The Dark Knight Rises Roven: Joker Could Return

[RockyBatboa]

Well, he is against Robin. He flat out said that.

Actually, not true. This is actually a much-patented fanboy claim, and a reversal of what he actually said shortly after "Begins" release. In an Mtv interview, this was what was actually expressed:

Mtv: How do you feel about Robin.

Nolan: I think it would be too soon for the second film.

Mtv: Are you against using the character?

Nolan: We've talked about it. WB and I agree that Robin will appear (be reintroduced) again. Just not as early as the second film. Wheather it's me or the next director who comes in, i'm confident Robin will be in it. I'm not against the idea.



That being said, i'm against the idea of Robin.

The only character Nolan publicly specifically decried has been the Penguin.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I see. Well there is that statement Bale made about Robin. The one where he said he would refuse to do it if Robin was involved. But I bet that's with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.

I could see Robin adapted well into the Nolan Bat-verse, but not yet. If Nolan carried on to do a fourth? Yea I think he would work. But I don't think Nolan would do a fourth.

 

[RockyBatboa]

I just have hope that one day people like you will realize how much help they need from skilled therapists. In the meantime, let me provide it for you:

Now, you're masquerading as one of your own therapists? Will wonders never cease??

1 The script says Dent is dead.

The script? Wow, I didnt watch a script, i watched a film. Did you also know kane and finger originally killed joker in Batman 1, Spring 1940. Ever heard the saying, 'things change.' Ever heard of fan demand? No? Too bad

2. If he wasn't dead, Gordon would have proceeded to secure him with handcuffs, for instance.

Even if he was knocked out? Without his gun? With Batman and Gordon both there to knock him out again if he were to have gotten up without warning? You're really reaching with this one, and you know it, dont you?

3. Batman did not die for two things: 3.1. he's the stronger man and got lucky his neck didn't break 3.2. wood pieces slowed his fall.

Wood chips slowed his fall?? This comming from the guy who claims he knows how all acidic chemicals effect all physical properties? Wood chips slowed his fall? Wow-dont try this at home, kids!

Sure, Two-Face didnt get up (metaphor for the weaker man) Now you're arguing metaphors within the contect of physical reality that presides in a fictional film. Better call you therapists again-they have much work to do with you, i'll tell you!

4. Why the fake funeral? How is Gordon going to keep Dent's name clean without burying a corpse or locking him away as a secret? What about the policemen that arrived on the scene, or Dent's guards in Arkham?

Have you ever heard of faked death? No. Have you ever heard of fictional entertainment? Have you ever heard of city corruption? Do you think EVERY person in Gotham saw Harvey Dent up close, and will automatically assume Dent and Two-Face or the same guy?
You bring up impotent loop-holes like their solid truths? Go call the family therapist again!

5. Did you see him breathing? No, right?

I saw him either knocked out or dead. Neither perception is fact. I thought you knew the difference.

6. By your line of logic, no one in this franchise is certainly dead.

Nope. Just Joker, Scarecrow, Ras al Ghul, Two-Face..Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Lucious Fox, you know, the important characters that have been around the last 40-70 years.
The Waynes are dead. Rachel is dead. Fake Ras is dead. DA Finch is dead. You know, the less important characters, Sherlock.

And this are only a few reasons.

Still waiting for more substantial ones. In the meantime, i'm going to go watch the assasination of jesse james, tell you what i think later.

This kind of denial is pathetic

I felt the same way concerning reading this post of yours.

An unhealthy superlative for 'speculation'.

Just remember, close you eyes, and remember: it's FICTION. They get a dictionairy and reconsider you definition for the word "superlative".

Ah, the always diplomatic Nolan. Or the always "trying to get my neck save from the fanboy mob" Nolan.

He seems more private, restrained and polite to me. Regardless, i'm not part of any mob, less i end up like you, and on that.....

Indeed, he's not against it. As he's not against Robin.
He's just not doing it.

[/QUOTE]

Thank you for these prophecies! They come right from the source of Nolans mind, correct, since you wrote them as facts.

Good Luck with you Therapist-Funded Recoveries! Keep in Touch.

