Pardon the insensitivity, but what if Heath was still alive?

Exactly. People were excited to see his performance and i'm sure WB were already into his performance and open to his return, hence signing him for another picture.

I could be wrong, but i recall Heath, Christian or somebody attached to TDK saying that he was under contract to come back for another movie. Feel free to correct me. Maybe some of the hypsters can prove me right or wrong on this. Maybe it was just a rumor.

If he was under contract, then he has to fulfill that contract if they want him to return for a sequel. There's negotiations that could happen of course, later.

Because it's heresay. Her word over a dead persons word who can't confirm or deny. He's not here to clarify with "Yes, she's right, we had plans", "Ah my sister is exaggerating a bit, i mean i had a basic idea but that was subject to change". You're reading into it too much. There's no actual proof.

How can you say that actors don't brainstorm/plan roles for sequels? If he was under contract and/or LOVED The Joker more than any other character he ever played, then why would you jump to that conclusion? It's not black or white.

Again, you're taking it too seriously man. "All of it would be a waste of time", dude, there's no confirmation that it was anything more than some fun brainstorming on IF this character went from A to Z. And i'll repeat, the Joker was locked up in Arkham. Otherwise the end of TDK is completely useless. That was Chris' point with the sequel anyway, that the ending had to be a success (temporary or not) for Batman, Gordon and Gotham. So for at least a time, Joker would be locked up. That's a great start for a character actor to begin planning ideas. Nothing is concrete if you're planning. You're allowed to plan some things out, without taking it too seriously, before you get a concrete script. His "planning" didn't have to mean "serious planning".

What actor plans for a minor role? Any actor who loves their work and character.

"This is as technical as it gets", no, you're just making it technical. It's one little quote and you're calling it technical and concrete and making it into this huge deal like oh my god Joker had a big role in the third movie because he planned scenes with Nolan! You added all of that. It's speculation from you.

Yeah, loose ideas, like Joker being locked up when the film begins. Which is something Heath could have figured out without a single conversation with Chris. Once again, you could be right, but don't say that your way is the only way.

But you are. It's your interpretation, and you sound like you're looking for confirmation of any sort that a third movie was supposed to have Joker in a meaty role and not just Heath locked up for a few scenes or less.

I didn't check, so you know, but f i tell you that Heath never made it public that he preps for cameos, how would you react? If he never did it before, does that mean he wouldn't experiment in the future if he loved the role? So he never did it, soooo he can't every try it? Was Heath ever a part of a franchise? Did he ever play the same character twice? I won't even look it up because he never had a role like Joker with that possibility of a sequel hanging over his head.

What basis is there to believe that Heath wasn't that type of actor? Are you an actor? Do you know any character actors personally?

I'll give you this, there is no reason to believe that Heath had SERIOUS discussions with Nolan years in advance. Especially when Nolan usually doesn't work that way and his mind was on editing TDK and possibly writing his own original script (without help) for Inception. But that's you who added the 'serious talks' tag onto this thing. There's no harm done brainstorming some ideas, planning some expressions etc (this could have been it) for the Joker...once again....a villain he LOVED playing.

He does know what Joker will be doing. Locked up in Arkham Asylum. Are you going to tell me that if you're an actor, that wouldn't be a great starting point even if you didn't know any more information?? If you say something along the lines of "that's not enough info to do anything" then i already have my response to that. No need for me to way for another post. My answer to you would be, you lack imagination and that's why great actors are great

Correctamundo. They don't all do that, and they don't have to. Why box one actor in with the rest? Daniel Day Lewis is a perfect example of an actor who has a process of his own. Most method actors do things differently, and other 'normal' actors can't relate. Neither can the fans. Do 'normal' actors lock themselves up in a room for a month testing out voices, writing sick diaries in the POV of their character? Most? Nope.

He did those things the first time. Why would he have prep like that again? He's already under that characters skin? If there was any planning going on, it was likely minor ideas on how to approach a different setting. Locked up in an Asylum, you're looking at different lighting, different makeup or none at all, different clothes. Why not plan little things like that incase that's where the story goes? I know if i was an actor i'd probably do the same.

1 - For you maybe. Just because you didn't see eight years worth of hatred, skepticism etc from Gotham's people, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's what happens when you advance the story 2 or 8 years. You have to use your imagination. How do you know he wasn't hunted for days, weeks, months or even years after TDK ended? Sounds like you just wanted to see it unfold. And that's fine. It would have been cool. But it doesn't mean he wasn't hunted, just because we didn't see it happen. He can still be hunted without appearing in physical form. I won't get into the possibilities of Batman being around for a little longer. I know you're thinking "he retired and that's it because i didn't hear proof otherwise". OK. Batman is a symbol in that trilogy. He doesn't have to be trolling cops during the week, sitting on his batpod, before they bust into their ninth chase...for it to mean "Batman was being hunted".

