The Easter Egg they Didn't Need.

So on September 26^th Entertainment Weekly ran a quick blurb online about a Batman v Superman Easter Egg almost nobody noticed.  The question got raise, apparently, as to why Superman didn’t use his x-ray vision to see the kryptonite in Batman’s canisters.  Inspection of Batman’s prep work shows the canisters are marked with “Pb”, which is the elemental symbol for “lead”.  Most folks know that Superman can’t see through lead.  A neat little nod to explain the “why”.  Except it actually makes things a little more convoluted than that.

Namely, how would Batman know that Superman can’t see through lead?  On screen we don’t see Superman use his x-ray vision that much.  To my knowledge he doesn’t use it at all in Dawn of Justice, and he used it twice in Man of Steel, once as a kid, once after he turned himself over to the army.  In neither of those instances did it show Superman discovering his lead weakness.  Presumably there aren’t a lot of actual interviews where Superman divulges his weaknesses in this world.  Yes, Christopher Reeve’s Superman spilled the beans to a woman he’d known approximately 1 week, knowing she was going to publish literally everything he said, which shows a tremendous lapse in judgement on his part.  But that’s not the movie we’re talking about here.

No, in this one there is literally nothing in the context of the films we see that indicate that anyone knows he can’t see through lead, or if that weakness even made it into the films at all.  So there is no reason for Batman to use lead canisters to hold kryptonite.

Furthermore, Superman has no idea what kryptonite is.  He doesn’t encounter it until Batman gases him with it early in the fight.  Let’s say the canisters weren’t lead lined and he did look into them.  He would see a glowing green substance and that’s it.  He’d have no idea that this is the one thing that can totally wreck him.

EVEN FURTHER more, in the context of the fight itself it would be MORE beneficial for Batman to not have lead lined canisters, as lead negates kryptonite’s effect on Superman and if it was in, say, a leather pouch, literally anytime Superman got near him he would be physically weakened.

Now it’s entirely likely that Batman had the lead lined canisters not because of Superman’s weakness against lead, but because kryptonite is RADIOACTIVE, meaning that prolonged exposure to it will physically affect Batman himself and he doesn’t want to suffer radiation poisoning while fighting a living titan.

Basically there is a very good reason for Batman to use lead canisters, but it’s not the one everyone is apparently leaping to.

What Makes a Comic Book Movie "Bad"?

If you were to go down the list of all the comic book films released dating all the way back to 1939’s “Mandrake the Magician” you will find the fan base for these various properties split almost entirely down the middle.  Professional film critics tend to be harder on comic book films than they are on pretty much any other genre because of a litany of factors.  Doug Walker, the Nostalgia Critic once pointed out those professional film critics then to have a harsher opinion because they are saturated in films.  When you consider how many movies you see in the theaters each year, it’s probably only a handful because you have other things to do.  Professional critics have to see them all the time so an action sequence or a joke that seems unique and cool to you, they’ve seen a dozen times because multiple movies have done the same sequence or joke, each with varying degrees of competency.

For more on Doug’s thoughts on the trials of being a critic vs being just a movie viewer, check out his video here

http://channelawesome.com/when-are-critics-wrong/

But what does that have to do with how we, the average fan views a superhero film.  Well, let’s take a look at 2011’s “Green Lantern” starring Ryan Reynolds.  Personally I’ve blasted this movie in the past but in looking back, even I have to admit I was harder on it than I should have been.  We, the fans, see so many superhero movies over the course of our lives that frankly they start to blur together.  A lot of people were hard on “Green Lantern” but it had a competent movie star in the lead role, great actors all around, an amazing effects budget, some very unique ideas on style, and some pretty solid dialog.  So, why was it blasted?  Because we felt we’d seen it all done before.  “Green Lantern” was very much a “by the numbers” production and it followed the same basic plot of almost every superhero movie out there.  For some reason when it came out we expected more out of it because of the unique material it had to work with.  It literally had whole galaxies to explore, but it confined itself to three locations, Oa, space, and Earth.  We’d become so jaded at that point that a lot of fans were willing to write it off as just another bad comic book movie.  Even “The Big Bang Theory” took a shot at the film.

(The Big Bang Theory: The Countdown Reflection 2012)

So, if a bad comic book movie isn’t technically “bad”, what is a bad comic book movie?  Chances are when I say “bad comic book movie” the same handful of titles keep coming to your mind: Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Steel, Superman 3 and 4, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Iron Man 2, Spider-Man 3, and probably a few others.  Chances are you saw one title in that list that made you cringe.  Now let’s break that list down and see if we can find common threads that makes think of these films as “bad”

“Batman Forever” featured competent actors, a decent budget, and some amazing practical effects.  There were, however choices made by the director, Joel Schumacher, that fans question greatly.  Namely the fact that Tommy Lee Jones’ Harvey (Two-Face) Dent and Jim Carey’s the Riddler feel like Joker knock-offs.  That’s the primary complaint I hear from fans, the Joker knock-offs.

Speaking strictly in tone of the film, they feel it is vastly different from the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton era (which some fans are divided on whether or not those two films were any good either).  The colors are brighter, there are more jokes, more slap stick humor and the Dark Knight is anything but dark.  What Schumacher was attempting to do with his interpretation of the character is recapture the camp and spark of the Adam West television series.  He wasn’t attempting to make a “sequel” to the Tim Burton films; he was making his own version of the character.  It just happened to fall into the franchise established by the first film.  If this was your first time watching a Batman film since 1966’s Batman series and theatrical release, you would have thought this was just an extension of that series.  The same goes with “Batman and Robin”.  It’s a bad sequel, but as a standalone film, it’s stupid and funny and you can take young kids to see a Batman movie.  If anything Schumacher seems to understand that his films were only one part in a much bigger franchise, one that included video games, comic books, and action figures.  The plot feels thin because he’s making a commercial for merchandise, and kids need to be able to see that commercial.

Perhaps Michael Bay could learn that lesson, that he’s essentially making 90 minute toy commercials.

Does creating a film to be a really long commercial make it any better or any less mercenary? Not really, but it informs why a filmmaker makes certain choices.

