When did Batman surpass every other DC hero in popularity? And Why did he?

[Nomads1]

I don't think that it's something that can be reduced to a single event. It was a sum of circunstances that spread out throughout a few decades. First. Batman was one of the few DC characters to survive relatively unscatched the transition between the golden and the silver age. But so did Superman and Wonder Woman. It's arguable if the Adam West Batman TV show did more damage than good to the characters image, however, it's undenieable that it kept him standing out in the public's eye. However, in the early 70's he already got a leg up on those competing characters, when Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams and, to a lesser degree, Irv Novick started handling the character. The storyline around the birth of the characters of R'as Al'Ghul and Talia Al'Ghul was really groundbreaking, quite often even overshadowing the "hip" competition of Marvel, and catapulted the Dark Knight to the forefront of the DC pantheon of characters, even if Superman still struggled stay at his side (Supes was still, then, the most recognizable comic book character in the world). At least, comicswise. Let's not forget the success of Donner and Reeve's Superman. Then came the 80's and not only the groundbreaking TDKR, but also Tim Burton's Batman managed to push Bats into the silver screen, with undenieable success. Aftyer that, I think it was just a matter of sedmenting the character's status as DC's top dog. A slew of graphic novels, prestige formats and comicbook events, many of them of excelent quality, gave us an overdose of of Batman. The 90's highly successful Batman animated series was another step up the ladder. Until, finally, Grant Morrisson's JLA gave us the "Batgod" who was always oprepared and that stood shoulder to shoulder with gods as the epitome of human potential and ingeniousness. After that, it was just a matter of endlessly milking the character.

Peace

[Chubistian]

It was very popular its first season and the Bat-mania was indeed real, but it was also nominated for best comedy that same season (and Season 1 was the least funny of the three). Now as a preschooler watching reruns of it starting in '69, it was great. My father, OTOH, hated it, because he knew it was ridiculing a character he had loved since the '40s. I came to the same conclusion once I started reading Batman comics (by then, it was constantly lambasted by fans in the letter columns), but I began to enjoy it again years later on its own merits.

I think it's funny, but I had a similar experience, though in a different year and place.

I was born in 1996 in Chile, where comicbooks aren't as popular as in other countries, which is saying something in a particular art form that has such troubles reaching people out of its niche, despite the popularity that its characters have in other medias. Anyways, I used to watch the 60s tv show as a kid and I enjoyed it. Then, as I become a comicbook fan with a special inclination towards Batman (no surprise, he's one of the few superheroes that people like my maternal grandfather and my father actually liked, and they show me the Burton's movies and take to watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), I started hating the 60s show and what it did to Batman's image. Of course, as I grew older, and I like to think, more mature, I changed my mind, and I currently have a good opinion of it for what it was in its age and I bet if I watch an episode nowadays, I would get a big laugh out of it and lots of fun

[Confuzzled]

Yeah, there's no way a child will consider the '66 show to be lame. I mean, today's kids are addicted to Teen Titans Go! and Batman '66 comes across as BTAS compared to it.

For me, it was the gateway media to the character and franchise in the early 90's with its syndicated runs and I was obsessed with it. I started watching BTAS soon after (which became my new obsession) and then ended up watching the Schumacher films before the Burton films so I assumed BTAS was the outlier take, not the norm. This was also because my mom banned me from reading comics until my teens in the early 2000's coz my kindergarten teacher told her comics ruin children's imagination So in the 90's I had no idea what Batman's tonality was supposed to be. Just that he was super versatile who could match both dark and light tones.

[mathew101281]

I kind of feel this view is revisionist or skewed by a modern opinion of the show. I mean, I wasn't around in the 60's but all the people from the time claim in interviews that the show was considered to be the coolest thing in pop-culture and created it's own "Bat-mania". It also established the majority of his most popular Rogue's Gallery members as household names pretty early on, something that NO other franchise has managed even till now.

Batmania really only lasted for 2 seasons the show kind of crashed in the third season. It saved the comics at first but in its aftermath Batman had to be reinvented. Thus thus the O’Neil run taking him back to his roots.

I’d also argue that a lot of the other characters (except Superman) don’t have a strong core myth (common traits that are common across most versions) thus you have radically different versions in each new adaptation. This prevents casual fans from getting a good grasp on what these characters are about.

[marhawkman]

Green Lantern at least had an animated series but I'm surprised Flash and Wonder Woman haven't gotten an animated series.

there's SuperHero Girls. But it's a team focused setting that has WW in it with dozens of others.

[Jim Kelly]

I can tell you, because I was there as a little kid, that Bat-Mania really was a big deal in 1966. It hit me like a Mack truck and I was obsessed with Batman from the debut of the T.V. show and onward for the next two years. There was tons of Bat merchandise--I got some but my parents were not rich and could not afford to get everything that I wanted. It's because of Bat-Mania that I started buying comic books (and not just reading the comics that were around our house and the houses of friends and family).

