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

[Confuzzled]

Inflation plays a part when it comes to box office sales, Batman 89 made $411m worldwide but adjusted for inflation it made over $578m in North America alone: http://www.boxofficereport.com/allti...ddomestic.html 48th highest grossing film ever in NA. Plus as I said the list leaves out revenue from Batman's comic book sales, both Spider-Man and Superman have made over $1b simply from comics so you can add another billion to Batman's $27b.

Adjusting for inflation isn't an exact science or mathematics though as it fails to consider several factors that benefitted older films like lack of competition in the form of other movies and media, absence of streaming platforms, on demand video, piracy, lower ticket prices etc. A Batman '89 could play for months on end in theatres in 1989. Now, movies are not so lucky.

[The Darknight Detective]

Adjusting for inflation isn't an exact science or mathematics though as it fails to consider several factors that benefitted older films like lack of competition in the form of other movies and media, absence of streaming platforms, on demand video, piracy, lower ticket prices etc. A Batman '89 could play for months on end in theatres in 1989. Now, movies are not so lucky.

Well, if we don't adjust for inflation, then we have to conclude the most popular films of all-time all occurred in recent years. Obviously, that's kind of ridiculous.

[The Kid]

Well, if we don't adjust for inflation, then we have to conclude the most popular films of all-time all occurred in recent years. Obviously, that's kind of ridiculous.

I mean it's mostly true though. We live in an increasingly globalized world and the population has increased by significant amounts. More people watched Titanic or Avengers: Endgame than Gone with the Wind or Jaws since it was huge across the entire world. Also, back in the day, movies would return to theaters several times over the course of decades for more runs because VCR/DVD didn't exist so those numbers are jacked up even more. It's why just blindly using inflation doesn't really work

[iron chimp]

Comic sales per capita were at its highest during the Golden Age of the '30s and '40s. Despite the much smaller population of that time, the top-selling comics sold in the millions. Think how much they would have sold today with a population of 330 million! The later eras are in not in the same ballpark (and, with the exception of The Death of Superman, includes the speculation era of the early '90s).

Comic book sales have been on a downward slide since my parents were born almost eighty years ago with no end in sight.

I agree if you do it per capita but just on raw sales 80s and 90s easily matches golden age if not surpasses it.

X-men will have been doing about 20 million a year after the relaunch. Mcfarlanes spiderman will have been doing 10 million. Just those 2 books would rival anything from golden age bar maybe 1 or 2 books.

Random things like Tribe from image sold 750k I think which would make it one of the biggest books of golden age.

There was A lot of huge selling books in 90s that could match a golden age book and there were a lot more books too in 80s and 90s than golden age.

Sales in 80s and 90s were much better than in 70s so it's not been ever decreasing Circle. It's been more cyclical of boom and bust over the decades until it plateaued in 2000s

Even today you will occasionally see a book in the 300k to 500k bracket which would put it very high up in golden age sales chart

[The Darknight Detective]

I mean it's mostly true though. We live in an increasingly globalized world and the population has increased by significant amounts. More people watched Titanic or Avengers: Endgame than Gone with the Wind or Jaws since it was huge across the entire world. Also, back in the day, movies would return to theaters several times over the course of decades for more runs because VCR/DVD didn't exist so those numbers are jacked up even more. It's why just blindly using inflation doesn't really work

What doesn't work is having at least 95% of films made during the past five years in the top 200 most popular films. That's just crazy. A list adjusted for inflation might not be perfect (which is why I also said it should be adjusted for population), but at least a list from there would have a much wider cross section of films from all different eras. That just seems much more sensible to me and statistically sound than just using absolute numbers with zero context.

[The Darknight Detective]

I agree if you do it per capita but just on raw sales 80s and 90s easily matches golden age if not surpasses it.

Yes, you're right about a couple of outliers during that asinine speculation era of the late '80s and early '90s. Still, on average, more comics were sold during the Golden Age than that era even without adjusting for population - it can be certainly said none from the '30s or '40s were bought by people foolish enough to think he or she could pay of their child's college loans.

