Nah. Joker was completely left out of everything.
Nah. Joker was completely left out of everything.
I understand respect the dead and all that but Joker is still just a character.
It sounds like blasphemy to all but a handful of people, but I think that if he was allowed, Jim Carrey would have made an excellent follow-up to Ledger's Joker.
After seeing him in The Number 23 and The Cable Guy, I think he could pull off the scary anarchist that Ledger created. They didn't have to disavow his existence the way they did.
No. Just no.
Wat. No.
Oh god why did you have to post that pic?
![]()
Eh, hat's how shumaker wanted it portrayed so he did that. Had it been presented as a serious role he would have done a good job at it.
i dressed as the riddler in 4th grade lol, needless to say i was made fun of hard
Important to keep in mind that back when we first heard of Ledger's casting, everyone and their mother was like "WAT, NO".
dude, fuck your classmates, you were dressed as a batman villain. By default, regardless of your choice, that makes you a badass.
The exact reactions I'm used to.
I'm also used to seeing Carrey receive no respect for anything other than over-the-top funny man, but he was creepy in Cable Guy, chilling in 23, and if I get around to watching it, I hear he was pretty moving in The Majestic. I'm not saying he'd outdo Ledger at Ledger's own portrayal, just that he would do it justice.
At any rate, the Joker as a character has "reinvented" himself several times since his creation, often in the quest to further confound Batman. A new actor could be brought on in the spirit of this reinvention.
While I agree that Carrey is a great actor (Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind is one of my favorite movies of all time). But as you see from people's reactions to your suggestion it would've been a huge turn off for fans. It's hard to forget his Riddler role, although he was just following directions and script.
It is true that Carrey has the facial expressions to pull off a strong joker, though. He just gets cast into the silly roles more often than not, and I don't blame him. If someone was offering me millions to act like a fool i'd damn well do it too. Given the right director and script he'd make a great Joker if people just gave him the chance.
Why did the Joker need to be mentioned in the movie? He had no bearing in it at all. Harvey did though. What? did they need a scene where Bruce and Fox were reminiscing about what a wacky guy Joker was? Or maybe Batman tells Catwoman how he beat joker to help get him into her pants.
And Bane didn't free the people in Arkham. Arkham is the asylum. Blackgate is the regular prison. I can only assume Scarecrow was there because the Nolan version wasn't any type of insane, thus he probably got normal jail.
That's nonsense. Carrey's appearance in the one Batman film would only taint his appearance in the next for complete dimwits. If he gives a good performance, nobody with an attention span of more than five minutes would have any problems forgiving that Riddler role.
In any case, Carrey's not the only one who could carry on Ledger's Joker with honor. Andrew Scott (Moriarty in the 2010 Sherlock) has the chops, I think... maybe even Benedict Cumberbatch, as well. David Tennant made a great raving lunatic as Harry Potter's Barty Crouch (and really his turn as The Doctor was kind of a lunatic as well). Crispin Glover just looks like a sociopath, I think he could do it.
I thought Nolan's Scarecrow was quite bananas, just not in the "raving lunatic" sort of way.
I like to think maybe he just made an escape between the time where we last saw him in TDK and TDKR.
Does Arkham even exist anymore in the Nolanverse after the first movie? It was used in the first one as just Crane's personal playground and the starting point for Ra's plans in Gotham with the water supply. There was never any mention of it again afterwards so it's entirely possible the place was shut down completely thanks to Crane.