Batman: The Long Halloween Animated Film Voice Actors Cast!

[Shadowcat]

I’d personally like someone, like Rucka, delve deeper into Bruce’s journey during that year, or make some tweaks to TLH to make it more of an origin story for him.

[bat39]

As they say, art is in the eye of the beholder, and my eyes just aren't impressed with this style.
Agree to disagree, or to each their own, or however you want to say it, but Year One while a great story, just doesn't feel like a great Batman origin to me. I'd prefer an origin story that is actually more focused on the character named in the title, but that's just me. After 30 years, I wish they'd reboot it and stick with the reboot. Or something.

I think the whole point of Year One isn't just that its an ''origin story'' - its about reintroducing the Batman mythos as a whole. Miller was not just telling the story of how and why Bruce Wayne became Batman (which we already all knew anyway). His goal was to redefine the world Batman inhabited - tonally, aesthetically and narratively.

Miller shows us a city so corrupt at multiple levels that it needs a vigilante to do the job that the police (the honest ones, that is) can't on their own. He presents a Gordon who's so disillusioned and ground down by the endemic corruption of Gotham that we really understand why this man spends the rest of his career working closely with an outlaw. And he gives us a Bruce Wayne who realizes that despite all his skills and his training, he can't do it all on his own, and he needs partners - his first partner being Gordon.

I agree that Zero Year or Earth One actually do a better job keeping the focus on Bruce Wayne. But Miller didn't just reboot Batman - he rebooted the Batman mythos as a whole, to an extent we've never seen before or since.

[SiegePerilous02]

Stylistically, I don’t mind it as much... but plot wise and in terms of it being a Batman story, I do find it flawed and less good than it should be. He's the World’s Greatest a detective; that doesn’t mean he should get every mystery right, but it does mean there’s often far more reward for him doing the deduction and dealing with the fallout.

Plus, it’s a little shakey because Loeb basically pulled two separate “cheats” on the audience, turning what was ostensibly a “fair-play” mystery into a more “shocking twist” tale; Alberto is more forgivable because we don’t see his body, but Gilda is literally shown immobile in a hospital bed during a killing. The Alberto reveal alone, I think, is actually fine... but the Gilda reveal is just an unnecessary flourish without any clues or foreshadowing.

Of course, I’m also the weirdo who doesn’t like Year One all that much because it feels more like a “Gotham story” than a “Batman” one, so I’m weird like that.

Yeah, the idea of there being a mystery that even stumps Batman is a good one. But Loeb's Bruce doesn't come across as very bright in general; like 12 year old Dick Grayson seems more on the ball with this than he does ("It means nine of you are safe. Holy ****, have you been looking at this for a year and never saw that?"), and it doesn't help that Loeb writes him with the most wooden character voice ever.

It also doesn't help that the mystery is stumping Batman, but is immediately obvious to the reader. All signs point to Alberto before his "death," than there is the cheat that no, it actually was him, JK. But Bruce doesn't learn that through any of his own efforts. And like you say, the Gilda reveal has some holes in it, like the hospital bed thing, so it seems like it is coasting by on being a clever twist than having any logic to it.

Two-Face's reveal that there were two Holiday killers and Batman breezes past it is pretty funny
"I suppose in a way Harvey was speaking in metaphor, there were two killers because he killed Carmine on this Halloween night. Or something, I'm honestly kind of checked out at this point."

I feel like that's kind of common in round robin stories that set out to feature as many Rogues as possible..

It's always a risk, but I feel like there are better ways to do it than the caricatures Loeb writes. Scarecrow and Hatter in particular, I'm left wondering how the Hell they get anything done when they are spouting nonsense 24/7

[Gaius]

Yeah, the idea of there being a mystery that even stumps Batman is a good one. But Loeb's Bruce doesn't come across as very bright in general; like 12 year old Dick Grayson seems more on the ball with this than he does ("It means nine of you are safe. Holy ****, have you been looking at this for a year and never saw that?"), and it doesn't help that Loeb writes him with the most wooden character voice ever.

It also doesn't help that the mystery is stumping Batman, but is immediately obvious to the reader. All signs point to Alberto before his "death," than there is the cheat that no, it actually was him, JK. But Bruce doesn't learn that through any of his own efforts. And like you say, the Gilda reveal has some holes in it, like the hospital bed thing, so it seems like it is coasting by on being a clever twist than having any logic to it.

Two-Face's reveal that there were two Holiday killers and Batman breezes past it is pretty funny
"I suppose in a way Harvey was speaking in metaphor, there were two killers because he killed Carmine on this Halloween night. Or something, I'm honestly kind of checked out at this point."



It's always a risk, but I feel like there are better ways to do it than the caricatures Loeb writes. Scarecrow and Hatter in particular, I'm left wondering how the Hell they get anything done when they are spouting nonsense 24/7

Yeah, I'm hoping this is one of those cases where it's not so much a sacred cow Bat-title they don't feel obligated to follow it exactly as I've tended to like the stuff inspired by TLH more than itself

[Vakanai]

I’d personally like someone, like Rucka, delve deeper into Bruce’s journey during that year, or make some tweaks to TLH to make it more of an origin story for him.

But TLH isn't an origin story, and to make it so would probably change too much. Why can't we just have a straight adaptation? It worked for Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, and this is a story revered by many on the same level.

I think the whole point of Year One isn't just that its an ''origin story'' - its about reintroducing the Batman mythos as a whole. Miller was not just telling the story of how and why Bruce Wayne became Batman (which we already all knew anyway). His goal was to redefine the world Batman inhabited - tonally, aesthetically and narratively.

Miller shows us a city so corrupt at multiple levels that it needs a vigilante to do the job that the police (the honest ones, that is) can't on their own. He presents a Gordon who's so disillusioned and ground down by the endemic corruption of Gotham that we really understand why this man spends the rest of his career working closely with an outlaw. And he gives us a Bruce Wayne who realizes that despite all his skills and his training, he can't do it all on his own, and he needs partners - his first partner being Gordon.

I agree that Zero Year or Earth One actually do a better job keeping the focus on Bruce Wayne. But Miller didn't just reboot Batman - he rebooted the Batman mythos as a whole, to an extent we've never seen before or since.

The problem with that is it means for the bulk of 30 years we've been left without a good in continuity "origin story".

Yeah, I'm hoping this is one of those cases where it's not so much a sacred cow Bat-title they don't feel obligated to follow it exactly as I've tended to like the stuff inspired by TLW more than itself

What would they even be able to change without messing it up to the point where it should've just been an original project instead of an adaptation?


I've been waiting well over a decade for them to adapt this, my favorite story, as is. I hope they treat it as the sacred Batcow it is and don't change a thing.

What's the point of making an adaptation if you don't even adapt the story?

[bat39]

The problem with that is it means for the bulk of 30 years we've been left without a good in continuity "origin story".

How exactly do you define a ''good'' origin story?

For that matter, what are the parameters for an ''origin story''?

If the criteria for an origin story is that it needs to show us how the superhero first put on the suit, then Year One fulfils that by the start of the second issue.

Year One, at the time, was the first telling of Batman's origin to really delve into the challenges that Bruce faced at the beginning, rather than just showing him fully-formed as soon as he put on the cowl. Come to think of it, Year One was a pioneer in origin stories when it comes to this - even Byrne's MOS pretty much has a fully-formed Superman, more or less the guy we all know and love, by the end of his first issue (its worth noting here that Byrne actually wanted to do a more inexperienced Superman learning the ropes, but DC wanted him to fast-track Superman's evolution in order to sync up with the rest of the DCU).

Yes, there may have been other origins that have delved into certain aspects in more depth. But none of that takes away from the transformative impact Year One had on the Batman mythos as a whole.

Bottom line is, when it comes to Batman's origins, a writer actually has a lot of leeway, because his ''origin'' literally takes place over the course of nearly two decades. Bruce's childhood and adolescence between the murders and his leaving Gotham, his years training abroad, his early pre-Batman vigilante activities in Gotham, and the early days/months/years of his Batman career - all are fair game. No one story can cover all of it with equal depth.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yeah, I'm hoping this is one of those cases where it's not so much a sacred cow Bat-title they don't feel obligated to follow it exactly as I've tended to like the stuff inspired by TLH more than itself

Yeah, TDK and the upcoming The Batman seem to take some inspiration from it but also do their own thing, and the former at least holds up better as a story in its respective medium than TLH does.

