PDA

View Full Version : The Dark Knight



kpenguin
2008-07-05, 12:55 AM
So, who's excited for the Dark Knight? I am!

Personally, I believe that Batman Begins was the best adaptation of Batman in live action film (the best adaptation ever was the Batman the Animated Series that launched the DCAU).

Heath Ledger, may he rest in peace, seems to have done a terrific job at portraying the Joker. My only complaint about Ledger's Joker is that he seems to be too sane. He just doesn't appear to the lunatic Joker is usually portrayed as.

Anyone going to check out Batman: Gotham Knight? I'm not too keen on the grotesques that some of the villians are. Howeverm if Kevin Conroy is voicing Batman, then I think I'll give it a go.

Oh, and I've changed my avvie to something more Batman-esque. I encourage others to do the same.:smallbiggrin:

Thormag
2008-07-05, 10:24 PM
Well, critics are mad about it, they say that Heath's perfomance of the lunatic mad man was insanely good and that he deserves a posthumous Oscar. I'm personally nuts to see it and cannot wait for July 18. Some critics have even said that TDK is the Godfather II of the superhero movies, crazy!

Silence
2008-07-05, 11:00 PM
Well, you can never trust early reviews. They pay those guys.

It looks worth seeing, but we'll just have to wait.

Mauve Shirt
2008-07-05, 11:36 PM
So excited aaaaaaaaaah it's going to be SO AWESOME!

skywalker
2008-07-06, 12:55 AM
I'm excited. Heatho looks like he's gonna steal the show.

This movie has a great cast all around, tho...

The only thing I wish is that Katie Holmes was still the girl. Seeing the other actress freaks me out.

Tirian
2008-07-06, 02:02 AM
For me, the enthusiasm is based on the the well-conceptualized retelling of the Batman origin in the first movie. The trailers that I've seen, meh. Christian Bale is brooding, The Girl is dating someone else under Bruce's nose because he is emotionally distant and can't be depended on to keep dates, and Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman get zippy one-liners, chase chase explosion explosion. I've seen all this before. I contrast this with the Batman Begins trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eILWtra6AcU) which says in a million different ways that it's not a Spider-man clone.

And Heath Ledger might be playing a psychopathic crime lord who puts Batman to the test, but it's not clear to me that he is even trying to be The Joker. I'm not saying that you have to impersonate Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero, but Rule One of The Joker in every incarnation is that he isn't this grim. I'm looking for The Killing Joke and I'm seeing Scarface with a skin condition. (The Pacino movie, not the Batman villain, natch.)

sikyon
2008-07-06, 10:28 AM
Rule One of The Joker in every incarnation is that he isn't this grim. I'm looking for The Killing Joke and I'm seeing Scarface with a skin condition. (The Pacino movie, not the Batman villain, natch.)

All star joker is pretty grim

Talya
2008-07-06, 10:50 AM
So, who's excited for the Dark Knight?


Very much so. I'll be surprised if this isn't the best live-action superhero movie of all time (despite the recent releases of two outstanding Marvel movies, which threatened even Batman: Begins spot position on that list). Yet despite this, none of them hold a candle to Bruce Timm's DCAU.

sealemon
2008-07-06, 11:24 AM
Rule One of The Joker in every incarnation is that he isn't this grim. I'm looking for The Killing Joke and I'm seeing Scarface with a skin condition. (The Pacino movie, not the Batman villain, natch.)

I think Heath is playing it smart here: being compared to Jack N. is unavoidable, so he took the role in a different direction--no WAY he could out ham Jack N. Besides, Loony Kooky Joker has been done to death; I'm kinda looking forward to
Time To Blow S#%$ Up Joker--and for a previous incarnation of this I only have to point to the Death Of Robin and Dark Knight Returns, both pivotal moments in Joker's career.

Looks like they're gonna go the smart route here in another way: introducing Dent, then showing the acid splash to the face, then saving Two Face for the next movie. This is the way to do it (I'm looking at you, Spiderman 3).

Prophaniti
2008-07-06, 11:27 AM
I, too, am fairly excited about it. I'm aprehensive about how this latest attempt at the Joker will turn out, but I'll reserve final judgement for after I've seen the movie. A new Two-Face should be fun, too. I do agree that Batman the animated series was a great adaptation, and I think they did the Joker very well there (thanks in no small part to Mark Hamil). Hopefully the movie will keep the good things from Batman Begins. It'll be nice to have a full series of Batman movies that are all good.

Dryken
2008-07-06, 11:39 AM
My only complaint about Ledger's Joker is that he seems to be too sane. He just doesn't appear to the lunatic Joker is usually portrayed as.

Really? I think the thing with Joker is that he's always been very very clever and uses his intellect along with his insanity. He knows how to manipulate people.

I'm really looking forward to this movie. Any actor that can make Michael Caine forget his lines is worth seeing. Batman Begins didn't let me down at all and I'm really excited about this.

Tirian
2008-07-06, 03:06 PM
All star joker is pretty grim

Ah, I stand corrected. Rule One of the Joker in every incarnation except for The Goddamned Frank Miller's deliberately Bizzaro universe is that The Joker isn't this grim.

Fine. Having finally done some actual research on the issue, it turns out that Christopher Nolan's direction here is based on the 1940's comics in which the The Joker wasn't insane and wasn't even particularly whimsical. I suppose he was like a **** Tracy villain; he just looked like that so that he would be memorable.

That doesn't necessarily endear me to the decision. The Post-Crisis Batman is a rich and subtle character study on fear and coping with loss and the tension between establishing justice and upholding the law. The Golden Age Joker has no place in this; he's just a made-up mook whose only gimmick is surviving the explosion or cliff fall on the last page of the issue so that he can appear another day.

kpenguin
2008-07-06, 03:11 PM
Yet despite this, none of them hold a candle to Bruce Timm's DCAU.

Indeed. No-one can out-Batman Kevin Conroy or out-Joker Mark Hamil.

I now know Hamil more for his role as Joker than his role as a certain sci-fi hero.

SmartAlec
2008-07-06, 03:43 PM
the tension between establishing justice and upholding the law

As far as I can make out, this is what all the Nolan Batman movies are about, or are going to be about.

Dryken
2008-07-06, 05:28 PM
I don't know about you...but I think arranging a way to do a bank heist where he kills everyone involved and crashes a school bus in the bank is pretty damn crazy. Not loony cartoony crazy, but still crazy.

Well, obviously Ledger isn't going to be insane on the level of Mark Hamil, but I think that's a good thing. The kind of crazy I think Nolan is going for is the "no reasonable criminal would even THINK about doing this" kind where he throws away the whole honour that comes with organized crime. Another thing that should be worth noting is so far, Nolan's take on batman has been a fairly realistic one. That's why Scarecrow didn't look that much like a scarecrow (hat and all) and why joker is a psychopath who just happens to wear makeup. Who knows what could be next in the series (I'm hoping for a serial killer obsessed with riddles, myself...) but one thing that should remain a constant is the criminals Batman is dealing with are just people.

Tirian
2008-07-06, 05:51 PM
As far as I can make out, this is what all the Nolan Batman movies are about, or are going to be about.

Exactly. They are using the DC framework for Scarecrow and Ra's, and there is very little doubt that they will use Two-Face in the way he was designed to be used. So what gives them the authority or the courage to create an essentially original Joker based on the vision of Heath Ledger who evidently couldn't make it all the way through The Killing Joke but got far enough that he decided that A Clockwork Orange is cooler anyway.

I don't so much mind the opinion that The Joker is a twentieth-century relic and that you need a sadistic quasi-sane disfigured crime lord whose brutality will shock readers in a post-Sopranos world. DC thought so too: that's what Black Mask is for. But I think I do mind when you take the Black Mask's character, dress him like a homeless clown, and call him The Joker because you don't think anyone will come to a movie that features Black Mask but you also think that Nicholson hit a grand slam with the "real" Joker.

SmartAlec
2008-07-06, 06:11 PM
So what gives them the authority or the courage to create an essentially original Joker based on the vision of Heath Ledger who evidently couldn't make it all the way through The Killing Joke but got far enough that he decided that A Clockwork Orange is cooler anyway.

Possible spoilers here, if you've been trying to avoid the trailers even.

Well, from what I gather from what I've read and from what the trailers have given out, this Joker is more of an anarchist rather than a criminal and is trying to create chaos in Gotham to drag other people down into his own personal world-without-rules, in a response to Batman's imposed order. This may sound different, but it does seem to echo the Joker's claims in The Killing Joke, that every man - no matter how sane - is just one bad day away from madness, though on a wider scale.

"When the chips are down, these 'civilised' people will eat each other. You'll see. I'll show ya."

It seems to be a similar attempt to what was done in Batman Begins - take the premise of the Joker, a mad crime lord dressed as a clown with insane plans to rob and cause havoc, and try to make him make sense in a more believable context.

kpenguin
2008-07-06, 06:19 PM
Anyway, wikipedia quotes:


Heath Ledger as The Joker: Heath Ledger described the Joker as a "psychopathic, mass murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy".[14] Nolan had wanted to work with Ledger on a number of projects in the past, but had been unable to do so. [15] When Ledger saw Batman Begins, he realized a way to make the character work in that film's tone,[16] and Nolan agreed with his anarchic interpretation.[15] To prepare for the role, Ledger lived alone in a hotel room for a month, formulating the character's posture, voice and psychology.[17][13] While he initially found it difficult, Ledger was eventually able to generate a voice that did not sound like Jack Nicholson's take on the character in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film.[18] He started a diary, in which he wrote the Joker's thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performance.[14] He was also given Batman: The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth to read, which he "really tried to read [...] and put it down".[16] Ledger also cited inspirations such as A Clockwork Orange and Sid Vicious, which were "a very early starting point for Christian [Bale] and I. But we kind of flew far away from that pretty quickly and into another world altogether.”[19][20] "There’s a bit of everything in him. There’s nothing that consistent," Ledger said, adding that "There are a few more surprises to him."[19]

Two-Face is being changed too...


aron Eckhart as Harvey Dent / Two-Face: The Gotham district attorney; Dent's battle with the Joker turns Dent into a murderous, disfigured vigilante called "Two-Face".[32][33] Producer Charles Roven described Dent as initially the "white knight of the city".[34] Wayne sees Dent as his heir, which comes back to the theme of him realizing that being Batman will be a lifelong mission, and the tragedy that follows when Dent is corrupted.[30] Whereas Two-Face is an evil villain in the comics, Nolan chose to portray him as a twisted vigilante to emphasize his role as Batman's counterpart, and Eckhart, who has played corrupt men in films such as The Black Dahlia, Thank You For Smoking and In the Company of Men, notes: "[He] is still true to himself. He's a crime fighter, he's not killing good people. He's not a bad guy, not purely," while admitting: "I'm interested in good guys gone wrong."[32][33] Nolan and David S. Goyer had originally considered using Dent in Batman Begins, but they replaced him with the new character Rachel Dawes when they realized they "couldn’t do him justice".[35][36] Before Eckhart was cast in February 2007, Liev Schreiber,[37] Josh Lucas,[38] and Ryan Phillippe[39] had expressed interest in the role.[40] Nolan chose Eckhart, whom he had considered for the lead role in Memento, citing his "extraordinary" ability as an actor, his embodiment of "that kind of chiselled, American hero quality" projected by Robert Redford, and his subtextual "edge".[41]

Thormag
2008-07-06, 07:03 PM
I don't know really, but I like what I've seen of Heath's Joker so far. The Joker should give me creeps and that's exactly what Heath's perfomance has gave me.
I'll know when the movie comes, but it looks good so far.

