I love the Burton Batman films...but compared to Batman Begins, they are crap.

[Peter B. Parker]

Recently, I watched the Burton Batman movies for the first time in ages. While we all hate the Schumacher ones with the utmost intensity, I always had a soft spot for the Burton ones. I guess it was the dark atmosphere that the films had or something. Or maybe it was the memorable actors who portrayed the characters. Then, I put in Batman Begins. And low and behold, what a difference. BB is such a superior look at the Batman mythos. Even compared to the very much enjoyable Burton films.

1. Gotham City: The Gotham in the Burton films (and especially the Schumacher sequels) is a city I can't grasp as one in this reality. With the freakishly tall statues that I don't think no city can ever build past or present. To the look of the citizens in what I am imagining supposed to be Gotham in the early 1990s. (When you look at the people, they look like they are stuck in the 1930s.) I just couldn't believe this as a real city. The Gotham City of Batman Begins reminds me a lot of Chicago and New York City. It felt more modern and I can relate to that more. I don't know, seems picky but the Gotham in Begins is much more believable than the Gotham of the Burton films.

2. Batman/Bruce Wayne: Don't get me wrong. Michael Keaton did a hell of a job in the films....as Batman. His Bruce performance was bleh. I can easily tell that Burton wanted to focus more on the Batman side of Wayne then the Bruce. We barely got to see the business side of him. It was all about a rich guy wearing a rubber suit playing vigilante. I loved his portrayal as Batman, for the most part. He didn't mind setting that guy on fire in Returns or killing Penguin. Keaton's performance was just one dimensional. It was all about him in the suit and pretty much nothing else. Although, he was pretty badass at times. Which is what I like.

Christian Bale's performance as both is much easier to grasp than Keaton's. I like Nolan's take on the Wayne part first and then Batman. We got to see Bruce before he became Batman and his road to becoming him. His struggles and his growth. Then, as Batman, we saw his anger and fury come out like a roar. He had ascended to being Batman through the trials he went through. I cheered him as. I wanted to see him wear that black mask. Keaton's performance...just didn't show any type of conflict. Except with women, that is.

3. Villains: This is a tough one. Nicholson's acting as the Joker was amazing. Pretty much the best part of the first film. Ask anyone and they say that it was the Joker that made the film. The villains of Returns pretty much stole the show from Keaton as well. If only to distract the audience from the one-dimensional look at the man. However, Burton's films seemed to focus almost too much on the villains. For instance, in Returns, the first 40 minutes of the film have absolutely NOTHING to do with Batman. So why not just call it "Penguin and Catwoman" instead of "Batman Returns". Because that is what the sequel felt like.

Begins took the time to first focus on Wayne, then his conflicts with himself and his surroundings, and then the villains. Ra's was the perfect villain because of how he plays with Wayne's mind. A great villain for him to help his conflict. Wayne struggles to help the citizens of Gotham and punish the wicked but in a way he finds honorable. Ra's doesn't see honor in the destruction of what lies in the wake. Now that's a conflict between two dynamic characters. What's the big conflict in the Burton movies? Oh, just to stop the Joker and the Penguin. While that's fun, it just doesn't get my juices flowing.

And so you are probably starting to get my point. I realize that this has been really long but I had to rant. Don't get me wrong. I think the Burton films are great fun. The Schmacher films are a complete and utter mess that I won't even bother with. I will tell you this. I look forward very much to 'The Dark Knight'. With Nolan at the helm and Bale back, I really think they can continue this impressive flow they were able to establish with Begins.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Here begins World War III. Thanks for playing, everybody.

That said, I disagree with you on many points, but it's your opinion. Knock yourself out. But I personally don't think you "get" Keaton's performance in the Burton films. You can't if you'd say the things that you did. Bale's performance was easier to grasp because it was made that way.

 

[dude stannis]

Me: Come on lt me hear you say it?

PBP: I love the Burton Batman films...

Me: No! No that! No the other thing! It's on the tip of your toungue!

PBP:...but compared to Batman Begins, they are crap.

Me: WRONG!

Joking. I prefer the Burton films, but each to his own.

 

[Catman]

This again? Like I said before...it comes down to taste. If you love the Bob Kane/Bill Finger and Frank Miller stuff than the Burton films are for you. If you like O'Neal and Adams then Mask of the Phantasm is your film. And, if you like Jeph Loeb then Batman Begins will be your favorite.

End of story.

