|Bootymarch - 2016-04-30 |
:20, :43, :53
I only ever read it once about 5 years ago, thought i forgot what it looked like entirely but those panels are simply unforgettable I guess.
What's worse, the fact that they've seemed to just trace those really iconic joker frames, with the rest being stock batman:tas, or that kevin conroy is apparently just not or doesnt wanna be the guy anymore...
meh the long halloween was better anyway.
How was 1:05 even allowed to escape into the real world?
If this was going to be some sort of finale to Conroy and Hamil...it doesn't look like it is worthy. I know the animators have probably given it their all...but I swear there seems to be something sterile about the frames.
It's like animation uncanny valley to me. They're trying for an edgy grim dark joker but the style is too simple and cartoony, especially the other charecters around him.
Not that it's impossible to do it that way, but the person in charge of animation just doesn't seem to have the ability.
|Bootymarch - 2016-04-30 |
*spoilers for killing joke*
please tell me that monologue was delivered before barbara gordon gets shot
|lotsmoreorcs - 2016-04-30 |
if they fucking exploit the ambiguity of the original ending because of all those think pieces that came out around 2014 so people can write more think pieces about it in 2016 i'll crash this whole fucking plane with NO SURVIVORS
follow up: one of my earliest memories is seeing BG get it in the flour sac after stumbling across a first edition back in the day
If you by "ambiguity" you mean "did Batman kill the Joker at the end", the answer is pretty clearly no; any "ambiguity" is the 3dgy desire for a darker interpretation.
Even Moore's script contains this note:
"HE AND THE JOKER ARE GOING TO KILL EACH OTHER ONE DAY. IT'S PREORDAINED. THEY MAY AS WELL ENJOY THIS ONE RARE MOMENT OF CONTACT WHILE IT LASTS."
Why would any rational person with even the most tenuous grasp on storytelling think that proves anything?
The impression I was left with after reading the 08 reprint (with various commentaries) is that nobody who worked on it (including Moore) liked this book and Bolland might have drawn the ending the way he did to explicitly make it more ambiguous and spice up a story he obviously had several qualms about.
I do agree, however, that the speculation is obnoxious. Characterizations in comic books are notoriously twisted piles of shit from one book to the next, which is why it's wrong to judge a comic based on it's adherence to continuity. At any given point, you're less than five years from a total universe wipe. They probably just released a book last month where your favorite character does something completely out of character, but it's ok because that's CockMongrel from the alternate universe where everything is exactly the same except "edgier" so we can tell a darker story without polluting every other book we publish. When they do a universe wipe and everything published before becomes non-canon, they further muddy the waters by constantly referencing things that aren't supposed to be canon anymore.
You could literally get a doctorate in comic book studies and still not be able to untangle the mess they make out of this shit.
CockMongrel was ruined in the 90's when he went to Edge comics.
|memedumpster - 2016-04-30 |
I've been told this is the new standard of animation quality for DC. None.
Compare it to this (if you want to be more depressed about it) :
|cognitivedissonance - 2016-04-30 |
Bruce Timm is producer, so I have some hope. It's a shame they didn't animate it in his style, it would've worked so much better.
|baleen - 2016-04-30 |
I think this was the first "graphic novel" I ever bought. It was a completely random purchase, I just saw it in the comic store when it came out and got it. I think it was one of the last graphic novels I ever bought too.
It's really not a good comic in a lot of ways. It hails from the era when DC was trying way too hard to show it's not just for kids, like a teenage boy trying to impress his friends by talking about all the sex he wants to do with Natalie Portman. Alan Moore's works always seem to have this rapey tone to them, whatever other positive qualities they have.
|Bort - 2016-04-30 |
Even if you treat "The Killing Joke" as an out-of-continuity tale, it doesn't work if Batman kills the Joker. Remember when Jim Gordon told Batman to bring the Joker in and let the justice system take care of him? If that didn't happen -- if Batman murdered in Jim's name -- then not only does that tarnish Gordon's victory (i.e. he didn't let a bad day break him), it also requires Gordon to do something about Batman murdering for him.
I guess you can say none of that matters, because themes and consequences and structure are for pussies.
TL;DR my comment above:
What makes you think that any kind of logic or sense of Batman's characterization you have (or Moore has) has any validity given the diarrhea they routinely make of these things?
I did read your comment above (and screwed up the reply JHMf style), but to answer your question: one of the very few constants about Batman over the past 70-odd years is that he doesn't kill. The Joker is even famous as the example of the guy Batman would be most justified in killing, yet doesn't.
It doesn't mean that it would be impossible for a story to be written where Batman kills -- until it was retconned in "Batman: Year Three" (I think), Batman totally killed the KGBeast -- but in any case where there happens to be "ambiguity", the answer is vastly more likely to be: no, he didn't kill that other person.
There is always a contingent that will insist on interpreting any story to match their preferred theory, no matter how flimsy the justification. Karl Pilkington thinks that the guy in Eric Clapton's "Wonderful Tonight" is a quadriplegic because at the party everyone's turning around to look, and later the woman helps him to bed. Likewise, Batman killed the Joker in "The Killing Joke", and the fact that the Joker was still alive the next month in other comics doesn't change that.
|Nikon - 2016-04-30 |
I hope the finished version of the film has more frames per second than this preview.
|TeenerTot - 2016-04-30 |
This looks like poo.
I think the original BTAS character designs are better. That show was certainly animated better.
This reminds me of how good Batman the Animated Series was with its design choices. The designs of the characters and especially the backgrounds played to the strengths and really masked the weaknesses of the overseas animation studios they used at the time. This looks like redraws of famous frames from the comic bridged by cheesy art that could have come from a 70's Filmation cartoon, with backgrounds that were whipped up in Photoshop in 10 minutes. I know they make lots of bad direct-to-video stuff aimed at comic nerds and I'm not even a huge fan of The Killing Joke but it's famous and it's like do it right or just don't.
|Two Jar Slave - 2016-05-01 |
Uh oh. This looks awful and the acting sounds awful. Too bad, I guess, but I was never a big fan of The Killing Joke anyway. It seemed like a crappy first draft of V for Vendetta, which was also okay but not great.
|Quad9Damage - 2016-05-02 |
I know official trailers for CGI-heavy schlock are routinely released before rendering is completed, so the dinosaurs or robots look like CD-ROM games circa 1994 or whatever. Is it possible that the animation here isn't finished?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|