Batman: The Animated Newsletter
Weeks of January 29 - February 4, 2001
Volume 4,
Rated: PG for some "low-key coarse language and occasional griping"
THIS ISSUE'S SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE: "YO, TALIA! DIG
IT!" - from "Ra's Al Cool's poetry corner"
____________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
BATMAN: THE ANIMATED NEWSLETTER HAS HIT ANOTHER MILESTONE.
In the evening of Friday, January 26, 2001, we welcomed our 2000th subscriber to our
newsletter! I must thank all of our subscribers once again for their continued support -
this newsletter wouldn't make it to print - or even virtual-print - without our readers!
Thank you, again - and here's hoping for 2000 more!
Tim "TWO-FACE" Leighton
-exuberant editor extraordinaire
____________________________________________________________________
MORE ANNOUNCEMENTS
-BIG NEWS ON THE JLA SERIES AND THE FATE OF BATMAN BEYOND!
SCROLL DOWN TO READ!
-WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A ONE-ON-ONE CHAT WITH GOTHAM
ADVENTURES ARTIST TIM LEVINS? SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEWS SECTION TO SEE HOW!
-BE SURE TO CHECK OUT OUR 'RETURN OF THE JOKER' GIVEAWAY!
SCROLL DOWN TO JUST BELOW OUR EPISODE REVIEW FOR DETAILS!
-WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED OUR FORM FOR THE "GOLDEN OVAL
AWARDS", OUR VERSION OF THE "BEST/WORST OF 2000" POLLS THAT ARE RUNNING
RAMPANT ACROSS THE NET RIGHT ABOUT NOW. BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN AND VOTE - THERE JUST MIGHT
BE A CERTAIN UNEDITED VIDEO IN IT FOR YA!
Tim "TWO-FACE" Leighton
-kinda neurotic
____________________________________________________________________
EAGERLY ANTICIPATING...
New episodes are on the horizon! Here's what we can expect in the near future...
THE CURSE OF KOBRA (Pt. 1, 2)
Batman Beyond #48, 49
Air date: February 3 & 10, 2001
Synopsis: This two-part episode features Batman taking on a villainous gang named Kobra.
UNMASKED
Batman Beyond #??
Air date: ???
Synopsis: A little kid gets a glimpse of the face under the Batman mask.
COUNTDOWN
Batman Beyond #??
Air date: ???
Synopsis: Zeta and Mad Stan return.
___________________________________________________________________
KIDS WB ANIMATION SCHEDULES:
(courtesy of Brian Cruz and/or the official BTAS/STAS site)
Kids'WB! currently airs BATMAN BEYOND five or six times a
week. Batman airs on weekday afternoons Monday-Friday, as well occasionally Friday morning
before Pokemon. Remember, Kids'WB! is notorious for switching schedules around at the very
last minutes. Batman Beyond currently airs at 11:30am (ET) on Saturdays and 4:30pm (ET) on
weekdays.
Check out these links if our schedule is not 100% updated:
THIS WEEK:
Mon 01-29-01: B-BEYOND #19 Hidden Agenda
Tue 01-30-01: B-BEYOND #29 Final Cut
Wed 01-31-01: B-BEYOND #21 Hooked Up
Thu 02-01-01: B-BEYOND #36 Where's Terry?
Sat 02-03-01: B-BEYOND #48 The Curse of the Kobra (Pt.
1) <-----NEW!!!
NEXT WEEK:
Mon 02-05-01: B-BEYOND #03 Black Out
Tue 02-06-01: B-BEYOND #12 Disappearing Inque
Wed 02-07-01: B-BEYOND #10 Dead Man's Hand
Thu 02-08-01: B-BEYOND #40 King's Ransom
Sat 02-10-01: B-BEYOND #49 The Curse of the Kobra (Pt.
2) <-----NEW!!!
_____________________________________________________________________
CANADIAN EPISODE SCHEDULE
(BATMAN and BEYOND on YTV)
(courtesy of our friends at YTV)
YTV currently has the rights to air all 109 episodes of
Batman, as well as the current 52 episodes of Batman Beyond. YTV usually airs these
episodes in either chronological order, or in the original order they aired on Kids'WB!
and FOX. Batman now airs at 3:30am Monday - Friday. (Actually, more correctly, they
seem to be airing them at 3:40 am - go figure.)
If our schedules are not updated or are inaccurate, please use these links:
http://www.geocities.com/worldsfinestpage/epsched.htm
http://www.ytv.com/ytvguide
THIS WEEK:
Mon 01-29-01: BTAS #38 Heart of Steel (Pt. 2)
Tue 01-30-01: BTAS #39 "If You're So
Smart Why Aren't You Rich?"
Wed 01-31-01: BTAS #40 Joker's Wild
Thu 02-01-01: BTAS #60 His Silicon Soul
Fri 02-02-01: BTAS #50 Off Balance
NEXT WEEK:
Mon 02-05-01: BTAS #48 "What Is Reality?"
Tue 02-06-01: BTAS #33 The Laughing Fish
Wed 02-07-01: BTAS #56 Harley & Ivy
Thu 02-08-01: BTAS #55 The Mechanic
Fri 02-09-01: BTAS #51 The Man Who Killed
Batman
_____________________________________________________________________
THE CARTOON NETWORK
Cartoon Network has the right to air all 109 Batman episodes,
as well as all 54 Superman episiodes. Come September, Cartoon Network will begin airing
these. Shows. Batman currently airs during the weekday Toonami block at 6:30pm (ET).
Superman will soon have a set airdate as well. Since Cartoon Network is unpredictable with
their schedules, we are unable to keep up with them. Please, use these links to find out
the schedule information you need:
Here is where you can find an air date schedule:
All of Tim "TWO-FACE" Leighton's reviews of the
new-style BTAS episodes and BATMAN BEYOND can be found via these links, which link to
"Two-Face's Tower of Tranquility and Terror":
The creative team for this column alternates between Zanna
and Justin Chen, two loyal subscribers and great friends of ours here. Any other
reviews printed here are written by editor Tim "TWO-FACE" Leighton. Enjoy!
With no new episodes debuting, we have nothing to
review...anyone wanna submit reviews of older BTAS episodes?
___________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL REALLY, REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT NEWS
(courtesy of James Harvey and his unknown accomplice)
Let's get right to the point, shall we? The news comes from a
source inside WB who wishes to remain anonymous. I respect the person and his/her wishes
so I will not reveal this individual's identity. So, without further adieu, the news!
Batman Beyond will likely not be picked up for next season.
It will likely air on KidsWB as reruns for one more year, then be shipped over to Cartoon
Network, where they have the option to pick up the show if ratings are good. If the show
was greenlit now, it would be nearly impossible to create more episodes becuase the entire
crew has left Batman Beyond to pursue other shows. Berkowtiz, Timm, Tucker, Murakami,
Fogel, and Geda are on JLA, Goodman is on Zeta, and the remainder of the crew is working
on Static Shock or other projects. The only way new episodes of Batman Beyond will be
produced is if Cartoon Network greenlights it. Even then, the wait would be at least
eighteen months for a new episodes. There are four episodes remaining this season.
As for a second direct-to-video Batman Beyond feature, Paul
Dini has some ideas kicking around, but there has been no go ahead. Meanwhile, Jean
MacCurdy is pursuing the option of releasing ROTJ unedited.
The Zeta Project will return for a second season IF the
ratings are good.
JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA: THE ANIMATED SERIES
Kevin Conroy is back as the voice of Batman; as Tim Daly is
busy with work on CBS' "The Fugitive", a new unnamed voice actor will be
providing the voice of Superman. The show will likely consist of big story arcs, lasting
approximately two to three episodes; this added length will allow enough room for be huge,
intense action, as well as in-depth characterization. The voice actors have just finished
recording their second episode. Stan Berkowitz and Rich Fogel have written episodes so
far, but since production has just begun, it's too early to tell who else will be joing
the fray. The show will air this fall on the action block called Toonami.
In other JLA News, The Writer strike won't effect the show,
but there's a chance the Actors Strike will.
One current story that is being written for JLA revolves
around Green Lanter John Stewart, which is based on an old Hal Jordon story where he is
accused of a crime he didn't commit, leading to chaos. This whole series will be action
oriented, but will have a lot of characterization becuase of the story arc length. The
majority of the episodes will likely be multi-part episodes, (a la Dragonball Z). Censors
will likely be not as heavy becuase of the different age focus. There will be various
celebrity voices there to help out, including James Remar for one.
FYI - Kevin Conroy has never been nominated for his voice
work as Batman, and he's a spectacular talent. Let's see if we can change that!!
So there ya go! Take it for what it's worth - really
interesting stuff, isn't it? This JLA
series isn't such a difficult idea to play out after all...
___________________________________________________________________
EDITORIAL
(by Jay Allman; jayallman@zianet.com)
ANOTHER TAKE ON THE SLICING AND DICING OF 'RETURN OF THE
JOKER'
So by now everyone knows about the BATMAN BEYOND: RETURN OF
THE JOKER controversy: Last minute edits ordered by the studio altered the key
flashback sequence so as to change the manner of the Joker's death, while also toning down
some of the fight scenes. And everyone (by which I mean, of course, fanboys like you
and me who subscribe to this newsletter and hang out at message boards) got quite cross
when they heard about the cuts. Hell hath no fury like a fanboy messed with, and our
letters and petitions may yet convince Warners to release a "director's cut"
restoring the removed footage.
But it is not clear such a release would be widely welcomed,
for once the initial fuss died down, a substantial number of voices were raised defending
the changes-or, to be more accurate, arguing that the changes had not weakened the
original film, and perhaps had even improved it.
It is an interesting opinion these viewers advance; it is a
respectable opinion, but it is a false opinion. And like most interesting,
respectable, and false propositions, getting at where the fallacy lies is both difficult
and rewarding. In the case of RETURN OF THE JOKER, whose complex story centres
entirely upon that flashback and on Robin's attack on the Joker, it is especially
important to be clear about the meaning of the censored sequences, for misapprehensions
here will color the rest of the film.
Let me recap what most of us probably already know:
In the original film the Joker, after fighting and subduing
Batman, hands the brainwashed Robin a spear gun. (It is actually a two-stage
weapon: first, it shoots out a "Bang" flag - the spear - which is then
fired at the target.) But Robin, whose hysterical laughter segue seamlessly into
hysterical sobs, aims it at the Joker instead, and kills him point blank. Joker's
final words: "That's not funny. . . ." In the edited version, on the other
hand, Robin simply throws the gun away and pushes the Joker into a mass of electrical
wire. The Joker then slips in a puddle of water and accidentally throws a
switch. Cut to an exterior shot as Batgirl hears and reacts to the electrical sizzle
and the Joker's death screams. There are other alterations made to the film, and the
nature of the spear gun is modified, but these are the salient and essential details.
Now, those who defend the changes (or, if that is too
prejudicial, call them "those who find the cuts unobjectionable") advance one or
both of the following claims. First, they claim, the Joker's death need not be shown in
graphic detail to be effective; instead, an off-screen representation would not only be
acceptable, it might even be more powerful. In "Robin's Reckoning," for
instance, the death of the Flying Graysons is handled with artful obliqueness: a
fraying rope, an audience gasping with horror, and a trapeze suddenly empty of its
occupants.
Second, some argue that in the original version the Joker's
death does not rightly balance against Robin's torture, while in the edited version it
does. Robin, remember, suffers the agonies of controlled electrocution as part of
his "makeover," so for him simply to shoot theJoker doesn't begin to repay the
Joker in his own coin, while electrocution does. Furthermore, Robin's original act
is gratuitously out of character: Batman and his team do not kill. So the revised
sequence, in which the Joker dies in an accident (albeit one indirectly caused by Robin),
still resolves Robin's torture while sparing him the full ignominy of violating his moral
code.
Now, with the first claim I am in considerable sympathy. The
explicit representation of violence, I believe, rarely adds to the power of a scene, and
unless carefully handled can often detract from it through the sheer ugliness of the
violence itself. All other things being equal, then, I would prefer violence
presented obliquely if its graphic representation is not necessary. The question
here, then, is whether the Joker's demise needs to be explicitly shown. And this
question cannot be answered until we understand the purposes and import of his death
scene.
Here, two questions intrude and intertwine. First, what would
be a fitting death for the Joker, Gotham's greatest rogue? Second, because the
Joker's death caps the flashback sequence; and because that sequence centers on his
torture of Robin, we must ask if the Joker's death is a fitting conclusion to that
sequence, and if it is how that death should be handled.
With regard to the first question we must remember the
enormity of the character we're dealing with: He has killed, tortured, maimed and
ruined many more people than just Tim Drake. Most plausibly then, it would seem that
the only "appropriate" death would be one that took into account all his
victims; to single out Robin's ruin for special redress is to give Robin a privileged
claim. But it is out of the question that the Joker be repaid with every cruel coin
he spent, so his death cannot with justice be one that is "appropriate" to a
particular crime, even the crime against Robin. This is the first problem with the
electrocution scene: Being narrowly tailored to Robin's circumstances, it takes
insufficient cognizance of the entire range of evil the Joker represents, and so fails to
satisfy as the proper way to kill off this major character.
Instead, if his death is to reflect his crimes, it should
assume the general aspect of those crimes, rather than a specific form. In other
words, he should suffer a death that turns his own schtick against him: a gag that
suffocates, a joke that slays. And since only he (and never the victim) found his
jokes funny, it is most fitting that he not appreciate the manner of his own death.
Thus the ending originally envisioned: "That's not funny," he complains,
impaled upon his own zinger.
The second question is rather more involved: What is
the right way to climax the flashback? To approach this question aright we must
consider the role that flashback plays in the overall architecture of the film.
On the surface the flashback appears to be a self-contained
story, dropped into a larger narrative as a backstory. The overall film seems to be
about Terry McGinnis and the (well, the title says it all, doesn't it?) return of the
Joker after many years absence. The flashback apparently is exposition, something to
explain what happened a long time ago, and to dollop out some juicy gossip to the
fans. Yet once you understand how the entire plot line unfolds, it becomes clear
that RETURN OF THE JOKER centers entirely upon the trauma Robin suffered. Events in the
life of the old Bruce Wayne and his new protégé are not a related but independent sequel
to the flashback, but a decisive proof that the story told in the flashback is still
developing. While under his "tutelage," we learn, the Joker planted a
mind-controlling microchip on Drake, and has been slowly taking form again in the body of
one of Batman's key allies, so that RETURN OF THE JOKER begins when this long-range aspect
of the Joker's plot finally reaches fruition. We must conclude that if the story
that begins during that flashback is not resolved with the Joker's death at Arkham, we
should not see in the climax to that flashback a resolution to the story of Tim's torture
and humiliation. Indeed, the resolution of the flashback should unequivocally lack
the air of proper finale.
This is where the defenders of the edits make their key
misreading: the story is not about the reappearance of the Joker (and still less about
some high tech robberies staged by a gang of homicidal wannabes). It is the story of
Tim Drake's ruin at the hands of the Joker, his estrangement from Bruce Wayne, and his
ultimate escape from the former and reconciliation with the latter. And this story
stretches over an arc of forty (or so) years, and is only resolved at the end of the
film. To look for its climax in Arkham, and to ask for a climax to that sequence
that ends Tim's story, is to fail to appreciate the deep integration of the flashback into
the surrounding structure.
Of course, it may be objected that the film itself is
somewhat to blame for this confusion: Tim Drake has relatively few scenes, and his
relevance to the Joker's reappearance is not even explained until the end. But this
is a churlish complaint. The film is structured as a mystery, not an adventure, and
the mystery is, "Who is the new Joker and how did he survive?" Since Tim
Drake is (or is sharing space with) the Joker, the former mystery is embodied in the
latter. To discover the whos and whats of the new Joker is to discover the relevance
of TimDrake.
Instead, the original film relies upon emotional and
narrative dissonances to signal Drake's complicity, and to hint at the continuing
connection between past events and the present. If Tim's story had ended that night
in Arkham, we should expect to see there a climax that relieves the tensions created by
those scenes of kidnapping and torture. But (as has been correctly noted by its
critics), the death-by-spear-gun climax doesn't resolve the tensions: In the context
of what came before, it feels ad hoc and unsatisfying. So we are made uneasy, and
feel that all has not been righted with a death that is too quick, too clean, and in the
manner of its execution all too unexpected. In short, it is simply not the right way
to end the story of Robin's degradation; so, by implication, that degradation has not run
its course. In the edited version, on the other hand, the electrocution does round
off the sequence, by doing unto the Joker as he had done unto Robin. But such
resolution is not wanted, for it ends the Robin story prematurely. As for Robin's
complicity in the Joker's death...to have Robin kill the Joker is plainly a betrayal of
all that he has stood for, so it demonstrates the depths to which he has been degraded and
(more importantly) the degree to which he has genuinely become the Joker's double.
In killing the Joker he has taken on his spirit; the Joker has died, but he lives on (in
more than one sense) in Tim Drake. In the edited version Drake is not similarly complicit,
and so does not assume the same symbolic aspect. Again, the original version shows greater
subtlety and power than the edited.
We can now return to the question of the flashback's violent
content: given what has been said, does the explicit presentation of the Joker's death in
the flashback serve a legitimate aesthetic or thematic purpose? Or would an
off-screen death, as in "Robin's Reckoning," serve just as well?
First of all, note why the representation in "Robin's
Reckoning" works so well. There the
death of Dick Grayson's parents is represented in a way expressive of its emotional
content. For young Dick, the loss of his parents is sudden and unexpected: one
minute they are alive, the next they are not. But their departure from the screen
mimics their departure from life: one minute they are on a trapeze, the next they
are not. Thus, this brutally simple switch from presence to absence perfectly
encapsulates his experience of their death. So it is notsimply that in "Robin's
Reckoning," the off-screen death is at least as acceptable as an on-screen
representation. Its power lies in the way it expresses something more than the fact
that a killing has occurred.
Similarly, we should ask about the import of the Joker's
death in RETURN OF THE JOKER, and how it should be represented. At the climax of the
flashback we have not simply a killing, but a confrontation between a victim and his
victimizer, following a crime of a particularly intrusive nature. The Joker hasn't
merely hurt the boy, but has violated him in a way that staggers the understanding.
So it is not just their physical proximity at the climax that is important, but their
physical contiguity. Put brutally, Robin must touch and violate the Joker in some
way, just as the Joker touched and violated him. And unless we see that touching, unless
we see Robin act upon the Joker in a lethal fashion, we do not get the necessary
discharge of tension.
Electrocution, so appropriate in the abstract, would work
only if Tim held the live wires against the Joker's own flesh - and somehow I believe the
censors would find this even more objectionable. Given that Robin must strike a
lethal blow, a shooting is probably the leastobjectionable manner in which it could be
presented. True, in the edited version Robin pushes the Joker, so there is physical
contact, but this is merely a shove and its lethal consequence merely an unintended
byproduct: The Joker's self-electrocution has the effect of interrupting Robin's
attack, rather than fulfilling it. Again, the original version is superior, for, as
noted above, in striking the lethal blow directly Robin encompasses his own moral ruin.
The changes I've discussed are not the only changes made, and
they are not the only ones that weaken the film (the opening fight sequence in the edited
version, for instance, is much less impressive). But the changes I've discussed have
the very real and deleterious effect of unbalancing the film thematically and
structurally. That alone is sufficient reason to hope and press for an official
release of the original version.
___________________________________________________________________
