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

[OutRiddled]

I don't see how it's any worse than Joker creating Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul training Batman, Catwoman killing Bane, Gordon driving the Batmobile... etc.

Oh wait, Nolan was responsible for those. Do not question the almighty Nolan.

[BatLobsterRises]

When you mess around with the murder of the Waynes, you're messing with the foundation of the whole mythology. It's one of the most sacred moments of Batman lore, whole different ballgame. If Burton didn't realize that he was doing something potentially controversial than that was a bit naive on his part. And none of those examples you just listed come off as extremely contrived coincidences. It's not just the idea itself, but the shoehorned in feel of the execution and ultimate hollowness of the reveal.

Personally, I honestly LOVE the flashback of the Waynes' murder in Batman 89. I find that scene to be quite haunting and I probably prefer it to the Waynes' murder in Batman Begins. But when I take a step back, I can acknowledge that there are some legitimate gripes to be had with it. And I ultimately very much prefer the classic scenario where Batman never gets the chance to avenge the man who gunned down his parents. That just rings true to me.

OutRiddled, just cause you defend the Burton films constantly does that make you a Burtonite? Do you want to be labeled a blind Burton worshiper? No? Then don't play the "Nolanite" card. It works both ways.

[georgec]

I love Nicholson's Joker. It works quite well in Burton's film.

Ledger's is superior overall in most regards, but I think each version ultimately suits the accompanying film.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

When you mess around with the murder of the Waynes, you're messing with the foundation of the whole mythology. It's one of the most sacred moments of Batman lore, whole different ballgame. If Burton didn't realize that he was doing something potentially controversial than that was a bit naive on his part. And none of those examples you just listed come off as extremely contrived coincidences. It's not just the idea itself, but the shoehorned in feel of the execution and ultimate hollowness of the reveal.

Personally, I honestly LOVE the flashback of the Waynes' murder in Batman 89. I find that scene to be quite haunting and I probably prefer it to the Waynes' murder in Batman Begins. But when I take a step back, I can acknowledge that there are some legitimate gripes to be had with it. And I ultimately very much prefer the classic scenario where Batman never gets the chance to avenge the man who gunned down his parents. That just rings true to me.

OutRiddled, just cause you defend the Burton films constantly does that make you a Burtonite? Do you want to be labeled a blind Burton worshiper? No? Then don't play the "Nolanite" card. It works both ways.

I don't worship Burton at all. I used to be a fan until he made that ****** Planet of the Apes remake.

Unlike the Nolanites here who love everything he does. Like he has the Midas touch or something.

In the comics, I'd prefer it that Batman never found out who killed his parents. So it's like this endless quest for justice to a crime that goes unpunished.

But a movie is more self-contained. You can't fit 50+ years of mythology into one movie. Neither would I want a 10 part Twilight style epic. I wanted an ultimate Batman Vs Joker film and I got it. The whole "I made you, you made me first" is just that one final ingredient to give it that operatic showdown of hero vs villain.

This isn't Nolan's bone dry literalism.. it's meant to be a dark operatic fantasy. Yet all fanboys can do is nitpick at tiny plot points that don't really matter.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I don't worship Burton at all. I used to be a fan until he made that ****** Planet of the Apes remake.

Unlike the Nolanites here who love everything he does. Like he has the Midas touch or something.

He's a very well-respected director, if not THE foremost mainstream Hollywood filmmaker working today. You don't have to like him, but don't be ignorant of the widespread levels of respect he has beyond just fanboys. Nolan is part of the curriculum for film students today. They don't just make textbooks on any filmmaker. But I guess it was just fanboys who wrote those. .

I hate this insinuation that fans are just acting intentinally biased if they so happen to enjoy all of a director's films thus far. I like all of Nolan's films, some more than others. I like all of Tarantino's films too, does that make me a "Tarantino-ite?". Writer/directors tend to have more devoted followers because they are truly the authors of their films, and therefore their films tend to have more of a unified creative voice. Burton, despite not being a writer was able to attract a following too because of his distinct visual style and preference for dark, quirky stories. For the past decade, he's done a fine job of directing the films he's made IMO, but he's also been at the mercy of the scripts he's chosen. And he probably made a few remakes/re-imaginings too many. I recommend Frankenweenie if you haven't seen it though, I think it's a real return to form for him, and Dark Shadows was enjoyable.

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

But a movie is more self-contained. You can't fit 50+ years of mythology into one movie.

The idea of Bruce never being able to bring his parents' killer to justice despite everything he's able to accomplish as Batman could have been conveyed in a self-contained movie. I think ultimately, I would have preferred Bruce to have the same flashback with the "Dance with the Devil" line, but only he'd never be sure if it was really Napier who killed his parents and neither would we. A touch of ambiguity might have worked there. It's when Batman gets in Joker's face and tells him, "I'm going to kill you!" and talks about how he made him first that I feel it's just way on the nose and doesn't feel like the classic Batman/Joker relationship to me. The flashback itself I think is pretty amazing.

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

This isn't Nolan's bone dry literalism.. it's meant to be a dark operatic fantasy. Yet all fanboys can do is nitpick at tiny plot points that don't really matter.

I agree with you actually. I even said a few pages back that it works as a dark operatic fairy tale, and I do get what they were going for. I think what those of us putting this plot point under the microscope are trying to say is, the Batman/Joker relationship doesn't need that added dynamic to be special, even in a movie. And the fact that they threw it in does feel like a bit of an emotional shortcut to add stakes to the finale. It absolutely worked on me as a kid, but in retrospect I can see where the detractors are coming from.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

He's a very well-respected director, if not THE foremost mainstream Hollywood filmmaker working today. You don't have to like him, but don't be ignorant of the widespread levels of respect he has beyond just fanboys. Nolan is part of the curriculum for film students today. They don't just make textbooks on any filmmaker. But I guess it was just fanboys who wrote those. .

He's respected because he managed to inherit the Batman franchise and make hollywood billions of dollars with it. You could use his name to sell breakfast cereal now.

Just like those trendy contemporary film studies courses who try to be so 'avant garde' and on the 'cutting edge'.

Doesn't change the fact he's a Michael Mann/Stanley Kubrick wannabe.

I hate this insinuation that fans are just acting intentinally biased if they so happen to enjoy all of a director's films thus far. I like all of Nolan's films, some more than others. I like all of Tarantino's films too, does that make me a "Tarantino-ite?". Writer/directors tend to have more devoted followers because they are truly the authors of their films, and therefore their films tend to have more of a unified creative voice. Burton, despite not being a writer was able to attract a following too because of his distinct visual style and preference for dark, quirky stories. For the past decade, he's done a fine job of directing the films he's made IMO, but he's also been at the mercy of the scripts he's chosen. And he probably made a few remakes/re-imaginings too many. I recommend Frankenweenie if you haven't seen it though, I think it's a real return to form for him, and Dark Shadows was enjoyable.

I didn't like Dark Shadows. But at least Burton isn't trying to be pretentious. He makes gothic fantasies. He isn't trying to make some grand statement. His films work as pure visual entertainment.

The idea of Bruce never being able to bring his parents' killer to justice despite everything he's able to accomplish as Batman could have been conveyed in a self-contained movie. I think ultimately, I would have preferred Bruce to have the same flashback with the "Dance with the Devil" line, but only he'd never be sure if it was really Napier who killed his parents and neither would we. A touch of ambiguity might have worked there. It's when Batman gets in Joker's face and tells him, "I'm going to kill you!" and talks about how he made him first that I feel it's just way on the nose and doesn't feel like the classic Batman/Joker relationship to me. The flashback itself I think is pretty amazing.

I agree with you actually. I even said a few pages back that it works as a dark operatic fairy tale, and I do get what they were going for. I think what those of us putting this plot point under the microscope are trying to say is, the Batman/Joker relationship doesn't need that added dynamic to be special, even in a movie. And the fact that they threw it in does feel like a bit of an emotional shortcut to add stakes to the finale. It absolutely worked on me as a kid, but in retrospect I can see where the detractors are coming from.

When you have a two hour self-contained film, you don't leave loose threads. You have to wrap things up otherwise it's an incoherent mess. This is Batman not Prometheus.

It's a pity the writers strike was going on, otherwise they might've found a better way around it. But it's all a big 'what if'. They did the best with what they had and delivered a damn fine movie.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

He's respected because he managed to inherit the Batman franchise and make hollywood billions of dollars with it. You could use his name to sell breakfast cereal now.

Just like those trendy contemporary film studies courses who try to be so 'avant garde' and on the 'cutting edge'.

Doesn't change the fact he's a Michael Mann/Stanley Kubrick wannabe.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I don't see how it's any worse than Joker creating Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul training Batman, Catwoman killing Bane, Gordon driving the Batmobile... etc.

Oh wait, Nolan was responsible for those. Do not question the almighty Nolan.

1- In the context of the film that one was well made and made sence, making Joker Bruce's parents killers was just unecessary and made Gotham too small a world.
2- I don't see how that one was bad, i actually liked it.

[Skrilla31]

I'm sorry but I agree with OutRiddled. If you had a problem with Joker being the murderer of Bruce's parents in Burton's movie, then I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem with all of the liberties Nolan took with the mythology as well. Look at what he did to Robin! Talk about sacrilege!

Again, all Burton did was take the relationship between these two characters and turn it into something more. It didn't hurt the film, it made it better.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

He's respected because he managed to inherit the Batman franchise and make hollywood billions of dollars with it. You could use his name to sell breakfast cereal now.

Just like those trendy contemporary film studies courses who try to be so 'avant garde' and on the 'cutting edge'.

Doesn't change the fact he's a Michael Mann/Stanley Kubrick wannabe.

You're confusing popularity with respect. Man, it really must burn you that Nolan has mountains of both, lol. But hey, you can't have that much notoriety and acclaim without attracting some backlash/haters. Enter OutRiddled!

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I didn't like Dark Shadows. But at least Burton isn't trying to be pretentious. He makes gothic fantasies. He isn't trying to make some grand statement. His films work as pure visual entertainment.

You should check out Frankenweenie if you're a fan of old Burton.

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

When you have a two hour self-contained film, you don't leave loose threads. You have to wrap things up otherwise it's an incoherent mess. This is Batman not Prometheus.

Let's not act like Batman 89 answered all questions. A lot of Bruce's past is kept a mystery, intentionally. All we get as an explanation for why he chose bats as a symbol is, "they're great survivors". We never get that moment of realization where he decides "I shall become a Bat". So there was no need to shoehorn in the connection there, it was simply something Burton wanted to do to raise the emotional stakes in the third act.

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

It's a pity the writers strike was going on, otherwise they might've found a better way around it. But it's all a big 'what if'. They did the best with what they had and delivered a damn fine movie.

I can agree with that. I think Batman was a triumph despite its flaws, and it had to emerge against incredible odds to be what it was.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

I'm sorry but I agree with OutRiddled. If you had a problem with Joker being the murderer of Bruce's parents in Burton's movie, then I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem with all of the liberties Nolan took with the mythology as well.

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. 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.

Again, all Burton did was take the relationship between these two characters and turn it into something more. It didn't hurt the film, it made it better.

All evidence to the contrary. The backlash it got was entirely justified.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by The Joker

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. 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 absolutely agree.

[Skrilla31]

Originally Posted by The Joker

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.

Originally Posted by The Joker

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.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

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.

Let me clarify; Bruce doesn't lay his existence as Batman on Ra's AL Ghul. He went traveling the world studying criminals. He went seeking the means to fight injustice and turn fear on those who preyed on the fearful.

All things he wanted before he met Ra's. All Ra's did was offer him the path to get it. No different to all those experts he got training from in the comics. He no more owes his existence as Batman to them than he does to Ra's in Begins. Not to mention Ra's thinking Bruce is the best man to run his organization and lead his men is taken straight from the comics.

In Batman '89, his entire existence as Batman is down to the Joker. The Joker made him. He outright says so.

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.

All of that was contrived unnecessary hog wash.

Batman created the Joker by dropping him in the chemicals. There's their destiny to clash right there. It's no more fate than the Penguin or Catwoman or any other subsequent villain. If you're a threat to Gotham City then you're going to clash with Batman.

Dropping in at the last moment that Joker killed his parents turned a potentially interesting feud into a contrived unbelievable cliche, and ruined their feud.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

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.

I know what you mean. But: I had no problem with Ra's being Bruce's mentor as well. I thought it was an interesting take on the Ra's character and the relationship of them both.
But I had a huge problem withe Pre-Joker killing the Waynes. In my eyes that weakened the Batman - Joker relationship.
So, where do I draw the line? Hard to tell. The Ra's story felt right for me, the B89-Joker being the Waynes' murderer not.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Let's not act like Batman 89 answered all questions. A lot of Bruce's past is kept a mystery, intentionally. All we get as an explanation for why he chose bats as a symbol is, "they're great survivors". We never get that moment of realization where he decides "I shall become a Bat".

That's because Batman '89 didn't need pages of exposition ala Nolan. It told the story it needed to and that's it. Some things work better kept as a mystery.

Originally Posted by The Joker

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. 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.



All evidence to the contrary. The backlash it got was entirely justified.

You are completely biased though, because you're such a big fan of the Joker and only agree with certain interpretations.

[Skrilla31]

Originally Posted by The Joker

All of that was contrived unnecessary hog wash.

Batman created the Joker by dropping him in the chemicals. There's their destiny to clash right there. It's no more fate than the Penguin or Catwoman or any other subsequent villain. If you're a threat to Gotham City then you're going to clash with Batman.

You appear to have such a narrow minded view of things. That and I believe you allow your prejudice and your own personal disapproval of Burton's artistic choices cloud your judgment.

Batman's villains have always metaphorically symbolized a shade of Batman himself, and Burton's films are no different. Batman "created" Joker just as Jack "created" Batman. That's what defines their relationship in these movies. That's why their destines are intertwined.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

You are completely biased though

Says the guy who makes up personal statements from Nolan and the actors.

because you're such a big fan of the Joker and only agree with certain interpretations.

What you mean good and valid interpretations?

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

You appear to have such a narrow minded view of things. That and I believe you allow your prejudice and your own personal disapproval of Burton's artistic choices cloud your judgment.

