Batman ('60s series) STILL NOT coming to DVD! (Major update post #52) (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Well, as I indicated in one of my earlier posts, I've learned to "Never say never" when it comes to DVD. We have gotten some incredible releases over the years that at one time would never have been thought possible. So I think Batman will come out someday. Maybe not today.....etc.

Still, I don't get the whole "contract language" thing myself. For example, the person who did the costumes and the people who did the Batmobile. The contracts might not have languauge that states they are not entitled to residuals, but if the contract does not say that they are entitled to residuals either, why can't Fox/DC just tell them to take a walk.

 

[FrancisP]

There's no question that Warner does a good job with classic movies but tv on dvd and movie on dvd are 2 different divisions. Warner's record on tv classics is very uneven. The first dvd of Adventures of Superman was very good but the quality went downhill with each succeeding release. F-Troop was okay but nothing special. Gilligan's Island was good but it would have been more interesting if they had gotten Bob Denver, Dawn Wells, and Russell Johnson for commentaries rather than Sherwood Schwartz.

The big problem is Warner. We can argue whether DC or Warner home video is blocking it but they are all a part of Warner. It certainly has nothing to do with hurting Warner's movie franchise. Fox's re-release of the Batman movie has not hurt the Dark Night movie although I think Heath Ledger's death is one reason for it doing so well.

I think the reason so many people are exasperated with the two studios is that what is going on is a bunch of egos. Anyone of us could leave our egos at the door and come up with a compromise. Not with these big media companies. Both sides want to win rather than giving a little.

 

[WillG]

I will say that this thread has opened my eyes a bit to the problems. I previously thought that it was just a pissing match between Fox and DC (and I believe, also that Warner's story that they have nothing to do with it is bullshit. They own DC and if WB wanted them to make a deal, it would happen). I didn't realize that many other parties are involved as well. But, I still ask, if these people signed contracts that did not state entitlement to residuals, what case do they have? Of couse they can try to sue, but on what grounds. For example, I work for a company and they pay me. If I create some new tool that aids them with the business, they own it. I can't leave the company and demand residuals for every time they use it.

 

[Carabimero]

If the situation is applicable, and I'm not saying it is, it wouldn't be the first time that "wanting a fair share" (or maybe more than one's share) has kept people from making any money at all.

 

[David Lambert]

I've seen this idea expressed multiple times, and not just here. In the interest of trying to clear the air about the whole Batman thing, let's discuss a few corrections and clarifications about this idea.

First, it's Warner Home Video which specifically has said, right here on the HTF (in one of Ron/Packy's famous online chats), that they have nothing to do with it; it's all DC. WHV is part of Warner Brothers Entertainment. WBE, of course, is owned by Time/Warner.

DC Comics is also part of Warner Brothers Entertainment. Therefore, a SISTER company of WHV...and therefore *not* beholden to it. A WHV decision couldn't "tell DC what to do (or not to do)".

I mean it. Really. It's not like the folks at the Home Video division, WHV, could tell DC Comics what decision to make about that. Drawing a comparison to something else, think about it this way: Sears and K-Mart are both owned by the same corporation. They have the same ultimate CEO and Board of Directors and all that. But it's not like the manager of the Sears store in your local mall can tell the manager of the K-Mart store up the street what to do in the K-Mart store. Why would the manager of the K-Mart store listen? Maybe, at most, the Sears manager could go up the chain of command to the district manager or regional director or whoever is the first person up the ladder who can tell K-Mart what to do, and make their case for how K-Mart's bad thing hurts Sears business, and get the big decision-maker to agree and issue the appropriate orders to the K-Mart store-runners. But by then it's become a corporate decision, hasn't it?

So maybe the bad guy here is actually Warner Bros. Entertainment (who manages both WHV and DC Comics)? I have no idea. But think about it: WBE is more of a corporate entity. They've got a big plate: they also manage Warner Bros. Studios, and Warner Bros. Pictures (yep, the "Studios" and the "Pictures" are separate corporate divisions!), and they formerly managed New Line but recently folded that entirely into WBE.

And then WBE *also* manages Warner Bros. Animation, Warner Bros. Television, and - with CBS/Paramount - co-owns The CW Network. As such, WBE doesn't usually want to get into the day-to-day nitty-gritty of decisions at all these divisions, unless they REALLY have to. They're into the big picture. So instead, they hire folks to run those divisions, they expect profits, and they watch the reports and hold meetings to make sure the profits come in, or that changes are made if needed.

No, I don't think WBE is going to get into whether or not the Adam West Batman TV series harms the reputation of the new, modern, "darker" Batman. That's the sort of detail they would leave up to DC Comics to figure out; it's their forte, after all. Why would the "suits" at WBE worry about that sort of small element of the big picture?

Sure, in the case of Warner Home Video, they *could* have asked WBE to tell DC Comics to stall and not make a deal with Fox about the DVD release of this show. But even if they did, what would WHV get out of that, really? What's in it for them? No one's ever made a convincing argument to me about that. Of most immediate concern to WHV? Simply that they put out good product that sells. They're not worried so much about what anyone else does or doesn't put out (except maybe in terms of which street dates are available to debut a primo product without clashing with some other studio's big release). If Fox released the Adam West Batman on DVD, WHV would probably just look on it as a really great opportunity to release (or re-promote) other Batman DVDs, and ride the gravy train to more revenue. Hey, doing that is simply part of the home video business!

