SHADOWBAT69 said:
Im glad to hear that violence in cartoons is an "important element" to you. Who says our society isnt civilized? When i was a kid watching those cartoons i didnt care. Why? I was a KID watching CARTOONS.
What a radical, crazy idea that Batman would get in fights. You're blowing my mind here. But seriously, (realistic) martial arts and cool detective work, both absent from the ancient shows and from The Batman, but both present in BTAS, are "important elements" of the Batman character. Without those, what makes him cool? What makes him any different from, say Green Arrow, or Vigilante?
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Who exactly are "they" that you are referring to? and what is such a parody about TB's Catwoman? The TB team has elements of both her thief and animal activist sides. So whats the problem with this character to you?
"They" varied with whatever scene she was in, but if you watch the first CW episode, all she can ever say is "That's not what THEY think," as if Batman was ******ed and couldn't tell what the people shooting at him thought of him. And even if TB's CW character does have elements of her thief and activist sides, it also has elements of an immature, childish annoyance. And that's not what makes Catwoman cool.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
There really isnt a need to be insulting to anyone. Everbody makes mistakes when typing.
There really isn't a need to take a mild grammatical jab so seriously. "Everbody" else does it without getting their head bitten off.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
I didnt know there was a law that said the designs for characters must be followed exactly the same in each rendition. I remember in the comics how even the Joker had short hair, a ponytail, even a shaved head. I also remember how Riddler had a receeding (sp?) hairline, but now he has a full head of hair. My point is, who cares if a cartoon character resembles someone? The basic elements are still there.
Changing hairstyles isn't quite the same thing as going from smooth, suave showman to Manson backup dancer, now is it? Plus, when character design is so clearly designed to reflect character (as it always is with the Riddler) it's important to take design into account. Riddler had a receding hairline and a flaccid mustache when he was going through a real "not-that-cool-anymore" phase. But in Hush he was all style again, even rocking the insolent little domino mask. And then you have The Batman, and while you watch a Riddler episode you're always expecting the dude to tell you what sweet dreams are made of, or about how he doesn't like the drugs but the drugs like him.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Yeh, itb be an interesting world if everyone agreed on everything and no one had different tastes or opinions.
Not really. Be kind of boring.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
See? This is YOUR opinion.
I know. I was there when I typed it.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Again, is there some law on design?
You try wearing a skirt while being active. There's a reason girls don't wear skirts when playing sports.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Hm, Bruce does have hobbies. So in the TB its guitars. So? Heaven forbid if Bruce wants some Mexican food. This is just a stupid argument, imo.
Bruce Wayne is the last scion of the greatest family in Gotham City. He carries the legacy on with dignity and respect...except when he rocks out in his poseur-punk band. And of course, when Batman's out patrollin', fightin' crime, he works up a mighty big appetite. None of us really need to see him ordering his Mexican food, it doesn't strengthen the story or the characterization...but Matsuda's not gonna let that get in the way of a crappy episode!
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Maybe. However, when debating the "origins" used in TB it is a very important fact. You cant fault the writing team when they used the original source material.
Yes. You can. They had a choice of origins, and they chose the worst one, whether or not it was the original. They could also have chosen the original interpretation of Batman, which had the dude snapping people's necks, shooting people in their sleep, and knocking people off of catwalks to their death.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
They dont "claim" to be, they are. And why not compare them to the Filmation and Hanna-Barbara stuff too? They are animated incarnations. And know what? They are all different. Just like how everyones opinion on Batman is different. Just like thru the entire history of Batman there are different representations of the character. This will continue. Some will like certain versions, some will not. For someone who doesnt watch the show tho, you sure have some strong opinions and knowledge about it.
I don't watch it regularly. If I'm surfing and it infects my TV, I check to see if it got any better. It never does. And yes, there are different interpretations of Batman, but they fall into a few categories. Golden Age Bats, who's so dark he kills. Doesn't really work. Makes the character go too far. Few people accept that as the definitive Batman, regardless of it being the first one. Silver Age Bats, which saw Batman become so ludicrous and self-parodying that it ruined the reputation of all comic books forever. Pretty much regarded as funny and nostalgic, but not definitive. We have Modern Age Batman, basically what most people have come to accept as Batman, the Batman seen in 1990s comics, Burtman, BTAS, and BB. Those are the basic categories. The Batman definitely falls into the Silver Age category, even though it's a new show.
SHADOWBAT69 said:
Maybe there is a different chef. Kind of how there is a different creative team behind this animated show.
Yeah, but this chef sucks at making steak. Maybe he'd be good at making something else. Who knows, maybe he makes a mean lasagna, or perhaps a great anime show. But steak is not lasagna, and Batman is not anime. And if he tries to put cheese and noodles on my steak, I'm gonna let him know, and I'm not gonna like that steak very much. I'll taste it. But it's not gonna taste right, and I'll let the dude know. And I will beg the restaurant to get the other chef back. He made a much better steak.
