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.