Nathan Higgins you sir have the right idea. I like my dark Batman but the recent Return of the Caped Crusaders movie did two things. One, proved that the Adam West Batman is as legitimate as any other version and two created a brilliant commentary on the darkness of Batman. No spoilers but you haven't lived until you hear Adam West quote Michael Keaton or Frank Miller.
It's back when comic books were the pulp adolescent entertainment they were meant to be. Not Jason Bourne in a costume. At least Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy are keeping that concept alive in films, as are shows like Supergirl and Gotham.
Yeah. That's what annoys me about the Batman fanbase. It's how they Batman so seriously like he's a freakin religion. It's like the third thing to never bring up when having a conversation with somebody, religion, politics, and Batman. What's next? Are we going to have Batman carols?
One thing a lot of people forget about this show is that it was supposed to be a parody of Batman, since the silver age comic books of Batman (and a lot of other super heroes for that matter) were cheesy and campy as hell. It just so happened that a lot of people (both adults and little kids) loved the show, but yeah at first it was supposed to be ridiculous and cheesy because that was the point, it was mocking how ridiculous people back then thought comic books were.
Every generation is cursed to think it's the first to discover irony. With this curse they will, ironically, look at past works of satire as if they were in made in earnest.
Everyone who hates the TV show always say "the comic book was a lot darker". Yeah, BACK IN THE '40s IT WAS. But after the Comic Book Code came into being in the '50s, the comics then became every bit as juvenile and campy as later portrayed on the TV show. And that's why Marvel eventually ended up kicking DC's ass in the '60s.
In it's defense, the original Star Trek looked really good at the time since the only thing you could compare it to was a REALLY campy, cheesy (and crappy) TV show you forgot to mention....Lost In Space. And don't forget The Man (and Girl) From Uncle. Or Get Smart. Or movies like Modesty Blaise, Danger: Diabolik, Barbarella, and Casino Royale. And another big influence was the Pop Art movement, which was peaking at this time. This was a time when all the trendiest people were hanging Andy Warhol soup cans up on their walls. Roy Lichtenstein made his career by painting enlargements of actual comic book panels.
I love myself some brooding Batman, but every now and then a little light hearted wackiness is welcomed. In fact, I thought Brave and the Bold struck a nice balance of light and darkness.
Tim Burton hit a pretty good happy medium. Schumaker amped up the camp to 11 and ruined it, then Nolan turned the brooding up to 11 and ruined it. For me, at least. I'm pretty positive I'm not the consensus view on those movies and I'll definitely admit that the Heath Ledger Joker was a masterclass in acting. But the 60s show was, like all the modern incarnations, the type of Batman that audiences WANTED back then.
Commissioner Gordon: It could be any one of them... But which one? Which ones? Batman: Pretty *fishy* what happened to me on that ladder... Commissioner Gordon: You mean where there's a fish there could be a Penguin? Robin: But wait! It happened at sea... Sea. C for Catwoman! Batman: Yet, an exploding shark *was* pulling my leg... Commissioner Gordon: The Joker! Chief O'Hara: All adds up to a sinister riddle... Riddle-R. Riddler! Commissioner Gordon: A thought strikes me... So dreadful I scarcely dare give it utterance... Batman: The four of them... Their forces combined... Robin: Holy nightmare!
This entire video basically boils down to the girls appreciating the show for what it was within context of the time, and the guys bashing on it for failing to be the modern interpretation of Batman. That's a pretty forced argument, really.
I gave up at "it was trying to make fun of Batman". No, it was conceived as a tongue in cheek parody of the old black and white Batman serials that showed cigarettes falling out of the actors capes and such. It was intended to be a campy reaction to the irony of the silver-age Batman in the comics, which was already getting pretty "out there". It's a slapstick absurd comedy with Batman as the theme. In my opinion it elevates Batman to a subject you can do virtually anything with in art and also makes the character and the story timeless by showing it can be both lighthearted to the max and the darkest drama ever. Just Brilliant.
60's Batman was great. People think of it now as this bad, cheesy thing, but it was legitimately fun and clever, and has some moments that are genuinely laugh out loud hilarious.
Well, Batman wouldn't exist today without the show, so it might not be great, but you gotta give it props for saving the comics. EDIT: I should probably watch the whole video first. :/
Regardless what you may think of this show, it's undeniably an important part of Batman history, if not the most important. If it wasn't for this, interest in Batman would have died decades ago. We wouldn't have anything else if it weren't for this.
The argument that Batman 66 wasn't a detective is lame. Christian Bale's Batman couldn't understand how Joker was evil til his Butler basically had to explain to him that sometimes bad is bad
I was born in 1989 the same year as Tim Burtons Batman came out, and was brought up watching the films the animated series and later Christopher Nolans Dark Knight trilogy not knowing of the 60's show and have to say looking at the 60's campy show is a complete embarrassment, whether many of you agree or not.
eh, it was funny and it was true to the comics at the time since everything was more light hearted in the golden age, and even up into the silver age. funny doesn't equal good though so it's really just a matter of opinion. Oh and say what you want about the campiness of adam's batman, but he never whipped out a bat credit card, nor did his suit have bat nipples on it.
Not really comics at the time were sillier but they were different from the show. Where the show batman was never changing monster of the week type stories. The comics were still a more clear cut story with character development, death and much more seriousness to counterbalance the silliness
Yeah. This whole comments section really seems to boil down to people who can't accept there have been a LOT of different interpretations of Batman over the decades, and that the Frank Miller-style super-dark vision really didn't exist until the 80s. So how dare the 60s version NOT be the modern version, huh?
Yes, yes it does, it's thanks to this series, that Batman lost it's way for so many years. A lot of people grew up being fooled into thinking Batman was always a campy series, and was never a dark and serious comic series. I remember my parents disliking The Dark Knight, because it was too dark. I told them, that's how Batman was meant to be. They told me "no it's not, Batman was a cheesy comedy with a bunch of comic effects and sounds throughout." I was like "are you serious, you were born before me, and you never knew what Batman was originally like, before TV heavily toned him down?!" Luckily, Batman has a better balance now in days. Now kids can have the Batman they like, while adults can get the gritty and more story driven Batman experiences.
SpongicX The 66 show was a reflection of silver age comics at the time. It was goofier and more lighthearted compared to the 40s and 50s. The 70s seemed to tone down that aspect and by the 80s we had the darker interpretation of the character.
Batman is a guy who dresses up as a bat and beats up guys on the street. The character isn't inherently serious by any means, and as such lends itself to MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. If your parents are too short-sighted to see the merits in a more serious and philosophical interpretation, that's their own fault, but that is in no way indicative of a lack of quality in what is essentially an exclusively comedy-based interpretation. That's just stupid.
It's dated, but I don't think it's bad. It can give you a good laugh here and there, and that fuckin' theme song is so damn catchy. Also, RIP Adam West.
...Wow. I didn't even know you could edit comments back then huh? Me was bad at words. Oh well. Update! I stopped watching the 60's Batman show since the time it came on changed and I no longer have any way to play the Arkham series (I could only ever finish city because the CD for asylum was too scratched and I got stuck trying to figure out origins), but I have recently played and finished story mode for lego villains (arguably the best installments of the Batman franchise).
Yes he did, but...you have to remember that Frank Miller only did what he did because he felt the need to create a *_response_* to the 60's show making a clown out of Batman. I _hate_ Miller's _Dark Knight Returns_ more than most but his comics never would've existed if the show wasn't super popular. The 60's show was insecure about its own comic book origins....and Frank Miller was insecure about the (popular) 60's show's campy portrayal of Batman. It's actually Tim Burton's _Batman_ (which helped inspire _Batman: The Animated Series_) that "saved" Batman. But this is all just my opinion :)
If that's the case, what's his excuse for ASBAR? You know, a Batman that is a certified lunatic such as throwing Robin in the batcave with an axe making him hunt rats for food. Not to mention the joke he made of the Justice League and Canary, and not to mention a Joker that doesn't smile.
