The Dark Knight Nolan talks more TDK

[Crooklyn]

There are fanboys and fanboys. There are fanboys who understand that you need to update, translate, mix, sum up, cut, add things to put a comic book character into the big screen and that some elements from the comics are more important than others and certain things work when you put it on the big screen and some don´t. If you think Joker is defined by wearing a purple suit, fine, I think there´s so much more to the character that´s more worth putting on the big screen. It´s like the thing with the batmobile, the crew built one of the most spectacular prop vehicles ever created for any film, an original and powerful piece of engineering, and what some fanboys do? "It suz cuz it has no fins, I want my fins, I´m gonna get into fetal position and hold my breath till I get blue if I don´t get my frikking fins!!"

There's a big difference between changing the look of a car that's changed designs every 6 months for the past 60+ years, and changing a suit color that's remained in tact since the original appearance of a character. Not to mention there's NO reason to change it. I haven't seen one valid reason for it.

Of course...that's just me.

 

[El Payaso]

The thing is, I just don´t buy that. It´s not that his heroism is subtle. It´s not there. He does it for his initial self-fullfilling revenge instinct and nothing else. It´s clear he´s dead to the world outside of his fight. He´s not more human, he´s a completely alienated schizo.

If you want to believe what is necessary to denigrate a movie you don't like, then who could be able to stop you. Who needs arguments or listening to other people's opinions for that.

I already proved you things with arguments evidence and semantics. You didn't go further the 'I don't buy that.' Stubborness I cannot cure.

The result is the same, he gets people killed. Only different methods. Not a transformation as much as an intensification/stylization of the same thing.

Oh god. So if a guy kills cows in order to sell meat and then he kills people for the sake of it, it's the same for you, because results are the same: dead animals.

"You got a point there but" is something not as hard to say as you think.

And btw, "intenstificate" something can lead you to a transformation. Even more, a transformation can be manifested by the intensification of certain aspects.

Worst kind of blind man is the one refusing to see.

Which is why the character evolved from that within the years, to keep Batman the killing vigilante he was in the first few issues is like keeping Superman from flying cuz he only did big leaps in the beginning.

Different cases. Superman evolved to flying to make him more spectacular. Batman evolved to the non killing simply because of the Comic Code Authority.

He got it was an outlawish form of fighting crime and injustice, which is still what he does as Batman, he just didn´t know it involved being an executioner and blowing the city to the ground, which is what categorized it as terrorism.

That's the thing. When you enter into a club they usually lecture you about the essential rules and objectives at the beginning not the graduation day.

He keeps it because he projects the killer in all of his victims. Since he can´t capture the killer, he treats every criminal like it´s him. The conflict with the Joker makes it clear it´s more personal than anything else, as in BB it´s clearly more balanced with a sincere desire to follow his father´s footsteps and help Gotham be a better place.

In BB Bruce decides the non personal thing just because Chill was killed first.

Since the Waynes' killer in B89 wasn't arrested or killed, B89 Bruce Wayne followed the exact same way the BB Bruce Wayne did, just in different circumstances.

 

[ultimatefan]

There's a big difference between changing the look of a car that's changed designs every 6 months for the past 60+ years, and changing a suit color that's remained in tact since the original appearance of a character. Not to mention there's NO reason to change it. I haven't seen one valid reason for it.

Of course...that's just me.

Some think it may look a bit too cheesy, especially since this version of the Joker is supposed to be darker and more sinister than the Nicholson thing. I´m not saying it can´t necessarily be kept, but I won´t shoot myself in the head if it isn´t.

 

["V"]

There are fanboys and fanboys. There are fanboys who understand that you need to update, translate, mix, sum up, cut, add things to put a comic book character into the big screen and that some elements from the comics are more important than others and certain things work when you put it on the big screen and some don´t. If you think Joker is defined by wearing a purple suit, fine, I think there´s so much more to the character that´s more worth putting on the big screen. It´s like the thing with the batmobile, the crew built one of the most spectacular prop vehicles ever created for any film, an original and powerful piece of engineering, and what some fanboys do? "It suz cuz it has no fins, I want my fins, I´m gonna get into fetal position and hold my breath till I get blue if I don´t get my frikking fins!!"

I don't recall saying that the Joker is defined by a purple suit? In fact I even said the McKean dark trench coat is a good fit for him.

Yes, of course certain visual aspects of the characters need to be updated. For example the Scarecrow. The Red & Brown look was so 1960's, and the updated transition worked fantastically well (althought the key visual of the character - Mask - was retained).

