Batman: Caped Crusader (Prime Video)

[Ray Hardgrit]

I like keeping Harley free of the Joker as well.

I've always been a bit confused about why people are so keen on removing the Joker from Harley's story. Sure it's ultimately a tragic story about an abusive relationship that she struggles to get out of because of her obsession with him but Mad Love is the highest rated episode of the entire Animated Series on IMDb. Most of the best Joker episodes include her, and vice versa.

I like the idea that she does eventually move on and maybe get into a far healthier relationship with Ivy, but skipping past the Joker or taking him out of her life entirely feels like telling a story about a grown up Dick Grayson who never met Batman.

I'm still firmly convinced that they should've just made up a new character here. Or maybe dug a little deeper into the comics to find someone who's a better fit for what they wanted to do.

 

[JoeZhang]

Did I miss it or has there been no mention of the war?

 

[Christopher]

I've always been a bit confused about why people are so keen on removing the Joker from Harley's story. Sure it's ultimately a tragic story about an abusive relationship that she struggles to get out of because of her obsession with him but Mad Love is the highest rated episode of the entire Animated Series on IMDb. Most of the best Joker episodes include her, and vice versa.

I like the idea that she does eventually move on and maybe get into a far healthier relationship with Ivy, but skipping past the Joker or taking him out of her life entirely feels like telling a story about a grown up Dick Grayson who never met Batman.

Whereas my first reaction was that a Jokerless Harley sounds like a great idea. Yes, Harley started decades ago as the Joker's abused girlfriend, but she's evolved beyond that now in the comics, accumulated a lot of value as a character on her own. Yes, there's value in telling the story of a newly independent Harley moving beyond her abusive relationship, as the Harley Quinn animated series and the Birds of Prey movie both did well; but since that's already been done effectively, it seems worthwhile to do a new version of the character that's based on who she's become rather than yet again rehashing how she began. (Like how the MCU's Carol Danvers went directly to being Captain Marvel without recapitulating her early comics history as Mar-Vell's love interest and later the first Ms. Marvel, Binary, etc.)

If nothing else, it's a good counterbalance to stories like the first Suicide Squad movie or (apparently) Joker: Folie a Deux that regress Harley to her "Joker's girlfriend" status and even try to romanticize their relationship, which is disgusting. If we have to put up with stories like that, I say we deserve a counterbalancing version of Harley that's completely independent of the Joker. The good thing about adaptations of fictional characters is that they don't all have to do it the same way, but can explore alternative interpretations and reinventions of a concept.

I'm still firmly convinced that they should've just made up a new character here. Or maybe dug a little deeper into the comics to find someone who's a better fit for what they wanted to do.

"Into the comics?" I think you're forgetting that Harley is Bruce Timm's own character that he co-created for television.

Did I miss it or has there been no mention of the war?

Have they specified a year for the series? If it's set after 1945, the war would be over.

Besides, many 1940s movies that came out during the war made no mention of the war. In the first couple of years of America's involvement in the war, the government encouraged Hollywood to gear its films toward propaganda and make movies about fighting enemy spies and saboteurs and the like; but as the war dragged on, there was a growing need for escapism, so a lot of movies started avoiding wartime themes. For instance, in Universal's modern-day Sherlock Holmes series from 1942-6, the first three films pitted Holmes against Nazi spies; the next couple of films told domestic stories with only cursory mentions of the war; and the final seven films from 1944-6 didn't mention the war at all.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

"Into the comics?" I think you're forgetting that Harley is Bruce Timm's own character that he co-created for television.

Hey, I said 'make up a new character' as my first choice!

But every other villain in the show was from the comics (as far as I'm aware), so if Harley was going to be replaced with anyone, chances are that's where they'd come from too.

 

[Christopher]

But why would Bruce Timm want to replace his own character? And who has more right than Timm to reinvent his own character (other than Paul Dini, of course)?

Fans want their familiar characters to remain familiar and unchanging, but creators get bored doing the same thing over and over. Yes, sometimes that means creating something entirely new, but sometimes it means finding a new approach to an existing character or concept. Timm has had three decades to reflect on what he and Dini did with Harley, what worked and what didn't, what he could've done instead. And he's surely grown and changed as a creator and looks back on his old ideas with a fresh eye. It's entirely natural that he'd want to take the opportunity to revisit and reinvent some of his old ideas.

And why single out Harley? From what I've heard, most of the characters here are substantially different from how Timm did them in B:TAS. That difference is the whole point.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

But why would Bruce Timm want to replace his own character?

He did pretty much replace his own character, that's the thing. Maybe this Harley will become more recognisable in the future, but right now all she has in common with her BTAS incarnation is that she's a villainous psychologist who's into women. Oh, plus she wore a jester costume one time for some reason.

And why single out Harley? From what I've heard, most of the characters here are substantially different from how Timm did them in B:TAS. That difference is the whole point.

