jvd said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Chill
Joe Chill was introduced as the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman #47, in 1948.
The Joker had no grounding as the murderer of the Wayne's whatsoever.
Wrong . Go ahead and pick up a comic . Actually pick up the stellar hush that won rave reviews , You will see that bruce still doesn't know who killed his parents .
Yes batman was wrong on the joker . But at least in 87 a few years before it was made there was a huge comic story where the joker was taking credit for it . As you pointed out Joe chill is from 1948 way before crisis rebooted everything and made joe chill never exist in comics .
And you forget to mention that not everyone accepted Crisis. My brother collected DC and Marvel religiously until about 5 years ago when he started selling his collection on eBay. I remember the mid-80s epic storylines quite well.
jvd said:
Noted. However, there is enough room in the backstory of Batman in Canon (TM) for the character of Rachel Dawes. Numerous writers from Sam Hamm to Frank Miller have taken license with certain aspects of his backstory and enriched them.
Neither writer writes in the current countinuity (sp ? ) Thus it doesn't matter what they write . Its not part of batman's cannon
Look at this from a Starwars perspective. Stellar books like Dark Force Rising, Heir to the Empire, and The Last Command, by Timothy Zahn, aren't part of "official" Canon in that they weren't made by Lucas. But fans by and large have accepted them as part of Canon.
I have never EVER seen anyone accept Batman '89 as part of Canon while Batman Begins is already reaching that vaunted status.
jvd said:
1) Repeat After Me: The... Joker... Did... Not... Kill... Bruce... Wayne's... Parents. Never Never Ever Ever. In ANY comic or backstory ever written
Except in 87 when the joker claimed responsiblity for it and bruce wayne chased after him . Then agian in the late 90s the joker took credit for it again .
Key word:
Claimed. Not did.
jvd said:
2) Bruce Wayne isn't a balding, out of shape, in-need-of-glasses, 45 year old when he first puts on the suit.
The original batman takes place way into his career . As for batman's vision problems . I never saw him put on glasses , as bruce wayne yes , but then again bruce wayne is a cover. Clark kent never needed glasses yet he wore them .
Wait. So when it's not ok, you say the original Batman doesn't matter because Crisis rebooted the franchise. But when it suits your argument, you reference the original batman? C'mon Joe.
As for the glasses bit, Bruce Wayne in Batman '89 was wearing glasses when he was in the Batcave! Why??
jvd said:
3) The Joker isn't pushing 60 when he gets dumped in acid.
Joker's age isn't known . So its hard to say they are toying around with him being a meta
In every comic made afaik, his physical activity is certainly far more spry than that of someone pushing 60. I'd say he's easily in his 30s, and no older than late 40s.
jvd said:
4) Alfred would NEVER let someone in on Bruce Wayne's secret without explicit permission from Wayne.
Actually in the comics its alferd who tells vickey vale (yes a real comic character ) who batman is .
I know vicky vale is a real comic character, and that she had an on again, off again romance with Bruce Wayne. I didn't begrudge that in the original script or I would have noted it.
And you'll have to clue me into where Alfred told Vale, or anyone else, without talking with Wayne first.
jvd said:
5) Batman isn't an executioner. That's what separates his character from, say, The Punisher. He tried numerous times to kill the Joker directly towards the end of the film, and deliberately killed a lot of henchmen in the process.
He allways uses excessive force and I never saw one dead henchmen .
As for the joker batman has been pushed to the edge many times in the comics and once almost killed him before Gordan stoped him . (See hush for a recent example ) Even nitewing (original robin ) tried (see jokers last laugh)
Batman fired missiles at the henchmen while he was in the Batwing. Not only that, but he threw one of the henchmen down the belfry shaft. In Batman Returns, he threw a few off a high rise bridge. One of them he strapped a piece of dynamite to their waist. In Batman '89, he blew up the Axis Chemicals factory that had lots of people in it.
jvd said:
6) Batman never killed The Joker. Ever Ever Ever.
Your right. Then again the way the movie ends we don't know if he is dead or not . A cliff hanger used in the comics with the joker many times before.
Oh come on. He drops like 100 stories and creates an imprint in the concrete from the force of his landing. His face is covered with blood and smashed in. He's not walking away from that. I think the movie made that very clear.
jvd said:
e plot changes in Batman '89 completely deviated the character and spirit of Batman from what is established Canon. The plot changes in Batman Begins enhance the character and add quite honorably to Canon imo.
I think your a person who doesn't have the first clue about the character actually . I see it because you don't even know what the crissis is or any of the storys in which the joker was blamed for his parrents murder .
I admit I don't know alot about batman , i only have 900 comics of batman and many of his run in jla . But its alot more than someone who has to look up out dated info
So because I didn't mention Crisis beforehand I all of a sudden don't know anything about the character? Hello. I did mention Frank Miller in particular, who wrote his seminal piece on Batman (Batman: Year One, Dark Knight Returns, et al), right after Crisis.
And as I said before, the Joker taking blame for the murder and actually
doing it, or that being accepted as the knock down drag out truth (as opposed to Joe Chill doing it) in fan accepted canon, are far different things.
