really they are introducing a 1966 version of killer croc??? who else thinks this is lame?

I think the whole concept is lame.

I know I'm gonna get flamed by the 40+ crowd here for this opinion, but I feel the 60s Batman show is one of the worst things to EVER happen to comic books. It's cheesy, goofy, and ridiculous. And I understand that's the charm of the show for many people. But it's also the biggest thing non-comic people associated comics with for many, MANY years afterwards. I think that show had a lot to do with the stigma that comics had attached to them for many years.

Let it be known that I am a member of "the 40+ crowd."

The only disagreement I have with your post is your assumption that comics fans of my generation might be nostalgic about the Batman television series. The reality is that we lived through those decades of "Biff! Bam! Zowie!" headlines every time comic books made the news, with their implicit assumptions that we must be developmentally disabled or morally depraved to be still be reading comics past age 12. Honestly, until the mid-1980s, my comics collecting was something I tended to conceal from social acquaintances.

Then, beginning with publication of Batman: The Dark Knight, there was a change in tone. Headlines no longer invoked the on-screen sound effects of the television series. News stories granted some grudging respect to the form. Rolling Stone and Playboy magazines ran significant, laudatory articles about The Dark Knight, and about comics generally, respectively. By the 1992 publication of "The Death of Superman," the general public happily mobbed comics shops nationwide so that they could buy a copy.

The Batman movies directed by Joel Schumacher set the cause back a decade, and there was a period during which the "Biff! Bam! Zowie!" headlines made a reappearance. Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it was inevitable that the new generation of journalists would include a lot of current comics fans in their number. In time, the Schumacher movies rightly came to be seen as unsavory throwbacks to the 1960s, and were effectively relegated to the dustbin of history. Happily, in 2013, an admission that an adult reads and collects comics elicits no more negative judgment than that one enjoys Warner Brothers cartoons.

DC's decision to celebrate the television series, in my opinion, is evidence that the current management of DC, having gained control of the company only a handful of years ago, simply lacks the historical perspective to understand their own customers' disdain for the subject matter. It is to be hoped that this product's failure in the market will serve to educate DC's management.

I just barely miss the 40+ comic crowd and I couldn't disagree more with the assessments of the 1966 Batman TV show in this thread.

For many children of the 1980's this show is what turned us on to comics. The lighthearted, over the top made Batman and his rogue's gallery accessible to a younger crowd. My 6 year old son has fallen in love with Batman because of this show.

Also, don't forget that this show was one of the biggest things on TV in the 1960's and, for many years, was considered the standard for superheroes on TV. It's impact on the Batman mythos and franchise is huge. Batgirl, The George Barriss Batmobile,and Ceasar Romero's Joker are just a few things that come to mind.

The reason the media used "Biff", "pow", and "Bang" when discussing comics was because that just about the only thing on tv that was really comic book related and it was what everybody knew. As comics have had more exposure on them in the last decade or so, that has faded.

It's hard to remember now, but Tim Burton's Batman was hailed as dark and mature when it came out in 1989 and it was nothing compared to the stuff that was going on in comics like Dark Knight Returns, A Death in the Family, and The Cult. That Batman movie is considered campy by today's standards!

I think the Batman '66 comic is a brilliant move on DC's part. It's really an all-ages comic. But its one that an older fan might pick up for nostalgic purposes. Which almost never happens in an all-ages comic these days.

While I'm sure this book isn't for everybody, there will be plenty of interested fans, at least in the beginning.

I'm in the 40+ crowd. In point of fact I'm in the 60+ crowd. I was in my late teens when Batman originally aired and I enjoyed it although I was never going to pass up a date to watch an episode. I did have my priorities set. At any rate, I'm looking forward to the series. I want to see if they can bring the fun back to comics. Most of today's books are enjoyable and often cerebral, but they really aren't "fun" anymore.

I agree. This is a book that I am going to be able to read with my son. I'm a huge Batman fan, but the current series isn't something that I can read with my 6 year old. That's not a terrible thing. It's just no fun!

I'm 24, and frankly, love the old Batman series. Just have to take it for what it is. It's a good time.

I want to know what would happen if the kind of image change that occurred with Batman happened today. How much internet outrage would there be if Batman went from super campy to dark and broody? How many threats would they receive about dropping the title.

I mean, look at Spider-Man. They just re-imaged him, and people were OUTRAGED. They read, and now it's fine.

The 66' Batman was a good show. Does it need a comic book? No. But do not take away from the show. It was a premiere comic book show, and brought Batman into the mainstream.

My earliest childhood memories are from the Batman TV show. Although I prefer the darker tone of current Batman comics, I still enjoy other interpretations of the character. That includes sci-fi Batman, animated Batman, and campy Batman.

It's funny the internet gets outraged about a lot of things, but the sales numbers seem to show there are more people who are happy with the changes than upset.

Case 1: Spider-Man.

Fanboys claim that they have dropped the title in droves, But that didn't stop TWO Superior Spider-man books from selling over 85,000 copies each last month: April sales numbers

Case 2: The Mandarin.

Fanboys thought that the Iron Man 3 version of the Mandarin was the greatest travesty since Judas betrayed Jesus. (they act as if the Mandarin wasn't a lame character before but that's another thread). But Iron Man 3 has grossed over a Billion dollars and shows no signs of slowing down.

This totally has nothing to do with the original post, but I just find it funny when "the internet" gets outraged. As if that's an accurate meter of the overall sentiment.

Hello everyone. First came here!

