View Single Post
Old 04-07-2013, 01:40 PM   #613
Skrilla31
Side-Kick
 
Skrilla31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 782
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
I don't count the likes of Joker setting up Dent's scarring, or Ra's Al Ghul being the trainer of Bruce to being close to the same level as the Joker being the reason Batman exists.
Okay so it's wrong when Joker has a hand in creating Batman but it's okay when Ra's Al Ghul has a hand in creating Batman? Where do you draw the line? At what point is it okay to take a few liberties and at what point isn't it? The fact is in both cases, the origin of Batman is re-imagined so that the filmmaker is able to tell a stronger story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
That not only changes Batman's origin, but it changes the nature of their relationship entirely. Batman's relationship with his greatest villain. When they have their one and only face off as Batman and Joker in the movie, what was it all about? Batman beating him up because he killed his parents. It was the antithesis of everything they are as rivals in the comics.
I'm sorry I just don't see it that way. Again, Burton had just one movie to tell the story of Batman and Joker. One movie to show us that relationship. So rather than paint Joker as just some maniac that emerged during Batman's crusades later in life, he decided to make him more essential to the mythos and more connected to Batman himself. It has more to do than just getting revenge for his parents. It suggests that a balance is needed. That a Batman could not exist without a Joker and that a Joker could not exist without a Batman. That these two were destined to clash. To tell the story of Joker is to tell the story of Batman.

Skrilla31 is offline   Reply With Quote