MovieChat Forums > Batman Discussion > Is this worth of a watch today?

Is this worth of a watch today?


I'm sure this has been asked before, but as a big Batman fan, would this be worth a watch nowadays?

Tell me, do you bleed? You will.

reply

I think so. Especially if you're sick of the dark, depressing, anti-hero Batman and want a Batman that you can actually root for.

Don't say anything bad about Jojo
If she's a disciplinarian, I'm the Queen Of England!- Stella

reply

I think so. Especially if you're sick of the dark, depressing, anti-hero Batman and want a Batman that you can actually root for.


There's absolutely nothing anti-hero about any iteration of the Batman.






A good review of "Inside Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXC_205E3Og

reply

You've never read any of the Frank Miller versions, have you?

Don't say anything bad about Jojo
If she's a disciplinarian, I'm the Queen Of England!- Stella

reply

If you think Batman was an anti-hero in The Dark Knight Returns you clearly didn't understand the comic.






A good review of "Inside Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXC_205E3Og

reply

AGreed...!

reply

Yes, especially if you have a sense of humor that includes the quirky as well as the snarky.

reply

Is this worth of a watch today?


Sure, but only first season. Skip the movie, seasons 2 & 3.

1) Remind yourself that this is 1966.

2) Note that this is a sit-com thankfully without a laugh track; and a campy sit-com at that.

3) They were actually based on the comics of the mid 1950's and early 1960's.

4) This was made with love for the source material but *not* respect.

5) You want to watch a *really* good tv show made by the same production studio go watch *this* instead. It's *much* better than this one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059991/?ref_=nv_sr_5

reply

It certainly a whole lot more enjoyable than the films.

reply

They were actually based on the comics of the mid 1950's and early 1960's.


Well, yes and no. But mostly no. I started reading DC comics in the late '50s (around kindergarten) and Batman was my favorite character. (A poster of Batman No. 1 hangs on my wall today.) I was 12 in early 1966, still reading comics (though I had gravitated more to Marvel by then) and was eagerly awaiting this. The teaser commercials looked perfect--I still remember them: Batman and Robin surprised the Riddler's gang by bursting out of a giant stuffed animal. The big night came and my jaw dropped: it was a comedy that was making fun of Batman! Boy, was I mad. I know that the Silver Age Batman is not particularly well regarded by comics fans. It was lighter, and Batman was far sunnier, than the early Golden Age or much of the last few decades (I still read a selection of modern comics via the library). But Silver Age Batman before the TV show was in no way a comedy or camp (though mid and late '60s Batman took that direction as a result of the popularity of the show).

I made my peace with the show and enjoyed it during its run for what it was. And I probably like it even more today for nostalgic reasons--my complete series Blu-ray is beling delivered today. But younger viewers should not think that the show represented the comics prior to the show in any way, especially tone.

reply

Batman has always been defined by grittiness in the last few decades and we all know him as a dark character. However, there's always room for the more family friendly and campy side of him. I also recommend the Brave and the Bold cartoon. That took campiness to a whole new level.

reply

Oh, HELL yeah! Bad puns, cool arch criminals and great writing.

Saw it as a kid back in the day and only appreciated how truly great it was as I've grown older.

All these years later I've never seen anything even close.

reply

I'll watch just about anything "Batman" except that series in B/W produced in the 40's; even more cheesy and bad! ;-)

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/2012/12/batman-forever.html - -

- http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html - Batman Homage

reply

It wasn't worth watching back in the 60s.

reply

I'd say so. If you don't mind a slight camp, tongue in cheek approach. It's kind of - it's so bad it's genius! I loved it as a kid, and I love it to this day. All 3 seasons and the movie. (The movie was one of my fave's as a child)
Watch with an open mind, and an awareness of when it was made, and I'm sure you'll grow to love it!

reply

It's great if you are in the right frame of mind.


Now more than ever we can use you in our sadly depleted organization.

reply

Season 1 was the best. If it were me I would watch season 2 and the 1966 movie with my expectations lowered (no Frank Gorshin for starters). Season 3 if you really want to see Yvonne Craig in tight lurex.

reply

If you keep in mind it is supposed to be a tongue in cheek,over the top,campy version of Batman much or it is enormously entertaining.
Problem is that the quality of the show went downhill about halfway through the second season when the lead writer left the show. Most of the Third season is painful to watch.

reply

I'm currently watching the whole of the series for the first time. I'm up to Season 3 and have been cherry picking the episodes with the best villains which is nearly half that season.

The quality and the manic outrageous energy of the first season and most of second season wasn't captured but it certainly isn't painful to watch.

Maybe a re-watch is in order for re-evaluation?

reply

[deleted]

Kind of a dumb question. If you're not familiar with this, then you're not really a big Batman fan.

reply

Oh sure - but really, in order to enjoy it it's almost mandatory that "nowadays" sensibilities and whatnot be sent straight to hell first of all. 

reply

The special effects and a lot of the dialogue are horrible. But if you can get through that, some episodes are retrospectively interesting.

Louie the Lilac appears when flower power is emerging. He realizes that 'flower children' will be the leaders of tomorrow and melds them--while the leaders of Gotham basically write them off. This is about the most Burton-esuqe episode in the series because it faintly hints at what Charles Manson did with young women in real life. Am curious if this inspired him in any way.

The next interesting villain in Nora Clavicle who uses her position as a women's rights advocate to terminate Commissioner Gordon. Because the Gotham police force traditionally has been dominated by men, she has them all replaced with women. The women she replaces them with are incompetent however----they are more concerned with their hair and makeup and they are afraid of mice---crime is allowed to run rampant in the City. The City actually has worse crime with the new police force, which is exactly how Nora planned it.

This episode was running when the National Organization for Women.....etc was just beginning and women's commissions across the country were criticizing city department hiring inequities. They too wanted more women hired on City police forces.

Don't take this script seriously-- extremely difficult to watch if you do. It's never explained how batgirl who fights crime constantly in Season 3 is also not afraid of mice. But remember what was happening off screen re feminist protests at the same time!!

The script IS also interesting bc "Nora Clavicle" pays homage to Gloria Steinem (sounds like Sternum) in 1968--well before most of the public even heard of her as a co-founder of Ms. Magazine. I still have no idea how these writers heard of her at this time--or why they wanted to introduce her to children even if as a goofy villain.

reply