In my opinion, I believe The Joker should return in the third installation of the franchise. Why?
1. The Joker is too good a villain and too iconic a screen icon to be snubbed or written out.
2. Just because Heath Ledger died, doesn't mean the character should die along with him. There are plenty of other really good and talented actors out there who can play the Clown Prince of Crime just as good as Ledger or even better.
3. IT'S THE F****ING JOKER MAN. You can't just have him last seen dangling upside down on a ledge of the Prewitt Building in TDK and then not have him shown again.
I dont care what other people think, but The Joker is The Joker. Not Heath Ledger is The Joker. He might have died that way as some rumors said, but the character is essential in the Batman Universe. If Nolan has decided that The Joker will not be returning or at least make a cameo, then he is a fool for killing off one of the greatest, dynamic, and most wicked character to ever have been created in cinema history. (By that I meant The Joker will never be shown in a live action adaptation again just because of someone overdosing and another writing him off.)
Originally posted by LordofKlowns13
In my opinion, I believe The Joker should return in the third installation of the franchise. Why?1. The Joker is too good a villain and too iconic a screen icon to be snubbed or written out.
2. Just because Heath Ledger died, doesn't mean the character should die along with him. There are plenty of other really good and talented actors out there who can play the Clown Prince of Crime just as good as Ledger or even better.
3. IT'S THE F****ING JOKER MAN. You can't just have him last seen dangling upside down on a ledge of the Prewitt Building in TDK and then not have him shown again.
I dont care what other people think, but The Joker is The Joker. Not Heath Ledger is The Joker. He might have died that way as some rumors said, but the character is essential in the Batman Universe. If Nolan has decided that The Joker will not be returning or at least make a cameo, then he is a fool for killing off one of the greatest, dynamic, and most wicked character to ever have been created in cinema history. (By that I meant The Joker will never be shown in a live action adaptation again just because of someone overdosing and another writing him off.)
The problem of recasting the Joker is the new actor's take on him. If the new actor tries to immitate Ledger's performance, people will complain that he tries too hard to copy Ledger and that he can't be his own character.
If he doesn't act like Ledger, people will complain that Batman 3 has plot wholes due to the Joker changing his personality with no explanation.
Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The problem of recasting the Joker is the new actor's take on him. If the new actor tries to immitate Ledger's performance, people will complain that he tries too hard to copy Ledger and that he can't be his own character.If he doesn't act like Ledger, people will complain that Batman 3 has plot wholes due to the Joker changing his personality with no explanation.
I don't think that'd be too much of a problem. The Joker is so psychotic that he has multiple sides to his personality. In TDK, the chaotic side was prominently displayed. In the next one, they could really focus on another side to him, while mentioning (by way of an Arkham doctor's comments) of him being so psychotic that another side of his personality revealed itself.
The problem would be "Why does the Joker look so different?"
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't think that'd be too much of a problem. The Joker is so psychotic that he has multiple sides to his personality. In TDK, the chaotic side was prominently displayed. In the next one, they could really focus on another side to him, while mentioning (by way of an Arkham doctor's comments) of him being so psychotic that another side of his personality revealed itself.The problem would be "Why does the Joker look so different?"
They could use Grant Morrison's idea that the Joker always reinvents himself to keep up with everyday life.
Originally posted by LordofKlowns13
In my opinion, I believe The Joker should return in the third installation of the franchise. Why?1. The Joker is too good a villain and too iconic a screen icon to be snubbed or written out.
2. Just because Heath Ledger died, doesn't mean the character should die along with him. There are plenty of other really good and talented actors out there who can play the Clown Prince of Crime just as good as Ledger or even better.
3. IT'S THE F****ING JOKER MAN. You can't just have him last seen dangling upside down on a ledge of the Prewitt Building in TDK and then not have him shown again.
I dont care what other people think, but The Joker is The Joker. Not Heath Ledger is The Joker. He might have died that way as some rumors said, but the character is essential in the Batman Universe. If Nolan has decided that The Joker will not be returning or at least make a cameo, then he is a fool for killing off one of the greatest, dynamic, and most wicked character to ever have been created in cinema history. (By that I meant The Joker will never be shown in a live action adaptation again just because of someone overdosing and another writing him off.)
I'm sure Nolan will do something good to tie up the loose end. perhapes have batman in arkum looking into the cell with the joker there?
But i don't think the joker should be in the 3rd film or 4th for that matter there are plenty of other desent villians for us to see. Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, poison ivy. they could bring in Harley for a side story to get back at batman for arresting joker.
Heath did a great job as the Joker, but to get someone to replace him as the Joker in the 3rd film would be too soon wait till batman 5 or 6.
I would be dissapointed if the next movie was about the joker again.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
The good thing is Nolan is keeping the franchise on the ground, by not having these radical super villans. They are just regular people that are nuts. not some mutated by acid joker or a birth defect peguin.
that CAN be a bad thing, though, as he's already alienated a lot of potential villains that would be decent if well done...
Originally posted by -Pr-
that CAN be a bad thing, though, as he's already alienated a lot of potential villains that would be decent if well done...
I think this as well, but the way I see it, we've already had enough of the overly 'WTF' out of the ordinary villains comin' at Batman starting from Returns, to all the other film abortions that lit up Gotham with that neon crap.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
What do you mean? How has he alienated a lot of potential villians that would be desent if well done?
what scythe said, in a way. Though i'm talking about people like Freeze, Ivy, Bane even. These are all people that would have to be significantly changed to fit in to a Nolan-verse movie.
And yes, i am aware that i just named the three villains from the fourth movie. Don't hold that agains them; they're all epic.
Originally posted by -Pr-
what scythe said, in a way. Though i'm talking about people like Freeze, Ivy, Bane even. These are all people that would have to be significantly changed to fit in to a Nolan-verse movie.And yes, i am aware that i just named the three villains from the fourth movie. Don't hold that agains them; they're all epic.
I see what you are saying, i guess the riddler could be done in the nolan universe, same with the penguin and catwoman. but for the more extreme villians (and by extreme i mean out there in what they can do) the ones you mentioned would be difficult to put into the nolan-verse.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
The good thing is Nolan is keeping the franchise on the ground, by not having these radical super villans. They are just regular people that are nuts. not some mutated by acid joker or a birth defect peguin.
That's how it is in the comic books, though...
I thought people wanted the movies to be based on the comics 🙄 Nolan gets so much leeway in the Batman community it's not even funny. He can do no wrong. He does something (like putting machine guns on the Batpod so Batman can shoot obstacles out of his path, or putting missiles on the Tumbler) and it's awesome. If Burton did something (like putting machine guns on the Batmobile so Batman can shoot obstacles out of his path, or putting missiles on the Batplane) and he knows nothing about Batman. WTF?
Anyway, Nolan just needs to stay away from cliches and he's home free, in my book. I want him to really go out there with this film. I want him to go where no Batman film has gone before. I don't want another Hollywood blockbuster (TDK was one, too, guys), I want a psychological masterpiece.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I thought people wanted the movies to be based on the comics 🙄 Nolan gets so much leeway in the Batman community it's not even funny. He can do no wrong. He does something (like putting machine guns on the Batpod so Batman can shoot obstacles out of his path, or putting missiles on the Tumbler) and it's awesome. If Burton did something (like putting machine guns on the Batmobile so Batman can shoot obstacles out of his path, or putting missiles on the Batplane) and he knows nothing about Batman. WTF?
The difference is that Burton's Batman uses them to kill people while Nolan's Batman doesn't.
Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The difference is that Burton's Batman uses them to kill people while Nolan's Batman doesn't.
I'm talking about some people I've ran into on this board that complain that Burton even put guns on the Batmobile in the first place (even though those machine guns never hurt anyone and only shot down the garage door), yet Nolan suped-up the Tumbler and the Batpod with machine guns for the same purpose, and no one said anything. If the guns themselves were the issue, Nolan is just as guilty...
And Robin's origin is fine. In that case, Batman's origin is outdated too, because both "The Mark of Zorro" and opera are not as popular as they used to be.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'm talking about some people I've ran into on this board that complain that Burton even put guns on the Batmobile in the first place (even though those machine guns never hurt anyone and only shot down the garage door), yet Nolan suped-up the Tumbler and the Batpod with machine guns for the same purpose, and no one said anything. If the guns themselves were the issue, Nolan is just as guilty...And Robin's origin is fine. In that case, Batman's origin is outdated too, because both "The Mark of Zorro" and opera are not as popular as they used to be.
Well then the people you talked to are hypocritical retards. Although I haven't seen a lot of them on these forums (I've seen a few but not a lot). If you've met any of these people outside Batman forums, ignore them. The internet is full of Burton fanboys and Nolan fanboys (fanboys is not the same thing as fans in case if you don't know; do research to know the difference if you don't know it right now). The only place where Batman fans are safe from those people are on forums filled with loyal comic book fans (such as this one).
For Batman's origin, the only part that seems outdated is "The Mark of Zorro". But the film could always be replaced by a different film or by a remake of the same name. The important part about Batman's origin is how he lost his parents. The film is just a minor issue. It is not the same with Robin. If the circus will become outdated in the future, his entire origin will have to change.