Even if that were true, so?
It was also compelling.
Superman didn’t land in the Soviet Union, but he did in an Elseworld story that was great.
Joker Origin Story Announced
- Thread starter Starbreaker
- Start date
Even if that were true, so?
It was also compelling.
Superman didn’t land in the Soviet Union, but he did in an Elseworld story that was great.
Also Superman doesn't exist, so there is no ethical obligation to stray true to any one version.
So, a story can never be reimagined, mythos expanded upon, etc.? What a sad state of affairs then.
So if they made Batman a heroin addicted Jazz critic, you'd be fine with it?
Reluctantly.
And then the director himself has to come out and outright tell us because he realized Arthur didn't come off as 100% in the right like he wanted.
Cumberbatch was always the first choice, Phoenix was one of the replacements before Cumberbatch changed his mind and joined up.
1. Is it compelling?
2. Does it destroy other versions? (Spoilers: it doesn't.)
Honestly, all this sturm and drang over a movie... Why is it so personal to you? Is someone forcing you to watch it over and over?
If the story is told well and develops the character, then yes. It isn't ruining any prior versions (which is impossible, given the number of Batman iterations out there) and is an opportunity to explore and comment upon real world challenges.
These characters are not locked in stone. They are similar to mythology and adapt to the age. It's up to the audience t watch or don't watch, as they see fit.
I haven't read this, but I just Googled Batman as an addict and came up with Batman: Venom. It's written by Dennis O'Neil, who wrote the story of Speedy's heroin addiction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbirds_Don't_Fly].
I don't believe that Bruce Wayne, the heroin addict is a giant leap from there. I've personally known addicts who all had fewer personal issues than Bruce Wayne has in pretty much every iteration.
As for the jazz critic part, Bruce Wayne, the guest star critic on a Gotham radio jazz show could easily work, especially in connection to some charity somehow.
Batman, the heroin addicted jazz critic ain't a deal breaker.
The liberties taken with the source materials in the MCU are wide enough to drive a tank through.
Agreed. There's only been a handful of moments that have been lifted directly from the source material, even stories that bear the name of a story from the comics. Age of Ultron was completely in name only. The only moment from The Winter Soldier that was lifted directly from the comics was the "who the hell is Bucky" scene. Civil War lifted a couple images from classic comic stories, but they went their own way with the story. They took Cap's "no, you move" speech to Spider-Man and had Peggy deliver it to Steve from beyond the grave instead. The only moment from Infinity War that was from the source material was the snap and one line from Ebony Maw that was originally spoken by Mephisto in the comics
Last edited:
They don't go as far as INO level storytelling, though.
I've been reading comics since the mid-Sixties, so from my point of view they have repeatedly.
Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are not INO?
Well, when there are people like you who desperately want to delegitimize the movie, and those articles smearing the movie as a glorification of Incels and Trumpians were around before it was even released, I guess he felt obligated to clarify. And I don't blame him.
Sure.
So, MCU Thanos is in love with Death?
So you would be fine if they made Alfred a child molester and Batman a heroin addicted Jazz critic?
He was fine spreading it, and the overpopulation thing was something he mentioned in the comics once.
Have you checked out the animated movie "Batman: Gotham by Gaslight"?
... James Gordon.
It was fine. It was an Elseworld. It worked for that story. I personally really liked it.
Once. As a ruse. But they still didn't include the character's literal love for Death in the movie. Why? It couldn't be that they were ashamed of the source material, could it?
MCU Thanos is a boring cartoon.
It was okay, but as an accepted AU. They did Harvey Dent rotten in that flick.
No, they drew from various bits. Even him "retiring" to be a farmer.
That's just an excuse by folks who can't see past that he isn't human and they put real effort into his look. As opposed to just painting Brolin purple.
He's better than FOX Magneto and not as lazily written as Nolan Joker. Or as ridiculous as Sherlock Moriarty. Or as one-note as Nolan Talia/Bane/Ra's Al Ghul.
And he isn't a generic "loner becomes a psycho because of how over-the-top awful everyone around him is" character either, like Arthur.
Last edited: