Am I the only one who feels like B'89 is vastly overrated?

[The Guard]

It happend with the story "One Bullet to Many", I think it was in the late 60s. But in the 80s Robin was actually BACK, they even introduced a new Robin called Jason Todd, because Wolfman wanted to keep Dick Grayson at the "Teen Titans".

Robin being back doesn't mean that Batman didn't work with him less. And while we're on the subect, even Jason Todd's stories were a bit more to the "mature" side of storytelling, dealing with a more rebellious and disruptive version of the Robin character.

Yeah. More mature like... crippling young woman and strip them naked.

In part, yes. Oracle is a hundred times more interesting than the plucky adventure heroine Batgirl was. What came out of Barbara Gordon's crippling are some of the most mature story elements ever seen in Batman comics, and some fantastic mythology elements.

No. That's simply not true. Because writers back then were just writing stories to ENTERTAIN people. Escapist fiction. He didn't became "obsessive" until he turned into the Bat-Jerk (you may count "A Lonely Place of Dying", but there it was just "compensation" for the death of Robin.

Simply not true. There are varying degrees of obsessive. You seem to just want to discount that. Batman was a hell of a lot more "obsessive" and dogged about his mission in the 80's than he was in the 70's or late 60's.

He IS a loner. He IS the ultimate loner. Unlike the family guy Batman.

In what way does Superman even remotely fit the definition of loner?

"The Last Son of Krypton" is a fun buzzword phrase, but a completely invalid attempt to paint him as a loner. For one thing, there's an entire city of Kryptonians still around, and the mythology shows us Kara, Zod and others as well. And for another, being different than people doesn't make you a loner. What makes you a loner is the nature of your interactions (or decisions not to interact with) people. Superman simply doesn't fit that definition. He's not a loner, and he's not alone, either.

 

[terry78]

Batman 89 is on ABC Family right now. Judge for yourself.

 

[MysterioMenace]

May be. But like I said, in the 90s the casual readers stopped to exist, only the fanboys were left. Many were influenced or even introduced to the character by the Burton movies. So the writers tried to please those fanboys and the fanboys became writers.

But doesn’t that mean the Burton movies were popular? Or at least the original? I mean, summer of 1989 was Bat-Hysteria arguably more so then even this summer. Maybe it was just that Batman was truly being portrayed in a serious manor on screen for the first official time, maybe that’s what caused the madness, but maybe it was just a good movie. Is that so hard to believe? That original film still has thousands, if not millions of fans. So maybe it’s not as popular today as Dark Knight…that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have fans.

Okay. I think Miller is overrated, too. I KNEW the Judge Dredd comics, so DKR wasn't really that "cool" to me. Batman impersonating Dredd. But I still think it's good work. What many people misunderstood (hell, even Miller himself seemed to believe the hype around this) that the DKR Batman is a bitter guy in the future, who was tormented by the feeling that he had betrayed his parents (the oath, you know, he broke him because of Robin) and THEN the world became such a worse place. THAT triggered his new behaviour. The Year One Batman was more... optimistic... heroic... he made mistakes but that's because of the "realism".

I’ll definitely agree that Miller is overrated. He’s too cynical for my taste. For me a lot of his works are bordering on unintentional satire. It goes so dark that it's actually silly. Villainous Nazi transsexuals, Mutant Street Gangs, Ninja’s in New York, it’s all so over-the-top. Excuse me if I want some level of grounded fantasy. Sounds like an oxymoron, but know what I mean? Plus his overuse of prostitutes has gotten unoriginally absurd. I’ve only really enjoyed his initial run on Daredevil and Batman: Year One. I cannot grasp the hype of Dark Knight Returns. It’s not the worst story I’ve ever read, but the hype makes it out to be the greatest batman story ever told. I think it’s far from...

Burton's Batman movies don't have anything in common with O'Neil's take. They may have taken their inspiration from the early "pulp Batman", but otherwise this take was very unique... and wrong. It hurt the essence of Batman badly. And I think a big part of Batman's new direction WAS influcenced by the success of the Burton movies. Of course there is no proof, and a lot of comic writers weren't really fond of the movies.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree there. Jack Nicholson’s Joker is certainly Denny O’Neil’s iconic blending of clown and killer. That perfect symmetry. Heaths is a blending of O’Neil’s mixture with Bob Kanes original straight-up homicidal maniac. They retained the humor, but lost the gimmicks. He's also more frightening. O’Neil was responsible for the revival of Bob Kanes brooding and serious figure of the night and psychological themes. We owe a great debt to him. He took that original vision and made it updated, much like Burton. They didn’t retain all the same qualities, Burtons Batman occasionally killing much like Bob Kanes first Detective Comics, whilst Denny’s being more ethical (albiet dark compared to the 50's and 60's) but I certainly see his influence upon Batman 1989.

But who are you to really say it’s wrong? That’s really a matter of opinion. Even Schumacher’s isn’t necessarily wrong. As much as I hate to admit it, it’s accurate in tone to the camp filled era of the Comics Code and Adam West serial. It’s just not a majorities preferred dose of the dynamic duo these days. It's certainly not mine. Public conscience now desires dark and brooding seriousness. Burton delivers on this when comparatively speaking, Nolan merely upped the antae when it came to that seriousness. For that very reason, some felt Begins was extremely boring. Of course some people in the industry disliked Burtons films, but then some disliked Begins. Many comic writers and artists also loved both. So Burtons original seemed pretty accurate to Bob Kane’s version to me. Bob Kane himself agreed. I’ll be happy to post the video to prove it. I’d say thusly the film's very far from wrong. It's just one version of the many evolving forms of Batman and his cast. I can list off numerous story arch’s and issues the film blatantly derived from. Many of those are considered staple readings in the mythos of Batman. No one is saying that you have to like Burtons original. Even I can’t stand the vast majority of Batman Returns. But if you’re going to diss it with unjust and inaccurate evaluations, or merely for the sake of elevating Nolans films, people will call you out.

So I stick with it; the Burton movies were influenced by prior comics far more then the film influenced later comics. If you have issues with Burtons installment in the mythos, you should mostly be taking it up with the source material. I just think you’re being remarkably unfair toward Burton, blaming him for something that he really has no responsibility for, because we’re living in a time when it’s now suddenly hip to bash his take on the Batman. Why must every complement Dark Knight receives come complete with a Burton insult? It’s absurd fan boy belligerence. They’re both beloved and accurate, whether you like it or not.

He did a few excellent stories... WITH Neal Adams. Without him he was always average. When he was editor of the Bat-titles he did really bad things. And he wasn't the guy who brought Batman back to his "dark roots". That were other guys.

