Episode 05

[RSS]

The Scarecrow must be insanely stupid if he can't ascertain Robin's true identity ("Fear of Victory"). Batman gives Temple Fugate way too much respect in "The Clock King," leaving James and Mike at a loss for words. Some familiar faces appear in "Appointment in Crime Alley," and Mike takes issue with Batman leaving roses in Crime Alley. Mix "Mad as a Hatter" with James' love for Lewis Carroll and you wind up with a (mostly) gushing review. And does "Dreams in Darkness" make an allusion to Jason Todd? [ 1:38:43 || 45.1 MB ]

The above is from: http://www.worldsfinestpodcast.com/episodes/wfp_005.mp3

[Missy]

During the episode I promised to post a link to the interview with Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle, and here it is.

[Dread]

During the episode I promised to post a link to the interview with Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle, and here it is.

Alan Grant is one of the kindest and classiest men in the biz. I had an extended conversation with him when I lived in Scotland that certainly put me on the right path as far as a future career as a comics writer.

[Malpractice]

that's a fine interview with Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle and i was suprised at how candid they were about the industry. the Grant/Breyfogle run on Detective is probably one of my favorite runs on any comic.

back to the episodes though, i believe i was the one who mentioned that "Nothing To Fear" was an inspiration for Batman Begins but i probably should of clairified that "Dreams In Darkness", and "Never Fear" from TNBA were also influences. I believe David Goyer stated that when he was writing his first solo draft of the script he was watching a lot of B:TAS and decided to combine elements from these 3 episodes as well as the story by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale called "Fears" from the Haunted Knight TPB.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I'm in the middle of the 'Fear of Victory' review and I don't think the point of the fear toxin (at least in this particular episode) was to bring fears to the surface. Since it builds on adrenaline and therefore excitement, I saw it as taking what would normally be fun and exhilarating for a person and subverting it into fearfulness, so I didn't see it as contradicting Robin's usual comfort around heights and his childhood as an acrobat; I personally thought the episode was trying to allude to his experience with heights. Seeing as how Brian Rogers (I'm pretty sure that was his name) is incredibly skilled at football and has no real fear of it, he still ended up being nervous and afraid of the other players (the monsters thing was goofy, but what the hey) because that's when his adrenaline rush would kick in, so the same with Robin, who is normally comfortable and exhilarated around heights, would end up having the excitement of heights transformed into fear.

Now, it's obvious that the fear toxin worked differently than it usually does, but I think it is a bit more grounded in reality for it to feed off of adrenaline than for it to magically penetrate the human psyche and bring fears to life. But whether you prefer one version of the toxin or the other or find one as being more true to the comics, I think that it was pretty clear that the toxin in this episode was not the same as usual and was not meant to exaggerate already existent fears but rather change excitement to fear. Personally, I think it's pretty neat that Scarecrow would have variations on his toxins as opposed to simply one version.

Honestly not trying to be a nitpicking jerk, just offering my interpretation to see if it could possibly sway you from disliking the episode's fear toxin portrayal. Loving the other comments so far.

I'll probably post more as I get deeper in to the episode.

Edit: On 'Clock King' now. Completely agree that Fugate shouldn't be able to know Batman's fight speed. But I think what's even more ridiculous is that even if he knows how fast Batman punches, that doesn't ensure at all that he'd be able to dodge something that fast. It's like saying, 'I know exactly how fast the Batmobile is; that means I'll be able to outrun it.' I mean, knowing the time of something doesn't automatically mean that you should be able to overcome it. It sort of ties in with what you were saying about Fugate's impossibly keen physical skill.

[slothian]

Another good'un, chaps. Two Scarecrows, two origins and a Batman backstory - can't argue with that! I really need to re-watch the Mad Hatter episode - James' enthusiasm + critical acclaim has really made me want to see it again!!!

[Missy]

You makes some excellent points, Mxy, and while it makes sense that Dr. Crane would constantly be tweaking his formula, I still find it hard to believe that Robin could ever be that fearful of heights. It just doesn't sit right with me.

