Did Batman:TAS "save" Batman?

[Ed Nygma]

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?

Yes and no because the movies weren't really for kids, so it was a gateway drug/entrypoint into the comics. It is actually fairly likely I wouldn't have gotten into superhero comics without it and I'm the biggest nerd of all. It was a 'best of' collection of greatest hits of continuity- I actually think Spider-Man '94 did a similar thing well for that universe, where you could just watch the show and have a fairly good idea of the lore- so it pretty much set the standard. To the point where Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were taking their cues from what people knew of the show. I still resent the Nolan movies just a little bit for ignoring what BTAS set up, but perhaps we were spoiled.

I still think DC, instead of rebooting the canon constantly in the comics, should just have the general continuity of the show as a framework to base what we know of the characters on. For instance stop trying to call Clayface "Basil Karlo;" rightly or wrongly most people including longtime comic fans are going to think he's Matt Hagen, that Kirk Langstrom has a wife named Francine, that Harvey Dent was Bruce Wayne's best friend, etc etc. When they try to push back against this such as making Mr Freeze a stalker of Nora or Jeph Loeb's weird insistence that Bruce and Harvey dislike each other, it chafes at what's been proven to work and ingrained.

 

[b.t.]

I still think DC, instead of rebooting the canon constantly in the comics, should just have the general continuity of the show as a framework to base what we know of the characters on. For instance stop trying to call Clayface "Basil Karlo;" rightly or wrongly most people including longtime comic fans are going to think he's Matt Hagen, that Kirk Langstrom has a wife named Francine, that Harvey Dent was Bruce Wayne's best friend, etc etc. When they try to push back against this such as making Mr Freeze a stalker of Nora or Jeph Loeb's weird insistence that Bruce and Harvey dislike each other, it chafes at what's been proven to work and ingrained.

Well…

It’s always flattering to hear people say they consider the B:TAS iterations of Batman and his supporting cast and rogues gallery ‘definitive’ but if we had to stay 100% true to those story and characterization templates, it wouldn’t leave us many genuinely fresh creative avenues to explore — we’d basically just be doing sequels to the old stories, or re-makes of them. Just sayin’

Sorry to go off -topic.

 

[Fone Bone]

It’s flattering when people say they consider the B:TAS iterations of Batman and his supporting cast and rogues gallery ‘definitive’ but if we had to stay 100% true to those story and characterization templates, it wouldn’t leave us many genuinely fresh creative avenues to explore — we’d basically just be doing sequels to the old stories, or re-makes of them.

It's definitive in the sense that it's the best. The fact that much (and in fact most) of the DCAU stuff is actually original stories is another reason that stuff is so awesome.

Your version IS the best and most definitive. By far.

Also, just for the record, Justice League Unlimited is the greatest animated TV show of all time. If The Simpsons had been canceled after its 8th season, it wouldn't be, but the situation is currently as I described.

JLU is my part of my pop-culture trifecta. Along with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Twin Peaks it's one of the few shows I loved back in the day that still holds up a decade later. You should be proud.

Also Dwayne McDuffie is one of my favorite writers. As far as DC stuff goes he's irreplaceable.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

In reality, there really is no such thing as a ''definitive'' Batman. More so than any other creation in the last 100 years, Batman is a pile of putty willingly ready to be molded to suit the needs of the people crafting his stories (in whatever medium). As readers/viewers we simply latch on to the version that seems the most appealing.

However, James Tucker did say once in an interview that the ''definitive'' Batman for most people is the one they ''met'' in their childhood. The one you meet when you are not critical or snobbish or prone to contrariness. You accepted it totally at face value, with no reservations and something clicked.

Batman: The Animated Series hit me full blast in the face as a child and I was swept along in the world, learning, for the first time, all about the character and the mythology. Even now when I am rewatching the show it feels like the most rounded, purest version of the character. And for me I know it always will be. But for someone a little younger, The Batman (04-08) will represent the perfect distillation of what the character is and should be.

I'm ready to embrace any version of Batman and I just know I'll love Batman: Caped Crusader (If we ever get to see it) but no matter how good it is, no matter how much I'll watch and support it, when I think of BATMAN, this is what comes to mind - the one I properly met for the first time:

The show certainly didn't save the character. But it did propel him to new heights and show many what was truly capable with one of the best literary characters out there.

 

[wonderfly]

It's definitive in the sense that it's the best. The fact that much (and in fact most) of the DCAU stuff is actually original stories is another reason that stuff is so awesome.

Your version IS the best and most definitive. By far.

Also, just for the record, Justice League Unlimited is the greatest animated TV show of all time. If The Simpsons had been canceled after its 8th season, it wouldn't be, but the situation is currently as I described.

I like the "Simpsons cancelled after Season 8" sentiment (or really, just after the 90's ended), but I go with B:TAS over Justice League Unlimited.

I had briefly hoped that Batman: TAS would've continued in Prime Time in 1993, leading to action cartoons taking over Prime Time television.

 

[Otaku-sempai]

In reality, there really is no such thing as a ''definitive'' Batman. More so than any other creation in the last 100 years, Batman is a pile of putty willingly ready to be molded to suit the needs of the people crafting his stories (in whatever medium). As readers/viewers we simply latch on to the version that seems the most appealing.

However, James Tucker did say once in an interview that the ''definitive'' Batman for most people is the one they ''met'' in their childhood. The one you meet when you are not critical or snobbish or prone to contrariness. You accepted it totally at face value, with no reservations and something clicked.

Batman: The Animated Series hit me full blast in the face as a child and I was swept along in the world, learning, for the first time, all about the character and the mythology. Even now when I am rewatching the show it feels like the most rounded, purest version of the character. And for me I know it always will be. But for someone a little younger, The Batman (04-08) will represent the perfect distillation of what the character is and should be.

I'm ready to embrace any version of Batman and I just know I'll love Batman: Caped Crusader (If we ever get to see it) but no matter how good it is, no matter how much I'll watch and support it, when I think of BATMAN, this is what comes to mind - the one I properly met for the first time:

The show certainly didn't save the character. But it did propel him to new heights and show many what was truly capable with one of the best literary characters out there.

Interesting. My first Batman was Adam West in the 1966 television series. However, my definitive Batman was the Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams iteration of the character (though I'll include the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers Batman).

 

[Light Lucario]

Batman: TAS didn't save Batman in large part because it didn't need to be saved. The character and the franchise itself had been going strong for decades and already had successful live action movies by the time the animated series premiered.

It did create a solid jumping on point for old and new fans, provided plenty of memorable episodes and versions of the characters that are still held in high regards today. I've been rewatching the series and it has aged extremely well. It's a good entry point to learn about Batman and his world. You can make a good argument that the series had a huge impact on western animation, or at least superhero cartoons given that it became the starting point of the DCAU. Batman: TAS does seem like one of the most beloved Batman media out there. Along with the Nolan trilogy and maybe the first two live action movies, I've heard a lot of praise for it over the years.

 

[Revelator]

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

The 1966 live action TV show marks the point where Batman overtook Superman in the public consciousness. That was also around the time when the Superman comics began declining from their silver age peak (in quality and sales). Batman began outselling Superman, and even took over titles like The Brave and the Bold. Then, after the Batman TV show ended, the comics had to go in another direction and revitalized the character by taking him back to his roots, but similar attempts didn't work as well for Superman. The first two live action Superman brought public attention back to the character, but by the late 80s Batman was widely regarded as the cooler, more interesting superhero and more in touch with the times, thanks to edgy comics like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns. This culminated in the massive success of the '89 live action film, followed by the sequels and BTAS.

 

[CyberCubed]

Prior to the 1989 movie Batman was still mostly known by the Adam West series.

So it was the one-two punch of Tim Burton's Batman and then B:TAS that literally re-defined Batman for the 90's and beyond. You can also say the Nolan Batman Begins trilogy also re-defined Batman given how popular the first two movies were.

 

[ABrown]

The 1989 movie is what made me a Batman fan as a kid. Batman: TAS is what kept me a fan as a teenager.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I've been thinking about this. Even though both Batman live-action movies were hits, DC was never really able to capitalize on them...

I don't know where you got the bizarre notion that DC didn't capitalize on the 1989 movie from, but it simply isn't true. In addition to the comic book adaptation by Denny O'Neil and Jerry Ordway (which was available in many theaters playing the film), DC launched The Legends of the Dark Knight, the first new solo Batman book since 1940, which ran for 215 issues. There were also projects like Grant Morrison and Dave McKean's Arkham Asylum, which got a BIG sales boost from its proximity to the film, as well as older projects like Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke. Not to mention the TONS of Batman merchandise that was released in connection with the movie. Believe me, in the summer of 1989 you couldn't walk a block without seeing someone in a Batman t-shirt. DC Comics was doing VERY well off of Bat-Mania in 1989.

I still think DC, instead of rebooting the canon constantly in the comics, should just have the general continuity of the show as a framework to base what we know of the characters on. For instance stop trying to call Clayface "Basil Karlo;" rightly or wrongly most people including longtime comic fans are going to think he's Matt Hagen, that Kirk Langstrom has a wife named Francine, that Harvey Dent was Bruce Wayne's best friend, etc etc. When they try to push back against this such as making Mr Freeze a stalker of Nora or Jeph Loeb's weird insistence that Bruce and Harvey dislike each other, it chafes at what's been proven to work and ingrained.

As much as I love BTAS, this is a bad idea. All you'd be doing is handicapping future creators by handcuffing them to a previous version of the character that came out 32 years before. If you want the NEXT Bruce Timm to come along and blow us away with a new, cool version of Batman, you have to give them the same sort of freedom that BT and company were given in 1992.

The only way you get good stuff is by trying new stuff, not by endlessly regurgitating what's worked before.

 

[Ed Nygma]

As much as I love BTAS, this is a bad idea. All you'd be doing is handicapping future creators by handcuffing them to a previous version of the character that came out 32 years before. If you want the NEXT Bruce Timm to come along and blow us away with a new, cool version of Batman, you have to give them the same sort of freedom that BT and company were given in 1992.

The only way you get good stuff is by trying new stuff, not by endlessly regurgitating what's worked before.

I think everyone (including the grandmaster b.t.) is misunderstanding what I'm saying a bit... I don't think the creators should be creatively handicapped, but I do think some things are done just for the sake of being 'different' or even contrary when they should be absorbed into the canon. For example, in Spider-Man I think it's a terrible idea that Rhino always has to be Russian, yet for some reason including in movies and animation we have to get him with a Boris Badenov accent and Spidey calling him "aLeKsEi!!!" But they allow themselves to be hermetically sealed in and stifled by continuity at Marvel, in the same way Magneto is forever off the table as the X-Men's arch nemesis now.

I'm talking about simple things that actually have been proven to work from the show. It makes sense that Clayface is Matt Hagen, and not Basil Karlo, because the latter is such a ridiculous portmanteau. Minor things like basically everyone assuming from the show that Bruce and Harvey are friends works more than not because it's more tragic, so I'd just absorb it into their backstory permanently. When they try to go against this, like Mr. Loeb digging his heels in that they're rivals, I don't really see what purpose it serves other than trying to push back against BTAS and bring back a prior continuity for the sake of it. Let's face it, in this day and age it's 100 times more likely Harvey's wife/GF would be called "Grace" instead of "Gilda," but some of the writers are choosing to be beholden anyway to a different continuity that younger readers couldn't care less about.

They do the same with Superman only worse, where they just cannot let go of the idea that Clark and Lex must be friends due to the writers being unable to let go of the silver age, and embrace that the post-crisis businessman Luthor has been proven time and again to work much better. I don't think it's a bad idea that Lucius Fox is now forever the Morgan Freeman character from TDK series in the comics too; but it should go both ways with things that are now the definitive version, right or wrong, from mass BTAS absorption like Nora Fries. The fans are already conditioned to accept some of these things as definitive anyway so why fight it?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I don't think the creators should be creatively handicapped, but I do think some things are done just for the sake of being 'different' or even contrary when they should be absorbed into the canon.

