wow. you really you are condescending.
you do realize that you are on the batman boards right? do you think you are the only person who has seen the special features, listened to the commentary and read the making of book back to back so many times it was held together by scotch tape? you need to get over yourself already.
and while we are at it burton and nolan were in almost the exact same place as directors when they made their movies. in fact burton had already made the studios some money with beetlejuice and pee wee so he wasnt exactly a nobody. he was the hot new kid. sure there was tons of pressure on him but it was nothing compared to what, lets say, cameron or fincher had to deal with making the aliens sequels. nolan was far more of an unknown director when he was making begins.
the biggest difference was christopher nolan made his film in 2004 when studios where far more likely to respect a directors creative space than back in 1988. burton had the bros.warner breathing down his neck (actually jon peters and peter gruber) and i know first hand that nolan was pretty much left alone while making begins. nobody really cared about a new batman film back in 2003/4 and the studio had little to lose. so on that front burton had his hands full. creatively he was fighting against his producers constantly.
and batman '89 was not low budget. it had a budget around $35-40 million. in fact anton furst had a budget of over $5million just for production design. and just for comparisons sake indiana jones 3 also came out that year and its budget was $36 million. batman was a very expensive movie that ran over budget and was a huge gamble for wb. not "no budget".
get your facts straight especially if you are going to condescend to everyone. in other words if you are going to act like a know-it-all you better know-it-all, especially in a room of self professed obsessives and movie geeks.
and just for the record i love tim burton and batman so dont even go there.