The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[Laderlappen]

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

Sure, name all his worst performances. Do you know that even De Niro & Brando has made performances that wasnt great?

 

[CaptainClown]

fight club, snatch, seven years in tibet, 12 monkeys, Benjamen button those are off the top of my head

 

[BareYourTeeth]

Edit

 

[Melkay]

It is Batman's arc, but at some point, Batman ceases to have an arc as well.

Indeed, but there's where the quality starts to drop, and I prefer to have a good story, or no story at all. Still, such a stoppin point is very rare, but it can be dillatated in the comics, until a new development route can be figured out. Such dillatations are not viable in film. And you need NEW ways for Batman to grow as a character. Luckily, he has a very extensive rogues gallery, full with villains that work as catalysts for new aspects of Batmans personality. And yeah, the Joker can come back before this list of villains is fully exploited... but they need to bring some major villains to the fore before (no pun intended) we see the Joker again.

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.

... and you may be completely wrong. Re-think your words

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?

Has he embraced the lessons and methods of his father? His public persona is still distant from the philantrope he is in the comics. Catwoman can help him with that.
Has he really been under complete pressure? He thinks he can take it, but as good ol' Morpheus would say: "there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path".
Has he found a new sense of pride in himself? He went into the shadows of public scorn believing (the citizens and himself) he's not a hero, when he really is one. He went into the shadows of exile believing he is not enough to become a symbol of Gotham's rebirth. He went into the shadows feeling responsible for Rachel's death, and in no moment we saw him coping with the necessarily constant grief for his parents death.
And, well, as the pro-Robin crowd shouts... he needs to have a partnership relationship and a legacy story.

He needs to have so many thing still.

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.

The same could have been said about Begin's ending. He was even more sure of his ways then. Again, he needs to walk the path.

Batman is always facing challenges, but chief among them, is the Joker, his ultimate challenge.

Gee, and I thought his ultimate challenge was getting over his past torments... or dealing with the never-ending criminality in Gotham.

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.

Most of what happened in Begins was the result of Ra's al Ghul actions, but that didn't require seeing him again in The Dark Knight, didn't it?

 

[Ledlunar]

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.

well said

 

[Ledlunar]

Gee, and I thought his ultimate challenge was getting over his past torments... or dealing with the never-ending criminality in Gotham.

I think he was talking about him as a individual, your blowing things out of proportion to try and make your own point..... Obviously his dealing with crime and his anger about his parents death is a major challenge but he is dealing with it as Batman and as Batman the Joker really out shines the other villains as someone who is really trying to find a way to break the guy from the core.... Batman doesn't kill... Joker wants him to kill ... he's getting him to question everything he believes in

 

[Melkay]

That's why the Joker sent the people into a manhunt after Reese, to protect Batman and still corupt peoples hearts. But he's in Arkham now, and after all he's done tGordon must have taken enough precautions to keep him here for a long season. The Joker simply cannot be a deus ex machinna, a plot element always there to prevent anyone from killing/exposing he beloved Batsy... because that would render those threats as ineffective, moot. Batman need to take this dangers off his back on his own, and we, as an audience, can't be always waiting for the Joker to save his ass. That's why I don't like that idea at all. It worked once, but only because certain cricumsntances: the Joker was free, and Reese was going on tv, letting everybody know who he was going to expose. The way of preventing it was twofold, and too clever to repeat. At least not in such a little time.

 

[RockyBatboa]

melkay-

Batman the character that changes and joker more consistent-really?

from what books did you read from? Batman NEVER changes, not since Wayne reinvented himself as bats in the first place. He's all cirular will and reasoning, his single-minded consistent purpose is what drives the story, because he is the main character/protagonist. We dont learn new things about ourselves through him, b/c that is not the point of the characters story. The point is, through inner strenght and personal resolve, he defeats his obstacles, his foes, and the story just recycles on and on, we thrive on his victories, because of his unshakable stand and will, not because of his limited facets.