You're still just saying "I think they should do it this way, and ONLY this way." That's creatively handicapping creators, whether you think so or not.

Look, some ideas are good ones and tend to be universally accepted, and some not-as-good ideas are outliers and fall by the wayside over time. That's just how comic book continuity works, and how it's always worked. Just trust in the process, and most of the bad ideas shake themselves out over time.

 

[b.t.]

With all due respect, I categorically reject the notion that ANY single previous iteration of Batman and his world should be the one that all future versions need to follow, whether those versions have been ‘proven’ to work or not.

There have been so many great variations of all those characters over the decades, why should anybody have to restrict themselves to being beholden to just one of them? Or for that matter, any of them?

I love the Matt Hagen shape-shifting mud-monster version of Clayface. But if I have what I think is an interesting take on the Basil Karlo version, or the Preston Payne version, why should I have to resist exploring those options just because they’re not the ones B:TAS fans are expecting to see? Does Catwoman always need to be an Animal Rights activist? Does Lucius Fox always have to be the wise (but frankly kinda bland) older black man giving counsel to the young prince of industry? Does Dick Grayson always have to be Batman’s first sidekick? Etc.

Also, I’m pretty sure the majority of potential viewers literally wouldn’t care if Harvey Dent’s fiancée’s name was Grace or Glinda or Rachel or Bathsheba.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I love the Matt Hagen shape-shifting mud-monster version of Clayface. But if I have what I think is an interesting take on the Basil Karlo version, or the Preston Payne version, why should I have to resist exploring those options just because they’re not the ones B:TAS fans are expecting to see?

BTW, BT, back when I first read a teaser summary of "Mudslide" in 1992 and found out that the disintegrating Matt Hagen would be getting an exoskeleton to hold himself together, I thought, "How clever! They're blending the Matt Hagen Clayface with the Preston Payne Clayface!" So I was initially disappointed that his exoskeleton looked like a giant Oscar statue instead of Marshall Rogers' design for Clayface III. (I'm over it now, though.)

 

[wonderfly]

Well, I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed by Ed Nygma. The constant revision to character's history becomes a convoluted problem, though usually it's more of a problem in the ongoing (neverending) comic books.

I can also kind of agree with "Clark and Lex as friends in Smallville is such a Silver Age thing, why don't you just adapt Bronze or Modern age versions of Lex?". Likewise for those that want the Joker to be a laughing gas themed bank robber like in the 60's or 70's, when I'm like "Why don't you just keep the Joker as a serial killer who enjoys driving people insane, like he's been from the 90's onward?"

But I fear we're gatekeeping, saying "90's storytelling got it right, why would you ever go back to the 60's?", when really the best solution would be for the next generation to come up with their own interpretations.

Having said all of that, every animation adaptation (and every live action movie) of Batman should feel free to create their own vision of Gotham City and it's inhabitants.

 

[b.t.]

I'm like "Why don't you just keep the Joker as a serial killer who enjoys driving people insane, like he's been from the 90's onward?"

See, when you put it like that, it just makes me think, “After 30 years of seeing the same thing over and over and over, maybe it’s time for something just a wee bit different.”

 

[Ed Nygma]

Well, I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed by Ed Nygma. The constant revision to character's history becomes a convoluted problem, though usually it's more of a problem in the ongoing (neverending) comic books.

I can also kind of agree with "Clark and Lex as friends in Smallville is such a Silver Age thing, why don't you just adapt Bronze or Modern age versions of Lex?". Likewise for those that want the Joker to be a laughing gas themed bank robber like in the 60's or 70's, when I'm like "Why don't you just keep the Joker as a serial killer who enjoys driving people insane, like he's been from the 90's onward?"

But I fear we're gatekeeping, saying "90's storytelling got it right, why would you ever go back to the 60's?", when really the best solution would be for the next generation to come up with their own interpretations.

