60's Batman T.V. Show
 

Hi All,
.........I am new to this forum and I guess I am probably asking an old question that most likely been asked many times before...

Sorry... but I searched the web and can not find out anything.
So you guys are my only hope to find out...

Does anyone know anything as to when (or ever) the "Batman (Adam West) T.V. show will ever be released on DVD?

Thank you all for your time.
Cheers, CHARITY

Welcome to the forum.

This is being held up by a rights squabble between Fox and Warners. I wouldn't count on seeing this anytime soon.

I would love this. esp Season 1, before the goofy guest stars showed up. Yeah with the rights thing, it could be a while.

the rights will magically get ironed out next yr, just in time to tie in with the theatrical movie

Thanks... guys :)
Charity

I hope ckolchak is right!!! Please!!! I can't believe money can't solve this problem. As DVD sales skyrocket, surely each party will make far more now than they would've thought last year. It's an expanding pie, so they should play nice and settle up... Dream on.... but I really want Batman!!

Please....

The new Batman movie is scheduled for 2005. I have a very hard believing that these issues won't be resolved in time to profit off of it. I would expect Q2 2005.

I think Fox owns the rights to the show, but Warner owns the rights to the characters...I think it is something strange like that. I watched reruns of the show as a kid and would buy season sets. In fact, the movie was one of my first dvd purchases.

They have four 90s batman movies and loads of animated shows to release when the new movie is out. Why would they need that 60s TV series????

Also, for those who don’t know the 60s Batman: The Movie is out on DVD and can be obtained for very cheap.

Why did he allow the movie version of the TV show to come out, then? It seems like once that's out, the people will already remember to be embarrassed or not (depending on, you know, their own *personal* feelings).

I mean, I don't want the show myself, personally, but I think people should be allowed to have it sold to them if they really want it.

Hasn't Warner Brothers allowed 'Superman 4: The Quest For Peace', 'Batman and Robin', 'Steel', and 'Swamp Thing' on DVD at various times? Those movies are far worse embarrassments than the '60's television series.

Steel was never on DVD.

And <i>Swamp Thing</i> kicks ass.

Color me surprised; maybe the dude does have some consistency.

I don't think we're debating the merits of the film here; the point is, the vast majority of people agree that it's a bad movie, badly acted with a bad script (often regarded as the worst of Craven's "real" movies -- which is to say, dismissing things like 'The Hills Have Eyes, Part 2'), and it is embarrassing to compare it to the comic book, much as Batman is. I like Batman fine, but I recognize why there's a strong contingent of bat-fans who are embarrassed by it.

But, hey, if you love Swamp Thing as a character but would rather people judge him by the movie than the comics, I apologize that you didn't fit into my generazliation.

I could go back and include 'Supergirl', but I think people are more divided on that. I could go back and add 'Superman III', but I have a soft spot for that movie, bad as it is.

How 'bout "Return of the Swamp Thing"? That's on DVD.

Oooh... snarky!
Interestingly, I'm of the opinion that S3 is the most fun to watch of the 4 Reeve movies (though I think S1 is technically the best piece of art).

I highly doubt this. The president of DC Comics is too small a fish to have any say in Warner's DVD operations -- assuming he doesn't like Adam West, which I doubt. DC recently hired West to write the introduction to the recent Batman in the Sixties collection, so I don't think the problem is on the DC end.

As for the big cheeses at Warners, I doubt they give a damn about whether Adam West is more light-hearted than whatever Frank Miller knock-off they're churcning out next week. Batman is Batman, and they won't see tension between the Adam West Batman and the Christian Bale Batman any more than they think the Bruce Timm version of Superman conflicts with Smallville.

I just hope eventually we'll also see The Green Hornet complete series on DVD as well.

I was pleasantly surprised with that "Batman: The Movie" DVD I picked up for $5.50 at Wal-mart on a lark. The movie is not the greatest, of course, but the transfer is very good and the commentary with Adam West and Burt Ward was highly entertaining!! I was very happy with that blind-buy purchase. One of the most fun commentaries I've watched.

Personally, I find S2 the most fun to watch. S3 falls more into the "guilty pleasure" realm for me, and I don't think I'd even have the pleasure aspect if I hadn't liked it as much as I did as a kid. But I love Pryor, and his bizarre 'Office Space' plan, and the scene where Clark and Superman fight, and I even remember the evil cyborg lady scaring me as a kid. Also, I was never that bothered by the second-rate Lex Luthor villain. At least he didn't have Ned Beatty with him.

But I know there are plenty of people who'd say that one is an embarrassment too, and I see where they're coming from even if I'd disagree.

DC Comics was known as National Periodical Publications in the 1960s when they licensed Batman to Fox. Subsequently, in 1967, Kinney National Services bought the National Periodical Publications. In 1968, Kinney bought the Warner Brothers Studio and changed its name to Warner Communications. In 1989, Time purchased Warner Communications and became Time-Warner; then in 2000, AOL merged with Time-Warner.

That's a long way of saying that you're right -- Fox owns the rights to the show, but Warner owns the rights to the characters. I also agree with you -- this show was my favorite when I was growing up (I watched it in reruns during the 1980s), and I would buy season sets in a split second.

It's one of the few times I want to go the VCD way. If the show is being held up due to some idiot head-huncho, then there is something severely wrong. He may not like it, but Batman was a huge success and has a loyal following not only from TV fans, but from Bat-fans, such as myself.

Fox wants to put this out in a big way.
everything will get resolved later this year and i wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them Q1 '05.

between the vivid pop art colors of the shows palatte and the fact it was shot on film, this series should look amazing.
i know the (Fox)film does

The rights issue thing is an excuse --- Fox and Warner will work it out just fine when it is in their interest to do so, which will be next year when the hype for the new Batman is in full swing.

My guess as a long time DVD observer is that Season 1 will be on DVD in early 2005, followed by Season 2 and 3 later that year.

Yeah, but only recently have TV shows on DVD been known to be such a gold-mine.

MG - I'd say that, because of today's big news relating to Miramax, Kevin Smith, and Green Hornet, you're probably much closer to your hope than Bat-fans are.

Well, the Batman movie hype was at its nadir when DVD started and has only recently picked up again. 'Batman and Robin' killed the desire for more Bat stuff for a long time; even the cartoons barely survived, and had to combine themselves with Superman in order to shift the focus a bit.

I mean, you wouldn't say, "Hey, there's been hype for Superman since 1978, but 'Lois and Clark' still hasn't hit DVD, therefore it never will," wouldja? I mean, it may or may not, but long-dead hype is not a factor, that's all I mean.

But, more importantly, DVD sales are totally different than VHS sales when discussing television shows. 'Eerie, Indiana' was never released on VHS, yet has had a DVD release and came very, very close to getting a full series release before it was pulled.

You can say that about 90% of the "TV on DVD" releases. TV didn't sell well on VHS. It's selling like hotcakes on DVD.

Not to mention that the 1966 Batman series is one of the most requested series for DVD, according to TVShowsonDVD.

I think even TPTB would admit that the possibilities for this release are pretty great, and there is too much success to be had not to make it happen.

You can sign a petition to have the show released at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/BatmanTV/

Baloney. The president of Warner Bros. and DC Comics are not the same man. Besides, if DC did have any say and determined they were going to withhold it to try to make people forget, then why is the show still in worldwide TV syndication? Your argument just doesn't make any sense.

Care to reveal your "source"?

No, it is, as has already been said, down to the fact that Warner and Fox have a split-ownership. These arrangements are always tricky and most likely, one of the two parties wants more of the "pie" than the other thinks is fair (most likely, both parties want more than the other is willing to give).

Isn't the current President of DC Janette Kahn? Definitely not the same man. -smile-

"Head Honcho" is a kind of vague term. What is the name of the person that you are talking about.

My husband works for the marketing department for the Time-Warner company. He said that he has heard negotiations are presently in the works for a DVD release. He doubts any executive would ever go on record to say the show was an "embarassment." He said it would be incredibly foolish for anyone in a position of administration or marketing to publicly say something like that for any potential release. Also, there have been a few recent Batmobile toy releases from the 60's show which came from joint WB/Fox agreements. For what it's worth.

