15 reasons Burton's Batman was better than Nolan's.

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

15 reasons

Your thoughts? I don't agree with all of this, but it brings up a lot of good points. The more I watch Nolan's version, the more I dislike it.

Things that really bother me:

Christian Bale as Batman doesn't look right and his voice is TERRIBLE. Also the mask is terrible.

The tumbler is cool... but its not as good as Burtons version.

I really don't like the zoomed in/cut/blurry action and fight scenes.

TDKR was too full of distracting holes.

#2 Posted by ULTRAstarkiller (6504 posts) - - Show Bio

Lol wow just wow

#3 Posted by SmashBrawler (5978 posts) - - Show Bio

I wasn't really reading this thing but the moment I read "Boring Bruce Wayne Scenes", that right there is where I stopped caring altogether.

#4 Posted by RDClip (1167 posts) - - Show Bio

@weaponx: Can't say I disagree with the article, but there are gonna be many that do. Since TDK trilogy came out, its been the cool thing to bash Burton's Batman.

The 1989 Batman is my favourite Batman movie by far. It is sleek, cool, fun, and has that sense of over-the-top heroics that make superheroes great. It's not set in the real world because in a real world, if Bruce told Alfred we was going to dress in a bat suit and beat up criminals, Alfred would have called the people from Arkham hospital for the mentally ill to pick up Brucey.

The Nolan movies are supposed to be ultra realistic, but when you really think about them, the cracks really start to show. They may have tried to make the world look real, but whole plot points have to be ignored to retain that atmosphere.

Batman's oath of not killing becomes a farce when you consider how irresponsible he was with other people's bodies. By all rights, at least a few of the cops in both the car chase in BB and the swat fight in TDK should have been seriously injured and may have even died from them. At least three people are killed by Batman directly: R'as, Harvey and Talia. Why did they even bother to try to make the no kill rule such a big deal, if Batman ended up offing villian after villian?

Hans Zimmer sucks at writing superhero scores. John Williams set the bar with 1978's Superman. A big heroic theme that will give the audience a great feeling because it was so heroic and hopeful. But the most important thing about it was that it was memorable. Sure, it was a fairly complex piece, but at its heart was a simple tune that anyone can sing to themselves, that's why John Williams is the greatest film composer of all time. Danny Elfman copied that style when making the score for Batman, it was very easy to remember then sing the theme to oneself. Hans Zimmer's themes don't have that at-heart simplicity at makes the earlier themes so memorable.

#5 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (12606 posts) - - Show Bio

What a culture is infamous for their hate to Nolan, Hate prety much everything, being biased to Marvel, being biased to Joss Whedon, being biased to JJ Abrams(Being biased to a point they just simply dont notice anything bad or negative about it), being the hate club, hate MoS, Hate this and hate that and pretty much nostalgia crap all over the place.

Dude is like put all the worst guys of Cracked on one website and they became Whatculture.

Also stop this Nolan Hate, this is because he is popular if i hate him that means i am special.

Special people is special for not following this type of dumb ideas.

I mean people that hates Inception fails to understand is a movie about making movies.

I hate Nolan and praise Marvel, i am such a Hipster!!!

Also Tim Burton job with Batman was just plain terrible, we have talk about this several times.

The guy did the same with Planet of the Apes and show he is obssesed with making all his movies a crappy failed remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

#6 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (8092 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like Nolan's Batman, and Burton's ain't that great either. So get over it.

Nolan's is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay overrated though.

=P.

#7 Posted by Kraya (203 posts) - - Show Bio

I can't really agree with that article.

One version is less realistic, probably more fun with more style than practicability and closer to the comic book version (like for example how the Nicholson joker killed people), while the other is a more realistic, gritty aproach. They are just too different to be compared. Which one is "the better one" is, in my opinion, simply a matter of taste.

I actually prefer the Nolan version. Maybe it's because I like to imagine Batman in the real world. And let's face it, Keaton's Batman costume, for example, would never work in real life. He could barely move in it and Batman is supposed to be an agile martial arts specialist. I also don't like how utterly useless Gordon used to be in the Burton and Schumacher versions. I wouldn't have noticed the difference had Gordon not been in those movies at all.