Joker, on the other hand, is the far less consistent, self-changing character. Is he merely the psychological/spiritual reverse opposite of Batman, or is he stark cold reality? Is he a buffoon, villian, or misguided hero? Since he is chaos and anarcky incarnate, he is whatever he chooses to be, from day to day. He could never be consistent , b/c he has no moral resolve or single-minded will. What if the Nolan Joker were to have acid permanently scar the makeup into his face? What if the Joker were to hunt the powers that be that hunt the Batman? What about Joker, in arkham, brainwashing the doctors and leading a revolt inside the assylum walls? What about the Joker doing any number of things, which i'm not going to take the time here and now to plot out specific and elaborate story points, as akin to his being an unstoppable force?

as for pitt, i couldnt disagree more. I've never seen an actor less capable of wit, subtelty or genuinuity. Simmons was clever in burn after reading, and clooney was a suprise, he was the second funny performer in the film. He must have finally listened to his agent and hired an acting coach, he's done alright in the last few years.

F.C-all Fincher and Norton. Did pitt think he was making a feature film, or a video game commercial? I couldnt tell, with all his witless machismo. It's a shame norton had to sacrifice some of his vitality, to accomadate pitt's lack of depth.

as for 12 monkey, i already submitted that one, which was 15 years ago. havent seen jesse james, i'll give it a rent and get back to you, my patience for pitt to grow as an actor waned years ago.

They say he's great in Buttons, was going to give it a try, but then caught the interview he had with charlie rose, did you see that one? the director and rose were both taking pot shots at him, he started to get pissed you could tell by his face. I dont blame him for making movies, but by self-decieving himself into thinking he's more than marginally talented is his biggest downfall. He has no substance, and nothing that even closely resembles wit. That's my biggest problem, he has no sense of timing. Rewatch b.a.r-you can tell McDonald is getting really impatient with him in some scenes.

 

[The Batman]

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.

did you actually read my post? Or are you acting incompetant for the sake of making a point? i mean, no offense, but your post reeks of stupidity, so i have to assume you're purposely ignoring the true point of my post because you cant refute it

I already said that nolan tooks the most definitive aspects and of the batman/joker relationship and put them onscreen....which means most of the stories you listed. No...the exact details of those issues werent put on film...but the themes were reflected.

Talk to Nolan about what? I Didnt see Nolan use the Joker story where his main plot is stealing Batman's utility belt. And I must've missed the part of the film where Joker gets batman into a jail cell using a switcheroo jail cell Why are you talking out of your ass? You knew damn well what I meant when I said that the 40-60's stuff was unusable. You go on to cite ONE STORY from 1940 as well.

And I never said Ledgers Joker was the end all be all....I'm saying that Nolan's made his definitive version of Batman and Joker.

I really wanted to end my participation in this thread with that last post...but you said so much inaccurate ******** in your response that I just had to come back

 

[The Batman]

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?

Until someone here can actually answer the questions i posed before without a "Because he's the only one who can match the scale of TDK", which, by the way, is the kind of thinking that will sink this movie, there's nothing to understand other than the fact that you are the same kind of fanboy who thought Doc Ock and Eddie Brock survived in Spider-Man 2 and 3

 

[RockyBatboa]

fight club, snatch, seven years in tibet, 12 monkeys, Benjamen button those are off the top of my head

i stand corrected on one count. He was faintly entertaining in snatch, but the performance quickly became a one-note joke. it was simple, and perhaps the man does better with simple material. exactly the reason i dont want him playing a complex character like the joker.

 

[CFE]

If the Joker's crucial to the story Nolan wants to tell, then recast.

If Nolan can tell his story successfully without the Joker, then don't recast.

But people DO need to realize that while Heath was good, arguably the best to date...someone WILL play the Joker again, most likely in our lifetimes to boot.

 

[Doc Samson]

Indeed, but there's where the quality starts to drop, and I prefer to have a good story, or no story at all. Still, such a stoppin point is very rare, but it can be dillatated in the comics, until a new development route can be figured out. Such dillatations are not viable in film. And you need NEW ways for Batman to grow as a character. Luckily, he has a very extensive rogues gallery, full with villains that work as catalysts for new aspects of Batmans personality. And yeah, the Joker can come back before this list of villains is fully exploited... but they need to bring some major villains to the fore before (no pun intended) we see the Joker again.

Besides Catwoman, who've you've been constantly rallying for, who are all of these villains that work as catalysts for all these mysterious aspects of Batman's personality he doesn't have yet? What part of his personality would they represent that we can base a whole movie around?

... and you may be completely wrong. Re-think your words

And once again this is the part of the program that we have issues with, don't tell me to re-think my words because my opinion differs from yours, I know exactly what I said, and stand by it. Re-think your attitude

Has he embraced the lessons and methods of his father? His public persona is still distant from the philantrope he is in the comics. Catwoman can help him with that.
Has he really been under complete pressure? He thinks he can take it, but as good ol' Morpheus would say: "there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path".
Has he found a new sense of pride in himself? He went into the shadows of public scorn believing (the citizens and himself) he's not a hero, when he really is one. He went into the shadows of exile believing he is not enough to become a symbol of Gotham's rebirth. He went into the shadows feeling responsible for Rachel's death, and in no moment we saw him coping with the necessarily constant grief for his parents death.
And, well, as the pro-Robin crowd shouts... he needs to have a partnership relationship and a legacy story.

He needs to have so many thing still.

Your basing all of that off of your interpretation of who YOU think Batman is, in your mind. In my view, and others, there is no need for a partnership with Robin. He is barely ever accepted as a trusted person, so why is redeeming his public image of great value? Obviously, if he cared what the public thought, he wouldn't be doing his job. See, all this comes down to what individuals view as the TRUE Batman, but the fact is, there is no such thing. It's open to interpretation, and just because he wasn't sitting around sulking in a corner over his parent's death, doesn't mean we have to see it in the next film. YOU might want that, but that doesn't make it an obligation.

The same could have been said about Begin's ending. He was even more sure of his ways then. Again, he needs to walk the path.

He was also sure that this whole facade would be over in a few months. He was sure he and Rachel would continue their relationship. He was sure that Ras was the absolute worst evil he would see. He was sure he could defeat the mob and that there wouldn't be any threat bigger than that. After TDK, he now knows this is all false, he's walking the path through the whole movie. He had his women killed, he's seen his only hope for retirement go completely crazy, and apparently, die as well. He's seen the ultimate in evil with the Joker, what else could he possibly need to see in order to realize that this isn't a path with a destination? He is The Batman now, and he should know it

Gee, and I thought his ultimate challenge was getting over his past torments... or dealing with the never-ending criminality in Gotham.

Ledlunar answered that pretty well

Most of what happened in Begins was the result of Ra's al Ghul actions, but that didn't require seeing him again in The Dark Knight, didn't it?

Ras wasn't left alive either

 

[Melkay]

I think he was talking about him as a individual, your blowing things out of proportion to try and make your own point.....

If he was talking about individual enemies, he was the one straying off-topic. We're not discussing who is the best Batman foe here, but what is the best route for a story in the next film, and if that route should include the Joker or not. Obviously, being a huge torment is not enough, since Batman can face new torments still, as well as other permanent, more important ones.

Obviously his dealing with crime and his anger about his parents death is a major challenge but he is dealing with it as Batman and as Batman the Joker really out shines the other villains as someone who is really trying to find a way to break the guy from the core... Batman doesn't kill... Joker wants him to kill ...

I don't care about villains, I care about what's best for the development of Batman. Not to mention that it's always better to see a new classic good villain than the same Joker again.

he's getting him to question everything he believes in

Not everything. Catwoman, for examples, makes Batman question things that the Joker doesn't bring to the fore, like how some criminals can actually be somewhat good and stand in grey areas. An enemy from within the police force (the popular Fed Riddler idea) would present Batman with the dilemma of facing an enemy that is within the justice system and abuses his power and authority. The Penguin is all about corporate power and corruption while having a favorable public image, something that is the complete opposite of Bruce.

The Joker is NOT an all-encompassing character. It couldn't be, or there would be no use for the rest of the villains.

