|
I watched The Killing Joke last night. Spoilers for why the first act is really dumb and uncomfortable follows: I did not like the first act. With the things that happen in the story, the creators decided that we need to see more interaction with Batgirl and Batman to feel the weight of the horror that comes later. But instead of showing what makes Batgirl a good sidekick and a likeable character, we're introduced to her with lots of shots of her rear end and boobs in costume. Our first bad guy tries to drug and rape Batgirl, so Batman brings her some Starbucks to cheer her up. She wants to pursue a criminal that is very clear he is trying to sexually control her, degrade her, make her into an object. This is stated clearly by Batman. So she goes to fight the criminal alone (to prove something? to show independence? because it fulfills a sexual need to be wanted?) She spends her day job talking to her co-worker about her obsession with her "yoga trainer", which is defined as unhealthy. Then she and Batman resolve a fight by loving on the rooftops, Batman grabbin' that rear end, Barbara removing her costume (in one quick swoosh; the whole costume is one piece, cape included) to reveal white lingerie (because you gotta be sexy and comfortable in crime fighting). Then we get a scene with Barbara telling her co-worker how Batman is the best sex ever, but he won't call her back! So she calls him while he's on a mission, so they can talk it out and makes things like they used to be, but Batman hesistates on whether or not he should answer (he does). Some more sexualized violence happens, and then The Killing Joke begins proper, changing the weird sexual energy into a Joker story, and we get to the actual good story. The actual Killing Joke was good, but so much is lost in translation. The original is incredibly bleak, and a lot of the subtle horrors are made more concrete (the implication of Joker possibly sexually assaulting Barbara is made more blatant by Batman interviewing prostitutes, for instance). Also, the gritty artwork is gone in favor of a cleaner 90's Batman Cartoon, which takes away a lot of the horror. I saw it in a live audience, and it's weird how many people laughed throughout the movie, especially the final joke, which is disturbing. The Joker's joke explains everything, there is no hope for him. He and Bats are both the lunatics in the joke, Batman is the one that crosses over first. Joker is the second lunatic, afraid to jump because Batman will turn off the light, letting him fall, maybe because of the Joker's past sins, or that he's a lost cause, or that Batman might be bored, or taken away before the Joker can fully heal. Batman believes change is possible, and that is why he has been able to be as functioning as he is. The Joker doesn't have hope, and has no way of ever fully recovering because of it. So they are doomed to forever fulfill this cycle of hate. Why that would make people laugh, is beyond me, but there were many enthusiastic guffaws.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
When Batman interviews the prostitutes, they say that before the news reveals the Joker's escaped, he's already been to see them and hosed all of them, which makes them giggle. Batman asks why they're laughing, and they say "He just seems to like having a good time." Joker horny AF
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
The more I think about it, pretty much every change/original content/exploration of the story is about sexualizing Barbara/Batgirl. I can't think of one that DOESN'T sexualize Batgirl, except for fully realizing the Joker's song into a musical number with circus freaks, which Mark Hamill nailed. I don't think that exploring sexuality in the Batman universe is even a major offence, if done well with sincerity and thematic meaning, but NOT in the context of The Killing Joke. Nothing in the story, besides implications, really necessitates it. Also, with adding more rape/sexual trauma overtones, the story somehow was still underwhelming. The Killing Joke is loving bleak, heartbreaking, cruel. For example, a major emotional crux of the story, Joker's backstory of finding out his pregnant wife is hit by a car and has died immediately after selling out to become a criminal to support her was flat. Even Mark Hamill brought nothing to the reading. He just mopes, "Oh, guess she's dead...Anywayyyy!... and then the scene moves on. Another: Gordon being forced to repeatedly watch pictures of his nude wounded daughter covered in blood and in various sexual poses after possibly being raped, despite the horror of the situation, isn't horrific. It's like they relied on the fact that it's supposed to be disturbing to actually disturb people, instead of using cinematic techniques to wreck your heart. But instead, it's just kind of flat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
