• 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) 7 months, 24 days ago

Burton Batman VS Nolan Batman? (74 votes)

Batman & Batman Returns 31%
Batman Begins & Dark Knight 69%

This is about the Tim Burton Batman movies versus the first two Nolan Batman movies.
We will pretend that "Dark Knight Rises" never happened, because it's just that bad. The same applies for the Batman movies in the middle.
Which vision did you like more and why?

I personally liked Tim Burton's Batman movies much, much, much more and here are my reasons:

1) The movies had such a surreal and unique feel to them ... it was gothicy and grungy,
2) Gotham City looked amazing - like a city with actual problems and demand for Batman,
3) Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman did a much better job than Anne Hathaway,
4) The villains had much more fun in the movie and overall made it more entertaining ... I liked Heath Ledger as the Joker, but for me that was not the Joker - that was a guy with clowny war-facepaint, but Jack Nicholsons Joker was the real deal and Danny DeVito's performance as Penguin was superb,
5) That Batman was actually a killer,
6) Less plot-holes and cheesiness than Dark Knight!

#1 Posted by RDClip (1068 posts) - - Show Bio

I preferred Burton's Batman over any of the Nolan movies, but BB and TDK I like more than Batman Returns.

I prefer the grungy neo-deco/gothic stylized world of Burton's Batman over the realism of Nolan's world.

Keaton is more intimidating as batman with his whispers than Bale ever was with his yelling and smoker's voice

The sleek lines of Burton's Batsuit, Batmobile and Batwing are much much more aethetically pleasing and cooler than the futuristic paramilitary gear of Nolan.

The Burton Alfred actually seemed like a upper-crust British butler rather than Caine's cockney accented Alfred.

Nolan's Batman seemed like a hypocrite to me with the whole no kill rule. A huge plot point is made about not killing, then he sets a massive fire in the mountaintop HQ of the League, goes on an incredibly dangerous car chase that got many cops in huge accidents and leaves Ra'as to die; and that just the first movie.

Jack Nicolson actually found the balance between funny and scary as the Joker while Ledger was all scary and no fun.

#2 Edited by _The_Ant_ (460 posts) - - Show Bio

How about you let us decide if we liked TDKR and Batman Forever or not?

#3 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (7118 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's Batman was good. That's it. Returns was horrible and the next two were even more bad.

#4 Posted by ULTRAstarkiller (4918 posts) - - Show Bio

Nolan Batman was a way better betrayal, had better movies, and the better soundtracks. Not saying Burton Batman sucks but Nolan was just better.

#5 Edited by kgb725 (3415 posts) - - Show Bio

Tdkr was better than batman begins even if there were strong plot holes

#6 Posted by The_Good_Loser (236 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's was better, closer to the comics if you ask me.

Nolan's batman was a re-imagination, this is the real deal.

#7 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Sigh.

The Nolanverse films were empirically superior.

#8 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29330 posts) - - Show Bio
#9 Posted by silent_bomber (1303 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's for me, they just have a lot more heart and character moments, they look massively better and more imaginative, and I like the fact that they're pure fantasy orientated, instead of trying to be "realistic" and failing miserably.

The Nolan films were good though, very entertaining, but also very, very pretentious, they got more pretentious as they went along and the last one was just a mass of contradictions, plot holes, and general nonsense masquerading as depth.

#10 Posted by ARMIV2 (7653 posts) - - Show Bio

Bale's Bat voice kinda kills it all for me, but the Nolan films are pretty good despite that. But then the Burton films do have a whole other level of dark atmosphere to them that the Nolan ones don't have...

#11 Posted by Thorverine (54 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's Batman was groundbreaking. He ditched the blue. He was unlike any TV or cartoon Batman.

#12 Edited by broo1232 (1520 posts) - - Show Bio

This a competition? Nolan.

#13 Posted by The_Tree (6403 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's one good movie vs. Nolan's two fantastic movies? This isn't even fair.

#14 Posted by RustyRoy (9193 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Burton's movies but I love Nolan's movies more. Btw TDKR was great.

#15 Posted by ChaosMarvel (987 posts) - - Show Bio

Nolan for me.

#16 Edited by silent_bomber (1303 posts) - - Show Bio

#17 Posted by entropy_aegis (13596 posts) - - Show Bio

I like how this guy wants our opinion but removes one whole movie from the options cause he thinks it's bad,like why even bother?

Either way the first Burton flick was damn good,Returns was rubbish though. But Begins and Knight and Rises are on a completely different level,each one is individually better than both Burton movies put together,also whoever thinks Burtons movies were closer to the comics need to slap themselves.

#18 Posted by entropy_aegis (13596 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton's for me, they just have a lot more heart and character moments, they look massively better and more imaginative, and I like the fact that they're pure fantasy orientated, instead of trying to be "realistic" and failing miserably.

The Nolan films were good though, very entertaining, but also very, very pretentious, they got more pretentious as they went along and the last one was just a mass of contradictions, plot holes, and general nonsense masquerading as depth.

Do you even know the definition of the word?

#19 Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

I like how this guy wants our opinion but removes one whole movie from the options cause he thinks it's bad,like why even bother?

I'm speaking for humanity: "Dark Knight Rises" was not a good movie.

If that's not good enough for you:

I'm speaking for smart people: "Dark Knight Rises" was not a good movie.

#20 Posted by jumpstart55 (2252 posts) - - Show Bio

TDKR was far Superior to Batman:1989 imo.

Anyways, They were both great film series, but i definitely prefer Nolans series to Burtons. I found Nolans series to be much more compelling and cinematically pleasing. I don't even think Burtons films are on the same level, Nolan redefined the Superhero genre with his films.

#21 Posted by entropy_aegis (13596 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru said:
@entropy_aegis said:

I like how this guy wants our opinion but removes one whole movie from the options cause he thinks it's bad,like why even bother?

I'm speaking for humanity: "Dark Knight Rises" was not a good movie.

If that's not good enough for you:

I'm speaking for smart people: "Dark Knight Rises" was not a good movie.

Says the guy who thinks Batman killing is a good thing,and please dont insult smart by comparing yourself with it.

Either way if you wanted an opinion then give the people complete choices or dont bother at all.

#22 Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

Says the guy who thinks Batman killing is a good thing,and please dont insult smart by comparing yourself with it.
Either way if you wanted an opinion then give the people complete choices or dont bother at all.

Batman killed people in the past.
Batman killed people in the Burton movies.
I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is when one movie all of a sudden starts writing characters vastly out of character like Bruce Wayne, who stops being Batman, because Rachel died and ignores the crime for 8 years, instead of going out and trying to be even a better Batman, something he became, when his parents died.
Or Alfred suddenly starting to bitch and leaves him for some unexplained reasons, which should be quite obvious (no space for him in the movie, which had too many characters ala Spider-Man 3).
Or the entire Gotham City police running into the sewers just to get captured like a bunch of sheep.

OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR. The amount of plot-holes and stupidity should ruin the movie for every single superhero fan outthere. Only obsessed Batman fanboys are trying to defend the obvious and these are the same people, who dislike videos on Youtube of determined projects where Captain America fights Batman and in the outcome where Cap loses everything is fine, but in the outcome where Batman loses the video gets a disgusting amount of dislikes.

You indirectly and directly responding to me in this thread the way you did makes it look like you're one of the fanboys - at least it does to me. So please don't be upset, that I don't care about your opinion on anything.

#23 Posted by entropy_aegis (13596 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru said:
@entropy_aegis said:

Says the guy who thinks Batman killing is a good thing,and please dont insult smart by comparing yourself with it.
Either way if you wanted an opinion then give the people complete choices or dont bother at all.

Batman killed people in the past.

Batman killed people in the Burton movies.

I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is when one movie all of a sudden starts writing characters vastly out of character like Bruce Wayne, who stops being Batman, because Rachel died and ignores the crime for 8 years, instead of going out and trying to be even a better Batman, something he became, when his parents died.

Or Alfred suddenly starting to bitch and leaves him for some unexplained reasons, which should be quite obvious (no space for him in the movie, which had too many characters ala Spider-Man 3).

Or the entire Gotham City police running into the sewers just to get captured like a bunch of sheep.

OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR.

