|
Post by redsycorax on Apr 12, 2024 4:18:54 GMT
It's an interesting question. What if the networks had gotten the interpretation of sensibilities wrong and audiences preferred the greater 'realism' of Green Hornet compared to the antics of the Camp Crusader? How would that have affected the perceptions of Batman as a viable property within National Periodicals/DC? Would DC have cancelled Batman as was once rumoured to be possible? Would they have tried to acquire Green Hornet as an obviously viable media property, buying it off Gold Key (who then held the franchise) and then integrating it into the late sixties DC universe as Batman's 'replacement?' Or would the success of this alternate Green Hornet mean that Gold Key held onto the property and refused to sell it to DC?
|
|
|
Post by dans on Apr 12, 2024 12:24:47 GMT
I suppose I would be hearing the Green Hornet theme song in my head right now instead of "Dah Dah duh duh Dah Dah duh duh BATMAN!"
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 12, 2024 13:17:48 GMT
Gold Key did not own the Green Hornet. He started in radio in 1937 and ran weekly for almost twenty years. WXYZ out of Detroit ran both his and the Lone Ranger's radio shows and later established that the Western masked lawman was the Hornet's uncle or grand uncle.
|
|
|
Post by DocQuantum on Apr 12, 2024 18:28:28 GMT
Gold Key had a lot of licensing rights, which made up the majority of their comic book output. Green Hornet was one of them at the time, but it was a very short lived series - 3 issues.
|
|
|
Post by kaiserleomon on Apr 12, 2024 19:48:59 GMT
The big problem with the 60s Batman series is that it's virtually impossible to take it seriously. It's a camp gay delirium in which practically everything is treated ridiculously simply because the director of this series thought it was stupid for someone to dress up in a uniform and go around fighting crime. Everything in the Batman series is exaggerated and ridiculous to the extreme. Green Hornet, in turn, took a dark uniformed vigilante fighting crime outside the system much more seriously and we had Bruce Lee who was impeccable and majestic as Kato. I'm not saying that Batman was bad at all, the series was fun in its own way and there are many Batman fans for whom it has a place in their hearts and the lighter and more fun approach to this series definitely worked to break the brooding and dour aura of the Bat, but the image of Gotham's Caped Crusader became stereotyped as a gay character because of this live action series.
|
|
|
Post by DocQuantum on Apr 12, 2024 19:57:09 GMT
Thankfully we have many other Batman TV shows and movies that have become more popular in the popular culture, so the Adam West TV show is usually not what people think of about Batman any longer.
|
|
|
Post by redsycorax on Apr 12, 2024 23:04:25 GMT
I think opinion is divided about the merits or otherwise of Batman '66. It's obviously still a viable interpretation of the Caped Crusader, given that the sixties series still runs in syndication and presumably, the estates of the actors affected (and Burt Ward) are still getting paid royalties for it. And there's the Batman '66 comics series to consider. I don't think it's as objectionable or anywhere near as bad as (shudder) Frank Miller's All-Star Batman and Robin or any of the progressively worse sequels to the Dark Knight Returns, which goes to show that the opposite extreme can be just as bad.
However, the Green Hornet is the focus of this thread. So, okay, the Green Hornet becomes a successful television and Batman fails instead. What's the fallout? Does DC acquire the Green Hornet from Gold Key? Does Gold Key keep the rights to Green Hornet, given that, with a more successful franchise, it may make money if it does? Does DC cancel Batman after getting their fingers burnt with an unsuccessful series and decide that that property isn't viable anymore? Does Green Hornet 'replace' Batman on Earth-One as a result... and what about possible past Green Hornet/s on Earth-Two?
|
|
|
Post by dans on Apr 13, 2024 0:59:48 GMT
not sure I am qualified to comment. I watched Batman every time it came on, and barely remember watching the Green Hornet, although I do remember a nationally distributed photo back then of Adam West and Van Williams arm wrestling, which was declared a draw as both were invincible super heroes.
I doubt if DC would ever have replaced Batman on E1 with the Green Hornet. Maybe they would have brought back the Crimson Avenger instead... who was already based on the Green Hornet. Or the original Sandman.
|
|
|
Post by johnreiter902 on Apr 13, 2024 1:04:48 GMT
The big problem with the 60s Batman series is that it's virtually impossible to take it seriously. It's a camp gay delirium in which practically everything is treated ridiculously simply because the director of this series thought it was stupid for someone to dress up in a uniform and go around fighting crime. It's interesting to hear this, since I took the show totally seriously when I watched it. I guess if you are a fan of the silver age comics, it makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by redsycorax on Apr 13, 2024 1:56:47 GMT
I was a teenager when B66 played in New Zealand (in the seventies) and I realised that it was being played for laughs, although I didn't find out what 'camp' was until years later.
|
|
|
Post by dans on Apr 13, 2024 12:36:00 GMT
If one was a big fan of 60s comic books (I was) and watched cartoons every Saturday morning (I did), the Batman TV series fit in perfectly with those. It was the current Batman comic coming to life, and of course it had those big blaring "Kapow! 'captions; because that's what they did in comic books. It appealed perfectly for the audience they aimed for.
The Green Hornet must not have been appealing to kids like me - at least it wasn't to me...
|
|
|
Post by lawrenceliberty on Apr 13, 2024 14:38:01 GMT
I like the Batman 66 series so much that I have enjoyed bringing villains like Egghead and Bookworm into our continuity. I dislike the grim and gritty Batman of Frank Miller. (For that matter, I prefer the swashbuckling, joking Daredevil over Miller's version as well.) I always thought the GH failed for the same reason some of its makers have stated: the episodes needed to be an hour long to develop good stories. The shorter running time robbed the show of any chance to do much with the characters.
|
|
|
Post by kaiserleomon on Apr 14, 2024 18:53:16 GMT
I like the Batman 66 series so much that I have enjoyed bringing villains like Egghead and Bookworm into our continuity. I dislike the grim and gritty Batman of Frank Miller. (For that matter, I prefer the swashbuckling, joking Daredevil over Miller's version as well.) I always thought the GH failed for the same reason some of its makers have stated: the episodes needed to be an hour long to develop good stories. The shorter running time robbed the show of any chance to do much with the characters. Yes, I agree that much of the live action Batman series from the 60s had much of the same atmosphere as the Silver Age with its stories that were colorful escapisms much lighter than current superhero stories where the heroes were beings of unquestionable nobility, owners of the highest possible heroic ideals who never descended to the same level as the villains they fought and always managed to defeat their enemies and never needed to do things as absurd as in the miniseries "Identity Crisis" which was one of the most horrible things I have ever seen happen with heroes. In the Silver Age, the villains were just a bunch of smart guys with crazy plans and gadgets capable of freezing the Sun, shrinking the moon to the size of a basketball and giving super powers to all living inhabitants of Earth. Never NEVER monsters who raped a hero's wife and then killed her while she was pregnant with their first child or who crippled a heroine like they did to Batgirl / Barbara Gordon in "Batman The Killing Joke" and even the theoretically more "diabolical" ones like Lex Luthor , Ra's al Ghul , Joker , Mongul , Brainiac and Darkseid would never do such perfidious things that would outrage the reader . We were a long way from things like Batman The Dark Knight and his grim and gritty Caped Crusader. I honestly prefer Batman from " Batman the Animated Series " and " Justice League Unlimited " who managed to be dark and at the same time maintain the aura of a dignified and heroic hero who never crosses the line that separates good from evil and never descends to the same level as the villains he faces. I think the problem with the 60s Batman series is that it currently isn't what fans expect when they see Batman.
|
|
|
Post by kaiserleomon on Apr 14, 2024 18:58:39 GMT
The big problem with the 60s Batman series is that it's virtually impossible to take it seriously. It's a camp gay delirium in which practically everything is treated ridiculously simply because the director of this series thought it was stupid for someone to dress up in a uniform and go around fighting crime. It's interesting to hear this, since I took the show totally seriously when I watched it. I guess if you are a fan of the silver age comics, it makes perfect sense. Batman 60's also worked perfectly for me as I watched the episodes when I was a young boy and loved the adventures of Gotham Bat and Boy Wonder. I'm just saying that nowadays people's mentality has changed and is no longer the same as it was in the 60's. I also loved the live action Superman series.
|
|
|
Post by kaiserleomon on Apr 14, 2024 19:03:45 GMT
I was a teenager when B66 played in New Zealand (in the seventies) and I realised that it was being played for laughs, although I didn't find out what 'camp' was until years later. I remember rushing to do my school homework so I could watch an episode of the Batman series because I really liked it and thought it was really cool. For my time, this was one of the television series that introduced me to the Universe of DC Comics Super-Heroes.
|
|