View Single Post
Old 12-02-2012, 05:02 PM   #64
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
The Joker's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,165
Default Re: A theory about an alternate TDKR with the Joker

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Sure he knows how to follow orders when he doesn't know the true intentions of the LoS.
Which he doesn't here either. So what's your problem?

But once again, being a pawn once more isn't something they should've done again.
But another destroy the city with a deadly device plot should be done again. Another Al Ghul pretending to be someone they're not should be done again. Another Cop chase of Batman again etc.


Crane's role was tiny, but those repetitive plots were major. If Crane's little cameo bothered you then by the logic of being repetitive you should have loathed those ones, too.

You bring up the fact once that you didn't like the LoS being used again, so how do you feel about Crane essentially being a pawn once again such as his role in BB?
I feel it's repetitive just like the other things I mentioned above. But it makes sense in the context of the story. I didn't need to spoon fed how Crane was busted out either when I just saw Bane release 1000 inmates from a prison.

But you also asked if this was any better than in BB, but don't you think it's not any better since he's still a pawn without knowing the true intentions, even with "new management"?
No it's not any better in terms of repeating something we've already seen. But TDKR is guilty of that in other much bigger areas than that.

Crane's role was a cameo. So tiny that it's practically insignificant if not for the fact that he's condemning people to death.

Unless I become too tired, I feel it's best for my opinions to still be heard and you feel the same I presume.
I usually stop when I feel the discussion has run it's course. It has not reached that point yet.

Alfred telling Bruce he hasn't been in the Batcave in a while
Being in the Batcave doesn't mean he was Batman when he was. He was in the Batcave in this scene you mentioned. Was he Batman then? No.

Batman telling Gordon he wasn't needed because they won. That supports my theory.
How does that support your theory?

And we've been through this already, so no need to get into this specific topic again
Ok fine, but if you want further proof, go watch the character special features when you get your blu-ray copy. Nolan spells out Bruce's leg injury and need for a cane is from the fall with Harvey Dent at the end of TDK.

but if you think Maroni took control when Falcone was gone in Arkham for what you believe to only be a few days, then why couldn't someone have taken control over the mob after Maroni's exit which would keep Batman around until the Dent Act was created?
Two ways to look at this;

1. Between Joker and Dent, the mob was severely crippled. Joker killed Gambol and the Chechen. Dent killed Maroni. Joker also took over the underworld. That would have taken some time to recover from.

2. Who says someone didn't step in for Maroni and they got nailed by the Dent Act?

Why not? A simple sentencing of 'Exile or Death'. Someone with importance had to have that role of a predictable sentencing?
Yes. Tailor made for Crane who loves fear. Sentencing terrified people to terrible fates.

"Sold to the man in the cold sweat".

He was loving their fear.

So could it have been possible the same could have happened after Maroni died which would call for Batman to stick around until the Dent Act was created as I mentioned above?
Was the mob as severely damaged at the end of Begins as it was in TDK? Were several of it's key members murdered? Were 549 of them locked up? Did a 'freak' take over the underworld?

Where else would Falcone be? He was too messed in the head to have even tried to run off like the other Arkham inmates.
Where would he be? How about cured and in a prison cell thanks to Batman's antidote.

Pivotal only being that they were helping the LoS once they escaped.
That's not pivotal. Do you know what pivotal means? It means essential/vital/critical.

The help of the Blackgate inmates was none of that.

Plus I'm not even saying they aren't viewed as some bonus for Bane.
That's good. Your choice of wording is just off.

Also saying the comparisons would've been added more to Joker even in his cameo as well
What difference would it make? Comparisons would have happened no matter what.

as I'm sure Joker would have had another mental game of chase with Batman even in a cameo as I'm sure his cameo would have had something to do with Batman.
Yes so?

Joker's already being over any other villains in this trilogy, so why wouldn't his cameo be more talked about than even the main villain?
For the simple fact he's not the main villain. Can you give me an example in ANY movie ever where a cameo character was talked about more than the main characters?

Any movie you like. Doesn't have to be confined to superhero ones.

Joker, Doc Ock, Fassbender's Magneto, General Zod, Loki, Bane after seeing TDKR. Maybe even Top Dollar from The Crow.
That's my point right here. All of those are your own personal opinion. For instance McKellan's Magneto is more popular than Fassbender's. Lex Luthor certainly more than Zod.

So look at biased views from people who go to the Spidey forums?
How are they biased? Because they don't agree with you?

Once again, let's just say we are in disagreement over this. I do feel that Joker would carry most of the buzz off of TDKR.
As you wish.

Spider-Man 2 - Doc Ock was the best villain of Raimi's entire trilogy, and while seeing Norman Osborn appearing was very awesome indeed, it didn't overshadow the best villain of the trilogy.
It didn't over shadow him because cameos never do.

Spider-Man 3 - I honestly don't think anyone can find anything praise worthy for the third film

but people have acknowledged Dafoe's cameo as being a highlight.
A highlight. Did it overshadow the discussions of the movie's characters? No.

First Class - Were people really excited to see Wolverine once more especially after X-Men Origins: Wolverine?
Yes they were. One bad movie doesn't mean the characters are suddenly rubbish. Have you seen the excitement of seeing Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan in the next X-Men movies? People didn't lose interest in them just because X-Men 3 was bad.

Wolverine - It was nice in seeing Xavier, but the idea that it contradicts continuity would take away said excitement. I know it did with me.
How did it contradict continuity?

"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote