"Beware the Batman" in 2013! New Animated Series

[Christopher]

Yep, that's what they said -- that all the villains will be characters never before portrayed in animation, ranging from recently-created, modern villains like Pyg and Toad all the way back to obscure baddies who appeared once or twice in the Golden Age.

Although I'm still not convinced they'll maintain that practice throughout the entire series. I suspect that after a year or two, once they've given this show time to establish its own voice and identity, they may bring in some of the familiar foes.

 

[Saga]

i want King Tut and Egghead!

 

[Christopher]

^I'm not sure that DC or Warner Bros. has the rights to villains created for the '66 Batman sitcom (which was a production of Greenway Productions and 20th Century Fox -- that was before WB owned DC, even before it was called DC). Egghead did show up in an issue of the Batman: The Brave and the Bold comic book (the one based on the TV series of that name, not the pre-existing DC Universe title that the show was named after), so maybe DC has the comics rights, but another TV show getting the rights might be a different matter.

 

[Saga]

Egghead and King Tut appeared in a few episodes of Brave and the Bold as well. i think they were just background characters though.

 

[Christopher]

Egghead and King Tut appeared in a few episodes of Brave and the Bold as well. i think they were just background characters though.

There were cameos by a bunch of '66 series villains in "Mayhem of the Music Meister" (I think it was), but they weren't identified by name because of the legal issue. I think that a version of King Tut showed up in something, but it wasn't the same character who appeared in the '66 show; after all, King Tut is the nickname of a real historical figure, so it's not a name that can be copyrighted.

 

[Captain Craig]

King Tut, a version anyway, was introduced about 2-3 years ago in Batman Confidential #26 cover date April '09. This is the first official comics version of the character. He's a leaner version, more of a physical threat than the TV version.

 

[USS Kongo]

Having Eddhead in this would be most eggcellent!

(sorry, couldn't resist; would really love to see him and King Tut in the new show)

Sean

 

[Christopher]

Without Vincent Price playing him, I don't see much point to Egghead. (Well, of course an egg doesn't have a point, but... oh, you know what I mean!)

Anyway, if the point of the show is to give a showcase to obscure villains who haven't been seen in animation before, I figure they'd also prefer to avoid ones who've appeared in live-action TV.

 

[USS Kongo]

Eggs sort of have a point...but, yeah, moving on. Agreed, it wouldn't be the same without Price. But I'm open for a new interpetation.

Sean

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Yep, that's what they said -- that all the villains will be characters never before portrayed in animation, ranging from recently-created, modern villains like Pyg and Toad all the way back to obscure baddies who appeared once or twice in the Golden Age.

Although I'm still not convinced they'll maintain that practice throughout the entire series. I suspect that after a year or two, once they've given this show time to establish its own voice and identity, they may bring in some of the familiar foes.

It's a bold (brave and ?) move, it will be interesting to see if it pays off. Maybe unlike The Batman which took liberties with the mainstays people will be more open minded about this. I'm not so sure though as anything that isn't a continuation from BTAS isn't very warmly received (though a lot of people did end up warming up to Brave and the Bold).

 

[Dick Whitman]

I like lesser known villains. The classic villains are great. But are very repetitive not just in animation in the comics too.

This could expand the richness of the rogues gallery. Before Mr Freeze in BTAS there was The Riddler in the 60s tv series. I believe he had only appeared in 2 issues in his 18 year history before Frank Gorshin played the role in 1966.

A similar case with Bane in the new movie. While he is used often. He will become a household name now. Its a wise choice to do similar with even lesser known characters.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe unlike The Batman which took liberties with the mainstays people will be more open minded about this. I'm not so sure though as anything that isn't a continuation from BTAS isn't very warmly received (though a lot of people did end up warming up to Brave and the Bold).

