Meta: Burtonverse vs. Nolanverse, focused on Batman and Joker

[kowaiyoukai]

Title: Meta: Burtonverse vs. Nolanverse
Author: kowaiyoukai
Rating: PG-13
Fandom: Nolanverse, Burtonverse
Spoilers: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever.
Word Count: 4,694

These are just a few thoughts that I had regarding the differences between the Burtonverse and Nolanverse. Most are focused on the portrayals of Batman and Joker. There are spoilers for these movies, obviously, so if you haven't seen them or don't want to be spoiled, please don't read! I'm focusing specifically on Batman by Burton and The Dark Knight by Nolan, thanks to the appearance of the Joker in both movies.

I wrote this because after seeing The Dark Knight, I (like so many others) became an instant Joker fan. So, I went out and rented Batman (which I've never seen, I know I suck) to see more of the Joker. Well, I was in for a surprise there. I knew the acting would be different, but the entire movie had differences throughout it that got me thinking. The fandoms for these movies must be so different, and the same could probably be said for every other Batman verse. Each one has specific rules and themes that the others don't necessarily match.

At any rate, I wanted to do a comparison of The Dark Knight and Batman because, as I see it, the Batman fandom is facing a huge influx of newbies with no previous experience in any Batman verse. I figure many of those people, like myself, will expect a lot of it to be similar to The Dark Knight. So, hey, I guess this ends up being my idea of the differences between the movies and what I would expect to find in the fandoms. That doesn't mean either fandom follows my reasoning, but I think the differences will probably show up in some fic, at the very least.

The summary of the rest of my post, or TL;DR: Nolanverse wins over Burtonverse in almost every way.




1. The Joker's illegal cohorts. In the Burtonverse, they're never given real personalities. They all seem to be generic "baddies" who enjoy causing havoc. He does have his number 1 man, Bobby (I believe), but even Bobby seems very one-dimensional. In fact, Joker kills Bobby off, which shows just how little Joker thinks of his people. This theme is also in the Nolanverse, however, there the cohorts all are portrayed as being mentally ill, greedy, or power hungry. In other words, the Nolanverse shows that the Joker attracts people who "just want to watch the world burn", while the Burtonverse seems to suggest that the Joker attracts people who seem to gain nothing at all from their exploits. Also, in Batman Returns, the Penguin has a bunch of minions who dress up as clowns, yet the Joker only gets a bunch of random baddies. Was there a reason Burton had for giving the Penguin the Joker's minions?

2. The criminal masterminds. In the Burtonverse, they're shown as being powerful and intelligent. However, they're also shown as being unable to do anything to stand up to the Joker. The Burtonverse main criminal mastermind is killed early on by the Joker for revenge. The Nolanverse criminal masterminds actually work together. They each seem to share their power, although Meroni does seem to be the leader. Also, although the Nolanverse paints the mobsters very stereotypically, Meroni does go out of his way to tell Gordon where the Joker is. Meroni and the Joker fight each other through other people—Meroni sets the cops on Joker, Joker sets Two-Face on Meroni. This could be seen as a sign of true criminal masterminds—they send others out to do their bidding.

3. The Joker's tapes. In the Burtonverse, the Joker sets up a stage and makes detailed videos of himself, along with a few hostages. He, or one of his minions, obviously edited the video footage to get it to look the way he wanted it to. This makes the footage seem more "friendly"—as if the footage itself is a joke, even though the message it carries is terrible. Meanwhile, in the Nolanverse, the Joker's videos are truly terrifying. They remind the audience of terrorist videos that actually exist—everything from the shaking camera, tied up hostages, and crappy background is similar. Also, the Joker in these videos isn't taking up the limelight—he wants to send a message (as he says), unlike Burtonverse!Joker who wants to be in the spotlight. The videos seem to mirror this ideology.

4. The people of Gotham's response to the Joker. First: the viewer's responses to the videos is vastly different. In the Burtonverse, the viewers don't seem to react at all. They simply are waiting for something horrible to happen to them, hoping the police will catch the Joker before things get too bad. They stop using beauty products because of his threat, yet this ends up only becoming a funny moment in the movie, when the audience sees the television anchors looking horrible. Also of note: it appears that only the anchors have stopped using beauty products. The main characters are all, shockingly, unaffected by the Joker's threats and continue to look as good as they have so far. In the Nolanverse, the viewers all panic. They rush to act after every video—most specifically, the very last one. Also, when the Joker calls in to the television studio, the city is in an uproar. You see people crying and screaming, trying to push each other out of the way to get out of the city or attack someone. Second: when Burtonverse!Joker appears in a crowd, people love him. Yes, they act strangely around him, they don't know what to make of him, but it's worth noting that even with the knowledge that the Joker has killed 13 people, the citizens of Gotham still rush to come to his parade simply because he's throwing around money. Yes, you could argue that they're poor and badly need the money, but I think most people who heard a terrorist was going to give them money would think there's a catch. (Of course the Joker ends up trying to kill them all.) When Nolanverse!Joker appears, however, he never flaunts himself. He's always in a disguise when he's planning on being around a lot of people. He took off his make-up and donned the police uniform at one point, and at another he wore the nurse's outfit and a wig. In the beginning of the movie, he wears a mask. It seems that this Joker is more willing to become invisible when necessary in order to follow through with his plans. Perhaps this is why the people of Nolanverse!Gotham have more reason to panic than the people of Burtonverse!Gotham do? Because Burtonverse!Joker is willing to shout around about his plans, but Nolanverse!Joker is more crafty and willing to set things up quietly?

5. The police officers. In the Burtonverse, they're a joke and hardly worth mentioning. They shoot, but never hit anyone, and half of them are dirty anyway. In the Nolanverse, there's only two dirty cops that we know of, and Ramirez is given a solid reason as to why she turned on her own. The Burtonverse seems to say that dirty or inept cops are the norm, while the Nolanverse expects their cops to be able to hold their own. Also, we see police and SWAT teams following orders and doing procedures in the Nolanverse. In the Burtonverse, the cops do a lot of staring at where the action had been going on moments ago.

6. The romantic interest. In the Burtonverse, Vicki is a photojournalist who was working on taking pictures of a war, or else a violent conflict. This leads people to believe she is able to take care of herself, or at least is a more thick-skinned individual than most. However, she's introduced by her legs (literally, if you recall the screen just shows her legs crossed on a table and cuts off her face and torso). This contradicts the idea that she's a war photographer, yet this "sex symbol" idea continues throughout the movie. Even at the end, she just dangles there helplessly while the Joker dances with her limp body. At first, I thought she was unconscious, but no, she was just completely helpless. This war photographer couldn't even lift one finger to do anything to save herself from the terrorist. In the Nolanverse, though, Rachel is portrayed as being a district attorney and quite competent at her job. She's never shown as being a "sex symbol", even though she kisses both Bruce and Harvey. Her emotions are shown as having some clout or importance. Also, Vicki meets Bruce and immediately has sex with him, then forms a relationship. She learns he's Batman and, even though she's been searching for a story about Batman, she doesn't seem too concerned by this revelation. However, Rachel has been friends with Bruce since childhood, and so they have a relationship before they become romantically involved (if you can call it that). Also, when Rachel learns Bruce is Batman, she has a problem with it thanks to her morals about what she believes is the proper way to dole out justice. Finally, Vicki is completely forgotten in Batman Returns except for a brief mention. Rachel remains the only romantic interest for both movies in the Nolanverse. Also, I'd like to add that Catwoman in Batman Returns is an exceptionally well done love interest for Batman. Their interactions are some of the best parts of Batman Returns. They have similar interactions as Batman and Joker in The Dark Knight, which is why I like them.

7. Harvey Dent. In the Burtonverse, he's a side character. He's shown in just a few short scenes for what seems like no purpose at all. Even though we know he's going to become Two-Face, the Burtonverse lets him simmer in the background. In the Nolanverse, Harvey is a huge part of the action. We do see him becoming Two-Face in the movie, and we see his thoughts and ideas that are central to his character. Also, the Burtonverse didn't have Harvey's coin. That's failure. One other thing about the Burtonverse!Harvey Dent—he's played be two different actors! I don't recall the name of the man who plays him in Batman, but I know Tommy Lee Jones plays him in Batman Forever. Why the re-casting? Was Burton unaware that he would be using Harvey as Two-Face in the movies?

8. Bruce Wayne. All right, the Burtonverse gives a marvelous rendition of Bruce. He's portrayed as a recluse—a rich man who's too odd and doesn't fit in with normal society. He's not a great communicator, and he relies completely on Alfred to do everything for him. The Nolanverse shows Bruce as a rich playboy. He lives a life of luxury because he's able to, not necessarily because he wants to. He fits in because he schmoozes everyone, and he does outrageous things simply because he can. Both Bruces lead double lives, of course. However, the Burtonverse!Bruce is a bit less convincing in this area. His attitudes and mannerisms make him stand out from the crowd, which doesn't completely work with the idea of having a secret identity. The Nolanverse!Bruce goes the exact opposite way—intentionally standing out from the crowd in order to hide in plain sight. It also seems that Burtonverse!Bruce shows his true feelings and opinions more than Nolanverse!Bruce does. In other words, we see a larger difference between Bruce and Batman in the Nolanverse than we do in the Burtonverse.

9. Batman. The Burtonverse!Batman works perfectly with his surroundings. The city is dark and so is he. The people need punishing and he's going to give it to them. He doesn't speak much, if at all, and he flings his cape around a whole lot of the time. He seems more theatrical than he needs to be. Also, how he became Batman is never discussed. Nolanverse!Batman is also dark, but he's set apart from the city. He's looked at as an outsider, a vigilante. And how he became Batman is a major plot point in Batman Begins. The Nolanverse focuses on Batman's criminality—he's doing something he shouldn't be and needs to be stopped. The Burtonverse focuses on Batman's heroism—he's protecting the city from evil and should be allowed to continue. In both verses, Batman is mysterious and no one understands why he's doing what he's doing. One more thing: in the Burtonverse, Batman kills people (or at the very least, he definitely kills the Joker and tosses a lot of people from very high locations. He also sets a guy on fire and blows a guy up in Batman Returns). In the Nolanverse, he doesn't. So, even though he is viewed as being more dangerous in the Nolanverse, there's less reason for it. (Is this yet another example of the people of Burtonverse!Gotham's stupidity? That they're willing to overlook Batman's crimes for the good he's done? The people of the Nolanverse don't seem to agree.)

10. The Joker. In the Burtonverse, the Joker becomes the Joker after Batman drops him in to a vat of chemicals. Once he sees his disfigured face, he suddenly snaps. Before, he had only been a tad unhinged. Now, he's completely crazy and seems to have no reason for any of his actions. His actions are over-the-top and melodramatic, yet not really threatening. In his flair, he's unavoidable but also impossible to really take seriously. In the Nolanverse, the Joker gives two reasons for his scars, but there is no canon explanation for how he became the Joker. He has several idiosyncrasies that cause him to stand out, and all of them are understated. This makes him terrifying in a way Burtonverse!Joker wasn't able to achieve. The audience is led to believe the Nolanverse!Joker is truly insane—that he likes causing pain and destruction, and that he has skewed goals that he feels are morally sound. His attitude of believing that he's right and that others need to be educated to understand is logical, even though he's completely crazy. The Burtonverse!Joker seems to want to cause havoc and kill people just to do it. The Nolanverse!Joker seems to want people to understand him in a more intimate way. The Burtonverse!Joker is more likely to kill large groups of people at once. The Nolanverse!Joker is more likely to take one hostage and focus on that person in order to send a message to everyone else. Another difference is the level of their intelligence. The Nolanverse!Joker is shown to be an actual genius—he planned everything out from the start, he knows what to say to get people to act the way he wants them to, and he knows how to set things up for his desired outcome. The Burtonverse!Joker is simply a wild card—he does unpredictable things for the sake of doing them. The Nolanverse!Joker also has one huge advantage over the Burtonverse!Joker: his ability to say the truth (or what he believes to be the truth) and that connection with Batman. Nolanverse!Joker believes Batman and him are more similar than Batman would like to think. That intensity is gone from the Burtonverse, in which the Joker and Batman want revenge on each other but never seem able to understand how alike they are (at least in the way that they don't fit in with other people).

11. The Joker's past with Batman. In the Burtonverse, the Joker kills Bruce's parents. This gives Bruce a vendetta against the Joker that spurs him on at the end. In the Nolanverse, they're meeting for the first time in The Dark Knight. This puts a very important spin on things, in both verses. In the Burtonverse, Batman is urged by his own need for revenge to go after the Joker. In the Nolanverse, Batman goes after the Joker because he believes it's the right thing to do. Burtonverse!Batman has a personal reason for fighting the Joker—Nolanverse!Batman does not. (Yet still, even out for a revenge driven killing, Burtonverse!Batman is lauded as a hero at the end of the movie, while Nolanverse!Batman, who acts out of his own sense of righteousness, is seen as an enemy.)

12. Alfred. In the Burtonverse he's shown to be more of a babysitter to Bruce's fumbling, awkward habits. Alfred does become more helpful in Batman Returns, though. In the Nolanverse, Alfred is actually useful. He helps with gathering information, at least. Also, Burtonverse!Alfred is very monotone and seems more like an employee, as opposed to Nolanverse!Alfred who is shown to have a caring relationship with Bruce. Nolanverse!Alfred is also able to joke around with Bruce, as well as speak seriously with him. Burtonverse!Alfred remains consistently serious throughout the movie.

13. Batmobile and other Bat-toys. In the Burtonverse, the toys Batman has are useful and easy to use. However, he doesn't have many of them. The Batmobile is iconic and very well-crafted. In the Nolanverse, Batman's toys have moved up with the times, and he's got plenty of them. The Batmobile was re-designed in an interesting way, and the Batpod is just as cool. I think, in this instance, neither movie can be faulted. Both directors used what was available at the time to envision equipment that worked with the tone of the movie. Yes, The Dark Knight looks better and has better special effects, but when another director comes along in twenty years and re-makes Batman, the same thing could be said about how old TDK's effects look compared to that movie.

14. Gotham City. The Burtonverse!Gotham looks like a dark, hopeless, terrible place to live. Every street is an alley, every corner is overrun with prostitutes and drug dealers, and every building is dark with small windows and cracked bricks—that includes Gotham City Hall and Wayne Manor. In Nolanverse!Gotham, the city actually looks as if it could function. There are businesses and residential areas, there are bridges and tunnels and methods of transportation, and the streets look like any average city street. The buildings also have a more realistic feel to them—skyscrapers with large windows, multi-level parking garages, and Wayne Manor looks like the home of a rich man.

15. The Joker's tricks. In the Burtonverse, the jokes the Joker sets up are very flashy and showy, but they don't seem to have a point to them. He finds inventive ways to kill people, but there's no method to his madness. In the Nolanverse, the Joker's tricks are all about the method. He sets up elaborate games for people to play, and only he knows the rules. The Burtonverse!Joker's most elaborate trick is offering people money if they come to a parade, and when they get there, poisoning them all with fumes from his balloons. The Nolanverse!Joker's most elaborate trick is probably up for debate, but I'm going with giving the two ferries the detonator to blow each other up. Of course, the audience will never know: if they pressed the detonator, what would have happened? What would have blown up: the other ship (as the Joker said), their own ship (which seems likely given the Joker's MO), both ships, or something else entirely? The Nolanverse!Joker forces people into situations where they're acting with unknown consequences (like switching the hostages and guards at the end), while the Burtonverse!Joker just lays it all out on the table for you to see (like when he says using any beauty product could kill you). The unexpectedness of the Nolanverse!Joker's tricks is more nerve-wracking than the Burtonverse!Joker's tricks, which seem to be a simple matter of sitting down and thinking for a bit to figure things out (and isn't that normally the Riddler's shtick?)

16. The Joker's weapons. In the Burtonverse, the Joker uses mainly guns and poisonous gas to kill people. In the Nolanverse, the Joker uses explosions and knives, and also guns although he says he prefers not to use them. Interestingly, the Burtonverse!Joker then kills from a distance and with not a lot of violence involved. All it takes is one bullet from a gun to kill someone and you don't have to be close to them to do it. Also, the poisonous gas works when the Joker's not even there. However, the Nolanverse!Joker is either up close and personal with his victims, when he uses knives, or else he causes a lot of damage by blowing people/buildings up. Perhaps this shows that we're meant not to sympathize with or understand the Burtonverse!Joker, whereas the Nolanverse!Joker is meant to be an empathetic character. Not that you'd agree with his methods or ethics, but the Nolanverse!Joker allows the audience into his mind while the Burtonverse!Joker is viewed from a safe distance. It should also be mentioned that while the Joker does kill people with guns in The Dark Knight, he still maintains a close distance to them when doing so. The Burtonverse!Joker constantly keeps himself at a distance from his targets, except for when he kills the man who betrayed him to the cops at the beginning of the movie (but since that's a revenge killing, I'm not sure it fits with the rest of his methods of attacking).

17. Commissioner Gordon: In the Burtonverse, Gordon is a very minor character who hardly ever talks to Batman. Also, he seems to only ever give orders out that aren't helpful or that aren't followed. In the Nolanverse, Gordon plays a larger role. His input is valuable to the storyline.

18. Harley Quinn: Neither verse shows Harley, even though she is considered to be an integral part of the Joker's storyline, whether as a partner in crime or love interest. Is this simply because there wasn't enough screen time for her? Couldn't the Burtonverse!Joker's top man have been replaced with Harley? I think it would have been difficult to place Harley in the Nolanverse—the story doesn't leave a lot of extra room, and Nolanverse!Joker kills basically everyone he works with. Plus, Nolanverse!Joker seems to be so far removed from normal human interactions that I think it would have been hard including a believable Harley. But as for the Burtonverse, surely Bobby, or whatever his name was, could have been replaced with Harley? Even better—combine the characters of the Joker's top man and that girl he was sleeping with into Harley. Why did Burton decide to leave her out and invent two other characters to fill the space she left?

19. The Batcave: Burtonverse!batcave is actually a cave, with bats hanging from the ceiling and everything. The extra high-tech gadgets he has in it seem to stand out from the dreary background. Also, the entrance to the batcave is either a set of stairs that Alfred uses or that sarcophagus (I think that's what the covering for the mummy is called) that Bruce uses. The batmobile has its own space in the cave, and there's a long driveway through a forest to get to the batcave. Nolanverse!batcave is more of a tripped-out basement. It's pure white and has all sorts of gadgets in it that seem to appear and disappear in the tiles that surround the room. The entrance is a moving platform that's hidden by a wall. The batmobile has a high-tech drop-down driveway. I think both batcaves work for the tones of their respective movies.

20. The relation between Bruce and bats: This is an odd point, but it was enough of an issue in the Burtonverse that I felt it should be addressed. Burtonverse!Bruce actually takes on the habits of a bat at some points—for instance, there's one scene where Vicki wakes up in the middle of the night and finds him hanging upside down from a pole in his bedroom. We're never given a reason in the Burtonverse as to why Bruce chose a bat to model his alter-ego after. The audience is led to believe he just has an affinity for them. In the Nolanverse, Batman Begins gives us an explanation for why Bruce chooses a bat—it's part of getting over his fear, becoming what he fears, etc. Also, Bruce otherwise acts normally and doesn't seem to be given the title of "man beast" that Alfred labels Burtonverse!Bruce in Batman Returns.

21. Batman's sidekicks: Batman has no sidekicks in either of the first two movies in each verse. Not Robin, Batgirl, or Nightwing appear in them. In the third movie in the Burtonverse, Batman Forever, Robin shows up. So, will Nolan follow this trend and give Batman a sidekick in the third installment of his verse? Also, the trend to leave Batman as a solo act in the beginning of the verses might have something to do with allowing the audience to truly view Batman as a loner, an outsider, someone who doesn't fit in to the standards that society has set up for them.


A note about Batman Returns: This movie, I thought, was far better than the original in terms of developing the world that Burton was trying to create. I think that the highly-stylized version of Gotham and its inhabitants is portrayed much better here. The neon lights, foggy streets, and overall atmosphere came across much better in this movie than in Batman. I also think that, as opposed to the Nolanverse, Batman Returns offers a unique, distinctive take on Gotham that works well with the comics. The characters and situations in the Nolanverse are more realistic, but that's not necessarily always what you're in the mood for. So, although I prefer Batman Returns to Batman, I only used the first movie in the Burtonverse for most of this meta. That's because I was specifically looking at each movie with the Joker, so I left it out, along with Batman Begins (for the most part, anyway). As for the other two Burtonverse movies, I need to re-watch them, but since they don't have the Joker in them… whatever. :P

A note about the overall differences of the Burtonverse and the Nolanverse: There are two major topics that I believe influenced both directors when they created each movie. The first is the nature of the Joker. Batman was made in 1989, which I believe was before the comics really started developing the Joker's character to be more than a lunatic with a penchant for causing destruction. Feel free to correct me if you know better than I do on this topic, but I believe sometime during the 90's was when the Joker's character was fleshed out in the Batman comic universe (The Killing Joke is talked about as a turning point for the Joker). So, Batman was made before the Joker's character was really looked at in a deeper way, and of course The Dark Knight was made much later, when the Joker has been given a lot more depth. So, perhaps the different portrayals of the Joker both work for the time that they were created in? Also, the second topic is the nature of the audience. Although both movies have a PG-13 rating, it seems clear that audiences today are much more lenient of what can be in a PG-13 movie. I think children are growing up faster than ever before, and so the level of violence and implications about morality (and similar themes) are able to be at a deeper, more mature level than they were in 1989 when Batman came out. In fact, The Dark Knight would probably have earned an R if it had been released in 1989, and Batman might have been given a PG if it had been released in 2008.


Okay, that's all I've got. If I think of anything else, this post will be edited. And don't get me wrong—I love Tim Burton's work. I wasn't thrilled with Batman, but normally he amazes me. It's just that, in this instance, I feel that Nolan really stepped up and brought a lot of complex issues to the table that just weren't in Burton!Batman. Feel free to agree, disagree, or add your own comments to this discussion! ^_^*


EDIT: A few notes that have been brought to my attention in the comments. Harley Quinn wasn't introduced until 1992 in the animated series, so she wasn't even around for Burton to use. Also, it's been noted that Nolanverse!Joker would probably kill Harley if he saw her, so she probably just doesn't translate well to the movieverses.

Also, Alfred does have a few scenes where he's shown as being friendly in Batman. Such as where he's telling stories to Bruce and Vicki at the table. However, he also brings Vicki into the batcave without asking Bruce, so it seems that he doesn't have the same loyalty to Bruce (or perhaps he just thinks he knows what's best) that Nolanverse!Alfred has.

And, there's another point I'd like to make, although I believe I mentioned it before.

22. Batman's morality. Burtonverse!Batman does bad things and is lauded as a hero. Nolanverse!Batman does good things and is villified. Also, Nolanverse!Batman has inner turmoil with regard to his morals--should he kill or not, what are his limits, should he continue breaking the law for justice, etc. Burtonverse!Batman never seems to think about these things. Is not concerning himself with the morals of the situation a good thing? I think being concerned with turning evil is a major point for Batman, so I like the Nolan includes it.

EDIT 2: A commenter, and now I forget who, sorry, said The Killing Joke came out before Batman. Burton said he read it and it was an influence in the movie, but they decided to go a different way with the Joker.

Also, another point about Vicki. At the end of the movie, the only thing she does to try to save herself from the Joker is start making out with him. A girl who can only make out with a guy to save herself is defintiely a sex symbol, in my book.

EDIT 3: theloyalist has pointed out that, in the batcave section, I forgot to include the first batcave in the Nolanverse. In Batman Begins, there's an actual cave with bats and whatnot along with technology spaced around it. It's more similar to the batcave in the Burtonverse than the replacement batcave we see used in TDK. So, we'll have to see whether Nolan keeps the white room batcave in the third movie or changes it.

If there's anything else, feel free to comment! ^_^*

Comments

[slythwolf.livejournal.com]

The thing about Harley is, I'm pretty sure she was only created in the early 90s in the animated series. She seems to us like an established, really important part of the Joker's story, but she's really a newcomer in the grand scheme of things.

[greeniefru.livejournal.com]

Yep. And then there was a story called 'Mad Love' that detailed their relationship. But yes, she's only a relatively recent invention.

Great post, I agreed with pretty much all of it. I like most of Burton's work but feel connect with Nolan's take on Batman a lot more.

Also, a note. The Killing Joke was published in the 80s. A few years before Batman the film came out. Tim Burton actually said that he read it and enjoyed it. So its influence was definitely out there. They just chose to go in a different direction with The Joker.

[symmetry.livejournal.com]

Yeah I just checked this too, the Burton film was made in 1989, Harley wasn't created until 1992

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Oh, really? Thanks a lot for pointing that out. :)

[symmetry.livejournal.com]

I really loved some of the points you brought up (my favorite is you bringing up that when Nolan!Joker uses a gun he is always a short distance from the victim) and I love your critique of Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I thought it was interesting that they killed from different distances. I think killing someone from a close distance is more terrifying, from an audience's perspective.

[mayphoenix.livejournal.com]

Say what you will, but I never watched the Batman cartoon that featured Harley Quinn -- so for me, she's NEVER existed. "My" Batman universe goes back nearly 40 years, and what I recall most was Batman and Robin -- and to answer your question, it is likely Nolanverse will never see the Boy Wonder due to Christian Bale's threat that he'd walk if it happened. I also recall a lot of the Batman/Superman crossovers, the Justice League, et al.

But the Batman (with the exception of the camp 1960s TV series) was ALWAYS dark. Gotham was dark. Which is why I had a problem with how bright it was (and how blatantly CHICAGO -- even the license plates look like the Illinois plates, but on closer inspection you can see the word "GOTHAM" at the top; nice touch, but does this mean that Gotham City is found in Gotham STATE?).

And while my introduction (in childhood) to The Joker was via the late, great and lovely Caesar Romero...I must say, the BEST Joker EVER (imo) is Heath Ledger's. Because Jack Nicolson? Was Jack Nicolson in Joker makeup. He wasn't the character. He was Jack. And I do love Jack, but I always thought the Joker should've been less overblown and theatrical in his gimmicks, and more low-key, unpredictable and thus being so, TERRIFYING. Jack isn't any of those things, to me.

Now, Keaton had it down when it came to Bruce Wayne's questionable sanity. I've always thought Bruce/Batman walked the razor's edge when it came to madness. Seeing your folks murdered when you're a kid can have that effect. I think Bale shows it only in a more subdued manner. He's got all this discipline in martial arts to help him keep it under control, but someone like Joker can and does bring it to the fore. Which is why Bale's Batman may throw a man off a building, but he realizes he's got to be better than that and saves the guy at the last minute. Keaton's Batman? Uh-uh. As you pointed out, he kills and is seen as a hero. Totally twisted and bass-ackwards, if you ask me.

Great meta! Thanks for posting your observations of the two versions! I enjoyed reading them.

[daybreak25.livejournal.com]

Because Jack Nicolson? Was Jack Nicolson in Joker makeup. He wasn't the character.

THANK YOU. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR WEEKS NOW. EVEN TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THERE.

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I didn't know that Bale said he'd drop out if Robin was introduced. That sort of sucks. :(

I do like the dark atmosphere of Buron's Gotham. It's true--Nolan's Gotham is brighter than you normally find it. But, I think that lends to the realistic atmosphere Nolan seems trying to achieve. And, huh, I didn't notice the license plates. But, there's never been a state named that Gotham is located in, has there?

Ledger was definitely the best Joker, I think there's no question about that. Nicolson was playing himself in that movie, I agree completely. I think Ledger hits the nail on the head for this role, while Nicolson ends up overplaying it to a point where you're not actually afraid of anything he's doing. It's just funny. There's a separation there that doesn't exist with Ledger's Joker. I was actually uncomfortable during the movie at several points when Ledger was on screen--that's how good he was, at least to me.

I also agree with your description of Keaton's bruce. He really had it down. But yeah, Bale's Bruce works as well, and using that training to explain how he can control himself works for me. We do see Bale's Batman get more out of control when the Joker's on screen, yet he never crosses that final line. Keaton's Batman, on the other hand, crosses the line and doesn't seem affected by it. It does seem backwards that the killer is the hero and the one who refuses to kill is the villain. But interesting, in terms of how people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.

Thanks again! :D

[(Anonymous)]

A little note about the license plate thing- at least around here, some of the license plate things (not on the license plate but the frame thingie) have the name of my city on them. (Plus I heard you can see an Illinois license plate on the Lamborghini in TDK.)

[shockd.livejournal.com]

My opinion is probably a lot less valid as I'm only a casual fan of the series, but I can't imagine comparing the two separate series to one another (you did a good job, btw; a great read!). Both directors had different goals for their movie, not to mention vastly different styles to achieve those goals, and you can't begrudge Burton's version simply because it failed to compete with a successor hellbent on surpassing it anyway.

"One other thing about the Burtonverse!Harvey Dent—he's played be two different actors!" - Rachel Dawes is also played by two different people. I wonder why Nolan didn't see that coming :/ (there's totally a Tom Cruise joke there...). Now, if there were two different actors in the same movie, then I'd go WTF, but as it stands... the Joker himself will have to be recast, so it seems like a minuscule problem to me.

Overall, this was an interesting read (and I too enjoyed Returns much more than Batman; I used to be terrified of DeVito's Penguin when I was young), and you brought forth parts I didn't even think about. Thanks! :)

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :D I think Burton did what he set out to do--make a version of Batman that's dark, yet still holds on to the idea of what a comic book movie should be--funny, campy, over-the-top. There are some people who probably still prefer that version to Nolan's, especially since Burton was very careful aout the details in his Batman series.

That's true--Rachel is played by two different actresses, but at least they look something alike. The actors playing Harvey Dent look completely different--and not just their skin color, but their overall build, facial features, the way they walk and talk and smile. There were hints of the original Rachel in Maggie's version of her. I didn't get that feeling when watching Tommy Lee--even though he's a good enough actor that he probably could have copied the role more closely. The Joker will have to be re-cast as well, but if he tries to get across the same feeling as Ledger did, that will be fine with me. It's a matter of getting the audience to believe two different actors are the same character. For Rachel, I believed, for Harvey, I didn't. We'll have to see how it goes with the Joker.

Thanks again! I'm glad you liked it.

BTW: I can only imagine how ticked off Katie Holmes is now that she saw the movie and could've been in it. Could ou imagine--being able to play a part in that awesome movie and then havign to say no b/c your spouse tells you to? I'd be ticked, that's for sure.

[rose-sparrow.livejournal.com]

This was really interesting, and I'm glad you brought up the thing about Dent in the Burton!verse, because it made it seem like Burton didn't know about the comics.

Personally, I agree--TDK is better than the original, I think because it captures the darkness of the original comics better than Burton's. Nonetheless, I still have a soft spot for Nicklson, even though Ledger was AMAZING. It kind of bums me out--the idea that if they use the Joker again, they'll have to find a new actor, because who can pull off that in the same way.

Anywho, rambling now. Just wanted to tell you that this was a very interesting read.

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Yeah, I thought it was a bit crazy that he didn't plan ahead for Harvey to become Two-Face. But who knows? Maybe he did know and the actor didn't want to do it.

I do think that, although the Burton movies have a darker atmosphere, the tone of the Nolan movies is darker and fits better with the tone of the overall series. Ledger was so great--I can only hope if they replace him, they'll find someone who does a good job. Then again, you know there's already people planning to mimic the Joker. I'm sure there has to be at least ONE person out there who can look and act the part.

Thanks again! :D

[shockd.livejournal.com]

Sorry to interject, but Burton was apparently never much of a comic book fan. His Batman knowledge, as I understand, was pretty much exclusively secondhand. So, maybe he really didn't know about the importance of Dent as a continuity issue. :/

Then there's the idea that there was the possibility the movie may flop and plans for a sequel scrapped (and therefore the "continuity be damned!" mentality).

