Which screen version of Batman is your favourite?

[Christopher]

The Burton Batmobile blows away the 1966 Batmobile (even though I still have a soft spot for it) by virtue of it being good enough to survive bullets and having a steel canopy instead of a plastic one that would shatter if hit by armor-piercing rounds.

Well, that's not a fair comparison, because the '66 Batmobile didn't exist in a universe where bad guys used armor-piercing rounds. Why settle for crude firepower when you can use elaborate riddles to lure the Dynamic Duo into overcomplicated death traps, or spray colorful gas to knock them out so you can tie them up in even more overcomplicated death traps?

Besides, even if it was a plastic canopy in real life, I'm sure that in-story it was bulletproof, laserproof, bombproof, etc. as needed.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

Besides, even if it was a plastic canopy in real life, I'm sure that in-story it was bulletproof, laserproof, bombproof, etc. as needed.

Correction, it had Bat-anti-bullet coating, Bat-laser-relflector and Bat-bomb-rebounder built into it.

 

[Christopher]

Of Bat-course.

 

[Too Much Fun]

For a good reason; Batman's supposed to have a deeper voice as Batman (it separates both the Batman & Bruce Wayne identities, making it less likely that both will be connected.) Also Kevin Conroy's Batman/Bruce Wayne had the same kind of deep voice, at least in the first season of BTAS.

I hate to repeat something that's already been argued countless times, but I couldn't resist. Just because they're doing the same things doesn't mean they're doing it equally well. Conroy's two voices both sound natural and easy to understand. Bale's Batman voice does not.

 

[the G-man]

The Burton Batmobile blows away the 1966 Batmobile (even though I still have a soft spot for it) by virtue of it being good enough to survive bullets and having a steel canopy instead of a plastic one that would shatter if hit by armor-piercing rounds.

... even if it was a plastic canopy in real life, I'm sure that in-story it was bulletproof, laserproof, bombproof, etc. as needed.

Yes.

...equipment included the Bat Laser, the Batram, the Batmobile Mobile Crime Computer, Remote Control Ejector Seat Button, Bulletproof Windshield, Parachutes for slowing down at high speeds ...and a Batmobile Tracking Map.
​

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, even the '66 Batman was impossibly well-prepared. Right down to having an Alphabet Soup Batcontainer and Batfunnel ready to go when he needed them.

 

[Greg Cox]

^Yes, even the '66 Batman was impossibly well-prepared. Right down to having an Alphabet Soup Batcontainer and Batfunnel ready to go when he needed them.

But how did it compare to the Green Hornet's Black Beauty?

As a kid, I actually attended a Seattle car show just to see the 1966 Batmobile in person.

Probably the only time in my life I ever went to a car show!

 

[Christopher]

But how did it compare to the Green Hornet's Black Beauty?

The Batmobile and the Black Beauty were both classic '60s supercars tricked out with all sorts of crimefighting gadgets, but they were different in character, like their shows. The Batmobile fit into a brighter, wackier fantasy universe where Batman was a well-loved hero, so it was bright and flamboyant and open and featured far-out technology like atomic batteries and Bat-electromagnets and a Mobile Crime Computer. Its design was based on a one-of-a-kind concept car called the Ford Futura, making it quite exotic and futuristic.

The Black Beauty belonged to a relatively more serious and grounded reality in which its operators were seen as outlaws, so it was designed for stealth and a low profile and was more heavily armed. It was a customized 1966 Imperial Crown sedan, cutting-edge and modern for its day but common enough to blend into traffic if you didn't look too closely. It did have some gadgets that were ahead of their time, though, the main one being the scanner, a remote-controlled aerial surveillance drone (essentially a proto-UAV). Also it was initially alleged to have "infra-green" headlights and a special windshield to allow its occupants to see that otherwise invisible light, but that idea was dropped before it ever actually got mentioned onscreen, I believe (which is good, because "infra-green" would simply be yellow).

 

[Dusty Ayres]

The Burton Batmobile blows away the 1966 Batmobile (even though I still have a soft spot for it) by virtue of it being good enough to survive bullets and having a steel canopy instead of a plastic one that would shatter if hit by armor-piercing rounds.

... even if it was a plastic canopy in real life, I'm sure that in-story it was bulletproof, laserproof, bombproof, etc. as needed.

Yes.

...equipment included the Bat Laser, the Batram, the Batmobile Mobile Crime Computer, Remote Control Ejector Seat Button, Bulletproof Windshield, Parachutes for slowing down at high speeds ...and a Batmobile Tracking Map.
​

^Yes, even the '66 Batman was impossibly well-prepared. Right down to having an Alphabet Soup Batcontainer and Batfunnel ready to go when he needed them.

Bullshit. I'll bet that it wasn't, and the real Batman wouldn't be caught dead in it. (and by real Batman I mean the Burton/Nolan versions of the character.)

 

[Trilliam]

the disco scene, the one where Batman dances

Go-go. Disco was still 10 years away.

Actually, the term "discothèque" dates back to the 1940s and often used interchangably with the term "go go" in the sixties.

But we (those alive in the 60s) didn't call it disco, disco-a-go-go maybe - but not "Disco" until the mid 70s.

