Faithful To The Comic?

[Yellow Oval]

Many so-called "true" Batfans (such as Michael Uslan whose attitude I don't like) have argued how bad the 1966 show was to the Batman mythos. Really? Just how close was the show to the comics? Judge for yourself...

http://www.arkhamverse.com/news/2013/08 ... the-movie/

* I know Uslan has apparently come around, but, whatever....

[MAC]

personally I think Uslan has done almost as much to ruin Batman as DC Comics has. The myth of the grim and gritty Batman is very prevalent now despite the extraordinary lack of evidence in the early comics.

[Bob]

The character has to evolve and change with the times. Different writers will portray Batman in different ways. What is "true" for a fictional character with 70 years of storyline ?

[AndyFish]

Bob hit it right on the head. Absolutely, without the ability to have multiple interpretations a fictional character will grow stale and die.
In the 1930s Doc Savage, The Spider and The Shadow all sold magazines in the millions, but they died off due to this lack of change. Batman has survived BECAUSE of all these interpretations, and the best thing about him is you can like different versions.

The TV show was the most faithful adaption of any comic book, when it was done well. My favorite live action version of Batman is 1943s serial, but I enjoy seeing different takes. The 1949 serial is ridiculously bad but I still watch it, especially since the rifftrax guys gave it the mystery science 3000 treatment.

I have my version of what Batman should be, and it varies from many different sources. I love the TV show AND Frank Millers work on the character. Yet they are completely different. It's still Batman.

[MAC]

I won't bother pointing out literally hundreds of fictional characters who have not had to "change with the times" and yet remain popular as it's plain you've convinced yourself of the merits of your argument.

[High C]

personally I think Uslan has done almost as much to ruin Batman as DC Comics has. The myth of the grim and gritty Batman is very prevalent now despite the extraordinary lack of evidence in the early comics.

Bingo!

Yeah, last time I checked, I don't think Bob Kane and Bill Finger envisioned Selina Kyle as a prostitute, a la Frank Miller.

[elmrgraham]

I think that the 1966 Batman was,and still is,excellent.

[bj180sx]

Ok I was born in 1975. I grew up watching re-runs and loving the show. Even after all the newer Batman actors and Scripts I still enjoy 1966 Adam West Batman. Guess what?? My wife and 10 year old daughter do to. It is the most fun of any Batman in my opinion. Sex and violence do not have to dominate scripts to make a good story. That's just me tho.

[Gleeps, it's Batman]

It is the most fun of any Batman in my opinion. Sex and violence do not have to dominate scripts to make a good story. That's just me tho.

Not just you. I agree.

And thanks, Yellow Oval, for that link. That was extremely interesting.

[John Mack]

AWESOME!

John

[SprangFan]

I agree with Andy's larger point that the characters that endure are the ones that change with the times. However the down side of that is that in changing they inevitably leave some fans behind; I was once a huge fan of James Bond, Star Trek and Batman and now they're all pretty much reduced to "nostalgia properties" for me.

Also, just as a nitpick, what really killed the pulps was competition from comic books, which with their garish colors and simple storytelling lured all the kids away, and paperback novels, which cornered the good old "smut and violence" market to steal away what had been the pulps' adult readers. Once those new formats caught on, the pulps had nowhere to go but the dustbin of history. (They did hang on, sort of, until the 50s, though, and arguably much longer if you count Argosy and True Detective).

[SprangFan]

Oh, and back to the point of the thread:

I appreciate that some fans don't like the series, but the suggestion that it was an "unfair" or inaccurate portrayal of the comics of the era is way off base. If anything, the humor came from the fact that it was a slavishly accurate translation of those comics. Comics are ridiculous by nature, and that's a good thing. The only thing more ridiculous -- and not in a good way -- is taking them deadly seriously.

[Robin Holyisms]

Many so-called "true" Batfans (such as Michael Uslan whose attitude I don't like) have argued how bad the 1966 show was to the Batman mythos. Really? Just how close was the show to the comics? Judge for yourself...

http://www.arkhamverse.com/news/2013/08 ... the-movie/

* I know Uslan has apparently come around, but, whatever....

I wasn't actually ready to post this on these forums yet. Because I'm waiting to receive some information that i can update the first entry in the series with. But since this entry in the series has been posted, I guess that we could turn this thread into one that can we can use to discuss my 1966 Batman project.

As I said I'm still working on the 1st entry in the series, so it will be best if we only discuss
the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, entries in the series for now.

[AndyFish]

hey Mac
I'd love to hear the characters you're not mentioning because from Mickey Mouse to Sherlock Holmes I can't think of a single character that remains as popular as it did in its heyday that hasn't changed. I love The Spider but he's an example of one who can't make it today, because they're still trying to do the same shtick.

My point is love a character, but that doesn't mean you have to love every rendition of the character if it doesn't fit your take on it. I loved Kolchak The Night Stalker from the 70s, he lasted 20 episodes and that was it. There was at least one attempt to revive him but from the amount of info I saw and read about it I wasn't interested, but that's okay, I still have my 20 episodes.