Why is there no discussion on Batman '66

[Sam Fisher]

 

[Sam Fisher]

 

[Kevin Roegele]

GREAT review of Batman the Movie from IMDb:

"First, let me say that I hated the Batman television show of the 1960s; and watching a couple of episodes played on cable TV a few years back convinced me this hatred was justified. The TV show is garish, overly cute, badly put together, using a remarkably unsteady camera technique displaying all the worst qualities of "cinema verite" and none of the good. The essential joke - that the show was a parody of the old Batman serial films of the 1940s - only indicates what an overly-determined over-kill of banal humor the show actually was; surely the audience didn't need more than one or two "cliff-hanger" jokes before getting the message, that the old serial formula for cliff-hangers was inherently absurd. But the TV show lasted (if I remember) 4 years.

Batman the Movie is a different kettle of fish entirely, despite the fact that the film uses many of the same writing and the same film-making techniques of the TV show. The primary visual reason for this is that the unsteady camera-work has been suppressed. The film looks like a trashy drive-in B-move of the late 50s, but at least it never gets "psychedelic" as the TV show clearly attempted. Further, although the film remains a parody of cliff-hanger serials, there are only a couple jokes directly about cliff-hangers; and we know that the film is really going to end, unlike the TV show.

For me, what really works to make this film different than the TV show is that it is not simply a parody of the serial film, it is a satire on the American culture that produced the serial films - a culture of profound paranoia and equally profound - and absurd - optimism. Indeed, if one listens carefully to the dialog assigned to the villains, one discovers that it is this very optimism that they really loathe. What offends them about Batman is not that they cannot defeat him, but that he absolutely refuses to entertain the notion that he can be defeated. So their real goal, throughout the film, is simply to defeat Batman - to put an end to hope. If they can make a few bucks as well, all the better.

What this means of course is that the villains happen to be more like the audience than Batman could ever be. It's not that the intended American audience of the film wants to destroy hope; but beneath the overtly expressed optimism of American ideology, there runs a profound cynicism. Most Americans (now as in the 1960s) believe that things appearing to be good, can never be as good as they appear. For the audience of this film, that's a suspicion; for the villains it's an article of faith. This identification with the villains allows us to laugh at Batman, by laughing with the villains, as much as allowing us to deny this evident identification itself.

There's no point in saying this is a good film (it's not); one cannot even comment on the acting, since ham is intentionally the order of the day. And because it is an intentional satirical parody (that frequently works) one cannot say it is "so bad it's funny". It has no genre to belong to, and so there are no standards of taste one can apply to it. The closest recent analogies I can think of are a handful of films produced at Troma. Neither Batman nor any of the Troma films are constructed to persuade or seduce viewers to their respective causes: either one gets the joke, or one does not.

I did, so I enjoy this film. My suggestion is to see it at least once, if only to discover whether one likes it or not."

winner55

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Cesar Romero was so good as the Joker, so exactly right, I don't think he'll ever be surpassed.

 

[Nepenthes]

Except for the time he never killed anybody

 

[Road Warrior]

I never understood why the Penguin and Joker had to wear a mask. Who are they hiding their identity from?

 

[El Payaso]

I never understood why the Penguin and Joker had to wear a mask. Who are they hiding their identity from?

That's the humour of the show. *shrugs*

 

[Road Warrior]

I know it's the humor of the show, but its a little too dumb. Even for B66 standards.

 

[El Payaso]

I know it's the humor of the show, but its a little too dumb. Even for B66 standards.

That was entirely my point, man.

 

[The Joker]

I never understood why the Penguin and Joker had to wear a mask. Who are they hiding their identity from?

Or the Riddler. Everyone knew who he was, too.

I guess the mask was some sort of a statement when pulling off a crime in Gotham City lol.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I never understood why the Penguin and Joker had to wear a mask. Who are they hiding their identity from?

If you don't understand that, I think the entire show is lost on you.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Except for the time he never killed anybody

It doesn't make any difference. If you really think a story has to be dark and violent in order to be legitimate, then you are either not very old or very lowbrow. Or a comicbook geek. Also, if you can't accept that Batman, when looked at a certain way, is joyfully ridiculous, then you're taking it too seriously.

The Joker is the mythical trickster figure, like Loki, he's there to bedevil and fool the hero. This archetype works in the darkest or lightest stories.

 

[Noir]

"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."

Batman and Robin?

 

[El Payaso]

^ That should have been the tagline for B&R. Would look cool on the dvd. Somebody a manip please?

 

[Nepenthes]

when you think about, that show is largely responsible for the todays shiiity mainstream perception of comic books. Wham pow funny-books

it's also responsible for many good things tho

 

[The Techno Bat]

Adam West is by far the greatest Batman out there. This was such a great show, and it's a crying shame that the networks/studios can't get on the same page and give us fans what we want and that is boxed sets of Batman '66 DAMMIT! ! ! ! !

Like previously mentioned if everybody can get past that it's a campy Batman and look at the comics and the time, Adam West & Burt Ward were playing Batman and Robin exactly how they were looked at in the comics, Campy, Silly, & Fun.

I think that the greatest thing about the show was whenever a villian was shown, the view us as fans had was it appeared as though the camera man was shooting them crooked, thus the joke Crooked Crooks, genious! ! ! !

Ceasar Romero refusing to shave his mustache, so they painted over it, added to the insanity of The Joker, Ceasar was by far the best Joker, better than Nicholson.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Only 5% of the people on this board understand what camp is.

Camp is ironic, knowing celebration of things which are ludicrous and outlandish.

The Batman comics have never, ever been camp. They have been childish, brightly coloured, ludicrous and non-sensical, but they have always been intended to be taken seriously by their target audience (which has varied considerably).

The 60's TV was camp. The point of the show was to deliberately point out the comedy value inherent in the Batman concept. The brilliance of the show is that it barely exaggerates (if at all) the situations from the comics, it just shows what they would look like if they happened in real life. Thus it works on two levels; it's serious enough to be a straight adventure story, and camp enough to be amusing.

 

[batmaluco]

The funniest Batman ever:

 

[batmaluco]

The craziest Joker ever:

 

[batmaluco]

The sexiest Batgirl ever:

Is there a better way to celebrate 3000 posts?

 

[The Techno Bat]

Definately a great way to celebrate your 3,000th post! I am not a huge fan of Batgirl and thought she actually ruined the show, but Yvonne Craig was pretty cute.

I have seen the '66 Batman movie a few times over the past few days, and like mentioned before if you haven't seen this film you should check it out twice, and the reason I say twice is the first time, watch the film normally, and then the second time through switch on the commentary by Adam West & Burt Ward while watching it. It's great hearing them talk about the series, the movie, and all the other stuff that went down

 

[ab38416]

 

[DieSmiling]

Only 5% of the people on this board understand what camp is.

Camp is ironic, knowing celebration of things which are ludicrous and outlandish.

The Batman comics have never, ever been camp. They have been childish, brightly coloured, ludicrous and non-sensical, but they have always been intended to be taken seriously by their target audience (which has varied considerably).

The 60's TV was camp. The point of the show was to deliberately point out the comedy value inherent in the Batman concept. The brilliance of the show is that it barely exaggerates (if at all) the situations from the comics, it just shows what they would look like if they happened in real life. Thus it works on two levels; it's serious enough to be a straight adventure story, and camp enough to be amusing.

I think people know what camp is -- it's just that 99% of Batman fans will tell you that "campy" is the last thing Batman should be.

 

[The Shredder]

I love this flick, as well as the TV show which I will always have an affinity for. I remember the TV show coming on the fam channel back when Batman 1989 was still in it's theatrical run, and I would make it a point to sit and watch the show every single time it came on. Ah, good times.

 

[ab38416]