--- On Tue, 7/22/08, Sumant Srivathsan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I beg to differ. Burton's Batman universe was far > less comic-book influnced > > than Chris Nolan's is. All of Burton's > characters and even the universe were > > significantly different from the comic book. > > > They weren't, really. If you dig into the early Batman > comics, you'll find > that both Bruce Wayne and the Joker are pretty much written > down for > Burton's characters.
Uh, no. Let's start with the contemporary versions of the Batman comics (the first Burton movie came out in 1989). Clearly, none of the characters were based on the versions being written at the time, from the hero to the supporting characters. If you look at the antagonists, Burton invented a background for the Joker (Jack Napier the small time gangster falls into vat of chemicals and emerges as disfigured, insane, and somehow more powerful villain, the Joker.) which has no basis in any of the comics, and I would argue that that was in order to re-invent the character, just as Burton intended to re-invent _all_ the characters. Hence the casting against type of Michael Keaton, etc. To me, it's more plausible that Burton deliberately set out to create a universe and characters that were as different from the comics as possible. I'ma Burton fan, By the way, but his Batman movies are not on my favourites list. The 'darkness' factor did > not come about until the > Miller/O'Neill stories, so if Burton's Batman was > flat, then he was designed > to be so. The Dennis O'Neil/Frank Miller reboot of the Batman was actually a revival of what the comic books were like in the 30s and 40s. Though even before that, from the early 1970's, there was a clear progression to the grimmer, darker Batman that we're all familar with today. O'Neil and Neal Adams collaborated to create some of the best dark Batman stories, characters, and themes in the 1970s and early 80s - from stories like 'The Secret of the Waiting Graves', which came out in 1970, introducing Ra's Al Ghul, to visual elements like the long flowing cape and thin pointy ears on the hood. I agree Burton's Batman was designed to be flat, so as to focus more on the villain (the movie should have been called 'Tim Burton's Joker' rather than 'Tim Burton's Batman'), but it's hard to see that any of the comic book versions were (deliberately or inadvertently) 'flat'. Sure, there wasn't as much 'darkness', but other than the 60's flirtation with outright camp - which was influenced by the Adam West TV series - Batman, as the eponymous hero of the verious titles published over the 'Golden Age' and 'Silver Age' periods was always portrayed as a larger than life, iconic, essentially grim character. He really wasn't anything like the Burton version of Batman. The Joker, particularly, was written as a > psychopathic *bon vivant > *, and I think Jack played him just like that. The only > downside was Vicki > Vale, who's a non-character anyway. As for the Joker, the 'bon vivant' part was only ever a part of the character in Cesar Romero's portrayal in the 60s Tv series. Still hard to see a close resemblance to any of the comic book versions, particularly when you factor in the made-up origin story. It was telling that more time was spent explaining the Joker's origin thatn the Batman's. Vicki Vale, while a boring character, was actually pretty close to her comic book avatar- both the original from the 1940s and the version who was around in the 80s as a love interest for Bruce Wayne. > Yup. He uses Miller's *Batman:Year One* (Miller's > best Batman, IMO) and *The > Killing Joke* to create his characters. If he was going to > be that true to > his characters, where, I ask you, was Vesper Fairchild? The > insipid Rachel > Dawes does not count. Neither does Jim Gordon, an extremely > strong character > who might as well not have a face in these movies. Chris Nolan uses pre-Frank Miller O'Neil characters as well - Ra's Al Ghul, for example - but not necessarily in the same story lines. For instance, he re-invented the Batman's origin too - while retaining the essence of the characters from the O'Neil-Miller-90s comic book period. I do agree that Rachel Dawes was pretty disappointing, and both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have flaws. However, they do succeed in one critical aspect where Tim Burton's movies did not: portray Batman's story, the story of the same conflicted hero from the comic books. In Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight, he is the protagonist, and the one the audience emapathises with. The supporting characters and antagonists serve their roles in advancing the story. In Burton's films, the narrative is more focused on and driven by the anatagonists - The Joker in the first movie, and Catwoman and the Penguin in the second. Hence the time spent on their respective origins and struggles in 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns'. > Call it great casting, then, because Jack's standard > neurotic psycho villain > with facepaint is known as The Joker. Look up the old > comics. I do read the old comics. I'm one of the resident Silk-List comic book geeks (paging Badri...!) My Batman collection in particular is extensive - starting from reprints from the 1940s, a lot of the really cool 1970- 1985s stories, and a huge pile from the mid-eighties on. So I'm in an informed position when I paraphrase Richard Bentley to say, "Very pretty Mr.Burton, but you must not call it Batman. Or the Joker." > Jim Carrey playing the Riddler... Gah. > I thought he was adequate. The movie was bloody awful, > though. Traumatic. It really was, wasn't it? Though Val Kilmer wasn't bad as the Batman. > I don't like the Clayfaces. I hated them in the comics, > and I hope I will > never have to see them on screen. The character I want to > see more of is > Jonathan Crane. Cilian Murphy has been lurking long enough. > And Poison Ivy, > whoever she will be. Given Nolan's focus on the less-obviously 'super' villains - we'll probably see Riddler or Bane before we see Clayface. Catwoman is a real possibility. cheers Divya
