#(caped crusader spoilers)

[jesncin]

Caped Crusader, "Safe Diversity", and Catwoman

We're at a point where it's expected that a new incarnation of any story previously with a white-dominated cast would be reimagined with a "more diverse" cast. This can mean racebending them, genderbending them or making them queer, but for the purposes of this analysis we'll be focusing on racebends. Most of the time, executives will take the "safer" routes with diversifying their cast- pick a couple of unproblematic supporting characters to be incidentally "diverse this time". Other times, there might be "braver" takes where more prominent characters (perhaps even the main character) are racebent. This doesn't necessarily mean racebending prominent characters is an inherently better thing to do.

I've been more than critical of MAWS' portrayal of BIPOC characters but especially their Asian Lois before. Sometimes BIPOC representation is just a decorative palette-swap change for these shows. Caped Crusader however, is different. It's more complicated- but it's rooted in very similar problems. Unlike MAWS (though I can only speak for S1), CC is far more willing to take on political topics: classism, sexism, police corruption and brutality, even beauty standards in the entertainment industry! Yet, in choosing to portray these topics in their stylistically anachronistic 30s-40s set piece- it makes it so the show's reluctance to discuss race intersecting with any of these topics far more apparent.

(spoilers for all of Caped Crusader)

Take for instance, episode 2: "...And Be A Villain". The story is about Basil Karlo, a less than handsome actor who wishes his appearance wasn't holding him back from both love and playing roles saved for better looking people. He makes a deal with Jack Ellman, an experimental makeup artist who turns him into Clayface. This story is set in motion when Miss Yvonne Francis, a beautiful actress, goes missing. Miss Francis is a woman of color (brown skinned, unspecified) played by Lacey Chabert: a white actress. CC goes for a generally colorblind casting what with Stephie (a white girl) being voiced by Amari McCoy (a Black actress) but it always feels icky when a white actor voices a character of color. Prominent characters of color in CC are more accurately casted. However I do think animation should be wary of using their medium to get away with their show appearing more diverse than the actual talent behind it.

The episode's theme is pretty clear on how unfair the entertainment industry is in regards to who it prioritizes in leading roles. Basil is constantly emphasized as a tragically talented actor whose appearance is holding him back. "With your talent you should be a leading man, Basil." Yvonne says to Basil in a flashback. Meanwhile as Alfred is watching through movie clips featuring Yvonne and Basil together, he comments "while lovely to look at, Miss Francis is no Gloria Swanson." So Yvonne has the looks, but not the talent and still gets prestigious roles because that's showbiz. The only time this is weirdly inconsistent is when Yvonne calls out Basil/Clayface in the finale, saying:

"I don't believe your performance. You're chewing on scenery. Relying on makeup effects to enhance weak characterization. It's insincere, Basil. It's not real."

I honestly feel like this scene was just meant to quickly "subvert" Yvonne being a damsel in distress by having her call out Basil's acting. It's a moment that isn't reinforced by anything the episode set up. After all, according to Alfred, she's not as good an actor compared to Basil. That's supposed to be how they foil each other, so this moment feels unmotivated. Again, I get what they're going for, that Basil's performance ironically relies on his newfound appearance so much that even a bad actress like Yvonne can spot his meager acting. But it doesn't work when our protagonists were actually convinced by his imitation of others. She's still a damsel in distress character regardless of her having a bit of attitude when calling her captor out.

What I don't understand is: why make Yvonne a woman of color if this was the story you wanted to tell? It's not like they're paying homage to how her voice actress looks, after all. Why, in your story set in purposely anachronistic 30s-40s era noir, did the character who was meant to represent the epitome of "not talented but gets by the industry because of her conventional beauty and pretty privilege" a woman of color? We're missing the very obvious conversation here where Tinsel Town is a white industry with white biases to what it considers attractive. It doesn't matter how many attractive actors of color exist, they're still pigeon holed into stereotyped and often racist roles (especially back then), and have to work twice as hard to get the opportunities their white colleagues get. Why is Basil, a white man, the only one afforded a marginalized narrative when Yvonne is quite literally a woman of color right next to him? The episode is especially painful to sit through when Basil is afforded so much sympathy compared to Yvonne.

"He didn't have the right look. He didn't have the right face."

"The camera is kind to some, but cruel to others."

This is transparently a colorblind narrative. Yvonne is written and even casted as a white woman. The CC crew just decided she should be a WOC likely because "wouldn't it be neat if the beautiful actress in this story is POC" without thinking about how that would drastically change a narrative already critical of the showbiz industry based on appearances. It's not intersectional and flattens the narrative to being selective of the prejudices Tinsel Town has. This episode is a great example to what CC generally does with diversity. It's not afraid to be critical of society, but it gets oddly squeamish with discussing how race intersects with these topics- opting mostly for a palette-change type of representation.

