The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[FlawlessVictory]

For those of you saying Nolan wont bring the Joker back because of the reason his story his told and "he was left hanging there for a reason", he's DONE. You could not be more wrong because Goyer, the co-writer for god sakes, said so himself at a comic-con press conference that if Heath were still alive "It would be a no-brainer" to bring the Joker back. So he WAS going to come back which means his story could have been resumed.

Its right here check it out, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz6_vBAvLIA

That was posted here awhile ago. And Goyer saying it would have been a no brainer to include Joker if Ledger was still alive, does not mean that the story was already written for the Joker to return in a third part when Goyer made those comments. Plus, Nolan has already deviated from Goyer's original plan which was to include the Joker in parts 2 and 3. Nolan has final word, and what he wants, goes.

 

[BareYourTeeth]

Originally posted by FlawlessVictory
That was posted here awhile ago. And Goyer saying it would have been a no brainer to include Joker if Ledger was still alive, does not mean that the story was already written for the Joker to return in a third part when Goyer made those comments. Plus, Nolan has already deviated from Goyer's original plan which was to include the Joker in parts 2 and 3. Nolan has final word, and what he wants, goes.

I didn't say it did, what I'm saying is the people who said there his no more story to be told are wrong

 

[louiebling$]

Leave joker alone with this continuity.... when there's a new batman bring him back.I doubt they will use him and if he is used then its will be a small cameo of him in arkham.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I didn't say it did, what I'm saying is the people who said there his no more story to be told are wrong

And then we have these words straight from Nolan himself, "But we tried our hardest to really do everything in this movie that we would want to see the Joker do and to get that in the fabric of the story as much as possible."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/christopher-nol.html

 

[Mr. Joker Risin']

I would be totally fine if they recast the Joker and he returns for the third installment. In '89, everyone was saying Nicholson IS the Joker. People will continue to say that about Heath. They'll say it for the next actor too.

There's only one flaw to that statement, and that is that Jack Nicholson's Joker was very flawed and way off. As many have stated before, he didn't become the Joker, it was just Jack being Jack.

So with "The Jacker" (as I've so elegantly dubbed it) leaving much to be desired, it was no surprise that someone could do a better job. However, it is a MAJOR surprise that not only did Heath do a better job, but that he took The Joker above and beyond all expectations.

It's gonna take a lot more to knock the reigning champ off the Joker pedestal this time around, so Heath can make himself nice and cozy.

In fact, the only reason people were saying that Nicholson's Joker was the end-all-be-all is because everyone is so far up his @$$ that they automatically say anything he does is great. It happens all the time with actors. I've seen someone get offended when a critic bashed on Maryl Streep in Mama Mia. I believe they said something along the lines of, "What are they kiddin'? She's Meryl Streep. Everything she does is great!" It's the typical Hollywood brown-nosers.

Me personally, I like Nicholson as an actor, but I never liked his Joker. He was too fat and too old, and his performance reminded me more of a darker remake of Cesar Romero's Joker and less of how I see a true interpretation of the Joker from the comics as being (which in a sense is what they were going for, so I won't be too harsh on them).

 

[kid dropper]

There were several deviations from the traditional Joker in Ledger's protrayal as well but it was still in essence, very strikingly the Joker. Same with Nicholson, it may not be everyones ideal,and ive always argued that it was just him being him, but he definitely covered a lot of classic aspects of the character. he was very much 70s , 80s Joker, elaborate tv campaigns, acid flower,trick revolver et al. I prefer Ledger's because he was no frills, no nonsense, just crime and chaos like the character was initially portrayed in his first appearances.But Jack's showy, vain Joker is definitely in line with how the character was portrayed for a good chunk of history.

 

[Mr. Joker Risin']

2. What is the origin of that avatar?

And yes, I would also like to know the origins of that avatar...

 

[Mr. Joker Risin']

There were several deviations from the traditional Joker in Ledger's protrayal as well but it was still in essence, very strikingly the Joker. Same with Nicholson, it may not be everyones ideal,and ive always argued that it was just him being him, but he definitely covered a lot of classic aspects of the character. he was very much 70s , 80s Joker, elaborate tv campaigns, acid flower,trick revolver et al. I prefer Ledger's because he was no frills, no nonsense, just crime and chaos like the character was initially portrayed in his first appearances.But Jack's showy, vain Joker is definitely in line with how the character was portrayed for a good chunk of history.

