The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[RockyBatboa]

This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. Some people will never stop arguing out of some misplaced sense of self righteousness and others won't stop arguing b/c they're having too much fun. People are destined to do this forever. That's why I rarely read other peoples' replies to my post and even rarer still actually respond to them. In my mind what I say goes and 9 times out of 10 it ends there as far as I'm concerned. I always win with this mindset.

You are completely wrong, sir, on all accounts!!t:

 

[RockyBatboa]

It's to bad we don't have the Brad Pitt of 95-99 anymore because I don't think there would be any question of if he could play or should he be recasted as the Joker. ala 12 monkeys, Fight Club

And I'm not saying he's a bad actor now because IMO he's still great but I think he's lost his edge and his age is a big factor(he's 45 if you didnt know).

It sucks to think of what could have been

You're right, it does suck to think about "what could have been." Thank God it wasnt and wont ever be. brad pitt?? as the joker??

wash your mouth out with soap, please.

 

[BareYourTeeth]

So let me get this straight you dont like Brad Pitt or Guy Pearce?!! What kind of actors are you looking for?

People these days are so limited when it comes to actors and fail to think out of the box

 

[The Batman]

I tried to not comment on this anymore, but this is killing me. For a character that's been around as long as the Joker has, it amazes me that so many people seem to think he's "finished." That Nolan constructed the only meaningful Joker story in TDK, and that anything else can't possibly be good, or even necessary. Then in the same breath, they bring up all these second-tier villains who aren't even that interesting in the comics themselves to begin with, and actually think they'll make for a better movie?

The Joker's whole point in TDK, much like it was in The Killing Joke, was to prove that all people, including Batman, are fallible and corruptible. Now, news is out that Batman is on the run for murder, which to the Joker means only two things. Either, Batman really did kill someone and the Joker wins, or two, Batman has to take the wrap for Dent and the Joker wins morally, seeing as how he told Batman how quickly the cops would turn on him, given the opportunity. Regardless, the Joker would be very inclined to escape to confront him once more. We're talking about a criminal who wasn't even locked up for a full night in the last film, a mastermind who had schemes set up all over the place to toy with the cops, the mob, and Batman. You mean to tell me that now, all of a sudden, he decides "that's enough!" and sits in his cell peacefully looking at the walls?

The Joker & Batman's feud is an infinite one. If Mr. J were that easy to dispose of, Batman would've been free from his treachery 60 years ago. Nolan recognized this, and probably left him alive to leave that door open, if he chose to do a third. (which I think was pretty much mapped out the whole time but I digress...) Point being, the character of the Joker is everlasting, full of potential, and not locked into any strict characterization. Just because Ledger played it one way, doesn't mean someone else couldn't come in and do something very different, while still being faithful to the things established in TDK. Someone brought up the idea of another Gotham Knights animated bit that addresses the Joker's whereabouts, which I feel is a great idea. But if Nolan somehow decided that he wanted the Joker back for the next film, I wouldn't be upset about that, or all that surprised........

Sigh...

Except how many of Joker and Batman's confrontations can sustain movies? Do people realize that the majority of Batman and Joker's confrontations, especially in the 40's-60's, were pretty much the same kind of story, told over and over again? You use this "60's years" thing, but do you even stop to think about how much of that is usable for a big budget movie?

Again, Nolan took the most iconic and definitive themes of the Batman/Joker relationship and put them into one movie. I've yet to hear anyone pose even the slightest bit of an idea as to what Nolan and his team can do with Joker that is just as meaningful, and also just as different in the third batman movie.

Fanboys need to understand that Nolan will not bring back Joker just because he's mad Batman is being hunted down. His villains carry ideologies that Bruce has to face for the first time. With Ra's, it was about Bruce facing the darkside of vigilantism, with Scarecrow, it was about fear. With Two Face, he faced the grey area of life. With Joker, he faced chaos and anarchy. Joker's main themes have been done, and that is why some of us dont want him back. To tell you true, most of Batman and joker's confrontations either hold the same meaning another encounter held, or one that is useless. Change of characterization does not mean joker brings something of substance to the table.

Anjow is right, there is no use debating the same thing...especially when most of you dont seem to understand why ultimately, beneath all the proposed character changes and "kewl" treatments you drafted up, Joker's return would most likely bring nothing new to the table, and would ultimately pale in comparision to TDK, while nolan couldve spent time putting new spins on other villains.

 

[RockyBatboa]

i dont remembering having a discussion about you concerning pearce. another one comes out of the woodworks, i see. this confirms my early suspicions that most bat-geeks are for some mysterious reason obsessed with seeing this man play some bat-role.

Pitt? Pitt? have you seen Burn before reading, Troy, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Ocean movies, and practically every film he's made other than (other than MAYBE) 12 Monkeys, his only decent performance. (he was probably on psychedelics for that one) the man simplay cannot act. He's a yawn with a pretty boy surface. an intelligence and awareness still waiting to be born, no sense of character wit or perception whatsoever..

and dont give me Seven, either. dont you dare. that was all fincher's directing and freeman and spacey.

if you're going to submit pitt as the joker, i might as well say clooney for two-face. sheesh

 

[BareYourTeeth]

i dont remembering having a discussion about you concerning pearce. another one comes out of the woodworks, i see. this confirms my early suspicions that most bat-geeks are for some mysterious reason obsessed with seeing this man play some bat-role.

Pitt? Pitt? have you seen Burn before reading, Troy, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Ocean movies, and practically every film he's made other than (other than MAYBE) 12 Monkeys, his only decent performance. (he was probably on psychedelics for that one) the man simplay cannot act. He's a yawn with a pretty boy surface. an intelligence and awareness still waiting to be born, no sense of character wit or perception whatsoever..

and dont give me Seven, either. dont you dare. that was all fincher's directing and freeman and spacey.

if you're going to submit pitt as the joker, i might as well say clooney for two-face. sheesh

I've got two words for ya HEATH LEDGER.

 

[RockyBatboa]

Sigh...

Except how many of Joker and Batman's confrontations can sustain movies? Do people realize that the majority of Batman and Joker's confrontations, especially in the 40's-60's, were pretty much the same kind of story, told over and over again? You use this "60's years" thing, but do you even stop to think about how much of that is usable for a big budget movie?

Again, Nolan took the most iconic and definitive themes of the Batman/Joker relationship and put them into one movie. I've yet to hear anyone pose even the slightest bit of an idea as to what Nolan and his team can do with Joker that is just as meaningful, and also just as different in the third batman movie.

Fanboys need to understand that Nolan will not bring back Joker just because he's mad Batman is being hunted down. His villains carry ideologies that Bruce has to face for the first time. With Ra's, it was about Bruce facing the darkside of vigilantism, with Scarecrow, it was about fear. With Two Face, he faced the grey area of life. With Joker, he faced chaos and anarchy. Joker's main themes have been done, and that is why some of us dont want him back. To tell you true, most of Batman and joker's confrontations either hold the same meaning another encounter held, or one that is useless. Change of characterization does not mean joker brings something of substance to the table.

Anjow is right, there is no use debating the same thing...especially when most of you dont seem to understand why ultimately, beneath all the proposed character changes and "kewl" treatments you drafted up, Joker's return would most likely bring nothing new to the table, and would ultimately pale in comparision to TDK, while nolan couldve spent time putting new spins on other villains.

You know, i pity you, sir. So enamored by the Ledger Joker, that great vision has blinded you to the future potential. You see the Ledger Joker has summing up all things Batman-related between the two, that's simply not the case. Nolan abbreviated the relationship and touched on quite a few of the highlights, but there's more than can be done.

It's such a shame that all it takes is one indelliable performance to put you to rest. This is the same exact reason we fans didnt get to see another Joker performance for 20 years after Nicholson, yo-yo's claiming he owned the role and it couldnt be topped.

You say 40's-60's stories really cant be used? Talk to Nolan, he claims most of the story came from the 1940 introductory tale. What about Laughing Fish, Joker's Five Way Revenge, Killing Joke, Arkham Assylum, Showcase 94' issues 1-2, dark knight returns, ect. Nolan already mined all of these completely, and there's nothing left to say?

....and i thought the Joker's jokes were bad.

