The Dark Knight Rises The Joker sized elephant in the room

[Laderlappen]

Yes, it's nice to acknowledge him and his contribution to the story within the movie universe. Apart from him being a very popular villain (the most popular thus far in these movies) he has been a catalyst for a lot of misery in Batman's life.

Him being mention in some proper context is a cool nod to that. Harvey Dent is obviously getting a few big mentions as part of the movie plot, so the Joker can, too, since it was his antics that caused Batman to choose to be a fugitive for Dent's crimes. Why the likes of you and Laderlappen are so vehemently opposed to it like it will destroy the movie's credibility or something is beyond me.

It's a verbal reference to a villain who caused a lot of crap in Batman's life. More than any villain has thus far.

I have mentioned a few times that Im not against him being mentioned. But the suggestion a few here has made of a mention of the Joker, Ive only questioned the point of those suggestions. The suggestions people have made doesnt answer any questions, doesnt add anything to the story, and just seem pointless. Thats what Im vehemently opposed to.

 

[craigdbfan]

Seriously, the issue of the Joker in Rises is being blown entirely out of proportion. I'm hearing nonsense like it cheapens the impact he had or you can't not mention him due to the events of Rises. Bollocks. The Joker's part in this series is over, people want the Joker mentioned not because he needs to be but because they want him to be, purely selfish reasons. For crying out loud we were given the best representation of that character on film ever and you're still not satisfied? It's like there's insecurity that if Joker isn't mentioned that somehow means Rises doesn't connect with TDK or something. If he's mentioned then he's mentioned, but I feel sorry for anyone who walks out of the theatre pissed off if he isn't mentioned, seriously if that ruins the movie for you then you need to have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

Exactly.

 

[DV8]

The Joker had a pretty major soliloquy at the end of TDK; about how he is the ying to Batman's yang; it was pretty evident that there was going to be a sequel that involved the Joker, so I'm expecting at LEAST some kind of passing reference to him in this film; really, an homage . . . I'm very doubtful they will just make this movie and pretend like he never existed . . . he will get some kind of nod; matter of fact: MARK MY WORDS, there will be something

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Seriously, the issue of the Joker in Rises is being blown entirely out of proportion. I'm hearing nonsense like it cheapens the impact he had or you can't not mention him due to the events of Rises. Bollocks. The Joker's part in this series is over, people want the Joker mentioned not because he needs to be but because they want him to be, purely selfish reasons. For crying out loud we were given the best representation of that character on film ever and you're still not satisfied? It's like there's insecurity that if Joker isn't mentioned that somehow means Rises doesn't connect with TDK or something. If he's mentioned then he's mentioned, but I feel sorry for anyone who walks out of the theatre pissed off if he isn't mentioned, seriously if that ruins the movie for you then you need to have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

This.

 

[uniqueweasel]

Yes, you can easily ask that question and you'd just as easily look foolish for it. The answer is quite obvious: nothing. But then again, the opposition isn't asking for it, so there is no point being proven.

If the Joker is mentioned then so be it. I'd prefer it to have some purpose otherwise it comes off like shameless fan service. But pretending like focusing solely on a story that doesn't involve him, somehow eradicates his presence and impact from TDK, is mind-numbingly stupid. It's understood that it is a continuation and that it is all part of the same universe and timeline. Why you need to be needlessly reminded of established histories and individuals, I've no clue. Perhaps one should seek a doctor about that.

This is the exact point im trying to make, none of us know what the storyine is in the dark knight rises, at this present moment it is all heresay, it could be very much connected to events that occured in the dark knight, or then again it could be completley forgotten about in the eight years that have passed. It is just a matter of opinion that every one of us has the right to share. And as for the seeking doctor advice, shouldn't we all be doing that after going over the same ground in this thread for 14 pages? Get of your high horse, you aswell as all of us have no idea whats gonna happen in the next film but as fans we all can speculate and have an opinion whether it agrees with you or not. Go see a doctor about that perhaps.

 

[ThePhantasm]

1. I don't see anyone saying it will be. A plot hole is something that defies logic in a story. It's not illogical for Joker to still be locked up.

