THE THIRD ACT: What a third in the Batman Begins, Dark Knight series might be...

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Batman retiring? Never going to happen. Is that really the movie you, or anyone else, wants to see??



Couldn't disagree more. Believing anything The Joker says is a huge mistake. They never come out and directly say what the Joker's overall plan is, which is one of the reasons the script is so well written, it leaves up to the audience to piece together, or not, what really was going on, how the Joker was manipulating everyone in Gotham, the mob, the cops, the goons, Harvey, and Batman himself, to jump through the hoops he set up. Batman was never in Joker's way at any time. He was telling the mob what they needed and wanted to hear, just as he does with everyone.

The Joker very much is a man with a plan, despite what he says. Poor broken Harvey bought into his lies. The Joker told him what he wanted to hear. The Joker desires to corrupt, to prove his point that people are inherently selfish and will "eat each other", once the thin vinear of civilization is taken away, "all it takes is a little push" and he is that force to push them. He is proven wrong when neither Batman nor the people on the ferry are corrupted, but he proves his point when he very deliberately, within his overall plan, drives Harvey, "the best of us", to a life of madness and crime. Sure he didn't count on Harvey becoming Two Face, that was just a wonderful, random bonus for him, but he did count on Rachel's death testing the supposed uncorruptibility of both Batman and Harvey. And in the end, he wins to some extent. Harvey is lost and broken and Batman becomes the murderer, at least in the minds of the people, that he swore he would never become.


I agree with everything except for the very last part about the Joker winning. I think that was the whole point of the ending. Batman would abosrb the blame, although he wasn't corrupted, by clearing Harvey's name, which was Joker's "Ace." The people didn't kill each other, Batman wasn't turned, and no one will ever know about Harvey, so it negated everything Joker was reaching for. Batman was "being more than the hero."
 
Couldn't disagree more. Believing anything The Joker says is a huge mistake. They never come out and directly say what the Joker's overall plan is, which is one of the reasons the script is so well written, it leaves up to the audience to piece together, or not, what really was going on, how the Joker was manipulating everyone in Gotham, the mob, the cops, the goons, Harvey, and Batman himself, to jump through the hoops he set up. Batman was never in Joker's way at any time. He was telling the mob what they needed and wanted to hear, just as he does with everyone.

The Joker very much is a man with a plan, despite what he says. Poor broken Harvey bought into his lies. The Joker told him what he wanted to hear. The Joker desires to corrupt, to prove his point that people are inherently selfish and will "eat each other", once the thin vinear of civilization is taken away, "all it takes is a little push" and he is that force to push them. He is proven wrong when neither Batman nor the people on the ferry are corrupted, but he proves his point when he very deliberately, within his overall plan, drives Harvey, "the best of us", to a life of madness and crime. Sure he didn't count on Harvey becoming Two Face, that was just a wonderful, random bonus for him, but he did count on Rachel's death testing the supposed uncorruptibility of both Batman and Harvey. And in the end, he wins to some extent. Harvey is lost and broken and Batman becomes the murderer, at least in the minds of the people, that he swore he would never become.

Well I will say that your assessment is well thought out and worded, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

With the Joker as a self proclaimed agent of chaos, I think there's only so much planning he can make. Obviously there's a good deal of planning for each "event" (setting up Rachel and Harvey for example) but as situations change, he changes and rolls with it. I do believe his plan was to kill Batman and then toy with the mob and the rest of Gotham, until he saw that Batman was his only real challenge and in the end his ultimate nemesis, yin to his yang or opposite sides of the same coin (Ha-Ha).

:duff
 
I agree wofford, Batman did every thing he could to negate what Joker did to Harvey. By becoming the villain in Gotham's mind, he became more than a hero. Which was a wonderful conclusion to such a dark story. Though, assuming Two Face is dead, the situation Joker set up did force Batman to break his one rule not to kill. We shall see about that in a third film I suppose.

Well I will say that your assessment is well thought out and worded, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

With the Joker as a self proclaimed agent of chaos, I think there's only so much planning he can make. Obviously there's a good deal of planning for each "event" (setting up Rachel and Harvey for example) but as situations change, he changes and rolls with it. I do believe his plan was to kill Batman and then toy with the mob and the rest of Gotham, until he saw that Batman was his only real challenge and in the end his ultimate nemesis, yin to his yang or opposite sides of the same coin (Ha-Ha).

