Inaccuracies: Burton v. Nolan

[blind_fury]

Ras is a higher caliber villain and Batman isn't a worthy adversary until after he's matured as a superhero. What would've been cool if Ducard was one of Bruce's many mentors from his world travels then during a sequel the League of Assassins track him to Gotham because he skipped out on them many years ago and the only way out of their organization is death.

I always liked when Ras referred to Batman as "Detective" because he's already earned Ras' respect after making a name for himself as a legendary crime fighter in Gotham. Then the fact that Ras wants him to be his successor but Batman refuses partially due to Ras' madman ideals (genocide to cleanse the planet) elevates both characters in ways Nolan fails to do with his lame origin story where Ras spoon feeds Bruce into becoming a "mystical ninja master" and Bruce accidentally falls into the role of a superhero after wandering the globe lost. Wow. Bruce is really lucky these guys found him or he would never have learned the skills for his last minute decision to fight crime.

Bruce is supposed to be a self-made crime fighter who becomes legendary through sheer will and determination from the moments his parents are murdered. That is the moment his war on crime begins. It is then his hate for guns is solidified and he has to train specifically to avoid gun use instead of watching cartoons and chasing girls for the next 20 years like the rest of us.

He focuses and trains intensely every moment of every day with the best, mastering everything he could possibly use to single-handedly fight crime in ways never achieved by large organizations let alone one man. From youth he secretly studies advanced forensics with retirees from Scotland Yard, masters interrogation/sabotage/counter-surveillance from ex-CIA, escape artistry from magicians, lock-picking/pick pocketing from jewel thieves, how to fly/drive just about everything, psychological profiling from the world greatest psychologist, computer secrets from infamous hackers, generally familiar with every fighting style both known and unknown, mastered highly secretive martial arts (ninjitsu being just one of many).

Nolan just showed us a Bruce that gets "discovered" in his twenties, taught some mystical ninjitsu and suddenly he's worthy of being Batman.

When Nolan signed Bale I thought he was going to nail the mythical and universal appeal of the character. Its been downhill ever since.

 

[The Empire Ape]

R'as Al Ghul is an ecoterrorist who doesn't care about people and wants to save the Earth.
In BB he appears to be the master of some kind of "Law & Order & Anti-Decadence" vigilant organisation.

In BB this organisation is called "League of Shadows", in the comics "League of Assassins".

In the comics, Scarecrow has nothing to do with R'as and was a professor of psychology. In BB he is a psychiatrist and head of Arkham Asylum.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Accuracy is an interesting question, as Batman has gone through so many different inarnations, his initial version used a gun etc and was much more like the pulp comics 'spider'. Obviously that changed pretty quick, but I see Burton's work closer to early batman, and Nolan's is closer to the more recent guise he has taken over the last decade or so.

It's a circular question unless we examine each version of bats and weigh up the acuracies that both Burton and Nolan have to each of these versions...

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

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.

But honestly, in the form of what we're doing here, numbering inaccuracies, isn't Burton automatically given more leeway because of his limited inspiration?

From a technical standpoint, the list of inaccuracies by Nolan will automatically be longer, simply because he included more. This probably sounds apologetic and a bit too personal, but I don't know if its fair to penalize Nolan for essentially being more ambitious than Burton. For instance, I could make a Batman movie based soley on "Case of the Chemical Syndicate." And if all the things I do jive with that one story, I'm not wrong. But I also don't have the big picture, either.

Another example would be Nolan's inclusion of Lucius Fox. He'll get a point off for making Fox head of Applied Sciences, but Burton won't get any points off for just forgetting about him.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

But honestly, in the form of what we're doing here, numbering inaccuracies, isn't Burton automatically given more leeway because of his limited inspiration?

You are right, there is an incongurity, but I didn't expect the list to turn out the way it did until I posted the thread. I actually expected Nolan to have made less mistakes than Burton.

I suppose the fair thing to do would be to open up a thread discussing what both guys did right?

But still, I listed Burton's inaccuracies in comparison to the modern comics, so the list is correctly there, it's just the technical write-offs that take away from it. But one could always ignore those technicalities.

