View Single Post
Old 12-03-2012, 05:55 PM   #70
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
The Joker's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 48,797
Default Re: A theory about an alternate TDKR with the Joker

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
The "problem" is that since he didn't, once again, it seemed like just using another plot we've seen already of Crane being just the pawn.
Like you've seen a plot already of the LOS trying to destroy Gotham with a doomsday device, and an Al Ghul at the center of it pretending to be someone they're not.

But less than 2 minutes of Crane playing a Judge bothers you.

It's mind boggling.

If Nolan can't think of something else for Crane when he's deserving of something better, he shouldn't have been used the same way as was in BB.
He wasn't used the same as in BB. He had a prominent role and was a major factor in the LOS scheme. Here was just being a Judge during the siege. Nothing he did was essential to the LOS plan. They just gave him the job of sentencing the guilty.

Ehh, I never said I enjoyed the idea of the LoS wanting to destroy Gotham City again, only that I liked the "false hope" idea that Bane wanted to use as part of his plan.
Oh so you dislike Bane's plan, too, then?

But of course someone would bring up all the things that happens again just because I didn't like one thing. Is it so bad to not like something; apparently you do but yet we can't harp on you? No offense, but it seems like when you or someone else that doesn't like TDKR makes their complaints, they get re-quoted and their posts are agreed upon, but one mention of me not liking Crane's cameo or thinking it's even necessary and it goes through the roof.
You're being needlessly dramatic. Your chief complaint with Crane's 2 minutes of screen time is that it is a repeat of the furniture of BB. Well so is half of TDKR. That's why I raised it. It's applicable to the nature of your argument here.

So why is a cameo more annoying to you than the other large more prominent repetitive stuff?

So you didn't need to be 'spoon fed' into how Crane, one person, was released out of Arkham? I think it's rather important in finding out how they were able to get only one person out of Arkham Asylum.
You think it's important to find out how someone who had full control of the city and could do anything they wanted had one person set free from Arkham?

Seriously you're saying that?

I've really already said my reasons above, so I won't repeat myself, lol.
That ship has long sailed lol

Could he have been Batman? Yes. Could he have not? Yes. Both theories, really.
No, not really when everyone else in the movie, and the director of the movie say not.

Because if Maroni could take control of Falcone's mob in a matter of days, then someone could have easily done the same after Maroni's death and Batman would need to be around until the day the mobs could no longer have a stronghold over Gotham, i.e., the formation of the Dent Act.
That is entirely dependent on when the Dent Act went into effect, or if indeed anyone did take over the Maroni's place.

Two pieces of information you do not have.

But even that, the injury would have to get worse and worse for it to be in the condition he's in eight years later. Bruce could still be able to do what he can until that moment, could he not?
No, he couldn't, because at the end of TDK he is limping and stumbling when he's being chased by the Cops. Batman's not going to be going out fighting crime with ANY kind of physical impairment like a limp.

If he was still required as Batman, he'd have seen to it that he repaired his injury by seeking medical assistance like he did when he decided to go back into action in TDKR. But he didn't.

Wouldn't it only take as much time as it was for the mobs to recover after Falcone was sent away?
Do you equate Falcone being put away to several head mob guys being murdered, 549 of their number being jailed, and the Joker taking over their territory?

]Depends on how long you think it took for the Dent Act to be created and put into law.
8 years since that's when Batman hung up his cape and cowl.

"And the eight year period is about showing that he’s retired in a sense, that he’s hung up his cape and his cowl. But he hasn’t been able to move on, he’s stuck."

Ehh, I guess if you look at Crane being used because fear was a theme once again used in TDKR, but I feel that anyone could have done this. Crane can be thought of by being used on a thematic level.
Anyone could have done it but not anyone would enjoy it as much as Crane, and anyone has not proven devotion, obedience, and competence to the LOS in Gotham like Crane.

I would say yes, it was just as damaged.
Think hard before you pursue this one with me; you are going to try and argue with me now that Falcone's lone incarceration is the equivalent to several head mob guys being killed, 549 of the mob being locked up, their money being burned, and a freak taking over their turf.

In as much detail you can, counteract how Falcone's incarceration is as devastating as all of that to the mob.

