The Dark Knight Rises The Joker sized elephant in the room

[Ryan]

I guess one curious question would be, would everyone be alright without the Joker not being mentioned if Heath was still alive.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

At this point the constant wanting of a Joker mention in the TDKR is becoming more about fan service than it actually serving a purpose.

It's serves no purpose to the story mentioning Joker. Mentioning Harvey Dent yes because it was because of Dents direct actions that lead up to things happening in TDKR.

Do you know what you do in this case then? You make the mention serve the purpose of the story, just like the Scarecrow cameo (hopefully) will.

Having, no mention of Joker, whilst mentioning every other major villain will feel out of place, and will only draw attention to the fact that he is very much absent. Either way, it's a double edged sword. No matter what decision was made it would only highlight Heath's death.

It all just comes down to opinion, and personally, I feel Nolan made the wrong choice. But, unlike him, I wasn't friends with Heath, and I didn't have to watch him every day for 4 months after he died, so I can very easily understand, respect and accept his decision.

 

[joker1524]

as i said again...would be nice to hear a mention of joker locked up in arkham...i mean falcone even got a mention in arkham lol

 

[MrWayne]

Do you know what you do in this case then? You make the mention serve the purpose of the story, just like the Scarecrow cameo (hopefully) will.

Having, no mention of Joker, whilst mentioning every other major villain will feel out of place, and will only draw attention to the fact that he is very much absent. Either way, it's a double edged sword. No matter what decision was made it would only highlight Heath's death.

It all just comes down to opinion, and personally, I feel Nolan made the wrong choice. But, unlike him, I wasn't friends with Heath, and I didn't have to watch him every day for 4 months after he died, so I can very easily understand, respect and accept his decision.

I see what you're saying and while you may have a point I just feel that it's more of a want than a need.

It's a matter of opinion yes, but opinions based on what you want. People want Joker to be mentioned, heck, so do I, but for me, if he's not mentioned it doesn't take or add anything to the plot. It's just something to make us smile like "ahhhh they mentioned
Joker, yay"

Truth of the matter is though it hasn't been confirmed that that there will or won't be any mention of the Joker at all, we all just have to wait and see.

 

[jmc]

Look, I get why people want a mention of the Joker, but there's an entitlement on show in some of these posts that I find highly distasteful.

Exactly. Seriously, we're not entitled to anything and some of the posts smack of 'I want this'. The Joker is not going to be mentioned in TDKR out of respect for the actor who played him which is a valid justification for not doing it, suck it up princesses and deal with it.

 

[bullets]

It might be better to have left Joker's fate ambiguous.

I wanted a reference as I'm sure most did but you can't blame Nolan for leaving it alone.

 

[Drizzle]

I guess one curious question would be, would everyone be alright without the Joker not being mentioned if Heath was still alive.

If Heath were still alive, the Joker would have been in the movie.

 

[KalMart]

Do you know what you do in this case then? You make the mention serve the purpose of the story, just like the Scarecrow cameo (hopefully) will.

Having, no mention of Joker, whilst mentioning every other major villain will feel out of place, and will only draw attention to the fact that he is very much absent. Either way, it's a double edged sword. No matter what decision was made it would only highlight Heath's death.

It all just comes down to opinion, and personally, I feel Nolan made the wrong choice. But, unlike him, I wasn't friends with Heath, and I didn't have to watch him every day for 4 months after he died, so I can very easily understand, respect and accept his decision.

Yeah, and Nolan made a decision that he felt was right...because just as it's obvious narratively just who was at the source one way or another, as you point out he's damned either way. So he chose the path that he felt better about. Neither way has any more or less merit story or familiarity wise.

But anyway, yeah, I think we can give Nolan a pass on this one for not mentioning Joker, all things considered.

 

[weezerspider]

Dent being mentioned serves the plot with Bane's plan. Mentioning The Joker after EIGHT YEARS doesn't seem that necessary if its not related to the plot. Now if this film was to take place like 4 months after TDK, then regardless of the plot, it was seem very weird for no one to mention The Joker.

