Premium Format Sideshow 1960s Batman TV Series (Adam West) Premium Format Figure

[The Batman Professor]

Got delay email till June.

Unboxing video is just cruelty to me...

 

[The Batman Professor]

He's not Batman. He's a parody. I understand the appeal if you grew up with it, but beyond that, the show and his Batman are awful and disrespectful to what Batman originally was and what he should be.

I'm not trying to be a troll, but that's how I feel about Batfleck. I'll take West, Keaton and Bale any day and every day over him. I will throw a party the day he hangs up his Owlman costume.

Below is something I did for a gallery show a couple of years ago, entitled BEN AFFLECK IS NOT WELCOME IN THIS TRYPTICH

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I don't consider Bale a good Batman

 

[The Batman Professor]

I don't consider Bale a good Batman

To each their own, and that's why I keep my opinions out of the Batfleck-oriented threads.

 

[TheWhatWhatNow]

I didn't say the late 50's was a good time for Batman either. There's some good stuff that came out of that era that was later altered and made better, but there's a 15-20 year period there were most comics were not terribly good. That's no excuse for the show though, which was just a straight-up parody.

How's that no excuse? You think then they should have done a dark brooding serious Batman show in the 60's when nothing of Batman was like that? This was a time of everything being hippies, peace & love and everything groovy. It was done as what the times was. That's why the show was immensely popular back then. If it was being made Now it would be ridiculed worse than the Batman & Robin Clooney movie. You're looking at it as today's standards. But the Batman TV Show was accurate to the times. A dark vigilante Batman at that time would have tanked which is what happened to the Green Hornet. They tried to be more serious and darker and they got cancelled immediately.

 

[nearmint]

Don't blame Adam West. Bob Kane may have made Batman to be a Dark Brooding Character but Batman changed into a cartoony super-hero already in the 50's and into the 60's. The Adam West Batman was accurate to what Batman was in the comics in the 60's, campy. This was a period in the comics where he wasn't a dark vigilante who only came out at night. This was a time in the Batman comics where Batman was running around with a whole Bat Family in broad daylight. He had a dog named Ace the Bat-Hound who was solving crimes with him and he hung out with a magical little imp named Bat-Mite. He was cartoony through the 70's too hanging out with the Super Friends. Batman didn't really become serious again till Frank Miller came along then the Tim Burton Batman Movie.

I have to disagree with that last sentence. Starting in 1970, the Denny O'Neil/Neil Adams Batman and Detective Comics were pretty darn serious. Bat-Mite and Ace the Bathound were nowhere to be found. Then in the late 70s, you had the excellent Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers issues of Detective.

 

[TheWhatWhatNow]

Yeah I agree. The Neal Adams 70's stuff was getting serious and edgy especially with that Ra's Al Ghul run. I meant it as he was still presented as a Campy Character by the TV Cartoons and all the merchadise was still a cartoony Batman.

 

[JackBurtonUSA]

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I despise the Adam West Batman. He's not Batman. He's a parody. I understand the appeal if you grew up with it, but beyond that, the show and his Batman are awful and disrespectful to what Batman originally was and what he should be.
.

With all due respect, you need to lighten up just a bit. The show was aimed at kids and it was supposed to be fun. Which imho it was. Nothing more, nothing less. I love Batman and what he stands for but sometimes you need to have some fun.

Btw this statue came out fantastic and can't wait for mine to arrive.

 

[KryptoSlush]

I'm not trying to be a troll, but that's how I feel about Batfleck. I'll take West, Keaton and Bale any day and every day over him. I will throw a party the day he hangs up his Owlman costume.

Below is something I did for a gallery show a couple of years ago, entitled BEN AFFLECK IS NOT WELCOME IN THIS TRYPTICH

Good for you. It's always interesting to meet people who are comic book movie fans and don't recognize and appreciate when an actor presents a pretty much spotless representation of that character on film, like Affleck did.

West isn't even playing Batman. He's playing Adam West in a Batman outfit making a mockery of the mythology. Keaton did an excellent job all around bringing a kind of alternate and unique Burtonesque vision of Bruce/Batman to the screen and he was iconic. Bale brought a humanity and depth to the character that made him instantly empathetic. But in the end, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, and Bale felt like they were just "inspired" by the comic books. Affleck's Bruce and Batman feel like he just stepped out of the comic book, both from an emotional and physical standpoint. It's seamless and a beautiful thing.

 

[KryptoSlush]

How's that no excuse? You think then they should have done a dark brooding serious Batman show in the 60's when nothing of Batman was like that? This was a time of everything being hippies, peace & love and everything groovy. It was done as what the times was. That's why the show was immensely popular back then. If it was being made Now it would be ridiculed worse than the Batman & Robin Clooney movie. You're looking at it as today's standards. But the Batman TV Show was accurate to the times. A dark vigilante Batman at that time would have tanked which is what happened to the Green Hornet. They tried to be more serious and darker and they got cancelled immediately.

If all writers and creators did was follow a trend, you would be in an endless cycle of monotony. They could have made a show that wasn't a full-on parody. It could have been good natured adventure show that didn't mock the characters. Instead, it laughed at them and made Batman a joke in pop culture for years to come.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Look everybody....he's being "that guy"

 

[KryptoSlush]

Look everybody....he's being "that guy"

Yes "that guy" who voices his views and opinions. How dare I.

