|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 29, 2015 13:26:23 GMT -5
With the release of the Batman '66 series on DVD, it struck me as a bit odd that there hasn't been an attempt to produce a live action Batman TV show in almost 50 years. Granted, we've had two movie franchises and the 90s animated series, so it's not like there's been a lack of Batman on TV or film. But why hasn't there been more of an effort to produce a modern TV series for Batman? I think it's something that could work well, particularly if it emphasized less of the action hero aspect of the Dark Knight (as the films tended to do) in favor of the detective side. Such a format would lend itself to long arcs and serialized stories that dominate TV today. And it would lessen the need for expensive special effects which can be much more burdensome for TV with its smaller budgets.
The other thing I've noticed is that, with the possible exception of The Flash, every single DC live-action TV show that has been produced in the past few years has loomed under the shadow of Batman. Gotham and the ill-fated Birds of Prey are Batman spin-offs. Arrow is basically Batman with a bow and arrow -- besides featuring many villains who are traditionally Batman's rogues, I could easily draw you a diagram of how every character or concept of Arrow maps neatly to a Batman counterpart. And the one question that plagued Smallville over its entire run was "When are we going to see Batman?" Given all this, instead of just hinting at Batman or taking cues from Batman, why doesn't Warner go all the way and just give us a Batman TV show?
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jan 29, 2015 14:23:04 GMT -5
With the release of the Batman '66 series on DVD, it struck me as a bit odd that there hasn't been an attempt to produce a live action Batman TV show in almost 50 years. Granted, we've had two movie franchises and the 90s animated series, so it's not like there's been a lack of Batman on TV or film. But why hasn't there been more of an effort to produce a modern TV series for Batman? I think it's something that could work well, particularly if it emphasized less of the action hero aspect of the Dark Knight (as the films tended to do) in favor of the detective side. Such a format would lend itself to long arcs and serialized stories that dominate TV today. And it would lessen the need for expensive special effects which can be much more burdensome for TV with its smaller budgets. The other thing I've noticed is that, with the possible exception of The Flash, every single DC live-action TV show that has been produced in the past few years has loomed under the shadow of Batman. Gotham and the ill-fated Birds of Prey are Batman spin-offs. Arrow is basically Batman with a bow and arrow -- besides featuring many villains who are traditionally Batman's rogues, I could easily draw you a diagram of how every character or concept of Arrow maps neatly to a Batman counterpart. And the one question that plagued Smallville over its entire run was "When are we going to see Batman?" Given all this, instead of just hinting at Batman or taking cues from Batman, why doesn't Warner go all the way and just give us a Batman TV show? One factor might be the inevitable comparisons between the new, presumably more serious, show and the far from serious original? That would be a huge shadow to try to get out from under. Gotham avoids it by being when he was a kid. I can see the headline now: "Pow! Zap! Zowie! New Batman live-action show to debut!" |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 29, 2015 14:54:38 GMT -5
It might be that Batman is too valuable as a movie franchise for them to risk overexposing the character on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 29, 2015 17:08:29 GMT -5
It might be that Batman is too valuable as a movie franchise for them to risk overexposing the character on TV. I think that has always been the official answer but I would really like them to reconsider. I really think a serialized television show could do a lot of things better than a movie series could. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 17:19:57 GMT -5
The problem is the idea of Batman as Detective is not one that is commonly held by the masses. The biggest exposure Batman has gotten in pop culture has been the movies and the Arkham games, in both of which Batman has been reduced to a badass-I'm Batman as he kicks ass and pulls a gadget out of nowhere to deus ex machina the conflict is the prevailing image of the Bat. A detective themed show would play against expectations and likely be poorly received by all but old school comic fans. There would also be an expectation of the parade of costumed villains, and a continual stream of high profile guest stars to fill those roles would add to production costs. Also what time slot-too violent or gritty and you move it to a later timeslot and lose the younger demo except on after airing viewings (Netflix. DVR, Tivo, Hulu) etc., go for the earlier slot and you have to lose some of the edge to meet standards and practices, but advertising money (which is what fuels the broadcast schedule and pays for production) is dependent on time slots and shows can live or die on what day and time they are slotted into the schedule.
What version of Batman would sell to a mass audience? How does that fit into the puzzle that is the weekly broadcast schedule and how does that affect advertising dollars available to pay for production?
You can also be sure that no live action show will be on while Gotham is on the air and it has already been renewed for a second season. If the show gets a third and hits syndication, there will be a need to let the ground lie fallow before new versions of those characters are attempted on network tv as well, so there are a lot of hoops and obstacles that have to be dealt with before a pilot would even be commissioned for such a series.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 29, 2015 17:38:19 GMT -5
Regarding overexposure of characters --
DC seems fine with having two different versions of the Flash run around at the same time. Smallville was in the middle of its 10 seasons when Superman Returns was filmed and released. Arrow began development only a year or two after Smallville, a show that heavily made use of Green Arrow as a Batman substitute, concluded its run. And if you count Nolan Batman, the Gotham TV show, and Batman v. Superman, that's three completely unrelated takes on the Batman world within a four year time span.
DC seems to have no problems with multiple versions of their characters across different franchises. And especially given the way Green Arrow is essentially a stand-in for Batman in both Smallville and Arrow, why not just give the audience the real thing?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,407
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 29, 2015 18:12:09 GMT -5
I think we need an uber serious Batman show where, once an episode, he breaks out into the Watusi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 20:39:55 GMT -5
It might be that Batman is too valuable as a movie franchise for them to risk overexposing the character on TV. I think that has always been the official answer but I would really like them to reconsider. I really think a serialized television show could do a lot of things better than a movie series could. I would go for a serialized television show would be the best approach of handling a weekly Batman TV Series and I don't think that this show would jeopardize any success of GOTHAM of whom that I just don't care about at all and I've think another network could handle this idea with care and make it totally different angle. I think it will work if it's done just right. The costumes and the period of this show has to be done in an different angle and I feel that this proposed show will get the respect it's deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 23:12:47 GMT -5
Regarding overexposure of characters -- DC seems fine with having two different versions of the Flash run around at the same time. Smallville was in the middle of its 10 seasons when Superman Returns was filmed and released. Arrow began development only a year or two after Smallville, a show that heavily made use of Green Arrow as a Batman substitute, concluded its run. And if you count Nolan Batman, the Gotham TV show, and Batman v. Superman, that's three completely unrelated takes on the Batman world within a four year time span. DC seems to have no problems with multiple versions of their characters across different franchises. And especially given the way Green Arrow is essentially a stand-in for Batman in both Smallville and Arrow, why not just give the audience the real thing? The problem isn't DC, it's whether advertisers/studios would invest in another product concurrently which dilutes their brand and revenues stream. Shows don't get made unless advertising dollars are there. Money form the back end (subs services, DVDs, etc. don't defray upfront costs of production for the studios/networks, advertising dollars do, and if advertisers see it as a bad risk, then they will not back it. Why invest in a Batman show on one network, when there is already one on another that has its audience already and it's ratings share-that show weakens the likelihood of the revenue stream from the new show being worthwhile. Now if Gotham goes off the air, and there is a void, exploit it, but you won't see two American networks having the same show with the same established characters in competition with one another. DC has no problem diversifying their revenue stream with multiple versions of the same properties, however the money men who make that possible just might and the decision is theirs, not DCs. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 5:24:30 GMT -5
It might be that Batman is too valuable as a movie franchise for them to risk overexposing the character on TV. I don't know if overexposure is the problem, or if the staggering difference in quality a TV budget would have when compared to ultimate blockbuster movie franchise budget. Not wanting to cheapen the property. Kind of why Bugatti doesn't make a $20,000 car. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jan 31, 2015 14:44:04 GMT -5
Just as a guess, I imagine that the rights to adapt Batman himself may be priced higher than most TV shows are willing to pay. I assume that GOTHAM pays a lower rate just to adapt Bruce Wayne and various Bat-characters who are not-- and may never be-- given their superheroic cognomens. And does anyone remember how BIRDS OF PREY solved the problem? They alluded to Batman and Catwoman in the first episode, and sent Batman out of town for the remainder of the series.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 31, 2015 14:49:15 GMT -5
Just as a guess, I imagine that the rights to adapt Batman himself may be priced higher than most TV shows are willing to pay. I assume that GOTHAM pays a lower rate just to adapt Bruce Wayne and various Bat-characters who are not-- and may never be-- given their superheroic cognomens. And does anyone remember how BIRDS OF PREY solved the problem? They alluded to Batman and Catwoman in the first episode, and sent Batman out of town for the remainder of the series. Eh, I don't think Warner charges itself to use the rights of its own properties so I don't think that's an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jan 31, 2015 17:20:39 GMT -5
Just as a guess, I imagine that the rights to adapt Batman himself may be priced higher than most TV shows are willing to pay. I assume that GOTHAM pays a lower rate just to adapt Bruce Wayne and various Bat-characters who are not-- and may never be-- given their superheroic cognomens. And does anyone remember how BIRDS OF PREY solved the problem? They alluded to Batman and Catwoman in the first episode, and sent Batman out of town for the remainder of the series. Eh, I don't think Warner charges itself to use the rights of its own properties so I don't think that's an issue. Though it might be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul," I think it's very likely that one division of Warner's probably does have to pay another division. I can't cite a specific case, though, so we can agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 1:41:01 GMT -5
Hey, I wonder why Gotham isn't on the CW Network instead of Fox?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Feb 1, 2015 14:17:29 GMT -5
DC seems fine with having two different versions of the Flash run around at the same time. The CW show and what else? I know I never checked out the Arrow show largely because I was burned out on the character afterr his six(?) years on Smallville. |
|
