Batman, Batman -- How I do Love my Batmans

[maggie2]

Batman was my first true television love. Back when I was seven, I just loved Batman, Robin, and their battle with all those diabolical villains.  When I was older, I realized that Batman was a spoof and I still loved it.  Great that it could work for a literal-minded seven year old.  Great that it could amuse her when she got older.  Adam West and Burt Ward linger in my heart with the warmest affection.

I loved Tim Burton's Batman with Michael Keaton.  Mostly because batman was back and I am and always will be pro-batman girl.  I liked the serious tone, along with the cartoonish tone from the original show.  I'm not sure they worked together very well, though.  I loved that first Batman movie a lot, but more as a really cool failure than as a spectacular success.  The sequels just got worse from there.

I really like the new Batman with Christian Bale.  Oddly, I've only seen the first one once.   It's a bit long and takes itself too seriously.  But I like Dark Knight a lot.  It makes you think a bit.  It's definitely got some of that essential darkness that the TV show didn't have and that Burton couldn't quite blend with the cartoon sensibility..

Folks, these are three very different approaches to the source material which is batman.  If you want to take one of them and canonize it and say the other two don't measure up, that's your perogative.  But I'd like to be free to like all the batmans.  I don't want to live in a world where embracing Christian Bale means I have to renounce Adam West.  I want to live in a world that celebrates them both and which recognizes that the source material for batman is just that rich that it works well as serious brooding drama and as spoofy cheese.

Batman and Robin is a bad movie because it doesn't have the zany cheese of the series, or the weird combo that Burton tried.  It's not a fun movie, or a serious movie or any kind of good movie.  So of course, it's worse that Dark Knight.  But NOT because it fails to be properly serious.    Batman the series is NOT worse than Dark Knight.  It's just different.  Difference is good. 

To the argument in question, season 8 might well be an abject failure -- but at least let it be a failure of Joss to do justice to his own schtick, not a failure to do something he isn't even trying to do.  And please don't tell me that for any given set of ideas there is One True Way.  (Or less snarkily, any subject worth doing well is worth doing in multiple tones.  Literature is a conversation, not a dictatorship).

Comments

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

No worries about motive/motif -- your English is 10,000 times better than my German.

To the subject at hand: I do not mean -- in any way -- to say that arguments that season 8 could be done better are out of bounds. People have a lot of problems with the comics, and it's completely fair to articulate them. It is this one, particular form of argument that triggers my "that's unfair" button.

Based on the wiki summary and what I've gleaned from these conversations it sounds like Joss is the anti-Moore. But I haven't read Promethea so I can't really comment. What I can say is that even when they are congruent you have to say that Joss *wanted* to achieve the effect Moore achieved and failed. And since I think Joss is telling a different story, I fail to see why we should assume he's trying to achieve an effect which he doesn't come even close to realizing. See Gabs' comment below for another pass at articulating the complaint. My own effort to hit the point: If you assume that Joss is trying to do X, and see that he's doing A Very Bad Job at X, it's easier to challenge the assumption that he's trying to do X than to conclude that his writing just fails on this point. If I see cheesy cartoons, I'm pretty sure the creators aren't going for transcendent and magical. I think the burden is on you all to explain why Joss would want to be going for transcendent and magical, and then how a generally competent (if often imperfect) writer would pretty much do the exact opposite of transcendent and magical. Aycheb's account just sounds much more true to the facts than the one I'm hearing from the promethea >> season 8 folks.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Ok, it's a bit hard to get into a spot on argument without referencing Moore's material, but I don't think you can say that Joss is the anti Moore.

First off the S4 is a homage to Promethea, Joss said so and he said he loved the book. Second Moore's books hit on similar topics as Joss shows a lot, V for Vendetta and Firefly for example about rebellion to absolutistic peacekeepers and they do come to fairly similar conclusions.

They differ of course, Moore is way darker, often downright depressing and he loves to recreate popculture instead of referencing it, but I find the notion that they are somehow diametrically opposed very far fetched and I just plain don't see it reflected in their works.

To your second point on why I assume that Joss was going for a similar effect. My general assumption about authors is that they want to draw the reader in, that they want you to understand why their characters act the way they do, that when the characters are impressed, the reader should in a way be impressed too, that also goes for situations you plan to subvert later on.

The text of S8 told us that the opening of the Twilight dimension was meant to seem like a big cataclysmic event, but instead it just seemed silly and the impression it made on the characters could only be explained with Glowhypnol for lack of being convincing on it's own in any way.

Even seen as subversion it remains pathetic.

See, I really have trouble believing all of this mess is intentional. Take the sex issue, I do believe it's meant to leave a bad taste in your mouth (similar to depression sex in S6), to come of wrong, but I honestly believe they mean it when they say they thought it was sexy. And here I see where they wanted to go (basically S6, sexy but disturbing) but they ended up in completely ridiculous land.

That Meltzer person called #35 philosophy, why should I assume he doesn't mean it? They voiced their intentions very loudly in interviews, but the actual book doesn't live up to them. So I don't think that the assumption that the whole Twilight business was meant to be impressive too is not too far fetched.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I think we are not using the same lens for the moore/anti-Moore thing. What Aycheb says makes total sense to me. But that's really not an issue here.

Your other ctiqiues are really just fine. I have replies to them -- or at least to some of them -- and we can hash them out if you like. But please notice that you do not once make reference to Promethea. You've just introduced a series of productive lines of conversation to have -- and you did it by looking at *this* text and asking about what *this* text might be trying to achieve. Promethea is a distraction, especially when the issue is launched in a post that made much more sweeping claims than even you are willing to defend. All we are left with is "Promethea succeeds in its own aims; season 8 fails in its own aims." I say we can strike the first and be left with "season 8 fails in its own aims" and get down to business on that.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm not willing to defend all the statements that were made in connection with Promethea, mainly because Emmie had not read all of it yet either and I don't agree with all of her points (naturally, like you said, it's a conversation).

But that doesn't mean that a comparative reading in itself is "unfair" when there are so many similar motifs explored in both stories. Like any other critique I think it can be dealt with point by point but not as a whole be swept under the rug.

S8 plunges into the comic genre, it rises comparisons on every second page, why should we not make them?

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between asking about why authors have different takes on a given trope or motif, and using one author's use of the motif as a standard by which to measure the other author. The first is the conversation. The second is the dictatorship. The conversation can even lead to judgments, but they'll be of a more sophisticated sort taking into account the differing aims and so on. Again Aycheb is my model on this. She's showing what the conversation is. You are free to say you think Moore has the better part of the argument. I just think it's unfair to say that Joss fails because he didn't just say what Moore said. That refuses the conversation altogether.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Ok, having this discussion with me is probably a pointless replacement, but I don't think that to say that was actually Emmie's intention, to my mind she put up some comparative points up for discussion, not setting Moore as the absolute standard.

And I don't see the point of Aycheb's argument, because the gist of it seems to be "Meh, Moore uses esoteric motifs in his story, therefor he must be an idiot", which seems a very lacking analysis to me that doesn't allow for much conversation.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

The general 'this is how it should be done' tone of the post and the supportive comments is using Moore as a standard. Eilowyn's analogy definitely wants to use Moore as a standard.

But I'm happy to agree with you that a conversaton about the two works could potentially be productive, so long as the aim is not to say that Joss fails at being Moore. I don't think you are reading Aycheb's stance quite right, but I'll let you two converse about that. I haven't read Promethea so I can't have a substantive conversation about it. If we agree on the general point that Moore is not the measure by which Joss succeeds or fails, I walk away a happy camper.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

What i read from flake_sake's responses here at least partially is that Promethea shows how to do certain things in mood (for lack of a better word) - not in motive or philosophy or what-not. And while it seems fairly obvious that one can critique season 8 on it's own for the failure in mood (drawing the audience emotionally in) it seems also fairly obvious to me to compare this with a comic book that actually achieves this, especially when said reference material is, well, referenced in season 8.

So, what i want to say is that it seems to me that there is a slight misunderstanding going on here (but maybe i got it all wrong and flake_sake will beat me with w stick for this ;-)).

Oh, and, of course, i fan You, Maggie. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a sea of, well, emotional "upside down".

I dislike seaon 8 at this point in time and i do get why people (including me) are upset but i also get your sense of unfairness at some of the critiques. But that's what You get when the creative team confuses the audience - in a very unsatisfactory way.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I'm just not sure that Joss is going for that mood, or that that mood would serve Joss's story-telling aims. In fact, since he spectacularly fails to achieve it, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he wasn't trying to achieve it. You can say he *should* have been going for that mood and even better if you can say why that would better serve Joss's story telling aims. But to me the argument as I read it is like saying that Batman the series fails because it doesn't achieve the somber mood of Dark Knight. That's not a fair complaint to make of the series, no more than it would be to say that Dark Knight fails to capture the humorous spirit of the TV show.

Thanks for your kind words, though, and I do agree that Twilight left us in a mass of confusion, and if we're still all confused at the end of Last Gleaming, I'll get out my pitchfork and join y'all.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Pitchforks are so outdated. *g*

Well, i'm not up in arms about season 8 - i surely hope that it will turn out well, or at least ok-ish. And i think there are interesting stories in season 8, too - just that they are told in a very un-interesting way (sueworld2003 calls that an "embarrasing" way). (And that is why i dislike it ATM. But i keep my brain cells crossed.)

Mood, vibrancy, motive - sometimes i really hate that language barrier. Seems i have to up my english a notch or two to partake in serious discussion.

So, let me try to explain again, or some more. What i meant is that Promethea has mood in a general sense, not as in a certain mood , while season 8 ("the later arcs"TM *g*) only has ridiculousness (and no mood at all).

I really don't know if i get my thoughts over all that well. While the particular mood of Promethea and Buffy is certainly different - at least in the twilight arc there is absolutely nothing for me to swing in emotionally as opposed to Promethea (which i oppose on an intellectual level for aforementioned esotericism, but dig on how well it transports, executes) - and that's what i mean when i say "mood": one comic book has "a" mood, while the other has none.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Ah! That makes sense to me, thank you for explaining. I still want to hold fire on things, but I think there's a very good chance that at the end of the day I could say something like "I see and admire what Joss was going for, but I never felt it". I'm hoping I can be happier than that, but I see where it's possible, and why a lot of people think the emotional disconnect is a fatal flaw.

[next_to_normal]

If you assume that Joss is trying to do X, and see that he's doing A Very Bad Job at X, it's easier to challenge the assumption that he's trying to do X than to conclude that his writing just fails on this point.

I think this may be the problem. Because I'm NOT assuming Joss is trying to do X. I couldn't even begin to guess what Joss is trying to do. I'm saying I want to see X, and Joss isn't delivering it, therefore I don't like it.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

That's cool. I had read people as wanting to critique season 8 on this basis -- but it's perfectly fair to express a preference. Using the current analogy, you don't like Batman, the TV show -- but that doesn't mean that you are claiming that it's bad. It's just not your cuppa. De gustibus non est disputandum. I had been reading people as making a judgment, not expressing a preference.