How come the animators seem to get "it" right with superheroes?
Ken from Chicago
SQUAD, and the cell-shaded young Tony Stark, and some of the various
animated versions of Spider-Man, have deliberately diverged from the source
material in substance and / or tone, why is it when the "serious" aka
dramatic animations (the various DC Comics dvd movies, GREEN LANTERN: FIRST
FLIGHT, the Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman animated dvds, and from the
looks of the trailers, the upcoming JUSTICE LEAGUE: CRISIS ON TWO EARTHS and
PLANET HULK dvds) seem to be able to get "it" right when the DC and Marvel
often seem to keep struggling over the source material?
It = the right balance of super and hero, realism and wonder, plot and
characters, updating but being consistent enough, that long time and new
fans like.
Is it simply easier to tell a one-off or two-hour story versus maintaining a
massive universe on a monthly basis year in and year out? Or do the
animators simply get the benefit of hindsight, seeing what "worked" (was
popular to fans as a whole) and adapting that to the small screen?
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
Well, I'd say they get it wrong far more often than they get it right,
even within the same franchise. The early Superman TAS was cool, but
stuff like Brainiac Attacks was God awful. The Legion pilot on Superman
TAS with Supergirl was excellent (that was still Timm, wasn't it?) but
the Legion show that came out of it was crap. I only watched 2 or 3
episodes of the new Iron Man, and about the same of the similar
Spider-Man series. I didn't watch more than a few minutes of the recent
Marvel direct to DVD stuff. That recent Fantastic Four was dreadful.
Batman Beyond I could take or leave; Static Shock was terrible. Don't
even get me started on Krypto.
I'd say the common thread in the stuff I liked was Bruce Timm, or a
close adherance to him.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
grinningdemon
wrote:
Yeah, Brainiac Attacks was awful...Timm didn't have anything to do
with that one, I think (though it was based on Superman TAS with most
of the same voice cast)...but I don't think he had anything to do with
the Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman movie either and I thought it was
decent...that Legion "pilot" you mention was actually long after
Superman TAS in Justice League Unlimited...it was still Timm (that was
the last series they did), it wasn't connected to the later Legion
show at all...and, personally, I thought Batman Beyond was pretty
good.
>I'd say the common thread in the stuff I liked was Bruce Timm, or a
>close adherance to him.
That is generally a pretty good indicator but there have been some
decent ones without him...The Batman started out weak but got better
in the later seasons (though it was never anywhere near as good as
Batman TAS)...Spectacular Spiderman is pretty well written and
executed even though I don't like the animation style much...and I
loved X-Men Evolution (it was definitely a departure from the source
material but it was still a fun take on the X-Men...the best animated
X-Men, in my opinion).
plausible prose man
wrote:
Right; I think the people who make the animated shows are able to
draw on what's interesting and "true" about the various incarnations,
and present an integrated, "classic" version. (although a lot of
people kind of hate Brave and the Bold for being more lighthearted
than the character they know from comics, or even Bruce Timm's
version.)
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
haven't seen that one; it's not on his resume
> decent...that Legion "pilot" you mention was actually long after
> Superman TAS in Justice League Unlimited...it was still Timm (that was
> the last series they did), it wasn't connected to the later Legion
> show at all...and, personally, I thought Batman Beyond was pretty
> good.
I gave up on BB when they did that ep Hilary Bader wrote where we found
out Bruce had been porking Batgirl. That just seemed to be such a
betrayal, to Dick, to Gordon, to the character of Bruce, to the
audience, to everybody. I generally despised Bader's scripts with the
one exception of the Xena Groundhog Day rip-off, where she just started
killing people, knowing she was gonna get a reset. :)
>
> >I'd say the common thread in the stuff I liked was Bruce Timm, or a
> >close adherance to him.
>
> That is generally a pretty good indicator but there have been some
> decent ones without him...The Batman started out weak but got better
Was that the show with the BATWAVE tie ins? I skipped it.