The amount of plot-holes and stupidity should ruin the movie for every single superhero fan outthere. Only obsessed Batman fanboys are trying to defend the obvious and these are the same people, who dislike videos on Youtube of determined projects where Captain America fights Batman and in the outcome where Cap loses everything is fine, but in the outcome where Batman loses the video gets a disgusting amount of dislikes.

You indirectly and directly responding to me in this thread the way you did makes it look like you're one of the fanboys - at least it does to me. So please don't be upset, that I don't care about your opinion on anything.

Batman killed people for a few years about 70 years ago,yeah keep pretending it's legit but then you are the same guy who thinks there was no Robin after Todd.

Batman quit in The Dark Knight Returns,Alfred left Bruce after Knightfall(Knightquest I think) those cops went after a mercenary who was wanted by the CIA,had an army of men and had even overthrown governments and it makes far more sense than a woman falling dozens of stories and still living,you want a plot hole there's your plot hole.

The rest of your post is bullshit not even worthy of addressing.

#24 Posted by silent_bomber (1303 posts) - - Show Bio

@silent_bomber said:

Burton's for me, they just have a lot more heart and character moments, they look massively better and more imaginative, and I like the fact that they're pure fantasy orientated, instead of trying to be "realistic" and failing miserably.

The Nolan films were good though, very entertaining, but also very, very pretentious, they got more pretentious as they went along and the last one was just a mass of contradictions, plot holes, and general nonsense masquerading as depth.

Do you even know the definition of the word?

Here you go -

"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

I can't think of any sentence which greater sums up Nolan's Batman films to be quite frank.

#25 Edited by Immortal777 (5886 posts) - - Show Bio

Burton

I didn't like the Nolan movies at all besides Joker. I didn't even bother to watch the last Batman movie.

#26 Posted by Deranged Midget (17598 posts) - - Show Bio

It's all personal opinion but honestly, the Burton films haven't aged that well in my opinion. Although, that OST is still amazing and the tone of the films was great for the time.

Moderator
#27 Posted by Extremis (2959 posts) - - Show Bio

I love both iterations. And to be honest sometimes think Burton's first Batman is the most fun.

That being said, anyone who prefers Burton's Batman as a character prefers a two dimensional character to one that Nolan made multidimensional. Don't get me wrong, Keaton had a great persona for the chaacter, but Burton's Batman was hardly developed. The real star of his movies was Gotham, and boy did he nail it. But as for the characterization of our titular character? Not so much.

That's why the answer is obviously Nolan's iteration. Any Batman fan would prefer a more fleshed out version of the character. Now as for the movies as a whole, I can go back and forth with it.

#28 Edited by KingRobbStark (165 posts) - - Show Bio

The Burton Batman made me feel like I was in Gotham. Nolan's Batman made feel like I was in New York city. I fucking hate New York city.

#29 Edited by batmannflash (6109 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Burton's. But Nolan's Batman is easily better, to me. These are my opinions, and I respect yours.

Burton's Batman had absolutely no character depth, lack of emotion, and was physically tiny compared to Nolan's Batman. Who cares about the voice, Nolan Batman had that dark edge and toughness that Batman has. As Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale WAS Bruce Wayne. The billionaire playboy who hid a bit of sadness underneath. Keaton Bruce Wayne was some socially awkward guy who was unconvincing as Bruce Wayne. And why the heck did Keaton's Batman kill? I realize Batman killed in the early times, but that isn't Batman. That was before he was established as who he is now.

As for the movies, Nolan's had the better villains. They were bigger threats and just plain awesome. The movies were much more emotional and had amazing writing. It may have a lot of plotholes but the stories are great and intelligent. TDK trilogy exceeded the typical "cheesy comic book film" that Burton's films were and become a legit crime/thriller trilogy, like how Batman stories should be like.

#30 Edited by RulerOfThisUniverse (5588 posts) - - Show Bio

Easily Nolan's. Burton's doesn't come anywhere close.

#31 Edited by silent_bomber (1303 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis said:

I love both iterations. And to be honest sometimes think Burton's first Batman is the most fun.

That being said, anyone who prefers Burton's Batman as a character prefers a two dimensional character to one that Nolan made multidimensional. Don't get me wrong, Keaton had a great persona for the character, but Burton's Batman was hardly developed. The real star of his movies was Gotham, and boy did he nail it. But as for the characterization of our titular character? Not so much.

