Did Batman:TAS "save" Batman?

[Zorak Masaki]

I've been thinking about this. Even though both Batman live-action movies were hits, DC was never really able to capitalize on them, and the second one got a lot of negative publicity for its darker, downbeat tone. Batman: The Animated Series on the other hand was praised by most critics and fans, and pretty much had something for everyone. It's arguably the most beloved Batman media out there. Anyone else agree?

 

[Otaku-sempai]

Batman: The Animated Series certainly represented something of a renaissance for Batman. Just look at how much the show influenced the comic and other, later interpretations.

 

[Pooky]

It's no dis on the show that I'm saying "no". Batman had already been around for over 50 years and been through all sorts of ups and downs. Batman Returns may have got some negative publicity and was a drop-off from the first, but it was a hit; Forever was a bigger one and shifted many warehouses of merch. The most I can say is that the DCAU kept the character "out there" during the gap between Schumacher and Nolan.

 

[wonderfly]

I'm going to say "no", as the revitalization of DC Comics was already underway with events like "Death of Superman" and "Knightfall" around that period, and the next Batman film ("Batman Forever") was done with no regards for the success of the animated series. I maintain Joel Schumacher was doing a strange tribute to the 1960's Batman with his two films, not a tribute to the animated series (even if they did include Mr. Freeze in the next film).

The animated series certainly didn't influence the beloved Chris Nolan trilogy (starting in 2005).

You know what "Batman: The Animated Series" did save? Children's cartoons. Saturday morning and weekday afternoon cartoons. And arguably it saved Western Animation as a whole.

The Children's Television Act of 1990 (forcing channels to start broadcasting educational kids programming) lead to NBC just exiting completely out of Saturday Morning cartoons in 1992. Fox Kids was off to a shaky start in 1990 and 1991. Though they were beloved, the 80's "action figure" cartoons (like Transformers and He-Man) had run their course and dried up. Ninja Turtles were the only remaining "kids craze" cartoon (and it's true Ninja Turtles were a pop culture phenomenon in the early 90's).

Batman (and to a lesser extent, X-Men the Animated Series, and later on Gargoyles) proved that serious action cartoons (not just made to sell action figures) could exist and do well. Also, Animaniacs and The Tick proved cartoons could be funny without being mind numbing childish, but all of this started with the groundbreaking release of "Batman: The Animated Series" on Fox Kids in the Fall of 1992.

Arguably, the prominence of Batman:TAS helped prolong the life of Saturday morning cartoons (into the Kids WB era) until the end of the 2000's. The other "helped save and prolonged Saturday morning cartoons" show was Pokemon, but that's a story for another time.

 

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Batman had taken off long before BTAS, but BTAS helped the franchise reach new heights.

 

[Yojimbo]

No, but it was certainly a big gateway for new fans to enter from.

 

[b.t.]

Without the worldwide money-making juggernaut that was Tim Burton’s first BATMAN movie, there would have been no B:TAS.

 

[Dantheman]

How were DC not able to capitalize on the Batman movies? I read a story somewhere once where the Batman comics people wanted to use the Burton Batmobile in the comics and tried to reach out to the movie people, but they were like, "You wanna use it, you gotta pay, just like everybody else", but was it that, or other reasons?

Just curious.

EDIT: To answer the topic at hand, I think BTAS was pretty much meant to keep Batman "out there" in toys and such between movies, but it became something more.

 

[Red Arrow]

When exactly did Batman become more popular than Superman? Was this in the 90s or way before that?

 

[Classic Speedy]

I can only speak for myself, but I never saw the live action Batman films as a kid. My parents never took me to them. Also never read the comics as a kid. Batman TAS was my introduction to the character and have been a fan ever since.

 

[#TeamMike]

Without the worldwide money-making juggernaut that was Tim Burton’s first BATMAN movie, there would have been no B:TAS.

Literally came into this thread to say exactly this.

 

[wonderfly]

I've been thinking about this. Even though both Batman live-action movies were hits, DC was never really able to capitalize on them, and the second one got a lot of negative publicity for its darker, downbeat tone. Batman: The Animated Series on the other hand was praised by most critics and fans, and pretty much had something for everyone. It's arguably the most beloved Batman media out there. Anyone else agree?

Maybe the opening post should be clarified: how did DC NOT capitalize on the first two Batman films? What was supposed to come out of the first two Batman films for DC?

