Jedi Master DJR

All Warner Brothers does is shoot themselves in the foot. Even caring only about making money, how do they think this will help Aquaman, Shazam, or the next Wonder Woman? Plus Henry was a great Superman. Idiots

I just had to add an update to this. I’ve been listening to these earlier episodes again because I’ve been slowly making my way through the classic series itself (though I’ve listened to all the Bigger on the Inside episodes so far to current) and got to Shada. And lo and behold they just did a new version for home video so I didn’t have to watch a reconstruction or listen to Big Finish like the early stories. Having just listened to this episode again, Dan and Mike, get your hands on this. Same for anyone else reading this. I will not bias you with my thoughts in depth, but just watch it. And maybe cover it again, some day. Derrick

To quickly speak to one of your concerns about the new Who, if you were to hypothetically watch the second part in VLC player or another player that can slow it down, the green energy becomes what looks like a sound note and when it hits a member of the Silence, it doesn't really do anything and then River makes the comment. Hypothetically watch it at .50 speed or less. The other point about an alleged genocide needs its own thread. I will simply point out that the Silence are on multiple planets and would not negotiate when it came to Earth or where the fish people in the vampire episode came from, or any of the sort. I do not recall a scene where the Doctor goes to the home world of the Silence to finish them off, unless it was implied somewhere Earth was their home world and I missed it.

I would suggest Star Wars Legacy Volume 1 Broken because I think its one of the best Star Wars products that have come out in the last few years. Also I must admit as a long time reader of Star Wars multimedia products (novels, comics, etc) I do wonder if it is as new reader friendly as I think it is. And if it is not reader friendly or gets a bad review anyway, that would be entertaining as well.

That's a level of deconstruction I'm uncomfortable with in my fictional stories. It's like arguing Luke, Leia, and Han are slaveholders because they never mention or offer freedom to 3PO and R2-D2, even though I would contend they're sentient. I have no idea how that relates to what I'm talking about. First I will admit I may have been confusing by using the term reconstruction in the TV tropes sense TV Tropes Deconstruction Second what I mean specifically by that example is your notion isn't wacky at all. What I would contend however is that most of these fictional stories have at least one element that doesn't hold up to scrutiny in a real world setting. Therefore, in my mind, each case must be weighed against what the intent of the story would seem to be, which in this case I do not think Doctor Who is encouraging pedophilia. (Not that I'm saying that's your contention either.) So in conclusion, I do not think it is a wacky notion you are having, but I generally like the romantic aspect to some of the Doctor's companions and I do not think it is sending the wrong message. Hopefully that made more sense Derrick, from one Derrick to another.

That's a level of deconstruction I'm uncomfortable with in my fictional stories. It's like arguing Luke, Leia, and Han are slaveholders because they never mention or offer freedom to 3PO and R2-D2, even though I would contend they're sentient.

Certainly I think that the episode and current Who canon can lend itself to either interpretation, but I must admit that if they later say it's Susan I would personally find it weird. I know in the continuity the Doctor, Master, and various Time Lords are hundreds of years old, but as a viewer I still think its important the age of various actors be taken into account. By that I mean, Eccleston or Tennant having a romantic relationship with Billie Pipper or Freema Agyeman works. William Hartnell having a relationship with an actress that young, not so much, even if the Doctor is "younger" at that point. I would also certainly concede that may not be a perfect metaphor, but that is the general idea I'm trying to convey. I also remain open to the possibility that a great scene or episode could be done with Matt Smith or a future Doctor having it be Susan. As with everything in fiction it's mostly about the execution of such an idea. And on a different note, I still find the idea of the Doctor or the Master having a set number of regenerations to be a bad idea. I like the idea of Doctor Who continuing on in perpetuity, it's just such a great storytelling premise.

Having thought about the Buffy portion of this podcast for awhile, I will express three things. First I agree that the issue was not new reader friendly. Secondly I could not disagree more on the comparison between Astonishing X-Men and Buffy being an example of Joss not understanding his own characters. I will admit however that my knowledge of canonical Buffy is large, while my knowledge of X-Men is not. So perhaps I'm simply the other side of the coin in terms of the vantage point Michael is coming from. Lastly, as entertained as I am by First Issue Special's particular paradigm, I generally don't think that any first issue of these large serialized stories or mythologies are reader friendly. Just to cite an example, while I intend to read Brubaker's Captain America run at some point, I'm not a knowledgeable Cap fan. As of right now, I couldn't tell you anything about Bucky other then him being Cap's sidekick in WW2 whom somehow is in the modern day now, currently being Captain America. That's all I know. However instead of trying to jump into the title, expecting it to answer these questions for me, I will at the appropriate time look it up before I begin. I don't think a little research and context is too much to ask of readers whom are becoming more and more likely to have internet access at some point of their day. Within that paradigm however, I would direct you to my first point, that it is not new reader friendly. Other then that, thanks for the show.

These just happened to be the two graphic novels I picked up at the time from the library that I have seen repeatedly considered "classic" stories. I wasn't really concerned whether either was "in" continuity or not considering Marvel and DC's ideas that a story like Batman Year One occurs at most 4 or 5 years before say Batman RIP where Tim is talking about iPods or something is nonsensical. Anyway, I think my thread may have been a little convoluted to spark interest at first, but I suppose that makes sense. I think in general what I am trying to say is that while I consider Red Son to be a classic story for Superman, I just can't say the same about A Death in the Family. I think ADITF was a big "event" before we really had events because of the way the fans voted. But at the same time, I just find the work weak not just because of Ambassador Joker from Iran (which could be forgiven compared to other wacky plots), but because Batman is robbed of making the choice of whether to kill the Joker or not. To me, it is not enough to say Batman could have if he really wanted to. The clear intent, I think, of the last pages of ADITF was to rob Batman of that choice. Otherwise, why have Superman there to stop him? Why make the Joker a diplomat with the immunity that entails? I'm sure other works addressed this choice by Batman later, but again I think it is bad storytelling to not let Batman choose in this comic. To me, it's like using techno-babble to solve a problem in a science fiction story, it doesn't really do anything for me.

For the moment, I just wanted to drop by while I had a moment and say thanks for reviewing Red Son guys. I just read it myself a few weeks ago from the library and really enjoyed it, even starting a non sucessful thread on it, as well as a Death in the Family. So anyway, thanks!

Out of deference to your nightmares about fiction (though that's really a different podcast on this website ) I will not awaken this discussion again then. My point still stands however, continuity keeps people talking. Honestly that seems to be a weakness of all the internet fandom forums though. Focus on continuity at the expense of the other aspects of a given work.

I cannot see why not, it got you to respond. I wouldn't mind starting a new thread and not derailing this one. Otherwise, what's the fear? It's just a show and the guys are going to cover it anyway. Or is that a contentious issue as well, WFP merely covering it? I must admit I would find that odd.

I recently checked out Batman: A Death in the Family and Superman: Red Son. Now while I knew Jason Todd would die in B:ADITF and the basic concept of Superman being a Soviet in S:RS, I had never read these graphic novels before I checked them out. So perhaps my uninitiated thoughts on this material may be of some entertainment to you. Now if I wanted to bore everyone, I could just point out all the things I liked about B:ADITF and why it deserves to be a classic. Not going that route, instead I will point out where this graphic novel JUMPS THE SHARK! Don't think you agree? Read on. There is no way in hell Iran would make the Joker their ambassador to the UN. It does not make any sense for the 1980s or now, it's just silly. Pick an imaginary country or something. Iran's Supreme Leader throughout that time was a horrible leader, with policies I abhor, but he's not Dr. Doom. And the UN is not so stupid and ineffective that they would allow the Joker on the premises, let alone in the UN Chamber. It would make as much sense as Timothy McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden as the ambassador from Iran. Secondly, was I the only one that noticed that Batman was completely robbed of choosing whether he would kill the Joker or making the decision true to him, no matter how personally hard for him, of not killing the Joker? I am not interested in watching how nonsensical diplomatic immunity or Superman can stop Batman from making that choice. It would have been a much stronger story if Batman had told the US government to stuff it and pulled his handy kryptonite shard from his utility belt so that Superman could not stop him. Then, show Batman choosing NOT to kill the Joker, after you build up that he would. That is one of the strongest moral aspects of Batman's character and should shine in the moment when he would be most likely to consider revenge. Moving on to S:RS, I really enjoyed this story as well. I especially loved the manner in which, The Batman, springs up in this story. It felt so right and was thought out very well. I must also say the story didn't feel dated to me, a child born shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union. It struck the right note, not jingoistic for the USA compared to the USSR in practical terms, and it had Luthor pose this amazing question that changed Superman's mind. The idea of a great argument reaching Soviet Superman and changing his mind was wonderful to read. And of course the idea that Lex Luthor could change the world for great good if he wasn't so damn egotistical never gets old nor does the fact that no matter what Superman Does Not Fight Wars. I haven't watched or read Watchmen yet (I know, shocking!), but certaintly Superman: Red Son should be covered in Lit classes in my opinion, it's really wonderful.

I must come clean, I have not been downloading World's Finest lately with the Static Shock, Gotham Girls, etc coverage. I'm a baaad man, I know. I just don't have the time to watch those episodes, but I have seen BTAS, STAS, BB, JL, and JLU already and I just would hate to listen to a bunch of episodes about shows I don't have a big need to see. If it redeems me any though, I do intend to watch Teen Titans as you do that series. Speaking of which, TEEN TITANS IS NOT DCAU CANON. Or IT IS. Or whichever position puts me in the minority. I have no problem generating controversy for the sake of it. It's fiction, not worth getting mad about. Reaganomics on the other hand, but that would be a digression.

In typing this, I do not profess to be a great writer or critic by any stretch of the imagination, but I have two basic problems with this book. The first is that so far, I really don't see where this version of Batman goes as a character. If he starts the book as this grumbling, asocial, womanizing character who makes a young boy tough it out in the Batcave, where do you take that arc? Assuming this is supposed to link up to the Dark Knight Returns, Batman will remain fundamentally unchanged in any significant way years down the road, besides completely alienating Robin. So in other words, he will exacerbate his own worst traits apparently. Certainly I always thought Batman evolving from a Year One type Bat to become the more disillusioned man from Dark Knight Returns at least had an arc and was a reasonable possibility if Batman had lived that high stress lifestyle for so long. Second, I fully realize that Batman and Wolverine are two of the bestselling characters in comics. There are however differences between them, which apparently Miller no longer agrees with. I just don't see even a subtle difference in characterization if you were to compare this Batman to the typical Wolverine characterization. It feels like I'm reading about Wolverine with a different reason to angst and a different costume. That may be unfair, but it is only an opinion. Finally, I thought the art was worth looking at, regardless of the story. Not being made of money however, I simply could not justify such a purchase. When I look at the trade paperbacks and hardcovers on my shelf, thinking about how much money I've spent that could be spent on other things, I need to be impressed by both the story and art. Perhaps Miller may do better as the run continues.

I would have to concur with James's amusing drawing he has there. I think that this series does most of the things Revenge of the Sith did right, instead of many of the things Attack of the Clones and Phantom Menace did wrong. Certainly there are exceptions like Bombad Jedi, but who knows, if the Phantom Editor could make superior versions of the two prequel films that I watch exclusively over Lucas's edits.....no Bombad Jedi would mostly stink. Otherwise I still find the series enjoyable overall, even with the reshuffling of CW continuity like Ostrander and Duursema's Republic run with Quinlan Vos and the Kenobi/Skywalker Jedi Knight/Padawan duo storytelling dynamic.

It's a reputation it richly deserves, I can assure you. It's just a damn shame Warner Brothers will not put B5 into syndication on TNT or another channel perhaps. It would reach a whole new audience.

Well at least Marvel was smart enough to pay Jon Favreau literally his due. I just think about how bad word of mouth with these comic book movies never seems to effect the particular movie released like say X-3, but it always seems to bite the studio in the butt with the next film in the franchise. I guess consumers learn their lesson once they see and agree with the bad reviews. It's still to bad explosions and sex have to always come before character in most movies that become commercially successful. Not that I mind explosions or sex, I just like a better balance. Thankfully Iron Man was pretty good, though I personally have always felt when watching it the last act kind of gets away from me, but maybe I had different expectations for the last act. I find this odd only because I'm a happy Star Wars fan and well....that seems to be as hard as being a happy older Star Trek fan.

That's why I was suggesting Babylon 5. It doesn't require someone watching TNG or any other Trek. I was just remarking that if someone like DS9, then it stands to reason that might also like Babylon 5. If so, then it would only require watching Babylon 5 by itself to enjoy. I apologize if that was not clear in the first post.

Even though it was mentioned a few pages back in this thread, Michael mentioned Deep Space Nine, but then thought that wouldn't work because James probably? isn't a Star Trek fan, which is fine. That wouldn't necessarily preclude Babylon 5 however and considering that I've watched all of DS9 and Babylon 5 (I would argue there is a not so nice reason both shows have some similar setups and fictional character names, but that would be digressing) it could be a nice serialized non-Trek live action science fiction show to review. And you could even argue the old CGI looks like animation. =) If that doesn't float the boat as it were, then maybe something more esoteric like Johnny Quest could be interesting as well.

I mean you no disservice, but my hunch told me that might be in the case in some respects that formed your opinion of Bruce/Batman. Whether I was right or wrong in my hunch, this is exactly why I like forums with smaller groups of people, I tend to have discussions more then heated debates in these kinds of circles. Now on to your question about what I thought of Superman: The Animated Series. As a avid Batman fan, I thought it was wonderful. I thought it was a good change of pace from Batman and I thought Superman was portrayed in a more interesting way then I have seen in most mediums. I thought they took what seems to be the best of Superman's Rogues Gallery (remember that I'm not that well versed in Superman comics) and created interesting challenges for Superman. In fact, I thought Metallo was more overused then Kryptonite was in other plots (mostly because I felt like he could have been treated like Freeze with a few, memorable appearances, instead of a few unneeded episodes). Certainly I thought the angle they played with Clark/Lois and Superman/Lois was the best way to handle it. That, in conjunction with Supergirl, the Flash, and Aquaman cameos gave a realistic reason as well for why Superman wouldn't always be saving someone, every few seconds. I also thought Darkseid was cool, even if as an avid Star Wars fan it would occasionally make my mind wander for a few seconds with that name. And as far as Lex, well he seems to work much better as like Bruce Wayne gone wrong with money. I thought Kevin Spacey did a good job with the version of Lex from earlier years in SR, but overall I like what the wiki describes as the "post-Crises" Lex. Keep in mind as well, I have yet to watch Smallville.

I appreciate that information, thanks for your quick response. I just wanted to point out that I just finished up Superman TAS a few weeks ago and Batman Beyond, including Return of the Joker, today and I will be starting Justice League today or tomorrow. I may have not mentioned it, but until I got the BTAS DVDs, I had not even watching all of the episodes that comprised the original run and only one or two episodes from TNBA. I'm glad I've been able to get them recently, especially as far as Superman, because I'm pretty much a comic virgin. I've only been getting into the Resurrection of Ra's Al Ghul plot recently. It helps that my local comic guy's favorite character is Batman as well, so he's been pointing in me in the right directions. I particularly enjoyed Batman and Son when I bought the hardcover recently, just before I got into the Resurrection plot. As a novice, I will also point out, after having listening to the Earth 2.Net show a few times, Countdown and the multiple Earth's seem daunting to me. At least somehow Superboy or Superman Prime or whatever brought Jason Todd back, his becoming Red Hood to me gives him that interesting emotional connection to Batman, stronger then even Two-Face probably. On another note, it seems like Talia switches voice actors from the BTAS to STAS to BB. I must say I prefer the BTAS voice actress the best, usually I hear her during Talia's parts of Batman and Son, as well as the crossover.

I must apologize in part Mxyzptlk for how little of this particular post I'm quoting, but it caught my eye and I thought I would respond to it. I really don't see Batman as a virgin or someone who's having very little sex over the years. Now I would like to point out, I don't think this because Batman is my favorite of the comic book characters, or because I just want Batman to be the uber pimp, or because since he's usually such a good philosophical and visual foil to Superman that he should be in this category as well. (From my limited understanding of Superman, it seems like Lois and maybe Lana have been his only sex partners.) I think the real reason he has sex on a semi-regular basis is a few key factors. First, Batman has had alot of women he's been interested in. Now granted, it's probably in part because Batman has never really been able to have that one perfect character that works with him on all of his various psychological layers, but that fact remains. Second, Batman strikes me as a secular humanist who would not have the more traditional Puritan ideas of sexuality, so not being married wouldn't bug him, though I see him having monogamous relationships with these women during these different periods of his life. Third, Batman risks his life every single night, as well as the lives of men and women he feels are his family. (Dick Dreyson as Robin, Jason Todd before the Joker, Tim Drake, Barbara Gordon, etc...) I think he certainly would be aware of the dangers of STDs, but I don't see him having casual sex with women he barely knows, and he might be just obsessive enough to screen their blood for himself anyway. And finally, his image. He's seen as a vapid playboy, in the traditional sense that he screws around with female celebrities and such. If Bruce isn't having sex, I don't think that facade would be maintained. While I think in women in general are wonderful, certainly there are those select individuals that would try to embarrass Bruce if they could get neither his money or even some fun time in the bedroom. We would start having people wondering if the rumors that Bruce might be gay or have ED are true. Rumors that have never been said in the comics themselves when it comes to Bruce Wayne, though there is certainly the out of universe Seduction of the Innocent I suppose. And I do think those rumors would have to start after awhile if he's not having sex at all and no, I'm not mentioning the original Robin's costume in my analysis. :laugh: Anyway, just my thoughts on the Dark Knight. Oh and by the way, I have a question to any Bat fan who might know the answer. Every time I look at Batman comics and the visual depictions of the Batcave, I see alot of things. A big Penny, the Batmobile, and a dinosaur to mention a few. My question is, where the hell did the dinosaur come from? I was just curious.

I will admit for a long time now I have listened to World's Finest Podcast, but made no comments which is really kind of lazy of me. However, when I heard the episode on MOTP, I had to express a few of my thoughts. First I will say I am slightly biased, since MOTP has been a favorite of mine for many years, since it was one of the few BTAS videos I have had on VHS for many years. My name's Derrick btw, I'm just not up for typing a huge intro right now. Now to the topic at hand that caught my attention, the Joker. Now as I said, I freely admit my bias, as well as the fact that I only read The Killing Joke a few weeks ago, to put everything in perspective. And don't get me wrong, besides Batman laughing at the end, I really liked it. And I do think it could have been the impetus behind the Gangster Joker, if you think of it this way. Take everything we know from the Killing Joke, except have Joker go the Ace Chemical Factory later, maybe a few months or years later. He could still have been pulling some other kind of job for his pregnant wife, who then dies, and Joker just falls into this mindset of not giving a crap anymore, with him eventually getting knocked into the chemical vat by Batman. Now while this is initally more convoluted, I think there is a good reason besides how it affects Andrea and Bruce in this movie. Think of how long Batman trained around the world before he could be the Dark Knight and even then he made quite a few mistakes. So why is it, besides the short time frame comics tend to like to cover, that a normal man that becomes the Joker suddenly becomes this guy who's even a threat to the criminal kingpins? I just don't know how likely it is he would be able to form the different gangs he has and keep them in line. He has little to no experience doing such a thing if we take the Killing Joke as his backstory entirely. Sure craziness and having a fondness for guns can be intimidating for some, but even the Joker sleeps. I mean its not like the Joker's a huge guy, so his personality and violence are what he has going for him. Plus there's also the whole question of how he would be so proficient at handling firearms if the Chemical Factory was his first stint as a crook, but I'm not entirely knocking that story. I suppose he could have went to a gun range when he was younger, its just most cities tend to have strict gun restrictions. And finally, I can see Batman not being able to figure out all this stuff about the Joker. With the gangster bosses already dead, there is at best a few people who knew who this man used to be. Men who the Joker probably either killed right after becoming the Joker and totally crazy to keep his past "multiple choice" or certainly after the Phantasm seems to be knocking off people connected to Joker's time as a hired thug/assassin. Besides which, if I had lost everything I knew in his situation, how likely is it the Joker just sat down and told his gang buddies everything about himself? And yet again, even if they knew a few things about him, wouldn't he do his best to get rid of them once he goes nuts and becomes Joker? In short, even Andrea doesn't know that much about him. And with the mob bosses gone, I just don't see that many people knowing about Joker's past. I mean if the Riddler was keen on erasing all mentions of his past in BTAS, wouldn't the Joker at some point as well? And in conclusion, I also like Joker's backstory to be more mysterious and certainly not as pat as it is in the first Batman that Burton made. Also, I really do like your podcast and may comment more often, but I just had to put my thoughts into words on this issue. Thank you for your time and forum.