Holy Batmania (1989)

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember seeing this video in shops in the nineties, but I don't think I ever watched it until now. It's a straightforward retrospective on the sixties TV show produced at the height of the 1989 Burton movie hype.

[The Dark Knight]

There have been three instances of Batmania.

B66
B89
TDK

B66 was it, even long after it finished airing. Very accessible to younger viewers and plenty for aware adults to enjoy as well. B66 was so well known it was seen as a ball and chain around the franchise, before it was cut off by Tim Burton's darker approach. But nonetheless, the '66 legacy is still felt in various media today. I'd love to see a live action film with the adventurous spirit the show had even if it wasn't as campy.

B89 by all accounts was Beatlemania for Batman. The logo everywhere with people starving hungry to fall in love with the character after a prolonged absence. Then the film actually delivered on the hype. The 90s period with Burton, Schumacher and the animated series is my favorite run in Batman history. Call it nostalgia, call it what you want, but that period can't be topped for me.

TDK wasn't as big as the other two, but it was still big, and the closest thing we've had since B89 mania. Ledger's death took the movie to another level which was attracted a healthy level of hype beforehand. The Joker card at the end of Begins was the start of it all, really. The viral marketing was fresh at the time and it felt like Batman was a big cultural player again.

To be honest I'm not sure when the next Batmania period will happen, or if it even will. These things are special and the stars need to align. But the more I think about it, a rest period can end up being a good thing to help create the right environment for both the talent and the audience.

[thecolorsblend]

B89 by all accounts was Beatlemania for Batman

I lived through that period. It's where my Batman fandom and comic book fandom both started. Trust me, 1989 was everything you heard about. I would argue it was bigger than 2008 because B89 was a HUGE pop cultural event. Truly massive.

[Silver Nemesis]

Some of my earliest memories are of the 1989 Batmania. I'd argue the hype surrounding The Dark Knight in 2008 was less a case of Batmania than Jokermania. I saw a comment someone posted on another site regarding the box office failure of Joker 2 last year, saying that they hoped this marked the end of the Joker craze that Ledger's performance triggered in '08. Looking back on it now, there does seem to have been a prolonged fascination with the Joker ever since TDK came out. How many comics, movies, games and TV shows has Joker appeared in during that time? A lot.

Mark Millar once made an interesting point about the fuss surrounding The Dark Knight Returns in 1986. He said the reason that comic resonated so strongly was that it struck a chord with people who'd watched the Adam West show when they were kids twenty years earlier. Frank Miller mightn't like that theory, but there is undeniably a cultural connection between the West show and TDKR. They represent two extremes of the Batman franchise. One light, funny and family friendly, the other dark, gritty and serious. But had the 1966 Batmania never happened, I doubt The Dark Knight Returns would've made the same impact it did. Just like the 2008 Jokermania probably wouldn't have taken off if the 1989 Batmania hadn't happened.

Fans generally want franchises to mature at a rate commensurate with their own mental age. When we're kids, we're happy to have kid-friendly Star Wars or Batman of whatever the franchise might be. But as we get older, we want our heroes to become darker and more mature. Many complained about the juvenile tone of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, but Lucas knew what he was doing. A whole new generation of kids were captivated by those movies and fell in love with the Star Wars universe. Are today's kids falling in love with the nostalgia-obsessed Star Wars Disney's churning out? They don't seem to be. By insisting Batman be gritty and grounded, are Gen-X and Millennial fans denying the kids of today their own version of Batman?

Could Batmania happen again? Not any time soon. We've been oversaturated with Bat-media since The Dark Knight trilogy catapulted the IP back into the mainstream. In the past three years alone we've seen no fewer than three separate live action Batmen on the big screen, with a fourth likely to follow soon. There have also been an insane number of spinoff comics, movies and TV shows starring Batman's allies and foes. And throughout all this, there haven't been many truly fresh takes on the material. Since the Nolan-era, we've mostly been getting the same dark and gritty Batman over and over. If the '66 Batmania provided a cultural foundation for Miller's TDKR, then by insisting Batman remain dark and serious – and thereby preventing another '66-style Batmania from happening – could fans not also be preventing another TDKR from coming to fruition?

One of my favourite screen versions of Batman from the past twenty years is The Brave & the Bold. I loved that show, as well as the tie-in comics, videogame and Scooby-Doo movie connected with it. It was funny without being snarky. It referenced earlier Batman media without resorting to nostalgia bait. It had its own distinct identity and style, and while it adapted many familiar elements from the source material it also delved into some of the weirder and more obscure corners of comic book lore that other adaptations left unexplored. Adults like me could enjoy it, but it was also suitable for children. That's the direction I'd like to see the franchise head in now.

