"Beware the Batman" in 2013! New Animated Series

[Brikar99]

Was it that long? Wow. somehow I thought it was much shorter than that. Either way, you're totally right. I guess it could sustain a TV series. My memory of it was more vague than I thought!

[Admiral_Young]

Batman: No Man's Land encompassed an entire year's worth of stories...I had no idea of the exact issue number until Christopher pointed it out...and was the culmination of the previous year long story line before that IIRC. It would have been able to sustain a tv series but yeah it only seem liked the pitch was based on the story and not necessarily a retelling or straight up adaptation of it.

[Captain Craig]

Christopher wrote:

---

... the character designer James Tucker hired, and what he said was:

Hey, Cartoon Network suits I hate to break it to you but that promo art for Beware the Batman...it doesn't scream sunshine, rainbows and puppies.
Really, NML series too dark but an often times sword wielding accomplice and a gun-slinger ally are totally light fare.
Dolts.

[Admiral_Young]

^ To be fair all of us are reacting and judging this with the bare minimum of information. We don't really have much of a plot summary either. I still think there is a little bit of overreacting going on regarding the Alfred pic. I wanna be footage or some kind of context...but your point Captain Craig regarding their rejection of the No Man's Land based proposal in favour of this is a good one.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Why is it so horrible to try something different? If every Batman show were exactly the same, what would be the point? And why are Internet fans so determined to hate every new thing they hear a tiny bit about rather than being willing to give it a fair chance?

They're not, and there's nothing horrible about trying something different. Part of the problem with a gun-toting Alfred is that it's not different. It's just another example of taking a perfectly valid character and turning him into a hard-ass, kick-ass, "edgy" caricature. Alfred, Ma and Pa Kent, Aunt May and Willie Lumpkin don't really need to be Charles Bronson. It's nice when they get their moment in the sun-- like Alfred defeating the Joker on TV-- but that only works because it's anomalous, because it's a novelty.

A good story (or series premise) should have a variety of characters and those characters should be true to themselves. A gun-toting Alfred is just lazy thinking. If he's going to be involved in the cases, the previously mentioned Holmesian approach would be more true to the character.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

They're not, and there's nothing horrible about trying something different. Part of the problem with a gun-toting Alfred is that it's not different. It's just another example of taking a perfectly valid character and turning him into a hard-ass, kick-ass, "edgy" caricature.

But we don't know that yet. The only information we actually have is a single sentence and a single concept image. Everything else you're saying is your own assumption, your own guesswork based on virtually no hard data. We have no idea how the character will actually be written or portrayed. There are many characters in fiction who could be described as "gun-toting" -- it literally just means "carrying a firearm" -- but there's a vast range of different personalities that they encompass, from hardcore violent types to cool professionals to soulful sorts who use their weapons only reluctantly. Are we talking the Punisher? James Bond? Jo from Eureka? The Lone Ranger? Sgt. Parker from Flashpoint? Barney Fife? There's no valid way you can deduce how the character will be approached based on that single adjective. It's nowhere near specific enough.

Since we're talking about Alfred here, it's likely they'll be going more for the "cool professional" type of character -- and as I've said, since this is a kids' cartoon, he'll obviously be the technical-pacifist type of gun-toter like the Lone Ranger, the type who never kills but just shoots guns out of people's hands or blows out their tires.

Alfred, Ma and Pa Kent, Aunt May and Willie Lumpkin don't really need to be Charles Bronson. It's nice when they get their moment in the sun-- like Alfred defeating the Joker on TV-- but that only works because it's anomalous, because it's a novelty.

Alfred is no Willie Lumpkin. He's often been portrayed in the comics (and in the Nolan films) as an ex-soldier, a capable fighter and strategist in his own right, and a partner to Batman rather than merely a servant or hanger-on. So I don't agree at all that it's anomalous. It's merely a shift in emphasis. Alfred has long been portrayed as a vital part of Batman's operation, even more so than the various Robins and Batgirls. The sidekicks have come and gone, or not been there at all in various interpretations, but Batman would be lost without Alfred. This is simply expressing that principle a little differently.

A good story (or series premise) should have a variety of characters and those characters should be true to themselves.

There's no reason this version of Alfred can't be very distinct from Batman and Katana. As I've already explained, there is absolutely nothing about the single adjective "gun-toting" that limits the range of characterization to the extent that you're assuming. He can easily be the same Alfred we've always known, just a bit younger and more physically active. Given Alfred's military background, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that if he were younger, he could well choose to be an active participant in Batman's crimefighting. After all, he wants nothing more than to keep Master Bruce safe, and if he could do so personally and directly, why wouldn't he? And since his training is as a soldier rather than a ninja or superhero, his method of crimefighting would logically involve firearms.

So all you have to do is change one thing about Alfred Pennyworth -- his age -- and this becomes a completely believable extrapolation from his established character.

If he's going to be involved in the cases, the previously mentioned Holmesian approach would be more true to the character.

It's a kids' show. Naturally the emphasis is going to be on action. He could well be a brilliant, Holmesian detective, but the deductions will take up a small part of the story time and then there will be a lot of fighting.

And besides, Holmes himself routinely carried a pistol and was skilled at fighting with his bare fists and a variety of weapons. Being a detective and being a fighter are not mutually incompatible -- and it's astonishing that I even need to mention that in a thread about Batman.

[O'Dib]

Alfred as sidekick makes little sense on the basis that it undermines Batman's secret identity.

[Christopher]

O'Dib wrote:

---

Alfred as sidekick makes little sense on the basis that it undermines Batman's secret identity.

In the continuity we know, yes. This is a new show. A different reality. They can change things so that it does make sense.

And even if they don't, it'll hardly be the first time a secret identity was unconvincingly concealed. Both Superman and Clark Kent routinely and publicly hang around with Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. Both Wonder Woman and Diana Prince were closely associated with Steve Trevor. Both Green Arrow and Oliver Queen had the same distinctive goatee.

Heck, maybe they'll draw on the Batman Incorporated concept from the recent comics, where Bruce Wayne is publicly backing Batman's operations. If Bruce can maintain his secret identity even with a clearly established link to Batman, then having his butler fight crime by Batman's side isn't any more impossible.

See, if you take the amount of effort you put into arguing why something can't work and instead apply it to figuring out how it can work, you can usually do so.

[O'Dib]

I expended very little energy writing my previous post. I am of course looking forward to seeing how they'll make this work.

[Admiral_Young]

We keep assuming from one image that Alfred is Bruce's sidekick. I don't think the article said that at all regarding the character. It said that Katana was the side kick. I do however think that it implies Alfred will be involved in a much more active role than he has been in previous series. Either way the knee jerk reaction from some of you has been amusing to say the least.

[Broccoli]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

We keep assuming from one image that Alfred is Bruce's sidekick.

I thought it was pretty obvious that Batman is Alfred's sidekick.

[Admiral_Young]

I guess I'm the naive one in here then

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

But we don't know that yet. The only information we actually have is a single sentence and a single concept image. Everything else you're saying is your own assumption, your own guesswork based on virtually no hard data. We have no idea how the character will actually be written or portrayed. There are many characters in fiction who could be described as "gun-toting" -- it literally just means "carrying a firearm" -- but there's a vast range of different personalities that they encompass, from hardcore violent types to cool professionals to soulful sorts who use their weapons only reluctantly.

That's because the image that we have is of Alfred in the street beside Batman with a gun in each hand, firing away. That's what we've been told, so that's what we're basing the discussion on.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

That's because the image that we have is of Alfred in the street beside Batman with a gun in each hand, firing away. That's what we've been told, so that's what we're basing the discussion on.

But making a lot of wild assumptions based on a single preliminary promotional image -- assuming that it tells you everything you need to know about how the character will be handled -- is presumptuous. After all, preliminary designs can change during production, and promotional images can be deliberately exaggerated and misleading. So it should be obvious that the information we have is not only fragmentary, but unreliable. So the sensible thing to do is to say, "Okay, we don't know enough to judge" and leave it at that. Or to use our imaginations and consider the multiple possibilities that could be compatible with what little we know, rather than jumping to a single conclusion and basing one's whole reaction on it alone.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

But making a lot of wild assumptions based on a single preliminary promotional image -- assuming that it tells you everything you need to know about how the character will be handled -- is presumptuous. After all, preliminary designs can change during production, and promotional images can be deliberately exaggerated and misleading. So it should be obvious that the information we have is not only fragmentary, but unreliable. So the sensible thing to do is to say, "Okay, we don't know enough to judge" and leave it at that. Or to use our imaginations and consider the multiple possibilities that could be compatible with what little we know, rather than jumping to a single conclusion and basing one's whole reaction on it alone.

Yeah, that sounds like an interesting conversation.

Why bother with a thread at all if you're not going to discuss the subject? Do you refrain from discussing the possibility of life on a newly discovered exoplanet because there's insufficient evidence at this time? That's not really how conversations work.