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

[Godzilla2014]

If Burton didn't want to explain Bruce Wayne's back story, I really doubt he'd want to explain where that ugly looking hang glider in Batman Returns came from.

I think it's supposed to be his cape.

 

[Travesty]

Something that really annoyed me about Burton and Schumacher's Batman movies that Nolan has avoided are the gadget inconsistency. By this, I mean a gadget that has no introduction, only is useful in only one (or very few) situation which our hero just happens to find himself in that would would be unlikely for Batman to anticipate the need for. Examples include:

• The extending plate in Batman's gauntlet he used to defeat the Asian Joker Goon with leg knives in the cathedral scene of BATMAN.
• Batman's Batarang launcher, rocket boots, and others in BATMAN FOREVER.
• Batman & Robin's ice skates in the opening of the BATMAN & ROBIN.

There are probably many others, but I think you get my drift.

I dunno, I could easily argue that the claw thingy that Batman had at the beginning of TDK really only serves a few purposes.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Yeah, to beat the **** out of people with.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah, to beat the **** out of people with.

Ha, I guess all of his ninja training was useless then.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I dunno, I could easily argue that the claw thingy that Batman had at the beginning of TDK really only serves a few purposes.

It can serve many purposes: Bending, crushing, gripping, etc., so it makes sense that Batman might carry it.

 

[Travesty]

It can serve many purposes: Bending, crushing, gripping, etc., so it makes sense that Batman might carry it.

Yes, it served it's purpose in that very situation. There was no explanation as to why Batman would have those(other than you thinking he should carry it), or why a ninja would ever need one. It was very situational, which is what you were talking about.

When has Batman ever used anything like that before? Since it's so big and bulbous, I don't see why anybody would want to carry that around, unless you were anticipating that very situation.

I agree with you about those other gadgets, but I disagree about that claw thing. It's a random gadget.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Yes, it served it's purpose in that very situation. There was no explanation as to why Batman would have those(other than you thinking he should carry it), or why a ninja would ever need one. It was very situational, which is what you were talking about.

When has Batman ever used anything like that before? Since it's so big and bulbous, I don't see why anybody would want to carry that around, unless you were anticipating that very situation.

I agree with you about those other gadgets, but I disagree about that claw thing. It's a random gadget.

I got the idea that it might something Bruce was testing. Even if it counts, Nolan has done it maybe once, compared to the many incidents per film in the Burton Schumacher films.

 

[Travesty]

I got the idea that it might something Bruce was testing. Even if it counts, Nolan has done it maybe once, compared to the many incidents per film in the Burton Schumacher films.

True.

As for the metal plate thing in B89, I remember reading it's main purpose, and it wasn't to deflect a ninja with knives on his boot. I think it may have been in an official movie magazine, so I'm trying to find PDF's. If I find it, I'll post it here....

 

[Godzilla2014]

True.

As for the metal plate thing in B89, I remember reading it's main purpose, and it wasn't to deflect a ninja with knives on his boot. I think it may have been in an official movie magazine, so I'm trying to find PDF's. If I find it, I'll post it here....

In the mean time, I found this article on IGN about the gadgets in the Batman movies: http://gear.ign.com/articles/890/890863p1.html Damn, there are a lot of ******** gadgets in the Schumacher movies.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Very cool article, better than mine (http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/utility-belts.html). Thanks for sharing!

 

[ALP]

If Burton didn't want to explain Bruce Wayne's back story, I really doubt he'd want to explain where that ugly looking hang glider in Batman Returns came from.

I liked the glider- especially the little bat-hooks that were on them.

I got the idea that it might something Bruce was testing. Even if it counts, Nolan has done it maybe once, compared to the many incidents per film in the Burton Schumacher films.

It may be somewhat inconsistent in Burton's films because his movies contain a certain amount of logic but I'd say Schumacher's are pretty excusable in that regard. If you really ponder about Batman's random gadgets in Schumacher's films then you completely miss the point of his mess/movies. Wondering why Batman has so many random gadgets in a Schumacher film is like questioning how a lightsaber works in Star Wars. It just does.

True.

As for the metal plate thing in B89, I remember reading it's main purpose, and it wasn't to deflect a ninja with knives on his boot. I think it may have been in an official movie magazine, so I'm trying to find PDF's. If I find it, I'll post it here....

The metal plate in B'89 can be used under so many different circumstances. What did Batman use it for? To strike an armed goon. Doesn't it make sense that he could have used it on many occasions. In fact, remember the scene in the alley where Batman kicks the goon with the swords? He easily could have used the retractable plate on that guy too. The retractable metal plate could be used against any knife or sword wielding goon. It wasn't even a gadget I liked much, but it's far from random when it could be used against so many foes.

 

[Travesty]

I liked the glider- especially the little bat-hooks that were on them.

Yeah, I liked the glider in Returns, too, but I do think Nolan's glider looks much better.

 

[ALP]

That scene was the only time in Burton's movies that we saw Batman soar. In Schumacher's films, it was silly as Batman's normal cape supported him jumping from skyscrapers into the batmobile and into the tunnel where Two Face lit him ablaze. So in that respect, it was really cool that Nolan and Goyer gave a plausible explanation for Batman's cape to allow him to glide.

 

[El Payaso]

Something that really annoyed me about Burton and Schumacher's Batman movies that Nolan has avoided are the gadget inconsistency. By this, I mean a gadget that has no introduction, only is useful in only one (or very few) situation which our hero just happens to find himself in that would would be unlikely for Batman to anticipate the need for. Examples include:

• The extending plate in Batman's gauntlet he used to defeat the Asian Joker Goon with leg knives in the cathedral scene of BATMAN.
• Batman's Batarang launcher, rocket boots, and others in BATMAN FOREVER.
• Batman & Robin's ice skates in the opening of the BATMAN & ROBIN.

There are probably many others, but I think you get my drift.

Yeah, it's like Batman had a bat-buzzer that attracted bats and he used it once. Hey, wait--- !

If Burton didn't want to explain Bruce Wayne's back story,

But he did explain his parents were killed so he was devoted to fight criminals, right?

I really doubt he'd want to explain where that ugly looking hang glider in Batman Returns came from.

Ugly??? OOOOOOOH...

Now seriously, what is there to explain? Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, he can get whatever he wants. There.

I think it's supposed to be his cape.

According to the movie it is clearly his cape. And btw, Nolan apparently liked that idea and took it. In comics the glider is a separate contraption.

I dunno, I could easily argue that the claw thingy that Batman had at the beginning of TDK really only serves a few purposes.

More like zero. What purpose did it really serve? It made a hole in a wagon that allowed Batman to do... nothing actually...

That scene was the only time in Burton's movies that we saw Batman soar. In Schumacher's films, it was silly as Batman's normal cape supported him jumping from skyscrapers into the batmobile and into the tunnel where Two Face lit him ablaze. So in that respect, it was really cool that Nolan and Goyer gave a plausible explanation for Batman's cape to allow him to glide.

It can't have been silly. Just think that in Nolan's TDK Batman's cape allowed him and Rachel to fall from the tallest building in Gotham and land on a cab without any further complication for him or Rachel. Therefore it's well explained, realistic and not silly.

 

[ALP]

Btw, great post a page back about Joker, El Pay

 

[El Payaso]

Some interesting reading about both Nolan and Burton:

Burton and Nolan: Two Directors that Can't Bust out of Oscar's Arkham

Is it a matter of oversight or do their films just not match Academy sensibilities?

By: Bill Cody
Published: Monday, March 7th 2011 at 10:12 AM

(left) Tim Burton on the set of Corpse Bride; (right) Christopher Nolan on the set of The Prestige

A lot was written about the Academy Award showdown between The King's Speech and The Social Network, but no one got jobbed. This wasn't a case of The Greatest Show On Earth beating out High Noon and Singing In the Rain. It wasn't Crash over Brokeback Mountain. It was the case of two very good (and different) films in a battle that had no clear-cut winner. It was a rather inconsequential decision. It wouldn't have been a surprise if either film had won the Oscar and no one was shocked The King's Speech took home the gold. Disappointed maybe, but not shocked.

There were, however, a couple of people in the audience that have been consistently slighted. Both of whom sat in the audience as key members of their crews won several awards indicating that the Academy is very much aware of their work.

I'm talking about two of the best directors making films right now, Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton. For those who think David Fincher has been unfairly treated because he's been nominated twice and never won an Oscar, consider this fact: Burton and Nolan have zero directing nominations between them.

That's right. No nominations for Burton for Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands or Big Fish. No nominations for Nolan for Memento, The Dark Knight or Inception.

That's not to say no one has recognized these two major talents. Burton's Ed Wood was nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes. They've both been nominated as Best Director at the BAFTAs and Nolan has been nominated twice by the Directors Guild. And, of course, audiences around the world line up in droves to see their films, but their peers in Hollywood have shut them out completely.

In Burton's case this isn't entirely surprising. His films are extremely inventive and creative, but many film critics consider the quirky Burton to be a popcorn filmmaker. They think his films are a case of visual sizzle in search of a narrative steak. Still, Burton hasn't even been nominated for his more serious fare like Ed Wood or his much loved Sweeney Todd musical, a film that actually won him Best Director from the National Board of Review.

Of course if you make an argument that Burton has been overlooked, the question is who would he have replaced over the years. I think he could have easily replaced Woody Allen (Bullets Over Broadway) or Robert Redford (Quiz Show) in 1995 when he directed Ed Wood. Or Peter Weir (Master and Commander) or Clint Eastwood (Mystic River), the man he did replace at the BAFTAs in 2004 when he directed Big Fish.
But the biggest injustice was giving Tony Gilroy the nod over Burton in 2008. There is nothing special about Michael Clayton in terms of directing. While in Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Burton took on Stephen Sondheim and won. That's a feat no other director working right now would even try, let alone succeed at.

