Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Express your love for TDK, your hate for Batman and Robin or your TDKR anticipation. This is the place to discuss The Batman movies.

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby batwayne007 » Oct 18th, 2014, 9:20 pm

The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".
Batman: DO YOU WANNA GET NUTS??!! COME ON!! let's get nuts.
Joker: Tell me something my friend. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Batman: What?
User avatar
batwayne007
Banned
Banned
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Dec 29th, 2013, 12:20 am
Location: The Batcave
Favourite Villain: MISTAH FREEEZE
Favourite Graphic Novel: Dark Knight Returns

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby The Oracle » Oct 18th, 2014, 9:35 pm

Yeah, I'll take no origin thank you. One of my biggest issues with Batman 89 is getting the Joker's origin.
Image
User avatar
The Oracle
.................
.................
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: Jan 27th, 2012, 5:59 am
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batwoman: Elegy

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Enigma » Oct 18th, 2014, 9:45 pm

batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.
Enigma
................
................
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Apr 19th, 2011, 10:05 pm
Favourite Graphic Novel: Knightfall vol. 1

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby HaHaHa » Oct 18th, 2014, 9:56 pm

batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


Do you mean being knocked into the acid by Batman? I thought it was clever in the Dark Knight that the Joker recites alternate origin stories. It's basically him saying he's full of sh*t. That's probably the cleverest trait about the character. Didn't someone say that the idea for Heath's Joker was that he was ex military?

Other than that I don't particularly care for the Nolan Batman's. They're so concentrated on being realistic that they lose that magic and sense of fun. They're incredibly younger audience friendly as well which oddly enough makes them even less realistic? That seems contradictory.

Anyway it's good that we don't all like the same thing.
"don't you know I'm loco"
User avatar
HaHaHa
............
............
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sep 15th, 2010, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Mani-Man » Oct 18th, 2014, 10:57 pm

Enigma wrote:He's not supposed to be a more "serious" or "twisted" version.


He is not? How would you describe his character then?


Enigma wrote:Oh, no, you're not backing out of this with that card.

I'm not talking about your personal taste - and I prefer the B:TAS Joker to the Nolanverse Joker, but I like both - but your point about there being nothing "special" about the Nolanverse Joker, which I feel is ill-judged.


Im pretty sure i can back out of everything i want with any card i have.:D

I stay with my opinion that Nolans joker is in its core a plain and generic villian.
In the Nolan universe he is "different", from this point of view, yes Nolans Joker is Unique and a special kind of villian...just looking at this one single universe, makes this particular joker special.
Not to the extend he should be however, Bane and Scarecrow came of as crazier then him in their approach.
Add the comics to it,add tim burtons movies to it, add Schumachers movies to it....then this guy wearing a clown makeup is nothing extreme.
That is what i do as a batman fan, i compare what i see to the comics ive grown up with and loved.
Nolan sacrificed the unique characters traits for his realistic approach, this begins with the city and its characters.
Look at Dent,Bane or Joker....its as if they just used a batman wikipedia site and just read the overall characterisation.

It is enough for many, it is enough for the Franchise that is over now, for me personally it is not enough.

I look at the Batman movies and want to recognize the characters from the comics, i look at every comic book movie and want it to show me a live action version of those fantasic characters and worlds.
User avatar
Mani-Man
............
............
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sep 1st, 2010, 1:42 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Enigma » Oct 18th, 2014, 11:34 pm

Mani-Man wrote:
Enigma wrote:He's not supposed to be a more "serious" or "twisted" version.

He is not? How would you describe his character then?

The Joker, interpreted by the screenwriters, reinterpreted for the grounded universe of the films, then interpreted by Heath Ledger. He is funny without being overtly flashy, which can be chalked up to the aforementioned influences. (At points, this disposition was also expressed by the Joker of The Killing Joke. It's probably to do with their conveying of a philosophy.) And the Joker of the comics, when portrayed in the modern vein, can be equally - if not more - twisted.

Enigma wrote:Oh, no, you're not backing out of this with that card.

