Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by pr0xyt0xin, Jan 26, 2013.
I cannot even start to imagine what a wonderful movie we would have got.
-That Batman did tons of detective work off-screen.
-That Batman is just as capable as Lucius at making bat-gadgets but makes Lucius handle it because he is too busy most of the time to make them himself.
-That TDKR was just all just a dream that Bruce woke up the morning after Harvey's death.
To be honest, there is some truth to the first 2 points.
Idk, I really like having TDK as The Joker's one movie to shine in the trilogy. Makes him stand out more. I can't think of a way to incorporate him into TDKR in a way that doesn't cheapen him without heavily altering the plot, and I love the story told in TDKR. When I think Heath-Joker I just think TDK, that's right where he belongs. Kind of makes my brain implode thinking about it too much. If Heath lived I'd obviously be clamoring for his return along with the rest of fandom, but my only sadness about Heath's death is for his friends and family. I never missed The Joker in TDKR.
As for what I like to believe...mainly that there was a short period where Batman was active in total stealth mode post-TDK before the Dent Act was passed, and keeping an eye on things via the Bat-computer for a while. Also that Blake evolves the symbol and becomes more of a Nightwing-type figure rather than another Batman so Gotham understands for sure that it's someone new taking up Batman's duties.
I understand where you're coming from but that is our point though. The plot would've been heavily altered in the first place.
And I understand that too, of course. All I'm saying is the thought of not having this version of TDKR just feels kind of bizarre to think about for me now. And also that it somehow feels 'right' that Joker's most potent appearance in the trilogy also happens to be his one and only appearance.
I'd like to believe The joker eventually escaped and Batman chased him to an old abandoned chemical factory.........
Going back to this, I think that would be just so hilarious...Foley shoots him as Joker turns his head to see who shot him and starts laughing his ass off while he falls to his death
No, no, I don't see Batman dying because Joker is in TDKR. I just think, if you were to bring in Joker in the film we have, to keep under that 165 minutes, I'd replace Blake and have all of his time towards Joker so no passing of the mantle and the only symbol that's moved on is just the hope that Batman gave Gotham.
Well, yes, of course. I definitely believe this, but in the sense that we do get Joker in the film that it is, that was just my idea of how Joker could fit in the film that was released the way it is.
Agree as well. I'm totally fine with Joker being in TDK and I'm fine that he's not even mentioned in TDKR(as I mentioned, since Batman was viewed as a villain, there's no way it would be known that Batman stopped Joker, so no use of Blake mentioning that, or anywhere else in the film where Joker needed to be mentioned).
I am certainly a fan of both of these ideas
Blake maturing into his own symbol as well as the ongoing discussion that Batman did stay around post-TDK before the Dent Act was initiated.
Joker being shot by Foley would have been funny, but I think he would have been more annoyed than amused at being shot by a "nobody cop" instead of the almighty Batman he was obsessed with breaking.
I'm inclined to agree with the last part. Batman dying after he'd finally learned to appreciate life again and learning from the mistakes he'd made by not paying attention to life during his "If I can't have my way I won't go out and play" period (the orphanages he used to support losing funding; losing his company and his fortune to a vocally challenged a--holish man-child rival who is then killed off by the villain, etc.) would have been counterproductive to the narrative.
I think there were other places where the Joker could've been mentioned, such as when Batman dismisses Bane as nothing more than a mercenary, that would've been a great place for Alfred to say something like "And the Joker was just another criminal, do you remember how that turned out?"
But the lack of Joker is not a make or break to me as it is for some.
And then Bruce will become depressed over what happened to Rachel where Alfred will then have to let him know about Rachel's letter the very next scene
"You tell me this after you bring up the Joker?"
"But sir, I'm just trying to halp."
My popcorn box would have been hitting the screen if that drip Foley shot the Joker!
How come? Batman would never kill him, so why not Foley who was inspired in the end to help out in the war for Gotham?
Or would you have preferred Gordon instead?
Senator Pleasury is of the mind that The Joker - the SHH member and fine poster - thinks that no one should be killing Joker - the DC character and Clown Prince of Crime - but maybe, he would kill himself if that meant eternal post-mortem doom to Batman, Gotham, Gordon or all of them.
i think that is a great question. nolans joker wanted to bring a better criminal into gotham, and he just wanted the world to burn. so imo i think if it meant total destruction if his life depended on it then yeah he would totally kill himself in an endgame situation. also considering the dark knight returns he knew one way or another that he and batman were going to have some sort of final confrontation.
Yes. I think the ideal end for a character like Nolan's Joker would have been one that left more questions than answers.
Which is precisely why it never feels unnatural not to have him mentioned in TDKR.
On the contrary, his presence was so almighty in TDK, one is just to wonder if he was not such a threat as he once seemed.
I just like to think that with the one-two punch of Joker being proven wrong about his ferry experiment and then Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDK, Batman totally rains on Joker's parade and essentially stamps out everything Joker was trying to achieve. I'd imagine he's a pretty sad clown wherever he is. He could have easily been tried as a federal criminal too. Not to re-open that discussion though.
On the contrary, Joker totally won in TDK, and he knows something essential about his nemesis: he never kills, but he is always a liar if he needs to. And you can a liar before than anyone else.
Gosh, I was initially just trying to agree with your idea about Joker's fate being left a mystery haha.
I don't think Batman's willingness to lie is a huge revelatory thing to The Joker. We're talking about someone who hides his identity with a mask afterall. He also already allowed Gotham to believe Dent was Batman earlier in the film. In fact, Joker may not even necessarily know that Batman intentionally took the blame. If you want to play the trump card of them having a "special" connection, then sure maybe he "knows". But Batman could have also been framed by the GCPD or Gordon. Like Joker said, they'd cast him out when they didn't need him anymore.
But yes I agree that The Joker technically won in TDK. Batman has to sacrifice a lot to force a last minute stalemate. I just think Joker would be sad that the truth about Harvey never gets out and the Batman disappears. The game ended. Similar to how he was a vegetable in TDKReturns.
I don't see how Joker technically won besides Batman being treated as a leper, which is more of a prediction by Joker than anything else.
He wanted to corrupt Gotham City by using Harvey Dent and that plan failed once Batman put the blame on himself when it came to Dent's crimes. If you count Joker making Batman become a villain, then yes, I could see how that was a 'W' for Joker.
But, I think The Joker needs to hurry up and reply because I want to know what he would've done with Joker as in if he would've wanted Joker to actually kill himself or just no one kill him. I personally think he should've died if he did show up in TDKR for sure, and I suppose I'd be fine with Joker killing himself, maybe like in TDKReturns where he breaks his own neck.
I don't think anyone should be wondering this at all. Joker took away Bruce Wayne's "life" so to speak by killing Rachel and put Bruce through eight years of not moving on with his life when he quit being Batman. For those eight years, he was mentally and emotionally broken because of what Joker did. Joker even made Batman become a villain(if you want to view it as something Joker did, that is).
Joker thought he could corrupt the most incorruptible man in Gotham. According to Batman himself, that would be Harvey dent. joker could corrupt Harvey Dent. Joker won.
Batman could revert this only by collectively lying to everyone in Gotham.
It's like somebody wins a competition but the man informing of this decides to lie bout it. The man still won.
But yes, Gotham people didn't blow up each other's ferry in the only unconvincing part of the movie. that was a serious defeat for Mr. J.
A lot of Joker winning there.
I think Joker won in the sense that he was able to take Gotham's white knight and break him down. It's a philosophical victory. With the coverup, Batman and Gordon ensure that it doesn't become a public victory.
Also, Bruce and especially Gordon have to compromise their values big time in order for that to happen.
Let me put it this way; would you be happy with a lame character like Foley killing Bane?
If Joker has to die at someone elses hand, then Gordon would be a fine choice. Or have it done like in the Harvey Dent situation at the end of TDK, where Batman ends up killing him to stop him doing something really evil.
Ideally that would be the best scenario. Remember The Dark Knight Returns where Joker snapped his own neck? That was so awesome.
But the war Joker set out in using Harvey Dent to corrupt Gotham City as a whole, and it didn't happen. Joker didn't win the war of the film, only a few battles.
But Joker didn't know what killing Rachel would have done to the man behind that cowl. I can't say that Joker is given a "win" of something he wasn't aware of what would happen, but I am just stating how no one shouldn't bother to question a kind of threat Joker was because of what we know what has happened since TDK.
Well no, but it was still disappointing with a character like Catwoman even killed Bane by adding that god-awful one liner
I just brought up Foley because it could have made him more important that what he actually was in TDKR.
I wouldn't mind Gordon being the one, especially after all he went through as well. I just don't see Batman killing Joker, even if in similar stakes like TDK because of Joker always pushing Batman to break his rule. Actually breaking it will seem like a win for Joker I would think.