Yeah, I agree. I saw it as a remake of the Joker from the 60's and 70's, but to me, what made Heath's Joker so good is what made Jack's Joker so bad. There may have been pretty drastic changes from the comics in TDK, such as white face paint instead of bleached skin and knives instead of acids and gases, but the core of the character was there. On a more psychological level, Heath's Joker was spot on perfect. Instead of wondering the origns of how he came to have white skin and green hair, he leaves you wondering how he got the scarred face for example. Bottom line: his origins of looking like a clown being ambiguous is key.

On the contrary, the Jacker might have been more accurate to the traditional Joker on the outside, but the root of his portrayal was hallow and empty. Hell, even watch the interviews with Nicholson. At one point he says he did a particular manerism because he thought it would be funny. He clearly has no idea of what the character of the Joker is or what drives him.

 

[Bathead]

I suspect what Nolan could do is to at least acknowledge Joker's existence by including a scene, say, in Arkaham where perhaps someone passes by the cell where Joker sits in the shadows, chuckling to himself, he leans forward a little when he hears someone approach his cell, just enough to see the madness in his still made up eyes, and some one comments something like "That's all he does all day, sits there in the dark,laughing." Or something like that. No recasting per se, but at least Joker makes an appearance, (sort of) and the other characters can at least discuss him and his effect on everyone. Nolan can't just ignore Joker completely, his impact In TDK was enough that it has to carry over to the third movie in some degree.

 

[Laderlappen]

I suspect what Nolan could do is to at least acknowledge Joker's existence by including a scene, say, in Arkaham where perhaps someone passes by the cell where Joker sits in the shadows, chuckling to himself, he leans forward a little when he hears someone approach his cell, just enough to see the madness in his still made up eyes, and some one comments something like "That's all he does all day, sits there in the dark,laughing." Or something like that. No recasting per se, but at least Joker makes an appearance, (sort of) and the other characters can at least discuss him and his effect on everyone. Nolan can't just ignore Joker completely, his impact In TDK was enough that it has to carry over to the third movie in some degree.

That is so Ed Wood.

 

[CConn]

God, you're all being so small minded.

As long as you get a great actor who could complement Ledger's Joker while making his own mark in the series, there would be no problem. If you get someone really great, say Daniel Day Lewis (even though I'm sure his pretentious ass would never do it), it could work out perfectly fine.

Is it a tall order? Sure. But it's been done before, and successfully. This concept of "NOOOOO!!!!! Nothing at all risky should ever be done!!!!" is so utterly childish.

When they cast Ledger, we were all...unsure whether it was a good idea. When they made him wear white make up instead of having bleached skin, we were...equally unsure. How did both of those turn out?

Seriously, while I'm not a "Nolan is God" guy, I damn well know he knows a ****load more about making a great Batman movie than any of us do. And that's not an insult, its just the truth.

 

[Goodfellas]

God, you're all being so small minded.

As long as you get a great actor who could complement Ledger's Joker while making his own mark in the series, there would be no problem. If you get someone really great, say Daniel Day Lewis (even though I'm sure his pretentious ass would never do it), it could work out perfectly fine.

Is it a tall order? Sure. But it's been done before, and successfully. This concept of "NOOOOO!!!!! Nothing at all risky should ever be done!!!!" is so utterly childish.

When they cast Ledger, we were all...unsure whether it was a good idea. When they made him wear white make up instead of having bleached skin, we were...equally unsure. How did both of those turn out?

Seriously, while I'm not a "Nolan is God" guy, I damn well know he knows a ****load more about making a great Batman movie than any of us do. And that's not an insult, its just the truth.

But why bring back Joker??????


Batman has the best and most popular rogue gallery in comic book history.

I wanna see a movie devoted to Riddler Nolan would kill on that character its a Nolan kind of character

Plus people Heath Ledgers Joker is up there with the Darth Vaders and Hannibals in terms of great movie villains off all time


Wouldnt you object if some other guy besides Anthony Hopkins took the role of Lector? And thats saying something because Heath Ledgers Joker was ten times better than Hopkins lector.

