Top 10 ways Burton's Batman > Nolan's Batman

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
http://www.soundonsight.org/10-ways-that-tim-burton-did-batman-better-than-nolan/

10 Ways That Tim Burton Did Batman Better Than Nolan
Posted on August 7, 2014 By Zachary Zagranis Monthly Themes, Top 10 Lists +

It’s time that we get over the Dark Knight Trilogy. Yes The Dark Knight is a great movie. But Batman Begins is just a good movie and The Dark Knight Rises with it’s absurd plot holes and magic orphan vision is like Prometheus with a cape. The fundamental problem with Nolan’s ultra-realism is that it can’t support a man dressed up as a bat. Of all the fantastical comic book heroes, Batman is arguably the most realistic, but at the end of the day he’s a mortal wearing a cape, a mask, and driving around a Batmobile while firing Batarangs.

The two Batman films made by Tim Burton, while far from perfect, at least offer us a world in which Batman isn’t out of place. Christopher Nolan’s versions feel like The Bourne Identity with black motorcycle gear and a pointy helmet. That said, here are 10 ways in which Tim Burton did a better job than Christopher Nolan when directing Batman films.

1. The Costume – Michael Keaton has gone on record as saying that the Batsuit in his first movie was ridiculously uncomfortable and hard to move in. As much as that sucks for Keaton, it was great for us since we got the scariest most menacing Batman look to date. In Nolan’s films, Christian Bale looks like he’s wearing Motocross gear. Is that a Bat-Symbol on Bale’s chest? How can anyone tell since it’s the same color as the rest of the suit, and too small to register.

2. The Car – Burton’s Batmobile is a sleek black beauty with sick fins,and pop-up machine guns. Nolan’s “car” is what happens when an SUV and a tank get drunk, make love, and have a baby. It looks so un-batlike that Christopher Nolan wasn’t even legally allowed to call it the Batmobile. Instead Nolan named it the Tumbler after his favorite social media site.

3. The City – The Gotham City sets in both of Tim Burton’s Batman movies are beautiful stylized landscapes full of Gothic architecture and personality. Tim Burton’s Gotham looks like a twisted fairytale version of a film noir making the city itself another character in the films. Christopher Nolan’s Gotham looks like he just shot the movie in Chicago…oh wait he did.

4. The Music – Danny Elfman’s score for Batman and Batman Returns is up there with the scores for Superman, Jaws, Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Quick, now try humming the score to the Dark Knight! You can’t can you? Hans Zimmer is the king of “feel it while you watch, forget it when you leave” movie music.

5. The Detecting – Batman in the 1989 film has to figure out how the Joker is poisoning the public. He does this through clues, chemical analysis, -and basic detective work. In the Dark Knight, The Worlds Greatest Detective relies too heavily on Lucias Fox to help him out, and when Lucias can’t help, he figures out where the Joker is by simply tapping into every cellphone in the city. Batman or the NSA? You decide.

6. The Voice – Does anything need to be written here? Doesn’t Keaton win just by NOT sounding like he’s actively trying to crap his pants?

7. The Women – In Burton’s corner are the blonde bombshells Kim Basinger and Michelle Pfeiffer. In Nolan’s corner, we have the brunettes, Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Is it horribly sexist to compare these two sets of women by their looks? Absolutely. Is it accurate? Absolutely.

8. The Harvey Dent – Aaron Ekhart is a great actor and he did a great job as Harvey Dent, but not even he beats Billy Dee Williams.

9. The Flying Vehicles – Impractical or not, the Batwing just looks cool. When it flys up in front of the moon, what could be a cheesy moment becomes instead a thrilling moment of cinematic iconography. The “Bat” on the other hand, is basically just an ugly flying Tumbler without a functioning autopilot.
Above: the scene as it was committed to celluloid. Below: The same scene with 50% more kick-ass.

10. The Humor – Tim Burton’s Batman managed to be dark, brooding and funny as hell. Lines like “Never rub another mans rhubarb”, “This town needs an enema!”, and “You weigh a little more than a hundred and eight” are all great comic relief. Christopher Nolan’s movies take themselves too seriously to ever give us anything that rises above “I’m not wearing Hockey Pads”.

The sad fact is that I could list a hundred examples and it wouldn’t do anything to change the minds of Nolan diehards. But there is a small group of us that can see through the critical acclaim and audience worship all the way to the truth: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy may be good, but as an interpretation of the caped crusader, it is sorely lacking.

Oh and Nicholson was a better Joker…there I said it.

I think agree with most of these, except for maybe #8 Harvey Dent...he was kind of just a cameo in the originals that never became Two-Face (in Burton's films).

I even agree that Nicholson was a better Joker!

[/runs and hides]

Thoughts?
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
Stopped reading immediately when reading the title premise.

Just no, not at all. Nolan edified Batman to new levels.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,670
15,256
136
The most annoying part of Nolan's Batman was, as Honest Trailers put it, is Batman's unending battle with throat cancer.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Just two very different takes on the same source. Burton's was much more of a movie adaptation of a comic book. The costumes, the colors, the style, ect. It's just much more true to the comics.

Nolan's is very different take on things and is much more adult in nature. It was sort of the anti comic book and drew in a broader range of movie goers. It was more of a very dark action movie with a comic book character as the lead. It wasn't meant to be a direct rip from the animated pages.

