The Dark Knight Rises Heath's Joker CAN be brought back...But do we WANT it back?

[D.P.]

I'm sure you guys already know this, But Heath's Joker can posthumously be brought back pretty effortlessly.

For those not in the know, Here's how:

Spoiler

Breakthroughs in CGI...

Combined with someone like this guy:






There you have it.

My question is:

1) Would the fans want this to be done?

2) Most importantly, Would Heath's family want this to be done?

3) We know Nolan is anti-CGI and would more than likely be opposed to anything that could be deemed disrespectful to Heath's legacy...Would he want it done?

I'm kind of on the fence about it...My selfish side wants to see Heath take on the role again, And this seems like the best shot. My selfless side wants his portrayal of The Joker to remain untouched. I also wouldn't want to do anything to disrespect his loved ones.

Thoughts?

 

[JokerLedger]

close!

 

[Crook]

CGI would be a terrible way to bring the Joker back. If you're going to do it, just recast. There no need for special effects nonsense.

 

[The Major]

CGI would be a terrible way to bring the Joker back. If you're going to do it, just recast. There no need for special effects nonsense.

I agree.

 

[nickyg641]

I agree.

Seconded.

Using a CGI double is far more disrespectful and shocking than a recast ever would be.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Let it be.

Maybe another character could reference the Joker in the 3rd one or we could see Gotham citizens in a state of perpetual fear due to the thought of a copycat or something worse, but no Joker. One was enough.

I'd like to see other villains adopt some of his philosophies or mention him as an influence for why they decided to have a go at it.

 

[BubbaGump]

Uncanny valley, man. Uncanny valley.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Seconded.

Using a CGI double is far more disrespectful and shocking than a recast ever would be.

Thirded. I don't see recasting as disrespectful at all, however. I think, that if The Joker was to come back before Heath's death, that the show must go on.

Heath lived for acting... He, of all people, would have probably told Nolan, "Recast my part, keep the character going."

 

[excreations]

no recast IMO just move onto another character

 

[nickyg641]

Thirded. I don't see recasting as disrespectful at all, however. I think, that if The Joker was to come back before Heath's death, that the show must go on.

Heath lived for acting... He, of all people, would have probably told Nolan, "Recast my part, keep the character going."

Completely aree.

I was just saying that people tend to say that recasting would be disrespectful (how, though? I have no idea), when this is far worse than anything.

 

[ChocheTheHero]

My opinion: No Joker in BB3. The character, and Heath, has been completed.

 

[excreations]

i dont find it to be disrespectful as for recast. i just cant see somebody else playing the joker in the next movie.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I got my fill of the Joker, I'd like the time spent on other villains I haven't seen yet.

 

[strikezone89]

I got my fill of the Joker, I'd like the time spent on other villains I haven't seen yet.

agreed... i never thought joker would make another appearance even before heath passed away.
maybe a reference in the next bat flick and/or see him in arkhym thats about it

 

[nickyg641]

Why does no one complain about Scarecrow reappearing? As brief as it was, did it serve a purpose? Did it advance the story? Not really. And yet I've never heard anyone going "Why use the Scarecrow again? OMG we already had him!"

And yet when the reappearance of the Joker is even mentioned people go "No! It's pointless! Move on to other characters!"

 

[Crook]

Actually I've "complained" about it. But then again, I've been displeased with how the character's been just been thrown to the side this whole time.

 

[Eggyman]

I wouldn't mind a Joker cameo, using the car footage that was cut. Maybe a scene or two before we can hear Gordon telling Batman that his 'friend' escaped from Arkham again. Show a house in Gotham, establish it earlier to be the mayor's. We hear a gunshot, and then the front door slam as we see into the dark house. We see a car pull up to the curb, and then it will cut back to the house as the windows blow out.

Now we can use the footage from the car scene, with a henchmen dubbed. 'You just killed the mayor.'

Joker: 'I'm a man of my wuurd.'