I totally agree with you about Jack, btw: Ledger was superb, but so was Nicholson in his own gangster-ish way. :)

[daybreak25.livejournal.com]

oh man, this was a great fucking read. i love posts like this, being A HUGE BATMAN NERD AS I AM. and you brought up some great points.

one, i think harley in any verse would be overkill. for one, burtonverse's (which i staunchly hated and still to this day hate!) joker seemed a little wild and campy, and didn't seem to stick to his henchmen, or seemed on a higher level than them. nolan's joker? IS JUST BATSHIT CRAZY. he's more likely to kill her in a second! comics!joker was just pretty much annoyed/irritated with her, and it's never made clear why exactly he puts up with her.

i also liked the points you made about vicki vale/rachel. i honestly believe burton has never read the comics at all (in fact, i think he's admitted to this.) while i didn't like rachel as a character, i do appreciate that nolan gave her a valuable role in the movie, even if she did end up dying.

i'm gonna be honest--i really don't understand how anyone could like burton's joker! sure, he followed canon was generally funny and all that jive, but it was just jack in clown makeup. to me, heath was funnier, scarier and more BELIEVABLE. i found that not giving him a background didn't exactly center him with his comic counterpart, which introduced us to an entirely different guy. we knew who he was supposed to be, but he had no limits--he didn't have to be this joker or that joker. he didn't have to be too scary or too funny. heath was totally at ease to create the joker he wanted and nolan wanted. and he did a fucking fantastic job.

i think with burton, he knew what happened to the joker, like someone explained it to him offhand and he was all, "okay, yeah, let's go with that." JUST NO.

also, "the killing joke" was really big for joker, not "the killing game." :D

fuck, i need to talk to someone about this.

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :D Batman nerds FTW!!

I agree, Harley might be hard to do and just sort of ruin the feel of the movie. And yes, Burton!Joker doesn't seem too menacing to me, or to the people in the movie. But Nolan!Joker terrifies everyone, and that's why he works. I think, maybe, Harley was invented solely because the Joker got popular enough that he needed a love interest, but I do think they don't work together like that. I like Harley as a partner in crime for the Joker, but as one who annoys him and who doesn't always do what she should. But yes, Nolan!Joker would probably kills her in an instant. :P

Yeah, Vicki was terrible. Rachel at least had some value, but now I'm wondering who's going to get the role of love interest in the Nolanverse. Catwoman, perhaps, or another OC?

Burton!Joker was such a disappointment to me. Heath was better in every possible way, and I think you're right when you say part of that was the lack of backstory. The Joker seems to work best as an enigma--as someone who does things for reaons you don't understand until it's too late. Heath pulled that off, Jack just didn't.

Burton seemed to like the idea of the Joker, but he doesn't seem to have figured out the methods behind why the Joker acts the way he does. At least, not enough to make it believable in the movie.

*headdesk* Going back to fix that now. I just suck. :P

Thanks again! ^_^*

[phoenixjustice.livejournal.com]

nolan's joker? IS JUST BATSHIT CRAZY.))
YES HE IS. And that is why we love him. <33333333333333333333333333333

[mirasango.livejournal.com]

This was an absolutely amazing read.

I loved the points you made about Rachel and Vicki. I was never overly fond of Vicki, for precisely the reasons you stated above. She was basically the blonde eye candy who leaped into bed with Bruce and by the next film was forgotten. Nice message to send.

On another note, I love both the Burton films and the new Dark Knight film. I grew up with the Burton films, and I love him as a director. They will always hold a special place in my heart. Michael Keaton is Batman to me. Still.

On the other side, TDK was unfreaking real. I never thought I would see a better Joker on screen but Heath blew this out of the water. He just can't be touched. I went to see the movie because I am a Batman fan, even from way back watching the old 60's tv series, but just wow. Heath was amazing.

That had to be one of the best performances on screen of all time, and I know people are saying it's great and the best superhero movie.. ect. But I am talking that performance was up there with all the greats. It should be recognized for what it was: simply amazing. If he doesn't get awards for this...

I walked out of the theater feeling like I had been run over. Every time he had been on screen I was fixed to watching him, everything else just blended in and was background noise. That's how you know it's a good performance.

All the actors turned in an excellent performance and they should be proud. Katie has to be kicking herself right now.

But with all that said, I love Jack's Joker for certain reasons and I love Heath's Joker. Just as I love Caesar and Mark Hamill's.

I never thought I would say this, but Heath is my favorite Joker ever. He was so good. How sad we won't see him again on screen.

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :D

Yeah, Vicki sucked pretty much for the whole movie. At least Rachel seemed to fit in with the continuity of the Nolanverse--Vicki was just there to give the movie a love story. And it failed. Miserably.

Burton is one of my favorite directors of all time. I hate Batman, but Batman Returns is better, and Batman Forever rocked. I don't like Keaton as Batman, but I think he does a great job of it. It's just a personal preference on my part.

Heath was the best Joker by far, and I think that's why the fandom is exploding right now. People who've never been that into Batman, such as myself, are going out and looking up all of the old movies and comics to get more with the Joker in it. That's a crazy effect to have on people. Heath needs to win every award he can for this role, or there's no justice in the world at all. TDK is my favorite movie of all time (and that's saying something), and Ledger's performance was simply outstanding.

