This is quite interesting. I'd always seen Begins as a prequel to the first Burton Batman, and wouldn't have a direct sequel with its own Joker. It's quite an intriguing tangent to take the franchise in, to ignore ALL the previous Batman films. I thought they might do a Superman Returns and create a new tangent ignoring the Schumacher films, though.

Ummm.. Geoff, did you SEE Begins (if you didn't, go to your local DVD emporium and buy/rent it. Now.). There is no way it fitted with the Burton movies (most simply, Joe Chill killed Batman's parents, rather than the pre-Joker Joker).

I think over the years EVERY fucker's had a pop at Bruce's parents. I remember the Joker and Two Face being pinned with the crime in Batman and Batman Forever...

Well, for starters Cappsy, I'd have to go back and check, but I don't think that's quite right about Two-Face...

But as for the other point - I've been discussing it elsewhere, and no, there's no way this can fit in with prior movie continuity. The obvious point is the fact that it's not "Jack Napier" (ugh) who killed Thomas and Martha, but also a few little details - for example, "Begins" shows us the Joker appearing on the scene for the first time, at which point Jim Gordon is a Captain and Harvey Dent hasn't appeared on the scene. But in "Burton 1", before the Joker is even *created*, Gordon is commissioner and Dent (played by Lando - how cool it would have been if they'd decided to let him do it in the third one; indeed, the only reason he signed up to play Dent was that he thought it made him a lock for Two-Face in a sequel!) is DA. It's my understanding that the new films have already decided to go a completely fresh route, and an entirely new Joker will simply further that.

Actually, speaking of Two-Face, maybe it's just from reading "The Long Halloween" and "Dark Victory" recently, but Dent really is one of the best characters in the Batman mythos. I can't wait until the movies tackle him. My hope is that he gets introduced in the next one, and established as a strong character (and friend to Batman and Gordon) - as he was arguably the one thing really missing from Begins - and then the third film is about his transformation into Two-Face...

> I'd always seen Begins as a prequel to the first Burton Batman

As has been said, it doesn't work at all - though you're far from being the only one who went this way with it!

> I remember the Joker and Two Face being pinned with the crime in Batman and Batman Forever...

Two Face killed Dick Grayson's parents in that movie, though, not Bruce Wayne's.

The Heath Ledger casting is totally consistent with the previous films - I like it. It could really work for an origin akin to The Killing Joke (Nolan's all about the flashbacks, so the fact he's already 'active' at the end of film one doesn't matter)...though Batman's potential involvement in his creation may have to be dropped.

Thing is, I know exactly how Bettany would play the part, and that's somehow less exciting. The Scarecrow was a real surprise in Begins - both true to the source and wildly different; more of that kind of thing is very welcome, and Ledger's casting suggests something decently innovative.

Taking influence from Year One was the right move last time, and the makers have previously cited Killing Joke as a key source. Colour me optimistic!

> as he was arguably the one thing really missing from Begins

And they essentially put Katie Holmes in his part! *shudders*

Taking influence from Year One was the right move last time, and the makers have previously cited Killing Joke as a key source. Colour me optimistic!

Given that, for me, Killing Joke is only beaten by Year One as "best Batman story ever", then I'd be happy to see some influence from it. They can't do it directly, with the same amount of resonance, because the Joker won't be an established character, but plenty of stylistic and thematic influence would be great.

What I wouldn't want, though, is for them to play the origin straight with the tragedy of the Joker being the likeable failed comedian pressganged into doing the Red Hood thing after his wife dies - because it gives him too much sympathy from the outset. I don't mind it being placed on him after the fact - especially with the amount of ambiguity over the truth that KJ gives us - but to be introduced to him as a potentially-sympathetic character just goes against everything the Joker is supposed to be. Besides which, the Spider-Man movies have the market cornered in likeable, sympathetic characters who then become villains after something goes horribly wrong...

> to be introduced to him as a potentially-sympathetic character just goes against everything the Joker is supposed to be

I think you're absolutely right, and it's why Nolan directing combined with Joke's influence and the fact that the character is already active has me so positive.

Imagine if you will a first half domnated by deadly Joker action, peppered with indistinct flashbacks (like Bruce's in Begins, like Pacino's in Insomnia) that only come clear in the latter half, after we've experienced atrocity and Bats has become forced to take him down, no question, no quarter.

It makes the origin clear, but too late to corrected, just lamented - just like Moore's story - and meshes with the director's established style.

Okay, it's unlikely to go that way. But it conceptualises well...

Good points all. But even Moore was hesitant to declare that Joke was the definitive Joker origin, after all...

