The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - Part 154

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]497397[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]488997[/split]

 

[Shikamaru]

I wouldn't say Batman not killing the Joker is illogical. If we were to go by real-world logic, you'd throw the Joker in prison once and not have to worry about the rest. Maybe he would escape a few times at best (literally like once or twice), but even that wouldn't justify killing him. No convict can escape over and over again like they do in comics. The reason comics do it is to allow further development of the mythos. It's something you gotta suspend your disbelief on.

But let's assume he did kill him. Even then, it would still be ineffective. How long before DC brings him back given his popularity? Does Batman kill him again then? And later on he comes back again? Some might argue "well, they should just man up and keep him dead then." By that same logic, they should just man up and keep him locked up like it would happen in real life. If you're willing to accept someone breaking out over and over again, it's only consistent we consider the rules of the universe when critiquing Batman's decision.

 

[The Joker]

Or they bring in someone as bad or almost as bad as the Joker to replace his evil void. Is Batman going to kill them, too? There's as much justification for him to kill the Joker as there is for him to murder Two Face, Penguin, Riddler, Killer Croc etc. They all have big body counts. He might as well just call himself The Punisher and kill them all.

 

[shauner111]

You really think they'd have Joker in Arkham for the whole entire movie? I can't see that if, and I say if the story went the way it went with the whole city siege. Joker not being involved in that is a scenario I can't imagine. Especially with the whole Dent cover up being revealed, and I dare say would have been more significant in impact if Joker had been there for it.

Yes i do. I think he would be the hannibal lecter type. Batman or another character would visit this guy and pick his brain.

There's the judge theory. Bane could have released him to take the spot of Scarecrow. But that's not Joker escaping is it? I see a 3, 4, 5 scenes max, probably all inside Arkham Asylum. Batman, Catwoman, Blake...one of these characters or all of them would have visited Joker. I dont see it going any other way.

 

[The Joker]

The Joker is too much of a vibrant chaotic character to have him sat in a cell for over 2 hours. I just don't see Nolan or WB using him like that.

The Judge thing doesn't really work for me, not because Joker wouldn't do such a thing. He'd love to play Judge like that and send people off to their death. It's that he wouldn't be doing it as an LOS lackey.

 

[shauner111]

For over 2 hours? Or just using him in a few big scenes locked in Arkham? I doubt he would even use the guy in the last half hour. Nolan would not have done a third movie unless he ended the story. Having Joker on the loose would never happen because Bruce would never quit Batman if he knew Joker was lurking around. Another director would have used Ledger and probably wrote him to escape, but we're talking about a third Nolan film. He would have used Ledger 100 percent. Heath was signed for a third movie. Warner Brothers had no say after TDK (well, you know what i mean). Nolan had complete control, and im sure they would be content with Chris using Heath for a number of important scenes, whether he was in a padded cell or not. The judge thing doesn't work for me either. Ledger or no Ledger, i don't believe for a second that Nolan would have made another Batman movie without the idea of ending Bruce's journey. That has me believing that Ledger would have been locked up during the entire movie.

 

[The Joker]

Over the 2 hours of the movie the Joker is only seen in a cell. That's not something I could see Nolan or WB doing with the character. Considering Nolan used Joker exactly the way Joker should be used; up to his eyeballs in anarchy and chaos. Out actively causing mayhem and being a ton of fun doing it. A vibrant, colorful, energetic character. To reduce him to just sitting in a cell talking to people just doesn't ring true. Even in the infamous interrogation room scene in TDK of Batman and Joker just sitting and talking, that erupted into chaos with Batman beating seven shades out of Joker and Joker just laughing it off.

I wasn't talking about Nolan ending Bruce's journey. He could have done that without wasting Joker in a cell for the course of the movie.

 

[Kane52630]

I would have liked a mention about the Joker from Gordon or somebody else in TDKR. Just a simple throwaway easter egg type line.

 

[The Shape]

Hannibal Lecter had 12 minutes of screen time in SOTL, was locked away for just about the entire movie, and still had more impact and influence over the entire film than any other character. The Joker had roughly 30 minutes of screen time in TDK.

If he were to appear in the TDK sequel, The Joker could have had 5-15 minutes of screen time, been locked away for much of the film, and still would likely have played a major part in the story, possibly escaping in the end.

 

[The Joker]

Hannibal Lecter had 12 minutes of screen time in SOTL, was locked away for just about the entire movie, and still had more impact and influence over the entire film than any other character. The Joker had roughly 30 minutes of screen time in TDK.

