Burton Trilogy

[burtongenius]

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. 

[The Dark Knight]

It just wasn't the right thing. 

For you it wasn't.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.

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

[Joker81]

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[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.

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.

[BatmAngelus]

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.

[Joker81]

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.