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

[Keyser Sushi]

Because inter-connecting villains with the heroes is pretty "convenient". Not to mention overdone.

Well, you can't expect twelve different people to have twelve different freak accidents and become twelve different maniacs. You have a domino effect... bad people do bad things... bad things affect innocent people... innocent people become maniacs. It works.

It also goes with the whole "escalation" idea.

 

[Crooklyn]

Agreed. It's not like it's out of character for Joker to throw acid on somebody... or out of character for Harvey to get hit with acid, for that matter.

Same could be said of B89.

It wasn't out-of-character for the Wayne's to get shot and killed, nor Joker killing people on a whim.

Well, you can't expect twelve different people to have twelve different freak accidents and become twelve different maniacs.

And why is that? Things happen randomly all the time.

You have a domino effect... bad people do bad things... bad things affect innocent people... innocent people become maniacs. It works.

It also goes with the whole "escalation" idea.

It's not the only way to execute the theme though. I just find the connection thing is a bit overdone. A creates B, who is related to C, who killed D, who was the friend of A, bla bla bla. Seems contrived.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Same could be said of B89.

It wasn't out-of-character for the Wayne's to get shot and killed, nor Joker killing people on a whim.

Well, that's true. And that worked, in that movie. I never had a complaint with it until recent years, because too many people who weren't comic readers didn't know that wasn't Batman's real origin.

We've had Harvey scarred by Maroni in BF. If they wanna do something different now, it's cool. Especially since villain origins are less important to me than Batman's origin.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

And why is that? Things happen randomly all the time.

True. But when you have supervillains running around, they do more bad stuff in a day than most criminals do in a lifetime. So, odds are one or two of them have origin connections.

It's not the only way to execute the theme though. I just find the connection thing is a bit overdone. A creates B, who is related to C, who killed D, who was the friend of A, bla bla bla. Seems contrived.

Well, if you overdo it like that, yes.

 

[myname]

Rynan-The Joker, angry at Batman for ruining his revenge, needs to lash out at someone. So why not Harvey, Batman's friend and an accomplice in his defeat? He's there, so why not put the hurt on Gordon and Batman by killing him(or attempting to kill him) and make him feel better in the process. And it needs to be graphic and memorable, so why not mar the Gotham's golden attorney with visage destroying acid. It would be a long and painful death as the solvent desolves his face. Even if he survives, he would be a sight to behold. A worthy message to all who would dare cross The Joker.

I'd like to think that by the end of the movie the average Gothamite let alone someone who actually ould come in contact with the Joker would know not to cross him. Dont get me worong, I want to see the Joker do some fed up things in this movie but id rather see a "non-freak" turn Harvey into the freak he will become.

 

[Nepenthes]

My only real concern is how the Jokers character is portrayed...especially in relation to Batman. I want the TKJ psychology in there and unlike Rynan I'm not so against the idea of relating to him. Not with sympathy but an understanding of what his problem is. He'll draw you in and tempt you to his view, until you're repulsed and feel awful for laughing with him and then you really want Batman to kick his arse. If he's just a serial killer with a clown face and generic 'zany movie villain' antics, that's a departure from canon that'll really pissed me off.



If anything I look forward to seeing what deviations Nolan will pull in TDK. The changes in BB were brilliant imo (with one massive exception involving Ra's death but we won't talk about that). For instance comic book Batman never had a Tumbler.

Otherwise the Jokers origin is so vague and Batman's has already been established, so unless Alfred begins wearing pantyhose there's not much room for error.

Exactly. And then Two-Face can set out to get revenge on the Joker, and Batman gets stuck in the awkward position of having to protect the Joker.

How twisted is that?

t:

Well I thought it was silly and unnecessary but you've just converted me to the idea. I'm surprised no one picked up on that ^ before actually.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

One, The Joker WILL look like this. It's pratically guaranteed.

Simplicity at times pays off more. This is one of those times.


Second, in regards of his origin, there is NO definate origin for him, except from the tidbits gathered from various Batman issues(I fully throw out TKJ as origin). All that can be safely assumed is that it involved some form of chemical bath unless he was born that way(which I doubt). One thing I can say for sure is that if they do give him an origin, I DO NOT WANT TO SYMPHATHIZE WITH HIM. No affinity. Nothing. Zip. Zelch. Nada. I don't even want a scrap of pity for that murdering sociopath. Wither it was irony or not, he DESERVED to get turned into a crazed clown, a freak of nature. It's a reflection of his true self.

