I just came back from watching Batman Begins. Quite an entertaining movie, I think, and I left the theater feeling very amused - good movie.

Anyhow, something bordering me during pretty much the entire movie. I haven't seen Batman, the first one with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the joker in a long time. But I do remember Jack's character, other than "The Joker", as being in the form of a gangster criminal named Jack Napier. I also remember the quote, repeated throughout the movie - "have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light..." To make it short: Jack Napier killed his parents in the first Batman movie, am I right?? The smile, the quote, and IIRC it's repeated many times throughout the movie, the flashbacks with the necklace. Everything.

But in Batman Begins, it's some boooring criminal named Chills who killed battie-boy's parents...? Did nolan really take such a great turn away from the "real" story line or what. For me the "essence" of the first Batman movie was avenging his parents' deaths and the whole Joker/Jack Napier character and when Batman stands, victor, at the end looking at the signal.

Can someone clarify??

The two movies are unrelated. They are not meant to tie in.

One is a new reimagining of Batman's origin without the joker being the man who killed his parents. It was, however, taken away. The original comic and most (if not all) of the batman origin stories do not have the joker as the villain that killed his parents. In most cases it is just a useless street thug (much like the villain that kills uncle ben in Spider-man). Super villains as they are in modern movies and comics really don't spring up until the superheroes do.

Oh, I see now... Thanks.

I liked it better with Jack Napier though....hm.

Joe Chill was identified as the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman #47 (1948).

Why is batman standing behind that boy? Why does the boy have that look as though he has a batarang in his backside? Is that a batarang?

there are more than 1 story about batman's origin???

Yes and no although that topic is probably best suited for book talk. Essentially there is his actual origin in Detective 27, the origin story that reveals joe chill and talks a bit about that (apparently the issue above), in recent years there is Batman: Year One which talks a bit more about how he came to be batman rather than about his parent's murder, then there is the extraordinarily recent reimiagining done in All Star Batman And Robin which came out this month, plus a whole bunch in between. SO, yes there is more than one story although none are meant to contradict each other, just build off prior knowledge (except the all star comic which takes place in a different universe, and some of the crisis on infinite earths/zero hour stuff, but we don't talk about that).

For me, this is the problem with both movies. Once, in the original Batman, Joker is dead then Batman has his revenge on the killer of his parents and can go relax in stately Wayne Manor for the rest of his days, enjoying a life of luxory. Same thing with Begins, once Chill is eliminated Bruce has no "real" reason to be Batman. I certainly wouldn't wear a suit because Katie Holmes slapped me in the face and said "your father would be ashamed".

See, for me, the killer of the Waynes should never be brought to justice. It would be better if Batman never knew who killed them. The killer was just some nameless thug who, in his youthful fear, Bruce never even got a good look at. This is the one crime he can't solve and it drives him to put on the cape and cowl every night. Every criminal he busts symbolically represents his parents killer and he won't rest until he gets them all. Hence his unending war on crime.

You seem to have missed out on all the "vengeance is not justice" teachings in the movie.

The way I see Batman -- and the way a lot of the comics do -- is as a sad little kid who's upset that "the bad man took his parents away," and now he wants to make sure no other bad men take anyone else's parents away. And in the process he takes vicious, nightly beatings as penance for something he was in no way responsible for (stopping the murders).

Chill was a symbol for the random violence hurting innocent people. Just because he's dead, doesn't mean there's no need for a Batman.

Hence his unending war on crime.

Joe Chill was reconnted out as the killer. At the current moment, batman doesn't know who killed his parents

Joker being tossed in there for the original batman film was just another way to make it so that the two creatures created each other. While that is nice in itself, it still fucks around with things and shouldn't be considered as the solid thing.

I was just about to chime in with that.


Okay, fanboy mode OFF.


Andrew

Okay, I haven't read a Batman comic in a long time but didn't they flesh out the Joe Chill story in Batman:Year Two? Did they remove all that from the current storylines.

Yeah, I believe that was retconned out during Zero Hour in the mid-90s, one of the only major things to stick that came out of that mess.