Current Events > Why did it take Batman so long to get a movie?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Superman got one in 1978.
Batman got one in 1989.

I'm watching Swamp Thing right now and it just dawned on me that he got a movie before Batman had one which took itself seriously. Was the association between Batman and the 1966 series so strong that they genuinely felt they couldn't do a Batman movie in 1980?

From what I remember: it was mostly a copywrite issue or contract issue or something.
I do know Adam West tried to pitch a movie idea but they said no.
---

Oh, thanks. That makes sense.

He wasnt popular in the 70s

It took TDKR and The Killing Joke for them to finally get serious about making a movie after beginning in pre-production limbo for most of the 80s with crazy amounts of writers and directors attached then dropping out
---

wrong

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060153/?ref_=fn_al_tt_5
---

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

wrong

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060153/?ref_=fn_al_tt_5

Skye Reynolds posted...

he got a movie before Batman had one which took itself seriously.

Superman '78 wasn't the first Superman movie either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_and_the_Mole_Men


It just seemed odd that Superman would get a 70s movie, but not Batman. I was going to use the comparison that it'd be like doing a Frankenstein movie without doing a Dracula film, but then I realized that Dracula had a 1979 remake and Frankenstein did not.

So I guess it's like The Flintsones getting two movies and The Jetsons getting none. Sometimes, it just happens that way.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Sometimes, it just happens that way.

Most of the time it happens that way tbqh

Popularity among other things play a factor in to it aside from being closely related properties that should have movies at the same time
---

The reason Superman got a "serious" film before Batman in the 70's is specifically because of the 60's Batman and how un serious it was.

People didn't have super short attention spans like today. You literally had to wait 20+ years to do a reboot.
---

Yeah, nobody gave a shit about Batman in the 70's, period. Or most of the 80's, for that matter.
---

He actually had a TV series as early as 1943.
---

I do remember reading about Batman's producer having an uphill battle with the studio because films like Robin and Marion (adventure) and Annie (based on a comic) were flops.

Batman: The Movie (1966)
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0060153/
---

DevsBro posted...

He actually had a TV series as early as 1943.

That was shown in theaters. Television wasn't widely available in 1943.

Incidentally, a rebroadcast of the film serial is what lead to the 1966 series being made.

1943 serial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Zo_BaxTsk

1949 serial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQZjI1xEHAM

The 1949 serial is actually a more arduous chore to sit through than the 1997 film of the same name. The only good thing about that one is that there's a henchman in it named Nolan.

The bigger question is why it took fifty-one years for a batman movie to finally be as awesome as the one from 1966.

That was back when movies were considered a serious artform and they wouldn't stoop to putting a popular character in their movie just to make a quick buck

Heh. I just found out that Swamp Thing was produced by the guy who would go on to produce the Batman movies, Michael E. Uslan. He was the one who had a tough time getting Batman made. So many it was something he had been working on for a while before he finally got the chance in 1989.

That was shown in theaters.

Ah yeah that makes sense. So it would be more like a movie then.
---

DevsBro posted...

That was shown in theaters.

Ah yeah that makes sense. So it would be more like a movie then.

Or more like a serial...?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

1943 serial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Zo_BaxTsk

1949 serial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQZjI1xEHAM

---

To be fair, serials are pretty much a forgotten about medium. Everybody knows about television and radio shows, but I don't think many people today know that they used to show cliffhangers before movies.


They do have a lasting influence though. They were the primary inspiration for Star Wars. They were the first medium to feature live action superheroes. And their style of fight choreography influenced American action sequence from the 1930s up until the early 2000s when the style pioneered in movies like The Bourne Identity and The Matrix Reloaded became the norm.

Also, fans of The Misfits will recognize the Crimson Ghost's likeness.

Comic book movies were way different back then. Superman and Batman were the only mainstream names and they probably played it safe with Superman and his sequels.
---

Or more like a serial...?

Trying to figure out what that means. I meant more like a movie than a TV series.
---

Before television was widely available, movies would be preceded by a cartoon, a news reel, and a serial or two. Serials were like action focused TV shows which lasted between 15 minutes and half an hour and they (almost) always ended on a cliffhanger. Except for the final episode, of course.

Because Superman is more popular than Batman
---

DevsBro posted...

Or more like a serial...?

Trying to figure out what that means. I meant more like a movie than a TV series.

Like an episodic TV show shown in a theater is probably the best description.
---

The people who made it needed time to plan.
---

Ah ok.
---

Captain America: The First Avenger had a nod to film serials.

In real life, Captain America had a 1944 film serial.
In the movie, Captain America stars in a series of hokey black and white movies.