B:TAS took plenty of liberties of its own -- as any adaptation will and should, since there's no point in doing an adaptation if you're not going to bring something new to it. It introduced new characters like Montoya and Harley, it blended characters and storylines ranging from the '70s to the '90s, it turned Gotham into an Art Deco/'40s-retro setting with modern technology, it totally changed Two-Face's origin and Catwoman's backstory, etc. It's just that B:TAS became so definitive in so many minds that we've forgotten all the ways in which it was revisionist.

So the problem with The Batman wasn't that it took liberties, it was that it had the misfortune of being the first new interpretation of Batman to follow the decade-long run of the DC Animated Universe, so it faced an uphill battle for acceptance. The fact that it was a less ambitious show made it hard for it to measure up to people's expectations.

I think with TB&TB, enough time had passed that audiences had gotten more used to the idea of having continuities other than the DCAU. And it helped that it was a much more creative and distinctive show than The Batman, which was reasonably good but not as inspired as the shows that bookended it.

This could expand the richness of the rogues gallery. Before Mr Freeze in BTAS there was The Riddler in the 60s tv series. I believe he had only appeared in 2 issues in his 18 year history before Frank Gorshin played the role in 1966.

Not quite. He first appeared in two 1948 issues, but then appeared again in 1965, when Julius Schwartz reintroduced the supervillains to the comic. In fact, the premiere 2-parter of the '66 series (and Gorshin's debut in the role) was a loose adaptation of that 1965 issue, "The Remarkable Ruse of the Riddler" by Gardner Fox.

 

[Captain Craig]

So the problem with The Batman wasn't that it took liberties, it was that it had the misfortune of being the first new interpretation of Batman to follow the decade-long run of the DC Animated Universe, so it faced an uphill battle for acceptance. The fact that it was a less ambitious show made it hard for it to measure up to people's expectations.

I just recently watched The Batman straight through for the first time. I really enjoyed it. I like how the show progressed season to season building Batman's world and developing the character growth. My only real gripe was that Two-Face was never used as a villain in the show.

I've not seen Brave and Bold yet. Waiting for full season sets to become available.

 

[Christopher]

The Batman was the weakest of the modern Batman animated shows to date (at least, the ones about Bruce Wayne as Batman -- I was never that crazy about Batman Beyond), but only because the others were so strong. Taken on its own merits, it's not bad, and has a lot of interesting elements. I do think it got stronger later in its run -- in particular, it did a Riddler origin episode that felt more like a classic B:TAS story than B:TAS's own Riddler origin did -- but at the same time, I disliked it when they abandoned the show's unique elements (Ellen Yin, Chief Rojas, the Batwave) and brought the show more into conformity with the classic approach. I mean, I would've been okay with them bringing in Commissioner Gordon and Batgirl and such, but they should've kept Yin, who was a cool character.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Batman Begins was animated?

 

[Admiral_Young]

It took both "The Batman" and especially "Brave and the Bold" to grow on me. I think I didn't get into "The Batman" until it's second or third season, but then I grew to love it. Same with "Brave and the Bold" and it's Morrison-like "everything is continuity" approach to the mythos. I'm sure that it will take a little adjustment period with "Beware the Batman" as well with me.

 

[Christopher]

Batman Begins was animated?

Fixed. I always get those two titles mixed up.

 

[USS Mariner]

The Batman was the weakest of the modern Batman animated shows to date (at least, the ones about Bruce Wayne as Batman -- I was never that crazy about Batman Beyond)

BLASPHEMY! BURN THE WITCH!

I'm kind of surprised you don't care for Batman Beyond. Hell, in many respects it shared much more in common with Silver Age Batman stories (fantastical and "wierd" enemies, Batman running around carrying an Eggbaby ), but with the added bonus of down-to-earth, albeit teenage/high-school personal drama, which even now resonates a lot with me, and especially growing up with it as I did with the original B:TAS and TNBA (which is actually the series that I consider the weakest aside from JLU, due to some very questionable character design changes, terrible recasting on some secondaries and villians, and more often than not making Batman a hardened dick-hole, even though this aspect made for a perfect setup for Beyond.)

