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

[Godzilla2014]

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.

While I think that Burton and Nolan chose to base their films on different eras of Batman comics, I think that I like Nolan's films better.
The realism appeals to me. It works and makes the films stand out from rest of the superhero genre.
The supporting cast are much more developed. In the Burton films, they are unimportant. In the Nolan films, they are. In the Burton films, Gordon rarely does anything important, and Harvey Dent pretty much just makes speeches. Gordon helps Batman stop Ra's al Ghul in BB, and in TDK, Gordon and Dent assist Batman in his war on crime. In the Burton films, Alfred is pretty much just a butler. In the Nolan films, he acts a moral compass for Bruce, and has helped Bruce recover from the depths of despair when he thinks he has failed so that he can keep on going.
I like Bale's Batman voice more than Keaton's. Bale's Batman voice has a rage with a hint of violence, that is a lot more intimidating than Keaton was most of the time.
Bale's Batman generally kicks far more ass than Keaton's ever did. Bale's Batman can move, and move he does. He can break into high-rise office buildings, take out guards, and extract a man in minutes. Keaton's Batman doesn't do anything like that in either film. Bale's Batman can, after having been left to die in his burning mansion, still kick the asses of many League of Shadows ninjas, and then his own mentor Ra's al Ghul. Keaton's Batman, after surviving the crash of the Batwing after the Joker shot it down with a single bullet from a revolver, gets his ass kicked by a single black dude.
Nolan's Batmobile is better too. For once, the Batmobile is a functional vehicle. This Batmobile is very maneuverable, it can turn on a dime. Burton's Batmobile can't turn without a grappling hook.
Heath Ledger's Joker is far scarier and more interesting than Jack Nicholson's Joker ever was. Ledger's Joker can put up a good fight against Bale's Batman. Nicholson's Joker can't even punch Keaton's Batman without hurting his hand, and gets his ass kicked by Keaton's Batman after he has survived a plane crash, and just got his ass kicked by a lone black dude.
In summation, I think that I like Nolan's Batman better. It appeals to me more. I am not saying I hate Burton's films, nor am I calling anyone who likes them nostalgic fools, but I prefer the Nolan films. For me, Michael Keaton is the 1939 Batman, and Christian Bale is the current Batman.

 

[Godzilla2014]

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 never said that Nolan doesn't use anything from Burton. He did bring in a lot of good ones, like the eye makeup, for example. It is only sensible to take influence from good ideas that come before, whether they come from the comics, movies, or the animated series. Nolan used it to help justify the cape as useful for more than just looking dramatic. Nolan was, however, the first to explain it, with the memory cloth, and Bale's Batman uses it a lot more often than Keaton's Batman did. For Burton, the cape glider was a one off ability, for Nolan it was an integral part of the character's costume and abilities.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Unless Batman is a character that's been created to prepare for nuclear war I'd say your comment is completely out of line. And out of fun too.

And yet the point still remains; the movie stated its reasons for "why bats."

Well no **** Sherlock. The question, I think, is why.

Well, Watson. Unless you need a course of reading comprehension, you have the answer in my previous reply.

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?

How many aliens have you known of who need to wear blue spandex? If you haven't then Superman is not possible... unless... this might be fiction... where some things are possible even when they don't happen in the real world on a daily basis.

How many people belted by gamma rays turn into green monsters instead of getting cancer? I mean, seriously... is it really how often it might happen your standard for how much are you going to buy it?

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.

I do not get your references. We do speak about every movie btw. But... grab on to the side of the van...he did that before using the 'claw thing' and when he used it... it was useful for good two seconds according to the movie, not to me. Pretty useless.

What?

It was beautiful.

Nolan movies > Burton movies

Nolan movies < Burton movies

^ whoa, that took me one click.

Nolan movies = Burton movies

^ whoa, that too.

 

[El Payaso]

Nolan used it to help justify the cape as useful for more than just looking dramatic.

Great. Even so, Nolan hikmself justifies Batman as a dramatic effect. So Burton used Batman the way Nolan wanted to do it. Without all the verbal explanation though.

Nolan was, however, the first to explain it, with the memory cloth,

Yes. verbal explanation. Not only takes something out of the surprise factor but it is not always the best way to develope things that can be explained in some other way, or that don't even need a verbal explanation to start with.

and Bale's Batman uses it a lot more often than Keaton's Batman did.

So.................................................?

For Burton, the cape glider was a one off ability, for Nolan it was an integral part of the character's costume and abilities.

Why exactly? Because of how many times it was used? That makes it integral? Because Burton used the cape as a device for Batman to soar many times in Batman 89.

 

[circa81]

Here's my take. Both interpretations diverge from the comics, but, for me, Burton's version works much better. And not because I'm being nostalgic; I didn't really like batman 89 before I saw Begins. After being so very disappointed with Nolan's take, I went back to Burton's, and not only have I grown to love it, it never gets old, I can see it again and again, without it feeling repetitive; how many can say the same thing about Begins?
Burton's take has what Nolan doesn't, subtly. Burton can have Nicholson describe how bad Gotham is with one line, "Decent people shouldn't live here. They'd be happier somewhere else." Nolan needs whole social commentaries to convey the same thing. Compare the dialog with Batman to the Dark Knight, which seams more natural?
People also complain that Burton's Batman underused Keaton and he was overshadowed by the villains. For me, when it comes to Bale, he's the least interesting character in this interpretation, even when he has the most screen time. (well, in Begins.)
I watch Batman 89 for Keaton, who, to me, overshadows Nickleson. Someone said before that Burton underused the supporting cast, while Nolan made it more balanced. To me, there are too many characters on Nolan's Batman movies. The more supporting characters you have, the less time you have to focus on the main characters. Bale, in the Batman movies anyway, just doesn't have the presence that Keaton has, no matter how long each is on screen.
One more thing. I feel Nolan's batman suffers from quantity over quality. It's like Nolan felt making a movie more Batman-like was more important then making a better movie overall. It's like he wanted to fill his version with all the references and Homages he can and making it epic, at the expense of sacrificing what, at least to me, is the most appealing aspect of Batman. I don't watch/read Batman to gawk at how much his cape flows or how much butt he can kick, I watch because his inner struggles and torment are fascinating and endearing. That's why I love Keaton's portrayal, he just oozes character and presence without having to say a word.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I think the mian problem here is that some people are taking the modern age Batman and are inflicting it on other Batman versions. That way Burton and the TV Batman will never match because theyre not suppose to - they represent different eras and different interpretations of the world. Schumacher was going for the Modern Age more

The realism appeals to me. It works and makes the films stand out from rest of the superhero genre.

Of course I love Nolan's movies, but realism is not one of those things. Batman had an imaginative world that was like Dick Tracy's and the supernatural stories of the 80s are my favorite Batman stories. Having said that, I dont condemn the realism of Nolan's movies - it works very well for his world, and as you said, it hasnt been done before. We already had the fantasy take so why do it again. My point is just that I will never say that I prefer realism over immersive and imaginative fantasy world

The supporting cast are much more developed. In the Burton films, they are unimportant. In the Nolan films, they are. In the Burton films, Gordon rarely does anything important, and Harvey Dent pretty much just makes speeches.

And again, thats how it was in the genesis of the Bat world, which Burton's movies represented the most. They went for the darkest era of the character, and that was the first run since Kane said it was modeled after horror movies like Dracula, with Batman being like a vampire or a hantom, fog everywhere and big moon and shadows on the wall etc. It was a Gothic story, focusing on politicians and police would completely ruin that and change the nature. Not to mention Gordon talking to batman would completely destroy that version. Thats why Gordon's role was minimal in the genesis of the Bat world and why, since Burton's Bat world reflected its roots, it was also the same way in Burton's movies. To preserve the mystique and spookiness of the Batman character

And of course, just so no one will get funny ideas, I ADORE the Gordon/Batman relationship in the comics and Nolan's movies. But Im totally against it in Burton's movies for the reasons I just gave

In the Burton films, Alfred is pretty much just a butler. In the Nolan films, he acts a moral compass for Bruce

