Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery
my point was that there was no closure to the joker story, it didn't seem like he was ready to retire to the costa del sol at the end of the movie, so how are they going to explain his absence in the sequel. they cant just not mention it, and any atempt to explain his absence is going to seem pathetic. also any other vilain is going to be be so lame when measured against the joker now. i think it was the fact that he was doing it all for shits and gigles basicaly, that realy set him apart.
|
The filmmakers dont really care to explain anything. In the last Joker film with
Jack Nicholson, Joker died from a great fall. In the other film Penguin's life came to an end. In the Riddler film with
Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones played the part of Two-Face... but in Dark Knight, the history of Two-Face changed! I very much liked Arnold Schwarzenegger in
Batman and Robin as Mr Freeze. There was this vamp called Ivy who spread plant poison everywhere. She could be a fitting villain... Uma Thurman played that role.
Anyway, you can consider the
Dark Knight as a description of events when Joker was still alive, not as a sequel of the other Batman films. In the same way, more films about batman might come along as separate events totally unrelated to the others that came before.