The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[The Batman]

All I'm saying is, I'm sure Nolan understands that the movies will go on without him. "Trilogy" is not the word folks. "Nolan's trilogy" sure. But that's it. Nothing else. It's not a "Batman Trilogy" in the least. He left the door open for other artists to use the character. That's that. We don't NEED Joker for round 3. Nolan did everything he wanted to do with the Joker.

Same with face - Is he dead? As far as Nolan is concearned = yep.

Is he dead to the general audience, fanboys, execs? Not a chance. Nolan knows this as well and left it ambiguous so that, once again, another film maker can explore that character if they like. Why do you think Scarecrow was so downplayed in this film? Nolan shot his wad on the character. There wasn't much more he wanted to do with him. But he needed to close that door on him. Joker was captured = door closed. Face is "dead" or in a coma = door closed. Can they open these back up if they want? Yep.

Will Nolan? I really really doubt it? I don't think he held anything back from these characters when he used them. And so why would he re-tread them again?

Honestly, to hell with the Joker right now. I'm satisfied with what we got from Nolan. Let's get some great interpretations of the riddler, catwoman or the bazillion other villains he can use.

It's maddening to see this thread still open because of the stupidity it was started with from that original "article". It's, pardon my french, BS. To even want the Joker back right now is stupid. No arguments, just plain stupid. It'll be the same old song and dance while Nolan's behind the helm. Not that it wasn't great, but lets let that go for now.

Keywords = "for now."

When someone else comes in I'll be at the forefront wanting to see "their" Joker. I've seen Nolan's. Let him and us have some new stuff. To be honest, I've seen TDK enough that I'm sick of the Joker already. Even Two-face. I've had my fill of them in this style. It was perfect. I don't need anymore. Give me something fresh.

But MOST of all = give me a story about Batman this next go around. No more of this "______ 's story arc is more important than Bruce Wayne's" crap.

You could have him fighting the Clock King for all I care. Just give me a story about Batman. Please.

- Jow

this post is all that needs to be said on the subject

 

[Ace of Knaves]

All I'm saying is, I'm sure Nolan understands that the movies will go on without him. "Trilogy" is not the word folks. "Nolan's trilogy" sure. But that's it. Nothing else. It's not a "Batman Trilogy" in the least. He left the door open for other artists to use the character. That's that. We don't NEED Joker for round 3. Nolan did everything he wanted to do with the Joker.

Same with face - Is he dead? As far as Nolan is concearned = yep.

Is he dead to the general audience, fanboys, execs? Not a chance. Nolan knows this as well and left it ambiguous so that, once again, another film maker can explore that character if they like. Why do you think Scarecrow was so downplayed in this film? Nolan shot his wad on the character. There wasn't much more he wanted to do with him. But he needed to close that door on him. Joker was captured = door closed. Face is "dead" or in a coma = door closed. Can they open these back up if they want? Yep.

Will Nolan? I really really doubt it? I don't think he held anything back from these characters when he used them. And so why would he re-tread them again?

Honestly, to hell with the Joker right now. I'm satisfied with what we got from Nolan. Let's get some great interpretations of the riddler, catwoman or the bazillion other villains he can use.

It's maddening to see this thread still open because of the stupidity it was started with from that original "article". It's, pardon my french, BS. To even want the Joker back right now is stupid. No arguments, just plain stupid. It'll be the same old song and dance while Nolan's behind the helm. Not that it wasn't great, but lets let that go for now.

Keywords = "for now."

When someone else comes in I'll be at the forefront wanting to see "their" Joker. I've seen Nolan's. Let him and us have some new stuff. To be honest, I've seen TDK enough that I'm sick of the Joker already. Even Two-face. I've had my fill of them in this style. It was perfect. I don't need anymore. Give me something fresh.

But MOST of all = give me a story about Batman this next go around. No more of this "______ 's story arc is more important than Bruce Wayne's" crap.