The "heads" were sent away or killed off
Yeah, so how is this like the end of Batman Begins?

and I doubt all 549 were low level guys that couldn't get their way out of jail time.
"The mid level guys can't make bail. They can't afford to be off the streets long enough for trial and appeal. They'll cut deals that include some jail time"

So one of two things are happening with them according to Dent;

1. They're staying in jail


2. They're making deals by selling out other mob heads to get reduced sentences

Either way the mob is taking damage.

Then once again, I comment the fact that why would Dent mention Falcone's time being in Arkham is the reason Maroni took control of the mob. Did it happen THAT fast?
Yes. When a huge crime empire loses it's leader, they don't put a wanted ad in the newspaper. They appoint someone to take over all those rackets and operations A.S.A.P.

Given how filthy and corrupt Gotham was back then, the line would be forming around the block.

They weren't anything like unsubstantial though because they did expand Bane's army.
Yeah, the bolstered Bane's already healthy ranks. That's helpful, but not pivotal.

Only saying the comparisons would have been even more if Joker had anything to do with Batman in TDKR, that's all.

Just saying why Joker would be compared even more. With more stuff to do in TDKR, that would be only more for Joker's favor. It would be as if Bane has no means by even being somewhat of a close threat to Joker.
Unless the Joker was carrying out a master plan of his own that rivaled Bane's villainous antics in TDKR, a cameo would not damage Bane's villainous status in the movie.

What about Hannibal Lector being talked about more than the villain of Buffalo Bill?
Three things;

1. That's not a cameo. That's two villains in the same movie.

2. Lecter's material was infinitely more deep and compelling than Buffalo Bill's

3. A more prominent and superior actor played Lecter

But still, Joker WOULD be talked about showing up in another film as one of the greatest CBM villains, yes?
Yes, nobody said there wouldn't be any talk. Just that it wouldn't dominate everything else like you're suggesting.

I don't know why you even asked about my favorite villains.
I wanted to see whom you consider the best villains so I can gauge how you measure the kind of villains who would cause a sensation.

Spider-Man fans that would throw **** at any other CBMs. That would make them biased.
Anno, this is just conjectural bias on your part. I've seen plenty of Batman fans do the same thing. And other Marvel fans, not just Spidey ones.

But I don't taint the whole fan base with the same brush. You're going to have to do a lot better than just some flimsy accusation that the Spidey fans base hate all other CBMs.

But once again, we never had a scenario of the most popular villain in a specific series showing up in another film where they're not the main villain.
Oh so it has to be a villain, and not just a popular character?

Explain what's the difference.

Lol, just shows how sad Spider-Man 3 is when there has to be a thread to bring up what is actually liked about the film, but needless to say, but I don't really get your point.
The point is you don't see anyone say anything positive about Spider-Man 3. There's ten pages of it for you, and you're among the contributors.

No one really is bringing up any of the villains, only specific battles or the birth of either Sandman or Venom. I am guilty to even mention the latter two.

That's just from the first three pages, and nothing to do with fights or birth scenes. This was just the first thread that came to hand because it's on the first page of the Spider-Man 1,2,3 forum.

I can show you more if you want?

Were there any discussions of any of the villains except their births or fight scenes? No.
Yes there was. Tons of it. Are you kidding with this?

Take a good look through that for starters.

I am excited too, but I also thought X-Men 3 wasn't terribly bad. I enjoy it much more than Spider-Man 3, but Wolverine: Origins was indeed the most disliked X-Men film, and also my most disliked X-Men film.
Your personal movie preferences aside, it doesn't change the fact that X-Men 3 is vastly unpopular with the fan base, and it has not damaged the fan love for Xavier and Magneto played by Stewart and McKellan.

Xavier walking; a teen Emma Frost who can turn into diamonds, although not using telepathic powers, could very well be the Emma Frost we know even though we see an older one in X-Men: First Class.
Xavier was seen walking at the start of X-Men 3, too. It's never established in that continuity when he lost the use of it's legs. It's First Class which came AFTER Wolverine which decided to ignore the continuity of the previous movies in that regard, and several others.

Same with Emma Frost.

"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