AnimeSuki Forums

hyl · 2012-07-25, 18:29

I never said that the Joker needed to be in the movie but it is just strange he was not even mentioned once. Seeing that he was responsible for a massive event at the same day that Dent died, while Harvey Dent keeps getting mentioned at the beginning of the movie

SoldierOfDarkness · 2012-07-25, 18:42

No that's what I meant.

Nolan specifically stated that there would be no mention or appearance of the Joker at all in the Dark Knight Rises out of respect for Heath.

No reason is given whatsoever in the film for his absence. Christopher Nolan is adamant that there will be no mention of the Joker. "We're not addressing The Joker at all. That is something I felt very strongly about in terms of my relationship with Heath and the experience I went through with him on The Dark Knight. I didn't want to in any way try and account for a real-life tragedy. That seemed inappropriate to me. We just have a new set of characters and a continuation of Bruce Wayne's story. Not involving The Joker." He is neither seen, heard, nor mentioned throughout the whole film.

james0246 · 2012-07-25, 19:29

^Ignoring Ledger's contribution seems like the worst way to honor his memory and his great performance. He has literally become a spectre that haunts the entire franchise...

Haladflire65 · 2012-07-25, 20:39

I don't think that's ignoring his contribution. As I said, we wouldn't know how it feels for Nolan and the rest of the people who worked with Heath in TDK so we can't be so judgmental. Another point that came up in some other forums is that it's not necessary to mention the Joker in TDKR at all - with Dent we have valid reasons, like the Dent Act and the fact that he's at the centre of the secret that's eating away at Gordon and Bruce. 8 years have passed, and Gotham's moved on - I thought that just putting a line about the Joker into the film for the sake of it would feel way more off than not mentioning him at all. Not mentioning him didn't take away from the movie, and I don't think having done so would've significantly changed it either. So, I was fine with Nolan's decision and I respect it.

james0246 · 2012-07-25, 21:20

Every action mentioned from the 2nd movie (Dent's death, and whatever Bruce's girls name was, and several other brief details) is directly related to the Joker. Refusing to mention such a pivotal character for such silly reasons as the director or actors feeling is not a sufficient excuse.

kenjiharima · 2012-07-25, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Spoiler for About the Joker:

This is what I've herd about the Joker bolded part

Obelisk ze Tormentor · 2012-07-25, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246

^Ignoring Ledger's contribution seems like the worst way to honor his memory and his great performance. He has literally become a spectre that haunts the entire franchise...

Maybe they want to keep TDK special for Heath so that it can become more of his legacy? Or maybe they decide that knowing they can't bring back the Joker at all thus dropped the "half-ass" attempt/reference to remind people of his existence? I don’t know. I’m confused too

. I don’t get why “ignoring"= honoring. Then again, as Halad said, I don’t know how the people/film-crew who close to Heath feel.

FlareKnight · 2012-07-25, 21:41

In the end wasn't really bothered by the lack of Joker mention. I didn't expect him to be involved really at all even in mention. Maybe in the end they did want Heath's last appearance to be his great performance in the Dark Knight and not a passing reference in this movie. Though in the end may have just been side-stepping the issue of what they could do with the Joker since he couldn't appear in any form and how his current state (whatever it would be) would affect the plot.

DragoZERO · 2012-07-25, 21:52

Awwweeesooommmeee movie! I loved how so much was connected to the first movie. Really brilliant since it'd be so hard to compare to the second. What a great trilogy. And it wasn't even supposed to be one in the first place.

And I cursed myself for not seeing that twist at the end, lol.

SoldierOfDarkness · 2012-07-25, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246

Every action mentioned from the 2nd movie (Dent's death, and whatever Bruce's girls name was, and several other brief details) is directly related to the Joker. Refusing to mention such a pivotal character for such silly reasons as the director or actors feeling is not a sufficient excuse.

Look not everybody is going to be happy about the decisions. Heath died and that caused grief for a lot of people, especially those who worked closely with him. There are always two sides to this and Nolan obviously is someone who worked very closely with him up until the moment he died. When someone your close to dies all of a sudden, you always ask yourself the question if you were responsible or if you could've done something to prevent it.

It was Nolan's decision and his alone so I wouldn't judge him on that. Nobody is better at making the call than him since it's his movie and he worked with Heath on the last one.

Quote:

Maybe they want to keep TDK special for Heath so that it can become more of his legacy? Or maybe they decide that knowing they can't bring back the Joker at all thus dropped the "half-ass" attempt/reference to remind people of his existence? I don’t know. I’m confused too . I don’t get why “ignoring"= honoring. Then again, as Halad said, I don’t know how the people/film-crew who close to Heath feel.

