The Dark Knight What 'departures from canon' are not acceptable to you?

[gdw]

I would've been thrilled had it just been Ducard. While I'm not exactly pissed, since Liam made a wonderful Ra's, changing the origin does change the relationship between Bruce and him quite a bit.


I don't remember this happening in the comics.


Lol....reach, much?

Wasn't reaching so much as pointing out how it COULD be even played onto that story.

HOWEVER, the main point with Chill was that the ONLY thing they changed was when and how he died.

Seeing as how even that is not too concrete in the comics there really was no deviation with Chill, I still don't get what was ment by there being a change with him.

The Ra's training him thing was already cleared up, as for the relationship, I don't think it changed it at all given the training and betrayals etc in the books.

 

[Arkard]

In the comic books Joe Chill was a ruthless and cold killer, who came to kill the Waynes cause Thomas was planning to testify againts some mob boss. Honestly, Joe Chill was almost exactly like the guy who was portrayed in Burton's Batman, when Bruce remembers his past. That was the comic book Joe Chill, not a shaky bum who wanted to steal some money for more crack. At least that's what it was originally, maybe they retconed something laterly, I am not really up to date with the comic books... the point is Nolan's Chill WAS a liberty. It worked for the movie but it was still a change from the comics. The very first original that is.

 

[Crooklyn]

Wasn't reaching so much as pointing out how it COULD be even played onto that story.

HOWEVER, the main point with Chill was that the ONLY thing they changed was when and how he died.

Seeing as how even that is not too concrete in the comics there really was no deviation with Chill, I still don't get what was ment by there being a change with him.

The change is making Chill the killer, which is no longer in the canon.

The Ra's training him thing was already cleared up, as for the relationship, I don't think it changed it at all given the training and betrayals etc in the books.

What training? By the time Bats meets Ra's, Bruce was already in his peak. Hence why Ra's sought to make him his successor, because Ra's knew the immense potential in getting Bruce on his side.

 

[Arkard]

What training? By the time Bats meets Ra's, Bruce was already in his peak. Hence why Ra's sought to make him his successor, because Ra's knew the immense potential in getting Bruce on his side.

What training? How about the fact that when they first met, Ras wiped the floor with Bruce, and during all that training.. you know, balancing on the poles, teaching him to "face 500 men", sword fights on the frozen lake and so forth, Bruce finally was able to pose a threat to Ras, as portrayed in the final battle scene in the train.

The change is making Chill the killer, which is no longer in the canon.

Aha... so they DID change it. Thought as much.

 

[Crooklyn]

What training? How about the fact that when they first met, Ras wiped the floor with Bruce, and during all that training.. you know, balancing on the poles, teaching him to "face 500 men", sword fights on the frozen lake and so forth, Bruce finally was able to pose a threat to Ras, as portrayed in the final battle scene in the train.

The training....in the comics.

 

[Arkard]

Ah, my mistake, I apologise and offer this as my amends, the greatest Super Bowl Ad ever: http://youtube.com/watch?v=taRPwYe1EYA

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Actually, in the comic books Joe Chill is back in canon. He was caught soon after the Wayne Murders. But, Joe Chill is back in continuity. So, instead of "faceless thug" there is a name and face to him again.

 

[Cristo]

Why is everybody ignoring my opinions?

And why are you stealing them, Arkand?

That's not funny...that's not.

Will somebody please acknowledge that I'm here without stealing my opinions or joking around?

Isn't this a board to discuss "The Dark Knight" or have I wondered onto IMDB's Soapbox?

 

[Arkard]

Hey, this board is nothing like the IMDB. So far nobody implied you have sex with your cat.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ are you two the same person?

 

[Arkard]

No? Why would you think so?

 

[Cristo]

HECK NO! That is one of the most ludicrous accusations I have laid eyes upon.

Now, I just want somebody to acknowledge my earlier post. Why has it escalated into unanimous ignorance and mutliple-account accusations?!?

