The Dark Knight Rises Ideas For Incorporating Characters Into the Nolanverse

You don’t need to lecture me on the ambiguous nature of the Joker’s origin. Maybe YOU should go back and look at every origin story about the Joker since February of 1951. In all of the origin stories the same basic story arc is used; Joker falls into a vat of chemicals because of Batman. His origin as said by Mister J is “multiple choice”, not fill in the blank. The only thing debatable is who the Joker was before the accident. Here is the wikipedia on the matter if you need to brush up on your Batman history.

The first origin account, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951), revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, he was a scientist looking to steal from the company that employs him and adopts the persona of Red Hood. After committing the theft, which Batman thwarts, Red Hood falls into a vat of chemical waste. He emerges with bleached white skin, red lips, green hair, and a permanent grin.[15][16]

The most widely cited backstory, which the official DC Comics publication, Who's Who in the DC Universe, credits as the most widely believed account, can be seen in The Killing Joke. It depicts him as originally being an engineer at a chemical plant who quits his job to become a stand-up comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to support his pregnant wife, Jeannie, the man agrees to help two criminals break into the plant where he was formerly employed. In this version of the story, the Red Hood persona is given to the inside man of every job (thus it is never the same man twice); this makes the man appear to be the ringleader, allowing the two criminals to escape. During the planning, police contact him and inform him that his wife and unborn child have died in a household accident.[12][13]

The Joker emerges from chemical-ridden water and goes insane in The Killing Joke. Art by Brian Bolland. Stricken with grief, he attempts to back out of the plan, but the criminals strong-arm him into keeping his promise. As soon as they enter the plant, however, they are immediately caught by security and a shoot-out ensues, in which the two criminals are killed. As the engineer tries to escape, he is confronted by Batman, who is investigating the disturbance. Terrified, the engineer leaps over a rail and plummets into a vat of chemicals. When he surfaces in the nearby reservoir, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and bright green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer completely insane, resulting in the birth of the Joker.[12][13]
The story "Pushback" (Batman: Gotham Knights # 50-55) supports part of this version of the Joker's origin story. In it, a witness (who coincidentally turns out to be Edward Nigma) recounts that the Joker's wife was kidnapped and murdered by the criminals in order to force the engineer into performing the crime. In this version, the pre-accident Joker is called Jack.[17]
The Paul Dini-Alex Ross story "Case Study" proposes a far different theory. This story suggests that the Joker was a sadistic gangster who worked his way up Gotham's criminal food chain until he was the leader of a powerful mob. Still seeking the thrills that dirty work allowed, he created the Red Hood identity for himself so that he could commit small-time crimes. Eventually, he had his fateful first meeting with Batman, resulting in his disfigurement. However, the story suggests that the Joker retained his sanity, and researched his crimes to look like the work of a sick mind in order to pursue his vendetta against Batman.
The latter origin is featured in the second arc of Batman Confidential (#7-12). This origin once more states his name as Jack, and eliminates the Red Hood identity. Bored with his work, Jack becomes obsessed with Batman, and crashes a museum ball to attract his attention. In doing so, he badly injures Lorna Shore (whom Bruce Wayne is dating). An enraged Batman disfigures his face with a batarang as he escapes. In retaliation, a furious Batman sells Jack out to mobsters whom he had crossed, who torture Jack in a disused chemical plant. Turning the tables, Jack kills several of his assailants, but falls into an empty vat. Wild gunfire punctures the chemical tanks above him, and the resultant flood of toxins alters his appearance to that of the Joker or a clown.[18]

So yeah, Batman created the Joker. Don’t get dense.

Maybe you should read what wikipedia has to say before you post it. Yeah, it is multiple choice and maybe you should look at the official DC origin:

1.jpg


2.jpg


The way YOU describled is ONE of the choices and there is no proof that he fell in because of Batman. A few writers have even suggested that the Joker himself can't even remember how he came to be who he is today.

The point that I was trying to make here is that Batman did not create him, he created himself and the way his origin was presented in TDK was exactlly the way it should be, surrounded in mystery and left up to the viewer to decide the outcome.

And believe me when I tell you, I don't NEED to brush up on my Batman history and my signature is proof of that.
 
If you think about it, TDK had more 'villains' in the actual movie than Spider-Man 3 did. ANd TDK did a lot better job than SM3. I think that Nolan will do fine.

TDK had The Joker, Two-Face, Sal Maroni,The Chechen,Gambol,The Rest of the Mafia and various mobsters, and even a small cameo by the Scarecrow, not to mention Batman taking on the dark side of who he must become "to stop men like [The Joker]" and all were evenly displayed in the film (With the Joker basically running and stealing the show. All other were pretty much evened out)

Spider-Man 3 only had The New Goblin, Sandman and then Venom. Oh, and Spider-Man also taking on the dark side of his personality (due to the symbiote)

Either way, Nolan knows how to even things out and make a mess into a terrific movie, that is well organized and that people want to see. So, I think that The Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Oswald Cobblepot, and Rupert Thorne, with possibly the rising mafia and new mobsters (i.e. Gabol and the Chechen) and Batman, Gordon, the Police, the overall theme of the movie and everything else that this film needs and deserves will all be evenly displayed with each gaining a good amount of screen time. Who knows, maybe even Harvey Two-Face will appear. :woot:

Actually what I meant by that statement you quoted, was not so much the amount of characters in the film, but the overall tone of the film.

Chris Nolan is completely capable of juggling a lot of things in his movies including handling a large amount of characters on screen, and showing the complexity of the characters and of the story itself. And John and Chris's script are always rich with quality, so those aren't issues to be concerned about.

It's which characters you use that is the key. Sure, in Nolan's world he can come up with an intrepretation of a character that would fit into it, but would you really care or invest your time, but concerning the issue of fantasy. Raimi in the first Spiderman films grounded the characters in as much reality as possible. Then in Spiderman 3, it jumped off into more fantasy than anything else and didn't mesh with the other 2 films, appending the fact that the script, dialogue, etc was terrible didn't help....but as well known as Venom is and Sandman isnt, it didn't come across well in the 3rd and felt like it was a different movie series all together.

In Nolan's Bat films, all the characters and villians have been people who mesh with the world and rules that he has set up. Since Nolan has grounded Batman in as much realism as he can, these characters (Ra's, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face) are ones that you could believe could be real in today's society, but also work within the movie. It's maybe the reason why the Joker isn't permawhite, and why Harvey wasn't scarred by acid, because it wasn't believeable enough. I really would've preferred the permawhite Joker and then add everything else Nolan did in his intrepretation, but beggers can't choosers.

Regardless, it's what characters you use and how well you can apply them to the universe you've created. Also you want to go out and end the series (I'm assuming Nolan will just do 3) with the top tier villains. What's left is Riddler, Penguin, Bane.....Catwoman and Mr. Freeze are up there, but more in the second tier range. I would like to see a revamp of the Freeze character, and have it be more in line with Timm's version, but those two characters would start to stretch the fabric of what was originally setup....and Poison Ivy, the Black Mask and all these other villians that are being mentioned are best left suited for the comics and cartoons.

Most people don't know or care about the Black Mask or don't care to see Poison Ivy. It's getting the villians that people care about and would be drawn to seeing on the big screen.

So, re-intrepreted versions of the Riddler, Penguin, Bane, and "maybe" add in....Catwoman if there really is a need for her. As long as Nolan keeps them grounded in the universe he created and they don't jump or are too fantasy driven like in Spidey 3 where it clashes with the rules, then those 4 characters would be fine...but I'd rather just see Riddler, Penguin, and Bane.
 
Maybe you should read what wikipedia has to say before you post it. Yeah, it is multiple choice and maybe you should look at the official DC origin:

1.jpg


2.jpg


The way YOU describled is ONE of the choices and there is no proof that he fell in because of Batman. A few writers have even suggested that the Joker himself can't even remember how he came to be who he is today.

The point that I was trying to make here is that Batman did not create him, he created himself and the way his origin was presented in TDK was exactlly the way it should be, surrounded in mystery and left up to the viewer to decide the outcome.

And believe me when I tell you, I don't NEED to brush up on my Batman history and my signature is proof of that.