 

[RockyBatboa]

I see. Well there is that statement Bale made about Robin. The one where he said he would refuse to do it if Robin was involved. But I bet that's with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.

I could see Robin adapted well into the Nolan Bat-verse, but not yet. If Nolan carried on to do a fourth? Yea I think he would work. But I don't think Nolan would do a fourth.

True about Bale. But which cheek?

Only if Pitt plays Robin, that's the only way I could see it!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

That would be interesting!

 

[Rolf]

True about Bale. But which cheek?

Only if Pitt plays Robin, that's the only way I could see it!

I myself have been thinking more along the lines of Shia LaBeouf.

Hmmm, I feel another photo manip coming on.

 

[Melkay]

You say Joker is a mad man, that people would not believe him. But as was proven in TDK he has a way with words does he not?

It is a sad you're resorting to this, really.

I think he has a role to play in placing that seed of doubt within the citizens of Gotham.

You're assuming way too much, beginning with the part of thinking that the truth will get out there. And even if that's true, there are many ways to set this revelation into motion without including the Joker, and you know it. To have the Joker spill the beans is a cheap shortcut and what does he know anyway? Don't get mad, but I think you didn't understand what happened in the movie at all. What about Ramírez? She knows what happened, what if our little agent Nashton manages to get the info from her? Since the Joker is locked away in Arkham, he doesn't have to play a part here.

Joker knows that Dent went rogue, he was the one who made him like that. Yea he didn't know the specifics, but that doesn't really matter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... ROFL....... this is better than the "way with words" stuff.

Joker knows something that Batman and Gordon want covered up. I just think it would be silly to complete forget that, to just pretend Joker knows absolutely nothing.

He knows that Harvey had changed and wanted revenge. Maybe he knows a few things, but what he definetely doesn't know is what happened with Ramirez, or the things with Gordon's family. Like I said, you're jumping into wild conclusions.

That's what I think would break continuity. Even if i was just a regular cinema goer and I went to see Batman 3 and Joker wasn't in it, I would be like "Hmmm hold on, wheres Joker? Didn't he know about Harvey Dent?"

Gordon: I had a call from Arkham about some extreme behaviour with the Joker. It seems he's stirring up things with the other inmates. I sent a few men to strengthen the watch on his cell.
Batman: You need to talk with the doctor and try to put him isolate in isolation, restrict his communication.
Gordon: You're afraid he may talk? No one's going to believe him.
Batman: I know. But better safe than sorry. We can't let him stir things up in the streets, not more stirred than they are now.

There you go. You can add it into your script.

I think it would be quite interesting to see Joker try and clear Batmans name for the sole reason that he wants him all to himself.

In an ideal setting, with ideal continuity and an ideal time to develop the rest of the mythos, yes. But that's not the case, so why don't we deal with reality for once instead of losing time like we lose it in the "Two-Face lives" threads and such.

And no, I don't want to see the same, it doesn't need to be the same. You can do more with Joker than what was seen in TDK.

You can always have him being called Jack Napier and being the real killer of the Waynes. Anything is possible

But we have to take three things into account: 1. if the idea is good enough 2. if the idea is reasonalby faithful to the comics 3. if the size of his role is good enough to sustain a return with a new actor that will have many challenges to meet.

As for the comics statement? Yea you are right, this isn't the comics. But you want the characters to be faithful to the comics right?

That's right.

Well if that's the case then Joker wouldn't just sit on his arse in his cell at Arkham, waiting for the bad news that the guy his life revolves around has been shot dead by the cops or arrested or even worse, killed by another villain.

That's wrong. Like I said before, maybe he doesn't have any choice for the moment. That has been the case in many, many Batman stories, and it will keep being that way. If it wasn't, the Joker would be present in every single comic of Batman, and he isn't. He needs to stay at Arkham. Maybe not sitting quietly, but in Arkham.

If someone else got to Batman before he did, he would go off his nut wouldn't he? That would be the end for him, he would have no other purpose in life.

Then let's just hope Batman is not killed without the Joker's deus-ex-machina help.

Now, do you think he would do absolutely anything necessary to negate that risk? Of course he would.

