Burton Trilogy

[burtongenius]

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.

[burtongenius]

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 

[johnnygobbs]

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).

[burtongenius]

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.

[The Joker]

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.   

[thecolorsblend]

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...

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

... 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.

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.

[burtongenius]

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[burtongenius]

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.

[zDBZ]

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.