On the other hand I don't think that suits have gone out of fashion (in fact Scarecrow was updated into a suit!) so I find it difficult to see where the Joker should be visually updated.

There have been many different variations of the Batmobile so I see that as a bit of a pointless argument really.

 

[Crooklyn]

Some think it may look a bit too cheesy, especially since this version of the Joker is supposed to be darker and more sinister than the Nicholson thing. I´m not saying it can´t necessarily be kept, but I won´t shoot myself in the head if it isn´t.

What makes Joker sinister aren't his looks, but his actions. So that point is moot.

As for "cheesy", I think those people should focus more on how the character is written, rather than a color of his suit if they're gonna be worried about "cheesiness". We are talking about a "killer clown" here, so the idea itself isn't exactly realistic.

 

[ultimatefan]

If you want to believe what is necessary to denigrate a movie you don't like, then who could be able to stop you. Who needs arguments or listening to other people's opinions for that.

I already proved you things with arguments evidence and semantics. You didn't go further the 'I don't buy that.' Stubborness I cannot cure.



Oh god. So if a guy kills cows in order to sell meat and then he kills people for the sake of it, it's the same for you, because results are the same: dead animals.

"You got a point there but" is something not as hard to say as you think.

And btw, "intenstificate" something can lead you to a transformation. Even more, a transformation can be manifested by the intensification of certain aspects.

Worst kind of blind man is the one refusing to see.



Different cases. Superman evolved to flying to make him more spectacular. Batman evolved to the non killing simply because of the Comic Code Authority.



That's the thing. When you enter into a club they usually lecture you about the essential rules and objectives at the beginning not the graduation day.



In BB Bruce decides the non personal thing just because Chill was killed first.

Since the Waynes' killer in B89 wasn't arrested or killed, B89 Bruce Wayne followed the exact same way the BB Bruce Wayne did, just in different circumstances.

If you wanna play that game, "I hate them just because" is stubborness and lack of argument in my book.

It doesn´t feel honest to me. All I see in Keaton´s performance as Bruce is darkness. He risks his life, but that doesn´t necessarily make him heroic, one will risk his life to fullfill his psychosis. There are thraces of heroism here and there, but they´re clearly overshadowed by the dark revenge feelings.

I said kill people. Don´t see how the animal/people analogy applies at all.

Transformation means change, usually a deep one. Intensification may be a slight change, but not a transformation in true sense.

That´s why they´re called the League Of Shadows, they´re not known for playing straight and transparently.

The Comics Code is from the fifties, he stopped killing long before that. There are good reasons, like not becoming like his father´s murderer and his enemies and respecting his father´s desire to preserve life.

And because Rachel showed him that getting him killed for a personal vendetta was part of the problem, not the solution. 89 basically claimed it was okay for Bruce to follow that path. Which to me isn´t.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'll just say this....Batman stopped killing, and really.....he became more of a "traditional" hero b/c of the editorial. The Code came into play a couple years later, but he'd stopped killing long before that.

Namely, to still have bad guys to fight.

It's a wierd circumstance, but....it worked out I think.

 

[ultimatefan]

I'll just say this....Batman stopped killing, and really.....he became more of a "traditional" hero b/c of the editorial. The Code came into play a couple years later, but he'd stopped killing long before that.

Namely, to still have bad guys to fight.

It's a wierd circumstance, but....it worked out I think.

Yeah, but as time evolved writers came up with better reasons.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Exactly. I think that's what people do focus on, anyway. Nobody really cares about the outside reasons, which I guess is the right way to handle it.

I do think though, that when we get another version....we should kinda keep in mind that the comics are held back for certain reasons, which is why I'm not so bothered by Keaton's Batman killing in BATMAN 89, although it bothered me in BR.

 

[Eros]

Exactly. I think that's what people do focus on, anyway. Nobody really cares about the outside reasons, which I guess is the right way to handle it.

I do think though, that when we get another version....we should kinda keep in mind that the comics are held back for certain reasons, which is why I'm not so bothered by Keaton's Batman killing in BATMAN 89, although it bothered me in BR.

no about that, when i was alittle younger, i never realized that Batman was killing people in the Burton films. It doesn' bother me, but the way Batman did it, it just looked like he was takeing care of bussiness. I didn't realize he killed anyone in the burton films until someone brought it up on a message board.

