The Dark Knight Well....this is intresting? (Joker news)

[kytrigger]

I just have to learn more about what Nolan plans to do.

While probably a good idea, it's so much more fun to jump to conclusions. You see I bought this mat, and it has conclusions on it, and you jump to them! Best investment I ever made.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

While probably a good idea, it's so much more fun to jump to conclusions. You see I bought this mat, and it has conclusions on it, and you jump to them! Best investment I ever made.

I want to know more about the Nolan's plans; of the things I'm most curious about is whether or not there is going to be scene where Batman visits the grave of his parents (not Crime Alley.)

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Bruce will suffer because the monser he created called Batman will begin of overtake him as the Joker goes around killing and stuff and Batman keeps hitting dead ends as to his motives and who he is.

Batman will become obsessed with getting the Joker, and Bruce Wayne will slowly fade away until Alfred or someone pulls him in line.

I know what you meant, but I think you are looking at the situation the wrong way. But I'm not going to get lured into in another one of these things. Although, I must say, I have had a lot of interesting discussions with Mister J, Dread, and other posters throughout the SHH! and even Toonzone about the matter.

 

[Radford]

im glad Bettany is apparently out. hes a hack.


Hulme i hope gets dropped too.

Law or Weaving i could see working out.

 

[blindman]

joker should only appear when he kills rachel and at the final fight. in the meantime, batman should be taking care of the gangwar that joker created

 

[zer00]

Wow what a stupid thing to say

 

[blindman]

oh all right! that's waaay too little.joker should appear in a few more scenes than that.

 

[Katsuro]

Wow what a stupid thing to say

I agree. Bettany is anything but a hack! Why would you say that?

 

[BatJeff7786]

Well, this is surprising news to say the least. I'm sure Nolan will get it right, but I'm wondering what this "small and mysterious" role will mean. And I really hope Bettany isn't completely out. I mean, Jude Law? Really? I thought about him a while back, but I just can't see him now. I don't understand Hulme's appeal either. I would definetly not mind Weaving getting the part though. Sorry for contributing nothing to the conversation.

 

[zer00]

I agree. Bettany is anything but a hack! Why would you say that?

Considering I wasn't replying to that post...

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Every actor is a hack...except Greg Kinnear.

 

[Babs Gordon]

everyone seems to be missing my point here...

what i'm saying is don't use up the joker in the second movie. use him sparingly. like i said... people will still come and as long as he's IN there and audiences can TELL that it's building up toward a third installment they will be a-o-k. save the joker for the grand finale

 

[Mister J]

Doesn't that kind of cut into the proposed plans to feature Two-Face in the third movie?

I think there's definitely a way to get a healthy dose of The Joker without exhausting all his possibilities in this next film. If and when Harvey does complete his transformation, I rather not have him splitting time with anyone else. For that matter, I don't want to have to wait to truly see The Joker in full villainy while contending with the rise of another major villain.

 

[Babs Gordon]

and again i'll reiterate... why is that batman needs to fight these criminals one at a time? at his best he's fighting practically all of them simultaneously... i think we can all agree on that. if handled well, and i highly doubt Nolan would do otherwise, having both two face and joker in the third installment would be fantastic.

 

[BatmanReborn]

i like the idea
and there are plenty of stories where the joker is not center stage, but his present is consistently felt. The best example of all is the longest story dc ever did in batman. No Mans Land.
throught the whole story which was like a year long, joker was absolutely no where to be seen, but they kept teasing, saying joker has yet to make his move. and then in the end, litterally, the complete end, he pops up to steal the show away. It was a terrific story and his scenes where magnificent, i loved when he almost killed huntress, and then when he took out sarah gordon.
was he shown in the story before then, yes, but very briefly

before that there was knightfall, bruce keeps saying that the most dangerouse ones like two face and joker still have not even made there move. then when he did, it was one of the best moments in the story.

both the long halloween and dark victory had similar deals, where the joker wasnt center stage, but he was a huge presence.

see, to me, this trilogy is centered around 2 people, batman/wayne and harvey/twoface. Its based off of the long halloween, and although there are plenty of other villains, dent is center stage, he will be the main story.
I see them kind of going with something along the lines of war games with the joker, having him setting off a huge war between the freaks and the mobsters. Of course the freaks will win, and then batman will stop them but it will cost him dent. I think the joker will have a role no bigger than the scarecrow in begins. but thats fine as long as they use that time correctly. then in the end, he takes center stage for a memorable finale. That is true joker style.
even look at hush, his role, to me, was the best part of the whole story, and it lasted only one issue. which to me would be a great scene to have, just replace elliot with rachel, and have joker really be the killer.
it doesnt matter if we know for a fact that joker is the one repsponsible, we will still stay in suspense waiting for his big moment.
you all keep saying that for joker to be done right he needs like 80% of the screen time, and he needs to be center stage for the whole film. WRONG
the joker is about stealing the show yes, but you cant be sure you will upstage the competition unless you have already seen all they have to offer, and make your move in the final act.

 

[ultimatefan]

As for Joker killing Rachel... I kinda like that idea. It would give Batman a level of personal hatred for Joker like in the comics for him killing Jason Todd, crippling Barbara, etc. Except there wouldn´t be a need to introduce these characters. Plus Rachel could be a close friend to Dent, and it would help to send him further over the edge.

 

[Mister J]

In the books, Batman does thrive on dealing with multiple threats. However, the books have the luxury of relying on tons of history that has already established character development. If they pursue the idea of the 'small and mysterious' Joker in BB2 and plan to unleash him fully in the third movie, how much attention does Two-Face garner in BB3? If Joker is to ever have a lesser role, why not have it in BB3 when Two-Face will necessitate attention as a new character?