But I won't act as if the Nolan movies were perfect. I, too, didn't like Bale's "Batman voice", the plotholes in TDKR (although I did like Anne Hathaway's Catwoman and keep thinking of the movie as okay), and that whole Rachel Dawes character. Batman Begins felt too drawn out - it took forever for something to happen. Sooo, both Batman universes have their flaws, but I enjoy them for what they are: different representations with different emphases.

#8 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6366 posts) - - Show Bio

Although I like the Burton films, I disagree with every point made in this article. I find the whole article to be incredibly biased and nearly every point could be swapped as a point to say that Nolan's films were better than Burton's.

First of all, the old costume looks cheesy as hell, I have no idea what the **** those nostalgia pumped idiots are thinking. They say Nolan's suit looks rubbery and Burton's doesn't? What the ****! That's so ridiculous I'm not even going to argue with it. Then they say Schumacher's bat-nipple suit was better?!? These are some complete ***holes. I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan's mask, but it is billions and billions of times better than Schumacher's total failure.

Then they go on to say that The Dark Knight didn't have action. Screw you, moving on.

Their third point is that Nolan's casting was terrible. Ummmmmm.... Did they even see the Nolan films? Did they see Ledger's Joker, which is infinitely better than Nicholson's? Did they see Gary Oldman's Gordon, Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent, or Christian Bale's Batman, all of which are far better than Burton's counterparts? I'm not saying Burton's cast were bad, in fact they were great, but they were not as good as Nolan's, at least in my opinion. They then say Eckhart's Dent was better than Ledger's Joker, which is just hilarious. They really need to watch these films before they write about them.

The next point, regarding the Batcave, makes a little sense, but still uses an incredibly biased description.

As for point #11, I personally prefer Batman's introduction in Batman Begins, but I have heard it argued the other way by reasonable people, so I'll leave this point alone.

The next part is just idiotic. CHARACTER DEVELOPEMENTZ AND SYMBOLIZM IZ BAURING, ME WANT MAUR EXPOLZIONZ AND SCHUMACHER BAT-NIPPLEZ!!!!

I just love how they compare Batman Begins background music (which is meant to add suspense to a scene while blending into the background, unnoticeable) to Burton's theme song (which is supposed to be as noticeable as possible and stay in your head). This is just dumb.

The next point gets me most enraged of all- That Burton's Joker was better than Ledger's. WHAT THE ****!?!?!?!?!? You total annoying idiot, what is your problem? LEDGERZ JOKER SUCKZ CUZ IT WAZ TO DARK!!!!!! I WANT JOKER TO BE LIKE BURTONZ, CUZ THAT ONE WAS IN BURTONZ MOVIEZ!!! These people obviously don't give a single crap about one of the best written characters in movies, because it was to dark. Who cares about that amazing dialougue, I didn't like it because it was to dark. In fact, I didn't like the whole Nolan trilogy because it was to good. LOGIC 4 THE WINZ!!!

Also, The Tumbler was awesome. It was a different adaptation, but it worked. It looked awesome and was a nice addition to the film. This article is just becoming pathetic.

The next point is the same exact thing, but using the batwing, so I repeat what I wrote last time.

I prefer Bale to Keaton. It's my opinion, though I know others think differently. I thought he could tone down his voice a bit, but otherwise I really liked it. Them calling it a no-contest, however, is incredibly biased, just like every other word written in this article.

I somewhat understand what they mean in point 4, as all three Nolan endings were a little lengthy, but it is presented in a incredibly biased way, calling Nolan's endings dull and silly, while calling Burton's ending excellent. Biased as ****.

I liked Nolan's portrayal of Gotham. It was much more like what a real Gotham would be. It was a dirty, crime ridden hell hole. Oh, wait. That's what they call Burton's. My mistake, I thought I was reading a reasonable article for a moment. My bad. They call Burton's "perfect" and Nolan's "clinical in a bad way" and "boring."

The writer of this article then calls awesome scenes of Nolan's (such as the interrogation scene, which was FRICKIN' AMAZING) unintentionally funny. What a load of garbage.

The final point is just as stupid as the rest: NOLANZ WAZ TO REALIZTIK!!!! WAHHHH!!!! I HAVE TO MUCH REALIZTIK STUFF IN REAL LIFE, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE IN BATMAN!!!! WAHHHHH!!!

