The Dark Knight What 'departures from canon' are not acceptable to you?

[Paste Pot Pete]

O...k..

Do you really disagree?

The idea that Maroni must be the one that scars Dent smacks to me of a fan need to stick to the lore..simply for the sake of sticking to the lore; when the idea of Joker committing the act can lead to so many more interesting story turns, not least of which is simply the idea of Batman's two greatest foes going at it with Bats caught in the middle. That is an exciting fan scenario, source material be damned.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

(If we're to assume the scarring takes place at the end of TDK, or at the beginning of BB2)...
We're finished with the Joker's part in this franchise, at least the majority of it.

Again, as I said in my last post: if Joker scars Harvey, then Joker remains important because Harvey will seek revenge on him. If that is indeed the plan, then it's worth it, isn't it?

O...k..

It's true. Other than really hardcore Batman fans, who knows about Maroni? In TAS it was Rupert Thorne who did it. In BF it was Maroni, but it was one tiny scene in a flashback where the name was mentioned once, and I doubt anybody remembers it. However, I defy you to find one person on the planet who doesn't know who the Joker is.

Wherever it's set in this franchise, it'll automatically become the first event to set off whatever comes after it. That alone makes it an important plot point. You don't need Joker for that.

No, but an event that important, in a movie that includes the Joker... how can you NOT have the Joker do it?

I personally don't hold onto story ideas that are more than 3 years old. They could very well still be going in this direction, but things change all the time.

Oh I agree that it could change. But we'll assume they have a basic plan and intend to stick to it, more or less.

I agree that at the end of 2 would be best, if only for the fact that I don't want the reveal of Harvey = Two-Face to be found out through trailers of the third.

Well, the way I'd do it, you wouldn't see Two-Face at the end of TDK. The last thing you'd see of Harvey is the paramedics loading him into a bus, maybe some quick half-glimpses of the damage to his face, but not a full reveal.

 

[myname]

So lets say the Joker is the one who ends up scarring Dent like most some think he should, would it be to corny for the acid to be sprayed out of the flower on his lapel? I think it would be but then again I have seen nothing of how this Joker will look or his wardrobe so he might not even have the necessary floral weapon at his disposal especially if he is in his prison issued clothesat the trial.

 

[StorminNorman]

Maroni is nothing more than a means to scar Dent in the comics. His character has no other function in comic canon. It works in the comics because you have a year of comics to build it up BEFORE he does the scarring. In the movies you do not have the luxury. To create a character just to scar Dent would make the entire thing seem...off.

 

[Crooklyn]

Do you really disagree?

Not with that particular statement, I just fail to see how it matters.

The idea that Maroni must be the one that scars Dent smacks to me of a fan need to stick to the lore..simply for the sake of sticking to the lore; when the idea of Joker committing the act can lead to so many more interesting story turns, not least of which is simply the idea of Batman's two greatest foes going at it with Bats caught in the middle. That is an exciting fan scenario, source material be damned.

And the idea that Joker must be the one that scars Dent smacks to me of a fan need to alter origins...simply for the sake of altering origins.

Are we that uncreative as to surmise Joker being the one to scar Dent as the *only* way to lead into a Joker/Batman/Two-Face showdown? I mean really, the scenario isn't that complicated.

Again, as I said in my last post: if Joker scars Harvey, then Joker remains important because Harvey will seek revenge on him. If that is indeed the plan, then it's worth it, isn't it?

Harvey can still seek Joker w/o having being scarred by him. Taking the law into his own hands, because Dent believes the justice system is not practical anymore, is another way of going about things. You get to keep the origin faithful, and still utilize your idea.

No, but an event that important, in a movie that includes the Joker... how can you NOT have the Joker do it?

Do you propose every big moment in the movie to include Joker as well? If he's excluded out of one such instance...would it REALLY ruin things for you?

Well, the way I'd do it, you wouldn't see Two-Face at the end of TDK. The last thing you'd see of Harvey is the paramedics loading him into a bus, maybe some quick half-glimpses of the damage to his face, but not a full reveal.

I was thinking the same thing. I just don't want the audience to find out who's going to be scarred before the actual movie. I feel if the scarring is done at the very end of TDK, the anticipation would blow for the following sequel, which is always good.

