Batman 66 WAS Bad Actually.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Yes I'm a Commie.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yes I'm a Commie.

What do you think of the x-files?

[MithrandirOlorin]

Never watched a single episode.

[Lazerlike42]

I disagree that it was bad, and yes its accessibility to kids is a part of that, but it's deeper than this.

Let's start with this: when I was growing up (in the 80s, not the 60s), this WAS Batman to me. There was nothing else other than the SuperFriends or whatever cartoon it was that I remember. I certainly never saw a Batman comin and the Tim Burton film had not yet been released and was a few years too mature for me when it was. Yet I still liked Batman, and when I was finally ready for Burton's the Adam West series was a big reason I was even interested in it in the first place. The same goes for the Fox animated series: that 1960s Batman is the reason I even cared enough to sit down and watch that darker series

- and perhaps more importantly, the 1960s Batman was the reason that going into the darker versions of Batman I knew everything that I knew about him. The fact is that the 1960s Batman gets a great deal right about the character and his world. It shows us some of the elementary stuff, like the basic dynamics of Bruce Wayne as a rich playboy, the general cast of characters, the villains, etc. It shows Batman as the master detective, how his "superpower" is his brain and how he often bests his opponents with his intelligence and his mastery of technology. It shows some deeper stuff, too, like the way that there is a tragedy to Bruce Wayne's character, how as Batman he is cursed to loneliness. It doesn't go as deep as darker takes on the character, no, but heck it does a better job than the Tim Burton films, and in any case more on that later. Another thing that it shows part of the way is how almost all of his opponents are mentally unstable or even psychotic. Where it stops short is in not showing us that these are a kind of parallel to Batman himself and that he is in a way down the same path as they, but sits right on the other edge.

And so on these points I think where the 1960s series stops short is in not showing us the inner torment of Bruce Wayne. It's a lighter series, and more approachable to kids because of this - as well as others who for various reasons may not feel comfortable in dealing with the kind of darkness that torments Batman interiorly. I don't think this makes it bad, though. You may say, "but that darkness is the whole point!" to which I would say that rather, the lack of that interior darkness makes the series a great introduction to Batman, and a great take on Batman to have available. If you really like Coca Cola I suppose you might reject the very notion of Diet Coke, but I think most would be happy that Diet Coke exists for people who for whatever reason aren't able to have the regular one.

[MithrandirOlorin]

I disagree that it was bad, and yes its accessibility to kids is a part of that, but it's deeper than this.

Let's start with this: when I was growing up (in the 80s, not the 60s), this WAS Batman to me. There was nothing else other than the SuperFriends or whatever cartoon it was that I remember. I certainly never saw a Batman comin and the Tim Burton film had not yet been released and was a few years too mature for me when it was. Yet I still liked Batman, and when I was finally ready for Burton's the Adam West series was a big reason I was even interested in it in the first place. The same goes for the Fox animated series: that 1960s Batman is the reason I even cared enough to sit down and watch that darker series

- and perhaps more importantly, the 1960s Batman was the reason that going into the darker versions of Batman I knew everything that I knew about him. The fact is that the 1960s Batman gets a great deal right about the character and his world. It shows us some of the elementary stuff, like the basic dynamics of Bruce Wayne as a rich playboy, the general cast of characters, the villains, etc. It shows Batman as the master detective, how his "superpower" is his brain and how he often bests his opponents with his intelligence and his mastery of technology. It shows some deeper stuff, too, like the way that there is a tragedy to Bruce Wayne's character, how as Batman he is cursed to loneliness. It doesn't go as deep as darker takes on the character, no, but heck it does a better job than the Tim Burton films, and in any case more on that later. Another thing that it shows part of the way is how almost all of his opponents are mentally unstable or even psychotic. Where it stops short is in not showing us that these are a kind of parallel to Batman himself and that he is in a way down the same path as they, but sits right on the other edge.

And so on these points I think where the 1960s series stops short is in not showing us the inner torment of Bruce Wayne. It's a lighter series, and more approachable to kids because of this - as well as others who for various reasons may not feel comfortable in dealing with the kind of darkness that torments Batman interiorly. I don't think this makes it bad, though. You may say, "but that darkness is the whole point!" to which I would say that rather, the lack of that interior darkness makes the series a great introduction to Batman, and a great take on Batman to have available. If you really like Coca Cola I suppose you might reject the very notion of Diet Coke, but I think most would be happy that Diet Coke exists for people who for whatever reason aren't able to have the regular one.

This really sounds like you didn't read the OP at all.

[clearspira]

I disagree that it was bad, and yes its accessibility to kids is a part of that, but it's deeper than this.

Let's start with this: when I was growing up (in the 80s, not the 60s), this WAS Batman to me. There was nothing else other than the SuperFriends or whatever cartoon it was that I remember. I certainly never saw a Batman comin and the Tim Burton film had not yet been released and was a few years too mature for me when it was. Yet I still liked Batman, and when I was finally ready for Burton's the Adam West series was a big reason I was even interested in it in the first place. The same goes for the Fox animated series: that 1960s Batman is the reason I even cared enough to sit down and watch that darker series

- and perhaps more importantly, the 1960s Batman was the reason that going into the darker versions of Batman I knew everything that I knew about him. The fact is that the 1960s Batman gets a great deal right about the character and his world. It shows us some of the elementary stuff, like the basic dynamics of Bruce Wayne as a rich playboy, the general cast of characters, the villains, etc. It shows Batman as the master detective, how his "superpower" is his brain and how he often bests his opponents with his intelligence and his mastery of technology. It shows some deeper stuff, too, like the way that there is a tragedy to Bruce Wayne's character, how as Batman he is cursed to loneliness. It doesn't go as deep as darker takes on the character, no, but heck it does a better job than the Tim Burton films, and in any case more on that later. Another thing that it shows part of the way is how almost all of his opponents are mentally unstable or even psychotic. Where it stops short is in not showing us that these are a kind of parallel to Batman himself and that he is in a way down the same path as they, but sits right on the other edge.