I think the story coasts by on the awesome Tim Sale art and that between it and DV, you get to see most of Batman's major Gotham rogues, a big role for Gordon and a new take on introducing Robin, so it's a good bare bones entry level comic for Batman. But it's not the best character driven story (especially for Bruce, who is dull here) or that compelling a mystery (which was essentially repeated two more times in DV and Hush).

What's the point of making an adaptation if you don't even adapt the story?

Adaptations always make tweaks to some degree.
For adapting comic arcs, I think it's kind of essential to stay true to the spirit of the text without following it exactly. We already read it the first time after all.

[Frontier]

Yeah, the idea of there being a mystery that even stumps Batman is a good one. But Loeb's Bruce doesn't come across as very bright in general; like 12 year old Dick Grayson seems more on the ball with this than he does ("It means nine of you are safe. Holy ****, have you been looking at this for a year and never saw that?"), and it doesn't help that Loeb writes him with the most wooden character voice ever.

I didn't have the same problem with Bruce's voice, but maybe having Jensen Ackles performing it will deliver the lines better.

Two-Face's reveal that there were two Holiday killers and Batman breezes past it is pretty funny
"I suppose in a way Harvey was speaking in metaphor, there were two killers because he killed Carmine on this Halloween night. Or something, I'm honestly kind of checked out at this point."

To be honest, by that point, I can kind of believe he'd checked out on that front.

It's always a risk, but I feel like there are better ways to do it than the caricatures Loeb writes. Scarecrow and Hatter in particular, I'm left wondering how the Hell they get anything done when they are spouting nonsense 24/7

Well, they're not the most mentally stable folk...

Yeah, I'm hoping this is one of those cases where it's not so much a sacred cow Bat-title they don't feel obligated to follow it exactly as I've tended to like the stuff inspired by TLH more than itself

I think they can expand and improve on it, but I don't think a Hush level of change would work very well after how controversial that change ended up being.

I think the story coasts by on the awesome Tim Sale art and that between it and DV, you get to see most of Batman's major Gotham rogues, a big role for Gordon and a new take on introducing Robin, so it's a good bare bones entry level comic for Batman. But it's not the best character driven story (especially for Bruce, who is dull here) or that compelling a mystery (which was essentially repeated two more times in DV and Hush).

Also from a continuity standpoint we see the shift in Batman's world from the mobsters of Year One and the more grounded Batman to the more comic book Batman world of maniacal Supervillains and sidekicks.

[SiegePerilous02]

I didn't have the same problem with Bruce's voice, but maybe having Jensen Ackles performing it will deliver the lines better.

I hope they just give him better lines. There's only so many times we can "hear" Bruce name drop all the major players in the story and bring up his dead parents.

Well, they're not the most mentally stable folk...

Yet somehow are able to recruit and employ henchmen and come up with elaborate gimmick crimes

Also from a continuity standpoint we see the shift in Batman's world from the mobsters of Year One and the more grounded Batman to the more comic book Batman world of maniacal Supervillains and sidekicks.

Yes, this is another strong basic idea at least. The total package of the organized crime families dying out, the new breed of super crime getting started, the fall of Harvey Dent and the introduction of Robin is an appropriately epic saga for early Batman. Beyond the awesome art though, I don't think the story allows all those ideas to live up to their full potential in the execution.

[Frontier]

I hope they just give him better lines. There's only so many times we can "hear" Bruce name drop all the major players in the story and bring up his dead parents.

They'll probably tone down the internal narration to work within am moving, visual, medium.

Yet somehow are able to recruit and employ henchmen and come up with elaborate gimmick crimes

I don't think we see a lot of henchemen in the story to be honest.

Yes, this is another strong basic idea at least. The total package of the organized crime families dying out, the new breed of super crime getting started, the fall of Harvey Dent and the introduction of Robin is an appropriately epic saga for early Batman. Beyond the awesome art though, I don't think the story allows all those ideas to live up to their full potential in the execution.

I liked a lot of stuff with the Falcone's, the treatment of Harvey and his transformation, and the rise of the Supervillains, but it's probably a "to each their own," kind of thing.

