The Dark Knight Rises A theory about an alternate TDKR with the Joker

[Ryan]

I'm confused. How do we know that Crane was in Arkham? I understand he was put there in Begins but how do we know after he was caught in TDK that he was put back there? Of course, we can speculate, but I like proof instead
Wouldn't matter either way as Bane could bust out anyone he wanted by that point in TDKR, no explanation needed. Plus I really don't read too much into the cameo's of the Scarecrow in TDK or in TDKR as part of some great Shakepearan act by Nolan. He had him in there for pure fun and fan service. Both movies would have been just as fine without him.

 

[The Joker]

Even though I never said it was written badly? Lol.

"I actually didn't like Crane showing up in TDKR as well because he would have been in Arkham Asylum and since there was nothing mentioned about TDKR, Crane's appearances just seemed off."

The lack of a mention of Arkham and him being there seemed off implies bad writing.

And while it doesn't contradict anything, it is simply a bit of a pull back reaction to see Crane being the only Arkham inmate out of Arkham.

Why? Who's easier to control? A legion of insane criminals or sane ones?

Not at all. Is Crane still being some pawn without knowing the true intention of the LoS as was the case in BB?

Yes. But he was unaware of that.

Hey, not everyone can have the same exact opinions as you do.

I never said they should and I would never want them to either. Then where would I be without having pages and pages of these fun multi quotes posts?

I know it's hard to understand, but I do find it more settling that Batman could have been still in action until the Dent Act was created as opposed to Bane and his men deciding to release one inmate from Arkham who was only a pawn to the League's plan when Ra's was alive. And to release said Arkham inmate to only perform as a judge in a kangaroo court when anyone could've been in that role, as even a member of the LoS.

Ok two things;

1. You can have all the theories you like. You just don't have anything from the movie that supports it regarding Batman and the 8 year gap. But you can believe what ever you want. My point is you are perfectly happy to apply a logic like that to one thing, but cannot imagine something so absurdly simple as breaking out one inmate from Arkham. You actually wanted to be spoon fed such a thing in the movie.

2. Crane serving as the Judge for residents of Gotham instead of just "anyone" or another LOS member makes more sense because Crane is a resident of Gotham and therefore is in a better position to pass sentence on other Gotham citizens. Second he is a cut above your average LOS member when it comes to intelligence. He's a doctor. He's a far smarter choice.

Dent said while he's in Arkham Asylum, someone(Maroni) took control of the mob. It would be most logical to suggest Falcone is still in Arkham Asylum, otherwise it would've been mentioned while in court that Falcone is now in prison.

Why is that? Dent is mentioning that the Falcone empire lost it's leader when Falcone was put in Arkham. So that means someone had to step in and run everything.

That doesn't mean Falcone is still languishing in Arkham months later.

It would also make sense to say Falcone is in prison now, though. Or he could have simply said while Falcone was away in prison rather than Arkham if Falcone is given the antidote and was sent to prison. Would it be necessary to mention Falcone's stay in Arkham, given the time table for him to be cured would have been perhaps a week's time after BB's events?

Yes it would, because it was Falcone's transfer to Arkham that made his position up for grabs. And most likely when Maroni stepped in to run things.

Remember this all happened in Begins in the space of a couple of days.

They became pivotal in helping the League. That is 100% fact that they became a valuable part in helping out the League's plans. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been helping the League at all.

How were they pivotal to helping the League when Bane's plan was never ever reliant on them to begin with? They were helping the League because Bane set them free and armed them with guns.

It's simply a case of the more the merrier. Not a case of we need the numbers to run the city.

I act as that? Just by saying Joker is already being compared with Bane? By saying 'already', I think you could understand that I am aware already they're being compared. Maybe I should have used bold...

But Anno, that is the same for all movies. Within days of TDK's release Ra's was compared to Joker. Sandman and Venom were compared to Doc Ock after Spider-Man 3's release etc.

It also happens with the movies right after release. Comparing which movie is better. It's the nature of the beast with superhero fans. They always compare.

Comparisons to the Joker were inevitable.

