Originally posted by Grimm22seems being the key word.
Usually when people commit suicide they aren't in complete control of themselves. In this case, it seems like Ledger was so depressed he unintentionally overdosed on a medicine.
Originally posted by Cap'n HappyThe newest article says he already completely all his post-production work on the film.
It will effect it a little. Principle filming WAS done, but there are almost always a couple of scenes the director wants to re-shoot, and then there are voice overs (usually the last thing in any movie is re-recording garbled dialogue).
Damn shame on a human level. It's selfish, but understandable that we fans of Batman first think about the movie, but lets remember that he was a human-being, and we don't know the details of his death. Sure reminds me of Brandon Lee/Crow.
As for the future Bat-films, Joker probably wasn't slated to be in them. An annoying (and foolish) mistake directors make on comic movies is to assume "we need a new villain for the next movie- the audience will want a new one". When will they realize that with good characters and good writing, the audience will want to see MORE of the villain (think Darth Vader). Two stupid mistakes movies have to cut out:
1. Revealing the heroes secret identity to ALL the main characters
(does anyone in the Spidey movies not know he's Parker by now?)
2. Stop killing the villain.
Anyway, real drag about Heath Ledger.
The only thing it could affect is ad-campaigning from this point.
Hell yeah Neo Darkhalen. The Dark Knight was definately going to put Heath on the map. The guy was on his way up. I mean, he was only 28. I could see him becomming the next Johnny Depp hands down. you KNOW after he owned the role of the Joker, Christopher Nolan would have worked with him on other projects as well. Like Scorsese does with DiCaprio.
Re: Re: Re: Damn!
Originally posted by TraXtaRCR3
True, but not in the same line of movies! killing of Joker in the original was an ignorant and absent minded move on the part of the writers. There is now obviously more respect in the film industry towards comic book to film continuity (in a sense).
Yes there are more villains to come about, but its the main ones that really matter to enthusiasts!..Its like Killing off Lex Luthor in a Superman Movie...WTF!
Yes theres other villains to continue, but You just dont do it!
& Yea im sure when they respawn the movies in another 10 years, theyll bring him or any other characters back theyve decided to whack along the process!
I dont know about you, but i dont wanna have to wait around 10 years to see that. They should get it done right from the get go! Hollywoods already doing a pretty decent job already, (aside form Spidey 3 just made with no brains just to kill off the series!) im just saying they shouldnt stray off the path again & play it smart like theyve been doing is all.
Remember, these are comics translated to another medium, so they have more flexibility. Comic writers & editors have to come up with artificial reasons to keep a mass-murdering lunatic like Joker alive, for the pressures of keeping an old rivalry going decade after decade in several monthly titles. But even the most successful film franchise only goes 3-7 films - as Spider Man is going to do - before a reboot of some kind happens. The audience wants conclusion. Joker may be Batman's top foe, but Batman is known for the vast size of his rogue's gallery, and you have to start giving the paying audience new things so it's not the same film every time out. That's why they are still trying to revive Superman's appeal for the movies - people are bored that it's constantly Lex Luthor time and again; they need to get past him to bigger foes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn!
Originally posted by roughrider
Remember, these are comics translated to another medium, so they have more flexibility. Comic writers & editors have to come up with artificial reasons to keep a mass-murdering lunatic like Joker alive, for the pressures of keeping an old rivalry going decade after decade in several monthly titles. But even the most successful film franchise only goes 3-7 films - as Spider Man is going to do - before a reboot of some kind happens. The audience wants conclusion. Joker may be Batman's top foe, but Batman is known for the vast size of his rogue's gallery, and you have to start giving the paying audience new things so it's not the same film every time out. That's why they are still trying to revive Superman's appeal for the movies - people are bored that it's constantly Lex Luthor time and again; they need to get past him to bigger foes.
Spider-Man and Batman have the best rogue villain set of all time, shame Venom was destroyed in the 3rd Spider-Man film, Batman has alot to choose from, but it will be all the more bittersweet to see Heath playing Joker and if he does the performance we all expect, and then to remind ourselves that it can never happen again is sad, is it true he was going to be in another Batman film?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn!
Originally posted by exanda kane
What about Bond?
Bond is unique, because it's really the same film remade every time out, with no continuity. There was some mini-threads between You Only Live Twice (1967) and Diamonds Are Forever (1971) because of Blofeld being the heavy, but that was it (Charles Grey, who played Blofeld in DAF, actually played a different character in YOLT.) Otherwise, their idea of reboot was just to change the lead actor every decade & keep going, until the latest Casino Royale where they finally went back to square one.
Funny enough, the first Batman series was kind of like Bond, for lack of continuity and how they just switched the lead actor time and again - maybe it could have kept going if it hadn't descended into silly camp.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I hate to sound selfish during a time of mourning, but what does this mean about the future of the franchise? And what does this mean about the future of Nolan/Ledger's Joker? Are they just gonna recast him? It wouldn't be the same if they did...
