Why there can't be a proper live action Batman TV series

[the G-man]

It's not just that WB wants to "save" him for movies, its that Fox and Disney own at least some of the TV rights:

(T)he TV rights for Batman are caught up in a legal limbo involving Fox, Disney and a trio of mergers. Bruce Wayne can, and often does, appear on TV shows, but Batman in the cape and cowl is almost certainly off-the-table....

Kinney National Service, Inc. purchased DC Comics (then known as National Periodical Publications) in the late 1960s along with Warner Bros., effectively becoming Warner Communications by 1972. This purchase helped secure the rights to the vast library of DC characters save for one. The 1960s Batman TV series starring Adam West was produced by 20th Century Fox, who still holds the rights to the Batman character in live-action on the small screen. In fact, even though Gotham aired on Fox network, Batman could not appear except for the last shot of the show, since Warner Bros. Television produced it. When Disney split up Fox's television assets in their merger, they almost certainly acquired the rights in that deal. That Disney is in the fight now makes it even less likely that Robert Pattinson could suit up on The Penguin.

Even if the Matt Reeves' TV series was an HBO Max exclusive, the TV rights agreement from the 1960s still applies. Some examples of how the Fox deal impacted Batman's TV appearances include Titans, which used an adult Dick Grayson as Robin on the show. Rumors online at the time also suggested producers used Batman in two quick, dark dream sequences without permission. The Arrowverse did this too, name-dropping characters before trying to introduce them. Since Titans' first season finale was scrapped altogether, WB had to debut the episode or end Season 1 on an even worse cliffhanger. While he never appeared in costume again, Bruce Wayne did join the series for Seasons 2 and 3 and even did some fighting.​

Go figure.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Well, go figure. Disney gets its hands in everything. Always finds a way. The best thing to do would be for them to divest themselves of those rights, otherwise it could look like Disney is holding things up to give themselves an advantage with Marvel.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Fucking lawyers.

 

[JD]

That explains a lot. I had assumed when they started releasing the '60s show on disc and streaming that WB got all the rights back, but I guess not.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, go figure. Disney gets its hands in everything. Always finds a way. The best thing to do would be for them to divest themselves of those rights, otherwise it could look like Disney is holding things up to give themselves an advantage with Marvel.

To be fair, Disney themselves suffer a similar situation with Universal holding the theatrical distribution rights to Hulk, because they did a theatrical distribution of the pilot film of the Bill Bixby The Incredible Hulk.

 

[Owain Taggart]

To be fair, Disney themselves suffer a similar situation with Universal holding the theatrical distribution rights to Hulk, because they did a theatrical distribution of the pilot film of the Bill Bixby The Incredible Hulk.

So, in other words, everyone''s screwed because there's always some company holding these heroes back. The reason why Commissioner Gordon keeps waiting for Batman to show up in Gotham. The smart thing at this point would be to buy those rights back, or have the right holders release them. They're basically being held hostage, and that's not right. I hope they figure something out.

 

[FPAlpha]

Well, go figure. Disney gets its hands in everything. Always finds a way. The best thing to do would be for them to divest themselves of those rights, otherwise it could look like Disney is holding things up to give themselves an advantage with Marvel.

You think they care how it looks to some fans who know the business details? Disney is a company in competition with other companies, part of their job and that of any company is to get an advantage over the competition, in this withholding the rights so that the competition can't profit from it.

This is nothing new and happens all the time. Unless fans stand up in masses and demand a change no one will change anything or WB makes Disney such a huge offer they can't refuse such as with the movie Spiderman rights and Sony ( they'd rather split profits than have no profits at all)

 

[Starkers]

Didn't Batman show up in the last episode of Gotham or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[the G-man]

No offense intended, Adam West, but your drama is tainted with fine humor.

I don't know. Maybe there's a "win win" here. DC/WB keeps grim and gritty Batman. Let Disney/Fox have Batman, but only the 60s version. Hire Patrick Warburton or Jon Hamm (just to name two guys who look like Bruce Wayne and can do comedy), crank up the Neil Hefti theme and go to town. ;-)

 

[fireproof78]

Didn't Batman show up in the last episode of Gotham or am I remembering incorrectly?

