The Dark Knight Rises Popularity Contest!!!! Who would you rather see RETURN?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blah blah, Ledger wasn't the only one who could have done what he did. It wouldn't have been done the same way, no doubt about that, but I guarantee that if someone else got the role, everyone here would jump right on the bandwagon as soon as the trailers began coming out.

Same will happen for Batman 3 if he is re-cast and receives a large role. At first it will be, "He can't top Ledger." Then when the trailers and clips start coming out, it'll be a million more YouTube Joker impersonations of whatever catch-phrases show up in the trailers.

Exactly, and that's why no-one can top it :whatever:.
 
Who say you need to top HIS Joker? Joker hasn't got a constant, unchanging personality in the comics, why should he on film?
 
Who say you need to top HIS Joker? Joker hasn't got a constant, unchanging personality in the comics, why should he on film?

The general public. A target age range, perhaps? You either please fans, who know that kind of thing, or others who don't. I can guarantee (and even say this about some people who have seen it) that with most people I know, if I forced them to watch the '89 Batman with Nicholson as the Joker, they'd puke.

And pretty much the whole school has the same attitude as these people.

I'm always up for fresh, exciting takes on characters, but even I was blown away by Ledger's performance so much, that I wish he was here to do it again, and keep the role as long as Joker is featured in Batman movies.
 
Hmmm yea i do see what you are saying.

But i just feel, and this is just my opinion, that people claiming that it would be impossible for anyone to top Ledger, is the exact same things as the people who were saying Ledger would be a crap Joker in the first place.
 
Personally I would prefer both of them to return, the more I watch TDK it seems the Joker did'nt get enough screen time, and Two_Face got even less.

If they are going to bring back the Joker then They must get the guy who is going to voice him in the TDK video game and use CGI to graph Ledger's Joker face onto him... Like they did with Two-Face, as suggested here.

Could it work?

As for the Face do what the guy who plays him says and make him be in a coma.
 
Last edited:
if we have to choose someone to return, then i'd much rather that we get Two-Face back.

but honestly i'd rather that the 3rd film involve new villains. its part of keeping the storytelling fresh.
 
If Ledger wasn't dead, then by all means the Joker should return to BB3. There's so much story potential just on what the Joker did in TDK and how he can do that further and twist others' minds around to serve his means. (Harley Quinn would be one good story line, just change it around to fit the realistic Batverse enough to make it plausible.)

But since Ledger's gone, none should return. It should be a new villain and Two-Face isn't likely to return (despite what some of you guys may think, any return of Eckhart will probably be kept to flashbacks but nothing more).
 
Exactly, and that's why no-one can top it :whatever:.

Because it would have been different? That's no reason.

Ledger's Joker can be continued. It's not that it must be, but can be. Heath wasn't the only good actor on Earth.

The general public. A target age range, perhaps? You either please fans, who know that kind of thing, or others who don't. I can guarantee (and even say this about some people who have seen it) that with most people I know, if I forced them to watch the '89 Batman with Nicholson as the Joker, they'd puke.

In fact back in 1989 people would go "No one can top Nicholson's Joker" go figure.

I'm always up for fresh, exciting takes on characters, but even I was blown away by Ledger's performance so much, that I wish he was here to do it again, and keep the role as long as Joker is featured in Batman movies.

Omigosh! Even you? Well, then there's nothing else to add to this. Even Shiakaru was blown away.

Ok, back to reality. Joker can be kept in the franchise. But as long as Nolan is in charge, I trust him.
 
Yea anyone can fail, but with Nolan at the helm, it's just less likely! :D

When it comes down to it I will respect his and his brothers decision either way. But I just don't buy the crap like "Joker's story is done!! He has nothing else to offer!!" or the "No one can top Heath Ledger!! The Joker belongs to him!!"
 
Because it would have been different? That's no reason.

Ledger's Joker can be continued. It's not that it must be, but can be. Heath wasn't the only good actor on Earth.

But being a good actor is not enough requisite to continue a character. Ledger had it relatively easy, his character was not a continuation of Nicholson's, but a different one. However, any actor that comes to fill Ledger's shoes has to keep in touch with that interpretation. As I've said before, before TDK, Heath only had to do a Joker, but right now, nobody can do Ledger's Joker as well as Ledger. If you don't care for continuity, that's another thing.

In fact back in 1989 people would go "No one can top Nicholson's Joker" go figure.

Got two words for you: .... Re-...boot.

Joker can be kept in the franchise. But as long as Nolan is in charge, I trust him.

Like you said, I don't think Nolan can do anything, or work miracles. And, fortunately, neither does he.
 