"If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

(not that they couldn't keep that line in if they were really going that way. In fact, I think a couple of years ago DC decided to make that his official origin by revisiting it in an "in-continuity" narrative, which sucked. The Joker should never have a clear origin, as brilliant a story as Joke is, and Moore recognised that fact)

> But even Moore was hesitant to declare that Joke was the definitive Joker origin, after all...

Well sure, but then Year One is only one alternative, too. The movies shouldn't stick to the letter - but tone and concept can (and should) be taken into account.

> The Joker should never have a clear origin

In a comic series, sure, maybe. Except possible 'origins' DO get written because people want SOMETHING.

Movie audiences are more demanding of answers - they'll need something, and, done right, Joke is the best alternative for me. (You only have to look at Schumacher's villain's to see that under-history causes real depth and motivation problems.)

> But even Moore was hesitant to declare that Joke was the definitive Joker origin, after all...

Well sure, but then Year One is only one alternative, too. The movies shouldn't stick to the letter - but tone and concept can (and should) be taken into account.

But I'm talking in terms of the comics' canon here, which I know has undergone plenty of flux over the years, but still. Current canon is that Year One is Batman's official origin (it wasn't originally written as a graphic novel, remember - it was simply a story published in the pages of the main Batman title, in which any events have to be seen as canonical). But there is no current canon over the Joker's origin, despite a number of attempts by recent writers to bring the Killing Joke backstory into the fold. My point is that Moore never intended for KJ to actually be taken onboard as the Joker's "true" origin, he merely posited a possibility.

> But I'm talking in terms of the comics' canon here,

I know, but I'm talking about MOVIE canon, which is all that matters for Dark Knight production.

Accepting one comic or another as an influence only makes it canon for the existing film series, not forever in perpetuity.

They're not obliged to obey any 'accepted' comic history - but would be wise to accept the influence of stories, not entire canons, that work and that fit their own ethos. Better that than inventing something just to be 'different'...or just lazy. (Bane, Poison Ivy, etc. etc.)

Not sure what you disagree with me about, to be honest. I'm not saying use the letter of Joke, just that it's overall story and tone mesh nicely with the established new film style, and that - given that there pretty much HAS to be an origin tale - this may be the way to go.

In fact, it may well BE the way it's going, given the writer and director's comments. And that, along with the casting, fills me with hope - I could care less if the comics currently consider it canon or not.

Comic canon Scarecrow isn't especially close to the movie. What does it matter if it works?

Well, I misread the "Year One is only one alternative" thing, really. I do agree that if they're going to take thematic elements from anything, then Killing Joke would be a great way to go. I was really just remarking, though, on how it irritates me that so many people now take that as THE Joker origin, going against the point of what was a completely brilliant story (although Moore's not keen on it at all - though I bet a lot of that is to do with his highly principled annoyance at the format it was published in, since his disquiet with DC was on the rise at the time). And how I hope that at least some of his backstory is left as ambiguous as possible - even down to the supposition over whether or not he's really insane.

> it irritates me that so many people now take that as THE Joker origin

Fair enough. Not my opinion, and not likely to be Goyer's either. But probably everyone's if it happens in the film...becasue that's what happened with Batman 1989. ("This prequel's all wrong - everyone knows the JOKER killed his parents.")

> I hope that at least some of his backstory is left as ambiguous as possible - even down to the supposition over whether or not he's really insane.

I totally concur - about 'some' anyway. Because I happen to like Nolan's brain-digging, and he does lean to the 'nurture' side of development.

Nolan's films always seem tied to specific psychological states and issues - first amnesia, then insomnia and guilt, then Batman Begins's fear. The trick to figuring out the Dark Knight approach will likely be tied to working out what brain issue will be up next.

Joker's 'insanity' mirroring Batman's seems obvious, and old...but designed to let Nolan reach no definite conclusions about what DEFINES insanity. Coud be interesting.

Still, I like the idea of self-made fate, coupled with regret - which Batman's current life and Killing Joke's Joker both offer in spades.

Or it could be something else entirely.

Probably is, actually.

I have a feeling that Nolan will cook up a completely new Joker origin, one that connects him with Bruce in a way that hasn't been done before. There's no real need to stick to the comics (although elements such as the Joker torturing someone to find out Batman's identity, and maybe even the Joker finally killing himself, could be used). Look at what Raimi is doing with Venom, and it seems Sandman was involved in Peter's past in a way that I won't spoil if you don't know.

