The camp has been erased for a reason.

[Evil Twin]

Two things I've learned from this thread.

1. People don't actually know the definition of "camp". Being light isn't the same as being campy.

2. People have a short memory of just how awful children's cartoons have been over time. Late 60s and 70s Hanna-Barbera being the worst offenders. Batman: The Brave and the Bold is CITIZEN KANE in comparison to those.

 

[Cain]

I totally disagree there. Cartoons can be serious and still be fun for kids.

They can but the majority of the time a more light hearted type of toon will always be more successful than a more dramatically straightforward one.

I would like to know why cartoons can't be treated as any other medium. What's wrong with having shows aimed at kids and shows aimed at adults? And what's wrong with wanting a cartoon about a serious character, to be serious?

Because animation's foundation is based on entertaining children. What I want to know is why must everything especially Batman related cater to the one demographic that has more than 2 Batman movies that work with the over the 13 crowd and is now the only real existent comic book fanbase as younger kids don't even read comic books anymore?

Is that fair, doesn't my 7 year old nephew deserve to have something Batman of his own that will define his generation? especially since his parents won't allow him to view PG-13 fare? Batman in this cartoon is still serious so I don't see where you people are coming from. He's not running around breaking into musical numbers and gaffawing at everything in sight. He's still Batman, yeah so he has a sense of humor? christ Bill Finger and Bob Kane gave him one during the golden age, he still carries it to this day in the comics universe even in the more morose comic books. Even everybody's precious BTAS had a Batman who had no problem kidding around.

Humor is a part of who he is he's not this one dimensional brooder. Now what's wrong with wanting a Batman cartoon to be more serious? well you already have 2 series that went on for multiple seasons that showcase a more serious Batman type of cartoon. You also have this same serious Batman in the Justice League showas well so that's 3 series and numerous multiple movies as well. Isn't it time to give something else a shot to prevent staleness?

Isn't it more inspiring to actually look at a period of Batman comics (Brave and the Bold) that a lot of modern fans don't even know about for inspiration instead of aping what came before? Batman has survived 70 years because of his diversity had the character remained one way I doubt his history would be as rich and he'd be as appealing to a universal number of fans like he is now.

How are they childish? They're comedy, so I would say they were created for everyone.

How does them being comedy exempt them from being childish? they are childish because primarily they were made for kids in the first place. The humor is juvenile & obvious and one that some adults would even find straight up corny. They may have an appeal outside of children but don't try to act like most adults would voluntarily sit down with those toons and actually enjoy them without their kids being around because it ain't happening. They'd consider that child's play.

 

[Cain]

The point people are missing here is that the character of Batman in this show is completely serious. It is only the situations and style of the show that is 'campy' (and its really not THAT campy).

Right on but I wouldn't even say campy situations though cause it's not like the writers are going "well lets have the whole episode be about Batman and hero X trying to find a big enough bow to put on a giant birthday present cause superheroes are absurd and do absurd things". It's just that it has a more superheroish and adventurous old school comic book tone like the original Brave and the Bold series of books did. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me but of course it's something the "Batman should be more grounded" crowd probably doesn't enjoy.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Two things I've learned from this thread.

1. People don't actually know the definition of "camp". Being light isn't the same as being campy.

2. People have a short memory of just how awful children's cartoons have been over time. Late 60s and 70s Hanna-Barbera being the worst offenders. Batman: The Brave and the Bold is CITIZEN KANE in comparison to those.

THANK YOU!

I have been preaching lately on how truly bad animation was at that time. Batman had it the worst during that time, and since there were much better and higher quality shows like that in that era, the time it was produced is not an excuse.

 

[Ere]

They can but the majority of the time a more light hearted type of toon will always be more successful than a more dramatically straightforward one.

Which means that making a successful serious cartoon is a bit of a challenge, not an impossibility.

Because animation's foundation is based on entertaining children.

So where comics 50 years ago.

And you still didn't answer my question about why cartoons must be only for kids. A medium is a medium.

What I want to know is why must everything especially Batman related cater to the one demographic that has more than 2 Batman movies that work with the over the 13 crowd

1.Because I like adaptations to be faithful. Since current Bat-comics are aimed at teens, an adaptation aimed at kids is inconsistent with them. I don't like adaptations to give the general public a wrong idea about what the source material is like.
2.Because we already have too many kiddy cartoons.
3.Because a good writer should be able to write stories mature stories that also entertain kids.

and is now the only real existent comic book fanbase

Huh?

Is that fair, doesn't my 7 year old nephew deserve to have something Batman of his own that will define his generation? especially since his parents won't allow him to view PG-13 fare?

And why do people insist on stating that a cartoon can't be mature and still be watchable by kids?

Batman in this cartoon is still serious so I don't see where you people are coming from. He's not running around breaking into musical numbers and gaffawing at everything in sight. He's still Batman, yeah so he has a sense of humor? christ Bill Finger and Bob Kane gave him one during the golden age, he still carries it to this day in the comics universe even in the more morose comic books. Even everybody's precious BTAS had a Batman who had no problem kidding around.

Read above.

Humor is a part of who he is he's not this one dimensional brooder.

No one said that Batman shouldn't have humor.

Now what's wrong with wanting a Batman cartoon to be more serious? well you already have 2 series that went on for multiple seasons that showcase a more serious Batman type of cartoon.

And not only they were successful, but they were more faithful to the essence of the comics, and were still watchable by kids. So why make show that is a dumbed down version for kids, when it isn't necessary?

You also have this same serious Batman in the Justice League showas well so that's 3 series and numerous multiple movies as well. Isn't it time to give something else a shot to prevent staleness?

There are so many ways to prevent staleness without making dumbed down version of Batman. Like making a Bat-cartoon that tells the story in a serialized way, unlike previous cartoons. And don't tell me that kids get confused by serialized shows, because when I was a kid, my favorite shows were the serialized ones, and I still understood perfectly the story.

Isn't it more inspiring to actually look at a period of Batman comics (Brave and the Bold) that a lot of modern fans don't even know about for inspiration instead of aping what came before? Batman has survived 70 years because of his diversity had the character remained one way I doubt his history would be as rich and he'd be as appealing to a universal number of fans like he is now.

Batman has survived by adapting to times. Current times demand a serious interpretation of the character, not a return to the storytelling method that was used 50 years ago.

How does them being comedy exempt them from being childish? they are childish because primarily they were made for kids in the first place. The humor is juvenile & obvious and one that some adults would even find straight up corny. They may have an appeal outside of children but don't try to act like most adults would voluntarily sit down with those toons and actually enjoy them without their kids being around because it ain't happening. They'd consider that child's play.

Early Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck cartoons were mainly aimed at adults. When the cartoons started were airing on TV during the 70s, they had to cut innuendos and violence to make them child-friendly.

People don't actually know the definition of "camp". Being light isn't the same as being campy.

Campy or not, the cartoon is too humoristic in comparison to current Bat-comics.

People have a short memory of just how awful children's cartoons have been over time. Late 60s and 70s Hanna-Barbera being the worst offenders.

Agreed. But why should the crappiness of past works have any influence on the way people judge a modern cartoon?

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

All the comparisons to current comics is laughable. Do any of you look at current comic distributions? They suck. Talk to comic shop owners. Comics are in a very crappy state right now. Why do you think both major companys are trying to reinvent their main players every couple years? They need to find what the hell the vast majority want. Its obviously not what theyve been giving us or else sales would be up as they were in the 90's.

No one is saying that cartoons cant be serious. The DTV movies are proof of that. What many of you are missing is, this cartoon is not and never was supposed to be that. This is the direction they wanted to take. They wanted to do something different. The creaters of this show have stated in interviews (check LoG for those ) that they are tired of the recent versions of Batman. They wanted to take it back. I honestly do not understand the uproar over this.

 

[Cain]

Which means that making a successful serious cartoon is a bit of a challenge, not an impossibility.

Dude a successful serious cartoon comes like once in a blue BTAS was that example during the 90's. You'd realize if you look through history that most "serious" attempts at cartoons didn't even get to complete a full season. Cartoons are a business period, before everything else like every other medium in entertainment. These production houses want to make whatever reaps the most profits.

