"Beware the Batman" in 2013! New Animated Series

[Christopher]

Yep, that's what they said -- that all the villains will be characters never before portrayed in animation, ranging from recently-created, modern villains like Pyg and Toad all the way back to obscure baddies who appeared once or twice in the Golden Age.

Although I'm still not convinced they'll maintain that practice throughout the entire series. I suspect that after a year or two, once they've given this show time to establish its own voice and identity, they may bring in some of the familiar foes.

[Praetor_Shinzon]

i want King Tut and Egghead!

[Christopher]

^I'm not sure that DC or Warner Bros. has the rights to villains created for the '66 Batman sitcom (which was a production of Greenway Productions and 20th Century Fox -- that was before WB owned DC, even before it was called DC). Egghead did show up in an issue of the Batman: The Brave and the Bold comic book (the one based on the TV series of that name, not the pre-existing DC Universe title that the show was named after), so maybe DC has the comics rights, but another TV show getting the rights might be a different matter.

[Praetor_Shinzon]

Egghead and King Tut appeared in a few episodes of Brave and the Bold as well. i think they were just background characters though.

[Christopher]

Praetor_Shinzon wrote:

---

Egghead and King Tut appeared in a few episodes of Brave and the Bold as well. i think they were just background characters though.

There were cameos by a bunch of '66 series villains in "Mayhem of the Music Meister" (I think it was), but they weren't identified by name because of the legal issue. I think that a version of King Tut showed up in something, but it wasn't the same character who appeared in the '66 show; after all, King Tut is the nickname of a real historical figure, so it's not a name that can be copyrighted.

[Captain Craig]

King Tut, a version anyway, was introduced about 2-3 years ago in Batman Confidential #26 cover date April '09. This is the first official comics version of the character. He's a leaner version, more of a physical threat than the TV version.

[USS Kongo]

Having Eddhead in this would be most eggcellent!

(sorry, couldn't resist; would really love to see him and King Tut in the new show)

Sean

[Christopher]

Without Vincent Price playing him, I don't see much point to Egghead. (Well, of course an egg doesn't have a point, but... oh, you know what I mean!)

Anyway, if the point of the show is to give a showcase to obscure villains who haven't been seen in animation before, I figure they'd also prefer to avoid ones who've appeared in live-action TV.

[USS Kongo]

Eggs sort of have a point...but, yeah, moving on. Agreed, it wouldn't be the same without Price. But I'm open for a new interpetation.

Sean

[Mr. Adventure]

Christopher wrote:

---

Yep, that's what they said -- that all the villains will be characters never before portrayed in animation, ranging from recently-created, modern villains like Pyg and Toad all the way back to obscure baddies who appeared once or twice in the Golden Age.

Although I'm still not convinced they'll maintain that practice throughout the entire series. I suspect that after a year or two, once they've given this show time to establish its own voice and identity, they may bring in some of the familiar foes.

It's a bold (brave and ?) move, it will be interesting to see if it pays off. Maybe unlike The Batman which took liberties with the mainstays people will be more open minded about this. I'm not so sure though as anything that isn't a continuation from BTAS isn't very warmly received (though a lot of people did end up warming up to Brave and the Bold).

[Donald Draper]

I like lesser known villains. The classic villains are great. But are very repetitive not just in animation in the comics too.

This could expand the richness of the rogues gallery. Before Mr Freeze in BTAS there was The Riddler in the 60s tv series. I believe he had only appeared in 2 issues in his 18 year history before Frank Gorshin played the role in 1966.

A similar case with Bane in the new movie. While he is used often. He will become a household name now. Its a wise choice to do similar with even lesser known characters.

[Christopher]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Maybe unlike The Batman which took liberties with the mainstays people will be more open minded about this. I'm not so sure though as anything that isn't a continuation from BTAS isn't very warmly received (though a lot of people did end up warming up to Brave and the Bold).

B:TAS took plenty of liberties of its own -- as any adaptation will and should, since there's no point in doing an adaptation if you're not going to bring something new to it. It introduced new characters like Montoya and Harley, it blended characters and storylines ranging from the '70s to the '90s, it turned Gotham into an Art Deco/'40s-retro setting with modern technology, it totally changed Two-Face's origin and Catwoman's backstory, etc. It's just that B:TAS became so definitive in so many minds that we've forgotten all the ways in which it was revisionist.

So the problem with The Batman wasn't that it took liberties, it was that it had the misfortune of being the first new interpretation of Batman to follow the decade-long run of the DC Animated Universe, so it faced an uphill battle for acceptance. The fact that it was a less ambitious show made it hard for it to measure up to people's expectations.

I think with TB&TB, enough time had passed that audiences had gotten more used to the idea of having continuities other than the DCAU. And it helped that it was a much more creative and distinctive show than The Batman, which was reasonably good but not as inspired as the shows that bookended it.

Donald Draper wrote:

---

This could expand the richness of the rogues gallery. Before Mr Freeze in BTAS there was The Riddler in the 60s tv series. I believe he had only appeared in 2 issues in his 18 year history before Frank Gorshin played the role in 1966.

Not quite. He first appeared in two 1948 issues, but then appeared again in 1965, when Julius Schwartz reintroduced the supervillains to the comic. In fact, the premiere 2-parter of the '66 series (and Gorshin's debut in the role) was a loose adaptation of that 1965 issue, "The Remarkable Ruse of the Riddler" by Gardner Fox.

[Captain Craig]

Christopher wrote:

---

So the problem with The Batman wasn't that it took liberties, it was that it had the misfortune of being the first new interpretation of Batman to follow the decade-long run of the DC Animated Universe, so it faced an uphill battle for acceptance. The fact that it was a less ambitious show made it hard for it to measure up to people's expectations.

I just recently watched The Batman straight through for the first time. I really enjoyed it. I like how the show progressed season to season building Batman's world and developing the character growth. My only real gripe was that Two-Face was never used as a villain in the show.

I've not seen Brave and Bold yet. Waiting for full season sets to become available.

[Christopher]

The Batman was the weakest of the modern Batman animated shows to date (at least, the ones about Bruce Wayne as Batman -- I was never that crazy about Batman Beyond), but only because the others were so strong. Taken on its own merits, it's not bad, and has a lot of interesting elements. I do think it got stronger later in its run -- in particular, it did a Riddler origin episode that felt more like a classic B:TAS story than B:TAS's own Riddler origin did -- but at the same time, I disliked it when they abandoned the show's unique elements (Ellen Yin, Chief Rojas, the Batwave) and brought the show more into conformity with the classic approach. I mean, I would've been okay with them bringing in Commissioner Gordon and Batgirl and such, but they should've kept Yin, who was a cool character.

[Donald Draper]

Batman Begins was animated?