• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

I haven't read comics in a long time but after being intrigued by a random YT video suggestion I started and completed the Immortal Hulk run by Al Ewing. It got me thinking about how limited the movies can be just by their own weight. It takes so many resources to create one that it becomes a big risk to allow them to take too many chances or get too out there. One big advantage of the comics is that it's much easier to do one-offs or follow odd tangents and crazy concepts.

That said, it does seem the DC and Marvel series have more flexibility over the movies and that's where I could see a Batman 66 production if there ever was to be one. I like that DC has allowed for series and even movies to be made that don't have to be connected to the DCEU (though who knows after the changes in regime). I think the Schumacher movies more than the old Dozier series may be more responsible for killing anything like that from being attempted, they carry a stigma that still persists.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Step by step:

One, the present era '66-inspired comics are niche publications for die-hard fans of that series, which is not the mainstream Batman comic fan, nor is its tone and approach ever going to be incorporated into main Batman comics or external media productions. The time for that influence had a thankfully short window from 1966 - '67, but a number of reader letters (I've posted examples of those letters in this forum) made DC aware they Batman readers did not like the "Dozier-isms" added to Batman or Detective Comics, and it was dropped, right in time for Frank Robbins and Irv Novick to bring a darker, more city-crime tone back to the comics.

Two, "two movies"--again, you're talking about 2 direct-to-video niche productions set in its own, Dozier-world. They were the textbook example of specialty productions, and not marketed to the mainstream Batman comic or movie fans.

Three, Ward's stunt cameo in a Berlanti TV series has no bearing on the DCEU's content, or the audience it caters to. Dozier's series is as set apart from the main version of Batman in the movie franchise as Filmation's numerous Archie cartoons are a universe apart from Riverdale.

There's not much evidence supporting the idea that fans of the DCEU want any of the Dozierverse added to it, even as a one-off reference.
Click to expand...
Of course it wouldn't be the main version of Batman for the movies, but I never said that it would. All I was saying is that you make it sound like Batman '66 was some horrible thing that nobody likes, and I was saying that obviously isn't true since even after all these years there are still enough people out there who like the series that they were able to support 7 series, with a collective 128 individual issues between them, and 2 movies. Yes, they were smaller niche things, but that's still a lot more than most 56 year old series without Star in the title can sustain.
 
If any Batman is the true Batman it's Batman 43. Who needs a Batmobile when you've got a Cadillac complete with Chauffeur Alfred?
 
JD said:
Of course it wouldn't be the main version of Batman for the movies, but I never said that it would. All I was saying is that you make it sound like Batman '66 was some horrible thing that nobody likes, and I was saying that obviously isn't true since even after all these years there are still enough people out there who like the series that they were able to support 7 series, with a collective 128 individual issues between them, and 2 movies. Yes, they were smaller niche things, but that's still a lot more than most 56 year old series without Star in the title can sustain.
Click to expand...

The point you're missing is that Dozier's Batman is a niche IP; its not the main image or concept of the character WB+D is promoting to the mainstream audience, so your statement:

With the kind of diversity of styles, we've seen in the DC movies lately, I don't know if I'd want to totally rule out a return those versions of the Batman characters, and if they did movie in the style of the series, I would be right there in the theater for the first showing opening day.
Click to expand...

Is not recognizing that niche status. It is highly unlikely WB+D would produce a live action movie based on Dozier's series. The fact any new projects were two animated productions (using the surviving actors), instead of just leaping to the big screen with a movie based on Dozier's series (with a rebooted, re-cast format such as JJ-Trek) should be a clue, while the only Batmen they're actively promoting are the DCEU and Matt Reeves versions, neither even remotely channeling Dozier's approach to the character.

Again, the general Batman fan rejection of the series dates back to the late 1960s--when the TV series was still first-run on ABC: vocal readers resented the TV series and called for DC to stop using any of the trappings from it--and DC listened. In the late 70s, when the idea of a Batman movie was shopped around by Uslan and Melniker, they were taking the character back to his darker comic book roots, wanting not a whiff of the Dozier series in their adaptation (an acknowledgement of what many thought of the Dozier series), so while the 1966-68 series has its supporters, the point is that WB+D spending $ on a major movie based on that begs the question: where's the widespread interest in that?
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
The point you're missing is that Dozier's Batman is a niche IP; its not the main image or concept of the character WB+D is promoting to the mainstream audience, so your statement:
Click to expand...
I never said it was the going to be the main DCEU Batman, but as DC has proven with Batfleck and Batinson they're open to having different movies versions of the same characters. I'm not saying I expect it to happen, but it's not an absolute impossiblity.


Is not recognizing that niche status. It is highly unlikely WB+D would produce a live action movie based on Dozier's series. The fact any new projects were two animated productions (using the surviving actors), instead of just leaping to the big screen with a movie based on Dozier's series (with a rebooted, re-cast format such as JJ-Trek) should be a clue, while the only Batmen they're actively promoting are the DCEU and Matt Reeves versions, neither even remotely channeling Dozier's approach to the character.
Click to expand...
The first movie also came out in 2016, so that was before things like Shazam, Birds of Prey, and The Suicide Squad showed that people were open to more comedic takes on these characters.
Again, the general Batman fan rejection of the series dates back to the late 1960s--when the TV series was still first-run on ABC: vocal readers resented the TV series and called for DC to stop using any of the trappings from it--and DC listened. In the late 70s, when the idea of a Batman movie was shopped around by Uslan and Melniker, they were taking the character back to his darker comic book roots, wanting not a whiff of the Dozier series in their adaptation (an acknowledgement of what many thought of the Dozier series), so while the 1966-68 series has its supporters, the point is that WB+D spending $ on a major movie based on that begs the question: where's the widespread interest in that?
Click to expand...
But there was obviously enough love and support for the show that even 50+ years later, it's still getting toys, movies, comics, and is still show regularly on two different TV networks (MeTV, and Heroes & Icons).
 
JD said:
I never said it was the going to be the main DCEU Batman, but as DC has proven with Batfleck and Batinson they're open to having different movies versions of the same characters. I'm not saying I expect it to happen, but it's not an absolute impossiblity.
Click to expand...

The DCEU and Pattman versions are two sides of a serious coin. There's no Batman running around talking about civic responsibility, the value of drinking milk, having 100% belief in the integrity of law enforcement and has Bat-fly swatters and Bat-alphabet soup containers in his utility belt. Whatever one thinks of Affleck or Pattman, neither are representing anything to be found in or inspired by Dozier's version, and WB+D--to this day--has never expressed an interest in producing a Dozier-like movie.

The first movie also came out in 2016, so that was before things like Shazam, Birds of Prey, and The Suicide Squad showed that people were open to more comedic takes on these characters.
Click to expand...

You're still thinking Batman is treated or perceived like other characters. He's not, and the last time anyone tried to go off the tracks in some garish, clownish mode, it was Schumacher, who killed the first Batman movie franchise with his garbage (1995's Batman Forever & 1997's Batman and Robin) widely believed to be inspired by--you guessed it--the Dozier series.

But there was obviously enough love and support for the show that even 50+ years later, it's still getting toys, movies, comics, and is still show regularly on two different TV networks (MeTV, and Heroes & Icons).
Click to expand...

One, there has not been consistent merchandising of the series (as opposed to the original Star Trek); only the recent years settlement (as in this century) with the Dozier estate (in association with Fox and WB) allowed the release of the series on physical media and merchandising. Until that point in recent history, the Dozier series was not legally merchandised, having next to no ancillary market presence. Two, you're conflating said merchandising and syndication with widespread appeal. Anything can be merchandised but its appeal may be limited. For example, the new Mego Corporation recently released an 8-inch figure based on the creature from the 1956 film The Mole People, but its units were purposely limited because it too was a niche production not at all on the level of public appeal of other IPs they base figures on, such as Planet of the Apes.

Further, Batman being syndicated is no indicator that the public and WB+D see the Dozier series as "just as" embraced and/or legitimate as one of the representational faces of Batman as that seen in the DCEU or the Matt Reeves film. You're swimming against a tide that has been rising since the late 60s to support a production with an approach as on the outskirts of mainstream Batman as Rambo: The Force of Freedom cartoon was to the Rambo movies from the same decade.
 
The DCEU and Pattman versions are two sides of a serious coin. There's no Batman running around talking about civic responsibility, the value of drinking milk, having 100% belief in the integrity of law enforcement and has Bat-fly swatters and Bat-alphabet soup containers in his utility belt. Whatever one thinks of Affleck or Pattman, neither are representing anything to be found in or inspired by Dozier's version, and WB+D--to this day--has never expressed an interest in producing a Dozier-like movie.
Click to expand...

Thank God. My sense of humor can only go so far.



He's not, and the last time anyone tried to go off the tracks in some garish, clownish mode, it was Schumacher, who killed the first Batman movie franchise with his garbage (1995's Batman Forever & 1997's Batman and Robin) widely believed to be inspired by--you guessed it--the Dozier series.
Click to expand...

I didn't mind 1995's "Batman Forever". I found it slightly more tolerable than the Burton films, if I must be honest. As for "Batman and Robin", I thought it was crap.
 
The Schumacher films may have been inspired by the '66 series, but they didn't work remotely as well. What people don't get is that, while William Dozier saw the Batman comics as something to mock and scorn, the head writer, Lorenzo Semple Jr., was a fan of the comics and wrote the show very authentically to them. So it really comes off as an affectionate pastiche, acknowledging and embracing the humor without scorn. (After all, despite the myth of "Batman's dark roots," the comics had plenty of humor, fun, and metatextuality once they outgrew the grim pulpiness of their first year or so. Their creators didn't take them a fraction as seriously as modern comics fans do.) The Schumacher movies are more self-conscious, really overdoing the camp, yet also attempting a clumsy blend of camp and seriousness that makes them tonally inconsistent.

Anyway, I don't see why there needs to be an argument over this. As JD said, DC's film slate is diverse enough to allow for multiple simultaneous approaches. In the past few years, we've had ultraserious DC movies like Joker and The Batman and far lighter fare like Shazam! and The Suicide Squad. So there's no reason we couldn't have a lighter, alternate take on Batman alongside the more serious takes. Variety is a good strategy for a film studio, since it draws in a wider audience.
 
Interview with Cavill about his return to Superman:

"But the most important thing, which I will be aiming for, is for the audience to leave the cinema and to feel like they can fly, to feel like they can protect, and to feel like they want to give to everyone else. That would be my goal."

Nice to see that he gets the character better than some of the fans. Very much looking forward to Superman's future again. This is a nice feeling.
 
Christopher said:
What fiasco? Are you just talking about the recasting, or something else? I've been considering giving that show a try, but I don't know much about it.
Click to expand...

His (allegedly) leaving because he hasn't been happy with the diverging paths the character and story has taken from the source material. But especially the character, who is a deeper philosophical thinker in the source material but who barely grunted 5 words in the first season (exaggeration on my part, but the the point is there).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top