The Dark Knight Michael Jai White Cast in TDK

[Keyser Sushi]

That depends. It worked for Zsasz. I love Zsasz, and while I would have preferred he see a larger role, I would rather him have his two minutes screentime than never be seen in this franchise at all. I also recognize it won't work for everyone (I would hate to see Black Mask wasted on a cameo). But you may notice that the name "Gamble" appeared nowhere in my post. That is because I am not speaking of this role specifically, I was only speaking to your comments about new ideas.

Aha. Well, my comments about new ideas were designed to make a point in the simplest way possible. So an oversimplification? Sure, but I made my point, and that was all I was trying to do.

Are you sure? I'd only be saying the latter if the character was ruined during his cameo role. The former I might not say at all: certain characters I am not interested in sympathizing with. I want to understand a character. Whether they are deserving of sympathy is something that follows from that. Understanding is easily established, even in small roles, by competent writers.

And yet you used the word "sympathize," as I recall, with reference to Galactus. At any rate, that's neither here nor there.

You talk as if I am speaking in absolutes, but I am not. Would I have been upset if Grissom was replaced by Rupert Thorne and got whacked? Not really. Somebody else, though, would be upset and I get that. But In general I suspect such a move would have been approved. Falcone's situation was similar, after all, and everyone approved of that.

I don't disagree, but again, just making a point.

The problem here is that you assume he'll be used later. This is probably not true.

Well, it depends what character we're talking about. I mean never in my wildest dreams did I think we'd get Ra's al Ghul on film, but we did, and with Liam Neeson in the role, no less. So much like Sean Connery, I'll never say never again.

Not, not really. A much more accurate term would be a continuity revamp. As usual, it is all about degrees: a continuity revamp is retconning the original history and adjusting it. This is what films do. A Elseworlds tale is Batman getting a Green Lantern ring, Steel being unrelated to Superman, and Catwoman being some woman who comes back from the dead and sniffs catnip. In other words, while there will always be a need for adjustment, the closer to the comics the better.

Well, if that's how you want to look at it, sure. But DKR is considered Elseworlds and all it is, is just an idea that Batman would go off the deep end when he got older. Which is in a sense just a hypothetical future. Or "All-Stars" which is out-of-continuity and therefore basically just an Elseworlds too, although it doesn't change the basic facts of anything, it just Millerizes everything to the extreme. Likewise, I don't consider films a "continuity revamp" per se because they have no bearing on the comics beyond what the comics choose to import (like Anton Furst's Gotham for a brief time in the 90's). It's just an alternate telling of the story.

Please find the place where I said "They should not make up supporting characters." I am only explaining why a desire to adhere to existing characters is understandable. Personally, I fall somewhere in between because I approach it on a case-by-case basis (Finch good, Rachel bad, Grissom acceptable but unnecessary).

As usual I give tings more levity than you do. Finch good, Rachel good, Grissom acceptable, bad guy in Superman IV, so very very bad. t:

 

[itsthebatman]

Orpheus and Onyx are black. Of course, Orpheus is dead, and where is Onyx now (I don't read the monthlies)?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Like Saint said, they did it for Zsasz and I don't recall any of you complaining. But once I thought about it, it's cool if they can make a new character that works. I did like the inclusion of Max Schrek in Batman Returns.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Orpheus and Onyx are black. Of course, Orpheus is dead, and where is Onyx now (I don't read the monthlies)?

Selina Kyle was black for about 30 seconds (Year One).

 

[Mr. Socko]

Selina Kyle was black for about 30 seconds (Year One).

Pitof

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Pitof

Let's not go there. Anyway wasn't Halle called Patience Price or something like that?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Let's not go there. Anyway wasn't Halle called Patience Price or something like that?

Yeah. I don't know what was up with that, or the entire film for that matter.

 

[itsthebatman]

Selina Kyle was black for about 30 seconds (Year One).

She wasn't black, was she?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

She wasn't black, was she?

 

[Crook]

She wasn't black, was she?

Just the colorist getting confused. He saw the girl dressed in raggedy clothing, with a buzzcut, and living in a ghetto. So he figured, "eh, must be black".

 

[itsthebatman]

Just the colorist getting confused. He saw the girl dressed in raggedy clothing, with a buzzcut, and living in a ghetto. So he figured, "eh, must be black".

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Saint]

And yet you used the word "sympathize," as I recall, with reference to Galactus.

I don't recall ever saying that. I know somebody else did, but I don't believe I did. Galactus is, however, one of the characters I believe is deserving of sympathy. He performs a vital function in the universe, and has to live with the fact that it causes the deaths of countless billions. Moreover, he constantly has ignorant heroes gunning for him because they're too stupid to realize he's necessary.

Many people think sympathy ruins characters who should be threatening, but this is because many people are wrong. We sympathize with Darth Vader, but he's still threatening. I sympathtized with Connor on Angel, but he was still a terrible force to be reckoned with. In Ed Brubaker's "The Books of Doom" mini-series (anyone who hasn't read this is to be pitied) Dr. Doom was extremely sympathetic, and yet I have never been more convinced of the potency of his wrath. Note that this paragraph is not in response to anything you said, just me pre-emptively addressing anyone who bothers to say "Villains can't be sympathetic 'cause they're EVIL!"

Well, if that's how you want to look at it, sure. But DKR is considered Elseworlds and all it is, is just an idea that Batman would go off the deep end when he got older. Which is in a sense just a hypothetical future.

Possible futures are an anomaly.

