Inaccuracies: Burton v. Nolan

[DocLathropBrown]

First of all, I may be asking for it with this thread, but children, stay out. This thread is for a civil discussion. This isn't to see who's better. This is to discuss what both directors got wrong across both of their films to this point. I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast.

And don't come in here giving me hell about my Burton preference. It's being left out of this discussion.

You can discuss and argue (like adults) about the artistic ramifications of the changes, but the mods will be called in for each and every fight that gets too heated. But we're going to stay above that idiocy, aren't we?

Here's the list I compiled.

Burton's inaccuracies

1. Batman too short
2. Vicki Vale is blonde instead of redhead
3. Bruce not a public playboy*
4. Alfred has no mustache
5. Batman kills*
6. The Joker is too old
7. The Joker killed Bruce's parents
8. The Joker being a gangster
9. The Penguin being a mutant freak, etc....
10. Catwoman not a catburgler, was made a freak
11. Batman hardly interacts with Gordon*
12. No Wayne Enterprises*
13. Gordon all wrong*
14. Batsuits are armor
15. Harvey Dent is black
16. The Joker has a permanent smile

*Burton's techincal writeoffs compared to inspired material (The Kane/Finger work).

1. Bruce was not a public playboy in the Kane/Finger material
2. Batman killed in the Kane/Finger material
3. Batman never interacted with Gordon in the Kane/Finger material
4. No Wayne Enterprises in the Kane/Finger Material
5. Gordon is portrayed according to the Kane/Finger material

Nolan's inaccuracies

1. Bruce average man/lost wanderer
2. Bruce self taught martial arts
3. Bruce trains only with one master
4. Bruce trained by Ra's al Ghul
5. Alfred has no moustache
6. Scarecrow has no costume
7. Batmobile is a tank
8. Joker has facial scars
9. Bruce doesn't hate guns until much later
10. Batsuits are armor
11. Lucius Fox's origin totally different
12. Wayne foundation already existing
13. Flass is fat
14. Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die
15. Loeb is completely different

We're dealing with hard facts here, people. Michael Keaton being "fat" and "balding" are not facts. We're ignoring very specific inaccuracies (such as the Joker commited a double homicide at the end of BB instead of poisoning the water supply like in YO). We're just focusing on the broader things to be confirmed by the general mythos as contrary. It's widely accepted that the Joker was the Red Hood, not a gangster, so, stuff like that. We're not counting new angles or things that the directors added. Just things that were changed from the general mythos.

You can justify the changes if you want, just be adult about it. That said, since the Batman in Nolan's films is supposed to be the modern Batman (aside from possible influences, he's supposed to be the Batman that's being published now), is there any particular way some of his changes can be written off? Burton's stuff is factually based off of Kane and Finger's work principally. A few small things like the Bat Signal were brought in, but, as proven, the scripts were written based on the limitations (or the lack tehreof) in the original Kane/Finger material, so that is why some of Burton's errors are allowed a write-off. And saying that Nolan's work "is inspired by all eras" doesn't cut the mustard. It has to be a confirmed source/inspiration to qualify the change for a writeoff. Something that the directors were quoted as saying they took a page from.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

'Inaccuracies'.

My friend, if you treat the comicbooks as a Holy Text you'll never get anywhere.
Nolan and Burton certainly didn't, and neither should you.

Batman is a character Bob Kane created (with Bill Finger) and used the medium of comics to tell that story initially. Had Kane originally told that story on film it would have been different.

What if the movies come up with something better than the comic (like the serials came up with the Batcave) that is then put in the comic?. Is that wrong in your eyes? Should the movie not try and improve on the comic?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

'Inaccuracies'.

My friend, if you treat the comicbooks as a Holy Text you'll never get anywhere.
Nolan and Burton certainly didn't, and neither should you.

Batman is a character Bob Kane created (with Bill Finger) and used the medium of comics to tell that story initially. Had Kane originally told that story on film it would have been different.

What if the movies come up with something better than the comic (like the serials came up with the Batcave) that is then put in the comic?. Is that wrong in your eyes? Should the movie not try and improve on the comic?

That's a whole seperate discussion. I'm not wholly bothered by the techincal changes. I'm just making a discussion about it.