It's not entirely fair to say CC doesn't ever touch on the topic of racism. It sort of does: if you read between the lines for why the mayor gives Jim Gordon his commissioner role, and more prominently with the Gentleman Ghost (a rich aristocrat ghost that steals from the poor, believing wealth is his right) being offended that his mansion is sold to Lucius Fox (saying "and you would sell it to rabble like this?")- racism is somewhat present in the world of CC. We see the women in this show experience misogyny, but it's ambiguous if any of their struggles are intersectional with that of race. But that's... just about it. Racism isn't discussed more than it is alluded to, whenever the writers decide it's relevant. Because of this, CC has a spectrum of hits and misses when it comes to integrating characters of color in their reimagined cast.

Here's how I would visualize that spectrum using canonized instances of Asian Lois Lane. I should emphasize that representation of people of color doesn't entail the narrative owing us "a racism arc" or what have you. This spectrum is more used to measure how much racial identity was integrated in the characterization of the character: whether that be cultural identity or history. Being a person of color isn't just "person who goes through racism".

This is how I'd personally place the prominent characters of color in CC on my "spectrum of racebends" chart. Generally most of the characters of color (whether reimagined that way or were originally POC already) are fairly harmless in how they were integrated into CC's world, but none of the characters feel bespoke as a reimagining of the character and are interchangeable with their white counterparts. To quote cartoonist Juni Ba (in a discussion on CC):

"...stripping characters of color in these time period stories of any cultural, [a]esthetic or social signifiers that’d make them true to the groups being represented. Instead they dress, act and speak very western."

In my opinion, the only character that is an exception to this is Linton Midnite (or as he's popularly known as: "Papa Midnite"). Midnite is a character so interlinked with Haitian culture and mysticism that even CC couldn't erase that aspect of his identity (important note: historically, the portrayal of Midnite since his creation is riddled in racism, but that's not my place to discuss here). Midnite at most speaks with an accent, dresses more nonconformingly compared to the western standard dress of all the other characters, and practices occultish stuff (though I don't think there was anything culturally specific in that episode, please correct me otherwise if someone has more insight!). That's a lot more cultural representation than just about any other character of color in CC. Midnite can't be changed to a white character, his African identity is too interlinked with who he is.

There are a few characters I consider in poor taste to be POC- that being Arnold Flass, Yvonne Francis (who we've covered already), and Harley Quinn (who will be getting her own post, as her case is complicated). So let's talk about cops, then.

I tend to be indifferent about media choosing to diversify cop characters because it feels like choosing the most "respectable to society" role for a marginalized character to play. Cops uphold bigoted systems of power at the end of the day, so that's a very comfortable place to represent your marginalized characters. It's why we keep getting gay or lesbian cops, which Batman media absolutely perpetuates as well with Renee Montoya. It's hard to cheer for two women of color being allowed to date and kiss in public when one of them is a cop, y'know? But this doesn't mean re-imagining cop characters doesn't have narrative merit.

In regards to Jim Gordon being reimagined as a Black cop, I'm gonna refer to La'Ron Readus' video on "Fixing the Batman's Copaganda problem" where he goes into detail about the missed potential of Black!Jim Gordon from Reeves' The Batman (2022). Generally, I felt that opportunity was missed in CC as well. While I love that Barbara Gordon is in CC, nothing about her being a WOC is integrated into this version of her. It felt like if either character was white, the story wouldn't be that different. The bigger issue here is the choice to racebend Arnold Flass- a previously white, blonde, cunningly smart, and brutally corrupt cop.

CC follows some of this in their version of Arnold Flass- he's paired with Harvey Bullock (also a corrupt cop). While Bullock is the brawns of the duo, Flass is the smarts. He's cunning and even implied to be willing to frame Bullock if the worse comes to it. It isn't an inherently bad idea to racebend a corrupt white cop into a Black cop. If the writers want to tell a story about how the police force assimilates people of color into the system and forces them to be just as if not more brutal than their white counterparts, then by all means tell that story.

But that's not what CC gave us. By rarely acknowledging race, we don't get to have a conversation or themes surrounding that delicate intersection of identities. We just have "diverse Flass". Look at these panels from Year One for example, can you imagine how Flass' casual disrespect for Gordon by constantly calling him "Jimmy" could be re-contextualized with a race change? Unlike other characters who just feel like missed opportunities for not integrating race into their characterization, Flass is an elephant in the room. To not acknowledge his race in themes of police corruption and brutality is to white wash the narrative with diverse paint.