I'm not talking about your personal taste - and I prefer the B:TAS Joker to the Nolanverse Joker, but I like both - but your point about there being nothing "special" about the Nolanverse Joker, which I feel is ill-judged.

Im pretty sure i can back out of everything i want with any card i have.:D

Are you the Joker or something? :P

I stay with my opinion that Nolans joker is in its core a plain and generic villian.
In the Nolan universe he is "different", from this point of view, yes Nolans Joker is Unique and a special kind of villian...just looking at this one single universe, makes this particular joker special.
Not to the extend he should be however, Bane and Scarecrow came of as crazier then him in their approach.
Add the comics to it,add tim burtons movies to it, add Schumachers movies to it....then this guy wearing a clown makeup is nothing extreme.
That is what i do as a batman fan, i compare what i see to the comics ive grown up with and loved.
Nolan sacrificed the unique characters traits for his realistic approach, this begins with the city and its characters.
Look at Dent,Bane or Joker....its as if they just used a batman wikipedia site and just read the overall characterisation.

It is enough for many, it is enough for the Franchise that is over now, for me personally it is not enough.

I look at the Batman movies and want to recognize the characters from the comics, i look at every comic book movie and want it to show me a live action version of those fantasic characters and worlds.

It sounds like your issue is with the process of adaptation each character experienced (to conform to the grounded setting), rather than the characters in themselves. Which is cool - it's basically personal opinion, so there's nothing to argue there.

But I don't agree with your assessment of the Joker as tamer than Bane or the Scarecrow. He was essentially unrestrained; it's only in his service to his philosophy, or getting the other characters to see things the way he wants them to, that he restricted himself. I mean, laughing while getting your ass beaten by Batman ain't no small feat.
Enigma
................
................
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Apr 19th, 2011, 10:05 pm
Favourite Graphic Novel: Knightfall vol. 1

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Harvey Bullock » Oct 19th, 2014, 12:56 am

batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

What? Every Bat-fan knows that there is no definitive origin for the joker. "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice."
Image
User avatar
Harvey Bullock
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Aug 13th, 2011, 9:03 am
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: Ra's al Ghul
Favourite Graphic Novel: DC: The New Frontier

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby batwayne007 » Oct 19th, 2014, 1:06 am

Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man. I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin. I don't want it to be a mystery. And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless. And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman. Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:07 pm --

Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man. I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin. I don't want it to be a mystery. And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless. And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman. Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:07 pm --

Harvey Bullock wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

What? Every Bat-fan knows that there is no definitive origin for the joker. "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice."

I know that but I prefer one origin. I feel like it's important to the relationship with Batman and Joker.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:10 pm --

Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man. I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin. I don't want it to be a mystery. And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless. And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman. Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:07 pm --

Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man. I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin. I don't want it to be a mystery. And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless. And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman. Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:07 pm --

Harvey Bullock wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

What? Every Bat-fan knows that there is no definitive origin for the joker. "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice."

I know that but I prefer one origin. I feel like it's important to the relationship with Batman and Joker.

-- Oct 18th, 2014, 5:10 pm --

HaHaHa wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


Do you mean being knocked into the acid by Batman? I thought it was clever in the Dark Knight that the Joker recites alternate origin stories. It's basically him saying he's full of sh*t. That's probably the cleverest trait about the character. Didn't someone say that the idea for Heath's Joker was that he was ex military?

Other than that I don't particularly care for the Nolan Batman's. They're so concentrated on being realistic that they lose that magic and sense of fun. They're incredibly younger audience friendly as well which oddly enough makes them even less realistic? That seems contradictory.

Anyway it's good that we don't all like the same thing.

Yes, the obsession with realism limits it so much.
Batman: DO YOU WANNA GET NUTS??!! COME ON!! let's get nuts.
Joker: Tell me something my friend. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Batman: What?
User avatar
batwayne007
Banned
Banned
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Dec 29th, 2013, 12:20 am
Location: The Batcave
Favourite Villain: MISTAH FREEEZE
Favourite Graphic Novel: Dark Knight Returns

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Enigma » Oct 19th, 2014, 1:41 am

batwayne007 wrote:
Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man.

I am.

I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin.

