• 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

Dee1891 said:
Thank God. My sense of humor can only go so far.
Click to expand...

...and in the examples of Dozier's Batman, it was demeaning to the character to the degree that in the 54 years since the TV series was cancelled, only the disasters otherwise known as Schumacher's Bat-films and Hanna-Barbera's Legends of the Superheroes specials ever attempted to take inspiration from Dozier's series. Emphasis on the disaster part. No other creators--from Uslan and Melniker all the way up to Nolan, Snyder and Reeves ever attempted to incorporate or take inspiration from the '66 series, and to this day, WB was not interested in developing a live action revisit to Dozier-ville.

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.
Click to expand...

Personally, I was never a fan of the Keaton version, but even his films was head and shoulders above Schumacher's silly franchise killers
 
I think we have less of the overt camp that you would see in the 60s. There's drag queens and that kind of stuff that overtly presents itself as such but the stuff that is a bit more tongue-in-cheek about it is presented differently. Batwoman (Wilder years anyway), Gotham, even Titans seems rather campy to me (whether intentional or not) but with a more straight-faced veneer than with the old Batman show to obfuscate it and get under the radar of the gatekeepers.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
I think we have less of the overt camp that you would see in the 60s. There's drag queens and that kind of stuff that overtly presents itself as such but the stuff that is a bit more tongue-in-cheek about it is presented differently. Batwoman (Wilder years anyway), Gotham, even Titans seems rather campy to me (whether intentional or not) but with a more straight-faced veneer than with the old Batman show to obfuscate it and get under the radar of the gatekeepers.
Click to expand...
They are campy but can turn serious when needed. Not much drama in Batman '66 (from what I can remember).
 
UssGlenn said:
Between Superman and The Witcher, Cavil seems to have a much better grasp on his characters than the writers he has has to work with.
Click to expand...


I think the writers for Cavill's Superman films had a great grasp on the character. Superman wasn't some one-dimensional Smiley Joe hero who always did and said the right thing. Nor was he eternally brood fest that many have accused him of being. And I count Snyder's DC films to be among my favorite comic book movies.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
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...
Of course not, I never said they were or would be. I was talking about doing a different, alternate version that was based on the '66 series. 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.
There was also Batman: The Brave & The Bold, and The LEGO Batman Movie, which were comedic takes on the character that proved pretty popular.




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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they made over 100 issues of the comic, and 2 movies, and have made tons of other toys. My point is that this stuff was successful, obviously it must have been pretty popular if they kept making so much of it.

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.
Click to expand...
Batman '66 has been on MeTV pretty consistently for years now, while quote a few other shows have come and gone from their lineup, so obviously it must be doing pretty well for them. Not to mention that even now, this day it's not uncommon to see a "holy___" reference any time Batman is brought up, even in mainstream media, so it has obviously been a pretty big influence on a lot of people.

Christopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is exactly my point.
TREK_GOD_1 said:
...and in the examples of Dozier's Batman, it was demeaning to the character to the degree that in the 54 years since the TV series was cancelled, only the disasters otherwise known as Schumacher's Bat-films and Hanna-Barbera's Legends of the Superheroes specials ever attempted to take inspiration from Dozier's series. Emphasis on the disaster part. No other creators--from Uslan and Melniker all the way up to Nolan, Snyder and Reeves ever attempted to incorporate or take inspiration from the '66 series, and to this day, WB was not interested in developing a live action revisit to Dozier-ville.
Click to expand...
I've always under the impression that all of the issues with those laid entirely at the feet of the people who made them, and had nothing to do with them taking any kind of inspiration from Batman '66.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Adventure said:
I think we have less of the overt camp that you would see in the 60s. There's drag queens and that kind of stuff that overtly presents itself as such but the stuff that is a bit more tongue-in-cheek about it is presented differently. Batwoman (Wilder years anyway), Gotham, even Titans seems rather campy to me (whether intentional or not)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Batwoman in that period was not supposed to be campy--the showrunners just tripped into that direction on occasion.



Dee1891 said:
I think the writers for Cavill's Superman films had a great grasp on the character. Superman wasn't some one-dimensional Smiley Joe hero who always did and said the right thing. Nor was he eternally brood fest that many have accused him of being. And I count Snyder's DC films to be among my favorite comic book movies.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Dee1891 said:
I think the writers for Cavill's Superman films had a great grasp on the character. Superman wasn't some one-dimensional Smiley Joe hero who always did and said the right thing. Nor was he eternally brood fest that many have accused him of being. And I count Snyder's DC films to be among my favorite comic book movies.
Click to expand...
man-of.gif
 
JD said:
I was talking about doing a different, alternate version that was based on the '66 series.]Batman '66 has been on MeTV pretty consistently for years now, while quote a few other shows have come and gone from their lineup, so obviously it must be doing pretty well for them.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that MeTV is a vintage TV-themed cable channel; its business model is to run programs and create spots & interstitial content catering to older generations and their TV interests. That is a niche market for a nice audience, and while there will always be some members of younger generations who discover programming over a half century old, its not a common occurrence. Batman is there--primarily catering to generations (e.g., Baby Boomers & Generation X above anyone else) who are not the target audience for superhero movies, and their size dwindles over the course of time. That a 56-year old TV series is constantly run on a vintage TV-themed cable channel is no evidence or indicator that it has a broader appeal.

Not to mention that even now, this day it's not uncommon to see a "holy___" reference any time Batman is brought up, even in mainstream media, so it has obviously been a pretty big influence on a lot of people.
Click to expand...

A catchphrase does not mean direct influence. Language is filled with cultural or pop cultural references that have long lost an association with its source, but to be clear, the use of "holy" as a common, quasi-swear, or declarative statement predates its use on Batman.

I've always under the impression that all of the issues with those laid entirely at the feet of the people who made them, and had nothing to do with them taking any kind of inspiration from Batman '66.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It has been said Hanna-Barbera's Legends of the Superheroes was an adaptation of their Super Friends cartoons, but that's ignoring a few, major things: bringing back West and Ward--in their 60s costumes, using the same characterizations and the Barris Batmobile, along with Gorshin as the Riddler. West, Ward and Gorshin were not the visual models of the Super-Friends' versions of Batman, Robin or the Riddler at the time Legends was created. Further, the H-B specials were played up more as a joke--much like the campy, satirical tone of the Dozier series, so it is rather undeniable that the Dozier series was a direct inspiration for Legends of the Superheroes.

The Schumacher films--from the overdose of primary colors, Carrey mainlining Gorshin for his version of the Riddler, Schwarzenegger--with his Mister Freeze's laughable schemes & firing off bad puns which was a hallmark of the Otto Preminger interpretation (and Wallach to a lesser degree) of the character on the Dozier series. If that was not enough, there was silly Bat-gadgets popping up, including Bat-ice skates, Bat-credit cards and a boatload of other elements which defined the Schumacher Bat-movies--and the only precedent for that kind of ridiculousness in a Batman adaptation was the Dozier series.
 
Last edited:
M'rk son of Mogh said:
Not seeing a lot of acceptance of "lighthearted pleasure" in most of the responses... interesting how that also works.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I see the usual criticism of anything designed be serious, while someone inexplicably believes there's some market for a Batman parody movie.
 
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