I personally think the stronger narrative decision would have been to racebend Bullock as Black instead of Flass. Flass could still be the conniving cop, but he encourages Black!Bullock to be the more "violent brute" who does the dirty work for him. It would put a newfound racial layer to how Flass considers Bullock disposable. Then we could have some kind of commentary on how the police force encourages a system of abuse that makes even fellow POC turn on each other. It'd also make it so a certain scene would be better in optics.

I have many criticisms for the scene where Batman holds a gun to Flass in the finale of CC. It's a narratively unmotivated (see my criticisms for CC's Two Face here for elaboration) and weak moment that relies on metatextual shock value to cover up how underdeveloped this take on Batman is. But it's also just very uncomfortable optics-wise. It's a common and valid criticism that Batman as a character can very easily fall into copaganda, with his status, goals, and collaboration with the police force. In many ways, Batman is often written to be committing his own kind of vigilante police brutality.

Caped Crusader wants to be a deconstruction of a Batman tied to power and hellbent on his mission to eliminate crime. But because CC occasionally omits race from its narrative, the scene where Batman holds a gun to a Black cop-a man stripped of his ability to fight back-just falls flat for me. There's no acknowledgement in this scene that Batman basically gets to be an anonymous cop, "warning shots" and all. Batman shoots at an unarmed Black man several times. It's meant to be shocking to us how Bruce is willing to stoop to such a level and indulge in gratuitous gun violence, but it honestly hits too close to real incidents where this is racially the case for me to enjoy the narrative point of this scene.

You know a character who would be perfect for calling out Batman's many privileges? Selina Kyle. Let's talk about Caped Crusader's biggest downgrade.

I've heard just about all the arguments in favor for CC's reimagining of Catwoman and none have convinced me that this was in any way a good take on the character. I see people saying that this Catwoman is a return to her golden age roots, and there's a lot of misconception surrounding that assumption. So bear with me as looking at Catwoman's history is necessary to discuss race and how a character evolves.

Catwoman debuted in the 1940s as a jewel thief who disguised herself as an old lady. She was just called "The Cat" and would not don her more feline appearance until later. True to the mystery woman femme fatale trope she was inspired by, her backstory was left unknown for a long time. 10 years later, in Batman #62 it is revealed that after a plane accident bonked her head, the now named Selina Kyle got amnesia and went on a crime spree. Giving her leeway to reform and be an ally to Batman. This would historically inform how Selina Kyle toed the line between good and evil as an anti-hero.

Her origin would be revisited in 1983, in the Brave and the Bold #197. Although not canon to the mainline universe, it is still a crucial development for her character's history. In this story, Selina reveals that she lied about having amnesia to get out of facing punishment. Her true story was that she entered a life of crime to escape an abusive relationship with a rich man. The only loss her husband understood was material loss, loss of property, so stealing was how Selina fought back.

This crucial re-examination of her character transformed her from shenanigans inducing femme fatale, to a marginalized fighter. Shortly later in 1987 in Batman Year One, Catwoman is reimagined as a street-hardened sex worker in poverty. She is inspired by the Batman to become a vigilante for her own goals and gets annoyed that she's assumed to be his sidekick.

The moment Catwoman became marginalized by power, was the point where she became worthy of solo-character status. She was not only a compelling foil to Batman-capable of going toe to toe with him and make him question his motives even though she did not share his privilege-she could lead her own adventures reflecting a side of Gotham Bruce Wayne's perspective doesn't. She actively makes the setting of Gotham stronger because of how she's evolved as a character.

Catwoman's character would continue to evolve, with some iterations reimagining her as a latina woman and others where she's canonically bisexual.

While Catwoman has been portrayed by Black actresses before, I want to focus on the most recent and prominent iteration of a race-swapped Catwoman. When Matt Reeves' The Batman (2022) featured Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle, an explicitly biracial character within the text of the story, we see another step this character evolves. I think La'Ron Readus' video on "Why Race-Swapped Characters Are Not The Full Story" does a fantastic job of explaining why this is a narratively great race swap. To summarize (though I do encourage watching his video as he goes into depth about 2022 Batman's Jim Gordon as well among many other examples) and add analysis of my own: Selina being the byproduct of an Italian crime lord and a Black sex worker is a brilliant marriage of her original backstory (being connected to and abused by powerful men) and her modern backstory where she's poverty stricken (and tangentially related to a sex worker if we're talking about Batman Year One).

We understand why someone of her background would have an affinity for stray cats because of how she lost her mom at a young age, she is sympathetic to fellow people from the lower class, and explicitly calls out privileged white people- including Batman who attempted to over moralize Selina's partner as a sex worker.

"All anyone cares about in this place, are these white privileged assholes."

