I was just wondering this a few minutes ago. Do we have any comic book and tv series fans in here? Of course the ones that post are fans of the tv series, or we wouldn't be here. I'm just wondering if we have any comic book fans in here.

Another question if you are a comic book fan: Do you think the the 60s tv show spoiled the whole dark image of Batman? I've read stuff from other sites that hated the 60s show because they made it so campy. The comic book fans felt Bruce Wayne should've been dark and moody. The Bruce Wayne that we know from the show was anything but dark and moody.

I never followed the Batman comic books. I do have an answer to my second question though. If I were to become a big Batman comic book fan tomorrow, I would probably separate it into 2 categories. One Batman was dark and moody and the other wasn't. j/w

I'm not reallt a comic book guy, but I did read them on a semi-regular basis when i was in college.
Nowadays I will pick up some of the graphic novels or compilation books - I just read the Dark Victory book, and it was pretty good. The Dark Knight Returns and the recent sequal the Dark Knight Strikes Again are good too.

One of my favorite ones is Arkham Asylum, a truly dark and disturbing graphic novel- definatly not the Batman of the camp 60's series.

I think the 60's TV Batman "sidetracked" the Dark Knight's image, but the first movie brought things back to the image of Bats from the comic books.

First, a query: Why is "Batman" listed under "Drama/Dramedies/Soaps", when this show was obviously a satirical sitcom?:confused:

Now, to answer your question: Yes, it is true that many fans of The Batman's comic book exploits detest the Adam West version of the character...ask any fanboy and they will tell you that William Dozier's show was disrepectful to the original legend of the Dark Knight, and, indeed, the show was played for laughs.

However, what a lot of people don't realize is that: 1) Batman, as portrayed in the comics of the mid-sixties was indeed quite similar to the concurrent video version, i.e. goofy villians and goofier plots, and 2) that "Dark Knight" stuff so popular for the last 35 years or so just wouldn't have played very well on American television in 1966...and for the decade-and-a-half preceeding the premiere of the tv show Batman had long since shedded the 'creature of the night' persona to become the big Boy Scout that Dozier and co. adapted to the small screen.

Any casual perusal of the "Batman" comics produced during this period (1950-1965) bears this out...indeed, the stories of the late 50's feature Batman and Robin in outlandish and inappropriate science-fiction stories that betrayed their crime-story roots. So, for the mid-sixties the "Batman" show was pretty accurate.

Something else a lot of people don't consider about "Batman" is that the show is an excellent example of satire masquerading as a straight adventure show...that it parodied the conventions of comic books in a clever way (at least during the first season, anyway) and took the inherent silliness of the concept (come on, a grown man and a teenage boy running around in long johns fighting crime with nothing more than some gas pellets and a bat-shaped boomerang....YEEESH!!) and made it seem, in the context of the show, plausible.

Besides, the dark-and-gritty version that's currently popular is really getting on my nerves...:mad: :crazy: :p