Was he hunted? Yes. Did the police, government officials etc hate him? Yes. Did Batman as a symbol endure that? Yes. He can endure it and feel it without Bruce himself standing on a street watching dogs run after him once a week. What would be the point of Bruce doing that anyway? I never understood that criticism. I never hear a good enough answer to that question either.

If Bale planned a specific characterization of what it would be like to be Bruce Wayne...hunted...hated...then my guess is he would arrive where he landed..with Rises. At least the very basics without getting into other s**t. Tired, worn down, depressed. How to walk, how to...you see where i'm going. Nuances. That's relevant to what i'm saying about Heath's planning inside an institution.

So what if it's a waste of time? And why would it be? IMO it's not a waste if you're experimenting. Failure and mistakes are a part of the process of building a character, story, whatever it is.

Crane was obviously in Arkham for a very long time. How do you know Bane didn't release him once he took charge? It's eight years later. Murphy may not have had another contract immediately after TDK. So why would he plan if he JUST did a movie where he had a cameo. The right comparison would be Crane after Batman Begins, going into TDK since he was one of the main villains. Even that sounds a little weak as far as arguments go.

2 - Quietly auditioned Hardy during 2010's Inception means he had an eye on him without telling him. Scouting for his main villain, since by then, two years later, they had a draft or two for TDKR.

You said Nolan approached Hardy about playing Bane during Inception. That's not what happened. They probably didn't even talk about it until a year or less than year before filming Rises.

Yes. I know you don't agree, and never will. That scene takes place minutes after Gordon's speech. There's a gap. It takes time to arrive on that scene with dogs, cops flooding the place. Batman tells Gordon to set the dogs on him, and that's what we see. We also see that in Rises. 10 seconds, 10 minutes, what does it matter? Gordon was asked to call it in, set the dogs on him and that's what he did. Was Batman hunted? Yes. Do you think the police didn't stake out the city and every dark corner for months on end? Really?
Whether he was out to witness it or not (and he could very well still witness this on his computers). Did he endure it? Yes.

Wrong. Bruce is Batman, especially in his mind back then. He endured it, and everything else in his past, and that's why he looks and acts the way he does when Rises opens.

I don't call that foolish but maybe you're right. Is that bad? That level of foolish is what i call experimenting and having fun as an actor. If that's foolish, then i guess that's quite a positive and loose word. The job itself is foolish. Just ask Bale, Sam Jackson etc. They get to act like fools for a living. A lot of them admit this.

No, i don't think he would look at it as a waste of time. Not everything is so serious, and trying things out is NOT a waste of time if it helps you be creative and arrive at a new place. Some may call parts of that diary or scrapbook a waste of time because not everything ended up being used. But if it helps you flesh out a character, then it's useful. A person like Heath who kept saying JOKER WAS THE MOST FUN I EVER HAD, would likely want that fun to continue. I'm sure he had a blast thinking up whacky ideas.

I said cameo, or a few scenes, or more. I never said in late 2007. early 2008 he was locking himself up writing scrapbooks and coming up with new ticks. To you "planning" means "Heath did the exact same thing he did before when he was first discovering the character". He doesn't have to do that much anymore, he already discovered it.

Whatever you say

Exactly. It could go in a hundred new directions. They didn't write the script yet. They were in EDITING for TDK. So it would have to stop at a vague idea like "locked up". Locked up is "no information". I call that information. I call that a starting point for an actor to "experiment".

No, you don't need story details like you're expecting, in order to play around in the actors sandbox, especially if he knows the character inside and out having just worked on it for a couple of years straight. AND has a basic idea of where he's going to be when the third movie begins.

Two completely different things. One is a vague interaction without telling the actor what the setting is, the context..on and on. The other (locked up) gives an actor ideas on how to move, what they're wearing, their limitations with or without makeup, how he feels when others look at him if he has no makeup on his face exposing the scars, whether he's able to act with his hands or not since they may or may not be tied up, is the cell well lit or dark, is his face even exposed?

One leaves the actor blank with zero context, the other triggers creativity with context.

 

Baseless speculation. If movie studios signed on every actor that invoked excitement in a trailer, most of Hollywood would be doing sequels.

Well since you're the one claiming this to be true, the onus is on you to provide the source of proof.

Again IF he was. There's no proof anywhere that says he signed a multi movie contract.

It's credible hearsay. Hearsay should only be doubted if it defies logic, or someone has something to gain by lying about it. Neither applies here. Why would his family lie about him having plans for another movie? And only reveal this 9 years later, too?

There's no reason to doubt the credibility of this.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't brain storm for roles they know nothing about story wise. You can't plan for your character unless you know where the script is going with them.

