The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[RockyBatboa]

^

That was the best way to prove me wrong, Batboa, by reediting your posts in such a whimisical way as to suggest i am incapable with having an intelligent conversation on par with yourself. Yet again, i fail.

couldnt have said it better myself, my man. finally, we agree.

 

[The Batman]

couldnt have said it better myself, my man. finally, we agree.

When did i mention Brad Pitt, Batboa?

exactly.

 

[Doc Samson]

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.

You may not be holding up the Heath Ledger flag, but I can almost guarantee, if the man was still alive, hardly anyone would be against the Joker returning. If we are to be honest with ourselves, you have to recognize that to be the truth. And if that's a truth that we can admit, than any argument against the Joker returning comes back to that in some shape or fashion.

I also want to know why in comic films, it's almost a prerequisite that each new film has a whole new bad guy we have to introduce again, all. the. time. Why is that so necessary? I've used this example before but it bears repeating, because other villains like Vader, Magneto & Agent Smith didn't just disappear, so why does it need to happen now? Why should the Joker, the most celebrated and arguably, greatest villain ever created in comics, be relegated to two movies in 20 years? The same argument about his story being "finished" just doesn't make sense, it's a story with no end to it, it's never finished. Ever.

 

[RockyBatboa]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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?



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



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.



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



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.

You know what the worse part of wading throught all your goggly-book is, man? The fact that it takes you so long to make your points and you still fail to convince anyone with substantial reasoning. It's like you're trying to misguidingly convince yourself that you're correct by hammering you own opinion into your own head.

The saddest part? I'll never get those 2 minues of my life back.

 

[RockyBatboa]

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?

Fight Club, yes, and Snatch. I already gave him some credit for Snatch, but F.C was all fitcher and norton. Seriously, couldnt you see just about anyone playing the role pitt did in fight club?

Havent seen Babel, but it is on my to rent list. Dont get me wrong, i'm not saying he's a HORRIBLE actor, i'm saying he's only marginally talented, and his name and the Joker dont even belong in the same sentence, but i'll bite my tongue if he's cast and blows me away.

 

[Doc Samson]

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.

How is the Riddler all that different from the Joker? We've been around this already so you already know what I'm going to say, but I guess it bears repeating. The same things the Joker did, are basically, the same things the Riddler would do, setting up these elaborate traps that forces Batman to decipher the meaning and race before the inevitable catastrophe. The main difference being that Joker is actually a viable threat, and the Riddler isn't, and never really has been. Making him anything other than an egotistical nerd wouldn't be true to his character, I hardly see him as engaging or all that fresh. If the Joker shouldn't return for fear of being redundant, Riddler shouldn't show up either.

The Penguin falls into the same boat, he's a mobster with a funny face, and that's basically it. Trying to make these guys into major characters in a feature film can hardly work when they aren't even major villains in the comic medium that birthed them. Where's the threat? Ras was going for the complete destruction of the whole city, the Joker was pure anarchy with no rules, destroying core beliefs. These other guys pale in comparison.

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.

Let's just say you have a certain....way with words that can get a man unnerved, rather quickly

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.

You could look at it that way, or you could imagine him being incredibly focused from here on out, knowing full well what's awaiting him. I'd like to think he's intelligent enough to realize the situation

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?

Point being that one of those themes that have not been concluded in the past two films is the Joker's victory, in his mind and the mind of the public. It's because of him that Dent went crazy, got killed, and forced Batman to become the bad guy. It's because of him that Rachel is dead and Bruce's hope for retirement finished. You don't think that needs further examination?

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.

Scarecrow wasn't brought back to please the audience, it was to show that these criminals ARE STILL OUT THERE, and the Joker would most certainly be one of them, and very soon at that

 

[CFE]

I think I might've used the word 'crucial' out of turn.

Of course Batman stories can be told without the Joker's involvement.

But if Nolan is thinking 'In order for me to feel the passion for working on a third Batman film, the story I want to tell absolutely DOES require seeing the Joker' then he needs to recast.

If he's thinking 'I can successfully continue my story without nothing more than a reference to the Joker' then he doesn't have to.

But Ledger's death shouldn't compromise the story he wants to tell...as I said, Heath wouldn't have wanted to do that to Nolan, I don't think anyway...I'm pretty confident about that.

Besides, Ledger's performance as the Joker is crystalized in "The Dark Knight." No one's going to be able to take that away from him...so why should those of us who want to see the Joker have to be let down just because people absurdly think recasting would tarnish Ledger's performance?

That performance isn't being touched by anything for a long time, regardless of a re-cast.

So if Nolan feels it necessary in order to in turn feel the need to do a 3rd film, then re-cast away.

But if Joker isn't a necessary aspect, then that's fine to.

 

[Doc Samson]

I think I might've used the word 'crucial' out of turn.

Of course Batman stories can be told without the Joker's involvement.

But if Nolan is thinking 'In order for me to feel the passion for working on a third Batman film, the story I want to tell absolutely DOES require seeing the Joker' then he needs to recast.

If he's thinking 'I can successfully continue my story without nothing more than a reference to the Joker' then he doesn't have to.

But Ledger's death shouldn't compromise the story he wants to tell...as I said, Heath wouldn't have wanted to do that to Nolan, I don't think anyway...I'm pretty confident about that.

Besides, Ledger's performance as the Joker is crystalized in "The Dark Knight." No one's going to be able to take that away from him...so why should those of us who want to see the Joker have to be let down just because people absurdly think recasting would tarnish Ledger's performance?

That performance isn't being touched by anything for a long time, regardless of a re-cast.

So if Nolan feels it necessary in order to in turn feel the need to do a 3rd film, then re-cast away.

But if Joker isn't a necessary aspect, then that's fine to.

I feel the same exact way, it's just the other side tries to be so forceful about their stance like it's a fact or something, until inevitably they force me to "show them..how..pathetic, their attempts to control things really are"

 

[RockyBatboa]

When did i mention Brad Pitt, Batboa?

exactly.

My bad, the pitt comments were meant for melkay. computer started acting out and i mistakenly combined one response meant for you and another for melkay into the same post. mistake of mine. it happens.

 

[RockyBatboa]

How is the Riddler all that different from the Joker? We've been around this already so you already know what I'm going to say, but I guess it bears repeating. The same things the Joker did, are basically, the same things the Riddler would do, setting up these elaborate traps that forces Batman to decipher the meaning and race before the inevitable catastrophe. The main difference being that Joker is actually a viable threat, and the Riddler isn't, and never really has been. Making him anything other than an egotistical nerd wouldn't be true to his character, I hardly see him as engaging or all that fresh. If the Joker shouldn't return for fear of being redundant, Riddler shouldn't show up either.

In other words, why use a lesser, imitational villian to attemp to tell the story when the original will suffice. Exactly why any intention to utilize the Riddler would be an abortion waiting to happen.

What do you think about a Joker, Black Mask , and Catwoman third chapter?

 

[Melkay]

This is probably the single most ignorant post I remember reading here since I joined these boards. I have to say it, not as an offense, but because I strongly disagree with most of the things you said, and it would be disrespectful to you to not act in consequence. But I’ll be as concise and polite as I can in here, and it is a great effort to me.

Batman NEVER changes, not since Wayne reinvented himself as bats in the first place. He's all circular will and reasoning, his single-minded consistent purpose is what drives the story, because he is the main character/protagonist.

Think of many the cornerstone stories of the Batman mythos. In TDKR, for example: is Batman the same at the beginning at the end, or did he change from a defeated and dormant old man into energized, radical and unstoppable leader?
Is the Batman at the beginning of Hush and The Long Halloween the same of the end, or did he go from a confident man with hopes in a better tomorrow to bitter, more pessimistic paranoid with a grittier outlook in life?
Is the Bruce at the beginning of TDK the same Bruce of the end of the film? Are his views the same? Does he think the same things? Or have some of his opinions changed, now that the goalposts moved? Didn’t he, at some point, strongly considered abandoning his life as Batman? Where’s the single-minded will there?

We dont learn new things about ourselves through him, b/c that is not the point of the characters story.

Wrong, many people have, through decades, learn new things about themselves through Batman, especially through his seemingly limitless will.

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.

Batman is probably the superhero with most defeats in his publication history, confirming that his will is not enough to defeat his obstacles. This is especially evident in his constant frustrated efforts to live a normal life while fighting crime, or his incapability to prevent the deaths of his loved ones, or his frustrated attempts to rehabilitate people like Harvey Dent. In the last film he ended up resigning to his efforts of becoming a symbol to emulate because of what he saw with the copycats, and how he attracted the strongest hits from the mob and this new kind of enemy, such as the Joker.
He keeps changing things because he keeps on learning things, and the villains are there to be catalysts of this learning process.

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?

To answer your questions in order: merely opposite of Batman and villain. The Joker has never represented reality, as has been proven many times, especially in The Killing Joke…. And his mockery of everything and everyone is just part of his villainous persona, but he is evil only. He may be misguided, but he is not heroic under any standards.

Since he is chaos and anarky 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.

You’re talking about the guy who has never changed his persona since he is a super-villain, the guy who has always been the Joker, the guy with a will so strong that he keeps escaping imprisonment and looking for new ways to foil Batman, the guy with the moral resolve of bringing chaos and subversion (especially moral subversion) everywhere he goes…. So you may have to rethink your words.

What if the Nolan Joker were to have acid permanently scar the makeup into his face?

Acid doesn’t do that. If Nolan is going to diss his own brand of realism, I would prefer to have Mr. Freeze this time around, thank you. Not a Joker stealing screentime. Not to mention that having a change to permawhite skin at this moment is probably the most irrelevant thing that could happen to the Joker.

What if the Joker were to hunt the powers that be that hunt the Batman?

He did that already. He sent the people of Gotham after the man who was apparently going to spill the beans about Batman’s identity. And since the powers that will be hunting Batman will most likely be the police or the mob… and Joker attacked BOTH of them… I think Nolan had that angle covered.

What about Joker, in arkham, brainwashing the doctors and leading a revolt inside the assylum walls?

Literally brainwashing the doctors? Impossible, and we go back to the realism problem. Metaphorically brainwashing (i.e. playing with their minds and driving them corrupt)? HIGHLY improbable, seeing the conditions he will be in. He can always corrupt Dr. Quinzel and cause a revolt in Arkham with her help but, as The Batman said, what new ideological angle would he be providing there? What new character dynamic? Just a crisis Batman had to deal with?
That’s why I prefer him to stay out of the next film and not steal screen time from other valuable villains’ presence.

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?

Take your time, and meanwhile, see what The Batman said about bringing something fresh into the franchise.

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.

I think you’re completely wrong about Pitt, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think Clooney did much better in Intolerable Cruelty.

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.

His “machismo” was anything but witless. Palahniuk’s dialogue lines are some of the best I’ve ever read in my life, and Pitt carried the attitude like a glove, especially during the whole “Project Mayhem” part. All your words are completely unsupported, arbitrary and void, as are mine too, probably. Again, let’s agree to disagree.

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,

He stood his own side by side with Blanchett, and that is a feat in itself, the mark that made me realize how much DiCaprio had evolved in The Aviator. But you haven’t seen TCCOBB. And You haven’t seen The Assasination of Jesse James. And you make no mention of Babel. Can you tell me how you expect others to respect your opinion when it’s so blatantly uninformed. It would be prudent to at least know what you are talking about before ridiculing yourself, wouldn’t it?

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.

Nope, I didn’t see it. What has that anything to do with the topic here?

I dont blame him for making movies, but by self-decieving himself into thinking he's more than marginally talented is his biggest downfall.

Did he tell you how he saw himself as an actor? Wow. Next time you see him, tell him not to be worried. The rest of us saw Jesse James, Button and Babel. He is MUCH more than marginally talented.

He has no substance, and nothing that even closely resembles wit.

When you see him doing comedy, from Burn After Reading, to Ocean’s Eleven to his Friends episode, you know that the first thing he has is wit. Tons of it.
I can recommend great mental doctors, by the way.

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.

It’s easy to get impatient with the only one with a sense of rhythm in that movie. Besides, her characters is supposed to grow impatient with his character. You don’t seem to be able to make that kind of distinctions.

 

[The Batman]

I feel the same exact way, it's just the other side tries to be so forceful about their stance like it's a fact or something, until inevitably they force me to "show them..how..pathetic, their attempts to control things really are"

and so far, i havent seen anything

so much for showing, right?

 

[Mister J]

You know what the worse part of wading throught all your goggly-book is, man? The fact that it takes you so long to make your points and you still fail to convince anyone with substantial reasoning. It's like you're trying to misguidingly convince yourself that you're correct by hammering you own opinion into your own head.

The saddest part? I'll never get those 2 minues of my life back.

This is probably the single most ignorant post I remember reading here since I joined these boards. I have to say it, not as an offense, but because I strongly disagree with most of the things you said, and it would be disrespectful to you to not act in consequence. But I’ll be as concise and polite as I can in here, and it is a great effort to me.

The two of you, and anyone else wallowing in this unnecessary condescension that's obvious over the last few pages, can either offer thoughts without the pettiness or be removed for a time. It doesn't matter which.

 

[Melkay]

You may not be holding up the Heath Ledger flag, but I can almost guarantee, if the man was still alive, hardly anyone would be against the Joker returning. If we are to be honest with ourselves, you have to recognize that to be the truth.

This was not meant for me but I have to intervene. I have to admit, if Ledger was alive, I would proabbly be eagerly expecting his return.......
..... but that wouldn't make me right.
It's not about proving who's right or wrong in this discussion, so don't try to make it like that, please. It's about the argument, not the arguers.

How is the Riddler all that different from the Joker? We've been around this already so you already know what I'm going to say, but I guess it bears repeating. The same things the Joker did, are basically, the same things the Riddler would do, setting up these elaborate traps that forces Batman to decipher the meaning and race before the inevitable catastrophe.

You're cherrypickin here. Their themes would be completely different. The Riddler motivation with Batman is about competition and proving individual merit, something akin to the current conflict he faces.

By your way of thinking, Ra's and the Joker were the same and interchangeable: they were, after all, two terrorists who suffered traumatic past experiences and tried to prove their points of view by trying to tear Gotham apart through mass hsyteria and pessimism. ONe could argue that they were the same character...

But we both now better than that.

The main difference being that Joker is actually a viable threat, and the Riddler isn't, and never really has been.