 

[Melkay]

Fanboys need to understand that Nolan will not bring back Joker just because he's mad Batman is being hunted down. His villains carry ideologies that Bruce has to face for the first time. With Ra's, it was about Bruce facing the darkside of vigilantism, with Scarecrow, it was about fear. With Two Face, he faced the grey area of life. With Joker, he faced chaos and anarchy. Joker's main themes have been done, and that is why some of us dont want him back. To tell you true, most of Batman and joker's confrontations either hold the same meaning another encounter held, or one that is useless. Change of characterization does not mean joker brings something of substance to the table.

Joker's return would most likely bring nothing new to the table, and would ultimately pale in comparision to TDK, while nolan could've spent time putting new spins on other villains.

Best, best, best way to put it. Can I quote on you this?... very often?

 

[RockyBatboa]

I've got two words for ya HEATH LEDGER.

Bold ittalics do not an intelligent rebuttal make.

I dont know about you, but i found ledger thouroughly effective in the Patriot, at times almost riveting. Thoughtful and whimsical, even resonant k, in a knight's tale, and the Brothers Grimm> I too would have thought damon would have made the more effective younger brother, ledger the older, more heroic one. look what he did with that-effectively sympathetic and romantic.

It was not so much director bravado when casting ledger, just attention to the actors subtle potential and a little foresight.

they didnt want a a-list veteran like nicholson, so they caught the rising star potential of ledger, and of the rising stars of that time, ledger was definitely the brightest.

Look beyond pitts dimples, boy. and see the lack of talent within. there is no comparison here.

 

[Doc Samson]

Sigh...

Except how many of Joker and Batman's confrontations can sustain movies? Do people realize that the majority of Batman and Joker's confrontations, especially in the 40's-60's, were pretty much the same kind of story, told over and over again? You use this "60's years" thing, but do you even stop to think about how much of that is usable for a big budget movie?

Again, Nolan took the most iconic and definitive themes of the Batman/Joker relationship and put them into one movie. I've yet to hear anyone pose even the slightest bit of an idea as to what Nolan and his team can do with Joker that is just as meaningful, and also just as different in the third batman movie.

Fanboys need to understand that Nolan will not bring back Joker just because he's mad Batman is being hunted down. His villains carry ideologies that Bruce has to face for the first time. With Ra's, it was about Bruce facing the darkside of vigilantism, with Scarecrow, it was about fear. With Two Face, he faced the grey area of life. With Joker, he faced chaos and anarchy. Joker's main themes have been done, and that is why some of us dont want him back. To tell you true, most of Batman and joker's confrontations either hold the same meaning another encounter held, or one that is useless. Change of characterization does not mean joker brings something of substance to the table.

Anjow is right, there is no use debating the same thing...especially when most of you dont seem to understand why ultimately, beneath all the proposed character changes and "kewl" treatments you drafted up, Joker's return would most likely bring nothing new to the table, and would ultimately pale in comparision to TDK, while nolan couldve spent time putting new spins on other villains.

Sigh....

There really is no debating, your right, especially when most of you don't seem to understand why ultimately, beneath all the proposed villains that would seem "kewl" in the next movie, the Joker is the only one capable of making a third Batman on the scale of TDK. I love BB, but we're talking about following up one of the biggest movies of all time, what do you propose for a sequel? How could the inclusion of the Joker ruin that particular vision you might have? I had this discussion with Melkay months ago for about 5 pages straight. You say that nothing new would be brought to the table if the Joker returns, so I guess Batman shouldn't punch people, jump off buildings or drive a vehicle because we've seen it so many times already, right?

 

[BareYourTeeth]

Bold ittalics do not an intelligent rebuttal make.

I dont know about you, but i found ledger thouroughly effective in the Patriot, at times almost riveting. Thoughtful and whimsical, even resonant k, in a knight's tale, and the Brothers Grimm> I too would have thought damon would have made the more effective younger brother, ledger the older, more heroic one. look what he did with that-effectively sympathetic and romantic.

It was not so much director bravado when casting ledger, just attention to the actors subtle potential and a little foresight.

they didnt want a a-list veteran like nicholson, so they caught the rising star potential of ledger, and of the rising stars of that time, ledger was definitely the brightest.