site posted:I watched it yesterday and this scene in particular really hit me with how much I wasn't taking the story seriously because of the 90s kid cartoon art being used. Like, intellectually I knew this is something that should be horrifying to look at but it didn't look horrifying. Tangent to that, for a movie they're releasing in theaters the animation isn't all that hot either. The animation was very strange. I guess the intention was to match the 90's aesthetic, because of the cast they've got backing it, and it being an iconic look. But...That's a kids show from an era where television animation wasn't hitting a strong stride. Why tell a story that is ridiculously dark with an aesthetic for children? Nostalgia? But why? Does the audience that loved the 90's cartoon really want to see The Joker drag a nude Gordon around on a chain collar? It doesn't feel like an attempt at capturing the feeling of the 90's cartoon. If anything, the idea was to take that show's limits and stretch it to a breaking point. If it's to soften the blow of the disturbing story, that's also a weird choice, because they added a bunch of sexuality and sexual trauma! And it also abandons the realistic art of the comic, which is fantastic and holds most of the power and weight of the story. If you have characters wearing capes, why make a point of shots of capes fluttering in the wind, taking up a fourth of the screen, only to have it choppy? Why make the frame rate so rigid and then have everyone bouncing around? The actual hand-to-hand combat scenes were very well done, but this story isn't really about the fight scenes. They really did a good job with the voice actors, even if Conroy phoned it in a bit. The music was pretty good throughout. Sound design was loud, but good. But if you're selling an animated movie, why skimp on the animation? If your budget is limiting your animation, take out the musical number. I'm not one of those people that hate adaptations, either. This was just really muddled story telling with a great potential squandered away from weird choices.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Ultimately, we can cringe and call out the creepiness all we want, but these guys know their audience. This is the industry that continues shoving very large breasted, half naked women in sexy poses whenever they get the chance, regardless if it makes any sense at all, and when called on it, consistently jump through hoops trying to justify it, all while any mature discussion is drowned out by whining manchildren who feel threatened that people are trying to take away their fap material. And by cringing and calling out the creepiness and pointing fingers and making the creators jump through their hoops, we are doing our part to make future Batgirls less cockthirsty, and better stories for the fans, slowly but surely. That is my optimism, please don't hurt it, it's fragile.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Here's an interesting idea: The Joker's whole plan is to show Batman the damages and effects of "One Bad Day". But the worst thing that happens to Batman is being thrown a poo poo-ton of guilt for his actions and inability to prevent the dangers in his life for others. Considering Batman is a broken man-child who displays too many sociopathic tendencies to go unnoticed, he probably doesn't even feel the guilt. Recognizes it in a mental capacity, being aware that he should feel guilt, sure, but if he actually feels it...Who knows. Gordon receives a rougher side of the trade: He has to see pictures of his daughter being destroyed, and then must relive that moment at the hands of the most vile criminal he faces regularly. He is caged like an animal. The comics imply that he has probably also received sexual damages by the Joker's goons. His defense of Batman is called into question, as does his hypocrisy, his life mission, and his idea of "Law". But in the end, it is implied that sticking to his morals will bring him through this dark period of his life, because it will not allow him to succumb to his fears of the world. Barbara's life is ruined. She has now been through physical, mental, emotional, and sexual trauma. She is no longer able to walk. She can no longer fight crime, her main calling in life, or spend time with her creepy unhealthy crush. So why is it that, given an opportunity to change and explore the ideas of "One Bad Day" through two well-known characters, that we ignore the real victims of the story, who actually are the receiving end of the Bad Day and all it's implications, and instead concentrate on the sociopathic spectator, Batman? And with that opportunity, why the gently caress would you animate a first act of Barbara trying to and succeeding in loving Batman instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
redbackground posted:Is she just laid out in the hospital at the end the end of the movie or what? Do we even go back to her once Bats and Joker laugh together for a bit? Yes, there's a stinger where she wheels herself into her closet and goes down a secret compartment with computers and the Oracle symbol, and she says "Good to be back!" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Black Mage Knight posted:I apologize for misreading it then. I just always took the sudden stop to laughter to imply a strangling. This has been a nerd debate for years, but after looking at the original script, it's pretty much false. Batman doesn't kill Joker. He does kill his three dwarf goons in the movie, though, by throwing them in a pit of spikes. Which is weird, because they seem to be mentally handicapped.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Batman's whole arc in TKJ is to save Joker so their cycle of violence doesn't end in death. Ending it with Batman killing the Joker after the Joker explains that they are basically the same person who chose different paths is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
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. Just because a work is open to to interpretation doesn't mean that any interpretation is "correct" or "valid". It still must have evidence within the context of the story. And in this case, Batman is actively working to avoid killing the Joker. So when he finally confronts the Joker, the Joker pauses, and shakes his head that it's too late. He is lucid, he is calm, and he is for once being upfront with Batman. And he says that they're the same person, that they both have suffered, but one chose to embrace insanity to cope with the pain, while the other decides to fight for what he believes in to cope with the pain. He is acknowledging that they are both broken, but Joker doesn't believe he can be saved, nor does he really want to. Batman confronts with his biggest foe, finds a lucid, relateable human. The insanity has been his coping mechanism, and he knows it. And they are able to share a moment, an absurd moment where they devolve into laughter. And Batman's laughter lingers, because it's his world view that has been shaken, and this level of insight has been delivered by one of the most evil men he has ever encountered. So why, given the idea of Batman as a character, context of the story and how it's been portrayed, would someone think that Batman then killing the Joker is an acceptable interpretation? This isn't High School AP Lit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
redbackground posted:It's a shoddy interpretation because the panels obviously show a quick progression from friendly tickling to serious make-out session. The real question that's left up to interpretation is whether or not Batman removes the glove before getting knuckles deep.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I wonder why it was so important for him to prove that to the Joker. I think it's more he's trying to prove it to himself. His world view has been distorted, his life at that point is full of suffering, and his best companion's trust and intentions has been called into question. The only way he can cling to his sanity is to believe that his life hasn't been lived in vain, and that their way works.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I interpreted it as a subtle dig at past Batman conventions. This was a couple of years after Moore wrote, Watchmen, remember. Perhaps Moore was mocking the ridiculousness of a city official having an open relationship with a vigilante and pretending it was all legal. It can be both. From a character reading, I think it's Gordon trying to cling to his sanity for reasons I stated above, but for a reader there is definitely a level of satire and hypocrisy in the entire set-up of the story. Moore's a cynical bastard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The author is dead. Long live the Reader. Within reason. It must work within contextual evidence of the text. For instance, saying The Killing Joke is a commentary on police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement because of three panels on the fourth page of the story does not hold weight. Death to the Author, but the Reader is Not God. We all bring our live experiences to each reading, but we must be able to argue our point with real evidence beyond "that's how I interpret it".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
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. No. Batman is a broken person because he uses his tragic past as a justification to dress up as an icon of fear and fulfill a compulsion for violence and revenge, while sticking to a personal and flawed moral code. (Remember the show Dexter? He was a victim of child abuse and trauma, and also did the serial killer thing. This isn't a commentary on everyone that has gone through a traumatic experience is going to be a serial killer, it is a commentary on this character and exploring why they specifically are a serial killer.) Batman is a broken person because he uses his father's legacy to fuel this crazed compulsion to eradicated the world of evil through violence. You can technically fulfill the actions of a righteous person and still be wrong. A priest can still help a community while ruining lives of individuals. Violence begatting violence doesn't justify violence. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, but that it why human beings have developed empathy and morality, to move forward and survive as a species. Batman didn't become a cop because the city he returned to was corrupted from the ground up, including the justice system. This is why Gordon is an important character: he represents a person working within the corrupt system, abides the system, while still maintaining and working from his moral code. Batman is a sociopathic criminal with good intentions. Most portrayals of Batman don't blatantly show a psychotically unbalanced person, but just looking at his story from a pragmatic perspective, what other conclusion do you get? Yes, he's a comic book character from the 1930's, but just because his story is told in pictures with white frames doesn't mean that it can't be compared to the human condition. Imagine, in your city, a person dressing up like a tiger and running the streets shooting drug dealers in the face with a harpoon. Sure, he's technically cleaning up crime, but he's also committing crime, and his actions are caused by underlying issues. And The Killing Joke, as I read it, is bringing attention to the flaws of Batman as a character, myth, and 'hero'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Has there ever been a Batman comic where Bruce is confronted by his parents who see his life as Batman and ask him why he used his life spending their money and using their legacy as a vigilante?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Suspension of disbelief is necessary to enjoy comics, but at the same time, it really should only be applied to matters of science (such as biology, physics, etc.) There's nothing wrong with questioning morality, ethics, and general decision making and having those things be obstacles for enjoyment. Agreed. I don't care how Superman is able to shoot lasers from his eyes, I care that he's using them to melt the face of a criminal and why. ImpAtom posted: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. Agreed. Having a complicated portrayal of a character and questionable actions creates lasting impact because it shows the complexity of the human experience and leads to more discussion, like the last few pages of this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Topical, Topical! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:No, no it isn't. The central idea behind comic books is that these things would not work in our world. Analyzing exactly why may be meaningful to you, but it's just not to me. There's nothing I get from examining why you can't use laser beams to solve your problems. There's nothing insightful to me about a Batman story that takes a more realistic view of vigilante violence. It's a Batman story. And honestly, none of those stories can ever really do much with that question, because there still has to be Batman comics. To me personally, there is nothing to be gained from analyzing the realism (or lack thereof) in a superhero story and then using that to critique the character. Batman lives in a world where wearing a gaudy suit and punching the right guys makes the universe better. If you start poking holes in that because it would never work in our world, the entire universe collapses around it. It's what superhero comics is built on. And sure you can then say "Wow, dressing up like a bat would totally be dumb!" but I can't follow you to "That is a meaningful take on Batman". Surely you recognize this as a personal choice, and an embrace of shallow reading? This comes off as bragging that you refuse depth in your fiction. Not every Batman comic requires a deeper reading, but you would be missing out on the reading experience on great stories because you don't want to challenge yourself with engaging in the story on more than a reactionary or emotional level. Batman gets deconstructed because he is incredibly iconic, has a long history and is a human superhero. He is ripe for commentary on genre conventions and certain aspects of our culture. You seem to be proud that you want to ignore commentary in favor of "punchy punchy, bang bang". Your post sounds like your shoving fingertips into your ear and babbling 'He is the night" when we want to talk about subtext. "Red Son" is a good Superman comic that explores those ideas with Superman, but there's only like three fight scenes so you'll probably be really bored and confused.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Yep! Death and the Maidens, one of the most sinfully forgotten Batman stories ever by Greg Rucka. It actually includes an interesting counterpoint to that mini-debate RedBackground and I were having earlier where Ra's claims that Batman is murdering him by destroying the Lazarus Pits. You rock, dude.  Is this collected in a trade?Also, the friends I saw TKJ with mentioned that there's a Batgirl story where some of the other superheroine's invite her out for a girl's night, which he agrees to hesitantly only to have one of the best nights if her life, which takes place the night before the events of TKJ. I haven't read it, but they said it's an a amazing short story, and really makes you love Barbara as a person, and with some tweaking (Bats telling Barb she needs a night off) would have been a great first act and made the story more tragic without changing characters or actual plot points.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
My main problem: Not every superheroine needs to be a symbol for feminism, but they should at least be able to pass the Bechdel Test. Batgirl in TKJ is the reason the Bechdel Test is important for modern storytelling, especially when it comes to "comic book stories", because it's consistently a major offender.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:God, you really are just the worst loving poster in this subforum. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:He got beaten, kidnapped, stripped naked, and tormented with pictures of his daughter. Sure, he could still walk after that, but gently caress you if you think he's not a victim too. And possibly sexually assaulted by mentally handicapped dwarves.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:This really sounds like a great and important comic book I mean, it's Alan Moore. Do you really expect anything different? Dude worships snake gods and performs magick just to troll people's religious beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted: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, and so the end result is that the context is almost entirely lost. I dunno, dude. That's kinda like saying 'What most people don't understand about A Clockwork Orange is that the scene where the man is beaten into permanently paralysis while he is forced to watch his wife get gang raped is supposed to be shocking.' Yeah, there are worse things that have been filmed since then, but that doesn't mean an average person subjected to viewing it won't be disturbed. The same is true about TKJ. Sure, Joker has done worse things in print since TKJ, but that doesn't make it less terrible. It's also hard to argue. How do you know whether or not it's effective, unless you personally poll everyone? The scene is still shocking, because it's hosed up, no matter if you've watched Straw Dogs the night before or whatever. Sure, Barbara's trauma doesn't get as much time or attention, but the story's main idea is Batman presenting The Joker with the inevitable and trying to escape that. Gordon is used as the guinea pig to prove that One Bad Day can change everything. And yeah, Barbara is the one getting hosed most in the situation, but she's also unconscious for the rest of the story. (I admit I could be wrong about that, since I haven't read TKJ in a few years). For the story to explore it's themes and ideas, it has three character arcs--Batman, Joker and Gordon-- to prove the point. Exploring the implications of Barbara's life being torn to shreds from the events in the context of the story would be too difficult. The story takes place in one night, with flashbacks to The Joker's "past". How can you explore the consequences for Barbara in that time frame? Especially if she's unconscious or in a hospital? There's an argument that the woman doesn't get her time, and yeah, that's a problem in general with the industry, but we're also talking about a one-off story in the 1980's. 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? I have issues with TKJ movie, because it chose to embellish the story in a lovely way, and took a character that, as you agree, doesn't get the service in the story, and turns her into a sex object for pretty much every man in the story (even her father who is forced to see her bleeding nude body projected in a fun-house ride over and over again) beyond what is necessary for the story outside of original context.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
No the real debate is why Batman's ear spikes have become so tiny. Bring back the wide floppy ears from the 30's! EDIT: On a serious note, I'm actually surprised that TKJ movie didn't use nudity. The comic has a frame with Barbara nude. It's not glamourous or sexy, it's kinda there to contribute to her vulnerability and shock. The movie had a lot of weird fan-service shots of Batgirl Tits and rear end, and made a point to be violent and ADULT R-RATING NO KIDS EDGY MATURE, so I'm surprised they didn't take advantage of the story's nudity to throw it in there. Or maybe the did, and it was censored. I dunno. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:
These ears are pretty much perfect, but Batman's looking a little skinny there. His muscles need more definition.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Unmature posted:The weirdest part of TKJ is that Joker goes so far out of his way to cripple and strip Barbara just to photograph her feet and shoulders. He doesn't, though? I just made a post about how the comic has her topless and has pics of her rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Unmature posted:In the movie. They don't even cover up a nude photo with Gordon's head or anything. It's just blatantly obvious that every photo is of her shoulders, feet, and face. Yeah, I also mentioned that in an earlier post. But I agree. Not that I think that nudity is necessary to convey sexual abuse or for shock value, the movie just made so many strange choices in bad taste, I'm surprised they didn't just go for it, even with all the prostitutes they have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:People hate on Alan Moore the same way people hate on God for letting bad things happen to people who don't deserve it. I don't think you understand why people hate on Alan Moore. At all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Adding superhero action to the story would have made it a superhero story. Dude, you are seriously autistic. You are implying that someone has found this book and is reading it without knowing the concepts of Batman and