Originally Posted by The Franchise:
That shit wouldn’t work. Now if you want to have it so that Heath Ledger’s Joker idolizes Phoenix’s Joker....then it might work. Your idea won’t work.
I bet if they made it, you would be first in line to see it and say how great it was. You know the saying, build it and they will come. It's a super hero movie, it's not real life, you can make any shit work in movies. [Reply]
Here's an old article, more like a blog, that I dug up while thinking about the timeline of the Dark Knight trilogy. I'll put the entire thing here in a spoiler tag so it won't be a giant wall of text in the thread:
Spoiler!
Hello ComicBookMovie community! It's been a long time since my last editorial on this website. Well this editorial is about the timeline of Christopher Nolan's Batman films. Many have speculated what the timeline of these films are, and how long Christian Bale's Batman was actually Batman. First I will start with the claim, then I'll tell you why I believe this. So, in the words of Bane, "let the games begin".
Claim: Batman Begins was released in 2005 and has many people believing that is the same year the film is set in, but I don't believe that. Batman Begins, not including flashbacks, takes place somewhere between 2002 to 2005. Bruce returns to Gotham in late 2002/early 2003, takes a couple of months getting his "mission" ready, and begins his caped crusade in late 2003 taking down mob boss Carmine Falcone. By early to mid 2004 Batman is investigating the drugs that eventually lead to Scarecrow, and by late 2004/early 2005 Ra's Al Ghul has come to Gotham to finish his mission. Batman Begins ends in 2005 on the night of Bruce Wayne's birthday.
Why: Bruce Wayne was Batman for 5 years before he got the new batsuit in The Dark Knight. How do I know this? In the the book The Dark Knight Manual it says that Bruce Wayne has been Batman for 5 years and that he needed a new suit. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but it does say he has been Batman for 5 years as clear as day.
Claim: The Dark Knight was released in 2008, and the film is indeed set in 2008. Mid 2008, with it ending in late 2008 to be exact.
Why: As said previously, Bruce Wayne had been Batman for 5 years until he needed the new batsuit. If my last claim is correct Batman's crusade began in 2003, add 5 years to that and it's 2008. Also the photo of the Joker that Jim Gordon holds up to Batman after the bank hiest has the date marked July 2008, the exact date was hard to tell but looked like it was 17. That's not all either. In Batman Begins we get a glimps of Jim Gordon's son. It's the scene where Gordon speaks to Batman before Batman interrogates Flass. We see Jim's wife, Barbara, feeding a child that looks 3 or 4 through the window and in The Dark Knight Gordon's son looks 8 or 9.
Claim: My claim here will be different. The Dark Knight Rises was released in 2012. The film itself is set 8 years after The Dark Knight. It is late 2016, same night of the last confirmed Batman sighting, with the film ending somwhere in early 2017 since Bruce Wanye was in the pit for 6 months and it was winter by the end of the film. Here's my claim: The Batman was still, in some way, active between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.
Why: Well for starters they tell us it's been 8 years since the last confirmed sighting of the Batman, keyword: "confirmed". You might be thinking that I'm grasping at straws, but keep reading. Gordon knew the truth, and with the Dent Act there must have been somekind of "war" between Gotham police and orginized crime. If Batman did help, he must've done it from the shadows. Gathering information, interrogating criminals, and giving it to Gordon. Also when Bruce goes down to the batcave, after Selina Kyle steals the pearls, Alfred says that Bruce hadn't been down there in a long time. If Bruce quit being Batman immediately after The Dark Knight, then I believe Alfred would have said something along the lines of: "So you've decided to finally use you batcave".
So in conclusion, the timeline of Christopher Nolan's Batman films start at 2002 and end at 2017. Bruce has been Batman far longer than people actually believe. 5 years between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, as opposed to the generally believed 1 year. Also since the last "confirmed" sighting of the batman was 8 years before The Dark Knight Rises, Bruce could have still been active as Batman for, at least, another 5 years. This gives Nolan's Batman 10 years of crime fighting. This also explains why his body by The Dark Knight Rises is a total mess.
So what do you guys and gals think? Do you agree with me or do you believe I'm wrong? Let me know in the comments below! Until next time ComicBookMovie!
What do you think? Is this guy right? Can this be used to consider how Pheonix's Joker fits in, or if it does fit in? Doing a similar search I read that Joker is set in 1981. That would make the introduction of the character into the Dark Knight universe happen 27 years after the Pheonix Joker. So, suppose that Pheonix Joker goes on a domestic terrorism spree in the sequel during the 80's. Lots of material to work with there. He could take on the persona of a terrorist/serial killer/chaos engine and Ledger's Joker could be using that as an inspiration just as the Dark Knight uses fear to fight criminals. [Reply]
Yes, I said 1982 because they said “30 years ago she was in Arkham” and the clip board was dated 1952. So that’s the answer.
