Batman: Caped Crusader (Prime Video)

[Mage]

Conroy did the same thing on TAS. I think it's to denote that Batman is the "real" Bruce and the Bruce most people see is fake.

It reminds me of a panel where Wonder Woman holds her lasso, and has Superman and Batman hold them as well, and they all reveal their true identity.
Wonder Woman says Diane.
Superman says Kal-El.
Batman says Batman.

Or that scene from Batman Beyond. Old Bruce keeps hearing voices and wonders if he's going mad. In the end, it was some drug or something, I don't remember. But he tells Terry he knew the voice wasn't his own mind. Terry asks why, and Bruce replies that the voice kept calling him Bruce. And says 'In my mind, that's not what I call myself.'

 

[Christopher]

I suppose I do have a warped view of this stuff, because of course the people I talk to about adaptations and the YouTube videos I watch are going to be by people who DO check out the source material and compare. I can't say that I really know what a casual viewer's perspective even is.

Isn't it just common sense that someone who's new to something won't already know what it's like?

And really, the percentage of any adaptation's audience that bothers to seek out the source material is probably in low single digits. Heck, a large percentage of the audience won't even know it's an adaptation, or if they do know, they won't care. A lot of people just don't pay attention to that sort of thing.

And yeah, watching YouTube videos is likely to give an extremely warped view of audience reactions, since a lot of them are just feigned, performative outrage to generate clicks.

I do remember when I watched the first X-Men movie and got introduced to all those characters for the very first time, I thought it was lame that they were wearing black leather instead of proper colours. And I became aware very quickly that Wolverine was supposed to be shorter and Canadian, Rogue was entirely wrong... and so on. It kind of spoiled my opinion on those films, though they also did that by themselves over time.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the quality of the stories. It's all superficial. The first two X-Men movies were huge hits, and they started the modern boom of comic-book movies by being good, good enough that they impressed mainstream audiences who'd previously had a low opinion of comics and their film adaptations. Most people didn't know or care that the costumes or actors' appearances were different. All they cared about was that they enjoyed the stories they were told.

"Accuracy" doesn't matter. You're not studying for a test here. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, because it's all equally imaginary. The purpose of art and fiction is to explore interesting possibilities. So different versions telling a story differently is a feature, not a bug. They're exploring a wider range of possibilities.

 

[Mage]

Five episodes in, and I'm enjoying it so far. There is not much depth yet to either Bruce or Alfred, with more character focus it seems on both of the Gordon's, Montoya. Not that I mind a focus on them, but a little bit more depth to both Bruce and Alfred would be interesting.
If I recall, so far Bruce only addressed Alfred by name once, and he used his last name. That was interesting.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

"Accuracy" doesn't matter. You're not studying for a test here. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, because it's all equally imaginary. The purpose of art and fiction is to explore interesting possibilities. So different versions telling a story differently is a feature, not a bug. They're exploring a wider range of possibilities.

Accuracy matters to me! I'm sure it matters to a lot of people.

It's hard to really judge how much audiences care about it, as the most faithful films also tend to be the better made ones, so they'd get more acclaim and success either way. But I'm sure it says something that the best results come from creators who care enough about the material to try to stay accurate where possible.

 

[Christopher]

Accuracy matters to me! I'm sure it matters to a lot of people.

There is no such thing as "accuracy" in a work of fiction, because it isn't real. It's a category error to use that term for something imaginary. The original version of a work is just as unreal as any adaptation of it, so it doesn't matter if things are changed. Exploring new and different variations on an idea or theme is an integral part of how creativity works.

I mean, good grief, have you actually read Batman comics over the decades? There is no single, consistent canonical version of Batman and never has been. The Batman of 1939 and the Batman of 1943 were profoundly different characters -- the former a grim vigilante loner willing to kill if necessary, the latter a cheerful father figure and role model who refused to use guns and traded witty banter with his 12-year-old partner while punching out bad guys. That was the version that prevailed for decades as the series evolved around him, accreting new characters like various Batwomen/girls, a scientist who helped Batman & Robin travel back in time, Ace the Bat-Hound, Bat-Mite, etc. Then most of that was dialed back and he became more serious again in the '70s, and then you had the '80s reboot that made him even more dark and grim, more of a loner after decades of accumulating a large found family around himself. And this century we've had writers treating Batman as if he isn't even sane, as if his crimefighting is an obsessive pathology rather than a heroic choice. So how the hell can you possibly define an "accurate" way to tell a Batman story? Whatever version you choose as your standard is purely arbitrary.

