バット人;22217403 said:
No, they're credited as Nic and Eddie on the TOPPS film cards and according to the script.
Ah.
バット人;22217403 said:
The mugger is assumed to be one of three people, Joe Chill, Bob the Goon or a nameless accomplice to Jack Napier. Many people speculate that it's Bob the Goon simply because of the mugger's line "come on Jack, let's go" as it's reminiscent to what Bob says during the Axis Chemicals shootout. The producers state that it is indeed Joe Chill and there's actually some claim to back it up as the accomplice is indeed the one that yanks Martha Wayne's pearls from her neck. Just because it isn't stated or listed doesn't mean the character isn't Joe Chill. The Star Wars film universe is known for this with all the different "characters" such as the aliens, robots and bounty hunters out there. Nearly every uncredited thing in Star Wars has a name and a background, why can't Joe Chill? Let's not forget that the original mugger of the comics and the animated series was completely anonymous/faceless. I much prefer the Batman/Bruce Wayne that never gets a chance to confront or discover his parents killer be it Jack Napier or Joe Chill, but that's just me.
That's pretty-much how I feel about it...and in a lot of ways better that Batman never actually meets the person who pulled the trigger because it's more about crime as an element/social epidemic. Although I thought BB did parts of it well. Not taking specific revenge or meeting Chill (with something happening to Chill) later as Batman was always a bit more poetic to me, if you will, and spoke to Batman's struggle against crime at large, and not getting caught up in purely personal vendettas.
バット人;22217403 said:
As for being a straight rewrite, it was. This happens in films all the time as stories can change and evolve. Burton thought it would be appropriate, thematically, to have a young Jack Napier be the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents and that's what he did. It may not be an interpretation you agree with or enjoy but it fits the interpretation of the film. To date, none of the 7 Batman films as well as other comic films have been "comic accurate" nor should they be. They're adaptations that implement the material for live action stories.
Yeah, I know a bit about how movies are made, but thanks.
And I'm not someone who ares about comic-accuracy like some comic fans do. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't classifying 'rewrite' as a knock or the like.
バット人;22217403 said:
I personally feel that it works. I like it, just like how I enjoy Harvey being scarred because of the Joker in TDK. It was a nice little twist for the third act and I really enjoyed it. I remember sitting in the theater and being completely surprised by it. There were no spoilers at the time other than the Comic Adaptation and the novel and I didn't read those until after I saw the film. It had this "I am your father" vibe to it that was quite shocking. I really expected a Joe Chill type murder but as soon as I saw the two pairs of feet following the Wayne's I knew we were in for something special. The whole scene is chilling and I love every moment of it. I know comic fans have an issue with it, but I seem to recall the co-creator of Batman, Bob Kane mentioning how he felt that it was a great idea and how he wishes he implemented it into their first stories as canon. If a creator approves it, it's good enough for me. The film stands as it's own thing.
Remember, Burton didn't have plans to "do another". There were no sequels in the works. The film was meant to be standalone, a one and done. So the idea of having the Joker die or be the killer of Bruce's parents weren't done with the intention of having a sequel in mind. Though, considering Jack Napier's connections to the mob I do believe the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne more than meets the eye. I am a firm believe that it was a mob hit of some kind but that's another story.
It was done to wrap up the story neatly as well as having an origin for Batman. There's nothing "convenient" about it really as there's nothing left wide open. One of the plots is that Batman and The Joker created each other, both literally and figuratively so it fits in my opinion. Liberties are taken for time and cohesion reasons. Nolan did this with Two-Face as well and Schumacher made Two-Face the killer of Dick Grayson's parents. It would take too much time or additional scenes to establish what happened in the comics. I think we all agree that the themes and story hold precedence over what happened in the comics. From Spider-Man being bitten by a genetically altered spider instead of a radioactive spider to Two-Face being created by the Joker instead of Maroni, it all works for the films.
As for Bruce Wayne's reaction to the revelation of his parent's killer, is it any different to Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins when he plans to kill Chill with a pistol? If the hit woman didn't "take care" of Chill Wayne would have.
As I remarked above, part of it is personal preference of Batman not actually meeting the specific killer. I this story, it just felt a bit too contrived or convenient....and admittedly bolstered by other things about the movie that I didn't like by the time it gets there. Put it this way, I probably would have liked the concept of Napier being the guy if I actually liked the movie more as it led up to it.
Although..I must admit that I was almost intrigued by it when I first watched it...because there was a part of me that opened a possibility that it wasn't actually Napier, but Wayne putting Napier's face on the killer. As if he did that to express that Napier represented what started him down this path in a more symbolic way, and not literally being him. But then it fell apart when they both confirmed it in the steeple...and that whole 'I was just a kid when I killed your folks..' way he remembered and all. It killed it for me.
バット人;22217403 said:
I don't see why fans are so unforgiving with the '89 Batman when it comes to story, use of guns on vehicles, killing etc. but find it completely acceptable in the latest versions of the film versions of the newest Dark Knight. Isn't that a double standard?
In the first two acts of Burton's film, Batman is very much like the modern interpretation of the character, he doesn't kill. Not the crooks on the rooftop in the beginning, none of the thugs at Axis Chemicals and none of the Joker's goons. This changes however when Wayne discovers that the Joker, Jack Napier killed his parents. Then the gauntlets are thrown and Batman has a no-holds-barred approach to completely eradicate the Joker and his men. What's wrong with that? The man just discovered that his arch-nemesis, this monster that's killing innocent people, the foe he's trying to stop is the very person that took is parents away from him. Is he supposed to just take it and take the Joker in by the book? Better yet, would the comic book Batman do this if he came across Joe Chill?
Like I said, it just 'feels' better in the newer ones. We could have a larger discussion, detail for detail, comparing every minute of each version. Cumulatively, the Nolan films just feel like a better experience as a film for some, myself included. You can let things 'slide' more easily in movies you like better.
バット人;22217403 said:
It's quite a thought provoking idea and I thought it was handled quite well. That right there is a double standard. I like when the Wayne's are killed by an anonymous, faceless, mugger, I like when the Wayne's are killed by Joe Chill, I like when the Wayne's are killed by Jack Napier. The central idea, no matter who commits the act is that this young boy loses his parents and it creates or inspires the Batman persona. Same with Two-Face. It doesn't matter if it's Maroni, The Joker or whoever, the act of being scarred is the focus.
In the comics, Batman mows down criminals with mounted machine guns. In the film, he mows down Joker's men with machine guns. It wasn't "violence for violence's sake". As stated previously, Batman didn't murder before the third act. He apprehended and subdued criminals with his fighting skills and gadgets. When he finds out that the Joker is responsible however, this attitude changes, as it should. Batman again, takes a no nonsesne, no-holds-barred approach in dealing with the Joker and his cohorts by eradicating them with extreme prejudice.
The Joker calls Batman out, via television. Bruce remembers the haunting, vivid memory of his parent's death at the hands of this madman and plans to stop him once and for all. He suits up and sends in his Batmobile on automated pilot to Axis Chemicals to take out the source of the Joker's Smylex and the master mind himself by destroying it. The Joker's goons are the causalities from the bombing raid. To Batman's anguish the Joker taunts him as he wasn't in the chemical plant so Batman must further pursue the Joker. During this, Batman does not once mow down any enemies with his Batmobile's mounted machine guns. The guns are used as a tool to open the garage doors, much like in TDK where Batman blasts the cars out of his way with the Batpod.
Then there's the parade. Batman obviously deducts the Joker's foul play and goes into the city with the Batwing. He sees that the Joker is murdering Gotham citizens with Smylex so he flies in and captures the balloons and sends them off into the atmosphere. It's not like he zooms in and mows down the Joker and his men. No, the city comes first. Then after it's clear and he foils the Joker's plot, he zeros in on the float. He mows down the goons with their weapons (they're threatening citizens) and then goes for the Joker.
I really don't see the problem here. It happened in the comics and it isn't out of character. It certainly isn't violence for the sake of violence. If that were the case we would see Batman with a hand gun, blowing off people's heads, breaking necks, like in Robocop. None of this happens. We see the chemical plant blowing up (the goons casualties aren't shown being blown to smithereens), we see QUICK glimpses of the goons and the float getting shot down and we see Batman defend himself from being beaten to death by tricking the Joker's strong thug and using his legs to throw the thug into the hole.
Now THAT is violence for the sake of it. I've never liked Batman strapping the bomb to the thug, whether it's meant to be comical or not. It wasn't comic accurate or a nod like vehicle machine gun mounts and I certainly didn't find it comical.
However, this is Batman Returns we're talking about, not Batman '89. I view them as completely different films because, well, they are.
It's all serious in Batman '89. GothamAlley's meant the dynamite gag and kills in Batman Returns, NOT Batman '89. There's nothing "looney toons" about the deaths in the first Batman film so I don't see what glaring, "big issue" you'd have with Batman 1989. It's consistent throughout in tone.
Yeah I knew the dynamite was in Returns. I'm referring to aspects like that in both films, and how they were badly used. Things like the guns/missiles in '89 and the dynamite in Returns did feel cartoonish because the movies made them feel that it was trying to be. Obviously, you're not asking the movie to hold a wake for every goon that got killed, but the fashion by which it played out onscreen ultimately felt wasteful with it for the sake of action appeal. Some claim that it's all in the "style of the movie"...well, it's not a very good style then..and not just because of that. At the end of the day, it very well may come down to different tastes, and honestly I'm really not a fan of Burton's in just about anything he's done...except Peewee and Ed Wood. But even given that, something about the machine guns, and the dynamite in Returns felt inconsistent.
バット人;22217403 said:
Kalmart, I think you'd really enjoy and understand more if you watched the documentaries on the first Batman film. It's mentioned again and again that the goal and desire of Burton and Co. was to go back to the roots, the 1939/1940s Batman and start there. That's the source of the film. Batman occasionally took lives in that era (well, he's taken lives in nearly every era and every film), carried a gun, killed with a gun and . . . had machine guns on his vehicles. Burton, Hamm, etc. didn't pick and choose, they used the first era of the character. If you want to argue, the death's that occur in Batman '89 are MUCH tamer than what happened in the early comics. Remember, in the first two acts, Batman doesn't kill, PERIOD. The third act he sends in the Batmobile on auto pilot (he's not in the Batmobile) on a collision course to destroy the Joker's lair. The causalities are some of the Joker's goons. The next time Batman kills is when he's done taking care of the gas and flies in and mows the float down. What would you expect a character to do, land it by the float and try to handcuff these guys with the automatic weapons? He quickly takes them and the float out. These guys just killed innocent people and have the intention of killing more.
I appreciate your enjoyment of them, and the recommendation of the documentaries...which I would actually watch out of passing interest. But, I highly doubt it would make me 'appreciate' or like the films more. Partly because I actually work in film, but also because I tend to judge how I like a film primarily on watching just the film itself....how it was delivered and how it feels as a piece. No, I'm not going to judge Batman against a Bergman film or the like, it's obviously out to do different things. Finding more about the behind-the-scenes can expose here and there why some decisions were made et al, some that couldn't be made any other way, etc....but its not like I'll suddenly like a movie that I didn't like.
Also, I'm obviously not a comic fan or avid reader...which can be a big advantage as well as a disadvantage when watching these types of movies. So if, say, Batman comics in the 40's had Batman shooting guns from his plane, that discovery doesn't suddenly help why someone didn't like it in the film....because it wasn't necessarily the lack of comic example that was 'missing'. There may be examples in Superman comics where he had a son, but it didn't help it in Superman Returns. So once again, even if they were specifically influenced by Batman using guns in 19=whatever comics, it still felt gratuitous and out of place inappropriately cartoonish in that movie. Documentaries won't help that, putting a 1950's comic with a panel-for-panel source for it won't help it either. It was a filmmaking thing.
Lily Adler#forthecontent! 📹 (she/her)
Hunter RiderRonin