that it would impede them from understanding anything. Let's imagine there is someone who has managed to reach an independent reading age that doesn't know Batman. They hold in their hands a book that says "BATMAN: The Killing Joke". Then they open the book and soon realize there's this dude dressed in a costume. HEY, gently caress, THAT MUST BE THIS BATS GUY. How dumb do you think people are? Batman survives in cultural osmosis. In pretty much every major country with an entertainment industry, every child knows who the gently caress Batman is by the time they're 5 years old. You argue that it is an unsuccessful superhero comic because it doesn't have enough POWs and BOOMs and flying fists. It doesn't include an origin story for Batman, so that changes the context from a superhero story to a non-superhero comic? Counterpoint: You're a loving idiot. Like, seriously loving dumb. As in, I don't think there's any hope for your future. Do you work for DC?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superhero stories benefit from superhero action. The Killing Joke is barely keeping with even the trappings of the genre. The fair setting is at least some good stuff, in the original colours. Superhero stories benefit from Superhero Action. This does not define them. The barest definition of a superhero story is for someone to identify as a superhero or (masked) vigilante. Even that is questionable, because you have characters that subjugate this definition while still falling within it's definition (The Punisher, Ghost Rider, Blade, etc.) The Killing Joke isn't trying to keep within the trappings of the genre. Alan Moore's whole MO, for better or for worse, is to destroy genre trappings. We are still in a post-modern movement of art. This means tearing down idols, rules, structure to create something new and to call into questions tropes, and understanding of literature. Hence stories like Super, Kick-rear end, Watchmen, the new Deadpool movie. The Killing Joke holds it's place in the modern lexicon of comic books, despite whether it's good or not, because it is a notable work from the 80's when these stories weren't as common that calls into question what it means for Batman to be a vigilante and the cycle that he creates around him. Have you read some of Marvel's most popular runs since 2012? Many of them have single issues where we're given an insight into a character's life. Hawkeye and Superior Foes come to mind. They still include action, but that's not what's defining them. Character should always be priority. That's my personal opinion. Flying fists are fine, but you gotta root for (or maybe hate) the person who's throwing them. If they're just a bland nobody, the work can be salvaged by good art, but it doesn't linger in the minds of readers. Also, you think TKJ movie is better than the comic, so I realize that writing this is a vain attempt at giving you understanding as to why you're a serious loving idiot and should be euthanized.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Actually it does define them. The superhero genre is fundamentally about exceptional figures in extraordinary or superhuman action and drama. The spate of the PoMo superhero comics that are "not defined by superhero action" is more a device to sell stories in a market where superhero comics are supreme - Ex Machina is a good example. The superhero aspect is a fairly obvious way of "selling" the political drama, and the comic tends to lose focus when the superhero aspect takes over. The Fix is the exact same comic as Sinister Foes, just without superheroes or supervillains. And calling comics like Sinister Foes, Squirrel Girl, and Howard the Duck aren't iconoclastic or innovative is pretty silly, they operate by equally strict rules of irony and comedy. Thank you for agreeing with me and admitting you were wrong, it takes a big person to admit defeat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Is this the "superhero action" you crave in your comics?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was referring to how you were applying non-existent intent to my post. I don't really understand the hate either, Lurdiak. You took the minimal approach when there are actual bad and stupid opinions being thrown in this thread left and right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I guess it's just "poo poo on Lurdiak to make ourselves feel better" time, again. I'm used to it. I got your back, bro. You doing Scream Stream again this year? How far in advance do you plan that poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Of course I'm doing it again! I've got a theme planned and some of the lineup set up based on that, but it's not set in stone and I've still got plenty of research to do. I usually have to stop myself from planning it TOO far in advance, cuz if I get everything ready in like July that leaves me chomping at the bit for months. I'll make a thread as usual in October. Righteous. I'll probably make the October Horror Movie Challenge thread in late September again and link it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
I have been nothing but civil and insightful, you piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 17:47
|
|