 

[Trilliam]

While George Reeves brought a great dignity and strength to the role of Superman, that show (written for children) wasn't exactly deep and/or serious after the first season. Let's not forget Chuck Connors as Sylvester J. Superman (and his donkey sidekick), Mr. Zero, and the time Perry White actually meets 'Great Caesar's Ghost.' I'd also argue that Jack Larson's Jimmy Olsen made Burt Ward's Robin look like the most competent sidekick in superhero history.

But most importantly, the Superman show didn't make fun of it's main characters, though it surely was the victim of some outlandish story ideas and outright bad writing. The Superman production staff was at no time intentionally holding it's heroic lead character up to ridicule.

I'm going to strongly disagree that the 1966 held Batman the character up to ridicule. While obviously a bit square, and prone to being placed in absurd situations, he was depicted as a brilliant scientist, a master detective, a superior athlete and, in his other identity, a dashing ladies' man. All the things he was (and usually is) in the comics.

I don't know the ages of some of the posters here, or how much of the commentary here is by those who, being born after the 60s, don't have a feeling for the 60's zeitgeist. One of the things you're taught in Philosophy & Psychology is that the "past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". The "Batman" tv series was a product of it's time, as was "TOS" etc. It is unfair to these and other products of an era, to view them with the lens
of a later era that has different, technology, sociology and politics.

 

[Captaindemotion]

... even if it was a plastic canopy in real life, I'm sure that in-story it was bulletproof, laserproof, bombproof, etc. as needed.

Yes.

...equipment included the Bat Laser, the Batram, the Batmobile Mobile Crime Computer, Remote Control Ejector Seat Button, Bulletproof Windshield, Parachutes for slowing down at high speeds ...and a Batmobile Tracking Map.
​

^Yes, even the '66 Batman was impossibly well-prepared. Right down to having an Alphabet Soup Batcontainer and Batfunnel ready to go when he needed them.

Bullshit. I'll bet that it wasn't, and the real Batman wouldn't be caught dead in it. (and by real Batman I mean the Burton/Nolan versions of the character.)

You do know that none of them are real, right? And anyway, the Nolan version is as far removed from the Burton version as the latter is from the West version.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

Kevin Conroy is my favorite hands down, followed by Keaton, Kilmer, West, Bale and finally Clooney at the bottom.

I thought that Clooney was great, but was wrecked by a shitty script, as were the other actors.

The script was shitty, but Clooney approached the whole project as if it were a joke. His performance was very lightweight, more like West's but without the charm. But YMMV.

BTW Bale's Batman sounds like he has laryngitis to me.

For a good reason; Batman's supposed to have a deeper voice as Batman (it separates both the Batman & Bruce Wayne identities, making it less likely that both will be connected.) Also Kevin Conroy's Batman/Bruce Wayne had the same kind of deep voice, at least in the first season of BTAS.

I'm well aware of it. I just think he pulled it off very badly. Unlike Conroy who pulled it off perfectly. Not blaming Bale btw. He's Welsh after all. Not easy to nuance an American accent into two distinct variations when you're from another country. I respect him for even trying, it's not his fault that he just didn't have the voice for it.

 

[Christopher]

Bullshit. I'll bet that it wasn't, and the real Batman wouldn't be caught dead in it. (and by real Batman I mean the Burton/Nolan versions of the character.)

Uhh, you do realize that Batman is originally a comic book character, right? That both Burton and Nolan (and their respective screenwriters) were drawing on the comics for their adapted versions of Batman? That it was comic book writers such as Dennis O'Neill, Steve Englehart, and Frank Miller who shaped the modern image of Batman as a dark, serious character and inspired Burton and Nolan to follow their lead? That Nolan's Batman films are based very heavily on Miller's Batman Year One and Jeph Loeb's The Long Halloween?

There's really no difference between filmmakers like Burton and Nolan and the people who made the 1960s Batman TV series and movie. They, too, drew on the precedent of the comics as they existed at the time. In the 1950s and '60s, the Batman of the comics was a light, avuncular figure in a zany fantasy world, and thus that's what the TV series was like. In the '70s and '80s and beyond, he transformed into a much darker figure in a much grittier world, and so the adaptations of the '80s and '00s reflected that iteration of the comics character. Neither one is more "real" than the other, and it's absurd to claim that the cinematic versions of the character -- mere adaptations following the lead of the character's home medium of comics -- are the truly "real" versions. It's incredibly egocentric to equate "my preferred version" with "the real thing." Reality is not shaped by your personal tastes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't think there's any reason to be embarrassed by the '66 Batman. For what it was, a faithful if satirical adaptation of the comics of the era, it was extremely well-executed. It had a very strong cast and impressive production values, and was one of the most innovative sitcoms ever made. It made Batman a household name, a far more popular character than he'd ever been before. It helped shape Batman comics as we know them today, because it prompted DC editor Julius Schwartz to reintroduce the largely-abandoned rogues' gallery to the comics, recognizing that such prominent, colorful villains would make good material for television (since he was aware the TV producers would be drawing on whatever the comics did). It led to the creation of Barbara Gordon through a similar mechanism.

This was really interesting. Thanks for sharing this.