Batman returns once more: Christopher Nolan does it again!!!

[Shallow]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

[JohnnyL]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

 Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was.  And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time.  It's not that Batman started out campy.  In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality.  It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture.  People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding. 
 So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show.  What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies.  Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.

[Shallow]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

 Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was.  And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time.  It's not that Batman started out campy.  In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality.  It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture.  People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding. 
 So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show.  What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies.  Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.

What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.

[JohnnyL]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

 Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was.  And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time.  It's not that Batman started out campy.  In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality.  It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture.  People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding. 
 So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show.  What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies.  Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.

What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.

  I understand that the Burton films used satire.  The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's.  I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's.  The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy.  But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
  Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion.  Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews.  But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
  The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics.  There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show.  It had it's place.  But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show.  And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.   

[Shallow]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

 Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was.  And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time.  It's not that Batman started out campy.  In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality.  It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture.  People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding. 
 So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show.  What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies.  Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.

What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.

  I understand that the Burton films used satire.  The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's.  I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's.  The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy.  But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
  Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion.  Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews.  But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
  The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics.  There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show.  It had it's place.  But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show.  And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.   

The 60s TV show was satire, not Burton's film. I know Joel took from the TV show. What I'm arguing is that just like his only window into Batman was the TV show, so was Burton's. The only thing Tim Burton knew about Batman was from the TV show, and it shows. The film sucked then and it sucks now. At least the TV show was trying to be funny for a certain audience. Burton took the show and mixed it with Beetlejuice. Batman The Animated Series blows anything Burton did out of the water, and I'm not the hugest fan of that show either.

[JohnnyL]

Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.

ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?

A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.

I agree.  While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves.  I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films.  If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.

I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.

 Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was.  And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time.  It's not that Batman started out campy.  In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality.  It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture.  People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding. 
 So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show.  What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies.  Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.

What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.

  I understand that the Burton films used satire.  The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's.  I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's.  The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy.  But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
  Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion.  Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews.  But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
  The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics.  There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show.  It had it's place.  But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show.  And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.   

The 60s TV show was satire, not Burton's film. I know Joel took from the TV show. What I'm arguing is that just like his only window into Batman was the TV show, so was Burton's. The only thing Tim Burton knew about Batman was from the TV show, and it shows. The film sucked then and it sucks now. At least the TV show was trying to be funny for a certain audience. Burton took the show and mixed it with Beetlejuice. Batman The Animated Series blows anything Burton did out of the water, and I'm not the hugest fan of that show either.

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

[Shallow]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

[JohnnyL]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

 I understand that Batman has a long history in comics.  I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years.  And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago).  Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke."  That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome.  And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character.  Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke."  I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence.  And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
 To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West.  I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969).  What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books.  Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s.  Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character.  Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time.  But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy.  And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends."  My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy. 
 As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films.  But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies.  For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series.  The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier."  Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes.  And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better.  As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen.  Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies.  But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.) 
 Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum.  I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

[Shallow]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

 I understand that Batman has a long history in comics.  I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years.  And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago).  Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke."  That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome.  And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character.  Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke."  I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence.  And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
 To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West.  I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969).  What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books.  Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s.  Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character.  Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time.  But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy.  And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends."  My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.  
 As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films.  But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies.  For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series.  The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier."  Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes.  And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better.  As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen.  Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies.  But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)  
 Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum.  I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.

To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.

And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this

[13th Duke]

Just adding some views to the point about Tim Burton being formulaic and overrated. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that but I understand it totally. I think his films are all similar in feel, but thats just because of his directing style. I personally like how his films look. Theyre all incredible in terms of lighting, sets, attractiveness etc. But I have to agree a lot of his films in terms of plot etc are weak. For example, even though Sleepy Hollow LOOKED good, the film itself was shit. Same goes for his CHocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd.

So yeah, his films are overrated but I think he's great at creating dark worlds that look superb to the eye.