You either do it right or you don't do it at all and they chose the latter.

Bonta Kun · 2012-07-25, 23:59

I think The Joker was probably sent to Arkam(which is outside the city) instead of Blackgate, it's the one way of getting around the character.

I think the real question is probably why wasn't Scarecrow sent to Arkam as well but I'm willing to let that go.

Sumeragi · 2012-07-26, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonta Kun

I think The Joker was probably sent to Arkam(which is outside the city) instead of Blackgate, it's the one way of getting around the character.

In the Nolanverse Gotham City, Arkham is actually in the MIDDLE of the city, in the part named the Narrows.

Ithekro · 2012-07-26, 00:33

Maybe Dr. Crane was doing better...mentally to get out of Arkham Asylum, but still had time to do so he was moved to Blackgate?

MakubeX2 · 2012-07-26, 01:22

In case anyone forgot, Crane works for Ra's al Ghul from the start. The league might have use for his
knowledge as a chemist since it was him who managed to weaponised the hallucinogene in Begins

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2012-07-26, 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246

Every action mentioned from the 2nd movie (Dent's death, and whatever Bruce's girls name was, and several other brief details) is directly related to the Joker. Refusing to mention such a pivotal character for such silly reasons as the director or actors feeling is not a sufficient excuse.

So you want the director to make a movie that he doesn't want to make?

Do you have any idea how detrimental it would be to the film?

The director's feelings is EVERYTHING. If you think he doesn't matter, you might as well get a different director for the film.

Destined_Fate · 2012-07-26, 02:40

Spoiler:

Mr Hat and Clogs · 2012-07-26, 03:05

I didn't mind the movie overall, wasn't as good as I was hoping but still an enjoyable watch. But I did think that it seemed to drag on in places, and the ending was kind of, bleh.

james0246 · 2012-07-26, 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So you want the director to make a movie that he doesn't want to make?

Do you have any idea how detrimental it would be to the film?

The director's feelings is EVERYTHING. If you think he doesn't matter, you might as well get a different director for the film.

By focusing on his feelings instead of the actual film Nolan managed to harm (for me at least) the entire storyline of not just the 3rd film but also make the 2nd film (or at least Heath Ledgers role in it) almost inconsequential.

The intent of the series was an encompassing character driven trilogy, and by purposely limiting himself Nolan managed to also purposely limit the characters and harm the actual substance of the film. From a purely artistic point of view, that is unforgivable. If Nolan was having that much problem then he should have bowed out and let someone else take over (which he probably should have done after the first film, but that's just me disliking his directing).

SoldierOfDarkness · 2012-07-26, 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destined_Fate

Spoiler:

Well probably as he said he

Spoiler:

Quote:

By focusing on his feelings instead of the actual film Nolan managed to harm (for me at least) the entire storyline of not just the 3rd film but also make the 2nd film (or at least Heath Ledgers role in it) almost inconsequential.

The intent of the series was an encompassing character driven trilogy, and by purposely limiting himself Nolan managed to also purposely limit the characters and harm the actual substance of the film. From a purely artistic point of view, that is unforgivable. If Nolan was having that much problem then he should have bowed out and let someone else take over (which he probably should have done after the first film, but that's just me disliking his directing).

And you yourself seems to be focusing on your feelings around Nolan to begin with so any decision he made would've been bad for you in the first place.

I know a lot of people hate Nolan but from what I'm reading a lot of it seems to be out of spite or jealousy (granted I've never met the man myself but he seems one of those directors that aren't swamped in paparazzi all the time and making controversial comments)

james0246 · 2012-07-26, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

And you yourself seems to be focusing on your feelings around Nolan to begin with so any decision he made would've been bad for you in the first place.

I am unsure where you are getting this from. I do not "hate" Nolan as a director or a screenwriter. In fact, I think he is one of the better technical directors in Hollywood (he's not that great with action sequences, and he let's exposition control much of his story, but he has amazing staging capabilities and he is leagues ahead of almost everyone on IMAX technology (both the DK and the DKR are quite beautiful films)).

Please do not dismiss criticism as "jealousy". That is pointless and does nothing for discussion.

