How much did Ledgers death change the ending of DK?

[batman1]

Does anybody know how the Dark Knight was originally meant to end? From my understanding they had to redo the end.

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by batman1

Does anybody know how the Dark Knight was originally meant to end? From my understanding they had to redo the end.

Why would they have to change it? He had finished filming and they were in editing when he died.

[batman1]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

Why would they have to change it? He had finished filming and they were in editing when he died.

Ok I didn't know. That's why I asked.

[NewYorkSpider]

Yeah, it didn't change a thing. I honestly don't think it changed TDKR story either.

[Spooderman]

I heard some people speculate that Joker would have been the judge in TDKR instead of Scarecrow.

[Drizzle]

Originally Posted by NewYorkSpider

Yeah, it didn't change a thing. I honestly don't think it changed TDKR story either.

The story for TDKR wasn't planned out until after Ledger's death. Had he been alive, I absolutely believe The Joker would have been a part of it, albeit in a smaller role than TDK.

[batman1]

I guess it worked out the way it was supposed to.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Spooderman

I heard some people speculate that Joker would have been the judge in TDKR instead of Scarecrow.

Unfounded speculation. As if Joker would be interested in playing Judge for the LOS.

[BatLobsterRises]

Eh, I think it could've been written that way if they wanted it to and it could've been a pretty satisfying cameo. I think Joker would see the humor in him of all people being a judge, giving people two rotten choices and watching them squirm, and knowing that they're all going to die anyway. I think he'd find it all deliciously ironic and pretty hilarious actually.

The only thing is you couldn't just have The Joker in a Batman film and not have him scheming to "play" with Batman somehow too, so there'd have to be more story changes. You couldn't just swap Crane for Joker, but I do think The Joker as the judge could've potentially worked for part of his hypothetical TDKR role.

[shauner111]

It could work. But i preferred Crane. The cameo that i would have wanted from Joker would be in Arkham Asylum, much like the novelization. I think Nolan could have done this with just the laughter filling the empty institution. As for a cameo with Heath still alive? Arkham as well, but an actual scene with Bane visiting his cell to see if he should recruit him for something specific, then he just leaves him to rot because he's too unpredictable. Just like this http://kinjamin.deviantart.com/art/T...oker-358135712

[bilbo baggins]

i think you and me are destined to do this forever. thats where its at. imho i think he would have been the main villain in rises had ledger not passed away. you could not have a " mad dog off the leash" in a cameo! his character was too powerful. but thats just my opinion. it had to end with the "unstoppable force vs the immovable object".

[shauner111]

That's possible but it wouldn't have been with Nolan because he wouldn't know what to do. He didn't want to repeat TDK. What else could he have done with Joker as the main villain? That's why i think he would have been a secondary, smaller villain at the most. A cameo at the very least.

Showing him locked up, doing some scenes with Batman or some villain, would have fit him well. Hannibal Lecter style.

Having him roam around Gotham would defeat the purpose of having Batman be the villain. That's why when we all thought TDKR would start a year or two after TDK, that Riddler or Hugo Strange would be the antagonist. That type of villain. Nygma working as a private investigator or Strange as a psychiatrist in Arkham Asylum...you know, "legally". Even having Cobblepot as a pretentious owner of a club/casino who's an arms dealer behind closed doors. But no freaks, no Jokers. Batman is the face who is the villain to the public.

And that's why Joker wouldn't be main villain material for the second time.

[The Joker]

I don't know why some people assume a return by the Joker means he'd be the main villain again. Magneto returned in X-Men 2 and he wasn't the main villain. Loki returned in Thor 2 and he wasn't the main villain.

[Tacit Ronin]

But Magneto did take affairs into his own hand and ordered Stryker's son to wipe out all of humanity right at the climax's head. I envision the Joker getting what he perceives as the last laugh at the end as well. And what would entail as that to the Joker? What would amuse him? I could see him somehow telling the Gotham denizens they are very soon disintegrating by a fusion bomb. The cloud of despair in their hearts will content the Joker, as he himself happily prepares for death.


And this is a personal fantasy, but how awesome would it have been to see the Joker kill Bane, instead of Selina Kyle?

[shauner111]

I used to love the idea of Joker ending Bane then vanishing. Maybe i still do hehe, just a bit.

[BatLobsterRises]

Selina deserved the kill more, as it was her redemption/arc completion.

Anything with The Joker would've pretty much been an automatic geek-out moment, but not necessarily what was best for the movie.

[shauner111]

I agree. The idea of Joker doing it is just a cool fanboy moment, but it doesn't make much sense in context. Also, what happens once Joker vanishes? That's too obvious of a setup for another movie where Blake goes at him. Bruce wouldn't retire knowing that Joker is back on the streets either.

Another reason why us fanboys shouldn't write the script.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Tacit Ronin

But Magneto did take affairs into his own hand and ordered Stryker's son to wipe out all of humanity right at the climax's head.

