![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The main reason BTAS is better than The Batman
I've had this bouncing around in my head for a while, figured I'd put it down here.
There are a lot of ways in which BTAS (which I'm going to use as a catch-all for all the Warner Bothers 90s-00s Batman stuff in the setting now being used for JLU) is better than TB (The Batman, current series). Better writing, I prefer Fleischer-inspired art on Batman, etc.
But all the other stuff is really negotiable, compared to the cardinal way in which BTAS far exceeds TB.
The villains.
In TB, almost all of the villains are one-dimensional snarling cretins with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Even the ones who are victims of tragic origin stories (like Mr. Freeze) were simply getting their karmic comeuppance. It's sad that Catwoman looks good by comparison because she's ONLY an unrepentant thief, as opposed to a thief and a murderer.
By contrast, almost all of the villains in BTAS at least started with more depth, and with aspects that one could admire, or at least sympathize with. While many of them lost this depth in later seasons and simply became greed-motivated scum (the final season with all the dark and angular makeovers was pretty bad in this way, but still way better than TB), their reasons for initially coming into conflict with Batman were often only a hair's breadth away from Batman's own motivations.
A few Batman villains were simply evil or venal, of course. The Joker was insane, although offset it with a roguish charm. Crimson Claw and Bane were one-dimensional killers. Croc was just an asshole, although it was good to have someone like that as a breather between tragic villains. A host of evil businessmen (Boyle, Dagget, the warden in Forgotten, many other one-shot wonders) were simply there to be hated. In fact, being a "normal" villain made one more likely to be one-dimensional in BTAS. There's also a number of amoral scientists who could be filed under #2 or #3, but are too amoral to really be sympathetic (i.e. Hugo Strange, Professor Milo).
Now, I haven't watched all of TB so far, but I've watched a lot. The closest they get to a villain in the BTAS mold is Cluemaster, but they squander that opportunity by making him so thoroughly petty and vile that there's really no way to sympathize with him. The Ventriloquist might come close, but like in BTAS he's more pathetic than sympathetic. Bane is no worse in TB than in BTAS, but he's easily the least interesting recurring villain in BTAS. In general, though, noble or tragic figures just get turned into snarling, cackling villains motivated by greed and/or the desire for power. Freeze is a petty thief who got frozen while running from Batman. Dr. Langstrom is a cackling maniac who actually becomes MORE lucid as Man-Bat. The Joker is a thug. Catwoman is just a thief, no noble ulterior motives. The Penguin is a slimeball who is a gleeful outcast. Firefly is a little bit more interesting, but that's because he was a total cipher in BTAS. And so forth.
The Batman is about good versus evil, in simple and unambiguous terms. BTAS is all about the ambiguity. It's about justice versus vengeance. About good versus a slightly skewed idea of good. About taking the wrong path to the right destination.
And THAT is why The Batman can never hope to be as good as BTAS, so long as it keeps going the way it has been.
There are a lot of ways in which BTAS (which I'm going to use as a catch-all for all the Warner Bothers 90s-00s Batman stuff in the setting now being used for JLU) is better than TB (The Batman, current series). Better writing, I prefer Fleischer-inspired art on Batman, etc.
But all the other stuff is really negotiable, compared to the cardinal way in which BTAS far exceeds TB.
The villains.
In TB, almost all of the villains are one-dimensional snarling cretins with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Even the ones who are victims of tragic origin stories (like Mr. Freeze) were simply getting their karmic comeuppance. It's sad that Catwoman looks good by comparison because she's ONLY an unrepentant thief, as opposed to a thief and a murderer.
By contrast, almost all of the villains in BTAS at least started with more depth, and with aspects that one could admire, or at least sympathize with. While many of them lost this depth in later seasons and simply became greed-motivated scum (the final season with all the dark and angular makeovers was pretty bad in this way, but still way better than TB), their reasons for initially coming into conflict with Batman were often only a hair's breadth away from Batman's own motivations.
- Revenge - While Batman stays just barely on the "justice" side of the line, he's not a lot different from many of his enemies. Riddler, Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Clock King, Baby Doll, and to a lesser extent Two-Face and Mad Hatter all came into conflict with the law (and Batman) because they sought to redress wrongs they felt had been done them.
- Making The World A Better Place - Again, while Batman seeks to make things better for people, many of his foes go too far in some way, whether they verge onto tyranny or simply make a careless mistake that harms people. R'as al-Ghul and HARDAC want to improve the world by controlling it. Man-Bat, Tygris, the werewolf and others were created by people who wanted to improve humanity in some way (although in Milo's case, not with altruistic motives). Even some of the mundane criminal bosses want to keep the city orderly, and are willing to work to protect it (if only to save it for themselves). Catwoman and Poison Ivy both used illegal means to try to protect the environment.
- Seeking Happiness/Fulfillment - A bit rarer of a motive, but several BTAS villains didn't really mean to hurt people, they just didn't take others into account. The Mad Hatter sought love, the Penguin once or twice tried to fit in with society, the Scarecrow wanted to know all he could about fear, Harley Quinn wanted to be with the man she loved (and, BTW, the fact that ANYONE could love the Joker made him at least a little nuanced). Batman himself usually put personal happiness to the side, but it could be used to tempt him.
- Following a Code - Another rare one, rarely seen in recurring villains. One might argue that the ninja falls into this category, but he broke his own code often enough. Two-Face is the main person here, stuck to his coin-flips.
A few Batman villains were simply evil or venal, of course. The Joker was insane, although offset it with a roguish charm. Crimson Claw and Bane were one-dimensional killers. Croc was just an asshole, although it was good to have someone like that as a breather between tragic villains. A host of evil businessmen (Boyle, Dagget, the warden in Forgotten, many other one-shot wonders) were simply there to be hated. In fact, being a "normal" villain made one more likely to be one-dimensional in BTAS. There's also a number of amoral scientists who could be filed under #2 or #3, but are too amoral to really be sympathetic (i.e. Hugo Strange, Professor Milo).
Now, I haven't watched all of TB so far, but I've watched a lot. The closest they get to a villain in the BTAS mold is Cluemaster, but they squander that opportunity by making him so thoroughly petty and vile that there's really no way to sympathize with him. The Ventriloquist might come close, but like in BTAS he's more pathetic than sympathetic. Bane is no worse in TB than in BTAS, but he's easily the least interesting recurring villain in BTAS. In general, though, noble or tragic figures just get turned into snarling, cackling villains motivated by greed and/or the desire for power. Freeze is a petty thief who got frozen while running from Batman. Dr. Langstrom is a cackling maniac who actually becomes MORE lucid as Man-Bat. The Joker is a thug. Catwoman is just a thief, no noble ulterior motives. The Penguin is a slimeball who is a gleeful outcast. Firefly is a little bit more interesting, but that's because he was a total cipher in BTAS. And so forth.
The Batman is about good versus evil, in simple and unambiguous terms. BTAS is all about the ambiguity. It's about justice versus vengeance. About good versus a slightly skewed idea of good. About taking the wrong path to the right destination.
And THAT is why The Batman can never hope to be as good as BTAS, so long as it keeps going the way it has been.
no subject
But very well thought out essay. Definately further cements the fact that while "The Batman" is visually stunning it has no depth of story or character...
no subject
Not the Fleisheresque art...but the actual drawings just seem 50'sish...pre-computed, when you compare them to like STAS and JLU
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Sorry, couldn't help myself...)
no subject
Not sure if those would "redeem" the show in your eyes or not.
My question is where did Cluemaster fight his midget horde and where did Penguin get his ninjas?
no subject
I sure hope there will at least be more BTAS OAVs like Mystery of the Batwoman. But there probably won't even be that.
no subject
no subject
Maybe you should check out the reviews at The World's Finest: http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/thebatman/episodes/
no subject
.. and then she got "beaten up" after a date with one of the jocks taking his class. Cue flashback to SC torturing the kid slowly with different agents, asking him if he felt even half of the fear she did when he beat her up). That one ends with Batman almost half-wondering who the villain really was.
As I say, nice insights into the potential of the characters, and all within the style of storytelling of the show.
no subject
no subject
With Batman, though, mental illness is part and parcel of the experience. Hell, Batman himself is only questionably in touch with reality, and his villains are the biggest pack of sociopathic, sadistic, psychotic freaks to be found in a mainstream comics mythos. That kind of thing is a huge challenge to present to a young audience (with a network looking over your shoulder) without taking the balls out of it. Even the team that made BTAS didn't always succeed.
This isn't to say that I don't agree with your central point - I do. The bad guys on The Batman are often markedly inferior to the versions from the Old Days. I don't agree with your individual assessments across the board - I rather like Catwoman as an unrepentant thief who's in it for kicks. She's certainly more fun that way than the whole hackneyed "tormented whore out for revenge" riff they're doing in the comics lately. (Can't anybody in comics just be in it for fun and money any more?) But, by and large, I think you're right.
I don't think, however, that that factor dooms The Batman to lameness. As I've said before, I find myself respecting it for not trying to be BTAS Again. It's got a lot of visual style, which people like to sneer at these days, but which I enjoy; it's got some fun character stuff going on, especially the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Alfred. I like young, half-assed Bruce, still in the process of trying to figure out just what the Batman gig is supposed to be. I even, God help me, like the riceboi Batmobile.
I guess I just don't expect as much as I should from Saturday morning cartoons...
no subject
Meanwhile, most other series really only have to compare to themselves. If they get better than they were, that's enough...they don't have to get better than something else.
no subject
no subject
... and make the resulting product unwatchable.