My Other Self

Mike86

Well obviously but Conroy is a voice actor. All that calls for him to do is bring the character he's voicing to life obviously with his voice and he more than does that. Obviously other people played a major part in bringing Batman to life on that series but even so you can't really say that he's not definitive to some people for doing what his job calls for and doing it very well. Also of course other interpretations such as live action deserve credit for different reasons but even then it isn't only the actor bringing the character to life. Its a combination of acting, directing, writing, costuming, set design, etc.

fumanstan

Yup, which is why I'm not the one making broad statements like Conroy is Batman, am I? His voice is definitive (and I have no problems making that statement), but he alone isn't since the character involves so much more then that. When you're talking about a character invented in a medium that doesn't even require an actual speaking voice, I simply wouldn't call someone excellent at one aspect of Batman's portrayal definitive of the entire character. That's all i'm getting at. The visual representation of the character is just as important, if not more.

Mike86

I guess what you're saying is fair but I think we look at it in different ways. Going off what you're saying there really isn't a definitive version of the character in live action or animation for various reasons.

fumanstan

I personally wouldn't call any of them definitive for various reasons, but if someone feels Batman from the Animated Series was I wouldn't complain. I just wouldn't attribute it all to Conroy.

taffer

There is no such thing as a "definitive" version of any comic book character. The characters are not even consistent from decade to decade in their own source material.

Batman, for example, was very violent in the early 1940s and murdered people. Those comics were gritty crime noir type stories. Then in the 1950s he was off on very goofy sci-fi adventures in outer space fighting against goofy looking aliens. Then in the 1960s it was the Adam West era camp, which actually did exist in the comics too. Adam West was a very accurate portrayal of the comics of the time. So you could say Adam West is just as "definitive" as Kevin Conroy because West was so accurate to the Batman of the time.

If anything, the one true "definitive" version of Batman would be the one originally envisioned by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. That would be the murdering psychopath of the early 1940s crime noir era.

Really whatever you say the "definitive" version would be is most likely the version you grew up with as a kid, and your nostalgia just simply makes that the "definitive" version. To me personally, I grew up reading the Batman comics of the mid/late 1980s post-COIE era when he was drawn by artists such as Jim Aparo and Norm Breyfogle. To me personally, that is the "definitive" Batman. To me, there will never be a better Batman artist than Breyfogle. I loved his artwork.

Also regarding Superman, the original Superman envisioned by Siegel and Shuster was a social crusader who fought against corrupt businessmen and politicians and the like. He murdered people too. I remember one comic in which someone shot at him, and Superman pulled the dude into the path of his own bullets. Another time he slammed a wife-beater through a wall full force. The wife-beater wasn't a supervillain with superpowers or anything. He was just a regular dude who beat his wife. Slamming him through the wall like that would have definitely killed him.

So in that regard, the neck-snapping Superman from Snyder's Man of Steel is more akin to the "definitive" Superman envisioned by Siegel and Shuster than Christopher Reeve's Superman was...

DaveyJoe

And with that statement, nerds everywhere choked on their mountain dew.

brayzie

A voice is a pretty important thing in regards to a film and an actor, unless it's a silent film or the actor is portraying someone with voice issues. I like both the Burton series and the Nolan trilogy. But the voice in the first film was very distracting, as if Bruce and Christiain Bale were trying too hard, which makes parodying the voice so easy. Even unintelligible Bane sounded more intimidating than Batman, but I have to admit by third film it wasn't a big deal anymore.


Probably because there's not too much of a difference between B:TAS Bruce voice and Batman voice. Whereas in the Nolan movies there's a vast difference. Bale's Batman seems like he's exerting a tremendous amount of effort to sound scary, even when making talking casual to someone like Lucius. Conroy's Batman doesn't come across that way.

Wasn't the Filmation cartoons close in tone to the 60s series? Even using the same actors for the voices? If so, I remember renting those from Blockbuster and being really disappointed. The animated Spider-man series from the early 80s was pretty good compared to early Batman cartoons.
Yeah, that was a pretty good season of Power Rangers. I also liked Ronin Warriors.



If the Snyder Man of Steel was patterned from the very early Golden Age Superman stories, you would be right. But most of the mythos used for the film are an amalgamation of the Silver Age, the Byrne reboot, and the Donner films, all of which have Superman establishing a no killing policy. He did kill twice however. Once in the . The second time was when

DaveyJoe

It didn't happen except when it happened, the movie must be condemned.

taffer

Superman has killed more than those two times in the "modern" era.

brayzie

Maybe I should have explained it better. He did kill two times in the examples I mentioned, one of them being an imaginary story. However, what makes them different is that there were serious repercussions, and they occurred only after a significant amount of time to establish the severity of the act. He didn't kill in the first four issue so John Byrne's Man of Steel, nor did he kill or been known to ever kill for decades during the Silver Age. In In the It didn't happen off-panel. So if the if the first film had anything comparable to that, it would be a good comparison. B v S could be about him giving up the Superman identity and that would also be a good comparison as well but we'll have to wait and see.

brayzie

I forgot about

About the movie

In regards to both you and DaveyJoe's comments, I should alter my opinion. It's not necessarily that I had a problem with him killing in a specific instance, just the portrayal of it. It lacks importance if he kills in the first film(although I think it's better that he be the one superhero that finds away NOT to). I think it would have been better served to save it for the third film, that way him sacrificing his belief in the sanctity of life would be that much more significant. Which is why

I understand that Warner Bros needed to do something really big for their second reboot, and I think that most people were tired of Luthor and lackluster villains, and really wanted to see a superhuman battle in a new Superman film. Also, WB probably felt pressure by investors to make the film "darker" like the highly successful Dark Knight trilogy. And it worked for them because Man of Steel was a success. I still thought the movie was really good save for the ending, and Cavill being cast as Superman was a good choice, and the actress who played Faora was awesome. Fight scenes were amazing.

I just think that 1) it was too early to have Superman kill, and 2) I'm beginning to have a general problem with studios trying to mainstream massive violence and killing for PG-13 audiences using comic book and cartoon characters like Superman.

RocShemp

Speaking of Miracleman, have the rights issues been sorted out? Because a movie or mini-series (like on Netflix or HBO) would be all kinds of badass.

As for Superman killing, I get why Snyder and Goyer pushed for it (despite Nolan's objections) but they didn't follow through with it. It's really jarring to go from Lois Lane cradling and consoling a visibly distraught Kal El (he just killed the last member of his race and banished the rest for all eternity) to then have a cutesy scene with the drone followed by his cutesy first arrival at the Daily Planet. Both those scenes would be better served for a sequel after Clark finally decides to stay on Earth despite all that occurred. As it stands, there's no proper emotional transition.

Solid Snake

Marvel has all the rights now. They're reprinting the Moore issues in volumes. They also did the early stuff. We don't have a lot of it so far but we're getting there.

I still haven't gotten them. Marvel prices them too high. Even w/ a B&N sale on them I still think the pricing is too high compared to DC's pricing.

Yes, a miniseries would be awesome. I

RocShemp

Hmm... The way this post just cuts out, I wonder which government agency finally apprehended Solid Snake.

taffer

Try instocktrades. They are usually a lot cheaper than either B&N or Amazon.

ddrknghtrtns

In the Justice League animated series, Superman was intent on killing Darkseid and was getting the upper hand in the battle before Batman butted in and pulled him away (via Boom Tube) from Braniac's ship before it self destruct. In the Justice Lords episodes, Superman from an alternate earth blasted Luthor with his heat vision and lobotomized the Joker and Doomsday.

The Valeyard

In the recent Doomed story arc, Superman pondered about killing Doomsday as the creature devastated town after town. He finally decides to do it and tears Doomsday in half. However, after death, Doomsday infects Superman and slowly turned Supes into another Doomsday.

Essentially - When Superman resorted to killing someone, he became a monster.



Overall, the storyline started strong but tapered off toward the end.

Solid Snake

Who's the blonde?

stingermck

Supergirl as a red lantern

Solid Snake

hmph. Didn't even pay attention to the emblem.

Mike86

I guess I shouldn't have used the word definitive maybe, but I can certainly see why many people view the version of Batman portrayed in Batman: The Animated Series that way.

PhantomStranger

But some takes are far more definitive than others and resonate far more strongly with the public. Superman had long hair for a short period in the 1990s, virtually no one identifies that as an intrinsic part of the character's iconic design. Just like most sane people these days ignore what Marvel is currently doing with Spider-Man, the character has already been defined by decades of material.

DC and Marvel have far less brand control over their iconic properties than they imagine, since they don't control the characters in other mediums. Disney has decided to rectify this by ending the 616 Marvel universe.

fujishig

In the first instance, it's actually interesting, IIRC Superman was going to hold Darkseid there until it self destructed so both of them would die; Batman pulls Superman away, and Darkseid still dies, so it's like Superman still killed him.

In the latter, well, you see the repercussions of the killing. Superman, taunted by Luthor, who tells him that he will always get free, kills him. This forces them on the path of the Justice Lords, where he decides to rule over humanity. This is basically the same storyline as the Injustice games (where he kills the Joker). The point being that once Superman resorts to killing, he starts seeing that it's an easier solution than doing "what's right" and puts him on the path to dictatorship.

I agree that the problem was that they put him in that situation in his first real adventure, and then didn't deal with it properly (nor, in my opinion, did they deal with the destruction of metropolis/the world).

TheMovieman

In fairness, it appears that's why Batman is going against Superman and will give rise to Lex Luthor as well (maybe even the creation of Doomsday as a counterweight).