I'm the opposate--I love the Killing Joke origin and I hope we get something similar to it for TDK.

And while it's possible to gain symphathy from it, that origin's intentions was not that. When he says "it only takes one bad day to turn the sanest man alive into a raving lunitic," he isn't just talking about himself, he's talking about ALL OF US. If pushed hard enough, any one of us can turn into a monster just as bad as he is. Batman understands this, thus the laughing at the end, and, in a sense, Batman and Joker are almost reflections on each others mirrors--different sides of the coin, if you will.

 

[Rynan]

I'd like to think that by the end of the movie the average Gothamite let alone someone who actually ould come in contact with the Joker would know not to cross him. Dont get me worong, I want to see the Joker do some fed up things in this movie but id rather see a "non-freak" turn Harvey into the freak he will become.

"Wrong". The word is spelled "wrong".

But back to topic, no way. There is no way to get away with having a gangster scar Harvey in this movie without it making Harvey look inconsequental or having the entire incident look fabricated. Unless you write out The Joker or give him only the briefest cameo in this movie and make Batman's focus be on the gangsters of Gotham can you pull that off. This is unlikely, seeing that The Joker is a big ticket character and there is no way the Johnathan and Goyer will give him just a bit part.

The Joker will scar Harvey. There's no way around it.

 

[myname]

Wow Rynan. I had no idea anyone had read the script yet. Do you have anymore scoops for us.

 

[Rynan]

Wow Rynan. I had no idea anyone had read the script yet. Do you have anymore scoops for us.

Yes. Yes I do. Here's one of them:

Spoiler

You fail. I play Failcock in attack mode.

 

[Nepenthes]

I'm the opposate--I love the Killing Joke origin and I hope we get something similar to it for TDK.

And while it's possible to gain symphathy from it, that origin's intentions was not that. When he says "it only takes one bad day to turn the sanest man alive into a raving lunitic," he isn't just talking about himself, he's talking about ALL OF US. If pushed hard enough, any one of us can turn into a monster just as bad as he is. Batman understands this, thus the laughing at the end, and, in a sense, Batman and Joker are almost reflections on each others mirrors--different sides of the coin, if you will.

If you skipped my post because it was too long (or you just don't me) well that's exactly what i was trying to say ^.

Audiences should see a moment of sense in the Jokers twisted mind, be enthralled by his logic and then feel repulsed at themselves for it.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Wow Rynan. I had no idea anyone had read the script yet. Do you have anymore scoops for us.

Rynan's right. It's called commonsense, yourname. He used his brain. You know, that lumpy grey bit between your ears.

You don't have to have read the script to know that what he's saying is true.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

t:

Well I thought it was silly and unnecessary but you've just converted me to the idea. I'm surprised no one picked up on that ^ before actually.

 

[Rynan]

If you skipped my post because it was too long (or you just don't me) well that's exactly what i was trying to say ^.

Audiences should see a moment of sense in the Jokers twisted mind, be enthralled by his logic and then feel repulsed at themselves for it.

I'd rather they know Bruce's drive, be amazed by his detective skills and share in his victories against the forces of crime. The only time they should know of The Joker's criminal genius is when Bruce puts all the pieces together and sees his insane goal. Then they will be horrified, until Bruce suits up and takes action against it.

Batman is the man of this house.

Joker wears a dress and makes us pancakes. Because Batman told him to.

 

[Crooklyn]

But back to topic, no way. There is no way to get away with having a gangster scar Harvey in this movie without it making Harvey look inconsequential

Why would it make Harvey inconsequential?

or having the entire incident look fabricated.

...but it is.

Unless you write out The Joker or give him only the briefest cameo in this movie and make Batman's focus be on the gangsters of Gotham can you pull that off.

I don't see TDK being an all-or-nothing type of deal. Why can't you have both the Joker and gangsters be a primary focus of the film?

