This was a real texting conversation between the editors that I thought part of the way through would be interesting for everyone to look at. To set the scene: I was at work between 5:30 and 2:00 pm. CPC is usually somewhere around there. This is the sort of thing that we can get wrapped up in, and a lot of times, leads to posts. This is unedited (except for phone numbers) and complete, just at 24 hours. Note the time stamps.
Let’s listen in on the endangered Caped Persuaders in their natural habitat, flashing around in what seems to be some kind of display for intellectual dominance…[6/9/2016 12:37 PM] CPJ: I’m out. http://m.tmz.com/#article/2016/06/08/j-k-simmons-jacked-gym-trainer/ [6/9/2016 8:47 PM] CPC: Not a fan of Jacked Gordon? [6/9/2016 8:49 PM] CPJ: Nope. Feels like a sexualized Mary Poppins. [6/9/2016 8:55 PM] CPJ: When was he ever the ripped type? He’s father figure/grandfather type. [6/9/2016 8:56 PM] CPC: It at least makes sense. He is a cop after all, So it’s not a complete non sequitur. J. Jacked Jameson would have been more problematic. [6/9/2016 8:57 PM] CPJ: More sense than ludicrous, less sense than reasonable. Really, it’s just that it feels like they didn’t actually learn anything from before. [6/9/2016 9:02 PM] CPJ: If they are just going to keep making up attributes for characters to make them cooler, it feels like they don’t think they are cool enough already. So they stray from source material. [6/9/2016 10:19 PM] CPC: Wait till the movie comes out. I’m sure people felt the same way when they retconned Alfred to have a military background, but it ended up working [6/9/2016 10:20 PM] CPJ: You and I have different ideas on that, it seems. [6/9/2016 10:31 PM] CPC: I’d say it seems more forced than a police commissioner who works out, but there’s no reason it doesn’t work. Other than it somewhat diminishes the genericness of the father figure Alfred previously was. It doesn’t make him any less fatheresque any more than it would if you found out your own father had a military background that he didn’t mention much. Plus it makes it make sense that B-Wayne can get patched up ask the time without constantly being in the hospital. Regardless, it’s an accepted part of the canon now, as might buff Gordon if it works in the context of the movie. [6/9/2016 10:39 PM] CPJ: Any old police commissioner who works out, sure, but Jim Gordon is an already established character who is strong and vital without being a superhero. Bulking him up is diminishing, if not removing, his authority from experience and wisdom to punching. Jim Gordon doesn’t brawl supervillains. That’s why Batman exists. To create this character whose difference is muscles where there were no muscles before signifies that is the direction they want to go with it, which is a new Gordon, modernized again, removing significant details. [6/9/2016 10:42 PM] CPJ: As for the BvS Alfred… most above applies. I don’t mind field medic training, but much pilot, engineer is too much for a non superhero working for a superhero. [6/9/2016 10:42 PM] CPJ: Much = mech [6/9/2016 10:50 PM] CPC: I think you’ve got it in for the Snyder-verse. We don’t know he’ll brawl with super villains, and just because he can throw a punch doesn’t mean he loses his experience/authority/wisdom. You’re the one removing these attributes because you don’t think they sync with existing ones. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that an intelligent person who has nothing better to do every day since his employer has abandoned the family manor he used to butle (?) would learn how to operate and tinker with the gadgets said employer demands on accumulating [6/9/2016 10:59 PM] CPJ: I am starting to have it in with the Snyder-verse. It goes like this for me: “We’ve got Gordon in this one.” “What’s he like?” “Older-middle aged, average build, white dude. Years of experience in the police, honest cop.” “Well, why don’t we make him have a giant jacked up physique?” “Why?” “People like beasty people” “So to pander?” “Kinda yeah”. [6/9/2016 11:16 PM] CPC: Careful now. You’re teetering on fanboy territory. [6/9/2016 11:20 PM] CPJ: I don’t mind changes if they have meaning. Mandarin isn’t a real villain, Joker’s skin isn’t actually white, Ras al Ghul’s not really immortal, fine. Great, even. But what point do muscles make? What purpose do they serve? [6/9/2016 11:22 PM] CPJ: It’s biology, evolution 101. Design supports function, function