The Dark Knight Nolan talks more TDK

[El Payaso]

There are actually two types of purists. Those that are just flat out complaining geeks and those that want to see the legends of comics treated with respect but understand some changes need to be made to 50 year old characters.

Of course, you're in the second group.

 

[ultimatefan]

In B89 the mission was personal. And why Jack Napier doesn't represent a 'common thug' and Bruce's parents killing the 'crime in general' just because Napier became the Joker later?

It's the same kind of change that when you make the main enemy the main mentor. So in BB Bruce was trained to be a hero by... terrorists. Luckily, Bruce never got what the organization was about until the very last day.



I always thought that the thug NOT being captured is what led Bruce into the vigilante stuff. If police was so efficient, then why didn't Bruce become a cop or a lawyer? Joe Chill was a poor man and was captured instantly in BB.

Which to me doesn´t work. If it´s personal, why keep fighting crime. The thug angle doesn´t work there because, right from the start, you see that even as a thug Napier wasn´t an ordinary criminal, but a psycho.

Batman is a vigilante hero that uses dark and ninja-like methods, so it isn´t far-fetched that he could have trained with ninja terrorists, but not accepted their more extreme methods. It makes much more sense than the Napier thing, IMO.

Just because Chill was captured, doesn´t mean the police and the legal system are efficient. Falcone could easily kill Chill in the court building. BB makes clear that the police is crooked in Gotham.

 

[El Payaso]

Which to me doesn´t work. If it´s personal, why keep fighting crime.

Obssession. After killing his parents' killer, Bruce is left with a empty life since he hasn't done anything all those years but trying to have his revenge. So he keeps doing the same because it's the only thing he knows and I think he's trying to develop a bigger cause in his mind to fill the void and course this Batman thing into a better thing for him and the rest of the world.

The thug angle doesn´t work there because, right from the start, you see that even as a thug Napier wasn´t an ordinary criminal, but a psycho.

On the contrary, we see the young Jack Napier for the first time as the old version of those thugs at the beginning assaulting that family. We only know that thug is Jack at the end of the scene. For the Wayne's killing - which triggered the Batman mission on Bruce - Napier was and did the exact same thing as those common thugs.

Batman is a vigilante hero that uses dark and ninja-like methods, so it isn´t far-fetched that he could have trained with ninja terrorists, but not accepted their more extreme methods. It makes much more sense than the Napier thing, IMO.

Batman trained by terrorist or Joker being Waynes killers makes as much or little sense as you want them to make. They both sound stupid or interesting. My opinion? Both were very well done. My point is that the nature of the changes in both movies is the same.

Just because Chill was captured, doesn´t mean the police and the legal system are efficient. Falcone could easily kill Chill in the court building. BB makes clear that the police is crooked in Gotham.

Yes, but I'm talking about the little Bruce Wayne the very night of the killing.

As I knew the legend, that very night and nights to come, little Bruce learnt how the criminals are not punished and he decides then to be something else, something that makes things work. My opinon? It worked in BB but it was plain different from what I knew before. The core point: please don't go 'changes... I hate them' just because.

 

[ultimatefan]

Obssession. After killing his parents' killer, Bruce is left with a empty life since he hasn't done anything all those years but trying to have his revenge. So he keeps doing the same because it's the only thing he knows and I think he's trying to develop a bigger cause in his mind to fill the void and course this Batman thing into a better thing for him and the rest of the world.



On the contrary, we see the young Jack Napier for the first time as the old version of those thugs at the beginning assaulting that family. We only know that thug is Jack at the end of the scene. For the Wayne's killing - which triggered the Batman mission on Bruce - Napier was and did the exact same thing as those common thugs.



Batman trained by terrorist or Joker being Waynes killers makes as much or little sense as you want them to make. They both sound stupid or interesting. My opinion? Both were very well done. My point is that the nature of the changes in both movies is the same.



Yes, but I'm talking about the little Bruce Wayne the very night of the killing.

As I knew the legend, that very night and nights to come, little Bruce learnt how the criminals are not punished and he decides then to be something else, something that makes things work. My opinon? It worked in BB but it was plain different from what I knew before. The core point: please don't go 'changes... I hate them' just because.

The Burton movies never made a case of Bruce ever trying to make his fight a bigger cause to help Gotham.

He wasn´t like the thugs. He was clearly the same psycho he was later on the film. Same crazy eyes, smile, cruelty, everything.

It´s not the same nature to me cuz one fit the character more - in the sense that he ultimately refuses to become a terrorist. The other one simply made his whole cause nothing beyond a personal vendetta.

Well, this whole "I hate changes just because" attitude is everything about fanboys that I couldn´t care less about.

 

[El Payaso]

The Burton movies never made a case of Bruce ever trying to make his fight a bigger cause to help Gotham.

Yes, they did. The second one.

It's just that they didn't spoofeed it to you. No one was explaining word by word with philosophic borders on top... several times in the movie.

But you can see Bruce investigating about the Penguin just because he felt Penguin was a menace for the city - not for himself, for sure - and even Alfred was 'hey, why on earth are you so picky about this guy? you insecure? wanna be the only lonely man-beast in town?' Then Bruce - who lives comfortably in his house with lots of money and a free life, start to move wheels to stop Oswald and Max. Why? Because he was worried about the city (Max wants to steal power, enbergy and m oney from it) and the people in it (Penguin and his henchmen are proved to be a menace for people.)

If not for a bigger cause, he could have quit being Batman. And Bruce could live forever with his money, no matter how much energy Max Schreck can steal from Gotham. And since the Waynes' killer - Jack napier in this case - helping the city and its people is the only that motivates Bruce. Maybe Bruce himself is not even aware of this and he does it compulsively, but he does at the end. The bigger cause is there, no matter if our 'hero' is aware of it or not.

He wasn´t like the thugs. He was clearly the same psycho he was later on the film. Same crazy eyes, smile, cruelty, everything.

Then why Napier didn't wear colorful clothes and was laughing all the time and killing people with electric handbuzzers and poisoned pens? The smile is there just to show audiences that guy was a young Napier and then you go... 'Cripes! Waynes' killer is the guy who later became the Joker.'

The whole movie developes the transformation this guy suffers from jack to Joker. What can I do if you insist that he's just the same guy but now with a pale face.

It´s not the same nature to me cuz one fit the character more - in the sense that he ultimately refuses to become a terrorist. The other one simply made his whole cause nothing beyond a personal vendetta.

In the sense that there are big changes that could have not been made, both movie have them. Each person would decide what he/she likes better. Me? I can dig both. Nolan, because it was very... uh... I hate this word already but I'll use it in a proper way... realistic, and didn't make me feel like it was a Disney-type hero. And burton made me feel this was a character beyond the childish label of 'superhero.'

 

[Katsuro]

Then why Napier didn't wear colorful clothes and was laughing all the time and killing people with electric handbuzzers and poisoned pens? The smile is there just to show audiences that guy was a young Napier and then you go... 'Cripes! Waynes' killer is the guy who later became the Joker.'

So he adopted a gimmick. He was still the same murdering psychopath, just this time he did it while dressed like a clown.

 

[Anita18]

I dunno, I think they're just different approaches and interpretations, and it doesn't make one more "right" than the other.

Personally though, I do find BB's angle more convincing. To seek revenge throughout his entire childhood and never getting it...it must have rankled his mind. Or maybe now since he's Batman, he looks back upon it with shame? At any rate, he's now working out his frustration with another angle, and I find that to be a different kind of heroic than if his parents' killers had never been caught at all, or if he had had his revenge. (In the first scenario, he could easily keep going by telling himself that everyone he fights COULD have been his parents' killer.)

 

[Darknightnomis]

There are actually two types of purists. Those that are just flat out complaining geeks and those that want to see the legends of comics treated with respect but understand some changes need to be made to 50 year old characters. IMO Nolan did that as did Timm and Dini.

Exactly.

I consider myself a "purist" but recognize that some tweaking may be need to tranfer the character to the Big screen. As long as they don't overboard and the character(s) doesn't reflect the spirit of the character.

As for Nolan interview. Great! He really really seem to get it whenit comes to Batman and I am more eager to see this movie after all the things in the direction of the movie.

As for Burton's first Batman movie and Nolan's, I think they are just two more interpertations of the characters. Burton's movie in '89 was needed, for that time, and Nolan's is what Batman need to be for now after the first series deteriate to what it was.

Both movies are apples and oranges. Different, but both are good for you.

Man I can't wait for this movie.!t:

 

[dark_b]

Nolan and Singer are different people and they moake different movies about different things. If you hate Singer just hate Singer and **** about it. He's got nothing to do with this.

in my post i didnt tell that i hate singer. but your post shows me that your IQ is very low.

 

[Ronny Shade]

in my post i didnt tell that i hate singer. but your post shows me that your IQ is very low.

Very cute. What my post should tell you is that I'm sick of people ragging on Singer for no good reason, and your post was one in a long line of idiotic and unthoughtful ones. Why don't you go take an online quiz if you're so concerned with IQs?

 

[El Payaso]

So he adopted a gimmick. He was still the same murdering psychopath, just this time he did it while dressed like a clown.

*inserts scene here, that became a classic, where Jack finds out he's Joker and shows how he lost definitively his mind and becomes something else*

Boy...

 

[Ronny Shade]

Here's my 2 cents on the Burton Joker/Chill.

Joe Chill/whoever the **** killed the Waynes is supposed to symbolize impossibility. In the comics, Batman is the greatest detective in the world, but he can't solve the murder that drives everything he does. This is a symbol of how his quest is futile, which enhances the character since he does it anyway.
In BB, Joe Chill was killed. Now Bruce's quest for revenge is futile. He literally can NOT in no possible way avenge the death of his parents short of calling up Jason Blood and opening a portal into hell, going down there and kicking his ass. This gives Bruce the whole "lost" bit he starts the movie with. He's trying to find his way. He's trying to find meaning to his life. He wasn't there for his personal gratification/revenge he was there to solve a large problem...a problem that can't be solved, but he'll try anyway until he's dead.
Futility is a huge part of the character and the inherant tragedy that is Batman. One of the small bits I didn't like about BB was the strong implication that Ra's was indirectly responsible for the death of the Waynes.
In B89. There's no futility. There is closure, which plays out as a "what now?" in the following films. That could have worked, but IMO it didn't very well.

