Batman Begins

[SpikeSpiegel306]

Those events happened over the course of many years in the comics, so I wouldn't expect them all to appear in the next movie even if they do try to maintain those connections. Anyway, they are already off a little in regards to villain creation myths. Joker's creation came at the hands of Batman himself in a situation very similar to the scene in the first Tim Burton Batman movie.

Apparently, the Joker already exists in the movies, independent of the Batman. Of course, they could say that the Batman contributed to the Joker's creation during a fight that chronologically occurred during the first movie, it just wasn't shown on screen.

Good point. I would like to see Clayface in one of the sequels though since he holds so much emotional power against Bruce personally. And I think with CG technology as good as it is today they could make a frighteningly good Clayface.

As far as the people considering the guy who was Scarecrow to play the Joker, do you mean the actor? or the character? Because the character Scarecrow couldn't be the Joker since in the series they are different villains to begin with and I dont think Nolan is looking to drastically rewrite anything that DC did.

[uc pseudonym]

[spoiler=the Recent Theory]I hadn't given that a thought, but I think the idea has some merit. However, I personally doubt it. That would be a rather fast turn around for villains, and I imagine they would keep two such villains seperate.[/spoiler]

Joker's creation came at the hands of Batman himself in a situation very similar to the scene in the first Tim Burton Batman movie.

Apparently, the Joker already exists in the movies, independent of the Batman. Of course, they could say that the Batman contributed to the Joker's creation during a fight that chronologically occurred during the first movie, it just wasn't shown on screen.

Actually, we have no idea if he is insane or even looks unusual. I think it is likely he is merely a criminal using Batman's techniques (the theatrical, intimidation, etc) and having already decided upon his name (hence the calling card). He could still have a "creation" in a later film, and it could still be at the hands of Batman.

[Michael]

[spoiler]Um, no; Scarecrow and the Joker are two completely seperate villians. Scarecrow is Jonathan Crain, as you saw in the movie. The Joker is Jack Napier, who's origin no one is entirely certain of, (though he was an art student.) So Scarecrow=Crain, Joker=Napier. Besides, the Scarecrow was only a minor villian in the comics.[/spoiler]

I wouldn't mind if Bettany got the role, but NO CRISPIN GLOVER. He wouldn't make a good Joker. I'd rather have Hugh Grant be the Joker than Glover.

[cbwing0]

[spoiler=Proposed Theory Debunking]If there is one thing that we have learned from video game and comic movies, it is that they don't have very much regard for the plots of their source material; therefore, I don't think the events in the comics can serve as a sound argument against Crane turning into the Joker according to the universe of Batman Begins.[/spoiler]

I think that we can all agree on that one.

[Michael]

[spoiler]But Napier IS the Joker, like Bruce Wayne IS Batman. Why not just have Commissioner Gordon be Batman? Because Bruce Wayne IS Batman, you can't change that without completely destroying the story. I'm really stinging about this because The Joker is the antithesis of Batman, and if they do him wrong, then that's it for Batman.

Just look at the two of them: Both were once normal men, but both believed in an ideal. Both chose to use dramatic examples to show everyone what that ideal is. But Batman stands for justice and order, whereas the Joker stands for strife and chaos. Notice how Batman's symbol is a bat; a creature of the night, feared, disgusted by ordinary people. The bat is typically a symbol of darkness, of decay and death. But Batman uses that symbol to support justice. The Joker's symbol is a smile. Everyone likes smiles, they mean a general feeling of well-being, a love of life, an important occasion, something humorous, etc. But the Joker perverts this symbol, using it to represent his insanity, an insanity he tries to force on everyone. I've always thought of the Joker as a sort of figure for what's wrong with modern America. Just smile and you'll feel good; There is no good or evil, just perceptions; If it makes you feel good, do it.

Woo, I love Batman, I could go on forever. In short, the Joker is Jack Napier.[/spoiler]

[SpikeSpiegel306]

Thank You!!!!!!!!!

[termyt]

Actually, we have no idea if he is insane or even looks unusual. I think it is likely he is merely a criminal using Batman's techniques (the theatrical, intimidation, etc) and having already decided upon his name (hence the calling card). He could still have a "creation" in a later film, and it could still be at the hands of Batman.

Good point, UC. They could do that. In comic book lore, the Joker went by the name "Red Hood" before his dramatic battle with Batman at Ace Chemicals - but they didn't bother to maintain that little bit of comic book continuity in the Tim Burton film (or did they - I can't remember now) and there's no real need to do so with this film, either.

[spoiler]But Napier IS the Joker, like Bruce Wayne IS Batman ... In short, the Joker is Jack Napier.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=the Joker, spoilerized because the rest of the conversation is, too]
I don't know if this is worth noting or not, but the name Jack Napier was invented for the Burton movie. The Joker's real name is never given in the comic book. So, it's kind of hard to say "the Joker is Jack Napier" when the previous movies don't appear to have anything to do with the current ones. That, however, does not invalidate Michael's point that the Scarecrow and the Joker are completely different villains and will/should stay that way.
[/spoiler]

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Sorry for dragging up this thread, but we haven't had the movie showing in Australia for long, and I only saw it last night. I loved this movie. I thought it portrayed Bruce Wayne's inner demons and all that really well. It was dark which kept with the mood of the original Batman and the (earliest comics) and the storyline wasn't kiddyfare and I was well written. I found it very interesting that physcological fear played a big part.
I thought the computer graphics weren't overdone, the set design was fantastic, the stunts, great and most of the acting was also very good. Definetly the best Batman to date!
But this movie was so intense. It started off fairly slow and low key (which I enjoyed) and towards the last 3rd the movie was non-stop intelligent action. Great stuff! I hope this means we will continue to get better Batman movies.

[Zane]

I loved it, couldn't find anything worng with it. It was cool how they were able to get Frank Miller's bat scene in from Year One. I loved that.

I also heard that Katie Holmes has ditched the role for the sequel because Tom Cruise said "you're better then that"... man that guy is slowly getting annyoing.