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

[The Only Woj]

It takes finding a rare person to direct a close to the original work adaptation. With the comics, there is so much room for the imagination to fill in the gaps between panels. In film, you see everything. And have two hours to do it in. And then you still have to appease the people who care nothing about the quality other than it's potential to make the most money possible (see Fantastic Four). We're never going to get THE Batman in movies, simply because there are so many interpretations and stories. What we're getting is Nolan/Goyer's vision, and that's enough for me. Until one of us raises a couple hundred million, we're not going to see a lot of what we wish for. we're getting the condensed version. but it's better than no version at all.

 

[Tojo]

Ras spoon feeding Bruce into becoming Batman was a huge mistake. It simplified Batman's long process of becoming Batman and demystified the Batman.

Bruce has had dozens of mentors and he needed them all equally to become Batman. He needed to learn how to become a escape artist, detective, military tactitcal expert, all styles of fighting, and much more. In Batman Begins it seems like all Bruce needed to become batman was some mystical ninjitsu. What about the hundreds of other skills required to be Batman?

And I like the way Ras Al Ghul is introduced in Batman TAS much better. They should've saved Ras for 2nd sequel. When Batman is experienced and a worthy adversary for Ras.

They don't show all the training that he did with Ra's. We didn't see him learn to engage 30 men in battle. We didn't see him in that lab in the monastry, where he obviously learnt about scientific....stuff etc etc

 

[Rynan]

They don't show all the training that he did with Ra's. We didn't see him learn to engage 30 men in battle. We didn't see him in that lab in the monastry, where he obviously learnt about scientific....stuff etc etc

That's right. He didn't learn it all from Ra's.

Need I remind you guys about his time with the A-team?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

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.

LOL. That's sad, actually. You wanted Rachel killed off because you didn't like the actress, and now you're not sure. I love how what's best for the STORY never entered into your thought process.

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.

Ahh, so we're back to that. Two-Face is Batman's #2 nemesis? I'm pretty sure that by definition, a hero can have only ONE nemesis. Everybody else is just a villain. Joker is Batman's nemesis. Two-Face may be considered the #2 villain, but the fact is, Two-Face has only been done ONCE in live-action. Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler have all been done multiple times. Since BF, more people probably know who Two-Face is, but if you ask the average joe to name a Batman villain other than Joker, you're going to get more Penguins, Riddlers, and Catwomen than anything else.

So Two-Face may be #2 according to fans, but to the rest of the world (which is a much larger number of people) he's probably #5 or so. Personally I'm not looking at Two-Face as being the most interesting villain, because he's actually one of my least-favorite villains. I'm looking at him more as a character who has a lot of potential (he does) and can be used in interesting ways. I'm not interested in having the #1 Bat-villain creating the #2 Bat-villain. I'm interested in having Batman's nemesis turn one of Batman's allies into an enemy. Why? Because it's more interesting to me.

Never said it was.

You made it sound that way, at least.

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.

It may be just as good, but it still requires adding an additional character into the plot for no other purpose than to scar Harvey, which seems like a waste.

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.

That's a fair and balanced statement, a true statement, and one that I have no problems with.

Lolz. Nice.

Couldn't get a shot off on that one? t:

Joe Chill.


Again, Joe Chill.

And your point? Have I ever badmouthed BATMAN '89? It's not my favorite Batman movie anymore, but until Begins came along it certainly was, and it remains my second-favorite Batman movie, and one that will always have a special place in my heart.

So what exactly is your point???

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?

Sure, characters were altered to fit into the plot. Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone, etc. The funny thing is, that works just as well as an argument for why Joker can scar Harvey, as it does for your case. After all, it basically says that departures from canon are okay. Right?

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.

So what? Bruce learned those things from SOMEBODY in the comics, right?

Besides, the movie never taught us where Bruce learned criminology, or if he did at all - but the fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. How about Batman's belief in the basic goodness in people? The idea that people can be inspired to do the right thing if someone sets a good example? That's central to Batman and he learned that from his Dad, and from Rachel.

Not to mention the fact that his Dad also talked about "all creatures feel fear... especially the scary ones." Which is just another way of saying that bad guys are a superstitious and cowardly lot. When Bruce went to Ra's, he specifically told him, "I seek the means to fight inustice. To turn fear against those who prey on the fearful."

Ra's didn't create Batman. He just helped Bruce get there.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

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".