Let’s flip over to the Marvel Camp really quick.  “Iron Man 2” gets a lot of flak for being a “cash in” sequel, but it actually slips into the plot threads set down by the first film really well, as well as establishing characters and interactions that are expanded upon by the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Nick Fury and Agent Coulson are expanded on, both of whom have major roles later down the line, and we are introduced to Scarlet Johansson’s Black Widow and reintroduced to Major James Rhodes, now played with a lot more personality by Don Cheadle, and who has again a major role in “Captain America: Civil War”.  A lot of fans feel that a better plot line for the second film to follow would have been “Demon in a Bottle”; a story that delves into Tony Stark’s alcoholism in the comics, but that wouldn’t have fit with the movie characterization.  Yes, there was a huge plot convenience in the film that, under any amount of scrutiny doesn’t make any sense, but that’s very common for really any action based film, not just comic books.

“Spider-Man 3” catches a lot of heat for shoving in a lot of villains in a short amount of time, and accusations that Sony insisting Venom be in the picture actually created a lot of the problems with the film, making director Sam Raimi re-write the story around the added villain.  The final product again was good for kids and something they could watch again and again.

A lot of how we respond to a film is dictated by our perspective.  When I was a kid, for instance, I loved “Superman 3”, I was okay with “Superman 4”, and “Batman” with Michael Keaton was the definitive Batman movie.  Now, as an adult, I see the flaws in all of them.  The jokes that made me as a kid laugh don’t make me as an adult laugh.  The plot choices I thought were cool at the time do not hold up now.  Even the sacred “Batman” film leaves me with the grown up question of “Wait, where are the poison gas balloons going now?”

Rather than blasting a movie as being automatically bad because we the fans are grown up and have “more sophisticated tastes” we should consider how the general audience is going to look at these movies.  “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” has some plot holes and choices that, to an adult don’t make any sense, but to most of the kids in the audience, it makes perfect sense, because it was geared to appeal to them so they would go out and get us, the parents, to buy the toys.

We as fans need to understand that “Avengers” and “Spider-Man” are not “The Godfather”, they are geared towards wider audiences.  You won’t find Scarface action figures in the toy aisle at Wal-Mart.  You won’t see the “Great Gatsby” on a kid’s lunchbox.  That doesn’t mean that, as a fan, you shouldn’t enjoy the movie, it’s made for you too.  But don’t take it so seriously either.  There isn’t a definitive movie about a character; there will always be other interpretations later down the road.  Heck, take a look back at some of the movies you “hate”, and you may find something you really enjoy there too.

Thanks for reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Dead-Lakehaven-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00JLPG8HE

Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice Film Review

Okay, so it’s come down to this.  I feel that we are so far removed from the initial theatrical release of the film that I can actually talk about it without fear of spoiling it for anyone.  If you still haven’t seen it, buy or rent “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and watch it before you keep reading.  You’ve been warned.

Also, we’re going to cover the theatrical version of the film here today, because that is what is going to be determined by many as cannon for the film franchise.

But like our titular heroes I’m not tackling this alone.  I’m pulling assistance from William Dilbeck, who, despite my insistence has staunchly refused to start his own blog, likely because he has better things to do with his time.  At least so he says.

So let’s talk about Ben Affleck as Batman, which kicking off had to be the most (later second most) controversial thing in the movie.  Will?

“He’s a decent Batman.  Better than bale in some respects.  He’s more believable as Bruce, but his story line was better, and that’s not Bale’s fault.”

This is true.  Ben Affleck had a lot more creative influence when it came to his interpretation of Bruce Wayne/Batman than Bale likely ever did.  Through his working relationship with Zack Snyder he was allowed to give Bruce more depth and a wider range of emotions.  I think it’s also important to note this was meant to be Bruce 20 years into being Batman, while the total time in the suit that Bale’s Batman had was about 11, maybe 12, nearly twice as much time.  Further, this Batman never gave up the role so he comes across as more driven than the previous incarnation.

Next up is the MOST controversial role in the film, Jessie Eisenberg’s unapologetic portrayal of Lex Luthor.  Serious he has not apologized for this performance, and I for one won’t ask him to.  Eisenberg was compared by a lot of people to the Joker, in that his mannerisms seemed overly silly and his motivation didn’t make any sense.  At least if you don’t put certain elements into context.  Again, this is strictly from the theatrical cut.  Admittedly the performance was hard to swallow.  Will said “I didn’t like 40% of him.” This is fair, considering we’ve got over a dozen other actors who’ve portrayed the same character over the years to compare him to.  Yet one cannot escape that there has never been a portrayal like this.  While Gene Hackman’s Lex may bleed over into Kevin Spacy’s incarnation and there into Michael Rosenbaum’s, nobody played Lex like Jessie.  Also, if you consider Jessie’s body of work, could you imagine him trying to play that character, the cold, calculating business man?  He played Lex the mad scientist, which is something they’ve pulled away from over the last few decades up to the point that the character trait is more incidental than defining.  He brought it back in full force, and you can see his manipulation throughout the entire film.  He actually is the smartest person in the room when you think about it.

Mad Max, starring Batman?

 

Then there his motivation, which many have described to be completely non-existent, but it’s actually right there in the movie, if you are paying attention.  Remember that dream sequence Bruce Wayne had about Superman in the desert?  The one with the “Omega” symbol burned into the ground and parademons flying around?  The symbol and the parademons have nothing to do with Superman, and by proxy there should be no reason Bruce would have them in his mind.  If the nightmare is Bruce’s own psychosis playing on his own fears of Superman, then shouldn’t the burned mark in the ground been the Superman symbol?  Shouldn’t those have been modified human soldiers or Kryptonians flying around?  Yet there we have everything that reaches back to Darkseid and his crew.  The dream, if you think about it, wasn’t from Bruce’s mind, but rather it was sent to Bruce’s mind.  And Lex had a similar dream.

If you consider the dream to be ramping up Batman’s fear and hatred of Superman, then if Lex had a similar dream, then you can draw the reasonable conclusion that he’s being ramped up to by an outside force.  In his final scene, Lex even alludes to being manipulated by forces “beyond the stars”.  They couldn’t quite bend Bruce, but they broke Lex.

Again, that’s all in the theatrical cut, but it was ignored due to Eisenberg’s performance.

They understood that I was bat-crap crazy, but never why...

