If Adam West were in TDKR : batman

[–]Mandrake420 27 points28 points29 points 1 month ago

permalink

[–]vivvav[S] 25 points26 points27 points 1 month ago

[–]truedemocracy 8 points9 points10 points 1 month ago

[–]JenksAlamo 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago

[–]truedemocracy 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago

[–]vivvav[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

[–]XxJohnnyxX 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]tromadz -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 month ago

[–]vivvav[S] 14 points15 points16 points 1 month ago

[–]audiofreedom 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago

[+]blablabalbal comment score below threshold (7 children)

[–]Cradd710 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago

[–]CaptSpify_is_Awesome 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago

[–]KirbyW 15 points16 points17 points 1 month ago

I respect your opinion, but I have to take umbrage with how you present it. First, the show wasn't a mockery... it is a comedic take, but not by much. The show is often called "Camp"... camp means to play something so straight it cannot help but be taken humorously. Comics are outrageous people in outrageous situations, so they border on camp to begin with. A mockery is usually insulting, this show was not... it was colorful action for kids, and intelligent humor for adults. The show also jettisoned the character to fame and into the center ring of pop-culture... his book sales had been sagging for so many years that he was in danger of cancellation. We wouldn't have a LOT of Batman mythos without the program, not the least of which is Barbara Gordon... and the show never got as bizarre as the books... no Bat-Mite, Bat-Hound, Flying Bat-Cave, or Mogo the Bat-Ape!

Second, I have to object that you dislike the show for the reason of being a "comic-book loyalist". To say that would mean that you are loyal to the comic interpretation only, and if that's the case, then which one? pre-crisis? Pre-52? Neal Adams, Jim Aparo, Brian Bolland? As someone that has worked in comics for going on 20 years, I can attest that comics are nothing if not change, especially nowadays. Batman has had multiple takes on the character, so I would say you are more loyal to a particular interpretation then the character as a whole. Also, please do not take this as the standard Reddit "you are wrong" reply... Everyone is entitled to an opinion on a character that has had as much history as this one!

[–]vadergeek 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

The thing about being a comic book loyalist is that Batman's portrayal is far from consistent. In the beginning of his career, he was a frightening vigilante who killed. In the '70s, he first became the gritty martial artist we know today. The '80s shoved him into the blocky, monologuing Miller interpretation. The '90s featured the haggard Dark Knight trying to hold a city together in spite of Bane, No Man's Land, and all that. The 2000s featured a brilliant but detached and somewhat paranoid Batman, often on the brink of insanity. And the '60s Batman was goofy, and always had the right gadget, like the West interpretation.

Batman's mutability is a huge part of his character. There are countless in-story analyses of the idea, from Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader to the Bat-Mite episodes of Brave and the Bold.