[Jcogginsa]

The trend started in the Post Crisis era, due to a combination of

1. Frank Miller putting out TDKR and Year One in quick succession, to critical acclaim.

2. DC's then biggest character, Superman, being crippled by having the majority of his mythos tossed out by John Byrne

[Powerboy]

I think it happened in the 80’s I think the triple whammy of DKR, Year One, and the killing Joke pretty much rocketed Batman past everyone else. Prior to that Superman was the most popular character, and Batman was seen as kind of corny by the population at large( a result of the 60’s show). I feel giving Batman consistent mythology also helps. He’s the only character at DC that doesn’t get radical transformations after every major reboot. Their is no “Zeus’ daughter now” moments with Batman like their is with pretty much every other DC character.

I think that sums it up.

[Powerboy]

TDK Returns was incredibly successful. O'Neill and Englehart laid the groundwork for a darker Batman but it was Miller who took it to it's most extreme. I heard from fans at the time that it even made the local news. Then the 1989 Batman movie happened and it was a major turning point in the general public's perception of Batman. Up until that point, the dominant image of Batman was that of Adam West's Batman. A darker, radically different Batman was new and fresh at the time and it even sparked the 'Batmania' leading up to it's release and aftermath. '89 Batman made it's own contribution to blockbuster filmmaking, particularly in tying films and merchandising. It even lead to several darker films inspired or based on comics like Sam Raimi's Darkman and the 90's Dick Tracy movie.

Then Batman hit animation and it turned out to be a huge turning point for that as well. Imagine watching something like Robocop animated show then being hit by something like Batman: The Animated Series that took on a darker, more mature approach to story telling and opened the doors for shows like The Real Adventures Of Johnny Quest, Swat Kats and Gargoyles. Batman wasn't solely responsible for this of course, Simpsons and the rise of anime also played a part in it but Batman certainly helped.

On the comics side, under Denny O'Neil's editorial role in the 90's, the Bat Books expanded to include multiple titles under it's umbrella. Catwoman, Nightwing, Robin and BOP had titles that ran into the 100's. It set the mold for Bat titles and Bat events that they follow to this day.

Even after the Batman movie franchise hit a lull period after Batman & Robin, they still gave Batman a chance again and he made banks with TDK.

Then Batman hit big in Arkham Games which had a lot of people who worked on B:TAS (Dini, Conroy and Hamill) involved. Then the DTV movies adaptated his best stories helped pick up new fanboys. Jason Todd's popularity is significantly owed to the Under The Red Hood movie which was later adapted to the Titans show and the Arkham Games.

Also, as others have mentioned, Batman has a high degree of consistency in his mythology. Even with the consistent reboots. Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered in Crime Alley by Joe Chill, Alfred raised him (this wasn't the case in Golden and Silver Age but it doesn't matter now, Alfred *is* Bruce's father figure now), Gordon is his primary ally in the police force, Dick was the first Robin, Jason died at Joker's hand, Tim is the third Robin and Damian is his biological son by Talia. It's not like the WW mythology where Diana is born from clay by the Goddesses/daughter of Zeus, Cassie is either child/grandchild of Zeus or that weird Nu52 origin, Donna's multiple choice origin, Nubia being other WW's twin sister/just another Amazon or depending on the adaptation, Hippolyta has been with Zeus, Hades and Ares. That's without getting in how to ridiculously fractured the Flash fandom is post Flash Rebirth or how you have multiple GL's vying for panel time but DC at this point can only publish one book. But hey, if you think that's bad, try being a fan of the Hawks. Any of them. Or being a fan of the JSA. Or the Titans. Or worse, the Legion of Superheroes.


The high degree of success is helped by the fact that the same people have worked for years on Batman. Denny O'Neill was a writer and later editor for Batman for two solid decades. He put Frank Miller on Year One. Producer Michael Uslan has his name attached to every single Batman adaptation since the '89 Batman. Bruce Timm has worked on every single Batman cartoon with the exception of 'The Batman' and 'Batman: The Brave and the Bold'. Though even those shows had DCAU alumns like Alan Burnett and James Tucker respectively. Dini, who wrote B:TAS also worked on the Arkham Games.

Also, the Batman comics takes advantage of the *whole* comic book canon from the first Batman to the most recent one. Stories like the 'Case of the Chemical Syndicate' gets retellings every other anniversary. There aren't weird cut off points like Post Crisis, Nu52 and Rebirth like there are for other characters and every character has a place in the mythos and usually with their own book too. Even a once minor supporting character like Lucius Fox now has a fleshed out extended family who have carried their own books and even Batman supporting characters like Harley Quinn has their own show.

