|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 12, 2018 3:35:16 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made. No he was not. Briefly, it was other way around, with the New Look era Batman using some of the silly camp elements from the series (e.g. Robin's "Holy-isms", etc.), but the cmic never naturally had Batman performing the "Batusi" in nightclubs, constantly relying on ridiculous gadgets from a bottomless it of a utility belt, or was the butt of a joke the way the 1966 TV Batman was--with increasing levels of absurdity as the series wore on. Its no wonder that the letters pages of Batman had readers complaining about the TV show and not wanting the thankfully brief attempts to take certain cues from the show. Someone on a Batman fansite posted examples I recall from my back issues, such as Robin's puns, from Batman #200 - March, 1968: ..and it goes on and on with how readers did not want to see any of the TV series in the printed Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 12:34:14 GMT -5
I liked the version of Batman from the 70's the best. The late 40's thru the late 60's Batman was a bit too "silly" for my tastes. And the Batman after DKR was too grim.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 13, 2018 14:27:25 GMT -5
I liked the version of Batman from the 70's the best. The late 40's thru the late 60's Batman was a bit too "silly" for my tastes. And the Batman after DKR was too grim. I couldn’t just like this post as this is exactly my preference with Batman. Edit: Though I did like him 80’s and 90’s too. Though in the 90’sit was pretty much just Legends of the Dark Knight I was reading.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 17:48:28 GMT -5
Charlton horror comics in the 70s were quite good, I'd read them whenever I came across one. That said, if anyone knows where I can find this story, Murder By Proxy, I'd appreciate it. Premise: A board game was being played, and when a player picked a 'death' card, someone would die in said manner. This concept was awesome to a 9 year old girl's mind Murder by Proxy ... I think this is what you are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 13, 2018 19:52:10 GMT -5
Charlton horror comics in the 70s were quite good, I'd read them whenever I came across one. That said, if anyone knows where I can find this story, Murder By Proxy, I'd appreciate it. Premise: A board game was being played, and when a player picked a 'death' card, someone would die in said manner. This concept was awesome to a 9 year old girl's mind Murder by Proxy ... I think this is what you are looking for. That's a story from the mid-30s, Mech. No way it was reprinted in a Charlton horror comic of the '70s!
Cei-U! I summon the case of mistaken identity!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 21:19:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 16, 2018 15:27:35 GMT -5
You can't argue the problem with Burton's Batman is that it is Tim Burton's version of Batman - and then not admit that Christopher Nolan's version is equally a typical Nolan character. I can because Nolan's Batman followed the kind of development seen in various re-tellings of Bit was all of his Batman's origin that existed long before Nolan adapted it. In Burton's case, it was typical misfit character in Freakworld, which was Batman in name only, lacking anything that would tell anyone the layered "who and why" of Wayne and his other half. Nolan's Batman is just as much a Nolan character as Burton's Batman is a Burton character. You say Burton's Batman is a typical misfit, Nolan's Batman is a typical driven, methodical pragmatist without much emotion. As for the comics, please go back and read the first year of Batman stories. That's what Burton's Batman is based on.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 16, 2018 15:34:08 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made. No he was not. Briefly, it was other way around, with the New Look era Batman using some of the silly camp elements from the series (e.g. Robin's "Holy-isms", etc.), but the cmic never naturally had Batman performing the "Batusi" in nightclubs, constantly relying on ridiculous gadgets from a bottomless it of a utility belt, or was the butt of a joke the way the 1966 TV Batman was--with increasing levels of absurdity as the series wore on. Its no wonder that the letters pages of Batman had readers complaining about the TV show and not wanting the thankfully brief attempts to take certain cues from the show. Someone on a Batman fansite posted examples I recall from my back issues, such as Robin's puns, from Batman #200 - March, 1968: ..and it goes on and on with how readers did not want to see any of the TV series in the printed Batman. Sorry, I know you like Batman to be taken seriously, but the Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. The Batman TV show merely transplanted it to screen with a straight face, and thus it became ridiculous. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 16, 2018 16:05:46 GMT -5
aquagoat said, The Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. You're painting with too broad a brush. Batman's New Look debuted in 1964, a full two years before the TV show. Yeah, granted it wasn't Watchmen, but the whole reason there was a New Look was to rescue Batman from the late Jack Schiff era of monsters and aliens and return him to his detective days. Tark, tarkintino, as he is so often, is correct when he says that the show was not aping what was going on in the comics at the time. Which, in my case anyway, was exactly the reason that I didn't watch the show past the second episode. It was not the Batman I'd been reading for three years or so at that time.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 17, 2018 8:45:13 GMT -5
aquagoat said, The Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. You're painting with too broad a brush. Batman's New Look debuted in 1964, a full two years before the TV show. Yeah, granted it wasn't Watchmen, but the whole reason there was a New Look was to rescue Batman from the late Jack Schiff era of monsters and aliens and return him to his detective days. Tark, tarkintino , as he is so often, is correct when he says that the show was not aping what was going on in the comics at the time. Which, in my case anyway, was exactly the reason that I didn't watch the show past the second episode. It was not the Batman I'd been reading for three years or so at that time. I created a whole thread asking about this very subject, since I too thought that West's Batman was reflecting the comics, not doing something on it's own. classiccomics.org/thread/3345/who-batman-away-camp-serious
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2018 9:11:52 GMT -5
aquagoat said, The Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. You're painting with too broad a brush. Batman's New Look debuted in 1964, a full two years before the TV show. Yeah, granted it wasn't Watchmen, but the whole reason there was a New Look was to rescue Batman from the late Jack Schiff era of monsters and aliens and return him to his detective days. Tark, tarkintino , as he is so often, is correct when he says that the show was not aping what was going on in the comics at the time. Which, in my case anyway, was exactly the reason that I didn't watch the show past the second episode. It was not the Batman I'd been reading for three years or so at that time. I created a whole thread asking about this very subject, since I too thought that West's Batman was reflecting the comics, not doing something on it's own. classiccomics.org/thread/3345/who-batman-away-camp-seriousOh, yes! I remember that thread fondly, adam! Just went back to reread it... great insights form everyone who participated. And no snark, either.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 17, 2018 13:24:37 GMT -5
The truly great thing about Batman is that he has been around so long in comics, books, television, movies and cartoons and every type has different versions so you can literally find or choose a Batman which suits you. So instead of whining and crying over how this or that Batman isn't your Batman just choose which version is "your" Batman and sit back and enjoy any and everything you can find which reflects the Bat you like and enjoy. There. I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 17, 2018 15:14:29 GMT -5
Bogey said it best “ we’ll always have Paris “
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 17, 2018 17:10:10 GMT -5
aquagoat said, The Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. You're painting with too broad a brush. Batman's New Look debuted in 1964, a full two years before the TV show. Yeah, granted it wasn't Watchmen, but the whole reason there was a New Look was to rescue Batman from the late Jack Schiff era of monsters and aliens and return him to his detective days. Tark, tarkintino , as he is so often, is correct when he says that the show was not aping what was going on in the comics at the time. Which, in my case anyway, was exactly the reason that I didn't watch the show past the second episode. It was not the Batman I'd been reading for three years or so at that time. We're not disagreeing. I said the comics of the early 60s were silly. Infantino's New Look Batman came along in 1964.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2018 17:44:13 GMT -5
aquagoat said, The Batman comics of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were very silly, full of ridiculous gadgets. You're painting with too broad a brush. Batman's New Look debuted in 1964, a full two years before the TV show. Yeah, granted it wasn't Watchmen, but the whole reason there was a New Look was to rescue Batman from the late Jack Schiff era of monsters and aliens and return him to his detective days. Tark, tarkintino , as he is so often, is correct when he says that the show was not aping what was going on in the comics at the time. Which, in my case anyway, was exactly the reason that I didn't watch the show past the second episode. It was not the Batman I'd been reading for three years or so at that time. We're not disagreeing. I said the comics of the early 60s were silly. Infantino's New Look Batman came along in 1964. But your highlighted quote includes 20+ years of Batman comics into that silly category. And I think I mentioned when the New Look started. All I'm saying is that you are lumping too many "eras" together into one. And even in the early 60s, when Batman and Detective were admittedly more silly than serious -- their audience primarily ten-year-olds -- it wasn't campy. It may have been inordinately goofy, but it wasn't campy. Random example of inordinate goofiness:
|
|