The Dark Knight The Man Who Laughs: The Joker Thread 2.0

[sglass03]

In my opinion, I think the next villain that can generate huge buzz is Catwoman.

Ditto. Selina Kyle is a beloved character, and is just as old as the Joker in regards to her debut (1940.) All manner of actresses' names would be thrown around for the role, just as it was with the Joker, and there would be a similar discussion regarding whether said new actress could top Pfeiffer's turn in "Returns" (just as the argument exists now between Ledger and Nicholson.) So, in a way, it would be reliving all the Joker hype, only on a slightly smaller scale, so I think it would bring some amount of buzz to a third film.

Secondly, she could definitely work in Nolan's films. Not sure how much of the "cat" aspect he could carry over, but Loeb's version of Selina (the one from TLH, Dark Victory, Hush, When in Rome, etc.) could work perfectly in this set of movies: the dark-haired, sarcastic, wise-cracking, sexy, smart, and dangerous character we have yet to see portrayed on film. The other Catwomen we love - Pfeiffer's and the TAS version - weren't really near Loeb's, so it would be a fresh interpretation.

Furthermore, it would be easy to justify using the term "Catwoman," if that's anyone's fear here - think about it: even in our own real world, I could easily see newspapers dubbing a female cat burglar "The Cat Woman."

 

[Manosman]

Any one else see the reports that the Heath Joker figure, has sold out in New York area toys r us. Pretty crazy

 

[StylishHokie21]

Any one else see the reports that the Heath Joker figure, has sold out in New York area toys r us. Pretty crazy

Really? Interesting.

 

[Manosman]

Really? Interesting.

yeah i saw it on slashfilm and perezhilton, talk about two way different sites

 

[CrypticOne]

In my opinion, I think the next villain that can generate huge buzz is Catwoman.

How?

To me, seeing her in this universe of Batman (Nolan's), would have nothing to do in the story.

 

[Nightmare]

yeah i saw it on slashfilm and perezhilton, talk about two way different sites

Saw the same thing on perezhilton. Glad i got mine already.

 

[Nous]

Secondly, she could definitely work in Nolan's films. Not sure how much of the "cat" aspect he could carry over, but Loeb's version of Selina (the one from TLH, Dark Victory, Hush, When in Rome, etc.) could work perfectly in this set of movies: the dark-haired, sarcastic, wise-cracking, sexy, smart, and dangerous character we have yet to see portrayed on film. The other Catwomen we love - Pfeiffer's and the TAS version - weren't really near Loeb's, so it would be a fresh interpretation.

Furthermore, it would be easy to justify using the term "Catwoman," if that's anyone's fear here - think about it: even in our own real world, I could easily see newspapers dubbing a female cat burglar "The Cat Woman."

I agree.

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

I'm very disappointed to hear that the Joker is being written out, if it is true. I was actually warming up to the idea of a recast. I mean, yes, Ledger is going to turn out to be brilliant, there's no doubt about that. But the Joker as a character has existed for 68 years, and has been played by various actors. I guess what I'm getting at is that the character sort of transcends actors, and should not be limited to just one "definitive performance".

I don't want to see the Joker become an untouchable role because of Ledger. The man was a professional, not to mention a fan of the character, and wouldn't have wanted the buck to stop there.

Mind you, a recast would be walking a fine line. The actor cast cannot simply do a Heath Ledger impression, because that, above anything else, would be disrespectful. Something new should be brought to the role, because, anyway, it would be boring otherwise.

However, there should be some level of continuity, to where you can believe you're watching the same character. Which means the actor must be at least somewhat similar to Ledger in appearance, and have the acting chops to both do something different and keep in tact what Ledger did.

If they can do that, a recast could work, and work well. It would be almost symbolic, that the character transcends actors, in much the same way that James Bond (or perhaps a more analagous comparison, Ernst Stavro Blofeld) does.

Although, the actor would have to know that it would be a thankless role. Unless Ledger wins an Oscar or something, I doubt anyone would be likely to praise the new actor as good or better than Ledger. My point being, that if Ledger isn't properly recognized, the new actor never could be. It would be hard to live up to what Ledger created, and to try and out-do him would be an insult. Which is why I think the actor has to be good enough to fulfill the qualities above, but also understand that he's not trying to be better than Ledger.

Agreed.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I would loove to see Scarface & Ventriloquist....
I don't think he'd be strong enough to be focused as the main villain, but man oohh man think about how creepy Nolan can play with that whole concept haha

If they bring in The Ventriloquist & Scarface, it HAS to be the new female Ventroloquist.