About the new Two-Face? I'm no fan of the idea of Two-Face as a vigilante, but it could work (it certainly makes sense).

That's why I cannot wait till the movie comes out. I must know what Ledger did with The Joker and what Eckhart did with Two-Face, it's for my personal well being.

dani_carip
2008-07-07, 12:25 AM
sealemon: Besides, Loony Kooky Joker has been done to death; I'm kinda looking forward to Time To Blow S#%$ Up Joker

Thank you for making my week :D

kpenguin
2008-07-07, 01:42 AM
Uh, Dani, why did you make a new thread for the Dark Knight?

Verruckt
2008-07-07, 02:50 PM
See, I have to disagree with what seems to be the most prolific (or at least most verbose) opinion here. The reason I've always liked the Joker, and the reason (I think) he's considered to be one of the best villains in any form of media, let alone comics, is that deep down, (or maybe right on top, depending on your perspective) He is Us.

He didn't need an Atlantean heritage or a Yellow Ring to become the scariest villain out there, he's just a normal man who went quietly insane. When you focus to much on the chuckles/pop-gun gimmicky nature of his persona you lose some of that fear factor. Batman exemplifies how loss and determination can bring out the best in a person. Bruce is human, and yet he can shut down the whole JLA if he wanted to. The Joker exemplifies the other side of the coin. Where Bruce stared into the Abyss and decided to punch it in its black amorphous jaw, Joker jumped in and became that madness made manifest. No super power, no fancy suit, just the things that the human mind is capable of.

I don't know about you, but that is scary as hell.

kpenguin
2008-07-07, 03:27 PM
I don't see how that contradicts Tirian. "One bad day can turn anyone into the Joker" is one of the messages of the Killing Joke, which (s)he supports.

Verruckt
2008-07-07, 04:38 PM
No I quite agree on that, it's just that I don't think that making him more ridiculous and supervillain-y helps the cause. Ledger's (apparently) colder, darker depiction gets the point across better then
Giggles-and-Kills-with-Rubber-Chickens type Joker.

I think this communicates the idea rather well.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=160

The Vorpal Tribble
2008-07-07, 07:30 PM
Yes, I thought Batman Begins was the best of the bunch and am dying to see this one. I'm... not much of a fan of the Tim Burton stuff aside from perhaps the first.

Personally I think this Joker is far scarier than any of the others I've seen. Disturbing even. He is, as was mentioned, 'believably insane'. Insane yet dangerous. Most of the other jokers were... ridiculous really. Granted, Jack Nicholson wasn't bad, but still, it was more stupid insane than scary insane.

Also, who says he's grim? They may not be showing his 'happy' side in these. You hear this laugh a lot in the background.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-07-07, 08:08 PM
I'm greatly antcipating The Dark Knight for a couple reasons. Primarily among them being Heath Ledger's Joker who, for the first time, seems like a real threat to me. Granted, I grew up with 60's TV series Joker (I'm not that old but I saw a bunch of reruns) so that was the only Joker I was exposed to for a while until Batman the animated series were he still seemed too...whimsical to be funny or dangerous. Mostly just seemed annoying. Nicholson's Joker was decent but had too much of a death obsession to seem threatening and it wasn't until Batman Beyond's Return of the Joker movie I thought he might be frightening. Ledger's Joker LOOKS frightening right off the bat, not something that gradually comes to ya.

Add in that I think Christian Bale is the best Batman so far and I'm all but sold on the whole thing. Like I've said many a times though, when The Dark Knight comes out on DVD I just hope they include copies of Heath's journal of Joker with it cause that'd probably be an awesome read.

sealemon
2008-07-07, 10:46 PM
You know, I also wanna comment on this:


Rule One of The Joker in every incarnation is that he isn't this grim. I'm looking for The Killing Joke and I'm seeing Scarface with a skin condition. (The Pacino movie, not the Batman villain, natch.)

Ummm...yeah, he has a song and dance number, but besides that, I'd have to say that shooting Barbara, stripping her naked, possibly raping her (subtly implied at best), taking pics, killing the park owner then leaving his corpse on the rocker horse as a lawn ornament, fighting Batman with acid, a knife, a 2x4 and a gun all seem kinda grim to me. Joker Fish is wacky. Having a pit trap with poisoned spikes is...well, kinda grim, IMO.


"All he had in his pockets were knives and lint."

Works for me.

Tirian
2008-07-08, 12:25 AM
I'd have to say that shooting Barbara, stripping her naked, possibly raping her (subtly implied at best), taking pics, killing the park owner then leaving his corpse on the rocker horse as a lawn ornament, fighting Batman with acid, a knife, a 2x4 and a gun all seem kinda grim to me.

His actions are undeniably psychotic. And I don't want to spoil the Batman Beyond movie, but Mr. J does stuff there that makes The Killing Joke look like a Cesar Romero plot.