Maroni is nothing more than a means to scar Dent in the comics. His character has no other function in comic canon. It works in the comics because you have a year of comics to build it up BEFORE he does the scarring. In the movies you do not have the luxury. To create a character just to scar Dent would make the entire thing seem...off.

Do you feel the same way for Chill, Crane, and Falcone in BB? Because they had minor roles as well and they practically all served a single purpose themselves.

 

[Nepenthes]

So lets say the Joker is the one who ends up scarring Dent like most some think he should, would it be to corny for the acid to be sprayed out of the flower on his lapel? I think it would be but then again I have seen nothing of how this Joker will look or his wardrobe so he might not even have the necessary floral weapon at his disposal especially if he is in his prison issued clothesat the trial.

You're probably right it's still too early to say.

The bang gun could definitely work.

I'd like to see him find the comedic value in more mundane but potentially lethal objects as well.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

So lets say the Joker is the one who ends up scarring Dent like most some think he should, would it be to corny for the acid to be sprayed out of the flower on his lapel? I think it would be but then again I have seen nothing of how this Joker will look or his wardrobe so he might not even have the necessary floral weapon at his disposal especially if he is in his prison issued clothesat the trial.

Joker wouldn't be able to get that flower into the courtroom. No, it would happen differently. He's the Joker. It would be some crazy two- or three-part acid that would be activated by him throwing water from the pitcher in Harvey's face or something equally unexpected.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Are we that uncreative as to surmise Joker being the one to scar Dent as the *only* way to lead into a Joker/Batman/Two-Face showdown? I mean really, the scenario isn't that complicated.

Of course it's not the only way. It IS, however, the STRONGEST way.

Harvey can still seek Joker w/o having being scarred by him. Taking the law into his own hands, because Dent believes the justice system is not practical anymore, is another way of going about things. You get to keep the origin faithful, and still utilize your idea.

Yeah, you're right, but that scenario is much stronger if Joker is the one who did it, if you take an honest look at it. Why is it so important to have Maroni be the guy who does the deed? He has no other purpose, as Norm rightly pointed out. That guy popped out of the womb carrying a little bottle of acid with Harvey Dent's name on it. He carried it with him at all times, and that day in the courtroom, it suddenly dawned on him what it was for. Do you realize how pointless it is to put a completely worthless character like that in to a movie? It's a complete waste of screentime.

Do you propose every big moment in the movie to include Joker as well? If he's excluded out of one such instance...would it REALLY ruin things for you?

I propose they make the strongest movie that they can make. If that means reimagining Two-Face's origin a little bit, so be it. Why does that bother you so much?

I was thinking the same thing. I just don't want the audience to find out who's going to be scarred before the actual movie. I feel if the scarring is done at the very end of TDK, the anticipation would blow for the following sequel, which is always good.

Yeah, we agree on that, anyway.

 

[Nepenthes]

seems I misread noname's post. The flower in the courtroom? That's cheesier than a cheese pizza

I'd have the Joker sitting in the dock with his body all covered in stitches. He rips one open and pulls the acid vial out of his leg.

 

[StorminNorman]

Do you feel the same way for Chill, Crane, and Falcone in BB? Because they had minor roles as well and they practically all served a single purpose themselves.

No, in fact they also had larger meanings.

Chill represented the effects The League Of Shadow's plan had on the citizens of Gotham.

Crane represented Bruce's need to get shed his fears in order to become a true crime fighter.

Falcone represented the corruption of Gotham.

 

[Crooklyn]

Of course it's not the only way. It IS, however, the STRONGEST way.

Arguable. Imo it's as predictable as Joker killing Rachel, and causing more strife for Bruce.

That guy popped out of the womb carrying a little bottle of acid with Harvey Dent's name on it. He carried it with him at all times, and that day in the courtroom, it suddenly dawned on him what it was for.

As I recall, Maroni had someone pass the bottle to him as he entered the courtroom. So no, it's not just an odd coincidence he had a bottle of acid to throw at Harvey.

Do you realize how pointless it is to put a completely worthless character like that in to a movie? It's a complete waste of screentime.

That's assuming Maroni's only role would be to scar Dent. Which if true, then yeah, I'll agree. But as I said before, if people were fine with Chill, Crane, and Falcone in BB...I don't see how you could complain about another mob boss with a small role.