 

[Doc Samson]

Until someone here can actually answer the questions i posed before without a "Because he's the only one who can match the scale of TDK", which, by the way, is the kind of thinking that will sink this movie, there's nothing to understand other than the fact that you are the same kind of fanboy who thought Doc Ock and Eddie Brock survived in Spider-Man 2 and 3

First off all, your little condescending attitude is quickly growing tiresome, don't try to act like your above "us little fanboys" because anybody typing on a messageboard qualifies as one. I answered your questions plenty of times, ever since a thread about the Joker existed. Why don't you answer mine, since you seem all knowing, what do you propose for a next film? What would be so great that the inclusion of the Joker would totally destroy? And comparing TDK to Spiderman 2 or 3 makes no relevant sense, they did die, Joker didn't, what's your point?

 

[Melkay]

If the Joker's crucial to the story Nolan wants to tell, then recast.

If Nolan can tell his story successfully without the Joker, then don't recast.

But people DO need to realize that while Heath was good, arguably the best to date...someone WILL play the Joker again, most likely in our lifetimes to boot.

Nolan can and most likely will design a story that works with what is available to him. A Joker that keeps continuity is simply not available. That may not be a problem for him, of course, but I can't imagine a story where the Joker is crucial to the story. Unless it's a rehash of TDK's story, of course

 

[CFE]

Nolan can and most likely will design a story that works with what is available to him. A Joker that keeps continuity is simply not available. That may not be a problem for him, of course, but I can't imagine a story where the Joker is crucial to the story. Unless it's a rehash of TDK's story, of course

Well what I mean is, if Nolan finds that the story angle that will get him back in the directors chair does in fact require an appearance by the Joker, THEN they should recast.

I don't think Heath would've wanted Nolan to compromise his full vision of the story on HIS account.

The show goes on.

 

[RockyBatboa]

did you actually read my post? Or are you acting incompetant for the sake of making a point? i mean, no offense, but your post reeks of stupidity, so i have to assume you're purposely ignoring the true point of my post because you cant refute it

I already said that nolan tooks the most definitive aspects and of the batman/joker relationship and put them onscreen....which means most of the stories you listed. No...the exact details of those issues werent put on film...but the themes were reflected.

Talk to Nolan about what? I Didnt see Nolan use the Joker story where his main plot is stealing Batman's utility belt. And I must've missed the part of the film where Joker gets batman into a jail cell using a switcheroo jail cell Why are you talking out of your ass? You knew damn well what I meant when I said that the 40-60's stuff was unusable. You go on to cite ONE STORY from 1940 as well.

And I never said Ledgers Joker was the end all be all....I'm saying that Nolan's made his definitive version of Batman and Joker.

I really wanted to end my participation in this thread with that last post...but you said so much inaccurate ******** in your response that I just had to come back

Yawn!

This is like the third time you have responsded to and quoted this one post of mine. Are you on a time-loop or something? If anyone is being stupid and petulant, it's you, one for your limited perception of the Joker, two for your lack of vision concerning the character's inclusion in a near future film, and lastly for playing the title name game of pitt movies, without clearly stated what you see in the man. I dont care if you know the title of every pitt movie, or seen them all, the questioin is WHAT do you see in him. I already explained what perceive the man lacks, so i am not the one in position at this point to defend my view. Reality check:you are the one in that positioin. And what in the name of "why so serious" gives you the opinion pitt could do anything remotely interesting with the Joker?

You're right about that ONE 1940 Joker story, just as, so far, Nolan has made only one film including the Joker, and it wasnt his ultimate Batman/Joker story, it was his setup to that story, or are you to dense to realize that? Guess so.

Btw, dont get angry, just get your head out ya butt. If you cant better define you reasons for comming to conclusions, dont hate on me, nor yourself, just think things a bit more clearly.

 

[Mutagen]

Dude! Let's reboot the series!

 

[RockyBatboa]

Well what I mean is, if Nolan finds that the story angle that will get him back in the directors chair does in fact require an appearance by the Joker, THEN they should recast.

I don't think Heath would've wanted Nolan to compromise his full vision of the story on HIS account.

The show goes on.