Because there's no basis to believe he was under contract, and loving a character more than any other doesn't negate the FACT that no actor can make plans for a character they are doing in several years time unless they know something about where the character is going.

Yes, it very much is. No grey areas here.

Says the guy bending over backwards trying to refute what I believe.

You keep saying it could be nothing but fun brainstorming, but no actor PLANS for a role shortly after finishing it, when they are not even due to film it until several years later. Not unless they were given some idea where said character is going to go in the sequel. Once you have some kind of direction for that, then you make plans for your character. Otherwise you're just flying blind.

Joker being locked up is not a starting point because;

1. Being captured at the end doesn't mean he could not have escaped between sequels. Crane was locked up in TDK. Was he in prison the next time we saw him in Rises?
2. Being locked up is as vague as it gets for planning for a character. There's a plethora of different ways Joker's incarceration could be handled. Is he in a comatose state like in DKR? Is he in a Hannibal Lecter type role manipulating? Is he planning a break out? An in house prison riot etc? There's multiple great stories involving Joker being locked up. Heath wouldn't know what to do with that unless Nolan gave him some kind of idea what they were going to do with Joker in the sequel, then he has some sort of basis to make plans.

Give me some examples then.

I've said multiple times this is my belief. I said this is the most logical outcome of this revelation that Heath had plans for another role. Actors do not make plans for minor roles that they are not even going to film for several years. This doesn't happen, and if it did you'd have been bombarding me with examples. You don't have to buy into it. Nobody forced you to consistently try and refute it.

That's not a loose idea. That's nothing. People would assume that is what it would be anyway since he was captured. Just like people would assume Crane would be locked up in Rises, or Batman would be on the run enduring being hunted and hated.

But that isn't what we got. So why are you trying to push this Joker would be locked up angle when nothing else about TDK's ending followed through on expectations in TDKR?

Everyone could have figured out Joker was locked up because he was captured. That doesn't take Sherlock Holmes. But it's not the only direction it could have gone, just like TDKR didn't go the way TDK's ending suggested.

For the umpteenth time this is what I believe when she said Heath had plans for another outing as Joker. I'm not looking for any confirmation, I have the logic of an actor like this only making plans for his roles when he had some idea what was being done with his character.

E.g. do you think Heath went and practiced his Joker role in a hotel room for a month without having any idea what Nolan was going to do with the character?

So when his family say he had plans for another Batman, I don't believe for a second that means he was making plans based on nothing at all. Because you can't plan for a role on nothing. Especially the in depth way Heath liked to plan for his roles.

I'd tell you what I've been saying to you all along; you're making baseless assumptions. I am making my arguments based on Heath's track record for how he approached his roles. He never planned for them until he knew some kind of details about them. Because it only makes sense to plan something when you have some idea what it's going to be about.

So, what is your logical basis to think Heath would have plans for a cameo type role years before he was even due to film it?

I don't have to be an actor to know how Heath approached his roles. The level of depth and detail he put into them. We're talking about an actor who made a Joker diary, and went away for a month in a hotel room to perfect the little ticks and quirks of his character.

Now you tell me; does this sound like an actor who likes to waste time and energy making plans for something he has no idea about?

Oh no, no, no, I never added serious talks to this. Or detailed talks. Just that they most likely had some discussions where they laid out some ideas for where they would take the Joker in the sequel. Then that gave Heath a basis to make plans for the role.

What just like Bale would KNOW that Batman would be on the run from the law, and endure being hunted and hated after TDK? Just like Cillian Murphy would KNOW that if Crane came back he'd be locked up since he was captured in TDK?

Is that the way Heath would KNOW what his character would be doing in the sequel?

Because no actor does it that way. No actor plans for roles they have NO idea about what will be done with the character, especially if said role is nothing but a cameo type role.

Has the aforementioned Daniel Day Lewis ever planned for his roles years before he did them? For small roles that equate to a cameo? For a role he had no idea the direction of it would be?

Yes, he would need to prep again. Bale never played Bruce the way he had to play him in Rises in the previous two movies. A broken shell of a man who has completely lost the will to live, cut off from the world etc.

Imagine he had been planning for the Rises as his role being a Batman enduring being hunted and hated, and then Nolan hands him the script and sees the character is going in another direction altogether. There goes a all that planning down the drain.

But according to you Bale should KNOW where his character was going because of the ending of the previous movie. Rises turned all our expectations on it's head based on how TDK ended.

But it didn't happen. The movie tells us that. Batman quit the night Dent died. So he has not being enduring the Cops chasing him, or Gotham hating him. So how exactly has he endured all this when he has not been Batman since then? Have the Cops been chasing Bruce Wayne? Has Gotham being hating Bruce for killing Dent and those other people? No.

So there's no endurance here.

