Is there a legal reason why the 1966 Batman series isn't available on DVD?
shamanrob
Posts: 3
Wondering if maybe Joe Serge can answer this. It would be an interesting topic for discussion on the show, I think. I knew there was a dispute between 20th Century Fox and Time Warner. I also thought that there were a number of ownership issues, character-wise. And recently heard there was something about the heirs of William Dozier, the producer of the show. I noticed it wasn't listed in the TV section of DC's new website, and thought that was interesting.
I know there a lot of different opinions about the whether the series was good or bad for the Batman character, and comics, but supposedly at the time Batman and Detective Comics weren't doing well sales wise, and the TV series began a revival of sorts, saving it from cancellation. Historically, it helped the comics industry.
It was also my personal gateway into the comics experience. I'd like to see it on DVD, all cleaned up and remastered, maybe with either some commentary tracks from Adam West, Burt Ward, and Yvonne Craig, (while we still have them) or at least some interviews as bonus material.
I know there a lot of different opinions about the whether the series was good or bad for the Batman character, and comics, but supposedly at the time Batman and Detective Comics weren't doing well sales wise, and the TV series began a revival of sorts, saving it from cancellation. Historically, it helped the comics industry.
It was also my personal gateway into the comics experience. I'd like to see it on DVD, all cleaned up and remastered, maybe with either some commentary tracks from Adam West, Burt Ward, and Yvonne Craig, (while we still have them) or at least some interviews as bonus material.
Best Answers
-
John_Steed
Posts: 2,087
I'd like to see it on DVD, all cleaned up and remastered, maybe with either some commentary tracks from Adam West, Burt Ward, and Yvonne Craig, (while we still have them) or at least some interviews as bonus material.
I'd buy that for sure [-O< -
KyleMoyer
Posts: 727
Yes there is. You've pretty much already summed it up though. The rights for the show are a mess between multiple different companies laying claim to it. The movie was done under a different contract which is why that is available on DVD and blu-ray. And the rebroadcast rights are more clear-cut so that's why you'll sometimes see it on cable. I heard that Adam West already recorded a commentary for the series in hopes of a future DVD release. Or maybe those commentaries were released separately for a Rifftrax style do-your-own commentary? I don't remember off-hand, but I know him and others would love to release the show on DVD, but it's a big legal mess.
For now though, there are.... ummm.... other ways of obtaining the show online. -
KyleMoyer
Posts: 727
From wikipedia
Despite considerable interest,[11] there is no official home entertainment release of the series.
The part about DC is interesting, but I think if DC was that deadset against camp they would also have tried to block the release of the 1966 movie (not to mention the special edition Blu-Ray of Batman and Robin)
Conflicting reports of the reasons behind the non-release of the series point to a number of different factors, which may or may not indeed play a part. These include:
Disagreement between DC Comics, owners of the Batman character, after DC's sister/parent company Warner Bros. took over DC in 1969. Warner Bros. could also be involved, as well as 20th Century Fox, owners of the program itself.[12]
Commentators have suggested that DC Comics itself is not involved, and that Warner and Fox are reluctant to work with each other. This was denied by a Warner spokesperson in 2005 during their semi-regular "Home Theater Forum" chat, where it was stated that the issues were between Fox and DC alone, with Warner playing no part in negotiations.[13]
The argument has been made that DC does not wish to distort the current image of Batman by having the overtly campy 1960s series competing head-to-head with more modern takes, such as Tim Burton's Batman film and its sequels or Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. DC may indeed be distancing itself from the 1960s series.[citation needed] A solicited cover by Mike Allred for issue #7 of Solo—a 2005 DC Comics series—featured Batman doing the Batusi. The cover, based on Adam West and a memorably campy episode of the television series, was replaced by the time of Solo #7's release. Allred explains that the cover was pulled by "higher ups" for reasons largely unknown.[14] Speculation over the reasons first intimated that potential infringement of rights were the issue, but this was soon replaced with suggestions that its "campy" nature was the real factor in its removal. At the time of the issue's release, DVDs of Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Batman Begins were also being promoted, and DC's chief editor Dan Didio reportedly does not like camp.[15]
