Things Nolan did better than Burton
Making a third Batman movie. Ha.
shareNolan did everything better than Burton except for one thing: The scene where Bruce's parents are murdered, true Burton added in a very cliched coincidence that it just happened to be the Joker who was the murderer but the overall tension and atmosphere in Burton's Batman I thought was better than it was in Batman Begins, in Batman Begins it just kind of happens with no build up.
Other than that Nolan owns Burton.
Burton has style, Nolan doesn't. Burton knows how to frame Batman into the shadows to make him look cool, Nolan knows how to put Batman under some neon lights in a generic looking basement and make him look like a fool.
shareIf think you're confused with Schumacher, he's the one who like the neon lights. Nolan knows how to tell a compelling story with well defined characters. The Burton films are fine if you're a little kid.
shareBurton films are fine if you are adult too, Nolan movies are boring to look at 99 percent of the time and Heath Ledger absolutely saved his trilogy. If the joker was bad then Nolan's Batman would be absolutely trash but because the joker was good it's only semi trash.
shareOther than Edward Scissorhands and maybe Ed Wood Burton hasn't really done anything all that impressive while pretty much every Nolan film has been a masterpiece aside from Insomnia and Dunkirk. His Batman films have far more going for them than just the Joker.
shareNo love for Beetlejuice?
shareEh it was OK but I didn’t think it was that great. Edward Scissorhands to me is the only film he’s done that’s on par with the best of Nolan
shareI put Edwood. Its Burtons best film in my opinion. With Edward Scissorhands second, then Beatlejuice his top tier.
After that Pee Wee, Sleepy Hollow and Mars Attacks! are good in his style.
Im not even going to argue which director is the better. because they are drasticaly different, its like asking if German expressionism is better than high drama.
The only thing I can say is Nolan has not tackled comedy and his films are pretty much humorless where Burton excels at that.
Yeah I’d rank Ed Wood as his second best film. The scene where Bill Murray is being baptized was comedy gold. His planet of the apes movie didn’t do it for me. But yeah I don’t hate Beetlejuice I just wasn’t that crazy about it
shareI thought Big Fish was Burton’s best film. Also love Beetlejuice, Ed Wood, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Edward Scissorhands. His string of endless remakes and unoriginal films...I didn’t get into them much.
I did enjoy Burton’s Batman films though, while they were no where near as good as Nolan’s first two Batman films in my opinion.
I also did enjoy the 2 Burton films but all 3 Nolan films in my opinion are vastly superior in pretty much every aspect.
shareBurton's films are really great, imaginative works that take us to a different place and immerse us in atmosphere and the shadows of Bruce Wayne's world - literal and psychological. So, I agree with you there.
But I really liked Batman Begins, which is a great origin story movie. It's big flaw is Katie Holmes, but I thought the rest of the movie was solid and contained more than a little of the great down-to-earth atmosphere of Batman: Year One by Frank Miller.
The Dark Knight was a solid action flick, too, with (as you rightly say) a home-run performance by Ledger. But I thought this one had some cool themes with the two sides of the superhero/villain world personified by the obsessive, orderly, Apollonian Batman vs. the Dionysian, anarchic chaos of the Joker. In the middle is the hope for Gotham who winds up having literally two faces, further cementing this Janus-symbolism. Coin tosses, card games, chance, and luck rule in that world, and it all comes together pretty well (overly complex Joker plot notwithstanding).
Yes and the third wraps up the trilogy very well. It starts off strong and only gets better as it progresses
shareI didn't care for the third, but to paraphrase Trinity, we've been down this road and we know exactly where it ends.
shareTo me the third is the greatest conclusion to any franchise
shareNo one believes you.
shareIt's subjective genius. I clearly said "to me", work on your reading comprehension skills.
shareBatman Begins creams any Burton Batman film critically. Check Rottentomatoes, or metacritic. It also beats it by user reviews. Check Rottentomatoes, or Metacritic. This was before Ledger was even thought of. Am I saying you have to agree with that? Nope you are free to prefer Burton's version but to say Nolan's trilogy is trash without Ledger is absolutely false. I prefer Nolan's films but I do not disrespect Burton's films or make false statements simply because I prefer one over the other.
shareWe both know Ledger Joker is the best thing by far in Nolan's trilogy. And that is not an accurate joker to comics, it is just a cool original character. We both know Bales Bat voice is bad, and his Batman is simply not a strong character. He got completely outstaged by the joker, maybe even by Gary Oldman, Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman etc. I am not blaming Bale for that, it is directors job to make his or her main character interesting. As for your critics reviews, eh those sites are unreliable and weren't there when Burton did his thing which was also a bigger cultural phenomenon at the time. To me Nolan's Batman trilogy wouldn't be good if Ledger wasn't in it, he is the only good thing there.
shareLedger being the best wasn't the point you made. You said Nolan's films were trash without him. Donner's Superman got released before Burton's Batman. So this is before Donner did his thing. Guess what that film edges out Batman Begins critically. So this debunks your point there.