Just that keeps a stronger bond with the world that Nolan's created. Joker's a great character - you can do a lot with a little.

 

[excreations]

Why does no one complain about Scarecrow reappearing? As brief as it was, did it serve a purpose? Did it advance the story? Not really. And yet I've never heard anyone going "Why use the Scarecrow again? OMG we already had him!"

for me i loved the scarecrow reappearing, i just dont want to see somebody else copy heaths take on the joker. tdk is jokers movie now as for the next one lets see someother villian take a shot.

 

[nickyg641]

for me i loved the scarecrow reappearing, i just dont want to see somebody else copy heaths take on the joker. tdk is jokers movie now as for the next one lets see someother villian take a shot.

The sequel doesn't necessarily have to be "Joker's movie" again. He doesn't have to play the main villain role.

People always talk about how including the Joker would somehow steal screentime from other villains, but, honestly, why would it? Did Maroni steal the Joker's screentime, or the Scarecrow? When the Joker's on screen are you going to be rolling your eyes and thinking, "Oh, God, it's him again...when are we going to get back to Crazy Quilt?"

No. If the Joker's role is important to the story, and I see no reason why such a thing is impossible, he won't be "stealing screentime" from anyone, in the same way that Dent isn't "stealing" Gordon's screentime or what have you.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Why does no one complain about Scarecrow reappearing? As brief as it was, did it serve a purpose? Did it advance the story? Not really. And yet I've never heard anyone going "Why use the Scarecrow again? OMG we already had him!"

And yet when the reappearance of the Joker is even mentioned people go "No! It's pointless! Move on to other characters!"

Actually, Scarecrow's appearance was pretty lame. That scene could have been done with any Joe Schmoe drug dealer and have it just go down as a regular drug deal. He was totally not needed. I imagine the only reason why he was there was that so Batman could finally capture him. Well, seeing as how the Joker has already been captured and seeing as that how I got my fill of him in TDK, I really don't care to see anymore of the character.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

I wouldn't mind a Joker cameo, using the car footage that was cut. Maybe a scene or two before we can hear Gordon telling Batman that his 'friend' escaped from Arkham again. Show a house in Gotham, establish it earlier to be the mayor's. We hear a gunshot, and then the front door slam as we see into the dark house. We see a car pull up to the curb, and then it will cut back to the house as the windows blow out.

Now we can use the footage from the car scene, with a henchmen dubbed. 'You just killed the mayor.'

Joker: 'I'm a man of my wuurd.'

Just that keeps a stronger bond with the world that Nolan's created. Joker's a great character - you can do a lot with a little.

Seriously, that's like the best idea eggy! May be that's why Nolan cut it? Doubtful, but I would love it!! t:

Hey if they bring back Marlon Brando in Superman Returns, they can bring back Heath too!!

 

[nolan's roll'n]

Close thread. There is already a thread on this.

 

[souvlaki]

Why does no one complain about Scarecrow reappearing? As brief as it was, did it serve a purpose? Did it advance the story? Not really. And yet I've never heard anyone going "Why use the Scarecrow again? OMG we already had him!"

And yet when the reappearance of the Joker is even mentioned people go "No! It's pointless! Move on to other characters!"

You just proved the other side's argument there. Scarecrow's appearance was not necessary and could have easily been written out. It was a nice nod to the fans, and lucky for us Cillian Murphy is still around to play the part. However, was it needed to further the plot? Not really. Would it have been worth re-casting Scarecrow if Cillian Murphy couldn't do it? No. All this talk of Joker being necessary for the third film... considering it hasn't even been written yet, I'd say it's safe to say even if Nolan had originally planned to be use the Joker, that can be changed.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I say no re-cast no matter what!

 

[CaptainClown]

While we are at it, lets bring back Bruce Lee, Chris Farley, Marlon Brando, James Dean and I am sure Elvis would look great in a couple roles...



NO! stop it.