[Dread]

Best epi yet, methinks.

The gripes with the Clock King stuff was dead on. I saw that one recently and I'd have to agree with darn near everything.

Mike, if you loved LA Law, you may be interested in an upcoming review of Masters of Horror season 2...

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Finished it up today. Thoughts:

'Apointment in Crime Alley'- I'm starting to get adjusted to your rating system (I always go by 7 as being average whereas you have 5 as being average, so when normally a 6 would mean below average for me, it'd be above average for you), and I'd probably rate this one a little less, mainly because the episode could have easily made for an interesting dilemma if Daggett was to be taken more seriously than 'generic evil mastermind'. Daggett does have a point; rebuilding Crime Alley could pave the way for a drop in crime, and what I find pretty ironic is the way the episode portrays Crime Alley itself. For a place notorious for street crime, I find it interesting that it's portrayed as a victimized neighborhood; despite all the dramatized talk of thugs and muggers, all you see are the defenseless residents being hurt by the lackeys of an evil corporation. Surely, Daggett's means of helping Park Row regain its footing are criminal in and of themselves, but I don't see how Batman could possibly deny that there's a chance that Daggett is onto something. There's such a potential for ambiguity, but it all ends up being nothing more than 'evil madman vs the good of the underclass'. Basically, this excerpt from one of my favorite B:TAS reviewers sums my thoughts up best:

All praise to Batman for never forgetting the lives and dignity of the underclass, but Daggett, with his plans for urban renewal, also has a point. Leslie Thompkins is full of kind words and noble intentions, but only Daggett has a vision that goes beyond palliatives toward something like a cure. The causes of systemic poverty are complicated and obscure, but they clearly have something to do with the bad habits that viciously regressive communities (like Crime Alley) instill in their members. The destruction of the neighborhood and the scattering of its inhabitants, in the long run, might be the only cure for their dysfunction. Instead of dramatizing this difficult choice between the (possibly misguided) preferences of the community and the (possibly mistaken) prescription of the developers--the choice, that is, between the dignity of the individual and the health of the community--the story plays Daggett for all the oily malice it can summon. As with "The Forgotten" and "Lock-Up," "Appointment in Crime Alley" winds up preferring theatrical evil to serious drama.

Let's see, 'Mad as a Hatter' is a favorite of mine. I don't mind at all the way it turned out. Yes, Jervis became a madman born of his own insecurities, when once he was a nice and empathetic man who simply wanted someone to love him. But that's what makes it such a tragic episode and what makes the Mad Hatter such a perfect Batman villain. Just like most of the others, Tetch starts out with an envisioning of what he wants his life to be and it's nothing more than having a romantic relationship with a woman. However, he can't have life that way were he to go on living the way he does. Instead of accepting his beloved's choice and moving on, Tetch refuses to accept life if it's not on his terms, under his control (so mirrors the moment in 'House and Garden' when Poison Ivy state something along the lines of, "All I wanted was a family, as long as it was on my terms." So does Mr. Freeze when he refuses to give his wife proper medical treatment in 'Sub-Zero', instead stating that he wishes to treat her his own way). And thus he goes mad, cheating a woman out of her life so as to adapt the world to his own ideal and personal Wonderland. And that's when he loses sympathy; he could have been sympathetic had we seen him accept his loss for what it is and sadly walk away, but instead he becomes despicable in his actions, which I find to be an almost perfect mirror to Batman. We like Batman for doing the right thing in the wake of a tragedy, and thus we have nothing but sympathy when he reminisces over his parents. But we end up despising Tetch for doing the entirely wrong thing in the wake of a (lesser) tragedy.

