What are your comic peeves?

[DarkKnightReturns]

What are things that bother you about comic books and/or superheroes? They don't have to be comics themselves, but anything related to them.

I have plenty, but I feel like sharing one at a time, so I'll post a new one with each post.

I'll start with a big one that I experienced today. It's something that bugged me for a while, but almost never as bad as this.

I took my English class at college for the first night of this semester today, and the professor told a story about how when he told his last class to write an essay on giving an example of a hero he seemed in disbelief and humored that three students just out of high school wrote about Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. He said that'd be a better example for three to four year olds, and wasn't adult or intellectually stimulating.

It's not like this guy is ignorant either; he was really old. It bugged the hell out of me. -___-

Almost nothing bothers me more than people assuming that comics and/or superheroes have no actual value in terms of intellectual growth or insight of any kind, or that they're purely children's fodder. I've gotten more out of comics mentally and emotionally than I have anything else, and have read countless comics no parent would ever want their child to read.

[JackWinz]

Anything that ends in: "TO BE CONTINUED"

[The Comedian]

Waiting for All Star Batman and Robin

[DarkKnightReturns]

People complaining about blood and/or swearing. Either one being involved doesn't automatically mean a bad story, folks. I hate when people review this aspect and say "This isn't your dad's Batman/Spider-Man/whatever comic" in a bad connotation. Not everything has to be censored up the wazoo. I applaud Frank Miller, Garth Ennis, Kevin Smith, and other like-minded writers/artists for fighting this ridiculous soccer mom trend.

[Drazar]

- People complaining about comics they don't read, but have read comments from other people.
- People making own "canon" timelines for long time characters and treating their opinion as an actual fact for what is canon/loyal to the character.
- People month after month getting a comic they hate and contaniously complaining about it, instead of actually checking out something new and find something enjoyable.
- Inaccurate portrayals and/or misunderstandings of the characters, such as people seeing Bane as a mere "that guy with the drug".
- comic writers in forums having petty arguments as simple as "you just don't get me" instead of answering constructively to constructive arguments.
- Batman fans' constant "obsession" with the ideas that Batman can defeat super powered beings such as aliens singlehandedly.
- Marvel's constant relaunch and mini-series spam and status quo change to fit these upcoming movies, instead of letting writers write their stuff, we've gotten Odin back in Thor, now with April soliciations it might seem Steve Rogers is going back Captain America and whatnot. Honestly i feel comic companies should either release trades or make OGNs to attract new audiences that come from movies successes. Not trying to hook up people to comics that cost either 2.99 a month or 3.99.
- pointless deaths to either create shock value or replace the character with a new take, such as the new Aqualad. Garth didn't need to die for Johns to makeway for Greg Weismann's Aqualad.
- Lack of editorial interference towards A level writers that then cause the writer to get too loose or get some canon material inaccurate.

[GOGO]

When Batman comics don't include the line "I'm the goddamn Batman." :rasp:

[Zur-en-ah]

- People complaining about comics they don't read, but have read comments from other people.
- People making own "canon" timelines for long time characters and treating their opinion as an actual fact for what is canon/loyal to the character.
- People month after month getting a comic they hate and contaniously complaining about it, instead of actually checking out something new and find something enjoyable.
- Inaccurate portrayals and/or misunderstandings of the characters, such as people seeing Bane as a mere "that guy with the drug".
- comic writers in forums having petty arguments as simple as "you just don't get me" instead of answering constructively to constructive arguments.
- Batman fans' constant "obsession" with the ideas that Batman can defeat super powered beings such as aliens singlehandedly.
- Marvel's constant relaunch and mini-series spam and status quo change to fit these upcoming movies, instead of letting writers write their stuff, we've gotten Odin back in Thor, now with April soliciations it might seem Steve Rogers is going back Captain America and whatnot. Honestly i feel comic companies should either release trades or make OGNs to attract new audiences that come from movies successes. Not trying to hook up people to comics that cost either 2.99 a month or 3.99.
- pointless deaths to either create shock value or replace the character with a new take, such as the new Aqualad. Garth didn't need to die for Johns to makeway for Greg Weismann's Aqualad.
- Lack of editorial interference towards A level writers that then cause the writer to get too loose or get some canon material inaccurate.

heh - is that all?

:)

hang on, you're fifth point has got me intrigued ... is this down to personal experience? if so, do tell

[DarkKnightReturns]

When my favorite writers embarrass all hell out of themselves. I love Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb and Garth Ennis, but Jesus Christ do they have their share of big time screw-ups.

[Batman The Trailer Hunter]

When they make 1 character look lame so another will look better, and the sexism with women

[DarkKnightReturns]

When writers and editors completely fudge up my favorite series and cause me to stop following them. But no offender is worse than Joe Quesada, who ruined Spider-Man for me. I'm one of those fans who can't stand Mary Jane and even I hated One More Day. Thanks to stuff like this the only comics coming out that I know I'll be looking forward to this year are Batman: Europa and Dark Knight: Boy Wonder.

[Drazar]

heh - is that all?

Nah, those came from the top of my head.

