Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Animated Series Ending-No Season 3
- Thread starter Dusty Ayres
- Start date
As I recall, there is to be a half-length season 3, the last 13 episodes Tucker refers to in that quote, bringing the total to 65. So this thread is not only redundant, it's incorrect.
But its heart is in the right place. I should know, 'cause I'm looking at the jar on my desk that holds it as I write...
65 episodes isn't a bad run. That's only 20 less than "Batman: The Animated Series" (I consider "The New Batman Adventures" a different series even though the two shows shared actors, writers, and producers).
65 episodes is your standard syndication package.
It's not a great run either. TB&TB has created such a rich and refreshing universe that it feels arbitrary and wrong to bring it to an end after the bare minimum size of a syndication package is reached. At least they should pull a Ben 10 and repackage it in a modified form, say maybe a new Superfriends, so they can keep the universe alive.
It's a great run from a commercial point of view, even if the show still had a lot of creative life left in it (although there are still about a third of the show's episodes to air, so the extent to which it still had room to run can't really be properly evaluated until after those episodes have all aired).
65 episodes is optimal for a syndication package, but it isn't the bare minimum. Shows with 52-episode runs (like Static Shock and X-Men Evolution) went into syndication. For that matter there have been 26-episode shows that have gone into syndication. In today's market 52 episodes is a success and 65 episodes is the gold standard.
65 episodes is optimal for a syndication package, but it isn't the bare minimum. Shows with 52-episode runs (like Static Shock and X-Men Evolution) went into syndication. For that matter there have been 26-episode shows that have gone into syndication. In today's market 52 episodes is a success and 65 episodes is the gold standard.
So? How is it remotely a good thing to sacrifice creative potential for some kind of commercial tunnel vision? How is this something worthy of defending?
It's still arbitrary and unnecessary to kill a show at that stage when there's still so much potential in it. The numbers are beside the point. Indeed, they're the whole problem. Basing the decision to end a show on nothing more than the number of episodes it has is just plain stupid. If it's a creative and ratings success, if it still has a lot of life in it, it's wrong to kill it.
100 episodes is what live action shows aim for. 65 episodes is what animated shows aim for.
I wasn't defending anything. I was pointing out facts, such as a 65-episode run being highly successful from a business point of view and the fact that the show still has a third of its episodes to air, meaning how much creative juice it has left at the end of its run can only be properly evaluated once they've all aired.
In some cases there are good commercial and creative reasons for working towards an established end goal of a certain number of episodes. It gives the creative team the opportunity to plan out a cohesive run and go out on a high before any burnout sets in. Producers working in animation also often get antsy to move on and do something different once they've made 52-65 episodes of a show. The extent to which these factors are true of The Brave and the Bold creative team would be speculative at this point, but its certainly possible they apply.
I'd say it's self-evident that they don't. This isn't an arc-driven show. It has the occasional bit of character development across various appearances, and it has the ongoing Starro serial in the teasers this season, but it's pretty much the epitome of an open-ended episodic series. And it's got so many characters to draw on, such an immense reservoir of obscure DC heroes and villains to tap into, that there's no way they'd be anywhere close to running out of material after a mere 65 stories.
Now, if James Tucker felt he'd gotten creatively stale and wanted to move onto something fresh, that would be one thing. But that's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that Cartoon Network has arbitrarily decided that every show has to end at 65 episodes, or at least be rebranded at that point, as Ben 10 Alien Force was after 46 episodes. And my point is that basing it on numbers has nothing to do with the creators' preferences or storytelling needs. It's arbitrary and unnecessary.
The DC Animated Universe, even just in its core series of Batman, Superman, Batman Beyond, and Justice League, produced 306 episodes and 4 movies. Plus 78 episodes of the peripheral series Static Shock and The Zeta Project. Compared to that, 65 episodes is barely getting started. They shouldn't be ending this take on the DC Universe, they should be franchising it, giving us spinoffs. Heck, if any version of Aquaman in history could carry his own show, it's this one.
Besides, Diedrich Bader is the best Batman to come along since Conroy, though Bruce Greenwood has proved pretty impressive so far. It would be a shame if he didn't get to continue playing Batman in some context.
A Batman and the Outsiders ( plus friends) series would be fun.
Too Much Fun also stated that 65 episodes wasn't a bad run not a great run...he wasn't saying it was great he was saying that that's not a bad run.
