BurtonVerse: The Tier List

The whole concept of the tier list has always fascinated me. Its beginnings are as a means to rank how powerful the characters of fighting games are, particularly Super Smash Bros. But it caught on to share the opinions on a wide variety of topics. For me, the appeal is the organization of something we all do to a point anyway. There are those with the notion that there should be one and only one [S] and one and only one [F], but I disagree. Otherwise, why not just make a list of 1., 2., 3., etc. I do agree with limiting the number to few, but it saves one from having to choose a single favorite and/or least favorite.

While working on my BurtonVerse Theory, I devised the idea of a tier list of the films, considered as standalone as intended, below. It contains all twenty features, the nineteen Tim Burton directed plus The Nightmare Before Christmas. The images are snips from the theatrical release poster. The only ranking otherwise is release order. A tier list does not a blog post make, and since enjoyment level is really my only criteria, following it is a series of why's: For [S] and [F], why they do not rank lower and higher, respectively, and for [A] through [E], why they do not rank higher and why they do not rank lower. It's a lot as it is, so my goal is one sentence per film per why. This is also where you will find the titles if there is any question.

[S]: Why not lower? Beetlejuice is quite possibly the ultimate Tim Burton movie, containing for examples: dark humor, a gothic storyline and an appropriate amount of stop-motion for a live-action film. Edward Scissorhands is the best non-direct adaptation of the Frankenstein story, arguably capturing the essence of "the creature" better than Mary Shelley, at least for a more modern audience. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is the archetype of how to adapt a musical for the screen well and keep the runtime down.

[A]: Why not lower? Speaking of archetypes, Batman and Batman Returns are ones of the superhero genre for origin story and sequel, respectively, along with Richard Donner's Superman (1978) and his cut of Superman II. Instead of a straight adaptation, Big Fish leans more into the fantastical story aspect of the material while the novel leans more into the "dealing with death" subject; the film does not lose this latter fully by any means, though. Big Eyes is the most non-Burtonesque of his films, telling an interesting story while showing his prowess as a director who possesses more than a quirky gimmick. Why not higher? If you have read the post on my Bat-Multiverse theory including Batman and Batman Returns, you will find it no surprise that I begrudge that Billy Dee Williams never got to show off his Two-Face. It may be the translation to the different medium but Big Fish loses the personal connection author Daniel Wallace makes in the novel. A bit distracting from the narrative of Big Eyes, Christoff Waltz's heavy Austrian accent does not fit the American Walter Keane, though it is a good portrayal otherwise.

[B]: Why not lower? A challenge to be sure, The Nightmare Before Christmas effectively bends the line between Halloween and Christmas film and has the catchiest soundtrack of any musical film ever. Mars Attacks! makes great use of an ensemble cast (some on their way up) and tells a surprisingly tight tale, especially considering it is an adaptation of a Topps trading card series from the sixties. Not always the case with musicals, the numbers in Corpse Bride are organic with the plot and the cast meshes well together, partially a result of the overlap with the simultaneous production of Tim Burton's other 2005 release. It is fitting that the most popular (only?) gothic soap opera of yesteryear, Dark Shadows, be adapted to film by Burton, and the result is a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the soap genre with multiple great "fish out of water" one-liners. Why not higher? When Disney claimed its illegitimate child, The Nightmare Before Christmas, around 2006, it began overexposing it like it does everything, and the movie simply does not live up to that level of hype. Because of its release only five months after Independence Day, similarity in overall plot, destruction of recognizable landmarks, and that film's blockbuster status, Mars Attacks! comes off as a parody of sorts, even though it is not. As Burton's first stop-motion feature, the attributes of The Nightmare Before Christmas create an unrealistic (and unfair) expectation for Corpse Bride, but it's true, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." Its quirk is also its deficiency: Story-wise, Dark Shadows has all the energy of an extended episode of a daytime soap.

