Tim Burton's Batman Films vs Christopher Nolan's Batman Films

[Godzilla2014]

As a life-long Batman fan, I love the both of these director's Batman films, so I wanted to compare both sets of films to the comics in terms of their portrayal of the character for the purpose of starting an engaging discussion about the character.
The way I see it, the comparison draws parallels to the comparison between pre-Crisis and post-Crisis Batman, in characterization and introduction.

In Burton's films, Batman is a mysterious gothic figure who sometimes kills the criminals he comes across, similar to the Batman of 1939. Though the character is introduced in Detective Comics #27, we don't Batman's origin until Detective Comics # 33, similar to how the audience doesn't see Batman's origin until shortly before the climax. Detective Comics # 27 begins several weeks after Batman has begun fighting crime, similar to how BATMAN begins with muggers already talking about Batman. I think that this lack of detail left BATMAN BEGINS a lot of ground available to cover without having to retread over Burton's films. For my first 13 years of life, these were only serious dark live-action Batman films around to watch, so I didn't know that Batman could be something different but still dark and serious in live-action. I think it was a great loss that Burton didn't get to direct his third Batman film, but I think parts survived in BATMAN FOREVER, but unless there is a way to view films from alternate histories, I can only imagine what it might have been like.

In Nolan's films, Batman is introduced in a fashion similar to Batman: Year One, in that we make Bruce's journey to become Batman with him. We can identify with Bruce very well. When we see Batman at the docks in BATMAN BEGINS, we not just the beginning of his career as Batman, but also a culmination of all the training, all the acquisition of his tools required to do so. He is not an executioner, he is not willing to kill criminals because he feels they "deserve it", he brings them to justice. This is the Batman that most fans are familiar with, and so it is more accepted.

In comparison, what draws us to Nolan's Batman is what we know, while what draws us to Burton's Batman is what we don't know. I like both approaches, as BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, and BATMAN BEGINS were all tied for my favorite Batman films until THE DARK KNIGHT blew them out of the water. The mysterious approach draws me in because I am curious, while the known approach draws me in because I can identify with Batman because I have seen the kind of effort and sacrifice that he has taken to become Batman. The fact that both of these interpretations of Batman can work speaks to the character's versatility that helped him survive 70 years.

 

[GothamAlleys]

The thread may turn bad, but hopefully any trolls and haters of either will either stay away or remain respectful.

Anyway, in short, I more or less agree with you and I realy and truly absolutely love both, and I really dislike those who think the world is black and white and that you have to like one and absolutely hate the other.
And after all, both Nolan and Burton praised the heck out of each others movies and they hit the nail on the head in what they were trying to accomplish. One is fantasy, one is action drama, so its also a bit more like asking if one prefers scifi or regular action movies.

Batman Returns is my absolute favorite, and second place belongs to Batman begins

 

[RustyCage]

It's a bit like asking if you like Pepsi or Coke better. I love both. Which one I choose to drink is up to my mood at the moment.

 

[Godzilla2014]

The thread may turn bad, but hopefully any trolls and haters of either will either stay away or remain respectful.

Anyway, in short, I more or less agree with you and I realy and truly absolutely love both, and I really dislike those who think the world is black and white and that you have to like one and absolutely hate the other.
And after all, both Nolan and Burton praised the heck out of each others movies and they hit the nail on the head in what they were trying to accomplish. One is fantasy, one is action drama, so its also a bit more like asking if one prefers scifi or regular action movies.

Batman Returns is my absolute favorite, and second place belongs to Batman begins

Thank you! I think it's not the opinion, but how well you can explain it that makes it interesting.

 

[GothamAlleys]

It's a bit like asking if you like Pepsi or Coke better. I love both. Which one I choose to drink is up to my mood at the moment.

