The Controversy and Chaos of Batman's origins!

[Joker81]

Oh I totally agree Jack Napier/Joker was a criminal mastermind. Napier was a deadly and cunning gangster, not a petty thief (tho everyone has to start somewhere) and this is why he became a top mob boss. He was no fool. And deadly.

But regarding underlaying reasons why the Waynes were murdered, why should we have to look into it for Batman the movie? Why can we not take it for what it is?

Just like many carnations of Batman and his origin exist in the comic books, this is just another version on cellulod. Why make it into something it is not!!

[Dark Knight Detective]

To the Dark Knight Detective  I have nothing against you, but you should be wise, and consider that not every opinion is a fact or truth, you don't need to make uneccessary comments.

I don't think that every opinion is a fact or true. I'm just saying that I like Joker81's posts b/c his opinions on this matter are identical to mine (so I see them as being the "truth").

[Joker81]

Thanks Dark Knight Detective. Its good to know others share my thoughts and opinions on Batman.

[THE BAT-MAN]

I don't think that every opinion is a fact or true. I'm just saying that I like Joker81's posts b/c his opinions on this matter are identical to mine (so I see them as being the "truth"). 

I understand what you mean, what I ment to say was that Joker81's statements are his own opinions and should not be presented as facts or truth even if a person like yourself agrees with it, because not everyone does, you get me.  Anyway, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Dark Knight Detective]

THE "BAT-MAN", I apologize as well, for not expressing that it was IMHO that Joker81's opinions were golden. Glad we have that all cleared up, now.

[THE BAT-MAN]

Me too.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm giving this a bumpedy bump bump, mainly because of this very interesting post I read on Gotham Alley's website.

I can't help but wonder, at the point in the movie where Bruce is staring at that frozen image of Napier on his video screen, does he simply decide that Napier killed his parents, as opposed to remember it? This is, after all, a guy who dresses in a type of bat armour and goes around at night brutalizing criminals. Bruce Wayne is hardly someone I'd call psychologically sound. It's also after this moment where Batman starts killing people left and right. One of the first things he does after this scene is blow up the Axis Chemicals factory, with several of the Joker's henchmen still inside. Was the movie perhaps trying to make a point about Bruce's supposed descent into madness?

I dig that. The entire murder remembrance sequence has a dream-like quality to it. Echoed sound, etc. This scene isn't really a factual as-it-happened deal.  It's what Bruce is thinking at that time. He surely wants closure on this case (he's been carrying the burden for many years), and just wants a conviction to end it all. Most police officers are the same. In this instance, Bruce wants a scalp. In this dream, the man who shot the Waynes is Napier. The demented grin implies it heavily, as well as "Let's go Jack!". But is that the reality? Could it be Bruce's own imagination of what he wants to have happened after looking at the still of The Joker on TV?

[johnnygobbs]

I dig that. The entire murder remembrance sequence has a dream-like quality to it. Echoed sound, etc. This scene isn't really a factual as-it-happened deal.  It's what Bruce is thinking at that time. He surely wants closure on this case (he's been carrying the burden for many years), and just wants a conviction to end it all. Most police officers are the same. In this instance, Bruce wants a scalp. In this dream, the man who shot the Waynes is Napier. The demented grin implies it heavily, as well as "Let's go Jack!". But is that the reality? Could it be Bruce's own imagination of what he wants to have happened after looking at the still of The Joker on TV?

Interesting, although I assume you are not questioning whether Jack did indeed kill Bruce's parents.  Remember, during the belfry climax when The Joker tries remonstrating with Batman he says, "I was a kid when I killed your parents", as if that is an excuse for his murder.

It's possible that The Joker still doesn't know that Bruce is Batman even by this stage and is just assuming that he must have been fairly young when he killed Batman's parents since Batman is now himself a grown man.  However, I do think on balance it is quite clear that the audience is meant to assume that Bruce's recollection concerning Napier being his parents' murderer is accurate, irrespective of the fact that Bruce has clearly descended into madness himself.

I for one am not one of those people (i.e. purists) who have a problem with The Joker being the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents.  I think it adds an operatic feel to the film and brings the entire story back full circle (especially when you take into account that the film begins with a street mugging that echoes the Wayne murders, albeit one that does not presumably end in anyone's death).  Some people have suggested that Bruce Wayne only becomes Batman as a means of either seeking out his parents' murder, or getting a carthatic release for the fact thhat he will never find the man who killed his parents. 

However, I think Burton does a brilliant job of justifying Bruce's ongoing compulsion to become Batman with Batman Returns despite the death of his parents' killer in the preceding film.  By the end of the first Batman it is clear that Bruce has tipped over the edge into a form of madness and can only 'exist' by becoming Batman.  Since his parents' death has been avenged and Gotham has resumed a degree of relatively crime-free normalacy by Batman Returns, Bruce Wayne/Batman starts the film as a 'hero' or 'anti-hero' 'without a cause', and seems to only spring to life when the Bat-signal finally rouses him from what is almost implied to be a state of long-time inertia.  Unfortunately, Burton's detractors seem to fail to appreciate the gothic significance of the character shacked up in his literally distant and remote home who finally awakens to join the rest of society in his monstrous form after a figurative eternity of solitude.

[The Dark Knight]

I *fully* embrace that Napier is the murderer of Bruce's parents. There is no question about it suiting the story that Burton wanted to tell, making everything heightened personally, emotionally, etc. The haters can go jump, as far as I am concerned. However I do think that this alternative viewpoint is very interesting, and could quite feasibly be used by somebody as a stand-in if they really wanted to. I for one like the idea as it plays into Bruce's tortured mental state, being complex and restless. With this viewpoint, the "I was a kid when I killed your parents" could be interpreted as stalling, playing Batman's game by going along with it.

On face value, we can take Bruce's mind for it that Napier did in fact kill his parents. This alternative viewpoint does rely on fan speculation for the most part. More about questioning what is presented.

But if traditionalists really wanted the killer to be Joe Chill, I think it still could be. Napier being THE killer, and him knowing he is, would be infinitely more personal. But if he wasn't, it wouldn't decrease the personal bond too much in the eyes of Bruce, because he has the mindset and never thinks otherwise after. And he remains unknowingly unfulfilled, with Napier's death being a hollow victory.

Edit: When I get a quick idea, I type all of my thoughts down and make it work afterwards. Thinking about this a bit more, the dream sequence being what Bruce wanted doesn't stack up. The "danced with the devil" dialogue makes it fall apart and puts it beyond reasonable doubt. It can only be one way. Fun thought, nonetheless.

[GothamAlleys]

I never ever had problems with any changes in the movies. I actually welcomed them. Why just repeat everything by a to-do list? Its ADAPTING , not recreating.  As already mentioned, Napier killing Waynes makes the whole duel and the villain much, much, much more personal. I have no doubts he killed Waynes - Bruce recognized him by his saying, although one may wonder why he didnt recognize him from the police file (there were photos of young him there as well if anyone noticed)

Im also a big believer that it was a premeditated murder. First of all, Jack Napier has been known to be a mobster and he already has a partner accompanying him in the murder and is dressed like a mobster, in a nice suit with a tie, coat and leather gloves. Not like someone who needs money at all. Secondly, the early script for Batman had Joe Chill being hired by Rupert Thorne to kill Waynes. And that would have been the way it was in the comics. Chill was NEVER, EVER a poor guy pushed to a one time robbery by depression - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/night-to-remember.html