Batman/Joker relationship and Burton movies

[GothamAlleys]

Now, I created my blog to be a mythbuster in Batman fanworld. I knew stuff that came up in recent years like' Burton's Batman movies arent faithful to comics at all', 'Nicholson played himself', 'Catwoman was never about 9 lives and ambiguity', 'Nolan;s movies didnt change anything significant and are the most faithful', 'Batman never killed', 'Jokers origins were always ambiguous' etc are total BS and proved it with quotes and panels.

Now theres another issue thats often popping up, and its that Burton's movies changed or didnt get the relationship between Joker and Batman because the modern Joker didnt wanna kill Batman. Yes, Joker said so in Laughing Fish and in Killing Joke alluded to it, yet in the very same issue he wanted to kill Batman with a knife at the end. And then after that issue he tried to kill Batman at least once in Grant/Breyfogle's Clash of Symbols.

Im gonna do some reading, but if you guys wanna help out and point me out to issues or examples when Joker tries to kill Batman and also when he says he doesnt, Ill really appreciate it

[DocLathropBrown]

For starters, even though it isn't mainstream continuity (debatably), in the Bruce Timm book "Mad Love" (which was faithfully adapted into an episode of "The Animated Series"), The Joker is obsessed with killing him--but it must be absolutely the RIGHT way. The TV episode is obviously TAS continuity, but the book itself serves as Harley Quinn's official DCU origin, so the story is in (as far as I know).

And you gotta love new accusations about Burton's films popping up all the time. why so threatened? And it just shows a lack of readers of the source material, too. Any time someone takes something the films did as gospel, it shows they don't know jack.

[GothamAlleys]

Ok, heres what I came up with - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/batmanjoker-relationship-on-paper-and.html

[BatmAngelus]

Awesome stuff as always.  Your Bob Kane quote for covering B89 reminded me of a quote that Michael Uslan cited in the opening of the collection "Batman in the Fifties."  In it, he said that he was nervous pitching to Bob Kane about the idea of turning Joker into the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents.  Kane, however, was enthusiastic and stated that if the Joker had been created in 1939, he would've been the killer of the Waynes as well.  I used to have the direct quote in my signature, but if you happen to have that collection, GothamAlleys, it could be a good contribution to that section of the article.  (I don't have the book on me at the moment).

As for the Dark Knight one, TDK Joker's line about their refusal to kill each other feels almost like a paraphrase of a line right out of the "Clown at Midnight" story (Batman #663) by Grant Morrison. 
"You can't kill me without becoming like me! I can't kill you without losing the only human being who can keep up with me! Isn't it IRONIC?"

[GothamAlleys]

Awesome stuff as always.  Your Bob Kane quote for covering B89 reminded me of a quote that Michael Uslan cited in the opening of the collection "Batman in the Fifties."  In it, he said that he was nervous pitching to Bob Kane about the idea of turning Joker into the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents.  Kane, however, was enthusiastic and stated that if the Joker had been created in 1939, he would've been the killer of the Waynes as well.  I used to have the direct quote in my signature, but if you happen to have that collection, GothamAlleys, it could be a good contribution to that section of the article.  (I don't have the book on me at the moment).

Really? I didnt know about that quote, that wouldve been a very important addition. Ill try to track it down

As for the Dark Knight one, TDK Joker's line about their refusal to kill each other feels almost like a paraphrase of a line right out of the "Clown at Midnight" story (Batman #663) by Grant Morrison. 
"You can't kill me without becoming like me! I can't kill you without losing the only human being who can keep up with me! Isn't it IRONIC?"

Thanks, Ill look into it

[Silver Nemesis]

From Michael Uslan's introduction to Batman In the Fifties:

"The Man Behind the Red Hood" gave Bill Finger a chance to invent an origin for the Batman villain created by Jerry Robinson – the Joker. Here was a classic "Batman as a detective" story that fans have always loved. This origin pretty much stood until two popular versions of it presented alternatives: Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's 1988 graphic novel BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE (which made fans stop and wonder what the true story really was behind the birth of the Clown Prince of Crime) and 1989's Batman movie. After much discussion, it was agreed that for the movie the Red Hood storyline would be too confusing, time-consuming, and unnecessary to include in the film. There was no compelling reason to add a third identity to The Joker. And so, it was Jack Napier who took the plunge into the vat of chemicals, not the Red Hood. It also seemed to make sense to have the young Jack/Joker as the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents in the flashback. Worried about that change in the legend, I asked Bob Kane for his thoughts on the matter. Bob replied that it made perfect sense and that, "If the Joker had been created originally in 1939, that's who would have murdered the Waynes in the comic book!" As a tip of the hat to hardcore Bat-Fans – and to Joe Chill – the scene in this movie showed Jack and another man responsible for the killing. It was hoped that would satisfy the majority of generations of Batmaniacs.

[GothamAlleys]

Thanks, this is very helpful