The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[Goodfellas]

I dont care if someone else playes Joker....Just wait like 15-20 years down the road or something

It would be really bad PR for the sequel if someone else plays Joker...especially since Ledger is dead(R.I.P)

 

[Goodfellas]

I dont care if someone else playes Joker....Just wait like 15-20 years down the road or something

It would be really bad PR for the sequel if someone else plays Joker...especially since Ledger is dead(R.I.P)

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Sometimes recasts need to happen in order to keep the story going. The oracle in the matrix passed away between the second one and the third one, and granted the oracle wasnt a main featured character, it was nessesary to keep the story going. I suspect its the same way with the joker. The character of the Joker does not die with heath, and as much as we'll miss him the show must go on. As long as the re-cast actor is someone that has acting talent, then Im not worried.

B3 wont come out till at least 3-4 years after TDK hit theatres. I think thats more than enough moratorium.

We really dont know anything so people saying that without a doubt there is no recast are just stating their wishes as fact. If we look at history, a recast has already happened. If we look at the story, batman is in a bad predicament at the end of TDK just so that the joker doesnt win. It would be pretty anticlimatic for the movie to clear batmans name without the joker involved. Because of this Im more inclined to think that the Darth Vader of this trilogy is going to return. It could go either way, but because of those facts and this latest quote I think a recast is most definitely a posibility.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'm not dead-set against a recast. It's not like I think it's morally wrong, Heath himself would have said the show must go on. I just think, practically, it's going to be an unpopular decision, and WB, Nolan and whoever they were to cast as The Joker would have to work extra hard to overcome that disadvantage.

So I'm not saying don't recast The Joker. Just don't recast The Joker unless you have a damn good reason to, and the character of The Joker will really add something to the narrative of the film other than crowd-pleasing and clutter.

 

[CaptainClown]

No diss to you guys, but ur falling hook line and sinker to internet hype.

ROVEN did not say that Joker could return. He answered a ridiculous hypothetical question about taking the role away from Heath if he knew in advance that he would pass away.

*the blogger* who posted the article then speculated at what he thought Roven was saying. Which is ridiculous. They took the answer to one question and made it an answer to another.

Don't be so gullible for a page hit guys, come on.

- Jow

this

 

[Laderlappen]

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.

I dont see the difference. If the Joker has been at one point only portrayed by one actor. And really Heaths Joker has only been portrayed by Heath. Jack's Joker and Romero played a character based on the same as Heath, but they did never play the same character. This Joker's is Heath's character just as much Kane was Welles'.

 

[The Batman]

Even if Ledger had lived, the idea of him returning is kinda tired, imo...for example, as much as i like ian mckellan's magneto, imagine if he werent in all three movies taking up screentime? Then, maybe characters like storm and cyclops wouldve been developed more...maybe gambit, a fan favorite, wouldve actually been in a movie. Joker's arc dosent really need to expanded, and recasting just seems to be an unnecessary effort on a closed book. Let's see Nolans takes on new villains, not throw joker in because he's the ultimate batman villain.

 

[Anjow1060]

This "article", and thread still being open cause me great disdain.

- Jow

 

[CaptainClown]

Even if Ledger had lived, the idea of him returning is kinda tired, imo...for example, as much as i like ian mckellan's magneto, imagine if he werent in all three movies taking up screentime? Then, maybe characters like storm and cyclops wouldve been developed more...maybe gambit, a fan favorite, wouldve actually been in a movie. Joker's arc dosent really need to expanded, and recasting just seems to be an unnecessary effort on a closed book. Let's see Nolans takes on new villains, not throw joker in because he's the ultimate batman villain.

Ya, it feels like what Fantastic Four did. Bringing back the same villain, like you said, is very tiring.

 

[Anjow1060]

Ya, it feels like what Fantastic Four did. Bringing back the same villain, like you said, is very tiring.

You just have to do it right. Joker is interesting enough that he could be in multiple movies. But back to back is a little tiring. I'd like a breath of fresh air with a couple new villains. Not to mention, him being away for a short while adds a bit of dread in the audience when he actually returns.

"How can I miss you if you don't go away?"