I feel the complete opposite way to be honest.

I felt that Bale's Bruce Wayne persona was paper thin, it was like Bruce Wayne was the mask and Batman was the real identity. Bruce Wayne showed very, very little emotion in those films, he would always either be brooding (when alone), or pretending to be happy (when around people), it was all very reserved, very strictly regimented. I thought there were very few memorable character moments outside of the Rachel stuff, a lot of the Bruce Wayne scenes were generally just exposition.

Keaton was the opposite, he would brood sometimes, sure, but there was also some hopefulness there, he took chances with Vicki Vale, he could be awkward sometimes, confident when he needed to be, criticised people he had little respect for, he'd lose his cool sometimes etc, like I said in the other thread the guy seemed legitimately damaged, traumatised by the death of his parents.

In fact everyone in the Tim Burton films seemed pretty damaged (outside of Shrek who was simply a bastard).

The difference in other characters, such as Catwoman was even more pronounced, the character in Rises pretty much had zero personality at all, zilch, she was very much a one dimensional jewel thief character, and her turnaround was very poorly handled.

The Catwoman in Batman Returns may not have been at all accurate, but they really developed her character and put in a lot of memorable scenes.

Ledger I will totally give credit to though, he did a much better job than Jack Nicholson did at playing the Joker, and I felt that he was much, much closer to the spirit of the comic book than the thug-like portrayal in Batman (1989).

Liam Neeson also did a good Job in the 1st movie.

#32 Posted by giantsfan576 (1057 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru: Dark Knight is one of the greatest movies ever, yeah I said it. Also, you said it yourself, Burtons Batman was a killer. What's up with that? That's not Batman. Batman holds his morals about not killing higher than anyone Burton screwed him up. Batman will never kill. Also TDK action sequences, plot, Batman as a character...oh and Heath. Fricking. Ledger. Heath was INCREDIBLE you just wanna start an argument don't you? Well you have.

#33 Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576: Dark Knight was FULL of plot-holes. How can you call that "INCREDIBLE"?

#34 Posted by giantsfan576 (1057 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru: I called Heath ledger INCREDIBLE and there was a couple not full of them though. Name a few I dare you.

#35 Posted by eternalnature (364 posts) - - Show Bio

and the nostalgic Burtons fanboys are blinded. To the truth

#36 Edited by MisterNefarious (53 posts) - - Show Bio

I like them both for what they are, but at the end I think the Nolan films are overall better

I do agree that the Burton films were closer to the comics by design, and this is something I enjoy. The first one particularly. The second went a bit off the deep end with the weird circus motifs... But DeVito was amazing. These films are a lot of fun.

The Nolan films departed from the comics in an effort to make things more "real world" and Batman is a character this is fine with. I wouldn't want these representations to replace the comic ones, but them existing alongside the comics is wonderful. These had better acting overall, better action, at the cost of being less "fantastic".

If I had to pick just one of the two sets, I would pick Nolan. I do hope that Batman/Superman embraces the comic books more just because without the comic edge, Bats will seem SO lame compared to Supes.

#37 Posted by giantsfan576 (1057 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru: seriously give me 3 or 4 plot holes? I bet I can explain them.

#38 Edited by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

I called Heath ledger INCREDIBLE and there was a couple not full of them though. Name a few I dare you.

I didn't mind Heath Ledger either, but it's funny, because people are bitching about how Superman was a killer in "Man Of Steel", but at the same time they don't have the slightest problem with the Joker not being the Joker in "Dark Knight".

Here are few plot-holes and the movie has actually even more:

and the nostalgic Burtons fanboys are blinded. To the truth

How old are you?

#39 Posted by giantsfan576 (1057 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru: Batman uses the voice to disguise and intimidate people, he has unrealistic gadgets...thats batman in general. Also how is harveys transformation out of character?! Thats exactly what two face is. Blaming Batman not only left room for the sequel but it gave bruce the chance to give up his life as batman.

#40 Posted by eternalnature (364 posts) - - Show Bio
#41 Posted by Havenless (1278 posts) - - Show Bio

Keaton was the better Batman, but Nolan made far better movies. Misleading thread title.

