|
I've wondered that myself. Although Batman also had two movie serials in the 1940s. Pretty weak, but not an entirely bad effort for the time. Batman and Robin weren't super-heroes, they worked for the government as special agents fighting "The Japs". Eh, WWII and all that. They don't hold up terribly well, and they're really cheap, but eh, anything Batman is worth a look.
I would argue that one reason Superman has more shows is that Batman's almost constantly in film development, and producers actually don't like to have films and TV shows of the same property come out at the same time. You'd think the opposite would be true, but the conventional thinking is that multiple versions of the same property confuses the audience, as there are often contradictions between them. So they try and put space between the movie and TV versions of their characters. Since Superman's movies have taken decades at a time to make, TV shows have provided a cheaper way to keep the character in the public eye just as effectively (and with more room for character development) than films.
So I guess the reason could be that most of the focus on Batman has been making movies and cartoons rather than live-action TV shows, although there have been ideas for a few different shows but none got made. I think they were considering a "young Bruce Wayne" show once "Smallville" got huge, but eventually decided against it. They did have the "Birds Of Prey" spin-off show, but Batman wasn't really in that. It was a decent show, though.
I really can't complain that they keep doing Superman shows, but I wouldn't mind a Batman one. I'd prefer a real, in-costume Superman show (watching Lois & Clark has my mind going crazy imagining what could be done with modern budgets) but a Batman show would be welcome.
|