> in the later seasons (though it was never anywhere near as good as
> Batman TAS)...Spectacular Spiderman is pretty well written and
> executed even though I don't like the animation style much...and I
> loved X-Men Evolution (it was definitely a departure from the source
> material but it was still a fun take on the X-Men...the best animated
> X-Men, in my opinion).
You know, I don't think I've watched any X-Men animated incarnation,
beyond, you know, Spider-Man and his Amazing Firestar Friends. :)
grinningdemon
wrote:
Personally, I didn't mind the Batman/Batgirl hook-up so much in that
version...I was more upset that they basically just skipped over it
and we never actually saw it happen...it didn't strike me as any kind
of betrayal of Dick...Babs had a thing for Batman before she even
became Batgirl and Dick broke things off with her long before anything
happened with Bruce...then again, I've never really liked Babs with
Dick at all...I really wish it never happened in the comics
either...for that matter, I just don't like Dick Grayson period.
I'm not really sure how it's a betrayal of Gordon either...if
anything, the betrayal there is Bruce ever letting her operate as
Batgirl at all.
As for it being a betrayal of the audience, all I can say is it didn't
bother me...I don't think I'd want to see it happen in the comics
(maybe if she and Dick had never gotten together) but I thought it
worked well for that version.
The only thing that really put me off about Barbara Gordon in Batman
Beyond was that she (and most of his other old allies) was so pissed
at Bruce most of the time...it was the same kind of crap they pulled
in the New Adventures of Batman with Dick Grayson...they both act as
though Bruce forced them to become vigilantes and everything wrong in
their lives is his fault...it's bullshit.
>> >I'd say the common thread in the stuff I liked was Bruce Timm, or a
>> >close adherance to him.
>>
>> That is generally a pretty good indicator but there have been some
>> decent ones without him...The Batman started out weak but got better
>
>Was that the show with the BATWAVE tie ins? I skipped it.
Yeah, that was lame...but the later seasons when they introduced
Batgirl, Robin, Gordon, etc. were a lot better...pretty much Season 3
on.
>> in the later seasons (though it was never anywhere near as good as
>> Batman TAS)...Spectacular Spiderman is pretty well written and
>> executed even though I don't like the animation style much...and I
>> loved X-Men Evolution (it was definitely a departure from the source
>> material but it was still a fun take on the X-Men...the best animated
>> X-Men, in my opinion).
>
>You know, I don't think I've watched any X-Men animated incarnation,
>beyond, you know, Spider-Man and his Amazing Firestar Friends. :)
Well, I would suggest you check out X-Men Evolution sometime...the
status quo is quite a bit different than any other X-Men version but
they stay true to most of the characters and it was a lot of
fun...they also managed to avoid Wolverine taking over the show (which
I greatly appreciated)...the only time I was really disappointed was
the series finale...they went too big by bringing back pretty much
every character they had introduced over the course of the series and
it didn't leave time for much more than cameos by most of the main
cast.
Michael Wood
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wdudnYYWG-HCvMbW...@giganews.com...
Sorry Ken. Can't seem to get a decent discussion going on around here. Like
an epidemic of ADD ... Oh look there's a bunny! What was the question?
I think you are right. I don't think that it is the huge universe that is
the problem.
I think that the animators just care more. Because they are working in a
child's medium (and god I get tired of the literary reviews of Brave and
Bold and other animation as serious media), they focus on the fun, the
wonder and the appropriateness of the work for their audience.
I think that seeing the chracters on the screen can make them more "real"
and give you a greater observation to look after them, particularly if you
actually meet the voice actors. You cannot be a good actor and not have some
connection to your character, and it's worse with heroes. Clayton Moore,
Leonard Nimoy etc.
The animators probably also have fond memories of their Saturday mornings,
hiding out from the reality of primary school in the 70s, 80s.
As has been discussed before, many of the current crop of writers seem to:
a) have no fond childhood memories of chracters
b) seem to actually dislike the characters they write about
c) want to change the characters into unrecognisable forms (possibly to
"make their mark")
d) have a bit of envy of "real" writers
e) seem to have little respect for the fans (kids who tie a towel around
their necks and run around the house), and want to make everything more
"adult"
Basically, when you bring a character to life, you invest a bit of your soul
into them, as most writers do. A lot of today's writing is soulless in
comics.
BTW if you look at some of the old, really bad comics, you can tell that the
writer was still putting themselves into the work, even if it was poorly
executed, cringeworthy or just plain silly.
Michael Wood
Michael Wood
"plausible prose man" <George...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8affcf1e-b0c6-4273...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
***
"a lot of people" or "a lot of kids"?
The kids love it.
And I think that's the point.
Michael Wood
plausible prose man
> "plausible prose man" <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:8affcf1e-b0c6-4273...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Do a lot of kids know Batman from comics? Isn't the average reader 35
now? Or even Bruce Timm, his last Batman project was, uh...ten years
ago? There's this "The Batman" show, but it isn't nearly as fun.
> The kids love it.
I didn't say it was a bad show, or anything. It's actually pretty
great; did you see the Batmite episode? Slathered in delightful
chickenfat.
> And I think that's the point.
The point of the question was more, seemingly, how come the animators
do such a better job presenting a fully integrated version of the
character that distills all the different versions to what's essential
about the character?
Ken from Chicago
"Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote in message
news:4b5cf64e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Yeah, those are the "skewed" versions, ala SUPER HERO SQUAD, NEW TEEN
TITANS, IRON MAN ARMORED ADVENTURES, etc., where they are deliberately
reworking the adaptation for kids.
JUSTICE LEAGUE: NEW FRONTIER, X-MEN: EVOLUTION, GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT,
etc., seem more for the comic book audience of teens to adults.
-- Ken from Chicago
Marty
wrote:
I think it's pretty simple why animators *get* it.
They *have* to get it. It's their job.
The costs/profits on a piece of animation is a hell of a lot higher
than that of a comic (or even a series), so the people in charge are
going to make sure they have the right people working on a project.
As to a further question why animators get it, while film people so
often do not? I would hazard that animators working in animation would
be more likely to be familiar with the source material (hence them
being animators in the first place), where a film director may not.
Especially a big name film director.
Animators are close enough to comics and have a good understanding of
the market (and what will sell) to ensure a good translation of this
kind of property. The animated operation is still small enough to
ensure the "directors" vision is more often than not carried through,
while in film, there is a greater chance of something going askew
through the sheer scale of a cinematic operation, and its various
members/obligations adding ideas into the film.
Ken from Chicago
~ Do a lot of kids know Batman from comics? Isn't the average reader 35
~now? Or even Bruce Timm, his last Batman project was, uh...ten years
~ago? There's this "The Batman" show, but it isn't nearly as fun.
I remember Peter David commented a few years ago he had some kids comment
that they were Spider-Man fans, but they didn't collect the comics. He
wondered how, and they were fans of the movies, cartoons, and video games
(speaking of, the SPIDER-MAN: WEB OF EXTINCTION, where all of New York is
infected by Venom ... genius, why hadn't Marvel come up with that?).
> The kids love it.
~ I didn't say it was a bad show, or anything. It's actually pretty
~great; did you see the Batmite episode? Slathered in delightful
~chickenfat.
"Mayhem of the Music Meister" was good. And I find myself surprisingly
liking the upbeat(?!?!) Aquaman ("Outrageous!").
> And I think that's the point.
~ The point of the question was more, seemingly, how come the animators
~do such a better job presenting a fully integrated version of the
~character that distills all the different versions to what's essential
~about the character?
It's like the publishers are too close to the source. They don't see the
characters as fans do but more as products. How else to explain the
Spidey-Clone? Identity Crisis? One More Day? Joey Q nixing JMS' plan to have
Gwen having Peter Parker's kids and preferring Gwen having Norman Osbourne's
kids after she willingly slept with him? What the frell?
-- Ken from Chicago
grinningdemon
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I remember Peter David commented a few years ago he had some kids comment
>that they were Spider-Man fans, but they didn't collect the comics. He
>wondered how, and they were fans of the movies, cartoons, and video games
>(speaking of, the SPIDER-MAN: WEB OF EXTINCTION, where all of New York is
>infected by Venom ... genius, why hadn't Marvel come up with that?).
It's actually been done in comics a couple of times already...most
recently during Bendis' run on Mighty Avengers...before that, I
believe there was a Spiderman story back in the 90s (Planet of
Symbiotes, I believe).
plausible prose man
wrote:
> "plausible prose man" <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:745cb10d-7a1c-408f...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 8:39 pm, "Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
> It's like the publishers are too close to the source.
Well, that, and the publishers face a market with different demands.
I'm not sure you'd get people to buy five or six Batman titles every
month year after year if they're telling basically the same few
stories, while a movie audience, or someone watching a one-off DTV has
an expectation of a more general, classic version. Something you can
run on archetypical set-pieces. A comic (and more often than our
original poster admits, on-going TV shows) are going to generate a lot
more new stuff and see where it goes, and most often it's going to be
bad.
>Yo They don't see the
> characters as fans do but more as products. How else to explain the
> Spidey-Clone?
Or Morpheus, or Spidey having six arms.
> Identity Crisis?
I really liked Identity Crisis. That does a swell job integrating
bronze age JLA stories into our modern age of irony.
> One More Day? Joey Q nixing JMS' plan to have
> Gwen having Peter Parker's kids and preferring Gwen having Norman Osbourne's
> kids after she willingly slept with him? What the frell?
I'm sure if people demanded a new James Bond movie every six months,
they'd have a lot of wrong turns.
Billy Bissette
> On Jan 25, 5:18�am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> "plausible prose man" <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:745cb10
> d-7a1c-408f-84...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 24, 8:39 pm, "Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>
>> It's like the publishers are too close to the source.
>
> Well, that, and the publishers face a market with different demands.
> I'm not sure you'd get people to buy five or six Batman titles every
> month year after year if they're telling basically the same few
> stories, while a movie audience, or someone watching a one-off DTV has
> an expectation of a more general, classic version. Something you can
> run on archetypical set-pieces. A comic (and more often than our
> original poster admits, on-going TV shows) are going to generate a lot
> more new stuff and see where it goes, and most often it's going to be
> bad.
If you figure one TV episode is roughly equivalent to one issue of a
comic, then a once-a-week cartoon is roughly matching a monthly comic
in its yearly rate of new material. A daily cartoon has an even higher
rate. One could further argue that a modern comic isn't even equivalent
to a 30-minute cartoon anymore. It can now take two or three issues to
tell the story equivalent of a single TV episode, and the worst
decompressions can expand that to four, five, or six issues.
I think the better half of cartoons seemed to hold up a higher
quality over time than the better half of comics. There are misses,
but misses in a TV show generally don't have the impact of a miss in
a comic. Sometimes there are a string of misses, but some comics
have suffered years of misses.
Now, as has been pointed out previously in this thread, there are
plenty of bad animated shows. People remember the good, and forget the
rest.
But also honestly, some of those bad shows were recognizably bad from
the start. At best, they were horribly misguided. At worst, they were
quick cash grabs. Marvel in particular was quite willing to dump
garbage onto the airwaves. Then again, that can describe both Marvel
and DC's approaches to comics. They are both quite willing to produce
garbage there well.
> I'm sure if people demanded a new James Bond movie every six months,
> they'd have a lot of wrong turns.
They have a lot of wrong turns even when they take many years between
them. Casino Royale rebooted the franchise, and then they made the mess
that was Quantum of Solace? (But then what should you expect, when
pretty much every flaw in Casino Royale ties to where they diverged from
the source material.)
Bill Steele
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Well, I would suggest you check out X-Men Evolution sometime...the
> status quo is quite a bit different than any other X-Men version but
> they stay true to most of the characters and it was a lot of
> fun...they also managed to avoid Wolverine taking over the show (which
> I greatly appreciated)...the only time I was really disappointed was
> the series finale...they went too big by bringing back pretty much
> every character they had introduced over the course of the series and
> it didn't leave time for much more than cameos by most of the main
> cast.
Everybody seems to miss the gimmick there. What they did was bring in
the *original* team: Angel, Cyclops, Beast, Iceman. Same thing at the
end of the movie. But you'd have to be as old as me to notice or care.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here...there was an episode in the last
season (I think) that brought the original X-Men together, but it
wasn't the finale...the finale had every significant character who had
appeared over the course of the show coming together and then being
divided up into several different groups to tackle several different
enemies...and the originals were scattered throughout the different
groups...there were so many characters running around in it that most
of them didn't even get speaking roles...the other thing that
disappointed me about the finale was that Prof. X was missing and
Wolverine took over even though the exact same thing happened a couple
seasons earlier and Cyclops took the lead (as he should)...it was the
only time in the series when it seemed like they were building up
Wolverine at the expense of the other characters...it might as well
have been an episode of "Wolverine and the X-Men."
plausible prose man
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote innews:57f09d6d-a690-4633...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 5:18 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "plausible prose man" <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:745cb10
> >> On Jan 24, 8:39 pm, "Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>
> >> It's like the publishers are too close to the source.
>
> > Well, that, and the publishers face a market with different demands.
> > I'm not sure you'd get people to buy five or six Batman titles every
> > month year after year if they're telling basically the same few
> > stories, while a movie audience, or someone watching a one-off DTV has
> > an expectation of a more general, classic version. Something you can
> > run on archetypical set-pieces. A comic (and more often than our
> > original poster admits, on-going TV shows) are going to generate a lot
> > more new stuff and see where it goes, and most often it's going to be
> > bad.
>
> If you figure one TV episode is roughly equivalent to one issue of a
> comic, then a once-a-week cartoon is roughly matching a monthly comic
> in its yearly rate of new material. A daily cartoon has an even higher
> rate. One could further argue that a modern comic isn't even equivalent
> to a 30-minute cartoon anymore. It can now take two or three issues to
> tell the story equivalent of a single TV episode, and the worst
> decompressions can expand that to four, five, or six issues.
Okay, sure.
> I think the better half of cartoons seemed to hold up a higher
> quality over time than the better half of comics.
Also, Animation is what a lot of comics guys hope to graduate into.
> There are misses,
> but misses in a TV show generally don't have the impact of a miss in
> a comic.
Yeah, I think there's more of a rule in series fiction to put
everything back by the end of the story that comic books feel freer to
break, especially lately. Still, I think the better half of Superhero
Cartoons would include Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, which, while
a huge improvement over the Superfriends, was pretty ridiculous.
> Sometimes there are a string of misses, but some comics
> have suffered years of misses.
>
> Now, as has been pointed out previously in this thread, there are
> plenty of bad animated shows. People remember the good, and forget the
> rest.
>
> But also honestly, some of those bad shows were recognizably bad from
> the start.
Pretty much every cartoon until Batman TAS was bad in many more ways
than it was good. The most completely successful goes at it anyone had
were probably the Hannah Barbara "Weirdo Superheroes," and only a few
of those; Space Ghost, Bird Man, the Galaxy Trio, Shazzan was pretty
good. Still, even there, despite some excellent draftsmanship, the
cheap shortcuts of TV animation in those days are always apparent, and
the stories are extremely formulaic
> At best, they were horribly misguided. At worst, they were
> quick cash grabs. Marvel in particular was quite willing to dump
> garbage onto the airwaves. Then again, that can describe both Marvel
> and DC's approaches to comics. They are both quite willing to produce
> garbage there well.
>
> > I'm sure if people demanded a new James Bond movie every six months,
> > they'd have a lot of wrong turns.
>
> They have a lot of wrong turns even when they take many years between
> them. Casino Royale rebooted the franchise, and then they made the mess
> that was Quantum of Solace? (But then what should you expect, when
> pretty much every flaw in Casino Royale ties to where they diverged from
> the source material.)
Casino Royale was an excellent movie, but rebooting the story only
works once per, uh...reboot.
