Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
Im not a fan of this idea.
Spoiler
Show
The laugh is spot on, he actively goes by Joker publicly at the end, he fully embraces the chaos in the subway scene when being chased by the cops and seems more in his element there than any other time before, starts getting a flair for the dramatic and high levels of confidence when he goes all out on his way to do the Murr-RAY show, and is getting the devotion and allegiance of a vast amount of people. That's Joker. Some other guy coming along, taking the same gimmick, and running with it? I dont buy it. Plus, I can see him having a Harley Quinn - her attraction to him is already easy to see, he can be mesmerizing, and after his fantasy with the girl in the apartment across the hall, along with his mother's betrayal and her actions to begin with ("don't you have to be funny to do stand-up?"), I could easily see him having a toxic relationship afterwards.
Our Joker (Joker Prime?) doesn't care about devotion and allegiance though. He's certainly quite good at accumulating it when he wants to, but it's all a means to an end, and he works just fine alone or manipulating people from the shadows too. As mentioned, I don't get that vibe from Arthur at all, nor do I get much in the way of organized crime (even the very loose version of "organized" the Joker typically uses). But most of all I'm just not seeing the age difference; sure, the comics have always been vague on that front, but 3 decades+ are a bit much.

Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
Given the sheer amount of different Batmen in different eras in cinema alone, I doubt it would be that confusing. Or Spider-Men, for that matter, they reboot it twice a decade or so and it's never been confusing so far.

Which, to be fair, is also why I was wondering why so many people were hostile to the idea of the movie to begin with.
Batman as a film franchise doesn't really help your point though; none of his movies ran concurrently, or even all that close together. The Tim Burton -> Schumacher era was 4 movies long, each one 3 years apart between installments with nothing in between - no teamups, no spinoffs, no crossovers etc - from 1989-1997, and were only loosely connected to one another at best. This was followed by an almost ten-year gap to the Dark Knight Trilogy. With Batman movies spaced out that much both within and between their respective runs, of course there was no confusion about them being largely (or completely in Nolan's case) unconnected to one another.

Compare to Marvel - the MCU would have never gotten off the ground if they tried multiple versions of the same character. For example, in the same span of time as the first set of Batman movies, RDJ played Iron Man in more than twice as many films, was assumed to be off in the background somewhere doing stuff for several more, and even when he had nothing to do with the plot, setting details from his movies were sprinkled throughout several others and in multiple spinoff TV shows. Even posthumously he drove the plot of Far From Home. Could you imagine trying to keep all that straight if there were multiple Tony Starks running around with so little space between? It would be utterly impossible, and so it's perfectly reasonable that they didn't try.