He could try. It is in the best interest of the story he doesn't succeed. Exactly tht same mentality of "the Joker is too big to just have this part" is what led Burton to have him be the killer of the Waynes. Let's not blow things out of proportion.

As for escaping? Joker has a penchant for escaping. Him escaping Arkham wouldn't be that unbelievable would it?

At a whim? Yes. Did you see Gotham Knights' Arkham? His escape from the MCU was fer-fetched and logic-defying enough, and it was unexpected and with a low security. You can't do the trick so often or people will get into profound disbelief. He will escape, yes, but no so soon, and not so easily.

Or maybe starting a riot at Arkham to lure Batman to him? To make Batman "pay him a little visit" As it were.

Since he and Scarecrow are the only supervillain in Arkham right now, I'm just not so interested in that idea.

 

[Melkay]

The script? Wow, I didnt watch a script, i watched a film.

He was also dead in the film.

Did you also know kane and finger originally killed joker in Batman 1, Spring 1940.

Yes. But comics are different from the Nolan films, and live-action films in general. Have you ever heard about Infinite Crisis?

Ever heard the saying, 'things change.'

Things will change... once Nolan is gone.

Ever heard of fan demand? No? Too bad

Yes, I saw Spider-Man 3. I saw Venom. I've seen many things get destroyed by ridiculous fan demands. None of them in Nolan's work. I'ts good to know I still have trust in the man and you don't.

Even if he was knocked out?

He will wake up.

Without his gun?

His gun was right next to him.

With Batman and Gordon both there to knock him out again if he were to have gotten up without warning?

Why knock him if you can cuff' him? I know you are not that smart, but Gordon and Bruce are.

You're really reaching with this one, and you know it, dont you?

LOL. Look who's talking.

Wood chips slowed his fall?? This comming from the guy who claims he knows how all acidic chemicals effect all physical properties? Wood chips slowed his fall? Wow-dont try this at home, kids!

Chips? Riiiight. Keep trying

Sure, Two-Face didnt get up (metaphor for the weaker man) Now you're arguing metaphors within the contect of physical reality that presides in a fictional film. Better call you therapists again-they have much work to do with you, i'll tell you!

Who talked about metaphores? Dent dind't spent years training in ninja skills, martial arts and resistance. Bruce is the stronger man... literally. You're entering pathetic land in this moment.

Have you ever heard of faked death? No.

I have. All in circumstances much more different than this. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, but the government wasn't involved, so. The cops were going there, you know how many people would know Dent was alive? Don't be soo RockyBatboa and be rational for two minutes.

Have you ever heard of fictional entertainment?

Have you ever heard of dramatic impact?

Have you ever heard of city corruption?

Yes, it involves people working for the mob or regular, not for their regular bosses. You're talking about a conspiracy theory, and Gordon doesn't have what it takes to pull that off.

Do you think EVERY person in Gotham saw Harvey Dent up close, and will automatically assume Dent and Two-Face or the same guy?

Yes... every person in Gotham saw Harvey. He was a known public image, and even those who lived under rocks knew about the guy who said he was Batman. Not to mention the large picture of Harvey's FACE in his fake funeral.

You're reaching your saddest point and it aches to see you suffer. Swallow a bottle of Xanax or something.

I saw him either knocked out or dead. Neither perception is fact. I thought you knew the difference.

I know the difference. You don't. Nolan does. There will be no Two-Face alive on Nolan's watch, either you accept it or not.

Nope. Just Joker, Scarecrow, Ras al Ghul, Two-Face..Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Lucious Fox, you know, the important characters that have been around the last 40-70 years.
The Waynes are dead. Rachel is dead. Fake Ras is dead. DA Finch is dead. You know, the less important characters, Sherlock.

Hahahahaha.... Nolan disagrees with you. As does his brother, and the actor playing him. And once the sequel arrives, if it does, you will get a much neccessary reality check. Congratulations.

Still waiting for more substantial ones. In the meantime, i'm going to go watch the assasination of jesse james, tell you what i think later.

Oh, I won't wait awake, reality-impaired people can't form reasonable judgements on anything, no matter how much they try.

Just remember, close you eyes, and remember: it's FICTION. They get a dictionairy and reconsider you definition for the word "superlative".

