Should Two-Face & The Joker Return In Batman 3?
Aug 27, 2009 by Kofi OutlawThe pros and cons of bringing these two back – and what are the alternatives.
We here at Screen Rant recently asked the question, “What Will Batman 3 Be About?” The third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise is easily one of the most anticipated sequels ever – as evidenced by the HUGE outpouring of reader reaction our article is STILL receiving.
Out of the 350+ comments left by you Batman fans, two clear points of debate raged longest and hardest throughout the thread of discussion. After seeing the sparks of that debate, we thought it only fitting that we should fan it into a brush fire. So, without further ado I now ask:
Should Two-Face and The Joker be brought back for Batman 3?
THE NEW IMPORTANCE OF THE VILLAIN
One of the things I really appreciated about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was that it was clear with both films that scribes Chris and John Nolan and David S. Goyer all truly understood the character of Batman and the universe that he inhabited. More than that, the writers also had a keen eye for what made all of Batman’s supporting characters and (most importantly) the villains in his rogues gallery tick. If I have one criticism of Burton’s Batman films, it’s that the villains were mainly evil foils for Batman, there more for (wonderful) theatrics rather than any sort of pointed reason.
In Nolan’s films, the villains (for the most part) have carried much more dramatic weight. Certainly that’s true for The Dark Knight: The Joker wasn’t just there for show of a trademark smile (cough, cough), he added actual thematic meaning to the story, as did Harvey/Two-Face. And for that matter, so did Ra’s al Ghul in Batman Begins (Bruce Wayne twisted by anger).
There has been some debate about whether Batman 3 should position itself as a direct sequel to The Dark Knight, or perhaps as more of a standalone story, set long after TDK. In either case, if Nolan is at the helm you know that whatever villain(s) go into the script will only be in there if they add weight and meaning to the story. And while it would be a novel kick to see a few new villains rolled out for a flashy sequel, if Batman 3 is to be set directly after Dark Knight then there is still a lot of narrative weight still hanging on both The Joker and Harvey/Two-Face.
So do you bring them back?
.
TWO-FACE
Ok, so fans have said it; Nolan has said it; and even Dark Knight star Aaron Eckhart (eventually) said it:
Harvey Dent dies at the end of The Dark Knight. End of story.
However, as many of our readers have pointed out, that “death” marks the end of Harvey Dent’s story. Two-Face has a story all his (their?) own to tell.
I’m going to be honest: I’ve already argued that Batman 3 should bring back Two-Face, so I’m not going to pretend here that I’m not already in favor of that option. TDK did a great job exploring Harvey Dent, what he meant to Gotham and what it meant when he “fell from grace.” Nonetheless, I feel like there is still so much to explore in the character of TWO-FACE, and who that character becomes after the last remnants of Harvey Dent are (seemingly) gone.
Seeing Harvey fully transformed into Two-Face would add the kind of weight and hopelessness which (I think we all believe) is going to be a necessary starting point for Batman’s character in the next film. Picture it: The Caped Crusader is low. He’s hunted. He’s alone. He’s sacrificed much. Lost so much. He’s trying hard to maintain but there is Two-Face, always staring back as a testament to his failure, as morally complicated and conflicted as Batman himself.
Suddenly this character doesn’t sound as creatively exhausted as people are claiming, does he?
Another point of convergence in a lot of our reader comments was that any Dark Knight sequel should involve a flat-out war for control of Gotham City. Of those who held such an opinion, a large percentage also thought that B3 should be titled Gotham City for that very reason. If that is the direction the film goes in, then absolutely Two-Face would be an important cornerstone of the story. After all, as a D.A. Harvey Dent knew the entire inner workings of Gotham city’s businesses, political network, banking network, legal system, prison system, etc… If there was some kind of epic showdown for Gotham, then Two-Face would be one of the most crucial pieces on the chessboard.
Black Mask in Batman 3? (Click image for source)
Of course a lot of people have said that B3 should feature the criminal mastermind Black Mask (above), a classic Bat-villain who has recently enjoyed something of a resurgence in the comic books. But I have to ask: why drag us all through yet another villain origin story, just to maneuver said villain into a position (a crime boss connected all over Gotham) that you could fill with a villain the audience already knows and (for the most part) loves? Putting Two-Face into play frees the story up to introduce whatever secondary villains it wants, without having to exhaust a lot of time getting into their origins.
