'89-Batman killed Joker because of the Hollywood-isation of Batman, not
because it had anything to do with who, and what, the Batman is...
(Same hollywoodisation lead to Batman and Robin... 😘 )
Batman begins and Dark knight is more in tune with Batman as we know it...
Now, I love Burton's movies, even today...
I loved them when they came out...
I think Jack did a great Joker...
But, in the end, ledger WAS better, because in that one, we got to see his TWISTED side... his FEARLESS side...
And, although that was more of a script thing, not a actor thing, in TDK, the Joker WAS portrayed as a criminal GENIUS...
(But man am I glad none of us ever got to see Jack in a nurses uniform... LOL...)
😂 Good point.
Looking back, I also enjoyed what Joel Schumacher did with Batman Forever. Sure, it may have been a bit more kid-friendly as opposed to Batman 89 and Batman Returns, but it was still a big hit. Schumacher just got carried away with the use of corny lines in Batman & Robin (one of the first lines in the movie being "chicks dig the car", and those countless ice/freeze puns). Of course, that was the least of the film's problems.
As pleased as I was with Batman Forever for its time period, still kinda makes me wonder how much better it and Batman&Robin might have been had Tim Burton also directed them instead of Schumacher.
Batman didn't kill Joker in 1989; just got his leg tied to the building so he couldn't escape in the helicopter. That he eventually lost his grip wasn't his fault. (Hey - how come he didn't just remained tied to the building after he let go?)
Batman was a little more ruthless with lethal force in that film, but they were reflecting the very early days of the comic, where criminals did die & Batman shrugged it off as part of the good fight. That got pulled back in the late 40's - same time as it happened with Superman - and this editorial edict of 'Batman Doesn't Kill' took hold.
Oh - Joker 08 beats Joker 89.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
😂 Good point.Looking back, I also enjoyed what Joel Schumacher did with Batman Forever. Sure, it may have been a bit more kid-friendly as opposed to Batman 89 and Batman Returns, but it was still a big hit. Schumacher just got carried away with the use of corny lines in Batman & Robin (one of the first lines in the movie being "chicks dig the car", and those countless ice/freeze puns). Of course, that was the least of the film's problems.
As pleased as I was with Batman Forever for its time period, still kinda makes me wonder how much better it and Batman&Robin might have been had Tim Burton also directed them instead of Schumacher.
Originally posted by roughrider
Batman didn't kill Joker in 1989; just got his leg tied to the building so he couldn't escape in the helicopter. That he eventually lost his grip wasn't his fault. (Hey - how come he didn't just remained tied to the building after he let go?)
Batman was a little more ruthless with lethal force in that film, but they were reflecting the very early days of the comic, where criminals did die & Batman shrugged it off as part of the good fight. That got pulled back in the late 40's - same time as it happened with Superman - and this editorial edict of 'Batman Doesn't Kill' took hold.Oh - Joker 08 beats Joker 89.
Personally I don't think anything Batman did in 1989 was even THAT ruthless. For example I don't think him blowing up Axis chemicals was any worse than what Batman did in the Dark Knight by blowing up all those cars to "intimidate" the thugs when he first appeared. Batman blew up Axis chemicals with all those thugs inside true but he didn't go there to kill the thugs he went there to destroy the chemicals the Joker was using to kill everyone else. Though I do believe he'd be more careful than that if it was true to character. However I don't get how that is anymore wreckless than the "intimidate" scene because when he blew up those cars he had no way of knowing no one would die or get hurt.
And when he flipped over the Joker's truck he had no way of knowing the Joker wouldn't die or that none of his henchmen weren't in there could potentially die too. But you rarely hear anyone complaining about his irresponsibility with human life in those cases
Originally posted by MisterAJ
I did react to that...However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...(Yes, it's quasi-science, but just go with it...)