Exactly, and that's why no-one can top it :whatever:.

Let me guess, you were saying that about Nicholson too, weren't you?

It can be topped, I promise you that. Every performance can be topped, no matter how good.

Everyone on these forums will be incredibly disappointed with Batman 3 at this rate. All of your assumptions that TDK and Heath's Joker cannot be topped will drive most of you guys to, no matter what happens in Batman 3, hate the next Batman film.

To tell yourself nobody can top Heath is just ignorant, to put it bluntly. For some reason, you all have attached yourselves to Heath as if he was some God simply because he put on a great performance. I love his portrayal just as much as the next guy, but I'm not blinding myself with ignorant thoughts like telling myself that this series (especially the villains) can't go anywhere.

And, I think I should add, by, "it wouldn't have been done the same,"... Well, I think that goes without saying. Just because it wouldn't have been the same doesn't mean it wouldn't have been as good. Nobody will ever do an original performance exactly the same... It's all personal styles, just like every other art form.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm yea i do see what you are saying.

But i just feel, and this is just my opinion, that people claiming that it would be impossible for anyone to top Ledger, is the exact same things as the people who were saying Ledger would be a crap Joker in the first place.

It's not your opinion, dude, it's a fact.

It's funny how quickly these guys did an about face. For some reason, Heath Ledger has gained some sort of God-like status because of his performance (which his death obviously propelled). They seem to think that Heath was the only great actor left, and that nobody else could have possibly done The Joker.

It's sad, really.
 
It's not your opinion, dude, it's a fact.

Wrong, Ledger was not continuing a character established by a previous actor, but intepreting a new one. It's a fact that some people may provide a better different Joker, but not a new one. No one can do Ledger's Joker better than Ledger... duh.

It's funny how quickly these guys did an about face. For some reason, Heath Ledger has gained some sort of God-like status because of his performance (which his death obviously propelled). They seem to think that Heath was the only great actor left, and that nobody else could have possibly done The Joker.

It's sad, really.

It's sad that you don't really seem to analyse what the other side is arguing. I, for example, am not against a recast... but only after Nolan is gone and the rest of characters have their recasts as well.
 
But being a good actor is not enough requisite to continue a character. Ledger had it relatively easy, his character was not a continuation of Nicholson's, but a different one. However, any actor that comes to fill Ledger's shoes has to keep in touch with that interpretation. As I've said before, before TDK, Heath only had to do a Joker, but right now, nobody can do Ledger's Joker as well as Ledger. If you don't care for continuity, that's another thing.



Got two words for you: .... Re-...boot.



Like you said, I don't think Nolan can do anything, or work miracles. And, fortunately, neither does he.

First things first, welcome back Melkay :up:

But, I have to disagree with you. If someone takes over they don't have to just imitate Ledger. Joker hasn't got a set, unchangeable personality in the comics, why does he have to on film?

The guy has a series of mental problems, who says schizophrenia isn't one of them? Who says he could emerge from Arkham slightly different than TDK? Obviously the look would have to be similar, maybe shorter hair like the more traditional Joker seeing as he would get it cut before getting put away probably. Keep the little tics and keep the voice similar. But him having a slightly different personality could be explained. It could be quite unique actually, make Joker a constant menace like a horror movie character. But in a crime thriller.
 
Wrong, Ledger was not continuing a character established by a previous actor, but intepreting a new one. It's a fact that some people may provide a better different Joker, but not a new one. No one can do Ledger's Joker better than Ledger... duh. I visited a couple of forums around the time of the announcement of Heath Ledger's casting as The Joker. You know what I saw?

"The Joker can't be played by a gay cowboy"


"Brokeback Joker" jokes

"He can't beat Jack Nicholson's portrayal"

The comic/Batman community was FLOODED with these posts, and more. Nobody wanted to see Ledger do it because he was too much of a "pretty boy" or whatever else the misguided reasoning was.


And what people fail to realize is that Ledger does not own The Joker. Also, the fact that the way The Joker's re-cast would portray The Joker in Batman 3 would depend on what Nolan wants: Ledger's performance continued? Or a new direction? I've stated a few times on these forums (and I've seen someone else say it in this thread) that a changing personality for The Joker is not all that different from the comics.


It's sad that you don't really seem to analyse what the other side is arguing. I, for example, am not against a recast... but only after Nolan is gone and the rest of characters have their recasts as well.

What is it that I'm missing? I analyzed that people think that Heath Ledger cannot be topped... Because that's exactly what's being said. There has been such a frenzy for Heath's portrayal that it has seemingly blinded the rest of the community as to whether or not another actor could have propelled The Dark Knight to the status it received with another (albeit it different) Oscar-worthy performance. There are many other great actors out there who could have done what Heath did and who could continue his legacy in THIS continuity.


