Batman (1966): When not being “good” doesn’t matter

There was a time long ago that a movie getting made was enough to consider it a success. Heck, in some instances, that still is the case. But unlike with today’s big franchise blockbusters, there wasn’t million dollars you could throw at big projects to have them to see the light of day and the actual budget came down to practically months worth of saving up from a few dozen people’s allowances. There were times were big franchise movies based on iconic characters were the equivalent of student independent films. The point isn’t whether or not it was any good but that the mere fact it got made at all should be considered an accomplishment by itself. Just like getting a gold star on your chart in Kindergarten, that fact that you tried is more than enough. Batman (1966) is one of those movies that has those exact vibes when watching through this 104 minute long adaptation of both the now iconic DC superhero and the hit tv series of the same name.

Is Batman (1966) (or also referred to as Batman: The Movie) actually good? It really depends on your definition of “good”.

In my experience, I basically have two definitions of what qualify as a good movie.

The first one is a movie that is able to exceed at exactly what it wants and sets out to be regardless of what flaw in either the story, characters, or production you may find. Even if it doesn’t meet the standards of what traditional filmmaking transpires as at the time of the films’ initial release, the fact it’s able to meet it’s goals on it’s own terms is enough to consider it good.

The second is a movie that is able to exceed on nearly every single metric that constitutes good filmmaking. The script is sharp and coherent, the characters are full of depth and engagement, the direction is top notch, the pacing is spot-on, the score is caliber, the sound/production design is off the charts, and there never contains a massive bug that gets in the way of the experience. The ones that are able to achieve most or all of that is what can be called good.

Spider-Man: No Way Home fits the first definition of that to a t.

Spider-Man 2 fits the second definition of that to a t.

I’m not entirely sure that Batman meets either one of those definitions. It’s definitely closer to the former than the latter but doesn’t quite get there either. And I’m not just talking about for today’s standards of a good movie, which most will consider the second definition of “good”, but the standards of a good franchise movie in the mid 1960s, which I’m sure most would consider the first definition of “good”.

Batman can be what constitutes as a comedy of errors. Throughout the whole movie, we see our heroes make mistake after mistake in incredibly hilarious fashion just so there can be actually conflicts and situations for them to get out of. The plot is absolutely ridiculous filled with logical lapses and relies heavily on convivences and dumb decisions made by the main characters to keep the story moving. There’s not an ounce of character development to speak of and not a single adaption of any of these characters that can be seen as faithful to the Batman roots. And that’s not even going into the scene where Batman fights a shark while dangling from a helicopter or the film’s odd tacked-on political subtext near the tail end of the picture.

And who can ever forget this iconic as hell moment?! Christopher Nolan CERTAINLY did not!

But yet, Batman still kinda works as the best version of itself, even if that best version isn’t any good. In 1966, Batman was not a character that was largely popular or had it’s own ego. At the time, there were a couple of other movies that came out that hardly anybody remembers, a hit tv show, and comics for any kids that could afford it due to taking a good amount of summer/weekend jobs. It didn’t have to be good, it just needed to exist. And it completely succeeds at that goal.

It’s a movie that not just plays by it’s own rules but is also not afraid to break those rules if it’s enough to satisfy itself and the people making it. And you can definitely tell the people making this are having the time of their lives.

Adam West, Burt Ward, Lee Meriwether, Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Frank Gorshin, Alan Napier, Neil Hamilton, and many others bring there absolute A game to create performances that perfectly match with this bizarre, silly world that the movie is set in. Leslie H. Martinson and Lorenzo Semple Jr. are able to fully embrace the goofball tone and feel of the picture that they are going for and (I assume) that fits with the tv show it’s based on. And for what is considered to be DC’s first ever fully length DC theatrical adaptation, the fact this is even remotely watchable is the biggest miracle of them all.

Above all, Batman contains something that I really miss nowadays with big franchise movies, it being the exact movie that itself wants to be and not the audience. You couldn’t make a Batman movie like this in 2022. Not just because it doesn’t meet the standards of filmmaking today (whatever that consists of) but it wouldn’t meet the standards of what the fans and audience expect out of Batman. You release this movie today, it would get torn to shred by everybody and many of the cast and crew would be chase off of social media. However, this movie came out in 1966, not 2022. There was no social media to speak off or high standards to reach with this character or series. It was an actual thing and because of that, it could be anything it desired to be.

Regardless of what your definition of a good movie is, Batman doesn’t have any interest in matching any one of them. Instead, it tries to create it’s own definition of a good movie, at least for what can be considered good for 1966. But as I’ve said repeatedly throughout this post, whether or not this movie is good is not important, it’s mere existence is. The fact there was an actually movie called Batman at the time of it’s release makes it as big of an accomplishment as what Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan did for their own respected versions in at the times those films was released.

A Batman movie being a thing that happened might have been enough for 1966 but that would only be the case if any films with the character that comes after were actually good in their own rights. And as we can see nearly 56 years later after countless different Batflicks and a new one coming out this year, I said at least some of those meet one or two definitions of somebody’s version of a good movie. And we shall continue to explore that all month long as I will go over every single other theatrical release Batman movie to come out since then.

Next up, Batman (1989)!