Batman-Online.com

Okay, so, I know that Batman 89 is suppose to be viewed as a standalone Batman feature, but how do you think a Burton trilogy would have turned out if trilogies had been the norm back then?  What if Burton and Keaton would have been hired from the get-go to do a planned trilogy?  I think that would have been very interesting.  Any thoughts?

Johnny Depp would play the Mad Hatter:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg142.imageshack.us%2Fimg142%2F8509%2Falicenopaisdasmaravilha.th.jpg&hash=a8f5c98e07064c1bae186b0e71881155cd018ec7) (http://img142.imageshack.us/i/alicenopaisdasmaravilha.jpg/)

Jon Peters had the intention of doing a trilogy from the start.

I wonder why they didnt?

I dont want to knock Burton, or Batman Returns, but I wonder why they didnt follow the same format as Batman and continue the story in Batman 2, filming at Pinewood.

I have heard the story why, but I dont understand the reason why they decided to take the diversion they did.

Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 19 Sep  2009, 21:30
I wonder why they didnt?

I dont want to knock Burton, or Batman Returns, but I wonder why they didnt follow the same format as Batman and continue the story in Batman 2, filming at Pinewood.

I have heard the story why, but I dont understand the reason why they decided to take the diversion they did.

Burton was apparently a little dissatisfied with the first Batman (goodness knows why) and wanted the follow-up to be considered a separate distinct film rather than a direct sequel (although the writers of 'Returns' still managed to throw in some references to the first film - including Selina's ref to Vicki Vale).  In any case, I like to regard 'Returns' as a sequel even if Burton doesn't.   ;D

Yeah I am the same Johnnygobbs. But some elements to it I dont like.

I know his reasons why. Though sometimes I think its a shame WB didnt follow up Batman with a more continuous sequel

In some ways Batman forever is the final film in the trilogy batmans claim that "im batman not because i have to be but because i choose to be" stuff is like him finally getting rid of his demons (as far as he can he will always be effected in some way) and embracing his role as defender of gotham on his terms rather then a permanent guilt trip because of his parents murder.

But in more ways its not.  Keaton is the best actor to don the suit and the movie was far to light hearted at times (carey is a great comedian but his riddler was to comical and we all know how poor twoface was.

I can just imaging if BF was filmed by Burton, had keaton reprise his role, the sets where in the B89 style gotham and the movie was not so comical and light at times as schumachers film it could have been amazing stuff imo.

I would have liked to have seen a third Burton Batman film, with Keaton, Gough and Hingle and maybe a few other members of the previous two films (ideally Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent), but perhaps with a slightly different vibe to either Batman or Batman Returns, allowing all three films to differentiate themselves.  I think it would have been odd if Burton had made a direct sequel to Returns bearing in mind that the first two films were not directly related.

I think that's the catch though. Burton was not under contract for a sequel and WB could have just hired another director to go along with Sam Hamm's script that Burton threw out. The best part about that would be that they could have stayed at Pinewood, but I still love what we got.

Then, assuming that version of Returns (Hamm's story made by another director) was made and successful, they could have carried on with the third one in a similar vein, just without Tim Burton.

Yeah, it would've sucked if Burton only made the one movie but for the sake of the third one, (dare I say) it would've been worth it, IMHO.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 19 Sep  2009, 23:37
I would have liked to have seen a third Burton Batman film, with Keaton, Gough and Hingle and maybe a few other members of the previous two films (ideally Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent), but perhaps with a slightly different vibe to either Batman or Batman Returns, allowing all three films to differentiate themselves.  I think it would have been odd if Burton had made a direct sequel to Returns bearing in mind that the first two films were not directly related.

Complete agree man!

i love batman returns but it will always bother me how it's all filmed inside a refrigerated burbank studio - is there one scene filmed outdoors? - i think maybe just that one overhead shot of selena's car

would've been great to have the 1st 3 all at pinewood with burton and keaton

i could see carrey opposite keaton working - can't see billy dee working as 2 face though for some reason

Quote from: WingedFreak71 on Tue, 22 Sep  2009, 03:23
i love batman returns but it will always bother me how it's all filmed inside a refrigerated burbank studio - is there one scene filmed outdoors? - i think maybe just that one overhead shot of selena's car

would've been great to have the 1st 3 all at pinewood with burton and keaton

i could see carrey opposite keaton working - can't see billy dee working as 2 face though for some reason

Is it because he is an afro american?

If Burton returned for the third film, we would have had a trilogy. A very interesting trilogy in that it retained a loose continuity in different environments with different atmospheres.

Sure, this was the case with Forever as well, but it isn't the true finale for that set of films. Burton was the man to finish off his own series. If he was around, things would have been done very differently. Anything after them is un-connected and not canon, even if they do reference them. The Burton films stand alone by themselves.

Is it true that before WB asked Burton to leave the franchise, they proposed to him that he could make the third film only on the condition that he just make the movie and not have full control like he did on Returns?

I am not sure if WB offered Burton to do the third on their terms. But what I do know which is on the Returns SE DVD is that Burton was very enthusiastic about doing a third and WB suggested he stepped down. In which he did.

Don't know about you guys but I'm still holding out hope that Burton will one day, return to Batman.

ARE YOU HEARING ME WB?!!  >:(

One thing I never understood is why Burton was given a producer credit for Forever when he obviously had nothing to do with it. Same thing with Peters & Guber for Returns.

Maybe it's all in the contracts.

Quote from: batass4880 on Tue, 22 Sep  2009, 20:35
Same thing with Peters & Guber for Returns.

Apparently they were on set.

I hate how Burton's name is attached to Forever. He had nothing to do with it. All it does is tarnish his name.

Quote from: ral on Wed, 23 Sep  2009, 01:14

Quote from: batass4880 on Tue, 22 Sep  2009, 20:35
Same thing with Peters & Guber for Returns.

Apparently they were on set.

Wow, never knew that. It must have bugged the hell out of Peters that he couldn't tell Burton what to do.

i don't think billy dee williams ever had the kind of star power to be considered as a possibility for a major villain in a summer blockbuster - i doubt burton would have used him had he been in charge of batman forever

It would've been great to see what Gotham's Chinatown would've looked like had Burton made the third film and made it at Pinewood.

Quote from: WingedFreak71 on Wed, 23 Sep  2009, 03:09
i don't think billy dee williams ever had the kind of star power to be considered as a possibility for a major villain in a summer blockbuster - i doubt burton would have used him had he been in charge of batman forever

Rubbish. I think Burton would have used him. Seen a film called The Empire Strikes Back by any chance?

Burton was Executive producer on batman Forever wasnt he?

Spielberg was Executive producer on a lot of films, yet had nothing to do with them. For one it gives the movie a bit more weight at the box office if Spielbergs name is attached - same could be said for Burton and Batman Forever.

However, maybe it was a payoff for Burton on WB part, for them not letting him do the third, kind of a golden handshake..... no doubt Burton got a good few dollors profit being Executive Producer on Batman Forever since it was such a financial success. Just a thought.

yeah Billy Dee Williams was SO good in ESB/ROTJ that 10 years later he got another acting job lol

he only gets added respect on this board because he was IN the film we all worship - and by 1995 (Forever time) he'd been completely off of hollywood radar

he was fine though with his few lines in B89 - but so was Eckhardt (Porkins from ESB by the way) and the hooker who propositions the 10 year old kid in the opening

Harrison Ford was in those movies too and he probably could've made a great Two-Face. I could even see him playing Dent in '89. Williams was good though.

Quote from: WingedFreak71 on Wed, 23 Sep  2009, 03:09
i don't think billy dee williams ever had the kind of star power to be considered as a possibility for a major villain in a summer blockbuster - i doubt burton would have used him had he been in charge of batman forever

I agree.

It's no secret WB enjoyed having big name celebs play the villains. Nicholson worked out brilliantly with Batman. Danny Devito was being rumored for the Penguin years before it actually happened, and Michelle was just the right actress for Catwoman as well. Being that Annette Benning was originally cast, but got a bun in the oven via Dick Tracy, WB in a unforeseen turn of events, simply got extremely lucky there.

In 1994, when Batman Forever was filming, Billy Dee simply did not have the star power WB preferred, and no doubt it would have been heavily suggested to Burton for Two-Face to be played by a much more high profiled actor.

As Billy Dee says, "That's show business!".

Personally, I reckon Batman 3 may have cast Billy Dee Williams as 'Two-Face, and that Burton would have placated the studio's demand for a star by casting Robin Williams (no relation  ;D) as The Riddler.  After all, the role of 'Two-Face' was promised to BDW before he signed up for the first Batman, although I do take into account what has been said about him no longer being a big name by 1995 (the earliest date Batman 3 could have been realised).

Quote from: batass4880 on Wed, 23 Sep  2009, 21:03
Harrison Ford was in those movies too and he probably could've made a great Two-Face. I could even see him playing Dent in '89. Williams was good though.

Very interesting idea! Would have worked. Harrison could have used a villain role and his an A-list celebrity, so he would have fit the bill in that regard.

