Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by T'Baio, Jan 11, 2009.
I like the cameo idea. That'd work.
Completely disagree. I think that it was obviously foreshadowing for future films.
And besides, I don't think that any of the rest of the rogue's gallery is really interesting enough to build a film around.
And, on top of that -- frankly, Joker's story isn't finished. We saw one aspect of one of his attempts to, essentially overthrow society fail, but we haven't seen the Joker's story itself come to a conclusion. His story is ultimately about his relationship with Batman, and that's completely unresolved.
We need more Joker. He's a dangling plot thread otherwise.
I think that TDK was implying that Joker and Batman would definitely meet again and that he would always be the arch-nemesis. "You and me... I think we're destined to do this forever." If there was a really good role for the Joker to return, i would be for him being recast, since there is already a precidence of recasting with Rachel Dawes.
Holmes, though, didn't own the character to such critical acclaim that people spoke out in horror when the character was recast.
People always speak out in horror until something turns out to be ok in the end (see Daniel Craig as James Bond). People weren't sure Ledger could compete with Nicholson for the role either. And count me as one who felt Rachel Dawes was perfectly cast in the first movie. Fortunately, the actor who replaced her was similar enough.
Yeah, but, again, the Joker is an inherently chaotic character. He doesn't even remember his past consistently from day to day according to Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, and he certainly gave different accounts of his past from scene to scene in the film. So I think the character allows for another actor who might even have a radically different interpretation.
Ledger's performance was amazing, and he deserves an Oscar for it. But this is a character with six decades of history who has been played by at least six actors that I know of. It's not a character about which there can ever be said to be one definitive interpretation.
Yes, he's such a radically unstable character who tells different stories of his scars for intimidation that he... completely changes his apperance...
This movie has no further use for the Joker. He's been used. Time to move on to other villains.
Different physical appearance? Oh, big frickin' deal. Maggie Gyllenhal doesn't look like Katie Holmes, but everyone just accepted that they were playing the same character.
And I'm not convinced he was deliberately telling different stories of his scars. I think that his memory honestly changed from scene to scene.
Completely disagree. The Joker isn't used at all -- he's completely unresolved.
Perhaps a build up of Harley Quinn on a rampage leading to the Joker and Harley with the Riddler as a decent quality copycat
She's a secondary character in both movies. Recasting her makes no difference and Holmes didn't "own" the role as much as Ledger did his.
I guess we differ there. I took it that he just told different stories about it and not that he had some fucked up version of Korsakov's syndrome.
As we disagree on the "we could do this forever" line. I think it was just a wink and nod at Batman and The Joker being legendary foes in the "universe" they are in they WILL do it forever, but it'll be beyond the scope of these films as Batman has other villains to deal with in the interim.
What possible reolution could there be? He's captured and in Arkham, Batman doesn't kill and The Joker isn't going to turn over a new leaf.
He's been used, we've a few movies to explore Batman and how he deals with his villains so lets move on. There's no need to reuse the Joker.
Why do people complain about Superman using and reusing Luthor over and over in his movies instead of using his other villains but here people are clamoring for more Joker?
The only reason why the Joker was worth watching in this movie was because of Ledger's performance which you're going to have a hard time matching or topping so why try? It'll just come across as, well, trying.
No matter who you pick.
The Joker has been used, time to move on. We'll see the Joker again in 20 years with the NEXT batch of Batman films.
There's no way he can be used in any signifigant manner in the next Nolan film and for it to be half as good as Ledger's potrayal. It'll just come across as cheap, desperate and as pissing on Ledger's grave.
No more Joker beyond the most passing of references and winks in the next movie.
She was an essential, main character in both movies.
I already addressed this: Ledger did not "own" the role because no one can own the role. It's one that has been interpreted many different ways by many different actors. Ledger's interpretation was perfect for The Dark Knight; another actor's might be perfect for Nolan's third film. Why would you want to inhibit creativity by limiting the role to only one actor if that actor is no longer around to play the part? Even Gary Oldman has said he thinks Ledger would have wanted the role re-cast so they could continue to advance that character.
