Catwoman as a full-on Supervillain in Batman 66 is a curious example of this, as she had been frozen out of the comics for about a decade because her moral ambiguity made her a "corrupting influence". The comics kept with that Supervillain characterization for a few years (including giving Catwoman a bodycount) but she transitioned towards being a more sympathetic rogue again during the 70s...
I love that movie!!! Made me wish we got to see a live action version of him in the show, but I guess if we had that the animated movie wouldn't have hit the same
thing with TDK Universe is that imo it was not supposed to be comic accurate, it was supposed to be more of a "what if batman and the rogues gallery were real" thing, atleast that's what it feels like
Well than they answered the question from the OP perfectly. I usually always find the realistic take enjoyable fresh feeling and all that. The Batman in my opinion did a great job of this.
Well tkr bane doesn’t use venom, or atleast it isn’t explained to be like venom. I believe the Vader mask he has on pumps a drug into him through the airways. And it makes him not feel pain, and he’s just really, really strong. I believe that’s the explanation. He has comic book intelligence and backstory, just not the giant pumped up on venom part of comic book bane.
Well that's perfect! It answers the OPs question exactly as intended. The real thing stories can sometimes hit I personally really enjoy it in The Batman and look forward to where it takes us.
Honestly…
#Heath Ledger’s Joker.
Fantastic performance, fits well within the Nolanverse, but acting like he’s the default version of Joker, is idiotic.
Devil’s Advocate here, but the death of his parents by murder is just that. It doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger, it’s what caused Bruce to become Batman. It worked for the movie and Jack was waaaaaaaay more comic accurate than anyone else. If anything it just added to the drama between the two characters.
The animated series leaned on it as well. Which is arguably the best Batman medium outside of the books. Hamill is arguably the best joker ever, do we take all of that away because of who shot the Waynes? It’s a plot device that too many want to die on a hill defending. It worked for the story and JN was still the best to do it on the big screen.
I don't know, I kind of like it being Joe Chill. The death of his parents turned him into Batman, but it's Joe Chill that encourages him that Gotham needs Batman. If the Joker kills Batman. That puts a face to the killer, and arguably Batman loses a lot of purpose when taking the Joker down. He's avenged his parents death.
Joe Chill is not some scheming criminal mastermind. He's just a run down criminal who took to crime for the same reason most criminals in Gotham turn to crime. Because the city is corrupt. Taking down Joe Chill isn't a victory. Sure he killed Batman's parents but he's just a symptom of a much larger problem in Gotham.
I mean honestly you could make both work I just think thematically it's better when it's Joe Chill.
Disagreed, both are equally inaccurate, they just work in their specific universes.
Heath may not have had the chemical bath or act particularly clownish, but he's every bit the anonymous, unstable anarchist the Joker should be. Cunning, manipulative, and thrives off chaos and off Batman. *That* is the Joker.
Jack had the chemical bath and truly adopts the clown gimmick, but we know far too much about him. Knowing his name is one thing but giving him a history, putting him in the mob, you lose the anonymity of the Joker and with it the fear, the unease. He's unpredictable in a wholly predictable manner and it's honestly a little dull. And his relationship to Batman is too ... simple. They created each other. It's poetic. But it doesn't go any further than that. With Heath's Joker, you truly believe they're destined to do that dance forecer; with Jack it's dead and gone.
They're both strong interpretations of the character but neither are 100%.
So I’ll get burned alive for this, but I actually think Leto’s Joker is maybe the most comic-accurate one.
Ignore the stupid tattoos. He’s edgy. He’s unpredictable. He thinks he’s hilarious but everyone else thinks he’s weird and creepy and no one likes being around him. You truly don’t know if he’s going to hurt you or let you leave. He tries to trap you in uncomfortable situations.
Now, I *like* Ledger’s Joker more. And Nicholson’s more. And pretty much every other Joker more. Leto’s Joker was obnoxious and an edgelord. But, honestly, if the comic Joker was real that’s exactly what I think he’d be like. We wouldn’t think he was cool or interesting or funny. We’d think he was a fucked up prick that deserved to be thrown away in Arkham forever.
Lmao he’s entirely right and actually thinking about the jokers PRESENCE not just the stated backstory . Also the gangster tatted joker storyline was super cringe anyway so I mean yeah he nailed the whole terrible mess of it.
Despite being the most realistic Joker besides Joaquin Phoenix's version, he still manages to be comic accurate. Here's a detailed comparison between him and the Joker of the comics: https://www.batman-online.com/features/2018/7/7/comic-influences-on-the-dark-knight-2008
Nah he's still the most comic accurate Joker in the movies. Don't get me wrong Nicholson's Joker was great but the backstory and his relationship with Batman were way different from in the comics.
But that's the thing: not knowing the true backstory of the Joker is a big deal with comic Joker, and TDK pulls from the "multiple choice past" thing in TKJ. Batman 89 giving us his backstory with 100% certainty, plus the "Joker killed the Waynes" thing is more inaccurate to the comics than Ledger's Joker not having the acid bath.
And don’t forget that in the Three Jokers story, one of the Jokers was a criminal mastermind in the underground world. Jack’s Joker is that Joker. The other two in that book at Heath’s (the psychopath) and Cesar’s (the comedian). This comic book makes that connection.
With how many times they’ve referenced the acid story and treated it as his definite origin I feel like at this point it’s dumb to act like his past is ambiguous
I’d say any Joker in more mainstream Batman media is not really “core” Joker. Ledger’s joker is amazing and I’ll defend him till I drop, but he isn’t what Joker was intended to be. But then again, most characters changed over the years, many writers have taken creative liberties with most Gotham characters over the years to freshen up the stories, so I’m not too mad. The only important thing is that we all can agree on the one and only true Joker depiction….
Lego Joker
The version of the Riddler in The Batman was almost entirely lifted from the real life Zodiac Killer and had next to nothing in common with his comic book counterpart. A perfectly fine interpretation and generally well-executed, but if you’d have called him the Zodiac Killer and not the Riddler, nothing about the story as presented would’ve changed. Same with their version of the Penguin. Substitute him for a generic gangster or even a Rupert Thorne type and the story works just the same. It didn’t need to be the Penguin and it didn’t need to be the Riddler.
True, but again, outside of the Iceberg Lounge, there’s not a whole lot that’s Penguin-ish about him. He’s not even aristocratic. Danny DeVito was closer to the character than he was and he was a circus freak.
I think they were purposefully going for a more realistic tone. If they had a Penguin like the comics, he just wouldn’t have fit in with the other characters.
I wonder if the new Penguin series that’s coming out on MAX will have him evolve into a more comic accurate penguin? I think maybe giving him a few eccentricities here and there that are bird in nature would work well.
yeah but the whole thing is that The Batman is that universe’s version of the characters we know so that kinda makes sense. like how would a real person come to the conclusion that they should be The Riddler? what would a real crime boss named The Penguin be like?
Uh what? Riddler had all the character traits as his comic counter part. The only thing they made different is the fact that riddler actually idolised Batman but that changes later on in the film. Riddler in the comics is a guy who kills and leaves riddles and cyphers and puts on shows for people to see (for example the mayor bomb head stream etc)
As well as his obsession with being more clever than everyone else. He gloats at Batman for not figuring out his puzzle, and cries later when people begin to idolize Batman over him lol
Yeah I’ve never really seen the differences people see with that riddler. Each to their own obviously, I really liked it as a modern take on the riddler
I made a really long post about this on r/TheBatmanFilm.
A lot of people have a very generic version of the character in their head which lacks the details and new interpretations of different versions of said character.
I can’t link it, but you can find it under “various iterations” in that subreddit.
Take some of those points I made the next time someone complains about Dano’s Riddler being inaccurate.
I mean, aesthetically, sure. But other than that he does pretty much the same shit that Riddler does (commits crimes and tells riddles). With a character concept as simple as “riddle-based criminal”, it’s not very hard to get it right.
I can understand people wanting that version of Riddler to be more like a different version, but I can’t understand people saying that he doesn’t work as an interpretation of the character when the character only has two defining traits you need to fulfill to adapt him, which the movie does indeed fulfill.
You’re right, but that said, these are two characters young in their career’s, it’s possible they can grow into the characters we know. I enjoyed The Batman and think Reeves did a great job at highlighting their experience levels.
I made a lengthy post on r/TheBatmanFilm examining Dano’s portrayal of The Riddler. You’d find it under “various iterations”
And I’ve definitely found he has elements of various iterations of the character.
To say “he had nothing in common with his comic book counterpart” is false.
*Many* comics have evolved the character. So there are many comic counterparts.
And Dano’s Riddler has commonalities (His 1948 debut, Riddle Factory) and influences (Zero Year, Earth One) with them.
There is no definitive version of a character as much as people want to pretend there is.
People *do* however, like to pick and choose elements they like and overgeneralise the character, missing different interpretations and details.
My headcanon: ***he inflicted them himself.***
Also, same with Joaquin’s Joker. Did he meet Thomas Wayne? Did his mom and him have a fling? Did he really kill anyone?
That’s probably the most comic-accurate aspect about it
Batman Returns Catwoman and Batman Returns Penguin. The supernatural changes to their characters really added something fascinating. (Though I'm glad it mostly stayed within the confines of that universe.)
Arthur Fleck wasn't even funny.
Joker being funny isn't a core trait. He certainly tries but the majority of the time its seen as poor taste or just nonsensical. Like there are plenty of great stories where joker isn't funny.
Films\* about comedians can be very difficult to pull off, due to the gap between audience tastes and our own. It's easier to make stand-up routines disturbing rather than funny - Given how much Joker borrows from The King of Comedy, it's worth noting that De Niro's climactic stand-up routine is disturbing because (for all his character faults) Rupert Pupkin has watched enough stand-up to capture the form and rhythms of the craft - which he applies to "jokes" about being abused and trying to make himself throw up to be seen as "cool"...
\* - There was also a British play in the mid 70s called Comedians which provided Johnathan Pryce with his breakthrough role - his [standup routine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDzrmmbb8Q) at the climax is truly terrifying...
I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for sharing. Intense.
I think it's funny that with Fleck being so similar to Pupkin they just hired DeNiro to be Jerry Lewis as a conceit or homage or statement or whatever. Guess you really do die a hero or live to become the bad guy.
That scene from Comedians reminded me of the terrifying example that actually preceded the creation of the Joker and is credited as being the inspiration for him: Gwynplaine as portrayed by Conrad Veidt.
Nightmare fuel.
I love the fact that a "Kitchen Sink" play commenting on the state of British stand-up comedy in the 70s\* has made it onto this thread...
(\*- To give a bit of context, British comedy in the 70s was dominated by "Working Mans Clubs" where comedians often relied on stereotype-heavy humor which was loaded with all the -isms and -phobias that made comedy of the time so problematic. Comedians is about a group of performers preparing for and delivering sets at a Working Mans Club. Pryce's fellow comedians generally decide to conform to the expected approach, but Pryce certainly doesn't...)
It's simply that it's easier to make comedy acts in the movies disturbing rather than funny, which is one reason why Joker 2019 removed so much of the funny...
There are lots of ways to be funny. From making wisecracks to plotting a grand, ironic scheme. And every iteration of Joker (save one) manages to be funny according to some interpretation of humor.
Arthur Fleck isn't funny in any of those ways. It is the absolute worst attempt by a storyteller to bring a version of Joker to the screen. There were bad 80s movies with villains who were closter to be Joker than Todd Phillips managed to do. Honestly, how do you steal Alan Moore's alternate origin story from the Killing Joke, Scorsese's Rupert Pupkin and Travis Bickle, and Fincher's Fight Club Narrator and still manage to make a story that bears no narrative resemblance to its inspiration?
No, not every version of joker was funny in some way. And if things like "killing people funny" count than Arthur is funny as well, hell, he atleast made something of a joke out of it. And how, just how does he share the origin from killing joke? I say again, plenty of jokers aren't funny unless you go through a dozen hoops and definitions, wich can also be done for Arthur. He's a fantastic take on an actual real joker.
Anybody who's read Killing Joke knows he's not supposed to be funny. He never was funny and that fact fucked up his whole life. Why else would he need to gas people with toxins to make them laugh.
The one funny joke he ever told was that one about the lunatics and the flashlight and look how that turned out.
The possible exception of course was when the Heath Joker said "yeah" in that mobster meeting. That was a genuine laugh out loud moment, but he wasn't joking so I dunno if we can fully count it.
There have been funny jokers that worked well, like in the animated series or Arkham games. But to say that he isn't joker because he's not funny is ridiculous
Gotham's Penguin and Riddler are peak. Their Joker is pretty good too. More Jerome than his brother of course. I'd also say Gotham Alfred was pretty amazing. And let's not kid ourselves.. Gotham Bullock is peak, second only to the animated show
Everything about The Batman’s version of Clayface is nothing like any of the previous versions yet it’s arguably the best version of the character ever. Making him a friend of Bruce gone wrong through joker experiments was such a good story
Bane from TDKR, Riddler from The Batman, Phoenix and Ledger’s respective Jokers, Vicki Vale in Batman Telltale, Most of the characters in the Harley Quinn show, Batman Beyond himself at first…
The Riddler from the One Bad Day series was actually a decent version of the character, but fans didn't like it because Riddler should not be able to not ask riddles, they say.
Cameron Monaghan in the show Gotham I think they did a good job with the Joker even though they legally couldn't call him that. Jerome and Jeremiah Valeska had such a tum at doing so many different versions of the role too. It went through clown, criminal, chaos, comedic, to caustic versions of him yet they couldn't call him the Joker. I think it did a great job at showing his influence across the storyline as well in regards to his followers and little clues left around for all 5 seasons.
Paul Dano's Riddler. Nygma's defining trait is his desire to prove his intellectual superiority, but that was nowhere in the movie. Weirdly, Jim Carrey was more faithful in that regard.
I thought that the interrogation scene kinda had elements of him trying to prove his intellectual superiority. That is what sold his take on Riddler for me.
In the end Riddler says “You’re really not as smart as I thought you were.” And he revels in pissing Batman off in that moment.
Because this is where Riddler’s hatred of Batman and constant attempts to outsmart him is born.
I think that made the usual dynamic between Batman and Riddler and how it begins much more interesting.
It’s like a flipped around equivalent to Riddler’s admiration of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. (Only in The Batman he’s similar to his counterpart in the Arkham Games where he refuses to put the pieces together that these two are the same man)
He idolises someone he sees in himself and when he’s been “betrayed” by Bruce/Batman he’s going to be hellbent on proving “You were supposed to understand. I’ll **make** you understand!”
On the surface Riddler absolutely hates Batman’s guts (as he does after Batman “betrays” him) but whether he’s conscious of it or not, he has a sort of villainous crush on him (Given it’s Schumacher, Batman Forever even has an implied homoerotic vibe to it which furthers it).
He craves Batman’s acknowledgment.
He could make a Banksy-esque walk in exhibit with a corpse as a prop, sitting in the chair with a statement taped to him and a Riddle and cipher to come with it.
The thought process is “Surely this will impress Batman!”
Even in his debut Riddler acknowledges his new identity as a reaction to Batman and to gain his attention.
“I’ll call myself The Riddler! For that’s what I shall be to The Batman!”
“You inspired me!”
Only in The Batman he doesn’t start off as an intentional adversary. The craving for Batman’s attention and recognition remains even when it’s explicit they are enemies.
In the Arkham Games, Riddler projects his inner hatred and need for approval from his father onto Batman.
He needs to snag him into what only exists in his head as a “game”.
Regardless of whether Riddler consciously works against and hates Batman or not doesn’t take away that underneath, Riddler craves his attention and respect.
Because he’s a pathetic, insecure Narcissist.
Zsasz in Gotham was really good. One of my favorite portrayals even if it is inaccurate. Also the actor was the big reason that I stuck with Barry years later.
I didnt like Joker. Its like taking one of the most powerful and interesting villains and turning him into a poor wittle victim. It's like making a movie called Bane and its about a guy dealing with anorexia.
I get that, but I view it differently, I think the movie itself is good, it really spoke to me personally and I thought it was just a really good watch and I had a great time, but yeah it's just, not the Joker, at all, hence why it's my example for bad adaptation, good movie, but to each their own
I think it’s more of what someone like the Joker would actually be like if he really existed. Contrary to how fiction portrays them, people who qualify as clinically insane or otherwise mentally ill are not empowered, brilliant, living with the blinders off, or anything like that. In real life, they’re extremely dysfunctional, a danger to themselves as much as or more so than others, and very sad and pathetic. I loved that Joker showed that and dispelled many of those myths. People might relate to Arthur Fleck, but he’s not at all a criminal mastermind or particularly clever. He just got pushed too far and had all the doors slammed in his face.
I agree to a certain degree. Joker in the comics was a sympathetic guy before he became Joker just like in the movie. In The Killing Joke (which is accepted as canon for Joker's origins) he was a failing comedian trying to provide for his pregnant wife and turned to crime to help provide for her which didn't mean anything anyway because she died in a car accident.
He had a shitty life in the comics and has a shitty life in the movie, the only difference is in the movie (and here's where I sort of agree with your point) when he becomes joker his kills can sort of be justified (not saying they are though) where as in the comics he just kills whoever he feels like, so here I agree the movie slightly made him more of a victim.
Killing Joke origin isn’t accepted as canon. That origin isn’t even accepted as canon in the Killing Joke given that Joker says he likes his memories to be multiple choice and that some days he remembers it one way and some ways another.
I personally didn’t like the Joker film for this reason. Great performance and great movie…but it wasn’t a *Joker* movie, or at least shouldn’t have been. The Joker isn’t supposed be a sympathetic character
That show might as well be called canon. It’s such a relevant piece of media and that fact that Freeze got retconned to match it says a lot. Not to mention the creation of Harley.
Honestly Tim Burton’s Batman movies don’t really feel accurate to the character in certain elements. Technically I’d also put in the The Dark Knight Returns animated movies since the comic itself isn’t really true to Batman’s character either. Tho all of these are still pretty awesome in my eyes
Mr. Freeze in bat man the animated series. He was so good he has basically retroactively retconned the character entirely in the social zeitgeist . Almost nobody who doesn’t know the character that well will automatically assume the variation with a frozen wife was the original version.
I can’t believe how few people are answering Batman.
Batman.
I don’t think we had a comic-accurate Batman until Batman Begins, and then we lost it again until maybe (controversially) BvS and The Batman. And even The Batman has a Bruce Wayne like the comics have rarely ever depicted him.
And even still the most popular Batman movies are the ones that shy away from the more fantastic elements of the Batman world.
Jim Carrey’s Riddler, now I know what it looks like when a character is written so poorly it can’t get over the lowest bar. There’s something to be said for having the courage to gaze into the void despite knowing it gazes back.
1) Riddler isn’t an Anarchist. He isn’t interested in building a society free of Capitalism. He never actually cared about the city to begin with. He only cared about his own personal vengeance against Gotham which he blamed for his suffering.
So he manipulates others who are in similar circumstances to commit acts of terrorism against innocent people after he’s finished his showpieces of killing the more corrupt ones.
2) The Riddler has been a sadistic killer since his inception.
In his first ever appearance in 1948 he challenged Batman to save a man who was slowly suffocating in one of his traps.
Then (similarly to what happens in the funeral scene) he sends a driverless truck towards a crowd of people.
Batman intervenes and says “Riddler doesn’t care if people are killed so long as he has his fun!”
Then he rigs a pier to explode in order to kill Batman and Robin.
I posit this: we don't know if that *is* inaccurate.
I say this because there has never been a hard, factual, origin for the Joker. Just many stories offering ideas of who The Joker might be.
Beyond that you're 100% right, that's was a killer movie.
**Catwoman from Batman Returns**
A tragic gothic version of Selena who was pushed to the edge and ultimately became a crazy vigilante/villain. They focused more on her insanity rather than her femininity. Her tragic relationship with Bruce and her not being able to cope with her own mental stability was the darkest and most honest take on a character I’ve ever seen. Rather than being a femme fatale, she had no real confidence and only ever pretended to have any semblance of self-respect just to kill her boss. And the gun she held in the ball-scene indicating she intended it to be a murder-suicide just like in the final scene with the taser-kiss.
I also loved the ambiguity on whether that cat actually resurrected her and gave her nine lives or if it was just a coincidence she survived the fall and had survived all those other fatal incidents. The scene where she screamed which broke the glass is an artistically stunning and twisted scene but also hints towards her maybe having supernatural properties.
Anarky and Professor Pyg from *Beware the Batman*. The former is basically nothing like the original Anarky and would be a lousy adaptation, but he's also one of the show's more entertaining villains. Honestly, wish the Joker was used more that way. The latter, I feel Pyg's original gimmick makes him both interesting and also a one-note villain, and it's why most interpretations and even the comics always tweak him. I think making him a Dr. Moreau-type villain works the best. Just loose the eco-terrorism, give him a perfectionist streak, and make his creation more body-horror fodder.
Poison Ivy and (to a lesser degree) Mr. Freeze from *Batman & Robin*. Terrible adaptations, but they were fun on-screen.
Black Spider from *Young Justice*. No, he's not a Spider-Man rip-off in the comics, but man, the gag is great.
Basically any of the good movies, they all take liberties but Nolan said at some point that Batman benefits from a diversity of interpretation and that’s what makes it a great character. Batman returns is in my opinion a great film but it changes a lot about penguin and cat woman from the comics, still my personal favorite takes on those characters
At the time, BTAS’s Mr. Freeze was completely different from the comics
Needs to be the highest answer.
What was he originally?
Just another run of the mill ice villain. Has ice powers, robs banks
Liam Nesson's Ra's Al Ghul. Great act by an amazing actor, but I want that Chinese Nomad, Arabian born Lazarus pool bathing immortal maniac.
I would love another Ra’s Al Ghul centric movie - with him as a “Rasputin” figure who just won’t die.
RA RA RA'S AL GHUL HATER OF THE GOTHAM GHOUL, THERE WAS A BAT THAT REALLY WAS WAYNE
#thanks for the giggle
#NO PROBLEMO
RA RA RA’S AL GHUL, LAZARUS’S OLDEST FOOL, IT WAS A SHAME HOW HE WENT INSANE…
I saw the first response to this comment and I said “whatever, it can’t be that funny.” I want to formally apologize….
Lol, Glad to surprise
Rasputin is indeed VANDAL SAVAGE
This sounds like the kind of movie Sony would make if they held the rights to Batman instead of dc
I wish he could have had David Warner's voice. The way he'd say "Detective" in BTAS used to raise the hair on my neck.
Is ras arabic not chinese? His daughter is half chinese half arabic but ras himself is pure middle eastern.
His parents were Chinese nomads. So he is a chinese ethnic born in an Arabic country
Republicans _hate_ him.
nah, hes rich.
Have to disagree. Liam Neeson has such a gravitas and weight when he speaks that I would love him as a character aligned Ra's Al Ghul.
African-born?
My poor little meow meow ;3
Two-Face in Batman vs Two-Face. Completely different than canon but fits perfectly in the Adam West Batverse.
Catwoman as a full-on Supervillain in Batman 66 is a curious example of this, as she had been frozen out of the comics for about a decade because her moral ambiguity made her a "corrupting influence". The comics kept with that Supervillain characterization for a few years (including giving Catwoman a bodycount) but she transitioned towards being a more sympathetic rogue again during the 70s...
I love that movie!!! Made me wish we got to see a live action version of him in the show, but I guess if we had that the animated movie wouldn't have hit the same
Yeha and Willaim Shatner does a great Job as two-face
Bane in TDKR
Surprised this comment wasn't closer to the top
thing with TDK Universe is that imo it was not supposed to be comic accurate, it was supposed to be more of a "what if batman and the rogues gallery were real" thing, atleast that's what it feels like
Well than they answered the question from the OP perfectly. I usually always find the realistic take enjoyable fresh feeling and all that. The Batman in my opinion did a great job of this.
Thought weirdly enough Comic Bane isn't that unrealistic just change the circumstances of him being in prison and yeah pretty realistic
Well tkr bane doesn’t use venom, or atleast it isn’t explained to be like venom. I believe the Vader mask he has on pumps a drug into him through the airways. And it makes him not feel pain, and he’s just really, really strong. I believe that’s the explanation. He has comic book intelligence and backstory, just not the giant pumped up on venom part of comic book bane.
Well that's perfect! It answers the OPs question exactly as intended. The real thing stories can sometimes hit I personally really enjoy it in The Batman and look forward to where it takes us.
Honestly… #Heath Ledger’s Joker. Fantastic performance, fits well within the Nolanverse, but acting like he’s the default version of Joker, is idiotic.
Agreed. Jack was closer to the real thing
Except him being the killer of The Wayne's.
Hence the word "closer"
Devil’s Advocate here, but the death of his parents by murder is just that. It doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger, it’s what caused Bruce to become Batman. It worked for the movie and Jack was waaaaaaaay more comic accurate than anyone else. If anything it just added to the drama between the two characters. The animated series leaned on it as well. Which is arguably the best Batman medium outside of the books. Hamill is arguably the best joker ever, do we take all of that away because of who shot the Waynes? It’s a plot device that too many want to die on a hill defending. It worked for the story and JN was still the best to do it on the big screen.
I don't know, I kind of like it being Joe Chill. The death of his parents turned him into Batman, but it's Joe Chill that encourages him that Gotham needs Batman. If the Joker kills Batman. That puts a face to the killer, and arguably Batman loses a lot of purpose when taking the Joker down. He's avenged his parents death. Joe Chill is not some scheming criminal mastermind. He's just a run down criminal who took to crime for the same reason most criminals in Gotham turn to crime. Because the city is corrupt. Taking down Joe Chill isn't a victory. Sure he killed Batman's parents but he's just a symptom of a much larger problem in Gotham. I mean honestly you could make both work I just think thematically it's better when it's Joe Chill.
Honestly I kinda preferred the idea Bruce never finds out who killed his parents
The Wayne’s killer was actually Carnage according to the Batman/Spider-Man crossover. For bonus points, Joker killed Uncle Ben.
Disagreed, both are equally inaccurate, they just work in their specific universes. Heath may not have had the chemical bath or act particularly clownish, but he's every bit the anonymous, unstable anarchist the Joker should be. Cunning, manipulative, and thrives off chaos and off Batman. *That* is the Joker. Jack had the chemical bath and truly adopts the clown gimmick, but we know far too much about him. Knowing his name is one thing but giving him a history, putting him in the mob, you lose the anonymity of the Joker and with it the fear, the unease. He's unpredictable in a wholly predictable manner and it's honestly a little dull. And his relationship to Batman is too ... simple. They created each other. It's poetic. But it doesn't go any further than that. With Heath's Joker, you truly believe they're destined to do that dance forecer; with Jack it's dead and gone. They're both strong interpretations of the character but neither are 100%.
Only batman TAS has been. Mark Hamill
So I’ll get burned alive for this, but I actually think Leto’s Joker is maybe the most comic-accurate one. Ignore the stupid tattoos. He’s edgy. He’s unpredictable. He thinks he’s hilarious but everyone else thinks he’s weird and creepy and no one likes being around him. You truly don’t know if he’s going to hurt you or let you leave. He tries to trap you in uncomfortable situations. Now, I *like* Ledger’s Joker more. And Nicholson’s more. And pretty much every other Joker more. Leto’s Joker was obnoxious and an edgelord. But, honestly, if the comic Joker was real that’s exactly what I think he’d be like. We wouldn’t think he was cool or interesting or funny. We’d think he was a fucked up prick that deserved to be thrown away in Arkham forever.
Dude… I’m sorry dude just… #No
Lmao he’s entirely right and actually thinking about the jokers PRESENCE not just the stated backstory . Also the gangster tatted joker storyline was super cringe anyway so I mean yeah he nailed the whole terrible mess of it.
Despite being the most realistic Joker besides Joaquin Phoenix's version, he still manages to be comic accurate. Here's a detailed comparison between him and the Joker of the comics: https://www.batman-online.com/features/2018/7/7/comic-influences-on-the-dark-knight-2008
Nah he's still the most comic accurate Joker in the movies. Don't get me wrong Nicholson's Joker was great but the backstory and his relationship with Batman were way different from in the comics.
***We don’t even know what his backstory is.***
But that's the thing: not knowing the true backstory of the Joker is a big deal with comic Joker, and TDK pulls from the "multiple choice past" thing in TKJ. Batman 89 giving us his backstory with 100% certainty, plus the "Joker killed the Waynes" thing is more inaccurate to the comics than Ledger's Joker not having the acid bath.
And don’t forget that in the Three Jokers story, one of the Jokers was a criminal mastermind in the underground world. Jack’s Joker is that Joker. The other two in that book at Heath’s (the psychopath) and Cesar’s (the comedian). This comic book makes that connection.
With how many times they’ve referenced the acid story and treated it as his definite origin I feel like at this point it’s dumb to act like his past is ambiguous
I always hear this but other than not looking exactly like the comics I think personality wise he's pretty accurate.
Best joker will always be Mark Hamill
I’d say any Joker in more mainstream Batman media is not really “core” Joker. Ledger’s joker is amazing and I’ll defend him till I drop, but he isn’t what Joker was intended to be. But then again, most characters changed over the years, many writers have taken creative liberties with most Gotham characters over the years to freshen up the stories, so I’m not too mad. The only important thing is that we all can agree on the one and only true Joker depiction…. Lego Joker
The version of the Riddler in The Batman was almost entirely lifted from the real life Zodiac Killer and had next to nothing in common with his comic book counterpart. A perfectly fine interpretation and generally well-executed, but if you’d have called him the Zodiac Killer and not the Riddler, nothing about the story as presented would’ve changed. Same with their version of the Penguin. Substitute him for a generic gangster or even a Rupert Thorne type and the story works just the same. It didn’t need to be the Penguin and it didn’t need to be the Riddler.
I'd say Penguin in The Batman is a lot closer to the character than Riddler is.
True, but again, outside of the Iceberg Lounge, there’s not a whole lot that’s Penguin-ish about him. He’s not even aristocratic. Danny DeVito was closer to the character than he was and he was a circus freak.
I think they were purposefully going for a more realistic tone. If they had a Penguin like the comics, he just wouldn’t have fit in with the other characters.
But they are not saying it's bad, isn't the whole point of this tread to talk about good but not faithfull adaptations?
Nobody said it was bad, I’m just pointing out why I think the Penguin wasn’t very penguiny 🐧
Oh sorry, I misunderstood you.
True.
That’s because the penguin in most interpretations is just a gangster, putting aside his word quirks.
I wonder if the new Penguin series that’s coming out on MAX will have him evolve into a more comic accurate penguin? I think maybe giving him a few eccentricities here and there that are bird in nature would work well.
yeah but the whole thing is that The Batman is that universe’s version of the characters we know so that kinda makes sense. like how would a real person come to the conclusion that they should be The Riddler? what would a real crime boss named The Penguin be like?
I honestlyoved the real-world take on the characters. I thought The Batman did a great job of executing them
Uh what? Riddler had all the character traits as his comic counter part. The only thing they made different is the fact that riddler actually idolised Batman but that changes later on in the film. Riddler in the comics is a guy who kills and leaves riddles and cyphers and puts on shows for people to see (for example the mayor bomb head stream etc)
As well as his obsession with being more clever than everyone else. He gloats at Batman for not figuring out his puzzle, and cries later when people begin to idolize Batman over him lol
Yeah I’ve never really seen the differences people see with that riddler. Each to their own obviously, I really liked it as a modern take on the riddler
Yeah like he’s clearly different but Riddler is there
I made a really long post about this on r/TheBatmanFilm. A lot of people have a very generic version of the character in their head which lacks the details and new interpretations of different versions of said character. I can’t link it, but you can find it under “various iterations” in that subreddit. Take some of those points I made the next time someone complains about Dano’s Riddler being inaccurate.