You could have him fighting the Clock King for all I care. Just give me a story about Batman. Please.

- Jow

You make some good points.

But what if whoever comes along after Nolan doesn't want to carry on his vision? His continuity?

What I'm saying is why leave out Batmans greatest villain completely from the finale of "Nolan's trilogy". Why do it? The Joker has information that only a handful of other people know. Do you think it would make sense to just pretend that he doesn't know that information and just forget about him? I don't think that would be very clever and I'm sure a lot of people would be like "Hold on, doesn't Joker know about Harvey Dent? Where is he?" HE'S SITTING IN HIS CELL, WASHING HIS TIGHTS!! Yea right...

People talk about continuity, well it wouldn't be keeping with continuity to just completely forget about a plot point like that would it?

 

[RockyBatboa]

anjow-

it's funny, man. i agree with just about everything you said. Nolan has done his versions of theese foes, simultaneously closing HIS chapter on them while also lending possibility for future directors to tell new stories with them down the pike.

as for trilogy, couldnt be more true. Nolan will do the third, most likely, and that will be his last , but WB's last? our last? NOT a chance. the franchise, which has always been profitable, is too much an asset for WB to stop. it's their james bond. and they're are too many stories, characters, villians,periods, to end with just the modern 3.

but stupid to see the joker again soon? i dont know about that. i've seen ledger's joker hundreds of times, and i'm still not sick of it, something that good deserves another go around. i'll say this, i wont be upset with joker announced in the next film, especially if accompanied wiith a jolie catwoman and malkovich black mask.

 

[RockyBatboa]

Errr...no. I've never mentioned Pearce for any other role. The guy would be PERFECT for Riddler IMO.

{pearce perfect for Riddler) .....to poop on!

lol...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

{pearce perfect for Riddler) .....to poop on!

lol...

Hmmm...well you're in the minority there. What don't you like about him? He is a great actor and has traits perfectly suited to playing the Riddler. Haven't you seen Memento or LA Confidential?

 

[The Batman]

You make some good points.

But what if whoever comes along after Nolan doesn't want to carry on his vision? His continuity?

What I'm saying is why leave out Batmans greatest villain completely from the finale of "Nolan's trilogy". Why do it? The Joker has information that only a handful of other people know. Do you think it would make sense to just pretend that he doesn't know that information and just forget about him? I don't think that would be very clever and I'm sure a lot of people would be like "Hold on, doesn't Joker know about Harvey Dent? Where is he?" HE'S SITTING IN HIS CELL, WASHING HIS TIGHTS!! Yea right...

Jow didnt say anything about someone else carrying on nolans universe...he just dosent want to see joker done under nolans direction again...which i agree with.

You seem to think that Nolan's films work like other trilogies when they dont. He has said before that he wants his films to stand on their own...this is not a saga in the sense that all three films are one big movie. If that were the case, specific events of BB would have direct consequences on TDK.

And Again...what information does Joker have? Joker didnt see who Harvey killed...he just broke his spirit and assumed he'd cause havoc. Joker himself has no proof of what harvey did...so how does joker "Have to be" in B3 exactly?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Jow didnt say anything about someone else carrying on nolans universe...he just dosent want to see joker done under nolans direction again...which i agree with.

You seem to think that Nolan's films work like other trilogies when they dont. He has said before that he wants his films to stand on their own...this is not a saga in the sense that all three films are one big movie. If that were the case, specific events of BB would have direct consequences on TDK.

And Again...what information does Joker have? Joker didnt see who Harvey killed...he just broke his spirit and assumed he'd cause havoc. Joker himself has no proof of what harvey did...so how does joker "Have to be" in B3 exactly?

Specific events in BB did have consequences in TDK. Like err I dunno, the birth of Batman? The Joker card? Scarecrow still on the run?

