Quiet Stranger said:
Gotta disagree with you Bob, the 1989 batman was good
I agree.
I think there are a ton of things one can criticize about the movie, true, but "And it had next to nothing in the way of respect for its source material" isn't it. It's a comic book superhero. What source material are you talking about? Comic book superheroes get reinvented with pretty much every new attempt at packaging them. That's *why* they get repackaged so often. And that's why they stay relevant for so long, because they do get repackaged.
Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.
On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.
Lastly, comparing Batman 1989 to Spider-Man? Please! It's pretty much the epitome of superhero movie genericity... to the point that while yes, it's not really bad, it's so forgettable that it pretty much triggered superhero-tiredness in people. Well, maybe that's just me.