Is the DC animated movie universe improving with the addition of more original storylines?

TheArkhamArtist

Some of the animated DC movies seem to stick very tight to there written predecessors.
Others animated Dc movies seem to barley hint at the written material. Bruce Timm is even about to release DC's first completely original animated movie. I was just curious what the CGS universe thought. I personally just want amazing animated films.

WetRats

I'm gonna coast on by this thread, draw a line in the sand, sit on the beach and bank my opinions.

Chuck_Melville

Yeah, I'm a wait-and-see as well. I may check it out, but I'm not feeling any entusiasm for the newest one just yet. I may be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not feeling it yet...

playdohsrepublic

Who cares, I just read the comics.

WetRats said:

I'm gonna coast on by this thread, draw a line in the sand, sit on the beach and bank my opinions.

Well I think I'm going to go against the tide while you bury your head in the sand and just breeze through this poll right now.

shroud68

Undecided, because it changes from movie to movie.

I have seen most of the movies. I do not like the inconsistency in animation, voice and continuity. I love that they are grinding them out but I wish they were not a new version of characters every time. I am not up to date on every storyline so if JLA:Doom varies from the comic it does not bother me.

David_D

From their Comic-Con panel today, it sounds like WB Animation continuing to do both adaptations and originals.

They announced an adaptation of Batman: The Killing Joke for next year, but also in the pipeline:

"Batman: Bad Blood" -- An original Batman story that features the introduction of Batwoman to the new line of animated films.

"Justice League vs. Titans" -- Another original story and the first of the DC Universe Original Movies to feature the Teen Titans.

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

David_D said:

They announced an adaptation of Batman: The Killing Joke for next year, but also in the pipeline:

"Batman: Bad Blood" -- An original Batman story that features the introduction of Batwoman to the new line of animated films.

"Justice League vs. Titans" -- Another original story and the first of the DC Universe Original Movies to feature the Teen Titans.

DC just announced that their adaptation of The Killing Joke has earned an R-rating. This will be the first DC animated film with the R-rating. Not exactly sure how I feel about that, but DC has been trending towards this for years. The rating fits the material, but I'm just not 100% confident that DC should be making it into an animated movie. However, I find DC's animated fare to be superior to their motion pictures.

Here is a preview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVO0ncdTUnA

"From the start of production, we encouraged producer Bruce Timm and our team at Warner Bros. Animation to remain faithful to the original story — regardless of the eventual MPAA rating," Sam Register, president of Warner Bros. Animation & Warner Digital Series tells the site. "The Killing Joke is revered by the fans, particularly for its blunt, often-shocking adult themes and situations. We felt it was our responsibility to present our core audience — the comics-loving community — with an animated film that authentically represented the tale they know all too well." They mention that there are no plans in place for a PG-13 version, so this is one cartoon you won't share with your kids!

nweathington

I've talked with Bruce in the past about ratings for the direct-to-DVD movies, and he was very aware that a large portion of those sales are from parents impulse-buying them for their kids. I just hope the packaging makes it very clear this is an R-rated film, or there are going to be some very unhappy parents out there.

David_D

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+
and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do agree, though, that making the MPAA label prominent on the packaging would be a wise move on their part, given that this is their first animated feature with that rating.

David_D

As this trend continues, though, it does seem that R ratings are the new zombies.

nweathington

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

nweathington

David_D said:

As this trend continues, though, it does seem that R ratings are the new zombies.

No, we've already established that time travel is the new zombies. R-ratings might someday be the new time travel, though, I suppose. ;)

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

Especially if the family owns several of the DC DVDs or the animated series DVD sets. The Bruce Timm atheistic may confuse less savvy parents. After the DKR movie and Gods and Monsters, what content do you suppose earned the R-rating? Nudity?

I expect these scenes will all be depicted, but they didn't show any actual nudity that I recall...

David_D

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

I take your point. Although (and this is not something I have paid much attention to, so I might be wrong) I do think that there is a lot of R rated anime in the marketplace and on Netflix. So maybe parents have encountered the idea that animated≠automatically a cartoon for kids already. Even if this might be the first (?) instance of it from WB Animation.

Of course, I would guess (and, in part, I remember) the same thing being said about comic books at the time when 'mature readers' comics (even ones about superheroes!) were coming in, and the fears that parents would just presume that comics, as a medium, have a built-in rating expectation.

There would have been a time when the idea that a video game could be intended for older audiences was a radical idea. There will always be those learning curve moments.

Being a parent, as I know I don't have to tell you, means you have to not always rest on old assumptions when it comes to media. It can take checking the box, doing a quick search online, etc. It is not like that information is not out there, and it is more accessible than it was to our parents when we were kids.

And, at least, when it comes to this Batman movie, it is labeled for parents using a system that has been around since the 1960s. If a parent in the store doesn't take a second to notice and understand the R rating on the box, and just goes with their own assumptions that, despite how grim the material tends to be when it comes to the live action movies and video games, a Batman and Joker cartoon with the word "Killing" in the title cartoon is always going to be fine... well, then maybe that parent will have a teachable moment for themselves.

But I can't say I blame WB in that moment. They used the MPAA and participated in the system that movies that want to inform parents participate in. I don't blame them as the creator of the content if a parent ignores that very available information about their content.

nweathington

bralinator said:

Especially if the family owns several of the DC DVDs or the animated series DVD sets. The Bruce Timm atheistic may confuse less savvy parents. After the DKR movie and Gods and Monsters, what content do you suppose earned the R-rating? Nudity?

I expect these scenes will all be depicted, but they didn't show any actual nudity that I recall...

I doubt there will be any nudity. If they do show a naked Gordon (Barbara or Jim), my guess is they will be heavily in shadows and you’ll see even less than in the comic. I could be wrong of course. But I'm betting the rating is for violence, i.e., the shooting of Barbara Gordon.

nweathington

David_D said:

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

I take your point. Although (and this is not something I have paid much attention to, so I might be wrong) I do think that there is a lot of R rated anime in the marketplace and on Netflix. So maybe parents have encountered the idea that animated≠automatically a cartoon for kids already. Even if this might be the first (?) instance of it from WB Animation.

Of course, I would guess (and, in part, I remember) the same thing being said about comic books at the time when 'mature readers' comics (even ones about superheroes!) were coming in, and the fears that parents would just presume that comics, as a medium, have a built-in rating expectation.

There would have been a time when the idea that a video game could be intended for older audiences was a radical idea. There will always be those learning curve moments.

Being a parent, as I know I don't have to tell you, means you have to not always rest on old assumptions when it comes to media. It can take checking the box, doing a quick search online, etc. It is not like that information is not out there, and it is more accessible than it was to our parents when we were kids.

And, at least, when it comes to this Batman movie, it is labeled for parents using a system that has been around since the 1960s. If a parent in the store doesn't take a second to notice and understand the R rating on the box, and just goes with their own assumptions that, despite how grim the material tends to be when it comes to the live action movies and video games, a Batman and Joker cartoon with the word "Killing" in the title cartoon is always going to be fine... well, then maybe that parent will have a teachable moment for themselves.

But I can't say I blame WB in that moment. They used the MPAA and participated in the system that movies that want to inform parents participate in. I don't blame them as the creator of the content if a parent ignores that very available information about their content.

My only real concern here is over the impulse DVD-buyer. Maybe there aren't as many of them around as there were five years ago, when this would have been a bigger issue, but I'm sure there are still plenty of them out there looking to buy a $15-20 DVD to keep their kids entertained over the weekend, maybe a long car trip, whatever, and who have never had to check the rating of a Batman cartoon before. I mean, it wasn't all that long ago when non-theatrical released animation DVDs didn't even carry ratings.

What I'm really wondering is how places like Wal-Mart will display this.

David_D

nweathington said:

David_D said:

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

I take your point. Although (and this is not something I have paid much attention to, so I might be wrong) I do think that there is a lot of R rated anime in the marketplace and on Netflix. So maybe parents have encountered the idea that animated≠automatically a cartoon for kids already. Even if this might be the first (?) instance of it from WB Animation.

Of course, I would guess (and, in part, I remember) the same thing being said about comic books at the time when 'mature readers' comics (even ones about superheroes!) were coming in, and the fears that parents would just presume that comics, as a medium, have a built-in rating expectation.

There would have been a time when the idea that a video game could be intended for older audiences was a radical idea. There will always be those learning curve moments.

Being a parent, as I know I don't have to tell you, means you have to not always rest on old assumptions when it comes to media. It can take checking the box, doing a quick search online, etc. It is not like that information is not out there, and it is more accessible than it was to our parents when we were kids.

And, at least, when it comes to this Batman movie, it is labeled for parents using a system that has been around since the 1960s. If a parent in the store doesn't take a second to notice and understand the R rating on the box, and just goes with their own assumptions that, despite how grim the material tends to be when it comes to the live action movies and video games, a Batman and Joker cartoon with the word "Killing" in the title cartoon is always going to be fine... well, then maybe that parent will have a teachable moment for themselves.

But I can't say I blame WB in that moment. They used the MPAA and participated in the system that movies that want to inform parents participate in. I don't blame them as the creator of the content if a parent ignores that very available information about their content.

My only real concern here is over the impulse DVD-buyer. Maybe there aren't as many of them around as there were five years ago, when this would have been a bigger issue, but I'm sure there are still plenty of them out there looking to buy a $15-20 DVD to keep their kids entertained over the weekend, maybe a long car trip, whatever, and who have never had to check the rating of a Batman cartoon before. I mean, it wasn't all that long ago when non-theatrical released animation DVDs didn't even carry ratings.

What I'm really wondering is how places like Wal-Mart will display this.

I do think, a la the marketing for Deadpool that drew attention to the rating (and, being Deadpool, had fun with doing so) that it would behoove WB to package and partner with their retailers in a way to help this get distributed in a way that doesn't surprise anyone. I think that would be in their interest for them to avoid bad PR.

But, again, I also think that if a parent auto-pilots into the purchase on the assumption that all Batman/Joker things are appropriate, or that all animation is, I think that is still on them.

nweathington

David_D said:

But, again, I also think that if a parent auto-pilots into the purchase on the assumption that all Batman/Joker things are appropriate, or that all animation is, I think that is still on them.

Sure, but that's not going to stop them from being upset/angry and maybe not buying another Batman DVD the next time, regardless of its rating.

David_D

nweathington said:

David_D said:

But, again, I also think that if a parent auto-pilots into the purchase on the assumption that all Batman/Joker things are appropriate, or that all animation is, I think that is still on them.

Sure, but that's not going to stop them from being upset/angry and maybe not buying another Batman DVD the next time, regardless of its rating.

Sure, which is why I agree it makes business sense for WB to show they made a good faith effort to label (even though I think it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to check for a rating and know what they are buying. That due diligence takes seconds. It is probably no harder than checking for what the price of such an impulse buy is.)

But, to the larger question of whether or not WB *should* make a rated R animated Batman film (and I know you were not asking that question, specifically), I think it is fine for them to do so, especially when the material they are adapting calls for it. Animation is just a medium, like any other. To me, it doesn't have to also promise a certain kind of content or tone.

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

If the killing of Barabara Gordon is the impetus of the R-rating, how do you differentiate that killing over those in Dark Knight Returns or Gods and Monsters? Visceral level? And if there is no nudity or Deadpool movie level obscenities, would the Barbara Gordon murder really be worse than say, Doomsday killing Superman?

Which is to say, why push this out with the R-rating then? I'm guessing that getting it to a PG-13 rating for this story would've been a breeze to edit without having to cut any scenes. So what's exactly the win for DC here?

David_D

bralinator said:

If the killing of Barabara Gordon is the impetus of the R-rating, how do you differentiate that killing over those in Dark Knight Returns or Gods and Monsters? Visceral level? And if there is no nudity or Deadpool movie level obscenities, would the Barbara Gordon murder really be worse than say, Doomsday killing Superman?

Which is to say, why push this out with the R-rating then? I'm guessing that getting it to a PG-13 rating for this story would've been a breeze to edit without having to cut any scenes. So what's exactly the win for DC here?

I would guess it will be same things that got the comic a mature readers tag-- that even if they are not explicitly showing nude bits, they are implying violence that crosses into sexual assault and torture, and generally a level of intensity (as in the original work) that is different from a typical superhero punch up (and is even beyond what Batman stories are usually like).

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

The trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDj4zGFf4F8

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

David_D said:

I would guess it will be same things that got the comic a mature readers tag-- that even if they are not explicitly showing nude bits, they are implying violence that crosses into sexual assault and torture, and generally a level of intensity (as in the original work) that is different from a typical superhero punch up (and is even beyond what Batman stories are usually like).

Do you think fans will celebrate this adaptation if it contains [trigger warning] the infamous sexual assault scene?

David_D

bralinator said:

David_D said:

I would guess it will be same things that got the comic a mature readers tag-- that even if they are not explicitly showing nude bits, they are implying violence that crosses into sexual assault and torture, and generally a level of intensity (as in the original work) that is different from a typical superhero punch up (and is even beyond what Batman stories are usually like).

Do you think fans will celebrate this adaptation if it contains [trigger warning] the infamous sexual assault scene?

I have no idea. To be clear, I'm not the audience for this, but that is because I have no interest in any of the animated features that are adapting comics I've already read. I'd be more interested if the story was an original, made with the medium of animation in mind.

(Although, even in the case of their originals, I am a hard sell. i don't watch a lot of animated features, and when I do, I am more interested in something other than superhero stories, as I get a lot of that already in the comics I read.)

Mr_Cosmic

I'm not a big fan of watching animated adaptations of comics I've read either but Hamill and Conroy are enough to get me to watch this.