I am in the mid-forty age range. I can always watch a episode of the old school Batman television series. Adam West as Batman and Burt Ward as Robin. Classic stuff. The theme song and opening credits bring me back. The fight scenes with the Bam! Biff! Boof! Loved it then and love it now.
The Batman movies of today are just the sign of the times. Edgier and bigger. Batman still but just a different concept. The cool thing is that it both works.

Welcome to the site! I hope you enjoy your time here! You should go to the Forum marked CCLer Bios and introduce yourself to the other members in the New Members thread. We're always happy to welcome new people.

Have fun!
Howie

Well got and read the book yesterday. it's wasn't "great" but, it wasn't horrible either. The colorist needs to tone down the psychedelics a touch.

I for one had the voices of the actors in my head when reading. especially the "meanwhile at the batcave"

And now that's all I can think about. Thanks.

I'm not against people having a negative opinion of the TV show itself, in terms of its content--even though it's the thing that made me a comic book fan and I likely wouldn't be on this thread right now if not for it.

There were times in my life when I thought it was stupid (not lame, because that expression wasn't in my vocabulary and I think it's a bad one for many reasons). But whenever I've reflected on that TV show and its relationship with comic book history, I've always been led to the conclusion that it was a big benefit for everyone.

Because, you know, I think if any person looks at the history of comics, even slightly, they soon see that there's a certain order to that history that if we rewrote it might have a much worse outcome for comics.

Sure you can blame the low opinion people have of comics on the TV show. Although that opinion already existed. Or you can say that the show created a distortion of Batman--although it was rather faithful to the character of Batman.

But it also, and more importantly, created a BIG boom in comics when they desperately neeeded one. It saved some companies from chapter 11, if only temporarily. It created a bigger collector market. It brought attention to all the other super-hero comics. I contend that Marvel couldn't have built its audience without the BATMAN TV show to bring more eyes to their comics (they had a small number of titles and not very good distribution before then).

There was a bust after that boom--but not so big a bust that DC and Marvel couldn't ride it out (other companies faired not as well). And the reaction on DC's part was to alter Batman, until eventually you got the dark creatue of the night Batman. So even the negative aspects of Batmania were a driving force in revitalizing the character. A character that only had become really profitable (on the same level as Superman) thanks to that damned TV show.

And the pay-offs from the TV show kept on coming. Because Batman was recognized and had that success in his past it made future projects possible. And I have no doubt that there never would have been a Tim Burton BATMAN without the '66 BATMAN. It was that intricate connection to the past that made '89 BATMAN such a huge success. And all the other success that flowed from that.

But I shouldn't have to tell anyone this. It should be obvious all the things that came out of the '66 BATMAN, either as reactions to it or as spin-offs from it.

Everybody in comic book fandom should be thanking their lucky stars that the BATMAN TV show came along when it did. Who knows where any of us would be without it.

I just couldn't disagree more with the ideas expressed by JimmmKelly.

Yes, the industry in general and DC in particular got a sales boost from the TV series. The collapse that followed, though, was catastrophic--off the top of my head, I think paid circulation figures dropped by more than 50% (according to Statements of Ownership in comics published at the time). How many industries could survive that today (without being propped up by a government)? It's astonishing that there was a comics industry at all two years later.

Marvel, IMO, owes nothing to the TV series. The only thing holding them back in 1966 was the rotten 10-year distribution deal with Independent News (owned by individuals who also had equity in DC) struck back in 1958. That deal limited Marvel, initially, to 8 titles per month (they got permission to add an occasional title, but that deal really held back Marvel's growth). When that deal expired in 1968, Marvel was free to shop for a better distributor. They struck a deal with Curtis, and were outselling DC within five years. Marvel's explosion in sales following 1968 seems to me to be attributable to their mutually beneficial deal with Curtis (and of course, to the skills of their writers and artists), not to any effect of the Batman TV series.

The darker-toned Batman (as exemplified by stories written by Dennis O'Neil and drawn by Neal Adams, and of which I am a BIG fan) was, in fact, a response to the TV series--more precisely, it was a response to the collapse of interest in the TV-series style Batman that had preceded it. That take on the character was wholly played out and was, by 1968, unsustainable. Thank goodness the revision was accepted by readers. It's the revision that led to all the wonderful things cited by Mr. Kelly, not the horrendous interpretation that preceded it.

The 1989 Burton Batman movie was successful in large part because it repudiated everything about the TV series and the 1966 movie. The tone, the production design, the writing, the costumes, the acting: Everything was as different as could be--deliberately, emphatically different--from the movie's 1960s predecessors. And when the film series turned to imitation of the TV series (as Joel Schumacher's two movies did), the audience ended up staying home in droves.

As I said earlier, I am old enough to have watched the TV series in its original ABC broadcasts, and old enough to remember the scornful headlines over virtually every newspaper and magazine story about comic books published between 1966 and 1985. The effects of the Batman TV series were attitudes the comics industry had to live down and overcome; to suggest that the series enhanced the general public's perception of comic books is simply inconsistent with the history that I remember.

With all due respect, I hold to what I say. A careful examination of the facts and the history supports me on this score. I have not arrived at these conclusions lightly, but I accept that others will believe what they believe. And that's as it should be.

I picked up a copy at a lcs and quickly flipped through it and noticed this. I thought the book was done in some form of 3-D. I even looked for the cheap paper glasses. Whatever slight morbid curiosity I had about the book went right out the window when I seen the coloring.

Julie Newmar was my guilty pleasure as a kid growing up and I thank the Batman TV series for that

I'm going to give it a few more issues and if they don't control the colorist i'll drop it off my pulllist, no sense paying for something that I literally have to stop reading every other page to give my eyes a break.