And YOU’RE forgetting that Batman was present in every single one of those origins. Suggesting that the Joker created himself is completely absurd, you nitwit. I would close down your useless "fan site" because you don't even have an elementary grasp on the character. Nolan screwed up, because he was basing the Joker solely on his appearance in Batman #1. So yes, it was an insult to any knowledgeable fan.
 
And YOU’RE forgetting that Batman was present in every single one of those origins. Suggesting that the Joker created himself is completely absurd, you nitwit. I would close down your useless "fan site" because you don't even have an elementary grasp on the character. Nolan screwed up, because he was basing the Joker solely on his appearance in Batman #1. So yes, it was an insult to any knowledgeable fan.

No, you are absurd. I can see you'll be around here a long time. :whatever:

Did you even READ the official DC origin? Clearly you didn't becuase the Joker himself say's "(or maybe he just fell)..." I guess you missed that, huh?

And since you know everything there is to know about Batman maybe you can help figure this one out...

How is Batman resposible for creating the Joker when he, the Joker himself, was the one robbing the cemical factory? I guess Batman made him rob the factory, right? You are clueless if you believe that Batman "created" the Joker. The Joker's own actions were the cause of his disfigurement. Batman was just doing his job.

No, sorry. Nolan did not base the Joker solely on his appearance in Batman #1 and it's not an insult to any knowledgeable fan, just to trolls like you.

I've read through some of your posts here and it's clear that you believe yourself to be superior to most of the human race. You're a troll who enjoys arguing and making people mad. Do us all a favor and do it somewhere else.
 
No, you are absurd. I can see you'll be around here a long time. :whatever:

Did you even READ the official DC origin? Clearly you didn't becuase the Joker himself say's "(or maybe he just fell)..." I guess you missed that, huh?

And since you know everything there is to know about Batman maybe you can help figure this one out...

How is Batman resposible for creating the Joker when he, the Joker himself, was the one robbing the cemical factory? I guess Batman made him rob the factory, right? You are clueless if you believe that Batman "created" the Joker. The Joker's own actions were the cause of his disfigurement. Batman was just doing his job.

No, sorry. Nolan did not base the Joker solely on his appearance in Batman #1 and it's not an insult to any knowledgeable fan, just to trolls like you.

I've read through some of your posts here and it's clear that you believe yourself to be superior to most of the human race. You're a troll who enjoys arguing and making people mad. Do us all a favor and do it somewhere else.

DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF BEING A TROLL. You have brought this argument upon yourself because of your ignorance to every origin story portrayed in DC comics. If Batman never showed up to the chemical factory, there would be no Joker. The only discrepancy in the origin is who the Joker was before the accident, not the accident itself. Was the Joker a stand-up comedian? Mob hit man? Red Hood? That is the part for you to decide on. The story arc for the accident has essentially been the same. Also, if you can’t see the similarities in plot between Batman #1 and TDK, then you are in desperate need of reevaluating how you view the character.

The one thing you are right about is that I am superior to most of the human race.
 
The suggestion that Joker MUST have an origin, and that Batman MUST be involved is silly. The comics are a guide. To be rigidly constrained by what has appeared on the pages of the comics would make the movies substantially less interesting. "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are Chris Nolan's interpretations of Batman, just as "Batman" and "Batman Returns" were the interpretations of Tim Burton. As artists, they have an inalienable right to alter the characters as they see fit. Debating the merits of these alterations is, however, legitimate.

I prefer Joker without an origin. Those origins all have one thing in common: they are inadequate. The Joker begins as a stand-up comedian... falls in a vat of chemicals... and emerges the world's greatest criminal mastermind. The Joker is a small time hood... falls in a vat of chemicals... emerges the world's greatest criminal mastermind. Why? How?

TDK's Joker, who CHOOSE to be what he is, is much more terrifying than Joker who became evil/maniacal by chance. Joker wants to do the things he does, he chooses to present himself as a freak, not have his scars fixed. That is terrifying. No origin story is adequate to explain how Joker became the most evil man on the planet. Nothing indicate how he became so cunning, so devious, so twisted. So why try? He works much better as an absolute representation of evil, a force of nature. Any origin makes him simpathetic, if only marginally. The Joker should not be sympathetic, we should not feel sorry for him. We had to feel some amount sympathy for Nicholson's Joker, even if he was a murdered and a psycho before the accident. He was a guy who got screwed over by his boss over a woman. We can all relate to that, to some extent. Ledger's Joker has no sympathetic qualities. We're desperate to see him defeated, and are happy to see Batman triumph in the end. That is why the Nolan/Ledger interpretation of the Joker is superior to all previous incarnations.
 
DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF BEING A TROLL. You have brought this argument upon yourself because of your ignorance to every origin story portrayed in DC comics. If Batman never showed up to the chemical factory, there would be no Joker. The only discrepancy in the origin is who the Joker was before the accident, not the accident itself. Was the Joker a stand-up comedian? Mob hit man? Red Hood? That is the part for you to decide on. The story arc for the accident has essentially been the same. Also, if you can’t see the similarities in plot between Batman #1 and TDK, then you are in desperate need of reevaluating how you view the character.

The one thing you are right about is that I am superior to most of the human race.

But you are one, so it fits.

And if The Joker wouldn't have robbed the chemical factory, than Batman wouldn't have showed up. Face it, the Joker "created" himself.

The dispute started over Batman "creating" The Joker and not really his origin story. I didn't ignore anything and I'll bet I know far more about the Batman mythos than you could ever learn. So...

Go back to your home under the bridge angry troll and stop bothering the villagers. :woot:
 
The suggestion that Joker MUST have an origin, and that Batman MUST be involved is silly. The comics are a guide. To be rigidly constrained by what has appeared on the pages of the comics would make the movies substantially less interesting. "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are Chris Nolan's interpretations of Batman, just as "Batman" and "Batman Returns" were the interpretations of Tim Burton. As artists, they have an inalienable right to alter the characters as they see fit. Debating the merits of these alterations is, however, legitimate.

I prefer Joker without an origin. Those origins all have one thing in common: they are inadequate. The Joker begins as a stand-up comedian... falls in a vat of chemicals... and emerges the world's greatest criminal mastermind. The Joker is a small time hood... falls in a vat of chemicals... emerges the world's greatest criminal mastermind. Why? How?

TDK's Joker, who CHOOSE to be what he is, is much more terrifying than Joker who became evil/maniacal by chance. Joker wants to do the things he does, he chooses to present himself as a freak, not have his scars fixed. That is terrifying. No origin story is adequate to explain how Joker became the most evil man on the planet. Nothing indicate how he became so cunning, so devious, so twisted. So why try? He works much better as an absolute representation of evil, a force of nature. Any origin makes him simpathetic, if only marginally. The Joker should not be sympathetic, we should not feel sorry for him. We had to feel some amount sympathy for Nicholson's Joker, even if he was a murdered and a psycho before the accident. He was a guy who got screwed over by his boss over a woman. We can all relate to that, to some extent. Ledger's Joker has no sympathetic qualities. We're desperate to see him defeated, and are happy to see Batman triumph in the end. That is why the Nolan/Ledger interpretation of the Joker is superior to all previous incarnations.

Well said, thank you.
 
Well said, thank you.

Hmm, it's funny that someone from Egypt knows so much about AN AMERICAN CHARACTER. I just hope you read Frank Miller's Holy Terror Batman, or won't they sell it in your country?

This started out with a simple suggestion to have the Red Hood as the main villain, because Ledger took too many sleeping pills.
 
Hmm, it's funny that someone from Egypt knows so much about AN AMERICAN CHARACTER. I just hope you read Frank Miller's Holy Terror Batman, or won't they sell it in your country?

This started out with a simple suggestion to have the Red Hood as the main villain, because Ledger took too many sleeping pills.

LOL!

You're really not that smart, are you?

I'm not from Egypt and my name is not David Rice. David Rice is a fictional character and Egypt is one of his favorite places to "hang out". I am however an american male who's been reading Batman comics for over 20 years.

I'll skip any Batman book writen by Frank Miller thank you.

Accoring to you the Red Hood was the Joker before he became the Joker right? Then just how could the Red Hood be the main villain in the next film without being an insult to any knowledgeable fan?
 
LOL!

You're really not that smart, are you?

