Batman: Burton vs. Nolan

I know that many people liked Batman Begins, but how many people would actually place it above the Burton films.

I just finished watching Batman Begins again, and it is becoming less and less enjoyable. The essence of Batman was captured very accurately in Nolan's version, but I felt that the editing was very poor. A lot of people seemed to complain about the quick cuts during the fight scenes, but I think that problem was present throughout the entirety of the film. Most scenes felt like they were cut too short, and the film just didn't seem to flow well.

Burton's films were much more comic-like, but I felt that they were better films in general.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I do love the camp of the older films, up to a point (i.e. the first one, Returns and Tommy Lee Jones & Jim Carrey in Forever) but I never remember being totally satisfied with them on an emotional level.

Nolan's vision of Batman first as a conflicted and then as a driven human being rather than as a (natch) comic book character will always be the better of the two worlds, to me.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I preferred the Nolan take on Batman myself. The first two movies are great and fun films to watch without a doubt, but like Skexis i'm not too keen on campy situations. If you've ever seen the 60s TV series, you'd soon see why. It's farcial and ridiculous like the Benny Hill show. And the nipples-and-neon era, well, the less said about that, the better.

I always felt that Batman was a serious, brooding and troubled character and I think Nolan really portrays that better than in any previous Batman film. Planting him firmly in the "real" world as rendered by Nolan makes him more believable and therefore enjoyable, since Batman is basically just a vigilante and not a guy with totally implausible powers.

Most amazing jew boots

Er...he makes him a ninja. Not to say that's implausible, but how many guys do you know who can disappear in the blink of an eye?

But ninjas are awesome, and so is Batman. None of the earlier films really stuck with me, and it wasn't until the Animated Series and Justice League that I finally started to see Batman as a cool character.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The thing that's surprising about Burton and Nolan's versions of Batman isn't how different they are; it's how similar they are. Both go for gritty realism and psychological complexity, as compared with the 1960's TV show and the Joel Schumacher episodes. Both produced highly stylized films that were in love with darkness and splashy effects.

The real difference, for me, is in who is accorded the most screen time. Burton's sympathies clearly lie with the villians; he paints them as twisted yet sympathetic outsiders with a complexity that overshadows that of the hero. Nolan is all about the hero (to the virtual exclusion of villians entirely); his Batman is the clear center of the film. Both approaches have their merits, of course.

I just with the two Batmen were in continuity with each other. I can see Nolan making a prequel, or a sequel, without having to throw out everything that the previous people had done. Hell, they're doing that with Superman, after all.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Batman Begins revived the Batman I loved. It was closer to the way the Animated Series portrayed him.

Not to say I didn't like the first two (Burton) Batman films, but they're just completely different takes on the story. Plus, BB starts from the very beginning, whereas the original movies just threw you into the story and used assumed audience familiarity/flashbacks to fill viewers in on what happened.

Of course, I'm no Batman fangirl, so I'm sure that it's not the 100% comic-book legit origin film. But hell, it's more info than the other films. And it has Ra's al Ghul. Plus, I think Christian Bale makes a *much* better Bruce Wayne than Michael Keaton. Much better....definitely a hell of a lot sexier. I just don't know if I can handle somebody else taking on the role of the Joker, since Jack Nicholson did such a great job.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I enjoy the first two Batmans a lot, but I have to admit that Nolan did a great job with Batman Begins. I own the movie because I feel its just that great.

FELIPE NO

Burton's Batman is a decent adaptation of 40s-style Batman, but he can't direct an action scene to save his life.

Nolan's is a perfect adaptation of Miller/Loeb Batman. He just needs to pull the camera back during fight sequences.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I actully like the action scenes, they are short, no bullshit and because you dont get too see alot of Batman it keeps that mystique like "shit what's going on?".
I like the first movie but Begins is up there sniffing on it.

no homo

Originally Posted by Magic

Er...he makes him a ninja. Not to say that's implausible, but how many guys do you know who can disappear in the blink of an eye

That was "retconned" into Bruce Wayne's past since the mid-1970s. You're a little late to complain.

Batman Begins is flawed but genius. As good as the '89 Burton movie is - it's saturated with some unnessessary shit. The Prince soundtrack is awful, The Joker as a mob boss just doesn't quite work and you can tell that Burton didn't give a shit for Returns.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I liked both Nolan's film and Burton's films. They each brought something to the table. I still like Burton's films more, though.

I appreciate Burton's vision because of his style and his effective use of pathos. I've always liked how virtually all of his movies have protagonists who are social outcasts -- dark, brooding, tortured, lonely, and extremely vulnerable. Just look at Edward in Edward Scissorhands, or Victor in The Corpse Bride. His Batman is no different.

In his two Batman films, he gave a lot of screen time to the villains. For instance, in Batman Returns, The Penguin's story took precedence over Batman's. And Burton himself acknowledged this in the special edition DVD, where he mentioned how Batman was already established and he wanted to explore The Penguin and The Catwoman.

Even his villains were vulnerable characters and outcasts. Just look at The Penguin, whose predicament wasn't entirely his fault. Had his rich parents raised him with love -- like Bruce Wayne's had -- instead of dumping him into the river, perhaps he would have turned out differently. The only difference between the infant Oswald and infant Bruce was that the former was born physically abnormal. You could argue that even if his parents had raised him properly, Oswald would still have had to endure ridicule and disdain throughout his life.

Similar pathos with Selina Kyle. You feel for Burton's villains.

Burton also uses a lot of humor, a lot of it subtle and dark. I've always loved the line from Batman Returns, where Batman and Alfred foil The Penguin's speech by turning the crowd against him, and the first thing out of The Penguin's mouth as he made haste for his exit was: "Why is there always someone who bring eggs and tomatoes to a speech."

Nolan's Batman film is just straigh-up Batman. Like orion_mk3 said, Nolan's focus (at least in Batman Begins) was clearly on presenting Batman and telling his backstory. He explored the character very well, and I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

Nolan's Batman Begins stands on its own as a great film. It isn't as twisted, as dark, or as lonely as Burton's, but it's terrific in its own right. But maybe it's because I'm somewhat partial to Burton's work -- since I grew up watching his two Batman films countless of times. So even though I loved Batman Begins, I still would never place it above Burton's work.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I can't actually choose. It doesn't help that Burton has two excellent Batman movies for us to base our judgements on, whereas Nolan only has the one.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Begins, by far. I enjoyed Burton's Batman movies, no question, but Begins really makes you feel connected to the character in a way the others simply don't. Plus, as blasphemous as this may be to say, but I didn't even think Keaton was a good Bruce Wayne. He was an OK Batman, but as Bruce, Christian Bale destroys him.

Batman is one of my favorite comic book characters because he's so human. Spidey has radioactive powers, Superman is from another planet, but Batman is just a human with martial arts training and hi-tech gadgetry. Nolan totally nailed that in Begins.

Nolan just nailed it. Every single thing about Batman Begins was done perfectly.

Most amazing jew boots

I hope I'm allowed to split the movies here. Batman Begins was better than Batman Returns, but not Batman. So, if you average that out, the two directors are equal? I don't know...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

as blasphemous as this may be to say, but I didn't even think Keaton was a good Bruce Wayne. He was an OK Batman, but as Bruce, Christian Bale destroys him.

I would agree with that, actually.

Christian Bale was a better Brunce Wayne than Michael Keaton was.
But Michael Keaton was a better Batman than Christian Bale was.



But -- and I'm sure this will spark some discussion:

I've always believed that Batman is the true self, while Bruce Wayne is the secret identity.

Contrast that with the Superman mythos, where Clark Kent is the true self, and Superman is the secret identity.

How ya doing, buddy?

I appreciate the fact that Batman was represented in a more realistic and believable context, but I think it is a stupid idea to show Batman as a down-to-earth character. People love saying that they love Batman because he is just a human, but that isn't why Batman is a good character. He's a good character because he is a human that is doing extraordinary things. Nolan's Batman didn't really do anything that could send chills down my spine, but I guess that is because he was just getting started.

Although Nolan spent the entire film trying to hammer in the concept that Batman was human, it was all worthless except for the scene where Scarecrow ignites him on fire and he has to call Alfred for help. He is laying on the roof, just screwed. In this scene, Batman's vulnerability just becomes incredibly apparent, and there's no better way to imply a sense of humanity. Hiking to Mongolia or trying to get revenge for bringing a gun to court was just stupid, in contrast.

I guess that you just gotta have the camp when it comes to people who dress up in costumes.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

Christian Bale was a better Brunce Wayne than Michael Keaton was.
But Michael Keaton was a better Batman than Christian Bale was.

I disagree with that, and here's why. The main reason I loved Bale's Batman over Keaton's is because he truly disguises himself. Allow me to explain.

Superheroes are supposed to mask their identity right? Keaton's Batman and Tobey Maguire's Spider Man both do one thing that throws everything off for me - They mask their appearance, but they don't mask their voice. Is your voice not a part of your identity? You can't tell me that if you knew Peter Parker and then met Spider Man, you wouldn't say "gee, he sounds alot like that Peter Parker guy."

