Are Star Wars and 1989 Batman the biggest gambles that paid off in a huge way?

[Bayesian 1,367]

I happened to watch the making-of-Batman documentary on YouTube last night (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJEbLvFBbQM) and was struck by how much of a gamble this movie was. Young, untested director with a peculiar, distinct, and uncompromising (and expensive) vision for the movie... the enormous outrage at casting Michael Keaton... the skepticism of hiring Elfman to write the score... the largest film production budget up to that point... the widespread worry that people would revolt over the treatment of the Batman character... the massive and unprecedented marketing campaign that fed the unprecedented anticipation of the moviegoing public... it's easy to imagine how, in an alternate universe, Batman fails at the box office and destroys Burton's career before it really starts and heads roll throughout Warner Bros. But instead, the movie becomes an out-of-the-park grand slam and helps change Hollywood forever.

 

A generally similar story played out a dozen years earlier with Star Wars, as we know. My question is whether there are any other movies that were, from the outset, as much of a gamble during production yet paid off in a massive way. I can't think of any.

 

 

 

[Chen G. 4,025]

Lots and lots of movies are big gambles.

 

The Lord of the Rings was a big gamble. Recently, Villenueve's Dune was a big gamble. Braveheart was a huge gamble. Apocalypse Now was an ENORMOUS gamble. The Sixth Sense, in its own way, was a gamble. The Matrix was one hell of a gamble. So was Mad Max: Fury Road. Titanic was a huge gamble. Etc...etc...etc...

 

Its easy to sensationalize these things. I certainly think the Lucasfilm documentaries that make Star Wars into a "little engine that could" do just that.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

I think that every film is a gamble.

It's when studios/companies go into making a film expecting it to succeed, that you need to watch out. It means that originality and integrity have gone down the shitter, and have been replaced by money-grabbing cynicism. A classic example of this is THE SWARM. Allen had no understanding of how a film that cost $20,000,000 and had a cast of A-list stars could fail. He couldn't see that that sort of film's day had come and gone. That he tried it again, and once more besides, is beyond a joke.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was one fuck of a gamble. Lucas put up a lot of his own money to get it financed, and he could have been bankrupted if the film had tanked. Plus there was the whole Director Credit/DGA debacle.

If a film isn't a gamble, if there's no risk, then it's probably not worth watching.

[Bayesian 1,367]

I never knew ESB was a gamble. Interesting. 

 

I totally understand that filmmaking is a risky business. What I suppose I was wondering was how often has there been a situation where, like Batman, the largest hitherto budget for a film was entrusted to the hands of a twenty-something untested filmmaker, who then proceeded to cast an actor who drew widespread ire and hire a composer who the studio had severe reservations about, etc., and everything worked out spectacularly well. Or some other situation where risk and reward were both sky-high. Sounds like ESB was just the kind of example I was looking for.

[mstrox 6,675]

The biggest gamble was that one with the train coming at the screen

[Jay 37,511]

7 minutes ago, Bayesian said:

who then proceeded to cast an actor who drew widespread ire

 

Keaton drew widespread ire?  I don't know about this

[Andy 4,269]

Oh yeah at the time people only knew him as Mr Mom.  If there was an internet back then he would’ve been savaged.  “You wanna get nuts?” Well people did, until the teaser dropped. 

[Bayesian 1,367]

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Keaton drew widespread ire?  I don't know about this

Yeah, apparently folks hated the idea that Michael "Mr. Mom"/"Beetlejuice" Keaton was going to play the Caped Crusader. Big letter-writing campaigns to the studio and everything.

[mstrox 6,675]

They hit on it quite a bit on the feature-length doc on the old DVD, but Keaton was kind of a little noodly comedy guy, and 1980s folks were used to big, beefy Stallones and Schwarzeneggers as their heroes - manly men.

 

[Jay 37,511]

I don't think I ever got around to watching any of the special features on the Bat-discs

[mstrox 6,675]

I had the box of all four movies, but only ever bothered watching the first two docs.  Pretty interesting iirc.

[karelm 2,915]

I remember when Michael Keaton was announced as Batman.  It was such an odd choice but no more surprising than Jack Nickolson as his nemesis, the Joker.  In hindsight it works very well.  The only superhero films before that were Superman and its increasingly dull sequels.  Keaton was mostly thought of as a comedian but demonstrated tremendous range.  Similarly, Tom Hanks was considered an odd choice for Philadelphia, I think that was his first dramatic role and he nailed it.  I was very young when Superman 78 came out but would imagine having heavy weights like Marlon Brando, Gene Hackmann, and Glenn Ford must have been extremely jarring but they seem so perfect in those roles in hindsight.  Don't forget Bill Murray in 1984's Razor's Edge which was very, very jarring!

