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

[TheTrickster]

i've just gone back and read ketsuros post. you talking about the one about heath ledger?
look i loved what heath ledger done thats a given and R.I.P to him it really was unfortunate, but that still doen't sway my argument. how can he say the person who will replace him won't be as good though? it is impossible to judge at this point in time. it sorta reminds me of the people saying heath would be crap when he was first announced. obviously those people were proved to be wrong. how? by seeing the finished article.
to be honest IMO as a Batman fan, after what Nolan has done for the character i think it will be a huge dissapointment if he doesn't finish his tenure on the batman with the mother of all showdowns with the greatest comic book villain ever. i'm not a script writer i wouldn't know how to do, but i've put some ideas out there. But the Nolans are brilliant script writers and if they feel the joker should be in their LAST batman film then i would trust them 100% and so should everyone.

If ledger had screwed up the performance of the Joker then we probably wouldn't want him back. The reason we want to see the Joker again is that Ledger's perfomance was so good. Nolan and the comic book created the character, but it was Ledger who made it the highlight of TDK.

To get someone else to fill the role will ruin what the character was about. They won't bring the mannerisms that Ledger brought to the role and it'll not be the same.

The Joker is the greatest comic book villian, so let's keep it that way by having our last memory of him on the big screen the one we witnessed in TDK. Let's not leave things to chance.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

yea i agree with some of what you said. but there is no way for sure that if they re-cast the joker it'll be crap. i just think seeing as the third will be nolans last crack at the batman mythos he should go out on a high note and find a way to incorperate the joker into one last duel with batman.

 

[Gianakin_]

If ledger had screwed up the performance of the Joker then we probably wouldn't want him back. The reason we want to see the Joker again is that Ledger's perfomance was so good. Nolan and the comic book created the character, but it was Ledger who made it the highlight of TDK.

Agreed. It must be stressed, though, that the success of the TDK Joker was a combination of things. Ledger's acting was the most obvious, but not the only factor that made the Joker work.

To get someone else to fill the role will ruin what the character was about. They won't bring the mannerisms that Ledger brought to the role and it'll not be the same.

That's the thing, though. Different doesn't automatically mean bad. Personally, I don't really think that continuity issues can ruin a franchise. So, different (but good different) is ok with me.

The Joker is the greatest comic book villian, so let's keep it that way by having our last memory of him on the big screen the one we witnessed in TDK.

Perfectly understandable.

Let's not leave things to chance.

Nolan planning things carefully and running around is not chance. Obviously he'd have to be extra careful with this.
Ultimately, and that's where chance comes, it would be a big decision for him to go and tell Jonah: "Hey, we're bringing the Joker back", because that means the script will start to get written and the wheels will be in motion, never to stop.
But after that, it will all be in Chris Nolan's hands.

 

[Melkay]

yea i agree with some of what you said. but there is no way for sure that if they re-cast the joker it'll be crap. i just think seeing as the third will be nolans last crack at the batman mythos he should go out on a high note and find a way to incorperate the joker into one last duel with batman.

It can even be a great, terrific, magnificent film without the Joker.
Better than Begins and on top with TDK.
I think it has more opportunities to do this without the concern of doing a Joker recast and re-inclusion right.
You seem to think that the those things actually would help the third film.
Why do you believe that?

 

[TheTrickster]

yea i agree with some of what you said. but there is no way for sure that if they re-cast the joker it'll be crap. i just think seeing as the third will be nolans last crack at the batman mythos he should go out on a high note and find a way to incorperate the joker into one last duel with batman.

I would have loved to have seen it too, but i'm just worried that the person who is cast just doesn't captivate like Ledger did. It could be re-cast and we get another great actor, who gives us us take on the Joker, but it just my want really to have my last impression of the Joker as Ledgers.

 

[Melkay]

See Ace? It's been evaluated (leaning to criticism) without even having a name for the actor.

And the poll is the poll. Polls don't lie.
Whatever acting this performer can put up, is already going to be hardly evaluated. Even more pressure than what Ledger had upon him, because most people agree today that his performance was better than Nicholson's.
It's very hard to top.

 

[TheTrickster]

Agreed. It must be stressed, though, that the success of the TDK Joker was a combination of things. Ledger's acting was the most obvious, but not the only factor that made the Joker work.



