Batman-Online.com

I remember seeing this video in shops in the nineties, but I don't think I ever watched it until now. It's a straightforward retrospective on the sixties TV show produced at the height of the 1989 Burton movie hype.

There have been three instances of Batmania.

B66
B89
TDK

B66 was it, even long after it finished airing. Very accessible to younger viewers and plenty for aware adults to enjoy as well. B66 was so well known it was seen as a ball and chain around the franchise, before it was cut off by Tim Burton's darker approach. But nonetheless, the '66 legacy is still felt in various media today. I'd love to see a live action film with the adventurous spirit the show had even if it wasn't as campy.

B89 by all accounts was Beatlemania for Batman. The logo everywhere with people starving hungry to fall in love with the character after a prolonged absence. Then the film actually delivered on the hype. The 90s period with Burton, Schumacher and the animated series is my favorite run in Batman history. Call it nostalgia, call it what you want, but that period can't be topped for me.

TDK wasn't as big as the other two, but it was still big, and the closest thing we've had since B89 mania. Ledger's death took the movie to another level which was attracted a healthy level of hype beforehand. The Joker card at the end of Begins was the start of it all, really. The viral marketing was fresh at the time and it felt like Batman was a big cultural player again.

To be honest I'm not sure when the next Batmania period will happen, or if it even will. These things are special and the stars need to align. But the more I think about it, a rest period can end up being a good thing to help create the right environment for both the talent and the audience.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 23 Jan  2025, 11:28B89 by all accounts was Beatlemania for Batman

I lived through that period. It's where my Batman fandom and comic book fandom both started. Trust me, 1989 was everything you heard about. I would argue it was bigger than 2008 because B89 was a HUGE pop cultural event. Truly massive.

Some of my earliest memories are of the 1989 Batmania. I'd argue the hype surrounding The Dark Knight in 2008 was less a case of Batmania than Jokermania. I saw a comment someone posted on another site regarding the box office failure of Joker 2 last year, saying that they hoped this marked the end of the Joker craze that Ledger's performance triggered in '08. Looking back on it now, there does seem to have been a prolonged fascination with the Joker ever since TDK came out. How many comics, movies, games and TV shows has Joker appeared in during that time? A lot.


Mark Millar once made an interesting point about the fuss surrounding The Dark Knight Returns in 1986. He said the reason that comic resonated so strongly was that it struck a chord with people who'd watched the Adam West show when they were kids twenty years earlier. Frank Miller mightn't like that theory, but there is undeniably a cultural connection between the West show and TDKR. They represent two extremes of the Batman franchise. One light, funny and family friendly, the other dark, gritty and serious. But had the 1966 Batmania never happened, I doubt The Dark Knight Returns would've made the same impact it did. Just like the 2008 Jokermania probably wouldn't have taken off if the 1989 Batmania hadn't happened.

Fans generally want franchises to mature at a rate commensurate with their own mental age. When we're kids, we're happy to have kid-friendly Star Wars or Batman of whatever the franchise might be. But as we get older, we want our heroes to become darker and more mature. Many complained about the juvenile tone of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, but Lucas knew what he was doing. A whole new generation of kids were captivated by those movies and fell in love with the Star Wars universe. Are today's kids falling in love with the nostalgia-obsessed Star Wars Disney's churning out? They don't seem to be. By insisting Batman be gritty and grounded, are Gen-X and Millennial fans denying the kids of today their own version of Batman?

Could Batmania happen again? Not any time soon. We've been oversaturated with Bat-media since The Dark Knight trilogy catapulted the IP back into the mainstream. In the past three years alone we've seen no fewer than three separate live action Batmen on the big screen, with a fourth likely to follow soon. There have also been an insane number of spinoff comics, movies and TV shows starring Batman's allies and foes. And throughout all this, there haven't been many truly fresh takes on the material. Since the Nolan-era, we've mostly been getting the same dark and gritty Batman over and over. If the '66 Batmania provided a cultural foundation for Miller's TDKR, then by insisting Batman remain dark and serious – and thereby preventing another '66-style Batmania from happening – could fans not also be preventing another TDKR from coming to fruition?

One of my favourite screen versions of Batman from the past twenty years is The Brave & the Bold. I loved that show, as well as the tie-in comics, videogame and Scooby-Doo movie connected with it. It was funny without being snarky. It referenced earlier Batman media without resorting to nostalgia bait. It had its own distinct identity and style, and while it adapted many familiar elements from the source material it also delved into some of the weirder and more obscure corners of comic book lore that other adaptations left unexplored. Adults like me could enjoy it, but it was also suitable for children. That's the direction I'd like to see the franchise head in now.


But before that, DC and WB need to desaturate the market. Ease off with all the spinoffs about Batman's allies and villains. Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics and maybe one animated TV show. Find a fresh take on the material and get back to basics. Let the new generation of kids discover their own version of Batman. Then, after some time has passed and the demand has increased, they could revive the movie series. Not as part of some overblown shared universe, but as a standalone cinematic and pop culture event for the 2030s. Maybe then we'll see a new Batmania comparable to 1966 or 1989.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 23 Jan  2025, 20:03Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics

In today's market, I would argue that there should only be Detective Comics coming out each month. Anything to do with Batman or his universe should be found there. The comic book market is so atrophied now that producing less product overall could gin up sales for the small amount of product that IS coming out.

I have similar recommendations for the rest of DC's line, frankly. One Superman title, one Green Lantern title, one Justice League title, etc.

But perhaps this isn't the thread for me to rant about all that.

The idea that Batman can only be done one way, and it's the dark way, is both narrow minded and false. History shows the character can be presented in a myriad of different ways and successfully. I do think there's a strong argument in saying the gritty interpretations don't create multitudes of more fans, but rather placate the existing base. Darkness works best when it's contrasted against light, and that more innocent foundation is the beginning of the journey that gives later content more meaning.

TBATB is sensational and I love that style of Batman. He's thoughtful, wise, calm under pressure and someone to admire. I'd love to see that put up on the big screen at some point, and whether we like it or not, the best chance will be the new DCU. I think at this point going grim-dark is playing it safe. A refuge that can become monotonous. It would take more courage to go in the other direction. I really think it would be a hit with the general public and open up a younger audience. Even if the movie is good, I really can't see The Batman Part II doing that.

A lot of fans have been calling for purely translated villains without realism obligations for a long time now. The argument that fantasy equals a poor product isn't even worth engaging with. A different style of Batman would be a shot in the arm that the Nolan era felt like at the time in comparison to 1997's Batman and Robin. The way you create mania is with something that appeals broadly, but is different that feels like a breath of fresh air.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 24 Jan  2025, 03:09

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 23 Jan  2025, 20:03Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics

In today's market, I would argue that there should only be Detective Comics coming out each month. Anything to do with Batman or his universe should be found there. The comic book market is so atrophied now that producing less product overall could gin up sales for the small amount of product that IS coming out.

I have similar recommendations for the rest of DC's line, frankly. One Superman title, one Green Lantern title, one Justice League title, etc.

But perhaps this isn't the thread for me to rant about all that.

I could live with one monthly title per hero, but in the case of Batman I might allow an extra title to compensate for cancelling all the spinoffs featuring his sidekicks. So you could have Batman and Robin appearing in Detective Comics, and then have a separate anthology comic featuring serialised stories starring Nightwing, Batgirl or even some of the villains. This would be similar to the Bronze Age Batman Family comic that ran from 1975-1978. I also wouldn't rule out publishing another comic set in a different timeline, such as Batman Beyond. But in general, there are far too many Bat-themed titles currently in print.

If it were up to me, I'd not only streamline the franchise but would also retire certain characters permanently. Starting with one whose initials are H. Q. I'm sick of her.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 25 Jan  2025, 00:03The idea that Batman can only be done one way, and it's the dark way, is both narrow minded and false. History shows the character can be presented in a myriad of different ways and successfully. I do think there's a strong argument in saying the gritty interpretations don't create multitudes of more fans, but rather placate the existing base. Darkness works best when it's contrasted against light, and that more innocent foundation is the beginning of the journey that gives later content more meaning.

TBATB is sensational and I love that style of Batman. He's thoughtful, wise, calm under pressure and someone to admire. I'd love to see that put up on the big screen at some point, and whether we like it or not, the best chance will be the new DCU. I think at this point going grim-dark is playing it safe. A refuge that can become monotonous. It would take more courage to go in the other direction. I really think it would be a hit with the general public and open up a younger audience. Even if the movie is good, I really can't see The Batman Part II doing that.

A lot of fans have been calling for purely translated villains without realism obligations for a long time now. The argument that fantasy equals a poor product isn't even worth engaging with. A different style of Batman would be a shot in the arm that the Nolan era felt like at the time in comparison to 1997's Batman and Robin. The way you create mania is with something that appeals broadly, but is different that feels like a breath of fresh air.

I've been thinking about the Schumacher Batman a lot lately, what with this being the thirtieth anniversary of Batman Forever, and in some ways, despite their missteps, I believe those movies were ahead of their time.

For one thing, I love how Schumacher embraced Batman and Robin as a team. He's the only modern Batman movie director to do that. Everyone else insists on having Batman work alone, which is fine up to a point. But with the exception of some of the Super Friends shows, Batman invariably appeared alongside Robin in all the pre-Burton screen adaptations. Nowadays we never get to see Batman and Robin fighting crime together in live action. Schumacher gave us that. Every other filmmaker seems trapped in the Burton/Nolan mentality of "Robin wouldn't fit in with the world we've created." The solution to this problem is to create a more accommodating world like Schumacher did.

It's crazy to think that as of 2025 Batman Forever remains the only complete live action depiction of Robin's origin story. The death of Dick's parents was depicted in Titans, but otherwise no one's bothered to revisit his origins. Batman's and Superman's have been portrayed multiple times in live action, but not Robin's. Which is a shame, because it's a great story.

I've also come to appreciate how underrated Schumacher's Gotham is. It's really not all that different from Burton's in terms of its towering gothic skyscrapers, ominous statues and art deco influences. Many of the locations in the Arkham games remind me of Schumacher's Gotham. I love the giant oversized advertisements on many of the rooftops, almost like something out of a Dick Sprang-era comic.


And of course Schumacher's Arkahm was superb.


Yes, the more I think about the future of Batman screen media the more I think filmmakers should be looking to Batman '66, the Schumacher Batman and B:TBATB for inspiration. And when it comes to the comics, they should generally stick to using 20th century material and ignore practically everything from the New 52 onwards.

The key to getting humour right in Batman stories is to use irony, not MCU-style snark. The characters in the story shouldn't be aware that they're funny, and neither should the kids watching it. But the adults will get it. You can still have all the stylised visuals, action, gadgets and detective plots that characterise a great Batman story, but the irony adds an extra layer of humour that liberates the storytellers from having to make it too realistic and serious. And we don't need any "Well that just happened" humour, where the characters acknowledge the absurdity of the situation. The absurdity should be self-evident. It doesn't need to be highlighted by the characters. They, like the kids in the audience, should take it seriously. But again, the adults will get it.

One of my favourite Batman adaptations of all time is The New Batman Adventures episode 'Legends of the Dark Knight'. Borrowing its framing device from Frank Robbins and Dick Giordano's 'The Batman Nobody Knows!' (Batman V1 #250, July 1973), it manages to accurately depict both the funny Dick Sprang-era Batman and the gritty Frank Miller TDKR version in a single episode. And it does a great job at portraying both. It also throws shade at Schumacher, but that's understandable given that it aired just one year after Batman & Robin torpedoed the film franchise. I love how that one episode emphasises the extreme tonal range in which Batman can function. No other superhero offers quite that same range, functioning equally well as a light-hearted fantastical comedy or a dark gritty drama.

Regarding The Batman II and The Brave and the Bold movie, the latter does seem more likely to appeal to a larger audience. However, I have my doubts about whether either of these films will be made. If Superman '25 is a success I'm sure there will be a new Batman movie, but I'm not sure Muschietti will be directing it. Not after the way The Flash turned out. I'm also unsure about the future of Reeves' universe. Will Gunn want another cinematic Batman competing with his version? Is Reeves' heart really in it anymore? If Reeves was dead set on making it, I think WB would let him. They alienated enough directors over the HBO Max controversy, including Nolan, and I suspect they'll want to keep Reeves happy. But if Reeves has lost interest, I can see the studio letting the project slide.

I stand by my prediction that the CBM trend is dying, but certain characters will continue appearing in movies regardless. Batman is one of them. Perhaps the best strategy for bringing about a new Batmania, for making Batman explode in popularity again, would be for the film franchise to detach itself from other DC cinematic ventures and go back to being a solo series like it was before the DCEU. Reeves' Batman offers that, but the grim Nolanesque tone doesn't seem to be resonating with a big enough audience, or a young enough audience, to bring about another Batmania.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. This thread seems like a good place for posting random musings about the franchise.

This is starting to become a very interesting discussion. What are the ingredients of a Batmania?

I would argue there have been three significant Batmanias in my lifetime. B89, BF and TDK. Granted, BF was more of a baby Batmania. But I sure noticed it and over the years, plenty of other members here have remarked upon it. So, it's not just me.

So, what are the ingredients of a Batmania? Based on what others have said plus my own thoughts, the factors might include:

- Novelty; Batman is not inescapably ubiquitous

- Innovation; showing wide audiences things they've never seen before in terms of the characters

- Isolation; this may not completely apply because TDK came out in a relatively crowded comic book environment

- Vision; this, again, may not completely apply since Nolan's "vision" was irl. On the other hand, that was something new for Batman at the time, so hmm

- Pop culture recognition: B89 had the Prince soundtrack, BF had the U2 and Seal songs and TDK had the mainstream raving about Ledger's performance

But is that accurate? And is there anything else?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 26 Jan  2025, 17:18I could live with one monthly title per hero, but in the case of Batman I might allow an extra title to compensate for cancelling all the spinoffs featuring his sidekicks. So you could have Batman and Robin appearing in Detective Comics, and then have a separate anthology comic featuring serialised stories starring Nightwing, Batgirl or even some of the villains. This would be similar to the Bronze Age Batman Family comic that ran from 1975-1978. I also wouldn't rule out publishing another comic set in a different timeline, such as Batman Beyond. But in general, there are far too many Bat-themed titles currently in print.

If it were up to me, I'd not only streamline the franchise but would also retire certain characters permanently. Starting with one whose initials are H. Q. I'm sick of her.

I remember a few years ago, there was a rumor going around that DC Comics was basically going to close shop, and license DC characters to Todd McFarlane to publish over at Image Comics. As sad as that would be, historically speaking, I can't say I was really opposed to the notion given the vapid talent pool over at DC, and blatant mismanagement that's been going on for years. Now would McFarlane fair any better? Who's to say? But I think it would get some buzz that, going forward, THIS is THE status quo for the major select DC Characters, and relying on Elseworlds to keep the publishing properties afloat is, effectively, being placed on the back burner.

I think that given Batman is, far and away, DC's best selling character, he like Superman would get, at least, 2 titles. Personally, the older I get, the more I think the main canon should be streamlined excessively. In order to make comics accessible to someone who knows little to nothing about them. In this case, I would actually go back to classic Batman and Robin. Ergo, it's Dick Grayson as Robin, and a lot of continuity would be erased. I love the lore as much as the next guy, but it's a sacrifice I believe I would be willing to make if A. the industry can increase access to the product without relying on the dying business model that is the LCS, and b. actually get some people, probably old school veterans at this stage, to get the ball rolling and set the standard for those to follow. Which basically means a DOGE like cleaning house of many "creatives" working at the big two today.

