Adam West Discusses Current ‘Dark Knight’ Franchise
While I’m not a big fan of the way this conversation was framed, it’s worth noting that the crew at ComicBookMovie.com recently chatted with actor Adam West, the Batman of the campy 1960s television series, about the current state of the character’s TV and movie franchise.
Sure, it’s no surprise to anyone that West views Batman Begins and its upcoming sequel, The Dark Knight, as a far darker, grittier take on the character he portrayed in the groovy TV series and subsequent (even more campy) film, Batman: The Movie, but his take on the original series provides some interesting food for thought.
"It was silly and funny. With the villains, especially, it was almost Shakespearian because of the bizarre costuming and makeup," he recalls. "In those days we didn’t rely on special effects as much so everyone was challenged to use their imaginations."
West also provides an update of sorts as to the state of the TV series availability on DVD:
"They only thing I’ve heard is that for some time they’ve been trying to cut a deal as far as ownership and return — basically who gets what slice of the pie. When that is worked out, then I guess you’ll be able to get it."
The full chat (which is actually pretty sparse and framed sort of, well… rudely) is available over at ComicBookMovie.com.
Wow, you are right. That wasn't just "sort of" rude. That was just plain, stupidly rude of ComicBookMovie.com. Really over the top. Especially for the headline of the piece. West's insights are thoughtful and valid. ComicBookMovie.com comes across like complete a-holes, utter jerks. What is their beef with Adam West? Don't they have editors? Or is this the general tone of the site? I didn't want to go exploring.
Probably, like myself, the memory of that teevee series leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. All i can figure out as to why it was the way it was is that it was developed and overseen by people with contempt for Batman in particular, and comics in general. (A recent travesty of the same sort is Voerhoeven's pointless {and clueless} savaging of Starship Troopers).About the only good good thing about that pile of steaming dreck was the fact that it inspired one of the most fun Steed/Peel Avengers adventures – The Winged Avenger. (If you watch it and listen carefully, you can hear a short quote from the Battman theme in Laurie Johnson's score for the episode.) Panels featuring the title character, drawn by Frank Bellamy, were a major aspect of the action (though one was done by someone else by redrawing a panel from an issue of Blackhawk)… (See Comics in The Avengers, about ha;lfway down the page.)
I have to disagree. The tone of the 60s Batman TV show was intentionally tongue in cheek and camp. Yes. But the show was generally faithful to the source material, and obviously done with affection and reverence. The writing was silly, punriffic but still clever. The guest star villains were genuine stars and their casting was sometimes inspired. Burgess Merideth. Julie Newmar. Ertha Kitt. Cliff Robertson.The TV show didn't have Bat-Mite, Bat-Hound or Bat-Woman, all staples of a previous decades worth of comics code-neutered story lines. Try to read the Batman stories of the late fifties and early sixties and then tell me that the Batman TV show didn't improve on those tepid, hackneyed plots. In comparison, Barbara Gordon/Batgirl is positively edgy!Adam West probably did more to reinvigorate the publics interest in Batman than almost any other single artist or contributor in the history of the Batman Mythos. If West gave ComciBookMovie.com that interview, I doubt he will ever give them another. They treated him horribly, for apparently no good reason other than to try to appear TMZ/Johnny Knoxville bratty, irreverent, hip and cool.The headline: TV's Cornball Batman Thinks "The Dark Knight" is Too Darkand the subtitle: Awwww. Is da poor widdle pwincess fwightened? 60's TV Batman, Adam West, doesn't like the new movie's dark overtones.Well it's just plain stupid. They don't sum up what Adam West was saying at all. I didn't see West complaining one bit. Why would West be frightened? He was remarking on the differences in tone and production values between the TV show and the current movies. Considering the fact that many people speculate that it was the darkness and intensity that Heath Ledger poured into playing the Joker that led to his insomnia. That Ledger self medicated his insomnia into the overdose that killed him. Well, I found West's remarks about how he felt it was his job to keep the mood on the set of the TV show light and open an interesting contrast. The ComicBookMovie.com's writer was too consumed with making West look bad to even notice that.
I have to agree that the overall tone is too negative.But i found the show condescending and offensive when it was on, and i find it more so now.
Aggh – posted that before i did an edit i intended to do – What i meant to say was i>But i and virtually all of my comic-reading friends found the show condescending…
Mike, Russ is right. The Batman TV show was clearly the work of people who loved the character dearly, and was absolutely loyal to the comics of the day, except that the TV show was actually well written and intentionally campy, as apposed to the Comics which didn't seem to realize they were "pop art".And will anyone ever bring Penguin and The Riddler to life as well as Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin? I don't think so.
Two reasons to love the 60's show…Julie Newmar and Yvonne Craig.Besides, let's just rewrite history.Get over it, it was fun.Really, isn't there enough Batman to go around for everyone forever?
Where did the ComicMix team get that photo? It's amazing! I would love to get an 8×10 version of it.
Just because something is "intentionally campy" doesn't mean its any good. A lot of people, me included, think that those Batman shows were stupid. I do not mind camp but I know stupid when I see it. Whatever the intentions were/are (and Im sensing some of us are mind readers or something) it doesn't mean a person has to like, admire or agree with the interpretation. The way I see it is the campy comics sucked, the TV show was horrifyingly bad and the campy movies that Joel Schumacher did were even worse. Its a matter of opinion and taste. I do not agree at all that I have to take something in any context or with any understanding of the reasonings behind it. If I watch it and I think its stupid then I take it for what its worth.I think the title and the treatment of Adam West were fair to be honest. "Cornball" is simply the nail being hit squarely by the hammer.
I can spot you "Cornball," but "Awwww. Is da poor widdle pwincess fwightened?" is stupid. I know stupid when I see it. And that was not only an insult to Adam West, it was an insult to our intelligence as readers.