Burton & Keaton returning to Batman

[thatguywiththebeanie]

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.

POW YOU AND YOUR GODDAMN JOKER

Oh yeah well you're a poopy face! Yes, now I've truly one this argument now that I've said a swear word!

[batwayne007]

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.

POW YOU AND YOUR GODDAMN JOKER

Oh yeah well you're a poopy face! Yes, now I've truly one this argument now that I've said a swear word!

I WILL 1V1 U ON TEH SIDE OF TEH STREET

[thatguywiththebeanie]

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.

POW YOU AND YOUR GODDAMN JOKER

Oh yeah well you're a poopy face! Yes, now I've truly one this argument now that I've said a swear word!

I WILL 1V1 U ON TEH SIDE OF TEH STREET

Want sum? I'll give it ya! Ya got no fans!

[Enigma]

Those posts.

Can we just end the topic with this?



Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.

I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.

Citing The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.

[Harvey Bullock]

Those posts.

Can we just end the topic with this?



Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.

I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.

Citing The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.

I already made my argument multiple times in the thread. Nor did I say that it was law of the character - it is however an interpretation that has been followed by writers time and time again. The Joker is constantly reinventing himself - The Killing Joke is the quintessential example of this, and is completely antithetical to the belief that it's 'law of the character'. The law of his character is that there 'is no law', honestly.

Don't really see how my post was condescending either? Also find it rather strange that you took issue with the tone of my post in particular when we have two other people in the thread swearing at each other and spouting internet memes.

[Enigma]

Those posts.

Can we just end the topic with this?



Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.

I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.

Citing The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.

I already made my argument multiple times in the thread. Nor did I say that it was law of the character - it is however an interpretation that has been followed by writers time and time again. The Joker is constantly reinventing himself - The Killing Joke is the quintessential example of this, and is completely antithetical to the belief that it's 'law of the character'. The law of his character is that there 'is no law', honestly.

Don't really see how my post was condescending either? Also find it rather strange that you took issue with the tone of my post in particular when we have two other people in the thread swearing at each other and spouting internet memes.

I said that the only way in which the image could be an appropriate end to the discussion would be if it was an integral part of the character, not that you said that.

Because I knew they were kidding around.

[Harvey Bullock]

Those posts.

Can we just end the topic with this?



Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.

I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.

Citing The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.

I already made my argument multiple times in the thread. Nor did I say that it was law of the character - it is however an interpretation that has been followed by writers time and time again. The Joker is constantly reinventing himself - The Killing Joke is the quintessential example of this, and is completely antithetical to the belief that it's 'law of the character'. The law of his character is that there 'is no law', honestly.

Don't really see how my post was condescending either? Also find it rather strange that you took issue with the tone of my post in particular when we have two other people in the thread swearing at each other and spouting internet memes.

I said that the only way in which the image could be an appropriate end to the discussion would be if it was an integral part of the character, not that you said that.

Because I knew they were kidding around.

Well, it is an integral part of the character. It acts as some form of canonised enabler for writers to constantly experiment with his character - this was first and earliest example that came to mind.

Then there's no need to berate me for actually contributing to discussion, is there?

EDIT: Criticise, would be the more appropriate term actually. Still think it was unwarranted.

[Enigma]

Those posts.

Can we just end the topic with this?



Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.

I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.

Citing The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.

I already made my argument multiple times in the thread. Nor did I say that it was law of the character - it is however an interpretation that has been followed by writers time and time again. The Joker is constantly reinventing himself - The Killing Joke is the quintessential example of this, and is completely antithetical to the belief that it's 'law of the character'. The law of his character is that there 'is no law', honestly.

Don't really see how my post was condescending either? Also find it rather strange that you took issue with the tone of my post in particular when we have two other people in the thread swearing at each other and spouting internet memes.

I said that the only way in which the image could be an appropriate end to the discussion would be if it was an integral part of the character, not that you said that.

Because I knew they were kidding around.

Well, it is an integral part of the character. It acts as some form of canonised enabler for writers to constantly experiment with his character - this was first example that came to mind.

Then there's no need to berate me for actually contributing to discussion, is there?

I'm aware of that. But my point is not that I agree or disagree with you. It's that you can't "end the topic" with that image. This is because there is no correct answer to the question of, 'What's the best way to approach the Joker's origin (or lack thereof)?' From The Killing Joke onward (and arguably prior), the most popular response to the question has been to keep it ambiguous, or relatively non-existent. We are alike in that we subscribe to this idea. But it is not to say that other variations are not to be discussed and considered. This is why it cannot "end the topic."

I'm not berating you. I felt the tone of your post was inappropriate. Did you intend this? No, as I pointed out. But it's the way it came across, so I thought I would let you know.

[Harvey Bullock]

I'm aware of that. But my point is not that I agree or disagree with you. It's that you can't "end the topic" with that image. This is because there is no correct answer to the question of, 'What's the best way to approach the Joker's origin (or lack thereof)?' From The Killing Joke onward (and arguably prior), the most popular response to the question has been to keep it ambiguous, or relatively non-existent. We are alike in that we subscribe to this idea. But it is not to say that other variations are not to be discussed and considered. This is why it cannot "end the topic."

I'm not berating you. I felt the tone of your post was inappropriate. Did you intend this? No, as I pointed out. But it's the way it came across, so I thought I would let you know.

I think you need to stop taking everything that you read on a forum at face-value. I wasn't attempting to end the topic, nor was I prohibiting other discussion from taking place. I was diverting attention back to what was being discussed and I wanted to make a post that highlighted the inception of the Joker as a constantly evolving character in an actual Canon-form; it's what has formed the basis of the character for at least thirty years.

You claim that I'm being condescending yet lecture me with rhetorical questions? Whatever. Getting sick of your general attitude to the majority of my posts here - you've raised an argument with me over a supposed condescending stance over three words in my post that clearly weren't meant to be literal. Just going to ignore you from now on.

[batwayne007]

Want sum? I'll give it ya! Ya got no fans!

i dont want sum i want all of it!

[Prisoner 4011]

Tim Burton is insane and needs to stay away from Batman. It's a shame Michael Keaton is obsessed with him.

Without Tim Burton and the success of Batman you wouldn't have had the animated series or the Nolan films. There was nothing like it before and Burton paved the way for the success of Batman on screens for decades.

This.

Everything Tim Burton touches turns to Gold. I don't fancy his obsession with Depp though, still, everyone has flaws. If they return for a new Batman film, I will most likely watch it and probably love it.

[johnsyggel]

Everything Tim Burton touches turns to Gold. I don't fancy his obsession with Depp though, still, everyone has flaws. If they return for a new Batman film, I will most likely watch it and probably love it.

Well,not since Big Fish,anyway.His films keep getting crappier...But of course i'd love it if they mad a new Batman film togrther again!

[thatguywiththebeanie]

Everything Tim Burton touches turns to Gold. I don't fancy his obsession with Depp though, still, everyone has flaws. If they return for a new Batman film, I will most likely watch it and probably love it.

Well,not since Big Fish,anyway.His films keep getting crappier...But of course i'd love it if they mad a new Batman film togrther again!

I've heard that his new film Big Eyes is his best film since Big Fish. I personally can't wait for it because he's one of my favorite directors. Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands are two of my favorite films.

[The Oracle]

I'm not a Burton fan at all, but Big Eyes is outstanding.

[johnsyggel]

Everything Tim Burton touches turns to Gold. I don't fancy his obsession with Depp though, still, everyone has flaws. If they return for a new Batman film, I will most likely watch it and probably love it.

Well,not since Big Fish,anyway.His films keep getting crappier...But of course i'd love it if they mad a new Batman film togrther again!

I've heard that his new film Big Eyes is his best film since Big Fish. I personally can't wait for it because he's one of my favorite directors. Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands are two of my favorite films.

I haven't seen Big Eyes,i hope it's good.Burton is indeed one of my favourite filmmakers,Big Fish,Batman and Beetlegeuse are my favourite films of his.