And what's the deal with the exclusion of Nolan? He has to be considered one of the preeminent directors working today. With Memento, he made one of the truly inventive independent films of the last decade. Then he gave new life to the moribund Batman franchise, after Tim Burton's previous installments were followed up by a pair of Joel Schumacher abortions, with his work on Batman Begins. The Prestige was a terrific film, if somewhat overlooked and his last two films are monumental achievements that electrified audiences around the world, the latter of which was nominated for Best Picture.

Who would Nolan replace in 2009? How about everyone. With The Dark Knight Nolan pulled off the rare trifecta of pleasing the fanboys, casual film fans around the world and the critics. And he managed to put his own stamp on the movie as well and he did it in a way that made him a household name. A name in which you simply need to mention it and ears perk up. The same can't be said for too many directors nowadays.
It's become a matter of looking at each of these directors' films and wondering, If not now… when? While many were surprised Nolan was snubbed for Inception I don't think the same can be said for Burton and Alice in Wonderland

Both men have promising projects coming out in 2012, but Burton's Frankenweenie is unlikely to see him recognized seeing how no one has been nominated for Best Director as the result of helming an animated film. However, at the very least he may be able to break the continued domination of computer-animated films in the Best Animated Film category that only Wallace and Gromit (beating Burton's Corpse Bride) and Spirited Away have been able to top.

On Nolan's plate is The Dark Knight Rises, a film that should be such a monster the Academy will have a hard time ignoring Nolan this time around. After all, the third time is always the charm… right?

Unfortunately, Nolan, like Burton, has given the Academy an out. The Dark Knight Rises is a comic book film. If you think there's a bias against animated fare, there's just as much, if not an even bigger, bias against any film where an actor dawns a cape. Unless of course, it's a period piece. Then it gets showered with Oscar noms.


That means it's very possible that Burton and Nolan still end up on the sidelines come Oscar time even if they create the two most creative, inventive and successful films in 2012. And that would be a shame.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/articl...directors-that-cant-bust-out-of-oscars-arkham

Nice post

Exactly, well put.

Btw, great post a page back about Joker, El Pay

Thanks people.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

But he did explain his parents were killed so he was devoted to fight criminals, right?

I meant in more detail like, why bats, when exactly he decided to fight crime, etc.

Ugly??? OOOOOOOH...

YEAH, I SAID IT!

More like zero. What purpose did it really serve? It made a hole in a wagon that allowed Batman to do... nothing actually...

I think Nolan was trying to make the wranglers seem like bat-pocket knives.

 

[El Payaso]

I meant in more detail like, why bats, when exactly he decided to fight crime, etc.

1) "They're great survivors."
2) His parents were killed. It's obvious he decided to fight crime back.

YEAH, I SAID IT!

But it was beautiful.

I think Nolan was trying to make the wranglers seem like bat-pocket knives.

Yeah, maybe. Still it was useless in the movie.

 

[Godzilla2014]

1) "They're great survivors."

Yes, because bats are well known for the ability to survive. Everyone knows that in the event of a nuclear war, the only things left alive will be bats, and cockroaches.

2) His parents were killed. It's obvious he decided to fight crime back.

Well no **** Sherlock. The question, I think, is why. There are a lot of people who have had the same experience of their parents being murdered. How often do they become vigilantes? Why is it that Bruce has chosen to be Batman of instead of going to therapy?

Yeah, maybe. Still it was useless in the movie.

No, it wasn't. He bent the barrel of one of the impostor's Mini-14 and used it to grab on to the side of the van. Hardly useless. A useless device would be the lasers and fog machines in the Batcave of The Movie Of Which We Do Not Speak, uhm...Type.

 

[Godzilla2014]

But it was beautiful.

What?

 

[Travesty]

What?

He's saying he thought the glider looked good.

 

[Godzilla2014]

He's saying he thought the glider looked good.

I liked it too.

 

[truth]

Here's my feeling on the matter.

Batman is still the best representation of Batman as a whole. The tone, darkness, story, Keaton, Nicholson just make it a film that is STILL talked about and loved today.

Batman Returns had the right tone but Batman was not in it enough. But the characters of Catwoman and Penguin were AMAZING.

Batman Begins had some REALLY good aspects to it and very strong scenes and I liked the whole back story. But it does get slow in sections and the whole realism thing takes away what I found great about Batman, the imagery and ambiguity of a guy in a bat costume and the strangeness of that.

TDK is not a batman movie and it's not that strong a film. If it weren't for Ledger and Oldman, there is nothing in that film for me. Too preachy, feels too long (i like my long movies that are actually EPIC and well-told stories), and the Bat-voice...dear me.


But I think both directors have their strenghths and weaknesses. I just feel that Burton really understands Batman and even in Returns, whenever you saw Batman he had a very powerful presence.

 

[Fudgie]

Nolan movies > Burton movies

 

[echostation]

agreed completely Akbar illane jaazeybaad ali akbar ilahi