Dual identity question ???

[Jaws63]

The Rddler was Edward Nigma
The Penguin was Ozwald Cobblepot
The Catwoman was Selina Kyle
The Joker was "whoever he was"

In the recent Batman(Dark knight) installment, Joker never really went by any other name other than "Joker"...for a producer(like Nolan) weighing heavy on being as realistic as possible, it's interesting he went with a very canon(no real backstory) Joker. In Batman66 it was common place(atleast for the infamous four) not to use their "other" identitiies. Going this route works in both cases but for totally different reasons. In the case of "DarkKnight" who Joker was and how he became to be was meant to be shrouded in mystery and intrigue...nothing wrong here, but in the case of Batman66 I think it was a matter of "we are suppose to already know who these characters are, we are not suppose to ask about proper names or backstory", this is perfectly exceptable considering the interpretation of the series was to think of it as a continuation of the comicbook.

The question I want to ask here is(based on the tone of the series) Which of the infamous four would have benefited(or not) by using their "other" identities interwoven in the story? Who would have worked? Hmmm.

[John Mack]

Interesting question. I believe the Joker was Jack Napier, at least in Tim Buton's farce, but I don't think in a 30 minute, all in fun 1960's TV series, the producers really got too worried about "depth" and back story. It is a modern day thing to be worried about such things, that's why there's so many "year one" and "reboots" of old characters.

I know that being ONLY a fan of series, and a child of the 1960's things like that never bothered me. I was never concerned about any storylines, or why the Batcave entrance was never found. It's all in the old sci-fi thing of "suspension of disbelief." Today, Ray Bradbury, Rod Serling and other "old school" sci-fi story tellers would shutter at the "back story" trend. Indeed, my own 13 year old son is always asking, what is the back story of this, and what is the back story of that. I tell him, "Don't worry about it. Just have fun, think for yourself and come up what YOU think the blanks should be filled in with."

In closing, let me add that many of the 60's writers for TV and even comic books were of the 30's, 40's and 50's radio drama era. Their time was limited on the air and they had to get right to the point. No time to weave a yarn because that would cut into advertising time. As time went forward and different people such as Neal Adams came into the Batman scene, things started to change.

I know I didn't answer your interesting question, but this "back story" trend sometimes gets to me. I miss the old days of "JUST GET ON WITH IT---POW! BAM! BIFF! SOCKO!"

An old coot,

John

[SprangFan]

I agree the whole "origin" thing is overdone and a major drag. I much preferred the days when heroes had an air of mystery to them, and we were thrown into their lives (and they ours) in mid-stream, leaving us to try and fill in the gaps (if we even wanted to). This was once SOP in Westerns, war films, swashbucklers, noir, etc. but now everyone needs a "motivation" for doing what they do.

Does anyone really think their appreciation of Han Solo is going to be "enhanced" by the proposed "Young Han" films? (It sure as heck didn't work for Darth Vader!!) Would Eastwood's "Man With No Name" have been more interesting if he had a name, and a flashback sequence to explain "why he is the way he is"? Origin stories are rarely if ever more interesting than leaving things mysterious, and Batman is a good example: he started off with no origin, and eventually got one that lasted all of two pages: boy is orphaned, boy trains himself in multiple disciplines, boy grows into man who is a criminal's worst nightmare. Period, full stop: that's all we get and it's all we need. EVERY attempt to fill in the blanks and "flesh out" those "missing years" (and they're planning ANOTHER one!) has been less interesting than anything we could have imagined ourselves, and certainly less interesting than just getting down to business and having an adventure.

Similarly, I like that the villains on the show just showed up, fully formed and already known criminals. So Catwoman has a thing for cats: does that need an explanation? Penguin likes umbrellas? So he's weird, big deal. Riddler is fixated on riddles; we get it, he's cracked. Why does any of this need a "back story"? Joker I admit raises more questions: is that his natural skin color or is he wearing face powder, and if the latter, why do they let him keep it on in prison in "The Joker's Wild"? (Only later do we learn that Warden Crichton lets the baddies wear their "crime suits" behind bars...in this one, Joker's in prison grays). But ultimately even he can be explained away as just having a "clown fixation." All of them, and even Batman, can be taken as simply people obsessed with one gimmick or other, and far from needing explanation, it's something we see in the real world every day. We all know the "cat lover," or the "Goth girl," or the "Model Train Fanatic." Do we ever stop to ask, "Why are you so into horses? Were you abandoned on a ranch and raised by a band of super-intelligent horses?"

