60s Batman show rights issues resolved!

[Gojira]

Dream wrote:

---

This is a Recap of Batman Forever that ALL Batman fans should read. More people need to realize how awful the whole thing was.

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Bat...ever_1995.aspx

Of the Burton Batman movies, Batman Forever, is my favorite.

When you say more people need to realize how awful the whole thing was what you're really saying is more people need to agree with your opinion. And that is my point. Liking or disliking any movie is nothing but personal opinion and I don't think people need to see things my way on my taste in movies. It is nice when they do agree with me but it isn't essential.

Batman was pretty good but dull at times even though I think Keaton and Nicholson did a good job. Batman Returns has some good moments but pretty joyless in my opinion.

I am alright if no one agrees with me.

[Greg Cox]

Gojira wrote:

---

Of the Burton Batman movies, Batman Forever, is my favorite.

I wouldn't count that as a "Burton" film. It was directed by Joel Shumacher and feels very different than the films Burton actually directed.

And, yeah, it's not the completely unwatchable disaster the fourth film was . . . .

[Captain Craig]

Thanks PsychoPere!
So every celeb who had a 15 second cameo was part of the hold up?
They wanted some percentage of a whole series set or even one season for that measly bit of time?
Geesh.

[Gojira]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I wouldn't count that as a "Burton" film. It was directed by Joel Shumacher and feels very different than the films Burton actually directed.

And, yeah, it's not the completely unwatchable disaster the fourth film was . . . .

I know Joel Shumacher directed the last two movies in that series. But the last time I mentioned that to Dream in this thread he responded with this:

Dream wrote:

---

Schumacher? What are you talking about.

Schumacher NEVER did any Batman movies. It was always Burton and then we had Nolan doing them.

So I was trying to making him happy by not mentioning Schumacher.

[Christopher]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I wouldn't count that as a "Burton" film. It was directed by Joel Shumacher and feels very different than the films Burton actually directed.

And, yeah, it's not the completely unwatchable disaster the fourth film was . . . .

Well, Burton did produce Batman Forever, at least, so it's kind of a transitional piece.

ComicsAlliance did a great series of reviews of the Batman movies, often offering some surprising perspectives, and they argued pretty effectively that Batman & Robin was actually the most cohesive of the four Burton/Schumacher movies, the one that has the clearest sense of what kind of movie it is (a goofy, ridiculous one), what story it wants to tell, and what the characters' motivations are. (Although they hated Silverstone's Batgirl.) Here's the review (Part One, Part Two), and links to their reviews of the previous three films are at the end of Part Two. (They also went on to review Catwoman, the '66 Batman feature, Mask of the Phantasm, and the Nolan films, then did the Blade trilogy, and they've just finished working through the Reeve Superman films and Supergirl. They'll be starting in on Superman Returns this Monday, unless they've managed to obtain a copy of Steel in the interim.)

[Gov Kodos]

Gojira wrote:

---

I know Joel Shumacher directed the last two movies in that series. But the last time I mentioned that to Dream in this thread he responded with this:

So I was trying to making him happy by not mentioning Schumacher.

I liked 'Batman Forever' and even enjoyed a lot about 'Batman and Robin' even with the cringe worthy batcredit cards and such silliness. I prefer them to Nolan's films, but that may be in part my enjoyment of the camp Adam West show to the modern serious Batman. What can I say, I also enjoy 'Howard the Duck'.

[N-121973]

Christopher wrote:

---

Remember, the Batman sitcom was long, long before all DC film and TV rights were consolidated under Warner Bros. or DC Entertainment. The show was produced by 20th Century Fox Television and Greenway Productions, under license from what was then called National Comics Publications. Fox and Greenway also produced a Green Hornet show, so they had the rights to use both of them on TV. It's the same reason IDW Comics is able to publish the just-started Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover miniseries; the two franchises are from different owners, but IDW has the license to publish comics for both of them.

The crossovers between Batman and The Green Hornet were complicated and mindbending from a continuity standpoint. First off, the window cameo in which Batman and Robin recognized the Hornet and Kato as crimefighters was ignored by the later full crossover episode in which the Dynamic Duo believed them to be criminals, which was their cover in their own show. For another thing, TGH was a far more serious and naturalistic show than Batman; the Hornet had futuristic gadgets, but operated in a world that was basically realistic by '60s action-show standards. Moreover, Batman actually existed as a television show within the world of TGH, and we saw people watching it on more than one occasion in the show. So the Hornet was real in Batman's universe, but Batman was fictional in the Hornet's universe.

Actually there is continuity-twisting reference to TGH on Batman between their two onscreen appearences on the show which suggests that TGH existed as a TV-show in the Dozierverse Batman.
I can't remember the exact episode but Batman and Robin are called into action by Commissioner Gordon and Dick laments the fact that they were just going to sit down and watch the Green Hornet on TV. Sorry I can't remember which Batman episode it was.

