The Dark Knight Rises Where would you have taken the series if Ledger hadn't died?

I personally find it frustrating that you can't get a straight answer from Nolan and company about the 3rd film. Not one interviewer has ever asked if there had been any plans to bring the Joker back and Nolan doesn't seem to offer up the information on his own. Some interviews say that they took it one film at a time, that nothing was layed out, that they gave everything in each film with no sequel bait. Other interviews I've read said that there were at least some groundwork that they had in mind for the trilogy. I believe it was Nolan's brother that said the final scene was something that they had discussed very early on. I believe Nolan and company, particularly Nolan loves to be evasive.

I thought the original idea was supposedly to have the trial of the Joker as a centerpiece of the third film, but then Ledger died and those plans were scrapped. I doubt the Joker wouldn't have factored into the third film if Ledger had lived.
 
I thought the original idea was supposedly to have the trial of the Joker as a centerpiece of the third film, but then Ledger died and those plans were scrapped. I doubt the Joker wouldn't have factored into the third film if Ledger had lived.

I think that idea was probably scrapped because the original plan was to have The Joker be the one to scar Dent in the courtroom, but obviously Two-Face's origin got put into TDK.

As is often said here, the original idea for films 2 and 3 got fused all into TDK, because Nolan was a big proponent of not saving any ideas for the future and putting everything you could into the film at hand.
 
Never heard the quote of Nolan saying that Heath performance could go for 10 films. Is there a source for that? I'm totally fine with Nolan saying there was no specific ideas for Heath/Joker for a third film however I guess I'd just like to hear him say that. I'm imagining like most films they signed up Bale for 3 films in case the series did take off. I wonder if they had signed Heath up for a third film. The only evidence I've read is Eckhart saying that Heath was supposed to go on and was signed up for the third film. What is stranger is that way back in 2008, Eckhart makes it clear that he was not signed up for the third film and that Nolan confirmed Dent was dead. But then there was that strange story by Eckhart shortly before shooting of tdkr where he went for a long walk on the beach with Nolan to talk about coming back.
 
As is often said here, the original idea for films 2 and 3 got fused all into TDK, because Nolan was a big proponent of not saving any ideas for the future and putting everything you could into the film at hand.

And that was a mistake IMHO. TDK would have become a much better movie if it was not so rushed. They had too many good ideas for just one film.
 
Never heard the quote of Nolan saying that Heath performance could go for 10 films. Is there a source for that? I'm totally fine with Nolan saying there was no specific ideas for Heath/Joker for a third film however I guess I'd just like to hear him say that. I'm imagining like most films they signed up Bale for 3 films in case the series did take off. I wonder if they had signed Heath up for a third film. The only evidence I've read is Eckhart saying that Heath was supposed to go on and was signed up for the third film. What is stranger is that way back in 2008, Eckhart makes it clear that he was not signed up for the third film and that Nolan confirmed Dent was dead. But then there was that strange story by Eckhart shortly before shooting of tdkr where he went for a long walk on the beach with Nolan to talk about coming back.

Here you go.

GB: Watching “The Dark Knight,” it’s very easy to imagine the Joker returning to Gotham, the way his fate remains unresolved. When you were writing the film, did you anticipate that the Joker would be back in the third film?

NOLAN: No, really and in truth, I only deal with one film at a time. I find myself sort of protesting this issue a lot. We’ve never attempted to save anything for a sequel or set up anything for a sequel. That seems improbable to some people because, particularly with “Batman Begins,” the film ended with a particular hook [with Jim Gordon showing Batman a Joker playing card announcing the arrival of a new villain in town]. But for me that was just about the excitement of people leaving the theater with the sense that now we have the character up and running. I wanted people to walk away with that sense in their head. You know, that he’s become the Batman in the movie. That’s why we had the title come up at the end, because it was “Batman Begins,” and it was all very specific to that.