Sure, you could generalize Maroni as some dolt that got lucky with Dent, but you could do that with anyone. It's all about the execution, and I have no doubt that if they wanted, they can make Maroni a more interesting figure than he is in the comics.

I propose they make the strongest movie that they can make. If that means reimagining Two-Face's origin a little bit, so be it. Why does that bother you so much?

You already know my biggest problem with the whole idea. I just hate it when there are too many connections between major characters, it irks me to no end. Ra's basically creating Batman was their Get-out-of-jail-free card. They only get one of those and they've used it.

No, in fact they also had larger meanings.

Chill represented the effects The League Of Shadow's plan had on the citizens of Gotham.

Crane represented Bruce's need to get shed his fears in order to become a true crime fighter.

Falcone represented the corruption of Gotham.

Wow, you're really stretching things. Not to say any of what you just said is untrue, just that their roles weren't as important in the film as you make it seem to be. There's no reason why Maroni can't fulfill another aspect of TDK's theme just as well as those 3 have.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Arguable. Imo it's as predictable as Joker killing Rachel, and causing more strife for Bruce.

Well, bad things need to happen in this movie. A *lot* of bad things. If Rachel is Joker fodder, it has its merits as a plot point... she was the idealistic character, the one who basically represented what Bruce was working for -- justice, hope, idealism. All of that. If Joker kills her, it's basically Joker killing Batman's faith in the future.

Likewise, if Joker scars Harvey, he's taken away one of Batman's allies. And created a new looney. You say it's predictable but it's useful for what it does to Bruce. You act like creating strife for Bruce is a bad thing. It's not. This second movie is supposed to be about escalation - about the impossible task that Bruce has taken on for himself, and the toll it takes on him and the people around him. The Joker is Batman's ultimate nemesis... that it would be the Clown Prince who would piece by piece drop Batman's allies, rob him of his hope, his sense of idealism... yes, that's quite damn powerful.

Likewise, the symbolic importance of Bruce having to then protect Joker from Harvey in the 3rd part would be so rich because it is exactly what Rachel would want him to do. It is exactly what he MUST do if he is to be true to the ideals and the hope that he set out to restore to Gotham.

If you can't understand that, then not only do you not get what Nolan has started with Begins, but you don't get Batman at all.

As I recall, Maroni had someone pass the bottle to him as he entered the courtroom. So no, it's not just an odd coincidence he had a bottle of acid to throw at Harvey.

I never said it was an odd coincidence. I said it's what Maroni was born to do: he was born to scar Harvey. Nothing more and nothing less. The sole act for which that husk of a character has gone down in comics lore is to create Two-Face. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald has gone down in history for killing Jack Kennedy, or John Wilkes Booth for killing Abe Lincoln. Ultimately neither of those so-called men is more important than the dog**** I stepped in six years ago, but their ACTIONS will live on throughout history.

Maroni is not important. What he did to Harvey, IS important. And it's something that ANY bad guy could do.

That's assuming Maroni's only role would be to scar Dent. Which if true, then yeah, I'll agree. But as I said before, if people were fine with Chill, Crane, and Falcone in BB...I don't see how you could complain about another mob boss with a small role.

Because if he has a role at all, it is only to scar Harvey, as the character has NO OTHER FUNCTION in the lore. Besides, if the old synopsis is to be believed, the mob boss in the story has some connection to Thomas Wayne. Which, I'm sorry, is not Maroni. Lew Moxon, maybe, but not Maroni.

Sure, you could generalize Maroni as some dolt that got lucky with Dent, but you could do that with anyone. It's all about the execution, and I have no doubt that if they wanted, they can make Maroni a more interesting figure than he is in the comics.

Of course they could, but why would they want to do that? Just to have him scar dent? You're attaching too much importance to the man. See Oswald / Wilkes-Booth argument above.

You already know my biggest problem with the whole idea. I just hate it when there are too many connections between major characters, it irks me to no end. Ra's basically creating Batman was their Get-out-of-jail-free card. They only get one of those and they've used it.

Oh, you did NOT just go there. Do my eyes deceive me? Did you just use the "Ra's created Batman" line?

