When film director Joel Schumacher took over the Batman franchise, fans didn't know what to expect. Some were excited that new blood was injected into the series and that certain characters such as Robin would finally appear on the big screen. By the time "Batman and Robin" was released into theaters in 1997 however, anger and resentment boiled to the surface. Fans were irate that a director would inject so much camp and kitsch into such a beloved franchise.

As time went by, the love for the two Tim Burton Batman films starring Michael Keaton - "Batman" and "Batman Returns" - began to increase. After all, how does Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face compare to Jack Nicholson's The Joker? How can Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze measure up to Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman?

But then something happened. That something, of course, was 2005's "Batman Begins." Starring Christian Bale in the title role and directed by Christopher Nolan, fans fell deeply in love with the dark Gotham City and brooding caped crusader. With "The Dark Knight" set to hit theaters on Friday, the love for the Burton movies is fast becoming extinct. But before these two movies are placed on the endangered species list, an examination is needed.

With just days until fans get to see Heath Ledger's performance as the maniacal Joker, the hype couldn't be higher. The big complaint with the 1989 film "Batman" seems to be that The Joker on screen wasn't the one that fans expected to see. But how can this be? After all, the character of The Joker has been around since 1940, when he was first introduced in the comics. Since then, both The Joker and Batman have gone through countless artists and authors. No matter how great Ledger's performance is, and by all accounts it appears to be just that, his take on The Joker isn't definitive. There is no one way to interpret this character just as there's no one way to interpret a deity.


Many state that Jack Nicholson wasn't really acting but rather he was just "playing himself." Unfortunately, that can sometimes be the case with big name actors. That doesn't mean, however, that his performance as The Joker wasn't a good one. While he wasn't menacing, he was fun to watch and most certainly an unbalanced lunatic. His fixed, permanent smile was haunting and his death a bit creepy. While Nicholson's take on the character was far from frightening, one does have to remember that the character is indeed called "The Joker." As chilling as he can be, he is a practical joker who frustrates the hero due to his insane antics and arrested development-like personality.

Another thing that fans seem to bring up is Gotham City at large. Some fans enjoy that Nolan's vision of a digitally enhanced Chicago brought a futuristic yet realistic look to a metropolitan city. While this is fine, is this really what Gotham City should look like? Tim Burton imagined it much better in his films. In fact, Burton once stated his vision of Gotham was, "as if Hell came sprouting out of the concrete and kept right on growing." That's what made Gotham so fantastic in his films. For a character such as Batman that is so utterly tormented, it was fitting that he lived in a city that was equally so. With the city claustrophobic and its architecture appearing to clash, Gotham felt completely bleak and hopeless. That is, by definition, the exact kind of city that would need a character such as Batman. Not just any old city, but an imagined Gotham that was not only overrun by crime and destruction, but looked the part, too.

Fans, too, often bring up the character of Batman himself when contrasting the Burton and Nolan films. With Christian Bale, fans not only loved his acting but the fact that he appeared to look the part. Bale is buff and is an extremely intimidating force when in the bat-suit. While this is no doubt true, some must be forgetting that Keaton was an interesting choice for the caped crusader.

Keaton's take on the character was always quite appealing. As Batman, he appeared very introspective. When spoken to, he was a man of few words. Sometimes he wouldn't even respond to someone directly, rather choosing to glare at them and promptly walk away. That's how Batman should be. He's a character who, after all, uses a mask to fight crime. He's a man who saw his parents shot to death as a child. He's a man who, despite being a billionaire, is still saddened and not quite whole inside. Batman is a broken man, and when Keaton donned the suit, he encapsulated this well. Keaton always portrayed Batman as a bit stand-offish. A character who was a loner but always felt an overwhelming power to do good in Gotham City rather than be passive and do nothing.

Likewise, the dynamic between Keaton's Bruce Wayne and Batman was evident. Bruce Wayne never felt completely comfortable or satisfied despite being a billionaire; Batman never felt satisfied or happy despite saving lives and protecting the city. While Bale's Batman is good, one never feels the same complexity of the character that Keaton portrayed in the Burton films.

In the coming days, however, "The Dark Knight" will be released and will make millions of dollars worldwide. Ledger's performance will be adored, Bale will garner praise, and Christopher Nolan will be regarded as the savior of the franchise. Though the movie will be a success, viewers should never forget the original 1989 "Batman" film that first ushered in the dark, moody tone for the caped crusader. And did it quite well.

Story by Michael Langston Moore

Starpulse contributing writer