But before that, DC and WB need to desaturate the market. Ease off with all the spinoffs about Batman's allies and villains. Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics and maybe one animated TV show. Find a fresh take on the material and get back to basics. Let the new generation of kids discover their own version of Batman. Then, after some time has passed and the demand has increased, they could revive the movie series. Not as part of some overblown shared universe, but as a standalone cinematic and pop culture event for the 2030s. Maybe then we'll see a new Batmania comparable to 1966 or 1989.

[thecolorsblend]

Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics

In today's market, I would argue that there should only be Detective Comics coming out each month. Anything to do with Batman or his universe should be found there. The comic book market is so atrophied now that producing less product overall could gin up sales for the small amount of product that IS coming out.

I have similar recommendations for the rest of DC's line, frankly. One Superman title, one Green Lantern title, one Justice League title, etc.

But perhaps this isn't the thread for me to rant about all that.

[The Dark Knight]

The idea that Batman can only be done one way, and it's the dark way, is both narrow minded and false. History shows the character can be presented in a myriad of different ways and successfully. I do think there's a strong argument in saying the gritty interpretations don't create multitudes of more fans, but rather placate the existing base. Darkness works best when it's contrasted against light, and that more innocent foundation is the beginning of the journey that gives later content more meaning.

TBATB is sensational and I love that style of Batman. He's thoughtful, wise, calm under pressure and someone to admire. I'd love to see that put up on the big screen at some point, and whether we like it or not, the best chance will be the new DCU. I think at this point going grim-dark is playing it safe. A refuge that can become monotonous. It would take more courage to go in the other direction. I really think it would be a hit with the general public and open up a younger audience. Even if the movie is good, I really can't see The Batman Part II doing that.

A lot of fans have been calling for purely translated villains without realism obligations for a long time now. The argument that fantasy equals a poor product isn't even worth engaging with. A different style of Batman would be a shot in the arm that the Nolan era felt like at the time in comparison to 1997's Batman and Robin. The way you create mania is with something that appeals broadly, but is different that feels like a breath of fresh air.

[Silver Nemesis]

Streamline the whole franchise to just a few monthly comics

In today's market, I would argue that there should only be Detective Comics coming out each month. Anything to do with Batman or his universe should be found there. The comic book market is so atrophied now that producing less product overall could gin up sales for the small amount of product that IS coming out.

I have similar recommendations for the rest of DC's line, frankly. One Superman title, one Green Lantern title, one Justice League title, etc.

But perhaps this isn't the thread for me to rant about all that.

I could live with one monthly title per hero, but in the case of Batman I might allow an extra title to compensate for cancelling all the spinoffs featuring his sidekicks. So you could have Batman and Robin appearing in Detective Comics, and then have a separate anthology comic featuring serialised stories starring Nightwing, Batgirl or even some of the villains. This would be similar to the Bronze Age Batman Family comic that ran from 1975-1978. I also wouldn't rule out publishing another comic set in a different timeline, such as Batman Beyond. But in general, there are far too many Bat-themed titles currently in print.

If it were up to me, I'd not only streamline the franchise but would also retire certain characters permanently. Starting with one whose initials are H. Q. I'm sick of her.

The idea that Batman can only be done one way, and it's the dark way, is both narrow minded and false. History shows the character can be presented in a myriad of different ways and successfully. I do think there's a strong argument in saying the gritty interpretations don't create multitudes of more fans, but rather placate the existing base. Darkness works best when it's contrasted against light, and that more innocent foundation is the beginning of the journey that gives later content more meaning.

TBATB is sensational and I love that style of Batman. He's thoughtful, wise, calm under pressure and someone to admire. I'd love to see that put up on the big screen at some point, and whether we like it or not, the best chance will be the new DCU. I think at this point going grim-dark is playing it safe. A refuge that can become monotonous. It would take more courage to go in the other direction. I really think it would be a hit with the general public and open up a younger audience. Even if the movie is good, I really can't see The Batman Part II doing that.

A lot of fans have been calling for purely translated villains without realism obligations for a long time now. The argument that fantasy equals a poor product isn't even worth engaging with. A different style of Batman would be a shot in the arm that the Nolan era felt like at the time in comparison to 1997's Batman and Robin. The way you create mania is with something that appeals broadly, but is different that feels like a breath of fresh air.

I've been thinking about the Schumacher Batman a lot lately, what with this being the thirtieth anniversary of Batman Forever, and in some ways, despite their missteps, I believe those movies were ahead of their time.

