The Dark Knight Rises Paralleles between Nolanverse and Burtonverse

[KalMart]

Ah yes. In the end, we all know what's the best Joe Chill nod in all the franchise...

"Alright, everyone!... CHILL!"

Alrighty then.

Well, that's the kind of thing that happen in movies.

And sometimes not so well, like in this case.

Well, the 1939-1940 Batman was like that, machine guns in his plane and all.

Did he shoot people on the ground with them? And if so....was is a 'nod' in B'89?

 

[GothamAlleys]

It could be a 'nod' to Chill in that those familiar would think the first guy is going to do the deed...like Chill did....and surprise...we rewrote it that it's actually Joker!

I liked that in B89 and I liked that in TDK. In both its set up to think its going to be the guy from the comics and yet in both instances its Joker. Im talking about killing Waynes and creating Two Face. I thought it was a great move on both accounts

Did he shoot people on the ground with them? And if so....was is a 'nod' in B'89?

If I dont get the sarcasm or joke than sorry, but Im not sure if youre serious since Batman #1 is pretty known and of course he did shoot people with machine guns from the air. Not that he ever stopped killing in the comic books. He always does occasionally, from the characters inception to date (the fact that he doesnt is a funny and popular myth among causal comic fans or fans that joined recently and simply believe the common myth instead of actually reading themselves). If we want to be serious its obvious its impossible for crime fighters not to ever kill anyone (cops, soldiers, SWAT)

And yes, that shooting part WAS a nod to the comics. The original sequence appeared in Batman #1 and Burton's Batman was based on the first year primarily, and that was specifically a nod to that particular scene

 

[KalMart]

I liked that in B89 and I liked that in TDK. In both its set up to think its going to be the guy from the comics and yet in both instances its Joker. Im talking about killing Waynes and creating Two Face. I thought it was a great move on both accounts

Fair enough....but I felt it was a bit too forced that it was the Joker in B'89. I thought Joker 'creating' two face was done fine in comparison. Probably comes down more to how he actual movies were made. In general, there were a lot more things in the Burton movies that didn't play as well.

If I dont get the sarcasm or joke than sorry, but Im not sure if youre serious since Batman #1 is pretty known and of course he did shoot people with machine guns from the air. Not that he ever stopped killing in the comic books. He always does occasionally, from the characters inception to date (the fact that he doesnt is a funny and popular myth among causal comic fans). If we want to be serious its obvious its impossible for crime fighters not to ever kill anyone (cops, soldiers, SWAT)

No, I really didn't know that he did actually take people out with machine guns..which is really why I asked. That's interesting. I guess it again feels so wrong in this usage because it seemed so 'just there' for violence's sake.....like the guy with the dynamite on him et al. With this current Batman, they at least explore the cost of death by Batman's hand more (except the LOS mansion fire, maybe ), and why he avoids it as much as possible.

And yes, that shooting part WAS a nod to the comics. The original sequence appeared in Batman #1 and Burton's Batman was based on the first year primarily, and that was specifically a nod to that particular scene

Where'd the dynamite part in BR come from? Honestly...they probably should have chosen better things to 'nod' to instead....unless it was meant to seem gratuitous and out of place in the original comic as well.

 

[Frodo]

I think Batman useing guns in B89 was more about keeping in line with action films of the late 80's in which the heroes used guns and killed people, as opposed to keeping faithful to the early comics. While Burton and the writers did look to the early adventures , it don't think they said ," Hey, Batman killed in the early comics , so we can have him kill in our movie and still be true to the early comics".

Truth be told, Burton didn't care whether Batman killing was in line with the comics because , as I've stated before, killing wasn't an issue for him anyway.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

We all know Burton and Waters were not interested in anything to do with batman comics for BR its been broadly stated many times.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Fair enough....but I felt it was a bit too forced that it was the Joker in B'89. I thought Joker 'creating' two face was done fine in comparison. Probably comes down more to how he actual movies were made. In general, there were a lot more things in the Burton movies that didn't play as well.


No, I really didn't know that he did actually take people out with machine guns..which is really why I asked. That's interesting. I guess it again feels so wrong in this usage because it seemed so 'just there' for violence's sake.....like the guy with the dynamite on him et al. With this current Batman, they at least explore the cost of death by Batman's hand more (except the LOS mansion fire, maybe ), and why he avoids it as much as possible.



Where'd the dynamite part in BR come from? Honestly...they probably should have chosen better things to 'nod' to instead....unless it was meant to seem gratuitous and out of place in the original comic as well.

The dynamite wasnt really from comics, but stuff from first movie was. Here are some examples - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part-i.html

 

[Patty]

Still though... it'd be interesting to see how he deals with killing aman in the Nolan universe.