 

[myname]

Its interesting how someone can aggressivly disagree with someone, put their defenses up immediately and start the bashing and name calling just because someone has a different idea. I even said I liked your idea about the Joker's orgin Rynan, I am just just not completely sold on the Joker scarring Dent but if it happens it happens. I just think it is possible to go another way with it.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

If you skipped my post because it was too long (or you just don't me) well that's exactly what i was trying to say ^.

Audiences should see a moment of sense in the Jokers twisted mind, be enthralled by his logic and then feel repulsed at themselves for it.

Sorry 'bout that, either I was still writing mine as you posted, or I just didn't notice.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ No problem. I wasn't addressing it to you, just pointing out that you had better words than me!

I'd rather they know Bruce's drive, be amazed by his detective skills and share in his victories against the forces of crime. The only time they should know of The Joker's criminal genius is when Bruce puts all the pieces together and sees his insane goal. Then they will be horrified, until Bruce suits up and takes action against it.

Batman is the man of this house.

Yep. But revealing the Jokers mind makes Batman a stronger character in himself. There's clarity in the dichotomy (I didn't just type that did I?...oh god, I did ) and I'm not talking about criminal genius - tactics - but his reasoning - the madness. Because face it Batman is a fuc*ken lunatic, it should be shown that they both deal with tragedy by adopting opposing psychosis. Two men in an asylum...Gotham.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Why would it make Harvey inconsequential?

Because he's got some mob boss on trial while the Joker's out there running around killing people? Because Harvey gets dorked over by the secondary bad guy, instead of by the Joker? Because Harvey's scarring would be marginalized to the B-story instead of being part of the main plot. Take your pick.

...but it is.

It's fabricated by the characters in the story; but it shouldn't look fabricated by the writers. That is, it shouldn't look like they just randomly decided to have him try a mob boss because he needs to get scarred by one.

I don't see TDK being an all-or-nothing type of deal. Why can't you have both the Joker and gangsters be a primary focus of the film?

Because primary by definition narrows it down to one. Either the gangsters are the primary focus of the film, or the Joker is. They can't both be the primary focus. One has to be secondary. And no way does Sal Maroni marginalize the Joker. That just does NOT happen.

Which brings me back to my first point in this post.

 

[Crooklyn]

Because he's got some mob boss on trial while the Joker's out there running around killing people?

And why can't both the mob boss and Joker be under custody?

Because Harvey gets dorked over by the secondary bad guy, instead of by the Joker?

Maroni isn't just some throw-away character though. He's been under Dent'/Gotham's radar for a while. Scarring Dent is a means of getting back at him for interfering with their business.

And even though he is less important than the Joker, I didn't see anyone complaining when it happened in TLH.

Because Harvey's scarring would be marginalized to the B-story instead of being part of the main plot.

The scarring is a precedent for future events though, so it is part of the main plot.

It's fabricated by the characters in the story; but it shouldn't look fabricated by the writers. That is, it shouldn't look like they just randomly decided to have him try a mob boss because he needs to get scarred by one.

Why would you assume they'd "randomly" do that? Nolan isn't an idiot.

Because primary by definition narrows it down to one. Either the gangsters are the primary focus of the film, or the Joker is. They can't both be the primary focus. One has to be secondary. And no way does Sal Maroni marginalize the Joker. That just does NOT happen.

Which brings me back to my first point in this post.

It really depends on which film the scarring takes place, and at what point. Both of which we can't even begin to guess. Joker will have plenty of time to have his spotlight, I don't see how someone else scarring Dent would somehow erase what happened before.

 

[Rynan]

I don't see TDK being an all-or-nothing type of deal. Why can't you have both the Joker and gangsters be a primary focus of the film?

Because The Joker is a sponge. He absorbs everything he's surrounded with. Every other form of crime just becomes a extesion of himself, so any form of symbolism is wasted when he's around. In TDK it will even more so, seeing as this is The Joker's first outing on the silver screen in 19 years(in 2008 it will be 19, not taking into account MOTP) and it will be his FIRST outing, as pretaining to the story.

Now you can contest that The Long Halloween was an exception, but it's not. The Joker was only in two stories in that series(a cameo in the last), but it's main focus was Holiday and gangsters. If this is The Joker's first crimespree, I think many movie goers would be rebuffed if The Joker plays second fiddler to simple gangsters. I can see playing second fiddle to Two-face in the third, but not in TDK. He needs to be the "main" focus.