Alot of people thought that Bale's Bat-voice was cheesy, but I thought it was downright brilliant. Even when he does the whole "SWEAR TO ME!" thing. It's corny, yeah, but that all comes full circle back to the whole fear thing. Batman's whole motif is predicated on instilling fear on those who pray on the fearful. If Batman spoke like Bruce Wayne, he wouldn't be as scary. Bale understood both Batman and Bruce Wayne. He truly masks EVERY part of his Bruce Wayne identity, right down to his voice.

That's why Bale's better

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I disagree with that, and here's why. The main reason I loved Bale's Batman over Keaton's is because he truly disguises himself. Allow me to explain.

Superheroes are supposed to mask their identity right? Keaton's Batman and Tobey Maguire's Spider Man both do one thing that throws everything off for me - They mask their appearance, but they don't mask their voice. Is your voice not a part of your identity? You can't tell me that if you knew Peter Parker and then met Spider Man, you wouldn't say "gee, he sounds alot like that Peter Parker guy."

Alot of people thought that Bale's Bat-voice was cheesy, but I thought it was downright brilliant. Even when he does the whole "SWEAR TO ME!" thing. It's corny, yeah, but that all comes full circle back to the whole fear thing. Batman's whole motif is predicated on instilling fear on those who pray on the fearful. If Batman spoke like Bruce Wayne, he wouldn't be as scary. Bale understood both Batman and Bruce Wayne. He truly masks EVERY part of his Bruce Wayne identity, right down to his voice.

That's why Bale's better

I see what you mean, and I can't say I disagree. Bale distinguished the dichotomy between Batman and Bruce Wayne a lot better than Keaton. And yes, Bale's Bruce Wayne was a better disguise than Keaton's. Keaton's Bruce Wayne was very, very moody and dark ... not really that much different from his Batman.

[But Keaton had his moments too. I recall in particular moment in Batman Returns, when Batman was cruising in the Batmobile late at night, keeping an eye on The Penguin. He said to Alfred, in an extremely deep and low voice, "I think he knows who his parents are. There's something else." His Bruce Wayne never spoke like that.]

So yes, on the whole, Bale distinguished the dual identities better than Keaton did. But without that dichotomy, if I looked simply at Batman on its own, I liked Keaton's take more.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

While Bale's disguising of his voice was a good concept, the execution was awful...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

While Bale's disguising of his voice was a good concept, the execution was awful...

While the idea was that Bale's Batman would scare the thugs with his brutal monster-like voice....I indeed though the execution was indeed a bit over-the-top.
He sounded too un-Batman to me.
More like a big barking dog/bear (whatever ) then like the mysterious and intimidating voice of Kevin Conroy (voice of Batman The Animated Series)....and Michael Keaton had that too.
Kevin Conroy might not have portrayed Batman in the live-action movies, but if you're talking about the distinction between the two voices of Batman (Bruce and Bats), then he is by far the best of any of the Batman actors!

While I loved Batman Begins, Burton's Batman movies will always be my favorites!
They're more the Batman that I've grown to love over the years and Batman Begins shows a new side of Batman which isn't entirely how I see Batman.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Tappy

Kevin Conroy might not have portrayed Batman in the live-action movies, but if you're talking about the distinction between the two voices of Batman (Bruce and Bats), then he is by far the best of any of the Batman actors!

I agree. For me, the definitive Batman -- in terms of how he carries himself and how he speaks -- is the Animated Series' take. And Kevin Conroy just made the character true. He got it just right. When I think about how Batman and Bruce Wayne would talk, Kevin Conroy is the voice I hear.

I was speaking idiomatically.

To me, Batman Returns just edges out Batman Begins as my favorite. I just really liked the very dark atmosphere that Burton brought. It had more interesting villains in my opinion as well.

As someone mentionned earlier, Batman Begins isn't quite so good on repeated viewings, while to me at least, Burton's Batmans are just fine on repeated viewings.

Bale does a pretty solid Batman, but I wouldn't give him the crown until I see how he does in the next one.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You know, it's probably blasphemy to say this, but when it comes to Keaton vs. Bale, I really couldn't care less. Argue about the actors, argue about the directors, argue about nostaligia, even, but when it comes right down to it, Burton's Batmobile simply can't compete with Nolan's rendition.

FELIPE NO

I didn't think anyone was going to go there.

Nolan's Batmobile ... it was cool. But it wasn't subtle.

I can't picture The Dark Knight driving around in that thing, all sleek, brooding, and mysterious.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

I didn't think anyone was going to go there.

Nolan's Batmobile ... it was cool. But it wasn't subtle.

I can't picture The Dark Knight driving around in that thing, all sleek, brooding, and mysterious.

I can. He needs to fight crime by instilling fear on those who pray on the fearful. What better way than a scary, badass tank! The original batmobile is too slick and somewhat campy. The tumbler is cool AND practical.

Jam it back in, in the dark.