I always kinda figured that a third Burton movie would revolve around the Scarecrow and take place around Halloween.  Scarecrow always seemed like a very Burton'ish villain to me.  I figure there'd be a natural pairing (and then eventual rivalry between) Hugo Strange and the Scarecrow... a notion I had, btw, long before that sequel to LOTDK's Prey storyline came around.  And that's exactly how I wouldn't tell that story, incidentally.

As far as I'm concerned, the sky was the limit when it came to Burton and the Batman franchise.  He could've adapted basically anything from the comics into his universe and it would've fit pretty well.  Strange's monster men would've fit in naturally with BR's production design (although perhaps not so much the winter setting).

I think a third Burton Batman movie would be very intersting. Personally I could see Burton bringing back Billy Dee Williams as Dent and Two Face because he mused with the idea during the Batman 89 commentry. It would have been a good send of if Burton completed his trilogy. As for villians I would have wanted to see Scarecrow and Two Face. Who knows maybe it would follow some kind of conntunity but alas we will never find out, damm WB sometimes lol. ::)

Quote from: Scarecrow756 on Thu, 15 Oct  2009, 15:47
As for villians I would have wanted to see Scarecrow and Two Face.

A Burton Scarecrow would have been brilliant.

I think 1 and 2 have continuity on the fact that DC #28's story is about a monicle wearing guy who frames batman. This fits in with how 27 has a prelude to the Joker's origin and chemical plot.

Returns is issue #28 along with newer Penguin stories, just as 89 was #27 with newer Joker stories. I never see them as too different.

A third film may have to break that line and choose the previously mentioned villains, however.

I beleive a Burton ScareCrow would have been freaky and awsome and to hell with anyone who thinks his scarecrow should be ruined by the role of a top pop culture icon like 3 and 4 (Stern...no, even if I do like him and I say 3 and 4 because they were sloppy with what they could have chosen). I hope that Nolan wises up and sees the Docter in him is about over. I don't always want him half the stereotypical bussiness suit guy from Double Dragon, Street Fighter (Chun Li) or other.

Realy, I don't like the direction I think he may go in as ScarCrow needed to become a loner psychopath and start using the Streight Jacket for now on to mimick the original book's look.

He still could later and then it will be more like the comic, so I hope he was planning this all along. It needs to be that he became influenced by his own spray of his chemicals and starts thinking about using the image of the insane one to inflict fear. It looks near on par with the comic and fits right in with the Nolan universe of BatMan.

   From what I've seen on a separate fan site for burton (specifically for his batman movies) the plan was to do the four main villains from the adam west show- joker, catwoman, penguin, riddler.  It would make sense to do more than one movie for a batman franchise.  It is too big to fit in one movie and three movies is the perfect amount of movies for a batman franchise in my opinion. (burton would make it work anyhow).  
    And as regarding tim burton wanting batman returns to be a "separate untainted work" , I think that is stupid.  Where do you think the bat signal, vicki- two references, and everyone knowing who batman was (batman frame up-"batman killed the princess", penguin telling the horrors of batman in speech-"costumed freak", selena kyle knowing who batman was, commissioner gordon, etc.), same bat car, plane, and cave.  Burton obviously worked hard to make a good batman franchise/trilogy (and what I read from that fansite the third batman looked really good)

    As far as why a third batman movie was made, its perfectly obvious to me.  The big shots didn't like the sewer penguin.  They didn't like that he was deformed, he lived in a sewer, and that he was a mean/evil guy (or the sexual references).  They didn't like that because he wouldn't be liked or understood by kids or their parents.  And heres the truth- IT WASN'T A KIDS MOVIE!!!- no batman movies are supposed to be kids movies.  Batman Returns was a realistic protrayal of the Penguin and Catwoman.  Batman is about a guy dressed up as a bat trying to stop bad, evil, psychotic men(and women) who are trying to kill or take over gotham (or the united states in the jokers case).  It is alright for animated shows that show a watered down version of what batman is (though the animated series was very good, its just that the burton batman was made more realistic and fleshed out) and action figures that protray those shows (why they put out ledger joker action figures I'll never know).  Therefore, McDonals shouldn't be expecting a kid friendly movie and parents shouldn't be expecting an under 14 movie!  Obviously the big guys cared more about selling the batman franchise to children and making it more appealing to them than making a good and realistic batman movie.  And that is why burton and keaton got out of the project.  
         The sales declined because a) it wasn't the first batman movie and didn't have as big of a fever pitch  b) not as famous villains (philistines)  c) the afore mentioned.  The fact is is that the penguin is seen as a not so appealing character.  And therefore they shouldn't be watching the movie because that is what the penguin is (the only true/realistic/makes sense penguin protrayed in comics or television in my opinion-pure genius by burton, hamm, devito)  And what I read on a website that burton said is true.  Burton said that the first batman was the darker one.  He was right.  The Joker was psychotic and wanted to kill everyone (especially gotham) and take over the US.  Though the Penguin was bad (kill babies, later 100,000 Gothamites), in my opinion he wasn't quite as bad as the joker- though pretty close.  Its just his image, demeanor, and attitude that people didn't like.  And that is why a burton trilogy never got made.  Its just our luck that the riddler wasn't the second batman movie(though the fan site said they didn't like the direction burton's vision was going with that one either).

If you are going to post here, use paragraphs. That goes for everyone.

Sorry about the paragraphs.  I am new and got carried away I guess.  Though paragraphs do look alot nicer.......

WB may or may not have liked BR but had it made about $20 million or so more than it did, a third Burton movie would've been inevitable.

Also, I'd call the Burton films (and the characters thereof) many things but "realistic" isn't one of 'em.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 26 Nov  2009, 06:29
Also, I'd call the Burton films (and the characters thereof) many things but "realistic" isn't one of 'em.

Yep. Ripped straight from the pages of a comic book. As it should be.

    I know most people think that the burton batman movies are corny and on a different planet (he must've done something right or there wouldn't be a whole site devoted to his batman movies).  And I say to them that maybe they just don't understand them as well as they think they do.  After all, I think all of his movies are brilliant and most of the world thinks his movies are weird.  (what does that say about the world? - I won't go there)
    In my opinion, if you look real hard into his movies you'll see how good and realistic they are.  The burton version of the penguin origin (and joker origin, and catwoman origin) make a lot more sense than the comics or television series made it in the past (please dont stone me).  What I mean is is that though the Nolan movies are easier to see as realistic and are more grittier, that doesn't make it any more realistic than any other batman story.  What I mean is that while it is easier to imagine nolans batman in our world that doesn't make it any more likely that it would happen.  The content has to be judged, not the movie.  Sorry for the nolan bashing (won't happen again  :)), but hopefully i've made my point.

Here are some interesting things I found to show my point:

nicholson interview for mtv.com (on responding to watching the dk):
Nicholson: I'm not inclined to watch it because of what I said. But if it's a good movie, I'll catch up with it somewhere. I don't think they ever really captured Tim Burton's spirit [since he stopped being involved]. They kind of drove the franchise into the ground. Tim Burton's a genius. He had the right take on it. That's why I did the movie. I did the movie based on a single conversation with him. We both come from the cartoon world originally. We had similar ideas. Tim said [the Joker] should have a humorous dark side to him. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him. He's the most unassuming man. And he doesn't feel pressure. That's what I love about him. Once he's in there, he's smiling making the movie. That's it!

plus-  danny devito- nicholsons friend- did the movie pretty much because of nicholsons recommendation (plus did anyone forget aliens attack- both nicholson and devito- both liked burton)

In response to colorsblend - he's right.  Money is the driving force.  But it is also a viscious cycle.  The only way they were going to get the money is if they made the movie appealing to the kids and stuff.  So it is like a paradox.  They knew it wasn't going to make big money because of the backlash because of the penguin and catwoman.  What I'm saying is that the money needed to get over the hump was never going to be made.  They would've done burton if the money would be made, but they knew it wouldn't.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 26 Nov  2009, 15:08
Here are some interesting things I found to show my point:

nicholson interview for mtv.com (on responding to watching the dk):
Nicholson: I'm not inclined to watch it because of what I said. But if it's a good movie, I'll catch up with it somewhere. I don't think they ever really captured Tim Burton's spirit [since he stopped being involved]. They kind of drove the franchise into the ground. Tim Burton's a genius. He had the right take on it. That's why I did the movie. I did the movie based on a single conversation with him. We both come from the cartoon world originally. We had similar ideas. Tim said [the Joker] should have a humorous dark side to him. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him. He's the most unassuming man. And he doesn't feel pressure. That's what I love about him. Once he's in there, he's smiling making the movie. That's it!

plus-  danny devito- nicholsons friend- did the movie pretty much because of nicholsons recommendation (plus did anyone forget aliens attack- both nicholson and devito- both liked burton)

great quote burtongenius.  in addition, did you catch tim's cameo in Hoffa?

Dang  :D!  And why am I not surprised.  That is the perfect example to show how much they were all bosom buddies.  Plus you can't forget Big Fish.  I am definetely going to watch that movie for the cameo.  Thanks for the tip ral.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 26 Nov  2009, 15:03
In my opinion, if you look real hard into his movies you'll see how good and realistic they are.  The burton version of the penguin origin (and joker origin, and catwoman origin) make a lot more sense than the comics or television series made it in the past (please dont stone me).

Offhand, I can't remember the Penguin's origin ever being addressed in the comics or TAS.  It therefore wouldn't be hard for Burton's version to be more realistic.

As to Catwoman, the comics portrayed her either as a hooker with an inferiority complex or an amnesiac (or not?) flight attendant with a thirst for girl power; neither intrigue me.

So, again, Burton is top dog by way of attrition.

That leaves the Joker.  The prime difference between the comics/TKJ origin and Burton's is Jack Napier's development as Grissom's #2 as opposed to a down on his luck comedian.  I think the failed comedian bit is kind of sappy.  He's forever reacting to a world that knows he's not really funny.  Burton gave us a character who starts off deranged and becomes a sociopath.  Murder was once the guy's business; now it's the joke.  Frankly, I'll take the B89 Joker over any other one because it doesn't try to give him some BS character arc.  Jack was a sicko but the acid made him a psycho.

So yes, Burton's version is genuinely better than the comics.

QuoteWhat I mean is is that though the Nolan movies are easier to see as realistic and are more grittier,

BB had obvious realism going in the overall narrative but the more I watch TDK, the more stylized it becomes.  The impossibility (or at least improbability) of the Brother Eye/sonar concept along with other things make it hard for me to see the film in the same strict, realistic grounding BB shot for.  I'm not criticizing Nolan, incidentally, I'm just saying he took a bit of a departure from the style he set up in BB.  It's a truth, not a criticism or a praise.

The main point, however, is that Nolan's realism strikes me more and more as a veneer.  A very thin one.

Quote from: ral on Thu, 26 Nov  2009, 16:18
great quote burtongenius.  in addition, did you catch tim's cameo in Hoffa?

Not that it was a Nicholson film but he also cameod (along with, like, half of Seattle's music community of the time) in Singles.  If memory serves, he was the videographer who shot someone's singles video tape.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 04:13
As to Catwoman, the comics portrayed her either as a hooker with an inferiority complex or an amnesiac (or not?) flight attendant with a thirst for girl power; neither intrigue me.

So, again, Burton is top dog by way of attrition.

That leaves the Joker.  The prime difference between the comics/TKJ origin and Burton's is Jack Napier's development as Grissom's #2 as opposed to a down on his luck comedian.  I think the failed comedian bit is kind of sappy.  He's forever reacting to a world that knows he's not really funny.  Burton gave us a character who starts off deranged and becomes a sociopath.  Murder was once the guy's business; now it's the joke.  Frankly, I'll take the B89 Joker over any other one because it doesn't try to give him some BS character arc.  Jack was a sicko but the acid made him a psycho.

So yes, Burton's version is genuinely better than the comics.

Full agreement. Burton's Batman universe beats everything. Fact.

In response to colorsblend-

 The comics and the tv show I think (not a real big buff) had the penguin origin as a bullied child who liked birds alot and when he grew up he took his revenge on the world ( plus was a crime/business boss in most versions- not all).  Some versions of the penguin had him with the penguin hand and some didn't.  What burton and hamm did was make sense out of all the data of the penguin of who he was and how he came to be (and definetelly added some).  Plus as a side note, when officially on for the movie tim burton said how he just didn't understand the whole penguin crime boss angle.  He absolutely just didn't understand why a man was called the penguin if he didn't go through the origin that he made on the screen.  He didn't understand why a regular man (not deformed) could be called the penguin.  And it makes sense when you think about it (I read this on a batman returns site- not making things up :)).  
  As far as catwoman is concerned I think the afore mentioned origins are parts of the pieces that burton and hamm put together (and added some).  The whole genuine passive girl is traumatized into a psycho revengeful cat is the perfect origin for the catwoman in my opinion.  This video gives pfeiffers take on the script.  It starts at 1:28  and goes on for about half to a full minute.
http://www.youtube.com/v/pbUvzoHsM_k

She says how much she thinks of burton as a genius in a different video but I couldn't find it. (who needs it anyway right?)

 As far as the joker is concerned that is a complicated mess.  Like I said before for the penguin and catwoman, burton and hamm hammered out the joker that made the most sense from the data and what they considered was a realistic joker.  Now, to move on you have to establish one thing.  Is the joker a guy who tells and makes a joke out of life because he is a failed comedian or is the joker because of the card deck joker.  They are two very different things.  Both versions allow him to use his electric buzzers and so on.  Second, if he is the card deck joker then where do all the funny and jokes come from?  Not because he simply fell into a vat of chemicals.  The reason Jack Nicholson/Jack Napier went crazy was because his face looked like a creepy clown.  And it looked like a clown due to the hair, skin, and most important the engineered clown smile.  This is the kicker.  This is where burton really blows me away.  Nobody would go crazy if just their hair and skin went bad.  The surgeon smile made him look like a clown/something else entity.  And that is what made him go crazy (plus that his whole face and human identity was destroyed by a setup over a woman- that is definetely a pushing point). 
  The comics had the joker get in a vat of chemicals and get his skin bleached and his hair died and then had him just get crazy.  I don't buy that crap one bit.  And I don't buy the paintg your face thing either (sorry ledger). 

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 06:53
Nobody would go crazy if just their hair and skin went bad.  The surgeon smile made him look like a clown/something else entity.  And that is what made him go crazy

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 06:53
And I don't buy the paintg your face thing either (sorry ledger). 

Funny you state that it's the smile that sends The Joker over the edge, not the green hair or white skin - then proceed to roast Ledger's Joker. By that logic, it should not matter one inch if Ledger's Joker fell into the acid or not. The smile is far more important than the skin bleach and hair dye.

The smile is the root of the Ledger Joker's insanity as well. He was always asking people how he got the scars and so on. That's his permawhite. He can't take that off. He's just applying the makeup and hair dye to complete the look.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 04:13
Offhand, I can't remember the Penguin's origin ever being addressed in the comics or TAS.  It therefore wouldn't be hard for Burton's version to be more realistic.

The Penguin's origin was actually addressed in 1989.

The issue? Secret Origins Special #1 (Vol. 2). Which also contained separate stories involving the Riddler, and Two-Face.

Quite frankly, Penguin's comic book origin works quite well for how he is regularly portrayed in the funny books. Though I can't say it was at all surprising to see a different take on the character in 1992 with Batman Returns. As things do indeed change when bringing comic book material to the silver screen.

QuoteAs to Catwoman, the comics portrayed her either as a hooker with an inferiority complex or an amnesiac (or not?) flight attendant with a thirst for girl power; neither intrigue me.

Modern writers have attributed Catwoman's activities and costumed identity as a response to a history of abuse. And yeah, the hooker aspect of her past has been toyed with as well. Personally, I view the modern DC Comics Catwoman to be much more of a adrenaline junkie than Burton's interpretation ever was. The version I love best is the depiction of her as an international thief (and occasional bounty hunter) with an ambiguous moral code.

QuoteThat leaves the Joker.  The prime difference between the comics/TKJ origin and Burton's is Jack Napier's development as Grissom's #2 as opposed to a down on his luck comedian.  I think the failed comedian bit is kind of sappy.  He's forever reacting to a world that knows he's not really funny.  Burton gave us a character who starts off deranged and becomes a sociopath.  Murder was once the guy's business; now it's the joke.  Frankly, I'll take the B89 Joker over any other one because it doesn't try to give him some BS character arc.  Jack was a sicko but the acid made him a psycho.

The prime difference between Burton's interpretation of the Joker and the comic book version of the character, is that Burton gave the Joker a definitive origin as well as standing in for Joe Chill in the form of Jack Napier. Where in the comics, there is no *definitive* Joker origin.
Hell, even the Joker himself mentions in TKJ that he's not exactly sure what happened ("I prefer it multiple choice").

Which was smart of Alan Moore to include into the story. Despite the many fanboys proclaiming to this very day that TKJ is the Joker's definitive origin where it's stated IN THE VERY SAME BOOK that it's anything but. Maybe some refer to TKJ as their favorite Joker story or that they like the origin as presented there (as it is a more complex version of the original Joker origin story from the fifties (Red Hood, chemical vat etc), but that's an entirely different issue.

The only thing that is for sure is that he was the Red Hood for some reason or another and ended up taking a header into that vat of chemicals. That's it.

"Lovers and Madmen" is yet another take of the Joker's origin.

And yeah, even the Jack Napier/1989 origin was mentioned in the comics as well.  ;D

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F6645%2Fcountdown31.jpg&hash=c2f8289eb2d519538d6c12bc0bd10811607de227)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F764%2Fcountdown31a.jpg&hash=eb5d83dc5a7224a52fed0006cf3c2b72b3aebdd8)

In reply to the dark knight.  What I'm saying is that the smile with the hair and skin put him over the edge.  They all worked together to make him into a monster.  It was the whole effect of all three elements.  As far as ledger, I dont think the cut smile made him crazy at all.  I think it made him mad at the world, but not crazy.  The cut smile definetely had a big part in his character, but it didn't make him go cuckoo for cocoa puffs.  He still had his marbles, however homocidal he was.  Jack joker was homocidal because he was clinically insane.  The joker is a person who goes insane and from that insanity attacks the world.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 14:51
The cut smile definetely had a big part in his character, but it didn't make him go cuckoo for cocoa puffs.  He still had his marbles, however homocidal he was.  Jack joker was homocidal because he was clinically insane.  The joker is a person who goes insane and from that insanity attacks the world.

I think it did. Ledger's Joker was crazy enough to complete the cut smile image with makeup and hair dye. By applying those other two things, he's basically The Joker by choice. To me, that's crazier. And Jack's Joker had his marbles too. He was just as smart in my book. The Joker as a character is smart. That's who he is. I love both, but I'm just saying.

I agree that ledgers joker went from a normal man to a off the deep end, crime causing man who painted his face because he considers himself a freak (talk in jail with bale, etc.)  But he is not, in my opinion clinically insane.  Nicholson really went insane because he literally could not stand the persona he was made into.  "You dropped me into that vat of chemicals.  That wasn't easy to get over and don't think I didn't try."   And I think that is what truly makes him the best and only truly genuine joker.

There's no doubt that Ledger's Joker was insane but he wasn't IMHO criminally insane like the Joker should be.

I also don't like TKJ origin. There's plenty of Batman villains who have the innocent victim background. I love how Jack Napier in B89 was just rotten to begin with. Alex Ross said it best: "It's a more credible origin than previous ones".

Hate to hijack this thread with a shameless plug, but I thought I'd post this link here because:
a)  I don't know how many actually check the Schumacher forum
b) I have confirmation on how much/little involvement Burton had in developing the third Batman film that eventually became Batman Forever:

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=1121.0

I think both Joker's were criminally and clinically insane.

They got there in different ways, but the end result is the same.

He's an unpredictable criminal mastermind in the film. That aspect is nailed.

Ledger's Joker keeps bringing the scars issue up. He's far from over it. He's always thinking about them it seems. He's resolved himself that this is who he is.

Even though he's theatrical and so forth, The Joker is an introverted and lonely character. Ledger's Joker does not need an obvious piece of dialogue stating that fact for me to think that.

Nicholson is still better, though.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 08:00Quite frankly, Penguin's comic book origin works quite well for how he is regularly portrayed in the funny books. Though I can't say it was at all surprising to see a different take on the character in 1992 with Batman Returns. As things do indeed change when bringing comic book material to the silver screen.

I think it's more to do with the Penguin not having a character to him; certainly not one that could sustain an entire movie. He was a funny guy in a hat who committed bird crimes. Given that Burton had the Penguin foisted on him by the studio, I think it's fair to say that he did his best in creating a character that is easily extrapolated from the comics original.

Never knew that about Secret Origins Special #1, btw.

QuotePersonally, I view the modern DC Comics Catwoman to be much more of a adrenaline junkie than Burton's interpretation ever was.

I think that's actually a good profile for her. It doesn't turn her into a battered wife or a cheap hooker. A thrill-seeker would naturally be attracted to Batman. It adds up.

Quote from: batass4880 on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 03:25I also don't like TKJ origin. There's plenty of Batman villains who have the innocent victim background. I love how Jack Napier in B89 was just rotten to begin with. Alex Ross said it best: "It's a more credible origin than previous ones".

Agreed. Between the BTAS Mr. Freeze, the BR Penguin, BTAS Clayface and others, I think there are plenty of tragic characters/villains in Batman's cast. Making the Joker into such a character somehow diminishes the nasty things he did in the late 80's alone.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 05:12Nicholson is still better, though.

Ledger and Nicholson both have their strengths. I've picked Nicholson's performance apart from one side to the other, I've enjoyed it for years and years and it never gets old.

It does, however, become familiar.

That could be at least partly be why I enjoy Ledger so much. It's unique, it's different and, most of all, it's new. It's a new interpretation of a part I'd honestly thought we would never see an improvement on. I mean, you look back at Romero, Nicholson and Hamill and you can only think Ledger had his work cut out for him from the get-go.

Anyway. No real point here, just throwing in my two pennies.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 07:27
It does, however, become familiar.

That could be at least partly be why I enjoy Ledger so much. It's unique, it's different and, most of all, it's new. It's a new interpretation of a part I'd honestly thought we would never see an improvement on. I mean, you look back at Romero, Nicholson and Hamill and you can only think Ledger had his work cut out for him from the get-go.

Yep, variety is healthy. Ledger's Joker adds something to the character - whilst still being faithful. I love it. I just love Nicholson's take more.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 07:27
I think it's more to do with the Penguin not having a character to him; certainly not one that could sustain an entire movie. He was a funny guy in a hat who committed bird crimes. Given that Burton had the Penguin foisted on him by the studio, I think it's fair to say that he did his best in creating a character that is easily extrapolated from the comics original.

Never knew that about Secret Origins Special #1, btw.

Yeah, it's pretty evident that Burton didn't find the Penguin all that interesting of a character when he decided to take on Batman Returns. Especially from his comments on the SE ("What is he?"). And thus the process of having a unique take on the character began. It's a great take actually, and from the comics, it's very clear that it's had quite an influence on comic book artists too since Oswald does indeed tend to go back and forth between his classic appearance, to something quite akin to his Returns appearance (webbed hands, nose).

Quote
I think that's actually a good profile for her. It doesn't turn her into a battered wife or a cheap hooker. A thrill-seeker would naturally be attracted to Batman. It adds up.

Indeed.

The way I think about it, the joker is very simple.  He falls into a vat of chemicals, he goes crazy because of how he looks like a clown/"joker" entity, and he goes and kills everybody because of a combination of grissom backstabbing him and just the way he looks.  Whoever posted about alex ross was dead right.  I think I saw that on a youtube video once too.  Couldn't find it again.  The origin definetely wouldn't have worked if he wasn't bad to begin with.  The crazy part would've worked but him backing up his craziness with homocidal killing wouldn't work.  Its like having a gun without the bullets.  You have the gun (chemical spill) but you can't channel it without previous bad gangster life experience.  And I think burton put all these pieces together beautifully and simply.
    As far as saying its okay to have different versions, I think that is confusing and a real copout. Who is the joker if he can have so many fancy schmancy interpetations?  The way to find out the true origin that really makes sense in our world is to use the comic book information and put it through the filter of reason and reality and come up with a true joker origin, motive, and battle with batman.  That is what burton and hamm did.  Again, look at the quote by that alex ross guy.  Burton knew who the joker was from the comics.  He just made it make sense by shaping it up a little.  Nolan totally changed the type of clay.

As far as the penguin goes, that is a very interesting discussion.  Whoever said about burton understanding the penguin was right.  He didn't (again fansite).  The whole business man/ crime boss thing did not make sense.  So I think once burton and waters filtered all the info, they came up with a perfect movie.  Like someone said, the penguin origin has definetely been a little ambiguous over the years.  Batman Returns used it all though in my opinion. He's called the penguin because of the beak nose, the webbed hands, and he's short.  He comes from a upper class family but is abandoned and sent to the sewer- hence separated from the family.  Because he was abandoned by his parents (looks like penguin remember), he ends up with penguins from the zoo.  Motive- kill all the first born of gotham (he was first born).  Basic bad guy scenario.  Then Schreck, the glue between batman, catwoman, and penguin, has Oswald try to become mayor.  Oswald trying to become mayor is like the secret bad guy that noone knows about (60s batman show and sort of like secret business/boss guy).  In the end he tries to kill all of gotham in revenge on humanity for a) not letting him be mayor, b)society treatment of freaks in general.  He tries to use penguins in a beautiful scheme.  And by the way, the umbrella makes perfect sense in a sewer right?  Plus, the circus freak show he was in provided his thugs.  It all follows sequence, at least to me anyhow.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 19:45Its like having a gun without the bullets.  You have the gun (chemical spill) but you can't channel it without previous bad gangster life experience.  

Good point.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 19:45As far as saying its okay to have different versions, I think that is confusing and a real copout. Who is the joker if he can have so many fancy schmancy interpetations?  The way to find out the true origin that really makes sense in our world is to use the comic book information and put it through the filter of reason and reality and come up with a true joker origin, motive, and battle with batman.  That is what burton and hamm did.  Again, look at the quote by that alex ross guy.  Burton knew who the joker was from the comics.  He just made it make sense by shaping it up a little.  Nolan totally changed the type of clay.

Confusing and a real copout to have other versions?!

Variety is the spice of life. Nolan did something different yet remained faithful to the core character. There was never going to be any point dishing up exactly the same thing as Nicholson.

You can like other interpretations other than Burton's you know.

 First off, I don't think Nolan remained faithful to the core character.  He put pieces of the joker onto a character, like the purple suit, the painted white skin, the painted green hair, but that doesn't make him the joker.  The joker is a guy who gets his face and hair chemically changed and his face messed up.  And he is stylically motivated toward purple clothing.  After that I guess you can have all the variation you want.  And thats not even true because there is only one story that someone comes up with that actually makes sense.  If there is so much variety over the same thing, why should we belive any of them?

You are merely looking at the origin of his appearance and ruling everything else out.