I disagree. Hes like a grandfather to him as well. Hes the one pushing for a normal life, hes the one talking about Vicky and how dangerous it is what he does and he constantly takes active role in the crime fighting, providing Batman with files, data and even taking part in the action, rerouting penguin's, sabotaging Penguin's speech etc. Certainly not "just a butler"

I like Bale's Batman voice more than Keaton's. Bale's Batman voice has a rage with a hint of violence,

Im not picking either of them because they serve their takes on the character. The ghostly whisper works for the Gothic shadowy Phantom that Keaton is, and the yell works for the anger driven guy set on vengeance that Bale is

that is a lot more intimidating than Keaton was most of the time.

Here I disagree. An image can say a lot more than words, and I think a silhouette just standing there in the shadow looking at you with those insane, glowing like eyes is more chilling than the guy screaming at you that hell beat you up. Especially when that silhouette always seems very calm. Its spooky. But thats my opinion of course

Keaton's Batman doesn't do anything like that in either film.

Because hes no ninja and no agent. Again, hes a Gothic character, not a night agent. As I said, the one and only problem here is that people are trying to apply rules of a different take to all the takes

Keaton's Batman, after surviving the crash of the Batwing after the Joker shot it down with a single bullet from a revolver,

It was an explosive shell, not a bullet

gets his ass kicked by a single black dude.

Yes, and were talking about a guy who just stumbled out out of a plane crush and explosion, and who was so weak and hurt that he even fell in the cathedra

Nolan's Batmobile is better too. For once, the Batmobile is a functional vehicle. This Batmobile is very maneuverable, it can turn on a dime. Burton's Batmobile can't turn without a grappling hook.

Of course it can turn, the hook thing was to make a sudden turn which wouldve been impossible without sliding in such angle and with such speed, as weve seen with Joker's goons' cars

Heath Ledger's Joker is far scarier and more interesting than Jack Nicholson's Joker ever was.

Not that again. I love both but since I was a comic book fan since 1988 and I already loved the Joker character before any movie came out, I prefer the comic book Joker aka Jack's Joker. He was scary too, not in an obvious way. In the comics, kids were walking up to Joker thinking hes a clown. So he looked like a clown, but the scary part was that he wasnt. The whole idea of Joker was to be an opposite of Batman - Batman looks evil but is good, Joker looks good but is evil. Same with personalities. batman is serious and level headed, Joker is always laughing, and having fun and not making sense

Ledger's Joker can put up a good fight against Bale's Batman. Nicholson's Joker can't even punch Keaton's Batman without hurting his hand, and gets his ass kicked by Keaton's Batman after he has survived a plane crash

So? The modern age/O'Neil Joker which Jack portrayed stood no chance with Batman either. You cant blame Joker for being Joker, cmon now.

For me, Michael Keaton is the 1939 Batman, and Christian Bale is the current Batman.

Absolutely

 

[Godzilla2014]

Unless Batman is a character that's been created to prepare for nuclear war I'd say your comment is completely out of line. And out of fun too.

I am a smartass, so sue me.

And yet the point still remains; the movie stated its reasons for "why bats."

Point taken. It may not make the most sense, but it is explained.

Well, Watson. Unless you need a course of reading comprehension, you have the answer in my previous reply.

No need to insult me.

How many aliens have you known of who need to wear blue spandex? If you haven't then Superman is not possible... unless... this might be fiction... where some things are possible even when they don't happen in the real world on a daily basis.
How many people belted by gamma rays turn into green monsters instead of getting cancer? I mean, seriously... is it really how often it might happen your standard for how much are you going to buy it?

I don't know of any aliens or anyone belted by gamma rays. The thing is that deciding to fight crime is an abnormal response to such an event. To me, one of the most interesting aspects about Batman is why he decided to fight crime instead of other methods of dealing with his experiences. If Batman cannot be psychologically examined in such ways, you have neutered the character and ended up with the Batman & Robin incarnation of the character.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think the mian problem here is that some people are taking the modern age Batman and are inflicting it on other Batman versions. That way Burton and the TV Batman will never match because theyre not suppose to - they represent different eras and different interpretations of the world. Schumacher was going for the Modern Age more

Schumacher seems to be emulating the 50s and 60s more to me. Regardless, the camp still sucks.

Of course I love Nolan's movies, but realism is not one of those things. Batman had an imaginative world that was like Dick Tracy's and the supernatural stories of the 80s are my favorite Batman stories. Having said that, I dont condemn the realism of Nolan's movies - it works very well for his world, and as you said, it hasnt been done before. We already had the fantasy take so why do it again. My point is just that I will never say that I prefer realism over immersive and imaginative fantasy world

It's also that, for me, it works. I'm not saying that I wouldn't be interested in seeing the fantasy in another series, but the realism is another option that works.

And again, thats how it was in the genesis of the Bat world, which Burton's movies represented the most. They went for the darkest era of the character, and that was the first run since Kane said it was modeled after horror movies like Dracula, with Batman being like a vampire or a hantom, fog everywhere and big moon and shadows on the wall etc. It was a Gothic story, focusing on politicians and police would completely ruin that and change the nature. Not to mention Gordon talking to batman would completely destroy that version. Thats why Gordon's role was minimal in the genesis of the Bat world and why, since Burton's Bat world reflected its roots, it was also the same way in Burton's movies. To preserve the mystique and spookiness of the Batman character

I am talking about my opinion of it as a viewer. I just didn't find that incarnation of the supporting cast very interesting.

And of course, just so no one will get funny ideas, I ADORE the Gordon/Batman relationship in the comics and Nolan's movies. But Im totally against it in Burton's movies for the reasons I just gave

I understand that, but I am saying is that I prefer their relationship in the Nolan films. It's my opinion.

disagree. Hes like a grandfather to him as well. Hes the one pushing for a normal life, hes the one talking about Vicky and how dangerous it is what he does and he constantly takes active role in the crime fighting, providing Batman with files, data and even taking part in the action, rerouting penguin's, sabotaging Penguin's speech etc. Certainly not "just a butler"

True, but I was mostly referring to the fact that in the Nolan films, Alfred feels a lot more important.
Don't get me, I recognize the character moments you mentioned, (you forgot his line in BATMAN in which he says, "I have no desire to spend my few remaining years grieving the loss of old friends...or their sons.") but most of the time he isn't doing these things.

Im not picking either of them because they serve their takes on the character. The ghostly whisper works for the Gothic shadowy Phantom that Keaton is, and the yell works for the anger driven guy set on vengeance that Bale is

To me, if I were, for example, being interrogated by these Batmen, I would probably be more frightened by Bale's voice. That said I think you are right that they work for each interpretation, but I certainly think Bale's Batman voice is under-appreciated.

Here I disagree. An image can say a lot more than words, and I think a silhouette just standing there in the shadow looking at you with those insane, glowing like eyes is more chilling than the guy screaming at you that hell beat you up. Especially when that silhouette always seems very calm. Its spooky. But thats my opinion of course

Who's to say that Bale couldn't do the eyes?

Because hes no ninja and no agent. Again, hes a Gothic character, not a night agent. As I said, the one and only problem here is that people are trying to apply rules of a different take to all the takes

My point is that Keaton's Batman never had to do anything so badass. Plus, I never believed in the way Keaton fought as Batman, taking on one thug at a time.

It was an explosive shell, not a bullet

Point taken.

Yes, and were talking about a guy who just stumbled out out of a plane crush and explosion, and who was so weak and hurt that he even fell in the cathedra

Yes, and your point? I just said that in the post.

Of course it can turn, the hook thing was to make a sudden turn which wouldve been impossible without sliding in such angle and with such speed, as weve seen with Joker's goons' cars

Nolan's Batmobile could possibly do it. It is still the more maneuverable car though. It also doesn't need a ramp thing to make a 180 degree turn.