For example: Two-Face could approach Black Mask, The Penguin or whoever, deliver a few expository lines of dialogue to fill us in on who the villain is, and how he/she fits into the scheme of Gotham (based on his knowledge as a D.A.), and bada-bing, bada-boom, we’ve got a new player in the game, no time wasted.
So where’s the down-side of bringing Two-Face back? “Because it’s boring?” “Because it’s beating a dead horse?”
IMHO, if you truly understand why the character has been so pivotal and important to the Batman universe (I’d rank him #3 behind The Joker and Catwoman), then you should also understand just how much cinematic juice is left in this character. How do you NOT go after that juice when you know you’ve got an actor (Eckhart) who can truly apply the squeeze? Do people really think performances like his just just come with every Summer Movie Blockbuster?
UPDATE: Here’s what Two-Face himself (Aaron Eckhart) has to say on the subject:
MY VOTE: Bring back Two-Face!
Continue reading for pro/con arguments on whether the Joker should return…
Around the web:
Loading ...
There was a red post earlier saying that the ending of TDK wouldn’t be cheapened if Two Face returned in the third film. I want to disagree on this point and I think that a lot of people may have missed one of the thematic implications of Harveys death at the end of TDK; a major theme of the film was the Joker trying to force Batman to break his one rule about not killing. The Joker didn’t win the “Battle for Gothams Soul” as he put it, but he did force Batman into taking a life. It’s interesting for that fact because he did, in effect, win, at least in his battle with Batman. It’s not often that we see the bad guy win. What Bruce has to sacrifice to save Gothams soul is key to this.
As an aside, this is one reason why the Jokers story is far from over.
So. The tragedy of Harveys death (and not just some metaphorical death of the Harvey persona giving way to Two-Face) is crucial to the story and yes, completely cheapened by having him return in the next chapter.
Joker-Yes TwoFace- No. Twoface is dead, keep him that way. No need for a miracles recovery. I think bringing Harley in would be a great idea along with the Riddler. The Riddler causes some havoc while Harley frees the Joker and the story can go on from there.
As for the Riddler, I think B-fans and Nolan fans would be more attracted to a more “serial killer” type Riddler rather a “Blackmailing” type Riddler. Although it would be a little out of character for him, a darker Riddler might be a bit more believeable then the wimpy, blackmailing, kinda cartoonish Riddler of old. But he would still be second fittle to the Joker. ( Johnny Depp might be good as the Riddler, along with Parker Posey as Harley, still thinking of a good Joker.) just my opinion. More opinion to come.
Yes Two-face should be back! And get a good Joker guy, alright? Heath is dead. Get Mark Wahlburg( did I get his name right?), he looks like Heath and he’s a good actor too
And I’m glad to have posted a comment after such a long absence.
Two-Face: While I’d love to see the possibilities this character creates, the truth of the matter is, TDK showed the only way his story could end. So even if you recant his death, the fact is you’d only see something similar–and less heroic for Batman–in the future. Leave him alone, I say. The series already took the best of the drama out of him.
Joker: Too soon. I wouldn’t complain about another actor taking Ledger’s spot and showing us a new aspect of perhaps the most interesting character in comics, (heck, let Mark Hamill do it) especially considering that anybody who does refill the role would do so with respect and tact, undoubtedly, and they would only use the highest-calibre actor now. But as classic as the vendetta between Batman and Joker is, the last movie was filled with it. The only parts they left out are the sick personal parts that focus more on the Joker’s obsession with Batman. They even somewhat filled the whole you-killed-Jason-Todd thing with you-killed-Rachel. Bringing the Joker back right now for the main event only distracts from exploring Batman further.
Bane/Knightfall: how do you even do that story without at least one Robin? I don’t think I want to know.
Penguin: They somewhat need him, or someone like him, since the Joker wiped out the criminal leadership of Gotham.
Catwoman: You could go there, I guess. Everyone’s expecting you to. But they’d have to go Frank Miller’s route to make this character not tacky on film.
