The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - Part 154

[The Shape]

Hannibal Lecter isn't a colorful, energetic, chaos causing destructive character.

Um, actually, to a certain extent, he is. Post-capture Hannibal, that is. He's not as over the top as The Joker and wasn't causing city-wide mayhem, but then again, he was never a character in a big budget superhero movie.

He's cunning, calculated, violent, and ruthless -- like The Joker. He revels in his ability to manipulate other people around him to his will -- like The Joker. He toys with the police force -- like The Joker. He's depicted as being completely fixated on one of his opponents and has a complicated relationship with him/her -- like The Joker. He says whatever he pleases to get under people's skin -- like The Joker.

He's a shrink who eats people.

Quite a narrow-minded viewpoint of the character you have there, simplified to the barest possible description. So what is The Joker? A clown who kills people?

Ok I'll bite. Spin a possible scenario how that would work.

Why do you always do this? Asking people to list things or provide examples. I understand that you are too narrow-minded to believe that it would have been possible for The Joker to have an interesting/effective role in a TDK while behind bars for a large portion, but it isn't my job to open your mind up to creative possibilities.

I mean, if you need an example, just take Silence of the Lambs as a model. The Joker has already been captured, but claims to have a connection to Bane (or any villain they chose) or possesses an important piece of knowledge that would help Batman and Gordon stop him. Batman visits him in Arkham a once or twice to pry information out of him, but The Joker turns it into a game of sorts, essentially making Batman work for it and making demands of his own. While he does ultimately help Batman defeat the villain, he of course has orchestrated the entire chain of events in a way that allows him to escape captivity, either leading to a final showdown with Batman or leaving things open-ended, with The Joker on the run. It would be a way for them to include The Joker, while also delivering another main villain as a conflict for Batman so that it wouldn't be TDK 2.0

You believe The Joker can only be an effective character while free? Look at the interrogation scene in TDK, arguably the best Joker scene ever. Even behind bars or in captivity, The Joker would be having a field day taunting and manipulating those around him, knowing that they need him out of desperation.

 

[shauner111]

Imagine this. How about the Joker putting in danger St. Swithin's orphanage? Taking a cue from Batman Beyond Return of The Joker (Not going to the violent lengths that movie went though), having him manipulate a kid from the orphanage in order to do his bidding. Have the Joker acting like an evil snake, gaining the kid sympathy for ultimately enabling him to establish a grand scheme of destroying the entire orphanage in order to lure Batman out. Ultimately, the Joker would make believe this kid that Batman is the one responsible for all the chaos. Having gaining the upper hand on Batman, the Joker would hand the kid a gun just to finish Batman off.

Ultimately the kid chooses not to, and Batman has the chance to stop the Joker again. In the struggle, the Joker falls to the icy depths of the Gotham river, never to be seen again.

This way, the Joker would have failed twice in his mission to corrupt Gotham soul. (Not counting Harvey, which was more predisposed to fall anyway) It would have been a side mission before the grand battle. It is just an fragmented attempt to integrate the Joker into Rises narrative, but let's face it, Rises as it was developed, wasn't meant to have the Joker in it.

Interesting, but it seems like that could be a plot for a sequel to Dark Knight Rises. Only Wayne Manor's children would be used instead.

There's not much room in my opinion for Joker in Rises, other than a reference or a couple of long scenes where Joker is in Arkham. Maybe even a scene where Batman visits Joker to make sure he's still in there, locked up, right before Bats goes out in the final act to stop Bane's nuke. They could have shot a real creepy scene where Batman ninjas his way into the depths of Arkham, where it's darkly lit. We hear his laughter, we see him in his cell, and a nice little confrontation (a "goodbye") takes place between the two. Joker tells Batman that he (Mistah J) was right and that Gotham would eat each other and paint Bats as the villain, using him until they toss him away. Batman says something back that would stun Joker silent and leave him worried and a little sad. Maybe something about how he plans to "fix that problem for good tonight", adding a little more about perhaps dying in the process. Without actually saying the words. This would silence Joker for that scene.

