I read this on another site and thought it went well with this discussion
"Its so sad to see Burton getting all this hate from you supposed Batman fans. You're forgetting all the crap Burton had to go through just to make Batman remotely dark. The Batman everyone was used to was the Adam West Pow Bang Wham crap, hokey bright colors and Gordon waiting by the red phone for Batman to answer and save Gotham. Burton took Frank Miller's ideas of a dark, gothic Gotham and turned into a reality. And he had to f!ght Warner Brothers every step of the way. Michael Keaton did just as good of a job as Christian Bale at Bruce/Batman, if not better. And the studio fought Keaton's role the entire way. Burton wanted a darker Joker, but Jack Nicholson wanted to do him a certain way, too. The studio sided with Jack, because he was the one who would help make the studio money from the film. (I bet the reason Burton k!lled the Joker was so he wouldn't have to work with Nicholson again.)
Burton's film is the superior one (though not the more exciting or intense one) because he doesn't load it down with extraneous dialogue like Nolan did, he didn't stretch the film out too long (half hour shorter), and he still made it beautiful. Nolan's film has no concept of art, he leaves no handprint on it, it's just brilliant action, an incredibly well-constructed villain, and holy-crap effects. The characters in the original are so much more real than the new films, where everyone has a feeling of "I'm here to do this for the plot." (This is why half of the audience leaves thinking "at what point did Harvey Dent become evil?") You may hate the Prince music, but Danny Elfman's score is INCREDIBLE, and blows Hans Zimmer/ James Newton Howard's out of the water. Their score sounds exactly like Pirates of the Caribbean and Gladiator (guess who wrote those scores?).
Dark Knight is a dang good entertaining film, but as far as a piece of art goes, it's not up there with Burton's Batman, which is both visually stunning and entertaining. That's why Burton's film will stand the test of time, whereas only Heath Ledger's Joker will continue to impress for years to come. "
Dude, I call bullsh*t on this whole argument myself. In Burton's Batman, I didn't give two sh*ts about the characters because they got no development AT ALL (except for The Joker, and even that's a stretch). I believed in the characters in The Dark Knight because they actually had character themes, they actually go through a story arc, they actually have more to them and more subtle things going on mentally and emotionally. This is NOT the case with Burton's batman, and anyone who really loves Batman as a character can vouch for this. SECONDLY, I don't give a sh*t about art if it doesn't aid in storytelling.
Every Batman movie before Nolan's was just a series of showy clashes and action scenes in the middle of the city. Burton's film's had incredible art direction, but everything else WAS LACKING. I DON'T GIVE A SH*T about Gotham City being beautiful if everything else involved with the movie is sh*t. That's the one bullsh*t argument I hear Burton defenders go on and on and on about.... That it's "art". Nolan's film is just as, if not more, artful because it takes an actual city, and actual place with an architectural history, and make it totally Gotham City without trying to over-goth it.
And, that kid who talks about extraneous dialogue must have a low attention span, because all that dialogue was to further story and plot... They aren't characters going on long tangents, everything works to further the PLOT. There aren't bits that are there just to be there (like The Joker dancing in the museum to prince). Everything in Nolan's Batman pushes the story forward, and everything introduced gets a payoff...
And as for the score, did that guy you're quoting actually listen to those two scores? Because, I actually have them on CD, and they sound NOTHING alike. This guy is full of sh*t.