The industry, has become increasingly niche over the years, and asking readers to basically, 'do homework' to understand what the hell is going on, is just too much of a ask these days. Archie Comics is niche, but still incredibly accessible for any new reader. Can Marvel and DC honestly say the same without resorting to mentioning Elseworlds/Black Label and What If/ultimate titles? I don't know. Just feels the industry is going around in circles, rather than truly going for a long term remedy that, as a consequence, may run the very real risk of causing a ageing readership to spaz out.

Presenting Batman and Robin together as a crime fighting unit is absolutely crying out to be done after such a long time in the wilderness. Not in name only cameos like John Blake, but the absolute real deal. Mania is created when there's hunger, and you can't deny the dynamic duo back on the big screen in all their unabashed glory would be a big hook. I think Gunn knows that. No more excuses about why it can't or shouldn't be done, just do it.

I agree the Schumacher era would be a good place to look, but I'd be willing to go a tad lighter than that - in terms of the architecture and city ambience at least. I think the spirit of 1966 ebbing under the surface would awaken the world and help make such a film an event, juxtaposed to the business as usual that has set in. I've been critical of the new Superman film, but at least they've said "screw it" and put Krypto up there, doubled down on their decision to use the trunks and so forth. I'm willing to follow and support another Reeves film but I now feel a stronger urge for a change in direction.

It kind of feels like Batman will be treading water for a while before what should be happening finally gets to happen. The Reeves universe is still stuck in the Nolan era, and despite the more overt fantasy with Snyder, the 'go darker' vibe was still there too. Comic book movie fatigue is absolutely a thing, and I think Batman can survive. But tapping in to our inner child is where the magic is - presenting something that differs to our current existence. Begins was what people wanted in 2005, but I think that train has worn out its welcome. I think the ingredients are right for Batman and Robin to return in a 66/BF styled film, and honestly, it feels like Reeves is just a roadblock to that.

It's not about rejecting or preferring something lighter in comparison to B89 or TDK either. It's just time. Everything is of its time and every generation gets the Batman that it requires. History shows that innovation doesn't come if you stay fixed on one thing. I think colors' list is pretty accurate about what creates hype. Something obvious that seals the deal is the product matching the expectations of the audience. All the manias have done that, which is not easy and to be commended. Why is why they need to hire the right director and choose the right story. No reshoots - a clear vision and go for it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 00:23This is starting to become a very interesting discussion. What are the ingredients of a Batmania?

I would argue there have been three significant Batmanias in my lifetime. B89, BF and TDK. Granted, BF was more of a baby Batmania. But I sure noticed it and over the years, plenty of other members here have remarked upon it. So, it's not just me.

So, what are the ingredients of a Batmania? Based on what others have said plus my own thoughts, the factors might include:

- Novelty; Batman is not inescapably ubiquitous

- Innovation; showing wide audiences things they've never seen before in terms of the characters

- Isolation; this may not completely apply because TDK came out in a relatively crowded comic book environment

- Vision; this, again, may not completely apply since Nolan's "vision" was irl. On the other hand, that was something new for Batman at the time, so hmm

- Pop culture recognition: B89 had the Prince soundtrack, BF had the U2 and Seal songs and TDK had the mainstream raving about Ledger's performance

But is that accurate? And is there anything else?

That's a good list. One ingredient I'd add would be a growing nostalgia for an earlier iteration of Batman. For example, in the 1960s many adults felt nostalgic about the old radio and film serials they'd enjoyed as children. The overly dramatic narration and cliff-hanger endings of Dozier's Batman appealed to that nostalgia. In 1965 the first Batman film serial was rereleased in art house theatres and college campuses across America under the title 'An Evening With Batman and Robin'. Apparently it was a big hit with students and paved the way for sixties Batmania.


There's an interesting blog entry about this here: https://ordinary-times.com/2021/06/16/an-evening-with-batman-and-robin/  Here's a particularly relevant quote:

"And it was nostalgia entertainment, something we know full well today. Many theatergoers had seen the serials as children and just wanted to experience them again. These new forms of media were allowing viewers to pluck pop culture items out of the past and experience them with unprecedented immediacy. It was the beginning of an age where everything old could be new again, whenever you want and for whatever reason."

Skip ahead to 1989 Batmania and a similar nostalgia had fermented towards the Dozier Batman. I remember reruns of the sixties Batman still being incredibly popular in the summer Batman Forever came out (and yes, I remember there being a Batmania that year too), and many people were praising Schumacher's movie for intentionally veering closer to its tone ("Holy rusted metal Batman!"). By time The Dark Knight came out in 2008, a new wave of nostalgia was emerging for the sixties Batman. But people who'd watched the Burton/Schumacher movies and B:TAS as kids were now also growing up and feeling nostalgic towards those iterations.

Were a new wave of Batmania to hit now, it would need to be at least partly driven by nostalgia for an older version of Batman. One which had transcended the limitations of a niche market to achieve broader mainstream appeal. The obvious candidate for that would be Nolan's TDK trilogy. If a new lighter, funnier and more family-friendly Batman was to debut for TDK's 20th anniversary, and if it proved popular with a wider audience and affectionately parodied the serious tone of Nolan's films, then that might be our best bet for a new Batmania.

Merchandising is a major factor too. Batman toys would have to become popular with kids again. Everyone would need to be wearing Batman t-shirts and baseball caps. Music also factored into the previous Batmanias. From Nelson Riddle's iconic theme to Prince's 1989 album, Seal and U2 – music helped cement Batman's pop cultural dominance. So we'd need a new tie-in album to accompany the latest movie, or at least a really catchy new theme tune that would go viral online.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 02:35I remember a few years ago, there was a rumor going around that DC Comics was basically going to close shop, and license DC characters to Todd McFarlane to publish over at Image Comics. As sad as that would be, historically speaking, I can't say I was really opposed to the notion given the vapid talent pool over at DC, and blatant mismanagement that's been going on for years. Now would McFarlane fair any better? Who's to say? But I think it would get some buzz that, going forward, THIS is THE status quo for the major select DC Characters, and relying on Elseworlds to keep the publishing properties afloat is, effectively, being placed on the back burner.

I think that given Batman is, far and away, DC's best selling character, he like Superman would get, at least, 2 titles. Personally, the older I get, the more I think the main canon should be streamlined excessively. In order to make comics accessible to someone who knows little to nothing about them. In this case, I would actually go back to classic Batman and Robin. Ergo, it's Dick Grayson as Robin, and a lot of continuity would be erased. I love the lore as much as the next guy, but it's a sacrifice I believe I would be willing to make if A. the industry can increase access to the product without relying on the dying business model that is the LCS, and b. actually get some people, probably old school veterans at this stage, to get the ball rolling and set the standard for those to follow. Which basically means a DOGE like cleaning house of many "creatives" working at the big two today.

The industry, has become increasingly niche over the years, and asking readers to basically, 'do homework' to understand what the hell is going on, is just too much of a ask these days. Archie Comics is niche, but still incredibly accessible for any new reader. Can Marvel and DC honestly say the same without resorting to mentioning Elseworlds/Black Label and What If/ultimate titles? I don't know. Just feels the industry is going around in circles, rather than truly going for a long term remedy that, as a consequence, may run the very real risk of causing a ageing readership to spaz out.

I hadn't heard that rumour about McFarlane before. Unfortunately many of the problems afflicting DC are rampant throughout the industry. I doubt Image Comics would've handled the IP any better. Did DC's decline worsen when they moved their offices from New York to California in 2013? The decline was already underway by then, but things have only gotten worse in the years since. Then again, Marvel kept their publishing offices in New York and they're not doing any better. But I can't help thinking the ideological climate of California has contributed to DC's downfall, just as it has to so many film studios.

