Poll: Catwomen: Femme Fatale.... really?

[The Devils Guitar]

So I'm watching all the new trailers to the new batman game (which looks epic) when it struck me about the new catwoman.

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out Batman was a invincible action hero, the Joker was a comical creation in a fun suit and catwoman was a leather clad, big boobed woman who spoke only in sexual innuendos.

The new reboot of the franchise is now more real and psychological, batman is a tortured soul vowing to bring justice and struggling with the loss of his own personality in his creation while the joker is a genuinely psychopathic scary villain who truly deserves his name.

The same idea applies to the games. What was 20 years ago straightforward punchy action is now a game that incorporates inducing fear in enemies, tactical use of stealth and darkness, and a batman that is still a human who can be cut down quite easily. So why in the new game is catwoman a leather clad, big boobed woman who speaks only in sexual innuendos? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a bit lazy?

Ok, this can be something of a cliched question of action women being one dimensional (tomb raider, resident evil, wanted,) but every change that has been made to the batman series has improved it. So why not this?

 

[madwarper]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

The new reboot of the franchise is now more real and psychological, batman is a tortured soul vowing to bring justice and struggling with the loss of his own personality in his creation while the joker is a genuinely psychopathic scary villain who truly deserves his name.

The same idea applies to the games. What was 20 years ago straightforward punchy action is now a game that incorporates inducing fear in enemies, tactical use of stealth and darkness, and a batman that is still a human who can be cut down quite easily. So why in the new game is catwoman a leather clad, big boobed woman who speaks only in sexual innuendos? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a bit lazy?

So... lolwut?

Batman has always been a 'tortured soul' after the death of his parents.
The Joker has always been psychopathic killer.
Catwoman has always been a sexpot thief with a penchant for cats and cat related artwork.
Batman has always been vincible and relied on stealth on his patrols.

These things are nothing new.

 

[InfectedStar]

I really have to agree with Madwarper here, the characters were always the same and why change Catwoman now, first: She creates most of the fanbase (besides harleyquin), second: you have a problem with leather clad, big boobed women who speak only in sexual innuendos, lol? It's nice to see somethings don't change (in turns of characters atleast).

 

[Kopikatsu]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

The new reboot of the franchise is now more real and psychological, batman is a tortured soul vowing to bring justice and struggling with the loss of his own personality in his creation while the joker is a genuinely psychopathic scary villain who truly deserves his name.

The same idea applies to the games. What was 20 years ago straightforward punchy action is now a game that incorporates inducing fear in enemies, tactical use of stealth and darkness, and a batman that is still a human who can be cut down quite easily. So why in the new game is catwoman a leather clad, big boobed woman who speaks only in sexual innuendos? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a bit lazy?

So... lolwut?

Batman has always been a 'tortured soul' after the death of his parents.
The Joker has always been psychopathic killer.
Catwoman has always been a sexpot thief with a penchant for cats and cat related artwork.
Batman has always been vincible and relied on stealth on his patrols.

These things are nothing new.

... ... ...No.

See Adam West's Batman. Just...I can't explain it here.

Anyway, Four BIG words for every comicbook hero ever: "Depends on the writer." No superhero has EVER been consistent. Nor has their rogues gallery. (Hell, Spider-man's One More Day storyline only happened because Peter refused to take responsibility for his actions. That only goes against, THE DEFINITIVE TRAIT OF THE CHARACTER.)

...*cough* Anyway, The Joker is portrayed even less consistently than Batman is. Very often he is mostly harmless and can be dispatched easily. Other times, he's a psychotic mass murderer who can't be stopped. Sometimes he's just insane, others he's 'super-sane', and yet others he's 'Crazy, but not THAT crazy'.

Not even fighting ability stays consistent. Sometimes, Batman can easily deck Joker in one punch, sometimes he can fight on equal terms (And even overcome) Batman. Yet other times he's a competent fighter, but relies mostly on gadgets.

The Riddler has a similar problem. Usually he's a joke, sometimes he's...well...look at Arkham City's portrayal.

 

[poppabaggins]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

I don't think very many people in the modern day consider Adam West's Batman an ACTUAL Batman series. It's more comedic than anything else. I immediately think of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman when I consider "the original Batman movies".

On a mildly related sidenote, check out Batman XXX.

 

[madwarper]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

I don't think very many people in the modern day consider Adam West's Batman an ACTUAL Batman series. It's more comedic than anything else. I immediately think of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman when I consider "the original Batman movies".

The first Batman films were 2 serials in the 40's, Batman (1943) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(serial)] and Batman and Robin (1949) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_and_Robin_(serial)], released by Colombia Pictures.

Then, came West's Batman (1966), then Burton/Schumacher films and finally Nolan's films of today.

 

[BanicRhys]

Why fix what isn't broken I always say. And Catwoman is definitely not broken.

Captcha:

 

[mjc0961]

All this is complaining about a game that's not even out yet. Catwoman in the game could be way more than just sexual innuendos. We don't know until we play. Trailers are not review material and Catwoman's character shouldn't be written off as nothing but boobies and innuendo based on one.

Anyway, Four BIG words for every comicbook hero ever: "Depends on the writer." No superhero has EVER been consistent. Nor has their rogues gallery.

This is what is known as an /thread.

 

[poppabaggins]

The first Batman films were 2 serials in the 40's, Batman (1943) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(serial)] and Batman and Robin (1949) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_and_Robin_(serial)], released by Colombia Pictures.

Then, came West's Batman (1966), then Burton/Schumacher films and finally Nolan's films of today.

Your knowledge of Batman movies is impressive, but I'm still sticking by what I said as to what most people will consider the "original" Batman movies. Batman has evolved quite a bit since his creation, and Tim Burton's Batman is more in line with the post Dark Knight Returns/post Crisis on Infinite Earths Batman, the Batman that has shaped the modern interpretation of the character.

Batman also occasionally used guns in the 40s, and I don't think anyone associates "gun use" with Batman.

So yes, previous Batman films exist, but Burton's movies (ignoring Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) are the original movies containing the modern Batman.

 

[cthulhumythos]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

The new reboot of the franchise is now more real and psychological, batman is a tortured soul vowing to bring justice and struggling with the loss of his own personality in his creation while the joker is a genuinely psychopathic scary villain who truly deserves his name.

The same idea applies to the games. What was 20 years ago straightforward punchy action is now a game that incorporates inducing fear in enemies, tactical use of stealth and darkness, and a batman that is still a human who can be cut down quite easily. So why in the new game is catwoman a leather clad, big boobed woman who speaks only in sexual innuendos? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a bit lazy?

So... lolwut?

Batman has always been a 'tortured soul' after the death of his parents.
The Joker has always been psychopathic killer.
Catwoman has always been a sexpot thief with a penchant for cats and cat related artwork.
Batman has always been vincible and relied on stealth on his patrols.

These things are nothing new.

... ... ...No.

See Adam West's Batman. Just...I can't explain it here.

Anyway, Four BIG words for every comicbook hero ever: "Depends on the writer." No superhero has EVER been consistent. Nor has their rogues gallery. (Hell, Spider-man's One More Day storyline only happened because Peter refused to take responsibility for his actions. That only goes against, THE DEFINITIVE TRAIT OF THE CHARACTER.)

...*cough* Anyway, The Joker is portrayed even less consistently than Batman is. Very often he is mostly harmless and can be dispatched easily. Other times, he's a psychotic mass murderer who can't be stopped. Sometimes he's just insane, others he's 'super-sane', and yet others he's 'Crazy, but not THAT crazy'.

Not even fighting ability stays consistent. Sometimes, Batman can easily deck Joker in one punch, sometimes he can fight on equal terms (And even overcome) Batman. Yet other times he's a competent fighter, but relies mostly on gadgets.

The Riddler has a similar problem. Usually he's a joke, sometimes he's...well...look at Arkham City's portrayal.

GET THE SHARK REPELLENT.

anyways. erm. honestly, i don't see the problem. getting worked up about this is like getting worked up about the riddler still dishing out riddles.

 

[madwarper]

So yes, previous Batman films exist, but Burton's movies (ignoring Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) are the original movies containing the modern Batman.

But, they weren't Burton's movies.

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were directed by Joel Schumacher.

 

[Canid117]

Snip

If you look at the comics you will notice that Batman has been a mere mortal relying on stealth since the early 80s. (Technically the thirties but then the comics code kicked in and no one remembers how hardcore 30s Batman was other than fans) And throughout every single incarnation Catwoman has been Catwoman. A costumed woman with lots of sex appeal who takes advantage of that to help her steal shit. Why change that character? It provides a nice little contrast between the serious and cold Bat and the flirty and risque cat. What would you rather her be? A twelve year old girl who cuts herself out of self esteem issues? A sixty year old lady who murders people in her basement? I dont see what you want out of the character or why you would even want to change it.

 

[poppabaggins]

So yes, previous Batman films exist, but Burton's movies (ignoring Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) are the original movies containing the modern Batman.

But, they weren't Burton's movies.

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were directed by Joel Schumacher.

Right. But Batman Forever had the working title "Batman 3", and Batman & Robin was "Batman 4". So they're technically a continuation of Burton's movies (at least from the studio's standpoint).

EDIT: And I'm going to eat my words, since Batman Begins had the working title of "Batman 5"

 

[Furioso]

Can't help but notice you are taking the films as the be all end all of batman, you should check out the comics

 

[madwarper]

Right. But Batman Forever had the working title "Batman 3", and Batman & Robin was "Batman 4". So they're technically a continuation of Burton's movies (at least from the studio's standpoint).

A continuation of what Burton started, Yes. But, I wouldn't blame them on Burton. They were Schumacher's mess.

Hence, the Batman movie series from the 80's/90's were accredited to Burton/Schumacher, instead of to Burton alone.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

Well, both sides that I've seen in this thread have a point. Nolan's Batman, his Joker, and most of the rest of the lot have evolved a good deal from their older-movie counterparts. They're a lot more three-dimensional now, and the Arkham versions of the characters are very similar in that respect. But they did stay with their main characteristics- Batman, as has been noted, is and always has been a non-superpowered bloke out for revenge for his dead parents, thus he goes into a life of vigilante detective business, just to make an example.[footnote]My only experience with Batman has been movies and games. Since this is what the OP is focusing on, hopefully my lack of knowledge will not be a reason to totally disregard my opinion.[/footnote]

But who's to say Catwoman won't make a similar leap?

Nothing major has come out about her yet. A woman can be a 'Femme Fatale,' boobalicious type that speaks in sexual innuendo while still gaining some new dimensions to her character. For all we know, that step could be taken in Arkham City. I don't think it's quite fair to judge based on the trailer. Wait 'til the game's out... then we'll know, hm?

 

[Tanis]

My "original" Batman will always be the Batman: TAS cartoons.

Screw the Bat-nipples.

 

[StBishop]

Am I having deja vu or was this done a week ago?

 

[InfectedStar]

See, 20 years ago when the first Batman films came out

Good sir, I am highly dubious of your math. Unless, of course, you are a time traveler from 1963, in which case, welcome to the future.

The new reboot of the franchise is now more real and psychological, batman is a tortured soul vowing to bring justice and struggling with the loss of his own personality in his creation while the joker is a genuinely psychopathic scary villain who truly deserves his name.

The same idea applies to the games. What was 20 years ago straightforward punchy action is now a game that incorporates inducing fear in enemies, tactical use of stealth and darkness, and a batman that is still a human who can be cut down quite easily. So why in the new game is catwoman a leather clad, big boobed woman who speaks only in sexual innuendos? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a bit lazy?

So... lolwut?

Batman has always been a 'tortured soul' after the death of his parents.
The Joker has always been psychopathic killer.
Catwoman has always been a sexpot thief with a penchant for cats and cat related artwork.
Batman has always been vincible and relied on stealth on his patrols.

These things are nothing new.

... ... ...No.

See Adam West's Batman. Just...I can't explain it here.

Anyway, Four BIG words for every comicbook hero ever: "Depends on the writer." No superhero has EVER been consistent. Nor has their rogues gallery. (Hell, Spider-man's One More Day storyline only happened because Peter refused to take responsibility for his actions. That only goes against, THE DEFINITIVE TRAIT OF THE CHARACTER.)

...*cough* Anyway, The Joker is portrayed even less consistently than Batman is. Very often he is mostly harmless and can be dispatched easily. Other times, he's a psychotic mass murderer who can't be stopped. Sometimes he's just insane, others he's 'super-sane', and yet others he's 'Crazy, but not THAT crazy'.

Not even fighting ability stays consistent. Sometimes, Batman can easily deck Joker in one punch, sometimes he can fight on equal terms (And even overcome) Batman. Yet other times he's a competent fighter, but relies mostly on gadgets.

The Riddler has a similar problem. Usually he's a joke, sometimes he's...well...look at Arkham City's portrayal.

GET THE SHARK REPELLENT.

anyways. erm. honestly, i don't see the problem. getting worked up about this is like getting worked up about the riddler still dishing out riddles.

Guys, what does this have to do with Catwoman the original topic; give some lemons and they make orange juice, sheeesh.