The most profitable route are merchandise friendly toons that are full of spectacle and fun, most kids don't care to see a cartoon character reflect on himself they just want action and escapism. So these production houses give them what they want cause they know it's what will give them money hence why you will always see them play it safe and not take a risk on a "serious cartoon" that could only ened up with like 20 loyal followers. A bit of challenge is an understatement it indeed is almost an impossibility which is why it's so damn rare.

So where comics 50 years ago.

The difference being kids don't work and comics were always a habit where you had to pay to be entertained. With the popularity of television and other "free" hobbies throughout the decades it's not surpise it got replaced as the main escape for children. On top of that newstands don't even carry comic books anymore and comic shops are about as rare as finding a leprechaun in a lot of places. Also comics that are more easily accessible across bookstores and such (read: TPB) are too pricey for kids. The days of 75 cent and dollar comic books are long gone but cartoons would always be free hence they will always have a wider appeal to all kinds of kids over comics because all kinds of kids would have easier access to them.

And you still didn't answer my question about why cartoons must be only for kids. A medium is a medium.

I answered it a few posts ago actually but the answer seemed to escape you regardless of the fact that I brought up my answer once more in this post already here it goes again.

I'll type it once more in all caps so that I'm sure it's perfectly clear MOST CHILDREN LOVE FAST PACED TONES, THEY ARE INTO SPECTACLE AND ESCAPISM hence cartoons have to reflect that since the majority of them are aimed at children. They don't need to be overthought and intricate they just need to be fun. I remember back in the 90's there was an attempt at a new Masters of the Universe show this shows was more continuity heavy and sophisticated than the one from the 80's. It also took a sci-fi approach as opposed to fantasy to appeal to the audiences of that day.

But a lot of people hated it (not me) because it wasn't the light hearted toy commercial that the original series was. Kids actually complained that it was boring and not fun because it tried more linear storytelling and plausible characterizations. You even had those kids who grew up on the original complaining because it wasn't anything like the original. They just wanted a stupid half hour escape not something they have to follow for over 23 episodes to really get the meaning of it.

Also lots of adults still think of animation as a kid's medium this is a fact. There is a niche group of adults that likes animation and things like the Adult Swim block were created for them. But for a great deal of adults you make an animated show aimed at them that's not a satire like The Simpsons or South Park and even in those cases unless you have some type of gimmick (Ie: SP being the first vulgar show on network TV, The Simpsons being the first animated series of it's type they won't even care they'll write it off as just another cartoon without even watching it so to make a whole group of shows like that would be a risk if they won't find their audience. This is why Clerks, The Oblongs and Sealab were eventually canned.

1.Because I like adaptations to be faithful. Since current Bat-comics are aimed at teens, an adaptation aimed at kids is inconsistent with them. I don't like adaptations to give the general public a wrong idea about what the source material is like.

Then you shouldn't have a problem because this adaptation is faithful. So what if it isn't consistent with the current books it's not meant to reflect the current books the current books are meant to represent the current books this is mean to be it's own thing. Nolan's movies feature a Batman that is not like the one in the current comic books I don't give a damn cause it's still shows a good version of Batman.

Adaptations are just that forums created to adapt an existing work into another medium. Not translate, adapt. Funnily enough this show is not inconsistent with the mythology though. Also are you implying that kids don't deserve an adaptation aimed at them? how else do you expect them to get into Batman? you know a lot of parents won't feel comfortable showing PG-13 movies to their kids or allowing them to read "graphic novels".

Also it's not like the teens who read Batman comics will always have time to watch every episode of an animated series instead of being concerned about getting laid,, making friends, getting a car, finding themselves and many other issues that plague people when they're adolescents anyway. Most teenagers don't operate that way whether they're hermits who don't socialize or are the popular jocks they have more things on their minds than watching cartoons.

2.Because we already have too many kiddy cartoons.

LMAO that's like going too a brothel and saying "too many hookers" um hello of course there would be a lot of kiddy cartoons since cartoons are created to entertain kids primarily now a days and have been for decades.

3.Because a good writer should be able to write stories mature stories that also entertain kids.

Yeah and a good writer also knows that a story doesn't always have to be "mature" in order to be a good one so this is a weak reasoning.

Huh?

Batman's comic book fanbase as of today is like 15 at the least and over. It no longer consists of younger kids like it used to even as far back as the early 90's. It's been this way for years. That was my point the few knocking this show are members of this audience. Yet they have not one but two forms of Batman media that caters exclusively to them. Why should all Batman media be made for them? is that fair? why can't others get a chance to play in the sandbox?

Most of us in our 20's and older who do favor a "serious Batman" didn't even become fans with the "darker" versions in the first place. Yet I'm sure a great deal of us could school a lot of heads here on the "dark" Batman. It's not like this show cancels out the "dark" Batman cause it's in it's own lane so why such a problem with just letting it be when it's not affecting your favorite interpretations anyway?

And why do people insist on stating that a cartoon can't be mature and still be watchable by kids?

I answered this but I will again a mature cartoon that is watchable by children doesn't guarantee that children would watch it something that's more dynamic has a greater shot at that as it could capture the short attention span most young children have a lot quicker.

And not only they were successful, but they were more faithful to the essence of the comics, and were still watchable by kids. So why make show that is a dumbed down version for kids, when it isn't necessary?

Yeah but things change Justice League was cancelled because today's kids don't care about that vision. It only made it as far as it did primarily because the kids who grew up on BTAS now teens and adults were it's main audience but of course even they don't have time to follow an animated show like a kid would. They have other responsibilities. Why continue something that no longer makes a real profit when the objective of those in the animation business is to create something that will equal revenue? this is why it's neccessary to create a "dumbed down version for kids".

There are so many ways to prevent staleness without making dumbed down version of Batman. Like making a Bat-cartoon that tells the story in a serialized way, unlike previous cartoons. And don't tell me that kids get confused by serialized shows, because when I was a kid, my favorite shows were the serialized ones, and I still understood perfectly the story.

That's nice but accept that what you want is not the direction the producers of this show wanted to take and they're the ones in charge of the show. It seems you're more upset because this isn't Batman cartoon you wanted more than anything else I don't see you judging this show on it's own merits. Some of your comments to me make it seem you haven't even watched it.

Guess what? this is not what I wanted from a new Batman cartoon either but that doesn't mean I will bash it because of that. I would've bashed it if it would've actually sucked but I gave it a shot and feel it is successful at what it's trying to accomplish and also find it more entertaining than the last animated Batman series we had.

Batman has survived by adapting to times. Current times demand a serious interpretation of the character, not a return to the storytelling method that was used 50 years ago.

Interesting because it's not a return to the storytelling method used 50 years ago where many times the outrageous would be intended whether it made sense of not. It's a return to a storytelling method that was popular 30 - 20 years ago in the original Brave and the Bold series and remains around today in certain issues of the current Brave and the Bold comic book series and many issues of Superman/Batman. An adventureous superhero tale featuring the Batman. Comments like these really make me think you haven't even watched this show yet.

Early Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck cartoons were mainly aimed at adults. When the cartoons started were airing on TV during the 70s, they had to cut innuendos and violence to make them child-friendly.

The violence was no more extreme than what you'd find in 3 Stooges shorts which were also popular with kids of those days as well. Adult friendly innuendo is something that a lot of cartoons including *gasp* the series this forum is based around include it's just that unlike those days parents don't really sit to watch cartoons with their children anymore so they're not as aware. I don't see how this makes them more "aimed at adults" especially when they were created for families to watch in theatres before movie serials.

 

[Cain]

All the comparisons to current comics is laughable. Do any of you look at current comic distributions? They suck. Talk to comic shop owners. Comics are in a very crappy state right now. Why do you think both major companys are trying to reinvent their main players every couple years? They need to find what the hell the vast majority want. Its obviously not what theyve been giving us or else sales would be up as they were in the 90's.

No one is saying that cartoons cant be serious. The DTV movies are proof of that. What many of you are missing is, this cartoon is not and never was supposed to be that. This is the direction they wanted to take. They wanted to do something different. The creaters of this show have stated in interviews (check LoG for those ) that they are tired of the recent versions of Batman. They wanted to take it back. I honestly do not understand the uproar over this.

My man SHADOW always coming through with the knowledge. Though I still collect comic books and actually feel they're in better shape creatively now than they were in the late 90's I can't say your first paragraph is ******** either. There is lots of truth in it.

The second paragraph is on point like snipers. Matter of fact I won't even bother posting in this thread trying to explain this any longer. If the detractors read that and still don't get it then I honestly don't think they ever would.

 

[CConn]

Camp is fantastic. And is making a comeback.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Can't really call it as I honestly don't watch any contemporary cartoons outside of this one. What I do know is that cartoons have been dumbed down and uninspired since even when I was a kid hence all those corny shows I name checked in my previous post. So it's not like it's some sort of new trend.

I suppose you're right. After sitting back and really thinking about it there's only been 2 series made in the past 20 years I can think of that I would watch today as anything more than background noise and that's BTAS and it's spin-offs and that new Spider-Man show. I used to really love Beast Wars but I haven't seen it in ages so I can't comment on how well it's aged.

I still don't particularly like this show. I love the general concept and the art design and all, just not Batman. I really wish this would feature 2 characters from the DCU going on a crazy adventure rather than with Batman. He just doesn't fit in these situations, and especially not the way these particular ones are written. He can in a JLU setting but as other's have pointed out that show's a whole other ballgame.

So basically when you get down to it, my issue is mainly why Batman: The Brave and The Bold instead of just The Brave and The Bold? (EDIT: Yes, I know, Batman is a major cash cow right now but that's not the point. You want to make money off the Batman name? Do Batman. Not this.)

Like that recent episode with the talking monkey. That would have made more sense and probably been more entertaining, to me at least, if it had been Flash and Plastic Man instead of Batman and Plastic Man.

I know I'll get jumped on for this, but I don't care, I'm gonna say it anyway...The Batman was a better attempt at a Batman for kid's cartoon. It was kid friendly, had all the fun and escapism with little to no brains required that you guys keep beating us detractors of TB&B over the head with, and actually was a better representation of Batman. Mind you I said better, not implying TB was TDK for kids, here...it's just a better rep than this series. And if forced to choose one or the other, I'd plop down in front of The Batman first, every time. I'm sure my pre-teen self would agree...

 

[JAK®]

Nobody realises that Batman isn't campy in this cartoon.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Nobody realises that Batman isn't campy in this cartoon.

Yeah, we get it. Batman isn't campy in this show. He wasn't even campy in the Adam West incarnation. Doesn't make the events around him serious. It's still silly. The fact that he's a hands on the hip, puffed-out chest kind of hero that's obviously inspired by the ridiculous Dick Sprang drawn comics only worsens the situation.

When are we gonna see Rainbow Batman fighting dangerous rogue Muffin-Man in a building full of giant typewriters until the little green aliens from Blargon 5 show up and Robin defeats them with a slingshot?

 

[JAK®]

Yeah, we get it. Batman isn't campy in this show. He wasn't even campy in the Adam West incarnation. Doesn't make the events around him serious. It's still silly.

Yep. And it's fantastic.

We've already had dark and gritty animated Batman. For 14 years. All the way from B:TAS to JLU (and even this incarnation of Batman was placed in 'campy' situations, with no complaints).

If EVERY incarnation of Batman was just as dark and serious then it would get old very fast.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Really? I've been thriving off that dark and gritty version of Batman since I was 5 years old and first watched Tim Burton's Batman on VHS. A style does not make something tired. It's the story's told within it that get stale. As long as these things remain well written and interesting it won't get old. Hasn't for me. Hasn't for a lot of folks.

I found this quote on another site that I think sums it up perfectly:

I'm not opposed to a Batman cartoon. I'm not opposed to a lighthearted superhero cartoon featuring a zany cast of costars. I just don't want to see the two breeding. There's really no reason for Batman to be in a cartoon like this...

This isn't a return to Batman's roots, this is a monument to an era when gritty and violent comics were being actively persecuted by the U.S. government, such that many comic companies went under, and those that remained had to dumb down their comics to please the extreme censorship imposed on them.

Sorry, I just don't think that the near obliteration of the comic industry is something to be celebrated by one of the survivors who had only been able to overcome this after decades of bubble-gum misadventures.

Why do people think that something has to be light and stupid to get kids into the character? I've mentioned my own experience and I know I'm not the only one that got into Batman at a very young age courtesy of Tim Burton or Bruce Timm or one of those boring, dark, and gritty comics of the 70's-90's.

Kid's are much more savvy than TV/Movie producers, and it would seem, a lot of people on this board give them credit for. I know, I was one.

 

[JAK®]

I've never once suggested that kids need camp to enjoy something.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

I've never once suggested that kids need camp to enjoy something.

That part was more of a general statement. Some folks have said that, more or less...

 

[JAK®]

I don't think this show has presented Batman in a way that hasn't been done in the comics before. Even post-crisis.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

I don't think this show has presented Batman in a way that hasn't been done in the comics before. Even post-crisis.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ss2ZIKVuM[/YT]:facepalm

Mid-40's to the late 60's perhaps. But those were the dark ages of DC comics. Terrible stuff that as I said before should stay where right where it is: in the past and largely forgotten...But whatever. I'm done here. You like this? I'm sorry...

*goes back to watching TNBA*

 

[C. W. Saturn]

Mid-40's to the late 60's perhaps. But those were the dark ages of DC comics. Terrible stuff that as I said before should stay where right where it is: in the past and largely forgotten...

No, it's great stuff at times.

Your loss.

 

[C. W. Saturn]

So basically when you get down to it, my issue is mainly why Batman: The Brave and The Bold instead of just The Brave and The Bold? (EDIT: Yes, I know, Batman is a major cash cow right now but that's not the point. You want to make money off the Batman name? Do Batman. Not this.

they do Batman.

 

[Bathead]

Just as an aside, if you don't mind overanalyzing it (which a lot of fans here seem to do here on the Hype) You could say that underneath the lightness and humor, there are some relatively serious themes going on in this show. The first episode showcases the dangers of arrogance, both for Beetle and Kanjar Ro, the second illustrates both compassion (Batman's toward Eel O'Brien) and Plas's redemption, and the 3rd showing betrayal, Orin of his brother and Manta's of Ocean Master. Pretty adult stuff for a show aimed at kids, if you ask me.

 

[Evil Twin]

What part about, the creators wanted to do something DIFFERENT don't people understand? I.e. they didn't want to just repeat stuff. You know, try something new. Fill a niche that hasn't really been filled in modern times. etc.

There's never been a Dick Sprang influenced cartoon, at least not done with the modern toolbox. And Dick Sprang is one of the greatest Batman artists.

And, really, I think people somehow think that nobody had fond memories of The Brave and the Bold. Most teamup issues of which were published after O'Neil/Adams (who worked on issues themselves). The Haney/Aparo series is fondly remembered due to it's fast pace and anything can happen spirit, and the show is replicating that. And, serving as a solid introduction to characters from the DCU that haven't gotten a spotlight in a long time. This cartoon does capture that spirit.

This is a cartoon series that's not targetted for adults or those only interested in dark, serious Batman. And that's fine, there's plenty out there for those not interested. But, that doesn't mean it's bad for what it is intending to be. I'd argue that the quality of animation and storytelling is quite good for a cartoon, period.

 

[Grommers]

What part about, the creators wanted to do something DIFFERENT don't people understand?

With that logic making the next super mario game should be a first person shooter in which mario has a fireball gun to shoot zombies, all done in a rated M game.

And, serving as a solid introduction to characters from the DCU that haven't gotten a spotlight in a long time. This cartoon does capture that spirit.

I do appreciate that, at the same time, these characters were tossed aside for a reason or didn't catch on for a reason. It is good they are giving it a second attempt, however it shouldn't be at the cost of batman, but definetly a worthy point.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

With that logic making the next super mario game should be a first person shooter in which mario has a fireball gun to shoot zombies, all done in a rated M game.

Hahahahaha. How funny would that be though?

 

[Ere]

All the comparisons to current comics is laughable. Do any of you look at current comic distributions? They suck. Talk to comic shop owners. Comics are in a very crappy state right now. Why do you think both major companys are trying to reinvent their main players every couple years? They need to find what the hell the vast majority want. Its obviously not what theyve been giving us or else sales would be up as they were in the 90's.

And you think making comics humoristic would make them more faithful?

No one is saying that cartoons cant be serious. The DTV movies are proof of that. What many of you are missing is, this cartoon is not and never was supposed to be that. This is the direction they wanted to take. They wanted to do something different.

I get it. Still don't like it.

The creaters of this show have stated in interviews (check LoG for those ) that they are tired of the recent versions of Batman. They wanted to take it back. I honestly do not understand the uproar over this.

Maybe it's because some people don't think modern Batman should be about comedy?

Dude a successful serious cartoon comes like once in a blue BTAS was that example during the 90's.

So what do you call the rest of Bruce Timm's cartoons?

You'd realize if you look through history that most "serious" attempts at cartoons didn't even get to complete a full season. Cartoons are a business period, before everything else like every other medium in entertainment. These production houses want to make whatever reaps the most profits.

The most profitable route are merchandise friendly toons that are full of spectacle and fun, most kids don't care to see a cartoon character reflect on himself they just want action and escapism. So these production houses give them what they want cause they know it's what will give them money hence why you will always see them play it safe and not take a risk on a "serious cartoon" that could only ened up with like 20 loyal followers. A bit of challenge is an understatement it indeed is almost an impossibility which is why it's so damn rare.

And yet, the most successful superhero cartoons just happen to be serious. Which means that cartoons about superheroes don't need to be kiddy to provide action and escapism.

The difference being kids don't work and comics were always a habit where you had to pay to be entertained. With the popularity of television and other "free" hobbies throughout the decades it's not surpise it got replaced as the main escape for children. On top of that newstands don't even carry comic books anymore and comic shops are about as rare as finding a leprechaun in a lot of places. Also comics that are more easily accessible across bookstores and such (read: TPB) are too pricey for kids. The days of 75 cent and dollar comic books are long gone but cartoons would always be free hence they will always have a wider appeal to all kinds of kids over comics because all kinds of kids would have easier access to them.

...And your point is?
TV is more successful than comics because it is more accessible and "free", not because cartoons aren't serious.

I answered it a few posts ago actually but the answer seemed to escape you regardless of the fact that I brought up my answer once more in this post already here it goes again.

I'll type it once more in all caps so that I'm sure it's perfectly clear MOST CHILDREN LOVE FAST PACED TONES, THEY ARE INTO SPECTACLE AND ESCAPISM hence cartoons have to reflect that since the majority of them are aimed at children. They don't need to be overthought and intricate they just need to be fun.

So? We can have both.

I remember back in the 90's there was an attempt at a new Masters of the Universe show this shows was more continuity heavy and sophisticated than the one from the 80's. It also took a sci-fi approach as opposed to fantasy to appeal to the audiences of that day.

But a lot of people hated it (not me) because it wasn't the light hearted toy commercial that the original series was. Kids actually complained that it was boring and not fun because it tried more linear storytelling and plausible characterizations. You even had those kids who grew up on the original complaining because it wasn't anything like the original. They just wanted a stupid half hour escape not something they have to follow for over 23 episodes to really get the meaning of it.

People always tend to dislike "remakes" when they dare to be different from what came before. Especially when they compare it to shows they watched when they were kids.

Also lots of adults still think of animation as a kid's medium this is a fact.

Again, the same was true about comics 50 years ago.

Then you shouldn't have a problem because this adaptation is faithful.

No. Is isn't faithful to the tone in the current books.

So what if it isn't consistent with the current books it's not meant to reflect the current books the current books are meant to represent the current books this is mean to be it's own thing. Nolan's movies feature a Batman that is not like the one in the current comic books I don't give a damn cause it's still shows a good version of Batman.

But the tone is more faithful, since the films are serious.

Adaptations are just that forums created to adapt an existing work into another medium. Not translate, adapt. Funnily enough this show is not inconsistent with the mythology though.

But adaptations aren't faithful it they change the essence.

Also are you implying that kids don't deserve an adaptation aimed at them?

No, I am not. You're putting words in my mouth, like you did every time you quoted me. I want a cartoon that appeals both kids and adults.

how else do you expect them to get into Batman?

I don't know... maybe the way many people got into Batman in the 90's and prior to Nolan's movies, through a serious cartoon like BTAS?

Also it's not like the teens who read Batman comics will always have time to watch every episode of an animated series instead of being concerned about getting laid,, making friends, getting a car, finding themselves and many other issues that plague people when they're adolescents anyway. Most teenagers don't operate that way whether they're hermits who don't socialize or are the popular jocks they have more things on their minds than watching cartoons.