Matt

David_D said:

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

I take your point. Although (and this is not something I have paid much attention to, so I might be wrong) I do think that there is a lot of R rated anime in the marketplace and on Netflix. So maybe parents have encountered the idea that animated≠automatically a cartoon for kids already. Even if this might be the first (?) instance of it from WB Animation.

Of course, I would guess (and, in part, I remember) the same thing being said about comic books at the time when 'mature readers' comics (even ones about superheroes!) were coming in, and the fears that parents would just presume that comics, as a medium, have a built-in rating expectation.

There would have been a time when the idea that a video game could be intended for older audiences was a radical idea. There will always be those learning curve moments.

Being a parent, as I know I don't have to tell you, means you have to not always rest on old assumptions when it comes to media. It can take checking the box, doing a quick search online, etc. It is not like that information is not out there, and it is more accessible than it was to our parents when we were kids.

And, at least, when it comes to this Batman movie, it is labeled for parents using a system that has been around since the 1960s. If a parent in the store doesn't take a second to notice and understand the R rating on the box, and just goes with their own assumptions that, despite how grim the material tends to be when it comes to the live action movies and video games, a Batman and Joker cartoon with the word "Killing" in the title cartoon is always going to be fine... well, then maybe that parent will have a teachable moment for themselves.

But I can't say I blame WB in that moment. They used the MPAA and participated in the system that movies that want to inform parents participate in. I don't blame them as the creator of the content if a parent ignores that very available information about their content.

I was thinking along the same lines. There was only one time I was able to slip by a movie I shouldn't have watched past my mother. It was Body of Evidence. We were at the rental store & I handed her the tape.

When we got home, my father saw what it was "remembering the trailer" & immediately told me I was too young for it.

I think there are some parents that'll just grab it because it's Batman & animated...but that's on them, not the studio.

M

Matt

David_D said:

bralinator said:

David_D said:

I would guess it will be same things that got the comic a mature readers tag-- that even if they are not explicitly showing nude bits, they are implying violence that crosses into sexual assault and torture, and generally a level of intensity (as in the original work) that is different from a typical superhero punch up (and is even beyond what Batman stories are usually like).

Do you think fans will celebrate this adaptation if it contains [trigger warning] the infamous sexual assault scene?

I have no idea. To be clear, I'm not the audience for this, but that is because I have no interest in any of the animated features that are adapting comics I've already read. I'd be more interested if the story was an original, made with the medium of animation in mind.

(Although, even in the case of their originals, I am a hard sell. i don't watch a lot of animated features, and when I do, I am more interested in something other than superhero stories, as I get a lot of that already in the comics I read.)

I'm actually the opposite...to some extent. This is one I'll get because I enjoy the story. I don't care for the original movies, nor those based on the storylines I don't care for in general. My entire DCAU only consists of Year One, DKR, Under the Red Hood, & eventually this one as well.

I felt highly let down with JL: Doom & couldn't dig the voice talents on Crisis on Two Worlds (or whatever that was called.) I haven't watched any of the other DCAU movies.

M

mwhitt80

Can we bring back the shorts. The Spectre short was one of the best dcau movies.

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

mwhitt80 said:

Can we bring back the shorts. The Spectre short was one of the best dcau movies.

agreed

DoctorDoom

bralinator said:

nweathington said:

David_D said:

There are already Batman products that have been suggested for mature audiences, like video games rated for 17+ and several mature readers labeled Batman titles. So I don't see this as anything different from those. If anything, if you had a PG-13 adaptation of a comic by the same name intended for 17+, you might create an expectation that the book would be okay if the movie was.

I do see them as different. I think these animated films are still by and large viewed as “cartoons” in the vein of Saturday morning fare among people over a certain age, whereas video game violence has been newsworthy for several years. I think parents are far more likely to check out a video game before buying than an animated film.

Especially if the family owns several of the DC DVDs or the animated series DVD sets. The Bruce Timm atheistic may confuse less savvy parents. After the DKR movie and Gods and Monsters, what content do you suppose earned the R-rating? Nudity?

I expect these scenes will all be depicted, but they didn't show any actual nudity that I recall...

Actually, there was one (semi-hidden nipple on that page you showed. Which someone had previously pointed out to me!

Not that I think there's going to be any nipples in the movie.

bralinator

Who cares, I just read the comics.

DoctorDoom said:

Actually, there was one (semi-hidden nipple on that page you showed. Which someone had previously pointed out to me!

Not that I think there's going to be any nipples in the movie.

This (NSFW)* was in a PG-13 movie, so I wonder how this cartoon is earning its R?


*Total Recall (2012)