I appreciate both for what they are but they are two very different interpretations.
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
Stopped reading immediately when reading the title premise.

Just no, not at all. Nolan edified Batman to new levels.

Interesting...

I think age would be a pretty significant moderator in opinions on this.

I might go back and add a poll to see if it is.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,162
126
You can't compare the two. Burton's Batman was a comic book brought to life. Nolan's Batman was a "What would it take to make Batman real" take on the character.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
Interesting...

I think age would be a pretty significant moderator in opinions on this.

I might go back and add a poll to see if it is.

I actually did read it all :) But, my feelings are still as strong. Not sure how much age would play into it though. I'm in my mid-late 30s. The one point I appreciated was about Nicholson's joker. That was a great performance, but again really highlights the different take both films had. In Nolan's film the Joker was portrayed as a true sociopath, which to me is a more on point interpretation of what the Joker would actually be like if such a character existed.

I used to read the Batman comics when I was young and even then Batman was portrayed as a very dark and haunted soul who was driven by the traumas of his past. I think Nolan put this across really well in the newer films and I appreciate the attempts at making it somewhat plausible to actually take place in the world we're in.

The Burton films felt really hammy and came off as comedic entertainment to me. They weren't bad, I enjoyed them, but I think Nolan's interpretation is a lot more potent.

I also have a soft spot for Nolan ever since he was robbed of an Academy Award for Inception by the facebook movie. That was epic failure.
 
Last edited:

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Interesting...

I think age would be a pretty significant moderator in opinions on this.

I might go back and add a poll to see if it is.

Meh. That's a terrible way to compare. Historical bias destroys objectivity.

I was 11 years old when I saw Burton's Batman. I thought it was the coolest movie ever. At least until T2 came out two years later. Same thing with people that saw Star Wars when they were younger vs. later in their life. There's just opinions that stick with you longer since they were imprinted at a much more impressionable age.
 

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,501
2,426
136
burton__s_batman_vs__nolan__s_batman_by_mmaview-d5as3is.jpg
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
Meh. That's a terrible way to compare. Historical bias destroys objectivity.

I was 11 years old when I saw Burton's Batman. I thought it was the coolest movie ever. At least until T2 came out two years later. Same thing with people that saw Star Wars when they were younger vs. later in their life. There's just opinions that stick with you longer since they were imprinted at a much more impressionable age.

Exactly. I was about the same age when I saw Burton's Batman, so it probably has more of a hold on me than if I saw Nolan's movies at that age. But barring a time-machine and/or a M.I.B. memory eraser flashy-thing, there's no overcoming it.
 

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,741
456
126
I've recently rewatched Burtons Batman and it hasn't aged well at all. The thought that it could be better than what Nolan and company has done is absolutely preposterous.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I agree that you can't compare the two. One is going more towards the core of the franchise, another is trying to...umm...I don't know.

While both have good features, like Heath Ledger's performance or the better bat-gear, I have to give it to Burton, Keaton, Nicholson, and Prince. The writing was better with Burton's, the acting was better all-around, and the gear was better.

The whole voice thing is just ridiculous. Same with the car. WTF? A black painted ex-military project? Who the fuck made that decision? Let's see - DoF orders a bridge truck, shit-cans it, but *nobody* will ever recognize it and start tracking it backwards? That's a plot hole so big you can drive the tumbler through it.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I've recently rewatched Burtons Batman and it hasn't aged well at all. The thought that it could be better than what Nolan and company has done is absolutely preposterous.

How hasn't it aged well? That's like saying Aliens hasn't aged well.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
I never saw either Batman, but stand a better chance of watching Burton's version. I especially can't stand these new type of franchise movie vehicles, where right out of the gate they're presumptuously selling you on a sequel. Therefore I have been blithely ignoring Hollywood's computer polished movies for over a decade. :)
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Begins was great. One of the best comic book movies ever made.

Dark Knight was OK (and way, WAY overrated). Great casting for the Joker and great performance by Heath Ledger. The story was a mess though. Dent's character arc should have been saved for another movie.

Dark Knight Rises was just stupid.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
The Sunsoft NES game based on Burton's movie was great. Just played through it again about 1 week ago (on a real NES).
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
The comparisons between Burton and Nolan are irrelevant, since Joel Schumacher's two Batman movies were better than both Burton's and Nolan's combined.

Said no one. Ever.

Seriously though, I liked both Burton and Nolan's interpretations. Burton's Gotham looked much darker/cooler, and though Keaton isn't that impressive physically I think he really nailed the dark/disturbed/brooding side of Bruce Wayne. Bale was more of the playboy Bruce Wayne (until the third film, anyway).
 
Last edited:

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
The Burton movies actually felt like Batman movies, very dark. The Nolan ones, you could have replaced Batman with another character and it would have been fine. I'm not saying the Nolan movies are bad, Rises wasn't that great though but as Batman, I feel the Burton ones portrayed Batman better.
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
I think it's "fair" to compare the movies especially with them being somewhat recent. I agree with the author and other posters that Burton's Batmans felt more Batman-y. Yeah, they were less realistic, but they were closer to the source material while still being somewhat believable.