|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 17, 2018 17:51:08 GMT -5
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. Your original statement: You did not mention the 40s, 50s and early 60s in that post. The comics published during the TV series run were well into the "New Look" period where Batman was brought back to his detective roots, and not the infantile stories of the previous decade--and certainly not what was happening on the TV series. Throughout the TV series run, Bat-comic fans complained that the series was nothing like the comic, and did not want any of the TV elements in those books.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 18, 2018 15:09:40 GMT -5
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. Your original statement: You did not mention the 40s, 50s and early 60s in that post. The comics published during the TV series run were well into the "New Look" period where Batman was brought back to his detective roots, and not the infantile stories of the previous decade--and certainly not what was happening on the TV series. Throughout the TV series run, Bat-comic fans complained that the series was nothing like the comic, and did not want any of the TV elements in those books. Those are two different statements. The first is about the TV show. The second is specifically about Adam West's Batman.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 18, 2018 15:15:27 GMT -5
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: And the TV show never did stuff like shown on that cover. The TV show was more like this... ...in fact, exactly like this. When did this panel come from? The New Look era.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 18, 2018 23:42:43 GMT -5
Holy Obtusenness, aquagoat, are you doing this on purpose!? The first set of panels comes from Detective 361, which went on sale in January '67, a full year after the TV show's debut. So, yes, it did come out after the New Look had been introduced. Ditto with the lower panels. (I don't have time to figure out which issue they're from.) But so were the O'Neil-Adams Batman and the Engelhart-Rogers-Austin Batman. For that matter, so was Dark Knight Returns. The campy issues, (aka Batmania/ POW! BAM! issues) of Batman and Detective were published after the show started, which meant that there were a batch of camp-style issues coming out long after the TV show had jumped the bat. And, right, the show never did stuff like the cover I posted because the show was intentionally campy, not childish. I think you may be missing the distinction. See you again, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel...
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 19, 2018 12:24:42 GMT -5
Those are two different statements. The first is about the TV show. The second is specifically about Adam West's Batman. What? You made the correlation between the 1966 TV series and the comics published at the same time: Which is provably false, not only by Prince Hal's posts, but the reader letters of the time, one which was posted earlier, and another I will quote below (the comic spine is too fragile to scan the comic), and what's telling about readers perceptions was in the months after the TV show was canceled in March of 1968, readers were still making distinctions that separated what was happening in the comic from the TV series, as in this letter from Batman #206 (bolded words as printed in the comic)-- That was an undeniable rejection of everything the TV stood for--from the lack of Batman using his head to the reliance on the silly "Bat-junk" so much a defining part of the 1966 series.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 19, 2018 13:01:52 GMT -5
What tarkintino said. Looking back, you realize that the Batman TV show was intended for an entirely different audience than the comics were. Completely understandable, as the TV show had to be popular with millions of viewers to be successful. Dozier and company had to have a much larger and more demographically diverse audience than a kiddie show on Saturday morning if they were going to survive. Thus all of the 60s pop art campiness that provided its mise-en-scène. It drove the Batman comic book audience crazy, but it provided the eye and ear candy that made it an ephemeral hit among the TV-watching public. I can't think of anything truly "60s" appearing in New Look Batman or Detective outside of the Hootenanny Hotshots' appearance in the first New Look Batman (164) and Gotham Village, the hip artsy Gotham City counterpart to Greenwich Village, which was the setting for the very first New Look story in Detective (327). If I'm not mistaken, neither of them showed up again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 16:38:57 GMT -5
The timing of Adam West's Batman Show, and I have met Adam 4 times in my life and referring to Bob Kane and Bill Finger -- DC Comics was considering cancelling either Batman and/or Detective Comics (only one title) can be cancelled altogether. However, with the Show being on 3 Seasons and the hugely popular Movie of which Adam got paid $125,000 for making that movie -- helped the sales of Batman and Detective Comics at the same time and those two titles continues on in it's own merry way and thanks for the Show and the successful syndication of it. MeTV still plays it and it's quite popular ...
Bob Kane personally thanked Adam West for saving his Comic Book personally ... Mr. West certainly get some credit due. Mr. Kane even gave him an artwork of Batman for that alone ...
I just wanted to share that ...
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 20, 2018 11:55:54 GMT -5
The timing of Adam West's Batman Show, and I have met Adam 4 times in my life and referring to Bob Kane and Bill Finger -- DC Comics was considering cancelling either Batman and/or Detective Comics (only one title) can be cancelled altogether. However, with the Show being on 3 Seasons and the hugely popular Movie of which Adam got paid $125,000 for making that movie -- helped the sales of Batman and Detective Comics at the same time and those two titles continues on in it's own merry way and thanks for the Show and the successful syndication of it. MeTV still plays it and it's quite popular ... Bob Kane personally thanked Adam West for saving his Comic Book personally ... Mr. West certainly get some credit due. Mr. Kane even gave him an artwork of Batman for that alone ... I just wanted to share that ... Hey Mecha, according to Carmine Infantino-- --from The Amazing World of Carmine Infantino.
So, Bob Kane--in familiar fashion--was ignoring the truth and not giving credit were it was due. The Batman TV series certainly brought more visibility to the character, but the New Look and Carmine Infantino's innovations in particular--saved Batman as a comic book character long before the January 12, 1966 debut of the TV series. Kane's comment also sounds like he was bitter that a new direction, or really--a revolution in the way Batman was presented happened in the hands of others, who--frankly--outclassed him as influential talents in the then-ever growing Silver Age of comic books. Regarding the 1966 Batman movie, producer William Dozier had gone on record about the poor performance of the film, pointing out (paraphrasing) "why pay for something at the movies that you get for free on TV?" Remember, the film premiered in the summer of 1966--after the production of season one wrapped, so the public already had their fill of TV-Batmania, and did not warm up to the movie for the reasons Dozier cited.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 20, 2018 13:48:58 GMT -5
And, of course, those New Look stories credited to Kane were actually drawn by Sheldon Moldoff and, later, Chic Stone.
Cei-U! I summon comics' biggest phony!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 14:44:48 GMT -5
tarkintino -- I'm having some degree of difficulty understanding what you said here and I need more time to reflect it; but I think Dozier isn't giving his film much credit for and I heard it was quite successful overseas than domestically and I understand what Cei-U! is saying (partially the truth here) being a phony and all. I think what I read here is that I do know that Bob Kane gave Adam a piece of artwork giving him credit due because I heard that personally talking to Mr. West and I'm right on this that he gave Batman a new Life in the world of Comic Books. Right now, I'm having a hard time understanding Infantino because I just find these people highly objective and not telling me the whole story of which I do believe in that. I'm not criticizing what both of you are saying -- but, I heard things differently that both of you and knowing that I just have a hard time accepting it. I do know that Adam's show helped the sales of the comic book character of which I just having a hard time understanding what you said here. Anyway, this is all new information to me (honestly) and I'm taking it as a hard pill to swallow and that's bothers me a lot. I'm a friend of Adam West personally and I do find him interesting and full of joy when he tells tales of his involvement of the Batman TV Show of which he tries his best to entertains his fans until his death in 2017. I need some time to find this out to myself and I have friends can help me out in this and I do thank both of you sharing this and knowing that I'm need time to digest all this. This is new stuff to me.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 20, 2018 14:50:09 GMT -5
It's a shame it took so long for the contributions of Bill Finger, etc. on the creation/evolution of Batman to come to public consciousness. That Kane managed to hog the limelight for so long makes me ill.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 16:13:52 GMT -5
It's a shame it took so long for the contributions of Bill Finger, etc. on the creation/evolution of Batman to come to public consciousness. That Kane managed to hog the limelight for so long makes me ill. Personally, I don't care for Bob Kane and what I understand that Bill Finger should be the one gets the credit due and not Kane. I totally agree with you 100% ... I always insert this picture to remind members here of his involvement on Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Oct 20, 2018 21:29:12 GMT -5
All this classic Batman to and fro is quite exhilarating but this is the closest I can come to a boner.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 21, 2018 16:23:36 GMT -5
X-23 Laura Kinney is introduced to readers as...a prostitute.
It's different to your regular goody two shoes who has powers of some sort, and I like it.
There, I said it.
Well, it would be different, except Marvel did the exact same thing four years prior in Uncanny X-Men #399 with the introduction of Stacey X (originally known as X-Stacy). She was working at the Nevada mutant brothel, the X-Ranch, using her mutant powers of exuding pheromones to stimulate the bodily functions of others (including causing orgasms), but she never actually had physical sexual relations with any of her clients, relying on her abilities to do the work for her. After the Church of Humanity destroyed the X-Ranch (killing a number of her fellow mutant prostitutes in the process), she joined the team for about a year and a half (through issue #417, although she did pop up one last time in issue #422) before leaving, although not without trying to seduce both Nightcrawler and Archangel in that time. Stacy X has shown up in just five other Marvel issues in the past 15 years, including the upcoming Domino Annual #1, with a cover date of November 2018 (so it may already be out).
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 21, 2018 22:11:07 GMT -5
X-23 Laura Kinney is introduced to readers as...a prostitute.
It's different to your regular goody two shoes who has powers of some sort, and I like it.
There, I said it.
Well, it would be different, except Marvel did the exact same thing four years prior in Uncanny X-Men #399 with the introduction of Stacey X (originally known as X-Stacy). She was working at the Nevada mutant brothel, the X-Ranch, using her mutant powers of exuding pheromones to stimulate the bodily functions of others (including causing orgasms), but she never actually had physical sexual relations with any of her clients, relying on her abilities to do the work for her. After the Church of Humanity destroyed the X-Ranch (killing a number of her fellow mutant prostitutes in the process), she joined the team for about a year and a half (through issue #417, although she did pop up one last time in issue #422) before leaving, although not without trying to seduce both Nightcrawler and Archangel in that time. Stacy X has shown up in just five other Marvel issues in the past 15 years, including the upcoming Domino Annual #1, with a cover date of November 2018 (so it may already be out). Is this on Earth-XXX?
|
|