The Controversy and Chaos of Batman's origins!

[johnnygobbs]

I think your summary is spot-on Joker81.  To some extent Batman fulfils his initial purpose by the end of the first film (to avenge the murder of his parents.) 
Nevertheless, Bruce Wayne has spent his entire adult life as Batman at the cost of every other aspect of his life.  Keaton's eccentric, distracted Bruce Wayne fits perfectly with this conception of the character.  Unlike Bale's Bruce Wayne (who after all, never gets a chance to avenge his parents's murder since Joe Chill is killed by someone else), Keaton's Bruce Wayne has no external life beyond Batman.  He is basically a recluse whose sole purpose in life is to don the Bat costume and fight crime.
As you observed Joker81, Gotham is pretty much a transformed city between the events of the two films now that Carl Grissom, Jack Napier and the rest of the city's gangsters are either dead or in jail.  So Bruce Wayne is essentially revitalised by the appearance of The Red Triangle Circus and the reemergence of crime within Gotham.  The shot in which the Bat signal shines upon the Wayne mansion and Bruce Wayne is roused to action perfectly captures one man regaining the purpose to his life.

[batass4880]

^ Thank god, I'm not alone!

So, in a round about way you are agreeing that Batman in BB and TDK his motive is less batman-like?

Pretty much yes. 

[thecolorsblend]

J81 and batass, I like that interpretation, but I can't quiet convince myself of it.  We see Batman interacting with Gordon somewhat ("the circus gang is back"), which implied that they'd had at least a few meetings since credits rolled on B89.  Also, Bruce and Shreck clearly knew each other well enough to have such an informal meeting.  Bruce was clearly someone Max had become accustomed to dealing with.

I figured that Batman basically assumed a lower profile in Gotham City's criminal power structure.  Between Batman, GCPD and the Joker, there really was no top echelon of the mob any more follow B89 so crime became a lot more decentralized and Batman focused his energies on street gangs and the like.  The Red Triangle Gang is what brought Batman back into prominence.

Good stuff all around though, if you ask me.

[Joker81]

J81 and batass, I like that interpretation, but I can't quiet convince myself of it.  We see Batman interacting with Gordon somewhat ("the circus gang is back"), which implied that they'd had at least a few meetings since credits rolled on B89.  Also, Bruce and Shreck clearly knew each other well enough to have such an informal meeting.  Bruce was clearly someone Max had become accustomed to dealing with.

I figured that Batman basically assumed a lower profile in Gotham City's criminal power structure.  Between Batman, GCPD and the Joker, there really was no top echelon of the mob any more follow B89 so crime became a lot more decentralized and Batman focused his energies on street gangs and the like.  The Red Triangle Gang is what brought Batman back into prominence.

Good stuff all around though, if you ask me.

no, I dont mean he went totally away. Your second paragraph, thats pretty much the way I see it. When we see Bruce at the start of returns sitting in his study waiting for the signal, I dont believe that is the first he has been Batman since defeating the Joker. Obviously he has been fighting crime in between, like you say about Gordan saying "I see the circus gang is back".

But like you say there was no big crime boss until the Penguin. There was a reason why Joker killed Bob in Batman, story wise. With Bob dead there was no one to assume the position of crime boss - Bob, Jokers right hand man was dead, sending the crime organisation into disarray when the Joker died. God knows, maybe there was a mob war after Batman to assume who would control the streets, and they slaughtered eachother, then the ones who done the killing were jailed. Just a thought here as my imagination runs off with me lol

Then you have Max Schreck arrive on the scene. A criminal with other motives and commiting his crimes from the inside! Probably minipulating and buying off politicans and police to get his way and buying up the business previously owned by the Carl Grissom sindycate - which the Joker took control of in Batman.

[gordonblu]

Here's my two cents on the whole Joker killing the parents and who the other guy was.

I think the other guy was Bob and that Joe Chill was an alias of Jack Napier. If he was so steeped in crime he would probably have a mess of aliases, Jack Napier being the current one. Take Batman TAS and the Episode "Robin's Reckoning" Tony Zucco had at least six aliases. In he later "Beware the Creeper" episode, the retrospect on the Joker states that his real name is lost amogst a dozen aliases. I know that isn't canon to Burton's film, but TAS is the closest in tone to B89 and BR than any of the other films and I really liked that explanation. Also they don;t go into details so anyone could interperet the scene any way they want and it ould be correct for that particular person. That's part of the reason I don't like everything being spelled out, it makes movies less interactive. You're being told everything instead of letting your own imagination fill in the rest.

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.

Guillermo Del Toro directed both Hellboy and Hellboy 2.

[johnnygobbs]

I think the emergence of the seemingly legitimate businessman Max Shreck probably heralded an era of prosperity and relative calm in Gotham.  Max may have been commiting crimes, such as the murder of his business partner Fred Atkins, but they were probably all under the radar of the police force.  The point is, to most of Gotham's citizens it appears that by Returns Gotham appears to be a safe, crime-free city.