You're right, every single actor was amazing. There wasn't anyone who didn't fit, and everyone was perfectly in character. I thought it was an amazing production. And if I had the chance to have Ledger's Joker stick a knife in my face and toss me out a window, and have a love story with Two-Face, and I gave it up because my husband wouldn't allow me to do it... well. There are no words for how truly livid I would be. LIVID.

This might sound awful, but I was only upset about Heath dying after I saw the movie. It was then that I could fully appreciate how great of an actor he was (I loved him in Brokeback Mountain, but TDK was so far above anything he's ever done before), and then I was upset that he wouldn't be around, not only to re-prise the Joker, but also to act in other movies that would no doubt have been memorable.

followed a link to get here

[gaiafaye.livejournal.com]

Interesting comparisons! I have a few comments.

7. You should know, though, in regards to Harvey Dent, that Tim Burton didn't direct Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Those two were handled by Joel Schumacher, hence the campier shift in tone (though I believe Burton was involved in Forever from a production standpoint, even though he disliked the new creative direction). So the change in actors isn't surprising.

8. I'd have to rewatch the Burton movies to evaluate the violence, but I gotta mention that in Nolanverse Batman takes a LOT of risks in regards to other people's safety. In Batman Begins, during the chase scene, I was shocked that he apparently didn't get any of those cops killed. And in The Dark Knight, when he busts up Scarecrow's drug meeting, he sure doesn't seem to mind destroying other people's cars, not to mention what happened when the tumbler shifted to "INTIMIDATE" mode. ;) Those are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

17. That was something I really disliked about the earlier Batmovies. A bumbling, useless Gordon. :(

18. Harley's debut date already been addressed, but I think if the Nolanverse were to include her in someway, Joker might use her until that use is gone, then kill her. And even though I love her, I'd be okay with that, 'cause it would make sense.

Re: followed a link to get here

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, I just re-watched Forever and noticed that the director was different. *headdesk* Still, though, since the series is meant to be taken as one complete entity, I figure the change in actors is worthwhile of mentioning, even if it ends up not being too important.

Nolanverse!Batman does take a lot of risks, it's true. There are plenty of moments, particularly in Batman Begins, where I just think someone's definitely dying, but no one does. I guess the main point here is the moral difference between the two Batmans? As in, Burtonverse!Batman never seems bothered by killing, and Nolanverse!Batman doesn't want to kill anyone.

Burtonverse!Gordon is a failure in every way. The point of his character was changed, and it sucks. It's like, his only job is turnin on the batsignal. Once he does that, he's in the clear. :(

Yeah, I'd like to see Harley being used then killed by the Joker in the Nolanverse. She's a fun character--it'd be even better if Poison Ivy was there too. :D

[akameji.livejournal.com]

I love things like this; you've done a great job of laying out the similarities and differences. Now I want to rewatch both of them, but from what I can remember, you're very right.

I find it rather interesting that Nolanverse!Joker seems to be farther away from the comic book portrayal of the Joker in appearance and backstory, but yet completely on the money in motivations, actions, and overall personality.

Anyway, this was a great post to read! Thanks for sharing.

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I think it's very true that Nolanverse!Joker is more on target with the idea, or I guess the more subtle motivations, of the character than Burtonverse!Joker is. The Nolanverse!Joker's baackstory seems to be taken from The Killing Joke, with a few edits. At least, the idea that he uses different stories when he feels like it.

Thanks again! Your icon is made of win, even though I sadly don't know where it's from.

[theloyalist.livejournal.com]

a small point of contention: when talking about Nolan!verse batcave, you talk entirely about the pseudo-batcave in TDK and not the actual batcave in Batman Begins, which is actually a cave under Bruce's mansion filled with bats and technology that "stand out from the dreary background."

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

*headdesk* I re-watched and you're right. It's true. I shall edit to make appropriate corrections. Thanks for pointing that out! :D

Belated Addon Musings

[miravisu.livejournal.com]

Good points, and a very interesting read, especially with the comments and input from others :)

I've not really read many comics, and barely seen the cartoon, but I did see most of the movies.. and emotionwise I must agree that TDK left you with one heck of a feeling.


I recall seeing a discussion thread on imdb for TDK (yes, some threads aren't entirely made up of trolls and flaming and such *gasp*), about someone feeling the Joker wasn't "funny" enough. Whereby another poster pointed out that there was plenty of dark humour in TDK and what the Joker found funny needn't be funny for the common (bat)man..

And given your fourth meta-analysis section, it only adds to my own thoughts on the Nolanverse!Joker, that he really is the Joker card in it all.. the craftyness and disguises makes him hard to see, 'til it's too late, as if he is spotted things are bound to take a bad turn. He's "the unknown factor" in so many ways. And the last term just made me think of the song KMFDM - Witch Hunt *grins*

Re: Belated Addon Musings

[kowaiyoukai.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the comment! I think Nolanverse!Joker is misunderstood by a lot of people b/c of their previous experiences with Burtonverse!Joker and comic!Joker. Each version is different in various ways, so it can be hard for some people who have a lot of background in the Batman universe to deal with Nolanverse!Joker. I've heard the same thing--that TDK!Joker wasn't funny enough, or that he didn't look right, or that Ledger twisted the character to be something he's not supposed to be.

My thought is, fuck it. You can either appreciate the character for who he is, or else you can't. I'm sure there are people that saw TDK and were disappointed b/c they thought Ledger's performance wasn't as good as Nicholson's. I disagree, of course, but I guess it's just a matter of preference. *shrugs*