I just can't agree with that, and he's certainly credited as the one who brought Batman bad to his "dark roots". I'm well aware he wasn't alone, but he's the face of that revival.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Robin being back doesn't mean that Batman didn't work with him less. And while we're on the subect, even Jason Todd's stories were a bit more to the "mature" side of storytelling, dealing with a more rebellious and disruptive version of the Robin character.

The first sentecence doesn't make sense. It's like "The sun is burning but it's still getting darker". There was nothing "Mature" about the introduction of Jason Todd. The pre-crisis Todd was not a Dick Grayson-clone, despite what people tend to believe. The post-crisis version wasn't mature either. Taking a punk kid as a sidekick and taking a circus kid as a sidekick aren't really the most "mature" things to do. That's still in the realm of the absurdity. But superheroes are absurd and that is why they are so much fun. Trying to be Shakespear with a bunch of grown up men in tights is a little bit stupid. And you know, even the punk Jason was quite likeable, until the point they decided to pull the sleazy "We Kill Robin" stunt. Then they started to write him "rebellious" and "disruptive" so the readers WOULD vote for his death. And that's the truth. I am so glad that even post-crisis some writers like Grant and Barr were not playing the grim and gritty drum so hard. Unlike guys like Starlin.

In part, yes. Oracle is a hundred times more interesting than the plucky adventure heroine Batgirl was. What came out of Barbara Gordon's crippling are some of the most mature story elements ever seen in Batman comics, and some fantastic mythology elements.

Oh yes. You seem to be obsessed to make flamboyant fantasies into some "mature" stories. And yes, a young girl suddenly becoming a total computer expert. And yes, that's EXACTLY why the introduced Cassandra Cain. Because that's so mature. A young girl being a perfect assassin is really realistic, deep and "mature". Face it, comics have never grown up (not that superhero comics even should).

Simply not true. There are varying degrees of obsessive. You seem to just want to discount that. Batman was a hell of a lot more "obsessive" and dogged about his mission in the 80's than he was in the 70's or late 60's.

Nah. The obsession came in the 90s.

In what way does Superman even remotely fit the definition of loner?

"The Last Son of Krypton" is a fun buzzword phrase, but a completely invalid attempt to paint him as a loner. For one thing, there's an entire city of Kryptonians still around, and the mythology shows us Kara, Zod and others as well. And for another, being different than people doesn't make you a loner. What makes you a loner is the nature of your interactions (or decisions not to interact with) people. Superman simply doesn't fit that definition. He's not a loner, and he's not alone, either.

LOL. Serious. Superman IS a loner. It's just his personality with his "fortress of solitude". He can't go home again and he has accepted that. Not like Batman, who loves family so much that he has created his own surrogate family.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

But doesn’t that mean the Burton movies were popular? Or at least the original? I mean, summer of 1989 was Bat-Hysteria arguably more so then even this summer. Maybe it was just that Batman was truly being portrayed in a serious manor on screen for the first official time, maybe that’s what caused the madness, but maybe it was just a good movie. Is that so hard to believe? That original film still has thousands, if not millions of fans. So maybe it’s not as popular today as Dark Knight…that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have fans.

I still oppose the idea that the Burton movies were "serious". They are somewhat fairy tale like

I’ll definitely agree that Miller is overrated. He’s too cynical for my taste. For me a lot of his works are bordering on unintentional satire. It goes so dark that it's actually silly. Villainous Nazi transsexuals, Mutant Street Gangs, Ninja’s in New York, it’s all so over-the-top. Excuse me if I want some level of grounded fantasy. Sounds like an oxymoron, but know what I mean? Plus his overuse of prostitutes has gotten unoriginally absurd. I’ve only really enjoyed his initial run on Daredevil and Batman: Year One. I cannot grasp the hype of Dark Knight Returns. It’s not the worst story I’ve ever read, but the hype makes it out to be the greatest batman story ever told. I think it’s far from...

Agreed.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree there. Jack Nicholson’s Joker is certainly Denny O’Neil’s iconic blending of clown and killer. That perfect symmetry. Heaths is a blending of O’Neil’s mixture with Bob Kanes original straight-up homicidal maniac.

Probably. But it's only the Joker. Batman and Gordon were definitely NOT like the 70s.

They retained the humor, but lost the gimmicks. He's also more frightening. O’Neil was responsible for the revival of Bob Kanes brooding and serious figure of the night and psychological themes. We owe a great debt to him. He took that original vision and made it updated, much like Burton. They didn’t retain all the same qualities, Burtons Batman occasionally killing much like Bob Kanes first Detective Comics, whilst Denny’s being more ethical (albiet dark compared to the 50's and 60's) but I certainly see his influence upon Batman 1989.

I still want to know what was so "brooding" about O'Neill and Bob Kane's version. THe early Batman was just a character in an adventure/crime strip, and O'Neill was one of the guys that made Batman "serious" and "grounded" again. But "psychologic themes"? Okay, there was "There Is No Hope In Crime Alley", but that was pretty much the only story. The death of Batman's parent did never play a big part in the comics until the 80s/90s when the psychobabble started.

But who are you to really say it’s wrong? That’s really a matter of opinion. Even Schumacher’s isn’t necessarily wrong. As much as I hate to admit it, it’s accurate in tone to the camp filled era of the Comics Code and Adam West serial.

There is no "camp era" in the Batman comics. Those stories were played straight. The Adam West show took them and camped them up. And the Comics Code brought down a lot of comics, but superheroes weren't really the main target, and the reason why superhero comics (in general, NOT JUST BATMAN) became more sci-fi and strange was simply BECAUSE THEY SOLD. They could have done much more serious and darker stories WITHIN the comic code rules. But thy didn't.

It’s just not a majorities preferred dose of the dynamic duo these days. It's certainly not mine. Public conscience now desires dark and brooding seriousness. Burton delivers on this when comparatively speaking, Nolan merely upped the antae when it came to that seriousness. For that very reason, some felt Begins was extremely boring. Of course some people in the industry disliked Burtons films, but then some disliked Begins. Many comic writers and artists also loved both. So Burtons original seemed pretty accurate to Bob Kane’s version to me. Bob Kane himself agreed. I’ll be happy to post the video to prove it. I’d say thusly the film's very far from wrong. It's just one version of the many evolving forms of Batman and his cast. I can list off numerous story arch’s and issues the film blatantly derived from. Many of those are considered staple readings in the mythos of Batman. No one is saying that you have to like Burtons original. Even I can’t stand the vast majority of Batman Returns. But if you’re going to diss it with unjust and inaccurate evaluations, or merely for the sake of elevating Nolans films, people will call you out.

I just point of thing out. Bob Kane (who didn't really invent Batman) was simply impressed that "his" creation got so much attention from the public and such a big movie. Bob Kane also liked the Adam West show. But Bob Kane DISLIKED, for example, the Dark Knight Returns. And you know why? Because Bob Kane and Bill FInger never wanted to create a psychological broken guy. They wanted to do adventure stories about a fearless adventurer. And BTW, Batman BEFORE Robin was just one of many Shadow/Crimson Avenger/Zorro wannabes. But when they introduced Robin Batman became a big success. Without Robin Batman would probably be one of more obscure characters, like The Spider or Slam Bradley.

So I stick with it; the Burton movies were influenced by prior comics far more then the film influenced later comics. If you have issues with Burtons installment in the mythos, you should mostly be taking it up with the source material. I just think you’re being remarkably unfair toward Burton, blaming him for something that he really has no responsibility for, because we’re living in a time when it’s now suddenly hip to bash his take on the Batman. Why must every complement Dark Knight receives come complete with a Burton insult? It’s absurd fan boy belligerence. They’re both beloved and accurate, whether you like it or not.

I didn't mean to be so harsh. But Batman turned from a pulp hero into a father figure, a kind of special FBI agent, a generic superhero, a camp crusader to a James Bond-wannabe, back to the Dark Knight Detective... all those takes felt "okay" to me, but Burton's Bat-killer never really did it for me.

I just can't agree with that, and he's certainly credited as the one who brought Batman bad to his "dark roots". I'm well aware he wasn't alone, but he's the face of that revival.

Well, like many things in history it's always someone else who gets the honour for something. Many famous inventors just took the ideas and inventions from other guys (Edison). So Denny O'Neil was one of the writers who was there, but other things were more important. First of all, DC signed a new contract with Bob Kane , so "Bob Kane studious" didn't have to deliver the Batman material anymore and the editor of the Batman at the time (Julie Schwartz) used this chance to make Batman stories more serious and darker. But the first writers to do so where Frank Robbins, Irv Novick and Bon Haney. Neal Adams and O'Neil came later and it was really more Adam's stunning artwork that made them to be the one "who made Batman dark again" in the public. But Schwartz, Robbins and Haney definitely deserve more credit. Hell, Denny O'Neil was the guy who destroyed Hal Jordan.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I still oppose the idea that the Burton movies were "serious". They are somewhat fairy tale like

Read the original Grimms fairy tales. They were serious and very dark, too.

I still want to know what was so "brooding" about O'Neill and Bob Kane's version. THe early Batman was just a character in an adventure/crime strip, and O'Neill was one of the guys that made Batman "serious" and "grounded" again. But "psychologic themes"? Okay, there was "There Is No Hope In Crime Alley", but that was pretty much the only story. The death of Batman's parent did never play a big part in the comics until the 80s/90s when the psychobabble started.

He was grim and brooding. The death of his parents was his psychological motivating force in the O'Neil and Bob Kane version.

There is no "camp era" in the Batman comics. Those stories were played straight.

In the '50s Bat-Mite and Batman as Batbaby was played straight? No, it wasn't. It was played for laughs. And the comics followed the campy tv show in the '60s when the show became a hit. There was indeed a camp era in the Batman comics.

I just point of thing out. Bob Kane (who didn't really invent Batman) was simply impressed that "his" creation got so much attention from the public and such a big movie. Bob Kane also liked the Adam West show. But Bob Kane DISLIKED, for example, the Dark Knight Returns. And you know why? Because Bob Kane and Bill FInger never wanted to create a psychological broken guy. They wanted to do adventure stories about a fearless adventurer.

Batman is not a psychologically broken guy in Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Bob Kane didn't dislike Frank Miller or Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Bob Kane said in Comics Interview, "Well, I've read the book but I don't understand it. I'm certainly appreciative that it brought the Batman back to the dark, mysteriouso roots that I created him in. I think the drawings are very creative and different and avant-garde, he's a very good artist and I think Frank's a very good writer. I think he's a very talented man, but I'm afraid he's beyond my intelligence. Frank is very political, and there is a lot of symbolism in there I'm not sure I understand, like swastikas on a women's breasts and buttocks. And why Superman shrivels down to a toothpick from this big, virile guy, and then is reincarnated again into full body - I don't understand that. I don't know what he's talking about. I've read it five times, I still don't know what he's talking about."

And BTW, Batman BEFORE Robin was just one of many Shadow/Crimson Avenger/Zorro wannabes.

"Anything that was original enough to combine da Vinci, Zorro and The Bat had to be a success." - Bill Finger.

But when they introduced Robin Batman became a big success. Without Robin Batman would probably be one of more obscure characters, like The Spider or Slam Bradley.

Batman was a success before Robin, and was an even bigger success after Robin was introduced. Batman's sales doubled with the introduction of Robin.

I didn't mean to be so harsh. But Batman turned from a pulp hero into a father figure, a kind of special FBI agent, a generic superhero, a camp crusader to a James Bond-wannabe, back to the Dark Knight Detective... all those takes felt "okay" to me, but Burton's Bat-killer never really did it for me.

But Finger and Kane's Bat-killer felt "okay" to you? Than your a hypocrite.

Well, like many things in history it's always someone else who gets the honour for something. Many famous inventors just took the ideas and inventions from other guys (Edison). So Denny O'Neil was one of the writers who was there, but other things were more important. First of all, DC signed a new contract with Bob Kane , so "Bob Kane studious" didn't have to deliver the Batman material anymore and the editor of the Batman at the time (Julie Schwartz) used this chance to make Batman stories more serious and darker. But the first writers to do so where Frank Robbins, Irv Novick and Bon Haney. Neal Adams and O'Neil came later and it was really more Adam's stunning artwork that made them to be the one "who made Batman dark again" in the public. But Schwartz, Robbins and Haney definitely deserve more credit.

Schwartz was the editor, Haney wrote light hearted Batman team ups in Brave and Bold, Frank Robbins as writer did put an emphasis on more serious detective work in 1969. However, credit must be given were credit is do - it was O'Neil and Adams, starting with "Secret of the Waiting Graves" (Detective Comics #395, January, 1970), that really first returned Batman to his dark roots. "I just wanted to make it Gothic and spooky," Denny O’Neil explained. "We went back to a grimmer, darker Batman, and that's why those stories did well," inker Dick Giordano explained. Neal Adams said, "They were following the old TV show. Following the old TV show was ridicules because you had Batman walking down the street in the middle of the day in this bat costume, the kind of thing that really makes the character smaller in the eyes of the public. So I had no interest in doing that Batman. I had an interest in doing: The Batman. That's what I wanted to do. Our Batman was simply the old Batman."

Hell, Denny O'Neil was the guy who destroyed Hal Jordan.

How do you figure that?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Batman is not a psychologically broken guy in Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Bob Kane didn't dislike Frank Miller or Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Bob Kane said in Comics Interview, "Well, I've read the book but I don't understand it. I'm certainly appreciative that it brought the Batman back to the dark, mysteriouso roots that I created him in. I think the drawings are very creative and different and avant-garde, he's a very good artist and I think Frank's a very good writer. I think he's a very talented man, but I'm afraid he's beyond my intelligence. Frank is very political, and there is a lot of symbolism in there I'm not sure I understand, like swastikas on a women's breasts and buttocks. And why Superman shrivels down to a toothpick from this big, virile guy, and then is reincarnated again into full body - I don't understand that. I don't know what he's talking about. I've read it five times, I still don't know that he's talking about."

Wow, I feel the exact same way as Mr. Kane down to a T. I just don't understand TDKR, I think it's because of the political influence of the time which I don't care to know about.

 

[El Payaso]

How can a personal judgment be false?

Because you said that “objectively” it doesn’t hold up. How can be a personal judgement something that is supposed to be “objective”?

No, objectively it’s not like that.

Since this is art we're talking about, and not a science, I was offering a normative analysis.

Since it’s art and not science your assessment can’t be objective.

At this point, the meaningful discussion arises from the ability to express opinions and evaluations that don't contain contradicting statements, as well as make these critical assessments in good faith that there is an ideal model of the art form; in this case storytelling. And personal enlightenment and thinkning beyond your own point of view thanks to fruitful discussion among fans goes a long way.

As long as it’s “IMO” and not “objectively.”

"The false statement" : I saw B89 again a decade later after my happy childhood memories of it-- not being sure if I would like it or not as an adult. I judged it on its merits as a film at this point, ex animo, and not as a fan of Batman. Hence, as close to objective as personally possible.

A nice try, but still a personal opinion.

The conjunctional statement also adds that I DO compare it to the Nolan films in hindsight after seeing those, in addition to the former statement. None of these opinions are false. They're just opinions. It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one assessment to the extent of disqualifying another because it doesn't fit tidily into your argument.

I just disqualify it as long as you put the “objective” label over the “opinion” one. With the “objective” label you’re coming close to disqualify any assessment that differs from yours.

Besides which, that argument itself (that comparing one version of an adaptation to another separate adaptation, with both being derived from the same original source material, ie., "judging Burton's Batman in comparison to Nolan's Batman is wrong") is indeed a false premise. Why is it invalid to review by comparison in this case?

I’m sorry, where have I said such thing?

I admit I haven't done a thorough critique of Batman 89, so there isn't a whole lot of content for you to make a rebuttal. That still doesn't excuse you from making disingenuous statements.

I just state that your opinion – as any other - is not “objective.”

Also, as for meaningful discussion; if you don't find any to be had here, then why join in on conversations?

It’s funny how I could be asking you the same. Or why you finally didn’t take that break.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Again, where was the 70s Batman "brooding"??! He wasn't.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

How do you figure that?

Did you read his "hard travelling heroes" work? He mad Hal Jordan from a fearless guy into a stupid one-dimensional guy.

 

[Monstera]

Because you said that “objectively” it doesn’t hold up. How can be a personal judgement something that is supposed to be “objective”? ... (and so forth)

Objective in the sense that a judgment can be made without personal bias. I initially made a judgment that was not based on nostalgia, hero worship, fanboyism, expectations, nor a comparison to anything else except a model of ideal storytelling that a majority of writers and critics have agreed upon in the industry. I'm not trying to hide opinion as fact, just express how I didn't take all of the above into consideration.

Only later, after reading Batman in comics and seeing him in the Nolan movies, that I make an additional judgment on Batman 89. This is what I eluded to in my statement as "not being objective".

Yes, if you really want to argue semantics, then "objective" isn't being used in a text-book definition. But I get the feeling this was a loophole that allows you to dismiss the fact that I judged the movie not based on the Nolan ones you seem to think recieves too much praise.

Also, as for meaningful discussion; if you don't find any to be had here, then why join in on conversations?

It’s funny how I could be asking you the same. Or why you finally didn’t take that break.

That's not an answer.

And it wasn't me who I was suggesting should take a break. I enjoy reading opinions on here. I don't demean conversation by mocking the messenger. I think people who react to opinions that differ from theirs by calling them "Nolanities" or "Burtonites" have been spending way too much time here. Just an honest suggestion.

 

[Monstera]

How is it a false premise? ever think some of us just recognize differences in style and acknowledge that when forming our opinions. I could never down Burton because his creativity functions differently from Nolan's.

To me it's like saying you don't like Picasso because you feel he needs to be more like Da Vinci. I mean I would want Picasso to just be Picasso and Da Vinci to just be Da Vinci.

An invalid analogy because Picasso and DaVinci never painted the same subject. And if they did, it's perfectly valid to compare those two pieces.

I could only compare John Glen's Bond movies to each other and not Martin Campbell's because they both had completely different sensibilities when approaching the same source material. Which is why I could compare Batman to BR or BB to TDK because each of those films comes from the same creative source and could be compared to highlight the evolution of each filmmaker's style from picture to picture.

I still don't see how it's not perfectly valid to compare two different takes on the same source material, no matter if they belong to two different authors.

 

[The Guard]

The Batman movies had on obvious impact on the comics. The grappling gun idea, the nature of his costume becoming more like body armor, more and more gadgets arriving in the comics. But I agree…BATMAN has a lot more comics influence to it than it influenced later comics. There’s quite a bit of the 70’s and 80’s Batman mythology found in BATMAN.

The first sentecence doesn't make sense. It's like "The sun is burning but it's still getting darker". There was nothing "Mature" about the introduction of Jason Todd.

What the hell are you talking about? They started dealing with themes of abuse, learned criminal behavior VS learning morality, and they explored the nature of Batman and Robin's relationship to a degree they simply had not done before. No longer was Robin content to just hang around and act by the book. He was rebellious, headstrong, and often confused about morality.

The pre-crisis Todd was not a Dick Grayson-clone, despite what people tend to believe. The post-crisis version wasn't mature either. Taking a punk kid as a sidekick and taking a circus kid as a sidekick aren't really the most "mature" things to do.

You seem to not understand the difference between characters acting "mature" in a story and what "mature storytelling" means. "Mature storytelling" means that things aren't as black and white, or set in stone. Social and psychological concepts are explored, and stories become more about the characters and less about "the latest adventure".

And you know, even the punk Jason was quite likeable, until the point they decided to pull the sleazy "We Kill Robin" stunt. Then they started to write him "rebellious" and "disruptive" so the readers WOULD vote for his death. And that's the truth. I am so glad that even post-crisis some writers like Grant and Barr were not playing the grim and gritty drum so hard. Unlike guys like Starlin.

Never said Todd wasn't likeable. He was even likeable after he started to stray from the path, because you could understand his reasoning. Why the DC writers started writing that way (and he always had that streak in him, always) is irrelevant. The point is that they did. They moved far, far away from the status quo and explored concepts rather than just adhering to the ones that had come before. This is, whether you like it or not, a far more mature approach to storytelling than simply following a blueprint for what has gone before.

Oh yes. You seem to be obsessed to make flamboyant fantasies into some "mature" stories.

No, I seem aware of the potential that Barbara Gordon no longer being able to be Batgirl had on her character's psyche, Gordon's, Batman's, Dick's, and many of Barbara's heroic community. And I see that writers took this angle and ran with to make a very mature exploration into what happens when a heroine can't be what she was. She developed into something else, and it was generally handled in a mature way. You act like you've never read an Oracle story, or as if you just dismiss them because you miss the status quo.

And yes, a young girl suddenly becoming a total computer expert.

Kind of like someone becoming a martial arts expert? Or a kid coming off the street able to be Robin? It's a comic book. Suspend your disbelief. People become computer experts every day in the real world, and Barbara was always someone who applied herself to what she was doing.

And yes, that's EXACTLY why the introduced Cassandra Cain. Because that's so mature. A young girl being a perfect assassin is really realistic, deep and "mature".

The way they explored the concept certainly was. She struggled with who she was and what that meant in relation to the Batman mythology, and they went very in depth into who she was and what she developed into. Very mature storytelling approach, and readers rewarded the BATGIRL title for this for several years.

Face it, comics have never grown up (not that superhero comics even should).

No, I won't face it, because it's simply not true. Maybe you are just incapable of seeing how they have grown up over the years because you simply are bitter about the loss of the "status quo".

Nah. The obsession came in the 90s.

Patently untrue. First, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and YEAR ONE displayed his obsession, and that came about in what years? There are a NUMBER of key late 70's/early 80's Batman stories that show a doggedly determined and yes, obsessed Batman who put his mission before almost anything else.

LOL. Serious. Superman IS a loner. It's just his personality with his "fortress of solitude".

Superman needing a break every so often doesn't make him a loner. The fortress? Where he hangs out with a ton of “humanoid” robots designed to reflect his interactions with humanity?

He can't go home again and he has accepted that. Not like Batman, who loves family so much that he has created his own surrogate family.

You are completely missing the point of Superman if you think that's what he's about. And you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word “loner”.

There is no "camp era" in the Batman comics. Those stories were played straight.

No, they most certainly weren’t played straight. They were riddled with puns and jokes and over the top explorations into just how absurd Batman’s world could become that were obviously meant to be funny and often based on shock value. Many of them were very tongue in cheek. That’s not playing the concept of Batman straight at all. There's an obvious era of camp in Batman lore. The key element of camp is that it refers to styles that are of an exaggerated nature. There are PLENTY of Batman stories that fit this definition.

He was grim and brooding. The death of his parents was his psychological motivating force in the O'Neil and Bob Kane version.

He was grim and brooding. The fact that he didn't brood as much as Bruce Wayne did in BATMAN means nothing, he brooded often. I'm pretty sure that many of the captions even described him as "brooding" in about half the Batman stories from the 70's.

I have no idea how you can read the 70’s Batman stories and not see a dogged, grimly determined and often brooding Batman.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

The Batman movies had on obvious impact on the comics. The grappling gun idea, the nature of his costume becoming more like body armor, more and more gadgets arriving in the comics. But I agree…BATMAN has a lot more comics influence to it than it influenced later comics. There’s quite a bit of the 70’s and 80’s Batman mythology found in BATMAN.

Well, I don't see it. Of course the movie took elements from all bat-eras. But to say this movie is "Like the 70s" is wrong and to say "like the early Batman stories" is also wrong. It's bascially just the Batman concept taken and Burtonified or Hammified (and those guys misunderstood the character).

What the hell are you talking about? They started dealing with themes of abuse, learned criminal behavior VS learning morality, and they explored the nature of Batman and Robin's relationship to a degree they simply had not done before. No longer was Robin content to just hang around and act by the book. He was rebellious, headstrong, and often confused about morality.

It's funny how you desperately want the comics to be something "deep", when it's still about guys in tights fighting crime and violate everything physics have to offer.

You seem to not understand the difference between characters acting "mature" in a story and what "mature storytelling" means. "Mature storytelling" means that things aren't as black and white, or set in stone. Social and psychological concepts are explored, and stories become more about the characters and less about "the latest adventure".

But it's about adventures. It's escapist fiction. I pity the fanboys who don't see the comics as a form of escapism, instead they want to turn these "flamboyant fantasies" (quoting Miller) into something that makes sense by real life logic. That's why the cry about things like One More Day and their precious "continuity". It is to Especially Batman (like Superman) is one of those clear-cut morality books from the second World War.

Never said Todd wasn't likeable. He was even likeable after he started to stray from the path, because you could understand his reasoning. Why the DC writers started writing that way (and he always had that streak in him, always) is irrelevant. The point is that they did. They moved far, far away from the status quo and explored concepts rather than just adhering to the ones that had come before. This is, whether you like it or not, a far more mature approach to storytelling than simply following a blueprint for what has gone before.

Yeah. I tell you something: Real people get away in real life without being either "one-dimensional" or "complex". Many superhero comic writers pretentious crap. "Flawed character" = realistic. THat's just not true. Most people will face tragedies without being seriously "damaged" in her psychologic state. It simply cheapens characters. It's a lame excuse for inconsistent character writing. "I cannot understand why he did this?" "Yeah, that's because he is SO COMPLEX". [think of the "whatever" sign here]

No, I seem aware of the potential that Barbara Gordon no longer being able to be Batgirl had on her character's psyche, Gordon's, Batman's, Dick's, and many of Barbara's heroic community. And I see that writers took this angle and ran with to make a very mature exploration into what happens when a heroine can't be what she was. She developed into something else, and it was generally handled in a mature way. You act like you've never read an Oracle story, or as if you just dismiss them because you miss the status quo.

Yeah. Mature exploration about a librarian dressed in a tight costume and able to fight crime who is crippled and then becomes one of the best computer experts in the world.

That's not realistic, that's not mature, that's dumber than the Silver Age.

Kind of like someone becoming a martial arts expert? Or a kid coming off the street able to be Robin? It's a comic book. Suspend your disbelief. People become computer experts every day in the real world, and Barbara was always someone who applied herself to what she was doing.

I suspend my disbelief. It's you who can't and is trying to fix this with demanding his heroes to be written in a mature way, complex... and all this stuff. I can live with that.. but definitely not the people who think that the Crazy Quilt is silly and such stuff

The way they explored the concept certainly was. She struggled with who she was and what that meant in relation to the Batman mythology, and they went very in depth into who she was and what she developed into. Very mature storytelling approach, and readers rewarded the BATGIRL title for this for several years.

Yeah right. Very deep. And realistic. You got it

No, I won't face it, because it's simply not true. Maybe you are just incapable of seeing how they have grown up over the years because you simply are bitter about the loss of the "status quo".

Yeah, they turned from nice adventure stories into books filled with violence, sex and perversions. IMO there should always be a line between real world crimes and superhero world crimes. An invasion by intergalatic beings... that's kinda fun. But an invasion by intergalactic beings, played out like a real life... that's just awful.

Patently untrue. First, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and YEAR ONE displayed his obsession, and that came about in what years? There are a NUMBER of key late 70's/early 80's Batman stories that show a doggedly determined and yes, obsessed Batman who put his mission before almost anything else.

DKR=special case. "Year One" didn't show an "obsession" (if you know what that is). No, there is not a number. Name them. Show them. Whatever. They are just not there. Batman didn't think about these things. In his first 40 years of fictional existence I think he thought about the death of his parents... about 5 times or something. Yeah.

Superman needing a break every so often doesn't make him a loner. The fortress? Where he hangs out with a ton of “humanoid” robots designed to reflect his interactions with humanity?



You are completely missing the point of Superman if you think that's what he's about. And you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word “loner”.

No, you are just influenced by the post-crisis Superman who was a loser anyways. THe authentic Superman was above such trivialities and saved earth with his alpha male attitude instead of running to Mommy and Daddy.

No, they most certainly weren’t played straight. They were riddled with puns and jokes and over the top explorations into just how absurd Batman’s world could become that were obviously meant to be funny and often based on shock value. Many of them were very tongue in cheek. That’s not playing the concept of Batman straight at all. There's an obvious era of camp in Batman lore. The key element of camp is that it refers to styles that are of an exaggerated nature. There are PLENTY of Batman stories that fit this definition.

THEY WERE MADE FOR KIDS! They sold more than the issues of a whole year these days. They weren't meant to be read by adults. Face it. The early Batman was read by soldiers in the war and children. During the success of the Adam West show they camped things up a little bit, but before, Batman's space adventures... they were NOT campy, they were just modelled after the successful Superman comics.

He was grim and brooding. The fact that he didn't brood as much as Bruce Wayne did in BATMAN means nothing, he brooded often. I'm pretty sure that many of the captions even described him as "brooding" in about half the Batman stories from the 70's.

I have no idea how you can read the 70’s Batman stories and not see a dogged, grimly determined and often brooding Batman.

No, in the 70s he was not brooding. I have read them all (almost), they showed an emotional guy who could actually enjoy life. Not the depressed jerk from the 90s. Please show me these "captions".

And build you own opinion, don't re-chew things you've heard like "O'Neill made Batman dark and brooding AGAIN!". He made him "dark" again, but Batman was NEVER brooding. He was the hairy chested love god. And he was quite funny




The BTAS BAtman wasn't brooding either. And this guy was modelled after the 70s/80s.

 

[The Guard]

Well, I don't see it. Of course the movie took elements from all bat-eras. But to say this movie is "Like the 70s" is wrong and to say "like the early Batman stories" is also wrong.

I didn't say that the movie was like the 70's. Do me a favor and read my posts before you respond to them.

It's bascially just the Batman concept taken and Burtonified or Hammified (and those guys misunderstood the character).

They didn't misunderstand the character. They simply didn't present everything that you wanted to see (or the version that you wanted to see), and delved more into the psychological aspects of Batman than most people had before. They looked at the character and asked "What would happen to a man that does this night in and night out".

It's funny how you desperately want the comics to be something "deep", when it's still about guys in tights fighting crime and violate everything physics have to offer.

You're priceless with your telapthic abilities. I never said a thing about the comics being deep. They’re simply more mature now in their storytelling and their explorations of concepts than they were in the 70’s.

But it's about adventures. It's escapist fiction. I pity the fanboys who don't see the comics as a form of escapism, instead they want to turn these "flamboyant fantasies" (quoting Miller) into something that makes sense by real life logic. That's why the cry about things like One More Day and their precious "continuity". It is to Especially Batman (like Superman) is one of those clear-cut morality books from the second World War.

It may be escapism, but even escapism can have depth to it. There's nothing inherently clear cut about a vigilante or his morality.

Yeah. I tell you something: Real people get away in real life without being either "one-dimensional" or "complex".

Many superhero comic writers pretentious crap. "Flawed character" = realistic. THat's just not true. Most people will face tragedies without being seriously "damaged" in her psychologic state. It simply cheapens characters.

And many people won't come away from their trauma unscathed. This is also the truth. Or do you think people just pop mental health medication at a record pace for the hell of it?

I don't know any writer in the world who thinks that a character struggling to be what they are and having to learn from mistakes and trials cheapens a character. Good luck with that literary approach. There's a part of me that loves the simple concepts of Batman, but I'm far more impressed with the kinds of themes the character's story has than I ever was with the "tights and fights" portion of the mythology.

It's a lame excuse for inconsistent character writing. "I cannot understand why he did this?" "Yeah, that's because he is SO COMPLEX". [think of the "whatever" sign here

What inconsistent character writing? Examples, please.

Yeah. Mature exploration about a librarian dressed in a tight costume and able to fight crime who is crippled and then becomes one of the best computer experts in the world.

You obviously have no clue what I am talking about. I'm talking about Barbara's mindset, her emotional development as a character, not her most basic story elements.

That's not realistic, that's not mature, that's dumber than the Silver Age.

At this point I don't know if you have the slightest clue what I mean by "mature".

suspend my disbelief. It's you who can't and is trying to fix this with demanding his heroes to be written in a mature way, complex... and all this stuff. I can live with that.. but definitely not the people who think that the Crazy Quilt is silly and such stuff

Crazy Quilt is a fantastic character. The mature exploration of a character has NOTHING to do with making it easier to suspend my belief, and everything to do with me not having to read the exact same suspension of disbelief stories over and over. Again with the telepathy. You really do have a gift.

Yeah, they turned from nice adventure stories into books filled with violence, sex and perversions.

Your nice adventure stories are still in print. If that's all you want, go read them.

Batman's mythology turned from stories about a man who fights the most ridiculous kind of evil "cliche-ridden over the top bank robbers" to stories about the type of people who the world NEEDS people to combat. And they started exploring the nature of this beyond the simple "adventure" aspect of it. And you have a problem with that WHY? Is it scary? Does human nature scare you?

IMO there should always be a line between real world crimes and superhero world crimes.

You're daffy if you think there isn't. Batman comics remain chock full of absurd supervillains and story points.

An invasion by intergalatic beings... that's kinda fun. But an invasion by intergalactic beings, played out like a real life... that's just awful.

Why?

DKR=special case. "Year One" didn't show an "obsession" (if you know what that is).

Clearly you don't, because you have conveniently the passanges of Bruce's journal that reveal his single purpose in life, his obsession with his mission,and the part where Bruce wanted to die if he couldn't come up with a method for his crusade...

Oh, but that's not obsession. No, that's just...nice adventure.

No, there is not a number. Name them. Show them. Whatever. They are just not there.

Gladly, For starters, off the top of my head? THERE IS NO HOPE IN CRIME ALLEY, A DEATH IN THE FAMILY and BATMAN: SON OF THE DEMON (1987). Not only does he brood quite a bit and show a growing obsession with his mission and in particular, his attempt to find justice for particular victims, but it deals with more mature themes as well. Almost any comic written by Norm Breyfogle from 87-93 illustrates a more obsessive Batman as well.

Batman didn't think about these things.

Didn't think about WHAT things? What things did I tell you he thought about that you are so vehemently denying?

In his first 40 years of fictional existence I think he thought about the death of his parents... about 5 times or something. Yeah.

(Falls over laughing).

No, you are just influenced by the post-crisis Superman who was a loser anyways. The authentic Superman was above such trivialities and saved earth with his alpha male attitude instead of running to Mommy and Daddy.

You have to be kidding me. If anything, Pre-Crisis Superman was even LESS of a loner than he was Post-Crisis. He had super animal friends, for god's sake! He hung out with The Legion, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane and Lana Lang, and a number of other associates. And he worked with Batman and Green Lantern a LOT, as well as other heroes in magazines like SHOWCASE. And he worked with the Justice Society and the JLA itself from time to time. Are you serious?

THEY WERE MADE FOR KIDS! They sold more than the issues of a whole year these days. They weren't meant to be read by adults. Face it. The early Batman was read by soldiers in the war and children. During the success of the Adam West show they camped things up a little bit, but before, Batman's space adventures... they were NOT campy, they were just modelled after the successful Superman comics.

Successful Superman comics which were...CAMPY. And you're wrong there, too, Batman being so outlandish (as did Superman and other heroes) to compete with the kinds of comics that were appearing during the Science Fiction/horror craze of the 40's and 50's. I'm not interested in what Batman comics were originally made for. I'm interested in what they are and what they can be.

No, in the 70s he was not brooding. I have read them all (almost), they showed an emotional guy who could actually enjoy life. Not the depressed jerk from the 90s. Please show me these "captions".

So...because you show me a panel where Batman shows a sense of humor (which he STILL does), he never brooded? You need to look up the definition of brooding. And you need to put this in context. I'm not implying that the man brooded all the time, but he did brood.

The BTAS BAtman wasn't brooding either.

The BTAS Batman was never brooding?

Never?

(falls over laughing)

And this guy was modelled after the 70s/80s.

Nope. The BTAS Batman was drawn from many eras. There's quite a bit of the 40's and 50's in there as well as the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and the movie era.

 

[Cain]

An invalid analogy because Picasso and DaVinci never painted the same subject. And if they did, it's perfectly valid to compare those two pieces.

OK fair enough. But I'll ask you this, would you compare Steve Englehart's Batman work to Matt Wagner's? how about Bill Finger's to Greg Rucka's?
All were very different and had different intents but all where good representations of that character and his world. I believe in judging things on what they accomplish on their own not on what they look like compared to another variation on it.

Englehart's Batman is still my favorite interpretation and the stories collected in Strange Apparitions remain my personal favorite bat stories to this day. It's how ideally I would prefer Batman and his world to be represented. But Rucka and Wagner obviously have superior writing since they came along year's later and had more influences they brought to their Batman work and it is very solid work but I prefer Englehart's it entertains me more.

Same way I love Finger's Golden Age Batman work but prefer Englehart because again to me that's the one I find the most entertaining and fulfilling to me as a reader. Doesn't mean I'll keep praising it while trying to knock the others either regardless of the fact that I enjoy them all anyway. Even the Batman comics I don't like I don't compare to the ones I do I just judge them based on what they accomplish on their own. If it's not my cup of tea I just keep it moving I don't even bring those stories up but it's because it's not Englehart's run or anything like that just cause as a reader they didn't do anything for me.

I still don't see how it's not perfectly valid to compare two different takes on the same source material, no matter if they belong to two different authors.

I don't see the logic because different authors have different intents. Despite what you might think I'm sure all of us in here have a different concept of who or what Batman is. The same applies to the writer's not everybody would see something the same way. I believe in preference cause naturally you'll prefer something to something else but I just don't see the logic in comparison. I know I'm a minority on this but I don't care this is just how my brain works.

 

[MysterioMenace]

TrueToTheCore…you make the most brash and incorrect statements I’ve ever seen. I mean no offence, but come on! Batman was NEVER brooding? Joker NEVER acted like Jack? Gotham was NEVER gothic? Batman was NEVER campy in the comics? Those statements are all incorrect and can or have been proven so. Even the O’Neil panel you yourself posted completely disproves your argument, hurting you more then ever helping. Why do you insist on, for lack of as better way of putting it, looking silly? Stop digging yourself a grave. I’m waiting for you to say more insane things like “Batman never had the yellow oval logo” and “Batman the Animated Series sucked!” All these never statements are incorrect and prove one thing…you know very little about Batman. Your exposure seems to be very limited. If you were truly knowledgeable on the entire mythos, not just select portions like Nolans interpretation, you’d not make asinine statements like those. I’m sorry but it’s getting ridiculous. Honestly…just stop. Just please stop. You don’t even sound like a Batman fan. Batman fans don’t have to like every interpretation, of course not, to each their own, but all you seem to do is make bizarre inaccurate criticisms and leave negative comments. I don’t know if you realize it, but you sound like a bitter Batman and comics hater…

Why not try to be optimistic? Burtons Batman is credited (by Bruce Timm) as being a heavy inspiration on Batman the Animated Series and the 30’s like style of it all. Surely you like the animated series, arguably the most popular and well-received American cartoon ever produced. Pssh! I think the animated series has topped every live-action film yet.

 

[Monstera]

Cain, fair enough here, too. I still maintain that contrasting two different adaptations based on the same character is interesting and valid if only to discover for oneself why they may find one take more compelling or better crafted than the other. It's all a part of the joy of being a geek, I think.

Still, it was never my intention to crap on things people do like, so I think I'll bow out of this thread now (at least as an active opponent of Batman 89's storytelling) before I come off as one of those guys. Because it seems that every messageboard on the Internet dedicated to an intellectual property has their mean, attention-seeking trolls and they drive me up the ****ing wall. I could offer more criticism in good faith in hopes of more feedback, but to be honest, I don't like spending too much time on things that don't work out for me.

But I DID want to offer my two cents, as meager as they were.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Did you read his "hard travelling heroes" work? He mad Hal Jordan from a fearless guy into a stupid one-dimensional guy.

No, Denny O'Neil made Hal Jordan, from a one-dimensional mr. perfect, into a human flawed three-dimensional guy. He gave Hal his own personality. He didn't really have one before - John Broome's Green Lantern had acted the same as the other superdoers at DC did in the '60s comics. As cardboard characters as seen in the Super Friends cartoons. He was virtually interchangeable with any other superdoer in the Silver Age DC line. Denny O'Neil explained, "I always figured Green Lantern for the best damn cop in the world - a guy who would represent the establishment. Here's this guy, a human living on Earth, who takes his orders from a bunch of high-and-mighty blue extraterrestrials and is expected to act on their commands without questioning them. We might assume him to be George Bush's idea of a hero, if we recall that Mr. Bush and cohorts discouraged questioning by keeping as much information as possible secret, and stage-managing what were supposed to be public events. So I made Green Lantern the voice of the conservative right, and Green Arrow the voice of the liberal left. My idea was to deal with real-life social problems and civil rights."

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Holy crap you guys go nuts up in here.

 

[returntovoid]

edit

 

[TruerToTheCore]

TrueToTheCore…you make the most brash and incorrect statements I’ve ever seen. I mean no offence, but come on! Batman was NEVER brooding?

Not in the 70s. Perhaps a few moments of melancholy. BTW, until the later 80s DC didn't even try to create a "personality" for Batman. Bob Haney's Batman was totally different from O'Neil's, Len Wein wrote him different to Gerry Conway. And Doug Moench made him the "soap Crusader". This is not Marvel. Marvel was about characters, continuity and consistency, DC was about stories and larger-than-life heroes. It wasn't until the first Crisis that DC was turned into "Marvel light".

Joker NEVER acted like Jack? Gotham was NEVER gothic?

Never said that.

Batman was NEVER campy in the comics?

camp doesn't mean silly. it were simply stories for kids.

Those statements are all incorrect and can or have been proven so. Even the O’Neil panel you yourself posted completely disproves your argument, hurting you more then ever helping. Why do you insist on, for lack of as better way of putting it, looking silly? Stop digging yourself a grave. I’m waiting for you to say more insane things like “Batman never had the yellow oval logo” and “Batman the Animated Series sucked!” All these never statements are incorrect and prove one thing…you know very little about Batman. Your exposure seems to be very limited. If you were truly knowledgeable on the entire mythos, not just select portions like Nolans interpretation, you’d not make asinine statements like those. I’m sorry but it’s getting ridiculous. Honestly…just stop. Just please stop. You don’t even sound like a Batman fan. Batman fans don’t have to like every interpretation, of course not, to each their own, but all you seem to do is make bizarre inaccurate criticisms and leave negative comments. I don’t know if you realize it, but you sound like a bitter Batman and comics hater…

Yeah you are right. I know nothing about the character, but people who have never read these old stories and just repeat some statements they heard on some homepages do. It's helpless.

Why not try to be optimistic? Burtons Batman is credited (by Bruce Timm) as being a heavy inspiration on Batman the Animated Series and the 30’s like style of it all. Surely you like the animated series, arguably the most popular and well-received American cartoon ever produced. Pssh! I think the animated series has topped every live-action film yet.

For the design. But not for the characters. No character acted like in the Burton movies.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

No, Denny O'Neil made Hal Jordan, from a one-dimensional mr. perfect, into a human flawed three-dimensional guy. He gave Hal his own personality. He didn't really have one before - John Broome's Green Lantern had acted the same as the other superdoers at DC did in the '60s comics. As cardboard characters as seen in the Super Friends cartoons. He was virtually interchangeable with any other superdoer in the Silver Age DC line. Denny O'Neil explained, "I always figured Green Lantern for the best damn cop in the world - a guy who would represent the establishment. Here's this guy, a human living on Earth, who takes his orders from a bunch of high-and-mighty blue extraterrestrials and is expected to act on their commands without questioning them. We might assume him to be George Bush's idea of a hero, if we recall that Mr. Bush and cohorts discouraged questioning by keeping as much information as possible secret, and stage-managing what were supposed to be public events. So I made Green Lantern the voice of the conservative right, and Green Arrow the voice of the liberal left. My idea was to deal with real-life social problems and civil rights."

Nah. O'Neil turned him down to pray his liberal propaganda. The thought process was "The Green Lantern Corps is a galactic police and policemen are evil".

 

[the_joker]

I don't know why people keep persisting on comparing Burton with Nolan. They are two different interpretations. Whereas Burton's Batman was more of an fantasy/alternate reality (though let's face it, we don't have masked vigilantes saving cities in this reality either), Nolan is more grounded in 'could this happen in reality'.

By all means, pick your favourite interpretation, but I don't think preferring one interpretation out of the other really means that you must therefore hate other interpretation. The way I see it, is that Burton's Batman was the Batman of my childhood and thus will always have a special place in my history. Nolan's is the Batman of my adulthood. The world is big enough for both interpretations to coexist together, so comparing them and dismissing one interpretation in favour for the other is ridiculous and indeed futile.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Nah. O'Neil turned him down to pray his liberal propaganda. The thought process was "The Green Lantern Corps is a galactic police and policemen are evil".

No, the thought process was "be wary of authority figures, don't blindly follow the herd, do your own thinking and question the hell out of everything. Acknowledge that racism, stereotypes, poverty, classism, and other forms of oppression exist. Crime exists in many forms. Acknowledging it is the first step to correcting it."