Batman >> View Post
Post By
Blue Jay

In Reply To
Nobody

Subj: Re: Harley Quinn
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:43:56 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Harley Quinn
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:19:56 am EDT

Previous Post

> I really dislike sidekicks. They serve to practical purpose. Batman should be retconned to get rid of sidekicks.
>
> Nolan, the awesome director of Batman Begins himself has said he does not like sidekicks and would never feature Robin in any of the films. So if he is not going to have Robin in his films what makes you think he is going to have Harley Quinn in the films? Besides her role would be meaningless in a film about titans fighting it out.
>
> It would be like having King Kong fight a T-Rex and then an archeologist shows up in the middle of the fight and says: "Go King Kong! You can do it, I am your biggest fan. "Go Kong!" Then the archeologist throws a rock at the T-Rex.
>
> It just does not work and would never work.

I don't see your argument. It's been shown in the past that sidekicks (There's gotta be a better word for this) do serve a practical purpose. They can serve as decoys or distractions, they provide input from another perspective, they can do the dirty work or take the fall. They can keep a lookout or watch your back.

In regard to your King Kong analogy, it's not quite the same, being a bit more unbalanced and unreasonable. An archaelogist cannot play on the same field as Kong and a T-Rex on any level. S/he'd just get squashed or eaten. If you look at, in this case, Robin and Harley Quinn, both are effective combatatants and tacticians (When written properly), and have faced their mentor's opposite and come out on top on more than one occasion.

As for it not working, well, one sees a lot of lawkeepers often work in pairs, and there's more than one account of criminals of varying fields having lackeys or accomplices that assisted them.

In regard to the movie, this early on, I'd have trouble with Robin and Harley appearing, but later on? Provided they don't do what they normally do and kill the villain at the end, it'd be cool to see Harley appear, either as a cameo near the end or in a later film. Honestly, it wouldn't be a stretch. Stockholm syndrome isn't a comic book plot device.

> I don't see your argument. It's been shown in the past that sidekicks (There's gotta be a better word for this) do serve a practical purpose. They can serve as decoys or distractions, they provide input from another perspective, they can do the dirty work or take the fall. They can keep a lookout or watch your back.

This is true, but why do you need a copycat of the original? In truth while sidekicks are useful they are not really necessary and often take away the limelight of the original powerful characters.

> In regard to your King Kong analogy, it's not quite the same, being a bit more unbalanced and unreasonable. An archaelogist cannot play on the same field as Kong and a T-Rex on any level. S/he'd just get squashed or eaten. If you look at, in this case, Robin and Harley Quinn, both are effective combatatants and tacticians (When written properly), and have faced their mentor's opposite and come out on top on more than one occasion.

I think it is a pretty good analogy as sidekicks can never and do never surpass their powerful mentor's shadow.

> As for it not working, well, one sees a lot of lawkeepers often work in pairs, and there's more than one account of criminals of varying fields having lackeys or accomplices that assisted them.

Sure, but it just seems ridiculous most of the time as the sidekicks usually are nowhere near as great or important as their

> In regard to the movie, this early on, I'd have trouble with Robin and Harley appearing, but later on? Provided they don't do what they normally do and kill the villain at the end, it'd be cool to see Harley appear, either as a cameo near the end or in a later film. Honestly, it wouldn't be a stretch. Stockholm syndrome isn't a comic book plot device.

No matter though, because Nolan considers it a ridiculous notion and would never do it. I happen to agree with him entirely, there is zero reason even in a cameo for their to be a sidekick in a movie.

Most sidekicks would be better off had they never been sidekicks in the first place and instead had just been created as original characters in their own series, living their own lives, then always just being shadows of their mentors created solely to relate more to the mentors.