But I can also tell you there was a big bust. I started to feel disillusioned with the show and the character by the third season and I would soon drop buying a lot of comics for the next two years.

I don't know if it's really true that the sales for Batman were weak in the early 1960s, but the fact that Jack Schiff was taken off the character and Julie Schwartz and Mort Weisinger were given Schiff's Bat books suggests that the publisher believed that a "New Look" would boost the sales. That was in 1964 and the T.V. show came two years later--when sales were in the millions. It's hard to know in hindsight if it was the "New Look" or Bat-Mania that saved the Dynamic Duo.

The bust in 1968 pushed more changes in the character with Robin ultimately leaving the Batcave and a move away from the traditional villains. That was begun by Frank Robbins, Irv Novick and Bob Brown and continued by Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams. Which created a Batman that fanboys like myself loved, but did that result in better sales? I don't think so. At best, the editors could maintain mediocre sales without them dropping even more. This was also during the Relevance period, when comics became more serious--but Schwartz later said this experiment didn't work. And you can see by 1974 that they backed off from that.

At this time all of the titles featuring Batman were reduced to bi-monthly status (BATMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS, WORLD'S FINEST COMICS, THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD and JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA). Of course, this was when those comics had all become 100 Page Super Spectacular for 60 cents with mostly reprints. Still, the reader wasn't getting as much new Batman content as they had in the past.

Even after 1974, when they went back to the old format, it took some time for the amount of new Batman content to increase. This came with a shift to more light-hearted story-telling and a lot more colourful villains. BATMAN FAMILY led the way in this direction. It was almost like the comics had gone back to the formula of the early 1960s, when the Family and the crazy villains were the order of the day.

When I started to buy THE COMIC READER in 1978, they had sales reports only from the direct sales shops, not newsstand sales--and I could clearly see that among the publisher's titles the Bat books were near the top--those and WARLORD--showing what was popular with fandom. Direct sales only accounted for a percentage of total sales--and in the mass market it was still the Super books that were the big seller.

It seems like the publisher made this calculation--that if Batman's strength was with the fan market then they would give those fans what they wanted and if Superman's strength was with the mass market then they would give the public what they wanted.

It was only when the mass market had become a much smaller percentage of total sales and the main point of sale was the comic shop that they shifted all their eggs to the direct sales basket. They didn't need to make as many changes to Batman because he always had been a fan favourite. Superman had a harder time of it because there was no readership for his books among the hardcore fandom.

Regular folks loved the Christopher Reeve Superman, but when comic books disappeared from drugstores and corner shops, they could no longer find that hero for sale.

[Confuzzled]

Batmania really only lasted for 2 seasons the show kind of crashed in the third season. It saved the comics at first but in its aftermath Batman had to be reinvented. Thus thus the O’Neil run taking him back to his roots.

It still solidly established him, his supporting cast and villains in the public eye. After that, it was just a matter of reinventing the franchise to keep up with the times like how Nolan did with Batman Begins in the 2000's after the Schumacher films fizzled.

Meanwhile, no other DC supporting cast member or villain besides Lois and Lex were household names. It was difficult for other franchises to compete when they didn't have a full roster of iconic characters like Robin, Alfred, Joker, Catwoman, Riddler and Penguin.

[The Darknight Detective]

I think it's funny, but I had a similar experience, though in a different year and place.

Yeah, thanks for reminding me I'm getting old, Chubistian.

I was born in 1996 in Chile, where comicbooks aren't as popular as in other countries, which is saying something in a particular art form that has such troubles reaching people out of its niche, despite the popularity that its characters have in other medias. Anyways, I used to watch the 60s tv show as a kid and I enjoyed it. Then, as I become a comicbook fan with a special inclination towards Batman (no surprise, he's one of the few superheroes that people like my maternal grandfather and my father actually liked, and they show me the Burton's movies and take to watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), I started hating the 60s show and what it did to Batman's image. Of course, as I grew older, and I like to think, more mature, I changed my mind, and I currently have a good opinion of it for what it was in its age and I bet if I watch an episode nowadays, I would get a big laugh out of it and lots of fun

Oh, it's definitely fun. Vincent Price as Egghead is a hoot. He seriously could have been known for comedy as much as he is for horror if he wanted to. Obviously, the regular villains were all great and memorable. Oh, and let's not forget the ladies... (I love all the Catwomen, but Joan Collins as the Siren is numero uno for me).

[The Darknight Detective]

Well, Cap and Thor had a 5 year headstart on Diana when it came to appearing in live action movies and both of them wrapped up their movie trilogies before or while she was making her solo movie debut. It's still weird they aren't giving her a BTAS/STAS-level animated show. That's the biggest drawback for her. Some appearances in video games like the upcoming Multiversus would help a bit but not to the extent a high quality animated series and spin-off media and merchandise from that show would.

Aquaman makes a little more sense as I think they are dragging their feet with him in multimedia because the movie owes a lot of its success to Jason Momoa, while the comics still have a blond, white dude. They are in a fix where they don't want to racebend the character entirely, and are also pushing another POC character holding the title. I'm not sure what their endgame for the franchise is TBH. Have Kaldur eventually replace Arthur entirely? Or end up with a Green Lantern situation with the both of them being co-leads? If the latter then that usually doesn't end up well for either character as we've seen with the fanbase split between Hal/John and Barry/Wally.

I think if population and inflation are factored in, I don't think anybody touches either Superman or Batman as creating the most bucks for a superhero character. They had a two decade start on everybody at Marvel (Cap and Namor the exceptions, but were out of commission for a while before the '60s) and clearly bested anybody at DC.

[Jim Kelly]

After that, it was just a matter of reinventing the franchise to keep up with the times . . .

You seem to underestimate how much of a challenge this is for creative people.

Maybe I didn't make it clear just how big the backlash against the 1966 BATMAN had become. It loomed large over fandom in the 1970s. It was a source of great shame for some and people were desperately trying to run away from it. To the extent that Batman lost his Robin and they put the colourful villains on hold for a few years. That's why there was so much radical change to the character. They tried to remove as much stuff from Batman that might have the stench of camp.

This bled over to movies and T.V. shows. It took Michael Uslan years and years of pounding on doors before he could finally convince producers to do a Batman movie. He kept getting resistance because of the association with the Adam West Batman.

It's a double-edged sword, because the camp Batman was a barrier to success yet also the reason people knew the character and his supporting cast. It was only with enough distance that they could do a movie in 1989. By then the outrage against Batman had calmed down and enough stuff had happened in the meantime for people to accept this new version.

[The Darknight Detective]

Yeah, there's no way a child will consider the '66 show to be lame. I mean, today's kids are addicted to Teen Titans Go! and Batman '66 comes across as BTAS compared to it.

If they had seen one of the Nolan or Burton films first (not to mention BTAS), however, I'm pretty sure their reaction towards the '66 show wouldn't be as positive. I know if I had been introduced to the comics first back in the late '60s, my initial positive opinion of the Adam West Bats would have suffered.

[The Darknight Detective]

You seem to underestimate how much of a challenge this is for creative people.

Maybe I didn't make it clear just how big the backlash against the 1966 BATMAN had become. It loomed large over fandom in the 1970s. It was a source of great shame for some and people were desperately trying to run away from it. To the extent that Batman lost his Robin and they put the colourful villains on hold for a few years. That's why there was so much radical change to the character. They tried to remove as much stuff from Batman that might have the stench of camp.

This bled over to movies and T.V. shows. It took Michael Uslan years and years of pounding on doors before he could finally convince producers to do a Batman movie. He kept getting resistance because of the association with the Adam West Batman.

It's a double-edged sword, because the camp Batman was a barrier to success yet also the reason people knew the character and his supporting cast. It was only with enough distance that they could do a movie in 1989. By then the outrage against Batman had calmed down and enough stuff had happened in the meantime for people to accept this new version.

I'm slightly younger than you, Jim, so while I don't recall Bat-mania, I do remember its aftermath. He just wasn't considered to be cool back in the '70s, which kind of boggles the mind now so many years later. I only wish DC had given permission to create a program closer to the "New Look" Batman (the Lyle Waggoner screen test as Bruce Wayne suggests this was a possibility at the time) so we could have had the best of all worlds.

[TheBatman]

Well, Cap and Thor had a 5 year headstart on Diana when it came to appearing in live action movies and both of them wrapped up their movie trilogies before or while she was making her solo movie debut.

My post wasn't about comparing WW to Cap and Thor.

Regardless, if anyone had the headstart, it was Wonder Woman. She had a popular TV show before getting a live action film, something neither Cap or Thor had. But because WB is inept at managing WW, it took until 2016 for Diana to pop up on the bigscreen, despite how iconic she already was.

[Marvell2100]

My post wasn't about comparing WW to Cap and Thor.

Regardless, if anyone had the headstart, it was Wonder Woman. She had a popular TV show before getting a live action film, something neither Cap or Thor had. But because WB is inept at managing WW, it took until 2016 for Diana to pop up on the bigscreen, despite how iconic she already was.

Glad you emphasized popular . Cap did have a TV movie back in the 70's(total disaster) and a version of Thor appeared in a few episodes of The Incredible Hulk TV show.

[The Kid]

I think if population and inflation are factored in, I don't think anybody touches either Superman or Batman as creating the most bucks for a superhero character. They had a two decade start on everybody at Marvel (Cap and Namor the exceptions, but were out of commission for a while before the '60s) and clearly bested anybody at DC.

Idk about that, Spidey came out two decades later and already seems to be on par or even slightly ahead of Batman in total media sales and well ahead of Superman. And like Batman, he keeps getting material with the first billion dollar pandemic movie in December, another hit video game, and Spider-Verse 2 soon. I'm not sure how big inflation would really even be as I don't think superheroes were really a global merch machine in the 40s and 50s like they have been in the last several decades. Hell, it was the 80s where there toy sales really took off