Posts
I did not
like the “Wonder Woman” movie that came out earlier this year. It, along with “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”
are the two most popular and well-reviewed films that I have a deep dislike for
(I think I will write a bit more on one or both of these later in the
year). But, something I will concede is
that the Diana portrayed in the movie is a perfectly valid portrayal.
The version
of Wonder Woman I am most familiar with was defined by two sources, the
“Justice League” animated series and the writing of Grant Morrison on JLA back
at the turn of the century… Not his more recent work on the character in “All Star Wonder Woman” a bad comic I reviewed in two parts where I also talked
about how incestuous and lame the marketing decisions of the comics industry can
be.
My point
with all of this is that I had to ask myself while watching the latest “Wonder
Woman” movie was, “do I dislike the “Wonder Woman” movie only because it is NOT
like the versions of the character I am more familiar with? Was I just attached to the confident,
confidence inspiring, more veteran version of the character I had become
accustomed to and seeing a less experienced version bothered me?”
The answer
is NO.
 |
| Though I definitely got sick of every freaking character in the movie saying how pretty she is. Yeah, I get it. You can be hot and strong. Hooray for Lipstick Feminism. Can we just drop the stilted dialogue? |
I welcome
interpretations of work that create fresh takes on stories and characters. Permutations on familiar things are some of
my favorite avenues of storytelling.
Changes in style, motivation, or even drastic changes in setting can
make things better, interestingly bad, or (most often) neither better or worse
but different enough that I appreciate it existing.
But I can
see other people having this problem. For
instance, I have seen lots of people who look at the “Harry Potter” movies as
being bad because they deviate from the books.
These people are of course, fools, those movies are bad for numerous reasons
unrelated to the books. Side note, I
would really like to encourage the Harry Potter fandom to read more books, when
I see every god damn thing from politics to Stephen King’s “It” compared to
Harry Potter mythology I start thinking they are all really dumb and myopic,
get out of your comfort zone a little, they’re YA fiction, not a religion.
What the
hell was I going on about? Oh, yes…
Adaptations.
With all this
in mind, I decided to kick around the idea of how different can you make a
character before it is unrecognizable.
To do this I decided to look at Batman, because there have been so many
versions of the character. They even
made a joke about it in his last movie.
Different
aspects of characters appeal to different people and what constitutes the core
aspect of a character is up for debate.
WHAT MAKES BATMAN…. BATMAN!?
To start, let’s list the three most important aspects of
Batman,
1) He is a rich man who watched his parents getting murdered
as a child.
2) He is intelligent and well trained in multiple disciplines
related to combat and criminology.
3) He fights crime dressed as a bat using bat themed weapons
and equipment.
I am
betting some people would say those things encapsulate everything you *need*
about the character in order to make a movie, and that would be the minimum. But others would say no list would be complete
without,
4) No killing, more specifically Batman does not use guns.
5) He has a butler who raised him after the death of his
parents.
6) He has a surrogate family, primarily consisting of adopted
children who have similarly lost loved ones to criminal activity, but extends
to father figures and love interests.
Christopher
Nolan decided 5 was more important than 4 (Nolan’s Batman has guns on his vehicles
if not his person and does cause the death of several criminals, though under
such extreme circumstances that it could only be seen as excusable). Nolan cut number 6 almost entirely, his
supporting cast is far smaller than other iterations of the character.
Zach Snyder
has Batman using guns and killing people left, right, and center. Snyder would have had Batman kill Superman if
it weren’t for an unintentional and really out of place reference/appeal to
point number 1. That screaming of “Martha!”
was a sort of out of nowhere appeal to the core of the character… maybe a
subtle way of saying, “Batman really shouldn’t be killing people, Superman
especially”. Was that a winking bit of
self-awareness on the part of the creatives?
Or was it just another misplaced bit of character trivia to try and
build a report that wasn’t earned… I would say it was silly either way and that
movie sucked.
Tim Burton
had Batman kill people in massive explosions or throwing them to their deaths. Beyond that his inner circle and surrogate family
was the smallest it ever was. During the
whole first movie Batman’s only humanizing cast members are Vicki Vale and
Alfred, Batman doesn’t speak to Gordon, Dent, or Knox and there is no Robin in
the movie at all.
I am sure
more people saw Burton's movie at the time of release than had read a comic in
the preceding 10 years. I am sure more
people saw Nolan's movie than had read a comic in the past 25, mostly because
comic books are an industry on life support in spite of them being the core
ancestral home of the most popular genre of entertainment on the planet
currently. But my point is, comics
getting the title of “Definitive” is REALLY misplaced.
More people
having seen the movies or the old TV show means that their version of Batman is
VERY DIFFERENT from what a comic book fan might see as definitive. And if you are looking at “Definitiveness” as
a sort of middle ground of what most people think of when they think of a
character… More people will recognize a Batman that does kill. Some might see Batman killing criminals as
something so typical or part of the character that they wouldn’t even comment
on it, or they might even dislike versions of Batman that don’t use lethal
force, seeing them as childish or just out of date.
Who's to
say one iteration of a character is the superior or more iconic version of the
character? Especially when the
multiverse exists in comics and film and each iteration "exists" in
the same way all fictional characters "exist". Like Shakespeare said in “The Tempest”:
As I foretold you, we’re all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
For me,
Batman the animated series and to a lesser extent the “Arkham” video game
series is the definitive version of the character and his supporting cast.
If you
prefer the Burton version, you aren’t wrong.
If you like
Lego Batman, you’re not wrong.
If you
think that Batman is just a lamer version of Zorro or the Shadow… You’re not
entirely off base and I suppose if you dislike when characters are derivative I
can see how that would be a strike, but I would still think you are an ass for
writing off a character just because he is one of many other similar
characters…
… I mean,
if you are going to knock them for that, let’s call them all derivatives of the
Scarlet Pimpernel.
______________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment