What kind of Batman show do you REALLY want?

[Style]

How would you improve "The Batman"?

There's only one way to improve it: Cancel it.
Took the words right out of my mouth :p
God has created an incredibly genius mind in you:D Agent S7

how would I improve it?

Cancel it, Burn the tapes, and put the ashes of said tapes on a rocket ship, sending it to space, and blowing the ship up. Nothing can make this show any better. When bruce starts looking like Jackie Chan (and thats personally why I think JCA isnt on Kids WB at the Moment, I mean c'mon, they look so alike they wear the same clothes) its time to shut it down:shrug:
That is such a good idea, let just have it be like it never happed
The amount of times people have said "Cancel it!" in reference to how The Batman can improve is appalling, yet intriguing. Too me, the analogy would be if some 6 year old kid was having behavioral problems, and the Teacher advocated killing the kid instead of correcting the problem. It's just as illogical.

So my questions this thread are: Why don't you want The Batman to improve and possibly become a worthy Batman series? And assuming The Batman didn't exist, what kind of new Batman show not related to the DCAU and not produced by Timm would you really want? Would you want one at all?

And if you answer "No" to the last question, then I ask, Why is the Bruce Timm Batman the only Batman you accept and will ever accept in the future? Why Don't you want new, original and competent takes on Batman?

Ofcourse, my hypothosis is that this phenomenon occurs out of some mis-guided notion that Batman characters need to appear on JLU. Well, the truth is that they would likely detract from the show and bt isn't interested in turning JLU into just another continuation of BTAS anyway.

[Phantasm]

So my questions this thread are: Why don't you want The Batman to improve and possibly become a worthy Batman series? And assuming The Batman didn't exist, what kind of new Batman show not related to the DCAU and not produced by Timm would you really want? Would you want one at all?
See the thing is, in my opinion at least, you wouldn't want something that is not worth while to improve. This animated project is flawed down to its last detail. Its screwed when it comes to visuals, characters, dialogue storyline...everything. Even if you work on one aspect of it, the others will continue to remain a hindrance in its path to becoming a great show.So it only makes sense that the only way to 'improve' it would be to shut it down and restart another show.

And yes, of course I want a Batman show. Now, I'd be lying if I said, I wouldn't prefer it to be related in some way to Mr. Timm or Conroy, but if it is up to the level of any Timm show, I'll be a fan. What kind of show I want? A show that gets Batman right. I want a show similar to BTAS because it got Batman right,not because it was produced by Timm. Great, so Mr. Timm happened to be the lucky guy who hit the nail on the head when it came to definining Batman. *Applaud* But it very well could have been someone else. The point I'm trying to make is, fans don't nessesarily want a Timm Batman, but a definitive Batman. But currently only the Timm Batman is appraently the definitive one for most people so there's the reason for the mass popularity of the show.

Why Don't you want new, original and competent takes on Batman?


Hhhmm...the way I see it, there really isn't much freedom that comes along with manipulating an icon of Batman's level. There are certain...attributes and characteristics that just have to be passed on or kept constant so that Batman remains...Batman! So, 'originality' is pretty limited. Batman is just one story, there is only a number of takes you can have on it before you totally strip it of its identity.

[Fone Bone]

The amount of times people have said "Cancel it!" in reference to how The Batman can improve is appalling, yet intriguing. Too me, the analogy would be if some 6 year old kid was having behavioral problems, and the Teacher advocated killing the kid instead of correcting the problem. It's just as illogical. I agree with this.

So my questions this thread are: Why don't you want The Batman to improve and possibly become a worthy Batman series? And assuming The Batman didn't exist, what kind of new Batman show not related to the DCAU and not produced by Timm would you really want? Would you want one at all?

And if you answer "No" to the last question, then I ask, Why is the Bruce Timm Batman the only Batman you accept and will ever accept in the future? Why Don't you want new, original and competent takes on Batman?

Ofcourse, my hypothosis is that this phenomenon occurs out of some mis-guided notion that Batman characters need to appear on JLU. Well, the truth is that they would likely detract from the show and bt isn't interested in turning JLU into just another continuation of BTAS anyway.The only problem I have with the series is that the DCAU Batman is still on the air. If the show had come ten years from now I'd just think it was stupid but there would be no harm done. I think it's a shame that Ra's Al Ghul, Joker, Nightwing, Batgirl, Robin, Man-Bat, and Hugo Strange CAN'T be used by Bruce Timm when he made the definative versions of them. It strikes me as Kids WB's attempt to replace the DCAU Batman rather than update it.

[adoptedBatpuppy]

I'm glad we have The Batman Show! It's better then nothing (having no Batman Show at all) ! :D I think The Batman show is improving, and the animation is starting to grow on me too. I can't wait until 2'nd season. All I heard were good, positive things about 1'st season finale. When will it air on WB?

[Style]

See the thing is, in my opinion at least, you wouldn't want something that is not worth while to improve. This animated project is flawed down to its last detail. Its screwed when it comes to visuals, characters, dialogue storyline...everything. Even if you work on one aspect of it, the others will continue to remain a hindrance in its path to becoming a great show.So it only makes sense that the only way to 'improve' it would be to shut it down and restart another show. You see, I disaggree on "Not worthwile to improve." In my opinion, something has to be really fundamentally flawed so that it can't really improve. And The Batman isn't that fundamentally flawed, because it is using Batman characers, and better things can be done with them. And I think your objection is assuming that even if some things improve, it would never improve enough to be suitable. But because this is a hypothetical arguement, the amount the show could improve is infinitly, So the idea of "improve enough" need not be taken into account. If your making a suggestion, then your idea is how far it needs to be improved.

And yes, of course I want a Batman show. Now, I'd be lying if I said, I wouldn't prefer it to be related in some way to Mr. Timm or Conroy, but if it is up to the level of any Timm show, I'll be a fan. What kind of show I want? A show that gets Batman right. I want a show similar to BTAS because it got Batman right,not because it was produced by Timm. Great, so Mr. Timm happened to be the lucky guy who hit the nail on the head when it came to definining Batman. *Applaud* But it very well could have been someone else. The point I'm trying to make is, fans don't nessesarily want a Timm Batman, but a definitive Batman. But currently only the Timm Batman is appraently the definitive one for most people so there's the reason for the mass popularity of the show. I could quibble and say that I don't think there is such a thing as a definitive Batman, but I'll leave that aside for now. Okay, you want a show at least as good as BTAS. Great. So if The Batman could improve itself to that level, why would you still not accept it?



Hhhmm...the way I see it, there really isn't much freedom that comes along with manipulating an icon of Batman's level. There are certain...attributes and characteristics that just have to be passed on or kept constant so that Batman remains...Batman! So, 'originality' is pretty limited. Batman is just one story, there is only a number of takes you can have on it before you totally strip it of its identity. Maybe. But I think there's more room for variation than most people assume. What about a version of Batman where there was only one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he and Bruce never had a falling out, and Dick Continued as Robin into adulthood? And what if Bruce eventually tamed Selina, and they got married, and had a kid? And what if, just when Bruce thought he had constructed a life that could finally make up for the loss of his parents, Selina was coerced back into her Catwoman outfit against her will and Batman was partially, accidentally responsible for killing her? Thus proving he can never have a normal, happy life.

That version is way different than accepted bat-history, but it did happen to Earth-two Batman, who was an extension of the Golden-age original. So that was a different, radical way of tellling the story, but it was still faithful. Couldn't there be many other variations that Don't ruin the characer?

[Captain Clown]

Well, I'd want them to change the animation and writing style completely, so trashing everything and starting over would probably be the quickest way to go.

I wouldn't mind a much less definitive take on Batman than B:TAS. In fact, The Batman actually sounds pretty good on paper, a more horror-inspired, stylized series with a younger Batman and weird revamps of all the villians would actually be pretty cool, if it had more of an "all ages" tone as opposed to a "six year old" tone. There's almost nothing in the current version that could possibly live up to the potential coolness of the concept.

I don't really hate the show anyway. My take is: it's probably decent enough for kids, but I'm not a kid, so why would I want to watch it? That just puts it in the same category as 99% of cartoons on TV (JLU is really the only one I consistently watch), I'm not calling for the death of the creators or anything. The only annoying thing is of course the Bat embargo, but I don't even know how much of a difference even that really makes. How many bat-villians would we be seeing anyway?

[Style]

Well, I'd want them to change the animation and writing style completely, so trashing everything and starting over would probably be the quickest way to go.

I wouldn't mind a much less definitive take on Batman than B:TAS. In fact, The Batman actually sounds pretty good on paper, a more horror-inspired, stylized series with a younger Batman and weird revamps of all the villians would actually be pretty cool, if it had more of an "all ages" tone as opposed to a "six year old" tone.
I think your second paragraph is a little at odds with the first. You admit the concept sounds good on paper, but it skews too kiddy. So why not just suggest that the second season adjust this and go for an all ages tone?

I'm not trying to be accusing, I'm just curious.

[Phantasm]

You see, I disaggree on "Not worthwile to improve." In my opinion, something has to be really fundamentally flawed so that it can't really improve. And The Batman isn't that fundamentally flawed, because it is using Batman characers, and better things can be done with them.
The problem starts when Batman characters don't act like Batman characters. And since this show's characters embody that flaw, I consider it 'fundamentally flawed.'


Okay, you want a show at least as good as BTAS. Great. So if The Batman could improve itself to that level, why would you still not accept it?
lol!
If THE Batman improves itself to BTAS level, then in a way it wouldn't really be THE Batman anymore.;)
hahah. So, that would give me no reason to not accept it.


Maybe. But I think there's more room for variation than most people assume. What about a version of Batman where there was only one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he and Bruce never had a falling out, and Dick Continued as Robin into adulthood? And what if Bruce eventually tamed Selina, and they got married, and had a kid? And what if, just when Bruce thought he had constructed a life that could finally make up for the loss of his parents, Selina was coerced back into her Catwoman outfit against her will and Batman was partially, accidentally responsible for killing her? Thus proving he can never have a normal, happy life.

That version is way different than accepted bat-history, but it did happen to Earth-two Batman, who was an extension of the Golden-age original. So that was a different, radical way of tellling the story, but it was still faithful. Couldn't there be many other variations that Don't ruin the characer?
I don't see how it was faithful. That stuff seems like the work of some fanfiction to me, which speaks to the fact that having these characters act outrageously in situations just makes it less...real.
TAking away Jason Todd or Timmy is like snatching a very crucial aspect of Bruce's life in the sense these events have molded him to what he is today.You take them away, the Batman we all know and adore is a different person.
Give him a daughter, he is a different person.
Have him kill off Catwoman? Erm...too bizzare to even think about it. I don't see how he'd even survive to continue to be Batman.

[Captain Clown]

I think your second paragraph is a little at odds with the first. You admit the concept sounds good on paper, but it skews too kiddy. So why not just suggest that the second season adjust this and go for an all ages tone?

I'm not trying to be accusing, I'm just curious.
I did kind of think about that... well, I guess if they fired all the writers and pretty much ignored what they've done so far, they could be on to something, but what's even left? The voice cast? I don't even like the character designs.

[Silverbolt]

The problem that I have with The Batman is that it doesn't really have a year three feel at times.

Personally I don't think that Bane should have been used at all, since to my knowledge he wasn't around at that time in the Batman mythos, though I could be highly highly wrong too.

I think that it could have worked better if Batman had different villians mixed in with the more well known rogues. Have him fighting "common" mobsters like Thorne or something along those lines and gradually work in the more costumed variety...make it look like it was something of the Batman's fault that they came to be. I believe that they tried to hit on that with the show but it came off somewhat hollow.

And while I know its there just to sell toys I would get rid of Batwave, and have Batman have more lower tech stuff, still better then anyone else, but not space aged. Basically I would want Batman to have to rely more on himself then his tech. Which he sometimes over uses, such as with Bane and Firefly.

The Batman isn't as horrible as people make it out to be, is it as good as Batman TAS, no...to me that series was transcendent and one of the first toons that didn't really dumb things down for kids, and it was also a series that in general was better then the vast majority of live action material...of course I'm a 29 year old male and definately not the target audience for The Batman and theres a excellent chance that the kids of today enjoy it more then say the JL version of the character.

The changes that I would make the series would most likely make it a series that wouldn't be enjoyed by the primary demographic, but would probably be well recieved by early to mid-teens and fanboys, and it just so happens that such a show already exist for that demographic in JLU, and it would probalby also just be a revamped earlier version of B:TAS, and if your going to do something that is so similiar it just makes no sense to do it, especially when the orginal really isn't dated much at all.

[Style]

The problem starts when Batman characters don't act like Batman characters. And since this show's characters embody that flaw, I consider it 'fundamentally flawed.' But if they did start writing them like Batman characters, that would be an improvement. And it's not out of the realm of possibility.

lol!
If THE Batman improves itself to BTAS level, then in a way it wouldn't really be THE Batman anymore.;)
hahah. So, that would give me no reason to not accept it.
I was just speaking hypothetically. But I don't get what you mean by the first sentence. That by improving the show would cease to be The Batman, (As if "awful" is actually written into the definiton of The Batman?) Or that nothing could meet or exceed BTAS without becoming BTAS? I'm not sure I get you there.

I don't see how it was faithful. That stuff seems like the work of some fanfiction to me, which speaks to the fact that having these characters act outrageously in situations just makes it less...real.
TAking away Jason Todd or Timmy is like snatching a very crucial aspect of Bruce's life in the sense these events have molded him to what he is today.You take them away, the Batman we all know and adore is a different person.
Give him a daughter, he is a different person.
Have him kill off Catwoman? Erm...too bizzare to even think about it. I don't see how he'd even survive to continue to be Batman.
It all really happened, although I just gave you the really shortened version of it. In fact, that's the story of what happened to Bob Kane's original Batman later in life, so it would be the other material that's not faithful to it.

But the point I'm trying to make is that people have this certain notion in there heads of how the Batman story should unfold, but a lot of it isn't necessary, and can be altered in the retelling. Fans of the comic Batman view Jason Todd and Oracle as key characters in Batman lore, but it doesn't seem to bother you that they don't exist in the DCAU continuity. Or that TNBA Tim Drake isn't the REAL Tim Drake as far as comic fans go.

See, there isn't really one definitive Batman story, and there probably shouldn't be. I think each author should be afforded the freedom to play around with it a bit and find new things that can be done with the characters. After all, who wants to have each successive new Batman to be a retread of what came before? But I also don't want BTAS to be all there is, either.

[efumf]

This thread is ultimately pointless. The people behind this show obviously have no love for Batman or even telling a good story - they just want some of that toy money. It's not like any of the writers would take the initiative to visit Toonzone and read any of our suggestions :shrug:

[Fone Bone]

This thread is ultimately pointless. No it isn't. This thread isn't about suggestions to improve The Batman show, it's more about pointing out the hypocrisy of some fans and that they will not accept a new Batman show no matter what.

[efumf]

The fans have every right to be pissed off - this show could be amazing, but it doesn't come close. If the show ever becomes good, let me know and I'll give it another shot, but until then, there's no reason to NOT badmouth The Batman. Justice League was badmouthed a lot in its first season, and the negative feedback really helped the writers improve that show by the time Knight of Shadows aired. Hopefully these writers have the same sense and are reading our comments right now.

If we just sit back and wait for things to improve, it may never happen. The writers should be embarrassed - they're not writing a good show. Look at War World from JL - Written by Stan B. - worst episode ever, universally hated. Well, he obviously took that criticism to heart, because look at him now - he writes some of the best DCAU there is :cool:

There's nothing wrong with negativity when it's obviously founded, and I know I personally give constructive negative feedback - But it's not the viewer's job to fix this show - not everyone has a thousand ideas to offer the writers, so I can understand some people just saying they hate it and leaving it at that.

[Fone Bone]

The fans have every right to be pissed off - this show could be amazing, but it doesn't come close. If the show ever becomes good, let me know and I'll give it another shot, but until then, there's no reason to NOT badmouth The Batman. Justice League was badmouthed a lot in its first season, and the negative feedback really helped the writers improve that show by the time Knight of Shadows aired. Hopefully these writers have the same sense and are reading our comments right now.

If we just sit back and wait for things to improve, it may never happen. The writers should be embarrased - they're not writing a good show. Look at War World from JL - Written by Stan B. - worst episode ever, universally hated. Well, he obviously took that criticism to heart, because look at him now - he writes some of the best DCAU there is :cool:

There's nothing wrong with negativity when it's obviously founded, and I know I personally give constructive negative feedback. But it's not our job to fix this show - not everyone has a thousand ideas, so I can understand some people just saying they hate it and leaving it at that.I think styl's original point is if even if this show were better than BTAS we would still hate it. The idea of calling for a show's cancellation just because we don't dig it is kind of harsh. This show would earn our hate whether it was good or not. The fact that it is bad is irrelevant.

[thearchduke]

See, there isn't really one definitive Batman story, and there probably shouldn't be. I think each author should be afforded the freedom to play around with it a bit and find new things that can be done with the characters.For me, the problem with The Batman is that I'm not getting a sense of any sort of retelling. It feels like a lot of elements that are usually associated with Batman thrown together for 20 minutes- Alfred, technology, villain, threat-to-identity, dead parents, and that's the show.

It has a been there, done that sort of feel that is sad, because the concept does have potential.

[M'ral]

Okay, to start off, I have to say that I'm not of the opinion that The Batman must be cancelled in order to improve it, although I do feel that some of the show's flaws would be difficult to fix without doing so. And although B:TAS was what introduced me to Batman and is still IMHO the best Batman, it is hardly the only take on the character. I'm okay with that- Batman's been around for 60+ years now, and has changed a lot in that time. But despite the changes, Batman is still essentially the same character he was all those years ago. Surroundings, history, friends, enemies, tools, all these things can change, and although they seem to make a huge impact on Batman, he still remains basically the same person. His personality, his soul if you will, remains constant...assuming the take in question was done well. I think when Batfans in general watch a show or movie or read a comic, we're thinking, "Is this really Batman?". We know who he is, and we love that person, and so our enjoyment of the show/movie/comic depends heavily on how much of that person we see in that particular version of Batman.

It seems to me that The Batman, for one reason or another, has failed to develop its version of Batman at all. He's basically a non-entity, a shallow character in a familiar costume who talks a lot but never really says anything. If the writers took the time and effort to show us who their Batman is, hopefully being true to the soul of the hero we know so well and love so much, I think the fan outrage would greatly diminish. When Batman is Batman, I for one can forgive a lot when it comes to quality (and I did sometimes on B:TAS). But when Batman isn't Batman, when the writers take too many liberties and tinker with the soul of the character, the show sucks no matter how good the production quality is. The Batman is neither. It's in limbo, and I think that's what we're really angry about.

To define its Batman, The Batman will need better, deeper stories, better dialogue, better writing in general. Every series is entitled to its fluff pieces, but so far The Batman's entire first season has been fluff. I understand that it's not written for the adult crowd, and that to a six-year-old child, anybody in a black cape with pointy ears is Batman, but the fact is, a large portion of Batman's following IS old enough to differentiate between good storytelling and bad, and old enough to complain very loudly when it's bad. And honestly, who should WB really be catering to? Who is Batman's most salable market? Translation: Who actually has the money to spend on Batman?! But that's a discussion for another thread...

Anyway, my point is, if The Batman is going to improve, it has to define its characters, specifically its star. At the moment, the Penguin has a deeper, more concrete character than Batman. (whether or not it's a good character is up for debate :rolleyes: ) The writers have to get out of their hibernation and realize that it's not okay to use the image of Batman without also incorporating his soul. Without it, the show has no heart, and the fans will always feel cheated.

TAking away Jason Todd or Timmy is like snatching a very crucial aspect of Bruce's life in the sense these events have molded him to what he is today.You take them away, the Batman we all know and adore is a different person.
Give him a daughter, he is a different person.

I partly disagree. Yes, we are shaped to some extent by our experiences, but there are also parts of the human soul that cannot be changed, that are deeply ingrained in us from the day we are born. Continuing the Batman/Batman Earth 2 example, yes, Earth 2 Batman had a very different life from "our" Batman, and sometimes their behaviors and responses to situations were different. But please don't try to tell me that, if "our" Batman looked Earth 2 Batman in the eye, he wouldn't see something of himself, or that we the readers wouldn't see inate similarities in the two Batmans that go far beyond those on the surface. How many times have we seen Batman meet a mirror image of himself, one led astray (for good or ill) by an event not shared, only to have the mirror Batman "see the light" and become more like "our" Batman? Certain aspects of his personality are unavoidable, as unique as fingerprints, and just as permanent. If the version of Batman we're currently viewing doesn't reflect them, we always feel something is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think every version of Batman we see should be cookie-cutter redos of a single "canon" version. Heck, I'm as guilty as anyone of violating continuity...in my fanfics, Batman is married to my heroine and has a five-year-old son, and yes, that changed him. Part of Batman's appeal is his adaptability to new circumstances, new interpretations. But there are certain things about Batman that nothing will change, and those are the things that define him as a person. Human beings are more than the sum of their experiences, and Batman is no exception.

:eek: If I haven't made my point by now, I'm probably not going to, so I'll shut up now.

[EJill34]

Justice League was badmouthed a lot in its first season, and the negative feedback really helped the writers improve that show by the time Knight of Shadows aired.
I think you're giving the fans too much credit. The progression from "Secret Origins" to the latter half of the season was not because of our criticism but because the creators became more comfortable with the characters and the format. While some of our suggestions probably contributed to the 2nd season, I honestly think that they realized a lot of it themselves. Probably the only thing we had an input on was Superman. Past that, a lot of changes were happening by the end of Season 1; Season 2 just emphasized them.

If we just sit back and wait for things to improve, it may never happen. The writers should be embarrassed - they're not writing a good show. Look at War World from JL - Written by Stan B. - worst episode ever, universally hated. Well, he obviously took that criticism to heart, because look at him now - he writes some of the best DCAU there is :cool:
He was writing some pretty damn good episodes before: "The Late Mr. Kent," "Disappearing Inque" and "Lost Soul" to name a few off the top of my head.

[Gaunt]

I feel that “The Batman” is extremely underrated, especially if you analyze some of the complaints.



“The characters aren’t acting like Batman characters!”-They aren’t supposed to. What makes “The Batman” different from “Batman: The Animated Series” is that it is trying to display character development.



If you examine the original Animated Series, you’ll note that little character development occurs. From first episode to the last, Batman remains the same: a cold, remote vigilante with a desire for justice. Any character evolution occurs off-screen with things like “The Lost Years” (though it can be argued that development occurred in Mask of the Phantasm). What “The Batman” is trying to do is display how Bruce Wayne became Batman, but this process takes time. Expecting instantaneous results is irrational.



For example, I think that the portrayal of Bruce Wayne in “The Batman” can be used to benefit the series. Think about it. If you were to compare B:TAS Bruce Wayne to “The Batman” Bruce Wayne, the first thing that would spring to your mind is the childish behavior of Bruce in “The Batman.” He eats nachos and listens to pop music. Why, it’s almost if the executives want him to appear “hip” for the younger audience. That’s what I thought anyway.



But upon further examination I think that this could be a benefit for the series in that it is trying to display Bruce as more human than the B:TAS version. By starting at this point, the show can better show the evolution of the character. Give him a few more tragedies and he’ll be the vigilante we know and love.



“The show is something to sell toys!”- I won’t argue with this. Batman is a million-dollar franchise and it would be idiotic for Warner Brothers to let it waste away. But just because its original intent is to sell toys doesn’t mean it can’t grow beyond it. Take the movie franchise.



Warner Brothers obviously didn’t care about how close the movie was to the comics. The merchandising alone for the 1989 movie is testament to this. But nevertheless, Burton was able to provide some brilliant portrayals of the character.



If you think about it, “Batman: The Animated Series” was created to sell toys. Remember when the show was changed to “The Adventures of Batman and Robin?” Bruce Timm and the crew admit that the change was made to help the toy companies.



You see, the way to improve the show is to let it move beyond its constraints. Get rid of the “sci-fi” guns, giant robots, etc. Give it time and the show will probably be a real gem. After all, the first couple of episodes of B:TAS weren’t THAT good.

[efumf]

I think you're giving the fans too much credit. Yes, I'm sure the show wouldn't have gone down a too different path without the negative criticism from the fans - this is a Bruce Timm show we're talking about here, after all :) But still, some of the negative feedback probably helped to shape the show into what it eventually became. I think in season 1, they were learning to do things without Dini and that's why they took a few missteps.

Gaunt - true, they're TRYING to display character development. They just aren't having much success - I'd give a great example from the Clayface episode but it's too spoilery. Let's just say a certain someone's motivation for being evil shouldn't be "My boss yelled at me." :confused:

And something tells me you need to go back and rewatch BTAS - the show was praised for portraying Batman as human. If he gets any more human in this new show, they may as well change his name to Peter Parker.

Batman doesn't need fixing, believe it or not. There's a reason Conroy's Batman is still the definitive version after all these years.

Batwaveman is really helping me understand how Batman fans felt in the 60s when the Dark Knight Detective was coming into his own in the greatest Batman comics that had ever been published, and then suddenly this mockery of a Batgadgetman show is on every TV screen in the country, making comics and their fans look pretty damn pathetic :confused:

[TRUE]

I feel that “The Batman” is extremely underrated, especially if you analyze some of the complaints.



“The characters aren’t acting like Batman characters!”-They aren’t supposed to. What makes “The Batman” different from “Batman: The Animated Series” is that it is trying to display character development.



If you examine the original Animated Series, you’ll note that little character development occurs. From first episode to the last, Batman remains the same: a cold, remote vigilante with a desire for justice. Any character evolution occurs off-screen with things like “The Lost Years” (though it can be argued that development occurred in Mask of the Phantasm). What “The Batman” is trying to do is display how Bruce Wayne became Batman, but this process takes time. Expecting instantaneous results is irrational.



For example, I think that the portrayal of Bruce Wayne in “The Batman” can be used to benefit the series. Think about it. If you were to compare B:TAS Bruce Wayne to “The Batman” Bruce Wayne, the first thing that would spring to your mind is the childish behavior of Bruce in “The Batman.” He eats nachos and listens to pop music. Why, it’s almost if the executives want him to appear “hip” for the younger audience. That’s what I thought anyway.



But upon further examination I think that this could be a benefit for the series in that it is trying to display Bruce as more human than the B:TAS version. By starting at this point, the show can better show the evolution of the character. Give him a few more tragedies and he’ll be the vigilante we know and love.



“The show is something to sell toys!”- I won’t argue with this. Batman is a million-dollar franchise and it would be idiotic for Warner Brothers to let it waste away. But just because its original intent is to sell toys doesn’t mean it can’t grow beyond it. Take the movie franchise.



Warner Brothers obviously didn’t care about how close the movie was to the comics. The merchandising alone for the 1989 movie is testament to this. But nevertheless, Burton was able to provide some brilliant portrayals of the character.



If you think about it, “Batman: The Animated Series” was created to sell toys. Remember when the show was changed to “The Adventures of Batman and Robin?” Bruce Timm and the crew admit that the change was made to help the toy companies.



You see, the way to improve the show is to let it move beyond its constraints. Get rid of the “sci-fi” guns, giant robots, etc. Give it time and the show will probably be a real gem. After all, the first couple of episodes of B:TAS weren’t THAT good.
The BTAS worst episodes were better than most of The Batman best episodes

[efumf]

It's funny how he claims Batwaveman is great and fresh and new because it shows "character development"... Like Harvey Dent never became Two Face, Montoya never got promoted to detective after a lot of hard work, Robin never became Nightwing, and the horrific events of Return of the Joker were all a sick dream... :D

[mahoney]

The problem starts when Batman characters don't act like Batman characters. And since this show's characters embody that flaw, I consider it 'fundamentally flawed.'How do you think young Bruce Wayne should act? How do you think he would act as the brand new Batman?

Are you drawing your opinion from some canon element you've already encountered? I'm not really familiar with the comics, or with BTAS as a whole, so there are huge gaps in what I know as far as Bruce Wayne backstory. All I know is, his parents were murdered in front of him when he was a child, and then more or less as as a result, as an adult he became Batman. Is there a precedent in the comics or in BTAS or elsewhere depicting the character of Bruce Wayne around the time he first took up the Batman gig, and you don't like 'The Batman' version in comparison? If so, I'd really like to hear about it.

Or do you just think that the older Bruce Wayne presented in BTAS and JL/JLU implies a different younger Bruce Wayne than is represented in 'The Batman'? If so, again, I'm curious to hear how you draw the younger from the older, if that makes sense.

As for myself, like I said, I'm not aware of any back story, so it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to imagine young Bruce Wayne being the way he is in 'The Batman.' The show isn't intended to show us who Batman is when he's been Batman for a while, it's intended to show us who Bruce Wayne might have been before he had all the right moves, before he completely understood the responsibility and complexity of the role he was taking on. I gathered that over the course of the show, The Batman would grow closer to Batman. On that level, it seems difficult to me to flat out say that the current 'The Batman' characters are wrong, because, well, what if they aren't?

[Gaunt]

And something tells me you need to go back and rewatch BTAS - the show was praised for portraying Batman as human. If he gets any more human in this new show, they may as well change his name to Peter Parker.
Actually, I have both box sets of B:TAS and watch them just about every day. I love the Animated Series (and I feel that it is better than "The Batman"), but I'm trying to defend the new show from all the flak it has been receiving.

As for Bruce Wayne in B:TAS, I disagree. Watch how in some episodes (like "On Leather Wings") Batman can switch between the Bruce Wayne voice and his normal voice. Or why don't you read some of the production notes like the B:TAS Writer's Bible on the World's Finest Website? The creators (and people like Kevin Conroy) frequently say of how Bruce Wayne is the disguise and Batman is the true persona. Or how about "Batman Beyond," where Bruce Wayne ends up as a bitter recluse wrapped up in his former alter-ego. That is by no means "human."

Batman doesn't need fixing, believe it or not. There's a reason Conroy's Batman is still the definitive version after all these years.
I never said that Batman needs fixing. I'm just saying that "The Batman's" Batman is a valid interpretation, just like the comics, the original animated series, and the Burton movies. It's not trying to spoof Batman like the 1960's TV version or the Schumaker movies.

The BTAS worst episodes were better than most of The Batman best episodes
Again, I disagree. Episodes like "The Last Laugh," "Cat Scratch Fever," and "The Forgotten" are so much worse than most of the episodes on "The Batman." In fact, this interpretation is much better than Sean Catherine Derek's (the early story editor) idea of a "light, socially-conscious hero."

It's funny how he claims Batwaveman is great and fresh and new because it shows "character development"... Like Harvey Dent never became Two Face, Montoya never got promoted to detective after a lot of hard work, Robin never became Nightwing, and the horrific events of Return of the Joker were all a sick dream... :D
Huh?

Regarding Harvey Dent, we only see him in a brief cameo on "On Leather Wings" and a part in "Pretty Poison." We know nothing of his struggles or psychological trauma until "Two-Face."

Montoya was never promoted in the original animated series. She held that rank the whole time. I think you are trying to refer to "P.O.V.," but that was an episode that tries something big (displaying other people's point-of-view) and failing miserably.

"Old Wounds" does show character development.....between B:TAS and TNBA. My point was is that "The Batman" is attempting to show development IN the series rather than relying on flashbacks and comics to fill in the gaps.

Return of the Joker is a story about redemption (Specifically Bruce's and Tim's redemption at the hands of Terry McGuinness). I don't believe torture and brainwashing counts as "character development."

[efumf]

mahoney - Who is Bruce? Watch the JLU episode "Kid Stuff".

Wonder Woman: Circumstances aside, it was kind of...enjoyable to be a kid again.
Batman: I haven't been a kid since I was eight years old.

That about sums it up.

[Phantasm]

But if they did start writing them like Batman characters, that would be an improvement. And it's not out of the realm of possibility..True. But they'd also have to go through the task of redrawing the character designs as some of those don't even resemble their comicbook counterparts.No, they don't have to be an exact copy but must display what the character's all about without altering important visual aspects. For heaven's sake, Joker is not some sort of deformed semi human/monkey!:ack:



I was just speaking hypothetically. But I don't get what you mean by the first sentence. That by improving the show would cease to be The Batman, (As if "awful" is actually written into the definiton of The Batman?) Or that nothing could meet or exceed BTAS without becoming BTAS? I'm not sure I get you there.

Well, all I intended to say there was that The Batman has gone ahead and gotten itself assosiated with a certain version of Batman.And its this version of 'Batman' that I have a problem with.When the attributes that contribute to it becoming a certain version of Batman are taken away, which they will be, if I had my way with improving it, it wouldn't be the same thing anymore.And result in my accepting of the version.:shrug:


It all really happened, although I just gave you the really shortened version of it. In fact, that's the story of what happened to Bob Kane's original Batman later in life, so it would be the other material that's not faithful to it.

But the point I'm trying to make is that people have this certain notion in there heads of how the Batman story should unfold, but a lot of it isn't necessary, and can be altered in the retelling. Fans of the comic Batman view Jason Todd and Oracle as key characters in Batman lore, but it doesn't seem to bother you that they don't exist in the DCAU continuity. Or that TNBA Tim Drake isn't the REAL Tim Drake as far as comic fans go.

See, there isn't really one definitive Batman story, and there probably shouldn't be. I think each author should be afforded the freedom to play around with it a bit and find new things that can be done with the characters. After all, who wants to have each successive new Batman to be a retread of what came before? But I also don't want BTAS to be all there is, either
Well, personally, just as long as the current Batman is kept far away with that mess of a storyline, I'm cool.

And no, the definitive Batman does not have to be an exact copy of the comic Batman.BTAS was certainly not, but it remained faithful to the very things that make Batman, the very essence of the character.

No, it would be sad if BTAS was the ONLY Batman out there, certainly not what any Batfan would want. I just excpect some more along the lines of BTAS.


“The characters aren’t acting like Batman characters!”-They aren’t supposed to. What makes “The Batman” different from “Batman: The Animated Series” is that it is trying to display character development.

If you examine the original Animated Series, you’ll note that little character development occurs. From first episode to the last, Batman remains the same: a cold, remote vigilante with a desire for justice. Any character evolution occurs off-screen with things like “The Lost Years” (though it can be argued that development occurred in Mask of the Phantasm). What “The Batman” is trying to do is display how Bruce Wayne became Batman, but this process takes time. Expecting instantaneous results is irrational.
erm...BTAS had a LOT of character development. That is atleast one thing people CAN'T complain about when it comes to the series...


For example, I think that the portrayal of Bruce Wayne in “The Batman” can be used to benefit the series. Think about it. If you were to compare B:TAS Bruce Wayne to “The Batman” Bruce Wayne, the first thing that would spring to your mind is the childish behavior of Bruce in “The Batman.” He eats nachos and listens to pop music. Why, it’s almost if the executives want him to appear “hip” for the younger audience. That’s what I thought anyway.
I don't see how a childish Bruce Wayne equals character development. In fact, it seems to point to the fact that the day his parents died had no effect on him whatsoever, thus leaving him with no real reason to torture himself with the Batman idendity.Again this ties in with the whole 'funamental character flaw' thing.


But upon further examination I think that this could be a benefit for the series in that it is trying to display Bruce as more human than the B:TAS version. By starting at this point, the show can better show the evolution of the character. Give him a few more tragedies and he’ll be the vigilante we know and love.

Erm...getting severely traumatized by a single event seems more human to me than someone's who's parents death apparently left no real scars on him. Are you saying that BTAS Batman wasn't human because his crusade was based on personal vengeance to some extend? Was it not human of him to want to get rid of the Batman identity all together and yearn for a normal life? Was it not human for him to be so inherently flawed that he kept repeating his mistakes until they left him an isolated man in a lonley mansion?


How do you think young Bruce Wayne should act? How do you think he would act as the brand new Batman?

Are you drawing your opinion from some canon element you've already encountered? I'm not really familiar with the comics, or with BTAS as a whole, so there are huge gaps in what I know as far as Bruce Wayne backstory. All I know is, his parents were murdered in front of him when he was a child, and then more or less as as a result, as an adult he became Batman. Is there a precedent in the comics or in BTAS or elsewhere depicting the character of Bruce Wayne around the time he first took up the Batman gig, and you don't like 'The Batman' version in comparison? If so, I'd really like to hear about it.

Or do you just think that the older Bruce Wayne presented in BTAS and JL/JLU implies a different younger Bruce Wayne than is represented in 'The Batman'? If so, again, I'm curious to hear how you draw the younger from the older, if that makes sense.

As for myself, like I said, I'm not aware of any back story, so it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to imagine young Bruce Wayne being the way he is in 'The Batman.' The show isn't intended to show us who Batman is when he's been Batman for a while, it's intended to show us who Bruce Wayne might have been before he had all the right moves, before he completely understood the responsibility and complexity of the role he was taking on. I gathered that over the course of the show, The Batman would grow closer to Batman. On that level, it seems difficult to me to flat out say that the current 'The Batman' characters are wrong, because, well, what if they aren't?

We get a brief glimpse of a relatively young Bruce in Batman Year One. And he is approprately immature, not going to the extend where he listens to pop music in an operah house!:confused: He is traumatized, severely traumatized, obsessed, and dangerously determined. In some ways he is/should be darker in character when he is younger. Because before he full flegedly took on the role of Batman, he must have been engrossed in this sad, incessant cycle of guilt which sort of ate him up until he succumbed to it.

[mahoney]

Batman: I haven't been a kid since I was eight years old.

That about sums it up....so Bruce Wayne went from being a happy, normal 8-year-old kid to being an experienced, worldly 9-year-old who is able to keep his emotions under tight control at most times? You don't think he went through any of the emotional upheavals that accompany tragedy? You don't think he had to go through the massive amounts of trial and error and naivete that precedes that kind of experience? Sure, he never felt the innocence of childhood again after his parents died, but that doesn't mean he was never a teenager or a young adult, or that he was never a novice at the superhero biz. Don't you think?

(Incidentally, for the record, 'The Batman' does strike me as a bit 'off' somehow. So do the previews for the 'Batman Begins' movie, which seem to paint young Bruce Wayne as a sort of Indiana Jones-meets-James Bond type. Both images strike me as a little *too* light, daring, brash, whatever. I still think young Batman would have been much different than older Batman, but I guess I tend to envision something a bit darker. Am witholding judgement about the movie, though, until I see it. For the most part.)

[efumf]

Actually, I have both box sets of B:TAS and watch them just about every day. I love the Animated Series (and I feel that it is better than "The Batman"), but I'm trying to defend the new show from all the flak it has been receiving.
You're not doing a very good job of it - pointing out all the ways its better than BTAS won't get you any sanity points.

As for Bruce Wayne in B:TAS, I disagree.
Like I pointed out just now, Bruce's defining moment happened when he was 8 years old. That's when his life changed and he went into the darkness. Not f'ing year three. He's not a happy go lucky swinging youngster who likes to cosplay, he's a wounded man deprived of his childhood by a heartless mugger. But that's not to say he's not human; in fact it makes him all the more human.

I never said that Batman needs fixing.
Yeah dude, you did.

Huh?

Regarding Harvey Dent, we only see him in a brief cameo on "On Leather Wings" and a part in "Pretty Poison." We know nothing of his struggles or psychological trauma until "Two-Face."
And for some reason these struggles, psychological trauma and you know - CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT mean nothing to you because they happened in "Two-Face"? Yeah that makes sense :sad:

Montoya was never promoted in the original animated series. She held that rank the whole time. I think you are trying to refer to "P.O.V.," but that was an episode that tries something big (displaying other people's point-of-view) and failing miserably.
No, I'm referring to her being promoted to detective. Duh. :shrug:

"Old Wounds" does show character development.....between B:TAS and TNBA. My point was is that "The Batman" is attempting to show development IN the series rather than relying on flashbacks and comics to fill in the gaps.
So flashbacks aren't IN the series? Ookay. :confused:

Return of the Joker is a story about redemption (Specifically Bruce's and Tim's redemption at the hands of Terry McGuinness). I don't believe torture and brainwashing counts as "character development."
Now you're just pushing it. Think about RotJ's affect on Bruce. Think about what led to him being a reclusive, mean old man :shrug:

..Yeah... That's what they call character development. And no, they don't need to show us every single second that passes between RotJ and Batman Beyond for it to count.

:anime:

[Casey Mack]

How do you think young Bruce Wayne should act? How do you think he would act as the brand new Batman?

Are you drawing your opinion from some canon element you've already encountered? I'm not really familiar with the comics, or with BTAS as a whole, so there are huge gaps in what I know as far as Bruce Wayne backstory. All I know is, his parents were murdered in front of him when he was a child, and then more or less as as a result, as an adult he became Batman. Is there a precedent in the comics or in BTAS or elsewhere depicting the character of Bruce Wayne around the time he first took up the Batman gig, and you don't like 'The Batman' version in comparison? If so, I'd really like to hear about it.

Or do you just think that the older Bruce Wayne presented in BTAS and JL/JLU implies a different younger Bruce Wayne than is represented in 'The Batman'? If so, again, I'm curious to hear how you draw the younger from the older, if that makes sense.

As for myself, like I said, I'm not aware of any back story, so it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to imagine young Bruce Wayne being the way he is in 'The Batman.' The show isn't intended to show us who Batman is when he's been Batman for a while, it's intended to show us who Bruce Wayne might have been before he had all the right moves, before he completely understood the responsibility and complexity of the role he was taking on. I gathered that over the course of the show, The Batman would grow closer to Batman. On that level, it seems difficult to me to flat out say that the current 'The Batman' characters are wrong, because, well, what if they aren't?

If you are not familiar with the comics or show, you have alot of catching up to do. If you were familiar with any younger Batman materials, you would know "Bruce Wayne" is a disguise Batman is the real man. Bruce is just an act, like how Clark kent acts dull so no one would think hes superman. "The Batman" show depicts "Batman" as a wisecracking young man. Bruce traveled the world for years training is body and mind, learning from the best masters and the best detectives of the world. He became a dedicated man, who wants to devote his youth to cleaning up Gotham. Bruce wayne didn't just grow up and became Batman, it took alot of work and dedication.By time your in your 3rd year of something as "The Batman" depicts, their should be no room for wisecracks or other dumb moves.

[efumf]

...so Bruce Wayne went from being a happy, normal 8-year-old kid to being an experienced, worldly 9-year-old who is able to keep his emotions under tight control at most times? You don't think he went through any of the emotional upheavals that accompany tragedy? You don't think he had to go through the massive amounts of trial and error and naivete that precedes that kind of experience? Sure, he never felt the innocence of childhood again after his parents died, but that doesn't mean he was never a teenager or a young adult, or that he was never a novice at the superhero biz. Don't you think? Unless I'm mistaken (It's not like I watch this show too closely), Batwaveman doesn't show any of that. Unless you mean a young guy out looking for a good time, which is basically what this show is about? Read Year One to see what a real novice Bruce Wayne is like. If you want explicit details, you need to go to the source material.

There's one defining moment in Batman's life - and that's all you should need to know to enjoy a Batman story. Everything he does is because of that one night.

Oh, and since you're new - stay away from that awful Tim Burton film. That is NOT Batman. Batman would be going against everything he believes in to kill like that. Batman Begins looks to be the definitive Batman on screen - trust anything Nolan tells you.

[mahoney]

If you are not familiar with the comics or show, you have alot of catching up to do. If you were familiar with any younger Batman materials, you would know [etc].
Ah, but do you think The Batman assumes that the audience *is* familiar with these materials?

I asked about existing backstory out of curiosity, because I have a resource (you all with the knowledge) that I wouldn't have otherwise (because I don't read comics and don't have the resources/time to buy/watch the BTAS box sets that seem to be popping up in stores near me).

But then again, if I didn't have this forum, I would be watching The Batman for what it is - a potentially valid version of young Bruce Wayne - without thinking much about the existence of alternative canon. For those who are more strictly fans of the Batman mythos, 'The Batman' may not be much fun, but for people who don't know any better, it might be fab. I mean, yes, I prefer the adult version of Batman, but my son sure likes 'The Batman,' at any rate.

[Phantasm]

Ah, but do you think The Batman assumes that the audience *is* familiar with these materials?
But then again, if I didn't have this forum, I would be watching The Batman for what it is - a potentially valid version of young Bruce Wayne - without thinking much about the existence of alternative canon. For those who are more strictly fans of the Batman mythos, 'The Batman' may not be much fun, but for people who don't know any better, it might be fab. I mean, yes, I prefer the adult version of Batman, but my son sure likes 'The Batman,' at any rate.
That's also another problem.For people who know next to nothing about batman, they'll be led to believe that The Batman is what Batman's all about. Not a good thing since he is NOT what The Batman implies he is.:sad:

[efumf]

Ah, but do you think The Batman assumes that the audience *is* familiar with these materials?

I asked about existing backstory out of curiosity, because I have a resource (you all with the knowledge) that I wouldn't have otherwise (because I don't read comics and don't have the resources/time to buy/watch the BTAS box sets that seem to be popping up in stores near me).

But then again, if I didn't have this forum, I would be watching The Batman for what it is - a potentially valid version of young Bruce Wayne - without thinking much about the existence of alternative canon. For those who are more strictly fans of the Batman mythos, 'The Batman' may not be much fun, but for people who don't know any better, it might be fab. I mean, yes, I prefer the adult version of Batman, but my son sure likes 'The Batman,' at any rate. So you wouldn't care if they renamed Batman to "Jatman", gave him a purple costume, a new hip hop origin and skateboard superpowers?

Not much point in arguing with you, then, is there?

[mahoney]

Read Year One to see what a real novice Bruce Wayne is like. If you want explicit details, you need to go to the source material.
Eh, well, you know, budget and all that; and I'm the only one I know personally who likes superheroes, so not much chance of borrowing off a friend. I'll have to pass for now.

There's one defining moment in Batman's life - and that's all you should need to know to enjoy a Batman story. Everything he does is because of that one night.
Okay, yes, but that doesn't stop me from wondering how different he might have been at, say 16, or 22, or whatever. I see people in this thread saying things like "Batman is the real person; Bruce Wayne is the disguise," and honestly, that means nothing to me. I don't get it. From watching JL/JLU and Batman Beyond, Bruce a.k.a. Batman *does* seem like more of an integrated unit than a segregated person with a distinctly different secret identity. But still, he has a sense of humor; he has a definite capacity for warmth; he's not perfect. It doesn't seem entirely out of the realm of possibility to imagine that one or more of those traits were amplified in his youth by lack of experience, you know?

Oh, and since you're new - stay away from that awful Tim Burton film. That is NOT Batman. Batman would be going against everything he believes in to kill like that. Batman Begins looks to be the definitive Batman on screen - trust anything Nolan tells you.
Too late! That awful Tim Burton film was my first experience with Batman. I lasted through the next couple of films and then decided Batman really was a horrid geek thing that I would never understand. But then I stumbled across Batman Beyond, which led me to Justice League, and now I'm down with the Batman love.

You think Batman Begins looks good? The previews I've seen struck me as pretty weird. The tech and sets look cool, but the character seemed...gah, Indiana Jones-y. James Bond-y. I *really* want to like the movie, though.

[efumf]

Batman Begins is everything comic fans could ever ask for.

Does your kid enjoy The Batman more than Batman TAS out of curiosity?

[mahoney]

So you wouldn't care if they renamed Batman to "Jatman", gave him a purple costume, a new hip hop origin and skateboard superpowers?

Not much point in arguing with you, then, is there?
Dude, you are one of the most dismissive people ever. I just spent three days dealing with a woman who would vehemently tell me what I should be thinking and then when I asked her one question she'd say "well, fine, I give up," and walk away. I'm having deja vu.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm asking, IF you don't see young Batman as resembling 'The Batman' or the potential version I put forth, how DO you see him? Do you really think that all character development stopped at age 8? That Bruce was a happy normal kid, and then his parents were murdered, and then WHAMMO he became the character he is now, and the only elements about him that changed were his intellectual knowledge and physical skill? If so, say so. If not, I'm curious as to how you would characterize him at different stages, becuase I think characterization is the coolest subject on the planet. But mainly what I want to know is if what you're really saying is that you think character development stopped at age 8, which is what it sounds like you're saying.

[mahoney]

Batman Begins is everything comic fans could ever ask for.Well, any live action Batman that's better than the other Batman movies will be an improvement, I think.

Does your kid enjoy The Batman more than Batman TAS out of curiosity?The only BTAS he's seen is the Mr. Freeze movie. And The Batman and Superman Movie, but I don't know if that's part of BTAS or not. But yes, he seems to like The Batman better. He's very much A Kid, though, so he enjoys shows with less adult themes as a general rule. Also, the Joker that shows up in The Batman doesn't scare him, but the one that shows up in the other Batman shows does, and that makes a HUGE difference as far as what he wants to watch, obviously.

[Batman49]

You think Batman Begins looks good? The previews I've seen struck me as pretty weird. The tech and sets look cool, but the character seemed...gah, Indiana Jones-y. James Bond-y. I *really* want to like the movie, though.
Well, from what little I've seen, (the teaser trailers and the Superbowl spot), Batman Begins (I hate that title) looks to be a very good Batman film. I like Nolan's eye. (check out Memento and Insomnia to see what Nolan is capable of) To me it looks like a drama (with some action) that happens to feature Bruce Wayne/Batman and not a straight up action/superhero film, and that's a good thing in my opinion. Still, I haven't read the script, but in my opinion the movie should at the very least get Batman right, more than Burton did. Hopefully all 3 of us like the movie.

[Gaunt]

Like I pointed out just now, Bruce's defining moment happened when he was 8 years old. That's when his life changed and he went into the darkness. Not f'ing year three. He's not a happy go lucky swinging youngster who likes to cosplay, he's a wounded man deprived of his childhood by a heartless mugger. But that's not to say he's not human; in fact it makes him all the more human.Again, I disagree. Two reasons:
1. In "The Batman," Bruce fights crime because of his parents death. Though they don't expand on it, he genuinely does. Do you actually think he is doing it for fun?
2. Just because a person experiences psychological trauma doesn't mean he is "haunted and remote." People CAN recover somewhat from past issues.

Here's a thought that can explain some of Bruce's actions. Do you really think that he is enjoying being "hip?" It's how we perceive it from episodes like "Q and A." But maybe he doesn't like it. Maybe he tries to distract himself with such things to avoid dealing with the pain he has experienced in the past. We as human beings attempt to avoid any pain that can damage us socially, demonstrated by the many defense mechanisms the mind uses. Unfortunately, we can't prove my theory until future episodes appear.

Yeah dude, you did. No, dude. I didn't. I explained how "The Batman" could be improved. I only mentioned some shortcomings in B:TAS to defend the series.

And for some reason these struggles, psychological trauma and you know - CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT mean nothing to you because they happened in "Two-Face"? Yeah that makes sense :sad: Character development is how a character matures in the series. B:TAS only showed us a psychologically damaged Harvey Dent in "Two-Face." Not "Pretty Poison" or "On Leather Wings." It's not character development unless it actually takes place over the course of the series.

No, I'm referring to her being promoted to detective. Duh. :shrug: Please tell me what episode you are talking about (title).

Oh, and a promotion in a job is not "character development."

So flashbacks aren't IN the series? Ookay. :confused: Yes, there are flashbacks in "The Batman." But the series doesn't rely upon them. Cut out the flashbacks in things like Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker and you get a severly neutered story.

Now you're just pushing it. Think about RotJ's affect on Bruce. Think about what led to him being a reclusive, mean old man :shrug: So Bruce didn't end up as a bitter recluse because of the death of his parent's death? He was always screwed up in terms of raising children. Dick became just like him, Barbara became a bitter, cynical woman, and Tim became the Joker.

..Yeah... That's what they call character development. And no, they don't need to show us every single second that passes between RotJ and Batman Beyond for it to count. I just pointed out the differences to defend "The Batman." I wasn't complaining about B:TAS. Ever hear of devil's advocate?

Oh, and since you're new - stay away from that awful Tim Burton film. That is NOT Batman. Batman would be going against everything he believes in to kill like that. Batman Begins looks to be the definitive Batman on screen - trust anything Nolan tells you. I think you are missing the point. This is an interpretation of Batman, just like any elseworlds tale. There is no "definitive" Batman.

Batman Begins is everything comic fans could ever ask for. Which is exactly why I'm skeptical of it. I prefer fresh ideas in each form of media (comics, TV, and movies). By making the movies closer to the comics, you take away the originality of the movie. But hey, that's just my opinion.

efumf, I don't mind debating with you. I just don't like the condescending attitude of yours. Do you honestly have to insult me because I have a differing opinion? I love the Animated Series and its interpretation of the character. I also like trying new things.

[Casey Mack]

Well, any live action Batman that's better than the other Batman movies will be an improvement, I think.

The only BTAS he's seen is the Mr. Freeze movie. And The Batman and Superman Movie, but I don't know if that's part of BTAS or not. But yes, he seems to like The Batman better. He's very much A Kid, though, so he enjoys shows with less adult themes as a general rule. Also, the Joker that shows up in The Batman doesn't scare him, but the one that shows up in the other Batman shows does, and that makes a HUGE difference as far as what he wants to watch, obviously.

I now have to agree with you now, "The Batman" is meant for a younger audience like your son Mahoney. Hence "The Batman" is this 6 to 11 generations version of the Batman mythos. if i was 9 and saw a "The Batman" eppy i would go crazy at how cool it looks. Lets be honest now the shows animation would beat BTAS on its best day. BUt, where the show suffers is thats its on kidswb, and nowadays kidsWB wants to futher kiddfy shows. If you recall back in the 90s, Superman and Batman shows use to get away with alot of adult content on kidsWb. Remeber they even showed Darksied turning dan turnpin to ashes years back. Now maybe 10 years from now, the kids watching "The Batman" will become older and talk about the Batman like we talk about "Batman the animated series" . Maybe who knows, "The Batman" might give birth to all new DC animated universe. Maybe in 2010 we will get a Justice League show, set in the "The Batman" universe. IMAGINE it at all new generation of teens and young adults, getting on this message boards years from now talking about the New Justice League show.:) Heres looking at the future....peace.

[SuperChicken]

Maybe. But I think there's more room for variation than most people assume. What about a version of Batman where there was only one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he and Bruce never had a falling out, and Dick Continued as Robin into adulthood? And what if Bruce eventually tamed Selina, and they got married, and had a kid? And what if, just when Bruce thought he had constructed a life that could finally make up for the loss of his parents, Selina was coerced back into her Catwoman outfit against her will and Batman was partially, accidentally responsible for killing her? Thus proving he can never have a normal, happy life.

That version is way different than accepted bat-history, but it did happen to Earth-two Batman, who was an extension of the Golden-age original. So that was a different, radical way of tellling the story, but it was still faithful. Couldn't there be many other variations that Don't ruin the characer?
I'll start by saying you have a good, valid point and one I don't disagree with completely. There is room for various takes. However, the example you point out is all well and good until you realize it WASN'T the main interpretation of Batman - in fact it was looked upon, like most of Earth-2, as an abberation. It wasn't the 'real' Batman, nor did anyone ever consider it so. People could swallow it in the same vein as any Elseworld's (alternate reality for you non-comic readign folk) tale like 'The Nail' or 'Kingdom Come'. It wasn't real, so what does it matter?

But what IS the real Batman? Glad you asked. Because as much as I am not much of a fan of The Batman, as it skews too young and - in my opinion, mind you - dumbed down, it shouldn't bother people that it isn't their Batman.

Batman, as a character, has gone through many, many iterations. Grim avenger, detective, clown (the sillier moments with the Bat-family and Bat-Mite come to mind there) grim avenger again...... it's been revamped more times than Superman, and that's saying alot.

I'll wrap this up by saying that The Batman is not aimed at most of the JLU/JL/BTAS, ect viewers. It is aimed much, much younger. And from that angle, it ain't broke. Is it what I want? No. But that doesn't mean it fails to do what it does well. Entertain fairly young kids.

(Side note -- I am constantly amazed at home much the producers and writers of kid-TV tend to talk down to their audience. Rather than challenge them with something interesting, they throw pap on the screen, assuming the kids can't handle anything more difficult. It's a shame really, because kids are capable of much more than most adults give them credit for.)

[paulie]

He was writing some pretty damn good episodes before: "The Late Mr. Kent," "Disappearing Inque" and "Lost Soul" to name a few off the top of my head.

Stan's the man! I didn't know he wrote those 3 epidoses--all of those are awesome (especially "Lost Soul"....oh man that got to me). :cool:

Back on topic: Sort of along the lines of how I don't care that much about continuity (I expressly reserve the right TO care if I need to ;) ) I don't particluarly care if somebody re-does an iconic character. They're the writers, have fun. If I like it, cool, if I don't, move along. I cringed at the nacho-eating scene, but I like the idea that the young Bruce Wayne in "The Batman" is slightly more well-adjusted than the cranky Timmverse Bruce, if only because he's younger...ahh youth.

But Batman's an icon, and if you're going to use him, I suppose you'd better take into account his history.

[Revelator]

The Batman's season finale actually persuaded me from giving up on the show, because it introduced two things the series had badly lacked: psychological depth and writing that targeted all ages rather than pandering to what the writers think kids will dig.

BTAS, for various reasons, could never get some villians precisely right: Catwoman, the Riddler, the Penguin, and Firefly are the most prominent. None of The Batman's versions of these characters look that promising, but its version of Clayface is far better and more dramatically compelling than the BTAS version, who was a jerk from the beginning to end and little more than venal in any form.

The Batman's version of Clayface had that tragic element we've come to expect from BTAS, and we've come to expect that because it's part of our understanding of Batman's prevailing archetype. The days of the grinning Dick Sprang/Adam West Batman are long dead, and that version of the character isn't coming back any time soon because pretty much no one wants to regress that far. In his modern form Batman is essentially someone from a tragic background who dresses up like a creature of the night to scare the s*** out of the sort of thugs and freaks who originally traumatized him. This isn't a particularly light concept for a superhero, and to have a Batman who wisecracks continually and does things like eat nachos and "shoot hoops" reduces the essence of the character, and makes him less distinguishable as a superhero. We don't think of Batman as being particularly youthful, and Batman has been thought of as mature right from the start--that's why he was given Robin in the first place, to off-set his basic character.

