Messages

I would classify what the die-hard Nolan deciples think of Burton's Batman as irreverant.  Like a snot-nosed kid being disrespectful towards his elders, those who laid the foundation for his very existence generations before.   Some of these deciples even go far as to say that Burton's interpretation of the character as illigitmate.  As some have stated in earlier posts, there have been many interpretations of Batman, so it is difficult to nail down the "definitive" version of the character, so all are legitimate.  I will say though, that a strong case can be made that Burton's interpretation in Batman (1989) is the definitive version as it CLOSELY mirrors Bob Kane and Bill Fingers early works.  They defined Batman, so it follows that a film based on thier vision should be considered definitive.  All other interpretations are merely evolutions based on that foundation, some small steps, and some wild leaps.  Nolan deciples should read thier Bat-history before they bash a director who made a film that depicted Batman as his creators envisioned him. 

Also, it was Burton's Batman (1989) that legimized comic book films.  He made them potential blockbusters.  The Spiderman and X-men franchises, the blossoming Iron Man and Hulk Franchises, and even Nolan's films, owe thier existence and success to B89.  They only reason movie studios clamor to get a piece of our beloved superheroes is because of Tim Burton and the Batmania he created almost 20 years ago. 

If the Nolan deciples could get past thier blind devotion, they would also acknowledge that Tim Burton gave us the most "realistic" Batman do date.  Burton's Batman is more human than Nolan's.  For Burton's Batman, his mission is personal, but for Nolan's Batman its for an ideal, which makes him less human.  I would ask the Nolan deciples to place themselves in Nolan Batman's shoes, your parents have been murdered, and thier killer taken out before you could get at him.  To believe Nolan Batman would pursue his endless mission after Chill's death is simply unrealistic and not human.  Batman's quest for revenge is what drives him and fuels him.  To him, revenge and justice ARE the same, contrary to what Nolan would have you believe.  Kane and Finger made Batman a vigilante, something Nolan tries very hard to remove from his mythos, but why would you take away that key defining characteristic from him. 

This is more of a criticism of Nolan more than his deciples, but Burton would not have filmed Batman in his full glory under flourescent lights as Nolan did in the Arkham escape scene in Begins and what looks like key scenes in TDK.  When Nolan does this, it removes the mystery and makes Batman look like a goofy guy in a rubber suit.  Batman becomes unbelievable the more real you make him, not the reverse. Batman fits in Burton's Gotham because it is mythic and Batman mythological.  Nolan demythologizes Batman when he places him in his "real-world" version of Gotham.

I appreciate and enjoy all serious interpretations of Batman, and that includes Nolan's interpretations, something the Nolan deciples should emulate.  To dismiss Burton's Batman (1989) as illigitmate is irreverent, for the Nolan deciples, including Mr. Nolan himself, owe it a large debt of gratitude.  No Batman film before or since, will ever do for Batman what Burton's film did in June of 1989. 

I completely agree with the fire of a thousand suns x100.  Very very well said.

I would have loved to see Billy Dee Williams as two face.