Such as he would be even in a little cameo moreso then the main villain. It's silly to not say this won't happen.

It's sillier to say it would happen based on no proof at all, or even past examples of where a villain cameo did that.

Seems as though you're giving Joker less credit just because it would have been a cameo.

No, I'm not. I concede there would have been some buzz for Joker appearing in the movie again in any capacity. But to say a cameo would have dwarfed everyone else in the movie is the height of insanity.

You are aware of how fans are, right?

I am. That's why I'm confident in saying this. Unless you can give me some examples of your alleged scenario that would happen, because I've given you some examples of mine.

Plus, you're speaking on a film that has zero praise for any of the villains, or zero praise for pretty much anything. You sure that's a good example?

You mean Spider-Man 3? Wouldn't the fact that there is so little praise for the villains in it mean that even more praise would be given to Norman?

I'm saying if Joker was in TDKR. You would have kept talking about his cameo even with a film you didn't like.

Well thanks for telling me what you think I would have kept doing. But I think I know myself better than you.

Such as...?

Norman in the Spider-Man sequels, Wolverine in First Class, Xavier in Wolverine etc.

All mega popular characters, but did you see everyone talking so much about them more than the majority of the main characters in the movies?

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm confused. How do we know that Crane was in Arkham? I understand he was put there in Begins but how do we know after he was caught in TDK that he was put back there? Of course, we can speculate, but I like proof instead
Wouldn't matter either way as Bane could bust out anyone he wanted by that point in TDKR, no explanation needed. Plus I really don't read too much into the cameo's of the Scarecrow in TDK or in TDKR as part of some great Shakepearan act by Nolan. He had him in there for pure fun and fan service. Both movies would have been just as fine without him.

Imo, Crane would have been in Arkham Asylum because he was a crazed man who created a gas that would bring out someone's greatest fears, as well as it's up in the air that he's even cured after being gassed himself in Batman Begins.

Also, while both of his cameos in TDK and TDKR could be viewed as just fun fan service, his cameo in TDK is also for continuity's sake since he went MIA after the events in BB and it was shown that Batman was still trying to clean up those events by bringing in any escapees from Arkham, which included Scarecrow.

"I actually didn't like Crane showing up in TDKR as well because he would have been in Arkham Asylum and since there was nothing mentioned about TDKR, Crane's appearances just seemed off."

The lack of a mention of Arkham and him being there seemed off implies bad writing.

It would have helped in the reasoning of why Crane showed up, but it's not necessarily bad writing.

Why? Who's easier to control? A legion of insane criminals or sane ones?

You're asking this question even when I asked why Crane is even there to begin with, who's mostly likely insane?

Yes. But he was unaware of that.

And he's unaware of Bane wanting to destroy Gotham City which includes Crane himself. Just using Crane the same exact way, so how is it any better?

I never said they should and I would never want them to either. Then where would I be without having pages and pages of these fun multi quotes posts?

Probably being at a much peaceful place in these forums where you don't have to reply to multi-quote posts day after day, I know I would, but I try to keep up until I'm just too dead tired to reply.

Ok two things;

1. You can have all the theories you like. You just don't have anything from the movie that supports it regarding Batman and the 8 year gap. But you can believe what ever you want. My point is you are perfectly happy to apply a logic like that to one thing, but cannot imagine something so absurdly simple as breaking out one inmate from Arkham. You actually wanted to be spoon fed such a thing in the movie.

No support? Certain pieces of dialogue does support my theory, wild or not.

2. Crane serving as the Judge for residents of Gotham instead of just "anyone" or another LOS member makes more sense because Crane is a resident of Gotham and therefore is in a better position to pass sentence on other Gotham citizens. Second he is a cut above your average LOS member when it comes to intelligence. He's a doctor. He's a far smarter choice.

Passing what sentence though? Just tossing out the cops and mostly the rich citizens out unto the ice river. You have to be a Gothamite to pass such a predictable sentencing?

Why is that? Dent is mentioning that the Falcone empire lost it's leader when Falcone was put in Arkham. So that means someone had to step in and run everything.

