Batman at the Boxoffice

[Progress Pigment]

I like a lot about the film, but it was much less fast paced and exciting than any Batman episode that preceded it. This was really when Batman "Jumped the Shark"! Or in this case fought the shark. In Adam's book he mentioned that he held out for a lot more money, and demanded a lot more "Bruce" time. The directing was sloppy and uninspired. They should've have used Tom Gries. And Lorenzo Semple -- for the first time (but not the last) really dropped the ball here. The "noble" dolphin and the bat-copter just happening to fall into the mattresses? Just plain lazy and stupid. Adam's performance -- his great fight scene as Bruce on the ship being a high point (the final fight scene however, was absolutely terrible!), and Lee Meriwether's very alluring Catwoman are the only saving graces. Okay, I liked the shark and bomb scenes. And to some extent the goons in the batcave too. In a better movie these things might've been great touches. But not in this one. It's on the same level as "Munster, Go Home!". Maybe a little worse.

[epaddon]

I think Adam's desire for more "Bruce" time and specifically something showing him as a ladies man, was his way of trying to get the equivalent of a screen test to show other film producers his viability as a film leading man if he could get beyond "Batman" ultimately.

And has anyone else ever wondered if Robin is in fact giving away Batman's ID when CW gets exposed as Kitka??

[John Mack]

Oh sure there's more that could have been done. In every movie there always is. Thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended, which was the fact that a man running around fighting crime dressed as a bat in the daylight is silly right from the start, so what's a little shark and bomb thrown in?

That term, jumped the shark is about Happy Days and Fonzie on the motorcycle yes? Odd it was coined with our movie making be known as "When the shark pulls your leg" or some such. LOL

So, anyone see where I was going with the "go go" comment? Just curious.

John

[Tom1980]

I like a lot about the film, but it was much less fast paced and exciting than any Batman episode that preceded it.

I agree with this, they should have tightened the whole film up. It took a while to get anywhere. Although most sequences were interesting, they did drag out too long. A bit less batcopter flying to the ship, and a few less torpedoes would have cut minutes straightaway.

There was a deleted scene with a Colonel Terry going to follow the jetpack umbrellas, but I wonder if any other trimming was made.

The re-hydration at the end just prolongs the film by another boring 15 minutes, I struggle to get through that bit. The fight on the submarine has a few nice touches, but the villains do fall over a bit too easily like they don't know what to do with them all.

[STEPhonIT]

I wonder what movie critics from that era thought and wrote about the film? Does those critiques still exist?

[TP-6597]

Premiered at The Paramount in Austin!! Excellent. I can see it outside of my window right now. Too cool.

[Dr. Shimel]

That term, jumped the shark is about Happy Days and Fonzie on the motorcycle yes?

Water skis actually.

[chrisbcritter]

I wonder what movie critics from that era thought and wrote about the film? Does those critiques still exist?

Here's the Chicago Tribune review - looks like the reviewer "gets it":

[epaddon]

They could easily have gotten these quotes from the review to use in the ad campaign.

"A wild zanyfilm flled with good hoked-up fun!"

"If you dig the TV series, you'll love the movie!"

[BATWINGED HORNET]

I thought what hurt the movie as well with all of the Batman films is there's not enough Batman appearing in his own movie. Too much spotlight on the villains, and as colorful as they were they're NOT even as close as interesting as the Cape Crusader. The movie felt very television, and I feel sorry for the audiences who paid hard earned money for what was an extended episode of the tv series. The movie didn't do well for a reason.

Well, it was a TV series turned into a film--and had an established audience expecting the same flavor. Moving away from that too much and you get Munster, Go Home, which lacked any of the charm or wit of the TV series, just for the sake of "going big" at the movies.

The rubber shark sequence was utterly RIDICULOUS. The plot of the film was not interesting. 20th Century Fox during that time were making a lot of campy films but I think it would have been best to hire their directors, producers, and writers from their movie dept. and develop the movie separately from the TV productions.

See the reply above. Batman was a TV series. Unlike recent years, where a Bat-film can be produced with no connection / obligation to any previous version, the '66 movie was a part of a successful TV production--moving away from that formula would not make sense to a producer rolling in money because of said formula.

More than content, I think the less than spectacular earnings had more to do with the shine wearing off of the phenomenon, than the a wrong-headed handling of the content.

[Gleeps, it's Batman]

Thanks for posting the review, chrisbcritter.

[John Mack]

Pucepants? Had to look that one up. Apparently they're tight fitting pants of some sort. News to me

John

[Dr. Shimel]

Another review from the Trenton (NJ) Sunday Times

[Progress Pigment]

I like that he said it's "not as scary" as a movie as it is on TV. Hardly anyone remembers the series had scary moments in the first season, by 1960's standards anyway.

[High C]

I like that he said it's "not as scary" as a movie as it is on TV. Hardly anyone remembers the series had scary moments in the first season, by 1960's standards anyway.

Actually, the phrase was 'not as crazy.'

Fun review/story. Some odd things, like the writer going out for a smoke and giving the kid's address!!