No, it's not. E.g. Spider-Man 2002 ended with Peter refusing to be with MJ because it was too dangerous, and Harry blaming Peter for his father's death. 2 years later in the brilliant Spider-Man 2, we see that Peter is still avoiding being with MJ romantically, and there's a strain on his friendship with Harry over Spider-Man. They didn't just tell us all that happened, they showed it.

Because the movie makes it clear the last time anyone saw Batman was the night Dent was killed 8 years ago. If he was being chased and hunted by the Cops, there would be more confirmed sightings of him. He's Batman, not the invisible man.

By this logic wouldn't it be a-ok to have Joker running around free, and simply have the movie state he was locked up and then escaped?

"So we'll hunt him....because he can take it". He isn't taking anything when he has not been Batman ever since he first became a wanted man for this.

You didn't understand the criticism because you don't understand the criticism. The movie says Batman will be hunted because he can take it and endure. But he quit being Batman so he didn't have to take being hunted. He retired. They might as well have been hunting the Zodiac killer. His symbol didn't endure because for 8 years his name was mud, while Dent was the symbol of hero and hope in Gotham.

That's the valid criticism people had.

How would you guess that? Bruce wasn't in that state because he was hunted and hated. He was in that state because he had nothing left to live for. He couldn't be Batman any more because he wasn't needed - "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won". He couldn't help anyone as Bruce Wayne because his energy project fell through. He gave up on finding happiness with anyone because he thought Rachel had been his only chance at that.

None of these things had anything to do with Batman being hated or hunted. If he was out dodging the Cops while still doing his hero thing, he'd still have a purpose in life and wouldn't be hobbling around Wayne Manor like a broken crippled recluse with a bad beard.

Tired, worn, and depressed are descriptions that can be applied to Batman after a bad day of crime fighting.

So what if it's a waste of time? Seriously? Do you like making plans for your work only for it all to be a total waste? You think any dedicated professional enjoys wasting their time on their work?

Why obviously? Where was it made obvious?

 

Cont'd....

I think he did. But I don't KNOW he did. The movie makes no indication he did. He's just pops up out of nowhere to play judge. I can't even say he was part of the Blackgate breakout because he was an Arkham inmate.

But this is all beside the point. If we are going by your logic of just knowing where your character will be in a sequel based on the ending of the previous movie, then Murphy, who I am so sure put a lot of planning into a role where he sat at a bench and banged a gavel, would have been way off in thinking Crane locked up is where he's headed with the role based on TDK and Crane being captured.

What do you mean why would he plan? You expect us to believe Heath would plan for a cameo sized role, so why shouldn't Murphy?

You're missing the whole point. You said Nolan is a one movie at a time guy, and wouldn't even have been thinking about Rises until after he was done with Inception, but here we have official confirmation he already had the next villain chosen, and was sizing up actors for the role while he was in the thick of Inception.

So if he was doing that while he was knee deep in a whole other movie, why would he not have had a few chin wags with Heath while they were still on TDK time to discuss some ideas for Joker's return?

Nobody should lol. There is no endurance required in that brief little chase to the Bat-Pod. The chase in Batman Begins was a bigger endurance test than that lol.

Honestly shauner, I don't think even you really believe this.

Whether it takes place ten minutes or ten hours later, that is not an indication of the Batman enduring being hunted that Gordon was referring to. Not even remotely.

TDK went to great lengths to say Batman has endurance. That he can take what ever is thrown at him. When Gotham was hating on him and wanted him to turn himself in because Joker was killing people because of Batman, Bruce wanted to turn himself in. But Alfred said he should endure and take it, because that is the point of Batman. He can endure it. Turning himself in means the end of Batman. Meaning he's not enduring it. Gordon says the same at the end. Batman can endure being hunted and hated. This time Batman wasn't quitting. He was footing the blame for Dent's crimes, and he was going to endure the hunt and the hate.

Then Rises says nope, he quit that night. So he has not being enduring hate or hunts by the Cops. He's been retired.

Bruce is not Batman when he is not being Batman any more. When he gave up the cowl he stopped being Batman. So he's not enduring any more. Same as how if he turned himself in at Dent's press conference he's not enduring Gotham's hate. Doing the opposite of what Alfred said.

Yes, it's bad. Actors wasting time on something that is going to go nowhere with a role they are doing is foolish. Why would anyone think otherwise? Wasting your creative time is always foolish.

I don't get how the job is foolish. They may get to act like fools, dress like fools, but it is not foolish to play a role that is loved by millions. Not to mention makes a ton of money, too.

But it is serious when you are planning for a role, and take it seriously, which Heath did. The planning and detail and level of prep he did for Joker was stunning. This is why I say again there's no way I believe an actor who approaches a role, one you claim is supposedly foolish just because it's a comic book movie, treats it as seriously as this when prepping for it.

