Ultimate Paradise

It's an abomination.

1) Batman smiles. A lot.
2) Batman teams up with other people, and likes it.
3) They gave Batman HOSS DELGADO'S VOICE.

I swear to whatever that if I am ever forced to watch that, I will kill myself.

I thought the worst was that he gives one-liners, where have we seen that? Batman & Robin anyone?

It looks like ****.

That's how I knew that they'd committed the ultimate sin of giving him Hoss Delgado's voice. In the commercial he does Hoss's "Nothing up my sleeve" line. It was even worse than having to watch Cthulu devour my younger brother (because, y'know, I don't really like him. Yeah. K. 'Tev.)

it has to be a sign of the end of days when they can make batman lame.

No, it'll be a sign when they can make him lamer than the Wonder Twins. Shouldn't be happening soon, though.

link

Ah dun haz wun, sowwy.

From watching the trailer, I think you guys misunderstand something...

Look at the drawing style and coloring. What does that remind you of? Look at the logo for it. What does that remind you of?

The Adam West series. Why is this important?



Because since this show is obviously inspired by the old campy series, it's SUPPOSED to be bad. You can't hate on anything that's supposed to be bad. Just look at it as a comedy series, and not an action series. It's gonna be campy, and it's supposed to be campy, so you can't really blame it.

Um... is this The Batman you guys are talking about? That's the only CN Batman show I know of...

Link?

If that's true, then why do I want to kill something?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=74ss2ZIKVuM

Because you're looking at it as a dark, serious and Batman-esque show. Think of it as a comedy, you'll feel better.

Oh... Yeah, that does seem very 60's-ish...

Batman is SUPPOSED to be dark and foreboding. thats what making it BATMAN! there's a reason that the original batman ended... well a few reason, but the important one was that it sucked. if they're going to make another batman then do it right. or at least bring back Batman: the animated series.

Batman was pretty much saved by the darker, and serious version of it that came in the 80's/90's. Why would you go back to the crap that made it suck? (Batman & Robin is a big offender of this, and now this cartoon?) I can understand thinking of it as comedy, but you have to think about the fact that I've grown up watching the old animated series and the Tim Burton movies, all the things that made Batman popular. What the hell's the point of going to the thing that made Batman unpopular(And panned by critics) especially when there's barely a fanbase for it?

To be honest, I think Batman Forever is a bigger offender than Batman & Robin. Riddler was very similar to the 60's Riddler in that one...

Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy were really horrendous IMO.

Oh yeah, but Batman Forever was the first film to really butcher characters. Look at Two-Face.

Forever at least had it's moments though, Batman & Robin was just....Bat Credit Card!?

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4bAZWmhehU&feature=related

8:25~

Language.

Batman & Robin really set the standard for really horrible movies. Plus, I've already seen that vid, it's hilarious.

Batman & Robin may have been the worst Batman movie, but I think Batman forever may have had a bigger negative impact when it was first released. I mean, they'd just had two great Batman movies (the original and Batman Returns), so it must've been a bit of a shock when instead of another great movie, they got... well, Batman Forever.

On the other hand, people may have got their hopes up for a better effort after Batman Forever, only to have them brought crashing down when Batman & Robin was released.

I luff the nostalgia critic. Hilarious.



Anyway, I think Batman and Robin was worse than Batman Forever. Sure, two-face and the riddler sucked (Jim carrey was a great actor, it was just the script that sucked), but SOME scenes in it were good.

See mah above post.

I liked Forever...

Stop failing dammit.

Batman Forever is quite likable compared to Batman & Robin. I liked it >_>

I love how you throw the word fail and its variants around like it means something.


well being raped with a meat carver is quite likeable compared to Batman and Robin, but yeah, I still like Forever.

He fundamentally wins for having an Igor profile; what do you have as yours again?

And I liked Forever when it came out; I didn't even like B&R when I was like 8, so that just goes to show you how fuckin' terrible it was.

gonna pop that little baby in the ol' sig

Perhaps Batman Forever had a greater negative impact because of the disappointent it brought with it after the original Batman movie and Batman Returns, but if we look at the movies themselves, Batman and Robin is the most cheesy and 60's show esque. Except a lot worse. As I said, Batman forever had maybe 1-2 scenes that were good IMO.

...You realise that's pretty much what I said, right? That B&R may have been a worse movie, but BF probably had a bigger negative impact at the time?

Bringing this topic back on topic.

This new Batman show is EPIC WIN.

Seriously, I'm sick and tired of the angst. I'm sick and tired of the dark and brooding Batman. I watched that video ILS posted, and couldn't stop laughing.

It's about time we made fun of Batman. It's about time we stopped taking him seriously. It's about time we made a nod to the 60's Batman show. Because you know what? I watched the 60s Batman show with Adam West. And I enjoyed it.

I am going to love this cartoon for the soul reason that it's a cheese fest.
To tell the truth, I like Campy Batman the best out of all the Batmans.

Campy Batman > 90s Cartoon Batman = Tim Burton Movie Batman >>>>>>>>>>>> Dark Knight Batman.*

*List only takes into account Batmans I know well.

No.