Anyway, I suppose the main complaint was with the over-the-top set pieces and cartoon action thriller the episode became. Yes, I understand, but it's probably mandatory that every episode have some fight scenes to please the kiddies. But then again you could say that the ridiculous third act undermined the serious nature and the tragic element of the episode, which was probably what you were getting at in the podcast. Well in my opinion, the Hatter's final lines when crushed by the Jabberwock, 'would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance' completely hits home with retaining the tragedy and sympathy of the beginning. There' s so much you can take out of it: it's obviously sad, with Tetch coming to terms with the fact that his relationship with Alice was meant to crumble, but what makes it so great is the fact that it's a line from 'Alice and Wonderland', which means that the line both shows us Tetch's sadness, but reminds us of his new insane persona by conveying his sadness by means of a line from the book around which he built his fantasy life. It's also ironic that he initially used the line to charm Alice on their first date, and yet now is meant to mark her departure from his life. It's a perfect ending that more than compensates for the cartoony third act, I think.

'Dreams in Darkness' is an episode I don't make much of. It's just a fun, twisted episode that really lacks a lot of substance; Scarecrow really has no motive and the potential for deep exploration of Batman's character was far less carried out than in 'Perchance to Dream' and other such great episodes. But hey, the dream sequences look really cool and are very stylistically rendered even if there's not much underlying meaning to them (Batman constantly relives the moment he lost his parents and he's afraid of being consumed by the other crazies he locks up; not much new info there). And Scarecrow's escape from his heavily guarded cell is most certainly a plot hole which never got any type of explanation. Personally, I prefer 'Fear of Victory' as a Scarecrow episode, but at least this was better than 'Nothing to Fear'.

Closing thoughts. What I like about 'World's Finest Podcast' is that it isn't so much about intense analysis about character development and plot structure and the like, which is what I'm accustomed to. It's more of a fun and refreshing place where two fans just spew out random comments about the little things that are so often overlooked in most critical reviews; you guys are more inclined to make comments like 'But if you notice here; Batman is slowly getting more ticked off...' or 'I don't really think Batman should have assumed it was just a tranquilizer dart. The Batman I know would always be more careful' or 'This is obviously a Bill Finger reference', etc. I think it's a whole lot of fun.

Great job and can't wait for the next episode; it's got three of my all time favorites: 'Perchance to Dream', 'Robin's Reckoning', and 'The Laughing Fish' (best Joker episode ever).

[Missy]

Appointment in Crime Alley

Daggett's plan is obviously flawed.

First, he's willing to kill the citizens of Park Row / Crime Alley. Right there, his altruism is exposed as being bogus.

Forgetting that, let's say he moved the citizens out before leveling and rebuilding Park Row. Those people will now be homeless and will be forced into other, nicer neighborhoods. With no money or homes they'll continue their criminal ways, thus leading to the downfall of another neighborhood. That's the flaw in gentrification. I mean, look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina (okay, not quite gentrification, but you'll see my point in a second). Crime rates skyrocketed in the cities the lower class Louisiana citizens moved to. In Houston alone the homicide rate rose by 28% from the previous year.

Cleaning up an area is all well and good, but either do it for the current crop of citizens or make sure the displaced citizens have skills / jobs / educations that can be put to use so they don't resort to crime once they move. But therein lies the problem. If they had skills and jobs and educations they wouldn't be resorting to crime in the first place, and their neighborhoods wouldn't have fallen apart.

So do we help the unskilled, unemployed and uneducated rise up so they can take pride in their own towns and clean them up? Or do we swoop in, clean up the towns and push all of those people aside for overpriced condos? For every compassionate soul who helps the unfortunate better themselves, there's dozens of people willing to step on them and take what they want for themselves. Daggett falls into the latter group. He isn't helping these people; he's helping himself line his own pocket by charging astronomical rent.

While the leveling / rebuilding of an area can be a good thing, it isn't unless you help the displaced find jobs and homes. Otherwise you're simply pushing your troubles onto someone else.

Mad as a Hatter

It isn't just that Tetch become a "typical Batman villain" (as I think I called him on the show), it's that the story falls apart once he does. As soon as the walrus and the carpenter jump Batman, the episode dies a sad death. It isn't until the end, when Jervis sees Alice with Billy, that it regains a little bit of its heart. But it's too late by then. The third act is so bland that it takes away any emotional impact that final moment could (and should) have had.