And was it such a horrible thing when Joker killed the Waynes in Batman '89? I know it wasn't canon, but was it so bad?

And another question: Is Two-Face's origin more important than Batman's?

I mean, personally I can see how you might make the case that it's even more convenient having Joker create Batman than it is having him create Two-Face; or that Joker having created Batman makes the connection with Joker too personal and that no other villain can come close. And I might even be able to get behind either point-of-view, since Batman is a series character. On the other hand Two-Face probably has one film in him before they reboot this franchise again.

But objectively... nah, it's no different.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Keyser is just on point in telling these people how it is. Ra's doesn't create Batman for Bruce. Bruce, like people in the real world who are shaped by other people and the events around them, uses tools, ideas, morals, etc. and conceptualizes it, and Bruce takes these metaphorical tools and creates something. That being "The Batman". The symbol who represents his moral foundation, his will to do good, his use of theatricality, criminology, martial arts, etc.

I hear some people say that Bruce was handed things? Umm, is he supposed to generate and create everything for himself ? He just knows how to do everything and anything without any guidance? Come on, that's just not human. Bruce like the genious he is (and what genious' do in real life) and that is take all the tools and resources and he creates something bigger than the parts that make it up.

Some here don't understand that. Oh, and to the thread's creator, the essence of the story and characters does not depart from canon much at all.

 

[StorminNorman]

Keyser is always on point about just about everything.

Besides Tim Sale x 10.

 

[Crooklyn]

LOL. That's sad, actually. You wanted Rachel killed off because you didn't like the actress, and now you're not sure. I love how what's best for the STORY never entered into your thought process.

It already did, even before I saw BB. My thoughts on the character remain the same. It was a WB mandate that Nolan barely made work, and thus, I can't help but feel that without Rachel, BB would've been a better movie. Not only for Bruce to be more alone in the beginning, but so I could be spared of Holmes.

Ahh, so we're back to that. Two-Face is Batman's #2 nemesis? I'm pretty sure that by definition, a hero can have only ONE nemesis. Everybody else is just a villain. Joker is Batman's nemesis. Two-Face may be considered the #2 villain, but the fact is, Two-Face has only been done ONCE in live-action. Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler have all been done multiple times. Since BF, more people probably know who Two-Face is, but if you ask the average joe to name a Batman villain other than Joker, you're going to get more Penguins, Riddlers, and Catwomen than anything else.

So Two-Face may be #2 according to fans, but to the rest of the world (which is a much larger number of people) he's probably #5 or so.

Are we really gonna go by general opinion on this? This IS the same crowd that still has people believing Joker killed Batman's parents. They don't know sh1t.

Personally I'm not looking at Two-Face as being the most interesting villain, because he's actually one of my least-favorite villains. I'm looking at him more as a character who has a lot of potential (he does) and can be used in interesting ways. I'm not interested in having the #1 Bat-villain creating the #2 Bat-villain. I'm interested in having Batman's nemesis turn one of Batman's allies into an enemy. Why? Because it's more interesting to me.

You do realize your last 2 sentences are exactly the same with a little bit of sugarcoating, right?

It may be just as good, but it still requires adding an additional character into the plot for no other purpose than to scar Harvey, which seems like a waste.

If Maroni can be worked into the story with a sensible role, then that negates his supposed waste of space. Besides, I find it no worse than what Falcone was in BB.

Couldn't get a shot off on that one? t:

No need...it didn't, and will never apply to me. t:

And your point? Have I ever badmouthed BATMAN '89? It's not my favorite Batman movie anymore, but until Begins came along it certainly was, and it remains my second-favorite Batman movie, and one that will always have a special place in my heart.

So what exactly is your point???

My point is the whole "anyone can -------- him and it wouldn't matter" argument just doesn't hold. You may have been fine with that particular change in B89, but pretty much everyone else has singled that out as one of the worst things changed from the comics, in an otherwise great movie.

Sure, characters were altered to fit into the plot. Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone, etc. The funny thing is, that works just as well as an argument for why Joker can scar Harvey, as it does for your case. After all, it basically says that departures from canon are okay. Right?

As long as it doesn't radically change characters and their relationships, yeah.

So what? Bruce learned those things from SOMEBODY in the comics, right?

Yes, and they were all molded into one in BB.

