It was also cool of them to let him write the novelization of BATMAN BEGINS since he created Ra's in the first place.
Which screen version of Batman is your favourite?
- Thread starter saturn5
- Start date
It was also cool of them to let him write the novelization of BATMAN BEGINS since he created Ra's in the first place.
So I have to know who Danny O'Neil is in order to know what I like and don't like about Batman.
No, but if you like Batman, it's probably because of Denny (not "Danny") O'Neil.
For the record, he's a legendary DC comics editor and writer who (along with artist Neal Adams) is largely responsible for returning Batman to his "Dark Knight" roots after the campiness of the fifties and early sixties. Among other things, he created Ra's al Ghul.
Just to give credit where it's due.
Yes.
Also, if someone is going to attempt to speak definitively on what is and isn't "the correct" Batman (as opposed to an opinion on likes or dislikes), that person ought to have more than a passing familiarity with the writers and artists whose work shaped the "correct" version.
Arguably, O'Neil is behind only Kane and Finger (and on some days I'd put him before even Bob Kane) in terms of having shaped who and what the character is.
Not only did O'Neil spearhead the "back to basics" approach on Batman, not only did he create Ras Al Ghul and Talia (and Leslie Tompkins), not only did he pioneer "grim and gritty" nearly 20 years before Miller but O'Neil the writer is also the man responsible for the bulk of the "realistic" tone the character adopted post TV show.
Later, O'Neil the editor was shepherded the bat comics for much of the 80s and 90s, including overseeing Miller's "Year One" storyline. Furthermore, as editor he wrote what was/is known as the "bat bible," the guidebook writers used (at least pre-Morrison) to writing the character. The bat-bible, among other things contained all the necessary info they're required to be aware of, when writing their stories.
So if someone has no idea who Denny O'Neil is, that person is not in any position to speak with any sort of authority on who Batman is.
NEVER read the comic books - grew up with the 60s tv series and the latter movies.... O'Neill means nothing to me in this context. Then again, I stopped reading comic books in 1972 - even then, I was more into Superman ...So I have to know who Danny O'Neil is in order to know what I like and don't like about Batman.
No, but if you like Batman, it's probably because of Denny (not "Danny") O'Neil.
For the record, he's a legendary DC comics editor and writer who (along with artist Neal Adams) is largely responsible for returning Batman to his "Dark Knight" roots after the campiness of the fifties and early sixties...
Intrestingly enough, in 1971 O'Neil was also writing Superman.
Last edited:
Yeah, no offense to Frank Miller, who has done great stuff, but it always annoys me when magazine and newspaper articles routinely credit Miller for making Batman serious again, as though we went straight from Adam West to The Dark Knight Returns.
That's just sloppy, and completely ignores the contributions of O'Neil, Englehart, Adams, and others . . . .
Nolan, followed by Burton.
Don't care much about the rest.
Don't care much about the rest.
Even though Batman Forever was directed by Shumacher, I consider it to be part of the 'Burton films' because, while much was different, there were still enough 'Burton-esque' tones to the film to tie it together with its predecessors, not to mention the fact that Burton, I believe, served as or was given an EP credit on/for the film.
Answering the question, I'm going to go with the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale films, although the first 3 films in the Burton/Shumacher series are a close second.
Answering the question, I'm going to go with the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale films, although the first 3 films in the Burton/Shumacher series are a close second.
Well, I think that's getting overly elitist. After all, the purpose of this thread is not to define some official doctrine on the nature of Batman -- it's simply to ask people what their favorite version of Batman is. That's a matter of individual taste, nothing more. "Authority" is a concept that doesn't even apply here.
The 1960's T.V. show presentation of Batman is still an embarrassment to the Batman character.
Yes.
Also, if someone is going to attempt to speak definitively on what is and isn't "the correct" Batman (as opposed to an opinion on likes or dislikes), that person ought to have more than a passing familiarity with the writers and artists whose work shaped the "correct" version.
I don't think there's any reason to be embarrassed by the '66 Batman. For what it was, a faithful if satirical adaptation of the comics of the era, it was extremely well-executed. It had a very strong cast and impressive production values, and was one of the most innovative sitcoms ever made. It made Batman a household name, a far more popular character than he'd ever been before. It helped shape Batman comics as we know them today, because it prompted DC editor Julius Schwartz to reintroduce the largely-abandoned rogues' gallery to the comics, recognizing that such prominent, colorful villains would make good material for television (since he was aware the TV producers would be drawing on whatever the comics did). It led to the creation of Barbara Gordon through a similar mechanism.