Yeah at the end of the movie after Stryker was defeated.

I envision the Joker getting what he perceives as the last laugh at the end as well. And what would entail as that to the Joker? What would amuse him? I could see him somehow telling the Gotham denizens they are very soon disintegrating by a fusion bomb. The cloud of despair in their hearts will content the Joker, as he himself happily prepares for death.

I don't see why Joker would have got any happiness from that. He only welcomed his own death when it was at Batman's or Dent's hand because it proved he pushed them over the edge and turned them into killers.

Dying with the rest of Gotham wouldn't make him happy at all. In fact Gotham's destruction is something he wouldn't want. A dead city is no fun. He never had designs on destroying Gotham in TDK.

And this is a personal fantasy, but how awesome would it have been to see the Joker kill Bane, instead of Selina Kyle?

It would have been much better than Selina doing it. She didn't have to kill Bane to show she had redemption. The fact she came back to help Batman save Gotham was more than enough to show that.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by The Joker

It would have been much better than Selina doing it. She didn't have to kill Bane to show she had redemption. The fact she came back to help Batman save Gotham was more than enough to show that.

Yeah, but for the climax of the movie you need that extra dramatic punch to really hit a point home, especially when you're trying to set up Bruce and Selina ending up together. Selina showing up and saving Batman from Bane has a lot more punch to it than her just showing up and chasing some Tumblers. She deserved that big defining moment, especially because she had collaborated with Bane and his army earlier in the film and was partially responsible for Batman getting the beating of his life.

Maybe it could've worked without her doing it, but I still feel like as a character she deserved it. Especially because Batman had already defeated Bane in the way that mattered.

[shauner111]

Yeah, Selina saving Batman. Like i said, what happens with Joker after that? Does it distract the audience for the rest of the movie if he just vanishes? Does Batman immediately capture him, and if he does, does it come off like "well that was pointless. just a way to surprise fans"...i think it would.

And the thing that people hate about the scene with Selina, is actually the point of why nolan put that in. At least i think so. Haters dont like that a woman blew him away with a canon to the chest and it was done so quick, humiliating Bane. Making him worthless in one second, instead of giving him some epic lasting dramatic death. Well, that's the point of it. He doesn't deserve glory even in death. He deserves to be shot down dead and then we move on just like it's nothing for him when he takes out somebody who is in the way of his mission.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Yeah, Selina saving Batman. Like i said, what happens with Joker after that? Does it distract the audience for the rest of the movie if he just vanishes? Does Batman immediately capture him, and if he does, does it come off like "well that was pointless. just a way to surprise fans"...i think it would.

If the Joker was in The Dark Knight Rises, the whole narrative of the story would be different. You're asking this question like if TDKR stayed just the way it was, but Joker popped up put of the blue and killed Bane, and then what happens.

Even in that context it's obvious what happens. Batman still goes after the bomb. The imminent destruction of the whole city is more important than capturing the Joker.

You're better off asking what happened to Crane in TDKR.

And the thing that people hate about the scene with Selina, is actually the point of why nolan put that in. At least i think so. Haters dont like that a woman blew him away with a canon to the chest and it was done so quick, humiliating Bane. Making him worthless in one second, instead of giving him some epic lasting dramatic death. Well, that's the point of it. He doesn't deserve glory even in death. He deserves to be shot down dead and then we move on just like it's nothing for him when he takes out somebody who is in the way of his mission.

That's not the point. It's that they're great cinematic villains, who deserve a great exit, not an embarrassing one because it humiliates and belittles the character.

I couldn't care less if Catwoman kills a villain as long as it's done in a great classy way. Not a quick blow him away with a quippy line and then he's forgotten about right away. There was no impact to Bane's death. It was ridiculous.

[shauner111]

Very true but even if Batman goes off towards the bomb, which is the most logical reaction, it would still come off as a gimmick to have Joker make a cameo to blow Bane anyway. Even if Joker was in a few scenes in the movie (let's pretend the story remains intact for the most part) it's still weird. Some interactions with Bane or making it about the fact that he doesn't agree with his mission, that helps the flow if he's shoots Bane in the head with a shotgun. But it's still like "OK he disappears like a ghost, but now Bruce aint gonna quit Batman cuz he still has Joker on the streets".

See i like how he's blown away like nothing. He gets what he deserves. To be blown away like nothing.

Sure there was impact! He took a canon to the chest and was thrown across the room like a ragdoll!

[pr0xyt0xin]

I wholeheartedly don't believe his death affected TDK at all. At least not drastically in any way.

I do however, believe that had Ledger still been alive, Nolan would have had him play the part of the Judge in TDKR rather than Cillian Murphy. Just my two cents.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by The Joker

You're better off asking what happened to Crane in TDKR.

That's the sad true with Nolan's Crane. Nobody at all cares.

[Just_Human]

Im glad we didnt have the Joker in TDKR

Dont get me wrong, RIP Ledger