Batman TV show VS Batman movies

[thealiasman2000]

Hi!

I want to compare the live action Batman TV show with the four movies that were in the previous continuty.

So,which one do you like the best:

-TV Batman or movie Batman?

-TV Robin or movie Robin?

-TV Comissioner Gordon or movie Comissioner Gordon?

-TV Batgirl or movie Batgirl?

-TV Alfred Pennyworth or movie Alfred Pennyworth?

-TV Joker or movie Joker?

-TV Penguin or movie Penguin?

-TV Catwoman or movie Catwoman?

-TV Riddler or movie Riddler?

-TV Mr. Freeze or movie Mr. Freeze?

What do you think?

 

[El Payaso]

Is this a joke?

The movies are so much better in every possible sense.

 

[Mee]

Is this a joke?

The movies are so much better in every possible sense.

The show was better than Batman & Robin.

 

[El Payaso]

You have a big point.

But anything is better than that.

 

[Bat Attack]

The first 3 movies are better then the show, but the show was better than Batman & Robin.

 

[atomicbattery]

The '60's Batman series really gets undeservedly dumped on by those without a clue about Batman's history. Yeah, the second season was mediocre and the third sucked, but that first season was brilliant.

I have a copy of Batman #73 ('The Joker's Utility Belt') and the 'Joker is Wild/ Batman is Riled' episodes are a near scene-for-scene re-creation.

In the '60's comics were considered juvenile entertainment. The 'Marvel Age'- where adults kept reading comics into adulthood- was just beginning. The 'dual address' of 'Batman' (action-adventure for kids, comedy for adults) was the only way to play it. And for a season or so it worked beautifully.

Oh, and despite that almost unwatchable third season, Yvonne Craig made a great Barb/Batgirl.

 

[Bat Attack]

By saying "The '60's Batman series really gets undeservedly dumped on by those without a clue about Batman's history." Are you reffering to the history of the Batman 60's series or the character in general? Because I am very aware that in the 60's the Batman comics had become very campy and silly, and that the show was just a relection of them. So saying that the people who dislike the show have no clue to Batman's history is ignorant.

 

[Silver Sable]

Movies

 

[atomicbattery]

Hi Harleen!
I'm talking about the character. Batman had been around for 27 years in 1966, and for roughly 26 of those he had been light, absurd adventure (with an occasionally darker story, like Two-Face) aimed at kids.

The show played so well because most adults looking at a Batman book in '66 would have dismissed the contents as kid's stuff and likely thought any grown-up who took it seriously a low-grade moron. Yet that same adult had very likely read a Batman comic in the '40's when circulation of 'Batman' and 'Detective' were over a million copies a month(!) each.

A '66 Newsweek cover story on the Camp phenomenon reported on parents watching the show with their kids- and the kids yelling 'Daddy, stop laughing!' at what they viewed as deadly serious stuff.

Taken out of that cultural context, the '60's TV Batman appears a buffoon- yet within the universe of the show he is hugely respected by authority (law enforcement, government officials), feared by criminals, and held in awe by the public. So where's the disrespect? It's through the filter of how we view the character now (and, actually, have for over 35 years- since O'Neil & Adams) that the TV Batman is viewed as a violation.

I loved 'Batman Begins'. I think that it's a great Batman for our age.
But I love the old Batman TV series as well- absolutely the right Batman for its age- and wish that many of todays fans would give it the respect it deserves. After all, it's highly unlikely that we would even have Batman films today if it hadn't been for 'Batman' in 1966.

 

[Bat Attack]

Hi Harleen!
I'm talking about the character. Batman had been around for 27 years in 1966, and for roughly 26 of those he had been light, absurd adventure (with an occasionally darker story, like Two-Face) aimed at kids.

The show played so well because most adults looking at a Batman book in '66 would have dismissed the contents as kid's stuff and likely thought any grown-up who took it seriously a low-grade moron. Yet that same adult had very likely read a Batman comic in the '40's when circulation of 'Batman' and 'Detective' were over a million copies a month(!) each.

A '66 Newsweek cover story on the Camp phenomenon reported on parents watching the show with their kids- and the kids yelling 'Daddy, stop laughing!' at what they viewed as deadly serious stuff.

Taken out of that cultural context, the '60's TV Batman appears a buffoon- yet within the universe of the show he is hugely respected by authority (law enforcement, government officials), feared by criminals, and held in awe by the public. So where's the disrespect? It's through the filter of how we view the character now (and, actually, have for over 35 years- since O'Neil & Adams) that the TV Batman is viewed as a violation.

I loved 'Batman Begins'. I think that it's a great Batman for our age.
But I love the old Batman TV series as well- absolutely the right Batman for its age- and wish that many of todays fans would give it the respect it deserves. After all, it's highly unlikely that we would even have Batman films today if it hadn't been for 'Batman' in 1966.

I understand what you meant now.

 

[atomicbattery]

Thanks Harleen!

 

[Palpadious]

The first two movies are better than the show, the other two are not.

 

[Mr. Socko]

All the movies are better then the show IMO.

Batman & Robin was just a modern day type remake of the old Show. It was cooky, it was creative, it was colorful. It captured the same spirit that the old show did, atleast for me.

 

[Dope Nose]

except that the show was intended to be campy while Batman & Robin, as far as I know, wasn't.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Exactly, if you take Batman & Robin as a serious Batman movie, you won't enjoy it one bit. Despite what it was intended to be, I look at it as a campy over the top wacky Batman movie and it turns out to be something to look at.

If Batman & Robin was build as a campy Batman movie it would have been VERY sucessful.

 

[bdsproductions]

movies.Adam West's show was funny thoughe.

 

[TwilightPro101]

If I'm going to vote for any Robin. I liked the Batman Forever Robin more than I did the Burt Ward version.

 

[fabman]

I think so, too. Chris O' Donnel was a better Robin than Burt Ward.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

wtf@ this thread

 

[El Payaso]

I think so, too. Chris O' Donnel was a better Robin than Burt Ward.

Yes.

Well actually O'Donnell did a fine Dick Grayson and then suddenly dressed up as Robin he started to be the classic sissy sidekick for no reason. Like if it was the Robin suit what made him annoying.

 

[The Batman]

The 60's show. It did a better job with camp batman than the movies did a serious one.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I think so, too. Chris O' Donnel was a better Robin than Burt Ward.

"Holy, what the f**k!" Burt Ward was so much better then Schumacher's Robin, with no nipple suit!

 

[Catman]

Yes. . .the first three films are better than the show and the show is better than Batman & Robin. But, perhaps we can expand on this. I still think Julie Newmar is the sexiest Catwoman.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I still think Julie Newmar is the sexiest Catwoman.

The sexiest Catwoman is Michelle Pfeiffer of me!
Michelle just oozes sex as Catwoman!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The Batman TV show is camp. It's proberbaly the best piece of camp of all time. if you don't like it, fair enough, but most television scholars will tell you it's a very clever piece of television, and your parents proberbaly loved it.

The show doesn't just adapt comics of the 60's, but those of the 40's and 50's as well. It mimics the style of them all, and because it plays it straight, it comes out ludicrous. That's why it works so well.

I've come across people on these boards who a) don't know what camp actually is, and b) have no idea of the histort of the Batman character, only the latest comics. If you're going to join this debate, please be aware of both.