Or "All-Stars" which is out-of-continuity and therefore basically just an Elseworlds too, although it doesn't change the basic facts of anything, it just Millerizes everything to the extreme.

"Extreme" being the operative word here.

Likewise, I don't consider films a "continuity revamp" per se because they have no bearing on the comics beyond what the comics choose to import (like Anton Furst's Gotham for a brief time in the 90's). It's just an alternate telling of the story.

I wasn't talking about their impact on the comics, I was talking about the comparable degree of change.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Just the colorist getting confused. He saw the girl dressed in raggedy clothing, with a buzzcut, and living in a ghetto. So he figured, "eh, must be black".

What, is that the official explanation?

 

[TheBatman072]

She looks Latin to me.

 

[Juanigi]

who knows, maybe gamble will run a royal flush gang without the silly card costumes

 

[itsthebatman]

What, is that the official explanation?

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Savage]

who knows, maybe gamble will run a royal flush gang without the silly card costumes

You know, that doesn't sound half bad.

 

[itsthebatman]

Many people think sympathy ruins characters who should be threatening, but this is because many people are wrong. We sympathize with Darth Vader, but he's still threatening. I sympathtized with Connor on Angel, but he was still a terrible force to be reckoned with. In Ed Brubaker's "The Books of Doom" mini-series (anyone who hasn't read this is to be pitied) Dr. Doom was extremely sympathetic, and yet I have never been more convinced of the potency of his wrath. Note that this paragraph is not in response to anything you said, just me pre-emptively addressing anyone who bothers to say "Villains can't be sympathetic 'cause they're EVIL!"

Well, I think the backstory certainly weakens Darth Vader - he was just a whiny teenager, in the end. I think excessive backstory and explanation can certainly diminish a character's impact - the Hannibal Lecter of 'Red Dragon' and 'Silence of the Lambs' is far more compelling than the one in 'Hannibal' (I haven't bothered with Hannibal Rising).
Did you not find Conner, like,extremely annoying? Man, I hated him.
I haven't read The Books of Doom. . But then again, I've never read anything to do with the Fantastic Four.t:

 

[DV8]

given his talent in martial arts, we might see a mob boss that's actually able to face-off w/ batman mano-e-mano (sp?)

 

[Steelsheen]

i thought that was just shadow or the effects of the neon lights in the area

 

[nightwing07]

Nightwing: Looking at porn again, Bruce??
Batman: FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHEN WILL YOU LEARN TO KNOCK!?!?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I don't recall ever saying that. I know somebody else did, but I don't believe I did. Galactus is, however, one of the characters I believe is deserving of sympathy. He performs a vital function in the universe, and has to live with the fact that it causes the deaths of countless billions. Moreover, he constantly has ignorant heroes gunning for him because they're too stupid to realize he's necessary.

So Galactus is like wildfires, calving icebergs, loggers and natural predators?
Interesting...

Many people think sympathy ruins characters who should be threatening, but this is because many people are wrong. We sympathize with Darth Vader, but he's still threatening. I sympathtized with Connor on Angel, but he was still a terrible force to be reckoned with. In Ed Brubaker's "The Books of Doom" mini-series (anyone who hasn't read this is to be pitied) Dr. Doom was extremely sympathetic, and yet I have never been more convinced of the potency of his wrath. Note that this paragraph is not in response to anything you said, just me pre-emptively addressing anyone who bothers to say "Villains can't be sympathetic 'cause they're EVIL!"

Hehehe... well part of me says that, but it's not unilaterally true. I mean, there are some villains I never want to sympathise with. On the other hand, many of them are definitely more interesting when we do. I'm going to comment on this to my buddy itsthebatman in a minute, so I'll save it for that post...

Possible futures are an anomaly.

Okay.

"Extreme" being the operative word here.

Well yes. But Frank Miller is always extreme, it's what he does. The guy is nuts, and I love his work, but his Batman stories I can only love with the corollary attached that they are not in continuity and never should be.

I wasn't talking about their impact on the comics, I was talking about the comparable degree of change.

Okay. I guess that's why you said what you said about All-Stars, as well. All I will say is that regardless of the degree of change, considering that the movies are not in continuity with the comics, I consider them Elseworlds.

 

[nightwing07]

hush batman best
than mike turner's batman no doubt

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Well, I think the backstory certainly weakens Darth Vader - he was just a whiny teenager, in the end.

I just wanted to comment on this, my friend. The point of Darth Vader's story has always been fall and redemption. The idea that he was a good person who became bad and then good again has always been a central theme of Star Wars.

So I'm not sure what you're saying the problem is with Vader's backstory - is it the fact that he wasn't always evil, or is it the fact that when he wasn't evil he wasn't likeable? Because one point I can more or less concede, the other I can't.

Although even Vader's whininess is consistent with the Star Wars story. Remember that Luke was basically a whiney teenager in ANH and ESB, right? When you watch them in numerical order 1-6 (as I have done, that's a hell of an experience) the fact is that Luke's story mirrors Anakin's, so you watch Luke make these stupid decisions and if you put aside your knowledge of how the story comes out, you realize how close Luke came to complete disaster. So Vader's backstory really draws the Luke/Vader conflict more clearly, and when watching 4-6 you keep seeing Luke do these things and you say, "damn, that's just what his Daddy would have done." And thus when Luke shows up wearing black, choking Gammorreans and threatening Jabba the Hutt's life ("Last mistake YOU'LL ever make!") you realize that Luke is not acting as a Jedi should. He's doing dangerous, wicked things.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

hush batman best
than mike turner's batman no doubt

WTF is wrong with you?