|
Post by Batlaw on Apr 8, 2008 17:37:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 8, 2008 18:43:38 GMT -5
Me neither. And this guys apparently didn't see any the Timmverse shows, which were hits for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 8, 2008 22:01:38 GMT -5
It seems like this guy is saying, "Everyone that loves Batman, don't watch this show!" Instead of trying to alienate the fanbase, he should have went back to the '60's show and talked about it and the comics of that decade. While it is nice that he is trying to market Batman to kids, kids already love Batman. Want proof? Go to any preschool or daycare and look at all of the kids backpacks. You will find at least one 9 times out of 10. Not to mention that parents pass on their love for the Batman.
Who left the comments underneath? It seems like they were all paid or were actually involved with the show (except that one guy that said things the way they are).
|
|
Gravity06
Legions Of Gothamite
Iron Chef
Posts: 32
|
Post by Gravity06 on Apr 8, 2008 23:52:46 GMT -5
Permit me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ...
I think he makes a point.
Dark, gritty Batman has been done to DEATH in the DCAU (We had dark, gritty Batman in B:TAS. We had dark, gritty future-Batman in "Batman Beyond". We had dark, gritty Batman in his early years in "The Batman".)
What is left? Where else can dark, gritty Batman go without rehashing what has already been DONE?
I don't how this is going to turn out, but I applaud the effort to at least do something DIFFERENT from the last sixteen years.
A shark has to keep swimming or else it will die. Unless TBTB shake things up once in a while, Batman risks becoming a dead shark.
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Apr 9, 2008 14:29:03 GMT -5
He actually sounds like one of the babymen he is critisizing. To me, he comes across as a bitter old fan from the Adam West era, you know, the ones that feel 1989 destroyed what Batman "truly" was. If this dude is an example of whats working on this show, its already doomed for failure.
|
|
|
Post by Jack-Ups on Apr 9, 2008 17:42:39 GMT -5
What an idiot! lol does he not realize Batman was a supposed to be a Dark character from the beginning, ugh very annoying esp coming from someone working on the show.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Apr 9, 2008 18:17:05 GMT -5
Exactly. I get a definite sense of hypocrisy and even maybe some self loathing in his comments? Certainly a lack of professionalism and tact or class.
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Apr 9, 2008 19:35:06 GMT -5
Maybe WB should monitor what thier "employees" do on their personal blogs/sites. Things like this does not make good PR.
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Apr 9, 2008 19:43:56 GMT -5
I have to agree with the minority that says maybe Batman has gone to dark and that a lightening up is in order.
I look at the comics. If I had kids I'm not exactly sure I'd let them read because of how dark and mature they have gotten. Then the upcoming THE DARK KNIGHT. It is shaping up, yes, to be a really awesome Batman movie but at the same time a really, really dark one. So dark, it might have accidently helped lead to the death of one its star actors. (I know I'm gonna get grief for that statement but it has to be thought of.) Its looking to be so dark I'm not exactly sure kids should go see it.
If Batman goes to dark eventually parents will complain anyway, so its best to do this now then wait till were in the middle of something else. Plus, we need a vehicle to get the kids involved. We don't complain about the The Batman comic being next to the regular Batman comic. So why should tv be any different.
And also, I seem to remember alot of these same arguments when THE BATMAN came out. And now we are using the same arguments but co-opted The Batman to make them. Its funny actually.
|
|
|
Post by ayenlou on Apr 9, 2008 22:27:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 10, 2008 11:58:13 GMT -5
Batman can impliment a little bit of Rex Kwando. (I wonder if anyone will get this reference)
I'm not crazy about the fact that this show is going "kiddie", but I'm not tore up about it either. Superfriends and Adam West Batman were both rather enjoyable when I was younger and are still fun to watch on occasion. Still, I do not like how the guy insulted the fans. Watch and wait.
|
|
|
Post by Jack-Ups on Apr 10, 2008 12:13:24 GMT -5
yeah i dont midn them making a kid friendly Batman, he is a great superhero for kids anyway. I dont think Batman comics are terrible but i think they arent great reading for kdis until like 13. why we have the Kids Wb comics : ) Also DrGreenEvil your comments are totally fair and actually do put some gd points across, but TDK is being made as a 12. So i dont think its going to be soo dark that its that bad. But agree with that kids under 12 shoudent see it.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 10, 2008 16:31:39 GMT -5
yeah i dont midn them making a kid friendly Batman, he is a great superhero for kids anyway. I dont think Batman comics are terrible but i think they arent great reading for kdis until like 13. why we have the Kids Wb comics : ) Also DrGreenEvil your comments are totally fair and actually do put some gd points across, but TDK is being made as a 12. So i dont think its going to be soo dark that its that bad. But agree with that kids under 12 shoudent see it. Knowing kids, they're gonna see it no matter what because it's Batman. It's the parents who may have a problem with it and kids probably won't get some of the stuff in it. Considering how I saw Batman Returns when I was young, alot of stuff in it didn't bother me and I didn't care.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 11, 2008 13:39:06 GMT -5
Knowing kids, they're gonna see it no matter what because it's Batman. It's the parents who may have a problem with it and kids probably won't get some of the stuff in it. Considering how I saw Batman Returns when I was young, alot of stuff in it didn't bother me and I didn't care. Same here. I watched Batman Returns when I was a little kid. I didn't realize there were some inappropriate things in there. It wasn't until I watched it again a couple of years ago that I asked the question, "What did Penguin just say?"
|
|
|
Post by arkhaminmate on Apr 11, 2008 18:59:17 GMT -5
This guy definately doesn't get Batman. & Shadowbat's right, he's probably a bitter Adam West fan who never understood the character to begin with. But,I can deal with a kid friendly Batman cartoon. We just sat through 5 seasons of kid-friendliness with The Batman. Why do they feel the need to dumb it down further? I doubt this guy even knows who Dick Sprang is. IF you can equate it's style to anything it'd be Jack Kirby, & that's stretching it pretty thin.
I'm not crazy about the casting either. Bader's a fairly good actor, but this guy isn't Batman.
|
|
jef1963
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 130
|
Post by jef1963 on Apr 12, 2008 9:01:15 GMT -5
Wow, this guy opened up a can of worms/cave of bats! I agree with some of what he said but not how he said it. I love Batman in all forms. Adam West, Christian Bale, Beyond, Returns etc. Ok Clooney not so much. Anyway I look forward to this show because some of the earliest comics I enjoyed were The Brave and Bold's where Batman would team with Sgt. Rock, Adam Strange or Kamandi. Those were the stories that took me far away from that suburban porch. I hope this series takes the same route. I don't care if its grim and gritty, I get that in the comics. But I do want kids to be able to be introduced to the character and have a reason to love him other than the fact he's on a t-shirt or he's an action figure. DC has begun to give us an animated adult animation and I'm sure more Batman will be included. I just don't want to hate on this show without seeing it and I'm hoping it will be a bit of a throw back to the character I first fell in love with.
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Apr 13, 2008 7:56:29 GMT -5
I actually don't mind a lighter version of Batman, now if he is going to be going all Jim Carey Ace Ventura, then forget it, I won't be watching.
I would like to see Batman a bit more human, and open up a bit more. I think the perfect way to play Batman would basically be have him be James Bond with a cape, as the great Grant Morrison has said about Bats.
I think reading All Star Batman and Robin has opened my eyes up a bit to wanting a toned down Batman from what Frank Miller has been writing him as.
And Dr Green Evil you bring up a great point about how most people were against The Batman and it turned out to be a very enjoyable show. And all and all I didn't really have many issues with The Batman, the only real problem was how they messed around with origins (ex. Clayface) and some of the character designs. (ex. The Joker)
Now if The Brave and The Bold can stay true to the origins and draw the heroes and villians as we have come to know and love them then I think the show will do alright.
Diedrach Badger as the voice of Bruce Wayne/Batman, Hmmmmmmm very interesting choice, not too shabby
|
|
banzaiboy
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 170
|
Post by banzaiboy on Apr 13, 2008 11:55:38 GMT -5
As long as we aren't getting 12 minute episodes of Batman and whoever rescuing cats from trees I'm fine with it. On the other hand, this guy shouldn't be trying to alienate what would be/could be some of his biggest audience. And what necessarily constitutes kid friendly? Does that mean dumbing things down? A good story is a good story...dumbing it down for kids isn't going to make it any more enjoyable to them.
(vVv)
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Apr 14, 2008 8:02:10 GMT -5
Ok, I hear what he was trying to say. I think he has an immense lack of professionalism and tact in saying it, though.
I am all for a lighter batman. In fact, I prefer it for my own kids. I had no issue with this show until he made his really rather rude remarks regarding adult fans. I think there are better ways of getting your point across rather than alienating a core part of an audience and fanbase.
|
|
clownprince1
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Why so Serious?
Posts: 114
|
Post by clownprince1 on Apr 14, 2008 19:30:38 GMT -5
I'm not looking forward to it.....
Too much on the camp edge......
At least The Batman could hold adult attention, this I'm sure won't.
|
|
Gravity06
Legions Of Gothamite
Iron Chef
Posts: 32
|
Post by Gravity06 on Apr 14, 2008 21:30:44 GMT -5
The Batman could hold adult attention, this I'm sure won't. It's not intended to hold adult attention. It's aimed at children.
|
|
|
Post by marshman98 on Apr 16, 2008 0:20:32 GMT -5
I hear Diedrich Bader is the new voice of Batman. His voice is deep...with a comedic edge. It might be fun.
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Apr 17, 2008 6:29:50 GMT -5
I hear Diedrich Bader is the new voice of Batman. His voice is deep...with a comedic edge. It might be fun. "Good Times" LoL.....
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 17, 2008 15:52:13 GMT -5
Permit me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ... I think he makes a point. Dark, gritty Batman has been done to DEATH in the DCAU (We had dark, gritty Batman in B:TAS. We had dark, gritty future-Batman in "Batman Beyond". We had dark, gritty Batman in his early years in "The Batman".) What is left? Where else can dark, gritty Batman go without rehashing what has already been DONE?I don't how this is going to turn out, but I applaud the effort to at least do something DIFFERENT from the last sixteen years. A shark has to keep swimming or else it will die. Unless TBTB shake things up once in a while, Batman risks becoming a dead shark. Batman is a dark character though. it hasnt been done to death. it's what the character is. the new place to go is to have new and interesting stories. the character shouldnt change to appease a certain demographic. kids who dont like Batman, arent going to all of a sudden like the character because he's cracking jokes and being goofy. this new show shows why once again fictional literature cannot be captured correctly anywhere else but on paper.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 17, 2008 19:37:24 GMT -5
Permit me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ... I think he makes a point. Dark, gritty Batman has been done to DEATH in the DCAU (We had dark, gritty Batman in B:TAS. We had dark, gritty future-Batman in "Batman Beyond". We had dark, gritty Batman in his early years in "The Batman".) What is left? Where else can dark, gritty Batman go without rehashing what has already been DONE?I don't how this is going to turn out, but I applaud the effort to at least do something DIFFERENT from the last sixteen years. A shark has to keep swimming or else it will die. Unless TBTB shake things up once in a while, Batman risks becoming a dead shark. Batman is a dark character though. it hasnt been done to death. it's what the character is. the new place to go is to have new and interesting stories. the character shouldnt change to appease a certain demographic. kids who dont like Batman, arent going to all of a sudden like the character because he's cracking jokes and being goofy. this new show shows why once again fictional literature cannot be captured correctly anywhere else but on paper. Yeah, we got Spider-Man for that.
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Apr 17, 2008 23:34:38 GMT -5
Well the guest heroes are stacking up. Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, Plastic Man, Aquaman... Maybe this Batman will be more like he was in the 70's. He won't be dark but still a creature of the night.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 18, 2008 12:17:01 GMT -5
Batman is a dark character though. it hasnt been done to death. it's what the character is. the new place to go is to have new and interesting stories. the character shouldnt change to appease a certain demographic. kids who dont like Batman, arent going to all of a sudden like the character because he's cracking jokes and being goofy. this new show shows why once again fictional literature cannot be captured correctly anywhere else but on paper. I heartily agree with you when it comes to dark character of Batman. He was conceived as a dark character and has retained that 70 years later. While there were spells where he was a lighter, friendlier character, you can't change his origin. Not one Adam West episode (to my knowledge) gave an origin for Batman. To ignore his origin is to ignore an essential part of his character. I guess what I am saying is that if you want kid-friendly, go with Superman. If you want a tragic character that has emotional depth and a complex psyche, go with Batman. I agree with most everything jlavaia said. The only thing I did not understand is why "fictional literature cannot be captured anywhere else but on paper". Why not?
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 18, 2008 13:26:46 GMT -5
Batman is a dark character though. it hasnt been done to death. it's what the character is. the new place to go is to have new and interesting stories. the character shouldnt change to appease a certain demographic. kids who dont like Batman, arent going to all of a sudden like the character because he's cracking jokes and being goofy. this new show shows why once again fictional literature cannot be captured correctly anywhere else but on paper. I heartily agree with you when it comes to dark character of Batman. He was conceived as a dark character and has retained that 70 years later. While there were spells where he was a lighter, friendlier character, you can't change his origin. Not one Adam West episode (to my knowledge) gave an origin for Batman. To ignore his origin is to ignore an essential part of his character. I guess what I am saying is that if you want kid-friendly, go with Superman. If you want a tragic character that has emotional depth and a complex psyche, go with Batman. I agree with most everything jlavaia said. The only thing I did not understand is why "fictional literature cannot be captured anywhere else but on paper". Why not? when literature is translated into another form of entertainment, things get changed and messed with. it's never made the same, the character's dont look as they should, etc. it's why when a book is made into a movie, the book is so much better and the movies usually change too many things, or leave out important things. book based movies almost always cast incorrectly as well and usually go in the wrong order too. look at the James Patterson movies, Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider are horrible movies, but the books are fantastic. even comic stuff, Batman in the comics is great, but in the movies everything is off. same thing with the Bourne movies. they should have named it differently and it would have been great. nothing that occurs in any of the 3 movies occured in any of the 4 books. i cant understand why they didnt just think up their own names for characters. they wouldnt have had to pay Robert Ludlum anything. it goes on and on. i've never read a Harry Potter book or seen one of those movies, but from what i've heard alot of stuff from the books has been left out of the movies. it goes the same way for literature made into tv shows. most directors or producers of shows and movies have never read the material that their movie/show is based off of, and just want to do things their own way.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 18, 2008 16:37:29 GMT -5
when literature is translated into another form of entertainment, things get changed and messed with. it's never made the same, the character's dont look as they should, etc. it's why when a book is made into a movie, the book is so much better and the movies usually change too many things, or leave out important things. book based movies almost always cast incorrectly as well and usually go in the wrong order too. look at the James Patterson movies, Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider are horrible movies, but the books are fantastic. even comic stuff, Batman in the comics is great, but in the movies everything is off. same thing with the Bourne movies. they should have named it differently and it would have been great. nothing that occurs in any of the 3 movies occured in any of the 4 books. i cant understand why they didnt just think up their own names for characters. they wouldnt have had to pay Robert Ludlum anything. it goes on and on. i've never read a Harry Potter book or seen one of those movies, but from what i've heard alot of stuff from the books has been left out of the movies. it goes the same way for literature made into tv shows. most directors or producers of shows and movies have never read the material that their movie/show is based off of, and just want to do things their own way. While I agree that many film adaptations are poorly done, I can't say that all of them are. It is impossible to 100% accurately recreate the book into a movie. I've often thought that some books would be better translated into episodic television programming. I think the problem with adaptations is that too often, the people making it are not fans of the material. That is the reason that the Lord of the Rings movies were so good. They were faithful to the material, but they deviated in ways that only made them better. I think that is where many adaptations fail. Changes have to be made for the better. The majority of film adaptations are quite awful. It seems a bit of a stretch to simply cut-off every adaptation because the majority are bad. It is more of a case by case issue, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 22, 2008 2:05:15 GMT -5
let's not forget, The Godfather, arguably the greatest film of all time, was a book first. most great movies are adaptations and we don't even know it. and it's not simply staying true to the source material, a filmmaker also must translate the tone correctly, and that's where a lot of films fail.
|
|