The Dark Knight Rises POLL: Joker Cameo in The Dark Knight Rises?

[Nightwing 52]

Warner Bros. responded to this rumor. "It's just not real".
http://batman-news.com/2010/11/30/poll-joker-cameo-in-the-dark-knight-rises/

Good.

 

[ChrisB]

Nolan himself commented on this rumor last night at an Inception party:
http://batman-news.com/2010/12/01/nolan-still-working-on-scriptcasting-debunks-cgi-joker-rumor/

 

[El Payaso]

That's really cool. Thank you for sharing that.

Always.

 

[American_Idiot]

Duuuuuuurrrrrrrr... no, I never figured that out. LIEUTENANT DAAAAAAYAAAN.

What's he going to do? Lurk on a staircase somewhere, then hop down to have a nice chat with Joker when the coast is clear? Unless the villain was Harley Quinn (and unless she's played by Crispin Glover, DO NOT WANT), then Batman wouldn't have any need to speak with him and certainly wouldn't want to, because she's the only villain the Joker would really have any insight into, IMO. Not to mention the fact that Batman's smart enough by now to realize he'll never get any straight answers from the Joker. He can only hope for half-truths at best.It's a safe bet that it will be closer to the end of the movie than to the beginning. I can't see it happening early on, to the point where the officials at Arkham would be hunky dory with him being there or interrogating their patients.
Acknowledged, yes, as in mentioned in conversation. Showing his cell would be more than adequate, IMO, but some of these ideas for him are silly, forced, and would take people out of the movie. If he's in there, I want it to be for a reason, and not showing him just for the sake of making the fans mess their pants. If they decide to use that footage of him in the police car at the beginning of the film, though, I think that would be an awesome way to connect the two films and show him without it being cheesy.

First of all, nobody said Batman was going in there to chat with Joker. He is simply passing by his cell while on his mission (whatever that may be) where we see Joker sitting in a corner laughing to himself.

Next, never said WHEN this scene should occur. Near the end would work, and by that time maybe...just maaaybe, Batman's name would be in the clear so he wouldn't have to lurk.

I don't see how including a scene like this is cheesy or tacky. It coincides with the story, right, and would work well with the continuity. We're all entitled to our opinions, and although you are right...it would make fans mess their pants, and earn a nod from moviegoers alike, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I agree. Most of times difficult situations are difficult due to them being difficult.

I am starting to realise I am not as smart as my mummy said I was this morning when she dressed me for school. Must try harder with opening sentences.

Agree again. Joker is EASIEST to re-cast than those examples. Joker’s make-up came before his face, it WAS his face. A different actor (wuth a similar face even when not a clone of Ledger) in the same make-up will be the Joker.

Whereas with Rachel we all could see that she suddenly had a completely different face in the second movie.

The face is the last thing that Nolan needs to worry about being captured in an equally arresting manner, when it comes to that performance.

Will Joker never be able to be portrayed again because of this?

Now I have information that there seems to be other talented actors out there.

Of course the joker should be portrayed again, but perhaps not in such a follow on fashion with seamless continuity, after such a performance.

Yes, talent is one thing, but with some works of art, they spill into genius, where even the most talented can't tread, and I think that's what happened here.
I don't know of course, but I'm willing to bet that even the best actor would not be able to give out the je ne se qua that made Ledger's performance one that floored the world.
And part of the reason why is because the guy himself went to painstaking lengths to acclimatise himself with the creation, and what would be his own take on it, and in the end he created his own Joker there.
I just think the performance was of such quality, any riffing on it would be lesser, and if that is the case, no, I wouldn't want to create a work of art conciously that I instincttively knew was going to be lesser than my last(in this series). I am guessing this is the case for Nolan too, he doesn't want to take the risk, as he knows it is just not going to be the same lightning in a bottle effect they captured in TDK.
I would say it's more of an artistic call than sentiment, and part of that artistic call is to honour the last work.

BTW: Incorrect info. Ledger’s last movie was “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.” Ledger died in the middle of the shooting and guess what? He was re-cast within that very movie, go figure.

I am well aware of that movie, my mummy was just telling me about it when she was dressing me this morning, but it is not a complete work on the part of Ledger, they were from the first couple of weeks of filming only, scenes that would have undoubtably have been re-shot, most films work like this, the first few weeks can be rougher work as the actors warm up, in fact some critics said they recognised this rough quality to the Ledger scenes.
not to mention the obvious fact that other actors had to fill in for all his unfilmed sections.