My true concern is that the idea of an understated Joker presence flies in the face of who the character is. The description 'small and mysterious' doesn't really fit the Joker. He's not some master manipulator who pulls strings behind the scenes. He's one of the most flamboyant and commanding villains in all of comic lore. He wants a stage and an audience; he demands it. The theatricality of The Joker character rivals that of Batman. The only mystery about him is trying to figure a method to his madness, because his acts are almost at random. If the role is to be as it was described, it seems to lessen him. This is undoubtedly Batman's greatest villain. I'd like to see a representation of him that is befitting. Holding off on that until the next movie makes it seem as if the character doesn't have enough substance to be featured in two movies. That's not the case. I don't believe anyone wants The Joker dominate the film, they tried that in 1989. However, there is certainly a way to give the character the attention he merits without placing him as a dark figure relegated to the background. An understated Joker doesn't work.

All in all, I think there is an opportunity for a very compelling story with both The Joker and Two-Face in the sequel. However, I believe that such an opportunity is heightened if The Joker is already fully established. Having a former ally in Dent become a villain is definitely striking. What I believe would make it astounding is if you also have the presence of a certifiable madman to contend with as well. Two-Face should be developed in BB3; The Joker should just continue.

 

[Mister J]

As for Joker killing Rachel... I kinda like that idea. It would give Batman a level of personal hatred for Joker like in the comics for him killing Jason Todd, crippling Barbara, etc. Except there wouldn´t be a need to introduce these characters. Plus Rachel could be a close friend to Dent, and it would help to send him further over the edge.

Exactly. The Joker wears on Batman because he can't be redeemed. Actually, he refuses to be redeemed. The Joker has caused Batman more grief than any other villain by far. The most direct way to parallel that on-screen is to have him responsible for Rachel's death. Dawes is someone Bruce loves and she's an ally against corruption in Gotham. The Joker isn't just another villain. He needs to perpetrate acts that pain both Batman and Bruce Wayne. There needs to be something that inextricably links the two of them.

 

[trustyside-kick]

im glad Bettany is apparently out. hes a hack.


Hulme i hope gets dropped too.

Law or Weaving i could see working out.

What? How the heck could you see Law or Weaving as Joker? With Bettany out Hulme should be Joker.

 

[CConn]

What? How the heck could you see Law or Weaving as Joker?

Considering both Law and Weaving (especially Law) have at least a small contingent of fans in favor of them being cast, you shouldn't be all that surprised.

 

[Babs Gordon]

Are you operating under the assumption that every villain needs to be explained and introduced? I personally feel it would be cool just to have random rogues gallery villains in there with no introduction so fan's can go "oh snap-- that's [insert villain name here]!". I guess people are still associating screentime and 'small role' with 'not flamboyant', 'not maniacal' and 'not the joker'. there needs to be some think-outside-the-boxage around here, is what i think. i would love to see the joker as a focal point of the plot, and depending on the time frame of the movie (days, weeks, months?) the amount of time the joker actually appears on screen will be decided accordingly.

i love batman as much as the next person on this board and i don't find this news offensive to joker's character. not at all, actually. why? because i trust that the character will be done justice. the expectations are too high for otherwise and with a bat fan like nolan at the helm i think i have reason to trust for now.

 

[trustyside-kick]

Considering both Law and Weaving (especially Law) have at least a small contingent of fans in favor of them being cast, you shouldn't be all that surprised.

Whoops, I mixed up Weaving with someone else. But I still do not see how Law would make a good Joker.

 

[Mister J]

Are you operating under the assumption that every villain needs to be explained and introduced? I personally feel it would be cool just to have random rogues gallery villains in there with no introduction so fan's can go "oh snap-- that's [insert villain name here]!". I guess people are still associating screentime and 'small role' with 'not flamboyant', 'not maniacal' and 'not the joker'. there needs to be some think-outside-the-boxage around here, is what i think. i would love to see the joker as a focal point of the plot, and depending on the time frame of the movie (days, weeks, months?) the amount of time the joker actually appears on screen will be decided accordingly.

i love batman as much as the next person on this board and i don't find this news offensive to joker's character. not at all, actually. why? because i trust that the character will be done justice. the expectations are too high for otherwise and with a bat fan like nolan at the helm i think i have reason to trust for now.

I don't want The Joker explained at all. I'm not sure it could even be done. I've read the character for years and I don't understand him to be more than a homicidal maniac; a performer who views society as his stage and chaos as his art. His unpredictably defines him. It doesn't need to be debunked. His origin should follow suit and not be wholly definitive.

I think the issue is that the role being termed 'small and mysterious' is subject to a interpretation. What I am against is The Joker as a shadowy figure whose actions are understated in an attempt to build suspense. I don't care to see a watered down Clown Prince of Crime. However, I don't want him munching all the screen time like Nicholson's version did either. Screen time isn't a dealbreaker; I'm concerned with the portrayal. There should be no doubt of how chaotic and dangerous this villain is. I won't hit the panic button until this news is substantiated or we get something concrete.

 

[Hunter Rider]

PPL seem to mistaking the percentage idea for screen time as if it is all separate
If Batman has 85% screen time Joker can still have 70% screen-time as a lot of scene's should overlap

 

[Babs Gordon]

fair enough. i want an accurate portrayal as well. i just don't want the momentum of the trilogy to be compromised. that's what i'm worried about.