The camp has been erased for a reason.

[Evil Twin]

I think it's worth mentioning, that Dick Sprang was an excellent artist. Sheldon Moldoff and Jim Aparo are the only other Batman artists with a similar body of work. And you can't really animate with the level of rendering detail and shading of Adams, Aparo, Lee, etc. At least not without a massive budget. Heck, their styles work on the comic page but are probably overrendered in regards to animation. I see no issue with using Dick Sprang as a visual basis, particularly since his style worked for a wide variety of stories. Heck, the BTAS style is partially based on Sprang's work.

Really, I've seen more than my share of 20 year old fanboys who can't seem to grasp the fact that Sprang was an excellent artist and is one of the most important Batman artists. Or think that Batman stories as dark as what we get today would have been popular in the time period following WWII where the country had just witnessed all the destruction and darkness it could handle.

 

[C. W. Saturn]

Dick Sprang was the king.

 

[Jochimus]

I think it's worth mentioning, that Dick Sprang was an excellent artist. Sheldon Moldoff and Jim Aparo are the only other Batman artists with a similar body of work. And you can't really animate with the level of rendering detail and shading of Adams, Aparo, Lee, etc. At least not without a massive budget. Heck, their styles work on the comic page but are probably overrendered in regards to animation.

Good point. One of my favorite Batman stories of all time was "The Many Deaths Of Batman", drawn by Aparo. I think this would make a great DC Universe DTV...but preferably in the hands of Bruce Timm, and that's simply for purposes of function; a "quasi"-Timmverse context would allow the story would be more effective than either "The Batman" with the kid sidekicks and heavy reliance on the Rogues, or with "Brave & The Bold" with its Bat-one-liners and Wayne-less setup. Use the old B:TAS animation model for Gordon to make him look less geriatric, and the JLU animation model of Batman with the blue highlights, and IMO that's sufficient enough homage to Aparo's style. The animation style should fit what the creators of the show are trying to accomplish, and this show has exactly that.

Really, I've seen more than my share of 20 year old fanboys who can't seem to grasp the fact that Sprang was an excellent artist and is one of the most important Batman artists.

Probably because of the looming spectre of oversized prop set pieces, which have become synonymous with the camp of the '60s (like when Julie Newmar left Adam West tied up inside a giant billboard coffee cup to be doused with dripping acid). Although in the case of this new show, Clock King not only had the advantage of a giant clock that was armed to the nines, but even better, had the good sense to actually take away Batman's utility belt when his goons tied Bats to it. Good boy. (And to anyone who brings up the sword Bats pulls OUT of his belt, two words: telescoping blade.)

Or think that Batman stories as dark as what we get today would have been popular in the time period following WWII where the country had just witnessed all the destruction and darkness it could handle.

That's where Robin came in, coincidentally (or not).

 

[spiderfan970]

I was watching the making of Mask of the Phantasm and I found this to be a very relevant quote.

"I can still watch the Adam West shows and I can still read the Frank Miller Dark Knight comics and I can watch the movies you know, it's like they're all different, but they're all Batman." - Bruce Timm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdS2hi4Xsm0&feature=related

 

[Grommers]

Trollish? Because I like to debate? Quite clear you guys have never seen a forum troll. I'll leave it at that.


Umm, who said I want a TAS clone? The art is fine of this show, i don't think anyone is arguing that...its teh plot, the story, the characters that are people complaining about....I could use "the batman" as an example, since I personally liked that show with exception of Bat-Girl/Robin, but that show still did well. However TAS is obviously a much stronger point. I thought "The batman" brought us a lot new stuff to the table, sure the depictions of certain characters were a little off, but it was a good attempt.

Neither does doing a show darker. And who to say this isnt a right direction? You? Thats personal preference.

No...its the preference of the majority, dont believe me, you can check any movie listing, or you can check to see how well Batman : TAS did, even how well "the batman" did.

I can get you the statistics if you'd like.

As for the broken record, I can provide all the statistics needed to show that a darker style Batman is more beneficial to the character, and to be honest I stopped posting for a bit until I saw new arguments pop-up..but when I saw it just going around in circles, I felt the need to move forward with this debate, or else this will be continuing going for page after page, and just end up a flame fest.

And..if thats not saying what you want...then why are you defending it? Wouldn't you be on my side agreeing that this is a poor direction the character is going in? So are you defending something you yourself don't even want?

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

You can't provide statistics to prove that a darker atmosphere is more beneficial to Batman, that's just.......ridiculous. And really all you're arguing is that it should be more dark, which is also ridiculous. We have dark 89 and Returns, dark Nolan films and dark TAS, can't you just accept a fun Dick Sprang style Batman that is still a relevant aspect of the Dark Knight?

 

[Evil Twin]

You know what's good for Batman? Good stories, light or dark. I'll take one "Robin Dies at Dawn" over a thousand dark stories on the level of War Games.

Frankly, I think people complaining about camp, don't know the meaning of the word. This is light, but it's goal is to be escapist entertainment not to make fun of the character.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I think it's worth mentioning, that Dick Sprang was an excellent artist. Sheldon Moldoff and Jim Aparo are the only other Batman artists with a similar body of work. And you can't really animate with the level of rendering detail and shading of Adams, Aparo, Lee, etc. At least not without a massive budget. Heck, their styles work on the comic page but are probably overrendered in regards to animation. I see no issue with using Dick Sprang as a visual basis, particularly since his style worked for a wide variety of stories. Heck, the BTAS style is partially based on Sprang's work.

Really, I've seen more than my share of 20 year old fanboys who can't seem to grasp the fact that Sprang was an excellent artist and is one of the most important Batman artists.

I am 41 years old and well aware of Dick Sprang. In fact, Frank Miller himself bases his Batman partially on Dick Sprang's in the Forties. Frank Miller in Comics Interview #31:
I base my Batman on Jerry Robinson's and Dick Sprang's. The strongest presentation of the character to date has come from the Forties. There was something in the art back then that made him look huge. There was also a sense of joy, grim as he was, there was a sense of joy, just in what he did, that I'm trying to bring back.
FM: I love Dick Sprang and Jerry Robinson’s depiction, and base a lot of the ways I draw the character on their view of him.
NEWSRAMA: The broad-bodied and barrel-chested guy with short ears on his costume…
FM: Right – if I want to draw a skinny guy, I’ll draw Daredevil.


I have no problem with James Tucker basing Batman in this series on Dick Sprang's. But here is what the 1950s and 1960s Batman material and the 1970s Super Friends cartoons and James Tucker's Brave and Bold cartoons are missing, as Frank Miller explained in Comics Interview and Comic Book Confidential:
Batman has his roots in the pulps, specifially THE SHADOW. Batman was created in 1939 and the character that was created then was ruthless in he's methods. Terrifying to criminals. He's methods couldn't be nice. Batman has the special aspect of being like Dracula -- coming and going mysteriously. Much of what he does to criminals is staged like a horror movie. Over the years that got softened and softened do to Censorship. The comics industry did not exactly act...couragously. You know, Bill Gaines was left standing out there alone while everyone else was folding the tents up. We've still got that stupid Comics Code. It was invented as something to wave at the Senate sub-committee to say "Don't censor us, we've already taken care of it." What I've been doing is taking the stuff of the old comics and bringing it back.

Or think that Batman stories as dark as what we get today would have been popular in the time period following WWII where the country had just witnessed all the destruction and darkness it could handle.

Obviously dark Batman stories would have been very popular in the time period following WWII - the late Forties and the Fifties. Heck, some of the most popular and successful comics then were full of dark entertainment - Crime Suspenstories, Crimes by Women, Crime Does Not Pay, Famous Crimes, True Crime, Reform School Girl, Murder Incoperated, Tales of the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, Haunt of Fear.

 

[theMan-Bat]

You know what's good for Batman? Good stories, light or dark. I'll take one "Robin Dies at Dawn" over a thousand dark stories on the level of War Games.

War Games is an awful story, but the truth is Robin Dies at Dawn ain't a great story either, in my opinion.

Frankly, I think people complaining about camp, don't know the meaning of the word. This is light, but it's goal is to be escapist entertainment not to make fun of the character.

I understand and I've not been complaining about camp, it's the amount of lightness, softness to the show that is wrong-headed to me and generally silly.