Then again, a scene like that would probably ruin the flow of the film at that point in the story.

 

[shauner111]

Um, actually, to a certain extent, he is. Post-capture Hannibal, that is. He's not as over the top as The Joker and wasn't causing city-wide mayhem, but then again, he was never a character in a big budget superhero movie.

He's cunning, calculated, violent, and ruthless -- like The Joker. He revels in his ability to manipulate other people around him to his will -- like The Joker. He toys with the police force -- like The Joker. He's depicted as being completely fixated on one of his opponents and has a complicated relationship with him/her -- like The Joker. He says whatever he pleases to get under people's skin -- like The Joker.




Quite a narrow-minded viewpoint of the character you have there, simplified to the barest possible description. So what is The Joker? A clown who kills people?





Why do you always do this? Asking people to list things or provide examples. I understand that you are too narrow-minded to believe that it would have been possible for The Joker to have an interesting/effective role in a TDK while behind bars for a large portion, but it isn't my job to open your mind up to creative possibilities.

I mean, if you need an example, just take Silence of the Lambs as a model. The Joker has already been captured, but claims to have a connection to Bane (or any villain they chose) or possesses an important piece of knowledge that would help Batman and Gordon stop him. Batman visits him in Arkham a once or twice to pry information out of him, but The Joker turns it into a game of sorts, essentially making Batman work for it and making demands of his own. While he does ultimately help Batman defeat the villain, he of course has orchestrated the entire chain of events in a way that allows him to escape captivity, either leading to a final showdown with Batman or leaving things open-ended, with The Joker on the run. It would be a way for them to include The Joker, while also delivering another main villain as a conflict for Batman so that it wouldn't be TDK 2.0

You believe The Joker can only be an effective character while free? Look at the interrogation scene in TDK, arguably the best Joker scene ever. Even behind bars or in captivity, The Joker would be having a field day taunting and manipulating those around him, knowing that they need him out of desperation.

Bingo. Great post. This is the type of role that clicks with me more than the others. Locked up but trying to mastermind an escape. Toying with everyone. I love the idea of Joker escaping after what you described, and him being the one who blasts Banes head off with a shotgun, only to break free into the street, vanishing through a blizzard (for this they could have made the final act during a snowstorm) while Batman tries to recover. Never to be seen again.

If he was used in a huge way, that would be the right way, i think. But i would have been good with a couple of scenes where he never escapes Arkham too. Like you said, it could work for the whole movie and it would still be compelling.

 

[The Joker]

Um, actually, to a certain extent, he is. Post-capture Hannibal, that is. He's not as over the top as The Joker and wasn't causing city-wide mayhem, but then again, he was never a character in a big budget superhero movie.

In other words he's nothing like the Joker. Exactly my point. So why are you comparing them?

He's cunning, calculated, violent, and ruthless -- like The Joker.

So is Hans Gruber, Dr. Doom, Magneto and a hundred other fictional villains. What you just described there is as vague as you can get. You might as well have just called him evil and a murderer.

He revels in his ability to manipulate other people around him to his will -- like The Joker.

Again so does Magneto, Loki, Dr Doom, Lex Luthor etc.

He toys with the police force -- like The Joker. He's depicted as being completely fixated on one of his opponents and has a complicated relationship with him/her -- like The Joker. He says whatever he pleases to get under people's skin -- like The Joker.

The Joker does not toy with the Police force. Where in the movie did he toy with them? Don't tell me you're talking about the scene where he provokes that Detective guarding him to attack him.

Quite a narrow-minded viewpoint of the character you have there, simplified to the barest possible description. So what is The Joker? A clown who kills people?

It's not a narrow minded view, it's a simplified view to show how his character is apples and oranges to Joker. Yes Joker is a clown who kills people. He's flamboyant, colorful, energetic, and chaotic. He kills in droves. The total opposite of Lecter. Pre and post capture.

Why do you always do this? Asking people to list things or provide examples.