Saying it's the most fun he ever had playing the role doesn't translate into him being an actor who enjoys wasting his creative time on his craft. If anything, give how much Heath put into the role, it is more of an indicator that he found it his most challenging role, and he loved that. He had so much fun getting to go these extra miles and being creatively challenged as an actor. Plus playing an outlandish character like the Joker is always going to have a fun factor to it.

No, to me planning means just that; making plans for a role. Heath plans for his roles when he has some basis of direction of where his character is going or what they will be doing. Citing his well known plans like the scrapbook and locking himself in a room are just examples of how much love he puts into his plans.

An actor who goes to those lengths isn't the type of actor who would go blindly into planning for a role when he's clueless about it's direction story wise.

Why would it have to stop at a vague idea of being locked up? Explain that in great detail why that could be the only possible scenario Nolan and Heath possibly envisioned when they discussed ideas for Joker's return.

Nolan knew Bane was going to be the villain of Rises while he was still filming Inception, so he obviously had some idea where the next movie was going since he chose the villain already. The villain always helps paint a picture of the direction of the story.

No, you need ideas. It doesn't have to be in depth details, but most definitely some kind of ideas and direction on where the character is going to go if you are going to make plans for the role.

Being locked up, that's not a basic idea. That's nothing. It would be like telling Bale you're going to be saving Gotham in the next Batman movie.

No, it doesn't, because being locked up your character can be as creatively free as if they were on the loose. We know this because there is a ton of great Joker stories where he is as crazy and evil pulling shenanigans in Arkham as when he is loose in Gotham. Not just in the comics, the Arkham games showed that, too.

Furthermore as has already been mentioned, it doesn't give the actor any idea WHAT the character will be doing while incarcerated. As history of cinema has shown us, prison based movies can produce some of the most diverse and compelling characters. Joker being locked up doesn't tell Heath anything about the direction Joker's going.

 

PART 1

All grey areas.

So every actor has to work the same? I don't know if Heath would do it, but this is the first time he had the chance to play the same beloved character more than once.

It's the definition of a loose idea. It's not nothing. Are you going to tell me that Crane is on the loose at the start of Rises? That would be you adding something to the narrative, if so.

It did follow through.

I never said it would be the only direction. But it's a starting point for an actor.

It was the first time he played the character. You have build EVERYTHING from the ground up. Bale didn't need to prep for the sequels as much because the ground work was layed out already. That work was done.

It's not nothing at all lol.

And you're not making baseless assumptions when you say Heath had concrete talks with Nolan? Baseless. Assumptions. Who cares about his past? Artists evolve their ways of approaching new work especially when it's something like playing the same character twice.

Yeah, when you have some idea, like being locked up in Arkham. It comes to two things with you. Stop acting like an actor can't do something new in their approach just because they never did it before. And secondly, acting like Heath had NOTHING to go on, because he did.

He may have locked himself up again for the second time. Maybe for not as long. Maybe none of that method stuff at all. We don't know. But one thing is for sure, its not a waste of time.

He did endure it. For eight years. You just seem to have a narrow mind about it, where to you it has to mean Batman PHYSICALLY roaming around during that time enduring some kind of physical conflict. He endured it. Batman is a symbol. So batman endured the hatred. They hunted him. He can be hunted without physically being there. Especially with the cameras this guy has.

"Because no actor does it that way". That's quite close minded. And the funniest part about this is, he DOES have an idea of where he's starting! Has DDL every played the same character more than once? So you can't really compare now can you? DDL plans YEARS ahead of time yes. For every role.

No it didn't Only from your perspective. He was hunted and hated. It's just that Nolan set the story eight years later, so Bale would just have to look at the script and go "okay, i have to make some adjustments, but it's around the same ballpark". But Bale isn't Ledger. Bale didn't plan. Heath did. We're talking about Heath Ledger.

The movie tells you that Dent was their hero and Batman was the enemy. Mayor Garcia words at Harvey Dent Day says it all. He flat out calls Batman a thug, a criminal and nobody bats an eye. Nolan even says in the making of videos that Batman and Gordon's plan worked at the end of TDK. Batman was a wanted fugitive. He became the villain.

There is no confirmation that he quit the night after Dent died. The last confirmed sighting of the Batman, yes. But no confirmation that he indeed retired. But i'll humor you, okay, he retires the night after and to you that means he didn't endure? I disagree. Always will.

Bruce Wayne? It's not about Bruce Wayne, it's about Batman. They obviously haven't figured out who Batman is in that world. Don't blame Rises for that one, blame the entire series.

Two different movies and approaches. Why are you comparing the two? Just because one tells us and the other shows us, doesn't mean one is wrong and the other is right. It depends on the execution and your taste.

The last time anyone saw Batman, correct. That doesn't mean it was the last time he was out there. Why? He's a ninja, maybe he didn't take out the batpod. Use your imagination. There might be a reason for the "unconfirmed" line in that piece of John Blake dialogue. Nolan uses a lot of exposition, a lot of explaining but at the same time he also leaves a lot of room to fill in the blanks. And like i said before, you can be hunted without being there. Batman doesn't need to be trolling the cops saying PEEKABOO while he darts in and out of forest just so the cops can get busy. And he's certainly not going to roam the streets saving people from gangsters and thieves since he's trying to be HATED by the city. He's a "murderer" remember?

Whatever floats your boat.

They did hunt him.

Gordon says Batman will be hunted, because Batman asked him to call the cops, set the dogs on him. And after he tells Gordon this, Jim calls the cops and sets the dogs on him. They obviously hunted him for hours, days, weeks, months, maybe years. That's their job. He's a wanted criminal. Perhaps Batman was out there for a little longer or perhaps he vanished on that very night. But he was still hunted. Batman does not need to play peekaboo once a week for it to be official that he's "hunted". If you knew there were deer in a forest and you decided to go hunting...and you never saw the deer that day. Would you come home and say "well i didn't go hunting today". No, you went hunting. You just didn't find the deer. Maybe the deer wasn't there, maybe it was and you just didn't see it. But you went hunting.

You're right. He became a recluse five years after TDK. But he wasn't needed because of what happened at the end of TDK. What is the wanted murderer going to do? The mob is done, all the cops need to do is go after the smaller guys if there's any of them left. So what's Batman's role? Bring them to justice like before? He can't interact with Gordon really. He can't do good things. And he's not going to actually murder mobsters just to make a point that he's a killer. So he's useless out there. Why WOULDN'T he retire? He's not needed anymore. And that leads to him being more depressed.

You know what i mean. It's a different kind of worn out. A different kind of depression.

Seems to me like you don't understand acting. Discovery is not a waste of time. Ever. Especially if you have years to do it and you don't know if you'll take another job until then.

Well if you want to believe that he was lurking around Gotham for years then go ahead. But it's kind of obvious that Bane either pulled him out or he escaped with the rest of the Blackgate prisoners.

 

Part 2

Yeah. I always looked at the novelization for confirmation because it says Arkham patients were sent to Blackgate, everyone except Joker. Which lines up with Crane suddenly appearing once Bane takes over and winter begins.

See, Murphy didn't know he was coming back. He had a cameo in TDK. Ledger knew Joker was coming back, i mean how everyone attached to the script was saying Joker would be back. And Heath wouldn't be planning anything if he didn't have some sort of contract. That's why i kept saying that he was tied to another film. I just don't feel like looking up interviews.

Ledger knew he was coming back. Murphy didn't.

Having Goyer suggest Bane, and Nolan going "Yeah sounds good, he's a physical villain so that's a change". Then two years later (two years after Heath's death), Chris has an eye on Hardy (not telling him mind you) for Bane. That's not the same as the crew editing a film like TDK and having ideas for the next Batman movie. There's no proof of that and it seems unlikely. One Batman movie wasn't even finished. So you're the one who's actually missing the point dude.

I don't mean he endured sooo much from that little chase. I'm thinking long term endurance. I don't necessarily mean physically.

Watch what you say bro, you might start sounding like those DCEU fanboys that you always criticize. You don't think that i believe what i'm saying? Why, cuz it doesn't line up with your opinion?

So you know more than the character and the writer and the director? Good to know.

He did endure it. You just have a different definition of it that apparently only has to do with the physical part of Batman enduring chases or some s**t like that.

You can be retired and still endure the hunt and the hate. You must live in a black and white world, because you don't seem to understand grey areas.

Batman doesn't stop existing just when the human being underneath it puts the cowl down. That's the entire point of the trilogy and it seems like you missed the point of that too. It doesn't just relate to the final scene of Rises, it relate to all three films at all times.

It is not foolish or a waste of time to experiment with ideas. I'm sorry but you're totally wrong about that. It's a process. If you're being creative, it can't be a waste of time. Especially if you're having a blast doing it. I couldn't disagree with you any more.

The job CAN be foolish. Making millions of dollars doesn't mean it's not foolish. Actors should not take themselves too seriously. Take the job seriously, but the industry? Yourself? The most humble actors usually share that view. The amount of money they make, the luxury they sometimes have compared to the people who have to do MUCH worse for a living. Yeah, it can be seen as a bit foolish. That's not necessarily a bad word either. It means much more when you're playing a character who was a real person or you're working on ideas that can penetrate the mind in a whole different way. But a guy dressed like a bat and a clown, for a multi-million dollar blockbuster movie. It's NOT THAT SERIOUS. Heath and Christian would be the first to say "yeah this is foolish but it's fun".

