Rejected DC Comics Designs and Show Pitches, Part 2

[iammattie]

If yall haven't seen yet, Paul Dini shared info on an unproduced Harley & Ivy spin-off via FB yesterday. I cant direct link since Im not on the platform anymore, but I compiled a reddit thread from other people posting that info and attached the Shane Glines designs ive had sitting in a Google drive for years now.

 

[Yojimbo]

If yall haven't seen yet, Paul Dini shared info on an unproduced Harley & Ivy spin-off via FB yesterday. I cant direct link since Im not on the platform anymore, but I compiled a reddit thread from other people posting that info and attached the Shane Glines designs ive had sitting in a Google drive for years now.

Good find. Thanks for sharing it.

here's the quote:

Here we go again with another edition of "Stuff From My Office."

Pardon the crummy resolution, but this one image is all I got. It was from an a pitch I created for a late night "Harley & Ivy" adult animated series nearly 25 years ago. It was similar to the current Harley Quinn HBO Max series only in that Harley & Ivy were in it and there was lots of swearing. Very few other DC characters were cleared to appear, though there were some character designs done for Amanda Waller, Supergirl, Renee Montoya, Batgirl and Catwoman. Oddly enough both The Guardian and Peacemaker were briefly considered to be recurring hero characters, though Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman were strictly out. The premise was sort of a stripped-down version of the Suicide Squad years before Harley's inclusion in the actual group. Harley & Ivy were working off their centuries-long prison sentences by doing Mission Impossible-style dirty work for Waller. Montoya was assigned to monitor them with back-up in the field from whichever recurring hero character we would eventually get the rights to use. I think it actually was The Guardian. I used him in the pilot script at any rate, with the idea he might be swapped out if we couldn't use him. Oh well, the entire thing was deemed too risque' and never went beyond the development stage. What you see here is all that remains of the gorgeous presentation artwork by Lynne Naylor-Reccardi and Chris Reccardi. I think Shane Glines may have done some of the models, too.

Well, Paul was thinking 20 years ahead of himself, lol. Sigh. (Paul is correct about Guardian and Glines) Given the time in early 2000s, I wonder if this evolved out of Gotham Girls - sort of a sequel series maybe.

 

[iammattie]

Given the time in early 2000s, I wonder if this evolved out of Gotham Girls - sort of a sequel series maybe.

I wouldnt be surprised. Its not the only GG-like pitch from the time period. There was also The Big Sleepover mini-series that didnt go through.

 

[Ethereal]

If yall haven't seen yet, Paul Dini shared info on an unproduced Harley & Ivy spin-off via FB yesterday. I cant direct link since Im not on the platform anymore, but I compiled a reddit thread from other people posting that info and attached the Shane Glines designs ive had sitting in a Google drive for years now.

I am not a fan of Harley Quinn beyond her first 2 episodes on B:TAS and then "Harley's Holiday" much later, but I always hated the fetishistic pairing of Harley and Ivy. Paul Dini simply never understood Poison Ivy - neither did Bruce Timm - and reduced her to being Harley's partner-in-crime. An eco-terrorist like her would not give someone like Quinn the time of day. The only accomplices of Ivy that worked on B:TAS were Lily and Violet in the ETERNAL YOUTH episode, who seemed like students of Dr. Pamela Isely from the time she used to lecture at Gotham University.

It's also extremely lazy writing to want to do an 'adult' spinoff show with a lot of cuss words. The reason B:TAS worked so well, and remains a classic to this day unlike TNBA and such is because everyone can enjoy it equally, regardless of age. Nevertheless, Poison Ivy is not going to work with Harley Quinn in any established incarnation of the character (prior to B:TAS).

Even in Ivy's earliest comic book appearances, where she was not an eco-terrorist and not concerned about protecting plant life, she was a solo operator who saw ANY other female criminal as a DIRECT RIVAL. In fact, her very first comic book story was about trying to ELIMINATE the top three villainesses in Gotham City at the time - Dragon Fly, Silken Spider and Tiger Moth - all 3 of whom were as silly as Harley Quinn (but also way more attractive than even the Margot Robbie version). She did not want any other woman to be in the picture; a bit of an "Evil Queen" complex from Snow White. This is something that Dini and Timm completely failed to register, but which the 1997 BATMAN & ROBIN film correctly wove into the cinematic Poison Ivy (who wanted to literally be the only woman left in the world, taking the original version of the character from the 1966 comic books to her most extreme end).

I'm glad that Dini show never saw the light of day. Anything that pairs Ivy and Harley completely misses the POINT OF POISON IVY and utterly diminishes her. Ivy was a formidable villainess who went up against Wonder Woman herself one on one in the early 70s, and unless she used her mind-control spores to turn Harley Quinn into an automaton of a servant, she would never be caught dead with the obnoxious, overrated clown girl.

 

[iammattie]

I always hated the fetishistic pairing of Harley and Ivy. Paul Dini simply never understood Poison Ivy - neither did Bruce Timm

Anything that pairs Ivy and Harley completely misses the POINT OF POISON IVY

Ima need you to run this back, cause like... calling it "fetishistic" in the case of Timm & Dini I can understand in a "this was done for the male gaze" kinda way, but by the end youre just against the pair at all outside of that context, and that has some implications to it. For clarity, are you calling the pairing fetishistic in all occurrences regardless of Dini and Timm's involvement?

 

[Ethereal]

Ima need you to run this back, cause like... calling it "fetishistic" in the case of Timm & Dini I can understand in a "this was done for the male gaze" kinda way, but by the end youre just against the pair at all outside of that context, and that has some implications to it. For clarity, are you calling the pairing fetishistic in all occurrences regardless of Dini and Timm's involvement?

It is a fetishistic pairing in all occurrences, de facto, because as I explained Poison Ivy is not the type of character who is going to become BFFs with Harley Quinn and actually live with her etc (as depicted initially by Dini and Timm, before that idea was adopted elsewhere too). When a pairing like that doesn't make sense for the character of Poison Ivy, it could only serve a fetishistic purpose across the board.

Dini & Timm were especially culpable though, not only for introducing the idea, but also for the way Harley and Ivy were visually depicted in their initial episode together - most notably the scenes of them just lounging around at Ivy's hideout dressed in a way that was EXCLUSIVELY for the male gaze and which I'm shocked the network allowed them to get away with. If that's what they did in a show that was meant primarily for kids, I am so glad we never got to see what Dini & Timm would have done in an "adult cartoon" show.

Making them lesbian lovers in other media is also fetishistic because again, it just doesn't ring true for the character of Poison Ivy as presented in the 60s, 70s and 80s - it was all jumpstarted by Dini & Timm on a fanboyish whim. They should have created a new character for Harley to pair up with (either as ambiguous BFFs or as outright lovers, either way). Like I said in my other post, Poison Ivy forming a close relationship with girls like Lily and Violet in the ETERNAL YOUTH episode who believed in her mission to punish those who commit sins against floral life made sense - but that wasn't "fetishistic" enough for Dini & Timm and many others I guess.

Let me end this reply on a positive note. I abhor the Harley/Ivy pairing, but I'm a fan of IVY, LILY and VIOLET. Ivy, Lily and Violet are perfectly in keeping with Poison Ivy's personality/character/psyche, and it's also thoroughly appropriate for all age groups. Heck, I would have been fine with Lily and Violet being ambiguous BFFs or lesbian lovers if the animated team wanted to go there or hint at it or whatever - because those two characters were written as very intelligent women, whose identities were not sexualized to start with, whereas Harley Quinn was the Joker's lover moll from day one and then suddenly Dini also seems to go "Hmmm, just imagine the possibilities if we put this chick with that other hot chick Poison Ivy together". The ETERNAL YOUTH episode was of course written by a lady - Beth Bornstein - who had a much better handle on Poison Ivy because she wasn't trying to fetishize her and wasn't thinking like a fanboy.

 

[iammattie]

It is a fetishistic pairing in all occurrences,

I ain't reading all that. You know as well as I that the DC multiverse is vast and infinite and filled with different interpretations of characters that dont adhere to one specific version. To ignore all that and continue your insistence that this is a fetish across all versions despite the author behind the pen very much holds onto those previously mentioned implications, and I'd like you to keep it out of my notifications from here on.

 

[Yojimbo]

It is a fetishistic pairing in all occurrences, de facto, because as I explained Poison Ivy is not the type of character who is going to become BFFs with Harley Quinn and actually live with her etc (as depicted initially by Dini and Timm, before that idea was adopted elsewhere too). When a pairing like that doesn't make sense for the character of Poison Ivy, it could only serve a fetishistic purpose across the board.

Dini & Timm were especially culpable though, not only for introducing the idea, but also for the way Harley and Ivy were visually depicted in their initial episode together - most notably the scenes of them just lounging around at Ivy's hideout dressed in a way that was EXCLUSIVELY for the male gaze and which I'm shocked the network allowed them to get away with. If that's what they did in a show that was meant primarily for kids, I am so glad we never got to see what Dini & Timm would have done in an "adult cartoon" show.

Making them lesbian lovers in other media is also fetishistic because again, it just doesn't ring true for the character of Poison Ivy as presented in the 60s, 70s and 80s - it was all jumpstarted by Dini & Timm on a fanboyish whim. They should have created a new character for Harley to pair up with (either as ambiguous BFFs or as outright lovers, either way). Like I said in my other post, Poison Ivy forming a close relationship with girls like Lily and Violet in the ETERNAL YOUTH episode who believed in her mission to punish those who commit sins against floral life made sense - but that wasn't "fetishistic" enough for Dini & Timm and many others I guess.

Let me end this reply on a positive note. I abhor the Harley/Ivy pairing, but I'm a fan of IVY, LILY and VIOLET. Ivy, Lily and Violet are perfectly in keeping with Poison Ivy's personality/character/psyche, and it's also thoroughly appropriate for all age groups. Heck, I would have been fine with Lily and Violet being ambiguous BFFs or lesbian lovers if the animated team wanted to go there or hint at it or whatever - because those two characters were written as very intelligent women, whose identities were not sexualized to start with, whereas Harley Quinn was the Joker's lover moll from day one and then suddenly Dini also seems to go "Hmmm, just imagine the possibilities if we put this chick with that other hot chick Poison Ivy together". The ETERNAL YOUTH episode was of course written by a lady - Beth Bornstein - who had a much better handle on Poison Ivy because she wasn't trying to fetishize her and wasn't thinking like a fanboy.

I think you're looking way too hard at things...

Characters don't stay the way they were in the 60s, 70s and 80s and get reinterpreted whether it's Harley or Batman. You don't like it, that's fine, but lots of fans dig it whether Harley and Ivy are just best friends like in BTAS/TNBA or in a relationship like the Harley Quinn series. The network did make them go back and edit the hideout scene I think you're describing in the Harley and Ivy episode. Even the Holiday Knights one was edited vs. the source comic.

Idk what you're seeing with Lily and Violet. They're just typical goons of the week.

 

[Ethereal]

I ain't reading all that. You know as well as I that the DC multiverse is vast and infinite and filled with different interpretations of characters that dont adhere to one specific version. To ignore all that and continue your insistence that this is a fetish across all versions despite the author behind the pen very much holds onto those previously mentioned implications, and I'd like you to keep it out of my notifications from here on.

I don't care what you read, and I couldn't care less about your notifications! ROTFLOL. Your last sentence didn't make any sense - I don't know what "implications" you're talking about, but definitely refrain from engaging with me in future because there are far more cogent conversations for me to have here.
As for the DC multiverse and those 'infinite interpretations', that is such a LAME COPOUT. By that logic, someone can wake up one day and decide that Poison Ivy is the Serpent from the Garden of Eden in disguise, or that she is Eve resurrected, or that Batman is just a shapeshifting Bat Fairy who planted false memories in all the Gothamites' minds about there ever being a Thomas and Martha Wayne that got shot. There are certain things that are fundamental to the fabric of a given character across the board, and I will forever stand by the fact that I think "Harley and Ivy" are the worst example of fetishism in any version of Batman.