For one thing, I love how Schumacher embraced Batman and Robin as a team. He's the only modern Batman movie director to do that. Everyone else insists on having Batman work alone, which is fine up to a point. But with the exception of some of the Super Friends shows, Batman invariably appeared alongside Robin in all the pre-Burton screen adaptations. Nowadays we never get to see Batman and Robin fighting crime together in live action. Schumacher gave us that. Every other filmmaker seems trapped in the Burton/Nolan mentality of "Robin wouldn't fit in with the world we've created." The solution to this problem is to create a more accommodating world like Schumacher did.

It's crazy to think that as of 2025 Batman Forever remains the only complete live action depiction of Robin's origin story. The death of Dick's parents was depicted in Titans, but otherwise no one's bothered to revisit his origins. Batman's and Superman's have been portrayed multiple times in live action, but not Robin's. Which is a shame, because it's a great story.

I've also come to appreciate how underrated Schumacher's Gotham is. It's really not all that different from Burton's in terms of its towering gothic skyscrapers, ominous statues and art deco influences. Many of the locations in the Arkham games remind me of Schumacher's Gotham. I love the giant oversized advertisements on many of the rooftops, almost like something out of a Dick Sprang-era comic.

And of course Schumacher's Arkahm was superb.

Yes, the more I think about the future of Batman screen media the more I think filmmakers should be looking to Batman '66, the Schumacher Batman and B:TBATB for inspiration. And when it comes to the comics, they should generally stick to using 20th century material and ignore practically everything from the New 52 onwards.

The key to getting humour right in Batman stories is to use irony, not MCU-style snark. The characters in the story shouldn't be aware that they're funny, and neither should the kids watching it. But the adults will get it. You can still have all the stylised visuals, action, gadgets and detective plots that characterise a great Batman story, but the irony adds an extra layer of humour that liberates the storytellers from having to make it too realistic and serious. And we don't need any "Well that just happened" humour, where the characters acknowledge the absurdity of the situation. The absurdity should be self-evident. It doesn't need to be highlighted by the characters. They, like the kids in the audience, should take it seriously. But again, the adults will get it.

One of my favourite Batman adaptations of all time is The New Batman Adventures episode 'Legends of the Dark Knight'. Borrowing its framing device from Frank Robbins and Dick Giordano's 'The Batman Nobody Knows!' (Batman V1 #250, July 1973), it manages to accurately depict both the funny Dick Sprang-era Batman and the gritty Frank Miller TDKR version in a single episode. And it does a great job at portraying both. It also throws shade at Schumacher, but that's understandable given that it aired just one year after Batman & Robin torpedoed the film franchise. I love how that one episode emphasises the extreme tonal range in which Batman can function. No other superhero offers quite that same range, functioning equally well as a light-hearted fantastical comedy or a dark gritty drama.

Regarding The Batman II and The Brave and the Bold movie, the latter does seem more likely to appeal to a larger audience. However, I have my doubts about whether either of these films will be made. If Superman '25 is a success I'm sure there will be a new Batman movie, but I'm not sure Muschietti will be directing it. Not after the way The Flash turned out. I'm also unsure about the future of Reeves' universe. Will Gunn want another cinematic Batman competing with his version? Is Reeves' heart really in it anymore? If Reeves was dead set on making it, I think WB would let him. They alienated enough directors over the HBO Max controversy, including Nolan, and I suspect they'll want to keep Reeves happy. But if Reeves has lost interest, I can see the studio letting the project slide.

I stand by my prediction that the CBM trend is dying, but certain characters will continue appearing in movies regardless. Batman is one of them. Perhaps the best strategy for bringing about a new Batmania, for making Batman explode in popularity again, would be for the film franchise to detach itself from other DC cinematic ventures and go back to being a solo series like it was before the DCEU. Reeves' Batman offers that, but the grim Nolanesque tone doesn't seem to be resonating with a big enough audience, or a young enough audience, to bring about another Batmania.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. This thread seems like a good place for posting random musings about the franchise.

[thecolorsblend]

This is starting to become a very interesting discussion. What are the ingredients of a Batmania?

I would argue there have been three significant Batmanias in my lifetime. B89, BF and TDK. Granted, BF was more of a baby Batmania. But I sure noticed it and over the years, plenty of other members here have remarked upon it. So, it's not just me.