Thank you for the kind words. What makes WFP so fun for me is that, as you said, James and I are just fans. Sure, we'll talk about plot and character development, but it's all about reliving our youths and being two fanboys (fanmen?) who still enjoy the universe BTAS created.

Concerning the scoring system, five being average makes sense to me because it's in the middle. I can't say "that was average" and then give it a seven out of ten, because seven isn't average. Seven is a really respectable score. But that's how my mind works. Other sites and other people see it differently and that's cool, but I can't wrap my head around those scoring systems.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Appointment in Crime Alley

Daggett's plan is obviously flawed.

First, he's willing to kill the citizens of Park Row / Crime Alley. Right there, his altruism is exposed as being bogus.

Forgetting that, let's say he moved the citizens out before leveling and rebuilding Park Row. Those people will now be homeless and will be forced into other, nicer neighborhoods. With no money or homes they'll continue their criminal ways, thus leading to the downfall of another neighborhood. That's the flaw in gentrification. I mean, look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina (okay, not quite gentrification, but you'll see my point in a second). Crime rates skyrocketed in the cities the lower class Louisiana citizens moved to. In Houston alone the homicide rate rose by 28% from the previous year.

Cleaning up an area is all well and good, but either do it for the current crop of citizens or make sure the displaced citizens have skills / jobs / educations that can be put to use so they don't resort to crime once they move. But therein lies the problem. If they had skills and jobs and educations they wouldn't be resorting to crime in the first place, and their neighborhoods wouldn't have fallen apart.

So do we help the unskilled, unemployed and uneducated rise up so they can take pride in their own towns and clean them up? Or do we swoop in, clean up the towns and push all of those people aside for overpriced condos? For every compassionate soul who helps the unfortunate better themselves, there's dozens of people willing to step on them and take what they want for themselves. Daggett falls into the latter group. He isn't helping these people; he's helping himself line his own pocket by charging astronomical rent.

While the leveling / rebuilding of an area can be a good thing, it isn't unless you help the displaced find jobs and homes. Otherwise you're simply pushing your troubles onto someone else.

Yeah, I completely understand Daggett's flaws, but the fact that he is completely flawed makes for an uninteresting dilemma and missed potential. If Daggett was portrayed with more ambiguity, like most Batman villains, the plot could have made for an interesting conflict by asking the question, 'is Daggett right or wrong? Does the end result of what he is trying to accomplish justify the selfish means by which he does so?' I'm all for Daggett eventually coming out as the villain, but it would have made for a far more dramatic episode had a real heavy moral weight been involved like that. I'm not saying Daggett was right, but the fact that he is so wrong really kills what could have been a really interesting choice between, as in the quoted review, the preferences of the community and the prescription of the developers. The latter will obviously turn out wrong, Batman will prefer to leave Crime Alley as it is and expose Daggett for what he was established as in 'Feat of Clay' and everything will return to the status quo, but it would end up being far more ambiguous and thus interesting predicament, as is the case in most episodes ('Heart of Ice', 'Feat of Clay', 'Two-Face', etc. come to mind); I'm aware that an episode doesn't need to have some big conflict and can end up being very effective good vs evil fare, but with such a serious matter at hand in the episode, it would have been nice to have seen something not so completely one-sided and opinionated, even if I do agree with the stance myself.

And as for the long-term effects of removing the citizens to reestablish the community, true, the area would be cured of a few symptoms, but the street crime would most likely continue elsewhere. If we can assume that the realistic world of Batman continues along such realistic logic, and take into account all sorts of real-world statistics, and even the whole intention of doing good for a community, selfish corporate benefit aside, is exposed as futile, it is a pretty good comparison to Batman, whose entire goal of crime eradication is futile in and of itself. He knows that the crooks he locks up will get back out and the cycle will continue, which is the same predicament with Crime Alley. Remodeling and everything could appease a few symptoms, but the plague of crime in Gotham will always continue despite.