Several people have said it will be a plot hole if he isn't mentioned, and the very title of the thread suggests something along those same lines. My argument in this thread has been primarily that the Joker is not an elephant in the room.

2. Of course. Nobody wants a "Hey Batman, Bane has taken over City Hall. By the way remember the Joker, he was crazy. Anyway about Bane..." type reference.

Again, you should see some of the suggestions earlier in the thread. I wish they were jokes.

3. You mean talking about him in the final scene?

Yup.

Some context for you:

The Joker has to be mentioned, even just in passing for a second. It's just a simple logical conclusion of narrative. Even if it's for one second, one remark, it will happen. . . There would be a severe lapse in storytelling if he's not mentioned at least once.

Quite simply, the Joker has to be directly dealt with. Whether its a CGI cameo, or simple conversations about him/what happens prior to TDKR...I can't see the Joker...who MADE TDK what it was...not addressed.

And those are just two examples. Add to those the many people who want to either hear his laugh, see him in flashback, have "deleted" scenes from TDK inserted in, CGI him in, have him recasted, see his back in his cell, have him mentioned in the finale.... all of which I'm against because they would clearly be pointless, gratuitous fanservice, not to mention cheesy, corny, and terrible.

 

[iamcitizen]

Harvey Dent obviously figures into the movie somehow. I'm not sure how that plotline could be dealt with without at least mentioning the Joker.

 

[Ryan]

Harvey Dent obviously figures into the movie somehow. I'm not sure how that plotline could be dealt with without at least mentioning the Joker.

I would have been completely fine without them mentioning the Joker if they weren't trying so hard to now connect the films via this third film. There was no mention of Ras, the league of shadows, or anything they had done in the first film in The Dark Knight and it didn't bother me at all. Having the Scarecrow get caught, merely tied up a loose end and gave us a bit of Batman action at the beginning of the film, but was by no means a necessary ingredient to the film. However having a third film that brings back the league of shadows and ras, scarecrow, and Harvey dent (via his picture), I can't see how you can't at least mention the joker or ignore him, especially considering how he completely stole the show in the second film and had more of an impact then all the previously mentioned villains put together who are getting mentioned.
I always wondered why Nolan didn't use the Riddler for the third film, and thanks to the Empire article I know why. Just wish someone could get him to verify if the joker was planned for the third film, and if so, how much would he have been used. I'm guessing he'd refuse to answer that question at this point, simply because people will be wondering what could have been.

 

[RKO]

How did this discussion get so over-dramatic? It's just a name drop. It's pretty irrelevant if he's mentioned or not in the big picture.

I don't see how a quick Joker reference could ruin anything. It's only natural if he's brought up.

 

[iamcitizen]

I would have been completely fine without them mentioning the Joker if they weren't trying so hard to now connect the films via this third film. There was no mention of Ras, the league of shadows, or anything they had done in the first film in The Dark Knight and it didn't bother me at all.

They did name-drop Carmine Falcone, though. Ra's didn't get mentioned because the plot didn't really involve him in any way.

 

[Laderlappen]

How did this discussion get so over-dramatic? It's just a name drop. It's pretty irrelevant if he's mentioned or not in the big picture.

I don't see how a quick Joker reference could ruin anything. It's only natural if he's brought up.

And I dont see how no reference would ruin anything.

 

[iamcitizen]

And I dont see how no reference would ruin anything.

I think audiences (not just fanboys, but anyone who saw and loved TDK) will have the Joker on their mind to a certain extent when sitting down to watch TDKR. And if they don't throw out a least a small reference to the Joker, it will seem like they are tiptoeing around the issue, as if the Joker had been retconned out of existence in order to avoid offending anyone in the wake of Ledger's death. A small reference to the Joker will a) remind audiences what happened to the Joker at the end of TDK [since some audience member won't have seen TDK in years], b) clarify what happened to the Joker after TDK, and perhaps most importantly, c) get the Joker issue off the table so the audience doesn't have to think about it anymore.

 

[RKO]

And I dont see how no reference would ruin anything.