If they waste their time reading comics, is it so farfetched to suppose that they will spend half an hour each week to watch a cartoon about their favorite character?

LMAO that's like going too a brothel and saying "too many hookers"

No, it's more like complaining about why a medium should be aimed at a single audience.
And don't post images that are located in your HDD, if you want others to see them.

Yeah and a good writer also knows that a story doesn't always have to be "mature" in order to be a good one so this is a weak reasoning.

By 'mature' I mean capable of appealing to adults. In other words, I well-written and interesting, which are the musts for a good story.

Batman's comic book fanbase as of today is like 15 at the least and over. It no longer consists of younger kids like it used to even as far back as the early 90's. It's been this way for years. That was my point the few knocking this show are members of this audience. Yet they have not one but two forms of Batman media that caters exclusively to them.

...Huh?
If the movies were only for Bat-fans, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are.

Why should all Batman media be made for them? is that fair? why can't others get a chance to play in the sandbox?

Why can't all Batman media be made to appeal both Bat-fans and the general public?

Most of us in our 20's and older who do favor a "serious Batman" didn't even become fans with the "darker" versions in the first place. Yet I'm sure a great deal of us could school a lot of heads here on the "dark" Batman. It's not like this show cancels out the "dark" Batman cause it's in it's own lane so why such a problem with just letting it be when it's not affecting your favorite interpretations anyway?

Screw that. I don't care if a Bat-story is dark or not. I just like them to be serious, well-written and interesting.

I answered this but I will again a mature cartoon that is watchable by children doesn't guarantee that children would watch it something that's more dynamic has a greater shot at that as it could capture the short attention span most young children have a lot quicker.

Aren't there many successful anime series that have mature plots?

Yeah but things change Justice League was cancelled because today's kids don't care about that vision. It only made it as far as it did primarily because the kids who grew up on BTAS now teens and adults were it's main audience but of course even they don't have time to follow an animated show like a kid would. They have other responsibilities. Why continue something that no longer makes a real profit when the objective of those in the animation business is to create something that will equal revenue? this is why it's neccessary to create a "dumbed down version for kids".

Right. The JL cartoon lasted 5 seasons because it wasn't successful. Cartoon Network paid WB to make them just because they cared about the comics fanboys.

That's nice but accept that what you want is not the direction the producers of this show wanted to take and they're the ones in charge of the show. It seems you're more upset because this isn't Batman cartoon you wanted more than anything else I don't see you judging this show on it's own merits. Some of your comments to me make it seem you haven't even watched it.

Way to miss the point.
You argued that a humoristic Bat-cartoon would be necessary because it would get stall if all the cartoons had the same tone, and I answered that it doesn't need to be humoristic to do something new and fresh, as there are still many things Batman cartoons never tried. Hell, a serialized Batman cartoon would be more innovative because we already had humoristic Bat-cartoons before.

Guess what? this is not what I wanted from a new Batman cartoon either but that doesn't mean I will bash it because of that. I would've bashed it if it would've actually sucked but I gave it a shot and feel it is successful at what it's trying to accomplish and also find it more entertaining than the last animated Batman series we had.

Maybe keeping the tone of the source material when doing adaptadions isn't something important to you, but it is to me.

Interesting because it's not a return to the storytelling method used 50 years ago where many times the outrageous would be intended whether it made sense of not. It's a return to a storytelling method that was popular 30 - 20 years ago in the original Brave

Alright, it's a 30-20 years old storytelling method.

the Bold series and remains around today in certain issues of the current Brave and the Bold comic book series and many issues of Superman/Batman. An adventureous superhero tale featuring the Batman. Comments like these really make me think you haven't even watched this show yet.

Like you said, certain issues use the tone, not the entire series.

The violence was no more extreme than what you'd find in 3 Stooges shorts which were also popular with kids of those days as well. Adult friendly innuendo is something that a lot of cartoons including *gasp* the series this forum is based around include it's just that unlike those days parents don't really sit to watch cartoons with their children anymore so they're not as aware. I don't see how this makes them more "aimed at adults" especially when they were created for families to watch in theatres before movie serials.

I didn't say they were aimed at adults, I said they were aimed at everyone.