The 1960s Batman TV show was the first true attempt to do really full-blown, colorful comic book superhero fantasy on screen.
In the 1950s, The Adventures of Superman had been constricted by budget and its black-and-white presentation (even though the later episodes were filmed in color, most TV sets were still black and white).
So if the Batman TV show turned out to be absurd, well, that goes with the comic-book territory.
“The reason the show succeeded wasn’t just a kid audience,” wrote Mark Waid. “They already had the kids. no matter how silly or serious it was. What made it a mega-hit was college kids and parents joining in on the fun and laughing with celebrity guest stars they liked.”
The notoriously imitative television industry wasn’t sure what to make of Batman’s success. More ridiculous? The sitcoms Captain Nice and Mr. Terrific failed. More serious? The Green Hornet also lasted only one season.
Television is a medium as tediously ordinary as a living room, and superhero stories are a genre as manically colorful as capes and circus tights. The two have always been a difficult fit.
Even when costumes are included on the live-action shows, television is often clearly somewhat embarrassed by them, as it was in Batman and The Greatest American Hero. TV is obviously much more comfortable with super powers than costumes — the bionic duo, The Incredible Hulk, Heroes and sitcoms like Bewitched.
I think TV’s latter-day solution to the popularity of superheroes is a logical, if (to me) an unsatisfying one — superhero stories without superheroes. Gotham, Pennyworth, Smallville, Krypton, Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter — the list continues to expand.
Bruce Kanin;
ReplyDeleteRe: superhero series w/o superheroes... the latest is THE PENGUIN. I've yet to watch it.
Anyway, costumes do tend to look silly in live-action. I think we only accept them because we know them from the comic books. If a real Superman existed today, he'd likely operate with just plainclothes. Then again, like the police, he'd probably need to wear a costume, after all.
I replied:
When we start peeling away the layers of fantasy from superheroes, we may well end up dissecting butterflies.
Johnny Williams:
ReplyDeleteDan, in my own observations those college kids ‘parents’ you mentioned were a major source of the show’s popularity. What I saw happening with the older viewers in my family and their friends was that they really enjoyed seeing those older, well-established character actors they’d followed and been fans of for Years (many of them having careers on the decline at the time) hamming it up and getting second chances at fame with a new generational audience. Some like the scene-stealing Frank Gorshin, with his maniacal Ridder’s laugh, were Instant hits! Frank, like some of the others, had been a staple of the variety show and late night talk show circuits.
Some like Ethel Merman had previously been big stars on stage and screen. Her appearance as special guest villainess Lola Lasagne, who was in league with Burgess Meredith’s Penguin was a prime example of the deliberately played over-the-top, extremely hammy ways the old stars seemed to almost unanimously favor portraying their villainous alter egos. And It Worked! My elders loved it! They couldn’t get enough of them. It became an actual ‘Thing’ to speculate about and guess who would also come on board to play campy bad guys.
I personally am glad that those actors' careers at least briefly got a second chance to remind the world that they were still around and that they could still entertain us.
ReplyDeleteBob Doncaster:
As a kid. I didn’t realize how big a star some of the villains were, but my favorite was Burgess Meredith as the Penguin. Still the best to play the character
I replied:
He was my favorite, too. Just a master at his craft, down to the evil relish with which he spit out the word "Batman."
Bradley C. Sugg:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the '66 Batman was an unduplicable success, and a multiple layer show that had something for all audiences.
However, I will also say, that Stargirl did a great job taking DC superheroes and making it enjoyable for many ages, but focused on the Justice Society/Golden-Age characters, but more similar to The Young All-Stars and Infinity Inc.
Also, as the recently killed Arrowverse found its legs (and its heart), it had become a whole different thing than it started out as... and, was really just so impressive to me at bringing the tights and cape set into homes. It was a creation of its time, but also covered a wide variety of treatments as each show was handled differently, just as some comic titles were... I do think large parts of it may not have been appropriate for some of the much younger kids the way the '66 Batman was, though. But, the comics audience is older now, too.
However, it does show that there is the possibility of doing live action superheroes on prime time, (if that is still a thing post-streaming). The shows ran for 11 years collectively, and might have gone longer without the whole Gunn cinematic thing happening.