That doesn't mean Falcone is still languishing in Arkham months later.

So you're saying he's only mentioning the few days Falcone was put away in Arkham, someone needed to get a hold of power quickly in a matter of days?

Yes it would, because it was Falcone's transfer to Arkham that made his position up for grabs. And most likely when Maroni stepped in to run things.

Remember this all happened in Begins in the space of a couple of days.

Exactly; a couple of days. I don't buy Maroni having to step up that quickly.

How were they pivotal to helping the League when Bane's plan was never ever reliant on them to begin with? They were helping the League because Bane set them free and armed them with guns.

It's simply a case of the more the merrier. Not a case of we need the numbers to run the city.

I say they were pivotal because once they became part of Bane's plan after finding out about the truth about Dent, these criminals were handed guns and went along with the LoS in patrolling/policing the city, escorting people unto the ice river, hunting down cops, etc. That to me, shows them that they were pivotal to a point that they became allies to the League in that regard even if not knowing about the League's true intentions.

But Anno, that is the same for all movies. Within days of TDK's release Ra's was compared to Joker. Sandman and Venom were compared to Doc Ock after Spider-Man 3's release etc.

It also happens with the movies right after release. Comparing which movie is better. It's the nature of the beast with superhero fans. They always compare.

Comparisons to the Joker were inevitable.

And making comparisons isn't even my point. I'm saying Joker would be compared EVEN more if he had some important plot with Batman, even with a cameo that'll tally up in his favor with still saying who is the better villain, even in the trilogy as a whole.

It's sillier to say it would happen based on no proof at all, or even past examples of where a villain cameo did that.

It's silly to say Joker would be the talk of TDKR even as a cameo because of simply it being Joker?

No, I'm not. I concede there would have been some buzz for Joker appearing in the movie again in any capacity. But to say a cameo would have dwarfed everyone else in the movie is the height of insanity.

You say some buzz, I say major buzz. I think it would indeed dwarf the amount of attention Bane would receive.

I am. That's why I'm confident in saying this. Unless you can give me some examples of your alleged scenario that would happen, because I've given you some examples of mine.

I can't give any examples as we've never had seen one of the greatest villains in a CBM show up in a cameo, which yes, would've create massive hype.

You mean Spider-Man 3? Wouldn't the fact that there is so little praise for the villains in it mean that even more praise would be given to Norman?

Would that much even be given to Norman who wasn't that great of a villain to begin with(imo)?

Well thanks for telling me what you think I would have kept doing. But I think I know myself better than you.

I concede there would have been some buzz for Joker appearing in the movie again in any capacity.

So you wouldn't have contributed to this then?

Norman in the Spider-Man sequels, Wolverine in First Class, Xavier in Wolverine etc.

All mega popular characters, but did you see everyone talking so much about them more than the majority of the main characters in the movies?

Popular comic book characters yes, but did any of them make as much buzz as Joker has in any CBM?

 

[The Joker]

It would have helped in the reasoning of why Crane showed up, but it's not necessarily bad writing.

I agree.

You're asking this question even when I asked why Crane is even there to begin with, who's mostly likely insane?

Crane is there because he's one man who worked loyally for the LOS in Gotham before. He's not an uncontrollable psychopath. He's a cool, calculating psycho who knows how to follow orders as was shown in Begins.

And he's unaware of Bane wanting to destroy Gotham City which includes Crane himself. Just using Crane the same exact way, so how is it any better?

Any better than what? You asked why Crane would be here again, I gave you an answer. He worked for the LOS before, the LOS was under new management, with a whole new scheme, and in control of Gotham.

What other reasons did you want to hear?

Probably being at a much peaceful place in these forums where you don't have to reply to multi-quote posts day after day, I know I would, but I try to keep up until I'm just too dead tired to reply.

Nobody is forcing you to reply. If you feel this is disrupting the harmony in any way then the logical thing to do would be not to respond and keep it going.

No support? Certain pieces of dialogue does support my theory, wild or not.

No dialogue supports it. But there's multiple quotes that say Batman's been gone for 8 years. Nolan himself said the 8 year gap is the retirement period for Batman.

It's so straight forward.

Passing what sentence though? Just tossing out the cops and mostly the rich citizens out unto the ice river. You have to be a Gothamite to pass such a predictable sentencing?

Yes, these were the courts for the guilty and the corrupt of Gotham. They were not going to let any Joe blow have this task.

So you're saying he's only mentioning the few days Falcone was put away in Arkham, someone needed to get a hold of power quickly in a matter of days?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. When Falcone was put into Arkham after going "crazy", the Falcone empire was left without a leader. Hence why Dent said with Falcone in Arkham someone had to step up to run the crime family.

Exactly; a couple of days. I don't buy Maroni having to step up that quickly.

You can buy what you like. Gordon said the Narrows was lost at the end of Begins. That's where Arkham was. So what makes you think Falcone was even still in there anyway when the whole Narrows island was done for.

I say they were pivotal because once they became part of Bane's plan after finding out about the truth about Dent, these criminals were handed guns and went along with the LoS in patrolling/policing the city, escorting people unto the ice river, hunting down cops, etc. That to me, shows them that they were pivotal to a point that they became allies to the League in that regard even if not knowing about the League's true intentions.

I don't know how many times a fact so simple as Bane's plan never ever relying on man power from Blackgate to take over and run Gotham. If it did, I'd be agreeing with you. But the Dent lie was just an accidental bonus and just added more troops to Bane's already healthy ranks.

Pivotal doesn't come into it when it comes to the Blackgate inmates. They were an accidental unexpected bonus.

And making comparisons isn't even my point. I'm saying Joker would be compared EVEN more if he had some important plot with Batman, even with a cameo that'll tally up in his favor with still saying who is the better villain, even in the trilogy as a whole.

Then your point is moot, because whether he was in it or not, he still would have been compared to Bane. If the villain was Mr. Freeze in TDK, it would have been him getting compared to Bane.

The outcome would have been the same in regards to comparisons. The Joker just happens to be a better and more popular villain for the majority.

It's silly to say Joker would be the talk of TDKR even as a cameo because of simply it being Joker?

Yes exactly. You are basically saying a came from him would eclipse all the new characters just because it's the Joker.

It sounds ridiculous.

You say some buzz, I say major buzz. I think it would indeed dwarf the amount of attention Bane would receive.

Fine. I don't understand your logic for that though.

I can't give any examples as we've never had seen one of the greatest villains in a CBM show up in a cameo, which yes, would've create massive hype.

Who do you consider greatest villains in a CBM?

Would that much even be given to Norman who wasn't that great of a villain to begin with(imo)?

Go to the Spidey forums and ask do they think Dafoe was a great villain. Then you'll see.

So you wouldn't have contributed to this then?

Of course I would. But to say this buzz would have been the predominant buzz over the whole movie and all the new characters is a falsity.

Popular comic book characters yes, but did any of them make as much buzz as Joker has in any CBM?

That's not the point. Those characters are big popular fishes in their fan base pond. They didn't steal the limelight from everyone in the movies they had a cameo in.

 

[jmc]

In terms of Bruce sharing a cell with The Joker, to me anyway the vibe I've gotten from TDK was that The Joker didn't really want to know who Batman was and wouldn't want to know who Batman is, he's the Joker's inspiration, as he says 'You complete me'.

 

[Marvolo]

[YT]TQZt1uprCF8[/YT]

This video makes me smile...and then it makes me really sad thinking that we lost a wonderful person, actor, and Joker all too soon.

Joker would def do something like this. Nobody kills Batman but him. Just think of some of the moments we could have gotten sticking Ledger's Joker in a scene with Bane.

 

[BH/HHH]

I always think they should have shown Batman bringing in Victor Zsaz

 

[not_a_victim]

[YT]TQZt1uprCF8[/YT]

As much as would have liked to have seen Ledger reprise his role for TDKR, this is a hack idea. I don't think Nolan et al would in any way allow this sort of Deus ex machina in the form of the Joker to prevent his death.

Now maybe, if Joker had been in the movie all along, and turned against Bane to do this, then maybe, but certainly not as his first appearance all the way in the third act.

 

[CrypticOne]

Has Nolan or someone that knows the story come forward and explained what Ledger's role would have been in TDKR? If not, I hope sometime in the future they shed some light on it. Would be a cool thing to know.

 

[not_a_victim]

Has Nolan or someone that knows the story come forward and explained what Ledger's role would have been in TDKR? If not, I hope sometime in the future they shed some light on it. Would be a cool thing to know.

If the Joker's speech to Batman at the end of the movie is any indication...

Spoiler

1. Joker would have been in the third movie.
-"you and i are destined to do this forever"
2. Joker was going to break the news to Gotham that Dent was a murderer.
- TDKR could have been Batman's fight to keep Dent's clean image alive

Which is basically the plot of TDKR, substituting Bane for Joker.

 

[uniqueweasel]

I always think they should have shown Batman bringing in Victor Zsaz

I also think that

 

[Anno_Domini]

Crane is there because he's one man who worked loyally for the LOS in Gotham before. He's not an uncontrollable psychopath. He's a cool, calculating psycho who knows how to follow orders as was shown in Begins.

Sure he knows how to follow orders when he doesn't know the true intentions of the LoS. But once again, being a pawn once more isn't something they should've done again. 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?

Any better than what? You asked why Crane would be here again, I gave you an answer. He worked for the LOS before, the LOS was under new management, with a whole new scheme, and in control of Gotham.

What other reasons did you want to hear?

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"?

Nobody is forcing you to reply. If you feel this is disrupting the harmony in any way then the logical thing to do would be not to respond and keep it going.

Unless I become too tired, I feel it's best for my opinions to still be heard and you feel the same I presume.

No dialogue supports it. But there's multiple quotes that say Batman's been gone for 8 years. Nolan himself said the 8 year gap is the retirement period for Batman.

It's so straight forward.

Alfred telling Bruce he hasn't been in the Batcave in a while, Batman telling Gordon he wasn't needed because they won. That supports my theory. And we've been through this already, so no need to get into this specific topic again, 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?

Yes, these were the courts for the guilty and the corrupt of Gotham. They were not going to let any Joe blow have this task.

Why not? A simple sentencing of 'Exile or Death'. Someone with importance had to have that role of a predictable sentencing?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. When Falcone was put into Arkham after going "crazy", the Falcone empire was left without a leader. Hence why Dent said with Falcone in Arkham someone had to step up to run the crime family.

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?

You can buy what you like. Gordon said the Narrows was lost at the end of Begins. That's where Arkham was. So what makes you think Falcone was even still in there anyway when the whole Narrows island was done for.

Where else would Falcone be? He was too messed in the head to have even tried to run off like the other Arkham inmates.

I don't know how many times a fact so simple as Bane's plan never ever relying on man power from Blackgate to take over and run Gotham. If it did, I'd be agreeing with you. But the Dent lie was just an accidental bonus and just added more troops to Bane's already healthy ranks.

Pivotal doesn't come into it when it comes to the Blackgate inmates. They were an accidental unexpected bonus.

Pivotal only being that they were helping the LoS once they escaped. That's what I meant by using the word as pivotal as they build up the numbers for Bane's army, that's all. Plus I'm not even saying they aren't viewed as some bonus for Bane.

Then your point is moot, because whether he was in it or not, he still would have been compared to Bane. If the villain was Mr. Freeze in TDK, it would have been him getting compared to Bane.

The outcome would have been the same in regards to comparisons. The Joker just happens to be a better and more popular villain for the majority.

Also saying the comparisons would've been added more to Joker even in his cameo as well 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 exactly. You are basically saying a came from him would eclipse all the new characters just because it's the Joker.

It sounds ridiculous.

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?

Fine. I don't understand your logic for that though.

It's fine if you don't. I'm not telling you to get my logic.

Who do you consider greatest villains in a CBM?

Joker, Doc Ock, Fassbender's Magneto, General Zod, Loki, Bane after seeing TDKR. Maybe even Top Dollar from The Crow.