That's a perfectly valid interpretation. Mine is based on the line from The Killing Joke by Alan Moore where the Joker notes that he remembers his history differently from day today. "If I have to have a past, I'd rather it be multiple choice!"
That's exactly the issue, though. The Joker is a completely static character throughout The Dark Knight. He shows up with his agenda and enacts almost all of it, and, in the process, becomes fixated on the Batman. Well, that fixation is a dangling plot thread -- it practically SCREAMS that it needs to go somewhere. So I'm hoping that the Nolans and Goyer get together again and pound out a script that brings the Joker on an emotional journey next time -- instead of the seemingly almost-omnipotent and omniscient force of chaos, he instead maybe becomes consumed by his obsession with Batman and lets it get the better of him until it leads to his inevitable self-destruction. Then I would consider the character resolved.
Because they can't do Lex Luthor properly, but they can the Joker.
I think that's completely unfair. There were folks who said the exact same thing about Ledger's interpretation as compared to Jack Nicholson's before Ledger's performance was finally seen. Ledger didn't have a monopoly on brilliant acting.
Besides, for my money, neither one quite compares with Mark Hamil's Joker from Batman: The Animated Series.
That'd be absurd. Why would that be seen as "pissing on his grave?" It's continuing a story that Ledger himself wanted to continue.
I'd love to see Harley Quinn in a Nolan film - and she'd be more believable than Catwoman. It would also show that while Batman is still workin' alone, without even Gordan and the police on his side, the Joker is "inspirin'" others to follow his example in Gotham.
A significant part of the Batman mythos and indeed of the Nolan films has been escalation in response to Batman and the decline of the Mob in favor of the Freaks. Between the Joker, Dent, and Batman, the Mob is in shambles following TDK and the stage is set for the Freaks to take over in a big way.
Who better to orchestrate that change than the Joker, and where better to do so than from Arkham Asylum? Given his penchant for elaborate schemes (in spite of his claims otherwise), I wouldn't put it past him even to have wanted to be locked up in Arkham in order to gain access to Gotham's most depraved individuals. Being in prison has never stopped Mob bosses from running the business, and I see no reason why the Joker can't do the same while essentially having control of the Mob and its assets himself and access to people as crazy as he is. He already employed lower-level Arkham crazies as his henchman in this movie, he'd just be moving up to a better class of nutjob.
Have Harley Quinn be a psychiatrist and former protege of Dr. Jonathan Crane's Scarecrow while he was working at Arkham, so she's already damaged goods. And then she meets Joker when he's incarcerated there and really goes over the top into evil. You could have Scarecrow in there helping Joker or have them briefly be rivals for dominance of Arkham and for Harley's twisted affection, ending with Joker brutally killing him and establishing himself as leader of the pack in the asylum.
How cool would it be to have a scene of Harley Quinn presiding over a "group counselling" session with much of the Rogue's Gallery, where instead of treatment they're actually plotting the downfall of Batman and running the criminal empire of Gotham? She could declare some of them cured in order to get them back on the street, with the Joker fomenting chaos from behind bars as their leader.
If Joker's appearance is so bothersome to you, he can always be seen from behind (doing the voice shouldn't be too hard), but I'd love to see another actor's take on the character, especially someone like Paul Betanny or James Franco.
From everything I've seen and read, I just don't think Nolan is that kind of guy, I feel pretty confident we won't see the Joker again, I feel like Nolan would think it somehow disrespectful or not honoring Heath's memory to just recast Joker for the next movie. And I don't see Nolan as someone who's such a hardcore Batman fan that he just HAS to have Joker in the next film. I feel like, he'd be more "well, I had an idea for the Joker, but we're not doing that now... so we'll come up with a different story" and that will be that.
It's disappointing, but it also adds a little "meta" feeling to The Dark Knight, giving the movie extra weight, solidifying it as an iconic movie (and iconic Joker).