??? Can you even form a sentence that makes sense?

He seems more private, restrained and polite to me. Regardless, i'm not part of any mob, less i end up like you, and on that.....

Bottom line, he's not against it, he's just not going to do it. Fine by me.

Thank you for these prophecies! They come right from the source of Nolans mind, correct, since you wrote them as facts.

Wanna make it interesting? Let's call it a bet. I will love to get some of your DNA to check what species are you from.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

How is me mentioning Joker having a "way with words" sad? He is the master manipulator. His little speech showed Harvey what to do, he basically blagged him up. Even in the interrogation with Batman, you could see on Batsys face he was realizing what the Joker was saying was right. He basically convinced Batman that he was going to be dumped on once his job was done. And he was right. Batman is now the outcast, Joker predicted this. He DOES have a way with words, how is that hard to understand? And it is a fair point. You don't think he could sway the opinions of some of the already downtrodden citizens of Gotham? Well, you'd be wrong in thinking that IMO.

And again you go back to the comics. We haven't got unlimited comics to show Joker just sitting in his cell plotting. In this universe he has one more film to take action. How can you fail to see that? There is going to be one more film in NOLANs trilogy, I think it would be foolish to leave Joker out of the finale for THIS franchize. He has motivation to appear again and as shown in TDK Joker has a sorta supernatural quality, he just shows up where he wants, when he wants. Talk about realism all you want, but the fact is, Joker can escape jail at a whim. And he hasn't got 600 odd issues of comics to wait, he has got 1 film.

But what all this comes down to is the Nolans. If they feel he can be included, great, they are the film-makers, they are the ones who have brought us two already excellent Batman films. We should all trust their decision no matter what. If they decide he won't be back? No biggy. I reckon it would still be a excellent Batman film, but it would still seem like a missed opportunity to close up this franchize, to give it a proper ending.

 

[RockyBatboa]

He was also dead in the film.

Wanna make it interesting? Let's call it a bet. I will love to get some of your DNA to check what species are you from.

Wow, i feel like i'm in a bad sequel to "Planet of the Apes", or worse yet, Tim Burton's remake.

Dirty ape creature is trying to get my DNA because he cant fathom how i can talk and reason better than it.

But seriously, quit embarassing yourself, melkay. It suits you, but we all should have loftier goals, shouldnt we?

Until next time, I'll leave you with this:

The solidity of your arguments is the perish of your mind!
Tell your doctors, "Better luck next time" for me.

 

[RockyBatboa]

I myself have been thinking more along the lines of Shia LaBeouf.

Hmmm, I feel another photo manip coming on.

Cool. But i must persist-- Halle Berry Riddle Lady. Consider it.

 

[RockyBatboa]

I see. Well there is that statement Bale made about Robin. The one where he said he would refuse to do it if Robin was involved. But I bet that's with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.

I could see Robin adapted well into the Nolan Bat-verse, but not yet. If Nolan carried on to do a fourth? Yea I think he would work. But I don't think Nolan would do a fourth.

Speaking of Bale, isnt he the same man who after being cast in "Begins" claimed he was grateful WB salvaged his flailing career and would be honored to play Batman the rest of his life (but doing other films in between Batman movies)?

Then when "Knight" came out, they ask him if he'll merely do the third, and he replies, "If Nolan directs, I'd be open to it."

So, now, there's a Nolan-directing clause with him?

What an ass!(reference to cheekt:_)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Batman has made Bale a main leading man now. He's got the Terminator gig for 3 films. He could still do well after Batman is what i'm saying.

 

[Sentinel X]

If the story calls for it, then bring back Joker, but don't bring him back for the sake of doing so (The Scarecrow).

And Roven is correct in that people need to separate the role from the actor. For years I hear people talking about how Nicholson Joker was the best comic film villain ever and his Joker could never be topped. Now it's the same with Ledger.

There always exists the potential that someone can do it better.

I'm open to a recast, but ONLY if Joker is put to good use in the film and it makes sience in terms of the story direction the head in

The Joker character is bigger than any actor that portrays him. No matter if you're for a recast or not, you can't argue that fact. I say Nolan goes through with his original intent for the 3rd movie and treat it as a business decision and not let emotion sway his original intent. Heck, he might not even intend for the Joker to be in the 3rd one, who knows?