I'm going to discuss the Arrowverse further, so those uninterested as it is a modern take, or who don't want spoilers, please feel free to skip it.
Sugg continued:
ReplyDelete*****Spoilers below... *****
I personally loved almost every show in that DCTVU, referred to as the Arrowverse, eventually. For those less familiar, it began being called the Arrowverse, as it all started with the show Arrow, but it was also a universe where the first costumed superhero was The Arrow, (later calling himself the Green Arrow, like in the comics). It should be noted that it all was an alternate universe to the comics due to this, like Elseworlds, giving them a bit of freedom to vary the handling and to change outcomes. (There were shows that were only nodded to as adjacent to the Arrowverse, but possibly unique timelines or parallel worlds.
Though the darkness of the early Arrow seasons were not exactly my cup of tea, once The Flash got going as its first spinoff, I became so invested, and each new addition had its own flavor. The shear number of characters developed over its long run was amazing in and of itself.
The heart in The Flash and Supergirl were infectious.
The street and block level handling of Black Lightning and Batwoman along with various prejudice themes was heart-rending at times.
The goofy fun of the Legends of Tomorrow's time travelling missteps was always worth it and allowed for many genres to be used, and we even got Rip Hunter early on.
Even the few years earlier Constantine show was pulled from its ashes via the character/actor being pulled into the Arrowverse. My wife and I both liked that Constantine show and hated it ended after only one season eventhough it was quite good, so it was great he got more time to develope the character. (It was closer to the comics than the movie.)
And, there were some animated stories that fall in there as well, mainly serving as bonus and online material, including a Constantine (that touches on stories from the earlier show), The Ray (from the earth where the Nazis won WWII that appeared in just a couple of stories) and a Vixen story, (who only had a brief appearance in the live-action). There were several golden-, silver-, and bronze-age nods and stories used through its long run, too.
The Atom was handled in a way, which at first, I was not completely satisfied with, but in the end loved, because the actor Brandon Routh made him wholesome. (Yes, the movie actor, from Superman Returns played an armored version of The Atom for several seasons, on Arrow and then Legends.) It took a while, but they did bring in the size changing aspect of him. And, his friendship with Steel, was great.
I mean that universe made me care about Captain Cold and Heat Wave, as people. Even the likes of Gorilla Grodd and King Shark were handled amazingly well for live-action (CGI) tv. There are even references to the Super Friends in the penultimate and last seasons of most of the shows; and, I think had there been one more season, that would have been fleshed out even more...
Unfortunately, Superman & Lois ended up being an alternate timeline, (though the actors for Superman and Lois had also appeared on Supergirl as those characters), even after their major Crisis event, which was a shame, (but the story on Superman & Lois takes place more than a decade later than the rest of the Arrowverse, mostly, and there were a few other changes).
And, though its ratings were low and it struggled to find an audience, I actually really liked Naomi, though it didn't get pulled into the Arrowverse in the end. I think if it had got another season, she may have been pulled in somehow, if her world hadn't. I cared about her character as a person and didn't understand the negativity it got, I just disliked the mostly lack of costumes.
Joe Gall:
ReplyDeleteI’m not entirely sure about this.
ARROW, FLASH, SUPERGIRL and other CW costumed superhero shows had a pretty good run. As did WONDERFUL WOMAN back in the day.
I replied:
True, those are welcome exceptions. I am mostly talking about nwhat was network television (which DID give us a faithful version of Wonder Woman — ABC alwasy had a taste for costumed heroes).
Emmett Furrow:
ReplyDeleteNice analysis. I remember being insanely excited about the Batman series before it debuted, the network did a great job of promotion.
In thinking bout the comics-tv/film adaptations, the only thing I can think of that had a similar vibe was the movie version of "L'il Abner" (a famous comic strip), and that was adapted from a Broadway musical that had already established the look.
Joe Gall:
ReplyDeleteDan Hagen, True. Network television really had no idea what to do with costumed heroes.
I was fortunate to be in the animation industry (DCAU) where different rules applied.
I replied:
Joe Gall And those are wonderful, really a peak for the characters.
Jake Winston:
ReplyDeleteI for one will never forget the Batman TV debut. The visual of B & R running to the Batmobile from the batpoles was amazing to see for the 1st time.
I replied:
Oh, me too. "Atomic batteries to power .. turbines to speed.."
Joel Canfield:
ReplyDeleteI hate superhero stories without superheroes.
Charles Hatfield:
ReplyDeleteThanks for this! Cool post.
I think the Sixties Batman TV show taught a certain lesson: that to make costumed superheroes look convincing in live action, the entire environment, the whole look or aesthetic of the show, has to be exaggerated, heightened, stylized. That is, everything needs to tilt toward the cartoonish. Burton's Batman of 1989, despite its very different tone, takes this lesson from the Sixties show, and is way over the top in terms of scenic design and costuming (not just the hero's, but everybody's). Darker, but still exaggerated and hyper-stylized.
The Nolan-era Batman, esp. as it transitions from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, tries to go in the opposite direction, paving the way for the harsh "realism" of the recent The Batman and current Penguin. Now the idea is to make Bat-movies feel like Seventies crime dramas and cop shows, or like Scorsese or Lumet movies. This only works when Batman is purely nocturnal and his action scenes are dimly lit and editorially choppy. Otherwise, the costumes still look goofy.
I prefer the straight-up cartoonism of the Sixties show. The series quickly got old, and began laughing at its own jokes too much, but for the first season, the Adam West Batman was a cool sitcom.
I replied:
That's an excellent point, about COMPLETE styilization being necessary, an overarching aesthetic.
Also, people tend not to notice how extremely close the early TV scripts were to the Batman comic books of the time. The difference was in tone, not in content, and it was as much of a difference as people like to think.
Calvin Weaver:
ReplyDeleteI remember my mom telling me that Batman was a huge success (and a lot of fun) and that all kinds of stars were trying to get cameos on the show to get in on the fun and the exposure.
Glenn Mar:
ReplyDeleteThat is so Infantino. The guy had a trademark style, that's for sure.
Mike Woolson:
ReplyDeleteThis show had an embarrassingly large impact on my social and aesthetic development. And even today when superheroes on film are a whole genre, I think this was one of the only times they got it right, by embracing the unavoidable fact that the whole idea of comic book superheroes is silly, and rolling with it. That isn't to say I haven't enjoyed some of the other permutations.
Watching it now, it almost seems like the producers didn't quite get it. It was locked into a formula (with few exceptions the pacing of each two-parter is pretty indentical) and fell more and more into deliberate humor instead of playing it so serious. Then when ratings slipped they responded having the weekly running time cut in half by adding characters and cutting budgets, so Dozier's narration doubles up just to keep track of everything.
I don't know if they could have maintained the spark, but it was great fun while it lasted and I still enjoy watching it. I credit Adam West for much of that success, he pulled off the subtleties of that part so well he was stuck being typecast until the generation that grew up on him was old enough to hire him.
Art Cloos:
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that the camp got to me by the end of the first season as it slowly got worse. I remember even as a kid complaining about how the show treated its characters and story lines. The second season was all about it really losing its way. The fresh newness of season one was gone and as with that first season it got worse as it went on and I had trouble sitting through it.Sure there were the occasional moments as when the Green Hornet and Kato crossed over but that wasn't enough. The only thing that saved the finale season was Yvonne and it drove me crazy that she never got to really belt the heck out of the bad guys. I swear her constant kicking only fight scenes was just too much. Especially as Emma Peale was dishing out serious hurt to the bad guys she was dealing with. In speaking of the Hornet my little kid self totally loved that show and was seriously bummed when it was cancelled.
Francisco Jose Urbano Fernandez:
ReplyDeleteThat brief moment in time in the 60's when Bond, Beatles and Batman ruled. Loved being a kid at that time.
George Blake:
ReplyDeleteBack then I was embarrassed by the presentation. I had hoped it would have been along the lines of The Lone Ranger featuring that other Dynamic Duo.
The promos made it look like it was going to be exciting. I was greatly disappointed.
I would tune in to catch the fleeting glimpses of The Batmobile*.
I give it credit now for skipping over an origin story.
Catwoman (Julie Newmar) and Batgirl (Yvonne Craig) were other reasons to watch.