I get that you didn't write this incredibly biased load of ****, weaponx, but keep it off Comic Vine. That amount of pure ignorance hurt my eyes.

#9 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (12606 posts) - - Show Bio

Although I like the Burton films, I disagree with every point made in this article. I find the whole article to be incredibly biased and nearly every point could be swapped as a point to say that Nolan's films were better than Burton's.

First of all, the old costume looks cheesy as hell, I have no idea what the **** those nostalgia pumped idiots are thinking. They say Nolan's suit looks rubbery and Burton's doesn't? What the ****! That's so ridiculous I'm not even going to argue with it. Then they say Schumacher's bat-nipple suit was better?!? These are some complete ***holes. I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan's mask, but it is billions and billions of times better than Schumacher's total failure.

Then they go on to say that The Dark Knight didn't have action. Screw you, moving on.

Their third point is that Nolan's casting was terrible. Ummmmmm.... Did they even see the Nolan films? Did they see Ledger's Joker, which is infinitely better than Nicholson's? Did they see Gary Oldman's Gordon, Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent, or Christian Bale's Batman, all of which are far better than Burton's counterparts? I'm not saying Burton's cast were bad, in fact they were great, but they were not as good as Nolan's, at least in my opinion. They then say Eckhart's Dent was better than Ledger's Joker, which is just hilarious. They really need to watch these films before they write about them.

The next point, regarding the Batcave, makes a little sense, but still uses an incredibly biased description.

As for point #11, I personally prefer Batman's introduction in Batman Begins, but I have heard it argued the other way by reasonable people, so I'll leave this point alone.

The next part is just idiotic. CHARACTER DEVELOPEMENTZ AND SYMBOLIZM IZ BAURING, ME WANT MAUR EXPOLZIONZ AND SCHUMACHER BAT-NIPPLEZ!!!!

I just love how they compare Batman Begins background music (which is meant to add suspense to a scene while blending into the background, unnoticeable) to Burton's theme song (which is supposed to be as noticeable as possible and stay in your head). This is just dumb.

The next point gets me most enraged of all- That Burton's Joker was better than Ledger's. WHAT THE ****!?!?!?!?!? You total annoying idiot, what is your problem? LEDGERZ JOKER SUCKZ CUZ IT WAZ TO DARK!!!!!! I WANT JOKER TO BE LIKE BURTONZ, CUZ THAT ONE WAS IN BURTONZ MOVIEZ!!! These people obviously don't give a single crap about one of the best written characters in movies, because it was to dark. Who cares about that amazing dialougue, I didn't like it because it was to dark. In fact, I didn't like the whole Nolan trilogy because it was to good. LOGIC 4 THE WINZ!!!

Also, The Tumbler was awesome. It was a different adaptation, but it worked. It looked awesome and was a nice addition to the film. This article is just becoming pathetic.

The next point is the same exact thing, but using the batwing, so I repeat what I wrote last time.

I prefer Bale to Keaton. It's my opinion, though I know others think differently. I thought he could tone down his voice a bit, but otherwise I really liked it. Them calling it a no-contest, however, is incredibly biased, just like every other word written in this article.

I somewhat understand what they mean in point 4, as all three Nolan endings were a little lengthy, but it is presented in a incredibly biased way, calling Nolan's endings dull and silly, while calling Burton's ending excellent. Biased as ****.

I liked Nolan's portrayal of Gotham. It was much more like what a real Gotham would be. It was a dirty, crime ridden hell hole. Oh, wait. That's what they call Burton's. My mistake, I thought I was reading a reasonable article for a moment. My bad. They call Burton's "perfect" and Nolan's "clinical in a bad way" and "boring."

The writer of this article then calls awesome scenes of Nolan's (such as the interrogation scene, which was FRICKIN' AMAZING) unintentionally funny. What a load of garbage.

The final point is just as stupid as the rest: NOLANZ WAZ TO REALIZTIK!!!! WAHHHH!!!! I HAVE TO MUCH REALIZTIK STUFF IN REAL LIFE, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE IN BATMAN!!!! WAHHHHH!!!

I get that you didn't write this incredibly biased load of ****, weaponx, but keep it off Comic Vine. That amount of pure ignorance hurt my eyes.

Burtonites!!!

Fail to notice, TDK did more money, got better reviews, sold more DVDs, sold more tickets and Ledger won an Oscar by being in it.