 

[Mister H.]

I already know Joker is locked up. I dont need Nolan treating me as an audience member like Im ******ed.

But he does that all the time. I'm a big fan, but his films really get bogged down by all of the unneeded exposition. Show us Mr. Nolan...don't tell us. One of the first things you learn as a filmmaker, yet he has the uncanny ability to make his dialogue seem so unnatural and preachy.

 

[Mister H.]

If Heath were still alive, the Joker would have been in the movie.

Of course. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

 

[Immoral Cactus]

If Heath were still alive, the Joker would have been in the movie.

To what extent? If Joker had been the centerpiece of two out of the three films, I think it really would have thrown any sense of thematic balance out of the window, and Batman Begins would end up feeling like the 'odd one out'.

I don't think Heath having passed has as much to do with it as some people claim. There are arguments on both sides; some see the inclusion or just reference of Heath's joker as an homage, some as detracting from his performance, or perhaps a little exploitative of a man's tragic passing.

The way I see it is that it has to do with story, and the best stories are tight and cohesive, with as few extraneous details as possible. World building and continuity are important, true, but not at the expense of the story you are currently telling. That's the main thing that I inferred from the Empire article: that this is a story that does not involve Joker, and so there is no need to bring him up.

 

[Drizzle]

To what extent? If Joker had been the centerpiece of two out of the three films, I think it really would have thrown any sense of thematic balance out of the window, and Batman Begins would end up feeling like the 'odd one out'.

I don't think Heath having passed has as much to do with it as some people claim. There are arguments on both sides; some see the inclusion or just reference of Heath's joker as an homage, some as detracting from his performance, or perhaps a little exploitative of a man's tragic passing.

The way I see it is that it has to do with story, and the best stories are tight and cohesive, with as few extraneous details as possible. World building and continuity are important, true, but not at the expense of the story you are currently telling. That's the main thing that I inferred from the Empire article: that this is a story that does not involve Joker, and so there is no need to bring him up.

He probably wouldn't have been a prominent part of the movie, but he would have been more than just a cameo. He probably would have remained in Arkham the whole time. He definitely would have had much more screentime than Crane did in TDK.

 

[KalMart]

But he does that all the time. I'm a big fan, but his films really get bogged down by all of the unneeded exposition. Show us Mr. Nolan...don't tell us. One of the first things you learn as a filmmaker, yet he has the uncanny ability to make his dialogue seem so unnatural and preachy.

So might as well continue this if it meets your desires to hear 'The Joker', although your'e obviously wise enough to do without it?

 

[BatLobster]

It's tricky. When imagining another crime/serial-killer story potentially involving The Riddler, then it's easy to envision Joker's role in a Silence of the Lambs capacity, where Batman almost has to consult with The Joker a few times in the movie to gain some insight into the mind of a killer.

But with this film, the only role I could've seen The Joker playing that would fit with the story would be for Bane to publicly execute him in an attempt to sway people to his side and his brand of justice. I mean when you think about it, that's probably the best use Bane could have gotten out of The Joker, cause Joker is obviously not someone you can trust, nor does he respect authority- which Bane is in this film.

On the other hand, Bane killing The Joker would just seem wrong to the mythos. Again, it's very tricky. I just have to believe this would be a different third movie altogether if Heath had lived and they were intent on including The Joker. But what we're getting seems so much more interesting than a Joker retread.

 

[KalMart]

I could see a 'consulting' scene in a max-security setting, but I think Bane would just leave him there and have no use for him if there's no way he could get out....maybe even to starve to death.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He probably wouldn't have been a prominent part of the movie, but he would have been more than just a cameo. He probably would have remained in Arkham the whole time. He definitely would have had much more screentime than Crane did in TDK.

I agree. While we'll never actually know if Nolan planned to use Heath again, we do have Eckhart saying "This was Heath's film to movie on."

So it certainly seems like the cast expected him to return in a sequel.

 

[Immoral Cactus]

I agree. While we'll never actually know if Nolan planned to use Heath again, we do have Eckhart saying "This was Heath's film to movie on."

