Welcome to the course blog for Comm 3263W: Media Literacy. While this blog is primarily for participants in the course, it is open to anyone for reading and engaging. More information about how this blog works will be posted in the upcoming weeks. For now, make sure to bookmark our blog and read through the syllabus and reading schedule pages.

Here are two ways to follow the class on twitter:

Follow the instructor - #MLSuProf
Search for #MLSu2011 after logging into twitter (our course hashtag)


Batman Question

This article talked for a while about the cross-marketing Time/Warner did by having Prince do the soundtrack to "Batman" , how it went over so big, and thus bringing attention to the movie from the music world, from both the pop and urban music audiences. How come none of the sequels tried or succeeded at doing this. "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" had traditional multi-artist soundtracks, each yielding about one hit song a piece. "Batman Forever" yielded Seal's "Kiss From A Rose" and "Batman & Robin" gave us R Kelly's "Gotham City". Why did WB move away from having one artist doing the whole soundtrack when that formula worked so well for the first movie?
Even though the 3rd and 4th Batman movie soundtracks had one hit a piece and the "Batman & Robin" soundtrack went platinum, neither seemed to have the impact that the Prince soundtrack, for the original movie had.
And with the big success of the 1st Batman movie's soundtrack, why didn't the 2nd movie "Batman Returns" have a soundtrack at all? I've noticed that "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" don't have soundtracks either. I'm guessing that may be because of the music-recession going on and the thought that the soundtracks would flop and lose money if they attempted to make them(?). Correct me if my guess is wrong.


Week 1 Blog Entry: Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!

An interesting point that I came across was on page 56 in the second paragraph. It states: "The relative swiftness of those sequels is suggested by WCI's video cassette release of Batman on November 15, 1989, less than six months after the film's premiere. Taking the trade press by surprise, this decision should serve to hasten Batman into the tertiary distribution circuits of pay cable and home video, cutting short the film's booking in second-run theaters."
It was weird reading the shock the writer seemed to have that the movie was being released on video within 6 months of it's premiere in the theater. I'll point out that this was a sign of the times. Back around that time period, it would sometimes take up to a year for a movie to hit the video market. If a movie went to video much faster than that, it was often seen as a sign that the movie flopped at the theaters. Today it is very commonplace for a movie to come out on blu-ray only around 4 months after it's debut in the theaters. "The Fighter" only took 3 months to come out on blu-ray after it hit the theater. You can already pre-order "Thor" on amazon.com even though it just hit the theater a couple weeks ago.
I'm guessing that media companies figured out that they will sell move blu-rays if they release the movies in stores while they are still fresh in the public's mind.


The article discusses how Warner tried to tap into all types of media outlets to maximize profit on the Batman brand. One example of this is how Prince made a song called "Batdance". There are no movie clips in the music video of course, but the allusion of Batman is there.

This is ridiculous!


thanks so much for posting that video! I definitely did not remember that "hit" song/video. I wonder how much Prince was paid to write and perform that song...

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.