It's especially that last line that makes it so Selina's character isn't interchangeable with her white counterpart. She's a textually rich character to contrast Bruce in Batman 2022, and we can see how years of history and evolution has brought such an empathetic character to the screen. Interestingly, Readus feels that while 2022 Selina was an example of a race-swap that works, he believes it was great by coincidence, because of the miss that was Gordon's characterization in the same movie. I think with Reeves as a collaborator on Caped Crusader, that assumption was correct.

Selina in CC is back to being a rich socialite, but (unlike her Golden Age counterpart) she's not married into wealth- she's got generational wealth (with a dad serving jail time for tax evasion). Worse yet, she's taking what little remains of her money and spending it on superficially imitating the Batman to create her Catwoman persona. She even has her own reluctant Alfred, a Catmobile, the works. Selina steals things because. She likes shiny things. And is something of a kleptomaniac. Catwoman is instantly discovered to be Selina because of course she's not as good as Batman is with keeping a secret identity (another key difference from her Golden Age counterpart, whose backstory was shrouded in mystery for a decade).

It is laughable to me that CC touts that their version of Harley Quinn has an origin of her own outside of the Joker, only to turn around and make a Catwoman that is completely tied to copying a man as her origin (did they decide Harley's goofyness as a character needed to be replicated in Selina for some reason? In their supposed dark and edgy show?). What a strange choice to fixate on the part in Year One where Selina didn't like being mistaken for Batman's assistant despite being inspired by him and turn it into a quirky bit. It feels like such a regressive take that frames Selina as a sillier, whimsical version of Bruce that just spends money on a whim because women just aren't smart enough to know how to keep track of their money. They're too busy looking for shiny things to steal. The fact that both 2022 Batman and CC have a scene where Selina is looking through her many bills she's yet to pay is wild to me. How am I supposed to care for a Selina that has the expendable wealth to create a Catwoman costume, car, and gadgets, but delay paying her maid? One of these versions of Selina is far more sympathetic than the other.

Again, I get what CC is going for. Batman is characterized to be hellbent on catching criminals, Catwoman is supposed to serve as some kind of reflection of his obsession. They're both self destructive in their goals, but one is vengeance and the other is chasing thrills. But is that really as interesting a foil as having Catwoman be marginalized, just as skilled, and making Batman second guess himself? Is it a take that strengthens Gotham as a setting by shedding light on its lower class characters? Is it a take that makes her worth revisiting as a perpetual rogue and not a one off episode where's she's basically a shenanigans-inducing nuisance to Batman? Evolved takes on Catwoman have talked about her desire to seek thrills and paired it with how she dismantles power. So it's not like CC's take is particularly unique, it just lacks all the depth that usually surrounds Selina's thrill seeking.

In a show that is frankly desperate to make it so Bruce doesn't have a personal relationship to his rogues gallery because he's too busy being "A cold, remorseless avenger of evil, seemingly more machine than man. Forged in the fire of tragedy, every fiber of his being is dedicated to the eradication of crime." (according to promo) that's how we end up with Barbara as the foil and humanity to both Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn. How the show focuses on the police force more than Bruce. It feels especially pointed that Catwoman is characterized this way. When she doesn't contrast Bruce, she becomes less personal to him as a character that is poverty stricken but still matches up to him in skill. She can't challenge him or his worldview, he can't find her fascinating as an equal, all of their chemistry and intrigue is erased.

All this to say that of the characters revealed for CC, I was honestly surprised that Selina wasn't one of the many characters racebent. CC followed up on a Black Jim and Barbara Gordon, two characters that have been race swapped before in previous media. Most prominently! Harley is Asian in this iteration, something never done before. So why is it that Selina doesn't follow up on the many times she's been portrayed by Black actresses?

It's because it's an actual good racebend if written well. It wouldn't be a "safe" racebend because writing Selina this way means you'd have to acknowledge racism, and it would be much more noticeable if you didn't. There is no canonized version of Asian Lois Lane that parallels her relationship to Superman as an immigrant. But there is a version of Selina as a Black woman who directly calls out white people and is aware of systemic power. It's in something as prominent and mainstream as Matt Reeves' 2022 Batman. So instead it just reads as cowardice to me that CC couldn't follow up on this evolution of Selina.

Not only does it weaken Catwoman and Batman's relationship to regress Selina this way, but it actively weakens Gotham as a setting and the very themes of Caped Crusader. I personally think all the energy that went into Harley Quinn should have been shared with (or straight up gone to) Selina Kyle. Because unlike CC's take on Harley, the way Selina Kyle's marginalization intersects with race and queerness would have actually critiqued Gotham's class corruption effectively. As a Black queer woman, Selina would be among the most vulnerable people in Gotham. We don't have prominent characters in CC that truly reflect the lower class, there are these unnamed characters Harvey Dent sits next to on a train. There are some orphans with Batfam names. A proper Catwoman reimagining that takes advantage of her evolution would have filled this gap in their narrative.

