The Dark Knight Rises The Joker's Role in the Third Film

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea that could be interesting, even if Joker isn't physically in the third maybe they could allude that everything that transpires in the third film was all of Jokers doing behind the scenes.

 

[raybia]

Yea that could be interesting, even if Joker isn't physically in the third maybe they could allude that everything that transpires in the third film was all of Jokers doing behind the scenes.

They could even do a CGI Joker but only briefly and in the shadows so that in no way could the naked eye tell that its CGI.

 

[protoctista]

Lets not be ridiculous now people. Recast.


The Joker is a character. If there was any other inarguable reason for Heath Ledger not being able to return, everyone would demand a recast.

The beauty of the Joker's character is that he re-invents himself all the time. It wouldn't be completely unreasonable (or heretical) for another actor to portray another take on the Joker in the next film - even if Heath was still alive. Remember that the Joker has gone to Arkham, he's had to spend months, possibly years in a straight jacket without his make-up (his real face) on. He will have been forced to undergo the structured society of establishment that he despises so much. His psychological condition will have changed - even if Heath was able to return to the role, it'd be a new spin on the character.

I really don't think it's respectful to Heath Ledger as an actor to take a character that he portrayed and lock it up for another 10-20 years because people are afraid to tread in his footsteps. Yes, its a landmark performance, but it isn't the only performance there shall ever be of the Joker from now on - that'd be ridiculous.



Heath Ledger was an artist. If he was alive now, he'd be proud of his work as an artist, because of his monumental contribution to the nature of on-screen villainy. I seriously doubt he'd be happy to know that by portraying the character to such an exceptional degree he effectively killed future portrayal. He clearly enjoyed playing that character - so why kill it just because he's dead?



The best way to honour Heath Ledger, in my opinion, would be to use his performance as inspiration to other great actors, to have other talented actors have a go at the same character he did - not with the intent to outdo him - not because he's dead and they want to move on and forget about him - but because it's a ****ing brilliant character that should be kept alive.

Heath Ledger enthused the Joker with an entirely new breath of life, why would he want that to end with his own tragic passing?





My only analogy would be your brother's favourite ever toy - the toy which he loved playing with and which he will always be remembered as having played with. Your brother gets hit by a bus. Should you, after mourning his loss, lock up that toy and never see it again? or, hell, play with it yourself because its a great toy.

 

[protoctista]

Even if they don't have Joker physically present in the next film, I'd like to see a scene where Gordon, or even the mayor is being given a special report on the Joker's condition from Arkham's chief of staff - and gets told that he assaulted a pyschiatric nurse and managed to get his hands on some strong industrial bleach...

and then another scene being told that he's escaped.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If Joker is re-cast I vote Paul Bettany all the way!!

 

[raybia]

Lets not be ridiculous now people. Recast.


The Joker is a character. If there was any other inarguable reason for Heath Ledger not being able to return, everyone would demand a recast.

The beauty of the Joker's character is that he re-invents himself all the time. It wouldn't be completely unreasonable (or heretical) for another actor to portray another take on the Joker in the next film - even if Heath was still alive. Remember that the Joker has gone to Arkham, he's had to spend months, possibly years in a straight jacket without his make-up (his real face) on. He will have been forced to undergo the structured society of establishment that he despises so much. His psychological condition will have changed - even if Heath was able to return to the role, it'd be a new spin on the character.

I really don't think it's respectful to Heath Ledger as an actor to take a character that he portrayed and lock it up for another 10-20 years because people are afraid to tread in his footsteps. Yes, its a landmark performance, but it isn't the only performance there shall ever be of the Joker from now on - that'd be ridiculous.



Heath Ledger was an artist. If he was alive now, he'd be proud of his work as an artist, because of his monumental contribution to the nature of on-screen villainy. I seriously doubt he'd be happy to know that by portraying the character to such an exceptional degree he effectively killed future portrayal. He clearly enjoyed playing that character - so why kill it just because he's dead?



The best way to honour Heath Ledger, in my opinion, would be to use his performance as inspiration to other great actors, to have other talented actors have a go at the same character he did - not with the intent to outdo him - not because he's dead and they want to move on and forget about him - but because it's a ****ing brilliant character that should be kept alive.

Heath Ledger enthused the Joker with an entirely new breath of life, why would he want that to end with his own tragic passing?





My only analogy would be your brother's favourite ever toy - the toy which he loved playing with and which he will always be remembered as having played with. Your brother gets hit by a bus. Should you, after mourning his loss, lock up that toy and never see it again? or, hell, play with it yourself because its a great toy.

