Batman: The Animated Series

Small Screen Specials, Series and Direct-To-Video
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4922
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » December 12th, 2006, 9:15 pm

Yeah, I noticed that to Vi. Whenever I get HBO for free, they always show it, and the few times I've seen it, it was the version I own :(

Now you can see why I was so in the dark :P

That doesn't make sence in all actuality though. Sure the print thing might be a factor, but don't you think HBO should be entitled to receive it? I mean, they show everything else uncut, why not BB?

Darn you HBO! :x

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7754
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » December 12th, 2006, 9:31 pm

The executives who make those decisions might not even know that that's the censored cut. Very few "regular" or non animation-loving people know about the whole censored/uncensored issues of BB: ROTJ. If they know about the film at all. :roll:

Of course the WB execs most likely know about it, but HBO? I doubt it. :?

That's how I got to see the censored version (AFTER I saw my own DVD) and I was like: "This is lame!" :P

You'll really like the uncut version Dan! :)
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4922
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » December 12th, 2006, 9:58 pm

I really didn't know about the whole censored/uncensored version until I saw it at Wal-mart (which you guessed btw ;))

I guess that would explain why they don't air, weired, but oh well.
ShyViolet wrote:That's how I got to see the censored version (AFTER I saw my own DVD) and I was like: "This is lame!" :P
Lame? From what I've 'uncovered' that's an understatement ;)
ShyViolet wrote: You'll really like the uncut version Dan! :)
If you think that, than I know I will :P

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18446
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » December 13th, 2006, 7:36 am

It could well be that HBO are <I>well</I> aware of running the censored cut and that fan reaction will be to start discussing it online and ending up with having more copies of the uncut edition fly off DVD shelves!

Isn't the uncut version supposed to be exclusive to DVD? The only reason I never picked it up was the frame ratio issues I seem to remember. Wasn't it originally 1.33 and they cropped it to 1.78 to make it more like a "movie"...?

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » December 13th, 2006, 11:04 am

Daniel Jake wrote:Big thanks for the site, Josh! I read it and I'm amazed at what got cut out. Nifty website!
You're welcome, Daniel! Glad you enjoyed the site. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 18
Joined: December 5th, 2006

Post by EricMontreal26 » December 15th, 2006, 12:53 am

Ben wrote:It could well be that HBO are <I>well</I> aware of running the censored cut and that fan reaction will be to start discussing it online and ending up with having more copies of the uncut edition fly off DVD shelves!

Isn't the uncut version supposed to be exclusive to DVD? The only reason I never picked it up was the frame ratio issues I seem to remember. Wasn't it originally 1.33 and they cropped it to 1.78 to make it more like a "movie"...?
This is ALWAYS debated but Bruce Timms has said (and says it in his commentary which I think is only on the unedited version) that it was framed and directed to be viewed letterboxed and that's why he picked that aspect ratio for the DVD (it isn't anamorphically enhanced which is what bugs me). Of course the debate is that the full frame was animated but IMHo that's not what was intended to be shown so it doesn't bug me

E

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18446
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » December 15th, 2006, 5:02 am

Ahh, that sheds some light on the matter. But, yeah, to then just letterbox it as opposed to anamorphic doesn't make sense - just leave the matting open and allow us to blow it up at home.

Animating the entire negative area and matting for screening isn't anything new though - every Disney film post Sleeping Beauty in the 1960s went this way, from Dalmatians in '61 until Pete's Dragon in '77.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4922
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » December 15th, 2006, 4:07 pm

EricMontreal26 wrote:This is ALWAYS debated but Bruce Timms has said (and says it in his commentary which I think is only on the unedited version) that it was framed and directed to be viewed letterboxed and that's why he picked that aspect ratio for the DVD
It really doesn't bother me as well :)

And, nope, the commentary is on the edited version as well :P

Which brings up the question, is there an unedited version of commantary? :shock: Because, the version I heard, reflects the version I have.

Ugh, this is so confusing :?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7754
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » May 8th, 2007, 12:31 am

Hey Dan! :) I know you posted this quite a while ago but I guess I didn't notice, sorry. :wink:

It really doesn't bother me as well Smile

And, nope, the commentary is on the edited version as well Razz

Which brings up the question, is there an unedited version of commantary? Shocked Because, the version I heard, reflects the version I have.

Ugh, this is so confusing Confused

My BB: ROTJ DVD has a commentary where they specifically talk about the disturbing scenes in ROTJ, particularly the Robin flashback.
So I think it has to be different than the original one.

Oh,and Dan, did you get to watch ROTJ (uncut)? What did you think?
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4922
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » May 8th, 2007, 3:18 am

Interesting. I'm gonna have to watch my version again soon.

