Why 'Batman,' Not 'Star Wars,' Was The Box Office Blockbuster That Ruined Hollywood

Today is June 23, 2019, making it the 30th anniversary of Tim Burton’s Batman.

Looking back at its success, I maintain that Batman, not Star Wars (and certainly not Jaws), is the movie most responsible for the current Hollywood blockbuster.

First, somewhat obviously, it showed Hollywood that they could make a film, a non-sequel film no-less, that could be a presumed guaranteed moneymaker by virtue of its source material. Sure, it wasn’t the first Hollywood blockbuster whose popularity partially stemmed from a book or a play. Think Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, The Godfather or Jaws. But Batman’s success signaled to the industry that they could raid their IP for potential movie material. As such, we had comic book movies (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), video game movies (Super Mario Bros.), films based on popular TV shows (The Fugitive), movies stemming directly from TV shows (Wayne’s World, X-Files: Fight the Future), and films based on theme park rides (Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl).

The other trend that Batman began (sorry) was the notion of a kid-targeted property being fashioned into a movie aimed at older moviegoers. Yes, I saw Batman on opening weekend as a nine-year-old, and I wasn’t scarred for life. Nor was I among the kids traumatized by Batman Returns, but I digress. Nonetheless, At the time, the PG-13 rating was four-years-old and the idea a comic book superhero movie being both PG-13 and dark, violent and sexual enough to damn-well deserve that rating was a huge deal. Batman and (especially) Batman Returns were action fantasies pitched at adult moviegoers and filtered through adult sensibilities. It was considered “adult” enough that Disney successfully opened Honey I Shrunk the Kids ($14 million debut/$140 million cume) the same day.

Did you actually read it?

I read the extensive excerpt and didn't think there was much point going further.

Scanning the article I find this:

None of this is the fault of anyone involved in Batman’s success, any more than Steven Spielberg or George Lucas are “responsible” for Hollywood’s 40-year blockbuster fever.

And this:

And it didn’t kick off a wave of successful comic book superhero movies, as many/most of the would-be copycats were period-piece pulp fiction adaptations of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s comic strips and radio shows. Since Batman played, especially in its first third, as a 1940s pulp crime noir, it made some sense that Hollywood would react by giving us Dick Tracy, The Shadow, The Rocketeer and The Phantom. Even The Mask, while technically set in the present and sold as a Jim Carrey vehicle more than a comic book adaptation, was fashioned as an old-school gangster saga.

It wasn’t until Hollywood started giving us present-tense, of-the-moment comic book adaptations (Spawn, Blade, X-Men) that audiences wanted to see that the genre as we know it took flight.

So, yeah, it is, but it isn't. Everything is a continuum, and he chooses one point to say, this is where everything went wrong, but he doesn't make a very good case for it. When somebody admits that there are that many holes in his thesis, it seems to me that he shouldn't have written the article.

Yea, it was the beatings that Creed and Rocky endured like superhumans. No person ever took that kind of punishment and this type of fight scene has become commonplace in every movie and show.

At the least the westerns had it right. Cowboy boots have a small heel and when someone was punched they rocked backwards and fell down.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.