Batman: The Long Halloween Animated Film Voice Actors Cast!

[Vakanai]

Maybe my expectations were low. I knew they wouldn't pull off Tim sale aestectics but I liked Bruce not being an ahole and Selina and Harvey were pretty cool. Never was a fan of Jason or UtRH.

My expectations were low ~ sometimes having your expectations met so spot on is a bad thing. You could get Bruce as not an a-hole and the Selina and Harvey stuff without sacrificing the quality storytelling of the source material. Sure, we can list the elements we liked about it, but that doesn't make it a better movie. Again, I never said it was bad, only that it's disappointing to have an adaptation of such a phenomenal comic be mere "it's fine" mediocrity.

And to each their own, but UtRH is definitely a film I'm a fan of and am disappointed intensely by how they can't seem to pull off another film of that caliber. I still watch it every year. This one though probably not so much.

[Frontier]

Butch Lukic interview.

[SiegePerilous02]

Watched this the other day - it was alright. Not great. Not the next classic DC animated movie. Just fine.
Could have just called it "Holiday Killer" or something, they changed enough in the end that it is more of an elseworld anyways than an actual adaptation - which I feared and improved nothing.

It still is an actual adaptation. The process of adapting a story isn't limited to just copying everything exactly, including making character/plot changes to tell its own story in a new medium. "The Laughing Fish" episode of BTAS for example is still considered an adaptation of the comic story, even though it makes changes and cuts a lot of stuff out.

I think it's already improving things by offering more solid hints at Gilda being Holiday so there is an actual payoff, though I agree that it isn't as good as UTRH was.

[Vakanai]

It still is an actual adaptation. The process of adapting a story isn't limited to just copying everything exactly, including making character/plot changes to tell its own story in a new medium. "The Laughing Fish" episode of BTAS for example is still considered an adaptation of the comic story, even though it makes changes and cuts a lot of stuff out.

I think it's already improving things by offering more solid hints at Gilda being Holiday so there is an actual payoff, though I agree that it isn't as good as UTRH was.

Agree to disagree. It didn't improve anything in my opinion, it just succeeded in being mediocre. It doesn't hold a candle to the source material, it doesn't make for a great watch, it's just ok. Again, I'm not saying that it sucks, I'm just saying it's not even remotely good enough for what an adaptation of such a foundational book called for. They could have, and should have, treated it with the same respect and dedication that they gave to Frank Miller's works. And before you say they did, I vehemently disagree. They believed that they could do better, that's not respectful and they were wrong.

[SiegePerilous02]

Agree to disagree. It didn't improve anything in my opinion, it just succeeded in being mediocre. It doesn't hold a candle to the source material, it doesn't make for a great watch, it's just ok. Again, I'm not saying that it sucks, I'm just saying it's not even remotely good enough for what an adaptation of such a foundational book called for. They could have, and should have, treated it with the same respect and dedication that they gave to Frank Miller's works. And before you say they did, I vehemently disagree. They believed that they could do better, that's not respectful and they were wrong.

Them making changes doesn't mean they think they could do better, it just means they were making a film based on a storyline and approached it as a self contained film first, which is what any good adaptation does.

The only substantial change is Alberto, and he was a weak non-character to begin with in a murder mystery that already had two other suspects. And he was always the most obvious/boring one to boot. Other stuff like fleshing out Gilda's motivation and involvement and hinting at Selina's true parentage is just using stuff from the books, so I don't see how that is being disrespectful.

[Vakanai]

Them making changes doesn't mean they think they could do better, it just means they were making a film based on a storyline and approached it as a self contained film first, which is what any good adaptation does.

The only substantial change is Alberto, and he was a weak non-character to begin with in a murder mystery that already had two other suspects. And he was always the most obvious/boring one to boot. Other stuff like fleshing out Gilda's motivation and involvement and hinting at Selina's true parentage is just using stuff from the books, so I don't see how that is being disrespectful.

Agree to disagree - we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I didn't fee excited for anything that was changed, didn't feel like it was improved, and ultimately I came away from this movie just not feeling they did any more than an "eh, alright - is decent" job of what should've been an instant classic considering how good the book was. It's an inferior adaptation to Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and Under the Red Hood, and by a lot at that. Maybe they did/do respect the story, but if so that kind of makes it feel worse that this was the best they were capable of.

[godisawesome]

Agree to disagree - we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I didn't fee excited for anything that was changed, didn't feel like it was improved, and ultimately I came away from this movie just not feeling they did any more than an "eh, alright - is decent" job of what should've been an instant classic considering how good the book was. It's an inferior adaptation to Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and Under the Red Hood, and by a lot at that. Maybe they did/do respect the story, but if so that kind of makes it feel worse that this was the best they were capable of.

I actually think right now it’s about equal with the Under the Red Hokd in terms of degree or changes to the source material - people sometimes forget or overlook how much Winnick modified, removed, abridged, or clarified his original story. UTRH made major timeline changes, changed how and why Jason got resurrected, created a very different Joker story, modified the ending, and actually has *very* few one-to-one adaptions of scenes. Year One and DKR are far more “faithful” than UTRH is… but also more unwieldy as movies.

…Aaaaaand Long Halloween’s biggest weakness is as a single story. The art is far more consistently great and far more responsible for the story’s success than Loeb’s writing, which vacillates between lackluster to very good, and usually is more “adequate” than anything else.

[Frontier]

I actually think right now it’s about equal with the Under the Red Hokd in terms of degree or changes to the source material - people sometimes forget or overlook how much Winnick modified, removed, abridged, or clarified his original story. UTRH made major timeline changes, changed how and why Jason got resurrected, created a very different Joker story, modified the ending, and actually has *very* few one-to-one adaptions of scenes. Year One and DKR are far more “faithful” than UTRH is… but also more unwieldy as movies.

…Aaaaaand Long Halloween’s biggest weakness is as a single story. The art is far more consistently great and far more responsible for the story’s success than Loeb’s writing, which vacillates between lackluster to very good, and usually is more “adequate” than anything else.

I think with UTRH it's a case where the adaption improves immensely from the original story.

[godisawesome]

I think with UTRH it's a case where the adaption improves immensely from the original story.

Indeed.

I’ll be honest, I think Winnick is strictly a journeyman comic-book writer on average with some serious flaws that have at times overcome his work… but he clearly showed he could fine-tune and perfect one of his stories in every way when given the chance. I liked Under the Hood as a comic story, but didn’t love it. I love UTRH as probably Jason’s best story in any medium even to this date.

[Vakanai]

I actually think right now it’s about equal with the Under the Red Hokd in terms of degree or changes to the source material - people sometimes forget or overlook how much Winnick modified, removed, abridged, or clarified his original story. UTRH made major timeline changes, changed how and why Jason got resurrected, created a very different Joker story, modified the ending, and actually has *very* few one-to-one adaptions of scenes. Year One and DKR are far more “faithful” than UTRH is… but also more unwieldy as movies.

Difference is UTRH was re-scripted by the comic book writer to make it work better for a stand alone film and improved upon the original with more care and thought because it was the book writer.
Long Halloween was decidedly...not. Plus UTRH was just awesome while this was merely 'ok.'

…Aaaaaand Long Halloween’s biggest weakness is as a single story. The art is far more consistently great and far more responsible for the story’s success than Loeb’s writing, which vacillates between lackluster to very good, and usually is more “adequate” than anything else.

To each their own - been some years now, but I loved it every time I read it.

I think with UTRH it's a case where the adaption improves immensely from the original story.

Yep, and I just don't feel like TLH part 1 does that. Unless your opinion of the book is very extremely low I guess.

[godisawesome]

I’m the weirdo who liked everything about Dark Victory better than The Long Halloween save for one subplot (Harvey becoming Two-Face), so I guess my opinion of TLH’s story *is* actually pretty low; it’s not bad by any means, but it’s only functional to me.

[Frontier]

I think TLH is an iconic story with commonly criticized story flaws.

[Vakanai]

I’m the weirdo who liked everything about Dark Victory better than The Long Halloween save for one subplot (Harvey becoming Two-Face), so I guess my opinion of TLH’s story *is* actually pretty low; it’s not bad by any means, but it’s only functional to me.

Then you'd be more prone to like this new movie then since you didn't care for the book. Me though, I love the book, and this movie can't really generate more than a "meh...eh" from me.

[Matt Parker]

I think Long Halloween is a book that is beloved because A) the art is amazing, B) it has great thematic ideas, and C) it encapsulates many corners of the Batman universe and feels definitive in a way (Murder mystery, crime drama, rogues gallery, Wayne family drama, etc.). The story I think falls apart under heavy scrutiny and has plenty of room for improvement, and I don't think the ideas are all that well executed.

There are three big flaws with the book that the movie is addressing for me. One, the logistics of who was responsible for what murders don't add up by the end, and Batman looks dumb for not being able to solve a pretty simple mystery in one year. The movie seems to be laying more definitive clues as to who is Holiday, and it is making the story essentially about Batman's journey into becoming the world greatest detective, so right there I think they turned a huge weakness into a strength.

Two, I think Harvey's turn to the dark side is rushed in the comic. He goes from being the likable DA to stabbing a doctor in the back to escape the hospital in a few pages, and his pre-existing mental health problems are only briefly alluded to in one scene. The film is putting the work in to set up his mental health issues from the beginning, as we see that he was deemed unfit to carry a handgun in his psych eval and is already showing signs of a split personality. Maybe they'll screw the pooch, but I think his transformation might feel much more smooth come part 2.

Finally, I think the film included Joker in a cooler way. In the comic, his escape from Arkham was off panel and didn't seem to be a very big priority for Batman, where here it happens in a super tense sequence and Batman loses his cool once he realizes that the Joker has escaped his cell (seriously, that whole Arkham scene was...chef's kiss). This really ramps up the tension and made the Joker feel like a huge threat.

I really loved the first part (honestly, I think I enjoyed it more than any other comic book flick in at least a few years, and I watched it three times the week it hit on Blu-Ray), so I'm sad it didn't do it for you, Vakanai. At least you always have the comic! And maybe The Batman will be more to your taste.

[Vakanai]

I think Long Halloween is a book that is beloved because A) the art is amazing, B) it has great thematic ideas, and C) it encapsulates many corners of the Batman universe and feels definitive in a way (Murder mystery, crime drama, rogues gallery, Wayne family drama, etc.). The story I think falls apart under heavy scrutiny and has plenty of room for improvement, and I don't think the ideas are all that well executed.

There are three big flaws with the book that the movie is addressing for me. One, the logistics of who was responsible for what murders don't add up by the end, and Batman looks dumb for not being able to solve a pretty simple mystery in one year. The movie seems to be laying more definitive clues as to who is Holiday, and it is making the story essentially about Batman's journey into becoming the world greatest detective, so right there I think they turned a huge weakness into a strength.

Two, I think Harvey's turn to the dark side is rushed in the comic. He goes from being the likable DA to stabbing a doctor in the back to escape the hospital in a few pages, and his pre-existing mental health problems are only briefly alluded to in one scene. The film is putting the work in to set up his mental health issues from the beginning, as we see that he was deemed unfit to carry a handgun in his psych eval and is already showing signs of a split personality. Maybe they'll screw the pooch, but I think his transformation might feel much more smooth come part 2.

Finally, I think the film included Joker in a cooler way. In the comic, his escape from Arkham was off panel and didn't seem to be a very big priority for Batman, where here it happens in a super tense sequence and Batman loses his cool once he realizes that the Joker has escaped his cell (seriously, that whole Arkham scene was...chef's kiss). This really ramps up the tension and made the Joker feel like a huge threat.

I really loved the first part (honestly, I think I enjoyed it more than any other comic book flick in at least a few years, and I watched it three times the week it hit on Blu-Ray), so I'm sad it didn't do it for you, Vakanai. At least you always have the comic! And maybe The Batman will be more to your taste.

It's good you love it I guess. But it just really doesn't capture the magic of the book for me. The things you consider improvements I just consider "there." It's all just very...there. I'm hoping The Batman delivers as much as I'm hoping it is. But I still think this movie would be greatly improved if it were closer to the book. Like I said, I don't hate it, and I'm sure I'll rewatch it - maybe it'll grow on me over time. I just...don't love it. And I wanted to love it. Not being able to love a movie based on your favorite book just sucks. It could be worse, it could be bad, I could actually hate it. So there's that I guess. But it's just not much, really.