• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

60s Batman show rights issues resolved!

RandyS said:
And as for your comments on Galactica, it was already done right in 1978. Sure, there was room for improvement, but they still got it right. It was Ron Moore's pomposity that ruined that franchise.
Click to expand...

Off topic to be sure...

Ruined? Really? It won awards, critical praise, and lasted longer than the original series. Perhaps ruined for YOU, but, come on...
 
^^ Well, both were equally bad as far as I'm concerned, but the original was more watchable.

Frontier said:
If there was some redeeming quality about that old show, something akin to how the Original Trek had a good ethical message or some such, I'd be much more accepting of it.

The fact of the matter is though, it's a cheese festival of nonsense. The only argument in it's favor is from the point of view of childhood nostalgia.

Yes, Batman may have been campy in the comics for a long time. But such was due to the society in which comics had to be published, not due to design. You couldn't have a dark and gritty comic in the 50s. Or on TV in the 60s.

The characters origins speak for themselves. A child orphaned at the age of 8-to-10 by a lone gunmen who robs and shoots his parents right in front of him, who grows up to pursue justice and, frankly, vengeance. That isn't light hearted. It simply couldn't be done justice for a long time.

It's just like the old Battlestar Galactica compared to the new. A show which in 1978 couldn't do the premise of a rabble of survivors fleeing a mass holocaust justice. Come 2003, boom. It gets done right.

Every argument in favor of the campy Batman, or the campy Galactica, or anything else campy for that matter, is based wholly in childhood nostalgia. In recapturing the wonder of something enjoyed as a kid. Not in a logical or reasonable argument of "campy is superior because A, B and C" or so forth. The only time camp is good is when you're a small kid and can't handle reality as well.

People want to remember the 60s show fondly? I can't (nor would I) stop such. That's everyone's right, to recall something fondly from childhood. I have such things. We all do.

But at least admit, it's a pale watered-down imitation of the character that existed because corporate big-wigs didn't think people, especially kids, where sophisticated or smart enough to deal with actual drama or any sense of reality.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn't possibly be more wrong, on pretty much all counts.

Disruptor said:
What's redeeming about the original Star Trek? It's low-budget, sexist camp with cookie cutter moral messages. :ack: It wasn't doing its premise justice. We had to wait for JJ Abrams to get it right.
Click to expand...
Wha...? :cardie:

Sarcasm aside...
Click to expand...
Oh. Whew. :hugegrin:
 
^ No. Just saying that childhood memories and the fact that it's an early version of Batman are factors in how well it's regarded by many today. That part of Frontier's post is accurate, I believe.
 
But there's a huge difference between saying "Nostalgia is a factor in why it's loved" and "The only people who like it are mental juveniles who can't handle reality." The former is legitimate, the latter is just insulting.
 
All I know is, I've been looking up some Adam West Batman clips on YouTube. I haven't seen that show in years, and I don't think I ever realized just how kinky the show was. I mean, Batgirl sandwiched between Batman and Robin in a human Gordion knot? Wow!
 
Frontier said:
If there was some redeeming quality about that old show, something akin to how the Original Trek had a good ethical message or some such, I'd be much more accepting of it.

The fact of the matter is though, it's a cheese festival of nonsense. The only argument in it's favor is from the point of view of childhood nostalgia.

Yes, Batman may have been campy in the comics for a long time. But such was due to the society in which comics had to be published, not due to design. You couldn't have a dark and gritty comic in the 50s. Or on TV in the 60s.

The characters origins speak for themselves. A child orphaned at the age of 8-to-10 by a lone gunmen who robs and shoots his parents right in front of him, who grows up to pursue justice and, frankly, vengeance. That isn't light hearted. It simply couldn't be done justice for a long time.

It's just like the old Battlestar Galactica compared to the new. A show which in 1978 couldn't do the premise of a rabble of survivors fleeing a mass holocaust justice. Come 2003, boom. It gets done right.

Every argument in favor of the campy Batman, or the campy Galactica, or anything else campy for that matter, is based wholly in childhood nostalgia. In recapturing the wonder of something enjoyed as a kid. Not in a logical or reasonable argument of "campy is superior because A, B and C" or so forth. The only time camp is good is when you're a small kid and can't handle reality as well.

People want to remember the 60s show fondly? I can't (nor would I) stop such. That's everyone's right, to recall something fondly from childhood. I have such things. We all do.