But he is not grim while doing these things. Here is part of the dialog for one of the scenes you mentioned:



Park Owner: Have you had a chance to inspect the property and decide if it’s what you were looking for?
Joker: Well, it’s garish, ugly, and derelicts have used it for a toilet. The rides are dilapidated to the point of being lethal, and could easily maim or kill innocent little children.
PO: Oh. So you don’t like it?
J: Don't like it? I'm CRAZY for it!
PO: You...? You really want to buy it? And the price I mentioned, it isn’t too steep?
J: Too steep? My dear sir, as I look at it I’m making a KILLING.


and one of the most famous scenes in comic history, after shooting Barbara:


Joker: It's a psychological complaint. Common amongst ex-librarians. You see, she thinks she's a coffee table edition. Mind you, I can't say much for the volume's condition. I mean, there's a hole in the jacket and the spine appears to be damaged. Frankly, she won't be walking off the shelves in that state of repair. In fact, the idea of her walking anywhere seems increasingly remote. But then, that's always a problem with softbacks. God, these literary discussions are so dry.

That's The Joker. He is gleeful even when his actions are diabolical. Some folks here make the case that a sane evil man is scarier than an insane evil man, and in real life I would generally agree. But The Joker is an exception: he is a man who is so evil that he believes that insanity is the only defense against witnessing the horrors of his actions day after day. Heath Ledger's character appears to just be someone who is willing to do whatever is necessary to climb to the top of the heap, and there are plenty enough examples of that degree of evil even without comic book movies.

Semidi
2008-07-08, 12:39 AM
As far as I'm concerned, everyone working on this movie is made up of pure gold. Christopher Nolan has yet to do wrong by me (I've loved all of his films I've seen), Christian Bale is an amazing actor, and Heath Ledger, so far on the previews, looks to have done a master piece role.

I don't think I've ever been this excited for a movie--ever.

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 12:42 AM
Heath Ledger's character appears to just be someone who is willing to do whatever is necessary to climb to the top of the heap.

Not sure if we've read the same sources or seen the same trailers, but from what I gather, he's more of a character who wants to bring the whole heap down. As I said before, an anarchist and a terrorist rather than a crime lord.

Icewalker
2008-07-08, 02:24 AM
It's going to be a really intense movie. I look forward to it.

kpenguin
2008-07-08, 02:26 AM
If anyone wants a spiffy Dark Knight avvie, I've started a thread for that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84909) in the Arts & Crafts board.

Pronounceable
2008-07-08, 11:00 AM
DK is gonna rock ur world!!! (I'm too excited to be coherent)

kpenguin
2008-07-08, 07:32 PM
I just saw Gotham Knight. It might just be the nostalgia from hearing Kevin Conroy voice Batman talking, but I thought it was pretty good.

Thormag
2008-07-09, 05:24 PM
This thing is like a drug to me. I just can't stop watching it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgqhp5uz8_8&feature=related)

dani_carip
2008-07-11, 02:28 AM
*hoarsely*

Watch. NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yunjckBX7EE&eurl

And if you want hi-def, take a gander:

http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/trailer.htm
http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm

Maybe it's old news to you guys, but it's got me reeling :D

Eldpollard
2008-07-19, 02:41 PM
I'll go and see it at the Imax I think. Huge screen, should be fun. It's not Adam West though. His film and series in my eyes is the best adaptation.

StickMan
2008-07-19, 02:49 PM
By far the best Batman movie of all time and Heath Ledger may he rest in peace is the best Joker I've ever seen. Will be going to see it again soon likely in Imax.

puppyavenger
2008-07-19, 03:02 PM
Best batman adaption ever, but Hieth ledger stole the show

Jack Squat
2008-07-19, 11:42 PM
Excellent movie. My only complaint is that

Two Face wasn't that great/convincing. Dent converted over to chaos too easily, as he was adament about his ideas of putting the bad guys away; he changes because he was right about some cops being corrupt and it causing Rachel to die? There should've been more internal conflict involved, probably best in another movie. His death was also kinda weak. I mean, he fell about the same distance that mob guy did.

Some of my friends say he's probably not really dead, and they'll bring him into the next one, but why would Gordon put on a false funeral for Dent?

Anyways, two thumbs up, go watch it NOW.

RTGoodman
2008-07-19, 11:52 PM
I saw it at the midnight opening, and I like it quite a bit. I think my only real complaint is that it felt like a good if slightly long movie with another 45-minute one tacked on at the end. It wasn't bad, but it seemed like it could have ended as Dent/Two-Face was in the hospital. The real ending was good, though.

I liked Heath Ledger as the Joker and thought he did an awesome job, but I'm not convinced that it was the best job of all time. It seems to me that the character was what made it - any really good actor probably could have done as well. The thing that freaked me out is that, in my mind, I couldn't stop feeling a little like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" was a little like a very sinister Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp version). :smalleek:


Some of my friends say he's probably not really dead, and they'll bring him into the next one, but why would Gordon put on a false funeral for Dent?

I don't think he's dead either. Gordon probably put on the funeral for him because, basically, Harvey Dent IS dead and Gordon wanted to give the funeral to show people that the man they knew as Dent was dead (and to let them remember him that way instead of as a guy that went crazy a little at the end). Dent won't be back, but I think that Two-Face will be, if that makes sense.

Vonriel
2008-07-20, 12:11 AM
I imagine Heath Ledger's death had a big part to play about why the movie didn't end where you thought it could have. And, Jack, The reason Gordon would've held the funeral for him is for the same reason they held a fake funeral for Gordon: To protect his identity. Like they said in the movie, Gotham needed a hero with a face, which Batman couldn't be. I imagine Twoface will show up again, and that we'll be introduced to noname extras going "Dent? But I thought you were dead!" right before being shot.

