Does Batman have the best track record of any superhero franchise?

[Bruce Malone]

Alot is always made about the batman reboot revitalizing the franchise but if you think about it out of 6 batman films only one out of the 6 is considered unequivocally bad by most people. Compare that to the superman franchise or possibly any of the modern superhero franchises.

1 out of 6 seems like a great ratio. I don't think any other franchises have been so lucky?

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, I think he has the best track record as far as superhero movies go. Add to that, his fantastic BTAS series, and all it's spin off movies like MOTP.

 

[Brother Jack]

The series has the distinction of having both one of the greatest and one of the worst comic book films of all time.

 

[El Payaso]

I have always thought the same.

The first one was remarkable, the second one very good, the third one is still good, B&R is historic crap. And then the Nolan's reboot has been good to remarkable again.

Yes, Batman has been a very lucky character.

 

[Catman]

If Spider-Man doesn't screw things, Batman also has the best financial record.

Batman (1989) - #1 movie of the year with $251.1 million. $479 million in 2010 dollars.
Batman Returns - #3 movie of the year. #1 of the summer.
Batman Forever - $2 movie of the year. #1 of the summer.
Batman Begins - $205.3 million
The Dark Knight - #1 movie of the year with $533 million. $1 billion worldwide. 3rd highest grossing movie of all-time (unadjusted for inflation).

 

[Mister J]

The fact that Batman could have one successful franchise end in woeful, celluloid misery, only to reemerge with another franchise that likely betters the former, is nothing short of a testament to the character's sheer badassity. The answer to the question is yes, and it's really not even close.

 

[IBRAH08]

Just the fact that we all get to argue about which film interpretation we like the best means that Bats has the best track record.

 

[TheBatman1]

Bats is a very lucky character. To have a hugely successful movie franchise under his belt. No Pun Intended. Schumacher did screw it up. But Nolan brought Batman back to where he should be. So I'd say he is lucky.

 

[Catman]

Schumacher did screw it up.

To be fair, Schumacher was 1-1. Batman Forever, don't forget, was very successful. A lot more successful than Batman Begins. It's still the third most successful Batman movie under The Dark Knight and Batman.

 

[Mister J]

That doesn't mean he, along with WB's cooperation, didn't royally **** things up. Whatever present time-account for financial metrics can be contorted to put forth that Forever was more successful than Begins, but concerning quality, it's not even close. This is from a fan of Batman Forever.

Beyond that, whatever good Schumacher might have achieved with Batman Forever is GREATLY outweighed by that abomination that was unleashed in 1997.

 

[Catman]

That doesn't mean he, along with WB's cooperation, didn't royally **** things up.

Schumacher made a terrible Batman movie. There's no denying that. However, WB didn't have to wait till 2005 to release a new installment. They could have done one in 1999 or 2000 and if it looked good and had positive word-of-mouth it would have been a hit. Look at James Bond. That franchise has had its share of flops. Yet they keep marching on. Either way...Batman is back and is as strong as ever. So, since Schumacher didn't technically kill the series, just put it on hiatus, he's 1-1.

Whatever present time-account for financial metrics can be contorted to put forth that Forever was more successful than Begins, but concerning quality, it's not even close. This is from a fan of Batman Forever.

Forever grossed $184 million domestically and $336.5 million worldwide in 1995. It was the summer's biggest movie. It was the 2nd highest grossing movie of the year. It broke the opening weekend record with $52.7 million. The merchandise sold out. McDonald's couldn't meet demand with their cups.

Begins, by comparison, grossed $205.3 million domestically and $372.7 million worldwide ten years later. Adjusted for inflation, Forever definitely grossed more. Not only Forever, but Returns as well. Begins only did better than Batman & Robin. Even that is up for debate since B&R grossed $107.3 million domestically and $238.2 million worldwide. Begins didn't even gross more than $100 million domestically and that was with 2005 money. Plus, Begins ranked as 8th for the year. A far cry from the success of B89, BR, and BF which all dominated during their years.

So, you gotta give Schumacher credit for the success of BF. He's 1-1. He broke even.

As for quality, well, all the movie's are up for debate. There's people who hated all four movies and kiss Nolan's feet. There's people who are the opposite. There's people who like one movie and dislike the other. It's all up for debate. But financially it's TDK, B89, BF, BR, BB, and B&R.

