Is it hypocritical that. . .

Tim Burton got so much crap for not staying true to the Batman mythos, when Nolan's Batman also takes liberties with the source material, and yet it is praised as being the truest incarnation of the character?

What I mean is in the comics the Joker was not an Anarchist in war-paint, and the origins of two-face was completely altered, and IMO Batman was the weakest part in The Dark Knight, meaning he was upstaged by the Joker. Maybe I'm weird, but whenever the scenes with Batman or Bruce Wayne show up, I kept wondering what the Joker was doing. Again, one of the complaints about Burton's Batman was that he was too focused on the villains, which by watching The Dark Knight it's understandable how that could happen.

Also, for being such a "realistic" take, I somehow can't imagine a 5 ton tank effortlessly traveling down narrow urban streets or landing on poorly supported rooves without crushing, or maiming a single pedestrian.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Hmm, I'm not sure I grant the premise. Is Nolan really getting a pass from purists, or being hailed as putting forward the "truest incarnation of the character"? I'm not up on such things, so I wouldn't know.

I would imagine that die-hard Batman fans are probably a bit irked, but more forgiving of great movies than bad or mediocre ones. Either that, or they feel the "spirit" of the character is better reflected by Nolan. I think any reasonable fan, however, has probably come to grips with the idea that major alterations are inevitable, and the spirit of the thing is all you can really hope for with most adaptations.

Jack Nicholson's more conventional Joker was by far the most interesting thing in Burton's Batman film. But don't get me started on the lack of reality in movies!!!!!

C'mon now, you don't really believe that a movie based on a "Caped Crusader" should be judged on how "realistic it is, do you?"

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It wasn't a matter of the character of The Joker upstaging Batman. Batman is on screen a lot. tThis is the film that establishes his reasons for becoming a crime fighter, his rise as a millionaire, and his romance with Kim Bassinger's character. No, it was a matter of candlepower. Nicholson just shines.

Keaton, a fine actor especially in comic roles, just could not compete with Jack. It was really a matter of casting. If they had found a young actor with sufficient gravitas his weight would have balanced against the unbearable lightness of Jack. But as I said before, Keaton is really a much more able comic than tragedian. I never could understand why he was cast in that role.

When I think of gravitas. I think of Denzel Washington. Maybe a young Denzel could have stood up against the force that is Nicholson. When a filmmaker chooses Nicholson for a role he/she knows that everyone else better be on their game. And Nicholson meant huge box office. You can't blame them for wanting him in what would inevitably a major star turn for him.

__________________
Louise Vale first woman to play Jane Eyre in the flickers.

in comic books executives give the story to lots of different writers who do what ever they want with it. they don't protect the canon themselves and will sell out for short term profit. Death and rebirth of heroes any one? they tend to have huge consistency issues within the comic world, let alone transitioning the film. One reason american comic books been hurt compared to japanese manga.

any arguments of not staying true is kind of silly. you can take a look here on all the different creations of the joker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(comics)

comic industy also got too much tinkering from outside influences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

nolan is so much better than burton. for bat begins he did lots of research on and took what he felt was the most fitting for the movie. a lot from "the man who falls"

for dark knight, best comic book movie ever made. can't really complain.

I thought burton's films were good too.