The Dark Knight 4 "Dark Knight" Scenes to be Shot in IMAX!

[Cain]

First I have never stated that the chem bath started with 89, i was pointing out that there are some fans and outsides that consider that everything that happened in that film is cannon. I understand that that the joker was introduced in 1940 and a short 11 years pasted before his "origin" popped up...but that doesnt make it true. In other words that "chapter" could be false information. over the 11 years between 40 and 51 there have been many explanations to who and why this killer clown came from. but they made the 51 "chapter" such a big deal that many are over looking the fact, the notion that other origins have been placed before us before the chem bath.
And secondly (pant) secondly TKJ I would consider f.i. because on pg 6 he talks about how "money is not a problem these days.." then it flashes back to his past. that To Me is a memory. His crooked memory...all the shots with the "pre" Joker are flashbacks a la LOST. to the me Chembath is not true cannon his origins are unexplained and from now to forever no true answer will ever safice.


IMO

Uh in the comics prior to 1951 there was never much speculation about his origin. What doesn't make it true? it is true because that comic was written with the intention of being the official origin. It was always considered his origin by not only the characters creators but also DC up until Crisis on Infinite Earths. The fall into the vat of chemicals as the Red Hood is the real story of the Earth-2 Joker. As far as post-crisis Joker goes though of course that's a different story.

 

[Nepenthes]

it's also in Man Who Laughs which was supposed to be more definitive Joker origin type story

 

[Cain]

Which is also only 2 years old so I guess the Red Hood theory will always be relevant some how some way even though hopefully we'll never ever get a definitive answer. I also forgot to point out that Earth-2 Batman stories have been highly influential to Nolan so I guess if we do see an origin (which I highly doubt) Red Hood could probably be the one that is alluded to.

 

[Slipping_Halo]

Ok so can we stop being mean and put up the high res photo?

 

[strikezone89]

so does that mean tdk will be shown at imax theatres?

 

[theDarkerKnight]

alright alread...i had a pal put in a call..and i got word back from the dc boys and what they said in a nut shell was that they would consider, deeply, that the chem bath IS cannon.

this is a slap to the face for me. but alas i can not be a sore looser.

 

[rkenshin19]

Makes me curious though. If you want this movie to be such cannon. Do you also want Robin in it? HMM!?!?!?!? You gotta bend the rule somewhere. This movie shouldn't be about Jokers origin but Batman and Jokers growing and ultimately strong relationship as villain and superhero. Joker gets under Batman's skin like no one else. I'm more interested in that aspect of the movie than. OMGJOKERORIGINSGOTTABECANNON!

 

[Cristo]

Yes, but here's a question: Who the **** wants Robin? I've still got the bad taste of Batman AND ROBIN in my mouth and this would fit in since Bruce is just becoming Batman, therefore there WOULD BE NO ROBIN.

If they're doing the Joker, they should do the Joker! Not Charles Manson with fruity makeup!!

 

[TheBat812]

Here's my question: If the title (and article) says that 4 of the scenes are to be shot in IMAX, do people really not understand that it will obviously be shown in IMAX as well? I mean, wtf would be the point of shooting in IMAX if that wasn't part of the plan? And do people really not understand that those shots in IMAX will be cropped in a way that fits with the aspect ratio of the rest of the movie? Is logic absolutely void in this forum?

 

[Cain]

Logic? WTF is that? a foreign word or something?

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

"the man later known as the Joker was a master criminal going by the alias of the Red Hood. His costume consisted of a large domed red helmet and a red cape. While attempting to rob a chemical plant, his men were dispatched and then he was suddenly surrounded on a catwalk by Batman and Robin. Left with no alternatives, he dove into a catch basin for the chemicals and swam to freedom, surviving because of a special breathing apparatus built into the helmet. The toxins in the vat permanently and grotesquely disfigured him, however, turning his hair green, his skin white and his lips red. Upon discovering this, he went insane and became the Joker."

I think that should be ALL we know about the Joker as far as a definitive origin at the beginning. That he was dressed up as (or was) the Red Hood and fell into a vat of chemicals.

Now, I think THIS alternate origin from TKJ should be hinted at more and more as the movie progresses: "and thus the Red Hood; the Joker is portrayed as a former chemical technician, now a struggling stand-up comedian with a pregnant wife. Approached by the Red Hood gang to lead a raid of his former workplace, the Ace Chemical plant, he accepts, in order to make enough money to start a better life for his family. The gang gives him the costume of the Red Hood, which has been worn by many men before - this way, the gang is able to falsely identify the Red Hood as their leader on all the crimes they perform, with the police unaware that a different dupe is behind the hood every time. The day of the proposed robbery, however, police inform him that his wife died in a freak accident. He attempts to back out of the robbery, but the gang strong-arms him into keeping his commitment to them. During the robbery, the plant's security men spot the intruders and shoot the other criminals dead. The engineer tries to flee, but Batman appears and corners him on the plant's catwalk. Terrified, he jumps off the catwalk into the chemical basin to escape. As in the previous origin story, he goes insane after discovering what the chemicals have done to his face, and becomes the Joker."

So, really, it's a mystery that Batman is trying to figure. Who REALLY is the Red Hood? Is the Joker the Red Hood? Or is the Joker figuratively one of the Red Hood's victims?

See, now that's what I want. I want Batman trying to trace and piece everything together to try and see if Joker is the Red Hood, or if Red Hood made Joker, or if The Joker killed Red Hood so he could take over his gang.

 

[Katsuro]

Here's my question: If the title (and article) says that 4 of the scenes are to be shot in IMAX, do people really not understand that it will obviously be shown in IMAX as well? I mean, wtf would be the point of shooting in IMAX if that wasn't part of the plan? And do people really not understand that those shots in IMAX will be cropped in a way that fits with the aspect ratio of the rest of the movie? Is logic absolutely void in this forum?

That part's not actually true. the press release said that the 4 IMAX scenes will fill the screen, changing the aspect ration to 4:3.

 

[Mysterio]

the Joker is portrayed as a former chemical technician, now a struggling stand-up comedian

i can't stand that backstory. ugh.

 

[ultimatefan]

i can't stand that backstory. ugh.

He worked in a chemical´s company before turning into the Red Hood and then Joker in the original comics.

 

[raybia]

The whole point of TKJ was to bring some iota of sympathy for the Joker.

Even though this portrayal was not meant to be his definitive origin, it implies that whatever his actual may be, it was the result of a "bad day."

He was a victim of circumstance and that was the point that he was trying to make to Batman, who was also created as the result of a bad day.


Raybia

 

[DieSmiling]

See, now that's what I want. I want Batman trying to trace and piece everything together to try and see if Joker is the Red Hood, or if Red Hood made Joker, or if The Joker killed Red Hood so he could take over his gang.

That's exactly what I don't want. Joker's origins are mysterious, that should in no way be the focus of the story.

 

[sasquatchs]

Hopefully Nolan thinks Joker's origin is a load of bollocks like me. I would like Batman to discover past crimes, and some possible history, but nothing solid. A definitive origin isn't particularly important for the character or the film

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

That's exactly what I don't want. Joker's origins are mysterious, that should in no way be the focus of the story.

So, bad guys in superhero films should not have origins?

Sorry people I just don't get it. Everyone loves and adores the Spider-Man films (well some didn't like 3 which I don't understand) but they had their origins for the villains, without having like Burton's Batman movies (too much of the villains and not enough of the Batman.)

Joker needs his origin. Batman should put blame and responsibility on creating this monster on Gotham City and then he must stop it without any cost.

 

[sasquatchs]

He will have responsibility, not for creating the Joker persona but for turning Joker's attention towards the public after messing with his plans. It sounds like terrorism in order to turn Gotham against Batman.

 

[Crook]

Joker needs his origin.

A villain doesn't need that to become threatening or intriguing. Joker has gone along without a full-fledged origin for quite some time, and he's been doing just fine.

The only accepted fact is he did fall into a chemical bath, but the means and reasons for it are unknown. I'd settle with that.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Joker needs his origin.

We already got it in Batman 1989. We don't really need to travel down that road again. Why would we? So we could have another chiche "I made you" story between Batman and Joker?

I am perfectly fine with the notion that Joker's origin in this movie will be played more mysterious.

 

[Slipping_Halo]

I hope they don't get into it. Yes, it's nice to see villains and where they came from but for the Joker I think it should be more of a mystery than anything. It took until the Killing Joke, if I am not mistaken, for them to even SPECULATE on his origin. Before that he came out of nowhere and it worked just fine. I think it's cooler because it makes him almost an intangible force-the personification of what Batman has set out to destroy. I like that; I say leave it at that.

 

[Nepenthes]

I hope they don't get into it. Yes, it's nice to see villains and where they came from but for the Joker I think it should be more of a mystery than anything. It took until the Killing Joke, if I am not mistaken, for them to even SPECULATE on his origin. Before that he came out of nowhere and it worked just fine. I think it's cooler because it makes him almost an intangible force-the personification of what Batman has set out to destroy. I like that; I say leave it at that.

No, his origin was set-up in the 1950's, the Red Hood. He was a common crook and thats what Batman'89, TAS and Man Who Laughs continued with.

We already got it in Batman 1989. We don't really need to travel down that road again. Why would we?

Why? Because 90% of the people who see TDK won't remember what happened in Batman'89. Batman movies aren't a major issue for most people, and if they do remember why the hell would they care if Nolan is repeating the same ground? (which also happens to be comic canon......wait a minute, I've got an idea! Lets have Bruce's parents die in an avalanche. Burton already the the whole 'crime alley' thing. It's old!).

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

We already got it in Batman 1989. We don't really need to travel down that road again. Why would we? So we could have another chiche "I made you" story between Batman and Joker?

I am perfectly fine with the notion that Joker's origin in this movie will be played more mysterious.

Exactly.

What people should look to is the Animated Series. Isn't it interesting that Joker is the only major villain that isn't introduced with an origin episode? He's just there at the beginning of the series. A few hints here and there, but no origin. He doesn't need one. Everyone (even casual viewers) has some idea of the chemical bath story, especially thanks to B89.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Well that was the point. Intially B:TAS purpose was to capitalize on the audience's interest in B89, and gradually lead them into Batman Returns. So there was no need to show any backstory. People knew. I'm not opposed to showing glimpses of origin and backstory. Yet still remaining a mystery. Which is what the comics have managed to do.