MovieChat Forums > Batman Returns (1992) Discussion > Nolan lacks with visuals

Nolan lacks with visuals


This what keeps me coming back to Batman Returns, the visuals are just stunning! And I believe this is where Nolan films lack for batman.

reply

Agreed 100%. Jeebs.

Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.

reply

Nolan films lack everything.

reply

Nolan lacks imagination which Burton soars with.

reply

Nolan and Burton are still both better than Snyder and Schumacher.

Metallica, Iron Maiden, and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fan

reply

That guy Set should read this topic.

Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.

reply

Which he more than makes up for with a compelling story, interesting characters, and dramatic tension.

reply

Too realistic, for my tastes, though, I like them.

Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.

reply

Not true. The Dark Knight films were shot very "realistically", but Batman Begins definitely packed a more comic-inspired approach.

And the Dark Knight films still had very cool visual scenes.

You're comparing apples and oranges in terms of visual styles. Tim Burton was obviously going for a very heavy comic book aesthetic. That doesn't necessarily mean Nolan's version was "lacking" in the visual department.

reply

I'm not sure Nolan lacks as such, I think the thing is that Burton excels in this area. All of his films feel so visually rich and atmospheric (even the one or two I don't care for that much).

Batman Returns is the most visually stunning comic book movie I have ever seen.

Just something about it gets me every time. Burton is a visual genius, which I guess comes from his early art and design background.

The atmosphere and actual look of BR is just mesmerising. The whole Christmas theme adds to it also, TB is a big fan of the Autumn/ Winter period, and I think it really shows when he brings it to his work...Sleepy Hollow anyone?

"I'm leaving, i've assessed the situation, and i'm going".

reply

Agreed, Spoff. Too bad I don't like more of his movies.

RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn

reply

The Dark Knight films were shot very "realistically"


A movie can be shot very "realistically" (not that movies featuring protagonists dressed like bats should ever be) and still look good and display an interesting visual style. The Dark Knight movies on the other hand couldn't look more bland, especially TDKR. No wonder people compared them to a Law and Order episode... Attention to detail when it comes to use of color, framing, lighting, etc, doesn't make a movie any less "realistic".

reply

Agreed, FMT.

RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn

reply

Nolan's Gotham City never stood out for me, personally, and that it was pretty noticeably Chicago took me out of the illusion that it was a different major city in America. The trendy use of teal and orange didn't help with the later films, I think from a color grading perspective Begins looks more attractive especially the night scenes.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

Well said OP.

Burton's movies have some flaws for sure, and maybe Keaton wasn't the most screen accurate version of the character, but their movies were still the best! They also had the best pacing.

reply

Burton's are my favorites, for sure.

RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn

reply

But succeeds in everything else that's actually important, like story and character.

reply

Burton has those.

RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn

reply

Burton has those.


But they're not very interesting.

reply

Ironically Burton's Gotham City is visually more impressive and interesting and actually feels more like a character in and of itself than how its presented in the Nolan films. In the Nolan films Gotham City is pretty dull looking, visually speaking, and its not difficult at all to tell they were using major cities like Chicago when filming( The dodgy motion tracking effects to add extra buildings didn't really help at all).

And yes, visuals are important, arguably just as important as story and character because if your just focusing on those you might as well write a book instead.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

. In the Nolan films Gotham City is pretty dull looking, visually speaking, and its not difficult at all to tell they were using major cities like Chicago


Just because it's Chicago doesn't mean it's "dull looking", It was shot very well. I actually feel that added to the effect of The Dark Knight, and gave the actions of the characters (especially the Joker) real weight. I don't think I'd feel the tension of the Joker's antics as well if it were taking place in some stylized, gothic Burton wet dream.

as important as story and character


Well Burton really isn't that good at either at least in the 89 movie (Example A, The most boring version of Commissioner Gordon you will ever see)

your just focusing on those you might as well write a book instead.


It can easily go the other way where you only focus on visuals and just have essentially a moving painting. That's a recurring criticism of Tim Burton.

Roger Ebert even said that while he considered Burton's Gotham City to be one of the most visually interesting places in film, It was a pity that nothing more interesting happens in it.

reply

Just because it's Chicago doesn't mean it's "dull looking", It was shot very well.

In Begins Gotham City had a grounded feel but still had more originality in its design and its lighting that set it apart from any other typical major city used for a major motion picture, despite using a pretty major building of Chicago to double for Wayne Enterprises without much tweaking than slapping the logo on it. The visual aesthetic of the city deteriorated in its following sequels, it didn't stand out very well and you could tell which city they shot this or that easily. Not only that, but Batman looked ridiculous and out of place rather than blending in and feeling like he was truly one with his environment. So yes, it was dull looking, too bad Nolan stopped being influenced by Blade Runner after Begins.

Well Burton really isn't that good at either at least in the 89 movie (Example A, The most boring version of Commissioner Gordon you will ever see)

A story doesn't necessarily have to be told through intricate action occurring on screen and character development doesn't have to be described through dialogue, visuals alone can do the job for both if done handled right. In the silent era, all movies were visually motivated and because people could not hear the actors say their lines they had to interpret their movements along with how the frame was playing out to dive into the story and feel for the characters. The use of dialogue intertitles became debatable till talkies came around and changed virtually everything, some people preferred using less as possible feeling it hurt their films which they felt told solid stories well enough on a visual level. They were all basically spectacle based. I think its pretty fair to say that Burton is definitely influenced by the silent era in his earlier films, especially those produced outside of the United States like Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Nosferatu. Concerning Gordon's characterization in the '89 film it pretty much goes on throughout the original four movies - He was just there to be there and didn't really contribute anything( Hence I'm a bit hesitant to really call him a
"character"), which isn't Burton's fault but more on the studio and the screenwriters.


It can easily go the other way where you only focus on visuals and just have essentially a moving painting.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on what story is being told, when you break it down really the story for 2001: A Space Odyssey is pretty simple and the people in it barely register as characters because we don't get to learn much about them and really dive into their motives. Visually, however, it is still a marvel to look at and is a classic. Its sequel, 2010, which was more character driven and dialogue heavy, was not met with as much love as its predecessor and tends to be forgotten about, a lot having to do with its director being in a very different league than Kubrick's and could not compete or outdo him in certain aesthetic areas which made 2001 such a success. Burton's Batman movies are much more visually motivated than Nolan's films, that doesn't make them worse necessarily, just different and for their faults they did allow Burton to experiment more the same way Batman had for Nolan. Burton's Batman films just speak as they were coming from him as Nolan's are to his, neither iteration of the character is really the one from the comics stripped out from a panel its really their vision. Give Nolan a script for a Burton movie I doubt he'd knock it as out of the park as Burton could, same if Burton were to direct a script for a Nolan movie.

That's a recurring criticism of Tim Burton.

Its true, but by the end of the day Burton isn't really much of a writer he's mostly a director and as his work proves he's really only as good as the scripts he's working from. Nolan however has written just about every film he's directed so he's not as much a visualist despite the ambitious spectacle of Inception and Interstellar.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

When I'm looking at Gotham City, I want to see Burton's Gotham. NOT Chicago. I enjoyed TDK and even Rises. Have no use for Begins. But nothing can top Returns.

RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn

reply