Look beyond pitts dimples, boy. and see the lack of talent within. there is no comparison here.

i love it when people on forums attack others personally when they have no idea who they hell they are personally. Just like you called Ace a "nerd" earlier

 

[RockyBatboa]

Sigh....

There really is no debating, your right, especially when most of you don't seem to understand why ultimately, beneath all the proposed villains that would seem "kewl" in the next movie, the Joker is the only one capable of making a third Batman on the scale of TDK. I love BB, but we're talking about following up one of the biggest movies of all time, what do you propose for a sequel? How could the inclusion of the Joker ruin that particular vision you might have? I had this discussion with Melkay months ago for about 5 pages straight. You say that nothing new would be brought to the table if the Joker returns, so I guess Batman shouldn't punch people, jump off buildings or drive a vehicle because we've seen it so many times already, right?

Win!

Agreed. Most of these posters cant seem to understand the fact that the goings-ons of the Dark Knight practically demands the Joker return in the third film, in some capacity.

They talk about the riddler and others, with supposed new visions, but if you separate the classic interpretations from those characters in the way Nolan probably would you no longer have those characters. That the Joker's story was paused when it was in the Dark Knight was to sum up Harvey Dent's story and set up Batman's role in the third film.

how do you feel about a batman 3 Joker, black mast and catwoman?

 

[RockyBatboa]

i love it when people on forums attack others personally when they have no idea who they hell they are personally. Just like you called Ace a "nerd" earlier

Two things wrong with you post, man, and both are definitions of words:

attack
personal

I havent attacked you, nor has my conversation been personal. I simply disagree with you suggestion of brad pitt, because of his lack of talent as an actor. Instead of defending your choice with reason, you hide under your perpetuation of me being some sort of perpetrator and you the victim.

as for ace of knaves, there was no vitriol on my part. i think he understood that, do you?

 

[Doc Samson]

Win!

Agreed. Most of these posters cant seem to understand the fact that the goings-ons of the Dark Knight practically demands the Joker return in the third film, in some capacity.

They talk about the riddler and others, with supposed new visions, but if you separate the classic interpretations from those characters in the way Nolan probably would you no longer have those characters. That the Joker's story was paused when it was in the Dark Knight was to sum up Harvey Dent's story and set up Batman's role in the third film.

how do you feel about a batman 3 Joker, black mast and catwoman?

I was actually very open to Black Mask, I feel of all the villains left, he makes for an interesting foe. Catwoman......the jury is still out, I would trust Nolan with it though, he hasn't been wrong yet, and I don't think he will be, even if he excludes the Joker. It's just all these accusations that the Joker is so "done" because of TDK that tickles me. He's no more done than Batman himself, if Batman is still going to do all his signature things, then the Joker being included, in some capacity, isn't going to hurt or hinder

 

[BareYourTeeth]

Two things wrong with you post, man, and both are definitions of words:

attack
personal

I havent attacked you, nor has my conversation been personal. I simply disagree with you suggestion of brad pitt, because of his lack of talent as an actor. Instead of defending your choice with reason, you hide under your perpetuation of me being some sort of perpetrator and you the victim.

as for ace of knaves, there was no vitriol on my part. i think he understood that, do you?

Well at first he certainly did not like it when you called him a nerd but he listened to what you had to say and understood because that's the kind of guy he is.

As for me "defending my choice" I have nothing else to add because you are simply a very picky person when it comes to actors.

But I'm done arguing with you about this dude because I like the fact your one of the people who are defending the idea of the Joker coming back, but I would like to know if you have any casting ideas for the Clown Prince of Crime?

 

[RockyBatboa]

I was actually very open to Black Mask, I feel of all the villains left, he makes for an interesting foe. Catwoman......the jury is still out, I would trust Nolan with it though, he hasn't been wrong yet, and I don't think he will be, even if he excludes the Joker. It's just all these accusations that the Joker is so "done" because of TDK that tickles me. He's no more done than Batman himself, if Batman is still going to do all his signature things, then the Joker being included, in some capacity, isn't going to hurt or hinder

I do agree. Black Mask and The Joker would make for an interesting story, especially if serving opposite ends. Mask as the new psycho/mob boss Batman has to thwart, the police trying to hunt the Batman, and Joker taking out the task force assigned to take out the Batman.

