The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 142

[TheBat812]

No, Joker conceded at the end of TDK that Batman was incorruptible, and because of that and the fact that Joker would not kill Batman, it meant they were destined to do battle forever.

Joker wanted to win the battle for Gotham's soul. Because his ace in the hole for that victory was covered up by Batman and Gordon, his work was FAR from done. He wuld not have sat idly by and let that go on indefinitely.

The Joker had more justification to come back than the LOS did. Begins ended it with them defeated. Bruce even said in TDKR that Ra's was the LOS and he beat him. Bane and Talia did not hail from Begins in any way, and were made up creations in TDKR.

Yes, but Bruce has been wrong before, and that was important. A huge point of using the LOS is that it's a stronger idea thematically that there are many with the goal to fix the wrongs in society from the inside, not by some outside force. This was a huge part of Bruce's journey as a person. Bringing back the Joker to once again try to win the battle for Gotham's soul is not exactly a fresher idea than bringing back the LOS. And it's weaker thematically. But I probably still would have loved it, haha.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, but Bruce has been wrong before, and that was important. A huge point of using the LOS is that it's a stronger idea thematically that there are many with the goal to fix the wrongs in society from the inside, not by some outside force. This was a huge part of Bruce's journey as a person. Bringing back the Joker to once again try to win the battle for Gotham's soul is not exactly a fresher idea than bringing back the LOS. And it's weaker thematically. But I probably still would have loved it, haha.

Bruce being wrong before doesn't justify bringing them back. It was the same theme as Batman Begins in them trying to destroy Gotham with a Wayne Enterprises device, and an Al Ghul pretending to be someone they are not. Only difference was a long drawn out siege where nothing happened except a few murders of Cops and rich people.

There was more that could have been done with the Joker besides blowing the lid off the Harvey Dent cover up (which did not go anywhere interesting when Bane did it), he also had big intentions of bringing a "better class of criminal" to Gotham. Frankly I'd have loved to see that over a peace time Gotham with issues about upper class wealth. Gotham was a lot more interesting when it was rife with crime and corruption.

 

[Hawkeye70000000]

People can argue about how the joker would have made a better villain than the LoS or that the joker should have been mentioned in the film. The death of Heath hindered Nolan's plans for the batman saga he was creating. Not mentioning the character or even replacing the joker with someone else would have been disrespectful to Heath and his performance from tdk in the eyes of Chris Nolan.

 

[TheBat812]

Bruce being wrong before doesn't justify bringing them back. It was the same theme as Batman Begins in them trying to destroy Gotham with a Wayne Enterprises device, and an Al Ghul pretending to be someone they are not. Only difference was a long drawn out siege where nothing happened except a few murders of Cops and rich people.

That is not a theme, but I think there was obvious symmetry to Ra's plan on purpose from Bane and talia.

There was more that could have been done with the Joker besides blowing the lid off the Harvey Dent cover up (which did not go anywhere interesting when Bane did it), he also had big intentions of bringing a "better class of criminal" to Gotham. Frankly I'd have loved to see that over a peace time Gotham with issues about upper class wealth. Gotham was a lot more interesting when it was rife with crime and corruption.

When he talked about bringing a better class of criminal, he's talking about those who do it for reasons other than money or power. Bringing in Bane and Talia delivers on that promise. But it's also a line that he says in referring mainly just to himself - it's not necessarily that he wanted many more criminals like him, he just thought of himself as being more than a superficial criminal.

And yes, I agree Joker did much more than that - he made Bruce and Gordon both compromise their values, thus winning. His job was done. He had made the three people who were Gothams' hope turn against what they believed in.



Look I'm sure the Nolans could have found a way to do it well. I just don't really think it's that obvious that they would have. I'm sure the studio would have wanted it, and they would have tried it. But at the end of the day, I haven't heard a single example or reason the third film would be better for it (besides the obvious that Joker is awesome).

 

[The Joker]

That is not a theme, but I think there was obvious symmetry to Ra's plan on purpose from Bane and talia.

It's the same plan, just executed slightly differently (the siege).

When he talked about bringing a better class of criminal, he's talking about those who do it for reasons other than money or power.

