After 35 years, it's really hard to think of something new to say about a movie like Batman.

We've all seen it.

We know the behind the scenes stories about the making of the film.

We can each probably sing at least three of the Prince tunes on the soundtrack in their entirety, whilst performing the Batdance.

A movie like Batman is a once-in-a-lifetime event, a true pop culture phenomenon. It's a shared experience among fans across generations, with a legacy and popularity that endure to this day.

So how do we celebrate three and a half decades of such a landmark motion picture?

Rather than writing a retrospective on the film's popularity (been done), exploring some obscure aspect of the movie's production (are there any more tales to be told?), or telling a personal anecdote about what it was like to experience Batmania in 1989 (I was four), I've decided to do something a little different.

See, I just recently read through Craig Shaw Gardner's novelization the Batman, based on Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren's script. As there's hardly a topic I'm not willing to cover as it relates to Batman, I figured why not compare the finished movie with the tie-in novel? There are worse ways to celebrate 35 years of a favorite film, and hey, maybe it will draw more attention to the book and get it some new fans.

Truth be told, the book follows the movie incredibly closely, both in broad strokes and in a lot of the finer details. The main story is almost exactly the same, there aren't really any new primary or secondary characters, and much of the dialogue is identical across the two mediums. There are enough differences between the two that the book definitely enhances the viewing experience, though, thanks to some individual character beats, slight differences in certain scenes, and two set-pieces that were absent from the film entirely.

Clocking in at 225 pages, with an original printing date of June 1989, the Batman novel begins just like the film, with a family of three taking an ill-fated shortcut through a dark alley. The trio are set upon by two thugs, who rob them of their goods and leave the father knocked out, but otherwise let them escape unharmed. Batman makes quick work of the two, and it's here that Gardner's written words really add to the atmosphere. "Until one of the gargoyles moved," the prose reads as silent sentinels watch over the city streets. It really helps sell Batman as a mysterious specter, not a superhero or even a masked vigilante.

That's made all the more clear in one of my favorite lines from the screenplay that was sadly (though understandably) replaced in the final film: when Batman intimidates the second thug, the criminal desperately tells the Caped Crusader "you don't own the night." In turn, Batman responds "tell your friends.  Tell all your friends."

He pauses for a beat, and then says "I am the night."

It is... so cool, and as iconic as "I'm Batman" has become, I feel this really sells Burton and Keaton's take on the character.

At least it's still there on the page, I suppose.

The rest of the novel follows the same plot as the film, transitioning between scenes the same way they do onscreen. Gardner adds more personality to some characters, like Commissioner Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Alexander Knox, all of whom have a bit more to do than in the film.  Gordon and Dent in particular come across as a lot more focused, heroic, and in Gordon's case competent, dealing with the collapse of the mob that they know and the rise of a new brand of criminal in the Joker.

Bruce Wayne is perhaps the most different on the page than on screen, as the character in the book is a bit more upbeat and talkative than Michael Keaton's portrayal. That just goes to show how a character can be written one way on the page, and become something completely different through an actor's choices.

Truth be told, it's Vicki Vale who probably gets the most to work with in the book, as much of the narrative focuses on her. It's written in a third-person limited style, so Gardner can use Vicki as a sort of audience insert around the other characters. Sure, Bruce, Joker (who is surprisingly similar to Nicholson's take, if more menacing and less silly in some scenes), and other characters get some "point of view" passages, Vicki is there to experience the world of Gotham alongside us, the reader.

The story never diverges from the movie, but there are two notable scenes that are completely absent from the film. The first is the infamous horse riding scene, where Bruce and Vicki... ride horses across the Wayne Manor grounds. There's not an awful lot to it other than that, but it's nice, and let's us see the characters get to know each other a little better.

The second scene that's not in the movie is a lot more involved, and actually results in the scene immediately preceding it being changed in the book. We all know when Bruce goes to Vicki's apartment, theoretically to tell her that he's Batman. In the book, he brings along his utility belt so he can examine something in the kitchen, while having a conversation with Vicki who is in the other room. There's a lot of dialogue here that's similar to the final cut of the movie, and sure enough Joker and his goons show up too. Instead of shooting Bruce and leaving, though, they kidnap Vicki which leads to an intricate chase sequence.

And honestly? This would have been really cool to see on screen, and I completely understand why it was cut. Bruce puts on his utility belt and fashions a makeshift mask, then chases Joker through the city by running across rooftops while he drives below. It's really exciting, and very Batman, but given the complexity of the chase it would have been really expensive to shoot.

Aside from that one scene, the rest of the story plays out beat for beat, like you'd expect, with some little flourishes here and there. The mayor's obsession with the Bicentennial celebration is played for laughs, to varying degrees of success. Knox is still the sarcastic goof all throughout, but he gets a nice moment to shine during the parade, when he uses some bolt cutters to try and set Joker's balloons loose. And like I said before, Joker is more terrifying here, with the way Gardner describing the line delivery completely changing the tone and meaning of dialogue that is otherwise the same in the film.

Like all good novelizations, Batman takes the solid foundation of a familiar film, and helps flesh out characters and scenes without altering the overall story. No matter how many times you've watched the film, you'll get something of worth out of reading this book, which also holds up incredibly well 35 years on.

Plus it's easy to find, dirt cheap, so no need to ask for a grant.