Burton's Batman VS Nolan's Batman VS Schumacher's Batman

[shauner111]

I disagree with that guy on a LOT of what he says in that video.

Keaton was fantastic but it's just a different interpretation to Bale. They're both amazing. The script was pretty bad in the first Batman but next to the following Burton, Shumacher movies it seemed golden. TDK wins by a mile even though the visuals in 89 are incredible.

Im sure the reboot will be the perfect blend between Keatons Batman and Bale's...but enhancing his brain and giving him the grey and black suit. but they just need the right actor.

 

[Kevin Smith]

^^ It's more so what I think of the takes on Batman in both is all. ALL the Nolan films are great, IMO.

 

[regwec]

I enjoyed that face-off. In a sense, TDK had a disadvantage in that B89 already existed: merely allowing the dark, mysterious Batman to appear on screen and (not) speak for himself might have been seen as offering little new. All the same, it seems fair to criticize TDK for some very verbose cod-high school debating moments. If The Joker is not a man with a plan, why must he always explain his plan at great length?

 

[redfirebird2008]

I enjoyed that face-off. In a sense, TDK had a disadvantage in that B89 already existed: merely allowing the dark, mysterious Batman to appear on screen and (not) speak for himself might have been seen as offering little new. All the same, it seems fair to criticize TDK for some very verbose cod-high school debating moments. If The Joker is not a man with a plan, why must he always explain his plan at great length?

Of course he is a man with a plan. That's the entire point. The man is a liar.

 

[regwec]

Yes, I know that, but his trite philosophizing is so consistent that a lot of his countervailing claims seem feeble and pointless. I enjoy some of his eerie episodes of clarity, particularly the monologue delivered as he is danging from the rope at the end. But I find something unappealing in The Joker feeling the need to explain himself all of the time. As the reviewer points out, it isn't a trait that is peculiar to The Joker in TDK- everyone in that movie does it. It just seems to suit him less.

 

[Kevin Smith]

^^ I agree with pretty much 100% of the things he said there about both films. When you look at them as just "films", I think he's right. A lot of Nostalgia Critic's stuff is great, I watch him all the time now. I think he's hilarious.

 

[Kevin Smith]

I disagree with that guy on a LOT of what he says in that video.

Keaton was fantastic but it's just a different interpretation to Bale. They're both amazing. The script was pretty bad in the first Batman but next to the following Burton, Shumacher movies it seemed golden. TDK wins by a mile even though the visuals in 89 are incredible.

Im sure the reboot will be the perfect blend between Keatons Batman and Bale's...but enhancing his brain and giving him the grey and black suit. but they just need the right actor.

Gotta disagree there, dude, I think it was very well written. My only issues with it are one or two things in the third act, other than that, I think it's great.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yes, I know that, but his trite philosophizing is so consistent that a lot of his countervailing claims seem feeble and pointless. I enjoy some of his eerie episodes of clarity, particularly the monologue delivered as he is danging from the rope at the end. But I find something unappealing in The Joker feeling the need to explain himself all of the time. As the reviewer points out, it isn't a trait that is peculiar to The Joker in TDK- everyone in that movie does it. It just seems to suit him less.

Well yes, everyone does it in the Nolan movies. Just a flaw in the writing. But not a major flaw IMHO. I was more bothered by plot developments (like the ferry boats) than by the expository dialogue.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the characterization of the Joker, I was more bothered by Joker killing Bruce's parents in B89 and also the notion of him screaming from fear when he falls at the end. Nolan nailed that aspect of the character. He's laughing his butt off when Batman throws him off the building in TDK. The Joker's scream at the end of B89 doesn't seem like the Joker to me.

 

[shauner111]

Nothing about Nicholson felt like Joker to me besides his look and the odd laugh. As a kid I didn't know any better so that was the Joker to me but as I grew up, I realized that the character was completely off. Nicholson obviously did a good job cuz he's amazing regardless but it's like a different character with Joker makeup to me. Just some 50 year old mob dude who happens to fall into some chemicals. That's not Joker.

Ledger nailed it. The only differences id like to see in a reboot is him with the perma-white (still no origin though) and with Harley Quinn by his side.

In 89, Gotham City's design was outstanding and so was the score. Keaton & Nicholson gave great performances, the Bat-suit/Bat-mobile/Bat-Wing/Bat-Cave were all AWESOME. Alfred was solid. And Keaton's quiet Batman is exactly what we need in the reboot.