Peyton Riley >>> Arnold Wesker

 

[Nous]

Agreed.

Seconded.

 

[SpiderB]

Ditto. Selina Kyle is a beloved character, and is just as old as the Joker in regards to her debut (1940.) All manner of actresses' names would be thrown around for the role, just as it was with the Joker, and there would be a similar discussion regarding whether said new actress could top Pfeiffer's turn in "Returns" (just as the argument exists now between Ledger and Nicholson.) So, in a way, it would be reliving all the Joker hype, only on a slightly smaller scale, so I think it would bring some amount of buzz to a third film.

Secondly, she could definitely work in Nolan's films. Not sure how much of the "cat" aspect he could carry over, but Loeb's version of Selina (the one from TLH, Dark Victory, Hush, When in Rome, etc.) could work perfectly in this set of movies: the dark-haired, sarcastic, wise-cracking, sexy, smart, and dangerous character we have yet to see portrayed on film. The other Catwomen we love - Pfeiffer's and the TAS version - weren't really near Loeb's, so it would be a fresh interpretation.

Furthermore, it would be easy to justify using the term "Catwoman," if that's anyone's fear here - think about it: even in our own real world, I could easily see newspapers dubbing a female cat burglar "The Cat Woman."

I just don't see Catwoman working in this franchise. I hate to say it, but anytime I see a hot female playing a criminal or villain in a movie, it takes me right out of it. I just can't take it seriously.

Undoubtedly, someone here is going to refer me to some real-life criminal hotties. So let me just say now: I'm not denying they exist. I'm just saying I don't find them believable or interesting as film characters.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ that's kind of a good point

maybe they could downplay the outright surface layer sex appeal and just concentate on making her a woman who knows her business. women like that are invariably sexy anyway.

 

[Crook]

In the third film we can get the fall of the mob, and the conclusion of Harvey Dent's/Two-Face's story. To me, it sounds perfect.

The fall of the mob was covered in BB, TDK is probably going to show the complete takeover of the "freaks", leaving the mob element a thing of the past. Going over it again in the third film just comes off as repetitive.

To me, seeing her in this universe of Batman (Nolan's), would have nothing to do in the story.

You don't know the story. Besides, are you under the impression Selina can't be written into one?

If they bring in The Ventriloquist & Scarface, it HAS to be the new female Ventroloquist.

Peyton Riley >>> Arnold Wesker

That's like going straight to Tim Drake instead of Dick Grayson.

I just don't see Catwoman working in this franchise. I hate to say it, but anytime I see a hot female playing a criminal or villain in a movie, it takes me right out of it. I just can't take it seriously.

Undoubtedly, someone here is going to refer me to some real-life criminal hotties. So let me just say now: I'm not denying they exist. I'm just saying I don't find them believable or interesting as film characters.

Well great. First time for everything. To this day, I find that most female roles in comic book films, are absolutely worthless, forced, intrusive, and generally badly cast.

Doesn't change the fact that there are exceptions to this rule, most notably Pheiffer, to a more recent and smaller extent, Paltrow. Just because the norm dictates a certain stigma, doesn't mean it's infallible to change.

 

[turtlefocker]

Cryptic, you make absolutely no sense.

 

[escobar2248]

How?

To me, seeing her in this universe of Batman (Nolan's), would have nothing to do in the story.

And your reasoning on that is??

 

[batman_gr]

oh I can see Catwoman on the ride.But it must combine the feeling of BR and the smartness of TLH as a character.we don't know who belongs in Nolan's world.But as far as Ventri is concerned he could be in it.But he's not such a famous villain outside of us bat-fans, so I assume it's Catwoman.
So I guess there's no chance of recasting the Joker eh?

 

[Gianakin_]

I want the Joker back. That having been said, I wouldn't mind seeing 2Face and Catwoman for BB3. I've wanted to see Nolan's take on Catwoman since BB.

 

[batman_gr]

I don't think we should take for granted that the Joker will not be back.

 

[The Joker]

Is there a specific reason why we need to have the Joker in the third movie?

 

[BruceWayne]

Is there a specific reason why we need to have the Joker in the third movie?

Depends on the story. I'd rather have TDK end with him being locked up in Arkham so there is at least a chance to have him back...I guess it all depends on the events that unfold at the end of this coming movie.

 

[Starbird]

He's just simply amazing..I think that's the reason why we need him.