I just don't believe that any studio executive would ever badmouth any product of his own company. That makes no sense. It violates fundamental business practices. You don't piss on your own doorstep. This story smacks of an urban legend.

No, let's be accurate. You know absolutely nothing. Everything you have asserted is based on hearsay. You have no facts, only what you have been told by third parties about unnamed sources.

In November, I interviewed Peter Staddon, senior vice president of marketing for Fox Home Entertainment, on an unrelated topic (music rights holding up TV shows on DVD). But while I had him on the phone, I asked him for a DVD status report on several Fox TV properties. Here's what he said about the '60s Batman TV series:

"We'd love to bring that out. Unfortunately, that's tied up in some legal issues because of the whole DC thing and Warner owning the rights to the Batman movies. I would have loved to have had that out. We managed to get the Batman film out a couple of years ago. And, you know, I grew up watching that, so of course I'd love to have that out. That's something I keep working on, but lawyers are counseling me against optimism on that one.''

I'm sure that doesn't help much, but at least it's something concrete, on the record and from a legitimate, identified source.

I don't understand how owning the rights to the movies affects the TV show. Do you perhaps mean they own rights in the character itself?

Let's be realistic. Someone who works for the Danbury Mint is not a contact in the industry. Your source is not someone who works for a studio, and thus is not a credible source. Further, you have no track record of providing accurate and reliable inside information which would lead me to trust your sources.

No, that is not exactly what you heard. Rasalas is not reporting that Peter Staddon said anything other than that there are currently insurmountable legal impediments to releasing the show. No one has stated what those legal impediments are. You are saying something entirely different. You are claiming inside knowledge based on hearsay from an incredible source that the unnamed head of Warner will never release the series for personal reasons. Rasalas is citing a personal phone conversation with a credible source who does not say that the head of Warner will not allow the series to be released for personal reasons. So, kindly stop trying to associate what you said to the credible and very different statements of others.

How has your friend's story been confirmed on several Batman message boards? Can you provide links to these "confirmations"?

Since you guys are obviously knowledgable on these things, maybe you could clear something up for me.

If Warner's doesn't want the series seen, why is it that we are seeing it in syndication on television right now as I write this?

It seems to me that having it currently playing on TV is much more exposure than having it on DVD where the audience is fans that are already familiar with it.

Lets look at this from a business point of view. The only people who don't like the show and would prefer it not be seen are comics writers and editors who don't want it to interfere with the darker interpretation of Batman. That's always been the thinking, going back 20 or 30 years - that the 60s Batman kept people from taking comics seriously.

On the other hand, the series was a huge success, particulalry in syndication and has been for many years. To that end, I suspect Warners loves the series and would be happy to exploit it to make more money.

Warners did not own DC Comics back in the '60s when Batman aired. As circumstance would have it, the character is now owned by Time-Warner, the largest media company in the world. And if you think the largest media company in the world is going to let a few comics writers keep a hot propoerty from being brought to market because they don't think it's the right "interpretation" of the character, then send me your credit card number because I have bridge for you.

Truth is, in the last 30 years we've seen numberous interpretations of Batman -- some more successful than others. Warners is rumored to be releasing box sets of Batman The Animated Series this summer -- that's a great, dark interpretation, one that will no doubt fit well with their new animated series this fall. The Tim Burton movies still have an audience, and I suspect Warner knows there is an audience for the 60s Batman too.

The only complicating factor is the relationship with Fox. But there is too much money to be made not to work that out, and I bet you they do it in time to take advantage of the 2005 Batman movie (which despite being a darker interpretation of the character will still generate a lot of interest in the overall property).

Comics creators -- even the president of DC Comics -- do not make these kinds of business decisions. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand how business is done.

But that does not answer the question which was asked, does it? If the "head" of Warner hates the series, why would he allow it to be licensed for airing on television? Quality is irrelevant. You never asserted that money was an issue. You stated that the head of Warner viewed the series as an embarrassment to the franchise and that this is why it would never be on DVD. How does licensing it to television not embarrass the franchise?