#10 Posted by Perethorn (3802 posts) - - Show Bio

Altough i agree in some things of the article, i find rather unfair to compare one movie to three. Why they dont make the same list but adding Returns and Forever and see if Burton movies are better?.

#11 Edited by KraytRawk (628 posts) - - Show Bio

I was politely disagreeing with article until i read "Aaron Eckhart was the real star of TDK, and not Heath Ledger." HA hA ha ho he ha . . . and i thought my jokes were bad.

#12 Posted by russellmania77 (15845 posts) - - Show Bio

A big burton wanker made that article, I like the Nolan costume so much more than the fat guy in a rubber suit that can't turn his head. Than it said joker wasn't good, all I gotta say is Nolan + Heath = Joker, burton + Nicholson = joker/joe chill. I'm not gonna lie, burton did a good job an all but Nolan is a lot better IMO

Online
#13 Posted by Onemoreposter (4101 posts) - - Show Bio

Pretty typical Burton fanboy rant. Both series' has there faults. Nolan got caught up in his (completely unrealistic) "real world" crap and Burton got caught up in his over the top "gothyness."

Both directors however made two solid Batman films and for that, I'm grateful.

#14 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@weaponx said:

15 reasons

Your thoughts? I don't agree with all of this, but it brings up a lot of good points. The more I watch Nolan's version, the more I dislike it.

Things that really bother me:

Christian Bale as Batman doesn't look right and his voice is TERRIBLE. Also the mask is terrible.

The tumbler is cool... but its not as good as Burtons version.

I really don't like the zoomed in/cut/blurry action and fight scenes.

TDKR was too full of distracting holes.

Also,he sucked at fighting...

#15 Posted by dcdyno (130 posts) - - Show Bio

RulerOfThisUniverse

you made a few god point but you imagined a lot and burton's didn't have nipples

only thing wrong with the burton films was that they were too 80's

#16 Edited by batmannflash (6226 posts) - - Show Bio

These are his reasons why Burton's are better. They could honestly go both ways. All opinions. Not hating against Burton. I actually do like Burton's Batman movies. But Nolan's are better.

15. The Suit. I liked the suit in Nolan's much better.

14. The Action. I liked the action better in Nolan's. Burton's didn't even have that much action. In Nolan's, I loved the awesome introduction of Batman against the thugs in Batman Begins, kidnapping Lau and fighting the SWAT in TDK, and the fights with Bane in TDKR.

13. The Cast. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Cilian Murphy, Michael Caine. C'mon!

12. The Batcave. This one I agree on. Nolan's Batcave was empty and didn't really have anything. Burton's Batcave was exactly how I always picture it. With the big computers and the statues and so on.

11. Introducing Batman. I mentioned this one earlier. I loved Batman's intro. He was hiding in the shadows and was totally frightening to the thugs.

10. Boring Bruce Wayne scenes. Nawh it is awesome seeing Bruce train to become Batman. We don't see that at all with Keaton's. He just appears as Batman and we don't see him actually become Batman. Bale was a great Bruce.

9. Theme Tune. This is debatable. I love both Zimmer's and Elfman's music. I would ultimately go with Elfman's theme. Love it.

8. A More Fun Joker. I do understand that Nicholson's Joker was more fun. Obviously. Ledger's was really serious. But Ledger's Joker was better. He was more threatening and had to be taken more seriously. He was smarter and more of a psycho.

7. Batmobile. Burton's Batmobile was cooler, for me.

6. The Batwing. Again, I liked Burton's Batwing better. Maybe because the Batmobile and Batwing were more similar to BTAS'.

5. Bale vs Keaton. Bale is a better actor. A more fitting Bruce and an infinitely tougher/smarter Batman.

4. Final Fights. I don't agree that the fights in Nolan's were dull. I really liked them. I also liked Burton's with the Joker. And for the record, Batman Returns didn't really have a final fight. Giving this one to Nolan.

3. Gotham City. Burton wins here. Gotham was great

2. Why So Serious? Nolan's was dark and serious. Although I do agree that it could have lightened up a little bit, it's okay. Batman comics are dark and pretty unsettling. Burton's Batman films, especially Batman Returns, was too fantasy and wasn't really realistic. Too "Burton-ish"

1. Escapism. I don't know. I related more with Nolan's characters and was more consumed into his little world. Giving this one to Nolan. I do love Burton's though.