 

 

[Romão 2,276]

Casting Nicholson as the Joker was a surprising choice? It seems like one of the most obvious and no-brainer casting choices there is.

 

And by this time he had already done One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Witches of Eastwick (this one with the same producer as Batman), which makes the casting even more obvious.

 

Casting Ledger was left-field. Not Nicholson 

 

I would even venture to say one of the main reasons Burton got away with casting Keaton was that Nicholson on his own already guaranteed the necessary star power. He even got first billing over the actor playing the title character 

[Groovygoth666 730]

Fun fact Nicholson wasn't so sure on playing the Joker, so Robin Williams was offered the role as a way to get Nicholson to be jealous/tricked into accepting it, with a big part of the agreement being he got top billing! Years later when Warner Bros offered Robin Williams the part of the Riddler in Batman Forever he passed because of being used to get Nicholson in 89.

 

Star Wars was definitely a massive gamble, it's important to remember multiple studios passed on it, deeming it to be unfilmable. And without John Dykstra/ Richard Edlund, and the crew they assembled for ILM, Star Wars probably wouldn't exist. 

 

The Jazz Singer at the time was also a huge gamble, the idea of synchronized sound to film was widely derrided by critics as a gimmick.

 

The same with technicolour films of the 30's!

 

There's also Jurassic Park, while cgi had been used before this was the first film to really utilise it in a prolific way.

 

To answer the question are Star Wars and Batman gambles that paid off. With both it's an easy yes, but there was a lot more riding on Star Wars. Star Wars was a much more important technical achievement, without it there are countless films that don't get made. With Batman it certainly ushered in a new wave of comic book movies, but it set a certain tone that a lot of those films tried to copy rather than standing on their own. 

 

For films In terms of biggest gamble there are so many that without them there are countless that wouldn't exist, that pushed others to test not only the technology but the audience and to boil it down to just Star Wars and Batman feels kind of dishonest. Star Wars absolutely pushed boundaries in one way with Batman in another, both ushered in a new era of cinema at their respective releases. 

 

But there are so many that pushed the boundaries that paid off because of them that helped shape movies into what they are today.

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,403]

Hard to imagine that the following year's Dick Tracy would've been greenlit without Batman's success ... in a similar fashion to how Keaton was regarded as unsuitable for Bats, the then-53 Warren Beatty was derided as being too old/not enough of a box-office draw for Tracy (which may be why they also took the 'big name playing the villain' approach (in their case, Al Pacino) and the heavy, heavy marketing campaign).   

[Chen G. 4,025]

11 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Star Wars was definitely a massive gamble, it's important to remember multiple studios passed on it, deeming it to be unfilmable.

 

It was not deemd unfilmable, it was deemd risky. At one point in the production, Lucas shopped it again to the other studios and their internal rejection letters are much less derogatory than Lucas would have you think. Universal said that the concept "is rather exciting, and combined with the potential action inherent in the piece, it seems to me an attractive possibility in many ways. [...] Bottom line: If the movie works, we might have a wonderful, humorous and exciting adventure-fantasy, an artistic and very commercial venture. Most of what we need is here."

 

United Artists' Marcia Nasatir said: "I like this very much. The innocence of the story, plus the sophistication of the world he will depict makes for the best kind of motion picture." Then later Jerry Silverstein said "If Lucas makes it properly exciting and fantastic, keeping you on the edge of your seat so that the adventures completely engulf you, then he will have a hit."

 

Obviously Fox thought there's a good chance it would make a big buck: their contract with Lucasfilm specifically states that "picture falls under the definition of "blockbuster." The picture has substantial domestic and international appeal." Lucas himself admitted he thought it could make a thrifty $25 million domestic, and Spielberg thought it'd make $50-60 million.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

6 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

...the heavy, heavy marketing campaign).   

 

I was living in America in the Fall of 1989, and I remember going to my local flea-pit and seeing a teaser poster for DICK TRACY. It had a cartoon of WB's face in a cameo, and it said: "This Summer, They're Out To Get Him".

 

If JAWS changed the way that films were released, then what film changed the way that they were advertised?

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Fun fact Nicholson wasn't so sure on playing the Joker...

 

In 1986, during the filming of THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK, BATMAN was mooted, by Guber and Peters. Nicholson said: "I wouldn't play The Joker, not even for $50,000,000".

Cut to 1989, and that's about how much he made, from the film.

[A24 4,367]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

It was not deemd unfilmable, it was deemd risky. At one point in the production, Lucas shopped it again to the other studios and their internal rejection letters are much less derogatory than Lucas would have you think. Universal said that the concept "is rather exciting, and combined with the potential action inherent in the piece, it seems to me an attractive possibility in many ways. [...] Bottom line: If the movie works, we might have a wonderful, humorous and exciting adventure-fantasy, an artistic and very commercial venture. Most of what we need is here."

 

United Artists' Marcia Nasatir said: "I like this very much. The innocence of the story, plus the sophistication of the world he will depict makes for the best kind of motion picture." Then later Jerry Silverstein said "If Lucas makes it properly exciting and fantastic, keeping you on the edge of your seat so that the adventures completely engulf you, then he will have a hit."

 

Obviously Fox thought there's a good chance it would make a big buck: their contract with Lucasfilm specifically states that "picture falls under the definition of "blockbuster." The picture has substantial domestic and international appeal." Lucas himself admitted he thought it could make a thrifty $25 million domestic, and I can't remember how much he and Spielberg bet it would make but it wasn't baubles.

 

I once heard Star Wars was a 'huge' risk because it was science fiction and science fiction was deemed a risky genre because most sci-fi did not make any money.

[Chen G. 4,025]

I mean, it was risky! Of course it was.

 

But the whole bravado about "my goal was never to make a 'hit movie'" and that everyone thought it was going to tank, is just fallacious.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

59 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

I once heard Star Wars was a 'huge' risk because it was science fiction and science fiction was deemed a risky genre because most sci-fi did not make any money.

For 1968, 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY was a "fuck off" hit.

 

It's kinda interesting to know that, by the Summer of 1976, not a single frame of usable film, for STAR WARS, was shot, and Fox was considering pulling the plug. That it even got finished was all down to one film, and to one man.

[Andy 4,269]

Risk and desire for success are two different things. Remember Lucas had panic attacks over ILM. It finishing enough shots.  Alan Ladd had to go to bat for him.  The effects could’ve tanked and it definitely was a gamble. 

[Chen G. 4,025]

Just now, Naïve Old Fart said:

For 1968, 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY was a "fuck off" hit.

 

My understanding is it took theatrical reruns until 1975 or so for it to start turning a real profit.

 

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

My understanding is it took theatrical reruns until 1975 or so for it to start turning a real profit.

 

According to Wiki, in 1968, 2001 took $21,000,000. That's exactly double what it cost. It was a sizeable hit. Subsequent re-runs - not to mention tapping into the "counterculture" - made it what it is today.

[Chen G. 4,025]

5 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

According to Wiki, in 1968, 2001 took $21,000,000. That's exactly double what it cost.

 

If its by wikipedia that we're going then:

 

Quote

"the film's high costs, in excess of $10 million, meant that the initial returns from the 1968 release left it $800,000 in the red; but the successful re-release in 1971 made it profitable."

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

Now, just a damn minute!

@Chen G., I said that it was successful. I did not say that it was profitable 

[A24 4,367]

26 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

For 1968, 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY was a "fuck off" hit.

 

THX 1138 was not. 

[Chen G. 4,025]

9 minutes ago, AC1 said:

THX 1138 was not. 

 

Even when Lucas screened it again after he became George "Star Wars" Lucas it still tanked! 

 

That which sucks just sucks, I guess...

[Groovygoth666 730]

On 05/05/2023 at 5:07 AM, Chen G. said:

 

It was not deemd unfilmable, it was deemd risky. At one point in the production, Lucas shopped it again to the other studios and their internal rejection letters are much less derogatory than Lucas would have you think. Universal said that the concept "is rather exciting, and combined with the potential action inherent in the piece, it seems to me an attractive possibility in many ways. [...] Bottom line: If the movie works, we might have a wonderful, humorous and exciting adventure-fantasy, an artistic and very commercial venture. Most of what we need is here."

 

United Artists' Marcia Nasatir said: "I like this very much. The innocence of the story, plus the sophistication of the world he will depict makes for the best kind of motion picture." Then later Jerry Silverstein said "If Lucas makes it properly exciting and fantastic, keeping you on the edge of your seat so that the adventures completely engulf you, then he will have a hit."