He does have the trademarks - green hair and so forth, but done differently. Ledger's Joker was new, and it was faithful. It is how The Joker is as a character that defines him. How be behaves.

Getting the exact same thing each time can get tiresome. Variety is a good thing, and it is healthy to explore the character in different ways.

I don't get this post.  The only comic book interpretation I know of where The Joker is the product of a chemical accident is The Killing Joke, a brilliant graphic novel (possibly even the best Batman graphic novel) but by no means a definitive statement as to how the character should continue being portrayed.

Nolan did a great thing with The Joker by leaving his origins ambiguous.  Like most serial killers there are various explanations as to how they became evil, but the scary thing is we don't truly understand what makes them tick and that's why they remain such a threat.  Nolan used a similar technique to those horror movies in which the monster is purposefully kept in the shadows - our imagination as to what made The Joker is potentially more scary than anything a writer could conceive on screen.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 29 Nov  2009, 01:54
I don't get this post.  The only comic book interpretation I know of where The Joker is the product of a chemical accident is The Killing Joke, a brilliant graphic novel (possibly even the best Batman graphic novel) but by no means a definitive statement as to how the character should continue being portrayed.

Nolan did a great thing with The Joker by leaving his origins ambiguous.  Like most serial killers there are various explanations as to how they became evil, but the scary thing is we don't truly understand what makes them tick and that's why they remain such a threat.  Nolan used a similar technique to those horror movies in which the monster is purposefully kept in the shadows - our imagination as to what made The Joker is potentially more scary than anything a writer could conceive on screen.

Great post.

 In response to JohnnyGobbs, you are right.  It is nice to do that, to keep people wondering.  But there was one path that led him to his current state,  whether the audience ever knows it or not.  We are talking about a realistic movie right?  And in response to the dark knight, variety is good, but according to you its alright to give lex luthor hair.  Its not the color of the skin or hair, its that he got them in a chemical bath along with the smile.  He doesn't choose to go crazy, he goes crazy due to a permanent persona change.  Ledger joker did do crimes probably (we don't know) because of his knife cut.  But like I said before he didn't lose his marbles.  He's just one really mad person out to hurt the world. 

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov  2009, 02:08
And in response to the dark knight, variety is good, but according to you its alright to give lex luthor hair.  Its not the color of the skin or hair, its that he got them in a chemical bath along with the smile.  He doesn't choose to go crazy, he goes crazy due to a permanent persona change.  Ledger joker did do crimes probably (we don't know) because of his knife cut.  But like I said before he didn't lose his marbles.  He's just one really mad person out to hurt the world.  

I am of the opinion it just matters the elements are there, not where they come from.

I get your point, but hair does not benefit the Luthor character at all.

Luthor does not have hair in the comics, so I wouldn?t be giving him any. But if he did, I wouldn?t mind where it came from, eg. hair transplant or whatever.

A cut smile is a permanent persona change. He?s scarred for life. Again, he?s just completing that image. Yes, he?s choosing to apply those things himself, but that?s directly a result from his permanent smile that has driven him crazy. Without the cut smile, he wouldn?t be who he is.

Ledger's Joker was a blend of many different types of Jokers into one cohesive character that was different yet of the source.

And if you don?t think Ledger?s Joker lost his marbles, you don?t know the Joker character. Because that?s the character he?s playing.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 26 Nov  2009, 15:15
In response to colorsblend

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 06:25
In response to colorsblend

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 27 Nov  2009, 14:51
In reply to the dark knight.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov  2009, 02:08
In response to JohnnyGobbs

There's a "quote" button at the top of everyone's post.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 28 Nov  2009, 19:45
As far as saying its okay to have different versions, I think that is confusing and a real copout. Who is the joker if he can have so many fancy schmancy interpetations?  The way to find out the true origin that really makes sense in our world is to use the comic book information and put it through the filter of reason and reality and come up with a true joker origin, motive, and battle with batman.  That is what burton and hamm did.  Again, look at the quote by that alex ross guy.  Burton knew who the joker was from the comics.  He just made it make sense by shaping it up a little.  Nolan totally changed the type of clay.

Burton and Hamm really took some liberties with the Joker character, and essentially shaped him to what would work best for the film they were hired to work on. Jack Nicholson coming on board no doubt beefed up the role as well. Same thing happened with Nolan using Ra's as having a very big role in Bruce's life before becoming Batman. And both worked. I really have no problem with either to be perfectly honest, but the great thing about the Joker is he's in a constant state of change.
We may never know his origin for sure, and it's been written that his personality changes from day to day (insane genius committing robberies, pulling boners, and comedy things to beating a teenager to death with a crowbar, or shooting a young woman in the spin). So in short, whatever version you prefer is always the right one, and is bound to pop up again sooner or later.

Ledger's joker somehow had his face cut up and I'm sure thats what traumatized him and made him mad at the world.  It pushed him to commiting crimes.  But he didn't go insane.  His face was cut but his persona didn't change.  His face was just cut into a smile.  Thats it.  Nicholson was changed into a joker/clown persona.  Thats what made him lose his marbles.  Imagine the nicholson joker before he became the joker.  Imagine nicholson joker right when he looked in the mirror and before he started laughing.  And as far as characters are concerned, when you create a character, you create a character.  End of story.  The joker was created in the comics.  Burton shaped the character clay he was given and shaped it to reality.  Nolan changed the clay from the comics and tried to make it look like the joker.
   And as far as ambiguous origins, like I said before, its alright to not know his origin as long as you know there is an origin.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 29 Nov  2009, 01:54
I don't get this post.  The only comic book interpretation I know of where The Joker is the product of a chemical accident is The Killing Joke, a brilliant graphic novel (possibly even the best Batman graphic novel) but by no means a definitive statement as to how the character should continue being portrayed.

Nolan did a great thing with The Joker by leaving his origins ambiguous.  Like most serial killers there are various explanations as to how they became evil, but the scary thing is we don't truly understand what makes them tick and that's why they remain such a threat.  Nolan used a similar technique to those horror movies in which the monster is purposefully kept in the shadows - our imagination as to what made The Joker is potentially more scary than anything a writer could conceive on screen.

Couldnt be bothered getting in to this debate, but the first time the Jokers origin appeared was in a story in the 50's called 'Who is the red hood?'. It wasnt the Killing Joke. The killing joke borrowed from this Joker origin -the only origin - and expanded on it.

By the way as point of interest, if we ignore the Jokers origin in favour of Nolans 'vision', then can we distort, change or even forget Batmans??

Question- does the red hood origin have chemical bath and

If it does, then most of the jokers comic origins are of the same vein (just different ways and reasons for falling into vat)

 Nolan can't do anything with batman in my opinion.  Batman life is widely known (comic is batman) and said to be definitively true because of it making sense (rich + parents killed = batman).  The villains were only in issues in spurts and since they weren't the focus of the comic as a whole (batman is), their stories weren't set in stone like batmans.  What I'm saying is is that if the comics were about the riddler battling other villains each week, we would know definitively who the riddler was.  And I'm not saying bruce wayne is out from the microscope.  But even when you transpose bruce wayne from comic book to movie like burton did, its pretty easy because bruce waynes life in the comics was really thought out and made perfect sense even to people who don't like comics.  

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 29 Nov  2009, 15:05
I really have no problem with either to be perfectly honest, but the great thing about the Joker is he's in a constant state of change.
We may never know his origin for sure, and it's been written that his personality changes from day to day (insane genius committing robberies, pulling boners, and comedy things to beating a teenager to death with a crowbar, or shooting a young woman in the spin). So in short, whatever version you prefer is always the right one, and is bound to pop up again sooner or later.

I'm with you.

My opinion on which Joker I thought was better has nothing to do with comic book accuracy. Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker are both as valid in essence of the character.

I like "The Killing Joke" interpretation of The Joker, but that doesn't mean every Joker must follow that. All interpretations of the Batman mythos are as valid.

And for crying out loud, Ledger's Joker is insane. If you think otherwise, you simply do not know the character. Ledger's Joker wasn't as wild as Jack about murder, but he was just as theatrical, and murder clearly meant nothing to him.

Thomas Schiff, for example, is a paranoid schizo, and a former patient from Arkham. The kind of minds The Joker attracts. He recruited loonies as his henchmen in The Man Who Laughs story.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 01:30
Thomas Schiff, for example, is a paranoid schizo, and a former patient from Arkham. The kind of minds The Joker attracts. He recruited loonies as his henchmen in The Man Who Laughs story.

Related to nothing but I dig a lot of the casting in TDK.  Schiff's part was a borderline non-speaking role but I really dig the actor and his performance.  He had a slightly maniacal look to him and you believe he could allow himself to be swept up into Joker's gang as cannon fodder for Dent, GCPD, Batman or whoever else.

I also dug Ramirez and the Chechen, good actors and good performances both.

