WI: Serious Batman TV Show in the 1960s

Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

I was inspired from watching Lyle Waggoner's audition tape for the Batman/Bruce Wayne role. Waggoner's take on it was much more straight forward and serious compared to Adam West and Burt Ward, as Adam West viewed Batman as "theatre of the absurd" and goofy in a way that should be played up.

So what if instead of a campy and whacked out Batman, a more serious Batman series had been made? Serious in context of it's era, mind you (think the dramatic tone of Gunsmoke), and in context of the world Batman lived in and how comics were at the time, but serious nonetheless.
 

Mike Stearns

I think it would sort of have a Star Trek vibe, it that it's kind of campy in places, but it has serious dramatic undertones and on occasion actually has something to say.
 

Tom_B

The short lived Green Hornet series was done on a fairly serious level. I could see a Batman that serious. The question is whether it would also be short lived.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Garrison said:
The best you might do is something akin to the 'Lone Ranger' series but to be honest I think you will struggle to get a much less campy batman in the 60's when the comics were a lot wackier than they would be later.

Here are some covers from the period:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/batman/4
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I still think you could do it with a straight face (and limitations of TV budget on the whacky scifi bits could help). West's Batman bordered on parody; he lived up ever bit of goofy he saw in the comics. And those covers seem to get more serious and less Silver age insane as time goes on, with the TV show announcement coming right in the middle of that beginning to get more serious, and with that more and more serious take evolving alongside the timeline of the show.

So West's Batman is a living up of the zaniness of the 50s and 60s comics, taking it as theater of the absurd, and living it up in such a way that it's almost parody while embodying that eras wackiness in comics. Waggoner's or another actor's Batman could have been not necessarily even just making it more serious for TV, but embodying how the comic was becoming more serious.
 
Last edited:
lounge60

lounge60

Emperor Norton I said:
I was inspired from watching Lyle Waggoner's audition tape for the Batman/Bruce Wayne role. Waggoner's take on it was much more straight forward and serious compared to Adam West and Burt Ward, as Adam West viewed Batman as "theatre of the absurd" and goofy in a way that should be played up.

So what if instead of a campy and whacked out Batman, a more serious Batman series had been made? Serious in context of it's era, mind you (think the dramatic tone of Gunsmoke), and in context of the world Batman lived in and how comics were at the time, but serious nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Not "dramatic" in any way.
More similar to Disney's "Zorro".
Forget "dark knights in 60s.
 
Marc Pasquin

Marc Pasquin

Emperor Norton I said:
So West's Batman is a living up of the zaniness of the 50s and 60s comics, taking it as theater of the absurd, and living it up in such a way that it's almost parody while embodying that eras wackiness in comics. Waggoner's or another actor's Batman could have been not necessarily even just making it more serious for TV, but embodying how the comic was becoming more serious.
Click to expand...

One hurdle for it to be taken seriously is the unavoidable fact that the main character wears tights with his undies on the outside.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

lounge60 said:
Not "dramatic" in any way.
More similar to Disney's "Zorro".
Forget "dark knights in 60s.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Disney's Zorro since sometime in the 90s, so I honestly couldn't tell you whether I agreed or not, but I most certainly don't mean "Batman: The Dark Knight" transplanted to 1966. That's 2000's drama, which is different from 60's drama since it obviously gets deep and dark compared to 60s drama just being taking things with a degree of seriousness.

Marc Pasquin said:
One hurdle for it to be taken seriously is the unavoidable fact that the main character wears tights with his undies on the outside.
Click to expand...

This is the 60s. They'll be cool with it.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

BigWillyG said:
How serious a super hero show can you get with the relatively low budgets and crude FXs of the '60s?
Click to expand...

Batman had a pretty good budget for it's day (till it got cut by season 3), and the special effects certainly weren't as advanced as today, and certainly TV of the era had many more limitations than film due to budget, but they'd be like they were in the OTL. But what do you need advanced, modern day special effects for with a Batman show, really?
 