We've discussed the idea of a hard reboot of the DC universe before, and as time goes by it seems like an increasingly sensible suggestion. They need to apply the same ruthless streamlining process to their print and media output and start prioritising quality over quantity. This would of course entail cleaning house, and the problem there is that you not only need to get rid of the underperforming 'talent' but also the people who hired them in the first place. As long as the same management is in place, they're going to repeat the same mistakes. The best solution would be, as you say, to bring back some of the old guard – the proven talent – and let them right the ship. Then be a damn sight more judicious in selecting which younger comic creators to pass the torch to.

I also like the idea of returning the Batman stories to the era of Dick Grayson's Robin. Have a thirty-something Bruce Wayne working alongside a teenage Dick Grayson, with Alfred helping them from stately Wayne Manor, and do away with the rest of the Bat family. The Barbara Gordon Batgirl could show up eventually, but to begin with keep it simple. Take it back to the golden age of Batman and Robin. That would be a lot more accessible for newcomers.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 03:35Presenting Batman and Robin together as a crime fighting unit is absolutely crying out to be done after such a long time in the wilderness. Not in name only cameos like John Blake, but the absolute real deal. Mania is created when there's hunger, and you can't deny the dynamic duo back on the big screen in all their unabashed glory would be a big hook. I think Gunn knows that. No more excuses about why it can't or shouldn't be done, just do it.

I agree the Schumacher era would be a good place to look, but I'd be willing to go a tad lighter than that - in terms of the architecture and city ambience at least. I think the spirit of 1966 ebbing under the surface would awaken the world and help make such a film an event, juxtaposed to the business as usual that has set in. I've been critical of the new Superman film, but at least they've said "screw it" and put Krypto up there, doubled down on their decision to use the trunks and so forth. I'm willing to follow and support another Reeves film but I now feel a stronger urge for a change in direction.

It kind of feels like Batman will be treading water for a while before what should be happening finally gets to happen. The Reeves universe is still stuck in the Nolan era, and despite the more overt fantasy with Snyder, the 'go darker' vibe was still there too. Comic book movie fatigue is absolutely a thing, and I think Batman can survive. But tapping in to our inner child is where the magic is - presenting something that differs to our current existence. Begins was what people wanted in 2005, but I think that train has worn out its welcome. I think the ingredients are right for Batman and Robin to return in a 66/BF styled film, and honestly, it feels like Reeves is just a roadblock to that.

It's not about rejecting or preferring something lighter in comparison to B89 or TDK either. It's just time. Everything is of its time and every generation gets the Batman that it requires. History shows that innovation doesn't come if you stay fixed on one thing. I think colors' list is pretty accurate about what creates hype. Something obvious that seals the deal is the product matching the expectations of the audience. All the manias have done that, which is not easy and to be commended. Why is why they need to hire the right director and choose the right story. No reshoots - a clear vision and go for it.

Right. As with politics and pop culture in general, the pendulum has to swing the other way if it's to maintain momentum. Many would oppose a lighter Batman, but I'm completely in favour of it. We need a fresh new take to appeal to as wide an audience possible, and the time is ripe for a funnier more family-friendly Batman. There'd be a lot of opposition to it, but that's inevitable no matter what approach they take.

When franchises started catering only to the core fans, they run the risk becoming dependent on a niche aging fanbase. If the franchise is to survive in the long run, it needs to win over younger fans as well. That's not to say studios and publishers should ignore the core fans and only pander to the masses, as in the case of modern Star Trek. There's a balance to be struck. But kids deserve to enjoy the magic of Batman the way we did when we were children. Ultimately superhero stories are power fantasies. They're adventures that appeal to our imagination.

I also think a lot of adult fans would enjoy a lighter more innocent take on Batman. The last few years have been grim for everyone, what with a global pandemic and skyrocketing rates of depression and cost of living. People need escapist entertainment to cheer them up and take their minds off their worries for a few hours. The Caped Crusader is the perfect hero to do that.

Matt Reeves' sequel to The Batman is a tricky proposition. The first film had a positive response, but doesn't appear to be as beloved as some of the other Batman movies. It also didn't set the box office on fire the way Nolan's last two Batman films or Joker '19 did, and the announcement that the sequel won't be out until 2027 at the earliest has deflated what little hype there was. On the other hand, the response to The Penguin TV show has been overwhelmingly positive. So there's clearly interest in the Reevesverse. One solution Nerdrotic suggested is to scrap the second movie and instead make it into a TV series. Let Pattinson's Batman return on the small screen and continue as a TV franchise, similar to how Marvel's handling Daredevil. That would allow fans of the Reevesverse to get their fix while clearing the way for a different Batman to dominate the big screen. 

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 20:00So we'd need a new tie-in album to accompany the latest movie, or at least a really catchy new theme tune that would go viral online

I'm positive that Todd Phillips could've delivered that had he actually given half a sh*t about the JOKER sequel.

That specific ingredient was already baked into the cake with Lady Gaga's participation.

But, as we all know, the sequel was an abortion. Phillips subverted audience expectations... so, as a direct result, his sequel subverted box office expectations. Great job, dummy!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 21:32I'm positive that Todd Phillips could've delivered that had he actually given half a sh*t about the JOKER sequel.

That specific ingredient was already baked into the cake with Lady Gaga's participation.

But, as we all know, the sequel was an abortion. Phillips subverted audience expectations... so, as a direct result, his sequel subverted box office expectations. Great job, dummy!

Unless I've missed Phillips stating otherwise, and contrary to the click bait narrative, it was evident that the Joker sequel was going to be just as much of a risk in how it would play out, as it was with the first Joker movie. Where things were literally being filmed 100 different ways, and stuff brought up literally on the fly (Wasn't the solid white makeup Arthur has on when he kills Randall right in front of Gary Puddles an idea brought up as the film was being made?). I think the same was pretty much being done with Joker 2, as I vaguely remember some report that Phoenix was changing things with the script and such during the filming production. Indicating that the script Phillips initially wrote, the same one he took a photo of Phoenix reading and posted on Instagram, wasn't what wound up on the silver screen.

Probably not the best way to make a movie (lol), but sometimes it works out. Iron Man is guilty of this. So is Batman 1989 ("Why am I walking up all these stairs? Where am I going?"' asks Jack Nicholson. "We'll talk about it when you get to the top!" Burton responded.)

Where Joker 1 was a swing and hit. It's undeniable that Joker 2 was a swing and miss. Neither was risk adverse, and that's why I appreciate both as they are anything but standard fare when it comes to the over (CGI) saturated superhero market. I just have difficult time thinking it was purely a Rian Johnson troll job by Phillips and Phoenix, and if it was, Todd Phillips could've at least posted a social media photo prior to release, illustrating to everyone that all the Joker sequel/Harley theories SUCK!  ;D 

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 20:00I hadn't heard that rumour about McFarlane before. Unfortunately many of the problems afflicting DC are rampant throughout the industry. I doubt Image Comics would've handled the IP any better. Did DC's decline worsen when they moved their offices from New York to California in 2013? The decline was already underway by then, but things have only gotten worse in the years since. Then again, Marvel kept their publishing offices in New York and they're not doing any better. But I can't help thinking the ideological climate of California has contributed to DC's downfall, just as it has to so many film studios.

I think that is certainly a element as far as DC goes, but I also think that Jim Lee has literally no F's given as Chief Creative Officer of DC Comics. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Dan Didio, as he assuredly had his problems (apparently wanting to change direction almost immediately after DC Rebirth got started), but I'll give him the credit of being more of a leader than whatever Jim Leen has been doing (whom apparently is working on a sequel to "Hush" with Jeph Loeb ... again a band-aid and not a fix).

