What is The Batman's relationship to Batman Begins?

[Fone Bone]

I just saw Batman Begins for the first time today and I was startled at how dark and adult it was. Even the Tim Burton films didn't take themselves this seriously. I loved it and thought it was a great take on Batman.

Then I thought about The Batman cartoon. Not only is it NOT dark at all, but it's kind of silly and uses its villians without any pretense of character motivation. Why did the execs who thought up the cartoon to promote the movie think it would be logical to create a cartoon so diametrically opposed in sensibilities that it is unrecognizable as a spin-off? I can't help feeling that kids who were fans of The Batman cartoon would get a shock at how dark and scary the film was. How is this good corporate synergy? Why whet kids appetites for a film that is clearly not designed for them?

Note to trolls and cretins: This is NOT a The Batman bashing thread. I would have the same concerns if they made a Krypto the Superdog movie based on the cartoon that was similar to Cujo. I'm just not sure if it was a smart idea to make a Batman cartoon for little kids to try to get them to see this movie. Honestly I felt the film could have justifiably have been rated R. It's not a kids movie.

[reflection]

There is a relationship? I didn't know that.

[CyberCubed]

There is a relationship? I didn't know that.

Considering the only reason the cartoon was made in the first place was to promote the movie, yes there is a relationship.

[Batman Fan]

The only thing I can think of is that they're both showing Batman's first year of crime fighting, and in both of them, the police haven't grown to trust him or work with him like in other Batman incarnations, yet.

[Outlander00]

... Why does there need to be a direct connection between the two? One is a movie with a broad appeal whereas the other appeals only to those under 12. Kids see the cartoon, enjoy it... see that theres a movie out and go "ooo! I wanna see Batman!" Therefore the series served its purpose to sell the fact that there was a movie. Its called cross promotion... irregardless if they contain the same feel, the show served it's originally intended purpose.

[Kieralinn]

There is no relation at all. Just a new Batman cartoon to get the kiddies into Batman and that's all. Story wise....one has ablsolutely nothing to do with the other. Just like JLU Bats has nothing to do with the other two at all. Or the comic Batman as well.

Begins is closest with the comics but I look at those four as differing universes. Movie, Comic, JLU/B:TAS/BB, The Batman..all different.

[Fone Bone]

I'm glad to see no-one bothered reading my initial post on the subject. Despite the thread title I wasn't asking about continuity or if the movie and cartoon had a direct link. I was stating that using The Batman to promote Batman Begins is a questionable idea at best as the film is obviously not designed for young children. It makes little sense to me to make such a kid-friendly cartoon to promote a movie that seemed to me to be skating on R-rated territory. This strikes me as a bit irresponsible and I'm certain there are many parents who had their little ones begging to see the movie and were shocked at how dark and scary it was.

[Trevor Balena]

This strikes me as a bit irresponsible and I'm certain there are many parents who had their little ones begging to see the movie and were shocked at how dark and scary it was.

Then those parents are idiots. Begins is rated "PG-13 for intense action violence, disturbing images and some thematic elements". Any parent that took Little Timmy to the movie expecting happy-fun playtime deserved to get a little shocked.

As for your original question, Fone Bone, I don't think it's irresponsible, per se. Times have changed, and a dark, moody Batman show probably wouldn't stand a chance on Kids WB. The network execs and censors would tear it a new one. The initial idea to create The Batman may have stemmed from the movie, but it was obviously designed to target a different audience than the movie. Complaining about The Batman's relative timidity is like complaining about JLU because kids (or parents) who watch "The Little Piggy" might pick up Identity Crisis (an entirely adult and graphic take on the Justice League) and be "shocked".

[Harley_Quinn]

I'm glad to see no-one bothered reading my initial post on the subject. Despite the thread title I wasn't asking about continuity or if the movie and cartoon had a direct link. I was stating that using The Batman to promote Batman Begins is a questionable idea at best as the film is obviously not designed for young children. It makes little sense to me to make such a kid-friendly cartoon to promote a movie that seemed to me to be skating on R-rated territory. This strikes me as a bit irresponsible and I'm certain there are many parents who had their little ones begging to see the movie and were shocked at how dark and scary it was.

I got you Fone, I don't think it was a logical choice for the marketing reps. I think what they said was, hey we have a batman movie coming out, lets do a batman cartoon.

I don't think the execs. really thought it through in termns of content, just francise name.

I personally think BTAS would have been a better partner to the Batman Begins movie, in terms of marketing and cross promotion.

[Fone Bone]

Then those parents are idiots. Begins is rated "PG-13 for intense action violence, disturbing images and some thematic elements". Any parent that took Little Timmy to the movie expecting happy-fun playtime deserved to get a little shocked.

I disagree. Batman Begins is WAAAAAAY more intense than the average PG-13 movie. The original Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and Star Wars Episode III all look like E.T. the friggin Extra-Terrestrial in comparson. I honestly think the movie should have been rated R but I have a feeling some studio money changed hands.

As for your original question, Fone Bone, I don't think it's irresponsible, per se. Times have changed, and a dark, moody Batman show probably wouldn't stand a chance on Kids WB. The network execs and censors would tear it a new one.

Then I have to question whether it was wise to create a Batman cartoon these days at all, especially if it gets kids excited for an adult movie.

The initial idea to create The Batman may have stemmed from the movie, but it was obviously designed to target a different audience than the movie. Complaining about The Batman's relative timidity is like complaining about JLU because kids (or parents) who watch "The Little Piggy" might pick up Identity Crisis (an entirely adult and graphic take on the Justice League) and be "shocked".

I disagree again. JLU is an adaptation of the comics, NOT a marketing tool for them. If The Batman WAS created to get kids prepared for Batman Begins I think that is a bad idea because it is not a kids movie in the slightest. There's a difference between an adaptation and something designed to advertise something else. That is my concern.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

It's also worth noting that DC and Time-Warner probably make as much or more money on the licensed material (toys, bedsheets, apparel) than they do on the product that caused the license to be created in the first place. The idea that the cross-marketing is aiming at two entirely different audiences isn't as important as the fact that they think they'll make a lot of money selling a whole mess of toys and crap associated with it. It really wouldn't surprise me if the people involved in greenlighting the decision haven't seen either product.

-- Ed/Ace

[Fone Bone]

Howdy,

It's also worth noting that DC and Time-Warner probably make as much or more money on the licensed material (toys, bedsheets, apparel) than they do on the product that caused the license to be created in the first place. The idea that the cross-marketing is aiming at two entirely different audiences isn't as important as the fact that they think they'll make a lot of money selling a whole mess of toys and crap associated with it. It really wouldn't surprise me if the people involved in greenlighting the decision haven't seen either product.

-- Ed/Ace

I can believe this but it doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. I think this is definately a case where the left hand should have known what the right was doing. But I can completely believe that some marketing numbskulls didn't give a damn about kids having nightmares.

[jv2k]

I used to watch r rated movies as a kid. It does no harm and most stuff flew over my head.

[Fone Bone]

I used to watch r rated movies as a kid. It does no harm and most stuff flew over my head.

But does every kid react the same way to different things as every other kid? Tim Burton's Batman gave me nightmares after I saw it. And I was almost fourteen at the time.

[MonkeyFunk]

I dunno, I think kids' movies have been getting pretty scary lately - even Harry Potter's a bit creepy.

[reflection]

Burton's Batman was horrible for so many reasons. I laugh when people call it "dark" or say they were scared by it. I'm the same age as Fone Bone and I laughed when I saw it.

Anyway, there is no relationship. The Batman was an opportunistic move by Kids' WB to produce a Batman cartoon geared toward a younger crowd when a Batman movie was coming out. This is no different than Kids' WB doing X-Men: Evolution when the first X-Men movie was coming out.

[Ultra Mike]

Even though from what I heard The Batman was developed mainly for Cartoon Network, I feel that due the fact it was also produced for Kids WB (I mean why else would they get rights to air it first? I know they put some money into the show) was the main reason it was so "light". I mean, if it was a straight Cartoon Network project, I'm sure that The Batman would be as "darK" as Justice League is. Not to mention the fact there's far more leinancy in movies then there is on television when it comes to standards.

[Stu]

Well, look at it with this logic, The Batman was developed for kids to enjoy Batman, whilst the motion picture was intended for adults to enjoy it.

There's no relationship between the two, but it's perfectly foreseeable for them to promote each other. To some people, Batman is just Batman, regardless of which version it is.

[TimTwoFace]

The only direct connections between the two are:

1) Due to BATMAN BEGINS, characters like the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were not permitted to be used on THE BATMAN. (This may change in time - but so far, they've been untouchable - probably so the origins wouldn't conflict with each other.)

2) The fact that Batman is the title character.

The shows are polar opposites of each other. THE BATMAN still is dark - at least visually - but by far and large, it doesn't share the same sensibilities and characterization. Batman himself, maybe - but the supporting characters, the villains in particular - are a mixed bag of quality.

-Tim

[Style]

I think what you're really asking is "Why is Batman Begins rated in such a way that it implies it might be lighter than it is?" I see you're logic. Becuase often, as in the case with almost every other Superhero movie, rating "PG-13" usually means that it's serious enough for adults to enjoy, but not too "hard" or "dark" or "Gory" for kids, (they just have to be prepared for a little swearing.)


But "Batman Begins" uses the rating in a somewhat harder way. And the fact is, that the MPAA will sometimes be more forgiving of established franchises. Maybe there should be a PG-15 or something.

I've seen it twice, and while it's "Dark," I honestly don't think it's that much more harsh than "Batman" or "Returns," but I suppose I can see you're concerns all the same.

(By the way, while I liked "Begins" a lot initially, it seems to be one of those films that doesn't hold up, not even when reviewing it in your mind.)