Exactly, it goes both ways. It doesn't add nor does it lack if he's not mentioned.

Just people think it would be cool if he is, including myself. It doesn't really harm the movie either way.

 

[TinkerTailor]

I think audiences (not just fanboys, but anyone who saw and loved TDK) will have the Joker on their mind to a certain extent when sitting down to watch TDKR. And if they don't throw out a least a small reference to the Joker, it will seem like they are tiptoeing around the issue, as if the Joker had been retconned out of existence in order to avoid offending anyone in the wake of Ledger's death. A small reference to the Joker will a) remind audiences what happened to the Joker at the end of TDK [since some audience member won't have seen TDK in years], b) clarify what happened to the Joker after TDK, and perhaps most importantly, c) get the Joker issue off the table so the audience doesn't have to think about it anymore.

It depends on context, and I'm not against a relevant mention, but if there's some expositional dialogue thrown in merely as lip service then you could also argue that it would only serve to make an audience member's mind focus even more on The Joker.

At the start of this film there's no Joker issue on the table. He's locked up, his influence is obviously going to be felt because of the situation Bruce finds himself in.

 

[storyteller]

The Joker had a pretty major soliloquy at the end of TDK; about how he is the ying to Batman's yang; it was pretty evident that there was going to be a sequel that involved the Joker, so I'm expecting at LEAST some kind of passing reference to him in this film; really, an homage . . . I'm very doubtful they will just make this movie and pretend like he never existed . . . he will get some kind of nod; matter of fact: MARK MY WORDS, there will be something

Simply because the audience knows Joker and Batman have a yin yang thing in the comics and all the shows. Its wasn't like Nolan wanted to do rises with the Joker. It was simply to demonstrate that Batman fights his bad guys multiple times(and doesn't nicely end with their deaths after the initial encounter).

 

[The Infernal]

Harvey Dent obviously figures into the movie somehow. I'm not sure how that plotline could be dealt with without at least mentioning the Joker.

You shouldn't assume Bane knows everything the audience saw. He may have worked out Harvey being Two-Face or he may just be suspicious. Whatever point he may be making with the Harvey photos he doesn't necessarily have to know about Joker's involvement. To him that could all be separate depending on what his knowledge is. Either that or he could know but just doesn't care about Joker since he's doesn't really come up in whatever point Bane is trying to make.

In short if it's not natural for the plot to mention him then it isn't needed. Can't say I'd say no to something if it was done right, but I'm not going to cry foul if there's no mention.

 

[Ryan]

I guess I would have been totally fine if they didn't mention the joker at all, had they not decided to look backwards in this third film and link it up with a returning los and some specific reference of Dent. Bane holding that picture of Dent will probably be an important development in the film. I'm also guessing that the League of shadows will have an important role. Both of which sound like they will be of more relevance to tdkr's plot then a mention to carimine in tdk or of scarecrow being rounded up in tdk. A big part of me wished they would have just moved forward in tdkr without all these references, as not it seems your damned if you do or damned if you don't if you mention the joker. But at this point, with everyone and their uncle getting a nod, I can't see how you avoid a joker reference.

 

[KRIM]

This is the exact point im trying to make, none of us know what the storyine is in the dark knight rises, at this present moment it is all heresay, it could be very much connected to events that occured in the dark knight, or then again it could be completley forgotten about in the eight years that have passed. It is just a matter of opinion that every one of us has the right to share.

Right, and that is why I'm sitting back and letting the story unfold by itself. I am speaking against those who are demanding it, without even bothering to take into consideration what the story is. They are in the position that Joker has to be mentioned, no matter what. That goes beyond preference, and becomes snobbish entitlement.

And as for the seeking doctor advice, shouldn't we all be doing that after going over the same ground in this thread for 14 pages? Get of your high horse, you aswell as all of us have no idea whats gonna happen in the next film but as fans we all can speculate and have an opinion whether it agrees with you or not. Go see a doctor about that perhaps.

No. I was referring to those hysterical few that would go mad if Joker were never mentioned at all. Please read more carefully.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Is it this Joker sized elephant in the room?

 

[DV8]

Simply because the audience knows Joker and Batman have a yin yang thing in the comics and all the shows. Its wasn't like Nolan wanted to do rises with the Joker. It was simply to demonstrate that Batman fights his bad guys multiple times(and doesn't nicely end with their deaths after the initial encounter).

I highly disagree; I think that before they conceptualized THIS movie, this was a significant piece of foreshadowing for what they had planned with the Joker in this movie; the Joker is an integral part of Batman's existence; do we NEED an allusion to the Joker in this movie? No. Will we get one? I say probably . . . Nolan, and most other decent filmmakers place and plan every scene in a movie for a reason; nothing is just there by happenstance . . .

 

[uniqueweasel]

Right, and that is why I'm sitting back and letting the story unfold by itself. I am speaking against those who are demanding it, without even bothering to take into consideration what the story is. They are in the position that Joker has to be mentioned, no matter what. That goes beyond preference, and becomes snobbish entitlement.

Well I find it difficult what the issue is with my comments, I have clearly not demanded that I want to see any character in the movie. Either way it's not going to be stopping me paying to watch it on the day it is released. I think it seems people are forgetting this is a hype forum, where all us fanboys come to speculate and debate on films, i'm bored of reading the comments about how stupid some ideas are as to fitting the joker into the movie, it doesn't matter how stupid or absurd they are, its just a bit of excitement for the film, as I for one do not write scripts, but as a cinema goer know what I want from a film, but on the same note am open minded enough to accept decisions made based on the storyline, ie including the joker or not.

I think we can all agree that as long as the situation of mentioning him or not, as long as the story makes sense, the film will be great.

I think you nailed it on the head when you mentioned snobbery, the so called intellectual snobbery and textbook nitpicking on this subject is amazing. There is a point when you can be too over analytical.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Fat Joker should be a MOTIF on these boards

In terms of the preceding 8 years it may very well be alluded to that in the years following TDK Batman faced off against a number of 'freaks'. On the other hand it may be suggested that Bruce has been patrolling every night simply to take down petty thugs and the last remnants of the mob in a crusade to address his grief and anger at his parents and Rachel's death. If that's the case then the idea that The Joker led in a procession of criminals for Bats to face isn't actually the case.

It's also dependent on how Dent's crimes are exploited by Bane. [...]

1 - If The Joker is mentioned as having a running battle with Batman where he easily escapes from Arkham then why shouldn't he appear in TDKR as a genuine and constant threat? He's already been established as a master criminal who can influence situations to suit his will, why wouldn't he want to play in Bane's Gotham? If it's acknowledged that he's escaped in the past then the GA may be waiting for an appearance of some sort... it takes attention away from Bane as the primary and singular threat (obviously if Ledger was alive and we saw Bane nullify The Joker then it would be another issue... but that's not going to happen).

2. If The Joker and Bats have had battles in the interim then why hasn't The Joker already taken the opportunity to expose Gordon and Batman's ruse about Dent?

Hmm... it makes sense if Batman is indeed portrayed in that light of a vigilante out to fighting petty criminals for his own self-indulgence (and the self-indulgence of personal loss is damning - the idea that THIS wastes your life away is a powerful and potent theme, one I'd love to see Batman considering his own 'crusade' over). It would make TDKR a powerful commentary on batman/vigilantism/superheroes on it's own, and would really liberate it as an individual film. On the other hand it would also mean that Bruce's struggle in Batman Begins (which was, indeed, reconciling between personal and universal 'justice') was all in vain - that he has failed in his mission to bring 'true justice' to Gotham City, that "the point of Batman" who makes the "choices no one else can make" is nothing but megalomania on Bruce Wayne's part. It makes me wonder about, and I'm sorry for this but, Batman Forever. Bruce's line to Dick about how you wake up one day and realise that revenge has taken over your life, those were very, very potent themes, but they also solidified the idea that these heroes, in an attempt to oppose the petty criminals who have taken their lives away, had found those criminals in the supervillains that are out there (Dick's point that it was Two-Face who literally killed his folks is another debate). What that means for the Joker though is this: he corresponds to those supervillains almost as a paradigm. I'll be just as content with Bane reminding everyone of the Joker bringing anarchy to Gotham all those years ago, as a point that he was "right" in saying that the Batman is just as corrupted as he was. I wonder where Selina Kyle fits into all this. If rumours of Scarecrow making an appearance is true, then maybe he could be used as an example of the 'freaks' and have Bane solve his recurrences with a bullet.

To answer your questions: 1. The silly answer would be that Bane kills off all the freaks. :P but no, maybe the Joker isn't playing in Gotham this time around because there is no Batman for the most part? Ideally speaking, if he remains incarcerated in Arkham, it brings Batman's own conviction that "you'll be trapped in a padded cell forever" more meaning. But the irony of both those lines is that they're both true - the Joker is incarcerated in Arkham for all these years, and at the same time he is continuing his war with Batman by breaking out. I liked how in Watchmen we saw that the villains all faded away and the good guy remained alone in the forefront. Call it a vicious cycle, but maybe that's what happens to Batman at the beginning of this film? Ultimately, however, the Joker's absence doesn't need to be explained because of his nature of being unpredictable. In other words, I really, really, don't know You can also nullify the threat of Joker simply by making Bane a greater threat, that, at the very least, can be accomplished.

I know none of that answers your questions :P but it's fun to guess.

2. Well, for one thing he's insanity is clear and thus it makes him attempts meaningless altogether. Maybe he is content with having Batman remain the 'villain' in Gotham's eyes - it'd suit his infatuation with Batman as a symbol for Gotham's soul. I think it depends on how they explain Harvey's death -- was it because of the exploding hospital, or because of Batman? Eitherway, it is Batman's fault and this would be enough for the Joker to rest on.

Exactly.

Given that the Dent situation is being referenced in some major way, the Joker references can easily be slipped into that plot since Joker was the defining factor for all of that happening.

I'd be content with that, but it wouldn't answer TinkerTailor's question #1.

 

[poo-storm]

I think it's funny that people are getting so bent out of shape with others liking the idea of a nod to the Joker. Like it would somehow ruin the movie, or mentioning it would destroy the plot. Does every single line in a movie have to advance the plot?

When Batman first shows up in TDK, did it HAVE to be Scarecrow involved in the drug deal? How dare they put a nod to the events of BB! That was such fan service, completely took me out of the movie.

I'm not saying the Joker must be mentioned, but considering they are wrapping this whole thing up, I would guess there would be a little reflection at some point on what got Batman where he has ended up. It also seems odd that Scarecrow can escape from Arkham at least once in 8 years, but the Joker couldn't? Those are not plot holes, mind you, just things I would wonder as I'm watching the film.

It's all a matter of taste. Some people want the movie to end with Batman and Gordon on the roof and the whole "You'll never have to" line done again. Which is fine, but not exactly what I'm hoping for.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Hmm... it makes sense if Batman is indeed portrayed in that light of a vigilante out to fighting petty criminals for his own self-indulgence (and the self-indulgence of personal loss is damning - the idea that THIS wastes your life away is a powerful and potent theme, one I'd love to see Batman considering his own 'crusade' over). It would make TDKR a powerful commentary on batman/vigilantism/superheroes on it's own, and would really liberate it as an individual film. On the other hand it would also mean that Bruce's struggle in Batman Begins (which was, indeed, reconciling between personal and universal 'justice') was all in vain - that he has failed in his mission to bring 'true justice' to Gotham City, that "the point of Batman" who makes the "choices no one else can make" is nothing but megalomania on Bruce Wayne's part. It makes me wonder about, and I'm sorry for this but, Batman Forever. Bruce's line to Dick about how you wake up one day and realise that revenge has taken over your life, those were very, very potent themes, but they also solidified the idea that these heroes, in an attempt to oppose the petty criminals who have taken their lives away, had found those criminals in the supervillains that are out there (Dick's point that it was Two-Face who literally killed his folks is another debate). What that means for the Joker though is this: he corresponds to those supervillains almost as a paradigm. I'll be just as content with Bane reminding everyone of the Joker bringing anarchy to Gotham all those years ago, as a point that he was "right" in saying that the Batman is just as corrupted as he was. I wonder where Selina Kyle fits into all this. If rumours of Scarecrow making an appearance is true, then maybe he could be used as an example of the 'freaks' and have Bane solve his recurrences with a bullet.

To answer your questions: 1. The silly answer would be that Bane kills off all the freaks. :P but no, maybe the Joker isn't playing in Gotham this time around because there is no Batman for the most part? Ideally speaking, if he remains incarcerated in Arkham, it brings Batman's own conviction that "you'll be trapped in a padded cell forever" more meaning. But the irony of both those lines is that they're both true - the Joker is incarcerated in Arkham for all these years, and at the same time he is continuing his war with Batman by breaking out. I liked how in Watchmen we saw that the villains all faded away and the good guy remained alone in the forefront. Call it a vicious cycle, but maybe that's what happens to Batman at the beginning of this film? Ultimately, however, the Joker's absence doesn't need to be explained because of his nature of being unpredictable. In other words, I really, really, don't know You can also nullify the threat of Joker simply by making Bane a greater threat, that, at the very least, can be accomplished.

I know none of that answers your questions :P but it's fun to guess.

2. Well, for one thing he's insanity is clear and thus it makes him attempts meaningless altogether. Maybe he is content with having Batman remain the 'villain' in Gotham's eyes - it'd suit his infatuation with Batman as a symbol for Gotham's soul. I think it depends on how they explain Harvey's death -- was it because of the exploding hospital, or because of Batman? Eitherway, it is Batman's fault and this would be enough for the Joker to rest on.



I'd be content with that, but it wouldn't answer TinkerTailor's question #1.

It is indeed fun to guess and speculate away.

I wouldn't actually mind some of those themes that were raised in Batman Forever being referenced here, purely because I think that they were only ever acknowledged in that film in the flimsiest of terms. It does sound as though they're going to be brought up given that Nolan and Bale have both discussed the nature of how long you let pain define you when describing Bruce's journey in TDKR.

Another point to raise with this is that if it has been other freaks and large scale threats that Bruce has been dealing with in the 8 year gap (with the possibility of a couple of Joker jail breaks thrown in too) his mission still has purpose in as much that he is averting major threats and catastrophe breaking loose throughout Gotham. If all he's been doing is dealing with petty criminals (self-indulgence is a perfect way to describe this) then his purpose is merely to avoid dealing with his own loss in any honest way. Nolan has described Bruce as hitting a brick wall in TDKR; emotionally and psychologically this brick wall may be better represented if his mission and the standards he set himself in BB have been lost. On a metaphorical level it puts Bruce back in that prison at the start of BB, locked inside, fighting them one at a time for no real reason except anger.

 

[Laderlappen]

I think it's funny that people are getting so bent out of shape with others liking the idea of a nod to the Joker. Like it would somehow ruin the movie, or mentioning it would destroy the plot. Does every single line in a movie have to advance the plot?

And I think its funny that people has to hear the Joker's name to be able to enjoy this movie. Like its more important than the plot and the acting.

When Batman first shows up in TDK, did it HAVE to be Scarecrow involved in the drug deal?

Yes. He escaped at the end of Batman Begins. They had to put him in the movie to close that chapter.

How dare they put a nod to the events of BB! That was such fan service, completely took me out of the movie.

I'm not saying the Joker must be mentioned, but considering they are wrapping this whole thing up, I would guess there would be a little reflection at some point on what got Batman where he has ended up. It also seems odd that Scarecrow can escape from Arkham at least once in 8 years, but the Joker couldn't? Those are not plot holes, mind you, just things I would wonder as I'm watching the film.

It's all a matter of taste. Some people want the movie to end with Batman and Gordon on the roof and the whole "You'll never have to" line done again. Which is fine, but not exactly what I'm hoping for.

To be clear, nobody is saying that Joker shouldnt be mentioned. People are only questioning the point of suggested dialogue that, well, has no point. The only people that are demanding something to happen and going overboard are the "there must be a Joker mention" people.