Well lets see, in a city as crime ridden as Gotham, out of all the criminals in it, the one that just happens to create Batman is the same one Batman happens to turn into the Joker years later? It was a cheap plot device added in at the last minute by Burton during the writers strike to make it personal between Batman and Joker for the ONE confrontational scene they have in the entire movie.
That's the definition of lazy contrived writing. It's no wonder Sam Hamm and the fans hated it.
You really hate that Joker? How come?
I never understood the criticisms about "letting Vicki into the Batcave" or having the Jack Napier be the one that murders Thomas and Martha Wayne. I mean sure, it's probably out of this idea of "comic fidelity", but back in 1989, I thought it worked. Up until that point, I figured it was just playing out like the comics pretty much. Except, instead of the Red Hood we got a more "realistic" mob hood. Then I remember wondering why Bruce looked so shocked at "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light". Then that great, sad, scene of Bruce remembering back to his final walk with his parents, the "Childhood remembered" theme playing, the shadows of the two ("two?!?") gangster hoodlums and Jack Napier being revealed, saying the line.
I'm not a huge fan of ridiculous twists (my tirades on TDKR are proof of that), but I thought that one worked, added more gravitas to the relationship and was a nice change for THIS interpretation.
Do I prefer a nameless thug killing off the Wayne's (not even Joe Chill per se)? You betcha, but for what it was, for a singular device for a Batman film, I thought it worked pretty nicely. There isn't a bias there either, because I prefer the Batman/Joker relationship in other mediums like BTAS. But with the film, I loved the, then new, concept of Batman, not only creating the Joker, but the Joker creating Batman.
It doesn't really feel like they just plugged that in there for the hell of it. I really think it enhanced the story where it found a nice middle ground between what Sam Hamm had and what Burton originally wanted. I mean, didn't Burton originally want Thomas, Martha and Bruce in halloween costumes and having the Joker (not Jack Napier) come along with an ice cream car and mow them down? Some weird crap like that? Now THAT is bad.
But with Hamm's original intention, what is there? What's the resolution? Batman and Joker just duke it out, we don't get to ever see what created Batman and the Joker just dies? That certainly seems anti-climatic doesn't it? I know all about the writers strike and Warren Skaaren (with Burton) rewrites and I really think what they ended up with was the best case scenario. Burton had his reasoning for it, it connects and wraps it up to a satisfying conclusion. The third act.
I mean you guys didn't like that whole "Childhood Remembered" scene? The eerie, dream like quality of Bruce Wayne's vivid memories, Napiers sadistic, grinning face? The same sadistic face on those monitors? You guys hate that? I love what Begins does with showing us Thomas Wayne, Bruce falling in the well, the theater. This is the first time we really started to see the origin fleshed out and it was nice knowing more about his parents. When it comes to the ACTUAL crime though, of Bruce's parents getting killed, I feel like '89 takes the cake.
They're strolling along the streets, looking happy (especially Bruce). They're eating popcorn, they just enjoyed a great film together. Then it slowly begins to change and Bruce's life and innocence is swept from under him. It's like those great comic images of the Wayne's walking back from the Mask of Zorro, where Bruce is playing out the adventure in his head, smiling and happy in the care of his parents . . . until tragedy strikes.
With Begins, Bruce is already afraid. He doesn't seem like a very happy kid, even before his parents die. He's full of fear, he falls into a well, he's afraid of bats, he can't handle the play, he looks afraid in the alley. Then when his parents are dead and he's at the GCPD, he looks just as afraid as when we first saw him. It's fine, but there isn't that transition.
Begins does a lot of things better in terms of origin, but I'd argue that the actual event of his parents being murdered is much better with '89, and you wouldn't really have that happen without the Jack Napier/Joker twist.
- "look at the look on his face, it's the same look he had in front of city hall"
- "could you get the file on my parents please Alfred"
It didn't feel like Burton and Co. just plugged that in there for the hell of it. Contrived by definition is "deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously", and I'd argue that the actual twist is spontaneous and natural and has actual MEANING.
We even see, waaaaaay back in the first act when we think Batman and the Joker are pretty much just their comic counterparts that, in the police criminal files of Jack Napier, is a mug shot of the young Jack Napier. It's purposely covered up and hidden, with Napier's current, modern mug shot. All Bruce has to do is LITERALLY move that picture while he's looking through his background and find the face of the person that murdered his parents.
If this "Napier creates Batman" concept was just convoluted and thrown in there for the hell of it, why would Burton throw that in there? Why take a mug shot photo of the actor that portrays young Jack Napier, slip it behind of mug shot of Jack Nicholson, and have the shot linger on it a bit before Bruce covers it up with other important records?
Why include all these signs of Bruce's pain and emotional anguish like going back to the street when his parents are killed and laying the roses (a "business meeting" he tells Vicki). Why "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light". Why Batman giving Napier knowing looks as he's slipping and the ambiguity and mysteriousness of the two's relationship prior to the third act?
It doesn't feel like fluff to me. The climax at the Cathedral does a bit (typical third act problems) but the relationship between the hero and villain was done really well, taking it a step further with the idea that these two are the antithesis of each other.
As for Vicki Vale being let into the Batcave, what is exactly wrong with that? All throughout the film, Alfred keeps wanting Bruce to "pursue a normal, happy life" (hmmm, sound familiar?) Then this woman, Vicki Vale comes into his life. Alfred encourages him to go down that path, but Bruce is too preoccupied with his Batman persona.
Vicki Vale is infatuated with not only the mystery of Batman, but Bruce Wayne as well. She even stalks him when she thinks something is up when he isn't at his "business meeting". She's a photo journalist after all, she pursues information and news. We see her getting closer and closer to knowing that Bruce is Batman. From the pictures to her apartment where Bruce Wayne vanishes after being shot.
Then, Knox has the files that she's been desperately looking for. They find that Bruce Wayne's parents were "murdered in that alley". Then it clicks, she gets it. Bruce Wayne is Batman. She abruptly leaves and Knox tells her to "not get personal".
Is it really that contrived or a stretch that she goes back to Wayne Manor, tells Alfred that she knows and demands to see Bruce Wayne? She cares about him and loves him, says as much. What's the problem here? Why is "Alfred letting Vicki into the Batcave" such a no-no?
1. Alfred wants Bruce to have a happy life
2. Vicki loves Bruce and has been following him around after getting suspicious after the whole "business trip" lie that Alfred accidentally ruins
It's not like this is John Blake is it? We don't even see Blake following Bruce around, we're not even familiar with him at the time, he's a brand new character. Atleast with Vicki, we saw her investigating the situation, following Bruce around with the camera, interacting with him and Batman. Putting two and two together.
Is '89 that much in the wrong with those two common complaints? Surely TDKR's are far worse? The John Blake reveal, Alfred quite contrived and unnatural story of going to Italy looking for Bruce to have a happy life that's plugged into Begins, the whole Bane/Talia/Ra's Al Ghul story.
And even The Dark Knight, my favorite Batman film. One that I defend constantly from criticism. Nobody thinks it's a coincidence or contrived when the Joker is at the MCU, holding Stephens hostage with a group of cops huddled around him. Then, the bomb in the holding cell goes off and everyone around the Joker is knocked out (we see them later, especially Stephens) . . . except of course, the Joker?
Or how about the other films with so much happenstance? The Ra's/Ducard twist (is that really as bad as Joker being the the murderer of Bruce's parents). Maroni's involvement with Joe Chill aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Crane who is working for the League of Shadows?
How about the Penguin just being able to override politics and running for mayor when it's not even election time? Is that not convoluted as well. There's also those DAMN Batmobile Blue prints that he somehow got.
I don't even want to start with all the contrived nonsense with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.
Everyone of the Batman films have them some are harmless, some work, some are really, really awful. Is the Jack Napier killing and Vicki Vale in the Batcave really that bad?
t: The movie tries too hard to make its point about the 'inherent goodness' of people.
. Sorry, but I found that a bit ridiculous.