[JohnnyL]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

 I understand that Batman has a long history in comics.  I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years.  And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago).  Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke."  That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome.  And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character.  Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke."  I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence.  And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
 To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West.  I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969).  What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books.  Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s.  Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character.  Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time.  But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy.  And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends."  My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.  
 As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films.  But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies.  For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series.  The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier."  Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes.  And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better.  As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen.  Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies.  But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)  
 Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum.  I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.

To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.

And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this

 Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie.  If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel.  The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though.  I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact.  Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given.  And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
 I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have.  He does get a lot of work in hollywood.  But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first.  And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him.  The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
 As far as the "I'm Batman" line.  Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that.  But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
 Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series."  This is what I'm talking about:

Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)



 I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined.  But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns."  It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.  

[Shallow]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

 I understand that Batman has a long history in comics.  I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years.  And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago).  Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke."  That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome.  And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character.  Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke."  I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence.  And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
 To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West.  I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969).  What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books.  Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s.  Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character.  Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time.  But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy.  And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends."  My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.  
 As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films.  But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies.  For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series.  The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier."  Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes.  And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better.  As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen.  Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies.  But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)  
 Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum.  I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.

To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.

And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this

 Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie.  If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel.  The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though.  I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact.  Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given.  And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
 I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have.  He does get a lot of work in hollywood.  But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first.  And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him.  The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
 As far as the "I'm Batman" line.  Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that.  But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
 Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series."  This is what I'm talking about:

Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)



 I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined.  But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns."  It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.  

Forget the quality of the film. I don't need to convince you. You can like what you like. What we're talking about now is the inception of it. Batman was something Warner was trying to get off the groundsince Superman was a success. Burton was chosen as director and obviously had a lot of say in the film but he wasn't the executive producer or producer and most of what you see in a film marketing wise come from that end. Englehart still would have laid out the story, and it was Warner's choice to go dark AFTER the success of the darker Batman in Comics. It wasn't Burton that said we need this character to be dark. Remember he was hired after making Pee Wee, so that makes me think the producers wanted another camp film, but the success of the books made them change their minds, but not too much.

As for me, I can only imagine what a Ridley Scott directed Mel Gibson as Bruce Wayne would have turned out like. That being said they can still make a Dark Knight Returns with that team on board if they wanted to.


And as for the cartoon; that's more Devito than Burton. DeVito was hired by producers because he was a star and played the character his way. And even then it's more visual than anything else with regards to how he is similar to Animated one. And Joker as Jack Napier; who cares what his name? Mark Hammil created his own Joker. That's not debatable, and Jack was the pick for Joker almost ten years before the film came out.

[JohnnyL]

 Okay, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it.  One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke."  In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody.  I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like.  I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though.  I think they are definitely flawed.  There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with.  But those movies are what first set the bar.  There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.

Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.

You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.

 I understand that Batman has a long history in comics.  I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years.  And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago).  Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke."  That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome.  And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character.  Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke."  I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence.  And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
 To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West.  I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969).  What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books.  Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s.  Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character.  Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time.  But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy.  And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends."  My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.  
 As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films.  But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies.  For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series.  The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier."  Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes.  And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better.  As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen.  Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies.  But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)  
 Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum.  I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.

To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.

And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this

 Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie.  If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel.  The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though.  I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact.  Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given.  And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
 I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have.  He does get a lot of work in hollywood.  But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first.  And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him.  The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
 As far as the "I'm Batman" line.  Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that.  But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
 Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series."  This is what I'm talking about:

Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"



Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)



 I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined.  But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns."  It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.  

Forget the quality of the film. I don't need to convince you. You can like what you like. What we're talking about now is the inception of it. Batman was something Warner was trying to get off the groundsince Superman was a success. Burton was chosen as director and obviously had a lot of say in the film but he wasn't the executive producer or producer and most of what you see in a film marketing wise come from that end. Englehart still would have laid out the story, and it was Warner's choice to go dark AFTER the success of the darker Batman in Comics. It wasn't Burton that said we need this character to be dark. Remember he was hired after making Pee Wee, so that makes me think the producers wanted another camp film, but the success of the books made them change their minds, but not too much.