EGAD... Ra's did NOT create Batman. Ra's taught Bruce the ways of the Ninja, and how to use fear as a weapon. Okay. Was it not clear that Bruce had had a ton of training already at that point? We did not see it all, we do not know the extent of it, but he was already a competent fighter and had been traveling the world, studying the criminal mind. You can't POSSIBLY believe that everything that Bruce learned, he learned from Ra's!

 

[Crooklyn]

Well, bad things need to happen in this movie. A *lot* of bad things. If Rachel is Joker fodder, it has its merits as a plot point... she was the idealistic character, the one who basically represented what Bruce was working for -- justice, hope, idealism. All of that. If Joker kills her, it's basically Joker killing Batman's faith in the future.

I was actually fine with Joker killing off Rachel, just so we could get rid of Holmes in case she returned. But since the role's recast, and we got a more competent actress, I'm not so sure anymore. Still wouldn't cry if she's cut short in TDK however. Much more interested in Selina.

Likewise, if Joker scars Harvey, he's taken away one of Batman's allies. And created a new looney. You say it's predictable but it's useful for what it does to Bruce.

Scarring Harvey takes him out as an ally no matter what. I never said THAT was predictable, just that Batman's #1 nemesis just so happens to create Batman's #2 nemesis.

You act like creating strife for Bruce is a bad thing. It's not.

Never said it was.

This second movie is supposed to be about escalation - about the impossible task that Bruce has taken on for himself, and the toll it takes on him and the people around him. The Joker is Batman's ultimate nemesis... that it would be the Clown Prince who would piece by piece drop Batman's allies, rob him of his hope, his sense of idealism... yes, that's quite damn powerful.

I think having someone as second-tier as Maroni scarring Dent adds to the whole escalation just as well. You're right, Joker is creating all this havoc and causes a huge toll to Bruce. But say, at the end of the film, when Joker is in custody, at the moment we're expecting a conclusive ending...something ELSE (the scarring) happens that completely interrupts the short-lived relief of stopping Joker? It adds to the conundrum presented for Bruce, that even though he's stopped one of his most fearsome villains, his job is never done. There's always more people out there causing trouble. That's just as good imo.

Likewise, the symbolic importance of Bruce having to then protect Joker from Harvey in the 3rd part would be so rich because it is exactly what Rachel would want him to do. It is exactly what he MUST do if he is to be true to the ideals and the hope that he set out to restore to Gotham.

Again, there are still many ways they can go about, to lead up to this moment. You say the Joker being the main ingredient to set this off is the best take, I personally think there are equally good alternatives.

If you can't understand that, then not only do you not get what Nolan has started with Begins, but you don't get Batman at all.

Lolz. Nice.

I never said it was an odd coincidence. I said it's what Maroni was born to do: he was born to scar Harvey. Nothing more and nothing less. The sole act for which that husk of a character has gone down in comics lore is to create Two-Face. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald has gone down in history for killing Jack Kennedy, or John Wilkes Booth for killing Abe Lincoln. Ultimately neither of those so-called men is more important than the dog**** I stepped in six years ago, but their ACTIONS will live on throughout history.

Joe Chill.

Maroni is not important. What he did to Harvey, IS important. And it's something that ANY bad guy could do.

Again, Joe Chill.

Of course they could, but why would they want to do that? Just to have him scar dent? You're attaching too much importance to the man. See Oswald / Wilkes-Booth argument above.

Why do it? To create some purpose for the character, instead of making him 2-d. You do realize this was done many times in BB don't you?

Oh, you did NOT just go there. Do my eyes deceive me? Did you just use the "Ra's created Batman" line?

Pretty much, yes, that's what I said.

EGAD... Ra's did NOT create Batman. Ra's taught Bruce the ways of the Ninja, and how to use fear as a weapon. Okay.

Not exactly minor things you just gloss over. Everything Ra's taught Bruce, Bruce used to create Batman. Using fear as a weapon, theatricality, deception, etc. etc.

Was it not clear that Bruce had had a ton of training already at that point? We did not see it all, we do not know the extent of it, but he was already a competent fighter and had been traveling the world, studying the criminal mind. You can't POSSIBLY believe that everything that Bruce learned, he learned from Ra's!

We know that Bruce had some ability, but needed guidance. Cue in Ra's.