Referenced in the quote from the OP.

In fact, even though Gotham aired on Fox network, Batman could not appear except for the last shot of the show, since Warner Bros. Television produced it.

 

[valkyrie013]

So.. they can still do a live action Batman Beyond, becasue its Terry under the hood, and Bruce not in any suit.. So Come on!!

 

[Starkers]

Referenced in the quote from the OP.

Gah and I read and re-read the post as well!!

 

[Owain Taggart]

You think they care how it looks to some fans who know the business details? Disney is a company in competition with other companies, part of their job and that of any company is to get an advantage over the competition, in this withholding the rights so that the competition can't profit from it.

They might not care how it looks until it becomes a financial burden, ie something they're holding on to that they can't make money with. Just seems like a really long-game effort to mess with the competition.

 

[fireproof78]

You think they care how it looks to some fans who know the business details? Disney is a company in competition with other companies, part of their job and that of any company is to get an advantage over the competition, in this withholding the rights so that the competition can't profit from it.

Exactly so. Unless it's a financial liability (unlikely) they don't see the need to change it.

The perspective of the fans is far and away the least of their concerns.

 

[JD]

So.. they can still do a live action Batman Beyond, becasue its Terry under the hood, and Bruce not in any suit.. So Come on!!

I'm not sure if that would work, since it's technically still Batman, and Batman is the issue, not Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne has been appearing pretty consistently in live action TV for the last few years, but we can't see Batman.

 

[FPAlpha]

They might not care how it looks until it becomes a financial burden, ie something they're holding on to that they can't make money with. Just seems like a really long-game effort to mess with the competition.

Why should it be a burden? They have the rights, they're just not doing anything with them and preventing WB to use their character in TV shows. For Disney it's a non issue and they can piss off a competitor with no effort at all. If i were a board member at Disney i'd be laughing and smiling everytime i think about it.

 

[the G-man]

I'm not sure if that would work, since it's technically still Batman, and Batman is the issue, not Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne has been appearing pretty consistently in live action TV for the last few years, but we can't see Batman.

I have a vague recollection that one of the problems with Season 3 of the 66 show from a budget perspective was that, legally, Batman and Bruce were considered two separate characters (something to do with SAG rules or something). As a result, if the budget would allow for, say, ten characters, Bruce/Batman was two, Dick/Robin was another two, Barbara/Batgirl yet another two (total of six characters) before you even go to guest stars and the supporting cast. I don't know if that ties into this or not

 

[Owain Taggart]

Why should it be a burden? They have the rights, they're just not doing anything with them and preventing WB to use their character in TV shows. For Disney it's a non issue and they can piss off a competitor with no effort at all. If i were a board member at Disney i'd be laughing and smiling everytime i think about it.

Ok, maybe not so much a burden, but it's not like they're the ones making money off it either, as the character is not actively being used on the small screen in a live-action format. I could see them offering to sell the rights back to the WB for a hefty sum.

 

[FPAlpha]

Ok, maybe not so much a burden, but it's not like they're the ones making money off it either, as the character is not actively being used on the small screen in a live-action format. I could see them offering to sell the rights back to the WB for a hefty sum.

That may be the case if WB makes a move and is willing to pay what Disney wants. Maybe there'll be movement once Gunn's DCU gets going and is well received so they decide they need a TV Batman. We'll see.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I have a vague recollection that one of the problems with Season 3 of the 66 show from a budget perspective was that, legally, Batman and Bruce were considered two separate characters (something to do with SAG rules or something). As a result, if the budget would allow for, say, ten characters, Bruce/Batman was two, Dick/Robin was another two, Barbara/Batgirl yet another two (total of six characters) before you even go to guest stars and the supporting cast.

Yes, on the Dozier series, the call sheets listed both superhero and civilian names, so technically, there were four, distinct characters.

I don't know if that ties into this or not