I'm not familiar with Onomatopoeia, Nocturne or Gentleman Ghost so I can't say anything about them. Harvey Dent is a bit of a dick, but you couldn't mistake him for any other character. Penguin isn't that much changed. I could believe Catwoman is a faithful homage to her earliest comic appearances. Clayface being drastically depowered suits the low-tech 40s theme. Thorne is basically the same guy.

The only other villain I really have a problem with is Bullock and they mostly just flipped his switch to 'evil'.

 

[Christopher]

right now all she has in common with her BTAS incarnation is that she's a villainous psychologist who's into women.

I'd say that's about as much as Michael Keaton's Batman had in common with the comics' Batman. It's more than Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck has in common with the Joker.

And as I already said, if you're going to have a villainous psychologist in a Batman story, why the hell shouldn't it be Harleen Quinzel?

I could believe Catwoman is a faithful homage to her earliest comic appearances.

Which is completely different from how Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman and Batman: TAS's Catwoman were portrayed. Or Frank Miller's Batman: Year One Catwoman. Are you saying those should've all been different characters?

The idea that a fictional character can't be radically reinvented is unrealistic. It happens all the time. There's no law that dictates how much or how little an adaptation is allowed to change a character. Saying "they should've just invented a new character" is a failure of imagination. If Bruce Timm had needed a new character, he would've created a new character. As the creator of the show, he knows what it needs better than we do. There's a reason spectators don't call the plays.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I'd say that's about as much as Michael Keaton's Batman had in common with the comics' Batman. It's more than Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck has in common with the Joker.

Michael Keaton's Batman is a remix of the comic character with less regard for human life and trouble turning his head. You could argue that he doesn't lurk around Commissioner Gordon's window enough, or that his Bruce Wayne is too quirky, but the dude is absolutely unmistakably a version of Batman. As is Caped Crusader Batman actually.

I haven't got a clue how much Arthur Fleck has in common with the Joker, because when I saw what they were doing with that movie I decided to skip it. I'll have no opinion on Lady Gaga Harley Quinn for similar reasons.

Which is completely different from how Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman and Batman: TAS's Catwoman were portrayed. Or Frank Miller's Batman: Year One Catwoman. Are you saying those should've all been different characters?

The idea that a fictional character can't be radically reinvented is unrealistic. It happens all the time. There's no law that dictates how much or how little an adaptation is allowed to change a character. Saying "they should've just invented a new character" is a failure of imagination. If Bruce Timm had needed a new character, he would've created a new character. As the creator of the show, he knows what it needs better than we do. There's a reason spectators don't call the plays.

Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was apparently brought back to life by cats and she's not really a master thief so I'd definitely be using my imagination a bit to pretend she's the same person. Still, she goes out in a costume at night with a whip and she has a thing for Batman, so she's ticking a lot of the boxes. More than Halle Berry's Catwoman did.

Caped Crusader's Harley Quinn is so dissimilar to any Harley I'm familiar with, that I could use the same amount of imagination and say she's a reinvention of Hugo Strange, or Scarecrow, or Mad Hatter. Her being Harley feels arbitrary. At this point anyway. There's always a chance that we just haven't had her origin story yet.

 

[Christopher]

Michael Keaton's Batman is a remix of the comic character with less regard for human life and trouble turning his head.

The differences are much greater than that. Burton and Keaton's Bruce Wayne is an eccentric recluse who's not good around people, completely different from the usual Bruce Wayne persona of a gregarious playboy and man-about-town. I've always felt he was unrecognizable as Batman/Bruce aside from the costume, that he might as well have been a different character.

Besides, my point is that it doesn't matter how similar or different they are, because there is no rule limiting how much creators are "allowed" to modify characters in adaptations. Any attempt you make to impose such a restriction is merely expressing the limits on your own tolerance for change and has zero bearing on the merits of the work itself or the creators' right to do it however the hell they choose.

Caped Crusader's Harley Quinn is so dissimilar to any Harley I'm familiar with, that I could use the same amount of imagination and say she's a reinvention of Hugo Strange, or Scarecrow, or Mad Hatter.

Those are all male characters, and as I already mentioned, the ratio of male to female villains is already quite high even with Harley and a female Penguin included. Also, of the characters you list, Harley is the only one that Bruce Timm co-created. Both those things make it quite obvious why Timm used Harley instead of those others.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

You'll never get the last word, Ray...

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Besides, my point is that it doesn't matter how similar or different they are, because there is no rule limiting how much creators are "allowed" to modify characters in adaptations. Any attempt you make to impose such a restriction is merely expressing the limits on your own tolerance for change and has zero bearing on the merits of the work itself or the creators' right to do it however the hell they choose.