 

Superman was a different ball game all together and, probably the shortest changed.  It’s been long said that Superman is difficult to write and that shows here because he becomes an incidental character in his own sequel.  Set less than 2 years after Man of Steel, even though the film was released 3 years later, they talk about “Superman’s impact” on the world, but they don’t show it until AFTER they talk about it.  If they played it logically they would have had the sequence where Superman is going around saving the day across the globe, and then follow it with news footage of the fallout from it, then talk about whether or not he’s doing any good here.  I know that in the extended version they have Lex manipulating events to make Superman look bad, but they really don’t need to.  I thought the way it played out made sense in the context of the film.  Superman’s presence, even if it was just to save Lois (here I go again) Lane could be seen as an act of U.S. military aggression.  He’s an American superhero and during his debut worked extensively with the U.S. military to halt the Kryptonian invasion.  But since they never talk about that part in the film, it’s hard to draw that conclusion.  Which this is part of the problem with the portrayal of Superman in the film, you don’t feel his real impact on the world.  You don’t get this sense of how he’s this major hero to a lot of people.  They talk about it, but they don’t really show it, at least not for Metropolis where his memorial is supposed to take place.  Instead they kill of Superman using the “Death of Superman” concept but it doesn’t feel like they earned it.  They didn’t earn the right to kill Superman in his second movie.  Had there been a film in between which showcased his selflessness in fighting for earth, maybe we could push the death a little easier, but when you give the second named character in the title minimal screen time, you haven’t earned that right.

Going back to motivation really quick, Batman’s chief argument is that Superman doesn’t consider the collateral damage to his actions.  Which is a hypocritical argument coming from a guy who killed a truck driver, blew up hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, and mercilessly obliterated a dozen henchmen, all to steal an element that would help him eventually kill Superman?  Of course Superman stopped him and tore up the batmobile, he was on a rampage through the city.  Who knows who else would have died because he wanted to “defend the world” from Superman.

On the flip side of that, Superman doesn’t seem to care that much about collateral damage.  Take that sequence where he saves Lois in Africa.  He flies over two dozen dead bodies, and doesn’t wonder what happened.  Not to mention the guy holding the gun to Lois’ head.  Sorry you can go through two walls why being propelled by a battering ram and survive.  Maybe if he’d spared that one guy he could have gotten to the bottom of why all these guys are dead.  The scene at the hearing where the bomb in Lex’s wheelchair blows up, he later complains that he didn’t know if he just didn’t see it, or if he didn’t look for it.  That’s a fair question Clark because you know you are hated and bombings in government buildings happen a lot.  So…you didn’t look for it because for just a moment you didn’t give a rat’s ass.

Your argument is invalid

 

Let’s talk about something awesome…Wonder Woman.  I laugh at the haters when they found out Gail Gadot was playing Diana Prince in this film because it was all “she’s too skinny, she’s too little, she has no acting experience” then she shows up in the film, plays Bruce for a sap, does some actual detective work, and then jumps into the big monster fight at the end, and just dominates that battle field.  She made Batman look completely ineffective and Superman look like a punching bag.  She was the only one able to make a critical strike on Doomsday and restrain him.  With Wonder Woman, she didn’t talk much which made you pay attention when she did, and Gail’s facial expressions were just on point.  Plus they gave her some incredibly awesome music.  This is a Wonder Woman we’ve waited 75 years to see.

You've forgotten what your argument was

 

This might be the part where I address how Lois was either annoying, useless, or caused more problems than she helped fix…but that’s Lois Lane in the films.  I wish I could give her more credit or say that Amy Adam’s performance was amazing, but it was very “second verse, same as the first.”  Amy is a great actor, but she wasn’t given that good of a role here.

Maybe next time, Amy.

 

The cameos of Flash and Aquaman were pretty cool, though I was disappointed with the cameo of Cyborg.  I don’t know, when you had the other two actually doing something on screen, it seems kind of a letdown not to have Cyborg equally awesome.

Sonic...he can really move!

 

He's got an attitude...

So in conclusion, would I recommend this movie?  Only if you are willing to give it a shot, an honest to God chance, and you allow yourself to think about what’s going on.  If you want something to just munch popcorn to, you probably won’t have that much fun, because it’s going to ask you to think.

Do you need the Ultimate Edition?  Eh, probably not.  It doesn’t add that much to the story itself.

Part of this review was brought to you by William Dilbeck, author of the Lake Haven Chronicles, which you can find here:

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Dead-Lakehaven-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00JLPG8HE#nav-subnav

Please check it out.

Until next time…Thanks for reading.

Jim Gordon...What were you Thinking?

(Quietly banging head into desk) Okay, okay, okay…so recall how made a blog on March 10^th about how Jim Gordon was bad at his job because his ethical choices have really, really, really sucked.  I almost wish I did v-logs just so you could actually see how agitated I am at what I saw on last week’s Gotham.

Seriously, we’re talking hands shaking I am so mad at this show right now.

So, I love the Penguin subplot, that was very well done and I frankly wish Reubens had been with the show longer, but take what you can get.

Bullock’s big plan to help Gordon clear his name is to have him escape Blackgate under the ruse that he was killed by a fellow inmate, and is aided by Carmine Falcone.

That’s your plan.  That is the absolute best you can come up with?  “Carmine still has the resources to…” do a prison break?  Yes, actually that I believe, but you’d think that it would make more sense for Carmine to come out of the shadows, use a judge he had in a back pocket to overturn the conviction and have Gordon freed that way.  Sure he wouldn’t be a GCPD detective anymore, but he could work to clear his name without having to hide from literally the entire city.

But he faked his death, they won’t be looking for him! I hear you saying it, and here’s the problem with that.  The warden is still alive.  He saw, physically saw Jim Gordon alive and escaping and was knocked out.  Unless that guard proceeded to pummel the warden to death after Gordon fled, there’s a very credible witness to tell the police that Jim Gordon is a fugitive in the wind and decidedly not dead, which makes the whole “free to clear your name” thing a lot more complicated.

So let’s look at the absolute best case scenario.  Jim Gordon clears his name.  He can’t legally be reinstated into the GCPD, or join any other law enforcement agency.  While he may have been sent to prison under false pretenses, he still knowingly and willingly escaped of his own accord and that’s still a crime.  Will they throw him behind bars for it?  Eh maybe not, but he’s still guilty of it.  With that on his record, the closest thing he can do to law enforcement might be as a life guard at the public pool.

The major issue I’m having is that a police procedural show, even one based on a comic book, should have some foundation in actual law enforcement practices.

Jim Gordon is Bad at his Job…

 

It’s right there in the title, and I mean it.  Jim Gordon is not a good policeman.  Let’s jump off with the series that chronicles his eventual rise to police commissioner, “Gotham”.  This is a detective that isn’t very effective.  Sure he starts with that white-knight thing going, the one incorruptible cop in all of Gotham, and he has a really good start, but then cracks start appearing in his veneer.  As the cases escalate in craziness, he starts going more and more to the local criminal element for help.  On more than one occasion he sought out aide from Fish Mooney and Cobblepot.  His relationship with Cobblepot has been, without a doubt, the worst for his credibility, but to make matters worse, he double-crosses Penguin.

