SDCC: "Batman: The Killing Joke" Screenwriter Explains Controversial Sex Scene

[Unfinishedsentenc]

Also OF COURSE the main male villain would have a sexual obsession with Batgirl because she the "female one." Because every male baddie is like that, that's not predictable/cliché AT ALL, ugh. Also, he's just some thug. He's not a supervillain, or even a major crime boss, nor does he comes across as all that smart. So the idea that he could manipulate Batgirl like this, again I don't buy it and it just makes her look even worse (as does the ending).

If that's their idea of "girl power," then they and I have VERY different definitions of those words.

But since when do writers have an obligation to make sure their stories aren't cliché? Since when do they have this requirement to instantly placate the sensibilities of their audience? That confuses me. You don't get mad that Joker still kills people, even though that's something EVERY comic-book villain does these days, and it's kind of predictable. It's pretty much the same type of thing....

[Quiet Raven]

But since when do writers have an obligation to make sure their stories aren't cliché? Since when do they have this requirement to instantly placate the sensibilities of their audience? That confuses me. You don't get mad that Joker still kills people, even though that's something EVERY comic-book villain does these days, and it's kind of predictable. It's pretty much the same type of thing....

Because stories are written for entertainment and original stories are more interesting then cliche ones...

Yes, killing people is common for antagonists... but that isn't what usually makes them interesting. It is why and how they do it. Their motivations.

[godisawesome]

But since when do writers have an obligation to make sure their stories aren't cliché? Since when do they have this requirement to instantly placate the sensibilities of their audience? That confuses me. You don't get mad that Joker still kills people, even though that's something EVERY comic-book villain does these days, and it's kind of predictable. It's pretty much the same type of thing....

I think the actually aggravating thing here is that his cliche motivation fits the theme of every other element of Babs's prologue plot: everything about her focuses on her sexual nature, and always in an at least somewhat skeevy manner. Paris France's whole character is defined by being a Batgirl fetishist and would-be sexual predator all wrapped in a cheesy name, while Bab's relationship with Batman is defined by her inappropriate and poorly thought out sexual attraction to him, her decision to quit is based more off consummating her physical relationship with Batman in a stupid scenario literally exposing herself to Gotham than by her apparent incompetenc eon the film, and all of that occurs before she is literally sexually assaulted once the proper adaptation occurs.

It's more that Parris France's portrayal seems chosen to reinforce Babs's portrayal as a sexual object to be listed after than anything else, and not so much that it's a fairly trite motivation.

[Punisher007]

They're not obligated to make stories not cliché. I never said that they were. But then they cannot be surprise or outraged if people call them out/criticize them on/about it. Azz's really petty response to a fan at SDCC is just proof of that.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

Because stories are written for entertainment and original stories are more interesting then cliche ones...

Yes, killing people is common for antagonists... but that isn't what usually makes them interesting. It is why and how they do it. Their motivations.

I agree with the last part, but I still think that fans today have way too much input in regards to how the story unfolds. I'm of a mind to say that something can have both original and cliche elements; in fact, I'd say this is the case with most modern (and even classic) stories. Now if a plot is just merely copied-and-pasted from what's been done before, if the writer in question doesn't even try to make it refreshing and engaging in some new, exciting way, if he only repeats the point and not reiterates it, not introduce it in his or her own way, then yeah, it's not interesting. Then it might be deserving of some backlash. But to keep a villain's motive the same (or to give them a common antagonistic motive), I'm fine with that. As long as the motive is simply an adjunct to a never-before-seen story, there's no problem, IMO, with giving some thug some lustful desire for a girl or a giving a genius scientist some vengeful bitterness against his old high-school bullies, or whatever. It's all about how you reinvent, not necessarily how you create.

[Quiet Raven]

I agree with the last part, but I still think that fans today have way too much input in regards to how the story unfolds. I'm of a mind to say that something can have both original and cliche elements; in fact, I'd say this is the case with most modern (and even classic) stories. Now if a plot is just merely copied-and-pasted from what's been done before, if the writer in question doesn't even try to make it refreshing and engaging in some new, exciting way, if he only repeats the point and not reiterates it, not introduce it in his or her own way, then yeah, it's not interesting. Then it might be deserving of some backlash. But to keep a villain's motive the same (or to give them a common antagonistic motive), I'm fine with that. As long as the motive is simply an adjunct to a never-before-seen story, there's no problem, IMO, with giving some thug some lustful desire for a girl or a giving a genius scientist some vengeful bitterness against his old high-school bullies, or whatever. It's all about how you reinvent, not necessarily how you create.

Yeah. That is true. In fact, nowadays it's kinda not possible to create a 100% original story. Pretty much everything has been done before in some way. And him having those lustful desires for Barbara does serve a purpose. It all kinda connects to the whole love thing she has going on with Bruce. It's just whether having that whole plot was a good idea to begin with that is debatable.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

Yeah. That is true. In fact, nowadays it's kinda not possible to create a 100% original story. Pretty much everything has been done before in some way. And him having those lustful desires for Barbara does serve a purpose. It all kinda connects to the whole love thing she has going on with Bruce. It's just whether having that whole plot was a good idea to begin with that is debatable.

Exactly. And, personally, I don't think it was a good idea. Other than that part, I thought the movie was fine.

[Agent Z]

I agree with the last part, but I still think that fans today have way too much input in regards to how the story unfolds. I'm of a mind to say that something can have both original and cliche elements; in fact, I'd say this is the case with most modern (and even classic) stories. Now if a plot is just merely copied-and-pasted from what's been done before, if the writer in question doesn't even try to make it refreshing and engaging in some new, exciting way, if he only repeats the point and not reiterates it, not introduce it in his or her own way, then yeah, it's not interesting. Then it might be deserving of some backlash. But to keep a villain's motive the same (or to give them a common antagonistic motive), I'm fine with that. As long as the motive is simply an adjunct to a never-before-seen story, there's no problem, IMO, with giving some thug some lustful desire for a girl or a giving a genius scientist some vengeful bitterness against his old high-school bullies, or whatever. It's all about how you reinvent, not necessarily how you create.

I'm confused by the bolded; this sex scene was clearly not the result of fan input.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

I'm confused by the bolded; this sex scene was clearly not the result of fan input.

No, not that, I was just speaking generally. Like, if someone wanted to introduce Paris France into the comics but decided not to because fans didn't like the character, or something like that.

[Agent Z]

No, not that, I was just speaking generally. Like, if someone wanted to introduce Paris France into the comics but decided not to because fans didn't like the character, or something like that.

This type of thing has been going on for a long time though and not just a recent phenomenon. Characters get written out or killed, plots change based on audience reception. Even then, it's still on the writers as they're the ones controlling the story.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

This type of thing has been going on for a long time though and not just a recent phenomenon. Characters get written out or killed, plots change based on audience reception. Even then, it's still on the writers as they're the ones controlling the story.

Maybe a better way to put it would've been "told not to." I recognize that this sort of thing is decades old, but yet I can't shake the feeling that the abundance of fan intervention is significantly higher today than it was in the past. Maybe it's just me, maybe not. But I know for a fact that readers have become steadily more entitled when it comes to the stories they don't agree with.

[Quiet Raven]

Maybe a better way to put it would've been "told not to." I recognize that this sort of thing is decades old, but yet I can't shake the feeling that the abundance of fan intervention is significantly higher today than it was in the past. Maybe it's just me, maybe not. But I know for a fact that readers have become steadily more entitled when it comes to the stories they don't agree with.

I would guess that is because of the internet and how people are far more loud and vocal then they used to be.