Burton's Joker is not accurate to the comics either. In what comic did Joker kill Bruce's parents? This is just an attempt to be biased. Notice I never said Nolan's were accurate to source material but neither is Burton's.
A bigger cultural phenomenon does not mean it is a better film. Independence day was a bigger cultural phenomenon than Blade runner was. It is not considered a better film. I can give plenty of other examples.
Also the villains outshine Keaton's batman in every film. So that dismantles that also.
I don't think the villains outshine Keaton's Batman, after Burton did his Batman ever kid wanted to be Batman, wearing bat logo shirts and so on. After Nolan did his Batman every kid wants to be Heath Ledger Joker and I understand why. Because of screen presence. Put Keaton Batman vs Ledger Joker in a room and Keaton version doesn't get upstaged.
shareNo retort to my other points outside of that one huh? Didn't think so.
shareLedger's Joker is great, he may be the best thing in the trilogy, but it's by no means a slam dunk, there are plenty of other great characters in the Dark Knight Trilogy.
shareThe Burton films are fine if you're a little kid.
How dare you! I am fine with you preferring Nolan's films but that's taking it too far! What a snob! share
I mean there's nothing particularly deep or thought provoking about them, they are just entertaining yet shallow superhero films targeted towards children. They are still cinematic masterpieces when compared to the Schumacher films or Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice.
shareLmao this idiot has the nerve to talk about deep and thought provoking when The Dark Knight Rises is his favorite movie. One of the worst endings ever to a trilogy and chock full of plot holes that you can drive a Batmobile through. Scratch that, you can drive a Tumbler through them.
shareThat because you just don't get how brilliant and perfect dark knight rises. Yours has to be a superior intellect to grasp the depth, complexity, poetry and beauty of things like "i just knew you were batman", "send every officer into the sewers", or how about magic knee brace that Bane conveniently leaves on Bruce (I guess we are supposed to assume it was left on despite all his other gear being removed because we were not specifically shown it being removed), or how about healing a lower lumbar dislocation after only a few months locked in a pit and no physical therapy (push ups are a perfect alternative to complex physical therapy didn't you know simpleton?)
I could go on but I think you get my point. Some people (see above) are just crazed fanatics and refuse to adhere to reality; but narcissistic types like to pretend it is because they are somehow superior and have deeper knowledge; or something.
1. They clearly explained how Blake knew Bruce was Batman
2. Gordon understood the threat Bane posed and that’s why he sent every available unit, also in both of the previous films which you claim to like every available unit was sent to a particular location as well. You’re not being objective kid
3. As for the knee brace it’s your burden of proof to prove it was removed. You have to get past the fact that Bane had no logical reason as the time to remove it considering he never thought Bruce would make it or nor do you even know he even knew what that thing was, also you don’t even know Bane knew about the Brace considering Bruce wore long pants the rest of the film.
4. They did everything you are supposed to do to heal his back and he only had a dislocated vertebrae, also do you seriously expect him to just sit around waiting to be cleared by a doctor when there’s literally a nuclear bomb he has to stop? He pushes through it because millions of lives were on the line
You’re once again reinforcing that you don’t understand the film, stick with Batman Forever kid
You just keep reinforcing you are a demented incel that really doesn't belong discussing anything with anyone.
Batman Forever is objectively a worst film. And I hate it. If I was to rate it I would give it a 3/10 or maybe even a 2 out of 10. Rises would still get around a 6 or maybe 6.5 out of 10. It is NOT a perfect film by any reasonable measure and the fact that you fanatically and zealously attack anyone that doesn't think it is perfect is only a demonstration of your demented nature about this film; you are crazed Nolanite.
1. Yes it clearly explains it; he "looked into Bruce's eyes and just knew" there was no hidden meaning to this; it was spoonfed and it was garbage writing. There was nothing hidden or deep.
2. Sending ALL available units into a compromised position where they were at a weakness and leaving the rest of the city defenseless is tactically retarded. That is an objective fact.
3. The proof is the fact that all other gear was removed. Just because the film doesn't show all the gear getting removed we should assume Bane removed it all. There would be no logical reason to leave it on when everything else was removed. So IF it WAS left on, it was character making a stupid lazy decision. That is bad writing.
4. You don't 'push through' a lower lumbar dislocation and come up a better fighter after only a few months and some push ups. Clearly you are not a doctor. There is no way he would be ready to fight in under a year and even if he fought at 75% ready Bane should have easily defeated him yet again. And yet Batman fights better then the first fight. That is again, bad writing. I didn't even have to 'get it' to see it, kid.
You would love Batman Forever, I'm just trying to help you out.
1. It was not garbage writing, it was establishing the connection between Bruce and Blake and it was very clever foreshadowing as well
2. So how exactly was Gordon supposed to know that Bane lined the city with explosive concrete? Unless he had some reason to think that happened you're just talking out of your butt. Again in the previous two films every available unit was sent to a specific location
3. All that is is proof that he removed the batsuit, as far as the knee brace goes you're just assuming and you're making stuff up. "There's no logical reason" is not proof, that just you trying to squeeze the conclusion you decided that the movie sucks into what is presented in the film. It's not bad writing at all you just don't get it.
4. He recovered for over 4 months which is what you're supposed to do. And he was a better fighter because he got his "fear of death" back, again that's the whole point of the movie and I'm once again having to explain it to you. What I said was he back was good enough that he could press on and he followed all the steps you are supposed to, whether it was 100% or not or whether an actual doctor would clear him to "go heliskiing" is irrelevant as there was a nuclear bomb about to go off. You don't get it, you need to stick with Batman Forever kid.
[deleted]
You would love Batman Forever and The Force Awakens.
1. It was brilliant writing and again it was establishing the connection between Bruce and Blake and that they came from similar backgrounds, it was very clever foreshadowing and your childish insults are just further proof that you've been owned
2. Gordon saw Bane's army and knew what a threat they posed. And all available units were also sent to a particular location in the previous 2 so your complaint is with those movies as well genius. You can't have it both ways and you are applying double standards
3. My argument is that you haven't proven the brace was off. Learn how to read genius.
4. You have no idea the extent of the damage and Bruce very well may not have been fully recovered but when there's a nuclear bomb going off soon you don't wait around to be cleared by a doctor, Bruce was clearly able to walk and could build himself up, if he wasn't at 100% recovery he pushed through it and fought harder like he did in the first two. BTW you never addressed me when I called you out for not criticizing the first movie where Bruce is gassed, lit on fire, dives out a 5 story building, lands on a car and is fine the next scene. Bruce recovering from Bane's blow is perfectly consistent with the rules established in the previous 2.
TDKR is as close to perfect as it can get, it is definitely in my opinion the best superhero film out there and the greatest 3rd entry of any franchise. You seriously should not be joking about COVID, it's a very serious matter and the fact that you do says a lot about your lack of character.(FYI: If I seriously just made this up to get sympathy as you claim I did, don't you think I would have mentioned it more than once? I don't need sympathy)
I like how you just keep saying that like it is a fact. You love Dark KNight rises this mean you also would love Rise of SKywalker; I didn't realize you are diseny Star Wars fan.
1. No it was crap spoon feed stupid writing, no matter what you say. It is one of the laziest ways of 'establishing the connection' it is every bit as bad as "Save Martha".
2. It was tactically stupid. It is bad writing if the plot moves forward only because your characters do stupid things.
3. I have provided evidence it was removed. We don't see any of his gear actually get removed we only see the results after. Since all gear we see is removed this means the brace should have been as well. If it wasn't it was a bad decision by the villain. By what rational can you argue it was left on?
4. The vertebra was protruding and the guy in the pit punched it back into place. Nice to know willpower can get you to recover faster from such a serious injury. You hear that eveyone if a bomb is going off and you have 2 broken legs you will still be able to run because willpower. Jesus.
Dark Knight is close to a perfect action film. Rises i snot even close. Return of the King is the greatest 3rd entry in a franchise. Bourne Ultimatum is even better than rises.