Regardless of what I’ve said in the past about Batman’s tactics, there is one indelible truth to the man.  He doesn’t double cross.  Even when he’s had to team with his own villains, he never does it at a compromise to his own integrity, and he never lies to them about the terms of their “cease-fire”. 

And it’s not just in the series “Gotham” where this is evident.  Throughout the various incarnations (with the exception of the 1960’s where it’s apparently acceptable to have a masked vigilante do your crime fighting) the very fact that he associates with Batman and allows him to operate within the city compromises his integrity.  Batman as a vigilante cannot affect an arrest regardless of the circumstances.  Any time he stops a purse snatcher or a jay walker, never mind anything higher, that case cannot be admissible in a court of law.  In order for these cases to stick, some serious blurring of facts has to happen.  Gordon didn’t eliminate the corruption of the police force, he just tweaked it.

In the Nolan Trilogy, Gordon is aware of the ethical challenges in associating with a caped lunatic, however this is taken a step further in “The Dark Knight” when he covers up the facts surrounding the death of Harvey Dent and allows Batman to take the heat for Two-Face’s crimes.  This was at least addressed in “The Dark Knight Rises”, but the failure in that instance is that Gordon is still unethical.  He may have been unethical for the right reasons, but if he’s supposed to be the last ethical man in Gotham, he’s failed in that effort.

In the Tim Burton films he ends the first film allying himself with Batman, and the second film basically endorsing violent crime every time the Bat-Signal is lit.  I won’t address the Joel Schumacher films because, as I said in a previous blog, they are just 1966 Batman with a modern spin.

In the famous animated series, he again has to compromise himself in order to work with Batman and condone Batman’s methods.  Other police officers are seen as heels or bad because they look down on this relationship, but as law ENFORCEMENT personnel, they should look down on it.  It’s a violation of public trust to say that these crimes are bad but this crime is okay.  His hand-shaking with Batman make Bruce Way the most successful violent criminal in Gotham’s history.

Well, that’s all I’ve got.

Have a great day.

 

1997's Batman and Robin: A Second Look...

Hello I’m back!  After a devastatingly long hiatus, I’ve returned to give my totally unsolicited opinion about something nobody is really talking about any more.  As ya do on the internet.

But given that we are but a stone’s throw from Batman returning to the big screen via “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”, I thought I’d take a minute to talk about one of the less than reputable moments from the Caped Crusader’s movie career.  That’s right, a film so polarizing you either love it or…well you probably hate it.  1997’s “Batman and Robin”.

Taking place in what we are to assume is the same cinematic universe as Tim Burton’s films, this particular film stars none other than George Clooney and Chris O’Donnel as the respective dynamic duo.  Giving them an assist is Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl and filling in the roles of villains are Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, Arnold (get-to-da-choppah) Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, and Robert Swensen as Bane.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, and you don’t even have to be a fan of the comics to find it.  The acting was phoned in at its best, a crime since all of these actors are actually really talented, and the characters were dumbed down from literally every other incarnation.

Well, hang on…ANY other incarnation?

Part of what irked fans of the franchise, myself included, was that we remembered quite fondly the Michael Keaton films, and even gave a pass to “Batman Forever”.  Watching the Val Kilmer/Jim Carrey film again, one can see the signs of where the franchise was going, but hind sight is 20/20 after all.  Yet somehow we were expected to swallow this neon/black light circus as being part of the same “reality” that had a man electrocuted down to a charred skeleton and an umbrella twirling nightmare trying to kill children.

But that’s if you are trying to link all four films together, which you probably shouldn’t.  How it makes sense in my head is that “Batman” and “Batman Returns” is an adaptation of the comics of the 1980’s whereas the Joel Schumacher films are in fact re-imagining of the Batman series of the 1960’s.

If you take these two specific films away from the context of the franchise as a whole, and put them alongside the 1960’s television series, they match up remarkably well.  Suddenly you see that George Clooney isn’t playing Bruce Wayne/Batman, he’s playing Adam West playing Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy would have worked perfectly with Julie Newmar or Burgess Meredith, but not the Catwoman and Penguin of the film franchise.

I think if you give the latter two of the films another shot in that light, you might find that…they honestly won’t be any better, but they will make a lot more sense.

Even if you can’t find it in your heart to accept them as they are or in this new light, look on this bright side:  It came out along with “Steel” and “Spawn”, forming the unholy trinity that effectively killed comic book films and forced Hollywood to actually put some thought and effort into these properties.  This wouldn’t be rectified until 1998 when “Blade” came to theaters and reminded audiences that films based on comics could be awesome.

What is Love to the Joker?

I recently stumbled on a question on the DC page, and I was going to comment on it, then found myself doing what I usually do, writing way too much for a casual comment.  So rather than do that, I thought I’d address this here.

Question: Do you think the Joker is gay?

At first this is a very “left field” question because just about everyone, even the most causal DC fan knows who Harley Quinn is.  The Joker has to be straight because she’s the Joker’s girlfriend.

Or is she?  In the cartoon it’s all but explicitly stated that the Joker uses Harley as a means to an end, and even when she’s trying to make overt sexual advances on him he pretty much keeps her at a distance.  His relationship towards her goes from playful banter, to neglect, to outright physical abuse at one point nearly killing her.  There’s no indication that they have any kind of relationship beyond that.  He spends at least one episode discussing the “relationship” he and Batman have, but never once addresses his “relationship” with Harley.

Now the problem with trying to pigeon hole the Joker’s concept of sexuality is he doesn’t necessary play by the same psychological rules as you and I do.  Most conventions dictate that for a human to be psychologically sound they need to have a secured source of food, a safe place to take shelter, and a means to let off sexual frustration.  This last part is because there is a huge mess of chemicals that swim through the brain when someone climaxes sexually.  Even the worse of living arrangements are deemed acceptable due to this flood of momentary ecstasy.  But the Joker doesn’t play by those rules necessarily.

The Joker takes shelter in seemingly random locations, usually abandoned factories or carnival locations.  These are not secure or safe.  We don’t really know about his source of food, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of character to frequent grocery stores or restaurants, especially with a fluctuating income, so he probably doesn’t care about having a secured source of food.  Given that the first two of the trifecta aren’t being met the same way we meet them, chances are he’s given the same kind of attention to the third.