It was also a fascinating character study on Terry, since it was the first time I had the opportunity to explore how/why a non-Wayne would take up the cape-and-cowl, which is essentially the entire point of Return of the Joker. In many ways, it legitimizes the point that Bat-mite makes in TB&TB; that the persona and character of Batman is just as "true" as a hardened costumed psycho, stern detective, or jovial man-child. Hell, the thesis to "A Bat Divided!" is that Batman is a great hero because he's more complex than any single genre trope. It's actually my favorite Batman episode of any show to date, primarily for how adeptly it gets that point across.

Oh, and "Epilogue" never happened. I don't care that the conceit that the storyline was supposed to be the next DTV movie after ROTJ; it's stupid, world-shrinking, and destroys any and all dramatic and narrative weight to the entire series. Ace's death scene was not worth three years of good television down the tube.

*ahem*

 

[Christopher]

I'm kind of surprised you don't care for Batman Beyond. Hell, in many respects it shared much more in common with Silver Age Batman stories (fantastical and "wierd" enemies, Batman running around carrying an Eggbaby ), but with the added bonus of down-to-earth, albeit teenage/high-school personal drama...

The high school stuff was what bored me the most. I think the first and third seasons are okay, and Return of the Joker was excellent, but aside from the addition of Max, the second season does nothing for me. In the first season, the emphasis was more on organized crime and corporate corruption, but the second season dropped that in favor of a more "teenage" focus, and it got ridiculous how many students and teachers at Hamilton Hill High turned out to be involved in criminal enterprises or got transformed into super-powered lunatics or whatever.

It was also a fascinating character study on Terry, since it was the first time I had the opportunity to explore how/why a non-Wayne would take up the cape-and-cowl, which is essentially the entire point of Return of the Joker.

Which would've been more fascinating if Terry hadn't just been Peter Parker in a Batsuit. The whole series is basically "What if Spider-Man were Batman -- in the future?!" Not that I actually realized the connection the first time I watched the series; I just didn't find Terry a particularly worthy successor to the cowl. He was just some punk kid who stumbled into it. I could never look at him and think "Batman."

And the new rogues' gallery never interested me. The villains in B:TAS actually had interesting personalities and motivations and hang-ups. The villains in BB were just powers and gimmicks, no personality, no reason for doing what they did. Like Shriek. Here's this sound engineer who invents a sonic weapon. Okay, fine. But when Powers tells him to put on a costume and personally assassinate Batman, he just goes ahead and does it. Why? Why is this engineer hiring himself out as a killer? What drives him? The writers gave no thought to that. They literally just had their artists draw a bunch of character designs for villains and wrote stories about those drawings. The villains were as superficial as you could get.

The only times I really got into the show was when it revisited characters and threads from B:TAS. I was actually invested in those characters and ideas, and they interested me far more than the new stuff. (I did like Max a lot, though. Terry should really have dumped that bland Dana for the much more fascinating Max.)

Also, I couldn't stand that constant headbanging heavy metal music. A huge letdown after the gorgeous orchestral work of the previous DCAU shows. Music is an important part of what gets me emotionally invested in a show, and if the music is offputting to me, it keeps me from caring as much about what's happening onscreen.

Oh, and "Epilogue" never happened. I don't care that the conceit that the storyline was supposed to be the next DTV movie after ROTJ; it's stupid, world-shrinking, and destroys any and all dramatic and narrative weight to the entire series.

I couldn't disagree more. It actually made me feel for the first time that Terry deserved the mantle of Batman. (Although at the time, I hadn't yet seen RotJ, which might've made me better disposed toward him.)

 

[Destructor]

Oh, and "Epilogue" never happened. I don't care that the conceit that the storyline was supposed to be the next DTV movie after ROTJ; it's stupid, world-shrinking, and destroys any and all dramatic and narrative weight to the entire series.

I couldn't disagree more. It actually made me feel for the first time that Terry deserved the mantle of Batman. (Although at the time, I hadn't yet seen RotJ, which might've made me better disposed toward him.)

+1. I love Epilogue.