Paradox Acres I agree with most of what you said , Batman TAS and the Tim Burton movie was good but what I meant is Frank Miller should have made him like the bronze age Batman where he was stoppable and less emo and more badass.
Robert Cop Eh I think Batman should be brooding and kind of dickish. Its whats so cool about his character. Like a tradgedy in many ways. Superman, however, should be more like the 60s Batman.
Well, the '66 Batman was the very first Batman show I ever watched. In fact, in the late 80's-early 90's pre-Animated Series, the 60's live action show and the Burton films were really the only Batman adaptations to watch ("Superfriends" was long canceled by that point). Even today, I find the 60's adaptation to be delightfully silly and...MY GOD, THAT THEME!! That iconic, stuck in your head for decades, pops in your head when you least expect it THEME! As much as I love and appreciate the darker, more dramatic interpretations of Batman, the campy 60's show will just always have a special place in my heart.
Articuno Forever makes sense I suppose. I still have mixed feelings over Ben affleck's Batman. I enjoyed Christian bale's Batman but I wish he would have used a voice changer built in the cowl rather than the sore throat voice. But I can see what you're saying. You prefer the originals at best and I agree with you on Adam west batman
Anyone who honestly believes that classic Batman was bad because they think it is dated cheesiness is wrong. No opinion, they are just factually incorrect. Period. End of story. It's like they don't even understand what the purpose of comedy is. Thinking it's bad because Batman shouldn't be light-hearted is almost as unforgivable.
"When the show first started, it was supposed to be a more serious thing." WRONG! Batman '66 was always supposed to be campy. And Yes..The characters were one dimensional..because that's how comics were back in the 60's. When the show aired in '66, it was so hot, it aired twice a week. As far as the guest actors... They were all already legends when they took those roles. We as kids didn't know who they were when we watched it... But, our parents did. Every actor wanted to be on the show because it was fun.
The main issue I have with _Batman '66_: There were so few ways to get it right, and so many ways to get it wrong. Its sensibility is a tightrope act on a piano wire--it has to be balanced oh so perfectly.
Of course it doesn't suck. People who hate this show clearly don't get what the point of the show was. It was absurdist on purpose. It was totally self-aware and knew what it was. It "makes fun" of Batman by being an over the top comedic romp that focuses on the absurd side of the Batman mythos. After all, there's NOTHING ridiculous about a rich guy dressing up as a bat and beating up criminals with a bunch of gadgets, right? Even at Batman's most serious, it's still a pretty crazy and ridiculous premise, and the Adam West show embraced that. Not only that, but the campy comedy in the show was generally extremely clever and witty. It KNEW it was a fun comedy. And, the cast was brilliant. Especially Frank Gorshin's Riddler who could be zany and crazy but still have a wild intensity in his eyes. Honestly, this is a really bizarre debate between to people who seem to understand the show and two people who just...don't.
The 60s Batman show is better with the contrasting dark serious Batman. Super grimdark Batman of Bale and Affleck brings things around full circle though, it's become comical but just without the self-awareness of it's comedy that 60's Batman has. I laughed when Bale said "WHERE'SH THE TRIGGER?" and I laughed when Affleck said "Do you bleed?" and West had me laughing so hard I was hurting in Return of The Caped Crusaders. The big difference between these examples? I was laughing with Adam West and I was laughing at Bale and Affleck. The 60s Batman is intended as fun comedic escapism! Modern audiences that can't appreciate that form of entertainment are already not the intended audience, they can have access to the vast emo Batman library out there in most incarnations.
They both suck --the 60's show was insecure about its own comic book origins so it went overboard with the campiness while the modern Batman films (by Nolan & Snyder) were insecure about their own comic book origins so they went overboard with the realism and grittiness. Both are so insecure that it's _painful_ to watch. It's Burton's 1989 _Batman_ film that actually manages to do something interesting with Batman. Then, of course, came the wonderful _Batman: The Animated Series_ of the 90's which was inspired by Burton's vision. Both the Burton film and the animated show managed to get the "balance" between fun & seriousness just right. I'd go so far as to say that it's thanks to Burton & Batman:TAS that we have the current Marvel Cinematic Universe films --they set the foundation for fun superhero stories that Marvel built its MCU films on (but was, sadly, ignored by WB/DC's movies). But this all just my opinion :)
No, it's just that's different than what we're used to when seeing Batman. Perhaps it's for the best, since the "dark and gritty" Batman we've seen recently haven't done so well.
Matthew Cool It's definitely a product of its time. It was reflecting the comics of the time, which were pretty much being toned down because of the newly instated comic code. The rules started to ease up by the time the 70s and 80s came along.
The fact that 50 years later it is being discussed on this video ,on tv still and known by the public , shows it passes the test of time. It may not be your taste, but it passes the test of time. The third question is idiotic.
there's literally a million different types of Batmans. you got your Lego Batmans, you got zebra batmans, you got comedy Batmans, you got super brutal Batmans, they got Batmans that refuse to kill and the list goes on. batman 66 is just yet another iteration of Batman. maybe it's not to your liking but it's just as acceptable as any of the others. and also these guys seem to not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. the fact is the batman character can be done so many ways. and thats a good thing. with as many versions as we have, no matter who you are there's most likely a batman for you. so when these guys say 'it's their batman and they're wrong', they are in fact not wrong at all. it's their batman, not yours. so from their perspective if they applied the same one-sided simplistic ideas that you guys have, then whatever batman you pick if it's not the one they would have, then you'd be wrong. fortunately this one circumstance in which we can all be right. because we are talking about opinion rather than facts. and everyone gets to have an opinion and no one's opinion is right or wrong. right and wrong are the purview of facts. in other words your opinion is no more correct or incorrect than any one else's.
66, Penguin, "Be careful, each of these are some mother's son," or when Robin thinks an actress used glycerin tears, and Batman corrects him, there's character development.
Oh wow. Lots of people don't know jack about the history of comics. There was a time when comics were banned in the States. But when they allowed comics to be made, the government forced a lot of censors in the material. Like not killing, swearing, ect, ect, ect. That is the Silver age of comics. The age of what we would consider 'Campy'. It wasn't until the government loosen their hold around the 80's that we got to see more gritty and darker comics. So to say shit about how comic book characters are portrayed and say that it's an embarrassment or an insult to the character that is now, is the dumbest thing any comic book fan could say EVER! What are you, 12? You can not enjoy the material, but you have to seriously respect the evolution of comics and the blood, sweat and tears artists, writers and actors went through to keep these characters and stories alive to this day.
This show is great for kids. The theme song and campy acting is Legendary laughable and kind of addictive. It's so quoteable as well...Holy (insert something) Batman!
I think the fact that it doesn't stand the test of time is part of the appeal. Like nostalgia critic said, it's like hating saved by the bell, its such a product of it's time that you really can't fault it all too much.
I put it this august body that the Adam West Batman series not only kept the character viable at a time when DC was toying with the idea of cancelling the character, but by planting the seeds of future resentment of hardcore fans who spent years seething, "THAT'S NOT BATMAN!", set up the eventual redemption of the character, first by Neal Adams and Denny O'Neill in the comics, then by Tim Burton in the movies. So it's all good.
