So why isn't there a live action HBO produced Batman show?

Avatar image for castiel
Castiel

3657

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Castiel

Lately I have been rewatching TAS which is obviously some of the coolest shit ever and it really made wonder why HBO haven't made a live action TV-show yet.

HBO is part of Time Warner and as far as I understand Warner Bros. owns the movie rights to Batman and other DC characters so it would make sense for them to go down this road.

I would love to see a big budget live action TV-show. Maybe when GoT ends that sweet, sweet Dragon making money could go to Batman? Well... one can dream.

Also you should totally watch Batman The Animated Series if you haven't. It's some of the best Batdude stuff out there.

P.S. let's just forget Gotham exists. That show seems... questionable.

Avatar image for gtoor14
gtoor14

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

probably because he brings in more money at the movie theater

Avatar image for ezekiel
Ezekiel

2257

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Ezekiel

I finished Batman: The Animated Series season 1 two days ago. I'm also playing the games. I'm not big on a live action TV show, though. There has already been so much Batman. There are more interesting things for HBO to produce.

Superheroes are lame. The only one I've ever cared much for is Batman. When it's live action and tries to take itself all seriously, you just notice more how cartoony the concept is. Which is why villains like Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze can't be in Nolan's film series.

Avatar image for oursin_360
OurSin_360

6675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They thought about bringing him to the CW i think, but arrow pretty much is a batman show in most respects. Gotham is pretty good, first season took a while to get going which i think most people didn't get through, obviously the campy take on mental illness may not sit well with everybody in this day and age though.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ba16609964d9
deactivated-5ba16609964d9

3361

Forum Posts

28

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 20

I imagine it's more complicated then just corporate synergy. Plus for it to be the quality of an HBO series would be really expensive, like more than GoT and Westworld expensive. I think if HBO were to adapt a DC series for TV they would be better off with Vertigo comic properties like Fable, 100 Bullets, History of Violence(great movie adaptation), or American Vampire to name a few. Honestly given the current political climate I think a series based on Transmetropolitan would be a great choice for an HBO show. I just don't know who you get to play Spider Jerusalem.

Avatar image for mrcup
MrCup

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By MrCup

In all honesty, if there much point? The old animations and the newer straight to DVD ones are great.

Avatar image for paulmako
paulmako

1963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What's wrong with Gotham? That's an already existing live action Batman TV show.

Also I don't know if it fits with HBO's style of programming to suddenly have a superhero show with one as ubiquitous as Batman. There was talk of them making a Watchmen show at some point but IDK if that went anywhere.

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
monkeyking1969

9095

Forum Posts

1241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 18

"So why isn't there a live action HBO produced Batman show?"

Likely teh ownership of 'said rights' to tv-Batman are being used for other projects. There is no shortage of usage, and nobody is going to share any ability to profit with HBO.

Avatar image for rigas
Rigas

950

Forum Posts

179

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I dont know the details, but i've always heard Batman TV rights is a huge mess, which is why he ain't on TV that much outside cartoons.

Avatar image for chrissedoff
chrissedoff

2387

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Here's a better question: why does every show and movie have to be some rehash of characters and stories that are as old as dirt? There's thousands of people out there with ideas for new TV shows who can't get them made because people apparently only want to watch the same old bullshit over and over again.

Also: I would love someone to explain to me how comic book superheroes would be enhanced by having swear words and naked butts.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
viking_funeral

2881

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#11  Edited By viking_funeral

@chrissedoff:

Movies are more expensive than ever. When something bombs they can lose $100 million+ dollars. As you can imagine, they want to avoid that. So they take safe bets: known stories, franchises, and directors. Someone is going to go see the new Robocop / Total Recall / Jurassic Park, no matter how good or bad it is. New ideas have more risk, unless they can get a famous director or actor attached, and even then it's a risk.

Gone are the days of 10-20x $1-10 million films a year. Now it's mostly about 3-5 $100 million+ movies a year.

Also: what naked butts are you talking about? Have you been reading 1990s comic books?

Avatar image for chrissedoff
chrissedoff

2387

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@chrissedoff:

Movies are more expensive than ever. When something bombs they can lose $100 million+ dollars. As you can imagine, they want to avoid that. So they take safe bets: known stories, franchises, and directors. Someone is going to go see the new Robocop / Total Recall / Jurassic Park, no matter how good or bad it is. New ideas have more risk, unless they can get a famous director or actor attached, and even then it's a risk.

This much is obvious. The question is why do people only want to show up and pay money for the same old stuff over and over again? Are people scared that their time and money might be "wasted" on something that might expand their horizons a tiny little bit? If people opened their minds just a bit, it might be easier for talented artists to make a living. But, nah, let's put up some more online rants about when is Hollywood going to make an R-rated Sonic the Hedgehog movie.

Avatar image for zevvion
Zevvion

5965

Forum Posts

1240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 2

They'll probably get on it when Batman comes back from his leave. I heard his parents died.

Avatar image for acura_max
Acura_Max

804

Forum Posts

63

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

We already have at least 4 superhero shows on network TV and another 4+ shows on netflix. I think we are good on the number of superhero shows.

Avatar image for mezza
MezZa

3227

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#15  Edited By MezZa

DC might be a little too strict with having their movie characters also having a TV show? They made CW remove the suicide squad plot from Arrow, and they had to kill off Deadshot because of the suicide squad movie. They seem to be a little more relaxed with The Flash, but who knows with a different version coming to the big screen now too. My guess is Batman falls into the category of difficult to get approved because he's such a big movie name for them. I wouldn't mind a batman show, but it'd also kind of just be a slightly differently themed Arrow, so there's that to consider as well.