Ultimately, this is the most wise opinion expressed. It all comes down to Nolan's decision. i'd personally prefer the Joker's conclusion as i think the story damn near demands it, but if he goes another route and temporarily sidetracks the Joker's arch, i can live with it.

and spot on concerning ledger. This is exactly all roven was really saying: the actor does not own the character (despite how great he was)

 

[The Batman]

First off all, your little condescending attitude is quickly growing tiresome, don't try to act like your above "us little fanboys" because anybody typing on a messageboard qualifies as one. I answered your questions plenty of times, ever since a thread about the Joker existed. Why don't you answer mine, since you seem all knowing, what do you propose for a next film? What would be so great that the inclusion of the Joker would totally destroy? And comparing TDK to Spiderman 2 or 3 makes no relevant sense, they did die, Joker didn't, what's your point?

i'll stop being condescending when people stop twisting my points,and frankly, no one in this thead has answered on how joker can bring something new thematically that cant be done by another character.

Nothing about being all knowing...all it takes is putting fanboy wishes aside while actually looking at what nolan does with these films, which is give the villains an ideological view that conflicts with bruces as a character, which can easily be done with NEW villains. Nolan can easily create an ideology behind the morally grey catwoman, or the obessive compulsive riddler. It's possible to make Riddler a character of order and obsession, traits that are seen in Bruce himself.

And now you're twisting my words again. I only cited Doc Ock and Venom as fanboy examples. When Doc ock and venom died, fanboys complained endlessly, but never offered any ideas on how both could be relevant villains besides just showing up in the next film.

much like many of you in this thread.

I've said my piece. Now, to clarify for some of you who seem to be reading impaired when it comes to opposing views, let me state it clearly: The reason I do not want to see joker is not out of some misplaced devotion to an actor long dead. I never said as much in the first place. Rather, I feel Nolan's interpretation of the Joker was complete the first time around. A character like The Joker should not be put in a movie just because it is the final one in a franchise, and in fact, that kind of thinking has led to many mediocre third installments. A change in actor and look will not change the fact that his ideology will be the same, and it will not change the fact that nothing new will be brought to the table. I would not be surprised if Nolan felt the same way.

 

[The Batman]

I have absolutely nothing substantial to respond to you with, The Batman, in fact, i had to make reference to a string of brad pitt posts that had nothing to do with you.

^

That was really all you had to say, Batboa.

 

[Melkay]

Besides Catwoman, who've you've been constantly rallying for, who are all of these villains that work as catalysts for all these mysterious aspects of Batman's personality he doesn't have yet? What part of his personality would they represent that we can base a whole movie around?

Again, click the link in my sig. I've constantly rallied also for Mr. Freeze, the Riddler and the Penguin. Of the latter two I just said: "An enemy from within the police force (the popular Fed Riddler idea) would present Batman with the dilemma of facing an enemy that is within the justice system and abuses his power and authority. The Penguin is all about corporate power and corruption while having a favorable public image, something that is the complete opposite of Bruce."

The Riddler and Penguin offer new ideological dilemmas for Batman, shedding more light on a complex perspective about Gotham and society in general. Catwoman also does this splendidly, while arousing personal conflicts in Batman as well. Mr. Freeze is probably out of the question due to the realism thing, but dramatically, after Dent's demise, his story is the next logical step for this series, providing drama for a glorious finale.

There you go.

And once again this is the part of the program that we have issues with, don't tell me to re-think my words because my opinion differs from yours, I know exactly what I said, and stand by it. Re-think your attitude

I was being polite, believe me. You olimpically ignored many of the remaining Bat-mythos themes, relationships dynamics and storylines, and I know you know better than that. That's why I told you to re-think it, instead of just bashing the hell out of you. I would have appreciated it if someone told that to me. Just admit you didn't think it through and lets keep going.

Your basing all of that off of your interpretation of who YOU think Batman is, in your mind.

....
no comments here. Please, tell me where I was being subjective.

In my view, and others, there is no need for a partnership with Robin.

I among them. I'm against the Robin thing, but at least I have to acknowledge the possibility for that story to be done in a good way. And I always said it was the desire of the pro-Robin people.

He is barely ever accepted as a trusted person, so why is redeeming his public image of great value? Obviously, if he cared what the public thought, he wouldn't be doing his job.