One thing, SILVER AGE OF COMICS, that is when the 60's Batman show came out. If you don't know anything about the Silver Age of Comics it was a time when Comics were being blamed for the corruption of American youth (like Rock n Roll and Black people were a decade before or how Video Games are blamed today in the modern age today). The Golden Age of Comics was a more serious time with darker plots as well as strictly Horror Comics and things, all that was cut by the Comics code of Conduct, which started the campy Silver Age where they needed to make things more light hearted and for kids. When the Comics Code was finally lifted it started the Bronze Age which brought back darker plots and stories around the 80's (which was helped by the Tim Burton Batman movie comic out) and then after that is the Modern Age of Comics which is right now. The 60's Batman came out in a time when the source material was just as campy, in fact it was even more campy, the 60's Batman show was the most mature interpretation of Batman at the time if you didn't know, it was a lot more mature then the comics were. It wasn't about the movie/3rd season of the show did it start to get comic levels campy and that's why ratings started to drop. For people that actually know when they are talking about I would suggested watching Linkara on Atop The Fourth Wall, or checking out Part 1 of Mat Pat's Game Theory video about the Joker from Suicide Squad if you want to learn more about the Comics Ages in general. Bottom line the two guys in this video know nothing about the older ages of Comics, they (like most of the general public sadly) only think Comics have always been grim-dark and gritty like they are today.
Adam Napolitano: The only part i didn't liked of batman is that he continued being OP,even when was supposed to be taken seriously again.The worst part is that the current "fans" are making him even more OP.He is supposed to be a human with flaws that his enemies could exploid,but at this point (when the fanboys say he can beat everyone with prep time and because "he is batman"),only a few fans can still take his enemies as an actual threat for HIM.
punisher 3:16 I am gonna have to say I am one of those people that thinks Batman can indeed take down anyone with enough prep time, but that only goes to far. Some people seem to think you give him like 10 minutes and he'll of already taking down the Justice League, um, no, it would take like realistically maybe a month to take down everyone, and that's being generous with a lot of variables. Batman is a fairly OP character but that's only when you have bad writers that need to dumb down other heroes in comparison to him, like I get it, he's a detective, but if he can figure out everyone's secret identities and weaknesses then that should mean a lot of other people should be able to as well by that same logic. Overall when you get a good writer then Batman can become a fairly well rounded character, when you get a bad writer you get the "I'M THE GOD DAMNED BATMAN!" that's super OP as all hell. Also thanks for not pointing out all the obvious spelling and grammar errors I made that I didn't notice before.
Adam Napolitano: You can like batman the way you want to (like i do).Also,english isn't my first language,so i didn't knew if your grammar was right or not.You just need to improve a little bit (and there's an editing comment option,so you can fix it).
My favorite Adam West BATMAN moment was on Animaniacs when he played Batman to the *BOO WONDER* . Commissioner Gordon " *He's a chicken, I tell ya. A giant chicken!* " Batman: Nonsense. He's just the strong, silent type.
60's Batman was made for kids and slotted in a kids time frame. I grew up in the 80's watching this show and have fond memories of it all. Can't imagine the show would of lasted too long if the Ledger Joker made a pencil disappear in the 60s.
Frank Gorshin as the Riddler is untouchable. He invented Riddler. He's absolutely hilarious, but there are moments of genuine menace. This show was just pure fun and I love it to bits. Batman takes itself way too seriously now. A little levity now and then would do the DC universe, comics or film, a world of good.
My goodness, it's like they guys on the "it sucks" side are either stupid, pretending to be stupid, or missed the point entirely. I mean their only argument was called "it's campy and ergo it's terrible and awful". At least make an actually argument within the context of the show's purpose and existence. But these guys are such pointless stick-in-the-muds. Also, this show was cheesy in the 60's as well. Saying it doesn't stand the test of time is one of the most obvious and uneducated statements you could assert when arguing against against what always was a COMEDY SHOW.
Is no one going to bring up that the 60s batman was deputized? The first episode he says "as a duly appointed representative of the law I'm placing you under arrest"
The show basically *_sneers_* at superheroes and comic book characters. (It's basically the opposite of the Marvel Cinematic Universe which _embraces_ comic book fun)
Is this post serious? If anything the 60's Batman show took the fun of the comics too far. Also you're looking at the Marvel universe with 2016 eyes. Marvel had its fair share of campy shit in the 70's and 80's also.
No, it doesn't. It could have, but Adam West and Burt Ward played the roles so serious, it was great...children didn't even get the joke and took the adventures serious, and the adults could have a lot of fun with it.
Marvel's 1970's _Incredible Hulk_ tv show (with Bixby & Ferrigno) was way better than the Adam West _Batman_ series. Also..I judge _everything_ with "2016 eyes" because that's where we are right now. That's how you know when something's outdated...like the 60's _Batman_ series.
Most of the complaints make sense to me whether I agree or not, though I don't think Catwoman was underutilized. And even if that were true of Lee Meriwether's Catwoman, it's a lot less true of Julie Newmar's. Also, it was pretty brave of them to make Eartha Kitt the third Catwoman for the obvious reason.
it seems that perhaps critics in general might not be terribly open to the genre, less so to that show. I think if you're critiquing things you watch, especially intentionally, you're going to miss some ineffable qualities it contains.
I love the 1960s Batman show. The reason why it's one of my favorite shows of all time is how the heroes have great chemistry and they feel like partners and friends and they were very likable. I love the cast on how they deliver great performances that are over the top that they fit the tone and not to annoy you or make you cringe, I also love the dialog, the humor on how it fits well with the tone, the villains are still fun to watch just like in dark Batman, and the action is just fun to watch. As much as I love the 1960s Batman show, I don't think a dark Batman is that big of a deal. It's fine, although I really despise Batman's fanboys. After all, it's nice to have a sense of variety and a different change of pace for once.
The inspired casting of the rogue's gallery on BATMAN '66 deserved an Emmy. The great Burgess Meredith was very "birdlike" in voice and mannerisms long before he ever played the Penguin. Frank Gorshin was a well known impressionist whose specialties were Kirk Douglas and Jimmy Cagney, which he combined for the Riddler, and Julie Newmar was a six foot tall Broadway actor/dancer with a very slinky feline quality.
Back during the 80's in the UK we only had 4 channels of TV and there were no kids shows like there is today, there was very little. The A Team, Knightrider and 60's Batman were some of the few things that were interesting on TV at the time (almost nothing else), so I am glad it was around because there was very little else at the time
Batman 66 was personally the first way I was really introduced to Batman, and I still have a great connection with it today. And I'm only in middle school. If Batman can still be hilarious and silly as it is for me to others, then the way it holds up today shouldn't be much of a problem. You can also go back to any episode in the series and it won't matter because there is no chronological importance! Unless it's the second of two parter. then you have to find that. But it's awesome anyways!
The fact is, it was a hilarious and often clever series that was the product of a time when the comic was a bit more silly. The guys arguing against it make a weak case. Sure, I love the Nolan trilogy and the Burton films, but I also adore this series.
At that point in time it was a reflection of the silver age comics which were being done under the BS comic code, it couldn't be dark a brooding like batman is now, but there is something fun about the camp how its over the top at some points like you can't help but laugh at the bat shark repellent or the joker using giant jack in the box bombs.
I saw 60's Batman around the same time I saw Tim Burton Batman (this was early-mid 90's when I was a kid). I accepted both as Batman, just as much I accepted the animated series as Batman. I have Adam West's Batman on DVD, and own every other Batman movie ever made. So yeah it's all Batman to me (even though Schumacher ain't my favorite. Esp Batman and Robin ughhh)
Really? THe 1960's Batman was AWSOME!!!!! Good or bad was not the right take for this. I think they should have talked about the quality of the series and the continuity from then to the BAtman of the 1980s and most recent iterations.
Got news for y'all. Comics were for kids. Yeah, I said it. They were entertainment for children. So, there was no dark, brooding, bs aimed at the Peter Pan syndrome set (of which I am a card carrying member). So relax. It's just a show. It was a huge hit. It's fun and well done. Don't get your bat nipples in a twist.
I love how Walter said that the show "wasn't/isn't Batman", yet the comic books up to and during the show's run were just as campy or more. Rainbow suit? Joker's utility belt (which was adapted into "Batman Gets Riled")? Ace with a fricking mask on his face? Hate the show for its tone all you want, but it wasn't tonally far from the comics before & during that era.
I've only properly seen one episode, and for what it was, it was a hoot! "I'm well versed in the ancient art of /cat/rate!" "I'm sorry to disappoint you, but /ka/rate, the art which you are attempting to refer to, is a _defensive_ technique. It's useless unless I attack you first." "Darn it, you're right. Boys, get them!" (cover tossed off of sofa and it's a bunch of henchmen underneath) The cliffhanger of the episode even included Robin mentioning how often they seem to find themselves in and conveniently escape from these types of situations.
Batman is infinitely better now. If you want laugh at batman than the 60's show is for you. Batman being darker and gritty made it more realistic and more enjoyable.
Avaricious Gaming: Batman being realistic now? Now thats a good joke.If he is supposed to be taken seriously,he shouldn't be saying (and actually) beating everyone just because his plans are soooooooooooooo peeeeeeerrrrrfect.If DC wanted to make batman realistic again he should be just a vigilante,because batman is the main reason that the prefix "super" in superhumans is less worthy than having a very manipunable fanbase.Poor batman,but specialy poor bruce wayne (because everyone else that puts on the batman suit has never been as OP as bruce).
Whenever I watch a new or old version of Batman or any DC movie, I like to think that all versions take place simultaneously. That the Ben Affleck and Jared Leto are'nt the "new" Batman and Joker, but one of many. Bale and Ledger are in their OWN realistic, gritty world. West and Romero (sorry if I spelled it wrong) are in their OWN campy, kooky show. Keaton and Nicholson are in their OWN gothic, dark universe. While Bale's Dark Knight faces Bane, West could be trying to figure what wacky scheme the Joker could be up to. I just wish there was more people who thought of these movies like this. Every version has its pros and cons. And for the LOVE OF GOD, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHERE TO GET RID OF THIS BOMB!? Some days I just can get rid of it.
ppl wernt supposed to take batman so seriously i mean hes a rich guy beating ppl as a bat. but over the years ppl built him up to a tower that cant be toppled now
Anyone else remember Liberace as The Music Man? (Correct me if I got the villain's name wrong.) Between those two actors that character section of the discussion could have hit harder.
I think a lot of people that criticize this show now tend to forget that the Batman comics from around the era were also very campy. Go back and look at some of the ridiculous comics from the fifties and sixties and this show fits the time period it was made pretty well. Couple that with the fact that tv in general and a lot of movies played up camp factor and the show doesn't look that ridiculous but just a product of that period in entertainment. Some of the arguments against the show here are pretty silly. As far as arguments like the show not having character development, the landscape of television was pretty different back then and most shows were just episodic entertainment that weren't focused much on things like that. It's just what it is and I don't think it's fair to really fault it when tv in general was pretty different than how it's produced now. Also as far as it holding up I guess I think it depends on when a person was introduced to it. I was born twenty years after the debut and watched it in syndication growing up and loved it. Certain aspects of it are dated but I think it's got a charm to it and also it's very much kid friendly so a good way to introduce the character at a young age.
Here's a thought: ALL the live-action Batman versions suck, they've never truly captured the character in the way cartoons have, they always either go _too_ dark and gritty or go _too_ silly and campy, whereas the 90s animated series, The Batman from the 2000s, and even The Brave And The Bold have all managed to strike a good balance of the two, _and_ show Batman's ability for deduction and detective work far better than any live action version. Incidentally, what _was_ Heath Ledger's Joker-Laugh? I don't even remember Heath Ledger's Joker laughing so it can't have been that memorable.
I loved this show. Don't care what the haters say.
If anything the show was honest. Batman is taken too seriously today.
And the perceived homoeroticism is due to the fact you have the minds of a child.
Nathan Higgins or they are projecting.
Nathan Higgins you sir have the right idea. I like my dark Batman but the recent Return of the Caped Crusaders movie did two things. One, proved that the Adam West Batman is as legitimate as any other version and two created a brilliant commentary on the darkness of Batman. No spoilers but you haven't lived until you hear Adam West quote Michael Keaton or Frank Miller.
It's back when comic books were the pulp adolescent entertainment they were meant to be. Not Jason Bourne in a costume.
At least Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy are keeping that concept alive in films, as are shows like Supergirl and Gotham.
batman was always meant to be a more serious character. read his early runs
I don't trust anybody who takes Batman so seriously that they hate 60's Batman.
Hahaha -- exactly
Yeah. That's what annoys me about the Batman fanbase. It's how they Batman so seriously like he's a freakin religion. It's like the third thing to never bring up when having a conversation with somebody, religion, politics, and Batman. What's next? Are we going to have Batman carols?
Jingle Bells
Batman Smells
Robin Laid an Egg.
The Batmobile
Lost a wheel,
And Joker got Away.
i dont hate it. i just think its way too campy and cheesy for me to enjoy. and i love campy and cheesy shit, but that show takes it a bit too far
Some days you just cant get rid of a bomb
One thing a lot of people forget about this show is that it was supposed to be a parody of Batman, since the silver age comic books of Batman (and a lot of other super heroes for that matter) were cheesy and campy as hell.
It just so happened that a lot of people (both adults and little kids) loved the show, but yeah at first it was supposed to be ridiculous and cheesy because that was the point, it was mocking how ridiculous people back then thought comic books were.
Every generation is cursed to think it's the first to discover irony. With this curse they will, ironically, look at past works of satire as if they were in made in earnest.
It wasnt a parody, for 30 years, THAT was Batman.
Jose Colella The tv show _was_ a parody (at least initially), but yeah, the Batman from the comic books was meant to be taken seriously.
Everyone who hates the TV show always say "the comic book was a lot darker". Yeah, BACK IN THE '40s IT WAS. But after the Comic Book Code came into being in the '50s, the comics then became every bit as juvenile and campy as later portrayed on the TV show. And that's why Marvel eventually ended up kicking DC's ass in the '60s.
In it's defense, the original Star Trek looked really good at the time since the only thing you could compare it to was a REALLY campy, cheesy (and crappy) TV show you forgot to mention....Lost In Space. And don't forget The Man (and Girl) From Uncle. Or Get Smart. Or movies like Modesty Blaise, Danger: Diabolik, Barbarella, and Casino Royale. And another big influence was the Pop Art movement, which was peaking at this time. This was a time when all the trendiest people were hanging Andy Warhol soup cans up on their walls. Roy Lichtenstein made his career by painting enlargements of actual comic book panels.
I love myself some brooding Batman, but every now and then a little light hearted wackiness is welcomed. In fact, I thought Brave and the Bold struck a nice balance of light and darkness.
Stephendw oh man, I love that show!
Stephendw
Brave and the Bold was amazing
Tim Burton hit a pretty good happy medium. Schumaker amped up the camp to 11 and ruined it, then Nolan turned the brooding up to 11 and ruined it. For me, at least. I'm pretty positive I'm not the consensus view on those movies and I'll definitely admit that the Heath Ledger Joker was a masterclass in acting.
But the 60s show was, like all the modern incarnations, the type of Batman that audiences WANTED back then.
Stephendw Brave and the Bold was great stuff.
I feel like the animated series is a good mix of brood and camp. The Nolan movies and things were just way too over one side
It was awesome. simple. Some days you just cant get rid of a bomb
Captain Cokecan p. n. guin. Penguin!