Greenway/ABC/Fox rights issues. The Batman series was conceived as an equal partnership between William Dozier's Greenway Productions and Fox in 1964, before Fox entered into a separate agreement with ABC to produce the series in 1965. With three companies involved almost from the outset, there is some speculation that these rights are tangled even before the DC Comics character ownership rights are to be considered. Moreover:
In 2006, Deborah Dozier Potter, "the successor-in-interest to Greenway Productions" sued Fox for allegedly withholding monies under the Fox/ABC agreement.[16][17] Dozier Potter further claimed that this came to her attention when, in March 2005, "she considered releasing the series on DVD," implying that (from her perspective at least) Greenway/Dozier Potter has some say in the matter of potentional DVD release of the series. The case was resolved/dismissed in November 2007. In February 2005, John Stacks had approached Deborah Dozier Potter to market the series on DVD. There were many offers and lots of interest in the release of the series, as can be read in Joel Eisner's The Official Batbook Revised Bat Edition 2008.[18]
Other complications/rights issues:
Christopher D. Heer, writing at the "1966 Batman Message Board", clarified a quote by moderator Lee Kirkham, noting that there will likely be the need for complicated deals regarding cameos, since "...at least some of the cameos were done as uncredited, unpaid walk-ons – which means that Fox does NOT have home video clearances for them. Either those scenes would have to be cut or an agreement reached with the actors."[19]
Kirkham's initial quote also noted that, alongside music clearance issues, there could also be problems over some of the costumes, and the original Batmobile:
"It may surprise you, but then there are also rights issues concerning the design of the unique Batmobile design used in the show, and possibly a separate issue regarding some of the costumes as well!"[20]
The series, under the Fox/ABC deal, is however still in syndication, and regularly shown on a number of channels around the world. Thus far, though, only the 1966 feature film is available on DVD for non-broadcast viewing in North America. This affected the 2003 television movie reunion Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt, also released to DVD, which was able to make use of footage only from the 1966 movie.
With Batman being unavailable for home-video release, an unusual situation has occurred in which material that would be considered DVD featurettes has been released separately. In 2004, Image Entertainment released Holy Batmania, a two-DVD set that included documentaries on the making of the series, as well as rare footage such as the original screen tests of the cast and Lyle Waggoner.[21] In 2008, Adam West released a privately issued DVD with the tongue-in-cheek title Adam West Naked for which he recorded anecdotes regarding all 120 episodes of the series.[22]
Answers
Why?
The rights to the movie are MUCH clearer than the gawdawful mess of entanglement the rights to the TV show. There are the cameos, the issues with Fox, Dozier and Warner Brothers and enough of a mess that it's just not worth the money it would take to legally untangle the whole mess. Especially since the sales on the Movie just weren't very good...
Didio can say every day and shout at Time Warner HQ that he hates the TV series and it means just as much as you saying the same thing. If he had any power, wouldn't he also stop the movie serials of the 40's which were the inspiration of the "camp" aspects of the TV series?
Thanks for the wikipost!
I'll never understand people who'd rather have 60% of nothing than 30% of something.
Further proof that corporations are run by idiots out of touch with reality. The people who are paid to write and draw stories could figure out that economic reality easier than people are paid to figure out economic realities.
I'd rather just have sane copyright/trademark laws.
No. I was referring to multiple parties wanting a chunk of the same pie. If three different people claim 60% each, the pie can't be divided, and thus sits uneaten and rots. If they agree to take smaller shares, they can all have some pie.
Even the lawyers. :)
I'm with WetRats, I understand fighting for your your piece of the pie, but when it results in nothing being produced at all, what's the point? I've been watching SNL on Netflix, and it's a shame that not only do we not get most of the musical performances, but entire skits are cut because someone would have to be paid for a few seconds of music being played. Wasn't the point of those performances to get people to buy the music anyway?