And I still say that "serious" is not the only legitimate way to do comics. A comedy approach to Batman isn't mocking or insulting or bad, it's just developing different potentials in the character and the premise.
I guess the thing is, a lot of people formulate the question as, "Should Batman be a comedy?" I think I prefer to approach it as, "Should a comedy be Batman?" That is, does using Batman as the basis for a comedy result in a good comedy? And both Batman '66 and Batman: The Brave and the Bold have demonstrated that the answer is very much yes. Both were very funny and innovative comedies with rich imagination.
Comedy and drama are two sides of the same coin. The characters and ideas that can produce a good result in one can generally produce a good result in the other. If they're rich characters, if they have interesting lives or personalities, if they're in interesting or challenging situations, if there's a lot of emotional depth or complexity to them, then they can be great for either comedy or drama. The best dramas are often quite funny, and the best comedies are often quite moving. So it really doesn't make sense to say that a character or concept that works well when treated seriously is therefore a bad choice for a comedic treatment. If it's good for the one, it's good for the other.
Fair enough, but it still comes down to opinion and individual preference. I appreciate humour in Star Trek
and even enjoy the occasional spoof, but I wouldn't like to see it done on an extensive basis. I can enjoy the humour in The Brave And The Bold,
perhaps partly because it's animated, but it doesn't strike me as ridiculous as the '60's TV series.
Still that's my opinion.