- Jow

 

[The Joker]

Even if Ledger had lived, the idea of him returning is kinda tired, imo...for example, as much as i like ian mckellan's magneto, imagine if he werent in all three movies taking up screentime? Then, maybe characters like storm and cyclops wouldve been developed more...maybe gambit, a fan favorite, wouldve actually been in a movie. Joker's arc dosent really need to expanded, and recasting just seems to be an unnecessary effort on a closed book. Let's see Nolans takes on new villains, not throw joker in because he's the ultimate batman villain.

Well said.

Unless Joker is an absolutely essential plot element for Batman 3, leave him out of it.

 

[Raiden]

Since Nolan will likely only do a trilogy and then quit the franchise, I doubt he'd bring Joker back for the third installment because quite frankly, there are other Batman villains he could use. And he knows that if he casts another actor to play Joker, it'd just invite comparison to Ledger's Joker which I don't think he would want. The most likely scenario is that Nolan will wrap up the last film with another villain, and Batman will be rebooted several years down the road with a new direction, and a new Joker. Of course, whoever play Joker will be compared with all the Jokers, esp. Ledger's Joker, so he'll have big shoes to fill.

 

[CaptainClown]

You just have to do it right. Joker is interesting enough that he could be in multiple movies. But back to back is a little tiring. I'd like a breath of fresh air with a couple new villains. Not to mention, him being away for a short while adds a bit of dread in the audience when he actually returns.

"How can I miss you if you don't go away?"

- Jow

You can do anything right and make it awesome but this isn't the case. With such a limited amount of movies that are going to be made by the Nolan team that it DOES feel like more of the same. Especially since Joker is the ultimate SCENE stealer. Any movie he is in would have fans screaming "WHY WASN'T JOKER IN IT MORE?!"

 

[Anjow1060]

You can do anything right and make it awesome but this isn't the case. With such a limited amount of movies that are going to be made by the Nolan team that it DOES feel like more of the same. Especially since Joker is the ultimate SCENE stealer. Any movie he is in would have fans screaming "WHY WASN'T JOKER IN IT MORE?!"

very true. Just like how the scarecrow was complained about before the Joker overtook the edges on everyone's mind.

Either way, people are still gonna say, regardless of who plays what villain, "they're not as good as Heath was as the Joker."

And that's not even Heath really. I've said this a bajillion times and I'll say it again. Heath just nailed the character of the joker in his performance. BUT, that doesn't make him a better actor than Oldman, Eckhart, Bale, etc. They ALL nailed their performances. The character of the Joker is just that great.

In addition to that, Joker got more of the spotlight than Batman in this film, so if they shine a little more light on Bruce/Bats in the next one, that'll hurt the screen time of the next villain and thus, deminish their performance even more. It's a lose-lose situation.

- Jow

 

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/01/09/could-the-joker-return-for-the-dark-knight-sequel/


On a related note: did any of you see Revolutionary Road??? Micheal Shannon's performance just screamed Joker. I also hate to inform you but recasting will happen one day folks even if its not in the next film. I know alot of you are in denial about this. The jokers popularity is on par with Batman himself.
http://www.chicagomag.com/images/2006/December 2006/michaelshannon.jpg

Hahaha! I was thinking the same thing! Michael Shannon was great in the movie. And yes, it was basically the joker without the makeup and scars. The voice, slight slouch of the shoulders, and I just loved how he got under everybody's skin. Especially during his last scene in the film. His role was definitely a scene stealer.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

How can people be saying there is no need to have Joker in the next film. Unless i've gone completely insane, i'm pretty sure Joker is one of only a handful of people who know the truth about Dent. If the theme for the next movie is redemption for Batman, and i'm pretty sure it will be, Joker HAS to have a role in that.

And another thing, this will probably be the last in a trilogy. Excluding Joker from the finale would be like excluding Darth Vader from Return of the Jedi. You guys want this fantastic series of films to go out with a bang right? Seriously, what other Bat-rogues can provide that bang? Errrr...that's it, there is none. Well about from Two-Face. The Joker wouldn't even have to be the main antagonist, he could just pop up randomly to cause havoc for both Batman AND the main villain, just like he sometimes did in the comics. Or they could just use him for the grande finale, a final showdown between Batman and J to end the trilogy.

Yea Heath gave a monumental performance, no doubt. But no one and i mean no one is bigger than the Joker, the show must go on. This disrespectful to Heath stuff just doesn't hold any ground IMO. How is it disrespectful to Heath? It's not as though they would just ignore his brilliant work, pretending he never done it.