Then I got excited about seeing where that character would go. It was planned in advance, but it followed in that way. But we tried our hardest to really do everything in this movie that we would want to see the Joker do and to get that in the fabric of the story as much as possible. We wanted the Joker’s final taunt to Batman to be that they are locked in an ongoing struggle because of Batman’s rules. There’s a paradox there. Batman won’t kill. And the Joker is not interested in completely defeating Batman because he’s fascinated by him and he enjoys sparring with him. It’s trapped both of them. That was really the meaning of it. Of course what happened is Heath created the most extraordinary character that you would love to see 10 movies about. That’s the bittersweet thing. It was incredible characterization. It is a bittersweet thing for all of us.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/christopher-nol/
 
Thanks for the article BatLobsterRises. Very interesting read. When I saw Batman Begins, to be honest, I took it the way that Nolan originally intended. I didn't assume that there was going to be sequel. I figured it was just a really cool way to end the film and leave something more for the imagination.

However when they made a sequel to BB, I didn't feel that it was a stretch that they'd make a 3rd film, as they were already willing to make a sequel to the first. With BB, I felt they could have ended it right there with the joker card. With TDK, I couldn't imagine that they would have actually let the series end with this huge conspiracy that Batman and Gordon were in on, and more importantly, end the series with Batman on the run as a murderer. The ending of TDK, in my opinion, naturally lent itself, or set itself up for a third film. So i'm not really sure I buy the whole "We’ve never attempted to save anything for a sequel or set up anything for a sequel." line in regards to TDK.

I can understand if Nolan did not have any plans for the third film. I'm not a big star trek fan, but I went to a theatre showing of The Best of Both Worlds. They had explained that the season ending cliffhanger episode was written without any ideas of how they would wrap it up in the season opener. I also found it interesting that they said by having the ability of creating an episode with tons of twists was far more exciting then having to make the season opener, which would have the duty of tying up all the loose ends. I can totally relate to this sentiment.
 
I agree with you about the ending for TDK, I felt it demanded a third film...and yet so many people here will tell you that TDK was the perfect way to end the series and there didn't even need to be a third film. So go figure. It was a satisfying ending though, for sure, so I get that too. BB did not have the same sort of epic ending where everything just comes together like that in one big montage and you suddenly realize the point of the whole movie (or in this case, the title character of both movies).

And yeah, that's part of why third films are so tricky to pull off. They have the job of tying up loose ends while the first two movies get to explore and create a bit more freely. I do think TDKR managed to work around that a bit by fast forwarding 8 years and removing the story from the direct aftermath of TDK, but of course plenty of people here weren't a fan of that. Very tough to please everyone.
 
I agree with you about the ending for TDK, I felt it demanded a third film...and yet so many people here will tell you that TDK was the perfect way to end the series and there didn't even need to be a third film. So go figure. It was a satisfying ending though, for sure, so I get that too. BB did not have the same sort of epic ending where everything just comes together like that in one big montage and you suddenly realize the point of the whole movie (or in this case, the title character of both movies).

And yeah, that's part of why third films are so tricky to pull off. They have the job of tying up loose ends while the first two movies get to explore and create a bit more freely. I do think TDKR managed to work around that a bit by fast forwarding 8 years and removing the story from the direct aftermath of TDK, but of course plenty of people here weren't a fan of that. Very tough to please everyone.
I disagree, the ending was perfect and is my favorite ending to a CBM.
 
And yeah, that's part of why third films are so tricky to pull off. They have the job of tying up loose ends while the first two movies get to explore and create a bit more freely. I do think TDKR managed to work around that a bit by fast forwarding 8 years and removing the story from the direct aftermath of TDK, but of course plenty of people here weren't a fan of that. Very tough to please everyone.

Even so, we still got the direct aftermath via the Dent Day celebration at the beginning: The Dent Act was passed, gave the cops more power, and some Gothamites are unsettled about it. Among those who dislike TDKR, there's plenty who felt there had to be a third film. Their vision had more minor characters like Killer Croc, Riddler, Penguin and Black Mask emerging to fulfill Joker's line about things being changed.
 
and yet so many people here will tell you that TDK was the perfect way to end the series and there didn't even need to be a third film.

That's just a way to attack TDKR. The end of TDK didn't seem like an ending to me.
 
That's just a way to attack TDKR. The end of TDK didn't seem like an ending to me.