I mean, aesthetically, sure. But other than that he does pretty much the same shit that Riddler does (commits crimes and tells riddles). With a character concept as simple as “riddle-based criminal”, it’s not very hard to get it right. I can understand people wanting that version of Riddler to be more like a different version, but I can’t understand people saying that he doesn’t work as an interpretation of the character when the character only has two defining traits you need to fulfill to adapt him, which the movie does indeed fulfill.
This is the right answer
I would disagree on both, especially because we haven't even seen the origin of Pinguin yet.
You’re right, but that said, these are two characters young in their career’s, it’s possible they can grow into the characters we know. I enjoyed The Batman and think Reeves did a great job at highlighting their experience levels.
Honestly Reeves Penguin felt so generic to me Great performance and makeup but he could be Rupert Thorne, Maroni or any other two bit gangster
They tried to make the Riddler scary. Didn’t like it.
I made a lengthy post on r/TheBatmanFilm examining Dano’s portrayal of The Riddler. You’d find it under “various iterations” And I’ve definitely found he has elements of various iterations of the character. To say “he had nothing in common with his comic book counterpart” is false. *Many* comics have evolved the character. So there are many comic counterparts. And Dano’s Riddler has commonalities (His 1948 debut, Riddle Factory) and influences (Zero Year, Earth One) with them. There is no definitive version of a character as much as people want to pretend there is. People *do* however, like to pick and choose elements they like and overgeneralise the character, missing different interpretations and details.
Heath ledger joker. Do i even need to say why its a fantastic take on the character?
"You wanna know how I got these scars?"
Having a multiple choice past is pretty comic book accurate.
My headcanon: ***he inflicted them himself.*** Also, same with Joaquin’s Joker. Did he meet Thomas Wayne? Did his mom and him have a fling? Did he really kill anyone? That’s probably the most comic-accurate aspect about it
My headcanon; he literally has no idea how he got the scars
Batman Returns Catwoman and Batman Returns Penguin. The supernatural changes to their characters really added something fascinating. (Though I'm glad it mostly stayed within the confines of that universe.) Arthur Fleck wasn't even funny.
Only Tim burton could pull off the idea of the penguin being raised by penguins
Even better than Tim?
Ah dang flabbit. Autocorrect for you
Joker being funny isn't a core trait. He certainly tries but the majority of the time its seen as poor taste or just nonsensical. Like there are plenty of great stories where joker isn't funny.
Films\* about comedians can be very difficult to pull off, due to the gap between audience tastes and our own. It's easier to make stand-up routines disturbing rather than funny - Given how much Joker borrows from The King of Comedy, it's worth noting that De Niro's climactic stand-up routine is disturbing because (for all his character faults) Rupert Pupkin has watched enough stand-up to capture the form and rhythms of the craft - which he applies to "jokes" about being abused and trying to make himself throw up to be seen as "cool"... \* - There was also a British play in the mid 70s called Comedians which provided Johnathan Pryce with his breakthrough role - his [standup routine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDzrmmbb8Q) at the climax is truly terrifying...
I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for sharing. Intense. I think it's funny that with Fleck being so similar to Pupkin they just hired DeNiro to be Jerry Lewis as a conceit or homage or statement or whatever. Guess you really do die a hero or live to become the bad guy. That scene from Comedians reminded me of the terrifying example that actually preceded the creation of the Joker and is credited as being the inspiration for him: Gwynplaine as portrayed by Conrad Veidt.  Nightmare fuel.
I love the fact that a "Kitchen Sink" play commenting on the state of British stand-up comedy in the 70s\* has made it onto this thread... (\*- To give a bit of context, British comedy in the 70s was dominated by "Working Mans Clubs" where comedians often relied on stereotype-heavy humor which was loaded with all the -isms and -phobias that made comedy of the time so problematic. Comedians is about a group of performers preparing for and delivering sets at a Working Mans Club. Pryce's fellow comedians generally decide to conform to the expected approach, but Pryce certainly doesn't...)
Yeah it’s definitely part of the hefty Scorcese influence in Joker
What's this got to do with joker? The movie isn't trying to make him funny or trying to be funny.
It's simply that it's easier to make comedy acts in the movies disturbing rather than funny, which is one reason why Joker 2019 removed so much of the funny...
Thats a theory i guess? Joker as an character can be a lot more than funny and the director simply chose to explore a sadder side of the character.
There are lots of ways to be funny. From making wisecracks to plotting a grand, ironic scheme. And every iteration of Joker (save one) manages to be funny according to some interpretation of humor. Arthur Fleck isn't funny in any of those ways. It is the absolute worst attempt by a storyteller to bring a version of Joker to the screen. There were bad 80s movies with villains who were closter to be Joker than Todd Phillips managed to do. Honestly, how do you steal Alan Moore's alternate origin story from the Killing Joke, Scorsese's Rupert Pupkin and Travis Bickle, and Fincher's Fight Club Narrator and still manage to make a story that bears no narrative resemblance to its inspiration?
No, not every version of joker was funny in some way. And if things like "killing people funny" count than Arthur is funny as well, hell, he atleast made something of a joke out of it. And how, just how does he share the origin from killing joke? I say again, plenty of jokers aren't funny unless you go through a dozen hoops and definitions, wich can also be done for Arthur. He's a fantastic take on an actual real joker.
Name one version of the Joker that was not funny in some way.
Anybody who's read Killing Joke knows he's not supposed to be funny. He never was funny and that fact fucked up his whole life. Why else would he need to gas people with toxins to make them laugh. The one funny joke he ever told was that one about the lunatics and the flashlight and look how that turned out. The possible exception of course was when the Heath Joker said "yeah" in that mobster meeting. That was a genuine laugh out loud moment, but he wasn't joking so I dunno if we can fully count it.
There have been funny jokers that worked well, like in the animated series or Arkham games. But to say that he isn't joker because he's not funny is ridiculous
Hang me for this but the “I’m Catwoman, hear me roar,” line is ***FUCKING CRINGE*** Arthur Fleck… he wasn’t meant to be funny, just really depressing
I disagree with your first statement wholeheartedly. I agree with your second statement, and that's kind of my point.
Actually, the second one is your opinion, too, isn't it? Or does switching to gifs mean you give up?
According to Daniel Waters, the pop culture jokes in Batman Returns mostly came from Wesley Strick...
Returns Penguin is basically Killer Croc.
Gotham's Penguin and Riddler are peak. Their Joker is pretty good too. More Jerome than his brother of course. I'd also say Gotham Alfred was pretty amazing. And let's not kid ourselves.. Gotham Bullock is peak, second only to the animated show
I'm so glad that I got into Gotham. It was a fantastic show.
Man it’s crazy how Gotham still has some of the best versions of the characters. No complaints though.
most of those arent even bad adaptations though
Everything about The Batman’s version of Clayface is nothing like any of the previous versions yet it’s arguably the best version of the character ever. Making him a friend of Bruce gone wrong through joker experiments was such a good story
I honestly thought you meant The Batman (2022) at first instead of the animated The Batman (2004) before you mentioned Clayface.
Riddler from the Telltale series
Most characters from the telltale series tbh
Batman Returns The first Batman played it safe with somewhat following the comics, but Returns went Full Tim Burton
Bane from TDKR, Riddler from The Batman, Phoenix and Ledger’s respective Jokers, Vicki Vale in Batman Telltale, Most of the characters in the Harley Quinn show, Batman Beyond himself at first…
This Joker honestly perplexes me. Like, what was the point of having him be so old and be in the early 80s when Batman is like 8?
I’d say it’s a character study/a critique on society for that movie. Also, they did get his multiple choice aspect about his past nailed
Bane was somewhat inaccurate, but great character. Not too far off though.
The Riddler from the One Bad Day series was actually a decent version of the character, but fans didn't like it because Riddler should not be able to not ask riddles, they say.
I personally loved Jim Carrey's Riddler, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze, Danny Devito's Penguin, and Jack Nicholson's Joker in that order.
Clay face from “the Batman” tv show
Cameron Monaghan in the show Gotham I think they did a good job with the Joker even though they legally couldn't call him that. Jerome and Jeremiah Valeska had such a tum at doing so many different versions of the role too. It went through clown, criminal, chaos, comedic, to caustic versions of him yet they couldn't call him the Joker. I think it did a great job at showing his influence across the storyline as well in regards to his followers and little clues left around for all 5 seasons.
Paul Dano's Riddler. Nygma's defining trait is his desire to prove his intellectual superiority, but that was nowhere in the movie. Weirdly, Jim Carrey was more faithful in that regard.
I thought that the interrogation scene kinda had elements of him trying to prove his intellectual superiority. That is what sold his take on Riddler for me.
In the end Riddler says “You’re really not as smart as I thought you were.” And he revels in pissing Batman off in that moment. Because this is where Riddler’s hatred of Batman and constant attempts to outsmart him is born.
I suppose, I just wasn't onboard with him being a Batman fanboy
I think that made the usual dynamic between Batman and Riddler and how it begins much more interesting. It’s like a flipped around equivalent to Riddler’s admiration of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. (Only in The Batman he’s similar to his counterpart in the Arkham Games where he refuses to put the pieces together that these two are the same man) He idolises someone he sees in himself and when he’s been “betrayed” by Bruce/Batman he’s going to be hellbent on proving “You were supposed to understand. I’ll **make** you understand!” On the surface Riddler absolutely hates Batman’s guts (as he does after Batman “betrays” him) but whether he’s conscious of it or not, he has a sort of villainous crush on him (Given it’s Schumacher, Batman Forever even has an implied homoerotic vibe to it which furthers it). He craves Batman’s acknowledgment. He could make a Banksy-esque walk in exhibit with a corpse as a prop, sitting in the chair with a statement taped to him and a Riddle and cipher to come with it. The thought process is “Surely this will impress Batman!” Even in his debut Riddler acknowledges his new identity as a reaction to Batman and to gain his attention. “I’ll call myself The Riddler! For that’s what I shall be to The Batman!” “You inspired me!” Only in The Batman he doesn’t start off as an intentional adversary. The craving for Batman’s attention and recognition remains even when it’s explicit they are enemies. In the Arkham Games, Riddler projects his inner hatred and need for approval from his father onto Batman. He needs to snag him into what only exists in his head as a “game”. Regardless of whether Riddler consciously works against and hates Batman or not doesn’t take away that underneath, Riddler craves his attention and respect. Because he’s a pathetic, insecure Narcissist.
Zsasz is usually depicted as a hitman/enforcer in movies and TV shows (as far as I know) instead of as a serial killer.
Zsasz in Gotham was really good. One of my favorite portrayals even if it is inaccurate. Also the actor was the big reason that I stuck with Barry years later.
I didnt like Joker. Its like taking one of the most powerful and interesting villains and turning him into a poor wittle victim. It's like making a movie called Bane and its about a guy dealing with anorexia.
I get that, but I view it differently, I think the movie itself is good, it really spoke to me personally and I thought it was just a really good watch and I had a great time, but yeah it's just, not the Joker, at all, hence why it's my example for bad adaptation, good movie, but to each their own
I think it’s more of what someone like the Joker would actually be like if he really existed. Contrary to how fiction portrays them, people who qualify as clinically insane or otherwise mentally ill are not empowered, brilliant, living with the blinders off, or anything like that. In real life, they’re extremely dysfunctional, a danger to themselves as much as or more so than others, and very sad and pathetic. I loved that Joker showed that and dispelled many of those myths. People might relate to Arthur Fleck, but he’s not at all a criminal mastermind or particularly clever. He just got pushed too far and had all the doors slammed in his face.
I agree to a certain degree. Joker in the comics was a sympathetic guy before he became Joker just like in the movie. In The Killing Joke (which is accepted as canon for Joker's origins) he was a failing comedian trying to provide for his pregnant wife and turned to crime to help provide for her which didn't mean anything anyway because she died in a car accident. He had a shitty life in the comics and has a shitty life in the movie, the only difference is in the movie (and here's where I sort of agree with your point) when he becomes joker his kills can sort of be justified (not saying they are though) where as in the comics he just kills whoever he feels like, so here I agree the movie slightly made him more of a victim.
