Would TDK still have been successful without Joker?

a retarded 12 year old (dog)? Uhm...ok...didn't know that most dogs weren't retarded anyway....guess you didn't, which isn't your fault...it's your mothers, your clearly the result of a mother who was on crack whilst pregnant

So now if you don't mind we can move on 😄

Originally posted by steverules
a retarded 12 year old (dog)? Uhm...ok...didn't know that most dogs weren't retarded anyway....guess you didn't, which isn't your fault...it's your mothers, your clearly the result of a mother who was on crack whilst pregnant

So now if you don't mind we can move on 😄

Haha, it becomes clearer with every post you make that I'm obviously speaking at a level beyond your comprehension. However, I'm a firm believer in helping those less mentally able than most, so let me try a new tack:

Woof-woof, awoooo...woof! Woof?

Originally posted by steverules
If joker hadn't been in TDK, and it had just been two face...would TDK have done as well as it did, would it have flopped or would it have been like batman begins and done ok but not great?

Assuming the Joker wasn't in it, the story would have (had to be) been completely different, so it's possible that it could have been just as good or even better. Anyone that can't accept this as possibility is a senseless buffoon.

This is of course doing away with the silly notion that Ledger's performance was the pinnacle of acting as some want to believe.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Haha, it becomes clearer with every post you make that I'm obviously speaking at a level beyond your comprehension. However, I'm a firm believer in helping those less mentally able than most, so let me try a new tack:

Woof-woof, awoooo...woof! Woof?

😬 Wow....just....wow

Originally posted by Robtard
Assuming the Joker wasn't in it, the story would have (had to be) been completely different, so it's possible that it could have been just as good or even better. Anyone that can't accept this as possibility is a senseless buffoon.

This is of course doing away with the silly notion that Ledger's performance was the pinnacle of acting as some want to believe.

Woulda been interesting to see how two face coulda done being the only villain in TDK...I am glad joker was in it and Ledger did a good joker, still like I said...woulda been interesting to see what two face woulda done had he been the main villain.

Guys, let's cut back on the attacks.

My answer, yes...if you're talking about success in delivering a good story. Then yes, it would have.

Batman Begins didn't make a lot of money because of certain factors.

1. Fans and movie goers still had the bad taste in their mouths from Batman and Robin.

2. Poor marketing and advertising.

3. At the time of Batman Begins was competing with Episode III.

Nolan's Batman got mostly recognize once the film got to dvd and was on cable tv. One thing led to another and when the sequel came out...well, you know the rest.

Hard to tell, the movie would've taken a completely different turn, it still may have been good, but without Ledger it would be found lacking.

Blax I am glad I'm not the only one who thought Begins was dry. I liked it and respected it for reviving Batman in a respectable manner but really I thought the movie was lacking in a few areas

I believe yes The Dark Knight still have been successful. Batman Begins was in the right direction and was very good. But when it was announced that a sequel was coming I was very very excited, because I knew it was going to be better. When Heath Ledger was casted I started to think how a very talented actor like he is/was that this movie was going to be great. Now I knew The Dark Knight was going to make money, but I had no idea it was going to set records right and left. The next comes on sunday when this will become the fastedt movie (10 days) to reach $300 million dollar domestically.

The joker card at the end of begins more a less implied that the joker was gonna be in the sequel

Originally posted by steverules
The joker card at the end of begins more a less implied that the joker was gonna be in the sequel

Yes it did. Tis truly shameful that we will not see The Joker again.

Would it had been successful? Yes
Would it had been as successful? No

We are talking about one of the most iconic duels in comic history... Batman vs Joker. That is what has made the movie successful. Heath Ledger role as the Joker has pushed the movie into the record breaking atmosphere.

It it was not for the added push, it would have still been a major hit because of the Joker, but not a record breaking movie.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Would it had been successful? Yes
Would it had been as successful? No

We are talking about one of the most iconic duels in comic history... Batman vs Joker. That is what has made the movie successful. Heath Ledger role as the Joker has pushed the movie into the record breaking atmosphere.

It it was not for the added push, it would have still been a major hit because of the Joker, but not a record breaking movie.

Agreed 100%

If Heath didn't do the Joker this way, I doubt it'd be breaking records the way it is.

Honestly I think The Dark Knight was bound to break a few records anyway just based on the hype. And I think Nolan would have had the Joker done a similar way, but maybe not as well if he had another actor. I think the Heath Ledger hype added to it but I still think the Batman versus Joker epic was always destined for greatness.

Yep, and when it happens in the next series, hopefully it'll be just as good as this time.

Originally posted by Menetnashté
Hard to tell, the movie would've taken a completely different turn, it still may have been good, but without Ledger it would be found lacking.

That takes the stance that no one else but Ledger playing the joker would have made the movie great, which is rediculous. It could have been great without the Joker altogether, just would have had to been different. It's certainly possible someone else could have done an equal or greater job with the Joker role.

Originally posted by Robtard
That takes the stance that no one else but Ledger playing the joker would have made the movie great, which is rediculous. It could have been great without the Joker altogether, just would have had to been different. It's certainly possible someone else could have done an equal or greater job with the Joker role.

Originally posted by Menetnashté
I don't think it's ridiculous in the least to say Ledger is the only one who could've pulled off the role the way he did, I think some people are perfect for certain roles, Ledger was perfect for the Joker, Harrison Ford was perfect for Han Solo and Indiana Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger was perfect for the Terminator, and Sean Connery was perfect for Captain Marko Ramius. There are tons of cases like this in my opinion and I honestly believe that Heath Ledger is one of them.

That is until someone else comes along and does a better job.

Originally posted by Robtard
That is until someone else comes along and does a better job.

Originally posted by Menetnashté
Believe what you will, but I don't think it's going to happen, if you think I'm an idiot for believing that then let me live in ignorant bliss.

I don't think you're an idiot, just suffering from 'TDK syndrome'.

I remember when it was first announced that Ledger was cast as the Joker in the Batman Begins sequel, many a person said "he'll never be able to live up to Nicholson's role", because up to that point Nicholson had arguably done the best Joker and it was imaginable that Ledger, a young actor with little under his belt could match or top it. See my point?

Ledger did do a great Joker though and the fact that this was his last role would be a hard act to follow for any would be future Jokers.