Personally, I have no complaints at all for the movie. Amazing watch, and I suggest anyone who can should go see it. Though, be prepared for a 3 hour movie when all is said and done: At my theater, at least, we had to sit through 30 minutes of previews. :smallsigh:

Raiser Blade
2008-07-20, 03:27 AM
He made the pencil disappear!

:smalltongue:

I have seen it twice. Can't get enough. Heath deserves an oscar.

Jack Squat
2008-07-20, 08:13 AM
I don't think he's dead either. Gordon probably put on the funeral for him because, basically, Harvey Dent IS dead and Gordon wanted to give the funeral to show people that the man they knew as Dent was dead (and to let them remember him that way instead of as a guy that went crazy a little at the end). Dent won't be back, but I think that Two-Face will be, if that makes sense.


I imagine Heath Ledger's death had a big part to play about why the movie didn't end where you thought it could have. And, Jack, The reason Gordon would've held the funeral for him is for the same reason they held a fake funeral for Gordon: To protect his identity. Like they said in the movie, Gotham needed a hero with a face, which Batman couldn't be. I imagine Twoface will show up again, and that we'll be introduced to noname extras going "Dent? But I thought you were dead!" right before being shot.

I could be wrong, but I was of the understanding that Ledger died after the filming of Dark Knight was completed. I know it did interrupt The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.

And
Why would Gordon let Dent/Two Face go then? I mean, he's not really as cunning as the Joker in planning, so I don't see him being able to break out of jail. I could be wrong, but that's my train of thought.

Serpentine
2008-07-20, 08:46 AM
Jack, I think that's what I heard, too, so it shouldn't've made any difference.

I'm really looking forward to it. Hopefully I'll see it tomorrow night with friends. Someone mentioned something about not trusting critics, or at least the early ones. Margaret and David, two very well-known and very respected critics here in Aus, gave it 4 stars each, I think mentioned something about it being the best movie of its genre ever made, and suggested that the only possible drawback is that there isn't much Batman in it. My dad (a film/drama/arts buff) thought that Ledger's performance was awesome (in the slightly outdated sense of the word), and that the way he did it - with the voice and the walk and everything - was simply stunning in a fairly subtle sort of a way, but that he wasn't sure whether it really should get a postumous Oscar.
Hope I get to see it tomorrow!

fireinthedust
2008-07-20, 10:42 AM
I think it's closer to something like Heat, or Ronin, basically a cop movie about an assassin going after the lawyer and cops (batman effectively being a special crimes unit with the equipment) who are trying to shut down the mob. We'd see this movie and love it even if the window dressing of Batman and the Joker weren't in it.

It goes further, however. The assassin happens to be insane, wanting to just see the world burn; he hints at a sort of cosmic level of evil with his "Agent of Chaos" thing, attacking the moral soul of the city.

I thought it was great. I'm still digesting it.

Without spoiling it: Look for what game it's supposed to be: is it Chess (the dark knight, the white knight) or is it poker ("I'm keeping it close to my chest on this one"), who are the chips and who the players the table? Or is it probability games, a toss of the coin?

I liked the little details: "SLaughter is the best medicine" on the side of a truck during one scene.

Cristo Meyers
2008-07-20, 10:47 AM
He made the pencil disappear!

:smalltongue:

I have seen it twice. Can't get enough. Heath deserves an oscar.

I loved that part. Right from the bat we see that this is not the Joker most of us grew up with.

I also think you're right, Ledger deserves an Oscar nod for this. All the little tics and mannerisms, the voice changes (hell, if you didn't know it was Ledger, I honestly think some people would be surprised to find that out), everything.

I was fully expecting this one to be overhyped, it wasn't, not by a long shot.

BRC
2008-07-20, 11:19 AM
Bloddyredcritic incoming!

It twas a great movie. Ledger was amazing as the Joker. The type of guy who was perfectly intellegent while being totally insane. He didn't have superpowers, he didn't have mad ninja skillz, he didn't have fancy toys. All he had was some henchmen, some guns, and just the right amount of brain damage. And with all that he was able to bring gotham down, which was much scarier than somebody who could kill you with their brain. The Joker's goal of bringing down the morale heart of gotham made him seem much more real than somebody who tries to take over the world or steal an ungodly amount of cash.
The rest of the cast was all good, especially dent and alfred.Alfreds story about the bandit in (Burma was it?) gave you just a taste of the butler's past. I would personally read a comic book about the life of alfred before he became batmans butler.
Batman was the weak point, acting wise anyway. As Wayne he had to act the clueless airhead, and as batman he couldn't do anything except stand there in-costume and talk in a voice so gravely and deep that it was a monotone. The combination of covered face and monogrumble was such that even the best actor would appear cardboard.
In the end, the movie was more about the idea of batman than it was about batman, which made it so much better than two hours of batman punching people in the face.

Glawackus
2008-07-20, 01:24 PM
The introduction of the Joker was just so perfect. "I believe that what doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger..."

It's going to be a very, very long time before Heath Ledger's performance gets topped for Joker-ing.

David Tennant as the Riddler in '11 if they don't bring Two-Face back! :smallbiggrin:

Zeta Kai
2008-07-20, 01:35 PM
I couldn't have hoped for a better movie, Batmovie or otherwise. I'd be surprised if ol' Heath didn't get an Oscar for his sublime performance. All of the actors did a terrific job, & everyone was pushing themselves 101%. I didn't see anyone phoning in their role.

I will actually miss Rachel Dawes in the next one. I thought Maggie Gyllenhall totally redeemed the character which a strong portrayal, completely undoing the whiny, childish performance of Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Maggie, you & Rachel will be missed.

