Actually, B89 and Returns are serious movies, and were looked at as such. Do you remember the tone and peoples thoughts of what B89 looked like, in retrospect to the old Batman TV series? People were shocked, intrigued, and fascinated at the very thought of a serious Batman movie, and B89 WAS a serious Batman movie. B89 and Begins were just as serious, it's not my fault that Nolan has a different style then Burton. That's like saying every comicbook shouldn't be taken seriously, because it's kids drawings and should be in the "funny paper". Style is style, and B89 is just as serious as Begins, or even TDK, for that matter.
Wait. Being a serious movie and being more serious than the TV series or having been commented as serious (by comparisomn) are two differeent things. In Burton’s words (from the Batman89 dvd commentary) he intended a “semi-serious” tone. And that you can tell. But if you compare both B89/BR and BB/TDK it is clear which franchise aspired to be serious and realistic (this last term being an aspect I mentioned in my post that you decided to ignore).
Sure, for 1989 ‘Batman’ was amazingly serious but that’s because the only referents to compare it to were the TV series and the Superman franchise. But B89/BR had enough fantasy elements that Burton simply didn't care to explain or make too believable. It's not like Batman was a comedy but it wasn't as serious/realistic as TDK by a long shot.
As comic books, movies are supposed to be taken seriously not because they’re about fantastic characters but because of the tone of the story and the way they portray them and the story. We’re supposed to believe that a bath of acid gets you looking like a clown, selectively bleaching your skin white and your hair green. That doesn’t work in Nolan’s franchise so they made changes to make it more serious and realistic (and please “more” means “more” not “completely”
. Big difference.
El Payaso, I swear, bro, you do this to me EVERY time. You will quote me out of context, and then act as if that wasn't what I was getting at. When I said he felt "lackluster", I meant the way Joker was portrayed in the movie. YES, Heath did a GREAT job playing a villain, it's just that villain, didn't feel like the Joker to me. You should have understood that, but instead of quoting my entire sentence, you broke it up in bits, and commented without the full meaning/understanding. Please, stop doing that. I don't mind you commenting on certain things I say, but stop quoting me out of context. That's cheap tactics, bro.
Then I’d have to ask you to stop ignoring things. Like the fact that I did refer to 'the way the Joker was portrayed in the movie.'
It was anything but lackluster. And if you personally didn’t feel it like the Joker then the word you should use is not ‘lackluster’ because that’s not accurate. And in order to tell you that, I have to include some actual definitions of the word, see?
No, I actually LOVE Chicago. It's a great town, and I always have fun there. It's not that it's ugly, but it doesn't feel, act , or look like a Gotham City to me. See, in Begins, they shot scenes in Chicago, but it felt like Gotham. In TDK, the shot scenes in Chicago, and it felt like Chicago.
Then again, the word “horrible” doesn’t describe that. One reads horrible and thinks “Well, it looked as a cool modern city not horrible at all.”
Yes, BB’s Gotham is one of the aspects I'd have kept. It's not like TDK's Gotham ahs anything really wrong but BB's Gotham had a darker atmosphere.
You're right, they weren't needed, but when Gotham doesn't feel like Gotham, Batman's working in well lit, almost broad daylight situations, then yeah, some things are needed to give me a vibe that this is a Batman movie. Again, I like TDK, it's a great movie, but it s a horrible Batman movie.
I must have missed the scene where Batman goes out in daylight. Hong Kong scene (specially when he’s fighting) or the club scene were quite dark. Everything around Batman was dark except the interrogation scene.
Yeah, and I also know what writer and director chose to make a movie that was literally set a few months after the events of Begins. They didn't have to write a movie that was set so soon after what took place. They could have made TDK based around 2-3 years after what happened in Begins, with a all new Manor and cave, etc. They chose not to, and stripped away other aspects to what makes Batman Batman.
Absurd. We see Joker is already killing at the end of BB. It’d be nonsensical to pretend that 2-3 years after that Joker has done nothing relevant. Or worse, that he has but we didn’t get to see it because the director decided to make a leap in time.
But if you feel that Wayne Manor is essential then you’ll have to agree that destroying it is one of the worst ideas ever. I admit and acknowledge the symbolic perpective of it, but once you burnt it up, no matter if Bruce can re-build it it will NEVER be what the Wayne Manor is supposed to be in comics and in Batman’s history: the house of his parents, the site where his family traditions and ghosts live. Because what made Wayne Manor that is the story caught between its walls, all the big and little things that were bought and collected throughout years by several Waynes generations. And that’s irremediably gone once it is destroyed.
And the destruiction of Wayne Manor led to the lack of a Batcave.
And that’s why it was such a bad idea.
And once the damage was done then it’d be absurd to have the seuqel places 2-3 years after the first movie only to pretend that ‘nothing happened, the house is like it was never destroyed.’
So once the damage was done by a bad idea in BB Nolan did quite good without those elements.
It would be like making another Star Wars with Darth Vader in it, only, this version of Vader wont have the breathing machine, he wont be in the Death Star, he wont mention the force, he wont use the light saber, and wont use any force powers. Oh, and he'll also whine the entire movie, about how he doesn't want to be Vader, and stop being who he is, because he's in love with a girl. How great does Darth Vader sound now?
Mh, quite a bad example. There was nothing un-Batman about Batman himself. Cape, cowl, belt and such were the same. So it’s nothing like Vader dressed in white or any of the like.
And Batman has a tradition of trying to quit his mission for love. Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Returns etc.
For the same reasons I can say I found un-Batman to have a childhood lady friend lecturing Bruce about revenge, justice and such, showing him the way to be something else when Bruce Wayne is supposed to make those decisions and realising about those things by himself.
Yea man, I don't wanna row with you. 
