Julie Newmar, worth buying the whole series alone.
Batman: '60s TV Series
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Eartha Kitt... not so bad either...
2013?
Notice no mention of Blu-ray but we can hope. Back then they had a cut negative just like TOS and could do it just like TOS-R with just a little cleanup.
I'd love to have this on Blu-ray all the 120 episodes as a complete series Blu-ray. I think though they would release 3 season sets.
Also a nice 90 minute HD documentary done with all living people who worked on the show and also use some archival 16mm film interviews for the first release.
There are a couple other items with these actors that could also be on Blu-ray
as per wikipedia:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
Notice no mention of Blu-ray but we can hope. Back then they had a cut negative just like TOS and could do it just like TOS-R with just a little cleanup.
I'd love to have this on Blu-ray all the 120 episodes as a complete series Blu-ray. I think though they would release 3 season sets.
Also a nice 90 minute HD documentary done with all living people who worked on the show and also use some archival 16mm film interviews for the first release.
There are a couple other items with these actors that could also be on Blu-ray
as per wikipedia:
It would be great if after the 1960s live-action series were released on Blu-ray the 1977 animated series could be.
The '77 series is out on DVD, at least.
And it would probably be a lot easier to do a remastered edition of Batman than Star Trek, since it didn't use a lot of optical composites, beyond superimposing OOFs and POWs in the first season (they did cheaper intertitles for that in the latter two seasons) and animating the occasional ray or forcefield onto the film. I can't think of any bluescreen work they did, and that's where you run into the resolution/quality problems with an HD upgrade.
And it would probably be a lot easier to do a remastered edition of Batman than Star Trek, since it didn't use a lot of optical composites, beyond superimposing OOFs and POWs in the first season (they did cheaper intertitles for that in the latter two seasons) and animating the occasional ray or forcefield onto the film. I can't think of any bluescreen work they did, and that's where you run into the resolution/quality problems with an HD upgrade.
I've been crushed so many times by rumors of Batman's release, but still every time I see this type of story I hope. I have a copy of the series, but would preorder as soon as possible a official release.
I'm kind of suprised that there are still rumors that Nolan of all people is holding back release. That rumor has been around for years and has never held water. I read that Nolan has a Batman:The Movie poster in his home or office (Can't remember which) and respects the series.
I'm kind of suprised that there are still rumors that Nolan of all people is holding back release. That rumor has been around for years and has never held water. I read that Nolan has a Batman:The Movie poster in his home or office (Can't remember which) and respects the series.
It also is shown every Saturday evening on the MeTV network. It's followed by "Lost in Space", "Star Trek" and, later on in the night, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". I tell you it's quite a kaleidoscope of 1960's color television programs...
I've honestly never understood the appeal of this show beyond the cool car. I remember liking it as a kid, but frankly at that point there was not another version of Batman around. The arrival of Tim Burton's Batman and followed by BTAS shortly thereafter largely killed any interest that i had in this show.
Batman, of all superheroes, should NOT be campy.
I find it ironic though that the Green Hornet TV series was created as a more serious counterpoint to the campiness of Batman. Yet here we are decades later and the current depictions of Batman in the theaters have been VERY serious...yet the Green Hornet film was a silly comedy.
Batman, of all superheroes, should NOT be campy.
I find it ironic though that the Green Hornet TV series was created as a more serious counterpoint to the campiness of Batman. Yet here we are decades later and the current depictions of Batman in the theaters have been VERY serious...yet the Green Hornet film was a silly comedy.
It was fun and it was a fairly accurate, if somewhat tongue in cheek, version of what Batman was from about 1945 to 1969.
Except for all those stories from 1945 to 1969 and large elements of the Burton movies.
We tend to forget this, but the Green Hornet was not a successful series. Furthermore, since it crossed over with Batman, people tend to remember it as a more campy as it was.
More to the point, however, most superheroes lend themselves to differing interpretations.
You're kind of contradicting yourself. Burton's Batman is incredibly campy. I mean, the Joker attacks Gotham City with a gigantic gift box, and the Penguin attacks it with a horde of remote-controlled missile-firing penguins. And Selina Kyle is brought back to life by being licked by cats and enacts the nine-lives trope literally. Sure, Burton's movies went for a darker look and tone, but beneath the surface they're still deeply absurdist.