I think you're looking way too hard at things...

The same can be said about any DC or Batman fan commenting on or analyzing anything from the franchise. Lol. It's all fiction. I'm doing a deeper dive into the dynamics behind fiction - what I consider narratively sound versus narratively unsound, wholesome versus unwholesome, psychologically on point versus totally off the mark etc.

Characters don't stay the way they were in the 60s, 70s and 80s and get reinterpreted whether it's Harley or Batman.

I haven't seen this kind of radical recharacterization of Batman in any version I've encountered. And I don't even see Harley as a character who is on the same level as Batman or Poison Ivy but that is beside the point.

To the point you seem to be trying to make - I'm genuinely curious, would you be okay if we had a Batman show where he and the Dick Grayson version of Robin or even the Tim Drake version of Robin were lovers? To me, even that would make a gazillion times more sense than this Harley/Ivy nonsense.

You don't like it, that's fine, but lots of fans dig it whether Harley and Ivy are just best friends like in BTAS/TNBA or in a relationship like the Harley Quinn series.

That doesn't mean everyone is going to be on board with it though. There seems to be a notion shared by you and the other (much more affronted) poster that what "lots of fans dig" should be accepted by everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. But at least you are going about this in a more constructive way than seeming to take it personally or something like the other poster did.

I don't think majority consensus makes something right. To me Harley/Ivy is like smoking. Once upon a time, the majority consensus was that smoking is so cool and something to be encouraged. The Harley/Ivy pairing to me is the equivalent of cigarettes.

The network did make them go back and edit the hideout scene I think you're describing in the Harley and Ivy episode. Even the Holiday Knights one was edited vs. the source comic.

Oh man, if what ultimately ended up in that hideout scene of Harley/Ivy was the EDITED version, then what Bruce Timm and co. originally put in there must have been absolutely repugnant, for the network to ultimately think that what we got was tame by contrast.

Thanks for warning me about the Holiday Knights comic though. Given my way with the moral heebe-jeebies, I definitely wouldn't want to pick up that comic.

I think Bruce Timm and Paul Dini were writing and drawing for the wrong crowd. The current 'Harley Quinn' show seems to be much more their.........thing.

Idk what you're seeing with Lily and Violet. They're just typical goons of the week.

Now you know how I feel about Harley Quinn. She was just a TYPICAL GOON OF THE WEEK, that somehow "lots of fans" (to quote what you said earlier) found endlessly fascinating for.........fetishistic reasons? Clown girl roleplay fantasies? I don't know, maybe you can tell me what was so special about Harley Quinn from her initial appearance in JOKER'S FAVOR, because I don't know what many of you are seeing with her. There were any number of female goons like that on the 60s Adam West show.

As for Lily and Violet, in another post I mentioned that it seemed to me they could have been students of Dr. Pamela Isely from the time she was a lecturer at Gotham University. I know a lot of people find Harley's humor oh-so-riveting, but funnier and more biting than any of Harley's jokes to me was when one of Ivy's ETERNAL YOUTH girls remarked "Hey, a high school graduate!" after Batman talked about Demeter being the Greek goddess of plants. The way they asked him not to "even think about it" when he tried to reach for his belt was also a great moment - for two young girls like that to be so confident and firm with him, and actually make him obey their command. They could have been developed into richer characters that I would have loved to see come face to face with Batgirl/Barbara Gordon for instance, as well as Robin - I can just picture the interactions between them and Dick Grayson's Robin, and I can also see Poison Ivy asking them to deal with the much younger Batgirl while she had bigger fish to fry with Batman.

If you can't comprehend how I could read so much into Lily and Violet, at least you know how I feel when I see people read endless things into Harley Quinn. Like I mentioned earlier, I also adore the fact that Lily and Violet were not SEXUALIZED like Harley was. With Harley, the immediate implication that Dini & Timm leave the viewers with, before she even opens her mouth in JOKER'S FAVOR is - "Ooooooo, look, the Joker is sleeping with this hot chick who is just so kinky in that harlequin outfit".

Lily & Violet on the other hand do not have such cheap, sexual implications attached to them. They are deceptive, formidable young women who are much more child-friendly for starters - because, again, B:TAS was primarily meant for younger viewers, no matter what anyone says - and although I'm sure Paul Dini and Bruce Timm would have reduced them to skimpy, fanboy-friendly outfits if those guys ever decided to use these characters, writers who are more of Beth Bornstein and my much-admired Sean Catherine Derek's mindset could have developed them further.

I can see that we are going to have to agree to disagree, but no, I will never see Harley Quinn as a great addition to the franchise just because many fans think so (whether she is with the Joker or with Poison Ivy, but ESPECIALLY with Poison Ivy), any more than I would have agreed with everyone in the 20th century that smoking was very cool and chic.

But again, to end this on a positive note - no, I'm not a fan of Dini & Timm - but I'm very grateful for creatives like Sean Catherine Derek, Beth Bornstein and many others on B:TAS who ensured that I remain a fan of the show to this day.

 

[Yojimbo]

To the point you seem to be trying to make - I'm genuinely curious, would you be okay if we had a Batman show where he and the Dick Grayson version of Robin or even the Tim Drake version of Robin were lovers? To me, even that would make a gazillion times more sense than this Harley/Ivy nonsense.

That would be against the law.

That doesn't mean everyone is going to be on board with it though. There seems to be a notion shared by you and the other (much more affronted) poster that what "lots of fans dig" should be accepted by everyone.

No, that's not what I meant. It was just a general observation that fans like the pairing. I didn't mean to imply anything further than that, you are entitled to your opinion.

Oh man, if what ultimately ended up in that hideout scene of Harley/Ivy was the EDITED version, then what Bruce Timm and co. originally put in there must have been absolutely repugnant, for the network to ultimately think that what we got was tame by contrast.

No, nothing bad from what I remember. Just dumb notes like Ivy was wearing a Save the Rainforest shirt and the network was confused she was advocating for something good.

If you can't comprehend how I could read so much into Lily and Violet, at least you know how I feel when I see people read endless things into Harley Quinn. Like I mentioned earlier, I also adore the fact that Lily and Violet were not SEXUALIZED like Harley was. With Harley, the immediate implication that Dini & Timm leave the viewers with, before she even opens her mouth in JOKER'S FAVOR is - "Ooooooo, look, the Joker is sleeping with this hot chick who is just so kinky in that harlequin outfit".

Except when I first saw "Joker's Favor" I was idk 6-8 years old and that was not a thought of mine.

I can see that we are going to have to agree to disagree, but no, I will never see Harley Quinn as a great addition to the franchise just because many fans think so (whether she is with the Joker or with Poison Ivy, but ESPECIALLY with Poison Ivy), any more than I would have agreed with everyone in the 20th century that smoking was very cool and chic.

To be clear, I'm not as beholden to Harley as most DCAU fans are. I never really was for or against her but some good stories came of her inclusion however I find her overrated but like Batman, I tend to like the stories where Joker is solo. But yeah, I think it's best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[iammattie]

I don't care what you read, and I couldn't care less about your notifications! ROTFLOL. Your last sentence didn't make any sense - I don't know what "implications" you're talking about, but definitely refrain from engaging with me in future because there are far more cogent conversations for me to have here.
As for the DC multiverse and those 'infinite interpretations', that is such a LAME COPOUT. By that logic, someone can wake up one day and decide that Poison Ivy is the Serpent from the Garden of Eden in disguise, or that she is Eve resurrected, or that Batman is just a shapeshifting Bat Fairy who planted false memories in all the Gothamites' minds about there ever being a Thomas and Martha Wayne that got shot. There are certain things that are fundamental to the fabric of a given character across the board, and I will forever stand by the fact that I think "Harley and Ivy" are the worst example of fetishism in any version of Batman.

To be clear, my post was much more direct before being asked by moderators to change the wording. I'm not sure "cogent" (clear, logical, convincing) is how I would describe your side of this conversation either, but in the hopes of my point becoming more clear, I've recently been reading a lot of this child psychologist I think you'd like based on your line of reasoning. His name was Fredric Wertham. Give him a look.

 

[Yojimbo]

Back in January, during an interview by Biz New Orleans with Swaybox Studios's Arthur Mitnz they were making a Catwoman prequel for HBO Max with Catwoman as a child but three months into development, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav made the decision to slow down on the amount of content WBD was producing for streaming. Swaybox's Catwoman movie was one of them that was canceled. Matt Reeves saw the footage, liked it, put a sizzle reel of Swaybox's work and showed it to Zaslav. Zaslav was reportedly quite impressed, dubbing the work "incredible," and reportedly told them it needed to be released as soon as possible, but with a caveat: the project needed to be a "larger story," thus Dynamic Duo was later greenlit.

 

[Frontier]

Back in January, during an interview by Biz New Orleans with Swaybox Studios's Arthur Mitnz they were making a Catwoman prequel for HBO Max with Catwoman as a child but three months into development, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav made the decision to slow down on the amount of content WBD was producing for streaming. Swaybox's Catwoman movie was one of them that was canceled. Matt Reeves saw the footage, liked it, put a sizzle reel of Swaybox's work and showed it to Zaslav. Zaslav was reportedly quite impressed, dubbing the work "incredible," and reportedly told them it needed to be released as soon as possible, but with a caveat: the project needed to be a "larger story," thus Dynamic Duo was later greenlit.

Honestly I'd take a feature about Robin's over a de-aged Catwoman movie...

 

[Yojimbo]

Honestly I'd take a feature about Robin's over a de-aged Catwoman movie...

I wouldn't turn down a Catwoman: Hunted sequel.

 

[Frontier]

I wouldn't turn down a Catwoman: Hunted sequel.

Co-starring Bruce Greenwood as Batman .

 

[RoyalRubble]

A Catwoman Hunted sequel would probably offer a larger story. The chances of continuing that DC Showcase Catwoman short are even slimmer I suppose.

Interesting to think this was one project that was saved more or less, from cancellation though it needs to be reworked into something else. Wonder how much of the initial Catwoman plot will be left in the Dynamic Duo movie, if anything at all.

 

[Yojimbo]

At 24:26-31, Dan Riba revealed Darwyn Cooke originally boarded Granny's defeat in "Legacy Part 2" with her skeleton showing "and stuff" and she "was really frying" but they got notes back on it (and other bits in the episode).

 

[Karkull]

According to the latest installment of Justice League Revisited, Dab Riba wanted Captain Marvel to appear in the crowd scenes of "Dark Heart," but unfortunately "we were told that we could only use him once. For some reason, DC had this stipulation that we could only use him once, and Bruce [Timm] was so scared that a little cameo in the backdrop of one episode would put the kibosh on a whole episode centered around him."

 

[Yojimbo]

And anyone that just wants the timestamp and quote:
41:44-42:56

Yeah. By the way there's one more thing about this episode that I didn't get a chance to mention. Uh, one of my disappointments, so you talk about the things that you, you know, put it. One of the things that I was sort of disappointed by was, um, I was hoping to, you know, Captain Marvel, Shazam, Captain Marvel in our crowd scene fighting, you know, with the, you know, with the group. And, um, and we were told that we could only use him once. DC, for some reason, DC had this stipulation that we could only use him once. And Bruce was so scared that a little cameo in the backdrop of one episode would would put the kibosh on on a whole episode centered around him that we um that we didn't we didn't include him. But there was there was like I was pushing for--hope, you know, to to to get to use him in the crowd scenes. But um cuz we knew we were going to have him on the show, but it was just like when when--when are we going to get him? When are we going to get him? And then when the episode was written, then it was like, "Oh, okay. Okay, now this is it. This is this is our one shot and they made sure--and it was and it was like clearly a one shot you know we we had to you know that was our that was our thing.

 

[Revelator]

Thanks Yojimbo--does the podcast provide transcripts, or did you go to the trouble to transcribe that quote? (If so, thanks again.)