‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Harley Quinn.... subtle?When?
A bunch of stories when she went undercover, and no one even knew she was Harley until she revealed it (proving she can act not crazy when she wants and no one can tell)? The story (I think in Gotham City Sirens, but maybe in her first solo book) where she uses her psychology training and just general smarts to sneak into Arkham Asylum? Listen, I'm not saying she isn't crazy. She likes to dress up goofily, steal things, and beat people up with giant mallets. She keeps vicious hyenas as pets and would do basically anything the Joker tells her to do. I'm just saying she isn't the same kind of crazy as the movie's Harley has been in all the clips of her.
The original Harley Quinn doesn't go around like she's as nuts as the Mad Hatter (from the book, not the Batman villain). The Suicide Squad version is hanging from bars, talking about the voices in her head, and just generally acting like she has no grasp on reality. She's too crazy, and has none of Harley's personality, either. The writer was probably just told to write Harley as some random crazy Joker fan girl, with nothing specifically Harley about the character. Even the New 52 Harley doesn't act like as off as the movie version, and the New 52 version is basically a serial killer cosplaying (badly) as Harley Quinn.
Yeah, had mine since March 2nd. Same date and time. Can't wait.
^ Good thing advanced ticket sales are outpacing Avengers, Furious 7 and Jurassic World.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...ance-ticket-sales-outpacing-deadpool-avengers
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batm...t-Sales-Even-Better-Than-Avengers-118567.html
http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...ance-ticket-sales-outpacing-deadpool-avengers
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batm...t-Sales-Even-Better-Than-Avengers-118567.html
Last edited:
Sure she's different, but I still think there are enough familiar elements in there to make her Harley. I don't go into the adaptations always expecting to see the exact same thing we got in the comics, if I want that I can read the comics.
I just realized that this is the BvS thread, not the Suicide Squad one, if you want to continue the conversation I suggest we move it there.
Eh, all I'll say is that if you don't want the comic version of a character, don't use the character at all. There is a reason the character became popular, and a reason why anyone would want to see them in a movie. So, either make an entirely new character, or use the real character. I thought that they learned this lesson after Blade came out and made all those horrible "in name only" superhero movies and shows obsolete, but apparently DC just wants to take their ques from the idiots of the pre-Blade superhero adaptations.
Marvel is still closer than anything DC has done. They use the comics as a basis, and build on it into what they want. DC takes moments sometimes, but mostly acts like they're ashamed of the characters origin and almost go out of their way to not use anything but the barest elements (like name and powers) from the comics. If they could get away with making Superman an unpowered vigilante from Minnesota, they'd do it just to stay as far away from the comics as possible. Its like I said, DC films treat superheros like pre-Blade superhero movies did. Its a license you use for name recognition, but you use almost none of the source material, because comics are stupid and for 5 year olds. Eventually comic book movie people saw that the old approach didn't work, and that they needed to work harder to become successful, including paying attention to what made the characters popular.
DC is lazy because they have name value that is guaranteed to bring in a certain amount even when the movie is junk. Marvel didn't really have a superman or Batman, at least not one they had the movie rights to. So, they had to work hard to make a general audience care about characters like Iron Man, and their hard work paid off. That included seeing what made the characters popular among their comic audience, and adapting that to work with a general audience. If DC did that, they could do great stuff. Instead, its a race to see how little they can take of what made the characters endure, and add a big coat of grim paint over everything.
As always your telepathy skills are amazing. The mind link you have with TBTB at DC and WB is astounding. Must be scary to be inside people's heads like that.
DC`s recent films, to me, feel like they captured the essence of the characters. I'm not seeing the disrespect or anything for a buck attitude you describe. The only majoir mistep was the GL film which tried to graft a snarky RDJ/Ryan Reynolds personality onto Hal Jordan. Frankly I'm not a fan of the snarky RDJ version of Tony Stark either. That's not the Iron Man I grew up with. The arrogent musclehead Thor doesn't remind me of the comicbook Thor either, he's more Hercules. I don't know who Elizabeth Olsen is playing, but it ain't Wanda Maximoff. OTOH Evans nails both Cap and Steve Rogers. Which is probably why the Cap outing are my favorites, inspite of a guy named Bucky Barnes being in them, who isn't a teenaged camp mascot.
DC`s recent films, to me, feel like they captured the essence of the characters. I'm not seeing the disrespect or anything for a buck attitude you describe. The only majoir mistep was the GL film which tried to graft a snarky RDJ/Ryan Reynolds personality onto Hal Jordan. Frankly I'm not a fan of the snarky RDJ version of Tony Stark either. That's not the Iron Man I grew up with. The arrogent musclehead Thor doesn't remind me of the comicbook Thor either, he's more Hercules. I don't know who Elizabeth Olsen is playing, but it ain't Wanda Maximoff. OTOH Evans nails both Cap and Steve Rogers. Which is probably why the Cap outing are my favorites, inspite of a guy named Bucky Barnes being in them, who isn't a teenaged camp mascot.
But if you aren't going to change things, then there is no point in doing a new version of the character or story. If you are going to do an adaptation of something you are going to have to change things to fit the new medium and the people doing the adaptation. Even in the comics new writers often come in and make drastic changes to a character, in the recent comics Catwoman went from a thief to a mob boss. I don't think the problem with a lot of the old movies was that they changed things from the comics, it's just that they weren't very good. Look at the '70 Incredible Hulk TV series, it has barely anything to do with the comics, but it's still a very popular, well regarded series.
Well, the Incredible Hulk TV show was terrible and Catwoman hasn't been written well in almost half a decade when it comes to the comics.
I just don't understand what the hell is the point of using a character's name if you refuse to use the actual character. At that point, its a cheap ploy to get fans to see your movie/TV. Either use the character, or make one up. Don't use cheap name recognition to trick people into watching a horrible original character. The general audience won't care either way, so you're basically just telling the fans to f&*k off. Its like if WB made Harry Potter into a heroin addict in the HP movies. People would have complained, but its just as legitimate a change as making Superman a murderer. You don't here people saying "Oh, they totally should have ignored the books and turned Harry Potter into something else", do you? If you want the name recongnition, use the real character. Movies can be made easily with the comic book characters, marvel proved that time and time again. Even when Marvel changes stuff, they keep the core of the characters, and aren't ashamed to look at the comics. If I'm watching a superhero movies, I want to see the actual hero, not some Hollywood Hack's original character he grafted the name of a old character on to.
I've been reading that Stark since I got into comics, several years before the movie. Same with thor, he's pretty much the same as he was in Lee's run, just with more understandable english. Scarlet Witch got screwed by the X-Men deal, but she's still closer to the comics then anything DC has done since probably Richard Donner's Superman.
"Everyone but me" being a few people in this thread, one of which admitted to not liking the original harley Quinn anyway. Not exactly the kind of fans I was talking about. I'm talking about the fans who liked Harley so much that she became more than a minor character on an animated show and entered the comics, has had several runs in the comics and is basically a permenant part of the Batman mythos. that wouldn't have happened if Suicide Squad's Harley had been the original, because its a horrible character. The original harley is the only reason there was name recongnition for DC to take advantage of with its atrocious original character appearing in Suicide Squad.
I think it's fine that you have feel that way, it is a free world after all. But you seem to be making a lot of assumptions here, saying how Harley Quinn wouldn't have been so popular if it was the Suicide Squad's version of the character. You can't possibly know that, you don't know how others would have reacted to that, only yourself.
So, what I'm getting from that is that any Harley Quinn would have became iconic (at least to comic fans) no matter what, and Paul Dini's original version isn't valid or relevant? That any hollywood moron knows better then one of the best Batman writers, and that characters don't matter? That the names and backstories can and should be grafted on to whatever idiot character a hack screen writer wants to write, and fuck the original character? I dispute that strongly, as would probably anyone who actually likes Harley Quinn, like the fans that made her last past the cartoon.
I think it's like the fan equivalent of the old Carlin line about how everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and everyone who drives faster is a maniac. Here change is good, even vital, as long as you're onboard with it but violates the core of the character/source when you don't like the change.
Whatever. I'm just saying that characters became popular for a reason. Why someone would take the name, but ignore every reason the name means anything completely confuses me. There is no point to stealing a characters name but not use anything of the character that made people care in the first place. Its done by Dc for the same reason the idiot used Incredible Hulk in the 70s, even though he hated the comics. They want the audience that will recognize the name to watch their stuff, but they only want to tell whatever stupid story they'd had in their head long before they had the license. Its a cheap gimmick to bring unearned name recognition to a project that never would have gotten green lit without a more known property attached, or in this case a character the writer really wanted to write, but who attached Harley's name to it so DC would let him add an original character without a fuss. Its infuriating, and an insult to anyone who liked the actual character.
It also mostlyonly works with superheroes. If someone made a movie where Zorro was a communist dictator, or Indiana Jones was a meth dealer, people would lose their minds and almost no one would defend the changes. But change a comic book character just as much (although in a different way, obviously) and people will praise the idiotsfor it, and basically tell people who liked the original character to shut up, their character sucks.
It also mostlyonly works with superheroes. If someone made a movie where Zorro was a communist dictator, or Indiana Jones was a meth dealer, people would lose their minds and almost no one would defend the changes. But change a comic book character just as much (although in a different way, obviously) and people will praise the idiotsfor it, and basically tell people who liked the original character to shut up, their character sucks.
