Here's your "Funner/Colorful/Humourous" DC animated movie.

[bastardofmelbourne]

I'm not a person who really has that much investment in these characters (certainly not outside the films), but credit where credit is due, Civil War does frame the conflict between Tony and Steve as an ideological one, with both having understandable positions, which translates well into their final fight.

I was just thinking about this, and had this kind of "huh" moment; when Iron Man and Captain America finally come to blows in a serious fashion, it's not actually for ideological reasons. In fact, they pretty much folded up their ideological differences ten minutes ago, when Stark saw the Raft and realised that Thaddeus Ross was kind of an asshole, and Steve finally figured "hey, maybe I'll tell Tony about those super soldiers on ice."

As soon as there seemed to be an actual problem for them to solve, they team back up. What triggers the climactic fight isn't an ideological argument at all; it's the reveal that Bucky killed Tony's parents. Suddenly they're actually fighting, not the slap-happy no-one-wants-to-get-hurt fighting they had at the airport.

The people making Civil War didn't actually think it would be credible for two friends to come to blows over politics. And to be honest, they're right, because the ideological dialogue in Civil War sucks ass. What's the central dispute?

Spoiler: Rant Mode

A UN regulatory body for superheroes? Here's why that would never happen: most of the Avengers are American citizens. The ones who aren't are either naturalised expatriates (Scarlet Witch, Black Widow) or completely artificial life forms (Vision). America would never agree to hand over control of the Avengers to the UN when they could make a much sounder case for putting them under the control of the Pentagon. Three of them are former American military personnel!

And the writers knew that, so they made it so the central dispute was a personal one - Captain America trying to protect Bucky and Iron Man trying to kill him. Honestly, it works out better than it did in BvS. In BvS - the theatrical cut, at least - the reasons why the two are at odds are never clearly dealt with. It's sort of ideological, but Batman seems to be using that as an excuse for a personal grudge, but it's one-sided because Superman never really wants to fight Batman to begin with and has to be forced into it? It's very hazy, and it hurt the film.

 

[Fox12]

This is just a regression to kid's stuff.

It says a lot that you consider a superhero cartoon that kids might enjoy to be a "regression".

After watching the Original Animated Series, and the Dark Knight Returns animated adaption, and just the Nolan Films in general.

Why would anyone want to go back to the asscrack that was 60s Campy Adam West Batman?

Here's the thing, though. A film isn't more mature just because it's dark. The Dark Knight Returns is just as immature and emberasing as the worst Adam West episode. It's cringeworthy. It's what a 14 year old, who has just been exposed to dark movies, thinks is cool. Compared to that I would gladly go back to the dorky Adam West batman.

Also, Batman and Robin was awesome. Maybe not in the way they intended, but it was awesome.

 

[Saltyk]

Seems like this movie gets Batman more than BvS does.

How is this a regression in any way?

Within the span of one year DC and Warner Bros will have given you Batman V Superman, an animated adaption of The Killing Joke, this awesome looking Adam West batman film and a freaking Lego Batman film. There is literally a Batman for every season, whatever a particular fan prefers is available.

Seems more like they've finally given up on the delusion that Batman has ever just been one thing and are now highlighting all the various and equally valid interpretations that have emerged over the years.

Where is the like button? Or the "+1" button? I want to give you props for being correct!

All well. I guess just quoting you and telling you that I agree with you is good enough.

 

[Saltyk]

Also, Batman and Robin was awesome. Maybe not in the way they intended, but it was awesome.

Batman and Robin is a kind of so bad it's good movie. It's campy and ridiculous. I can watch it and enjoy it for what it is. Then, go and watch Batman: TAS or the Justice League cartoons for my dark and gritty dose of Batman. No one said we can't have multiple interpretations of the same character. Especially a character like Batman who has had decades and several different versions.

I actually think there is a comic about Batman watching his own funeral and several different characters, including his villains, give heartfelt and conflicting statements about his life and death. Sort of as an ode to the different interpretations of the character.

 

[KissingSunlight]

So, they turn what was essentially a live action cartoon into a real cartoon. I have very little interest in seeing this. However, I have to admit. The last line in the trailer did make me laugh hard.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

This is just a regression to kid's stuff.

It says a lot that you consider a superhero cartoon that kids might enjoy to be a "regression".

After watching the Original Animated Series, and the Dark Knight Returns animated adaption, and just the Nolan Films in general.

Why would anyone want to go back to the asscrack that was 60s Campy Adam West Batman?

Here's the thing, though. A film isn't more mature just because it's dark. The Dark Knight Returns is just as immature and emberasing as the worst Adam West episode. It's cringeworthy. It's what a 14 year old, who has just been exposed to dark movies, thinks is cool. Compared to that I would gladly go back to the dorky Adam West batman.

Also, Batman and Robin was awesome. Maybe not in the way they intended, but it was awesome.

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

 

[Fox12]

This is just a regression to kid's stuff.

It says a lot that you consider a superhero cartoon that kids might enjoy to be a "regression".

After watching the Original Animated Series, and the Dark Knight Returns animated adaption, and just the Nolan Films in general.

Why would anyone want to go back to the asscrack that was 60s Campy Adam West Batman?

Here's the thing, though. A film isn't more mature just because it's dark. The Dark Knight Returns is just as immature and emberasing as the worst Adam West episode. It's cringeworthy. It's what a 14 year old, who has just been exposed to dark movies, thinks is cool. Compared to that I would gladly go back to the dorky Adam West batman.

Also, Batman and Robin was awesome. Maybe not in the way they intended, but it was awesome.

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

What does that have to do with DKR? All that would mean is that there's something more immature. That doesn't make DK less immature.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

 

[Erttheking]

They need to go full cheese with this one.

<youtube=UPmLGmK8Xig>

I have to say I'm actually interested. Batman might actually smile for once.

 

[Fox12]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

It's not shit because another story is shit? I mean, I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth then be roasted alive in an oven, but that doesn't mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie.

The point is, many people find TDKR to be as goofy and bad as you find Adam West. That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

It's not shit because another story is shit? I mean, I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth then be roasted alive in an oven, but that doesn't mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie.

The point is, many people find TDKR to be as goofy and bad as you find Adam West. That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist.

No because Dark Knight Returns is a genuinely good Batman story and deserves its legacy no matter how much people like Linkara and Moviebob like to take it down a notch.

This is the fucking Comic Book that inspired Tim Burton to make the 1989 Batman movie which in turn inspired Batman the Animated Series.

 

[Fox12]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

It's not shit because another story is shit? I mean, I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth then be roasted alive in an oven, but that doesn't mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie.

The point is, many people find TDKR to be as goofy and bad as you find Adam West. That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist.

No because Dark Knight Returns is a genuinely good Batman story and deserves its legacy no matter how much people like Linkara and Moviebob like to take it down a notch.

This is the fucking Comic Book that inspired Tim Burton to make the 1989 Batman movie which in turn inspired Batman the Animated Series.

Tim Burtons movies were corny as heck. Batman Returns had penguins with jet packs for heavens sake. I would say they had more in common with Adam West then they did with TDKR. Frank Millers ideas are rarely explored in any depth whatsoever, and his characters and dialogue come across like a 14 year old edge lord. His themes are extremely shallow.

I mean, Adam West's Batman isn't any better, but it certainly isn't any worse.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

It's not shit because another story is shit? I mean, I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth then be roasted alive in an oven, but that doesn't mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie.

The point is, many people find TDKR to be as goofy and bad as you find Adam West. That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist.

No because Dark Knight Returns is a genuinely good Batman story and deserves its legacy no matter how much people like Linkara and Moviebob like to take it down a notch.

This is the fucking Comic Book that inspired Tim Burton to make the 1989 Batman movie which in turn inspired Batman the Animated Series.

Tim Burtons movies were corny as heck. Batman Returns had penguins with jet packs for heavens sake. I would say they had more in common with Adam West then they did with TDKR. Frank Millers ideas are rarely explored in any depth whatsoever, and his characters and dialogue come across like a 14 year old edge lord. His themes are extremely shallow.

I mean, Adam West's Batman isn't any better, but it certainly isn't any worse.

Its hard to explore any depth with a 4 issue run. And 2 of each deal with a completely different story.

Watchmen had the luxery of 12 issues.

 

[Fox12]

After seeing Superman at Earth's End, Dark Knight Returns does not seem too imature in comparison.

By this logic, being drenched in shit isn't so bad compared to sulfuric acid. Why not neither?

Because Dark Knight Returns is not shit.

It's not shit because another story is shit? I mean, I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth then be roasted alive in an oven, but that doesn't mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie.

The point is, many people find TDKR to be as goofy and bad as you find Adam West. That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist.

No because Dark Knight Returns is a genuinely good Batman story and deserves its legacy no matter how much people like Linkara and Moviebob like to take it down a notch.

This is the fucking Comic Book that inspired Tim Burton to make the 1989 Batman movie which in turn inspired Batman the Animated Series.

Tim Burtons movies were corny as heck. Batman Returns had penguins with jet packs for heavens sake. I would say they had more in common with Adam West then they did with TDKR. Frank Millers ideas are rarely explored in any depth whatsoever, and his characters and dialogue come across like a 14 year old edge lord. His themes are extremely shallow.

I mean, Adam West's Batman isn't any better, but it certainly isn't any worse.

Its hard to explore any depth with a 4 issue run. And 2 of each deal with a completely different story.

Watchmen had the luxery of 12 issues.

If he chose to tackle multiple different stories, despite having only four issues, then that's his mistake as a writer. That doesn't change the fact that there's a lack of depth, and that he fails to explore his ideas and themes. Besides, four issues should be more then enough to explore the ideas he brought up. His work would just have to be tightly written. Neil Gaiman wrote several one issue short stories for Sandman, and they were some of the best stories not only in Sandman, but in the entire comic medium.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Tim Burtons movies were corny as heck. Batman Returns had penguins with jet packs for heavens sake. I would say they had more in common with Adam West then they did with TDKR. Frank Millers ideas are rarely explored in any depth whatsoever, and his characters and dialogue come across like a 14 year old edge lord. His themes are extremely shallow.

I mean, Adam West's Batman isn't any better, but it certainly isn't any worse.

It's much, much worse.

And Tim Burton..."corny" isn't the word I'd use to describe his style. There was heavy black comedy at work in Batman Returns, but it wasn't camp. Batman & Robin was corny. Burton wasn't.

Though you seem to think TDKR was some kind of dumpster fire of a comic book, which...well, "goes against the last three decades of critical opinion" would be putting it mildly. It's one of the best comic books ever written. It definitely hasn't aged well, what with the bizarre future slang and the street gangs who dress like what a person in the 80s probably thought a street gang would dress like in 1999, but it codified more about modern Batman than you seem to realise.

Grappling hook guns, for instance. Before TDKR, Batman used a rope with a hook on the end. That's such a goddamn basic thing about Batman that we don't even understand it even needed to be invented in the first place.

Even in the deepest darkest depths of the Dark Age, no-one said "I blame Frank Miller and The Dark Knight Returns for starting this shitfest." They said "Why can't these shitty comics do it properly like Miller and Moore did?"

If he chose to tackle multiple different stories, despite having only four issues, then that's his mistake as a writer. That doesn't change the fact that there's a lack of depth, and that he fails to explore his ideas and themes. Besides, four issues should be more then enough to explore the ideas he brought up. His work would just have to be tightly written. Neil Gaiman wrote several one issue short stories for Sandman, and they were some of the best stories not only in Sandman, but in the entire comic medium.

Sandman is a bad example, considering that it ran for eighty issues. Lots of stuff about the main character and his relatives are explained slowly over longer story arcs, and one of the reasons Gaiman ended up producing so many unrelated standalone issues is because he'd literally exhausted the central plot.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

I'm actually fine with this. I've never seen Adam West's Batman outside of a few clips here and there and the Shark Repellent bit. The chances of Batman depictions in the future becoming campy and more ridiculous are low, so I don't think there's anything to worry about. Sure, there's also Lego Batman, but that's satire. Maybe. I think. I have no idea what satire is. Anyway, I'm actually looking forward to the Lego Batman movie more than I am the live action Justice League. I can't wait for the inevitable Lego Justice League movie.

I can see this being received better than The Killing Joke. An MLP and DC crossover would be better received than The Killing Joke. It's very rare that a good performance is appreciated when in a movie so... divisive, but I do wonder if anyone ever expects Mark Hamill's joker to not be amazing. Even people who wont watch the Killing Joke could be confident that Mark Hamill gives an amazing performance. It's just what he does.

Also, after watching the movie I've got to assume that The Killing Joke is one of the most overrated comics in history. It really wasn't that good.

 

[Fox12]

It's much, much worse.

And Tim Burton..."corny" isn't the word I'd use to describe his style. There was heavy black comedy at work in Batman Returns, but it wasn't camp. Batman & Robin was corny. Burton wasn't.

Agree to disagree. Personally, I don't think jet pack penguins are any less silly then shark repellent.

Though you seem to think TDKR was some kind of dumpster fire of a comic book, which...well, "goes against the last three decades of critical opinion" would be putting it mildly.

This is the argument people use when they can't, or won't, argue a point for themselves. Essentially, it's an appeal to authority. Post a specific critical analysis if you want, and I'll examine the points.

It's one of the best comic books ever written. It definitely hasn't aged well, what with the bizarre future slang and the street gangs who dress like what a person in the 80s probably thought a street gang would dress like in 1999, but it codified more about modern Batman than you seem to realise.

I understand that the book introduced some new concepts for the character of Batman, but I don't necessarily think that that makes it a good book on its own rights.

Grappling hook guns, for instance. Before TDKR, Batman used a rope with a hook on the end. That's such a goddamn basic thing about Batman that we don't even understand it even needed to be invented in the first place.

This, for example, is largely cosmetic. While it's cool that Batman now has a hook gun, or a tank, it doesn't mean that TDKR is a complex or sophisticated piece of work thematically.

Even in the deepest darkest depths of the Dark Age, no-one said "I blame Frank Miller and The Dark Knight Returns for starting this shitfest." They said "Why can't these shitty comics do it properly like Miller and Moore did?"

I'll agree with this 100%. It's not the fault of Miller, Moore, or Art Spiegalman that other writers couldn't write sophisticated comic books. Moore's work wasn't good because it was dark, it was good because it was carefully and intelligently written.

I don't know. I obviously don't like TDKR. I don't think Miller was ever a good writer. However, I don't want to ruin other people's enjoyment of his work, and I certainly don't think his work shouldn't exist. My main issue was with Samtendo essentially saying that this new film shouldn't have been made, when a lot of people are clearly excited for it. My main point is that a lot of people find TDKR as silly as he finds Adam West's Batman. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't exist. They can both exist in harmony.