The Burton films, post-Batman Begins

It's cool.

Having grown up with Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film, there will always be a place for it in my fanboy heart. Begins may be better, but I'll give Burton this - his editors did a better job with the fight scenes and Danny Elfman's score is still probably the definitive Batman march.

 

I still like them and prefer them (even though I love Begins).

 

I still love the two Burton bat-films and they are still my favorites.

 

There classics but they look inferior compare to Begns and that's nothing to think of as being absurd and blasphemous because when you strip down the Burton spectacle Begins grittyiness and detailed storyline for me was more appealing.
And that's not some bandwagon shyt, I was around when those films came out and remember going to the cinema when they were out, its just my opinion

 

Jack Nicholson (spelling) will always be the best joker around. Period.

That and the way that Batman never actually moved his neck, it was always the whole body turn. Begins was lacking that

Seriously, the way his suit is made, he wouldn't be able to turn his neck.

 

Burton's Batman films are Batman as seen thru the eyes of German expressionism.

Nolan's Batman film is Batman as seen thru the eyes of early 70's realism - they are akin to Scorcese or Coppola's work in their attention to gritty realisim and somewhat morally ambiguous heroes.

Both interpretations are valid and should be enjoyed as expression's of their creator's vision. Burton imagined a wourld full of grotesque (meaning larger than life) characters inhabiting a city which was itself a character in the film. Burton's films could not stray from their Gotham setting, or indeed acknowledge the existence of the outside world because Gotham was the films' only reality.

Nolan's approach, rather than make a film where Batman fit in as another player in a hyper-realistic world, was to make a world as close as possible to our own reality and then see how a character like Batman would function in that world.

As they are interpretations and wholly independant from one another they don't have to fit into the larger Batman canon. Like Hamlet, Batman is a character whose story could be told over and over again by different filmakers' each adding their own unique spin to him.

BTW, Schumacher's Batman films represent Batman as protrayed by 1960's gay cinema.

 

WOW that was perfect and funny

 

His films r great - Batman sequel (those 2 parts) was almost perfect, but it should be more insane - like (Gilliam's Brasil)

 

It is a joke but actually a serious one. When I watche Batman Begins I was struck by it's similarity to early 70's cinima and that led me to the comparison of Burton's films with German expressionism. Because I'm slightly anal retentive I couldn't leave Schamacher out of the mix but (even tho I enjoyed Batman Forever) I don't think they deserve the same in-depth analysis that the other two filmmaker's films do, so I picked an area of film which was characterized by bad acting and fetishism as their touchpoint.

I'm not a film student, just a person who was lucky enough to have a father who loved movies and theatre and believed that any subject you are interested in is worthy of thoughtful discussion. Also my major in university was in anthropology, mythology and religious studies and I apply the analytical techniques I learned there to film and comics (especially as I regard comics as a form of modern mythology).

One of the reasons I jouned these boards was to discuss these matters with other interested and interesting people.

 

Burton's films are what made me a Batman fan. I was a "Burtman" fan long before I was a "Batman" fan. His films will always be my favorite version/interpretation of Batman, and Michael Keaton will always be THE Batman to me.

But Begins kicked ass.

 

To each his own, dude. Both versions are correct. Burton's Batman is a mix of Bob Kane & Bill Fingers 1939 Batman and Frank Miller's Batman from the mid-`80s. Nolan's Batman was more of a Jeph Loeb Batman. So. . .to each his own. Both versions are correct, so there is no point debating which is the truest version.

 

It's not a case of being correct or incorrect. Batman and Returns are Burton's Batman, Begins is Nolan's, just as Dark Knight and Year One are Miller's, and so on. All anyone can make is their own version of something, be it comic or movie or any art form, because you can only see through your own eyes.

 

Well because "most" of the fans of batman agree that B.Begins is the "truest" representation of batman doesn't obviously means it is.
I think it's not.I think Batman Begins is far from the comics maybe more far than the burton's ones are.
I prefer the Burton films.I think it's the best FILM representation of the character to date.

 

I agree.

 

I totally agree. Sometimes you add a name, let's say 'Flass' and human mind reads, faithfulness to the comics when it's actually nothing but a name.

Begins has the regular amount of differences than any Batman movie.

 

I agree too.

 

See I like this Grevious cat. Cool, calm and respectful.........reminds me of myself 3 years ago I am a shell of my former self

 

Well, Begins had Ducard and ras being the same character. Cartoon then? Serials?

 

Both Nolan's films and Burton's films are fantastic movies. Both capture the spirit of Batman perfectly.


But if I had to choose, I'd go with Burton's films. I grew up on them, they are what got me into the character along with B:TAS. Michael Keaton was and still is Batman for me (though Bale was no doubt excellent), Nicholson's Joker is still one the best movie villians ever, and Michelle Pfeiffer was the first woman I ever thought was hot. (DeVito's Penguin and Walken's Shreck were awesome as well).

They are completely different films, though. Burton's films are made for excitement. Nolan's film is more for the thinking man who wents to really get into the character (not that Burton didn't, he presented a great alternate view to Bats). Both films manage to complement each other quite well, even if they differ completely in terms of style.

I personally love all three, but like I said, if I had to choose, I prefer Burton's.

 

Ya know...for me, it kinda odd. I admanetly admit that Batman Begins is the best thing since sliced bread. I feel like Begins is the IT film of comics and Batman...un-toppable, only the sequel can surpass it.

Yes....I feel that way.

But....I can actually enjoy the Burton film evenmoreso. They're fun to watch, especially BATMAN. Tons of excellent quotes....and just fun to watch. Never get tired of those two film.....they're not as good as Begins.....but they're still damn good films in their own right. While the Schumacher series....well......I choose to ignore those.

 

No, because the swerve job of Ducard being a villain is actually faithful to the comics. In "The Man Who Falls" we find out after Bruce becomes attatched to Ducard as a mentor, and then we the audience, along with Bruce, are shocked to find out he is actually a villain. Bruce doesn't approve off his methods and they part ways. Same thing, but they just meshed the two characters together and kept the essence of both. All the movies are ADAPTATIONS so there is room to change things in order to ADAPT to the different medium of story telling. Joker however being the killer of Bruce's parents doesn't keep in line with anything from the original story. Is the essence of the character, the Joker, the exact same as the comics? You damn right it is... Is his relationship with Batman / Bruce Wayne the same as the source material? Hell no. Joker being the culprit of the murder of his parents changes their relationship, dramatically, and in a way changes the entire outlook of the story of Batman. Bruce Wayne wasn't able to get his revenge of his parents murderer... that's one of the driving forces as to why he becomes a crime fighter. He uses that anger as fuel to help catch all criminals, because he sees a piece of Joe Chill in all of them. With his parents killer still alive while Batman is Batman, and after Batman kills him...that virtually wraps up the story. What keeps Batman going in the source material, is to an extent is the fact that he will never be able to just dish out vengence on his parent's killer. So he has to deal with that pain in the form of crime fighting. Joker being the killer of Bruce's parents REALLY alters the mythos. Is it still a cool movie? No doubt. Just it cheapens the actual ideal of Batman alittle. But it doesn't to people who don't read the source material, and know Batman's rich history.