If anyone tried to do the Joker next movie theres no way that person could out do ledger and alot of people would object it

 

[kid dropper]

right ****ing on , cconn! (who is that in your avvy?) the last word right there. I think Day lewis would maybe would or wouldnt do it for one reason: he had tremendous respect for heath, in fact about a year ago this time when he was running around accepting awards for there will be blood, hed include something about heath and get all weepy at virtually all his acceptance speeches. I m pretty sure he appreciates the role, the film and the performance as much as anyone. The Dark Knight has all but smashed preconcieved notions of comics. I think his reverence towards Ledger is what might influence his decision, which way i cannot judge.

 

[CConn]

But why bring back Joker??????


Batman has the best and most popular rogue gallery in comic book history.

I wanna see a movie devoted to Riddler Nolan would kill on that character its a Nolan kind of character

Plus people Heath Ledgers Joker is up there with the Darth Vaders and Hannibals in terms of great movie villains off all time


Wouldnt you object if some other guy besides Anthony Hopkins took the role of Lector? And thats saying something because Heath Ledgers Joker was ten times better than Hopkins lector.

If anyone tried to do the Joker next movie theres no way that person could out do ledger and alot of people would object it

If that's what Nolan originally planned to do, or he comes up with some really great way to reuse the Joker, why NOT bring him back?

He's a fantastic, fantastic character. Yes, Batman does have a good rogues gallery (maybe not the best, if you know about Flash and Spider-Man comics), and yes, there are a lot of characters out of that group that I'd like to see. But the Joker is, and always will be, at another level.

It's like, yeah, DC has a ton of really great superheroes, ones you probably have never even heard of. But if I was given the choice between one Green Arrow movie, or a twentith Batman movie, I'd choose Batman ever time. Because he is on that other level.

Everyone doubts right off the bat (and myself included, btw) because they don't have the forsight and the talent to realize just what can be done, and just how well things can be done.

I forget who said it, but, a wise man admits to knowing nothing. I think we all should at least keep that in mind. We don't know how Nolan would use the Joker, or who would play it. It COULD turn out well.

And not to be a dick, but I find Riddler boring as ****. I would dislike it quite a bit if they dedicated a whole moving to him playing an elaborate game Stratego 2 and a half hours with Batman. That said, (unlike you) I can understand why you would want that, and if Nolan decided that that's what he wanted to do, again, I'd keep an open mind.

 

[CConn]

right ****ing on , cconn! (who is that in your avvy?) the last word right there. I think Day lewis would maybe would or wouldnt do it for one reason: he had tremendous respect for heath, in fact about a year ago this time when he was running around accepting awards for there will be blood, hed include something about heath and get all weepy at virtually all his acceptance speeches. I m pretty sure he appreciates the role, the film and the performance as much as anyone. The Dark Knight has all but smashed preconcieved notions of comics. I think his reverence towards Ledger is what might influence his decision, which way i cannot judge.

Well, I see it this way personally (not that I'd expect DDL to feel the same way),

The Joker is a character. It's not Heath Ledger. Ledger DID do great things with the character, and should be immortalized for that, but I'd argue no one could have a performance so great, that it's the final word on any character.

DDL (or anyone for that matter) could add to the character, could put a different spin on it, that is different than Ledger's Joker, but still a very great compliment to it. While, in no way, dishonoring that.

I totally disagree with that concept that if you turn in a better or different performance than another great actor, that you've dissed them or made them be forgotten.

Ledger did great, but Nicholson (and Romero and Hamil, if you ask me) are still fantastic, and Ledger didn't take anything away from them, and no one who plays The Joker in the future will take anything away from Ledger.

It's not one man's party, it's a collective celebration of the character in his many facets.

And it's Regina Spektor.

 

[Movies205]

Meh, this is not Charles Foster Kane here, Heath wasn't the first to play the Joker and he most definitely won't be the last. I'm not against it, but changing actors in a series is always a little hokey unless there useless characters like "Rachel Dawson".

 

[CConn]

Is it really hokey when a death is involved?

 

[Goodfellas]

Is it really hokey when a death is involved?

No of course not but does that mean they have to use the character again?

Listen i just feel like if it aint broke dont fix it.

Of course if Nolan wants to he should i think after the 2 Batman movies he gives us he could cast Kim Kardashian as the love interest and i wouldnt argue because Nolan is on a different planet and he is amazingly good at crafting stories and having characters interact with each other i mean people like that are born with that talent you can;t make a C Nolan IMO


so if Nolan does say were bringing back Joker and re casting obviously than i wouldnt argue that much.. would i disagree?YEs but hey he is damn good at what he does

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I hate when people say that nobody else can play The Joker but Heath. The Joker is a character that many have played and Heath is just one of many actors to play him.

