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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joker hasn't got a constant, unchanging personality in the comics

BS. Besides Alfred, the Joker is probably the least changing character in the comics. No matter what happens to him, he keeps being the Joker, albeit some strongly justified changes that always prove to be brief (and non-canon) or minor alterations taht come along every time a new author gives his interpretation of the Batman mythos. And even then, almost all authors have a pretty unanimous opinion of who the character is and how he behaves.

We're not talking about a change in direction here, though. We're talking about a Nolan adaptation, in the nolanverse. We already saw his Joker. It shouldn't change after that. I can bet you a zillion dollars that, were Ledger alive, you wouldn't want a "new direction" in his performance.
 
Dead actor, living character... Dead character, living actor.

It's not an easy choice.

(I'm kidding, of course it's easy. "Neither".)
 
But i feel like leaving them both out will kinda make it seem like the events of TDK don't matter. They are too big for neither of them to return IMO. And since many people leaving the theatre were unclear whether Harvey died, i'd say he's the better choice
 
BS. Besides Alfred, the Joker is probably the least changing character in the comics. No matter what happens to him, he keeps being the Joker, albeit some strongly justified changes that always prove to be brief (and non-canon) or minor alterations taht come along every time a new author gives his interpretation of the Batman mythos. And even then, almost all authors have a pretty unanimous opinion of who the character is and how he behaves.

We're not talking about a change in direction here, though. We're talking about a Nolan adaptation, in the nolanverse. We already saw his Joker. It shouldn't change after that. I can bet you a zillion dollars that, were Ledger alive, you wouldn't want a "new direction" in his performance.

QFT!!!

Ace, do you realize how weird it would be to have a "different" take on the Joker in the next film? It's nonsensical
 
I choose Two-Face, you know why. I din;t see him return in Batman 3.
 
But i feel like leaving them both out will kinda make it seem like the events of TDK don't matter. They are too big for neither of them to return IMO.

After 9/11 you didn't see those involved in the attack again. And that doesn't make 9/11 irrelevant.

It's all about the consequences. The Joker and Two-Face were the ones who had Gotham at the brink of absolute chaos and made Batman go into ostracism. It's all about Batman and his city... nothing more. If Nolan brings the spot back to Batman he will have avoided much of his trouble. In TDK we saw a Gotham that had reacted to the presence of Batman. In the sequel we should have a Gotham that has reacted to the passing of a supervillains and the fall from grace of its protector.
Things have been done that cannot be taken back. The Joker doesn't need to be in the streets to threaten Gotham's stability and Batman's life.
And I think that's the point.

And since many people leaving the theatre were unclear whether Harvey died, i'd say he's the better choice

Many people were in denial. The only way thing that wouldn't have them doubting would have been a beheaded Dent. But Nolan knew better than that. Sometimes it's better to be subtle and not take many in the audience as morons... which they were.
 
^^^^Psssst....... This guys about to blow a gasket....:grin:
 
BS. Besides Alfred, the Joker is probably the least changing character in the comics. No matter what happens to him, he keeps being the Joker, albeit some strongly justified changes that always prove to be brief (and non-canon) or minor alterations taht come along every time a new author gives his interpretation of the Batman mythos. And even then, almost all authors have a pretty unanimous opinion of who the character is and how he behaves.

We're not talking about a change in direction here, though. We're talking about a Nolan adaptation, in the nolanverse. We already saw his Joker. It shouldn't change after that. I can bet you a zillion dollars that, were Ledger alive, you wouldn't want a "new direction" in his performance.

Hmmmm fari enough...

But I'll bet you a zillion, trillion POUNDS that if Heath were still alive all these fools saying "Joker's story is done. There's no need for him anymore!!" would be singing a very different tune.
 
QFT!!!

Ace, do you realize how weird it would be to have a "different" take on the Joker in the next film? It's nonsensical

I dunno, i think it could be quite interesting. Use Joker as a constant menace, use him like a horror movie antagonist, but in a crime thriller. I suppose I'm just sick of every single frickin superhero movie having a new villain every single frickin film. Why do they do that? And don't give me the "to keep it fresh" BS. There is many things you could do with someone like Joker, especially people like the Nolan brothers, we ain't talking about Sam Raimi here. Like the rough story I wrote, he could just serve his purpose in the grande finale. The next one will probably be the last Nolan Batman film, so what...let's just sweep his greatest villain under the carpet for the finale of this trilogy just because the actor who played him before unfortunately passed away? BS.
 
Hmmmm fair enough...

But I'll bet you a zillion, trillion POUNDS that if Heath were still alive all these fools saying "Joker's story is done. There's no need for him anymore!!" would be singing a very different tune.

With me among them. I'd be one of those fool, screaming for his return, justified or not. But the reality is different. Hell, I wouldn't have been happy if Lucas had replaced Hayden Cristessen in "Revenge of the Sith", and I hated Cristenssen in "Attack of the Clones". Of course, he wouldn't have a story to tell without Anakin, but that's another story. There's plenty to tell about Batman that doesn't include the Joker, at least not physically. Nolan should be worrying about that, and not anything else.
 
There is many things you could do with someone like Joker, especially people like the Nolan brothers, we ain't talking about Sam Raimi here. Like the rough story I wrote, he could just serve his purpose in the grande finale.

Sorry, but I don't think the Nolan can work miracles, and I don't thnk they left much to do with the Joker for a sequel. And I'm certain that a recast won't work if the part is reduced to just some moments at the third act of the film.
 
