Why Nolan's Batman is better than the old Batman series

Post Reply New Topic

1. No Robin
2. Serious Actors
3. Better performances
4. Nothing silly
5. Dark and serious tone for the film
6. Villains are better than the ones in the old Batman films.

you clearly didn't play arkham city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMroES7P ... ature=plcp

everything else i agree with you 100%. Honestly, i am quite surprised Tim Burton's Batman has such a big fan base. His Batman movies have terrible, inconsistent plots and have this really bizarre silliness to them. It reminds me of the 60's series. They really haven't aged well. Michael Keaton especially is not a very good Batman. He is a psychotic killer who keeps switching between killing and not killing his enemies. He also isn't a very good fighter, or even physically agile at all. Bale's Batman (for the most part) sticks by his moral code throughout Nolan's films. Also, he is a GREAT fighter, and is VERY physically agile. As a huge Batman comic reader, I have to say that Nolan's films are not only better, but are also MUCH closer to the comics. But hypothetically, even if Burton's movies were closer to the comics, Nolan's films are far superior.

Excellent thought and opinion

In my opinion adherence to the comics is not important.

I assume you're talking about the other movies and not the tv shows.

I think Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns were darker, which I liked. The Nolan movies have better action and gadgets. But they both have great characters. I think the Burton movies are second to the Nolan ones.

As for the Schumacher movies, those were terrible, just terrible. So, everything about the Nolan movies are better than those.

ok. like i said, nolan films are better, accuracy or not. i just pointed out that nolan's films are more accurate

i think nolan had darker subject matter, while burton looked dark

I think your statement might be correct imbat.

Maybe you're right, I haven't seen Batman or Batman Returns in a while.

Yes. And regardless of which is better, adherence to the comics is not important.

Is the moral code particularly important in the older films? I don't remember it even being mentioned in many of them.

Good point, you rarely see the moral code enforced in the Burton movies.

keaton had no moral code in the burton movies. he just flip flopped between killing and not killing his enemies

I think it is because Nolan's films look darker and more serious.

If you really think about it, there is nothing serious about a grown man dressed as a bat and beating up some thugs. Nolan's villains, despite looking more dangerous, are still as absurd as any other comic book villain. Two Face would not be able to walk around in that state (his facial bones would be destroyed and, in the unlikely event of him surviving, he would stay unconscious), the Joker is ridiculously unrealistic, the League of Shadows and Scarecrow's plan is very outlandish.

in other words, Nolan's films are some of the best superhero movies out there, but they are still escapist stories about unrealistic comic book characters. I still think Batman is much better on the DC Animated Universe. No Batman is better than Kevin Conroy and no Joker is better than Mark Hamill.

That said, I am still as excited about the next Batman movie as any of you guys. But I would be much happier if Warner decided to bring back the "Timmverse".

This is the problem with 99% of comic books. Ridiculous ideas, ridiculous heroes.

Exactly. And I love comic books. My problem is with people saying that the Nolan movies are more realistic, when they are actually only darker and grittier.

Anyway, I do not know what is the deal with realism: there is already enough of it in life.

I agree.