I don't know if this is the "ultimate question" because I see the first series of movies as something
altogether different from these movies (a trilogy I hope, with Nolan at the helm)
I think the question sholud be: is it a respectable follow-up to the great "Batman Begins"?
For those of us who was old enough to go to the experince (and understand the importance of it! ) the phenomon of Batman '89, we know that those days will never repeat itself because that movie did a lot more for Batman as character than just be a summer blockbuster movie.
You have to take that first Tim Burton movie in context of how the mainstream (outside of the comic fans) saw Batman at that time, which was still with the stench of "campiness" from the '60s TV show, not to mention the Joker as some white mustache clown that was only out to "foil Bamtan" and never kill anyone ala Ceasar Romero.
For those of us who wanted a truer, darker depiction of Batman on film as we had in the comics at the time (particular with Frank Miller's DarkKnght Returns and Year one) we really held are breath with all that we heard was coming out for this movie.
Did you know there was a rumor one time of Bill Murray portraying Batman in that movie? Yeah Bill Murray. Let that run through your head for a while.
This is why many of us long-time Bat-fans was
so pissed-off when we first heard that Micahel ("Mr. Mom") Keaton as portraying the Dark knight, thinking this would be an updated version of the camp show on acreen.
And some people even championed that the movie be a comedy. go figure!
Back then you didn't have the internet and stuff or chat rooms or My space pages from producers and actors, so we actually had to write a letter of cmplaint to the movie company. Which a lot of us did after hearing Michael Keaton being chosen as Batman.
Which is why Warner rushed out a teaser, showing that the movie was nothing but camp! And thank goodness it wasn't! It showed Batman as dark and distrueb and scarring the street punks and made the Joker the crazed criminal phycopath that we knew and loved (to hate).
Whch, by the way, Jack Nicholson played to the hilt.
it's always easy in hindsight to complain about something years later, but for the time, that was a cutting edge performance in view of the only thing we had prior to nicholson's portral was Ceasar Romero. But to me it has stood the test of time!
So that movie stands out for a lot of us long time Batman fans who want a darker knight on film becasue it not only conquer the box-office but it wipe that stench of the campiness that was still lingering in the air from the 60s TV show.
Unfortunaely, a big whiff of that stench resurfaced with "Batman and Robin", but that's another story in itself.
Bottom line: You can't compare this to the '89 Batman because the factors that faced that movie are not relevant when it comes to this one.
Batman (in general) is now seen as a dark character and the mainstrean do not want a campy Batman in their movie ever again by the reaction we got from 'Batman and Robin' which in some way is the only god thing to come out of that movie.