Here's some more:
- People complaining about changes to characters when made to television/cartoon/movies. Characters constantly change in comics, but why cannot we allow for new different takes aslong as the essence and point of the character still exists?
- DC taking 4-6 months to collect a book in trade format, wheres Marvel only takes about 2 months.


hang on, you're fifth point has got me intrigued ... is this down to personal experience? if so, do tell

Nah, my experience with writers has been the most positive, especially with Dwayne Mcduffie and the artist Norm Breyfogle. Gail Simone and Kevin Smith we're the writers i've seen not really bothering with real responses to some forum posts, which begs me to question why did they post to begin with?

When they make 1 character look lame so another will look better

Like Bane in Arkham Asylum to make Joker look better? ;)

and the sexism with women

Most agreed.

When writers and editors completely fudge up my favorite series and cause me to stop following them. But no offender is worse than Joe Quesada, who ruined Spider-Man for me. I'm one of those fans who can't stand Mary Jane and even I hated One More Day. Thanks to stuff like this the only comics coming out that I know I'll be looking forward to this year are Batman: Europa and Dark Knight: Boy Wonder.

Why aren't you checking Dan Slott's Spidey? Really i'd check out Spider-Man Big Time, it has Humberto Ramos' penciling the book, whos art definatly isn't for everyone at all, but it's simply just enjoyable adventure time with Spider-Man getting a good job, having a girlfriend and just having a great time. The villain so far has been Hobgoblin, but the Scorpion is making his move along with Kingpin being the man who hired Hobby.I honestly don't see how OMIT ruined Dan Slott's Big Time at all, i simply didn't care for Joe Quasada. Seems to be you're overreacting.

[Matches Malone]

Sidekicks saving heroes to justify the sidekick's existence.

[Zur-en-ah]

Draz' point about DC taking ages to publish trades. That REALLY frustrates me.

Also, when they have too many artists working on a major story arc. Maybe its just a personal thing, but I think the good comics are the ones with consistency between writer and artist. Nothing bugs me more than when you're finally gettng into a style and then it suddenly radically changes in the next issue

[A Dark Knight]

When writers and editors completely fudge up my favorite series and cause me to stop following them. But no offender is worse than Joe Quesada, who ruined Spider-Man for me. I'm one of those fans who can't stand Mary Jane and even I hated One More Day. Thanks to stuff like this the only comics coming out that I know I'll be looking forward to this year are Batman: Europa and Dark Knight: Boy Wonder.
Yeah, is DK:BW dead or something? Because Jim Lee and Frank Miller seemed to have moved on to new projects...

[batfan08]

I,too,hate the criticism of comic books from the "intelligent" people who believe they are merely cannon fodder for the children.If these people were intelligent,they would know not to dismiss a medium due to bias and ignorant presumptions.For one thing,their misconceptions are limiting comics to the standard capes-and-tights format,when,in reality,there is so much more than that.Look at The Walking Dead,for example,a graphic novel that places standard horror movie fodder into a class of hurricanes and tornadoes.Portraying the undead as a force of nature.These are simply part of the backdrop for a story of survival and loss.Then,there are books such as 100 Bullets and Y:The Last Man.The aforementioned 100 Bullets being a contemporary crime noir saga which meticulously intertwines each character's lives in a story that spans 100 issues.Y:The Last Man being a modern day twist on the classic "Last Man on Earth" formula and chronicling the journey of a man and his primate pal as they cross continents in order...

[batfan08]

to find his lover in a world devoid of those with the Y chromosome.I,however,am not dismissing the capes-and-tights format by any means,as any genre can craft a good story.All-Star Superman stands out most as a memoir of the Man of Steel as he lives out his final days,after facing the all too human evil,cancer.Bottom line: judging an entire genre because of presumptuous misconceptions is one of the worst forms of ignorance.

Other things that bother me:

-Calling a comic book a graphic novel(I'm looking at you,Watchmen).If something is published in a series of smaller volumes(comic books) before being printed in a single volume in it's entirety,it is a comic book.

-Alan Moore presuming he's intellectually superior to every living organism on earth

[batfan08]

Also,I don't know what's going on with Dark Knight:Boy Wonder,the last thing Jim Lee said was that it would be released in February 2011,yet titles releasing in February were solicited months ago,and there was no Dark Knight:Boy Wonder to be found.

[jtr7]

Agree with many things. One pet peeve of mine for characters across media: Having an ability and not using it, and getting defeated or injured for it, with no explanation as to why it was totally neglected, like I won't notice.

[Old_BenKenobi]

to find his lover in a world devoid of those with the Y chromosome.I,however,am not dismissing the capes-and-tights format by any means,as any genre can craft a good story.All-Star Superman stands out most as a memoir of the Man of Steel as he lives out his final days,after facing the all too human evil,cancer.Bottom line: judging an entire genre because of presumptuous misconceptions is one of the worst forms of ignorance.

Other things that bother me:

-Calling a comic book a graphic novel(I'm looking at you,Watchmen).If something is published in a series of smaller volumes(comic books) before being printed in a single volume in it's entirety,it is a comic book.

-Alan Moore presuming he's intellectually superior to every living organism on earth

I'm pretty sure hes just trolling. He seems too on-the-ball to think hes actually right about everything. I mean, he admitted that he worships a Roman snake god and in the same quote admitted the snake god flat-out doesn't exist. He also said that on his 40th birthday he wanted to make his friends think he'd gone crazy so he declared himself to be a magician. And I also read that he used to anonymously put out rumours that he was a psychopath/pedophile/murderer/rapist/whatever so people wouldn't approach him on the street. He seems to look down on being considered a comic book genius and chooses to have fun with it.

