The Dark Knight Rises compared to Batman Returns

[greggbray]

Time has passed since Batman 89, but I don't necessarily think Batman has been out of action, himself.  Gordon's line "I'm afraid the Circus Gang is back," indicates that they've dealt with this gang before, of screen, between the two films.  At least that's my reading of it, it could have been something Gordon dealt with without Batman.

I rather like Bruce sitting in his gloomy mansion.  Though, according to Waters, Burton wanted to rid every nod to the first Batman film, and Waters had to fight to get at least one or two Vicki references in there---Bruce's solitude seems connected to Vicki's leaving. So Vicki split, the Joker is dead, both justice and vengeance served...where does he go from here?  Intentional or not, it's a good starting point.

[johnnygobbs]

Time has passed since Batman 89, but I don't necessarily think Batman has been out of action, himself.  Gordon's line "I'm afraid the Circus Gang is back," indicates that they've dealt with this gang before, of screen, between the two films.  At least that's my reading of it, it could have been something Gordon dealt with without Batman.

Was Gordon perhaps referring to the circus gang that had kidnapped children several years before according to the microfiche Bruce pulls out later in the film?

If the Circus Gang had been operating in the interim on what basis would they be acting?  They seem to be completely aligned to the Penguin and there's nothing to indicate that they have any other motives beyond doing their leader's bidding.

[JokerMeThis]

The circus gang may have commited crimes to get money to build the rockets and the mind control helmets for the penguins. Or money to buy them. In Batman Forever Riddler and Two-Face committed crimes to fund the building and marketing of the mind reading machines.

The circus gang was probably thought to be linked to the missing children but I don't get the impression from that newspaper article Bruce reads that anything was proven.

Why would Burton want no references to Batman '89 in Batman Returns? Might he have wanted people to think it took place in a completely different universe from the first movie's universe?

[johnnygobbs]

Why would Burton want no references to Batman '89 in Batman Returns? Might he have wanted people to think it took place in a completely different universe from the first movie's universe?

Bearing in mind that he brought back Keaton, Gough and Pat Hingle and that there are a couple of references to Vicki Vale I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that 'Batman Returns' is not a sequel to 'Batman' however, I do believe Burton was relatively unsatisfied with his first go at 'Batman' (the fool... ) and that he probably viewed it as a studio-mandated picture rather than a passion-project, although to be fair I think his first 'Batman' clearly is a 'Tim Burton picture' even though it's certainly nowhere near as idiosyncratic and determinedly 'Burtonesque' as 'Batman Returns' and most of his other films (the 'Planet of the Apes' remake excepted).

Anyway, the point is Burton I believe wanted to make another Batman film that could exist as a 'stand-alone' movie rather than an explicit continuation of a saga.  The great thing is that 'Batman Returns' can be viewed either way and although I like to think of it as a sequel which ever way you look at it one doesn't need to have seen 'Batman' to fully enjoy 'Returns' (in some way the situation is comparable to the 'Indiana Jones' films - there is no necessary order for watching the films, and if there was surely 'Temple of Doom' would ideally be watched before 'Raiders' since 'ToD' is a prequel).

[JokerMeThis]

What about Batman '89 do you think makes it distinctive as a Tim Burton movie? Other than the fact the credits say he directed it.

There are a lot of reasons why I feel that Batman Returns doesn't feel like it takes place in the same world as Batman '89. It seems even more otherworldly with the even more 1930's look. Max Shreck's clothes and hair also don't seem to fit in the world of Batman '89. The Penguin and his circus friends don't really feel like they belong in Batman '89's world either. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense though.

Not that I don't think it's a sequel. I just don't think it feels like one but I don't care. I prefer Batman Returns' more surreal, otherworldly look.

[johnnygobbs]

What about Batman '89 do you think makes it distinctive as a Tim Burton movie? Other than the fact the credits say he directed it.

The subversive humour, the art direction clearly, the focus on the disaffected outsider status of the main characters, Danny Elfman's score (again clearly), the period look and feel and otherworldly quality to this Gotham (none of Burton's films feel like they are set in the 'real world' and IMHO are all the more enjoyable for that).

Do I take it from your question that you don't really consider 'Batman '89' to be a particularly 'Burtoneque' movie?