Well for me its like asking if you like dessert or a good hot meal, liie asking if you like Ice cream vanilla shake or juicy steak more. Its completely different things even tho theyre both meals. One is Fantasy the other regular action movie

 

[returntovoid]

Both are good, generally speaking. Personally Tim Burton's Batman films are favorite, I just like that Gothic, Film-noir and German expressionist approach that Burton took. I also find that the neurotic and socially isolated depiction of Batman/Bruce Wayne is far more interesting, even the awkward public persona.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Both are good, generally speaking. Personally Tim Burton's Batman films are favorite, I just like that Gothic, Film-noir and German expressionist approach that Burton took. I also find that the neurotic and socially isolated depiction of Batman/Bruce Wayne is far more interesting, even the awkward public persona.

While I still enjoy Burton's films, and I think of them as different take on Batman from the Nolan films, I watched them again recently and I noticed some pretty big disadvantages to the Nolan films:

1. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He is recluse whom I think would be too obvious as Batman. In BATMAN, the reporters don't even know what he looks like, and in BATMAN RETURNS he just sits around waiting for the Bat-Signal. I don't mind Burton's idea of Bruce Wayne as a separate persona as opposed to just being a personality disguise, but I would have preferred that persona be the playboy of the comics.
2. The supporting cast are barely used at all. Alfred is pretty much just a butler and Commissioner Gordon is barely in it and does little that actually effects the plot. I don't even think that he even talks to Batman in the entire film.
3. The wierd henchmen. Why did the Joker hire a swordsman? What about that guy with the leg knives in the cathedral? Also, the Red Triangle Circus Gang of BATMAN RETURNS. Nolan's films have used mostly regular henchmen, and I prefer that.
4. Michael Keaton's Batman isn't as intimidating as Christian Bale's Batman. He has trouble with the lone black guy in the cathedral, while Christian Bale's Batman took on multiple thugs in BATMAN BEGINS & THE DARK KNIGHT with ease. His Batman voice is not as scary as Bale's as well.
5. The disappointing Batwing scene of BATMAN: Batman fires all the Batwing's weapons at the Joker, missing with every shot. The Joker then takes out a revolver with a ridiculously long barrel and takes it out with a single shot. What the hell? Was Batman trying to kill the Joker and just a bad shot? Why is the Batwing so lightly armored? I think that the Batpod sequence of at the end of the vehicle chase of THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot more sense.
6. Penguin in BATMAN RETURNS feels more Killer Croc than Penguin to me.

 

[Ponyboy]

1. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He is recluse whom I think would be too obvious as Batman. In BATMAN, the reporters don't even know what he looks like, and in BATMAN RETURNS he just sits around waiting for the Bat-Signal. I don't mind Burton's idea of Bruce Wayne as a separate persona as opposed to just being a personality disguise, but I would have preferred that persona be the playboy of the comics.

This is what intrigues me about the character. I find his neurotic, weird take on the character much more interesting to watch... and also a bit more spontaneous. I wouldn't think Batman would want "reporters" to know what he looks like. It adds to the fear of the character.

1. Michael Keaton's Batman isn't as intimidating as Christian Bale's Batman. He has trouble with the lone black guy in the cathedral, while Christian Bale's Batman took on multiple thugs in BATMAN BEGINS & THE DARK KNIGHT with ease. His Batman voice is not as scary as Bale's as well.

I don't know what your definition of intimidating is, but he seems intimidating to me. Right from the first scene where he sneaks up on the two burglars. Even the scene in the museum when he drops through the skylight... the Joker and his henchmen just stand there while he rescues Vicky. He has trouble with the lone black guy because he just survived a plane crash. I think Keaton's Batman voice is more appropriate for hsi version of the character. He doesn't sound out of breath when he talks and he speaks as much as he needs to.

1. The disappointing Batwing scene of BATMAN: Batman fires all the Batwing's weapons at the Joker, missing with every shot. The Joker then takes out a revolver with a ridiculously long barrel and takes it out with a single shot. What the hell? Was Batman trying to kill the Joker and just a bad shot? Why is the Batwing so lightly armored? I think that the Batpod sequence of at the end of the vehicle chase of THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot more sense.