 

[Mister J]

Uh huh. OK. I'll just repost this:

Beyond that, whatever good Schumacher might have achieved with Batman Forever is GREATLY outweighed by that abomination that was unleashed in 1997.

The franchise was in a far worse position when he left it than when he picked it up; catastrophically so. That's really all that need be said of his Bat-legacy.

At any rate, I've devoted too much attention to an abysmal point in Batman's cinematic history. I've now overwhelmed with the thoughts of Mr. Freeze instructing his cronies to sing a song and Batsuit nipplage. I must counter these ill-effects by a few quick YouTube clips from Burton's and Nolan's works.

 

[Catman]

The franchise was in a far worse position when he left it than when he picked it up; catastrophically so. That's really all that need be said of his Bat-legacy.

Batman & Robin was terrible. We can agree on that. But if the James Bond franchise has taught us anything its that you can always rebound. The 8-year gap between B&R and Batman Begins was Warner Bros fault. They didn't have to wait that long. Had they released a new installment in 1999 or 2000, B&R would just be remembered as a crappy movie and not the one that almost killed the series. WB has made good decisions, but they've also made bad ones. The fact that it took them 19 years to release a new Superman movie says it all.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Yeah while there is a bit of revision concerning how good forever was it kind of did lay the blueprints for shumacher deciding to take the franchise where he did with B&R. The financial sucess that forever had, im im sure just motivated him and the studio that his vision for batman spelt sucess and we know how that played out.

As for the need for a wait of 8 years i think it was necesarry. Any bat film that came out 2 or even 3 years after B&R would be seen as a direct sequel in the publics eyes and would have spelt BO death. So the wait as we can plainly see was good.

 

[Catman]

As for the need for a wait of 8 years i think it was necesarry. Any bat film that came out 2 or even 3 years after B&R would be seen as a direct sequel in the publics eyes and would have spelt BO death. So the wait as we can plainly see was good.

When Begins was released there was people in the general public who thought it was a prequel. Seriously. I remember when had an entire thread on that subject. So, the 8-year gap didn't make much of a difference.

 

[Bruce Malone]

After the most critically reviled superhero film your going to need to stop and go back to the drawing boards. The regular cycle of new film every 2 or 3 years at that point doesn't apply anymore.

Even after spiderman 3 which was nowhere as reviled as B&R your looking at a 5 year gap btw films.

 

[Catman]

After the most critically reviled superhero film your going to need to stop and go back to the drawing boards. The regular cycle of new film every 2 or 3 years at that point doesn't apply anymore.

If the Fast and the Furious franchise can continue to release successful movies then I don't see what was gonna stop Batman. Audiences had three movies that they enjoyed, so a crappy fourth installment wasn't gonna ruin it for them. The new movie just needed to be different and include an entirely different cast & crew with their own unique vision. Which is what we got...but 8 years later.

Even after spiderman 3 which was nowhere as reviled as B&R your looking at a 5 year gap btw films.

Spider-Man 3 was the biggest movie of 2007. If SONY had their way, the fourth installment would have been released in 2009. The gap is for two reasons: 1) Sam Raimi went off and directed Drag Me to Hell and 2) the recession. With a fourth installment, Raimi and the cast would have demanded a large sum of money. SONY didn't want to spend that cash, so they "pretended" to feud with Raimi as an excuse to restart the franchise. A franchise that doesn't even need to be restarted.

 

[Cain]

Revision regarding the quality of Batman Forever? wtf? people who liked it still like it, people who hated it still hate it and people who thought it was ok still think it was ok. What exactly was revised?

 

[akfj]

If the Fast and the Furious franchise can continue to release successful movies then I don't see what was gonna stop Batman. Audiences had three movies that they enjoyed, so a crappy fourth installment wasn't gonna ruin it for them. The new movie just needed to be different and include an entirely different cast & crew with their own unique vision. Which is what we got...but 8 years later.



Spider-Man 3 was the biggest movie of 2007. If SONY had their way, the fourth installment would have been released in 2009. The gap is for two reasons: 1) Sam Raimi went off and directed Drag Me to Hell and 2) the recession. With a fourth installment, Raimi and the cast would have demanded a large sum of money. SONY didn't want to spend that cash, so they "pretended" to feud with Raimi as an excuse to restart the franchise. A franchise that doesn't even need to be restarted.