But everything else IMO sucked really hard. Including the script, Joker's characterization, Vicki Vale discovering Bats' identity, Gordon, Dent, Batman's sudden outburst of killing at the end just to win the battle. It all sucked and therefore for me it's nothing more than a nostalgic comic book movie that's all visual and style but no substance (besides a couple of scenes with Bruce in Wayne Manor..which I could say the same about Batman Forever).

 

[shauner111]

And let me clarify about Jack. He was the perfect choice in the 80's for that role. He was born to play it. He didn't have to become another person, he was the Joker. But the reason why he just comes off as a man/mobster under some Joker makeup and costumes is because of the poor writing of the character. I blame that on Tim Burton and whoever wrote it (forget his name). With Ledger's interpretation, Nicholson could have been absolutely perfect.

But instead we got something entertaining but half-assed.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Nothing about Nicholson felt like Joker to me besides his look and the odd laugh. As a kid I didn't know any better so that was the Joker to me but as I grew up, I realized that the character was completely off. Nicholson obviously did a good job cuz he's amazing regardless but it's like a different character with Joker makeup to me. Just some 50 year old mob dude who happens to fall into some chemicals. That's not Joker.

Ledger nailed it. The only differences id like to see in a reboot is him with the perma-white (still no origin though) and with Harley Quinn by his side.

In 89, Gotham City's design was outstanding and so was the score. Keaton & Nicholson gave great performances, the Bat-suit/Bat-mobile/Bat-Wing/Bat-Cave were all AWESOME. Alfred was solid. And Keaton's quiet Batman is exactly what we need in the reboot.

But everything else IMO sucked really hard. Including the script, Joker's characterization, Vicki Vale discovering Bats' identity, Gordon, Dent, Batman's sudden outburst of killing at the end just to win the battle. It all sucked and therefore for me it's nothing more than a nostalgic comic book movie that's all visual and style but no substance (besides a couple of scenes with Bruce in Wayne Manor..which I could say the same about Batman Forever).

I thought they did a good job with the Joker until they revealed that he was the killer of Batman's parents and that he was a coward. The Joker is not supposed to be a coward. What's strange is not too long before he is screaming for his life, he is daring Batman to shoot him in the street. THAT is the right interpretation of the Joker, and then they just pissed it away with his death scene. It's not even just the scream either. It's the look of fear in his eyes before he falls. That's not the Joker I enjoy.

Perhaps my favorite Joker characterization is in Under The Red Hood where he gleefully begs Jason Todd and/or Batman to kill him. At one point when it looks like all three will die, Joker starts laughing and says, "I'm going to be the only one here who gets what he wants!" THAT is the Joker to me. A truly screwed up individual who wants to see Batman go over the edge and kill him. Not the coward we see at the end of B89.

But if you set aside that relatively major flaw in the characterization at the end of the film, they did a pretty good job with it. The body count is huge, he poisons the city, he electrocutes a guy with a trick handshake and then talks to the skeleton in a really eccentric way, he has a ton of funny lines, he has the acid in the flower on his suit, etc. Very good adaptation until the last 30 minutes or so.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah I agree, the end was very tacked on. The writing sucked imo, especially as the movie unfolded. He was truly the cowardly typical villain when he was about to die. Even before that when batman is punching him.

I have my issues with Under The Red Hood but yeah that Joker was a great interpretation. Ledger's was the same. No fear.

The parent angle in 89' was thrown into the story at the end because they obviously couldn't find a reason for the Batman and Joker final confrontation to be personal. It's a weak choice.

I truly think the only good that came out of Jack's Joker had to do with Jack himself, his line delivery, his performance and of course the good makeup. All of that was good but it has more to do with having top of the line designers on that set and having a great actor in Jack. The writing and everything else was lazy.

Burton doesn't know what the hell he's doing and he proved that when full creative control was given to him in Batman Returns. The visual, the designers and the cast is why we had good moments in those 2 films. It has nothing to do with Burton or the scripts.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah I agree, the end was very tacked on. The writing sucked imo, especially as the movie unfolded. He was truly the cowardly typical villain when he was about to die. Even before that when batman is punching him.

I have my issues with Under The Red Hood but yeah that Joker was a great interpretation. Ledger's was the same. No fear.

The parent angle in 89' was thrown into the story at the end because they obviously couldn't find a reason for the Batman and Joker final confrontation to be personal. It's a weak choice.

I truly think the only good that came out of Jack's Joker had to do with Jack himself, his line delivery, his performance and of course the good makeup. All of that was good but it has more to do with having top of the line designers on that set and having a great actor in Jack. The writing and everything else was lazy.

Burton doesn't know what the hell he's doing and he proved that when full creative control was given to him in Batman Returns. The visual, the designers and the cast is why we had good moments in those 2 films. It has nothing to do with Burton or the scripts.

I think the characterization was somewhat lazy (mainly at the end), but the one liners were very memorable. Coming up with good one liners isn't that easy, so I think they deserve credit for putting in a nice effort on that part of the script.

 

[shauner111]

The one-liners yeah ill give it to them for that. Whoever wrote the screenplay deserved a pat on the back for those lines for Nicholson & Keaton. But I thought the dialogue elsewhere was pretty meh. The story though, that's just lazy as hell!

 

[redfirebird2008]

The one-liners yeah ill give it to them for that. Whoever wrote the screenplay deserved a pat on the back for those lines for Nicholson & Keaton. But I thought the dialogue elsewhere was pretty meh. The story though, that's just lazy as hell!

Sam Hamm. He is also the man who created Henri Ducard, heh. Hamm has said for years that the part where Joker kills Batman's parents came straight from Burton. Hamm was pretty defensive about it in the interview for the B89 special edition DVD a number of years ago.

 

[shauner111]

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. It does sound like a Burton move haha.

 

[misjuevos]

i watched burton's batman movies with my nephew a while back. the batcave's state of the art computer was just some vhs players. i laughed so hard. and had to explain to him what was so funny. my nephew hums the theme from the movie every now and then. so it did make a lasting impression. he is 10.

 

[regwec]

Did it surprise you that 1989's version of "high tech" looks a bit different from today's?

 

[Elevator Man]

Yeah I agree, the end was very tacked on. The writing sucked imo, especially as the movie unfolded. He was truly the cowardly typical villain when he was about to die. Even before that when batman is punching him.

The Joker from B:TAS, which some people consider the best Joker, had his fair share of cowardly moments and moments where he's showing fear of death.

Gifs courtesy of Kane52630.

Burton doesn't know what the hell he's doing and he proved that when full creative control was given to him in Batman Returns. The visual, the designers and the cast is why we had good moments in those 2 films. It has nothing to do with Burton or the scripts.

BULL!!! That's just as ridiculous as saying TDK trilogy had good moments b/c of Pfister and the cast and not b/c Nolan or Goyer. Burton deserves as much credit as to why his batfilms were good to some as to why they were bad to some. You can't pick and choose why you like some things in the Burton films and not credit him b/c you dislike him.

 

[shauner111]

Sure, but even in TAS, I don't like seeing Joker like that. I don't care how good the overall interpretation was from that show.

And yes I can say whatever I want about Burton and his films. It's called opinion. The performances of Keaton, Nicholson and Pfeiffer were great and the design/score were fantastic. The only credit ill give to Burton is perhaps the reason why some of those performances were that good was because of his direction and vibe. It's a part of the reason OK, ill give him that. But that's it. Ill still give most of the credit to those 3 actors though.

 

[Elevator Man]

Whatever !!!

 

[Kevin Smith]

I think Burton knows the exact kind of movie he wants to make, and usually does so. In '89, he wanted to make a Batman movie, and he did so. In '92, he wanted to make a Burton movie about a Burton character called The Penguin, and he did so. I think when he is devoted and dedicated to something (an idea like Batman, or even Pee Wee's Big Adventure, neither seem like typical Burton-y stuff, IMO, yet he made both) it turns out very well, he's just a very whimsical man so when he happens to get dedicated to the right idea it's rare and lightning in a bottle.

 

[shauner111]

The guy barely knows who the character is. The 1st movie was a collaboration between him, the studio, Michael Uslan's desire for a proper batman movie. Burton never read a bat comic in his life until he was given a few by WB's people so he would know what to do & what to reference. That first film was a collab between him and several others. He was a small part of it. The second one proves that he was given full creative control and made Edward Scissorhands Part 2 featuring the visual look of Penguin, Catwoman and Batman (in that order).

Sorry, I don't have much love for Tim Burton lol.

 

[hellblazer103]

i happened to have gotten the pleasure of seeing '89 in a movie theater for the first time in my life a couple weeks ago (wasn't born around the time it came out ) and it was truly beautiful. definitely helped me appreciate it even more than i did originally.

 

[Human Torch]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Burton: Style over substance
Nolan: Substance over style

TAS is the only one that gets both right.