Post the worst pictures of Batman - Part 1

Inspired by Carmine Falcone's classic thread,show me the best of the worst
 
T-T-T-T-Thread revival!

XAiXT.jpg
 
Truly an anatomical nightmare but very atmospheric and a good time for the bat books. It was something different but it worked. The really ****** times came afterwards. :cwink:
 
T-T-T-T-Thread revival!

XAiXT.jpg

I wouldn't put this in with the worst.
I think Kelley Jones' work, like Doug Moench's, is deliberately less about anatomical accuracy and more about the evocation of a disjointed, dark tone.
Their batman is a twisted up, abstract nightmare made manifest, and for a character that has as many interpretations as Bats, that's completely welcome...
 
Its totally understandable why, but the first appearance of Bats was truly horrible.

220px-Detective_Comics_27.jpg
 
Why? All the basic components are in place, plus that look is canon
 
Yeah, I'm not sure I see what the problem is in that particular cover either. The early days did have some bad panel art at times and was certainly more simplistic, but that particular cover is a classic.
 
Saying that the first ever Batman cover is even slightly bad, is ridiculous.
 
While I don't wanna see it all the time, I really enjoy the wide ears look.
 
Paul Pope, I hate the way he draws Batman making him look like a gremlin.

batmanci.jpg

65073146.jpg
 
I love Paul Pope's Batman. He looks like Lee Marvin in the Bat-Suit.
 
I love Paul Pope's Batman. He looks like Lee Marvin in the Bat-Suit.
Yeah. I suppose it can be an acquired taste but I think it works in the context. And Year 100 is a great book.
 
Why? All the basic components are in place, plus that look is canon

Because, simply put, the artwork was absolutely awful, besides being a total rip from a Flash Gordon comic. Iconic, yes, but it's still bad art.
 
Because, simply put, the artwork was absolutely awful, besides being a total rip from a Flash Gordon comic. Iconic, yes, but it's still bad art.

The art looks pretty standard for the time. Sure, you could say it's crude, but it's only crude by modern standards. I'm not sure why you'd say it's a rip from Flash Gordon.
Especially, when Flash Gordon is a ripoff of Buck Rogers.
 
Its totally understandable why, but the first appearance of Bats was truly horrible.

220px-Detective_Comics_27.jpg
I don't agree. His wings-cape and his cowl may not not be what we are used to right now. But actually they made him look like a BAT-Man. I dig this look.
 
The art looks pretty standard for the time. Sure, you could say it's crude, but it's only crude by modern standards. I'm not sure why you'd say it's a rip from Flash Gordon. Especially, when Flash Gordon is a ripoff of Buck Rogers.

By a rip of Flash Gordon, I mean that drawing of Batman on the cover was traced directly from a drawing of Flash Gordon. Kane was well known for doing this kind of thing all the time.
As far as being crude by modern standarsd yes, that's true, but Kane's artwork ther was crude even for that time. There was plenty of contemoperaneous comic book artists that made Kane's stuff look like the scribblings of a child in comparison.
 
Last edited:
On that topic, this is what Batman was originally going to look like before Bill Finger got involved.

lmYrD.jpg
 
Yep, and that red-suited character would have gone nowhere.
 
plus, he was blonde... no blonde could become the world's greatest detective.
 
That Batman looks like member of The Incredibles! lol
 
Every batman pic in this thread is good. Come on peeps! Post some real bad ones.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,121
Messages
21,901,186
Members
45,699
Latest member
HerschelRoy
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"