It's only his existence as the Red Hood that is often touched upon; the other details are hit-and-miss.

I don't want it to be a mystery.

batwayne007 wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

What? Every Bat-fan knows that there is no definitive origin for the joker. "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice."

I know that but I prefer one origin. I feel like it's important to the relationship with Batman and Joker.

Why do you feel that? I'm genuinely curious.

And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless.

That was a lighthearted comment.

And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman.

I found that a bit funky as well.

Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

In the comics, Batman almost retired in his prime when the Joker upped his game. Luckily Robin had a pep talk handy.
Enigma
................
................
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Apr 19th, 2011, 10:05 pm
Favourite Graphic Novel: Knightfall vol. 1

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby batwayne007 » Oct 19th, 2014, 3:11 am

Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:
Enigma wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

...did you read my response? Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

OK. Let's play by your rules.

If you're referring to the Red Hood origin - which, let's face it, you are - it wasn't present in all the Joker's incarnations. It appeared in the Silver Age and took a strong hold after Mr. Moore decided to include it as a potential - yes, potential - origin in The Killing Joke. There have been other origin stories for the Joker.

Plus - *sigh* - you're under the impression that Red Hood's falling into the chemicals is a defining characteristic of the Joker... which, plainly, it isn't. More important is the Joker's ultimately mysterious background, which the film carries with it. If we're gonna turn this into a Burton-Nolan war - which I rather wouldn't, as I like both - it's fair to say that, from the perspective of principle, the Nolanverse Joker is more comic accurate than the Burtonverse Joker, who spills his guts to the audience.

Plus the Nolanverse crew adapted Batman into a grounded setting. You can fling your arms and claim this isn't your Batman, but it's not fair to say it isn't Batman. 'Cause it is. It's just another spin on it, like literally everything else.

Harvey's response: read it.

Take it easy man.

I am.

I just feel like if so many things use that origin then it's his origin.

It's only his existence as the Red Hood that is often touched upon; the other details are hit-and-miss.

I don't want it to be a mystery.

batwayne007 wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".

What? Every Bat-fan knows that there is no definitive origin for the joker. "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice."

I know that but I prefer one origin. I feel like it's important to the relationship with Batman and Joker.

Why do you feel that? I'm genuinely curious.

And let's get this straight. I don't like Burton or Nolan. A war would be pointless.

That was a lighthearted comment.

And Nolan got Batman's character wrong because Batman would never retire unless his health was too bad for him to keep being Batman.

I found that a bit funky as well.

Batman wouldn't retire in his prime. He is not Batman.

In the comics, Batman almost retired in his prime when the Joker upped his game. Luckily Robin had a pep talk handy.

I don't like mysteries that never get solved so I just accept the Red Hood origin until someone gives Joker a canon origin. Also which comic is it when that happened?
Batman: DO YOU WANNA GET NUTS??!! COME ON!! let's get nuts.
Joker: Tell me something my friend. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Batman: What?
User avatar
batwayne007
Banned
Banned
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Dec 29th, 2013, 12:20 am
Location: The Batcave
Favourite Villain: MISTAH FREEEZE
Favourite Graphic Novel: Dark Knight Returns

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby thatguywiththebeanie » Jan 10th, 2015, 10:42 am

batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


You know if you read the biography specifically about The Dark Knight Trilogy, then you would know that Christopher Nolan didn't take out his "origin" because it wasn't "realistic". He took it out to make the Joker scary, Give the audience a reason and a backstory to someones violence like blaming mass shooting son video games, takes away the horror. Random violence for no reason makes things scary. People fear what they don't understand. That's why everyone was afraid of the Joker. He was a sociopath who doesn't even know his own origin and doesn't really care, and is only doing things for fun. Sure Nolan's Joker wasn't exactly like the comics. He claimed he didn't have a plan and yet was calculating. Even though in the comics Joker was very random. But anyway, shut up you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about. :heath:
Image
Ladies. Gentlemen. You have eaten well. You've eaten Gotham's wealth. Its spirit. Your feast is nearly over. From this moment on -- none of you are safe.
User avatar
thatguywiththebeanie
.........
.........
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Apr 23rd, 2013, 3:11 am
Location: <Insert Joke Here>
Favourite Villain: Great White Shark
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batman: Knightfall

