Batman: the animated series was a milestone in the history of animation that changed superhero cartoons forever. This means that every Batman cartoon since then has big shoes to fill that have not been filled thus far, aside from the direct sequels and spin-offs of the aforementioned series. I remember the huge disappointment I felt towards the 2004 cartoon The Batman and its priority is to sell toys rather than tell exciting stories. The 2008 animated film Batman, the Brave and Bold was a return to the “goofy Batman,” making it a love-or-hate affair. Beware of Batman replaced iconic villains and sidekicks like the Joker and Robin with Anarky and Katana (before the Suicide Squad movie made them more famous). This series was quickly canceled and seemingly recognized only by the most dedicated Batfans. Yes, all of these series ended up leaving their own distinctive mark and finding their own fanbases, but none could surpass the original series from the 90s. Which brings us to the most recent attempt to create a worthy new incarnation of Batman.

Batman: The Masked Crusader is the first Batman cartoon for adults in a Television format. There have been several adult cartoons based on Batman, but this is Batman’s first foray into adult animation. The main difference between this and all the previous Batman cartoons I’ve mentioned seems to be that the characters now swear. There’s not a lot of blood or sex, in case parents are worried about that, but the language is coarse. In fact, the changes to the rogues gallery, setting, and supporting cast are more notable than its adult cartoon status.

Batman: The Animated Series was set in a Gotham City modeled after Tim Burton’s Batman films, a world that mixed mid and late 20th century technology, fashion, and aesthetics in an anachronistic, visually stunning package. The aesthetic of this series is set entirely in the first half of the 20th century, with Batman not even having his Batcomputer. The anachronisms come in the form of societal attitudes and prejudices that definitely don’t match the old-fashioned setting, and I’ll leave it up to the viewer to decide what they think of these anachronisms. This Gotham City is interesting in its own way, even if it’s not as visually stunning as the ’90s classic.

With thirty years of animated innovations and the advances made by competing adult superhero cartoons such as X-Men ’97 And Invinciblefans were expecting something that would blow their minds, not the merely somewhat solid product that this show is. The fight scenes are technically proficient, though not as wild and 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 stays true to the classic “villain of the week” style of television, where each episode is a self-contained story rather than, as is expected these days, each episode being a part of a larger story. There’s nothing wrong with using this approach, as it’s the norm for Batman cartoons, but it would be interesting to see a Batman series experiment with overarching stories. The quality of a “villain of the week” show depends on the quality of its villains.

This series uses a mix of iconic and obscure Batman villains and the most noticeably changed villains are Penguin and Harley Quinn. Penguin is a woman in this series and Harley Quinn has no connection to the Joker. Was fine with the female Penguin and thought her episode, the very first episode, was okay but Harley Quinn’s new version feels so different from what you’re used to that she’s Harley Quinn in name only. Harvey Dent was portrayed as a complete slime even before the iconic accident that turned him into Two-Face. It’s basically the same with Catwoman. Portrayed in a mix of his 1940s and modern comics depictions, Clayface is the other candidate for best portrayal of the classic villains. New villains in this series include Gentleman Ghost, a ghost who hates the poor, Firebug, a pyromaniac, Nocturna, a vampire-like teenage girl, and Onomatopoeia, a villain who speaks with sound effects. The villains in this series seem to be more traditional villains than those in the ’90s cartoon series, which portrayed the villains as sympathetic characters with mental issues. Although Nocturna is an example of a sympathetic villain in this new series, most of the villains here, like 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 villains weren’t the only characters changed. Barbara Gordon isn’t Batgirl in this incarnation, but a lawyer. She never puts on tights or fights villains, as the intent of this series seems to be that Batman is the only superhero and has no henchmen. The new Barbara is a little bland, but OK. Harvey Bollock is a corrupt cop and more of a rough but noble character than he’s usually portrayed as. Granted, that was his original portrayal in the comics, but some fans get old-fashioned seeing him do the evil things he did in the Firebug episode if they’re as used to him as he is in most adaptations. Alfred is less on form than in modern adaptations, as that’s how he was originally portrayed in 1940s comics. These character portrayals weren’t “wrong,” but they weren’t particularly memorable.

Have you noticed that I haven’t talked much about Batman himself in this Batman review? That’s because he doesn’t seem to get that much screen time. His masquerade as a rich idiot can be amusing, but his Batman persona isn’t as interesting as previous roles. Hamish Linklater’s Batman voice sounds more like someone with a cold than a scary voice, in my opinion. There are many worse portrayals of Batman, but this one was not memorable.

In conclusion: Is the show good? I would say it is an improvement over the 2004 and 2013 animated series. This series was not the big, dumb toy commercial that the first one was and at least had good Catwoman and Clayface episodes, while the 2013 animated series more or less clung to C-list celebrities. It is disappointing that X-Men ’97 felt like a huge leap from its ’90s predecessor, while the latter lived in the shadow of its ’90s predecessor. It’s not bad, but it doesn’t do anything that the ’90s cartoon did better.