Not only that, but Nolan doesn't receive his fair share of DIRECTING The Joker. He had his own fair share of shaping and molding how The Joker turned out in The Dark Knight. What's saying he can't mold the next guy's performance into the performance he wants?
 
But being a good actor is not enough requisite to continue a character. Ledger had it relatively easy, his character was not a continuation of Nicholson's, but a different one. However, any actor that comes to fill Ledger's shoes has to keep in touch with that interpretation. As I've said before, before TDK, Heath only had to do a Joker, but right now, nobody can do Ledger's Joker as well as Ledger. If you don't care for continuity, that's another thing.

In fact, based on my experience in acting, I can say it works exactly the opposite way.

The actor that has to create the character in him gets the worst part. He has to create the approach, find the voice, find the body posture, find the gestures, find the way of thinking, find the soul. He has to create from zero. Even worse, Ledger had to separate his version from Nicholson and Romero's. And even so, stay true to the essence. That's an incredibly hard task to do.

Now he has done it, we all can see, every John Doe has made an impersonation on youtube. And some of them are very good mind you.

Some talented actor would have the hardest part of the task already done. The only problem could be himself; an actor who would refuse to just copy and paste what Ledger did but wanted to create something new. Apart from that, to copy what Ledger did shouldn't be difficult for an actor with skills. That, in NO CASE, means that Ledger's role was so crappy anyone can copy it. He has to create it from scratch. It emans that his role was so MAGNIFICENT, that he was able to communicate the very soul of his Joker to everyone. And THAT is why we loved his interpretation and THAT is way it wouldn't be so hard to imitate.

What could probably be an actual problem would be the audience rejecting someone replacing Heath Ledger.

Like you said, I don't think Nolan can do anything, or work miracles. And, fortunately, neither does he.

No. It is clear that TDK was no miracle but pure talent and some immensely risky choices. People, fans specially, tend to think that a good movie is based solely on choosing good actors and copy one or two stories from comics. But no.

More than anything I thank Nolan for his love for risky choices.
 
Two-Face could return through flashbacks.... maybe Batman 3 will be like harry potter and the halfblood prince. In Potter HBP, Harry continues to get flashbacks of Voldermort's life as a child and a young adult. Perhaps Batman 3 will show flashbacks of Harvey and show how secretly deranged he was. Perhaps a reporter will find the stories and bring them forth to the public in order to cripple his image.... or maybe a villain (like Riddler) will do it in order to show Gotham that their White Knight never existed.... just an idea....
 
I agree if Heath Ledger was alive people would be PRAYING for him to play the Joker in Batman 3 and the movie would be HUGE and SELL HUGE because me and the rest of the world would love to see more Joker....

....but since he passed away.... no recasts.... not until a new Batman franchise is started 10+ years from now.

So I still vote "Two-Face to return" or "neither to return". That's my vote.
 
^^ I know; probably Ledger-fans out-number Joker-fans.
 
First things first, welcome back Melkay :up:

Thank you, man! :grin:

But... really, you could have made a better welcome. Talking about this topic again sends shivers down my spine. But it's 2009 and I am post-banning Melkay now, so let's go at it again...

If someone takes over they don't have to just imitate Ledger. Joker hasn't got a set, unchangeable personality in the comics, why does he have to on film?

The problem is that in the comics, nothing is unchangeable. Not even Batman, or Gotham. They change in content and style all the time (slight variations, most of the time) but here you are asking to replace several elements of a character (physical appearance, voice tone, mannerisms and body language) and keep the rest of the enviroment the same. Same Bruce, same Batman, same Gotham, same everything... how the hell does that play out?
I said it before, and I will say it again: it is a distracting jolt, and one without purpose or intention. You're not saying anything about the mythos by changing aspects of the character (as opposite to the comics, or the Gotham Knight animated film)... you're only doing it because you want the Joker back. And, in my personal opinion, there are no obvious reasons to have the Joker back for the third.

I ahd a teacher that had this motto: "There's a difference between 'having something to say' and 'having to say something'."

The guy has a series of mental problems, who says schizophrenia isn't one of them? Who says he could emerge from Arkham slightly different than TDK?

And who says he can't be dressed as Santa, riding a flying sleigh and dropping bags of poo down Gotham's chimneys? Anything is possible in film, isn't it?

