Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles

bamfbamf

DC Cartoons trying to be edgier than DC Movies???

Superman is a child killer???
https://youtu.be/HYSxN4ezhO4

Batman is a vampire???
https://youtu.be/tpu6yPAFHrs

CageNarleigh

8-| Ugh

RepoMan

http://screenrant.com/bruce-timm-superhero-fan-outrage/

bralinator

Bruce Timm is definitely a DC company guy.

nweathington

bralinator said:

Bruce Timm is definitely a DC company guy.

No, he’s a Warner Bros. Animation company guy.

bralinator

That's just my response after reading the interview. Either way, his response is what we refer to as a "company" guy.

nweathington

bralinator said:

That's just my response after reading the interview. Either way, his response is what we refer to as a "company" guy.

When I refer to someone as a “company guy,” it's to suggest that that person’s actions and statements are not their own, but are only done or said in service to the company they represent. Everything Bruce said in that interview rings true with the conversations I've had with him on and off the record. I think Bruce is being open and honest in the interview, not simply towing the company line. So in that respect, I don't see him as a company guy—be it DC or Warner Bros. Animation. He's just speaking his mind.

That being said, if you want to work for a company like Warner Animation at the level Bruce does, then yeah, you need to be a "company man" to a large degree. When Warner told him to create a cartoon about a young Batman set in the future, he gave them Batman Beyond. It wasn't exactly the show they were expecting, or what fans were expecting for that matter, but it met Warner's requirements. He's going to give Warner Bros. what they want, but crafted as much to his own tastes as he can get away with.

Left to his own devices, Bruce is much more naturally inclined towards noir than towards lighter fare. It's part of why he backed out of Freakazoid years ago. So this new story he's doing doesn't surprise me at all. I can't say I agree with all of his creative decisions, but I know he'll turn out a well crafted show, even if it's one I might not particularly care for.

bralinator

Your lengthy response and first-hand experience with Mr. Timm notwithstanding, it could still be argued that his response tows the WB line. I don't necessarily think his statements are not his own, but when they line up with the company, he's certainly ready to share them. After all, he knows which side his bread is buttered on.






I've included a helpful link in case anyone wonders what I meant by that.

jaydee74

Back to the videos. Wow. Those are awful. Does anyone remember when the DC Animation was fairly top notch?

jaydee74

Damn double post. Still, this is terrible. Is this actually based on something?

nweathington

Your snark aside, the “company man” term is generally used as derogatory description, and I took it as such in your statement and thought it to be undeserved. That's mainly what I was responding to.

And you talk as though Bruce has never spoken critically against Warner Bros. in public, which is not the case.

nweathington

Double post. I take it I'm not the only one having difficulties with the board loading and updating?

nweathington

jaydee74 said:

Damn double post. Still, this is terrible. Is this actually based on something?

I don't care for the story either, but I wouldn't say it's terrible. The storytelling is very good, it's just the story I don't like.

No, it's an original story. Though it's not like there hasn't been a vampiric Batman before.

David_D

So, let me get this straight, we're supposed to judge and apply labels to Bruce Timm for, while on the press circuit to promote his WB film, saying positive things that WB would agree with?

bralinator

nweathington said:

Your snark aside

Nobody's perfect, but I assure you that it was all in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and teasing, quite the opposite of any swearing, cursing, or sarcastic snarkiness. Please disregard any such thoughts.

Mr. Timm is getting an unusual amount of blowback from these incarnations, possibly more than even his Justice League Unlimited and his Batman Beyond creations, and I read his response a particular way, you read it another and felt my comment was undeserved. You even received a few "insightful" marks for such perception.

If you felt my use of the term "company man" was derogatory, so be it. It was NOT another word for "corporate stooge," "suck-up," or "brown-noser." More along the lines of he fully agrees with WB in the following regards.

...I knew the minute we did it that everybody was going to be freaking out. And I didn’t care. I figured they were going to watch the show anyways just so they’d have something to bitch about. And then, ultimately, they’ll love the show...

bralinator

David_D said:

So, let me get this straight, we're supposed to judge and apply labels to Bruce Timm for, while on the press circuit to promote his WB film, saying positive things that WB would agree with?

No, I don't think you have it straight. See my previous response above.

nweathington said:

if you want to work for a company like Warner Animation at the level Bruce does, then yeah, you need to be a "company man"

By the way, unless you read my comment the wrong way or with ill-intent, I'm not sure how it was read that I was wrongfully judging or criticizing Mr. Timm other than making an assessment of his comments. You might re-read the thread to scrutinize the progression.

nweathington

bralinator said:

nweathington said:

Your snark aside

Nobody's perfect, but I assure you that it was all in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and teasing, quite the opposite of any swearing, cursing, or sarcastic snarkiness. Please disregard any such thoughts.

Mr. Timm is getting an unusual amount of blowback from these incarnations, possibly more than even his Justice League Unlimited and his Batman Beyond creations, and I read his response a particular way, you read it another and felt my comment was undeserved. You even received an "insightful" for such perception.

If you felt the term "company man" was derogatory, so be it. It was NOT another word for "corporate stooge," "suck-up." or "brown-noser." More along the lines of he fully agrees with WB in the following regards.

...I knew the minute we did it that everybody was going to be freaking out. And I didn’t care. I figured they were going to watch the show anyways just so they’d have something to bitch about. And then, ultimately, they’ll love the show...

No worries. I was in no way angry or upset, but I appreciate the clarification.

The only things I truly dislike about the videos is that Superman kills an innocent kid, and Harley’s “costume.” And it's not about Superman killing—this is an alternate world Superman, so I can roll with that—it's about the cheap shortcut of killing a kid to build dramatic tension. It wouldn't matter if it was Superman who did the deed or General Zod, it's gratuitous and unnecessary.

As for Harley’s costume, at best it takes away the contrary nature of her bubbly demeanor and her homicidal tendencies which made her so compelling, and at worst it brings the story down to the level of bad horror porn.

Put Harley in a real costume and I could watch that story. Make Braniac an adult and I could probably watch that story (assuming there are psychological consequences). As is, I'm not very interested in seeing more.

David_D

bralinator said:

David_D said:

So, let me get this straight, we're supposed to judge and apply labels to Bruce Timm for, while on the press circuit to promote his WB film, saying positive things that WB would agree with?

No, I don't think you have it straight. See my previous response above.

nweathington said:

if you want to work for a company like Warner Animation at the level Bruce does, then yeah, you need to be a "company man"

By the way, unless you read my comment the wrong way or with ill-intent, I'm not sure how it was read that I was wrongfully judging or criticizing Mr. Timm other than making an assessment of his comments. You might re-read the thread to scrutinize the progression.

I would just suggest you Google around for the connotation and common usage of "company man" before you apply it to any creative professionals you work with. It may be that the connotation of it is more negative than you may realize. When it comes to artists and makers, it is a derogatory and judgmental term, even if you didn't intend it to be.

And, as far as the common usage of that term goes, I don't think it applies to what Timm is saying in those interviews. Especially given the context of the interviews (he is promoting a film he made for WB) as well as the fact that, when he is talking about the initial reactions of fans when they first see you trying things vs. the later, longer term feelings about a work once it has been actually seen... I think he has the experience to know what he is talking about. That is not being a company man. That is being someone that has made things for a very vocal and traditionally risk-averse audience for a long time. He has earned the right to be a little skeptical of fan reactions at this point.

nweathington

bralinator said:

By the way, unless you read my comment the wrong way or with ill-intent, I'm not sure how it was read that I was wrongfully judging or criticizing Mr. Timm other than making an assessment of his comments. You might re-read the thread to scrutinize the progression.

I don't read anything with ill-intent, not consciously anyway. It was just in your choice of words. Like I said, “company man” is usually used in a derogatory way, so that's the way I took it. Adding “definitely,” to my mind, added to the sense of it being meant as an insult. Then when you came back with “which side his bread is buttered on”—again a rather negative depiction of Bruce’s character, intentional or not—it reinforced my initial reading.

bralinator

David_D said:

bralinator said:

David_D said:

So, let me get this straight, we're supposed to judge and apply labels to Bruce Timm for, while on the press circuit to promote his WB film, saying positive things that WB would agree with?

No, I don't think you have it straight. See my previous response above.

nweathington said:

if you want to work for a company like Warner Animation at the level Bruce does, then yeah, you need to be a "company man"

By the way, unless you read my comment the wrong way or with ill-intent, I'm not sure how it was read that I was wrongfully judging or criticizing Mr. Timm other than making an assessment of his comments. You might re-read the thread to scrutinize the progression.

I would just suggest you Google around for the connotation and common usage of "company man" before you apply it to any creative professionals you work with. It may be that the connotation of it is more negative than you may realize. When it comes to artists and makers, it is a derogatory and judgmental term, even if you didn't intend it to be.

And, as far as the common usage of that term goes, I don't think it applies to what Timm is saying in those interviews. Especially given the context of the interviews (he is promoting a film he made for WB) as well as the fact that, when he is talking about the initial reactions of fans when they first see you trying things vs. the later, longer term feelings about a work once it has been actually seen... I think he has the experience to know what he is talking about. That is not being a company man. That is being someone that has made things for a very vocal and traditionally risk-averse audience for a long time. He has earned the right to be a little skeptical of fan reactions at this point.

Sheesh... I'm glad I didn't comment on what I think about the content of these clips. This thread might REALLY get side-tracked then :)




And for the record, I went ahead and Googled "sheesh" to ensure that I had the proper definition.

bralinator

nweathington said:

Double post. I take it I'm not the only one having difficulties with the board loading and updating?

Yes. A lot of refresh clicks seem to be required today.

bamfbamf

not bad
https://youtu.be/fOWLqnjFN64

jaydee74

nweathington said:

jaydee74 said:

Damn double post. Still, this is terrible. Is this actually based on something?

I don't care for the story either, but I wouldn't say it's terrible. The storytelling is very good, it's just the story I don't like.

No, it's an original story. Though it's not like there hasn't been a vampiric Batman before.

That's a fairly good distinction. You are correct. I'm not into the story which doesn't make it a bad story and I will admit to actually liking the Wonder Woman segment.

bralinator

Not sure who the target audience is for these...

playdohsrepublic

I don't know why this is such a big deal. It's kind of a fun "What If" if three different people became the Trinity. Superman isn't Kal-el, it's General Zod's son, Batman is Kirk Langstrom and Wonder Woman is a New God. I actually think that concept is interesting. I'd probably think it was boring if it was another "Clark's gone bad" story. But they went in a different direction.

RepoMan

playdohsrepublic said:

I don't know why this is such a big deal.

Seriously! It seems it's only a big deal when people don't like something. Then they want to try and discredit it by trying to make it seem like they can't understand it. When really, they should just say they didn't like it and walk away. It's clear that with the success of something like Injustice why NOT do more alternate takes. Who cares who it's for? Maybe it's not for any one target group. Haha.

DoctorDoom

bamfbamf said:

DC Cartoons trying to be edgier than DC Movies???

Superman is a child killer???
https://youtu.be/HYSxN4ezhO4

Your post made it sound far worse than it was.... A General Zod-ish Superman remorseful,y putting down an out of control Braniac.

I thought I was going to watch a murderous bastard instead. Tsk.

David_D

I don't tend to watch the animated features, but I would be more interested to see one that goes for a new Elseworld concept, with new designs and spins on the characters, then I would be to watch a film that is an adaptation of a comic I've already read. Because, why not? Like the video games, I think the animation should do it's own thing.

bralinator

Everything about this looks terrible to me, and were it not for Bruce Timm's involvement, I suspect even more people would agree. I'd rather have the REAL trinity - especially a Timm version, so I don't think I'm interested in this at all and I am not in the "target " audience. The whole "alternate Justice League are bad guys" schtick has been done, and done well already for my tastes.



So yes, I wonder who IS this for? Elsewords fans? I suppose so, but it's definitely not for kids, that's for sure - dismembered bodies, corpse art, a bizarrely slutty Harley Quinn outfit, the most brutal incarnation of a movie Batman I’ve ever seen - drinking the blood of criminals, Superman as a goatee-wearing child killer, along with random obscenities strewn throughout? This is a hard PG-13 at best. Not at all for my young nephew, who loves comics. He is 8-years old and would likely only be bewildered and confused by the baby-Braniac scene. Maybe this is for self-identified 'mature audiences' who like edgy funny-books featuring dark versions of their favorite characters. That could work. Archie Comics has certainly had some success there. Hmmm.. you think Harvey Comics would have any luck rebooting their old line today with titles such as Casper the Poltergeist or Hot Stuff: The Possession? The possibilities are endless...

Seems like the standing order at DC these days is "darker, more brutal", with a few bright exceptions (Batgirl, Grayson, etc). Somewhere along the line DC must have decided that the way to compete with Marvel was to go gory and violent. Even Warner's chief has bragged that the new DCU live action movies will be darker than Marvel's. I guess I find it a bit over the top for me so I'm just not interested.

Your mileage may vary.

hauberk

bralinator said:

Everything about this looks terrible to me, and were it not for Bruce Timm's involvement, I suspect even more people would agree. I'd rather have the REAL trinity - especially a Timm version, so I don't think I'm interested in this at all and I am not in the "target " audience. The whole "alternate Justice League are bad guys" schtick has been done, and done well already for my tastes.



So yes, I wonder who IS this for? Elsewords fans? I suppose so, but it's definitely not for kids, that's for sure - dismembered bodies, corpse art, a bizarrely slutty Harley Quinn outfit, the most brutal incarnation of a movie Batman I’ve ever seen - drinking the blood of criminals, Superman as a goatee-wearing child killer, along with random obscenities strewn throughout? This is a hard PG-13 at best. Not at all for my young nephew, who loves comics. He is 8-years old and would likely only be bewildered and confused by the baby-Braniac scene. Maybe this is for self-identified 'mature audiences' who like edgy funny-books featuring dark versions of their favorite characters. That could work. Archie Comics has certainly had some success there. Hmmm.. you think Harvey Comics would have any luck rebooting their old line today with titles such as Casper the Poltergeist or Hot Stuff: The Possession? The possibilities are endless...

Seems like the standing order at DC these days is "darker, more brutal", with a few bright exceptions (Batgirl, Grayson, etc). Somewhere along the line DC must have decided that the way to compete with Marvel was to go gory and violent. Even Warner's chief has bragged that the new DCU live action movies will be darker than Marvel's. I guess I find it a bit over the top for me so I'm just not interested.

Your mileage may vary.

You've successfully sold me on an entire new line.

Chuck_Melville

Yeah, I have my concerns and doubts on this series as well. I'm waiting to see more on it, but so far, I'm not encouraged.