Joker knows Harvey went bad, he was the one who made him go bad.
When he was talking to Batman in his last scene, his "ace in the hole". How do you think the Joker would react when he finds out Batman and Gordon ruined his plan? His plan was to demoralize the citizens of Gotham by making their white knight bad. He did succeed, but it was covered up. Do you think he would just lie down and let that happen? Of course not.

And i'll say it again. Joker's knowledge of Harvey is a plot point. It isn't something that can just be ignored.

"Well, Joker knows about Harvey, but that doesn't matter." Hmmm...

 

[Anjow1060]

You make some good points.

But what if whoever comes along after Nolan doesn't want to carry on his vision? His continuity?

What I'm saying is why leave out Batmans greatest villain completely from the finale of "Nolan's trilogy". Why do it? The Joker has information that only a handful of other people know. Do you think it would make sense to just pretend that he doesn't know that information and just forget about him? I don't think that would be very clever and I'm sure a lot of people would be like "Hold on, doesn't Joker know about Harvey Dent? Where is he?" HE'S SITTING IN HIS CELL, WASHING HIS TIGHTS!! Yea right...

People talk about continuity, well it wouldn't be keeping with continuity to just completely forget about a plot point like that would it?

First off, the actor who made the character memorable for a whole new generation is dead. While it shouldn't affect continuity for something such as this, out of respect for what he did, why would you cheapen that by replacing him for a bit of information that can be used in several different ways?

Ramirez? Gordon? Batman? The Swats on the roof that heard Gordon on the phone call? Evidence (Such as the bullets in Maroni's driver and Wuertz matching to the gun that was STILL IN DENT'S HAND as he laid there?) There's a bajillion different ways to re-open that problem. Was anything reshot after Ledger died? Not a damn thing. So why were those things in TDK to begin with? Most likely because Nolan wasn't planning on using the Joker to explain those in the next film. Do I think maybe there was a scene he wanted where the Joker and Batman had a dialogue about how he knows he didn't break his rule and he'll keep coming after him till he does? Possibly. But that's a part of the Joker that several characters know of him and could easily relay that information to bats - even though it's not necessary "I think you and I are meant to do this forever." Joker knew then and there that Bats would never do it. So there's really no need for that scene to begin with. It'd be nice, sure. But necessary? Nope.

Joker can come back, should come back, and will come back. But we don't need him. We really don't. Nolan's an ace at boiling these characters down to their essance, understanding them and then bringing those personalities to levels we've never even seen in the comics. Why should we waste time on the Joker more when he can make some of the weaker villains just as strong, or possibly even more amazing than the Joker?

I know the fanboyism is that Joker is #1 forever. But anything is possible. And Nolan has spoken numerous times about "topping himself" in sequels. Why not take on this challenge? How do you top the greatest villain ever played perfectly by one of the most talented actors to touch his persona?

You take someone like the Riddler, piss on Jim Carrey and Frank Gorshin, and make John Glover and Bruce Timm go, "Damn.....I thought we had it down." Or the penguin that would make even Danny DeVito go, "I wish I got to play it like that." Or Halle Berry go, "I could have been the best villainess of all time if I just waited a little longer for that role...."

In the words of that guy from "Angels with filthy souls" - "I could go on forever baby."

Joker WILL be topped, it's just a matter of when. We don't need his amazingness to "tap off the trilogy."

- Jow

 

[RockyBatboa]

Hmmm...well you're in the minority there. What don't you like about him? He is a great actor and has traits perfectly suited to playing the Riddler. Haven't you seen Memento or LA Confidential?

I've seen both , and they came out 5-10 years ago. Pearce was primed to be a new great leading man and chracter actor, but i think the directors pulled the best out of him from those two efforts. What has he done lately? It seems he's become more droned out in recent years, losing whatever gift he had previously. Plus, he never gained the a-list status he was groomed to attain, he's a non-commodity. You simply cannot go from a Ledger Joker to a Pearce Riddle, unless you want to sink the battleship.

plus, why do people want to see the riddler anyway for? he's not a potent foe, more like a jerky boy phone prank caller. "look at me rob this bank with question marks on my green leotard,, i will leave a clue for my next heist. please stop me"....yawn. unless the riddler is re-realized to be more psychopathic, where's your world metaphor?