No, I don't think EVERYTHING Bruce learned was from Ra's, but the components used to make up his alter-ego? You bet.

 

[Boom]

If The Joker does not have white skin, green hair, and red lips.

 

[CConn]

Anything I personally don't like.

 

[souvlaki]

Joe Chill.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

How is replacing Maroni with the Joker any different than replacing Joe Chill with the Joker? Everyone seems to think the former is a wonderful idea, but people still go ape**** over the latter. It's the same thing. I wont be upset if they end up going that route, but really, only if it's well written. Like someone already said, way too "six degrees from Kevin Bacon".

 

[kenellard]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

How is replacing Maroni with the Joker any different than replacing Joe Chill with the Joker? Everyone seems to think the former is a wonderful idea, but people still go ape**** over the latter. It's the same thing. I wont be upset if they end up going that route, but really, only if it's well written. Like someone already said, way too "six degrees from Kevin Bacon".

I think the reason one is ok and one isn't is because everyone's decided it's not cool (these days) when Burton messes with Batman canon however it's okely-dokely for Nolan to do whatever he wants. even McG and Peters had the support of the supes fans at one stage.

 

[gdw]

At least there was a Joe Chill. I didn't mind the Ra's Ducard thing largely because him training him was a nod towards the books where, pre-Batman, Ducard DID train Bruce, and while Batman Ra's trained him.

As for Chill, even in the books they are implying that he was not the real killer, and if you ask me, the guy in the ally looked and sounded almost nothing like the Chill in court.

Pretty positive it was the same guy, but they can still play it out later should they ever wish to touch on that story too and have him be a fall guy or something. Or just leave the doubt in Bruce's mind.

Any who, the pont is, they only really changed Chill by the way he died.

 

[gdw]

Also, Begins considered a bastardization by some fans???? WTF are you talking about?????

 

[Crooklyn]

At least there was a Joe Chill. I didn't mind the Ra's Ducard thing largely because him training him was a nod towards the books where, pre-Batman, Ducard DID train Bruce

I would've been thrilled had it just been Ducard. While I'm not exactly pissed, since Liam made a wonderful Ra's, changing the origin does change the relationship between Bruce and him quite a bit.

and while Batman Ra's trained him.

I don't remember this happening in the comics.

As for Chill, even in the books they are implying that he was not the real killer, and if you ask me, the guy in the ally looked and sounded almost nothing like the Chill in court.

Lol....reach, much?

 

[kenellard]

Also, Begins considered a bastardization by some fans???? WTF are you talking about?????

no more or less than any movie adaptation, if you choose to play the "60 years of history" card

 

[Darknightnomis]

So Batman Begins was quite a departure from the Batman mythos-Joe Chill, Ducard/Ra's, Ra's training Bruce, Rachel Dawes and quite a few more.

Man Have you eve read a Batman comic in your life???????

Joe Chill Killed Batman parents (Burton changed it to the Joker for his movie) Detective comcis # 33

Henri Ducard Trained Batman Detective Comics #598-600 (Blind Justice)

Ras As Ghul have used MANY different Identities in his lifetime(s) and in his first introduction wanted bruce to be his successor taking his place jsut as he wasnted Bruce to do in Begins. (BAtman # 232)

The only addition Nolan add was the character of Rachael Dawes.

What makes Batman Begins so GREAT it that it is the only live action version of Batman that is close to his cannon.

 

[Two-Face]

Very, And, IMO, totally awesome.

I never understood - despite the obvious diversion from canon - why people were so against the idea that Joker scars Dent. It creates so many possibilities.

Because it wasn't in the comics, it is fine by me if Nolan wanted to go that route.

 

[The Batman]

yeah....joker scarring dent is now as predictable as joker killing rachel....i'd like to be surprised by this movie, please....

and as for maroni....its simple creating a role for him... have him replace falcone as gothams big mobster, have him scar dent at the end....not a big deal, folks.

 

[Miranda Fox]

and as for maroni....its simple creating a role for him... have him replace falcone as gothams big mobster, have him scar dent at the end....not a big deal, folks.

Oh, I don't disagree. I just didn't see why Joker doing it was so ZOMG terrible.

I liked the idea somebody suggested that Joker orchastrated the whole thing but it was still Maroni that actually did the scarring.