If you are only talking about "essence" then you could do alot of stuff with the batman universe.  Bruce wayne doesn't have to be rich.  He doesn't have to have a butler, bruce wayne could have kids, etc.  There are some things that if you take it away it really doesn't stay batman anymore, including his villains.
  As far as the crazy business goes, I really dont think you understand what I mean by crazy.  Ledger was theatrical.  Ledger was weird.  Ledger was homocidal.  Ledger was angry at the world (especially his father).  His face was even cut into a smile.  But he didn't lose his sanity or his old before the cut persona.  It pushed him to doing crime and it even changed his moral code and how he thought about the world (anarchy, etc.)  but he was still a person who had a grip on who he was.  Nicholson changed to the joker.  
  And you don't have to be crazy to be flippant about murder (though it does contribute I dont deny that).  Ras Al ghul- whole city madness- eventually death, penguin, two face (eckhart), etc.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 00:29
Question- does the red hood origin have chemical bath and

If it does, then most of the jokers comic origins are of the same vein (just different ways and reasons for falling into vat)

 Nolan can't do anything with batman in my opinion.  Batman life is widely known (comic is batman) and said to be definitively true because of it making sense (rich + parents killed = batman).  The villains were only in issues in spurts and since they weren't the focus of the comic as a whole (batman is), their stories weren't set in stone like batmans.  What I'm saying is is that if the comics were about the riddler battling other villains each week, we would know definitively who the riddler was.  And I'm not saying bruce wayne is out from the microscope.  But even when you transpose bruce wayne from comic book to movie like burton did, its pretty easy because bruce waynes life in the comics was really thought out and made perfect sense even to people who don't like comics.  

Yes the red hood took a chemical bath and emerged as the Joker. That was and is the Jokers origin. Can anyone tell me somewhere in the comics where the Jokers origin is different? (the recent 'Joker' comic maybe - I havent read it)
Yes the reasons he comes to being in the factory and his back story are different. But the fact he ends up in a vat of chemicals with his mouth scarred into a smile stays the same! I can think of 3 different Batman stories where this is the same - 'Who is the Red Hood'(which was ommitted from The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told 2008 Edition, to coincide with TDK release - which I found an insult to the Joker character and Batman fans! It can be found in The Greatest Joker Stories 1989 Edition tho), The Killing Joke and Lovers and MAdmen.

So if anything the Jokers origin is more concrete than Batmans as there has been many different incarnations of Batmans origin over the years by many different writers.

The reason I mentioned altering Batmans origin is because it has been done far more times than any villain in the comics. So in a sense writers and directors can take more of a liberty of how and why Batman came to be depending on the direction they want to go in their story. That is not set in stone as much as we all like to imagine.

So the fact no Joker origin was mentioned for the first 10 years of the comics ,does that mean we should ignore it? no. Batman didnt have an origin for the first 6 months of his creation.

And if we want to talk about Nolan/Burton and villians origins, I find the most insulting was Two-Faces in TDK.

I think you are splitting hairs Joker81.  Everyone knows (probably even my own mother) that Batman AKA Bruce Wayne is a multi-millionaire who was orphaned at an early age after his parents were killed by a mugger.  Very few people outside the fanboy community know that The Joker's origins came about as a result of a chemical accident, or even that Two-Face was scarred by a mob boss in court.

Besides, this whole 'I hate the Burton series', 'yeah well, I hate the Nolan series' back and forth is really becoming pathetic.  Even if you're not a fan of one or the other (and I admit that I am a fan of both), any honest movie goer must surely be able to see the merits in either franchise.  If not, well, that's your loss...

The fact that the Burton series may have been somewhat undervalued as a result of the Nolan movies' success (which is a shame) is the main reason I have such an attachment to this particular site.  However, it doesn't mean I then have to beat up on Batman Begins, or TDK.  Ral recognises that, so does The Dark Knight and a few others.  It's a pity not everyone can feel that way.

Ok,  better prepare myself for the flaming... ::)

mmmm, not so much splitting hairs as in staying true to what the real origins are. I mean you cant have it both ways, make up your mind!

I am not bashing Nolans films either, I accept them for what they are - but are they better than Batman IMO? No.

I think its about time we as fans of Batman and Batman Returns stop apologising for loving these movies and admit to loving them for the real reason and not because of 'nostalgia' or anything like that. I loved Batman in 1989, during the ninties and still now 20 years on. Not because of nostalgia, because I think they are better made and more exciting, escapism films than Nolans version. We should stop saying we are sorry - we didnt start this cr4p.

Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 15:24
We should stop saying we are sorry - we didnt start this cr4p.

Yes, true, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop to the so-called 'Nolanites' level and arbitarily bash Batman Begins or TDK.

I agree with joker81.  The joker origin had variations (at least I think- not humongous comic buff), but the main thing was that he fell in a vat of chemicals.  And, though I don't know any specifics of any batman origins tweaks- doesn't mean it hasn't been done, I can see perfectly how people can change the batman origin just enough for the whole dynamic of what the comic or movie is trying to say.  And thats very interesting about the first six months not having a batman origin.  Just because the batman origin is I guess set in stone now doesn't mean thats what the comics intended in the first place - but I really don't know.  Its just interesting.
  In response to nolan bashing.  I understand movie makers having different views or takes on movies, whether they are right or wrong.  But I think they at least have to be in the realm of reasononableness according to the comics.  Nolan went over the line with the joker and two face (and scarecrow too for that matter).  Just because somethings new doesn't make it better.  And just somethings old doesn't make it better.  Only its content makes it better.

Oh brother,  ::)... if we're all going to split hairs about the faithfulness of the comic films vis-a-vis the original comics, where does that leave the whole 'Joe Chill killed Bruce's parents, not The Joker' chestnut, that everyone seems to get worked up about?  Frankly, I couldn't care less.  The filmmakers are entitled to take some liberties with the comics if it facillitates their story effectively, as I believe it did do in the case of Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins and TDK. 

Another example I'd give, which I know sends many fanboys into a frenzy is the substitution of organic web-shooters for mechanical web-shooters in Spiderman.  The tweaks in this case make much more sense, bearing in mind that Peter Parker is supposed to have a spider's entire gamut of abilities, and that he's also meant to start off as a fairly ordinary (albeit highly intelligent) kid, not some mega-genius who could be living the high life off his high-tech inventions by the time he gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider (another change that has zero negative effect on the integrity of the story being told).

Thats what I've been saying all along!  Its alright to change spiderman from the comics to the screen as long as you keep the basic building blocks the same. 
  Changing who killed jokers parents is putting the comics through the filter of reality for the movie version.  But the basic facts should stay the same that someone killed batmans parent and it was a gangster type.  Same with the joker and even our friendly neighborhood spiderman ;).

Going off the subject with Spiderman, but again if you want to stay faithful to the 'original' comics Joe Chill didnt kill Bruce Waynes parents. He was a nameless thief who was never caught.

There you go. 

Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 22:56
He was a nameless thief who was never caught.

What?  Not Jack Napier/ The Joker?   ;)

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 02:47
Ledger was theatrical.  Ledger was weird.  Ledger was homocidal.  Ledger was angry at the world (especially his father).

Most of your comments I have already touched on. I?d just be repeating myself. But I saw this and just had to laugh.

Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 15:24
mmmm, not so much splitting hairs as in staying true to what the real origins are. I mean you cant have it both ways, make up your mind!

Yes we can. And we do.

Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 15:24
I am not bashing Nolans films either, I accept them for what they are

I'm not sure about you, but burtongenius does bash the Nolan films and doesn't accept them for what they are. I just have to look at his post history to see that.

[/quote]

What?  Not Jack Napier/ The Joker?   ;)
No, the post is about bruce's killer

[/quote]
dark knight
What joker81 is saying is that just because you don't like something doesn't mean you bash it.  Big difference.  And I honestly don't understand your other comments. ???

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 03:43
I honestly don't understand your other comments. ???

Not surprised there.

I do nolan bash.  But its not because its not burton.  Its because nolan went too off kilter for my taste (bale was good, it was the villains that got me)- (though I don't think any director would have the cajones to change bruce waynes character).  Other batmans didn't go that far off the seesaw to have their visionary license. 

When I bash nolan though, I bash the content of the movie as it pertains to the batman universe.  As far as respect goes I respect what he was trying to do.  It just wasn't the right thing. 

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 04:17
It just wasn't the right thing. 

For you it wasn't.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 04:17
I do nolan bash.  But its not because its not burton.  Its because nolan went too off kilter for my taste (bale was good, it was the villains that got me)- (though I don't think any director would have the cajones to change bruce waynes character).  Other batmans didn't go that far off the seesaw to have their visionary license.

WHAA?!  Okay, look, I'm sorry but that's... just... WOW!  I mean, we've all seen the Schumacher shlockfests, right?  Nobody, but NOBODY, dropped the nachos with Batman worse than Schumacher did.

I'm all for giving the Nolan films a fair and objective evaluation... but that's the entire point, it's got to be fair and objective.  Like Nolan's films or not, they're eons -- EONS, I tell you! -- ahead of anything Schumacher ever conceived of on his best day.

QuoteWhen I bash nolan though, I bash the content of the movie as it pertains to the batman universe.  As far as respect goes I respect what he was trying to do.  It just wasn't the right thing.

I don't even know where to begin with that so I'll just end this post by saying "substantial cash-inducement".