What I don't want is for his skin to be turned white like in Burton's Batman (and I think that was in a Joker origin comic story). At first I wondered whether Nolan would do away with the classic white face, green hair, red lips look, but just thinking about how much that would anger people is enough to know that he won't go there. As for what happens in the sequel, Nolan should take the insanity as far as possible and push the rating to the max. He should be the sickest villain in superhero movie history.

What is pretty obvious is that the Scarecrow will be involved, most likely creating the gas/poison for The Joker to use. That's probably the only reason Nolan had him surviving Begins.

> That's probably the only reason Nolan had him surviving Begins.

I have a feeling that's more Goyer's thing. He's surely aware how badly the previous Batchise messed up by killing villains off every time. It's truer to the comics to try and prevent Bats being a killer, and for the iconic villains to escape/be incarcerated.

I wouldn't bet on a Scarecrow return this time (though I wouldn't totally rule it out), or his being directly involved with the Joker. But I'm pretty sure the Joker won't be killed off either.

It's just not wise - and it's the main mistake the Spidey movies (which I love) are making.

It's just not wise - and it's the main mistake the Spidey movies (which I love) are making.

Yeah, the death of Osborn in the first one was necessary for the progression of the Harry story (and it happened almost exactly bang on as it did in the comics), but it felt unnecessary that they did away with Ock like that. Still, the old rule of comics - no body, no death - could well apply...

There's no real need to stick to the comics (although elements such as the Joker torturing someone to find out Batman's identity, and maybe even the Joker finally killing himself, could be used)

Hmm, if you're referring to Dark Knight Returns, I'm not so sure. I certainly don't want the Joker to be killed off at the end of the film - one film is not enough to establish someone as the arch-nemesis, which the Joker clearly is! The thing about the Joker's death in DKR, wonderful scene as it was, was that it came after a very long, turtuous and arduous relationship - and made sense in the context of it. No matter what the next movie is like, it just won't be able to fully establish the Joker as the overriding presence in Batman's life. Sure, the majority of your audience would know that the Joker's meant to be incredibly important, but a movie should never make assumptions of its viewers.

Unless you're referring to the Batman Beyond movie (with the torture thing), in which case, well, that's not a comic at all... ;-)

What I don't want is for his skin to be turned white like in Burton's Batman (and I think that was in a Joker origin comic story)

Um. The Joker has white skin. It was bleached white by chemicals. It's not makeup. There is no way in HELL they'll change that particular detail. The character has existed for almost seventy years, and he's always had white skin and green hair. The Joker without the white face... isn't the Joker! You might as well not put Batman in the costume...

You might as well not put Batman in the costume...

Batman Begins, anyone?

I mean I don't want to see him fall in the chemicals AGAIN. In Nolan's more realistic Batman universe, I can't see him doing it this way, especially regarding his green hair and red lips just turning out that way. It'd be cool if he burned in a fire instead or something. Or if he took the Michael Jackson route. Actually...they'll probably still go the chemicals route, but it should be a lot different this time.

I wonder how far they'll go with prosthetics, or if they'll use any at all. They don't want to repeat Nicholson's Joker. This is why everyone was after a thin actor to play The Joker this time, to get more of a skeletal face that they could accentuate.

I mean I don't want to see him fall in the chemicals AGAIN

But that's how it happened. That's how it's always happened. It's one of the most recognisable character origins in comics - changing that would be like having Peter Parker not get bitten by a spider, or Superman not rocket to Earth from a dying planet.

I just hope that for the first time we finally get the Red Hood stuff...

> changing that would be like having Peter Parker not get bitten by a spider, or Superman not rocket to Earth from a dying planet

Well QUITE.

A bit of Red Hood stuff is possible, given Goyer's love for the comics. (He's the first Bat screenwriter to consider Lucious Fox a significant player.) Though it's unlikely to be directly recognicable...

(that's to say nothing of the fact that JJ Abrams managed to write a Superman script in which Krypton WASN'T destroyed, of course... *shudders*)

JJ Abrams managed to write a Superman script in which Krypton WASN'T destroyed

And you wonder why I'm hesitant about his Star Trek revival?

Touche.

Yeah, if it truly is a Kirk/Spock 'origin' story then expect it to include some wild ideas that piss all over Trek continuity (although I wouldn't mind if the movie somehow gave us an alternative to 'Enterprise' so that series can be discounted from Trek canon!).

Going back to Jack (I'm sure they'll use that name, but of course not Napier) falling in the chemicals, I still think they shouldn't do that, if only because it's been seen onscreen before. It should happen a different way. What if he had been one of the Scarecrow's patients in the asylum and what turned Jack into The Joker was something else Crane had been working on. WHATEVER, I'm looking forward to it immensely. Begins was brilliant.