Well, WB was going to release another Batman movie as early as 1999, but you have to get into each reason each project was abandoned. The most common reason each was abandoned was because the studio got bored of each film idea and went to the next one:

Batman Triumphant: idea for the film was pitched during the making of B&R, projected 1999 release date, abandoned due to the bad reviews of B&R
Batman DarKnight: pitched in 1998, passed over in favor of Year One and Batman Beyond
Batman Beyond: pitched in 2000, passed over in favor of Year One
Batman Year One: pitched around the same time as Batman Beyond, passed over in favor of Batman vs. Superman
Batman vs. Superman: pitched in 2001, abandoned after Wolfgang Peterson left to do Troy

Nolan was then hired in 2003.

 

[Mace Dolex]

The Batman movies have also had the most popular and talented group of actors/actresses too with the exception of Katie Holmes and Elle McPherson of course.

 

[Catman]

Well, WB was going to release another Batman movie as early as 1999, but you have to get into each reason each project was abandoned. The most common reason each was abandoned was because the studio got bored of each film idea and went to the next one:

Batman Triumphant: idea for the film was pitched during the making of B&R, projected 1999 release date, abandoned due to the bad reviews of B&R
Batman DarKnight: pitched in 1998, passed over in favor of Year One and Batman Beyond
Batman Beyond: pitched in 2000, passed over in favor of Year One
Batman Year One: pitched around the same time as Batman Beyond, passed over in favor of Batman vs. Superman
Batman vs. Superman: pitched in 2001, abandoned after Wolfgang Peterson left to do Troy

Nolan was then hired in 2003.

Good point. And it shows that WB still had faith in the franchise. It's just that they always had a difficult time making up their mind. Any of those movies could have been successful if done right.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Revision regarding the quality of Batman Forever? wtf? people who liked it still like it, people who hated it still hate it and people who thought it was ok still think it was ok. What exactly was revised?

Pretty much around the time after the release of B&R untill maybe begins or even tdk came out. Both shumacher films were lumped toghether by alot of people as the "crap" batman films. I.e you had the burton films fans and the nolan fans and you'd almost never hear anyone defend either of shumacher's bat films.

I just think its becoming more acceptable now to compliment forever.

 

[Catman]

Pretty much around the time after the release of B&R untill maybe begins or even tdk came out. Both shumacher films were lumped toghether by alot of people as the "crap" batman films. I.e you had the burton films fans and the nolan fans and you'd almost never hear anyone defend either of shumacher's bat films.

I just think its becoming more acceptable now to compliment forever.

As someone whose been a member of SHH since 2002, I can tell you that Batman Forever always had its defenders. Also, the general public has always liked Batman Forever. They don't nitpick these movies like fanboys.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The Batman movies have also had the most popular and talented group of actors/actresses too with the exception of Katie Holmes and Elle McPherson of course.

Yes, it's amazing to think of the sheer number of Hollywood stars who have appeared in the series. Nothing else comes close. You'd struggle to come up with such a list from six seperate movies, let along six in the same series:

Jack Nicholson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Caine, Jim Carrey, Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito, Nicole Kidman, Jack Palance, Morgan Freeman, Uma Thurman, Michelle Pfeiffer, Liam Neeson, Billy Dee Williams, Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, George Clooney, Tommy Lee Jones, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Drew Barrymore, Michael Keaton, Katie Holmes, Heath Ledger, Chris O'Donnell, Aaron Eckhart, Rutger Hauer, Alicia Silverstone, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ken Wantanabe, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson...

Even the minor parts of molls and girlfriends are played by world famous supermodels like Jerry Hall and Elle MacPherson.

And let's give aknowledgement to the solid support oif character actors like Pat Hingle, Linus Roach, Robert Wuhl, Rene Auberjonois, Tracey Walter, William Hootkins, Michael Gough (still the best Alfred ever).

 

[Mister J]

True. The cast has been stellar from the start, lead and supporting. For the most Batman was able to avoid that sort of negative impression of just being silly or not a worthwhile endeavor. Quality names, in terms of recognition and talent, have had interest since the 1989 feature.