Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd take a guess that it's because DC feel they can't 'afford' to let a Batman live action TV series fail, so they essentially bar it from the possibilities. Better to not have it, than have it be bad.

So the closest you get is like, Gotham...

Even back in the "Smallville" days, Green Arrow in it was supposed to be Batman, but they weren't allowed.

I can see that, but I look back at Batman and it's like the only real flop of a TV Series that can be attached to his name is Beware the Batman, which was basically only Batman in name and nothing else.

Every other Batman related TV property has been a hit, including "Not Batman the TV Show" (Arrow) which makes me question heavily on what basis they're nervous. Batman is like Star Wars. You could make a mediocre product and people would still watch it, at least for a season or two.

They have this weird notion that people will be confused by having a TV and a movie Batman.

It's absurd.

I've found that in general, a lot of large companies believe in "Risk Avoidance" strategies, rather than "Risk Management" strategies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They have this weird notion that people will be confused by having a TV and a movie Batman.

It's absurd.

Especially when I feel like the TV series' have done more to establish the character culturally than any films.

Personally, I think that Batman the Animated Series, Justice League (Animated series), and Batman Beyond were probably the best on screen properties to ever feature the character, and his original Adam West TV run is iconic. Even people who've never seen it know things about it because it's that legendary. That's not to say the movies are bad, lots of them are good and Batman was successful on the big screen before the modern comic hero movie genre really took off, but it seems to me like his TV shows have always been the more successful side of his property. Is that just me?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They have this weird notion that people will be confused by having a TV and a movie Batman.

It's absurd.

But we can have, like, five fething Jokers at once apparently.

Goddamnit DC.

It's not just that they think it's confusing to have a tv show and a movie going at the same time. I "know a guy" that works for WB and was helping to put together the DC universe app/streaming thing. Apparently it's just plain hostile there. The comics side with DC itself just wants nothing to do with the video/movie side. They think it takes away their readers and want to keep the medium "pure" or some gak. Meanwhile the movie/tv side basically don't care what the comics or their fans have to say. It's literally a studio at war with itself. If you try to get both sides into a room to plan something they just end up yelling at each other or actively trying to undermine each other. You have to get blind luck involved to have anyone with any respect for the characters to end up in charge of creating any of these shows and then hope to god their WB overlords don't force them to change things to suit the WB standards instead of respecting the comics source (hence why all the WB shows are just soap operas that happen to have super heroes in them).

 Lance845 wrote:
It's not just that they think it's confusing to have a tv show and a movie going at the same time. I "know a guy" that works for WB and was helping to put together the DC universe app/streaming thing. Apparently it's just plain hostile there. The comics side with DC itself just wants nothing to do with the video/movie side. They think it takes away their readers and want to keep the medium "pure" or some gak. Meanwhile the movie/tv side basically don't care what the comics or their fans have to say. It's literally a studio at war with itself. If you try to get both sides into a room to plan something they just end up yelling at each other or actively trying to undermine each other. You have to get blind luck involved to have anyone with any respect for the characters to end up in charge of creating any of these shows and then hope to god their WB overlords don't force them to change things to suit the WB standards instead of respecting the comics source (hence why all the WB shows are just soap operas that happen to have super heroes in them).

You know, I'm usually skeptical of anyone who claims to know a guy, but this would explain so much about everything wrong with the DCEU, and even Zack Snyder's several comments that just reeked of "hates comic books as a medium but makes comic book movies for money." So still skeptical because that's what I do, but this being true just would not shock me at all. It makes too much sense.

I respect your skepticism.

Wasn't throwing it out there to get anything from it. Just dropping some "I heard this" to explain a lot of what we get.

The FEW good DC movies we get are the ones WB has no faith in so they left the creators alone. Aquaman, Wonderwoman, Shazam. The very moment you put Superman or Batman anywhere near it WB steps in and feths it all up and the DC staff are happy to watch it burn.

"Can we have a live action Batman show?"

"No, we need to keep the medium pure. You may have an animated Batman vs the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, instead."

 Ouze wrote:
"Can we have a live action Batman show?"

"No, we need to keep the medium pure. You may have an animated Batman vs the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, instead."

Hey, that movie was great. Stupid, but great.

But yeah, like Titans, where you never saw Bruce Wayne/Batman’s face or heard him speak, despite him having important roles in a couple episodes.

 LordofHats wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They have this weird notion that people will be confused by having a TV and a movie Batman.

It's absurd.

Especially when I feel like the TV series' have done more to establish the character culturally than any films.