But that's not how "safe diversity" works. CC would rather racebend and canonize the queerness of a character like their take on Harley Quinn. A WOC who gets to kiss a cop and call out powerful men, but not in a way that makes white people uncomfortable.

If I could edit the Sandman quote that "The great stories will always return to their original forms" for Superheroes, I'd say "The great stories will always return to their most resonant forms" because without iterations we don't get characters like the Kents, Alfred or Catwoman as we know her today. Classics are good to look to, but we like these characters because they evolve. In my opinion, none of CC's takes on these characters of color feel resonant. They're not definitive to the level of Mister Freeze's tragic love story in BTAS, among many standout narrative choices in BTAS that continue across media iterations.

In my opinion, CC isn't as thoroughly clumsy as MAWS is in regards to POC representation and race-swaps (all characters of color in MAWS get put in the left side of that chart I made. In the Sunken Place. Where they all Missed The Movement). However, I can't help but see Caped Crusader's take on the world of Gotham as nothing more than an anecdote in the evolution of Batman's story for the modern era. "It's BTAS but superficially more diverse and with less compelling narrative choices."

[thearkman360]

How Batman: Caped Crusader wasted Firebug

(MAJOR SPOILERS for Batman: Caped Crusader & Batman #318)

Hoo-boy, this is gonna be a long one...

When I heard that Firebug was going to be used in Batman: Caped Crusader I didn't pay it any mind outside of "Oh, using an obscure Batman villain that's like Firefly who isn't Firefly" and when I watched the episode with Firebug I found him to be a funny little goober villain played by Tom Kenny, that might as well have been Firefly, and nothing more. I was a bit shocked by his death since it was very sudden but other than that I didn't care.

After this I decided to look up Firebug and discovered that he has this whole backstory and motive not used in the show. In the comics, Firebug is a veteran named Joey Rigger that targets and burns down apartment buildings in Gotham City not out of rabid pyromania but out of a sympathetic cause; the buildings are deathtraps! (well at least the first two, the third was just bad luck)

His baby sister was killed after ingesting lead paint chips from the walls of the apartment the Rigger family lived in, his father was killed after falling through some stairs and breaking his neck in a different building they moved into after Rigger's sister died, and his mother had a heart attack when the elevator she was in got stuck.

Joey was serving the military at the time when all of this happened, leaving him with a strong sense of guilt. After coming back home, now with demolitions expertise, he decided to ensure that nobody would ever be harmed by the apartment buildings again and that's why he burns them down as Firebug. His plan is to just destroy the buildings that killed his family and then go back to normal. He even sends anonymous tips to the police so that people can evacuate in time, though he first encountered Batman when he was saving people that were still stuck in the building. Not saying his actions are morally correct, the third building was literally just a bad elevator, but you can't really blame him.

Eventually, Batman foils Firebug from destroying the skyscraper that killed his mother and Firebug tries to suicide bomb himself, Batman, and the skyscraper but jumps at Batman, who dodges, and Firebug falls out of the skyscraper and explodes.

Firebug is a really interesting and sympathetic character. In a way he's a dark parallel to Batman; their families were killed by a part of Gotham City, they have expert training in their field, and put on a silly animal costume and try to enact vengeance on the part of Gotham that killed their families.

In Caped Crusader, he's Firefly with a name change. They have Flass and Bullock mistakenly call him "Firefly", he's a deranged pyromaniac, and he has nothing more than that. Why?! Why not just have him be Firefly? Firebug has had two successors, Harlan Combs (a suburban father that murdered his kid's babysitter) and the third Firebug was some asshole that bought Joe Rigger's shit from an auction.

In the Caped Crusader episode "The Night of the Hunters", Firebug targets the slums of Gotham and tries to burn them down. Why not incorporate his backstory and have these slums be where his family died? In the comics, Joey Rigger was depicted as African-American in his first appearance and then white from then on. I'm surprised they didn't have that be part of the plot. Joey's neighborhood was a slum overlooked due to its African-American population and that resulted in poor living conditions that killed his family. But nah, they just had him be bootleg Firefly.

TV show screenshot: Batman: Caped Crusader

Comic screenshot: Batman #318

[jewishdragon]

Ok so now ive watched all the episodes of batman caped crusader

here are my thoughts (HUGE SPOILERS)

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

they said evil lesbian rights :D

Harley Quinn is straight up insane just off the bat she's her own unique brand of clown crazy without the even a whiff of the joker and im here for it

Ohmygod two-face's scars are disgusting its actually hard to look at that's a trigger warning yall huge Trypophobia warning (fear/reversion to holes in skin. NO BLOOD THO)

Actually the show is very bloodless but its still VERY violent they somehow managed to include a LOT of brutality without any gore, be aware of this.