 

[ultimatefan]

Exactly. I think that's what people do focus on, anyway. Nobody really cares about the outside reasons, which I guess is the right way to handle it.

I do think though, that when we get another version....we should kinda keep in mind that the comics are held back for certain reasons, which is why I'm not so bothered by Keaton's Batman killing in BATMAN 89, although it bothered me in BR.

What bothers me is basically he´s a murderer... and nobody cares! His girlfriend is okay with it, the police is okay with it... Another reason why he doesn´t kill is simply practical, Gordon walks on eggs for supporting him as it is, imagine if he´s a killer...

 

[Eros]

What bothers me is basically he´s a murderer... and nobody cares! His girlfriend is okay with it, the police is okay with it... Another reason why he doesn´t kill is simply practical, Gordon walks on eggs for supporting him as it is, imagine if he´s a killer...

its a fictional character man, heroes kill badguys all the time in fiction. soldiers kill their oponents all the time, its a war out their.

 

[ultimatefan]

its a fictional character man, heroes kill badguys all the time in fiction. soldiers kill their oponents all the time, its a war out their.

The conflict between justice and revenge is one of the strongest elements in the Batman mythos and the movie misses every opportunity to explore it in a meaningful way.

 

[El Payaso]

If you wanna play that game, "I hate them just because" is stubborness and lack of argument in my book.

Huh? Who am I hating again?

It doesn´t feel honest to me. All I see in Keaton´s performance as Bruce is darkness. He risks his life, but that doesn´t necessarily make him heroic, one will risk his life to fullfill his psychosis. There are thraces of heroism here and there, but they´re clearly overshadowed by the dark revenge feelings.

I'm glad to see Burton's movies already made you think about the duality of human actions and not just told you one-dimensional cliché lines to repeat.

I said kill people. Don´t see how the animal/people analogy applies at all.

So, now you know how does it feel when someone gives you absurd biased examples that proves nothing.

Transformation means change, usually a deep one. Intensification may be a slight change, but not a transformation in true sense.

Then Jack to Joker is transformation... in your book.

That´s why they´re called the League Of Shadows, they´re not known for playing straight and transparently.

Then why Batman isn't called Justice-Man and fights crime by day? I mean if he'll all justice and pure enlightening stuff.

The Comics Code is from the fifties, he stopped killing long before that. There are good reasons, like not becoming like his father´s murderer and his enemies and respecting his father´s desire to preserve life.

Then it's better to go back to Batman roots and stop making him a human Superman. Or Spiderman or any of those well worn archetypes of a "hero."

And because Rachel showed him that getting him killed for a personal vendetta was part of the problem, not the solution. 89 basically claimed it was okay for Bruce to follow that path. Which to me isn´t.

No, it didn't claim it was ok. It showed just happens with a guy whose parents were killed and looks for revenge, helping a city and its population in the way.

The conflict between justice and revenge is one of the strongest elements in the Batman mythos and the movie misses every opportunity to explore it in a meaningful way.

As comic books through years, movies explore different aspects of the character. I'm sure one day you'll be able to show it the way you want talking about the themes you like about it. For now, accept a good movie for what it is and don't denigrate it based on how that movie doesn't match your personal morals.

 

[ultimatefan]

Huh? Who am I hating again?



I'm glad to see Burton's movies already made you think about the duality of human actions and not just told you one-dimensional cliché lines to repeat.



So, now you know how does it feel when someone gives you absurd biased examples that proves nothing.



Then Jack to Joker is transformation... in your book.



Then why Batman isn't called Justice-Man and fights crime by day? I mean if he'll all justice and pure enlightening stuff.



Then it's better to go back to Batman roots and stop making him a human Superman. Or Spiderman or any of those well worn archetypes of a "hero."



No, it didn't claim it was ok. It showed just happens with a guy whose parents were killed and looks for revenge, helping a city and its population in the way.



As comic books through years, movies explore different aspects of the character. I'm sure one day you'll be able to show it the way you want talking about the themes you like about it. For now, accept a good movie for what it is and don't denigrate it based on how that movie doesn't match your personal morals.

We´re all biased here, we´re giving opinions, nobody here is proving scientific facts. Theses are our interpretations of the character and the movie, which are obviously different.

They gave me no duality, they gave me a psycho avenger almost as one-dimensional as a boy scout.

I never said it was "pure justice", it´s a conflict, but I have to believe there´s some sincerity in his heroism to see the conflict between that and his darkness.

No it isn´t transformation and I explained why.

No, it´s not. Making him dark and human at the same time makes him actually more interesting and complex in my book than the complete a-hole he has become in some versions.

The happy ending and police´s and his girlfriend´s acceptance pretty much claim it was okay.

I never said it was a bad movie, just that it doesn´t fit the way I see the character and also left me unsatisfied as an exploration of the themes it implies.

 

[El Payaso]

We´re all biased here, we´re giving opinions, nobody here is proving scientific facts. Theses are our interpretations of the character and the movie, which are obviously different.

You won't go to bed today without El Payaso teaching you a new lesson.

They gave me no duality, they gave me a psycho avenger almost as one-dimensional as a boy scout.

Psycho is never one dimensional.

I never said it was "pure justice", it´s a conflict, but I have to believe there´s some sincerity in his heroism to see the conflict between that and his darkness.

And why would you need such thing to see the other?

No it isn´t transformation and I explained why.

You explanation is that you just don't think it is.

No, it´s not. Making him dark and human at the same time makes him actually more interesting and complex in my book than the complete a-hole he has become in some versions.

Dark and human. After seeing you parents killed wanting revenge is pretty human. You want a symbolic role model.

The happy ending and police´s and his girlfriend´s acceptance pretty much claim it was okay.

The ending in BB then would be saying it's ok letting people die inside a train.


Never got who I was hating.

 

[ultimatefan]

You won't go to bed today without El Payaso teaching you a new lesson.



Psycho is never one dimensional.



And why would you need such thing to see the other?



You explanation is that you just don't think it is.



Dark and human. After seeing you parents killed wanting revenge is pretty human. You want a symbolic role model.



The ending in BB then would be saying it's ok letting people die inside a train.


Never got who I was hating.

I don´t need any lessons from you.

There are one-dimensional psychos everywhere. Being "pure dark" is just as one-dimensional as "pure light".

My explanation is that transformation means a more radical change than just the same thing intensified.

I don´t want a symbolic role model per se. I like a character that has an inner conflict between having good intentions and dark feelings. In BB, I saw both. In 89, only the latter.

When you have your own life to save from a dangerous situation, yes it is.

It wasn´t who, it was what, I was clearly referring to your bit about hating changes, but apparently even that was too subtle.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I think this is a new interview with some great new stuff. If it's been posted before, I apologize. Enjoy, Nolan really knows Batman and his world in my opinion............

Much of “Batman Begins” was about Bruce Wayne coming to terms with what he is and what he does. Will you need to modulate his inner struggle in a sequel?

What do you mean by “modulate”?

Well, at the end of the first film, he sort of comes to terms with what he’s doing. He’s got this mission now. So I’d imagine that mission will have to evolve a bit.

Oh, yes. Or the world … Let me put it this way, without being too specific: When you embark on a mission, it’s extraordinarily rare that things turn out according to the mission plan. [laughs] The world is going to react in ways you don’t expect.

He did indeed achieve a certain sense of purpose or a certain resignation, in terms of how his life is going to wind up being dedicated to this — which is something that we begin with. But the world itself responds to our actions in ways we don’t anticipate.

You said something interesting about introducing The Joker at the end of “Batman Begins”: “That’s the point of the final scene. That [fighting evil] is not going to be easy. It’s going to get harder.” Is that a touchstone for the sequel?

Very much. Obviously, I can’t really talk much about it at this stage — but I think if you watch that last scene, it gives you a very, very clear direction of where the story’s going.

When Commissioner Gordon turns over that playing card, there’s a sense of dread.

Yeah.

Are the villains going to try to define themselves as extremely as Batman defines himself?

Yeah, in their own way.

Are you drawing any inspiration from Alan Moore’s “Killing Joke” — which made a point of grounding The Joker not in this “Clown Prince of Crime” stuff, but more in sadness and failure?

We’re drawing from the entire canon. I don’t want to talk too specifically about it. The thing I will say is that if you go back to the very first appearance of the Joker in the comics …

Which I’ve read. And he’s a bastard.

[emphatically] Yeah. And there’s a very clear direction … It’s pretty surprising how clearly drawn that character is in that book.

If you’ve read those early stories, Heath Ledger makes sense as a casting choice.

It certainly makes sense to me.

We got to see a lot more of Bruce Wayne out of costume in “Batman Begins” than in the prior “Batman” movies. He was also a lot more fun — buying hotels and engineering corporate takeovers. Will Batman’s alter ego play as prominent a role in the sequel?

