Is Warner Bros. Embarrassed by Superhero Tropes?

[carabas]

I would guess part of this backlash on costumes has to do with the backlash against Adam West.

Part of the reason the Adam West version looked so tacky; they stayed so close to the print costumes (including Robin's outfit with pixie shoes and shaved legs).

“There was a reason why that TV show was played for laughs and that is when you put actual human beings in those costumes and act out those stories, it looks stupid”, per Max Allan Collins.

Most film adaptations have since altered costumes-not the 1966 Adam West film. It stayed true.

As Count Karnstein, a Yuku poster noted:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum....ic/topic/14587
Like I said before, Batman 1966 is the single most accurate comic book movie ever made. If you look at all the changes other movies made to the characters’ origins, powers, costumes, etc, only the 1966 Batman comes close to a literal translation on screen. Every other movie is merely derivative.

When Count Karnstein made this view clear, he received this response:

“To be totally clear, the last truly great, truly faithful superhero movie was Batman (1966)”.


More from Count Karnstein:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum....ic/topic/14587

This is why Batman ’66 was the pinnacle of superhero movies. It didn’t worry about audiences being jaded.

It didn’t say “Oh god, one more long white beard and we’ve hit the Arbitrary Audience Limit and it’ll tank!”.

It didn’t say “Oh, we need ‘realistic’ (if you’re a BMX biker) costumes because people will break into peals of malicious, derogatory laughter if we put them in spandex!”

It didn’t say “Oh good gosh, we need to tone down those bright colors!”

It didn’t say “Oh, that’s just not a believable origin/power/story. We need to alter it so that jaded adults will ‘buy’ it.”

It didn’t say “Nope, no blond villains because the villain will overshadow the good guys, since blonds are always heroes!”

No. None of that stupid nonsense. It said “Let’s take Batman out of the comics and put him on the screen.”


Collins notes that "I don’t see how any intelligent writer can approach a story about people in long underwear and capes without either removing their brain or putting their tongue in their cheek to a degree……. [On [presumably] the Christopher Reeve Superman films] The Superman movies have all, as far as I’m concerned fallen to a degree into the Batman TV show approach-maybe not quite as broad…..And I think they did that because because there’s no other way you can play it. It just doesn’t work. I mean, look at that costume".

More from Max Allan Collins: It unashamedly, unapologetically put the real Batman on the big screen and said “This is Batman as he is in the comics. If you don’t like it, tough shit.”

Batman 1966 did not:

Change the characters’ names to “avoid alliteration”
Change the characters’ costumes to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ origins to be more “sophisticated”
Change the characters’ powers to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ natures in order to fit some dipshit director’s “vision”

So yeah, there can be no denying it. Batman 1966 was by far the most faithful and most literal comic book adaptation ever put on film.

It amazes me when people make that claim while the proof is undeniable and un-contestable. Batman the movie and the tv show was totally faithful to the comics of the day and to the comics as they were for a decade before and after. That’s historical fact that only a pathological denier could refuse to believe. Compare the dates on the comics with the tv show. It is beyond question that I am right on that. [The TV show adapted stories published in 1965, the year before.]

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...-revealed-355/

http://www.goodsearch.com/search/web...oots%22&page=1

Of course, fimmakers, for their self-esteem, feel ashamed about working on these projects that derive from children's properties. Max Allan Collins said in 1987 that these properties derive from juvenile and adolescent literature, accept, just do not try to do it as adult. Of course, when Collins said that, properties derived from more adult thriller literature still had more prominence. However, the more prominent film franchises derive from children's properties in recent years.

You know, I really can't tell if you're praising the Adam West Batman or condemning him.

But Batman 66 was far from accurate. It was actually far brighter, more comic-booky than the actual comics.

For all the stuff it didn't say, here's what it did say: "Ohmygosh, thet Two-Face fellow looks gruesome, we can't show that, can we? We'rea kid's show."

Batman 66 did:
Intentionally make fun of comics, turning all of comics into a camp joke in the eyes of the mainstream audience for a few generations, somehting we're only now starting to recover from.

Max Allan Collins did more than most in creating the comicbook ghetto, the meme that comics are just kids stuff and can't be anything more than that.

Max Allan Collins can get stuffed for all I care.

[StoneGold]

You know, I really can't tell if you're praising the Adam West Batman or condemning him.

But Batman 66 was far from accurate. It was actually far brighter, more comic-booky than the actual comics.

For all the stuff it didn't say, here's what it did say: "Ohmygosh, thet Two-Face fellow looks gruesome, we can't show that, can we? We'rea kid's show."

That doesn't work at all. Because you can go the other way with it -- where the hell was Bat-Mite? Or to put it another way, Neal Adams didn't start in on Batman until like 1968. And Two-Face wasn't a major character at all until Denny O'Neil made him one in the 70s. Before 1971, he had all of 6 comic appearances, with only one in the entire decade of the 60s, and it was more of a cameo.

This is Batman from 1963, a couple years before the show came out.



If Collins is wrong, it's that the show wasn't wacky fantastical enough. Also, the costume is wrong, because he got the yellow disk behind the bat BECAUSE of the TV show. Collins might not be 100% correct, but he's more right than you are.

[Enda8011]

Actually, the yellow disc started in 1964, two years prior to the show. The Adam West TV show simply followed the lead.

That said, full credit on Two-Face. He did not appear as often as he did in later years.

A cover that epitomizes what Max Allan Collins said, this wrong headedness:

http://www.comicvine.com/batman-a-lo...born/37-32096/

This cover appeared, on newsstands, as I recall, with a caption saying "Comics aren't for kids" or something. I find it strange that they chose this cover as the main exhibit, a boy with shaved legs and pixie shoes.

[Phil Clark]

What all of that ignores is the fact that the Chris Reeves Superman is far more accurate a representation of the Superman comics than the 1966 Batman ever was. Batman NEVER addressed the origins of Batman and Robin. They just were there and we accepted it.

Superman also didn't turn the concept into high camp comedy. It treated the whole thing as matter of factly as possible. This was Superman come to life. And it was incredible.

[StoneGold]

What all of that ignores is the fact that the Chris Reeves Superman is far more accurate a representation of the Superman comics than the 1966 Batman ever was. Batman NEVER addressed the origins of Batman and Robin. They just were there and we accepted it.

It did once, in the first episode. Bruce talks about how his parents' death pushed him to charity. But again, that's how the comics worked in the 60s.

Superman also didn't turn the concept into high camp comedy. It treated the whole thing as matter of factly as possible. This was Superman come to life. And it was incredible.

Yep, no camp in Superman.



And even then, this was the late 70s. Superman was a different character.

[StoneGold]

Actually, the yellow disc started in 1964, two years prior to the show. The Adam West TV show simply followed the lead.

That said, full credit on Two-Face. He did not appear as often as he did in later years.

A cover that epitomizes what Max Allan Collins said, this wrong headedness:

http://www.comicvine.com/batman-a-lo...born/37-32096/

This cover appeared, on newsstands, as I recall, with a caption saying "Comics aren't for kids" or something. I find it strange that they chose this cover as the main exhibit, a boy with shaved legs and pixie shoes.

You realize Collins created that character, right?

And if the TV show was that, it would have been telling the future. Batman wasn't like that in 1966. He was bright and colorful and silly and fighting aliens. In that regard, the TV show wasn't silly enough. It should have been sillier. Basically, don't blame Dozier for stuff that Weisenger did, that Schwartz hadn't "fixed" yet.

[Enda8011]

What all of that ignores is the fact that the Chris Reeves Superman is far more accurate a representation of the Superman comics than the 1966 Batman ever was. Batman NEVER addressed the origins of Batman and Robin. They just were there and we accepted it.

Superman also didn't turn the concept into high camp comedy. It treated the whole thing as matter of factly as possible. This was Superman come to life. And it was incredible.

Well, sorry, I have to scrub this assertion. West, in the first episode, did refer to the murder of his parents by "dastardly criminals". The Reeve Superman film has some tongue in cheek aspects such as Otis the bumbling underling. The Salkinds tried to channel the Richard Lester Three Musketeers and Alain Delon's Zorro ("Here’s to being free la la la la la la Zorro’s back! Here’s to flying high la la la la la la Zorro’s back!").

Changes in the Reeve films; the Phantom Zone did not resemble its comic book counterpart, what of his time as Superboy, why did Luthor not have that purple jumpsuit, what about Steve Lombard, Morgan Edge, why did the Fortress of Solitude look so odd, etc.

[Enda8011]

[QUOTE=StoneGold;15966164]You realize Collins created that character, right?

QUOTE]


The cover featured Tim Drake, not Jason Todd. Actually, Gerry Conway created Jason Todd; Collins just revised the origin.

[toddx77]

I just wonder if the whole superhero formula needs updating. The hardcore fan in me says that I like my characters colorful and even a bit garish. Another part of me says that, maybe, the whole genre needs to evolve.


1. With sites like Perez Hilton or TMZ around, there's no way that Superman or Batman could ever have a secret identity. I get why real world undercover cops have "secret identities". However, superheroes are far more exposed. One closeup pic of Superman online and the nerds at home would identify him as Clark Kent in a heartbeat. It's much harder to keep a secret in the digital age. It's not like the old days where Lois Lane would have to concoct a scheme to unmask Superman. Heck not. Dragging Superman's pic into Google images and "visually similar" would turn up pictures of Clark. Game over.

That is a good point. That would be rather interesting too if put into something like the Ultimate Universe or a DC earth 1, or even the normal DCnU or DC or Marvel movie if done right. Superman a few months ago did something similar with someone taking a picture of Superman from online and then saying it was someone else simply because they looked alike.

As for TV goes a would prefer to see more teen/adult like cartoons series like the direct to DVD/Blu ray movies DC does. The current superhero cartoons are good but are geared more toward children and I know that hurts them in a way. I want something like Superman/Batman Public enemies and Supergirl as a on going TV series. Also I would like for the story to follow the comics like anime does with manga. Back in the day I always thought it would have been cool if Marvel did their own type DCAU thing but with the Ultimate Universe and make the cartoons follow the comic books. As much as I still like that idea I get the feeling with the Ultimate Universe being in its third revamp and there already being a cartoon called Ultimate Spider-Man that probably won't happen or at least the way I would hope. Although I did hear a rumor that the reason Earths mightiest heroes is being cancelled is so Marvel can make a more mature cartoon of the Avengers to captures be more like the movie. That could be a great start if done right.

Also why the hate for the Cape? Am I the only one that liked that show?

[Vibranium]

The Cape was garbage....f'ng carnies

[kalorama]

That said, it also flows both ways. It has lower ratings on CW because CW has fewer outlets than CBS.

That may have been a significant issue in the early days of the WB but it's pretty much ceased to be one, certainly not since the WB/UPN merger that created the CW. CW shows routinely average anywhere from less than half to 1/3 of what shows on the other broacast nets get but still manage to get renewed. That can't be a result solely of fewer outlets because the difference in number of affiliates isn't that great.

And even with the greater affiliate gap in the early days, 8 million people still managed to watch the Smallville pilot, so clearly their programming is accessible to significantly larger numbers of people than what their shows regularly attract.

[StoneGold]

[QUOTE=Enda8011;15966211]

You realize Collins created that character, right?

QUOTE]


The cover featured Tim Drake, not Jason Todd. Actually, Gerry Conway created Jason Todd; Collins just revised the origin.

Oops on which robin it was, but the only thing Collins' version shared with the previous one was the name.

[Frank]

Here's the thing withthis article:
First, Marvel is a bad comparison because it's a Universe created in the 60s with guys that wanted to modernize super-heroes. He says Marvel is not ashamed of his super-hero tropes but Hulk is a big green monster, it's not a costume. Iron Man has a batle armor, Thor has his traditional Asgardian garbs, Black Widow has only wore black leather all her life, not very comic-booky. Hell only Hawkeye had a really outlandish costume and they got rid of it for the movie, hence there's a shame in traditional super-hero stuff there.

Seconly the writer gives the Cape has a an example, but the whole super-hero trope aspect, including the big villain just didn't work. So yea there's an advantage in making it more realistic. I think comic fans should realise that some stuff cannot be adapted as such from comics and that it's not disrespecting your favorite characters to make them look like they could work in a more modern World.

[Enda8011]

Here's the thing withthis article:
First, Marvel is a bad comparison because it's a Universe created in the 60s with guys that wanted to modernize super-heroes. He says Marvel is not ashamed of his super-hero tropes but Hulk is a big green monster, it's not a costume. Iron Man has a batle armor, Thor has his traditional Asgardian garbs, Black Widow has only wore black leather all her life, not very comic-booky.

http://stevedoescomics.blogspot.com/...ack-widow.html


Actually, they started rather later, in imittation of Emma Peel.

[Phil Clark]

Yep, no camp in Superman.

I didn't say there was NO camp in Superman. But the film as a whole isn't treated as high camp, just one particular character. It is called comic relief. And it was one of my least favorite aspects of the Reeves era Superman films. But not one person you talk to would classify Superman as a comedy, but nearly everyone would call the 1966 Batman a comedy. And as the series went on, it became campy. But when the first two were made, it was for the most part handled seriously. SOmething Batman didn't get until Burtons first film. And as with Superman, the longer the series went the more it drifted to comedy or self parody, until Nolan rebooted it.