The show is mostly about mundane corrupt gotham but also there are real ghosts and vampires giving it a just the right dose of comic book urban fantasy

Speaking of fantasy the racial and queer diversity for what is vaguely the 1950s america is a big fantasy but im also here for it. racism what? homophobia who? (basically there are a lot of POC, men and women, in positions of power and this is never questioned or brought up or pointed out. Also queer people can just go out for dates and engage in PDA without any issues).

batman regularly beats up cops :D

Anyways this show is not mindblowing, it's straightforward (except for the gays). The character designs are top notch, but the storytelling isnt revolutionary. what it IS is decent fresh batman stories. The fantasy 1950s is great because the lack of high tech means the power-levels of the villains and heroes feels very tangible and less unconscionable (sorry superman youre my favorite but its hard to comprehend the scale of destruction and power)

Nothing that is making me sit back and go "wow that was the best thing i experienced in my life" and more "that was really nice, it was exactly what I wanted. classic batman stories set in a fantasy version of a bygone era and new takes on the classic villains that feel well thought out"

[drbatsponge]

Easter Eggs in episode 8 of Caped Crusader got me theorizing. 🧐

There WAS a little asian girl that Leslie put a blanket over and some significant name drops.

Just saying... 🤔

[mcckenny]

[lawful-evil-novelist]

I'm so proud of him he's published.

[halfdent]

I may as well now make separate verse section for animated universe Batman I mean I have BTAS of course and I'd love to include The Long Halloween Film mayhaps as separate from my comic verse for it and then by extension two game verses being Telltale and Arkham too. Also quite literally this was an AU where in Harvey's case everything's the same aside from he's a massive asshole , which is why I would be particular as fuck about Caped Crusader as a verse but I enjoyed it so it's here !

[aslightaddity]

Caped crusader Ep 7 “Moving target” + BTAS Ep 34 “I am the night” spoilers!

Literally no one else cares about this reference or noticed it bc no one cares about the minor villian that is Jimmy Peake aka the jazzman who first appeared in BTAS “I am the night”

He’s only in this one episode and in a comic (s2 I forgot the actual number but it’s Hunter be hunted I think) but he has a jazz/music theme and uses music and jazz themed slang and he runs a gang that in the episode were told smuggles weapons

Now in Ep7 we don’t see or hear of Jimmy by name but when we see Onomatopoeia and his gang off load the train we see his men carrying instrument cases (trombone and guitar cases specifically) we can presume aren’t being used for their intended purpose (like we saw above with Jimmy pulling a gun from the guitar case)

And then later when they are being arrested or really anytime we have music going on with Onomatopoeia it’s a sort of smooth jazz

Am I saying that the creators of Caped crusader who have taken a lot of inspo from BTAS put in a minute reference to a C-tier villain? Sadly I doubt it but I sure hope so. Anyways it’s from me that I declare that Jimmy the jazzman peake is in fact working For onomatopoeia

[remnants]

batman caped crusader bruharvey is a different kind of beast entirely bc it's one thing for harvey to withdraw into himself and face his other half alone but for bruce himself to be the trigger? for him to have purposefully been his best friend's undoing and have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of his life?? oh i'm sick!!! i need to go lay down

[jesncin]

So Two Face in Caped Crusader (spoilers)

Out of all the characters that were announced for Caped Crusader, I was most intrigued over their potential re-imagining of Harvey Dent as Two Face. His description as "a corrupt DA who uses his position to help rich criminals evade justice [...] when he gets his face disfigured, for the first time in his life he actually feels empathy for other people" felt the most substantially interesting a change, even if it sounded like a huge departure from his standard origin. I'm here for shakeups, this show is already establishing itself as having an out there elseworld energy to it so I was curious.

for reference, this is how I'd visualize a very standard Harvey origin story. It's a typical, straightforward tragedy that works. A mix of Harvey's fall from grace as Gotham's good boy to a criminal makes it all the more devastating when he's close friends with Bruce Wayne- someone who keeps giving Harvey second chances because he feels he can see just a glimpse of his old friend there. A great dark reflection of Bats, 10/10, no wonder people consider Harvey as strong an arch-enemy as Joker. Simple, effective, functional.

This is what I thought Caped Crusader was going to do based on what Bruce Timm said in promotion. It's a take with some good merit- I'm imagining a Harvey who's a corrupt, privileged hot jerk who gets humbled when that corruption bites back and disfigures him. But instead of that accident awakening "previous violent tendencies" or an alter identity, perhaps (as a switch up) it's instead something that marginalizes him. His pretty privilege is literally half effective now, and suddenly he is on the receiving end of judgement he so willingly gave others. He'd be depressed, anxious, maybe some PTSD going on over the acid face incident- recognizing that many of the rogues are like him but he chooses empathy instead.