Go to the Spidey forums and ask do they think Dafoe was a great villain. Then you'll see.

So look at biased views from people who go to the Spidey forums?

Of course I would. But to say this buzz would have been the predominant buzz over the whole movie and all the new characters is a falsity.

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.

That's not the point. Those characters are big popular fishes in their fan base pond. They didn't steal the limelight from everyone in the movies they had a cameo in.

Norman in the Spider-Man sequels, Wolverine in First Class, Xavier in Wolverine etc.

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.

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.

First Class - Were people really excited to see Wolverine once more especially after X-Men Origins: Wolverine?

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.

 

[BlueLightning]

I thought that Bane would have loosed Joker out upon the city.

I read some of the comments, and I just wanted to add a little something about this. Bane was an intelligent man, I don't think he would release an unpredictable dangerous maniac like the Joker. He is a wild card, if anything he would have kept him from interfering.

Also about Crane, I thought he went insane. Lucius did make a cure, but nor Crane or Falcone were treated with readiness, and they were exposed to a concentrated dose, unlike the diluted toxin in the water supply. I thought that was the reason Crane kept using his Scarecrow mask on TDK, and lacing the drugs with his fear toxin with no reason whatsoever.

 

[The Joker]

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.

Please.

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

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=369001

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?

 

[Compi716]

All the way back in the days and months following the release of Batman Begins, there was talk about how Goyer had a rough outline for a trilogy, where the Joker would be the villain of film 2 and Two Face the villain of film 3, with the Joker still playing some sort of role. After TDK, those plans obviously changed, but there were always rumors about how the death of Heath Ledger had a big impact on Nolan's initial plans for a third film. I remember hearing that a sort of Hannibal Lector type role was being eyed for the Joker. There's no way to tell just how true or false those rumors were, but after watching a few TDKR clips on YouTube, I thought of something.

Could have Nolan's idea of a TDKR with the Joker have been something like this?:

Bane is still the main villain of the film, but instead of locking up Bruce in an underground prison in the middle of nowhere, Bane puts him in a rebuilt Arkham Asylum, which has an underground component. Bruce is thrown into a psychiatric jungle after being beaten, broken, and battered, and his cellmate is none other than the Joker himself. Bane uses Arkham rather than the Pit as his holding cell for all the people he either wants tortured or eliminated. In some weird, twisted way, Bruce would have to work with the Joker in order to escape.

Now, with regard to the rest of the plot, there's no way to tell how it all would have worked out, but I can't help but think that a lot of the prison scenes in TDKR were leftovers from older ideas about what TDKR would be.

It certainly puts a whole new meaning to the ending of TDK, where the Joker says that he and Bats should share a prison cell (and interestingly enough, this only occured to me AFTER I came up with the idea above).

Yeah, I'll say it: I think this would've been pretty great. Having Batman locked in Arkham, surrounded by the freaks he put there, would have been so epic. During the lead up to TDK, I was seriously hoping the third film would have a Dark Victory-style Arkham breakout, with Scarecrow, Joker and Two-Face at the front and center.

 

[Ryan]

I was pulling for a Dark Victory or Arkham Asylum styled TDKR as well.

 

[JackWhite]

I was pulling for a Dark Victory or Arkham Asylum styled TDKR as well.

Who wouldn't have wanted to see this played out with Bale-Bats and Heath-Joker?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Which he doesn't here either. So what's your problem?

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. 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.

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.

Please.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've really already said my reasons above, so I won't repeat myself, lol.

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.

Could he have been Batman? Yes. Could he have not? Yes. Both theories, really.

How does that support your theory?

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.

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 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?

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.

Wouldn't it only take as much time as it was for the mobs to recover after Falcone was sent away?

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

Depends on how long you think it took for the Dent Act to be created and put into law.

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.

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.

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?

I would say yes, it was just as damaged. The "heads" were sent away or killed off and I doubt all 549 were low level guys that couldn't get their way out of jail time.

Where would he be? How about cured and in a prison cell thanks to Batman's antidote.

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?

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.

That's good. Your choice of wording is just off.

They weren't anything like unsubstantial though because they did expand Bane's army.

What difference would it make? Comparisons would have happened no matter what.

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

Yes so?

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.

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.

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

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.

But still, Joker WOULD be talked about showing up in another film as one of the greatest CBM villains, yes? I don't know why you even asked about my favorite villains.

How are they biased? Because they don't agree with you?

Spider-Man fans that would throw **** at any other CBMs. That would make them biased.

It didn't over shadow him because cameos never do.

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.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=369001

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. 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.

A highlight. Did it overshadow the discussions of the movie's characters? No.

Were there any discussions of any of the villains except their births or fight scenes? No.

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.

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.

How did it contradict continuity?

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.

I was pulling for a Dark Victory or Arkham Asylum styled TDKR as well.

Something of Dark Victory? Yes, but we sorta gets hints from that even with Robin being introduced and Catwoman being used. Also, Catwoman heading to Italy anyone?

But an AA-styled TDKR was never going to happen though. It really wouldn't make sense with it being aligned in Nolan's series.

Who wouldn't have wanted to see this played out with Bale-Bats and Heath-Joker?

I don't know how it would've played out of Ledger was alive and if Joker shows up in TDKR, but I just don't think we'd be seeing Joker in Arkham, only out and about in Gotham.

 

[Victarion]

I liked the idea of Bane throwing Bruce into Arkham, releasing the prisoners and cutting off any access from Arkham to the rest of Gotham. A nod to the AA comic and it could still simulate the hellhole Bane grew up in. The rest of the prisoners from the old Pit could be in his army.

 

[The Joker]

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."

http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/0...an-interview-for-the-dark-knight-rises/28690/

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

or

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.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=21649601&postcount=11

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=21652419&postcount=25

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=21660197&postcount=61

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=21669609&postcount=72

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?

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=270765&highlight=review

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.

 

[Shikamaru]

Bane was probably not even in Nolan's original plan for TDKR before Heath died.

 

[JackWhite]

Bane was probably not even in Nolan's original plan for TDKR before Heath died.

If not Bane, then I wonder who then? I really doubt he would have used the Joker again as the main antagonist. Nolan clearly stated he felt Riddler was a Joker knock-off pretty much.

Bane really fit the bill when it came to being an extremely fresh villain to use, who both has intellect and can do what no other villain had done before on film - test Batman physically.

 

[Shikamaru]

If not Bane, then I wonder who then? I really doubt he would have used the Joker again as the main antagonist. Nolan clearly stated he felt Riddler was a Joker knock-off pretty much.

Bane really fit the bill when it came to being an extremely fresh villain to use, who both has intellect and can do what no other villain had done before on film - test Batman physically.

Joker was going to come back for sure. He was either going to be the main villain again, a minor villain, or one of the main villains (in case of multiple villains). Nolan himself stated many times he had plans for the Joker in TDKR.

We don't know who Nolan was originally going to use other than the Joker but we can't be quick to assume that it's Bane. It could've been Bane (highly doubt it since he said he doesn't want to redo villains done in live-action before and when asked about Catwoman, he said "I needed a whole movie to explain why one guy would dress up as a bat!") but at the same time, it could've been anyone else too. It could've also been a guy like Black Mask. You never know.

 

[The Eradicator]

If Heath had lived, there is definitely a possibility that Bane might never have shown up in this trilogy. Hell, I don't even think Nolan would have ended this trilogy the way he did if Heath had lived - Bruce would have most likely come to the conclusion that he is Batman for life, and there is no hanging up the cape and cowl.

Nolan probably would have used one other villain to supplement the Joker in an alternate TDKR. If not Bane, then my hunch is that it most likely would have been Hugo Strange.

Speaking of Hugo Strange, any remember those rumors way back in 2010 about TDKR being based on Prey? Those were interesting times, to say the least.

 

[BlueLightning]

Bane was probably not even in Nolan's original plan for TDKR before Heath died.

I don't think there was a plan for a third film at that moment though.