I know. Rather obvious considering he just burned a huge pile of money and then said to the Chechen; "All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal, and I'm going to give it to them".

Bringing in Bane and Talia delivers on that promise.

How? They just wanted to destroy Gotham. The Joker never ever wanted that.

But it's also a line that he says in referring mainly just to himself - it's not necessarily that he wanted many more criminals like him, he just thought of himself as being more than a superficial criminal.

Obviously he was referring to himself, but it seemed obvious he was also talking about inspiring other criminals for the same. TDK was all about inspiration and reactions. Batman inspired copycats. Joker was the reaction to Batman. Dent inspired Gotham's hope more than Batman could etc. When Joker talks about better classes of criminal, it seemed obvious he was talking about more than just himself.

And yes, I agree Joker did much more than that - he made Bruce and Gordon both compromise their values, thus winning. His job was done. He had made the three people who were Gothams' hope turn against what they believed in.

Indeed. But without Gotham's people knowing that, he was denied his ultimate victory. The way they left him alive, captured, knowing what Dent had become, and saying he and Batman were destined for a life long battle, it left the strong impression/message that Joker was not done.

Heath's death put an end to it.

Look I'm sure the Nolans could have found a way to do it well. I just don't really think it's that obvious that they would have. I'm sure the studio would have wanted it, and they would have tried it. But at the end of the day, I haven't heard a single example or reason the third film would be better for it (besides the obvious that Joker is awesome).

Much like I haven't heard a single reason why retreading the LOS was a good idea other than the "full circle" excuse which is not needed to make a trilogy feel connected and complete.

The Joker had unfinished work which we saw happen in TDK. It got covered up. Begins didn't leave anything like that dangling with the LOS. As far as it was concerned the only dangling threads left there was Crane on the loose. But it also set up future plot threads like a new D.A. being needed since Finch was murdered, the escalation Gordon mentioned, a new mob boss to fill in for Falcone, and the Joker card at the end. Like any good sequel, TDK dealt with all of that. It felt like a natural organic progression of the story in Batman Begins.

Bane and Talia were not hinted at in any way in Begins. They were created in TDKR.

 

[Ryan]

I find it odd that I've never read an interview or seen an interview where the question was simply asked "were there intentions for the Joker to be in the third film". It seems like such a natural question to have been asked along the way. The only thing I can think of is that maybe Nolan instructs interviewers to not ask that question.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I find it odd that I've never read an interview or seen an interview where the question was simply asked "were there intentions for the Joker to be in the third film". It seems like such a natural question to have been asked along the way. The only thing I can think of is that maybe Nolan instructs interviewers to not ask that question.

It wasn't asked because LONG before Nolan started promotion of the film he made it very clear that The Joker would not be mentioned.

Nobody was expecting it.

 

[ChocheTheHero]

I compiled over 70 visual throwbacks in TDKR. Enjoy!!!

[YT]TKdjsu4-704[/YT]

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I compiled over 70 visual throwbacks in TDKR. Enjoy!!!

[YT]TKdjsu4-704[/YT]

Some of those are very far reaching... but otherwise very cool.

 

[Hawkeye70000000]

I find it odd that I've never read an interview or seen an interview where the question was simply asked "were there intentions for the Joker to be in the third film". It seems like such a natural question to have been asked along the way. The only thing I can think of is that maybe Nolan instructs interviewers to not ask that question.

Nolan didn't intend to do anything for the third let alone whether the joker would be involved. During an interview with goyer, I believe, said Nolan didn't want to do the second but Jonathan and him convinced him to do it. So when he did the third film Nolan also was unsure about doing a third film as well. If he had any intentions of working with Heath, which I believe he would have, in a third film was no longer an option.

 

[Ryan]

It wasn't asked because LONG before Nolan started promotion of the film he made it very clear that The Joker would not be mentioned.

Nobody was expecting it.