The standard tragedy of Bruce seeing glimpses of his "old friend" in Two Face would have to be changed. Maybe this time Bruce is surprised at this change of heart? Believes in second chances even if Harvey's methods can be sorta out there (kinda reminds him of himself)? Would Harvey even be violent at all? Perhaps he genuinely became a kinder, empathetic guy but has a tragic end- forcing Bruce to wonder if that kind of hope for change is possible. Or bolder yet, make him a redeemed bad guy and one of the people on team good. Maybe he's the exception to the One Bad Day theme- perhaps Gotham doesn't poison everything good.

I'm not saying my take on their description is perfect or anything (it's certainly not as perennial and self-sustaining a villain motive. Feels more built for a tragic end or redemption, etc.), just that this is where my brain went, and thought "yeah there's something here, sure I'll hear you out."

So imagine my surprise when Caped Crusader delivered what's basically a very non-committal version of Two Face's standard origin???

The lack of contrast between his pre and post-accident transformation (other than "he's more extreme now") makes the change way less dramatic. Harvey starts off as a corrupt DA who butts heads with Good Lawyer Barbara Gordon, but apparently he's not corrupt enough to take an offer from the mob. So when he does eventually accept their offer out of pressure, it doesn't feel as dramatic a descent since he was already set up to be some level of corrupt. His "good change of heart" post-accident doesn't feel that dramatic when the whole reason he got acid-faced is because he grew the morals to reject the mob's assistance.

Then there's his relationship with Bruce. It's worthy of a whole other post so I won't go too deep into it, but Caped Crusader makes it clear that Bruce Wayne in this take is a performance. Not only do we barely see Bruce and Harvey interact throughout the first half of the show, but when they finally do they don't feel particularly close. Bruce went missing one time and Harvey was concerned for him, but they forgot to wrap that up. Later after Harvey's acid-accident, Bruce takes him out to dinner. This is revealed to be a play Batman's doing to pressure Harvey into telling Bruce who assaulted him. It's framed... very strangely. The show makes it look like Bruce pushed Harvey over the edge to get answers, but what Bruce did wasn't particularly cruel or unique to him. If it wasn't Bruce, someone else would have asked Harvey out to dinner eventually. If Bruce forced him to do a public interview with the press (putting Harvey on the spot publicly before he's ready), then I'd get it. But taking Harvey out to dinner among friends isn't the cruel and inconsiderate act the show frames it to be. Then they have a meet up again in Arkham, where Bruce attempts to comfort Harvey into accepting Barbara's offer to represent him. It's still not a very genuine interaction. "Don't start growing a conscience now, Dent." it still feels like a play on Batman's part. Like he wants to protect Harvey so that a less-evil politician is in charge of Gotham. Not as a friend.

By creating a Bruce that isn't personally close to Harvey, we lose what makes their standard dynamic so tragic. There's literally a line of dialogue where Harvey has to tell us, the audience, that Bruce is his old friend because what they've shown us isn't very convincing. So who does that leave as his foil? Barbara Gordon. Yes, because when you make a Batman that doesn't care to have genuine relationships with his cast system because he's so dedicated to the mission, that means other characters who care more (Barbara) have to fill that void. There's a reason why it's Barbara who causes Harley to turn over a new leaf, the reason why the police force are more centered in the narrative compared to Bats, why she's the one targeted with an assassination attempt.

I was honestly surprised that post-acid face incident, Two-Face's arc was fairly standard? He goes on a killing spree and doesn't believe in the Justice system anymore. Only this time Harvey's moments of "humanity" are signaled with him covering his pretty boy face, framing his disfigured side as the empathetic one instead of his pretty boy side. That's basically it though, it's an aesthetic change and the story would play out the same regardless of which half of his face he covered during those moments. I thought the disfigured face representing empathy was meant to symbolize something. Like marginalization of a sort? But it really was just that- "it's the other side that's the nice one now".

After Harvey's murder spree he's shown to be kinder, but I wouldn't really call it empathy (as described in the promotion). It felt more like guilt. Harvey felt he wasn't worth saving or protecting because of his actions (pre and post acid face). He's disgusted by what he's able to get away with because of his privilege, but that's not exactly empathy is it? There's that moment Harvey helps an Arkham inmate get his comfort plush returned to him, but we don't know where that kindness comes from. What informs his empathy to criminals? It just sorta happened, unmotivated or thematic.