 

[El Payaso]

In B89. There's no futility. There is closure, which plays out as a "what now?" in the following films. That could have worked, but IMO it didn't very well.

Presicely the 'what now?' is the futility. I killed my parents' killer, so... what now? My parents and my life are not coming back and now I don't even have a face to blame and kill. In BR Bruce shows himself too obssessive about new possible dangers. He's still trying to find an excuse for the life he chose. In BF he simply decides to quit trying to have a pioece of his life back and he goves Dick a big tip: Revenge is no good. You kill Two-Face then what? Another face, etc etc. That's the way it followed and even if it wasn't fully verbally explained , it is there.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Like I said...it could have worked, but with the decline in quality of the following films, it wasn't very convincing.

 

[ultimatefan]

Yes, they did. The second one.

It's just that they didn't spoofeed it to you. No one was explaining word by word with philosophic borders on top... several times in the movie.

But you can see Bruce investigating about the Penguin just because he felt Penguin was a menace for the city - not for himself, for sure - and even Alfred was 'hey, why on earth are you so picky about this guy? you insecure? wanna be the only lonely man-beast in town?' Then Bruce - who lives comfortably in his house with lots of money and a free life, start to move wheels to stop Oswald and Max. Why? Because he was worried about the city (Max wants to steal power, enbergy and m oney from it) and the people in it (Penguin and his henchmen are proved to be a menace for people.)

If not for a bigger cause, he could have quit being Batman. And Bruce could live forever with his money, no matter how much energy Max Schreck can steal from Gotham. And since the Waynes' killer - Jack napier in this case - helping the city and its people is the only that motivates Bruce. Maybe Bruce himself is not even aware of this and he does it compulsively, but he does at the end. The bigger cause is there, no matter if our 'hero' is aware of it or not.



Then why Napier didn't wear colorful clothes and was laughing all the time and killing people with electric handbuzzers and poisoned pens? The smile is there just to show audiences that guy was a young Napier and then you go... 'Cripes! Waynes' killer is the guy who later became the Joker.'

The whole movie developes the transformation this guy suffers from jack to Joker. What can I do if you insist that he's just the same guy but now with a pale face.



In the sense that there are big changes that could have not been made, both movie have them. Each person would decide what he/she likes better. Me? I can dig both. Nolan, because it was very... uh... I hate this word already but I'll use it in a proper way... realistic, and didn't make me feel like it was a Disney-type hero. And burton made me feel this was a character beyond the childish label of 'superhero.'

The movie seems to imply more that Bruce is jealous of another orphan "freak" getting all the glory...Maybe it´s me, but it feels that way cuz the heroic aspects of Bruce are downplayed to the point of near non-existent in the Burton films.

You don´t need colorful clothes or white skin to be a psycho. Young Napier is just the same freak that older Napier, which is just slighly saner than Joker. Transformation is a big word for a change that was more exterior than internal.

The thing is, what is the effect that these changes have. Bruce being trained by the terrorists doesn´t change the character that he ultimately becomes, for he doesn´t accept their "judge and executioner" morality. The Joker thing makes all Bruce´s conflict through the movie feel like only a personal vendetta that he fullfills by killing him, that is, accepting not only judge and executioner morality, but also pure personal revenge.

 

[Tojo]

As long as he's not talking about being careful and not putting the joker in colorful suits

I hope he doesn't wear that gimpy purple suit.

 

[Bathead]

Why not? It's an important part of his character, it's not just something he wears.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I hope he doesn't wear that gimpy purple suit.

WTF IS WRONG WITH THE PURPLE SUIT!!!!?!?!?!?









NOTHING! THAT'S WHAT!

 

[Two-Face]

Does he have to? Joker not always wore a purple suit in the comics.

 

[Punch]

Why not? It's an important part of his character, it's not just something he wears.

No it's not important at all. Nolan won't put him in the purple suit.

 

[Cinemaman]

Why? Nolan can put him in it, he will just make some changes like making purple suit look much darker.

 

[Bathead]

Does he have to? Joker not always wore a purple suit in the comics.

He did 95% of the time.

 

[Cinemaman]

He did 95% of the time.

I'd say 100%

 

[Bathead]

No it's not important at all. Nolan won't put him in the purple suit.

Wrong. It IS important. It's as important as Batman's cape and cowl are to him. It is a part of his personality that he dresses as flamboyantly as he does.
His flamboyant manner of dress and his narcissism are over-compensation for his freakish looks.
Secondly, when did Nolan tell you he wouldn't use the purple tux? You don't know that for a fact.

 

[StorminNorman]

Does he have to? Joker not always wore a purple suit in the comics.

Batmans not always wore a Bat suit either.