Batman didn't really go 'dark' as we understand it these days until 1985, after Crisis when Miller took over.
The 1939 stuff is quite silly. Comics were silly back then. Though Batman was certainly less silly than some.
Poll Should the fans be running the show?
- Thread starter Timofnine
- Start date
Batman didn't really go 'dark' as we understand it these days until 1985, after Crisis when Miller took over.
The 1939 stuff is quite silly. Comics were silly back then. Though Batman was certainly less silly than some.
No. Being a fan of something is no guarantee of quality. The fellow who directed the Daredevil movie with Ben Affleck was a big fan of the Frank Miller comic book run, and that movie sucked.
God, I fight with enough people on here without even bringing shooting an episode of Star Trek into it. So no thank you.
The 1960s Batman series is one of the most accurate adaptations of Batman we've ever had. So much so that DC Comics published an entire trade paperback of the stories that were directly adapted onto the show.
Did it come off goofier than the comics at times or go into parody territory? Sure. But if you compare the original stories to the episodes adapted from them, they're a lot closer than you'd expect. (Silver Age comics get GOOFY, people.)
This. Silver Age is as daft as you like.
In Silver Age Batman comics, the Joker is more sort of an annoying dickhead than the outright maladjusted sociopath/psychopath in modern portrayals. Villains tended to be more into robbing banks for 'reasons' rather than going on killing sprees. He's swinging a rubber chicken about on the cover of the trade you linked to.
Mind you, weirdly in the very very early Batman comics, the Caped Crusader has absolutely no problem in killing people.
But yeah, Adam West Batman is a lot closer to the source than many give it credit for.
You both have a point, but let’s not confuse this. Being a professional does imply there is an expertise aspect involved. But, there is also the aspect of financial compensation, hence the term professional.
IMO, a good amateur TV creative/writer is preferable to a bad professional TV creative/writer. Regardless if they are writing for Star Trek or some other show.
Yeah. In the earliest Batman stories, the creators were drawing a lot of inspiration from The Shadow pulps, so Batman was following that lead. (The first Batman story, "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate," is drawn beat for beat from the Shadow story Partners in Peril.)
Yep. Some fans like to pretend that anything that isn't grim & gritty Batman isn't the "true" Batman, but the 1950s stories where he was traveling to other planets or dealing with Bat-Mite are just as valid as The Killing Joke or The Dark Knight Returns.
It's Avatar seen through a white, middle-class lens.
I can’t think of anyone tbh; in fact, Michael Piller had enormous respect for and love of Trek. I think the problem with that movie was not just executive meddling but having to appease the egos of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner and gut the story accordingly. Mind you, it was never the greatest plot to begin with. It’s so very “basic” in almost every respect.
The editors of Batman and Detective Comics began the process of shedding the reader-unwanted TV influences (see the letters pages of the period where the TV series could not be more despised) while the series was still first-run on ABC. The return to the dark, crime/mystery format was courtesy of Irv Novick and Frank Robbins--pre-dating the O'Neil / Adams run.
Last edited:
This poll should probably have the caveat that professional fans with proven track records who don't want to make Star Trek "their own" should be running the show. Reference the great turnarounds under Manny Coto (gone too soon) and yes, "Lord" Terry Matalas.
I was thinking of Matalas specifically when I voted no.
Well, if this forum exemplifies one thing, it's that people are fans of incredibly different aspects of Star Trek.
Most of what I liked about the Star Trek franchise had been excised between 2009 and 2022, to the point I found two live action series to be past my breaking point unwatchable. PICARD season 3 actually felt like Star Trek again. Professional characters, reason balanced with feeling and emotion, baseline respect for prior continuity as seen in pre-2005 Star Trek, dialog that doesn't sound like some CW show for the most part, and actually managed to bring in several new ideas that built off what came before. Plus it managed to work with the baggage of season 1. So yeah, I'd like more people like Matalas involved...
Back when he owned the St. Louis Browns, Bill Veeck held a promotion where the fans would be the manager of the team for a day. They were given signs for "Yes" and "No", and during the game they were asked if they should remove the pitcher, issue an intentional walk, that sort of thing. The Browns won, fwiw.
+1 Agreed. I didn't like the first two seasons so much, but it felt like Matalas breathe new life into Trek for me.
I thought I'd reask my question since Matalas has popped in to the chat, of course. So, what is it that fans should focus on to make it "Star Trek?"
Do we have a consensus on "Star Trek?"
If not, how do we create consensus?
And then you are making a TV show by committee. Who's version of Star Trek is more important?
Years ago, a poster on this very board suggested in all seriousness that CBS/Paramount establish an "Fannish Oversight Board" to review all scripts and proposals for upcoming Trek movies, series, and episodes. I can't remember if this was meant to be a strictly advisory board or if they actually thought "the fans" should have veto power over all future Trek productions.
No offense to whoever posted that, but this was wildly impractical for various reasons:
1) As noted, different fans have different agendas and priorities and expectations. So who chooses which fans to listen to?
2) In no reality is a fan committee going to be given creative control of a multi-million dollar movie or tv series.
3) If the board is strictly advisory, then they're just going to be writing extensive notes that can be ignored at will by the producers, directors, etc, so what's the point?
I mean, just imagine it:
"Bad news, boss. We need to go into production soon, but the Fannish Oversight Board is demanding major changes to the script and casting. Namely, we have to lose the entire third act because it contradicts two lines from 'The Omega Glory.' We have to fire Anthony Hopkins and replace him with the actor who originally played the character in that one VOYAGER episode, and there are 57 separate notes demanding 'just one or two more sentences" to clarify various nitpicks of fannish concern. It sucks, I know, but what are we going to do? The fans are in charge. They call the shots."
No offense to whoever posted that, but this was wildly impractical for various reasons:
1) As noted, different fans have different agendas and priorities and expectations. So who chooses which fans to listen to?
2) In no reality is a fan committee going to be given creative control of a multi-million dollar movie or tv series.
3) If the board is strictly advisory, then they're just going to be writing extensive notes that can be ignored at will by the producers, directors, etc, so what's the point?
I mean, just imagine it:
"Bad news, boss. We need to go into production soon, but the Fannish Oversight Board is demanding major changes to the script and casting. Namely, we have to lose the entire third act because it contradicts two lines from 'The Omega Glory.' We have to fire Anthony Hopkins and replace him with the actor who originally played the character in that one VOYAGER episode, and there are 57 separate notes demanding 'just one or two more sentences" to clarify various nitpicks of fannish concern. It sucks, I know, but what are we going to do? The fans are in charge. They call the shots."
Last edited:
But those two lines are worship words!
Year ago, a poster on this very board suggested in all seriousness that CBS/Paramount establish an "Fannish Oversight Board" to review all scripts and proposals for upcoming Trek movies, series, and episodes. I can't remember if this was meant to be a strictly advisory board or if they actually thought "the fans" should have veto power over all future Trek productions.
No offense to whoever posted that, but this was wildly impractical for various reasons:
1) As noted, different fans have different agendas and priorities and expectations. So who chooses which fans to listen to?
2) In no reality is a fan committee going to be given creative control of a multi-million dollar movie or tv series.
3) If the board is strictly advisory, then they're just going to be writing extensive notes that can ignored at will by the producers, directors, etc, so what's the point?
I mean, just imagine it:
"Bad news, boss. We need to go into production soon, but the Fannish Oversight Board is demanding major changes to the script and casting. Namely, we have to lose the entire third act because it contradicts two lines from 'The Omega Glory.' We have to fire Anthony Hopkins and replace him with the actor who originally played the character in that one VOYAGER episode, and there are 57 separate notes demanding 'just one or two more sentences" to clarify various nitpicks of fannish concern. It sucks, I know, but what are we going to do? The fans are in charge. They call the shots."
For my part, I sometimes just prefer to enjoy elements of the fan base who appreciate the good aspects of a series while not being afraid to make fun of the sillier or less successful parts. The Transformers wiki is very good at this, to the point where problems like FIRRIB are mainly a running joke more than anything else. Bluestreak's lack of a consistent color scheme (much less a blue one) is another bit of a running joke in ways. And writer Simon Furman (mainly known for comic issues) is also famous for his Furmanisms.
