Yeah, i understand the whole "it could be closer to the comics than Nolan" or "i want it to feel like the comics are coming to life 100 %". I dont like that approach usually, but i get it. But for a lot of people who act like Nolan ventured sooooo far away from the comics....you guys are nuts. You're trying so hard not to like the trilogy that it sounds like ur making **** up.
Listen to Domini. Year One, The Man Who Falls, Long Halloween, Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, No Man's Land, Bane Of The Demon, Legacy, The Cult....C'MON PEOPLE!
This trilogy is the closest thing Batman has gotten to the damn comics. More than the TV series in the 60's,
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/14587/Marvels-THOR-2011?page=2
However, the first several episodes of that show did closely adapt actual stories from the magazines.
When comic stories were adapted, they were taken first and foremost from the mid-60s…and ergo accurately represent Batman as he existed at the time.
HI DIDDLE RIDDLE/SMACK IN THE MIDDLE is an adaptation of The Remarkable Ruse of the Riddler, May 1965.
FINE FEATHERED FINKS/PENGUIN’S A JINX was based on Partners in Plunder, April 1965.
DEATH IN SLOW MOTION/THE RIDDLER’S FALSE NOTION from The Joker’s Comedy Capers, July 1965 (Joker changed to Riddler).
ZELDA THE GREAT/A DEATH WORSE THAN FATE from The Inescapable Doom Trap, December 1965.
Only three stories, one Joker, one Mr. Freeze and one Mad Hatter, were taken from the 50s. [False Face, as well.] One Riddler and one Joker (changed to Riddler in the show) story originated in the 40s.
I should note that people often lay the blame for the Adam West version on the 1950′s.
I really don’t get people who around the time the Nolan movies came out claimed that Nolan’s Batman was taking Batman “back to his roots” and correcting “misconceptions” about the world of Batman comics that were supposedly created by the 60s TV show. The 60s TV show was far more loyal to the actual comics than Nolan’s movies were! Many of the first season episodes were specifically adapted from scripts from the comics! Written by Batman’s co-creator to boot.
More from Count Karnstein:
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/14587
This is why Batman ’66 was the pinnacle of superhero movies. It didn’t worry about audiences being jaded.
It didn’t say “Oh god, one more long white beard and we’ve hit the Arbitrary Audience Limit and it’ll tank!”.
It didn’t say “Oh, we need ‘realistic’ (if you’re a BMX biker) costumes because people will break into peals of malicious, derogatory laughter if we put them in spandex!”
It didn’t say “Oh good gosh, we need to tone down those bright colors!”
It didn’t say “Oh, that’s just not a believable origin/power/story. We need to alter it so that jaded adults will ‘buy’ it.”
It didn’t say “Nope, no blond villains because the villain will overshadow the good guys, since blonds are always heroes!”
No. None of that stupid nonsense. It said “Let’s take Batman out of the comics and put him on the screen.”
And finally, it’s not a matter of opinion that the Batman movie got it right and got it “more right” than any other superhero movie. Every other superhero movie since, including Superman ’79 [sic] and all the more recent ones have changed the costumes, the origins, and the characters, have warped events from how they occurred in the comics, have changed the essence of most of the characters, etc.
Like it or not, Batman 1966 is the only superhero movie that had the balls to literally take the comic book and put it on the big screen without having to tamper with it or fuss over whether Joe Simpleton (not a slight at you, Joe, that’s my alternate name for the great masses of stupid audiences, formerly known as Joe Sixpack, as you probably remember) could “understand” it. It unashamedly, unapologetically put the real Batman on the big screen and said “This is Batman as he is in the comics. If you don’t like it, tough ****.”
Batman 1966 did not:
Change the characters’ names to “avoid alliteration”
Change the characters’ costumes to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ origins to be more “sophisticated”
Change the characters’ powers to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ natures in order to fit some dip**** director’s “vision”
So yeah, there can be no denying it. Batman 1966 was by far the most faithful and most literal comic book adaptation ever put on film.
It amazes me when people make that claim while the proof is undeniable and un-contestable. Batman the movie and the tv show was totally faithful to the comics of the day and to the comics as they were for a decade before and after. That’s historical fact that only a pathological denier could refuse to believe. Compare the dates on the comics with the tv show. It is beyond question that I am right on that. [The TV show adapted stories published in 1965, the year before.]
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/14587
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1701.0
Compares 1966 film to antecedent comics
Like I said before, Batman 1966 is the single most accurate comic book movie ever made. If you look at all the changes other movies made to the characters’ origins, powers, costumes, etc, only the 1966 Batman comes close to a literal translation on screen. Every other movie is merely derivative.
Did Dozier just hate the Batman character and have a vendetta against him? What, he loved the Green Hornet, so he created a serious show for him, while he had nothing but contempt for Batman, so it was “ridicule city” in that matter? Please! Dozier was bringing the characters to the screen in the manner in which they had been portrayed in the comics. Was there ever a silly, absurd, ridiculous Green Hornet comic book? If so, it’s escaped my attention for the better part of 40 years. Did we ever see a Caveman Green Hornet or a Green Hornet in a rainbox/zebra/dayglo red suit? Did we ever see Green Hornet being drowned in a giant gravy boat or being chased by aliens and dinosaurs? Was there ever an Ace the Green Hornet Dog? How about a Hornet-Mite?
No? I didn’t think so. There’s your answer. It’s literally that simple. Dozier was taking characters and putting them on the screen. Green Hornet was always played straight and serious in the comics/strips/radio, so he was done that way for tv [just as Joe Friday from Dragnet appeared on a deadpan radio show and then transitioned to television]. Batman was as absurd, silly, goofy, and ridiculous as anything else that has ever appeared in comics, and so that’s how he appeared on-screen.
http://goodcomics.comicbookresource...ndoned-an-forsaked-catwoman-was-a-prostitute/
Mr. Derek Crabbe has a video detailing this situation:
http://hocof.blogspot.com/search/label/Adam West