I don't think my suggestion is anymore ridculous than what you are proposing. I think it would be cinema suicide for Nolan to recast this role for the next movie (and thats assuming that the story even called for the Joker to appear anyway.)

The 3rd movie is going to be measured by TDK to begin with so why set it up for failure by recasting an actor who simply cannot measure up to Ledger's performance in the public's eye regardless if he does an admirable job or not.

I'm not saying that the Joker role should never be played again but its a mistake to do it immediately after one of the most memorable performances of all time.

 

[protoctista]

I don't think my suggestion is anymore ridculous than what you are proposing. I think it would be cinema suicide for Nolan to recast this role for the next movie (and thats assuming that the story even called for the Joker to appear anyway.)

The 3rd movie is going to be measured by TDK to begin with so why set it up for failure by recasting an actor who simply cannot measure up to Ledger's performance in the public's eye regardless if he does an admirable job or not.

I'm not saying that the Joker role should never be played again but its a mistake to do it immediately after one of the most memorable performances of all time.

Think of your 10 favourite batman graphic novels. I can imagine that most, if not all of them have the Joker in, portrayed by different artists. Just because The Killing Joke was so fantastic doesn't mean that all other renditions of the character is going to be measured by that novel.

The Joker can be retold a hundred times in graphic novel format, with each one seperate and ever deadly, ever brilliant, ever captivating.

The point is that the hypothetically recast actor, as I have already stressed, wouldn't be trying to top Heath's performance, or even mimic it, but making their own performance - creating an their own character.

 

[raybia]

Think of your 10 favourite batman graphic novels. I can imagine that most, if not all of them have the Joker in, portrayed by different artists. Just because The Killing Joke was so fantastic doesn't mean that all other renditions of the character is going to be measured by that novel.

The Joker can be retold a hundred times in graphic novel format, with each one seperate and ever deadly, ever brilliant, ever captivating.

The point is that the hypothetically recast actor, as I have already stressed, wouldn't be trying to top Heath's performance, or even mimic it, but making their own performance - creating an their own character.

I understanding what you are saying but graphic novels and movies are too different mediums. That is one of the reasons why "The Three Stooges" movie didn't happen by the Farely brothers because the actual actors who played then so many years ago are still fresh in the public's consciousness or in other words the actors are too iconic for them to be successfully replaced.

Is Heath's performance so iconic to where anyone else playing the part would be rejected by the public? I'm going to say no...however I think it would be rejected if the Joker is recast in the next movie because its just too soon...plus this with Ledger's death, I think people are not ready to see him replaced.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

To be honest I think most of the public will want to see Joker again no matter what. Everyone loves the Joker, maybe more than Batman himself. I think if they do re-cast whoever gets the gig MUST do what Ledger did and dive into it, I'm talking about isolating themselves, reading up on the Joker and bring their own twist to it. They don't have to radically alter the traits of Ledgers Joker but they have to bring something personal to the role, thats what made Heaths so great, it was from deep within him. The person who follows it up must do the same.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Another manip of Paul Bettany as Mr J.

 

[Two-Face]

I think Nolan & Co should leave Joker alone now, move onto other characters like The Riddler, The Penguin, Bane, Catwoman, Poison Ivy or Mr Freeze. Some of these great characters were handled poorly by last director Joel Schumacher so they need better treatment by Nolan.

 

[storyteller]

I doubt people will refuse to see the movie or the critics will yell out TOO SOON. If the Joker is ever used again to provide useful story to nolans movie RECAST. To say no one can top Ledger is unfounded. Comic book movies are still trying to find how far they can go. Past directors didnt think their villains could be monstrously evil but still human(ie actually human and not a creature) and sell it to a character that sells millions of toys.

