You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 10

[shauner111]

Exactly. There's so many great villains to use, it's like why use any of them more than once? Unless it's for a extended cameo or something.

 

[The Joker]

everyone knew that has heath still been with us, TDKR would have been a completely different film.

I still want to slap everyone who said "Oh he would've just replaced scarecrow in the trial scene" upside the head

You couldn't just take the infrastructure of Rises and put Joker into that. Joker would fundamentally change that narrative, as he does in any story. Unless it was something like a really slight cameo, but then it would seem almost superfluous. For one thing, I seriously doubt Bane would have let him live during his reign in Gotham. He would be too much of a liability for Bane's carefully laid out plan.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

plus wasn't the film written a full year or 2 after heath's passing? And they also had to convince Nolan to come back for a 3rd film, just as they had done for a 2nd.

The reaction to Ledger's Joker still would have been massive, and you just know the people would've begged for another Joker centric film. I think Nolan would've given it to us too, knowing just how special Heath's performance was.

 

[BatLobster]

plus wasn't the film written a full year or 2 after heath's passing? And they also had to convince Nolan to come back for a 3rd film, just as they had done for a 2nd.

Well, to be fair we've since learned that Goyer had already helped Nolan break the general story for Rises as early as 2008. I think there's also evidence that he already been eyeing Bane as a villain even before or around TDK's release, and an interview during that time where he shoots down the idea that the next villain has to be another A-list villain from the TV series. To me this just shows that they had put all the ideas they could into TDK and were able to approach envisioning the third film without being married too many preexisting ideas about where it would go.

I think it's one of those things we'll ever know. You can't say definitively that it would've been a cameo or smaller role, but you also can't say definitively that the Nolans and Goyer wouldn't have gravitated in generally similar directions to wrap up the story. Joker would've definitely been in it, but I think the extent and nature of his role will forever remain a mystery. The only thing I can say with confidence is I think there almost certainly would've been a new main baddie, and I'm sure we can all agree there. And honestly, I think it very well still could've been Bane, since Nolan's reasons for not doing The Riddler were that it felt too much like The Joker, and the fact that a pure physical threat for Bats was unexplored territory in the films. Plus after Inception, Hardy was pretty much destined to become a Nolan regular.

 

[Shikamaru]

Didn't he say the next villain wouldn't be someone done on film period, and not just in the TV series? I remember reading that and being surprised when Bane and Catwoman were announced. I took that as him either changing his mind or him taking a jab at Batman & Robin in Bane's case.

 

[shauner111]

It would not surprise me if Nolan had no idea Bane was used in a film before.

 

[Awest66]

Didn't he say the next villain wouldn't be someone done on film period, and not just in the TV series? I remember reading that and being surprised when Bane and Catwoman were announced. I took that as him either changing his mind or him taking a jab at Batman & Robin in Bane's case.

I actually figured they'd include Catwoman because Rachel had died and there's no way the next film in the series wouldn't have had some kind of female prescence, I mean who else could they have gone with?

 

[shauner111]

Jonah convinced Chris that Selina was right.

 

[Ryan]

It's funny, all these years and I could never put my finger on what it was about about the eight-year gap that felt inconsistent to me. I mean I get what Nolan was telling us - the people of Gotham were empowered with hope, so they didn't need him anymore - still, did they really not need him anymore? That's the part that always baffled me. There was just something about that that felt "off", that I just couldn't put into words. But I think now I can. I think it has to do with how I see the world.

Basically the more I grow, the more I think it's important for us to work together to change the problems in our society. And I get why guys like Harvey do a better job at bringing people together than guys like Batman do. They never come out and say this, but Harvey is a clear metaphor for archetypes like Bernie Sanders and MLK. He's that "ideal" political figure people would feel they can connect to because of his values. I mean he's not - he's one of those who started out that way and was corrupted - but Batman and Gordon sell him that way. So now that Gotham has that figurehead to rally around by the end of TDK, they can finally enact change right?

