I saw BATMAN BEGINS last night at a sold out IMAX screening. It was gloriously dark and very well done. All around it was an excellent movie, and I was happy to see a new incarnation of the superhero 16 years after Burton's first effort at bringing the Caped Crusader to the screen. Nolan's vision of Batman is his own, and we have a brand new edition of an American myth updated for our times. But I keep seeing all these discussions about which movie is better - 1989's Batman or the newly conceived Batman Begins? The difference between the two is too great to even see them as competitors.

Every decade we reinvent the superheroes to mirror the times we live in. World War II saw a traditional brightly colored Superman emerging out of jingoistic pride, while Bob Kane planted Batman firmly in the roots and rules of noir. We had the campy trippy Batman of the '60s, who became more fun and funny in a time when we needed a few good chuckles. Superman took flight in the '70s just when America needed to regain its faith, and Christopher Reeves made us believe in what the country stood for again in a jaded era. Likewise, Wonder Woman resurfaced to usher in the triumph of the feminist movement and restore faith in America and declare victory in the battle of the sexes. Then at the end of the '80s came Batman again. He was reinvented as a troubled psyche navigating an overly stylized neo-noir world of Prince music and gigantic sets. Now we see Batman again rising from the ashes to fight terrorism in a newly defined world - just when America wants to understand its role in the war on terror. The Batman movies are reflections of what's happening in the world at the time they are released, so the latest one is always going to seem the most relevant and radical.

Batman Begins isn't better than Batman it's just more timely. Burton's vision now seems dated because it was a product of the time it was made. The '80s were all about excess and the personal politics of individualism and duality. Burton's movie was a triumph of style over substance, and his Batman was dealing with an over-the-top menace who represented the sins of the decade - selfish egomania and drug abuse (Joker's pushing of SMILE-EX mirrored cocaine and Ecstasy). Nolan's Batman Begins is about one man taking on the fear that random violence (terrorist attacks) produce. Bale is waging a war against fear, but it's really a war on uncertainty and a feeling that our cities are becoming targets for mass hysteria.

The two movies evoke completely different themes and stylistic approaches that fit with their times. Which is exactly what the comics did over the years. How often did Batman morph or have a newly tweaked origin? How many times did a team of artists and writers change his costumes and character? The two Batman movies are apples and oranges - both equally as faithful to Batman's spirit as the other. You almost can't compare the two. It would be like comparing the original comic to Frank Miller's graphic novels. Why bother? The time defined them more than they defined their eras. Superheroes are made to evolve and change. And it's wonderful to see Batman able to remain fresh and vital in the hands of talents in every decade.

Guess now it's Superman's turn. Let's see how the new world order changes him.