Dude it was years away from principal photography and we don't know if Nolan was going to come back. Why would he take it seriously at that point if TDK wasn't even edited yet!? This is what i mean by you taking it too seriously. The time to get serious would be later, not in late 2007/early 2008. More like 2010, 2011. Doesn't mean he can't have basic plans before that time arrives.

Basis of direction: Joker is locked up in Arkham

I didn't say it was the only possible scenario.

Why do you keep insisting that Nolan and Ledger discussed ideas about Joker's return. You keep adding your own ideas and acting like they're facts.

Bane was suggested in 2008. As far as we know he knew for a fact that Bane was the villain in 2010, during Inception. That's two years after the previous Batman movie. Heath probably told his sister this around Christmas 2007. In the middle of a Batman movie. Do you see why this is a bad comparison?

Being locked up in a straight jacket inside a tight cell isn't "some kind of idea or direction"? Really? That's a super basic idea, and it definitely is enough to START the process. Absolutely. It's not at all like the Bale thing, that's not even in the same league.

You're thinking too much about steps. Start from the beginning and then think like an actor. You're locked up, what can you do with your physicality from there? That's probably all it was.

 

Black and white through and through.

Every actor with an ounce of sense. Nobody makes plans for minor work years in advance. Where is the logic in that?

Yes, it is nothing. Telling you Crane is on the loose at the start of Rises is like saying Rachel is dead in TDKR.

No, it didn't. Not remotely at all.

How is it a starting point when it is too vague and gives no inclination about the direction of the character?

It doesn't matter if it's the first time you played the character. The character prep is still required when the character is going in a whole different direction to the last movie. No role is played the same way twice, unless it's a one dimensional role that is just on a repeated loop, which is certainly not the case for the Nolan movies.

Yes, it is lol.

No, I'm not. Because it's not baseless to believe an actor who took the prep of his roles as seriously as Heath was making plans based on no discussions what so ever with the director. Especially when said role was several years away from happening.

Being locked in Arkham is not an idea of where your character is going. That tells you nothing because there is a plethora of directions you can take a character if they are incarcerated. You think if you're cast in a prison movie you know right away what your role is and what your character will be like?

Yes, it is if it's based on nothing. Which it would be going by your assertion that he made plans for the role based purely on the assumption that he would be in Arkham.

He did not endure it. He stopped enduring the moment he hung up the cowl. When he stopped being Batman, all the crap that went with it was done. He was not out there enduring Gotham's hatred, or being hunted by the law. You can't endure something that is not happening to you. Gordon said he could endure being hunted, but he didn't have to. He stopped being Batman that night.

Black and white situation again.

Give me some examples of actors you know of who have done it that way. You're right you can't compare DDL, so why did you bringing him up if it's an invalid comparison? Bring up an actor who has played a role they loved twice and tell me have they planned for playing a role again in years to come in the post production days of just finishing it.

There is no my perspective, there is only the reality perspective. Jumping ahead 8 years and showing a Batman who has not been Batman for 8 years, who was never chased or out there enduring Gotham hating him. A Batman who has been reclusive for years hobbling around on a cane.

Nothing about the ending of TDK gives any inclination that is the way the character is heading. It implies Batman is going to be out there enduring Gotham hating him, dodging the Cops chasing him, while do his hero thing.

The Zodiac Killer is a hated figure and wanted fugitive. But he retired and stopped killing. Do you think he had to endure being chased or hated when nobody knew who he really was, and more importantly he was not doing what he does any more?

Of course not. Batman was branded a bad guy, but he quit. He didn't have endure the stigma of that. He didn't have to out run the Cops because "he can take it".

Did you need it spelled out for you in 50 foot high letters with that dialogue? It was the end of Batman the night Dent died. That was when he quit. If he had still been out there doing his hero thing there would be more confirmed sightings of him.

No confirmed sightings doesn't mean he retired. Biggest strawman argument.

Bruce Wayne is Batman. He's the one under the mask so he's the one who is enduring as Batman. But since he quit, he doesn't have to endure being hated and hunted.

How are the approaches different? They are perfectly analogous to show you how an ending follows through on what it shows and says in the dialogue.

I don't need to use my imagination because if Nolan wanted to make it clear that Batman didn't quit the night Dent died as that dialogue very clearly suggests, he'd have said so. Nolan is the king of exposition. He wants to make sure the messages come through loud and clear. So in no way, shape, or form did Nolan want audiences to get the idea Batman still kept going after Dent died.

You can't ENDURE being hunted and hated when you are no longer out there being Batman. Anyone can endure being hunted when it isn't actually happening to you. Especially when nobody has a clue who you really are.

Show me a scene where we saw Batman enduring being hunted by the Cops.

Yeah, and that lasted for the last 2 minutes of TDK when they chased him to his Bat-Pod. After that he was Batman no more. So where exactly is his endurance happening for this when he's not being Batman anymore?

