The Dark Knight Will/Should there be a time leap during TDK?

[ronzpeed]

I started thinking, we all know Harvey Dent will be in TDK, but will he immediately become Gotham's D.A.? Also, we all want a more experienced Batman (meaning he'll be more skilled in fighting and being a detective), and he can't be more experienced if TDK takes place right after BB, it's literally impossible. There are other things too, for instance its been rumored around here that Rachel is going to be murdered by the Joker, if that's so, then that will kind of set up Harvey being the D.A. (that is, if Rachel is already the D.A. and Harvey is the assistant D.A.). And with Rachel out of the pcture, Bruce will obviously be really depressed and pissed as hell, and he of course will need some good time before he falls for another chick. And one more thing, Nolan said that TDK will be influenced by the first two appearances of the Joker, which if I'm not mistaken, he gets captured and then escapes. If the Joker gets captured, he'll obviously plot his escape. I think this will be a great way to intoduce Dr. Harleen Quinzel, as an Arkham psychologist, and the Joker will be her patient. Joker will see that she's a very vunerable person and he'll try to convince her to help him escape. I think he'll purposely stay in Arkham for a while until he plots the perfect revenge, which will probably take couple of months.

so with all this, do you guys think there should be a time leap?

 

[FaT_tONle]

There should be a few years in between... Joker should be an established villain committing crimes... they can still show his back story without any harm

 

[Golgo-13]

Yes, there should be a time lapse but not too much. I still want to see Bats going through the ropes of being a rookie crime fighter but i want the mansion, or at least the Batcave in use. Plus, like others have said, The Joker should already be established...

 

[StorminNorman]

a month, maybe two. There shouldn't be much. After all, every night the Joker is on the street, its another defeat for Batman.

If the Joker is quite active in his crimes, then I would expect Batman to be able to crack down on the Joker within that time period.

 

[Crooklyn]

Yeah, a couple months at most. I think there's still some room for the development of a rookie Batman.

Plus, with the ending of BB, Bats will be on Joker's tail. Shouldn't be too long before they actually meet.

 

[Dude_Love]

Like someone said, Wayne Mannor needs to be rebuilt IMO. But having Joker active for too long would be a mistake, mabie the film could start with Joker before he becomes Joker, have him fall into the chemicals and then have a gap there, say 6 months or so while Joker recoups and such

 

[Mister J]

A couple of months would be tops for me. Joker was on Batman's radar and he'd have likely turned up something by that point.

They could get Wayne Manor rebuilt in that amount of time. It's Bruce Wayne. The timetable and available manpower would be stepped up a bit from the norm.

 

[lujho]

Why does every superhero movie have to take place over what feels like a few days or weeks though (ignoring flashbacks etc, most of them do)? It's one of the things that contributes to the samey-ness of Superhero movies - one of the stock parts of the formula that defines what type of story they're telling (i.e. a single linear encounter/adventure involving a main antagonist).

Why can't it take place over a longer time, to tell a larger story (or several smaller ones that make up a larger one). Year One, Dark Victory and Long Halloween take place over an entire year.

Why can't TDK start a few days, weeks, or even minutes after Begins, then move on to (five months later) or something.

Why not try to tell a different kind of story? Use time differently. Intertwine various threads like a tapestry instead of one single short thread of a tale? Mix it up a bit for heaven's sake.

 

[Superman4ever]

A small time lapse, a couple of months (3-4) at most. BB ended with Batman "looking into" the Joker, so they have to meet sometime. Moreover, I like the idea of a rookie Batman; why are some of you is such a damn hurry to leap this movie into Batman's 3, 4, 5,-plus year? The best part of BB, for me anyways, was Bruce training with Ra's, and Bruce exploring, step-by-step, what it takes to be a crime-fighter.

I also want to see the Bat-cave STILL unfinished/under construction. I think it'd be a cool idea to explore how, and who Bruce is hiring to renovate the cave (it obviously can't be him and Alfred). I want to see the bat-cave evolve from an underground layer to a state of the state-of-the-art crime-fighting lab. Moreover, it gives Batman a unique challenge to over come throughout the movie.

Lastly, the movie can end 1 year after Begins (basically the cap to Year One)...with a completed Bat-cave, a more confidant and resourceful Batman, establishing Harvey as the new DA, Joker in Arkham, what have you. Just DON'T rush the damn thing 3 years in the damn future...the ****ing franchise JUST came back, let's enjoy it!

 

[Crooklyn]

^ Eh, I don't know what would be so exciting about watching them finish up the batcave.

We already finished off BB expecting a new cave, don't wanna prolong the process.

 

[lujho]

Okay, but here's another thing - why does every introduction of a new villainin a film need to be the hero's first encounter with that villain (and usually that Villain's origin)?

There's nothing wrong with OUR first look at the Joker not being being Batman's first encounter with him. You *could* start TDK 6 months after Begins and have Batman already have some kind of cat-and-mouse relationship with Joker. They've already physically encountered each other a few times and Joker's already doing his crimes as much for attention from the public as from Batman himself. They're already adversaries before we get to be observers of the story.

That way you're not constricted to having to set TDK *straight* after Begins if you don't want to.

 

[Crooklyn]

...but then we miss out on the opportunity of seeing Bat/Joker's first meet-up. I don't think anyone really wanna skips that moment.

 

[Superman4ever]

^ Eh, I don't know what would be so exciting about watching them finish up the batcave.

We already finished off BB expecting a new cave, don't wanna prolong the process.

It doesn't have to be dragged out, I just want to see it evolve. What's the fun of having a NEW bat-cave without seeing how it got there?

Okay, but here's another thing - why does every introduction of a new villainin a film need to be the hero's first encounter with that villain (and usually that Villain's origin)?

There's nothing wrong with OUR first look at the Joker not being being Batman's first encounter with him. You *could* start TDK 6 months after Begins and have Batman already have some kind of cat-and-mouse relationship with Joker. They've already physically encountered each other a few times and Joker's already doing his crimes as much for attention from the public as from Batman himself. They're already adversaries before we get to be observers of the story.

That way you're not constricted to having to set TDK *straight* after Begins if you don't want to.

I agree with you and you make some great points. I wouldn't mind seeing the movie start off 6 months after Begins, and then showing batman and Joker's (BTW, I don't want to see Joker's origin) first encounter(s) in flashbacks. Begins did this a LOT (we start off with young Bruce and then jump to Bruce 20 years later in a Chinese jail) and that's what made it SO great. I think showing the Joker still on the loose even after their 1st, 2nd, etc meetings add to his villainy. I'm just opposed to this movie being Batman's 3 year, and him being a more perfect detective, without an explanation on how he got there.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Okay, but here's another thing - why does every introduction of a new villainin a film need to be the hero's first encounter with that villain (and usually that Villain's origin)?

That actually was done once - Two-Face in Batman Forever.

As for the time-table question, I think it really hinges on the villain. Generally the main villain has a "plot" essentially, which the hero has to foil within the confines of the film's runtime. Stretching this out might make people view the hero as...well, inadequate. If Batman is truly the World's Greatest Detective, it shouldn't take him months to capture the villain.

However, given the fact that the dynamic between Batman & The Joker, their back-and-forth relationship, is so essential, it's almost criminal not to show them at the height of their rivalry. They work better as seasoned enemies then as brand new oppponents. That's not to say that their first meeting isn't a very interesting possibility (and what we're likely to get).

Personally, I think Nolan may treat us to both, in a way. If Joker really is in both TDK and it's sequel, he'll be able to give us the best of both worlds - their first encounters in TDK, and them as hardened archenemies in "Begins 3." Of course, Nolan would have to take some drastic steps to exacerbate their relationship to get to this level so quickly (scarring Harvey, killing Rachel). I think this is a likely scenario.

 

[lujho]

That actually was done once - Two-Face in Batman Forever.

True. They did it with the wrong character though. Would have made better sense to just have Riddler already just "there" and do Two-Face's origin, because it's a more important story in the bat-universe because of his closeness to Bruce/Batman. Who gives a **** how Riddler cam about? I don't even see him as having a proper origin... he's just a criminal with a certain MO. Give him a complex psychology when you're actually using the character - show us "who he is" - but we don't really need to see "how he came to be", where he was bitten by a radioactive crossword puzzle .

As for the time-table question, I think it really hinges on the villain. Generally the main villain has a "plot" essentially, which the hero has to foil within the confines of the film's runtime. Stretching this out might make people view the hero as...well, inadequate. If Batman is truly the World's Greatest Detective, it shouldn't take him months to capture the villain.

Yeah, but that pre-supposes that a movie HAS to only cover one case/adventure. It's the formula/structure that all Superhero movies have had but it's not neccessarily the only one. EVERY superhero movie is "Hero vs Villain(s): The Movie". Why can't it be "A Year In The Life of Hero" where various episodes are used to tell a bigger story, or at least instead of "Hero vs Villain" it's several rounds of that conflict. Several Joker cases, for example (or just two... one where he fails, one where he succeeds). Or a couple of Joker cases intertwined with other elements. Who knows? But like I said, just mix it up a little. Or have Joker be an elusive, shadowy presence throughout the movie that Batman never meets, till the end, all the while dealing with other smaller crimes which may or may not be related to Joker.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Yeah, but that pre-supposes that a movie HAS to only cover one case/adventure. It's the formula/structure that all Superhero movies have had but it's not neccessarily the only one. EVERY superhero movie is "Hero vs Villain(s): The Movie". Why can't it be "A Year In The Life of Hero" where various episodes are used to tell a bigger story, or at least instead of "Hero vs Villain" it's several rounds of that conflict. Several Joker cases, for example (or just two... one where he fails, one where he succeeds). Or a couple of Joker cases intertwined with other elements. Who knows? But like I said, just mix it up a little. Or have Joker be an elusive, shadowy presence throughout the movie that Batman never meets, till the end, all the while dealing with other smaller crimes which may or may not be related to Joker.