I'm not saying that Bruce Timm should be forbidden from coming up with a radically different reimagining of a character he co-created. The Caped Crusader team can do what they want (within certain guidelines from DC presumably). I just feel that when audiences are reacting with "Wait, that was supposed to be 'X'?" then the emotions the story is inspiring in its viewers aren't doing the tale they're telling any favours.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not saying that Bruce Timm should be forbidden from coming up with a radically different reimagining of a character he co-created. The Caped Crusader team can do what they want (within certain guidelines from DC presumably). I just feel that when audiences are reacting with "Wait, that was supposed to be 'X'?" then the emotions the story is inspiring in its viewers aren't doing the tale they're telling any favours.

This has been happening since these characters were created. Batman has been all over the map since his creation. From Creature of the Night to Honorary Policeman to SciFi Alien Fighter to Psycho Ninja.

 

[Christopher]

I just feel that when audiences are reacting with "Wait, that was supposed to be 'X'?" then the emotions the story is inspiring in its viewers aren't doing the tale they're telling any favours.

You're making the common mistake of established fans: assuming they're the exclusive target audience for a new version. On the contrary, the primary target audience for a new version is new viewers, people who are discovering the franchise for the first time. The established fanbase is always a diminishing demographic, since people die or change their interests. So the primary goal is always to attract a new audience, which is why characters and concepts are reinvented and modernized. Yes, it's generally preferred to make something that older fans will appreciate too, but that's a secondary consideration. The important thing is to make a show that stands on its own merits.

This is particularly true of American animated shows, which are usually aimed at younger viewers. Caped Crusader is a TV-14 show. That means it's made primarily for high school and college students, people who wouldn't have been alive when B:TAS was on the air.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

You're making the common mistake of established fans: assuming they're the exclusive target audience for a new version. On the contrary, the primary target audience for a new version is new viewers, people who are discovering the franchise for the first time.

Well, I just assume new fans would want something close to the source material, so it feels authentic and they feel like they're getting to know the real comic book universe. I'd been travelling down the DC comics rabbit hole for a while before I got curious about Elseworlds. (Incidentally I just finished watching Gotham by Gaslight, good movie, would recommend. Not a whole lot like the graphic novel, but they made it work.)

 

[Christopher]

I just assume new fans would want something close to the source material

Listen to what you just said. How would newcomers know what the source material is like?

Continuity is not the end-all and be-all of entertainment. Most people don't care whether a story is consistent with some other story they've never seen. They just want the story to entertain them in the here and now.

 

[JD]

Most new fans couldn't care less about the source material, they just want a good show to watch now. Yes, there are a few people, like me, who were introduced to these characters through the shows and movies who got curious and started reading the comics, but I doubt we're the majority.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I’ve been reading comics and viewing their adaptations into other media for sixty years. You weather the changes and sometimes the change is good and even better then the “source material.”

 

[Christopher]

Yes, there are a few people, like me, who were introduced to these characters through the shows and movies who got curious and started reading the comics, but I doubt we're the majority.

Sure, and I don't mind one bit if it turns out that the original source is quite different from the adaptation that introduced me to it, because that means I get to discover something new instead of just another telling of something I've already seen. Part of the fun of it is discovering how the adaptations change things from the source.

Heck, I grew up knowing Batman only from the Adam West sitcom and Saturday morning cartoons, so when my best friend in high school introduced me to the then-new The Dark Knight Returns, it was staggering and fascinating to see how different it was. But that didn't turn me off of reading Batman comics -- just the opposite. It made me curious to see what I'd been missing.

 

[Samurai8472]

I finished the series the other night. I still couldn’t shake the feeling that this looked more like a DTV Warner Bros animated feature.

“Coming soon to home video! A retro Batman animated feature!”

It didn’t differentiate itself stylistically from the one off animated features IMO

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Most new fans couldn't care less about the source material, they just want a good show to watch now. Yes, there are a few people, like me, who were introduced to these characters through the shows and movies who got curious and started reading the comics, but I doubt we're the majority.

I suppose I do have a warped view of this stuff, because of course the people I talk to about adaptations and the YouTube videos I watch are going to be by people who DO check out the source material and compare. I can't say that I really know what a casual viewer's perspective even is.

I do remember when I watched the first X-Men movie and got introduced to all those characters for the very first time, I thought it was lame that they were wearing black leather instead of proper colours. And I became aware very quickly that Wolverine was supposed to be shorter and Canadian, Rogue was entirely wrong... and so on. It kind of spoiled my opinion on those films, though they also did that by themselves over time. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was like one long cautionary tale about movie adaptations.

I finished the series the other night. I still couldn’t shake the feeling that this looked more like a DTV Warner Bros animated feature.

“Coming soon to home video! A retro Batman animated feature!”

It didn’t differentiate itself stylistically from the one off animated features IMO

I thought that too! Though I suppose that's a consequence of it being by the same people. Personally I don't need a different art style for every new project, I thought it looked fine. The animation was just a little stiff, and a little dull. The music was working hard to make it all feel more stylish than it was.