#42 Edited by The Stegman (20728 posts) - - Show Bio

Wow, I actually disagree with all you points

1) The movies had such a

surreal

and

unique

feel to them ... it was gothicy and grungy,

I prefer Nolan's realistic portrayal of Gotham, it shows that the city was corrupt, full of dirty cops, politicians and criminals funded by them, I prefer Nolan's realism to Burton's surrealism

2) Gotham City looked amazing - like a city with actual

problems

and

demand

for Batman,

Wait, first you say that Gotham was surreal, but then you say it looks like an actual city? I'm confused. And Nolan's Gotham was more better done, as my above point said. We actually saw the gangsters like Falcone, the organization that the Joker spoke to, Marone etc.

3)

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman

did a much better job than Anne Hathaway,

4) The villains had much

more fun

in the movie and overall made it more entertaining ... I liked Heath Ledger as the Joker, but for me that was not

the

Joker - that was a guy with clowny war-facepaint, but Jack Nicholsons Joker was the

real deal

and Danny DeVito's performance as Penguin was

superb

Hathaway>>>>>That Hot Topic wannabe who did nothing but die several times throughout the film and a few cartwheels for good measure.

I don't want to demean Nicholson's Joker, I can't, he was amazing, but I liked Ledger's performance more, he was just as funny, just in a darker way.

As for Danny's Penguin, you claim that you like Nicholson for playing such an accurate Joker, then say Penguin was superb? Despite the fact that he's pretty much the opposite of the comic Penguin?

5) That Batman was actually a

killer

....No comment.

6)

Less

plot-holes and cheesiness than Dark Knight!

Really? less cheese? Cause an army of penguins with rockets on their backs isn't cheesy at all, nor is a giant duck-car, or Catwoman pulling a Kenny from South Park and being killed 8 times.

#43 Posted by The Stegman (20728 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru said:
@giantsfan576 said:

I called Heath ledger INCREDIBLE and there was a couple not full of them though. Name a few I dare you.

I didn't mind Heath Ledger either, but it's funny, because people are bitching about how Superman was a killer in "Man Of Steel", but at the same time they don't have the slightest problem with the Joker not being the Joker in "Dark Knight".

Here are few plot-holes and the movie has actually even more:

@eternalnature said:

and the nostalgic Burtons fanboys are blinded. To the truth

How old are you?

You do realize that there is not ONE plot hole in that video do you? Hell, even the video said "who are we kidding, this movie is awesome" weak attempt dude.

#44 Edited by RetconCrisis (3249 posts) - - Show Bio

Whereas Burton held on with only one great Batman movie (1986), Nolan held with two great movies (Begins and TDK). And not just that, and even though TDKR has a whole ton of plot holes, I find it better than the other Burton movie. Although Burton's Returns did a good job at giving me feel a little sorry for the Penguin at the ending scenes.

#45 Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

Wait, first you say that Gotham was surreal, but then you say it looks like an actual city? I'm confused. And Nolan's Gotham was more better done, as my above point said. We actually saw the gangsters like Falcone, the organization that the Joker spoke to, Marone etc.

I never said that it looked like an actual city. What I said is that it looked like it had actual problems. And I'm talking about the look of the city and not what was happening inside.
And what was the purpose of these gangsters in Nolan's movies? In my eyes they were only punching balls and stealing away screen time for more interesting stuff, because they were THAT useless.

Hathaway >>>>> That Hot Topic wannabe who did nothing but die several times throughout the film and a few cartwheels for good measure.

I just slapped myself, because of that statement and my head hurts.

You just said that Hathaway did more in the Batman movie than Pfeiffer did in the movie she was in. That statement is ridiculous. It is RIDICULOUS. This is already the point, where I could stop responding to you. Pfeiffer had a background in that movie, her own problems, which ultimately ended in her becoming Catwoman, walking around and being involved in the plot by a lot.
How much did Hathaway do compared to Pfeiffer? Not that much, son and especially nothing crucial.

I don't want to demean Nicholson's Joker, I can't, he was amazing, but I liked Ledger's performance more, he was just as funny, just in a darker way.

Meh.

As for Danny's Penguin, you claim that you like Nicholson for playing such an accurate Joker, then say Penguin was superb? Despite the fact that he's pretty much the opposite of the comic Penguin?