TheWatcherUatu
audience and not having to be apologetic for appealing to that
audience. The Teen Titans series is probably a good example; as I
recall, most of the posters on Usenet didn't get it, but they didn't
need to, because the target audience ate it up.
That said, I agree with whomever said that animation has had some
winners and some losers. Most people will agree that Batman: TAS was
something of a benchmark, and I would go so far as to say that
Superman: TAS was equally as good. Beyond that, I don't know. Batman
Beyond was very formulaic, but I have an affection for the character,
regardless, and to this date, I don't think either Marvel or DC have
managed to outdo Return of the Joker for a full length feature.
Billy Bissette
aa23-530...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> I think animation benefits from having a better understanding of its
> audience and not having to be apologetic for appealing to that
> audience. The Teen Titans series is probably a good example; as I
> recall, most of the posters on Usenet didn't get it, but they didn't
> need to, because the target audience ate it up.
Teen Titans was destined for a rough start due to how heavily it was
trying to ape an anime style. This made it look like yet another
attempt by Americans to jump onto the anime/manga bandwagon.
The die-hard comic book fans had the second issue of how much the
show diverged from the comic book characters. It was kind of like
The Batman in that regard.
But the show itself was pretty good. The first season writing was a
little bumpy because they were still feeling out the characters. You
have things like an episode where Raven has a generic goth girl
personality, which doesn't really describe what she ultimately ends
up as. (To me, the worst characterization in the first season
actually comes from the Marv Wolfman episode. Starfire and Raven
going gaga over Aqualad was completely out of character compared to
every other episode of the series.)
Mind, Teen Titans did still end up with two bad seasons. Season 3
suffered from the Brother Blood/Titans East storyline. Blood was
very poorly presented, Bumblebee was shoved down viewers throats out
of nowhere, and the Titans East just never worked. Season 5 had an
even worse full season arc. The Doom Patrol two-parter was bad and
the Brotherhood of Evil storyline was simply atrocious. The whole
Brotherhood arc's writing has more plot holes that content. If I
had worked on the show, I'd have been embarassed to have my name
associated with the Brotherhood episodes. And Titans East made
another return. They still didn't work.
Joe Sewell
Of course, another advantage animators have over the live-action folks
is that animators can do much more than even CG can cover. The fact that
the Fantastic Four movies managed to pull off a credible Thing without
CG was impressive, but how could they do that with a 9-foot green Hulk,
let alone the grow-as-you-get-angrier Bana version? Most people pan the
CG there.
The first Reeve Superman movie's tagline was, "you will believe a man
can fly." And they pulled it off! But that's not enough in today's
world. You have to believe that a ring can work not only as a
flashlight, but also create solid constructs. (I'm still eagerly
awaiting the SFX for that one!)
Then again, maybe the live-action folks' problem is in thinking they
*can't* pull off realistic live-action comic book movies.
Michael
The people behind that Legion was a different team than the group that
brought us B:TAS, S:TAS, Batman Beyond, and JL/JLU (and, sadly, Brainiac
Attacks)
> I only watched 2 or 3
> episodes of the new Iron Man, and about the same of the similar
> Spider-Man series. I didn't watch more than a few minutes of the recent
> Marvel direct to DVD stuff.
The current Iron Man series is pretty bad, though Spectacular Spider-Man
is pretty good, with the only real drawback being the horrible theme song.
> That recent Fantastic Four was dreadful.
Far worse than that.
> Batman Beyond I could take or leave; Static Shock was terrible. Don't
> even get me started on Krypto.
>
> I'd say the common thread in the stuff I liked was Bruce Timm, or a
> close adherance to him.
Overall, I'd opine that it's easier to get voice actors to sacrifice
screen time for plot exposition or fight scenes. Maybe because it's
animation (usually seen as "kid's fare"), maybe because they're voice
actors, maybe because those who do those shows are more team players, I
dunno.
Michael
Anim8rFSK
or, after today:
http://www.foxtrot.com/comics/2010-03-21-75f89edd.gif
got to wonder how many people will get it though, and of those, how many
will find it amusing?
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"