It’s possible that the way the Joker’s brain is wired; these conventions are awkward and uncomfortable to him.  People with Asperger’s or high functioning autism don’t function the same way socially that other people do.

*For the record I am in no way saying the Joker has Asperger’s or autism, it’s just an example.

Physical intimacy for some people is just uncomfortable.  The Joker just appears to have a ramped up version of this where all social conventions are uncomfortable.

We do know one thing that the Joker is always going to return to though, Batman.  He wants Batman’s full attention.  He competes with other criminals and even the Robins to keep Batman’s focus.  So what is a fundamental part of any sexual relationship?  Attention.

We want attention from our partners.  We want to be their entire focus.  Many new fathers go through a period of intense resentment towards newborns because their wives spend so much time focusing their attention towards the baby that the dad goes unattended.  Is this resentment deliberate?  No, it’s entirely subconscious, but it also states what we want on a very basic level.  We want to be our partner’s focus.  That’s what the Joker wants.

So does that mean the Joker is gay?  Not necessarily.  He wants Batman’s attention and it’s likely during the beat-downs, the violence that occurs during apprehension, that the same chemicals that go off in our brains during orgasm go off in the Joker’s brain.  Notice that he always ramps up his crimes, getting bigger and bigger, with a higher and higher destructive toll or body count.  That way the violence will be equal or greater to what he received the last time.  In a sense, the Joker’s crimes are his version of foreplay.  However the real question is, would this be the same if Batman was “Batwoman?”

I theorize yes.  If Bruce had been born Beatrice Wayne and she grew up to be the first Batwoman and delivered the same level of violence towards the Joker, he would have the same response. 

To ask if the Joker is gay is the same as asking if his brain works the same way ours do.  Clearly it doesn’t.  The entire base for his psychology is way off.  Also it’s not like any superhero could replace Batman for him.  It starts with Batman, which is why if Batman were Batwoman, she’d have to be the first hero he faced off against in order to establish that same connection.

Does that mean, since Joker received sexual pleasure from violence, that’s how he sees Harley and when he abuses her that’s his way of having sex with her?  No.  Joker has a clear understanding that violence is violence.  He knows that if he throws Harley or any of his henchmen into oncoming traffic, he’s not having sex with them; he’s trying to kill them.  He doesn’t have sex with violence; he has sex with violence from Batman.  Further in books like “Arkahm Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth” and “The Killing Joke”, he has a clear understand of sexuality, and its corrupted forms such as rape.  He uses jokes and attacks to get a rise of out Batman in these stories, again to illicit the violence he craves.

Well, this certainly has been a dark one.

Thanks for reading.

Legal Advice: The Crimes of The Batman, The Superman, and Lt. James Gordon

There seems to be a skewed image in DC fandom concerning the events of Batman Begins vs. The Man of Steel.  The battle cry is that Batman doesn’t kill, and that Superman could have found a way to stop Zod without killing him.

Let’s take this to the courts:

The charge is homicide, and the definition goeth thusly:

Second degree murder usually applies to cases in which the killing may have been intentional but was not premeditated. These are often referred to as “crimes of passion.” A common example is the jealous husband that flies into a homicidal rage and kills his wife and her lover when he finds them in bed together.

“Some states also consider grossly wanton and reckless behavior that results in the death of another to be second degree murder. This applies in situations where one's actions were so wanton and reckless that the death of another person was almost assured, even if the killing was not intentional.

Second degree murder is also very serious, and in most situations the defendant could face decades to life in prison, though the death sentence is not a possibility in these cases.” (http://www.hg.org/murder.html) 

Does this sound familiar?  In Batman Begins, Ra’s Al Ghul has commandeered a commuter train and is intending to evaporate the city’s water supply and thus spread a fear toxin through the air causing mass panic and death.   Batman’s response to this is to destroy the train before reaching “the central hub”.  He has Lt. James Gordon destroy the supports to the tracks and Batman splits the train in half sending Ra’s Al Ghul and the train plummeting into a parking garage where it explodes, taking the “microwave emitter” with it.

During this event, Batman escapes, leaving Ra’s in the runaway train, stating “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you either.”  This is not a morally ambiguous line.  This is a lie Batman has just told himself.  According to the above accepted definition of Second Degree homicide, Batman killed Ra’s Al Ghul.  His actions meet the elements of the crime as defined by Frank Schmallenger’s Criminal Justice Today: 1.  An unlawful killing (Batman has no legal authority to take a human life), 2. Of a human being (Ra’s according to the film was human), 3.  Intent (Batman intended to have Ra’s die in a crash), and 4. With Planning (Batman always has a plan).

Now the question to respond with is “Did Batman have a choice?”  As a matter of fact, he did.  It’s never established that the emergency brake could not be engaged.  It’s never established that the microwave emitter couldn’t be disabled, and despite popular belief, it would be possible to put Ra’s Al Ghul in prison for his crimes.  Even if you consider the “corrupt nature” of Gotham’s police force, they would still take a very dim view of a man trying to annihilate their entire city.  After all, the city he was trying to destroy happens to be the city those “corrupt” officials happen to live in.

Not only did Batman commit Second Degree Murder, he also destroyed any evidence that would corroborate the accusation that the League of Shadows existed or was trying to poison Gotham.  By taking matters into his own hands he actually caused more harm than good.  Further, Lt. Gordon should have been stripped of his office and put into Federal custody for his criminal actions in detonating a high explosive in a urban area causing millions of dollars of damage.

To add to the list of offenses, Batman also committed attempted manslaughter earlier in the film when questioning Dr. Jonathan Crane.  During his assault on Arkham, Batman forcefully exposed Crane to his own fear toxin, the same toxin that threatened to kill the assistant district attorney.  Once Batman realized that the dosage was potentially fatal (never mind that he had already experienced the chemical compound first hand and understood its dangerous, even life threatening effects) he made no attempt to notify medical or legal authorities to have them administer aide to the now poisoned Dr. Crane.  Rather he left him in the Arkham basement to die, driving away now with full knowledge that Crane could, in fact die from the exposure.

But what about Superman?

Let us examine the case against him.  When a small army of super-powered aliens attempted to take over the Earth, Superman extensively worked with the United States armed forces (not just one person) to stop them.  The actions of said super-powered army caused a massive amount of destruction.  Superman, by comparision, caused much less by fighting them.  This was a war-time event.  The aliens were hostile and the military responded as such.  This means that any deaths caused indirectly by the physical confrontation between the aliens and Superman would be considered collateral damage.  Further, had the aliens not attempted to take over Earth, none of these deaths would have occurred.  There is evidence severs the link between Superman and the collateral damage (from a legal standpoint).

But what about Zod?  This is an area referred to as “justifiable homicide”. 

“Justifiable homicide is not murder at all, as it is not considered criminal. Rather, it is the taking of another's life in circumstances in which the killing was necessary as the only means of preventing the murder of one's self or to protect another. Because the killing was justifiable, the person who committed the killing will not be held criminally liable for the death, though civil liability may still exist (i.e. the decedent's family could bring a wrongful death lawsuit).”  (http://www.hg.org/murder.html) 

At the time of the incident there was no means available of effectively subduing or detaining Zod.  The military had already exhausted its attempts to detain Superman earlier, which proved futile.  There was no time or available resources to establish a detainment system to prevent Zod from continuing his rampage (the Phantom Zone generator having been destroyed at this point).  Superman’s attempt to steer Zod away from populated areas was futile as Zod was intent on returning to hot zones in an effort to inflict the most possible damage.  Lastly Zod’s next action would have resulted the immediate death of a family.  Superman’s only recourse to was to end Zod’s life, making it justifiable homicide.  Further, because he was working with an official representative of the United States armed forces with authority to move forward with defensive military actions at the time, this made his actions sanctioned by the military.

Batman, by comparison, coerces James Gordon into becoming an accomplice.  Gordon has no official authority to enlist the aid of Batman.  Batman functions as a vigilante who while sounding cool, is incredibly illegal and Gordon actively harbors him and hinders his apprehension.

Do Film Makers Ruin the Films, or is it the Fans?

 

Well, it’s been a while since I’ve really written anything substantial; mostly I’ve been wandering aimlessly around on G+ Marvel, DC Comics, and Transformers pages, so I might as well get back to basics.

So, fandom in general…what is it?  Well it’s an avid interest which can sometimes boarder on obsession on a single genre, character, or body of work.  DC Comics fandom exists in very broad strokes and can encompass hundreds or thousands of characters, comics, novels, movies, cartoons, television shows and video games.  Those that ascribe to this fandom have a vast and sometime oddly specific encyclopedia of knowledge concerning the body of work that encompasses DC Comics properties.

That can of course be narrowed down.  Maybe you are an avid Batman fan and thus might as well have a Master’s degree in all things concerning the Dark Knight.

Or perhaps you are a Transformers fan and thus have spent years, or perhaps decades devoting your free time to the property in all its incarnations.

Regardless of your fandom, whether it is to a publisher, property, or character, you have a vested interest in all media related to your fandom, and thus you take it very personally when you see it mistreated by Hollywood.

What sets fans apart from the general audience is simple, passion.  Fans have a passion for the characters, the story, and demand nothing but the best from the studio.  The general audience wants to take their dates on something that will kill two hours without having to resort to actual conversation.  And eat popcorn.  But do we, the fans, shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot when it comes to our expectations.

I’ve personally had the privilege to be on many sides of the spectrum during my professional life.  I’ve been a supervisor, a writer, and artist, an editor, and a fan.  It’s really as a supervisor and an editor, however that I’ve gotten the best perspective of how the whole equation works.  You have to dissociate yourself from the body of work, not only pick at the nuances, but the piece as a whole.  I can tell you if the whole of a story is great and then in the same sentence says “However in chapter 6, paragraph 4, and line 8 you use the word “burrito” as a verb and that can take a reader out of the scene.”  I’ve defended my employees’ actions and decisions before those casting judgement, and then once the situation is over I’ve reprimanded them for making the wrong choices or using poor judgement.  So I tend to analyze and sometimes over analyze a body of work, and I try to do so objectively from all points of view.

Take Transformers: Age of Extinction.  I’ve been with the franchise since 1985 when the toys hit my local K-Mart.  I’ve been with the robots in disguise through thick and thin, and so I had expectations as a fan when I heard the Dinobots were to grace the big screen.  I heard the outcries:  Optimus was too violent, the movie was too Michael Bay, the Dinobots had little to do, there were too many humans, etc.  I shared many of these viewpoints.  I was not pleased that Optimus was so willing to turn his back on humanity.  I was disappointed that no Dinobot got called by name or spoke.  I did feel the Transformers had little screen time.

Then I had to look at it from the general audience point of view.   I read the reviews from the critics, but the film still did amazingly well at the box office.  If it was such a bad movie, why were people throwing their money at it in droves?   Was it because people like bad movies?  Or was it a better movie than we gave it credit for because it didn’t appeal to our sensibilities?

If they made the Transformers movies just for the transformers fans, then they probably wouldn’t make their money back.  Changes had to be made to appeal to a wider audience, ones who weren’t familiar with thirty years of back story, by my count at least 20 independent animated series (counting the Japanese iterations since often story lines differed) and more comics than I care to count right now.  There was no way everyone was going to be satisfied with the end result.

The same thing happened not too long ago with Superman Returns, which was set in the same cinematic universe as the Christopher Reeve Superman films, at least the first two, with the latter two apparently excised from continuity.  The film harkened back to those old films, and avid fans of those films, myself included, loved the movie.  Yes we could pick out problems with it but we were still pretty entrenched in the nostalgia that we could look past it.  Yet the general audience and many of the broader DC Comics fans demanded more.  “Why can’t we see Superman get in a fight with someone?”  In Man of Steel they got their wish, and immediately came the cries “Superman doesn’t kill!  Why did half the city need to be destroyed?!”

Because Zach Snyder looked at the Superman mythos and decided to up the ante.  There was a call for Superman to fight someone, but that kind of fight is going to have an effect on the environment and for the most dynamic fight scene, you need a dynamic environment.  Why did Superman kill?  Because killing Zod fit with the tone of the story.

So looping back around to where this all started…did the movie makers ruin the film, or did the audience ruin it for themselves?  With everything art related, there isn’t a right or wrong answer…it’s all subjective.  Art, beauty, entertainment in general is all in the eye of the beholder.  I can criticize bad movies, but I can also appreciate them.  Batman and Robin was probably one of the worst comic book based movies ever created, and it bombed at the box office, and I hate it, but I can also appreciate it from a certain point of view.  It’s stupid beyond belief but it’s a harmless stupid.  It’s something I can pop in with friends and we can riff on.  I can watch it alone and view it through the same lens that I view the Adam West television series.  If I don’t take it seriously, then it’s not that bad.

Just to clarify, it’s still bad, but in the same way the Adam West series was.