 

[The Batman]

How can people be saying there is no need to have Joker in the next film. Unless i've gone completely insane, i'm pretty sure Joker is one of only a handful of people who know the truth about Dent. If the theme for the next movie is redemption for Batman, and i'm pretty sure it will be, Joker HAS to have a role in that.

And another thing, this will probably be the last in a trilogy. Excluding Joker from the finale would be like excluding Darth Vader from Return of the Jedi. You guys want this fantastic series of films to go out with a bang right? Seriously, what other Bat-rogues can provide that bang? Errrr...that's it, there is none. Well about from Two-Face. The Joker wouldn't even have to be the main antagonist, he could just pop up randomly to cause havoc for both Batman AND the main villain, just like he sometimes did in the comics. Or they could just use him for the grande finale, a final showdown between Batman and J to end the trilogy.

Yea Heath gave a monumental performance, no doubt. But no one and i mean no one is bigger than the Joker, the show must go on. This disrespectful to Heath stuff just doesn't hold any ground IMO. How is it disrespectful to Heath? It's not as though they would just ignore his brilliant work, pretending he never done it.

except joker is not needed to prove batmans innocence...and nolan has said that he considers his films individual. The thing that was great about scarecrow coming back was that to anyone who didnt see BB, he was just a drug dealer in a mask. And honestly, that kind of "Everything has to be big for the third" mentality is usually what leads to the third film sucking. Joker dosent need to be in the third film. This isnt about heath being replaced...if Batman 3 is going to have a shot at being as good as the first two, it has to do what the first two did: break new ground. Bringing in Joker again just to have him running around spouting the same old stuff about chaos...is not interesting. At all.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Who said the only thing he could do is just run around spouting his chaos spiel again? There's loads of possibilities with Joker. I think if the story calls for him, he MUST be included. They shouldn't feel limited just because Heath has passed away.

And I'll say it again, excluding Joker for the finale of this franchise is the same as excluding Darth Vader from the finale.

 

[The Batman]

Well said.

Unless Joker is an absolutely essential plot element for Batman 3, leave him out of it.

Honestly, all these "joker must be in third" arguments seem just as contrived as the "Ledger cant be replaced!" Countless comic franchises have used different villains for each film....and in this case, its not even worth it. It's almost as if people just want joker in a third to show that ledger can be replaced, which is gonna happen anyway in a different batman franchise.

 

[The Batman]

Who said the only thing he could do is just run around spouting his chaos spiel again? There's loads of possibilities with Joker. I think if the story calls for him, he MUST be included. They shouldn't feel limited just because Heath has passed away.

And I'll say it again, excluding Joker for the finale of this franchise is the same as excluding Darth Vader from the finale.

No....it's not...its not the same thing. Nolan's Batman franchise is not like star wars or lord of the rings. Joker is not the overall threat of the franchise. Joker, like Ras and Scarecrow, happen to be the threat of the individual story. The only one who came close to a darth vader role was Ras.

 

[Lightning54SC]

ok seriously,

Ledger was good but hes notthe joker, he over dosed liek a tard cuz he couldnt handle his drugs. I show my sympthy for him dying but he did it to himself. THere needs to be a joker! regardless if he was a alive or not!

get over it hes dead and i dont wanna wait 20 years for a return! you guys can but i assure you the third movie will blow if theres no joker apart of it

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well I think it is. Joker isn't just any old villain is he? He is THE villain in the Batman mythos, the films should translate that IMO. I see TDK as a introduction to Joker, to show how his relationship with Batman begun. "We are destined to do this forever". Why have a line like that in there if he is to be completely swept under the carpet in the finale?

The fact is, if Ledger were alive today we wouldn't be having this conversation. His inclusion in the next film would be 100% guaranteed, anyone who thinks otherwise is completely deluded. Heaths death was unfortunate and heartbreaking, but I don't think it should change anything as far as the films go. The show must go on.

Now, I never said he should be the main villain, not at all. I'm all for other villains to be included. I wrote a treatment in the "Where do we go from here" thread or whatever it's called that includes two other villains but also includes the Joker in a final quarter grande finale type thing. I think something like that would work as it doesn't over use Joker. You should check it out and tell me what you think.