:duff

That's cool. I just don't think there's anything specific within the film to point to that supports the idea of Joker changing his mind about anything including his attitude towards Batman. He's a static character who believes the same things about himself, humanity, and the Batman and the end of the story that he did at the beginning of the story, though he is surprised in the end that Batman was truly uncorruptable, which fascinates him.

I think The Joker had already made up his mind about Batman being an equal, a worthy adversary, a kindred freak like himself, as soon as he heard about him, sometime off screen during the first film, long before we even see Joker appear in TDK. He decides to show his "brother" how wrong he is in his foolish pursuit of justice, to force his hand and make him admit what a monster he really is under all of his ethics and rules, even if it means his own death at Batman's hands. When Batman asks "why do you want to kill me?" Joker seems genuinely shocked and amused that Bats doesn't understand. "I don't want to kill you! You complete me." The implication is that The Joker also completes Batman, which Batman does not realize and is unwilling to admit.

If he really wanted Batman dead he would go about it completely differently than approaching the mob. He'd set a trap and simply kill him while he was distracted with someone else. As we later see, despite his insistence to "get paid for what he does well", The Joker has no desire for money. The Joker is after something far more difficult to achieve than simply the death of Batman. He doesn't want Batman to die a martyr or hero, believing he was right in his battle against criminals. He wants to break Bats, for him to acknowledge his own corruption, to know his pursuit for justice, his entire existence, his life, is meaningless, that it is a JOKE.

No offense to your view point, but I think the reading of Joker as impulsive, changing his mind and making random, off hand decisions as he goes along is the shallow and "at first glance" view of what is really a very calculated plot to test the "good" people of Gotham. He uses and encourages the general perception of himself as a lunatic or haphazard, mad dog against his foes, catching them, as well as the audience, off guard and masking his true, carefully planned motives, most notably in manipulation of the police at the station so he can get to Lau and escape.

I believe Joker's speech to Harvey about "do I look like a man with a plan? I'm just a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it" is complete BS. Joker has many small plans which fit into a larger overall plan from the get go. As you say, the bank robbery, getting the mob on his side, the attack on the judge, commissioner, & mayor, the Harvey & Rachel kidnapping, his capture and escape from the police, the hospital bombing as cover for Two face escaping, the overall terrorizing of Gotham and bombs on the ferries, etc are all carefully thought out plans, and each sets up the next. All part of a much larger plan to corrupt the peoples' heroes, Batman and Dent, eventually corrupting and winning "the soul of Gotham", proving his point about humanity and the belief that life itself is just one sick joke.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we need to see The Joker return for his presence to be felt in the third film. He came in, totally altered Batman's world, and can now sit comfortably in Arkham, watching the madness play out. Bringing him back isn't needed.

I do not think Harvey is dead. I think he was simply knocked unconscious. Now, whether the public is being told he's dead or not is another matter. The cover-up is bound to be exposed, and it will throw further doubt on the last perceptible light in Gotham, Com. Gordon. I think we'll see Harvey again.

I'm stumped as to an appropriate follow-up villain. I'm not sure The Joker was necessarily a more dastardly villain than R'as, just a lot more interesting. The Joker is at the tip of Batman's rogue's gallery, to say nothing of being one of the greatest villains of all time. How do you follow that up?

I love The Penguin in all his iterations, but I don't think he really fits in this universe. What I truly love about the two films we have is that they're incredibly character driven. These films run on personality and motivation. How would The Penguin fit into such a universe? I'm not keen to see Catwoman or The Riddler, either. I could see The Riddler done as a minor copycat Joker (on the level with Nolan's Scarecrow), but not as a major force to be reckoned with.

I have to say, of all the characters that Batman has an intense relationship with in the comics, the relationship I would most like to see translated tothe screen for a third film would be the one he has with Superman. Instead of falling into the one-upsmanship that the Burton/Schumacher films fell into with the villains becoming more and more outlandish as we go, bring in the Ultimate Boyscout. Make him the "hero" of the movie, and really make Batman have to deal with his new role as "Gotham's Villian." Just as The Joker is the shadowy flip-side of Batman, so too is Superman the bright mirror image of what Batman tries to be for his people.