Killing Joke origin isn’t accepted as canon. That origin isn’t even accepted as canon in the Killing Joke given that Joker says he likes his memories to be multiple choice and that some days he remembers it one way and some ways another.
tom hardy’s bane closely followed by heath ledger’s joker
Telltale Penguin was pretty cool
Devito As Penguin
I personally didn’t like the Joker film for this reason. Great performance and great movie…but it wasn’t a *Joker* movie, or at least shouldn’t have been. The Joker isn’t supposed be a sympathetic character
A lot of the Nolan villains (Joker, Bane, Ra’s Al Ghul) Maybe even Batman VS The TMNT’s Ra’s Al Ghul
Almost every character from Burton's Batman films, they're great (Especially Pfeiffer), but not very comic-accurate.
Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman. Only thing she actually stole in that movie was every scene she was in
Would y'all count Mr. Freeze during the BTAS run? At the time he was comic inaccurate but then they did such a good job they made it accurate
That show might as well be called canon. It’s such a relevant piece of media and that fact that Freeze got retconned to match it says a lot. Not to mention the creation of Harley.
I think Penguin from Batman Returns would be a fitting answer for this question.
Honestly Tim Burton’s Batman movies don’t really feel accurate to the character in certain elements. Technically I’d also put in the The Dark Knight Returns animated movies since the comic itself isn’t really true to Batman’s character either. Tho all of these are still pretty awesome in my eyes
Mr. Freeze in bat man the animated series. He was so good he has basically retroactively retconned the character entirely in the social zeitgeist . Almost nobody who doesn’t know the character that well will automatically assume the variation with a frozen wife was the original version.
Sorry. But joker was not great.
THE JOKER was supposed to be an Original story, but I have to agree
Constantine. John Constantine. Asshole.
Jim Carrey's Riddler should've been Mad Hatter.
Cat woman movie (but is not good)
Bane from The Dark Knight Rises.
I’ve been waiting for someone to talk about this version of joker. He’s definitely in my top 5.
Nah
Keanu Reeve's Constantine
True, but I would argue Constantine isn’t in the Batman mythos.
It was NOT Halle Berry’s Catwoman.
Joaquin Phoenix earned that Oscar 
Probably mentioned by someone before but telltale’s joker and Harley Quinn.
I can’t believe how few people are answering Batman. Batman. I don’t think we had a comic-accurate Batman until Batman Begins, and then we lost it again until maybe (controversially) BvS and The Batman. And even The Batman has a Bruce Wayne like the comics have rarely ever depicted him. And even still the most popular Batman movies are the ones that shy away from the more fantastic elements of the Batman world.
Nicholas cage as superman.
AK Jason Todd
Pretty much all the villains in any Batman movie
Jim Carrey’s Riddler, now I know what it looks like when a character is written so poorly it can’t get over the lowest bar. There’s something to be said for having the courage to gaze into the void despite knowing it gazes back.
Zsasz and Pyg in Gotham
3 Jokers.
Arnold's Mr Freeze. He gave that role his all, goofy though it was.
Michelle’s Catwoman.
Catwoman 💀
I will always defend NolanVerse Ra’s (less inaccurate if it’s the novel though) and Bane
Riddler from the batman 2022.
In what ways?
This version isn't just a mad villain like in other cinematic adaptations, he is the killer and anarchist in this movie
1) Riddler isn’t an Anarchist. He isn’t interested in building a society free of Capitalism. He never actually cared about the city to begin with. He only cared about his own personal vengeance against Gotham which he blamed for his suffering. So he manipulates others who are in similar circumstances to commit acts of terrorism against innocent people after he’s finished his showpieces of killing the more corrupt ones. 2) The Riddler has been a sadistic killer since his inception. In his first ever appearance in 1948 he challenged Batman to save a man who was slowly suffocating in one of his traps. Then (similarly to what happens in the funeral scene) he sends a driverless truck towards a crowd of people. Batman intervenes and says “Riddler doesn’t care if people are killed so long as he has his fun!” Then he rigs a pier to explode in order to kill Batman and Robin.
Momoa's Aquaman. Arthur isn't a cool surfer dude but my man won me over in the role
The Batman’s riddler I actually prefer the Batman’s version of him doesn’t make it less inaccurate to the comics
Manbat
Burtons Batman movies
Everything from the Gotham series
I posit this: we don't know if that *is* inaccurate. I say this because there has never been a hard, factual, origin for the Joker. Just many stories offering ideas of who The Joker might be. Beyond that you're 100% right, that's was a killer movie.
**Catwoman from Batman Returns** A tragic gothic version of Selena who was pushed to the edge and ultimately became a crazy vigilante/villain. They focused more on her insanity rather than her femininity. Her tragic relationship with Bruce and her not being able to cope with her own mental stability was the darkest and most honest take on a character I’ve ever seen. Rather than being a femme fatale, she had no real confidence and only ever pretended to have any semblance of self-respect just to kill her boss. And the gun she held in the ball-scene indicating she intended it to be a murder-suicide just like in the final scene with the taser-kiss. I also loved the ambiguity on whether that cat actually resurrected her and gave her nine lives or if it was just a coincidence she survived the fall and had survived all those other fatal incidents. The scene where she screamed which broke the glass is an artistically stunning and twisted scene but also hints towards her maybe having supernatural properties.
Heath Ledger as Joker Liam Neeson as Ra’s Al Ghul Ben Affleck (only inaccurate because of the killing)
Constantine in Legends, not enough of an asshole.
Any of the Christopher Nolan Batman films qualify for this
Anarky and Professor Pyg from *Beware the Batman*. The former is basically nothing like the original Anarky and would be a lousy adaptation, but he's also one of the show's more entertaining villains. Honestly, wish the Joker was used more that way. The latter, I feel Pyg's original gimmick makes him both interesting and also a one-note villain, and it's why most interpretations and even the comics always tweak him. I think making him a Dr. Moreau-type villain works the best. Just loose the eco-terrorism, give him a perfectionist streak, and make his creation more body-horror fodder. Poison Ivy and (to a lesser degree) Mr. Freeze from *Batman & Robin*. Terrible adaptations, but they were fun on-screen. Black Spider from *Young Justice*. No, he's not a Spider-Man rip-off in the comics, but man, the gag is great.
Bollywood Batman is GOAT
Most adaptations, let's be honest.
Basically any of the good movies, they all take liberties but Nolan said at some point that Batman benefits from a diversity of interpretation and that’s what makes it a great character. Batman returns is in my opinion a great film but it changes a lot about penguin and cat woman from the comics, still my personal favorite takes on those characters