Oh I read the various interviews where Nolan stated the Joker would not be mentioned in the film. What I'm wondering is why no one has asked whether there was any intention for Heath to return as the Joker had he lived.
I've also heard this back and forth about there was a plan and there wasn't a plan to do this trilogy with no definitive answer. I believe that even in the Dark Knight Trilogy Screenplay book, it goes back and forth between goyer and the nolans that there was no plan, everything was put into each movie with no intention of a sequel, to talk about how their were intentions for sequels. I dont' know the source of the interview, but some said there had been talk of Dent to be the main villain in the third movie. Someone also said that Goyer stated that the joker being in the third movie was a no brainer. So much stuff floats around and it would be nice for a straight answer one way or the other. I personally thought that TDK set itself up for a sequel more so then BB did. BB ended with the joker card, and we could be left with the imagination of what batman going after the joker would have been. Ending TDK with Batman as a murderer spoke louder to me that his name would have to be cleared in a third movie.

 

[BatLobster]

Personally, I think Goyer was speaking out of common sense, not any specific plan when he said it was a no-brainer. Like, obviously Heath was amazing and created a phenomenon with his performance, it's only natural that they'd want to work with him again if he had lived.

I think it's all one giant "What if?", rather than a Plan A, Plan B situation.

 

[Hawkeye70000000]

I am sure Nolan would have found a way to use the joker if Heath didn't die. Nolan liked his acting so much that he had chosen Heath to be batman, but he had turned it down. With the second movie movie, Heath playing the joker was astounding that ,as long as Heath would have had been up for it, would mostly played a part in the third movie. While Nolan created tdk to be movie without it being a continuation to another movie like LOTR, it did end up being able to build upon tdk villains into another movie.

 

[BlueLightning]

No Scarecrow mask, no fear gas, it didn't feel like a Scarecrow cameo. If anyone was suited for that kind of role it was Joker;

Can you offer another example outside the animated series? I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but doesn't seem like a very solid reason.

What makes you think the story would have turned out the way it did if Heath was still alive? What makes you so sure the LOS would have been brought back, or even a siege of Gotham would have been done?

I didn't. This is what I wrote:

And as for The Joker going unmentioned, I believe that if Heath had not passed away, he would have gotten a cameo for this film.

I have stated previously that if the Joker where around, the story would have to been shaped different.

Well then there was no point in mentioning Harvey Dent, Rachel, or Bruce's parents either by that logic.

From an in-story point of view makes some sense. Why would they be still talking about a criminal who did everything he did? But either way, the mayor mentioned Batman who murdered Harvey Dent so my point is moot.

As if a verbal reference to him from the events of TDK could be called an unjustified tease.

I don't really know, he is just a great character. As you said, he did a lot of horrendous things in TDK, if the Joker was mentioned I would have wanted to know where he was. Then why he wasn't showed upon Bane's revolution. What happened to Arkham? In Rises it would have been unnecesary.

But arguing this is useless, because we acknowledge that Rises was made months after TDK was completed and premiered. We know that Nolan wasn't gonna mention him out of respect of Ledger.

What we know is that Nolan wanted to conclude the story. He didn't want to make it another episodic chapter. Even if Heath were alive, I doubt they would use the character in a large capacity in order to avoid repeating themselves. Sure it could be used in a different way, but that would be another story.

As for me, I'm glad that we got what we got.

 

[Kane52630]

Judge Joker at your service.

 

[kvz5]

Maybe it's probably more on a personal level. Like, maybe, Nolan can't handle even discussing or mentioning the Joker because it brings up memories of Heath. I mean, the two did get close after all. Same with Bale who choked up when he saw clips of Heath during the MTV Movie Awards.

 

[BlueLightning]

Thanks Kane! Where is that from?

 

[Kane52630]

From Judge Dredd, he was one of the Dark Judges.

Maybe it's probably more on a personal level. Like, maybe, Nolan can't handle even discussing or mentioning the Joker because it brings up memories of Heath. I mean, the two did get close after all. Same with Bale who choked up when he saw clips of Heath during the MTV Movie Awards.

Yeah, I can see their reasoning on why they didn't want to mention any use of the word Joker but it would've been great to see that he wasn't forgotten.

 

[BlueLightning]

I was hoping for a more canonical source. It's a great concept, why hasn't this happened on comics?