Besides, the movie never taught us where Bruce learned criminology, or if he did at all - but the fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. How about Batman's belief in the basic goodness in people? The idea that people can be inspired to do the right thing if someone sets a good example? That's central to Batman and he learned that from his Dad, and from Rachel.

I'll give you that. But that's something Bruce already had in him since his parents' death, so I don't know if I'd give that too much weight.

Not to mention the fact that his Dad also talked about "all creatures feel fear... especially the scary ones." Which is just another way of saying that bad guys are a superstitious and cowardly lot. When Bruce went to Ra's, he specifically told him, "I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear against those who prey on the fearful."

Ra's didn't create Batman. He just helped Bruce get there.

I was exaggerating when I made that statement, but my meaning is still the same. Ra's was a very important figure in shaping Batman to what he is.

 

[ang_hulk]

im watching the joker...if he doesnt laugh alot and is quite and anti laugh im not cool with it.If batman smiles im not ok withit,not that he hasnt smiled but not for stupid reasons like in forever.I do want to see bruce with a little more brains this time.Him being a ruff anf tumble isnt ok.worked for the first film just fine but he needs to have some smarts this time around.Im sure will hear jokers name,im ok with that,in this day and age its more realistic but id be happier if we didnt know it.NO GUNS FOR BATMAN!

 

[kenellard]

This in fact is how I've always viewed that Joker.The red lips as a result of his accident always seemed a little too contrived to me.

Really? I can honestly say in all the years I've been reading the comics I've never once thought that. I think some people need to stop worrying how exactly a character like the joker looks the way he does, that's not the point. The Joker has white skin, green hair and blood red lips, why? Because he just does. It would be a contrivance in itself to try to justify something like that

 

[Cristo]

Eh...let's think about it a different way. I'm going to depart a bit from the ideas that have been thrown around this board and present me own ideas for what could be some good sequels.

First of all, I have to say I'm on the side of the people who say that Joker scarring Harvey Dent would feel too coincidental, too much of a way to connect everything.

Now, I know I'm going to be hanged for this, but what about not scarring Harvey Dent until the middle of the THIRD film? Now calm down...I'm not finished. My reasons for saying this are these: In TDK, we've got Joker killing innocent people and basically being a pain in the neck for Batman. We all know Joker's not going to die, so this story could be about like Christopher Nolan said, "things getting worse before they get better". Think about it: the Joker, Mr Zsaz, and Scarecrow causing havoc (with Joker being the primary and best villain of course). Then, we have the cure for this fear toxin, so they give it to Carmine Falcone in order to try him in court BUT he gets off on some technicality or because of some crooked judges and starts ruling Gotham again through his thugs. This could set up the rivalry between Falcone and the new mob boss Maroni, and it could also introduce Harvey Dent as the district attorney who tries to bring them both down. Meanwhile, Batman's dealing with the maniacal Joker and, done right, that could basically envelop the story of TDK ending with Joker getting shipped off to Arkham(albeit with some cryptic joke, of course) and Batman, Dent, and Gordon on the rooftop(just like the first movie) allying to stop crime in Gotham, leaving some hope for the future.

Now, the third movie focuses on the gangsters. Harvey Dent becomes obsessed with taking down Falcone, while Batman also tries to stop the gangsters from destroying Gotham City. The tagline could even be "I believe in Gotham City." Maroni is finally convicted, but he scars Harvey in court. Harvey goes to the hospital, Batman dealing with Joker escaping from Arkham, Harvey escapes, finds Falcone. Now we could have a stand down with Batman, Joker, Falcone, and Two-Face. Two-Face flips his coin; it lands on the scarred side. He shoots Falcone twice in the head and he escapes. Batman goes to pursue Two-Face, but Joker blocks him and starts lauging manically before saying something like "It's too late, Batman. Gotham belongs to the freaks now. Like him, me...and you." Batman and Joker fight; Batman takes down Joker (something symbolic of Batman conquering his fear) and pursues Two-Face only to find that he's turned himself in saying darkly that "Justice has been done." And, we find Batman standing alone on the building where the first two ended and saying "I believe in justice." "I believe in putting fear...into those who prey on the fearful." Then, we see flashbacks of Batman's father. Batman finally takes his mask off revealing Wayne's face as he looks out over the Gotham City skyline. "I believe in Gotham City." Cue credits.

Now, I think that that would be a good trilogy of Bat-films and I'd like to see what other people think.

What about my opinion? You know, the one I just quoted?

Do I need to leap out to get some ATTENTION around here?