It's hard to really judge how much audiences care about it, as the most faithful films also tend to be the better made ones

That is a completely false statement, and an objectively nonsensical one. I mean, Tim Burton's Batman was one of the least faithful interpretations of the comics character you could possibly have gotten; by their own admission, Burton and screenwriter Sam Hamm went back to the very earliest Batman stories from 1939 and extrapolated their own version from there, largely ignoring the subsequent half-century of the character's evolution in the comics. And yet audiences loved it, including comics fans. (Although I personally never cared for it much.)

No, I take that back -- one of the least faithful comics adaptations ever was the Bill Bixby Incredible Hulk, which didn't even keep the character's first name, and which specifically tried to be as unlike the comic as possible. And yet it's beloved to this day as one of the best superhero TV shows ever made.

At the other end of the spectrum, you've got something like Zack Snyder's Watchmen, which is technically accurate to most of the source material, but gets a mixed reaction from audiences, as many of us feel it captured only the surface and failed to understand the substance.

 

[Commander Troi]

the most faithful films also tend to be the better made ones

I think it's more that some adaptations are better than others and some of those are relatively faithful to the source material.

Faithful and Good: The Maltese Falcon, The Color Purple
Unfaithful and Good: Blade Runner

It just depends.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's more that some adaptations are better than others and some of those are relatively faithful to the source material.

Faithful and Good: The Maltese Falcon, The Color Purple
Unfaithful and Good: Blade Runner

It just depends.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is massively different from its source novel and massively better as a result, because the novel's not that good. The How to Train Your Dragon movies have very little in common with their source books besides the title, the broad concept, and some character names, but they're excellent (although I haven't read the books, so I can't compare quality).

The first two Harry Potter movies are the ones that are most faithful to their source books, and they're also the two weakest ones. They replicate the surface text "accurately," but they're too prosaic and don't capture the books' sense of wonder and mystery.

The hallmark example of the difference between fidelity and quality is Gus Van Sant's verbatim, shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, which is widely regarded as terrible.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

So how the hell can you possibly define an "accurate" way to tell a Batman story? Whatever version you choose as your standard is purely arbitrary.

Having a lot of right answers only makes the job easier! Though some are definitely more right than others, depending on your project. Batman: Brave and the Bold was a comedy, so drawing from the Silver Age made total sense in that case (even if it didn't win over all the fans). I don't think a choice like that is arbitrary when it's been made by an artist, especially if they know what they're doing.

Also, should Batman be a grim vigilante loner, socially distant, a charming playboy, a compassionate father figure with a found family, or potentially insane? Yes, he should. Throw in a no-kill rule and you're doing pretty well. Incidentally, Caped Crusader ticks almost all these boxes, though being cold to Alfred is a new box I don't like much. At least he's working on that.

That is a completely false statement, and an objectively nonsensical one. I mean, Tim Burton's Batman was one of the least faithful interpretations of the comics character you could possibly have gotten.

And it was the least successful Batman movie of the 80s!

Serious answer: I think Batman ticked enough of the boxes to win even hardcore fans over, with the body count and the identity of the Waynes' killer being the most controversial choices. When a comedy actor was cast as Batman people were concerned, but the hype for the movie was so intense that it would've had a huge opening weekend no matter how faithful it was, and I'm really not surprised people were happy with what they got. I mean, I'm not criticising Batman '89, it's one of my favourite comic book movies, but it came out 2 years after Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, so the bar for comic book films was set very very low.

No, I take that back -- one of the least faithful comics adaptations ever was the Bill Bixby Incredible Hulk, which didn't even keep the character's first name, and which specifically tried to be as unlike the comic as possible.

I'm not familiar with the TV series, or even the comic really. I do know it has a lot in common with the MCU Hulk, so I suppose this was a case where the character became more like the adaptation. Despite all the changes though he's still a dude with Jekyll and Hyde problems due to gamma rays, he still changes when he gets angry, and Marvel wouldn't let them turn him red. For a TV series made in 1977, it's pretty comic accurate.