I wouldn't venture to guess why most superhero movies have to follow that formula; I've never written one nor tried to get one approved by studio execs. t:

My only assumption is because it's simply the narrative "norm." Most movies, of any genre, use the same convention. They usually are "one major event" in the life of somebody. Like the Spider-Man movies; it's not like Peter doesn't put the tights on every day, but we are just privy to the times in his career where he faces something huge like Doc Ock or Sandman. I guess filmmakers just feel that those stories are the only ones worth telling. I'm not inclined to argue with them per say, because they usually are great stories anyway (not that I wouldn't like to see something more experimental, like you suggest).

I think some filmmakers are making headway in this field, however. Nolan is considered a master of manipulating the narrative structure (in movies like Memento & The Prestige) and we saw some of that in his back-and-forth flashbacks in Begins. I think he still played it relatively safe; probably because it was his first venture into something like Batman. With TDK, I'm honestly expecting him to be more adventurous and experimental. There's been enough quotes by him suggesting so, things along the lines of "expect something different." I think it's also telling that Begins already used the "threaten Gotham with deadly gas" plot device; I have a feeling the story in TDK will be much more personal, and in that effect, more unconventional.

 

[fear&loathing]

Would it be possible to have a pre-Joker using those "calling cards" and then coincidentally he is changed into the Joker?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Would it be possible to have a pre-Joker using those "calling cards" and then coincidentally he is changed into the Joker?

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of his existance? If he was considered a "theatrical" armed robber and murderer who leaves Joker calling cards...at that point, what good would a dip in the old chemical waste even do him?

 

[fear&loathing]

True. So I guess it will be safe to assume that the mansion is still being constructed during this film?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

True. So I guess it will be safe to assume that the mansion is still being constructed during this film?

I suppose so. I was actually kind of hoping we'd see Bruce living in his penthouse apartment for a little bit (a little nod to the 70s comics).

 

[lujho]

Would it be possible to have a pre-Joker using those "calling cards" and then coincidentally he is changed into the Joker?

It's not completely implausible. Nicholson's Joker already had a playing-card thing going on after all. Rather than being "coincidentally" turned into the joker, his accident could be seen as an excuse/reason to to take on the persona of the card he already had an affinity for. As in "hey, with this white skin and green hair, I look a bit like a clown... let's take it all the way with a bit of lipstick and a funny suit".

I still think it's possible to retroactively slot in Joker's origin sometime during Begins' runtime, between the climax and the final scene with Gordon though. It's slightly messy but a deft writer could do it well. Not that I think they'll bother though.

 

[Mister J]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of his existance? If he was considered a "theatrical" armed robber and murderer who leaves Joker calling cards...at that point, what good would a dip in the old chemical waste even do him?

Not necessarily. His 'theatrics' could simply refer to the way he executes the crimes, with a a particular flair (striking high-profile targets, elaborate schemes, mannerisms during the crime, etc.). The calling card could just be part of the show. It wouldn't be until the chemical bath where he completely loses his grip on reality and embraces The Joker persona, resulting in even more attention ****e-like behavior. Not to say that Nolan will go that way, but there are viable options to not having The Joker already as we know him.

 

[lujho]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of his existance? If he was considered a "theatrical" armed robber and murderer who leaves Joker calling cards...at that point, what good would a dip in the old chemical waste even do him?

It would be the catalyst from becoming a normal crook with a certain fetish to fully "becoming" Joker. And it would give him a personal connection to Batman if he sees him responsible for it.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I don't like it at all.

For me, it lessens what the Joker has become (as opposed to who he was, if we even know who). I don't like the idea of (let's use the name for convenience sake) "Jack" having predisposed criminal and theatrical tendencies similar to what he displays post-accident. (Yes, I'm not even a fan of him being involved at all in crime, a la B89). I just don't like him being a naturally evil and flamboyant criminal turning into a more evil and flamboyant criminal.

Plus, I just don't think it's what Nolan was intending to do at the end of Begins. I could be wrong, but it seemed to me like an obvious allusion to a "full on Joker", not a "soon to be" Joker. I think this is just further wishing by fans who want Batman to be responsible for Joker's appearance.

Personally, I don't think we'll get any origin.

 

[fear&loathing]

Well, if Joker is Joker in full and many of you believe time has passed, then it is very un-Batman like to have Joker running around for weeks/months until Batman catches up to him for the plot of The Dark Knight. This is what I'm really concerned with...