Ras al Ghul-self righteous terrorist
ScareCrwow-corrupt medical community
Two-Face-beauracracy gone bad, dual sides of human nature
Joker-chaos/disorder/anarchy

Riddler-narcisist in green leotard? It doesnt work.

It may be true i'm less impressed with character than actor here, but i dont see what Pearce could bring to the table at this point in his career regardless. You want to pick an actor who would resist a great role,, not one who would jump for the chance because he's in desperate need of career resuciatation.IMO

 

[The Batman]

Specific events in BB did have consequences in TDK. Like err I dunno, the birth of Batman? The Joker card? Scarecrow still on the run?

Joker knows Harvey went bad, he was the one who made him go bad.
When he was talking to Batman in his last scene, his "ace in the hole". How do you think the Joker would react when he finds out Batman and Gordon ruined his plan? His plan was to demoralize the citizens of Gotham by making their white knight bad. He did succeed, but it was covered up. Do you think he would just lie down and let that happen? Of course not.

And i'll say it again. Joker's knowledge of Harvey is a plot point. It isn't something that can just be ignored.

"Well, Joker knows about Harvey, but that doesn't matter." Hmmm...

Ha....ha....ha

1. The Joker card had no real bearing on TDK. In fact, if BB ended without it, and TDK were exactly the same movie, everything would work out.

2. What the hell does Batman's origin in BB have to do with TDK? The Waynes werent mentioned at all, nor were the League of Shadows. Batman's relationship with the police couldve easily been explained in TDk without BB

3. Scarecrow on the run has no bearing on TDK. In fact, Scarecrow couldve been interchangable with anyone in TDK, as once again, Scarecrows escaping in BB had no real bearing in TDK. You know, you're only proving my point.


joker knows harvey went bad....ok? and? does he have proof? Does he know who Harvey killed exactly? Does he have evidence of this? All he knows is that he talked to a disfigured harvey and attempted to manipulate him into anarchy. He dosent even know if it actually worked. Are you so desperate to have joker in a third that you're willing to forego common sense?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I see your points and I understand them. But I, and a lot of others will feel short changed if Joker isn't included some how. Yes other people know about Harvey, but the fact still remains, Joker does too. Do you think he would be happy if his "play thing" Batman is arrested or killed by the cops? I don't think he would be. There is motivation there for Joker to not stay silent. That is a fact.

But yea, I want to see Nolan turn his hand to other villains. I would love to see what he could do with Riddler. Think of the viral campaigns you could do with that guy! Maybe a viral campaign of riddles for us, the fans to figure out who is playing him? Could be ver interesting.

But I still stand firm. Joker has motivation for his presence to be known in the next one. I'm sure Chris and Jonah know this.

 

[Anjow1060]

I've seen both , and they came out 5-10 years ago. Pearce was primed to be a new great leading man and chracter actor, but i think the directors pulled the best out of him from those two efforts. What has he done lately? It seems he's become more droned out in recent years, losing whatever gift he had previously. Plus, he never gained the a-list status he was groomed to attain, he's a non-commodity. You simply cannot go from a Ledger Joker to a Pearce Riddle, unless you want to sink the battleship.

plus, why do people want to see the riddler anyway for? he's not a potent foe, more like a jerky boy phone prank caller. "look at me rob this bank with question marks on my green leotard,, i will leave a clue for my next heist. please stop me"....yawn. unless the riddler is re-realized to be more psychopathic, where's your world metaphor?

Ras al Ghul-self righteous terrorist
ScareCrwow-corrupt medical community
Two-Face-beauracracy gone bad, dual sides of human nature
Joker-chaos/disorder/anarchy

Riddler-narcisist in green leotard? It doesnt work.

It may be true i'm less impressed with character than actor here, but i dont see what Pearce could bring to the table at this point in his career regardless. You want to pick an actor who would resist a great role,, not one who would jump for the chance because he's in desperate need of career resuciatation.IMO

Not for nothing, but Nolan was the one who did pull that great performance out of him, and given Nolan's direction in the previous 2 films, even with Katie Holmes, shows that man understands his job.

Furthermore - Peirce specifically avoids mainstream films, or so he claims. Taking films that appeal to him on the indie circuit. Aside from "Bedtime stories" and a few others, his resume is all indie films. But he knows that Nolan is making this mainstream batman franchise like an indie film. And I know he would do a great job doing whatever Nolan wanted from him. I think he could top Ledger. The doubt, for me, is not possible for any actor. If Nolan wants/gets them.......it'll be damn good.

- Jow

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ha....ha....ha

1. The Joker card had no real bearing on TDK. In fact, if BB ended without it, and TDK were exactly the same movie, everything would work out.

2. What the hell does Batman's origin in BB have to do with TDK? The Waynes werent mentioned at all, nor were the League of Shadows. Batman's relationship with the police couldve easily been explained in TDk without BB

3. Scarecrow on the run has no bearing on TDK. In fact, Scarecrow couldve been interchangable with anyone in TDK, as once again, Scarecrows escaping in BB had no real bearing in TDK. You know, you're only proving my point.


joker knows harvey went bad....ok? and? does he have proof? Does he know who Harvey killed exactly? Does he have evidence of this? All he knows is that he talked to a disfigured harvey and attempted to manipulate him into anarchy. He dosent even know if it actually worked. Are you so desperate to have joker in a third that you're willing to forego common sense?

Forgoing common sense?

You are forgoing common sense if you can't realize that Joker has motivation to not just sit in his cell twiddling his thumbs. He doesn't want someone else to kill Batman. He wouldn't want Batman arrested would he? The Joker wants Batman all to himself. I'm sure the Nolans know this. You should to.

 

[RockyBatboa]

at this point in pearce's career, i'd rather see halle berry play the riddler, in a 5-minute scene in the next nolan batman, in a walk on role suggesting murphy's scarecrow in dark knight, just as a nod to the increasing public insanity ledgers joker refrenced in 'dark knight'.....

riddler's for the birds.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I've seen both , and they came out 5-10 years ago. Pearce was primed to be a new great leading man and chracter actor, but i think the directors pulled the best out of him from those two efforts. What has he done lately? It seems he's become more droned out in recent years, losing whatever gift he had previously. Plus, he never gained the a-list status he was groomed to attain, he's a non-commodity. You simply cannot go from a Ledger Joker to a Pearce Riddle, unless you want to sink the battleship.

plus, why do people want to see the riddler anyway for? he's not a potent foe, more like a jerky boy phone prank caller. "look at me rob this bank with question marks on my green leotard,, i will leave a clue for my next heist. please stop me"....yawn. unless the riddler is re-realized to be more psychopathic, where's your world metaphor?

Ras al Ghul-self righteous terrorist
ScareCrwow-corrupt medical community
Two-Face-beauracracy gone bad, dual sides of human nature
Joker-chaos/disorder/anarchy

Riddler-narcisist in green leotard? It doesnt work.

It may be true i'm less impressed with character than actor here, but i dont see what Pearce could bring to the table at this point in his career regardless. You want to pick an actor who would resist a great role,, not one who would jump for the chance because he's in desperate need of career resuciatation.IMO

Nolan adapts the villains to fit in his universe. Go and check out my ideas for how the riddler could be used in this universe. It's in the "where does the story go from here" thread. A couple pages back.

 

[Anjow1060]

Yea I see your points and I understand them. But I, and a lot of others will feel short changed if Joker isn't included some how. Yes other people know about Harvey, but the fact still remains, Joker does too. Do you think he would be happy if his "play thing" Batman is arrested or killed by the cops? I don't think he would be. There is motivation there for Joker to not stay silent. That is a fact.