 

[kvz5]

Yeah, I can see their reasoning on why they didn't want to mention any use of the word Joker but it would've been great to see that he wasn't forgotten.

That's pretty much my stand too. I understand why it didn't happen but it would've nice if there was at least a mention. Oh well.

 

[The Joker]

Can you offer another example outside the animated series? I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but doesn't seem like a very solid reason.

Because the Joker playing Judge is something he would have gotten a kick out of doing. Kane just posted another example. Can you offer an example where Crane played a Judge in any Batman medium?

I have stated previously that if the Joker where around, the story would have to been shaped different.

A cameo would have shaped the story differently?

From an in-story point of view makes some sense. Why would they be still talking about a criminal who did everything he did?

Because talking about things the Joker was directly responsible for without mentioning him doesn't make much sense. The one that sticks out the most is Blake talking about the night Dent died. "He murders those people, takes down two SWAT teams, breaks Dent's neck and then just vanishes"

No, don't mention The Joker, and the fact they had a city wide evacuation, major hostage situation that night, too, thanks to him.

But either way, the mayor mentioned Batman who murdered Harvey Dent so my point is moot.

Exactly.

I don't really know, he is just a great character. As you said, he did a lot of horrendous things in TDK, if the Joker was mentioned I would have wanted to know where he was.

"You'll be in a padded cell forever"

There's your answer.

Then why he wasn't showed upon Bane's revolution. What happened to Arkham? In Rises it would have been unnecesary.

Unless you saw Bane break out Arkham's inmates, you know where he is. Bane only broke out the Blackgate ones with the justification that they were locked up under Harvey Dent's legacy which was based on a lie.

But arguing this is useless, because we acknowledge that Rises was made months after TDK was completed and premiered. We know that Nolan wasn't gonna mention him out of respect of Ledger.

That's the real truth. So I don't know why some people argue that it made sense not to mention him and what not.

I don't mind that he wasn't verbally referenced. His actions were felt enough throughout the movie. But I do not buy into the idea that mentioning him would have hurt or detracted the movie in any way. I would have liked a reference, but it didn't bother me that we didn't get one.

It was Nolan's call to do it. He knew Heath better than us and has more personal feelings on it. I mean we even saw Bale get emotional at the MTV awards when he saw Heath in the footage they showed from the first two movies.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I mean you have to put yourself in Nolan's shoes.

One of the tragic parts about Heath's death is he never even got to see TDK. Nolan never got that approval he had been wanting from Heath, that they had done right by his performance in the editing.

I totally get why he'd feel strange trying to piggy back off of Heath's work in another film when he sadly would never be able to have the comfort of Heath's approval (even though I'm sure he would have loved TDK and supported Nolan 100% if he lived). I think it was the classy thing to do.

Plus, it does sort of make The Joker feel like this elemental force of evil that ripped through Gotham once upon a time, that people dare not even mention 8 years later. I do like the thought of that, I must say.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

It didn't really take me out of the film, them not mentioning Joker. I mean, Ra's wasn't mentioned during the events of TDK, but that didn't deter the quality of that film, especially considering the magnitude of his actions. Why is it any different this time? I mean, I know the emotional impact of the Joker's action were larger, but, we as an audience already know what he did. We know the impact of what he did, how he affected Dent and turned an entire city against Batman. Did we really need someone to mention all that he did to make this film better?

 

[Hawkeye70000000]

When the blackgate prison was built, didn't all the prisoners from Arkham except the joker get relocated to blackgate. Thus, leaving the joker all by himself in Arkham. So, there would have been no reason for bane to go Arkham.

 

[BlueLightning]

I don't mind that he wasn't verbally referenced. His actions were felt enough throughout the movie. But I do not buy into the idea that mentioning him would have hurt or detracted the movie in any way. I would have liked a reference, but it didn't bother me that we didn't get one.

All right, I thought it through and I realize that you are right in this regard.

EDIT:

Plus, it does sort of make The Joker feel like this elemental force of evil that ripped through Gotham once upon a time, that people dare not even mention 8 years later. I do like the thought of that, I must say.

Though I suscribe to this school of thought too.