epaddon wrote:There's another reason why actors will likely repeat these stories that aren't really true. They need them for the convention/interview/banquet circuit to earn their keep.
Sounds like James "Scotty" Doohan and/or George "Sulu" Takei, and the decades each spent spinning and fabricating Star Trek stories of his own (largely anti-Shatner), and repeating debunked myths created by Gene Roddenberry.
Even as legitimate, insider books or interviews presented facts, some former Trek personnel insisted on telling the most low-end or inflammatory stories imaginable.
And those who tell these stories to eager audiences at conventions or banquets, whether they be actors or athletes are usually not going to be talking to people who will think, "Gee, let's go down to the archives and find out more about that!"
Getting to the actual truth is a difficult and tedious process at times, which I can attest to from personal experience as a historian/archivist by trade. I commend Bob for taking the steps needed that are in keeping with sound historical scholarship.
Adam West, Ward Sue For 'Batman Merchandise Coin
Adam West and Burt Ward are suing Greenway Prods., 20th-Fox, and ABC network for $8,000,000.
Published Date: August 18th, 1971
I feel it's important to get the stories straight. I know the Eisner Batbook was revised within the last few years but I don't have the new edition. Does anyone know if the information has been updated?
So Bob, did Adam or Burt ever win? As I'm sure you know, I've heard directly from Adam and Burt at personal appearances that they made no money from any Batman merchandise.
In his book, I'm pretty sure Adam said that he and Burt would only get a piece of Batman merchandise with their likeness and got nothing from the comic image licensed for toys and games.
Outside of the two sets of Topp's cards with scenes from the show and movie, what other 1966/67 merchandising had their images?
Off the top of my head, all I can think of is the Viewmaster set, the novelization of the movie, and (for Adam West) the 2nd paperback, Batman Vs 3 Villains of Doom. The LP with their voices and the photo cover.
He flies and fights-BATMAN!
Purity and virtue-BATMAN!
Cowards run away!
Batman saves the day!
Also, Boy Wonder Robin.
Batman and Robin-caped crusaders at night!
BIFF! POW! BAM! BATMAN!
Lord Death Man wrote:Off the top of my head, all I can think of is the Viewmaster set, the novelization of the movie, and (for Adam West) the 2nd paperback, Batman Vs 3 Villains of Doom. The LP with their voices and the photo cover.
There were also trading cards that used scenes from Batman: The Movie.
Lord Death Man wrote:Off the top of my head, all I can think of is the Viewmaster set, the novelization of the movie, and (for Adam West) the 2nd paperback, Batman Vs 3 Villains of Doom. The LP with their voices and the photo cover.
There were also trading cards that used scenes from Batman: The Movie.
Those are lobby cards for theaters, yes? If so, they would not be for sale to the public and in theory used for exhibition purposes only (many from that era will even have instructions printed on them to either return them to the issuer or destroy them so they would not be resold).
He flies and fights-BATMAN!
Purity and virtue-BATMAN!
Cowards run away!
Batman saves the day!
Also, Boy Wonder Robin.
Batman and Robin-caped crusaders at night!
BIFF! POW! BAM! BATMAN!
Lord Death Man wrote:Off the top of my head, all I can think of is the Viewmaster set, the novelization of the movie, and (for Adam West) the 2nd paperback, Batman Vs 3 Villains of Doom. The LP with their voices and the photo cover.
There were also trading cards that used scenes from Batman: The Movie.
Those are lobby cards for theaters, yes? If so, they would not be for sale to the public and in theory used for exhibition purposes only (many from that era will even have instructions printed on them to either return them to the issuer or destroy them so they would not be resold).
I can't remember but i first saw them or cards like these in an article about the history of Batman merchandise. I would post a link to that article but it now unfortunately cannot be viewed anymore.
Mr.Freeze wrote:Post cards sold in Spain & Holland.......
Btw , how did the movie do in Europe & Japan ?
That's an excellent question...Bob?
As for merchandise with Adam and Burt's likenesses, I think we've covered it with the exception of some stuff from other countries such as Argentina, which probably did not pay anything to anybody (my guess.)
I think that ruling was unjust. I think they should have received money from items that had the 66 TV series logo on it as well. Granted, that wasn't much either. I believe a bicycle "Batchute" and Hefti's studio LP would be the only additional items to add to the list. If Adam or Burt's managers had asked for that in their contracts, Dozier would have found other actors. He seemed extremely "cut throat." Guess you have to be in that job?
Over here in the UK there were a number of books published in late 60's; some A4 hardback annuals, and a range of smaller pocket size paperbacks under the series title "Batman World Adventure Library".
These all had text stories closely based on the TV style, and illustrated with line drawings which had some resemblance to the TV characters. Egghead and Bookworm both turned up in these paperbacks, while the Archer and Minstrel were in the annuals.
I thought what hurt the movie as well with all of the Batman films is there's not enough Batman appearing in his own movie. Too much spotlight on the villains, and as colorful as they were they're NOT even as close as interesting as the Cape Crusader. The movie felt very television, and I feel sorry for the audiences who paid hard earned money for what was an extended episode of the tv series. The movie didn't do well for a reason.
The rubber shark sequence was utterly RIDICULOUS. The plot of the film was not interesting. 20th Century Fox during that time were making a lot of campy films but I think it would have been best to hire their directors, producers, and writers from their movie dept. and develop the movie separately from the TV productions. With that team it would at least pace it better even though Hollywood hasn't had a track record of embracing comic book material until they've drained all of the life out of creative cinema. Now they depend on them to just keep afloat from their ginormous debts their lingering on.
So the box office numbers don't surprise me at all.
STEPhonIT wrote:I thought what hurt the movie as well with all of the Batman films is there's not enough Batman appearing in his own movie. Too much spotlight on the villains, and as colorful as they were they're NOT even as close as interesting as the Cape Crusader. The movie felt very television, and I feel sorry for the audiences who paid hard earned money for what was an extended episode of the tv series. The movie didn't do well for a reason.
The rubber shark sequence was utterly RIDICULOUS. The plot of the film was not interesting. 20th Century Fox during that time were making a lot of campy films but I think it would have been best to hire their directors, producers, and writers from their movie dept. and develop the movie separately from the TV productions. With that team it would at least pace it better ever though Hollywood hasn't had a track record of embracing comic book material until they've drained all of the life out of creative cinema. Now they depend on them to just keep afloat from their ginormous debts their lingering on.
So the box office numbers don't surprise me at all.
I disagree with you on the shark scene. You thought that was ridiculous? What about a man running around dressed as a Bat fighting crime in general or better yet, with a smoking bomb? Hmmmm....I think you need to rethink the Adam West Batman as a whole. You may need to start embracing the current scene over at DC and the New 52. What a way to go go. Those who get the go go comment, please explain to him what I meant.
I like a lot about the film, but it was much less fast paced and exciting than any Batman episode that preceded it. This was really when Batman "Jumped the Shark"! Or in this case fought the shark. In Adam's book he mentioned that he held out for a lot more money, and demanded a lot more "Bruce" time. The directing was uninspired, and Lorenzo Semple really dropped the ball here. The stupid dolphin, the bat-copter just happening to fall into the mattresses? Total stuff! Adam's performance -- his great fight scene on the ship being a high point, and Lee Meriwether's very alluring Catwoman are the only saving graces. Okay, I liked the shark and bomb scenes. And to some extent the goons in the batcave too. In a better movie these things might've been great.