Another example would be Nolan's inclusion of Lucius Fox. He'll get a point off for making Fox head of Applied Sciences, but Burton won't get any points off for just forgetting about him.

The way I see it, it just can't be judged if it wasn't in there as that would be unfair to list errors for stuff that isn't there. We gotta work with what exists in the films. For instance, I listed no Wayne Enterprises for Burton, and one could then ask what I mean, if I list no WE, why not list no Lucius Fox? It's because Bruce is shown to do business, but never through WE. We can't take anything for granted, and the purpose of this thread is not a contest, therefore, I don't think it's cruel to point out Nolan's errors compared to the more limited Burton, it's just an analyzation.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Well first off, let me just say this is a fun little exercise.

(I was going to put a thumbs up there, but I just saw this Ock icon and thought, how the hell can I not post that?)

I guess what makes it difficult for me is determining what is truly there and what isn't, and what the implications of that are. For instance, I still don't think only showing Ra's teach Bruce means that he was his only teacher. Because if that's the case, then don't we also have to assume that Burton's Bruce was self-taught as well, since we don't see anyone teaching him? Yes, I know the movie wasn't an origin film, and Burton was being selective about what he was showing. But doesn't that make Nolan just as selective and therefore, no more inaccurate than Burton?

And here's another thought that I'm curious to get opinions on. How far are we willing to accept the argument that a filmmaker was inspired by one particular time period or book? There have been so many versions of Batman in history. For instance, do we accept Batman & Robin as Schumacher's 60s-inspired piece? Does that forgive its silliness?

What if someone were to make a film literally based on Batman's first stories, only his first 5 or 6? This was before he even had an origin, so no mention of parents. He's fighting monsters and vampires. Even moreso, imagine this film taking the place of Burton's as the first mainstream live action adaptation of Batman in decades?

Would we accept it, even if it doesn't come close to encompassing what truly makes up the character, just because it's technically based on the comics?

Or is there a point where you have to draw the line?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Well first off, let me just say this is a fun little exercise.

(I was going to put a thumbs up there, but I just saw this Ock icon and thought, how the hell can I not post that?)

Ock is good.

I guess what makes it difficult for me is determining what is truly there and what isn't, and what the implications of that are. For instance, I still don't think only showing Ra's teach Bruce means that he was his only teacher. Because if that's the case, then don't we also have to assume that Burton's Bruce was self-taught as well, since we don't see anyone teaching him?

You can. But for the sake of argument, we can't bring it up in relation to Burton, because we don't even know if he went around the world. That's what I mean. Burton's entirely too vague on the subject, there's nothing to confirm or deny any particular inaccuracy in the training. The training isn't covered. We have to penalize Nolan because he does show Bruce's world travels (in flashback, he shows him stealing, being with criminals) and Ra's is the only trainer shown, so that only leaves one conclusion: Ra's is his only trainer. We can only confirm one, so that is the way it is.

What I always say is this: if you're not going to do it right, just don't do it. Burton probably wouldn't have done the training right, so I guess it's good for him that he didn't try.

Yes, I know the movie wasn't an origin film, and Burton was being selective about what he was showing. But doesn't that make Nolan just as selective and therefore, no more inaccurate than Burton?

Exactly. Hell, you can see that they both number 16 on the list of inaccuracies. They're even. Burton just has a confirmed write-off source, so people must keep that in mind when remembering what Burton did wrong. Note that it's wrong, but understand why it's wrong.

And here's another thought that I'm curious to get opinions on. How far are we willing to accept the argument that a filmmaker was inspired by one particular time period or book?

The way I see it, if it's a fact, we have to accept it. t:

But seriously, there are things that bother me about Burton's flicks, I don't mention them much, but because of the certain factors (accuracy to the admitted inspiration, for one), I can forgive them. But even though he gets things wrong, he makes up for it by making the changes work. They aren't necessarily better (Such as the Penguin) but they stand on their own. If a director can do that, then I can live with it. Plus, as long as the tone of the material is kept, I typcially have zero problems.

The Nolan changes that really bug me are the ones that undermine the integrity of Batman, such as making Bruce into a lost world traveller who is revenge-hungry and unfocused, a shell of his comic book self. I don't respect or admire his Bruce Wayne, because he's too average. Bruce is supposed to be almost superhuman in his determination. He went around the world with the intent of training to be a crimefighter.

