Does anyone else think they shouldve just recasted him for part 3. I know he did a beyond amazing job...

Does anyone else think they shouldve just recasted him for part 3. I know he did a beyond amazing job, but i think if they just had waited 5 years or so, waited for people to lighten up on his death, people wouldve accepted it more. Theres plenty of actors that couldve replaced him. gyllenhaal comes to mind, idk who else.

But i mean if people are okay with digitizing dead actors faces in movies and commercials, and characters have been replaced plenty of times when they die. I just dont see why Heath had to be the exception just cause his work was phenomenal. Yes itd prob be hard to top, but for the sake of the story they shouldve sucked it up and hired someone else and gave a better conclusion.

Whoever replaced him would've killed himself too and they knew it

Why exactly did he kill himself? He went mad?

cmon thats very doubtful. If that was the case they wouldnt of done joker character again. Plus the actor wouldnt really have to go that deep in the role. hed just more or less have to immitate heath with his own twist. Plus since they base part 3 a few years later they couldve hired an older actor, so he couldve toned it down a wee bit. Idk, if the reason they didnt recast was cause they were worried about the actors health then thats a pretty dumb reason.

Plus heath was more a heavy drug user. Im sure he felt a bit off from the role but i dont think it had to do with his death. He was just irresponsible and mixed those pills with alcohol

>tfw when this movie started the current internet, or millenial, era
>you will never again experience the start of an era in your youth

this movie will be 10 years old next July...or august. i forgot the month, ik it was summer.

also yeah prob one of the best cinema experiences. And probably watched the trailer for this million times

No one would've been good enough

Would have been bad marketing because he was such a big deal. That's it.

Injecting Heath into Rises would have just made it more of a cluster-fuck than it already was.

No i wouldnt digitize him in it that would be stupid. You dont really see his face without make up anyway except for a second so it wouldnt be that far of a stretch.

Thats why i said itd be better if they waited longer like 5+ years. Wait for people to get over it.

Most likely not, but theres actors that could deff pull it off. Like i said, jake gyllenhal is good at playing creeps, and hes just really good in general. Leto couldve been good, and he wouldnt of had to of done his stupid gangster version. Theres plenty that couldve filled his shoes. Prob not better. But it wouldve been good enough for the story

Would've been cool if the original Joker inspired a copycat. Also the new Joker would look way less edgy and not talk like doped up dope. Also have someone ghost write and ghost direct for Nolan.

Wasn't for you a clusterfuck because Nolan had to re-write the story after ledger's dead and he lost interest? It was obvious from the weight put on the dark knight that the philosophical battle in joker was what nolan was most interested in batman.

Umm no. He was on of the problems of the movie apart from it not having black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic due to The Joker's rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees-exhausting the D.A. and nearly wearing-out Batman's arsenal of expensive gizmos.
Nolan isn't interested in providing James Bond?style gadgetry for its own ingenious wonder; rather, these crime battle accoutrements evoke Zodiac-style "process" (part of the futility and dread exemplified by the constantly outwitted police). This pessimism links Batman to our post-9/11 anxiety by escalating the violence quotient, evoking terrorist threat and urban helplessness.
The biggest problem with this movie is that large parts are dedicated to a theme that has been done to death by the Left Wing Progressives of Hollywood. The absurd premise of this entire picture is that if you kill someone, no matter the justification, you yourself become the bad guy; it's cliché, it's worn out, and it's just not true. To someone who accepts this pseudo-philosophical garbage, the Dark Knight might have some sort of meaning, but to the rest of us, it's just a rather silly message that turns Batman into a gibbering do-gooder with both hands tied behind his back.
In the real world, a mass murdering psychopath would be hunted down and shot without any remorse whatsoever. No-one would care. There is no grey area here. Instead, in Nolan's fantasy world, killing a despicable killer (even to save others) is a no-no.
There are numerous examples of Leftist propaganda in this film, and silly scenes that serve only to give the liberals a warm heart, like the serious criminal who decides to throw away the detonator in order to save innocent lives. GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm not buying that cliché drivel. It's time for Hollywood to enter the real world. This film is an apologist for criminality.

>Joker is replaced by another person
>Batman is replaced by another person
>people under the masks change, but symbols remain in eternal struggle between good and evil
it would have unironically been top pottery

Apart from that, the idea is that Dent proves heroism is improbable or unlikely in this life. Dent says, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain." What kind of crap is that to teach our children, or swallow ourselves? Such illogic sums up hipster nihilism, just like Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World. Putting that crap in a Batman movie panders to the naiveté of those who have not outgrown the moral simplifications of old comics but relish cynicism as smartness. That's the point of The Joker telling Batman, "You complete me." Tim Burton might have ridiculed that Jerry Maguire canard, but Nolan means it-his hero is as sick as his villain.
hen there's narration by Gordon explaining again why Batman is taking the fall for Two-Face, he's telling his son who is the stand in for the audience in that moment. TDR is literally using a child as the audience surrogate at the end. And not in like a 'lost innosense' sort of way, but a 'you're too stupid, let the adults explain it to you' sort of way.
If you fell for the evil-versus-evil antagonism of There Will Be Blood, then The Dark Knight should be the movie of your wretched dreams. Nolan's unvaried direction drives home the depressing similarities between Batman and his nemeses. Nolan's single trick is to torment viewers with relentless action montages; distracting ellipses that create narrative frustration and paranoia. Delayed resolution. Fake tension.

Could you seriously have waited 5 years for bane posting?

The only part I had a problem with in Dark Knight was Dent not killing joker when he had the chance. It shouldnt of even been a coin flip. It didnt matter who sent joker. Joker was the main cause for rachels death and if he was as pissed as he was he woulda killed him right then and there along with everyone else he wanted revenge on

>In the real world, a mass murdering psychopath would be hunted down and shot without any remorse whatsoever

Maybe in USA, Breikvik was captured alive and lives in prison in Norway.

Well that's where the film takes place.

What a pathetic post, I really hope I've been baited and this is a stale pasta that i've never seen.

Are you trying to imitate that Almond White guy or is it just his pasta?

Dent became a crazy mother fucker. Don't try to apply logic to that. The coin became very important to him.