PeterDavid.net

SPOILER ALERT

Peter,

Yeah, the episode was great...but there was one part that I thought was a letdown. If memory serves, wasn't there at least one panel at the end of the book showing the "heart's desire" of the villian? I'm guessing the cartoon didn't want to show it because it would be too gruesome and/or inconsistant with the "All bad guys must be punished and punished well" philosophy, but as it was the ending was unsatisfying.

But hey, half an Alan Moore is better than none. And if you want Supergirl...word has it that an upcoming episode stars both her and THE QUESTION (!) in a story with manchurain Candidate overtones. Sign me up!

I thought it was great, though I never read the original story.

I'm assuming "Unlimited" is just the current season of Justice League, and not a spin-off -- I was hoping it was a spin-off that was intended to focus on 2nd-tier, if not 3rd-tier characters, and the pan over the crowd in the first episode (featuring Aztek, Red Tornado, and a bunch of Geoff Johns's JSA members, among others) helped lead me to this idea.

The new episode was fantastic as well, and seeing it was directly adapted from an Alan Moore story was pretty nice. I tend to like stories like that one, where there are no secret identities to protect. "Clark" and "Bruce" just adds to the feel that it's serious character exposition.

Batman was a bit silly in this story, I notice -- whining, "what do you get for the man who has everything?" I would think that another man who has everything might have some idea. Spring for a Super-computer or commission the building of the Supermobile. Sure, Supermanium doesn't exist post-Crisis, but you're millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne!

It didn't bother me, though. This was some good stuff.

With all the things going against it: The almost sacred and emotional attachment one developes over time to those "one of a kind" stories you never forget long after first reading it, the necessary evils of rewrites due to continuity no longer relevant, making a pretty gritty tale a bit more child friendly for the medium... with all that in mind ...writer J.M. Demeteis (I know I spelled that wrong) without a doubt captured the heart and soul of the story.

While I can't presume what Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (I got those right) might think of the final product, I'm inclined to believe they were pleased.

I know I was. I can't praise this episode enough

"Yeah, the episode was great...but there was one part that I thought was a letdown. If memory serves, wasn't there at least one panel at the end of the book showing the "heart's desire" of the villian?"

Yes, and I can take a couple of guesses as to why it was ambiguous instead.

The comic sequence depicted Mongul killing the JLAers, conquering the earth, and being worshipped. So effectively, from Mongul's POV, he won and was rewarded.

First of all, it might not have sat well with standards and practices that the villain does all this evil stuff and ends up feeling as if he triumphed, rather than being "punished." Second, part of what made it work in the comic was the narrative captions that not only summarized what was happening (there were no dialogue balloons) but had a bring-it-full-circle resonance to captions that were in the beginning of the story.

Based on all of that, they obviously decided simply to leave it nebulous. It avoids trying to replicate (unsuccessfully, no doubt) the Moore omniscient narrator captions, and it doesn't show Mongul "winning," even in his imagination.

PAD

I forgot to mention-- Jeffrey Combs is the voice of The Question. Did I mention I am so there?

Peter--your analysis is spot-on. Though, wouldn't it have been kinda cool if it had turned out that Mongul's greatest desire turned out to be something much like Superman's--a happy home, loving family, a daddy who hugged him, whatever? Like slapping it on Hitler and discovering that he really wanted to be the world's greatest watercolorist.

I thought the episode was great. The only thing missing was the "almost intelligent, huh?" line from the end of the comic.

This episode blew me away.

I've been often disappointed by the animated Justice League, but this week's episode was absolutely fantastic, capturing the spirit of the original Alan Moore story faithfully.

When I saw that the episode was written by J.M. DeMatteis, from the story by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, I knew I was in for a treat. These three professionals are real favorites of mine. This episode was extremely well-crafted, in that every frame worked and had meaning, emotion, character drama, and resonance. Plus, I was a tad disappointed that in the 50+ episodes of Justice League, there wasn't an episode that focused solely on the big three.

If you missed it, I think the episode airs again this afternoon, I believe around 5:00pm Eastern time, though I may be off, so check your local listings. It's definitely worth a look, and probably one of the finest half-hours of any animated series I've ever seen, ranking right up there with some of the best episodes of Batman: TAS, Gargoyles, Filmation's He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, and Filmation's She-Ra: Princess of Power. (Though the latter two series may lack truly stunning animation, outstanding writers like Paul Dini, JMS, Larry DiTillio, Bob Forward, and Michael Reaves, among others, contributed to these series with some incredible stories, also worth a look if you can find any of the episodes released on videotape back in the 80s.)

I too missed the part where Mongu was dreaming about conquering the universe. The other thing I kept asking was "Where's Robin?" Did they leave him out of the cartoon because of "Teen Titans Go"? Still an amazingly good adaptation. Say what you will about the comic book movies. I think there are many classics in the recent Batman, Superman and Justice League cartoons. If you haven't been watching them, you should be.

Bill Mulligan said [quote] forgot to mention-- Jeffrey Combs is the voice of The Question. Did I mention I am so there?[quote]

I love Jeffrey Combs. I'm currently watching the 6th season of DS9 on DVD and he does such a great job. (Actually, he's one of the only bright spots on Enterprise).

As for JLU, really good series. I only caught a few episodes of the first 2 seasons, but I don't plan on missing any of these. A DC fans dream with all the heroes. The Alan Moore story was great.

It reruns at 5 p.m. today Eastern time. I missed it last night (haven't seen JL stuff in a while), but I absolutely love the Moore story. If it's adapted as well as everyone's saying, I'm absolutely there this afternoon.

Thanks for the heads-up!

TWL

It was a pretty good episode. While a lot of the Justice League cartoons have the heroes just rishing the villains (and usually getting knocked back), this one had more strategy and style.

I'm surprised it took PAD a few minutes to recognize that this was based on the Alan Moore story. During the opening credits there was a, er, credit saying that this was based on the story by Alan Moore and someone else.

Could they have gotten away with the original ending (where Mongol seems to kill the heroes, conquers the world, sits on a throne in triumph, and we then see it's all the plant-induced fantasy)? I can understand the fear that showing the heroes getting snuffed could cause cries of outrage from parents and concerned groups. Last season, though, an episode began with Superman killing Lex Luthor (offscreen) then being glad about it; and then the League took over the Earth, turning it into a dictatorship. It wasn't until 10 or 15 minutes into the episode that we learn this was an alternate dimension; the "real" Justice League eventually wound up defeating these Justice Lords.

And nekouken, JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED is the latest season of JUSTICE LEAGUE, if you go by the IMDB. It's basically an anthology show, allowing them to team up just about any heroes from the DC universe at a time. (Of course, if they were being realistic this means they could just pile a slew of heroes on any problem and take care of it in 5 minutes -- imagine suddenly facing Green Lantern, Superman, Firestorm, Dr. Fate, Wonder Woman, and the Martian Manhunter! -- but they'll probably keep sending 4 or 5 heroes for each mission.) In the 1st episode of this season, the roster looked as big as the Legion of Super-Heroes!

W.R.T. the ending:

If you listen carefully, as they close in on Mongul, you hear the sounds of people screaming in horror...I'm assuming that this was how they chose to depict Alan's ending without annoying BS&P.

I was reading an interview with Bruce Timm. He said that he called up Alan Moore to get his permission to make this cartoon (even though he didn't need to.) He also seemed an anxious about making something that Alan Moore would approve of.

And, actually, I like how they did the ending. Having just the screams leaves a lot to the viewer's imagination, and that is usually much better than what any animator can come up with.

And as for why no Robin, the reason why they did this episode is because Bruce Timm realized they never did an episode with just Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman. That was his goal, and Alan Moore's story was perfect for that.

Oh, yeah, and I think it was the best episode so far, including the first two seasons.

You can find the article about the episode on the Comics Continium website at:
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0408/05/index.htm

Also, Dwayne McDuffie answers some of the questions about the ending on his Delphi forums last night. basically, Mongul's dream would step on Batman's last line and also risks confusing the audience.

Personally, I thought it was great, especially the little things like Kal's wife having Lois Lane's voice (Dana Delaney) and Jor-El's voice turning briefly into Pa Kent's.

As soon as I saw Moore's name in the opening credits I got really pumped. Then when Batman said "What do you get for the guy who has everything?" I was really excited.

I'm also looking forward to episode about Mr. Miracle wirtten by Jim Sterenko(being that Kirby based Miracle on Sterenko).

Personally, I thought it was great, especially the little things like Kal's wife having Lois Lane's voice (Dana Delaney) and Jor-El's voice turning briefly into Pa Kent'"

It does give Alan Moore credit in the opening titles. I also like the new series so far, but I miss Hawkgirl and hope she comes back to the League.

Question: Was Superman's wife supposed to be Lois? Except for the auburn colored hair, I thought it was, but that's where it got confusing. In the cartoons, Lois' hair has always been black. In the book her hair has been brown since the reboot. I've always wanted to know the reasoning behind that too. Anyone know?

I believe Kal's wife was named "Leana." So I guess she's part Lois and part Lana.

I thought that Lois' hair changed color around the time of the TV Show (Lois and Clark). I remember that Allred wasn't allowed to give Lois black/blue hair when he did the Superman/Madman crossover book a few years ago.

"Question: Was Superman's wife supposed to be Lois? Except for the auburn colored hair, I thought it was, but that's where it got confusing. In the cartoons, Lois' hair has always been black. In the book her hair has been brown since the reboot. I've always wanted to know the reasoning behind that too. Anyone know?"

I think she was supposed to be a cross between Lois and Lana. Lana had red hair in the animated series.

"I'm surprised it took PAD a few minutes to recognize that this was based on the Alan Moore story. During the opening credits there was a, er, credit saying that this was based on the story by Alan Moore and someone else."

Ah ah ah. You underestimate me, sir. Go back and reread my original posting. I said that I suspected and then knew for sure when we saw Superman with the creature on him. That was all pre-credit, about sixty seconds into the teaser. I know because once I recognized it, I said, "Boy, I sure hope they give Alan Moore up-front credit for it." And a minute or so later, once they started running the credits, where was not only Alan's name but Dave's.

PAD

Without a doubt, an excellent adaptation. I was disappointed that they left out Mongul's "Which of you would it be polite to kill first?" line, but other than that, I enjoyed the heck out of it.

I missed it last night, so I'm catching today's rerun. But on a related note, DC is rereleasing the "GREATEST SUPERMAN STORIES EVER TOLD" in October, and they don't have that story in it! How the hell is THAT possible? Yeah, it's reprinted in the Alan Moore DCU book, but still, I think this story is good enough to have reprinted in more than one place. *sigh*

Sorry. Had to vent.

"I miss Hawkgirl and hope she comes back to the League."

One of the upcoming episodes features Solomon Grundy and teases a return of an old member...so maybe Hawkgirl is coming back.

I just hope at one point they include the line "Solomon Grundy want pants too!"

Now that I've actually seen the ep in question, a few comments. Minor spoilers.

• Great, great adaptation overall. Arcee nailed it above -- with so many traps this could have fallen into, it's nice to see this sticking so nicely to the essence of the story.

• This is undoubtedly the Marvel junkie in me, at least in part -- but when Superman is yelling at Mongul about "do you have any idea what I've lost?", was anyone else getting serious vibes of Spider-Man whaling on Norman Osborn in ASM 122? This adaptation is the closest thing I've seen to that particular breed of passion.

• My one gripe: music. First, I really miss the theme that JL was using for its opening credits the first two seasons. Second, I thought the episode was horribly over-scored in places. The drama was coming through just fine in the voices and the animation; the music didn't need to hit us with the sledgehammer at the same time.

Still loved it. If it's typical of this season's stuff, I'm there.

By the way, today's NYTimes has a piece about JL. Oddly, at the moment it's not showing up online, but it's in the print edition sitting in front of me. In case it shows up online later, the writer's George Gene Gustines (who's done lots of comics and animation-related stories for the Times before), and the headline is "Get Ready, Superman! Here Comes the Question". (I think I just guaranteed Bill's going to go get it. :-)

TWL

The JLU folks keep maintaining that "hawkgirl" won't be back. This has led speculation that she'll be "Hawkwoman" when she comes back.

Personally, I think the Grundy episode means a return of one of the "fake Defenders," either Dr. Fate or most likely Aquaman.

I LOVE THE JLA CARTOON!!!!Last week they had three of my all time favorites(green arrow,john stewart ,captain atom)all teaming up.Sorry not a real supergirl fan.This week was good and like others have mentioned the screams of horror at the end were meant to represent Mongul's dream.
Thought Wonder woman was used particular well,with her throwing down on Mongul like the warrior princess should.Like the line where Mongul said he felt a certain weapon was more suitable for a woman.
In the opening sequence The Question is shown.Yet another one of my all time favorites.Some of Denny o Neil 's best work was on that series (too short lived if you asked me)
Sad that i am a grown man whose highlight of a saturday evening is Teen Titans and JLU.No wonder im still single :)

Just a heads up: according to the schedule posted on www.cartoonnetwork.com, this episode ("For The Man Who Has Everything") will be rebroadcast on Saturday, August 14 at 11:30am EST.

PAD:

Had the same 'deja vu' kind of experience, watching as Wonder Woman and Batman get out of the Invsibile Plane/Sub, then there's mention of a gift... I was sorry, though, that Robin had to be cut, if for nothing more than to hear Batman politely chastise his sidekick for his appreciation of the Amazon's... attributes.

Perfect story for the series.

Catullus

Someone on r.a.c.dc.universe brought up an interesting analysis of one point in the episode, which differs slightly from the comic. In the comic, when the Black Mercy takes control of Bruce, there's a fairly quick scene of Thomas Wayne stopping Joe Chill, but then we don't see anything further. At the end, Bruce comments that his fantasy had ended up with him married to Kathy (pre-Crisis Batwoman's other id) Kane.

But in the cartoon, the scene with Thomas Wayne beating up Joe Chill just goes on and on, and Bruce never mentions anything happening after it. The analysis is that, and I can well believe DeMatteis would have consciously done this, Bruce is incapable at a gut level of imagining what his life would've been like if he hadn't been shaped by his tragedy and happy, so his happiness would be limited to just seeing his father take down Chill. Had the Mercy been on him for a year, he'd still be seeing that.

Btw, Teen Titans is also in new eps, with their first run showing just before JLU. Believe it or not, last night they managed to do a Bat-Mite (OK, Robin-Mite) episode. So he's never actually called something-Mite; it was really obvious to anyone familiar with Bat-Mite that that was the basis for the character.

Re: the NYT article. Gustines has been active on r.a.c. (under the screen name GusNYT) and come across as a good and knowledgable type, just who we'd like writing about comics for the NYTimes.

I'll be damned, tyg. I've seen GusNYT's name around and about on r.a.c, but didn't make the connection. Thanks for the added info.

TWL

It was a great episode and really well adapted even though they didn't use Robin...

In the comic he had all the great lines...He also saved the day...

Still love Bats looking at him and saying, "Think clean thoughts chum"

Also Bats created the Krypton rose and Diana had replicated the bottle city of Kandor...not sure if Kandor exists in the animated universe...

It did, without being an exact replication of the story, really grasp the point of the storyline and I have watched it about 10 times so far thinking to myself this is what animating comics is all about!

One of the upcoming episodes features Solomon Grundy and teases a return of an old member...so maybe Hawkgirl is coming back.

I thought that Grundy basically "died" on the show a season or two ago. BTW, that episode was a great tribute to the Defenders...you had Grundy(Hulk), Dr. Fate(Dr. Strange), and Aquaman(Namor) as a team.

I thought that Grundy basically "died" on the show a season or two ago.

If you ever read Starman, or other ones... Grundy dies all the time and comes back with a different personality all the time... this was covered in Starman when Woodrue, Batman, Jack (Knight) and Alan Scott had an adventure in Grundy's brain or soul. Great issue with art by Sjenburg (sp?)...

Travis

I thought that episode, and the other one (the quasi-official pilot, with Green Arrow being dragged along with GL, Supergirl and Captain Atom) were terrific cartoons.

One of the producers of the series has said (I forget the quote and I'm away from my computer) that he doesn't know how long AOL Time Warner will keep making the DC Universe-style cartoons. (Given the Superman movie re-entering Development Hell, and the lousy reaction to "Catwoman," no wonder some execs might want to pull the plug.) My hope is that some of the characters in "JLU" will prove popular enough to sprout one or more other series to keep the franchise alive.

The only down side involved with the show was someone on rec.arts.animation who made a snotty remark about "I'll wait until they do some ORIGINAL stories." Yeah, kid. Like your own great script that was so fantastic that DC Comics couldn't bear to publish it. Guess they don't take script submissions with geometry homework written on the other side of the lined paper.

I loved the episode. My only qualm was that Robin was missing. When I read the original story, I quite enjoyed the sight of Mongul being taken down by this little punk wearing those huge honking gloves.

I thought JMD did a great job in adapting the story. As pointed out earlier, I did miss the line about whom it would be more polite to kill first. Still, great job.

So....

Uhh... PAD... Mr Pad... Bad Pad Leroy Brown...

You do realize Cartoon Network is owned by AOL Time Warner, and the toon in question is a Warner Production? You literally went back on your boycott the very minute you began.

Irony must be one of your stronger suits.

Peter knows that... that letter to Time Warner was a joke in order to prove a point made in another thread. He wasn't serious about that...

And JLU is the new season of Justice Leage.... hmmm... I'm not sure I want that. I mean, I'm sure the guest stars is interesting... but that's a whole lot of cast members to deal with.

having never read the story, but reading PAD's post I'm a HUGE fan of Alan Moore's WATCHMEN and KILLING JOKE so I had to watch this. I had also read about the mongol/ Superman "Burn." moment months ago in an interview about Superman and I couldn't wait to see it.

however, i live in Canada. no way to see it. Me sad. But, I found a bit torrent link at www.suprnova.org and downloaded it immediately.

really good stuff, I'm gonna try to find the original one-shot ASAP.

In fact, it was so good I had a feeling it was a tad rushed. Moore's story probably fleshes it out more. While Superman's tearful goodbye with his "son" was very moving - his realization from Fantasy to reality happened in the space of 2 minutes. I get the feeling Moore's book has it play out much more naturally. Rushed though it may be, that scene still worked great.

I think my favourite brilliant piece of writing was Batman's fantasy was so simplistic as opposed to Clark's elaborate reality. Batman was simply watching his dad beat the bejesus out of Joe Chill over and over for all eternity. That's a really in-depth look into Batman's mind if you think about it.

Mongol's fantasy, having never read the book, played very well from my perspective. I just made up all these horrible things in my mind and that worked great.

I must go find the story. "Superman For All Seasons", right?

Oh and PS - I'm pretty sure SHOOTER MCGAVIN (from "Happy Gilmore" AKA the guy Tasha Yar falls in love with in "Yesterday's Enterprise") was the voice of JOR-EL! Don't believe me? Listen to it again!

I don't know if PAD is gonna read this post, but hopefully he'll get a kick out of that factoid. (unless he knew it already)

To TallestGuyEver:
No, it's not "Superman for All Seasons" (that's a completely different tale from the team of Loeb and Sale). The JL episode is adapted from an old pre-Crisis Superman Annual (#11, from 1985). If you can't find that single issue, you might want to go ahead and shell out the cash for the "Across the Universe: The DC Universe Stories of Alan Moore" trade paperback published last year. The TPB may be more costly than the single back-issue, but you may have a better chance of finding the trade.

Also, regarding Greg's comment about the "rerelease" of the Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told, unless you've seen something different than I have, the book is listed in Diamond's Previews in the relist section (a rerelease is usually included in the main section with the other new release solicitations).
While I can't lay hold of my copy of the GSSET at the moment (I bought it in hardcover when it first came out), it seems to me that the Moore-Gibbons story was included in the book. I've also seen reviews of the softcover edition which mention the story is included.

My wife laughed at me throughout the episode, I was so geeked. She thought it was eerie the way I could anticipate lines of dialogue from an episode I had never seen before (I KNEW they would keep the classic exchange: "Happy Birthday, Kryptonian. I give you oblivion." "Burn.") So I enjoyed the episode.

However...it seems to me they made a rather significant change in reformatting it for TV. Probably unintentional, and subtle, but still, it kind of bugged me.

The plant is supposed to give you your heart's desire, keeping you in a vegetative state while it (presumably) feeds of you for eternity or until you die, who knows? In either case, as far as you're concerned, it's permanent.

In the Alan Moore story, the world Superman/Kal-El finds himself in is initially golden, perfect. However, more and more sour notes are heard (Jor-El aligning with a cult, Kara beaten to the point of hospitalization, chaos in the streets, civil war) until Kal finds himself surrounded not by a utopia but a wasteland.

Now, I always thought that the deterioration was a manifestation of Kal fighting the plant...after all, if there was one being that could resist the plant, it would be Superman, right? If fact, Batman even comments on this when he begins to notice a little give in the plant where there was NONE before; he comments to Robin that he must be fighting it.

In the TV episode, instead of Kal winning a mental/emotional battle with the plant, it seems to be because of Bruce's efforts in pulling the plant off that Kal is able to be freed. The Heart's-Desire-Life was comparatively perfect compared to Moore's original script.

Thus not as much irony in TV Mongul's statement that freeing himself must have been like tearing off his arm. In the comic, Kal's vision of what SHOULD have been a perfect world actually tearing itself apart is what fueled his rage.

Like I said, subtle, but I think there is a difference. And maybe that difference is an arguable change of theme in the story. It was just a little jarring to me.

But I'd still give it 9.5 stars out of ten. You really can't go wrong with Dematteis.

Other high points: Diana getting the crap kicked out of her, and still she keeps getting back up. As my wife said, "Tough chick." The scene with her crawling over to Bruce was extremely effective.

Bruce's heart's desire: unlike the comic, where he grows up with two parents, marries Kathy Kane, etc., the episode depicts his fodest wish is to see is father give the mugger a savage beating. Forever.

Mongul's face towards the end of the episode: so that's what a can of whup-ass looks like.

I loved it. Sorry for the long post.

...Grundy dies all the time and comes back with a different personality all the time...

Cool...just as long as they explain his return in JLU. His "death" was pretty significant in his last appearance.

This was kinda done before. In one of the Batman animated episodes there was a dream sequence that borrowed heavily from the part of Frank Miller's classic "The Dark Knight Returns" when Bats fights the gang leader and the dialog was almost word for word.

I wish I could tell you which season, but it's worth looking for.

-hey

It was nice to see Herbie the Robot picking up some "Hollywood extra" work in his cameo as "Brainiac" in this episode...

Speaking of Superman, I was looking at the Netscape "celebrity" page of top 10 superheroes

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/celebrity/toptenwrap.jsp?archive=0408&slot=8

Here's a quote from the comment about Tom Welling and is approach to the role of Clark Kent:

"Welling chose not to research the Marvel superhero..."

Either someone didn't bother to do their reseach, or Marvel made a major character acquisition coup I hadn't heard about.

Rick

The sole voice of discontent!

Honestly! This episode was a huge let down for me! Huge! I see now why Alan Moore won’t watch an adaptation of his stories or why he says he can’t help but feel disappointed.

This episode missed its mark entirely!

Sure, it captured the “right” dialogue and the “gosh wow” moments; but the true meat of the story is gone! As a result, you see Superman reacting to something and it is completely out of context. Think about it. Why is Superman so angry after experiencing the most wonderful dream he could have? Why? Because, in the original story; his dream was a NIGHTMARE!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

A
H
E
A
D
!
!
!

If memory serves me right, and admit I haven’t re-read the story in 20 yrs; the world of Krypton was anything but ideal. The story starts with Superman showing up for his surprise party, and not only do we learn that Clark’s parents got divorced but that Jor El won’t come to the birthday party on account of some family infighting (he probably doesn’t want to see Lara). Then to top it all off, they have to rush to the hospital because either Superman brother’s or Superman’s cousin just got into a car accident. That’s when Superman’s birthday turns, for lack of a better word, real. That’s the juice of the story! Hence the story’s title. You see, Superman truly is the man who has everything. And by everything Alan means true happiness, power, fame and a privileged life. His wish that Krypton never exploded turned him into a normal man with all the aches and problems associated with “real” living.

In the next couple of sequences we see Kal-el and Van-El visiting the Kandor crater (the site where the city rested before Brainiac stole/shrunk it! That’s when Superman starts to get the idea that something is wrong. The last of the key missing moments is his confrontation with Jor-El, were we get to see a bitter old man and Clark gets to say…

“You know Dad, sometimes I think you wished Krypton had exploded.”

And that sentence right there is why the story showcases Alan’s talents! Because in the end, that was the last time Clark saw his Father and it was akin to a son telling his father off before his death.

That’s why Superman hated Mongul!

That’s why Superman shouted “You call that a dream? …BURN!!!”

Anyways,

Sorry about the rant, but I encourage everyone to read the original and compare. You won’t be disappointed. (There are even political undertones to it and everything!)

As for Mr. Dini, I understand that concessions had to be made; but I feel that they missed the whole spirit of the story. If DeMatteis had at least gone with “Superman: the Animated Series” continuity, the story would’ve been much better because he would’ve had to deal with the fact that in that series, Jor-el broke the Law and was a wanted Fugitive before Krypton exploded. If Krypton had not exploded, Jor-EL would’ve been captured and brought to trial.

Other subtleties from Alan’s script are missing too. Like Batman telling Robin not to stare (this was the first time Jason Todd’s Robin saw Wonder Woman). The fact that Robin was the one that defeated Mongul (in a David versus Goliath kind of moment); and that previously, when Mongul had asked “which one of you guys is going to fight me”, Batman looked at Wonder Woman and sort of volunteered her.

As for the gifts, a got a huge kick out of Batman giving Superman “cash” as a gift; but in the original story, Batman was the one that gave him the rose. And Wonder Woman thought she was being so clever by giving him a replica of the Bottle city of Kandor (which had been enlarged) but it turned out he already had a replica! Yet another nudge to the story’s title.

Anyways, sorry to rain down on everyone’s parade. Some of my favorite Animated Batman stories have been comic book adaptations; like the Laughing Fish, Mad Love, Robin’s Requiem, and No hope in Crime Alley, for instance. They all are great and leave us with a sense of pride and satisfaction mainly because they reinvindicate and validate the source material that we love so much, comics.

But in my opinion, this latest adaptation was sub par. Nobody wakes up from a dream angry, they save that for nightmares! And there’s the rub.

As I said before, I think the changes were necessary for adapting to a half-hour television show...but something else occured to me. The original story was a Superman Annual. This is a Justice League cartoon...and the resulting changes to the script seem to lean more towards teamwork than Kal's individual battle. So he needed Batman to pull him out of it, because that's what the league is for.
Schmaltzy, yeah, but...it works in my head.

And all that Kryptonian stuff, while brilliant on the page, would have died a heavy death in the TV format.

Ain't-It-Cool-News had a list of the guest stars in the coming episodes. My favorite should be the one with Zatanna teaming up with Batman.

Detritus said:

"I was reading an interview with Bruce Timm. He said that he called up Alan Moore to get his permission to make this cartoon (even though he didn't need to.)"

Huh? I'm totally lost here.

PAD would you comment about what ownership writers have and what ownership changes when a writing goes through production?

Long-time listener, first-time caller.

I, too, geeked out when I saw Bats and WW walking into the fortress. When Bruce said, "What do you give to the man who has everything? I yelped. My 11-year-old son thought I was loopy. And, by criminy, he's right.

As much as I missed Robin in this story (Moore's use of him in the original is priceless), they handled the morph to Justice League characters quite well.

And no one has mentioned by favorite "preserved" line: when Kal turns to his son and says: "I don't think you're real."

Mike--Alan Moore had absolutely no ownership of that story at all. It was DC characters and work-for-hire (just as his two-part "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" was. It was owned lock stock and barrel by DC and its parent company.

So the JLA folks could have adapted it not only without so much as a by-your-leave, but they didn't even have to credit him. The fact that they cleared it with him and credited both him and Dave up front indicates they're definitely a class act. (Whether money changed hands as well, I've no clue. I doubt they were obligated to, but they may have nevertheless.)

PAD

red-Ricky, the reason he woke up angry is that he had to give up his wife and child and parents. He was angry that he was given a perfect life and that it was, in fact, a hollow lie, a ploy by a villain to destroy all that Superman holds dear in his real life.

Easily the best Justice League ep I've ever seen. It humanized Superman in a way that I think even his own animated series failed to accomplish. Definitely want to go read the original story now.

"And Wonder Woman thought she was being so clever by giving him a replica of the Bottle city of Kandor (which had been enlarged) but it turned out he already had a replica! "

Actually, at this point ( 1985 ) in the pre - Crisis DCU, the bottle city of Kandor had been re - populated! Another race of tiny aliens moved in, initially unnoticed by Superman! When Supes tried to enlarge the little guys, they turned into rampaging monsters. So, the....damned if I can remember what the original name of the race was.... were stuck at micro - size, and even decided to keep the name 'Kandor' out of tradition! And it was just Superman's and the What's - Their - Faces, um....little secret!

Yeah, I'm suitably chagrined that I remember this stuff. But even more glad that 'Kandor II' was one of the things that Byrne jettisoned when 'Superman' got the post -Crisis re - boot!!

Hooper

I recorded the episode, and haven't seen in it's entirety yet, but I'm fairly certain one of **my** favorites lines from the Moore story didn't make it in.
When Mongul condescendingly suggests Wonder Woman try "more of a **female's** weapon", she shoulders this massive firearm, pulls the trigger, and snarls: "Go to Hell!"!!

Schweet!!

Hooper

Actually, Hooper, she does lift the massive weapon and says "Go... To..." and her third word is drowned out by the sound of the huge weapon firing. Good enough?
I interpreted bats dreaming of his dad beating Joe Chill as a subconscious desire for parental validation of his own violent modus. Batman beats on croks, and wonders if his father would approve, so he dreams here of his father doing the same thing.
I know Alan Moore is almost criticism proof, but this story was my first encounter with the character of Mongul in a comic, and Moore neglects to introduce him until very late in the proceedings, if at all. on the animated version he shows up and someone says "Mongul!" A minor improvement, but you know what Jim Shooter always said about every comic being somebody's introduction to the characters.
So for all the things lost in trimming down the story to fit a 22 minute, single episode format, there were a few things that I thought DeMattais made clearer.
On the other hand, while "The Man Who has Everything" is justifably one of the 'greatest Superman stories ever told", it is also one of the three best Jason Todd stories, ever. (Along with Collins revising his origin and "Death In The Family".
But, yeah, I voted to kill him, so I can't complain now that he's gone.
This will sure be a hard act to follow, though.
(My first reaction was that was the worst Teen Titans episode ever, but they tried some interesting experiments, and on a second glance it was kinda funny. Did anyone catch 'The Venture Brothers later that night? Now that's some weird sh*t.)

Oh, I thought 'The Venture Brothers'...a 'Jonny Quest' parody / homage, but so much more...was SCREAMINGLY funny, on SO many levels!!
`Loved it!!

Hooper

red-Ricky posted:
"Nobody wakes up from a dream angry, they save that for nightmares! And there’s the rub."

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I'd think most people would wake up from a nightmare with an overwhelming sense of relief. Why would anyone be angry after waking from a nightmare?
You mean to say that you're dreaming that you're being chased by a pack of werewolves and the lead werewolf has just brought you down and you see his slathering jaws lunging at your throat, you're going to be angry for waking up from that? Sorry, but not me.
On the other hand, your dream has you living with (name of celebrity you most lust after) and inevitably it leads to an incredibly romantic moment, and suddenly your alarm goes off and you wake up. This isn't something that would make you angry?
People tend to anger when they're interrupted during something pleasant, not something unpleasant. I'm not merely talking about dreams/nightmares, but in general. We rarely care about the cancellation of a comic title we don't read, but if it's one we enjoy, what's the general reaction? Anger. We tend to show little concern if a baseball or football game delays (or even pre-empts) a show we don't watch, but when it's a favorite show, what's the standard reaction? Anger. (Okay, okay, depending on the specifics, there may be more frustration than outright anger, but in general, frustration is closer to anger than it is to pleasure or happiness.)

Batman beats on croks, and wonders if his father would approve, so he dreams here of his father doing the same thing.

I don't think Batman is looking for parental approval. Part of Batman's trauma, I think, was the very painful realization that his parents aren't indestructable. So I think it's natural for him to wish that Daddy saved the day, preserving the child's idealized view of him.

Posted by Napoleon Park at August 10, 2004 02:40 AM
On the other hand, while "The Man Who has Everything" is justifably one of the 'greatest Superman stories ever told", it is also one of the three best Jason Todd stories, ever. (Along with Collins revising his origin and "Death In The Family".

I'll agree about "The Man Who Has Everything" but the other two, no.
"Death in the Family" is one of the lousiest stories ever to be put on paper. It is full of plotholes and unbelieveable coincidences. It is a terrible story.
As far as his Collins origin goes, didn't care for that either. Put the character on the road to "Death in the Family" and also had the bizarre notion that Batman thought the job was too dangerous for the older, well-trained Dick Grayson but not the inexperienced Jason Todd.

Joseph, in answer to your post I just wanted to say that if I had the perfect dream and suddenly had to wake up to go to work, more than likely I'd be disappointed.

If by any chance, I was experiencing the worst nightmare imaginable; I’d be concerned as to what triggered it or what was that all about.

However, if you gave me a pill and I had the most wonderful dream imaginable, more than likely I would ask “what was that?”, and “…can I have another so I can finish that sucker up!”

On the other hand, if you gave me a pill or put drugs in my drink; and because of you I had to live through my worst nightmare, and get eaten by wolves as you put it; the first thing I would do when I woke up would be to ask who did this to me and proceed to beat the living daylights out of the people involved. And by the looks of it, that was Superman’s reaction in the original story, too. In fact, I think we would both agree that in the original story; Krypton was anything but a utopia and Superman was anything but happy.

For Superman, that world was full of political and personal unrest, you had the Cult of Rao, the beating of Kara Zor-El, his parents divorce, his issues with Jor-El, etc. That’s why when Mongul says, "You should have stayed in whatever happy fantasy the Black Mercy granted you..." Superman screams twice: "Happy?" "...HAPPY?"

Look at Batman and Superman’s reaction in both the cartoon and the comics. It’s very different in the sense that Batman wasn’t as troubled by it as Superman. Add to it the fact that it takes A LOT for Superman to lose his cool and there you have it. For Superman, it truly was a nightmare.

Again, I understand everyone’s opinion and respect it. I just feel that the subtext from the original story was completely different from what was shown by the cartoon and therefore, if you missed the comic, you are not getting the whole story.

I don’t want to beat the subject into the ground, but I remember a Star Trek episode were Pickard got to experience a whole lifetime from beginning to end because an alien race wanted him to know what it was like to be part of them or some such nonsense. If I remember correctly, by the end of the episode the good Captain felt a little bit shaken but otherwise reacted favorably.

On another subject, I forgot to add “Demon’s Quest” to my list of favorite Batman episodes adapted from the comics to the series. And would like to add that all the original writers from Dennis O’Neil to Steve Englehart to Mike W. Barr, got credited by Timm and Dini. However, this was the first time that the artist got mentioned too. Up until then, the caption read “Based on a story originally written by _____”.

One final question, through out the eighties and nineties all the Titans comics had a caption at the beginning of the story that read “new Teen Titans” created by Marv Wolfman and George Pérez. Then it went away. Does anybody know what happened?

Best Jason Todd stories:

“For the Man who has everything” – Superman Annual #11

The Killer Croc saga from Batman 358 through Detective 526 (which not only introduced both characters, but was later repackaged as Knightfall).

And finally, New Teen Titans (Baxter) 20-21 (just because when all was said and done, he ended up being the only adult in that bunch).

Sorry, Ricky, but your take on having a nightmare is absurd. Nightmares don't typically create an "anger" response. Even if you went through the process of analyzing a nightmare, it doesn't change the reaction to the nightmare itself. Most awaken from a nightmare in some state of fear or anxiety, not anger. An analysis of a nightmare might provide an underlying anger being manifested, but it's every bit as likely that you ate something that didn't agree with you or you saw something scary or disturbing. (Hell, I had a nightmare about vampires when I had a case of strep throat as a kid. My mom felt it was due to some scary film I'd watched; the only anger I felt as a result was being banned from watching anything she felt was "scary". My anger had nothing to do with the nightmare.)
As for the rest of your post, the induced dream theory again has nothing to do with being angry from a dream. Your anger is from the knowledge that it was induced. Knowing that someone willingly drugged you without your consent would lead anyone to anger regardless of the resulting dream being good or bad. I wouldn't care if I had the best dream in the world if it turned out some sick had drugged me beforehand without my consent. On the other hand, if I had an awful nightmare while under the influence of a drug, but I'd consented to taking it, then any anger should be directed at myself. In neither situation, though, would the dream or nightmare be the cause of my anger.
As for the storyline in the comic and cartoon, again, it's not the dream that Superman's having that causes his anger--it's the fact that Mongul initiated the scenario. More than a few Silver-Age stories dealt with some DC character or other using some kind of device to see how different their lives could be--usually with undesired results--but most stories involved consent. The characters didn't usually get angry as a result, but it was because they had consented to the procedure(s).

"I was watching so many names of people I know scroll past in the credits and getting bummed out that no one's ever asked me to write a script for them"

I seem to recall that you're friends with Dini...I imagine you at least know Bruce Timm. Perhaps a mention of interest to them might be warented. shurg

Joseph, you see the finger for what it is and not for what it’s pointing at.

I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you on the fact that a normal dream does not induce anger.

As for the storyline in the comic and cartoon, you think it's not the dream that Superman's having that causes his anger-- but the fact that Mongul initiated the scenario.

That’s fine. I thought I agreed with that too. But I also feel that the original story went beyond that, and that all this rich subtext from the comic is missing from the cartoon.

I talked about Superman never losing his kewl, ever! And that one of the reasons that story was so memorable was the fact that fans finally got to see what it took to royally piss Superman off! And see him not holding anything back!

To me, it’s not just the lack of consent.

Lex Luthor, made a career out of being a thorn in Superman sides and he never asked for his permission. It’s the fact that Mongul pushed the right nerve.

If you want to argue about nightmares and anger, that’s fine.

I’m more concerned about the differences between the reality presented in the Cartoon versus the reality presented in the original Comic Book and how the irony of Mongul thinking that he’d given Superman, his heart’s desire was lost.

To me, something most definitely got lost in translation; a deeper meaning even. I for one remember getting an extra kick out Superman getting angrier whenever Mongul uttered the word “happy”.

It was as if the poor guy was digging his own grave and he just didn’t know it!

Good episode. Suffered somewhat from the absence of Robin (the emotional heart and soul of Moore's original), and the unfortunate removal of the clever way Robin figured out how to handle the Black Mercy, but otherwise a fun ep.

I see someone else noticed that Brainiac looked like Herbie from the old Fantastic Four cartoon.

It also occurred to me that the opening sequence of JLU - although I'm sure there are other shows which have done this - seems like an homage to Space: 1999's first season, in which scenes from the episode you're about to watch are part of the opening sequence.

I do like the theme music for JLU a lot better than the rather bland music for the previous JL cartoon. Though I wish they'd gone for less of a poppy arrangement. Still, it's better than the Teen Titans cartoon, whose music is just awful (though to be "fair", the whole series is pretty terrible).

"Death in the Family" is one of the lousiest stories ever to be put on paper. It is full of plotholes and unbelieveable coincidences. It is a terrible story.

I like to use this story as the perfect justification for Batman killing the Joker. Honestly, I think it's okay if Batman kills him. Why is everyone so intent on keeping Bats so pure anyhow? I'm not saying Batman should go around killing crooks, but there comes a point where leaving a monster like the Joker alive is criminal. And the fact that Batman can actually face the Joker without even thinking about all the people in his own life that this man has hurt or killed... Well, it's just bad storytelling. You don't just forget that the man in front of you murdered a member of your family. In a sense, Batman is defined by his pain and loss. Take that away from him and he doesn't really mean anything anymore. Everytime Batman faces the Joker--every single time--Batman should be wondering whether or not he'll give in to the desire to kill that man. And make no mistake, the desire is there. If he doesn't have at least that much, then Jason Todd's death, Barbara Gordon's crippling, and the death of Jim Gordon's wife will be nothing but footnotes in Batman's life, rather than the important events they should be.

I loved Batmans defensive "No,,," when Diana asked him if he's got a gift certificate.

I do like the theme music for JLU a lot better than the rather bland music for the previous JL cartoon.

Hate to disagree, but I'll take the old theme over that piece of generic crap they replaced it with.

And what is up with the incidental music? The constant electric guitar riffs? It's godawful. Reminds me of bad action shows from the 80's.

From Scott

"Death in the Family" is one of the lousiest stories ever to be put on paper. It is full of plotholes and unbelieveable coincidences. It is a terrible story.

I like to use this story as the perfect justification for Batman killing the Joker. Honestly, I think it's okay if Batman kills him. Why is everyone so intent on keeping Bats so pure anyhow? I'm not saying Batman should go around killing crooks, but there comes a point where leaving a monster like the Joker alive is criminal. And the fact that Batman can actually face the Joker without even thinking about all the people in his own life that this man has hurt or killed... Well, it's just bad storytelling. You don't just forget that the man in front of you murdered a member of your family. In a sense, Batman is defined by his pain and loss. Take that away from him and he doesn't really mean anything anymore. Everytime Batman faces the Joker--every single time--Batman should be wondering whether or not he'll give in to the desire to kill that man. And make no mistake, the desire is there. If he doesn't have at least that much, then Jason Todd's death, Barbara Gordon's crippling, and the death of Jim Gordon's wife will be nothing but footnotes in Batman's life, rather than the important events they should be.

Now Kingbobb:

Your post starts stating that you'd be okay with Batman killing Joker, and wondering why people want to keep the character pure. You then go on to answer your own question, and demonstrate why Batman does NOT kill, ever. You state that the desire to kill Joker is there, and you're right. And every time Batman comes up against him, he has to fight against that desire. The single most pivital point in Batman's existence is that violent moment in a dark alley where a faceless gunman murdered his parents before his eyes. That violent act of wanton, senseless murder, becomes the motivation behind Bruce's quest to fight against those who would commit such crimes. But he does so by walking a very thin line...to never kill. To never allow himself to fall to the level of those he wages war against. He uses fear, his mind, and his body, but never does he use death. The fear of death, and pain, but never, ever death itself.

Frank Millers Dark Knight returns doesn't kill Joker. He breaks his neck, paralyzing him, but even in that instance, in what you might consider the final confrontation, Bruce's ingrained reservation against killing takes hold, and it's only Joker's last act of defiant suicide that forever ends Joker's life.

And during the Kinghtfall/Quest saga, the critical event in Azrael/Jean Paul's reign as Batman is when he allows Abbotior to die. This is so against the creed that Batman has created for himself, that he is forced to return to the mask, and remove Jean Paul.

This is one of the reason's why I disliked Tim Burton's Batman. There are several instances where he acts with casual disregard for the lives of his enemies (mostly henchmen...the big guy in the belltower in Batman, and the guy he sets on fire with the Batmobile's exhaust in Batman Returns). If he's killing henchmen, why doesn't he just become a sniper and take out Joker/Pengiun/whoever from a distance? Once he starts killing, the question will be "he killed X, but not Y. How come?"

To maintain this creed is to stay true to the essence of the character. Every death weighs on his conscience. It's his self-imposed burden. It drives him to do what he does. For him to start adding death's of his own would eventually destroy him, as at some point, he'd cross too far over that line, as Azrael did, and become what he hates most: criminal.

Kingbob:
Your post starts stating that you'd be okay with Batman killing Joker, and wondering why people want to keep the character pure. You then go on to answer your own question, and demonstrate why Batman does NOT kill, ever.

Er, no, I don't believe I did. At least, I didn't intend to. I think what I was saying was that Joker, in killing Jason Todd and others, has also made a victim of Batman. Not only that, but Batman makes a victim of himself by allowing the Joker to keep living. This isn't keeping the character pure. It's making him a chump. I think people get so caught up in what Batman stands for that they forget that he is a human being, going through a gamut of emotions like any other sentient creature. People act like he was human up until his parents died, at which point *he* died and was reborn as the Bat. Well, I don't think it works that way. It's wonderful in a symbolic sense, but bad in a sense that we'll never see this character grow and change over time, partly because he has no "humanity," and partly because people wish for him to stay the same. Well, if characters stay the same, then there's no point in reading them. I prefer stories where the character is on a journey. And I think Batman actually making the decision to kill the Joker, and finally acting on that decision, would be a culmination of everything that has built up between them. It would represent a compelling loss of innocense for Batman, and the consequences would, I think, be a very interesting thing to explore. What I dislike the most in comics is the stubborn way they keep the characters at status quo. Break a back, kill a Robin, doesn't matter. Back miraculously healed, and Robin miraculously replaced. And like I said, I think it's bad storytelling that Batman can actually confront the Joker and *not* think about wanting to kill him. I think the Joker has earned at least that much. How can Joker kill Robin and *not* earn that much? Isn't Batman supposed to be a human being? Furthermore, we *know* he doesn't deal with loss well. You expect me to believe he wouldn't kill the murderer of his own parents if he had the opportunity? For heaven sakes, *Buffy* has gone to darker places than Batman. And I think Batman is the perfect character to actually go to those darker places. But everyone's so afraid that they'll stop liking the character in the process. That's one example of why the comics industry doesn't take chances with their big league characters anymore. I think sending Batman to those darker places would be the perfect avenue in which we could explore the essence of him as a character and as a human being.

Scott, I think you are right in many ways and make a lot of excellent points; however, I happen to think that "not killing" is one of the basic tenets of the character and pushing the issue by killing all the Robins and all the Batgirls, DOES contribute to some character growth because it raises the question "when will Batman be pushed too far?"

The fact that we know that line will never be crossed, does take some of the bite out of the equation; but the fact that Batman thinks that one day he'll give into it or dance around it, does indeed allow for more in depth character exploration.

Some of the best written Batman stories ever, namely The Killing Joke and Batman Returns, deal with the issue. In both of them, the Joker realizes that he'll never defeat the Batman per se. However, him being the Homicidal Artist that he is, he decides that his greatest victory will come not from killing Batman, but from getting Batman to kill him.

Re-read Batman Returns and you'll see that the Joker's whole plot, and whole reason for being was raise the death count, to push and push until Batman had no choice but to kill him. And in the end, Batman didn't have the guts; so the Joker twisted and turned until he snapped his own neck... the ultimate Joke being that Batman gets blamed for it.

The Killing Joke examines whether Batman and the Joker are on the same side of the coin, or whether they are in opposite sides. Batman believes they are opposites. He does not kill, the joker kills for fun. He turned a negative experience into a positive, the Joker into a negative. But regardless, the Joker does everything in his power to illustrate that he is in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. That with the right nudge, any ordinary person could turn out just like him. He tries it on Jim Gordon, and he tries it on Batman. In both instances he fails as he is unable to drive Gordon insane or get Batman to kill him.

Batman does realize that one day it will come to that. But character growth comes from that realization, not from the actual act. IF DC or any writer out there decides to take that step, not only will they show that they have failed to understand the character; but more than likely, it will kill the franchise. Not only will they have no place to go after it (story wise), but they'll have no way of turning the clock back once the act has been carried out.

If you want death, there are plenty of vigilantes out there that cross that line. To have Batman kill the Joker not only undermines what the character stands for and represents; but it would also count as the Joker's ultimate victory.

You got to remember, just because a writer doesn't know what to do with a character or where to go; does it mean that the character doesn't have a future or any room to grow. And I have to admit that the current batch of Batman writers not only leave a lot to be desired, but they fail to understand the character. They have turned a three dimensional one into a two dimensional. They think that Batman is Batman because he is insane or has a death wish or simply seeks revenge. I happen to remember a time when Batman thought justice and to protect the innocent and be there just as someone should've been there for him. I remember a time when he would ask a new charge to take an oath swearing they would never take a life and would be willing to give their lives if it meant saving an innocent one.

That used to be a big deal.

But not anymore (I guess).

Re : Batman killing the joker.
Just my two cents but i tend to go on the side of him not killing the Joker.If Only because it means crossing a line that would be easier to keep crossing the next time and potentially turning him into ultimately nothing more than a murderer.
As a fan of the SHIELD on FX the most interesting episode for me was when it showed Michel Chiklis'character deciding to bend the rules for the first time and each act after that became easier .After all he was catching the badguys even though he is in some ways no better than who we was catching.
Joker is a dangerous ,destructive character but he is also INSANE!!!!Batman arguably is not ,and i like to think Alfred and his parents raised him better than that.Ultimately if he can justify killing the joker he crosses a dangerous line,and should put down the mask and just join the ranks of Ras Al Ghul and Lex Luthor ,men whose ends always justify their means.With his resources he could essentially be like the Kingpin of gotham .
Sometimes the need to shakeup,explore new ideas and dark parts of the character are not always good ideas,me personally i dont see Batman as a killer as long as any other option is available.Batman always has other options,which is the one thing he hammers into Cassandra (batgirl) ,the new robin,and even the Huntress'heads.Batman if anything wants a loyal dedicated band of warriors protecting the innnocent in his crusade against criminals.Again if he wants people dead he can just contract out to the League of Assassins
Just my opinion :)

red-Ricky:
Batman does realize that one day it will come to that. But character growth comes from that realization, not from the actual act. IF DC or any writer out there decides to take that step, not only will they show that they have failed to understand the character; but more than likely, it will kill the franchise.

You make a lot of really good points. I think my arguments mainly stem from a desire for more permanent change and development in comics. As you say, Batman is a franchise, and there are very strict limitations on storytelling within a franchise. I think that's what I've been indirectly complaining about. I've become very upset with the disjointed storytelling in comics. It strengthens that whole "status quo" thing, and I firmly believe that a character needs to be on some kind of journey that leaves him changed. Realizing that the stories I read fifteen years ago (and some as recent as one year ago) have no bearing on continuity and do not contribute to anybody's development... Well, let's just say I've dropped nearly every comic on my list except for Identity Crisis, Supreme Power, and PAD's books. The Spider-man books right now are really good, but I've followed Straczynski's run with Ezekiel and it ultimately amounted to nothing. No payoff. No change. The best writing in the world can't make up for lacking those qualities. So I've started thinking about each book I read in these terms: "If I wanted to actually move the story forward and develop the characters more, what would I do?" I thought killing the Joker would be an important, irreversible thing, like the death of Gwen Stacy. I ought to go reread Killing Joke and Dark Knight Returns. Great stories, those.

The story isn't "Batman Kills Joker" - Yawn, every twelve year old Batman reader has already written their own version of that one.
The question is, why hasn't someone else? Someone rightly said "There are plenty of other 'heroes' who kill; if you want a killer vigilante, read one of those and don't mess with Batman."
DC's had their share of ersatz Punishers; Vigilante, WildDog, Butcher.. I think there was a guy called HitMan, but that was after my time.So here's the story: one of those loonies knocks off the Joker, figuring that someone has to and Bats won't. Then he confesses the crime to Batman, expecting that he'll be grateful. What does Batman do, shake his hand or take him down... or both? There's your story.
-------
I stand by saying that "Death In The Family' was one of the three best Jason Todd stories. Obviously he was a very unpopular character and the fans voted to waste him, but that's not all. Obviously the four issues had great Mignola covers, but that's not all.
Personally, I'm a sucker for the reverse cliche. Over and over the Joker sets death traps and they fail. This one worked. Over and over the hero defuses the bomb at the last possible moment. This time he didn't. Over and over we're told the Joker is a psychotic killer, but with all due respect for Bill watchman and Hank security guard, this time around he killed someone that counted.
And yes Batman should hate him for it. If that hasn't always been the case, blame the subsequent writers for ignoring the obvious. This story forever changed the dynamic between Batman and The Joker; don't blame the story if later writers changed it back.
(Or blame Frank Miller. His vague line in Dark Knight about "what the Joker did to Jason" directly lead to this story having to exist in order to establish what 'that' was and stop the readers from assuming it was something... else.)

With all the talk of the carefully-chosen guest actors in this episode, I'm surprised no one mentioned that Kevin Conroy voiced Joe Chill.

What does that imply about Batman's psyche? ;-)

(Or blame Frank Miller. His vague line in Dark Knight about "what the Joker did to Jason" directly lead to this story having to exist in order to establish what 'that' was and stop the readers from assuming it was something... else.)

My understanding and forgive me if I am wrong but I believe Miller had meant something(in my opinion) worse for Jason.I think the original idea was that Jason was raped and murdered by the Joker.Again i may be wrong but that seems to stick in my memory.The Batman Beyond movie Return of the Joker also implied that Batman "fired"
all his comrades after joker kidnapped and tortured Tim Drake ,breaking him to the point that Tim was resposible for the Jokers' demise.
At any rate i believe that Jason's original fate was supposed to have been worse than "just" being murdered.Something more along the lines of what happened to Barbara Gordon was what he was supposed to have happened to him

In THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, whatever happened to Jason Todd was deliberately left ambiguous. (I liked the parody in GNATRAT, where the Gnatrat muses: "After Jason... after Jason... what the hell happened to him, anyway?") (That's a paraphrase, BTW.)

Don't forget: Superman killed! In the early issues, Superman had no problem killing off henchmen and even the villains. And during John Byrne's run, Supes actually executed three Kryptonians in cold blood, for fear they'd get their powers back and come after his earth. That didn't mark the end of Superman stories.

(Batman also killed back when he first appeared in comics, but that's no longer considered part of the "official" canon.)

And one thing that bothered me in the premiere of JUSTICE LEAGUE was the way the League just slaughtered the invading aliens. They didn't use the aliens' vulnerability to sunlight to drive them away, or to banish them permanently somewhere else -- the League just killed them left and right! That made me wonder why Superman would spare Luthor, or Batman would spare the Joker (both of whom have demonstrated that they just keep coming back time and time again to do evil), yet these aliens are fair game.

James lynch mentioned the sparing of Luthor on the JLA cartoon.As i recall there was an episode that resulted in a alternate timeline where Supes did take Luthor out.I forget the exact circumstances but i involved his heat vision as the instrument of destruction.As a result the JLA
pretty much set themselves up in a position like the Authority or the Mark Gruenwald Squadron Supreme in that if you didnt agree with them you were take care with extreme prejudice.
I guess the aliens were killed since it was a "war " type situation.Just a guess on my part.

By the way anyone see this weekend's JLU.It was kinda cool seeing a young Justice League.Thought the Wonder girl /Batboy dynamic was cute.Is Diana
older than everyone else or is she just taller than they are as youngsters cause females tend to grow slightly quicker than young males?My favorite line "We will find your Mother's and im Telling"
:)

Deao

PAD, did you do the World Without Grownups story or did you only do Sins of Youth? Did you see this episode, and if so what did you think of this episode?

PAD: So the JLA folks could have adapted it not only without so much as a by-your-leave, but they didn't even have to credit him. The fact that they cleared it with him and credited both him and Dave up front indicates they're definitely a class act. (Whether money changed hands as well, I've no clue. I doubt they were obligated to, but they may have nevertheless.)

Me: I certainly agree that the respect they showed Moore is a good thing. I am concerned that it doesn't seem to be consistently applied. Steve Englehart's excellent Manhunter story from JLA #140-141 was adapted to form the episodes "Justice on Trial" in the first season and, unless I missed it, there was no credit given to Englehart. I hope the treatment shown Moore was indicative of a change of practice. If, on the other hand, some creators are being treated with more respect than others just because of who they are, well, then that kind of stinks. How did Orwell put it ... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."?

Lynn

Greetings,

I was just pointed to this site, which made reference to my JLU article in the Times TV guide. Unfortunately, those articles are not carried by the web site. If there's still interest, I can post it here from our internal database, but it's about 600-words long, so I wanted to check before I did anything.

(I also had an article on Tom Raney this past weekend, in the Sunday Jersey section, but that doesn't get posted online either, alas.)

George (GusNYT@aol.com)