Batman and Robin: The Official Comic Adaptation

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember buying this when it first came out in the summer of '97. In some ways it's my favourite of all the comic adaptations. Why? Because it's the one that most drastically reinterprets the film it's based on. Denny O'Neil took the exact same story as the film, but imbued it with a distinctly darker tone. A big part of its appeal is also down to the artwork by Rodolfo Dammaggio, Bill Sienkiewicz and Pat Garrahy. I think their work on this book is up there with Jerry Ordway's work on the Batman 89 adaptation.

It's got violence...



...swearing...



...more violence...



...Ivy...



...Batman's white eyes from the comics...



...and a proper final fight against Bane.



I think it's a fascinating reinterpretation of Schumacher's film. The same characters, story and everything, but with a markedly different tone.

The older I get, the more I like Batman and Robin. I've outgrown the adolescent phase of blindly hating it and masochistically relishing its shortcomings. Now I just enjoy it for what it is: a goofy tribute to the sixties Batman comics. And the fact the film's existence yielded such an enjoyable comic adaptation gives me yet another reason to like it. Even if you hate the movie, I recommend you check out the comic.

[The Dark Knight]

I have this comic and I agree with your assessment.

The opening panel is very interesting. Schumacher yelling 'and action!' in what clearly is a movie set, highlighting this is indeed a constructed reality and not 'real'.

The older I get, the more I like Batman and Robin. I've outgrown the adolescent phase of blindly hating it and masochistically relishing its shortcomings. Now I just enjoy it for what it is: a goofy tribute to the sixties Batman comics.

That's cool.

[Azrael]

I remember buying this when it first came out in the summer of '97. In some ways it's my favourite of all the comic adaptations. Why? Because it's the one that most drastically reinterprets the film it's based on. Denny O'Neil took the exact same story as the film, but imbued it with a distinctly darker tone. A big part of its appeal is also down to the artwork by Rodolfo Dammaggio, Bill Sienkiewicz and Pat Garrahy. I think their work on this book is up there with Jerry Ordway's work on the Batman 89 adaptation.

[...]

I think it's a fascinating reinterpretation of Schumacher's film. The same characters, story and everything, but with a markedly different tone.

The older I get, the more I like Batman and Robin. I've outgrown the adolescent phase of blindly hating it and masochistically relishing its shortcomings. Now I just enjoy it for what it is: a goofy tribute to the sixties Batman comics. And the fact the film's existence yielded such an enjoyable comic adaptation gives me yet another reason to like it. Even if you hate the movie, I recommend you check out the comic.

Agreed about the comic, even in 1997 I thought it was superior to the film... I actually have it three times: the prestige edition, the quadrology in Batman: The Movies, and a local translated edition. The front cover was also great.

It would indeed be childish to hate the film with a 1998-99 passion nowadays, but no-one should ever forget that it represents how ridiculous a Batman (or a comic book in general) movie can be in the wrong hands. As a part of Batman's past, it's fine and entertaining, but it definitely shouldn't be one of the movies that define Batman, in anyone's eyes.

[The Dark Knight]

And at least it had a comic adaption in the first place.

TDK and TDKR didn't have one. I suppose it's because they 'transcend the comic book genre'....

[Silver Nemesis]

A couple of other things I like about this comic:

•   O'Neil cut Gossip Gerty out of it altogether
•   Ivy doesn't sport the 'drag queen' look from the end of the movie

The opening panel is very interesting. Schumacher yelling 'and action!' in what clearly is a movie set, highlighting this is indeed a constructed reality and not 'real'.

And on the final page it says: "That's a wrap." Considering how blatantly self-aware the movie was to begin with, I don't think metafictional touches like that are too out of place in the comic. But it does make for an interesting opening; to actually see the crew filming Batman and Robin as they climb the museum steps. O'Neil never did anything like that in the other adaptations.

[The Dark Knight]

And on the final page it says: "That's a wrap." Considering how blatantly self-aware the movie was to begin with, I don't think metafictional touches like that are too out of place in the comic. But it does make for an interesting opening; to actually see the crew filming Batman and Robin as they climb the museum steps. O'Neil never did anything like that in the other adaptations.

Oh yes, I forgot about that.

There are some interesting differences/omissions/blending of scenes in the BF and B&R adaptions. This week I'll try and post something on them in here.

[phantom stranger]

Love those Bane panels.

Even though he was dumbed down by Shumacher, I would've loved to see an extended no-holds barred fight with him in the movie.

If for no other reason than to dub him with dialogue from DKR for my next Youtube masterpiece.

[riddler]

I have all 4 of the comic adaptations, I agree it was better than the film, cut a lot of the bad aspects out, ie. most of the freeze puns and did add extra scenes.

[GBglide]

And on the final page it says: "That's a wrap." Considering how blatantly self-aware the movie was to begin with, I don't think metafictional touches like that are too out of place in the comic. But it does make for an interesting opening; to actually see the crew filming Batman and Robin as they climb the museum steps. O'Neil never did anything like that in the other adaptations.

Actually the Batman '89 adaption shows the audience with the film spooling over it on the opening page.

[Silver Nemesis]

You're right. I'd forgotten about that.