Which makes Harvey getting scarred by him relevent and needed. If he follows tradition and gets scarred by a gangster, it looses it's relevance. After all, it was just a gangster, not The Joker, the villian Batman has been trying to stop. It becomes secondary to main plot. If Harvey's scarring is going to be an important factor in the third movie, then it must have relevance. Having The Joker scar him provides an easy out, mixing up the formula(which wasn't definate to begin with. see TAS Rupert Thorne) and creates intrest in the sequel. What became of Harvey? See the sequel.

 

[Nepenthes]

Because he's got some mob boss on trial while the Joker's out there running around killing people? Because Harvey gets dorked over by the secondary bad guy, instead of by the Joker? Because Harvey's scarring would be marginalized to the B-story instead of being part of the main plot. Take your pick.

IF it's Maroni at the end of the film....
-The Joker will be in Arkham.
-Getting dorked by a secondary bad guy huh arguably makes more of an impact. Cruel injustice and all that, kinda like Bruce's parents and Chill.
-It's the turning point becoming the the main focus for move3, the out-of-the-blue cliffhanger set-up. The A-story in TDK is wrapped up at this stage.

....just saying.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

And why can't both the mob boss and Joker be under custody?

Again, you're taking the focus off the Joker.

Maroni isn't just some throw-away character though. He's been under Dent'/Gotham's radar for a while. Scarring Dent is a means of getting back at him for interfering with their business.

Maroni isn't even half as important as the Joker's little toe.

And even though he is less important than the Joker, I didn't see anyone complaining when it happened in TLH.

Yeah, the Long Halloween is a long story and it had EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER EVER INVENTED in it. Because that is Jeph Loeb's style. Joker was not a major character in that story, and should not even have been in it, but Jeph Loeb is a mediocre author at best who can't stop himself from throwing everything at a story, and fanboys love him too much. So the fact that nobody complained when it happened in TLH is really irrelevant on about twelve levels.

The scarring is a precedent for future events though, so it is part of the main plot.

Which is exactly why it must be treated as such.

Why would you assume they'd "randomly" do that? Nolan isn't an idiot.

I don't assume they would randomly do that. I assume they'd have him be scarred by the Joker, as Goyer said a long time ago.

It really depends on which film the scarring takes place, and at what point. Both of which we can't even begin to guess. Joker will have plenty of time to have his spotlight, I don't see how someone else scarring Dent would somehow erase what happened before.

They did say it would happen at the beginning of film 3. I think it should happen at the end of 2, but they don't always do what I think they should. LOL.

Still, if they plan to do it at the beginning of TDK, as Goyer said, then it would seem to imply that Joker is meant to have a significant role in that movie as well. I can't imagine they'd get Ledger back for one scene. And if Joker scarred Harvey, then he'd be central to Harvey's revenge plot.

Now, if they do intend to keep the scarring in film 3, then sure, it's possible they'd write the Joker out of part 3. But that would make for a far less interesting film 3, IMO.

 

[Crooklyn]

Again, you're taking the focus off the Joker.

(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.

Maroni isn't even half as important as the Joker's little toe.

O...k..

Which is exactly why it must be treated as such.

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.

I don't assume they would randomly do that. I assume they'd have him be scarred by the Joker, as Goyer said a long time ago.

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.

They did say it would happen at the beginning of film 3. I think it should happen at the end of 2, but they don't always do what I think they should. LOL.

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.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Exactly.

So many people want Joker to be simply "psycho killer."

But what they forget is why Joker has endured for so long. He's the guy you love to hate, but he's also the guy you love. It's not hard to fall for him (exemplified by the Harley character). But then he does something so repulsive it throws you for a loop...until he says something funny again.

He shouldn't be "John Doe" from Seven like so many people like to claim (brilliant, but all the charisma and likability of a rock). If anything, he should be exactly how Ledger described him, like Alex from Clockwork. Or Bateman from American Psycho. Disturbingly charming.

But the big mistake that a lot of filmmakers make is the level at which you "relate" to the villain. You don't need a sympathetic backstory to capture the imagination of the audience, just an enthralling character, which I think Nolan and Ledger will deliver.