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.

How do?

So for the purposes of mass market consumption, DC's takes on Batman have thus far only gone so dark. There's violence, sure, but the assorted thugs and goons are taken down in a couple of hits each. And due to the movie medium, plots are condensed into two, maybe two and half hours.

Which is all fine and dandy. Other than Dark Knight Rises and the Schumacher films, I'm a big fan of Bats on the big screen (well, and Batfleck. Not sure if it's him, or the films though. But I digress!)

But one thing that is always missing is the 'World's Greatest Detective' angle. Just doesn't seem to be the time for it in a movie. And the animated series (which are pretty excellent) can't do violence anywhere near the film.

So we've had a kind of schizophrenic representation of Batman. He's either bad-bottomed thug mincing machine on the big screen, or 'think with your brain, not your fists' first in the cartoons. As touched on above, due to limitations of the two main mediums.

Of course, we now have Daredevil on Netflix. A 13 episode treat of hyper-violence, character building and assorted other brilliance. Can you imagine if Batman was given that level of creative freedom and that length of time for a live action (or indeed animated) series? They'd have the opportunity to show proper proper punch ups, and plenty of screen time to show Batman doing his Detective work - not to mention they could take a relatively unknown villain and build them up.

Sure, we've got Gotham (which I really enjoy), but I want PG-13, 13 hour long Batman Being 'Ard And Clever (they shouldn't call the series that of course. That's a terrible title.)

What do you reckon?

I'd watch it.

Just don't do stupid gak like The Batman and radically alter classic villains into the cliches derived from those villains. Or Beware the Batman, where for whatever reason the makers of the show decided to avoid all classic Batman villains in favor of... whoever the feth these two jokers are;



Who decided anyone wanted to watch a Batman show where the most recurring villains are a mutant frog and a man in a pig mask... Oh and Anarky was there but he acted less like Anarky and more like a cliche character derived from Anarky so...

I'm with you.

Some of the Batman story arcs I enjoy the most have a lot of detective work involved where he slowly pieces together information. Sure, it ends in big fights with punches and violence.
Examples: Black Mirror, Hush, Court of Owls

But I fear DC might think Batman is to big for TV, so it will probably never happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd watch it.

Just don't do stupid gak like The Batman and radically alter classic villains into the cliches derived from those villains. Or Beware the Batman, where for whatever reason the makers of the show decided to avoid all classic Batman villains in favor of... whoever the feth these two jokers are;



Who decided anyone wanted to watch a Batman show where the most recurring villains are a mutant frog and a man in a pig mask... Oh and Anarky was there but he acted less like Anarky and more like a cliche character derived from Anarky so...

Professor Pyg has been a Batman villain for some time.

I'd love to see a less-iconic villain properly explored.

Gotham did a bang up job with Jervis Tetch for my money. Took him from a frankly ridiculous enemy to one genuinely creepy and unsettling.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm not at all up on my comics - I tend to consume via the teevee and movies. So I'm afraid I can't really suggest who might make a suitable villain!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Professor Pyg has been a Batman villain for some time.

I know. I looked him up to see if he was an original character or from the comics. That's kind of the problem I had. Why the toss out one of the best and most memorable rogue's gallerys in comics to feature this guy who you have to be very into comics to even know who he is?

I guess it gives them a certain creative freedom - they're not tied to previous performances and interpretations?

 LordofHats wrote:
Why the toss out one of the best and most memorable rogue's gallerys in comics to feature this guy who you have to be very into comics to even know who he is?

Because Pyg and his Dolls are extremely fething disturbing, and make for a great Batman villain.

Can't speak to what that cartoon did with him, but if you look at his brief appearance in Arkham Knight you see a bad guy who's very cool and super creepy.

There's also the Harley Quinn Factor.

Introduced as Joker's moll in The Animated Series. Grew well beyond her humble roots to become a firm fan favourite.

This could absolutely work. mid-length TV series are the way to go for compelling, developed storytelling these days and Batman and the surrounding mythos is perfectly suited to that. There's plenty of cues to take from Gotham (mainly embracing the utterly ridiculous aspects and turning them into something gripping and unsettling) and Daredevil (slow burn storyline, very character driven, no 'side quests' or pointless CW-esque drama to distract from the main event).