Seriously, not any reason I could think of.

 

[batman_gr]

^ that sums it up.
ofcourse we need a reason for him to be back and that reason must be a part of the evolution of the story. I don't think Nolan will kill the Joker anyway.So far he has shown repsect to the comics.Lock him up in Arkham and let him loose at the end of the 3rd installment.

 

[Gianakin_]

Is there a specific reason why we need to have the Joker in the third movie?

Other than just wanting to see him again on-screen? Yes.

I'd like a movie where Gotham is overtaken by freaks, a full-fledged 2Face, Scarecrow and Joker teaming up or fighting against each other for their own purposes and Batman in the middle trying to figure out what the hell to do. I know we're getting something like this in TDK, but not with freaks. Only with the Joker vs. the mob (from what I know so far).

I'd also like to see a movie where Joker is a recurring villain, not just getting established.

Plus, if the rumors that they intended to include Joker in BB3 are true, he needs to be there, although it's early enough for a rewrite/refinement of the supposed trilogy's general outline.

 

[namtaB]

I'm very disappointed to hear that the Joker is being written out, if it is true. I was actually warming up to the idea of a recast. I mean, yes, Ledger is going to turn out to be brilliant, there's no doubt about that. But the Joker as a character has existed for 68 years, and has been played by various actors. I guess what I'm getting at is that the character sort of transcends actors, and should not be limited to just one "definitive performance".

I don't want to see the Joker become an untouchable role because of Ledger. The man was a professional, not to mention a fan of the character, and wouldn't have wanted the buck to stop there.

Mind you, a recast would be walking a fine line. The actor cast cannot simply do a Heath Ledger impression, because that, above anything else, would be disrespectful. Something new should be brought to the role, because, anyway, it would be boring otherwise.

However, there should be some level of continuity, to where you can believe you're watching the same character. Which means the actor must be at least somewhat similar to Ledger in appearance, and have the acting chops to both do something different and keep in tact what Ledger did.

If they can do that, a recast could work, and work well. It would be almost symbolic, that the character transcends actors, in much the same way that James Bond (or perhaps a more analagous comparison, Ernst Stavro Blofeld) does.

Although, the actor would have to know that it would be a thankless role. Unless Ledger wins an Oscar or something, I doubt anyone would be likely to praise the new actor as good or better than Ledger. My point being, that if Ledger isn't properly recognized, the new actor never could be. It would be hard to live up to what Ledger created, and to try and out-do him would be an insult. Which is why I think the actor has to be good enough to fulfill the qualities above, but also understand that he's not trying to be better than Ledger.

The actor should be able to rival Ledger, not try to out-do him. Simply, the actor just needs to do both the character and Ledger justice.

Also, if they bring the character back, they really need to do something with him. Don't just have him be there for the sake of being there. Give the actor something to do, so they're not just being cast to replace the dead guy (think about what Ed Wood did in Plan 9 from Outer Space. He basically hired someone who looked vaguely like Bela Lugosi, stuck him in a cape that obscured his face, and gave him no lines. That's what some people have suggested they do with the Joker, and it's exactly what they shouldn't do.)

Disagreed.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I REALLY want The Joker to return in the third film. But the more I think about it, the more I realise that I want this for selfish reasons.

The Joker is my favourite comic book character, so of course I want to see him in another movie. But when I think about it objectively, I fear that recasting Joker just to bring him back - and then trying to twist things around to fit him into the third film's narrative - could bring into action the law of diminishing returns. If this Joker is not going to match Heath Ledger's portrayal, isn't it better to let The Joker's role in "The Dark Knight" stand on its own merits?

It's not even an issue of "Oh no Heath Ledger's dead recasting him is sacrilege!" If his story wasn't complete, and they NEEDED a new Joker, I'd absolutely support it. But if they're just bringing him back because he's popular....eh, it's risky. Hannibal Lecter was great in "Silence of the Lambs". "Hannibal", not so much. Darth Vader was great in the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The prequels, not so much. Jack Sparrow was great in "Pirates of the Caribbean". The sequels, not so much. Maybe it's best if The Joker doesn't join that list?

Also, in terms of the franchise in general, perhaps its better if The Joker isn't around. It seems like The Joker's entrance in "The Dark Knight" will make that film a radically different beast from "Batman Begins". Similarly, introducing a new antagonist could help brand the third film with its own individual identity. And then we get the sense of each film in the trilogy being excellent on stand-alone merits, rather than 3 being too close a follow-up from 2.