Every single ending to each film in the Nolan films felt like an ending to me. More specifically, I always felt that Nolan found the perfect balance between the episodic franchise formula and the more story arc/setup formula (i.e. MCU). The Nolan Batman films stand on their own without screaming "sequel!" while still setting up things and leaving room for more, narrative-ly speaking. The ending of Batman Begins set up a lot of things for the future, such as the Joker card, but at the same time it wouldn't have been a problem if there was no sequel because it had a very well structured conclusion. Same thing goes for TDK IMO. It never felt like THE END to me but if things were to end there due to whatever reason, it wouldn't be a problem. The obvious exception is TDKR's ending because it is an actual ending.
 
The way I see it, if Ledger was still alive he would have played a role to TDKR but not a large one. Maybe instead of the Gordon letter, Joker would have unveiled the truth about Harvey Dent and becomes the Judge as he has proven that the system that Dent represented is rotten. (I final Joke to the system).
That's pretty much what I would have imagined as well.
 
He may have unveiled the truth but he wouldn't be a judge. Even though it's a Kangaroo court and all chaotic, it's still about order. And it's independent from bane sure, but I don't think he would negotiate with Bane like that. If anything, Joker would see Bane as an enemy even more than Batman.

I picture a Joker reference to him being in Arkham then a chunky scene where Batman or somebody visits Joker on the inside.
 
There's no doubt in my mind that "Batman 3" (or whatever it may have been), if Ledger hadn't died and the Joker was included, would have been better than what we actually got.

There was still a lot of potential to be had with the Batman/Joker dynamic. I can't even begin to fathom all the possibilities of what another Ledger Joker performance would bring. I think there's a reason they didn't kill the character off in the last film with the "you and I are destined to do this forever" line. Seeing that play out in a sequel would have been awesome.
 
There's no doubt in my mind that "Batman 3" (or whatever it may have been), if Ledger hadn't died and the Joker was included, would have been better than what we actually got.

There was still a lot of potential to be had with the Batman/Joker dynamic. I can't even begin to fathom all the possibilities of what another Ledger Joker performance would bring. I think there's a reason they didn't kill the character off in the last film with the "you and I are destined to do this forever" line. Seeing that play out in a sequel would have been awesome.

This. :up:

I will admit to an extent that part of the reason why I wanted to see the Joker again had Heath been alive - other than his great performance and things they set up such as the "You and I will do this forever" line - was because of Bane and Talia. More specifically because of Talia since she was the big bad all along. I hated Talia so much in the film and I fully believe that had the Joker would have mopped the floor with her if he came back (with Bane too).

Talia came off entirely as a "female dog" to me, if you know what I mean. She had the least logical motivation for any CBM villain I've seen on the big screen. She clearly doesn't even understand the LOS and what her father stood for based on her plan (I wouldn't be surprised if the LOS somewhere out there was facepalming at what Talia was doing). She sleeps with the guy that killed her father who she apparently hates so much but talks down on + "friendzones" the man who saved her life many times and carried out all her work. On top of all that, she also carried a cocky vibe to her especially after the reveal. This is not a criticism towards the film btw; there is nothing wrong with having a character in a film that makes the viewers really hate him/her. I don't know if that was the intention but it did have that effect on me.

The second time I saw the film, one of the thoughts I constantly had in my mind was how lucky Bane and Talia were that the Joker wasn't in this film. Had the Joker been inserted in this particular story and would have confronted Bane and Talia, it would have been the end for them right there. One was a street-level psychopath who pushed a young, healthy, prime Batman to his limits using only his wits whereas the other two were (presumably) LOS members with tons of resources who had a lot of information about Batman, Bruce, and Wayne Enterprises given to them from the get-go and had to take on an older worn-out crippled Batman.
 
^ Soon to get a "This." from The Joker and milost, heh. Even though I don't agree, I can admit when a post is well constructed and presents one side of the argument well.

Talia is a femme fatale to the extreme. That's essentially what she is in the film. Femme fatales are sometimes grey characters where you understand their motivation (Catwoman in most incarnations, Andrea in MOTP), but are often evil in more mysterious ways and are basically a man's worst nightmare about the opposite sex personified. I always love film noir tropes in Batman stories because I think it fits him like a glove, moreso than any other superhero. And I love that Talia can be seen as a femme fatale to BOTH Bruce and Bane. She's really pretty much pure evil in the film. Kind of taking the thematic torch from The Joker there (and using it to watch Gotham burn). Even her bit about the "slow knife" seemed very reminiscent of Joker's "guns are too quick" speech.
 