Who like the Penguin? No one likes the Penguin. What they did with the Penguin in the movie was to make him more interesting. And just like Catwoman the Penguin also had his own backstory, his motivations and everything was fine.
What was with the Nolan Joker? He came out of nowhere, to wreck chaos ... great. Nothing was ever really explained that much. There is NO character development in the Batman movies and that's what obsessed fans don't even grasp in the slightest. NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT what so ever. NONE!
Of course when it comes to the Nolan Joker that slightly made some of the actual appeal of the character, but I personally prefer plot and character development much more. The only developed character in the Nolan movies was Batman, who we saw going through a lot of stuff. All of the other characters were the same the entire time, or in one case (Harvey Dent) he went from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes of the movie, which is ridiculous.

Really? less cheese? Cause an army of penguins with rockets on their backs isn't cheesy at all, nor is a giant duck-car, or Catwoman pulling a Kenny from South Park and being killed 8 times.

That's not cheese. That's comical over-the-top fun. Two totally different things.
What I mean by cheesiness, is when Batman walks around and tells Harvey Dent how great he is and how he is the white knight, or when Gordon comes up with the last speech for Batman about him not being the hero Gotham deserves or some crap like that, I don't even know.
Or Batman standing on the rooftop and telling Rachel what she said to him once and then he flies away and I'm wondering, why he didn't simply tell her: "Yo, it's me Bruce!".
What you say? The kid was there and would have heard it? Well she said his name anyway, after he jumped off. If he is such a great detective, then he should know that she is not the brightest.

#46 Posted by The Stegman (20728 posts) - - Show Bio

@enzeru said:
@the_stegman said:

Wait, first you say that Gotham was surreal, but then you say it looks like an actual city? I'm confused. And Nolan's Gotham was more better done, as my above point said. We actually saw the gangsters like Falcone, the organization that the Joker spoke to, Marone etc.

I never said that it looked like an actual city. What I said is that it looked like it had actual problems. And I'm talking about the look of the city and not what was happening inside.
And what was the purpose of these gangsters in Nolan's movies? In my eyes they were only punching balls and stealing away screen time for more interesting stuff, because they were THAT useless.

Hathaway >>>>> That Hot Topic wannabe who did nothing but die several times throughout the film and a few cartwheels for good measure.
I just slapped myself, because of that statement and my head hurts.
You just said that Hathaway did more in the Batman movie than Pfeiffer did in the movie she was in. That statement is ridiculous. It is RIDICULOUS. This is already the point, where I could stop responding to you. Pfeiffer had a background in that movie, her own problems, which ultimately ended in her becoming Catwoman, walking around and being involved in the plot by a lot.
How much did Hathaway do compared to Pfeiffer? Not that much, son and especially nothing crucial.

I don't want to demean Nicholson's Joker, I can't, he was amazing, but I liked Ledger's performance more, he was just as funny, just in a darker way.
Meh.

As for Danny's Penguin, you claim that you like Nicholson for playing such an accurate Joker, then say Penguin was superb? Despite the fact that he's pretty much the opposite of the comic Penguin?
Who like the Penguin? No one likes the Penguin. What they did with the Penguin in the movie was to make him more interesting. And just like Catwoman the Penguin also had his own backstory, his motivations and everything was fine.
What was with the Nolan Joker? He came out of nowhere, to wreck chaos ... great. Nothing was ever really explained that much. There is NO character development in the Batman movies and that's what obsessed fans don't even grasp in the slightest. NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT what so ever. NONE!
Of course when it comes to the Nolan Joker that slightly made some of the actual appeal of the character, but I personally prefer plot and character development much more. The only developed character in the Nolan movies was Batman, who we saw going through a lot of stuff. All of the other characters were the same the entire time, or in one case (Harvey Dent) he went from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes of the movie, which is ridiculous.

Really? less cheese? Cause an army of penguins with rockets on their backs isn't cheesy at all, nor is a giant duck-car, or Catwoman pulling a Kenny from South Park and being killed 8 times.
That's not cheese. That's comical over-the-top fun. Two totally different things.
What I mean by cheesiness, is when Batman walks around and tells Harvey Dent how great he is and how he is the white knight, or when Gordon comes up with the last speech for Batman about him not being the hero Gotham deserves or some crap like that, I don't even know.
Or Batman standing on the rooftop and telling Rachel what she said to him once and then he flies away and I'm wondering, why he didn't simply tell her: "Yo, it's me Bruce!".
What you say? The kid was there and would have heard it? Well she said his name anyway, after he jumped off. If he is such a great detective, then he should know that she is not the brightest.