10-5 Nolan.

#17 Edited by batmannflash (6226 posts) - - Show Bio

Not a stab at Burton's. I liked Batman Returns especially. Catwoman, and the whole Christmas classic Burton feel was awesome. But I thought Burton didn't even care to focus on Bruce. You don't see him that much even though it's his movie. The designs of the vehicles and the Batcave in Burton were amazing for me. But Nolan's are better.

#18 Posted by RustyRoy (14005 posts) - - Show Bio

I loved Batman (1989) and Batman Returns but Batman Begins and TDK are still the best CBMs ever and Bale was the best Batman/Bruce Wayne combo. I didn't read the full article but I saw the 15 reasons they made and Nolan's Batman wins in all of those categories. Burton's Batman was great and so was Nolan's, we don't have to compare these two, The first commenter's post was actually better than the article :

I can use the same article and rewrite the article name to “15 reasons Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight is better than Tim Burton’s Batman” and it would make more sense than it does now.

#19 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, no.

#20 Posted by TDK_1997 (15097 posts) - - Show Bio

When I was little I completely loved Batman(1989) and thought it was great but I disagree with every single thing in that article.

#21 Posted by neale7 (125 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with over half of the points. I still rate the Burton films above the Nolan films. That’s my opinion, and it’s neither right nor wrong, because it’s an opinion. ‘89 and Returns’ had the suit, vehicles, gadgets, gloomy ness, I agree with the escape from the real world, also Keaton as batman. Though both Bale and Keaton had pro's and cons as both Batman and Bruce Wayne, Keaton just takes it for me. The cast of the Nolan films takes it, but only just though. The Burton films have a fantastic cast too.

The fight scenes are pretty rubbish in the Nolan films, not to say that they are much better in Burtons, but you can see actually see Batman fight.

Nolan’s have great stories, and the way the characters interact with each other as the story evolves is great. There are some fantastic cinematic pieces throughout the Nolan trilogy that are brilliant. The final 30mins of TDKR I was on the edge of my seat for the big confrontation and when Batman was tracking the bomb in "The Bat". Saying that, I still love the Batman 89 batwing scene with the balloons. I still move with the batwing as Batman just manages to steer it past the cathedral.

Nolan uses more references to comics, which is always thumbs up.

I’m on the fence about Heath and Jack, like them both. I wish Two-Face had more time; he deserved more development once he’d turned to the dark side.

I don’t really see Bane as a glorified henchman. Henchmen aren’t really that smart. I like to think he came up with the bulk of the plan, and it was his planning and execution that made it possible for Talia to go unnoticed.

As for plot holes, every film has plot holes. It doesn’t really matter.

Just Enjoy!

#22 Posted by Dernman (15808 posts) - - Show Bio

That article is a joke.

#23 Edited by Z3RO180 (6718 posts) - - Show Bio

Out of nostalgia I will not re watch The Burton Batman in case I hate it. I tryed to to watch it last year but turned it off five minutes into the movie in fear that I might hate since I'm now some what of a grown up.

#24 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18813 posts) - - Show Bio

Buahahahahahhaah XD is this Guy for real?

1. Bales Batman Suit was much more intimidation than that pathetic excuse for a batsuit.

2. action? Really? The action in the Burtons batman was not memorable at all, while in the Nolan Movies, batman and Joker Were fighting the whole movie, not physically but the idea was there, and lets not forget the bane fight, which basically took a lot of things from teh course material and it just might be the greatest comic book movie battle ever. ( second only to Zod Vs Superman)

3. cast? Bale might not be the BEST batman ever, But his Bruce wayne was amazing. Ledger as the Joker walks all over Nicholson even though he is a good actor, and tom hardy was just simply put amazing.

4. Fair ENOUGH i guess, but the bat Cave hardly counts as a reason to consider Burtons Batman any better

5.Both are interesting Scenes but again, how does this make Burtons Batman Better?

6. i will not even deem this with a response, to this point the author of the article seems like a Fanboy who just wants to defend his favourite version. Pff, Batman Begins is amazing and the scenes with bruce wayne is amazing.