NO IT'S NOT AGHLDGDKOFHKSDOFSFHSOFHWIFHWOFHIOWFHOWIFHW *head explodes*

If anything, we should make fun of Superman, not Batman. Red and blue is an atrocious combination.

Thank you!! Some goddamn sense can be found here.

concurred.

and I like both brooding and goofy Batman.

I like both, but I prefer a more serious approach to Batman.

I don't understand why they would want to go back to silly Batman now of all times, considering how popular The Dark Knight is.

They're going to run Batman & Robin on sunday, do you think they have any sense?

Seems like it's letter-bomb time.

Will be watching for the lulz.


But seriously, wtf. <_< Even if they really wanted to show one of the more kid-friendly Batman movies, even Batman Forever was a better alternative.

Batman: The Animated Series needs to be revived; make it as dark as it needs to be, even if it has to be for Adult Swim.

The thing that truly sets Batman apart from other superheroes is how screwed up his rogues gallery is and how he must deal with that, merely being human. TAS cartoon handled Mr. Freeze and Two-Face even better than in the comics imo; there's so much more that could be done with a genuine Batman storyline.....why this path would be chosen is beyond me.

Ehh... I prefer the darker tones of Batman Begins/Dark Knight because that's how I feel Batman is supposed to be. You just need to look at his origins and the origins of his villains to know that. It's really a very dark story. I personally think the lightest Batman should be is a similar level to his DCAU incarnations.

However, I acknowledge that "Campy Batman" is supposed to poke fun at the series and not be taken seriously, so I don't mind the 60s series or this cartoon too much. My only problem with it was that it contibuted to people thinking the whole Batman franchise was "gay". Mind you, the early comics didn't help much...

Actually, now that I think about it, Batman/Bruce Wayne himself wasn't that dark in Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, IMO. It was Joker & Two-Face that made The Dark Knight as dark as it was, same with Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow in Batman Begins.

Also, we should remember that this show is on Cartoon Network, therefore IT'S A KIDS SHOW! It's obviously not going to be as dark as Batman Begins or TDK!

As far as I'm concerned, there can be loads of Campy Batman stuff, as long as there's also dark Batman stuff to balance it out. I don't mind people not taking Batman seriously all the time, just as long as it doesn't get to the point where it's impossible to take the franchise seriously.

*sits back and waits for this post to be ignored*

You still haven't watched any of Batman: The Animated Series, have you?

No one is saying that it has to be as graphic as those films; we're saying that it doesn't have to dumb down Batman's image to appeal to children. Commissioner Gordan got shot (with a bullet), Clayface almost smothered Batman by pulling him inside of himself, and Poison Ivy created her own family by growing plant-human babies, in part so that she could use their eventually mutated forms to steal money, but also because she was left sterile when she became Poison Ivy and she wanted so desperately to have children.......all in B:TAS; a "kid's show".

Just because it's on CN doesn't  mean that it has to pull a G.I. Joe and have guns in it, even though no one ever gets shot; it doesn' have to be TDK, but it doesn't have to pull any punches either.

Well for starters I don't know where to watch it. All I can find on youtube are clips and AMVs.

But I wasn't comparing it with TAS. Quite a few people were complaining about going back to this angle when we'd just had TDK, like they were comparing the two. They're completely different types of Batman, you can't compare them.

Anyway, it still seems to me that this show isn't meant to be taken seriously, same as the 60s series.

That doesn't make it any less of a bad direction to take.

Look, if it's that bad, chances are it'll only last two series at most. Why bother worrying about it? If you don't like it, don't watch it and wait for the next Nolan film. It's that simple.

Just be grateful that they don't seem to be roping any major Batman villains into it. Yet.

And before you mention Clock King, he was originally a Green Arrow villain.

Seriously folks, this is not a bad direction to take. You know why? It's exactly because of the success of The Dark Knight that people will enjoy this.

Because people like to laugh. People like to poke fun at the things they like. Most parody movies out there, the maker of the movie loves the thing he's making fun of.

We need this show, to balance out the excessive darkness of The Dark Knight. I'm being perfectly serious when I say "We need an excuse to laugh at Batman."

I love Batman. He was always one of my favorite superheroes growing up. But as I grew older, I began to love Batman for two very different reasons. One was the more serious Batman I knew from the Tim Burton movies and Batman: The Animated Series. But I loved the 60's Batman just as much. I like the idea that one character can be presented in such two, drastically different fashions. As much as I enjoy the darker, more serious Batman, I also enjoy laughing at the cheesy antics of Adam West. And you know what? I'm sure there are plenty of other Batman fans who enjoy laughing at the campy Batman as much as I do. After all, as campy as the 60s show was, it was initially very popular in its time.

I agree. Balance is needed between the two version of Batman. I just hope doesn't get to the point where no-one can take Batman seriously. But that's a worst-case scenario that's pretty unlikely.

people only like to laugh at things if it isn't blatantly bad (meet the spartans, epic movie). If it tries too hard to be funny then it will just suck. The 60s batman at least tried to be a somewhat serious show. this is deliberately bad to try and get a few cheap laughs. i give it one season and then it gets killed.

I suspect that it'll last longer.

