No. Batman, given his experience and his crime fighting career, way overreacted. His attitude, based within the film itself and knowledge of outside material, was rash and haphazard
What knowledge? Of some alien with "Godly" powers who answers to no one and caused mass death? You continue to confuse film with comics, where in the latter medium, Batman has experience with otherworldly threats that would inform his reactions. The films are a completely new environment, where it is logical for Wayne to see Superman as a threat to humanity. This is not the
Super Friends cartoon.
Now your are being duplicitous. To be fair, you can actually find split opinions on this. Neal Adams, Christopher Nolan, etc., for example, say Chicago. So no revisionist history just not one "right" answer. So we've both learned something and are "WINNERS!" A toast:
Not selling. You made a hardline statement:
Metropolis clearly New York City. Gotham City clearly Chicago.
"Clearly"--you pushing the locations as fact, when the history of the comics have only established a firm location for Gotham since the 1970s--New Jersey--as (once again) revealed in the in-house magazine
The Amazing World of DC Comics.
Nolan (or Adams) saying Gotham is in Chicago has no bearing on the actual scripts and choices made for the DCEU. The only issue is with
you having a problem with the two cities being near each other, which supports the story--the only thing that mattered
So? Still counts as a theatrically released motion picture, DUH!
Enough with the lies & shifting positions.
Batman the movie was just an extension of the TV series. It was not some independent production with its own voice/identity, as it was being sold as the further adventures of the same TV characters/universe. That being uncontested fact, the movie's proven failure only months after the January debut of the TV series is hard evidence of Batmania fading fast. You can try to deny or spin that, but the references made in my previous post is history, not wish fulfilment to support a short-lived fad.
So now you're quoting incomplete numbers. Batman: The Movie has been rereleased to theaters many many times to theaters through the 1970s.
Provide evidence. When was this film rereleased in its key markets (the U.S. & Canada as in 1966)
"many many" times?
Daily Variety and the Fox numbers are fact. You claiming the film released
"many many times" is not until you provide hard evidence. What is fact is that the
Batman movie--released in the period
you focused on--was a flop, and its next venue was syndication on TV in the 70s, during programming blocks such as ABC's "super hero week" and the
3:30 Movie (which also packaged it with the '74
Wonder Woman TV pilot, the '75
Doc Savage film and the '71
Evel Knievel movie).
LOL, actually they do and it is telling that you don't see it. You make unsupported claims deriding Batman's 1966 TV series. By objective metrics your claims it was a failure are entirely without merit.
Unlike you. I only refer to historical evidence, not emotionalism. Again, as soon as Batman was cancelled--
One, you will never rewrite or erase from existence the Dozier papers or the Nielsen ratings charts showing
Batman's freefall from one season to the next, to the point ABC barely renewed it for a third, truncated season all thanks to Batgirl as a supposed viewer magnet that did not work. Try spinning that fact (not that it will work). But that requires actually accessing the records, which you will not do for obvious reasons.
Two, the series was not "enshrined" when it left ABC. Comic fans despised it (and DC's major creative shift on
Batman titles is just more hard evidence on top of reader letters). Again, facts, not an attempt to pretend this series was universally loved.
Three, after the series was cancelled, Hollywood largely avoided superhero properties in the years to follow as
Batman had convinced everyone that a superhero production meant something clownish/childish.
Four, when a studio (Warner Brothers, which bought DC by that time) was interested, the result was the first full
Wonder Woman adaptation (ABC, 1974) with Cathy Lee Crosby running around as a
non-superpowered spy in what appeared to be a diving outfit which happened to be red, white & blue--as far from the superhero look and execution as possible. It was by pure luck ABC wanted to greenlight another, unrelated pilot the following year, but even
The New, Original Wonder Woman pilot (set during WW2) was not the camp of
Batman.
If the negative spectre of Batman was not clear to see, Richard Donner did not want
Superman to come off like the silly
Batman TV series, while Kenneth Johnson said he would only adapt
The Incredible Hulk TV series (CBS, 1977-82) if it was serious and nothing like--you guessed it--the
Batman TV series. Let's see you lie / deny how Donner and Johnson did not want to be involved in anything resembling the tone / approach of
Batman.
In the 80s, when Warners announced they were finally prepared to make a Batman movie, comic fans were on edge, fearing that it would be a replay of the Dozier series all over again, until production information trickled out, convincing them that what was born in the 60s remained there.
Once again, the series was hardly enshrined. It was considered an embarrassment misrepresenting superhero comics that comic creators of the late 60s and 70s wanted to avoid like the plague.
In Kellyanne Conway-like fashion you point to something that is ultimately meaningless as an "alternative fact" in the form of letters printed in comic books (Yeesh!)
When all else fails, you resort to namecalling--ever the sign that you cannot support your endless stream of false claims based only on wishing and emotionalism, rather than fact.
Don't want to. Don't need to. Batman on ABC was a success that is irrefutable.
Declining ratings in its first season is not a success. A failed movie is not a success. Now we are getting down to it all:
Don't want to. Don't need to.
Translated, you are not referring to historical evidence at all, so your view is irrelevant. Its no different than saying
Plan 9 From Outer Space swept the 1959 box office, but such a statement--much like yours--is unsubstantiated nonsense.
It did very well in syndication. Even now there is a Batman '66 comic book. 50+ years later. Yeah, no one cared or cares for it. Not enshrined in American pop culture at all.
You said:
despite being glorified and enshrined for decades that it was a failure?
Enough of the lies. Batman was not "enshrined" for decades, when TV and movie creators wanted nothing to do with their work resembling it. Fact. Batman was not "enshrined" when fans were elated that the announced
Batman movie helmed by Burton would
not adopt or mirror the childish approach of the 1966 series. Again, fact. The only reason for the majority of recent years release of merchandising (post Hot Wheels die cast vehicles) surrounded the announcement that the legal issues which previously prevented the series from being released to home video had been settled. Merchandisers knew this before the public, and licensed obtained, but contrary to your incessant lies, the series was never consistently embraced as some great thing decade after decade in the way you tried (and failed) to sell it.
There was Wonder Woman, Captain America, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, Doctor Strange all during in the 1970's.
I was clearly laying out the timeline. the Crosby Wonder Woman was the first live action superhero adaptation after the cancellation of
Batman--seven years later, and that first adaptation was as consciously far removed from
Batman as possible. Richard Donner with
Superman and Kenneth Johnson with
The Incredible Hulk were the two biggest superhero productions of the decade and both were produced
avoiding the influence/legacy/approach of
Batman. That said, its no surprise
Superman &
The Incredible Hulk were--by far--the most respectable comic adaptations of the 70s, and have the strongest legacy of that decade's adaptations.
No "Pow!" or "Thwack!", Bat-Alphabet Soup containers, Bat-Fly Swatters or Bat-handkerchiefs required.
