Common misconceptions of characters you like

[Red Z]

That Nightwing is one of Batman's sidekicks.

That the Adam West Batman is as valid an interpretation of the character as any other. I'm sorry, but the Adam West show was a PARODY, not a "real" depiction of the character. The comics never treated him as the campy joke that show made him out to be, not even the cheesy 60s comics. I'm not saying it was a bad show or that you can't like it, but to treat it as anything other than what it is (a parody that pokes fun at the character and the medium) is just wrong in my book.

That Byrne's "humanized" version of Superman in which Clark Kent is the real person and Superman is a mask is the only interesting interpretation of Superman, or the first interesting one. To that I say rubbish. Before Byrne stepped in, writers had made Superman interesting by playing on his sense of loneliness and feeling of being different that came from being the only Kryptonian (*cough*) left in the universe. In fact, I found that version more interesting than Byrne's "average Joe with superpowers", as well as more original (Marvel had already done that).

That "modern" (read: post-80s) depictions of Batman suck and are inferior to O'neil's as they make him too boring, perfect, emotion-less and dickish. First, just because he acts stoic it doesn't mean he has no emotions; just that he choose to hide them, as showing emotions and weakness doesn't go with the image he's trying to show in order to scare villains. Second, his dickish, dark and antisocial behavior is part of what makes him flawed and thus interesting. By comparison, Batman from the 80s and before was a pretty generic character in terms of personality. And third, since he's flawed due to the aforementioned reasons, you can't accuse him of being perfect (except for the cases in which writers make him Bat-god).

[The Darknight Detective]

That the Adam West Batman is as valid an interpretation of the character as any other. I'm sorry, but the Adam West show was a PARODY, not a "real" portrayal of the character. The comics never treated him as the campy joke that show made him out to be, not even the cheesy 60s comics. I'm not saying it was a bad show or that you can't like it, but to treat it as anything but what it is (a parody that pokes fun at the character and the medium) is just wrong in my book.

Most people don't realize today that the show was nominated for best comedy when it first came out. While I still watch it because it's fun and for the abundance of fine-looking women it showcased, it never represented what was shown in Batman comics prior to the show's airing. Besides, William Dozier hated comics in the first place.

[dancj]

Superman has to be a kryptonian survivor and Batman has to be an orphan... So yes, WW has to be made from clay. Otherwise she would be just another amazon.

Unless she's the daughter of a god

[dancj]

That Superman is more vulnerable to magic than every other superhero who hasn't got a particular resistance to magic.

[Hawk80]

Unless she's the daughter of a god

Oh... that would be wrong...

[Jim Kelly]

Most people don't realize today that the show was nominated for best comedy when it first came out. While I still watch it because it's fun and for the abundance of fine-looking women it showcased, it never represented what was shown in Batman comics prior to the show's airing. Besides, William Dozier hated comics in the first place.

I regard this thread as a safe space where we can just vent. It's not for anyone to contradict someone else's feeling about a character they like.

Having said that, I'll give a contradictory opinion that TV Batman was like the comics Batman (circa '66). Even though I thought the comics were superior and not so ridiculous. But it's clear that many stories were based on comics stories and there was a reciprocal relationship between the two media. It took me a long time to recognize that-- and it still bugs me when I see perfectly good Batman stories from the comics branded as camp, when they weren't--yet that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the TV show. However, I respect anyone who feels differently.

[Lee Stone]

I regard this thread as a safe space where we can just vent. It's not for anyone to contradict someone else's feeling about a character they like.

Having said that, I'll give a contradictory opinion that TV Batman was like the comics Batman (circa '66). Even though I thought the comics were superior and not so ridiculous. But it's clear that many stories were based on comics stories and there was a reciprocal relationship between the two media. It took me a long time to recognize that-- and it still bugs me when I see perfectly good Batman stories from the comics branded as camp, when they weren't--yet that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the TV show. However, I respect anyone who feels differently.

True. Wasn't the Batman show one of those left hand/right hand things where the TV show was inspired by the comics but by the time the show started, the comics had abandoned the fun (or goofy by some) stories, then scrambled to put it back in because of the show's success?

[GlennSimpson]

(um, please disregard. Totally wrong thread).

[The Darknight Detective]

True. Wasn't the Batman show one of those left hand/right hand things where the TV show was inspired by the comics but by the time the show started, the comics had abandoned the fun (or goofy by some) stories, then scrambled to put it back in because of the show's success?

Yes. For a brief time after the show took off like a rocket, Batman comics did become more closer to camp than what came before it. Just like the show's popularity, though, the increased sales of the comic books were only momentary.

[Lee Stone]

Yes. For a brief time after the show took off like a rocket, Batman comics did become more closer to camp than what came before it. Just like the show's popularity, though, the increased sales of the comic books were only momentary.

I still think it's a shame that the studio had torn down the sets before NBC offered to pick it up.

[The Darknight Detective]

I still think it's a shame that the studio had torn down the sets before NBC offered to pick it up.

Agreed. I would pay to go down the Bat poles just once.

[superiorcrisis]

That the comic versions of characters are exactly the same as the movie versions. I mean, read a Busiek Avengers comic and then a Hickman Avengers comic. You'd think they were different characters (especially Tony Stark).

[superiorcrisis]

That "modern" (read: post-80s) depictions of Batman suck and are inferior to O'neil's as they make him too boring, perfect, emotion-less and dickish. First, just because he acts stoic it doesn't mean he has no emotions; just that he choose to hide them, as showing emotions and weakness doesn't go with the image he's trying to show in order to scare villains. Second, his dickish, dark and antisocial behavior is part of what makes him flawed and thus interesting. By comparison, Batman from the 80s and before was a pretty generic character in terms of personality. And third, since he's flawed due to the aforementioned reasons, you can't accuse him of being perfect (except for the cases in which writers make him Bat-god).

I don't think that's really a common misconception. However, I agree with pretty much everything else you said, and in the past year that's made me see Batman as one of the most complex and interesting characters in comics (not that I didn't like Batman before, I just see him in a different way now). This is especially true when he interacts with the Justice League (like in Tower of Bable). I do also like the bat-god version, but hey, Batman appears in ten comics a month. There's room for different interpretations.

[superiorcrisis]

That Superman is more vulnerable to magic than every other superhero who hasn't got a particular resistance to magic.

50 times yes. This annoys me so much. The magic weakness comes from the silver age, when Superman was ridiculously powerful, and they needed to create a weakness just to have him be transformed into a monster or something. This was not supposed to mean that if he's wearing a suit of armor that happens to have been created by magic he loses all his super powers while the rest of the Justice League keep theirs.

[Jim Kelly]

True. Wasn't the Batman show one of those left hand/right hand things where the TV show was inspired by the comics but by the time the show started, the comics had abandoned the fun (or goofy by some) stories, then scrambled to put it back in because of the show's success?

Probably for both good and ill. Because of the TV show, the comics had to bring back dead Alfred. The story that brought him back was really Weird--you could even say WEIRD TALES Weird--but whatever the means, the end result was good. Hard to think what the last fifty years would be like without Alfred.

Also because of the TV show a few other villains were brought back. But Julie Schwartz really dragged his feet in bringing back Catwoman. That always puzzled me--I wish someone had asked him about it in an interview. He brought back both the Riddler and the Scarecrow--who had each only appeared twice, back in the '40s--before he brought back Catwoman in the BATMAN title. I wonder how long he would have waited if Catwoman wasn't on the TV show.

In fact, I think Schwartz was reluctant to follow the Camp trend in the comics--and admitted as much in the letter columns, but he couldn't argue with the sales. There are only a few stories that I would say were really Camp in the TV show sense. And as soon as the writing was on the wall for the TV show, Schwartz went back to the kind of Batman stories that distinguished the "New Look." And with the slump brought on by the failure of the TV show, most of the villains (old and new) were retired for a few years, as Batman got darker and darker.

Another casualty of the TV show was Harriet Cooper. She was one of the new characters that Schwartz introduced with the "New Look." There to take the place of Alfred and to prevent any funny business that Frederic Wertham might not approve of. And she was one element of the new Batman that the TV show honoured. So it's funny that as a result of the TV show--directly or indirectly--Alfred was brought back and Aunt Harriet ended up on the bin.