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

[ahollis]

What I have found interesting in the Batman rights saga, is that Columbia released good DVD’s of both “The Batman” and “Batman & Robin” serials, after both had be seen only on bootleg VHS and DVD’s. Apparently they had clearance from DC to do this. While both serials are good for their genre, I would think DC Comics and Warner Bros would have more of a problem with the non-PC aspects of the serials than the campiness of the television show. So I do not hold to the statement that Warner Bros is keeping the series under wraps for that reason. I believe that it is truly a money issue with both companies. Warner Bros (DC) wants a certain amount and Fox won’t pay it.

This might be a problem more with DC or Warner Bros Television since Fox and Warner theatrical was able to work out a deal for one of the early Charlie Chan Films that Warner controlled to be included on one of the Chan DVD’s. Now that was working together.

 

[pitchman]

Great point, Dave! And, let's not forget that the program continues to pop up in syndication from time to time. If they were really trying to suppress the show, that would never happen. IMO, if DC was that concerned about the Adam West version "tarnishing" their Batman franchise, they would pony up whatever it takes to gain control of all of the rights and then shelve it.

If I had to bet, I'd wager that this all comes down to $$. Whoever does own the rights wants to make sure they get the biggest piece of the DVD revenue pie. It (unfortunately) may be as simple as that.

These guys should all take a lesson from the stock market. "Bulls" make money. "Bears" make money. "Pigs," on the other hand, don't!

 

[Jeff*H]

As has been explained ad nauseum in this thread, it's not just DC and Fox that are the problem. There are other parties seeking compensation that are also contributing to the legal quagmire since there were no contracts in place covering a home video release for the tv series.

I'm betting this will still need to be explained several more times before the thread drifts away.

 

[Bradley Newton]

Quote:
I'm betting this will still need to be explained several more times before the thread drifts away.

Maybe this will help: You have a pie that feeds four people. Uncle Fox wants half the pie. Uncle Warner wants half the pie. D.C. wants half the pie. The Doziers want at least a quarter of the pie, plus all of the crust. Aunt Harriett wants a large slice, and also repayment for the shopping list. Alfred, who baked the pie, wants at least a taste, plus salary for his time in the kitchen. The person who wrote the recipe for the pie wants to be compensated for the use of the recipe. The oven manufacturer wants a sliver, plus credit for the use of the oven. The contractor that built the kitchen wants at least a third of the pie. The lawyers that O.K.ed the contracts that led to the building of the kitchen, and the baking, marketing, and merchandising of any pie remnants will have to be paid. Oh, and they also want a catered lunch and some of that pie for desert.
You see, there's just not enough pie to go around. In fact it would probably be less of a headache if we decide to just drop the whole stupid idea of trying to bake that pie in the first place.

 

[Charles Ellis]

There's all sorts of problems here: besides the Fox/Warner issue, there's the pending lawsuit by Debbie Dozier, daughter of show producer (and narrator!) William Dozier, asking for her share of the royalties. Also, there may be an issue regarding all the actors who appeared on the show and royalties for DVD sales (some older shows do give DVD royalties, though most from the 50s and 60s don't due the rules set back then by AMPTP, SAG, and AFTRA).

Why don't all those interested parties disappear into a room and brawl it out until some settlement is reached? This is so ridiculous- no one is winning here, especially the millions of fans who have been waiting nearly 30 years for a home video release (yeah, it's never been on VHS either!). Oh, wait a minute- I know who's winning right now: bootleggers! And that alone is a reason for all to do something ASAP towards getting the show on DVD in a legit release.

 

[WillG]

This is the point that I am lost on. I can understand parties that have an ownership stake or parties that have it written into their contract they they are entitled to a share of any revenue produced by the show fighting over this. But, how can actors claim a stake. When an actor is paid for work, isn't that performance owned. I know nowadays, major actors on a show negotiate for syndication and home video release residuals but it seems to me that only the main star(s) get alot from this (I remember when Seinfeld was going to be released on DVD, Jason Alexander, Julia Louis Dreyfuss and Michael Richards were stonewalling from participating because they felt they were getting peanuts for syndication residuals compared to Jerry Seinfeld. I think it was resolved by them getting a pretty good deal on DVD residuals.)

Back then, there was no home video or syndication so there would not have been contracts with language entitling actors to residuals, I would think. So unless there were SAG rules that entitle actors to residuals by default, I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Charles Ellis]

Well, I told you that it may be an issue! Most actors from TV shows of the 50s-60s only had a limited amount of residuals based on syndication runs. For example, the surviving actors from Leave It To Beaver and Gilligan's Island haven't earned residuals in over 30 years. However, there are exceptions. If an actor was part or whole owner of the show, or had a specific contract clause that guaranteed lifetime residuals, they'd still be getting money today.

A famous case is that of Audrey Meadows. Before she signed on to do The Jackie Gleason Show (and by extension its Honeymooners spinoff), her manager was cagey enough to include a clause which guaranteed her lifetime residuals. Apparently Gleason thought little of it since it was a live show. However, as the years went by, thanks to the endless reruns of The Honeymooners, Miss Meadows got her residuals for the rest of her life, and this was even before the "lost episodes" entered syndication!

Back to Batman, I am not aware of any issue regarding actor's residuals since I'm not privy to Fox's legal department, but this is just one issue that might be a roadblock in releasing a TV show to DVD, like music licensing, et cetera.

 

[Greg_M]

FOX ownes the rights to the TV show, Time Warner owners the DC Comics license. FOX home Video would release the TV batman series on DVD, not WHV. The Batman film out on DVD through FOX is a theatrical feature which has nothing to do with Television rights. If FOX hasn't released the series by now they probably don't have the rights any more (Rights were only leased for a certain amount of time, while the film rights may have been forever the TV rights may not have)

DC may want a big slice of the pie and FOX refuses - this may be why the show isn't out. There has been no mention of music rights etc holding up the property. Since the FOX show is completely different than the WB films, I would believe that has nothing to do with WB not wanting the FOX show released.

Batman would be a big seller on DVD, Both companies know that, so it usually comes down to the bottom line. There have been other "Batman TV" related tie ins over the last ten years, so if Adam West can do a one hour tv spot on making Batman, or get the rights to do a book then when it comes to DVD it's probably the video profit split that is holding up the release

 

[Jeff*H]

See Post 144.

 

[WillG]

Ok, there may be another good chance to get a deal on this hammered out. Apparently, Adam West is under consideration for a spot on the next "Dancing with the Stars"

 

[DeWilson]

...and in my option, Audrey Meadows is worth every penny

 

[Mark Oates]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - it's the ultimate "when hell freezes over" title.

Why? Because every title I've ever considered one of those "they'll never release that on DVD!" - The Great Race, Monte Carlo Or Bust, Get Smart, The Man From UNCLE, When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth and Moon Zero Two* - has eventually appeared, and often sooner than later.

I call it my "what the f*** do I know?" theory.

*the only hole in my theory is the fact I can't get hold of these titles without either making a personal trip to the US, or getting thoroughly skinned on Amazon Marketplace or eBay.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

In the latest twist to this crazy story, Comic Book Resources is reporting that Fox may be looking to get the rights to Batman from Warner as part of a legal settlement over the rights to the upcoming Watchmen film.

EDIT: Right, I cannot post URLs until I have 15 posts. Okay, then, go to Comic Book Resources DOT com and click on "Lying in the Gutters" in the upper right.

 

[GuruAskew]

I read about this on another forum and I find it incredibly hard to believe.

It's similar to when Sony and MGM were fighting over "Spider-Man" rights and Sony agreed to stop pursuing their rival Bond film if MGM forfeited their "Spider-Man" rights but that's a case where the stakes are two comparable entities (two blockbuster franchises) whereas this Warner Bros. vs. Fox battle is seriously lopsided in Warner Bros. favor. WB ends up with a huge blockbuster film and Fox ends up with a DVD release that would sell well but wouldn't break any records by any means. If Fox has any legitimate claim to the "Watchmen" rights I can't see them giving them up for Adam West's "Batman".

By the way, here's the link:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=18162

 

[David Lambert]

You're right to have doubts about this.

I'll be posting something at TSoD tomorrow.

 

[WillG]

Well, I can tell you exactly why there might be legs to this story. Someone may have bit the bullet and ordered a certain set of a certain show by less than official means.

 

[Greg Chenoweth]

So, this is a deal in the works that will rival ABC trading Al Michaels to NBC so Disney could get back the rights to the Oswald The Lucky Rabbit B & W cartoons.

If it is true, I shake my head in astonishment at both.

 

[DeWilson]

wait - is that how they did it?

 

[troy evans]

You may have a point. I'd like to think this show would sell like hotcakes, but you just never know. I strongly hope we all get to find out if it can.

 

[David Lambert]

Thar she blows!
Batman DVD news: Reports about a Watchmen-for-Batman Deal | TVShowsOnDVD.com