Harvey was very well done in this version. His intensity, his conflicts, & his penchant for fairness & chance were brilliantly shown, in ways that didn't talk down to the audience. That goes for most aspects of the film, which had a very complex & smart script that was perfectly realized on screen.

I could go on & on (& on), but my mind is still blown from the awesomeness that I saw yesterday. I'll just say it was the best film I'm seen in years, & I plan to do something rare & actually go back & watch it again.

kpenguin
2008-07-20, 03:09 PM
I loved that part. Right from the bat we see that this is not the Joker most of us grew up with.

What Joker did you grow up with? Because I could totally see the BTAS Joker doing something like that. Comic book Joker as well...

AmberVael
2008-07-20, 03:16 PM
I saw it at the midnight opening, and I like it quite a bit. I think my only real complaint is that it felt like a good if slightly long movie with another 45-minute one tacked on at the end. It wasn't bad, but it seemed like it could have ended as Dent/Two-Face was in the hospital. The real ending was good, though.

That's exactly how I felt about it when I saw it at the midnight opening as well. The first part of it was amazing, one of the best things I've seen in a while, but they lengthened it on a rack mercilessly.
They should have ended it sooner- before they switched the style from their nifty psychological action (that's what I'm going to call it, at least) movie, to a philosophical drama fest which was a bit overdone.

Rogue 7
2008-07-20, 03:18 PM
Saw it yesterday. It was awesome.

BRC
2008-07-20, 03:29 PM
That's exactly how I felt about it when I saw it at the midnight opening as well. The first part of it was amazing, one of the best things I've seen in a while, but they lengthened it on a rack mercilessly.
They should have ended it sooner- before they switched the style from their nifty psychological action (that's what I'm going to call it, at least) movie, to a philosophical drama fest which was a bit overdone.

No, I don't think they could have removed the Dent Goes Crazy part. The point was that, though the Joker had been personally captured, they had to stop him from succeeding in his goal. Think of Dent as a time bomb, though they stopped the guy who set the bomb, they still need to stop the bomb itself or the Joker wins anyway.

AmberVael
2008-07-20, 03:51 PM
No, I don't think they could have removed the Dent Goes Crazy part. The point was that, though the Joker had been personally captured, they had to stop him from succeeding in his goal. Think of Dent as a time bomb, though they stopped the guy who set the bomb, they still need to stop the bomb itself or the Joker wins anyway.

But they could have presented Dent going crazy much more succinctly, and with more emphasis, had they kept it shorter. They could have made it more subtle and hinted at it (in an obvious way) rather than having him convert so quickly in an unbelievable fashion.

They're going to have a third movie- we all know it. Leave the third villain for the third movie- it makes sense, doesn't it?

kpenguin
2008-07-20, 09:00 PM
Heh. Good description of just how awesome the Dark Knight is/was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs):smalltongue:

Jack Squat
2008-07-20, 11:04 PM
But they could have presented Dent going crazy much more succinctly, and with more emphasis, had they kept it shorter. They could have made it more subtle and hinted at it (in an obvious way) rather than having him convert so quickly in an unbelievable fashion.

They're going to have a third movie- we all know it. Leave the third villain for the third movie- it makes sense, doesn't it?

exactly, as I said before, Dent was the pillar of light. It takes much more than the right wording and a tramautic event to change that. Dent would have to rip apart everything he ever stood for in order to slide over to chaos. There's a lot of conflict there that was just kind of glazed over. Persoanally, I'd have thought it a much better introduction of Two Face if he had not shown up for the rest of the movie after the Joker talked to him.

Semidi
2008-07-20, 11:53 PM
What about the foreshadowing:

Dent, the gun, and Scarecrow (I think). As well, his insistence that Gordon's men were corrupt and Gordon not listening to him (thus blaming the corrupt police and Gordon). I definitely got the impression that the guy was getting close to being pushed over the edge. He was in huge amounts of pain, quite insane, and pissed off. There were major hints in the movie; the Joker just pushed him over the edge. There was a slide; it could have been a bit more detailed yes, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Star Wars Ep. 3.

Serpentine
2008-07-21, 04:16 AM
I also think you're right, Ledger deserves an Oscar nod for this. All the little tics and mannerisms, the voice changes (hell, if you didn't know it was Ledger, I honestly think some people would be surprised to find that out), everything.My dad, who likes to analyse these things, mentioned that if you listen to him in his last three movies - Dark Knight, Brokeback Mountain, and... I can't remember the third - he has a completely different voice in each of them. The boy had talent...

MrEdwardNigma
2008-07-21, 04:29 AM
While I am sort of exited for the Dark Knight (which is only out in theatres this wednesday over here) I am quite sure I will be dissapointed. I honestly preferred Burton's batman movies to these new ones (I mean, what was up with the batmobile in Batman Begins? Yuk!) and this one should be worse than Batman Begins due to the Joker being portrayed as a relatively sane gangster. The Joker? Relatively sane? I think not.

Still, this movie ought to beat Batman and Robin (also known as batman on Ice) off it's socks easily and I'll probably go watch it about three or four times.

Changing my avatar to something suitable for Batman hardly seemed necessary to me. I'm always in the Batman mood.

Jack Squat
2008-07-21, 08:23 AM
What about the foreshadowing:

Dent, the gun, and Scarecrow (I think). As well, his insistence that Gordon's men were corrupt and Gordon not listening to him (thus blaming the corrupt police and Gordon). I definitely got the impression that the guy was getting close to being pushed over the edge. He was in huge amounts of pain, quite insane, and pissed off. There were major hints in the movie; the Joker just pushed him over the edge. There was a slide; it could have been a bit more detailed yes, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Star Wars Ep. 3.

