Thanks to the folks over at the ever-on-top-of-Batman-movie-news site Batman-on-Film.com here are a couple of answers to questions people have about the upcoming Batman Begins sequel: The Dark Knight.
It’s been asked whether the Joker-centric footage that will be shown ahead of the IMAX version of I Am Legend will be something specifically produced for that or if it will be an excerpt from the actual movie. The answer is that the footage (which comes out in December) is the first 5 minutes from The Dark Knight. I’d heard 7 minutes, but whatever – at least now we know what it is.
Of more importance, Chris Nolan gives a hint as to the plot of the movie as related to The Joker, and I think it is VERY good news!
|
|
From director Chris Nolan:
“[THE DARK KNIGHT] is not ‘The Joker Begins.’ We did not want to tell how The Joker became what he is. In those five minutes [of the prologue], we show how The Joker goes from being a small-time crook to Gotham‘s greatest villain. It‘s like ‘The Rise of the Joker.’”
I don’t know about you but I think this is excellent news. One of the complaints a lot of folks have lately about superhero movies is how they seem to be mired in origin stories. Coming into the story with The Joker established as who he is within the first five minutes will allow things to get into gear immediately.
This is more great news as far as I’m concerned. Or would you rather have more of the movie spent showing how he becomes who he is?
Source: Batman on Film
Loading ...
11 Comments
This is the best news I think I’ve heard about the movie yet! When the character was introduced in the comix there was no explanation for why he is what he is. I don’t know why people always want some origin and explanation for EVERYTHING,it takes up SO much time in the movie (remember the Ang Lee Hulk?). We need no explanation for lex Luthor,so we don’t need one for Joker,either. I like origins,but I can only handle them in small doses.:-) Joker:bad,Batman:good. What’s there to explain? Too bad there isn’t an IMAX theater near me!
I have to drive 45 minutes to get to the nearest IMAX theater but I think it’s worth it.
Vic
Oh totally worth it. The one nearest me is over 8 hours away. I’m sad.
Ow, that stinks. I thought 45 minutes was bad!
Vic
LOL! Yup. That’s so unfair!
I think that there is a difference between origin and character. The origin story isn’t the only thing that explains the character to us, and I think that the sooner we get from Jack Napier or whoever he is to Joker the sooner we can really get into the meat and potatoes of the character.
So I don’t have a problem with his origin being done quickly as long as the Ledger as the Joker still has an interesting character arc.
How Joker becomes Joker isn’t very interesting. What is interesting about him is his philosophy afterwards (and how it juxtaposes Batman’s). So let’s get to that as quickly as possible.
Good points,Thomas.
I think the orgin of the Joker can be told through out the story as Batman finds out more about him,not just in one huge part in the opening scenes.
I think it’s the best route simply because they couldn’t do it any other way — it’d be a waste of time. What makes The Joker’s origin give such an impact on the story is the fact that he killed Bruce’s parents to begin with and The Batman turned him into a super-villain.
But, since all that never happened, then that makes that story-arch buffer kind of useless, don’t you think?
- Rev
Well, Rev, the thing is, that only really happened in the original Batman movie.
In the comics it was a guy named Joe Chill.
Frankly, I like it better when the Joker doesn’t really HAVE a backstory. All we have for sure in the comics is that he was Red Hood, and he ended up in some chemicals, which Joker-fied him.
not to mention not showing the jokers back story will keep nerds from complaining that they got it wrong
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!