[Bad Witch]

I think the whole point of Year One isn't just that its an ''origin story'' - its about reintroducing the Batman mythos as a whole. Miller was not just telling the story of how and why Bruce Wayne became Batman (which we already all knew anyway). His goal was to redefine the world Batman inhabited - tonally, aesthetically and narratively.

Miller shows us a city so corrupt at multiple levels that it needs a vigilante to do the job that the police (the honest ones, that is) can't on their own. He presents a Gordon who's so disillusioned and ground down by the endemic corruption of Gotham that we really understand why this man spends the rest of his career working closely with an outlaw. And he gives us a Bruce Wayne who realizes that despite all his skills and his training, he can't do it all on his own, and he needs partners - his first partner being Gordon.

I agree that Zero Year or Earth One actually do a better job keeping the focus on Bruce Wayne. But Miller didn't just reboot Batman - he rebooted the Batman mythos as a whole, to an extent we've never seen before or since.

Absolutely. Zero year and earth one are cool. But year one is a beast. It's just so far ahead of those two that it's not even close.year one IS the orgin. Now Snyder did a wonderful job with gates of gotham, brought in a whole new layer with the court of owls however it can't touch year one.

Year one, the Wagner stuff, man who laughs, long Halloween and dark victory are so good id put them up against any origin/beginning of any character in all of literature.

[Vakanai]

How exactly do you define a ''good'' origin story?

One that's focused on the origin of the title character for starters.

For that matter, what are the parameters for an ''origin story''?

If the criteria for an origin story is that it needs to show us how the superhero first put on the suit, then Year One fulfils that by the start of the second issue.

No, not really. That'd be like calling All Star Superman an origin story for the first page, or the first episode of Superman and Lois an origin story for Clark's quick narration of his life and that "Thanks, my mom made it" costume gag. An origin story involves a more detailed/focused character arc. In Year One that mostly belongs to Gordon.

Year One, at the time, was the first telling of Batman's origin to really delve into the challenges that Bruce faced at the beginning, rather than just showing him fully-formed as soon as he put on the cowl. Come to think of it, Year One was a pioneer in origin stories when it comes to this - even Byrne's MOS pretty much has a fully-formed Superman, more or less the guy we all know and love, by the end of his first issue (its worth noting here that Byrne actually wanted to do a more inexperienced Superman learning the ropes, but DC wanted him to fast-track Superman's evolution in order to sync up with the rest of the DCU).

That interesting, and a good point. But that doesn't mean Year One doesn't have it's faults or can't be replaced.

Yes, there may have been other origins that have delved into certain aspects in more depth. But none of that takes away from the transformative impact Year One had on the Batman mythos as a whole.

I never said it wasn't impactful. Just that it's more of a Gordon origin story than it is Batman's, and that I prefer more Batman-centric stories.

Bottom line is, when it comes to Batman's origins, a writer actually has a lot of leeway, because his ''origin'' literally takes place over the course of nearly two decades. Bruce's childhood and adolescence between the murders and his leaving Gotham, his years training abroad, his early pre-Batman vigilante activities in Gotham, and the early days/months/years of his Batman career - all are fair game. No one story can cover all of it with equal depth.

Technically I don't know if that's the bottom line - kind of isn't the culmination of what the rest of your post was talking about. But, I do agree with this bit. There's a lot of stories you can tell over the course of Bruce's "origin" years. And a great many of them count as the best Batman stories ever told.

Adaptations always make tweaks to some degree.
For adapting comic arcs, I think it's kind of essential to stay true to the spirit of the text without following it exactly. We already read it the first time after all.

Year One and The Dark Knight Returns made no story tweaks (minor details sure, but nothing that changed the story), and they were great. So I disagree that they're essential. Can they be done and work? Yes. Under the Red Hood was better off for it. But there's a certain argument to be made for faithful adaptations too. After all, there's a difference between reading a story and watching it up on screen. Besides, we obviously like the story if we keep rereading it and wanting it to be adapted. Never mind these films have a wider audience than just us comic fans. People who will never pick up a comic will watch this movie.

And ultimately, how would you improve it? What would you change, without changing the spirit? It just feels like one of those stories were you risk ruining it through changing it far more than the possibility that you actually improve it.