I don't think there would have been a massive disparity, and Ledger would be used far more sparingly than even in The Dark Knight.

I think Bane's plan would have had more relevance to Bruce's plight in the Pit. Bane says there can be no true despair without hope, but Bane doesn't offer any true hope, nor despair. He just rules with an iron fist.

I think Joker could have been not part of an initial release of Arkham/Blackgate prisoners, but after Bane cemented himself as a revolutionary hero, he begins to poison the hopes of Gotham's citizens, beginning with the parole hearing of Joker.

He could carve out his own chaotic terriotory of Gotham. Upon his return, before confronting Bane, Batman with the help of Robin takes down Joker (perhaps Joker is in control of where the cops were held).
 
Even if Ledger lived on and returned as the Joker in TDKR, would Nolan and Co. still try and cram everything into a 2h45m film, all for the sake of IMAX?

I think the majority of us here who have issues with TDKR agreed that the film had a lot more potential had it not been so rushed in certain areas, and fully fleshed out on certain ideas. The same thing was almost bound to happen regardless of Heath's involvement, because it was almost a given that Nolan would shoot even more IMAX footage for his third and final Bat-film.

But then again we'll never really know, but it's fun to speculate.
 
Yeah, regardless of what happened to Heath, Nolan would've attempted to make a bigger, longer and more epic film with more IMAX footage. I have no doubt of that.
 
I don't think there would have been a massive disparity, and Ledger would be used far more sparingly than even in The Dark Knight.

I think Bane's plan would have had more relevance to Bruce's plight in the Pit. Bane says there can be no true despair without hope, but Bane doesn't offer any true hope, nor despair. He just rules with an iron fist.

I think Joker could have been not part of an initial release of Arkham/Blackgate prisoners, but after Bane cemented himself as a revolutionary hero, he begins to poison the hopes of Gotham's citizens, beginning with the parole hearing of Joker.

He could carve out his own chaotic terriotory of Gotham. Upon his return, before confronting Bane, Batman with the help of Robin takes down Joker (perhaps Joker is in control of where the cops were held).

I believe that hope was given to Bruce in the form of the climb. Meanwhile, Bane dangled hope before Gothamites by allowing emergency services to bring provisions into the city during the winter and by allowing the police to survive. People can huddle in their shelters and hope the police will escape captivity, and that they'll get the essentials. Bruce can hope to escape the Pit. Thus elements of hope were given to Bruce and the Gothamites.

That said, your idea for incorporating Joker as a pawn for Bane's scheme sounds great. If Bane were to cut Joker loose and have him as judge, I don't doubt there'd be some of Bane's men among the courtroom audience at all times. Working in appearances by all the major villains Batman has faced would add to the epic feel. :up:
 
I would have had Dark Knight Rises be virtually the same, but without the problems it had obviously, but in a post credits scene Joker beats John Blake to death with a crowbar to bring out Bruce from retirement, because there is no way a guy with just regular cop training could last a week as Batman.
 
I would have had Dark Knight Rises be virtually the same, but without the problems it had obviously, but in a post credits scene Joker beats John Blake to death with a crowbar to bring out Bruce from retirement, because there is no way a guy with just regular cop training could last a week as Batman.
Sounds like silly sequel bait plus Blake has time to get training. He obviously doesn't start right away. I don't know why people assume that, it's quite obvious it's just the beginning of his journey.
 
Sounds like silly sequel bait plus Blake has time to get training. He obviously doesn't start right away. I don't know why people assume that, it's quite obvious it's just the beginning of his journey.

Exactly.
 
I would have had Dark Knight Rises be virtually the same, but without the problems it had obviously, but in a post credits scene Joker beats John Blake to death with a crowbar to bring out Bruce from retirement, because there is no way a guy with just regular cop training could last a week as Batman.

Bruce's journey is done; as of the end of TDKR, he has what he lost in Begins. Joker drawing Bruce out of retirement makes no sense. Furthermore, we don't know the extent to which Blake became/becomes the Batman. He could be working in an Oracle role with Gordon while training himself as Bruce did, for all that we know.
 
Where the fans wanted the film to got is irrelevant because it was up to Nolan not them. Suck it up!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,312
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"