Since this movie series is arguably the most reality-based Batman to date, maybe Nolan could choose to simply keep the Joker in Arkham forever. No escapes or revolving doors. Frankly the Arkham escape rate in other media is the equivalent of Highlander's 'where do they hide the sword?', in terms of having to ignore a regular plot device. The guards and staff in Nolan's Arkham aren't soft-hearted fools, and we don't see them, alive or dead, because they know how to handle supreme psychos, having taken their lumps in the Crane breakout. They don't approach them when they're ill without serious backup. They are vetted for being in cults or like that.
Just so this doesn't gut the Joker's concept, you could establish that he is under a separate security system so that even the 'mass Arkham breakout' trope doesn't get him out. More, you could have in BB3 Gordon disgustedly reading this quote from the Joker : "Why ever would I break out? I went to a lot of trouble to start this show, and now I wanna watch it play out."
Maybe this was meant to be merely Joker's first strike. Now, it will have to be that TDK was his 'masterpiece' and he is content to sit back and enjoy the chaos.
Agreed. Simply put, the real world forced his hand. This isn't any role. It's not the very much alive Katie Holmes doing a passable Rachel Dawes. It was the defining role of an actor who died tragically before his work hit the screen. It is a role which accolades and awards are being piled on - not only as an acknowledgment of his fine work - but as a eulogy of sorts.
Who wants to walk into that minefield? There are now so many pitfalls and potential negatives in the form of unfavorable press, comparisons and hard feelings, that I would imagine the cons far outweigh the pros. No one wants to have their film enter the cinemaplex with that kind of (potentially) negative baggage. Not when there are other stories to tell and other villains to tell it with.
I'll play the part of the Joker, dammit!! Just as soon as I get through playing George Bailey and Vito Corleone in their respective remakes.
They've done their Joker movie for this series. Why do we need to see him again? Particularly when Ledger did such a brilliant, memorable job and when any other actor will inevitably be compared (and probably negatively) to him?
As for the 'We're destined ...' line - well, maybe the Joker got it wrong. He is insane, after all He's in Arkham, locked up and it looks like his prediction was wrong. I don't think too much emphasis needs to be placed on that line. And even if it was intended to be significant, well, we the audience all know what's happened in reality and he we won't see him again in this particular bat-continuity. There will be other 'we' like him, other freaks and crazies. And the Batman has as good a rogues' gallery as any superhero. Let's see them instead.
I don't see why The Joker needs to return. I think it would be fun if he did, but only if Heath Ledger were still alive. I think seeing someone else as The Joker in a future Nolan-directed Batman film, besides being completely inplausible, just wouldn't work. Rachel Dawes was recast because the actress playing the part no longer had any interest in reprising the role. This is different. Heath Ledger isn't not interested, he's no longer with us. I think having another actor portray the role right after his performance would be seen as disrespecting his memory. I might not particularly agree with it, but I believe that would be the public perception.
With that said, there are a plethora of villains and stories out there. Considering that Nolan probably has one more Batman movie in him (if that), I don't want to see it wasted on characters we've seen before. Revisiting The Scarecrow was fun, but it was also only for one scene. We didn't have to sit through another movie with him, and I say this because films are a different medium... It's one thing in the comics to have villains reappear and take center stage for an issue or two, but these movies are made so sparingly and few & far between that I want to see something new and fresh. Having characters like The Scarecrow reappear, like I said, is fun, but not for the entire film. If Heath were alive, I'd love to see him making a Hannibal Lecter-esque return for a scene or so. But he's not, so out of respect for his memory and his performance, let's move on, shall we?
One thing I do hope is that he is at least acknowledged in the next fillm. I hated that Stryker or really anything in X2 was really left out or not mentioned in X-Men: The Last Stand. Since honestly, if it wasn't for Stryker, there would be no X-Men: The Last Stand. It's a bad analogy, but The Joker made a huge impact on the events of The Dark Knight and the events that will proceed, so I think a passing mention of him is a bit necessary. However, in retrospect, Ra's al Ghul's "contributions" to Batman Begins opened up the floodgates for what happened with the criminal and mob element in The Dark Knight, and he wasn't mentioned, as Bad Bishop accurately pointed out, so perhaps The Joker doesn't even need a passing mention.
I'd say...let Nolan figure it out. That's what he's good at, anyway.
Separate names with a comma.