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

[baleheadbrasil]

Between Two Faces and Joker back...I vote for Joker back.
Two-Faces is definately DEAD!

 

[Marx]

I think the third movie should move on to other characters. (Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, Black Mask, etc.)

The Joker should only be mentioned on GCN in a passing segment about how the trial is going/concluded. Then show a brief cameo of Joker in the courtroom.

 

[regwec]

Why do you want The Joker to be hushed up that much? Don't you feel that Batman's opposite number ought to occupy a significant role in his last adventure?

 

[Doctor Jones]

People suggesting that Dent come back need to have their heads examined. It completely ruins the whole point of Batman's act and pretty much the biggest point about the film. No way Nolan would do that.

 

[Infinity9999x]

People suggesting that Dent come back need to have their heads examined. It completely ruins the whole point of Batman's act and pretty much the biggest point about the film. No way Nolan would do that.

I agree, Two Face can't be brought back now. But it's the original decision to kill him off that I disagree with. The ending in TDK wasn't good enough for me to reconcile the fact that they killed off a character with so much untapped potential.

 

[Marx]

Why do you want The Joker to be hushed up that much? Don't you feel that Batman's opposite number ought to occupy a significant role in his last adventure?

...because the story has alot of different ways it can go now. If this is really Nolan and company's last Batman movie, why not expand the story instead of rehashing the Joker again? There's nothing wrong with a courtroom cameo of Joker on GCN being the most Joker sees in Batman 3.

 

[Brother Jack]

I agree, Two Face can't be brought back now. But it's the original decision to kill him off that I disagree with. The ending in TDK wasn't good enough for me to reconcile the fact that they killed off a character with so much untapped potential.

Oh, but it was. If they had done the same story in TDK without killing Two-Face off there wouldn't be much for the character to do in a sequel. He did all that he set out to do, which was punish the people responsible for Rachel's death and, in a way, punish himself. He was a man bent on destruction, and so without that conclusion given to him in TDK he is useless in the scope of Nolan's story. It's just the way the character was handled, as a crazy vigilante rather than a crazy criminal with a split-personality.

 

[weezerspider]

yah, If Two-Face wasn't killed off, his character in the movie would have to be like 85% completely re-written for it to work. Heck, a good portion of the plot would have to change for it to make plausible sense.

 

[Crook]

...

Two-Face's arc (which is part of Harvey's arc) begun and ended in the span of 20 or so minutes. How is removing that subplot from the film destroying whatever was shown beforehand? It completely changes how TDK ends, yes, but speaking purely of Harvey...what exactly is ruined?

 

[weezerspider]

...

Two-Face's arc (which is part of Harvey's arc) begun and ended in the span of 20 or so minutes. How is removing that subplot from the film destroying whatever was shown beforehand? It completely changes how TDK ends, yes, but speaking purely of Harvey...what exactly is ruined?

Well it depends, are you talking just of Two-face, or of Harvey AND Two-face?
If its of Harvey AND Two-face then yes, it does change the whole movie to an extent. If its just of two-face, then the whole last act would have to change. Sure they can still have the whole Ferries incident, but Joker no longer has his Ace in the hole. Also the way the character has been written in TDK, he only wants revenge for his girlfriend's death. His character would need to be re-written for him to reign over Gotham for another whole film. Thats weak story-telling and it wouldn't hold up Batman 3 if all Harvey wants is revenge for Rachel's death, which is why I say, if you don't kill him, there is a lot of rewrites that need to be done for it to work properly.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Oh, but it was. If they had done the same story in TDK without killing Two-Face off there wouldn't be much for the character to do in a sequel. He did all that he set out to do, which was punish the people responsible for Rachel's death and, in a way, punish himself. He was a man bent on destruction, and so without that conclusion given to him in TDK he is useless in the scope of Nolan's story. It's just the way the character was handled, as a crazy vigilante rather than a crazy criminal with a split-personality.

And that is exactly what i dislike about the character. Two-Face could have done so much more in another movie. And I'm not talking about the corny "I will rob two banks on a tuesday" kind of thing. I'm talking about the characters deep seeded obsession with duality, the light and dark in all people and all things. The split personality, handled in the Nolan way, could have been amazing to watch, and we never even got into the backstory of his parents.

There were so many things that could have been with the character. But instead we got a bare-bones treatment. And I'm sorry, but I'll take the comic book version of two-face over the one we got in the movie any day. Nolan handled Harvey Dent very well, but his Two-Face was incredibly lacking.

I love TDK, but honestly, Two-Face is one of the best examples of wasted potential in a good movie.

