Another quick post today. Real life is too busy and hectic with the holidays coming up, and all my free writing time has been devoted to working on something more personal over at my neglected original LJ,
thehefner. Sadly, I fear that I may not be able to whip together a Batman Returns review in time for Christmas, as I'd hoped! Well, until I can pull
(
Read more... )
While I fear that the original Clayface's day has passed - at this point, everyone automatically thinks of the gigantic-pile-of-muck version - I do agree that he's a cool and interesting character that deserves revisiting, perhaps in a one-shot of some sort; or a spotlight in Legends of the Dark Knight, if that series ever gets up and running again.
That actually might be an interesting take on the Tweedles - professional henchmen who take their jobs very seriously. Like, you know how they say about really good butlers that they're more aristocratic than their masters? The Tweedles could be like that - consummate professionals who pride themselves on being the cream of the crop so far as henchmen are concerned, and don't come cheaply; they'll only work for you if they get a third of the take or some such. I like the idea of them having a plush office and engraved business cards and everything, and managing to get away with being so pompous because they genuinely are that good; if you've got the Tweedles on your side, your jobs are guaranteed to go smoothly.
Reply
I do think that the more standard Clayface has some great stories behind him, but again we fall into the trap of unrecognized potential. Sometimes I feel like people focus so much on the Joker that everyone else suffers.
Yes! I mean, they already act more like henchmen than mobsters, and they can fit any criminal theme that they want, I could see them as the Edmund Blackadders of Henchmen, more intelligent than the people they serve (or at least more efficient in their respective area) but still milking their position for all it's worth.
I also liked the one note in the Arkham game series that they had cosmetic surgery to look alike, that's not that bad of an idea.
Reply
Agreed. I think the Joker should be added to a 'Bad Guys We Need A Break From' list - not ones that need to go away for good, but ones that should not be used too often. His current storyline in the comics seems pretty creepy from what I've read of it, but it smacks of 'what the hell else can we do to this character? I know! I know! Let's have him cut his own face off and wear it like a mask!' The classic villains should only be used when someone has a really great idea for how to use them, not before. There are plenty of ancillary Bat-rogues that never get used; you don't have to trot out the big guns every time someone holds up a liquor store.
The way I see it is that they get away with murder because they're just that good. If your average henchman mouths off to a villain, he gets offed, but the Tweedles have gained a hard-earned reputation as being indispensable; you have them along on an operation, and all of the fiddly little things that you'd never think of will run like clockwork. As such, they're something like the Alfred Pennyworths of the crime world - genuinely skilled at supporting their bosses, but not afraid to snark a bit if the opportunity arises (although, of course, always in the best of taste, for they are refined gentlemen, doncha know). The main difference between them and Alfred, of course, being that their loyalty lasts only as long as you can pay their fee.
Reply
Which I'm really sick of seeing. As I'm sure you know, that part didn't come along until the 60's. Before then, the character was rooted in psychology, and I think he's always been at his best when psychology is his greatest weapon, with fear toxin being just ONE of his many tools for experimentation. Besides, considering the southern gothic horror roots that the Scarecrow was recently given in the Scarecrow: Year One origin (roots which the CATverse girls have developed to great effect), I think it would absolutely work to have a capable horror writer draw from that background when it comes to writing Crane.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
First up, the initial Arkham scenes already struck me as a bit weak. This one day in particular, Scarecrow thinks he's been pushed too far? I can swallow that. That very same night, he can now conjure up words so terrifying that every inmate in Arkham is either scared out of his/her wits or has already offed themselves? That's a bit tougher to swallow, considering that at least some of them regularly spend time in the Joker's company.
Next we get to the hypnotism scene. This scene might have worked in the Pre-Crisis era (heck, both Gerry Conway and Doug Moench had Two-Face inexplicably know hypnotism during the Bronze Age), but in the Modern Age it just comes off as spontaneous silliness. This could be a matter of taste, but I don't believe that Scarecrow could teach himself how to hypnotize people so effortlessly in one night when he'd been relying on chemicals the past ten years.
And then we get to see the new, bigger, badder Scarecrow in all his glory... and find out that for the most part, he's just Mr. Zsasz in rags and a floppy hat. There's no imagination behind his new M.O. - and it comes off as the author just ripping pages out of the Big Book of Serial Killer Cliches.
The art was also really, really not doing Scarecrow any favors. I mean, Mandrake draws a pretty good unmasked Crane, but in costume, Scarecrow looks like a cross between a fast-food mascot and a hobo. In a movie - with music, cinematography, voice acting (preferably by Jeffrey Combs), it might work, but on a comic book page, it just looks stupid.
Reply
Leave a comment