Why shouldn't I? What is so terrible and unreasonable about asking someone to back up their claims? Don't come into a discussion and then act outraged because someone asked you to back it up. The ones who complain are usually the ones who can't.

I understand that you are too narrow-minded to believe that it would have been possible for The Joker to have an interesting/effective role in a TDK while behind bars for a large portion, but it isn't my job to open your mind up to creative possibilities.

Ah when all else fails and you can't offer a decent argument resort to personal insults.

You have severely gone down in my eyes as a poster today, Shape. Both here and in the 89 thread. You've really shown today that you can't handle your opinion being challenged. You turn into an over sensitive troll. You should be ashamed. Do we have to get a moderator in here, too?

I haven't insulted you so what makes you think have the right to do it here, or at all for that matter? You think you're immune to the forum rules or something? Or is it just normal for you to insult someone because they don't agree with you. Insult me one more time and I will report you. I don't take that rubbish from anyone.

I mean, if you need an example, just take Silence of the Lambs as a model. The Joker has already been captured, but claims to have a connection to Bane (or any villain they chose) or possesses an important piece of knowledge that would help Batman and Gordon stop him. Batman visits him in Arkham a once or twice to pry information out of him, but The Joker turns it into a game of sorts, essentially making Batman work for it and making demands of his own. While he does ultimately help Batman defeat the villain, he of course has orchestrated the entire chain of events in a way that allows him to escape captivity, either leading to a final showdown with Batman or leaving things open-ended, with The Joker on the run. It would be a way for them to include The Joker, while also delivering another main villain as a conflict for Batman so that it wouldn't be TDK 2.0

You want to use The Silence of the Lambs as a model? Ok, two things;

1. Why would Batman or the Cops believe Joker has a connection to Bane? Just because he says so? There has to be proper grounds for it, and not just the word of an obvious manipulative liar.

2. In The Silence of the Lambs the whole reason they go to Lecter about Buffalo Bill was merely for his expert insight about him as a psychiatrist. Joker has no such grounds for anyone to go and see him about Bane. And after Starling sees Lecter he gives her a direct lead to Buffalo Bill, proving he does have a connection to him. What's Joker going to do that proves he knows Bane? Honest question since this is your idea, please tell me what's your basis for it? Or am I being unreasonable again asking you to elaborate on something you're saying?

I don't know where the notion comes that just because Joker would be in the movie he'd be the main villain. He might be the scene stealing performance because that's just the nature of the character, but not the main villain.

You believe The Joker can only be an effective character while free? Look at the interrogation scene in TDK, arguably the best Joker scene ever. Even behind bars or in captivity, The Joker would be having a field day taunting and manipulating those around him, knowing that they need him out of desperation.

Yes, lets compare one scene out of an entire movie (one that even erupts into chaos between Batman and Joker eventually) as a basis for a whole movie's treatment of the character.

 

[shauner111]

I see both points, guys. But i do think it could work with Joker behind bars. I get that he's more flamboyant and is better served on the outside but Joker would still make things compelling inside of a cell.

 

[The Joker]

Not for the bulk of the movie. A handful of scenes maybe. Using the interrogation room scene's greatness as a crutch for it doesn't work. It's like saying the sewer showdown between Batman and Bane was great, but that doesn't mean we want them pummeling each other for the bulk of the movie. There's a lot more to the character's than that.

The thought of Joker being reduced to cell confinement for most of the movie is a dull one. No matter how much manipulating he's doing. It works for Lecter because he's that kind of character. He's a psychiatrist. They sit down and talk to people for hours. Probe them psychologically. That's what they do. It worked for him again in Red Dragon, too. I can't imagine one Batman movie, let alone two, of Joker just sitting in a cell talking.

 

[JackWhite]

Joker would have had to break out or been broken out at some point if he were to be involved in TDKR. Who could have broken him out you ask? Harleen Quinzell. Although I'm not certain Nolan would have wanted to use her. It took Jonah's convincing for him to use Catwoman.

And since I've always believed Nolan was going to use inspiration from TDKReturns for his final Bat-film, it just makes since that Joker would have escaped at some point in Rises and Batman and Joker would have had some type of final confrontation.

 

[The Joker]

EDIT; Nvm I misread a part of that post.

I think Nolan might have used Harley. He was big into how the theatrical presences can inspire, or in Joker's case bend and break minds. Harley is one of the best examples of someone who has been totally brain washed by Joker.

 

[BatLobster]

Random idea I just had since we're on the topic...

If Joker was in TDKR, I think I love the idea of Batman dumping him off in the pit as the final resolution to their relationship. I picture a shot in the final montage with Joker all disheveled down in the pit, looking up towards the blinding white light and wincing.

I thought about this while thinking about the Dark Knight Returns influence on the film and I was thinking that Joker snapping his own neck or any type of suicide to incriminate Batman probably wouldn't be the way I wanted to see Heath's Joker go out. I like the notion of Bruce emerging from the darkness, leaving his demons down there- in both a symbolic and literal sense.

Plus, in the trilogy the pit is meant to be hell and Joker was meant to basically be Satan incarnate. So he'd be "home", in a sense, but of course still leaving whether he ever escapes open to interpretation. As for how Bruce gets him there...I figure he'd have him apprehended in the finale. Leaves him tied up with coordinates for Gordon, who drops him off there to find the South Korean smugglers from TDK waiting. Boom, just another piece of his grand endgame plan.

 

[The Shape]

Why shouldn't I? What is so terrible and unreasonable about asking someone to back up their claims? Don't come into a discussion and then act outraged because someone asked you to back it up. The ones who complain are usually the ones who can't.

But do you even understand what claims we were making? What is there to "back-up"?

The Joker was captured and imprisoned at the end of TDK. We were saying that a sequel which included The Joker in a limited capacity while behind bars for much of the film could have worked. You seem to not believe that ANY possible scenario of this could have worked, so you ask me to list examples, knowing that you will automatically reject any example I list...

There are literally hundreds of possible scenarios, anyway. It's up to the minds of the writers and directors to come up with a good story. I never said I had the winning/best scenario in mind, but was saying it possibly could have worked and been interesting.

Ah when all else fails and you can't offer a decent argument resort to personal insults.

You have severely gone down in my eyes as a poster today, Shape. Both here and in the 89 thread. You've really shown today that you can't handle your opinion being challenged. You turn into an over sensitive troll. You should be ashamed. Do we have to get a moderator in here, too?

I haven't insulted you so what makes you think have the right to do it here, or at all for that matter? You think you're immune to the forum rules or something? Or is it just normal for you to insult someone because they don't agree with you. Insult me one more time and I will report you. I don't take that rubbish from anyone.

I honestly didn't mean that as a harsh insult of any kind, but it was a phrase that simply came to mind to describe they way it seemed you were being. If you can't imagine or even admit that a film with The Joker in a supporting role and imprisoned for a chunk of it would at least have the potential to work, that's a perspective that I do see as being narrow-minded. I'm sorry if it sounded like name-calling.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way about me as a poster, but I have to say I have felt similarly about you in recent times. You have shown me that you love to challenge people's opinions (valid or not) to the point that you are over-argumentative, condescending, repetitive, and cold. I'm not referring only to interactions with me, but what I've seen all over. When someone shows a bit of condescension back towards you, it is you who seems to be the sensitive one, ready to send for a mod.

It's a shame we've clashed like this because I often agree with your some of your viewpoints and appreciate your passion for these characters.

 

[The Shape]

Random idea I just had since we're on the topic...

If Joker was in TDKR, I think I love the idea of Batman dumping him off in the pit as the final resolution to their relationship. I picture a shot in the final montage with Joker all disheveled down in the pit, looking up towards the blinding white light and wincing.

I thought about this while thinking about the Dark Knight Returns influence on the film and I was thinking that Joker snapping his own neck or any type of suicide to incriminate Batman probably wouldn't be the way I wanted to see Heath's Joker go out. I like the notion of Bruce emerging from the darkness, leaving his demons down there- in both a symbolic and literal sense.

Plus, in the trilogy the pit is meant to be hell and Joker was meant to basically be Satan incarnate. So he'd be "home", in a sense, but of course still leaving whether he ever escapes open to interpretation. As for how Bruce gets him there...I figure he'd have him apprehended in the finale. Leaves him tied up with coordinates for Gordon, who drops him off there to find the South Korean smugglers from TDK waiting. Boom, just another piece of his grand endgame plan.

I love that idea.

 

[The Joker]

But do you even understand what claims we were making? What is there to "back-up"?

Ideas with how that would work. If someone believes a specific direction for a story could work there has to be reasons for that belief.

I gave my specific reasons on why I believed Joker being a caged character doing nothing but chatting for the bulk of the movie wouldn't be good. Shauner gave his specifics for his viewpoint, too. All I was asking for was yours. Not the meaning of life or something equally impossible to answer.

The Joker was captured and imprisoned at the end of TDK. We were saying that a sequel which included The Joker in a limited capacity while behind bars for much of the film could have worked. You seem to not believe that ANY possible scenario of this could have worked, so you ask me to list examples, knowing that you will automatically reject any example I list...

See I take that as an insult, too. Saying I would reject any possible idea you have just says you think I am being either close minded or stubborn. I am open minded to any ideas. And believe it or not I can have my mind changed, too.

I wouldn't have asked what you think if I wasn't genuinely interested in your input.

There are literally hundreds of possible scenarios, anyway. It's up to the minds of the writers and directors to come up with a good story. I never said I had the winning/best scenario in mind, but was saying it possibly could have worked and been interesting.

I never said you did either. I asked you to provide some of your reasons why you think it could work. I was asking for your input. Your opinion. Nothing more. Why? Because I usually enjoy reading your opinions.

Just saying you think it could work and not elaborating why beyond comparing Joker to Hannibal wasn't really a satisfactory answer to why you believe in an idea.

I honestly didn't mean that as a harsh insult of any kind, but it was a phrase that simply came to mind to describe they way it seemed you were being. If you can't imagine or even admit that a film with The Joker in a supporting role and imprisoned for a chunk of it would at least have the potential to work, that's a perspective that I do see as being narrow-minded. I'm sorry if it sounded like name-calling.

Come on, how could anyone take being called narrow minded as anything other than an insult. In what reality is that not an insult? Even you don't really believe that.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way about me as a poster, but I have to say I have felt similarly about you in recent times. You have shown me that you love to challenge people's opinions (valid or not) to the point that you are over-argumentative, condescending, repetitive, and cold. I'm not referring only to interactions with me, but what I've seen all over. When someone shows a bit of condescension back towards you, it is you who seems to be the sensitive one, ready to send for a mod.

Yes I love to challenge people's opinions. What is wrong with that? That what we're here for. Discussion. People challenging each other's opinions is the daily norm here. The forum would fold without it. If people can't handle that then internet discussion forums are not the place for them.

I don't have altercations like the ones I've had today all over. That is totally untrue. Feel free to prove otherwise since you claim you've seen them all over. And rarely have I ever had to call a Mod in to calm down a thread. I only did it to stop the B'89 thread descending into a flame war.

Furthermore a Mod doesn't just blindly go in and say settle down and knock something off just because they were asked. They read the situation and judge whether they have to say so. Today they did. Which means it was totally valid to call them in. The thread was getting too heated. And why? Because some harmless movie criticism made it's way into the thread.

It's a shame we've clashed like this because I often agree with your some of your viewpoints and appreciate your passion for these characters.

Likewise.

 

[The Joker]

Has everyone heard about this; http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...irect-and-co-write-solo-batman-movie#/slide/1

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah. I don't know...I do not like Johns' work for the most part, not gonna lie. I figured Affleck would be writing, but I would've thought him and Terrio working together would've been a slam dunk. I'm really hoping Terrio or any other third party takes a pass at it.

I just don't know. I like the idea in theory of bringing in a comics writer, but man...there are so many other than Geoff Johns I would've been way more excited about.

However, official confirmation that Affleck is directing is pretty exciting now that I think of it. I almost glossed over that confirmation because it's just been assumed for so long.

 

[Snow Queen]

Wonder how much this one's going to borrow from the Earth One stories then.

 

[shauner111]

Don't really care for Johns. Im 50/50 on this.

Ben's interpretation could be really awesome or dull. He's good but he hasn't proven himself enough to make a big Batman movie. Will it try to be as realistic or more realistic than Nolans trilogy? Or will it match the David Ayer/Zack Snyder style and can he pull that off? It's interesting. Ben was in my top 5 directors but i would prefer Denis Vileneuve.

Im not sure if a comic book writer is smart or stupid. There's a difference between writing comics and films.

Random idea I just had since we're on the topic...

If Joker was in TDKR, I think I love the idea of Batman dumping him off in the pit as the final resolution to their relationship. I picture a shot in the final montage with Joker all disheveled down in the pit, looking up towards the blinding white light and wincing.

I thought about this while thinking about the Dark Knight Returns influence on the film and I was thinking that Joker snapping his own neck or any type of suicide to incriminate Batman probably wouldn't be the way I wanted to see Heath's Joker go out. I like the notion of Bruce emerging from the darkness, leaving his demons down there- in both a symbolic and literal sense.

Plus, in the trilogy the pit is meant to be hell and Joker was meant to basically be Satan incarnate. So he'd be "home", in a sense, but of course still leaving whether he ever escapes open to interpretation. As for how Bruce gets him there...I figure he'd have him apprehended in the finale. Leaves him tied up with coordinates for Gordon, who drops him off there to find the South Korean smugglers from TDK waiting. Boom, just another piece of his grand endgame plan.

First time i heard that one. Very original

Im curious to read what others think about that idea.

 

[Brother Jack]

I really did not mean to instigate another argument about what Joker's hypothetical role in Rises would have been. That's always been a largely futile thing. My point wasn't really even about Joker or TDK Trilogy specifically. It's a larger issue with comics as a recycling story engine and the problems that arise when you take that to too dark a place. Not that dark stories can't be told, of course. It's just that there needs to be a balance and understanding of the larger picture on a long-term scale. When the villains get darker Batman has to get darker too and at a certain point it reaches beyond the parameter of the no-killing rule.

 

[BatLobster]

It's not your fault dude, no need to apologize. It's just an inevitable "what if?" that comes up from time to time, and this is a Rises thread after all, even though we use it for general discussion these days.

First time i heard that one. Very original

Im curious to read what others think about that idea.

I love that idea.

Cool, thanks guys. t:

 

[Travesty]

The 60s comic with Bane is spoofing TDKR:

http://io9.com/an-inside-look-at-the-lost-batman-66-episode-featuri-1716319939

 

[The Joker]

The 60s comic with Bane is spoofing TDKR:

http://io9.com/an-inside-look-at-the-lost-batman-66-episode-featuri-1716319939

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but where is the TDKR spoof?

Also Trav do you remember......tuppence? t:

 

[Shikamaru]

Has everyone heard about this; http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...irect-and-co-write-solo-batman-movie#/slide/1

Happy about Affleck, not so much about Johns.

Still, Affleck is an Oscar-winning writer and this Batman's characterization was constructed pre-Johns.

 

[BatLobster]

Johns just strikes me as this manchild who has totally failed upwards to be in the position he's in, so that's what irks me about it. Surely there are more talented and experienced screenwriters out there for Affleck to have worked with. Oh well.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

First Kevin Smith, then Snyder and now Johns, Ben needs to stop associating with manchilds.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Johns is merely a decent writer at best... but he writes a truly awful Batman.

I'm all for Affleck, but he deserves a better script partner.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

You are right. His batman his godawful. I wish he was replaced by Grant Morrison.