• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Punisher Short--Dirty Laundry

The only part of the short that I felt was off about Frank was his inaction while the kid was getting roughed up. Having been a father with a son I was a bit surprised he didn't take action until the kid had been bloodied up a bit. Those guys clearly needed Punishment for prior misdeeds they'd gotten away with anyway.
Overall though it was a very entertaining short.
 
Yeah, all that happening why he did laundry...I thought it was gonna be a parody.

He witnesses all that and worse, but someone steals his laundry...and then he snaps!

Ron Perlman sells indestrible bottles of Jack.
 
Reverend said:
^Because he's not Batman? This is why he's called 'The Punisher' and not 'The Preventer': he's not a defender of the weak, not does he try to stop crimes in progress, he acts in response to them. You can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet. He's in it for the retribution.
Click to expand...

And Wolverine doesn't really have the powers of a wolverine, but there's his name. But Punisher's shtick, like Batman, is to be such a deterrent that his very name would drive crime down, in effect preventing crime as well -- the big skull on his chest isn't just body armor in the comics, but also potent sign.

In any event, I still think this short was better made than either Punisher movies.

It was pretty clear to me that he saw what was probably about to happen very early on, but did nothing. He was very deliberate in waiting until the kid was at risk of suffering *permanent* injury before going to town. It's also worth remembering that this guy has seen a lot worse than a street rape and drug dealers beating up a child. He's not squeamish (see: broken bones.)
Click to expand...

However, the Punisher's not about comparing crimes. Yes, he obviously has a sense of scale and perspective there, but even moderate amounts of torture, which is arguably less heinous than any kind of rape, has set off Castle. Now, I won't go down the slippery slope of arguing "What's Worse?" but rape is rape, a serious and all-too-common crime, and I feel like any incarnation of the Punisher would've been set off by that alone.
 
I think that is what makes this short so interesting. It's a little bit of a character study on Frank Castle. What motivates Frank to act? Clearly he didn't intervene right away. He is most likely considering it and waiting until the last second to act, but he does finally act. Plus I think the use of "Why So Serious" was as I mentioned before was tremendous, but very deliberate on Jane's part to reflect the escalating and chaotic situation.
 
^
I think you answered your own question. From what I've read I got the same impression that Jane got tired of waiting and moved on. He does have to eat so he took other jobs.

I do agree with you about Punisher not being part of the Marvel Avengers movie universe that's being built. I would rather see a Punisher film, but even more so a Cinemax/Showtime TV series that's separate and based on Garth Ennis/Jason Aaron's Punisher books.
 
I'm not sure about that, maybe only if the fan film is for profit would be my guess. This just seems done for fun. That'd be an interesting question to try and answer.
 
Wlecome Back Frank! Nice follow on from Thomas Jane's movie of The Punisher - nice to see for once an accurate representation of what happens when glass bottle meets head! (not so much what happens when glass meets pavement though).

I haven't seen War Zone, but I think Ray Stevenson would have been better cast as Jack Reacher...

As for someone asking what a Dredd/Punisher crossover would be like - The Punisher would be a villain, end of.
 
Reverend said:
^Because he's not Batman? This is why he's called 'The Punisher' and not 'The Preventer': he's not a defender of the weak, not does he try to stop crimes in progress, he acts in response to them. You can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet. He's in it for the retribution.

It was pretty clear to me that he saw what was probably about to happen very early on, but did nothing. He was very deliberate in waiting until the kid was at risk of suffering *permanent* injury before going to town.
Click to expand...

Rape trauma isn't a permanent injury? Psychological damage aside, it didn't look like this was going to be the sort that doesn't involve physical violence as well...
 
Mr. Adventure said:
Disruptor said:
Ron Perlman sells indestrible bottles of Jack.
Click to expand...

I wondered a little about that but those big bottles are pretty thick I believe (don't usually buy those quantities myself) and was still full. We may need the Mythbusters.
Click to expand...

In real life if you hit someone in the head with a glass bottle, the skull breaks, not the bottle (like in most movies) - JD, being square and chunky, has nice thick corners that will do more damage without breaking.

It falling onto the pavement without breaking, though, that's another matter entirely!
 
Lonemagpie said:
Reverend said:
^Because he's not Batman? This is why he's called 'The Punisher' and not 'The Preventer': he's not a defender of the weak, not does he try to stop crimes in progress, he acts in response to them. You can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet. He's in it for the retribution.

It was pretty clear to me that he saw what was probably about to happen very early on, but did nothing. He was very deliberate in waiting until the kid was at risk of suffering *permanent* injury before going to town.
Click to expand...

Rape trauma isn't a permanent injury? Psychological damage aside, it didn't look like this was going to be the sort that doesn't involve physical violence as well...
Click to expand...

I was talking more about something physically debilitating (i.e. severed fingers, broken back, etc.), I wasn't attempting to place an inherent value of one kind of trauma over another.

Indeed, I think if anything that kid having to witness the brutal murder of about half a dozen people right in front of him probably did him more long term psychological damage than what that poor girl would have suffered though. Especially since Frank gives her instant catharsis by leaving the last part up to her. He just got a t-shirt.

But then what was the alternative? Do nothing? I suppose that's the point of Ron Perlman's character. Someone literally paralysed into inaction.
Lonemagpie said:
As for someone asking what a Dredd/Punisher crossover would be like - The Punisher would be a villain, end of.
Click to expand...

No question. Would be fun to see though. Like a lioness fighting a pissed off shark.

Actually, one might argue that they both follow the same basic creed, it's just that in Dredd's world, what he dose is legal. If Frank was a mega-city Judge, I don't think his character would change much...except maybe for a drastically reduced tolerance for sugar users. And conversely if Dredd lived in Frank's world well then there'd be two Punishers on the streets. ;)
 
Reverend said:
But then what was the alternative? Do nothing? I suppose that's the point of Ron Perlman's character. Someone literally paralysed into inaction.
Click to expand...

A very piognant observation. Perlman's character tried to do something against the violence once. Now he just gets to witness it, powerless to do more than lament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top