Overacting =/= blatantly bad.

Basically, you have to look at this as a "serious" Batman show where the voice actors are overacting, and they aren't aiming for the dark, brooding image people usually associate with Batman.

If I had a TV, I would watch this show on a regular basis. And I bet my little brother, another huge Batman fan, would also watch it. Because he also loves the Adam West version of Batman.

That's at least two more fans.

i say a season at most. Firefly was a fantastic series, but that got cut off mid season. i just don't see this doing that well.

According to the wikipedia entry, there are two seasons currently planned.

Look, if you don't like it, don't watch it. It's really quite simple. No-one's forcing you to.

And we've only seen one trailer. I'm going to wait until I've seen at least one episode before I judge whether I like the show or not. If I don't like it, I won't watch any more of it. Simple.

you have to watch the second episode to get a good idea of how a series will be. the first episode is deigned to entice you and make you think 'man, this is awesome!' while the second episode generally shows the quality that the rest of the series will have. if you only watch one episode, make it the second.

this isn't just for this show, but any show.

But at least I'm giving it a chance. Sounds to me like you're condemning it after only seeing one trailer.

i did the same thing to scary movie 4 and max payne. why should this situation be any different?

Well then, you're not really in a position to lecture me on when to judge something.

pretty sure i was right about both of those... >_>

Doesn't mean you'll be right about this.

we'll see. just remember: i called it.


i always call it....

Nolan said he wasn't going to be making another Batman movie. 'The Batman' series was decent, but not even on par with B:TAS which aired originally in 1992-1994. The newer B:TAS aired in 1997. Beyond was in 1999-2000. It's been over 10 years since a the original and eight since the futuristic cartoon. It's been a long time and this show could've been the spiritual successor to B:TAS, or at least as decent as The Batman.


You're saying that hundreds of millions of people went to see TDK and loved it for its serious, dark take on a fundamentally dark character, yet instead of wanting more of that, they now "Batman & Robin (film): The Animated Series"? What sense does that make?

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within turned a overall upbeat game-hero and turned him into a dark, brooding character. Now, which game of the series is considered the worst? It seems that people didn't like complete character reversals that much; they loved the previous games for what they ere. No one ever asked for Sonic to take in overly 'emo'/emotionally distraught anti-hero characters and did that make the series better? Was it refreshing for fans of the older Sonic games to have to listen to Shadow screaming Maria's name?

The same can be said/asked about characters in movies/shows/books; Spiderman 3 is frequently cited as being the worst film of the trilogy, not just because of the convoluted story, but in part because of "Emo Parker". I don't need to explain further about why that is the case; sure, it was somewhat amusing, but there can be (and have been) funny things going on in the past Spiderman movies without it becoming a cheese-fest, similar to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

People don't want drastic change, especially where it is not needed; since this isn't something like human's energy usage situation which we need to change in order to survive as a species, we don't have any obligation to change Batman for the greater good. Overall (admit it; the majority of Batman fans don't want a silly Batman), we don't have to, we don't want to, and we don't need to change him. So why do it?

You're under the impression that a silly Batman show is either wanted or needed, when neither is the case; all you go on is speculation and your own opinion to come to a conclusion that Batman has to be stupid and dopey at all in order to keep people from tiring of his dark image. The first Batman comic (in which he was an undeniably dark character) came out around 1938, correct? So, over the those 70-odd years, have people gotten tired of Batman? When has anyone ever said "Batman is too serious! I want him to make one-liners and smile as he beats up his foes like a generic super hero!"?


My god, go watch something, ANYTHING from Batman: The Animated Series before you make another argument about the balance between seriousness and comedy in Batman.

You both act as if there were no comedic parts to the newest Batman films; The Joker's walk as he blows up the hospital? Bruce Wayne pretending not to be saving Mr. Reese? Every scene with Lucius Fox? Every other scene with Alfred? There are far more scenes that I haven't even mentioned that you two are ignoring because they don't augment your arguments, and we haven't even gotten to discussing the funny, lighthearted parts of B:TAS.

Every episode that included the Joker in B:TAS was funny as hell; the Christmas episode in which Joker masterminds a series of traps and disasters just to lure Batman into a trap....so that he can open a present to receive a spring-loaded pie to the face? I'm not going to list any more because at least one of you clearly hasn't seen anything from that show to be arguing that cartoon Batman needs to be any more funny than he already is.

Yes, this is a kid's cartoon; so was B:TAS and Beyond, yet they still managed to be both dark and funny (thus staying true to Batman's image) without being overly so in either category. This new show is clearly too much silliness; you guys speak of wanting balance, yet you support this show that looks to be nothing but average CN comedy fare?

There's a reason he's such an iconic and loved character, and it's not because for every cool, genuinely dark iteration of the character, there was an equally opposite stupid version. People have loved Batman for being what he is; a human foil to all of the super-powered being sin his universe and social commentary of what is truly good and evil, even if it was during a kid's show. This new show does not uphold the mantle of the bat and it does not do Batman justice.

Ratchet was a dark, brooding hero in Deadlocked? I'm not sure if we played the same game, since I remember him acting as he did in R&C 2 & 3. Most complaints I've heard are due to taking out the adventure aspect and not allowing you to play as Clank.

But this is a Batman topic, so yeah.

I'll just take that part out then; personally, I thought he was, but you are right about the adventure part being taken out.


^And this. Batman was originally a "dark" character, but drifted into being lame for a while before going back to his roots.

*sigh* Alright, fine. If you people are really so desperate to hate this show, despite the fact that no-one's forcing you to watch it, go right ahead. I'm just going to stop trying.

You obviously know way more about Batman than I ever will, and it would seem I'm a complete dumbass when it comes to the series. Any point I attempt to make will just be instantly flattened, so fine. I give up.

I only spoke the truth; me hating the show has no bearing on what is true or not. And why say that I'm "desperate" to hate it when I actually do without trying to?

One last thing: Would you rather have this type of Batman show, or would you rather have a show like "The Batman" or B:TAS?

I'm merely hating on the concept. I loved Batman as the powerless but yet still powerful man who waged war against the thing that killed his parents(Crime obviously) and almost never cracked a smile while donning his mask and outfit and refused to use a gun. Not the **** who cracks dumb one-liners, smiles almost all the time, is constantly followed by campy music and superimposed "sound effect" words, and buying Poison Ivy's **** with a credit card.

If I'm honest, I really don't see what the big deal is with TAS. (*anticipates a rant*) Then again, I suppose I've never really had any opportunity to watch any DCAU stuff before Justice League. Barely any of it is on youtube, so I don't know where to look.

As for The Batman, I think it kinda sucks that it's finished, but on the other hand I'm glad it ended before it started getting stale. IMO, anyway.

But the reason I'm not bothered by this series? Because I'm most likely not going to watch it, and chances are there'll be more "proper Batman" cartoons in the future, so it doesn't really affect me. Sure, it would've been nice to have another show like TAS or The Batman, but... well, I just really don't care enough to be bothered very much by "The Brave and The Bold".

Anyway, as I said before, you should all just be grateful they don't seem to be dragging any major Batman villains into it.

Somewhat, though not quite. I've always seen the word "but" as the backspace key. Using the word "but" can mean that you delete everything before the word. You say that the Batman and Robin movie on it's own was worse, BUT. Using that "but" word, you basically delete everything before that, and state that you think Batman forever was worse.

I do the exact opposite, by starting by saying that Batman forever may have had a greater negative impact, BUT. Again, I delete everything before the "but", and state my opinion that Batman and Robin was worse.


Yeah, I'm just trying to salvage the fact taht i'm an idiot, I know.




And I'll say whta I've been consistently saying in this topic.

If you think of the new batman show as a horribly bad comedy, it'll be so god-awfully bad it'll be hilarious. Like some Uwe Boll movies, or the 60's show.

If you think of it as an actual Batman show, with the true rendition of the character, it'll be so bad, it'll suck bawls.


*Rants*

Well, not really. Today, the animated show might not seem like much if you didn't see it back then. But you have to think of it this way: Back then, most cartoons were funny and/or satirical, and they didn't take the kids seriously. Death didn't exist, blood didn't exist, and every story ended happily and cheerfully.

Batman TAS changed all that, by actually taking it's audience seriously. The show treated kids like kids should be treated, and didn't hide anything. It showed that yes, there is actually death in the world. Yes, people do get injured badly from guns. Yes, explosions DO kill people, and not just cover them with black dust. And a lot of episodes ended on a sad note. I remember the last clayface episode ("Mudslide" I believe) ends with Clayface slowly disintegrating, as Batman holds on to him while hanging off a cliff. Clayface wants to be saved, but eventually his arm breaks apart, and he plummets into the river, and disintegrates, thus dying. The episode ends soon after, with the sad clayface music playing in the background. This was unheard of back then. Cartoons were supposed to bring happiness, not leave children like crying messes.

If I have to relate it to something, I'll relate it to super mario 64. Batman TAS was to western cartoons, as Mario 64 was to videogaming. It was revolutionary, innovating, well designed, and overall perfect. And you don't see what's so special about TAS, in the same way kids today dont' see what's so special about super mario 64. It was revolutionary, and great, but seeing it today for the first time makes it seem outdated.

THat's just my opinion at least.

Ah, nostalgia. I see.

Partly, yes. Same reason Super Mario brothers was good, same reason Legend of Zelda was good, same reason Final fantasy was good, basically the same reason all old stuff was good. Pure unadultered nostalgia.

Oh, and the whole revolutionary thing as well. But you're right, it's nostalgia.

Well surely it's nostalgic because it was revolutionary.

Yeah, it most likely was. As I've said before, my opinion will always be biased, so what I say should probably be taken with a grain of salt <_<

...Are you saying that Super Mario Bros is not a good game without the help of nostalgia?

I think he just means that a big reason people say Super Mario Bros is such a good game is because of nostalgia. It's still very good, but nostalgia hypes it up even more.

He went on to say in that post that how revolutionary those things were contribute their status now. I'm glad that you now get why B:TAS is so highly touted as being one of the best American cartoons ever made.


That was said very well and every bit of it is the truth, not merely opinion.

It's amazing how a thread I posted went this completely off-topic. *Ponders*


....Well, not really. I guess it's just the magic of Salty.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that if you made a 7-8 year old today play Super Mario Bros, they'd probably say that it was just "okay", but not as good as newer games. They didn't grow up with it, so they don't know how it innovated the gaming world by perfecting the side scrolling platforming genre. They didn't grow up with the happiness of actually kicking bowsers ass. They didn't grow up with the disappointment and endless rage when "The princess was in another castle".

In short, I'm saying that Nostalgia makes a lot of things better. Super Mario bros was a really great game for it's time, and even today it's still very fun and enjoyable. Nostalgia just serves as a sort of booster to it. Still a great game even without it though.

Thank you.

....when I was a kid, the Batman I grew up with, the Batman I knew best was Batman: TAS. I didn't discover campy 60s Batman until I was older. I'm not saying serious Batman means there can be no comedy.

I'm saying that campy Batman is just another way at looking at Batman. And I'm saying campy Batman is just as fun to watch. I like Batman being all dark and serious. I love Batman for being "the one guy without any superpowers."

But I also love seeing Batman being all goofy and cheesy. It makes me laugh because he's so fundamentally different than normal Batman.

Fans like you guys are exactly the reason we need a goofy Batman show.

Fans take Batman so serious. It's kind of sad. I saw this trailer, and saw it for what it was. A nostalgiac nod to something both horrible yet brilliant. A way for a normally dark series to poke fun at itself. A show meant to make fans laugh at the sheer absurdity of everything. Something, that if you take it too seriously, you become part of the joke.

You know why I know this will be popular? Batman fans who lived through the cheesy Batman show of the 60s will watch it with their children/grandchildren, basking in the nostalgia, remebering a time when Batman wasn't borderline angsty. The kids will watch it and see something funny, a goofy Batman they can pretend to be, running around going "fwoosh" and "bamf".
And Batman fans who know how not to take the series too seriously will watch it because it's funny to see such an out of character Batman.


Man, you guys would probably kill me if I ever told you about the D&D character I made for this one campaign I'm going to play in called "Bat-Gnome".

*Kills you*

*dodges as the word dodge appears over the screen in bright, cheesy letters*

*Makes homosexual jokes as you fall, the Bat Credit Card embedded in your skull*

I'm hoping we can all admit that the 1960's Batman had the best Riddler ever. Frank Gorshin made the Riddler.

60's Batman Riddler is obviously the best Riddler ever. <_<


And ZF, while you may be making the comparison with this more to the 1960's Batman series, (which was good in it's own right) I'd say it's a lot more likely to make a comparison to Schumacher's Batman movies, which is, well, not good.

This baffles me.


ZF, if given the choice between a good Batman cartoon, and a "horrible" one (as you've described this new one), you would choose the latter?

All the kids who'd be watching this show with their grandparents that you mentioned who have never seen B:TAS will only think of Batman as he appears in this show; the ones old enough not to be entertained merely by the silliness and who don't know how serious Batman normally is (the contrast between the campy Batman and the more serious one is what supposedly makes it funny to people) will only see him as being stupid. In turn, they'll never even bother to seek out any of the other Batman shows/comics/movies because of the impression this "horrible" show left upon them.

You act as if another B:TAS series will just come strolling along after this one; that is almost definitely not the case.

Let me try get you to understand just how I feel, since you don't seem to be trying to not understand: Think of a game series that came out a while ago that was absolutely incredible; not just for the memories you've had with it, but because each game was fundamentally incredible in every way. Crash Bandicoot is a prime example of this; the following actually happened to that series.

Years later, you find out a sequel is being made for it; you think about all of the possibilities for it, what with advanced technology and the overall higher standards for videogames today.

You see the trailer for it; instead of it being the spiritual successor to that wonderful game you remember, it is now a shoddy knock-off of what it once was. Instead of building upon what made the series great, the developers went down an entirely different path and added things no one wanted and that the series didn't really need. You didn't necessarily hype the game up so much that it could never live up to your expectations; instead the game just wasn't truly a part of that same series you loved anymore.

Now, imagine someone coming to you and telling you that the series needed to take this turn and that it's sad that anyone would want to keep the series as it used to be, improving upon the older mechanics. They acknowledge that this new game is worse than the previous ones, yet they defend it unwaveringly, saying that it's a good thing that the series is no longer what it was at all. Then, they tell you that if you don't like it, don't play it and wait for another good one to come out (when you and this person know quite well that that isn't going to happen anytime soon).

Does it still seem so stupid to you? To be hurt by what has been done to something you liked (and still genuinely like) so much?

In all fairness, we've just had The Batman. That was more of a spiritual successor to TAS than this new show is. You act as if we haven't had anything at all since TAS.

Actually, TAS has had plenty of successors, even if they're not exclusively Batman.

The New Batman Adventures
Batman Beyond
Justice League/JLU (not exclusively Batman, but he was a major player in both of them)
The Batman (not DCAU, but still decent)

And now one show comes along that shows Batman in the "Campy" way, and you act as if DC hasn't given you anything since TAS finished.

I can't help feeling that you're overreacting a bit to this...

If you've read my posts, then you've seen where I've mentioned Batman Beyond; just as you said, JL/JLU were good, yet they weren't Batman shows. Batman's villains are an integral part of Batman himself, and how many other Batman villains appeared in that show besides the Joker in that one two-part episode?


I never expected you of all people to understand.

And while you're at it, tell all the people in the Dragonball  and Mega Man topics to quit "overreacting" over something they genuinely care about.

Uh, actually Joker turned up in two two-parters

Anyway, in your last post, you were implying that there'd been absolutely nothing of note since the end of TAS, which simply isn't true.



Excuse me?

Even if I was implying that, does my point not still stand?

And you haven't seen B:TAS nor seem to have had anything similar happen to something you like.

Except this is nothing like your example.

This is a one shot deal. It'll go on for 2-3, maybe 4 seasons, and when it's over, they'll go back to doing serious Batman stuff. Not to mention, Batman comics are still dark and serious, and they'll probably release another serious Batman movie within the next 3-5 years.

You act like this is the end of Batman as we know it. It's not. It's basically a couple of people having fun with the license.

The reason we need this show is because of Batman fans like you, who take the series entirely too serious. To put it simply, you're pretty much feeding the fire of this show even more with your reactions. Essentially, you've become part of the joke.

If given a choice between a normal, serious Batman cartoon, and this hilarious nod to an old show that was so cheesy and horrible it was good, yes, I would choose the "horrible" one.
Like I said, I hated the direction The Dark Knight took. I'm tired of angsty Batman. Bring on the "BAM!". That's what I want.

Eventually, I wouldn't mind them doing another serious Batman cartoon. But for now, I personally think this is an excellent direction to take Batman in. It's a nice deviation from the norm, and it's great for keeping the Batman franchise from becoming stagnant.


I mean, really? What is more ridiculous? Batman delivering cheesy one-liners? Or Batman going around saying "I am the night!"
Seriously, when my friend finally makes that D&D campaign he's planning that I made Bat-Gnome for, one of Bat-Gnome's main quirks is that he runs around in a cape and mask for no real reason, and sometimes randomly screams "I am the night!" in his squeaky, gnomish voice.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Or watch it simply to laugh at it's horribleness. Simple as that, you have the choice between lulz or no lulz.



And I mean come on...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AlusgU-MUZ4

If even one person don't laugh at the sheer stupidity of that clip, I've lost faith in mankind.

*applauses ILS's epic clip posting*

Just proving a point. If you think of that clip as a serious batman clip, you'll be sad. THink of it in the same way you think of perhaps Uwe boll, and it's funny.

*Stares at the clip*

That was not quite horrible, but it sure as hell wasn't anywhere near funny.

It's Batman. Surfing very badly. WIth banana yellow bathshorts on. Against a poorly edited background.

L U L Z

I realize. And I know that lame things can cause lulz. But it's not quite fail enough for that, while still being lame enough to not be good by any standards.

Comparing just the beginning to the seriousness of Batman and the Joker (partly) from the Dark Knight pretty much does make that quite funny in comparison.

EDIT: And have Gar or ZF told off the people I mentioned earlier yet?

No wonder you all think this is going to suck, you all lack the ability to find stupid things humorous. Not everything can be Monty Python and Mel Brooks kind of humor you know. [/ass]

Eh? ???

I believe he was referring back to this:

That is what I was referring to. I honestly don't think ZF or Gar know what it's like to have something you care about be dragged through the mud like this is being; them saying that it's sad to feel bad about it makes that evident.


Forgive me if I:

1. don't find campy, stupid things to be funny.

&

2. don't agree that Batman needs to be anything other than Batman, just so that I can cope with the existence of this show.

Ah, you mean the people "overreacting" about the Megaman and Dragonball movies.

I'm so glad you brought that up, because I would like to point out that every complaint people launch at those is legitimate.

With the Dragonball and Megaman movies, nobody is trying to make them cheesy on purpose. Rather, it's a simple case of people trying to adapt a good source material, and screwing it up very badly. Yes, they are horrible abominations that are an insult to the fans of the original series.

You want to know why this is completely different from those movies? They did it on purpose. This is not like somebody took a look at Batman, said "I'm going to make a cartoon about Batman!" and then screwed it up because they did not understand the source material.

There's a precedent for this. This cartoon isn't the first thing that's portrayed Batman like this. This cartoon is basically a nostalgic nod to the 60s Batman show.

This show is hardly dragging Batman's name through the mud. For starters, it's supposed to be campy. It's supposed to be goofy. And secondly, this isn't the first to do it. You want to say this is dragging Batman's name through the mud? Then you have to accuse the 60s Batman TV show of doing the same. Which you can't really. Because not only was it popular in the 60s when it first aired, there are plenty of Batman fans today who love it just as much as they love serious Batman.


All you're being is a whiny fanboy. The only reason I've even bothered debating with you is because I like to debate. But I'm really getting sick and tired of this. I've presented evidence, used logical arguments, and all you've done is complained and accused me of not understanding.

Guess what. I understand completely. Just like you refuse to acknowledge this as a proper Batman cartoon for being too campy, I refuse to acknowledge The Dark Knight as a proper Batman film for being too dark, and having what I personally think is a horrible adaptation of the Joker that ruins everything I loved about the character from my childhood.

You think this show is dragging Batman's name through the mud? Well I think The Dark Knight, as popular as it was, was an incredibly weak entry into the series that did not do it justice, and in my mind, insulted everything I loved about Batman.

You're being a whiny fanboy about this cartoon. And I'll admit, when it comes to The Dark Knight, I'm being a whiny fangirl.
That just means neither of us have a logical basis for our dislike. It doesn't make us right.

Instead of trying to write your opinion off and get out of arguing my point by saying "this is a pointless argument" because I'm so convinced that I'm right, like you've tried to do; I'll humor you.


You say you've presented evidence; you haven't. I may have stated my opinion, yet I accompanied it with examples of other forms of media as well as the undeniable popularity of today's Batman media. You have only said one thing (and have drawn it out over a series of long posts) concerning this new show: We need it because people like me take it "too seriously".


I'm glad to know that this is what is going to happen; not just something you came up with off the top of your head. Does this justify the existence of this show?


Because we need more things like Meet The Spartans? You say that as long as the people making it make it stupid on purpose, it's all good, right?


So, are these bolded sections the facts you mentioned?

1. You are making assumptions; while that alone isn't something that is out of line, it is when

2. You are basing these assumptions on your own feelings and those of people from almost fifty  years ago. There are things that transcend time, yet you can't seriously argue that people today will enjoy the campiness of a show from the sixties as much (or even as close )as they did back then.


Getting punched in the face, whether it be on purpose or on accident, hurts. I don't believe (and correct me if this isn't true) circumstance has bearing on how much something hurts (if a friend hits you, the physical pain is as much as a stranger hitting you), or how terrible a show is.

If you find stupid stuff funny, then you'll laugh at it regardless if said stuff is purposely made to be stupid. Personally, I don't particularly like stupid stuff; period. I especially don't like it when something I do like is taken and made to be stupid.


Is this you evidence; the facts that you say you've presented? This is your logic, that people who like what has made Batman popular in recent years will be refreshed by this new direction and that those new to Batman will fall in love with his generic corniness in this show?

The sixties Batman show was popular. The Dark Knight is popular. This not my opinion; look at the box-office charts and see what TDK made. Now look at the sales of the Adam West Batman show DVDs.

Look back at my posts; tell me where my logic is faulty, considering that the "dark" Batman popular today. Please do so.

Also ZF, please give me these facts that you've kept secret from the world about how people want a silly Batman; I'm dying to read them.

The only facts I've personally found in your posts (let me know if I'm leaving any out) is that I am a fanboy. I also represent a much larger demographic than that of the campy-Batman show, made evident by the award winning B:TAS and the films Batman Begins and The Dark Knight alone.

Whether or not this new show is good is opinion. But to say that it is needed isn't.

There are none. <_<


Anyways you're both wrong and any further arguments will be deleted.

You all just got Ahripwnd.

Silly Batman is popular for his reasons, dark batman is popular for his reasons.

End of discussion, lets move on in life.

If you're not riding the fence, you're an extremist....

What Zeldafan said. Apart fom her points about The Dark Knight, anyway.


Don't like it? Don't watch it, and quit complaining.

Would you say that to everyone in the Dragonball and Mega Man movie topics?

Yes! It might be really disappointing, but no-one's forcing them to watch those movies! They could just as easily ignore them.

Tell me, who's making the DBZ & Megaman movies? Is it the makers of the original anime (DBZ) or videogames (Megaman)?

Those movies aren't being made by the makers of their original iterations.

The reason I asked is because ZF said that it was okay for them to complain because those movies aren't being made to be bad on purpose; she said that as long as this show is purposefully campy, it's okay and one has no right to complain about it.

Do you agree with that? You said you agreed with everything she said....

Well I don't think it's quite as simple as that, but yeah. If they were trying to pass it off as a serious Batman show, it would be a lot worse and would really deserve all this hate. But they're not.

Look at Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. I'm pretty sure they were supposed to be serious Batman movies, and they were all the worse for it. It gave people too many expectations.


Whereas the makers of the DBZ & Megaman movies are trying to pass them off as serious adaptations of their respective series.

If they intended to make this show serious (or comparably so to what it is), then yeah, you're right. But whether they meant to make it like this or it happened by accident, it's still the same show, is it not?

Also, do you think that it's within a fan of Dragonball/Mega Man's jurisdiction to complain about those movies? And do you feel the same goes for fans of the 'serious' Batman complaining about this? Remember what I said about intent/circumstance not having a direct effect on what the show is.

I think they can complain if they want, but they can only really blame themselves if they do so. They could just as easily ignore it and get on with their lives.

You didn't answer both questions; do you see both parties complaining (about the movies and about this show) as being equally justified/unhustified?

*roasts marshmallows on heated discussion*

Well I don't really know anything about the Megaman movie, so I'll just talk about the DBZ movie and this show.

