And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer. Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example: In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer." But does that mean he "understood" Batman? For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong? Of course not.
Morrison's a smart guy, and of course he's right. But man, talking about Batman being gay makes the fanboise nervous.
Actually, I would say Semple understood Batman. He understood Batman for the time that he was writing him in. As did Kane... (lol, Kane writing Batman...) in the time he was writing Batman, as did Miller, Morrison, for the times they were writing Batman. There is no one singular "understanding" of Batman. That's why as a character he has been successful for so long. Because he can be reimagined and reinterperted for each present. So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.
Sure, why not... I don't have a strong opinion about him specifically. I guess what I'm challenging is this idea of "getting Batman." What and who Batman is changes with time. There is no singular "getting Batman."
Drug dealers don't sell to kids. You know why? Because KIDS DON'T HAVE MONEY. "Mommy, mommy, on the way back from Toys-R-Us, can we stop and get some crack?"
So financial success now equals creative quality here? I guess the writers of "the World According to Jim" "got" comedy and the writers of "Arrested Development" did not.
Well, it works only if you don't like "gay" and you think it's a bad thing. At least, this is what I get from G-man's comment. Yeah, but all this interpretation is based on people actually thinking about stuff, instead of just having a fit at the word "gay".
I didn't say anything about financial success. That's YOUR measure. His Batman, West's Batman STILL figures into the culture. People still talk about it, think about it, want to own it. Just as NO one talks about The World According to Jim, but EVERYONE still talks about Arrested Development. It CONNECTED and still does. Semple's Batman may not be YOUR Batman, but, AGAIN, that's what's great about the CHARACTER, he can BE reinvented for the time that he's being written in and it can still work. Don't like Semple's Batman, fine, there are other equally valid interpretations of the character. But his Batman, West's Batman was perfect for the TIME THAT IT WAS CREATED IN. Just as Miller's was right for the 80s, O'Neil's for the 70s. It's the same for Superman, for Spiderman. There is no one singular "getting the character." Great characters, great stories last because we can see new things in them. And then a new generation comes a long. Or would you prefer a fixed interpretation? Then which one? Miller's? Kane's? Synder's? Which fossilized version do you want to choose? The same for Superman. Which Superman do you want for all time? Byrne's? Swan's? Who?
Must we make everyone and everything gay?? What the heck is wrong with either liking women or just being not interested?
Did you actually read the thread, or you just dropped from orbit to grace us with your comment? Nobody is saying that Batman the character is gay. (Well, nobody who actually matters, that's it.)