Batman: the Animated Series was a landmark event in animation history that changed superhero cartoons forever. That makes every Batman cartoon since then have big shoes to fill, which they haven’t filled so far, not counting the direct sequels and spinoffs to that aforementioned series. I remember the massive disappointment I felt towards the 2004 cartoon The Batman and its priority of selling toys over telling compelling stories. The 2008 cartoon Batman the Brave and the Bold was a return to the “silly Batman,” which made it a love it or hate it affair. 2013’s Beware the Batman replaced iconic villains and sidekicks like the Joker and Robin with Anarky and Katana (before the Suicide Squad movie made her more famous). That series was cancelled quick and seemingly only recognized by the most dedicated batfans. Yes, all of those series did end up making their own distinct marks and finding their own fanbases, but none could top the original 90’s series. That leads us to the latest attempt to make a worthy new incarnation of Batman.
Batman: Caped Crusader is the first adult Batman cartoon in a
television format. There have been several adult animated films based on Batman, but this is Batman’s first foray into adult television animation. What seems to be the main difference between that and all those previous Batman cartoons I’ve mentioned is that characters cuss now. It doesn’t have much in terms of gore or sex, if parents are worried about that, but the language is salty. Really, the changes to the rogues gallery, setting, and supporting cast are more notable changes than its status as an adult cartoon.
Batman: The Animated Series was set in a Gotham city that was modeled after the Tim Burton Batman films, a world that mixed the mid and late twentieth century technology, fashion, and aesthetics in an anachronistic, visually striking package. This series’ asthetics are completely set in the first half of the twentieth century, with Batman not even having his Batcomputer. The anachronisms do come in the form of societal attitudes and prejudices being definitely not in line with the old timey setting, and I’ll leave the viewer to decide what to think of those anachronisms. This Gotham City is interesting in its own right, even if it isn’t as visual striking as the 90’s classic.
With thirty years of animated innovations and the strides competing adult superhero cartoons have made like X-Men ’97 and Invincible, fans were expecting something knock your socks off rather than the merely serviceably solid product this series is. Fight scenes are technically proficient, albeit not as wild as over the top as its competitors. This Batman is more detective than action show, so action wasn’t really the focus of this show.
Structurally, this series sticks to the classic villain of the week style of television where every episode is a complete story rather than each episode being a piece of a bigger story, which is the modern expectation. There’s nothing wrong with using this approach as that has been the norm for Batman cartoons, but it would be interesting if a Batman series experimented with overarching stories. The quality of a villain of the week show hinges on the quality of its villains.
This series uses a mix of iconic and obscure Batman villains and the most notably changed villains are Penguin and Harley Quinn. Penguin is a woman in this series and Harley Quinn has no connection to the Joker. Was okay with female Penguin and found her episode, the very first episode to be okay, but Harley Quinn’s new version feels so different from what you are used to that she is Harley Quinn in name only. Harvey Dent was portrayed as a complete slimeball even before the iconic accident that turned him into Two-Face. Catwoman is basically the same. 
Clayface is given a portrayal that is a mix of his 1940s and modern comic depictions and is the other candidate for best portrayal of the classic rogues. The villains new to this series include the Gentleman Ghost, who is a ghost who hates the poor, Firebug, a pyromaniac, Nocturna, a vampire-ish teenage girl, and Onomatopoeia, a villain who speaks in sound effects. The villains of this series do seem more more traditional villains than the 90’s animated series, which portrayed the rogues as sympathetic characters dealing with mental health problems. Although Nocturna is an example of a sympathetic villain in this new series, most of the villains here, such as the aforementioned Two-Face, are more traditionally sinister. I didn’t feel like this series had the psychological sophistication of the previous series that made it so iconic.
The rogues were not the only characters changed. Barbara Gordon isn’t Batgirl, but a lawyer in this incarnation. She never puts on tights or fights bad guys as the intent in this series appears to be that Batman is the only superhero around and has no sidekicks. New Barbara is a little bit bland, but okay. Harvey Bollock is a corrupt cop rather a rough around the edges but noble character he is usually portrayed as. Admittedly, this was his original comics portrayal, but it takes some fans back when they see him do the evil things he did in the Firebug episode when you are so used to how he is in most adaptations. Alfred is less in shape than in modern adaptations as this was how he was originally portrayed in 1940s comics. These character portrayals weren’t “wrong,” but weren’t particularly memorable.
Notice how I haven’t talked much about Batman himself in this Batman review? That’s because he seems to not get that much screentime. His masquerade as a rich idiot can be amusing, but his Batman persona isn’t as interesting as previous personas. Hamish Linklater’s Batman voice sounds like someone with a cold rather than a scary voice, in my opinion. There are many worse portrayals of Batman, but this one felt unmemorable.
In conclusion, is the show good? I would say it’s a step up from the 2004 and 2013 cartoon. This series wasn’t the big, stupid toy commercial the former was and had at least had good Catwoman and Clayface episodes when the 2013 cartoon pretty much stuck to C-listers. It does feel disappointing that X-Men ’97 felt like a huge leap from its 90s predecessor, while this was in the shadow of its 1990s predecessor. It doesn’t suck, but it doesn’t do anything the 90’s cartoon did better.
Discuss this review on the Toonzone Forums!
