Article: "Why Burton's Batman will age better than Nolan's"

[The Laughing Fish]

Why Burton's Batman will age better than Nolan's

When I find myself contemplating which Batman movie to watch, I'm amazed at how often I feel like watching either Batman or Batman Returns, rather than the three Christopher Nolan films. While it may be that the latter demand more of an investment in time and attention, as they're longer and more intricately plotted and more closely connected, I don't think that's the real explanation.

As a fan of the character and the comic books, I've spent a lot of time thinking about my Batman viewing preferences, and I've come to the following conclusion: The two Tim Burton-directed Batman films will eventually age better than the three Nolan-directed ones.

Let me back up a moment to clarify: I don't mean to suggest that either of the Burton films are necessarily better as films, and I can certainly understand the perspective that the Nolan Batman films are superior in specific ways, such as writing, acting, special effects, and editing. Burton films are more often about mood or style than a strong script, whereas Nolan's films are always structured with great care and attention to detail.

However, Batman Begins and its sequels seem stuck in a very specific period of the pop culture mindset, one that was self-consciously reacting to post-9/11 concerns, as well as fixated on the idea of something akin to "comic book realism" that keeps those films from having the kind of easy rewatchability that the Burton films have. In some ways, it reminds me of the differences between the original Battlestar Galactica and the 2000s remake. The latter deals substantively with issues like terrorism, paranoia, and security, but gets bogged down by its own solemnity. The original had a sense of fun that the reboot lacked.

Art is often a product of its cultural period, and film is no different, especially Batman films, as they're designed to appeal to a large part of the current fanbase. In the case of the Nolan films, as well as the Burton ones (or perhaps just Burton's first film), both did a great job of reacting to the mood of Batman fans at the time.

1989's Batman came in the wake of The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke, two stories that were fantastic, dark in tone and image, yet not stymied by considerations of "realism". Batman '89 was in the same vein: a 180-degree departure from the '60s Adam West series, but also deliberately over the top, and comic book-esque in style (note the traditional yet absurd Joker "chemical bath" origin instead of The Dark Knight's attempt to craft a Joker origin more in line with a tragic tale(s) of knife scarring).

Nolan's Batman films were of course a reaction to the very prominent failure of the '90s Schumacher films. (And it continues to fascinate me that Batman & Robin gets plenty of scorn and ridicule, but Batman Forever is largely given a pass despite a similar level of cheese and camp. Is it the $77 million difference in domestic box office that allows the latter to avoid the stench of a bomb? Or is it the unforgettable image of Nicole Kidman saying "hot entrance"?)

Nolan took a back-to-basics, grounded approach that while well-received, may strike future viewers as wrongheaded, considering the subject matter. As an example, he takes the time to show how Bruce Wayne orders his weapons and gadgets, even going so far as to detail the accounting subterfuge required to disguise the purchases. Is this necessary? Is it fun to watch? Were viewers really wondering as they watched Batman strike a foe with a batarang, "I wonder whether he paid for that with a credit card under an assumed name or used PayPal?" These kinds of things strike me as designed for the viewer who wants a sense of "realism" about Batman, of all characters, because he's often seen as the most relatable.

The notion of Batman as the most relatable of major superheroes is simultaneously understandable and yet ridiculous, if taken too far. True, Batman has no superpowers, but he's also a billionaire who achieved his wealth through inheritance rather than entrepreneurial skill. He had the luxury of honing his fighting abilities and knowledge of criminology because he had nearly limitless time and resources with which to do so. So yes, while Batman was able to train himself to the peak of his abilities, it's more accurate to say that he had the money and time to devote to buying gadgets and acquiring the skills for crime-fighting. It's not quite the grounded and realistic origin people think it is, and placing him in a grounded and realistic setting takes away much of what's special about him.

Having Batman operate in a gritty, neo-noirish environment makes him stand out in an especially silly way, as he often does in the Nolan-verse. It has the effect of reminding us while we're watching a tightly-plotted crime drama that there is in fact a billionaire dressed up as a giant bat who refuses to use guns, fights criminals who have guns, and yet routinely emerges unscathed. An overemphasis on realism can also make him redundant as well. If you're just going to use Batman as a glorified noir-ish police detective, why not just tell stories about Jim Gordon or Harvey Bullock, actual police detectives, and leave Batman out of it?

Burton self-consciously creates a dark, yet still comic fantasy world, one in which a figure like Batman is at home, as well as outlandish villains like a scenery-chewing murderous clown, and a deformed, orphaned man who was raised by penguins and controls a circus-themed crime gang.

And it's easy to see how these contrasting visions of Batman impact the character of the Joker, which is a natural point of comparison, given that other than Catwoman, he's the only supervillain appearing in both the Burton and Nolan films. Again, it may be that Heath Ledger's take on the Joker is the deeper, more nuanced, and complex performance. He undoubtedly earned his Oscar and all the praise he received. However, Jack Nicholson, to me, is the more fun one to watch because, well, he seems to be having more fun.

Ledger's Joker comes across as an angry psychopath who happens to have chosen a clown theme almost at random, or as a result of the appearance of his scars. While he has clever dialogue, he's rarely funny. Nicholson's Joker, on the other hand, is constantly telling memorable jokes that amuse us even as he's horrifying us. Many great lines of his come to mind, like "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" or "This town needs an enema!" Dark Knight's Joker has "Why so serious?", which doesn't really qualify as a joke. Ledger's performance is powerful, but less entertaining. Nicholson's performance seems more suited for a comic book supervillain and truer to the character.