No, I just don't like the artistic choices he made. How does that make me prejudiced? Neither did thousands of other Batman fans as evidenced above.

So I guess the Batman fan base is "narrow minded", too

Batman's villains have always metaphorically symbolized a shade of Batman himself, and Burton's films are no different. Batman "created" Joker just as Jack "created" Batman. That's what defines their relationship in these movies. That's why their destines are intertwined.

No, that's how Burton wrote it. Not how it actually is between Batman and Joker. Hence why their relationship for decades was never predicated on it. Nor was it after Batman '89 either.

If it was such an improvement on their relationship as you keep claiming, why did it never get adapted into the comics? It wouldn't be the first time DC took ideas for characterizations from movies or cartoons. Look at Mr. Freeze and Harley Quinn for example.

I'll tell you why, because it's a terrible idea. Or maybe you're just too "narrow minded" to see that?

[Skrilla31]

Originally Posted by The Joker

No, I just don't like the artistic choices he made. How does that make me prejudiced? Neither did thousands of other Batman fans as evidenced above.

Why are you so concerned with what other people think? Why do you need others to validate your opinion? I don't care what a bunch of hardcore Batman fans think. I'm sure there were hardcore Christians out there that didn't approve of The Last Temptation Of Christ but that doesn't mean I can't like it either.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

Why are you so concerned with what other people think? Why do you need others to validate your opinion?

I don't need my opinion validated. I'm showing you this is not a case of some nit picking prejudice. It's even discussed on the special features of the movie's DVD.

I don't care what a bunch of hardcore Batman fans think.

I'm not asking you to care what anyone thinks. Not needed. Nor is your agreement with the consensus.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Says the guy who makes up personal statements from Nolan and the actors.

I don't make this stuff up. I read about it. But fair enough, if you want to question my sources.

What you mean good and valid interpretations?

See what I mean? You're completely biased.

Joker originally was just like any other villain. He showed up, caused trouble, and Batman had to deal with him. This special 'relationship' they had was invented decades later.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

If it was such an improvement on their relationship as you keep claiming, why did it never get adapted into the comics? It wouldn't be the first time DC took ideas for characterizations from movies or cartoons. Look at Mr. Freeze and Harley Quinn for example.

I'll tell you why, because it's a terrible idea. Or maybe you're just too "narrow minded" to see that?

You're talking about a total retcon, though. It was already established that Joe Chill was the killer in the comics.

Freeze was never given an origin, so it works perfectly fine. Harley Quinn is a completely new character.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I don't make this stuff up. I read about it. But fair enough, if you want to question my sources.

Funny how you can never provide any proof of your sources, just that you read it "somewhere". But your claims can always be refuted with actual proof.

See what I mean? You're completely biased.

Even if that were true, I'd rather be biased than misinformed like you always are. You've already got yourself a rep on these forums for making foolish posts.

Joker originally was just like any other villain. He showed up, caused trouble, and Batman had to deal with him.

Congratulations, you just described 99% of the rogues gallery.

This special 'relationship' they had was invented decades later.

What special relationship? Joker was Batman arch enemy for YEARS before Batman '89. His top villain. He was obsessed with Batman. Want some scans of where he tried to protect Batman's identity for instance?

The only shift in power status was with Penguin. Who was always the number two Batman villain after Joker. Funny how that seemed to change after Batman Returns.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

You're talking about a total retcon, though. It was already established that Joe Chill was the killer in the comics. Freeze was never given an origin, so it works perfectly fine.

Holy misinformed info again, Batman. Mr. Freeze was originally a rogue Scientist who designed an ice gun which accidentally back fired on him in the lab and he was transformed into Mr. Freeze.

Harley Quinn is a completely new character.

Again you miss the point. She was added to Joker's character history. Added to his story. Made a part of his continuity. They gave him a "love interest".

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

What special relationship?

"YOU COMPLETE ME!"

You know what I'm talking about, c'mon..

Originally Posted by The Joker

Holy misinformed info again, Batman. Mr. Freeze was originally a rogue Scientist who designed an ice gun which accidentally back fired on him in the lab and he was transformed into Mr. Freeze.

I don't always trust wikipedia so I looked it up and you're right.. But it's not that much of a retcon since it is still an accident that creates Freeze, just the circumstances are different. One comic book panel isn't going to make much of a difference, for a character named MR ZERO (so the character had already been changed by that point). And was also a completely dead character who was only revived because of the Animated Series.

Joe Chill first showed up in '39, and had several appearances after that. Most recently (before '89) in post-Crisis 1987 storyline Batman: Year Two - so a little harder to retcon than Mr Freeze at that point.

Again you miss the point. She was added to Joker's character history. Added to his story. Made a part of his continuity. They gave him a "love interest".

Adding something is different to changing something.