Unfortunately it's not that simple. They almost always get beaten down and shredded by the system the first four, five, or even a hundred times, until they finally succeed at their dream. And a lot of times the figurehead that started these movements is no longer around by then, instead it's their successor. Ambiguity of the Dent Act aside, we just have to look at how hard the system fought to prevent something like the New Deal from being passed, and how much struggle and defeat its proponents put up with even after electing the man they thought embodied it (FDR).

And that's why I don't buy Gotham not needing Batman anymore after TDK. They would still need him, I think, for all the times those inspired by Dent would have been crushed and forced to retreat to the cynicism at the start of Batman Begins, which in any real setting they most definitely would have. That's the one cause-and-effect I think Rises forgets, or at worst chooses to ignore.

Anyways, I'm not trying to reopen the debate on Rises, I'm just finally wording why it doesn't fit for me. More importantly, why I never explained it beyond "cuz freaks!" I believe that as kids we start grasping the problems in the world emotionally, but can't pick up on them logically. As we mature we begin to pick up on them logically. I said Gotham would still have "freaks" after TDK, the more mature fan in me would say "The system would step up its game after TDK, keeping with the realism and escalation theme of TDK." Or something along those lines. But anyways, I hope that makes a little more sense now.

Fantastic post Shikamaru! I miss seeing your comments in this thread. Great to hear from you.

 

[Ryan]

plus wasn't the film written a full year or 2 after heath's passing? And they also had to convince Nolan to come back for a 3rd film, just as they had done for a 2nd.

The reaction to Ledger's Joker still would have been massive, and you just know the people would've begged for another Joker centric film. I think Nolan would've given it to us too, knowing just how special Heath's performance was.

I think that's fair to say. With quotes from the family saying Heath was planning for the third film, Eckhart saying the third movie would be all heath's, that Ledger thoroughly enjoyed the experience, won and Oscar for his role, that Nolan usually uses the same actors over again in his movies all seems to add up to Ledger having a significant role in the third. Much more so than a scarecrow type cameo. The only thing evidence I can find of what was agreed on was the ending....that Bruce would retire. As for the shape of that third movie, we will probably never know (unless some interviewer ever asks the most obvious question to Nolan) if/what plans were bandied about while Heath was alive. I suspect Nolan will perhaps never answer that question for a couple of reasons. Saying they had plans for the joker in the third film would probably make those disappointed with tdkr be even more disappointed with what might have been and perhaps more importantly, would take away from the hard work and effort by all of those that made TDKR. Still....it would be good for the 'truth to have its day".

 

[shauner111]

I say who cares what the original plan was. It won't change anything. The original plan for TDK was for Two Face to survive. Plans change because life intervenes. I accept change and evolution and chance. Plus, you can't get a better exit for the Joker than his final scene; hanging from the rafters laughing like a maniac, knowing he's going to Arkham Asylum.

 

[Ryan]

I say who cares what the original plan was. It won't change anything. The original plan for TDK was for Two Face to survive. Plans change because life intervenes. I accept change and evolution and chance. Plus, you can't get a better exit for the Joker than his final scene; hanging from the rafters laughing like a maniac, knowing he's going to Arkham Asylum.

Hopefully more share your point of view and then IF Nolan had any other plans for the third film,he would feel free to reveal them. I'm doubting he will though.

 

[Shikamaru]

Pun intended, but Nolan does not look like a guy with a plan. His motto's always been "one movie at a time". I don't doubt he had "plans", but they were probably closer to spitballing.

Only plans I can see them making is more thematic stuff. Things like a story about power, Batman "rising", etc. But that's almost common sense stuff.

 

[Iceman]

You can't have Joker in a Scarecrow like cameo when all the **** is going down.

 

[Ryan]

Pun intended, but Nolan does not look like a guy with a plan. His motto's always been "one movie at a time". I don't doubt he had "plans", but they were probably closer to spitballing.

Only plans I can see them making is more thematic stuff. Things like a story about power, Batman "rising", etc. But that's almost common sense stuff.

Joker will have to back me up on this, but I believe Ledger's sister said that Heath already planning for the third movie. Not having the option to have Heath in the third movie would definitely have changed up whatever they were spitballing. Perhaps not theme wise as you suggest, but definitely story wise. Either way, I'd love to hear those early talks they had even if it wasn't to be.

 

[Shikamaru]

Oh there's no doubt he would have been in the movie. But I don't think they mapped out a story with the Joker, I think they just had some thematic ideas of where to take him. That and he's the Joker, they would have done more with him if they could have (otherwise they would have killed him at the end of TDK).

 

[Ryan]

Oh there's no doubt he would have been in the movie. But I don't think they mapped out a story with the Joker, I think they just had some thematic ideas of where to take him. That and he's the Joker, they would have done more with him if they could have (otherwise they would have killed him at the end of TDK).

Oh I completely agree. I still wonder how that original outline of having Dent turn into Two Face near the end and have him figuring into the 3rd film might have gone. Again, we have what we have, but I'm such a fan of the films that I like hearing a lot of the behind the scenes stuff that went on and the whole process they went through.

 

[DoomRulz]

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2303931/check-out-anne-hathaway-reuniting-with-the-bat-pod

I thought this was cute. She looked really awesome on the bike.

This, not so much. Lot of eye-rolling to be had here.

https://www.cbr.com/15-things-christopher-nolan-got-completely-wrong-about-batman/

 

[Awest66]

This, not so much. Lot of eye-rolling to be had here.

You were not kidding. Guy who made this list is an Idiot.

 

[DoomRulz]

This article is a little old, but it popped up on my phone recently for some reason and I liked it. I think Nolan's right. Studios these days seem to be in a hurry to pump out lots of movies in the superhero genre and don't take the time to always polish the film. Marvel's on a hot-streak sure but it's led to a feeling of over-saturation at times.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/17...perhero-movies-according-to-christopher-nolan

 

[shauner111]

Pun intended, but Nolan does not look like a guy with a plan. His motto's always been "one movie at a time". I don't doubt he had "plans", but they were probably closer to spitballing.

Only plans I can see them making is more thematic stuff. Things like a story about power, Batman "rising", etc. But that's almost common sense stuff.

This.

 

[Awest66]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AECcEPEeQnY

I don't know if this review on TDKR was linked anywhere before but I just rewatched it and while I by and large don't agree, It was an interesting video to revisit. Any thoughts?

Be warned it is over an hour though.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Care to give us the highlights? I'm not in the mood to listen to it right now.

 

[Ryan]

This.

Pun intended, but Nolan does not look like a guy with a plan. His motto's always been "one movie at a time". I don't doubt he had "plans", but they were probably closer to spitballing.

Only plans I can see them making is more thematic stuff. Things like a story about power, Batman "rising", etc. But that's almost common sense stuff.

I definitely think the rising or at least returning theme would have been visited seeing on how tdk ended. Definitely common sense. How that return might have been played out with Heath's return, as they had planned, would have been interesting to say the least.

 

[shauner111]

I do think it's an interesting idea to have Bruce rise from the depths of Arkham Asylum as opposed to Bane's pit in a different country. If Joker was around, then he'd most likely be used inside Arkham like Hannibal Lecter. Then you can have Bane trap Batman on the lowest floor, in his own cell, next to Joker. Of course, you don't really want Joker to know Batman's identity. So you'd have the two cells set up where they can't exactly see one another, using only their voices to communicate. They learn more about each other, Bruce learns to understand Joker more but also hate him even more (of course Joker would say some vile ****). Now imagine Bruce escaping Arkham, which has been empty for months with only a few crazies left in the place. Bane keeps Joker there, and so does Bruce when he escapes. Maybe the inside of Arkham has been modified to serve Bane's plan too.

This is how i'd do it if Heath had lived. You keep most of everything intact. Through flashbacks you can see Bane/Talia struggling inside that pit (shot in India). But in the present day, Bane chooses Arkham for convenience and so Bruce can burn inside Gotham. Not being able to reach his people, even though they're so close. Breaking his back, and turning the place into a dungeon would secure Bane's plan in his mind. But of course Batman escapes.