Batman: Caped Crusader (Prime Video)

https://ew.com/batman-caped-crusade...=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com
First look and release date.
Releases 1th of August '24.

 

Looks interesting enough to try it out.

 

Interesting there's no mention of any casting for the series in the article and nothing on imdb.

Almost like the animation is done but they haven't gotten around to doing the voice work

 

Which is the opposite of how it works; the voices are recorded first so the animators can match the lip sync. (Except in Japan, where traditionally, the animation is done first with randomly flapping lips that don't even come close to matching the timing of the dialogue. Which leads to the weird outcome of the English dubs having better lip sync than the originals.)

 

It could just be that they got a bunch of big names, and they're waiting to make a big announcement closer to release day.
I like what I'm seeing and reading, so I'm optimistic this will be good.

 

I may as well repost my comments on the EW article from the DC Movies thread, since they go better here:

Hmmm...

They just traded it for the anachronistic jumble of a '40s setting without institutional racism so we can have a black Commissioner Gordon. Not that I mind the inclusiveness, of course, but it's still inaccurate to say it's "fully" '40s-set.

That's exactly what the 2002 Birds of Prey TV series, the first live-action depiction of Harley Quinn (played by Mia Sara), did with the character, except the lead superhero she treated was Helena Kyle/Huntress instead of Bruce Wayne.

And that reminds me of how Burton and Keaton portrayed Bruce, as a socially awkward eccentric detached from humanity.

 

Yeah. Inclusiveness is fine and great (for example, Jeffrey Wright's Gordon in the "the Batman", Kirby Howell-Baptiste in "the Sandman") but when it takes you out of the story because you know damn well that isn't how the world was when the story is set, maybe save that particular casting decision for a different production.

 

Isn't this essentially the same thing Bill said about Superman in Kill Bill?

 

My thoughts too. In a period piece, this actually does a disservice to inclusion. A series based in the forties can actually do a great job of portraying racism and antisemitism of the time. Batman can be investigating Nazi sympathizers for example. Lives of Black Americans depicted more accurately, or lives of LGBTQ+ people, could be highly profound. If you're going to set this series in the forties, make it a real period piece.

 

15 years ago, Marvel had an Avengers cartoon that dipped into Captain America's back story and therefore world history, with some liberty.

No Nazis.

 

Hmm, I see what you're saying; certainly the 1940s Superman radio series did some impressive storylines in its post-WWII years about fighting racists, Neo-Nazis and other aspiring fascists, and anti-immigrant demagogues. But on the other hand, the disadvantage of something like that is that actors of color in the cast (since the modern practice is usually to match the ethnicities of animated character and voice actor) would be relegated to playing a limited range of character types and professions and would only be able to participate in the stories in limited ways. Only the white cast members would really be free to play a role in stories that weren't about racial injustice, or to play characters other than servants, laborers, singers, dancers, etc. It seems fairer to the actors to create a show that allows them all to participate equally in a wide range of stories.

In a realistic 1940s setting, the character most likely to be black would be Alfred, and that could be kind of uncomfortable. Certainly a 1940s Bruce Wayne would probably have treated a black Alfred well, as well as Jack Benny treated Rochester (the one black character in 1940s radio who was written respectfully and never put down with racial stereotypes, because Benny insisted), but to modern eyes it would still be a stereotyped and servile role and thus problematical. (Though on the other hand, a story about a forbidden romance between Batman and a black Catwoman might be interesting.)

Presumably the reason Timm embraced the '40s setting was nostalgia for its style, the tone of its comics and movies, its fashions and music, etc. If nostalgia for an era is the driver, I can see the appeal of creating an alternate fantasy version that has the good things about that era without the bad. Yeah, it's dishonest about the reality, but it's more of an aspirational fantasy. A show that confronted the darker realities could be worthwhile, certainly, but it might be too depressing, especially with the foreknowledge that things would not get much better for the characters of color in their lifetimes.

 

1. Alfred is Batman's dad.
2. Alfred had a blank check to the Wayne billions, but spent his days and nights co-splaying as a Butler.
3. Little Bruce was raised to be black?
4. Little Bruce was raised to destroy White America one bank at time, by reversing redlining?

 

I was thinking the exact same thing. Sort of a "Devil in a Blue Dress" noir aspect to the show.

 

I think that is something different than a show placed in a specific time period. Like the original TAS, if there is just an aesthetic to the show that reflects the styles, fashion choices, and cars of a specific era and yet everything else in the show seems to be contemporary or able to fit into any time period then I agree.

It seemed to me from the original postings in this thread that the show is being set specifically in the 1940s, rather than just a stylistic nod to that era.

 

Sounds good. I just wish all this stuff wasnt on so many different streaming services. I am unlikely to get prime.

 

Usually Amazon prime has a free 30 day trial and Batman Caped Crusader is dropping all 10 episodes at once.

 

Yeah I may have to wait for a trial. I only have one streaming service (peacock) and I don't even want to pay for that...lol...

 

Well, I did say in comment #6 that, yes, it's just another form of mash-up of 1940s elements with modern elements, so it's not quite accurate to say it's "fully a '40s period piece." It's just doing it the other way around -- B:TAS was set in a fantasy version of the present day that incorporated retro stylistic elements, whereas Caped Crusader is set in a fantasy version of the 1940s that incorporates a modern attitude toward diversity. Of course it's not a realistic period piece -- it's a show about Batman, after all. But it's choosing a different balance of period and modern elements than B:TAS did, one fully embracing most aspects of the period, save only those aspects that don't deserve to be embraced.

As I said, I can certainly see the value of a period story that confronts the injustices of an era honestly. But I can also see the value of a period story that offers a more idealized version fitting modern sensibilities, something that lets diverse performers participate fully and lets diverse audience members see people like themselves included fully rather than relegated to victim or subordinate roles. Both approaches have their merits and their drawbacks.

 

I hope they don't Lean In to the "Societal Problems" of the 40's, atleast to much.. Its a kids show, leave all the proselytizing and politicization at the door.

 

Do we know it's a kid's show?
As for the era, I'm fine with them setting in the '40s, but not touching on issues like racism. Unless it's going to be a big focus of the show, then I do think it's best to just not get into it. It just seems to me like the kind of thing that can become a distraction if you have other things that you're dealing with.