I must've missed Scarecrow...not that I'd know what to look for; not having read the comics or watched the cartoons in forever. I'm not saying I don't see how he could turn after having lost Rachel, and half his face burning off. However, he knew that some of the police were corrupt. With how unpredictible the Joker's actions were, he should have known better than to leave her with someone he didn't absolutely trust.

I think my problem with how easily he turned was that before the Joker talked to him, he was still pretty adamant about right and wrong. I can see where after the talk he would be confused about his ideas, but I don't see it converting him right off the bat. In my opinion, it would have been better if his fall would have been shown in the next movie.

I'll take your word for it not being as bad as Ep. III. I refused to watch any new Star Wars movies after seeing Ep. II.

Zeta Kai
2008-07-21, 08:40 AM
...this one should be worse than Batman Begins due to the Joker being portrayed as a relatively sane gangster. The Joker? Relatively sane? I think not.

Someone must've steered you wrong on that. Having seen the film, I can say that NOTHING about the Joker is even remotely sane, by Human standards, at least. I'd say he could most accurately be described as a psychopathic genius. His brilliant mind is overshadowed only by his destructive sadism.

HolderofSecrets
2008-07-21, 01:28 PM
I must've missed Scarecrow...not that I'd know what to look for; not having read the comics or watched the cartoons in forever. I'm not saying I don't see how he could turn after having lost Rachel, and half his face burning off. However, he knew that some of the police were corrupt. With how unpredictible the Joker's actions were, he should have known better than to leave her with someone he didn't absolutely trust.

The Scarecrow was at the begining of the movie. He was saling drugs to the gangster with dogs. The event only happened because of several scenes later in the movie won't make since with out it.


I think my problem with how easily he turned was that before the Joker talked to him, he was still pretty adamant about right and wrong. I can see where after the talk he would be confused about his ideas, but I don't see it converting him right off the bat. In my opinion, it would have been better if his fall would have been shown in the next movie.

Dent's world had already been shattered. He lost the person he cared the most for. She even went as far as to say she would marry him. He also lost half his face and was in a great deal of pain both physical and mental. Its nothing that wouldn't shatter a normal person's world.

Now for what I have to say about the Joker's portrayal in this movie,

I have to say this is bound to be the best Joker I have seen. Be it from a cartoon or live action movie. Don't know about comics lately as I have been out of the loop on DC.

I also enjoyed how they showed the Joker rising from a simple if Psychoatic bank robber (Opening scene) to a full blown villian and Arch rival of Batman at the end.

Now someone already stated that the Joker stole the show. All I have to say about that is, of course he stole the show. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be the Joker.

Now then while some people may disagree on my overall opinion of the movie, honestly I don’t care. This is not an over hyped, let down of a movie. They didn’t show the best parts of the movies in the previews. Which you all know how often that happens in movies. The major hype about the movie was Ledger playing the Joker and dying before the movie came out and after seeing the movie for myself I have to say it was not a let down.

Cristo Meyers
2008-07-21, 01:46 PM
What Joker did you grow up with? Because I could totally see the BTAS Joker doing something like that. Comic book Joker as well...

I never knew the comic book Joker, but the only Joker's I ever knew growing up were the Adam West version and the Mark Hamill voiced one. To me they seemed more like clowns than anything, not dangerous psychopaths. But I never followed this too closely (read: at all), so my recollection is probably a bit off.

Re: Cillian Murphy/Scarecrow

The reason he only got a bit part in this movie is because Murphy actually told them to pretty much write him out in the hopes that he'd have a larger part in the next movie.

Fri
2008-07-21, 03:58 PM
Joker is seriously creeps me. He's. Damn. Scary. As. Heck.

Eventhough I sat beside two annoying girl that I guess just Heath Ledger's fans and have absolutely no interest at the film at all, this films really gripe me to my seat.


Beside Joker's creepiness, Harvey's descent into darkness is, well, saddens me. It's like how anakin turned from the cute but annoying kid into a mass murderer, only better.

Gotham's white knight turned into a villain.

I also liked the bit where Joker said that he and batman are destined to fight for eternity. Really cool, though a bit cheesy if this is a normal film noir. But since this is a comic book movie, awesome

The only thing that bothers me is well.. how it feels like one-and-a-half movie. They should left two face for the sequel. Harvey's (or everyone's) descent into darkness is awesome, but they should left Harvey, at most after joker taunts him in the hospital.

And that'll make his turn into two face more believable, since he'll have more time thinking about it.

And ah, there's another one. Heath Ledger. Why he had to die. Damn, now there's absolutely no chance that this joker will be in any of the sequel.

Querzis
2008-07-21, 06:47 PM
It was just awesome. But I dont get why people said the Joker stole the show. Sure, Heath Ledger was really great and the Joker was really creepy but it still doesnt beat the incorruptible Batman. What I remember the most about this movie is a single man trying to live up to the symbol he created. But, at some point, his symbol just isnt enough anymore and he allow his symbol, his reputation and his life to be destroyed to let the greater symbol of the 'white knight' to survive. He doesnt care about being hated and chased by everyone, criminals and policemans alike, as long as the people of Gotham city still have their symbols and their hopes. The Joker doesnt steal the show at all, the show still goes to Batman, the true knight.

I dont get how some people say they should have left Two-faces for the next movie either. I think its because you are thinking about the comic too much. Two-faces isnt the villain and he cant be the villain like he is in the comic. In the movie, Two-faces is clearly nothing more then the Joker pawn. You need Batman sacrifice to really end the movie otherwise the Joker would have basically won, even if Two-faces get killed in the next movie it doesnt change the fact that the Joker would have been right.

