I don't see how it's just Burton style rather than the character, how a lot of style is at odds with the character, when Nolan in TDK was clearly influenced by Heat and some of the comics are themselves influenced by movies and movie styles. Or that style is necessarily at odds with substance.
Nolan brings substance, with his style. Intelligent themes, social commentary, and depth. Quality plot, and character arcs. Not just hollow, pretty imagery.
While also for the surface story being ... gasp ... faithful to the characters and mythos. Unlike Burton's Batman Returns.
Nolan's approach, or visual flair isn't the star of the film. The script, characters, and plot are what we're there for as an audience. We are there to see The Batman. With an interesting dose of an auteur's vision. Not the artistic vision, with a side of Batman.
Which is always the case with 100% unmonitored, Goth Freak, Tim Burton.
Herofan said:
I thought he did appropriately feel more comfortable as Bruce was still intense enough.
Keaton himself admitted to being possibly too relaxed in the sequel, filming at home in LA in a studio. No filming all hours of the night like he did at Pinewood's outdoor studio. Which made his performance feel more real, for a vigilante character that stays up all night.
And his over comfort, bleeds into his nearly apathetic performance. The determination, hunger and intensity in his chops wasn't on B89 levels. Which he was competitively trying to prove doubters or critics wrong about his casting. So he brought his A game, for obvious reasons.
Herofan said:
I think he did try to save her but he is a bit too sadistic, that went too far.
No he didn't. He said be careful, and don't move.
Then watches her fall to her death. Yet just a scene later is revealed to have a gliding cape. He could've nose dived to save her ala the scene in TDK when Rachel was thrown off the building.
Not to mention all his grappling gun tools.
Good effort, good job Burtonman. Thus the line from Selina "well how come every woman you try to save ends up dead? Or deeply resentful."
You have to come to grips with the fact that the character is flagrantly disrespected in Batman Returns. He isn't heroic, not one bit. And when he finally is towards the end, trying to persuade Selina not to kill Shreck, in all his truncated unearned vague character arc glory ... he comes off moronically hypocritical.
That's not firing guns at armored vehicles to stop a nuclear bomb (TDKR), or firing guns at anti aircraft machine guns (BvS), or firing guns at chemical weapons (B89) attempting to kill the masses, and certainly not leaving a terrorist leader to fend for himself (BB)
Burning a man alive.
Strapping a bomb to a man's waist, to smile and then watch explode.
Is straight up homicidal murder, with psychotic joy, and smiles. That isn't Batman. Collateral damage deaths are fine, in a reality based world. It would happen. Murdering henchman for no good reason is inexcusable.
Herofan said:
I never got the complaints that the city looked too small and claustrophobic.
Really?! You disagree with this? Returns looks like it was filmed inside of a Walmart. This giant metropolitan, urban sprawl of a city, that essentially takes place on one small street corner the entire movie?!
The world's smallest Times Square ... and less than a football team's worth of people at the tree lighting ceremonies.
It's all matte paintings. And Goth skull sculptures thanks to Burton. It's visibly much smaller than the huge outdoor Pinewood set, that at least felt it had some sense of scale. Depth. Height. And volume of Gothamite citizens when the Joker attacks.
But of course they both pale in comparison to actually filming on location. Donner's Superman, TDK Trilogy, The Avengers, MOS, BvS, and SS. Nothing beats real world sets. So much more epic in scope, and scale. Not to mention believability. Shooting in the real world is always better. More immersion.
Herofan said:
I admit I'm not a big fan of the Penguin of the comics but I thought the movie version of him and Catwoman (and the movie overall) were pretty true to the characters' basic ideas and themes.
They're both not. This wasn't like minor physical alterations in adapting something to the real world, or for big screen believability. The origins, and sense of character are entirely different for both of them.
Penguin is an entirely unique Tim Burton creation all together. A literal bird man (how?!) did Miss Cobblepot get her freak on at the Gotham Zoo one night?
I love Pfeiffer's performance. But the character isn't an out and out skank. She's playful, seductive, and flirtatious. Not lick your entire face, or initiate make out sessions level smut. MShe's a street wise, powerful, cunning, and resourceful woman. Not submissive secretary turned S&M domme, genetic mutated cat girl.
She isn't a literal cat human hybrid. Licked back to life by strays after falling 50 stories, and doesn't die 8 times to live a 9th? The origin is goofy as hell. It only works in context because Michelle carries the movie with her tremendous acting abilities. She brought her A game. And it's stunning.
The rest? It's over the top, goth fairy tale campiness akin to the 60's show. Just much darker visually, and more depressing in tone.