http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/trailer.htm

This looks so sweet that I nearly crapped my pants in excitement.

It does look great. Aaron Eckhart looks to be an excellent choice for Harvey Dent.

From what I've read, I don't think he does a lot in this one, but it sets him up to be the primary antagonist in #3.

So, are these movies sequels/prequels to the early 90s version of Batman, or are they entirely separate? If the latter, why is Heath Ledger doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation?

QUOTE:
From what I've read, I don't think he does a lot in this one, but it sets him up to be the primary antagonist in #3.

Ah. He got a lot of play in that preview, so I thought he might have a large role (though not as Two Face).

I think he's an important plot catalyst, but just doesn't have a lot of screen time. That might not be true, however. Just internet gossip.

SS, they are completely seperate. The early 1990s films have been wiped out of the continuity altogether and should be completely forgotten for the purposes of understanding the characters and the story of the new ones. One should make an extra-vigorous effort to forget the Joel Schumacher-directed films (the ones with Val Kilmer and George Clooney), because they were god-awful, especially the last one.

The Schumacher films particularly bad, but Tim Burton films (the first two) while completely watchable, are nowhere near as good as Batman Begins nor even as good as the animated program (and one animated feature) directed by Bruce Timm.

For Batman enthusiasts like myself (and perhaps anyone who has seen Batman Begins) its pretty clear that Tim Burton really wasn't very interested in Batman or a fan of the comics. He's interested in doing his Tim Burton thing with the Danny Elfman music and stories of misunderstood circus freaks. And I say that as someone who generally likes everything Tim Burton does (except Planet of the Apes. That was shit).

Those films were further marred by the studio's interest in cramming every bankable star in that they could, which just cluttered up the stories with too many characters and OTT ham-it-up performances. Ironically, Michael Keaton, known at that time primarily for his comedy work, was the straight-man in those films. Unlike most fans, it seems, I believe he was an inspired choice for the role, but the scripts didn't give him nearly enough room to develop the character.

Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker was widely praised, but I think it's not going to be as well remembered when compared to Heath Ledger's job. From the trailers alone, it's clear that Ledger put a lot more effort into creating the character. Nicholson's Joker is only a shade different from his character in The Departed (which was clearly based on Whitey Bulger) and a lot of other films.

The Joker isn't merely a thug with a schtick, or evil, or insane. He's all of those things, but most importantly, he's completely unpredictable and unspeakably violent - the embodiment of chaos.

Thanks, Reed, but doesn't it sound like Ledger is trying to imitate Jack's voice?

In some places it sounds a little like that, but in other places not at all. More pitch range, I think.

The make-up is far more disturbing.