So it certainly seems like the cast expected him to return in a sequel.

To be fair though, didn't Eckhart say at one point that he himself would be keen to reprise his role in a potential sequel?

There is something I like about the lack of any Joker in The Dark Knight Rises, which is that it mirrors his introduction: He waltzes into Gotham from nowhere, and disappears just as suddenly.

I don't know, I just think it fits as a motif, maintains a certain aura of mystery. At another extreme, I certainly would not have liked to have seen him deconstructed and explained by Arkham psychiatrists.

 

[Infinity9999x]

To be fair though, didn't Eckhart say at one point that he himself would be keen to reprise his role in a potential sequel?

There is something I like about the lack of any Joker in The Dark Knight Rises, which is that it mirrors his introduction: He waltzes into Gotham from nowhere, and disappears just as suddenly.

I don't know, I just think it fits as a motif, maintains a certain aura of mystery. At another extreme, I certainly would not have liked to have seen him deconstructed and explained by Arkham psychiatrists.

I really doubt Nolan would have deconstructed him or have him explained. Just in the same way the comics have never done that. Nolan understood the mystery aspect of the Joker. Having him in Arkham doesn't mean he would suddenly be completely analyzed and understood. That's part of the character's history. NOBODY has been able to understand him.

And Eckhart did play coy for a good long time, but (in the same interview as the Heath quote I believe) he came out and said he had a conversation with Nolan in which Chris said "You're dead." So Eckhart ended up being pretty straight up with it after a month or so.

 

[Immoral Cactus]

I really doubt Nolan would have deconstructed him or have him explained. Just in the same way the comics have never done that. Nolan understood the mystery aspect of the Joker. Having him in Arkham doesn't mean he would suddenly be completely analyzed and understood. That's part of the character's history. NOBODY has been able to understand him.

And Eckhart did play coy for a good long time, but (in the same interview as the Heath quote I believe) he came out and said he had a conversation with Nolan in which Chris said "You're dead." So Eckhart ended up being pretty straight up with it after a month or so.

Fair enough then if Eckhart's comment on Ledger was made when he was aware that Dent was truly dead, then my point is pretty much voided.

 

[Drunkard Esq.]

Exactly. Seriously, we're not entitled to anything and some of the posts smack of 'I want this'. The Joker is not going to be mentioned in TDKR out of respect for the actor who played him which is a valid justification for not doing it, suck it up princesses and deal with it.

In fairness, it doesn't matter what Nolan or the cast says now, we'll only know for certain when the film comes out.

The same as we'll only know for certain if Marion Cottilard plays "Miranda Tate" and only "Miranda Tate", something everyone involved seems to be so adamant about.

 

[Victarion]

Bruce's absence could be the result of his battle with the Joker in TDK. That, in itself, is a subtle Joker reference.

 

[KalMart]

In fairness, it doesn't matter what Nolan or the cast says now, we'll only know for certain when the film comes out.

The same as we'll only know for certain if Marion Cottilard plays "Miranda Tate" and only "Miranda Tate", something everyone involved seems to be so adamant about.

Right...that part about not mentioning Joker out of respecting Heath's untimely death...Nolan was just sayin' that to troll....we know he really doesn't give a hoot about it...

 

[The Derp Knight]

I watched Batman Begins and Dark Knight back to back today (haven't seen either one in about four months, which is pretty impressive given my obsession) and I noticed for the first time that Bruce quotes Ra's when he and Alfred are discussing Joker ("Criminals aren't complicated"). I suspect we'll get something similar when Bruce and Al discuss Bane.

 

[Brother Jack]

Bruce's absence could be the result of his battle with the Joker in TDK. That, in itself, is a subtle Joker reference.

This is true. Joker's actions will be a catalyst for some of what happens in Rises, so in that way he is still (indirectly) acknowledged. There are a few moments like that in TDK, like when Batman tells Harvey that he is the first legitimate light in Gotham in decades, referencing his own parents' philanthropy.