Holy Fun Stuff, Batman! This Can't be 2013, Can it?

Of course not! It's Batman '66, with Jeff Parker and Jonathan Case putting the fun back into comics! I know I swore I'd never buy a DC title again as long as the New 52 existed, but mercifully this is far, far outside the 52. In fact, it's far, far outside any Bat continuity you've ever seen in comics-and judging by this first issue, it's utterly brilliant! 

Yeah, I just loved it. THIS is the comic I was expecting to find when I was a little boy at the grocery store looking for Batman's name in the magazine racks. It's SO good, in fact, that I'm scared DC will be forced to cancel it, as per their established pattern.

I'm really looking forward to seeing their take on some of the other Bat villains, though somewhat conflicted about the idea of them using villains from the comics who weren't in the series; I'm not sure that would work. I'd love to see Egghead or King Tut show up, though!

Maybe for newer villains they'll "guest-cast" a celebrity likeness from the '60s, like how in Smallville: Season 11 they unmistakably drew Hank Henshaw as Matthew Fox from "Lost".

That is an intriguing idea. Who would make a good Poison Ivy or Two-Face?

Two-Face is Frank Sinatra. I'll have to get back to you on Poison Ivy.

Frank Sinatra! Of course he is-how did I not see that! 

According to Wikipedia, Poison Ivy's creator, Robert Kanigher, originally modelled her on Bettie Page.

Philip K Ditko wrote:According to Wikipedia, Poison Ivy's creator, Robert Kanigher, originally modelled her on Bettie Page.

Having Ivy's first appearance in my collection, I can't say that immediately leaps out at you. But maybe that's just down to the artists...

She kind of has the same hair, in some panels.

Sam_Vimes wrote:She kind of has the same hair, in some panels.

So did about half the female population... 

I've bought a couple issues of this, and I'm trying the B'66 meets GH limited series, but in general I'm not liking this.

I loved the TV show when it originally aired back in the 1960s . . . but I was like five years old at the time. When I got older and saw reruns, I noticed all the overly-cheesy things in the scripts and the acting that frankly made me cringe.

Jeff Parker's writing does an excellent job capturing the style and spirit of the old shows . . . but it's too good a job, because some of those things that irked older me are still in Parker's writing.

But they're funny! I've never laughed so hard as I did watching the movie based on the 60s TV show.

Lucy McGough wrote:But they're funny! I've never laughed so hard as I did watching the movie based on the 60s TV show.

But, remember . . . I watched the 1960s show when it originally aired . . . and then I got to see some of those episodes over and over again when they were rerun years later on afternoon TV on the independent stations. So I have a slightly different perspective.

(I was also reading comic books regularly by that point, and comic books were trying so hard to forget / live down that campiness of the 1960s.)

I remember watching it as a kid on ITV on Monday and Tuesday evenings. They reshowed them continually on a loop for years. I was reading the by then more serious Batman in the comics at that time, but I still loved the show. I just saw this as a different variation on Batman, there was room for more than one.

tony ingram wrote:I just saw this as a different variation on Batman, there was room for more than one.

I actually like the era of Batman many people hate, where he deals with aliens and has adventures with foreign "Batmen", I think those are fun, and another variation.

I have an old black & white reprint volume of fifties Batman stories, and they're wonderful. I particularly like the ones with the original Batwoman and Bat Girl.

tony ingram wrote:I have an old black & white reprint volume of fifties Batman stories, and they're wonderful. I particularly like the ones with the original Batwoman and Bat Girl.

The old Batman comic book stories I (usually) don't mind . . . it was the TV show that took it too far over-the-top for my likings.

And I still enjoy this:

I'll have to try and find mine, and post a scan.

tony ingram wrote:I'll have to try and find mine, and post a scan.

Just do a google image search and see if they have one there.

I tried. They didn't. It's a rather obscure book.

HIPSTERRRRRRRRRRR!

Lucy McGough wrote:HIPSTERRRRRRRRRRR!

No, I haven't had hip replacement surgery.

I bought that Superman book and the Batman one when they came out.  They were the first things I was allowed to order and buy on my own.  I forgot from where I ordered it, though.  Certainly, there were no Previews, Amazons, etc. so it must have been some other source.  Maybe an ad in a DC comic.

I'd post the picture of the cover but it's not working for me.  

Before that, I believe I bought this, in Toronto, of all places.  boy, I hope this works.

