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

[ScarecrowMan666]

Once again Major, I agree with you completely. t:t:

 

[nickyg641]

It's not that he must be in every film from now on, but, he's been introduced into this universe, and it's been made clear that he and Batman have a very deep connection. This is a trilogy (as far as we know, and, honestly, I don't see WB doing a complete recast and continuing in this continuity). To exclude a character with as much influence on Batman and his mythos in the next film would just feel strange, and would seem to lessen his importance as Batman's biggest baddie.

I think of him now as a character on the level of, say, Fox or Gordon. He's a part of Batman's life as a crimefighter now, even if he's not the focus as a villain.

And, as for other villains, to be honest, there just aren't many that are profitable. Let's be realisitc, a villain obscure to the public just isn't going to create the same buzz as a one such as the Joker or the Riddler (which is why, like it or not, I don't think they're going to go with someone like Deadshot or Croc or what have you.)

 

[The Major]

It's not that he must be in every film from now on, but, he's been introduced into this universe, and it's been made clear that he and Batman have a very deep connection.

Talia could have a deep connection with Batman after the events in Batman Begins.

Riddler could depending on how they play him.

Bane has a complex relationship with Batman in the comics they could explore in an adaption.

This is a trilogy (as far as we know, and, honestly, I don't see WB doing a complete recast and continuing in this continuity).

Leave him out of the movie then.

To exclude a character with as much influence on Batman and his mythos in the next film would just feel strange, and would seem to lessen his importance as Batman's biggest baddie.

Which could lead to over-exposure. People are bored with Lex since the films over-used him. That's what you're wanting to happen with the Joker.

I think of him now as a character on the level of, say, Fox or Gordon. He's a part of Batman's life as a crimefighter now, even if he's not the focus as a villain.[/quote]

I disagree.

Joker could appear as a major player but I'd prefer if he had a small cameo at most in 3. That's all he really needs.

And, as for other villains, to be honest, there just aren't many that are profitable. Let's be realisitc, a villain obscure to the public just isn't going to create the same buzz as a one such as the Joker or the Riddler (which is why, like it or not, I don't think they're going to go with someone like Deadshot or Croc or what have you.)

Villains become more popular if they are given better opportunities for the public to see their potential. Batman Begins did this well with Ra's and Scarecrow. Nolan can do this with whoever he uses in the next sequel.

This will make them more profitable when they are used next whether it be in comics, animation, novels or comics.

 

[thundercatsho]

It's not that he must be in every film from now on, but, he's been introduced into this universe, and it's been made clear that he and Batman have a very deep connection. This is a trilogy (as far as we know, and, honestly, I don't see WB doing a complete recast and continuing in this continuity). To exclude a character with as much influence on Batman and his mythos in the next film would just feel strange, and would seem to lessen his importance as Batman's biggest baddie.

I think of him now as a character on the level of, say, Fox or Gordon. He's a part of Batman's life as a crimefighter now, even if he's not the focus as a villain.

And, as for other villains, to be honest, there just aren't many that are profitable. Let's be realisitc, a villain obscure to the public just isn't going to create the same buzz as a one such as the Joker or the Riddler (which is why, like it or not, I don't think they're going to go with someone like Deadshot or Croc or what have you.)

Agreed 100%!

 

[Cunning Stunts]

all im trying to say is that joker in the nolan series should not be recast thats all. as for the other future batman movies that nolan has nothing do with then yeah im fine with a new joker.

But WHY?

Acting is a business, just like, let's say... Auto sales.

If the head salesmen of motorcycles at an auto deal dies, does the company stop selling those motorcycles? No, they "re-cast"... Or in this case, hire a new person. If they planned on not selling motorcycles around the time the man died, then... They stop selling the motorcycles.

Nolan [apparently] had plans to keep The Joker around. So, the show must go on. Heath would have understood that, I'm sure Nolan understands this, as does the rest of the cast.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

You can't say you know what Nolan's thinking. For all we know, Heath's death ruined the thought of Joker being in another of his movies. We know Nolan likes perfection...Heath was perfection. Anything less would be cheapening the role.

 

[nickyg641]

Talia could have a deep connection with Batman after the events in Batman Begins.

Riddler could depending on how they play him.