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 00:57

Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 30 Nov  2009, 22:56
He was a nameless thief who was never caught.

What?  Not Jack Napier/ The Joker?   ;)

Not Joe Chill either. And didnt Bob Kane, the creator of Batman by the way, say that if the Joker had of been created at the time of 1939, and Batmans first origin story appearance that he would have had the Joker as the murderer of Bruce's parents. If that doesnt carry no wieght then what does? Batmans creator endorsing it! You cant get much better than that. And dont be saying he only said it because of the 89 film, or Burton wanted it. Because someone like Bob Kane doesn?t achieve what he done in his career by bowing to others and letting others walk over him. If it was wrong and he didn?t like it he would have said.

I am not knocking the Joe Chill story line, or how it evolved over the years. But what I am saying is people knocking that sub plot in Batman, when its as valid as any story written by any artist or writer or director since 1939. If its good enough for Bob Kane, why cant we accept it. Now that?s splitting hairs.

Hey Joker81, I'm not the one going crazy over a plot point in TDK.  I liked the idea of The Joker as the Waynes' murderer, but there are many Batman fans who detest the idea on the basis that if Bruce is to confront and kill his parents' murderer, he ceases to need to be Batman.  I might not agree with them but I can see their point.

Besides, irrespective of what Bob Kane may or may not have said at the time of the first Batman film, the comics tend to add up to the same thing: Joe Chill murdered Wayne's parents.  Also, bear in mind that the Batman comics were a collaborative effort, and I've got no idea what Bill Finger's take on The Joker being the Waynes' killer was.

Quote from: Joker81 on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 16:54Not Joe Chill either. And didnt Bob Kane, the creator of Batman by the way, say that if the Joker had of been created at the time of 1939, and Batmans first origin story appearance that he would have had the Joker as the murderer of Bruce's parents. If that doesnt carry no wieght then what does? Batmans creator endorsing it! You cant get much better than that. And dont be saying he only said it because of the 89 film, or Burton wanted it. Because someone like Bob Kane doesn?t achieve what he done in his career by bowing to others and letting others walk over him. If it was wrong and he didn?t like it he would have said.

Kane was very good at understanding and toeing a line that was healthiest for the brand.

That being said, I was under the impression that he gave his Joker quote years after B89 had come and gone. That says a lot in my opinion. There was no movie to hype and Burton was off the franchise, so any manufactured "loyalty" would've been long gone by then. Kane had no motivation whatsoever to censor his true opinion by that point and he went on the record liking the idea and wishing he'd thought of it himself.

He's entitled to love that the Joker killing the Waynes. Me, I vaccilate somewhat on it. Part of me likes the Joker and Batman creating each other and being each other's negative, their equal opposite.

But part of me also likes the Waynes being killed by a nameless, faceless, random thug.

Irrespective, I've never been crazy about Joe Chill.

I agree with Colors on this one.  I think the Joker as the Waynes' killer works very well in the context of Burton's operatic, almost impressionistic world making for a completely satisfying film experience.  From a franchise perspective (i.e. Nolan's universe), the idea of the Waynes' killer being someone Bruce could never avenge himself makes more sense.

Quote from: Joker81 on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 16:54
Not Joe Chill either. And didnt Bob Kane, the creator of Batman by the way, say that if the Joker had of been created at the time of 1939, and Batmans first origin story appearance that he would have had the Joker as the murderer of Bruce's parents. If that doesnt carry no wieght then what does? Batmans creator endorsing it! You cant get much better than that. And dont be saying he only said it because of the 89 film, or Burton wanted it. Because someone like Bob Kane doesn?t achieve what he done in his career by bowing to others and letting others walk over him. If it was wrong and he didn?t like it he would have said.

I am not knocking the Joe Chill story line, or how it evolved over the years. But what I am saying is people knocking that sub plot in Batman, when its as valid as any story written by any artist or writer or director since 1939. If its good enough for Bob Kane, why cant we accept it. Now that?s splitting hairs.

I do remember reading that quote. But personally, I never thought too much of it.

Why's that? Mainly because this statement was made around the time of Batman 1989, which not only was the year the Burton film made it's debut, but also the 50th anniversary of the Batman as well. Also, "The Origin of Batman", which revealed Joe Chill as the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents, was published in 1948 (Batman #47 to be exact). The Joker made his debut in 1940 (Batman #1). So yeah, there's this eight year gap between the Joker's 1st appearance, and the issue where the murderer was FINALLY revealed that leaves this particular statement by Bob Kane extremely perplexing.

It's also worth noting that "The Origin of Batman" was written by none other than Bill Finger. Who, to be perfectly honest, should be credited as Batman's co-creator in print as his contributions to the Batman mythos may have very well ensured that Batman would stick around for so many years following his creation by Bob Kane in 1939.

Gonna jump in here to clarify something- I'm guilty of spreading that Kane quote around the forums.  The source is the introduction to Batman and the Fifties by Michael Uslan. 

According to Uslan, Kane said that during the final development stages when screenwriter Warren Skaaren wrote in the idea for Jack Napier to be the killer.  Uslan went to Kane for his "approval" on this story twist and Kane replied with the quote.

I agree with a lot of what you guys have all said. And I also agree, and have said before that in the context of story telling, and the fact Batman was made not with a sequel in mind, making Jack Napier the killer of the Waynes makes that movie more rounded. It has a start middle and an end. It also gives us a reason why the Joker is Batmans arch-enemy, and yes I also like the fact they made each other. They are both born out of eachothers worst nightmares.

jonnygobbs made the point that some fans think the fact Batman caught up with his parents killer and stopped him means that he wouldnt want to be Batman no more. Nonsense - why would he? In otherwords he was only Batman to avenge his parents death? I thought he was Batman to stop crime, and to stop what happened to him happening to others. In that case, wasnt Joe Chill caught and charged? In some versions he was killed wasnt he?
So thats the same arguement in my opinion. He didnt need to become Batman if Chill was caught or killed. Why didn't he just join the police? I have to say this is the problem I have with Batman Begins.

I think when the batman comics were created, they just needed a reason to have batman fight crime.  He needed one because he didn't have powers that would give him a purpose and ability to fight crime.  So they had some stereotypical bad guy kill his parents.  Parents killed = stop bad guys.  Real simple.  I'm sure they probably spent 20 minuts on it tops.  But, now that a movie is (or was) being made (batman 89), they have to make his parents being killed have more sense to it.  It is a movie after all.  Not just a comic. 

All in all joker81 is right.  You can't knock burton killer because of kane.  Nothing against joe chill origin either.  Though I do think the joker killing parents gives more meaning to the batman story.

And as far as the Schumacher films go, I don't bash them as much for a reason.  Though I don't think the style of the movie was very good, I respect them for keeping close to the hilt with the batman universe. 

Let me put it this way. 
Nolan- movie quality- 8/10         batman movie quality- 6.5/10
Schumacher- movie quality- 6.5/10       batman movie quality- 7/10 

Quote from: Joker81 on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 22:38
jonnygobbs made the point that some fans think the fact Batman caught up with his parents killer and stopped him means that he wouldnt want to be Batman no more. Nonsense - why would he? In otherwords he was only Batman to avenge his parents death? I thought he was Batman to stop crime, and to stop what happened to him happening to others. In that case, wasnt Joe Chill caught and charged? In some versions he was killed wasnt he?
So thats the same arguement in my opinion. He didnt need to become Batman if Chill was caught or killed. Why didn't he just join the police? I have to say this is the problem I have with Batman Begins.

I've read many compelling arguments suggesting that since Bruce only fights crime to avenge his parents' murder, the moment the actual killer is punished he ceases to harbour that thirst for justice.  Actually, Batman Forever, not a film I particularly like for the most part, dealt with this potential story-telling issue quite well - Bruce Wayne advises Dick Grayson with respect to the latter's desire to kill Two-Face, the murderer of his own family, and suggests from his own experience that even once he has avenged his family's murder, the residing bloodlust may have already been so ingrained within his soul that crime-fighting continues to be a habitual way of life.

Batman Begins resolves this issue by killing off the Wayne's murderer, Joe Chill before Bruce is able to take Chill's life into his own hands.  Thus, he is never able to truly resolve the sense of responsibility he feels for his parent's fate, that he somehow believes he can remedy by avenging their deaths.

As to why Bruce didn't join the police force instead.  Well, the simple facetious answer is that you wouldn't have Batman, but one could argue that firstly, Gotham's police force is often shown to be corrupt, and that although Chill was eventually caught in Begins, it is not clear that he has been specifically charged or even associated with the Wayne murders by anyone else accept Bruce.  Bear in mind that it is several years after their deaths before Chill is assassinated by one of Falcone's people.  Secondly, Bruce clearly believes he can do more for the city by operating outside the law, with the full use of various gadgets at his disposal.  Not necessarily a form of justice I subscribe to myself, but as one poster astutely put it earlier on, Batman is not necessarily a hero, a factor that arguably makes him a more interesting character than many other comic-book protaganists.  AT least as far as Nolan's films are concerned, the true hero IMHO is Commissioner Gordan, who struggles, not always successfully as his faith in Ramirez and Wuertz demonstrated, to act conscientiously within the true limits of the law (something Harvey Dent was evidently not able to do, much to Gordon and Batman's despair).

wow.  Not being sarcastic.  This post is too complicated for me.  But I just don't think his parents being killed was the only thing that made him batman.  I think it really opened his eyes to crime and thats what made him batman.  Though he really harbors feelings for chill.

Quote from: Joker81 on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 22:38
I agree with a lot of what you guys have all said. And I also agree, and have said before that in the context of story telling, and the fact Batman was made not with a sequel in mind, making Jack Napier the killer of the Waynes makes that movie more rounded. It has a start middle and an end. It also gives us a reason why the Joker is Batmans arch-enemy, and yes I also like the fact they made each other. They are both born out of eachothers worst nightmares.

Now this I agree with, Joker81.

Having that did make the film feel more rounded and gave a pretty powerful dramatic beat to the storyline itself. Was it really necessary? Not really. But it worked out quite well and I certainly have no issues with Jack Napier standing in for the Burtonverse.

Matter of fact, I recall going to see Batman Forever for the first time in a very packed theater, and when the scene with Kilmer's Bruce Wayne is having a flashback of his parents being murdered, followed up by the particular scene of the killer silently holding a gun and fading back into the night  ... I vividly remember various people in the audience whispering or even saying out loud, "Joker".

And being the young Joker fan I was, I thought that was very cool.  ;D 

Quote from: the Riddler on Tue,  1 Dec  2009, 23:03
And as far as the Schumacher films go, I don't bash them as much for a reason.  Though I don't think the style of the movie was very good, I respect them for keeping close to the hilt with the batman universe.

So you're saying you like the Schumacher films better than the Nolanverse?  Strange, but... okay.

Although...

QuoteLet me put it this way. 
Nolan- movie quality- 8/10         batman movie quality- 6.5/10
Schumacher- movie quality- 6.5/10       batman movie quality- 7/10

... the problem is that your own numbers show that you like the Nolan movies more than Schumacher's.

This, of course, is not to speak of the absurd and patronizing distinction so many fans want to make between "film" and "Batman film".  It's as if a movie about Batman should be held to some other standard than any other film is.

Quote from: the Riddler on Wed,  2 Dec  2009, 01:38
But I just don't think his parents being killed was the only thing that made him batman.

I just don't get this line.  I've seen it on other forums a lot.  I've even seen some people go so far as to say that the Wayne murders aren't even Bruce's primary motivation for becoming Batman.

And I suspect the main reason for that is because DC has some overfriggincomplicated the guy's origin and backstory that the Wayne murders might very well seem incidental when, push comes to shove, the murders the first, last and only factor that matter.

Adding anything else to his motivation is to cloud the issue.

About the whole bruce wayne parents being killed-  I think that his parents being killed caused him to be batman.  How it caused him to be batman was that it made him want to stop the criminals in gotham, not just necessarily revenge his parents death.  A regular person would want to just kill the guys who killed his parents.  Batman wants to do more.  He wants to stop, not kill, the criminals in gotham.  You see, the crime opened his eyes to how bad things were (looking back- I don't expect a kid to be philosophical or anything).  That is why Bruce Wayne is a hero.  And that is why he uses an elaborate identity to stop the criminals- not revenging his parents murder as a regular guy.

And yes.  According to my numbers, nolan wins on my movie meter.  But I personally only look at the batman movie scale.  I know that probably doesn't make sense but let me put it this way.  No matter how something is packaged or displayed, it better have a good present inside.  A good present needs both but the gift is the main point of the matter.  hence the batman movie scale.

On the subject of Burton Batman v Nolan Batman, having recently caught a bit of Batman Begins again, my feeling is that as much as I love both directors' take on the character, the Burton Batmans feel like 'movies', whilst the Nolan Batmans feel like 'films'.  By that I mean that whilst I consider Nolan to be a great storyteller who uses very cohesive, streamlined yet compelling narrative structures for the purpose of providing a highly satisfying whole, Burton has a much more vivid, entertaining approach.  Every single scene in both Batman and Batman Returns is pleasurable on its own terms, and fully lives up to its cinematic potential as far as movie-making is concerned.  Burton's narratives may not always be entirely coherent, but you cannot help but be entertained by practically each and every line or shot.  Anyway, that's my take.

Totally agree.  I think what you also might mean is that nolan "tells the facts" and burton "gives it flavor."  The key is to combine the two.  Now that would be a good movie.  Showing the realistic facts in an imaginative way.  Because the facts are amazing.  Its not like nolans movies aren't saying the right thing.  They just aren't showing it in the way that best  shows whats going on.  Because the batman universe is really awesome and different.  The nolan movie showed it as a regular film to me.  Again, combine the two. :)

I'm waiting for some interviewer to ask a follow-up question the next time Burton says that, after Returns, he had ideas for a third film. He's said that several times, and no one asks him what those ideas were. Why wouldn't you ask that?

Anyway- I know that Burton has said that he thought of  the Riddler from the comics the same way that he thought of the Penguin - not that interesting. He did like Two-Face (who he always refers to as "Harvey Dent.) And Keaton has admitted that he was hoping for a "kind of a prequel" thing. In lieu of a reporter asking Burton what his plans were, I would guess that they involved those elements.

Yeah, the actual details of what burton may have done are probably gone with the trash.  It was a different time for burton and he has moved on.  The masses had one chance with burton and keaton.  And its long gone, I think.

Yeah, I heard about the riddler being dark.  But I didn't hear about twoface.  Interesting.  And I heard about wayans being robin.  Maybe he gives no conclusive responses in interviews because he doesn't really know what he was going to do.  Just speaking out loud.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 21:14
Maybe he gives no conclusive responses in interviews because he doesn't really know what he was going to do.  Just speaking out loud.

I would say this is quite accurate.  As is the case with Nolan finishing TDK, Burton having put everything into BR would have taken time away from thinking about it (even though I feel he had been more invigorated to tackle the bat by BR)

It depends.  If he was doing the whole, showing of batmans origins thing, then I think a little fore thought might have been in order.  But even then, batman movies are sort of easy as far as trilogys (as opposed to the matrix lets say).  You pick a different bad guy for each movie.  And throw a little info from the previous movie to provide continuation.  In the third movie he wanted robin and was preparing by getting marlan wayans.  Because robin is a whole new element in the batman movies.

What really needs to happen is to ask burton what he thinks the third batman movie should be.  Hypothetically of course.  Because I think he had a sound grounding on what he wanted to do, but I don't think he really had an image in mind.  Maybe he could make another one.  Thats not as far fetched as people think.  If he did, it would be the biggest deal in a long, long, long time.  I'm hoping and praying.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu,  7 Jan  2010, 21:51
In the third movie he wanted robin and was preparing by getting marlan wayans.  Because robin is a whole new element in the batman movies.

Did he want Robin? I'm not so sure. Wayans was hired for BR and not used - I really don't think Burton would want to use the Robin character (at least not in the way he is currently employed)

He didn't like the concept of robin at all.  At least the comic robin.  If he was doing robin at all, he was doing it his way.  And to him, robin doesn't fight, he's batman's helper, his right arm.  Which isn't demeaning.   Its just that people are scared of batman because he's a bat man.  A character robin is supposed to help batman, hence being a mechanic and helping him.  I found this info on a fan site.  Burton probably thought robin would be best used in the third film, fresh to the viewers.

I doubt Burton was going to bring Robin into the third film, considering his own statements on the character on the director's commentary.
Edit: I think he was only in early drafts of Batman 1989 and Batman Returns because WB wanted him to include the character and, later, agreed that the character should be cut.

As for Burton's own plans on a third Batman movie, the only way to find out would be to ask him.
Whatever his plans, they probably had little influence over the development of Batman Forever.  Robin and Two-Face came on board for the third movie upon Schumacher's insistence and they didn't decide use the Riddler until after the screenwriters, Lee and Janet Scott Batchler, were hired.

I know that burton planned to do the "Big Four" from the Adam West series.  Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler.  And they had marlan wayans for the third movie.  When it wasn't made, they dropped wayans.  Burton doesn't like the comic book robin.  But he's sort of obligated to do robin since he's doing the batman franchise, so he's going to do robin his way.  And the Batman Forever guys didn't even have Wayans in their radar.  So it must've come from burton.

Yes, Wayans was hired on for the role for Batman Returns when they were considering the character and put him in earlier drafts of the script.  When the movie was deemed too crowded, Wayans and Robin were dropped: http://io9.com/5330150/the-real-reason-marlon-wayans-passed-on-playing-robin

After BR, I myself haven't heard anything official on whether or not Burton had decided to wait on Wayans and Robin for the next installment.  But I could be wrong.

Edit: As for Burton's plans on using the "Big Four," I know that he included all of them in his early treatment.  http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/articles.php?showarticle=49
And an early draft of Batman Returns mentions The Riddler at the end. 

But since the aforementioned treatment was for the 1989 Batman film and the line from Batman Returns didn't make it into later drafts, I haven't found anything official that Burton specifically wanted the Riddler for the follow-up to Batman Returns.