As for my own personal pet peeves:

- Stories that require too much thinking. I can here it now: "BLASPHEMER!" But its true. I like simple stuff. I don't like clutter. Cut out the appetizer and get straight to the meat and potatoes. No twisty bendy stuff, especially if it breaks my other rule...
- Stories that are just too damn long. Get your point across in 12 issues or less, or at least give me a decent amount of resolution.
- Stories that don't have enough story. Aka NO FILLER. Every time I buy a comic it costs me 3-4 bucks and I expect to get my money's worth. I like decompressed storytelling but make it worth my while. I don't want to read an issue only to be hit with the realization at the end that nothing significant happened or progressed the story. ASBAR, I'm looking at you!

[DarkVictory]

Just about everything Marvel has done in their main continuity for like 3 or 4 years. Yeah, I said it. Someone above mentioned One More Day, which I thought was just flat out retarded, but a LOT of Marvel storylines are like that. Every five issues there is some sort of strange event occurring in a Marvel book that either brings someone back to life, reveals so and so is really related to so and so, or just flat out retcons some large portion.

I understand, these characters have been around for decades, things need to be spiced up, but try to get into a main continuity X-title, for example, if you haven't read one for 6 months (or heaven forbid a year) and try and figure out everything that's going on without looking up every other character's bio on Wikipedia. Every single X-Man used to be a bad guy or used to be in X-Factor or used to be dating someone from X-Force or used to dead. It's crazy.

Also, how they handled their 'Ultimate' line of comics, which all started off so well (Ultimate Spider-Man moreso than any of the others) was disappointing.


Blood and violence and swearing just for the sake of it. This is kind of counter to what someone else said before, but being 'mature' and having a lot of blood and profanity isn't the same thing to me. I know there are some who love it on this board, but All-Star Batman and Robin is the most childish Batman story I have read in a long time. I understand Batman is tough and bad *ss. I know that even if Batman doesn't try to remind me every five panels.

This applies to other comics, too, I'm not just hating on ASBAR. I never really got into anything Image did in the mid-90's. Too much style over substance just don't work for me.

[Drazar]

Just about everything Marvel has done in their main continuity for like 3 or 4 years. Yeah, I said it. Someone above mentioned One More Day, which I thought was just flat out retarded, but a LOT of Marvel storylines are like that. Every five issues there is some sort of strange event occurring in a Marvel book that either brings someone back to life, reveals so and so is really related to so and so, or just flat out retcons some large portion.

Why aren't you feeling the same thing about DC comics? :confused:

Anyhow this does remind me of one thing from Marvel, i really dislike how they allow other creators to mess out other peoples' books just like that. JMS' getting to change his work due to both Millar and Bendis is what ultimately made him leave Marvel, first Millar unmasks Spider-Man in Civil War and thus JMS has to rewrite portions of his story, then you have Bendis destroy the Okhaholma base of Asgard in his own little event and thus forcing another writer to rewrite his scripts yet again. DC allows more creative freedom on characters, and thus fans have been having to enjoy Green Lantern and Batman franchises for years since it's only Johns and Morrison handling the main events.

Also, how they handled their 'Ultimate' line of comics, which all started off so well (Ultimate Spider-Man moreso than any of the others) was disappointing.


Are you talking about post-Ultimatum? What has been disappointing there? I can understand the complaiments of Loeb's small changes in New Ultimates, but i've found the direction with Avengers, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four pretty sweet, but i wish Loeb would kick out Arthur Adams from Ultimate X and just replace the darn artist.

[HellfireBat]

When Batman isn't potrayed right is what makes me mad >:-(

[A Dark Knight]

When Batman isn't potrayed right is what makes me mad >:-(
There is no correct way to portray Batman.

[DarkVictory]

Why aren't you feeling the same thing about DC comics? :confused: Because DC doesn't do it the same way Marvel does, something you just pointed out yourself.

DC usually is far more unified and their 'big' changes seem to happen in concentrated arcs, not every time somebody has some 'genius' idea. You can drop into the Batman books (well, usually, not currently with the whole Black Glove/Bruce Wayne is dead/Now he's not, but he's not really Batman arc going, but most of the time) just about any time and you'll know what's going on for 95% of the book.



Are you talking about post-Ultimatum? What has been disappointing there? I can understand the complaiments of Loeb's small changes in New Ultimates, but i've found the direction with Avengers, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four pretty sweet, but i wish Loeb would kick out Arthur Adams from Ultimate X and just replace the darn artist. No, I meant the 'Ultimatum' event itself. I didn't bother looking at anything after that, so if the new books are good, that's awesome.

[D.A.V.E.]

- Lack of editorial interference towards A level writers that then cause the writer to get too loose or get some canon material inaccurate.

At the opposite side of the spectrum, too much editorial mandate suffocating the writer can create some truly bad stories, such as One More Day or all of Countdown.

[HellfireBat]

There is no correct way to portray Batman.

I mean a portrayal that is not the batman you would expect. The type who would go in fist first into a fight.

[A Dark Knight]

I mean a portrayal that is not the batman you would expect. The type who would go in fist first into a fight.
What are you referencing? I have a strong feeling as to what it is, but please, do tell.

