Fourth Season Myth
Moderators: Scott Sebring, Ben Bentley
- Bob Furmanek
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Fourth Season Myth
And what did Burt Ward do in the months following the cancellation? He went to the circus in Rochester, NY!
Yvonne did some personal appearances as well.
Did you know the first three-part episode was the start of ABC's Second Season and a Batman Anniversary special?
Yvonne did some personal appearances as well.
Did you know the first three-part episode was the start of ABC's Second Season and a Batman Anniversary special?
- Dan E Kool
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:08 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Fascinating stuff. These pages have really expanded my understanding of the show (I think). Those interviews with Adam West are especially insightful.
Based on everything here, is it fair to say then that Season 3 was filmed with the sole purpose of meeting syndication requirements? Would that be the reason for the barebones sets and the change to a once-per-week format? To save money while meeting the minimum? But then, why add Batgirl?
Or am I just reaching here?
Based on everything here, is it fair to say then that Season 3 was filmed with the sole purpose of meeting syndication requirements? Would that be the reason for the barebones sets and the change to a once-per-week format? To save money while meeting the minimum? But then, why add Batgirl?
Or am I just reaching here?
- Boy Genius
Re: Fourth Season Myth
You're not reaching at all. Batgirl was added because ABC wanted major changes made in order to grant the show another season. From what I understand, the ratings were falling off, in particular, with young girls and 35-54 year-old men. So it was believed the addition of Yvonne would improve the ratings with both of those demographics.Dan E Kool wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:39 am Fascinating stuff. These pages have really expanded my understanding of the show (I think). Those interviews with Adam West are especially insightful.
Based on everything here, is it fair to say then that Season 3 was filmed with the sole purpose of meeting syndication requirements? Would that be the reason for the barebones sets and the change to a once-per-week format? To save money while meeting the minimum? But then, why add Batgirl?
Or am I just reaching here?
And there was no hard and fast 'requirement' for syndication, as some shows even then got into syndication without the 'magic' 100 episodes. Addams Family, Munsters and F-Troop all were two-season shows. But 100 was considered a benchmark and after the movie had been a disappointment, it's safe to say Dozier didn't want to 'buck the system' again. He probably felt, let me make sure this time, and get to 100 episodes. Once he got a third-season commitment, he was going to have at least 17 more episodes in the can, which would bring him to 111.
'I thought Siren was perfect for Joan.'--Stanley Ralph Ross, writer of 'The Wail of the Siren'
My hobbies include gazing at the Siren and doing her bidding, evil or otherwise.
'She had a devastating, hypnotic effect on all the men.'--A schoolmate describing Joan Collins at age 17
My hobbies include gazing at the Siren and doing her bidding, evil or otherwise.
'She had a devastating, hypnotic effect on all the men.'--A schoolmate describing Joan Collins at age 17
Re: Fourth Season Myth
This syndication offering would have had no real bearing on a 4th season. The show may very well have been losing money and ratings, but many shows still go into syndication while still in active production. Generally speaking, syndication runs are sold in packages - the first usually being the first batch of episodes up to and including the season that the series crosses the 100 episode threshold. They very well could have sold seasons 1-3 into syndication and went into making a season 4. This next season (along with any additional) could have been added to the original syndication packages or sold separately to to stations.Bob Furmanek wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:55 pm The show was losing money big-time by the third season and despite the rumors, there was never any consideration to do a 4th year. (NBC was never interested.)
The reason? Dozier was hot to get Batman into syndication ASAP because that's where it would finally turn a profit. Here's an industry trade ad offering the 120 episodes from February 12, 1968.
- Keith Mayo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:52 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
John Mack wrote:
"He further stated that a lot of things like the tearing down of the Batcave set was emotional for him."
Is this the same event repeated by Yvonne Craig?
"He further stated that a lot of things like the tearing down of the Batcave set was emotional for him."
Is this the same event repeated by Yvonne Craig?