AAGGGHHHH!!!!
nope..It is supposed be All in Color For a Dime.

Silly forum!

It's working fine for me... 

Silogramsam wrote:I bought that Superman book and the Batman one when they came out.  They were the first things I was allowed to order and buy on my own.  I forgot from where I ordered it, though.  Certainly, there were no Previews, Amazons, etc. so it must have been some other source.  Maybe an ad in a DC comic.

I'd post the picture of the cover but it's not working for me.

This what you wanted?

 

Silogramsam wrote:Before that, I believe I bought this, in Toronto, of all places.  boy, I hope this works.

AAGGGHHHH!!!!
nope..It is supposed be All in Color For a Dime.

The version I got was like this



a paperback I picked up in a local book shop decades ago in NJ.

MajorHoy wrote:

Silogramsam wrote:I bought that Superman book and the Batman one when they came out.  They were the first things I was allowed to order and buy on my own.  I forgot from where I ordered it, though.  Certainly, there were no Previews, Amazons, etc. so it must have been some other source.  Maybe an ad in a DC comic.

I'd post the picture of the cover but it's not working for me.

This what you wanted?

 

Silogramsam wrote:Before that, I believe I bought this, in Toronto, of all places.  boy, I hope this works.

AAGGGHHHH!!!!
nope..It is supposed be All in Color For a Dime.

I think I have that one, too...

I also saw the Batman TV series when it originally aired in the U.S. in January, 1966. I was eleven years old and thought the show was fantastic.

The episodes are now being shown here on Saturday nights, two back-to-back and when I see then now I cringe. However, to this day I still think that Batmobile is the best one ever.

The complicated rights issues have been resolved and the complete series is finally being released on DVD and Blu-ray, at least region one, in November.

Now I hope the rights issues surrounding The Green Hornet TV series, which was made by the same production company as Batman, can be resolved.

Now THAT I will buy.

I've never seen the Green Hornet series. I've read a few of the comics, but never really understood the appeal of the character, to be honest.

It's like, "We'll pick a random colour and a random insect and we'll have a new hero!" Next up: the Pink Earwig.

Well, there was a guy called the Red Bee...

With a pet bee called Michael who helped him to fight crime.

I think that was a stupid name for a crime busting bee.
Kevin would have been better.

Yes. Kevin would have been a bee I could get behind.

tony ingram wrote:I've never seen the Green Hornet series. I've read a few of the comics, but never really understood the appeal of the character, to be honest.

Bruce Lee
and
Black Beauty

It took me a minute to work out that you meant the car, not the horse.

tony ingram wrote:It took me a minute to work out that you meant the car, not the horse.

The car had a lot more horsepower than just one horse.   

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:It took me a minute to work out that you meant the car, not the horse.

The car had a lot more horsepower than just one horse.   

I think the horse in question had more horsepower than the average horse.

Yeah, why can't it be the horse?

Lucy McGough wrote:Yeah, why can't it be the horse?

I don't think the horse was bullet-proof.

When George W. Trendel created the Green Hornet, the character was simply called the Hornet. It was decided that name was to generic for copyright purposes, so the character with renamed Green Hornet. The color was decided by an old saying: "Madder than a green hornet!"

Episode 9 - "The Ray is for Killing" :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2grB4A794p8&index=9&list=PLOmURPZ5b234omClT_KRoM2p7pWId7Fum

Why would a green hornet be significantly madder than any other hornet?

I'd be mad if I woke up one day and, rather than my usual colour, I was green.

Perhaps the old saying was misunderstood.

It actually said "More envious than a Green Hornet."

What does a hornet have to be envious of? They are not known for their love of material wealth or sexual jealousy, surely?

Other hornets with bigger stings. They have sting envy

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I just saw this as a different variation on Batman, there was room for more than one.

I actually like the era of Batman many people hate, where he deals with aliens and has adventures with foreign "Batmen", I think those are fun, and another variation.

I did like all the "foreign Batmen".


Several years later, Green Arrow "borrowed" the concept.

One Green Arrow was enough for India, Malaya and the entire continent of Africa? The people there must have been unusually law-abiding.

Lucy McGough wrote:One Green Arrow was enough for India, Malaya and the entire continent of Africa? The people there must have been unusually law-abiding.

Most of those areas probably weren't considered "civilized" back in the late 1950s.
(At least, not by the old white people writing comic books.)