The Riddler: Please, no. The mind game has just been done, and nearly perfectly so.
i honestly think the best idea for a batman 3 movie will have to be KNIGHTFALL. i mean jus take a look at the name it would go perfect! if they keep loyal to the novel then i think it would be great! itll show batman broken mentally and physically.Plus you get to see him get back in shape to take down AZREAL. BAM!! two villans right there! BANE and AZREAL! can anybody agree??
Here’s my thoughts on the next Batman…
http://ahole.org/2009/09/next-batman-villains/
I said this on Hollowex’s blog, but I also wanted to put it out there on here:
What’s with the eyeliner on the mayor in the Dark Knight? It’s not on any other character, and it stands out on him in every scene he’s in. Could be just a quirk with the actor, but I doubt it (I never noticed it on him when he was on some TV show). I think there’s some significance to this, but I don’t recognize the character at all.
Although I think they should bring back Joker (maybe locked away in the bowels of Arkham using CGI trickery combining Heath’s outtakes from Dark Knight and a voice impersonator?), I don’t think they will as they need new villains if this is to be Christopher Nolan’s swan song.(A trilogy always wrap things up nice) Also, it has been proven in past ensemble super hero pieces that too many “bad guys” spoils the show as two hours is not significant time to develop more than a couple characters – and well, there is quite the rouges galery to choose from – why repeat? I think it would be a good idea to ‘bookend’ Batman 3 with the first one and introduce Ra’s Al Ghul’s daughter, Talia as a new love interest. Mix in a mysterious prostitute/cat burglar (you know who) as a stalker looking to bed the bat and you have a love triangle of Femme Fatales which will lead Batman from the dark side back to the light. The last scene of the movie could be Bruce Wayne on his way to a ‘Circe De Soule’ style acrobatic circus to see ‘The Flying Graysons’.
It could be called: “Batman: Redemption”
??????????????????/////
The best idea I’ve heard yet on the subject of bringing back the Joker with a different actor is to introduce ARKHAM ASYLUM’s “super-sanity” concept into the cinematic Bat universe. If the next Batman movie with the Joker – be it Batman 3 or another film down the line – were to explain that the Joker has no true persona and constantly reinvents himself and remolds his personality, that would give the next actor to play him ALOT of creative freedom to be purposely different from Heath Ledger’s Joker. Introducing the “super-sanity” concept into Bat films would end alot of the preceived troubles involving bringing him back after Ledger.
Not saying it’s what I personally want to see, but I like that idea above all others re: re-using the Joker.
Amol
First, clearly you don’t see how other people can have ideas. Ideas are based in the mind and everybody has “different” ideas. Your idea of the riddler is traditional while mine is an original idea that makes him the main villain.
I would also like to hear of one just one badass blackmailer? (Movie or real life.)
And if your going to dissect my post please answer this:
“Also seeing how he would be weak and we agree with the no thug situation, how would he enforce his blackmails on others. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t Black Mask or Hush kill him, Bane snap him in half and Mr. Freeze freeze him?”
Another thing, you’re missing my point about Batman not figuring out the puzzle. I wasn’t thinking of him being being saved from solving the riddle but of innocent people that are caught in the middle. What happens to them? You would have to show a down side, a point where Batman hits rock bottom, every superhero movie has it. Imagine how Batman/Bruce Wayne in this concept would feel if he couldn’t solve the puzzle in time and if innocent people died.
Now on to your types of Riddlers:
My concept would have him be like a John Doe or a Zodiac Killer type. To tell you the truth I wouldn’t want him to have that much face time, think it would keep the suspense if nobody knows who he is until he is caught. His riddles would be two types, who he is and who is next. The victims have the riddle to who he is while the police have the riddle to the next victim or victims. Remember escalation, well he would escalate himself as well. From starting with one victim and not getting the attention he wants he starts to put multiple people in just one riddle. Now these victims have no control of the situation, they have to rely on the police to solve the riddle.
Now “imagine” the unrest that this would create in Gotham. Most of these crimes are going unsolved. People are going missing and can’t be found. Of course the police would solve a few but are not able to stop what the press is calling “The Riddler.” C. Gordon knows that he needs help so he seeks out Batman. The Riddler would expect this just like he is expecting to be caught but he has a plan.