Not a comic book fan but this movie was excellent. It’s got heavy political overtones obv (with both alt-right and Bernie Bros claiming it as their anthem), and mental illness stigma.
The scene where he aces Deniro was gripping: “YOU GET WHAT YOU FING DESERVE!!!” But I don’t quite understand why he killed his mom. Because he believed she lied to him about Wayne? [Reply]
Some version of a Joker Cult is the means to pull off a sequel if the intent is to maintain some semblance of continuity and "canon" coherence.
I'm not sure a sub-Joker or copycat criminal emerging from the cult would fit neatly into the Batman story as most people know it, though. And it would negate the mystery associated with the original Joker's presumed origin(s) ... at least, to a degree.
On the other hand, I don't see any other way to do it.
Some version of a Joker Cult is the means to pull off a sequel if the intent is to maintain some semblance of continuity and "canon" coherence.
I'm not sure a sub-Joker or copycat criminal emerging from the cult would fit neatly into the Batman story as most people know it, though. And it would negate the mystery associated with the original Joker's presumed origin(s) ... at least, to a degree.
On the other hand, I don't see any other way to do it.
FAX
It's an easy way to weave together various good Joker portrayals, and eventually dovetail into someone taking over for Batflek even. Multiple versions of characters has been done in the comics. Might as well bring that to the screen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
It's an easy way to weave together various good Joker portrayals, and eventually dovetail into someone taking over for Batflek even. Multiple versions of characters has been done in the comics. Might as well bring that to the screen.
I don't disagree, Mr. listopencil. Not really ...
However, it does seem like one of those "square peg/round hole" problems. And, undoubtedly, we've all had a few of those.
First of all, I don't think people would be overly concerned about (or desirous of) a multi-film story featuring Joker had Marvel Studios not become more wealthy than 180 countries in a brief, 10-year span. Fans and producers might not even think about it. I mean, what Marvel pulled off was (and remains) somewhat unique in cinematic history. That accomplishment created a new context and fosters a new conversation and high expectations.
One also has to keep in mind that, since the Joker character is so historic and so beloved and so significant (to so many fans), one has to tread lightly to avoid market alienation and the perception of artistic compromise. This film "might" serve as a foundational piece but I don't think it was intended as such and, therefore, isn't an ideal cornerstone.
Not to say that it couldn't be done.
I think we know that a film crusade akin to Marvel must be built on a solid substructure from the outset. The first movie has to resonate and the subsequent films have to both elaborate and enhance. You can have an occasional "dud", but you can't let go of the thread entirely ... else you lose the entire tapestry ... and the box-office.
Ergo, the problem.
Ledger's Joker is gone forever because Ledger is gone forever. Phoenix's Joker is essentially incompatible with an "Origin of Batman" storyline because the timelines don't sync and Joker would be 70 years old before his first Batman encounter. That won't fly.
The only way to do this is to proceed with your suggestion. Yet, that leads to the potential of multiple Jokers emerging from some sort of Joker Cult or Joker Crime Family or Joker Fan Club which invalidates (probably) 90% of the fans' various preconceptions of Joker's history, background, and motivation.
It's possible ... but I'm not sure the odds of success are all that great. I'd like to see them try, though.
Originally Posted by FAX:
I don't disagree, Mr. listopencil. Not really ...
However, it does seem like one of those "square peg/round hole" problems. And, undoubtedly, we've all had a few of those.
First of all, I don't think people would be overly concerned about (or desirous of) a multi-film story featuring Joker had Marvel Studios not become more wealthy than 180 countries in a brief, 10-year span. Fans and producers might not even think about it. I mean, what Marvel pulled off was (and remains) somewhat unique in cinematic history. That accomplishment created a new context and fosters a new conversation and high expectations.
One also has to keep in mind that, since the Joker character is so historic and so beloved and so significant (to so many fans), one has to tread lightly to avoid market alienation and the perception of artistic compromise. This film "might" serve as a foundational piece but I don't think it was intended as such and, therefore, isn't an ideal cornerstone.
Not to say that it couldn't be done.
I think we know that a film crusade akin to Marvel must be built on a solid substructure from the outset. The first movie has to resonate and the subsequent films have to both elaborate and enhance. You can have an occasional "dud", but you can't let go of the thread entirely ... else you lose the entire tapestry ... and the box-office.
Ergo, the problem.
Ledger's Joker is gone forever because Ledger is gone forever. Phoenix's Joker is essentially incompatible with an "Origin of Batman" storyline because the timelines don't sync and Joker would be 70 years old before his first Batman encounter. That won't fly.
The only way to do this is to proceed with your suggestion. Yet, that leads to the potential of multiple Jokers emerging from some sort of Joker Cult or Joker Crime Family or Joker Fan Club which invalidates (probably) 90% of the fans' various preconceptions of Joker's history, background, and motivation.
It's possible ... but I'm not sure the odds of success are all that great. I'd like to see them try, though.
FAX
Sure. I'm just daydreaming about ways that they could keep moving forward with the various character's franchises and possibly weave them all together. Each one brings its own set of problems. You have Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and she's great in the role - probably the best situation out of all of them and they're going to need to keep pumping out decent movies with her or they'll lose steam. Aquaman is surprisingly (to me) adequate and maybe they can sell him as Underwater Thor. The rest are, pretty much, crap on the big screen so far. They need a new Batman, or someone to start off as Robin and turn into Batman as Batfleck is dealt some sort of terminal blow onscreen - that might make a decent soft reboot if Cult Joker kills him and Robin becomes New Batman. Superman is a boring character and I don't know if they even have anyone to play him. Cyborg/Flash? Blah.
If they are going push this Justice League idea then they have a lot of work to do, and it doesn't look good so far. As of right now I'd only be interested in these movies: Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. The Death of Batfleck. Aquaman is Underwater Thor. I think it's more likely that Pheonix Joker is either just a one off or will exist entirely in its own universe, unfortunately. [Reply]
This sucked. It desperately wanted to be a gritty 70s flick, but it didn't have the balls to do it right. The subways of this urban hellhole are menaced by gangs of low level white collar business men. The horror! Get your gun Bernie Getz, cause Biff Thorndyke and his BBA boyz are talkin' all kinds of shit about the Princeton rowing team.
spoilers
So the Joker may be (but probably isn't) Batman's brother? One of the reasons that comic book writing is so terrible is that the authors have an obsession with small universe syndrome. Not really surprising to see it make the transition to the big screen. They at least managed to not make the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents, but they still managed to end up with them getting killed by one of his acolytes.
The love interest was pointless and unbelievable.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as a person with mental illness - good.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as the Joker - terrible. Why so fem?
The Joker doesn't need an origin story.
Batman's parents should be killed by a random criminal. Not by Joe Chill and certainly not by the joker. Batman wages a war against crime, not a particular criminal.
Why is the Joker so rarely funny? I think the character works best when he is darkly humorous. The essence of the Joker, imo, should be: you know you shouldn't laugh but you can't help yourself.
I did like the scene where the midget couldn't reach the lock after witnessing a killing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mennonite:
This sucked. It desperately wanted to be a gritty 70s flick, but it didn't have the balls to do it right. The subways of this urban hellhole are menaced by gangs of low level white collar business men. The horror! Get your gun Bernie Getz, cause Biff Thorndyke and his BBA boyz are talkin' all kinds of shit about the Princeton rowing team.
spoilers
So the Joker may be (but probably isn't) Batman's brother? One of the reasons that comic book writing is so terrible is that the authors have an obsession with small universe syndrome. Not really surprising to see it make the transition to the big screen. They at least managed to not make the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents, but they still managed to end up with them getting killed by one of his acolytes.
The love interest was pointless and unbelievable.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as a person with mental illness - good.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as the Joker - terrible. Why so fem?
The Joker doesn't need an origin story.
Batman's parents should be killed by a random criminal. Not by Joe Chill and certainly not by the joker. Batman wages a war against crime, not a particular criminal.
Why is the Joker so rarely funny? I think the character works best when he is darkly humorous. The essence of the Joker, imo, should be: you know you shouldn't laugh but you can't help yourself.
I did like the scene where the midget couldn't reach the lock after witnessing a killing.
As kind of an aside to that I had an issue with this portrayal because the Joker isn’t just maniacal but, also a brilliant criminal. This Joker is just a deranged fool. It is a tremendous performance but, it just doesn’t quite fit as the actual Joker. IMO of course. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
The way I took it: he's definitely not Bruce's brother. His mom was nearly as delusional as he was.
That's not always how those things work. But I can see how it doesn't fit the narrative in a fictional story line. I'm more concerned with the PC Crowd messing this film over and not giving it Film of the year, and instead giving the award out to the film that was already given the award for best film by foreigners [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
The way I took it: he's definitely not Bruce's brother. His mom was nearly as delusional as he was.
I agree, but even dangling the possibility is kinda annoying.
Again, I don't think the Joker needs an origin story, especially a lame one where he's a bad stand-up comic with a medical condition that makes him laugh for God's sake.
If you insist on making one and you want to go with a gritty 70s thing you have to go all out. You have to show the urban rot and degradation that we saw in Death Wish and Taxi Driver. You need racial conflicts too, but there is no way that would fly today. Don't stop with the Joker as Travis Bickle - go all the way into Joe Spinell in Maniac (1980) territory with a dash of the Scorpio killer from Dirty Harry.
Oh, and make me laugh and then feel guilty about it. [Reply]