The crazyness of the Joker is not unlimited, he just seems to be too radical. In TDK he proved to be in complete control of his actions. And we're talking about a guy who sufferend imprisonment (although only for a few hours) and had his face brutally scarred at some point in his life, probably along with more severe traumatic experiences. Do you think some time in Arkham is going to change this guy? Remember: he is an unstoppable force of nature. He is above Arkham, and probably feels at home there. A little time in the cooler is not going to do anything to him.

There's a little thing you guys need to understand about the character... he is NOT a variable. He is a Constant.

Obviously the look would have to be similar, maybe shorter hair like the more traditional Joker seeing as he would get it cut before getting put away probably.

Yah, lets find this incredibly talented actor who also has a similar appereance to Ledger's...

Keep the little tics and keep the voice similar.

... make him exteriorize Ledger's unique body language...

But him having a slightly different personality could be explained.

... and then change his personality (this is the job of the writer, not the actor) to make his job even more difficult. Hey, let's start looking for that guy right now!

It could be quite unique actually, make Joker a constant menace like a horror movie character. But in a crime thriller.

That was what he was in TDK, mostly due to Ledger's personification of chaotic evil. Not everybody can do that as well. Besides, I recall you wanted a Joker with less screen time in the sequel, right? Well, lets find out this incredibly talented actor who an do all these amazing feats of thespian skills. That should be easy.

The problem is that... no matter how good that guy is, continuity is going to be compromised anyway. Ledger had enough trouble being compared to Nicholson, and his performance evaluated. He achieved that in a riveting way, completely dissapearing inside his character. But our next actor will have to be measured by Ledger's work, creating a distraction on the screen, having less screen time, and having to keep most of the previous actor's work for continuity sake.... gee, is possible.... but again, so is Santa Joker and his poo bags.
 
I visited a couple of forums around the time of the announcement of Heath Ledger's casting as The Joker. You know what I saw?

"The Joker can't be played by a gay cowboy"

"Brokeback Joker" jokes

"He can't beat Jack Nicholson's portrayal"

The comic/Batman community was FLOODED with these posts, and more. Nobody wanted to see Ledger do it because he was too much of a "pretty boy" or whatever else the misguided reasoning was.

I know, I also saw that. And the point is? How exactly did you connect that with the rest of yuor post?

And what people fail to realize is that Ledger does not own The Joker.

Who said that? He does own, however, that exact interpretation of the Joker. You have never seen THE JOKER in the screen, and never will. Ledger helped Nolan created this characterization, and the embodied it a very specific and arduous way. To pass that work to an actor who won't be as creatively involved with this interpretation is not only disrespectful to Ledger but for the new actor as well, unless the next one changes the character enough to make it his own, but then tht would be a serious compromise of the unity and continuity of the series. Nolan could do that with Rachel and get away with it because she's a minor character who didn't receive huge fan praise, but to think that works with the Joker too is silly. You're not asking a new actor to deliver a different, better Joker... you want another actor to deliver again Nolan's Joker... and Nolan picked Ledger to do that. He should not settle for anything else.

Also, the fact that the way The Joker's re-cast would portray The Joker in Batman 3 would depend on what Nolan wants: Ledger's performance continued? Or a new direction? I've stated a few times on these forums (and I've seen someone else say it in this thread) that a changing personality for The Joker is not all that different from the comics.

What? Sorry, but now you just crossed the line into complete absurdity. First, Nolan wanted a specific Joker to fit into his world, and he got that. He got that in a collaboration with Ledger and his brother Jonah. And he has expressed almost complete satisfaction with the result. Why would he want a new direction? Second: Joker doesn't change. He changes visual aspects and minor behaviour aspects, but not within a same story. He changes because he has fallen in the hands of many diverse authors and artists and then not only he cahnges but all the enviroment and the rest of the characters as well.
This is not the case. While Nolan is on board we will certainly have most of the same cast and crew, and changing such a huge character as the Joker is not an option. Why go in a new direction with that character and not with the rest of the characters and the world? In comics, he never changes his behaviour within a same story, only in the occurrence of major events, and that didn't happen in the transition from a movie to another... because no, the Joker doesn't changes because he is put away in Arkham. Not even in the comics.

You wanted Nolan's Joker? There's TDK. There's Ledger. That's what Nolan wanted.

What is it that I'm missing? I analyzed that people think that Heath Ledger cannot be topped... Because that's exactly what's being said.

You think that people say Ledger can't be topped at playing The Joker... when they are clearly saying he can't be topped at his own Joker, which is also Nolan's. Believe me, there's a difference.

There has been such a frenzy for Heath's portrayal that it has seemingly blinded the rest of the community as to whether or not another actor could have propelled The Dark Knight to the status it received with another (albeit it different) Oscar-worthy performance. There are many other great actors out there who could have done what Heath did...