[inflatabledalek]

One thing that puzzles my (not even remotely legal) mind. The article claims that Warner's have previously been able to do merchendise to the show, just not anything featuring the likeness of the actors (just logo bases stuff and the Batmobile). So is this the result of a new deal with Fox, or is it the case Warner's could have always done this but have only recently done deals with the actors and their estates?

After all, they already own the look of Batman and can seemingly use the logo so if they do a separate one on one deal with, say, Adam West to use his face on a Batman toy in a box with the 60's logo on it would they even need to consult Fox to do it?

[Gojira]

[QUOTE=Christopher;6470662]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Well, Burton did produce Batman Forever, at least, so it's kind of a transitional piece.

ComicsAlliance did a great series of reviews of the Batman movies, often offering some surprising perspectives, and they argued pretty effectively that Batman & Robin was actually the most cohesive of the four Burton/Schumacher movies, the one that has the clearest sense of what kind of movie it is (a goofy, ridiculous one), what story it wants to tell, and what the characters' motivations are. (Although they hated Silverstone's Batgirl.) Here's the review (Part One, Part Two), and links to their reviews of the previous three films are at the end of Part Two. (They also went on to review Catwoman, the '66 Batman feature, Mask of the Phantasm, and the Nolan films, then did the Blade trilogy, and they've just finished working through the Reeve Superman films and Supergirl. They'll be starting in on Superman Returns this Monday, unless they've managed to obtain a copy of Steel in the interim.)

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

I liked 'Batman Forever' and even enjoyed a lot about 'Batman and Robin' even with the cringe worthy batcredit cards and such silliness. I prefer them to Nolan's films, but that may be in part my enjoyment of the camp Adam West show to the modern serious Batman. What can I say, I also enjoy 'Howard the Duck'.

I actually like Schumacher films more than the Burton films. I cut my teeth on the Adam West version and I see the Schumacher films as an homage to the 60s series.

I actually watched Batman & Robin last night and while it is silly and over the top and campy there is a good story in there along with some good character development.

I think comic book movies should have an element of fun to them. I do like Nolan's take on Batman and am enjoying the series but The Dark Knight, while a well made movie went on too long was too complicated and in the end a joyless movie that I don't re-watch too often.

I would rather watch the Adam West or Schumacher Batman because they're fun!

[inflatabledalek]

Batman and Robin is a great movie for small kids, big bright and like having a mouthful of blue smarties. My little cousin loves it and she and I will often throw random Arnie quotes at each other. Unlike the West show it doesn't have that adult crossover appeal (what makes it work is everyone in the West series plays it straight- most could have done the roles in a "Serious" Batman show- whilst in And Robin they're all winking at the camera and trying too hard to be knowingly camp) but I think it's a testament to the character he can do the high camp of West and Shumacher and the dark and gritty Nolan films and do both well.

I can't really imagine a Superman film working in either style, Bats is just more versatile for whatever reason.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Dream wrote:

---

This is a Recap of Batman Forever that ALL Batman fans should read. More people need to realize how awful the whole thing was.

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Bat...ever_1995.aspx

No, my brain is still functioning. I don't need other people to tell me what I should and should not be enjoying. Thanks for your concern.

[Dream]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

No, my brain is still functioning. I don't need other people to tell me what I should and should not be enjoying. Thanks for your concern.

The point of that Recap is not to get you to hate the Batman Forever, but to point out how stupid the writing is. It is also there to provide some humor. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

[RandyS]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

That's unfair. Batman Forever was a solid movie. It's no Batman Begins but it was at least as good as Batman Returns.

I hate that Batman Forever gets tarred and feathered just because it's the older, wiser brother of the mentally retarded Batman & Robin.

Actually, it's better than Batman Returns. I've always thought it ironic how Tim Burton is respected, and Joel Shumaker hated, when they did the exact same thing. They both made excellent first Batman films, and shitty second ones.

What's even more ironic, is that Nolan also did this. But since he's making a third one, I'm looking forward to seeing if the pattern is broken.

[JD]

I just watched Batman Forever while it was briefly streaming on Netflix, and I really enjoyed it. I just thought it was alot of fun. I've never bothered with B&R, but after seeing that there are some people on here that do like it, I might have to move it up in my netflix disc queue.

[Gojira]

JD wrote:

---

I just watched Batman Forever while it was briefly streaming on Netflix, and I really enjoyed it. I just thought it was alot of fun. I've never bothered with B&R, but after seeing that there are some people on here that do like it, I might have to move it up in my netflix disc queue.

I watched Batman and Robin last night. It is a lot fun. They did intensify the camp aspect of it and there are a lot of corny one liners but all in all it is a lot of fun. Great visuals too. A real comic book come to life.