Careful, careful. Every one of 'em has a mother.
Commissioner Gordon: It could be any one of them... But which one? Which ones?
Batman: Pretty *fishy* what happened to me on that ladder...
Commissioner Gordon: You mean where there's a fish there could be a Penguin?
Robin: But wait! It happened at sea... Sea. C for Catwoman!
Batman: Yet, an exploding shark *was* pulling my leg...
Commissioner Gordon: The Joker!
Chief O'Hara: All adds up to a sinister riddle... Riddle-R. Riddler!
Commissioner Gordon: A thought strikes me... So dreadful I scarcely dare give it utterance...
Batman: The four of them... Their forces combined...
Robin: Holy nightmare!
*Batman* Get me the Shark Repellent!
HalfDemonInuyasha gotta be ready for those pesky batsharks.
This entire video basically boils down to the girls appreciating the show for what it was within context of the time, and the guys bashing on it for failing to be the modern interpretation of Batman. That's a pretty forced argument, really.
It was actually pretty accurate for the comics at the time, plus, it basically saved Batman. Without this show, Batman wouldn't be as popular
I gave up at "it was trying to make fun of Batman". No, it was conceived as a tongue in cheek parody of the old black and white Batman serials that showed cigarettes falling out of the actors capes and such. It was intended to be a campy reaction to the irony of the silver-age Batman in the comics, which was already getting pretty "out there".
It's a slapstick absurd comedy with Batman as the theme. In my opinion it elevates Batman to a subject you can do virtually anything with in art and also makes the character and the story timeless by showing it can be both lighthearted to the max and the darkest drama ever.
Just Brilliant.
The opposing side is SOOOOOOOOO wrong!
You are SOOOOOOOOO right!
Afonso Lucas SOOOOOOOOOO yes
So you agree to the terms of your defeat?
Ooooopinions are different.
Daniel Millward yup
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Batmaaaaaan!
.com
LymanAbraxas (tm)
┌(・。・)┘♪
60's Batman was great. People think of it now as this bad, cheesy thing, but it was legitimately fun and clever, and has some moments that are genuinely laugh out loud hilarious.
It's trash
I just like to see Batman that can kicked butt not a Batman that don’t know where to put a bomb somewhere
I'm 17, watched the movie as a kid and the show now. always loved it. but 89' batman and TAS are my favs.
Well, Batman wouldn't exist today without the show, so it might not be great, but you gotta give it props for saving the comics. EDIT: I should probably watch the whole video first. :/
Adam West needs to make an appearance in a new Batman movie as some crazy guy that thinks he's Batman wearing his costume from 66.
...in arkham asylum.
Sam Lucas He's in Arkham Asylum? As in the game?
no the one from the comics. it's been in the comics since at least the eighties.
This show made King Tut one of my personal favorite Batman villains.
Regardless what you may think of this show, it's undeniably an important part of Batman history, if not the most important. If it wasn't for this, interest in Batman would have died decades ago. We wouldn't have anything else if it weren't for this.
Why does no one ever talk about the Batman film serials?
cos their shit
bat supes its "they're"
You say that, but you let "cos" fly? If you're gonna be "that guy", then give it 100%.
Dustman B okay, I will next time.
Because they're not really fun to watch, for anyone.
The argument that Batman 66 wasn't a detective is lame. Christian Bale's Batman couldn't understand how Joker was evil til his Butler basically had to explain to him that sometimes bad is bad
Also agree with Walter, Burgess Meredeth was excellent in the twilight zone. "Time enough at last" and "the obsolete man" are classic episodes
I was born in 1989 the same year as Tim Burtons Batman came out, and was brought up watching the films the animated series and later Christopher Nolans Dark Knight trilogy not knowing of the 60's show and have to say looking at the 60's campy show is a complete embarrassment, whether many of you agree or not.
eh, it was funny and it was true to the comics at the time since everything was more light hearted in the golden age, and even up into the silver age. funny doesn't equal good though so it's really just a matter of opinion. Oh and say what you want about the campiness of adam's batman, but he never whipped out a bat credit card, nor did his suit have bat nipples on it.
Indeed, West's Batman's shenanigans were cheeky and entertaining
Big difference between William Dozier's heterosexual camp and Joel Schumacher's homosexual camp.
Not really comics at the time were sillier but they were different from the show. Where the show batman was never changing monster of the week type stories. The comics were still a more clear cut story with character development, death and much more seriousness to counterbalance the silliness
Yeah. This whole comments section really seems to boil down to people who can't accept there have been a LOT of different interpretations of Batman over the decades, and that the Frank Miller-style super-dark vision really didn't exist until the 80s. So how dare the 60s version NOT be the modern version, huh?
the show kind of shaped the comics
Yes, yes it does, it's thanks to this series, that Batman lost it's way for so many years. A lot of people grew up being fooled into thinking Batman was always a campy series, and was never a dark and serious comic series. I remember my parents disliking The Dark Knight, because it was too dark. I told them, that's how Batman was meant to be. They told me "no it's not, Batman was a cheesy comedy with a bunch of comic effects and sounds throughout." I was like "are you serious, you were born before me, and you never knew what Batman was originally like, before TV heavily toned him down?!"
Luckily, Batman has a better balance now in days. Now kids can have the Batman they like, while adults can get the gritty and more story driven Batman experiences.
SpongicX The comics were campy and cheesy when this came out. This was an accurate Batman. They did make fun of that fact as well.
SpongicX I loved this as a kid back in the day lol everything doesn't have to be dark lol
SpongicX The 66 show was a reflection of silver age comics at the time. It was goofier and more lighthearted compared to the 40s and 50s. The 70s seemed to tone down that aspect and by the 80s we had the darker interpretation of the character.
Batman is a guy who dresses up as a bat and beats up guys on the street. The character isn't inherently serious by any means, and as such lends itself to MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. If your parents are too short-sighted to see the merits in a more serious and philosophical interpretation, that's their own fault, but that is in no way indicative of a lack of quality in what is essentially an exclusively comedy-based interpretation. That's just stupid.
That's exactly what Mickey Mouse Clubhouse has done to Mickey Mouse. Everyone suddenly forgot about the maturity and wit of the original cartoons.
It doesn't suck it's just having a different style.
A little note on Burgess' Penguin Laugh/Squawk was that the cigarettes would often irritate his throat and caused him to cough.
It's dated, but I don't think it's bad. It can give you a good laugh here and there, and that fuckin' theme song is so damn catchy.
Also, RIP Adam West.
im 14 and I watch and loving this show. its on METV on Saturdays. I also play all the arkham games and stuff. you can have both!
*love (just love. auto correct)
(•‿•)
...Wow. I didn't even know you could edit comments back then huh? Me was bad at words. Oh well.
Update! I stopped watching the 60's Batman show since the time it came on changed and I no longer have any way to play the Arkham series (I could only ever finish city because the CD for asylum was too scratched and I got stuck trying to figure out origins), but I have recently played and finished story mode for lego villains (arguably the best installments of the Batman franchise).
The 60s show is honestly a breath of fresh air, Frank Miller ruined batman and made him this emo prick.
Yes he did, but...you have to remember that Frank Miller only did what he did because he felt the need to create a *_response_* to the 60's show making a clown out of Batman.
I _hate_ Miller's _Dark Knight Returns_ more than most but his comics never would've existed if the show wasn't super popular.
The 60's show was insecure about its own comic book origins....and Frank Miller was insecure about the (popular) 60's show's campy portrayal of Batman.