Maybe I'm wrong to judge something not by its own criteria, but simply by how I would have preferred the way it turned out, but still, Roland Daggett complaints aside, the episode itself isn't very interesting (which is probably why I'd rather a more intense dilemma) in my opinion. It takes a few needless walks down Batman's past, all of which we already know, features a horribly cliched ticking time bomb, and the whole ordeal is pretty badly plotted, with most of the episode being Batman's dealing with excessive distraction before any real plot progress is made. Batman's inability to touch a legally clean but obviously morally bankrupt man like Daggett (almost a pseudo Superman/Lex Luthor kind of affair) is what gives the ending some juice, but seeing as how Daggett's scheme is foiled and Crime Alley is never really bothered in the future, you don't get the sense that Daggett's slipping away from punishment is an ominous affair that gives Batman any reason to be enraged. All the other crooks Batman locks up, as is commonly noted throughout the comics, end up escaping prison anyway, and the cycle always ends up repeating itself. It seems that Daggett's evasion of punishment really only means that Batman will have to avoid that cycle. After all is said and done, Batman saved the day, but it ended up being a seriously long and drawn-out affair in an episode that had more room to fill.

Mad as a Hatter

It isn't just that Tetch become a "typical Batman villain" (as I think I called him on the show), it's that the story falls apart once he does. As soon as the walrus and the carpenter jump Batman, the episode dies a sad death. It isn't until the end, when Jervis sees Alice with Billy, that it regains a little bit of its heart. But it's too late by then. The third act is so bland that it takes away any emotional impact that final moment could (and should) have had.

I guess it's simply a case of 'agreeing to disagree'. I personally find the entire case of over-the-top Wonderland hide-out and instantaneously suited up Wonderland lackeys to be excusable; it's all meant to convey Tetch's descent into madness and how far he's gone to construct his own little world, so I'm willing to accept it as necessary to Tetch's full transformation into the Mad Hatter.

Thank you for the kind words. What makes WFP so fun for me is that, as you said, James and I are just fans. Sure, we'll talk about plot and character development, but it's all about reliving our youths and being two fanboys (fanmen?) who still enjoy the universe BTAS created.

Exactly what I was getting across. Me being pretty young and all, my memories of 'Batman: The Animated Series' all come from watching the Cartoon Network reruns during the mid-90's at the age of 5 or 6. So I'm all for sophisticated analysis, but when it's all said and done, the reason I ever got hooked on the show was because I loved how cool and awesome it was to see a superhero fight the bad guys. Your reviews pretty much mirror how fun and nostalgic the show is, which is why it's such a refreshing experience.

Concerning the scoring system, five being average makes sense to me because it's in the middle. I can't say "that was average" and then give it a seven out of ten, because seven isn't average. Seven is a really respectable score. But that's how my mind works. Other sites and other people see it differently and that's cool, but I can't wrap my head around those scoring systems.

I see the system as being reflective of the school grading system, which has it so 7-10 is a D to an A, and anything below is an F. So by that logic, I see 7's as being average and 6's as being moderate failures.

[Aaron Robinson]

As long as people explain the system that they use for scoring movies/games/television then I think both trains of thought are fine.

Another great episode by the way. I haven't seen the show since I was a kid, but listening to the podcasts is making me interested in buying the DVDs.

[LTSmash]

Re: scoring

If the 1-10 grading scale reflects a school grading scale, it makes more sense to cut out the middleman and simply use A-F. Otherwise, it makes more sense when using a 1-10 scale to use the entire scale as opposed to only 6 through 10.

This topic has come up a lot on some video game podcasts I listen to regarding the correct scoring scale to be used when reviewing video games.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Well that's sort of the thing. I do use A-F on a regular basis, so whenever numbers come up as a means of scoring I automatically equate them with their A-F counterparts, which would be 7 as average and so on.

[James D.]

I know I haven't been around a lot lately, but I just wanted to thank everyone who has given all of this detailed, meaningful feedback so far. I didn't want you all to think I was ungrateful, but I have read all of it. I know I speak for Mike and myself when I say it means a helluva lot to us. I just hope we can keep up this kind of pace throughout the entire run of WFP.

to all of you.