So do I shortchange myself when I expect too much from Hollywood?  Probably.  Should I stop expect the very best product they can make?  Absolutely not.  Yes at the end of the day Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, the Ninja Turtles, and Transformers, these are all very silly concepts but that doesn’t mean they should be done sloppily, but maybe I should curb my criticism a little because before I know it, they will roll out with something else.  Maybe the next iteration will be better, maybe not, but at least we can enjoy the ride.

Thanks for reading.

Why So Down on Superman?

                I’ve noticed a strong thread in comic book communities that are very pro-Batman, anti-Superman.  Some of this is tongue firmly in cheek good natured ribbing; some of it is down-right hateful.  So I got to thinking, why?  Why are so many people so willing to fly the flag of the Bat and stomp on the S-shield?

I suppose it comes down to a handful of factors:

1)      Superman is easier to pick apart.  Not only is he generally accepted as the first superhero, he is implausibility incarnate.  You can try to science your way around his powers, but when you step back and look at them, they are a ridiculous combination of plot conveniences smashed together and wrapped in blue tights. 

 

Batman, on the other hand, has no powers, and we are psychologically predisposed to relate to him because he’s “human”.  He is stupid rich, has an unlimited supply of improbable technology, a massive underground lair full of the craziest stuff you could put together, but it rolls back to him being human.  We may never be ludicrously wealthy, have a fleet of jet black vehicles and our own personal football stadium to park them in, but we can dream, and just being human we are part of the way there.

 

2)      Batman is the bad-boy.  I’ve heard it said, Batman is the one girls want to date, Superman is who women want to marry.  This stems from Batman’s tortured past and dark persona.  Girls tend to lean towards men they can mold, shape into someone better.  Superman is that better person.  He’s honest, kind, noble, heroic, and never sticks around for praise.  Batman is menacing, brooding, and more likely to beat the crap out of the guy who gooses you in a bar. Superman represents a level of stability that’s appealing to women looking to set down roots but still want the occasional adventure.  Batman, on the other hand, will globe trot at the drop of a hat and his life is constantly popping. 

 

3)      We want to be better than Superman.  Ever noticed how everyone can come up with a thousand ways Batman can beat Superman.  Some folks can rattle them off the top of their head.  Some of these are severely sinister plots that require hours of intense thought.  This stems from our “mortal” insecurity.  We want to think that if push came to shove, we could bring down the Man of Steel because he makes us feel inadequate.  “Because I’m Batman…” isn’t just a clever punchline, it’s a catch all to make us all feel better than Superman.  What makes matters worse, at least for John Q. Human, is that Superman never boasts about his powers.  He’s calm and quietly awesome without effort.  Batman has to “work” for everything.

 

What is kind of sad is when you try to counter the argument of “Batman can beat Superman…” by saying “But Superman can…” “NO, Batman already won.” “Yeah, but if Superman just…” “BATMAN’S AWESOME SUPERMAN SUCKS!!!” (Actual conversation)  Some refuse to believe that Superman could be anything more than Batman’s bitch.  (By the way, hurricane force super breath invalidates like 99% of what Batman can do.)

 

What the whole debate actually boils down to: who is writing the story?  Guys like Frank Miller will always have Batman win because Batman.  Other writers will side with Superman and the fight will be over before it gets started.  Looking at Dawn of Justice trailer, I was thinking

“Do you bleed?  You w…” and Superman blows Batman into the next county with just a quick puff of breath.

But I may just be saying that because I love Superman.

Later!

Gotham: Series Overview

Well, it was only a matter of time before I talked about this series.  I was going to get to it, but I don’t like doing episode by episode reviews, I tried that a while back with Once Upon a Time season 2, and it didn’t work within my schedule.  So, rather than try to tackle this show one piece at a time, let’s look at it one character at a time and see how they’ve grown over the course of the series.

The overall plot of Gotham is to follow the adventures of the last good cop in the city, Detective Jim Gordon, played by Ben McKenzie.  Former military, Gordon approaches his police work with a single minded focus on the traditional model of law enforcement; police should be pillars of the community, an example for the public to aspire to, and to have the protection of the public be their number one goal.  This mindset clashes heavily with his fellow officers who are caricatures of corruption.  Notably his partner, Harvey Bullock and Captain Sarah Essen seem beaten down by the corruption in the city, until Gordon’s example lifts them out of their funk.  Still fearful of the hostile environment, rather than slam head log into their opposition, they use the twisted system to engineer justice in a place where justice was a fantasy.

This doesn’t mean that everyone loves Gordon.  They like his results, most of the time.  As he attacks each case, he rubs people the wrong way, and they are numb, if not outright hostile towards him.  When he collars the perpetrator, however, or saves the city from this-that-or-the other, they salute him and treat him as a hero.

What is ironic is that while Gordon is arguably the most interesting character in the show, he’s also the least interesting of the show.  I say that because you know how he’s going to act.  We’ve seen his phases when dealing with relationships, cases, co-workers, and outright villains.  He’s got to be the most interesting portrayal of the character because he’s very competent in his job, unlike say some movie versions, and has taken down at least two major villains on his own, most notably the Electrocutioner.

He’s shown he can do his job without the aid of a lunatic dressed as a bat.

Speaking of which, we also have David Mazouz as young Bruce Wayne, and not far behind him Sean Pertwee as Alfred.  I link these two characters because this is the time in Bruce’s life when Alfred is his guardian and Alfred takes that responsibility to heart, even going super soldier mode when assassins target Bruce and Selena Kyle (more on her in a minute).  Sean Pertwee’s take on Alfred is absolutely fantastic.  He rides the fine line between parent and servant to Bruce Wayne.  I’ve read it in comics where Bruce and Alfred’s relationship was described as Bruce values Alfred, seeing him as the only family he has, but also its very clear Alfred works for Bruce and, more often than not is subject to Bruce’s orders and whims, whether he agrees with them or not.  That’s very well portrayed in this show, as Alfred offers council, advice, and training as requested, and will even voice his concerns, but will do whatever it takes to see his employer’s requests are met.  Alfred loves Bruce and will kill to protect him.

Bruce’s side of the relationship is complex as well.  The series picks up almost at the moment of the Wayne’s murder, so we are thrust right into Bruce’s life scarring event.  I don’t think I’m out of line saying that Bruce is suffering from PTSD, and the combination of the writing and Mazouz’s performance really bring out the more subtle accents of the disorder.  Bruce is seen suffering from nightmare, obsessing over various topics, self-destructive activities, and a lot of unfocused aggression.

It’s made clear that Bruce is seeking something to fill the void left by his parents’ murder.  He becomes an amateur detective in an attempt to find meaning behind their deaths, thus holding on to the last shreds of his parents.  He also looks to Alfred as a father figure, but at the same time maintains their traditional employer/employee relationship, so no matter how close they grow, there will forever be a distance.  Basically Bruce could really use some counseling…

Unfortunately as we find out in the season finale, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has limited crisis counseling experience.  Otherwise she could have, and probably should have, filled her comic book counterpart’s role as counselor to the young Bruce Wayne.  Instead she starts out as a staff physician at the newly re-opened Arkham Asylum, and later takes over as the medical examiner and Jim Gordon’s love interest.  When she first appeared in Arkham, I was hopeful because Morena Baccarin has a very soothing on screen appearance and could easily portray a counselor.  I honestly thought that was the role she was going to fill.  Baccarin does a wonderful job in the role anyway, but I think the character could have been taken a different direction.  Yet it’s entirely possible that Tompkins will take on the crisis counselor role later after experiencing the trauma of facing off with a crazed Barbra Kean.

Comics are, in general a twisted knot of ret-cons, with multiple writers trying to put their own mark on the history of iconic characters.  No set of characters suffer more from this than Jim Gordon’s immediate family.  It is a mess and I’m not even going to try to compare the comic version to what we see in Jim Gordon in Gotham.  That said Barbara Kean was Gordon’s first girlfriend in the series before she left after Gordon had run afoul of Police Commissioner Loeb.  When she returned after his reinstatement, he had already moved on to Leslie Tompkins and Barbara sent herself on a self-destructive spiral that culminated in her encountering the serial killer known as “The Ogre”, her murdering her parents on his orders and eventually trying to kill Tompkins, only to be stopped by her ex-boyfriend.  Everything I just said there, that’s simple compared to the comic book counterpart.  Erin Richards plays the role well enough, I never really liked the character, but I don’t think we were ever meant to like her.  Richards plays the transition from emotionally wounded socialite to full on psychopath with a great deal of believability, and I look forward to what direction they take the character post-psychotic break.

Edward Nygma is the next character that is worth talking about because he himself as a very interesting transition.  Nygma is set up as the GCPD’s forensic expert who likes riddles.  He really likes riddles.  He likes them so much he tries to bring his information to the officers investigating the case in the form of a riddle, much to their annoyance.  His relationship to Gordon is interesting because he seems to almost admire Gordon.  Gordon was, apparently, the first detective he’s worked with to rattle off the answer to a riddle right away.  Played by Cory Michael Smith, he’s shown to have more than a few sociopathic personality traits, tries unsuccessfully to woo the affections of records specialist Kristin Kringle, and later murders and brutally disposes of the body of her lover.  His first foray into his comic book counterpart’s psychosis is when he forges a letter from the deceased boyfriend, but arranges the sentences so that the first letter of each line spells out “NYGMA”.  He has a psychotic break later, berating himself for leaving an obvious clue.  It’s hard to gauge where this character will go next.  My guess is that he’ll continue to work with the police, only to watch as they try to decipher the clues from the crimes he commits.  This actually plays well into the character from the comics as he always held himself intellectually superior to those around him and it seems logical he would place himself in a location where he can watch people run themselves ragged trying to decipher his clues.

However there are wasted and unnecessary characters as well.  Part of the problem with most American television programs are filler episodes.  These are episodes that provide no information towards the overall arc of the season, only put there to fill an episode quota and provide a “villain of the week”.  Smallville was notorious for this, but I’ll get to them later.

Gotham doesn’t necessarily have any “filler episodes” per say.  Everything is designed to reveal or, sometimes, force feed us characterization, letting us get into the mind of the characters.  If the A-plot doesn’t cover something significant for the overall story, then the B-plot usually adds something, usually by establishing relationship ties.

Ivy Pepper, our proto Poison Ivy for the show, is a unnecessary character.  They literally could have written her out of the entire show at this point and not missed anything.  Midway through the series they introduce a character named Jerome, who again, has no business in the show other than to tease us with a possible Joker origin.  I’ve read that there will be more Joker build ups later, but that’s to come.

Finally under the tent of unnecessary is Attorney Harvey Dent.  He’s set up as a young, up and coming lawyer, with possible dissociative identity disorder, show when he rages at a suspect, and then is promptly dropped.  He’s depicted as a contemporary of Jim Gordon, which is sometimes comic book accurate.  What isn’t comic book accurate is how Dent later becomes Two-Face in the comics, in which his face is scarred by acid thrown by gangster Sal Maroni…

Which brings me to wasted characters, the top of which is Sal Maroni, who is played by David Zayas.  Zayas’ had a spot on portrayal of this rough and uncouth mobster, reminding me of DeNiero as Al Capone from The Untouchables.  If you took Carmine Falcone (John Doman) to be Don Vito Corleone, ala The Godfather, then the pairing of these two legendary mobsters was a fantastic example of two-sides of the same coin.  Which was ruined by Fish Mooney.  Not to knock Jada Pinket-Smith’s portrayal, she actually reminded me of Eartha Kit from time to time, but the inclusion of Fish Mooney was just not necessary, at least not in the capacity in which she was shown.  They could have set her up as a rival crime lord, not an Falcone lieutenant with high aspirations, and they could have focused on her conflict with them more than the Dollmaker plot thread.  That felt forced and actually plugged in some sub-par computer generated effects, which we could have been sparred if they had gone a different direction.

Finally, there is the Penguin, played by Robin Lord Taylor.  I really don’t know what to say about him.  I can’t give him too much praise as I feel he did what was expected of him, and I can’t knock him because he did his job well.  He made you watch him every time he was on screen, but I didn’t love the character.  He was dangerous, but that danger wasn’t out of left field, you always knew it was there.  I think, he’s kind of an anti-Gordon.  His arc is predictable, but well portrayed. 

I suppose I should talk about Selina Kyle, played by Camren Bicondova.  Again, she did a good job, but she didn’t have the same caliber of material Mazouz did.  She wasn’t anything we haven’t already seen before, but that’s not the actress’s fault.  People have been doing their spin on the orphan thief with questionable ethics for generations, so the odds were against her.  She had a good, if subdued screen presence, with a dangerous-bad girl vibe.  She ended the season showing Selina had a violent streak in her, so it might be interesting to see where they take it from there.

Overall, it’s a pretty good prequel series, easily in my top 10, but maybe not directly in my top 5.  Give it a watch and see for yourself.