Again, Batman: The Brave and the Bold this seems to be aiming to be silly & camp, just some people having a laugh. Meanwhile the DBZ movie, it seems to me, is trying to be a serious interpretation of the series.
If people complain about the DBZ movie being a bad representation, I think it's justified because it was trying to be a proper representation of the franchise and failed, same as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin did for the Batman series. However, if fans complain about this series being a bad representation of the same dark Batman we've been seeing in the comics, cartoons and recent movies, then they're really only making fools of themselves because this isn't meant to be a good representation of that version of Batman.

But the thing is, with this Dragonball movie coming out, it's like they're not even trying to stick close to the original, most of it is completely messed up and wrong.

This is partially my point. At least The Brave and the Bold is sticking to an existing form of Batman, namely the silly campy style of the 60s series.

What can we compare this Dragonball movie to? The manga and the anime, that's it. And they're the same story. From what I've heard, this movie is pretty much doing its own thing.

Batman, on the other hand, is divided into two major versions. The first is the dark, serious Batman that's so popular, and the second is the silly Batman that's almost a parody of itself, which comprises of the 60s Adam West series and now this new show. Just because The Brave and the Bold isn't to your tastes, it's certainly not about to destroy the series. Why? Because it's really a part of its own series, along with the 60s show.

So assuming we get another Dragon Ball movie in 40 years that's supposed to be based on the movie coming out soon and not the original series it'll be okay because it's basing itself in something right?

Not really, because this movie (and any possible sequels/whatever) doesn't sound like it's got very much to do with Dragonball at all from what I've heard. The Brave and the Bold, on the other hand, is actually sticking to existing Batman/DC ideas, even if it's not in the way most fans would like.

The current Dragon Ball movie seems to be about as relevant to the series as the Adam West Batman series. If we wait forty years after the movie comes out that it should be perfectly plausible to consider these existing ideas pertaining to the series in the same way, other than how I doubt it'll reach the same popularity since while people are already more familiar with the Dragon Ball manga and anime, the Batman comics weren't highly popular when the Adam West show started airing. Either way, it's no different.


Not saying whether that's good or bad, but your argument doesn't make sense.

IF the dragonball movie becomes so bad it's good, thus becoming popular, then yes, it'll be okay, at least IMO.

I'm okay with Brave and the bold, because the 60's show was so bad, it was good. Despite it's comical representation of Batman as a silly, campy character, and it's overall horribleness, it managed to be funny and popular exactly because of this fact. Brave and the bold is a "continuation" of that idea, so while there's a big chance Brave and the bold will suck, it'll hopefully suck in a humoristic and laughable way.



On a happier note, who wants Adam West to voice Batman? It would kick ass, and universes would be shattered.

My point is that, as "Beauty Queen Etna" said, the Dragonball film doesn't seem to be even trying to stick to the anime or manga at all.

The 60s Batman series, on the other hand, was sticking to the same ideas as the comics etc, but doing so in a way that was in a much more light and silly way that was essentially parodying the existing stuff.

SA2.

Eh, I was posting and couldn't remember who he really was. Thanks anyway.

My username is right above my sig >_>

I wasn't really paying attention and when it came to typing your name in my post, I couldn't remember who you really were. Sorry. :-\

I'm not mad or anything, I'm just saying. Anyway, diz needz moar arguing!

Your mother.

I'll give the show a shot.

No urs!

I just wanted to clarify what I had been saying before. I do dislike the campy depictions of Batman. However, my point was never "this show is going to suck", because that's just opinion; I am almost certain that I won't like this show.

I mentioned that I pretty much represent the current majority of fans; as said before, The Dark Knight, B:TAS, and the comics from the 80s-onward and their success/acclaim are evidence of that. I prefer the current style of Batman established by the media just listed. So, while what I say here cannot be taken as the average of all opinions of my demographic's opinion, it is closer to that than the opposite group (the ones that prefer a campy style).

So, what I distinctly said is that this show's direction is a bad direction to take. The reason being the success of TDK at the moment; now that Batman is so fresh in people's minds (and this particular style of Batman), this would be an opportune moment for a show that is more TDK than the 60s show to air.

You could say that people have had their full of the dark Batman, but what sense does that make when this style has been the base of such successes (BB, B:TAS, TDK) whereas the campy style (outside the 60s show) have been deemed as absolutely terrible (Batman Forever; Batman and Robin)? And would the majority of fans really prefer camp over dark, especially at this time of all times?

I said that I feel as if this show is dragging the name through the mud; that is a strong statement, but I still feel the same way. Whether or not it's being done on purpose, it's still taking on a, as of now, unpopular style.  I haven't said it's going to destroy the series, I haven't said that it's misrepresenting Batman (it is based on the 60s show).

I have voiced my opinion, which is a strong one, yet none of it changes the fact that a darker Batman show has a  better chance of being more successful than this one does; that is what I meant by "this is a bad direction for the show to take".



On a more serious note; I would want Adam West voicing Batman; personally, I'd want the show to be like Frisky Dingo, but with Batman.

.... *orgasms at the thought*

this. that would actually be fantastic. unfortunately, thats not happening.

of course it won't, but that doesn't mean I can't pleasure myself to the thought of it...

no, but the laws of common sense and decency does.

screw those

ya see, thats part of the problem....

<_<