The animated DCAU Two-Face movie that never was (at least, not in movie form)!

[about_faces]

Back when I was first planning out my series of Two-Face Stories That Never Were, one of the big rumors I wanted to explore was one that I could have *sworn* I'd read somewhere but couldn't back up: namely, that Paul Dini and company were planning on making an animated Batman movie featuring Two-Face, but that idea was scrapped in favor of Batman:

Comments

[mothy_van_cleer]

That Wizard page is turning my stomach with its oh-so-90's "bad attitude". It really takes a juvenile sort of mind to crack a off-colour joke about a modern-day treasure like Bone.

[about_faces]

Yeah, I know, right? And this was just a typical page from an average issue! I owe a lot to Wizard for helping me become the fan I am, as there was nothing else like it that hooked me up with the wide world of comics, but it's a really awful magazine in retrospect. The mentality of its writers and editors can be traced to the douchebro asshole attitudes of fans and writers to this very day.

[psychopathicus]

I don't know if I'd call it awful, exactly, but they were certainly a lot better when they were dealing with the directly comedic or more informative articles, rather than stuff like this. At their best, they had a sort of 'just a bunch of guys goofin' around' aspect that I found enjoyable; at their worst - yeah, they could be pretty obnoxious, I agree. Still, like you, I do owe the magazine a lot, all things considered, so I can't be too hard on them.

[about_faces]

I just meant "awful" in regards to knowing how it's just indicative in a small way of a pervasive sense of humor and mentality that only got worse with each passing year. I have very complicated feelings about Wizard.

[psychopathicus]

In other words, you're not so much judging Wizard itself awful, you're judging it as a harbinger of what was to come.

[about_faces]

Oh no, I still judge Wizard itself. Not only could they be pretty awful, but they popularized that mentality and literally raised it to the level of celebrity.

[psychopathicus]

The way I look at it is that, while they did a number of things I wasn't wild about, they also did some things that I found enjoyable, and overall made me curious about the wider world of comics in a way that I probably wouldn't have become otherwise. I basically stopped reading them when the bad started outweighing the good, but without that 'good', I would be a very different person right now.

[about_faces]

"Mean-spirited" was very common for Wizard. In retrospect, they really heralded the first wave of bullied geeks who grew up to become bullies themselves.

[psychopathicus]

To be fair, Langstrom did start out as very much the mad scientist type, even if a good deal more benign and, you know, sane than most other examples. The man wore an opera cloak to work, for crying out loud. It was only later that he started being depicted as a more 'standard' scientific researcher without the more theatrical aspects.
As for Connors - yeah. He does. But for what it's worth, he did do it first.

[psychopathicus]

Oh, yeah, the miniseries misses the point entirely; no argument there.
Really, Connors and Langstrom have a good deal in common. The main difference is that, while Kirk, at his worst, has never been more than a ravaging beast when in Man-Bat form, the Lizard ranges from that to vicious wannabe-world leader with aspirations to mammalian genocide. There have been occasions where he's managed to keep control for brief periods, but overall, it's a case of a full-blown split personality. Connors is a genuinely good man tormented by the fact that he might at any point lose control and transform into a monster; Kirk is also a genuinely good man who has at various times transformed into a creature, if that makes sense.