The Boy Who Loved Batman 157
theodp writes "As a young boy, Batman producer Michael Uslan — a self-described 'ultimate comic book geek' — was traumatized to see the Caped Crusader being 'murdered' in front of his very eyes by the camp 60's TV series. 'I was horrified,' Uslan told a Harper College audience last week. 'I was horrified because the whole world was laughing at Batman, and that just killed me.' At that point, the 13-year-old vowed to teach the world about the Batman he knew, about the crusader who lurked in the shadows, about a darker, grittier superhero. As told in his memoir The Boy Who Loved Batman, he made good on that vow: Uslan has served as the executive producer of all Batman major motion pictures, from 1989's Batman to the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises (trailer)."
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
All of them, huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because bat nipples, the hockey team from hell, "I'll get drive thru", turning Two Face into a cackling idiot side kick, the Riddler being nothing but a Jim Carry character in disguise, the Joker being Jack playing Jack (NOTHING to do with the joker character), or a host of other horrid things in those late 80's/early 90's movies really did a lot to help Batman's image.
Until Begins, NO ONE captured Batman on the big screen properly. The Animated series did as good of a job as possible at the time, but don't give this jackass credit, when was involved with projects that did just as much bad as good.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
batman begins?? you think that's the problem.
problem is, this guy is obviously just riding the job and cashing cheques whilst not doing his job and relying on directors to do the their and as well producers job.
why? BECAUSE BATMAN FOREVER AND BATMAN FUCKS BUTTBUDDY ROBIN EXISTS.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why people get all riled up over the Adam West series though, it's consistent with the comic books of the time. Most of the super hero comics were campy back then, that was just the style.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
That and they are very good. Is this "dark moody" Batman? No. This is "Heroic, if slightly awkward" Batman. The whole premise of a man having a ward was weird in the 60's - there was no other way to play it, if you wanted Batman in the 60's timeframe. So yes, they played it up and added humour. The show was thus enjoyed by adults and children on two very different levels. Personally I think this is clever.
The thing about Batman is that it does stretch this far, and can accommodate very different interpretations. I think it very unfair to say Adam West's portrayal of Batman "killed it", instead it kept Batman relevant through the 60's. If it weren't for the Adam West Batman would the franchise still exist?
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
When we look back now, we don't see humor, we see homosexual.
Sure, for the people who are preoccupied with homosexuality and predisposed to see it in everything.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, if people actually go back and read the Batman comics that were being written then, they're just as campy and ridiculous as the show. [cracked.com]
Still, the post-Burton, pre-Nolan Batman's were fucking shit-tacular. I'm actually more insulted by those movies now that I know that someone that purported to actually give a shit about the characters was involved in the production. Before I could chalk it up to Hollywood humping another property to death because it has no soul or sense of when to quit while ahead, but now I wonder if we weren't just being trolled or something.
"Fgt fgt, bite my buuuutt" -- Po about Tinky Winky (Score:5, Insightful)
people who are preoccupied with homosexuality and predisposed to see it in everything
The problem is how common such people are in modern American society. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the Teletubbies scandal with Po accused of calling Tinky Winky a "faggot faggot" [youtube.com] over purple fur, a triangular antenna, and a purse [wikipedia.org].
Re:All of them, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA
At that point, the 13-year-old vowed to teach the world about the Batman he knew, about the crusader who lurked in the shadows, about a darker, grittier superhero.
And then he goes out and becomes executive producer of Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and the shit-tastic Halley Berry classic Catwoman.
More like he wanted to show the world that he could cash in on the caped crusader as much as everyone else.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, the post-Burton, pre-Nolan Batman's were fucking shit-tacular.
You obviously haven't seen the Animated Series [imdb.com].
Re:All of them, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ultimately the case with any quality super hero. The hero is only as great as the villains and Batman has some of the greatest villains ever created. Same goes for James Bond, the Bond films that don't work are generally the ones where the villain sucked.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not as mad as I am about Batman Forever. That movie single-handedly destroyed all that is Batman in a far more damaging way than some campy 60s tv shows ever could -- because, unlike the tv show, the movie took itself seriously, and as a result, its savagery is all the less forgivable.
There are no words for how low and despicable is a high-visibility, mass-market Batman story which destroys the core of the Batman mystique -- the idea of the schizophrenic, with one perfectly-adjusted, uber-successful personality and another personality which is a costumed, criminal vigilante, essentially indistinguishable from his villainous foes, created by the traumatic experience of witnessing his parents' murder.
The movie commits the unforgivable act of destroying this perfect, successful hero image by having him come to terms with his parents' deaths, healing his riven psyche and merging the two halfs of his personality into a healthy, realized whole. And the catalyst for, the mechanism of, the reason for this romantic, girly, unforgivable healing event? The love of a woman! Ah, the ultimate betrayal of the Batman character to the mercenary sensibilities of the Hollywood marketing machine: the ultimate loner has a stereotypical Happy Ending due to True Love!
All responsible parties should be held accountable, by means of either large fines or public torture.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't just the style, it was the COMICS CODE. When the code was adopted, it forbid showing realistic means to commit crimes - so there goes the detective aspect of Detective comics (featuring none other than Batman). Batman now had to solve unrealistic murders and thefts only. The code forbid making criminals look attractive, so you had to make all the villians scarred, disfigured, or warped in some obvious ways. (Hence not just the Joker and Two-face, but eventually the DiVito Penguin with flipper-hands, horrible teeth, and obesity). The code said police and officials had to be shown as upright and honest, so no cops on the take plotlines. The code tried to stop all sorts of graphic horror and violence, so what was left as a way to deal with a bunch of insane, strange looking people out committing crimes? Mockery and Humor, or go where TV was not about to go - into serious introspection. As people eventually realized, one of the things the code said, in effect, was "Hey kids, trust beautiful people, but the disabled are all criminals!". I don't particularly get riled up over the Adam West series - it's just part of the same screwed up society that wouldn't show some The Prisoner episodes because they were seen as critical of the Viet Nam war. As you point out, TV was just following the comics of the time. But the comics of the time were seriously screwed up because of the code.
Re:"Fgt fgt, bite my buuuutt" -- Po about Tinky Wi (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, no; he really didn't. He did go back twelve years, but he didn't have to.
And you don't bother to mention anything more recent. You really can't.
Secondly, he wasn't proffering it as evidence of "the awfulness of American society". Thirdly, I'd like to point out the irony of your comment, considering it's in reply to a discussion of people who are predisposed to seeing things where they don't exist.
#2 is splitting hairs, #3 isn't irony, just your lack of a sense of humor to see that I'm teasing our friends across the pond(s).
Lastly, if you want to see how "laid back" and "tolerant" America is, count the number of states where gay marriage is legal, count the number of frothing, rabid protestors whenever issues of abortion or gay marriage are raised, count the number of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh.
A fair reckoning, of course, would be to look at the funding for AIDS research, but that would be inconvenient to your paranoia about a homophobic conspiracy.
Also inconvenient is that the group that has come out the most strongly against gay marriage have been blacks. They're not listening to Limbaugh (nor are you, since the guy is perfectly tolerant and laid back if you actually listen to his show) but they also don't feel any compulsion to do what whiny white liberals demand that they do. More importantly, when whiny white liberals threaten to not be their friend, they don't give a fuck. They've listened to the arguments on their merits and found them unconvincing.
That's the reason the gay rights movement has been a train wreck: they've never presented a coherent reason why they deserve broad social approval, only condemnation of people who don't grant it, as you just did. And then, repeatedly, when the issue came to a vote and it didn't go their way, they went to the courts to overturn it. That notion that they were going to force society to accept them through dicta from courts has basically been the animating factor behind the anti-gay rights movement.
I suspect that in 20 years gay marriage will happen, but it will be largely due to demographic shift, and in *spite* of the gay rights movement. But liberals will never accept responsibility for their actions or seriously question their judgment, it will just be on to the next Quest for Great Justice.
You may be lucky enough to live in one of the few amazing cities in America where tolerance and fair-mindedness seems to prevail but from everything I've seen, those are mere enclaves surrounded by a morass of closed-minded moralising nogoodniks.
Well, those cities are all run by liberals, so what do you expect? It is a lot more laid back and tolerant down South.