[SiegePerilous02]

Year One and The Dark Knight Returns made no story tweaks (minor details sure, but nothing that changed the story), and they were great. So I disagree that they're essential. Can they be done and work? Yes. Under the Red Hood was better off for it. But there's a certain argument to be made for faithful adaptations too. After all, there's a difference between reading a story and watching it up on screen. Besides, we obviously like the story if we keep rereading it and wanting it to be adapted. Never mind these films have a wider audience than just us comic fans. People who will never pick up a comic will watch this movie.

And ultimately, how would you improve it? What would you change, without changing the spirit? It just feels like one of those stories were you risk ruining it through changing it far more than the possibility that you actually improve it.

They worked well for those films, though it also helps that both of those books are IMO better than TLH to begin with. But personally, that's still pretty boring to me. I'd rather see a wholly new story that borrows select elements from different things and spin it into something new than just taking a book and putting it on screen. That's not how everyone feels, but straight adaptations don't do much for me.

For TLH, I think having the mystery play out in a way that makes sense and also allows Batman to be competent and figure it out (at least the Alberto portion of things) on his own, like an actual detective in a mystery story, would be an improvement. Better dialogue, particularly for Bruce who is super monotonous and bland in the book, would also help. Less lame shout outs to films like Godfather would also be nice, but it looks like Calendar Man is still in it so we're stuck with Silence of the Lambs.

If they are keeping the Gilda twist, it would need better foreshadowing and hold up under scrutiny (her being in a hospital bed and somehow unhooking herself, sneaking past Harvey and the hospital staff, killing a room of guys and sneaking back into bed with nobody noticing is too much).

[Vakanai]

They worked well for those films, though it also helps that both of those books are IMO better than TLH to begin with. But personally, that's still pretty boring to me. I'd rather see a wholly new story that borrows select elements from different things and spin it into something new than just taking a book and putting it on screen. That's not how everyone feels, but straight adaptations don't do much for me.

For TLH, I think having the mystery play out in a way that makes sense and also allows Batman to be competent and figure it out (at least the Alberto portion of things) on his own, like an actual detective in a mystery story, would be an improvement. Better dialogue, particularly for Bruce who is super monotonous and bland in the book, would also help. Less lame shout outs to films like Godfather would also be nice, but it looks like Calendar Man is still in it so we're stuck with Silence of the Lambs.

If they are keeping the Gilda twist, it would need better foreshadowing and hold up under scrutiny (her being in a hospital bed and somehow unhooking herself, sneaking past Harvey and the hospital staff, killing a room of guys and sneaking back into bed with nobody noticing is too much).

I think the fundamental difference here is that, I love TLH and you just don't care for it as much, hence I would prefer faithfulness to it, and you'd rather have them make something else. Instead of an adaptation you want an original story. But I want an adaptation. So...I hope they're as faithful as they can possibly be like they were when adapting Year One, and I hope you can settle for watching any of their other original stories instead!

What? It seems like I'd be more disappointed in a wildly changed "adaptation" while you can be just as pleased the next time they make an wholly original story ala Soul of the Dragon.

[godisawesome]

The gold standard for me is still Under The Red Hood - arguably both extremely faithful and still a definite improvement. So I guess for me it’s less that I think they need to “fix” TLH, as much as I think they could use some ambition and insight to “strengthen” it.

Thing’s I love about The Long Halloween:

-The atmosphere.
-The “freaks vs mob” setup.
-The escalation of the tension on the story.
-Harvey Dent’s story.
-Selina and Bruce’s interactions.

Thing’s I think could be strengthened:

-The mystery (arguably, a couple of dialogue changes or minor adjustments in details take care of that.)
-Pacing (“Running the gauntlet” is great, but I think it could be streamlined and focused quite a bit more.)
-Catwoman’s story and Selina and Bruce’s interactions (that it’s to say, I wouldn’t mind a few pieces of Dark Victory and When in Rome popping in.)

The mystery is the biggest thing for me, though that's partially because I genuinely think it’s the weakest execution in an otherwise wonderful premise, and partially because I think they need to come up with more stuff for Bruce if they’re unlikely to adapt all his monologue - to me, you would only gain something by making Brice’s detective skills mean more to the story, and there’s plenty of room for improvement there.

I would genuinely love them adding some of Dark Victory’s moments between Bruce and Selina into the story, though, especially the scene where he tries to apologize for missing a date and bribes her with good food.