The Dark Knight Rises The Joker sized elephant in the room

[BatLobster]

Obviously. And it makes no sense.

I ask anyone here who has lost a loved one or a friend, do you feel their memory is soiled in any way when their name is mentioned?

Not at all, as long as it's not a frivolous mention. I'm always careful about when to bring up the dead, cause it can be needlessly upsetting. But at the same time none of us are getting paid millions to make a movie that will be seen by millions and will make a huge corporation billions. It's a bit more of a moral question at play than two friends mentioning a departed friend in real-life conversation. Guys like Terry Gilliam were pointing the finger at WB for exploiting Heath's death in 2008 (unfairly). It's understandable for them to just want to avoid that kind of attention and get out of Heath's shadow altogether.

 

[Norek]

I'm not asking to understand the explanation. I'm just asking for an explanation. Why is it bad for Heath's memory?

Here it is:

We’re not addressing The Joker at all. That is something I felt very strongly about in terms of my relationship with Heath and the experience I went through with him on The Dark Knight. I didn’t want to in any way try and account for a real-life tragedy. That seemed inappropriate to me. We just have a new set of characters and a continuation of Bruce Wayne’s story. Not involving The Joker.

To ask for a further explanation means you just don't understand this. And you don't need to.

A close friend of mine doesn't feel comfortable with talking about the loss of his little brother. I've noticed that he feels uncomfortable even when he hears someone else with the same name. He obviously feels very strongly about that. I see no point in trying to push for an explanation. Even if he gives one to me, I may never understand it. But him being uncomfortable with it is a good enough reason.

 

[munchie64]

Obviously. And it makes no sense.

I ask anyone here who has lost a loved one or a friend, do you feel their memory is soiled in any way when their name is mentioned?

Emotions don't have to make sense to anyone but the person feeling them, even though the ones we're talking about here do. To me anyway.

Really? So when the whole fiasco about the Harvey Dent business comes out, the man who caused it all not being mentioned won't stick out? Or if Scarecrow is running around free from the Asylum nobody will be wondering where the clown is, too?

I don't put much stock in your guarantee.

In the middle of an epic thrill ride that, if it's anything like TDK, won't give you a second to catch your breath? Hell I have enough faith in the Nolan's that they can write around it pretty solidly, which will help. If the focus is kept on Harvey Dent and Harvey Dent alone, it seems perfectly reasonable that Joker isn't mentioned.

Also, what KalMart said. We don't even fully understand Harvey's role in this yet.

 

[The Joker]

Everything about Dent doesn't have to be gone through in detail...especially if they've been doing it for eight years. We and they all know he's dead and why...so just introducing the annual memorial in honor of him, and Bane bringing it up doesn't require them to also bring up the Joker.

You're joking right. Nolan is the king of expository dialogue and detailed explanations about practically everything.

How does the Dent cover up get discovered? Why should everyone just believe he was corrupt without an explanation of how and why it happened? What pushed Dent over the edge? Who pushed him over the edge?

Also, how do we know that Gordon's and Batman's coverup will be exposed?

Ok, lets play devil's advocate with that then. What do you think this is all about?

You think he's just holding up Dent's photo because he's telling everyone he doesn't like him?

Then there's this:

In fact, fans may want to revisit that second film, as Nolan tells EW that the last chapter of his cinematic saga explores the ramifications of The Dark Knight’s chilling climax, in which Batman and super-cop Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) hatch a conspiracy to cover up the sins of Gotham City’s so-called “white knight,” the late Harvey Dent, a.k.a. Two-Face (Aaron Eckhart).

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/01/11/this-weeks-cover-dark-knight-rises-forecast-2012/

I'm just putting two and two together here, Kal.

NO...it's likely by the time the movie gets going, no one will wondering where the clown is...unless someone wants to find out regardless.

Gotham is turned into a war zone. All the criminals are released. The Harvey Dent cover up falls to shambles, and you think nobody will wonder where Joker, the man who caused it all, and the most popular and iconic villain so far, will not be wondered about regarding his presence?

Ok, if that's what you believe then that's your prerogative.

And if that's the case, then they're looking for something outside of the the story the movie is telling. And now you know it won't be there, so you're free to fill it in the way you want.

Villains and criminals let loose by Bane is outside the story?

 

[jacobed]

Everyone handles a death of a loved one differently especially when its sudden like that. It has been really obvious that Heath's death hit Nolan hard. It doesn't help that right after he died Nolan had 5 months to edit the movie. He had watch Heath over and over again for that long and was never able to give him a call and say hey man you're footage and performance is brilliant. It was his decision to not have any mention of the Joker. It's not a big deal.