It's actually Tim Burton's _Batman_ (which helped inspire _Batman: The Animated Series_) that "saved" Batman. But this is all just my opinion :)
If that's the case, what's his excuse for ASBAR? You know, a Batman that is a certified lunatic such as throwing Robin in the batcave with an axe making him hunt rats for food. Not to mention the joke he made of the Justice League and Canary, and not to mention a Joker that doesn't smile.
Paradox Acres
I agree with most of what you said , Batman TAS and the Tim Burton movie was good but what I meant is Frank Miller should have made him like the bronze age Batman where he was stoppable and less emo and more badass.
That was NOT Batman in AS(s)BAR. That was Crazy Steve.
Robert Cop Eh I think Batman should be brooding and kind of dickish. Its whats so cool about his character. Like a tradgedy in many ways. Superman, however, should be more like the 60s Batman.
I loved the show AND it sold MILLIONS of comic books and merchandise.
Batman 1966 was one of the most brilliant comedies ever made!
Well, the '66 Batman was the very first Batman show I ever watched. In fact, in the late 80's-early 90's pre-Animated Series, the 60's live action show and the Burton films were really the only Batman adaptations to watch ("Superfriends" was long canceled by that point). Even today, I find the 60's adaptation to be delightfully silly and...MY GOD, THAT THEME!! That iconic, stuck in your head for decades, pops in your head when you least expect it THEME!
As much as I love and appreciate the darker, more dramatic interpretations of Batman, the campy 60's show will just always have a special place in my heart.
Adam West is obviously the best Batman, and anyone who disagrees...
I respect your opinion, and would appreciate a reason why.
May I ask why he's the best Batman? lol I like him too but I wouldn't say he's THE Batman
nameless Ghoul When I think of THE Batman, I think of Keaton.
When I think of "The Ultimate Batman Experience", I think of West.
Articuno Forever makes sense I suppose. I still have mixed feelings over Ben affleck's Batman. I enjoyed Christian bale's Batman but I wish he would have used a voice changer built in the cowl rather than the sore throat voice. But I can see what you're saying. You prefer the originals at best and I agree with you on Adam west batman
My Batman is definitely Kevin Conroy. BTAS was amazing, and Conroys voice fits the role perfectly.
***** live action Batman beyond movie maybe?
Anyone who honestly believes that classic Batman was bad because they think it is dated cheesiness is wrong.
No opinion, they are just factually incorrect. Period. End of story. It's like they don't even understand what the purpose of comedy is.
Thinking it's bad because Batman shouldn't be light-hearted is almost as unforgivable.
RIP Adam West
September 19 1928 - June 9 2017
It's a good laugh and not so dark as the present one
"When the show first started, it was supposed to be a more serious thing." WRONG! Batman '66 was always supposed to be campy. And Yes..The characters were one dimensional..because that's how comics were back in the 60's. When the show aired in '66, it was so hot, it aired twice a week. As far as the guest actors... They were all already legends when they took those roles. We as kids didn't know who they were when we watched it... But, our parents did. Every actor wanted to be on the show because it was fun.
The main issue I have with _Batman '66_: There were so few ways to get it right, and so many ways to get it wrong. Its sensibility is a tightrope act on a piano wire--it has to be balanced oh so perfectly.
adam west batman is best batman
I know right?
Cap. Christian Bale, Ben Affleck and Robert Pattinson were the best live action Batmen
Of course it doesn't suck. People who hate this show clearly don't get what the point of the show was. It was absurdist on purpose. It was totally self-aware and knew what it was. It "makes fun" of Batman by being an over the top comedic romp that focuses on the absurd side of the Batman mythos. After all, there's NOTHING ridiculous about a rich guy dressing up as a bat and beating up criminals with a bunch of gadgets, right? Even at Batman's most serious, it's still a pretty crazy and ridiculous premise, and the Adam West show embraced that. Not only that, but the campy comedy in the show was generally extremely clever and witty. It KNEW it was a fun comedy. And, the cast was brilliant. Especially Frank Gorshin's Riddler who could be zany and crazy but still have a wild intensity in his eyes. Honestly, this is a really bizarre debate between to people who seem to understand the show and two people who just...don't.
The 60s Batman show is better with the contrasting dark serious Batman. Super grimdark Batman of Bale and Affleck brings things around full circle though, it's become comical but just without the self-awareness of it's comedy that 60's Batman has. I laughed when Bale said "WHERE'SH THE TRIGGER?" and I laughed when Affleck said "Do you bleed?" and West had me laughing so hard I was hurting in Return of The Caped Crusaders. The big difference between these examples? I was laughing with Adam West and I was laughing at Bale and Affleck. The 60s Batman is intended as fun comedic escapism! Modern audiences that can't appreciate that form of entertainment are already not the intended audience, they can have access to the vast emo Batman library out there in most incarnations.
They both suck --the 60's show was insecure about its own comic book origins so it went overboard with the campiness while the modern Batman films (by Nolan & Snyder) were insecure about their own comic book origins so they went overboard with the realism and grittiness. Both are so insecure that it's _painful_ to watch.
It's Burton's 1989 _Batman_ film that actually manages to do something interesting with Batman. Then, of course, came the wonderful _Batman: The Animated Series_ of the 90's which was inspired by Burton's vision. Both the Burton film and the animated show managed to get the "balance" between fun & seriousness just right.
I'd go so far as to say that it's thanks to Burton & Batman:TAS that we have the current Marvel Cinematic Universe films --they set the foundation for fun superhero stories that Marvel built its MCU films on (but was, sadly, ignored by WB/DC's movies).
But this all just my opinion :)
Adam West Batman can dance and no other Batman can dance like him
No, it's just that's different than what we're used to when seeing Batman.
Perhaps it's for the best, since the "dark and gritty" Batman we've seen recently haven't done so well.
Matthew Cool It's definitely a product of its time. It was reflecting the comics of the time, which were pretty much being toned down because of the newly instated comic code. The rules started to ease up by the time the 70s and 80s came along.
The fact that 50 years later it is being discussed on this video ,on tv still and known by the public , shows it passes the test of time. It may not be your taste, but it passes the test of time.
The third question is idiotic.
I looove the cheesy silliness that was the original batman.
"I'm Batman. I fight crime."
"I'm Cat-Woman. I steal shit."
"I'm Penguin. I wah-wah-wah-wah."
Im joker and its Mark hamil
Campy Batman rocks. Why? Two words: The Batusi.
Bam!
there's literally a million different types of Batmans. you got your Lego Batmans, you got zebra batmans, you got comedy Batmans, you got super brutal Batmans, they got Batmans that refuse to kill and the list goes on. batman 66 is just yet another iteration of Batman. maybe it's not to your liking but it's just as acceptable as any of the others. and also these guys seem to not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. the fact is the batman character can be done so many ways. and thats a good thing. with as many versions as we have, no matter who you are there's most likely a batman for you. so when these guys say 'it's their batman and they're wrong', they are in fact not wrong at all. it's their batman, not yours. so from their perspective if they applied the same one-sided simplistic ideas that you guys have, then whatever batman you pick if it's not the one they would have, then you'd be wrong. fortunately this one circumstance in which we can all be right. because we are talking about opinion rather than facts. and everyone gets to have an opinion and no one's opinion is right or wrong. right and wrong are the purview of facts. in other words your opinion is no more correct or incorrect than any one else's.
