Burton's Joker - Have a question,

[Superwoman Prime]

I've always wondered something. Now, I love JN, and I love the way he played the Joker. To many he will always be the Joker, regardless of how fascinating Heath Ledger is; this has been stated in the 'Yay/Nay' thread.

But I do have a question:

Why did Tim Burton find it necessary to so dramatically change the Joker from how he was presented in the comics at the time? There is nothing wrong with the fact that Burton's version of the Joker is basically the 60's version gone completely evil --- But WHY? Where did Burton get off on making Nicholson/Joker that way? What was the inspiration?

 

[frodawgg]

i've thought a lot about Burton's style. he changes a lot of things. when B89came out, it was his first film adapted from another source, so nobody would've known that he would change SO much. if he would've already been established more, maybe people wouldn't let him do Batman because of that (even though he's my favorite director).

up until that point, the only movies he had under his belt were Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, both originals. since BR, he's made a lot of movies based on other sources: Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, and Charlie and the Chocolate, all great movies, but all with dramatic plot/character changes, twisted endings, or all-new original subplots. i don't think he changed the image of the joker other than for the fact that he likes to change things.

i hoped that answered your question.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

It does.

Thank you.

 

[El Payaso]

I have to ask, what are those radical changes from the comics?

 

[Buttman]

I have to ask, what are those radical changes from the comics?

My question exactly.

The TAS Joker is the Ultimate Joker to me, and JN seemed like a live-action version of that. No matter how great HL is, JN will always be The Joker to me.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I have to ask, what are those radical changes from the comics?

The Joker in 89 was radically different from the one in the comics at the TIME.

Take 'The Killing Joke.' TB said he got inspiration from it, but those two Jokers act very different.

JN was more reserved and calculative. Less physically hyper. And there was NO chance of the Burton Joker verbally leveling with Batman like the Joker did in TKJ. (in the end, where they are talking)

 

[cryptic name]

i think burton's joker wasn't meant to represent any particular era in the comics, but an overall feel of the character. it's like the quintessesntial joker.

 

[El Payaso]

i think burton's joker wasn't meant to represent any particular era in the comics, but an overall feel of the character. it's like the quintessesntial joker.

That's my feeling too. Even if he didn't do the exact same things as imn a specific comic, I felt that was a timeless Joker, like a mix of many ages.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

That makes adequate sense, yes.

 

[dr.strange]

nicholson is the man, but even then i thought he was too fat.and even though theyll always be linked, jack napier replacing joe chill as the killer of bruce's parents?? even for fantasy that was too convenient.

 

[Cobblepot]

It is reaching but it worked, didn't it?

 

[El Payaso]

Oh yes.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Definitely.

 

[Merkel]

I loved Jack's performance, but making him the killer of the Waynes was just too much.

 

[El Payaso]

Too much what?

 

[Dr. Fate]

I guess they wanted a sense of finality about the climax. Or something like that.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I guess they wanted a sense of finality about the climax. Or something like that.

Exactly.

Batman wasn't made as the beginning of a franchise, or a set up for sequels. Back then, no-one thought about that. The cast were only signed for one film. Burton's Batman was just made to tell the story of the character as best as possible, and to give it a satisfying resolution. Thus, Batman finds and defeats his parent's killer, which is the Joker.

 

[kenellard]

Exactly.

Batman wasn't made as the beginning of a franchise, or a set up for sequels. Back then, no-one thought about that. The cast were only signed for one film. Burton's Batman was just made to tell the story of the character as best as possible, and to give it a satisfying resolution. Thus, Batman finds and defeats his parent's killer, which is the Joker.

that's what i truly hate about movies these days, everything is the start of a franchise, so we can be almost sure of not getting that stand-alone satisfaction which films like B89 provided. Even with BB i felt they could've created a great origin film which was also a great film in its own right, but it's just not that great because it's made with sequels already in mind

 

[Punch]

Exactly.

Batman wasn't made as the beginning of a franchise, or a set up for sequels. Back then, no-one thought about that. The cast were only signed for one film. Burton's Batman was just made to tell the story of the character as best as possible, and to give it a satisfying resolution. Thus, Batman finds and defeats his parent's killer, which is the Joker.

uhh I wouldn't go that far. I think it had more to do with Nicholson's contract than anything ele.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Exactly.

Batman wasn't made as the beginning of a franchise, or a set up for sequels. Back then, no-one thought about that. The cast were only signed for one film. Burton's Batman was just made to tell the story of the character as best as possible, and to give it a satisfying resolution. Thus, Batman finds and defeats his parent's killer, which is the Joker.

the reason that the joker was the killer of bruces mom and dad is because the producer (Jon Peters) thought it would be a go idea to change months after the writer was gone.

 

[CLARKY]

I've always wondered something. Now, I love JN, and I love the way he played the Joker. To many he will always be the Joker, regardless of how fascinating Heath Ledger is; this has been stated in the 'Yay/Nay' thread.

But I do have a question:

Why did Tim Burton find it necessary to so dramatically change the Joker from how he was presented in the comics at the time? There is nothing wrong with the fact that Burton's version of the Joker is basically the 60's version gone completely evil --- But WHY? Where did Burton get off on making Nicholson/Joker that way? What was the inspiration?

I read somewhere that Burton had made the Joker the murderer of the Wayne in order to make the fight more personal between he and batman, and in order to make more "ultimate vilain"

up until that point, the only movies he had under his belt were Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, both originals. since BR, he's made a lot of movies based on other sources: Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, and Charlie and the Chocolate, all great movies, but all with dramatic plot/character changes, twisted endings, or all-new original subplots. i don't think he changed the image of the joker other than for the fact that he likes to change things.

no, Pee-Wee was a serial before the film ... wasn't it?

My question exactly.

The TAS Joker is the Ultimate Joker to me, and JN seemed like a live-action version of that. No matter how great HL is, JN will always be The Joker to me.

my thoughts exactly.

 

[El Payaso]

I read somewhere that Burton had made the Joker the murderer of the Wayne in order to make the fight more personal between he and batman, and in order to make more "ultimate vilain"

Which is almost logical thing to do. Those two guys hate the guts of each other but... no reason for that. Other than it is supposed to be the traditional way.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I read somewhere that Burton had made the Joker the murderer of the Wayne in order to make the fight more personal between he and batman, and in order to make more "ultimate vilain"

I think it was Jon Peters' idea actually, and Sam Hamm was against it.
The Joker in the movie is nothing like the 60's version. It's closer to the Englehart version with a bit of Alan Moore's.

 

[Catman]

Where did Jon Peters come from? Do you people attention when watching the DVD? It is clearly stated that it was Tim Burton's idea. Sam Hamm stated that in the DVD. In fact, The Joker was the murderer of the Waynes in the treatment Burton wrote with then girlfriend, Julie Hickson in 1985. The treatment which Sam Hamm used as guidelines for his script. In the DVD, Hamm said that he had an argument about that with Burton and eventually talked him out of it. Then, during production Burton went ahead and made Joke the murderer.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Where did Jon Peters come from? Do you people attention when watching the DVD? It is clearly stated that it was Tim Burton's idea. Sam Hamm stated that in the DVD. In fact, The Joker was the murderer of the Waynes in the treatment Burton wrote with then girlfriend, Julie Hickson in 1985. The treatment which Sam Hamm used as guidelines for his script. In the DVD, Hamm said that he had an argument about that with Burton and eventually talked him out of it. Then, during production Burton went ahead and made Joke the murderer.

and from that we get jon peters.