But at least admit, it's a pale watered-down imitation of the character that existed because corporate big-wigs didn't think people, especially kids, where sophisticated or smart enough to deal with actual drama or any sense of reality.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is denying that Batman is at its best when it's done seriously. What everyone is trying to say is that despite that, the 60s series has its entertainment value. It's not really a wart of pimple of the Batman franchise, just another aspect of it. A popular one too.

There are a lot of people, even today who think of Adam West as Batman, and identify with the 60s series when they think of Batman. This clearly hasn't hurt the franchise as indicated by the ticket sales of Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight, as well as the hype building up for The Dark Knight Rises.
 
I think of it as a good show and a lot better than the dreary attempts at tough-guy "darkness" in the movies. :rommie:
 
As I understand it, the Batman comics were in the verge of cancellation when the show aired. The show's popularity kept them going. If so, then without the show there wouldn't have been an O'Neill/Adams Batman, an Englehart /Rogers Batman, a Miller Batman, a Dini-Timm Batman, a Burton Batman, a Nolan Batman, etc.
 
And thanks to Julie Newmar, Catwoman went from wearing skirts in the comics to (forgive the pun) catsuits so tight they may as well have been airbrushed. Thank you, Ms. Newmar; you helped a lot of healthy boys get through puberty with smiles wider than the Joker's!

Sincerely,

Bill
 
the G-man said:
As I understand it, the Batman comics were in the verge of cancellation when the show aired. The show's popularity kept them going. If so, then without the show there wouldn't have been an O'Neill/Adams Batman, an Englehart /Rogers Batman, a Miller Batman, a Dini-Timm Batman, a Burton Batman, a Nolan Batman, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, not entirely. Two years before the show came along, the comics were on the verge of cancellation, and Julius Schwartz was brought in to revitalize them, which he did successfully, making it a strong seller again within months. A lot of the changes he made to the comics -- like bringing back the Rogues' Gallery in force -- helped make the show more popular when it came along, and some of the things he did with the comic were designed to make it a more suitable source for the show to adapt.

According to William Dozier (in The Official Batman Batbook by Joel Eisner), the reason ABC decided to do Batman is because they canvassed the public and asked them what comics characters they'd like to see adapted for television. Batman came in third after Superman and Dick Tracy, and they couldn't get the rights to those two. So the show happened because Batman comics were already popular. And that popularity was due to Julie Schwartz.

So it was Schwartz who saved the comic and who contributed to the show's success. But there's no doubt that the success of the show made the comic immensely more popular in turn, and cemented Batman's place as one of the most important characters in the DC stable.


Redfern said:
And thanks to Julie Newmar, Catwoman went from wearing skirts in the comics to (forgive the pun) catsuits so tight they may as well have been airbrushed. Thank you, Ms. Newmar; you helped a lot of healthy boys get through puberty with smiles wider than the Joker's!
Click to expand...

What I find fascinating about Anne Hathaway's Catwoman getup in The Dark Knight Rises is how very Newmaresque it is. Although it's inspired by the current Darwyn Cooke-designed costume with the goggles, when she has the goggles up in "cat-ear" mode it looks closer to the '66 TV Catwoman costume than to any other costume Catwoman's ever had. And that's intriguing because generally Nolan's version of Batman has been as far from Dozier's as you can get.
 
Anyone else feel like the fight scene in Bruce's apartment in TDK , Batman vs the Joker and his goons, remind them a little of the old tv show?
 
I figured someone would make that point. :lol:

What I meant was the staging of the shots and the lighting. Seeing Batman fighting a villain and their henchman in a lighted public place. Which was nothing like any other fight in Nolan's films

At least someone else thought the same thing -

The Dark Knight Fights 1966 Style http://youtu.be/B85QvNXApz8
 
Donald Draper said:
Anyone else feel like the fight scene in Bruce's apartment in TDK , Batman vs the Joker and his goons, remind them a little of the old tv show?
Click to expand...

You know speaking of that sequence, I've felt for some time now that Adam West would have been perfect as the old guy who stands up to the Joker and is then told he reminds the Joker of his Father.
I know by the way that the guy who played him also appeared in Batman and Robin.
 
N-121973 said:
You know speaking of that sequence, I've felt for some time now that Adam West would have been perfect as the old guy who stands up to the Joker and is then told he reminds the Joker of his Father.
I know by the way that the guy who played him also appeared in Batman and Robin.
Click to expand...

You mean Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)? He's a big Batman fan. He also played the governor of the Utah Territory in "Showdown," the Jonah Hex episode of Batman: The Animated Series. (And he played himself in B&R.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top