[C]: Why not lower? Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is a solid first outing for Tim Burton as a feature director, including Paul Reubens' over-the-top performance as Pee-Wee Herman and a dose of Burton's brand of dark humor. Not a remake of 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, which author Roald Dahl disapproved, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a second adaptation of the novel that follows the source material closer, including the childlike demeanor of Willy Wonka, Charlie remaining pure (arguably the whole point), and retaining Dahl's original lyrics for the Oompa-Loompa songs. Part remake of the 1951 animated classic, part sequel to it, Alice in Wonderland radically adapts the material into a kind of high fantasy, a bold direction to avoid a straight adaptation for the gazillionth time, one that somehow works. Frankenweenie (2012) is a fun ride, adequately expanding the plot of the live-action short and pays tribute to monster movies of old in its climax. Counting sequels and looser adaptations, Dumbo is the twelfth live-action film sourced from a Disney animated feature since 1994, and it is my favorite as it is part more or less straight remake and part logical sequel in a continuous narrative. Why not higher? Spending an hour and a half with a man-child, no matter how fun he is, is a bit much in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but even more so it is the double dose for a while with Francis. As much as I like Christopher Lee in anything, Wonka's backstory is completely unnecessary in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. An unavoidable side effect of linking the story elements into a tighter narrative is the expansion of some characters' prominence, but the movie is titled Alice in Wonderland, not Alice x Mad Hatter. The other two fully stop-motion Burton films are ranked [B], and Frankenweenie just does not quite have their magic, potentially because it is missing the musical format. A few live-action remakes of Disney animated films from the early days spaced out might have presented neat and unique opportunities if carefully chosen, but Dumbo was the first of five released in 2019 and fatigue had already set in knowing how many there were already and what was coming (and no sign of stopping).

[D]: Why not lower? Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but Washington Irving's short story has so little substance that any film adaptation that added any depth at all is an improvement, and that is certainly Burton's Sleepy Hollow. Why not higher? With its ensemble cast and horror sensibility, it creates a high bar with Burton at the helm, and Sleepy Hollow does not rise to its potential.

[E]: Why not lower? It may not be the 1968 sci-fi classic or the recent prequels/reboots, but Planet of the Apes is still an Apes film, a retelling of the 1963 novel by Pierre Boulle, the conclusion of which helps explain one of the most misunderstood endings in cinematic history with several nods to the aforementioned 1968 adaptation along the way. Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has the deepest lore packed into any one Burton film, a result of its source material, which sells the whole thing. Why not higher? That misunderstood ending of Planet of the Apes seemed to be oddly setting up a sequel for a director who had only one follow-up film prior and only a second to be released this September, plus the fact that humans are as intelligent as the apes (arguably the whole point of the material is they are not) created a misfire in regard to its expectation. In another case of source material being required to understand portions of its film adaptation, Asa Butterfield's performance in Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children may be interpreted as poor, but the intention is that he is rather stoic based on the inner thoughts of his character in Ransom Riggs' novel.

[F]: Why not higher? Granted I have only seen it once (the last one I saw when I decided to watch all of Tim Burton's films including ones I had not ever seen ahead of Wednesday), granted it won Martin Landau a well-deserved Academy Award, but Ed Wood is currently my least favorite Burton film. I actually enjoyed the subject's Plan 9 from Outer Space more, and feel like one gets a better appreciation of the person through his art.

In conclusion, returning to the original purpose of a tier list, it would not be fair to compare a Street Fighter character to a Mortal Kombat one. So, I believe I am correct in the assessment that they are self-contained. What this means is the [F] entry on this list is better than many other films and would likely rank higher if the subject was biopics. Films in the [S], [A] and [B] tiers would certainly still rank high, and some higher, on other top lists by another criterion such as genre. Sweeney Todd, Nightmare, and Corpse Bride are among my favorite musicals, and both Batman films are in my favorite superhero films. If the subject were how well a book is adapted to film, which can be gauged somewhat more objectively, Big Fish might rank lower, and Miss Peregrine would likely grade higher. Finally, I am as fickle as many other people, so this is right now; a rewatch might improve or diminish my opinion.

Next up...Star Wars: Continuity Theories!