 

[KalMart]

The dynamite wasnt really from comics, but stuff from first movie was. Here are some examples - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part-i.html

See, it seems like the dynamite inclusion has more to do with why he used machine guns/missiles than the comics, though...because it was violent. The comics may be an example or pointed to as an excuse, but in the movie the only real way to stomach it is as movie-stuff. But then maybe it was just comic-stuff when used before in comics for visual entertainment, too. Doesn't quite make it nod-worthy to me in this case.

I actually like how his guns in BB/TDK are specifically not used directly on people, and only to clear a path or what have you.

 

[KalMart]

Still though... it'd be interesting to see how he deals with killing aman in the Nolan universe.

I think we've seen that quite a bit (if we can, again, forgive the big fire in the monastery ). How he refuses to execute someone, how he avoids directly killing Joker, and the weight he takes on by taking credit for the Dent murders. The 'but I don't have to save you' with Al Ghul is still pretty WTF, though.

 

[Patty]

I think we've seen that quite a bit (if we can, again, forgive the big fire in the monastery ). How he refuses to execute someone, how he avoids directly killing Joker, and the weight he takes on by taking credit for the Dent murders. The 'but I don't have to save you' with Al Ghul is still pretty WTF, though.

That comes close, but still it isn't directly killing a human being. I'd like to see him deal with his emotions after the rippling crunch of breaking a mans neck wont stop vibrating up his arms as he sleeps.

 

[GothamAlleys]

See, it seems like the dynamite inclusion has more to do with why he used machine guns/missiles than the comics, though...because it was violent. The comics may be an example or pointed to as an excuse, but in the movie the only real way to stomach it is as movie-stuff. But then maybe it was just comic-stuff when used before in comics for visual entertainment, too. Doesn't quite make it nod-worthy to me in this case.

I actually like how his guns in BB/TDK are specifically not used directly on people, and only to clear a path or what have you.

Well, that particular scene is a very comedic/cartoony one. Even Burton said he didnt thought of it as a murder, it was like Looney Toons kind of stuff

As for violent Batman, he was like that originaly and by acounts of 3 people they went back to roots to draw primarily from the first year

 

[Patty]

Well, that particular scene is a very comedic/cartoony one. Even Burton said he didnt thought of it as a murder, it was like Looney Toons kind of stuff
As for violent Batman, he was like that originaly and by acounts of 3 people they went back to roots to draw primarily from the first year

If this is a direct quote then that's HILARIOUS.

 

[KalMart]

Well, that particular scene is a very comedic/cartoony one. Even Burton said he didnt thought of it as a murder, it was like Looney Toons kind of stuff

Then I guess he shouldn't have played up his parents murder as so serious, then. That's a big issue with the film as a whole, unfortunately.

As for violent Batman, he was like that originaly and by acounts of 3 people they went back to roots to draw primarily from the first year

Yes, but it still doesn't make it good or well-done, though. I'm sure there are a lot of things in the comics over the years that you wouldn't exactly want to bring up as part of your movie.

Now...in the comic, there might have been a better context or stylistic sensibility/representation of the story for the time. Or...again...it was more of a cartoonish thing for kids reading the comic. So just pointing to the machine guns and killing is not enough to okay it in a movie like that.


By the way....2 people have said that Burton wasn't drawing direct influence from the comics in that regard. Should we wait for a third?

 

[KalMart]

That comes close, but still it isn't directly killing a human being. I'd like to see him deal with his emotions after the rippling crunch of breaking a mans neck wont stop vibrating up his arms as he sleeps.

Put it this way...I think it's near as makes no difference....in that he has the power and means to save his life, and he specifically chooses not to. It may not be direct murder, but it's certainly directly allowing someone to be killed. If someone was drowning, and you, who can swim, simply stood at the bank with a rope and did nothing but watch him die....it wouldn't be actually killing, but c'mon.

But to be fair...if the guy deserves it...hey, so be it. He may apprehend a murderer...and when he goes through trial, he gets the death penalty. Similar setup....so it can go different ways.

 

[Patty]

Put it this way...I think it's near as makes no difference....in that he has the power and means to save his life, and he specifically chooses not to. It may not be direct murder, but it's certainly directly allowing someone to be killed. If someone was drowning, and you, who can swim, simply stood at the bank with a rope and did nothing but watch him die....it wouldn't be actually killing, but c'mon.

But to be fair...if the guy deserves it...hey, so be it. He may apprehend a murderer...and when he goes through trial, he gets the death penalty. Similar setup....so it can go different ways.

You've got me on that one... I guess it is directly killing, although a straight up batarang through the heart would be WAAAY more of a killing than letting a train fall with a dude in it.

 

[KalMart]

You've got me on that one... I guess it is directly killing, although a straight up batarang through the heart would be WAAAY more of a killing than letting a train fall with a dude in it.

I'd say it's more 'excusable' given the context and circumstances.

And heck...if Al Ghul did somehow survive...I don't think Batman would go to the prison hospital and finish the job. He may hide the anesthesia, though.

 

[Patty]

I'd say it's more 'excusable' given the context and circumstances.

And heck...if Al Ghul did somehow survive...I don't think Batman would go to the prison hospital and finish the job. He may hide the anesthesia, though.

Or hit him up million dollar baby style.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Well regardless. I still don't like how the film executed that scene. Still should've had someone else cause the fire. The prisoner he didn't want to kill still ended up dead.

Besides Wayne got himself in the whole mess anyways. By leaving Gotham to only get himself locked up in a prison 10,000 miles away. Then Ras , who just so happens to be looking for vigilantes (in prisons ?) that he'd like to join his league , comes across Wayne and offers his help. Then Wayne accepts it . B/c it's better than rotting in prison with criminals that can't do any harm outside the prison anyway. Wayne knew what he was getting into. So he put himself in that situation anyways.

The point was that Bruce had changed as a person since then. He had grown past his desire for vengeance and into his later desire for justice.

But was he trained to fight 600 men who'd also been trained to fight 600 men.

And varying in experience, with many having far more experience than Bruce had at that point.

Makes sense. And that's what Bale says? I never understood why he claimed he couldn't beat two of Ra's' ninjas...

I saw it as him being cocky and sarcastic. Which is why Ra's al Ghul immediately sends more ninjas to assist the original two after Bruce says the line.

 

[バット人]

So are the first two crooks credited as 'crook 1' and 'crook 2' in the cast?

No, they're credited as Nic and Eddie on the TOPPS film cards and according to the script.

To me, it seems more like a straight rewrite, where Joker is the guy who actually killed them...regardless of who the other guy is....because the story dictates that they're murdered in the streets. It could be a 'nod' to Chill in that those familiar would think the first guy is going to do the deed...like Chill did....and surprise...we rewrote it that it's actually Joker! Either way, it seems more of a plot element than any real significance of acknowledging the name 'Chill' from the comics or what have you. So a nod to the story of them getting killed in an alleyway...which is in the comics like his wearing a Batsuit , etc....but in the comics it's a guy by the name of Joe Chill and here it's the guy who's the Joker.

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.

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.

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.

Honestly, I didn't really like the idea at the time. It was almost 'too convenient', if you will....and the "I'm going to kill you" by Bats seems not right for the character (along with the machine gunning and missile-ing to death

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.

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?

It's quite a thought provoking idea and I thought it was handled quite well.

Fair enough....but I felt it was a bit too forced that it was the Joker in B'89. I thought Joker 'creating' two face was done fine in comparison. Probably comes down more to how he actual movies were made. In general, there were a lot more things in the Burton movies that didn't play as 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.

No, I really didn't know that he did actually take people out with machine guns..which is really why I asked. That's interesting. I guess it again feels so wrong in this usage because it seemed so 'just there' for violence's sake.....like the guy with the dynamite on him et al.

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.

Where'd the dynamite part in BR come from? Honestly...they probably should have chosen better things to 'nod' to instead....unless it was meant to seem gratuitous and out of place in the original comic as well.

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.

Then I guess he shouldn't have played up his parents murder as so serious, then. That's a big issue with the film as a whole, unfortunately.

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.

Yes, but it still doesn't make it good or well-done, though. I'm sure there are a lot of things in the comics over the years that you wouldn't exactly want to bring up as part of your movie.

Now...in the comic, there might have been a better context or stylistic sensibility/representation of the story for the time. Or...again...it was more of a cartoonish thing for kids reading the comic. So just pointing to the machine guns and killing is not enough to okay it in a movie like that.


By the way....2 people have said that Burton wasn't drawing direct influence from the comics in that regard. Should we wait for a third?

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.

 

[Patty]

How do I pronounce your SN in english, bro?

 

[バット人]

My user name is actually "Batman" in Chinese. LOL. Batman and The Batman were taken so I thought I'd improvise.

 

[Patty]

YOU sir, have my favorite username on the board thus far. That was actually a really good idea.

 

[Fabian]

Once Nolan called Burtons Batman movies "Madness"

So what do we need to Call Nolans Batman movies? "Uber-Serious?"

 

[munchie64]

Once Nolan called Burtons Batman movies "Madness"

Source please?

 

[Fabian]

Source please?

i'm very ****ing sorry,but it was months ago when i read it.