7. No, just...no. Seriously ? The Theme for Nolans Batman is energetic , Intimidation and involving. It gets you Pumped. I'm not necessarily saying that it the other is bad, but it falls flat when compared to Hans Zimmers work.

8. Ledgers Joker is WAY better Nicholson's. A joker who is in love? and who was like a Child who didn't even know what he wanted? F*ck Off.

9. fanboy just defending his childhood movie.

10. fanboy

11. i get that the voice was funny at times but Bale was a brilliant Bruce Wayne and a cool batman

12. Nope. see Above, joker and batman were duelling throughout the entire movie, and they didn't even fight much physically, how is Burtons better?

13. FacePalm.

14. HOW Dare A Movie Take itself Seriously! I mean how Dare THEY!

15. at this point it feels as if this is just an attempt to nitpick anything that you thought was just a bit realistic. Batman was broken, he Rose back to his feet and fought for his fellow men, It's as simple as that.

It;s fine to like a movie more, but this is just stupid.

#25 Posted by RDClip (1167 posts) - - Show Bio

Yep, If a person doesn't like Nolan's trilogy and prefers something else, he must be a blind fanboy. This guy prefers the Burton, movie and provides reasons he does, why is he a stupid fanboy? None of his points where that out there.

In ten years or so, people are going to be able to look back and see the problems the Nolan trilogy have. Despite being decent movies, they seem to have created thousand of fans who can't see the obvious faults with them.

And it's fine for a movie to not be perfect, it's fine for your favourite movie to not be perfect. Everyone has different tastes. It is doing more credit to a movie you like if you can recognize its faults and still enjoy it. Seems like with the internet culture, people are now insulted of you disagree with them or critisize something they enjoy.

Nolan fans, your movies aren't perfect, deal with it. There are people who don't like them. There are people who prefer the Burton movies without being hipster douchbags.

#26 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

Not even going to read it. I'd just insult my own intelligence.

#27 Posted by neale7 (125 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip: I agree so much with everything you wrote.

#28 Posted by dcguy (64 posts) - - Show Bio

You can make this kind of reasons for Nolan's over Burton's. I think people should watch for enjoying not for comparison . I enjoyed both director's movies (even Batman Returns ) except TDKR , I really don't like it.

I think opposite for some of the reasons in article.

15-The Suit: Really? a bright yellow color belt , Nolan's suit is better. N

14-The Action: Action in TDK is far more superior, even in article prison van chase accepted best. N

13-Cast: Burton's cast is good but Nolan's cast better. Mostly because of Morgan Freeman, Aaron Echart and Gary Oldman . Burton really not cared for Gordon and Dent . Even Fox doesn't in the movie. N

12-The Batcave:Yes Burton's used Batcave better. B

11-Introducing Batman: It's hard to choose. Nolan started with a origin story , Burton started with urban myth like in first Detective comics. Both are fine. D

10-Boring Bruce Wayne Scenes: Really? Again first film is origin story and I enjoyed his training scenes. N

9-Theme Tune: Burton's is better but you can't easily top Danny Elfman . And Zimmer made an excellent work. B

8-A More Fun Joker: No, Ledger is better and far more closer to comic version . They say "Jack Nicholson was much closer to the comic book version" , did they really read comic books? The definitive joker story is "Killing Joke " , thats what I see in Ledger's performans it's the joker in the killing joke. N

7-Batmobile: Agree Burton's version better but I really liked Batpod scene in TDK. B

6-The Batwing: Again Burton's version . B

5-Bale vs Keaton: Bale is better Bruce Wayne , Keaton is better Batman . Of course Keaton wins but I think neither of them portrayed definitive Batman. B

4-Final Fights: Did Burton's versions are really fights? Nolan's versions are better , Ra's Al Ghul scene and Joker they are real fights. N

3-Gotham City: To be fair Burton's version has really good gothic atmosphere but it looks not a real city , I like Nolan's version. N

2-Why So Serious?: I don't think it is a comperable reason . Two versions have different tones. D

1-Escapism: It's hard to determine. Nolan's version have realistic feel but it's escapist too in the same time. I choose Nolan's version . Because I watched in a realistic world how Batman works. N

8-5 Nolan wins.

#29 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (12606 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip: Read the damn thing, he ignores the mistakes in Burton movies and made a bunch of pointless arguments.

Burton had better action and Bruce Wayne scenes sucks, show the guy has no idea what he is talking, the best Batman comic books deal with a more human Batman and had Bruce Wayne who is the human part.

Burton action scenes even today have to be the worst action scenes ever filmed.

This is based on the crazy point of view everything made in the 80s was: Gremlins, Ghostbuster and Back to The Future caliber.

Not only that i read the damn thing, he puts Schumacher strong points into Burton films.

The whole Batcave,Batwing and Batmobile was one point he made 3 for no reason besides ranting.

Gotham is based on Art Deco, not Gothic art, based on that Schumacher Gotham is the best one.

The fact 5 of this points here make no sense, show the guys is a fanboy.

Also Danny Elfman only did one song for Batman 89, the rest of the score is Shirley Walker thats why the Animated Series sound like the movie and the the score in Returns is inferior.

#30 Edited by AweSam (7376 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Burton, but you can't compare the two. Nolan wins everytime.

#31 Posted by Durakken (1591 posts) - - Show Bio

While both are flawed... Burton's 2 films are better than Nolan's 3 films... though that isn't to face that there aren't things they could have learned from each other. Just about anyone that has any sense of how to play Superheroes well knows that the comedy comes from playing it straight because what is happening is quite ridiculous to us.

Keaton and Nicholson largely miss the mark in terms of physically looking their roles, but then if you look at anything in Nolan all of them don't look right either, but they get closer in some areas physically. The Nolanverse chars are working with the physical base they need though... The thing is... Keaton and Nicholson are a testament to the fact that the basic physical appearance doesn't really matter, but the character behind it and in that area Keaton is far closer to the comic... but Nicholson and Ledger are about equidistant from an accurate portrayal of Joker.

Nolan's suit is dumb for a number of reasons, but understandable... while Burtons is more iconic which is why it's better, though dumb if you're going realistic and don't have movie magic.

I could go on, but I'm hungry, don't care, and half to wait another hour before i can eat!

#32 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

I actually love both Burton's Batman and Nolan's trilogy.

Burton's was a fast, fun, escapist romp while Nolan's was a more realistic, low fantasy, character-based series.

Both deviate from the comic book version.

Both are valid interpretations of the character and the world he inhabits.

#33 Edited by Jayc1324 (13518 posts) - - Show Bio

Both jokers fit perfectly in the world created by the movies, and neither movie tried to recreate the comics. The reason Nolans is better is that it used symbolism perfectly and told exactly what batman is all about-the belief that anyone can be batman, batman is a symbol, hope, and overcoming fear. Nolans movies had a real meaning and a true understanding of their batman, and that is why i think it was better.

#34 Posted by CyberWarrior (1604 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that Nolan's Batman is better than the Burton's one in every single way. Really.

#35 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6366 posts) - - Show Bio

@dcdyno: I know Burton's suit doesn't have bat-nipples. They were accusing Nolan's suit of being worse than Schumacher's (which has the bat-nipples and is the worst looking piece of garbage on Earth) and I wrote about Schumacher's bat-nipples in response to that statement.

#36 Edited by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Returns was so bad, it took me three tries to finish it.

#37 Posted by w0nd (4076 posts) - - Show Bio

The "bad" casting in nolan's films complaints always made me laugh

#38 Posted by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

@neale7: Well said. That was another thing that really bothered me about TDK, they introduced a wonderful character with a great actor for Two-Face and they just kill him off in the end, not giving him much time. I loved his character and was wishing he wasn't really dead... then TDKR started and my hopes vanished.

@batmannflash: Thanks for your thoughts. I actually like Batman Begins and the introduction, and think it is one of the greatest parts of the Nolan Batman. I still can't stand the head/mask of Nolan's suit, but the rest of the suit, I do like.

@rulerofthisuniverse:haha, you are definitely right about their bias toward everything, as I said, I dont' agree with much of what they say but they do have some points and I just wanted to hear other people's opinions, which you gave :). I think both Joker's were great, I don't think Ledgers's was any darker, I just think he was more serious. Nicholson's was just as dark just not as serious and was more crazy. Thats my opinion though.

@deathpoolthet1000:Is it really 'cool' to hate on Nolan? I thought it was the opposite. In any case, I like Nolan, I like inception, and I like his Batman version overall, its just some really big holes that get to me and the fact that so many worship him. I am very happy that the Nolan trilogy exists.

