I hadn’t watched the JLA animated series for a while, mostly ’cause 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. But I tuned in last week because, hey, Supergirl was on it, so I just had to.
And then I watched last night’s and we’re about a minute into the episode, with Batman and Wonder Woman entering the Fortress of Solitude talking about Superman’s birthday, and I’m thinking, Dang, this seems familiar for some reason. Then the moment I saw Superman with the tentacled thing on him, I realized it was the Alan Moore annual story.
More than that: An astoundingly faithful adaptation by DeMatteis, right down to the key dialogue phrases that I remembered (including Superman’s terse “Burn” as he switches to heat vision and nearly lasers Mongul in half).
It was seriously cool, and if you missed it, check Cartoon Network listings to try and catch it.
PAD
• 
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….dámņëd 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 Hëll!”!!
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
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 Ðìçk 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
Best Jason Todd stories:
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. (Hëll, 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
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 hëll 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)