QuoteWe've discussed the idea of a hard reboot of the DC universe before, and as time goes by it seems like an increasingly sensible suggestion. They need to apply the same ruthless streamlining process to their print and media output and start prioritising quality over quantity. This would of course entail cleaning house, and the problem there is that you not only need to get rid of the underperforming 'talent' but also the people who hired them in the first place. As long as the same management is in place, they're going to repeat the same mistakes.

We're on the same page, Silver. A reboot is just another gimmick when you still have the same dolts behind the scenes that would just continue on with their unsanctioned buffoonery. A overhaul would have to be necessary and required. It's all or nothing, unless they just want Manga to continue eating their lunch in both interest and sales.

QuoteThe best solution would be, as you say, to bring back some of the old guard – the proven talent – and let them right the ship. Then be a damn sight more judicious in selecting which younger comic creators to pass the torch to.

True. As the years march on, the old school pro's are ageing just like everyone else, but whenever you watch a video with these people being interviewed, it's blatantly apparent that they still have a undeniable passion for these characters. To give these guys a good head start for a 3-5 year run, while setting up their successors, would be a pretty good starting point. As you say, less about quantity, and more about quality. When you have facsimile editions recognizably outselling a good portion of your current product, you have a business problem, and it's not just readers being stuck on nostalgia.

QuoteI also like the idea of returning the Batman stories to the era of Dick Grayson's Robin. Have a thirty-something Bruce Wayne working alongside a teenage Dick Grayson, with Alfred helping them from stately Wayne Manor, and do away with the rest of the Bat family. The Barbara Gordon Batgirl could show up eventually, but to begin with keep it simple. Take it back to the golden age of Batman and Robin. That would be a lot more accessible for newcomers.

That's what I'm thinking. It's less about a reboot, but more of a RESET. Bring back the more bronze age approach to storytelling (which would mean setting perimeters like stories being one-and-done, or 2-parters if it's necesssary, ect), and I would apply something of a laid back approach to continuity. Where a villain like Bane wouldn't have to be re-introduced (Want to read his intro for this new status quo? It's all right there in Vengeance of Bane by Dixon and Nolan), and the undertaking to storytelling would be akin to the bronze age/BTAS form. Straightforward, easy to follow, and almost 'comfort food' if you will. 

I'm not sure who would be the most ideal to head a duology of Batman titles under this premise, but I think Dan Jurgens for Superman books would be a no brainer for such a implementation....

Colors is right about BF having real hype about it. I was, what, six years old at the time? I have to say it was a great period to be a fan, and if others could experience that level of excitement they're creating a lifetime of memories.

Apart from U2 and Seal (do not underestimate the influence of these songs at all), expanding into a bigger blockbuster type film after the more claustrophobic character study of Returns was probably a reason for the excitement. Being toyetic isn't just good for merchandising either, it's good for entertainment. The B66 Movie featured the Batmobile, Batcycle, Batcopter and Batboat. It showed how fun and cool it would be to be Batman, rather than just the trauma. Add in a fully decked out cave that isn't bare bones.

I'd rather Dick, but if it has Damian I guess that is generally familiar enough but different from what has been presented in the past. Bruce being a mentor and father figure is what I want to see again, period. As for the costume, go for the blue and gray. Screw it.

As for the comics, I definitely agree there are too many out there. If people aren't buying them as they have been it doesn't seem wise to have that many titles for sale at one time. They really need to choose better plot lines first and foremost because nothing in recent times appeals to me, such as Alfred's death. The Court of Owls saga was great but that's a long time ago now. I don't see where another arc of that quality is coming from.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 28 Jan  2025, 02:25We're on the same page, Silver. A reboot is just another gimmick when you still have the same dolts behind the scenes that would just continue on with their unsanctioned buffoonery

This is the main issue. The only thing a reboot could fix is continuity. And while DC's continuity is questionable at best, that's ultimately not what's harming the company (or the industry at large).

If you want to fix the industry (if such a thing is even possible anymore), then it has to begin with rooting out the activists and extremists. After that, you can keep the existing continuity or reboot or whatever.

To tangent, certain DC Comics properties have already been rebooted into unsustainability. Chief among them are probably Superman as well as the Legion Of Super-Heroes if you ask me. I don't think yet another reboot would do either property any favors.

For as good as the Post-Crisis Superman might be, I'm truly starting to believe that Crisis On Infinite Earths, as a corrective measure for DC continuity, wasn't a good idea. Same thing with Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, Flashpoint and every other "continuity fix" DC has ever attempted.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Jan  2025, 21:32That specific ingredient was already baked into the cake with Lady Gaga's participation.

This touches on another important ingredient for Batmania – star power. It's no secret that the modern movie star system doesn't work anymore. For the past 15-20 years, the box office appeal of traditional stars has failed to draw audiences the way they used to. Instead its brand recognition and IP that sells tickets these days. But weren't stars an important part of past Batmanias? A big selling point for the sixties TV show was all the famous faces who guest starred as villains. Batman '89 had Nicholson's star power behind it, while Forever's publicity campaign was propelled by Carrey's stardom. And we all know the role Ledger played in The Dark Knight's success. If movie stars aren't the big draw they once were, then that could be another obstacle preventing a new Batmania.

On paper, bringing in a pop star looks like a good idea for attracting viewers. Someone like Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga can attract huge crowds at their concerts, but evidently their popularity doesn't guarantee box office success when it comes to films. Not if Joker 2 is anything to go by. So how can the star factor be recreated in modern cinema? If movie stars can't sell tickets, and neither can pop stars, then who can?

Directors. Or to be more precise, a very select number of directors. People like Chris Nolan and James Cameron. Nowadays their involvement with a movie is a much better predictor of box office success than any actor or pop star. Unfortunately the current business model favoured by big studios, prioritising shared universes and big franchises using a one-size-fits-all approach to style, is not exactly accommodating towards promising auteurs. But if WB could find the next Nolan, a director whose unique and contemporary vision captivates cinemagoers the way Burton's did in 1989, then that might help Batman win favour with a wider and younger audience.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 28 Jan  2025, 02:25That's what I'm thinking. It's less about a reboot, but more of a RESET. Bring back the more bronze age approach to storytelling (which would mean setting perimeters like stories being one-and-done, or 2-parters if it's necesssary, ect), and I would apply something of a laid back approach to continuity. Where a villain like Bane wouldn't have to be re-introduced (Want to read his intro for this new status quo? It's all right there in Vengeance of Bane by Dixon and Nolan), and the undertaking to storytelling would be akin to the bronze age/BTAS form. Straightforward, easy to follow, and almost 'comfort food' if you will. 

As someone who generally prefers old comics over modern, I'd definitely favour standalone or two-part stories over longer storylines. I get why they do multipart stories from a marketing perspective. They can more easily package them into trade paperbacks and release them as 'graphic novels'. But a series of good standalone stories linked by a subtle arc can be just as satisfying to read in TPB form. For example, Strange Apparitions/Dark Detective. Most issues in that run work as standalone stories, but there are also plotlines that unite them into a broader narrative (the Hugo Strange saga, Bruce's relationship with Silver, etc). The Batman '66 comics also comprised standalone stories that were fun to read in a collected format.

Again, this might just be me being an old git who prefers older comics, but if we're talking accessibility then making each individual issue stand on its own merits would offer the perfect remedy to crossover fatigue. I like the idea of a kid being able to pick up a random issue of Batman or Superman and make that comic his entry point into the series. I want that kid to enjoy the one issue he owns so much that he decides to spend his pocket money buying the next issue, and the one after, until he builds a collection that constitutes his Batman or his Superman, without regard for the overwhelming volume of comics and lore that came before.

I've been reading quite a few Silver and Bronze Age Superman comics lately, and while I love the Pre-Crisis version I've got to admit that John Byrne's re-launch was a great way of giving the character a clean slate and creating an entry point for new readers. I've never considered 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' a canonical conclusion to the Earth-One Superman's story, but it does work as a possible final story that draws a line of demarcation before the restart. In retrospect, I wish they'd done that for every major DC character.

I suppose The Dark Knight Returns could be viewed as the Batman equivalent, as Bruce's age in that story roughly corresponds with the Silver Age/Adam West Batman. I don't think TDK is the canonical conclusion to the Silver Age Batman's adventures, but it works as a possible final story. Crisis on Infinite Earths proved to be the final story for the Barry Allen Flash, at least until they resurrected him years later.

Imagine if DC published a line of stories like that now. Each one offering a possible 'final story' for the current versions of DC's greatest heroes, each written and drawn by top industry talent, and each comprising no more than two or three issues. Alan Moore managed to tell an epic finale in just two issues with 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' Today's top comic writers should be able to do the same. They could make it clear that this is the end of the current DCU before everything begins anew with a clean slate. I've fallen behind with DC in recent years, but a bold move like this might just recapture my interest.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 28 Jan  2025, 13:51I'd rather Dick, but if it has Damian I guess that is generally familiar enough but different from what has been presented in the past. Bruce being a mentor and father figure is what I want to see again, period. As for the costume, go for the blue and gray. Screw it.

I love the blue and grey batsuit in Keaton's armoury in The Flash. Ideally I'd prefer them to drop the sculpted armour look and go for a simpler fabric, but that might be a step too far for some fans. I'd be content with something like this.


I'd like Damian (or Dick) to be portrayed as the son, with Bruce as the father/big brother, and Alfred as the uncle/grandfather. The three of them should work together fighting crime, while also looking out for each other as a family. We've had enough movies with just Bruce and Alfred. It's time to add Robin to the mix. I also want to see them living in stately Wayne Manor again and not another penthouse.

Another thing I want to see is the return of impressive villain hideouts. In old CBMs the bad guys usually had cool bases that were just as spectacular as the heroes'. Some of those sets were colossal and offered a spectacular venue for the denouement.


The last time I recall seeing an awesome villain base like that was Ozymandias's Antarctic retreat in Watchmen (2009). Bringing back practical sets like these would help restore the cinematic spectacle that separates movies from 'content' on a streaming service.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Jan  2025, 22:37If you want to fix the industry (if such a thing is even possible anymore), then it has to begin with rooting out the activists and extremists. After that, you can keep the existing continuity or reboot or whatever.

Rooting out the activists is an essential first step towards recovery. There's no point treating the symptoms of the disease if you're going to leave the source of the infection in place.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 29 Jan  2025, 21:04

(https://i.postimg.cc/TPqq7yYf/blue-and-grey-batsuit.png)

I like that! Neal Adams on one side, Jim Lee on the other. I'd be happy with either one.

If we're fancasting, who do you like as the director?

Whenever I think of a director who might make a good Batman film, it's usually someone that would make a gritty serious movie a la Nolan. It's hard to think of a director who could successfully put a lighter spin on the material. What we really need are some quirky idiosyncratic filmmakers who can do something new with the medium, the way David Lynch or Tim Burton did back in their primes. We need auteurs with unique styles of their own who could breathe life into stale subject matter. Hollywood just isn't producing many people like that anymore. Or maybe there are filmmakers like that around, and they're just not getting the breaks they might've got in previous decades.

I'd like the new Batman director to be an up-and-coming filmmaker that none of us have thought of. Someone who loves old Batman comics and whose talent can surmount the soul-destroying Hollywood machine to produce something unique and special. Another option might be to look outside of English-language cinema. Maybe give an Asian filmmaker a chance. A Japanese or Hong Kong director would make for an interesting pick. Can anyone else suggest a suitable director? Someone who could take the franchise in a lighter direction and not just echo what their predecessors did?

On the subject of streamlining the comics, I was just reading 'The Curse of the Atomic Skull' (Superman: The Man of Steel #7, November 1991), and the main topic on the letters page concerned the fact there were four monthly Superman titles in print at that time: Superman, Adventures of Superman, Action Comics and The Man of Steel. This was back when they had those little numbered triangles on the covers telling you which order to read them in. One fan wrote in saying that it was more like having one weekly Superman title than four monthly. Other fans wrote in praising the fact each of those titles had its own distinct style courtesy of their different creative teams.

This gave me an idea for how DC could streamline their comics while still offering enough work for creators and producing enough issues annually to release multiple trade paperbacks – why not start publishing their comics weekly instead of monthly? British comics were traditionally published once a week or once every two weeks and usually took the form of anthologies, with multiple creative teams working on them at the same time. If American comics adopted a similar strategy, they could have one weekly title for each major hero. Instead of publishing 52 titles a month, how about publishing 12 titles every week. Obviously one creative team couldn't produce multiple issues in so short a span, so you could have at least four separate creative teams working concurrently on each title under the guidance of a single editorial group.

If they were to publish 52 weekly issues a year for each title, then that would allow lots of comic creators a chance to work on the major series. It would also allow the editors a chance to test out new talent. They could reserve 10 of those 52 issues for new writers and artists. If they do a good job, give them more work. If the regular contributors attract a negative response from readers, they aren't locked into lengthy runs and can be moved onto something else. This system would also help promote standalone stories over lengthy multi-issue arcs. Occasionally the editors could give a proven writer-artist team the chance to work on a two or three-part storyline, and use new writers to cover for them while they're working on it.

This system would also be more meritocratic. Instead of a small number of people dominating a particular title with lengthy runs, you'd instead have lots of different people contributing and getting more/less work based on how well their individual issues were received by readers. It might not work, but it would be worth a try just to shake things up a bit.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Jan  2025, 22:37If you want to fix the industry (if such a thing is even possible anymore), then it has to begin with rooting out the activists and extremists. After that, you can keep the existing continuity or reboot or whatever.

To tangent, certain DC Comics properties have already been rebooted into unsustainability. Chief among them are probably Superman as well as the Legion Of Super-Heroes if you ask me. I don't think yet another reboot would do either property any favors.

Right. Yet another reboot would be like doing New52 all over again. Only with much lesser returns. Especially since the DC staff has only deteriorated even further than it was back in 2011.

Yes, drastic times call for drastic measures. Heads are going to have to roll, and a severe streamlining would need to be implemented, and probably the most important factor to thoroughly scrutinize is distribution/accessibility. Or the lack there of. 

QuoteFor as good as the Post-Crisis Superman might be, I'm truly starting to believe that Crisis On Infinite Earths, as a corrective measure for DC continuity, wasn't a good idea. Same thing with Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, Flashpoint and every other "continuity fix" DC has ever attempted.

I've had this assessment for a while now, and I like a lot of those stories, and to grow up in the '90's reading Post-Crisis Superman was a treat, but in retrospect, it may have not been worth it. For every "fix", comes a problem. As COIE essentially scrambled Hawkman beyond repair (no matter how many times they've tried to remedy him), and the Legion has never quite been the same since (I think Geoff Johns tried but so much for that when you're rebooting every 3-5 years). I think even John Byrne himself has revealed that he offered to stick to Pre-Crisis continuity when he was brought into DC for Superman, but DC was adamant about the reboot. It is interesting to think how Byrne would have worked out within the framework of Pre-Crisis Superman continuity. The sales were going to get a boost regardless due to his name cache at the time.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 29 Jan  2025, 21:04As someone who generally prefers old comics over modern, I'd definitely favour standalone or two-part stories over longer storylines. I get why they do multipart stories from a marketing perspective. They can more easily package them into trade paperbacks and release them as 'graphic novels'. But a series of good standalone stories linked by a subtle arc can be just as satisfying to read in TPB form. For example, Strange Apparitions/Dark Detective. Most issues in that run work as standalone stories, but there are also plotlines that unite them into a broader narrative (the Hugo Strange saga, Bruce's relationship with Silver, etc). The Batman '66 comics also comprised standalone stories that were fun to read in a collected format.

Again, this might just be me being an old git who prefers older comics, but if we're talking accessibility then making each individual issue stand on its own merits would offer the perfect remedy to crossover fatigue. I like the idea of a kid being able to pick up a random issue of Batman or Superman and make that comic his entry point into the series. I want that kid to enjoy the one issue he owns so much that he decides to spend his pocket money buying the next issue, and the one after, until he builds a collection that constitutes his Batman or his Superman, without regard for the overwhelming volume of comics and lore that came before.

I've been reading quite a few Silver and Bronze Age Superman comics lately, and while I love the Pre-Crisis version I've got to admit that John Byrne's re-launch was a great way of giving the character a clean slate and creating an entry point for new readers. I've never considered 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' a canonical conclusion to the Earth-One Superman's story, but it does work as a possible final story that draws a line of demarcation before the restart. In retrospect, I wish they'd done that for every major DC character.

I suppose The Dark Knight Returns could be viewed as the Batman equivalent, as Bruce's age in that story roughly corresponds with the Silver Age/Adam West Batman. I don't think TDK is the canonical conclusion to the Silver Age Batman's adventures, but it works as a possible final story. Crisis on Infinite Earths proved to be the final story for the Barry Allen Flash, at least until they resurrected him years later.

Imagine if DC published a line of stories like that now. Each one offering a possible 'final story' for the current versions of DC's greatest heroes, each written and drawn by top industry talent, and each comprising no more than two or three issues. Alan Moore managed to tell an epic finale in just two issues with 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' Today's top comic writers should be able to do the same. They could make it clear that this is the end of the current DCU before everything begins anew with a clean slate. I've fallen behind with DC in recent years, but a bold move like this might just recapture my interest.

What you're suggesting kinda makes me think of what Marvel did several years ago with their "The End" line of books. Chronicling the final adventure of various characters. I think Wolverine had one, and I've read Punisher The End (Garth Ennis), along with Hulk The End (written by Peter David, which made sense, and penciled by Dale Keown, which also made all the sense in the world. As an aside, I thought it was interesting that for Peter David having such a long stint on the Incredible Hulk book, and for getting away from the Savage Hulk for long stretches of time ... that his idea for a final Hulk story would wind up featuring the Savage Hulk for the characters book end).

I guess the same could be applied to DC characters, but it's just a issue with getting credible talent for the assignments...

QuoteOn the subject of streamlining the comics, I was just reading 'The Curse of the Atomic Skull' (Superman: The Man of Steel #7, November 1991), and the main topic on the letters page concerned the fact there were four monthly Superman titles in print at that time: Superman, Adventures of Superman, Action Comics and The Man of Steel. This was back when they had those little numbered triangles on the covers telling you which order to read them in. One fan wrote in saying that it was more like having one weekly Superman title than four monthly. Other fans wrote in praising the fact each of those titles had its own distinct style courtesy of their different creative teams.

This gave me an idea for how DC could streamline their comics while still offering enough work for creators and producing enough issues annually to release multiple trade paperbacks – why not start publishing their comics weekly instead of monthly? British comics were traditionally published once a week or once every two weeks and usually took the form of anthologies, with multiple creative teams working on them at the same time. If American comics adopted a similar strategy, they could have one weekly title for each major hero. Instead of publishing 52 titles a month, how about publishing 12 titles every week. Obviously one creative team couldn't produce multiple issues in so short a span, so you could have at least four separate creative teams working concurrently on each title under the guidance of a single editorial group.

If they were to publish 52 weekly issues a year for each title, then that would allow lots of comic creators a chance to work on the major series. It would also allow the editors a chance to test out new talent. They could reserve 10 of those 52 issues for new writers and artists. If they do a good job, give them more work. If the regular contributors attract a negative response from readers, they aren't locked into lengthy runs and can be moved onto something else. This system would also help promote standalone stories over lengthy multi-issue arcs. Occasionally the editors could give a proven writer-artist team the chance to work on a two or three-part storyline, and use new writers to cover for them while they're working on it.

This system would also be more meritocratic. Instead of a small number of people dominating a particular title with lengthy runs, you'd instead have lots of different people contributing and getting more/less work based on how well their individual issues were received by readers. It might not work, but it would be worth a try just to shake things up a bit.

That approach may work. It could very well work. I guess I'm just more bullish, in just boiling everything down to a absolute bare minimum, stripping everything down to what would largely be considered 'classic iterations' and begin a slow, but methodical, rebuilding implementation. Speaking of old comics, I honestly wouldn't be opposed to adopting a more cartoony art style aesthetic (silver/bronze age is what I'm more or less thinking of) as the 'house style', and see what happens. I don't know, but when you skim around and look at some of the covers back then, as opposed to the more posing style these days, a good many of the comic book covers back in the day were very eye-catching. Which they needed to be, considering comics used to be located at venues as a impulse buy (and they REALLY need to get back to that strategy, like Archie Comics, and not be reliant on the LCS/direct market, which has increasingly proved over the years to be a fools errand).

But yeah, outside of taking a very thorough look at improving distribution substantially (otherwise it's all for not), my preferred directives would be; Splashy covers, engaging stories, easily accessible for readers, and a fun/colorful art style that's charming to look at. Those would be the perimeters that would have to be worked within for the A main line of DC books. Want something geared more towards adults? That would go to the B line LCS/direct market.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  1 Feb  2025, 07:58What you're suggesting kinda makes me think of what Marvel did several years ago with their "The End" line of books. Chronicling the final adventure of various characters. I think Wolverine had one, and I've read Punisher The End (Garth Ennis), along with Hulk The End (written by Peter David, which made sense, and penciled by Dale Keown, which also made all the sense in the world. As an aside, I thought it was interesting that for Peter David having such a long stint on the Incredible Hulk book, and for getting away from the Savage Hulk for long stretches of time ... that his idea for a final Hulk story would wind up featuring the Savage Hulk for the characters book end).

I guess the same could be applied to DC characters, but it's just a issue with getting credible talent for the assignments...

I'm not familiar with that Marvel line, but it sounds interesting. I reckon something similar could work for DC, provided they made it clear that it wasn't just a non-canon gimmick. That these stories really did mark the end of the current timeline, and that what followed would have a clean slate.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  1 Feb  2025, 07:58That approach may work. It could very well work. I guess I'm just more bullish, in just boiling everything down to a absolute bare minimum, stripping everything down to what would largely be considered 'classic iterations' and begin a slow, but methodical, rebuilding implementation. Speaking of old comics, I honestly wouldn't be opposed to adopting a more cartoony art style aesthetic (silver/bronze age is what I'm more or less thinking of) as the 'house style', and see what happens. I don't know, but when you skim around and look at some of the covers back then, as opposed to the more posing style these days, a good many of the comic book covers back in the day were very eye-catching. Which they needed to be, considering comics used to be located at venues as a impulse buy (and they REALLY need to get back to that strategy, like Archie Comics, and not be reliant on the LCS/direct market, which has increasingly proved over the years to be a fools errand).

That might be a better solution. I'd be down for it.

The Batman Adventures, the B:TAS tie-in comic, had a huge impact on me as a kid. The UK version featured a Batman story in every issue plus a secondary story starring another DC character. There'd always be a pull-put poster and a section highlighting the main villains of the guest hero. It helped educate me about the DC universe and introduced me to many of its classic heroes. It also paved the way for me to read more mature comics. The art showcased a consistent 'house style' that reflected the look of the TV show, which was fine with me since the TV show looked beautiful to begin with.

A more recent example of something similar would be The Brave and the Bold tie-in comic. This series ran for 22 issues in the States, utilising stylised visuals that mirrored the look of the TV show and straightforward kid-friendly adventure stories that were suitable for all ages. Here are some of the covers. They have a certain retro flavour that I find very appealing.


And here's an example of what the interior art looked like, characterised by neat page layouts, clear lines and vibrant colours. Again, it's stimple but appealing. Different artists worked on this series, but all adopted the visual style of the TV show to create a consistent aesthetic.


The overall feel was closer to the Golden and Silver Age comics than most modern titles. In the UK these comics were published in a different format where the stories were split across issues. So one issue would end on a cliff-hanger, and you'd get the second half of the story in the following issue. The rest of the pages were filled with character profiles, episode guides for the TV show, puzzles and competitions. Every issue came with a pull-out poster and free plastic toy. The pages were also bigger, with the original US comic-size blown up to a larger magazine size. The British version ran for 55 issues in total, all of which were sold in high streets. I often used to pick them up on trips to the supermarket. I've still got lots of issues stashed away somewhere.

This comic was bright, colourful, funny and perfect for kids. It did a great job introducing new readers to the DC universe, and it was easily available in newsagents across the country. The closest I've seen to a Batman title like this in recent years was the Lego Batman comic. My eldest nephew used to read that, though I'm not sure if it's still going in 2025. There should be a permanent comic like this. One featuring bright stylised art and family-friendly content that's easily purchasable from high street stores, not just specialist retailers.

Two monthly Batman titles should be enough: one a dark mature anthology called Detective Comics, and the other a lighter and more accessible title called Batman and the Robin: The Dynamic Duo.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Feb  2025, 11:44This comic was bright, colourful, funny and perfect for kids. It did a great job introducing new readers to the DC universe, and it was easily available in newsagents across the country. The closest I've seen to a Batman title like this in recent years was the Lego Batman comic. My eldest nephew used to read that, though I'm not sure if it's still going in 2025. There should be a permanent comic like this. One featuring bright stylised art and family-friendly content that's easily purchasable from high street stores, not just specialist retailers.

One of the more entertaining comics to come out in recent times is Batman Universe. Very bright and fantastical with lots of action, a sense fun and good art. There's a cameo of the B89 Flugelheim Museum, too. If you haven't checked it out I highly recommend you do. I also see recently Gunn cited Man-Bat as one of the villains he'd like to see adapted at some point - which bodes well for a Batman Universe style film being more likely than not.

I haven't read Batman Universe. I've fallen behind with the Batman comics in recent years, but Brian Michael Bendis wrote some of my favourite Daredevil stories so I might give Universe a look. It sounds fun.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Feb  2025, 11:44I'm not familiar with that Marvel line, but it sounds interesting. I reckon something similar could work for DC, provided they made it clear that it wasn't just a non-canon gimmick. That these stories really did mark the end of the current timeline, and that what followed would have a clean slate.

Yeah, or a good "what if" tale or whatever. To me, Hulk The End was the strongest of the "The End" books, but the Punisher one written by Garth Ennis wasn't bad either. I don't believe I read the Wolverine one, and I'm not sure if Spider-Man had one without looking it up (Spider-Man Reign is the only thing coming to mind).

QuoteThat might be a better solution. I'd be down for it.

The Batman Adventures, the B:TAS tie-in comic, had a huge impact on me as a kid. The UK version featured a Batman story in every issue plus a secondary story starring another DC character. There'd always be a pull-put poster and a section highlighting the main villains of the guest hero. It helped educate me about the DC universe and introduced me to many of its classic heroes. It also paved the way for me to read more mature comics. The art showcased a consistent 'house style' that reflected the look of the TV show, which was fine with me since the TV show looked beautiful to begin with.

A more recent example of something similar would be The Brave and the Bold tie-in comic. This series ran for 22 issues in the States, utilising stylised visuals that mirrored the look of the TV show and straightforward kid-friendly adventure stories that were suitable for all ages. Here are some of the covers. They have a certain retro flavour that I find very appealing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pLVd327y/batb1.png)

You got it, Silver. This is pretty much exactly what I have in mind. As an aside, I always liked whenever a villain from another character would occasionally cross over to another hero's book. That cover with Cyborg Superman is a good example. Where it's like, "Well, how does ol' batsy prevail against this guy?" Stuff like that always (especially) piqued my interest.

QuoteAnd here's an example of what the interior art looked like, characterised by neat page layouts, clear lines and vibrant colours. Again, it's stimple but appealing. Different artists worked on this series, but all adopted the visual style of the TV show to create a consistent aesthetic.

(https://i.postimg.cc/3wdxJt3T/batb2.png)

The overall feel was closer to the Golden and Silver Age comics than most modern titles. In the UK these comics were published in a different format where the stories were split across issues. So one issue would end on a cliff-hanger, and you'd get the second half of the story in the following issue. The rest of the pages were filled with character profiles, episode guides for the TV show, puzzles and competitions. Every issue came with a pull-out poster and free plastic toy. The pages were also bigger, with the original US comic-size blown up to a larger magazine size. The British version ran for 55 issues in total, all of which were sold in high streets. I often used to pick them up on trips to the supermarket. I've still got lots of issues stashed away somewhere.

This comic was bright, colourful, funny and perfect for kids. It did a great job introducing new readers to the DC universe, and it was easily available in newsagents across the country. The closest I've seen to a Batman title like this in recent years was the Lego Batman comic. My eldest nephew used to read that, though I'm not sure if it's still going in 2025. There should be a permanent comic like this. One featuring bright stylised art and family-friendly content that's easily purchasable from high street stores, not just specialist retailers.

Exactly. There are such things that are 'too much of a ask', and asking a kid to find a comic store, and pick up a book that's right in the middle of comic event #8474832982, in addition to being able to mentally grasp just what the hell is going on with whatever the tenuous status quo is at that particular moment in time, is just too much of any new reader really. Especially someone young. When I started out as a kid, the Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man books were already going into these extensive story line sagas (Death/FuneralFriend/Reign/Return, Knightfall/KnightsQuest/KnightsEnd, the dreaded Clone Saga, ect), but I really liked going back and finding back issues. As many of them was fairly concise and easy to digest and follow. Honestly, reading books like Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Wonder Woman, ect was a welcome break and something of a refuge from all the dense '90's sagas, as their titles were (most of the time) just one issue monthly. 

QuoteTwo monthly Batman titles should be enough: one a dark mature anthology called Detective Comics, and the other a lighter and more accessible title called Batman and the Robin: The Dynamic Duo.

Sounds good to me. I know such a implementation would likely cause some serious ire with some older readers, but at this stage, with the sheer amount of rot, and the shenanigans that have been pulled by both companies, from the top to the bottom, something dramatic seriously needs to be done in order to have just a glimmer of hope for a future. I can't specifically remember which comic veteran had this judgement (it might have been Jim Shooter, maybe John Byrne, maybe George Perez), but the gist of the observatory was that specifically superhero comics were originally created and made for children. It's now warped to cater to mostly middle age readers, but should ideally get, for the most part, back to basics. If, under that pretense, the reader simply cannot find enjoyment on that level, then perhaps the reality is that they have simply outgrown the hobby.

There's a Batman #1 relaunch coming later this year. Here's the new batsuit.


It reminds me of the fan-made batsuit in that pic I posted last month. Makes me wonder if DC took inspiration from that cosplayer.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 29 Jan  2025, 21:04

(https://i.postimg.cc/TPqq7yYf/blue-and-grey-batsuit.png)

I'll need to do more research about the plans for the reboot but after consideration I like the suit, and I'd be fine with something like that appearing in live action. The logo isn't my favorite or anything but I can appreciate it's a new design that still keeps the general aesthetic. If you're going for a relaunch make clear points of difference.

The recent Batman comics haven't been my thing so fingers crossed the relaunch is better. Killing Alfred was a mistake, so that going out the window would be very welcome. That was the only believable way the character was coming back after what happened with Bane. Alfred should be a mainstay in the mythos IMO - I wouldn't support that being a fixed canon event that eventually pops up in continuity, like Batman's back break.