He has already came up with a theory for Who Batman is? He then seeks out help of his own, my opinion for this roll is Hush. Now the Riddler has a pawn for slowing down Batman. Cool thing is that nobody was blackmailed or forced to participate, well minus the victims.
Now a 100 crimes is a bit much and 10 is not enough. I think as the movie starts we would be about 10 plus victims into his kill spree. But I don’t think that 50 plus victims in one riddle is far fetched. I think that it would be needed to show a breaking point for Batman if he figured out the riddle, got ambushed by Hush and wasn’t able to get to the victims in time to save them. Or even if he couldn’t figure out a riddle and somebody died.
And seriously, “You choose first.”???
Hector:
It’s a fine idea, and I would watch such a movie…
…if it hadn’t already been done in the Dark Knight.
Hector
Yes, I said “You choose first” and you chose Type-II John-Doe-style Riddler, didn’t you ?
And that WAS on my expected lines. I said “You choose first”, because personally FOR ME, no such thing as a Type-II Hannibal-Lecter-or-John-Doe-style Riddler would exist. Because as I had said before, The Riddler loses his identity with that as it alters his nature. But then that’s MY opinion. If you go for Type-II it’s OK for me.
But you did a nice job of catching the fault in number of victims (’100′ and ’10′). They were deliberately numbered that way. Actually I wanted to set 1000 for Type-I Riddler and just 3 for Type-II for you. The point is: Even if Type-I Riddler kills a THOUSAND victims Type-I (Traditional) style, he would not have been a Serial Killer for me. Because he is suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder related to Riddles. And his Puzzles are not totally fatal. THAT IS HIS IDENTITY. But Nolan could make Riddler’s puzzles 50% Fatal as opposed to traditional harmless ones that Riddler utilises. But what is important is this: There exists a 50% chance of the victims surviving. The Riddler is not at all concerned if the Victims die or survive. And THAT’s what makes Riddler NOT a Serial Killer. May be all 100 die or simply no one. All Riddler does is enjoying his puzzles. But at the same time we could see the fun of people going thro’ those puzzles to save their skins (and some of them dying if just in case someone just REALLY wants to see the Riddler “kill” somebody).
And our superhero, The Batman could hit the rock-bottom low point of his life with so much innocent lives being involved.
And As for Type-II John-Doe-style Riddler, even if he kills ONE John-Doe-style, he loses his identity as “The Riddler” FOR ME. And as the ‘Escalation’ issue, I would rather watch ‘The Dark Knight(2008)’ again and again than to watch a ‘Dark Knight-2′. Nolan’s Joker gave me The Escalation and the Sadistic Killing of people. By ‘Sadistic’ I mean, The Joker does gets his pleasure killing people and watching die. That is the Joker for me and not the Riddler.
Anyway, the best way for Nolan to make sure his Third Batman flops big-time is to just copy ‘The Dark Knight’ as it is (The Escalation, seriously going for people’s death etc, etc.)
The BAD-ASS I want to see is BLACK MASK. I am simply dying to see him on-screen.
Amol your riddler 1 is essentially a ‘Saw’ film.
Anthony
I haven’t seen any of the ‘Saw’ films yet. The mere movie-poster of Saw tells me that this is just another sadistic film. I have nothing against Sadism but ‘Saving Private Ryan(1998)’ too was Sadistic upto some level but it was MEANINGFUL and PURPOSEFUL. No Saw films for me
I think that Two-Face’s return and allign himself with the Riddler or Catwoman would make a good third movie. As for the Joker, well… as much as I want to see him again, I would say don’t bring him back out of respect for Heath Ledger.
@Hector
There could be a hardcore blackmailer if Bane teams up with Riddler because he is attracted to working with him for his intelligence. I mean Riddler may not be smarter than Bane but he definitely could come up with better riddles and some pretty dark stuff on people, and having Bane on his side no one would mess with Riddler. and you could have a seen where Riddler and Bane are playing chess together which would show the average movie goer that Bane is not just some big stupid guy, but one of Batman’s smartest villains. And with the combined intelligence of Bane and Riddler and Bane’s strength, that would be a pretty formidable match for Batman. You could introduce Batman’s detective side and give him a really cool fight all in one movie, and then leave it off so that you could either make a sequel or not. And this would really be where Batman has to focus on villains rather than the mobsters because Bane would definitely be more dangerous.