Catwoman, to me, would work more as a romantic allusion. She would have screen time amount to something between Murphy's ScareCrow in "begins" and eckart's twoface in "Dark knight". Selina Kyle would be the more prominent character screentime wise as her and wayne meet and form a relationship. in my mind, jolie is the only one with the dramatic weight and mass apeal to bring people into theaters and lock their interest.

I think John Malcovich could play a wholely entertaining Black Mask, and i'd use the more recent skull mask from the comics. put in some business ties with wayne enterprises as well.

As for the Joker, i think they're really are only two viable options for the role: either Jonny Depp or Jude Law. Again, i wouldnt work too much actual physical conflict between j and b until the very end of the movie, as Bats is furious the Joker has Been HIS 'guardian angel' throughout. THe climax would be a little more personal and private in this one. no social experiments or ferrys at the end. and batman would not be redeemed in the end either. save that for the fourth film, when a new director takes over (along with probably a new actor playing Batman), and Robin inevitably is introduced *Groan*-to sell more toys.

 

[Melkay]

Nolan recognized this, and probably left him alive to leave that door open, if he chose to do a third.

That's assuming too much. He may have left him alive to allow other directors to have the character alive and still be in continuity, just in case.

had this discussion with Melkay months ago for about 5 pages straight. You say that nothing new would be brought to the table if the Joker returns, so I guess Batman shouldn't punch people, jump off buildings or drive a vehicle because we've seen it so many times already, right?

Haha, you're also delivering the same lines you told me back then. I guess I must counter them again: you know that Batman is not a character like the Joker... whereas the Joker actions reflect the essence of his cahracter, Batman can be in this routine and always face new challenges that grant him GROWTH. He can do that because he's a main character, and the whole series is about his progression as a character. He keeps growing and developing.
Joker does not. He arrived a point where he doesn't develope no more. That's why, o matter what happens to him, he can be always the same. he is a constant.

I'm not saying that's reason enough to have him in... but just no so soon. Let Nolan finish, and then others will come along. Because The Batman is right: most, if not all, of the essential elements of the Joker have been displayed, and after their initial strikes, they would merely be a repetition... unless you're willing to do something REALLY drastic to him, that detracts from what is usual in the comics. Like I've said before, the Joker is a constant... Batman is not. He can jump roofs and fight thughs all he wants, because he will always have so much more to endure that, so many aspects to develope... that essential repetition is not an option.

You know, i pity you, sir. So enamored by the Ledger Joker, that great vision has blinded you to the future potential. You see the Ledger Joker has summing up all things Batman-related between the two, that's simply not the case. Nolan abbreviated the relationship and touched on quite a few of the highlights, but there's more than can be done.

I'm listening...

See, here's a list of the main things the Joker has done in the comics that I can remember... and you will note that most of them are already in some form in TDK.

1. No origin.
2. Batman admirer.
3. Anarchy instiller.
4. Criminal mastermind.
5. Having goons with clown masks.
6. Being permanently marked (his scars).
7. Terrorizing a whole city... several times (like in Joker's Five-Way Revenge).
8. Mocking and provoking Batman.
9. Trying (and succeding) to corrupt Gotham's most righteous man (Dent).
10. Wearing purple, having green hair and red lips with white coloured face...
11. Killing one of Batman's loved ones (and thank god, this time it wasn't Robin).
12. Got aprehended and went to the Asylum.
13. In his defeat, he went down laughing.
14. He didn't die.
15. His introduction was heavily inspired in the first character story.
16. He's a twisted psychotic and want to make people as twisted and psychotic as him.
17. He easily escaped inprisonment (this time not from Arkham but from the MCU).
18. He went rogue and attacked both the mob and the law.
19. He likes media atenttion and makes threats through it (his videos).

And I'm sure I didn't mention all of them.


Like I said to Doc: between the Joker and Batman, Batman is the larger character, and he can have a much larger development. Joker is more of a constant and Nolan included most of his essence already in TDK. Is there good enough reason to bring him back for another Nolan film?

I'm listening...