Everyone comes down on this scene after the fact. When I saw it when I was a kid it was awesome! Having seen it two dozen times now, I think that its possible that Batman intended to miss the Joker. He hesitates when he has a "lock" on him. The Joker was standing right in the middle of the nose of the craft, so I guess that's how he missed. Maybe he just wanted to soften the Joker up.

I won't answer all your points, these are just the first things I thought of. Nolan's universe and Burton's universe are so different from one another. Even the origin of the lead character. It's probably somewhat useless to compare, even though we're always going to. I think it boils down to what portrayal of Batman you prefer... the gothic creepster or the kick-ass ninja.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Nolan did one thing completely wrong in Batman Begins IMO...

...It was the long winded explanations for the Tumbler and suit.

Frankly I liked both the suit and the Tumbler. The suit looked very good, and is among my favorite Bat costumes from the movies. The Tumbler was incredibly badass, and provided us with some excellent visuals for the car chase scene. The explanations though were clunky and unnecessary.

I thought the scenes with Lucius testing out the equipment with Bruce just slowed down the plot really. Bruce is a billionaire, and therefore his access to things like Batmobiles and costume tech really isn't a question.

Moreover by breaking them down, I thought it undermined the realism which it was supposed to further. I don't need to know that a weapons department made stuff for the military, it's assumed. I also don't need to know that this was rejected, or that was rejected and that's why Bruce can use them but no one else can. Why's that even matter? Batman isn't fighting the military, he's fighting clowns and mobsters. Furthermore I'm left wondering why the military doesn't notice all their rejected technology pancaking cop cars around Gotham.

I think Spider-Man shows that even elaborate costumes aren't really questioned, or don't diminish the movie when they are not explained. Peter Parker simply looks at a drawing and blam-o he's got a suit that probably would cost several thousand dollars to make (much more expensive than the car he was having trouble affording). The audience quietly accepts this because we know Spider-Man wears a costume.

I think what's even funnier is Nolan choose to omit the origin of dream invasion technology in Inception. This is much more unbelieveable.

 

[GothamAlleys]

While I still enjoy Burton's films, and I think of them as different take on Batman from the Nolan films, I watched them again recently and I noticed some pretty big disadvantages to the Nolan films:

1. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He is recluse whom I think would be too obvious as Batman. In BATMAN, the reporters don't even know what he looks like, and in BATMAN RETURNS he just sits around waiting for the Bat-Signal. I don't mind Burton's idea of Bruce Wayne as a separate persona as opposed to just being a personality disguise, but I would have preferred that persona be the playboy of the comics.

1. 
   
   I completely disagree. Who would ever expect, out of millions of citizens of Gotham, for a businessman who is forgotten by people to be the Batman who has lately appeared in Gotham? The only reason Bales Batman plays Tony Stark is because his situation is completely different - he came back from the dead and appeared in Gotham JUST as Batman did, which is an enormous coincidence. He has to act like a moron as much as possible to fool people
   
   

   [*]The supporting cast are barely used at all. Alfred is pretty much just a butler and Commissioner Gordon is barely in it and does little that actually effects the plot. I don't even think that he even talks to Batman in the entire film.

   
   Dont blame dog for being dog. Burton's Batman was based on Kane's early, pre-Robin portrayal of the Batman world with a small tint of the modern age, Gordon was just being faithful to the Kane's Gordon - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/02/batmangordon-relationship-in-movies.html
   
   

   [*]The wierd henchmen. Why did the Joker hire a swordsman? What about that guy with the leg knives in the cathedral?

   
   Are you serious? Did you see the freaks Joker was hiring/working with in the comics? Besides, I dont even see them as anything out of ordinary. He simply had different thugs with different skills. One guy was a big tough boxer, another a karate guy, another a swordsman etc etc. See nothing weird here
   
   

   Also, the Red Triangle Circus Gang of BATMAN RETURNS. Nolan's films have used mostly regular henchmen, and I prefer that.

   
   As a fan of Batman comics , scifi and fantasy, I prefer imaginative thugs over everyday life people. Besides, even if we discount the comic books, its simply just a natural signature trait of Burton's imaginative fantasy world
   
   

   [*]Michael Keaton's Batman isn't as intimidating as Christian Bale's Batman.

   
   I disagree, I think Keaton's Batman is creepy because his insanity is apparent. He was modeled after Dracula and didnt hesitate to kill when he felt like it. And again, his eyes and persona were that of a spook, a ghost almost. This Batman, as intended, was insane
   
   

   He has trouble with the lone black guy in the cathedral, while Christian Bale's Batman took on multiple thugs in BATMAN BEGINS & THE DARK KNIGHT with ease.

   
   Did you forget that he was just in a plane crash and could barely walk, stumbling and fighting to keep a balance? He even fell in the cathedral
   
   

   His Batman voice is not as scary as Bale's as well.

   
   Thats one's opinion. I think a yell is more obvious, something we can get from everyone. A stoic whisper from a guy whose eyes come out of the darkness is more interesting imo. But then again, the voices worked for each take. The ghostly whisper worked for the Gothic Phantom take on the Batman and the angry growl worked for the Bale's Batman which was based on agression and wild animals
   
   

   [*]The disappointing Batwing scene of BATMAN: Batman fires all the Batwing's weapons at the Joker, missing with every shot.

   
   Miniguns and missiles are not designed to hit people, theyre designed to hit mass targets which they do - Jokers goons are killed en masseand tents and parade floats are hit. Its near impossible to hit one small target which is a person
   
   

   The Joker then takes out a revolver with a ridiculously long barrel and takes it out with a single shot. What the hell? Was Batman trying to kill the Joker and just a bad shot? Why is the Batwing so lightly armored? I think that the Batpod sequence of at the end of the vehicle chase of THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot more sense.

   
   As Comic Adaptation explains, Joker's gun shot with an explosive shell, and its also apparent in the movie that its not a bullet that this thing is firing since it explodes when hits the Batwing. Besides, I personally dont think it needs any explanation at all. We know the world of Burton is never about reality and never claime dot or try to be, its about being bizarre, fantasy and feel
   
   

   [*]Penguin in BATMAN RETURNS feels more Killer Croc than Penguin to me.

I dont see Croc in him. Didnt see Penguin as a big angry muscled monster wrecking the city. I saw him more as an original creation and someone more like an evil version of Edward Scissorhands. A makeover which created a new and a very interesting character. I like it when movies use the source as a jumpbase and add new twist to them. The movie Penguin is a far superior character with more depth and character than a long nosed gangster of the comics, just like Nolan's Joker spinoff is almost as interesting as the comic Joker

 

[ALP]

A recluse is not too obvious for Batman. If a vigilante were running around in the real world, would you first expect a random millionaire who lives on the outskirts of town? I don't think so. As much as I love Jack, I really feel it is Keaton's Batman that makes B'89 feel legendary. I loved that rendition of Bruce Wayne as an isolated person whose distant from others. Keaton's Wayne did not need to put on a public image. Here's the difference. In Begins, Bruce Wayne is a world famous billionaire. That's why he's got to put on the playboy image. In Burton's films, Bruce Wayne was not very well known. Remember Knox and Vale didn't even know what Bruce Wayne looked like. Add that to the fact that there was no Wayne Industries and we can conclude that Keaton's Wayne was a man of old family wealth, a random millionaire of Gotham. Bale's Wayne is the "first son" of Gotham. Everyone notices him, he's always in the newspapers, etc. So he must have a persona. Bale's Wayne is more like Donald Trump, a tabloid billionaire that everyone recognizes.