[Drazar]

Because DC doesn't do it the same way Marvel does, something you just pointed out yourself.

Well i'm not sure am i exactly following you, for example Geoff Johns whos pretty much the most influencal writer on DC universe as a whole has been doing adjustments such as giving a new updated (and changed) origin for Barry Allen, yet another Superman origin along with. I guess what you're striving for is when a new writer jumps on, he/she just ignores what the previous writer did? Thats kinda what DC did with Superman and Wonder Woman books, granted the Wonder Woman one is fixable, but noone in the Superman books seem to care about the New Krypton arc whatsoever. :S It's pretty shame these things happen, but DC wanted a new jumping point for readers with Superman #700 and Wonder Woman #600. Did this really work out? Not really, i mean i think Wonder Woman sales are abit better, but right now comic community wise the new big three are Batman, Flash and Green Lantern. :p

[theclownprince88]

my one real comic pet peeve is when the cover art is waaaay better than the interior art!

[BigBoss]

-Calling a comic book a graphic novel(I'm looking at you,Watchmen).If something is published in a series of smaller volumes(comic books) before being printed in a single volume in it's entirety,it is a comic book.

-Alan Moore presuming he's intellectually superior to every living organism on earth

As for the first point, when a movie trilogy is released in a single pack, would you rather it have 3 titles on it than saying just the complete series or something? Do you want the name of every episode to be named in tv series releases?

As for your second, do you have any quotes of his supporting that accusation?

[batfan08]

1.I'm not saying include the names of each issues story,I'm simply saying tell it like it is.Seriously,Is comic book really that bad?They can't say critically acclaimed comic book?Think of it this way:A film based on a short story is released.At the beginning of the film it will say "Based on the short story "Insert title here" by "Insert author here".If the story is released in a collected edition,will they refer to it as a short story or as a collected edition?

2.a.It was meant to be taken humorously
b.I thought that by now,it was common knowledge that Moore has an ego larger than the universe itself

[Hatman]

This is more of a comic-to-movie peeve, but I find it irritating when the films randomly deviate from the comics. When directors/screenwriters add characters at random merely because they are vaguely aware of said character in the comic book universe, yet lack the knowledge to properly apply that character. And when other people account for any mammoth discrepency with the excuse, "They're trying to create a unique universe.":mad2:

[DarkKnightReturns]

This is more of a comic-to-movie peeve, but I find it irritating when the films randomly deviate from the comics. When directors/screenwriters add characters at random merely because they are vaguely aware of said character in the comic book universe, yet lack the knowledge to properly apply that character. And when other people account for any mammoth discrepency with the excuse, "They're trying to create a unique universe.":mad2:

I can completely empathize with this. :thumb:

[Hatman]

I can completely empathize with this. :thumb:

I still cannot forgive the obvious creative license of Joker in the last film.

Heath Ledger reduced the character from the most well-devised DC villain to a babbling neurotic in the space of two hours. He claimed to have read The Killing Joke, but I suspect that he borrowed from whatever inspiration his own mental illness may have lent him far more than from any DC work (before anyone disputes me on the mental illness part, certain interviews he did in the months leading up to his death depicting a twitching, stuttering Ledger are the proof).

Just the fact that they stick Harley in the next movie when all of us know there will be no Joker (due to Ledger's death) should be a bald-faced indication of the ignorance permeating the film industry.

These days more than ever before, I find myself more divided with each successive new DC-related movie that comes out. On one hand, I want to see what they do with Bane in the upcoming film, on the other hand, I dread it. Will we see a true to form, Venom-driven Bane who breaks Batman's back? Or will he recite Shakespeare verses in between stiff backhands?

What really boggles my mind is how so many people call the Joker in B:AA a spot on characterization (and rightly so), and yet so many people are deluded in the fact that Ledger's Joker is spot on.

PUL-EEEEZE people, they can't both be accurate.

Anyway, it's nice to know that someone agrees with me for once. Reaffirms my faith in civilization.:cool:

[Drazar]

I still cannot forgive the obvious creative license of Joker in the last film.
[QUOTE]
Heath Ledger reduced the character from the most well-devised DC villain to a babbling neurotic in the space of two hours. He claimed to have read The Killing Joke

It's ultimately irrelevant how many comics he read as he went with his own take as much as Nolan and others wanted. They took liberties from the comics as you saw in the movie.

(before anyone disputes me on the mental illness part, certain interviews he did in the months leading up to his death depicting a twitching, stuttering Ledger are the proof).

Yeah you're going to need to give some solid citations on this part, random Australian bloggers claiming things don't make fiction into reality. Heath's dead had nothng to do with the Joker, it was pills and his social life, not a movie role.

Just the fact that they stick Harley in the next movie when all of us know there will be no Joker (due to Ledger's death) should be a bald-faced indication of the ignorance permeating the film industry.

Yeah there's been no casting of Harley Quinn. Bane and Catwoman have been the new characters announced so far.


What really boggles my mind is how so many people call the Joker in B:AA a spot on characterization (and rightly so), and yet so many people are deluded in the fact that Ledger's Joker is spot on.

