Support NeoGAF

[FunkMiller]

Wrong. Comic historian time, he was no more “for kids” than James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. He was merely an all ages literary character. All if not most of those golden age guys were intended as that.

However, VERY quickly after being introduced was he starting to get repurposed to a younger audience. Probably most precisely with the introduction of Robin. They started to put in really cringe ads like “hey kids! Obey authorities just like your good pal Robin does! Be a good kid like Robin!” In the comics. I shit you not.

Before then though it wasn’t necessarily just for kids. And of course since then he’s bobbed and weaved from adult audience to younger audience through his 85 years

Detective Comics was squarely aimed at children. Let’s not get silly now. Nothing like Bond or Holmes. Go and read DC27 and you’ll see how aimed at children it was, and so was Batman.

But the lean into more family friendly stuff did happen quite fast. But let’s not pretend that for the vast majority of Batman’s existence, he hasn’t been portrayed as the dark, brooding vigilante we all know and love. And to massive popularity. Which includes his inception period.

 

[arkhamguy123]

Detective Comics was squarely aimed at children. Let’s not get silly now. Nothing like Bond or Holmes. Go and read DC27 and you’ll see how aimed at children it was, and so was Batman.

But the lean into more family friendly stuff did happen quite fast. But let’s not pretend that for the vast majority of Batman’s existence, he hasn’t been portrayed as the dark, brooding vigilante we all know and love. And to massive popularity. Which includes his inception period.

They were not. I OWN DC27 all the way until issue 50. Same for Batman #1-7 I think. From the early 1940s. I literally watch it in real time as it transmogrified into a kid oriented comic.

You’re approaching it with modern sensibilities. These are the late 1930s dude. And this is a comic book from 1939. Oppenheimer hadn’t even tested the worlds first nuke yet. The same way kids look at old movies that they’re parents love as “silly” or “goofy” that’s how you’re viewing the early issues. They’re kiddy to you now maybe but that doesn’t mean it was bill fingers intention

 

[FunkMiller]

How do you know it won't have an aggressive marketing campaign? It's the official launch of their whole movie universe... So YES they will market it heavily... In JULY no less! It's up against some competition before and after it releases but it's not like it's not possible to get to 1billion even with competition.

It will most certainly beat Man Of Steel’s box office. I have a feeling Gunn is targeting an audience disillusioned with Marvel’s product (as well as the DCEU), and is aiming right at the kids to do it.

Still fucking idiotic to try introducing another Batman and another full cinematic universe though.

 

[FunkMiller]

They were not. I OWN DC27 all the way until issue 50. Same for Batman #1-7 I think. From the early 1940s. I literally watch it in real time as it transmogrified into a kid oriented comic.

You’re approaching it with modern sensibilities. These are the late 1930s dude. And this is a comic book from 1939. Oppenheimer hadn’t even tested the world’s first nuke yet. The same way kids look at old movies that their parents love as “silly” or “goofy” that’s how you’re viewing the early issues. They’re kiddy to you now maybe but that doesn’t mean it was bill fingers intention

This is not aimed at adults. All from DC 27... and there's much more besides this.

Detective Comics was squarely aimed at children. Batman was as well. You mention modern sensibilities, but it might be you that's thinking too much in those terms. The stuff kids were exposed to in the 30s was a lot darker and weirder than kids these days. There's murdering and dark shit happening across that whole issue - as well as Detective Comics issues before that and subsequent to it. Batman is no darker than the Crimson Avenger, or Cosmo The Phantom Of Disguise. These characters were all aimed at children, in a children's comic. Adults did not read comic books. It's right to say that Batman got lightened up after the first ten or so issues - but it wasn't just him. The golden age that began with Superman marked a turn in the way comics were presented to its audience, but Batman was born in a period where kids were still well into some messed up, dark stuff. It's incorrect to suggest that any of the characters appearing in Detective Comics at that time were geared to an adult audience. They were all written for children.

 

[arkhamguy123]

This is not aimed at adults. All from DC 27... and there's much more besides this.

Detective Comics was squarely aimed at children. Batman was as well. You mention modern sensibilities, but it might be you that's thinking too much in those terms. The stuff kids were exposed to in the 30s was a lot darker and weirder than kids these days. There's murdering and dark shit happening across that whole issue - as well as Detective Comics issues before that and subsequent to it. Batman is no darker than the Crimson Avenger, or Cosmo The Phantom Of Disguise. These characters were all aimed at children, in a children's comic. It's right to say that Batman got lightened up after the first ten or so issues - but it wasn't just him. The golden age that began with Superman marked a turn in the way comics were presented to its audience, but Batman was born in a period where kids were still well into some messed up, dark stuff. It's incorrect to suggest that any of the characters appearing in Detective Comics at that time were geared to an adult audience. They were all written for children.

It’s not and these unsourced ads aren’t good fodder for your argument. Here’s another ad from DC27 that you cropped to try to help your case.

Kid friendly stuff like electric motors, badge to put in a WALLET, telephones, printers, and goddamn handguns.

Setting aside that not a single one of those ads you showed is found in my copy of DC27, for the sake of the argument ill just grant you that those ads were in there in some copies, that would STILL have literally nothing to do with author intent. ie who this character was for in Bill Fingers head. I can go to a movie theater and watch Oppenheimer. They may even have ads for candy, soda and kids sneakers before the film. So is all film kid friendly because the venue hosts kid friendly material? Not a good premise and thats with me granting you your pictures as fact.

 

[FunkMiller]

It’s not and these unsourced ads aren’t good fodder for your argument. Here’s another ad from DC27

Kid friendly stuff like telephones, printers, and goddamn handguns.

Setting aside that not a single one of those is found in my copy of DC27, for the sake of the argument ill just grant you that those ads were in there in some copies, that would STILL have literally nothing to do with author intent. ie who this character was for in Bill Fingers head. I can go to a movie theater and watch Oppenheimer. They may even have ads for candy, soda and kids sneakers before the film. So is all film kid friendly because the venue hosts kid friendly material? Not a good premise and thats me granting you your pictures as fact.

Mate. Those aren't real guns. They're toy ones.

I don't know why you're so adamant about this. I guess to lend credibility to Batman as a character? That it sounds better if he was invented for adults as well as kids?

But he really wasn't. Not originally. Anymore than this dude was:

Same issue. Gun wielding vigilante nutjob.

There's nothing wrong with Batman being invented for children.

 

[arkhamguy123]

Mate. Those aren't real guns. They're toy ones.

I don't know why you're so adamant about this. I guess to lend credibility to Batman as a character? That it sounds better if he was invented for adults as well as kids?

But he really wasn't. Not originally. Anymore than this dude was:

Same issue. Gun wielding vigilante nutjob.

There's nothing wrong with Batman being invented for children.

I know that, and they're not toys, they fire blanks. They're handguns that fire blanks. Like movie guns. Thats not a "kids toy". Also are we just gonna skip how you literally tried to crop that to hide ads for things that weren't for kids?

I guess I'm adamant about it because you're just wrong here. It's not about lending credibility to Batman(??) it's about veracity in what is said. It's that simple. And I literally never once said he was "invented for adults". You're strawmanning hard there. That's not my premise.

Look, the publication contacted Bob Kane to make Superman but different. Bob Kane saw dollar signs as did DC and they made their arrangement. BK, creatively ungifted, contacted a buddy, Bill Finger, excited at the prospect, got to work on a character he thought was cool and partially inspired by hero's he liked. Thus, Batman was born. No point in this process were infant children a main priority or consideration. He is and was literally just a fictional literary character like Bond, Holmes, Tarzan, Lone Ranger. Whatever. The more curious thing is your incredulity *insisting* that he is made for children without much in the way of any good points or argumentation to back you up besides maybe you just aren't impressed by the writing of DC27? I dunno. I mean what was this last point? "Look see here's another comic character sooo umm.. yeah ergo, point proven, batman is for kids" like what?

 

[ManaByte]

Still fucking idiotic to try introducing another Batman and another full cinematic universe though.

I like the rumor floating that Gunn is going to introduce Batman as Dick, saving Bruce's return until Reeves finishes his trilogy. So while there will be two Batmans, only one is Bruce Wayne for a while.

 

[arkhamguy123]

I like the rumor floating that Gunn is going to introduce Batman as Dick, saving Bruce's return until Reeves finishes his trilogy. So while there will be two Batmans, only one is Bruce Wayne for a while.

If he had an IQ above 30 that would be what he would do. Its the only smart play.

Unfortunately this isn't the case, as per the cringey Chapter 1 Gods and Monsters reveal; "This is the story of BRUCE WAYNE and his Son Damian Wayne."

 

[FunkMiller]

I know that, and they're not toys, they fire blanks. They're handguns that fire blanks. Like movie guns. Thats not a "kids toy". Also are we just gonna skip how you literally tried to crop that to hide ads for things that weren't for kids?

I guess I'm adamant about it because you're just wrong here. It's not about lending credibility to Batman(??) it's about veracity in what is said. It's that simple.

Look, the publication contacted Bob Kane to make Superman but different. Bob Kane saw dollar signs as did DC and they made their arrangement. BK, creatively ungifted, contacted a buddy, Bill Finger, excited at the prospect, got to work on a character he thought was cool and partially inspired by hero's he liked. Thus, Batman was born. No point in this process were infant children a main priority or consideration. He is and was literally just a fictional literary character like Bond, Holmes, Tarzan, Lone Ranger. Whatever. The more curious thing is your incredulity *insisting* that he is made for children without much in the way of any good points or argumentation to back you up besides maybe you just aren't impressed by the writing? I dunno. I mean what was this last point? "Look see here's another comic character sooo umm.. yeah ergo, point proven, batman is for kids" like what?

I mean, I think the fact he was invented in a children’s comic is a good enough point, but I guess you’ll not agree with that.

 

[arkhamguy123]

I mean, I think the fact he was invented in a children’s comic is a good enough point, but I guess you’ll not agree with that.

Wow. Side stepped all the way into the neighboring country with this one. Okay well since we're throwing out and not acknowledging literally every point I've tried to convey before, Bill Finger was not contacted to introduce Batman in a novel. He was contacted to introduce Batman in a comic book. (Jury's still out on the kids comic as your ad argument was pretty thin and weren't WW2 soldiers and late teens a huge market for them anyways?)

But if you want I can go in a time machine and make it so that he was introduced in a novel and your stigma for the comic medium of the 1930s won't impede reasoning then?

 

[bitbydeath]

Um probably because MoS marketing budget was absolutely obscene and WBD is broke and this production is already laughably cheaper than MoS if you look at the cast and production value we’ve seen so far.

Also it’s not coming off the goddamn Dark Knight trilogy with Nolan’s name attached to every goddamn poster and tv spot. You will not see it get the push MoS did.

They had so many partnerships and promotions it makes my head spin to this day. uhaul. Carls Jr. US Marines. Gillette shaving. IHOP. Walmart. Off the top of my head. WB spared no expense pushing this film when it came out but it cost them cause the BO returns, while respectable, ended up leaving them disappointed.

You must be new to behind the scenes photos.
Guess these cheap ass looking movies.

 

[BadBurger]

Yea movie productions typically look terrible before the post production wizardy. Production shots look like teenagers cosplaying.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Have to say, I like the concept of a Maxwell Lord run corporate hero squad as an allegory for the soulless corporatism of Disney, versus the genuine heroism of Superman.

If that what Gunn is going for then that sounds pretty good to me.

Especially since Disney fired him

It would be like poetry, it rhymes