CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DC Cinematic Universe Discussion - Page 48

post #2351 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

And good gods, how do the years and years and years of years of positive feminism built into the DNA of Buffy get forgotten because of a miscalculated line of dialogue from Black Widow?

The narcissism of small differences.
post #2352 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I think when you position yourself as a filmmaker - activist and you choose to kill off one half of television's most visible, longest-running gay relationship, you had better come up with a better answer than "welp, we wanted to cause willow pain." 

 

Come on man, and I'm the first to rip on the dude's writing, but to insist that he shouldn't tell his story because NO, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY! is a bit much for me.

post #2353 of 3698
I have this issue with Brokeback Mountain. At the time, it was the most prominent mainstream gay love story, but it ends in tragedy. It bothered me because I personally wanted something more life-affirming to show that two men can carry on something real and just as valid as any straight couple. However, that ending works for that story and those characters and as a viewer, my role is passive.

Since I had no part in its making or a belief that it should tell its story in a way that I could be fully comfortable with, I don't hold that decision against them. As a drama, an approximation of real life, what happens to Jack Twist works. People die, often unpleasantly, and for reasons that are very difficult to accept.
post #2354 of 3698
Grab Boone some Choose Your Own Adventures and let's go back to bitching.
post #2355 of 3698

Allow me to clarify and stop calling things dumb: 

When you're a creator of a work of art or of fiction, particularly genre fiction, particularly a work that means something to people, I believe you have a responsibility to your audience. Not to your fans, to your audience. And that responsibility is even greater when your work has a resonance or a meaning that is unique to that audience - to the context in which it was created. Particularly on a show like Buffy, which made its bones by being a story of outsiders, for outsiders, by an outsider. By people, kids, who felt different.

 

Tara and Willow were literally the longest-running gay couple on television in 2001, and that's not even getting into the very clear bi-erasure that happened when Willow came out of the closet (dif. issue). But that meant something to people. 

 

I think season six is bad for a lot of reasons, but I do think it has some merits, particularly with the Trio predicting GamerGate and Pepes by about fifteen years. Those guys are fantastically realized. And I can kind of see where Whedon was going - you have Warren, this sort of totemic modern misogynist figure, shooting Buffy and Tara. Like, the phallic imagery alone is incredibly powerful there.

 

But "kill your gays" is and continues to be a thing. It was even more prevalent a thing back then, after nearly 20+ years of AIDS narratives, where LGBT people weren't allowed to be happy or have normal lives or stable relationships. And that's not even getting into the "women in refrigerators" trope, which he also would have been aware of, being a comics guy.  And Whedon, being a tv writer, probably knew about this - and chose to violently end TV's longest running gay relationship anyway. 

 

I can see why he did it. I wish that he hadn't. But he was also very surprised and very snarky at the time when people called him out on it. He - as is often his tendency - reacted with scorn, skepticism. And his defense really boiled down to "Well, we wanted it to be a gun, because mundane, and we wanted to drive Willow into this dark place, and this would be the only thing that would do it." Which, fine. That's his right.

 

But as someone that had set himself up and continues to position himself as a creator concerned about his characters and his fans, that has this deep knowledge of television history and the history of LGBT characters, in retrospect, I wish he had a little bit more to bring to the table than that.

 

I did like that they brought Tara back for the 20th reunion EW shoot. That was really nice. 

post #2356 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

...which in turn was due in no small part to Whedon's ability to successfully write and direct the team up film.

 

Your criticism of WB's logic is weird.

 

My criticism is that I don't think there was any logic behind it other than "Get the guy that made the superhero movies that made money"

 

Broader point is me going all tinfoil-hat, and it's already been touched on:

 

Whedon seems like such a 180 from the Snyderverse, so does that mean they're either getting nervous about JL, Wonderwoman, and Aquapants?

 

Or are they're hiring Whedon without really knowing what else comes with him (like the whirwind going on here).

post #2357 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I have this issue with Brokeback Mountain. At the time, it was the most prominent mainstream gay love story, but it ends in tragedy. It bothered me because I personally wanted something more life-affirming to show that two men can carry on something real and just as valid as any straight couple. However, that ending works for that story and those characters and as a viewer, my role is passive.

Since I had no part in its making or a belief that it should tell it's story in a way that I could be fully comfortable with, I don't hold that decision against them. As a drama, an approximation of real life, what happens to Jack Twist works. People die, often unpleasantly, and for reasons that are very difficult to accept.

 

I agree with this completely. I can be critical of something and still dig it - still want it to be better. 

post #2358 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

My criticism is that I don't think there was any logic behind it other than "Get the guy that made the superhero movies that made money"

Broader point is me going all tinfoil-hat, and it's already been touched on:

Whedon seems like such a 180 from the Snyderverse, so does that mean they're either getting nervous about JL, Wonderwoman, and Aquapants?

Or are they're hiring Whedon without really knowing what else comes with him (like the whirwind going on here).

Were they not already planning superhero pictures that fell outside the Murderverse, like "Shazam"? I don't know that this says anything about the direction of the League characters.

I do think there's, "It would be nice to have a hugely profitable movie that people also don't think is stir-fried dogshit-- get the guy who's done that."
post #2359 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Allow me to clarify and stop calling things dumb: 

 

(Clipped for space, not disrespect)

 

I get what you're saying. And part of me agrees. But what you seem to be advocating is agenda over story. Fundamentally, the same sort of approach that makes most religious-based fiction and shows/movies suck: their primary goal is furthering an agenda, rather than telling the story of these specific characters.

 

As an aspiring writer, I understand and to a large degree accept the "responsibility to the audience" thing. But my first and foremost focus is on the story, the characters, and what feels right to me.  Not what's socially responsible or helpful to a teen stuck out in podunk Iowa (though I would hope in some way it was helpful). That means I'm more than likely going to make some story/plot choices that run very counter to what I might do if I'm always holding my responsibility to the audience up like the holy grail.

post #2360 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

(Clipped for space, not disrespect)

 

I get what you're saying. And part of me agrees. But what you seem to be advocating is agenda over story. Fundamentally, the same sort of approach that makes most religious-based fiction and shows/movies suck: their primary goal is furthering an agenda, rather than telling the story of these specific characters.

 

As an aspiring writer, I understand and to a large degree accept the "responsibility to the audience" thing. But my first and foremost focus is on the story, the characters, and what feels right to me.  Not what's socially responsible or helpful to a teen stuck out in podunk Iowa (though I would hope in some way it was helpful). That means I'm more than likely going to make some story/plot choices that run very counter to what I might do if I'm always holding my responsibility to the audience up like the holy grail.

 

As a writer myself, who has thought a lot about this, I'm more advocating for awareness and context, not necessarily agenda over story. As a writer, I/you should absolutely do what feels right. But I believe work exists within the world, too, and that a writer should be aware of the context in which the work is being created. Any writer is gonna do things that are going to piss people off. But I believe in a balance. 

post #2361 of 3698
Why would they get Whedon for a teen supergirl? Makes no sense, must be all money.
post #2362 of 3698
First Patty Jenkins. Now Joss Whedon.

Prepare yourselves for an Alan Taylor directed Green Lantern.
post #2363 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

You really think Whedon, one of the modern kings of Male Feminism and fridging, Whedon, of the "let's kill half of the longest running gay couple on tv because reasons!," Whedon, of the "a woman's not fully a woman unless she can have kids," Whedon, modern pioneer of the "badass tiny waifu girl who's messed up in the head, thus robbing her of any sexual autonomy," is better than, oh, I don't know, any female filmmaker working? 

 

Killing Joke should be nowhere near this. It should be Batgirl of Burnside. But it shouldn't be Whedon.

 

as you can tell I have feelings about this. 


PURITY!!!!

post #2364 of 3698
Alan Taylor is in director's jail, that's why he's back on GoT this year. If the WB goes for a GoT director for any project, it's going to be Miguel Sapochnik.
post #2365 of 3698
Where he belongs!
post #2366 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post
 


PURITY!!!!

 

The cleansing fire...much like a Lazarus Pit.

post #2367 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munson View Post

Why would they get Whedon for a teen supergirl? Makes no sense, must be all money.

 

I didn't realize they were doing non-murderverse stories.  Carry on.

post #2368 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Alan Taylor is in director's jail, that's why he's back on GoT this year. If the WB goes for a GoT director for any project, it's going to be Miguel Sapochnik.

I was referring to a super group of people that worked for Marvel, unhappily!

The Jilted League.

Hiring Patty Jenkins in the first place was to troll Marvel. Getting Joss Whedon involved only further proves that hypothesis.
post #2369 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post
 

 

I didn't realize they were doing non-murderverse stories.  Carry on.


Are they?  I thought Dwayne Johnson had said that Shazam was now going to be part of the current DCCU, and reports I'm seeing are saying that Whedon's film will in fact be part of the "extended universe" of the DC movies.  Or somesuch.

 

I think these are all murderverse....at least at the moment.  Kinda like at one point way early in conception what became Man of Steel probably included a Ryan Reynolds Hal Jordan cameo somewhere.

post #2370 of 3698

Not holding my breath here about this.

Whedon's half full/half empty brand of feminism seems to fit with the DC Murderverse, and I cant see him working well with WB after his problems with Marvel.

post #2371 of 3698
You really think this will be as grim and gritty as MoS or BvS? There's no way.
post #2372 of 3698
A cheerful Batgirl is going to look like Squirrel Girl in comparison to the Batman they've set up already.
post #2373 of 3698

Are you guys really concerned if Whedon is capable of fitting the DCEU's house style? Isn't that a common criticism against Marvel? Let Whedon make his own movie, with hopefully his contract specifying as little studio interference as possible. Get that final cut, Whedon!

 

I wonder if his unrealized comic book, Twist, announced in 2015 as a "female Victorian Batman" 6-issue mini-series that would have been published by Dark Horse, will have any influence on this?

post #2374 of 3698
Everything about this franchise worries me.
post #2375 of 3698

Didn't see this posted yet--apparently the movie is taking Gail Simone's New 52 run (AKA the apology from DC for why they were getting rid of Oracle) as its starting point:

 

http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/30/joss-whedon-batgirl-movie-barbara-gordon/

 

Which is fine with me--those were better Babs stories than what came after. I don't dislike Burnside Batgirl, I just think they're Steph Batgirl stories with red hair and a regression of Barbara Gordon's character. And I love Steph! So I wish they hadn't sidelined her to make Barbara act like her. And a Batgirl recovering from a crippling back injury does fit the DCEU as it's been portrayed thus far better than hipster Batgirl (Joker shooting Babs would be yet another thing for Batfleck to be bitter and disillusioned about.)

post #2376 of 3698

They need to throw Killing Joke in the trash generally, but that's me. 

post #2377 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

They need to throw Killing Joke in the trash generally, but that's me. 

 

Yup.

post #2378 of 3698

Killing Joke is the best thing to ever happen to Barbara Gordon as a character. Now, instead of truly dealing with what happened to her in that story, making it matter beyond the questionable shock value, and recreating her as a disabled superhero called Oracle (I've presented the "HAL exoskeleton" idea before), they've decided to fix her up and have her dress up again as a superfluous character with a Bat- prefix. 

 

What's more powerful as a statement: Erasing the Killing Joke from existence or having Barbara Gordon say - "Fuck that guy, I'm still here and I'm going to let him know with every breath that he can't beat me."? 

 

That to me is actually inspiring, maybe even moreso for fans who live with a disability.

post #2379 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

 

What's more powerful as a statement: Erasing the Killing Joke from existence or having Barbara Gordon say - "Fuck that guy, I'm still here and I'm going to let him know with every breath that he can't beat me."? 

 

You can do the exact same thing, except have her get injured a) fighting crime, by her own choice, and her own agency, b) not as part of something designed to cause a man pain, and c) sideline something responsible for a lot of really bad trends in comics.

 

You don't have to get rid of KJ. But you can certainly de-canonize it. 

post #2380 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

You can do the exact same thing, except have her get injured a) fighting crime, by her own choice, and her own agency, b) not as part of something designed to cause a man pain, and c) sideline something responsible for a lot of really bad trends in comics.

 

You don't have to get rid of KJ. But you can certainly de-canonize it. 

 

De-canonizing it is in effect, getting rid of it. Killing Joke isn't responsible for any bad trends, no more than Halloween is responsible for a gluttony of slashers. The people that wrote those shitty comics are responsible for their shitty comic writing. Full stop.

 

Also, Batwoman and Batgirl were created so that Batman and Robin wouldn't look gay, not exactly the purest origins. Barbara was only ever fun when Yvonne Craig played her and only ever interesting after Alan Moore did what he decided to do.

post #2381 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

 

De-canonizing it is in effect, getting rid of it. Killing Joke isn't responsible for any bad trends, no more than Halloween is responsible for a gluttony of slashers. The people that wrote those shitty comics are responsible for their shitty comic writing. Full stop.

 

Quote:
 “Look, this is what you can do with these stale old concepts. You can turn them on their heads. You can really wake them up. Don’t be so limited in your thinking. Use your imagination.” And, I was naively hoping that there’d be a rush of fresh and original work by people coming up with their own. But, as I said, [Killing Joke] was meant to be something that would liberate comics. Instead, it became this massive stumbling block that comics can’t even really seem to get around to this day. They’ve lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can’t get that back. And, they’re stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I’m not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.
--Alan Moore

 

I also don't see how decanonizing it - especially given how many different fucking backstories these characters have - "gets rid of it." Those stories are still out there. 

post #2382 of 3698

I'm more than familiar with Moore's position. He can take responsibility all he wants, but other people still have to follow suit on their own accord. I'm not one for canon, they can change what they want, but do I think Batgirl is an interesting character? No. Do I think Oracle is far cooler and more original and organic? Yep.

 

My argument is that Killing Joke should stand because irrespective of the reason Moore had her shot, it retroactively became a great origin for a new superhero.

post #2383 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

I'm more than familiar with Moore's position. He can take responsibility all he wants, but other people still have to follow suit on their own accord.

 

Your refusal to put art within a commercial or historical context is fascinating.

 

There's a lot of blame to go around with comics being grim n gritty. But you don't think any of that has to do with people going "hey, that sells, let's do more of that?" You don't think it has anything to do with DC and Marvel pushing this trend for decades? You don't think creators and writers for DC felt pressured to follow that trend? 

 

Again, not saying let's scrub KJ from the history of comics. But I think we can come up with a backstory for Gordon/Oracle/Batgirl that a) allows her more agency and b) doesn't fridge her. 

post #2384 of 3698
Oracle Barbara > Batgirl Barbara.

Just learn to deal with The Killing Joke. Joker shot Babs. She came back even stronger. You can choose to use it as empowering or wallow around and white knight a fictional character. Becoming a new, and basically the only, disabled superhero isn't empowering?
post #2385 of 3698

You can do a storyline where Barbara is injured and paralyzed while fighting crime that doesn't involve her sexual assault* and victimization in order to hurt another man. That is very nearly the TEXTBOOK definition of fridging.

post #2386 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Your refusal to put art within a commercial or historical context is fascinating.

 

There's a lot of blame to go around with comics being grim n gritty. But you don't think any of that has to do with people going "hey, that sells, let's do more of that?" You don't think it has anything to do with DC and Marvel pushing this trend for decades? You don't think creators and writers for DC felt pressured to follow that trend? 

 

Again, not saying let's scrub KJ from the history of comics. But I think we can come up with a backstory for Gordon/Oracle/Batgirl that a) allows her more agency and b) doesn't fridge her. 

 

Do not speak down to me. 

 

I take issue with the notion that one story should be held "responsible" for how other writers decided to piggyback on its success. I don't even like Star Wars, but I bristle every time I see people shit on it for everything that came in its wake. Every piece of art is / can be defined by its place in history, but it should also be judged apart from it.

 

Is fridging a thing? Yep, and I've seen and spoken about plenty of egregious examples of it. However, I think the Killing Joke provides an excellent framework for Barbara's story, one that really didn't even start before that book hit the stands.

post #2387 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

 

Do not speak down to me. 

 

I was pointing out you've made a similar argument - that art should be removed from its cultural context - twice in a single thread. I think that's fascinating, because it's such a particular line of thinking. I don't know how you got that as "speaking down to you," but you've never really liked me and have some weird issue with me, so whatever. 

post #2388 of 3698

I don't know you enough to have especially strong feelings about you. What you've often seen me take issue with is the way in which you present your opinions and arguments. That is what I'm responding to. I'm not asking you to change, or shape up, or fall in line with me, or whatever the fuck. None of that matters to me. You do you, boo.  

post #2389 of 3698

In my view Killing Joke itself is garbage, but Oracle was the best Barbara Gordon.

post #2390 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinslot View Post
 

In my view Killing Joke itself is garbage, but Oracle was the best Barbara Gordon.

 

Which is my argument - there is and can be a way to do Oracle and Babs Gordon w/o the awful aspects of KJ. 

post #2391 of 3698
You could but why? Again you have a character who has overcome a lot of adversity. What happened has led to a strong and interesting character. It's "problematic" nature shouldn't be changed because it's icky.
post #2392 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munson View Post

You could but why? Again you have a character who has overcome a lot of adversity. What happened has led to a strong and interesting character. It's "problematic" nature shouldn't be changed because it's icky.