Notice how I presented a reason argument replying to The Batman Professor's vapid, trollish, and inconsequential post.

 

[HeubertMichael]

If all writers and creators did was follow a trend, you would be in an endless cycle of monotony. They could have made a show that wasn't a full-on parody. It could have been good natured adventure show that didn't mock the characters. Instead, it laughed at them and made Batman a joke in pop culture for years to come.

Yes, it's your opinion but try to listen to the educated responses from the other members. You keep on saying "parody" while it wasn't. Like previously mentioned, it was accurate to the comics of that time. ADAM WEST portrayed Batman indeed -- THE BATMAN OF THAT ERA. DC injected camp to Batman post-war to give it a lighter tone during the dark times in real life.

Now, about following the trend and things becoming monotonous, that's why DC brought back the "Dark" in the Dark Knight when the show was cancelled and they saw that the readers were again ready for Batman as he was meant to be written.

So ti sum it up, your opinion is Batman shouldn't be campy. However, it's a fact that NO, the 1966 show was NOT A PARODY. It was THE Batman of that era.

It's okay not to like a certain Batman. There's a Batman for everyone.

 

[The Batman Professor]

vapid, trollish, and inconsequential

Are you my ex-wife?

I never once resorted to insults, but here we are. You're clearly a kid who has no idea what he's talking about, offering his inane opinions as fact. Take a long, hard look at the post-code Batman books of the 1950's and 60's (pre "new look") and then tell us that Adam West doesn't fit in that era.

The good news? Ignorance is curable.

The bad news? Stupid is forever.

 

[spindrift]

Yes, it's your opinion but try to listen to the educated responses from the other members. You keep on saying "parody" while it wasn't. Like previously mentioned, it was accurate to the comics of that time. ADAM WEST portrayed Batman indeed -- THE BATMAN OF THAT ERA. DC injected camp to Batman post-war to give it a lighter tone during the dark times in real life.

Now, about following the trend and things becoming monotonous, that's why DC brought back the "Dark" in the Dark Knight when the show was cancelled and they saw that the readers were again ready for Batman as he was meant to be written.

So ti sum it up, your opinion is Batman shouldn't be campy. However, it's a fact that NO, the 1966 show was NOT A PARODY. It was THE Batman of that era.

It's okay not to like a certain Batman. There's a Batman for everyone.

 

[The Batman Professor]

As someone who was glued to their TV every Wednesday and Thursday during the BATMAN show's original run, Adam West was the pinnacle of pop culture in 1966.

That's why some of us are excited for this release, and why we would appreciate other folks taking their turds to a different punchbowl.

 

[The Batman Professor]

I just finished writing an 83-page paper for my university, and I am dog tired. Also, more than a little annoyed that a simple debate can turn ugly so quickly on these boards.

Many thanks to Trash Panda, whom I disagree with, but maintained a respectful discourse.

As I depart for home, I'll leave you with one thought:
Take any Batman cover, 1950-66, and imagine a photorealistic treatment using one of the cinematic iterations of Batman. Who works best?

 

[Geeky Blinder]

Good for you. It's always interesting to meet people who are comic book movie fans and don't recognize and appreciate when an actor presents a pretty much spotless representation of that character on film, like Affleck did.

So it's agree with your opinion or bust? You must be a laugh at dinner parties...

 

[Phoenixblazes]

I had always considered this version of Batman to be a parody, but the above points would indicate otherwise.

I guess any day we learn something new, it's a good day.

Personally, as much as I worship the Nolan Trilogy for its action and overall quality, I've never thought his version was the most accurate to whom imo Batman should be.

But everyone has their opinions and that's just fine.

If I was into this version, I would definately purchase this as it looks like it came out great. For once a production facesculpt from Sideshow that actually works, not like the recent one for Batfleck. I just hope for those whom get him, the cape can be posed better then how it was left in the unboxing video.

 

[Dusty_Lane]

I had always considered this version of Batman to be a parody, but the above points would indicate otherwise.

I guess any day we learn something new, it's a good day.

Personally, as much as I worship the Nolan Trilogy for its action and overall quality, I've never thought his version was the most accurate to whom imo Batman should be.

But everyone has their opinions and that's just fine.

If I was into this version, I would definately purchase this as it looks like it came out great. For once a production facesculpt from Sideshow that actually works, not like the recent one for Batfleck. I just hope for those whom get him, the cape can be posed better then how it was left in the unboxing video.

Definitely not a parody in it's first season, which was brilliant. As others may have pointed out, the '66 television series (first season especially) was pretty much doing a straight forward adaptation of the Batman comics of golden and silver age era. I think the show did become a full blown parody of itself by the third season. Batman was really only serious for about the first year of his comic book history until O'Neil and Adams sort of turned the thing on it's head in 1970. I agree with what you said about Nolan's trilogy. They are among the best Batman films, but they don't exactly have the best portrayal of the Batman character himself. Bale's Batman really conveys a lot of weakness and doubt. West is far closer the character Bill Finger was writing in those comics of the 40s' and 50s'.