The camp has been erased for a reason.

[SHADOWBAT69]

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

Im sorry, I dont get your response to this. I never said or implied that making comics humoristic would be the proper route of change. I also dont understand the comment about if they did that would be more faithful. Faithful to what? Im not trying to be smart, I just dont get what youre getting at with this reply to my quoted statement.

I get it. Still don't like it.

And thats your perogative, thats fine. But the constant complaining about it is not going to change this show or the direction its creators want to take.

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

And on the flip side you have people who think he shouldnt be about all the violence and vulgarity and filth that seems to have infested every aspect of Batmedia nowadays.

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

This wasnt directed at me, but I would like to give my opinion. I think it was just more of the same. I stopped watching the JLU stuff because I got bored with seeing the same designs and the same themes and tones week after week. Its like any show. After awhile, it gets stale. And the creators of any show will tell you this.



I kep reading the same complaints from the ones who dont like this show. You want a mature cartoon that appeals to both children and adults. That is very hard to do. BTAS was an exception. It came at the right time. I also have to argue, what do most of you consider "adults"? Anyone over the age of 18? 21? I hate to say, but I have found through my time on the internet that most of this "mature, dark, gritty, serious" fanbase is mostly twenty somethings. I know ALOT of Batman fans older than me that do not like the current tone or take of Batman. There are also some, not whole lot, but some, that dont care for the lighter tone. The thing is, everyone needs to start thinking outside their own particular group of fandom and look at the total picture. You will never again get a Batman medium that makes everyone happy. There has been just too many versions of the character. Too many to get all those elements into one version. So, there are going to be times when there is an adaption that "you" may not like. Get over it. Im sure the next one may be to your liking, maybe not, but sooner or later, it will come.

 

[Ere]

Im sorry, I dont get your response to this. I never said or implied that making comics humoristic would be the proper route of change.

Then I don't get what point you were trying to make.

I also dont understand the comment about if they did that would be more faithful. Faithful to what? Im not trying to be smart, I just dont get what youre getting at with this reply to my quoted statement.

Faithful to the tone and essence of the comics, that is.

And thats your perogative, thats fine. But the constant complaining about it is not going to change this show or the direction its creators want to take.

I know.

And on the flip side you have people who think he shouldnt be about all the violence and vulgarity and filth that seems to have infested every aspect of Batmedia nowadays.

Yeah, but most of them are people who were introduced to Batman through the 60's show, which gave them a wrong idea about what Batman is about (and I call it a "wrong" idea because that isn't what the source material is about).

This wasnt directed at me, but I would like to give my opinion. I think it was just more of the same. I stopped watching the JLU stuff because I got bored with seeing the same designs and the same themes and tones week after week. Its like any show. After awhile, it gets stale. And the creators of any show will tell you this.

Which one was the last JLU season you watched?

I kep reading the same complaints from the ones who dont like this show. You want a mature cartoon that appeals to both children and adults. That is very hard to do. BTAS was an exception. It came at the right time. I also have to argue, what do most of you consider "adults"? Anyone over the age of 18? 21? I hate to say, but I have found through my time on the internet that most of this "mature, dark, gritty, serious" fanbase is mostly twenty somethings. I know ALOT of Batman fans older than me that do not like the current tone or take of Batman. There are also some, not whole lot, but some, that dont care for the lighter tone. The thing is, everyone needs to start thinking outside their own particular group of fandom and look at the total picture. You will never again get a Batman medium that makes everyone happy. There has been just too many versions of the character. Too many to get all those elements into one version. So, there are going to be times when there is an adaption that "you" may not like. Get over it. Im sure the next one may be to your liking, maybe not, but sooner or later, it will come.

And that is why I hate adaptations that change the essence in comparison with the source material: they tend to split the fanbase.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

But if the comics is the "source material", then you are only taking a portion of them. The ones you like. When in actuality, if the comic books are to be represented as the sole source material, then every adaption is true. Whether you personally like it or not, regardless of reasons for change. Just because one version came before another doesnt mean it isnt accurate or "true". Thats just a part of the evolution of a character.

 

[Ere]

^ I don't remember the Bat-comics ever being comedy. At most, they were lame (mainly during the 60's, when they were trying to be copy the Superman comics of that age as an attempt to boost sales). The 60's show was campy because the general public would never take Batman serious with the kind of elements and storytelling used in the Bat-comics back then.

 

[Mistah K88]

If this series was more serious it would be compared to BTAS even moreso than it is now. And you know what, I believe a lot less people would like it because it tries to be BTAS (and let's be serious...NOTHING can EVER reach that level again). Also, where is Batman the character being misrepresented? Batman is very dry and serious in the show it's the situations that he gets stuck in that tend to be rediculous. Oh and the sidekicks and villains are a bit over the top and garish as well, but not Bats.

I tend to like this show better than I liked "The Batman" as it doesn't really misrepresent the Gotham city crowd (Everyone and thier mom being some kind of ninja master [Penguin? COME-ON!]).

If I want a serious Batman I'll just watch the newer movies (Nolan) and Batman the Animated Series from MY childhood. It REALLY isn't that big of a deal to me that this cartoon isn't BTAS reincarnated. Besides now the cartoons are more cartoony while the movies are more serious in tone...which was the exact opposite when BTAS was going on.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

I don't remember the Bat-comics ever being comedy. At most, they were lame (mainly during the 60's, when they were trying to be copy the Superman comics of that age as an attempt to boost sales). The 60's show was campy because the general public would never take Batman serious with the kind of elements and storytelling used in the Bat-comics back then.

There is a difference between comedy and humor.
I think, honestly, you need to read or watch some of the documentaries on comic history, because you obviously have some things twisted or you just dont want to accept the truth behind it all. The Batman books were not trying to copy Superman. ALL comics were being taken into a lighter direction and there is a BIG reason for that. The boosting of sales, which the lighter change had nothing to do with, was due to the popularity of the Adam West series. Before the show, Batman was on the verge of being cancelled.

 

[Ere]

If this series was more serious it would be compared to BTAS even moreso than it is now. And you know what, I believe a lot less people would like it because it tries to be BTAS (and let's be serious...NOTHING can EVER reach that level again).

That's dumb. Just because a Bat-cartoon tries to be serious like the comics, it doesn't mean it is copying BTAS.

Also, where is Batman the character being misrepresented? Batman is very dry and serious in the show it's the situations that he gets stuck in that tend to be rediculous. Oh and the sidekicks and villains are a bit over the top and garish as well, but not Bats.

*Sigh* That's what I said. The tone of the series is humoristic, hence it isn't consistent with that of current comics.

If I want a serious Batman I'll just watch the newer movies (Nolan) and Batman the Animated Series from MY childhood. It REALLY isn't that big of a deal to me that this cartoon isn't BTAS reincarnated.

I don't want a BTAS imitation. Why is it that people assume that if a cartoon that is serious, it means it is imitating BTAS?

There is a difference between comedy and humor.
I think, honestly, you need to read or watch some of the documentaries on comic history, because you obviously have some things twisted or you just dont want to accept the truth behind it all. The Batman books were not trying to copy Superman. ALL comics were being taken into a lighter direction and there is a BIG reason for that.

Yes, they were. Batman comics started becoming more sci-fi-ish because they didn't sell as well as Superman comics back then.

The boosting of sales, which the lighter change had nothing to do with, was due to the popularity of the Adam West series. Before the show, Batman was on the verge of being cancelled.

No. They introduced many ridiculous sci-fi elements as an attempt to boost sales, inspired by DC's most popular character back then, Superman. Then the 60's show used camp because of how ridiculous the comics were back then. In turn, the comics became lighter due to the show's success. But they never went as far as becoming campy.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

The Adam West show ran from 1966 to 1968. The silver age of comics, which was from the mid 50's to late 60's, already had those sci fi elemets in them along with the goofy adventures. This was done to help the sales, yes, but those elements were already in place with ALL the characters. And with the hearings over the Seduction of Innocense report and Batman being a main target, they had little choice but to change or be cancelled. Also, comic books took what was popular for the kids at the time to keep them interested, which was science fiction. See, they thought Batman could survive by just leaving the character alone, they were wrong. Which further proves why there must be change from time to time, but even with this change, sales still sucked. If not for the 60's series, Batman would be dead, which shows, that there should be more respect and acknowledgment to this style than is being given by certain groups of "fans". The "new look" Batman by Neal Adams was introduced in 1969. AFTER the show. So, the books were "light" way before the series.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

That's dumb. Just because a Bat-cartoon tries to be serious like the comics, it doesn't mean it is copying BTAS.


I don't want a BTAS imitation. Why is it that people assume that if a cartoon that is serious, it means it is imitating BTAS?

Because thats what the anti BATB group keeps comparing it to and bringing it up. So then, what type of "serious" Batman cartoon should be made? One thats appealing to kids and adults?

The tone of the series is humoristic, hence it isn't consistent with that of current comics.

And as Ive stated before, with the current state of comic sales, thats necessarily a bad thing, because current comics are not popular by any means. So giving something different from that is probably a smart thing.

 

[Ere]

The Adam West show ran from 1966 to 1968. The silver age of comics, which was from the mid 50's to late 60's, already had those sci fi elemets in them along with the goofy adventures. This was done to help the sales, yes, but those elements were already in place with ALL the characters. And with the hearings over the Seduction of Innocense report and Batman being a main target, they had little choice but to change or be cancelled. Also, comic books took what was popular for the kids at the time to keep them interested, which was science fiction. See, they thought Batman could survive by just leaving the character alone, they were wrong. Which further proves why there must be change from time to time, but even with this change, sales still sucked.

That was what I said. The bat-comics started using sci-fi elements before the Adam West show started.

If not for the 60's series, Batman would be dead, which shows, that there should be more respect and acknowledgment to this style than is being given by certain groups of "fans".

It helped Batman and it was successful, that's all what I'll grant you. Successfulness doesn't equal faithfulness or quality. Look at Spider-Man 3.
And the creators of the 60's show intended it to be a parody of Batman.

The "new look" Batman by Neal Adams was introduced in 1969. AFTER the show. So, the books were "light" way before the series.

No. Neal stated that what he was trying to do, was bringing Batman back to his roots.

Because thats what the anti BATB group keeps comparing it to and bringing it up. So then, what type of "serious" Batman cartoon should be made? One thats appealing to kids and adults?

How about one that is an adaptation of the tone used in comics (as in, keeping it serious but reducing the violence to cartoon standards)?

And as Ive stated before, with the current state of comic sales, thats necessarily a bad thing, because current comics are not popular by any means. So giving something different from that is probably a smart thing.

What it when judging a work, I judge it based on quality (and that includes faithfulness, if it's an adaptation), not sales.
Plus if you think that making a Batman adaptation serious would make it unsuccessful because of the comics having low sales, then I'll remind you about Nolan's films.

 

[The_Riddler?]

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

Why does it have to be serious to be successful?

So where comics 50 years ago.

Comics are still looked at as being "for kids". Hate to say it, but its true.

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

Why cant it be? Why must it be targeted at 20 somethings as well?

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.

1. The genral public doesnt care about the "source material" because the genral public doesnt know the source material. They want to be entertained, thats it. Also, the show is faithful to a particular period of comics. Just because it isnt current doesnt make it wrong.

2. But not a kiddie Batman cartoon.

3. There are some mature undertones in the shows, its just done very subtly. Thats smart writing.

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

This depends on your defintion of "mature". I dont think a 5 -9 year old has any business watching anything "mature". Thats whats wrong with todays youth.

No one said that Batman shouldn't have humor.

But you seem to have an issue with it.

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?

This show is true to the essence of the comics. One particular period that you dont like, but its still true. Also, its not "dumbed down". It told on their level, thats smart writing. You dont see grade scholl kids reading shakespear now do you? It has to be presented in a way they can understand.

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.

see above

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.

Whos to say a return to the past isnt whats needed? I personally thing a return to a more friendlier version of the character is a welcome change. I dont see children "demanding" a "serious" Batman. You need to get away from just what you want and look at a bigger picture.

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.

Really? I didnt know this. I didnt know that in the 60's Looney Tunes were meant to be adult. Where is this? Id like to read up on it.

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

so? The current comics are not for kids that this show is targeted for. What cant you understand about this?

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

Crap to you, not to others. You just seem to have issues with what you dont like.

 

[The_Riddler?]

Ere, I just read through the rest of your posts, and I must say, you are quit confusing in what you type. Either you dont pay attention to what you state previously or you just have a difficult time getting across what you are trying to say, because you seem to contradict yourself on many occassion. The only thing that seems to be constant is that you hate the 60's era, you only like BTAS and the current comics and everyting must be this way. You cannot ignore a certain period of a characters past. Its there, its printed, its documented. Its a part of what the character is. A FICTIONAL character I might add. You seem to have this hold on the premise that a dark, brooding, violent Batman is the only way this great character must be presented. This is sad.

 

[Mistah K88]

*Sigh* That's what I said. The tone of the series is humoristic, hence it isn't consistent with that of current comics.

Oh, well I wasn't really talking to you, as it seems that YOU get that the character of Batman isn't humorous at all in the show. It was moreso directed to the people who were talking about the character of Batman being wrong. Well said, however this isn't an adaption of "Batman" comics themselves, but rather an adaption of "Batman: The Brave and the Bold". IF the series were set in Gotham City and was only about Batman, I would say the same as you...but it isn't set in Batman's realm really. Batman, despite being the title character isn't really the focal point of the show.

How about one that is an adaptation of the tone used in comics (as in, keeping it serious but reducing the violence to cartoon standards)?

So you mean basically Batman the Animated Series? Whether we like it or not, anything involving Batman in animation will be compared to that godly show....er I mean cartoon. Because the show was the first to be a serious adaption of Batman, things after it (aimed for kids atleast) will seem like an imitation as the show was on for quite a bit. Heck, I've heard this show called an imitation of Superfriends. The first will almost always be the version etched in someone's minds had they been alive to see the first. I'm not trying to argue with you, just in case you feel that way; but you seem to be a cool headed individual so uh...yeah.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

That was what I said. The bat-comics started using sci-fi elements before the Adam West show started.

You said the books became lighter after the show, They didnt. They became darker with the Neal Adams era.

It helped Batman and it was successful, that's all what I'll grant you. Successfulness doesn't equal faithfulness or quality. Look at Spider-Man 3.
And the creators of the 60's show intended it to be a parody of Batman.

The comics of the time showed the villains acting goofy and had over the top props. Batman taking on these rediculous situations. Isnt that what was in the show? That makes it faithful to the source material, the comics.

No. Neal stated that what he was trying to do, was bringing Batman back to his roots.

Right. AFTER the show aired. You said the comics became lighter. I said they were taken to a darker tone with Adams, as I stated again above. I have to agree with what the Riddler states below in his post. You are very confusing in what you type.

How about one that is an adaptation of the tone used in comics (as in, keeping it serious but reducing the violence to cartoon standards)?

Isnt that what we already had with BTAS and JL?

What it when judging a work, I judge it based on quality (and that includes faithfulness, if it's an adaptation), not sales.
Plus if you think that making a Batman adaptation serious would make it unsuccessful because of the comics having low sales, then I'll remind you about Nolan's films.

But we're talking about cartoons, not movies. Specificaly a cartoon aimed at younger children. I bring up the comics because thats what you keep referring to. As for Nolans TDK, I sometimes wonder how it would have done if Ledger hadnt died. I loved the film, think its the best live action film to date, but dont think it deserves the glory and praise it has received. Also, that movie was PG-13, not intended for young kids. This cartoon is.

 

[3dman27]

I could not believe how horrible and campy this show was when I watched the first episode last week. I thought it might be fun, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

Sure it looked cartoony from the ads but so does the spectacular spider-man but that show is very good and quite serious.

They have spent too long erasing the camp from Batman for a reason. And after The Dark Knight he deserves a better and serious cartoon series.
Don't bring this crap back.

The idot producer said they wanted to remind people Super heroes have senses of humor well, Batman doesn't he's a dark not a joke.

Understand which charcters are light then do that with them not Batman. Idiots.

just hope BAT-MITEdoesn't show up

 

[Bathead]

just hope BAT-MITEdoesn't show up

You mean like his cameo appearance in BTAS? (heh)

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

just hope BAT-MITEdoesn't show up

You mean like his cameo appearance in BTAS? (heh)

Or how he did in the recent Grant Morrison comic run?

And thats "source material".

 

[Darkseid1]

What it when judging a work, I judge it based on quality (and that includes faithfulness, if it's an adaptation), not sales.
Plus if you think that making a Batman adaptation serious would make it unsuccessful because of the comics having low sales, then I'll remind you about Nolan's films.

Quality doesnt always equal sales, unfortunately. Howver the fact does remain that comic sales are the lowest theyve been in years. This will affect how WB presents a new version of Batman, particularly at kids. Why? because, comics are more closely related to cartoons than a major motion picture. A film that was rated PG13no less and was marketed as not being for young kids. This upset alot of parents, which is another reason this cartoon was made. I prefer a darker Batman myself, but having this cartoon does not upset me. I have my versions. Whats wrong with having a cartoon presented in a young and youthful manner? Its not insulting, or dumbed down. I dont get that.

I also dont get this "faithfulness to the source material" debate. Are you only accepting the first so many issues of Batman appearance in detective Comics? because Robin showed up in 1940 to help lighten the character and this stayed throughout the 40's, 50's and 60's. Did those decades not happen? Did you skip 30 years of history and go from 1940 to 1970? The main elements of Batman were always there. bruce had his parents killed in front of him. He trained himslef to fight crime. He dressed as a bat. These are the elements that also make up the Brave and Bold Batman. So, sorry, but thats being faithful to source material.

It has been debated for so long on this board about what the true Batman is. Batman is those 3 elements I stated above. How he deals with them and how he presents himself is just a sign of evolution for the character. This is just another way that he is presenting himself within the situations he being put in.

 

[Evil Twin]

A couple of thoughts.

1. The Adam West Batman series was incredibly faithful to the comics in all but tone. (Albeit that's a sizable distinction.) Several stories were lifted directly from the comics. And children took those stories dead serious, which was one of the genius things of the series. I'll bet a lot of humor in the current cartoon goes over the heads of young children and they just see the current cartoon as Batman engaging in serious, globe trotting adventures while being introduced to new characters.

2. The new Brave and the Bold IS faithful to the old series. Heck, in many ways it's more faithful to the current comics than the Haney stories where to its contemporaries which twisted continuity and characterization issue to issue. And the current cartoon hasn't gone truly out in left field, like having the Atom animate an electrocuted Batman by jumping around in his brain or having terrorists go after Jim Aparo and Bob Haney. The Brave and the Bold isn't some random title. It's what they're adapting.

What's so wrong about making a Batman cartoon that fits in with the rest of the offerings on the Cartoon network? A faithful cartoon that may not appeal to people think "dark" is more than an adjective and not necessarily indicative of quality, but does appeal to people that understand that Batman has appeal in a lighter state. That honors the contributions that Dick Sprang made to Batman.

 

[Evil Twin]

Re: Looney Tunes

Cartoons basically played before all features in the 30s and 40s. The audience that came to see Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon, for instance. Heck, WB's films of the period were some of the most edgy by any studio. And, therefore, they were designed to appeal to both children and adults in the audience. Who do you think the target audience is for something like "What's Opera, Doc?"

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

just hope BAT-MITEdoesn't show up

Kinda late for that. He's showing up in an episode written by Paul Dini.

 

[3dman27]

Kinda late for that. He's showing up in an episode written by Paul Dini.

uh oh wr're gonna hear from spider-bat NOW

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

uh oh wr're gonna hear from spider-bat NOW

It's Paul Dini, though. The guy that made Mr. Freeze and Hush cool.

 

[Vanquisher]

I could not believe how horrible and campy this show was when I watched the first episode last week. I thought it might be fun, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

Sure it looked cartoony from the ads but so does the spectacular spider-man but that show is very good and quite serious.

They have spent too long erasing the camp from Batman for a reason. And after The Dark Knight he deserves a better and serious cartoon series.
Don't bring this crap back.

The idot producer said they wanted to remind people Super heroes have senses of humor well, Batman doesn't he's a dark not a joke.

Understand which charcters are light then do that with them not Batman. Idiots.

I totally agree with you.

Campiness DOES NOT WORK. The character has evolved. The audience has evolved. The medium to which Batman is delivered has evolved. The market has evolved.

There is a reason why the all the Batman/Bruce Timm series including Justice League have been so critically acclaimed.

Simply put, Batman-The Camp does not work and Batman-The Dark Knight does.

Case and point, how many people watched the movie Batman and Robin starring, Clooney and O'Donnell. Hardly anyone. That movie, with all it's special effects was meant to attract children. LOL...well, guess what folks. Children flocked to watch the Jurassic Park & Star Wars trilogy, but not Batman and Robin.

What needs to be done is a Batman cartoon series re-booted from the ground up that can attract kids from the 8th grade and beyond. A Dark Knight style that can tell the story of Batman from origin to the Robins to Oracle to The Birds of Prey to Justice League......a soap opera style show that can take years to complete rather then it's usual 3-5 year run.

Some, if not most of the arguments for Brave and the Bold, are outright terrible. I remember growing up, little boys were into shows like GI Joe, Transformers, etc... Isn't it a no-wonder why kids of that same age group are so "into" the anime style cartoons of today? Batman: Brave and the Bold is not going to attract more Batman fans. How can it, when today's cartoons are more hi-tech and imaginative then ever before. LOL...not unless you want Batman to attract the market of kids that need babysitters to watch over them.

Bring back The Dark Knight style cartoons and not this "Smurf-like"/"Underdog" kind of show.

 

[Vanquisher]

Quality doesnt always equal sales, unfortunately. Howver the fact does remain that comic sales are the lowest theyve been in years. This will affect how WB presents a new version of Batman, particularly at kids.

So you are saying that the strategy of "THE BATMAN" cartoon series didn't work?

If it didn't work for that show, despite a weird looking Joker, an over the top Penguin, and a comedic Robin and Batgirl........guess what? It's not going to work now.