in our world using an optimistic and unrealistic figure as a figurehead. Superman is an unobtainable ideal but scenes like the famous suicide scene in All-Star are important because they focus on the idea that a simple act of kindness and understanding is more powerful than super strength. Comic books are a power fantasy about unrealistic things but the thing that makes them appealing is that they are grounded in realistic ideas. Spider-Man is not a realistic person but his appeal is in the fact that he is dealing with exaggerated versions of things we deal with. This doesn't mean every adventure he has is about that but the central concept of the character is "a simple act of selfishness can go a long way and with great power comes great responsibility" which absolutely does not apply only to people with superpowers. SonicRulez posted:. And in-universe, there aren't many ways to go from there. Either Batman has to go "Nuh-uh" and look like an idiot or he has to go "Wow, that does make a lot of sense" and then Batman ends forever. Correct. Batman is a character trapped in an eternal unchanging status quo and this is effectively canon at this point thanks to all the stories about it. Batman is a character who is eternally doomed to make no meaningful change and yet never give up. He doesn't because we want more Batman stories, not because it's sensible for the character. It stands out more for Batman than other characters because Batman is supposed to be a less reactive figure whose goal is changing the status quo. He isn't just fighting crime, he is supposed to be improving things. But because Gotham needs to be his villain he can not ever, ever, actually make meaningful improvement to Gotham. At the end of the day Gotham is going to be 90% crime and run either by mobsters or supervillains because if it wasn't then Batman would be done his job. You can say "well, things have gotten better since Batman showed up" but it is both subtext and text that Batman's arrival just brought out the comic book crazies instead of the traditional mobsters. Batman, as the character they've set up, needs an ending he'll never get. Instead he'll eternally be a sad broken man in his parent's basement who can never find release or happiness - except for Elseworld stories - since as you said, he either has to keep struggling and look futile or give up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:It was Brave and the Bold #33. Zatanna has a vision of Barbara getting shot and so she and Wonder Woman take her out dancing to give her nice memories. Zatanna doesn't warn Barbara because this is her fate and intervening could make things worse. It's a disturbing decision but you just have to accept the story's bizarre metaphysics. Lots of DC stories insist that certain events in continuity were fated to happen (until DC decides it wants a reboot, and suddenly they're not). It's a plot device Doctor Who uses to explain why the Doctor never stopped the Holocaust or anything. Booster Gold has a similar story where he desperately tries to save Barbara and each time he does the universe fucks with him to assure it can't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:She was just another victim like her father, and that's OK. This is the issue. She wasn't. Barbara Gordon was attacked and crippled to hurt Jim Gordon, not because of anything else. Her entire role was to be victimized for the benefit of another character. Her role as Batgirl was entirely unimportant to the story as was everything about her except how she related to her father. That is why it upset people. She was an existing character who was reduced to a Sadness Point for another character.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:But there usually is a helpless victim for Batman to rescue. What difference does it make if the victim is a nobody? A) There is an common trend in media of treating female characters as victims and having terrible things happen to them to motivate male characters. This is most commonly known as "women in fridges" after the murder of Kyle Rainer's girlfriend but it existed long before that. It's not exclusive women but even when it isn't it's something that has the sole effect of creating a Sadness Puppet who exists to have bad things happen to them so other people feel bad. It's cheap writing at the best of times but the fact it is uncommonly normal for it to trend towards women (wives and daughters especially) makes it noteworthy. B) Even if the above wasn't true, Barbara Gordon was a long-time character who had her own fans, her own series and so-on. Reducing her horrifying trauma to little more than a side note in a story about other characters is genuinely lovely. This is not an exclusively lady thing but again it is somewhat more common for women characters. Having Barbara who was, at the time, a talented individual, former congresswoman, former superhero and well-established character reduced to 'person who gets shot so Batman and Jim Gordon feel bad' is dumb. This isn't even a case of it being 'people on the internet' being upset about something. The fact that this happened to Barbara Gordon was a significant factor in the writers of Suicide Squad bringing her back as Oracle in order to do something about the fact that she was reduced to a side note in other people's stories. It's a common and well-voiced criticism of The Killing Joke that even Alan Moore agrees has merit. He even was unsure about doing it during the original writing and his editor said quote: ""Cripple the bitch." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:OK. If you want to examine the trend of "fridging" women, you can only do so as a pattern across the whole industry. The Killing Joke is just one data point. Except even within the confines of The Killing Joke it's bad writing, for exactly the reasons pointed out. Barbara Gordon exists as someone in the story who gets horrifyingly abused and crippled only as a point for someone else's storyline and nothing else. That's not good writing. It isn't good writing when Lois Lane gets blown up so Superman feels bad, it isn't good writing when Firestorm randomly blows up in the middle of a crossover for no reason, and so-on. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:You can't make Killing Joke badly written just by repeating the lie often enough. God, you really are just the worst loving poster in this subforum. You know what you could maybe do? Actually do something besides a single poo poo-and-run post? Except apparently you're entirely incapable of that. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Nobody complained about Gordon's victimization. Because Gordon's victimization is literally the point of the story. It has a complete character that is explored throughout the story. The story is about Gordon's victimization. It isn't about Barbara's which is entirely incidental. Kurzon posted:Or the 10,000 other nameless victims that pop up in other Batman stories. This is because 'nameless victim who dies before the story starts' isn't the same as a long-established character. People do however complain when it happens to those established characters for exactly that reason. Kurzon posted:If the issue is that Batgirl fans would no longer get any more Batgirl stories, well, then you should ask why DC editorial decided to integrate TKJ into mainstream continuity and keep Barabara crippled for 23 years. That isn't the issue at all. Batgirl was retired at the time The Killing Joke happened. (Though in comic form she probably would have un-retired at some point.) Franchescanado posted:Woah, back off Lurdiak. I don't see you hosting Scream Stream every year for Halloween. They're entitled to their opinion, just like you're entitled to repeating the same thing over and over. I don't particularly see any reason to 'back off' of someone whose primary method of posting is hopping in, making a snide shitpost and then dancing away, I don't care if they host a stream. It also isn't particularly a difference in opinion is they start calling someone a liar. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
A major thing with Killing Joke that is sort of lost is that it was supposed to be gruesome and shocking. What the Joker does is supposed to be above and beyond the pale and completely uncommon even for him. The sexual elements are probably a bit Alan Moore but they do serve a purpose. It's supposed to be horrifying beyond the norm and to break the 'rules' of the game. It makes sense within the confines of the story but has been subsequently lessened by years and years of Joker doing things as bad or not worse. When Killing Joke was made Harley Quinn didn't exist but these days "Joker has a weird abusive possibly-sexual relationship' is a defined part of the character. Almost everything in The Killing Joke is, due to the Killing Joke being popular, a common part of the character and so the end result is that the context is almost entirely lost.Kurzon posted:And it's not a criticism I accept. They're talking as if Alan Moore shot their sister. Barbara Gordon wasn't mis-characterized, nor was her traumatic experience treated tastelessly. Yes it was. That's the point people are making. Barbara Gordon's trauma is almost entirely glossed over. She gets nothing in the story except one scene after she's shot which isn't really even about her. It is the definition of Glossed Over. Again, this isn't even a case of 'well, people are arguing about it after the fact.' It was a criticism of the book after it came out and is what lead to Oracle, the fact that her trauma was so glossed over. Alan Moore has been critical of the treatment of Barbara in The Killing Joke. Kurzon posted:If the issue was no more Batgirl stories I already said why this isn't the case. It wasn't about there being no more Batgirl stories. The character was retired at the time The Killing Joke was written. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:How would you have written it? It depends honestly. There's a lot of different directions but it depends on how far away from the original story you'd want to go. Any sort of closure for Barbara would probably have done a lot for people but obviously that doesn't work within the confines of the pacing of the original novel. You can't really give closure to Barbara in a story that isn't about her. (Which is, again, why Suicide Squad chose to do that. You can't rewrite the Killing Joke but you can pick up the pieces afterwards.) If you're willing to break out of the confines of the original story then the answer is simple enough: Make Barbara part of the story and not just an incidental bystander. Make it a story about the Gordons and not just Jim Gordon. Gordon triumphing over his 'one bad day' (or whatever alternate reading you prefer for that) shouldn't just be Jim Gordon considering that his daughter had just a terrible day but we never see her response within the confines of the story. Give her more time, allow us to see her response, and make her a character instead of a prop.  