 

[Brother Jack]

The thing is, Nolan didn't treat Two-Face and Harvey Dent as two separate characters within the same man, which a lot of writers have done. Instead they are both essentially the same guy, just with inverted philosophies on themselves, life, and justice. I prefer this characterization especially from a storytelling perspective. It makes his turn towards evil more believable and, in a way, tragic.

 

[Crook]

Well it depends, are you talking just of Two-face, or of Harvey AND Two-face?
If its of Harvey AND Two-face then yes, it does change the whole movie to an extent. If its just of two-face, then the whole last act would have to change. Sure they can still have the whole Ferries incident, but Joker no longer has his Ace in the hole. Also the way the character has been written in TDK, he only wants revenge for his girlfriend's death. His character would need to be re-written for him to reign over Gotham for another whole film. Thats weak story-telling and it wouldn't hold up Batman 3 if all Harvey wants is revenge for Rachel's death, which is why I say, if you don't kill him, there is a lot of rewrites that need to be done for it to work properly.

I was referring to just Two-Face. But the issue you bring up is stemmed from my issue with the handling of the character in general. Two-Face isn't and shouldn't be relegated to a madman out for revenge. Or a personal vendetta. That goes against his very existence, imo. For this type of arc, it might have worked (given the time). Arguably however, there was a lot of groundwork they just plain ignored that would have been gold for a sequel.

The thing is, Nolan didn't treat Two-Face and Harvey Dent as two separate characters within the same man, which a lot of writers have done. Instead they are both essentially the same guy, just with inverted philosophies on themselves, life, and justice. I prefer this characterization especially from a storytelling perspective. It makes his turn towards evil more believable and, in a way, tragic.

Hey now, I don't see what is psychologically unbelievable with how his turn in TLH was depicted. If we're talking about tragedy, I'd greatly argue the book did it better. Here are two great posts I quickly looked up that sums up my feelings on the character:

Harvey is suppose to a causality of the war on crime. That is suppose to be what haunts Batman - not that Harvey Dent was Bruce Wayne's college pal.

Its important that Harvey Dent, the true Hero of Gotham, the District Attorney that is actually bringing down crime in his city, is scarred IN HIS HOUSE. On his ground. It shows that there is no place in Gotham safe from crime and darkness - not even in a courthouse. In Gotham there is no justice.

No one said that Harvey becomes crazy simply because of his scarring. The Long Halloween's Harvey had a history of mental problems - however he had overcome his own demons. Fully. Until he was in a position where he had the power to actually confront the evil of his city. It wasn't the acid alone that ruins Harvey Dent, it is the pressure, the stress of Gotham. It is the fact that his entire career has worked up to one point - the conviction of Carmine Falcone - and when that dream is inches away from reality, it is taken away from him IN HIS COURTROOM. It is THAT moment that destroy's Harvey's sense of right and wrong.

Stress and trauma alone does not make monsters. We all have a dark side in some way or another, and we all make choices about who to be, and that is something THE DARK KNIGHT should play with. How some of us control it, how others repress it in unhealthy ways, and how others let it out, and why. And the cost of doing such things. I think downplaying Harvey's darkside does the character a massive disservice. Evil is not something that happens to you. It's something you choose to become. You choose to harm, and to take revenge. And that is Harvey Dent's journey. It's a tragedy, but in th end, it's tragic because of the path he chooses.

I don't want the Golden Boy character. I want a pre-existing obsession, and a dark side. Not a psychotic side, but a dark side, that grows and grows, until turns. Let's not forget that Harvey Dent did things that could be considered evil in THE LONG HALLOWEEN before he ever became Two-Face. His obsession with bringing justice to those he considered guilty ruined him. I want the most complex version of the character. I don't want some perfect man who just goes insane because of acid. I want someone who struggled to be a good man, who had a dark side because of his obsession, who hid that side of himself from the world and repressed that dark side until it grew, and who later on used what happened to him as an excuse to do wrong, to seek revenge. Essentially, when his world crumbles, and he finds himself filled with hate and rage, as an excuse to act on his darker impulses.

I thought for the scale of TDK, and the time it was allotted, they did a pretty good job with introducing Harvey. My issue is it could've been expanded so much more over the course of the franchise. I really do think it's a shame he comes and goes over the period of one film. Harvey should have been in BB, TDK, and have his full turn in B3. No one expected it to be that abrupt. We all practically expected Two-Face to be the villain for the next one.

But I guess there's not too much backlash because the character was relatively handled well and not butchered. But that is not to say I think they covered every ground that was significant, as say, they did with Joker.

 

[darknight7]

I don't see why there are people against the Joker coming back.

Darth Vader was in all 3 Star Wars, and he just got better every time. And he was one of the greatest villains of all time.

The way I see it, the more Joker, the better. If Ledger didn't die. It wouldn't even be a question, he would have been back 100% no questions asked

--dk7

 

[Marx]

I don't see why there are people against the Joker coming back.

Darth Vader was in all 3 Star Wars, and he just got better every time. And he was one of the greatest villains of all time.

The way I see it, the more Joker, the better. If Ledger didn't die. It wouldn't even be a question, he would have been back 100% no questions asked

--dk7

If Heath Ledger were still alive, I would feel alot different. I think it's obvious Nolan had more plans for Joker...but I think the story could expand well beyond the Joker now.

 

[Johnny Drama]

I would like to see Joker and Ra's Al Ghul to cap off the enjd of Nolans trilogy.

If they go with new characters, Black mask with a Joker cameo.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

We got plenty of enough Joker in TDK to satisfy my appetite. Plus, its not fair to the actor who would be cast to play the Joker, since he'd have to do an impression, rather than put their own spin on it. The Joker isn't some actual historic character, so there are many ways to play him and I know I wouldn't want to just copy Ledger. Who would want that job? There's no way they could just change the Joker's attitude and persona, because Ledger created such a great version, ignoring it would be ridiculous.

Now, I don't wanna sound holier than thou, but anyone who thinks that Two-Face should be brought back for a third movie just doesn't get it. Why ruin the greatest ending to any comic book movie, ever? With Two-Face being brought back, the sacrifice Batman makes becomes hollow, as it wouldn't mean ****. Plus, what would Two-Face do?

"You think I wanna escape from this? There is no escape from this!"

Had Batman not stopped him, no matter what the outcome of the coin flip had been, he would have thrown up his hands and let himself be arrested. He even put the gun to his own head, and flipped the coin. He was perfectly fine with killing himself right then and there. His character and story is over.

 

[Bats]

I don't disagree with anything you said regarding Dent/Two-Face. From what I said earlier, I think Two-Face in B3 would be good only to haunt Batman & how he handles that. Not sure if I'd want him to be a big part of the story as he was in TDK though.

I think that fake(?) article posted recently about the next film mentioned the Joker (seen in shadow in his cell) taunting Batman as he walks by. Just seeing all these demons taunting the Caped Crusader constantly would be interesting.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't see why there are people against the Joker coming back.

Darth Vader was in all 3 Star Wars, and he just got better every time. And he was one of the greatest villains of all time.

The way I see it, the more Joker, the better. If Ledger didn't die. It wouldn't even be a question, he would have been back 100% no questions asked

--dk7

Yeah, Ledger would've been back, but only Goyer and the Nolans know how significant a role he would've played.

 

[Brother Jack]

Hey now, I don't see what is psychologically unbelievable with how his turn in TLH was depicted. If we're talking about tragedy, I'd greatly argue the book did it better. Here are two great posts I quickly looked up that sums up my feelings on the character:

Not saying it is. In fact TLH is, in my opinion, the single best Two-Face story ever in the comics. And it's influence can easily be seen in TDK with Harvey's arc. But the stories and characterizations are not the same, and they both excel in different ways. We got more of him in TLH because it was basically his story; TDK wasn't. He is very important to the plot of the film yes, but the story is ultimately Batman's.

 

[Crook]

I'd actually say Harvey was single-handedly the heart of the film, and his arc was more important than Batman's.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Ive been trying to find a suitable approach at bringing Harvey back. People think that if Harvey returned,it would eliminate TDK's meaning of the ending.

No. It was never about Batman giving that speech because of Harvey dying,even if he had survived,Batman would have still took the blame. Both Batman and Gordon understood Harveys importance to the City,and it was inevitable after Two"Face's crimes,Batman knew he had to do something from the off.

So I think Harvey will return,but I dont think Gordon would lock him up in Arkham.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Double

 

[Infinity9999x]

The thing is, Nolan didn't treat Two-Face and Harvey Dent as two separate characters within the same man, which a lot of writers have done. Instead they are both essentially the same guy, just with inverted philosophies on themselves, life, and justice. I prefer this characterization especially from a storytelling perspective. It makes his turn towards evil more believable and, in a way, tragic.

I don't like this take. I think Two-Face is much, much more then a revenge driven Harvey Dent. And I don't think either situation is any more or less believable. When you read some of the stuff his dad did to him, I can perfectly understand why Harvey had a psychotic break.

 

[Brother Jack]

I'd actually say Harvey was single-handedly the heart of the film, and his arc was more important than Batman's.

He was a plot device. A very well developed plot device yes, but a plot device all the same. He was there to further define Batman/Bruce Wayne.