There a difference between worrying for public opinion and being persecuted by the police with all forces. There's an important risk for his life now. If he is killed, then Gotham is many steps away from saving itself. And even then, there's the problem of how he views himself, something that is integral to his growth as a character.
Besides, IT IS BECAUSE he cares for the public opinion that he began doing what he does. He never expected to end criminality singlehandedly, but to offer a ray of hope, to become an inspiration... a symbol. Now he doesn't care, of course, but that will bring him much torment. And once his life is in serious danger, now he's all alone, he will have to work out many things before becoming a fully stable Batman.

See, all this comes down to what individuals view as the TRUE Batman, but the fact is, there is no such thing. It's open to interpretation, and just because he wasn't sitting around sulking in a corner over his parent's death, doesn't mean we have to see it in the next film. YOU might want that, but that doesn't make it an obligation.

We don't need anything. I'm just aying what we should see. I provide reasoning for it, mostly about character progression and ending the themes that have not been concluded in the past two films, not to mention the new conflicts that were introduced in TDK's finale.
But no, they are not necessary. A sequel is not necessary. Film is not necessary. Life is not necessary. What is your point?

He was also sure that this whole facade would be over in a few months. He was sure he and Rachel would continue their relationship. He was sure that Ras was the absolute worst evil he would see. He was sure he could defeat the mob and that there wouldn't be any threat bigger than that.

that's why we got the sequel. Are you proving my poin on purpose?

After TDK, he now knows this is all false, he's walking the path through the whole movie. He had his woman killed, he's seen his only hope for retirement go completely crazy, and apparently, die as well. He's seen the ultimate in evil with the Joker, what else could he possibly need to see in order to realize that this isn't a path with a destination? He is The Batman now, and he should know it

That is not the ultimate destination. As I've said before, he can grow even wiser. There's a difference between beeing Batman eternally in a stable and balanced way, and being Batman forever where you are tormented by insecurities, guilt and barely being able to live through the day. This next film should be all about contradictions and self-image vs. public image... knowing that appearances can be deceiving. I really don't need to argument too much how he can still keep growing, just read my counter-arguments above.

Ledlunar answered that pretty well

Read my answer to him and you'll realize he didn't.

Ras wasn't left alive either

There's always the League, or resurrecting Ra's. Even if that's out of the question, he could have been left alive and that wouldn't mean we needed to see him in the second film. There's always the Scarecrow example, we was brought back for very specific reasons, but his part was not crucial and certainly not long enough. Is Nolan supposed to go through an awkward recast to provide that kind of small part? Not really. It wouldn't be crucial to the story... just misguided audience-pleasing.

 

[Laderlappen]

as for 12 monkey, i already submitted that one, which was 15 years ago. havent seen jesse james, i'll give it a rent and get back to you, my patience for pitt to grow as an actor waned years ago.

They say he's great in Buttons, was going to give it a try, but then caught the interview he had with charlie rose, did you see that one? the director and rose were both taking pot shots at him, he started to get pissed you could tell by his face. I dont blame him for making movies, but by self-decieving himself into thinking he's more than marginally talented is his biggest downfall. He has no substance, and nothing that even closely resembles wit. That's my biggest problem, he has no sense of timing. Rewatch b.a.r-you can tell McDonald is getting really impatient with him in some scenes.

Those are 2 outta his 3 or 4 greatest performances. If you havent seen those, your argument about his acting skills isnt very strong. no offence. Have you seen Babel, Snatch, and Fight Club?

 

[Melkay]

Well what I mean is, if Nolan finds that the story angle that will get him back in the directors chair does in fact require an appearance by the Joker, THEN they should recast.

I don't think Heath would've wanted Nolan to compromise his full vision of the story on HIS account.

The show goes on.

Nolan is just one guy, we're dozens of semi-intelligent people. Can we think of a Batman sequel story where the Joker is crucial?

To rephrase it: Can we think of any story that requires an appearance by the Joker?

In reality, yes, there's the possibility of Nolan miracously imagining that crucial part, but it's not likely. All I have to is wait for the sequel and prove my point.