I am not joking about it; I think you a pathetic weasel that lying about it to get attention and internet sympathy. You are demented enough to lie about such a thing. You did mention it more than once. I saw you mention it to 3 different users. So yeah.
How the heck did you conclude that? If you look at my history you'll see I've been quite vicious to TROS and it totally deserves all of the criticism I've launched at it
1. It wasn't crap at all, it was an understandable action by Blake seeing what we know about his history. He and Bruce had similar backstories and he knew how Bruce was thinking. Again this was one of the easier parts of the film to understand. LOL, Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice is another movie you would love, that Martha scene is so up your alley
2. Then therefore it was tactically stupid in the other films as well. It wasn't bad writing, they clearly established that Gordon was scared out of his mind about Bane's army, considering what we knew about Gordon he made a decision consistent with his character, we were never supposed to agree with it genius.
3. You did not provide evidence, you provided evidence that batsuit was removed, everything you've said about the knee brace is an assumption. And just because the characters don't act the way you want them to is not a problem with the script, it's a problem with you.
4. Strawman I didn't say that, and the film clearly established that Bruce underwent months of recovery. Please come back when you are ready to have an honest discussion.
First of all LOTR is not a trilogy, it's just one film and ROTK is one segment of it, secondly LOTR is a complete and utter insult to the novel, there are so many plot holes, character flaws, lazy writing, etc. Those issues were not in the book. I never liked the Bourne films.
I brought it up once genius, every other time was when Ace asked me about it, you have no class if you would actually joke about Covid, over 100,000 people have died from it. No matter how much I dislike you I would never wish that on you nor would I use it against you if you unfortunately contracted it.
Same way you came to the conclusion that I love TFA, you jackass.
1. IT was crap
2. it was crap
3. You are crap
4. YOu are crap
LEave me alone you freaking pathetic loser.
Your concession is accepted and your request is denied.
Also quit flaming the boards it's against the rules.
You are flaming me; i am just asking a pathetic loser to stop messaging me. That is NOT flaming. Mass replying to every message and entering discussions on other boards when you have been asked over a hundred times to please stop is not only flaming but harassment.
shareNot at all, I have been very respectful to you and I even tried to educate you for free just because I'm a nice person. You on the other hand have thrown middle school level insults at me because you're an immature brat. I can message whoever I want I don't need your permission. You aren't being harassed, you easily could have just ignored me but you don't because I give you the attention you crave. You are flaming the boards.
sharewow, im getting deja vu. Its the imdb message boards and the comic book fanboys flooded the place. Like monkeys they tossed sh*t at each other, the one covered with the most sh*t loses.
shareThe guy I’m replying to has demonstrated that he doesn’t even get it. The entire theme of the film is summarized in his rise out of the pit and why he didn’t use the rope and he thinks he was able to make it because the rope was weighing him down.
sharehahaha; do you have any argument besides "you don't get it". There is nothing to get. The theme couldn't be more obvious if it was in the title.... oh wait IT WAS IN THE TITLE. There is nothing deep to the themes of this film. The fact that you 'pretend' they are deep just goes to show how demented you are.
shareYou don't get it and I had to explain the theme to you. You can't backpedal.
share[deleted]
I have clearly explained the deep themes and I have proven that you didn't get it.
shareYour too dense and demented to realize you have explained nothing. just saying you did doesn't mean you did just because you say something has deep themes doesn't mean it does. Your absolutely full of crap. you need to delete yourself from the internet; the grown ups are trying to talk here.
shareI had to explain to you how Bruce got out of the pit, that was the entire point of the movie. You didn't even know what the movie was about. Look kid I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything, I'm trying to help you, if you don't understand the movie that's fine I'm happy to explain it to you but you need to quit acting like you not getting it means the movie is bad and you have to have an open mind and be willing to actually listen.
shareNo you didn't liar. I told you about the rope needing to be removed was the theme of him letting go of the things holding him back. You didn't have to explain it to me. It was not hard to get.
You think calling me "kid" is demeaning? it is just a sign that you are pathetic.
And you are still wrong, it was all about him regaining his "fear of death", that was the point of the movie and his entire character arc, if you don't even understand his character arc then who are you to say that the film is bad kid?
shareSame shit jackass; the rope was him clinging to life and clinging to fear. we was trying to deal with the fear rather than use it. that is what was holding him back.
The fact you don't understand this is the same thing just shows what you call deep is just a result of your own limited thinking.
