stingermck

I like this part, sounds like WB paid out to Fox

rw2516

This is just merchandising, not the actual tv show. WB has already stated this changes nothing concerning dvds. Additional parties to the show are CBS/Paramount, MGM, Columbia or Universal(whichever one holds Green Hornet rights), music rights including the theme song, incidental music, and singing appearances by Lesley Gore and Chad & Jeremy. There's probably more.

stingermck

Yup:

Travis McClain

Could it be that if Warner and Fox are willing to see dollar signs over merchandise that it really is DC - and specifically Dan DiDio - that's blocking the TV release? I can't imagine the other parties being abject to making royalties off their content being put in the DVDs. Even the idea of holding out for more money doesn't seem to make much sense this late in the game. It just feels to me like the only plausible holdup is that someone who has veto power just doesn't want this to see the light of day.

Even the Green Hornet isn't necessarily an issue. That two-parter was in the second season, so they could at least roll out the first season before having to address it. By then, they would have sales figures to help them decide whether it makes business sense to negotiate to include the Hornet episodes, or to just omit them. It might be disappointing, sure, but I'd happily take 118 episodes on DVD instead of 0.

Evan Meadow

DC has never had any involvement in this whole situation.

They may not like the memories the show brings back, but they can't do a thing about it.

Travis McClain

So far as I understand it, no one has actually come forward to identify just what the specific holdup(s) may be. One prevailing theory has been that it is DC Comics and specifically that it's Dan DiDio. It may be tempting to think that DC is merely a publishing imprint of Warner Bros., but they have a clearer legal standing than that and it is DC Comics who owns the copyright on the Batman character and related elements. In the strictest legal sense, nobody can do a thing with Batman without DC's approval - not even Warner Bros.

dvd-4-life

Didn't Dan DiDio openly said that he didn't care for the 1960s Batman tv series? Probably because it put DC Comics on the map. Biting the hand that feeds it.

ben12

The idea that DC Comics is somehow responsible for keeping this show off of DVD is completely absurd. DC Comics has absolutely no power in the Warner Bros. organization.

Double_Oh_7

I just don't understand studio disputes like this. Wouldn't it be advantageous to compromise and share the rights? Isn't a piece of pie better than no pie at all?

The Monkees

Hollywood is greedy.

rw2516

More likely, it's such a tangled mess that the legal fees to straighten it out aren't worth it. I've read that everyone who worked on the show retains the rights to their contribution. There was no work for hire. There could be hundreds of parties who would have to tracked down. Besides characters owned by other entities(Addams Family, Hogans Heroes, Green Hornet), music rights, costume designer rights, Batmobile, etc. The set designers and script writers might own the rights to their work. How many different wall climbings with somebody poking their head out the window were there? Each one is probably a legal clearance.

majorjoe23

Holly Communism, Batman!

Travis McClain

Source?

Ish Kabbible

The DC comics division more likely generates no profit for Warners (or if it did. it wouldn't register on a pie chart) The only reason it's still around is the merchanding rights which is wholly a Warner property. This goes for Marvel's relationship to Disney as well. To think that the board of directors for Time-Life care what Dan Didio's opinions might be regarding movies and TV is laughable
RW2516 above is pretty accurate with the causes of the delay. Another big player in the mess are the heirs to the producer of the show, William Dozier and Greenway productions

Josh-da-man

This.

DC Comics is nothing more than IP farm for the Warners empire.

The idea that Dan Didio, or anyone else at DC Comics, is bossing around Warners is ludicrous.

Frankly, everyone at DC Comics has probably been shitting their pants for years at the thought of their corporate overlords taking a look at them and asking why they're still publishing comic books when they cost a shit-ton of money to produce, generate low sales, have a short shelf-life, and only sell in a tiny network of hobby shops.

Evan Meadow

Sorry you're wrong there. Warner Bros is the one that makes the call. Its always been stated the reason for the holdup has been the rights split somewhere between Fox, Warners, and the Dozier estate.

Just like Watchmen, nothing's going to stop WB from making money unless there's legal quandaries they just can't clear up as much as they'd like. Which is what's going on here.

Evan Meadow

Well the previous president, Paul Levitz always had DC submerged in the magazine divisions of the company when they went looking through the books for just such a reason. And it worked for years.

Until all this new developments with Diane Nelson and the creation of DC Entertainment.

But they know how much money they're actually making, they consider DC more of a R&D area now for movies, TV, games, what have you. So as long as DC's hitting what it normally hits, they'll be fine.

Travis McClain

I refer you to this 2008 article from TVShowsonDVD.com:

In the interest of fairness, though, I won't refrain from also quoting the very next paragraph which states:

The article then runs down all the potential players that could have a legal stake in this (and therefore could be the party responsible for the holdup), but it's merely a summary of what we already know.

rw2516

I'm reminded of Susan Hart, the widow of James H. Nicholson. She owns several AIP films outright and is notoriously difficult to deal with. Nobody wants to deal with her and she doesn't care. These films probably won't reappear until after she dies and an heir controls them. Among others, Amazing Colossal Man, Invasion of the Saucermen, It Conquered The World, I Was A Teenage Werewolf and I Was A Teenage Frankenstein.

PhantomStranger

My understanding at this point is the Dozier estate is still the big hurdle to clear. They want a fortune for the rights.

Guru Askew

Except for the pesky little detail about how DC has approval of the way their characters are portrayed written into all of their rights agreements, a clause that Michael Uslan, Bruce Timm and the Salkinds have all acknowledged in interviews. Anyone who has listened to all the DCAU commentaries can attest to this as Timm is open about his frustration in dealing with DC in regards to anything remotely out-of-the-box in regards to the way Batman was portrayed. I specifically remember him talking about that TNBA episode where Batman supposedly dies. Of course the whole thing is a dream (spoiler alert!) but even then he had to do it on DC's terms.

To think DC holds the rights to all these characters but is in a position to be totally bullied by all of their sister companies with little or no regard for the law is what's really laughable. If anything their ownership of these iconic characters has given them far more power than they should have.

sracer

I apologize for bumping this thread... no news on the DVD releases, but 120 episodes (in pretty decent quality) are currently available on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...BFE311228C9066

get 'em while you can.

gbeenie

Eh. I don't think DiDio really has the juice with WB for that. And that's a good thing: Just compare the last two years of WB's DC Animated movies with the last two years of DC comics.

majorjoe23

Dc just announced a monthly Batmam 66 series (it will debut as digital first), so they don't seem to be ignoring that this series ever happened anymore.

Guru Askew

DC has never shied away from the goofier portrayals of Batman. The theory that they did was merely reverse-engineered out of the lack of Batman '66 on DVD.

Here in 2013 with the Batman serials and Batman: The Movie and the Schumacher films available and several campy back-issues available in trades and as digital downloads and several companies producing '66 merch I think we can lay the "DC is embarrassed" theory to rest. We can thank "Man of Steel" for getting seasons 2-4 of "Superboy" on DVD. The ability to sell a DVD with "Batman" or "Superman" on it is a bucket and any sense of integrity about how the character is portrayed is a drop in said bucket. This isn't a new development.

Batman isn't on DVD. The non-DC Green Hornet isn't on DVD. Draw your own conclusions.