Was 'Batman's' Format Flawed/Doomed from the Start?

[TMC]

In terms of not being able to evolve and avoid repetition due to the producers/writers having their hands tied:
http://www.66batman.com/cgi-bin/yabb...m=1218130774/0

reply #3 - 08/07/08 at 4:47pm
raalongi wrote on 08/07/08 at 1:39pm:
I read several places that the reason why the ratings fell so low in Season 2 was because the show suffered from repetition. As I watched several episodes I had to somewhat agree with this. As one article stated: "If you've seen one episode of Batman, you've seen them all." Most episodes (although different were very similar in format.

Here is my breakdown of each episode:

1. A Crime is committed.

2. Commissioner Gordon calls Bruce (at home doing something with Dick)

3. Bruce and Dick slide down the Batpoles, Change into B & R and rush to police headquarters.

4. Show criminals at their hideout plotting crimes or deciding how to kill B & R.

5. B & R track criminals to their hideout (or some other place); a Batfight ensues where B & R always lose and are placed in some type of death-trap.
(End of Part I)

6. B & R escape death-trap.

7. Usually return to Bat Cave to deduce what criminals next crime will be.

8. Encounter criminals again; another Batfight ensues where B & R always win.

9. Criminals are captured and taken to jail.

Also, most of the villains had several henchmen with strange names and the males always had a girl (moll).

With a few exceptions, most of the episodes went this way.


Interesting.

IMO, the problem actually starts with the creation of the series, and all of season one. With Dozier, et al using the movie serial cliffhanger format, the writers were forced into leading the main characters in a certain direction no matter how (allegedly) clever, which ended part one in a death trap of one kind or another. That single decision locked the series into a place it could not move from--even the dreadful third season, with its few multi-part stories could not escape the hard format.

Dozier's hands were tied in too many ways. Beyond the cliffhangers, he could not use traditional gangsters, as this was a mid 1960s series created and sold (with debatable degrees of success) as a four-color comic come to life with a bang--and the most obvious way to reach such a goal was to use as many costumed and/or fantastic villains as possible. That kind of directive left next to no room for the kind of characters seen in early Batman comics (and somewhat restored with the debut of the "New Look" period).

So what were they left with? Colorful villains, making anything less seem boring and not worthy challengers to the Dynamic Duo as established for TV.

Of course, one remedy would have been better scripts, and we did see some strong, well remembered episodes peppered throughout season 2, it was just unfortunate that with such a heavy load of episodes (more per season than other series of the era) and the failure to adapt more DC Comics characters (hero or villain) for the series (rights, or other reasons) inertia set in which the creative team could not fully escape.

However, it must be reiterated that by the end of season 2, a few strong episodes aired, but that last, creative effort completely sucked the life out of almost everyone involved. So much that season 3--with its desperate clawing for identity and gimmicks--almost plays like a bad parody of Batman one would see on sitcoms of the same period.

Unlike any other series in history, Batman was almost doomed to have a short run due to the initial formatting choice. Even if season 3 had a trace of a pulse and led to a 4th year on the once interested NBC, can anyone imagine great evolution of plotting and characterization?

Around this board, many of us have offered ideas about possible season 4 plots, from more official comic characters adapted, Robin going to college, more crossovers, Batgirl becoming Batman's main partner when Robin is away, etc., but I feel Dozier, et al, would not dare steer too far away from the very format which was so successful. Because of that (assumed) hardheaded stand, the series would fall into familiar patterns, and the show would be worse than anything seen during season 3--if you can imagine that.

So, season two had its share of problems, but said problems started in season one, so audiences were just fortunate enough to have some memorable stories scattered throughout the last tolerable season of Batman.

[The Great One]

Interesting information!!! Thanks for posting the article!

[Dr. Thong]

The truth is was that most hour-long adventure shows (Batman was considered an hour show broken into two parts) is that they are mostly formula.

Batman was no different from any other hour show of that era, the campiness and colorful elements aside.

Maybe it was the repetition of villains or perhaps because it had such a meteoric rise that the novelty of the show wore off quickly. But I don't think having a format doomed it, really.

I mean, you have to have a different villain every week, so it necessitates a certain format in terms of the storytelling.

[1960'sTVfan]

Batman was just one of those shows that had a quick rise and fall. That happens often with TV shows. It had it's time, although the time was brief. I like the series, I agree the 3rd and final season is weaker compared to seasons 1 and 2.

[Doodyville10019]

When Batman first hit the air in 1966, it was a one-of-a-kind show. Depending on how old you were at the time, it was either a novelty (for adults) or more of a live action cartoon (for the kids, like me). Either way, it became a monster hit that year - one that begat numerous copycat shows, such as Captain Nice and Mr. Terrific, that lasted nowhere near as long as the original.

IMO it's not entirely Mr. Dozier's fault that he had to stick to format. Back then, networks had more control over a show's content and creative processes than today. If ABC wanted Dozier & Co. to stay with the original formula, he had no choice. The "alphabet" network was making gobs of money off of the show from advertising revenue, and I'm sure they would not want their "golden goose" (er- bat) fricaseed in any way by a TV producer. Basically, I believe that for that reason William Dozier could not kick himself out of the Batbox, so to speak, even if he wanted to.