There is no perhaps. He wasn't. The last time Batman was seen was the night Dent died. Fact. That tells the audience it was the last time Batman was actually Batman. If Nolan wanted the audience to know he kept going after that he'd have thrown in some dialogue to that effect. But he didn't. So you are just flailing around in the dark here.

Batman doesn't fear getting the job done with the Cops after him, as we saw in both BB and TDKR. So I have no doubt he would be perfectly fine to say peek-a-boo to the Cops if he had to.

My dear Shauner, I am not questioning the reasons why he stopped being Batman, I am telling you factually that he was done being Batman the night Dent died, and therefore he wasn't enduring anything as Batman any more. He was done. It was not a direction that was hinted or implied at the end of TDK.

It's one of the reasons why a lot of people were put off by it. It came out of the blue. There was no natural lead up to it like the way BB led into TDK. BB's ending gave hints and ideas about where the story was going next. So did TDK's. It implied Batman was going to be on the run enduring being hunted and hated because he can handle that. But what we got was a Batman who quit that night and didn't have to endure anything.

In what way different?

Discovery of what? What exactly are they discovering?

Two things;

1. Did you see him in Blackgate?
2. Crane is insane so he would be in an asylum not a prison.

 

Novelizations have no bearing what so ever on the movies. They are totally separate entities.

How do you know that? His character was mentioned as a loose end at the end of BB.

Which is what you were chalking up a Joker return in TDKR to.

Heath wouldn't be planning anything unless he had something to make plans on. Meaning some idea of the direction they are taking the character, and I don't mean something as vague as being locked up. That doesn't tell anything about the character's direction.

Again how do you know that? We were all expecting Scarecrow back in the sequel because he was still on the loose at the end of BB. Heck we were all expecting Joker back, and he was captured.

Explain what difference any of that makes. Fact 1: Nolan had decided on Bane long before Rises even started filming. Fact 2: Nolan was sizing Hardy up for the role while they were filming Inception.

That's Nolan not only deciding his villain for the next Batman movie, but also looking at actors for the part while still making an entirely different movie. You're trying to tell me Nolan is a one movie at a time guy and wouldn't have any discussions with Heath about where Joker could go in the next movie. This while they were still on Batman time in TDK post production. Not in the thick of a different movie that had nothing to do with Batman.

Pull the other one.

What exactly did he have to endure long term? Not being hunted because he wasn't being chased. Not being hated because he wasn't out there being Batman any more.

No, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. I don't think you are unable to see that.

Show me where the writer and director refute this.

Do you endure the stresses of your job when you have quit your job? No. You can't endure something you are not doing any more.

Explain how he can endure it when he's not doing it any more. How exactly does that work?

I didn't say he stops existing, I said he stops enduring. You can't endure when you are not doing the job any more. Batman can still exist, because Bruce Wayne is Batman, but when he is not out there being Batman any more, he's not enduring as Batman.

Oh no, I am totally right about that. You don't make plans for a role years away from happening without having any idea what direction the role is going to go. Otherwise you're just flying blind. Nobody can make plans based on nothing. You just end up wasting your time.

The fact you are trying to sell me the idea that Heath Ledger, who spent a month locked away in privacy coming up with this character, keeping a diary, all the research he did etc, would describe this part as foolish. That Bale, who put on all those muscles after being as thin as a matchstick in The Machinist, would do that for a role he thinks is foolish.

And I'm the King of England.

Do you think Heath would entertain the idea of working under a different director for this part, a part he and Nolan collaborated on together?

Exactly my point, it was years away. Name me an actor who plans for a role, especially one that is not a main role as you believe it to be, years in advance? Especially when again you claim they have no idea what is going to be done with the role.

That's not a direction. It doesn't tell you anything about what he'll be doing in Arkham. Might as well say he'll be in Gotham City.

Then why do you keep saying it as Heath's basis for knowing the direction of the character? Why would Heath assume that is how it will go?

Based on the fact Heath was planning for another movie. He wouldn't be planning anything unless he had ideas to plan with for the next movie.

No, I don't see why this is a bad comparison. Bane being suggested, and Bane being decided as the villain are two different things. Clearly he was decided as the villain by 2010, hence why Nolan was actually sizing up Hardy for the role.

What difference does any of this make? Why is it a bad comparison?

Why would you assume that is how he would be? He could be behind plate glass Hannibal Lecter style. He could be mixing around with the other inmates. he could be orchestrating a mass break out. An in house riot. Pulling strings Lecter style etc.

This is why your Joker locked up basis is vague and tells you nothing about what is going to be done with the character.

That's why it's vague and tells you nothing. The Joker can be as physical, as violent, and as crazy inside as he can outside.

 

BTW Joker, i haven't debated with you about Batman related stuff in years. Brings me back! haha.