I say no to both and hopefully this trilogy gets done quick, that way we can move away from this “nolan-verse” and move on to a reboot where batmans other villains can come out to play.
Simon and Amol
“We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing kevlar … they buy armor-piercing rounds. And you’re wearing a mask … and jumping off rooftops.” – James Gordon
Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight explored this very statement in two very different ways, much like my concept would. The rationale is that the Villains that are presented in the Nolan Universe of Batman would be escalated to the point that only Batman can stop them. Was the point with Scarecrow, Ras Al Gul, The Joker and Two Face. Would be the same with any other villain presented as an adversary to Batman.
And if you feel that its like The Dark Knight after the brief part that you read, by all means feel free to assume that.
Michael,
Trust me, I’m waiting for them to do a better rendition of Bane and I’m sure it will be done in the future. But just like Killer Croc you deal with a lot of CGI to make that character and at this point I don’t think Nolan will go for it. But it would be so cool to see the man that broke the Bat have some justice done to him.
@Jago
I can’t believe you hate Nolan’s batman movies so much that you want them rebooted. I completely agree that TDK wasn’t the “bestest movie ever made” like some people make it out to be, but it was still a really good movie. All they really had to do was fix the fighting, put some REAL detective work in it, not that retarded as hell shattering bullet BS they had, and get rid of that horribly paced ending…
I liked Batman Begins as well, but they also neglected the whole detective side of Batman, well, BB neglected it and TDK butchered it…
@ken j
lol i don’t hate them as much as you think but this whole ” realistic” batman bs is whats crappy for me. Batman begins (imo) is waaaaaaay better then TDK for me but yeah i just want it to be done mainly cause i want to see newer and/or villains that might get done much much better ( bane, poison ivy, riddler, ledgers joker). I mean i’m sure the next movie will be pretty good but batman is far different in my eyes then this (7 rules to be batman) nolan version. So again i liked his take on batman but i’ve had enough of this ” ledger is the joker and is this almighty actor”. Wasn’t ledger on drugs and dating one of the olsens…? Imo some People not all glorify the dead. The joker is bigger then ledger… Always has been, always will be.
Wow i’m being moderated… Hilarious. It’s cool though i don’t comment all the time but now i know for sure my comments are being read…lol. Thank you for whoever’s taking the time to do so… Of course i could always go without commenting ( like i did so from just before iron man came out till the thread about the leaked wolverine movie where i first commented).
Moderated? Did you curse in your post and it was edited or what?
Lol i guess… Not exactly sure but now i know it was only that comment… It was a response to your comment. It was a ” somewhat” negative towards ledger but its still my opinion…
Probably got caught in the automatic spam filter, happens to me all the time, lol. There are certain key words that if you submit that, it will automatically flag it for approval before it is posted. You can email Vic to have him look at it and maybe he’ll make the appropriate changes to allow it to be seen…
Don’t really think i’m on vics good side…lol. I’ll just wait and see but i don’t think there really is any cursing in it.
It’s not just curse words, there are words that sometimes are associated with what a spammer might say that will get it filtered. Some of these words are very normal words that people would say so every now and then someone’s comment will get filtered, but it does help keep the spam down…
@Jago
Let me assure you that you are NOT flagged for auto-moderation. Sometimes comments get caught in the spam filter even when they shouldn’t be, and there are a variety of things that trigger a comment to be moderated.
Although we tend to disagree that’s certainly not going to cause me to auto-moderate your comments, bud. You express your opinions in a civil and educated manner and that’s the sort of discussion I encourage here.
Best,
Vic
@Hector
on another board we decided that Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men, Vicky Cristina Barcelona) would be the perfect choice for Bane if he really built up for the part, and the venom could just be a PCP-esque drug that eliminates the sensation of pain and pushes your muscles to the max minus the down falls, like ripping your skin off. So you can still have a realistic Bane with the same character traits just different kind of venom.