Sponsored Links


TV Shows - Batman (1966)

Batman is a 1960s American television series, based on the DC comic book character of the same name. It aired on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network for two and a half seasons from January 12, 1966 to March 14, 1968. Despite its short run, the series had two weekly installments for most of its tenure, giving the show a total of 120 episodes (the equivalent of roughly five regular seasons).

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)
eBay Link: View Batman (1966) on eBay

Boned When... (Login to Submit a Reason)

1 Never Boned Still rocks.
Please Login to Vote
2 Too Schlocky BIFF!!! BAM!!! POW!!!= STUPID
Please Login to Vote
3 Batgirl added to show Batgirl never fit into the show
Please Login to Vote
4 Same Character Different Actor The Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze
Please Login to Vote
5 Too kid-friendly Doesn't portray the true character of Batman/Robi
Please Login to Vote
6 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
Please Login to Vote
7 Too many original villains Not true to comics; most never appeared there.
Please Login to Vote
8 Got cut down to half an hour Not even Batman can solve a crime in half an hour
Please Login to Vote
9 bottom line concerns The show became too expensive
Please Login to Vote
10 Eggman, King Tut sucked. Where's Two-Face or Clayface?
Please Login to Vote

Batman (1966) Comments (You must Login to Comment)

1 Truer points were never said, Mr.anonymous writer (who explained that rather than campy, that it was satirical!) I also side with all of the other positive cheese is good comments as ocferman put it. Holy Airplane like Satire (because that is what it was!)! Naked Gun..! If you want to see (wiuth different characters though) what this crazy production team also did but in the dark DARK KNIGHT batman, the Green Hornet is done the way that the original and modern Batman (not the TV comics) are done...buzzzzz! -- Submitted By: (PokeyJHorse) on September 27, 2015, 2:34 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
2 First off, Batman isn't "campy." Campy is when you laugh at something intended to be taken seriously but which comes off as corny or just plain stupid. Batman was a deliberate lampoon and subtle satire. (Subtle enough to have kids taking it totally seriously, anyway). Why it was so successful among comic and non-comic fans alike was because it wasn't making fun of comics, it was simply presenting the established comic book form in live-action format. That juxtaposition alone makes for some humor. For example, in comics we take lettered sound-effects completely for granted. (And the "CRASH!", "BAM!", "WHAM!" are present even in the most seriously handled titles.) They serve to expand on what is inherently a silent medium; like the dialogue balloons, they add the "third dimension" of "sound" to the two-dimensions of the printed pages' art. All the Batman TV show did was keep the comic book practice in, and the redundancy adds humor without mocking the original. It was cleverly artistic if you ask me. Ang Lee tried to do something similar in his Hulk movie, with less than successful results, but it was interesting and didn't interfere with the drama. In fact, the show was quite faithful to the comic book. You had all the characters present (Alfred was even ressurected from his death in the comics); you had all the villains (in the comics before then, Batman was only fighting extradimensional aliens and monsters, not his classic rogues gallery from the Golden Age); and you had the batcave and the batmobile, both handled with expert style and creativity. Bruce even mentions his parents' murder as his motivation for crime-fighting, and Commisioner Gordon tells why Batman uses the bat motif to strike fear into criminals. It's all there. Instead of Batman being panned as a "non-serious" handling of the character, it should be congratulated for its faithfulness AND for saving the character. Batman comics were selling badly then, on the verge of cancellation. Before Batman premiered, the comics sold "only" about 300,000 copies per month (a number today's publishers wished they had). After Adam West donned the cowl, monthly sales shot up to over a million. Holy (Cash) Cow, Batman! -- Submitted By: () on November 27, 2014, 2:07 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
3 Season 2 was, for most of its run, disappointingly missing the Riddler. Not only my favourite guest villain, but the fan favourite, which is why Frank Gorshin was asking so much money to return to the role. In response to the fans missing him, ultimately, near the end of the season, they recast the Riddler, to violently negative reaction, with Gomez Addams. Needless to say, they never did THAT again, and they paid Frank Gorshin his asking price for season 3. But, it was too late. The damage had been done. The show was over. And to all those people complaining this wasn't the gritty dark knight you're so familiar with today, this was the 1960's. Silver Age Batman... Compared to the comics, this WAS the gritty dark knight you're familiar with... This was about the time Batman was married to Batwoman and had a Bat Ape as a pet, and a bat cave in outer space so he could fight aliens... Sure, it was campy compared to TODAY'S Batman, but it laid the groundwork for sobering up an incredibly silly Batman for a more mature interpretation. -- Submitted By: (TheCeej) on April 28, 2014, 9:40 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