supports design. If he goes from non cut to cut, they must have some function. What could it be? [6/9/2016 11:27 PM] CPJ: Oh, and I’ve egged this on deliberately to copy and post this on the site. I do believe it all, but I normally I would have just said “Eh, we’ll see.” After the Mary Poppins bit. [6/9/2016 11:29 PM] CPC: Maybe to not be killed the first time he has a run in with a super villain without Batman present. Self defense in a gritty town up to its corrupt gills in super villains isn’t the same as seeking out villains and brawling. [6/9/2016 11:34 PM] CPJ: Seeking out is different, sure. It is brawling, though. But Gordon has gone decades doing fine before without the body build. Why make the change? [6/9/2016 11:37 PM] CPJ: I feel like I should mention, if this does post, that I know I dropped the Alfred thread, and if you want to see it continued, ask in the comments section. [6/9/2016 11:38 PM] CPJ: This is about the Law and Order’s psychiatrist gains for Jim Gordon, not Swiss Army Pennyworth. [6/9/2016 11:41 PM] CPC: Because it makes sense. He’s only done fine this far because the writers haven’t decided to have the villains go after him personally. If they had, Maybe he’d have hit the gym. [6/9/2016 11:41 PM] CPJ: #gains? I need to start using hashtags more. [6/9/2016 11:41 PM] CPC: I’m totally gonna use this in my current post too [6/9/2016 11:42 PM] CPJ: Then he becomes an old man Robin, sidekick to Batman. Taking on the villains in Gotham, old school style. [6/9/2016 11:44 PM] CPC: Not the exact exchange, just as an example of how perspective on canon is subjective [6/9/2016 11:47 PM] CPJ: No, I’m saying he is given a new role that doesn’t respect the source material. #YourDeadpoolPost [6/9/2016 11:48 PM] CPJ: You know what? Not Robin. Wildcat. They want to make him Wildcat. [6/9/2016 11:49 PM] CPJ: … actually, if they actually made him actually Wildcat, that’d be pretty awesome. [6/9/2016 11:51 PM] CPJ: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_(comics) [6/9/2016 11:56 PM] CPC: So muscular Gordon, devoid of context=overt disrespect for source material, but Dread Pirate Al Ghul, Joker taking time away from NOT having a plan that looks remarkable like an intricately constructed plan, and the Iron Man’s Lex Luthor being a pathetic loser rather than a formidable sorcerer=respecting the characters? [6/10/2016 12:00 AM] CPJ: It isn’t devoid of context. It’s context is standard Gordon, average build vs. Snyderverse Gordon, bulky build. There are only two reasons to make that change: to use them or to not use them. If he uses them, then he isn’t the same character from the books, he’s a significantly different one created for the movie. If he doesn’t, it’s pandering to a crowd that they think just wants everyone to be inexplicably buff. [6/10/2016 12:02 AM] CPJ: The examples given were meaningful for the stories being told, done to better manifest the heart of those characters, and necessary in their respective universe’s boundaries. [6/10/2016 12:09 AM] CPJ: Dude, I encourage you to keep texting, but I have work in 5 hours, so my responses will suspend until then. Night! … for now… [6/10/2016 12:10 AM] CPC: I’ll save the rest for the post [6/10/2016 12:10 AM] CPC: Frank Miller’s Batman was significantly different from previous writers’ versions. Silver age superman was significantly different from golden age superman. New writers have different takes. Just because it’s different doesn’t make it invalid or disrespectful. Your same reasoning can be applied to the changes made to the Snyder-verse. You simply don’t give it the latitude you allow the MCU because you’ve become prejudiced. Case in point: all you know is Gordon is jacked. You don’t know what the reasoning for it is or whether it is justified. You assume it’s not just because [6/10/2016 5:01 AM] CPJ: I don’t know, man. At some point it seems like you’re wanting me to call spaghetti “pizza”. [6/10/2016 9:32 AM] CPC: I’m sure the people whose first exposure to Batman was the 60s show or the early comics would say that of a serious gritty Batman is pizzghetti [6/10/2016 10:08 AM] CPJ: Interestingly, neither used guns, neither killed. One was campy on purpose, one was dark on purpose. Comes back to significant differences. On what I think your post topic is, a difference of perspective can be about subjectivity with everyone just as valid, or objectivity but someone is just wrong. [6/10/2016 10:19 AM] CPC: People arguing facts can be right or wrong. For instance it is right to say 60 show Batman doesn’t use guns and kill. It is wrong to say Batman has never killed or used guns. People arguing opinions can’t be wrong because by their very nature opinions are subjective. For instance, to say that gun toting, lethal Batman is against the core of the character is to try to make a definitive judgement on what is ultimately different for every reader [6/10/2016 10:20 AM] CPJ: Where do you put people arguing Truth? [6/10/2016 10:22 AM] CPJ: It’s a bit like looking at a shadow and arguing its source. They can be right or wrong but neither will know which unless one of them has seen the object. [6/10/2016 10:27 AM] CPC: At the nexus between, but for practical purposes here where we can only give our best educated guess at truth but necessarily fall short of grasping it in its entirety by virtue of human fallibility, we can strongly disagree and passionately argue our case but must stop short of labling our perception of truth as definitive our else miss the point of seeking truth in the first place: to constantly seek enlightenment. As soon as we believe we KNOW something we shut ourselves off to all else, which is okay for an individual. We’re all entitled to be wrong sometimes. But we can’t be allowed to impose wrongness in others. [6/10/2016 10:28 AM] CPC: True, and since to us Batman’s core is just a shadow, we can’t tell someone else he’s just wrong [6/10/2016 10:37 AM] CPJ: Ooo. Follow up: what if someone has seen the object casting the shadow? How could the rest of us tell? [6/10/2016 10:39 AM] CPC: We’re getting hung up on the whole pi/theta thing. We can and should seek truth, and the surest way to find it is to try to rule out things that are obviously not truth. But as long as there is reasonable dissent, we must consider the possibility that we’re wrong. [6/10/2016 10:40 AM] CPC: If his assessments always hold up to scrutiny [6/10/2016 10:47 AM] CPJ: Hung up it? It’s the point! [6/10/2016 10:50 AM] CPC: It’s the point I’d PHILOSOPHY. Remember, I’m the POLITICAL philosopher. [6/10/2016 10:52 AM] CPC: My job is to solve practical problens by remembering the limitations of general philosophy [6/10/2016 10:57 AM] CPJ: But isn’t your job as political, and thus, practical philosopher to discern the beast making shadow puppets on Main Street? [6/10/2016 10:58 AM] CPJ: Meh, meh. I wrote that without thinking long. I don’t necessarily stand by it. [6/10/2016 11:03 AM] CPC: No. Ourjob is to keep people from killing each other trying to get to that monster. To teach people that sometimes the monsters are just mistaken shadows. To teach that when there is an actual monster that we need to aim our attacks at it not each other, and be careful not to hit each other in the crossfire. [6/10/2016 11:13 AM] CPJ: Hmm. I’m going back to the dark caves of Theta. I left some friends chained up looking at a desperate shadow puppet show. *The Republic reference [6/10/2016 11:14 AM] CPJ: I do agree that the journey is invaluable and wonderful, but a journey without a real destination seems wrong somehow. [6/10/2016 11:29 AM] CPJ: Don’t you wish text messaging had italics? I’d use them a lot. [6/10/2016 11:30 AM] CPJ: Also, next character in a book I make is going to be named Ourjob. [6/10/2016 11:33 AM] CPC: The destination us more real than any of the shadows we’ve ever known. It’s just like the journey of a Christian: always strive for the goal (being Christlike) but know that the best you can attain in this life is a very close parallel that gas short of actual intersection, and take solace in knowing that is ok to be wrong as long as we allow others that same latitude and leave the judgement for the one who built the objects casting the shadows. [6/10/2016 11:49 AM] CPC: Falls short* [6/10/2016 11:55 AM] CPC: Typos and autocorrect really detract from a well stated philosophical zinger. [6/10/2016 11:56 AM] CPJ: I’m going to let that simmer while I finish up this bit of paid work… [6/10/2016 11:56 AM] CPC: So Jim Gordon’s buff. Have you heard about this? [6/10/2016 11:58 AM] CPJ: Ha! You beat me to it. [6/10/2016 11:59 AM] CPJ: (Editors note: Imagine a bewildered emoji here) Philosophy black hole! [6/10/2016 12:02 PM] CPC: We’re totally posting that as: On A Jacked Jim Gordon or something [6/10/2016 12:12 PM] CPJ: A was going to call it Not An Atypical C&J Conversation