 

Obviously Fox thought there's a good chance it would make a big buck: their contract with Lucasfilm specifically states that "picture falls under the definition of "blockbuster." The picture has substantial domestic and international appeal." Lucas himself admitted he thought it could make a thrifty $25 million domestic, and Spielberg thought it'd make $50-60 million.

As always your knowledge of those early days of Star Wars is impressive. Sorry for my poor wording, but Star Wars was still rejected by multiple studios ultimately. And it's important to note as @Andypoints out that Alan Ladd was a big part of getting Star Wars made, which I failed to note.

 

On 05/05/2023 at 4:56 AM, Sweeping Strings said:

Hard to imagine that the following year's Dick Tracy would've been greenlit without Batman's success ... in a similar fashion to how Keaton was regarded as unsuitable for Bats, the then-53 Warren Beatty was derided as being too old/not enough of a box-office draw for Tracy (which may be why they also took the 'big name playing the villain' approach (in their case, Al Pacino) and the heavy, heavy marketing campaign).   

@Naïve Old Fartpoints out that the marketing was already underway for Dick Tracy by the time of Batman's release. But Batman's success did influence the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film that was in development getting picked up. And it would became the highest grossing independent film released for some years! Batman also influenced the tone of comic films to come in the 90's. The Crow, Blade, Spawn, Judge Dredd, The Shadow, The Phantom and Barb Wire all took that dark esthetic and ran with it. With outliers like The Mask, Tank Girl and Men In Black acting as kind of offbeat comedic takes on their comic book stories for film at the time.

 

22 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

In 1986, during the filming of THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK, BATMAN was mooted, by Guber and Peters. Nicholson said: "I wouldn't play The Joker, not even for $50,000,000".

Cut to 1989, and that's about how much he made, from the film.

That's another fun fact!

 

In terms of sci-fi films released prior to Star Wars most hadn't been that successful. What was there? 2001, Planet of the Apes franchise, Logan's Run, Westworld to name a few off the top of my head. 

 

I also forgot to add that Disney's Snow White was a massive gamble. Without it there probably wouldn't be an animation film industry!

[Sweeping Strings 2,403]

Star Wars changed the game when it came to tie-in merch, especially toys ... sure, there'd been things like the Corgi Aston Martin DB5 previous to that. But little until SW in terms of the same scope, scale and profitability.  

[Chen G. 4,025]

My memory is Jaws had a lot of merchandize in terms of T-shirts and the like.

 

8 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

As always your knowledge of those early days of Star Wars is impressive. Sorry for my poor wording, but Star Wars was still rejected by multiple studios ultimately. And it's important to note as @Andypoints out that Alan Ladd was a big part of getting Star Wars made, which I failed to note.

 

Even though I'm not such a huge fan of the movies (with the exception of Empire Strikes Back) I find the making-of story - the real making-of story, not the souped-up Lucasfilm-driven narrative - a fascinating topic of art history. And its fascinating precisely because its been covered by decades' worth of affectations and revisionist history.

 

And yeah, Alan Ladd Junior was a pretty visionary producer. He committed his fair share of crimes - the US cut of Once Upon a Time in America - but he also produced not just Star Wars but also - talk about gambles - Braveheart, one of my holy of holies of human achievement.

[Andy 4,269]

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Star Wars changed the game when it came to tie-in merch, especially toys ... sure, there'd been things like the Corgi Aston Martin DB5 previous to that. But little until SW in terms of the same scope, scale and profitability.  

We would be remiss not to mention Planet of the Apes, which had 5 movies and a TV series worth of TONS of merchandise. 
 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

Er... that's two TV series, @Andy

STAR WARS might be the first film to capture the tie-in merchandise market, but both DOCTOR WHO, and THUNDERBIRDS did phenomenal business with toys, in 1964, and 1965.

[Andy 4,269]

You’re right yes.  Also King Kong 1976 had its share of tie ins. Puzzles, trading cards, games,  Burger King glasses, games, a doll, etc.  Seems like just prior to Star Wars, monkeys=money. 

[Chen G. 4,025]

There's no way to prove it, but the little beat where Luke is playing in the foreground of shot with...ostensibly a piece of Star Wars merch... wasn't in the script before Lucas landed merchandizing rights...

[Andy 4,269]

I’d wager that was just one of Colin Cantwell’s early models just thrown into the set by Roger Christian?  Remember, not even Kenner was thinking toys from the start. It was puzzles, games, craft items before the action figures. 

[Edmilson 7,622]

I remember reading somewhere that it was Star Trek: The Motion Picture in late 1979 that had the first Happy Meal tie-in ever. Since then, a lot of blockbusters or movies designed for kids (especially from Disney) had partnerships with McDonald's.

