While I agree with you in relation to the Batman films (and Chris Nolan, who, iirc, SM was a reasonably fond of, pre-commercial success ) the levels of pretentiousness in this thread lately have forced me to remind of us of the following important life story: Fatty and Skinny lying in bed, Fatty rolled over, Now Skinny is dead.
I was agreeing with you until the bolded part. People are calling Nolan's Batman funny, intentional or not. Burton's movies were unintentionally funny, and quite bad actually.
I never heard anyone call Burton's unintentionally funny. They are quite intentionally funny. They are also visually a lot more interesting than Nolans. Nolan isn't as enamored with the medium as Burton, I always saw Nolan more as a story
Sure Burton's movies had the intentionally funny parts, but in an overall sense the way he'd portray certain characters, whether intentional or not, came of as funny (in an unfunny kind of way). I've never been a fan of Tim Burton, I think he's a vastly overrated director who's had a lot more clunkers than success. I also don't equate visually interesting with something that looks good. I never liked the way Gotham was represented in the prior Batman films, and found a lot of the acting rather kitschy. I like seeing Batman in a more realistic world.
There's a bit missing from my post. It should say that I saw Nolan as more of a story teller who just chose cinema as his medium.
I think FAR more realistic than Burton's Gotham. From the architecture to the people on the streets and the entire present day look and feel.
my thing on Bale's Batman voice .... I can understand disguising his voice so people don't recognize him. It make sense. But it's also weird hearing him talk in that voice when he's talking to Lucius Fox, for example. Lucius knows who he is .... cut the schtick. I know, small point. and no, Nolan's Batman isn't in the 'real' world .... but I like his Gotman more than Burton's. I prefer Nolan's, but like Burton's too. But the best thing Nolan did was forgo the backstory for Joker. We don't need everybody's origin stories. they bog down many of superhero movies. I wonder how he'll handle Bane/Catwoman's background in these movies. obviously the movie starts with Bane in full-on Bane mode ....
That's the problem. Since Nolan became 'commercial' his skill has more or less gone out the window. What made him slightly exciting early on just disappeared and this is most apparent with the Batman films. The worst that came from this is a false sense of intellectualism and pretentiousness posters like nicephoras have adopted in defending these films. It's quite clear Nolan's goal is to create 'intelligent' blockbusters - it's desperately palatable by now. His fans have adopted this sentiment and it's annoying because these films are viewed with an absurd level of seriousness, when they are just as critically flawed as any other blockbuster/superhero/action-feature. Nolan must be pulling some kind of epic trick to be so successfully deceptive.
Reading comprehension isn't just for SAT students. That wasn't an ultimatum; I was just telling you that if you want me to view you the same way as SirM, I'm happy to. I currently don't because you're not a pretentious poser, but, again, if you tell me you want me to view you as one - OK.
Yes, of course, the moment Nolan "sold out" he stopped being good. ROFL. You couldn't be the any more of a parody of a intellectually pretentious "cinema" fan if you tried. Are you still boycotting Dylan for going electric? They're excellent popcorn movies that feel vastly more believable than Burton's goofy nonsense. Who here has claimed they're "intelligent"? Talk about a straw man! What Nolan does is make movies that make people feel like they're more realistic than the other super hero films out there. Does that mean they're objectively "intelligent" films? No. But then again, why would I look for true cinema "intelligence" in a film about a vigilante dressed as a bat who battles millenia old secret societies or unstable lunatics? "Commercial". LOL. Incidentally, how does one have a false sense of pretentiousness?
Actually, this part doesn't bother me in the slightest - he just wants to stay in character. It makes me think of people who speak two languages fluently and if they have to use a word from the other language will say it with an accent. It flows more naturally that way; at least it does to me.
Conversely, why does Nolan's more realistic universe make his movies better than Burton's? They're still both movies about a billionaire masked vigilante who uses expensive toys to fight crime. From my perspective, it's even a bit absurd to insist upon "realism" if that is your starting point.
Nolan didn't 'sell out' nor do I have an aversion to mainstream film. I love it actually when it's done right and when it is completely self-aware. However, I do have an issue with the false intellectualization Nolan's Batman films get grouped into. By its fans. For being 'better' because they're more 'realistic' It's laughable. "Believable" Pure bullshit. Clearly you seem to think there are tiers of intelligence in commercial films, which there are but not to the extent you paint. Burton's films are not any less so than Nolan's. You seem to imply Nolan's realism (which is not even necessarily true within the realms of film itself) is an advantage over Burton's film which didn't even aim to render its universe as 'realistic'. The difference is simply explicit aesthetic.
I'd rank Bruce Timm's animation series ahead of Nolan and Burton's movie adaptations. Both in terms of entertainment value and importance to the Batman universe.
I'd certainly rank it ahead of Burton; but then, I'm not at all a Burton fan. He's a designer, not a director. Dress up Johnny Depp in black and voila - you have a Tim Burton film!
Visually, he's more of a director than Nolan is. Just something simple as the way in which he frames his shots in this scene shows that he is far more comfortable with the medium. Nolan is good at creating interesting narrative structures (like he did in Memento, Inception and The Prestige) but that is more a matter of screen-writing than directing. And it's also a skill he has yet to showcase in his Batman series.
For the record, the only Burton film I really liked and think it belongs in the upper echelon of great films is Ed Wood. He seemed to have been an interesting figure but went down the predictable gimmick path and is now more or less a joke, similar to Wes Anderson.
Aren't you setting the bar a bit high for a superhero movie? Because that's the two Burton flicks we've been discussing here.
I don't think so. I also don't think a good enough formula for a commercial "super-hero" film has been created yet.