What was the point of the gangsters? The point of the gangsters was to show how corrupt Gotham was. Bruce's first meeting with Falcone, where he was going to kill him made Bruce hate guns and sent him on his journey to become Batman in the first place, he saw that as Bruce Wayne, rich boy, he couldn't avenge his parents' deaths, he had to be more extreme to beat those guys, if you didn't see that, you need to watch the film again.

You're telling me, with a straight face, that Michelle's Catwoman had a point in the movie? You can take her out of the film and nothing would be different. Let's go over what she does

1. She's a disgruntled secretary.

2. She is killed by Shrek

3. Cats bring her back to life..somehow

4. She jumps rope in a jewelry store

5. She fights Batman..and he kills her

6. She makes a deal with Penguin...and he kills her

7. She shows up again in the sewers...and dies. Yeah, big storyline there, frumpy secretary becomes dominatrix who dies a lot

-The Penguin was an abomination in the film. They took the smart, calculating busness man he is in the comics and made him a weird, deformed little troll who spends times in the sewers talking to birds and biting peoples' noses. The entire point of the Penguin is despite his seemingly small stature that he's a cunning and ruthless BUSINESSMAN, not creepy Danny Devito with an umbrella. And are you actually complaining because the VILLAINS don't have character development?? They're the foils, they aren't suppose to evolve and change as people, they have a point to prove and they prove it through their actions. The film is called "The Dark Knight" not "Jokers Journey to enlightenment"

Yes, an army of penguins with rockets isn't cheese at all T_T Nor is a duck that acts as a tank, or Catwoman singing a nursery rhyme after being shot..4 times. Honestly, you are biased, you refuse to see anyone else's point and already have a firm belief that you're right, so any further arguing with you will be pointless.

#47 Posted by Enzeru (2954 posts) - - Show Bio

Honestly, you are biased, you refuse to see anyone else's point and already have a firm belief that you're right, so any further arguing with you will be pointless.


That's what I was thinking.

#48 Posted by Saren (24306 posts) - - Show Bio

Pfeiffer was a godawful Catwoman revered by people who have no clue what Selina is supposed to be like. Anne Hathaway's portrayal was so much better it's just cruel to Pfeiffer's Campwoman to try and make a comparison between the two.

I don't even know why people are arguing Batman with someone like Enzeru who bears the twin gifts of not knowing anything about the character as well as a rabid hatred to boot, but that's dialectical discussion for you.

Moderator
#49 Edited by Guardian_of_Gravity (2951 posts) - - Show Bio

Look at all these idiots stating their opinions as fact. Look at them and laugh.

#50 Posted by Supermanwithatan01 (3214 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

I preferred Burton's Batman over any of the Nolan movies, but BB and TDK I like more than Batman Returns.

I prefer the grungy neo-deco/gothic stylized world of Burton's Batman over the realism of Nolan's world.

Keaton is more intimidating as batman with his whispers than Bale ever was with his yelling and smoker's voice

The sleek lines of Burton's Batsuit, Batmobile and Batwing are much much more aethetically pleasing and cooler than the futuristic paramilitary gear of Nolan.

The Burton Alfred actually seemed like a upper-crust British butler rather than Caine's cockney accented Alfred.

Nolan's Batman seemed like a hypocrite to me with the whole no kill rule. A huge plot point is made about not killing, then he sets a massive fire in the mountaintop HQ of the League, goes on an incredibly dangerous car chase that got many cops in huge accidents and leaves Ra'as to die; and that just the first movie.

Jack Nicolson actually found the balance between funny and scary as the Joker while Ledger was all scary and no fun.

I agree with almost all of this I loved Keaton's Batman. The only disagreement is I thought Ledgers Joker was perfect. Scary, realistic yet brilliant and had moments where he was funny. I hated the Returns music, albeit Prince... Anyway, Keaton was a better Wayne and a better Batman than Bale.