 

[David Rice]

Recently, I watched the Burton Batman movies for the first time in ages. While we all hate the Schumacher ones with the utmost intensity, I always had a soft spot for the Burton ones. I guess it was the dark atmosphere that the films had or something. Or maybe it was the memorable actors who portrayed the characters. Then, I put in Batman Begins. And low and behold, what a difference. BB is such a superior look at the Batman mythos. Even compared to the very much enjoyable Burton films.

1. Gotham City: The Gotham in the Burton films (and especially the Schumacher sequels) is a city I can't grasp as one in this reality. With the freakishly tall statues that I don't think no city can ever build past or present. To the look of the citizens in what I am imagining supposed to be Gotham in the early 1990s. (When you look at the people, they look like they are stuck in the 1930s.) I just couldn't believe this as a real city. The Gotham City of Batman Begins reminds me a lot of Chicago and New York City. It felt more modern and I can relate to that more. I don't know, seems picky but the Gotham in Begins is much more believable than the Gotham of the Burton films.

2. Batman/Bruce Wayne: Don't get me wrong. Michael Keaton did a hell of a job in the films....as Batman. His Bruce performance was bleh. I can easily tell that Burton wanted to focus more on the Batman side of Wayne then the Bruce. We barely got to see the business side of him. It was all about a rich guy wearing a rubber suit playing vigilante. I loved his portrayal as Batman, for the most part. He didn't mind setting that guy on fire in Returns or killing Penguin. Keaton's performance was just one dimensional. It was all about him in the suit and pretty much nothing else. Although, he was pretty badass at times. Which is what I like.

Christian Bale's performance as both is much easier to grasp than Keaton's. I like Nolan's take on the Wayne part first and then Batman. We got to see Bruce before he became Batman and his road to becoming him. His struggles and his growth. Then, as Batman, we saw his anger and fury come out like a roar. He had ascended to being Batman through the trials he went through. I cheered him as. I wanted to see him wear that black mask. Keaton's performance...just didn't show any type of conflict. Except with women, that is.

3. Villains: This is a tough one. Nicholson's acting as the Joker was amazing. Pretty much the best part of the first film. Ask anyone and they say that it was the Joker that made the film. The villains of Returns pretty much stole the show from Keaton as well. If only to distract the audience from the one-dimensional look at the man. However, Burton's films seemed to focus almost too much on the villains. For instance, in Returns, the first 40 minutes of the film have absolutely NOTHING to do with Batman. So why not just call it "Penguin and Catwoman" instead of "Batman Returns". Because that is what the sequel felt like.

Begins took the time to first focus on Wayne, then his conflicts with himself and his surroundings, and then the villains. Ra's was the perfect villain because of how he plays with Wayne's mind. A great villain for him to help his conflict. Wayne struggles to help the citizens of Gotham and punish the wicked but in a way he finds honorable. Ra's doesn't see honor in the destruction of what lies in the wake. Now that's a conflict between two dynamic characters. What's the big conflict in the Burton movies? Oh, just to stop the Joker and the Penguin. While that's fun, it just doesn't get my juices flowing.

And so you are probably starting to get my point. I realize that this has been really long but I had to rant. Don't get me wrong. I think the Burton films are great fun. The Schmacher films are a complete and utter mess that I won't even bother with. I will tell you this. I look forward very much to 'The Dark Knight'. With Nolan at the helm and Bale back, I really think they can continue this impressive flow they were able to establish with Begins.

Well said, I like your points. The truth is the Burton films are not bad movies and neither is Nolan's film. They are what they are. I like them both and the way I see it is they are two different takes on Batman.

 

[Two-Face]

Well said, I like your points. The truth is the Burton films are not bad movies and neither is Nolan's film. They are what they are. I like them both and the way I see it is they are two different takes on Batman.

I agree with you

 

[The Chairman]

This again?

 

[The Chairman]

This again?

 

[David Rice]

I agree with you

Thank you! t:

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Anyone hear that sound?

It's the sound of me banging my head against a brick wall at foolish fans who, for some reason, have to have one definitive Batman and disregard all others.

Here is how they think; Batman Begins IS great. Batman Returns is DIFFERENT, therefore it can't be great as well. Since this fanboy mindset only allows for one, Batman Returns MUST BE DISGARDED.

 

[Rockbottom]

Anyone hear that sound?

It's the sound of me banging my head against a brick wall at foolish fans who, for some reason, have to have one definitive Batman and disregard all others.

Here is how they think; Batman Begins IS great. Batman Returns is DIFFERENT, therefore it can't be great as well. Since this fanboy mindset only allows for one, Batman Returns MUST BE DISGARDED.

