# 1966 Batman



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Frank.

Is there any way possible to do the Adam West Batman figure kit by you guys??

I know it's a tough Deal to get(Immpossible?). But any hope at all???


Regards,
Beatlepaul


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

I'm going strictly on memory here but... I believe when Tom Lowe announced recently that Polar Lights would be retuning to production under his aegis, that he held licensing agreements with WARNERS ( DC Comics' parent company ).

If that's the case, then, this question needs to be directed to Tom Lowe.

- GJS


----------



## Geoff Boaz (Jan 1, 1970)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The Batman said:


> I'm going strictly on memory here but... I believe when Tom Lowe announced recently that Polar Lights would be retuning to production under his aegis, that he held licensing agreements with WARNERS ( DC Comics' parent company ).
> 
> If that's the case, then, this question needs to be directed to Tom Lowe.
> 
> - GJS


Interesting answer, However Licensing for the 1966 Batman may be part of the 20th Century Fox/ Greenway Rights.

Of Course I could be Wrong, and if I am we may be that much closer to have these kits done IF Tom Has ALREADY secured the Rights:thumbsup:.

Regards,
BP


----------



## Moebius (Mar 15, 2007)

beatlepaul said:


> Interesting answer, However Licensing for the 1966 Batman may be part of the 20th Century Fox/ Greenway Rights.
> 
> Of Course I could be Wrong, and if I am we may be that much closer to have these kits done IF Tom Has ALREADY secured the Rights:thumbsup:.
> 
> ...


Having a Warner license doesn't necessarily mean 1966 Batman, as they don't control it. DC and Warner are the same company, but they don't do licensing together. It's still basically a legal mess that I won't get into here as I don't have the time. I'd be very surprised to see anything for figures from this series.


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

Moebius said:


> DC and Warner are the same company, but they don't do licensing together.


Well, it would be more appropriate to say that they are subsidiaries of the same company, TimeWarner. As are HBO, AOL, TBS, Time Inc., etc. Tom wasn't very specific as to what (or from whom) he was licensing, and he probably is in no hurry to be specific. "Warners" may still mean Batman, but it may mean the Christian Bale Batman, not the Adam West version, nor the comic version. Or it may mean Tony Soprano.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

beatlepaul said:


> Interesting answer, However Licensing for the 1966 Batman may be part of the 20th Century Fox/ Greenway Rights.


First of all, I agree with what Moebius and Scheissler have said above. As for the 1966 Batman being a 20th Century Fox/Greenway production, this is true too. 

In 1966 when the TV Series was made, Batman was owned by National Periodical Publications ( nicknamed DC Comics ). During the mid 1980's NPP was purchased by Time/Life and the corporate name was officially changed to DC Comics. Later still, Warners merged with Time/Life and acquired DC in the process.

So, even though Warner Brothers had nothing to do with the 1966 Batman TV series, Warners ( or rather, it's parent company ) now has ownership of The BATMAN character and licensing anything to do with Batman has to go through them. This complicates things so far as the Batman TV series is concerned, however, because 20th Century Fox/Greenway may have certain rights in this property, too. And, as you might guess, Warners probably isn't too anxious to _share_ profits with a competing studio over a property which they own.

This is probably one of the reasons why we haven't seen the Batman TV series officially released to DVD as of yet! * But*.... Let's not lose faith. Getting the 1966 Batmobile officially licensed for reproduction looked like a lost cause for many, many years. Lots of people tried ( Danbury Mint, Polar Lights... ) but, Mattel/HotWheels finally pulled it off! Maybe now the floodgates will finally be opened...?

- GJS


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

The Batman said:


> So, even though Warner Brothers had nothing to do with the 1966 Batman TV series, Warners ( or rather, it's parent company ) now has ownership of The BATMAN character and licensing anything to do with Batman has to go through them. This complicates things so far as the Batman TV series is concerned, however, because 20th Century Fox/Greenway may have certain rights in this property, too. And, as you might guess, Warners probably isn't too anxious to _share_ profits with a competing studio over a property which they own.
> 
> This is probably one of the reasons why we haven't seen the Batman TV series officially released to DVD as of yet!


Exactly right. A friend who works in the industry (and has insider info) told me the TV series dvd release is in legal limbo until Warners and 20th Century Fox/Greenway come to an agreement. He said Warners acquired _film/movie_ rights to the character when Tim Burton wanted to make his '89 Batman film, but Fox/Greenway still retains rights to the character with regards to the TV series.


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

The Batman said:


> In 1966 when the TV Series was made, Batman was owned by National Periodical Publications ( nicknamed DC Comics ). During the mid 1980's NPP was purchased by Time/Life and the corporate name was officially changed to DC Comics. Later still, Warners merged with Time/Life and acquired DC in the process.


Not exactly -- National was bought out by Warner in 1969, and was never a part of the Time/Life publishing empire. DC Comics is still technically a "Warner Bros. Entertainment company" even today (just as Warner Bros. Pictures is). But this was nevertheless after the Batman TV series was done by Fox, so the meat of your story is correct.


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

BTW -- what exactly are we talking about when we say "1966 Batman" anyway? Isn't this the Aurora kit that Revell repopped about ten years ago? It's my understanding that the Adam West head in the pic that Geoff posted is an aftermarket piece. And if we are talking about the Aurora kit, that predates the TV show, right? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Scheisseler said:


> BTW -- what exactly are we talking about when we say "1966 Batman" anyway? Isn't this the Aurora kit that Revell repopped about ten years ago? It's my understanding that the Adam West head in the pic that Geoff posted is an aftermarket piece. And if we are talking about the Aurora kit, that predates the TV show, right? Or am I missing something?