That's the thing, though. Different doesn't automatically mean bad. Personally, I don't really think that continuity issues can ruin a franchise. So, different (but good different) is ok with me.



Perfectly understandable.



Nolan planning things carefully and running around is not chance. Obviously he'd have to be extra careful with this.
Ultimately, and that's where chance comes, it would be a big decision for him to go and tell Jonah: "Hey, we're bringing the Joker back", because that means the script will start to get written and the wheels will be in motion, never to stop.
But after that, it will all be in Chris Nolan's hands.

Different so soon can mean bad for a lot of the general audience. A lot of people feel wouldn't like it and WB are aiming to please a lot of folk at once. People forgot about Jack's joker after seeing Ledger's interpretation, but if the re-cast doesn't top Ledger's or at least on par with it, it could make the film less entertaining.

All in all i would like to see another villian tackled, just to see how the Nolan's write it. So far there interpretations have been succesful and i would like to see what they could do with other villains.

I'm with you on the chance comment. It was ill thought out and simply a reference to ace's sig.

 

[Gianakin_]

Different so soon can mean bad for a lot of the general audience. A lot of people feel wouldn't like it and WB are aiming to please a lot of folk at once. People forgot about Jack's joker after seeing Ledger's interpretation, but if the re-cast doesn't top Ledger's or at least on par with it, it could make the film less entertaining.

Unfortunately, I cannot believe that anyone can guarantee that at this point. So far it's the most persuasive (for lack of better word) argument against recasting.

All in all i would like to see another villian tackled, just to see how the Nolan's write it. So far there interpretations have been succesful and i would like to see what they could do with other villains.

Me too. All the way.

I'm with you on the chance comment. It was ill thought out and simply a reference to ace's sig.

Yes, I thought it might have been an answer to ace.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It can even be a great, terrific, magnificent film without the Joker.
Better than Begins and on top with TDK.
I think it has more opportunities to do this without the concern of doing a Joker recast and re-inclusion right.
You seem to think that the those things actually would help the third film.
Why do you believe that?

yea i understand that there is oppertunities for Nolan to explore other villains and i'm not saying he shouldn't. i understand all the reasons why re-casting the joker might not work. but it still doesn't sway me from the fact that in the Nolan brothers hands anything is possible and they could come up with a new and inventive role for the joker. why don't you understand that? who would of thought a period film about two magicians could be so dark and riveting and still seem futuristic but be set in the past? i bet no one thought that was possible but nolan pulled it off.
it comes down to this, IMHO i don't want to wait 10 years to see the joker in film again and IMHO i want to see Chris Nolan do something with the joker again, not whoever else takes over the batman mythos after he has gone.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Dogmatically? Haha, you call defending the side with most arguments 'dogmatically clinging'? You call writing paragraphs and paragraphs of arguments for an idea and actually asking for people to put that idea to test... dogmatic?

Are there doctors for these kind of things?

Okay, puns aside, what I'm really glad to see is that you could elude my attitude and find the correct arguments yourself, even if I had said them before but they didn't get to you because my attitud was in the middle.
Because you still stated some of the same arguments.
Incredible.

Common sense, it seems, is more common that what I came to believe.
Thank you for restoring my faith in good, Keyser. Thank you.

Life will be kind to you from now on.

You said them before? I was making these arguments - and on this thread too - long before you decided to come in here and bait people.

 

[Melkay]

You said them before? I was making these arguments - and on this thread too - long before you decided to come in here and bait people.

Perfectly fine then . It's hard enought to follow your comments since you're amking arguments on both sides of the fence.

I just don't want you feel "baited". I don't want you feeling pressure. If you you don't wanna argue, then don't. It's bad for our mojo

 

[Melkay]

yea i understand that there is oppertunities for Nolan to explore other villains and i'm not saying he shouldn't. i understand all the reasons why re-casting the joker might not work. but it still doesn't sway me from the fact that in the Nolan brothers hands anything is possible and they could come up with a new and inventive role for the joker. why don't you understand that? who would of thought a period film about two magicians could be so dark and riveting and still seem futuristic but be set in the past? i bet no one thought that was possible but nolan pulled it off.
it comes down to this, IMHO i don't want to wait 10 years to see the joker in film again and IMHO i want to see Chris Nolan do something with the joker again, not whoever else takes over the batman mythos after he has gone.