 

[The Batman]

Well I think it is. Joker isn't just any old villain is he? He is THE villain in the Batman mythos, the films should translate that IMO. I see TDK as a introduction to Joker, to show how his relationship with Batman begun. "We are destined to do this forever". Why have a line like that in there if he is to be completely swept under the carpet in the finale?

The fact is, if Ledger were alive today we wouldn't be having this conversation. His inclusion in the next film would be 100% guaranteed, anyone who thinks otherwise is completely deluded. Heaths death was unfortunate and heartbreaking, but I don't think it should change anything as far as the films go. The show must go on.

Now, I never said he should be the main villain, not at all. I'm all for other villains to be included. I wrote a treatment in the "Where do we go from here" thread or whatever it's called that includes two other villains but also includes the Joker in a final quarter grande finale type thing. I think something like that would work as it doesn't over use Joker. You should check it out and tell me what you think.

You compare Joker to Darth, yet you say that he dosent have to be the main villain....thats contradictory. While Palantine is the guy pulling the strings, Vader is the source of the main conflict in all three movies...and then, your idea puts joker in the last part of the movie....which is pointless. Using your Darth Vader comparison (Which again does not fit this situation), its like having Vader come in during the last half hour of return of the jedi, which wouldve weakened the final battle in the movie since there has been no buildup or confrontation beforehand.

Again, people are looking to much into joker's line. It was pretty much a commentary on how they wont kill each other....dosent mean joker HAS to be in the next film, and again, if heath were alive today, i'd comment on how him being in yet another batman movie would be tired, unless he has the same role scarecrow did in TDK

 

[Keyser Soze]

Who said the only thing he could do is just run around spouting his chaos spiel again? There's loads of possibilities with Joker. I think if the story calls for him, he MUST be included. They shouldn't feel limited just because Heath has passed away.

And the flipside of this argument is, of course, that if the story DOESN'T call for The Joker, he shouldn't just be thrown into the mix for the hell of it. Even if Heath was still alive, this would be an issue Nolan would have to consider, but having to go through the (likely controversial) procedure of recasting the role will only serve to foreground and heighten the problem.

And I'll say it again, excluding Joker for the finale of this franchise is the same as excluding Darth Vader from the finale.

This analogy would only work if you had Star Wars be a box office success without Darth Vader, and Vader only debuted in Empire Strikes Back. Nolan has already made a perfectly good Batman film without The Joker. And I'm sure, with the wealth of Batman characters he has yet to use, he has the talent to do one more.

There is nothing that will hobble the third film faster than Nolan buying into the words of his own detractors, and believing that his film will fail if The Joker isn't in it, that it's The Joker carrying the whole film single-handedly. Nolan needs to have faith in the rest of his excellent ensemble cast, in the multitude of new characters and eager actors awaiting him, and most of all, in his brother's and his own storytelling prowess. With the level of talent on-board for this franchise, they can certainly put together a great film without The Joker.

Again, I'm not saying "absolutely no" to a Joker recast. But I'm not saying "absolutely yes" like some seem to be either. In my opinion, what the Nolans need to do is remove Heath Ledger from their minds, and go forward with their next script as if he was alive. Put together what they feel is the strongest possible continuation of Bruce Wayne's journey. Build a narrative that, like The Dark Knight, is a streamlined, focused machine. And if The Joker is an essential component of that machine once they're done, then recast him. But if adding The Joker into proceedings would come across simply as a crowd-pleasing indulgence, or a desire to simply repeat what worked before rather than meaningfully contribute in a new way, then the character should be left out of the next film.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I'm comparing Joker's importance to the Bat mythos to Vader's importance to the Star Wars mythos, simple as that really.

HAHAAH You're telling me, that if Heath was alive today, you wouldn't want him in another Batman movie? No chance, absolute no chance. You might think like that now after you know it won't happen anyway, but...no chance anyone on this board would feel like that.

I guarantee you right now, that if Heath was alive, celebrating winning a Golden Globe, every single fan of TDK on this board would be clammering for his return, they would be making threads about what his role in the next one would be. No ****ing way would there be people going "Oh well, I'm bored of Joker now, let's just move on to someone like Riddler or Black Mask anyway" No.****ing.chance.