Hannibal Lecter isn't a colorful, energetic, chaos causing destructive character. He's a shrink who eats people. That's why it worked for his character being jailed for the bulk of the movie.

If he were to appear in the TDK sequel, The Joker could have had 5-15 minutes of screen time, been locked away for much of the film, and still would likely have played a major part in the story, possibly escaping in the end.

Ok I'll bite. Spin a possible scenario how that would work.

 

[shauner111]

Over the 2 hours of the movie the Joker is only seen in a cell. That's not something I could see Nolan or WB doing with the character. Considering Nolan used Joker exactly the way Joker should be used; up to his eyeballs in anarchy and chaos. Out actively causing mayhem and being a ton of fun doing it. A vibrant, colorful, energetic character. To reduce him to just sitting in a cell talking to people just doesn't ring true. Even in the infamous interrogation room scene in TDK of Batman and Joker just sitting and talking, that erupted into chaos with Batman beating seven shades out of Joker and Joker just laughing it off.

I wasn't talking about Nolan ending Bruce's journey. He could have done that without wasting Joker in a cell for the course of the movie.

I can totally see it. What do you suggest Joker do after his escape, during a similar story to Rises? If he's not the judge, i don't see what he would bring without turning it into a Joker vs Bane vs Batman thing. I would rather have TDK be the movie where Joker was out going nuts on the city, with Rises as the one where he's locked up but giving advice and lies in his twisted way, to a few characters in the story. Warnings, playing games with words, true advice, bullsh***ing. At least that's what i prefer.

 

[shauner111]

Hannibal Lecter had 12 minutes of screen time in SOTL, was locked away for just about the entire movie, and still had more impact and influence over the entire film than any other character. The Joker had roughly 30 minutes of screen time in TDK.

If he were to appear in the TDK sequel, The Joker could have had 5-15 minutes of screen time, been locked away for much of the film, and still would likely have played a major part in the story, possibly escaping in the end.

Exactly what i was thinking.

 

[Kane52630]

He's a shrink who eats people.



Ok I'll bite.

 

[shauner111]

I would have liked a mention about the Joker from Gordon or somebody else in TDKR. Just a simple throwaway easter egg type line.

Same.

 

[The Joker]

I can totally see it. What do you suggest Joker do after his escape, during a similar story to Rises? If he's not the judge, i don't see what he would bring without turning it into a Joker vs Bane vs Batman thing. I would rather have TDK be the movie where Joker was out going nuts on the city, with Rises as the one where he's locked up but giving advice and lies in his twisted way, to a few characters in the story. Warnings, playing games with words, true advice, bullsh***ing. At least that's what i prefer.

How can you not see it? It's the only way to go with a colorful chaos character like that.

For a start we should have a DKR scenario where Joker has been near comatose for the years Batman was gone, he sees the news reports on TV that Batman is back. He comes back to his old self and escapes. Because this version of Joker is just like the comics one who is basically curls up and stops living when Batman was gone. He makes it all worthwhile and interesting and fun for him. So if Batman vanished for 8 years, Joker would do what DKR Joker did.

Top of the agenda if he escaped is it should have been him, not Bane, who exposed the Dent cover up. And then we should have seen some proper impact on Gotham from that, which Rises neglected to show, and Joker reaping the chaos from that.

Third he should definitely be opposed to Bane's regime. What Bane did to Gotham just a bunch of citizens quaking in fear of being bombed, is not what Joker had in mind for chaos. I'd also do what Nolan did with the Batman copycats, except this time it's for Joker, there would be a Joker themed gang that were inspired by him. Like the Jokerz in Batman Beyond. They would be Joker's gang for the movie.

That actually wasn't intentional lol.

 

[shauner111]

It's not the only way to go. Me and Shape already suggested the Hannibal Lecter role. I think i read somewhere that it may have been the plan too.

Your Returns idea is actually good. I forgot about that lol. If he escapes, what's the plan? Chaos? Obviously. But, is he messing with Bane, Batman, both? How? Exposing the Dent cover up, okay, but it feels like he's the main villain again. Im not sure if i need to see that again after TDK. Bane should be in control for the bulk of the film and not made to look weak throughout the first 2 hours or so. What is Bane doing when Joker is revealing the truth and being rewarded by Gotham? Im not sure if another triangle makes sense.

 

[Shikamaru]

Honestly, it's kinda irrelevant to speculate how Joker would fit in Rises' story as it probably would have been radically different to begin with (for better or worse). That's one of the many debates we had on here. You can't just insert a character like him into he picture and simply add minor changes to your vision. I think that's especially true with a director like Nolan.

Though if we had to assume all things stayed constant, I suspect Bane and Talia would have gotten the Strange/Ra's treatment of Arkham City.

 

[The Joker]

It's not the only way to go. Me and Shape already suggested the Hannibal Lecter role. I think i read somewhere that it may have been the plan too.

That scenario doesn't work for a character like the Joker. He and Hannibal are apples and oranges. Hannibal is a cannibal shrink. Calm, collected, cultured, his crimes are not fanciful or in your face. Joker is an anarchist, colorful, destructive, energetic, vibrant psychopath. He brings chaos. He's as in your face as you can get. When Hannibal escapes jail, he does it by wearing a victims face and escaping incognito. When Joker escapes jail, he blows up the whole place, and then speeds through the streets hanging out of a car window like a mad dog. Sticking him in a cell just for chats for the bulk of the movie is neutering him.

The only thing I compare them to is how both characters had a small amount of screen time (or in Joker's case the least amount compared to Batman, Dent, Gordon etc), but were the most memorable characters in their movies. Quality over quantity thanks to great writing and acting.

Your Returns idea is actually good. I forgot about that lol. If he escapes, what's the plan? Chaos? Obviously. But, is he messing with Bane, Batman, both? How? Exposing the Dent cover up, okay, but it feels like he's the main villain again. Im not sure if i need to see that again after TDK. Bane should be in control for the bulk of the film and not made to look weak throughout the first 2 hours or so. What is Bane doing when Joker is revealing the truth and being rewarded by Gotham? Im not sure if another triangle makes sense.

Thank you. I always think of DKR when I watch Rises. Batman gone for years, makes a big come back. If Joker had been in the movie, it would have been PERFECT for him to be handled that way. Particularly since Heath's Joker was the Batman obsessed Joker who finds life boring without him. It would have been almost like a foreshadowing in TDK when he said he imagined what Gotham would be like with no Batman and it was "SO boring!".

Yes, messing with Batman, reaping his chaos from the Dent cover up, and working as a factor against Bane. Bane could still be the main villain, because power wise, he out mans Joker that way. He's got control of the city. He has the bomb. Joker's the loose cannon factor he has to try and control.

Bane can be doing anything when Joker reveals the Dent cover up. Joker does this off his own bat. He doesn't rely on Bane to make an announcement. They're not working together.

This is all assuming that is the way Nolan would have done the story if Heath was still alive.

Though if we had to assume all things stayed constant, I suspect Bane and Talia would have gotten the Strange/Ra's treatment of Arkham City.

That's definitely not a good thing. They were basically after thoughts in AC.

 

[Shikamaru]

Maybe not so much throughout the film but moreso in like the third act. And given how Bane became an afterthought once Talia stepped in, I get the sense something similar would have happened with the Joker.

 

[BatLobster]

Maybe not so much throughout the film but moreso in like the third act. And given how Bane became an afterthought once Talia stepped in, I get the sense something similar would have happened with the Joker.

Yup. I actually pitched a semi-detailed attempt to retrofit Joker into the basic plot structure of Rises a little while back in this thread, but that's ultimately the conclusion I came to. Any third act villain would've had essentially the same effect of undermining Bane, although fans might've been more open to it with Joker given that he's...well, The Joker. At least with Bane and Talia though, they were basically two halves of one larger character with a shared history.

If I recall, my altered version of the story featured a LoS plot where the goal was truly the revolution and the bomb was just a bluff that they didn't actually intend to detonate. Joker has other ideas though and is able to get his hands on the detonator during the climax, which he of course wants to use as a means to lure Batman into one last game.

It's a fun thought experiment, but I must admit it's hard to just plop a character like The Joker into the story without shaking things up more. Talia would've probably had to go to keep it less cluttered in this case, although I dislike the idea of a movie having a predominant LoS-centered plot with no al Ghul in the story.

Also, if Joker was going to be in the final movie...not gonna lie, I wouldn't have minded seeing Jim Gordon be the one to put a bullet in his head and end it once and for all. So long as it was written in a way where it's not just because Batman refuses to do it even with Joker holding a detonator to a nuke, lol.

 

[Shikamaru]

To be fair though, it's almost impossible to avoid that sort of thing when it comes to the Joker. He has too much of a distinct eccentric personality to not steal the spotlight.