 

[RockyBatboa]

Well at first he certainly did not like it when you called him a nerd but he listened to what you had to say and understood because that's the kind of guy he is.

As for me "defending my choice" I have nothing else to add because you are simply a very picky person when it comes to actors.

But I'm done arguing with you about this dude because I like the fact your one of the people who are defending the idea of the Joker coming back, but I would like to know if you have any casting ideas for the Clown Prince of Crime?

first off, go read the definition of nerd in a dictionairy. then reread my original post i used that word refering to ace. do you really think that was my intent. it's was meaningless, quit defending/complaining about something so unworthy.

Picky? Why, thank you, of course I'm picky. Ledger just pulled off an amazingly fresh and interesting potrayal of a 70 year old classic villian. Ledger's Joker, i would say, is on of the top 20 most interesting screen performances EVER, so ,no, i dont want just any bloke/wothless actor to take over from where ledger left off. and i certainly dont want pitt. He's nice to look at, and maybe someone to aspire to look like, but he's a poser as an actor. He has no wit, no dimension, and no substance. Did you see burn after reading?? That was his pathetic attempt to be whimsical? It was like a two by four with three nails at the top of it trying to make me laugh.

no offense, but what do you see in his acting (un)ability? seriously?

 

[Dark Globe]

If only Christian Slater was younger..........

 

[Melkay]

Most of these posters cant seem to understand the fact that the goings-ons of the Dark Knight practically demands the Joker return in the third film, in some capacity.

False. I challenge you to argument this, if you dare. Many people here have had splendid ideas abut story drafts for the enxt sequel, and many of them have not included the Joker.

They talk about the riddler and others, with supposed new visions, but if you separate the classic interpretations from those characters in the way Nolan probably would you no longer have those characters.

Says who? Characters like the Riddler, Penguin and Catwoman, among others, don't need extensive changes to work in Nolan's world. In fact, Nolan's Joker is NOT the classic interpretation, and still works superbly. And these characters must be at some point in film again, and Nolan is the best shot they have right now at getting a wonderful adaptation. Bringing the Joker again will always rob them of some precious screen time.

Many of the pro-recast like to criticise their opponents for "loving Ledger too much and the Joker too little", but sometime you err for loving the Joker too much and not giving enough credibility to the rest of the rogue gallery. Arguments like: "the sequel won't be good enough without bringing back the Joker" are abundant... and utterly stupid. Plese, don't do as these people, don't take these other characters for granted.

That the Joker's story was paused when it was in the Dark Knight was to sum up Harvey Dent's story and set up Batman's role in the third film.

The Joker story was not paused, was ended. He wanted to keep corrupting people in Gotham, only to put them out of their misery... until the ferry people, who were not corrupted and didn't die. He wanted to prove a point, and his point was not proven. He was defeated. NOT eternally, but for a time, he was defeated. And his sotry in TDK was ended. You need new stories now for him. But that should not be Nolan's job. It should be the job of subsequent directors. And then, a recast won't be harmful.

 

[BareYourTeeth]

If only Christian Slater was younger..........

Enter RockyBatboa

 

[Doc Samson]

That's assuming too much. He may have left him alive to allow other directors to have the character alive and still be in continuity, just in case.



Haha, you're also delivering the same lines you told me back then. I guess I must counter them again: you know that Batman is not a character like the Joker... whereas the Joker actions reflect the essence of his cahracter, Batman can be in this routine and always face new challenges that grant him GROWTH. He can do that because he's a main character, and the whole series is about his progression as a character. He keeps growing and developing.
Joker does not. He arrived a point where he doesn't develope no more. That's why, o matter what happens to him, he can be always the same. he is a constant.

I'm not saying that's reason enough to have him in... but just no so soon. Let Nolan finish, and then others will come along. Because The Batman is right: most, if not all, of the essential elements of the Joker have been displayed, and after their initial strikes, they would merely be a repetition... unless you're willing to do something REALLY drastic to him, that detracts from what is usual in the comics. Like I've said before, the Joker is a constant... Batman is not. He can jump roofs and fight thughs all he wants, because he will always have so much more to endure that, so many aspects to develope... that essential repetition is not an option.




I'm listening...

See, here's a list of the main things the Joker has done in the comics that I can remember... and you will note that most of them are already in some form in TDK.