In addition, the Danny Elfman scores are superior to the Hans Zimmer ones, further adding to the rewatchability factor. Zimmer's scores are dull, fading into the background or sticking too close to what's happening on screen, never daring to outshine it. Elfman's scores remind us that we're watching an exciting, epic film. The opening music to the first Batman sets up the movie incredibly well, with a tone befitting Tim Burton's vision: operatic, somewhat dark, yet still heroic.

Though this may be obvious, I'm a huge fan of the Batman character (I tried writing this much content about Ambush Bug. Didn't work as well). One of the great things about Batman is that, like fellow fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, he's had a myriad of different interpretations over the years, some very light and some very dark. Both Nolan and Burton lean toward the darker approach to Batman, but only up to a point, and that's not really where the contrast lies.

Nolan's films feel bigger now because of box office results, Heath Ledger's passing, and because they're more recent. As all the films in the series recede into the past, however, these things won't seem as significant. And the demand by many comic book fans for a more grounded, realistic approach will fade as well. And once that happens, my guess is that Burton's films will age better.

Source: http://www.agonybooth.com/agonizer/Burtons_Batman_Will_Age_Better_Than_Nolans.aspx

While I agree with this author's sentiment in preferring Burton over Nolan, I don't agree with some of his reasons. I think many of us have demonstrated why the Nolan films are NOT well-written, so I'll just paraphrase what South Park said about Nolan's films in general: "Just because you come up with an idea is overly convoluted and complex, doesn't make it cool".

And while I agree with this author's argument that Nolan's films take advantage of terrible things going on around the world to pretend to say something relevant about society, I think he completely misses the point of what makes the Burton's films special: how Batman reflects his villains. Whether it's Batman responsible for creating Joker and vice versa, the bond he shares with a socially awkward Selina Kyle/unstable Catwoman and so on, that's what made those films stand out despite their own share of narrative flaws.

There's more I want to say, but I'm too tired to continue right now.

[Edd Grayson]

As far as I'm concerned, they've already aged better. I've seen Burton's films dozens of times and Nolan's films only about five times combined. The main issue is that the Nolan films spell everything out for the audience, so there's just very little excitement or things to ponder about watching the films again.

[Slash Man]

Yeah, Burton's Batman already has proved itself against the test of time; 25 years now.

While I agree with the overall idea, I still disagree with some of their criticisms of the original. Special effects? I'll give them that one. Writing? Eh, that one's up for debate. Burton's films are more concise, let confusing, and leave less room for plot holes. Being more simple doesn't discount it. Editing? It goes both ways. Nolan may be a master of this, but let's not forget the hastily-edited action scenes in Batman Begins. Acting? Secondary cast aside, no one's topping the leading roles of Nicholson and Keaton in this lifetime.

I find the Dark Knight series is rewatchable in its own right simply as well-made films, whereas Burton's films are like a comic book you can re-open and immediately get sucked back into that world.

[The Laughing Fish]

The way Burton handled romantic relationships is another big reason why I believe his movies are much better than Nolan's. Batman and Catwoman is one good example. While it's true that their love affair happens in a short period of time, it's still much longer compared to The Dark Knight Rises, where their romantic kiss and escape together in the end is such a spur of the moment. What made Bruce and Selina's chemistry in Batman Returns so fascinating is that these are two psychologically damaged and lonely people who got a relief from their troubled lives by becoming their costumed alter egos. It's just that Catwoman was arguably more unstable than Batman. Batman could cope with carrying the burden of having blood on his hands i.e. the villains he killed, but he didn't expect that someone who he cared about was destroying herself over her obsessive desire to get revenge over Max Schreck. Batman tried to offer Catwoman a chance to escape this troubled life – even ripping off his own mask as a way to abandon his own crusade to be with her. But Selina's guilt for her involvement in the Ice Princess's murder and her hatred for Schreck was too strong, that she had to turn Bruce down. As such, Bruce may have saved Gotham in the end, but he finds himself alone and heartbroken.

Let's compare that to the pair's relationship in TDKR. What do we know about Bruce and Selina in this movie? Selina is introduced as a sociopath who doesn't give a damn about who she hurts as long as she gets the Clean Slate. And of course, she played her part in forcing Bruce to lose his millions and helped the League of Shadows take over Gotham. Yet, she suddenly grows a conscience when she finds out that Bruce is Batman in the sewers. Why? In the ballroom scene, she accuses Bruce for being part of the '1%' who ripped off the poor, and vows "there's a storm coming", but now she has a change of heart for no reason. If anything, her discovery that Bruce uses his money to attack people as Batman instead of helping the poor should increase her hatred for him ten fold! I like how Anne Hathaway plays the role, but the writing makes no sense. And why does Bruce still trust her when she was responsible for putting him through that whole Bane/prison pit ordeal in the first place? He didn't even think Selina was sincere when she said she was sorry that he lost his wealth, for crying out loud! Let's face it: there's no justification why Bruce would still trust her, other than pure plot convenience. Unlike their BR counterparts, these two have absolutely nothing in common. And don't forget that at the end of a day, despite all the fuss this series made about Bruce Wayne's "moral authority" that was constantly undermined several times, he runs away with a woman whose crimes included murder. So much for morality.  No matter how hypocritical Bruce may have been for his "Wrong at both counts!" line in BR, at least the drama between him and Selina before ultimately losing each other felt genuine.