But I digress...

There have been so many versions of Batman in history. For instance, do we accept Batman & Robin as Schumacher's 60s-inspired piece? Does that forgive its silliness?

The problem with B&R is that it's way out of place in today. If you want to make a period Batman piece, it can't be in regular continuity, which the film series had unto itself. It would be like Batman suddenly reverting back to the 60s behavior in the comics next month. It just isn't done. But that's not what Schumacher did. He made the modern Batman campy, instead of replicating the 60s Batman. So the film is totally out of character for the version of Batman presented.

What if someone were to make a film literally based on Batman's first stories, only his first 5 or 6? This was before he even had an origin, so no mention of parents. He's fighting monsters and vampires. Even moreso, imagine this film taking the place of Burton's as the first mainstream live action adaptation of Batman in decades?

Like Burton's work that did come out, I can't hate it for it's particular accuracy, in fact, I will very much enjoy it. But I can definitely dream of something better.

I dunno, I guess I just take things as they come, most times. Hell, I'd take all of Nolan's changes in stride better, but the fact that there are people that are content to pretend Nolan doesn't make changes and praise him for ruining the characters by watering them down with realism makes it a lot harder for me to take them in stride, because it drives me nuts that there are fans that would want the material limited like that.

Would we accept it, even if it doesn't come close to encompassing what truly makes up the character, just because it's technically based on the comics?

Like I said, specific continuity. You gotta give credit where credit is due. And movies can go on forever. Just because they didn't get things the way you want the first time doesn't mean it won't eventually get there. The problem with fanboys is that they won't give credit where credit is due, they'd rather complain.

Or is there a point where you have to draw the line?

That IS the question, isn't it? Well, I think a great example are the X-Men films. I hate them for their blatent inaccuracy. They strip down the characters to nothing and make them watered-down, "realistic" reimaginings of the real characters. It's really just XINO. That's something where you should draw the line. Better to be 95% accurate to something in particular than 10% accurate to things as a whole.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The Nolan changes that really bug me are the ones that undermine the integrity of Batman, such as making Bruce into a lost world traveller who is revenge-hungry and unfocused, a shell of his comic book self. I don't respect or admire his Bruce Wayne, because he's too average. Bruce is supposed to be almost superhuman in his determination. He went around the world with the intent of training to be a crimefighter.

Wow, we differ greatly here. I admire Nolan's Bruce greatly over Burton's.

While it's become a cliche` (and that's really, like you mentioned, the fault of the fanboys and not Nolan himself), I appreciated the "believable" character of Nolan's Bruce. While swearing a vow of justice as a child is nice and dramatic, it always smacked to me of what is essentially early comic book shorthand. That first Batman origin is what, 10 or so panels long? I can forgive, and in this case embrace, a few liberties taken in the character's emotional journey, if it enriches it. I found the fact that he can learn to grow and change and realize his mistakes to be truly inspiring. I know some people like him to be cold and distant, but I've always liked to be able to connect with Batman, and to do that, I like him to be more than a static character (which is often how writers portray him).

Bruce's goal in Begins resonates greatly with me, and I found it to be one of the most succinct and noble variations on the classic Batman mission statement. He truly seemed in it for the city, moreso than any of the other live action Batmans. There's always that element of vengeance, of self-satisfaction, but I think that Bale's Batman ultimately comes out as the most well-rounded Batman.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Wow, we differ greatly here. I admire Nolan's Bruce greatly over Burton's.

To each their own.

While it's become a cliche` (and that's really, like you mentioned, the fault of the fanboys and not Nolan himself), I appreciated the "believable" character of Nolan's Bruce.

I don't mind slight realistic tweaks per se` (Although, I don't see what's so unrealistic about the comics as it is), but what we're talking about here is totally changing the character's behavior from the norm. Really, it's supposed to be an adaptation, not so much a reimagining. Now, if Nolan had just made him anti-Gun as soon as his parents died (and not just when Rachael made him realize it) and showed him training with others, and not under the direction of one man who molds him like he was totally useless, then I'd be okay. I wouldn't mind the slightly lost angle, which they hinted at in the beginning. If he went around the world, training with several people, but still didn't know quite know how to get started. THEN Ra's helps him make sense of his emotions, I'd love that.

But as it stands, he is too lost, which is not Bruce Wayne's character at all. They didn't have to have the "bedside vow" scene.... Burton didn't do that. But his Wayne still gives off the right vibe. Keaton's Bruce feels strong. Like he knew what he wanted to do, and this is the life he'd decided on long ago. With Bale, it's not completely contrived, but he had to be guided to his life as Batman by Ra's. Which waters him down. Bruce is supposed to be self-decisive. He's just lucky Ra's trained him to fight crime and not sell ice cream, because he might have gone for it.

"Theatricality and deception are important tools. You must become more than just an ice cream man in the mind of your customer."

While swearing a vow of justice as a child is nice and dramatic, it always smacked to me of what is essentially early comic book shorthand.

I don't see it that way. It's mythic to me. Which it was supposed to be, I think. Marvel Comics is the set that's supposed to be empathizable. DC has always been the more mythic archetypes.

That first Batman origin is what, 10 or so panels long? I can forgive, and in this case embrace, a few liberties taken in the character's emotional journey, if it enriches it.

I agree. I just don't think what Nolan did enriches it. He went far enough that it detracts from it, IMO.

I found the fact that he can learn to grow and change and realize his mistakes to be truly inspiring.

Agreed. But I don't think the other versions are entirely without that. Look at the Jason Todd affair, the end of Mask of the Phantasm, the end of Batman Forever (He realized that he he was wrong to assume his parents' death was his fault, and he can be both Batman and Bruce), and especially the end of Batman Returns, where, although we're not told it, it's clear that he realizes he couldn't save Selina, and perhaps that he was wrong to try to latch onto her for salvation himself.

I know some people like him to be cold and distant

Certainly not me. Although I can identify with a distant Batman (I'm a fairly distant person, myself), I certainly don't like Batman too cold. I haven't really enjoyed a Batman comic since "Knightfall" because of that.

but I've always liked to be able to connect with Batman, and to do that, I like him to be more than a static character (which is often how writers portray him).

Well, personally, I don't think him being superhuman in his determination or being mythically intelligent, strong or lethal is very static. It's just the nature of the character. It's just how he feels that can be static. Adam West's Batman, for an example, thinks static. Therefore, he feels so. Whereas, the Dennis O'Neil Batman is totally the best martial artist, the world's greatest detective, and was the determined "man on a mission" while growing up. Some would say overly perfect, but when you read the his personality, he doesn't seem like that, he has pathos, you believe his almost-superhuman behavior because he has a real personality.

For me, I've always connected to the 70s/80s/Burton Batman the best. The adventurer. The Darknight Detective (My favorite Batman nickname. It really captures that adventurous and intelligent aspect). I've always looked up to Batman, and only connected to him in the fact that I myself am an outsider. I don't want to be Batman.... I wouldn't wish that life on anybody, but I do want to enjoy him. Burton's Batman has the added touch: Social Anxiety Disorder. That's a fantastic, realistic touch. He's nervous in large crowds, but suave to Vicki or Selina because it's more interpersonal than being large scale. The public playboy wasn't there (A fault of Burton's), but he made Bruce so strong emotionally and psychologically, that I forgive it, and that's the Bruce Wayne I would be if I had become Batman. I'd be the reclusive introvert.

Plus, I've never been a fan of the Bruce Wayne that shames the family name. I wouldn't be able to do that, if it were me. I wouldn't have the heart, or the lack thereof. I love the 70s/80s Wayne, who people considered a strong man. He didn't resort to making an ass of himself or the family memory to disguise his identity.

Bruce's goal in Begins resonates greatly with me, and I found it to be one of the most succinct and noble variations on the classic Batman mission statement. He truly seemed in it for the city, moreso than any of the other live action Batmans.

I disagree. Don't forget what Keaton's Wayne said to Vicki Vale:

"Look, sometimes, I don't know what to think of all this.... it's just something I have to do."

"Why?"

"Because nobody else can."

He's talking, of course, about saving the city from itself, and Naiper, among other things. With Keaton, I admit it came off more like a psychotic reaction, that he HAD to save the city or he'd go insane, but I see nothing wrong with that. He had that burning drive to save his city. Nolan just adds more layers to it to really make sure you get it. Too much effort, I think.

There's always that element of vengeance, of self-satisfaction, but I think that Bale's Batman ultimately comes out as the most well-rounded Batman.

The most obviously well rounded Batman, I think. It's plain and easy to understand. Analyse Burton's Batman and you'll see the same level of depth. Although, possibly unintentionally. But you can even read it in the script. Sam Hamm was the original David Goyer.... just without the wooden dialogue.

I'm enjoying the discussion, Paste! You're a great conversationalist!

 

[BubbaGump]

My commentary in bold. What I liked/didn't like about the..."inaccuracies."

Burton's inaccuracies

1. Batman too short (didn't matter)
2. Vicki Vale is blonde instead of redhead (not important)
3. Bruce not a public playboy* (they don't have to show him being a playboy in every movie)
4. Alfred has no mustache (is it really that important?)
5. Batman kills* (didn't like)
6. The Joker is too old (eh. I didn't even notice)
7. The Joker killed Bruce's parents (it works in Burton's world, I guess)
8. The Joker being a gangster (I liked this)
9. The Penguin being a mutant freak, etc.... (Highly enjoyed this fresh new take on the character)
10. Catwoman not a catburgler, was made a freak (Mental issues bothered me)
11. Batman hardly interacts with Gordon* (Well...Burton was using Kane material. Can't blame him for that.)
12. No Wayne Enterprises* (not important)
13. Gordon all wrong* (Once again, he was the "Kane" Gordon. Burton never read many comics.)
14. Batsuits are armor (...)
15. Harvey Dent is black (Even so, I was curious to see how he would've handled Two-Face. My dream never came true.)
16. The Joker has a permanent smile (I liked it.)

Nolan's inaccuracies

1. Bruce average man/lost wanderer (I highly enjoyed this interpretation. The arrowhead represents direction in the movie.)
2. Bruce self taught martial arts (Self-taught?)
3. Bruce trains only with one master (What? He traveled all over the world training. He could've been apprenticed to many.)
4. Bruce trained by Ra's al Ghul (Really really liked this fresh new take. Why hadn't anyone thought of this before?)
5. Alfred has no moustache (Who cares, really.)
6. Scarecrow has no costume (I liked the mask, but he looked awkward wearing a tux.)
7. Batmobile is a tank (Mmm. One of my favorite parts of the movie. Straight out of DKR.)
8. Joker has facial scars (We'll see how this goes)
9. Bruce doesn't hate guns until much later (Wait--what?)
10. Batsuits are armor (I liked it)
11. Lucius Fox's origin totally different (I liked it. It's Morgan Freeman, come on.)
12. Wayne foundation already existing (This doesn't matter.)
13. Joe Chill caught (I was neutral about this. He can never get vengeance either way)
14. Flass is fat (Flass looks like Bullock.)
15. Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die (No, he just didn't save him from a fiery train wreck that would kill any ordinary man. )
16. Loeb is completely different (Loeb is black, you mean. I didn't really care. There are just some characters where race doesn't matter.)

 

[The Sage]

3. Bruce trains only with one master
13. Joe Chill caught
.

I have to take issue with these two.

First, couldn't have been implied that Bruce was taught by other guys by the fact that he knew other styles? Recall the scene when Bruce fought Ducard early in the movie with Ducard calling out each of the styles Bruce were using.

Second one is Joe Chill getting caught. In a couple of versions such as Batman Year Two, Joe Chill did get caught and served time.

And don't flame me. I'm a fan of both movies.

 

[Swordmaster]

Chill getting caught is part of continuity now, IIRC.

 

[Spider-Bat]

Byrton got the true spirit of Batman, Nolan got nothing.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Chill getting caught is part of continuity now, IIRC.

Not as far as I know. Chil being the killer just came back into continuity, though.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Byrton got the true spirit of Batman, Nolan got nothing.

You've got a big mouth.

Leave my thread, don't enter them ever again. I can already tell you're going to end up instigating a flamewar.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Even though I agree with him pretty much, it means nothing without any form of statement and cohesive reasoning.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

First, couldn't have been implied that Bruce was taught by other guys by the fact that he knew other styles? Recall the scene when Bruce fought Ducard early in the movie with Ducard calling out each of the styles Bruce were using.

Can't take implication as fact, unfortunately. The same type of thing is in B89 when Bruce mentions he bought the suit of armor in Japan, but we can't assume that means he trained in Japan. Thus, without anything confirming the contrary, for all we know, Bruce might have learned those styles from an instructional video. We can only work with what we're given.

Second one is Joe Chill getting caught. In a couple of versions such as Batman Year Two, Joe Chill did get caught and served time.

Year Two isn't in continuity, and this list is incongruities with accepted current DC Comics continuity. The Pre-Crisis material is also not in-continuity.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Even though I agree with him pretty much, it means nothing without any form of statement and cohesive reasoning.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was just Batwing6655. His observation just apes what I've said before about BB..... his argument just feels wooden and stolen. I honestly think he's just here to troll the Nolan fans.

 

[CConn]

Not as far as I know. Chil being the killer just came back into continuity, though.

From wikipedia:

In 2006's Infinite Crisis #6, another cosmic crisis reestablishing that Chill murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne and adding for the first time that he had been arrested on that same night for their murder. This change is consistent with the previous year's film Batman Begins, in which Chill was also caught shortly after murdering the Waynes. It would also make sense, given that in Batman: Year One, he is not mentioned or referred to after the shooting, presumably having been caught. The writers at DC Comics intend to show his final fate, which supposedly happened while Bruce was an adolescent, thus never giving him the chance to confront Chill, much like Begins.

So...yeah.

Also, it's debateble whether or not pre-crisis stories are in continuity. After Infinite Crisis DC cut out and folded back in A LOT of stories. For instance, Earth 1 Batman, in continuity, did indeed exist.

 

[kooguy911]

also, burton's joker has a name: jack; even though in the comics the joker was never actually given a real name (except several writers after the movie came out)

 

[DocLathropBrown]

From wikipedia:


So...yeah.

Also, it's debateble whether or not pre-crisis stories are in continuity. After Infinite Crisis DC cut out and folded back in A LOT of stories. For instance, Earth 1 Batman, in continuity, did indeed exist.

Oh, I have been swiftly pwned.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

also, burton's joker has a name: jack; even though in the comics the joker was never actually given a real name (except several writers after the movie came out)

That's an addition, not a change.

 

[The Sage]

Can't take implication as fact, unfortunately. The same type of thing is in B89 when Bruce mentions he bought the suit of armor in Japan, but we can't assume that means he trained in Japan. Thus, without anything confirming the contrary, for all we know, Bruce might have learned those styles from an instructional video. We can only work with what we're given.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bruce Wayne in B89? That he could've learned those styles from an instructional video? I wouldn't buy that with either of them.

Year Two isn't in continuity, and this list is incongruities with accepted current DC Comics continuity. The Pre-Crisis material is also not in-continuity.

But Bob Kane's Batman wasn't in continuity around the time of B89. Batman wasn't killing criminals then. Does it really matter if it's in the current continuity or not?

 

[CConn]

Oh, I have been swiftly pwned.

Oh, it's not your fault. DC's maddening when it comes to what's in continuity and what's not.

That said, I think the real question is, should alternate Earths Batmen be considered as an "accurate" comic source?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bruce Wayne in B89? That he could've learned those styles from an instructional video? I wouldn't buy that with either of them.

I'm just working with what we're shown. There's nothing to even suggest that Keaton's Wayne did any training of any kind.

But Bob Kane's Batman wasn't in continuity around the time of B89. Batman wasn't killing criminals then. Does it really matter if it's in the current continuity or not?

Well, yeah. These inaccuracies are filed in relation to the accepted DC Comics Batman continuity. What is currently in-play. But because Burton went from Kane and Finger's material directly, they should be noted as such so people know why the film has inaccuracies in comparison to the modern DC Comics version of Batman.