There are a lot of reasons why I feel that Batman Returns doesn't feel like it takes place in the same world as Batman '89. It seems even more otherworldly with the even more 1930's look. Max Shreck's clothes and hair also don't seem to fit in the world of Batman '89. The Penguin and his circus friends don't really feel like they belong in Batman '89's world either. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense though.

I think the minor stylistic differences don't destroy my suspension of disbelief.  I enjoy each film's distinctive look and feel whilst still appreciating 'Batman Returns' as a direct sequel to Burton's first Batman film.  Also, I always felt that 'Batman '89' with its gangster-orientated storyline and motifs was a blend of the 1930s/80s and that 'Batman Returns' was a blend of the post-war 1940s/early 90s aesthetic.  In that sense, 'Batman Returns' feels like a natural continuation of the first film and that Gotham has changed so radically in the space of a few years makes as much sense to me as a Gotham which apparently undergoes no discernible change between the events of 'Batman Begins' and 'TDKR' which, including flashbacks to Bruce's childhood, would appear to take place over a the best part of a thirty-year timeframe in total.

[JokerMeThis]

I think Batman '89 is like a Tim Burton movie. I was just curious what you thought. 

As for Batman Begins, I think the clothes young Bruce and his parents wear look like pre-2005 styles. If those flashbacks were in the early 1970's I think the clothes still look old-fashioned but I've always thought Gotham looks best as a 1930's or 1940's city.

[johnnygobbs]

I think Batman '89 is like a Tim Burton movie. I was just curious what you thought.

No problem.  I hope you didn't think my comments were rude.  I can see why some people (not you though) might consider 'Batman '89' to be one of Burton's less 'Burtonesque' films if that makes any sense.

As for Batman Begins, I think the clothes young Bruce and his parents wear look like pre-2005 styles. If those flashbacks were in the early 1970's I think the clothes still look old-fashioned but I've always thought Gotham looks best as a 1930's or 1940's city.

If Bruce is meant to be around the same age as Christian Bale then I'd say those flashbacks take place in the 80s.  On the other hand, if I'm right about that surely that means 'TDKR' takes place in the future since it is set eight years after the events of 'TDK' (so 2016 perhaps), although to be fair there probably wasn't a three year gap between the events of 'Begins' and 'TDK' regardless of the three year gap between the release of those respective movies.

Anyway, my point with the Nolan films is that there is no discernible change in the way Gotham looks from the flashback scenes in 'Begins' to the present/future-day scenes in 'TDKR'.  Fashions haven't changes and neither has the architecture and general appearance of the city.  I suppose Nolan wanted his films to be timeless but instead it seems that 'TDK' series is permanently stuck in the mid to late 00s.  I think a sense of timelessness is far better achieved by setting a film in a specific period or a clearly fantastical 'elsewhere' world like the Gotham City of 'Batman '89' and 'Batman Returns' which are like a fusion of the 30/40s and the 80/90s.

[JokerMeThis]

I didn't think your comments were rude. 

I don't think Batman '89 looks as much like a Burton movie as others do including Batman Returns but I see a little of Burton's ideas in it. In spite of the old-fashioned look of Gotham and the clothes people wear I think the movie does look and feel a lot like our world, at least in the 80's. Batman Returns on the other hand feels like another world completely. I can't see things like Penguin, the Red Triangle Circus Gang and their ability to get the blueprints to the Batmobile, kidnap millions of children in one night with circus trains and arm intelligent penguins with candy cane striped rockets and put mind control helmets on their heads in the universe of Batman '89. And let's not forget about the maybe magical cats and Catwoman. In Batman Returns Gotham also looks more like a cartoon and idealistic than in Batman '89 as well, in my opinion. The sabotage of the Batmobile with that little ball, the rubber duck boat/car, the Batmobile ride, the clothes people wear, especially Max, don't seem to fit in with Batman '89's more realistic world I think.

Also there's how different Wayne Manor looks. Did Bruce Wayne have the exterior redesigned? He is rich and weird so maybe he did.  It looks to me like he redesigned the Batcave too.

And this isn't a criticism. I'm just saying what I think.

[Edd Grayson]

Batman and Batman Returns vs The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, who would win?


And call me bats**t insane, but Batman Forever wins against Batman Begins for me. Watch the deleted scenes of BF and you'll see what I mean.