Nope, Wal-Mart sold out of it. :( Haven't seen it elsewhere, but I'm sure I will eventually.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7754
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » May 8th, 2007, 3:19 am

If there's a Barnes and Noble or Borders near you (DVD section) I'm pretty sure you can order it from them. They have almost any DVDs that are on the market. :)


I LOVE ROTJ. Just everything: the music, animation, art, story, themes--it's a bona fide classic in my eyes.

And in some ways, even though Batman Begins certainly had its moments, I think the understanding of Batman lore is seen much more so in the Timm/Dini/Markami films (ROTJ, MOTP, MOTB) than in BB, even though critics kept saying how "respectful" Nolan was the Batman mythos. :roll:
They said the same thing about Bryan Singer and Superman.....:?
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » May 8th, 2007, 7:51 pm

Speaking of Batman Begins, I've heard that the production team is looking at The Joker's first two appearences from 1940's Batman #1 (he was in two stories in that issue) as reference for how they want the character to be portrayed in The Dark Knight. This is interesting because, at first, Joker was a bit more sinister and not at all the goofy clown he became later (which, if you recall, was the dominant portrayal for decades until he went darker again starting in the late 70s). Heath Ledger has said he wants to make The Joker scary and not so much of a wisecracking funnyman (i.e. Jack Nicholson). Personally, all that info being out there, I can't wait til Dark Knight comes out and I can see if Ledger's take comes anywhere close to being as good as Mark Hammil's classic run.

My name is Eddie Valiant and I'm a Batman geek.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7754
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » May 8th, 2007, 9:07 pm

:P

Heath Ledger has said he wants to make The Joker scary and not so much of a wisecracking funnyman (i.e. Jack Nicholson). Personally, all that info being out there, I can't wait til Dark Knight comes out and I can see if Ledger's take comes anywhere close to being as good as Mark Hammil's classic run.

I agree with this, but....I though Jack's Joker was pretty scary in some places too. :wink:


Of course he was all wacky and wisecracking, but there was a definite feeling of menace underneath it all. Just watch the part where he shocks Rotelli with a hand buzzer and laughs about it, then talks it over with his corpse. :shock:

:wink:





Burton's film was actually seen as quite dark when it came out, (especially compared to the West TV series, which was pretty much the only live-action Batman most people were familiar with at the time) particularly Jack's psychotic portrayal of the Joker as mass murderer meets "homocidal artist." :shock:




And never mind Bruce Wayne's actually killing henchman, dropping Jack Napier into the acid (although some say he did by accident. :?) and then using his batarang to tie a giant Gargoyle around the Joker's leg so he falls to his death. (yes, Batman had to have known that would kill him.)
Last edited by ShyViolet on May 9th, 2007, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7754
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » May 8th, 2007, 10:43 pm

I wrote this some time ago about ROTJ: it deals with the themes of the Joker/Tim Drake issue.


Read if you so wish to! :wink: :oops:


*Major spoilers if you haven't seen the film*



“Robin’s Makeover”—The Joker, Tim Drake and Childhood

It's a bit long, (surprise, surprise) but not too long. :wink:

