George Reeves Superman TV Show Question

[JimmyVale]

Superman and Batman are somewhat related since they’re the first comic book heroes. Batman was created because of Superman as you all know.

I was just wondering if the Color Superman TV show had any influence on the Color Batman TV show? I’ve watched all kinds of stuff, movie serials, old TV shows etc. but I’ve never seen an episode of the George Reeves Superman TV show!

The more I think about it, the more I realize that show just never came on when I was younger. I’ve never seen reruns or anything. I think I’m going to just buy the show on DVD and finally check it out.

When William Dozier was preparing to make Batman, doesn’t it stand to reason that he’d check out Superman to get ideas?

I wanted to ask you guys if there are any similarities between the two shows. Superman was before my time, unfortunately. Thanks.

[AndyFish]

Not really. One of the complaints about the Superman show was that they used ordinary gangsters and no super villains for the bad guys. Don’t get me wrong, it was a great show and a more like three different shows as it evolved;

The first season, in black and white with Phyllis Coates as Lois was very serious, with some real film Noir episodes and a couple that were downright scary.
Noel Neil who had played Lois in the two serials took over the Lois role and she was a different character, I liked her less even though that’s sacrilege to most Superman fans.
The color episodes were often much more fantasy oriented, with some outrageous plots that mimicked what was going on in the comics of the time.

All very entertaining though.

I’d say Superman was much closer in spirit to The Lone Ranger or The Green Hornet than Batman. Trivia wise, serial Batman Robert Lowery has a guest appearance on a later episode of Superman as an old friend of Clark’s. Not hard to imagine he’s Bruce Wayne in disguise.

[A. Pennyworth]

[JimmyVale]

Not really….

…I’d say Superman was much closer in spirit to The Lone Ranger or The Green Hornet than Batman. Trivia wise, serial Batman Robert Lowery has a guest appearance on a later episode of Superman as an old friend of Clark’s. Not hard to imagine he’s Bruce Wayne in disguise.

I didn’t know Robert Lowery was on Superman! Here it is: https://youtu.be/3gUpMAsxVEY

[media] [/media]

Batman and Superman!!! Can’t beat that!

Thanks.

[SprangFan]

I don't think The Adventures of Superman had any real influence on Batman beyond the fact that George Reeves' Superman, like Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger, was a paragon of the TV hero "type" Batman poked gentle fun at. All the cliches of the TV hero -- the unshakable virtue, the moral certainty, the inspiring speeches, the fawning admiration of grateful citizens -- were presented unironically on those earlier shows, but with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge twist on Batman, as if the Caped Crusader was still living in the 1950s while the rest of the world had moved on to a considerably more morally ambivalent era. So in a sense, I would say Batman was a reaction to those older shows, and its humor depended on audiences' familiarity with their "type," but beyond that there's not much of a link.

The Adventures of Superman has much to recommend it, though as Andy remarks, which season you opt to buy will determine what kind of show you end up with. The first season was more in the spirit of film noir and radio adventure/mystery shows, while by the last two, the makers had accepted and embraced the reality that their primary audience would always be school-age kids, so they tend to be more whimsical and "harmless." I agree Phyllis Coates in Season 1 is the best Lois Lane, and my personal favorite version of the character in any medium: tough, capable and smart, not consantly fawning over Superman and not a bully to Clark (though she can be short with him). She's replaced starting in Season 2 with Noel Neill, who was one of the sweetest gals on Earth but bless her she was quite limited as a performer. Her Lois basically exists to bumble into easily-spotted traps so Superman can bail her out. She's marginally brighter than Jimmy Olsen, but only in the sense that Ollie is smarter than Stan. However, George as Superman is consisent throughout: wise, kind-hearted, patient and generous of spirit. He gives off a "Dad" vibe where he's not so much like Gallahad as Ward Cleaver, bailing out "the kids" when they blunder into yet another mess. And even when he deals with crooks, it's with the attitude of, "Seriously? Are you NEVER going to learn?" I love how crooks keep shooting at him while he just stands there looking bored, shaking his head or rolling his eyes. As a kid, George had me totally convinced Superman was real and that if I ever got into a really, really bad spot, he'd show up to help. Unlike Jimmy and Lois, I was bright enough not to test the theory.

I would recommend the show to anyone, really, but if you're looking for certain qualities Batman was known for you might be disappointed. TAOS does not have, for instance: colorful super-villains, elaborate sets, cool gadgets, amazing costumes (beyond the one), big-name guest stars or much going on musically beyond the same few cues used over and over. It has nowhere near the budget of Batman, but in its own way it can be rewarding to watch as a master class in how to stage convincing practical effects with almost no funds at all. For all its limitations, or maybe because of them, it's still my favorite screen version of the Man of Steel, and George will forever be my Superman.

[AndyFish]

Now that SprangFan is back I can basically retreat to my own personal cave, because he sums up my thoughts better than I do. Agree, George's Superman IS Superman to me. Christopher Reeve is second, and he always seemed like George's son to me.

Superman in the 50s comics was like Super-dad-- and that's how I like him, not dark and brooding as he's become, and it gets ridiculous when an actor in his 20s is cast as Superman (or Batman for that matter) because both of them are played as experienced and wise.

[Lou Szabo]

Wow, I’m on board with both posts. I still remember wrapping a bath towel around my neck and “flying” on the arm of the couch in the early 60’s. Zorro was right up there too.

I still remember my mom telling me he died because he was just a man in a costume. I think she was afraid we’d dive out a window. As a side not, my dad broke his arm as a kid imitating parachutists with an umbrella. So I guess flying runs in the family.

And Batman, now at age 7, was absolutely real to me, like a documentary. I still feel that excitement when I change upon a Batman/Superman/Zorro episode. The young kids today don’t know what they are missing....

