New 'Batman' villian named

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Answer 9/11. The US public now has a group that they hate and who looks different.

As usual, Andrew gets it 100% wrong when discussing America. Hollywood has bent over backwards not to portray Middle Eaterners as terrorists since 9/11 - even going so far as to turn the villains in Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears into some kind of half-assed neo-Nazis. And Americans don't "hate" Middle Easterns who aren't trying to murder us. In fact, we don't collectively "hate" much of anybody. It really isn't a national characteristic of ours to invest the much emotion in people when it is easier just to ignore them. You don't really find strong antipathies for other countries here the way you do between, say, Britain and France, France and Germany, Poland and Russia. (Yes, we like to mock the French, and we get ticked off when they betray us and the rest of Western Civilization - which they've been doing about every five years since around 900 A.D. - but we always forgive them .)

You do find the opposite - most Americans I know are at least a bit Anglophilic, memories of WWII, shared language and culture and all that. A significant number are perversely Francophile.

If there has been some kind of English actors-as-bad-guys cliche (and I think you have to exempt the Bond and X-Men films here, since one or more good guys is also English so that isn't so unexpected) you can probably trace it back to Star Wars. Shooting in England with a mostly English cast apart from his leads - and most parts other than the leads being bad guys - Lucas decided to keep the bad guys English and make the good guys American. (Usually by over-dubbing their lines.) With the massive exceptions of Darth Vader (American) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (English) Other filmmakers may have subconciously followed Lucas's example in their quite concious attempts to duplicate his success.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

But the Joker, who started out as one of Batman's lesser villains, eventually evolved into his definite worst enemy. Joker is the epitome of comic book villains. He has zero compassion, is massively psychotic, and a thrill-killer.

Miller didn't do anything more than return The Joker to his roots, and even then his "contribution" is overrated.

When Jerry Robinson and Bob Kane created the character he was a total sociopath, an assassin who preferred poison. (He got his name from the rictus sardonicus - the "death laugh" or "death grin" - produced by the affect of certain alkaloid poisons on the facial muscles. His victims were always found wearing such a grin and with a playing card - three guesses which one - in their hands, which showed the Joker had been there to view his handiwork.) He remained that way until the late 40s or early 50s, when all the Batman books took on a lighter tone. But during his early heyday The Joker was an exceptoin in the DC universe. Whereas most DC criminals were sent to prison and escaped, the evil Joker was always apparently killed at the end of his adventures, then found not to have died. (This was more the Marvel pattern.)

Far from being a minor villain he was one of the biggest in the 40s, introduced in Batman #1 (the Batman character's first home was in Detective Comics.) He was featured in two stories in that issue. In the second, "The Joker Returns", he was slated to be killed, but writer/editor Bill Finger and Bob Kane knew a good thing when they saw one and they altered the ending to imply that the Joker might have lived.

As I mentioned, the Joker fell victim to the general "campification" the all the DC titles underwent in the 50s, lightening up after the grim years of The War, and also striving to become more "kid friendly" in light of the anti-comic crusade of the mid to late 50s. The Joker ceased to be a frightfully intelligent mass murderer (he averaged three killings per appearance in his first dozen stories) and became a thief with a sense of humor.

But contrary to Frank Miller's brilliant sense of self-promotion, it was Denny O'Niel and Neal Adams, who had a memorable run on Detective Comics in the 1980s, who reinvented The Joker as the sociopathic thrill killer he was always meant to be. Steve Englehart later made the character's madness even more extreme. The problem is that a lot of people had tuned out comics in general and Batman in particular years before and weren't aware of these changes. So when Miller did The Dark Knight Returns, which put Batman back on the map because it was so dark and controversial, people credited him for "changes" to the characters that had actually been made years before by others, and which he just continued or extended. (And Miller, being Miller, did nothing to correct the misimpression or give credit where it was due. )

Regards,

Joe

 

[Sindatur]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Ya know Joe, you really frighten me sometimes how much you know about some things

 

[PillowRock]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Other filmmakers may have subconciously followed Lucas's example in their quite concious attempts to duplicate his success.

There is at least one other possible hypothesis, other than "copying Lucas".

Note that when American movies use the all-good-guys-American-and-villain-British formula, that British villain virtually always has a relatively "posh" accent ..... never a working class British accent. The movie makers might, whether consciously or not, be using the accent as a quickly identifiable shorthand for bringing an element class warfare implicitly into their story ...... having the Americans representing an "everyman" from relatively modest background fighting for "justice for all" ..... while the upper class Brit represents, in some way, represents selfishness and oppression of "old money".

Think back to something such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where the "bad guy" from the old guard established power structure is a US Senator, but is played by Claude Rains, a Brit.

Just a thought.

 

[Chilli]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

It really isn't a national characteristic of ours to invest the much emotion in people when it is easier just to ignore them. You don't really find strong antipathies for other countries here the way you do between, say, Britain and France, France and Germany, Poland and Russia.

My father's family's old cleaning lady had strongly stated this when race riots were going on in the 60s. And that as I good American, she just loved EVERYBODY. NO matter what the colour of their skin .. no matter what language they speak. As a good American, she just loves EVERYONE.

And then took a little pause, thinking.

"'xept for them god-damned Eye-talians"

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

And then took a little pause, thinking.

"'xept for them god-damned Eye-talians"

Yeah. Some of the animosities that various ethnic groups brought with them to America from Europe and elsewhere have show remarkable stayiing power.

Olson Johnson: All right, we'll give some land to the n*****s and the ch***s, but we DON'T WANT THE IRISH. -- Blazing Saddles

What lingering anti-British feeling still exists in pockets in this country comes not from DAR types still fighting the Revolution or the War of 1812, but from Irish-Americans (who I also number among my forebearers, aggressivly mongelized American that I am. )

Talk about long memories. The Irish on both sides of the Atlanttic excel at holding grudges. Actually JMS tells a story in one of the scriptbooks, as an illustration of the real-world incidents that inform somthing like the Narn-Centauri conflict. There was an American film company shooting exteriors in Ireland a few years ago. When shooting was about to end the production arranged to have a huge wrap party at one of the finest restaurants in the area. The day before the dinner the production managed called to finailze everything. When all the details were seen to, the person at the restuarant asked what name they should put the reservation in (for obvious reasons they didn't want to list the film's name or the production company's.) So the productoin manager gave his own name. The formerly polite person at the restaurant immediately cancelled the reservation and hung up on him . The man's name happened to be Cromwell.

Regards,

Joe

 

[PillowRock]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Some of the animosities that various ethnic groups brought with them to America from Europe and elsewhere have show remarkable stayiing power.

Back when I was in college at the University of Michigan (we're talking 1979 - 1984), the pair of ethnic group that was *easily* the pair that was most consistently mutually antagonistic based on nothing more than knowing ethnic background were the Japanese and Koreans.

At least among groups that reasonably well represented.

 

[Chilli]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Yeah. Some of the animosities that various ethnic groups brought with them to America from Europe and elsewhere have show remarkable stayiing power.

I'm sure that's a factor in many cases, yes. It makes sense that Americans inherited many of their qualities from Europeans, as they had to get them from *somewhere*. But I doubt it was in this case .. this woman was herself Hispanic. There isn't that much of a historic dislike of Italians in Spain.

While I do agree that *nationality* is less of a factor in the US than it is elsewhere, I don't think you can blame all cultural tensions in the US on stuff that was brought by Europeans. The simple fact that we all actually *like* the Spaniards over here (with the exceptions of the Portuguese) kind of indicates that SOME issues actually developed on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

[PillowRock]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

I don't think you can blame any cultural tensions in the US on stuff that was brought by Europeans.

I think that in the above quote you need to replace the word "any" with "all".

I can go along with the idea that not all of the ethnic / cultural issues were brought here from "the old country". Some of it was generated here. (Although, note that much of the "hispanic" populations in the US have *very* little actual Spanish ancestry. A lot of them have more Native American or even African ancestry.)

But to say that *none* of the ethnic issues in the US have *anything* to do with ancestral pre-immigration animosities is also ludicrous proposition, in my opinion.

 

[Chilli]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

I don't think you can blame any cultural tensions in the US on stuff that was brought by Europeans.

I think that in the above quote you need to replace the word "any" with "all".

I can go along with the idea that not all of the ethnic / cultural issues were brought here from "the old country". Some of it was generated here. (Although, note that much of the "hispanic" populations in the US have *very* little actual Spanish ancestry. A lot of them have more Native American or even African ancestry.)

But to say that *none* of the ethnic issues in the US have *anything* to do with ancestral pre-immigration animosities is also ludicrous proposition, in my opinion.

I meant any as in "any random". You are right that "all" is clearer though. The fault lies with stupid English though, not with me (well .. with my lack of attention towards the ambiguities held by the English language )

 

[Markas]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Damned Austrians.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

The simple fact that we all actually *like* the Spaniards over here (with the exceptions of the Portuguese) kind of indicates that SOME issues actually developed on the other side of the Atlantic.

We don't dislike Hispanics over here, either. We dislike criminals, of whatever ethnic group, and illegal aliens who have entered our country (across either border or along any coast) in violation of our laws are, by definition, criminals. We try to start with that undeniable fact and work from there. I am pretty disgusted with Mexican politicians, but that's another matter. If I were them I'd spend less time lecturing other countries on compassion and more time trying to figure out why my own country was such a third-world hellhole that people were willing to risk death in the desert, arrest and imprisonment to escape it.

Of course, one big thing we could do to help Mexico (and Columbia and Afghanistan) is something we'll never do and that's repeal our insane drug laws. Nothing would put the drug cartels and the culture of corruption they bring out of business faster than to legalize what they're selling. Prices would crash, nothing would need to be smuggled, no bribes paid, drug "territories" would no longer be worth killing and dying for. Unfortunately 50 years of intense anti-drug propaganda (and 50 years of interational arm-twisting and birbery) has worked just well enough to ensure that nobody from any major political party could ever propose or enact such a thing without committing political suicide.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Chilli]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Heh .. I'll actually agree with that last part, as much as I'm against the principle of drug usage. The utter stupidity behind us having a huge criminal black market powered by the distribution of *marijuana* is completely beyond me. Surely if having alcohol legal was decided necessary simply due to the levels of crime it being outlawed created, the same must apply to other substances? Especially considering that alcohol is a lot more dangerous than some substances that are NOT legal.

I'd much rather have such substances legal but controlled - kept out of the hands of minors whereever possible, something dealers will hardly care about. Alas, the hypocracy of this issue is too burned into western societies. You can't even try chaninging it anymore - a fairly major Austrian politician has, after noting that there's a bit of an inconcistency between how Austria probably has the "free-est" alcohol and nicotine laws in Europe, combined with extremely strict laws regarding other drugs, has repeatedly been accused of planning to set the youth of the nation on drugs. Alas...

Anyways, going waayyy off topic here. And I really need sleep ..

 

[KoshFan]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

I have to say, Joe, out in the rural farming community where I'm teaching these days, there's a pretty heavy bias against all Mexicans (as Hispanics are inaccurately labelled), legal or not. It's probably the same hatred that was once aimed against the Italians, the Poles, and the Irish: only so many jobs, and newcomers get paid less, so the jobs flow away from the native-born to the newcomers.

 

[Chilli]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

I have to say, Joe, out in the rural farming community where I'm teaching these days, there's a pretty heavy bias against all Mexicans (as Hispanics are inaccurately labelled), legal or not. It's probably the same hatred that was once aimed against the Italians, the Poles, and the Irish: only so many jobs, and newcomers get paid less, so the jobs flow away from the native-born to the newcomers.

Which is basically the kind of hate most European nations have to deal with in the present day and age too - it's really not that dissimilar. The attitudes I have encountered towards Hispanics in the US do seem VERY similar to the attitudes people hold towards Turks here in Austria - many of which came here legally, many of which did not. (came on temporary residence permit and stayed) In most European cultures, such "modern" ethnic tensions definitely outweigh any historic tensions there might be.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

{snip} The man's name happened to be Cromwell.

Cromwell wanted his severity at Drogheda to act as a deterrent to Irish resistance, in his own words, "it will tend to prevent effusion of blood for the future".

This punishment appears to have worked. The Irish have fought the British many times since but no big massacres.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Answer 9/11. The US public now has a group that they hate and who looks different.

As usual, Andrew gets it 100% wrong when discussing America. Hollywood has bent over backwards not to portray Middle Eaterners as terrorists since 9/11 - even going so far as to turn the villains in Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears into some kind of half-assed neo-Nazis.

Bent too far. Disguising Arab terrorists as North Korean terrorists appears to be a standard trick. The North Koreans are banned from watching US films so they can be insulted. Arabs do watch US films but when annoyed burn theatres down. All this means is that Hollywood prefers money to truth.

And Americans don't "hate" Middle Easterns who aren't trying to murder us.

You may wish to tell your politicians.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7946091
"The uses of scare-talk Economist.com

Sep 21st 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The Republicans think talking about terrorism can save them from defeat in November. A new poll suggests they may be on to something"

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

That's an artticle about fighting terrorists, not "hating Arabs" and has nothing to do with how Hollywood portrays Araba or how Americans feel about middle easterners qua middle easterners. As usual when you come up on the short side of an argument, you change the subject or the terms. And while The Economist is a more sensible publication than most in the U.K., it isn't a very good place to get information on U.S. politics, since its writers tend not to understand the subject very well.

Regards,

Joe

 

[tygirwulf]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

Speaking of changing the subject... wasn't this topic about Batman?

 

[LondosHair]

Re: New \'Batman\' villian named

OMG WHISTLEBLOWER!