Nothing really, they can either recast, or kill him off, implied that he has died, or set up an extra scene where the Joker dies although we never see him, don't forget Batman has a long gallery of rogue villains, such as Freeze (zero) Ivy, Two face (next villain?) Bane, Killer Croc, Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Dr. Strange, Firefly, Ragdoll, Black Mask, scarface ect.
But it won't be the same, I agree.
People keep saying how he dyed of a drug overdose/suicide when the autospy was incuclusive. Nobody knows how he dyed. He could have just as easly died on some freak thing like Bruce Lee did.
As far as him being on the map, I thought he was already on the map, he already had an oscar nom. at like 26. He was making movies he wanted to make. I agree that the Joker role would have made him more famous, but thats what I liked about Ledger, he seemed to take the roles that were more low key and character driven which would be more beneficial as an actor, than marquee bid budget crap that would be more benficial to his bank account. (and I'm not talkin about batman franchise when I say that)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn!
Originally posted by roughrider
Bond is unique, because it's really the same film remade every time out, with no continuity. There was some mini-threads between You Only Live Twice (1967) and Diamonds Are Forever (1971) because of Blofeld being the heavy, but that was it (Charles Grey, who played Blofeld in DAF, actually played a different character in YOLT.) Otherwise, their idea of reboot was just to change the lead actor every decade & keep going, until the latest Casino Royale where they finally went back to square one.
Funny enough, the first Batman series was kind of like Bond, for lack of continuity and how they just switched the lead actor time and again - maybe it could have kept going if it hadn't descended into silly camp.
It's still a franchise. But fair enough, you played the "Get Out of Jail Free Card" with unique, despite not mentioning the exception earlier.
I think the Joker was Heath's most intense role ever. Intense in that the Joker character was intense and Heath as a person and actor was intense. The 2 parts collided with an impact equivalent of 2 cars crashing head on at full speed.
Unfortunately, as someone said earlier, TDK, might've cost him dearly. At least partly.
One out of the many stresses, i think, that he faced was the concern of being worse or better than Jack Nicholsons; an academy award winner/best actor. Maybe Heath wanted to top that, He sure wasn't able to manage it personally as it cost him, but maybe he pulled it off as the Joker.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think the Joker was Heath's most intense role ever. Intense in that the Joker character was intense and Heath as a person and actor was intense. The 2 parts collided with an impact equivalent of 2 cars crashing head on at full speed.Unfortunately, as someone said earlier, TDK, might've cost him dearly. At least partly.
One out of the many stresses, i think, that he faced was the concern of being worse or better than Jack Nicholsons; an academy award winner/best actor. Maybe Heath wanted to top that, He sure wasn't able to manage it personally as it cost him, but maybe he pulled it off as the Joker.
Here, I agree with you and another poster's points, I think that the Joker is an intense character; to go back to his roots, please the fans, top Jack's role; do a good job himself I think it may have been to much, in the end the Joker is a split of many different evils in the world and he has a strong fan base, I think he wanted to make the best of it; show people what he could do, sadly I believe it got the best of him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn!
Originally posted by roughrider
Remember, these are comics translated to another medium, so they have more flexibility. Comic writers & editors have to come up with artificial reasons to keep a mass-murdering lunatic like Joker alive, for the pressures of keeping an old rivalry going decade after decade in several monthly titles. But even the most successful film franchise only goes 3-7 films - as Spider Man is going to do - before a reboot of some kind happens. The audience wants conclusion. Joker may be Batman's top foe, but Batman is known for the vast size of his rogue's gallery, and you have to start giving the paying audience new things so it's not the same film every time out. That's why they are still trying to revive Superman's appeal for the movies - people are bored that it's constantly Lex Luthor time and again; they need to get past him to bigger foes.
You have a valid point; movies demand tighter storytelling, with a beginning, middle, and an end. However this doesn't mean every villain has to die in every film. Stretch a characters arc over 2 or 3 films, at least the important villains. It adds heft and substance to the bad-guy, which only adds to the impact of the whole series. Think about Darth Vader in the original 3 Star Wars films. The best thing about the Spidey films (story-wise) was the continuing, looming presence of the Goblin. It added a Gothic overtone to the 3 movies (unfortunately, the payoff was a little weak). Anyway, you make good points, you obviously understand film better than most fanboys.
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Don't mention the Goblin's, Venom should have had screen time instead of Harry, we already had one goblin we did not need another.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think any knowledgeable film goer and esp. film writer, would tell you that the whole Goblin element of the Spidey series (father/son/brother, vengeance, madness, ect.) was a much more compelling feature than Venom was. The Goblin arc was practically Shakespearean. If they ever have Venom in another Spidey it will be that much better because of the build up from his first appearances. I admit, it's time to leave Goblin alone now, and go to fresh meat, but the Bat-films (and ALL superhero films) would do well to observe Star Wars/Spider-man's use of their main bad-guys... keep them coming back and build-up to a climax.