Not that again. I love both but since I was a comic book fan since 1988 and I already loved the Joker character before any movie came out, I prefer the comic book Joker aka Jack's Joker. He was scary too, not in an obvious way. In the comics, kids were walking up to Joker thinking hes a clown. So he looked like a clown, but the scary part was that he wasnt. The whole idea of Joker was to be an opposite of Batman - Batman looks evil but is good, Joker looks good but is evil. Same with personalities. batman is serious and level headed, Joker is always laughing, and having fun and not making sense

I agree that the Joker is the antithesis of Batman. TDK captured that wonderfully. That said if there had been a scene in BATMAN like the one you described that would be scary but it's not in the movie.

So? The modern age/O'Neil Joker which Jack portrayed stood no chance with Batman either. You cant blame Joker for being Joker, cmon now.

And I prefer Ledger's Joker. They're both drawn from the comics, but I like the Ledger Joker better. He is scarier to me, and he puts up a fight. Sure of the comics show him as having no chance against Batman, but that is kind of a disappointing climax when it's that much of a curb stomp even when Batman has a handicap of that magnitude. It just isn't too interesting when Joker gets steamrolled by Batman after he just had trouble with a single black dude. Just my opinion.

By the way what is this panel from?

Absolutely

Glad to see we agree on some things.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Yes, and your point? I just said that in the post.

It sounded as if you blamed Batman for having trouble taking this guy out, wihtout takin into consideration that he was barely standing after the crash

Who's to say that Bale couldn't do the eyes?

He can but he can do angry, evil look, but not the insane look that Keaton did. nevertheless, my point was that by just standing in the dark and looking is more intimidating than an angry person yelling. Actually theyre both intimidating but in very different ways.

By the way what is this panel from?

The Last Arkham

 

[Mister Meddle]

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

In a weird way, it's the same reason Peter Parker becomes Spider-man.... because he has the characteristics of a spider. The same applies to Batman in the Burton-world. Sure he has no "super powers" however he has the characteristics of a bat. He sleeps upside down (also a reference to his past training. It is sometimes used in kung fu to allow blood to flow to the brain minus the sleeping part.), sits patiently in a large, large dark den as if he has no life just waiting for the signal as if putting the suit on is his only purpose in life. It's much more than a symbol in these movies. It's his comfort level and when it all adds up it's as if he's like a bat. Sure it sounds crazy/unusual for a man to have those characteristics and even to wear a Batsuit on a nightly basis to fight crime but that's the point.... Bruce Wayne isn't "normal" in the head. It's kind of like what Alexander Knox said to Vickie Vale when he showed her the newspaper that covered the murder of Bruce's parents, "what do you suppose something like this could do to a boy?".

EDIT: A big thumbs up to El Payaso and jamesCameron. Love the articles on your Batman website. It's hard to find Batman historians nowadays.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Thanks Mister!

 

[Ponyboy]

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.

I agree with you, but the other side of that is you have people (in this current generation who feel opposite). I also know guys that are my age (in their 30s) that love the Keaton Batman films, but now prefer the Nolan ones. So its a mixed bag, really. I still prefer Batman & Batman Returns... i can own up to the fact that its probably nostalgic to some degree, but I def still prefer Keaton's portrayal of Batman. I also like Tim Burton's "weird" take and feel to the two movies he did as opposed to Nolan's "realism"... You're always going to have opposing forces when it comes to these flicks. I like Nolan;s take on the villains more than his Bale/Batman. I'm almost left to wondering if Nolan has just let Bale have "free reign" over his performance as Batman. Frankly I get the notion that Bale is bored as the character. Maybe he's concentrating too much on nailing the accent, I dunno.

 

[truth]

Yeah. Especially after his oscar now, he will be getting better scripts and offers and won't be too bothered about Batman anymore.

I would love for Keaton to be brought back

 

[Mister Meddle]

Yeah. Especially after his oscar now, he will be getting better scripts and offers and won't be too bothered about Batman anymore.

I would love for Keaton to be brought back

That would be ideal but I can only see that happening if they make a TDK Returns or Batman Beyond film.

 

[Ponyboy]

Yeah. Especially after his oscar now, he will be getting better scripts and offers and won't be too bothered about Batman anymore.