I think the show holds up today especially since I'm a 16-year-old
66, Penguin, "Be careful, each of these are some mother's son," or when Robin thinks an actress used glycerin tears, and Batman corrects him, there's character development.
the thing that kills me about the '66 Batman is the line "a sparrow with a machine gun"
Oh wow. Lots of people don't know jack about the history of comics. There was a time when comics were banned in the States. But when they allowed comics to be made, the government forced a lot of censors in the material. Like not killing, swearing, ect, ect, ect. That is the Silver age of comics. The age of what we would consider 'Campy'. It wasn't until the government loosen their hold around the 80's that we got to see more gritty and darker comics. So to say shit about how comic book characters are portrayed and say that it's an embarrassment or an insult to the character that is now, is the dumbest thing any comic book fan could say EVER! What are you, 12? You can not enjoy the material, but you have to seriously respect the evolution of comics and the blood, sweat and tears artists, writers and actors went through to keep these characters and stories alive to this day.
This show is great for kids. The theme song and campy acting is Legendary laughable and kind of addictive. It's so quoteable as well...Holy (insert something) Batman!
-ALFRED!!!
-What is happining Master Bruce?
-WHERE ARE MY BATNIPPLES AND MY BATCREDIT?!
I'm not a fan of the 60's Batman, but I can see the appeal.
ಠ_ಠ
Walter are you seriously that naive? You do realize Tim Burton also never read the Batman comics
LMAO! I was not expecting Doug to yell.
I think the fact that it doesn't stand the test of time is part of the appeal. Like nostalgia critic said, it's like hating saved by the bell, its such a product of it's time that you really can't fault it all too much.
I put it this august body that the Adam West Batman series not only kept the character viable at a time when DC was toying with the idea of cancelling the character, but by planting the seeds of future resentment of hardcore fans who spent years seething, "THAT'S NOT BATMAN!", set up the eventual redemption of the character, first by Neal Adams and Denny O'Neill in the comics, then by Tim Burton in the movies.
So it's all good.
Does it suck? No. Is it good? Maybe. Is it full of creativity? Sure is. Is it a lot of fun? Hell yeah!
Batman '66 was definitely better than the recent animated feature based on it.
Cesar Romero nailed playing the joker!
One thing, SILVER AGE OF COMICS, that is when the 60's Batman show came out. If you don't know anything about the Silver Age of Comics it was a time when Comics were being blamed for the corruption of American youth (like Rock n Roll and Black people were a decade before or how Video Games are blamed today in the modern age today). The Golden Age of Comics was a more serious time with darker plots as well as strictly Horror Comics and things, all that was cut by the Comics code of Conduct, which started the campy Silver Age where they needed to make things more light hearted and for kids. When the Comics Code was finally lifted it started the Bronze Age which brought back darker plots and stories around the 80's (which was helped by the Tim Burton Batman movie comic out) and then after that is the Modern Age of Comics which is right now.
The 60's Batman came out in a time when the source material was just as campy, in fact it was even more campy, the 60's Batman show was the most mature interpretation of Batman at the time if you didn't know, it was a lot more mature then the comics were. It wasn't about the movie/3rd season of the show did it start to get comic levels campy and that's why ratings started to drop.
For people that actually know when they are talking about I would suggested watching Linkara on Atop The Fourth Wall, or checking out Part 1 of Mat Pat's Game Theory video about the Joker from Suicide Squad if you want to learn more about the Comics Ages in general.
Bottom line the two guys in this video know nothing about the older ages of Comics, they (like most of the general public sadly) only think Comics have always been grim-dark and gritty like they are today.
Adam Napolitano: The only part i didn't liked of batman is that he continued being OP,even when was supposed to be taken seriously again.The worst part is that the current "fans" are making him even more OP.He is supposed to be a human with flaws that his enemies could exploid,but at this point (when the fanboys say he can beat everyone with prep time and because "he is batman"),only a few fans can still take his enemies as an actual threat for HIM.
punisher 3:16
I am gonna have to say I am one of those people that thinks Batman can indeed take down anyone with enough prep time, but that only goes to far. Some people seem to think you give him like 10 minutes and he'll of already taking down the Justice League, um, no, it would take like realistically maybe a month to take down everyone, and that's being generous with a lot of variables.
Batman is a fairly OP character but that's only when you have bad writers that need to dumb down other heroes in comparison to him, like I get it, he's a detective, but if he can figure out everyone's secret identities and weaknesses then that should mean a lot of other people should be able to as well by that same logic.
Overall when you get a good writer then Batman can become a fairly well rounded character, when you get a bad writer you get the "I'M THE GOD DAMNED BATMAN!" that's super OP as all hell.
Also thanks for not pointing out all the obvious spelling and grammar errors I made that I didn't notice before.
Adam Napolitano: You can like batman the way you want to (like i do).Also,english isn't my first language,so i didn't knew if your grammar was right or not.You just need to improve a little bit (and there's an editing comment option,so you can fix it).
My favorite Adam West BATMAN moment was on Animaniacs when he played Batman to the *BOO WONDER* .
Commissioner Gordon " *He's a chicken, I tell ya. A giant chicken!* "
Batman: Nonsense. He's just the strong, silent type.
60's Batman was made for kids and slotted in a kids time frame. I grew up in the 80's watching this show and have fond memories of it all. Can't imagine the show would of lasted too long if the Ledger Joker made a pencil disappear in the 60s.
Frank Gorshin as the Riddler is untouchable. He invented Riddler. He's absolutely hilarious, but there are moments of genuine menace. This show was just pure fun and I love it to bits. Batman takes itself way too seriously now. A little levity now and then would do the DC universe, comics or film, a world of good.
I have a problem with the Joker's damn mustache.
My goodness, it's like they guys on the "it sucks" side are either stupid, pretending to be stupid, or missed the point entirely. I mean their only argument was called "it's campy and ergo it's terrible and awful". At least make an actually argument within the context of the show's purpose and existence. But these guys are such pointless stick-in-the-muds.
Also, this show was cheesy in the 60's as well. Saying it doesn't stand the test of time is one of the most obvious and uneducated statements you could assert when arguing against against what always was a COMEDY SHOW.
Is no one going to bring up that the 60s batman was deputized? The first episode he says "as a duly appointed representative of the law I'm placing you under arrest"
Walter really let me down here...
I'll have to make it up to you. I can do better.
@@WalterCulture your penguin laugh made me laugh
The show basically *_sneers_* at superheroes and comic book characters.
(It's basically the opposite of the Marvel Cinematic Universe which _embraces_ comic book fun)
Is this post serious? If anything the 60's Batman show took the fun of the comics too far. Also you're looking at the Marvel universe with 2016 eyes. Marvel had its fair share of campy shit in the 70's and 80's also.
No, it doesn't. It could have, but Adam West and Burt Ward played the roles so serious, it was great...children didn't even get the joke and took the adventures serious, and the adults could have a lot of fun with it.
Go rant about Hunipop
Marvel's 1970's _Incredible Hulk_ tv show (with Bixby & Ferrigno) was way better than the Adam West _Batman_ series.
Also..I judge _everything_ with "2016 eyes" because that's where we are right now. That's how you know when something's outdated...like the 60's _Batman_ series.
That is really comparing apples with oranges...not only are the shows very different in tone, they are not even from the same decade.
Most of the complaints make sense to me whether I agree or not, though I don't think Catwoman was underutilized. And even if that were true of Lee Meriwether's Catwoman, it's a lot less true of Julie Newmar's.
Also, it was pretty brave of them to make Eartha Kitt the third Catwoman for the obvious reason.
Seems to me the guys just don't like camp. If you don't like the genre, of course you won't like 60's Batman.
it seems that perhaps critics in general might not be terribly open to the genre, less so to that show. I think if you're critiquing things you watch, especially intentionally, you're going to miss some ineffable qualities it contains.
Junk Genes True, but it is a bit like saying Animal House sucks because it is not a serious representation of college life.