It's also the perfect arena to go more of a Detective Comics route, placing Batman in a city full of larger than life villains and fellow caped (or uncaped) crusaders rather than a vacuum where him and the Villain Du'Jour only major players... In a film, you could hardly have, say, Batwoman or Spoiler or Azrael drop in to help Batman out with an overlapping case before getting on with their own business, whereas for an episode of a TV show that would absolutely work. Hell, there's even potential for that just within the main cast. Give us a permanent Robin, or set Red Hood up as a major player like The Punisher in DD S2, going after the same goal but in a much more aggressive way that creates its own conflict.

To be honest, I'd be fine if it even avoided Batman himself for a significant part of it, before bringing it all together and having him show up. Have Tim Drake and Oracle work a murder case, Nightwing or Batwoman taking on an up-and-coming crime gang, Azrael dealing with some mystical stuff before it all comes together and Batman joins them for a final showdown with a Big Bad Guy behind it all.

I'd def enjoy watching a Batman series with the same style as the Burton one or the current film version.

Like them both.

I mostly enjoyed Daredevil, though it left me feeling somehow unsatisfied, a bit empty at the end. It looked great, had great character work but I don't know why its not a classic for me.

Watched a few Green Arrow and binned that, although quite enjoyed Legends of tomorrow - silly but fun.

A Batman like Agent Carter set back in the 40s would be good, still sad that they killed AC, best Marvel tv series, better than Agents and million times better than Inhumans.

 Mr Morden wrote:


A Batman like Agent Carter set back in the 40s would be good,

I do think there's a gap in the market for a proper retro comic book series. I wouldn't necessarily spring for Batman there (though I guess you could go a bit noir detective with it), but there's mileage for something like Fantastic Four set in the 60s or even the Justice Society in the 40s. Modern storytelling in a classic setting, it could be a great update to certain characters and concepts.

I think a 10-15 episode long-form TV show that managed to strike the right balance between Daredevil and Gotham would be fantastic, and probably the best format for the character. I wouldn't want to see "the bat family", at least at first - if it ever happened I'd want the whole first season to just be Batman solving some crimes(which would inevitably lead into/be part of some big overall conspiracy by whichever supervillain they pick to be the primary antagonist). No origin stories, no sidekicks or former sidekicks or imitators, just *the* Batman being Batman.

You don't even really *need* to add in the bat family thing to have enough players, make the three "main characters" be Alfred, Batman, and Bruce Wayne(since the latter two are, in practice, different people), throw in the main villain, Gordon, maybe a secondary antagonist(corporate bigwig, love interest-turned-rival, something more mundane but with the potential to tie in to the Batman side of the plot if that makes sense for the story) for the Bruce storyline.

Sadly as Hanskrampf says, WB would see it as "devaluing" their silver screen big-hitter; recall that the only reason we got Batman v Superman was the WB honchos insisting they stick Batman into the Man of Steel follow up rather than doing a direct sequel because they thought doing so would puff up the box office. Gotham is only allowed to exist because it's ostensibly the story of Gordon, not Batman himself.

I must say that I have always wanted Law & Order: Gotham City, a show about the GCPD (not whatever Gotham is) and the Gotham City District Attorney's Office (including newly minted ADA Harvey Dent!) and they do what Law & Order episodes do - episodic crime solving.

Batman would hardly ever show up (they might find the aftermath of one of his escapades now and again) and it would show the escalation from organised crime and mobs to organised super-criminals.

I'd watch that. Whilst I don't think I've watched Law & Order, I'm a sucker for CSI and NCIS type stuff.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I must say that I have always wanted Law & Order: Gotham City, a show about the GCPD (not whatever Gotham is) and the Gotham City District Attorney's Office (including newly minted ADA Harvey Dent!) and they do what Law & Order episodes do - episodic crime solving.

Batman would hardly ever show up (they might find the aftermath of one of his escapades now and again) and it would show the escalation from organised crime and mobs to organised super-criminals.

I'd watch it.

Ehhh, I'd hard pass on that tbh. "Like the 500 other police/court/CSI procedurals, but with occasional comic book references" isn't a pitch that gets me excited. Gotham's mental and sometimes doesn't quite work, but at least it's something a bit different.

Also, the world has quite enough terribad criminal justice-adjacent pseudoscience on TV yeah

It's been done in the comics, and worked.

I don't really read the comics so I can't speak to that, all I can say is I've almost no interest in yet another procedural show given how many already exist and have existed, not without a much more significant twist to the formula than "...but in Gotham".

A gritty Batman detective procedural? Sure, but frankly I don't care about Jim Gordon and the GCPD - they're the least interesting part of the Gotham show, and the idea of watching that show but drier and without all the whackiness and OTT villains does not appeal. But that's personal taste, obviously.

I actually think Gotham would have been better without all the whackiness and OTT villains XD

 LordofHats wrote:
I actually think Gotham would have been better without all the whackiness and OTT villains XD

Why, out of interest? It'd just be CSI/NCIS/SVU/etc but with occasional callbacks to the comics. I can only stomach one basic procedural show at any given time because they're basically all the same show with the names changed, changing the names to ones I might recognise from DC doesn't really make any difference for my money.

I like SVU and Law and Order (classic L&O that is, which I still watch reruns of whenever I can). Less CSI and NCIS, because CSI and NCIS insert mundane melo-drama, stupidly eccentric characters, and wonky science hogwash in lieu of actually having anyone solve anything. I've never had an issue with the format of "here's a crime, go solve it." *shrug*

Gotham kind of fell off the radar for me, mostly because it contains lots of mundane melo-drama and asinine conspiracy plots (one of my most hated trends in modern television).

My issue with Gotham is that Batman's villains tend to be dark reflections of part of his own personality.

Them existing without Batman being a thing never made any sense to me.

First season of Sherlock mixed with a dash of Hannibal is my ideal batman TV show. I don't know how one writes it or who watches it but me, but that's how I see the character.

In a perfect world long form shows would be the go to format for live action adaptions, with big team up events getting the movies. Still DC/WB will soon be in the situation where they will have to at least consider casting a TV Batman if there Titans show is a success.

No it would just veer into that infuriating trope where Bruce is 'clever' by assembling the answers out of stuff the veiwers had no prior exposure to like the latter seasons of the Buckybucks Cabbagepatch Sherlock

The Bat-Cave would become so silly it would make CSI's magic labs seem quaint

And you'd get a Scooby Team because bad TV

So.... Arrow?

 Azreal13 wrote:
So.... Arrow?

probaly, I gave up after Season 3 or 4 as even lubbly Thea couldn't balance out the sheer awfulness

Thankfully Season 5 of Arrow is miles better than the slow decline of Season 3 and the awfulness of Season 4. It's no Season 2, but it is good.

Of course WB are still morons in that department, making the producers kill off their Suicide Squad because the movie was coming out, and then letting them have Deathstroke back and then telling them they can't have him again when the Deathstroke movie suddenly comes on the table.

It's a wonder Flash hasn't been cancelled.

At least we got a really awesome two parter out of deathstroke returning that Edenfield works as a Deathstroke movie.

Though I'm not the biggest fan of the Daredevil show, I am getting more of a fan nowadays or the idea of "no filler episodes" - in other words, a TV show that has a story to tell and tells it.

The length of the "Legends of Tomorrow" seasons seem about perfect.

 Compel wrote:
At least we got a really awesome two parter out of deathstroke returning that Edenfield works as a Deathstroke movie.

Though I'm not the biggest fan of the Daredevil show, I am getting more of a fan nowadays or the idea of "no filler episodes" - in other words, a TV show that has a story to tell and tells it.

The length of the "Legends of Tomorrow" seasons seem about perfect.

Ehhh, I like those kinds of shows for telling some stories, but I still think most shows would be better adopting something around 20 episodes with a hybrid episodic/serial format. Dropping to 13 or even 10 episodes that are fully-serialised can make some plots feel rushed, and leave character development neglected - "filler episodes" can be a useful tool for helping the viewer grow more attached to the characters they choose to principally feature, and honestly a lot of the push for this "prestige" serialised format on the production side of things seems to be coming more from snobby actors, directors, producers etc who wish they were making big-screen movies instead.