With me among them. I'd be one of those fool, screaming for his return, justified or not. But the reality is different. Hell, I wouldn't have been happy if Lucas had replaced Hayden Cristessen in "Revenge of the Sith", and I hated Cristenssen in "Attack of the Clones". Of course, he wouldn't have a story to tell without Anakin, but that's another story. There's plenty to tell about Batman that doesn't include the Joker, at least not physically. Nolan should be worrying about that, and not anything else.

so how much did him recasting Katie Holmes bother you?... To be honest Im one of the few who thought she was fine with BB ... I think most people were upset about her Tom Cruise private life.... I could care less about a celebrities private life... I thought she was fine.. though I think Maggie did a great job too... she seemed a bit kinder.... there's already been a recast... it's not the end of the world to have to recast a actor.... actors are suppose to be good at there job and take roles that are challenging... I think most people don't go to act in movie that will be no fun and take no acting skills... Im sure a lot of people would like to play out that character further...
 
Sorry, but I don't think the Nolan can work miracles, and I don't thnk they left much to do with the Joker for a sequel. And I'm certain that a recast won't work if the part is reduced to just some moments at the third act of the film.

Who says he needs to work miracles? This is Joker we are talking about, he is a rich character with rich possibilities. You don't need to be a genius to work something out for him.

And him being in the finale of my story isn't just a throwaway "let's chuck him in for the sake of it" role. You obviously haven't read it yet.
 
^ Dent is dead only to unimaginative people...

He fell off a big skyscraper and landed on his back on cement. The very fall would have cracked open his head (think about the pain that would have been tripled by the very fact of his face's condition!). They had his funeral and everything. He's dead. Just like Venom, my friends.

Maybe if they would have left a hint in the film, then maybe it would've been easier for them to bring him back, but you just don't do these types of things like this. Kill off a character, have him slam into concrete from a several story high building, landing on his back and head, then in the sequel say "hey, he was just unconscious, he's still alive." THAT is unimaginative. Imaginative people look for NEW ways to continue the series. If it were left up to people like you, Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow would have returned with a little bit of Joker, and then no Two-Face at all!

Maybe someone falling out of a tall building, slamming into concrete and then being revived works in a Burton film, but not in a Nolan film.

Move on with your life people!
 
Even if he didn't die from the fall he probably would of died from a nasty infection from the, you know, massive open wound on his face?
 
so how much did him recasting Katie Holmes bother you?... it's not the end of the world to have to recast a actor.... actors are suppose to be good at there job and take roles that are challenging... I think most people don't go to act in movie that will be no fun and take no acting skills... Im sure a lot of people would like to play out that character further...

Not much, believe me. I was one of the Katie-bashers in its day (average performance, bad casting). I'm not anymore, but when you look it in retrospective (especially in retrospective) you know that you can't compare Holmes to Ledger... or her Rachel to his Joker.
To put it this way, I would have been really mad if they had changed either Crane, or Alfred, or Fox, etc. They did very good jobs and to diss that would have been very unfortunate. Even in the case of their deaths I wouldn't consider a recast, except Alfred, of course, being a constant element in the series. But when it comes to villains... well, we can have new villains every film. Not even in the case of the best villain (Joker) a return is required.
 
I think if the Joker does not return it will invalidate what he said at the end:

"I think you and I... Are destined to do this forever!"
 
Who says he needs to work miracles? This is Joker we are talking about, he is a rich character with rich possibilities. You don't need to be a genius to work something out for him.

Back in the big recast brawling days, I wrote for Doc Samson a list of the main things the Joker has done in comics, and all of them appear in some form or another in The Dark Knight (that's the genius of it). I'm sure you read it, what do you think about it?

And him being in the finale of my story isn't just a throwaway "let's chuck him in for the sake of it" role. You obviously haven't read it yet.

I have read it, I'm just still mulling about it, and how the Riddler part can be improved. What I am adamant about it's my opposition to the Joker inclusion. No offense, but you didn't use it as a throwaway character... you used it as a deux ex machinna tha thas no other implication on the story. Sorry, but I don't like it. You know what I feel about it.
 
I think if the Joker does not return it will invalidate what he said at the end:

"I think you and I... Are destined to do this forever!"

Yeah, because one movie = forever.

:word:
 
No worries. But his implication in the story is to reveal to Gotham the truth about Dent. And also explain to Batman why he doesn't want him arrested or killed. And him doing a running commentary in a mocking fashion of Batman's fight through the Asylum could be awesome.
 
Hmmmm fari enough...

But I'll bet you a zillion, trillion POUNDS that if Heath were still alive all these fools saying "Joker's story is done. There's no need for him anymore!!" would be singing a very different tune.


If Heath were still alive, I'm sure I would NOT mind seeing Joker return... I would NOT mind seeing the Joker again due to how great he/Heath was... but still a part of me would ALSO want to see Nolan's take on other great villains like Riddler, Catwoman, etc. I definitely know I would be disappointed if Nolan's Batman trilogy ended with only Ras, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face as being re-interpreted by this great director and visionary. I would be disappointed if Joker was the main aspect of Batman 3 and we didn't get to see Nolan stretch his creative genius again and re-imagine another great Batman villain. So if Heath were alive, I wouldn't mind seeing Joker again, but I would mind it if he was the main villain.
 
Yea but Joker wouldn't have to be the main villain, we have already been introduced to him. You could still have the main plot arc involve a new villain, Riddler or Black Mask or something.
 
Joker will come back. I can´t say why I am 100% sure about this but trust me.
 
Joker will come back. I can´t say why I am 100% sure about this but trust me.

Ok stranger on the net whom we know absolutely nothing about, and has provided no proof of what you say. We'll just take your word for it :dry: :cwink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"