Who should play the next Joker in future Batman/Dark Knight movies?

jack ryan movies were an attempt to have an american bond franchise, and as you can see it resulted in epic failure in creating a stable franchise.
 
no one!

its not a cop out. Look, i haven't even seen the movie and i still think no other actor should play the joker.

my opinion is how much a new person playing this role detracts from the film. I think its ridiculous to have someone step in to take over a roll, after it was played so well by the first.

Especially in a series like this. Have Bale drop the role and oh pick someone to play Batman in what's supposed to be a "sequal." Wait, wait, wait, "as long as the core elements are there"......thats preposterous
 
I see what you are saying. You are talking about after a Chris Nolan era. If thats the case then it will be a completely different director, actor, producer for the next batman franchise. However that will be another 20 yrs from now.

Currently however I see no reason for Nolan to bring back the Joker since its already been done and to replace Ledger would be little flaws that can't be cover.
 
i don't understand what your saying....changing actors creates instability in a franchise?

then explain why james bond is going 30 years strong or why batman survived six films with no less than three changes.

The hulk is on its second actor.

james bond has had many lead actor changes and the show waxes and wanes with the changes but that doesn't stop the franchise and now switching actors is an EXPECTED thing for that franchise...the same thing can be done with batman, superman, bourne series, etc..
 
i can see this...the dude has become a fairly good actor recently, i can see him giving the same dedication to the joker role as Heath.
 
i'm not talking about for the NEXT movie...I'm talking about EVENTUALLY..on down the line..

1. the joker didn't die in this movie so they intend to bring him back at some point..

2. Joker is arguably batmans biggest nemesis so he HAS to come back at some point.

so who could play him when he returns in the FUTURE..
 
I don't think you really understand how different all these movies are.

Yes changing actors does create instability in a franchise, maybe you weren't paying attention to them much back then but the Batman movies have been fairly wonky/back-and-forth over the years leading up to Batman&Robin completely bombing out.

With James Bond and the 007 movies, like someone already said really shouldn't be in this conversation because it's a completely different kind of franchise. The genre and theme is not dependent on having the same actor, and the movies are not constructed as sequels - or needing a sequel to finish a story. Even among the same era of actors, each flick is essentially standalone.


The first Hulk sucked and the second was made with Marvel at the helm instead of the previous studio - and the second wasn't a sequel to the first.
 
heath ledger is just a cog in a very big money making machine.. they'll honor him with an oscar then move on...




if that was the case then there wouldn't another superman movie nor would there have been 2 more batman movies after michael keaton.

the reality is this technically isn't a stand alone trilogy but the Dark Knight is the SIXTH movie in a series of theatrical Batman stories (hell 7th if you count the 1966 Batman movie with Adam West. Batman, Superman stories are structured much like James Bond..sure if you get an actor to play bond and the public loves them you keep them for as long as you can..BUT any actor can play bond as long as they adhere to th ecore elements...otherwise you wouldn't have Bond films today..nor would you have had roger moore or timothy dalton, pierce brosnan or daniel craig..
 
Batman bombed in the 90s not because they changed the actors but because they changed the TONE...again

Tim Burton did preliminary work on a third installment but Warner Bros. threw out Burton's plans after they realized the tone of the film was to be similar to Batman Returns, which they deemed too controversial and difficult to market (due to critics and parental groups complaining that the film was too dark and violent for children), the studio wanted the next film to be more family-friendly.


the sequentialness of the movies isn't necessary. Batman stories are essentially standalone in fact Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are not really connected as in you need to see one in order to understand the other. In fact I'll wager that alot of people who saw TDK (namely women and ledger fans) more than likely didn't see BB. Theres no confusion or loss of information because of that.

Batman functions in the vein as James Bond..particularly this Batman version.

James Bond is provided cool cutting edge technology from Q....Bruce Wayne/Batman is provided with cool cutting edge technology from Lucius Fox

James Bond gets his assignments from M the head of MI6...Batman essentially depends on Commissioner Gordon, Gothams top cop for info on criminal activity

James Bond has tragic relationships with women who get too close...Bruce Wayne/Batman has tragic relationships period.

James Bond is confronted with an array of exotic villains...Batman is confronted with an array of exotic villains.



The first Hulk movie sucked because Ang Lee took the material waay too seriously (all that psychological abuse backstory was unnecessary) and took too long to get to the Hulk (nearly 45 minutes into the flick before we even see the hulk)..

I'm not suggesting that Batman needs to change actors every movie I'm just saying that the series of movies can SURVIVE a change in actors when NECESSARY. Of course if Heath Ledger was alive today then I'd be all for keeping him as the joker for as long as he wanted to play the role. But he's gone... and I don't see any need to retire the character or wait 20 years (essentially the same time between nicholsons 89 joker and ledgers 08 joker) for the character to comeback.
 
I don't think it will take that long...

Its only been 8 years between Batman and Robin (1997) and Batman Begins (2005) and while its been 19 years since we last saw the joker IMO the reason for the gaps is the initial Tim Burton Batman film was the FIRST time anyone had seen a live action theatrical treatment of the Batman story since the Adam West campy shows...I think they had a bit of difficulty trying to figure out what tone to treat the movie with since all anyone knew at that time was Adam Wests Batman and Cesar Romero's Joker.

Tim Burtons natural style of storytelling is dark and weird already so its no surprise the movie would be the same way...BUT when they handed it over to Joel Schumacher he tried to stay true to the characters core as told in the comics which didn't jibe real well with the dark tone that Burton established. So each successive movie became a throwback to the campy era which turned people off.

Also Burton apparently had no intention of keeping the Joker around as he killed him off in the first movie...chris nolan didn't so its a logical assumption that he intends for that character to return sooner than 20 years from now.

And now since the "reboot" Chris Nolan reestablished the noir tone and with heath ledgers take on the joker character (which is ironically more serious and gritty than nicholsons portrayal) if the third movie (which there will be) continues with the same tone and much more serious/gritty tweaks on the next villain they will establish that THIS is how you treat Batman stories..this is the formula and as long as no one deviates from that formula then there's no reason to wait 20 years for the next series or return of the joker.
 
Back
Top