No he embraced his fear of death and that's how he made it across, seriously even after I spoonfed this to you like the 8th time you still don't get it. He now values his life (he didn't when he went into the pit) and because he now wants to live and have a life beyond Batman it meant that he would try and fight harder. Seriously kid this went right over your head.
shareembracing fear means you become paralyzed from action. Using fear as a source of inspiration and drive is not the same thing. So clearly it is YOU that didn't understand themes of this movie; how about trying to listen and discuss instead of belittle and condescend for a change. You not only might learn something, you might actually (eventually) make a good point.
But that seems beyond you; did the virus eat your brain cells? I wasn't aware that was a symptom.
No it doesn't you idiot. Because he now had a fear of death it meant he was going to fight harder because he aimed to have a life beyond Batman just like Alfred said he wanted him to. This was directly stated by the prison doctor, I don't know how you don't get this. I see what you're trying to do, you're making stuff up about the film to try to spin it so that you can try to turn the tables on me and you are failing so miserably.
sharecareful, flaming is against group rules.
" Because he now had a fear of death it meant he was going to fight harder because he aimed to have a life beyond Batman just like Alfred said he wanted him to."
That is called using fear, not embracing it. Embracing fear implies the person is becoming paralyzed from action. This movie was far beyond your understanding apparently. he didn't embrace fear the rope was the sign of the lack of using fear as the motivation; there was no fear when the rope was attached; but removing the rope meant he would die if he missed. Using that fear it made him push harder. That is using fear not embracing it; embracing the fear of death would mean refusing to take the rope off because you are afraid to die. God, no wonder you liked this movie; you don't even understand what words mean.
He accepted and embraced the fear, the fear made him strong, not having the fear (as he was before he went into the pit) made him weak, this was clearly spelled out for you and LOL I understand this movie far more than you do, that has been objectively proven. All you're doing is obsessing over minor details, fine change the word embrace to whatever you want it to be, it doesn't matter, the point still remains that the fear of death is the reason he made it out of the pit and that is the character arc he experienced which again you didn't even know about until I educated you.
Your strategy here is quite pathetic, you are attempting to turn the tables on me by obsessing over minor details (which you don't even have correct). I see right through you and all you're doing is perpetuating your own ignorance.
Epic fail kid.
Also irony alert; you practically wish death on me and then get all pissy pants over me calling you an idiot. I’m not complaining, my skin isn’t nearly as thin as yours is, it’s just a humorous observation.
sharesome users here, like the demented incel that refuses to stop talking to me, that can only defend Dark Knight Rises with "you just don't get it" or "stick with x, y, Z film, kid" type of non-arguments represents the very worst of the imdb message boards. At least there you can call such users assholes or tell them to f' off. You do that here you get threatened with suspension by the "moderators". I know that has already happened to me several times.
The worst part is the ignore feature on this site works much worse than imdb. If you ignore a user and they post a comment, you are blocked from seeing the entire conversation (even other users comments within the conversation) So users that really want to be demented will stalk you account and keep mass replying to every conversation you have blocking you from seeing nearly ever reply from other users you are having a conversation. This behavior will not get them banned; but if I call them a "fucking asshole" and "tell the to eat shit and die"; I'll get banned. This site only 'profanity' crosses the line; asking for someone's home address apparently doesn't, spamming them with replies is fine, general (pathetic) attempts at intimidation and bullying and harassment; all perfectly fine so long as you don't use any naughty words.
Quit playing the victim, telling someone to "eat sh!t and die" is more of a threat than what you claim I threatened you with. You don't have a solid argument why TDKR isn't good, all you have are assumptions and fan fiction that you just invented and you need to quit playing the victim. If you choose to use the ignore feature I'm not responsible for you not seeing your notifications, I mean it's not like you can't just check the board for updates.
shareHow do you know if I was specifically talking about you. And I didn't say it to you; I said in imdb days I would say something like that to people that are demented incel fanatics that harass people; does that description apply to you?
And No you can't check the board for updates it actually hides the conversation' so you will click on a trending topic and see it say a post was made minutes ago but then if you go into the post you can't find the conversation.
You've been obsessed with me for like the last week, and you only have like 3 insults or so so it's pretty easy to read you.
Well that's your problem, if you choose to block me then you can live with the consequences, or you could just ignore me without using the ignore feature like a mature adult.