Very significant point. When the Post-Crisis era began, a friend of mine said he could not accept that Superman was the same character he had been for decades. Suddenly, he was the high school star athlete. But he could accept, within reason, that Batman was the same character he had always been within reason.

I feel like you can look at a Batman story from 1939 and, with a little tweeking, believe it is the same Batman and the story could still have happened.

Also, the Chris Reeve Superman really was big but it did not particularly translate into comics popularity because they hadn't changed. But, as people have said, you had the buildup of O'Neill and others. Then the culmination with Miller's DKR and Year One. Year 2 was also popular and even 3 and then the movie cinched it. Also, our culture was ripe for it in the aftermath of things like Vietnam, Watergate, and so on. A darker character but not too dark was done at the right moment.

[The True Detective]

I mean it's mostly true though. We live in an increasingly globalized world and the population has increased by significant amounts. More people watched Titanic or Avengers: Endgame than Gone with the Wind or Jaws since it was huge across the entire world. Also, back in the day, movies would return to theaters several times over the course of decades for more runs because VCR/DVD didn't exist so those numbers are jacked up even more. It's why just blindly using inflation doesn't really work

It goes both ways, modern movies not only benefit from more expensive tickets but also bigger international markets. Back when Gone with the Wind was out the overseas box office was nowhere near as big as it became in the late 90s. If it was released today it would've obviously benefited from that.

[The Darknight Detective]

It goes both ways, modern movies not only benefit from more expensive tickets but also bigger international markets. Back when Gone with the Wind was out the overseas box office was nowhere near as big as it became in the late 90s. If it was released today it would've obviously benefited from that.

Movies didn't stay as long at the theaters back then as they do today, too, since the film companies were churning out so much product that needed to be viewed. Now many of these movies were re-released over the years (I can recall the Gone With the Wind movie ad in the newspapers when I was a little kid back in the early '70s - I mistakenly thought Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh were young movie stars of the time ), but I don't see that as an advantage over the higher ticket prices, more extensive global reach, and the greater number of potential moviegoers later movies have enjoyed.

[iron chimp]

Yes, you're right about a couple of outliers during that asinine speculation era of the late '80s and early '90s. Still, on average, more comics were sold during the Golden Age than that era even without adjusting for population - it can be certainly said none from the '30s or '40s were bought by people foolish enough to think he or she could pay of their child's college loans.

Golden age must have been incredible with just sheer amount of readers. Even with all the films and computer games I find that's not unusual when talking to someone who likes the games or movies and i say "oh if you liked that then you should read the comics" that people look at me like I'm insane.

[The Darknight Detective]

Golden age must have been incredible with just sheer amount of readers.

In the mid-'40s, the average comic was selling almost 600,000. When you realize the US population was only 139 million, you have to scratch your head.

Even with all the films and computer games I find that's not unusual when talking to someone who likes the games or movies and i say "oh if you liked that then you should read the comics" that people look at me like I'm insane.

Heh. I have been saying that for decades myself and I tend to get the same reaction.

[Bruce Wayne]

Comics wise?

DC spent most of the Didio era messing with a lot of franchises that already had a decent amount of fans.. Flash, JSA, Teen Titans, JLI era characters.

This is the best explanation. There was way too much micromanaging during this era that hurt many properties like Superman and Wonder Woman. Superman had four ongoings (plus spinoffs like Superboy/Steel/Supergirl) before you-know-who came along and then there was no stable team on the book for years because of the editors and that hurt Superman as a comic book property. You had a similar issue with Wonder Woman with a lack of decent team of creators and a lot of micromanaging and editorially mandated events. There was no equivalent to Morrison or Snyder's run on the Batbooks (a strong tentpole run that could sell other c and d-list books) on Superman or Wonder Woman.

In contrast you simply didn't have this level of micromanaging in the batbooks. Other than the Schreck era and Didio's hatred for Cassandra Cain and Oracle, Mike Marts and later Mark Doyle were left to their own devices to do what they wanted and to grow the batfranchise and they were successful. And to be fair they inherited already a very strong property built up by Denny O'Neil during his time at DC.

[superduperman]

I think there is a legitimate question to be asked here: Does DC like Batman more than other characters? Does that play a role in why he is used more than any other character?