Burton didn't base his movies on ANY Batman comics. And why does it matter if the films are 20 years apart? Is that an excuse to completely take away from the source material? The first two Superman films were great adaptations of the character. And they came out a decade before Burton's films. And even though Superman Returns came out 20 - 30 years after Superman 1 and 2, the movie was still a terrible adaptation of Superman and the first two films were far more accurate.
My point is that a movie being old should not be an excuse for a comic book film to not be accurate to the comics (except if it was made in the mid 1970s or before that; special effects weren't good back then).
I'm here looking for a fight where there isn't one? It is actually the vice versa that is happening: I am NOT here looking for a fight where there IS one.
When I started this thread, I had no intentions of turning it into a Burton films vs. Nolan films comparison thread. It made this thread because I was curious to find out why everyone was using Batman's first 8 - 10 issues of him killing people as an excuse for Batman to kill in Burton's films (and it is not like the Burton films were based on the first issues of Batman where he killed). But after that, the people commenting here turned this thread into a Burton vs. Nolan comparison thread. And if I was here looking for a fight, I wouldn't tell Mr Parker to stop calling you a troll.
My mention of the gap in the years was to illustrate the fact that sensibilities have changed, both in comics and in movies.
Agreed on Returns. I hated the thing.
Fair enough on the fight part, but I seriously disagree when people say that Burton didn't adapt anything of the Batman mythos properly.
Firstly, I honestly believe he got the supernatural element down near perfectly. In the movie people actually see Batman as a mythical figure. I'm not going to say it's something that Nolan lacked because his approach was very different, but it's something i've always liked about the character and I think it was represented very well in 89.
Second, is Gotham. For me Burton's approach and vision of the city is exactly what i'd want from a Gotham in a movie. It's dark, it's grimey; it's almost a warped vision of what a city should be. It actually helps hammer home just how hard Batman has to work to keep the city safe, even if it's only a little bit at a time.
Third is Nicholson's Joker. I f*cking love that character, and I love Nicholson's performance. He moves between playful, almost reasonable at times to straight up psycho like the flick of a switch. Yes, you can say they didn't follow the comics with his origin and the like, but for me they got the spirit of the character as close to how i'd ideally like it to be on the big screen.
Now, lastly, the killing thing. I've argued in other threads that it's a vital part of the character and shouldn't be changed for naught. I've been called all sorts of names for it too, but I honestly believe that he shouldn't kill.
On the other hand: Batman has been killing people for decades. It's only a relatively new thing that he's not a killer. He was by no means as bad as the Punisher, but to act like he hasn't killed since that long ago is just silly imo.
He was a killer. Even though he liked to be indirect about it and it was rare, he was still responsible for deaths even up to this decade. Yes, they got less and less prominent as time went on, and if you compared Burton's Batman to the comics of today he'd look ridiculous.
For his time, though? Burton wasn't that far off.
And if you want to put the killing part aside? I think Keaton did a great job as Batman. His Bruce even had his moments. Was it Reeve level in it's brilliance? No, but for me even to this day, he brings a quality to Bruce and Batman that i still find interesting.
No, he didn't. Burton's Batman is nothing like the Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman in The Dark Knight Returns NEVER killed anyone at any point throughout the book. And don't tell me he killed the Joker. Batman didn't kill the Joker. Read the book again. The Joker committed suicide to frame Batman for murder.
Last edited by spidermanrocks on Oct 26th, 2010 at 01:21 AM
Burton's Batman is nothing like the Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman in The Dark Knight Returns NEVER killed anyone at any point throughout the book. And don't tell me he killed the Joker. Batman didn't kill the Joker. Read the book again. The Joker committed suicide to frame Batman for murder.
I do agree that the atmosphere was very good in Batman (1989). It was a very good gothic look to Gotham City. Although I hated how they changed the atmostphere in Batman Returns (it was way too dark in Batman Returns).
The problem with Jack's Joker isn't that he isn't acted well. In fact, Jack did a VERY good portrayal of the Joker. But the reason why the Joker was not true to the comics in Batman (1989) is because he wasn't written the say way he was written in the comics. A mob boss who is an artist, holds a grudge against Batman, and is afraid of death? That is not the Joker. Despite the Joker being acted very well, it didn't work out due to him being poorly written (which is Tim Burton's fault, not Jack's).
Batman killed for decades? You're probably talking about all of the people that Batman's enemies killed because Batman didn't kill them. Well personally, I don't see Batman as a killer just because he doesn't kill people that cause chaos like the Joker. But that is just my opinion.
Last edited by spidermanrocks on Oct 26th, 2010 at 01:22 AM
i was simply tring to make the point that just because a new batman is drastically diffrent from the old doesnt make him any less of a "true" batman
with that being said i do perfer the dark knight to batman(89) but i think people assume wrongly that just because a new movie comes out it automatically make the older one obsolete
So your whole point is that Batman (1989) is a good movie on its own despite it not being a good adaptation, right? If that is your point, then most people here (including myself) agree with you. I clearly remember saying on this thread that I do enjoy the 1989 film as a movie on its own. And other people have said that too. So if that is your point, then most people here were agreeing with you all along.
i said he was inspired by miller's work. i didn't say he copied it letter for letter. he was also inspired by alan moore's work too.
i actually think the joker was a good adaptation, but thats me.
also, what do you mean he was afraid of batman?
no, im talking about the deaths batman was responsible for. batman has been responsible for deaths even going up to the 80s. sure, it wasn't that common, but it happened.
and even if he hadn't been responsible, i really think that people letting something like that ruin a movie for them (with so many memorable scenes) is, tbh, silly.
in 1989, batman was a good adaptation of the character for me. nowadays it wouldn't be, but for it's time, i think it was.
it's the same with chris reeve as superman. if you took nowadays comics and put them against reeve the donner movies would look silly by comparison.
Well, I could kinda see Batman severly torturing criminals in TDKR as an inspiration for Batman '89. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that Burton's Batman is BASED on TDKR. As for The Killing Joke, I completely disagree with you on that. I don't see anything in Batman '89 that is based on The Killing Joke or inspired by The Killing Joke.
He wasn't afraid of Batman. He was afraid of dying. When he was about to fall off the ladder and fall to his death (after Batman tied him to a gargoyle with his grapple gun), he was afraid that he was going to fall and die. The Joker is VERY out of character in that scene. In the comics, it is clearly specified that the Joker doesn't care about himself at all and that he would willingly kill himself just to screw with Batman's head (like when he killed himself in TDKR to frame Batman for murder). The Joker shouldn't be afraid of death because he doesn't care about himself at all.
Whenever Batman was responsible for a death, it was accidental. It wasn't the same thing as killing them on purpose.
I don't think it would have ruined the movie. I thought it would have worked well. Plus, people picture "a shadowy dark vigilante figure" when they picture Batman. The general public usually doesn't care if Batman kills or not. I think there would have still been many memorable scenes even if Batman didn't kill.
The first two Superman films portrayed the characters accurately (except Lex Luthor; he was way too comical).
i think they used killing joke for joker's portrayal, but without knowing the full details it's only speculation.
what part convinced you that he felt fear? his screams when he fell? even if we take that part and say "sure, he was afraid" it's still an abnormally small part of his role in the movie for me and in no way tarnishes the performance.
it wasn't accidental. sometimes it was, yes, but it wasn't accidental when batman used a henchman as a human shield to block penguin's gun umbrella, or when he locked kgbeast in an underground bunker only to answer when someone asked what had happened "you don't have to worry about him anymore". it wasn't accidental when he caused a helicopter to crash with both pilots inside.
again, it's not a quality the modern batman possesses, but batman back then? most certainly, even as a rarity.
that isn't what i meant, but you are right in a sense. i don't think the relatively small parts where he kills people ruin the movie (even if we measure it against modern batman). so not killing people would have the same effect for me. it doesn't change the movie for me.
the first two superman movies portrayed the superman of THAT time correctly. you can't weigh them against current superman. it's the same with batman 89 and returns for me.
no im saying that just because it is diffrent does not make it a bad adaptation
being a good adaptation does not mean you have to be a clone of the source
Yeah, Burton didn't make the movie exactly like the comic book was, but let's look at the positives: Elfman's score is still the most iconic score for Batman, the Batmobile is still the most iconic (outside of Adam West's Batmobile), Burton's original Gotham City (from 1989) is possibly the best setting for Batman ever, and the suit looked extremely cool (I really want to buy a replica somewhere)
Could his movies have been better? Yeah (let's start with more Billy Dee as Harvey Dent, more Batman scenes, and Joker not killing Bruce's parents and go from there), but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid interpretation. This is fiction, it can be taken many different ways, you know.
Personally, I love the aesthetics of Burton's Batman. Had he had someone who knew what they were doing writing for him (Sam Hamm wasn't that great. His second script was awful), it'd be the best Batman ever, imo (plot and story are the only things lacking, for me)
correct. The first two superman movies did what the Burton Batman films failed to do,portray the characters accurately with the exception of Lex Luther just like you said.Burton should also never be allowed to cast a comicbook movie.Not only did that idiot screwup Batman with the casting of keaton who was so physically wrong for the part as well as not even coming close to resembling the role,but if it had been up to him to direct Superman,he would have made a mockery of the casting choice of Superman as well in the fact that he was originally slated to direct Superman and his casting choice was going to be another balding actor.Nicholas Cage. Thank God that never transpired.Too bad Batman 89 had to.
Actually, Burton said one the DVD commentary of Batman (1989) that The Killing Joke is the only Batman comic he ever read (at least back then) and that it was the main influence for the movie. So it is not speculation. It is a fact that Burton was claiming he used The Killing Joke as an inspiration. But he obviously lied since there is NOTHING in Burton's movie that is inspired by the book.
Yes, it was only a small part. But that is only an example. I could list more scenes like that from the movie that the Joker just wouldn't do. Does it tarnish the performance? No. But it tarnishes the character.
What are you talking about when you're saying "back then"? Are you referring to the 1940s comics or the comics that from the 80s?
Yes, the first two Superman films portrayed the Superman of THAT time correctly. But the Burton films did NOT portray the Batman of THAT time correctly (if you read the comics from the 80s and 90s, they weren't like the Burton films).
Actually, it does. Being different = Bad adaptation. The definition of the word adaptation is "making changes to fit the screen while still staying as true to the source material as possible". It does not mean that you could change the characters however you want.
Being a good adaptation doesn't mean you have to be a clone of the source. It means staying as true to the source material as possible. Are you allowed to make changes? Of course. But there is a LIMIT to how far you can take it.
And just because Batman '89 isn't a good adaptation doesn't mean that it is a bad movie in general. It's actually a pretty good movie.
I agree with your first and last paragraph. I kinda agree with your middle paragraph but not to a full extent. Burton's film was a pretty good movie but it had a lot of room for improvement as a Batman movie, that is true.
i was speaking about any other comics that might have been used for inspiration, not the killing joke itself.
what tarnishes the character, exactly?
batman up until the crisis might not have been the punisher, but he was responsible for a fair few deaths, and even post crisis he's had a few instances where he's been directly responsible for deaths.
i disagree. the burton movies did take licenses, but for me they portrayed the spirit of the characters as they were in that decade.
The fact that he isn't written as he is in the comics. A mob boss who is an artist and holds a grudge against Batman? That is not the Joker's character. There were some scenes with dark comedy (which is the type of comedy that the Joker is supposed to have) but there were more Joker one-liners than dark comedy with the Joker. Only a few scenes had good dark comedy (such as the "I'm glad you're dead!" scene, when he kills Bob, and when he kills that guy with a pen). Other than that, the Joker in Burton's film is pretty much the Silver Age Joker except that he kills people. Also, the Joker trying to prove that he is the superior "freak" is NOT something that he would want to do. In the comics, the Joker believes that Batman is equally as insane as he is and wants to prove this to Batman. And the Joker doesn't care about himself at all. He would willingly laugh at his own death or commit suicide just to screw with peoples' heads. Him being afraid of dying makes no sense and contradicts this. Another problem with the Joker is that Burton tries to explain his character. The story is more told from the Joker's point of view rather than from Batman's point of view. We know exactly everything about the Joker in that movie. We know the cause of his insanity and where he comes from and the writers of that film even gave him a full name. A very important aspect about the Joker's character in the comics is that he is very mysterious. No one knows what caused him to be driven insane, where he originated from, what his reasons and intentions are, and what his full name is. The Joker is probably one of the most mysterious comic book characters of all time and this is completely ignored in...on second though, it is more than just ignored. Since we know almost everything about the Joker in that film, he is the exact OPPOSITE of mysterious. And I do not like that.
I'm not dissing Jack's performance. I thought Jack did a great job. Jack did a good job in that film but the problem was the script. The script wrote the Joker's character very poorly and inaccurate to the comics (which is Burton's fault, not Jack's).
The deaths that Post-Crisis Batman was responsible for happened for one of the following two reasons:
1) They were accidental deaths, where Batman's intention wasn't to kill the person but it accidentaly happened. Accidental deaths don't count and don't contradict the character.
2) They occured due to Batman not killing his villains and then his villains would later escape from Arkham and kill some people. Batman is not directly responsible for the murders that the Joker causes. Him sparing his villains that later commit more crimes is different from him directly killing his enemies by throwing them off rooftops (which is what he does in the Burton franchise).
By Burton's films capturing the "spirit of the comics", are you talking about the Burton films giving the same feeling and mood as the comics? In that case, I understand what you're saying and I see where you're coming from. But if you're trying to say that Burton's films are like the comics of the 80's and early 90's, then I disagree with you.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 24th, 2010 12:59 AM
The first two superman movies did what the Burton Batman films failed to do,portray the characters accurately with the exception of Lex Luther just like you said.Burton should also never be allowed to cast a comicbook movie.Not only did that idiot screwup Batman with the casting of keaton who was so physically wrong for the part as well as not even coming close to resembling the role,but if it had been up to him to direct Superman,he would have made a mockery of the casting choice of Superman as well in the fact that he was originally slated to direct Superman and his casting choice was going to be another balding actor.Nicholas Cage. 
Thank God that never transpired.Too bad Batman 89 had to.
