Well, it just didn't feel very Batman to me.
It felt to me like a very solid and interesting interpretation of Batman. I mean, the way he handled that first fight scene -- knowing exactly what the hood was going to do next, intimidating him by telling him that he knew, popping a dislocated shoulder back in and barely letting it slow him down -- all classic Batman.
But, for a more serious Batman show thats trying to tell a continuing story, there are certain things I want from a show like that. BTB doesn't seem to have very many.
Operative word, "seem." You've seen one episode. Heck, you were damning it before you'd seen
any episodes. You keep assuming you can judge things
before you have the facts. It only works if you do it the other way around.
The "villains drawn from all over" just feel like the show being obscure for the sake of being different.
Again, I'm bewildered by the assumption that being different is not exactly the right thing to do. Why redo what's already been done?
This show isn't very close to B:TAS, and it never could be.
In specifics, of course not, nor should it try to be. Again, it wouldn't be worthwhile if it
weren't different and new. But in its maturity, sophistication, and tone, it feels more on a par with B:TAS than any subsequent Batman-solo series to date.
Honestly, the only thing probably keeping them from that is the TV rating and being on Cartoon network. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they would do that if they could.
I have no idea why you'd assume that.
Also, you're right about the other shows, but the point is BTB has given him a partner, a stupid one that makes seeing the real Batman sidekicks unlikely, which is just another reason for me to hate the choice. I'd rather have solo Batman over batman and Katana.
You're entitled not to watch the show if you don't want to, but I don't know why you'd think Katana is "stupid" just because she's not what you've seen before. If anything, trying new things is a mark of intelligence, not stupidity. You don't have to agree with other people's creative choices, but it's frankly very childish to insult their intelligence just because you would've made a different choice.
And I'd remind you that just a few weeks ago you were insisting that
The Batman was the stupidest Batman show you'd ever seen, but you opened your mind enough to consider evidence to the contrary and now you've reconsidered, at least somewhat.
Well, we have to agree to disagree with that. Since I think the idea of Alfred physically protecting Batman to be idiotic in general (it could work if Batman is injured, the batcave is under attack, and Alfred throws himself in front of an enemy, but thats for a show with a real, normal alfred, not Alfred with Hulk Hogan's body) I don't think it will lead to anything interesting.
But that's exactly what's interesting here -- the incongruity between Alfred's (and now Katana's) nominal, public role as Bruce Wayne's bodyguard and the underlying truth that nobody on the planet needs a bodyguard less -- yet practically nobody puts himself more constantly in danger. So that puts Alfred in a frustrating position, because he feels a duty to protect someone who's beyond his ability to protect. Good drama comes from the conflict between a character's goals and their circumstances. That's why I think that what Watson and Murakami are going for here is an examination of Alfred's struggle to define his role in Bruce's life -- paralleling their exploration of Bruce's own struggle with his dual identity.
I would call attention to the character of Diggle on
Arrow -- nominally Oliver Queen's bodyguard, but ending up being the Arrow's sidekick, and having to balance his duty to serve the Arrow's mission with his duty and friendship toward Oliver. It works there, and it can work here.
I'd hardly call this Alfred a "hulking bruiser". He was buff looking yes but nothing like that description.
Indeed. It's in keeping with the way many animated shows exaggerate the proportions of the male body, giving them extra-wide shoulders and rib cages.
Green Lantern: TAS took that to an extreme degree, giving Hal Jordan an enormous upper body, even though a Green Lantern doesn't exactly need a lot of physical strength, and even though a test pilot built like that would have a hard time getting into a cockpit. It's just caricature.
This show's big problem is that it seems like they just dislike normal batman stuff, so they'll do anything but normal Batman things.
That's nonsense. As I've told you, Glen Murakami has been working on DC/Warner Bros.' Batman productions for two decades now, since he was a storyboard artist on B:TAS. And the show's executive producer Sam Register has been the executive in charge of nearly every Batman-related WB production since
The Batman. So they have plenty of experience working with what you'd call "normal Batman things." It's absurd to think they'd dislike them.
But that's just it. Those things have been done, and done well. Why compete with those past successes by trying to do the same things over again? It's not that they dislike those things, it's that they're satisfied with what's been done with them in the past, and rather than just imitate them, they're trying to do something new that hopefully will be just as good.
Besides, what defines "normal" for you? What's been on TV or film before? A lot of the villains we'll be seeing have been major recurring foes in the comics over the course of years; they just haven't been picked up by any screen adaptation yet, and many of them are arguably overdue for an appearance. Pyg and Toad are among the most prominent, defining villains of Grant Morrison's lengthy tenure on Batman. Anyone who's been reading Batman comics over the past 5-6 years would consider them an entirely "normal" presence in a Batman story.
