The Controversy and Chaos of Batman's origins!

[batass4880]

I wonder how they would react to the fact that the Joker would've been the Waynes' murderer if he had been created back in 1939.

Guarantee they would've worshiped Burton, if that was the case.

I say, if they want everything exactly like the comics, then they should just stick to the comics. Peter Guber said it best--"That's why it's called 'film making' ".

[Dark Knight Detective]

I wonder how they would react to the fact that the Joker would've been the Waynes' murderer if he had been created back in 1939.

Guarantee they would've worshiped Burton, if that was the case.

LOL, so true.

I say, if they want everything exactly like the comics, then they should just stick to the comics. Peter Guber said it best--"That's why it's called 'film making' ".

Like you said earlier, the Burton films are the closest to the source material. Sure, we have tweaks here & there, but they are still Batman films, through & through. Why the fanboys can't grasp this is beyond my comprehension.

[thecolorsblend]

I say, if they want everything exactly like the comics, then they should just stick to the comics. Peter Guber said it best--"That's why it's called 'film making' ".

Their policy with respect to the comics is selective at best.  And that's among those who even read the comics, which is by no means a universal proposition.  They're better about it than Singerman fans, to be sure, but still...

[batass4880]

^ Good point.

I guess it just depends on who is making the movie and how good their sensibilities are.

[phantom stranger]

I think the most important thing is that the films stay true to the characters. Although I prefer that they use the comic book origins, if the director has an interesting idea I'd say to go with that.

Take a look at Two-Face. In Batman Forever, his origin (seen on a TV screen in the middle of the film) is exactly like it was in the comics. But BTAS and The Dark Knight both had an explosion create Two-Face. Although the latter two may have created a new origin for him, they were much truer to the character than the Schumacher film.

[Paul (ral)]

From the interview:

Jack: Was the other man in the alley on the night of the Waynes' murder supposed to be Joe Chill?

Mike: Yes. In fact, you'll recall that it was Chill who grabbed Bruce's mother's necklace.

[Joker81]

I see your point. But they were young then. Bob (if it was him) didnt expect Jack to shoot the Waynes. He just expected to mug them. Its like every thug who end up being in gangs and end up murderers to keep their little empire.

Start small, break ins, muggings then they end up doing worse things. Me personally believe the character of Jack Napier was a psychopath and murderer. Falling in the acid only helped him unleash this psychotic side to his personality to another level. No doubt he was born with a screw loose. But the chemicals in the acid obviously brain damaged his psyche even more.

No offence to the OP, but I prefer the mugging of the Waynes to be a random act of crime - no big elaborate plot!! This is part of the reason I hated Begins.

Solid post, Joker81. You have indeed spoken the undeniable truth, & I can't agree w/ you any further.

Thanks!! 

[thecolorsblend]

No offence to the OP, but I prefer the mugging of the Waynes to be a random act of crime - no big elaborate plot!! This is part of the reason I hated Begins.

You're completely right.  I think all superhero origins should be relatively simple and straight forward.  The more you complicate it by adding in extra elements, elaborate plots, conspiracies, whatever, etc, the more it somehow waters down the character's psychology.  Of no character is this truer of than Batman (although Spider-Man is a close second, as John Byrne so aptly demonstrated).

B89 gives us that simplicity, with the impersonal being MADE personal.

[TheBatMan0887]

To me, as you all maybe have heard, it's not one bit different with BB. We have Ra's Al Ghul switched to being joker in the old movie.

You remember Nolan being a fan of the older one. I've found some references towards that film that just makes this a remake of an older film, less we forget Hollywood remakes (House of Wax and it's differences).

I've seen him state "and we've returned to finish the job", which obviously is the same thing as him and his men putting on the masks and the mass panic. It's made to be similar, yet in different variables. Other fanboys want to blind people into thinking Burton had no influence, or Nolan did not try to make anything similar. However, the more they do, the more bad it makes Nolan look for any found. It also makes them look bad too, becuase you don't need to have it EXACTLY the same, it's just ignorant.

You know he has to think it as a good and nicely accurate film, or he'd just make his main villain plot anew. However, it is to be based on Joker's in Burton's, with Scarecrow thrown in to work in storyline. Hell, even the fact that there is a certain condition for the contaminant to work is similar shows more of it. This is based on a comic too, but not Ra's Al Ghul.

To think about it, Nolan was probably trying to redo portions of the film just so what we felt with Burtan's can be felt again. He wouldn't have to if Joel was a similar case as to HellBoy and HellBoy 2 with the different directors. Nolan would be resting with his own work.


So anywho, there are things that put them very equal, it's just they focus too much on Joker and ignore the rest as nothing. To me this is unfair. They also mock this Joker as camp, but this is the original origin of Joker made anew by Burton, not a newer 2005 scare induced Joker (see Dark Knight influences). He did take some things from the 80's Joker, however, they did this very little. The gags were only done a couple times in large spaces and then the rest at the end when facing BatMan. After this, I did think he messed up with the museum scene. However, they still do miss that this is because he's mixed with a love relation. Still, BB and TDK still loosly uses things (Gordon being altered to be Two-Face's origin) as well and it can only be a manner of jock/tough guy's gibberish rant about how cool one is, rather authenticy.

EDIT: How much more hardcore Jocker acts, yet, it's still not dominently this simple serial killer I've found the original to be. The Nolan Joker only robbed a bank to hatch a plan, he also only went on TV to get BatMan to take off his mask. This means that after that, he would only be an overly wild character again, not any less in the vein of Burton's Joker IMO. Just with less gags.

That's what I feel.

Yet, other comic films were changed to time and they liked them too. Some what a remake, but those comic films had almost picture perfect actors at times, yet they again want to have other people (not talking of BatMan films). (EDITED TEXT OUT)

[thecolorsblend]

For instance, the punisher. In the remade version, he looks less similar to this popular artist's rendition.

Um, what?