am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I know what you were talking about. It was two difference scenarios. The comic Batman wasn't crippled on a cane.



No, it's called lazy writing. You don't learn a thing about Bruce Wayne from watching the Joker.



Yeah all those riddles Joker sent Batman in TDK. Totally Riddler like. Joker is ALWAYS ahead of Batman. That's one reason why he's his greatest villain. Here I'll give you a very accessible example for you to check out yourself:



It's all about the first encounter Batman and Gotham have with the Joker, and Batman is completely overwhelmed by him, Joker is always one step ahead of Batman and the Cops, the city is thrown into chaos and fear of him, just like in TDK.

As Batman said in BTAS; "Normal criminals usually have logical motives. But the Joker's insane schemes make sense to him alone. That's why he's so unpredictable".

(Also the BTAS quote reminds me a bit of Alfred's "Some men just want to watch the world burn..." great speech)

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

No, it's called lazy writing. You don't learn a thing about Bruce Wayne from watching the Joker.

Tim Burton explains it better in one of the commentaries.

Yeah all those riddles Joker sent Batman in TDK. Totally Riddler like. Joker is ALWAYS ahead of Batman. That's one reason why he's his greatest villain. Here I'll give you a very accessible example for you to check out yourself:



It's all about the first encounter Batman and Gotham have with the Joker, and Batman is completely overwhelmed by him, Joker is always one step ahead of Batman and the Cops, the city is thrown into chaos and fear of him, just like in TDK.

As Batman said in BTAS; "Normal criminals usually have logical motives. But the Joker's insane schemes make sense to him alone. That's why he's so unpredictable".

Again, you'll point out one or two comics from a character with a 70+ year history..

Joker has not always been obsessed with Batman, trying to prove a point against him. That seems Riddler-like to me. Always trying to outsmart Batman with his schemes, and prove himself superior.

Joker doesn't have a point, he just commits crimes at random, which is why he is such a dangerous foe.

Originally Posted by milost

How was the Joker anything like the Riddler in Dark Knight?

I don't remember riddles, I don't remember him being OCD and trying to outwit Batman (he did that naturally and pretty easily). Don't remember The Joker being obsessed with puzzles and riddles and having a sense of a superiority complex?

Riddler robbed banks in clown gear to rile up the mob? Riddler put smiles on public officials he didn't like? Riddler went from wanting to kill Batman to wanting to be his play buddy that he could never kill? Riddler strapped bombs so Batman had to choose between the two for an emotional/moral dilemma? Was there a riddle or puzzle that I'm forgetting that the ferries had to solve in order to solve?


I don't see how he was the Joker, unless you're stuck on the mind games/situations had in the film. But I can assure you, a Riddler mind game/situation would be completely different with a different MO and motive.


The Riddler battles Batman and Gotham because he thinks he's better, smarter and superior. The Joker battles Batman because he's fun and everything he's not (other than a freak).

It's straight from the horse's mouth - Nolan himself about why he couldn't use Riddler in TDKR.. (I can't find the quote, but it's out there somewhere).

Apparently the studio wanted the Riddler, and the Riddler was in the original draft, but in the end he decided not to use the Riddler. Why? Because he had already covered that ground in TDK.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Tim Burton explains it better in one of the commentaries.

I doubt that. There is no good explanation for that argument. You couldn't offer one and you've heard this commentary you speak of.

Again, you'll point out one or two comics from a character with a 70+ year history..

Then why don't you do the incredible and point out some stories where Joker is a blatant Riddler rip off.

Joker has not always been obsessed with Batman, trying to prove a point against him. That seems Riddler-like to me.

You're kidding. When has Riddler ever tried to prove a point beyond challenging Batman's intelligence against his own with the riddles he sends him? That's all Riddler tries to do. He tests Batman's smarts against his own.

Do you ever see Joker try to match I.Q. levels with Batman? No.

Joker doesn't have a point, he just commits crimes at random, which is why he is such a dangerous foe.

Joker ALWAYS has a point. A motive behind what he does. As Batman said, it's not usually logical and make sense to anyone but Joker, but he always does have a motivation. A point or reason for doing something.

No offense, but you have to be the most mis-informed member I've encountered on these forums in many years.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I doubt that. There is no good explanation for that argument. You couldn't offer one and you've heard this commentary you speak of.

Well I told you that was the intention and the proof is right there in the commentary straight from Tim Burton himself. One day I'll re-listen to it and post the direct quotes.

Then why don't you do the incredible and point out some stories where Joker is a blatant Riddler rip off.

