Comments on: Captain Obvious: Christopher Nolan Says No Joker For ‘Batman 3’ & Talks ‘Superman’

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:25:26 +0000

It's a shame this had to happen because this means that there is probably no chance that Harley would be a villain in the movie considering her origin came from being Joker's psychiatrist.
If the movie was being made Harley would probably appear early in the movie sometime during Joker's trial in court where the judge verdicts a psychoanalysis on the joker with Dr. Quinzel assigned as his psychiatrist.

While she's in Arkham with him she obsesses with the fact that she would be regarded as a nationally famous doctor if she were to cure the Joker. She finds it to be difficult, but that doesn't stop she becomes so obsessive with it digging into the Joker's insane mind that she ends up almost as crazy as him and in love with him.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:01:52 +0000

for those that seem confused as to why anyone would want or "need" the joker in the third film, well it's fairly simple. he was set up at the end of the first film. highlighted throughout the second film and left with an incredible speech about how the two entities would be an eternal struggle (see, the upside down monologue so brilliantly delivered by ledger), and it seems only appropriate that he be featured at some point in the third film. I agree that Ledger is an icon and his Joker is incredibly important, but to write the character off because of the death of the actor is absurd. I guarantee you that if Heath had lived, this would be a Joker story in some facet. Albeit, i suppose it would involve his ending, but still, had he survived, Nolan wouldn't be saying that its out of the question. Ledger would have just been seen as an ass and they would have recast him. Sadly, we're not in that position and to complete Batman's story without any talk or show of Joker but a completely new villain is dangerous. Its not impossible, but its dangerous. I don't want to see anyone in that role either, but Nolan is one of the best directors in the world today and he's worked with the best and can get the best, the character is bigger than the sad death of Heath Ledger. I miss him too, but I knew of the Joker longer before i knew of Ledger and I will continue to know of the Joker longer after. i guarantee his ideas for Superman contain Lex Luthor (because he's integral to the story of Superman, like the Joker is to Batman). I'm just saying, to rule it out because of a sad death of a talented man, is absurd. and it could hurt a-so-far brilliant franchise.
but i'm sure im in the minority here.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:05:15 +0000

Batman Year One is a tremendous comic.

By: Theo C

Theo C — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:01:02 +0000

Actually, Catwoman like the cat woman of Batman Year One would definitely work in this world, but I really don't want to listen to bullshit casting rumours about it.

By: Theo C

Theo C — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:28:30 +0000

I think Tom Hardy would make a great Whoppi Goldberg…

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:18:27 +0000

Whoopie Goldberg. Wrong, again (IN YO FACE!)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:13:46 +0000

If and when it's announced that the Riddler will be featured in "Batman 3," I expect, then, the Playlist to start a Fassbender for Riddler campgain. Or Tom Hardy.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:25:16 +0000

The Riddler as a grounded serial killer type (no silly costume). It wouldn't have to be that different from say the killer in Zodiac with different clues.

By: Theo C

Theo C — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:14:01 +0000

I think Scarecrow may appear lame in the comics sure, but Cillian Murphy's scarecrow was downright chilling and creepy and nothing like the sub joker character he is usually portrayed as.

Nolan's charcters have been based in reality, so I don't see a riddler as we know him or a penguin type villian appearing anytime soon. ManBat it is?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:05:35 +0000

"I think to finish the trilogy maybe the Scarecrow, steps it up a notch in this movie, so the circle is complete"

No thanks, that's one lame villain.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:51:30 +0000

"We're not saying no one can ever play the Joker ever again. It's just not going to happen in a film directed by Christopher Nolan."

Exactly. That's a no-brainer.

By: Theo C

Theo C — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:49:47 +0000

Jesus does the movie need a Joker? He was brilliant, but to rehash that, come on? Nolan's Gotham does not need another dose of Joker, it was great it worked. Let it die. Should Harry Callahan have continued to chase the Scorpio killer? NO.