4 When my son was two or three, he brought a book over to me that had a picture of Adam West in costume. "Look Mommy," he beamed, "It's Happy Batman!" I think what he was getting at was that this was the only version of Batman he'd seen that ever cracked a smile. Is it Batman the way we see him in today's comics? Well, no. But in the 1960's, it made a number of kids, yours truly included, curious enough to learn to read so that we could enjoy the four-color Caped Crusader. And come on, at least there were no nipples on the Bat-Suits! -- Submitted By: (Hateaol) on November 21, 2013, 10:22 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
5 I recently turned my son on to this show. He's hooked. Now he DVRs it. -- Submitted By: (Friedrich_Feuerstein) on July 8, 2011, 4:17 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
6 Batman is remarkable proof that geeky and square can stand the test of time! Blame Producer William Dozier for insisting on the camp qualities of the Caped Crusaders. Blame the production team for getting unlikely special guest villains like Art Carney, Liberace and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Blame America for abandoning the program just as Yvonne Craig's Batgirl arrived. But you can't blame Adam West, the real, true Batman! His dual role as the impossibly straight Bruce Wayne, a millionaire playboy that didn't smoke or drink and Burt Ward, as his youthful ward, Dick Grayson were the backbone of the series, as well as the wonderful Alan Napier as the all-knowing Alfred. And of course Caesar Romero's Joker, Burgess Meredith's Penguin, Julie Newmar's Catwoman (with a nod to Eartha Kitt for being the most cat-like) and Frank Gorshin's Riddler (never John Astin's!) Please, get this out on DVD! -- Submitted By: (TheDeanofNYC) on August 16, 2010, 11:17 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
7 Cardboard Cutouts? The Bat 3-D Restorer? I am shaking my head right now. I already knew the show was campy, but this takes the cake. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on February 13, 2010, 12:04 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
8 Yes, I know...that was the episode I am refering too. It was actually the second to last episode...I think, we can safely say that the series boned the fish at this point. The only redeeming element of the episode was the Comissioner Gordon and Chief OHara remembered "the voice" -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on February 12, 2010, 11:33 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
9 AS a kid I was watching one of the reruns, and in this episode (I swear I'm not making this up) Batman and Robin somehow got transformed into cardboard cutouts of themselves but got out of it thanks to...the THREE DIMENSIONAL BAT RESTORER!!! You know, the one they had just in case they were ever turned into cardboard cutouts. To say that shattered my already strained to the breaking point suspension of disbelief would be the understatement of the decade. I STILL talk about this to people sometimes, it's not a bad conversation starter actually. -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on February 12, 2010, 1:51 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
10 This show is to much fun to watch to even have a beef about any of the cheese therein. We already know there is heavy camp and cheese, so it is a guilty pleasure. Never boned. -- Submitted By: (fletch000) on February 8, 2010, 10:29 pm - (2 votes) - Login to Vote
11 Batgirl wasn't really the problem...yes, she was a little bit "girly" at times, but don't forget when the show aired. Comparing to the other "girls" on TV, she was the epitome of a strong woman. But they changed too much for the last season. Beforehand, every story went on for at least two half an hour episode, with a big cliff hanger at the end of the first one. In the third season they had half an hour cases with a little bit from the next case at the end. The narrator crying "What is Joker doing in town?" is definitly less exiting than "Will Batman and Robin drown in the big cake?". Likewise the cases got more and more riddiculus, partly because they had to cramp to much into this half hour, but also because they went overboard...the cardboard version of Batman, Robin and Batgirl are a sad testimony of this. And on top of this, many of the really good villians, like Catwoman and Riddler left the show, and the new ones (who had nothing to do with the comics) were simply boring. I also missed the batclimp-scenes, where someone was looking out of the window. -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on February 2, 2010, 1:36 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
12 In the beginning, Batman was all the rage with Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze and Mad Hatter: all of which were villians in the Batman comic book series. Of the villians that were not: only Egghead and King Tut deserve positive mention while most the rest failed to make the grade. You talk about the time in which it was made, it became escapist entertainment for many but as the Vietnam became a crisis so did William Dozier's ability to keep the show within budget. Don't blame Batgirl for the end of the show: The show was contracted from 2 episodes a week to 1 which also attributed to budget cuts and shortly after Walter Cronkite concluded the Vietnam war was unwinable, ABC though the same about keeping Batman on the air in March of 1968. And when it comes to comparing the Batman TV series to the Batman movies made since 1989, I don't know whether it's the sophistication of the bigger budget Batman films like The Dark Knight or the Del Rubio Triplets' effect on the appeal of the 60 Batman series but I think I find the recent Batman projects far more appealing. -- Submitted By: (JamesGillespie) on January 31, 2010, 9:23 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
13 I don't get the argument that the show "wraped" the original...the whole thing was one big parody! My favourite part was always the "Trap of the week". It was a great joke on the fact that nobody simply shoots the hero! Or all the little stupid tibits they put in it...like the "poles to batcave sign" (hello, who needs a sign when only two people are supposed to use the poles?), the fact that everybody on the street simply ignores all the masked people running around between them aso. The only fault the show had was that it run far too long. They really beat the thing to death. If I had to pinpoint the "boning moment", then when they had to replace "The Riddler" and "Catwoman". -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on October 4, 2009, 12:56 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
14 I side with the "cheese was good" comments. One of the rare cases for me in which campy comedy works for me. "The Monkees" has as much camp as well which I also liked. I think it was largely due to the period it was in. It just fit perfectly with the 60's. I'm surprise Batman and Robin didn't break out into dance sequences with polka dot strobes and (really) tilted camera shots and extreme close-ups. (Or did I miss that episode? lol). After seeing the movie just a few years ago, I couldn't stop laughing more. It is just prime entertainment, esp with friends regardless of age. No one takes camp seriously. -- Submitted By: (ocfernan) on October 4, 2009, 11:03 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
15 GregEichelberger, do you know that the Disney company made the same kind of mistake with the Hercules myth? I mean, Disney made their movie so unlike the original Greek myth, it's like doing a live action film about the life of Bruce Springsteen; and in it, he's Jewish, is the son of a Jewish cantor, and he celebrates his bar mitzvah early in the film. By the way, just like it may have seemed to you that a 60s audience wasn't ready for a Batman ala Dark Knight, it seemed that the Western world in the 1790s wasn't ready for the "haunting" introduction of Beethoven's "Pathetique" sonata! But guess what, it was a hit. Face it Greg, the creators of the 1966 Batman show didn't make it the right way. -- Submitted By: (Marcus) on August 4, 2009, 1:25 pm - (-1 votes) - Login to Vote
16 I realize this show was supposed to be cheesy, really I do. But there's a point beyond which a show is just too cheesy for its own good, with plot holes that would make even a 5-year old cringe, and this show crossed it in spades. Ignoring for a moment the weird dichotomy of shows like this being on TV when in real life America was starting to become *much* edgier and more obscene, there's just no excuse for deus ex machina scenarios where Batman and Robin can get turned into literal cardboard cutouts of themselves and have a solution for it (the "three dimensional bat restorer"). I swear this happened in one episode I saw, and if this show hadn't BTF before, it definitely did at that point. -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on July 17, 2009, 5:45 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
17 Come on, people. This show was produced in 1966. America wasn't ready for a prime time "Dark Knight." Yeah, "Bat-Man" was silly, juvenile and had faults, but it never took itself serious and basically invented the term "camp." The show and the villians WERE cartoonish because they came from the COMICS. Geesh. -- Submitted By: (GregEichelberger) on July 16, 2009, 9:24 pm - (3 votes) - Login to Vote
18 For 60s Batman, instead of caviar and champagne, I would suggest anchovies and Fanta grape soda (completely artificial grape flavor). I mean this show, instead of bringing the heart and soul of the comics to life, actually warped the whole plots and characters' personalities, as far as I know. Yes, I would have to say this show is fairly overrated, to say the least, though not nearly overrated as the overhyped Rugrats Movie. -- Submitted By: (Marcus) on July 16, 2009, 7:28 am - (-1 votes) - Login to Vote
19 60s Batman still rocks! The show manages to be both cheesy AND cool - a very rare achievement. Don't break out the lemon juice and coleslaw for THIS show; caviar and champagne would be far more appropriate. Cheers! -- Submitted By: (Mythigator) on July 5, 2009, 8:01 am - (3 votes) - Login to Vote
20 I am compelled by my beliefs to give a dissenting argument against the consensus. Batman was a very good show, but it did have its faults. 1. It was too kid-friendly and didn't portray the true character of Batman and Robin. They fit the definition of vigilantes, and Batman wears body armor! Do you see body armor on Batman in the '60s TV series. 2. They came out with too many original, lame villains, most of whom never made it to the comics for obvious reasons. Burn in hell, William Dozier! I'm just kidding. C'mon guys, have a sense of humor! -- Submitted By: (Marcus) on May 6, 2009, 11:32 am - (-1 votes) - Login to Vote

Login to See the QUICK COMMENT Box


Log in to BTF

Register - Forgot password?

Follow on Twitter!

App on Facebook


Related eBay Auctions

Powered By: TempusMedia - (Page load took:0.898 seconds)