Whats not spot on about Joker? Outside of not being perma white, it was a pretty spot on adaption. He had the clothes, he had the personality, he had his motivations based around torturing Batman, he was manipulative and a mastermind criminal. He didn't use any wacky gadgets due to this being his start, just like in the comics Joker was pretty much all murderous and no jokes.


PUL-EEEEZE people, they can't both be accurate.


Why not? After 70 years of written comic history, you got alot of variety going on.

Really 2 years ago if you'd ask me did i care about how canon portrayls comic movies are, i'd agree. Now days i just let them do their adaption aslong as they take cues from the source material, but i mean when you realize Batman's status quo has been ever changing since Detective comics #38, you gotta realize instead of trying to force itself being tied to certain eras of comics, just make your own adaption and make it a good movie.

[batfan08]

An accurate portrayal of a character does not have to be exactly as the character is in the original source material.If anything,the only thing they actually changed about him was his origin.Perma-Clown or not,when you look at an image of him,comic fan or not,you know who he is.Second,The Joker has no interpretation set in stone,as his character and attitude are constantly evolving.I mean,look at Batman and Robin for example,he essentially develops a split personality so that he could help Batman and Robin solve crimes.Obviously,this deviates from Joker's original incarnation,just as books such as Joker,and A serious House on a Serious Earth have as well.

[Hatman]

@ Drazar (not quoted directly because I keep getting a stupid "your message needs to be more than three characters to proceed" prompt):

The “insane Ledger” thing was an interview I saw with my own eyes. Ledger, in an interview with a chick, tilts his head awkwardly in odd positions, avoids eye contact, mumbles and twitches. I couldn't tell you the source, as this was a few years ago.

I was under the impression that Harley was to be in the movie, regardless of whether she's been cast. If I'm mistaken, my bad.

The "not perma white" thing irritated me, for reasons that are likely obvious. Ledger's Joker seemed kind of introverted, not extroverted enough. His body language seems off, particularly the manner in which he walks with his head between his shoulders; his voice sounds like that of a depressed frog; he has the air of a moody, depressed person more than the manic performer of the comics; his clothes and makeup give him a "worn" appearance, giving me the impression that he's neither showered nor changed in weeks; maybe I'm accustomed to Mark Hamill's laugh, but Ledger's sounds forced and manufactured; a catch phrase? He has a catch phrase???

To be fair, not all of these things are entirely Ledger's fault. But they absolutely killed the movie for me.

I hated TDK not just for Ledger's take, but for actively ignoring aspects of his background that are important to his character. Most obvious is the fall into the vat. Then we have the pregnant wife angle. Now if you believe Joker, he remembers his past differently depending upon the day, but the pregnant wife angle is the one that is most supported by hard evidence. To ignore it is to do a huge injustice to the license.

I agree with the “comics history” part, to a point. But while even the current mythos (as opposed to the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages of Batman) may have a number of accepted continuities, most, if not all, of those continuities stay true to the character. For example, Joker is more or less the exact same individual in Frank Miller's timeline as he is in the main continuity.

I could make an adaption in which Batman wears a frilly cape and Joker is a transvestite stripper, and people would piss on it. But if I became a big budget screenwriter and found some Hollywood bigwig to cast my script, and if the characters "were believable and stayed true to themselves within the context of the story" the film would get Academy Award nominations and everyone would commend the actors for bringing the characters of the DC Universe to life.

[angleslam99]

Sidekicks saving heroes to justify the sidekick's existence.

Everyone needs saving.

[The Hylden]

@ Drazar (not quoted directly because I keep getting a stupid "your message needs to be more than three characters to proceed" prompt):

that message only comes up if you try to post without adding anything after whatever you're quoting.

The “insane Ledger” thing was an interview I saw with my own eyes. Ledger, in an interview with a chick, tilts his head awkwardly in odd positions, avoids eye contact, mumbles and twitches. I couldn't tell you the source, as this was a few years ago.

Well, all of that could mean anything. He could have had a bad day and was tring to hide it, hated the interview/interviewer, was strung-out from the pills he was taking, isn't comfortable talking about what was being asked of him, had to go to the bathroom :p It's very hard to tell, but if you find it on YouTube, or something, please add the link so we can see.

The "not perma white" thing irritated me, for reasons that are likely obvious. Ledger's Joker seemed kind of introverted, not extroverted enough. His body language seems off, particularly the manner in which he walks with his head between his shoulders; his voice sounds like that of a depressed frog; he has the air of a moody, depressed person more than the manic performer of the comics; his clothes and makeup give him a "worn" appearance, giving me the impression that he's neither showered nor changed in weeks; maybe I'm accustomed to Mark Hamill's laugh, but Ledger's sounds forced and manufactured; a catch phrase? He has a catch phrase???

Joker has been written differently many times, so this is nothing new. But the Joker in The Dark Knight was certainly willing to put himself out there in front of everyone, do absolutely anything, and when he walked into any room, he was the center of attention, so introverted isn't quite the word I'd use. And as for catch phrases:

Why so serious?
Let's put a smile on that face!
How about a magic trick?
Wanna know how I got these scars?
I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos -- it's fair.
Everything burns!
You complete me!


He's got quite a few that everyone remembers. Easily, The Dark Knight's Joker was probably the most quoted fictional character of 2009, and is still up there, I am sure. That doesn't happen unless his lines stuck with the masses; hence, catch phrases.