[Missy]

I'm with James here: thank you, all of you, for this wonderful feedback! It means a lot to see you guys getting involved with the show like this. Thank you!

[RCoehrs]

NORMMMMMM!!!!

I love Norm...So I thought I'd share these..

You mentioned Normy was the first to draw drake as robin...

which I am a proud owner of.

Now with such a gem you'd think this would be the creme of my norm crop but not so, No No No...This would be the greatest Norm Artifact I have

KNIGTHFALL 1 SIGNED BABY!!! whooo hoo.

what makes this even more specail was that I had gained ownership through a grab bag deal that cost 5 bucks!!

Thanks for giving out those tips of the hat to great Bat Artists!!!

[wyze2099]

You makes some excellent points, Mxy, and while it makes sense that Dr. Crane would constantly be tweaking his formula, I still find it hard to believe that Robin could ever be that fearful of heights. It just doesn't sit right with me.

I honestly don't think the intention of that particular version of the formuila was to bring out one's deepest, darkest fears. It's simply meant to cause the victim to hallucinate the moment adrenaline is introduced. For instance, Brian Rogers and other sports stars saw their opponents as monsters when their instinct was usually to confront them. Robin is usually an adrenaline junky who's at home in midair. When the same adrenaline rush that usually allows him to enjoy acrobatics instead induces panic, the thing he most enjoys is undercut. It wasn't that he was secretly afraid of heights at all.

I'd also point out that the first fear toxin introduced in "Nothing to Fear" didn't bring out deep dark phobias, either. Remember, Bruce's fear that he was disappointing his parents was at the FRONT of his mind thanks to the conversation he had with that professor. It wasn't until "Dreams in Darkness" that we saw a toxin that brought out context-free, deep-down fears.

[KnightWing]

You makes some excellent points, Mxy, and while it makes sense that Dr. Crane would constantly be tweaking his formula, I still find it hard to believe that Robin could ever be that fearful of heights. It just doesn't sit right with me.

I honestly don't think the intention of that particular version of the formuila was to bring out one's deepest, darkest fears. It's simply meant to cause the victim to hallucinate the moment adrenaline is introduced. For instance, Brian Rogers and other sports stars saw their opponents as monsters when their instinct was usually to confront them. Robin is usually an adrenaline junky who's at home in midair. When the same adrenaline rush that usually allows him to enjoy acrobatics instead induces panic, the thing he most enjoys is undercut. It wasn't that he was secretly afraid of heights at all.

I'd also point out that the first fear toxin introduced in "Nothing to Fear" didn't bring out deep dark phobias, either. Remember, Bruce's fear that he was disappointing his parents was at the FRONT of his mind thanks to the conversation he had with that professor. It wasn't until "Dreams in Darkness" that we saw a toxin that brought out context-free, deep-down fears.

Holy necropost, Batman!

Oh, and welcome to the forums, Wyze.

Actually, I always assumed that the reason Robin gained a fear of heights from the serum was because he saw his parents fall to their deaths right in front of him.

[wyze2099]

Holy necropost, Batman!

Uh, my bad?

Oh, and welcome to the forums, Wyze.

Actually, I always assumed that the reason Robin gained a fear of heights from the serum was because he saw his parents fall to their deaths right in front of him.

That's a possibility as well, but it seemed to me that the particular varsion of the serum Scarecrow was using was simply adrenaline-based, keying on whatever the victim happened to be doing to trigger the flight-or-flight response. In the athletes' case: playing competitive sports. In Robin's case: getting high -- uh, I mean, ascending to the top of a building.

Thanks for the welcome.

[KnightWing]

That's a possibility as well, but it seemed to me that the particular varsion of the serum Scarecrow was using was simply adrenaline-based, keying on whatever the victim happened to be doing to trigger the flight-or-flight response. In the athletes' case: playing competitive sports. In Robin's case: getting high -- uh, I mean, ascending to the top of a building.

That works too. I figure it might be a combination of the two, though your explanation does make a little more sense.

Thanks for the welcome.

Sure thing!