Why do you think that character, in the current state of the franchise, should be "new and inventive"?
Or, furthermore, why do you think the Nolans would want to do somehing new and inventive with the role, now they've finnally done the Joker they wanted to do?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i don't mean make the character new and inventive, i mean come up with a new and inventive purpose for him. like i've said before maybe he could take over arkham ala the graphic novel.
look it all boils down to this, I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!! if he isn't in the next one fine, i still go and see it because i love batman, but i will be dissapointed. some of your points are good and i understand them, i'm not blind to them just because you come across arrogant sometimes. but not matter what you or anyone says it will not change my mind, I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!! i came on this forum originally to speculate and put forward my ideas of what the joker could do in the next one, not get into schematics about whether it would be possible and all that crap. i've debated with you because i think it's healthy to debate. but as i said no matter what anyone says it won't change my mind.

 

[Melkay]

look it all boils down to this, I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!!

not matter what you or anyone says it will not change my mind, I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!!

no matter what anyone says it won't change my mind.

So, you're willing to sacrifice other things to see the Joker again?
Why?
And more importantly, why are you (seemingly) angry... now?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

lol i'm not angry i just put that sentance into capitals because that sums up how i feel.
well i havn't got the choice to sacrifice other things, i'm not the film-maker, and as i stated before Nolan is clever enough IMO to include the joker in some way without sacrificing other things. its all his choice, all we can do is speculate and in my case hope he finds a way. i believe he can, but obviously some others don't feel the same way, no problems its their opinion and i aint gonna slam them for it. i also stated i will still go and see the next one even if joker isn't in it, but there will always being that feeling inside me (and i guarentee many other people) that i wish the joker was in it. theres nothing wrong with feeling that way, it won't stop me judging the film for what it is. its just my personal opinion that I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!!!

 

[Melkay]

lol i'm not angry i just put that sentance into capitals because that sums up how i feel.
well i havn't got the choice to sacrifice other things, i'm not the film-maker, and as i stated before Nolan is clever enough IMO to include the joker in some way without sacrificing other things. its all his choice, all we can do is speculate and in my case hope he finds a way. i believe he can, but obviously some others don't feel the same way, no problems its their opinion and i aint gonna slam them for it. i also stated i will still go and see the next one even if joker isn't in it, but there will always being that feeling inside me (and i guarentee many other people) that i wish the joker was in it. theres nothing wrong with feeling that way, it won't stop me judging the film for what it is. its just my personal opinion that I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER 8-10 YEARS TO SEE THE JOKER ON FILM AGAIN!!!!!

Okay, that settles it then. End of the discussion. We got to the part where you yelled intensely the thing you desired, and acknowledged it that nothing that anybody would tell you, not even logical things, would make you change your mind. You want to see the Joker again, you don't want to wait. And you want to thing Christopher Nolan is a god, a god who can do these stuff without making compromises. Compromises as indisputable as consuming screen time or risking being seen as insensitive towards Ledger's death by a great deal of the audience. You won't pay attention to those reasons because you want, very desperately, to see the Joker once more.

You're being irrational. It's okay to defend those things you desire and believe in so much, it's okay. But it's better for a debate to acknowledge things like that. A debate with you won't get arrive to any ends because you don't want to get convinced. You want to be irrational about it and keep believing in what you want to believe "no matter what other people say to you".

I'm very sorry you feel that way, ace. No because of the debate. The importance of this pales in comparison to your desire of seeing him once again. It's not for the debate.
It's because Nolan has proven to be very smart and very careful, and WB producers have not irrational but passionate desires like you do. The most likely thing is that you won't get to see the Joker in the next film. The most probable ting is that you won't see him anymore for about 6-7 years. And I'm sorry for that, because you seem to feel very strongly about the Joker showing up again. I'm sorry.

My advice: either make peace with the odds and lower your expectations, or, well, see those predictions unfold.
And you're right, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way.
Let's just end the debate here, because it's not a debate you're looking for. You're looking for comments that help you imagine a third film Joker.

Take care. I'm sorry.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

lol no need to feel sorry.
i'm not saying that i'm not going to like the next film if joker aint in it, i love batman to much to be like that. and i understand its more unlikely that joker won't appear again. its just a personal preferance, theres no way you or anyone can change my mind, i'll listen to and understand arguments why he shouldn't but i'll still have that feeling in my gut that i want him to return, simple as that. our debates were pretty good so yea i think we should just leave it at that.