1. No origin.
2. Batman admirer.
3. Anarchy instiller.
4. Criminal mastermind.
5. Having goons with clown masks.
6. Being permanently marked (his scars).
7. Terrorizing a whole city... several times (like in Joker's Five-Way Revenge).
8. Mocking and provoking Batman.
9. Trying (and succeding) to corrupt Gotham's most righteous man (Dent).
10. Wearing purple, having green hair and red lips with white coloured face...
11. Killing one of Batman's loved ones (and thank god, this time it wasn't Robin).
12. Got aprehended and went to the Asylum.
13. In his defeat, he went down laughing.
14. He didn't die.
15. His introduction was heavily inspired in the first character story.
16. He's a twisted psychotic and want to make people as twisted and psychotic as him.
17. He easily escaped inprisonment (this time not from Arkham but from the MCU).
18. He went rogue and attacked both the mob and the law.
19. He likes media atenttion and makes threats through it (his videos).

And I'm sure I didn't mention all of them.


Like I said to Doc: between the Joker and Batman, Batman is the larger character, and he can have a much larger development. Joker is more of a constant and Nolan included most of his essence already in TDK. Is there good enough reason to bring him back for another Nolan film?

I'm listening...

Ahhh you made it! I'm so thrilled

I actually agree with your stance a little more than you probably think, my view of Batman also being as repetitive as the Joker was to make the point that, in essence, Batman's actions remain the same. When people mention the Joker not being fresh again, they mention what he does more than what he's about. They say "Oh he blew up stuff, and killed people so what else can he possibly do?" But as I told you before in those previous discussions, that's who he is, just as driving the batmobile or using a grappling hook is what Batman is.

Philosophically, I can see where they differ, I mean it is Batman's arc, but at some point, Batman ceases to have an arc as well. We're about to be out of the "young" Batman stages, and once that happens, there is no more moral lessons to be learned, in fact, I think in TDK he may have learned them all already. His hope of quitting is finished, he's seen the worst of evil, where is there to go now? What else is there to learn? He will now be "The Batman," cold, stoic, sure in his ways and unflinching. That is the essence of his character, and that is where we have to find ourselves, presumably, if this is to be Nolan's final film.

Batman is always facing challenges, but chief among them, is the Joker, his ultimate challenge. Had TDK ended a different way, I wouldn't be concerned over the Joker's inclusion. But so much of where Batman ends up is because of the Joker, to the extent that, I can't see the next film ending without even a mention of Mr. J, which most people on the opposing side seem to want.

 

[Melkay]

Picky? Why, thank you, of course I'm picky.

Hohohohoho... this is a good one t: Weren't you the guy who wanted Johnny Depp or Jude Law to play the Joker?

I certainly dont want pitt. He's nice to look at, and maybe someone to aspire to look like, but he's a poser as an actor. He has no wit, no dimension, and no substance.

Let me guess, the last performance you saw of Pitt was in Thelma & Louise, right?

Did you see burn after reading?? That was his pathetic attempt to be whimsical? It was like a two by four with three nails at the top of it trying to make me laugh.

Back off, Pitt was actually one of the two funny people in that movie, the other being J. K. Simmons. It was a very good performance, effortessly stealing the spotligh every time he was on.

no offense, but what do you see in his acting (un)ability? seriously?

I've got 9 words for you... Se7en... Twelve Monkeys... Tyler Durden... Snatch... Jesse James... Babel. He has grown a lot from his Joe Black days, who weren't really that bad, actually, seeing how confortable he always is in his roles.

 

[RockyBatboa]

Enter RockyBatboa

Slater as Joker. Good choice, my man. could definitely live with it.

 

[Laderlappen]

It's to bad we don't have the Brad Pitt of 95-99 anymore because I don't think there would be any question of if he could play or should he be recasted as the Joker. ala 12 monkeys, Fight Club

And I'm not saying he's a bad actor now because IMO he's still great but I think he's lost his edge and his age is a big factor(he's 45 if you didnt know).

It sucks to think of what could have been

Brad Pitt(95-99) < Brad Pitt(06+). Pitt is in the prime of his career. He has neevr been as good as he is now.