 

[Evil Twin]

Obviously dark Batman stories would have been very popular in the time period following WWII - the late Forties and the Fifties. Heck, some of the most popular and successful comics then were full of dark entertainment - Crime Suspenstories, Crimes by Women, Crime Does Not Pay, Famous Crimes, True Crime, Reform School Girl, Murder Incoperated, Tales of the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, Haunt of Fear.

I wouldn't use "obviously" in regards to the popularity of dark superheroes following WWII. There were still some darker hero features that made it through WWII, but they all vanished in short order. Even the brilliance of post-WWII The Spirit ran it's course in short order, and that was certainly darker and more adult than most everything else of that period. Dick Tracy too couldn't sustain it's original dark vision. Post-WWII was when Superman really became dominant and tastes were more aligned in that direction.

I think the sales success of the EC Horror and Crime stories, and their imitators, is a little overstated. Yes they were successful and spawned imitators, but there were plenty of other genres that were flourishing that weren't as dark. Science fiction, western, Jungle Girl, and funny animal comics, to name a few, were also successful genres of the time. And EC's sales success was also built on the fact that they had one of the great lineups of artists and writers. And, even then, it's worth noting that Mad was EC's greatest success.

I'm not suggesting that a dark Batman couldn't have been a success for that period. Heck, they were still mixing in the occasional darker story pre-CCA, but only that it certainly was no guarantee of success.

 

[spiderfan970]

I am 41 years old and well aware of Dick Sprang. In fact, Frank Miller himself bases his Batman partially on Dick Sprang's in the Forties. Frank Miller in Comics Interview #31:
I base my Batman on Jerry Robinson's and Dick Sprang's. The strongest presentation of the character to date has come from the Forties. There was something in the art back then that made him look huge. There was also a sense of joy, grim as he was, there was a sense of joy, just in what he did, that I'm trying to bring back.
FM: I love Dick Sprang and Jerry Robinson’s depiction, and base a lot of the ways I draw the character on their view of him.
NEWSRAMA: The broad-bodied and barrel-chested guy with short ears on his costume…
FM: Right – if I want to draw a skinny guy, I’ll draw Daredevil.


I have no problem with James Tucker basing Batman in this series on Dick Sprang's. But here is what the 1950s and 1960s Batman material and the 1970s Super Friends cartoons and James Tucker's Brave and Bold cartoons are missing, as Frank Miller explained in Comics Interview and Comic Book Confidential:
Batman has his roots in the pulps, specifially THE SHADOW. Batman was created in 1939 and the character that was created then was ruthless in he's methods. Terrifying to criminals. He's methods couldn't be nice. Batman has the special aspect of being like Dracula -- coming and going mysteriously. Much of what he does to criminals is staged like a horror movie. Over the years that got softened and softened do to Censorship. The comics industry did not exactly act...couragously. You know, Bill Gaines was left standing out there alone while everyone else was folding the tents up. We've still got that stupid Comics Code. It was invented as something to wave at the Senate sub-committee to say "Don't censor us, we've already taken care of it." What I've been doing is taking the stuff of the old comics and bringing it back.



Obviously dark Batman stories would have been very popular in the time period following WWII - the late Forties and the Fifties. Heck, some of the most popular and successful comics then were full of dark entertainment - Crime Suspenstories, Crimes by Women, Crime Does Not Pay, Famous Crimes, True Crime, Reform School Girl, Murder Incoperated, Tales of the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, Haunt of Fear.

Look, I agree with you. I like Batman to be dark, I like him to be taken seriously. That being said, I like this cartoon interpretation of Batman just the same. Like that quote said, it's all still Batman and that's what's important. He's still Batman! He's still a hero, he's still doing the right thing and inspiring kids to also, I don't see the problem. They're doing this respectfully to his character, and they're doing it because they all LOVE Batman. I don't understand why you think it's such a big deal, this is one version out of MANY. Some people really do like this version, and some people don't find it all that appealing.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I wouldn't use "obviously" in regards to the popularity of dark superheroes following WWII.

As Neal Adams says "Batman is the superhero who is not a superhero". We all know Batman is called a superhero, but as Neal Adams was saying, he's really not a superhuman hero, "You must remember, Batman is the superhero who is not a superhero. He has no powers, no spider bites, no mutant or accidental radiation or chemical gift. He's not a visitor from another planet." - Neal Adams, forward to Batman Illustrated by Neal Adams volume two.

"I relate to Batman. Batman is not a superhero, nor am I. He wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider. He has no superpowers." - Neal Adams, forward to Batman Illustrated by Neal Adams volume three.

There were still some darker hero features that made it through WWII, but they all vanished in short order. Even the brilliance of post-WWII The Spirit ran it's course in short order, and that was certainly darker and more adult than most everything else of that period. Dick Tracy too couldn't sustain it's original dark vision.

Batman is very different than those suit and tie detectives The Spirit and Dick Tracy. Batman has the potential to entertain on a whole different level. Batman is far more theatrical and operatic and can have a strong air of mystery about him and a sense of menace with macabre overtones.

Post-WWII was when Superman really became dominant and tastes were more aligned in that direction.

Sure Superman was dominant, that was the era of the great George Reeves and The Adventures of Superman TV show, which I'm a fan of.

I think the sales success of the EC Horror and Crime stories, and their imitators, is a little overstated. Yes they were successful and spawned imitators, but there were plenty of other genres that were flourishing that weren't as dark. Science fiction, western, Jungle Girl, and funny animal comics, to name a few, were also successful genres of the time. And EC's sales success was also built on the fact that they had one of the great lineups of artists and writers. And, even then, it's worth noting that Mad was EC's greatest success.

Well, MAD magazine ended up being their greatest success because their successful dark comics were forced out of business in 1954.

I'm not suggesting that a dark Batman couldn't have been a success for that period. Heck, they were still mixing in the occasional darker story pre-CCA, but only that it certainly was no guarantee of success.

Fair enough. And I'm confident that dark Batman comics would have been successful in that period, up to 1954 anyway.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Trollish? Because I like to debate? Quite clear you guys have never seen a forum troll. I'll leave it at that.


Umm, who said I want a TAS clone? The art is fine of this show, i don't think anyone is arguing that...its teh plot, the story, the characters that are people complaining about....I could use "the batman" as an example, since I personally liked that show with exception of Bat-Girl/Robin, but that show still did well. However TAS is obviously a much stronger point. I thought "The batman" brought us a lot new stuff to the table, sure the depictions of certain characters were a little off, but it was a good attempt.


No...its the preference of the majority, dont believe me, you can check any movie listing, or you can check to see how well Batman : TAS did, even how well "the batman" did.

I can get you the statistics if you'd like.

As for the broken record, I can provide all the statistics needed to show that a darker style Batman is more beneficial to the character, and to be honest I stopped posting for a bit until I saw new arguments pop-up..but when I saw it just going around in circles, I felt the need to move forward with this debate, or else this will be continuing going for page after page, and just end up a flame fest.

And..if thats not saying what you want...then why are you defending it? Wouldn't you be on my side agreeing that this is a poor direction the character is going in? So are you defending something you yourself don't even want?

I defend the show because I like the show. Nowehere did I say i didnt or that I didnt want it. I pretty sure Ive been clear in that I dont want the same crap weve already had. I can handle the change, obviously you cant. Or you would just simply walk away from this forum and turn your back to this show. It is actually that easy.

A dark direction is not necessary for the Batman character.

Statistics? Really? On what? That Batman projects are successful? Everyone knows that. Statistics on how a dark Batman is beneficial. What are you going to compare this number to? Superfriends? 60's show? Things from 20 to 30 years ago? Thats a long time and things change. Maybe its starting right now.

 

[Darkseid1]

Ive read all 5 pages of this thread and all i see are the people who hate this version of batman and the people who can accept it. The ones who hate this have absolutely no basis for tearing down this show rather than personal preference. thats all there is, nothing else. I read someone wants to post statistics? lmao you need to get a better basis on why you think this show shouldnt be made, because I hat to tell you, there is no "proof" that this show is going to fail. Ill guarantee you it wont. Its Batman, and thats all the viewers care about. All the "haters" need to get out of their dark and "realistic" world and see that outside your own little group that thinks you are the majority, viewers will watch a friendlier, less violent Batman. and to the poster thats egging everyone on so that he can "debate", like the forum moderator said, its basically trolling. youre not debating, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, this isnt the animated series. this isnt the dark batman. this isnt what people want.

To shadowbat, I have to agreew ith one thing that was said. Im a bit suprised that you are a great admirer of this show. you being a big burton fanboy I thought you would have turned on this version. I guess theres more to your fandom than meets the eye.

 

[Ere]

Ive read all 5 pages of this thread and all i see are the people who hate this version of batman and the people who can accept it. The ones who hate this have absolutely no basis for tearing down this show rather than personal preference. thats all there is, nothing else.

By that logic, everyone who dislikes Schumacher's bat-films and dares to criticize them is wrong.

 

[CaptainClown]

By that logic, everyone who dislikes Schumacher's bat-films and dares to criticize them is wrong.

I like the Schumacher films, it is like Adam West to the max. If I didn't have TDK or BB I probably would hate them.

 

[Ere]

I like the Schumacher films, it is like Adam West to the max. If I didn't have TDK or BB I probably would hate them.

So you could get past the wrong and annoying interpretations of the characters?

 

[CaptainClown]

So you could get past the wrong and annoying interpretations of the characters?

More or less I just don't watch it if I don't like the characterization, like The Batman. But when the medium is extremely campy I let a lot more slide because it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Darkseid1]

By that logic, everyone who dislikes Schumacher's bat-films and dares to criticize them is wrong.

or any interpretation. Nolan, Burton, the serials, superfriends, etc. If you dont care for a particular style, thats fine, nothing wrong with it. But to critisize it in the manner in which has been done in this thread shows and proves nothing more than "I dont like it so its wrong. It should be this."

 

[Darkseid1]

So you could get past the wrong and annoying interpretations of the characters?

See, this is the flawed logic that runs rampant on these boards, as wella s others. Who is to say whats wrong or annoying. The annoyance of a parrticular version is all personal preference. The "wrong" comment, is well, wrong. There is no wrong version of Batman. 70 years of history has proven that and the sooner people can see and accept that, the stronger the Batman fanbase could be.

 

[CaptainClown]

See, this is the flawed logic that runs rampant on these boards, as wella s others. Who is to say whats wrong or annoying. The annoyance of a parrticular version is all personal preference. The "wrong" comment, is well, wrong. There is no wrong version of Batman. 70 years of history has proven that and the sooner people can see and accept that, the stronger the Batman fanbase could be.

I would argue that there is a wrong interpretation. If they make Batman some alien from Krypton who has super powers, then I think they missed the mark. That is an extreme case though.

 

[Ere]

or any interpretation. Nolan, Burton, the serials, superfriends, etc. If you dont care for a particular style, thats fine, nothing wrong with it. But to critisize it in the manner in which has been done in this thread shows and proves nothing more than "I dont like it so its wrong. It should be this."

I'm sorry, but they have the right to criticize any interpretation of Batman character if they don't think it works for the character. And from reading the entire thread, the worst posts came from supporters of the show, some going as far as to call those who don't like it idiots.

See, this is the flawed logic that runs rampant on these boards, as wella s others. Who is to say whats wrong or annoying. The annoyance of a parrticular version is all personal preference. The "wrong" comment, is well, wrong. There is no wrong version of Batman. 70 years of history has proven that and the sooner people can see and accept that, the stronger the Batman fanbase could be.

So, turning Bane (who is a genius in the comics) into a mindless monkey is not "wrong"? Hell, turning nearly every character present into a parody of himself doesn't count as a wrong interpretation?

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

Bane's been pretty much turned into a parody of himself in the comics as well.

 

[spiderfan970]

With a movie I think they should try to be more operatic and dramatic yes, but with a tv series I think it's okay to be more jokey. Besides Brave and the Bold isn't even making fun of Batman...It's not campy, Batman and Robin is. If it were campy like Batman and Robin...I would probably hate it as well, but it's not.

Though I guess I do have to agree that Batman and Robin is just one in tons of different versions of Batman, and is still Batman.

 

[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.

and may i ask which dc hero should a show like brave and bold go to he was the comic b&b's lead character for years