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Batwoman » Jan 12th, 2015, 6:38 pm

thatguywiththebeanie wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


You know if you read the biography specifically about The Dark Knight Trilogy, then you would know that Christopher Nolan didn't take out his "origin" because it wasn't "realistic". He took it out to make the Joker scary, Give the audience a reason and a backstory to someones violence like blaming mass shooting son video games, takes away the horror. Random violence for no reason makes things scary. People fear what they don't understand. That's why everyone was afraid of the Joker. He was a sociopath who doesn't even know his own origin and doesn't really care, and is only doing things for fun. Sure Nolan's Joker wasn't exactly like the comics. He claimed he didn't have a plan and yet was calculating. Even though in the comics Joker was very random. But anyway, shut up you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about. :heath:


thatguywiththebeanie , I agree with you with everything except the final sentence , which I understand as a joke ::D
Image
Thanks TheCat for the signature and the avatar !
Formerly known as Red Robin 1999
User avatar
Batwoman
...........
...........
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Jul 31st, 2011, 4:16 am
Favourite Villain: Doc Hurt and Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The long Halloween

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby batwayne007 » Jan 13th, 2015, 4:12 pm

thatguywiththebeanie wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


You know if you read the biography specifically about The Dark Knight Trilogy, then you would know that Christopher Nolan didn't take out his "origin" because it wasn't "realistic". He took it out to make the Joker scary, Give the audience a reason and a backstory to someones violence like blaming mass shooting son video games, takes away the horror. Random violence for no reason makes things scary. People fear what they don't understand. That's why everyone was afraid of the Joker. He was a sociopath who doesn't even know his own origin and doesn't really care, and is only doing things for fun. Sure Nolan's Joker wasn't exactly like the comics. He claimed he didn't have a plan and yet was calculating. Even though in the comics Joker was very random. But anyway, shut up you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about. :heath:

POW YOU AND YOUR GODDAMN JOKER
Batman: DO YOU WANNA GET NUTS??!! COME ON!! let's get nuts.
Joker: Tell me something my friend. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Batman: What?
User avatar
batwayne007
Banned
Banned
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Dec 29th, 2013, 12:20 am
Location: The Batcave
Favourite Villain: MISTAH FREEEZE
Favourite Graphic Novel: Dark Knight Returns

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby TheJester » Jan 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

batwayne007 wrote:
thatguywiththebeanie wrote:
batwayne007 wrote:The origin is a big part of Joker but since it wasn't "realistic" enough Nolan decided to remove it. Nolan ruined everyone just for it to be "realistic".


You know if you read the biography specifically about The Dark Knight Trilogy, then you would know that Christopher Nolan didn't take out his "origin" because it wasn't "realistic". He took it out to make the Joker scary, Give the audience a reason and a backstory to someones violence like blaming mass shooting son video games, takes away the horror. Random violence for no reason makes things scary. People fear what they don't understand. That's why everyone was afraid of the Joker. He was a sociopath who doesn't even know his own origin and doesn't really care, and is only doing things for fun. Sure Nolan's Joker wasn't exactly like the comics. He claimed he didn't have a plan and yet was calculating. Even though in the comics Joker was very random. But anyway, shut up you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about. :heath:

POW YOU AND YOUR GODDAMN JOKER

Woah, calm down guys, both of ya. No need to get petty.
Image
~ I'm not mad, I'm just differently sane. ~
Check out my latest fanfic, Clipped Wings, here!
User avatar
TheJester
...............
...............
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Feb 27th, 2011, 11:02 pm
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: The Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Killing Joke

Re: Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

Postby Harvey Bullock » Jan 13th, 2015, 7:52 pm

Those posts. :oldyella:

Can we just end the topic with this?

Image

Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.
Image
User avatar
Harvey Bullock
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Aug 13th, 2011, 9:03 am
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: Ra's al Ghul
Favourite Graphic Novel: DC: The New Frontier

PreviousNext

Return to Batman Movies Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron