New Animated show coming to HBO Max

[zDBZ]

Abrams and Reeves' job is to provide support for Timm to do what he wants. There wasn't a "name" like that attached to the Animated Series. I don't understand why "representation and inclusivity" are considered to be "red flags" for this series.

Some things that would otherwise be commendable often (not always) turn out ham-fisted, distracting, and sanctimonious when they're imposed on material like this to ride a cultural current.

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

[The Dark Knight]

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Agree. Holding back can sometimes equal being more true to the characters. Certain things can feel out of character if the guardrails are taken away. The Killing Joke adaption being a key example of that, with it also being so unnecessary.

[Travesty]

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Agree. Holding back can sometimes equal being more true to the characters. Certain things can feel out of character if the guardrails are taken away. The Killing Joke adaption being a key example of that, with it also being so unnecessary.

That was unnecessary for different reasons, though. TKJ was supposed to follow the comic as closely as possible, and they decided to do a 15min prologue that had nothing to do with the story. It just didn't make any sense to the comic.

I feel like that's totally different from not wanting to be censored for certain ideas. If they want to show The Joker killing someone, they can.

[Kamdan]

It is quite true that dodging the censors can result in better focus on character department, but it can equally squander something just as easily. It's going to be great to see guns used in a more violent manner like they did in the movies instead of just being used to smash things up a bit.

The Killing Joke situation was brought up due to the low runtime the film would have had if they just stuck with the comic. It did make sense from their perspective to establish more of a backstory between Batman and Batgirl to make the impact of her crippling stick more than it did in the original story. Adding that material was a clear example of why Alan Moore doesn't want his name on any adaptation of his works.

The whole Batman/Batgirl relationship was something from the initial conception of the show and it was definitely a plus that wasn't followed though that way in the series, aside from hints of it in Batman Beyond. They are quite aware of the backlash this gained and I am sure they are going to not repeat the same mistake.

I've been made aware that the show will be part of Cartoon Network's ACME Night programming. This apparently is designed for "family viewing" which I hope means that they'll air a more censored version of what's to be on HBO Max. If this is just going to be a remake of the Animated Series in the mature content department, there's nothing to gain out of this endeavor.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Agree. Holding back can sometimes equal being more true to the characters. Certain things can feel out of character if the guardrails are taken away. The Killing Joke adaption being a key example of that, with it also being so unnecessary.

That was unnecessary for different reasons, though. TKJ was supposed to follow the comic as closely as possible, and they decided to do a 15min prologue that had nothing to do with the story. It just didn't make any sense to the comic.

I feel like that's totally different from not wanting to be censored for certain ideas. If they want to show The Joker killing someone, they can.

The statement about TKJ animated adaption is true, but I feel that it may not just simply be about taking one more step in depicting something, such as showing a gruesome death instead of someone laughing from gas. If the producers know all guardrails are off from the start, concept creation thinking has to change somehow. Batman having sex with Batgirl is where things can lead. Harley emitting gas in the Batmobile, no matter how minor, also feels so out of place. It really depends what level of escalation we are talking about here.

[zDBZ]

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Agree. Holding back can sometimes equal being more true to the characters. Certain things can feel out of character if the guardrails are taken away. The Killing Joke adaption being a key example of that, with it also being so unnecessary.

That was unnecessary for different reasons, though. TKJ was supposed to follow the comic as closely as possible, and they decided to do a 15min prologue that had nothing to do with the story. It just didn't make any sense to the comic.

I feel like that's totally different from not wanting to be censored for certain ideas. If they want to show The Joker killing someone, they can.

The Joker can kill as often as he wants, but I don't want to see him pushing the carcass of a man he skinned alive onto a stage, or chaining Harley up in a room full of skeletons he tells her are ex-Harleys, or stapling his face back on.

Not that I think Timm would do these things specifically; he's got his own odd tics. But this is the kind of stuff in comics that puts me off. It's not "mature," it's gratuitous, and it turns characters meant to be larger-than-life into cheap knockoffs of low-grade crime fiction.

[Travesty]

Looks like this got canceled at HBO. They are going to try and shop it around at other places, but it looks like it's probably dead.

[thecolorsblend]

Looks like this got canceled at HBO. They are going to try and shop it around at other places, but it looks like it's probably dead.

I'm starting to wonder if the operating philosophy is to protect the Batman brand.

There were more Batman-related productions in the pipeline than anything else. So, logically, if a bunch of stuff gets cancelled, it stands to reason that Batman would be hit hardest by that.

And yet, this doesn't come off like random chance. It LOOKS like anything related to Ben Affleck is safe. But everything else Batman-related seems to be facing a dicey future. Pattinson's second time at bat hasn't been greenlit yet and it's looking like Keaton is probably one and done.

Assuming I'm right (and I may not be), this could work to Batman's ultimate benefit (in the long run) in that it will prevent overexposure and burn out with the character.

[The Dark Knight]

Batman is the obvious frontman of DC, but I concur about the risk of fatigue as has most definitely been the case with Star Wars. They're saying the show is still going ahead but is looking for a new home. It could go either way at this stage. I don't think HBO Max has been a good platform so the move away from that is a positive as far as I am concerned. Especially if it's meaning a bigger focus on big budget cinema releases involving the Justice League. Keaton's return would have always been that of a returning guest if Batfleck was the assumed incumbent all along. The Batgirl film wouldn't have even happened. Keaton's era was 1989-1992, and Affleck still has more to give. That's how I'm choosing to view things. Even with some project cancellations Batman's future is hardly bare.

[Slash Man]

Some things that would otherwise be commendable often (not always) turn out ham-fisted, distracting, and sanctimonious when they're imposed on material like this to ride a cultural current.

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Exactly. It could be coincidence, but it seemed like Timm started to lose his touch when he no longer had censors reeling him in.

Some of their comments have me a little worried. B:TAS already had a mature and sophisticated tone, and it didn't need strong violence or sexual content to appear grownup. Timm also said it's going to be more 'modern' in terms of representation and inclusivity, which suggests the same underlying political ideology that's driving most of DC's other projects right now. Jar Jar Abrams' involvement also does little to inspire confidence.

I'm trying to remain optimistic, but there were a few red flags flown in that panel.

"Modern" or "Golden Age". You can't have both. Unfortunately the project opens itself up to more critical evaluation because it's marketing itself as an adaptation of the Golden Age Batman and not an all new reboot.

The comics may have had moments of extreme violence, but they were still fun wish fulfillment of the early superhero era. It's easy to get lost in the grittiness and turn Batman into an insane caricature of himself that isn't even capable of normal human interactions. G.A. Bruce Wayne was suave and dashing, and the Batman was human and vulnerable. Furthermore, Robin was a huge part of the Golden Age, so it'd be pure revisionism to either not include him or wait until much later. In terms of publication history, Batman didn't exist an entire year without Robin, and only had ten appearances under his belt. Why so many writers are fixated on this period is beyond me.

Now was the cancellation related to the content of the show, or just an arbitrary cost-cutting measure?