Ending on a pre-planned high note rather than running a show until it starts to wane can apply to an episodic show with soft arcs just as it can to a more heavily arc-based show. If the show continued beyond 65 episodes it would probably still have enough creative juice to continue producing good episodes, but I go into an animated show expecting it'll run for a maximum of 65 episodes so I'm just glad it had a good, successful run and reached that number.
There are of course economic considerations as well, and that's primarily what drives ending shows after 65 episodes. In the animated TV marketplace these days there are substantially diminishing returns in running a show for longer than 65 episodes. It's only huge hits like Ben 10 that continue through re-branded extensions. Batman: The Animated Series and Justice League are the only DC shows to receive re-branded extensions. To date no Marvel show has done so.
The DCAU was a great achievement, but Warner Animation has been running every DC show since the DCAU ended as a standalone. There's something to be said for that approach in terms of keeping things fresh and trying out new approaches. Teen Titans and The Brave and the Bold are both great shows, but I think it's best that their style be kept within their own runs rather than continued in spin-offs and wear out its welcome (their respective styles being much more of a tighrope walk in terms of getting the tone right compared to the more serious DCAU style)
I agree with Andrea Romano in her assessment that this iteration of Aquaman is hugely entertaining as a guest star, but would be too much of a good thing in his own series.
But that doesn't make it any less foolish to assume that has to be at 65 episodes every single damn time. There's just no logic to that. It should be when the creators feel the time is right, not just when some arbitrary number is reached. And given how many shows have thrived for far longer than that, I'd say it's rather strange to assume that any creators would run out of steam after a paltry 65 episodes.
Maybe it's a generational thing. In the '80s, it was commonplace for animated shows to have hundreds of episodes. He-Man had 130 episodes. She-Ra had 93. The Real Ghostbusters in its various forms had 147. The Transformers had 98. Robotech had 85. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had 193. If you're satisfied with 65, maybe you've just been raised with low expectations and don't know what you're missing.
Listen to me carefully. I know that it is because of the conditions of the marketplace. I am not ignorant of that. I am saying that I think it is wrong. I am aware of how it is, but I am arguing that it should not be that way. So stop lecturing me as if I'm some moron who can't get the reality of the situation through his head. There's a huge difference between being ignorant of a situation and protesting a situation. I am doing the latter. Do you comprehend that now?
Again -- DUH. Stop telling me what I already know. I'm fully aware of the situation, but I disagree with the approach.
Why can't you understand the simple point I'm making here? Keeping things fresh and trying out new approaches is good, if it comes from creative need and preference. Cutting every show off at exactly 65 episodes, like Procrustes cutting his guests' feet off if they were too tall for his bed, is not good creative decision-making. The arguments you're making would be valid if they weren't being applied to the policy of making a single specific number the obligatory cutoff point every single time. It's just bizarre to think that every show needs to end at the same number of episodes. That's a decision made for arbitrary business reasons, and for you to try to argue that there's some kind of valid creative motivation behind it is nonsensical. Creativity is not something you can program with precise numerical values.
Saying "shows should end before they burn out" or "shows should end when the creators are ready to move on" is valid. But saying "shows should end at 65 episodes" is a completely different, unrelated argument, and one that's wholly and utterly incompatible with those other arguments. You're trying to lump two completely contradictory ideas together as if they were the same thing.
I'm a child of the '80s so I remember those days well, but things change. These days a weekly show is lucky to get to 65 episodes. Most shows don't even manage that.
Listen to me carefully. I wasn't lecturing you. I was having a civil discussion. There's no need to get so damn cantankerous. The conditions of the marketplace are what they are. Those who finance these shows have to live within those conditions, many of which are imposed on them by the state of the economy within their sector rather than of their making. Are they supposed to throw economic realities to the wind? Of course not. So saying you disagree with market conditions is rather nonsensical. It's not as if market conditions can be changed by a simple change of policy at Cartoon Network.
Again -- try to keep a civil tone.
I don't see them as contradictory ideas. There are good business reasons for most shows ending at 65 episodes. The creative people making the shows are well aware of that and can plan out their shows taking that reality into account and have the opportunity to flex their muscles and work on new shows once they finish a 65-episode run. It's a matter of finding creative fulfillment within the context of the economic realities of the marketplace.
How is it "nonsensical" to say I'm unhappy with the way things are? If everyone thought that way, nobody would ever try to change things for the better. Even if there's no way to change things, I'm still entitled to express my feelings on the matter. Everyone has the right to express an opinion.