click to reveal content
When the film is discussed by fans and critics, the flashback sequence is almost always mentioned, as is Terry’s role as the “redeemer” of Bruce Wayne’s failures as Batman, and his confrontation with the “new” Joker that had been “hibernating” in Tim Drake’s body since his childhood. Other than destroying Bruce emotionally, why exactly does the Joker kidnap Robin? Why kidnap Tim, a child? Why not Barbara or Nightwing? This is central mysterious core of ROTJ, which makes it even more intriguing. Why does he choose to re-create another, younger “self” and then use that body to duplicate himself, a twisted version of a parent’s need to “live forever” by siring a child? “Robin is mine,” the Joker tells Bruce. “The last sound you hear will be our laughter.” This puts the Joker in a much more complicated place than many have considered him to be.
With the 50’s sitcom music, armchairs and giant toy blocks, the Joker’s version of “our happy home”, the fake living room at the now abandoned Arkham, is a dark, fun-house reflection of the “ideal” version of family. What could have inspired the Joker to think up this insane scenario? A scenario involving not a bomb, a giant trap, mass produced laughing gas or a grand, theatrical theft of some kind, but a family. Might the Joker’s attempt to “adopt” a child (however grotesquely) point to a repressed loneliness? Perhaps, as Batman is a lost soul trying to create what is essentially a family, in some bizarre and extreme way, the Joker is not so different. Harley’s statement “Rather than go through all the ‘joy’ of childbirth, we decided to adopt” raises the question of whether or not the Joker can even have children. Have his scarring and chemical burns rendered him impotent (or sterile)?
And the heart of this central mystery might also be found in the most disturbing scene in the film: “Our Family Memories”—the Joker in his “Kiss the Cook” apron and chef’s hat, (the classic “Father Figure” of suburban Americana) waving to the camera, picking up the tongs, and shocking Robin who is strapped to the table. Possibly in the Joker’s twisted psyche, sadism is the closest he can ever come to expressing “love”. Since he obviously lacks, or at least has no use for, normal ways of bonding, the Joker’s only method of doing so is to hurt and terrorize. After Terry thwarts his plans, the Joker doesn’t even feel like bothering with the whole ‘fight’, and, merely walks away. “Thanks for wrecking everything, kid. See you around” He has no psychological investment in Terry as an adversary and would thus get relatively little pleasure in hurting him, so he leaves him alone. Obviously his feelings were different with Bruce, and, most horrid of all, Tim.
Since Harley had once tried to go straight (“Harley’s Holiday”) , and is a female and thus a potential mother, her role in Tim’s capture is portrayed as especially heinous, and this tension is resolved with her apparent death, shocking in itself, (since Harley was always considered to be a funny and somewhat sympathetic character, despite her alliance the Joker, and her delirious obsession with him was also played for laughs). Here, her ditzy personality loses all of its humor (as does the Joker’s earlier clowning and scheming) and is rendered both heartless and cruel. Her death is indeed the right dramatic payoff, which is unfortunately spoiled at the end of the film when she is revealed to be alive and well as the Deed’s grandmother, once more placing her character in the “funny” villain/category, and not the corrupt enabler. (Harley’s deux ex machina occurred because of writer Paul Dini, who despite writing an otherwise marvelous script, could not kill off one of his favorite characters, whom he had basically created.)
The flashback scene is in the abandoned Arkham Asylum (and its present-day counterpart during the climax at the candy factory) both reflect childhood innocence lost—big ABC blocks, jack in the boxes, a teddy bear, etc…This can also can be seen in the candy factory's colorful, grinning, terrifying Jack-in-the-box mascot (which bears a resemblance to the Joker.) Even though Bruce finally finds the Joker’s hideout, the damage has clearly already been done. Tim survives, but in body, not in mind. The adult Tim Drake, despite being “helped back to sanity” by Leslie, being married with a family and a respectable job, is almost a complete emotional blank, like a puppet-like approximation of a “normal person”. He seems as though he is not really living his life, but simply enduring it, his tone flat, his movements careful and guarded. Although four decades have passed, Tim Drake has never really left Arkham. The adult Tim is a ghost, (unlike the Joker, who is still alive and well in the form of DNA on a microchip) a man who barely exists at all.
The Joker’s hurting the child Tim might also have stemmed from his own disappointment that learning Batman’s secrets (“sadly anticlimactic”); his nemesis’ vulnerabilities as a human being (perhaps reminding Joker that he, too, is only human) When the Joker says: “It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic,” he almost sounds angry, as if Batman had let him down by proving to be only “a little boy…crying for mommy and daddy.” The cruelty might also be a result of his possible jealousy of Batman/Bruce’s ability to live a dual life: Batman, borderline psychotic vigilante; and Bruce Wayne, wealthy respected billionaire and adoptive father. Unlike Batman, the Joker can’t “switch” identities b due to his physical disfigurement and, of course, intense madness. He can only be who he is. “I suppose I should salute you as a worthy adversary, but underneath it all, I really did hate your guts!” This is the closest the Joker could ever actually come to say he that someone mattered to him, even as an enemy; for in the Joker’s twisted mind violence and humor, fear and hate, extreme cruelty and whatever it is in the Joker’s mind that might possibly, in some alternate universe perhaps, resemble love, all blur into one grotesque mass of unchecked, unbridled insanity. When Terry taunts the Joker at the film’s climax, he says: “What’s the matter? I thought the Joker always wanted to make Batman laugh!” The Joker, enraged, replies: “You’re not Batman!”
The theme of film and photography as a narrative is also very present: The Joker films all of his horrid acts with an old movie camera and projects it in an operating theater…(always with a “taste for the theatrical” as Gary Oldman opined in the current film version.) with the express purpose of showing Bruce what he has done to Tim. In The Killing Joke, he films atrocities inflicted on Barbara and likewise forces her father Jim Gordon to watch. (Even Tim Burton’s joker similarly broadcast himself on TV several times in Burton’s films.) “What’s the matter, Batman? No witty comeback? No threat? Then I’ll provide the narration.” A film, and a photo, is in itself a story or “narration” as is the very concept of a “joke” Most importantly and most disturbingly, the unholy and sadistic acts that the Joker inflicts on others are also his own brand of storytelling—the only stories he would ever consider worth telling.



"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4922
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » May 9th, 2007, 12:50 am

Not too long? Ok. ;)
ShyViolet wrote:If there's a Barnes and Noble or Borders near you (DVD section) I'm pretty sure you can order it from them. They have almost any DVDs that are on the market. :)
Yeah, there's one not to far from me. So I probably will do that, or buy it from Amazon. Depends.
ShyViolet wrote:I LOVE ROTJ. Just everything: the music, animation, art, story, themes--it's a bona fide classic in my eyes.
Totally, Vi! :)

I could even go so far, as to say its my favorite Batman film, EVER!

Post Reply