That's not being questioned here.


...and who could continue his legacy in THIS continuity.

This is.

Not only that, but Nolan doesn't receive his fair share of DIRECTING The Joker. He had his own fair share of shaping and molding how The Joker turned out in The Dark Knight. What's saying he can't mold the next guy's performance into the performance he wants?

Because the guy is not god. The guy did not create the performance alone. As many have testified (including Nolan himself) Ledger had a great deal of inffluence over the final characterization of the Joker. Who contributed more, Nolan or Ledger? I don't know. But I do know that Nolan won't be able to mold anyone else to give the same interpretation. And continuity is an important part of film series. You don't want an audience distracted all the time by the change of a major actor. Especially an audience that is almost completely in love with the previous actor performance.
 
The actor that has to create the character in him gets the worst part. He has to create the approach, find the voice, find the body posture, find the gestures, find the way of thinking, find the soul. He has to create from zero. Even worse, Ledger had to separate his version from Nicholson and Romero's. And even so, stay true to the essence. That's an incredibly hard task to do.

Now he has done it, we all can see, every John Doe has made an impersonation on youtube. And some of them are very good mind you.

LOL!!! are you really the always wise El Payaso?

As C.S. Lewis once said: "There's the easy good.... and there's the better good." I will always prefer the guy who had to go all the trouble of delivering a genuine performance that wasn't monotonous... of embodying a rich character. "Easy" doesn't means better. Yu can check all those impersonations for better references. And you can also watch great impersonations of incredible actors... like Kevin Spacey impersonating Gene Hackman or Robert DeNiro or Clint Eastwood... I still prefer the old Hackman, DeNiro and Eastwood.

And once the impersonator runs out of material, they have to stop. Because they're not embodying. Because they're giving a poorer performance. And why do I want a reacast if the experience is not going to be better? Thank you, but no.

Some talented actor would have the hardest part of the task already done.

Which is extremely dangerous, because would be taking the part for granted. Do you remember Ledger's Joker shooting the bus driver without looking? Or quickly stabbing a thugh with a pencil and making a joker without giving you time to think? Or his calm conversation with Det. Stepehens? Or the guy he handled the gun, threatening the Chechen? Or his "hi" dressed as a nurse? This was not a monotonous performance... it was a highly creative one, it was one who EMBODIED the character. And if you have any experience with acting, you know he could do so organically because he went through all the trouble of making the character himself. Once an actor starts taking these little "detours" the audience will judge him thinking he's not doing things as Ledger would... and believe me, those will be hard judgements.

The only problem could be himself; an actor who would refuse to just copy and paste what Ledger did but wanted to create something new.

Yes, it is one of the problems. You seem to be the only one who realizes the problem that represents to continuity.

Apart from that, to copy what Ledger did shouldn't be difficult for an actor with skills.

True, but is that desirable to you? I, for example, happen to have higher standards.

That, in NO CASE, means that Ledger's role was so crappy anyone can copy it. He has to create it from scratch. It emans that his role was so MAGNIFICENT, that he was able to communicate the very soul of his Joker to everyone. And THAT is why we loved his interpretation and THAT is why it wouldn't be so hard to imitate.

You do realize that's a nonsense, right? We loved the performance, yes, but how does that have anything to do with how easy or not it's to mimic it? If we loved it so much, it means we will be harshly comparing the next actor to Ledger. Isn't that what happened with Ledger coming after Nicholson? And ledger had more than two decades of distance and a reboot to his advantage?

What could probably be an actual problem would be the audience rejecting someone replacing Heath Ledger.

Which means ANOTHER problem. Only in this post, this would be around the third one.

More than anything I thank Nolan for his love for risky choices.

Then you don't love him that much. The only three risky choices I've seen Nolan do have been:

1. making a complex movie mostly in reverse chronology
2. ending a realistic period film with a sci-fi elements revealed in the last five minutes.
3. casting Robin Williams as a despicable, hypocrite murderer.

None of those were in Batman movies. Ledger's cast was not a risky choice... Ledger was a promising, spectacular actor who got robbed of his best actor oscar. He also had auditioned in front of Nolan and showed his talent and skills first hand. None of us knew what was coming up, but now we can see it was certainly not a controversial, risky choice.
And making Neeson's Ra's mortal and Bruce's mentor was not risky. Making him an inmortal guy who suddenly pops out in the third act of a movie set in a realistic enviroment... that would be risky.

When one spends too much time surrounded by short-sighted, fanatic purists, one tends to lose perspective. As StorminNorman once explained, Nolan is not a risky director. He's just talented and smart. Want a risky director? Watch Peter Greenaway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"