 

[BatLobster]

If someone had managed to terrorize a city and kill as many people as The Joker did in TDK, that person would be put to death by the United States government.

To me Joker is dead or at least on death row by the time TDKR comes around. No reason to open up a can of worms about that in a PG-13 Batman film though. And the omission allows us to fill in that blank for ourselves.

 

[KalMart]

You're joking right. Nolan is the king of expository dialogue and detailed explanations about practically everything.

And thankfully, he's finally going to ease up on it on this.

How does the Dent cover up get discovered? Why should everyone just believe he was corrupt without an explanation of how and why it happened? What pushed Dent over the edge? Who pushed him over the edge?

How do people know he was pushed over an edge?

Ok, lets play devil's advocate with that then. What do you think this is all about?

You think he's just holding up Dent's photo because he's telling everyone he doesn't like him?

Mockery.....wondering why a dead man is what people idolize instead of making more out of their own time. Everyone knows he's dead by the without having to go through exactly why and how. Not exactly a toughie.

Then there's this:

Again, that's the article pointing out the details...which we already know without being revisited in detail in the film, and the ramifications are obviously eight years of hiding/retirement for Batman, which also doesn't need to be spelled out....except for, y'know, those who need it spelled out.

Very slowly, apparently.

I'm just putting two and two together here, Kal.

Which is good...now you know and don't have to sit there confused through the movie.

 

[The Joker]

Not at all, as long as it's not a frivolous mention.

Exactly. There's no reason it should be.

I'm always careful about when to bring up the dead, cause it can be needlessly upsetting. But at the same time none of us are getting paid millions to make a movie that will be seen by millions and will make a huge corporation billions. It's a bit more of a moral question at play than two friends mentioning a departed friend in real-life conversation. Guys like Terry Gilliam were pointing the finger at WB for exploiting Heath's death in 2008 (unfairly). It's understandable for them to just want to avoid that kind of attention and get out of Heath's shadow altogether.

This not applicable at all here. This is mentioning a previous prominent character's name in a new movie. The movie is not being marketed around Heath or the Joker. There's no exploitation.

Do you honestly think everyone will leave the movie saying "You have to see this movie. They mention the Joker once in it".

Here it is:

To ask for a further explanation means you just don't understand this. And you don't need to.

I know what he said. I ask again why is it inappropriate? You cannot offer a valid explanation other than Nolan just feels that way.

That's fine, but I don't understand it and I don't have to like it or agree with it.

Emotions don't have to make sense to anyone but the person feeling them, even though the ones we're talking about here do. To me anyway.

By that logic TDK should be banned from the public because it's promoting a real life tragedy showing Heath as the Joker.

See how much sense that makes. Now look at how much sense dropping Joker's name in the third movie would be for Heath. Makes even less sense.

In the middle of an epic thrill ride that, if it's anything like TDK, won't give you a second to catch your breath? Hell I have enough faith in the Nolan's that they can write around it pretty solidly, which will help. If the focus is kept on Harvey Dent and Harvey Dent alone, it seems perfectly reasonable that Joker isn't mentioned.

It's nothing to do with catching your breath. TDK didn't omit any relevant details to it's story. People often bring up Ra's not being mentioned but nothing Ra's did in Begins had any repercussions on the main plots of TDK.

Joker corrupted Dent, killed Rachel, and forced batman to become a fugitive for crimes he didn't commit. The fact all of this can of worms is being opened in TDKR it will stick out that the whole instigator of it is omitted verbally.

 

[Greens]

Something tells me we didn't understand Nolan. Maybe he meant that the characters won't go into full detail about what Joker did in TDK.

 

[KalMart]

Something tells me we didn't understand Nolan. Maybe he meant that the characters won't go into full detail about what Joker did in TDK.

No actually, it's pretty simple. Some just won't go with it because they feel the Joker is being overlooked, directly or indirectly. But they can pretend that his name is mentioned, and be just as at peace with it as everyone else watching the movie.

 

[BatLobster]

Do you honestly think everyone will leave the movie saying "You have to see this movie. They mention the Joker once in it".

No, but isn't that sort of confirming that it's not all that important to mention him in this movie?

I mean, Nolan has aired on the side of caution here. As a fan, I would have loved a mention...but it's a decision I can respect. I also think there will still be some interpretative value to the omission of a Joker reference, in the context of the trilogy.

 

[Greens]

No actually, it's pretty simple. Some just won't go with it because they feel the Joker is being overlooked, directly or indirectly. But they can pretend that his name is mentioned, and be just as at peace with it as everyone else watching the movie.

I don't care whether or not Joker is mentioned, but I just have a feeling that Joker might be mentioned anyway. But just that. Mentioned. Not a full conversation about what happened eight years ago.

 

[Nevincer]

It's the emphasis on at all, but yeah... I actually think it's still possible, albeit very unlikely, that there could be a namedrop as Nolan could be referring to the film not addressing Joker's situation post-TDKR. He knows that's something that will be lingering in people's minds, but not something he'd be comfortable deciding with Heath's loss. Makes more sense to me than refusing to drop Joker's name at all in terms of past tense and what happened with Harvey.

 

[The Joker]

And thankfully, he's finally going to ease up on it on this.

No, he's just going to dance around a vital component of it.

How do people know he was pushed over an edge?

Oh I see you just expect all of Gotham's people to take the word of a masked terrorist who just blew up a football pitch with the players on it lol.

Bane: "Harvey Dent was corrupt"

Gotham: "Oh ok. Lets revolt then"

Mockery.....wondering why a dead man is what people idolize instead of making more out of their own time. Everyone knows he's dead by the without having to go through exactly why and how. Not exactly a toughie.

Mockery? You believe Bane's persuasion to make Gotham join him is asking them why they spent 8 years idolizing a man who put away half of their criminals in jail, stood up against the Joker, died a hero, and brought their city peace time?

Kal, I sincerely hope the writers were a lot more creative than you are

Again, that's the article pointing out the details...which we already know without being revisited in detail in the film, and the ramifications are obviously eight years of hiding/retirement for Batman, which also doesn't need to be spelled out....except for, y'know, those who need it spelled out.

Very slowly, apparently.

The ramifications of the cover up is the peace time and Bruce's retirement. That's it? That's all you think Nolan was referring to when he said they are exploring the consequences of the Dent cover up?

You better be here in 7 weeks to eat those words

Which is good...now you don't have to sit there confused through the movie.

Oh I'm not the one who's confused t:

 

[Nevincer]

I don't care whether or not Joker is mentioned, but I just have a feeling that Joker might be mentioned anyway. But just that. Mentioned. Not a full conversation about what happened eight years ago.

 

[KalMart]

I don't care whether or not Joker is mentioned, but I just have a feeling that Joker might be mentioned anyway. But just that. Mentioned. Not a full conversation about what happened eight years ago.

Or he won't, and it won't make a lick of difference in the story's usage except for those who just want to hear the name. If anyone saw the last movie, they'll know it was the Joker behind it all without bringing him up. It's the effects of what he did that have the lingering effect, not him as a personality....and that's no knock against the Joker...except for those who are making it so regardless.

 

[KalMart]

No, he's just going to dance around a vital component of it.



Oh I see you just expect all of Gotham's people to take the word of a masked terrorist who just blew up a football pitch with the players on it lol.

Bane: "Harvey Dent was corrupt"

Gotham: "Oh ok. Lets revolt then"

No, Einstein. It's more about them and their state of complacency. I'll use larger, easier-to-red text if you'd like.

Mockery? You believe Bane's persuasion to make Gotham join him is asking them why they spent 8 years idolizing a man who put away half of their criminals in jail, stood up against the Joker, died a hero, and brought their city peace time?

Kal, I sincerely hope the writers were a lot more creative than you are

So do I...but if they are, then you may never get it.

The ramifications of the cover up is the peace time and Bruce's retirement. That's it? That's all you think Nolan was referring to when he said they are exploring the consequences of the Dent cover up?

You better be here in 7 weeks to eat those words

No, it's only part of it, but in no way does more require his mentioning as you're implying. Don't blame the film for not slowing to your speed.

Oh I'm not the one who's confused t:

Sure you're not.

This is your cross to bear, not the movie's. So good luck with it.

 

[Greens]

Or he won't, and it won't make a lick of difference in the story's usage except for those who just want to hear the name. If anyone saw the last movie, they'll know it was the Joker behind it all without bringing him up. It's the effects of what he did that have the lingering effect, not him as a personality....and that's no knock against the Joker...except for those who are making it so regardless.

I know, and I agree

 

[BatLobster]

Oh I see you just expect all of Gotham's people to take the word of a masked terrorist who just blew up a football pitch with the players on it lol.

Bane: "Harvey Dent was corrupt"

Gotham: "Oh ok. Lets revolt then"

Well, to be fair...it's public knowledge that the Joker had hospitalized Dent and killed his assistant DA/girlfriend. There might be a way to write it in a way that acknowledges how certain events triggered him to snap.

At the same time, he may not directly expose his corruption at all. Not everyone in Gotham is a fan of the Dent act. It could be just as simply as mocking how pathetic it is that they idolize a dead politician. Plus he is showing that picture to inmates of Blackgate, the prison dedicated to Dent. Just might be a way of rallying the troops.