That can be changed. In the fed route, he has vast official resources at his disposition, as well as his characteristical accute intelligence. If the Joker could go from small-time crook to king of Gotham's underworld in less than a month, how much further could a well-placed Riddler go?

Making him anything other than an egotistical nerd wouldn't be true to his character, I hardly see him as engaging or all that fresh.

He can always be an egotistical nerd and STILL represent a large threat, that won't change with the adaptation.

The Penguin falls into the same boat, he's a mobster with a funny face, and that's basically it.

Not true. I've written much about this. The Penguin is the untouchable crime lord, much more untouchable than Falcone. He's a multimillionaire arms dealer that can unify Gotham's divided mob and have a techonolgical edge on par with Wayne's. He's the calmed and cruel crime boss who can go to the opera and visciously kill a man, the strategic genius that can play on all fronts, plan for all contingencies, and always hace a decent façade in Gotham. When a man is so powerful and keeps frustrating your efforts to bring him down, he can threaten to return Gotham to her old mafia days, except that Falcone was not prepared for the flying rat, but Penguin is.

Trying to make these guys into major characters in a feature film can hardly work when they aren't even major villains in the comic medium that birthed them.

They were both bigger villains than Scarecrow. The Penguin, especially, has a longer history as major villain than Ra's al Ghul himself. Besides, as many have pointed out in these boards, is not what a character is, but what can become in the hands of the Nolans. And, hopefully, their interpretations will be popular enough to revitalize these characters in the comic medium.

Where's the threat? Ras was going for the complete destruction of the whole city, the Joker was pure anarchy with no rules, destroying core beliefs. These other guys pale in comparison.

Neither Ra's nor the Joker represented real threats for Batman's life. In fact, both were especially fond of him, and didn't want to REALLY kill him. The Penguin presents enourmous dangers for Gotham, threats that range from economic strikes to establishing a permanent, stronger mob in the city, or infiltrating the political spheres. The Riddler is about killing Batman, but he may harm/threaten uncountable amounts of people in the process. He can also present a threat for Gordon's authority in the Police Force.

Let's just say you have a certain....way with words that can get a man unnerved, rather quickly

And I've told you many times to move past the attitude and focus on the content, not the style. Defensive stances like that only make for uninteresting and boring discussions. Think of the attitude as a filter to take out of balance, and you should be above that. At least I tell you what I think at all moments.

You could look at it that way, or you could imagine him being incredibly focused from here on out, knowing full well what's awaiting him. I'd like to think he's intelligent enough to realize the situation

Then we have no conflict, and we have no sequel. I could have imagined that everything would go well at the end of Batman Begins too, but I am familiar with the comics history, and I know that's simply not the case with Bats. If I have to imagine the most probable conflicts awaiting for him after TDK, those I wrote would my picks.

Point being that one of those themes that have not been concluded in the past two films is the Joker's victory, in his mind and the mind of the public. It's because of him that Dent went crazy, got killed, and forced Batman to become the bad guy. It's because of him that Rachel is dead and Bruce's hope for retirement finished. You don't think that needs further examination?

No. Why? What further insight do you want about that? Bruce learned a long time ago to not get revenge on individuals, but try to fix the system as a whole. That's why he didn't let the Joker fall to his death. That's why he sent him to Arkham. He's familiar enough with the Joker to anticipate his methods ("It's not so easy. With the Joker, never is."). We know things ended as a partial defeat for the Joker, and this is supported by his scared face when the SWAT guys put their hands on him.

Again, what further examination do you want?

Scarecrow wasn't brought back to please the audience, it was to show that these criminals ARE STILL OUT THERE, and the Joker would most certainly be one of them, and very soon at that

No, there was a MAJOR difference between Crane and the Joker... Crane was still in the streets, not locked away in Arkham. The Joker is. He escaped the MCU because he could plan ahead, the security wasn't so tight, and his captors didn't expect his methods. It is a completely different scenario in Arkham. He will escape, of course, but not so soon.

 

[Melkay]

You know what the worse part of wading throught all your goggly-book is, man? The fact that it takes you so long to make your points and you still fail to convince anyone with substantial reasoning. It's like you're trying to misguidingly convince yourself that you're correct by hammering you own opinion into your own head.

The saddest part? I'll never get those 2 minues of my life back.

The good news: You're resorting to mere personal attacks now, which means you're running out of arguments, if you ever had one.

The bad news: What you say in the part in bold is right... I give you plenty of substantial reasoning, and you're still not convinced. Maybe logic is just not your thing. But hey, it's your issue, so...

 

[RockyBatboa]

This is probably the single most ignorant post I remember reading here since I joined these boards. I have to say it, not as an offense, but because I strongly disagree with most of the things you said, and it would be disrespectful to you to not act in consequence. But I’ll be as concise and polite as I can in here, and it is a great effort to me.



Think of many the cornerstone stories of the Batman mythos. In TDKR, for example: is Batman the same at the beginning at the end, or did he change from a defeated and dormant old man into energized, radical and unstoppable leader?
Is the Batman at the beginning of Hush and The Long Halloween the same of the end, or did he go from a confident man with hopes in a better tomorrow to bitter, more pessimistic paranoid with a grittier outlook in life?
Is the Bruce at the beginning of TDK the same Bruce of the end of the film? Are his views the same? Does he think the same things? Or have some of his opinions changed, now that the goalposts moved? Didn’t he, at some point, strongly considered abandoning his life as Batman? Where’s the single-minded will there?



Wrong, many people have, through decades, learn new things about themselves through Batman, especially through his seemingly limitless will.



Batman is probably the superhero with most defeats in his publication history, confirming that his will is not enough to defeat his obstacles. This is especially evident in his constant frustrated efforts to live a normal life while fighting crime, or his incapability to prevent the deaths of his loved ones, or his frustrated attempts to rehabilitate people like Harvey Dent. In the last film he ended up resigning to his efforts of becoming a symbol to emulate because of what he saw with the copycats, and how he attracted the strongest hits from the mob and this new kind of enemy, such as the Joker.
He keeps changing things because he keeps on learning things, and the villains are there to be catalysts of this learning process.



To answer your questions in order: merely opposite of Batman and villain. The Joker has never represented reality, as has been proven many times, especially in The Killing Joke…. And his mockery of everything and everyone is just part of his villainous persona, but he is evil only. He may be misguided, but he is not heroic under any standards.



You’re talking about the guy who has never changed his persona since he is a super-villain, the guy who has always been the Joker, the guy with a will so strong that he keeps escaping imprisonment and looking for new ways to foil Batman, the guy with the moral resolve of bringing chaos and subversion (especially moral subversion) everywhere he goes…. So you may have to rethink your words.



Acid doesn’t do that. If Nolan is going to diss his own brand of realism, I would prefer to have Mr. Freeze this time around, thank you. Not a Joker stealing screentime. Not to mention that having a change to permawhite skin at this moment is probably the most irrelevant thing that could happen to the Joker.



He did that already. He sent the people of Gotham after the man who was apparently going to spill the beans about Batman’s identity. And since the powers that will be hunting Batman will most likely be the police or the mob… and Joker attacked BOTH of them… I think Nolan had that angle covered.



Literally brainwashing the doctors? Impossible, and we go back to the realism problem. Metaphorically brainwashing (i.e. playing with their minds and driving them corrupt)? HIGHLY improbable, seeing the conditions he will be in. He can always corrupt Dr. Quinzel and cause a revolt in Arkham with her help but, as The Batman said, what new ideological angle would he be providing there? What new character dynamic? Just a crisis Batman had to deal with?
That’s why I prefer him to stay out of the next film and not steal screen time from other valuable villains’ presence.



Take your time, and meanwhile, see what The Batman said about bringing something fresh into the franchise.



I think you’re completely wrong about Pitt, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think Clooney did much better in Intolerable Cruelty.



His “machismo” was anything but witless. Palahniuk’s dialogue lines are some of the best I’ve ever read in my life, and Pitt carried the attitude like a glove, especially during the whole “Project Mayhem” part. All your words are completely unsupported, arbitrary and void, as are mine too, probably. Again, let’s agree to disagree.



He stood his own side by side with Blanchett, and that is a feat in itself, the mark that made me realize how much DiCaprio had evolved in The Aviator. But you haven’t seen TCCOBB. And You haven’t seen The Assasination of Jesse James. And you make no mention of Babel. Can you tell me how you expect others to respect your opinion when it’s so blatantly uninformed. It would be prudent to at least know what you are talking about before ridiculing yourself, wouldn’t it?



Nope, I didn’t see it. What has that anything to do with the topic here?



Did he tell you how he saw himself as an actor? Wow. Next time you see him, tell him not to be worried. The rest of us saw Jesse James, Button and Babel. He is MUCH more than marginally talented.



When you see him doing comedy, from Burn After Reading, to Ocean’s Eleven to his Friends episode, you know that the first thing he has is wit. Tons of it.
I can recommend great mental doctors, by the way.



It’s easy to get impatient with the only one with a sense of rhythm in that movie. Besides, her characters is supposed to grow impatient with his character. You don’t seem to be able to make that kind of distinctions.

Well, after much gratuitous self-back-slapping hysteria, and Brad Pitt praising, i now see you got off the short bus, didnt you?

First, you claim i'm ignorant, and uniformed, but you dont even bother to realize that of all the changes and questions attributed to Bruce Wayne, it all leads back to the same single-minded pursuit of justice the character is attributed with. For all your claims about Batman ending in new paths than he originally chose, the only ones you mention are those early in his career (Dark KNight, Long Halloween) and at the end of his career THe Dark Knight REturens. You're like a blind man, trying to find his way through the forest in the midst of a fog--because , much like a deaf man trying to speak, you failed to pick up on the FACT that all these questions and doubts Wayne occasionally has ALWAYS simply reinforce his singular will and purpose. Yes, the villians are catalysts to theese questions and doubts, and serve the point of challenging the hero, welome to drama 101, that doesnt change the fact that Batman consistently acts as Batman does. But you already knew that. You're simply questioning me to affirm it. Yes, it's affirmed.

As for the Joker never being a misguided hero, that's your opinion, and in the eye of the beholder. To say he doesnt consistently reivent himself is being ignorant, it's verging on ******ed. Sure, there are limits to what the comic book writers can do with the charater as in the comics Batman is almost always the avatar of good will in the city, and the Joker his main adversary. But if you dont agree with Batman's mission, and see him as a fascist lunatic, then the Joker, with his free chaos, by virtue, is the hero.

Someone sure has lost their marbles, and i suggest you schedule new appointments with those medical doctors you know-they didnt do their job the first time around. Money not well spent, i'd say you should sue.

As for Brad Pitt, we can agree to disagree, just as you can see wit where there is none. Sure, McDormant's character was supposed to be frustrated with Pitt's-i'm glad you can ascertain the obvious. However, if you can discern acting the way i can, you can see real frustration comming from Frances, from her the real person. Pitt eye's look dead, and he seems resistance to even try to stretch himsel out in the role, instead self-pleased at the timid attempt he gives to be whimsical and ironic.

And how do you know acid doesnt do that? Are you familiar with all kinds of acidic chemicals, and know how each one acts on physical properties, such as makeup and flesh. How do you know it wouldnt affect the Joker futher. Would it please him, and thuse cause him to be more psychotically fearsome and malevolent. He seemed to pride himself on the scars in the dark knight, if his 'war paint' became his permanent face, how much more terrible might he become?

You're missing the point about the Joker hunting the police that hunt Batman, or youre just trying to pretent to be smart. Joker attacked the mob and the police in the first film b/c he did not affliliate with either side, to show that both those who follow rules and dont could both be affected by chaos and anarchy. To kill the police who hunt Batman means quite a different agenda in the next film-it means he's preserving his greater opposite, where in the first film he was challenging Batman. If you dont see the distinction, i cant help you any more than your medical doctors tried to.

Howevery, i digress. This isnt about your opinion on the Joker being in the next film, it's about your attitude about taking things to the next level. You're a been there, done that type of guy-you lack vision, just as pitt lacks wit and depth.

I could go on, but we both know this is getting trite, and it's because you simply wont or are incapable of seeing the big picture and and cant express yourself with any tangible reasoning. You're full of hyperbole, and that is your downfall.

Curious, though: what are the 3 villlians you'd most like to see in lieu of joker, and what would your casting choices be?

 

[RockyBatboa]

The two of you, and anyone else wallowing in this unnecessary condescension that's obvious over the last few pages, can either offer thoughts without the pettiness or be removed for a time. It doesn't matter which.

Melkay-

Ok, i'm done.

no hard feelings, melkay. this has truly grown absurd. I offer you the right hand of respect. let's just agree to agree.

 

[Melkay]

The two of you, and anyone else wallowing in this unnecessary condescension that's obvious over the last few pages, can either offer thoughts without the pettiness or be removed for a time. It doesn't matter which.

Sorry man, but I've seen other warnings from you in other threads, and I think you're too harsh on the politeness clause. You will probably dismiss this advice, but here it is anyway: chill. This place is not a victorian hall, people are entitled to criticise their opponents posts, and that means being a little harsh from time to time. Rocky and I were just dissapointed with the other one's rebuttals and were expressing it in sincere terms, with no exxagerations. I, for example, never called Rocky an ignorant, just his post, and I clarified that it was because I disagreed with him on almost every point. What is so wrong about that? Should I just stay quiet and pretend to agree with him when I clearly not? Should he just shut up about his frustration for my long multi-quotes posts? No.

Sometimes sincerity is mistake by condescendence. We're all entitled to criticizing our opponents, aren't we? Even more, the sarcasm makes up for good entertainment and gives room for a good discussion dynamism. When I say "no offense", I really mean it. Some people are overly sensitive sometimes. Don't be one of those. Your criticism of us is certainly ALSO condescending towards Rocky and me, and I'm sure you don't like double standards. We post extensive arguments along with our banter and our sarcasm... they are rich discussions. My advice to you is to chill a little bit, or you will be ruining one of the best parts of these forums. Take ir or leave it.

See ya.

 

[Melkay]

Melkay-

Ok, i'm done.

no hard feelings, melkay. this has truly grown absurd. I offer you the right hand of respect. let's just agree to agree.

No man, I never thought you were disrespecting me, this is a discussion. Inever intended to offend you and I always said so. Do not back down just because of this warning. I respect you, just don't see any sense in some of your opinions, but that's why debates are for. Even the best friends can (and should) tell each other when they think the other is saying something stupid. No one should take that away from you. If you think I say an stupidy, point it out and just say it. I won't get offended, I assure you that. If I deserve it, I'll admit it, as I have admitted saying stupid things or not choosing well my words in the past. If you think I'm being unreasonable and not convincing anyone here, then say it. But don't go on tip-toes around me. That would be true disrespect. That would be true patronizing.

I'm going to answer to your longer post now.

 

[RockyBatboa]

The two of you, and anyone else wallowing in this unnecessary condescension that's obvious over the last few pages, can either offer thoughts without the pettiness or be removed for a time. It doesn't matter which.

I also disagree with your assessment. We're not wallowing, we are debating, and as such, from time to time, things get somewhat heated in a debate. If the participants can handle the heat, new ideas grow and expand. If that doesnt happen, at least the texts can be entertaining.

Noone is crying about this, and neither should you. It's all being done in the spirit of combat, because that is what true debate is. Melkay and I are combating each other's minds because we disagree, to see which opinions, mine are his, or both, can be tested the farthest, and thus proven the strongest.

I think you should back off as well.

 

[Anjow1060]

I also disagree with your assessment. We're not wallowing, we are debating, and as such, from time to time, things get somewhat heated in a debate. If the participants can handle the heat, new ideas grow and expand. If that doesnt happen, at least the texts can be entertaining.

Noone is crying about this, and neither should you. It's all being done in the spirit of combat, because that is what true debate is. Melkay and I are combating each other's minds because we disagree, to see which opinions, mine are his, or both, can be tested the farthest, and thus proven the strongest.

I think you should back off as well.

there's an old expression....."Don't poke the bear."

- Jow

 

[Doc Samson]

and so far, i havent seen anything

so much for showing, right?

If you haven't seen anything then your not paying attention. Everything I've said to Melkay regarding this subject covers everything your saying about it. Conversely, I have yet to see you mention any good reasons for not including the Joker. I think I'll rest some and check back tomorrow morning, give you a little time

 

[RockyBatboa]

Well, my computer is acting up and i cant seem to access some of the reply features. i dont know if it's my computer or supherohype administrator, so i'm done for now.
. I'll respond later. Good night.

 

[Melkay]

All the changes and questions attributed to Bruce Wayne, it all leads back to the same single-minded pursuit of justice the character is attributed with.

Agreed, but that common end has different paths and Bruce changes some of his opinions as we gain more experiences. Ra's and Two-Face, for example, also go back to their quests for justice, but Batman is more willing to adapt than they. He is still quite stubborn and determined, I give you taht, but there a level of change and growth inherent to that quest that the Joker lacks. I never meant Batman was a mutable character, but it is more evolving than the Joker.

For all your claims about Batman ending in new paths than he originally chose, the only ones you mention are those early in his career (Dark KNight, Long Halloween) and at the end of his career THe Dark Knight REturens.

Don't look at me, you were the one who said that Bruce had no changes after he became Batman, which is simply not true. In between those stories, for example, we have all the years with the complete bat-family and his different and evolving reactions for it.

all these questions and doubts Wayne occasionally has ALWAYS simply reinforce his singular will and purpose.

They do not reinforce it. They cannot bring down his will to keep going, but they do not reinforce it. That's why he almost killed the Joker in Hush, for instance. The doubts are just that, elements that weaken him. And they must be treated as so. That's why Nolan understood that Batman decides to go from being a symbol of hope for the people to JUST being a symbol of fear for the criminals. Batman is constantly perfecting himself and that is expressed through change and nothing else.

Yes, the villians are catalysts to theese questions and doubts, and serve the point of challenging the hero, welome to drama 101, that doesnt change the fact that Batman consistently acts as Batman does. But you already knew that. You're simply questioning me to affirm it. Yes, it's affirmed.

Batman doesn't act consistently. He almost resigned to his position in TDK. He treated the Robins in different manners. He trusted Catwoman through al HUsh until is paranoia makes her go away. There are changes. You may think they are minor changes, but are superior to those experienced by the Joker, which are almost nil.

As for the Joker never being a misguided hero, that's your opinion, and in the eye of the beholder.

No, I guess it all depends on your concept of hero. But it all comes down to his motivations. In TDK, they were revealed to be similar to the motivations in The Killing Joke, which were only to turn those around him like him and prove taht he wasn't very different from the rest. Those weren't altruistic motives at all, but completely egotistical. Where lies the hero there?

To say he doesnt consistently reivent himself is being ignorant, it's verging on ******ed.

Wait, isn't he always a flamboyant, murderous, psychopatic clown obsessed about Batman, trying to create havoc there where he goes? It seems it is easier for you to call me ******ed than just explaining how does the Joker consistently reinvent himself.

Sure, there are limits to what the comic book writers can do with the charater as in the comics Batman is almost always the avatar of good will in the city, and the Joker his main adversary. But if you dont agree with Batman's mission, and see him as a fascist lunatic, then the Joker, with his free chaos, by virtue, is the hero.

Go to The Dark Knight boards and look for a thread started by Dankalel called "Batman Is The Grand Inquisitor". My first post in the first page explain why I believe the Joker has a lot to do with "chaos" nothing to do with "free". It also talks about the motives and the rationale behind Batman's actions. It all comes down to the intentions and the results. Of course, your concept of heroism can be completely different from mine, but mine is close the the actual concept of the word.

Someone sure has lost their marbles, and i suggest you schedule new appointments with those medical doctors you know-they didnt do their job the first time around. Money not well spent, i'd say you should sue.

Personal attacks and no arguments along.... it seems that I'm winning.

As for Brad Pitt, we can agree to disagree.

Okay. I really don't agree with you but I'm not interested in the Pitt topic. however, I have to point this out...

However, if you can discern acting the way i can...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... lol, I'm literally laughing out loud. This certainly has made my day.

And how do you know acid doesnt do that? Are you familiar with all kinds of acidic chemicals, and know how each one acts on physical properties, such as makeup and flesh.

Yes, I know about acids. I know enough to tell you that acid doesn't bleach skin. Have you ever heard about acid burns?

How do you know it wouldnt affect the Joker futher. Would it please him, and thuse cause him to be more psychotically fearsome and malevolent.

More psychotically fearsome and malevolent? Listen to yourself. You think he was holding back all this time?
What is he going to do now, skin someone alive and/or rape a girl? (<-- pun intended)

He seemed to pride himself on the scars in the dark knight, if his 'war paint' became his permanent face, how much more terrible might he become?

Not more terrible. He would just have new stories. "You know how I got thise beautiful skin tone? I was worked in a lab..." pffff. Nolan dismissed the perhmawhite once and he will dismiss it again.

Joker attacked the mob and the police in the first film b/c he did not affliliate with either side, to show that both those who follow rules and dont could both be affected by chaos and anarchy. To kill the police who hunt Batman means quite a different agenda in the next film-it means he's preserving his greater opposite, where in the first film he was challenging Batman.

First of all, I'm opposed to this idea for three reasons: 1. because he already did that with Reese. 2. because, in a realist setting, there's only so much he can accomplish locked away in Arkahm 3. because having him save Batman's back more than once, defeating all odds, would turn him into some kind of deus ex machina, taking away the audience fear of the threats on Batman's life. The same cartoonish deux ex machina that dini used in Mad Love. If the Joker can always leave Arkham, move through Gotham and kill the bad guys who are about to kill/expose Batman, what's the worry? He'll save him again next time. That's not a wise writing choice.

Howevery, i digress. This isnt about your opinion on the Joker being in the next film, it's about your attitude about taking things to the next level. You're a been there, done that type of guy-you lack vision, just as pitt lacks wit and depth. I could go on, but we both know this is getting trite, and it's because you simply wont or are incapable of seeing the big picture and and cant express yourself with any tangible reasoning.

You're wrong here, and I don't think I can add anything else without producing more miss-the-mark responses from you. Do as you will, but know that you go away holding on to a wrong opinion.

You're full of hyperbole, and that is your downfall.

hahahaha, and this comes from the guy who wrote the instant classics about Brad Pitt's acting skills. Re-read them you redefined "hyperbole" there.

Curious, though: what are the 3 villlians you'd most like to see in lieu of joker, and what would your casting choices be?

I guess you haven't really looked at my signature. It's not so explicit, actually. My three main choices for villains are Riddler, Catwoman and the Penguin. I would also love to have Mr. Freeze, but I can't figure out a way to go around the sci-fi aspect. My casting choices are:

Riddler: Andy Serkis... chamaleonic, quirky actor with the right physique, has work experience with Nolan. I'm not adamant about this one because there are simply too many talented actors suitable for the Riddler out there that to imagine a perfect cast would be exhausting. But I do love my Andy Serkis pick.

Catwoman: Marion Cotillard. (Runner up: all the runner-ups are too far behind)

Penguin: Michael Emerson, hands down. He would be a great Riddler, but si more than capable of pulling a perfect Cobblepot and it would be a little more unpredictable and interesting, with all the right mannerisms and such. (Runner up: Phillip Seymour Hoffman; the most perfect Cobblepot I can think of, but he has already played several characters similar to the Penguin - "MI3", "Capote", "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead" - and his performance would be expected and slightly predictable, that's why I prefer to run off with Emerson, who is also a fantastic actor.

Honorable mention:
Mr. Freeze: Ben Kingsley (No runner ups. Just watch "House of Sand and Fog". This is Victor Fries.)

 

[Melkay]

Well, my computer is acting up and i cant seem to access some of the reply features. i dont know if it's my computer or supherohype administrator, so i'm done for now.

melkay, if you have anything more you'd like to discuss, you can contact me through my webmail. I'll respond later. Good night.

I didn't read this before posting my longer reply. I copied your e-mail address, so you better delete it now, for security. Read the last post, and if you want to add anything else send me a PM and I will give you my e-mail. Read you soon, take care.