It is his last completed work on film as an actor, so to me, TDK is his last film, as an artist.
Just as 'L.A. Woman' is considered Jim Morrison's last album with the Doors, not 'An american Prayer', where they put music to vocal performances of poems he did in the studio.

Sure. So every director who has to make a movie with roles that are just too difficult to play, well they should just give up and desist becauise it could be too difficult.

Let’s accept it, Ledger was talented but there are other talented actors. The Joker, as any character, doesn’t die with the actors that portray him.

Yes, it is an interesting challenge. But it was as personal as any interpretation. It’s difficult but that’s no reason to not to do it.

I didn't say no more live action joker, it's just too risky as as an incongrous quality jump, as it is from a seamless continuity.

Wrong approach: he wouldn’t be pretending being Ledger. He would be pretending being the Joker just as Ledger did. And under the same approach.

It would be inevitable, as Ledger created his own Joker there in essence, if there were to be no incongrous jump in continuity an actor would have to riff on Ledger's body language, tics, voice style.
To do so would probably result in a not-so-good performance, a second hand performance, it could be very good, but it would be a bit of sore thumb nevertheless, as Ledger's had such impact, and no serious artist is interested in following up a work of art with an inferior one.
And if the actor did their own joker, own voice, mannerisms, ...it would not work in the continuity, it would feel like a different character, they would have to ape Ledger.

Define ‘historic poerformance.’ And please explain what’s the point behind ‘the man died.’ Actors die. Their roles, especially those who have been portrayed before by different actors and have been born decades earlier than the actors themselves, will live on.

What “lesser effect”? The one that’s in your head? Or did you actually see a Nolan’s Batman movie with the Joker in it performed by a different actor so you know?

Historic performance = One that has such an impact on popular culture, that is talked about in media before release, during release, after release, and for many many years to come, the actor wins the biggest and most well known film award in the world for it, everyone knows it, actors honour it in interviews, that will live on forever in culture.
It has already fulfilled most of that criteria, and i guess it will always be talked about as the great cb/sh villan performance for many years to come, always in fact.

I don’t remember well but I think he actually said that he was after making a good movie, not topping anything previosuly done. At this point we both might as well be merely specualting about what Nolan wants.

No serious artist is interested in making a work of art that is inferior to their past work, not one. They don't think, 'Oh well, it probably won't be as good as the last one, but it'll be good , so I'll do it anyway.'
A serious artist pushes themselves to make the next work better than the last, to develop themselves as an artist.
I think he knows a new actor would prob not match Heath's gig, for the reasons i stated above, having to give a second hand performance by necessity of continuity. edit: So he nixed the idea, to honour the last work.

It doesn’t have to be like that at all. Artistic risk is artistic risk.Difficulties doesn’t mean you have to “forget it.”

He probably weighed it up in his mind, and when he realised the risk was in heavy favour of an inferior performance, then he said 'forget it.'
We will never know for sure, but i am guessing he made the right call, it would not have been as good, and would have been a distracting sore thumb in the movie, and depressing to boot, as Ledger's performance brought so much joy to all the fans of the movie.
So, a. It is depressing because it's not as good.
and b. It's ultra-depressing because it is a reminder of the great talent we lost, so the movie suffers.

 

[Bat-Mite]

First of all, nobody said Batman was going in there to chat with Joker. He is simply passing by his cell while on his mission (whatever that may be) where we see Joker sitting in a corner laughing to himself.

My intent was to question his motivation for going near Joker's cell in the first place, which I would imagine would be an area he'd want to avoid, seeing as how the Joker killed his childhood friend and brought about the events that caused the death of a close ally. Going near Joker's cell would once again tempt him to break his "one rule."

I don't see how including a scene like this is cheesy or tacky. It coincides with the story, right, and would work well with the continuity.

By showing him just for the sake of showing him. Scarecrow's appearance in TDK was kind of needed to give closure to that character, since we never saw how he ended up in the previous film. We see the SWAT team coming in to arrest the Joker in TDK. There's really not any more that's necessary as far as his story is concerned, as any reasonable person can conclude that he's either in prison or in Arkham. We didn't need to see Dr. Crane locked up in Arkham in TDK to deduce that that's where he went.

We're all entitled to our opinions, and although you are right...it would make fans mess their pants, and earn a nod from moviegoers alike, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

I also don't see anything wrong with it, so long as there's an actual reason for it beyond appeasing the fans.