Bruce Wayne has obviously had some dealings with Shreck before, as colorsblend has already stated but only in his capacity as a businessman/ regular citizen.  For all we know, Bruce may have commenced some detective work into Shreck's private dealings, but unfortunately been unable to come up with anything concrete.

In fact the financial prosperity of the city, and the apparent absence of any major criminal communities may have made Batman essentially a redundant figure in Gotham.  In many ways, 'Gotham's own Santa Claus' Max Shreck has surpassed Batman as Gotham's saviour now that the events of the first film have faded in the community's short memory (kind of like Ghostbusters 2, where New York has already forgotton the debt they owe the central chracters, but in this case with the added element of a new 'saviour'.)  The 'puppet pinheads' of Gotham may find it easy, even desirable to forget the relatively recent traumatic past (and with it, their collective need for a crimefighting guardian) and embrace a seemingly prosperous, sedate era for the city.

[THE BAT-MAN]

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.

Yeah and its not only that, making the death plot of the parents this massive scheme makes it so unrealistic. Also if it was a massive operation so many people would know about it that it could never be kept under wraps! lol

It makes more sense for it to be a random act of crime because that is something which Batman detests! And we can all relate to that as an audience, or reader. Because every person in the world has been the victim of crime at one stage or another, at what ever level. Giving the Wayne murders more logic and explaination only gives it less. The random robbery makes more sense to why Batman fights crime.

Which is another reason why i hate the fact that Joe Chill gets caught. Ok he may have in the comics, I am not sure. But if the system is working, then why put on a cowl and fight crime? Why not join the police force instead? This is something I have a problem with BB. The Bruce Wayne in that film to me is more likley to join the police than he is putting on a mask and fighting crime. Michael Keaton and Tim Burtons Batman to me is more logical. They didnt catch the waynes killer, the police are not in control - he has no faith in them. Its all about the world and settings.

Anyway, I dont want to get side tracked.

I understand what all of you are saying and I can agree with you on some levels.  One thing you have to realize is that I was sharing a what if story.  The only reason why I had even proposed the idea that the murder of the waynes could have been a hit was because, In Detective Comics #235 (1956), Batman learns that Chill was not a mere robber, but actually a hitman who murdered the Waynes on orders from a Mafia boss named Lew Moxon.  I thought it would be more interesting if this story was based on Tim Burton's interpretation.  There are some things that I find interesting conscerning the origin story in the comicbook, and the films Batman(1989) and Batman Begins.  One is that in issue #33   When the waynes are leaving the theater the unknown gunman approaches them from the front, he appears poor, desperate, and in a hurry very similar to that in batman begins we see a very poor, deperate Joe Chill who's in a hurry.  To me these versions of story telling felt like a random mugging despite the fact that in begins its stated that the League of Shadows were behind it all.  I mean how would anybody know that the waynes would leave the opera early and take an exit that leads to an alley?  It doesn't make any sense if the league of shadows were behind it all.  Another thing I wanted to add was that in the beginning of Batman(1989) when were introduced to punks nick and eddie we see that they too are poor and desperate and they also commit a random mugging.  However,  I found it very interesting when we see in Batman(1989) how the waynes were mugged by a unknown mugger possibly Joe Chill and murdered by Jack Napier.  First we see them stalking the wayne family instead of approaching them from the front, this is very different from the comicbook and Batman Begins.  They're clothing is not the fashion of someone who is poor or desperate instead they both look like gangsters/hitman from a mafia.  Jack's hair is oiled and greased just right his clothing looks expensive in fact it's not that different from Thomas Wayne's clothing.  It's evident in the scene that Jack was really only conscerned with doing away with the wayne's, to him it wasn't about money he even wore leather gloves possibly to hide his prints.  However, his unknown accomplice (Joe Chill) was shocked and horrified at what happened, to me this shows that he did not know of Jack's true intentions.  One has to also understand that Thomas Wayne was an important man who had alot of influence in Gotham.  One could say that he was Gotham's King and Bruce was the young prince.  With his money and power it's possible that he tried to clean up Gotham and do away with crime organizations, of course this would have been bad for the mob which could have resulted to him being murdered off.  Again, I'm not suggesting that Batman(1989) is not a random act of crime, but I am suggesting that it can be viewed the other way around.  I know, alot of you feel that Bruce feels guilty for his parents murder because he believes it was his fault.  For this is what motivates him to become batman.  You also believe that if the origin story were to be something more than a random act of crime, this would waterdown the psychology of the character.  However, even if the story was about his parent's being murdered by the mob,  somehow someway  bruce would still feel that it was his own fault because deep down he believes he could prevent it and again it would not change his destined course.    The cool thing about Tim Burton's Batman Films is that not everything is explained you can go beyond and expand the story, it truly is left to one's imagination.  And that's really all that matters, if you like a random mugging great if not their are ways to explore new avenues to the story telling.  The same thing is true for comicbooks.  Anyway thank you for all of your comments and letting me share my expanded thoughts about the film.

[THE BAT-MAN]

Here's my two cents on the whole Joker killing the parents and who the other guy was.

I think the other guy was Bob and that Joe Chill was an alias of Jack Napier. If he was so steeped in crime he would probably have a mess of aliases, Jack Napier being the current one. Take Batman TAS and the Episode "Robin's Reckoning" Tony Zucco had at least six aliases. In he later "Beware the Creeper" episode, the retrospect on the Joker states that his real name is lost amogst a dozen aliases. I know that isn't canon to Burton's film, but TAS is the closest in tone to B89 and BR than any of the other films and I really liked that explanation. Also they don;t go into details so anyone could interperet the scene any way they want and it ould be correct for that particular person. That's part of the reason I don't like everything being spelled out, it makes movies less interactive. You're being told everything instead of letting your own imagination fill in the rest.

According to the end credits there is a reference to Young Jack Napier but not a Young Bob the goon  instead it reads the other mugger.  So I seriously doubt it could have been bob the goon.  And according to Ral's sources in an interview michael uslan states that the other gunman with Jack was indeed Joe Chill. 

[batass4880]

I understand what all of you are saying and I can agree with you on some levels.  One thing you have to realize is that I was sharing a what if story.  The only reason why had even proposed the idea that the murder of the waynes could have been a hit was because, In Detective Comics #235 (1956), Batman learns that Chill was not a mere robber, but actually a hitman who murdered the Waynes on orders from a Mafia boss named Lew Moxon.  I thought it would be more interesting if this story was based on Tim Burton's interpretation.  There are some things that I find interesting conscerning the origin story in the comicbook, and the films Batman(1989) and Batman Begins.  One is that in issue #33   When the waynes are leaving the theater the unknown gunman approaches them from the front, he appears poor, desperate, and in a hurry very similar to that in batman begins we see a very poor, deperate Joe Chill who's in a hurry.  To me these versions of story telling felt like a random mugging despite the fact that in begins its stated that the League of Shadows were behind it all.  I mean how would anybody know that the waynes would leave the opera early and take an exit that leads to an alley?  It doesn't make any sense if the league of shadows were behind it all.  Another thing I wanted to add was that in the beginning of Batman(1989) when were introduced to punks nick and eddie we see that they too are poor and desperate and they also commit a random mugging.  However,  I found it very interesting when we see in Batman(1989) how the waynes were mugged by a unknown mugger possibly Joe Chill and murdered by Jack Napier.  First we see them stalking the wayne family instead of approaching them from the front, this is very different from the comicbook and Batman Begins.  They're clothing is not the fashion of someone who is poor or desperate instead they both look like gangsters/hitman from a mafia.  Jack's hair is oiled and greased just right his clothing looks expensive in fact it's not that different from Thomas Wayne's clothing.  It's evident in the scene that Jack was really only conscerned with doing away with the wayne's, to him it wasn't about money he even wore leather gloves possibly to hide his prints.  However, his unknown accomplice (Joe Chill) was shocked and horrified at what happened, to me this shows that he did not know of Jack's true intentions.  One has to also understand that Thomas Wayne was an important man who had alot of influence in Gotham.  One could say that he was Gotham's King and Bruce was the young prince.  With his money and power it's possible that he tried to clean up Gotham and do away with crime organizations, of course this would have been bad for the mob which could have resulted to him being murdered off.  Again, I'm not suggesting that Batman(1989) is not a random act of crime, but I am suggesting that it can be viewed the other way around.  I know, alot of you feel that Bruce feels guilty for his parents murder because he believes it was his fault.  For this is what motivates him to become batman.  You also believe that if the origin story were to be something more than a random act of crime, this would waterdown the psychology of the character.  However, even if the story was about his parent's being murdered by the mob,  somehow someway  bruce would still feel that it was his own fault because deep down he believes he could prevent it and again it would not change his destined course.    The cool thing about Tim Burton's Batman Films is that not everything is explained you can go beyond and expand the story, it truly is left to one's imagination.  And that's really all that matters, if you like a random mugging great if not their are ways to explore new avenues to the story telling.  The same thing is true for comicbooks.  Anyway thank you for all of your comments and letting me share my expanded thoughts about the film.

Sam Hamm did something like that for the rejected story that he wrote for Returns. Bruce learns that Jack Napier was hired to specifically kill Thomas Wayne because Wayne and four other prominent men in Gotham had an onyx raven statuette that was a key to a hidden treasure.

[DarkVengeance]

^ Not sure if that idea of having Napier being "hired" for the job excites me, Im glad alot of what Hamm wanted to do with BR was scrapped.