I think to finish the trilogy maybe the Scarecrow, steps it up a notch in this movie, so the circle is complete

By: kevinjagernauth

kevinjagernauth — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:48:13 +0000

We're not saying no one can ever play the Joker ever again. It's just not going to happen in a film directed by Christopher Nolan.

By: Matt Holmes

Matt Holmes — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:46:32 +0000

I'm troubled by the comment that it would be 'disrespectful' for somebody else to play The Joker.

I understand it maybe being 'unwise' or a 'bad idea'. That's ok - that's your opinion and there's a good argument to be made for that.

But disrespectful? Heath didn't create The Joker. That was Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson and Bob Kane 70 years ago.

Heath created a benchmark for his version of The Joker, very different to what Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero and Mark Hammil had given us before - and he deserved his Academy Award.

But to say the character dies with Heath is disrespectful to the millions of fans who have consumed The Joker as an icon of comics culture for so many decades.

Can you imagine if no-one else portrayed Dracula after Bela Lugosi's take on Bram Stoker's character or if nobody played Frankenstein's monster after Karloff.

Or Hamlet after Laurence Oliver? How many actors have excelled at playing Shakespeare?

Heath gave us a Joker that was as iconic as any villain we've seen in decades - he crafted THE character of the 2000's.

But it's up to someone else to take the baton and see how far he can run with it. That's the nature of the business, and the nature of life.

The Joker is a mysterious, multi-layered, complex character that lends itself to a new actor coming in and playing him so differently next time.

And when that time comes (which it will), I will support any actor that has the balls to do it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:34:22 +0000

I bet they could CGI Ledger's face to some actor. That'd be sweet! 😉

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:28:14 +0000

@MH"If Nolan had more to the Joker story that he wanted to tell, then I don't think he would have hesitated in re-casting the part."

That is absolutely wrong and naive. How disrespectful is that to the actor? Nolan's talked countless times how this would never happen anyhow. The guy died after working with him, he never even got to see the film.

I don't think you have much of a clue of what Nolan is like as a person and I bet if you had the chance to talk to him you'd discover this would never happen in a million years.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:59:24 +0000

Horrible news. The absence of the Joker in Batman 3 will be a huge elephant in the room, so to speak. That is, Gordon or someone telling us "Oh, the Joker is locked up in Arkham so we don't have to worry about him" will not suffice. Knowing that the Joker exists in Batman's world in the 3rd movie will constantly be in the minds of audiences, no matter how good the Riddler or whomever is. Of course, Nolan is awesome, so maybe he'll come up with an ingenious way to explain the Joker's absence. Will anybody actually believe that the Joker couldn't escape from prison?

By: aaron

aaron — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:23:36 +0000

what's sad is that even though nolan himself has now completely squashed this speculation, the fanboys still. won't. get it. i'm sure there will be a number of them who will still insist the joker will return in batman 3. it's like when the nolan brothers said that two-face is really dead, the script ITSELF says he died, etc., yet they still insist he'll be back in the third film.

smdh.

By: Matt Holmes

Matt Holmes — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:13:17 +0000

I'm surprised by the reaction that it's an obvious story. Since when has any actor winning an Oscar automatically meant the role couldn't be re-cast?

If Nolan had more to the Joker story that he wanted to tell, then I don't think he would have hesitated in re-casting the part.

I initially thought Nolan would have a sub-plot involving The Joker, with maybe The Riddler playing mind-games with Batman making him think that The Joker (who is locked up in Arkham) is pulling the strings of a dastardly plot.

So Bats visits The Joker and we get a Hannibal Lecter kind of scene. One scene, for one actor to give it his all as The Joker. We were hoping for a Javier Bardem or the like.

No part is untouchable. De Niro did Brando, Ledger did Nicholson, several other actors have played James Bond since Sean Connery, etc.

The Joker is forever and wasn't played for the first time by Ledger... and certainly won't be the last.