I figured if they're not committing to a drastically different Harvey, it meant they wanted to keep him as a long standing rogue so they made noncommittal changes to his origin. But nope, they killed him off in the last episode! Which makes me think "well then if you were going to kill him, then why not go all the way with a drastically different Harvey then??" That very obviously click-bait moment where Batman picks up a gun and fake-shoots a corrupt cop after Harvey is killed didn't even feel motivated because he was barely friends with Harvey. I'm not even convinced he's sad about his supposed friend being killed. Harvey risks his life to save Barbara after all.

It's all just a mess of pieces. They want to make brave new changes to Harvey's origin, but are held back by their noncommittal choices and their "crime fighting machine" version of Bruce. Out of all the rogues, Harvey was essentially the only one we got to see his fall from grace happen in real time. The rest of the rogues skipped to having a gimmick/costume/villain motive already and I think that robs us of being able to empathize with them. Yet even Harvey struggles thematically. The duality theme is absent, the tragedy of a childhood friend gone rogue doesn't exist, and the inclusion of the coin toss felt like an obligation instead of an integrated part of his ideals.

Batman said "Dent put his thumb on the scale in court sometimes, but he did care about justice." Really? Because the show started with Dent trying to get an innocent boy convicted as an ad for his mayoral campaign. You can't keep telling me this version of Harvey "cares about Justice" only to show me something else. If you had a Harvey who faked evidence or forced witnesses to lie in order to convict a bad guy Barbara didn't realize she was defending, then we'd have a properly morally grey situation that matches how Batman describes him in the show. Alfred ended the season saying "Harvey Dent was twisted by ambition. He lost sight of his own humanity." That's not what I watched. The Harvey Caped Crusader showed me started off as corrupt and every now and then did the right thing, and felt guilt over his power, post-acid face incident. It means something that the show essentially had to tell us how to feel about him, because the show itself certainly wasn't sure what to do with him.

[caffeinatedattorney]

i have more to say actually

Now that the shock of harvey's death has worn out im like "ough, baby, what did they do to you?"

annoyed it couldn't happen to a diff harvey but... hey, writers acknowledged harvey matters to bruce in a uh weird way? Which is Great! but now i have to keep in mind that Harvey's redemption is Death.

I would've killed for this in btas like, the shift is so big? I feel like in the last ep everyone collectively tried to forget they were talking about Asshole Harvey and not BTAS Harvey, or idk, one of the pre-crisis Harveys? Idk it felt unearned but i can't point as to why.

I wanna explore this in writing, as I normally would, but the fact it's Jackass Harvey keeps kicking me in the face lmao

(and he isn't a charming one. He just sucks and Bruce doesn't care despite saying he cares about Justice)

Edit: AND THE FACT HARVEY IS NO LONGER. AN ABUSE VICTIM. MAKES ME SO. AUGH.

I went into this thing thinking, this is not what I want but might as well give it a go, and I got hit with Major Character Death in the face.

Edit 2 bc I don't want to drag this on: Why is it easier to forgive an asshole and not extend understanding to a victim? Like, why were the writers very willing to give harvey this arch with all those implications? his self loathing kinda has a point bc he DID fuck up and he didn't care for people's lives until he looked really close.

And the more I think about it the more I'm convinced the final ep is making a point about Bruce being an ass too and needing to change? So harvey is a lesson to Bruce there. But maybe I'm wrong.

[hibiscera]

started watching caped crusader here is my review so far: JONATHAN CRANE MENTIONED!!!!!! 🗣️

[drbatsponge]

I'm ngl when I say that Bruce Timm finally cooked with Barbara Gordon in Caped Crusader, like it is the biggest redemption arc I have ever seen, he fucking did it. 😭

[mcckenny]

Doing black magic and sacrificing the blood of my butler so I can fight a ghost

[lawful-evil-novelist]

it's basil time?

basil time?

time for basil?

[halfdent]

on caped c/rusader Harv . the last two episodes felt like the best decisions they made with the character . It was almost like 'okay right decisions good job but wrong Harvey . " like if that last episode happened to my baby girl ? ;-; it would be far more of a loss . BUT I also understand that they were playing Bruce as an asshole too and they reflected each other and both changed , Bruce changed because of Harvey and seeing him actually get upset about him at the end was a nice beat but they had missed so many beats before that . It's hit and miss . Everytime Harv apologised for Twos and was accepted I was like :] that's nice . And I liked all those moments and the restaurant scene a lot . I still can't trust T/imm with Barbara after everything but her and Harv teaming up was wonderful .

I also thought , and no disrespect to the voice actors I'm sure they were doing their best with the directions they had but honestly they were the wrong voice overs for the parts of Bruce/Batman and Harvey/Two Face.

I need directors to understand that the best Harvey Dent NOT TWO FACE [ because this is paramount before even thinking of Twos ] is a Harvey who baby girls his way all over the place . The results don't lie .