It's slated for 2013. No air date yet though. I'm guessing because it is it's early stages of development still. I too would have been more interested in James Tucker's Batman: No Man's Land proposal over this but I'll give it a look see.
I liked "No Man's Land" but would it really lend itself to an ongoing TV series? I feel like that's more of a couple of mini-series or a two-part movie or something.
Even though all of the heads at Cartoon Network liked the designs one felt the premise (more of a "no mans land") was too dark and grim so they scrapped it.
Hey, Cartoon Network suits I hate to break it to you but that promo art for Beware the Batman...it doesn't scream sunshine, rainbows and puppies.... the character designer James Tucker hired, and what he said was:
Even though all of the heads at Cartoon Network liked the designs one felt the premise (more of a "no mans land") was too dark and grim so they scrapped it.
They're not, and there's nothing horrible about trying something different. Part of the problem with a gun-toting Alfred is that it's not different. It's just another example of taking a perfectly valid character and turning him into a hard-ass, kick-ass, "edgy" caricature. Alfred, Ma and Pa Kent, Aunt May and Willie Lumpkin don't really need to be Charles Bronson. It's nice when they get their moment in the sun-- like Alfred defeating the Joker on TV-- but that only works because it's anomalous, because it's a novelty.^Why is it so horrible to try something different? If every Batman show were exactly the same, what would be the point? And why are Internet fans so determined to hate every new thing they hear a tiny bit about rather than being willing to give it a fair chance?
They're not, and there's nothing horrible about trying something different. Part of the problem with a gun-toting Alfred is that it's not different. It's just another example of taking a perfectly valid character and turning him into a hard-ass, kick-ass, "edgy" caricature.
Alfred, Ma and Pa Kent, Aunt May and Willie Lumpkin don't really need to be Charles Bronson. It's nice when they get their moment in the sun-- like Alfred defeating the Joker on TV-- but that only works because it's anomalous, because it's a novelty.
A good story (or series premise) should have a variety of characters and those characters should be true to themselves.
If he's going to be involved in the cases, the previously mentioned Holmesian approach would be more true to the character.
Alfred as sidekick makes little sense on the basis that it undermines Batman's secret identity.
We keep assuming from one image that Alfred is Bruce's sidekick.
That's because the image that we have is of Alfred in the street beside Batman with a gun in each hand, firing away. That's what we've been told, so that's what we're basing the discussion on.They're not, and there's nothing horrible about trying something different. Part of the problem with a gun-toting Alfred is that it's not different. It's just another example of taking a perfectly valid character and turning him into a hard-ass, kick-ass, "edgy" caricature.
But we don't know that yet. The only information we actually have is a single sentence and a single concept image. Everything else you're saying is your own assumption, your own guesswork based on virtually no hard data. We have no idea how the character will actually be written or portrayed. There are many characters in fiction who could be described as "gun-toting" -- it literally just means "carrying a firearm" -- but there's a vast range of different personalities that they encompass, from hardcore violent types to cool professionals to soulful sorts who use their weapons only reluctantly.
That's because the image that we have is of Alfred in the street beside Batman with a gun in each hand, firing away. That's what we've been told, so that's what we're basing the discussion on.
Yeah, that sounds like an interesting conversation.That's because the image that we have is of Alfred in the street beside Batman with a gun in each hand, firing away. That's what we've been told, so that's what we're basing the discussion on.
But making a lot of wild assumptions based on a single preliminary promotional image -- assuming that it tells you everything you need to know about how the character will be handled -- is presumptuous. After all, preliminary designs can change during production, and promotional images can be deliberately exaggerated and misleading. So it should be obvious that the information we have is not only fragmentary, but unreliable. So the sensible thing to do is to say, "Okay, we don't know enough to judge" and leave it at that. Or to use our imaginations and consider the multiple possibilities that could be compatible with what little we know, rather than jumping to a single conclusion and basing one's whole reaction on it alone.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.