I don't know about others, but when I was a kid what attracted me to Batman above other superheroes was precisely that mixture of darkness and maturity. There's something very gothic about the idea of Batman: a neurotic orphaned princeling who roams through the city exerting his power over bad men. Every child who's ever been afraid of the dark wants in someway to be Batman: a child who mastered the darkness and turned it into a weapon against a scary world. At bottom, the Batman story is about loss and the possibility of redemption earned through perseverance and even obsession. It's about triumphing over chaos and mental illness through sheer strength of mind and body. Say what you like about Burton's films, but they at least nailed the neurotic angle of the Batman mythos, especially Batman Returns, Catwoman's finest hour (well, more like two hours).

That's not to say that Batman should always be grim and never crack a joke or smile. It's fine for him to drop a bitter wisecrack or make a sardonic joke. But The Batman's version of the character is deracinated
and diluted for the kiddies' market, and erases what made the character so memorably formidable in the first place

I say that the show's staff are at a crossroads: they can either go in the direction of the finale or the rest of the season. The finale carried out what BTAS had established: the practice of writing for a general audience rather than looking down to a specific one by making the characters psychologically interesting people with concrete motivations and personalities, rather than types. As such, it will take many more episodes to erase the bad taste of most of season one, and it will take a better class of writers and story editors than they currently have. All in all, the staff should not worry about what BTAS did or didn't do. All it needs to do is treat the characters like characters. From there on they've got it made.

[NIGHTWING_23]

What kind of Batman show do I REALLY want?

I want a Batman show that isn't going to have Batgirl appear before Robin even does. Or Commissioner Gordon for that matter.

[Supremus]

I want a Batman show that isn't going to have Batgirl appear before Robin even does. Or Commissioner Gordon for that matter.Why is everyone flipping out over Batgirl? So what if it breaks with continuity? Who wants a carbon copy of what we have already seen in the comics and on BTAS? It's hardly that big a surprise. The show has already "broken the rules" by adding detectives Jin and Whatshisface and dropping Gordon. If Batgirl can breathe a little bit of life into this dull series, then by all means...

[NIGHTWING_23]

Why is everyone flipping out over Batgirl? So what if it breaks with continuity? Who wants a carbon copy of what we have already seen in the comics and on BTAS? It's hardly that big a surprise. The show has already "broken the rules" by adding detectives Jin and Whatshisface and dropping Gordon. If Batgirl can breathe a little bit of life into this dull series, then by all means...
The main reason why I have such a problem with Batgirl being in this show before everyone else is because I really don't want it to become like a certain movie incarnation of Batgirl where she is Alfred's neice and has blonde hair. I would prefer it much more if they had used Batwoman instead of Batgirl.

[Supremus]

The main reason why I have such a problem with Batgirl being in this show before everyone else is because I really don't want it to become like a certain movie incarnation of Batgirl where she is Alfred's neice and has blonde hair. I would prefer it much more if they had used Batwoman instead of Batgirl.I have a sneaking suspicion they might go with something similar to the current Batgirl design in the comics, in which case Batgirl could turn out to be a relative of Jin's, since she is Asian, and that would be an obvious way to tie her with the characters and at the same time further shake up Jin's view on vigilantes. I seriously doubt they will go with Barbara Gordon, or anything that reminds people of the Schumacher movie, but who knows?

[Fone Bone]

Gaunt and mahoney a very hearty Welcome to the boards is in order for the both of you. You both have very well thought out ideas of what The Batman can potentially accomplish, turning flaws into strengths. I don't know if the show will go in the directions you guys have suggested but if it does I'll definately be happier about the show's existance.

Once again, great thread styl92!:)

[Singularity]

BTAS, for various reasons, could never get some villians precisely right: Catwoman, the Riddler, the Penguin, and Firefly are the most prominent. Could you tell me why? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are.

I'm assuming Catwoman is somewhat due to her being an animal activist, and Firefly barely touches on his sexual desire for fire, but I don't quite understand your mention of Riddler (unless this is due to that terrible TNBA design).

[Style]

Once again, great thread styl92!:)
Thanks, even if it has gotten massively deraile from it's original focus. But I think I proved my own point. But then, what should I have expected from a board based specifically around Bruce Timm's Batman? I guess it didn't make sense to me as a more general Bat-fan.

And yeah, they do have some good points.

[Fone Bone]

Thanks, even if it has gotten massively deraile from it's original focus. But I think I proved my own point. But then, what should I have expected from a board based specifically around Bruce Timm's Batman? I guess it didn't make sense to me as a more general Bat-fan.

And yeah, they do have some good points.I think the original point was that some BTAS fans are never going to accept The Batman no matter what and most of the posts since have proven this.:)

[mahoney]

it has gotten massively derailed from it's original focus.Er, yeah, I realize now I never did address your original post.

As far as myownself is concerned, I'm not really a big fan of The Batman, but I have no beef with it. I think it achieves its intention (kid-friendly possible younger Batman), and since I'm not steeped in the Batman mythos I don't really see the damage it's supposedly doing to the character.

I guess I would be interested in maybe seeing Bruce at an even younger age - maybe as a teenager, at the age when he's on the verge of the knowledge and ideas that eventually lead to the costume and the gadgets, but hasn't gotten there yet, hasn't found that outlet, that way of giving his despair and vengence a living form. I don't think it'd be the sort of character study that would merit a whole series, though. Honestly? I always like the stories in which the established hero gets to show off his stuff by teaming up with other heroes; and I like the stories in which the hero passes on the mantle. I get the first in JL, and I got the second in Batman Beyond, so I'm doing okay, Batman-wise. :)

[Revelator]

Could you tell me why? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are. I'm assuming Catwoman is somewhat due to her being an animal activist, and Firefly barely touches on his sexual desire for fire, but I don't quite understand your mention of Riddler (unless this is due to that terrible TNBA design).
Catwoman was little more than an animal rights activist who acted sexy when Batman was around, while Firefly was just boring and petty. Riddler was voiced well, but BTAS' super-brain/coldfish angle eliminated much of the intensity of the character (Frank Gorshwin's Riddler was mostly responsible for resurrected an until-then third tier villain, and remains the most memorable portrayal of the character in any medium because his high energy gamesmanship and manic brain made him even crazier and more threatening than the Joker). That would have worked had the character starred in strong episodes, but the writers showed they were more interested in mazes and virtual reality games than devising mystery stories and plausible riddle clues.
"Riddler's Reform" worked better because it enlarged upon the character's burning need for intellectual competetion with Batman, which was picked up by Ty Templeton, whose Riddler stories for the comics were miles better than anything in the cartoon. His Riddler is one of the great baddies--the show's isn't.

[90'sCartoonMan]

I have a sneaking suspicion they might go with something similar to the current Batgirl design in the comics, in which case Batgirl could turn out to be a relative of Jin's, since she is Asian, and that would be an obvious way to tie her with the characters and at the same time further shake up Jin's view on vigilantes.
The current Batgirl? Ugh! That's a...::thinks::

It's...Detective Yin, I believe...::thinks some more::

Yeah, that's a dumb idea. I want Barbara Gordon.

What would I want from a Batman series? Well, I think The Batman came too soon (not that I don't have other problems with it). It should be at least 10 years after we've seen the DCAU Batman anywhere. Honestly, this overbaturation is a bit much for me.

I can see another animated Batman that's as good as BTAS was. They could have characters like Jason Todd, Oracle, Black Mask, Zeiss, and others who weren't even touched upon on BTAS.

[Captain Clown]

I think the original point was that some BTAS fans are never going to accept The Batman no matter what and most of the posts since have proven this.:)
It's a bit of a moot point, really, given that the show sucks.

[efumf]

Yep.

I'm perfectly willing to accept a new Batman show, but the creators of The Batman obviously don't care about entertaining anyone over 8. Batman TAS is timeless - that's why the DVDs are selling so well to adults years later, but The Batman is like Captain Planet or some other cheesy, dull show from my childhood that I watched (because it was a cartoon) but would have no interest in revisiting today. Bad writing is bad writing, even if it happens to be badly written Batman.

[Phantasm]

And apparently the new Batgirl won't be Barbara Gordon. :sad:

[efumf]

That's fine. The less characters they crap on the better I say.