The Joker looks a little like Bowie there.
Batman: The Killing Joke animated movie from Bruce Timm
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Exactly, it's not so much that it happened, it was the fact that Barbara's whole role in TKJ was to be shot, and it looked at things from her father and Batman's perspective, but never looked at it from hers.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying bad stuff should never happen to women in stories like these, it's the context that is the problem.
Thinking back over it, the deaths in recent TV I mentioned earlier in the thread aren't in quite the same category as Barbara in TKJ. Pretty much all of those deaths were at least the ends of bigger stories where the characters who died did have agency and a bigger role beyond just dying.
Just to illustrate the point, here's an example of a superficially similar situation and a reason why I think the filmakers on this project may actually elevate the source material.
The situation is from the Batman Beyond movie 'Return of the Joker' made by Bruce Timm et al. The Joker (and Harley, which adds a whole new dimension to her character) kidnap Robin (Tim Drake) and do something to him which could arguably be considered orders of magnitude worse than what was done to Barbara in TKJ.
Robin is still for the most part, a helpless victim. Most of what happens to him is off-screen and mostly implied, but enough is shown that you get the idea. You still have Batman (and Barbara, ironically) on a rampage trying to find him, followed by a knock-down drag out fight with Joker. You even get that part where Joker shows Batman a little home movie of what he did and as in TKJ demonstrates that he only did this to get under Batman's skin.
Now where RotJ did this scenario better than TKJ is that Robin had agency in this story (even more so in the uncut version since he straight-up murders the Joker.) All throughout the sequence the driving force is concern for Robin, not self righteous revenge and when the dust settles it doesn't shy away or ignore the horrendous emotional trauma or pretend that all is right now that the villain is defeated
It shows Tim, mentally broken and having a full on emotional meltdown while Barbara tries to comfort him, while Joker is all but forgotten in the scene. Flash forward 50 years and it's explained that this had an enormous and lasting effect on Tim. He was in recovery for a *long* time, never wanted to even look at the suit again and tried to bury it in order to move on live a normal life. But when you see his reaction when Joker reappears, it's clear he's taken right back to that night in the ruins or Arkham.
That's how you handle this kind of material. You don't need to shock people with explicit imagery for it to be a tough scene to watch and you don't need to reduce a character to a glorified prop to show them being truly victimised. That it's Timm again that's doing this movie makes me think he can actually do a much *better* job with the material than Moore did.
The situation is from the Batman Beyond movie 'Return of the Joker' made by Bruce Timm et al. The Joker (and Harley, which adds a whole new dimension to her character) kidnap Robin (Tim Drake) and do something to him which could arguably be considered orders of magnitude worse than what was done to Barbara in TKJ.
Robin is still for the most part, a helpless victim. Most of what happens to him is off-screen and mostly implied, but enough is shown that you get the idea. You still have Batman (and Barbara, ironically) on a rampage trying to find him, followed by a knock-down drag out fight with Joker. You even get that part where Joker shows Batman a little home movie of what he did and as in TKJ demonstrates that he only did this to get under Batman's skin.
Now where RotJ did this scenario better than TKJ is that Robin had agency in this story (even more so in the uncut version since he straight-up murders the Joker.) All throughout the sequence the driving force is concern for Robin, not self righteous revenge and when the dust settles it doesn't shy away or ignore the horrendous emotional trauma or pretend that all is right now that the villain is defeated
It shows Tim, mentally broken and having a full on emotional meltdown while Barbara tries to comfort him, while Joker is all but forgotten in the scene. Flash forward 50 years and it's explained that this had an enormous and lasting effect on Tim. He was in recovery for a *long* time, never wanted to even look at the suit again and tried to bury it in order to move on live a normal life. But when you see his reaction when Joker reappears, it's clear he's taken right back to that night in the ruins or Arkham.
That's how you handle this kind of material. You don't need to shock people with explicit imagery for it to be a tough scene to watch and you don't need to reduce a character to a glorified prop to show them being truly victimised. That it's Timm again that's doing this movie makes me think he can actually do a much *better* job with the material than Moore did.
Last edited:
You're still not getting it--her perspective in that story was not the concern. Only how her fate weighed on Batman and Gordon. That was the point--Barbara serving as motivator, but she was not the story. Some seem to believe that there was some need for a "level playing field" in how the characters were handled, when that was so clearly the point.
Well, somebody certainly isn't getting it. Oh well.
..and that would be the people who are looking at a clear, long-used story structure through the lens of their sociopolitical need to see "injustice" to a character where none exists.
And here is something else you're apparently not getting. Well at lest there is consistency in it.
That is not a problem, and was not for the success of the story when originally published. This is a comic story with a direct point, not a run-on speech from NPR.
The impasse in this discussion boils down to whether or not you care about barbara being used as a simple plot device between the hero and villian. Clearly one side cares and the other doesn't. The story is thirty years old and isnt going to be rewritten so what's the point of griping about it? Even if you hate it, the comic universe has been changed and she's batgirl again.
From the looks of the doc on youtube they're keeping her shooting and humiliation in the film while adding a bit of a prequal to it where we get to see batgirl in action before the joker escapes. In my opinion this makes sense as it helps add neccessary backstory for those not familiar with the character while keeping the integrity of the source material.
From the looks of the doc on youtube they're keeping her shooting and humiliation in the film while adding a bit of a prequal to it where we get to see batgirl in action before the joker escapes. In my opinion this makes sense as it helps add neccessary backstory for those not familiar with the character while keeping the integrity of the source material.
One night only theatrical release on July 25th!
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batma...e-a-one-night-only-theatrical-release-a142439
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batma...e-a-one-night-only-theatrical-release-a142439
Agreed. I find it odd anyone would want to play revisionist / cheerleader for imagined grievances on this story when the only reason this animated version is being produced is based on the clear success of the original story. It succeeded then, and it has a lasting legacy as a powerful chapter in Batman history. That's not easy to achieve in comics--in fact, it is incredibly rare. So, it must be acknowledged why TKJ as adaptation is happening, instead of trying to alter one of the few modern comic classics--its essence--to answer the aforementioned imagined grievance.
It's not an "imagined grievance", I've seen it in brought up before in discussions about the mistreatment of women in comics in the past. I'm honestly in shock that anyone would actually be OK with what happened to Barbara in TKJ. I could see not feeling as strongly about it as I do, but for people to actually argue that there is nothing wrong with it is just unbelievable to me.
It also would not be changing the essence of the story, all it would do is give a character a little more to do in the story. I'm not necessarily talking about turning this into a story all about her, just give us a couple more scenes from her perspective and show us how what happened to her affected her.
I think when a story like this is being adapted, and there is the opportunity to make some changes that would improve a disappointing aspect of that story, is the perfect time to discuss this kind of thing.
It also would not be changing the essence of the story, all it would do is give a character a little more to do in the story. I'm not necessarily talking about turning this into a story all about her, just give us a couple more scenes from her perspective and show us how what happened to her affected her.
I think when a story like this is being adapted, and there is the opportunity to make some changes that would improve a disappointing aspect of that story, is the perfect time to discuss this kind of thing.
In Carpenter's film, there wre no women characters at all--yet it doesn't seem as old fashioned as the original from the 50's--where you had women--but in typical roles.
I have no problem with men hardly being seen in the new Ghostbusters movie--although that isn't all that likely either. Lots of ways to tell stories.
I have no problem with men hardly being seen in the new Ghostbusters movie--although that isn't all that likely either. Lots of ways to tell stories.
And this has what to do with The Killing Joke?