Yeah. I mean, Bruce, to me, isn’t just Batman. There are also aspects of Bruce Wayne that are private and public.

Given how muted “Batman Begins” was, in terms of tone and color, do you see any risks in overstuffing a movie with colorful villains?

Well, you have to be careful about everything. [long, long pause]

[laughs] Well. You’ve said, “I actually see myself as a very mainstream filmmaker and always have.” Why do some people keep pegging you — even after “Batman Begins” — as an art-house director?

God, I have no idea. [laughs] The press tends to pigeonhole filmmakers from where they begin — which is actually not necessarily completely wrong — but I directed a “Batman” film, and people still talk about my independent-filmmaking roots.

Ridley Scott is a favorite filmmaker of mine — and for years, anything he did was immediately related to advertising, because he started out there. He’s only just about past it.

I certainly don’t have any complaints if people relate what I do to the independent films I started with. I would hope that all my films would have a personal and sincere foundation — whether they’re on a grand scale or not.

Certainly all your films have trafficked in misdirection. Even in “Batman Begins,” with Liam Neeson’s character.

Well, Batman is an interesting case in point, because you’re dealing with a mythic character. And one of the qualities of mythic stories is familiarity — and, to a certain extent, predictability.

I don’t mean “predictability” in its usual pejorative sense. I mean it in the sense of the inevitable thing — the thing that allows a story to take on the character.

There’s a tension in the storytelling between the familiar elements that make up the myth and being able to surprise people. What it ultimately amounts to is a need for the filmmaker to achieve the inevitable in surprising ways.

Right. Superhero movies are prone to discussions of whether they’re “faithful” or not … Superhero fans want their characters to be comforting, in a way.

That’s exactly the tension I’m talking about. It’s something I find very interesting. Because to me, being faithful to the character in the story is not about slavishly following a particular treatment of one comic or graphic novel — it’s about distilling the essence of the myth.

That’s always been the challenge of Batman, and its strength. You treat the essential elements as mileposts, and all the elements in between — all the other layers and threads — can be fresh and different and surprising. Get that stuff right, and you see the myth in a powerful way.

On a superficial level, when we approached re-designing the Batmobile, we weren’t too specific about what it had to be — other than that it had to be the most powerful car you’ve ever seen. And it had to be black. Other than that, we didn’t say, “It has to have a fin,” or anything like that. And so you’re able to create something completely original and fresh — a renewed concept of “the most powerful car.”

Well, having read the original comics, we’re just lucky you didn’t make it a red sedan. Is the script for “Dark Knight” finished?

I couldn’t tell you that.

Of course you couldn’t.

A script’s never finished with me. I write even as we’re shooting. But we’ve been working at it for quite a while now.

Will the title be “The Dark Knight”? Or do you think it will end up being “Batman — colon — The Dark Knight”?

No, it’ll be “The Dark Knight.”

It sets such a tone.

Yes. Well, that’s the idea.

You’ve said you’re not a huge Internet hound. Were you able to stay away from the ’net during the “Batman Begins” pre-release brouhaha?

Yeah, yeah. Certainly, when you’re making a film that everybody’s watching, you’re going to read a lot of stuff about your film and you’re not necessarily going to like all of it. So. If you’re happy doing that, fine. If you’re not…

When you take on something like Batman, that increases exponentially, and you’re already being hit from all kinds of other directions … I don’t have e-mail.

You know, with “The Prisoner,” you’re going to go through that again with an entirely different obsessive cult.

Yeah. Well. You know. I’ve been through it once before. You have to get on and do what it is you’re going to do. Which is not the same thing as being in any way disrespectful of the material. You have to take responsibility for yourself and get on with it and do a good job.

Excellence t:

 

[Tojo]

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









NOTHING! THAT'S WHAT!

Calm down. A purple suit is not to Joker what a cape and cowl is to Batman, his face and hair colour is though.

A purple suit is uneccesary, just another thing for you fanboys to wet yourselves over.

I'm not saying make joker dull, but it's just preference i suppose. While i agree that Joker is very unconventional i prefer that to come from what he does. I liked it when Alex Ross put him in a very smart, dark suit(or tux?). Anyway, he looked sinister and yet still managed to remain theatrical. A bright purple suit is just over the top. You may not care what casual audiences think, but if i was a film-maker i'd want them to really believe this crazy clown thing. There is little reason for a bright purple suit, but it's fanboys like you who have to have everything like it is in your comic book.