 

Because maybe there are other ways to do "overcoming adversity" other than sexual assault and fridging? 

post #2393 of 3698

I'd be good with dropping the sexual torture aspect of KJ. Joker kidnapping and mortally wounding her gets the same point across without being gratuitous about it. It always felt excessive. Especially since the Joker has never really been a particularly sexual character to begin with. 

post #2394 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

I'd be good with dropping the sexual torture aspect of KJ. Joker kidnapping and mortally wounding her gets the same point across without being gratuitous about it. It always felt excessive. Especially since the Joker has never really been a particularly sexual character to begin with. 

 

It wouldn't change the fact that - and yes, I know, it would have come down to who opened the fucking door, oh my god whatever - she was still kidnapped and mortally wounded in order to cause a male character pain (i.e., fridging).

post #2395 of 3698
Of course there are. But it doesn't hurt to have a character who overcomes those things. Are there a lot of other characters who have? It's not like it needs to happen, but again it did and led to an interesting character. Let it be and have it remain as a reminder no need to whitewash it out.

Hell I always kind of assumed Gordon was sexually assualted too. He did have that dog collar on...
post #2396 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I think when you position yourself as a filmmaker - activist and you choose to kill off one half of television's most visible, longest-running gay relationship, you had better come up with a better answer than "welp, we wanted to cause willow pain." 

 

I can't wrap my head around how killing off half of "television's most visible, longest-running gay relationship" is this unforgivable trangression against gay representation, when to even be able to do that, you first have to create television's most visible, longest-running gay relationship. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

I think - and I know this is unpopular - but if you're a creator of a work of art, you have a responsibility to consider that work of art within the context of its time, and what it means to its audience. This is particularly resonant on TV, when characters grow and change over time. 

 

I don't think you're considering these works of art (Buffy or The Killing Joke) in the context of their times.  You're applying 2017 sensitivity standards to works and artists that were created/ing at a time before Male Feminism was a trending topic or "fridging" was a commonly understood term, and taking them to task for things that other people did later.  And I'm not saying they are incapable of fault because they predate modern debates on feminist representation, but...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

As a writer myself, who has thought a lot about this, I'm more advocating for awareness and context, not necessarily agenda over story. As a writer, I/you should absolutely do what feels right. But I believe work exists within the world, too, and that a writer should be aware of the context in which the work is being created. Any writer is gonna do things that are going to piss people off. But I believe in a balance. 

 

You're absolutely advocating for agenda over story. You said multiple times that in order for a specific creator to use a specific story point, they need to justify it against possible harm to your approved social agenda.  You're proscribing a fairly wide swath of violence from being "acceptable" for depiction with some inherently violent genres.  And that's okay, I guess.  I'd quibble about whether it's truly more respectful to treat a particular demographic with kids gloves when you're depicting them fictionally, and I don't think we'd ever fully agree on the exact point where sensitivity tips over into condescension.  But at least own up to it.  You're Social Justice Guy now.  And if Story Boy has to get beaten with a crowbar to further Social Justice Guy's arc, so be it.

post #2397 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munson View Post

Of course there are. But it doesn't hurt to have a character who overcomes those things. Are there a lot of other characters who have? It's not like it needs to happen, but again it did and led to an interesting character. Let it be and have it remain as a reminder no need to whitewash it out.

Hell I always kind of assumed Gordon was sexually assualted too. He did have that dog collar on...

 

I assumed that too.  But then, I'm confused as shit at how TKJ ever became part of the "normal" continuity, because between the Gordon's being molested, her being paralyzed, and Batman killing the Joker at the end, it always screamed Elseworld One-Off to me.

post #2398 of 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

I assumed that too.  But then, I'm confused as shit at how TKJ ever became part of the "normal" continuity, because between the Gordon's being molested, her being paralyzed, and Batman killing the Joker at the end, it always screamed Elseworld One-Off to me.

 

This also bugs the crap out of me, too, as it is very clearly an Elseworlds comic that's gotten folded into the main continuity. 

 

Schwartz, I see your points - I disagree with them - but I'm going to take some time and respond to them later, rather than fire a post at the end of the day. But I appreciate anyone - everyone - willing to engage on this. 

post #2399 of 3698
Aren't there like three Jokers? Maybe Batman just killed one of them.
post #2400 of 3698

I'd love to get the real scoop on Whedon's experience with Marvel. The man made one of the best Pop movies of all time with The Avengers, so the apparent meddling by the Suits for Age of Ultron is just inconceivable to me. 

Time was if an Director proving himself or herself with a real work of art (even Pop art), they would get more control, not less. See: Spielberg, Kubrick et al. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion