about_faces: (Default)


When I first heard that WB was doing an animated adaptation of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, my immediate thought was "Welp, they're going to cut out all of the Harvey Dent stuff, aren't they?"

I mean, why wouldn't they? WB's idiotic policy of their animated films being strictly 75 minutes long has meant hacking apart classic graphic novels such as Darwyn Cooke's DC: The New Frontier and Morrison/Quitely's All-Star Superman into above-average cliffs-notes versions of themselves in animated format. And even when they have a slim story like Batman: Year One which they can easily adapt within the time frame, they still decide to almost completely cut Harvey Dent out of the film for no good reason.

On top of all that, when it comes to the enduring popularity of The Dark Knight Returns, nobody seems to care about Harvey Dent's tragic storyline. Everyone remembers the Joker, the Mutant Leader fight, the giant-ass Batmobile tank, the Superman battle, Madam Catwoman, Carrie Kelly Robin, and the general Miller mood. But Harvey? He generally seems to be treated as an afterthought, serving to be little more than the catalyst which springs Bruce back into action as Batman. So when I heard about the animated TDKR, I instantly assumed that Harvey would be scrapped entirely and replaced with the Mutant threat as Bruce's catalyst.

That's when I actually read the news about the TDKR movie and learned that the adaptation would be split into two parts! I'm glad to see that they're actually going to try doing justice to this adaptation, so that the end result won't feel rushed and the storytelling will hopefully be able to breathe. And of course, Harvey's story WILL be included! In fact, the video sneak peek from Superman VS The Elite (anyone seen it yet?) is already making its way to YouTube. As with all other sneak peeks, this is mostly a lot of talking heads wanking about the greatness of the source material, you can find a bit of Harvey-related stuff from 3:09-3:59:



After watching that, my first thought was "Wow, they've ALREADY changed around the dialogue so that it screws with the original comics version?" Remember, in the original, he says, "Have your laugh, Batman--take a LOOK! ... take your look..." This then prompts Batman to say, "I see a reflection, Harvey. A reflection." Over at my analysis of this scene, I explained why this exchange is so meaningful to both Harvey and Bruce. But now in the animated version, he apparently instead says, "Look at me and have your laugh!" I'm not sure how they're going to transition to Bruce's own line that way. I know that this is a nitpick criticism, but if you'll recall, it was such tiny changes that pretty much ruined the Batman: Year One adaptation.

As for the acting, I'm not sure how to judge it based on what we've heard here so far. Harvey's being played by Wade Williams, an actor I know nothing about save for the fact that he was in Prison Break and that he played Black Mask in Batman: Under the Red Hood. I don't remember how he was as Roman, but then, almost nothing of B:UTRH has stayed with me. Henchgirl observed that it's a film which we're enjoying far more as clips in .gif form on Tumblr than we did as an actual movie.

So yeah, I'm not super-enthused about the TDKR movie, but I'm glad to see that Harvey's story will be there and I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. And hey, speaking as someone who's always hated the artwork in the original comic (Klaus Janson's inks especially, so grotesque), maybe the animated redesigns will actually work in the story's favor! Now the only question is who's going to play the Joker. Personally, my vote still goes for Brad Dourif, who could still rock that role right now if they went the live-action route.
about_faces: (Default)
Let me get my bias out right away: I think Batman: Year One is one of the greatest comics ever made.

It's deserving of every bit of praise it receives, and maybe even more, as Frank Miller has done everything in his power to make old fans forget what so many new fans don't realize: he used to be fucking brilliant. But then, working with a masterful artist like David Mazzucchelli (whose recent Asterios Polyp is a modern comic masterpiece) certainly didn't hurt.



While I find that Frank Miller's more-celebrated opus The Dark Knight Returns seems to get uglier and more dated with each passing year, B:YO still shines as a powerfully humane story of crime and heroism. More than that, it's also an incredibly minimalistic comic that represents the antithesis of how bloated and empty most comic storytelling is today.

Whereas most comics are filled with pointless splash pages and two-page spreads to pad out fluff stories to fill trade paperbacks, Miller and Mazzucchelli could tell entire scenes in just a couple panels, or sometimes even just one. Every single line of dialogue mattered. Every word counted. As a long-winded bastard myself, I admire the hell out of anyone who can tell a powerful story by saying very little, or even nothing at all.



So yes, I hold B:YO very close to my heart. As such, I admit that I was prejudiced against the mere prospect of a Batman: Year One animated film, particularly as I've been underwhelmed by all of DC's animated features over the past few years. Even their best adaptations--Justice League: New Frontier and All Star Superman--play like rushed Cliff's Notes of much better graphic novels. Considering that this is largely due to WB Animations' stupid and arbitrary 75-minute running time limit, I was especially dismayed to learn that Batman: Year One would run at little over an HOUR. No way in hell they could do justice to B:YO in that little time!

Except then I read this interview with Bruce Timm, where he said, "When we the finished and timed the storyboard for Batman: Year One we found it came up a little bit short. This was a new one for us! We’d put pretty much the entire comic in the movie and didn’t want to pad it and create new scenes that weren’t in the comic." So I didn't know WHAT to think anymore. Could they have done it? Were they able to tell the entire graphic novel in just an hour? Would they do it justice?



Well, we watched it last week. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can give this an objective review. I have no idea what someone would make of this if they haven't read the original graphic novel. I don't know how well it would hold up as a film on its own merits. The worst part is, I can remember the last time I felt this way: when I tried to review Watchmen. By which I mean, Zack Snyder's Watchmen movie*.

I imagine some of you are already going, "Oh dear."

What the movies of Watchmen and Batman: Year One have in common is that they're both technically very faithful. Often times, a bit TOO faithful, where it's clear that they virtually used the comic as a storyboard. This would be bad enough, since you can't tell the same story the exact same way across two different types of media, but the changes/cuts they DO make miss the point again and again and again. Because the original comic is so tightly written, the removal of a single line can cut out the entire heart of a scene.

Case in point: the very first scene (and WARNING: SPOILERS FOR A NEARLY-TWENTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD COMIC CLASSIC BEHIND THE CUT )

And yet, after all my complaints, I should stress that this isn't a bad movie. I'm sure it'd be enjoyed by someone who never read the comic. In fact, based on the reviews I'm seeing from people who HAVE read it, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm in the minority of those bothered by these changes. But personally, I see absolutely no reason for this film to exist if they didn't really do it right. The original comic is a nuanced, layered look at two heroes who complement each other, who face their own flaws as well as their enemies, and ultimately change the course of the corrupt city around them. The movie is about two good guys who show up and beat the bad guys. The comic is a masterpiece of comics art and writing. The movie features standard animation and mediocre voice acting, with a couple great exceptions.

It's a good movie based on a GREAT comic, and there's no reason to watch it as anything other than an interesting experiment. If you haven't read the comic, I say just do that instead. Otherwise, Batman: Year One is worth a rental, if only so it can encourage you to reread the comic, which everybody should do. It's a story which deserves to be reevaluated for the modern era, as it's too often misunderstood by fan and filmmaker alike.






*Here's the thing: I admire what Snyder did (and what he attempted to do) with Watchmen. It was an impossible task, and I think he gave a legitimate interpretation of the source material, which is such a rich and complex work that literally no one can agree about what's really important in that story. It's truly a rorschach test for readers, and the film was simply what Snyder saw in the inkblot. Even still, it was only a fraction of the original story, and like B:YO, was hindered by its slavish adherence to the source material without fully understanding the story. There's a reason why Snyder's brilliant opening credits sequence--which wasn't adapted from any part of the comic itself--was a better Watchmen movie than the film as a whole.
about_faces: (Default)
Batman: Year One is obviously not Harvey Dent's story. Hell, it's arguably not even Batman's story, since the main focus and arc belongs more to Jim Gordon than Bruce.

It's more about the first year of Batman being active in Gotham, as seen through the eyes of Jim Gordon. And sure, there are secondary characters who are more directly involved, such as Selina Kyle, Commissioner Loeb, Sarah Essen, Carmine Falcone, and Arnold Flass, each of whom act and react accordingly to the actions of Gordon and Batman. And then you have the bystanders such as Barbara Gordon and Holly Robinson, the characters who are largely powerless to the events going on around them.

But what about assistant district attorney Harvey Dent? He's a relatively tiny character, making fewer appearances than anyone else in the story. And yet, he's a unique character in a very important way, which we learn in the second page of the first issue, just after Bruce Wayne and James Gordon roll into Gotham for the first time:



In trademark Frank Miller fashion, exposition is revealed via newscast that Harvey Dent has once again tried and failed to bring down the corrupt Commissioner Loeb. While this panel is meant to serve as a segue into Loeb's first scene (now that we, the readers, are fully aware that Loeb is hardly a nice fella by the time he welcomes Gordon to Gotham), it also tells us that Harvey Dent was already fighting the good fight before Gordon and Batman ever arrived. In fact, based on what Miller tells us about how rotten and corrupt pretty much everyone in Gotham is, it's reasonable to assume that ADA Harvey Dent has been the sole crusader for justice in all of Gotham City.


Don't believe me? See for yourself behind the cut (AND WARNING: SPOILERS FOR BATMAN: YEAR ONE, WHICH YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE READ BY NOW) )




P.S. Of course, as I'm sure you've guessed, this post was written in anticipation of the Batman: Year One animated film adaptation, which comes out on Tuesday but is available to download on iTunes right now.

In case you're wondering: yes, I've seen it, and yes, I'm planning to give it a full review with the help of [livejournal.com profile] dr_von_fangirl. We're both fighting a flu right now, but hopefully we'll have it out by this weekend. We have a LOT to say about the movie as a whole, and specifically about what it does to our two favorite characters. Does Harvey make it into the film, and if so, how much of it? You'll find out soon enough. In exhaustively obsessive detail. With ranting. And snark. Because that's how we roll.

Note: all scans are cropped from the digital copies of Batman #404-407, which were purchased at DC's official Comixology site. Sign up for an account and you can buy all four issues for just $1.99 apiece. As you can see, the quality of the scans is quite good, and taken from the recolored graphic novel rather than the crappy four-color print of the original issues. If you'd still rather prefer a hard copy in paperback, it can be purchased pretty much anywhere. Read it one way or another, if you haven't already. It's a fucking fantastic story.
about_faces: (Default)



Hmm… the original line from the comic is “That kid Dent is pushing internal affairs to go after Flass...,” not "Gordon." Does this mean that Harvey Dent is cut out of the film entirely? I was fearing as much when he wasn't listed anywhere in the limited cast list they released, but they didn't credit who would be voicing Holly either, and Holly has to be in there to make Selina's subplot work.

But then, Harvey's subplot is more easy to lose than Selina's, and probably necessary. Shit, if they weren't willing to include single best part of All-Star Superman for the animated adaptation, I can easily see them losing Harvey entirely. I can even understand, because hey, you have to work with a 75 minute running time (and why the fuck are they still only given 75 minutes?!), but it's still sad nonetheless. I just loved Miller's touch that the only good man in Gotham when both Bruce and Jim arrived was the heroic, smirking Harvey Dent. And god, I love how Mazzucchelli drew him too.

Tangent/Rant about DCU animation in general: But then again, they're abandoning Mazzucchelli's style too, aren't they? Instead, we'll be getting that stiff anime-style animation that they gave All-Star Superman too. The logic there being, according to one of the animators, the animation was "updated" because, "“People want to see more combo movies... They want to see almost like a ballet kind of choreographed fight and I just think that stuff that passed in the 1990s doesn’t really fly anymore.” Which I think is kind of bullshit, because A.) it's Batman and people will watch it anyway, and B.) I'm not sure I trust the word of someone who doesn't even know that B:YO is from the 19-fucking-80's, dude. I guess we should just count ourselves lucky that they didn't anime-up Darwyn Cooke's art style for Justice League: New Frontier.

Perhaps the most important reason it's wrong to drop Harvey from the Year One animated movie is that having him there would have been vital if they ever managed to make the long-rumored animated Long Halloween movie. No lie, I'd LOVE to see them animated Long Halloween. I wanna see if losing Tim Sale's art in favor of blah wannabe anime will expose the story for the crap that it is, especially as actors try to bring Loeb's painfully hackneyed dialogue to life. I mean, come on, I can't be the only one who writhed in pain from the terrible scripts of the Superman/Batman animated movies, right? That said, I'd be genuinely interested to see how they'd handle Harvey, and who would be hired to voice him. I have a lot of problems with TLH, but I don't hate Loeb's Harvey Dent. I don't love him, but I don't hate him either. Ugh, looks like it's finally time to review Harvey's roles in both Year One and TLH.

Man, I'm really going off-track here, aren't I? Point in, the B:YO animated film looks not so great, taking a brilliant and pretty-darn-well-flawless comic and boiling it down to a film which will probably be good enough, but frankly pointless. The voice actor for Batman sounds better than he did in earlier clips, but that's not saying much, and I'm not sure how much of his awkwardness is affected or unintentional.

What I'm basically saying is, there's only one reason I'm interested in watching Batman: Year One, and it's the pitch-perfect casting of The Cranston as Jim Gordon. That guarantees a day-of-release rental right there.
about_faces: (Default)
When people talk about some of the greatest Batman comics of all time, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns is usually listed as number one.

I used to agree, but the older I get, the more I find TDKR to be unbearably ugly. Conversely, I find that Miller and David Mazzucchelli's Batman: Year One gets more powerful and humane with each passing year. I think it's because comics creators learned an awful lot of bad lessons from Miller and Janson's TDKR, and I can't read that book without seeing all the negative influences it's since had on Batman and comics in general. Regardless, TDKR a historic work, filled with scenes and moments that burn into a fan's memory.

But in all the retrospectives and articles I've seen about TDKR, I've noticed a distinct lack of mention for the Harvey Dent subplot. Sad thing is, I can understand why. Even for a fan like me, Harvey's story (and what it means to Batman) slips between the cracks when it comes to stuff like the Mutant mud-pit fight, the sounds of the Joker breaking his own neck, and the climatic battle with Superman. I suppose it's because those scenes are visceral, the kind of moments you can sense on several levels, whereas Harvey's story is more of a psychological portrait. Not even that: he's just there to serve as a reflection to Bruce's psychological portrait.

So let's shine the spotlight expressly upon this neglected subplot of a great work, to see what Miller had to say about who Harvey was, what Two-Face is, and just how exactly he relates to Batman.





We must BELIEVE in Harvey Dent behind the cut )



If you're one of the few who's not yet read The Dark Knight Returns, it can be purchased via Amazon.com, but you're also likely to find it at most libraries that carry trade paperbacks and graphic novels. It's one of the standards, after all.

Profile

about_faces: (Default)
about_faces

July 2013

S M T W T F S
 123 456
789 10 111213
14151617181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 10:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios