Mar 11, 2006, 01:15 AM
|
#1 of 53
|
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
|
Similar Threads
orion_mk3