 

[Keyser Soze]

As far as The Joker in part three goes, if he doesn't show up, we'll still have "The Dark Knight". Perhaps filmgoers today have been too cultivated to view film in terms of franchise, rather than as standalone pieces of cinema. Nolan has long talked about how he wants these films to work on their own merits, rather than being too closely linked to each other - because then it's like making a TV series.

"The Dark Knight" is markedly different from "Batman Begins". So perhaps the third film will be just as radically different, and a complete shift in the villainy front could help underline that. And if anything, it makes "The Dark Knight" even more special, as it becomes THE Joker film. The villains of the third film will likely not be up to the same standard. But if Nolan chooses to put his thematic focus elsewhere, perhaps that will not detract too much from the quality of the film.

And remember - filmmakers have been faced with the challenge of moving forward with a Batman sequel without The Joker before. And as brilliant as Jack Nicholson's Joker was, even without him, I feel "Batman Returns" was even better than "Batman".

 

[Doc Samson]

I just have a problem with this sentence...

"Joker doesn't return : Oh no, this movie suffers from the missing component that made Nolan's TDK so great, the diabolical Joker!"

I don't know if you're either overrating the Joker, or underrating TDK. Maybe both.

Got a question for you... what would have been more fatal for the franchise... the death of Ledger, or the death of Nolan?
A matter of opinions, of course, I don't expect real answers here.

I was simply stating the stance that I know critics & probably some fans or moviegoers will use to tear down the next movie. My whole point of that final paragraph was to show the different scenarios they'll use to discredit the next film regardless of the Joker returning or not. Almost anytime a number 2 in a trilogy is this huge, it goes without saying that the third will be overly criticized without merit. Throw on the fact of Ledger's death on top of all this, and the same factors that made a bunch of people (who probably never even saw Batman Begins) praise TDK will be the same factors that will allow them to bash the next movie. I think we can all admit that Heath's passing had a big effect on people wanting to see this, this movie would've been big regardless, but no doubt, his death made even more people with only a passing concern stop and take notice. Without him now, bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism, and not bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism because then people will act like the Joker made TDK successful singlehandedly, which I never agreed with. But I do know the Joker had alot to do with it

 

[TheFuture]

I was simply stating the stance that I know critics & probably some fans or moviegoers will use to tear down the next movie. My whole point of that final paragraph was to show the different scenarios they'll use to discredit the next film regardless of the Joker returning or not. Almost anytime a number 2 in a trilogy is this huge, it goes without saying that the third will be overly criticized without merit. Throw on the fact of Ledger's death on top of all this, and the same factors that made a bunch of people (who probably never even saw Batman Begins) praise TDK will be the same factors that will allow them to bash the next movie. I think we can all admit that Heath's passing had a big effect on people wanting to see this, this movie would've been big regardless, but no doubt, his death made even more people with only a passing concern stop and take notice. Without him now, bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism, and not bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism because then people will act like the Joker made TDK successful singlehandedly, which I never agreed with. But I do know the Joker had alot to do with it

My concern is continuity, and every person who I've brought this up with has said "there is a healthy median between mimicry and stamping one's authority on a character." When I've asked how this can be done, they have no idea as to how it can be done.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I was simply stating the stance that I know critics & probably some fans or moviegoers will use to tear down the next movie. My whole point of that final paragraph was to show the different scenarios they'll use to discredit the next film regardless of the Joker returning or not. Almost anytime a number 2 in a trilogy is this huge, it goes without saying that the third will be overly criticized without merit. Throw on the fact of Ledger's death on top of all this, and the same factors that made a bunch of people (who probably never even saw Batman Begins) praise TDK will be the same factors that will allow them to bash the next movie. I think we can all admit that Heath's passing had a big effect on people wanting to see this, this movie would've been big regardless, but no doubt, his death made even more people with only a passing concern stop and take notice. Without him now, bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism, and not bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism because then people will act like the Joker made TDK successful singlehandedly, which I never agreed with. But I do know the Joker had alot to do with it

Yeah, it's a real Catch-22. Whether he leaves Joker out, or he recasts him, Nolan's going to be eating s**t from some people.

