The Dark Knight Rises Ideas For Incorporating Characters Into the Nolanverse

[Melkay]

The only way they will be successful with another Joker is if they have unused footage (which I doubt) or cast someone who can fill his (clown)shoes in a way that feels like a tribute. Like Depp or someone who can immerse themselves in a role.

Now, for the third movie... they will NEVER top the joker, in any way, with another villain. They have to use another tactic. Take TLH's idea and expand on it, and twist it. You have a killer who is murdering people, leaving clues on important days, at important events, hidden in plain view. The killer becomes known as "The Riddler" killer. After he reaches a a certain level, he starts leaving notes signing "-Edward... Now You Go Mad Again" Edward N.Y.G.M.A.

It's a reinvention of the Riddler, so if that pisses off the aficionado's, I'm sorry. Now, it would be excellent to keep the Joker and keep Two-Face, both in Arkham, but no one knows Harvey is alive but Bruce, Gordon, and Alfred. With Harvey being 'dead', Batman is now the villain, Bruce can step up publicly start pursuing Batman and the Mob. (This gives Alfred endless possible puns and quips about Bruce spending millions on chasing himself and never catching him) Bruce and Gordon would basically be tricking the entire city into standing up for themselves and taking Harvey Dent's efforts upon themselves, rather than let it die. Now, the murders will have to cause turmoil within this well-oiled machine. Everyone will suspect everyone(just like TLH). As all of this is happening, Alberto Falcone comes home and wants to take control of the family from Maroni.

Scarecrow should also return once again by getting in with Alberto Falcone, who (falsely) promises him money/power for helping him gain control and getting his father out of Arkham. This also makes the secret about Harvey's being alive and transformation in danger. Two-Face could also play the role that Calendar Man played in TLH (except a bit expanded and meaningful, with some action)

This sounds like A LOT, but to beat The Dark Knight and The Joker, they would have to have a very thick, powerful, and complicated murder/crime thriller to top it.

I believe that you can't top TDK and the Joker. Not in his own leagues. So they need to create a whole new leagues, they need to get out of that direction and start doing another thing. Psychotic mass-murder has ben done already. Now let's try focusing on the Batman, and what new villains add to the story for his new situation.

For the Riddler, I repeat the best idea I've read about him:
Edward Nygma is a Federal Agent who comes to Gotham with the task of catchng the Batman. After finding out how hard that can be, he gets intelectually obssesed with it, and eventually goes rogue trying to catch him. He creates an alter ego named the Riddler to lure Batman into his traps, and goes out of the line even further, compromising lives in the process. It plays nicely into the idea of Batman being strongly chased by the police at the end of TDK.
Plus, to be faithful, the guy can have bi-polar disorder, like in the comics.

 

[Melkay]

i didn't post that second one.

My bad, just corrected it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

no worries. look back to our little discussion, i think you need to realise that its YOUR opinion that Heaths joker wont be topped and to be honest i sorta agree with you. but it comes down to this, just because it MIGHT not be topped doesn't automatically mean it will ruin the character, i mean for all we know someone could come in and blow us all away (highly unlikely, not impossible). so if the Nolans decide to write a story for the joker and re-cast him (which I hope they do) then we will only find out how good it is when we see it ourselves. i'm using "common sense" when i say this, no one and i mean absolutly no one can judge what has not happened yet. so lets just keep it about each others opinions, which is the whole point of the boards. so don't act like what you say is the be all and end all of the matter. you get me?

 

[WGoble]

I just meant that it would be senseless and unsuccessful to try to make a third movie with a different villain and it be as successful alone. In the sense of them marketing it like "If you thought the Joker was cool, then check this guy out!" That won't happen. He was extreme, and anything further would be unrealistic and wouldn't happen. I think, yes, they COULD bring the Joker back recast and have some success, but there is sentiment involved. I just merely meant they won't outdo the Joker with another villain, as the Joker DID outdo Ducard and Scarecrow.

 

[COMPO]

I wonder if tehy'd ever do Holiday tho... uno have Alberto Falcone come hoem to Gotham after being deported to Italy to find that his father's empire has been taken by freaks like Black Mask and the Ventriliquist, some of his father's old associates and creates the Holiday killer to kill these associates that abandoned the old ways for the freaks.

 

[HereToComment27]

The third Batman movie in this series (if another one is truly needed) should have a theme of redemption. As left off from The Dark Knight, Batman’s image has been destroyed to comply and to save Harvey Dent’s image as Gotham’s White Knight.

Villains for the movie

Mr. Freeze/ The Riddler as the main antagonist(s)
Mr. Freeze is one of Batman’s most tragic villains in his rouge gallery. Mr. Freeze could work well into the theme of redemption. The Riddler could also serve well into this theme.

The Riddler could fit well into Nolan’s realistic take on Batman. I believe that the Riddler’s origins should not be explained, but rarely mentioned (much like the Joker’s). Only one name is given, towards the end: Edward Nigma. Also, have his intentions to basically want to destroy the Government, because of his hatred for it (which is never explained). He is not displayed as a killer, but a cyber-terrorist who hacks into various networks, and shuts them down.

Also, have him download stored files containing information on Gotham City and present this knowledge to the mob. Make him a cyber-terrorist, like I suggested, and this is possible. He leaves riddles/clues on various computers, laptops, and other devices capable of being hacked into, of his next crime. As the film progress, he becomes more dangerous, via his laptop.

This would work well, having all major systems, including Wayne Enterprises (maybe) shut down, causing mass chaos.

Actor I prefer/recommend-Crispin Glover

Also, Mr. Freeze can be displayed as ‘realistic’ in Nolan’s Batman universe. Victor Fries could be a Cryogenic expert working for Wayne Enterprises. However, when Wayne Enterprises shuts down Fries’s operations and refuses to fund his further research into developing a cure for his wife Nora, who is currently in the hospital with a rare blood/cancer disease, he steals an experimental exoskeleton suit and a liquid nitrogen compartment from the Weapons Development Department from Wayne Industries, and vows to kill the Board Members of Wayne Corps.

The Gun could be but a simple rod of metal that sprays liquid nitrogen from a compartment located on Freeze’s back. And the suit could resemble Mark II of Iron Man’s armor from the recent movie Iron Man, yet, a bit simplified. Call it an experimental exoskeleton design and you have Mr. Freeze with his suit and gun. Simple, realistic and it could work well.

Actor I prefer/recommend-Eric Bana (I know I am going to get a lot of critical response for this choice, but I stand with it)

Secondary villains

Catwoman/the Penguin/Rupert Thorne/

Catwoman could fit nicely into a film such as this. She could be a vigilante that steps into Batman’s role as a hero amongst Gotham, in the Bat’s absent. She could state her origin to Batman (not shown) and state that her alias was hacked (by the Riddler, unknown to her) and she decided to take the role of vigilante intent on taking down the mob. She uses her traditional bullwhip, along with retractable ‘claws’ on her gloves. She also steals constantly and is an expert at stealth and martial arts. Selina Kyle becomes a friend of Bruce Wayne, but Catwoman becomes the new love interest of Batman.

Actress I prefer/recommend-Rachel Weisz or Kate Beckinsale (Both are beautiful actresses that both know how to kick ass in tights)

The Penguin could also fit very well into this new, more modern age. He could be an English arms dealer, named Oswald Cobblepot, who realizes that Gotham’s government is falling (due to the recent hacks by the Riddler) and begins providing for the arising mob. He supplies to various families, such as the Falcone and Thorne families. He does not have to be shown much, but make him a threat because of what he deals out to the mob. Give him a role about the length of Detective Flass in Batman Begins, although, make him a bit more sinister.

Actor I prefer/recommend-Alfred Molina (I doubt he would consider playing another villain after Doctor Octopus, but he is still my main choice)

Rupert Thorne could have a role about the same length of time Salvatore Maroni or Carmine Falcone had. A short, but substantial role. Show Thorne as taking total control over the mob. He is in deals with Cobblepot/The Penguin and the Riddler and make it as if he has a desire to control Gotham, and with Gotham’s major systems failing, including the main Government, he nearly succeeds. This way, Gotham reverts back to being ‘controlled by criminality’ making a desire for the Batman to return and redeem himself.

Actor I prefer/recommend-Brain Cox (I read somewhere else that someone recommended him and I agree)

Tell me what you think. I am new here, yet read the forums a lot. I hope you all enjoy what I have pieced together.

 

[Melkay]

no worries. look back to our little discussion, i think you need to realise that its YOUR opinion that Heaths joker wont be topped and to be honest i sorta agree with you. but it comes down to this, just because it MIGHT not be topped doesn't automatically mean it will ruin the character, i mean for all we know someone could come in and blow us all away (highly unlikely, not impossible). so if the Nolans decide to write a story for the joker and re-cast him (which I hope they do) then we will only find out how good it is when we see it ourselves. i'm using "common sense" when i say this, no one and i mean absolutly no one can judge what has not happened yet. so lets just keep it about each others opinions, which is the whole point of the boards. so don't act like what you say is the be all and end all of the matter. you get me?

Okay, once again, I'm going to try (against all odds) to make you understand what I'm REALLY saying.

Pay close attention...

are you paying close attention?

Follow my moves...

Heath's Joker IS the current franchise Joker...
If you do it in another direction (and that includes changin somehow his voice, his looks, his personality AND his body language)...
then you're drifting away from THAT Joker.
That means you are having a strong CONTINUITY problem.
There are NO actors out there... at all... who can do Heath's Joker as good as HEATH.
That's not an opinion.
That's fact.
That's obvious.
That is... common sense.
BUT, if you want a Joker nonetheless, you've got the following dilemma...
you want to make people happy by giving them back thei beloved character...
but no actor, in any way possible, can repeat an interpretation (specially one so complex) as the original actor did.
So, you're compromising lots of things...
lots (a fair screen time to yet-to-be-seen villains, an original plot adn thematic subjecto that would involve OTHER villains)...
by trying to bring back a Joker...
... who won't be as good as the previous one...
... whithout being A DIFFERENT JOKER...
... and therefore compromising much of what made the previous one so good.
Even if the new one was better than Heath's...
it would be a HUGE continuity PROBLEM...
which would damage the appreciation of the audience during the movie...
and would constantly distract them...
hindering the effectiveness of the new plot.

And I know want to ask you...
Why do you believe that the Joker SHOULD be in the new movie...
just because he is Batman's biggest nemesis?
Aren't many great stories out there which DON'T feature the Joker?
BATMAN: Year One, anybody?

If you think that by bringing back the character for the sequel you are guaranteeing a great deal of REPEATED success...
you're in for a surprise.
Because COMPARISON, in the movies, is DEADLY.
And even if people like the new Joker MORE,
they won't like the FACT that he isn't JUST LIKE HEATH,
they won't like the FACT that the filmmakers COMPROMISED other villains SCREEN TIME...
and if the bet doesn't pay and they new Joker is lesser than GREAT
they will HATE that the filmmakers didn't leave Heath's Joker alone...
because that's how people react to dead talented celebritities
since the beginning of times.

Se ya in the next round of debates.

 

[HereToComment27]

I think that the Joker does not really need to be shown in the next film, but possibly referred to and mentioned about his fate. I agree with Melkay, Heath Ledger is the Joker, and no once could reprise his role as well as he did. Others could try, but none would come close to what Heath did for the character.

 

[Gianakin_]

There are NO actors out there... at all... who can do Heath's Joker as good as HEATH.
That's not an opinion.
That's fact.
That's obvious.
That is... common sense.

Finally, a definition of Melkay's idea of "common sense". It is, as expected, his opinion. Which you think is fact.

 

[HereToComment27]

I have to agree with Melkay. Although, it might not be common sense, or a fact, its just my opinion that no other actor could replace Heath's masterpiece.

 

[Melkay]

I just meant that it would be senseless and unsuccessful to try to make a third movie with a different villain and it be as successful alone. In the sense of them marketing it like "If you thought the Joker was cool, then check this guy out!" That won't happen. He was extreme, and anything further would be unrealistic and wouldn't happen. I think, yes, they COULD bring the Joker back recast and have some success, but there is sentiment involved. I just merely meant they won't outdo the Joker with another villain, as the Joker DID outdo Ducard and Scarecrow.

Yes, there is sentiment involved, and the appreciation of the actor and his take on the character make a ver big bias against anyone who comes to fill on his shoes. I don't even think they will outdo the Joker with any new Joker.

There are many characters who can be different from the Joker and still be very very compelling. But I concede, no one can be as protagonic as the Joker was. That's why the next movie needs to refocus itself on the Batman, and all the villains should be selected to work as catalysts for the development of Batman... to make him evolve until the definitive form that the character should have at the end of the trilogy, so we can all continue the story in our minds, much like in the end of Begins.

To repeat the formula is to be cheap. Let's not try to think easy to get so-so results. Better to think hard and get espectacular results. The bar is high, after all.

 

[HereToComment27]

In the next film, the villains need to be more than anything we have seen. Someone as cold hearted as Mr. Freeze and someone as unpredictable as the Riddler would work fine.

And the storyline does not exactly need to show Batman 'evolve' but instead redeem himself in the eyes of the public. ike every heor, there is evolving, but the main storyline does not need to work around this point. Batman's character needs to work around the villains so that he can redeem himself.

 

[HereToComment27]

In the next film, the villains need to be more than anything we have seen. Someone as cold hearted as Mr. Freeze and someone as unpredictable as the Riddler would work fine.

And the storyline does not exactly need to show Batman 'evolve' but instead redeem himself in the eyes of the public. Like every hero, there is evolving, but the main storyline does not need to work around this point. Batman's character needs to work around the villains so that he can redeem himself.

 

[HereToComment27]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Melkay]

Finally, a definition of Melkay's idea of "common sense". It is, as expected, his opinion. Which you think is fact.

So, are you telling me that someone can repeat the interpretation of one character better than the actor himself?
Are you telling mee that someone can do Heath's Joker (notice that I don't say THE Joker, but the Joker that has been presented to us in TDK) better than the guy that brought him to life?

Well, if that's you opinion, then you got as far as getting a zelaous religious experience. That, of course, opposed to common sense.
Great.

I repeat, maybe someone can do it better... even universally great as Ledger acomplished. But there would be continuity problems, and that is a big appreciation problem by itself.

 

[HereToComment27]

No one could bring the Joker to life and make him the Joker as well as Heath Ledger did. But then again, that is just my opinion.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Is the only way to go bigger and better than Nolans Joker is to blur reality and do one of the mnore surreal rogues? I would certainly be open to that

 

[Gianakin_]

So, are you telling me that someone can repeat the interpretation of one character better than the actor himself?
Are you telling mee that someone can do Heath's Joker (notice that I don't say THE Joker, but the Joker that has been presented to us in TDK) better than the guy that brought him to life?

Heath's Joker better than Heath? No. But you assume that I want Heath's Joker exactly.

Well, if that's you opinion, then you got as far as getting a zelaous religious experience. That, of course, opposed to common sense.
Great.

Yes, yes, common sense. Or at least your peculiar idea of it.

I repeat, maybe someone can do it better... even universally great as Ledger acomplished. But there would be continuity problems, and that is a big appreciation problem by itself.

Let me make this as clear as I can to you. To me: Story and character > Heath and actor continuity. If there was a plan to include the Joker in BB3, they should stick to it. If not, then I'm fine if they include him or not.

 

[HereToComment27]

Maybe not 'blur reality' because if you read what I wrote above of how Mr. Freeze and the Riddler could both work, you would understand that neither are too far fetched for reality. But the villains need to make the movie, like TDK did.

Batman needs to redeem himself in the eyes of the public. To show Gotham that he is a hero. The hero Gotham deserves AND needs. And with Mr. Freeze and the Riddler, along with Catwoman, the Penguin, and Rupert Thorne as primary and secondary viallians, Batman could truly show Gotham that he is the hero that they need.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Id say Mr Freeze is too far fetched for Nolans uberreality, but totally acceptable for the modern movie suspension of disbelief.

 

[Gianakin_]

But the villains need to make the movie, like TDK did.

I disagree with this, only because of BB's existence. Batman and Bruce made TDK and not the villains, arguably. Unless they find a FANTASTIC idea for the villains, one to top the Joker, then they should put their money on Bale and Batman completely in BB3.

 

[Melkay]

Is the only way to go bigger and better than Nolans Joker is to blur reality and do one of the more surreal rogues? I would certainly be open to that

Very nicely put, indeed. If we want freaks taking over, there should be some stretches.

 

[Melkay]

Heath's Joker better than Heath? No. But you assume that I want Heath's Joker exactly.

I assume that you want a sequel with continuity and integral to the previous to movies... and a good reception from the audience. My particular (and weird, it seems) idea about common sense dictates me that.

Let me make this as clear as I can to you. To me: Story and character > Heath and actor continuity. If there was a plan to include the Joker in BB3, they should stick to it. If not, then I'm fine if they include him or not.

Yeah, but story and character's appreciation are hindered when continuity and harmony are compromised. And I'e got news for you, Nolan has stated many times he never had a plan for a BB3. So, unless you consider him a liar, he is actually in the position to think of a story that can be tailored to the current conditions, so it can be as strong as possible. Having a Joker with continuity is not an option anymore.
So, if they include the character, I won't be fine because they would be compromising the best suited story for the moment.
See ya.

 

[cerealkiller182]

The villain has to mirror or contrast with batman in someway.

Scarecrow mirrored Batmans use of scare tactics.

Ras Al Ghul had almost 180 degree sense of justice as Bruce

Joker is chaos, like Batman is to order

Batman and Two Face follow a similar path, a search for justice and a fall from grace. Batmans was symbolic to him but real to the people while Two Faces was real to himself but symbolic to batman.

 

[Melkay]

I disagree with this, only because of BB's existence. Batman and Bruce made TDK and not the villains, arguably. Unless they find a FANTASTIC idea for the villains, one to top the Joker, then they should put their money on Bale and Batman completely in BB3.

I completely agree with that notion. Completely.

I find it amusing that people are still thinking in "villain terms", like we were living in the Burton/Schumacher times.