Wow...THANKYOU!! These post sum up my thoughts on recast perfectly.

Heath Ledger was great but he wasn't the best actor to ever live, saying he can 'never be top' is soo soooo false....sorry, but thats true. Im sure if he were alive 95% of people would be saying "Joker has to come back somehow!!" .

If Nolan's original intention was to have Joker return (which seems like it was imo since he didnt kill him off) then I say they go with it and have a recast. If not...then dont do it. Bottom line is, the story shouldn't be hindered because he is afraid to recast Joker. Heath gave the world something special with his performance but the Joker ISNT an original charecter that was first portrayed by heath ledger. Joker is almost as popular as Batman himself...I personally dont see the problem with a recast.

 

[Infinity9999x]

RockyBalboa---


Aaron Eckheart straight out said in an interview that his character is dead. So unless Nolan decides to pull a 180 and completely change his mind, Two Face is done. I was always a fan of saving him for the 3rd movie, but it's pretty doubtful now.

 

[Melkay]

Speaking of Bale, isnt he the same man who after being cast in "Begins" claimed he was grateful WB salvaged his flailing career and would be honored to play Batman the rest of his life (but doing other films in between Batman movies)?

Then when "Knight" came out, they ask him if he'll merely do the third, and he replies, "If Nolan directs, I'd be open to it."

So, now, there's a Nolan-directing clause with him?

What an ass!(reference to cheekt:_)

Well, his career was saved by playing Nolan's Batman. One of his movies in between BB adn TDK was Nolan's The Prestige, so it's obvious he is more grateful to the director than the title. Being in a Batman movie doesn't always take your career to hollywood heavens. Ask Keaton, Kilmer or O'Donnell for further reference. He's not being an ass... he's being honest and truthful, and realizing no one can do just one character for a lifetime.

 

[Melkay]

Heath Ledger was great but he wasn't the best actor to ever live, saying he can 'never be top' is soo soooo false....

Who's saying this?

Im sure if he were alive 95% of people would be saying "Joker has to come back somehow!!".

Would that make those 95% 'right'? Excitement and sentimentality tend to cloud people's heads too much.

If Nolan's original intention was to have Joker return (which seems like it was imo since he didnt kill him off) then I say they go with it and have a recast.

It's not safe to assume this. He didn't kill him because Batman has to save the Joker's life and because it would be wrong to close that window of working with that character to a next director.

If not...then don't do it.

Nolan has said more than once that he didn't have a plan for the Joker because he didn't have any plan whatsoever for a sequel. Either you believe that or not, it's your problem.

Bottom line is, the story shouldn't be hindered because he is afraid to recast Joker.

I believe that story is hindered anyway with any sort of recast, even if Ledger were alive. Check the past few pages of this thread or the joker Recast thread for a few reasons.

Heath gave the world something special with his performance but the Joker ISNT an original charecter that was first portrayed by heath ledger.

We know, but he didn't represent THE JOKER in the same manner Nicholson or Romero didn't play the definitive Joker... he played a Joker... his and Nolan's, and he played an imortant part on that creation. No one can do Ledger's Joker better than Ledger, so why give the part to a creatively restricted actor that won't have so much screen time to prove his worthy. Audiences would be extremely critical of this. He can also try a new direction in the character, ub taht would be an even bigger blow for the continuity of the series harming its credibility and provoking distracting jolts among the audience. Not to mention that bringing the Joker in any form is a repetition of thematic elements and his relation with Batman, and would take previous screen time from other options for villains in the film.

Of course, there's always the possibility that this actor can overcome this myriad of obstacles a even be better than Ledger himself... but it seems to be the slimmest of chances, and by playing against so many odds you're dangerously risking ending the character on a weaker note and harming some of the things Nolan and Ledger accomplished in TDK.


Bottom line: Is a Joker return desirable? Yes, but you want an ideal scenario where you can avoid all the inconveniences. Is that logical? No.

 

[Sentinel X]

Who's saying this?

A lot of people. Have you read the comments in the Joker recast thread....most of the comments repeat the same thing.

Would that make those 95% 'right'? Excitement and sentimentality tend to cloud people's heads too much.

Would it make those 95% wrong either?...no. Thats the point. Im not pushing for a recast, Im just saying if the writers were planning on including Joker or feel that it would be best to include him in the third, I dont think they should be afraid to do it just to avoid controversy from recasting. At the end of the day its about making a good film, its not about making sure Heath's legacy remains intact.

It's not safe to assume this. He didn't kill him because Batman has to save the Joker's life and because it would be wrong to close that window of working with that character to a next director.

Why does Batman "have" to save Joker?...The writers could have easily written some sort of scenario where Joker is killed off without Batman being at fault or harming any charecterization of Batman/Bruce Wayne established through out the film.

And why would Nolan not kill Joker in case another director picks up the film? He didn't do it for Ra's Al Ghul so what makes you think hed do it in TDK? And also Nolan clearly beleives in story first...he wouldn't change the story because 'another director may potentially pick up the franchise and it wouldn't be fair to give them an opprotunity to use Joker'...huh?

Nolan has said more than once that he didn't have a plan for the Joker because he didn't have any plan whatsoever for a sequel.

This is news to me. If he doesn't have a plan and still wishes not to use the Joker again (for reasons relating to the story and not Heath's death) then I think that is awesome I seriously have no problem with that.

Either you believe that or not, it's your problem.

.......................................

I believe that story is hindered anyway with any sort of recast, even if Ledger were alive. Check the past few pages of this thread or the joker Recast thread for a few reasons.

Hey, I don't think anyone is a big fan of recast. Its nice to hit the bullseye the first time and never have to deal with it again...however, I still don't think that should limit the writer's creativity just to avoid recasts. Thats crazy; a film is again about creating a good story...the actors work around the film...the film doesn't work around the actors.

We know, but he didn't represent THE JOKER in the same manner Nicholson or Romero didn't play the definitive Joker... he played a Joker... his and Nolan's, and he played an imortant part on that creation. No one can do Ledger's Joker better than Ledger, so why give the part to a creatively restricted actor that won't have so much screen time to prove his worthy. Audiences would be extremely critical of this. He can also try a new direction in the character, ub taht would be an even bigger blow for the continuity of the series harming its credibility and provoking distracting jolts among the audience. Not to mention that bringing the Joker in any form is a repetition of thematic elements and his relation with Batman, and would take previous screen time from other options for villains in the film.

See, thats where I disagree with you. This assertion that no one will top Heath's joker in the Nolan films is just that....an assertion. Of course people are going to be critical...that is why it would be up to Nolan and crew to hire an amazing actor for the role.

There are always 'what ifs'...Heath Ledger couldve done a terrible job as The Joker...but he didn't. Same with whoever is being recast...he might do a terrible job, he might do a great one....but doesn't that risk apply for anyone casted for a role? and a popular one at that?

And how is it a repitition of thematic elements? Have you read the Batman 3 script, do you know how they are going/would implement the Joker in the next instalment...thats like saying reusing Batman in the 3rd installment is repetitive. Hes a charecter and there are an infinite amount of ways a charecter can be used and reused in a film

Of course, there's always the possibility that this actor can overcome this myriad of obstacles a even be better than Ledger himself... but it seems to be the slimmest of chances, and by playing against so many odds you're dangerously risking ending the character on a weaker note and harming some of the things Nolan and Ledger accomplished in TDK.

I feel like people have said the same thing for Jack's portray of Joker...that who ever was the Joker in TDK wouldn't be as good as Jack and look what happened.

Bottom line: Is a Joker return desirable? Yes, but you want an ideal scenario where you can avoid all the inconveniences. Is that logical? No.

I agree...but only if those 'inconveniences' have to do with the actual story-telling....Not because of recasting issues.

Im really not pushing for a recast....Im just saying if the writers feel that it would be best to include him in part 3 then so be it. I just want to see the best story and movie possible. I just dont see the point of not including the Joker simply because of Heath Ledger's untimely passing.

 

[MaJiN]

Yeah, like Ledger was the second coming.

No one can outshine Ledger.

NO ONE!!!

Weren't people were saying the same thing about Nicholson?

 

[Rincewind]

The way I see it, the problem with the Joker is not about the re-cast by itself. His role can be imitated and his look is not so hard to do. The question it - is it worth it? He gave everything he got in TDK (I honestly lost count how many times I've said it already, but nobody listens... probably cuz I don't have an avatar yet :P). He did everything a Joker should do in a movie - he killed one of Bruce's loved ones, he offered a character a trip down to hell in order to corrupt him and drive him insane, he wanted to prove how everyone's psyche can break down, given bad enough circumstances (hello, TKJ, anyone?) and he became obsessed with Batman. What more do you, Return-of-Joker supporters, think he can do as a character before he starts to repeat himself? And I want concrete and real ideas that can work for a whole 2 hours long movie. Hm?

 

[The Batman]

Oh somebody end this thread
somebody end this thread
i'm on my knees, pretty pretty please
ennnnnd this, this thread must diiiiiiie
put a padlock on the liiiiii-iiiiii-iiiiii-iiink.

- Jow

Agreed. I've never seen so much hyperbole and dodging of questions in my life.

IMO, what it all boils down to is that some fanboys want joker in out of fanboy need rather than actual story purpose, and those that dont want him are either mad about ledger or want to see other villains done. Any justification on either side is probably B.S...

 

[The Batman]

The way I see it, the problem with the Joker is not about the re-cast by itself. His role can be imitated and his look is not so hard to do. The question it - is it worth it? He gave everything he got in TDK (I honestly lost count how many times I've said it already, but nobody listens... probably cuz I don't have an avatar yet :P). He did everything a Joker should do in a movie - he killed one of Bruce's loved ones, he offered a character a trip down to hell in order to corrupt him and drive him insane, he wanted to prove how everyone's psyche can break down, given bad enough circumstances (hello, TKJ, anyone?) and he became obsessed with Batman. What more do you, Return-of-Joker supporters, think he can do as a character before he starts to repeat himself? And I want concrete and real ideas that can work for a whole 2 hours long movie. Hm?

Thing is Rince, several of us have asked this very good question...which none of the opposing argument has actually answered.

This conversation really is going in circles.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Who has said they want Joker as the main villain? He doesn't have to be involved with the main arc, he doesn't have to be in it for 2 hours. That's the beauty of a character like Joker, he can just be used as a literal jack in the box if necessary. Popping up to thwart both Batman and the new main villains plans. Especially if Riddler is involved, he is a perfectionist, a "schemer". Who says Joker wouldn't target him as well? I just feel without Joker there wouldn't be that sense of completion to Nolans trilogy. TDK to me, was more of a introduction to the Joker.
I don't think the next guy who comes in is going to want to carry on Nolans continuity, they will probably envision their own Bat-verse.

 

[Rincewind]

Who has said they want Joker as the main villain? He doesn't have to be involved with the main arc, he doesn't have to be in it for 2 hours. I just feel without Joker there wouldn't be that sense of completion to Nolans trilogy. TDK to me, was more of a introduction to the Joker.
I don't think the next guy who comes in is going to want to carry on Nolans continuity, they will probably envision their own Bat-verse.

So you want a cameo in Arkham instead? And he doesn't have to be involved with the main story? Then why should he appear? His own story ended with TDK - he did what he wanted to do and was captured.

I agree that TDK felt like an introduction for the Joker - it was his first huge activity in the Nolanverse. It was alluded that it won't be his last either. But that doesn't mean that his next adventures must be the focus on the next movie. Sometime ahead, in the future, he might escape and hatch a new plot for the destruction of Gotham and/or Batman, that much was implied, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will or should happen in the next movie - or any movie of this series, if they continue after the third one.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I see what you are saying, but I am of the opinion this will be this last movie in this universe. Unless Nolan does a fourth which i doubt, then the third will be the end. How can you introduce a character like Joker in the middle of the story and then just skip him out in the finale? That's how I will look at these three films when they are done, as one big story. We have the beginning (B.B) the middle, the escalation (TDK) and then the grande finale (B-3). I just don't think Joker can be completely skipped over. As I said, he could be a antagonist to both Batman and the new villain.