Next thing you know you're going to say two-face has to wear those suits with half one colour, half another colour lol.

 

[El Payaso]

I don´t need any lessons from you.

No worries. It was for free.

There are one-dimensional psychos everywhere. Being "pure dark" is just as one-dimensional as "pure light".

But Batman wasn't pure dark. I understand you have to say it in order to hate the movie.

My explanation is that transformation means a more radical change than just the same thing intensified.

Even so, if we accept Batman and Bruce are not the same thing; the same Jack and Joker are not. The core point was that Napier being the Waynes' killer doesn't destroy a thing, but gives another background for the Batman-Joker hatred. Or gives it a background since they seem to hate each other for no reason in many comics.

When you have your own life to save from a dangerous situation, yes it is.

When you're Batman you're able to save one single life. If you want to.

It wasn´t who, it was what, I was clearly referring to your bit about hating changes, but apparently even that was too subtle.

How funny since it's you ranting about changes.

I have always said that most of changes in both BB and B89 work just fine.

 

[Crooklyn]

A purple suit is uneccesary, just another thing for you fanboys to wet yourselves over.

So what is necessary, of say, a black suit, as opposed to purple?

A bright purple suit is just over the top.

Who said it had to be bright?

You may not care what casual audiences think, but if i was a film-maker i'd want them to really believe this crazy clown thing.

Right, as if the coincedence of getting white skin, green hair, and red lips, all from a chemical bath isn't far-fetched enough. Adding a purple suit is what'll really put them over.

"The hell? A clown is wearing a PURPLE SUIT? Ohhh myyy goooood! That's so stupid! Argh, let's go guys! I'm leaving."

There is little reason for a bright purple suit, but it's fanboys like you who have to have everything like it is in your comic book.

Don't see how it can be considered that, since there is no reason for any such change at all.

Next thing you know you're going to say two-face has to wear those suits with half one colour, half another colour lol.

Hardly a fair comparison. Two-Face never had a set "costume". It always was however, a tux.

 

[StorminNorman]

Calm down. A purple suit is not to Joker what a cape and cowl is to Batman, his face and hair colour is though.

A purple suit is uneccesary, just another thing for you fanboys to wet yourselves over.

I'm not saying make joker dull, but it's just preference i suppose. While i agree that Joker is very unconventional i prefer that to come from what he does. I liked it when Alex Ross put him in a very smart, dark suit(or tux?). Anyway, he looked sinister and yet still managed to remain theatrical. A bright purple suit is just over the top. You may not care what casual audiences think, but if i was a film-maker i'd want them to really believe this crazy clown thing. There is little reason for a bright purple suit, but it's fanboys like you who have to have everything like it is in your comic book.

Next thing you know you're going to say two-face has to wear those suits with half one colour, half another colour lol.

What about a Dark Purple Suit? The Joker sould look out of place in Nolan's world, the purple suit is apart of that. A Tux could work, however do we really want to see the Joker in a Tux for 2 hours? No. A Purple Suit IS a must, it doesn't at all hurt Nolan's "vision" and is apart of what makes the character great. Thats why it is still hear after 70 years.

 

[Cinemaman]

^^^

Agreed

 

[The Batman]

Why is it no surprise to me that the ones who think the purple suit is campy also happen to be self admitted fans of frank miller?

 

[ultimatefan]

No worries. It was for free.



But Batman wasn't pure dark. I understand you have to say it in order to hate the movie.



Even so, if we accept Batman and Bruce are not the same thing; the same Jack and Joker are not. The core point was that Napier being the Waynes' killer doesn't destroy a thing, but gives another background for the Batman-Joker hatred. Or gives it a background since they seem to hate each other for no reason in many comics.



When you're Batman you're able to save one single life. If you want to.



How funny since it's you ranting about changes.

I have always said that most of changes in both BB and B89 work just fine.

I´ll pass. When you say something of actual use, which has yet to happen, I´ll use it.

When did I say I hate the movie? Oh yeah, never. He wasn´t "pure" dark, but the movie didn´t emphasize other aspects enough for me.


Like I said before, it destroys something important to me, which is the killer being an ordinary thug, not a psycho criminal mastermind in the making.

It wasn´t likely that his cape would stand the weight. And it´s still not the same thing willingly attempting to murder someone first degree - as Bats does twice to Joker in 89 - as not risking your life to save someone you don´t think deserves it.

I´ve always tried to point out reasons to agree or not with the changes, as opposite to your "just because".