I would love for Keaton to be brought back

A lot of Oscar winners are in terrible films. I think Bale has been popular despite his Oscar success. Although an Oscar may give him some form of new clout (ie. he may direct a movie in the future)... Anyway, I digress, I think Bale's intention was to do 3 Bat-flicks with Nolan and that is it. I don't imagine he's interested in continuing. Unless WB really wants him to, and he's really enjoying the character. Which, judging from his performances in the films, he isn't.

 

[Godzilla2014]

It sounded as if you blamed Batman for having trouble taking this guy out, wihtout takin into consideration that he was barely standing after the crash

Once again, I said something to the tune of, "after surviving the crash of the Batwing, Keaton's Batman struggles with a lone black dude." I did take the crash into consideration.

He can but he can do angry, evil look, but not the insane look that Keaton did. nevertheless, my point was that by just standing in the dark and looking is more intimidating than an angry person yelling. Actually theyre both intimidating but in very different ways.

True about both being intimidating in very different ways. Keaton's Batman does feel a lot more limited in what he can do in general, because of the primitive inflexible Batsuit, but I think Burton & Keaton excelled at working with they had. Burton kept Batman from being in too many situations in which that inflexibility came to hinder Batman. Keaton's Batman intimidates with his eyes, his voice, and his phantom-like spookiness.
When Christopher Nolan came along for BATMAN BEGINS, though, he specifically wanted the Batsuit be more flexible, especially in the legs, so that Batman could crouch, for example. Then it was redesigned and overhauled in THE DARK KNIGHT. Flexibility is a lot better now, and BB & TDK's action sequences made a point of showing this. Bale's Batman can move like no Batman before him. He can now take on multiple thugs at once and take them down fast, like would probably be required in the real world.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Bale's Batman can move like no Batman before him.

Not only that. he can also do all those signature comic batman poses

 

[Godzilla2014]

Not only that. he can also do all those signature comic batman poses

Exactly.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Here's my take.

I like Batman Returns just as much as TDK, but like BB more than B89. So, they're about equal.

 

[Smalley]

Here's my take.

I like Batman Returns just as much as TDK, but like BB more than B89. So, they're about equal.

I like Returns better than TDK & Begins, but like Nolan's much better than '89 (mediocre movie), so I guess they're about tied for me still...

 

[Klidokrator]

I believe that every interpretation has it's strong and weak points (like every movie in this world). Now, in my mind, i think that the Nolan films are better in almost every way BUT Tim Burton films are more spectacular as a visual expririence (The art direction, the costumes, the make up effect and the fairy-tale kinda atmosphere) as well as the music (hands down for me the greatest Batman scores along with Walkers Batman TAS). But as i said the Nolan films have there core grounded in drama and thats the reason that they are better. Because you care for the characters and the story (A thing that wasn't always the case in the Burton films.)

 

[Godzilla2014]

I believe that every interpretation has it's strong and weak points (like every movie in this world). Now, in my mind, i think that the Nolan films are better in almost every way BUT Tim Burton films are more spectacular as a visual expririence (The art direction, the costumes, the make up effect and the fairy-tale kinda atmosphere) as well as the music (hands down for me the greatest Batman scores along with Walkers Batman TAS). But as i said the Nolan films have there core grounded in drama and thats the reason that they are better. Because you care for the characters and the story (A thing that wasn't always the case in the Burton films.)

Though I like the scores equally, I agree with you.

 

[Klidokrator]

Though I like the scores equally, I agree with you.

I can't be subjective with the scores to be exact, because every childhood memory i got from Batman had the Elfman theme-approach in it. But i can tell one think. Thank God that Nolan, Zimmer and Howard took a different approach to the music for the new films because their musical pallette fits Nolan's world PERFECTLY.

 

[Godzilla2014]

What do you think would happen if Christian Bale's Batman met Michael Keaton's Batman? What would they think of each other? Would they be friends or enemies?

 

[GothamAlleys]

Interesting question. Bale's would think Keaton is crazy, which he is, and Keaton would probably just look at him and disappear. They wouldnt be enemies since they both fight crimes, but surely wouldnt be friends either since Keaton's is a loner