ByEvan Lee, writer at
"A day without laughter is a day wasted." -Charlie Chaplin .
Evan Lee

Warning long article: Do you like Batman? How about Batman: The Animated Series? Maybe you like voice actors Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill? Or possibly you love the Dark Knight Trilogy? And perhaps you really like the video games? What if I told you they were all born from 'Batman 1989'? From your deep obsession for Heath Ledger's performance to Christian Bale's so called menacing voice, hell from Nolan's "realistic" take on Batman.

I was born on the year of 1994, so I never had the privilege to be around during the 80's when everyone was screaming Batman! But unfortunately I was around during the Nolan praise.. ok scratch that, I'm still around it. Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed 'The Dark Knight' well that's about it out of the whole trilogy. Seriously how great was 'Batman 1989' and how much did it create for the future of Batman?

When I look at Gotham City I don't want to be thinking I'm looking at Chicago or London. It's a city of fiction, it's the darkest and most criminally insane city on fictional earth! Tim captured the city so perfectly that it even inspired many cartoons and movies especially Batman:TAS (The Animated Series) and Nolan's trilogy into a modern Gotham. Still I wonder how much better Batman would be if Tim directed another one in 2013. To me 1989 still holds up very well and it really makes you feel like you're watching a Batman movie. There was no need to be modern or grounded for a superhero movie. People should understand this is a superhero, not a real person.

Me personally...I love the whole cast for both Batman and Batman Returns. They're very memorable and each character has their own personality which I really did appreciate. I think when you give every character a unique personality it makes the movie even more enjoyable to watch. As for Nolan's trilogy, each character always had to give you a lecture or some long drawn out preach, when in reality the writers and directors were forcing way too much depth into scenes that didn't call for it. Bruce Wayne was the charming but dorky friendly billionaire that just seemed very inviting as a friend. Batman was a creature of the night, a man of very few words and more a man of action, Alfred was very wise with a sense of humor but he wasn't useless at all. Quite intelligent, too- always giving a helping hand in the Batcave, Vicki Vale the smart gossip reporter who falls in love with Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier, the man who became the Joker; an unpredictable, manipulative, conniving psychopath, with a smile that never goes away who always makes sick jokes and laughs way too much for his own good!

All those characters are very memorable including Catwoman, The Penguin, and Max Shreck. Now don't get me wrong I really enjoyed Nolan's movies but none of his actors captured the full essence of their characters. The only actors that succeeded that task were Gary Oldman and Heath Ledger. Gary simply looked like Gordon and had the whole acting down to perfection and Heath isn't "the" Joker, though he created his own... many people say he's just like 'The Killing Joke' when he's not. What he did as an actor was awesome and so with that said he was a talented actor that left life too early.

Nolan's Trilogy was nothing but a reboot of Tim Burton's films:

That's right I said it! Nolan's trilogy is nothing new and it took me a few times to watch his movies and Tim's Batman/ Batman Returns. Nolan is a very intelligent director actually he's a brilliant opportunist! See, what he did was create 'Batman Begins' which was nothing more than a origin story that wasn't told for 'Batman 1989', fast-forward too 'The Dark Knight'...I mean honestly people this movie was just 'Batman 1989' that got turned into a dark modernized crime movie. Almost every scene is taken exactly from 1989. Ok the beginning opens up with Joker's henchmen all masked up about to rob this bank. Yada-yada they kill one another and last one left is Heath (he takes his mask off which is paying homage too Cesar Romero's Joker scene.) With that out of the way everyone in the theatre is mesmerized by this "new" Joker. Lets pause right here! So instead of doing one of the many classic origin stories of The Joker, right away you get a psychotic young man with smeared make-up and scars shaped into a smile.

I'm focusing on Heath's parts right now so bare with me, it's the scene where Heath has the meeting with the mobsters (very similar when Jack had the meeting with the mobsters) so he's talking to them but they call him a freak (like they did in 1989) and I don't know if anyone caught this but they had the same exact Russian or some European mobster (but he wasn't fat). They both said something along the lines of "why should we help you?" Instead of having this scrawny looking mobster that keeps making fun of the Joker in 1989 film. They use Michael Jai White and instead of having Michael die by being electrocuted; his henchman dies by a pencil trick to the eye (referring to the same killing trick Jack did, "the pen is mightier than the sword.") Yes, they aren't all in the same exact order but every scene of 'The Dark Knight' reflects back to Batman 1989 movie. Although Christopher Nolan hid many scenes up so well with over used lecturing between characters and made the movie more grounded and modern...not "realistic." Heath does the same lines as Jack referring to the wonderful toys and hit me dialogue when Christian Bale is on the weird Bat-Motorcycle (instead of being in a Batwing attacking The Joker.)

Overall Heath's was a great performance but you can not deny it's the exact same movie. Nolan just called it "realistic" for the new audience who weren't around for Batman 1989, even from the scene when Heath is hanging from a wire upside's the same exact scene but in this movie he lives instead and they drag you through the movie with extra minutes (not because the movie had so much depth, because Nolan knew if you stop the movie there people who are into Batman would catch on thinking "that this is pretty close to Batman". So instead he throws in other scenes and wastes the character Two-Face.) Did Nolan add his little bit of two cents into the movies?

He surely did, if you just ignore the "realistic" statement and realize that this is simply just a Batman vs. Joker movie which is very similar to Batman! Also in 'The Dark Knight' everyone kept making claims/statements that Heath stole the show as the Joker or the movie should've just been called Joker..think on this back in the 80's and stil till this day people say the same exact thing about Jack being the Joker. Even the scene where Heath interrupts the party and steals Rachel Dawes (wells takes her hostage) it's the same scene with Joker going to Vicki Vale's apartment. Nolan just switched the scene up but it had the same concept to it with the henchmen and all that b.s. scars dialogue. All in a nutshell this was Batman 1989 movie turned 2008 and it's more grounded, playing it save not trying to go over the top because clearly that's too cartoony even though 'Batman 1989' gave birth to Batman:TAS so more than anything 1989 film is the truest Batman movie and still till this day it's one of the most influential movies ever made and it didn't need to be "realistic" or have loud Hans Zimmer bass.

Many will argue with me that "you're just a kid you don't know sh*t about the comics!" or "this was art man and you're a hater/hipster!" Trust me I know my stuff and many believed Nolan truly stuck to comics for his characters *sighs* please if you think such things just stop! 'The Killing Joke' is one of most overused go to title for Nolan's Joker..when it's not. He just took the concept of the character and nothing more, even Alan Moore (the man who wrote the graphic novel) stated he "hates the book!" This isn't a true definition of The Joker in the book, Joker is more ruthless than usual but he was a failed comedian in the past that turned to gangs for money and he fell into a vat of toxins at the Ace chemicals plant that bleached his skin (just like 1989 Joker), like I said he was more ruthless but he always laughed and had the bleached skin,red lips,screen hair,yellow eyes, a real smile not a scar smile and also wore that big hat (1989 Joker.)

By the way, the only reason I'm avoiding Bruce Wayne/Batman from the trilogy is my lord he's not even worth it! Now back to Heath's Joker, had honestly nothing really to do with comics that much and truth is Heath's make-up style came from Jaz Coleman, singer of the band "Killing Joke" and the graphic novel 'The Killing Joke' was heavily inspired by the British Punk band's anarchy mentality hence the name 'The Killing Joke.' That's why some people make comments about Heath's Joker being a punk kid with issues. Another argument is that he had multiple origin stories, so he's so similar to the comics! No he's not at all; Joker had multiple origin stories not multiple stories on the same damn topic.."you want to know how I got these scars?".."ummm not really but let me guess your dad gave them to you or you have legit issues and blamed it on your imaginary wife?"

I don't want to stay on this topic too long so 'Batman Rises' is literally the same exact damn concept again of 'Batman Returns' and look at that! Very identical titles and villains.You have Bruce who falls for Selina Kyle in TDKR which felt very forced and not organic at all while BR took it's time to let emotions build up between characters. In TDKR instead of Penguin we have Bane who becomes a puppet of Tailia as Penguin was the puppet for Max Shreck's political gain and marketing. Both had same concepts just tweaked a little bit, if you knew about comics of Batman is that Bane in TDKR was never close to his character what so ever! I mean he's from the pit in a prison in the Caribbean not a morphine addict doctor. Tailia took Bane's origin story instead which was strange to me. now i'm going to blow your mind! Some of you maybe too simple minded to face facts but Bane's whole liberation of Gotham speech is nothing original they just tweaked it up because Penguin did the liberation of Gotham speech first and he had a suicidal bomber penguin squadron compared to the TDKR; they used an Atomic bomb on Gotham while both threats were made to cripple Gotham City. Even the speech Bane did in the stadium is the exact thing as Penguin! Penguin did his speech underground but the penguins were all sitting in stadium seats and Bane was talking to the people of Gotham in football stadium seats. Both speeches:



Ok, i'll bring up Batman but all I have to say is focus on how Michael Keaton talked in 'Batman 1989' then he made it more of a growling type of voice in 'Batman Returns' (it was still tolerable) compared to Bale's voice because Bale did the same thing as Keaton, his voice wasn't as good as Keaton's in Begins but it was tolerable then it took a drastic change like Keaton in TDKR. I just find that strange as hell too me. Catwoman, both actresses have the same masquerade ballroom scene with Bruce Wayne but BR did it first and both literally look alike again. Conclusion is that Nolan took advantage of the youth and non-comic fans. Like I said I was born in the 90's but I still had common sense to understand this isn't a Batman movie at all, just a long drawn out crime film. No one has seen a Batman movie in forever or weren't many "superhero" movies out at the time so as the opportunist Nolan is he purely capitalized on this decision. I look at Nolan's trilogy as if you took a slob and dress him up all nice, make him suave (nice suit, simply put he's a styling gentlemen with class who uses a large vocabulary) with all that going for the man; he looks more appealing to the women but a select group of women can understand this man is going through all this trouble just to get some kitty (as how Nolan made his movies for the money.)

See all he did was take Tim's movies polish them up real nice and throw a word in like "realism" to catch the medias attention. Then in the movie you add long amounts of dialogue between characters making it seem like you're putting depth into something that doesn't necessarily need it. You add Hans Zimmer scores into the movie adding very loud bass creating a extra dramatic feel to the movie that still doesn't need that at all. He did something to a movie that made audiences think it's genius when it's not. Through this article I may seem biased but that's the whole point too show that Tim's movies and characters started it all!

I respect him so much as a director for these movies because in all the opening credits he tells you straight up that he has Bob Kane on set and Alan Goore helping him! Tim wasn't playing around when he announced both his Batman movies. Nolan had no comic related people in his credits or barely on his set, he told people this isn't a superhero or comic movie so for the love of God! Why make this movie? And why are Nolan fans still thinking it's a great comic book movie when it's not. Tim's movies have influenced so much for Batman from Batman:TAS was based off the movie even the character The Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill) is Bob Kane's/Jack Nicholson's Joker (for all the people thinking Jack wasn't close to the Joker even though his performance was made into a permanent image on shows and video games.) Even the cartoon show kept Michael Keaton's Batman movements and they kept the Jack Napier origin.

Tim Burton's past accomplishments go as far as video-games to Batman:Arkham City, where developers brought back Vicki Vale from 1940's comics and Burton's movie. Understand, Burton's movies are true Batman films that deserve so much more respect and they have paved the way for your dear cartoons,Nolan Trilogy,comics and many more merchandises. If you have any questions leave them in comments box below, I know I left out important information on how his movies were very close to comics.




Latest from our Creators