But your question was whether it would have added anything to use the villain's secret ID's on the show. I'd say not really: once they take on their villainous personas, their ID's no longer matter; they stop being that other person and become the villain 24/7. The only time their IDs matter is for the first half of their origin stories. Now, if you were going to graft on something like the Burton films did, and have the Cobblepots be one of Gotham's richest families, then maybe you could work that into a Penguin story; maybe he inherits a fortune legitimately and tries to be admitted to high society. But aside from that, I can't think of any reason why Edward Nigma or Selina Kyle's "real identities" would be useful, at all.

[epaddon]

Personally, I never really bought the idea that Catwoman, as played by Julie Newmar, was Selina Kyle because I just can not envision a larger than life presence like Julie having an alter ego like the nondescript Selina Kyle of the comics. If there is a backstory to CW as interpreted by Julie (especially when we confine it to the first CW story where the part is written so much better than it was in S2), IMO it suggests something else entirely than the traditional CW backstory of the comics, one that would have to fit more Julie's own unique persona and temperament.

It's probably as good a time as any for me to acknowledge that as an occasional writer of Batman fanfic, I've actually begun writing my own version of the first CW story in the Batman66 universe in which CW's background (never discovered by Batman or anyone else) is that she is actually the character Julie played in two memorable episodes of "Route 66", free-spirited, motorcycle riding Vicki Russell, whose eccentric behavior always manages to land her into trouble. Before I'd seen these two episodes, I had for years struggled with the idea of what kind of alter ego would suit Julie's CW which to me remained the weakest aspect of the character, but once I saw her in this part (available on DVD) it was literally like a light going off and my thinking, "That's it!" And so this has become an on-again, off-again project of mine that I think also proves SprangFan's point about how using our imaginations on this is usually better than anything they could have given us on film. Because to me, CW works best as a woman of total mystery who should leave Batman and Robin wonder, "Who IS this woman?" only they never find out (and I will admit that I think it would have been better if we'd never seen Julie's CW without her mask when publicly confronting her foes; I never understood why they would give her a mask and then she wouldn't wear it in scenes where it would IMO be called for to preserve her greater aura of mystery)

[SprangFan]

Again, I think the villains are "on" 24/7. Yes, it's "Catwoman aka Selina Kyle" or "Riddler aka Edward Nigma," but unlike Batman, they don't have lives outside of their noms de guerre. They are either in prison or they're out making trouble; there's no "down time" to shop for groceries, pay taxes, go camping or pursue hobbies. The "real names" are fun to know for trivia's sake, but in essence these guys surrendered their civilian IDs as soon as they "found their calling." They traded up, and there's no going back.

Seriously, if you were born "Oswald Cobblepot," would YOU want to go back to that?

[Gernot]

IIRC, Joker DID have a bit of a back-story. In the key two-parter, it was revealed that he was a stage hypnotist who turned to crime. True, it's not MUCH of a back-story, but we WERE given that, at least.

[Riddlersgurl]

They're crooks; since when do they pay taxes on the stuff that they steal?

And as for buying groceries, that's what the minions are for!

As for the name Oswald Cobblepot, ew! Did his mother hate him or something?

[clavierankh]

Pengy's full name was Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot

[Riddlersgurl]

Oy vey! The poor kid! And we have a few doozies in my family.

[elmrgraham]

Mine too.

[dell]

Since the show was campy I felt it never intended to develop back stories unless they were fanciful. King Tut's back story worked because they used it when he got hit on the head and they de-Tutted him if I can coin that phrase.

It simply makes no sense to develop back stories on a show like this as they routinely ignored what happened in the previous episodes anyway.

[epaddon]

I can't agree with that completely, because we've always acknowledged that the first season is less "campy" than what followed. Mr. Freeze's back-story in his first appearance was anything but fanciful and even more serious in tone than the original comics story, since in that story which was consulted by Max Hodge and adapted in part, "Mr. Zero" did not suffer his accident as a result of something Batman did.

And the previous episodes were not always routinely ignored either in the early history of the show. Batman references Tut's previous scheme in his second appearance and of course the most obvious example was Penguin's recognition of Alfred.

[High C]

Great idea for a thread!

Personally, I never really bought the idea that Catwoman, as played by Julie Newmar, was Selina Kyle because I just can not envision a larger than life presence like Julie having an alter ego like the nondescript Selina Kyle of the comics. If there is a backstory to CW as interpreted by Julie (especially when we confine it to the first CW story where the part is written so much better than it was in S2), IMO it suggests something else entirely than the traditional CW backstory of the comics, one that would have to fit more Julie's own unique persona and temperament.

Great points. The producers obviously agreed with you in one respect, because they never did introduce the Selina Kyle name. In fact, except when she went 'undercover' in some disguise, Catwoman never was seen without her costume. She never dressed 'normally,' so to speak.

I've actually begun writing my own version of the first CW story in the Batman66 universe in which CW's background (never discovered by Batman or anyone else) is that she is actually the character Julie played in two memorable episodes of "Route 66", free-spirited, motorcycle riding Vicki Russell, whose eccentric behavior always manages to land her into trouble. Before I'd seen these two episodes, I had for years struggled with the idea of what kind of alter ego would suit Julie's CW which to me remained the weakest aspect of the character, but once I saw her in this part (available on DVD) it was literally like a light going off and my thinking, "That's it!" And so this has become an on-again, off-again project of mine that I think also proves SprangFan's point about how using our imaginations on this is usually better than anything they could have given us on film.

Interesting. That does seem to fit Julie better, and having seen the eps, I remember Vicki was disillusioned and searching for meaning because she was an heiress who had lost the rest of her family in a plane crash. In a strange way, she could probably have empathized with Batman/Bruce Wayne without knowing why, given the tragic loss of his parents.

Because to me, CW works best as a woman of total mystery who should leave Batman and Robin wonder, "Who IS this woman?" only they never find out (and I will admit that I think it would have been better if we'd never seen Julie's CW without her mask when publicly confronting her foes; I never understood why they would give her a mask and then she wouldn't wear it in scenes where it would IMO be called for to preserve her greater aura of mystery)

I agree with all of that. Keeping the mask on [and btw, Julie looked great in it, it worked so well with her facial features] would have preserved more of the premise of a cat as a creature of the night, making an even better yin and yang with the bat as another creature of the night.

As for the point of the OP, I think it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, no backstory or alter ego is a good thing, because it lends an air of mystery. But there are other times where a 'civilian' persona and a backstory flesh out the villainous character more, giving her/him a reason for being evil, or an excuse, or a yearning.

I'll use my favourite Bat-character as an example. In Stanley Ralph Ross' original 'teaser,' or outline of Wail of the Siren, she was much more mysterious. She was NOT a world-famous chanteuse. He did once say her real name was Lorelei Circe, but I think he erred in even once mentioning a 'real name' for her. Better in that case to simply make it clear she's The Siren, she can hypnotise men with her voice, and that's all we know.

Is she an immortal siren of antiquity? Is she a reincarnated siren of antiquity? Is she from another planet, another dimension? Is she from a lost civilization?
We don't know. The viewer can draw his/her own conclusion.

But with Siren as the character actually was written, portrayed and filmed, I think the Lorelei Circe persona is important because it makes Siren seem that much more evil. 'World-famous chanteuse Lorelei Circe' actually is a prime candidate for a 1966 Batman-style lecture, because she is beautiful and talented and could be worth millions legitimately, but instead turns to crime.

In fact, that part of her makes her seem even more evil. She could make a lot of money simply making records and touring, but says 'evil is what makes the world go round, and I want to be EVIL!'

And if we go back to a deleted scene from the final draft, after finishing a concert, she says she wants to shed Lorelei Circe's 'infernal cloak of respectability.' In other words, she can't be evil as LC and must be The Siren to do so. Which is why it's supposed to be a seminal moment when she comes back into the room dressed and coiffed as Siren, shedding Lorelei's street clothes and normal hairstyle! (That's the opening scene of the third act, right before she phones Bruce Wayne and puts him under her spell.)

It would have made more sense for her to be primping herself in the mirror as Siren if she had just undergone a 'transformation' from Lorelei Circe, and now was committing herself full-time to a life of crime, discarding her alter ego at the same time as she discarded her civilian clothes.

[Dr. Shimel]

In fact, except when she went 'undercover' in some disguise, Catwoman never was seen without her costume. She never dressed 'normally,' so to speak.

Well, she did dress as the phony dance instructor in the Chad & Jeremy/Voices episodes:

[High C]

But it was a disguise, as I said.

Sigh.