But yea, I want to see Nolan turn his hand to other villains. I would love to see what he could do with Riddler. Think of the viral campaigns you could do with that guy! Maybe a viral campaign of riddles for us, the fans to figure out who is playing him? Could be ver interesting.

But I still stand firm. Joker has motivation for his presence to be known in the next one. I'm sure Chris and Jonah know this.

Does the Joker really care about what people think of Batman? Not really. If he and Batman come face to face again, inevitably, somewhere down the line, I could see him mentioning it. But will he "out" him? Not a chance. His battle is between Batman. What he did to Harvey was to hurt Batman. That was it. Who cares about everyone else. Joker hurt Harvey to, in turn, hurt Batman. And he did that. He got, "the last laugh" on Batman. Does he need to be there to laugh in his face? No. Does Bruce need to say to Alfred at one point or another, "This is all because of the Joker. If I had just killed him...." or whatever, yes he does.

I don't need to see Joker to know that.

There's a saying in theatre about storytelling, "Offstage (screen) characters are so much more interesting." because you don't need to see them to feel their affect.

If there was a Joker sitting in a darkly lit cell, a re-used Ledger laugh.....yeah. That'd be great. But past that....meh. Don't need it.

- Jow

 

[Rolf]

Like I have said about three times:

Get the guy who is going to voice him in the game (Their surely going to have someone.) And use CGI to paste Ledger's face onto him, like they did with Two-Face's burnt side.

It might work, it might not, the idea should at least be considered.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

at this point in pearce's career, i'd rather see halle berry play the riddler, in a 5-minute scene in the next nolan batman, in a walk on role suggesting murphy's scarecrow in dark knight, just as a nod to the increasing public insanity ledgers joker refrenced in 'dark knight'.....

riddler's for the birds.

You completely missed Jow's point.

Yea maybe Pearce has let himself slide. But if he hooked up with Nolan again, the director who coaxed his best performance out of him I'm positive he would deliver.

 

[The Batman]

Forgoing common sense?

You are forgoing common sense if you can't realize that Joker has motivation to not just sit in his cell twiddling his thumbs. He doesn't want someone else to kill Batman. He wouldn't want Batman arrested would he? The Joker wants Batman all to himself. I'm sure the Nolans know this. You should to.

LMAO

You've been spanked, and you know it, dont you? LOL...yeah, I'm sure Scarecrow has reason for not just sitting there twittling his thumbs too. I'm sure he too, like the Joker, dosent want to see someone else kill or arrest the Batman. I'm sure Scarecrow would like nothing more than to see Batman as his personal guinea pig, someone he can torture and prod and probe and study

DOSENT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO SEE HIM AGAIN, AND IT DOSENT MEAN HE ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE IN THE THIRD MOVIE

Yeah, I damn well know about Joker and Batman's relationship....but that dosent mean jack**** in regards to seeing him in yet another movie. You've already pretty much admitted that its fanboyism that makes you want to see joker again, so i dont understand why you keep trying to throw story reasons at me when we both know they're just weak excuses

 

[RockyBatboa]

Yea I see your points and I understand them. But I, and a lot of others will feel short changed if Joker isn't included some how. Yes other people know about Harvey, but the fact still remains, Joker does too. Do you think he would be happy if his "play thing" Batman is arrested or killed by the cops? I don't think he would be. There is motivation there for Joker to not stay silent. That is a fact.

But yea, I want to see Nolan turn his hand to other villains. I would love to see what he could do with Riddler. Think of the viral campaigns you could do with that guy! Maybe a viral campaign of riddles for us, the fans to figure out who is playing him? Could be ver interesting.

But I still stand firm. Joker has motivation for his presence to be known in the next one. I'm sure Chris and Jonah know this.