Bane has a complex relationship with Batman in the comics they could explore in an adaption.

The Joker is, inarguably, Batman's greatest foe. His relationship with Batman is like no other's, and he has had more interaction with him than any other antagonist.

Leave him out of the movie then.

I'm not talking about the Joker. I'm referring to the way that people think the Joker appearing in a fourth film would be a-okay, because they somehow have the idea that Warner Bros. is going to do a complete recast and the universe will change similar to Batman Forever.

Which could lead to over-exposure. People are bored with Lex since the films over-used him. That's what you're wanting to happen with the Joker.

People complain because Lex Luthor was the main villain, or one of them, in every Superman movie. I'm asking for nothing more than for Batman's greatest villain to, in some capacity, appear in two films consecutively.

Given the Joker has had a greater impact on the Batman universe than any other villain, and the fact that we've never seen a villain twice in this series in any major capactiy, I hardly think two times is overexposure. If he were the main villain, yeah, I think that would be too much. He's had his turn in the limelight, but that doesn't mean the character can never be seen again.

I disagree.

Joker could appear as a major player but I'd prefer if he had a small cameo at most in 3. That's all he really needs.

I don't want him in the main role, but as a character that does have an important effect on the plot. And the Joker just isn't the kind of character that can be relegated to a brief cameo.

Villains become more popular if they are given better opportunities for the public to see their potential. Batman Begins did this well with Ra's and Scarecrow. Nolan can do this with whoever he uses in the next sequel.

This will make them more profitable when they are used next whether it be in comics, animation, novels or comics.

I suppose that's true, but there are just some villains with which the public has absolutely no familiarity. It would be a really big risk using a low-level nemesis as your main baddie.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

You can't say you know what Nolan's thinking. For all we know, Heath's death ruined the thought of Joker being in another of his movies. We know Nolan likes perfection...Heath was perfection. Anything less would be cheapening the role.

I never once said that's what Nolan is doing, but instead what Nolan more than likely knows as a professional, big-time director.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

That's not what I was saying either, just what he's thinking. Speaking of which, has he gotten back from his vacation yet?

 

[nickyg641]

That's not what I was saying either, just what he's thinking. Speaking of which, has he gotten back from his vacation yet?

Yeah, I think he appeared at a film festival or something.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

Well maybe we'll be hearing something soon as to whether he's planning a sequel or not.

 

[thundercatsho]

The Joker is, inarguably, Batman's greatest foe. His relationship with Batman is like no other's, and he has had more interaction with him than any other antagonist.

I'm not talking about the Joker. I'm referring to the way that people think the Joker appearing in a fourth film would be a-okay, because they somehow have the idea that Warner Bros. is going to do a complete recast and the universe will change similar to Batman Forever.

People complain because Lex Luthor was the main villain, or one of them, in every Superman movie. I'm asking for nothing more than for Batman's greatest villain to, in some capacity, appear in two films consecutively.

Given the Joker has had a greater impact on the Batman universe than any other villain, and the fact that we've never seen a villain twice in this series in any major capactiy, I hardly think two times is overexposure. If he were the main villain, yeah, I think that would be too much. He's had his turn in the limelight, but that doesn't mean the character can never be seen again.

I don't want him in the main role, but as a character that does have an important effect on the plot. And the Joker just isn't the kind of character that can be relegated to a brief cameo.

I suppose that's true, but there are just some villains with which the public has absolutely no familiarity. It would be a really big risk using a low-level nemesis as your main baddie.

I agree with all of this, Joker has always been the most important villain in the Batman universe. He shouldn't be the main villain, but not having him won't feel right.

 

[Darkknight14]

Let it be. Recast at most if they need to. But don't CGI him. That's just......creepy.

 

[Punchinello]

Let it be. Recast at most if they need to. But don't CGI him. That's just......creepy.

It'd be an insult to the character and Heath Ledger if they recasted him OR replaced him with a CGi counterpart.

I believe in Nolan's choice that he said he'd leave if his crew wanted to recast him. =/

 

[Hole Shot]

I still stand by the idea of that if they had a great story in place for the third film and Joker is required to finish it then by all means recast.

Heath played one of the greatest on screen villains of all time but that doesn't mean no one is ever again allowed to attempt. I think as an actor he'd believe the show should go on.