This page is obviously a bit on-the-nose but it exists entirely to give Barbara Gordon the response she never got in The Killing Joke. You're obviously not going to dedicate the entire story to Barbara the way Oracle: Year One does but allowing her agency and a response does a lot for the story. Franchescanado posted:The scene is still shocking, because it's hosed up, no matter if you've watched Straw Dogs the night before or whatever. You're not wrong. The scene is still shocking but at the same time it's 'business as usual' for the Joker who exists as a shocking character these days. He's the guy who cuts off his own face and murders babies. Franchescanado posted:But with practicality in story-telling, the idea that the story is trying to convey didn't want to utilize Barb. They have to be concise, you know? "They had to be concise" doesn't really change it though? "It's the most convenient way to write the story' doesn't mean you're still not doing a thing. It's just the reason why it happens so often. Understanding why something happens doesn't really change that it happens if you get what I mean. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:So the debate is what a writer owes to readers who happen to care a lot about a supporting character he uses. That isn't really what people are saying, no. Edit: That I sounded unreasonably dismissive on but the honest truth is that I'm not sure how else to explain it without repeating things I've already said. Sorry.  Franchescanado posted:No the real debate is why Batman's ear spikes have become so tiny. This I can agree on. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:MY Batman has ears at minimum one head tall.  Speaking of which I'm surprised we haven't gotten a Red Rain animated film.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Killing Joke isn't a very good superhero story. The superhero element just doesn't add that much to the story, so you end up with a weird serial killer story where the detective and killer both dress very silly. The Killing Joke can only be a superhero story because it relies very heavily on the status quo of eternal escape being a thing which is basically a thing exclusive to superheroes or saturday morning cartoon characters who are indistinguishable from superheroes. If it isn't a Superhero story than "someday we'll have to kill each other' isn't a thing because Joker sits his rear end in jail for the rest of his life. (I am not necessarily saying this is a good thing but it is a story that depends on superheroes and the genre to exist.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Not at all. Lawmen and criminals having antagonistic but continuing relationship is a very standard idea, especially in fiction (Justified and Hannibal for some more recent examples). That isn't really the same thing though. Part of the idea of The Killing Joke is that the Joker can not be contained not because of character but because of status quo. The plot depends on the idea that the Joker will escape, it is an inevitability. The status quo will never change until death. It is impossible for there to be another outcome because death is the only way to break the status quo. It doesn't mean literal death though. It means the end of a character arc. A character reaching their final development step. Batman isn't pleading for Joker not to kill him. He's pleading for the Joker to come up with a different ending that isn't that but both of them know can't happen. Crime Fiction, for obvious reason, does not treat escape as an inevitability, nor does it assume a never-ending game. Hannibal Lector is threatening but crime fiction doesn't assume an eternal status quo. Even Hannibal, who escapes, is treated as exceptional for doing so and not someone who will always escape in every situation no matter what. (Though Graham obviously fears being outsmarted or corrupted.) This is because Hannibal ends. It has multiple endings but it isn't built on the idea of a story that doesn't end. Will Graham doesn't have to plead with Hannibal to let their stories end in some way that isn't horror because they don't even consider the idea their stories won't end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:It is the same template for 99% of superhero books so singling it out is kind of silly. I think the major difference is that 99% of superhero books don't play the "why doesn't (x) kill (y)" game which is, while certainly not exclusive to Batman, a lot more heavily emphasized in Batman. So it makes the status quo feel dumber because they keep lampshading it. The closest I can think of is Daredevil and obviously Daredevil is way more over-the-place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'm sorry that I don't see the value in endlessly ranting about something, especially when my entire angle on that thing is asinine and clearly motivated by fanboyism of a lovely character. I don't like Barbara Gordon as Batgirl at all and while I did like her as Oracle she wasn't in my top 10 favorite characters. So maybe you shouldn't be making assumptions about that. But instead, as always, you hop to assumptions that the only person who can have any opinion on something is fanboying. Lurdiak posted:ImpAtom was repeatedly saying the book was poorly written, and got really upset that I disagreed without writing a novel. I don't mind if people criticize the book, I'm not married to it. I enjoy how you ignored the multiple times I said the majority of the story was well written, just not Barbara Gordon's segment of it. It is in fact possible to criticize a part of a story without going "the entire thing is worthless trash" and I literally defended Killing Joke in the previous thread as being a good story despite the Barbara Gordon segments against people who were actually calling it irredeemable trash. As usually, Lurdiak, you just wanted to shitpost and run and in doing so you decided without actually reading anything that I was someone talking about how terrible and awful Killing Joke is and how it's the worst story ever. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It's interesting that you decided to get mad and insult me and declare I was "shitposting and running" when I didn't even quote you in my initial post. I just said "Killing Joke isn't bad" and you called that a shitpost and declared me the worst! poster! ever! And I'm supposed to be the one with a reading problem? We are on an internet forum where your previous posts can be directly linked you know. Lurdiak posted:You can't make Killing Joke badly written just by repeating the lie often enough. Unless you were talking to someone who literally wasn't posting you were responding to a conversation that literally involved me responding to Kurzon with one post from Franchescanado which mentions nothing about bad writing. So trying to go "no, no, I wasn't talking to you, how funny you assume that?" is dumb. It's genuinely lovely to call someone a liar because they dared to criticize a book you like in any way, shape or form, and doubly lovely to assume it is because they hate the entire book and are lying to make it look bad or something. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was responding to more or less the entire page the conversation was happening on. ... The only other post about TKJ on that page was D_T's review of the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:No it isn't? Unless you're referring to after your post then yes. People are discussing The Dark Knight (including yourself), D_T makes his review post and then Kurzon asks about why people criticize the TKJ. If you're referring to after your post then thank you for posting on our forums Booster Gold. " Even if you go back to the previous page I can't find a single example of someone calling TKJ badly written as a whole, just criticism of Barbara Gordon's treatment as a character. I snapped at you and I probably shouldn't have but at bare minimum I think you have to recognize the difference between "The Killing Joke isn't bad" and calling people a liar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Yeah I guess I coulda been less snippy too. Waking up after a lovely night's sleep to being called "the worst poster on the forum" is a bad way to start the day. Yeah, I apologize. That was seriously unfair and lovely of me and I shouldn't have done it. I really am sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Roth posted:http://www.slashfilm.com/justice-league-action-characters/ quote:We definitely can go a lot of places with Space Cabby. Patton Oswalt is playing Space Cabby so that’s great.” Yes. Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Unmature posted:I often dislike Conroy's later Batman voice work. I think it's Andrea Ramano that made him so good. He always sounds wooden in these movies. Though I have no idea if she still works on these at all, I could be full of poo poo. To be fair he's also like 25 years older.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Unmature posted:I'm talking about his performance, not the sound of his voice. Dan Castelanetta sounds different, but his performance as Homer is still great. In that case I think it's more that Conroy is good for a very specific kind of Batman. He is (more or less) compassionate-sounding. He can get angry or serious but when he does it is because someone has done something unforgivable rather than because it is his default state. I watched a clip of the end of The killing joke and he completely nails the one moment he's genuinely talking to Joker and begging him to let him help him and I think that is because that is Conroy's strength. He absolutely rocks the compassionate element of Batman that is present in TAS. It's also why he is so frequently a poor fit for Arkham where Batman is kind of a poo poo. However him being The Batman Actor means he gets cast even in stories where Batman lacks the compassion that Conroy can sell so hard. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Well Paul Dini wrote Arkham City didn't he? That game calls Catwoman a bitch while you play her almost literally every couple of minutes. So in general, yes, DC's idea of making mature content is generally to throw in the word bitch, some blood, and some tits and rear end. That's pretty much DC comics in a nutshell, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The Joker stuff in AK is fantastic. That is because the Joker gets to hang around and riff on the rest of the story which is pretty lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Social/financial suicide maybe. Per the DLC Tim married Barbara Gordon and kept fighting crime so apparently it worked out pretty well for him!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
JackBobby posted:Tom Bissell, a critic and writer, was super critical (along with a lot of people) of the "bitch" stuff in Arkham City. He ended up being brought on to write incidental dialogue in Origins in response to the backlash from City. There's an episode of Kumail Nanjiani's old video game podcast where Bissell talks about how hard it is to think up a million different permutations of lines for random thugs to say. Is he the dude who wrote the dialogue where you hear a random goon talking about how he doesn't want to be a criminal but he has crippling medical bills and a kid to feed and nobody will hire someone with a record right before Batman hops down and breaks his arms?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Calaveron posted:I can vouch for kids reading Smile, but I have never heard anybody younger than Internet Manchild talking about Steven Universe. SU does well with kids, they're just not coming onto SA and posting about it for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 20:43
|
|