and yet the change doesn’t effect anything because as with all crime, things get worse before they get better

and while you could argue old Jack as the Joker before the Accident, the same can’t be said about 20ish Jack

And yet he has been, from Common criminal to a hitman working for Lew Moxon in both the golden age and year 2......not only that but his family was expanded in year 3

Seems the writers didn’t agree with you on the need to Expand on his character

 

Oh-my-god. You love me, you hate me but ya’ can’t stop responding. “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch.”

No offense this is sort of nonsensical. Crime gets worse before it gets better? You lost me.

Yes. It. Can. He is literally the same person, he has a giant smile on his face and uses the same stupid catch phrase. There is literally no character development. Jack Napier is the Joker. He does the same things, says the same lines. His transformation is pointless. He has no character arc.

Oh yes major character expansion. Joe Chill is a member organized crime in Gotham, don’t stop now. Minor expansion same point, crime in Gotham. Not super-criminal Joker who is a staple of the mythos and main antagonist of Batman. Joe Chill and organized crime or “Crime” creating Batman is not the same as Super-Criminal Joker creating Batman. It’s amazing this distinction is lost on anyone.

Of course it isn’t because it’s so offensively stupid no other writer has glommed on to such a fundamentally stupid and undermining idea. Thanks for the contribution Burton. Now please find some Batman comic in the past where some hack used it and tell me I’m wrong. I love it. Not incorporated because it’s terrible. But keep defending its brilliance, please.

 

Who are you talking to?

I never said anything about lighting it not liking you....you must be getting confused , and I’m enjoying our conversation

Now you know how I feel

That Jack started out as a common crook and became the more important Joker later in life

so the analogy to “crime” fits him as a younger man

No.It.Cant.

All we know is that he used the same catch phrase , his older self wouldn’t stoop to robbing anyone on a street corner

And even what we saw of older Havk he wasn’t cratching dumb jokes, or any jokes of any kind

ou can argue the “transformation” wasn’t big enough but he was certainly more flamboyant after the drop in the vat then he was before it

You’re trying to engage in a circular arguments and it’s failing

You said he wasn’t Expanded on at all, that was wrong...period

And the distinction is not lost, nor gave I defended this issue in any way, my point is that you are grossly overstating it’s effete the and importance for the film.Its just not relevant in this particular case because Jack served to fit both roles in this particular iteration

when he killed the Wayne’s he was a relative nobody, bit a super criminal but a low functionary in organized crime representing the “Crime” that created Batman

And what we see later from Jack is what he became, not only from the years in between, but also from Batman himself Unintentionally leading to the creation of the super criminal

 

Lol, well I got told to get the fuck out of here not too long ago. Just making light of it.

Well you know what? I think I’ll let you have it. You’ve argued your point well. In your estimation I am “overstating” things and in my mind you are rationalizing what I consider to be a fatal flaw in the story and characterization.

In regards to “Expanding on Joe Chill” I will just say perhaps my language was unclear. Joe Chill’s story may have been expanded upon but the Lew Moxon story was essentially around the character’s creation. And sure you have, whatever Year 2 is. But Joe Chill is not a recurring Batman villain and his relationship with Batman isn’t one that needs further expounding on, most Batman writers except this, because they understand the role the character plays in the backstory. That is most definitely not the case with the Joker. The relationship that Joker and Batman have in the comics, animated series etc simply cannot exist if Joker is the murderer of the Waynes. It simply cannot work elsewhere, therefore it’s not right in 1989 or anywhere, fatal flaw.

For me Burton took this too far, tied characters together in away they shouldn’t be and took something that was complex and made it simple in the cheapest of ways. Diminishing both characters and the whole story in the process and wrapping in a garish bow that birthed the worst Hollywood has to offer. Even the most unfamiliar with Batman know he has a relationship with Joker and it is not the relationship presented in this movie. But you certainly may disagree because it works for you in some other way. However for me if the foundation is rotten the house needs to come down. I appreciate your knowledge of the subject, well played.

 

No you can stick around lol

Just don’t takeoff your shoes

thank you
That might be a good way to describe our differences here

I can see where you’re going here and if we were talking about an ongoing series or a cartoon I would actually say you have a valid complaint, And while I am not intending to invalidate your point of you but considering that we were talking about a “one shot movie” it’s really a non-issue

Aside from complaints about the actors per trail of the character, Jack and Joker were intended to be viewed differently, and that goes more sO for young Jack

This film, And just about any single shot stories , never really gave any hope of capturing the relationship of such characters in any meaningful way.There’s just not enough running time in any film to do it true justice

 

Look, you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend he didn't/couldn't do this or that in these scenes. But, that doesn't change the fact that Batman murders all those people with okay, 'just two' bombs, which then cause the whole thing to blow up multiple times, in the chemical plant. It doesn't change the fact that Batman mows people down with Gatling guns. Two of them. And, missile launchers. Some how, apparently missing Joker. Purposely, or not, he clearly shoots the others. Even if you can tell yourself that they are knock out darts or whatever. He's still flying at such a high speed, in that jet-powered craft, that it's still likely anything he fires at people, is still going to be lethal. Even rubber bullets can be lethal.

Whether or not it was his intention to kill people or not, chances are people are dead due to the result of his actions.

We do have at least one confirmed death. Which would be that black man he throws down the bell tower. And, there is no surviving that. By the end of all that, we still have people dying due to the results of his actions. Which is what really matters. Intent doesn't matter, it's the results that matter.

