TO THE BATCAVE? INTERESTING TONITE ON ANDERSDN COOPER, CNN. (1 Viewer)

[RobertGr]

I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN a few minutes ago and they had a piece he does nightly called "Raw Politics" And it featured a bit about fueding politicians. The most intriguing thing was they used the title sequence from the classic and long overdue on dvd BATMAN TV series and then had a clip of Adam West and Burt Ward with the "20th Century Fox" credit. Now we all know Warner's is CNN's parent company does this mean that Warners and Fox are close to a deal on the show? Hmmmmmmmm!

 

[Sam Favate]

No. Fox has long held the rights to the video elements of the TV show. While I would hope Fox and Warner are closer to a deal, I see no evidence of that from simply using a clip on an unrelated program.

 

[Corey3rd]

I'm eager to pick this up on an HD format in a few years. I want Julie Newar at 1080i

 

[RobertGr]

Ditto Julie Newmar was the one and only CATWOMAN!!!! I think the appearance of the clips on a Warner owned station is indeed a glimmer of hope. The show has been off the air except a very brief appearance on TVLAND a few years ago. I was under the impression Warner's thought the campiness of the show would damage the "aura" of their BATMAN franchises any appearance of the show even in clips and especially on a station that is part of Warners is a interesting development!!!

A question to all the bat fans here, does anyone know the background as to why the series is in dvd limbo? What is the real deal on why the series in tangled in a web of legalities and why the feature starring West and Ward is available but the series is not?

 

[Jeff-Wooten]

If this is definitely WB's viewpoint, it seems hypocritical since they seem to have no problem releasing the Filmmation 1970s Batman series and the H-B Super Friends sets, which are all just as campy as the Adam West classic and definitely lighter in tone than the current Batman presentation.

BTW, if any AW fans are interested, he provided the voice of Batman on the recently released Super Friends: Legendary Super Powers set. (It's a bit weird to hear the AW Batman talk about fighting Darkseid, though.)

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Coming from an unnamed source at Fox a few years back, I was
told that although they own the video elements, Warner holds the
licensing. When I questioned Warner about this in a chat, the
blame was thrown to DC Comics.

From that same source I was told that because Warner does not
want the campy 60s show to ruin the integrity of its franchise that
we should never expect this title to be released.

Of course, the word never doesn't always hold up in this business,
but the source was very clear that its studio will not be releasing
that title despite the fact it is probably the most requested TV show
to date.

 

[TravisR]

Warners may not want the TV show to clash with their way-too-serious new Batman franchise but it's not like the Batman TV series hasn't been seen since it's original airings (unlike the terrible live action Spider-Man TV show which I can completely understand people wanting that to remain off the shelves). It was everywhere in 1989 and 1990 when the Tim Burton movie was out so it's not a 'secret' and it's one of the more famous shows of its decade so I don't get why they don't want it out there.

Overall, I just don't see too many people not wanting to see the newest Batman movie because Adam West was doing the Batussi back in the 1960's. People unfamiliar with the show may laugh at it but I really doubt that it would make them laugh at the whole Batman franchise.

 

[WillG]

I agree, I think people can make a distinction between the 60s Batman and what we have today. Batman has been pretty much ingraned uninterrupted in the pop culture since 1989. I can't imagine seeing the 60's Batman will make us just forget that there's a more serious franchise at the moment.

 

[Sam Favate]

I've heard these excuses before - DC and/or Warner doesn't want the old show released because of its campy take on their character - and while I don't doubt Ron or his source, I can't bring myself to believe that's the reason. There is simply too much money to be made - especially with DVD sales down, if you were running a company, you'd want to release a hot title - not to release the show. It has to be the litigation from the Dozier estate, and Fox and Warner's haggling of the profits from the sale of the show.

For cryin' out loud, Warners just released The New Adventures of Batman from 1977, which has to be the worst interpretation of the character, ever. The show - which used the voices of West and Ward - had impish Batmite gumming up the works every episode, in nearly every scene. If Warner will release that, they know they have nothing to fear from the '66 version.

As someone who considers himself to understand business, I am confident that it's not the reasons being given for the show's omission from DVD. Warner has to know they've created a huge unauthorized DVD market by not releasing the show. Of course it is out there for those who want it. Fox and Warner will both make out on official DVDs. I say this is a matter of percentages, not images and reputations.

 

[RobertGr]

Thanks Ron, I had heard the same statement that Warners does not want the camp of the 60's series out there. I would love to know and see the contract on BATMAN as to why Fox was able to release the film on dvd starring West and Ward but cannot release the series. The Dozier lawsuit filed be his daughter only happened in the last year or so all that accomplished was to get things tangled a bit more. Yet there are crappy bootlegs which eat into the profits of both Fox and Warner's and Dozier's family and the consumer gets below par crap so it would make sense for all parties to come together and do an offical release!

 

[ScottR]

I honestly cannot think of another tv series that could benefit more from a digital presentation than BATMAN. The eye popping colors, the costumes, the sets, the lighting, the sound effects and music. This would be an awesome release.

 

[Corey3rd]

theatrical releases have different rights issued that aren't normally covered under a TV shows.

 

[TonyD]

interestesting
but, please in the future in stead of "tonight" please just put the date in the title of the topic.

 

[RobertGr]

Totally correct TonyD I should have thought about putting the date! It was 08/14/07 Broadcast!

 

[JoePassmore]

I think it had more to do with the fact that it was announced that day that Senator Patrick Leahy has a small cameo role in the new Batman movie than anything else.

 

[RobertGr]

Yes the piece did mention that but the piece also superimposed Mayor Guilani and Mitt Romeny over the faces of Batman and Robin during the tv shows famous opening too then showed a clip from the tv show. They simply could have used any clip from one of Warner's Batman films or cartoon shows but this was a clip from the classic tv show that just happens to be THE most wanted tv release on dvd that also happens ot be in litigation hell! : )

 

[Joseph Bolus]

FWIW, I've also heard that in addition to the Fox/Warner dual licensing issue, and the Dozier lawsuit, quite a few of the cameo appearances in the series (especially those which involved characters from other extant TV series like Lurch from "The Addams Family" and Colonel Klink from "Hogan's Heroes") were licensed only for syndicated reruns and would have to be renegotiated for any home video release. There are also additional rights issues involving the episodes that crossed over with "The Green Hornet".

This series will probably never be released in a complete form on DVD or Blu-ray/HD-DVD.

 

[ScottHM]

Wouldn't that have been business as usual for all television programming of the period? What kind of home video licensing would they have been concerned with in 1966?

---------------

 

[DeWilson]

Heck, I'd be happy with a BEST OF Release of the series than nothing at all!

 

[EricSchulz]

I am assuming that the legal language used may have stated something along the line of ONLY for syndication rights, IMPLYING that any other rights would not fall under the agreement. Sometimes what ISN'T included is just as important as what IS included.