You're missing the point. I never said that the Joker is a Riddler rip-off.

You're kidding. When has Riddler ever tried to prove a point beyond challenging Batman's intelligence against his own with the riddles he sends him? That's all Riddler tries to do. He tests Batman's smarts against his own.

Do you ever see Joker try to match I.Q. levels with Batman? No.

You're getting bogged down in tiny details. Tell me why Nolan decided not to use Riddler in TDKR - even though the studio wanted it and Riddler was in the original draft (apparently)?

Joker ALWAYS has a point. A motive behind what he does. As Batman said, it's not usually logical and make sense to anyone but Joker, but he always does have a motivation. A point or reason for doing something.

No offense, but you have to be the most mis-informed member I've encountered on these forums in many years.

Thanks a lot.

Yes, he may have a point, but we're not supposed to know what it is. Hence, his crimes seem random.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Well I told you that was the intention and the proof is right there in the commentary straight from Tim Burton himself. One day I'll re-listen to it and post the direct quotes.

I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting for that day

You're missing the point. I never said that the Joker is a Riddler rip-off.

So why are you even discussing this then?

You're getting bogged down in tiny details.

Details are what make the difference.

Tell me why Nolan decided not to use Riddler in TDKR - even though the studio wanted it and Riddler was in the original draft (apparently)?

Because he wanted a villain who could challenge Batman physically. He had not had that yet.

Yes, he may have a point, but we're not supposed to know what it is. Hence, his crimes seem random.

We ALWAYS know what it is because he always says so. Take the story that Batman quote about Joker and his motives is taken from; The Laughing Fish. One of the classics. Joker says he wants to patent fish by making them look like him so he can make a fortune off their sales.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting for that day

Well the proof is right there. It's just that you may have to go through 4 hours of commentary to find it.

So why are you even discussing this then?

Ahhh, you brought it up.

Details are what make the difference.

Very minor details? Not so much.

Because he wanted a villain who could challenge Batman physically. He had not had that yet.

We ALWAYS know what it is because he always says so. Take the story that Batman quote about Joker and his motives is taken from; The Laughing Fish. One of the classics. Joker says he wants to patent fish by making them look like him so he can make a fortune off their sales.

Many of his schemes involve money. That's not what he is all about, though.

[OutRiddled]

Studio execs had strongly suggested that the Riddler be the film's primary villain but filmmakers felt the character too derivative. The filmmakers ultimately decided to use Bane as they felt he was strikingly different than the Joker from the previous movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/trivia

[BatmanGoesToRio]

My thoughts are that Nicholson was too old, too fat and too famous for playing the Joker. Joker is some of the characters that should always be bigger than the actor is. And they made some mistakes storywise: I still don't like it that they gave him a certain name and a definite origin story, I don't like even more that he died at the end of B89 and I truely hate it that they made Pre-Joker Napier the murderer of Bruce's parents.

Jack's Joker was pretty good, though. And there are plenty of scenes with him I still enjoy very much. But B89's Joker was far from perfect. As was TDK's Joker - but for other reasons.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

My thoughts are that Nicholson was too old, too fat and too famous for playing the Joker. Joker is some of the characters that should always be bigger than the actor is.

He wasn't old, he was middle-aged, and he wasn't fat. Why are you so obsessed with looks, anyway? It's the performance that matters. Nobody thought Heath Ledger would make a good Joker because he was too young and looked like a pretty boy. Everybody was gunning for Crispin Glover.

But when Jack had the Joker makeup on - he was Joker, no question. I never saw Jack, only Joker. You must have been watching a different movie.

Jack Nicholson puts a lot of research into his roles, he is not the most celebrated actor of all time for nothing, you know. Even Bob Kane himself thought he was the perfect Joker. His performance was seamless. Even dancing to Prince songs, he was 100% Joker.

And they made some mistakes storywise: I still don't like it that they gave him a certain name and a definite origin story, I don't like even more that he died at the end of B89 and I truely hate it that they made Pre-Joker Napier the murderer of Bruce's parents.

The falling in chemicals storyline had been around since the 1940s, when they first published Joker's origin. They've since retconned it, but that was his canon origin.

What's wrong with Joker having a name?

Why not have Joker die? So he can come back for sequels? He even died in one comic - The Dark Knight Returns (Batman broke his ****ing neck).

As for being the murderer of Bruce's parents... I don't get what is the big deal, but that's a discussion which has already been done to death.

Jack's Joker was pretty good, though. And there are plenty of scenes with him I still enjoy very much. But B89's Joker was far from perfect. As was TDK's Joker - but for other reasons.

No interpretation is ever going to be perfect.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Well the proof is right there. It's just that you may have to go through 4 hours of commentary to find it.

I don't deny the 'proof' is there. I deny the rationale behind this proof. I'd love to hear what we were supposed to be learning about Bruce Wayne watching the Joker lol.

Ahhh, you brought it up.

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=569

Very minor details? Not so much.

Yes very much. Especially when it comes to motives.

"The physical component of what Bruce Wayne does as Batman is of extraordinary importance, and we had not truly challenged that in the first two films.

"I really wanted to see Batman meet his match physically, as well as intellectually. Bane is raw strength with a fanatical devotion to duty, and that combination makes him unstoppable."

http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/batman/359...k-knight-rises

Many of his schemes involve money. That's not what he is all about, though.

I never said that's what he's all about did I? I said we always know what his schemes are about because he tells us. Meaning he always has a point and a motive.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I don't deny the 'proof' is there. I deny the rationale behind this proof. I'd love to hear what we were supposed to be learning about Bruce Wayne watching the Joker lol.

I thought this was standard knowledge among Batman fans, but hey, you learn something every day right?

http://www.comicvine.com/articles/of...i/1100-142930/

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=569

That he was always steps ahead of Batman?

From Riddler's first comic appearance:

Yes very much. Especially when it comes to motives.

Well you're saying the Joker should always be a step ahead of Batman. That sounds like a match of wits to me.

"The physical component of what Bruce Wayne does as Batman is of extraordinary importance, and we had not truly challenged that in the first two films.

"I really wanted to see Batman meet his match physically, as well as intellectually. Bane is raw strength with a fanatical devotion to duty, and that combination makes him unstoppable."

http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/batman/359...k-knight-rises

Studio execs had strongly suggested that the Riddler be the film's primary villain but filmmakers felt the character too derivative. The filmmakers ultimately decided to use Bane as they felt he was strikingly different than the Joker from the previous movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/trivia

There's also a Nolan quote about it somewhere... wish I could find it.

I never said that's what he's all about did I? I said we always know what his schemes are about because he tells us. Meaning he always has a point and a motive.

Ok. I thought he just does them because he is Joker. That his crimes make sense to him and him alone. Which kind of negates us being able to comprehend them.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I thought this was standard knowledge among Batman fans

You think a lot of things are are untrue. Like I said you are the most mis-informed poster ever to tread these forums.

but hey, you learn something every day right?

http://www.comicvine.com/articles/of...i/1100-142930/

Not from that link you don't. Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Ra's Al Ghul etc are not learning pieces for Batman's personality. The logic behind these is even funnier:

"What about Mr. Freeze? This is a criminal that uses a freeze gun on people. How could he have any similarities to Batman? Mr. Freeze devoid of emotions. Again, he suffered tragedy when his wife became ill and he lost everything that mattered. Batman rarely shares his emotions with others. If Batman didn't allow himself to interact with those in the Bat Family, he could easily become as cold as Mr. Freeze. "

LOL! So by watching Mr. Freeze we're supposed to know this would be Batman if he had nobody to interact with? Priceless.

That he was always steps ahead of Batman?

From Riddler's first comic appearance

Yes, that he's always ahead of Batman. Read Joker's first appearance Batman #1 since you're linking some golden age Riddler appearance. The Joker out smarts, out wits, and even out FIGHTS Batman right to the end. He even manages to kidnap Robin, too.

Well you're saying the Joker should always be a step ahead of Batman. That sounds like a match of wits to me.

Of course it's a match of wits. Of a different kind. Riddler challenges Batman to find him and stop his crimes by telling him what he's up to via riddles. He tests his intelligence against his own.

Joker doesn't do that.

Studio execs had strongly suggested that the Riddler be the film's primary villain but filmmakers felt the character too derivative. The filmmakers ultimately decided to use Bane as they felt he was strikingly different than the Joker from the previous movie.

Nolan had the final say on what villain to use, not the studio execs. He didn't want Riddler, he wanted Bane for the reasons I quoted.

So I don't know what youre trying to prove there.

Ok. I thought he just does them because he is Joker. That his crimes make sense to him and him alone. Which kind of negates us being able to comprehend them.

Again you're completely mis-informed. Joker's schemes are only logical to him. That's what that means. We know what he's trying to do, it's just that what he tries to do is insane.

That's what Batman means when he says normal criminals have logical motives. Joker's are not logical. They are illogical, but not incomprehensible.

[OutRiddled]

We're getting bogged down with strawmen.

Nolan didn't use The Riddler because he had already blown his load with a psychological villain and didn't want to do a remake of The Dark Knight. He couldn't think of a way to differentiate Riddler enough from Joker so as to not cover the same ground. So he dropped Riddler and went for Bane.

A lot of people say Jim Carrey was a Jack Nicholson Joker knock-off but I disagree. There was the whole obsession with Bruce Wayne and trying to find out Batman's identity. Then trying to break him by forcing him to choose between his two identities (either save his love interest as Bruce or his partner Robin as Batman). Joker in TDK does the same thing with Dent/Rachel.

Joker in Batman '89 was all about him and Batman both being freaks (one good and one evil), hence the "I made you, you made me".

Nolan couldn't use the same formula, so he essentially combined certain elements for Joker.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

We're getting bogged down with strawmen.

That's because your arguments always rest on them.

Nolan didn't use The Riddler because he had already blown his load with a psychological villain and didn't want to do a remake of The Dark Knight. He couldn't think of a way to differentiate Riddler enough from Joker so as to not cover the same ground. So he dropped Riddler and went for Bane.

No, Nolan went for Bane because he wanted a villain who would be a physical threat to Batman because he had not had that yet in the series. His words. Quoted right there in the link I posted above. It's also stated by both Nolan and Goyer in this book:



Do you want scans from it?

OutRiddled, your constant attempts to speak on Nolan's behalf in every thread are frankly pathetic. Especially when he says himself why he does these things.

A lot of people say Jim Carrey was a Jack Nicholson Joker knock-off but I disagree. There was the whole obsession with Bruce Wayne and trying to find out Batman's identity. Then trying to break him by forcing him to choose between his two identities (either save his love interest as Bruce or his partner Robin as Batman).

People say Carey was a Nicholson rip off because he was as hyper and theatrical as he was. Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face also gets accused of it. The pair of them spent the movie trying to out ham each other.

Joker in TDK does the same thing with Dent/Rachel.

No, he doesn't because Batman never had the choice he had in Batman Forever. Joker lied to him about where Dent and Rachel were. He took the choice out of his hands. No matter who he chose he wouldn't be saving the one he wanted. It was a trick because Joker KNEW Batman would pick Rachel because he cared about her. "Does Harvey know about you and his little bunny?"

Nice strawman though. You'd have more credibility calling Green Goblin in Spider-Man 1 a knock off since he was obsessed with Peter/Spidey, found out his identity, and then made Spider-Man choose between MJ and a tram full of innocents kids to save by dropping them both at the same time in front of him.

Joker in Batman '89 was all about him and Batman both being freaks (one good and one evil), hence the "I made you, you made me".

No, it wasn't all about that because that plot point didn't get thrown in until the end of the movie thanks to a last minute rewrite by Burton during the writers strike.

Want the link to that again?

Nolan couldn't use the same formula, so he essentially combined certain elements for Joker.

Let me get this straight: If Nolan did the Riddler you're saying he'd be done exactly like Carey's Riddler? Tell me this: which comics have you read where Riddler was obsessed with Bruce Wayne, and tried to make him choose between Robin and a girlfriend?

We won't even get into the idiocy of thinking this is the only way Riddler could have been written.

See what I mean? You're the king of strawmen arguments.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

What's wrong with Joker having a name?

Why not have Joker die? So he can come back for sequels? He even died in one comic - The Dark Knight Returns (Batman broke his ****ing neck).

As for being the murderer of Bruce's parents... I don't get what is the big deal, but that's a discussion which has already been done to death.



No interpretation is ever going to be perfect.

Of course it's all a matter of taste. But I prefer The Joker as a man coming out from nowhere with nobody knowing who he really is. Maybe not Joker himself. Identity unknwon.

Yes, in elseworld stories he pretty often dies. But as Batman's arch nemesis he should have survived his first confrontation with Bats. I'd have prefered an ending like in "A Death In The Family": "Find his body! Find his body!" Oh, Batman didn't break Joker's neck in TDKReturns. The Joker did it by himself.

And making Pre-Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents is just - wrong. It kinda cheapens Mr J's and Batman's relationship to a simple matter of revenge.

And when I was saying Nicholson was too old and too fat for playing Joker I didn't mean that he was old and fat per se.

[Stephen Harmon]

Heath Ledger's 34th birthday today. Anyone else gonna watch The Dark Knight in memory of him?