I'm not from Egypt and my name is not David Rice. David Rice is a fictional character and Egypt is one of his favorite places to "hang out". I am however an american male who's been reading Batman comics for over 20 years.

I'll skip any Batman book writen by Frank Miller thank you.

Accoring to you the Red Hood was the Joker before he became the Joker right? Then just how could the Red Hood be the main villain in the next film without being an insult to any knowledgeable fan?

I was assuming that it wasn’t possible for a human being to enjoy the quote on quote film, Jumper. So let me get this straight then, you hate Frank Miller and love Hayden Christensen? NO ONE SHOULD RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS! I win by default because you have no real credibility in anything you say.
 
Never liked Miller's Batman stuff. Onlything it was good for (or at least I see it credited for it a lot) is droppin Batmans campy side and made the proper dark tone we have today
 
Never liked Miller's Batman stuff. Onlything it was good for (or at least I see it credited for it a lot) is droppin Batmans campy side and made the proper dark tone we have today

You do realize that Miller essentially created post-crisis Batman, right? If you don't enjoy TDKR or Year One, you are not a Bat fan. Period.
 
I was assuming that it wasn’t possible for a human being to enjoy the quote on quote film, Jumper.

So let me get this straight then, you hate Frank Miller and love Hayden Christensen? NO ONE SHOULD RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS!

I win by default because you have no real credibility in anything you say.

No... you didn't, good come back though. And Jumper WAS a book before it was a film, if you read ANYTHING you would know that.

I never said I hated or loved anyone and by the way you ACT no one will respect your opinions.

There is nothing to win, I've already beaten you. Your ideas for a the next film are ridiculous, your opinion are of the worst kind, your debating skills are below average and the only way you think you can win an aurgument is by name calling and deflecting from the subject at hand.

I was going to be nice and try to appeal to you by saying that you have the right to your own opinions and I respect them, but I really don't now because a person like you does not desreve my respect.
 
You do realize that Miller essentially created post-crisis Batman, right? If you don't enjoy TDKR or Year One, you are not a Bat fan. Period.

I understad that and pretty sure I recognzed that in my post.

If I have to enjoy it to be a Bat-fan, then i cool not being a bat fan. Dont need to like Batman that much
 
Never liked Miller's Batman stuff. Onlything it was good for (or at least I see it credited for it a lot) is droppin Batmans campy side and made the proper dark tone we have today

Me either, but I wouldn't give Miller all the credit. Dennis O'Neil played a huge part in that too.
 
True that,I think l'll just continue reading Bat books, watchin Bat films, and caring about the characters regardless of being considered a fan or not :D :up:
 
No... you didn't, good come back though. And Jumper WAS a book before it was a film, if you read ANYTHING you would know that.

I never said I hated or loved anyone and by the way you ACT no one will respect your opinions.

There is nothing to win, I've already beaten you. Your ideas for a the next film are ridiculous, your opinion are of the worst kind, your debating skills are below average and the only way you think you can win an aurgument is by name calling and deflecting from the subject at hand.

I was going to be nice and try to appeal to you by saying that you have the right to your own opinions and I respect them, but I really don't now because a person like you does not desreve my respect.

I only read comic books, real books are for communists.

I have no opinions, because everything I say is fact. Also I don’t need someone’s respect if they dislike Miller’s work on Batman. Miller’s Year One and TDKR are considered the definitive Batman stories. Also there is no need to be nice to me, because I am pure hatred.
 
I only read comic books, real books are for communists.

I have no opinions, because everything I say is fact. Also I don’t need someone’s respect if they dislike Miller’s work on Batman. Miller’s Year One and TDKR are considered the definitive Batman stories. Also there is no need to be nice to me, because I am pure hatred.

Welcome back GoogleMe94!
 
I only read comic books, real books are for communists.

I have no opinions, because everything I say is fact. Also I don’t need someone’s respect if they dislike Miller’s work on Batman. Miller’s Year One and TDKR are considered the definitive Batman stories. Also there is no need to be nice to me, because I am pure hatred.

And people say I'm an a-hole :whatever:.

Sorry to intervene, can I put this in my signature? I want people to like me more through comparison with another poster, and you're the right guy for the job.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"