[Andy 4,269]

I have vivid memories of getting this one and studying that purple transporter room.  the toy prize was a cheap wristband bracelet. 
 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

4 minutes ago, Andy said:

the toy prize was a cheap wristband bracelet. 

 

Which, by now, is, probably, worth $250,000 

[Chen G. 4,025]

5 hours ago, Andy said:

I'd wager that was just one of Colin Cantwell’s early models just thrown into the set by Roger Christian?

 

It is a rejected model for a ship (a Y-Wing, I believe) but not a Cantwell model, I don't think: Cantwell's work had (understandably) much more of a 2001-esque sci-fi feel and much of it didn't end-up in the finished film.

 

I checked the script (revised fourth draft), and it seems that beat was added in place of having Luke work on an actual Sky-hopper, which is what he was supposed to be doing in the garage. Budget constraints, one wagers. That puts my little theory to bed, it seems

[Andy 4,269]

I’m preeeety sure it was Cantwell’s actual model. 
 

Who the hell is Colin Cantwell

 

Quote

The T15 Skyhopper model that Luke plays with in the film was actually his concept model.

 

 

 

[mstrox 6,675]

If Luke playing with the skyhopper was a merchandising play, they wouldn’t have waited like 20 years to make one.  I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that “toy ships and model ships” could be an interest for a teenager in a universe like that who has never been out of his small town. 

[Andy 4,269]

Yeah the skyhopper was the American Graffiti  racing car to the landsleeder family sedan.  This was George’s way of showing Luke enjoyed a social life of racing, and he was essentially playing with a car model kit, which were popular back then. 
 

The first episode of the 1981 Radio Drama has some wonderful skyhopper sequences played out. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,403]

18 hours ago, Andy said:

I have vivid memories of getting this one and studying that purple transporter room.  the toy prize was a cheap wristband bracelet. 
 

 

Lol, of all the Trek movies to do a Happy Meal tie-in with. I'm sure the kiddiewinks weren't too traumatised by the screams of the transporter accident victim .  

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

"Enterprise, what we served up, didn't last long...fortunately".

[ThePenitentMan1 795]

2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Lol, of all the Trek movies to do a Happy Meal tie-in with. I'm sure the kiddiewinks weren't too traumatised by the screams of the transporter accident victim .  

 

TBF, they didn't exactly have that many Star Trek movies to choose from back then.

[GerateWohl 4,469]

Same as 1978 Superman in 1989 for Batman the producers still thought "This is a movie about a comic character. That is why we need a lot of exaggeration and overacting to make clear, that this movie is about a comic." They thought, they must make kind of a live action version of Bugs Bunny. That is why Tim Burton was the perfect choice as director and why these early superhero movies, especially Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are so annoying. The modern superhero genre was rather born with X-Men and Spiderman.

[Andy 4,269]

3 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Lol, of all the Trek movies to do a Happy Meal tie-in with. I'm sure the kiddiewinks weren't too traumatised by the screams of the transporter accident victim .  

TMP merchandise, in retrospect seemed like a sure thing after the success of SW.  So they overproduced EVERYTHING.  Multiple licensors on the scale of Star Wars merchandise. 
 

The story goes that toy company Mego sent two of their executives  to the TMP premiere to see the film they had invested big bucks into the already manufactured toys. When it was over one turned to the other and said, “Well, there goes millions of dollars. “ The company declared bankruptcy 3 years after. 
 

Anytime you gamble, eventually you lose. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,403]

Just remembered about the Batman Returns Happy Meal furore, when McD's needed a lie down in a room as dark as the movie itself after they'd seen it.  

[Naïve Old Fart 9,717]

It's interesting that a movie's "success", can be measured by how many cheeseburgers it sells.

[GerateWohl 4,469]

On 07/05/2023 at 3:52 PM, GerateWohl said:

Same as 1978 Superman in 1989 for Batman the producers still thought "This is a movie about a comic character. That is why we need a lot of exaggeration and overacting to make clear, that this movie is about a comic." They thought, they must make kind of a live action version of Bugs Bunny. That is why Tim Burton was the perfect choice as director and why these early superhero movies, especially Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are so annoying. The modern superhero genre was rather born with X-Men and Spiderman.

Today I listened again to Elfman's Batman Returns score and realized that the movies were not only staged like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but Elfman wrote a Bugs Bunny cartoon score, especially the action music sounds like that.