Fed Up With Burton/Batman Bashing

[Joker81]

I'm sick of the Burton/batman bashing. I just bought a book on Batman called 'Batman Unathourised' and so far all they do is praise Begins and Bash Batman and Returns. Getting a bit sick of it. I'm coming to the conclusion that Batman fans are just whinners, and I am actually more of a Burton's Batman fan than a Batman comic fan.

I dont mean to cause offence to any Batman fans by the way, Its just some fans out there forget how important Batman was for comic book films, and Batman comics. It sickens me.

[shadowbat69]

I didnt know Jett wrote a book.

[DocLathropBrown]

Just ignore it. I disassociate myself from the internet idiots and I'm never bothered by it any more.

You'll find that kind of thing is only on the internet. People you meet in person aren't so full of hatred for no reason.

So, just keep away from places that are that way. It's not something that can be changed, so just wash your hands of it. I've left SuperHeroHype because of that reason. Just because I don't think TDK is the be-all, end-all, many posters there think me worthless. I can't just be a Batman fan there, because I'm forced into taking sides because I don't subscribe to the idea of "bash one to praise the other."

[Joker81]

thanks, you are rite. I'm gonna try and avoid that stuff for the next few months!

Thats why I come here. I suppose it is immaturity on them boards that does it.
It is really putting me off Batman, and I dont want it to, because I am a Batman fan, and I like Batman. Not going to let them brainless idiots make me hate it.

[thecolorsblend]

My problem is with the revisionist history in play.  Burton gets criticized for not adapting comic book influences that were at best embryonic when he made his films or for, say, reinventing the Penguin or what have you.

This, of course, overlooks the veritable plethora of comics influences in the film.  If not Burton himself, someone involved with those productions was a huge fan of TDKR, Killing Joke and those early Kane/Finger issues of Detective.

What's even funnier is when you point those things out, the haters (many of whom haven't even a read a non-Denny O'Neil influenced comic) either don't believe it or else say Burton should've chosen to adapt more modern comics.  This while they overlook the vintage late-30's Joker characterization we're going to see in TDK.

And yes, Jett is unquestionably the worst among them.

[Paul (ral)]

The problem with Batman is that he has had so many interpretations.

For me, I never had the comics as a child in my formative interpretation of Batman.  I had the 1960's tv show 

In my later years i have been able to get some comics - the usual TLH, TKJ, Knightfall, etc.

In my own mind I am able to resolve all these things - comics, tv show, cartoons and films - to have an assumption of what Batman should be.  All the films have addressed it in some small (or large) way - so bashing to me is futile.  Futile because someone else has a different interpretation of what Batman is - and it's just as valid as mine.

To be honest, and I have said this in the past, no-one will ever really have a clear grasp on the character.

thanks, you are rite. I'm gonna try and avoid that stuff for the next few months!

Me too, I will not be visiting any other Batman boards, apart from this one, until well after TDK comes out.  I am going to see it a few times in the cinema and i really want to absorb it without external influences.

[Mothy]

The two films by Burton are his interpretation of the character, doesn?t make it right or wrong. I don?t care what people have to say about them, I like them and that is what matters.

[BatmAngelus]

I also bought Batman Unauthorized and, while it does have some good articles, others in the book feel rather unbalanced with a "Burton and Schumacher did it all wrong, Nolan's Batman did it all right" bias that conveniently ignores any qualities of the former and any flaws of the latter. 
I found myself thinking, "Well, Burton's films had that too, not just Nolan's" or "Did this guy forget that this issue was in Batman Begins, too?"  In the end, I stick with my own opinion.

[Joker81]

yeah, and I was hoping that the book was going to be factual based, so I could learn more about Batman, Bruce Wayne and the villians throughout the years. But It seems to just be opinions, and thats all it is-other peoples opinions, thats the only way I can look at it without getting angry.

Yes I can see their points of some of the flaws of Burtons Batman films, but they seem to forget, movie making is a business, and it requires certain changes of stories and characters to get these films made. As I recall Batman, Batman Returns and even Forever were financial successes! And to me Batman is a watchable, and very enertaining 'complete' story of a superhero to any person, young, old, Batman fan or not.

They are not fairly quick to pick out flaws in Batman Begins, because I tell you now, there are a lot!

I have decided to not read the book now as all it does is anger me. I was flicking through the book and I read that the Joker apparently DOSEN'T have a permanent grin or smile on his face!!!! Since when? Who said this? Seems to me this book is only another tool to big up Begins and the forthcoming Dark Knight.
I'm sorry I bought the book!!

[BatmAngelus]

I know which articles you've read and understand how they can infuriate you.
However, in flipping through the book, most of the articles mainly cover the various versions in the comics and would cover factual periods in the history of Batman that might interest you and talk very little (if at all) about the films.

For example:
"Ra's Al Ghul: Father Figure as Terrorist" by Michael Marano provides info on how Ra's is portrayed in the comics.
"Robin: Innocent Bystander" by Jake Black analyzes the three main Robins in the history of Batman's comic book career.
"The Dubious Origins of The Batman" by Alan J. Porter bring up issues on who really created the Batman character.
"Batman In Outer Space" by Mike W. Barr covers the 1950s comics in which Batman and Robin had outer space adventures and discusses their significance.

I'd highly recommend those.

As for the permanent grin issue, it does depend on the interpretation.
Joker in the comics, up until recently, has not had a permanent grin.  He smiles, of course, but he can choose to smile when he wants to, like everyone else.
The permanent grin was, indeed, something that Burton added in the 1989 film, in which the bullet that richochets into Jack Napier's face severs his facial nerves, freezing his cheeks to look like he is always smiling even when he isn't.  This origin is not in the comics.

However, recently, they've added a cut/gash "Glasgow/Chelsea" smile, like in Batman Confidential and the upcoming Dark Knight film, which, I consider, to count as a permanent grin (kind of).  I personally don't care for this cut smile route, but it's becoming popular.