Having said all of that, every animation adaptation (and every live action movie) of Batman should feel free to create their own vision of Gotham City and it's inhabitants.

Yeah I think you got the spirit of what I was trying to say, I give up attempting to explain it further as it seems I'm not communicating the point well and talking to a wall (though I respect b.t.'s opinion as he has a stake in it). Obviously I think writers should have the freedom to express themselves and reinvent, to a point though. Sometimes they do things just for the sake of it to cause a reaction a la Lady Freeze in New 52, most times it's done with a mind to bring back a version of characters that no longer works like Clark and Lex in Smallville. Unless you agree with complete reinvention, it usually becomes a game of back and forth on whichever continuity a particular writer grew up with and wants to force back in. I'm sorry but "Basil Karlo" and "Gilda" are so cringy imo and a relic of the 40s which BTAS wisely threw out.

What I think happens is that more often than not, no one does anything new, and especially in comics the only kind of 'reinvention' that occurs is bringing back the Silver Age. I don't want to slam anyone but we often get stuck with really grating elements because one writer held too much sway. Hence we're forever saddled with things like Russian Rhino and the Spider-Verse (which was never a thing until the last decade) no matter how out of place some find that to be with a grounded character like Spidey. We don't get *enough* reinvention at Marvel, yet DC continuity is so broken it gets *too* reinvented. Marvel fans get positively incensed if you try to say there should only be one Spider-Man or Magneto should be evil. So I feel like this is a conversation ("go with the flow") that's only allowed with DC, which is weird.

No I would never want Catwoman to be forever an animal rights activist, that's an element that I think no one seemed to like and thus it's fallen by the wayside. But things like names and general backstory that doesn't affect much, there's no reason to go backward into Silver Age iterations when the gen pop will be confused. I don't especially think Lucius needs to be the Q/gadget man as Batman has way too many allies who know his secret, but it's something everyone just expects now due to the Nolan films so I have to go with the flow. It's a pick & choose of whatever works, not complete 100% DCAU absorption. I would be more for complete creative freedom if it wasn't always just Silver Age vs DCAU, honestly.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I honestly don't worry about this stuff as much now. Ann Nocenti put it really well when I was interviewing her a few years back: A great character snaps back into shape, so you may as well try new stuff. So if I see a comic or a outside media adaptation doing stuff I dislike with the characters, I just shrug and go, "Well, this version isn't for me" and wait until the next version.

And honestly, most of the stupid or less effective stuff falls by the wayside over time. I don't see anyone clamoring for the return of the superhero Blackhawks with the Listener and Dr. Hands, or people arguing that Superman with a mullet is the only true Superman. In the long run, stuff like that just becomes curiosities we laugh about 10-20 years down the line.

 

[b.t.]

I give up attempting to explain it further as it seems I'm not communicating the point well

I think you‘ve communicated your point very well. I just don’t agree with it

Sometimes they do things just for the sake of it to cause a reaction a la Lady Freeze

EVERYTHING we do as writers and artists and filmmakers is for the sake of provoking a reaction — we want to make the audience laugh, cry, gasp, cheer, worry, feel awe, be shocked, be surprised, etc etc.

I’m not familiar with this Lady Freeze character, but I have to say I don’t hate those two words together…

I'm sorry but "Basil Karlo" and "Gilda" are so cringy imo and a relic of the 40s which BTAS wisely threw out.

You say ‘a relic of the 40s’ like that’s a bad thing!

Seriously, maybe you‘d just prefer to see more of the shape-shifting mud-monster Clayface, which, y’know, fair enough. I get it, he’s cool. But I see nothing inherently ‘cringe-y‘ about the Basil Karlo iteration of the character, especially in a series that leans heavily into moody, foreboding German Expressionist atmospherics, as seen in the classic horror films of the 30s and 40s. And the name ‘Gilda’ automatically makes me think of the classic 1946 film noir with Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford, so personally, nothing cringe-y about THAT.