[deleted]
No one is harassing you, you very easily could have just not replied, if I'm honestly bothering you that badly just stop replying.
shareI tried not replying and yet you keep messaging in multiple boards. I don't want to see you demented name. Just leave me the fuck alone
shareThen ignore it kid. I ignore plenty of people and it doesn't get under my skin because I am a far more mature person than you are. Also quit flaming the boards it's against the rules.
shareIf you were mature you would honor the request to not message someone that asked you to stop. if you were mature you would not reply to literally every notification like your life depended on it. You are flaming; and I am asking you to stop. I was trying to do it politely but common courteously is far beyond your understanding.
Just stop messaging me; you will never see my name again. Until you do; your concession is noted and your request for me to ignore you is denied. now piss off you demented incel.
You dont' call the shots here, I can message who ever I please, if it bothers you so much then show an ounce of maturity and just stop replying. But you don't because you crave attention, clearly you aren't getting it outside of the internet.
sharewow, im getting deja vu. Its the imdb message boards and the comic book fanboys flooded the place. Like monkeys they tossed sh*t at each other, the one covered with the most sh*t loses.
LOL that's hilarious. share
That because you just don't get how brilliant and perfect dark knight rises. Yours has to be a superior intellect to grasp the depth, complexity, poetry and beauty of things like
Aaannnnnddddd THIS... this was precisely what I was talking about in my introduction post.
I am not sure what you mean about introduction post; sorry I might have missed something. But my comment here was mocking someone that is delutional about Dark Knight Rises being perfect and acts like a condescending douche to anyone that calls out his B.S. arguments. Very much the definition of a bad faith poster. Particularly demented to, because they don't stop messaging you even if you ask
shareAh, sorry, my bad. We agree 100% then. Well, I made a post in which I introduced myself and I pointed out how annoying some people can be when someone doesn't like their precious favourite movies... and I mentioned the fans of The Dark Knight Rises. I hate the movie... but I don't want to share my opinion too loud to avoid these fanboys. This isn't supposed to be like that.. I should be able to share my opinion without being insulted.
shareYes exactly; people that get almost personally offended when you point out a movie they love is imperfect are 'bad' users and they ruin the fun of discussing movies. This is particularly true of what is called Nolanites; like people that claim Rises and anything Nolan does is perfect.
You should not be afraid to post your opinion and criticisms of that film or any film and the fact that you hesitate because you don't want be attacked or insulted is just a sign of how these demented fanatics do in fact harass and try to intimidate people that don't share their deluded view that the film is perfect. Watch out for moviechatuser497; he is the worst for this, IMO this person should be banned for constant and repetitive flaming and harassing. Not just me but I have got private messages from 3 other people commenting out how vicious and venomous this particular user is. The moderators are doing nothing about it either because he doesn't use profanity; which seems to be the only standard the mods even enforce.
How ridiculous is that? it is a movie discussion board that includes films like Scarface but if you call someone an *$$hole (when they are being an *$$hole) not only does your comment get deleted (without the mods telling you it got deleted) but you also get threatened with banning.
I am starting to get suspicious of the mods on this site; there is something going on in which they seem to 'go easy' on people with the 'right' opinions, but come down hard on those with 'wrong think'. Maybe some of the mods are Nolanites as well; maybe moviechatuser497 is a sock account for a mod. either way; I am becoming more and more disappointed with the lack of clarity in how they enforce things on this site. and the ignore feature is not an option, I found out that if you have someone on ignore it will hide the entire block of discussions from your view. So if you ignore them and they mass reply to you in almost every post you do; you don't see ANY replies.
I hate TDKR but I really enjoy reading the mouth breather fanatics desperately imbuing it with """depth""" in long running arguments. They shriek about having some intellectual high ground from their straight jacket.
I don't have a very high opinion of Burton's Batman movies let alone his catalog. Burton fans are not as acerbic as Nolanites but they can be. FluidWaterRat, if I remember his name correctly, for example.
I don't enjoy it; i think it is disruptive to other people that want have conversations in good faith. It is bullshit that users like BooBooCat say that don't want to share their opinion because venomous fanatic posters will 'attack' and insult them. I want good discussions with non crazed lunatics that ruin it for everyone.
I really love Burton's Batman but they are not above criticism and most of the criticism are fairly valid; but I still enjoyed it even with their flaws. Burton, like Nolan, is at least a little overrated. Burton is all style and very little substance; Nolan can't tell a story through visuals basically at all so he relies on a crap tone exposition dialogue. So both have shortcomings.
Not at all, I was very critical of Dunkirk. I'm very objective unlike you.
shareStop rhyming, and I mean it.
share[deleted]
All right I will admit Nolan cared more about the story than Burton did and the side characters in Nolan's films are more developed, commissioner Gordon is freaking Gary Oldman so that character has to be more interesting to begin with. However having more story doesn't mean it is a better movie, it just means Nolan likes to explore the story more and maybe even overwrite characters which is not a good trait. Now if you freeze frame most of Batman 89 or Batman returns you will get unique shots that have Burton style written on it. If you do the same with Nolan you will not get the same interesting result, unless like I said Heath Ledger is on the screen. Now, movies used to be much shorter on average and didn't try to be overwritten but the other way around. Often times the movies would even delete parts of the scripts to 1 not bore the audience and 2 to let the audience draw their own conclusions. Now Burton Batman actually has a lot going on that is not said but is expected for the viewer do draw his own conclusions. So thematically I would say Burton's Batman is much richer than Nolan fans would be willing to accept.
shareNice; that is a very good summary I think. I really like the way you point out Burton's Batman tells the story through visuals while Nolan tells the story more through Dialogue and character actions. Not to say one way is better than the other; but one is obviously more subtle and utilizes the visual medium to a maximum while the other might read better as a book.
shareThat's true but the story that Nolan explored was infinitely better than anything Burton ever did. Aside from the set design there really wasn't anything all that impressive in the Burton films, they were just very very silly superhero films for little kids. Also there is far more that Nolan did right other than the Joker, in fact Rachel Dawes is quite possibly the only character he didn't completely nail. I don't think the Burton films are bad, they aren't, in fact they are very entertaining and the acting is pretty good, just the Nolan films are deeper, more thought provoking and more character driven, it's not contest.
shareThemes in Burton Batman are 1 good vs evil, the obvious one 2 order vs chaos 3 batman and joker being similar yet opposite 4 corruption of society and religion 5 punishment for sin 6 batman being a watchful protector, a silent guardian. As you see Nolan had those themes too but spelled out in dialogue but Burton would show them visually.
shareThose are not themes, a theme is a message, those are just things that happened.
shareA theme is a general tone combined with a message. For example I make a movie about a drunk guy, the theme of the movie can be how alcohol is bad but it can also be something else. It is in general a message that happens multiple times through movie to reinforce an idea.
shareA message about the dangers of alcoholism could be considered a theme but alcoholism itself isn't a theme. It being important that the people carrying out justice don't sink to the level of the criminals is a theme but punishment for sin isn't a theme.
shareThat is kind of a arbitrary decision on what makes a theme and what doesn't. Anything can be a theme in a movie, it is simply a thing movie explores. If you want you can tell me what themes Nolan did in Dark knight and I will tell you similar ones in Batman 89
shareEven if they did explore similar themes the Nolan films did it so much better. You are giving the Burton movies way too much credit.
shareNotice how he didn't answer your question about the themes in The Dark Knight because his argument will start to fall apart. Don't waste too much time with MovieChatUser497, he's a delusional Nolan fanboy who's allergic to logic and common sense.
shareThose are not themes, a theme is a message, those are just things that happened.
Definition of theme -
1. the subject of a talk, piece of writing, exhibition, etc.; a topic.
"the theme of the sermon was reverence"
2. an idea that recurs in or pervades a work of art or literature.
"love and honour are the pivotal themes of the Hornblower books"
You don't even know what the definition of 'theme' is and you want to talk about intelligence. You truly are the ultimate Nolan fantard. share
Now if you freeze frame most of Batman 89 or Batman returns you will get unique shots that have Burton style written on it. If you do the same with Nolan you will not get the same interesting result, unless like I said Heath Ledger is on the screen. Now, movies used to be much shorter on average and didn't try to be overwritten but the other way around. Often times the movies would even delete parts of the scripts to 1 not bore the audience and 2 to let the audience draw their own conclusions. Now Burton Batman actually has a lot going on that is not said but is expected for the viewer do draw his own conclusions. So thematically I would say Burton's Batman is much richer than Nolan fans would be willing to accept.
Nice summary. Batman 89 shows you rather than tells you, and every shot is interesting in some way. Nolan's movies are often chock full of exposition which is a sign of bad writing. Inception is also a massive culprit in this regard, half the dialogue is explaining the plot. Very poor writing. share