I agree with the “comics history” part, to a point. But while even the current mythos (as opposed to the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages of Batman) may have a number of accepted continuities, most, if not all, of those continuities stay true to the character. For example, Joker is more or less the exact same individual in Frank Miller's timeline as he is in the main continuity.

Well, if you're talking The Dark Knight Returns, then he's the same? I guess ... except for wearing lipstick, acting feminine, and dressing more like Rupaul than the classic Joker... I'll also note that he's been portrayed in comics as cutting up his own mouth to make it wider, and having it poorly stitched back together (scars), has been shown to be both lanky and buff, wearing make-up and not, dressed more in a pieced-together, torn and patched outfit, to having him in a tuxedo... As far as personality: in some incarnations he's almost a split personality, in others, manic, in still others, cold and ruthless, or knowing full well what he's doing, and so on. He's whatever the current writer makes of him, as long as he's still basically the antithesis of Batman, or even the product of Batman's presence, if you will.

I think it's fine not to like the incarnation in The Dark Knight, but it's a shame that you aren't able to enjoy it for the faithful parts it does portray of the character and the performance that it was. You're seeming to grasp at reasons from the comic lore to bash it, however. There just isn't that much to it as you'd like it to be, I don't believe.

[Drazar]

The “insane Ledger” thing was an interview I saw with my own eyes. Ledger, in an interview with a chick, tilts his head awkwardly in odd positions, avoids eye contact, mumbles and twitches. I couldn't tell you the source, as this was a few years ago.

And thats how you base off that this movie role turned him "insane" instead of presuming that was his body reacting to all the pills he was taking in order to get sleep? You're stretching here alot.

His body language seems off, particularly the manner in which he walks with his head between his shoulders; his voice sounds like that of a depressed frog;

he has the air of a moody, depressed person more than the manic performer of the comics;


But even in the comics he goes moody, in The Killing Joke which you mentioned he changes his personality constantly from moody to calm to depressed to maniac. That is the Joker, he constantly changes himself because he is insane. He can be laughing, he can be crying at the smallest of things, you never really understand why.

his clothes and makeup give him a "worn" appearance, giving me the impression that he's neither showered nor changed in weeks;

I don't understand why this is so bad, i mean Arkham Asylum did the exact same thing really. in Arkham City the flower he had on his suit is even dead now.

a catch phrase? He has a catch phrase???

The why so serious? I'd blame the marketing department and fanbase, but didn't he only say that two times and at the same scene?


I hated TDK not just for Ledger's take, but for actively ignoring aspects of his background that are important to his character. Most obvious is the fall into the vat. Then we have the pregnant wife angle. Now if you believe Joker, he remembers his past differently depending upon the day, but the pregnant wife angle is the one that is most supported by hard evidence. To ignore it is to do a huge injustice to the license.

But even in the Killing Joke he says "if i want to have a past, i'd prefer multiple ones" meaning you can't never tell what is real. Joker in TDK does claim he had a wife, but did he truly have one or not? You can't tell because he keeps making up new stories. Even the comics kept the Killing Joke aspect of anonymous past, until Grant Morrison took in charge of the comics and ensured the Red Hood origin for Joker being the real one.

Joker is more or less the exact same individual in Frank Miller's timeline as he is in the main continuity.

I hardly agree. Miller's Joker was pretty much all about cold murder with no jokes, sure he loved the laughter, but he was deadly serious and never showed any showman charisma or anything. Joker in main continuity has been told to have "super insanity" where he keeps developing himself into a new person from time to time, this is to explain why when Dick Grayson was introduced, Joker slowly from a ruthless murderor became a harmless prankster, but when Jason Todd entered the picture he started doing much more nastier jokes on people. Recently he's incarnated himself as Death himself to play againts the Black Glove and Baman, but now he's more or less back to his old clownish ways.

I could make an adaption in which Batman wears a frilly cape and Joker is a transvestite stripper, and people would piss on it.

Aslong as the story is good, people will love it. Noone should care about the most hardcore comic fans who nitpick things to death at the slightest of changes. Batman can be done in multiple ways in comics, cartoons and video games, why not movies?

[Old_BenKenobi]

The only thing that really bugs me about the Joker in The Dark Knight.is him wearing makeup. And the reason for it is I've always found it interesting that Batman has to disguise himself to become his true self while Joker has to take off his disguise to become his true self. I think it goes well with the ying-yang between the characters and in The Dark Knight that obviously isn't there. Another thing that bugs me about it is a smaller point but I might as well mention it. With Joker's traditional look theres nothing scary about him upfront. White face, red lips, green hair. Not very scary unless you're afraid of clowns. What makes him look scary is him being a psycho. You look at the big grin and the evil eyes and you get freaked out. With TDK's Joker between his visible disfigurement and his makeup right off the bat he looks like a creepy bastard and while it looks "cooler" I don't think its as effective as the good old fashioned Joker look.

But really, as much as I nitpick and ***** about everything, The Joker was one of the best parts of TDK.

[Hatman]

that message only comes up if you try to post without adding anything after whatever you're quoting.



Well, all of that could mean anything. He could have had a bad day and was tring to hide it, hated the interview/interviewer, was strung-out from the pills he was taking, isn't comfortable talking about what was being asked of him, had to go to the bathroom :p It's very hard to tell, but if you find it on YouTube, or something, please add the link so we can see.

