Was Tim Burton the most economical director in the Batman film franchise?

[The Laughing Fish]

I reckon Tim Burton to this day is the only director in the live action Batman franchise who was economical. What I mean is he knew how to maintain a good sense of pacing when making a film, and tell a story that doesn't drag longer than two hours. He was wise enough to realize that a story needs to focus on fewer characters without distracting the audience with rushed and unnecessary subplots, and not to add too many extra characters that only steal screen time from Batman and his villains. I believe all the movies after Batman Returns try to cram in too much plot but they're not that well executed, whether it's because of poorly conceived ideas or not enough time devoted to them. Although in hindsight, I think Batman Forever fares better than most of the other films that have since been released only because its script had enormous potential.

And while it may be true that Batman in Burton's films may not have an overlong backstory or even has less screen time in Batman Returns, I'd argue that Burton was smart to ensure that Batman had something in common with his villains:

• Batman and Joker being responsible for each other's creations;
• Batman and Catwoman are two psychologically damaged people who only get a release from their lives by becoming their alter egos;
• Batman and Penguin are orphans.

You can even argue that Max Schreck is a corrupt reflection of Bruce Wayne as the socialite and businessman.

[johnnygobbs]

I think you're on to something The Laughing Fish.

One of the primary reasons that Batman 1989 is still my favourite of the various Batman live-action movies is that it is the most concisely told story.  There's very little fat on the film and the first act in particular is a master-class in economical storytelling that sets up all the main players and their respective motivations within the first handful of scenes.  In that sense it reminds me of a classic 1940s movie where the onus was on writing and characterisation.  Such storytelling is also more satisfying than the bloated likes of certain other Batman films (you know which ones I mean...) because they come close to adhering to the old Aristolian Dramatic Unities, of Action, Time and Place.

Okay, the film doesn't take place within a single day but the timeframe seems much more compressed than Batman Begins or TDKR for example, which appear to take place between anything from a few weeks to several years (and Batman Returns in fact seems to take place within the space of a mere week during mid-to-late December).  Also, all the action takes place within Gotham (Unity of Place) and all the action ultimately builds to a straightforward dichotomy between Batman and The Joker (i.e. "You made me!"  "You made me first!"), that is admittedly facilitated by turning the Joker into the man responsible for killing Bruce Wayne's parents.

Thus, for me at least, Batman 1989 feels like the sharpest and most focused of the live-action Batman movies.

[The Laughing Fish]

^Fascinating insight johnny.

B89 may be simple, but it's a film that has a cohesive plot. And you're definitely right that the period of time in both of Burton's films are coherent and feel natural than something like Harvey Dent's forced descent to madness right after he got injured in The Dark Knight. I still have no idea how much time had passed when we get to the scene where Dent is lying in his hospital bed after getting disfigured and Rachel dies. I think people confuse convoluted, messy plotting with 'complex storytelling'. I'm sure it's possible that a superhero movie with a complex plot can happen, but I'm not convinced it has been successfully pulled off yet.

Some people may complain how simplistic the dichotomy between Batman and Joker is, but it still doesn't change the fact it clearly relates to the plot. It doesn't have to be over-complicated as long as the link is reflected in the dialogue and in the action. In this case, you could argue that Burton was influenced by Alan Moore demonstrating how Batman and Joker are both reflections to each other, as they both suffered an ill-fated moment that defined who they are. Except Burton made the two practically responsible for each other's destiny. It's not any more of a drastic departure from the comics than something like Ra's al Ghul and Lucius Fox playing a huge part in Bruce's destiny to become Batman.

When it comes to focus, I think all the modern day superhero movie sequels share one common problem: too many main villains. Now, I think you can have one main antagonist with multiple henchmen, but you can't have multiple main villains, if you catch my drift. I think only Batman Returns, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and even Batman Forever to a lesser degree, have been successful in dividing screen time per two or three villains naturally. But the most important thing is those movies introduced their villains in the first 45 minutes, and I don't feel like Penguin, Catwoman, Schreck, Winter Soldier, or Riddler were tacked on to increase the movie's running time. The opposite occurs in movies like Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and especially Nolan's trilogy. And there's not enough time to flesh the character arcs properly; making their presence forced and their motivations become afterthoughts.

[johnnygobbs]

When it comes to focus, I think all the modern day superhero movie sequels share one common problem: too many main villains. Now, I think you can have one main antagonist with multiple henchmen, but you can't have multiple main villains, if you catch my drift. I think only Batman Returns, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and even Batman Forever to a lesser degree, have been successful in dividing screen time per two or three villains naturally. But the most important thing is those movies introduced their villains in the first 45 minutes, and I don't feel like Penguin, Catwoman, Schreck, Winter Soldier, or Riddler were tacked on to increase the movie's running time. The opposite occurs in movies like Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and especially Nolan's trilogy. And there's not enough time to flesh the character arcs properly; making their presence forced and their motivations become afterthoughts.

I don't mind multiple villains.  What I dislike is contrived team-ups.

The multiple villains in say 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' work because most of those villains are part of the same organisation, and it is effectively that organisation, rather than a single maniacal figure surrounded by a bunch of minions, that represents the threat.  By contrast 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' and 'Spider-Man 3' felt very contrived because they forced together two or more villains as allies contrary to any sense of logic, reason or mutual motivation.

I do think there are some problems in terms of why Catwoman should align herself with The Penguin in 'Batman Returns' however their alliance is brief and you're 100% right when you argue that they, along with Shreck, were clearly well drawn and developed within the film's running time; in fact Burton's Catwoman, The Penguin and Max Shreck are among the richest and most compelling characters in comic-book movie history.

Where I do like 'multiple villains' is where the primary antagonist is surrounded by differentiated and absorbing henchmen and women.  One thing that frustrates me is where a team of superheroes goes up against a bunch of faceless, disposable drones.  I can forgive 'The Avengers' for having the team face-off against an army of anonymous aliens because that film was clearly focused on the whole team coming together rather than the overall mission per se, and to be fair the final battle sequence was spectacularly shot, but for the most part I like to see each hero go up against individual henchmen and women who have almost as much personality and audience appeal as they do.

[The Dark Knight]

I do think there are some problems in terms of why Catwoman should align herself with The Penguin in 'Batman Returns' however their alliance is brief and you're 100% right when you argue that they, along with Shreck, were clearly well drawn and developed within the film's running time; in fact Burton's Catwoman, The Penguin and Max Shreck are among the richest and most compelling characters in comic-book movie history.

I think their team-up is probably the best of any comic book movie. Catwoman does indeed offer to join forces with Oswald, but it's strictly professional on her part. She simply wants to take down Batman. To lower his standing in the community, and to be thought of as no better than the criminals he fights.

Catwoman had no interest in Oswald. There was always a barrier between them. Catwoman was a sexual creature by habit, and any signals she sent were by default. She just wanted Oswald's resources to help make the plan happen. Just as Oswald wanted Max's resources and 'savvy' to re-emerge at the beginning of the film.

It's interesting to note that at this time Oswald was being used by Max, and Selina absolutely hated Max. Selina was the free agent doing as she pleased, not attached to anybody. Penguin was an animal of desire. He wanted Catwoman badly, and felt he was betrayed by her when the personal interest wasn't reciprocated.

The guy was a mean customer but was big on acceptance. Even if he could see the benefits, he actually went along with plans to please others. And they all ultimately proved to be distractions to his ultimate end game.

[The Laughing Fish]

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' and 'Spider-Man 3' felt very contrived because they forced together two or more villains as allies contrary to any sense of logic, reason or mutual motivation.

Indeed, although I think Two-Face in The Dark Knight is still the worst offender here. As much as I didn't care too much  for Venom in Spider-Man 3, at least I thought Eddie Brock's hatred for Peter Parker was plausible.

I do think there are some problems in terms of why Catwoman should align herself with The Penguin in 'Batman Returns' however their alliance is brief and you're 100% right when you argue that they, along with Shreck, were clearly well drawn and developed within the film's running time; in fact Burton's Catwoman, The Penguin and Max Shreck are among the richest and most compelling characters in comic-book movie history.

I think their team-up is probably the best of any comic book movie. Catwoman does indeed offer to join forces with Oswald, but it's strictly professional on her part. She simply wants to take down Batman. To lower his standing in the community, and to be thought of as no better than the criminals he fights.

Catwoman had no interest in Oswald. There was always a barrier between them. Catwoman was a sexual creature by habit, and any signals she sent were by default. She just wanted Oswald's resources to help make the plan happen. Just as Oswald wanted Max's resources and 'savvy' to re-emerge at the beginning of the film.

It's interesting to note that at this time Oswald was being used by Max, and Selina absolutely hated Max. Selina was the free agent doing as she pleased, not attached to anybody. Penguin was an animal of desire. He wanted Catwoman badly, and felt he was betrayed by her when the personal interest wasn't reciprocated.

Right. Catwoman was rebellious by nature who especially seemed to have a lot of disdain for men. She doesn't think highly of Batman protecting Gotham from crime and her opinion of him sinks further when he didn't hold his punches back against her. You might argue she was capable of being manipulative in a way because she only joined forces with Penguin only to take Batman down, while somewhat seducing Penguin in the process.

It's strange that she's also the only one in Gotham other than Batman, Alfred and Schreck who sees through the Penguin's facade as a misunderstood loner and realizes that he is a depraved freak. And yet, her unstable and rebellious frame of mind ignored all of that because of her distaste that somebody like Batman challenged her.

[Slash Man]

I find it's usually mind-blowing to discover deleted scenes from famous movies that really change the way we look at them. Not so with Burton's films; we don't get an uneven feel like from other movies that go through significant changes during production.