Re: Should the archenemy be first?
I hate the idea of "building up" characters once we get past this arbitrary origin stage. Batman's beginnings have been told in depth now, so it is time to move on from that. I'd love to see the next Joker right from the get-go. I don't believe that a movie superhero has to be built up to his/her arch nemesis for it to be believable that this "new" Batman could handle the Joker. He's Batman, fighting the Joker is just what he does. If you can't accept that, your problem.
The Green Lantern franchise is essentially dead. The Hulk has a better chance of getting a sequel at this point. Instead of some piece-o-crap with a great actor playing Sinestro to (at the minimum) a satisfactory level of villainy, we have a Sinestro who doesn't do much and was on the side of good in a piece-o-crap. This is what happens when you hold your ace. Warner Brothers knew back in the day that the Joker had to be in this new direction Batman movie. Then they followed it up with Penguin and Catwoman. Those were the most popular villains on the show and WB knew that's who the people wanted to see.
In Spider-Man's case, the Raimi and Webb movies are slammed together in the collective memory of the audience. That's why we're getting villains who weren't in the first three; Lizard, Rhino, Electro. I don't believe for a second that Norman Osbourne or Otto Octavius are absent because this Spider-Man is inexperienced. I believe that villain choice is often influenced by the financial matter. How can a studio convince an audience they're not going to see the same movie twice? Give them a different villain.