He clearly does, he's quoted as saying that he would never read a comic book, i'm not bashing him here (I don't wanna start that again) I think Batman Returns is an incredible film, but none of his stuff stays faithful to the source material in any way. Not that BB does, there are some horrific breaks from continuity in there. But Burton does it more, Nicholson as Lex Luthor? He's just doing that to piss off the Batman people, it's blatant.
Burton said that in the moment of a heated argument with Kevin Smith (Who jokingly accused him of stealing something from a Smith-penned comic book). It is not true. You know when you're angry, you say things you don't mean?
Burton has openly admitted that he's not a comic book reader. But of the comics he encountered as a child, he did like Batman, but he was by no means an avid reader. He even found the comic panels confusing sometimes because he wasn't sure which ones to read first. Tim suffered from mild dyslexia as a child.
But if you'd bothered to even watch the bonus material for the Burton Batman film DVDs, you'd know how wrong you are. Burton read DKR for starters. Then he read TKJ, which he said he loved because "it was more like storyboards than a traditional comic book." Also, 1989 interviews and television coverage (That I have on a bootleg DVD) have Burton openly stating that he did some slight research into the character through DC, trying to lock down a difinitive interpretation of the character, but he couldn't find one because Batman had evolved so much. Burton also went to meetings pimping out TKJ saying "this is waht our film will look like" to get potential investors and licensees interested.
Add to it that Sam Hamm was a big time Batfan, and even wrote some stories for 'Tec. Burton hired Sam as the writer because he was impressed that Sam had such a good knowledge of the character's history. And if you read Hamm's original script before Burton and Skarron made their slight changes, it is the Batfilm of any fan's dreams. Robert Whul even said that prettymuch the first two-thirds of the film is all Hamm. Burton and Hamm went directly to the 1939 material for the biggest inspiration as a way to be pure and to "get away from all the detours the character has taken over the years."
Bob Kane was an active consultant, with a "Batman bible" for use by the crew (and it was used) for the things they could and could not do with Batman. Which fits, because they were repesenting Kane's original more than the more contemporary version (At least when it came to specifics).
And leaving aside the fact that The Joker killing the Waynes isn't accurate.... it doesn't change much, if anything at all. He's still Batman at the end, isn't he? And Burton did that to make it a little more epic, a little symbolic and he also did it to try and simulate the deep-seeded resentment between the two that exists in the comics but you can't replicate in a two-hour film so well.
And hey, the film wouldn't be so wonderfully loved by fans (Haters are really a pathetically small minority for this film) if it was as inaccurate as it is percieved by some.
Tim even said that he felt himself to be a fan as well, so he was just doing with the character what he wanted to see as a fan of Batman.
Returns is a different case because he had to be lured back by WB. He didn't want to do another, but they promised him "what if it's not a Batman film, but a Tim Burton film?" So it's really WB's fault. Tim changed the Penguin because at the time, the Penguin wasn't even a crime boss in the comics, he was a regular thief. So he needed more "oomph" (since WB forced the Penguin in there). Again, what you percieve as Tim
trying to piss off fans (of all of the ignorant statements), was him just trying to make a good and interesting Batman film for the fans. Admittedly, B89 is more accurate overall because of Hamm's prescence and the control on Burton, but what he did was not out of hate for fans or an attempt to piss them off. Why is it okay to think this of Burton without a shred of evidence, and not Nolan? I'm unhappy that we're not just getting the actual Joker from the comic books (visually, anyway), but I'm not jumping to conclusions and saying that Nolan is trying to "piss off the fans."
Next time, do some research before you make such a bold claim. You wouldn't be saying B89 doesn't "say accurate to the comics" if you really were a fan and had some knowledge of the the Batman comics outside of the recent material, which I'm guessing you don't have by your statement.
And by the way, what does choosing Nicholson for Luthor have to do with pissing off Batman fans? And you do know Jon Peters was making these crazy decisions alongside Burton? Hell, he thought of the majority of them. And Nicholson as Luthor is much less crazy than Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen.
t: 
Pure mocking of the source material.