@rdclip: I agree with you, especially about the no kill rule being a big deal. I like the movie score for Nolans films, but just the music itself. It works pretty well with the movie, it gets people pumped and excited at times, but it doesn't give the same feeling as other super hero movies have given in the past.

@kraya: Nice input, and I see your points. Gordon definitely was useless in Burtons version, though Keaton was actually pretty agile in his suite. He actually did some kicks and roles and stuff, more athletic than Bale (not to say his fighting style was bad).

#39 Posted by Durakken (1591 posts) - - Show Bio

@weaponx said:

@batmannflash: Thanks for your thoughts. I actually like Batman Begins and the introduction, and think it is one of the greatest parts of the Nolan Batman. I still can't stand the head/mask of Nolan's suit, but the rest of the suit, I do like.

@kraya: Nice input, and I see your points. Gordon definitely was useless in Burtons version, though Keaton was actually pretty agile in his suite. He actually did some kicks and roles and stuff, more athletic than Bale (not to say his fighting style was bad).

Batman Begins is a bad movie if you look at it critically and it's not a Batman movie either.

Keaton could barely move in the suit. In fact just about any time you see Batman on screen it isn't Keaton. The only time you see Keaton in the suit is pretty much when you see his face/jaw...

#40 Posted by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: regardless if keaton wasn't in the suit, I just watched it, there are several kicks, rolling around etc, so it isn't like he just stands. Batman Begins isn't bad in my opinion, but that is my opinion. I think it is a Batman movie. If it isn't, why is dark knight and dark knight rises a batman movie?

#41 Edited by Durakken (1591 posts) - - Show Bio

@weaponx said:

@durakken: regardless if keaton wasn't in the suit, I just watched it, there are several kicks, rolling around etc, so it isn't like he just stands. Batman Begins isn't bad in my opinion, but that is my opinion. I think it is a Batman movie. If it isn't, why is dark knight and dark knight rises a batman movie?

I'm not saying that Keaton not wearing the costume is bad... just point it out...

The Batman character isn't correct. Bruce is motivated by revenge, hatred, etc in Batman Begins. Batman in the comics is motivated by a want for justice and to make sure it happens to noone else. Some people don't think this is a big distinction but it really is.

#42 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

this thread again

#43 Edited by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123: I did a search (which fails at times do to specificity) and I am asking about a particular article.

#44 Edited by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: I see your point, but I don't see much of a distinction between Begins and the others. Begins starts out with revenge etc, but by the time he gets back to Gotham, I think he is getting past it and is fighting for justice and what he thinks is right. I know you weren't saying Keaton not wearing the suit was bad, I was just saying that it is indeed flexible.

#45 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (12606 posts) - - Show Bio

@weaponx: Whatculture and all over the internet you can see Nolan haters and how people praise them for the fact they are haters.

Also Keaton always talked on how bad the costume was, Bale asked to change the suit for the sequel, also see Captain America vs Batman video you see the guy using Bale costume doing tornado kicks and doing acrobatics.

@w0nd said:

The "bad" casting in nolan's films complaints always made me laugh

DONT TALK CRAP ABOUT LANDO TWO FACES!!!

#46 Posted by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000: I see, well I didn't know it at least :P. I don't visit many sites on the net so I guess I am sheltered on that. Lol at your Lando comment!

#47 Posted by HushoftheWind (1118 posts) - - Show Bio

i do agree with the Gotham aspect, Burton's Gotham was comicbook like.

#48 Posted by entropy_aegis (15445 posts) - - Show Bio

i do agree with the Gotham aspect, Burton's Gotham was comicbook like.

No it wasn't,Burton's Gotham was a typical Burton set piece. Comic Gotham was modeled to look like Burtons Gotham later on,read Year:One and tell me if comic Gotham shares any similarity with Burtons Gotham.

#49 Edited by Xwraith (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

If there's one thing Burton's Batman has going for it, it's that it's responsible for the DCAU.

Online
#50 Posted by sinestro_GL (3322 posts) - - Show Bio

I do like Batman and Batman Returns more than The Dark Knight Rises.

I prefer Nicholson Joker to Ledger Joker.

Keaton Batman to Bale Batman.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.