"I intended to save him, and not run him over with my truck, your honor, I swear!" But, you still ran him over with your truck. Then, backed up on him several times. Oh, and then you nuked all his shit.

Either way, he's still dead, and so are all his goons.

 

nice try at bring funny but you missed your mark

no one denied he killed in the film, on the contrary I actually pointed out that he did b fact do so, but the issue here was your description of those actions, not to mention one that was totally incorrect and obviously Influenced what you thought you remembered

for example this statement

did you see bodies riddled with bullet wounds pouring out blood?Did you see any of the goons bodies react to bullet impacts, jerking around like Tony Montana?

Nope, which means there’s nothing clear about it, we saw Little to no evidence of a direct “shooting” of anyone

Like I said before the conversation wasn’t about whether or not he kills anyone just the way you tried to portray it

 

So, he fired bullets that act like bullets, but aren't bullets, and they're super bullets, that do not kill people.

Is this really what you're trying to sell me?

 

Well I confess that as much as I mock Burton, Keaton and Nicholson none of that on its own really gets under my skin. It certainly is fun to run with when you are someone who comes down on the other side of this franchise. But had Joker not been the murderer and had Joker not died I could have enjoyed this movie and most likely would be here celebrating it, I suppose. I am not even against Keaton returning in whatever this Beyond / Flashpoint series is. It’s certainly preferable to me than the last series of Batmen. And I LOVE Batman Beyond, if that’s what it is.

I can look at 1989 as a one-shot movie but it still doesn’t work for me for all the reasons I mentioned before. The character deviations for me are so great it cannot live in my brain as “Batman and Joker.” The one person that would truly unhinge Bruce would be his parent’s killer. It is the core of his very being. And when Joker is THAT person it just, it just fucks up that dynamic. Because if he is their murderer, that is all Bruce would be able to see because it’s so fundamental to Batman. And that just isn’t who Joker is... it just doesn’t ring true.

 

Again poor try at twisting the facts

the point is we didn’t see him hit any of those guys, we saw him hit the areas surrounding them

which seems to be the intent since there’s no way he would have missed every target

 

But at least it would have had a redeeming quality.

 

Tattooed Robot, I usually agree with you. But here you're doing the same thing like the other guys in the Star Wars thread.  

 

I'm really not.

Oh no no, he clearly hits those people. If the bullets didn't kill them, then the many explosions behind them did. They're dead. Oh, and Batman is just that bad of an aim. He can hit all the people in dark clothing, but can't hit the brightly colored clown. Who then proceeds to shoot him down.

I bet you regret 'missing' him on purpose now, don't you, Batman? Like @TattooedRobot said, he is a terrible Batman. I love the film, but he's a terrible Batman.

I love the movie. I just saw this film yesterday. You can deny things all you want. But, he still murders the shit out of people. You can pretend that he didn't intend these things.

But it is clear that he kills people.

 

You shame me sir! You’re right probably took this a little too far. Read me more conciliatory post.

Tim Burton’s Batman discussion

 

Yes you really are

And I don’t think you are doing it to be Malicious or over argumentative, but your nostalgia fir what you remember has tainted your Assessment of this video as it did the one you posted earlier

Take a blower look, those bodies aren’t reacting to the impact of Direct bullet hits, they are reacting to little “explosions” we see as the bullets his near by them

A statement like that only shows how little you know about the character

he could never be that bad s shot and his targeting equipment would never be that faulty

He never intended to hit any of those guys directly

There’s no denial on my part,

Again that was never in debate, and trying to make that a point now don’t make your earlier statements any less wrong

 

So, the explosions are harmless? Not a single person died during those explosions?

Which version of the character? Comic version, or this movie version? Because these are two entirely different characters.

 

I never said that and do I need to repeat yet one more time that I never said he did not kill anyone ir wasn’t responsible for any deaths?

My point was that your description of those deaths were not nearly as accurate as you you seem to think

Outside of any spoofing or lampooning no version of Batman would be that Incompetent with weapons or equipment

 

So, Batman hits all the those people with all those bombs, and bullets, or whatever you want to call them.

But, misses the man in purple leading them on purpose? That alone sounds like incompetents to me.

"I could choose shoot Hitler in the face, but, I'm going to hit all his guards instead, then miss him, so he has a chance to get away!"

Ha! That will show them that I am the morally good person.

So, which is it. Is he super awesome at everything, and misses his enemy on purpose, thus allowing him to almost get away, or, does he miss because he's a bad aim?

The other versions of Batman are irrelevant. This Batman is either an idiot, or a bad aim. Your choice.

 

For all those films flaws, and I fully recognize them, I still enjoyed the film as I have never had much of an issue with recognizing that adaptations don’t always hit the mark one would hope for from the source material

So the way I always saw these things was that it was just another alternate universe and if things were different they just happen to be different and I enjoyed the differences for what they were/are worth

 

It’s like you only read half of what is posted

He didn’t “hit” anyone with the bombs, he dropped the bombs at their feet.....and put I’ve in s guys pants in the second film

And he didn’t “hit” anyone Ruth guise bullets, He intentionally miss them hitting the float and other things around them the same way he intentionally missed the guy in purple

Again, what’s the film more closely, you can see the impacts of the bullets hit the Surrounding areas before you see them react to it

I’m not even sure why are you bringing up morality since it was never part of the conversation

Again, Yes he missed intentionally, there’s no way his aim and targeting Equipment would be that bad

We saw how much close attention he paid to The capabilities of specifications of his equipment, knowing full well what they were capable of.......Do you want to call him an idiot fine but he certainly was not incompetent

Then why did you bring them up?