|Batman >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:46:12 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:56:22 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
> > Until they play, and then they do, but the events that lead up to it, do not need to intersect.
> Why not?
Because for two chess players, their past is irrelevant, it's the game they bring to the board that counts.
> > > It redefined Bruce Wayne as a man that trained a lifetime to be Batman,
> > That was established from the start
> It was established from the start that he worked a bit and took karate. Not that he trained for a lifetime under different masters, went around the world, tried to understand criminals, and sought to find himself as depicted in Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Falls.
Err, yes it was. Try "The Untold Legend of the Batman" from 1980 for a coherent putting together of any number of plot elements, including Detective Harvey Harris and why Bruce chose "Justice" over "The Law".
> > >started out taking small steps and evolved over time.
> > Aside from the fact he briefly wore civvies, not that much changed.
> In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.
Yes, and you know what, that worked just fine.
> Batman: Year One revealed that Batman experimented several times before becoming Batman, including trying to be a vigilante without the bat symbol. Batman: The Man Who Falls revealed that Bruce's fear of bats is what led him to choose the bat symbol as a way to frigthen criminals with his own fear.
Which sort of spoils the mythological "A superstitious, cowardly lot" since he's assigning that POV to himself too.
>It also revealed that Bruce took years to take several different disciplines under different masters to get in the right state to be able to become Batman. It was both a mental, physical and spiritual journey.
And utterly irrelevant. We never needed to see that, we could infer a lot of it, and not care that much about the rest.
> > Thanks, but neither of those mention Batman, so there's none of the link you seem to feel is so important.
> What do you mean? Did not both the Joker and Batman have a bad day that changed them forever. It establishes a dichotomy between the two making it very important.
In what way is "A child having an emotional catastrophe" that similar to "A criminal falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and being disfigured and possibly driven insane by the sheer pain, if not the toxicity of the chemicals themselves." ?
>Further in the first episode of The Batman the Joker mentions how they are two sides of the same coin, like tragedy and comedy. He also dressed up as Batman in The Laughing Bat. What more connection do you want?
More than basing it all on the ravings of a deranged mind. Did Batman go "Egad, you're right!"?
> Batman 1989 had no connection at all other than Jack killing Wayne's folks and BTAS's Joker's only connection to Batman was that he killed the father of Bruce's girlfriend. Mr. Freeze in BTAS was more connected to Batman than the Joker.
No, "Beware, the Creeper" in BTAS tells us that the "nameless gunsel" (I really should use gunman there, since gunsel means something quite different, though "The Maltese Falcon" convinced a nation otherwise, but I digress) fell into the vat of chemicals whilst part of a gang that Batman was fighting.
> > And as noted, this is comics, happens all the time, it's perhaps more surprising he didn't get superpowers out of it.
> LOL Nolan is trying to create realism, if he were wanting to go straight for the comics he would have Batman wear pajamas with purple gloves.
Not really, Nolan is creating as much realism as he feels is necessary, that's not realism by a long chalk.
> > Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.
> This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.
Why? The Joker is a monster since his chemical skin peel to end all skin peels.
> In the comics Batman never found out much about the Joker, except that he might have been Red Hood.
No, Joker readily admitted to being the Red Hood, and it fitted every known fact about the Joker. There wasn't really any argument from either side about it.
>It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed.
AN origin, not THE origin.
>The only thing Batman found out is that the Joker might be REdhood. Even then Batman did not consider the Joker necessarily a monster, for if he had he would have just killed him.
Again, you miss the point of Batman by a country mile. Batman never "just kills" like that.
> > No, I can honestly say, hand on heart that in the 20 years since TKJ, you are about the only person I've ever come across who holds to that. Others are delighted at the very Jokerish ending with the reveal he might have been "joking" all along.
> Really? Joking? He freaking had flashbacks that were the motivations for his actions.
And as many of us have pointed out to you in the past; So what? He's a delusional psychotic. As the story goes to great pains to make clear, the fact the Joker believes a particular origin completely and honestly in no way makes it A) true, or B) what he'll believe tomorrow, or in three minutes time.
>He was joking or trying to joke about the origin not being true, because to accept it means to move on.
Again, that's a perspective that's unique to you, and AFAIK not one Alan Moore supports either, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the famous "multiple choice" bit.
>If you notice after Batman offers to help the Joker, the Joker cracks another joke. This shows that the Joker feels he cannot accept the truth and thus cannot be saved by Batman.
Which in no way means he's been telling the objective truth, only the SUBjective truth.
> The Killing Joke was referenced once more in another comic book. I have only ran into a handful of people that do not see The Killing Joke as canon and most of them are on this board.
You must move in interesting circles then.
> > Except Batman has, when he chose to continue as Batman after his parent's murderer was caught (This was the case up until B:Y1 and since IC)
> No he did not.
Yes, he did.
>You obviously have not beeen reading the comics.
Since roughly 1978 or so, thanks.
>Batman's murderer originally was killed by mobsters
"Caught", "Brought to justice", "Paid the price for his crimes..."
>then retconned so that Joe Chill was killed in Batman: Year Two, then retconned so that he was never caught and just recently retconned so that he was caught an sent to prison.
Yes, before Year 1, which was the first to suggest that the Wayne's murderer had NOT been caught. And the most recent retcon is since IC when he's back to having been caught and jailed.
>In Batman: Blind Justice Batman relives the deaths of his parent's murder every night. Reliving their deaths over and over again is what keeps him being Batman. If Bruce ever chose to forget about his parents' murder he would be able to movie on with his life. He has thus far never been able to do this.
Their loss motivates him sure, no argument, but Y1 (and others) implied it was the fact that his parent's murder had never been caught that drove him. That he'd never grown up and was lashing out in a rather childish way because "bad man hurt my mommy and daddy".
> > But as soon as delusional behavious kicks in there's no reason for consistency either.
> Insanity also has patterns that can be detected and at times treated.
And the Joker's can't, as has been stated time and again.
> Further there are different levels of insanity as well. Some with more cognitive functions than others.
Of course, and the Joker can at times be rational, but he's only ever rational on his own terms, never other peoples.
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 188.8.131.52 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|