As for me, I can only imagine what a Ridley Scott directed Mel Gibson as Bruce Wayne would have turned out like. That being said they can still make a Dark Knight Returns with that team on board if they wanted to.


And as for the cartoon; that's more Devito than Burton. DeVito was hired by producers because he was a star and played the character his way. And even then it's more visual than anything else with regards to how he is similar to Animated one. And Joker as Jack Napier; who cares what his name? Mark Hammil created his own Joker. That's not debatable, and Jack was the pick for Joker almost ten years before the film came out.

My personal feeling is that it was not the studio's intention to go for a campy tone for the Burton movies, even if some of the scenes may border on coming off that way. There was definitely more of a fantasy element to his Batman universe than the Nolan films.  I do concede that the Pee Wee Herman movies were pretty cheesy (deliberately so, I believe), but more than that, Burton is just a weird director.  That's just Burton's style.  He does weird stuff.  He obviously isn't for everybody. 
 I, myself, was skeptical when I heard they were hiring Michael Keaton to play Batman.  Prior to that he had been known more for his comedic roles.  After seeing it though, I thought it all came together pretty well.
 I don't think Tim Burton's Batman movies even come close to as good as Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, but I still enjoyed them.  I know there are many out there who don't.  To each their own.  I personally, could never get into the Joel Schumaker Batman movies.
 The idea of a Ridley Scott Batman film is an interesting one.  I like many of his movies and wouldn't have minded seeing what he could have done with the property.
And I agree that Mark Hamil's Joker was always his own.  Hamil did a fantastic job as Joker, and I'm not trying to take anything away from him.  Giving him the Jack Napier name was just a simple nod to the movies. Personally, I've always preferred Joker not having a known real name.  That's one of the many things I liked about Heath Ledger's Joker.
 As far as the Penguin, I know that his reinvention for "Batman Returns" was a collaborative effort between Danny DeVito (who didn't want to just be cast as Penguin because he's a short, fat guy) and Tim Burton (who thought that the comic book version of the character was boring). There are differences in the characterization between the "Animated..." version and the "...Returns" version.  But from a design perspective, the "Animated" version was heavily influenced by "Batman Returns."

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

[M Dogg™]

Just my two cents... because I love the Batguy so much.. lol

Okay, Batman and Batman Returns were not bad movies. They were movies that for it's time were very different, but very much in tune of the 80's and early 90's. I can watch Batman over and over again and come away with 2 things, the tone of that movie was clearly something between the campy 60's Batman and the The Dark Knight Returns, and watching it now it is very dated. At those extremes, and in 1989 you have what we all come to love as Tim Burton's Batman. Burton had not regard for the comic, but few cared because what Batman was ultimately meant to do was make money and promote Batman as the face of the comic world leading into the 90's. Now in the 80's comics took a very dark turn, but this would not be replicated in the movies, and with good reason. Though Burton may have liked the Killing Joke, the Darker Batman that we know was truly not what people then knew. Batman was Adam West, it was cartoons with Scooby Doo. To make Batman into a complete Killing Joke type movie would cause people to go nuts. I remember older people not liking the new tone on Batman and Batman Returns because it was too dark, and it was not what they were use to. To them Joker was a funny clown who wanted to do damage to the water system and Penguin was some sea creature.

Batman did have a lot of social commentary, like what was mentioned earlier in terms of the commercialism and consumerism of the 80's. But what failed to do as well is tell a story that will hold the test of time. In 2010, Batman and Batman Returns do not hold up to today's standards. I would say Superman and Superman 2 hold up better today as stories than Batman and Batman Returns. By moving away from the comic book, Burton's Batman was very much set for a make money now movie, and was not exactly building on the Batman story. The imagery influenced the Animated Series though, and that might have been the best thing to come out of the movies. The 4 seasons of Batman the Animated Series are much more important to the Batman legacy than Batman and Batman Returns. This is not because they were bad movies, it's because they were made for 1989. Clearly Burton made the movies for the time. This did allow Christopher Nolan to come and completely take Batman into a different direction, as he used Year One and the original Joker to influence his movies. Had Burton's movies not came out, we'd still be comparing Batman to the 1960's.