So, what are the ingredients of a Batmania? Based on what others have said plus my own thoughts, the factors might include:

- Novelty; Batman is not inescapably ubiquitous

- Innovation; showing wide audiences things they've never seen before in terms of the characters

- Isolation; this may not completely apply because TDK came out in a relatively crowded comic book environment

- Vision; this, again, may not completely apply since Nolan's "vision" was irl. On the other hand, that was something new for Batman at the time, so hmm

- Pop culture recognition: B89 had the Prince soundtrack, BF had the U2 and Seal songs and TDK had the mainstream raving about Ledger's performance

But is that accurate? And is there anything else?

[The Joker]

I could live with one monthly title per hero, but in the case of Batman I might allow an extra title to compensate for cancelling all the spinoffs featuring his sidekicks. So you could have Batman and Robin appearing in Detective Comics, and then have a separate anthology comic featuring serialised stories starring Nightwing, Batgirl or even some of the villains. This would be similar to the Bronze Age Batman Family comic that ran from 1975-1978. I also wouldn't rule out publishing another comic set in a different timeline, such as Batman Beyond. But in general, there are far too many Bat-themed titles currently in print.

If it were up to me, I'd not only streamline the franchise but would also retire certain characters permanently. Starting with one whose initials are H. Q. I'm sick of her.

I remember a few years ago, there was a rumor going around that DC Comics was basically going to close shop, and license DC characters to Todd McFarlane to publish over at Image Comics. As sad as that would be, historically speaking, I can't say I was really opposed to the notion given the vapid talent pool over at DC, and blatant mismanagement that's been going on for years. Now would McFarlane fair any better? Who's to say? But I think it would get some buzz that, going forward, THIS is THE status quo for the major select DC Characters, and relying on Elseworlds to keep the publishing properties afloat is, effectively, being placed on the back burner.

I think that given Batman is, far and away, DC's best selling character, he like Superman would get, at least, 2 titles. Personally, the older I get, the more I think the main canon should be streamlined excessively. In order to make comics accessible to someone who knows little to nothing about them. In this case, I would actually go back to classic Batman and Robin. Ergo, it's Dick Grayson as Robin, and a lot of continuity would be erased. I love the lore as much as the next guy, but it's a sacrifice I believe I would be willing to make if A. the industry can increase access to the product without relying on the dying business model that is the LCS, and b. actually get some people, probably old school veterans at this stage, to get the ball rolling and set the standard for those to follow. Which basically means a DOGE like cleaning house of many "creatives" working at the big two today.

The industry, has become increasingly niche over the years, and asking readers to basically, 'do homework' to understand what the hell is going on, is just too much of a ask these days. Archie Comics is niche, but still incredibly accessible for any new reader. Can Marvel and DC honestly say the same without resorting to mentioning Elseworlds/Black Label and What If/ultimate titles? I don't know. Just feels the industry is going around in circles, rather than truly going for a long term remedy that, as a consequence, may run the very real risk of causing a ageing readership to spaz out.

[The Dark Knight]

Presenting Batman and Robin together as a crime fighting unit is absolutely crying out to be done after such a long time in the wilderness. Not in name only cameos like John Blake, but the absolute real deal. Mania is created when there's hunger, and you can't deny the dynamic duo back on the big screen in all their unabashed glory would be a big hook. I think Gunn knows that. No more excuses about why it can't or shouldn't be done, just do it.

I agree the Schumacher era would be a good place to look, but I'd be willing to go a tad lighter than that - in terms of the architecture and city ambience at least. I think the spirit of 1966 ebbing under the surface would awaken the world and help make such a film an event, juxtaposed to the business as usual that has set in. I've been critical of the new Superman film, but at least they've said "screw it" and put Krypto up there, doubled down on their decision to use the trunks and so forth. I'm willing to follow and support another Reeves film but I now feel a stronger urge for a change in direction.

It kind of feels like Batman will be treading water for a while before what should be happening finally gets to happen. The Reeves universe is still stuck in the Nolan era, and despite the more overt fantasy with Snyder, the 'go darker' vibe was still there too. Comic book movie fatigue is absolutely a thing, and I think Batman can survive. But tapping in to our inner child is where the magic is - presenting something that differs to our current existence. Begins was what people wanted in 2005, but I think that train has worn out its welcome. I think the ingredients are right for Batman and Robin to return in a 66/BF styled film, and honestly, it feels like Reeves is just a roadblock to that.

It's not about rejecting or preferring something lighter in comparison to B89 or TDK either. It's just time. Everything is of its time and every generation gets the Batman that it requires. History shows that innovation doesn't come if you stay fixed on one thing. I think colors' list is pretty accurate about what creates hype. Something obvious that seals the deal is the product matching the expectations of the audience. All the manias have done that, which is not easy and to be commended. Why is why they need to hire the right director and choose the right story. No reshoots - a clear vision and go for it.