[Scott Sebring]

I love George's Superman. but even as a kid there was one major and glaring difference between The Adventures of Superman and the Batman TV shows. When the adventures kick in on Batman, in most episodes, he is in full costume for at least 80% of the adventure spanning both parts. Little time is really spent with Bruce Wayne. Superman is just the opposite. It's mostly Clark Kent with barely five minutes spent with Superman rushing in the last minute to save the day most of the time. I know budgets and effects were a factor for this type of storytelling but almost every TV superhero and most films before the current MCU trend has followed that ratio. Adam's Batman has still been one of the few media examples of where the costume hero is featured more than the pedestrian alter ego. The 50's Lone Ranger beats them all out in the ratio department. His mask stays on with the occasional needed disguised prospector and such.

[Jimmy L. 66]

As a young boy in ,late 60s I would watch Superman with my father on weekend afternoons- his days off. George, to me, was Superman. Always smiling- even with bullets bouncing off him, teaching lessons, and playing Clark with a wink to the audience. When Chris came along, he was 'my' Superman, closer to the comics I was reading, but I knew he waa an actor. Modern, at the time, marketing had drawn back the veil with interviews and behind the scenes looks at the special effects. I put Chris slightly ahead of George, mostly for the stories the were in. Superman & Superman 2 ( I prefer the Donner cut) get played at least once a month in my house in an attempt to expose some of the magic I felt on to my boys. I show the clips of George, but I don't think we've watched an entire adventure. One thing I will argue until I die- George has, by far, the best take offs and landings. He has to run to get a little momentum, and still has momentum when he lands. These days, Supes just kind of floats away, more or less. ( sorry for being slightly off topic, )

[SprangFan]

The thing with Superman, at least on the 50's show, is that there are very few problems he can't solve in 5 minutes time, but the show has to last a half hour. Thus a lot of time is devoted to setting up the crisis, giving Jimmy little comedy bits, etc. George's portrayal of Clark Kent is sometimes criticized for being too bold and hard-hitting and thus not different enough from his Superman (unlike Chris Reeve's version of Clark, who was a bumbling nebbish) but personally, I think this was deliberate because George and the showrunners realized how hard it would be to tolerate 25 minutes of timid milksop to get to 5 minutes of powerful hero. If we were lucky, some of that extra time before Superman fixed everything was padded out with long flying sequences. You'd be surprised how long it can take to fly from one part of Metropolis to another.

One way to look at Superman's "fly-in, fix everything, fly-out" approach is that he needed to limit the amount of time he spent hanging out around Lois and Jimmy while in costume. Since those two accounted for 95% of the rescues required in a given week, and they also happened to be Clark's co-workers, it makes sense not to dawdle too long lest the penny drop for even those dimbulbs. "Hey, you look an awful lot like..."

After years of watching (and loving) Superman reruns as a lad, I was first exposed to the Adam West Batman via an airing of the motion picture in network primetime, and to say it blew my mind would be an understatement. After relishing the few minutes I got to see Superman walking around in that magnificent cape and hopping down off a stepladder swooping down to save the day on a $20 budget, here were two straight hours of heroes in costume most of the time, driving an ACTUAL Batmoble, parking it in a huge Batcave, fighting actual supervillains from the comics and just for the heck of it tossing in a Batcycle, Batcopter and Batboat. Superhero adventures on a James Bond budget! Holy Embarassment of Riches!

I guess I would say I love Superman for existing in some little corner of the world I lived in, but I loved Batman for taking me to a world much cooler, more colorful and exciting than my own.

And at the risk of hitting the "I agree with Andy" button again, I respect and admire Christopher Reeve tremendously, but I could never get used to a Superman so young, and presented as a sex symbol to be chased by Lois, Eve Teschmacher, etc. I like that he still believed in altruistic principles and had faith in mankind, but his youth undercut it to some extent: Chris was young enough to make you think, "Oh, he'll learn soon enough" but George was old enough that you thought, "Well if a grown-up feels that way, maybe it's true..."

[AndyFish]

Great point, Scott, and probably my biggest complaint watching Superman when I was a kid was the limited amount of time he was in the suit. I think THE INCREDIBLE HULK followed the same pattern, you'd see the "hero" in the first ten minutes briefly then we're on to 80% non-hero and whoosh he comes in at the end.

Personally, I think an "I agree with Andy" button is all this website is missing.

[SprangFan]

I think the sentiment is implied in all posts. We should just add it as a subtitle to the forum banner.

My problem with the Hulk was that Banner would settle in some small town in the middle of nowhere just in time for the only dramatic or evil thing that ever happened there in history, then he'd Hulk out, make a mess, and have to move on before the reporter showed up. Lather, rinse, repeat. Why didn't he just hide in the woods until McGee moved on, then go back into town and live out the rest of his life in peace, since nothing exciting could ever happen there again?

I did love the sliding scale that led to David's rage threshhold, however. In one episode it would be a prolonged thrashing at the hands of thugs that finally turned him into the Hulk, and in the next it might be as simple as not being able to complete a call from a pay phone. "But operator, I don't HAVE twenty-five cents!!!! RAAARRRRH!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIOIbmg2U3k

[Scott Sebring]

Personally, I think an "I agree with Andy" button is all this website is missing.

Sorry, I don't agree.

[Scott Sebring]

I did love the sliding scale that led to David's rage threshhold, however. In one episode it would be a prolonged thrashing at the hands of thugs that finally turned him into the Hulk, and in the next it might be as simple as not being able to complete a call from a pay phone. "But operator, I don't HAVE twenty-five cents!!!! RAAARRRRH!!"

I agree with SprangFan.
From MAD:

[SprangFan]

I agree with SprangFan.

So now that's two buttons we need...