And as I said before, if they do recast they shouldn't try to find someone to recreate Heath's Joker to a T. There should be some obvious similarities so we can connect the two characters but the the same time the actor should make it his own. It will be more obvious that he's not Heath if he tries to copy Heath.

Heath did such an incredible job of playing the Joker, that we forgot that was Ledger under that make-up. Why can't another actor do the same? Nolan will only cast someone that's capable of pulling it off.

 

[deathfromabove]

I still stand by the idea of that if they had a great story in place for the third film and Joker is required to finish it then by all means recast.

Heath played one of the greatest on screen villains of all time but that doesn't mean no one is ever again allowed to attempt. I think as an actor he'd believe the show should go on.

And as I said before, if they do recast they shouldn't try to find someone to recreate Heath's Joker to a T. There should be some obvious similarities so we can connect the two characters but the the same time the actor should make it his own. It will be more obvious that he's not Heath if he tries to copy Heath.

Heath did such an incredible job of playing the Joker, that we forgot that was Ledger under that make-up. Why can't another actor do the same? Nolan will only cast someone that's capable of pulling it off.

if nolan had plans for the joker to return (which it seems he did) then i agree with you completely. as long as the character is written the same and has similar motivations (which he obviously will) another actor can put his own spin on the role without stepping on heath's shoes.

but if the joker is completely left out of the third movie it would just feel wrong. it would be like ommiting darth vader from rotjedi or michael corleone from the godfather. the joker is batman's voldemort ( or rather voldemort is harry's joker but i digress).

i fully believe heath would want the show to go on. recast for a third or dont make one. and if nolan does walk away i would fully understand and i for one would be ok with it.

edit: i guess joker could sit the third one out but i still think it would feel awkward. i mean who or what could pose a equal threat to bruce?

ehh...

 

[deathfromabove]

I believe in Nolan's choice that he said he'd leave if his crew wanted to recast him. =/

nolan never said that.

 

[CaptainClown]

I think a great way to showcase some of Nolan's abilities would be if he was capabable of manipulating some cut scenes from TDK as well as using the WSS theme and perhaps some implications that he escaped near the end of the movie.

 

[deathfromabove]

I think a great way to showcase some of Nolan's abilities would be if he was capabable of manipulating some cut scenes from TDK as well as using the WSS theme and perhaps some implications that he escaped near the end of the movie.

that could also work but i dont think either of the nolans are the type of filmakers to pigeon hole old footage/dialog into another film.

if they want to imply joker escaped before he was locked up they would just have someone say as much. i could see some creative camera angles used to show an escape without us seeing the jokers face though.

 

[[A]]

so.. no MOD around to shut this down..?

 

[CaptainClown]

that could also work but i dont think either of the nolans are the type of filmakers to pigeon hole old footage/dialog into another film.

if they want to imply joker escaped before he was locked up they would just have someone say as much. i could see some creative camera angles used to show an escape without us seeing the jokers face though.

well not knowing what the stock footage is makes it tough. Cause for all we know there could quite possibly be a scene which didn't fit in tdk and can work in another movie.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

The joker plays a big role in the story they have created so you cant just go into a 3rd movie and completely ignore him. He created the snowball effect that put Batman in the predicament he is at the end of TDK. The joker isnt done. Heaths death is most definitely unfortunate but he wont be the last person to play the joker just like there have been many actors to put on the cape and cowl. Heath did an excellent job bringing us the character, but the screenplay played a big part in defining the character as well so you have to give credit there. So it can be done again, and it will be done sometime down the line so why limit Nolan and the story(ies) he wants to tell by putting a perma-ban on a character that will be undoubtedly be brought back in the future?

A recast isnt unheard of to continue the story(Gyllenhall). Another actor of Heaths talent will have to be brought in, and just how TDK was different in style and theme from BB but yet in the same continuity and advancing the story, Batman 3 will be along the same lines so a new Joker is entirely possible.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I don't want somebody doing a Ledger impression just so we can have joker back. There are other villians. Or just stop here.

 

[lukedoggwalker]

have him back and get Johnny Depp to play him. anybody could play the Riddler, few are good enough to pull off Heath's Joker like Depp.