The 1960's T.V. show presentation of Batman is still an embarrassment to the Batman character.
Yes.
Also, if someone is going to attempt to speak definitively on what is and isn't "the correct" Batman (as opposed to an opinion on likes or dislikes), that person ought to have more than a passing familiarity with the writers and artists whose work shaped the "correct" version.
Why? Comparisons to the comics of the time aside, what's wrong with comedy? When you get right down to it, that show was a spoof of Batman, and there's nothing wrong with that, any more than there's nothing wrong with Get Smart being a spoof of James Bond, or Spaceballs spoofing Star Wars.
What makes Adam West's show so bad? It's certainly a hell of alot better than the shit on TV today.
I've been rewatching Batman reruns on a cable channel called the Hub recently.
One of the things I've noticed this time around is just how good West was in the part, with subtle glances and other things that let on how Bruce was actually aware just what a pair of dullards Gordon and O'Hara were.
I also laughed out loud at the sequence in one episode where Batman was on vacation (Bruce was camping) and, when Gordon and O'Hara found out they were positively terrified, because it meant they had to solve their own case.
One of the things I've noticed this time around is just how good West was in the part, with subtle glances and other things that let on how Bruce was actually aware just what a pair of dullards Gordon and O'Hara were.
I also laughed out loud at the sequence in one episode where Batman was on vacation (Bruce was camping) and, when Gordon and O'Hara found out they were positively terrified, because it meant they had to solve their own case.
Yes. Adam West was a superb actor. The problem is, as Batman his job was to overact ridiculously, and he did that job brilliantly, and unfortunately got typecast as a ham or a hack as a result. But it takes great talent to do such a note-perfect job of overacting.
I think at some point or other I've seen most of the Batmans mentioned (usually on TV) and have no problem with any of them. Though not my generation, I recognise Adam West's Batman as a MAJOR cultural icon, and I do genuinely like the original Batman movie 
Great seeing all the iconic villains in one film, and the 'bomb' scene kills me 
People say it's camp, but I think West brought a lot of dignity/gravitas to role (within its camp parameters) and I have a lot of respect for that. I liked Keaton as Batman (not Wayne) and Clooney as Wayne (not Batman). And I have no time for Nolan/Bale films. Think both are a pile of dreck and genuinely can't understand all the fanboy adulation. Still waiting for my favorite screen Batman...
Great seeing all the iconic villains in one film, and the 'bomb' scene kills me People say it's camp, but I think West brought a lot of dignity/gravitas to role (within its camp parameters) and I have a lot of respect for that. I liked Keaton as Batman (not Wayne) and Clooney as Wayne (not Batman). And I have no time for Nolan/Bale films. Think both are a pile of dreck and genuinely can't understand all the fanboy adulation. Still waiting for my favorite screen Batman...
What about Kilmer? Are you another person who just considered him "forgettable"? I think he's underrated.
I re-watched a bunch of 60s "Batman" last summer and I agree that West was the one thing we could rely on to be great in any episode. I used to have the same attitude that it's just dumb trash which does a disservice to the Batman mythos, but now that I'm older I can respect it as a different interpretation with as much merit as the more serious takes.
That being said, it does have certain flaws that shouldn't be dismissed under the defense that 'anything goes because it's supposed to be campy'. As has been mentioned, Gordon and O'Hara are quite useless as law enforcers, completely dependent on Batman, and that gets tiresome after awhile. I also think Burt Ward was often maddeningly grating in his role (aside from his "Holy..." quips, which were always funny), but I sympathize with the guy being as young and inexperienced as he was.
I really don't like the show's version of The Joker now too. I find him very dull and repetitive, especially compared to The Riddler, Catwoman, and Egghead, who had much more imaginative schemes, were better written, and were played with oodles more charisma.
To get this a bit more on-topic, West's performance deserves a lot of respect for being one of the few things on the show that always worked and was always engaging. Not all of the performances were always as polished and consistent as his, which may be hard to recognize by some since he played such a preposterous character.
What about Kilmer? Are you another person who just considered him "forgettable"? I think he's underrated.
I re-watched a bunch of 60s "Batman" last summer and I agree that West was the one thing we could rely on to be great in any episode. I used to have the same attitude that it's just dumb trash which does a disservice to the Batman mythos, but now that I'm older I can respect it as a different interpretation with as much merit as the more serious takes.
That being said, it does have certain flaws that shouldn't be dismissed under the defense that 'anything goes because it's supposed to be campy'. As has been mentioned, Gordon and O'Hara are quite useless as law enforcers, completely dependent on Batman, and that gets tiresome after awhile. I also think Burt Ward was often maddeningly grating in his role (aside from his "Holy..." quips, which were always funny), but I sympathize with the guy being as young and inexperienced as he was.