Batman, of all superheroes, should not be cubbyholed. He's been many things in many eras, and the underlying concept of him is strong enough that it's been able to adapt successfully to many interpretations. The 1960s series was, in fact, a very faithful and authentic recreation of how Batman had been written in the comics for most of his three-decade history at that point. Though he began as a grim, violent pulp antihero, he started to become a lighter, more avuncular hero by 1940 when Robin was introduced, and throughout the '50s and most of the '60s his adventures were very broad, fanciful, and comical. To the people who grew up with Batman in that era, that was simply what he was, and that's what the TV series gave us. That's what comics were then. There's nothing wrong with comics being comical, with being funny and whimsical and light. That's not an inferior approach, just a different one.
Yes, interpretations of Batman have changed in the decades since, but it's self-centered to say that the only right interpretation is the one from your own generation. What makes you more entitled to say your generation is the right one than someone from 50 years ago? It's all relative.
And sure, Batman's a character with grim origins, but so is Superman or Spider-Man. So is Fry from Futurama. A guy who got trapped in cryonic stasis and woke up to find that the whole world he knew is long since destroyed, everyone he knew or cared about is dead, and he's an outcast in an alien world that barely tolerates him? That could be pretty damn dark. Comedy often has the same roots as tragedy; as they say, comedy is tragedy from a distance.
And sure, Batman can be interpreted as a character who's reacted to a tragic loss by pursuing a dark and troubling journey of violent retaliation against the underworld -- but he can also be interpreted as a character who never grew up and deals with his problems by dressing up in an animal costume and swinging from rooftops. There's as much absurdity inherent in the concept as there is pathos. It's just a matter of which aspects you choose to emphasize and which you downplay. There's room for both interpretations.
Anyway, the appeal of the show, aside from anything to do with comics purism, is that it's a funny and innovative sitcom. It's got colorful adventure for the kids and wry social satire, clever wordplays and allusions, sexual innuendo, and celebrity guest stars by the barrel for the grownups.
I think it's more accurate to say that both the Batman and Green Hornet shows from Greenway Productions were trying to be true to the source material as it existed at the time. The Batman comics that had existed for a decade or two prior to the series had been light, comedic adventures in an absurd fantasy world, while the Green Hornet radio series and movie serials had always been fairly straight crime dramas.
But yes, it probably is the association of the Green Hornet with the Batman sitcom (most people have probably only seen him and Kato in their guest appearances on that show) that led to the modern movie's comical treatment of the premise.
^ Well said! I think the campier aspects of the first two Batman movies have been more apparent over time. Maybe that is just me. When those movies came out I saw them as a darker and serious take on Batman. Today, however, I can see the campier aspects to them more than I did before.
I think if you look over his whole career, it's pretty clear by this point that expecting gritty realism from Tim Burton is like expecting quiet, intellectual drama from Michael Bay.
I agree. I am not a real big Tim Burton fan. There are only a handful of his movies that I like.
I agree. I am not a real big Tim Burton fan. There are only a handful of his movies that I like.
I adore Tim Burton until sometime around the late 90's and then I pretty much dislike or am meh about everything he touches. I think his best is Ed Wood, followed by the Pee Wee movie.
Anyway, getting a bit more back on topic, Look what joy I found in my mailbox today!
I agree. I am not a real big Tim Burton fan. There are only a handful of his movies that I like.
I adore Tim Burton until sometime around the late 90's and then I pretty much dislike or am meh about everything he touches. I think his best is Ed Wood, followed by the Pee Wee movie.
Anyway, getting a bit more back on topic, Look what joy I found in my mailbox today!
That is so cool! Congrats!
I don't care what anyone says -- Adam West was a great Batman. The essential quality of Batman isn't that he's grim or violent; lots of inferior characters have those traits. The essential qualities that make Batman who he is are: 1) his profound, unshakeable dedication to justice and protecting the innocent; and 2) his extreme intelligence, resourcefulness, and preparation that always enable him to respond to any situation. And West's Batman embodied both those qualities fully, even if he did so in a more comedic way than other incarnations. Maybe the show poked fun at him for being the ultimate square, but West never made it seem like a mockery, because he always conveyed an utterly sincere commitment to his principles and his mission. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne spent the better part of two movies trying to get out of being Batman, but West left no doubt in the viewer's mind that his Batman would be unwaveringly dedicated to the cause until the day he finally met his maker in some elaborate, themed deathtrap.
Yeah, I always hated that line from the first Scarecrow episode of B:TAS, the one that's unfortunately become a popular catchphrase, where Batman says "I am vengeance! I am the night! I am Batman!" Batman is not vengeance. If he were, he would've killed Joe Chill and left it at that (and probably gone to prison for it). Batman's mission isn't about getting back at somebody -- it's about trying to save innocent people from being victimized by crime the way his parents were, to keep other kids from having to grow up without their parents. Batman is justice, which is an entirely different thing from vengeance. Vengeance is self-serving; justice is about serving the good of others.
Um...ok...some people really like campiness
To me, Adam West and his series was an awful depiction of Batman that really made no sense in the context of the origin of the character. Its sort of like how the original BSG has the human race pushed to near extinction in the first few episodes, and then has the fleet go off and visit the casino planet. The original did not take its premise seriously at all...and you see that same attitude in Batman. Again, I found The Green Hornet much closer in tone to what one would expect from Batman than West's Batman. I'm personally glad that the folks at DC from the 70s onward worked the rescue the character from the damage that had been done to him. Congress and the CCA did a lot to damage comics during its early years, and it took decades before the medium could be taken seriously because of the stupid restrictions that were placed on the medium...forcing camp and corniness to replace serious narratives.
A character called THE DARK KNIGHT, should NOT be camp. Leave that mess to a character like...Vibe
I know this is off topic, but I am tired of people making this statement. They didn't go off to the casino planet. They went to a planet looking to replentish their fuel supply, and found a casino.
They weren't out there looking for a good time, but for stuff they needed. And after that huge holocaust, a good number of people went into denial of their situation. I can see that happening easily.
I now return you to your Batman discussion, already in progress.
Um...ok...some people really like campiness
Please don't reduce me to a stereotype. It's unfair and has nothing to do with who I am and what I really value.
As a matter of fact, I don't like "campiness" as a rule. I can't stand the high camp of Lost in Space's second season. But as I explained to you, there is a lot more of value in Batman '66 than camp. It is a funny, clever sitcom in its own right. It has superb casting and excellent production values. It has lots of adult humor such as political satire and sexual innuendo. It has great music. And despite what some misinformed people assume, it is by far the most faithful adaptation of the contemporary Batman comics of its era that has ever existed.
Then you must think the same of the comics that were published from the mid-1940s through the mid-1960s -- which at the time the show was made represented most of the character's history. Because the comics of that era were just about exactly like the show -- except even broader and sillier. Adam West's Batman didn't routinely travel back in time or get insane pranks played on him by Superman or get constantly bothered by a magic-powered uber-fan from the fifth dimension, but the comics' Batman did.
Closer to what a reader from the mid-'70s or later would expect, or a reader from 1938-1940. But a comics reader from the late 1960s would have found the Batman sitcom an extremely accurate recreation of what Batman had been for most of his history at the time. Again, you're letting your present-day biases keep you from understanding how differently the character was presented and perceived at the time.
Too many comics fans take the medium far too seriously. Come on, they're called comic books. They were originally a humor medium. Sure, they can take a more serious tone as well, but it's silly to say there's something wrong with having comedy in comic books.
Frankly I think the people who are terrified of comics being humorous are people who are insecure about their fondness for the medium, who are afraid of being judged negatively for liking comics and so go out of their way to insist that comics are ultraserious and respectable. Well, you know what? Humor can be respectable too. Humor can be classy and intelligent. Shakespeare wrote plenty of comedies, and even his tragedies are full of comic relief. So you're dead wrong to assume that something is stupid or inferior just because it's comedic.
But that epithet wasn't used for Batman in those days. It had been occasionally used in the very early '40s, but it had fallen out of favor as the character had lightened in the comics. By the '60s, he was the Caped Crusader, and he and Robin were the Dynamic Duo. In the '70s he came to be called the "Darknight Detective," but it wasn't until Frank Miller's gamechanging miniseries that the epithet "The Dark Knight" made its resurgence.
And the thing people today forget about The Dark Knight Returns is that it wasn't supposed to represent the typical Batman. The whole reason it was powerful is because it was such a shocking departure from what had come before. Batman had become a more serious character by then, but not this grim, violent avenger. Miller wasn't trying to say "This is who Batman should always be," but "This is Batman taken to the darkest possible extreme, who he would become if Gotham went completely to hell." Sure, Batman Year One paints a darker Batman than we'd seen before, but still a more heroic and compassionate one than the one from TDKR's alternate future (at least as compassionate as a Frank Miller character can get). But a generation of comics creators and fans missed the point and assumed that Batman should normally be lke he was in TDKR, and so they made the character ultra-dark -- which, if you ask me, is just as ridiculous as the camp you're objecting to. (I mean, come on, TDKR has Nazi dominatrixes with swastikas tattooed on their breasts, and street gangs wearings mohawks and weird visors, and mocking caricatures of media talking heads. There is a lot of campiness in it; it's just a dirtier, more vicious kind of camp.)
There are many ways of defining Batman, and yours is not the only "right" one just because it's yours. You'd do well to broaden your perspective and try to understand other points of view beside your own.
