Batman v Batman

I remember not particularly caring for Tim Burton's Batman movies when I was young.  That said, there are a lot of things that child me didn't like, or wouldn't like that post adolescent me does and vice versa (just say no to reliving Power Rangers.)   Having watched Christopher Nolan's version of the story, and in the case of The Dark Knight many times, I realized that I probably would not have enjoyed those 15-20 years ago either.   There was also a child I did not care for who was obsessed with Batman making me hate all things Gothem by proxy, anyway the point is I figured Burton's deserved another try and I am glad i did because now I can say without a doubt I am not a fan. 
Look and Tone:
The film, though dark in a sense, is still extremely cartoonish in nature.  I am not going to compare the special effects because it was the 1980s and trying to make it stand next to what we have today is unfair and honestly ridiculous.  However what Nolan did was make a basically impossible world from the comic books become possible in our world and I like a movie that does that.  Burton didn't. 
In his version Batman floats around, almost flying and villains who should be killed are just transformed into evil by their freak accidents like falling into a toxic vat or  plummeting out a window and being licked by cats.  Any possible enjoyment depends on giving up any knowledge of how the world works but yet it is still set in Gothem which is supposed to be any big city USA ( but really Chicago)
By contrast everything in Nolan's makes sense or at least is explained to a point where you can suspend belief enough to see it being plausible.  Take his villains; we don't know a backstory for the Joker but he is simply a terrorist- granted a very good one but he does everything like a terrorists scheming and plotting his chaos out (I know he has a huge speech about not being a guy with a plan but he is.)  Dent/ Two Face turns evil as an act of vengeance against people who led to the death of his beloved and the partial burning of his face.  Scarecrow is a crazy drug addict and Bane, Ra Al Goul, and Ra Al Goul's daughter can be equated to religious extremists.
Along with real world like villains, the Bat technology is explained in detail of how Lucious Fox builds these amazing things and Batman is a billionaire so money is no object- let's be honest Richard Branson could be Batman if he wanted to and, as for the "unrealistic" ending, Branson could also fake his own death and live out his days abroad when he was done being Batman.
Casting Pet Peeves:
Another big issue is Burton's choice for lead. Michael Keeton is too nerdy and too vanilla for a millionaire or billionaire playboy and lacks the physical attributes to fight crime nightly.  He also lacks the acting skill or care to show anger or passion of wanting to fight for the welfare or Gothem/ avenge his parents death.   On the flip side Christian Bale is an Oscar winner with the perfect mix of handsome and bat-shit crazy that fits the role like a glove. 
Then we have the Joker. We know I have a bias for Ledger but when he was cast people thought the move was insane and when he was done he was such a good actor people thought he'd been so possessed by the Joker, he was.   In Burton's, Jack Nicolson was absolutely amazing at being Jack Nicolson in clown makeup but alas not the better Joker. 
I am sure there are people who will disagree with me but Nolan could make 20 more Dark Knight films and I would probably love them.  Burton should stick to putting googlie eyes on Johnny Depp who, ironically would have made a better Batman than Keeton.

No Joker Rising?

This week Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise returns to the big screen for the first time in four years. Though there has been speculations about plot (it was going to take place 20 years after the last, or maybe four) and anticipation about the new villains Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and Bane (Tom Hardy) it seems the number one topic of conversation was the Joker- who was portrayed by Heath Ledger in a 2009 Oscar winning role. First was "will Ledger be replaced as the Joker?" Which seemed to die down when everyone from the franchise said that Heath was irreplaceable. However, everyone knows that between unused archive footage and "movie magic" it would still be possible to use Ledger (and perhaps a double) as the Joker so speculation became "will the Joker return?" or "how will they explain where the Joker went?"

After talking around the subject for a while and acting coy, Nolan has stated that it would be triviaizing the loss of Ledger to so much as mention the demented clown prince by name. For the record I firmly believe he is lying; as they say in his film The Prestige, "a magician never reveals his trick." I feel like he's trying to conceal the surprise Sixth Sense style. I have my ideas of how the Joker should will return which I won't reveal until it's happened or not. That said, if he is telling the truth and the Joker actually doesn't get so much as a name drop, Nolan is an idiot.

Allegedly, every other villain from the series is mentioned. By not saying only one person you are actually drawing attention to the Ledger tragedy not brushing by it. If he didn't want attention brought to losing Heath, Nolan should have told the cast and crew not to bring him up because when Batman himself, Christian Bale is "opening up about the loss of his friend for the first time" just as he promotes his last film makes me feel like he's trying to get attention. Also, from the inside perspective, if I lived in Other city, I would want to know if that guy was on the loose.
I guess only time will tell if Nolan did right or not.