I love the 1960s Batman show. The reason why it's one of my favorite shows of all time is how the heroes have great chemistry and they feel like partners and friends and they were very likable. I love the cast on how they deliver great performances that are over the top that they fit the tone and not to annoy you or make you cringe, I also love the dialog, the humor on how it fits well with the tone, the villains are still fun to watch just like in dark Batman, and the action is just fun to watch. As much as I love the 1960s Batman show, I don't think a dark Batman is that big of a deal. It's fine, although I really despise Batman's fanboys. After all, it's nice to have a sense of variety and a different change of pace for once.
The inspired casting of the rogue's gallery on BATMAN '66 deserved an Emmy. The great Burgess Meredith was very "birdlike" in voice and mannerisms long before he ever played the Penguin. Frank Gorshin was a well known impressionist whose specialties were Kirk Douglas and Jimmy Cagney, which he combined for the Riddler, and Julie Newmar was a six foot tall Broadway actor/dancer with a very slinky feline quality.
This show saved the comics from cancellation, without it there'd be no Batman today so the argument that it sucks is invalid
Back during the 80's in the UK we only had 4 channels of TV and there were no kids shows like there is today, there was very little.
The A Team, Knightrider and 60's Batman were some of the few things that were interesting on TV at the time (almost nothing else), so I am glad it was around because there was very little else at the time
Batman 66 was personally the first way I was really introduced to Batman, and I still have a great connection with it today. And I'm only in middle school. If Batman can still be hilarious and silly as it is for me to others, then the way it holds up today shouldn't be much of a problem. You can also go back to any episode in the series and it won't matter because there is no chronological importance! Unless it's the second of two parter. then you have to find that. But it's awesome anyways!
The fact is, it was a hilarious and often clever series that was the product of a time when the comic was a bit more silly. The guys arguing against it make a weak case. Sure, I love the Nolan trilogy and the Burton films, but I also adore this series.
better than the dceu! love this show it's ridiculous
At that point in time it was a reflection of the silver age comics which were being done under the BS comic code, it couldn't be dark a brooding like batman is now, but there is something fun about the camp how its over the top at some points like you can't help but laugh at the bat shark repellent or the joker using giant jack in the box bombs.
Batman comics in the 60's: Campy and stupid.
Batman TV show in the 60's: Campy and stupid.
Best comic adaptation ever.
The guys just don't get it. Little Mac sounds like he had his mind made up before he really watched the show.
I have to buy my comic con ticket TONIGHT
I saw 60's Batman around the same time I saw Tim Burton Batman (this was early-mid 90's when I was a kid). I accepted both as Batman, just as much I accepted the animated series as Batman. I have Adam West's Batman on DVD, and own every other Batman movie ever made. So yeah it's all Batman to me (even though Schumacher ain't my favorite. Esp Batman and Robin ughhh)
Really? THe 1960's Batman was AWSOME!!!!! Good or bad was not the right take for this. I think they should have talked about the quality of the series and the continuity from then to the BAtman of the 1980s and most recent iterations.
Got news for y'all. Comics were for kids. Yeah, I said it. They were entertainment for children. So, there was no dark, brooding, bs aimed at the Peter Pan syndrome set (of which I am a card carrying member). So relax. It's just a show. It was a huge hit. It's fun and well done. Don't get your bat nipples in a twist.
Man, it must be tough being given a role where you have to argue against a formative influence for parental bonus in T.V. for children.
In the intro what song is playing?
I love how Walter said that the show "wasn't/isn't Batman", yet the comic books up to and during the show's run were just as campy or more. Rainbow suit? Joker's utility belt (which was adapted into "Batman Gets Riled")? Ace with a fricking mask on his face?
Hate the show for its tone all you want, but it wasn't tonally far from the comics before & during that era.
I've only properly seen one episode, and for what it was, it was a hoot! "I'm well versed in the ancient art of /cat/rate!" "I'm sorry to disappoint you, but /ka/rate, the art which you are attempting to refer to, is a _defensive_ technique. It's useless unless I attack you first." "Darn it, you're right. Boys, get them!" (cover tossed off of sofa and it's a bunch of henchmen underneath) The cliffhanger of the episode even included Robin mentioning how often they seem to find themselves in and conveniently escape from these types of situations.
I think it's just something to watch with people to laugh at. It is really funny.
but if you look at it from a critical perspective, then yeah it sucks
Batman is infinitely better now. If you want laugh at batman than the 60's show is for you. Batman being darker and gritty made it more realistic and more enjoyable.
Avaricious Gaming:
Batman being realistic now?
Now thats a good joke.If he is supposed to be taken seriously,he shouldn't be saying (and actually) beating everyone just because his plans are soooooooooooooo peeeeeeerrrrrfect.If DC wanted to make batman realistic again he should be just a vigilante,because batman is the main reason that the prefix "super" in superhumans is less worthy than having a very manipunable fanbase.Poor batman,but specialy poor bruce wayne (because everyone else that puts on the batman suit has never been as OP as bruce).
Whenever I watch a new or old version of Batman or any DC movie, I like to think that all versions take place simultaneously. That the Ben Affleck and Jared Leto are'nt the "new" Batman and Joker, but one of many. Bale and Ledger are in their OWN realistic, gritty world. West and Romero (sorry if I spelled it wrong) are in their OWN campy, kooky show. Keaton and Nicholson are in their OWN gothic, dark universe. While Bale's Dark Knight faces Bane, West could be trying to figure what wacky scheme the Joker could be up to. I just wish there was more people who thought of these movies like this. Every version has its pros and cons. And for the LOVE OF GOD, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHERE TO GET RID OF THIS BOMB!? Some days I just can get rid of it.
The show insults batman, why is it a good idea to make the dark night to be soooo cheesy??
It's so cheesy but the theme song tho....batman!!!!
Because he was cheesy for 30 years, before Frank Miller made him a facist.
A facist???
ppl wernt supposed to take batman so seriously i mean hes a rich guy beating ppl as a bat. but over the years ppl built him up to a tower that cant be toppled now
carlos marques Fuck silver age
I'm disappointed that nobody brought up Vincent Price.
EGG-xactly!
Username159 The Eggman?
Egghead!
Jack Grattan I actually watched that episode, how did I get it wrong? :(
Anyone else remember Liberace as The Music Man? (Correct me if I got the villain's name wrong.) Between those two actors that character section of the discussion could have hit harder.
I think a lot of people that criticize this show now tend to forget that the Batman comics from around the era were also very campy. Go back and look at some of the ridiculous comics from the fifties and sixties and this show fits the time period it was made pretty well. Couple that with the fact that tv in general and a lot of movies played up camp factor and the show doesn't look that ridiculous but just a product of that period in entertainment. Some of the arguments against the show here are pretty silly.
As far as arguments like the show not having character development, the landscape of television was pretty different back then and most shows were just episodic entertainment that weren't focused much on things like that. It's just what it is and I don't think it's fair to really fault it when tv in general was pretty different than how it's produced now. Also as far as it holding up I guess I think it depends on when a person was introduced to it. I was born twenty years after the debut and watched it in syndication growing up and loved it. Certain aspects of it are dated but I think it's got a charm to it and also it's very much kid friendly so a good way to introduce the character at a young age.
The Opposition talk about this show like it wasn't stricly for kids
Here's a thought: ALL the live-action Batman versions suck, they've never truly captured the character in the way cartoons have, they always either go _too_ dark and gritty or go _too_ silly and campy, whereas the 90s animated series, The Batman from the 2000s, and even The Brave And The Bold have all managed to strike a good balance of the two, _and_ show Batman's ability for deduction and detective work far better than any live action version.
Incidentally, what _was_ Heath Ledger's Joker-Laugh? I don't even remember Heath Ledger's Joker laughing so it can't have been that memorable.
why does the guy on the TV SHOW SUCKED side has the TV show logo on his mug?