Batman >> View Post
·
Post By
CensusTaker

In Reply To
Blue Jay

Subj: Re: Cool
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:43:43 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Cool
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:33:46 pm EDT


> > > What you call respect is akin to taking Adam West's Batman, Burton's Batman and Batman Returns and Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever and Batman Robin as canon for Nolan's new Batman series. There is a reason Nolan didn't do it.
> >
> > Those are just adaptations of the comics based on which ever decade they chose to base it off of. The 60's series was based on the Batman comics from 1956 through 1966. The 89 and 92 films were based off of the Post Crisis era of stories. "Batman Forever" was based off the 70's Batman while "Batman & Robin" was based off the 60's version. Just as the newer films are based off the stories from 1939, 1940, 1986, 1987, 1996 and 1997.
> >
> > >
> > > Morrison went too far.
> >
> > Why? Because he chose to embrace 70 years of comic continuity? The only Batman stories that were ever really out of continuity was the bulk of the 70's, including Engelhart's run, "Year Two", "Full Circle", "Bride Of The Demon" and "Son Of The Demon". Once O'Neil left, all subsequent writers and editors began to acknowledge the past again.
>
> No, because he chose to take some wacky elements and put on top of them even more ludicrously nutty material.
>
> Interesting take, although if I am not wrong, it wasn't until Morrison that much of Batman's discarded history came back into continuity.

Ah, here we go, finally! That's just it; you are wrong.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software