I really don't like the show's version of The Joker now too. I find him very dull and repetitive, especially compared to The Riddler, Catwoman, and Egghead, who had much more imaginative schemes, were better written, and were played with oodles more charisma.
To get this a bit more on-topic, West's performance deserves a lot of respect for being one of the few things on the show that always worked and was always engaging. Not all of the performances were always as polished and consistent as his, which may be hard to recognize by some since he played such a preposterous character.
Sadly Kilmer as Batman is forgettable for me. Only thing I remember from that movie is Carrey's scenery-chewing. But I do think Kilmer is a seriously underrated actor (Salton Sea, KKBB).
Aside from that, excellent post and totally agree
Oh, but for some bizarre reason still like Romero as Joker. Not sure why.
Back in the 60's, when I found out that there was going to be a weekly Batman series on T.V - was still a D.C. comics fan and was a big Superman, Green Lantern, and Batman fan - I was extremely excited. I was hoping for another Superman show. To my knowledge, Batman was not previewed as a comedy or satire, or "high camp". Boy, was I in for a shock.
I was hugely disappointed when it appeared to me they were making fun of the characters. The costumes looked okay, especially Robin's, and the Batmobile was great, Batman though, appeared to have a pronounced gut. But that wasn't too bad - George Reeves hadn't exactly been "cut" either. But when I saw how they were treating the characters - the disco scene, the one where Batman dances - my disappointment crested. The rest of the way over the top presentation just grated on my young nerves. I hated the show, but watched it anyway - it was still Batman.
I was just a kid at the time, but I came to really dislike the word, "camp", and thought it must have really meant "trash" (as a verb).
I don't disagree with most of what you say, Christopher, the show was innovative, considering it was the 60's, and probably did revive the character and certainly turned millions of fans who had never heard of Batman or any other comic character, into instant fans. But to me, the show was a constant reminder of in just how low esteem some of my cultural heroes were held by the television industry "establishment". The show probably did a lot of good overall for the genre, but I never warmed to it because I thought it could have been so much better.
While George Reeves brought a great dignity and strength to the role of Superman, that show (written for children) wasn't exactly deep and/or serious after the first season. Let's not forget Chuck Connors as Sylvester J. Superman (and his donkey sidekick), Mr. Zero, and the time Perry White actually meets 'Great Caesar's Ghost.' I'd also argue that Jack Larson's Jimmy Olsen made Burt Ward's Robin look like the most competent sidekick in superhero history.
Going along with what I said earlier re: Batman Forever, and in line with recent discussion about specific 'Bat-actors', Kilmer's Bruce Wayne/Batman is actually my second-favorite interpretation of the character behind Christian Bale's, and a pipe dream of mine is to see someone plant in Tim Burton's mind the idea of directly 'rebooting' his Batman films in some fashion using Kilmer in place of Keaton.
Regarding the 60s series, my only real exposure to/encounter with it came in the form of the movie, which, while overly cheesy in a number of places, is actually not that bad of a film, and is a 'guilty pleasure' of mine. I especially enjoy(ed) the performance turned in by Burgess Merideth, to the point that his version of the Penguin is and remains my second-favorite iteration of the character behind the 'freak Penguin' pioneered/introduced by Danny DeVito and Tim Burton in Batman Returns.
Regarding the 60s series, my only real exposure to/encounter with it came in the form of the movie, which, while overly cheesy in a number of places, is actually not that bad of a film, and is a 'guilty pleasure' of mine. I especially enjoy(ed) the performance turned in by Burgess Merideth, to the point that his version of the Penguin is and remains my second-favorite iteration of the character behind the 'freak Penguin' pioneered/introduced by Danny DeVito and Tim Burton in Batman Returns.
In fact, he didn't. It was an unfortunate effect of the tight costume and the thick belt. When a number of people noticed it, West actually went to his doctor to certify that he did not, in fact, have a gut. Seriously.
People also say Clark Bartram has a gut in his Batman outfit.
Yeah, this guy: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FxaAe6kUPN8/SZW1HoI4rWI/AAAAAAAAB_A/kVvpCs_4b_0/s400/Clark+Bartram+2.jpg
Come to think of it, my favorite version of Batman is probably Dead End, limitations notwithstanding.
http://www.starland.com/news/2003/images/030724badbat.jpg
Go-go. Disco was still 10 years away.
I think Ward was a fantastic choice for Robin no matter what.