"It's the very essence of our democracy". - Batman, S1 Ep 11
Re: Fourth Season Myth
I think you'll get the answer you're looking for if you listen to the To The Batpoles podcast at about one hour and 20 minutes inBig Daddy K wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:41 pm John Mack wrote:
"He further stated that a lot of things like the tearing down of the Batcave set was emotional for him."
Is this the same event repeated by Yvonne Craig?
http://tothebatpoles.libsyn.com/083-fit ... ed-crusade
'I thought Siren was perfect for Joan.'--Stanley Ralph Ross, writer of 'The Wail of the Siren'
My hobbies include gazing at the Siren and doing her bidding, evil or otherwise.
'She had a devastating, hypnotic effect on all the men.'--A schoolmate describing Joan Collins at age 17
My hobbies include gazing at the Siren and doing her bidding, evil or otherwise.
'She had a devastating, hypnotic effect on all the men.'--A schoolmate describing Joan Collins at age 17
- Keith Mayo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:52 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Seems to me that the "researcher" is saying it makes sense that there's no smoking gun concerning the 4th season/set destruction and that it's likely that IF that news was given to someone it would have been through a telephone call. Thus there's no paper trail.
Also odd to me is that this is being held up as an explanation when it's basically the same situation where we get the information we have from the Batbook. Someone told Yvonne (how, we don't know) and she repeated it to Joel Eisner who then published it in his book. Tim repeats what their researcher said he heard someone else say.
1. Original source says something.
2. That info is repeated by the person the original source told.
3. That second person tells someone else and they publish the information (either in a book, blog or whatever). Sounds to me it's a game of "Telephone" like I played in school back in '66.
Bottom line? Did NBC make an offer to put the Batman show on their network? I have no idea.
Can anything be proven based on the lack of evidence? I think not.
Does it matter one way or the other? Nope. Not a bit.
In the few years I've been hanging out in 1966 Batman circles I've noticed that the same culture exists as I've seen in my many years as a professional musician. There's always a small group who think they're the keepers of the secret knowledge and dole it out bit by bit so as to insure the "little people" don't get any of their power.
My final thought is this: Anyone who says they know the real dope on subjects concerning the Batman tv show should stop taking shots at Joel Eisner and write their own book. Put up or shut up.
Also odd to me is that this is being held up as an explanation when it's basically the same situation where we get the information we have from the Batbook. Someone told Yvonne (how, we don't know) and she repeated it to Joel Eisner who then published it in his book. Tim repeats what their researcher said he heard someone else say.
1. Original source says something.
2. That info is repeated by the person the original source told.
3. That second person tells someone else and they publish the information (either in a book, blog or whatever). Sounds to me it's a game of "Telephone" like I played in school back in '66.
Bottom line? Did NBC make an offer to put the Batman show on their network? I have no idea.
Can anything be proven based on the lack of evidence? I think not.
Does it matter one way or the other? Nope. Not a bit.
In the few years I've been hanging out in 1966 Batman circles I've noticed that the same culture exists as I've seen in my many years as a professional musician. There's always a small group who think they're the keepers of the secret knowledge and dole it out bit by bit so as to insure the "little people" don't get any of their power.
My final thought is this: Anyone who says they know the real dope on subjects concerning the Batman tv show should stop taking shots at Joel Eisner and write their own book. Put up or shut up.
"It's the very essence of our democracy". - Batman, S1 Ep 11
- Keith Mayo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:52 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
I just used the "search" feature found in any FB group and pulled up your very first post to the 1966 Batman Tv Show FB page made in April of 2014. So much for there not being an archive.Ben Bentley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:52 pm
BINGO! This has been widely established and understood by a lot of those who have a part of this Message Board's community here for the long-haul but unfortunately the wider fan-base at large, (particularly the Facebook armchair quarterbacks) have no tangible way of archiving their discussions. With those kind of groups, any real factual information in a comment thread exists for the moments/hours/day it is in their feed and is then subsequently lost into the black-hole that is a Facebook page with such a high volume of repetitive and predominantly image centric content. Thus the circle of misinformation is perpetuated. I see it on an almost daily basis.
"It's the very essence of our democracy". - Batman, S1 Ep 11
- Scott Sebring
- Site Admin
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:50 pm
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Let's chill on the more aggressive and confrontational form of debating this or any topic. Bat board rules basics for eons.
- Keith Mayo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:52 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Editing done. Mea culpa.Scott Sebring wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:13 pm Let's chill on the more aggressive and confrontational form of debating this or any topic. Bat board rules basics for eons.
"It's the very essence of our democracy". - Batman, S1 Ep 11
Re: Fourth Season Myth
According to the US inflation calculator, that figure thrown out to build the Batcave of $800,000 would have been like them spending $6,337, 879.37 on it today. The Rate of inflation is 692.2%.
I just don't see that kind of money being spent on the "worst ever testing" of any show to that point. You know the old, "The only reason it didn't test lower, is because the dials couldn't go any lower" comment.
So, adding to the 4th season myth, if that $800,000 figure WAS correct, no wonder NBC wouldn't do it. But that being said, would NBC have been able to make the set look just like the original? Doubtful. I think there would have to have been a story line of why the Batcave looked different. But then we're back to question of who would have produced it. My GUESS would be Screen Gems, the company that did the Monkees.
I just don't see that kind of money being spent on the "worst ever testing" of any show to that point. You know the old, "The only reason it didn't test lower, is because the dials couldn't go any lower" comment.
So, adding to the 4th season myth, if that $800,000 figure WAS correct, no wonder NBC wouldn't do it. But that being said, would NBC have been able to make the set look just like the original? Doubtful. I think there would have to have been a story line of why the Batcave looked different. But then we're back to question of who would have produced it. My GUESS would be Screen Gems, the company that did the Monkees.
Music. BAT! Music.
- BATWINGED HORNET
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:32 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
John Mack wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 7:55 pm According to the US inflation calculator, that figure thrown out to build the Batcave of $800,000 would have been like them spending $6,337, 879.37 on it today. The Rate of inflation is 692.2%.
I just don't see that kind of money being spent on the "worst ever testing" of any show to that point. You know the old, "The only reason it didn't test lower, is because the dials couldn't go any lower" comment.
So, adding to the 4th season myth, if that $800,000 figure WAS correct, no wonder NBC wouldn't do it. But that being said, would NBC have been able to make the set look just like the original? Doubtful. I think there would have to have been a story line of why the Batcave looked different. But then we're back to question of who would have produced it. My GUESS would be Screen Gems, the company that did the Monkees.
From the various accounts I've read about Screen Gems, they did not have much interest in the superhero or sci-fi fads, but their tried and true sitcoms--the bulk of their output in that decade. Moreover, some accounts say the studio was petty cheap, recycling sets, actors, music cues, etc., across several series, with only the biggest talents able to squeeze a few extra dollars from their grip (e.g., Elizabeth Montgomery / William Asher). Aside from three series about women with some sort of fantasy element (Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie & The Flying Nun), the only other trend they tried to exploit were music-themed sitcoms with The Monkees, The Partridge Family and PF spinoff Getting Together. It seems unlikely that Screen Gems would have had any interest in investing in what was by 1968, a ratings disaster that was less than a shell of its former, successful form.
Dozier seemed to be tired of it all, and the public certainly lost almost all interest in the series' last year on ABC.
Beneath Wayne Manor
- Keith Mayo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:52 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Screen Gems also did Batfink.
"It's the very essence of our democracy". - Batman, S1 Ep 11
- Bob Furmanek
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Broadcasting: April 3, 1967
- BATWINGED HORNET
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:32 am
Re: Fourth Season Myth
Batfink was a cartoon (which Screen Gems did not produce) not an expensive live action series. Screen Gems' most successful productions were sitcoms; in addition to the series mentioned in my previous post, this is the same studio that released Dennis the Menace, Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, among other series. That's where the profits were for the studio, not fantasy. Aside from that, why would any studio want to pick up the tab on a series that had long outlived its appeal a year eariler?
Beneath Wayne Manor