> I still think they shouldn't do that, if only because it's been seen onscreen before

*writes to Chris Nolan to inform him that he should also remove any references to Wayne being orphaned, Batman using gadgets and fighting crime; suggest also that Gotham be a happy, Disneyland kind of city with no crime*

Goyer and C. Nolan only did the basic story for Dark Knight (I can't see them not, at least, changing that to Batman: The Dark Knight by the end...) - Jonah Nolan's going to do the actual screenplay.

> Goyer and C. Nolan only did the basic story for Dark Knight (I can't see them not, at least, changing that to Batman: The Dark Knight by the end...) - Jonah Nolan's going to do the actual screenplay.

Oh, indeed. But, as I'm sure you know, the 'Story By' credit rarely reflects a literal seperation of duties. Usually it's based on actual (or, in this case, anticipated) WGA aribtration. Still...

As with the first film, Goyer strikes me as the 'comic heart' of the beast. He'll be the most responsible for plying in specific comic history, and for locating the stories and sections best suited for inclusion. HE'S the Bat expert.

The Nolans (Chris's Memento was based on his brother's short story, interesting to now go kinda the otehr way) are more into their narrative and character stuff. I'd imagine the story will be/was pretty tight before the screenplay proper was begun - Chris choosing to focus on the directorial demands, and Goyer too busy prepping to direct The Flash...not to mention the writiing several other movies and the Blade TV series.

That all said, I'd expect dialogue, for example, to be written by all three, with the 'story' and 'screenplay' credits based on their own estimation of how the arbitration will go.

Is Goyer on Flash still on?

They could do with figuring out who the Flash is in the comics before they go ahead with a movie... I think they've just about settled on Bart Allen now, but he'd be difficult to do in a movie as he's steeped in Flash lore, and it would be very strange having a movie where the character under the mask isn't the same as the one currently in the comics.

Flash is a tricky one, though. Barry Allen would seem to be the obvious one, but he's been dead for twenty years now. If Wally West was still in the suit, you could go with him, perhaps - but his status is uncertain. They stuck with Barry in the TV series, even though he'd been dead for a few years then, but Wally had had a lot more time in the suit pre-Infinite Crisis and would have been suitable enough.

Still, it's a problem that they wouldn't have should they ever do a Green Lantern movie (and it baffles me that they still haven't), now that Hal Jordan is back alive - although the beauty of the GL concept is that you can take any character as your "lead" and simply play up the Corps side of it...

Oh lord - which button on Seb did I push? :-)

In a separate subject, I'd previously blogged elsewhere about my disappointment in Superman Returns - which I DID enjoy, but found less satisfying as time went on...and now here's a pretty decent list of WHY, by - of all people - the co-writer of the Pirates movies:

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=85656

(Pirates 2, BTW, is getting more enjoyable with each viewing for me.)

With the overlap, I wonder whether many people will view Dark Knight ("Batman Begins 2: The Dark Knight" it'll be called*) as a (rather pointless) remake of Burton's first Batman film. I mean to us they're separate strands of parallel Batman mythologies and it just so happens that it's here the Joker stories converge, but to many people, when they're together on a shelf on DVD, won't Batman and Dark Knight represent much *the same thing* but with different production teams, actors and a later generation of special effects?

This is the first time anything like this has ever happened, isn't it? A franchise doing a complete reboot and retelling aspects of the story that were told well the first time.

* I'm joking, but how else will people be able to separate out the strands?

Oh lord - which button on Seb did I push? :-)

It's clearly marked "Do Not Push". You brought it on yourself by talking comics :-p

This is the first time anything like this has ever happened, isn't it? A franchise doing a complete reboot and retelling aspects of the story that were told well the first time.

In terms of actual franchises, quite possibly - although comic books have always been distinct from just about any other kind of franchise in terms of the way adaptations are handled. Let's not forget, after all, that the first Burton film isn't the first Batman film, nor even the first one to feature the Joker - he was present and correct, Cesar Romero's moustache and all, in the 1966 film (which I should hate for the silliness it brings to a serious character, but can't bring myself to because it's so bloody funny).

However, remakes are pretty common in movies, and I think your average moviegoing audience are capable of seeing it as a straight "remake" without considering the complications of different overlapping franchises and continuities. But I think what sets Batman apart is the short amount of time that's elapsed between the end of the last franchise and the start of the reboot - just eight years. That's pretty unprecedented, really.