 

[Milu]

I prefer Keaton's more subtle bat voice over Bale's more bombastic take.

 

[The Joker]

A recluse is not too obvious for Batman. If a vigilante were running around in the real world, would you first expect a random millionaire who lives on the outskirts of town? I don't think so. As much as I love Jack, I really feel it is Keaton's Batman that makes B'89 feel legendary. I loved that rendition of Bruce Wayne as an isolated person whose distant from others. Keaton's Wayne did not need to put on a public image. Here's the difference. In Begins, Bruce Wayne is a world famous billionaire. That's why he's got to put on the playboy image. In Burton's films, Bruce Wayne was not very well known. Remember Knox and Vale didn't even know what Bruce Wayne looked like. Add that to the fact that there was no Wayne Industries and we can conclude that Keaton's Wayne was a man of old family wealth, a random millionaire of Gotham. Bale's Wayne is the "first son" of Gotham. Everyone notices him, he's always in the newspapers, etc. So he must have a persona. Bale's Wayne is more like Donald Trump, a tabloid billionaire that everyone recognizes.

A recluse is too obvious for Batman. Someone who does what he does wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves.

Bruce Wayne was well known in Gotham in Burton's movies. People just didn't know what he looked like. That's the difference. Everyone knew who he was. He was just a recluse. Remember his spot at the table beside Gordon was vacant at Harvey Dent's speech. It implied he was frequently missing important functions like that because of his life as Batman. You'd think that kind of thing would raise suspicions.

Someone who has the kind of toys Batman has doesn't come cheap. Any idiot could surmise he's got to have a large cash resource, not to mention connections to some of the best high tech money can buy. It's how Ra's Al Ghul figured out who he was in the comics.

Bruce needs to put on a facade that he is spending his money on the good life like sports cars and fast women, and not hiding out in his mansion night and day. Even BTAS Bruce painted that image for himself. Remember in Mask of the Phantasm, when he's got the three beautiful women swooning over him at his party in Wayne Manor, and then another one comes along and warns them that he'll just wine and dine them, and then completely forget about them. Then she chucks her drink in his face. Loved that scene.

 

[ALP]

Well if I remember correctly it was the Bruce Wayne with the outlandish public persona who was being interrogated for suspicious behavior of being Batman. Somehow that persona didn't stop Reese from figuring it out...I don't recall anyone in Burton's movies thinking Bruce Wayne was Batman so take that haha!

In fact in Batman Returns, Shreck doesn't even believe it when Batman is unmasked. When Batman is revealed as Bruce Wayne he simply thought Bruce was just dressing up as Batman and wasn't the real one. That's just how far Keaton's Wayne is from being suspected as Batman. You see him unmasked and you still refuse to believe it's him LOL

Your first part is true Joker. And actually I think it would have been best if Bruce Wayne was not known at all. The general public will never suspect someone they don't even know of. If there were a random millionaire named John Jingleheimer that no one was familar with you wouldn't expect him of being a superhero because you simply have never heard of him. There are over 400 billionaires in America...now how many of them can you name? You can't put suspicion on people you've never even heard of.

 

[The Joker]

Well if I remember correctly it was the Bruce Wayne with the outlandish public persona who was being interrogated for suspicious behavior of being Batman. Somehow that persona didn't stop Reese from figuring it out...I don't recall anyone in Burton's movies thinking Bruce Wayne was Batman so take that haha!

Mr Reese was a special case. He was working for Wayne Enterprises and had access to inside information and proof of the resources Lucius was spending on Batman's gadgets. He found diagrams of the Tumbler, the vehicle Batman drives for goodness sake.

You speak as though he was under suspicion already. Not true. Reese stumbled across the evidence by accident when checking the numbers for the LSI holdings deal. He found errors in Lucius' numbers, and did some investigating as to why they were off.