 

[Arkard]

Hey, you wished you were me! :P

 

[Warhammer]

...oh boy..............

How awkward.....

 

[Cristo]

I never wished I was you, you punk b****!

 

[TheBat812]

This is gay.

 

[Arkard]

Hey, I did not start this thread... and I am not the one throwing sissy fits over the fact I am being ignored. Anyway, if there is any concern about my identity, head on over to IMDB, I am basically all time there.

 

[Retroman]

The Joker's look is iconic and not something i'd want them to screw around with too much.

 

[Arkard]

I also thought the Joker's look is iconic.
Until Morrison completely knocked that idea into the sewers. I am all for comic books to dwell more on the characters, but adding a perma grin to the Joker is simply over kill cause it goes againts his essentials. And to me looks nothing more tan a very cheap attempt at making the character darky. Eh, I really dislike this new idea. Here are the downsides:
- to a movie producer like Nolan, seeing such a change (cause there is chance this issue will reach him) will make him think that there really is not alot of iconicy to The Joker which may result in something too liberal in terms of character realisation in his movie,
- Morrison gave us great self included novelas but he should keep that ***** out of the regular comic books, cause they always affect the course of the character. What may have worked in a separate, completely autonomic creation is not always a good idea for a serial. Now we will get the perma-grin in every comic book.
- It makes Joker look like yet another generic psycho. He lost the clown aspect. Now he is a Killer Clown... I always thought the kewy to the originality of The Joker were his underestimating looks. He was supposed to look quite... unthreatening but scare us through his actions.

I think I am just bitter...

 

[Cristo]

Wait...so, now, I'm making sissy fits because I'm being ignored. I'm here to discuss the movie and you're here to steal other people's ideas! Everybody just up and decided to personally ignore me, and then you come along stealing my ideas.

These people suck! I'm going to the "Non-Spoilers" board.

 

[kenellard]

Something like this happened over on the general movies thread once, some guy was agreeing with himself under two different accounts, which is all well and good, everyone needs a buddy, even if he's a psychosematic manifestation. but this is just sad

 

[Arkard]

WHY would I make up Cristo?

 

[Cristo]

WHY would I make up Arkard?

 

[Arkard]

You know you are really not helping.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

In the comic books Joe Chill was a ruthless and cold killer, who came to kill the Waynes cause Thomas was planning to testify againts some mob boss. Honestly, Joe Chill was almost exactly like the guy who was portrayed in Burton's Batman, when Bruce remembers his past. That was the comic book Joe Chill, not a shaky bum who wanted to steal some money for more crack. At least that's what it was originally, maybe they retconed something laterly, I am not really up to date with the comic books... the point is Nolan's Chill WAS a liberty. It worked for the movie but it was still a change from the comics. The very first original that is.

Actually, the characterization of Joe Chill is vague and inconsistent at best.

In the original, very brief origin of Batman (in Detective #33), Chill says about as much as he does in Begins. "Give me her pearls," etc. He does seem to be more vicious than in Begins, saying something along the lines of "This'll shut you up!" before shooting.

But in the issue where Chill is killed by the mob for being "the man who created Batman" (Batman #48), Chill is clearly shaken up by young Bruce, yelling "Stop looking at me like that, kid!" Begins doesn't emphasize this penetrative, accusing stare of Bruce's, but Nolan's Chill seems awkward and uncomfortable enough just the same.

I chalk it up to the differences between film and (especially early) comic writing. People act and say things in comics in a way that people simply don't act in real life. This is not to disparage writers like Bill Finger and Gardner Fox, but writing was very simplistic back then. Characterizations like this have to be revamped for the sake of, well..not coming off as a stilted, live action cartoon.

And of course, it's also a creative decision used to serve the story. Without Chill being a "desperate man", you lose that whole theme of poverty, crime, corruption, the motivations for Ra's, etc that's so central to the film.