BigWillyG

Emperor Norton I said:
Batman had a pretty good budget for it's day (till it got cut by season 3), and the special effects certainly weren't as advanced as today, and certainly TV of the era had many more limitations than film due to budget, but they'd be like they were in the OTL. But what do you need advanced, modern day special effects for with a Batman show, really?
Click to expand...

I would think you would need fairly advanced FX to do the gadgets in a non-campy fashion. Maybe not modern but at least at an early '80s level. More sets would probably be more important so you can move around Gotham often and not be chained to the Batcave and 2 or 3 other places.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

BigWillyG said:
I would think you would need fairly advanced FX to do the gadgets in a non-campy fashion. Maybe not modern but at least at an early '80s level. More sets would probably be more important so you can move around Gotham often and not be chained to the Batcave and 2 or 3 other places.
Click to expand...

I'd need you to specify some gadget that would be an issue with a straightforward 60s Batman to respond better, but for everything I can think of, I think it would work fine to just not label it with a placard saying "Bat(Whatever it is)" and treat it with a straightforward attitude like its just the most normal thing without the intent of having that as a self aware parody.
 
lounge60

lounge60

Emperor Norton I said:
I haven't seen Disney's Zorro since sometime in the 90s, so I honestly couldn't tell you whether I agreed or not, but I most certainly don't mean "Batman: The Dark Knight" transplanted to 1966. That's 2000's drama, which is different from 60's drama since it obviously gets deep and dark compared to 60s drama just being taking things with a degree of seriousness.



This is the 60s. They'll be cool with it.
Click to expand...

Remember the before 70s Batman was be "dark" only for two years (1939-1940),and "bright" from 1941.
A not camp Batman TV show would been adventure for kids and boys,not "drama".
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

lounge60 said:
Remember the before 70s Batman was be "dark" only for two years (1939-1940),and "bright" from 1941.
A not camp Batman TV show would been adventure for kids and boys,not "drama".
Click to expand...

Drama does not need to equate with dark (which is a problem the 90s Batman comic would make). It need only be a serious take on the subject matter. I think you can pull this off. You don't need a gritty reboot of the Riddler. You just have him be the Riddler, punch him in the face, and don't call attention to why this man is doing what he is doing and dressed up in that outfit. And I do believe Batman was moving away from the scifi zaniness of the early part of the Silver Age by the latter 60s, albeit still keeping that comic book unreality. Maybe something to look at for what the tone could be would be the "Adventures of Superman" show from the 50s.
 

cortz#9

The Batman comics were leaving the sci-fi and fant stuff behind in the mid sixties. It started getting more serious as the TV series began, it wouldn't start getting dark until the 70s though. So the TV show could've been non campy and I read somewhere that before Dozier was brought in as Producer it was going to be more serious an early script had two face in it and Clint Eastwood was considered for the part. so I can see a non campy Batman TV show. Would it be a great show who knows but I think the Potential was there.
Photo+1.jpg
 
unclepatrick

unclepatrick

Tom_B said:
The "Adventures of Superman" started off quite seriously but got lighter and lighter until it became downright silly in seasons 4 and 5.
Click to expand...


One thing that hurt Superman was the switch from Black and White to Color. With Black and White, if you shooting at night, then you get a nature Film Noir effect that make thing seem more serious. When they went to color, they lost that and it hurt the show.
 
Marc Pasquin

Marc Pasquin

I wonder if it would have been as popular without the "hip" music and the "KAPOW" elements. Maybe to follow something mentioned by uncle patrick, the show could have been done in black and white ?
 

Brady Kj

The camp elements made Batman funny. Being funny made adults willing to tolerate it. But Mike Stearns' mention of Star Trek gives me an idea. Perhaps that tolerance could be produced more effectively if the show had lots of girls in miniskirts. Catwoman isn't enough. They could bring in Vicki Vale and several females villains. They would have to bring in a lot of pretty young extras and minor characters. Other possibilities would be to give Bruce a maid and make Aunt Harriet younger, but I hope these aren't necessary. Ideally, the show could involve a female police officer as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top