This man is correct. Just because you like one doesnt mean you have to hate the other.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Anyone hear that sound?

It's the sound of me banging my head against a brick wall at foolish fans who, for some reason, have to have one definitive Batman and disregard all others.

Here is how they think; Batman Begins IS great. Batman Returns is DIFFERENT, therefore it can't be great as well. Since this fanboy mindset only allows for one, Batman Returns MUST BE DISGARDED.

I think it all boils down to fact that Begins is a restart, so in that, it indicates that there is a superiority complex between the two interpretations. If the franchise had to be restarted, the other one is automatically always bad.

Not to mention my other theories on BB being popular for being "Batman for Dummies" so it's prefurable to people without film comprehension skills.

What really kills me is that the franchise didn't necessarily need a restart. Sure, B&R was really bad, but it was salvageable. Come up with an excuse for Barbera to go away. School maybe. Then send Dick away so we can get back to just Batman. You know, like the Pre-Crisis comics did? Or just pull a Superman Returns and just retcon B&R!

The only franchise that needed a restart was Superman. And not because it started bad, but just because S:TM was so long ago. I like what Singer did, he did it well. But I wouldn't have protested a restart (as long as it had the Williams music and stuck to the material). X-Men could use a more comic-accurate revamp, though....

See, BB being a restart opened the floodgates. If a franchise isn't done to one's satisfaction? Restart. You see it all the time. Just because Tobey Maguire might leave the Spider-Man films, we need to restart. Are people nuts? I'll always hate BB at least for this new trend of throwing in the towl. If you didn't like that one extra, let's try it again!

And people didn't have anywhere near-as-many complaints about Burton's films before BB. It's not that the haters are necessarily right, moreover, BB just cast a pallor of inferiority over Burton's material, even that which is inarguabely good. This situation only happens with the Batman franchise, if you'll notice. BB made the Batfans into picky, petty, bickering fanboys with agendas. It's not okay if Burton makes radical changes, but it is for Nolan? because he showed Bruce doing push-ups? And vice-versa...!

Restarts = bad. All they do is divide people. Only restart if a fanchise goes dormant for 20 years, I say.

In regards to the original poster's point.... if you really love the Burton films, then you love them. Period. If you sneak in a "But Begins kicks their ass", you're covering to try and sound fair. At least I don't pretend to like BB when I'm a diehard Burton fan. Kevin, you're onto a big point... I think that deep down, the guy is probably a Burton hater. Hence why he's only got the singular viewpoint.

My dislike for BB is not based on the fact that it's different than what Burton gave us. I just find it to be a poor film. It has great elements. I feel that the best Batman film lies between Nolan's detailed origin (alibeit one truer to the material) and Burton's fantasy/psychological elements. Burton's "art house" and "Comicbooky" feel, with Nolan's attention to detail. If we could get what Burton did, with the full origin from the comic books and Joe Chill? That would be perfection.

 

[Catman]

What really kills me is that the franchise didn't necessarily need a restart. Sure, B&R was really bad, but it was salvageable.

Its called a retcon. If I spelled it correctly.

 

[Bat Attack]

"I love the Burton Batman films...but compared to Batman Begins, they are crap."

I think it's the other way around.

P.S.
This topic is soooooo old and over-done.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Its called a retcon. If I spelled it correctly.

Yeah, but a retcon and a restart are subtely different, I feel. A restart goes from sqaure one, whereas a retcon just re-does part of a still-going continuity.

 

[Bat Attack]

e.g. Superman Returns retconned SMIII and SMIV.

 

[Catman]

Thats what I meant. They could have just retconned the batman franchise.

 

[Bat Attack]

Or they could have just retconned Batman & Robin and continued where Batman Forever left off? I don't know, just an idea.

 

[David Rice]

I think it all boils down to fact that Begins is a restart, so in that, it indicates that there is a superiority complex between the two interpretations. If the franchise had to be restarted, the other one is automatically always bad.

Not to mention my other theories on BB being popular for being "Batman for Dummies" so it's prefurable to people without film comprehension skills.

What really kills me is that the franchise didn't necessarily need a restart. Sure, B&R was really bad, but it was salvageable. Come up with an excuse for Barbera to go away. School maybe. Then send Dick away so we can get back to just Batman. You know, like the Pre-Crisis comics did? Or just pull a Superman Returns and just retcon B&R!

The only franchise that needed a restart was Superman. And not because it started bad, but just because S:TM was so long ago. I like what Singer did, he did it well. But I wouldn't have protested a restart (as long as it had the Williams music and stuck to the material). X-Men could use a more comic-accurate revamp, though....

See, BB being a restart opened the floodgates. If a franchise isn't done to one's satisfaction? Restart. You see it all the time. Just because Tobey Maguire might leave the Spider-Man films, we need to restart. Are people nuts? I'll always hate BB at least for this new trend of throwing in the towl. If you didn't like that one extra, let's try it again!

And people didn't have anywhere near-as-many complaints about Burton's films before BB. It's not that the haters are necessarily right, moreover, BB just cast a pallor of inferiority over Burton's material, even that which is inarguabely good. This situation only happens with the Batman franchise, if you'll notice. BB made the Batfans into picky, petty, bickering fanboys with agendas. It's not okay if Burton makes radical changes, but it is for Nolan? because he showed Bruce doing push-ups? And vice-versa...!

Restarts = bad. All they do is divide people. Only restart if a fanchise goes dormant for 20 years, I say.

In regards to the original poster's point.... if you really love the Burton films, then you love them. Period. If you sneak in a "But Begins kicks their ass", you're covering to try and sound fair. At least I don't pretend to like BB when I'm a diehard Burton fan. Kevin, you're onto a big point... I think that deep down, the guy is probably a Burton hater. Hence why he's only got the singular viewpoint.

My dislike for BB is not based on the fact that it's different than what Burton gave us. I just find it to be a poor film. It has great elements. I feel that the best Batman film lies between Nolan's detailed origin (alibeit one truer to the material) and Burton's fantasy/psychological elements. Burton's "art house" and "Comicbooky" feel, with Nolan's attention to detail. If we could get what Burton did, with the full origin from the comic books and Joe Chill? That would be perfection.

Nolan and company didn't just want to restart the franchise, they wanted tell Batman's origin story. Why? Because it had never been done before. It had to be done the way they did it or it would have been another prequel.
Which would have been bad. Also after Batman Forever and Batman & Robin I would have done the same thing.

And getting what Burton did with the full origin from the comic books and Joe Chill would not have perfection. In the end the Burton film are great!
I love them! The first one was the film that made me change my childhood hero from Superman to Batman, so for me it was an experiance. Returns is great too, the best live action Catwoman to date. But after the Nolan trilogy is done I can bet that his movies will be the crown jewel.

NOW, BEFORE YOU NOLAN HATERS ATTACK, WAIT!!!!!

The only reson I say this because there will be three, same guy as Batman in ALL thee, more modern and more real to life. I don't like the full on "real"
approch to everything (Ras al Ghul) but for more things it works.

 

[David Rice]

e.g. Superman Returns retconned SMIII and SMIV.

Umm, not really. Returns was made for the same reason as Begins. To forget the last two Superman films. Singer wanted to do film just after Superman II like III and IV were never made.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Good stuff, chaps. We have smart people open to ideas on this board. I especially nod towards DocLathropBrown saying the mere idea of a restart encourages certain fans to see it as replacement; therefore you side with one, or the other.

And also, I think, because some fans are obsessed with continuity. If Begins is the new series, then the original films are not continuity, and therefore no longer worthy.

Stand back and look at the big picture, people. It is the same series, it's all Batman and it's all valid.

 

[CConn]

Umm, not really. Returns was made for the same reason as Begins. To forget the last two Superman films. Singer wanted to do film just after Superman II like III and IV were never made.

...that's what a retcon is.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

...that's what a retcon is.

I wouldn't call it a retcon, such specific comicbook terminology is best kept to comics. Superman Returns doesn't eliminate anything about the Reeve franchise, it just ignores a lot of it. If you need to cling to comicbooky terms, it's Alternative Continuity. Not that any continuity beyond the basic storyline is really important; if you try really hard to apply it to Returns it makes no sense, given the architecture, technology, etc.

At the end of the day, they are all films by individual directors, there is no great masterplan or running saga. They are all equally valid.

 

[Redwoods Wolf]

I'm of the opinion that each of the franchises maintain a certain feel of a specific time period of the comics. For instance, B89/BR lean more towards the more gothic and slightly supernatural flavor found in the very early stuff and eighties work (as in the Adams and Miller days), and BB is more like the present comics--more technologically and detective-ly minded. So, for me, it's not a question of one or the other being 'better'--it's just turning the prism of the character and shedding different light on him.

 

[Bat Attack]

I absolutley agree with you Redwoods Wolf.