:heart:

There, now somebody tell me what they think of my idea!

 

[Tojo]

Really? I can honestly say in all the years I've been reading the comics I've never once thought that. I think some people need to stop worrying how exactly a character like the joker looks the way he does, that's not the point. The Joker has white skin, green hair and blood red lips, why? Because he just does. It would be a contrivance in itself to try to justify something like that

Not really a contivance. He get's dumped into some weird chemical vat and this makes his skin go deathly pale like Michael Jackson x10 and his hair have a weird greenish tint. And then because he is a theatrical kindof guy and calls himself 'Joker' he put's red lipstick on to complete the 'illusion', just like Batman wears a cowl that supposedley gives him the appearance of a bat, or prints a Bat emblem on the chest of his suit.

I simply can't accept this fanboy theory that nothing has to explained or nothing has to have a motive behind it. Why people, and insane criminals, do what they do is what makes them interesting and gives me a reason to keep wtaching. I don't think everything should be explained either, but Joker waering lipstick isn't explaining everyhting is it? He still has chalkish skin and green hair, which is more plausible and not as convenient.

 

[Tojo]

And was it such a horrible thing when Joker killed the Waynes in Batman '89? I know it wasn't canon, but was it so bad?

And another question: Is Two-Face's origin more important than Batman's?

I mean, personally I can see how you might make the case that it's even more convenient having Joker create Batman than it is having him create Two-Face; or that Joker having created Batman makes the connection with Joker too personal and that no other villain can come close. And I might even be able to get behind either point-of-view, since Batman is a series character. On the other hand Two-Face probably has one film in him before they reboot this franchise again.

But objectively... nah, it's no different.

I always like the idea that these super criminal all turned up in Gotham AFTER Batman, and that this lends itself to everything being linked in some way. it's a nice metaphor for the never-ending cycle that violence and crime inhabits, and not too much of a contrivance in my view anyway.

Having said that, i would be equally as happy with some mob heavies following Dent into some toilets and beating him up and pouring acid on his face because he is being a nuisance to the their business. Then he escapes from hospital etc....

But whatever happens i'd like to see him scarred by the end of TDK. If only these films could be 3 hrs long, we could have so much more. I mean, if those boring LOTR films could get away with being 4 hrs long then this sure can be longer than a couple of hours.

 

[kenellard]

Not really a contivance. He get's dumped into some weird chemical vat and this makes his skin go deathly pale like Michael Jackson x10 and his hair have a weird greenish tint. And then because he is a theatrical kindof guy and calls himself 'Joker' he put's red lipstick on to complete the 'illusion', just like Batman wears a cowl that supposedley gives him the appearance of a bat, or prints a Bat emblem on the chest of his suit.

I simply can't accept this fanboy theory that nothing has to explained or nothing has to have a motive behind it. Why people, and insane criminals, do what they do is what makes them interesting and gives me a reason to keep wtaching. I don't think everything should be explained either, but Joker waering lipstick isn't explaining everyhting is it? He still has chalkish skin and green hair, which is more plausible and not as convenient.

that's weird, as I see it the fanboy theory du jour is that everything has to have a realistic reason for being the way it is, and not only that but it must be explained outright, I've not heard from many fans who aren't firmly on the Nolan bandwagon in that respect.

But in response to the joker question, the whole lipstick thing seems more like messing with the character just for the sake of it, either way he should just have red lips, who's to say how they are made to be so, as he already exists at the end of BB? Also it would be ridiculous to waste screentime explaining why he looks that way in TDK. If I see a pretty much classic representation of Joker in TDK I for one won't care that such disfigurements couldn't happen in real life, because that's the joker, and this sudden fad with realism doesn't really wash with me

 

[Tojo]

it doesn't have to be wasting time though. Just a quick shot. It just adds another layer to his pyschology though that's all, not really a major issue. So that his clownish/theatrical nature is more what he is and always has been and as much a choice, rather than it being the result of being dumped in a chemical vat.

 

[Tojo]

it doesn't have to be wasting time though. Just a quick shot. It just adds another layer to his pyschology though that's all, not really a major issue. So that his clownish/theatrical nature is more what he is and always has been and as much a choice, rather than it being the result of being dumped in a chemical vat.

 

[Rynan]

it doesn't have to be wasting time though. Just a quick shot. It just adds another layer to his pyschology though that's all, not really a major issue. So that his clownish/theatrical nature is more what he is and always has been and as much a choice, rather than it being the result of being dumped in a chemical vat.

You just want him a "Buffalo Bill" drag queen don't you?

 

[Tojo]

You just want him a "Buffalo Bill" drag queen don't you?

No, just a little kinky

 

[Cristo]

For &(e#*# Sake, Has Anybody Read My Idea?!

 

[Caliber]

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.

I often hear fans complaining about how Begins was some sort of bastardisation of the comics in terms of these changes. I, however, couldn't give a damn about faithfulness in these terms, aslong as it betters what is already there.

So with that in mind, will you mind if Nolan, for instance, changes the Jokers origins, or anything else for that matter? I don't care about traditions personally, and would be happy for him to do whatever he wants if he sees fit.

Have you read a Batman comic? Begins was like the comic. As many have said Chill killed his parents. Not Joker not anyone else. He can't mess up Jokers origin since he's so insane that Joker is proably lieing when he says what changed him. Nolan knows what not to do because he gets Batman and has four reasons to do it right again.

 

[LionHeart]

I think it is hard to say what is and what isn't acceptable. Something we first hear is being changed we may not like but on screen it may be brilliant. Along as the heart of the characters are retained in the film, I'm good.

Nolan won't please everybody. Whatever he does with The Dark Knight, whatever we whine and complain about, it will still be one of the best movies of 08(if not the best).

 

[itsthebatman]

I think Cristo is going to explode soon.

 

[Cristo]

Seriously, though, has anybody even read my idea? I feel like I'm posting to the wind.

 

[Crooklyn]

...did anyone hear something?

 

[Arkard]

You know guys, I have some ideas, so please listen to them.

Eh...let's think about it a different way. I'm going to depart a bit from the ideas that have been thrown around this board and present me own ideas for what could be some good sequels.

First of all, I have to say I'm on the side of the people who say that Joker scarring Harvey Dent would feel too coincidental, too much of a way to connect everything.

Now, I know I'm going to be hanged for this, but what about not scarring Harvey Dent until the middle of the THIRD film? Now calm down...I'm not finished. My reasons for saying this are these: In TDK, we've got Joker killing innocent people and basically being a pain in the neck for Batman. We all know Joker's not going to die, so this story could be about like Christopher Nolan said, "things getting worse before they get better". Think about it: the Joker, Mr Zsaz, and Scarecrow causing havoc (with Joker being the primary and best villain of course). Then, we have the cure for this fear toxin, so they give it to Carmine Falcone in order to try him in court BUT he gets off on some technicality or because of some crooked judges and starts ruling Gotham again through his thugs. This could set up the rivalry between Falcone and the new mob boss Maroni, and it could also introduce Harvey Dent as the district attorney who tries to bring them both down. Meanwhile, Batman's dealing with the maniacal Joker and, done right, that could basically envelop the story of TDK ending with Joker getting shipped off to Arkham(albeit with some cryptic joke, of course) and Batman, Dent, and Gordon on the rooftop(just like the first movie) allying to stop crime in Gotham, leaving some hope for the future.

Now, the third movie focuses on the gangsters. Harvey Dent becomes obsessed with taking down Falcone, while Batman also tries to stop the gangsters from destroying Gotham City. The tagline could even be "I believe in Gotham City." Maroni is finally convicted, but he scars Harvey in court. Harvey goes to the hospital, Batman dealing with Joker escaping from Arkham, Harvey escapes, finds Falcone. Now we could have a stand down with Batman, Joker, Falcone, and Two-Face. Two-Face flips his coin; it lands on the scarred side. He shoots Falcone twice in the head and he escapes. Batman goes to pursue Two-Face, but Joker blocks him and starts lauging manically before saying something like "It's too late, Batman. Gotham belongs to the freaks now. Like him, me...and you." Batman and Joker fight; Batman takes down Joker (something symbolic of Batman conquering his fear) and pursues Two-Face only to find that he's turned himself in saying darkly that "Justice has been done." And, we find Batman standing alone on the building where the first two ended and saying "I believe in justice." "I believe in putting fear...into those who prey on the fearful." Then, we see flashbacks of Batman's father. Batman finally takes his mask off revealing Wayne's face as he looks out over the Gotham City skyline. "I believe in Gotham City." Cue credits.

Now, I think that that would be a good trilogy of Bat-films and I'd like to see what other people think.