Batman 1966 turns 50

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

30 years of Batman before a TV show is forever in terms of a character's lifecycle. Least in my opinion it is.

TV wasn't even mainstream in the U.S. till the 50's. Most people didn't even own televisions back then.

[TMNT_Guy]

The 1966 Batman show and Batman the Animated Series are the only two adaptations of Batman that I find myself coming back to. It’s good clean fun that will never be recaptured…though I am curious about the upcoming animated film.

[Leo656]

The thing is, it's a very literal take on the comics of that era. VERY literal. The colors, the camera angles, the dialog, the way everyone behaved, especially the villains... it was a 1:1 recreation of what was being done on the page. It's kind of hard to notice that, 50 years and however many re-imaginings of Batman later. But it's a huge reason why it resonated with so many people, it was literally the comics brought to life. The closest thing I can even compare it to, is the "Speed Racer" movie, which was a 1:1 adaptation of the cartoon show and was equally as divisive as Batman '66 has become to modern viewers, for a lot of the same reasons. "It's too corny and goofy and campy and bright and silly!" Right, yeah... except so was what they were adapting, so in reality they did a Perfect Job, it's just not everyone's taste.

It's like, you either "get" what the people making it were trying to do, in either case, or you don't. And those who "get" it, maybe it's not their favorite thing but they can at least appreciate it. But you'll always have those who just can't get into it. And I do get it, what we've gotten used to with Batman is so dramatically different, but it still doesn't change the fact that as of the time the show was made, it was by far the best and most authentic live-action comic book adaptation ever produced.

I loved it as a kid; I grew up reading the 80s comics but also had reprints of the older stuff, so there was never any problem as far as understanding how, say, Keaton Batman was more authentic to a modern version while West's Batman was equally authentic to the books of its own day. Since I grew up reading and enjoying all the different eras and takes on Batman in equal measure, I've always had a fairly broad acceptance of what can and can't be done with the character.

That acceptance comes to a screeching halt at the Schumacher films, however. As authentic as Batman '66 was in its day, I don't think a live-action attempt in that vein should EVER have been done again, once the general consensus of what Batman is eventually changed. Cartoons are one thing - Brave and the Bold won me over - but a live-action Batman in a modern setting needs to be darker and more real. When the Schumacher films came out, and it seemed that Batman was once again doomed to be a "goofy" character in his mainstream presentations... man, was I pissed at the Adam West show for providing the "inspiration" for those pieces of sh*t.

Then I calmed down when Batman movies got good again. Now I like it fine, I just kind of have to be in the mood to watch it. But it absolutely did save the Batman comics from cancellation and springboard the character's popularity to equal (and eventually surpass) Superman's. So whether it's to a modern viewer's taste or not, it's still kind of its own huge deal.

[ZariusTwo]

>Batman '66 folded before this could become canon

[Bry]

I mean, c'mon. This show is hilarious.

[Wesley]

I loved watching reruns of this show as a kid. I don't remember much about it, though, except the characters. I thought it was fun to watch. I haven't watched it in years, though. It was shown on rte two in the late 90s around the same time as Batman TAS, so I was able to watch two different versions of Batman at the same time.

[ProactiveMan]

I love this show - I watched it every day after school. It's silly, but it's a lot smarter than it sometimes gets credit for.