The Femmes all had fairly specific answers, albeit not always imaginative ones. We got Wonder Woman, Jean Grey, Rogue and Catwoman but all women seemed to say the same thing: they wanted a strong, funny, sassy woman and while yeah, it’s cool that we’re finally getting that, it’s taken way too long.

The Fellas responses however, are the exact problem with bringing superheroines to life on the big screen.

Jeff Sneider “only buys ScarJo and Angie, so if you don’t bring [him] one of them, [he’s] out.” He said he’d prefer a female remake of The Crow to any other female superhero out there and while I’m not denying how unquestionably awesome a female Crow would be, why genderbend when there are already so many other deserving ladies? And why limit yourself to Scarlett Johannson and Angelina Jolie when you have goddesses like Katee Sakoff, Gina Torres, and Amy Acker?

Jordan Zakarin thinks, “it’s sort of a silly debate to be having, because women have shown that they can lead…Plus, it’s not like a woman superhero would suddenly ruin the integrity and streak of perfection in these films.” True, we have shown we can lead and there have been more flops than the studios would like to admit, but to minimize the importance of the debate by calling it “silly” just proves how much more work women have to do to prove their worth. Would Jordan have called it silly when talking about the next male hero to be adapted? Arguably not.

Joseph Kapsch questions if “a studio can actually create a female superhero driven tentpole that is as viable a moneymaker as its male counterparts?” This kind of thinking is the exact reason why it’s taken so long to get a heroine onto the screen in the first place. Stop questioning and start trying.

Tony Maglio says, “I’m all for female superhero movies, but the fangirl market is still not what the fanboy market is, so it seems like a riskier investment from the studio side. Plus, historically, the vast majority of superheroes were men, so it’s inarguably slimmer pickings for the fairer sex within the realm of existing franchises.” I’m sorry, how does that matter? Sure, there may be “less options” but there are still an abundance of underrated powerful and complex heroines between all the comic universes, so why does the ratio of women to men in comics tilt the scales?

Todd Cunningham was one of my personal favorites (read: asshole). “I don’t think the gender of the superheroes matters that much, and I’m pretty sure that superhero equality shouldn’t be on the front burner when it comes to equality between the sexes. The fact is, most superhero movies are primarily the domain of teenage boys, who can identify best with male heroes (not to mention the “yuck — girls!” factor). That doesn’t mean it has to be that way going forward, but it’s not like Hollywood and Marvel and DC haven’t tried female superheroes before — if you look at Wikipedia, there’s nearly a hundred of them, and some have connected. I know Warner Bros. is pinning a lot of hope on Wonder Woman as a character. And Scarlett Johansson may yet get her own Black Widow movie with Marvel.” Mr. Cunningham could not be more confused. He gives the bigoted impression that he sees no gender inequality at all and therefore, why is everyone so upset? While no, a female hero isn’t the most important issue in the battle between sex-equality, the fact that out of all the superhero movies that have been made in the last fifteen years, I don’t even need a single finger to count the solo heroine films… That’s a major problem. The gender of superheroes released for public consumption in such a mass media market like cinema, and by extension television, is much more important that Todd realizes. Oh, there’s nearly a hundred female superheroes on Wikipedia? Why make any more, that’s plenty. Oh, ScarJo may finally get her own BLACK WIDOW movie 7 years after her character was first introduced, two IRON MAN sequels, potentially two THOR sequels, and one AVENGERS sequel later? No, there’s absolutely nothing wrong nor unequal about that. “Yuck – girls!” is no longer a feasible excuse – these films are not made for pre-pubescent boys anymore, they’re made for the general population which women just so happen to be part of.

These delightful gentlemen and the studio bigwigs are major contributing reasons that it’s take this long to adapt a female superhero into a cinematic feature; because it’s silly to wonder which heroine should get her own film, because unless you’re Angelina Jolie no one will want to see the film, because there are less options than male heroes, because “Yuck – girls!”