 

[The Joker]

Burton's Joker had a carved smile, which is technically a facial scar, too.

 

[El Payaso]

In BB: Loeb is not black, is fat, older and corrupt not just grumpy.

 

[kooguy911]

falcone doesnt die like that in the comics either

 

[kooguy911]

also, a more obvious one, burton's harvey dent is black.

 

[blind_fury]

Nolan's inaccuracies

1. Bruce average man/lost wanderer
2. Bruce self taught martial arts
3. Bruce trains only with one master
4. Bruce trained by Ra's al Ghul
9. Bruce doesn't hate guns until much later
13. Joe Chill caught
15. Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die
.

I can't believe most so-called Batman fans give Nolan a free pass on these. They weaken the character in so many ways.

 

[blind_fury]

'Inaccuracies'.

My friend, if you treat the comicbooks as a Holy Text you'll never get anywhere.
Nolan and Burton certainly didn't, and neither should you.

Batman is a character Bob Kane created (with Bill Finger) and used the medium of comics to tell that story initially. Had Kane originally told that story on film it would have been different.

What if the movies come up with something better than the comic (like the serials came up with the Batcave) that is then put in the comic?. Is that wrong in your eyes? Should the movie not try and improve on the comic?

I think one of the reasons for this thread is to debate and figure out what "inaccuracies" were genuine improvements and which weakened the character.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I must say, I had no problems with any of Burton's changes you named except number 13, and that can be disputed.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Wow. I forgot all about Nicholson's joker having the fixed smile (wouldn't call them scars, techincally) and I forgot all about his Harvey being black! Harvey's in the film so little, it's not hard to forget about him.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I must say, I had no problems with any of Burton's changes you named except number 13, and that can be disputed.

It's wrong compared to the modern interpretation, but it gets the write-off because of the source material. He's portrayed correctly in-line with the Kane/Finger material.

 

[theDarkerKnight]

I feel that having Joker being the parent killah, is a far bigger sin than having Joe Chill being caught.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Aren't 2 and 3 on the Begins list assumptions?

We have no idea from who or how he learned all those styles of martial arts he had before he met Ra's (Crane, Tiger, etc). I hardly doubt he was self-taught. We don't learn about them because, as much as Begins is touted as an origin story, it only tells specific details of his origin, particularly ones that are important to the story at large (in the case of his "training", that includes his time with Ra's and his time fraternizing with criminals, to accentuate his perceptions of right and wrong).

And there was some Wayne Enterprises in Returns, in his dealings with Shreck. It was never referenced by name, but Wayne (even in his line about going out of town on business in Batman) was obviously a corporate mover and shaker.

And I know this is against the rules, as it was never claimed by the filmmakers, but I found the whole Joe Chill/Bruce using a gun thing to be pretty obviously lifted from the Reaper storyline.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Aren't 2 and 3 on the Begins list assumptions?

We have no idea from who or how he learned all those styles of martial arts he had before he met Ra's (Crane, Tiger, etc). I hardly doubt he was self-taught. We don't learn about them because, as much as Begins is touted as an origin story, it only tells specific details of his origin, particularly ones that are important to the story at large (in the case of his "training", that includes his time with Ra's and his time fraternizing with criminals, to accentuate his perceptions of right and wrong).

The way I see it, if Nolan didn't show it, it wasn't intended. He showed everything else. If he wanted to make it clear that he trained with somebody other than Ducard, he would have put it in.

And there was some Wayne Enterprises in Returns, in his dealings with Shreck. It was never referenced by name, but Wayne (even in his line about going out of town on business in Batman) was obviously a corporate mover and shaker.

No company named. We can't assume that the WE of the comics is what Bruce deals with.

And I know this is against the rules, as it was never claimed by the filmmakers, but I found the whole Joe Chill/Bruce using a gun thing to be pretty obviously lifted from the Reaper storyline.

Ah, but Year Two isn't in-continuity.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The way I see it, if Nolan didn't show it, it wasn't intended. He showed everything else. If he wanted to make it clear that he trained with somebody other than Ducard, he would have put it in.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. I think it's more of an assumption to say that no one else trained Bruce than to say someone did. Nolan purposely showed that Bruce had skill before meeting Ra's; that skill didn't come out of nowhere.

Ah, but Year Two isn't in-continuity.

Nor are the Kane/Finger stories.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I find no offenses in Liam Neeson's performance in BB, and admittedly it added some quality to the film, since a prolific actor was playing this role.

Can the Ra's Al Ghul from BB even be considered the same Ra's Al Ghul from the comics? It seems what they have in common comes down to the namesake and the mission: take measures to the extreme in ridding the earth of injustice so that it doesn't become beyond hope. And that's about it. Without the Lazarus Pit in the next two Nolan movies, (I like how it was brought up that if the subject matter wasn't mentioned directly or hinted at, then it doesn't count), I come to the conclusion that the comic version was never truly realized in Nolan's universe.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I find no offenses in Liam Neeson's performance in BB, and admittedly it added some quality to the film, since a prolific actor was playing this role.

Can the Ra's Al Ghul from BB even be considered the same Ra's Al Ghul from the comics? It seems what they have in common comes down to the namesake and the mission: take measures to the extreme in ridding the earth of injustice so that it doesn't become beyond hope. And that's about it. Without the Lazarus Pit in the next two Nolan movies, I will stamp the conclusion that the comic version was never fully realized in Nolan's universe.

I found the character to be one of the most comic accurate (in psychological/motivational terms) Bat-film villains since Joker (I'd put Scarecrow and surprising, aside from the puns and acting, Mr. Freeze as close followers). And I didn't find the absence of the Lazarus Pit to be a glaring omission, especially since Nolan referenced the League's longevity, and the fact that Ra's spoke in "We" (sacked Rome, burned London, etc).
Actually, I thought omitting Talia was Nolan's biggest mistake (he already had Bruce as Ra's "greatest student", suitor to his daughter would've been natural). If Talia were to be included, Ra's would be just about perfect for me.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I found the character to be one of the most comic accurate (in psychological/motivational terms) Bat-film villains since Joker (I'd put Scarecrow and surprising, aside from the puns and acting, Mr. Freeze as close followers). And I didn't find the absence of the Lazarus Pit to be a glaring omission, especially since Nolan referenced the League's longevity, and the fact that Ra's spoke in "We" (sacked Rome, burned London, etc).
Actually, I thought omitting Talia was Nolan's biggest mistake (he already had Bruce as Ra's "greatest student", suitor to his daughter would've been natural). If Talia were to be included, Ra's would be just about perfect for me.

Yes. His twisted paradigm of justice is spot-on with Ra's Al Ghul. But without those parts, it's like missing entire sections of a network. Where is the Lazarus Pit, and does it REALLY exist (while you bring up a good point, that quote seems a really half-assed attempt by Nolan/Goyar at confirming the Pit's existance, if that's even what it was confirming), where is Talia, WHY was he the one to train Bruce Wayne? Without those, it seems Ra's Al Ghul from BB is only like-minded to the character, and not THE character.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Yes. His twisted paradigm of justice is spot-on with Ra's Al Ghul. But without those parts, it's like missing entire sections of a network. Where is the Lazarus Pit, and does it REALLY exist (while you bring up a good point, that quote seems a really half-assed attempt by Nolan/Goyar at confirming the Pit's existance, if that's even what it was confirming), where is Talia, WHY was he the one to train Bruce Wayne? Without those, it seems Ra's Al Ghul from BB is only like-minded to the character, and not THE character.

Well, I guess it has to do with what makes the character who they are for you. His beliefs and ideals are what makes the character in my book; everything else is just details. It's like, is Catwoman at all Catwoman in BR? Her name is Selina Kyle, she's dressed like a cat, infatuated with Batman, but her psychological profile is so incredibly different. Actually, those two characters (and their respective film adaptations) seem to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum; one gets the details right but lacks the essence of the character, and the other vice versa.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I suppose it does come down to subjectivity as all things do. If it weren't for each individual on the forum having an incredibly unique outlook, the best way that'd work is making a compare/contrast chart, and if the alterations become burdensome, we can all come to an agreement about which is most accurate to say, Catwoman, and which isn't. Aren't there those movies, though, that everyone can ultimately agree don't depict the character even remotely (therefore Halle Barry is Catwoman in name only, for example)? You'd probably refer to that as missing the essence AND the details, correct?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. I think it's more of an assumption to say that no one else trained Bruce than to say someone did. Nolan purposely showed that Bruce had skill before meeting Ra's; that skill didn't come out of nowhere.

You have a point there, but I just don't think it's fair to assume the other way. We have to go with what we're presented with, I say. We can't read betwene the lines in a factual discussion. It's more philosophical than should be included on this one.

Nor are the Kane/Finger stories.

A good point, but! The Nolan franchise is from comics other than the Kane/Finger stuff. The early stuff is applicable because that's the version of Batman Burton was attempting to adapt. Whereas Nolan's is supposed to be the "modern" Batman (Modern meaning the standard Batman we've had since the 70s, specific continuity not withstanding), the Batman who interacts with Gordon on a regular basis, travelled around the world and trained with several instructors, and was hardened the moment his parents were killed. A Batman who doesn't kill and is not sadistic. In other words, the total opposite (except the hardened, hyper-determined aspect) of Burton's interpretation.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Can the Ra's Al Ghul from BB even be considered the same Ra's Al Ghul from the comics? It seems what they have in common comes down to the namesake and the mission: take measures to the extreme in ridding the earth of injustice so that it doesn't become beyond hope. And that's about it. Without the Lazarus Pit in the next two Nolan movies, (I like how it was brought up that if the subject matter wasn't mentioned directly or hinted at, then it doesn't count), I come to the conclusion that the comic version was never truly realized in Nolan's universe.

Well, the abscence of aspects aren't particularly indicative of inaccuracy. If they don't do it, it can't be wrong. And that's what this thread is about: what the directors both screw up on, essentially. You notice I didn't list any inaccuracies with how Burton handled the "training around the world" bit because he didn't adapt it. Therefore, it's not wrong. Whereas, on the opposite side, Nolan takes liberties with it when he does adapt it, as, for example, we are only conclusively given one guy that he trains under, so we must assume it was the only one he did train under. Add to the fact that it was Ra's Al Ghul, who he never trained under in the comics, and you have an inaccuracy. The Ducard name being used doesn't fix anything, as it was really only Ducard-in-name-only.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Well, the abscence of aspects aren't particularly indicative of inaccuracy. If they don't do it, it can't be wrong. And that's what this thread is about: what the directors both screw up on, essentially. You notice I didn't list any inaccuracies with how Burton handled the "training around the world" bit because he didn't adapt it. Therefore, it's not wrong. Whereas, on the opposite side, Nolan takes liberties with it when he does adapt it, as, for example, we are only conclusively given one guy that he trains under, so we must assume it was the only one he did train under. Add to the fact that it was Ra's Al Ghul, who he never trained under in the comics, and you have an inaccuracy. The Ducard name being used doesn't fix anything, as it was really only Ducard-in-name-only.

Understood. But it is not for certain that if you adapt a villain without adapting certain aspects (in close proximity of the character's part in the storyline), that you aren't getting it wrong. If you read a comic (or story arc spanning over different parts) featuring Ra's, you're going to hear mention of the Lazarus Pit. In BB, we have a self-contained story that goes against that tradition ... takes away that important supplement to the character. That's what I was on about earlier, but we'll move on.

Nolan made a real mistake with Ra's being Bruce's sole martial arts trainer. It has been implied in the source material, if not explicitly stated, that Bruce set some destinations around the globe and went to be student of many great masters.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Understood. But it is not for certain that if you adapt a villain without adapting certain aspects (in close proximity of the character's part in the storyline), that you aren't getting it wrong. If you read a comic (or story arc spanning over different parts) featuring Ra's, you're going to hear mention of the Lazarus Pit. In BB, we have a self-contained story that goes against that tradition ... takes away that important supplement to the character. That's what I was on about earlier, but we'll move on.

You never know. He could easily (and damn well should) show up again in another film, maybe the third film, and THEN exposiate about the Lazarus pits and Talia could show up. Despite my grievances with what Nolan has done, I expect this of him.