 

[The Joker]

So do I...but if they are, then you may never get it.

Get what? Are you actually having a pop at my intelligence now?

Do we need a mod in here to make you play nice?

No, but in no way does it require his mentioning as you're implying. Don't blame the film for not slowing to your speed.

Ok, I've obviously hit a nerve with you if you're sinking to personal insults.

In no way did I say the movie would be impossible to follow if they omitted his name. I said they are needlessly omitting the name of a vital component of the Harvey Dent plot.

Sure you're not.

This is your cross to bear, not the movie's. So good luck with it.

Thanks Kal. You've been a real eye opener here today.

 

[KalMart]

Get what? Are you actually having a pop at my intelligence now?

No, but funny that you feel that way.

Do we need a mod in here to make you play nice?

Why, do you need one?

Ok, I've obviously hit a nerve with you if you're sinking to personal insults.

Who's nerves are getting touchy here? Do you need a mod to answer that one too?

In no way did I say the movie would be impossible to follow if they omitted his name. I said they are needlessly omitting the name of a vital component of the Harvey Dent plot.

The problem is that you're not giving it a chance to work or imagining that it could, when it clearly could if you allow it. It's 'vital' if you want it in there, but not so vital to the storytelling in that it can't work well in a way that doesn't verbalize it.

Thanks Kal. You've been a real eye opener here today.

You're welcome...better luck next time.

 

[SpiderJew]

im disappointed there wont be any mention of the joker in TDKR. im happy he is not being recast, but i really wouldve liked him to be addressed. i think it is kinda disrespectful to heath to just pretend he never existed. why cant someone just mention that he is driving the guards at arkham crazy or something? maybe if there is a scene at arkham, hear his laugh or something. or see his picture in a newspaper. im sorry, but nolan really let me down here

 

[The Joker]

Well, to be fair...it's public knowledge that the Joker had hospitalized Dent and killed his assistant DA/girlfriend. There might be a way to write it in a way that acknowledges how certain events triggered him to snap.

That would be great. Kal's ludicrous notion that Gotham just accepts Bane's word at face value is some of the weakest laziest writing I've ever heard.

If Bane gets Gotham to rebel in his cause against authority, then he needs a damn good platform to make so many people do that. The fact they've been lied to and been conned into worshiping a false prophet for 8 years is a great platform to cause a rebellion.

But to do that Bane has to do more than just tell them that's what happened without backing it up with proof. Nobody with half a brain would just accept the word of a masked terrorist at face value.

At the same time, he may not directly expose his corruption at all. Not everyone in Gotham is a fan of the Dent act.

Like who?

It could be just as simply as mocking how pathetic it is that they idolize a dead politician.

Why is it pathetic to idolize someone who brought a dirty corrupt city into peace time?

Makes no sense. What is he going to say to them to mock something as great as that? It's like mocking the memory of JFK.

Plus he is showing that picture to inmates of Blackgate, the prison dedicated to Dent. Just might be a way of rallying the troops.

He needs to persuade convicted criminals to join him after offering them weapons and freedom?

I doubt that.

 

[beastmode]

Bringing Jokers name up in this movie is NOT the same as talking about Heath Ledger! Sweet cream on an ice cream sandwich. Nolan fanboys will surely back Nolan to yhe ends of the world on whatever choice Nolan goes with. Heath was a great Joker, just as great as Nicholson, but all the Nolan fanboys need to realize this, Heath =/= Joker. therefore having the Joker in the final movie is no disrespect at all. Why is it so hard to understand that?

 

[KalMart]

im disappointed there wont be any mention of the joker in TDKR. im happy he is not being recast, but i really wouldve liked him to be addressed. i think it is kinda disrespectful to heath to just pretend he never existed. why cant someone just mention that he is driving the guards at arkham crazy or something? maybe if there is a scene at arkham, hear his laugh or something. or see his picture in a newspaper. im sorry, but nolan really let me down here

His events and responsibility will be known by anyone who watched the movie before. The fact that the story at hand is a direct result of what he did should say just how formidable the character was, and how much it is in fact respected, and not just a day-in-the-life episode in the ongoing adventures of such-n'-such....even without saying the name.

And look at it this way...based on how well he has done with the first two movies, and how this was obviously a conscious decision on his part, it should be a pretty strong indication that it isn't just done arbitrarily like some sort of ham-fisted censorship or what have you. Chances are, it's handled well and in a way that doesn't detract from the storytelling at hand...ultimately a huge sign of respect by taking the care to do it correctly instead of just avoiding it like a dirty word.