Personally, I think that Batman the Animated Series, Justice League (Animated series), and Batman Beyond were probably the best on screen properties to ever feature the character, and his original Adam West TV run is iconic. Even people who've never seen it know things about it because it's that legendary. That's not to say the movies are bad, lots of them are good and Batman was successful on the big screen before the modern comic hero movie genre really took off, but it seems to me like his TV shows have always been the more successful side of his property. Is that just me?

Nope. DCs animation side has all their other stuff beat by miles. It just isn't a contest, especially now that they aren't making them with the shackles of Saturday morning cartoons (though even the animated series did it better than the live stuff). Part of it simply is not having to make the concessions to reality and attempt to make the outfits and powers not look goofy with a normal camera. (Or have everything be dark all the time to hide the flaws)

especially now that they aren't making them with the shackles of Saturday morning cartoons

Batman TAS was a Saturday morning cartoon. You can hardly call that shackled.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I guess my biggest question is, why can't we have a modern day Batman TV series with all these characters in it for a Batman-verse? Why create a show that takes place in Gotham, and then make up some excuse why Batman isn't there? And, just as importantly, if Batman isn't in Gotham, what about Batman's villains? Do the Joker, Riddler, etc. all take the night off with Batman on vacation?

People will have expectations for a Batman series:

Tone
When batfleck want punisher with pointy ears there was a jarring disconnect. Tonally, Batman cannot scold people for not being woke enough or enjoy a vibrant youthful social life (beyond the fascade of billionaire Playboy) Other heroes can have much more satisfying friendships and do young people things (Terry McGuinness)

Storylines
When will they get to Robin 1, 2,3? Bane? B-listers have a bit more creative freedom in that respect.

Quality
The quality of writing and special effects matters to a Batman series. People will forgive Arrow having a limited range of trick arrows or low key action. Batman better break through a damn window at some stage (stained glass preferable) and it better look awesome. Cheesy oneliners must be kept to a minimum and Batman must convey intent and emotion through intelligent cinematography rather than Ham. Longwinded moralising and exposition would bring us back to 60's and Adam West.

Actor
Who plays Batman makes or breaks the character. Keaton played a really great intense Wayne but not a great Batman. Val Kilmer had the body but very little personality. People have less expectations for other characters. Di Maggios AquaMan (OUTRAGEOUS) was well received even though his demeanour differed from any previous depiction. People will accept a Strong Grrrrl Batwoman even if the Comics version wasn't like that, far more readily than they'd accept a Strong Grrrrl Wonder Woman (who should be above such things)

Ultimately, what the DC TV-verse has chosen to do is very clever. It allows the creative teams way more freedom than working with characters that exist in the zeitgeist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gael Knight wrote:

especially now that they aren't making them with the shackles of Saturday morning cartoons

Batman TAS was a Saturday morning cartoon. You can hardly call that shackled.

No blood, no explicit death, seedier gotham elements, drugs (beyond comic book venom). I love TAS- but it worked within the confines of its shackles and succeeded despite them. When Batman made joker bleed in ROTJ it was shocking- we had never seen that happen before, in the context of the animated series.

 Gael Knight wrote:

especially now that they aren't making them with the shackles of Saturday morning cartoons

Batman TAS was a Saturday morning cartoon. You can hardly call that shackled.

I can. As Angel said, it succeeded despite those shackles, but they're still evident. Compare the latest Young Justice to even its first two seasons. They went pretty hard on the brutality of superhero fights, and dead bodies. Sometimes to the point of over doing it, honestly, and not doing enough character work.

Huge fan of the comics, deeply skeptical of the show.

Brutality and violence don't make something great, it's a shortcut for most. Look at the state of Snyder's Batman.

 Gael Knight wrote:
Brutality and violence don't make something great, it's a shortcut for most. Look at the state of Snyder's Batman.

While I 100% agree, the Batwoman character established in the comics has a really interesting streak of brutality that sets her apart - and sometimes at odds - with the rest of the Bat-fam, and it makes for some of her most interesting plots and themes. She does not wrestle with her capacity and need for violence much at all, so much as she negotiates it, which seems like a small difference but makes for a very distinct character. She thinks of herself as a soldier, with rules of engagement - once it's within that framework, she is not squeamish about maiming or killing somebody.

The CW version doesn't seem to intend to explore that at all, and without it, the character is just another generic CW cape.

We'll see how it goes. Like all CW shows I will watch the first season on netflix or some gak. Then I will probably be disappointed and stop.

 Gael Knight wrote:
Brutality and violence don't make something great, it's a shortcut for most. Look at the state of Snyder's Batman.

no, it doesn't, which is why I never claimed that and in fact suggested they over did it. But they can and do explore a lot of themes that they couldn't in the Saturday morning era. Particularly consequences of actions, and (without spoiling anything) a lot of themes relevant to 2019, rather than pithy lessons from the 60s and 70s, and an odd obsession with the mafia, oh, and also adult relationships where people screw up, compromise and talk about things rather than rom com cliches or progression via kidnappings.

It isn't perfect- in particular, they've got a bad habit of sidelining interesting characters between seasons, and just never bothering to explain some things. (For example, Superboy and Miss Martian are living in some guy's house for....reasons. And he's still there, and never introduced to anyone, despite the parade of new faces). It's all a bit weird.

The Animated Series was superb.

It should, by all rights, have been a cheap cash-in on the Burton movies. It should have been a glorified toy commercial.

But it wasn't. It was excellent. It explored the world of Batman as I'd never seen it. Completely gone was the campy, fun nonsense of the live action TV series. And in it's place we got a darker, more lived-in Gotham.

The action was good. The stories were....variable? But when they were good, they were absolutely superb.

And let us not forget, it brought us Harley Quinn as a character!

Exactly. People making future Bat related media should be forced to watch it. I'd like to see a return of Calendar Girl in some media, pretty relevant tragic villain imo.

Voss wrote:
pithy lessons from the 60s and 70s.

What are you talking about? TAS themes are basically universal.

There's also an entire episode that might as well be titled "Consequences of your life choices the episode, guest staring Batman."

 Gael Knight wrote:
Exactly. People making future Bat related media should be forced to watch it. I'd like to see a return of Calendar Girl in some media, pretty relevant tragic villain imo.

Voss wrote:
pithy lessons from the 60s and 70s.

What are you talking about? TAS themes are basically universal.

How....? Batman is the story of a rich man with everything, plus a severe personality disorder and obsession. That's the story of essentially no one, let alone universal.


But I meant batman the animated series is the heavily retro one, right? And he often fights random 'mafia cliche ' goons

Voss wrote:
But I meant batman the animated series is the heavily retro one, right? And he often fights random 'mafia cliche ' goons

The series had a really Detective Noir visual style too it, but honestly I think your confusing the colors for the painting.

BTAS was tackling issues like drugs, gang violence, corruption, and consequence of choice in a way that was unheard of in a kid's cartoon at the time it released. Sure it was kid friendly a lot of the episodes took the form of moral aesops, but there's a lot of depth to it that completely belies its origin as kids cartoon. I'm not sure how most of that is "pithy lessons from the 60s and 70s." Loss, heartbreak, addiction, corruption, and doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons are kind of relevant themes regardless of the decade. That the series wrapped itself in a very 30s and 40s visual style has little to do with its substantive value (especially when visually BTAS was a landmark series in animation, arguably ushering in the next wave of animated television after the era of Transformers and TMNT). I can't think of any cartoon before BTAS that put real effort into humanizing its villains to the point that the hero's victory felt more like a tragic failure of society instead of a conquest of good over evil.

Meanwhile, I feel like Young Justice became mired in teenage melodrama (with lots of character development happening unseen in time skips for some reason...) to the detriment of anything meaningful. Young Justice as much as I like it it's mostly flash without substance from where I see it. It's popcorn entertainment and generally doesn't bother with any themes outside of great dialogue, fun action, and fun. BTAS on the other hand could be downright depressing in showing the falling apart of a man's life because of the choices he made, or the very bitter struggle between Batman and Robin as Bruce tries to convince Dick that becoming him isn't the way to be happy (It's Never Too Late might be one of my favorite episodes of "not quite kid's entertainment" ever).

So I guess maybe to each their own.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the mask of the phantasm the only DC movie to get an Oscar??

Suicide Squad has an Oscar.

 Gael Knight wrote:
Brutality and violence don't make something great, it's a shortcut for most. Look at the state of Snyder's Batman.

We never really got to see too much of Snyder's Batman beyond BvS thanks to incessant whining from fans, who likely were part of why "Metal" was such a big hit for DC's comics side of things.

We got to see "Snyder's Batman by way of Joss Whedon" in Justice League.

 Formosa wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the mask of the phantasm the only DC movie to get an Oscar??

It was nominated but never won. I think it was out the same year as the Lion King.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
Brutality and violence don't make something great, it's a shortcut for most. Look at the state of Snyder's Batman.

We never really got to see too much of Snyder's Batman beyond BvS thanks to incessant whining from fans, who likely were part of why "Metal" was such a big hit for DC's comics side of things.

We got to see "Snyder's Batman by way of Joss Whedon" in Justice League.

We have enough to know that Zack is an idiot and doesn't get it. He's an edgy teenager in a mans body.
NSFW

If you've been unaware of the fact that some of the damage Batman has done to henchmen and thugs is enough to be lethal over the years and years of "bUt bAtMaN dOeSn'T kiLL!!1!", that's on you.