Sir, i challenge you to remind us of any interested or clever riddle from the riddler character, either in comics, TAS, 60's show, forever,,ect. those riddles were either straining , borring, or what have you.

the viral camp. worked with the joker because of the joker's character, not because of silly overused gimmicks, i.e., riddler's riddles.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Does the Joker really care about what people think of Batman? Not really. If he and Batman come face to face again, inevitably, somewhere down the line, I could see him mentioning it. But will he "out" him? Not a chance. His battle is between Batman. What he did to Harvey was to hurt Batman. That was it. Who cares about everyone else. Joker hurt Harvey to, in turn, hurt Batman. And he did that. He got, "the last laugh" on Batman. Does he need to be there to laugh in his face? No. Does Bruce need to say to Alfred at one point or another, "This is all because of the Joker. If I had just killed him...." or whatever, yes he does.

I don't need to see Joker to know that.

There's a saying in theatre about storytelling, "Offstage (screen) characters are so much more interesting." because you don't need to see them to feel their affect.

If there was a Joker sitting in a darkly lit cell, a re-used Ledger laugh.....yeah. That'd be great. But past that....meh. Don't need it.

- Jow

You're missing my point.

What if Joker is sitting in his cell doing nothing. Then he finds out the cops or another villain have killed Batman? Or Batman has been arrested. He would be doing his ****ing nut!! The man who gives his life purpose, who completes him, is no more. Do you think he would be happy about this? It would be the end of the world for him. He would do absolutely anything necessary to not let that happen. And as we know, Joker has a penchant for escaping jail.

 

[Rolf]

So... What do you think?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

LMAO

You've been spanked, and you know it, dont you? LOL...yeah, I'm sure Scarecrow has reason for not just sitting there twittling his thumbs too. I'm sure he too, like the Joker, dosent want to see someone else kill or arrest the Batman. I'm sure Scarecrow would like nothing more than to see Batman as his personal guinea pig, someone he can torture and prod and probe and study

DOSENT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO SEE HIM AGAIN, AND IT DOSENT MEAN HE ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE IN THE THIRD MOVIE

Yeah, I damn well know about Joker and Batman's relationship....but that dosent mean jack**** in regards to seeing him in yet another movie. You've already pretty much admitted that its fanboyism that makes you want to see joker again, so i dont understand why you keep trying to throw story reasons at me when we both know they're just weak excuses

No i haven't admitted defeat, and I won't.

You are comparing Scarecrow to Joker? Do me a favour!!

Scarecrow was shown in TDK to not be motivated by Batman. He's turned into a frickin drug dealer.

Joker's sole purpose in life is to torment Batman. Scarecrow doesn't share that does he? As Joker said himself "You complete me!!". Do you think he would take the risk that the man who "completes him" could get killed or arrested by someone other than him? No chance, no chance.

 

[RockyBatboa]

You completely missed Jow's point.

Yea maybe Pearce has let himself slide. But if he hooked up with Nolan again, the director who coaxed his best performance out of him I'm positive he would deliver.

how did i miss his points exactly? and what are you, pearce's agent??

take another look at my original thread concerning the riddler character, and allow your mind to grasp reality. the character doesnt lend itself to a strong storyline, nor does he represent anything remotely dramatic.

halle berry as riddler, 2 minute cameo?Z now we're talking!

 

[The Batman]

You're missing my point.

What if Joker is sitting in his cell doing nothing. Then he finds out the cops or another villain have killed Batman? Or Batman has been arrested. He would be doing his ****ing nut!! The man who gives his life purpose, who completes him, is no more. Do you think he would be happy about this? It would be the end of the world for him. He would do absolutely anything necessary to not let that happen. And as we know, Joker has a penchant for escaping jail.

What is joker going to bring to the table that he did not bring in TDK?

that any other character can't bring? Other than "He's the joker"? What will he teach Batman that he hadnt taught him in BB?

If you can answer those the questions, then you might have a case