 

[Firm18]

I'd like to see a scene where Bat's goes to Arkham, or somehow sneeks in so nobody sees him and he walks threw cells and we got a closeup on to the Joker cell where it's dark, just a little desk lamp lighting up a desk with cards all over it and Jokers hands. Than Batman stops, looks in to the cell and close up to Jokers mouth, he smiles. Batman keeps on walking.

 

[Melkay]

Yeah, it's a real Catch-22. Whether he leaves Joker out, or he recasts him, Nolan's going to be eating s**t from some people.

Fortunately, he will have to eat more s**t if he does the recast, according to our little poll here in the thread. And that's just among Batman Fans.

Unfortunately, regular movie-goers outnumber batman fans by the millions. And regular movie-goers, thank to the media, are more fan of Ledger than of the character.

Not real Catch-22. Less people will complain if there's no recast.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Fortunately, he will have to eat more s**t if he does the recast, according to our little poll here in the thread. And that's just among Batman Fans.

Unfortunately, regular movie-goers outnumber batman fans by the millions. And regular movie-goers, thank to the media, are more fan of Ledger than of the character.

Not real Catch-22. Less people will complain if there's no recast.

I don't think there's going to be much complaining either way....if they do it right. The pro-recast crowd might be stung by no Joker in the third film, but I'm sure other villains given respectful, compelling treatment should help ease the pain. And on the other hand, the anti-recast crowd will be down on whoever gets brought in to play The Joker if they do a recast, but a strong performance and a meaty role in the film that enhances the narrative would go far to sweeten the bitter pill.

In the end, it all depends on the quality of the film. Before TDK, there was a whole lot of complaining and nitpicking about The Joker not being permawhite, or Batman's suit not looking right. But since the movie was amazing, such issues ended up being irrelevant. Whatever happens, if a third film is even in the same league as "The Dark Knight", quality-wise, I don't see there being many complaints for The Joker's inclusion/exclusion.

 

[Melkay]

I think we can all admit that Heath's passing had a big effect on people wanting to see this, this movie would've been big regardless, but no doubt, his death made even more people with only a passing concern stop and take notice. Without him now, bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism, and not bringing the Joker back will draw unjust criticism because then people will act like the Joker made TDK successful singlehandedly, which I never agreed with. But I do know the Joker had alot to do with it

So, to sum things up: You are afraid that the third movie won't be as good as the third, and you want to resort to bringing back the Joker in order to attenuate that.
Right?

If the third movie is not as good as TDK, with Joker included, I can only hope Cognitive Dysonance doesn't get to you.

Me, well... I'm still dealing with the idea, because I find it very similar to the following situation (read it, humor me):

TITLE: The Beginning Of The End
CHARACTERS: - Avi Arad
- Sam Raimi

A.A: "Sam, you know you're gonna have a very, very difficult time topping Spider-Man 3. You know it. It's an almost impossible task."
S.M: "I know, but what can I do?"
A.A: "You can go back to what made the people love the comics. You can put in the movie the most popular character from the comics, the one that made people love them. Who's that character?"
S.M: "Venom."
A.A: "Exactly. You gotta stick with what works. Venom is a fantastic characters in the comics, and you know that most of the success of the stories is because of his relationship with Spider-Man."
S.M: "But adding Venom will consume screen time that we could us in other tings. In fleshing out Sandman better, for example."
A.A: "The character of Sandman won't ever be as good Venom and you know it."
S.M: "But..."
A.A: "Sam... if you want the movie to be as good as SM2, this is what needs to be done."
S.M: "But I'm not sure if a I can pull it out... putting Venom in this movie is difficult."
A.A: "You'll find a way. You gave us an splendid SM2... a movie that many people consider the best of the genre. If you could do that, you'll find a way of adding Venom."
S.M: "But if I'm that good... couldn't I be able to do a great movie without Venom."
A.A: "Sammy... you don't get it! Millions of fans want to see Venom. Even more importantly, they want a third film that's BETTER than SM2. They want a third film that can finally surpass its previous installment. And that's very hard. You won't be able to do it as good as you can without doing what worked in the comics.... You need Venom."
S.M: "..."
A.A: "..."
S.M: "You're right, Avi. You're right. I understand.... I'll do it."


Go watch Spider-Man 3 again.