89-Bat judo-threw thugs off the bell tower...
as my friend once said [when we had a very long Batman/comics in general conversation] all the previous incarnation of the Joker and Batman [whether it be in the cinema or on TV] is very much geared towards the children [i admit that when i was a kid i loved the Tim Burton Batmans] but with the new milenium, theyre making very dark and more like the comics
especially the Joker. before Ledger's performance, the Joker wasnt really a serious villain to be dealt with, very weak and kiddie clown like. but with TDK the Joker was based more on the comics so he comes off as the baddest mother****er youve ever dealt with
same with the comics industry, Marvel aims more at children[not just with their movies like Spiderman and X-Men but with their comics] while DC is more adult oriented
Originally posted by Doc Ock
That's not a good thing. The story should always be about the hero, not the villain.
I disagree. It's always about the good guy. It gets boring. Bring us something about the bad guys. They have cooler costumes, sometimes better catchphrases and well, they are cooler in every way.
Originally posted by DethRoseI respect people who think TDK is all about the Joker, but I disagree. It is very much about Batman and his ethics, as well as the ethics of vigilance in general.
I disagree. It's always about the good guy. It gets boring. Bring us something about the bad guys. They have cooler costumes, sometimes better catchphrases and well, they are cooler in every way.
As my second favorite Batman villain I think he was gyped be being made just a pawn in the Joker's game. I like Two Face and Harvey about equally but I would have preferred this movie being a set up to Two Face being a villain in the third than having him offed like that before he really got to do any real damage as a villain.
Yes it was emotional to see Harvey fall but what I liked about Two Face especially his portrayal in the animated series is that seeing him fall made watching him as a villain that much MORE compelling and created more conflict for Batman when it came to fighting him because Batman was still obsessed with saving him even though really there was only half a man left to save and not the Harvey that Batman can't seem to let go of.
There is a complexity there that was completely missed or short changed in my opinion because of how quickly he was gotten rid of
Originally posted by MisterAJ
I did react to that...However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...(Yes, it's quasi-science, but just go with it...)
89-Bat judo-threw thugs off the bell tower...
In Detective Comics #27, in one of the panels after the criminal dies (because Batman PUNCHED HIM INTO A POOL OF ACID), Batman says "a fitting end for his kind"...
Burton's Batman was a different portrayal, is all...
I just watched 89 Batman, and I can't lie, Jack's Joker was pretty much like the comic one, he had no idea what he was doing. Then I watched Ledgers performance, and he knew what he was doing, he was just crazy. I like both, but IMO, Jack's is better because he did it just like the real Joker. Both Jack and Heath did better than Cesar Romero.
He looks like a comedian.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
In Detective Comics #27, in one of the panels after the criminal dies (because Batman PUNCHED HIM INTO A POOL OF ACID), Batman says "a fitting end for his kind"...Burton's Batman was a different portrayal, is all...
Yeah, in "the old days", batman killed villains left, right and center...
Trowing them of buildings and stuff... Think he even shot a guy once, but thats not really the "modern batman", is it..?
Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
I just watched 89 Batman, and I can't lie, Jack's Joker was pretty much like the comic one, he had no idea what he was doing. Then I watched Ledgers performance, and he knew what he was doing, he was just crazy. I like both, but IMO, Jack's is better because he did it just like the real Joker. Both Jack and Heath did better than Cesar Romero.He looks like a comedian.
To be honest I thought that Heath took the character much more seriously than the other two. Jack just seemed to be acting as himself if he got drunk on Halloween while dressed up as a clown. I enjoyed the performance, I really did, but no one went as in depth with the psyche and twisted nature of the Joker like Heath did.
Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Yea but that doesn't mean he did do it. Which I don't think he did. I think there was a point where he wanted to kill him in the Dark Knight as well
You're kidding, right? Batman clearly killed the Joker in the '89 version. He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall. If that's not intentionally killing someone, then what is? Also, in TDK, he didn't kill the Joker. There's a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone, and actually doing it.
'89 Joker - Dead
'08 Joker - Alive