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that there are people at any part of Time/Warner, including DC Comics, who believes that "the Adam West Batman is soooo corny and campy that it would harm Batman's rep, to the point where the modern versions of Batman won't sell as well any more". No way. There is obviously room for all kinds of interpretations of the character on the market. The main reason this theory gets any traction whatsoever is because people are simply trying to rationalize the reasons for the show not being released on DVD.


Sorry for another long essay. But if this helps some of you think more about what's going on here, and how it all works, then I'm glad to help!

 

[WillG]

No, I appreciate it, it definately clears up some questions about how the whole Warner conglomerate is broken up and how they operate. Although I still don't know how all of these parties that are being suggested here possibly think they should be entitled to a slice of the pie.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Did we not see the same with Blade Runner thinking that this was never going to be resolved.

Somehow I believe this will get sorted out as well

 

[DVD S.]

DC has multiple(literally dozens) of versions
of Batman in their history and universe....
why should a silly, mostly accurate 1950's
interpetation of this charactor bother them so much..
[what almost no one seems to realize is that, although
Batman was 'modernized' in 1964 to having the yellow
oval bat-symbol on his chest and a somewhat more 'detective'
& serious nature to his comic adventures, the creators of
Batman, the TV show, were reading 80 page Giant reprints of
the charactor, published in '65 of his exploits in the 1950's and
they were thinking that 'this is Batman'. anyone who has read
these comics from this time period would realize that the T.V.
show is a 'spot-on' re-creation of the 1950's Batman, although
more 'exaggerated' to be a spoof on authority figures/emphasize
the villians-to show how 'cool' they were and to show Batman's
equipment for fighting crimein a far more ridiculous manner,
it really was a brilliant concept.
the only thing that was carried over from the modern version of
Batman at the time the show was made was the yellow oval bat symbol
and a new, up-dated Batmobile]
I also believe that if DC were not doing well financially(ie; bringing in
the bucks and keeping people buying their 'brand'), that Warner would
certainly have the power to take some kind of action.
Warner calls the shots, they are the overpower.
:star:

 

[DeWilson]

I believe the hold up is just a money thing - plain and simple. Too many pieces in the pie to be cut up,too many rights needing to be renegotated.

Not a "We don't want Campy Batman out the same time we have our serious movie"

 

[DeWilson]

I agree - the TV series VIUSAL look owes MORE to the "Dick Sprang" artwork era of the 1950's Batman comics - I'm not just talking about the 'every piece of bat-equipment labled" but the camara angles,the large feel of "The Batcave","cliffhanger traps", anytime there were "gaint props". Sprang also designed the original look for The Riddler! Plus let's not forget the full-color the show had!

I should also mention Shelly Modolff was the other regular Bat-Artist in the 1950's as well - His Batman art was slightly different but had a similar visual flavor. Due to contract,regardless of who drew the strip - it was signed "Bob Kane".

As for the writing - Several episodes were based on original comic stories and (uncredited) Batman co-creatoer Bill Finger even wrote the 2-part "Clock King" story!

I always found it odd but the 3rd season felt more "comic bookish" with regards to some of the minimual sets (ie - using black cyclorama backgrounds rather than full settings). the "Joker's Flying Saucer" seems to be a nod to the Scifi flavored Batman stories that ran in the late 1950's-early 1960's.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi all

Why is Bob Kane get all the credit for creating Batman and Bill Finger left out of the picture ?

Cheers

 

[David Lambert]

 

[Sam Favate]

Dave, I'm curious as to your opinion on whether the show will ever be released on DVD? You've seen and read a lot more about these kinds of things than most others, so do you think it will eventually get worked out?

Sorry to put you on the spot, but just wondering.

 

[Brian Borst]

Isn't anybody worried that, when it eventually will come out, it will be severely compromised? I do want the show to hit dvd, but when it has several alterations (digital changes to, for example the Batmobile are already discussed in this thread) or changes to the music, or different actors or whatever) and is different from it's original form, I'd rather not have it. And somehow, while the studios are still arguing about it, I'm beginning to think that we'll never get the series complete.

 

[David Lambert]

I honestly don't know, Sam. Whatever I say, I'd probably be wrong.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Thanks

 

[Charles Thaxton]

this might seem like a stupid question but if the tv series is tied up in legal hell why wasn't it a big deal to release the BATMAN movie on DVD...with all of the same elements as the tv series? I realize that Fox's movie & tv divisions were seperate entities but still....

 

[Sam Favate]

See above discussion in this thread for rights and contracts for movies being different than those for TV shows.

 

[darkrock17]

I know how this whole legal situation can be fixed, FOX buys the entire DC , catalogue; problem solved.

 

[Jason_V]

Do you REALLY want a Fox version of Batman or Superman? Based on X3, no.