In fact in Batman Returns, Shreck doesn't even believe it when Batman is unmasked. When Batman is revealed as Bruce Wayne he simply thought Bruce was just dressing up as Batman and wasn't the real one. That's just how far Keaton's Wayne is from being suspected as Batman. You see him unmasked and you still refuse to believe it's him LOL

Like Selina Kyle said "Because he is Batman, you moron". He was a moron for even doubting his own eyes, not to mention the obvious.

Your first part is true Joker. And actually I think it would have been best if Bruce Wayne was not known at all. The general public will never suspect someone they don't even know of. If there were a random millionaire named John Jingleheimer that no one was familar with you wouldn't expect him of being a superhero because you simply have never heard of him. There are over 400 billionaires in America...now how many of them can you name? You can't put suspicion on people you've never even heard of.

How many billionaires are living in Gotham City, and are approximately the right age to be Batman? Batman being a Gotham centric crime fighter narrows the field considerably.

 

[Ponyboy]

In fact in Batman Returns, Shreck doesn't even believe it when Batman is unmasked. When Batman is revealed as Bruce Wayne he simply thought Bruce was just dressing up as Batman and wasn't the real one. That's just how far Keaton's Wayne is from being suspected as Batman. You see him unmasked and you still refuse to believe it's him LOL

Because he is Batman, you moron

 

[GothamAlleys]

Again, its different to say when you know whose Batman, but certainly no one would think Batman is a millionaire. Fox presented the reason perfectly in TDK, asking Reese if he thinks that a rich man who has it all would dress up at night to fight crime. And Burton's Wayne isnt some central persona in gotham, his name may be known, but hes not Prince of Gotham Nolan's Wayne is or the richest man in Gotham for all we know. But thats getting away from the point a little, the point is, Gotham is filled with millions of people and plenty of millionaires. Wayne is the least possible suspect. And Batman's gagdets were all home made by him personally, thus untraceable like in the comics. Theyre not bought, theyre all custom so they dont point out to a millionaire right away. In the comics Batman used stolen shipments for his gadgets, I think people would assume first that the material he used (and again, its just metal and wires) was stolen and tweaked by himself rather than assume that a guy fighting crime dressed as a Bat is really a rich and stern businessman. Just like in comics, people dont think batman bought all this but made it himself

The comic book Wayne was never such public persona either. Again, the difference with Nolan's Wayne here was that JUST exactly when Wayne suddenly reappered after dissapering for years who knows where, Batman appears. Its such a coincidence that Im not even fully convinced that playing a spoiled idiot would really work in this situation. Well, it did in the movie, but in real life there would be a hellova suspicion upon Wayne - here Wayne, the prince of Gotham come back to Gotham and its announced all over the news, and also Batman appears driving around in what must have been patented vehicles and weaponry designed by Wayne Ent., and was also built like Stallone, something rather weird for a businessman. My point is that Nolan's Wayne was in different situation and he couldve been caught easily because of his situations, while Wayne was just part of the mass living in his castle and doing business deals all his life for all they know, just one of the suits (its not like he lived in the castle all the time, he mentions business deals to Vicky and have a business meeting with Shreck)

As for Selina's response to Shreck, it wasnt Halloween, and Bruce was in Penguin's hideout sliding on the rope in Batman's suit. Whatever the doubt, thats kinda obvious that hes Batman at that point, hence the "moron" comment. But yeah, ALP has a good point, not even when he saw him in a suit did it dawn on Shreck that Wayne is Batman

 

[ALP]

Mr Reese was a special case. He was working for Wayne Enterprises and had access to inside information and proof of the resources Lucius was spending on Batman's gadgets. He found diagrams of the Tumbler, the vehicle Batman drives for goodness sake.

You speak as though he was under suspicion already. Not true. Reese stumbled across the evidence by accident when checking the numbers for the LSI holdings deal. He found errors in Lucius' numbers, and did some investigating as to why they were off.

Yeah this is true, Good points. But it still stands, Bale was suspected of being Batman. Keaton never was. Looking at the movies is about the best proof you can get.

Like Selina Kyle said "Because he is Batman, you moron". He was a moron for even doubting his own eyes, not to mention the obvious.

I think his response was pretty genuine. And Keaton is also a rather normal looking guy, he doesn't look like the hulking martial arts type either. Not to say that Bale was hulking lol, but he certainly looks like more of a person who could whoop someone's ass than Keaton did. Really, just going by Keaton's Wayne profile, I'd never guess he was Batman. If anything I'd think he was the opposite, maybe a crazy killer like Norman Bates(his words not mine). But then again his Batman was a crazy killer LOL

How many billionaires are living in Gotham City, and are approximately the right age to be Batman? Batman being a Gotham centric crime fighter narrows the field considerably.

Maybe Shreck was Batman

 

[The Joker]

Yeah this is true, Good points. But it still stands, Bale was suspected of being Batman. Keaton never was. Looking at the movies is about the best proof you can get.

Bale was never suspected of being Batman. He was flat out caught by Reese for being Batman. There was no suspicions of him beyond an employee stumbling across the proof by accident.

You could argue that Vicki figured it out. After all Bruce never got around to telling her. She never stumbled across any hard evidence by accident like Reese did. She just put two and two together, went around to Wayne Manor, and got brought to the Batcave by Alfred.

I think his response was pretty genuine. And Keaton is also a rather normal looking guy, he doesn't look like the hulking martial arts type either. Not to say that Bale was hulking lol, but he certainly looks like more of a person who could whoop someone's ass than Keaton did.

His response was no doubt genuine, that's why Selina was justified in calling him a moron. Batman didn't suddenly shrink in stature when Bruce unmasked.

Selina didn't have any trouble believing it when she learned the truth.

Maybe Shreck was Batman

Was Schreck in Gotham in Batman '89?

 

[ALP]

If Penguin was retconned to be living under the sewers(obviously during B'89) I don't see why Shreck wouldn't be there off screen too

 

[The Joker]

If Penguin was retconned to be living under the sewers(obviously during B'89) I don't see why Shreck wouldn't be there off screen too

There was no retcon with Penguin. It's never specified when the sightings of him first started in Returns. They could have simply been recent events over previous weeks or months.

 

[ALP]

I'm referring to the Penguin in the beginning. 30 years from the present in Returns his parents at Cobblepot Manor in Gotham City threw him into the sewer and IIRC at the end of the opening credits we see his carriage near the penguins. So that's where he's lived. At any rate I was mostly joking so don't put too much thought into it.

 

[The Joker]

I'm referring to the Penguin in the beginning. 30 years from the present in Returns his parents at Cobblepot Manor in Gotham City threw him into the sewer and IIRC at the end of the opening credits we see his carriage near the penguins. So that's where he's lived.

Yes, but he didn't live there his entire life. You'll recall that he was part of the Red Triangle circus when they were a legitimate circus, when Bruce was researching the old newspapers and establishes a link between Penguin and the Red Triangle gang.

Penguin was part of their freak show.

At any rate I was mostly joking so don't put too much thought into it.

But it's fun having these discussions

 

[Ponyboy]

Yes, but he didn't live there his entire life. You'll recall that he was part of the Red Triangle circus when they were a legitimate circus, when Bruce was researching the old newspapers and establishes a link between Penguin and the Red Triangle gang.

Damn, you beat me to it. We can assume that Shreck was in Gotham at the time, though. He looked pretty well established there.

 

[The Joker]

Damn, you beat me to it. We can assume that Shreck was in Gotham at the time, though. He looked pretty well established there.

Apart from a Department Store named after him, he didn't seem that well established. There is no specified time frame between Batman '89 and Returns. A man like Schreck would have been heavily involved in the 200th anniversary celebrations.