"Batman: Caped Crusader (Amazon Prime)" Animated Series News & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Mandouga]

Maybe I'm overly optimistic or something, but I can't see a Batman cartoon have less than 26 episodes.

Batman: the Animated Series would like to have a word with you, especially with its 65 episode first season...

Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk[/i]

 

[the greenman]

Batman has a very rich lore. None of the series have been able to delve too deep into it. Brave & the Bold did a good job, for what it's worth.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

 

[CyberCubed]

If this series is set in 1939 I expect a Batman who doesn't care if criminals die.

 

[Yojimbo]

Batman: the Animated Series would like to have a word with you, especially with its 65 episode first season...

Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk[/i]

You may want to reread Royal's post. He's saying it should have at least 26 episodes. The Batman animated series with the least amount of episodes is Beware the Batman which had 26. The New Batman Adventures had only 27 (I think with the World's Finest counted as a 3 parter).

I would guess My Adventures with Superman was more far along in production to get a 2 season order whereas Caped Crusader is still in a more embryonic stage and the initial order hasn't been decided yet. The lack of a voice cast being included in the reveal seems to imply that. Harley Quinn from the start when it was announced was a 26 episode order but with YJ Outsiders, we didn't know at first and it was about 8 months before it was confirmed to be 26.

 

[ShadowStar]

If this series is set in 1939 I expect a Batman who doesn't care if criminals die.

This is entirely possible! While I can't see Batman being particularly venomous or spiteful, I can sort of see him not losing any sleep over the loss of some lives if those who die are horrible and/or are threats to the innocent. That is, if this is indeed a darker Batman.

 

[Yojimbo]

This is entirely possible! While I can't see Batman being particularly venomous or spiteful, I can sort of see him not losing any sleep over the loss of some lives if those who die are horrible and/or are threats to the innocent. That is, if this is indeed a darker Batman.

I don't see him getting any 'darker' than the DCAU or BTB versions... I don't recall him losing sleep over the deaths of the likes of Chuckie Sol, Buzz Bronski and Salvatore Valestra in MoTP. He did get a little cold in TNBA.

 

[Mandouga]

@ both Yojimbo and RoyalRubble:

Oops. My mistake.

 

[CyberCubed]

Nobody is saying Batman should go full Zack Snyder, he's not going to start shooting criminals with guns and branding them, but a Batman who is not that interested in saving every criminal and some wind up dying along the way.

 

[Frontier]

This is still airing on Cartoon Network, so I would temper my expectations about a bunch of criminals dying frequently .

 

[Otaku-sempai]

I'm assuming it's gotten an initial order of 26 episodes like most other WB cartoons. They may choose to air them in two blocks of 13 (like 'Harley Quinn'), but we'll just have to wait and see.

Michael Uslan (Producer of Batman film franchise) shared this recently. The moon, Batman pose and font all evoke B:TAS so much. I'm curious to see how much they lean into the legacy of the show when marketing starts in earnest.

Both images might (but the Caped Crusader one for certain) be homages to the cover of Detective Comics issue #31.

 

[Fone Bone]

This is still airing on Cartoon Network, so I would temper my expectations about a bunch of criminals dying frequently .

Or ever. Seriously. Some of the ideas in this thread are ridiculous.

 

[The Overlord]

Do people here think this show will be similar to BTAS? It's not a contiutation of BTAS, but Timm is the showrunner, it is BTAS is almost 30 years old and the last 3 previous Batman villains tried to be different from BTAS. For example, would Mr. Freeze still have the BTAS sympathetic backstory?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

My gut instinct is that the show will borrow from B:TAS in tone and spirit only (and possibly some visual nods as well). Everything else is open to a completely new interpretation. This will probably be simply pegged as Bruce Timm getting another stab at Batman. And even if Conroy does wind up voicing Bats (therefore strengthening it's DNA link to the old show), I'm still not expecting any DCAU nods.

However, I'm convinced no matter what Timm does with it, WB will find a way to promote it in conjunction with B:TAS' 30th anniversary next year.

 

[Spider-Man]

Or ever. Seriously. Some of the ideas in this thread are ridiculous.

This weird obsession with people wanting Batman to kill, missing the point of the character entirely, is equally baffling.

 

[RoyalRubble]

I think Mr. Freeze's sympathetic backstory could be included on the show. It might have originated in Batman TAS but since then it moved into most comics too, and elements from it were used in a couple of other cartoons or live-action projects since then, without it really being considered a nod to BTAS or the DCAU.

 

[Frontier]

I do wonder if they'll bring in any other staff from B:TAS, although I guess I'm just imagining Paul Dini writing a Joker and/or Harley episode and probably introducing Zatanna .

I don't think this show is going to go hard for synergy with the Reeves movie, but it's probably reasonable to assume Riddler, Catwoman, and Penguin might turn up...although Timm knows how hard Riddler is to write for, so maybe not him .

 

[the greenman]

I think Mr. Freeze's sympathetic backstory could be included on the show. It might have originated in Batman TAS but since then it moved into most comics too, and elements from it were used in a couple of other cartoons or live-action projects since then, without it really being considered a nod to BTAS or the DCAU.

I always wondered if Tim Burton just gave his blessing to certain things ln BTAS like that Freeze origin. He may not have thought that far ahead in the creative process, and let Timm, Burnett, and company have full reign on the animated series. As it looks opposite on this series with Matt Reeves on the production end of things. I personally think Reeves just wants to tell his trilogy story like Nolan, and say adios.

Perhaps, he wants to assure the animation team what they can delve into. Seeing how Emmerich just made some weird comments about how absolutely everything is connected.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

 

[ShadowStar]

This weird obsession with people wanting Batman to kill, missing the point of the character entirely, is equally baffling.

I don't get it either -- nor do I want to see any criminals die "frequently" (which is another sentiment that's been touched upon in this thread).

I'll go on record as saying that what I meant in my earlier post -- in case there was any confusion (and I'm not saying there was, but just in case...) -- is that if a criminal were to (somehow or other) die at the end of a battle, I could see a darker Batman not having much of a reaction to that. By a "darker Batman", I mean a less compassionate Batman than the one who was horrified by what happened to Harvey Dent at the end of "Two-Face Part 1" in BTAS. (I know, it isn't a good example as Harvey wasn't a criminal at that point, but I'm just trying to point out that that was a Batman who really cared about what happened to people in the line of fire. This Batman might not be as compassionate. I'm sure that others would/will be able to come up with examples of Batman behaving in a cruel manner in BTAS, but I'm just going from my own memory. )

 

[the greenman]

I don't get it either -- nor do I want to see any criminals die "frequently" (which is another sentiment that's been touched upon in this thread).

I'll go on record as saying that what I meant in my earlier post -- in case there was any confusion (and I'm not saying there was, but just in case...) -- is that if a criminal were to (somehow or other) die at the end of a battle, I could see a darker Batman not having much of a reaction to that. By a "darker Batman", I mean a less compassionate Batman than the one who was horrified by what happened to Harvey Dent at the end of "Two-Face Part 1" in BTAS. (I know, it isn't a good example as Harvey wasn't a criminal at that point, but I'm just trying to point out that that was a Batman who really cared about what happened to people in the line of fire. This Batman might not be as compassionate. I'm sure that others would/will be able to come up with examples of Batman behaving in a cruel manner in BTAS, but I'm just going from my own memory. )

This weird obsession with people wanting Batman to kill, missing the point of the character entirely, is equally baffling.

At risk violating Forum Rules, some young people are conditioned to deconstructing everything out there. That is as simple as I can put it.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

 

[Fone Bone]

This weird obsession with people wanting Batman to kill, missing the point of the character entirely, is equally baffling.

Fans tend to want what is worst for their fandom. "Yay! Bloodthirsty deaths! Batman as the Punisher!" It's why I believe creators need to almost always ignore their input. We are not good for them.

Mods, please merge this double-post. I have some very important things to say and nobody else has gone yet. Please indulge me for breaking the rules this once. What I need is the super Mod powers you guys seem to have that let you both update a post and have it read as new. I digress.

I've been sitting and thinking about me saying that fans are bad for their fandoms. And I think it's probably true. I think a vast majority of fans, if given the opportunity to be in charge of things, would absolutely destroy the best things about their fandom.

Batman never killing people is probably the best thing about the character. Superman has the same code and is admirable about it because he exercises restraint using the amazing powers he has. But Batman's code is more impressive to me because Batman's fighting style is to get in the trenches and most of the people he fights don't have superpowers to protect them.

Ostensibly the code exists because the writers don't want Batman to be a bad role model for kids. Frankly the rule is sort of unnecessary if you think about it. Cops often kill criminals in the line of duty if need be (and often if the need not be) and society just accepts that. The thing is rules HAVE to be different for vigilantes who operate outside the law. The tricky thing is that since Batman became a member of the Justice League, he isn't really operating outside the law anymore. So doesn't the code seem outdated?

Whether it is or it isn't, I like it in place because it makes Batman seem incredibly awesome, diligent, and yes, professional in every fight he wins (and even the few he loses). To be blunt it is not remotely realistic that nobody dies when Batman is fighting them. Because Batman doesn't have superpowers, and neither does the Joker, in a real-world scenario Batman is gonna fight the Joker just the once. The Joker is either gonna kill Batman or Batman is gonna accidentally kill the Joker. In combat scenarios, the level of force you use against a person cannot usually be controlled, depending on how sideways things go during the fight. If the Joker is feeling particularly vicious, Batman may need to respond in kind, and a real person would accidentally kill the Joker in that moment. How many murders on the news have we heard about where the killer is devastated because he never meant to hit the guy that hard? That never happens to Batman. Which is unusual.

The fact that Batman doesn't kill anyone ever isn't realistic. Stipulated. Do you know what it IS? Amazing. Batman having such a level of control during fights with mortal bad guys, despite the real level of risk involved for Batman every night makes Batman a total pro and makes every cop everywhere look like a real clown, especially because he does it all without guns. Batman having a level of control in the comics that no real person can have in our Universe doesn't have to be considered either watered-down OR unrealistic. We can just say it's unusual and that Batman is amazing.

Why don't we want Batman to be amazing? Why do some people in this thread want Batman to be as sloppy and lazy as the Punisher? Why do people think Batman will be a better franchise if Batman is worse at his job? Does that make ANY level of sense to you?

Fans if given the chance to be put in charge would destroy their favorite superhero franchises in short order. And it's the best things about them they'd come for first. Like the fact that Batman is such a crazy skilled fighter than he never accidentally kills someone, even though almost everyone he's trying to fight is trying to kill him.

"Boy, I sure wish Batman were less impressive and amazing." Does that strike anyone else as a good wish for the franchise? If not, maybe stop suggesting the new show take its cues from the era of Batman when it was markedly worse. Just a thought.