The Burton films, post-Batman Begins

[General_Grievous]

Hi there.

I was wondering, now that most Batman fans agree that Begins is the truest representation of Batman portrayed on screen, going right back to the source material and presenting a story of boy to man to hero - where do the Burton films fit in your view of Batman, and Batman in movies?

Obviously they are not supposed to coincide with one another and Begins is certainly not a prequel, so how do you look at Batman and Batman Returns?

Are they just great episodes in the career of Batman but are purely for entertainment, and don't hold anything in the way of being canon, or definitive? Or do you still regard them and put them on the same mantle as Begins - or even higher?

I ask because Begins was Warner Brothers chance to put Batman back on the map after Schumacher's attempts and they certainly suceeded, but I in no way want to just forget Burton's efforts.

His films had their flaws but they are worthwhile for the director's unique, dark take on Batman, brilliant casting choices and Danny Elfman's work.

So, what do the Burton films mean to you in the wake of Batman Begins? Are they still your number one representations of Batsy on film? Or have they taken on a different feel after Christopher Nolan's brilliant work?

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, please feel free to ask me to explain any of my points in this post.

 

[Dr. Fate]

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.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

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

 

[General_Grievous]

Yeah, Danny Elfman's theme just makes me think Batman immediately upon hearing it, it brings back memories of Batman The Animated Series as well, which was in fact, a brilliant portrayal of the Dark Knight and a great exploration of the character, that deservedly gained lots of praise.

I think that if the slightest element had been out of place with Burton's films, then they would have stunk. Fortunately with Burton's visual style, Elfmans score and great casting with Keaton and all of the villains chosen, the movies still hold a place in my heart too.

I guess that Begins is "proper" Batman, and Burton's films are just fun little episodes.

 

[Bat Attack]

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

 

[Super_Ludacris]

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

 

[SouLeSS]

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.

 

[Irony-Man]

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.

 

[General_Grievous]

Thank you for an in-depth analysis, I really enjoyed reading it. But was the following comment serious or a joke? -

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

I'm guessing a joke, but you'll have to humour me and explain the pragmatics of your post. Out of interest, are you a film student or very interested in the film medium yourself, as you sound to be quite educated on the matter.

 

[ReTrO JuNkIe 42]

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

 

[SharonNash]

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

 

[Irony-Man]

Thank you for an in-depth analysis, I really enjoyed reading it. But was the following comment serious or a joke? -

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

I'm guessing a joke, but you'll have to humour me and explain the pragmatics of your post. Out of interest, are you a film student or very interested in the film medium yourself, as you sound to be quite educated on the matter.

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.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

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.

 

[Catman]

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.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

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.

 

[CLARKY]

Hi there.

I was wondering, now that most Batman fans agree that Begins is the truest representation of Batman portrayed on screen, going right back to the source material and presenting a story of boy to man to hero - where do the Burton films fit in your view of Batman, and Batman in movies?

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.

 

[theMan-Bat]

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.

 

[El Payaso]

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 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.

 

[Bat Attack]

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 too.

 

[General_Grievous]

Well thank you for the responses.

Personally Batman Begins edges slightly into the top place if I were to class a definitive version of the Batman saga on film, but Nolan is standing on the shoulders of Burton who helped created the market for Batman on film.

I enjoy Batman and Batman Returns as interesting little pieces, purely for Burton's unique vision and directing style.

Personally, I'd rather see a character like Flass who bears little physical resemblance or even personality to the character of the comics, rather than taking the Joker and making him the killer of Bruce's parents. I enjoy Burton's films more as cartoons, or like serials, and Begins is the main event.

As I say though, Nolan wouldn't have succeeded if Burton hadn't, or even if Joel Schumacher had succeeded, so those who like Begins must also be thankful to the directors who came before.

Begins is just an overall better film, its clever, has strong characterisation and gives you a complete story from beginning to end and sets up many stories to follow.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

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

 

[El Payaso]

Personally, I'd rather see a character like Flass who bears little physical resemblance or even personality to the character of the comics, rather than taking the Joker and making him the killer of Bruce's parents. I enjoy Burton's films more as cartoons, or like serials, and Begins is the main event.

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

 

[The Chairman]

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.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

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.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

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

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.