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

Of course it's all a matter of taste. But I prefer The Joker as a man coming out from nowhere with nobody knowing who he really is. Maybe not Joker himself. Identity unknwon.

Yes, in elseworld stories he pretty often dies. But as Batman's arch nemesis he should have survived his first confrontation with Bats. I'd have prefered an ending like in "A Death In The Family": "Find his body! Find his body!" Oh, Batman didn't break Joker's neck in TDKReturns. The Joker did it by himself.

And making Pre-Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents is just - wrong. It kinda cheapens Mr J's and Batman's relationship to a simple matter of revenge.

And when I was saying Nicholson was too old and too fat for playing Joker I didn't mean that he was old and fat per se.

I agree

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

But as Batman's arch nemesis he should have survived his first confrontation with Bats.

Why? Don't tell me, so he come back for sequels. And we don't get the ultimate Batman Vs Joker movie. Because like modern retarded hollywood, everything is saved for the sequel so they can make more money. Don't tell me, you think Batman should be an 8 part Twilight style epic with the Joker turning up every second movie.

And making Pre-Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents is just - wrong. It kinda cheapens Mr J's and Batman's relationship to a simple matter of revenge.

For most of Batman's publication history, they never had this borderline homosexual relationship.

Joker threatened his woman, terrorised the city, killed his parents,... of course Batman is going to want revenge. This is the Batman of the early 1940's, who is not averse to killing when he needs to. What else is he going to do? Tie up Joker and leave him there for the police? The Joker was too dangerous to be left alive.

And when I was saying Nicholson was too old and too fat for playing Joker I didn't mean that he was old and fat per se.

How was he too old and too fat for the role?

[Skrilla31]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

And making Pre-Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents is just - wrong. It kinda cheapens Mr J's and Batman's relationship to a simple matter of revenge.

I disagree. If anything I believe it added a layer to the mythos and to the Batman/Joker dichotomy. Fans always like to tout that the two are bound together by the cosmos. Hell, even Nolan hinted as much at the end of The Dark Knight.

Is it unfaithful to the source material? Yea, sure. But it doesn't tarnish the relationship between the two of them in any way. Remember, Burton was presented with the unbearable task of telling the story of Batman over the course of just a single film. He had to condense all of that mythology and all that history into one movie. By making Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents, it suggests that these two were always destined to cross paths. That one simply could not have existed without the other's help.

"I made you... you made me first".

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

I disagree. If anything I believe it added a layer to the mythos and to the Batman/Joker dichotomy. Fans always like to tout that the two are bound together by the cosmos. Hell, even Nolan hinted as much at the end of The Dark Knight.

Is it unfaithful to the source material? Yea, sure. But it doesn't tarnish the relationship between the two of them in any way. Remember, Burton was presented with the unbearable task of telling the story of Batman over the course of just a single film. He had to condense all of that mythology and all that history into one movie. By making Joker the murderer of Bruce's parents, it suggests that these two were always destined to cross paths. That one simply could not have existed without the other's help.

"I made you... you made me first".

That's exactly why it didn't work. Batman's existence should never be reliant on the Joker, but the Joker's should be on Batman. The condensing it into one movie excuse doesn't wash. This was done as a last minute rewrite during the writers strike.

Not to mention it wouldn't have changed a thing if they didn't make the Joker the killer because up until the last half an hour it's never an issue. It wasn't a prominent story throughout the movie. It was thrown in for the final act.

To say it doesn't tarnish their relationship is a complete falsity. When has Batman ever blamed his existence as Batman on the Joker? It completely alters their relationship.

[BatLobsterRises]

I think there's such a thing as taking a parallel or a sense of poetic irony one step too far.

For a lot of fans, having The Joker be the killer of the Waynes was that step too far. I don't particularly mind it for that movie, but I don't think it's the best interpretation of the mythos. There's a reason that never caught on in any other version of the story. It's unnecessary. 

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think there's such a thing as taking a parallel or a sense of poetic irony one step too far.

For a lot of fans, having The Joker be the killer of the Waynes was that step too far. I don't particularly mind it for that movie, but I don't think it's the best interpretation of the mythos. There's a reason that never caught on in any other version of the story. It's unnecessary.

Exactly. It was one of elements of the movie that got complaints from the fan community:





Even Sam Hamm, the script writer of the movie was against it:

Batman was criticized in some quarters for being "too dark". Many observed that Burton was more interested in the Joker rather than Batman in terms of characterization and screen time. Comic book fans reacted negatively over the Joker murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne. In the comic book, Joe Chill is responsible. Writer Sam Hamm, who is a comic book fan, said it was Burton's idea to have the Joker murder Wayne's parents. "The Writer's Strike was going on," Hamm continued, "and Tim had the other writers do that. I also hold innocent to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave," he reasoned. "Fans were ticked off with that, and I agree. That would have been Alfred's last day of employment at Wayne Manor."

http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

[Skrilla31]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's exactly why it didn't work. Batman's existence should never be reliant on the Joker, but the Joker's should be on Batman.

I don't think the creators of Batman had any idea just how important Joker was going to end up being at the time. It had reached to the point where he became more than just another villain in Batman's lineup. The character took a life of it's own.

Batman's existence is not reliant on The Joker, but the Batman mythos certainly is. By having Joker be the killer, it suggests that this is a character who is tied to Batman.

Originally Posted by The Joker

To say it doesn't tarnish their relationship is a complete falsity. When has Batman ever blamed his existence as Batman on the Joker? It completely alters their relationship.

Well technically, it was not the Joker who killed Bruce's parents in the movie. It was Jack Napier, a common thug. Only after encountering Batman did he become "reborn" as The Joker.

Joker's was not the face that haunted Bruce. It was Jack's. He was the one that drove Bruce to become Batman. However as fate would have it, it would be also Batman that drove Jack to become the Joker. Once again, it suggests there is something cosmic binding these two together. Whereas in The Dark Knight, Joker is just some lunatic who gave Batman **** for awhile.

You can feel any way you want about it. Burton's film isn't the definitive interpretation of Batman any more so than Scorsese's film was the definitive interpretation of Jesus. It's just one movie. It's just one man's vision. Personally I think there was a beauty to it. And if I'm being perfectly honest, I'll take Burton's original film over any of Nolan's. But that's another debate for another day.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

I don't think the creators of Batman had any idea just how important Joker was going to end up being at the time. It had reached to the point where he became more than just another villain in Batman's lineup. The character took a life of it's own.

That's true of virtually every popular comic book villain. What's your point?

Batman's existence is not reliant on The Joker, but the Batman mythos certainly is. By having Joker be the killer, it suggests that this is a character who is tied to Batman.

That's straw clutching. The Batman mythos is reliant on many villains and characters, not just the Joker.

Well technically, it was not the Joker who killed Bruce's parents in the movie. It was Jack Napier, a common thug. Only after encountering Batman did he become "reborn" as The Joker.

Batman to Joker: "You killed my parents"

Lets not split hairs here.

You can feel any way you want about it. Burton's film isn't the definitive interpretation of Batman any more so than Scorsese's film was the definitive interpretation of Jesus. It's just one movie. It's just one man's vision.

Oh I know. I would never ever call Burton's take definitive. Neither would a lot of Batman fans considering the negative reaction several of his creative decisions got from the Batman fan community like the ones I posted above. I've even seen Burton comment on the negative reaction his movies got from the Batman fan community.

[milost]

Sam Hamm didn't like it because back in the early 90s he was getting all the backlash from the decision because his name was on the script. Lets remember, the script he made for Batman II had the big reveal that Thomas and Martha Wayne was a mob hit and Napier just carried the order out. So in reality, I doubt Hamm even cared. He just didn't want to take the slack from a decision he didn't make and rightfully so.

Fans didn't like it because it wasn't accurate and went in a different direction from established comic canon. Fans weren't as forgiving about "interpretations", artistic licensing, or anything like they are now.

Bob Kane loved it, said he wish he thought of it but he also thought the Schumacher Batman's were the best and ****ed over Bill Finger who was equally responsible for Batman if not more so and didn't even live to see the great impact of '89 Batman or what Batman is today. Kane was in it for the fame and fortune.


It doesn't bother me. I enjoyed the little surprise back in 1989 when it went that route. Do I think it's definitive or canon, nope. But it worked for me for what Batman was on film in 1989 as one of thousands and thousands of different interpretations of Batman.

I particularly liked Joker's reaction to the news. It wasn't cliched or a shocked or knowing response from his part. It seemed like a natural response from someone backing away from a dude dressed as a menacing Bat. "Huh, what are ya talking about", "I was just a kid bro, I say you made me, you gotta say I made you, how childish can you get"


Wouldn't punch a guy with glasses would ya?



I love the fed up face Batman makes an his eyes before he punches his grinning face over the ledge.