Avatar image for blu3v3nom07
Blu3V3nom07

4518

Forum Posts

130

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#16  Edited By Blu3V3nom07

I'm pretty sure that most HBO shows feature full men and women nudity, and probably full-on sex. I.e. Game of Thrones, True Blood, Girls, Boardwalk Empire, Westworld, Hung, Oz, The Sopranos, etc. I just don't think, slightly family-friendly Batman, would work on HBO.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
viking_funeral

2881

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

@chrissedoff said:

@viking_funeral said:

@chrissedoff:

Movies are more expensive than ever. When something bombs they can lose $100 million+ dollars. As you can imagine, they want to avoid that. So they take safe bets: known stories, franchises, and directors. Someone is going to go see the new Robocop / Total Recall / Jurassic Park, no matter how good or bad it is. New ideas have more risk, unless they can get a famous director or actor attached, and even then it's a risk.

This much is obvious. The question is why do people only want to show up and pay money for the same old stuff over and over again? Are people scared that their time and money might be "wasted" on something that might expand their horizons a tiny little bit? If people opened their minds just a bit, it might be easier for talented artists to make a living. But, nah, let's put up some more online rants about when is Hollywood going to make an R-rated Sonic the Hedgehog movie.

At home entertainment has never been better in quality, in either the shows being produced or the physical systems within people's homes. With so much at their fingertips, it can be hard to convince someone to sit it out for a couple hours in a crowded theater for $50 a visit. You speak of broadening horizons, yet there are countless videos and documentaries available on demand or on YouTube. People can now watch Terrence McKenna give a lecture on opening the doors of creativity while riding the bus to work.

Movies faced their first great competition with the initial rise of television in the 1950s-1970s, and they were losing that battle. They tried to fight by providing top notch storytelling and acting, which is why so many classic movies are from that period, but they were still losing the war. It was the holy trinity of Jaws, The Omen, and Star Wars from 1975-1977 that created the modern blockbuster that has fueled the modern movie system and allowed for smaller creative projects to be held up by these tentpoles. However, movies are facing their second great extinction. Superheroes and mega-franchises like Star Wars are keeping it going for now, but the little guy is learning to change their medium. Netflix is but one avenue, and YouTube is starting to evolve into more creative content as well.

You ask 'Are people scared that their time and money might be "wasted" on something that might expand their horizons a tiny little bit?' and what I really think you are asking is 'Why don't people support the stuff I like?'

People's minds and perspectives are being opened in video format, it's just evolving with the post-internet world like everyone else. And that, of course, is to say nothing of the many other avenues people can take in to open their minds. Books, music, live theater, video games, learning a language, cooking, social activities, etc.

I'm not sure non-franchise films were what was really holding back society from falling into the abyss. (Insert current political climate joke here.)

Avatar image for spoonman671
Spoonman671

5874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This thread is really feeding my hatred of using an initialism without first stating what that initialism stands for. Stop doing this, internet. Please.

I don't know. Legal stuff?

Avatar image for kindgineer
kindgineer

3102

Forum Posts

969

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

My guess is that the rights to such a thing are probably pretty large, and I would be surprised if DC would just let HBO have such an important license with their over-commitment to exaggerated sex scenes and violence. I mean, to each their own, but HBO is one of the studios I would least be happy with making a "series" based in the Batman lore. Regardless of how gruesome (some) of the comics can be.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
Fredchuckdave

10824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Comical amounts of nudity perhaps?

Avatar image for chrissedoff
chrissedoff

2387

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By chrissedoff

@viking_funeral said:

You ask 'Are people scared that their time and money might be "wasted" on something that might expand their horizons a tiny little bit?' and what I really think you are asking is 'Why don't people support the stuff I like?'

The only weird thing about your thought process is that it's absurd to tell me, someone who is hoping for totally new and unexpected art to get produced, is whining about other people not liking what I do. How do I know whether I like some mysterious, brand new thing that doesn't actually exist? A lot of the comic book, YA, remake stuff is fine. Some of it is even good. But pop culture can only cannibalize itself for so long before it gets tiresome. I just got sick of it a little sooner than others have. Remember that we had this conversation when you inevitably get bummed out when you realize that almost all of the top-grossing movies of your lifetime are based on material that's older than you are.

edit: I just reread your post and noticed something I missed that I really have to push back on: in no way is YouTube helping creative people get their work seen. Most of YouTube is cat/dog videos, makeup tutorials, people playing video games, product reviews, song covers and all that shit. The closest you'll ever come to seeing original works get popular on YouTube is parody. The reality is that non-derivative, scripted artwork on YouTube gets totally buried because there is no curation besides algorithms. It ain't like I can go on YouTube and type, "mind-expanding, inspiring and/or beautiful works of art" into the search bar and find something interesting. And, honestly, I'm not demanding that incredible art gets pushed to the fore by YouTube or big movie studios. That stuff finds a way to get made at roughly the same rate as 20 or 50 years ago. I just want something that isn't just a remix of the same old stuff. Every complaint I could make about the lack of originality in studio films is one that is ten times more true about YouTube.

Avatar image for hodor
hodor

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By hodor

I wanna say Fox owns the right to produce Batman series on television. There is a lot of weird stuff when it comes to DC characters and ownership. Like I don't think Gotham can actually have the Joker on it because of IP rights. It is the same with what others have said about Arrow losing characters and plot. Specific characters can and can't even be mentioned. Arrow references other DC characters cities such as Bludhaven to give the nod to the DC universe without naming names.

Avatar image for rigas
Rigas

950

Forum Posts

179

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@hodor: Yeah it's been like that forever. Smallville tried to backdoor in a Young Bruce Wayne at one point and it was shut down pretty fast.

Avatar image for lttibbles
LtTibbles

157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Batman makes more at the theatre than he would on TV.

Avatar image for danishingact
DanishingAct

414

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bartok: A Spider Jerusalem show could be so cool.