The Cracked Thread

I'd like to note that Harley is the poster-child Canon Immigrant, having started in the TV show first before making her way to the comics.

And yeah, that article really dropped the ball on that one, for reasons everyone else has already noted.

I should point out that the DCAU Harley is a different Harley than the comic book canon one. Batman the Animated Series was (technically) a children's cartoon and therefore never really showed Joker killing people as frequently as the comics or the Arkham games. I mean, I think we can infer that he did, but a lot of episodes played Joker up as a wacky comic relief villain unless they were climactic moments like Mad Love or the Return of the Joker flashback.

In other words, I think DCAU Harley, the one the Cracked article is talking about, is a lot more sympathetic than most other versions of Harley, since it focused more on her being the perky sidekick and less on the murderous criminal part.

edited 23rd Jan '15 6:29:32 AM by spashthebandragon

For the record, "Mad Love" featured the newspaper headline (I'm paraphrasing here) "Joker Remains At Large; Body Count Rises", so he almost certainly does kill people.

"Wacky comic relief villain" might be selling him a little short. The Joker was always a dangerous villain. "The Joker's Favor" springs to mind, as does "Wild Cards".

edited 23rd Jan '15 9:48:41 AM by KarkatTheDalek

Ultimately, the question of how evil Harley and the Joker are is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Harley is the victim of abuse - implying that her evilness is a factor is effectively saying, "An evil person cannot be a victim. Anything is justified when it's done to an evil person."

Furthermore, the suggestion that "She's evil and therefore enjoys the abuse," is disingenuous. The act of deliberately seeking abusive relationships is indicative of extensive emotional trauma to such a point that a person could mistake abuse for love. Yes, it happens in real life, but those people need help, not to be used as an example of how their lifestyle is totally fine and not at all unhealthy.

Any argument that begins with the words "Harley deserves her abuse because" is wrong. Period. Abuse is never deserved.

Know it's late but I thought it might be helpful to explain this if you guys are interested in knowing.

[quote]"Actually, considering all the interview articles are written like that, I suspect the Cracked writer adds the jokes in. Hopefully, the rape victim was already aware of the kind of tone Cracked articles typically have, though."[quote]

They edit all of the articles, even the ones that aren't based on personal experience. Only 1 of my articles hasn't been extensively edited. I'm trying to work on being funnier with my commentary on my entries so they don't need to edit. But yeah, unless you add in the jokes yourself and they are really good jokes Cracked will edit it for you.

Given how involved the staff are I'm willing to bet she knew the jokey way they would write it in before it went up.

edited 23rd Jan '15 10:28:33 AM by IanUry

http://www.cracked.com/article_22022_5-video-game-adaptations-that-botched-sources-message.html

I think they're relationship is a good deconstruction of "all girls want bad boys" because it shows in an exaggerated fashion(meaning most people won't shack up with a super-villain) how badly that can end.

edited 23rd Jan '15 11:16:13 AM by shoboni

Which articles did you write?

That one about video games that missed the point today was pretty good. The Rambo one has to be the most horrible case of just not giving a shit about the source material I've ever seen.

edited 23rd Jan '15 12:55:21 PM by shoboni

x7 Just because the DCAU Joker is wacky doesn't mean he's non-threatening. I'm definitely not saying he's a Harmless Villain, but you've gotta admit there's a big difference in style between carving a smile into someone's face and stalking someone for years just so you can force them to hold open a door because Harley can't be expected to do it when she's carrying a giant cake.

x6 Oh, I think Harley's definitely the victim of abuse, no question about it. And I also think she's crazy, so I'm not sure how accountable she ought to be for her actions in the first place. It really depends on the adaptation. In the DCAU, once Joker's dead, she's able to pull her life back together, whereas in the Arkham games she seems to have taken over his gang (Really, the only time we ever see her waver from him in the Arkhamverse is the Suicide Squad movie, and even then she gets swayed back to his side by the end seeing as it's a prequel).

The real question is did Harley have problems before she became a psychiatrist at Arkham and Joker pushed her over the edge, or was she totally sane until he worked his magic on her? I personally believe the former, which really puts Harley on about the same level as other crazy Batman villains like Riddler or Two Face: a potentially redeemable Asshole Victim.

Now, does being evil mean she deserves to be abused? No, definitely not. None of Batman's insane rogues gallery do. They all need help. It's just that Gotham is probably not the greatest place to receive it...

x5 Cool, thanks for explaining. I had a feeling that was the case.

edited 23rd Jan '15 12:38:25 PM by spashthebandragon

I didn't mind the Goonies example, but you're right about Rambo.

The Batman was just as bad(even more so because they could've give given him baterangs for a ranged weapon like Arkham Asylum does)

edited 23rd Jan '15 12:57:23 PM by shoboni

Also true.

It's like, they could've solved it in under 10min b replace the bullet sprites with baterangs(along removing the gun and adding an animation where he flicks his hand out) and adding a bit in the manual that says you're knocking enemies out with them.

Except Batman was totally fine with killing people in the Burton movies.

"Which articles did you write?"

Co-Wrote a few, mostly about videogames and one that was basically Canon Foreigner the article. Still working on doing a solo one.

Refresh my memory.

http://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/2af5rg/batman_kills_so_many_in_the_burton_films/

So I guess it was kind of the movies that missed the point and the game went from there.

Actually, now that I think about it I don't mind Batman killing people in that game or the Burton movies. Batman's strength lies in all interpretations of him across all media being valid per the words of his creator Bob Kane. So I'm not going to be upset if a few of them involve killing.

Batman was killing folks in his earliest incarnation in the comics. In fact, the Joker was never meant to survive his second appearance, in which Batman stabs him in the heart. One of his creators, Bill Finger, was concerned that recurring villains would draw criticism that Batman's methodology is ultimately inept and fruitless, which fortunately never happened once the "Batman doesn't kill" policy was retconned into the character.

The film may have been based on this early version of Batman.

edited 23rd Jan '15 2:34:19 PM by TobiasDrake

That early version didn't last very long(he also used guns at that time) if I recall and by the time of those movies the "though shalt not kill" had become a corner-stone of his character.

- Shrugs -

I've watched those movies when I was a kid, and I never flinched at Batman killing bad guys even back then. Then again, around the same period of time, I've seen the Burton movies, the (glorious) animated series and the 1960's Batman series (which was the subject of another Cracked article yesterday, by the way). I guess I was already accustomed to the concept of "different interpretations are possible".

My man wrote an article that they didn't tell him they published and haven't paid him for. They didn't have to add much in. They wanted it in his voice as much as possible but he knew their style of writing because he's been reading the site for quite some time.

5 Bizarre Things Taxi Drivers Know About You