We have these very same situations for any children's content that involves members of the LGBTQIA+. We have it for Harry Potter, because teaching kids witchcraft is amoral. Does that suddenly change that we are talking about material intended for kids? Consider the complaints about teaching children about "critical race theory". Or as normal people call it, history.
Do you believe "kiddie" stuff doesn't have anything dark in it? Grimm's Fairy Tales say hi.
My apologies, it's quickly becoming difficult to tell who's actually on the same page as me there with all of the different posts that are coming in right now.
On this front specifically? Yes, I completely agree with you!
It's the greatest strength that Batman as a franchise has. It can be adapted and shown across the various mediums in a variety of different tones and approaches that are best suited for different age groups each.
No apologies necessary - I think this thread's getting confusing and like a crossfire of points that we can't tell who or what agrees with who.
And yes, I prefer a serious/gritty Batman - but I also love how flexible the IP is.
It's one of the reasons I think Batman and Spider-Man have remained among the top selling superhero brands - it can do so, so much for so many demographics, styles and interpretations.
Parents in 1992 weren't happy with how dark Batman Returns was either.
The original intention of Batman doesn't really matter to me since I don't read the earliest comics. The stuff I'll read is usually Bronze Age or modern graphic novels that depict Batman as a dark, more mature character. Where the villains are real sickos. Batman is BOTH a story for kids and adults. That's what it's become. Especially since the 70's/80's. I do have a personal attachment to Batman so even if he was just for kids, I'd give it a pass because I was a fan of Batman as a child. So that stuff carries over. As a 33 year old, I really don't think I'd latch onto a Spider-Man movie or comic these days if I was introduced to it recently. But because I experienced it as a child in the 90's, I can sit there and really get immersed in a future Tom Holland Spider-Man movie that may have childish humour and villains.
I disagree. Nolan changed the perception.
No, I am treating it like the reality of what is. I am arguing against the self-importance of a character who dresses up like a bat. I am arguing against the idea that just because something is "for kids" doesn't mean it can't be mature. A phrase much like realism, that people are using incorrectly.
Batman is and has been many things. I don't agree with the way shauner has expressed his points but reducing Batman to "a kid's character" is extremely reductive considering how many versions of him out there. Some versions of Batman are for kids, but some very very much aren't, he isn't the type of character in which you can just make a blanket statement like that when for 30+ years now you'd never give a 5 year old the weekly Batman comic.
It's not a simple question of the original intentions. He's still a guy who dresses up like a Bat, with a comic book moral code and fights an unrealistic rogues gallery of people. That's the character. What you decide to read, doesn't change that. The clown has always been a serial killer. Even when I watched him on BTAS.
I honestly don't know what's inherently childish about this concept to be honest. Maybe it's the fact that I've grown up with the dark Batman so for me seeing him be dark just seems like his natural habitat to me, but the description "A guy that dresses up like a bat" doesn't immediately ring to my head "character for kids", if anything, separating all my knowledge from that character, "A guy that dresses up like a bat after his parents got murdered in front of him when he was 8 years old" reads more to me like crazy unsettling traumatized person than role model for kids.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores who "grown up" Batman is. What he's for. He's "mature" (use this term loosely) who grew up with the character. This isn't something limited to Batman. It applies to so many action adventure fantasy franchises, including a crap ton of DC characters. Arguably all of them. Same for Marvel.
So now if you don’t want to kill a fool
What you described being played straight and with him as the hero, is what makes it's "inherently childish". He's Zorro. A child fantasy. You can get into the meta if you like, but the meta only exist because we play it straight. How many Batman stories not only question Batman as a concept, but then lead to him being thrown in jail, locked up and never let back out on the streets again?
That’s not my quote lol