Imagine our hero trying to do the best he can, even with an unstoppable force coming after him with the full backing of the very people he is trying to protect! And such a confrontation would also mirror nicely Frank Miller's work.
 
Mikey I would absolutely LOVE a Batman vs Superman movie, so much potential and it would definitely be an escalation from TDK, but it ain't gonna happen. I don't know if there's room for the Man of Steel in Nolan's "real world" approach to Gotham.
 
I agree wofford, Batman did every thing he could to negate what Joker did to Harvey. By becoming the villain in Gotham's mind, he became more than a hero. Which was a wonderful conclusion to such a dark story. Though, assuming Two Face is dead, the situation Joker set up did force Batman to break his one rule not to kill. We shall see about that in a third film I suppose.



That's cool. I just don't think there's anything specific within the film to point to that supports the idea of Joker changing his mind about anything including his attitude towards Batman. He's a static character who believes the same things about himself, humanity, and the Batman and the end of the story that he did at the beginning of the story, though he is surprised in the end that Batman was truly uncorruptable, which fascinates him.

I think The Joker had already made up his mind about Batman being an equal, a worthy adversary, a kindred freak like himself, as soon as he heard about him, sometime off screen during the first film, long before we even see Joker appear in TDK. He decides to show his "brother" how wrong he is in his foolish pursuit of justice, to force his hand and make him admit what a monster he really is under all of his ethics and rules, even if it means his own death at Batman's hands. When Batman asks "why do you want to kill me?" Joker seems genuinely shocked and amused that Bats doesn't understand. "I don't want to kill you! You complete me." The implication is that The Joker also completes Batman, which Batman does not realize and is unwilling to admit.

If he really wanted Batman dead he would go about it completely differently than approaching the mob. He'd set a trap and simply kill him while he was distracted with someone else. As we later see, despite his insistence to "get paid for what he does well", The Joker has no desire for money. The Joker is after something far more difficult to achieve than simply the death of Batman. He doesn't want Batman to die a martyr or hero, believing he was right in his battle against criminals. He wants to break Bats, for him to acknowledge his own corruption, to know his pursuit for justice, his entire existence, his life, is meaningless, that it is a JOKE.

No offense to your view point, but I think the reading of Joker as impulsive, changing his mind and making random, off hand decisions as he goes along is the shallow and "at first glance" view of what is really a very calculated plot to test the "good" people of Gotham. He uses and encourages the general perception of himself as a lunatic or haphazard, mad dog against his foes, catching them, as well as the audience, off guard and masking his true, carefully planned motives, most notably in manipulation of the police at the station so he can get to Lau and escape.

I believe Joker's speech to Harvey about "do I look like a man with a plan? I'm just a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it" is complete BS. Joker has many small plans which fit into a larger overall plan from the get go. As you say, the bank robbery, getting the mob on his side, the attack on the judge, commissioner, & mayor, the Harvey & Rachel kidnapping, his capture and escape from the police, the hospital bombing as cover for Two face escaping, the overall terrorizing of Gotham and bombs on the ferries, etc are all carefully thought out plans, and each sets up the next. All part of a much larger plan to corrupt the peoples' heroes, Batman and Dent, eventually corrupting and winning "the soul of Gotham", proving his point about humanity and the belief that life itself is just one sick joke.

I totally agree with you about the Joker.He is definately not what some people think he is.And he definitely has more layers and meaning to himself,that is for sure.
 
Mikey I would absolutely LOVE a Batman vs Superman movie, so much potential and it would definitely be an escalation from TDK, but it ain't gonna happen. I don't know if there's room for the Man of Steel in Nolan's "real world" approach to Gotham.

That's part of the appeal for me. There's no room for idealism or primary colors in Nolan's Gotham. The city itself is a monstrous villain that can crush the spirit of any hero. The fact that Supes would be so out of place there is very compelling to me, and it feeds into the sympatico between Bruce and Clark about being outsiders each in their own way.

That was something I dearly loved about the first Spider-man movie: Peter and Norman genuinely liked each other. It was a shock to both of them to find themselves on opposite sides. That was so marvelous to watch, and the relationship between Bats and Supes is such an electric friendship/rivalry.

I suppose what I'm getting at is something that has been touched on already: the choice of villain isn't as simple as "who's the next coolest on the roster" or "who fits into the Nolan-verse?" The first consideration is always "what challenge both internal and external do we need Bruce to deal with and what character could best facilitate that?" No character but The Joker could have created the conflicts Bruce had to deal with in TDK. Put Mr. Freeze in The Joker position and it doesn't work. The Penguin, as much as a I love him, is not a true foil for Batman. The Joker is. Two-Face can be. Superman definitely is. Who else is a good foil in the Bat-verse? Catwoman? I really don't think so. What does she bring to the table? What do any of them bring to the table?
 
:lecture

Great post. I agree.

Catwoman could be a good foil. She's an equal physical combatant for Batman, not so for many of his villains, and as Selina gives Bruce a run for his money also and would bring the love interest aspect back to the story now that Rachel is toast. However, she doesn't really put Batman is mortal peril and is not a big threat to the entire city.

What I'd like to see in the third film is a threat to the Bruce persona. Sure Batman will be on the run, but Bruce is still comfortable in his life. Whatever villain comes along needs to be a threat to Wayne himself, similarly to Mr. Earle in BB, upping the danger for our hero in both facets of identity.
 
That's part of the appeal for me. There's no room for idealism or primary colors in Nolan's Gotham. The city itself is a monstrous villain that can crush the spirit of any hero. The fact that Supes would be so out of place there is very compelling to me, and it feeds into the sympatico between Bruce and Clark about being outsiders each in their own way.

That was something I dearly loved about the first Spider-man movie: Peter and Norman genuinely liked each other. It was a shock to both of them to find themselves on opposite sides. That was so marvelous to watch, and the relationship between Bats and Supes is such an electric friendship/rivalry.

I suppose what I'm getting at is something that has been touched on already: the choice of villain isn't as simple as "who's the next coolest on the roster" or "who fits into the Nolan-verse?" The first consideration is always "what challenge both internal and external do we need Bruce to deal with and what character could best facilitate that?" No character but The Joker could have created the conflicts Bruce had to deal with in TDK. Put Mr. Freeze in The Joker position and it doesn't work. The Penguin, as much as a I love him, is not a true foil for Batman. The Joker is. Two-Face can be. Superman definitely is. Who else is a good foil in the Bat-verse? Catwoman? I really don't think so. What does she bring to the table? What do any of them bring to the table?


You sound like an actor or something :D

I still stand by my original post on the first page. I think the Riddler is the best option, and in Nolan's universe I think he should be played as the type of character John Doe was in "Se7en." No kiddie riddles, some real life monsterous riddles, playing off the fact that he knows the truth behind Gordon and Batman's cover up for Dent, as a sort of bribery. I also commented on Dent in my original post, but it would all depend on if he's alive or not. Either way his spirit could resonate throughout a third film.
 
Last edited:
Great dialogue folks! I had no idea it would go so far, and be this compelling. Hope the Nolans are taking notes. (I think they have to have an outline anyway...so suggests Goyer about the theme for the next movie...)
It's given me lots of food for thought regarding the need for Joker being in the next movie at all.
Very cool stuff.

And yeah Mikey, before all is said and done, one would almost think YOU wanted to be in the next movie....:D
(But as who???)
 
Entropy Chicken said:
The Joker very much is a man with a plan, despite what he says. Poor broken Harvey bought into his lies. The Joker told him what he wanted to hear. The Joker desires to corrupt, to prove his point that people are inherently selfish and will "eat each other", once the thin vinear of civilization is taken away, "all it takes is a little push" and he is that force to push them. He is proven wrong when neither Batman nor the people on the ferry are corrupted, but he proves his point when he very deliberately, within his overall plan, drives Harvey, "the best of us", to a life of madness and crime. Sure he didn't count on Harvey becoming Two Face, that was just a wonderful, random bonus for him, but he did count on Rachel's death testing the supposed uncorruptibility of both Batman and Harvey. And in the end, he wins to some extent. Harvey is lost and broken and Batman becomes the murderer, at least in the minds of the people, that he swore he would never become.
See you understood it. Batman absolves the murder, and doesn't allow Joker to win in the grand scheme of things ... but this still was very much Batman's "1st loss" as Harvey was broken, and Batman is viewed through the populace as a muderer. People aren't getting that. Yes, Batman was totally selfless in covering up for Harvey, and he said he had to so the Joker wouldn't win. But Joker definetely didn't take a loss out of this. Batman didn't purely win. That's why it's such a great and complicated movie. Joker didn't corrupt Batman, but in the eyes of the people he won, because they think Batman murdered those 5 people (2 of which were cops) ...

I remember an interview before his untimely death where Heath said he'd be back to talk to a certain press member when TDK was coming out. And at the end of his message, he said "yes, the Joker does win."

And in a way, he's right. Batman ultimately did the most heroic act I've ever seen in a superhero film, but I definetely think the villain took the win in this one.
 
i agree and said it after watching it the first time.... the Joker won. he didn't defeat Batman, but defeated Gotham. by turning Harvey he defeated the best of the best citizen. and he didn't plan everything as it seemed he had to wing a lot of his actions. either way he wasn't completely crazy.
 
I agree with Les' points on what a sequel should be about and what it should do, but it's VERY hard to come up with a way to do those things. I would like to see Two-Face return, and become the head of the Anti-Maffia: a group of well organised vigilantes who try and destroy the heavy criminality that's an infection to Gotham, with ultimately Two-Face deciding the fate of each target.

You could also have Oswald "The Penguin" Cobblepot as an armsdealer that stirs up more trouble...Then you can have Edward "The Riddler" Nigma as the most brilliant private detective in Gotham who's hired by an unknown contractor to try and find out who Batman is (using his riddle-crimes as bait for the Bat)...You could even have Catwoman (burglar with just catears on her suit, no other cat themes?) who's aiding Riddler, while growing fond of her target and later turning from a foil into a possible aid.

But that still leaves the question of who the big bad should be...And I really can't see anyone but Bane in that role. Batman will have the entire city against him (cops, general population, Two-Face's gang, maffia, etc), and it's all orchestrated by a brilliant criminal mastermind who outclasses Batman in both psychical and mental strength, and who actually makes Batman fear for his life.

Combine all of that, and you could get a story in which Batman is driven to exhaustion as he's constantly hunted while trying to save the city from itself.
 
I think that we may already have seen the Riddler in the Nolan verse.

'Mr. Reese' (mysteries), clever, knows the Batmans real Id and had far too much screen time for a bit part.
 
My cousin said she saw or read or heard or something an interview with Gary Oldman where he said Riddler will be the next villain. but obviously this is the equivalent to my best friend's roommate knows a guy who said....
 
The Riddler is pretty lame and only translates well in the comics and the Shumacerverse.

Ras returning is crap, same goes for his daughter.

The Joker being recast is sacrilege...just use some CG work to cameo Ledger's Joker pitching in to the mayhem from the walls of Arkham if you have to.

Bane is crap, even in the comics, and Manbat is too much of a stretch for Nolan's Gotham.

The Penguin could work, but they've done the whole "crime families" thing to death now. It's time to consider some ulterior motives.

Definitely bring Two-Face back.

Catwoman in the Nolanverse would be great.

But I'm really dying to see what Nolan could do with the Ventriloquist or Clayface.
 
Bane = lame

Might as well have the KGBeast.

No way Nolan will go a route that dumb.
 
Why have a villain? There isn't a realistic, gritty enough character to make from the remaining villains in the rogues that is as compelling, threatning, and visceral as the Joker, Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul, or the Scarecrow. Go a different route, make Batman the villain from the start. Fights the GPD and SWAT things like that, and have it be like BEGINS more of a character piece film where he's fighting to clear his name. No villain on earth is topping Heath Ledger's sick anarchic realistic take on the Joker, it doesn't get any better than that. Steer clear and go a different route.
 
Back
Top