LatinoReview, where the news first broke about Routh as Superman, is now reporting with confidence that an offer to play the Joker has been made to Heath Ledger.

YIKES!

Wrong A Knight's Tale player!!!

Nuts. I was cheering for Paul Bettany.

I'm just relieved they're not going with Robin freakin' Williams.

I was hoping for Adrian Brody or Sean Penn, personally.

Well, they got the wirery hair angle right. I just wonder if he can pull off the unpredictability angle of the character right.

Either of those--well, especially Penn--would have been interesting.

Has Ledger ever given a manic performance?

Ned Kelly comes to mind, althought that wasn't very manic. Maybe his part in Lords of Dogtown. Honestly, I can't see him playing the Joker... except if he were stoned out of his mind.

DIdn't we have an earlier discussion in this thread about how Heath Ledger shouldn't be playing this character? Personally, I thought if they went with a younger Joker, they should have picked Jake Gyllenhall. He's played that kind of character before.

Here's a photo of Ledger, for reference. There are definitely possibilities in that smile, chin (better for twoface?). I still kind miss Cesar Romero. Still, the Joker would make a great avatar...

Or they could reunite Ledger and Gyllenhaal and change the name of the movie.

Jokeback Mountain?

Brokeback Batcave?

Schumacher already dragged us in that direction. Thank you very much for the painful memory.

As it turns out, Gyllenhaal was considered for the role of Bruce Wayne during Batman Begins' preproduction (according to Greg Schmitz at Yahoo's Upcoming Movies). Imagine Gyllenhaal as Batman and Ledger as the Joker; that would've occasioned an interesting, uh, subtext.

Then again, wasn't there a slight gay subtext between the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight Returns? I seem to remember something about that, though it's been three years since I've read it.

Link to Batman Begins thread.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: I was hoping for Adrian Brody or Sean Penn, personally.

Brody, I could see, at least in terms of face or physique. But Penn? Ugh. Plus he'd be insufferably serious about the whole thing.

I'll just take this moment to say that I agree with Peter completely.

And I'll just remind everyone how much I dislike Sean Penn. Dislike very, very much.

Meanwhile, I like Penn very, very much... in spite of Mystic River... and I can't wait until All the King's Men.



... Which would clash with Nolan's Batman how exactly? Batman Begins pushed seriousness about as far as a comic book movie can go without becoming aggravating. I'm not complaining--I loved it. But that's why I think Penn might have been a good choice. Of course, he's quite a bit older than Ledger, and might not be athletic enough...

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: : But Penn? Ugh. Plus he'd be insufferably serious about the whole thing.
:
: ... Which would clash with Nolan's Batman how exactly?

I refer you to Ebert's comment about Superman Returns and the need to see actors taking some joy in the parts they play. ALL of the actors in Batman Begins took at least some joy in their characters. But Penn is about as joyless as they come, both on-screen and off-screen -- and the Joker is nothing if not a character who en-joys his own villainy, his own insanity.

Or Jack Black. *phew* Thank goodness Nolan's not stupid.

Am I the only one who was hoping for Johnny Depp?



Whoa. Bruce Darko. Consider:

BATMAN: Why do you wear that stupid scarecrow suit?

SCARECROW: Why are you wearing that stupid bat suit?

BATMAN: Uh, 'cause it's AWESOME?

If anyone has a better spoof, please post it. That was pathetic.

Gyllenhaal as Scarecrow I can imagine, but not as the Bat.

Realizing I am the only Sean Penn fan in these here parts, but ... he has actually turned in some playful performances (see Sweet and Lowdown) when directed properly in suitably "lighter" material.

Sean Penn's too good for a BATMAN movie.

At least it won't be Robby Coltrane in a Viking suit.

Mark said:


Mark, what part of "I like Penn very, very much" was unclear to you?

Ha, I missed that line, as it was above the quote in your last post. The only part I saw was the line about Penn's self-seriousness fitting in well with Nolan's tone.

I think I'd prefer Robin Williams to that.

Another thought: will there be multiple villians? In the last one we got Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, and Falcone. Will there be others besides Joker in the Bat Sequel?

It will also include the Penguin, the Riddler, and Catwoman. The source material for this sequel comes from the seminal 1960's film Batman: The Movie.

Of course. Nolan knows the magic combination.

Someone on another board wondered if the Joker's on-again-off-again sidekick, Harley Quinn, would be involved in the film, and if so, hiring Brittney Murphy for that role.

That would be a nice twist - considering that Harley Quinn wasn't introduced in the comic books, but in Batman: The Animated Series in the 1990's.

Rumors on AICN and other fan sites indicate that Harvey Dent/Two-Face will put in an appearance. I bet the Scarecrow will be back also.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about Harley Quinn...she'd probably end up functioning as an innocent sidekick to the villains, like Parker Posey in Superman Returns. I guess as long as her lines are funny and she isn't too over the top, the concept could work.

It will begin with a slow pan down to a small desert island.

Lex Luthor will be sitting there with a vague smile on his face.

There will be a cardboard box sitting next to him, sealed shut.

He'd better. Maybe he'll get around to donning the full costume.



Kewl. Never saw Batman Forever (which, it seems, is fortunate), but I can bet Nolan would give Two-Face a better treatment.

That brings me to wonder, how will Nolan handle the Joker? Ra's, Falcone, and even Scarecrow were fairly "serious" villains, while Joker is much more, well, not serious. Tim Burton's Batman, um, bombed (in terms of quality; I know it was a box-office hit), yet he was the ideal director for the Joker, because he's so psychotic (the Joker) (also Burton). It just makes me wonder what Nolan's gonna do with him.

Maybe they could bring Burton back to direct the Joker, and Nolan could do everything else.

Plankton wrote:
: Never saw Batman Forever (which, it seems, is fortunate) . . .

FWIW, I know a few people (including myself) who are inclined to think that that was the only decent film in the entire pre-Nolan series. Still wasn't as good as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, though -- that was easily the best Batman movie pre-Nolan.

As for the Joker and how Nolan would handle him ... yeah, that's an interesting question. One of the things I loved about Batman Begins was the recurring, overarching theme of FEAR. But the Burton films, especially the first one, focused more on INSANITY. And that's fine, to a point, because a number of Batman comics have done that too (not least The Killing Joke). But if FEAR is your big theme, then I'm not sure exactly how the Joker would be woven into the story. It probably CAN be done, but it'll be tricky.

Really? I had heard that the first Burton one (aka, Batman) was the "best". I wasn't impressed when I saw it, so I skipped the others. But maybe I should reconsider.



You hit the nail on the head. Fear is what Batman's all about; but Burton obviously couldn't resist focusing on the insanity of the Joker, and so he (Joker) stole every scene (making you wonder why it wasn't called Joker instead).

Still, I have faith in Nolan. Scarecrow was starting to crack at the end of Batman Begins, and that was handled well.

Well, I for one find The Joker terrifying (see Alan's avatar). I've always found clowns horribly creepy.

I think the Joker is far from a less-serious vilian; even if HE takes himself less seriously, that almost makes him more dangerous.

Oh, so THAT'S what it is. I wondered. But yeah, Joker's pretty creepy. But he's not ABOUT fear. He's about INSANITY, and that's the main theme that needs to be emphasized. If Nolan milked the fear aspect, Joker would just be another Scarecrow in a purple suit.

I'm sure that Nolan has learned from the mistakes of the previous Batman movies (although I still officially do not recognize their existence). Those that I did watch, and those that made some attempt to be taken seriously, all seemed to CONTINUALLY harp on the same theme over and over again, and that was one of dual identity - in the character of Batman himself, in Jack Napier/The Joker, etc. By they time they got to Two-Face they had exhausted the theme when they most needed it. Granted, a hidden identity is key in this genre, but the filmmakers just kept focusing on it and that made it stale (among other problems with those films).

Nolan went in a new direction, and straight to the essence of the Batman mystique: Fear and vengeance v. justice. Yes, dual identity was in Batman Begins, but it was not hammered upon like before. Nolan's Batman did not wrestle with becoming/being Batman, only of who Batman would be (vigilante or purveyor of justice). He had a clarity of vision that Burton's Batman lacked.

Based on what Nolan has done so far I am pretty sure that he'll do a great job with The Joker.

Plankton wrote:
: Really? I had heard that the first Burton one (aka, Batman) was the "best".

Yeah, that's the conventional wisdom, but Lord only knows why. I disliked that movie from the moment I saw it (even after I heard that a map of Vancouver was used for the map of Gotham City). Burton's films are every bit as stupid and campy and disconnected from the comics as the 1960s TV show, just in a "darker" sort of way (and occasionally in a more vulgar or innuendo-ish sort of way, e.g. the Penguin greeting Catwoman with the words, "Just the pussy I've been looking for" -- I remember someone complaining that a line like that was totally out of place in a movie that was being promoted at the time by McDonald's).

(Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with innuendo, mind. And not that I think these films should be judged on how appropriate they are for a Happy Meal. Lord knows the Batman COMICS can be pretty out-there sometimes. I'm just saying that that sort of thing was pretty much the only salient difference between the 1960s camp and the 1990s camp.)

Mike Nelson (of Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame) called the early Batman films "...actively promoting the death of joy."

Yeah, me too. But really? They used a Vancouver map? That's cool. I lived in Vancouver when I was much younger. The movie still sucked, though. The only parts I can remember enjoying (other than most of the Joker's scenes) was when Batman said "I'm Batman", and that last shot with him silhouetted against the Bat Sign (or whatever it's called). You can imagine my utter glee when both were in Batman Begins (and done much better, too.)

Looks like we have a title:

The Dark Knight (link goes to comingsoon.net)

Just wondering, am I the only person who finds this title a little ... generic?

Granted, it doesn't have the word "Batman" in the title, which serves to distinguish this movie from the campy Martinson/Burton/Schumacher films of the '60s, '80s and '90s -- but this also distinguishes this movie from its immediate predecessor, Batman Begins. Hmmm.

And since the graphic novels have long had titles like The Killing Joke or Batman: The Cult or The Dark Knight RETURNS, etc., etc., I dunno, I find myself wanting a movie title with a little more oomph.

Now that Ledger's casting is official, so is my disappointment and skepticism with the choice.

I guess Brokeback Mountain establishes Ledger's actorly bona fides in the eyes of some, but in my eyes he's a lightweight. I have no confidence in his ability to project the requisite blend of deranged intelligence, wit and menace.

Also, his body type and face shape is not right. Ledger is a classically square-jawed hero, perhaps more so than Bale himself. The Joker should not be more manly than Batman. He needs to be more slight and wiry.

Ledger's A Knight's Tale costar Paul Bettany would have been a great choice.

I haven't seen Nolan make a misstep yet in casting, not in Memento, Insomnia or Batman Begins. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

And FWIW, I like The Dark Knight as a title. Connects it to the darker strains of the graphic novels, as well as captures the ethos of Bale's Batman now established in his work.

I'm split. Like Mr. Jones, I can give Nolan some trust here, but, with Steve, Bettany represents what may have been a better casting decision.

Didn't we all wonder about Michael Caine as Alfred, and yet he delivered one of the film's most moving performances? The look on his face when he rescues poisoned Batman from the Narrows is amazing. The casting is one of the most remarkable accomplishments of the first movie, so I'm inclined to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt here, even though I can't see Ledger as the manic menace the Joker must be.

I don't like the title per se, but the obvious connections to the graphic novel are tantalizing. Will the third movie be The Dark Knight Returns?

Really? You were cautious about Michael Caine? I wasn't -- I thought he'd do a great job. The depth of his performance didn't surprise me -- although his undisguised Cockney accent does -- I assumed he'd be doing an Oxonian-type accent -- and it still bugs me on some level. I'd like to ask him and/or Nolan about that.

Sure, Nolan has earned some credit. Ledger could surprise me, and I hope he does. I'd love to eat my words. All I'm saying is, a good Ledger performance here would be a surprise, whereas I would be confident of one from Bettany.

I agree--I'm just more disinclined to be skeptical of Nolan this point. (Although, now that people have mentioned it, he DID explain the water system thing a bit too much in the first movie.)

In addition to casting, here are some other things I'm hoping Nolan will continue in the second film:

• The grounding of everything in the real, physical world. Batman has no superpowers and Nolan did a great job of making him mysterious on an entirely different level from his natural abilities. The car, the suit, the gadgets all made "imaginary" sense--right down to the bruises and occasional helplessnes of Batman.
• Accordingly, the reliance on CGI was minimal. Although it was there (ex: in cityscapes and the bats), it was minimal and the effort was still put into the physical stunts (such as Batman hanging from the train) even though that might have been easier to do with CGI.
• The time invested in developing the characters. It takes FOREVER for Batman to finally show up in the first film, yet I wouldn't trade that time for more "cowl" time. I hope he takes the same care with The Joker and the continuing development of other characters--especially Gordon and (presumably) the emergence of Harvey Dent. I would like to see more development/background on Lucius Fox, which was lacking in the first film. Hey, I hope to see Falcone again, too, but that's probably not going to happen.
• The *appropriate* humor. Lines like "Tell them that joke you know" and "nice coat" fit well into the dynamics of the film and neither distracted from other goings-on nor fell flat. Bruce Wayne/Batman has a sense of natural humor without distracting from his distinct character.
• The music. I actually hesitate to call it music. The use of recognizable melody is very sparse in the first film, but there's a constant "heartbeat" rhythm going on throughout many sequences if not most of the film. That was very effective at building tension.

Just a few thoughts, looking forward. I *SURELY* hope that the audio mix is improved. When I watch the BB DVD I have to turn the subtitles on.

Here is the official rumors page at Batman On Film.com

Rumors I like: Liev Schreiber as Harvey Dent; anything to do with Vanessa Redgrave

Rumors I don't like: Anything to do with The Penguin; anything to do with Hoffman or Hoskins (in this movie) (Caveat: The rumors about The Penguin being a British arms dealer might make that character work. No penguin pallbearers, please!)

I'm not familiar with Black Mask, so I can't comment much on that rumor. It seems way to complicated a plotline for a movie that's also going to develop The Joker.

I was always partial to John Glover myself...though I am starting to think he is most ideal for the Joker if they adapted the Dark Knight Returns.

If they go with recent comic book storylines, Black Mask was the big crime boss in Gotham City until Catwoman killed him in Catwoman #52.

Blast. I was hoping they'd call it Batman Continues.

As to the "Ledger debate", I guess I can't really comment on him as an actor, having not seen any of his films (as far as I know). But, even if he doesn't LOOK right, remember, that's what make-up's for.



So right. They better bring back Zimmer. After I saw it I found myself trying to hum the music, and I couldn't do, since there wasn't really any melody. I think that made it even better.

Even More Batman

Oh yes. The day I've been waiting for has arrived. How utterly cool.




ABSO-FRICKIN-LUTELY.




Great point that I never thought of. There is a definite pulsating rhythm to Batman Begins that builds tension without falling prey to being an overly decipherable, typically predictable, and always TOO KNOWN BY THE END movie soundtrack.



Every film is always better with the subtitles on.

-s.