Batman & Robin vs. Batman (1966)

[Bird Boy]

OK, so both are campy as heck, but lets weigh the matter.

The reason some of us find Batman (1966, which, from this point on, I will refer to this as 1966, not Batman) funny is because, like DickGrayson pointed out in another post, it was meant to be.

The reason why Batman & Robin failed so miserably, was because, in it's time and period, it could have been made into a great movie. Instead, it flopped miserably because of the director.

Now then, the whole question is, what is worse? 1966 or B&R? I say B&R, because like I pointed out above, it should have been way better...and could have been. Back in 1966 (the year, not the movie) I'm sure they didn't think of putting them in rubber suits w/ air conditioning, or or have such special effects as they do now.

All I can hope is, the next 2 batman movies will be serious, because the whole plot to B&R was saving alfred (very stupid in my oppinion. Sure we like Alfred, but would it have been so bad if he died?). In fact, now that I think about it, the movies never really had any plot. Maybe the first one, but the others could just have been left out of batman history.

If any of that made sense..I'l be amazed...heh. So, which is it? Would you rather have the original Batman series erased from batman history, or would you rather have the movie series erased?

-Bird_Boy

[Nightwing]

I agree but slightly disagree in that nitpicking sense that I hate so much. I don't necessarily think Batman66 was intended to be funny. That was just how the generation was.

But nitpicking aside, I agree completely. Batman & Robin was completely horrible. The only thing even the slightest bit good about it was Robin's detailed and personalized weapons and tools. But other than that, Joel Shumacher is great with dramas because that was the scariest damn movie I've ever seen!!!! ;)

[The Old Maid]

I prefer the 1966 version. I realize Joel Schumacher said that he wanted to create a true "comic book" movie. But that just goes back to the age-old misperception that comic books are for little kids. Certainly what he brought to the screen was inappropriate for little kids. The film was drenched with 1990s sex and violence. And what's with the Bat family flashing their assets at the audience? Or the silver jockstraps on B & R? Nobody wants to see that. I mean, it's a theater. "Dere's people eatin' food here!"

Of course, if the film had left out the camp (and the crass) and just developed the plots, there still would have been something lacking. I've heard people say they could tell who Batman was even with the mask on. That's no good. Also the villains were too bizarre (and not in the way their original creators made them).

The 1966 Batman really was meant to be High Camp. You have to realize this was filmed in an era when Andy Warhol's can of tomato soup was cutting-edge art. In fact, the 1966 series treated Batman better than the earlier comic books did. I won't go into the Dr. Wertham controversy. However it did force Batman to "lighten up," sometimes in weird ways. Batman and Robin met space aliens, became space aliens, Batman turned into a fish, Batmite showed up etc. etc. etc.... They had to endure unwanted advances from Batwoman and Bat-Girl. It was wild. The 1966 version took Batman more seriously, if you can believe that. One reason it gets a bum rap is that the comics were finally breaking free of the wacky mold (the "New Look" artists had arrived), and the series didn't match the NL. Granted, NL was an improvement over 1966 ... but people don't realize how much 1966 was an improvement over the fluff that went before.

The 1966 series also helped solidify Barbara Gordon's reputation as the Batgirl. She was a lot smarter than Betty Kane, and had much better reason to put on a suit.

Anyhow, Joel Schumacher must have thought he could blend 1966 High Camp with 1990s sex and violence. It didn't work. Oh wow, it didn't work.

[Nightwing]

Very much agreed (well, obviously, -since that was spoken from a poster who is able to live and evaluate both eras...but anyway)!

Batman and his old chum....I mean Robin were even giving tours of the batcave in those 60's comics for Mike's sake! How could we possibly take that seriously, unless realizing it was another time, and another life. Please excuse me, I have to put on my octopus repellent. ;)

[Joker85]

Batman 1966 was way better than B&R! There is no question about it. It was funny when Adam West would be hokey but when George Clooney tried it just came out horribly wrong!!:)

[Shriek]

If you ask me. We really can't make any biased opinions towards the 1966 version unless one of us lived during that time period.

Sure we think it is corny. But if we ask our dads and grampas they will say that it is awesome. But when we watch it we really don't understand what the time was like back then.

But what we can do now is make fun of Batman and Robin. We all live in this time period now. But I don't like how in Batman Forever and Batman and Robin they have huge architectual wonders compared to the first two movies. Since we understand what life is like during this time we have the right to make fun of it.

But I still don't like how the 60's Batman was. But being the big Batman fan that I am I will still accept it.