I have a question: if the nearly universally despised prequel movies “ruined” Star Wars, how is it that the 1960s-era Adam West show didn’t ruin Batman?  People keep telling me that the new Batman movies, especially The Dark Knight, are great.  I wouldn’t know, having never seen them.  The only Batman thing I’m really familiar with is the ’60s show, and I can see at a glance that its tone is utterly incompatible with the grim new movies.

If Jar Jar Binks is so damaging to the franchise that includes The Empire Strikes Back, then surely Vincent Price’s Egghead cannot exist in the same franchise that includes Heath Ledger’s Joker.  Is the difference simply that  The Dark Knight series came after the Adam West series?  So, franchises are only permitted to get thematically darker as they go on, never lighter; is that it?  Or is it that the Batman thing is a “reboot”, whereas the prequels aren’t?

This stuff Rush Limbaugh’s saying about the villain in the new Batman movie is just goofy.  I’m sure the name similarities will be fodder for political cartoonists, but what can you do?  Remember this, Limbaugh?

Why did Romney’s company have such a stupid name, anyway?  I know it’s spelled differently, but “bane”  means “a person or thing that ruins or spoils”.  Who names their company anything like that?  If I had a company, I wouldn’t name it “kanser”.

And, on the topic of Batman and politics, I just can’t resist posting this clip that made the rounds in 2008.  Make what comparisons you like: