July
22Batman Bonanza
To the fanboys lining up outside the plexes, “Batman” is clearly the phenomenon of the moment. To the old-timers, the caped (and obviously kinky) superhero is a relic.For the record, “Batman” was born seventy years ago, a creation of Detective Comics (later DC). From the start, the DC folks acknowledged they wanted a character on the weird side -- “a weird menace to all crime,” said one internal memo.
“Batman” barged into TV in 1966, but he was a kinder and gentler character than the comic version. No one really wanted a “Batman” movie until Peter Guber and Jon Peters wandered along. Having surreptitiously swiped the underlying rights from Warner Bros., the producers then turned around and tried to sell that same studio on a “Batman” production deal. This infuriated the then uberfuhrer of Warner Bros., a conglomerator named Steve Ross, who rightfully wanted to know why the studio had let the rights elapse to begin with. Nonetheless, the movie, directed by Tim Burton with Jack Nicholson as the Joker, was a hit (some $400 million meant a lot in 1989 before opening weekends of $155 million seemed feasible).
All told, there have now been six modern “Batmans,” and all of them have been a little weird -- “strangely dark,” David Thomson once wrote, “downright Langian” wrote the late Vincent Canby. Will the legacy continue? With these numbers, hell yes. A mind-bending $24.5 million Monday take, the movie already will be closing in on $200 million by midweek.
Warner Bros. should take the rest of the year off for prayer and meditation.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
I don''t see why the blog of someone in the showbiz industry should have to spell everything out in way that is simple enough for children to understand. The point here seems simple enough: Batman may be a weird character, but it is big business for its studio.
Posted by: Halcyon Days | 7/24/2008 11:17:49 AM
"Doesn't meant we have to agree with all his opinions"
I'd settle for having a clear opinion expressed!
Posted by: Kou | 7/24/2008 9:14:25 AM
Anyone who is aware of the history of Variety would certainly know how long Peter has been its editor-in-chief - and probably also how many years he spent as a studio executive. Doesn't meant we have to agree with all his opinions, but we can at least recognize actual experience in the industry and in professional showbiz journalism.
Posted by: Halcyon Days | 7/23/2008 9:53:42 PM
Why does Variety have a hack like Peter Bart on staff?
Variety has its own lengthy, legendary history in the business. But with a flame-throwing old-timer like this guy, it's more and more like reading Ain't It Cool News than serious movie business journalism.
Posted by: Mattman | 7/23/2008 7:51:57 PM
Oh...OK then.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Posted by: Kou | 7/23/2008 1:22:08 PM
Had this exec never heard of Superman: The Movie? Jeez.
Posted by: Brian R | 7/23/2008 4:15:02 AM
Michael Uslan tells a different story about the evolution of Batman. He says he and Benjamin Melniker bought the rights to Batman from DC Comics and they went to every studio with the concept where they were turned down. He tells a story where at Columbia, the executive looked at him and told him Annie didn't make its money back. Uslan asked what did Annie have to do with Batman, and he was told comic characters don't make money atthe box office. I guess Gruber and Peters got involved later, but Uslan's name has been on every Batman movie as executive producer (i.e. rights owner).
Posted by: Dan Petitpas | 7/23/2008 12:01:05 AM