 
*THE ADAM WEST BATMAN.*


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Scheisseler said:


> Not exactly -- National was bought out by Warner in 1969, and was never a part of the Time/Life publishing empire.


I beg to differ. But only nominally. NPP was bought out by Kinney National services in 1967. By 1969 Kinney had acquired Warner Bros./Seven Arts and later changed their corporate name to Warner Communications ( in 1972 ). The Time/Warner merger took place in 1990 ( not the mid 1980's as I mis-stated ). But, I'd have to dig into my comics collection back issues to be able to quote you chapter and verse from Jeanette Kahn's explanation at the time this all took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Comics



Scheisseler said:


> BTW -- what exactly are we talking about when we say "1966 Batman" anyway?


 As for what is meant by "1966 Batman," I would pretty much interpret that to mean "ADAM WEST's BATMAN." 

The Aurora model was issued in 1964 at a time when the 'new look' Batman had barely debuted in the comics. At that time they had not settled on drawing the caped crusader with the 'oval' on his chest - sometimes it was drawn as a 'circle' ( and this is what the model went with ). The 'oval' pretty much became uniform by 1966-67 when the Batman TV series depicted it that way and solidified that image in the public's collective mind.

January 1966 is when the TV series debuted and *BATMANIA* swept the country. However, even though there was a plethora of Bat-merchandising to be had, it was mostly generic comic book Batman stuff. Very little of the merchandising actually reflected the imagery and likenesses from the TV series. Fans of the tv show have had their fill of the generic Batman and would like to see some official merchandise more reflective of Adam West, Burt Ward, Julie Newmar, etc...

So, whenever I hear the term "1966 Batman" used by a fan, I tend to think that it's usually a reference to Adam West and/or the TV series.

- GJS


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The Batman said:


> I beg to differ. But, I'd have to dig into my comics collection back issues to be able to quote you chapter and verse from Jeanette Kahn's explanation at the time this all took place.
> 
> As for what is meant by "1966 Batman," I would pretty much interpret that to mean "ADAM WEST's BATMAN."
> 
> ...


 
Straight from the caped crusader's mouth himself!!:thumbsup:


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Scheisseler said:


> It's my understanding that the Adam West head in the pic that Geoff posted is an aftermarket piece.


That's right. The Adam West Head shown in Geoff's photo is an aftermarket peice.

In order to customize the existing kits, *Diceman Creations* has these available:

















And *Cult of Personality* offers these:


















- GJS


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

The Batman said:


> I beg to differ. But, I'd have to dig into my comics collection back issues to be able to quote you chapter and verse from Jeanette Kahn's explanation at the time this all took place.


Wikipedia says this:



> In 1969, National Comics merged with Warner Bros/7 Arts.


And I found some more, if slightly contradictory, details at http://www.toonopedia.com/dc.htm :



> In 1967, DC — by that time, America's largest comic book publisher — was itself acquired by Kinney National Services, which changed its name to Warner Communications a year later, when it later bought the Warner Bros. movie studio...In 1976, the name of the company, now just a division of the media empire, was officially changed from National Periodicals, which nobody ever called it anyway, to DC Comics.


I think the Jenette Kahn explanation you're thinking of is probably the one offered for the above-mentioned official name change. At any rate, she was not yet employed by the company at the time of its purchase/merger/acquisition/what have you. I'm not sure where you came up with the mid-80's as the purchase date, but if you consider for a second, you'll probably remember that Warner and DC were "family" since before the first Christopher Reeve Superman film, which was released in 1978. I've got a copy of a New Gods reprint from 1984, six years before the merger that created TimeWarner, that identifies DC in the indicia as a "Warner Communications Company"; current comics, as well as the DC Comics website, identity the company as a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.

Not that it matters so much. I think we all agree that the TV show was produced before Warner entered the picture.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

The Batman said:


> I beg to differ. But, I'd have to dig into my comics collection back issues to be able to quote you chapter and verse from Jeanette Kahn's explanation at the time this all took place.


Just by way of explanation, I had already ammended the quote above ( probably at the same time you were posting your latest message ). I think that we're basically both on the same page, though.

- GJS


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

The Batman said:


> I think that we're basically both on the same page, though.


I hope so, because I already have a headache and I don't feel like going back and re-reading. 

Interestingly, though, what's not discussed in any of the histories we're looking at is the great likelihood that Kinney's purchase of National at that specific time was prompted by the success of the Batman TV show. If it hadn't been for the Adam West Batman that Warner is so dismissive of today, they probably wouldn't have the rights to the character!


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

It really is a shame that West, Ward, Newmar, and Craig (is anybody else still alive at this point?) will probably never taste even a tiny piece of the Batman (licensing) pie.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

unless I'm mistaken, Frank Gorshin is still with us...


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

deadmanincfan said:


> unless I'm mistaken, Frank Gorshin is still with us...


I'm sorry to say... you are mistaken. He died May 17, 2005. Here's his obit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1488038,00.html#article_continue



Scheisseler said:


> I hope so, because I already have a headache and I don't feel like going back and re-reading.


LOL! That makes two of us! 



Scheisseler said:


> I think the Jenette Kahn explanation you're thinking of is probably the one offered for the above-mentioned official name change.


You may be right about that. I'm still trying to figure out what high profile corporate thing happened to DC Comics in the mid-80's with which I confused the Time/Warner merger?

Maybe it's just when they moved from 75 Rockefeller Plaza to 666 Fifth Ave?


- GJS


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

...really wish I hadn't been mistaken......Frank was my favorite Bat-Villain.


----------