2012-07-25, 20:39	Link #584
Haladflire65 Senior Member Artist Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Normandy SR-2 Age: 29	I don't think that's ignoring his contribution. As I said, we wouldn't know how it feels for Nolan and the rest of the people who worked with Heath in TDK so we can't be so judgmental. Another point that came up in some other forums is that it's not necessary to mention the Joker in TDKR at all - with Dent we have valid reasons, like the Dent Act and the fact that he's at the centre of the secret that's eating away at Gordon and Bruce. 8 years have passed, and Gotham's moved on - I thought that just putting a line about the Joker into the film for the sake of it would feel way more off than not mentioning him at all. Not mentioning him didn't take away from the movie, and I don't think having done so would've significantly changed it either. So, I was fine with Nolan's decision and I respect it. __________________

2012-07-25, 21:41	Link #588
FlareKnight User of the "Fast Draw" Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada	In the end wasn't really bothered by the lack of Joker mention. I didn't expect him to be involved really at all even in mention. Maybe in the end they did want Heath's last appearance to be his great performance in the Dark Knight and not a passing reference in this movie. Though in the end may have just been side-stepping the issue of what they could do with the Joker since he couldn't appear in any form and how his current state (whatever it would be) would affect the plot. __________________ Anime-Evo

2012-07-25, 21:52	Link #589
DragoZERO Spoilaphobic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Age: 37	Awwweeesooommmeee movie! I loved how so much was connected to the first movie. Really brilliant since it'd be so hard to compare to the second. What a great trilogy. And it wasn't even supposed to be one in the first place. And I cursed myself for not seeing that twist at the end, lol. __________________ • Anime List \| Manga List \| Manga Thread Template •

2012-07-25, 23:59	Link #591
Bonta Kun Know who you are Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Resides within the depths of Ned infested Glasgow	I think The Joker was probably sent to Arkam(which is outside the city) instead of Blackgate, it's the one way of getting around the character. I think the real question is probably why wasn't Scarecrow sent to Arkam as well but I'm willing to let that go. __________________

2012-07-26, 00:33	Link #593
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Maybe Dr. Crane was doing better...mentally to get out of Arkham Asylum, but still had time to do so he was moved to Blackgate? __________________

2012-07-25, 18:29	Link #581
hyl reading #hikaributts Join Date: Feb 2009	I never said that the Joker needed to be in the movie but it is just strange he was not even mentioned once. Seeing that he was responsible for a massive event at the same day that Dent died, while Harvey Dent keeps getting mentioned at the beginning of the movie

2012-07-25, 18:42	Link #582
SoldierOfDarkness The Dark Knight Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think? Age: 38	No that's what I meant. Nolan specifically stated that there would be no mention or appearance of the Joker at all in the Dark Knight Rises out of respect for Heath. No reason is given whatsoever in the film for his absence. Christopher Nolan is adamant that there will be no mention of the Joker. "We're not addressing The Joker at all. That is something I felt very strongly about in terms of my relationship with Heath and the experience I went through with him on The Dark Knight. I didn't want to in any way try and account for a real-life tragedy. That seemed inappropriate to me. We just have a new set of characters and a continuation of Bruce Wayne's story. Not involving The Joker." He is neither seen, heard, nor mentioned throughout the whole film.

2012-07-25, 19:29	Link #583
james0246 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: East Cupcake	^Ignoring Ledger's contribution seems like the worst way to honor his memory and his great performance. He has literally become a spectre that haunts the entire franchise...

2012-07-25, 21:20	Link #585
james0246 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: East Cupcake	Every action mentioned from the 2nd movie (Dent's death, and whatever Bruce's girls name was, and several other brief details) is directly related to the Joker. Refusing to mention such a pivotal character for such silly reasons as the director or actors feeling is not a sufficient excuse.

2012-07-26, 01:22	Link #594
MakubeX2 うるとらぺど Join Date: Oct 2004 Age: 44	In case anyone forgot, Crane works for Ra's al Ghul from the start. The league might have use for his knowledge as a chemist since it was him who managed to weaponised the hallucinogene in Begins

2012-07-26, 02:40	Link #596
Destined_Fate Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: "Sacrifice one to appease the few."	Spoiler: Blake knowing Batman's identity is because he's taking off from Tim Drake's roots. However Tim only knew the truth because Dick Grayson was Batman's protege which let him put two and two together. They never explain how Blake found out just that one day he knew from looking in his eyes.

2012-07-26, 03:05	Link #597
Mr Hat and Clogs Did someone call a doctor Join Date: Apr 2007 Age: 40	I didn't mind the movie overall, wasn't as good as I was hoping but still an enjoyable watch. But I did think that it seemed to drag on in places, and the ending was kind of, bleh. __________________