As a sidenote, I was recently talking to a philosophy student about the Nolan films and he brought up an interesting perspective. He said BB and TDK felt more like two-parters to him than individual films, as they are essentially a two-part philosophical study of the "Trolley problem". I can't explain what he meant by that anywhere near as well as he did, but I'll try my best.

Basically the "Trolley problem" goes like this: There's a runaway trolley on a railway track and it's about to hit five people. You're standing near a lever which could divert the trolley to a side track, but then it would kill one person. What would you do? We probably all heard of this before, but then there's a second part: you're standing on a high building and see a runaway trolley on a railway track that's about to hit five people. There is another person with you on the building. You can save those five people by pushing that other person off the building and have him block the trolley. What would you do? They might sound exactly the same on the surface, but each scenario reveals something different about your personal ethics.

Similarly, Bruce's choice to not save Ra's at the end of BB is the first part of the problem, and him choosing to save the Joker after throwing him off a roof is the second part of that problem. By the end Bruce chooses to save the Joker's life even though the city as a whole would have been better off without him, and would have probably saved Ra's too in hindsight.

 

[JackWhite]

^Interesting perspective for sure, Shika. I definitely agree with that guy on BB and TDK feeling like a two-parter. Even despite Gotham looking quite different in both films, it's the themes and philosophy they both share that gives them such connective tissue.

The only time I felt the Joker just had to be mentioned was when Blake gave a list of Batman's accomplishments on the night of his last appearance. Gordon's "letting the bad guy get ahead" was a clever reference to the Joker without outright saying his name.

 

[BlueLightning]

Talking about how the Joker could have fitted in the overall scheme of the third film, it is a tough thing to crack. Since I believe Nolan had this main structure of Bruce's journey, he also made each film one at a time. If Heath was alive then, the third movie would be significantly different.

Lets just assume the basic framework of Rises is used. I'm going to ramble a bit on this.

In my opinion, I don't think the Joker would have been the main baddie. There would be a need to distinguish this film from the previous one, so a villain like Bane fits in the scheme. Thinking about end game Batman villains, there are only a few that could fit that bill. Villains like The Joker, Ra's al Ghul or Bane are logical because of their status and impact on the mythos.

How does the Joker fits in this scheme?

Would people really believe The Joker if he had told Gotham the truth? He was a certified liar, at the very least a notorious deadly criminal. Bane was lying to Gotham too, but they haven't met him. They only know from his agenda what he has told them, and have no reason to believe other than his setup revolution.

Would have Bane freed the Joker? I don't think so, since Bane approach was very methodical, he could not allow a mad dog like him roaming around the city. He had the trust of the Blackgate inmates, but at least they weren't certified crazy or unpredictable. More likely, if there was going to be another final confrontation with the Batman, the Joker would have escaped somehow.

If the Joker escaped... how would that final confrontation would have went? That's a head scratcher. It wouldn't have been the climax of the film, since it is a "world's end" kind of scenario . It would have been more personal, It worked in the TDKReturns novel because of the episodic approach. But not here.

Imagine this. How about the Joker putting in danger St. Swithin's orphanage? Taking a cue from Batman Beyond Return of The Joker (Not going to the violent lengths that movie went though), having him manipulate a kid from the orphanage in order to do his bidding. Have the Joker acting like an evil snake, gaining the kid sympathy for ultimately enabling him to establish a grand scheme of destroying the entire orphanage in order to lure Batman out. Ultimately, the Joker would make believe this kid that Batman is the one responsible for all the chaos. Having gaining the upper hand on Batman, the Joker would hand the kid a gun just to finish Batman off.

Ultimately the kid chooses not to, and Batman has the chance to stop the Joker again. In the struggle, the Joker falls to the icy depths of the Gotham river, never to be seen again.

This way, the Joker would have failed twice in his mission to corrupt Gotham soul. (Not counting Harvey, which was more predisposed to fall anyway) It would have been a side mission before the grand battle. It is just an fragmented attempt to integrate the Joker into Rises narrative, but let's face it, Rises as it was developed, wasn't meant to have the Joker in it.

 

[shauner111]

^Interesting perspective for sure, Shika. I definitely agree with that guy on BB and TDK feeling like a two-parter. Even despite Gotham looking quite different in both films, it's the themes and philosophy they both share that gives them such connective tissue.

The only time I felt the Joker just had to be mentioned was when Blake gave a list of Batman's accomplishments on the night of his last appearance. Gordon's "letting the bad guy get ahead" was a clever reference to the Joker without outright saying his name.

Yeah it fits perfect in Blake's scene. And i never quite made that connection with Gordon's "letting the bad guy get ahead". Nice.