You're certainly right about the effects of typecasting, Moon_Doggie, and may well be right about its long-term effects on Reeves. The one possible difference between Reeves and the other cast members, like Neill and Larson (who also found other roles almost impossible to come by and abandoned acting to become a playwright), is that as the star, Superman himself, he would probably have been more in demand than the others and might have had more varied opportunities. Of course, I'm thinking 15-20 years later, in the 70s, when the baby-boomers were in college and nostalgia for the 50s first became a big thing.
In this the experience of Adam West (to come back a bit to the thread topic) may be an example, as he's been able to make a living, with many ups and downs, in the fifty years since
Batman
. Still, even West owes his work today to his stint as that character. So it would likely have been with Reeves, and as you say, much of it would probably have been Superman-related. That's why he'd probably have been better off moving behind the camera. However, it's all speculation, and this kind of thing has been dealt with on other threads related to this subject.

Talk about
BATMAN & ROBIN
In the first 2 eps of season 2 in ep 1 the bad guys name is
WAYNE
and ep2 the family who's dad was an ex con name is
GREYSON

I guess playing a superhero does typecast you, I mean look at Christopher Reeve but he did manage to have a sort of career, I guess playing the actual superhero doesnt help, I mean look at the cast of Superman (1978) I doubt Marlon Brando is mostly known for playing Superman's Father, same with Gene Hackman.

Of course, had he lived, this characteristic, combined with memories of him as Superman, would probably have worked in his favor later on in helping him get acting roles, perhaps after a stint behind the camera as a director.
I respectfully disagree. Both Neill and Reeves were so firmly typecast that it nearly ended her acting career (she decided to retire at a relatively young age), and probably would have ended his acting career as well, since he was even more strongly typecast than she was. Neill got only a few roles after thatmany of them Superman-related.
Reeves might have been able to work behind the camera, but once a person is so completely typecast, there's not much he can do to change things. In fact, unlike other typecast actors who can get only similar roles, he was so identified with a single role as to be essentially unemployable as an actor in anything else.
A person's a person, no matter how small.
Dr. Seuss

Reeves' major problem as an actor was (as I mentioned in another post) was that he had too much "presence". Even when standing still and not saying anything, he grabbed attention.
Yes, that's very true. I always think of that scene late in
From Here to Eternity
, where the sergeants have all been assembled by the new Company commander to get a dressing down about how no one will keep his stripes just by boxing. There's about a dozen guys standing together in the back of the room and Reeves stands literally head-and-shoulders above them much taller, with a broader build, very noticeable (and this isn't just a case of his retroactively standing out to us because we know him as Superman). I also notice he contrives to be the last one out of the room! And this in a film in which he didn't receive any screen credit. I see this in some of his other films too. It's a factor that undoubtedly helped impress the producers when they were casting the role of Superman.
Of course, had he lived, this characteristic, combined with memories of him as Superman, would probably have worked in his favor later on in helping him get acting roles, perhaps after a stint behind the camera as a director. I understand he enjoyed directing those last three episodes of
AOS
and that could have proven to be a very satisfactory second career if he'd really pursued it. But I've never read whether he tried for directing jobs after
Superman
, or was still trying to get acting roles exclusively. If he didn't make any efforts to get work as a director that was another career mistake, in my opinion.
Imagine Reeves in 1966 directing episodes of
Batman
! (Or, as I've mentioned elsewhere, doing a cameo, perhaps as Superman, in one of those "window gags" seen all the time on
Batman
Batman and Robin scaling a building wall using the bat rope, and some guest star opening a window to have a silly-serious exchange with the dynamic duo.)

The belief that Reeves might have gone on to a successful directing career has merit. He was well-liked, which might have been a major advantage or a liability.
Reeves' major problem as an actor was (as I mentioned in another post) was that he had too much "presence". Even when standing still and not saying anything, he grabbed attention.

To your thread question, XFiles25, I believe
AOS
is an infinitely better show than
Batman
.
Superman
had far more rounded and involving characters; its stories and plots, even those done in a less-serious vein, were far more gripping and interesting; and the show was exciting, always retained the element of surprise, and was technically reasonably well-done considering its financial and production limitations. Its "campy" (a word I hate) aspects are incidental and only help make the program even more endearing. The show was honest.
The main problem with
Batman
is that it set out to
be
camp. Deliberately making fun of your output is never a good sign and ultimately always falls flat. It may be amusing for a short time but the joke wears thin pretty quickly, as it in fact did with
Batman
. This was probably the main reason that show lasted just two seasons before it was canceled, while
AOS
ran for six, was ended voluntarily and was about to start production again when George Reeves died.
Since as you say you haven't seen much of either series you might want to watch more episodes of both to get a better idea of them. The fact that you prefer Batman as a character may bias you toward that show (as my preference for Superman might prejudice me), but at least you'd be able to make a more informed judgment.
As to who was the better actor, George Reeves or Adam West, ultimately that's a matter of personal opinion, but to say that Reeves had "no talent" is not in my view remotely justifiable. He had limitations just as every actor has, but overall his career was much more varied and his abilities the equal if not more than Adam West's. West was good as Batman (at least the Batman of the series) and was adequate in the small roles that marked his pre-
Batman
career (
The Young Philadelphians, Robinson Crusoe on Mars
, etc.) but in my experience he lacked Reeves's range and charm. Anyway, saying that Reeves "couldn't be taken seriously" borders on the absurd and is by any objective standard without foundation. I also don't know where you get the idea that people laughed at him on the screen. This is not so. It's true that when he showed up in
From Here to Eternity
some people in theaters called out "It's Superman" and the like, but that was a by-product of his recent television fame, not a comment on his acting. It was the Superman image that put paid to Reeves's film career and even made it hard for him to get other TV roles.

Well Reeves had no talent, people laughed when he tried to do films, couldnt be taken seriously

Well, Reeves is closer to being Brando than West is. And having a good voice doesn't help much if one can't actexcept maybe for voice/cartoon work. And even in my teens, during its initial run, I thought the Batman TV series was pretty lame. I think I watched a couple of episodes and then gave up. West was lucky to get that series, since he had little talent. I hate to think of what would have happened to him if he hadn't gotten it. It took him forever to get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and that was only after scraping up the fee and encouraging intensive lobbying on his behalf over many years. It was kind of pathetic.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. A. Einstein

Reeves is hardly Brando.
West has one of the greatest voices ever.

The shows were quite different in tone, especially contrasting the first season of
AoS
with
Batman
.
Bob Kane, Batman's creator, supposedly liked the TV series. (He was presumably paid a lot for licensing it.) I consider it campy crap. It takes a lot less talent to produce a campy travesty than a serious treatment.
It's interesting that the first season of
AoS
is much more like the Batman stories we know today dark and violent.
The first 26 episodes of
AoS
are among the best TV programming, ever. They are (mostly) adult and not-stupid. It's rather like the difference between
Gunsmoke
and
Bonanza
.
Few people would consider Adam West as good an actor as George Reeves.