Unfortunately for these poor nimrods, however, a few of their male coworkers got it right: Tim Molloy offered his personal experience growing up on Black Cat and how much he loved and identified with her. He says that audiences today will embrace the female hero, especially if she’s an underdog. “But it’s sexist (and boring) if a heroine’s only supposed weakness is the fact that she’s a woman. Superhero movies need to give their women heroes the same kinds of flaws that men have, from Iron Man’s dying heart to the Hulk’s lack of self-control. If the story’s compelling, moviegoers will buy in.”

Andy Gensler also brought up a great point that women in comics have more often than not been reduced to sexy ninja warriors because if they don’t fall into that category they tend to have a tough go of it in comics. He wants the superheroine to be reinvented. His thoughts: “I’d like to see R. Crumb’s Ideal Woman, but made-over as a bad-ass contemporary feminist, a warrior who can cut through male megalomania BS in a single honest, authentic, and castrating bound. Who should play her? Melissa McCarthy, looking buxom and badass.”

And lastly Travis Reilly put it in terms that even Cunningham should be able to understand. “1) I like superhero movies, and 2) I like women. Those are my thoughts.” Upset that “companies are still — in the vast majority of instances — clinging to Caucasian male leads,” Reilly has been waiting just as long as women have for a heroine to get her own film.

*Side note, Microsoft word does not try to autocorrect “superhero” but does give me the red squigglies for “superheroine.” Jus’ sayin’.

“Well, let’s just say that I’m a civic-minded citizen with a lot of time on my hands.” — The Clock King, Episode 14.

Hello and welcome to the first installment of a new ongoing series where I, Ryan, plan to focus my ample free time on examining every episode of the iconic 1990s animated interpretation of the Dark Knight.

But before we can jump cowl-first into this beloved series, we need to do a little scene setting.

First, the ‘90s was the greatest decade ever for cartoons, and it’s hard to imagine someone arguing against that (consider yourself challenged, Internet). Some of my personal favorites are/were: X-Men, Spider-Man, Chip ‘n’ Dale Rescue Rangers, Doug, Darkwing Duck, Tailspin, Pinky and the Brain, Animaniacs, Rugrats, and the list goes on.

Long story short: It was a tough decade in which to stand out on the small screen.

Secondly, a major factor playing into this show’s success was that it came on the heels of an unquestionably monumental stretch of time for the Bat-verse on the page and on the screen. The mid-to-late ‘80s and early ‘90s saw a substantial shift for the character where Alan Moore (The Killing Joke) and Frank Miller (Year One, The Dark Knight Returns) ushered in the era of the gritty, dark interpretation of the Bat, sparking a resurgence in the popularity and cultural relevancy of the character.

Then, Tim Burton’s 1989 classic BATMAN movie fueled full-fledged Bat-mania.

Jack Napier: Enraging Batman purists for a quarter of a century.

All of these factors created plenty of stiff competition and set the bar high, but optimists at Warner Bros. Animation saw the platform it presented.

The WB brought together the art/production duo of Bruce Timm and the all-too-often forgotten Eric Radomski, a badass corps of writers, musical wizard Danny Elfman, and perhaps the best cast of voice actors ever assembled (*bias alert*) to join forces in taking us on an after-school journey into a noir crime drama that we will never forget.

Cue goosebumps….

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEx9r5enZsk&w=420&h=315]

I still remember the way that intro made me feel as a kid, and I’ll spend an entire post breaking it down frame-by-frame at some point, but in the interest of soon-to-be-abandoned conciseness, I’ll move along for now.

One of the things that really jumps out is the artistic style; it really is something to behold and admire.

With a heavy reliance on blacks, greys and reds, the dreary color palette creates a menacing atmosphere that effortlessly conveys the twisted, inherent hopelessness of Gotham.

In fact, this was the first cartoon ever drawn/painted on black paper. True story!

The GCPD may be outgunned and facing corruption at every level, but at least it has blimps!

But the atramentous world isn’t the only thing that stands out; it’s the style of the buildings, cars and people that inhabit it.

The artistic team referred to its creation as “dark deco,” paying homage to the art deco movement of the 1920s and ‘30s. That unique look really took this show to a different level.

It’s hard to put a time frame on this series as, in many ways, it does feel like it takes place in a Dick-Tracy, gangster-era Chicago or New York, but for every paper boy in a flat cap or Tommy Gun-toting mobster, there is also a high-tech Batcomputer or an elaborate machine that induces dreams. And this confusing timeline was purposeful.

Holy Gatsby-era street urchin, Batman.

Radomski and Timm were inspired by what the former referred to as an “otherwordly timelessness” seen in Burton’s film, where vintage clothing, antique cars and police blimps portrayed a Gotham that resembled a grungy Roaring Twenties-era metropolis, while at the same time littering it with modern amenities and various technological advancements.

Otherworldly, indeed.

And taking another note from the ’89 film, the city itself is exaggerated, massive and ominous in a way that transforms it into a character more than a setting; an animated version of Burton’s hell on earth. This effectively puts Batman in a setting that not-so-subtly imparts on the viewer a measure of the evil that resides within; one of the many layers that gives this show its staying power.

Gotham City as it was meant to be.

It really is a time and place all its own. And that cannot be understated in its importance in the long-term success of BTAS (that’s the acronym we’re going to roll with, FYI).

Truth be told, I could ramble on for another thousand words about the art, so we’ll just pick this time to move along to something I know nothing about: music!

Don’t get me wrong, I love listening to music, but I don’t know a damn thing about it and have zero natural ability with it in any capacity. And on the opposite end of that spectrum, we have Danny Elfman.

Mr. Elfman did what any self-respecting person did in the pre-Internet age and put his God-given ability to use, blessing my ringtone gallery and the world at large with two of the most iconic superhero theme songs ever produced with his work on BATMAN ’89 and Batman: TAS.

He also did the theme music for Spider-Man 3, but if you’re anything like me you’ve spent the past seven years pretending that movie never happened.

No. No it wasn’t, Harry.

But back to the point at hand, Elfman really rubs in his musical talents having composed the music and/or theme for the following: Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, The Flash, Beetlejuice, Army of Darkness, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Tales from the Crypt, Corpse Bride, Chicago, Desperate Housewives and most famously of all — The Simpsons.

He’s a machine and his jam-packed schedule probably played some role in him turning down the initial job offer to compose the theme for BTAS,  but he eventually hopped on board and wrote a variation of his hit BATMAN ’89 theme for the show.

Listen and compare below.

Batman ’89  (Skip ahead to the 30-second mark)

and

Batman: TAS

While undeniably similar, the BTAS theme is different enough to stand on its own, and it absolutely captures the mood of the show and how it deviates from the film. And that’s not even taking into consideration the masterful in-show music he provided, which I’ll touch on in the next installment.

Speaking of delayed gratification, the voice acting is something I’ll tackle more thoroughly on an episode-by-episode basis as characters are introduced, but if you are unfamiliar with the glorious performances this show was graced with, here is a handy video I stumbled upon that will provide an overview of what is to come.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmu-9ln-kjs&w=560&h=315]

Most people know and revere Kevin Conroy’s Batman and Mark Hamill’s Joker (both of which are still the voices I hear in my head when I read Batman comics) and those are deservedly lauded, but they tend to overshadow other worthy performances, most notably Arleen Sorkin’s Harley Quinn.

Not only was Sorkin the first to voice Mr. J’s  uber popular sidekick, she literally provided the inspiration for the creation of the character by Paul Dini in 1992.

You can see (or hear, rather) the makings of Miss Quinn in this clip from Sorkin’s “Days of Our Lives” stint:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ORRN1Tbb3g&w=420&h=315]

In addition to the previously mentioned trio, Efrim Zimbalist Jr. (Alfred), Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), David Warner (Ra’s al Ghul) and Richard Moll (Harvey Dent) were just a few of the other standout performers that instilled this show with the believability, charm and emotion that helped bring the unique art and the intelligent, thoughtful writing to life.

All these factors combined continue to give Batman: The Animated Series a lasting allure and relevance more than 20 years later and warrant it wholly deserving of this labor of love I am embarking upon.

On behalf of Batman and myself, we’d love to have you along for the ride.

Until next time.

And so, it began.

The first movie on our list is 1951’s SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN [now available on VHS!]. According to that possibly flawed Wikipedia list I’m going off of, it’s the first live-action superhero feature film, and as far as I know, it’s probably also the only black-and white movie on our list. Honestly, I went into this one expecting a pretty rough ride, but it turned out to be a surprisingly pleasant viewing experience.

The movie was made as a trial run for a Superman TV show, ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN. It was successful in that the show got picked up, then lasted six years; the movie itself would also be aired on TV as the show’s only two-parter (under the name “The Unknown People”). The film’s two stars, George Reeves as Clark Kent/Superman and Phyllis Coates as Lois Lane, would continue on in those roles on the show, though Coates left after the first season and was replaced by Noel Neill.

The film pivots on Reeves’ ability to play up the Superman All-American persona, and he doesn’t disappoint.

Reeves has an effortless charm that serves his character(s) well. His Clark Kent is capable in his own right, a large step removed from the more bumbling and clumsy interpretation we’ve usually seen since. As Superman, he’s even more effective. He expresses his moral outrage at the intolerant antagonists, ensuring that we all learn the somewhat heavy-handed moral of the story, while still looking self-assured, careless even, when being hit by bullets.

Lois certainly has less to do, but Coates gives her a mostly competent appearance. She too gives us a steady dose of justified outrage, and it was nice to see her not backing down, even from a mob of angry men with guns. Of course, it’s the early 50s, so she still has to shriek in terror at the first sight of the Mole Men, and get comforted by Clark while the men in the room gently explain that she was surely just seeing things.

The plot involves Clark and Lois traveling to Texas to report on the world’s deepest oil drill. They find out it’s being shut down, and we soon learn the reason is that the rig dug too deep and struck radium instead of oil. (Sidenote: everyone is super casual about handling glowing radioactive substances.) What’s more, the drill unknowingly disturbed the home of the Mole Men, who climb up the oil shaft and explore the town. Going in, I just assumed the Mole Men would be villains, but surprisingly, no. Instead, they’re harmless but unattractive explorers, whom the townsfolk incorrectly believe are dangerous. They never actually talk, and are friendly until the end, when they try to reclaim one of their one. And even then, there’s still no doubt that they’re the victims in this plot.

A mob forms, led by Luke Benson (played with an appropriate edge by Jeff Corey), and tries to hunt down the Mole Men. For a long stretch of the film, we don’t see Superman at all, as the focus rests on the mob activity and the two Mole Men trying to escape. We get a legitimately frightening scene where the two harmless Mole Men are trapped in a wooden shed that Benson and the gang set on fire, and their panic as they try to avoid burning alive is rather unsettling. Luckily, they escape, and the chase continues until finally Superman arrives just in time to rescue a Mole Man as he’s falling from a dam. It’s the one time in the film we get to see Superman fly, and soar he does:

For 1951, I’d say the special effects were pretty solid.

By the end, the Mole Men are back underground and the well destroyed. Everyone is saved and all crises averted, giving us our superhero movie model for years to come. For the first offering of a future genre, it’s surprisingly enjoyable. The action is light and the morality play aspect of it is perhaps too overt, but Reeves’ charisma is undeniable and the plot is just good enough to support him.

.

Optional drinking game for this film:

Drink every time:

1. Clark changes to Superman or back to Clark.

2. A woman screams.

3. A Texan overreacts.

And if your alcohol tolerance is particularly high:

4. Every time a Mole Man looks terrified.

.

NEXT WEEK: BATMAN (1966)

h/t to haphazardstuff.com for the video from which these screen grabs were taken.