Yes, the Joker could successfully be recast in this series...should he be? Nah, it would be too distracting.

 

[Maze]

Joker and Dent in Batman 3?
Author: Clint Morris Date: Monday, January 12th, 2009 Time: 2:42 am
I've been tossing and turning (nah, not really - but that sounds better than "I briefly considered for a second posting an item on such-and-such) over whether to post what I've heard could be happening for the-too-far-away-I-don't-know-whether-I-should-even-be-mentioning-it "Batman 3" - but ****, since Chuck Roven essentially let the cat out of the bag (probably without realizing it - but by simply reminding people that the role is much bigger than the actor behind it, he's let the world know he's open to the idea of the character's comeback), I'll just come out with it - heard from someone at the WB (most will know I know a lot of the execs at the Burbank compound from my brief time there developing my flick "First Howl", so this isn't verbal spew from someone that drops the yellow lollies in the urinal's there) : The Joker may be a part of the next Batman film - if even in a minor capacity. I know, I Know - I can't imagine anyone but Ledger as Nolan's Killer Clown either (and I can imagine Christopher Nolan feels the same) but from what I can gather it's merely for storytelling reasons - they want to tie-up the character's storyline - not because the character was a part of the reason why "Knight" was so successful.

The Joker has apparently featured in every treatment thus far for the third film.
David Goyer told me a couple of years ago that it was always the plan to have The Joker feature in both "The Dark Knight" and the sequel that followed it. But he also said, at the time, that the plan was for Harvey Dent not to become Two-Face until the third film, so it goes without saying that things change, and things did. Change, that is. And with Heath Ledger abruplty and rather tragically leaving the world shortly after completing his 'Joker' turn for "The Dark Knight", one would automatically assume that all plans for the character to return - if even in a cameo - for the third film would be scrapped.

'Well, Hello Beautiful' - seems that might not be the case. The Joker may still pop up in the new movie - whenever it happens - and, naturally, with a new actor behind the stringy hair and hard-to-imitate laugh. Now I'm sure it's not definite, and it's merely an idea that's on the table (and even if the character's return is part of a treatment that can easily be changed), but there is a strong possibility that Nolan may bring back the character (as hard as it may be for many of us to accept another actor in the role - in this particular incarnation of the Bat-series, anyway) for a final hurrah.

http://www.moviehole.net/200917274-joker-and-dent-in-batman-3

 

[Symbiotic]

^If it's for story purposes, I welcome it with open arms.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

http://www.moviehole.net/200917274-joker-and-dent-in-batman-3

Tie up the character's storyline? There is nothing to tie up, the guy wreaked havoc and was captured at the end. There was never some huge arc to the character's storyline, just read Nolan's interviews on the character. The character is just a force and cut through the film like a buzzsaw. He did his damage, was captured and now Gotham, Batman and Gordon will be feeling the effects for years to come.

Nolan WILL NOT RECAST. Take it to the bank! If Nolan comes back, he's using other villains and if anything, reference the Joker in some manner.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

As long as Christian Bale is playing Batman... then I don't want to see another actor playing The Joker. The dynamic will be lost and undeniably different than what he and Ledger brought to it as a pair.


Now if this third Batman movie goes down the Batman Forever route... then by all means cast away, bring it on and I look forward to a new actor giving me a fresh interpretation of The Joker.

 

[Laderlappen]

Meh, this is not Charles Foster Kane here, Heath wasn't the first to play the Joker and he most definitely won't be the last. I'm not against it, but changing actors in a series is always a little hokey unless there useless characters like "Rachel Dawson".

What do you mean? I know its from Citizen Kane, but what do you mean by this statement?

 

[Movies205]

What do you mean? I know its from Citizen Kane, but what do you mean by this statement?

No one can play Charles Foster Kane again, Orson Welles was the character and its his baby, to do so would be hokey and blasphemy and well pointless. Joker is a serial character, regardless, of how well Heath did, he can never be retired, there are endless interpretations of him and so it really a question of when someone shall replace him and whether it should be in this series and I'd say no.

Like I said Rachel Dawes was useless, she only there to fulfill the need that Batman has a love interest and its only in Dark Knight did it even come close to not feeling force because she died and they weren't together. To change the joker especially after all the publicity would be a bad move unless it was really ****ing good and even then.