The Campiest of Camp

When we look at the modern superhero film genre, it’s easy to say that Marvel created what we consider superhero films. The Marvel Cinematic UniverseWhen it first began in 2008 with a little film called Iron Man no one suspected the empire that would follow. Superhero movies in the past, especially those not featuring either Batman or Superman, were usually terrible. And yet, Iron Man would lead to a long series of successful films, launching the most successful cinema brand in history: the Marvel Cinematic Universe. dominates the Box Office (even now, when everyone is talking about how the genre is waning, Marvel can still pull in record numbers for a solid Deadpool sequel), and they were the ones to show that a cinematic universe of interconnected films could work on the big screen. Before the MCU, studios thought it was impossible to get audiences to invest in deeply interconnected films. Marvel proved they could, and that it would actually work.

But nothing is created in a vacuum, and for Marvel to prove that an interconnected series of superhero films could work, we first had to prove that superhero films could work on the big screen at all, and that was a long, long process. There are discussions of what film the genre, from answers ranging to Spider-man in 2002, X-Men in 2000, and Blade in 1998. But each of those were a flagstone on the path to Marvel, and no one movie really could provide everything we need to say, “this, here, is where it all began. This is the film that gave us the modern superhero film genre.”

So let’s go back to where it all began and show what film gave us the modern superhero genre:

Batman (1966)

If we’re looking for the precursor to what we know as superhero films, we have to go back to the 1960s. Technically we could go back even further, as superheroes were showing up on the Silver Screen in serial in the 1930s and 1940s. We’d also be remiss if we didn’t mention the George Reeves Superman in the 1950s, which was itself based on the radio serial of the same name. Superheroes were everywhere because they were a popular medium at the newsstands and in the hands of kids, and so studios wanted to find a way to translate heroes to screens to make more money.

Batman wasn’t the first superhero film. You could find the likes of The Lone Ranger, The Shadow, Zorro and more in theaters. Those, however, were pulp heroes that have largely been forgotten in our modern age. They don’t generate the buzz and excitement from comic fans the way seeing SupermanThe first big superhero from DC Comics, Superman has survived any number of pretenders to the throne, besting not only other comic titans but even Wolrd War II to remain one of only three comics to continue publishing since the 1940s. or SpidermanSure, DC Comics has Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, but among the most popular superheroes stands a guy from Marvel Comics, a younger hero dressed in red and blue who shoots webs and sticks to walls. Introduced in the 1960s, Spider-Man has been a constant presence in comics and more, featured in movies regularly since his big screen debut in 2002. on the big screen does now. We have to discount them because, while they certainly showed that heroes could be adapted to the big screen, they didn’t really have a lasting impact on what we know as superhero films now.

No, the first true superhero film, as we’d know and recognize it, would be Batman from 1966. Spun-off from the Batman TV show, it debuted the same year that the TV show came on the air, and, well, it does look like an overly long episode of the TV series. It has many of the same actors, the same production values, and the same tongue-in-cheek writing. If you liked the Batman TV show then, presumably, you were there for the Batman movie as well. Greenlawn Productions, who produced Batman ‘66, had a hit and they did what they could to milk it.

Going back and watching Batman ‘66 now (which we did just a few years ago), it’s easy to deride the film as silly and campy. It’s not a smart movie, it does feel a little shaggy and slow, and overall it doesn’t really match the concept of BatmanOne of the longest running, consistently in-print superheroes ever (matched only by Superman and Wonder Woman), Batman has been a force in entertainment for nearly as long as there's been an entertainment industry. It only makes sense, then that he is also the most regularly adapted, and consistently successful, superhero to grace the Silver Screen. as we think of him now. This is not a film that you can go back with modern eyes and watch the way someone back in 1966 would have done. Those 60 years of comics and TV and movie production have fundamentally changed the character, and changed our view of him, and this 1966 film feels like a relic of a bygone era (because it is).

With that said, Batman ‘66 is absolutely a product of its era, and it gives us a superhero to match what comic readers (who were predominantly kids) were expecting. The TV show and the movie might seem silly to us, but then Batman in the 1960s was a silly character. He got into wacky hijinks in the comics, having adventures with magical imps, fighting dinosaurs, getting multicolored costumes, and, in general, just acting like a big, old goof. There was a fear that Batman, as he was written in the late 1930s and early 1940s (when his concept was heavily influenced by the pulp characters of the time) was too violent, too dark, too evil for kids to read safely, so DC toned him down and made him “family friendly”. That’s the Batman of Batman ‘66.

That also means that, for all the silliness on display here, this is one of the more comic-accurate representations of the character to ever grace the Silver Screen. Yes, sure, the show made changes from the comics (and even introduced characters that were wholly original and had to be added back to the comics, such as Batgirl), but when it came to tone and feel, Batman ‘66 nailed the accuracy. This was a pretty solid adaptation of what people expected from Batman if they picked up any of his comics in the time period. Peril, adventure, but also colorful costumes, safe stories, and a lot of silliness. This was 1960s Batman, through and through.

It’s Influence On the Future

We dismiss Batman ‘66 now because superhero media has moved on from this style of storytelling, but for a long time media like this show and movie were the normal. You had follow up cartoons like The New Adventures of Batman, Superfriends, and Legends of the Superheroes, that all stuck to the style and tone of Batman ‘66, and these were shows that remained popular, and influential, for years to come. If you grew up watching superheroes in the 1960s and 1970s, then this was the style of superhero you knew, and that didn’t change until a certain blue-and-red bedecked superhero made his own debut on the big screen in 1978.

And it’s not like the campy style of Batman ‘66 died once Superman: The Movie came along. Even after that film’s success, Hollywood wanted to return to the safer, simpler, family-friendly storytelling that was common in this era since it was parent-approved, which in turn meant it sold a lot of toys. After Tim Burton’s two Batman films, Joel Schumacher was brought in by Warners to make two far safer, more kid-friendly Batman films and he delivered just that, making a pair of high camp movies that are absolutely hated now even if, by design, they did exactly what the studios wanted.

Everything in Hollywood is cyclical, even superheroes. The genre ebbs and flows and reasserts itself time and again. The campiness of Batman ‘66 might have faded but it never completely went away, and the successors to this film (and its many associated shows) had just as much influence on the genre as any other work.

Next Time On…

Next time, we’ll move ahead a decade and cover a period of cinema where, yes, you could believe a man could fly. Superman: The Movie reshaped the genre for years to come, and it showed studios many solid lessons they could learn from about how to make superhero films properly… not all of which the executives immediately learned.