I guess you'd have to see it to understand. Ledger's mannerisms reminded me of the body language of schizophrenics I've observed. If he wasn't mentally ill, I'd say he had an extreme social phobia, but I'm inclined to go with the former.



Joker has been written differently many times, so this is nothing new. But the Joker in The Dark Knight was certainly willing to put himself out there in front of everyone, do absolutely anything, and when he walked into any room, he was the center of attention, so introverted isn't quite the word I'd use. And as for catch phrases:

Why so serious?
Let's put a smile on that face!
How about a magic trick?
Wanna know how I got these scars?
I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos -- it's fair.
Everything burns!
You complete me!


He's got quite a few that everyone remembers. Easily, The Dark Knight's Joker was probably the most quoted fictional character of 2009, and is still up there, I am sure. That doesn't happen unless his lines stuck with the masses; hence, catch phrases.



Well, if you're talking The Dark Knight Returns, then he's the same? I guess ... except for wearing lipstick, acting feminine, and dressing more like Rupaul than the classic Joker... I'll also note that he's been portrayed in comics as cutting up his own mouth to make it wider, and having it poorly stitched back together (scars), has been shown to be both lanky and buff, wearing make-up and not, dressed more in a pieced-together, torn and patched outfit, to having him in a tuxedo... As far as personality: in some incarnations he's almost a split personality, in others, manic, in still others, cold and ruthless, or knowing full well what he's doing, and so on. He's whatever the current writer makes of him, as long as he's still basically the antithesis of Batman, or even the product of Batman's presence, if you will.

I always figured that the feminine aspects of Joker's character in Dark Knight Returns evolved and that over time he developed a borderline sexual infatuation with Batman, given that its set in a period when both men are middle-aged (you know, mid-life crisis and all that). Of course, there may be no factual basis for that whatsoever, so point acknowledged.

I think it's fine not to like the incarnation in The Dark Knight, but it's a shame that you aren't able to enjoy it for the faithful parts it does portray of the character and the performance that it was. You're seeming to grasp at reasons from the comic lore to bash it, however. There just isn't that much to it as you'd like it to be, I don't believe.

Once I've formulated an opinion on something, it stays formed. Some might think it's stubborn of me, but the notion that the whole world depicted in TDK was one of the earths that was destroyed in the Crisis storyline helps me sleep at night.

[BigBoss]

b.I thought that by now,it was common knowledge that Moore has an ego larger than the universe itself

That's still not proof. Can you pull up even a couple quotes of his that prove this?

[Old_BenKenobi]

Erm, Joker in The Dark Knight has no catchphrases. A line being quoted endlessly by the public doesn't make it a catchphrase, the character or actor has to use the quote repeatedly. Is Hannibal Lecter's "A census taker once tried to test me..." line a catchphrase? No, because despite the line entering the public lexicon the character only used it once.

[airblitz7]

Erm, Joker in The Dark Knight has no catchphrases. A line being quoted endlessly by the public doesn't make it a catchphrase, the character or actor has to use the quote repeatedly. Is Hannibal Lecter's "A census taker once tried to test me..." line a catchphrase? No, because despite the line entering the public lexicon the character only used it once.
A catchphrase doesn't necessarily have to be uttered by a character in a text. It's a phrase that is very commonly associated with the character achieved through repeated utterance. This may be through marketing, dialogue etc.

A lot of The Dark Knight's viral campaigns involved Joker's Why so Serious remark. So it's safe to say that is a catchphrase.

[batfan08]

That's still not proof. Can you pull up even a couple quotes of his that prove this?

Quit "selectively quoting."You know that the post obviously said I was joking.

Oh,and since I don't have time,nor do I feel like sorting through interviews right now:do it yourself.

http://www.alanmooreinterview.co.uk/

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/09/09/alan-moore-speaks-watchmen-2-to-adi-tantimedh/

[Old_BenKenobi]

A catchphrase doesn't necessarily have to be uttered by a character in a text. It's a phrase that is very commonly associated with the character achieved through repeated utterance. This may be through marketing, dialogue etc.

A lot of The Dark Knight's viral campaigns involved Joker's Why so Serious remark. So it's safe to say that is a catchphrase.

By technical definition? Yeah, "Why So Serious" can be considered a catchphrase. But its very misleading to refer to it as a catchphrase and that a more appropriate label would be "meme". A catchphrase, as most people consider it, is a phrase repeated multiple times by a character and not simply a notable line from a movie. If you do want to consider it a catch phrase then I'd say its a catch phrase of the fanbase or general public than of the character who first uttered it.

But, being the dummy that I am, I overlooked The Joker's real catchphrase, which he says three times over the course of the movie: "Do you know how I got these scars?"

[airblitz7]

By technical definition? Yeah, "Why So Serious" can be considered a catchphrase. But its very misleading to refer to it as a catchphrase and that a more appropriate label would be "meme". A catchphrase, as most people consider it, is a phrase repeated multiple times by a character and not simply a notable line from a movie. If you do want to consider it a catch phrase then I'd say its a catch phrase of the fanbase or general public than of the character who first uttered it.

But, being the dummy that I am, I overlooked The Joker's real catchphrase, which he says three times over the course of the movie: "Do you know how I got these scars?"

A meme and a catchphrase are very similar. (The same for all intents and purposes) It CAN be considered a meme, but a meme is a lot broader than a catch phrase. Memes apply to pictures, videos, anything to do with popular culture that is spread throughout a community.

A catchphrase, is well, a phrase that spreads along a community through repeated utterance. Different from a meme, which can just naturally spread.

I guess in the end, they're both the same thing. Take an equilateral triangle (getting a bit nerdy here.) It wouldn't be incorrect to call that triangle an isosceles. But that doesn't change the fact it's still an equilateral triangle.

[Old_BenKenobi]

Memes spread through repetition. If they're pictures that means they're displayed often. If they're lines from a movie that means they're repeated often, which also happens to be how a catchphrase is formed.

However, I maintain that while technically "Why So Serious" is a catchphrase, referring to it as such is misleading, especially when discussing whether or not the writers "gave" the character the catchphrase. I think that for lack of a better term "meme" is the most suitable way to refer to them. The key difference is who is repeating the line. Catchphrase = Repeated within the work. Meme = Repeated outside the work.

[Zur-en-ah]

wow, this is getting pedantic

[The Hylden]

Well, by your definition of the semantics here, Ben, Joker says "Why so serious?" three times in the monologue he gives.

"Turns to me, and he says [monster voice], "Why so serious?" Comes at me with the knife... [monster voice] "Why so serious?" He sticks the blade in my mouth... [monster voice] "Let's put a smile on that face!" And...
Looks casually over at Gambol's terrified henchman, "Why so serious?"
SLICE! :p

I guess now it depends on your level of repetitiveness as if this is enough for you, or not. They also used this line a LOT in the trailers, and one-shot posters/pics for the movie. Joker, out of focus, writing it in lipstick on glass in focus in the foreground, for example. The variation of "You wanna know how I got these scars?" was also asked by Joker in the movie three times to three different people, so there's the that one, too.

I really agree with Zu-en-ah, though. This is arguing of semantics, at best, irrelevant, at worst. It also has zero to do with the topic.

Speaking of the topic, however, i haven't said my pet-peeves in comics. Mostly, they are:

On-the-nose dialogue by characters. Even the so-called greats of comic writers do this A LOT. This is dialogue that tells exactly how the character is supposed to feel, exactly what he/she is thinking and/or services to tell the plot of the story in overt ways no-one ever would speak like in real life. In a similar vein, exposition is my other main pet peeve. I don't need to be brow-beaten with what is supposed to be happening in a story. Tell it visually, in more subtle ways. I felt All Star Superman did this erroneously. Characters basically were scripted to act, or react, a certain way after/during major events in one, maybe two panels, then after that phony moment was over, no real lasting effect was ever seen of the emotions/reactions of them in the next panel. Plus, I was almost bludgeoned with the intricacies of the sci-fi elements going on, like I need to know every detail about every little out there thing. It all felt rushed, which I still say is because the issues were so short, 20 some pages, instead of fleshing out things to about 40 per issue.

So, that stuff irks me. Inconsistent art also bothers me.

[airblitz7]

Memes spread through repetition. If they're pictures that means they're displayed often. If they're lines from a movie that means they're repeated often, which also happens to be how a catchphrase is formed.

However, I maintain that while technically "Why So Serious" is a catchphrase, referring to it as such is misleading, especially when discussing whether or not the writers "gave" the character the catchphrase. I think that for lack of a better term "meme" is the most suitable way to refer to them. The key difference is who is repeating the line. Catchphrase = Repeated within the work. Meme = Repeated outside the work.

Essentially correct. A catchphrase is something that is repeated throughout the work. Including production stages, promotional stages and of course, displaying stages.

The "Why So Serious" phrase was repeated A LOT during the movie's viral marketing campaign. So essentially, repeated within the work.

A catchphrase can also be identified by a character being associated with that line. Hence the term "catch phrase.

A meme is basically any term,picture or video that gains fame, regardless of whether or not people know where it originated from. For Example "UMAD" A lot of people don't know where that originated from.

If you think of the phrase, "FINISH HIM" You instantly think of Mortal Combat. A phrase that is commonly associated with the said video game.
If you think of the phrase. When you think of "DOH!" You think of the Simpsons or Homer Simpsons.
When you think of the word "My precious" You think of Gollum from Lord of The Rings.

And finally, when you think of "Why so serious?" you think of the Joker.

[Old_BenKenobi]

The movie's marketing campaign is not the movie. A line being quoted in the marketing campaign is not the same as it being repeated in the movie. That makes it a tagline or slogan, not a catchphrase.

Also, "Finish him", "D'oh" and "My Precious" were all repeated multiple times within the work. Thats why they're catchphrases. By playing or watching them you hear the phrases multiple times.

By your definition any famous movie line is a catchphrase. "Frankly my dead, I don't give a damn" is a catchphrase? "I find your lack of faith disturbing" is a catchphrase? "The stuff dreams are made of" is a catchphrase? These are some of the most famous lines in cinema, does that make them catchphrases by default?

And speaking of "U MAD!", you say thats a meme but its a quote just like "Why so serious?" How come "U MAD" is a meme and "Why so serious" is a catchphrase? I mean they're essentially the same thing, quotes being taken out of context and repeated over and over until nobody thinks they're amusing anymore.