MovieChat Forums > Batman: The Movie (1966) Discussion > Idiotic Reason for The 1966 Batman Serie...

Idiotic Reason for The 1966 Batman Series isnt on DVD

posted 13 years ago by TwoFace224
24 replies | jump to latest

From Wikipedia

"The argument has been made that DC does not wish to distort the current image of Batman by having the overtly campy 1960s series competing head-to-head with more modern takes, such as Tim Burton's Batman film and its sequels or Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. DC may indeed be distancing itself from the 1960s series.[citation needed] A solicited cover by Mike Allred for issue #7 of Solo—a 2005 DC Comics series—featured Batman doing the Batusi. The cover, based on Adam West and a memorably campy episode of the television series, was replaced by the time of Solo #7's release. Allred explains that the cover was pulled by "higher ups" for reasons largely unknown.[8] Speculation over the reasons first intimated that potential infringement of rights were the issue, but this was soon replaced with suggestions that its "campy" nature was the real factor in its removal. At the time of the issue's release, DVDs of Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Batman Begins were also being promoted, and DC's chief editor Dan Didio reportedly does not like camp.[9]"

I thing that i hate about people who put down the 66 series is. Have you ever read a comic from the late 50's or 60's. You had Batman fight Space Aliens for god sake. If it wasnt for the show. Mr Freeze would still be Mr Zero.

[–] brendanchenowith 13 years ago

That is a stupid reason - in fact, I'm not sure there is a good reason the series hasn't been released. If DC wanted to distance itself from the 66 campiness, why is the movie available? That wasn't exactly Shakespeare, either

Also, if "Batman and Robin" (CLooney, O'Donnell and Silverstone) could be put out on disc, then ANYTHING stands a chance. The three principal actors were much more talented than that piece of drivel.

Notice I didn't say Schwarzenegger was too talented for this.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.

[–] Atotaleclipse 13 years ago

That is silly. They could make a lot of money if they release it. Lots of fans want it.

[–] TheSolarSailor 13 years ago

Wikipedia is not the most accurate place to get information, seeing that anyone can contribute to it. I doubt that this is the main reason behind the delay. The simple fact is that there is a rights dispute between 2oth Century Fox who owned the rights to the show, and WB who now owns the rights to the Batman name. Also, there are many issues with guest stars who appeared in small cameos throughout the series, and all getting royalties for the use of their likenesses in the many episodes. It's all a mess and not likely to get cleared up any time soon. But rest assured that Batman being campy is NOT the reason the show hasn't been released. There are far more important issues that have to do with money and rights that dictate the fate of this series. The Green Hornet is not yet released either for all the same reasons as Batman, and again, that has nothing to do with something as silly as the head of DC Comics not liking camp. Goodness, it goes much deeper than that.

Here is a great article that breaks down for you the truth behind the matter...http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Batman-Watchmen-Batman-Deal-Reported/ 10573.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] Atotaleclipse 12 years ago

A lot of TV shows have guest stars. I wonder why there is not difficulty with royalties for those as well.

[–] TheSolarSailor 12 years ago

If you read the article I linked, it addresses that question.

This is a LOT more complicated than fans probably expect. If you want to see Ted Cassidy as "Lurch" stick his head out of the window on a bat-rope climb, then Fox has to talk to MGM (which might prove relatively easy, since Fox distros MGM properties on home video these days)...but then again, they probably also have to negotiate with the Tee & Charles Addams Foundation, which holds the license on the original Addams Family characters from the drawings! If you want to see Werner Klemperer as "Col. Klink" stick his head out of the window, then Fox has to license the character from CBS/Paramount, who owns the home video rights to Hogan's Heroes. If you want to see Green Hornet and Kato stick their heads out of the window, or to see the entire crossover storyline where they show up and fight crime with the Caped Crusaders, great...but Fox has gotta license it. Oh...except Fox probably couldn't know who to license it from at this very moment, because the Green Hornet series has just as many legal tangles - maybe more! - than Batman does. Right this second, even if everything else got cleared up and Batman could be released, it would probably be without any of the Green Hornet stuff...which means they would be skipping that part of the Bat-rope climb footage on the one episode, and then leaving off an entire adventure elsewhere! And who's gonna be happy about those getting cut? Certainly not the fans!

It has far more to do with Batman being a huge, lucrative franchise that everyone wants a part of. It is bigger than most old shows that would have only a fraction of the interest and make only a fraction of the money that Batman would make.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

It's not just the guest stars, but the celebrities who would pop out the window and talk to Batman and Robin as they climbed the side of the building. Paying Caesar Romero as the Joker is not the same as paying the estate of Sammy Davis Jr. for his appearance AS Sammy Davis Jr.

It was all just kooky fun in the 60's but now it's all about the "Benjamins".

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

[–] TheSolarSailor 12 years ago

It's not just the guest stars, but the celebrities >>> That was already clearly covered in the article I quoted.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] anannya_sen 12 years ago

I loved all the guest appearances when they were climbing the walls.

Gothamite #3
"But it happened at sea! See? C for Catwoman!!"

[–] MRlambfries 12 years ago

I always thought it was a waste of time. I wanted story and action, not some hack mugging as Batman looks on indifferently.

[–] nova-63 12 years ago

All this speculation is interesting. But I seriously doubt "guest stars" would be getting royalties on the show. Do you really think Sammy Davis would be getting royalties for opening a window and uttering a line. It would have been written in their original contracts. And because the show was hot and hip, stars were begging to get on the show.
And why were the Columbia movie serials from the 40's made available. Why didn't Warner Bros./DC sue Columbia? Batman is also pretty campy in those. Who knows? All speculation.

[–] nova-63 12 years ago

PS: Warner Bros is notorious for suing everything and everybody. I read somewhere they were suing some guy who built a custom batmobile. Pathetic. They probably claim ownership to the sidewalks and want payment from anyone who walks on one.

[–] LaPfieffer92 12 years ago

yeah, that is a really stupids reason not to have DVD's of this CLASSIC show. these characters arent based on classic literature for crying out loud, its a COMICS BOOK! YEESH! i dont care how many dark and serious batmans they make, he will always be based on cartoon characters in a comic strip. this show is now considered a classic of 60's television, and seriously would rake in the doe if it was officially released on dvd. for now we'll have to deal with the bootleg copies, which really arent bad at all.

plus the 60's show was extremly faithful to the comics of the time so you cant say its not accurate.

[–] TheNamelesStranger 12 years ago

plus the 60's show was extremly faithful to the comics of the time so you cant say its not accurate.

No, the comics were changed to reflect the show for a short period of time. You constantly claim to not be a comic reader but you don't let it stop you from trying to declare what is or isn't like the comics.

[–] Atotaleclipse 12 years ago

Lapfeiffer92 is brownish33 a troll that was banned. Do not listen to him.

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 12 years ago

The problem isn't guest stars as such it is guest characters.

ie Characters playing character from other TV series.

Lurch from the Adams family is an example given.

I a lot of the old TV contacts did not play royalties for repeats (ie residuals).
The reason for this is actually straight forward they never assumed TV shows would be repeated years later.

So much that in the UK contacts (actor union contacts) stated that an actor's performance in a TV show can only be broadcast a set number of times (3 I believe) after which the show tapes were deleted.

This is a major issue for old shows many episodes were lost.

There are exceptions, I Love Lucy, they owned the rights as they were both producers and still get royalties. Note how you can buy I Love Lucy on DVD.

[–] GreenLantern1988 12 years ago

Well I'm not sure about Lapfeiffer92's previous history on these forums. But he is absolutely right the TV Series DID reflect the comics. BUT you TheNamelesStranger are also right as the comics were tailored to reflect the TV Series for a period of time. I know this because I have done a 15 part project on the TV Series, and I will be posting it for you all to see.

[–] Atotaleclipse 12 years ago

I can't wait to read it greenlantern1988.

[–] GreenLantern1988 12 years ago

Well wait no longer my friend, as I will now present you with a link to the third entry in my 1966 Batman project.

http://www.arkhamverse.com/news/2013/08/the-legacy-of-the-batman-part-3-comic-book-references-in-the-tv-series/

[–] Atotaleclipse 12 years ago

Thank you.

[–] GreenLantern1988 12 years ago

If you enjoyed reading that don't forget to look out for next week's version which will focus on Batman: The Movie.

Speaking of which, here is the link to the this week's entry in the series.

http://www.arkhamverse.com/news/2013/08/the-legacy-of-the-batman-part-4-comic-book-references-in-batman-the-movie/

[–] Atotaleclipse 11 years ago

Thank you. I will read it soon.

[–] atg_commish 11 years ago

The Avengers fought Space Aliens. That did pretty well at the box office.

[–] wristwatchraver-1 11 years ago

I've been told the reason for the non-release isn't anything to do with DC. Greenaway (the company made the series). is owned by 20th Century Fox. They would release the series but the name 'Batman' is owned by Warner Bros. 20th CF can't release a Batman series without paying copyright costs to WB and they REALLY don't want to do that. WB can't release it because 20th CF owns it and 20th CF can't release it because WB owns the name. Personally, I think it should be released by 20th CF because nostalgia sells! Even if they did have to pay certain costs to WB I think the outpouring of the love people have for this series would certainly re-coup the costs. if not, make a profit!

If I can't save you, I swear to God, I am gonna stop you!