I dont think Joker has a place in the third movie if they dont need him to be. With dent dead, one connection is cut Mention Joker in jail and call it a day. Now if they come up with a kick ass story with the Jokers return then by all means recast. If they recast in Nolans continuity, then the actor must imitate ledgers Joker. There still room to make the character the actors own but that must be the base. Now another continuity is all on the next guy. Ledgers Joker may not work in other movies.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

Nolan's going to do what Nolan's going to do(considering he signs on to do another), and if he doesn't/does want to recast The Joker, that's what he's going to do. I hope he doesn't pull a Sam Raimi and recast the Joker because that's what the fans want. If he wants to recast him, and honestly thinks it will do the franchise some good, that's fine. But I think, and I know i'm not alone, that he would rather focus on other villains. As I've said before, Joker can have a definite influence over the movie, but that doesn't mean he has to be in it per se.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I agree to an extent Two-Face, there deffs should be some other villains in the third. But just because a new villain needs to be developed doesn't mean Joker can't be in it. We already know what Joker is about so there doesn't need to be any time spent on developing him, maybe they could use him like a literal jack-in-the-box who just pops up randomly to cause chaos for both the protagonist and the new antagonist? I think having a re-occuring antagonist could really break the mould as far as super-hero films go, you could even compare Joker to cult film favourites like Jason Vorhees or Freddy Kruger. There is unlimited possibilities with someone like Joker.

Anyway here's another manip with Bettany as Mr J. I wanted to do it really gruesome and Rated R/18 style this time. The scar across his eye is a twisted take on the clown make up where they have the tear below it.

 

[raybia]

I think Nolan & Co should leave Joker alone now, move onto other characters like The Riddler, The Penguin, Bane, Catwoman, Poison Ivy or Mr Freeze. Some of these great characters were handled poorly by last director Joel Schumacher so they need better treatment by Nolan.

Nolan's going to do what Nolan's going to do(considering he signs on to do another), and if he doesn't/does want to recast The Joker, that's what he's going to do. I hope he doesn't pull a Sam Raimi and recast the Joker because that's what the fans want. If he wants to recast him, and honestly thinks it will do the franchise some good, that's fine. But I think, and I know i'm not alone, that he would rather focus on other villains. As I've said before, Joker can have a definite influence over the movie, but that doesn't mean he has to be in it per se.

I concur.

 

[raybia]

I doubt people will refuse to see the movie or the critics will yell out TOO SOON. If the Joker is ever used again to provide useful story to nolans movie RECAST. To say no one can top Ledger is unfounded. Comic book movies are still trying to find how far they can go. Past directors didnt think their villains could be monstrously evil but still human(ie actually human and not a creature) and sell it to a character that sells millions of toys.

I dont think Joker has a place in the third movie if they dont need him to be. With dent dead, one connection is cut Mention Joker in jail and call it a day. Now if they come up with a kick ass story with the Jokers return then by all means recast. If they recast in Nolans continuity, then the actor must imitate ledgers Joker. There still room to make the character the actors own but that must be the base. Now another continuity is all on the next guy. Ledgers Joker may not work in other movies.

The general audience will not say too soon. They will go and see the movie and then compare the new actor's performance as Joker to Ledger's and that is where it could get ugly. I think it would be unfair to any actor to have follow up that performance.

Just imagine if Al Pacino would have been replaced after the Godfather, Arnold after Terminator, Stallone after Rocky, Christopher Reeve after Superman, Natalie Portman after Phantom Menance...ok forget that one.

I trust Nolan. If he decides to recast then I feel that he would know something the rest of us don't and would be curious as hell to see how he plans to pull it off. But I'm 95% sure that he will not recast but again I like the idea of the third movie being a continuation of Joker's plan and wouldn't mind seeing a cameo of Ledger's Joker using stock footage, body double, CGI, tricky filming, a voice doctor, etc. in order to pull it off....as long as it looks real.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

The general audience will not say too soon. They will go and see the movie and then compare the new actor's performance as Joker to Ledger's and that is where it could get ugly. I think it would be unfair to any actor to have follow up that performance.

Just imagine if Al Pacino would have been replaced after the Godfather, Arnold after Terminator, Stallone after Rocky, Christopher Reeve after Superman, Natalie Portman after Phantom Menance...ok forget that one.

I trust Nolan. If he decides to recast then I feel that he would know something the rest of us don't and would be curious as hell to see how he plans to pull it off. But I'm 95% sure that he will not recast but again I like the idea of the third movie being a continuation of Joker's plan and wouldn't mind seeing a cameo of Ledger's Joker using stock footage, body double, CGI, tricky filming, a voice doctor, etc. in order to pull it off....as long as it looks real.

I also concur

 

[Ender Durden]

I also concur

i dont. the majority of theater goers would not give a ratsass. HeathJoker is fairly new and sure the popularity of his character is huge, but its not as iconic yet as the other characters Rayba mentioned.
Sure there might be some smack here and there, but that would pretty much only come from people like us, people that sign up in an online superhero movie forum. Most other people would accept it, and enjoy the flick.

As for my take, i think Guy Pearce would be a great replacement, and yes that is solely from the fact that this is an awesome manip.

And yes i think Guy is a bit smaller than Ledger, and I'm sure that Joker's role would be much smaller in a third film. Also the issue of seeing Joker without his makeup would be a problem.

So taking all these facts into consideration my solution (and I'm sure its not the most original solution) would be to have Joker in the shadows, just like others have said, for the sake of atmosphere, although i doubt insane asylums have aesthetically cool, darkly lit cells. So in this case, Batman and the authorities need Joker's help, just like Silence of the Lambs (again not so original), but he refuses to talk to anyone without getting his war paint on first. It seems plausible that institutions would allow him to have it, afterall its just face paint and in Nolan's Batman universe, the joker just is not mentally The Joker without his mask, much like Wayne isn't Batman without his.

That would take care of Pearce's size compared to Heath's, since he'll be contained and sitting in a padded cell most of the film, until the end, when of course, he escapes.

 

[knifeedgedave]

Recast, and the new actor must give the SAME portrayal. I think it's disrespectful and just damn stupid for an actor to say he must put his own spin on the character. For another series yes, but for this- honour the way it's been portrayed in this series by continuing as is.

Edit:

Wow! that Manip above. We only saw the Joker without his makeup for a blurry two seconds. With or without makeup- Pierce looks like 'The Joker.' Plus he's a great actor.



Guy Pierce for the Joker.

 

[raybia]

i dont. the majority of theater goers would not give a ratsass. HeathJoker is fairly new and sure the popularity of his character is huge, but its not as iconic yet as the other characters Rayba mentioned.

Well it was just released 3 months ago. Give it some time.

By the way, nice manip.

There is only one actor I can think of that would make me excited to step into the Joker role and that is Daniel Day Lewis but again I think it can be done without recasting.

 

[protoctista]

*sigh*

If only they'd been sensible enough to take the precaution of creating a perfect genetic clone of Heath Ledger...

 

[protoctista]

Daniel Day Lewis would be awesome for an older Joker - say, in an adaption of the Dark Knight Returns... but there's flat out no way he'd ever do it.

 

[raybia]

Daniel Day Lewis would be awesome for an older Joker - say, in an adaption of the Dark Knight Returns... but there's flat out no way he'd ever do it.

That is what I thought to until this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5DlfrtZRM


Now of course this could mean that there is no way in hell that he would touch what he preceives as Ledger's role...or he could do it out of respect for the man.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Recast, and the new actor must give the SAME portrayal. I think it's disrespectful and just damn stupid for an actor to say he must put his own spin on the character. For another series yes, but for this- honour the way it's been portrayed in this series by continuing as is.

Edit:

Wow! that Manip above. We only saw the Joker without his makeup for a blurry two seconds. With or without makeup- Pierce looks like 'The Joker.' Plus he's a great actor.



Guy Pierce for the Joker.

If Joker is re-casted we can't see a imitation of Heaths Joker, that WOULD be stupid. Yea they should keep the little tics and get the voice similar but what made Heaths portrayel so good was that it was very personal, it was like a twisted version of himself. Whoever gets the gig needs to do what Heath did. Lock themselves away for a month and really dive into the character, become the Joker. Continuity doesn't matter, Joker throughout his history has spat in the face of continuity. Many comics (especially Arkham Asylum) say that Joker is constantly changing his personality slightly. I think that could be really interesting to see in film form. A constant menace who re-invents himself each movie, it would truly break the mould. Just think, Joker could be compared to constant antagonists like Jason and Freddy but slightly changing in each movie.

 

[gwynplaine]

If Joker is re-casted we can't see a imitation of Heaths Joker, that WOULD be stupid. Yea they should keep the little tics and get the voice similar but what made Heaths portrayel so good was that it was very personal, it was like a twisted version of himself. Whoever gets the gig needs to do what Heath did. Lock themselves away for a month and really dive into the character, become the Joker. Continuity doesn't matter, Joker throughout his history has spat in the face of continuity. Many comics (especially Arkham Asylum) say that Joker is constantly changing his personality slightly. I think that could be really interesting to see in film form. A constant menace who re-invents himself each movie, it would truly break the mould. Just think, Joker could be compared to constant antagonists like Jason and Freddy but slightly changing in each movie.

Yeah, whoever gets the gig, if that ever happens, should make the character their own. Cause following in Heath footsteps, would be silly, these are big clown shoes to fill.