Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by JonZ, Feb 11, 2004.
I love this picture
I'm in for pretty much anything Batman, but not having Kevin Conroy makes me a bit uneasy.
And since it's year 3, it looks like we might be seeing a 10 year old Robin.
that was never part of his history.
why would they need to do that?
Because they can. It'll be kinda dull and boring if they feed us the same history throughout Batman's entire existance. Reworking history is working for Smallville, so as long as they don't do anything too drastic, they should be okay.
But who is writing and showrunning?
Well it's not Paul Dini. And Bruce Timm is busy doing his thing with Justice League and Teen Titans, so it looks like it's fresh faces.
Jeff Matsuda is doing the design work (Bruce Timm's old job), so the show is in good hands there; Matsuda had sone a lot of good comic work as well as Jackie Chan Adventures.
No Bruce Timm. No Kevin Conroy.
and they've changed the voices for the rest of the characters too, as well as how the villans become who they are from how it was done in Batman: TAS so I guess it's not following the continuity that has Bruce Timm set up.
I'm not as happy about this as I once was when I first started hearing thing's about this show a few weeks ago.
I may be speaking too soon, but I feel that the various Kevin Conroy series are pretty much the definitive animated Batman. I would rather they continue to make the direct to video feature-length movies than re-do the entire thing again...
Also, does it seem to anyone else that after Conroy's version of Batman set the tone with its stylized artwork, that the new one is trying some one up-manship by making the artwork even more drastically minimal?
I suppose I should reserve judgement...but it's hard...
"because" isnt really a reason. like when we would ask our parents "why?" and they would answer, "because i said so!"
and so far after about 80 years the batman story hasn't changed much, has never been dull or boring,and it still works.
the only time it was truly bad was in the late 60's when the comic was effected by the success of the tv show by dc trying to make it silly like the tv show.
and superman on smallville wasnt changed much at all at least for his origion and the way he grows into his powers.
the only major change is luthor being in smallville.
i would say taking bruce wayne out of his mansion and putting him "in the sewer" is very drastic, and hopefully not foreboding.
Actually, that's not even all that different, except if you're judging based on post-1986 stories. Luthor and Clark being former best friends in Smallville was an important part of the Superman comics mythology for quite a long time.
I guess Im a little concerned too.
Batman:TAS was special. It wasnt like the horrible X-Men(which I HATED!!!) and Spiderman cartoons of the 90s.
Then you haven't read any of Frank Miller's work. It wasn't until Frank Miller came along that Batman had a drastic change. The general story of his parents dying are always the same, but it's the little things that get changed to attract some old fans that are tired of the same story being told and want something new. And the formula that works is still being used so it can attarct the people that don't like change.
Remakes of movies are being done all the time. Some people groan when they hear about it because what's the point of making a shot-for-shot movie when you already know about it?
i have read the miller batman stories.
he didnt change the basic story of his parents murder, just embellished/tweaked it to make it more "believable".
i have 40 or so long boxes filled with comics. about 1/3 of those are batman and superman.
i read what you said after "because" and even quoted you in my reply.
i still think putting him underground is unneccasary and is a huge change in the story.
also i never said i woulndt watch.
i will reserve judgement until i actually see it.
i'm usually not one like the folks over in the movie section who say things like, "i can't beleive they are going to do that in the (insert movie title here) when it comes out. it's going to suck, and i wont watch it."
this is from many people well before a movie is even made.
A major part of the Batman mythos was that he spent most of his young-adulthood traveling the world, training. I thought he didn't actually become Batman until he was around 30?
eric i think he was probably closer to 35.
but even at 30, changing it to his mid 20's and putting him under the streets is a huge change.
i hope it works. i bet, that for alot of people it will.
it may even be very good.
TonyD, I never tried to argue that the idea of Bruce's parents died. I used Superman as an example because he's gone through probably the most superhero history changes throughout his existance and some of them big changes.
He travelled a lot in his youth and I think he arrived back in Gotham in his early twenties. His actual age varies and because he's gone through 3 differnt kids and Dick aged from a 10-year old boy to a little after a college grad while Bruce still remains someone in his 30s.
And TonyD, that is some comic collection. My comic store is pretty popular, but they don't even have that many comics.