 

[Otaku-sempai]

When exactly did Batman become more popular than Superman? Was this in the 90s or way before that?

I think the preference for Batman might have started in the 1970s when readers started to get tired of the power-bloat of Superman. And Batman was simply more relatable than an almost infinitely-powerful alien, especially after Denny O'Neal, Steve Englehart and others started to write the character in a more sophisticated manner.

 

[Fone Bone]

Without the worldwide money-making juggernaut that was Tim Burton’s first BATMAN movie, there would have been no B:TAS.

Well, that answers that, doesn't it? Spoken like a man who understands which side his bread is buttered on.

 

[b.t.]

Well, that answers that, doesn't it? Spoken like a man who understands which side his bread is buttered on.

It’s just a fact. If BATMAN ‘89 hadn’t been so phenomenally successful, I doubt anyone would have given us the creative freedom to explore the darker corners of Batman’s world the way we did. 89’s huge box office haul (and its massive merchandizing bonanza) made B:TAS’ relatively sophisticated take on the character seem like less of a long odds gamble, if not exactly a safe bet.

 

[Fone Bone]

It’s just a fact. If BATMAN ‘89 hadn’t been so phenomenally successful, I doubt anyone would have given us the creative freedom to explore the darker corners of Batman’s world the way we did. 89’s huge box office haul (and its massive merchandizing bonanza) made B:TAS’ relatively sophisticated take on the character seem like less of a long odds gamble, if not exactly a safe bet.

Absolutely. I love that you give credit where it is due. I respect that very much.

Edit:

Not that my respect is worth much. But you have it.

 

[wonderfly]

So....the first Batman movie "saved" Batman, it wasn't Batman: TAS that saved Batman.

But was Batman really in a place where it needed "saved" in the late 80's? Was it really a danger of the legacy of Batman being nothing more than "eternal reruns of the 60's Batman show?" It just feels like there would've been an attempt at a Batman film by Hollywood eventually.

Arguably, it was "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" in 1986 (and "The Killing Joke" in 1988) that saved Batman. And maybe "Watchmen" as well (and "Batman: Year One" in 1987 and the Grant Morrison "Arkham Asylum" graphic novel in 1989). DC Comics was on the verge of collapse in the mid 80's and decided to take chances (starting with "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in 1985).

 

[Fone Bone]

So....the first Batman movie "saved" Batman, it wasn't Batman: TAS that saved Batman.

b.t. never said Batman 89 saved Batman.

Edit:

The notion is total joke, by the way. He's Batman. Batman DOES the saving. He don't need to be saved.

 

[wonderfly]

b.t. never said Batman 89 saved Batman.

Right, I'm bringing the topic back to the original post (and to try and understand where the original post is coming from).

Yes, "B:TAS wouldn't have been possible without Burton's Batman in 1989". I'm just wondering what about Batman needed "saved" in the late 80's or early 90's.

EDIT: Perhaps the thinking is something along the lines of "Batman: TAS did the characters correctly, whereas Tim Burton didn't have a firm grasp on characters like Penguin and Harvey Dent, and the Joker didn't really shoot Batman's mom and dad, everyone knows that was Joe Chill"

And also that the two Burton films lead to the two Schumacher films, so therefore that alone means Batman '89 and '91 were failures (according to 1989/1990's Batman film haters).

 

[Yojimbo]

So....the first Batman movie "saved" Batman, it wasn't Batman: TAS that saved Batman.

But was Batman really in a place where it needed "saved" in the late 80's? Was it really a danger of the legacy of Batman being nothing more than "eternal reruns of the 60's Batman show?" It just feels like there would've been an attempt at a Batman film by Hollywood eventually.

Arguably, it was "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" in 1986 (and "The Killing Joke" in 1988) that saved Batman. And maybe "Watchmen" as well (and "Batman: Year One" in 1987 and the Grant Morrison "Arkham Asylum" graphic novel in 1989). DC Comics was on the verge of collapse in the mid 80's and decided to take chances (starting with "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in 1985).

I think we can say Batman '89 helped revitalize the Batman brand and pave the way for it to be explored in different avenues like in animation, hence B:TAS. B:TAS reached a lot of old and new fans and helped get the latter interested in the comics, maybe even bring old fans that left DC back into reading DC.