And so on these points I think where the 1960s series stops short is in not showing us the inner torment of Bruce Wayne. It's a lighter series, and more approachable to kids because of this - as well as others who for various reasons may not feel comfortable in dealing with the kind of darkness that torments Batman interiorly. I don't think this makes it bad, though. You may say, "but that darkness is the whole point!" to which I would say that rather, the lack of that interior darkness makes the series a great introduction to Batman, and a great take on Batman to have available. If you really like Coca Cola I suppose you might reject the very notion of Diet Coke, but I think most would be happy that Diet Coke exists for people who for whatever reason aren't able to have the regular one.

This really sounds like you didn't read the OP at all.

Or maybe we do understand but don't agree with it?

[hammerofglass]

Wasn't the hero worrying about the well-being of a criminal like they were actual human beings or caring about them dying a violation of the Television Code in the 60s?

[Lazerlike42]

I disagree that it was bad, and yes its accessibility to kids is a part of that, but it's deeper than this.

Let's start with this: when I was growing up (in the 80s, not the 60s), this WAS Batman to me. There was nothing else other than the SuperFriends or whatever cartoon it was that I remember. I certainly never saw a Batman comin and the Tim Burton film had not yet been released and was a few years too mature for me when it was. Yet I still liked Batman, and when I was finally ready for Burton's the Adam West series was a big reason I was even interested in it in the first place. The same goes for the Fox animated series: that 1960s Batman is the reason I even cared enough to sit down and watch that darker series

- and perhaps more importantly, the 1960s Batman was the reason that going into the darker versions of Batman I knew everything that I knew about him. The fact is that the 1960s Batman gets a great deal right about the character and his world. It shows us some of the elementary stuff, like the basic dynamics of Bruce Wayne as a rich playboy, the general cast of characters, the villains, etc. It shows Batman as the master detective, how his "superpower" is his brain and how he often bests his opponents with his intelligence and his mastery of technology. It shows some deeper stuff, too, like the way that there is a tragedy to Bruce Wayne's character, how as Batman he is cursed to loneliness. It doesn't go as deep as darker takes on the character, no, but heck it does a better job than the Tim Burton films, and in any case more on that later. Another thing that it shows part of the way is how almost all of his opponents are mentally unstable or even psychotic. Where it stops short is in not showing us that these are a kind of parallel to Batman himself and that he is in a way down the same path as they, but sits right on the other edge.

And so on these points I think where the 1960s series stops short is in not showing us the inner torment of Bruce Wayne. It's a lighter series, and more approachable to kids because of this - as well as others who for various reasons may not feel comfortable in dealing with the kind of darkness that torments Batman interiorly. I don't think this makes it bad, though. You may say, "but that darkness is the whole point!" to which I would say that rather, the lack of that interior darkness makes the series a great introduction to Batman, and a great take on Batman to have available. If you really like Coca Cola I suppose you might reject the very notion of Diet Coke, but I think most would be happy that Diet Coke exists for people who for whatever reason aren't able to have the regular one.

This really sounds like you didn't read the OP at all.

Let me address it this way: when I read the OP the first time (and I did read it), what I took away was that the Adam West Batman was supposed to have been bad because the tone was light and campy and the real Batman was supposed to be darker.

I've now re-read the post and I somewhat agree that this wasn't the main point, but I am also not entirely clear what the point was supposed to be. The best I can make out of it is that the claim is that West's Batman was *too* dark because sometimes Batman made a joke after someone died.

If this is correct, I am not surprised I didn't quite get it the first time because it's honestly a claim that doesn't make much sense to me.

First, if we assume it's 100% true, it's such a minor, infrequent aspect of the show that I don't think 99% of people would associate it with the series. Focusing on this as "the reason" the series is bad seems to me like saying that Star Trek Enterprise is bad because there was an episode about the Borg. There may be lots of reasons to like or to dislike the show, but such a minor aspect of the series is really not one that makes a lot of sense to focus on.

Second, I am very skeptical of the claim that this happened. I honestly don't remember anyone dying in that series, ever, with one possible exception. In one episode, Catwoman seems to die and Batman does not make any kind of joke but clearly views it as a tragedy.

Now maybe I still don't quite understand your point, so if so I think it would be helpful for everyone in the discussion if the point were clarified. The original post seems to be a lot of buildup but only appears to try to get to the point in a single short paragraph towards the end and if there's more to it than what I've addressed here, I'm not really sure that it comes across.

[MithrandirOlorin]

"What a terrible way to Go Go" is the main one that pops in my mind.

But making Jokes when someone dies is just one example, most everything in the show is cynical in a similar way.

[Thebestoftherest]

Can you give a real example, or is your sort trust me bro.