At the other end of the spectrum, you've got something like Zack Snyder's Watchmen, which is technically accurate to most of the source material, but gets a mixed reaction from audiences, as many of us feel it captured only the surface and failed to understand the substance.

Zack Snyder's most critically acclaimed movie on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb is... Zack Snyder's Justice League. Because of course it is. But aside from that it's Watchmen, which the equally faithful 300 coming right after it. Personally I agree it is lacking a bit of the substance, but I liked it a lot more than V for Vendetta or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and I'm hoping the even more faithful animated adaption comes closer to doing the story justice.

I think it's more that some adaptations are better than others and some of those are relatively faithful to the source material.

Faithful and Good: The Maltese Falcon, The Color Purple
Unfaithful and Good: Blade Runner

There have been lots of adaptations and remakes that have eclipsed the original, and plenty of faithful adaptations that have been less than great.

But in the last few years we've had:
Faithful and good: The Last of Us, Fallout, One Piece - huge successes.
Faithful in visuals but not soul: Borderlands, Cowboy Bebop - tragic cautionary tales.
More faithful than the movie: Avatar: The Last Airbender - more acclaimed than the movie.
Other: Madame Web.

I haven't seen Deadpool & Wolverine yet, but they stuck him in the yellow costume and made a billion dollars, so I'm counting that as 'faithful and good' too.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not familiar with the TV series, or even the comic really. I do know it has a lot in common with the MCU Hulk, so I suppose this was a case where the character became more like the adaptation.

Nnnno, really not. The MCU Hulk has made some cursory nods to the show -- "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry," the odd quote of the theme music, a Lou Ferrigno cameo, a reporter character called McGee -- but aside from Mark Ruffalo looking a little like Bill Bixby, they're really nothing alike. The MCU Hulk is much closer to the comics' Hulk than the show's. For one thing, he can talk. And before we got the "Professor" Hulk in Endgame, Bruce and Hulk were treated as two separate personalities, with Bruce talking about "the other guy." Ferrigno's Hulk was simply David Banner with his intelligence suppressed, so that he lashed out at the people or things that made David angry or afraid and protected the people David cared about.

Despite all the changes though he's still a dude with Jekyll and Hyde problems due to gamma rays, he still changes when he gets angry, and Marvel wouldn't let them turn him red. For a TV series made in 1977, it's pretty comic accurate.

'70s superhero series took their liberties, yeah, but none so much as Hulk. The Lynda Carter Wonder Woman was quite comics-accurate in its 1940s-set first season; its pilot movie is quite a faithful retelling of the first two issues of her comic, and it was just about the only pre-1990 live-action superhero TV show other than Batman to feature actual comics villains rather than original villains, albeit only in its first couple of episodes. (The subsequent seasons were more of a departure, though.) The Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man series dropped the Uncle Ben origin, didn't feature Aunt May after the pilot, and made J. Jonah Jameson more of a benevolent grouch like Perry White, but in broad strokes, its portrayal of Peter/Spidey and his powers was pretty close and it interpreted his costume fairly well. (It was certainly a dang sight closer than the Japanese adaptation from around the same time.) The Captain America pilot movies were almost a complete reinvention, but they were approached as sort of a sequel, with their Steve Rogers being the son of the original WWII-era Captain America; and the second one gave Cap a pretty faithful costume aside from turning the cowl into a motorcycle helmet and the shield into the cycle's windscreen. The Doctor Strange pilot movie was actually pretty faithful in a lot of ways, although it reworked the premise to fit into the hospital-drama formula that was popular at the time. (You could sort of say it featured comics villains, since it had Morgan le Fay, and she answered to an unnamed entity that was basically Dormammu.)

Zack Snyder's most critically acclaimed movie on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb is... Zack Snyder's Justice League. Because of course it is. But aside from that it's Watchmen, which the equally faithful 300 coming right after it.

I don't see how comparing Zack Snyder movies to other Zack Snyder movies illustrates anything about their overall worth among movies in general. His tendency to copy slavishly is just a symptom of his limitations as a storyteller.

More faithful than the movie: Avatar: The Last Airbender - more acclaimed than the movie.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say the movie was pretty faithful for what it was, given its need to condense the storyline to two hours. It took some liberties with plot and structure, but the Netflix series did as well. Where the movie suffered was in its tone, its failure to capture the joy and energy of the series, as well as its whitewashed casting.

I haven't seen Deadpool & Wolverine yet, but they stuck him in the yellow costume and made a billion dollars, so I'm counting that as 'faithful and good' too.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I haven't seen Deadpool & Wolverine yet, but they stuck him in the yellow costume and made a billion dollars, so I'm counting that as 'faithful and good' too.

He's still too tall. And it was a yellow costume, but not the yellow costume.

 

[JD]

I used to go into adaptations expecting it to be as close recreation of the source material as possible, but I eventually realized that there are a lot of great movies and shows out there that are horrible as adaptations, but still great overall. I still prefer to see at least some recognizable elements, but it's not as much of a deal breaker for me as it used to be.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I just found that the first episode of this is free with ads on Prime's Freevee service, so I watched it. It's okay, but unexceptional so far. The animation is surprisingly mediocre; the characters' movements are limited, stiff, and unexpressive.

Turning the Penguin into not only a lounge entertainer but a Ma Barker-style crime-boss mother (or since it's a Batman show, maybe I should say Ma Parker) is an interesting twist. And I love the idea of the Iceberg Lounge being a ship -- it's a much better fit for the name. But I have a hard time believing that someone who looks like Oswalda Cobblepot could've been accepted in the 1940s as a lounge singer.

Little sense of Bruce/Batman as a character yet. He's almost more of a plot device, a presence that the other characters react to.

Still, I've been planning on subscribing to Prime soon, since I'm dropping a couple of streamers at the end of the month, so I guess I'll keep watching.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But I have a hard time believing that someone who looks like Oswalda Cobblepot could've been accepted in the 1940s as a lounge singer.

Marlene Dietrich was known to sport a tux, but I assume you're not talking about that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A google search came up with this woman

Gladys Alberta Bentley (August 12, 1907 – January 18, 1960)[1] was an American blues singer, pianist, and entertainer during the Harlem Renaissance.

Her career skyrocketed when she appeared at Harry Hansberry's Clam House, a well-known gay speakeasy in New York in the 1920s, as a black, lesbian, cross-dressing performer.

 

[Christopher]

Marlene Dietrich was known to sport a tux, but I assume you're not talking about that.

Obviously not. Dietrich was considered a great beauty. I doubt someone with Oswalda's facial features would've been perceived that way. I could buy her being appreciated as a talented singer, but the way she was presented within the conventional '40s-movie archetype of a sexy vamp enchanting the audience seems incongruous given her character design. It would've been more plausible to present her as more of a fun, comedic singer along the lines of Fanny Brice or Martha Raye, say. That would've been a good fit for the Penguin, whose original comics persona was a comical-seeming little guy that nobody took seriously or suspected of being a criminal mastermind.

 

[Booji]

Just finished up and I loved it. This is my favorite Batman since Batman Beyond, including movies. I wasn't expecting how graphic it would be or the serial nature of the stories. Looking forward to season 2 whenever that happens.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

hmmm seems imagination is lacking sometimes.... well, we should trust the creators to know what they're doing

A google search came up with this woman

That's not a bad match up for The Penguin as presented here! Even has the outfit.

 

[the G-man]

I love the idea of the Iceberg Lounge being a ship -- it's a much better fit for the name. But I have a hard time believing that someone who looks like Oswalda Cobblepot could've been accepted in the 1940s as a lounge singer.

A comedienne (to use the 40s parlance) would have probably worked better.

 

[Tuskin38]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I did not notice any of these

 

[Saul]

Didn't like the show. Watched all episodes in the hope that there would be something at the end to redeem it but no. It's pretty boring, doesn't really go anywhere, there were a few episodes I like but it's very middle of the road. The thing I dislike most about it is how similar it is in animation style to Batman: TAS. Why even go that route other than to cash in on people's good will. It just kept reminding me how much better a show Batman: TAS is.