Man, do the critics even WATCH the shows??

[Wolf Boy2]

This is old as the hills, but it's a good example of soccer mom criticism of DCAU shows. Circa 1995, it's from a UCLA monitoring team and talking about the violence in B:TAS:

A new and much darker version of the adventures of the Caped Crusader and Boy Wonder began three years ago. Originally for the weekday afternoon cartoon line-up, this program is reminiscent of the "Dark Knight" series of comic books which reestablished Batman as a major comic book hero. It also follows the Warner Bros. Batman movies which abandoned the satire of the 1960s television series for the moral ambiguity of Batman's earlier days. Both the mood and lighting of Batman and Robin are dark. The stories always revolve around the dynamic duo's thwarting of various super villains and other forces of evil, but with a substantially more mean-spirited and vicious perspective than the older live-action television series.

In this cartoon, Batman and Robin show their darker side as vigilantes rather than serving as custodians of the law. In one scene, a criminal is dangling on a girder hundreds of feet off the ground. Batman could save him, but because he refuses to cooperate, the Caped Crusader walks away, leaving the man to fall to a certain death. The criminal protests that the police would not leave him dangling and Batman replies, "We're not the police."

The fight scenes are prolonged and contain realistic weapons such as guns, pipes and Batman's fists. The violence is vindictive. Batman and Robin almost always win. They are strong and silent heroes like Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry series of films. Both Batman and Robin are willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to get their man, always resorting to violent tactics, even if it means letting an already beaten foe die.

The violence is glorified and the fight scenes comprise the focus of the show. A very distinctive style of animation and a foreboding tone amplify the "cool" feel to the characters toughness and one gets the feeling that the heroes really enjoy thrashing their opponents. (Link: http://www.digitalcenter.org/webreport94/iiie2.htm)

I know the scene they're talking about; it's from "Robin's Reckoning part 1" and Batman did not leave the man to die. It was purely to scare him. In fact, to even SUGGEST that Batman would leave anyone to die indicates that they never really watched the show. How many times did Bruce save the Joker and countless other enemies?

I know these people are supposed to be scholars ... but their ignorence of what they criticize discredits them. Like an uncle of mine who said Transformers are bad for kids because robots cannot die or have emotion (obviously he has never seen either Transformers movie).

 

[Antiyonder]

I know these people are supposed to be scholars ... but their ignorence of what they criticize discredits them. Like an uncle of mine who said Transformers are bad for kids because robots cannot die or have emotion (obviously he has never seen either Transformers movie).

Many adults who dislike cartoons view the medium as simplistic/stupid, especially if it has violent tones. Thus it's not required for them to make an informed opinion on the matter.

 

[Movie06]

Sometimes, actually all the time, there are people who criticise something without even seeing the material first.

Take the Seinfeld episode The Puerto Rico Day for example and this is actually true, Puerto Ricans who were protesting the episode admit that they did not see it. They said "We assume it's offensive."

I'm sure you all recall the part where Kramer accidentally burns the Puerto Rico flag.

 

[Gokou Ruri]

Happened with Night Trap too. People accused the game of being vile and horrible because you "preyed and sexually assaulted" girls in it despite the fact you actually save them. When asked if the judge had played it, he responded "Of course not, I'd never play that flilth! I simply know it's bad!"

So yeah, people complain without seeing stuff all the time.

 

[Wolf Boy2]

Many adults who dislike cartoons view the medium as simplistic/stupid, especially if it has violent tones. Thus it's not required for them to make an informed opinion on the matter.

Yeah, elsewhere in the article they described The Lion King as an "outstanding theatrical film" which, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, "would be impossible to convey accurately without the use of violence."

As always, Disney movies get a free pass for their violence. I noticed the reviewers never mentioned Gargoyles at all and Aladdin was classified as "tame." Or, perhaps, they never saw Gargoyles at all. Curiously, Spider-Man: TAS was also classified as "tame" while they put X-Men through the wringer.

This same UCLA study offered these conclusions about "responsible" use of violence:

Some conclusions we have drawn regarding responsible depictions of violence are as follows:

1. Violence is a part of city life. These shows understand that violence does occur in 20th century urban America. They do not have to invent unusual ways or methods of portraying violence.
2. The violence must be realistic. When violence is depicted on these shows it is never exaggerated, cartoonish or sanitized and the consequences are shown.
3. Characters who commit violent acts do not do so easily and frequently demonstrate remorse. Violence does not exist in a vacuum. Rarely do police shoot or kill suspects, even guilty ones, and call it a day. Deciding to commit a violent act can be difficult. Often a character struggles with other options before resorting to violence. After committing a violent act, one often undergoes a painful process of self-examination and reflection.
4. It is not always necessary for the audience to see the violence. It is not always necessary to show violence in order to adequately make a certain point, advance the plot or develop a particular character. Graphically depicting violence is seldom necessary and often serves merely to sensationalize rather than elucidate.

Now could someone please explain to me how this does not apply to BTAS? "It's Never too Late" is a perfect example of common city violence (no fantasy) and chock full of consequences, remorse, regrets and (ultimately) redemption. Batman kicks a lot of asses in the story, but his main goal throughout is to ensure that no one dies (even though they are mafia goons). That was the B:TAS I remember.

 

[Movie06]

Then they're just being hypocritical.

 

[Alex Weitzman]

It is likely that the makers of the report did not watch the show very much.

However, in the case of the Robin's Reckoning example, it is more likely that they DID watch the entirety of that scene and were quite aware that Batman and Robin don't leave the guy to die. They just actively ignored that fact to try and make their ill-founded point. This is a report with an agenda, and such reports normally cherry-pick their examples and their evidence to try to fabricate a conclusion. They usually think nothing of it because they're so convinced that they're right that any fact that proves it otherwise is just worth jettisoning.

 

[Wolf Boy2]

It is likely that the makers of the report did not watch the show very much.

However, in the case of the Robin's Reckoning example, it is more likely that they DID watch the entirety of that scene and were quite aware that Batman and Robin don't leave the guy to die. They just actively ignored that fact to try and make their ill-founded point. This is a report with an agenda, and such reports normally cherry-pick their examples and their evidence to try to fabricate a conclusion. They usually think nothing of it because they're so convinced that they're right that any fact that proves it otherwise is just worth jettisoning.

It reminds me of some religious articles I've seen about Harry Potter that make ridiculous claims about the books and make me wonder if the people even read them. I remember one Christian article which stated that Harry and his friends drink unicorn's blood in "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" when in fact it was Voldemort (the villain) who was drinking the enchanted blood.

Now, personally, I think Harry Potter is crap. My own opinion, based on my lack of enjoyment from the first three books. I can list why the series left a bad taste in my mouth (sneaking around Hogwarts with the Marauder's Map in book 3, for instance), but I don't need to lie and I certainly wouldn't launch attacks at the other four books in the series because I never read them (except for online spoilers of book 7).

Another thing that bothers me about the hypocrisy in the UCLA article is that they specify that "the violence must be realistic" in order to be a "responsible representation." Yet, at the same time, they invoke Hamlet and The Lion King as good examples. Uh, I'm pretty sure ghosts don't exist and I definitely know that lions and hyenas do not conspire to steal royal thrones. Fantasy can be accurate to real life if the emotions and consequences are roughly the same.

In fact, almost ALL literature prior to the last few hundred years was supernatural in nature. Even non-supernatural Greek plays ("Antigone" comes to mind) referenced the gods. Look how much fantasy was in Shakespeare.

 

[pharmmajor]

It's like the old saying goes: Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, or have no idea what the hell is going on, criticize.

... or something like that.

 

[Master Toon]

Both Batman and Robin are willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to get their man, always resorting to violent tactics, even if it means letting an already beaten foe die.

That's funny because I seem to recall, back then, me and my family joking about how Batman always saves his foes instead of letting them die. And why is robin included in all of this? Robin's tactics are nowhere near as dark as Batman's was. The only person I've seen Robin hostile towards was that guy who killed his parents.

 

[thedanmachine]

It's like the old saying goes: Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, or have no idea what the hell is going on, criticize.

... or something like that.

very true

 

[Ed Liu]

This same UCLA study offered these conclusions about "responsible" use of violence:

Now could someone please explain to me how this does not apply to BTAS?

Of the items you've listed, the one that doesn't seem to apply much to BTAS is:

Characters who commit violent acts do not do so easily and frequently demonstrate remorse. Violence does not exist in a vacuum. Rarely do police shoot or kill suspects, even guilty ones, and call it a day. Deciding to commit a violent act can be difficult. Often a character struggles with other options before resorting to violence. After committing a violent act, one often undergoes a painful process of self-examination and reflection.

The difference between someone like Batman and someone like Superman or the title character of Avatar the Last Airbender is that Batman will punch first and ask questions later. If he doesn't actively ENJOY beating up thugs, he certainly never seems to feel all that bad about using violence to achieve his ends. Someone like Superman and Aang will at least make a good faith effort at trying to solve problems without punching someone through a wall. For them, violence is a last resort, and it's made very clear that they take no pleasure in pounding someone's head in.

The case where this DID apply to Batman would be in "Old Wounds," when Batman pounds that henchman in front of his family, but it gets revealed later on that he gave the henchman a job at Waynetech and asks about his son. I remember that thug. I don't remember any of them from "It's Never Too Late."

All that being said, I view their list as something akin to the Pirate Code -- more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. I also think that of those 4 items, this is the one that I find the weakest to support and the least likely to pay much attention to. It makes more sense for someone like Batman, and I'd give him or someone like Hawkgirl a lot more leeway to be openly and unremorsefully violent than I would to, say, The Flash or Superman. That rule would also get dispensed with immediately in any kind of team group -- I can't imagine the group dynamics in Justice League would be very interesting if Hawkgirl's first instinct wasn't to crack skulls with her mace.

-- Ed

 

[dark knight acolyte]

Many adults who dislike cartoons view the medium as simplistic/stupid, especially if it has violent tones. Thus it's not required for them to make an informed opinion on the matter.

Not sure if you're mocking the critics or justifying their, IMO, empty review, but I'd say this- An uninformed opinion is exactly the same as an uneducated guess. Though I'd agree with Alex's point of the author having a specific purpose for having the point, albeit sensible OR irrational.

 

[dark knight acolyte]

It is likely that the makers of the report did not watch the show very much.

However, in the case of the Robin's Reckoning example, it is more likely that they DID watch the entirety of that scene and were quite aware that Batman and Robin don't leave the guy to die. They just actively ignored that fact to try and make their ill-founded point. This is a report with an agenda, and such reports normally cherry-pick their examples and their evidence to try to fabricate a conclusion. They usually think nothing of it because they're so convinced that they're right that any fact that proves it otherwise is just worth jettisoning.

Perfectly rational and a great point. Besides, one must consider the audience they're trying to convince; clearly those privy enough to the show to care about the nuances of its characters won't be persuaded by this "critic's" point of view. It's the countless moms, dads, and finger-pointers of the world looking for alibis that flock to reviews like this as if flies to ykw. Therefore, no well-rounded rationale is needed to explain the review; it works on the simplistic nature of its face-value evaluation, easily citing Batman as a violent, remorseless character via sixty seconds of evidence. And anyone who would care any differently simply isn't the target demographic.

 

[Antiyonder]

Not sure if you're mocking the critics or justifying their, IMO, empty review, but I'd say this- An uninformed opinion is exactly the same as an uneducated guess. Though I'd agree with Alex's point of the author having a specific purpose for having the point, albeit sensible OR irrational.

I was channeling my inner Spidey and mocking the reviewer.

 

[dark knight acolyte]

I was channeling my inner Spidey and mocking the reviewer.

Sweet!

 

[Nightwing]

Excellent job all around with quotes and your opinions, Wolf Boy. ALL of your points need to be DEEPLY and GENUINELY considered by those morons.

I could care less about ANYONE in a position of power at UCLA because I know that many of us here could group together, go over there, debate them in person, and kick the crud out of them.....intellectually speaking. I wouldn't want to be accused of being violent.

As a Bruce Timm Animated DC fanboy, the outcome of the quotes' opinions was obvious to me halfway through the first sentence. They clearly have the 60s Adam West and Burt Ward in mind. And an opinion that says "I don't want this because I don't know it. I want what I know from my past. I don't llike this" is not an opinion. It's a preference, a bias, and, in this case, an elite mentality over animated cartoon show media, like they know how to tell a story.

And frankly, I wouldn't call these people scholars. Logically, you simply can't. They're too mean.

In fact, to even SUGGEST that Batman would leave anyone to die indicates that they never really watched the show. How many times did Bruce save the Joker and countless other enemies?

BatmanTAS is what established my own personal preference for the "No Killing" precedent in heroes in general. Batman can NOT allow the loss of life, and the series proved that with every episode, such as the two clown thugs crawling out from under the crashed plane in "Harlequinade."

 

[I am the Night]

Apparently none of those people watched His Silicon Soul. For some reason this episode specifically came too mind when I read this.

 

[Zentron]

Heh, sometimes they just go off the trailer and sometimes they only have pictures, then draw their conclusions!

 

[G. Wen]

My, someone's kid turned out screwed up, and they wanted to blame something else besides their lack of good parenting skills.