Two-faces was just a desperate man in great pain who lost everything and who tried to get vengeance. If it wasnt for the fact that the police were busy with the Joker, he would have never got that far in the first place. He was just a half-dead man with a gun. He wasnt a villain, you cant do a movie about him, he was just the Joker symbol.

Anyway, my favorite part of the movie is when the big scary prisonner just throw the detonator out of the window after saying to the cops: «I'm gonna do what you should have done ten minutes ago.» Just plain great.

Mr. Scaly
2008-07-21, 08:08 PM
Just saw it. And I greatly enjoyed it. Heh...pretty much everyone involved stole the show, even two bit minions like that mafia guy...whosshisface.

Aside from everything there were a couple tips of the hat to the old Tim Burton film with Nicholson that I kind of liked, since they managed it without being cheesy.

1) When Batman is charging down the street on his rocket bike and Joker just stands there, egging him on until Bats eventually swerves to the side and takes himself out, it reminded me of the famous "Come to me you gruesome son of a b*tch!" scene that really shows joker has balls of steel.

And

2) Ditto for the 'falls of building screaming with laughter' scene.

kpenguin
2008-07-21, 10:38 PM
I never knew the comic book Joker, but the only Joker's I ever knew growing up were the Adam West version and the Mark Hamill voiced one. To me they seemed more like clowns than anything, not dangerous psychopaths. But I never followed this too closely (read: at all), so my recollection is probably a bit off.


The Adam West version wouldn't be able to do the pencil trick, but the Mark Hamil one...

*shivers*

I think his actions in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker speak for itself.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-21, 10:43 PM
Two-faces was just a desperate man in great pain who lost everything and who tried to get vengeance. If it wasnt for the fact that the police were busy with the Joker, he would have never got that far in the first place. He was just a half-dead man with a gun. He wasnt a villain, you cant do a movie about him, he was just the Joker symbol.
Exactly. The Joker doesn't "convert Dent" in the sense that Dent becomes an out and out villain. Dent's only motivation for the rampage is to get revenge on the people that played a part in killing Rachel and scarring his face. It's entirely personal. If left to his own ends, once he was done he would have flipped for his own life, as he did in the final confrontation. I wouldn't be surprised if he would have committed suicide without consulting the coin had he seen his rampage to the bitter end. He has no grand plans. He's just seeking his own brand of "justice" and vengance against characters that really only have relevance to the previous two hours of film. This is not the kind of thing that you can maintain going into a third movie—especially in this franchise.


I think my problem with how easily he turned was that before the Joker talked to him, he was still pretty adamant about right and wrong.
But Dent didn't lose his sense of right and wrong. His whole rampage was all about his sense of right and wrong gone mad. No, what Dent lost was his belief in the larger system. And that was gone well before the Joker paid his visit. I don't think the Joker's speech had any effect on Dent at all. That rampage was coming with or without any grand pronouncements on the role of Chaos in the world. All the Joker did for Dent in that scene was let him go.

TheThan
2008-07-21, 10:44 PM
My take on the joker


The Jack Nicklson (sp?) joker was not zany, krazy or anything of the sort, he was a sociopath, he was sinister. He wanted to be an artist, only his idea of art was to deface or disfigure. He wasn’t a clown that went crazy; he was a mobster that turned into a monster, with a clown face. He was a violent murdering bastard that thought all those horrible and ugly things were beautiful. I think deep down, he wanted to world to be disfigured and scarred like he was.



The Mark Hamil joker was a lot different. He has a bit more zanyness, but he combined that with a keen intellect and unpredictability. Every single thing the joker did, he did for a reason, there was no randomness to his actions, his plans were just so complex that they seemed random. This made it very difficult for Batman to catch joker. I recall one episode when someone purposed a possible reason for why the joker was doing what he did (forgot the details sorry), and Batman simply said that that couldn’t be right, it was too simple.


The Heath Ledger Joker is the Antithesis to Batman. Where Batman tries to restore order and the rule of law, Joker tries to drag it down. Batman wishes to inspire people to be better than they are, and joker tries to drag them down to his level. There are certain lines Batman will not cross, even if doing so he would defeat his enemy. However the joker has no limits, he has no self-restraint. In fact, joker was so good at corrupting people, that he nearly corrupted the incorruptible Batman himself (with the computer eavesdropping device).
Some have said the Joker is an anarchist, not true, Joker just balances the equation. Where Batman is on one side trying to defeat the corruption and crime he sees around him, the Joker tries to corrupt purity and bring down the good he sees around him.

Ashen Lilies
2008-07-21, 11:59 PM
See, I disagree with everyone who said Two-Face should have been left till later.
My interpretation was that Dent was the villain of the movie. 'Cause, Dent is the one with the origin story, you see his motives, and how his motives got twisted into something evil. Dent is the antithesis of Batman because Dent is Batman gone wrong. Dent is what Bruce could so easily have become if he had taken the shot all the way back in Batman Begins. Dent and Batman are the two faces of the coin, similar people who made very different choices. And yet not too different, both lost their faith in the system, relying only on their own beliefs of what is right and what is wrong to bring criminals to justice. The only difference is that Batman has limits, he will go this far, and no further. Dent however, has only the limits of chance to guide him.
Joker, isn't a villain. He's an elemental, a force of change. He has no origin, no story, no rationale. He is evil and chaos personified, with no motives and 'nothing in his pockets but knives and lint.' To quote Christopher Nolan, 'The Joker, just is.'

That said, my favorite parts of the movie were just watching the insane stunts that joker came up with. 'Tada!' and SLaughter is the best medicine were funny as hell.
Also, Bruce Wayne's complete airheadedness was completely hilarious, to the point where I'm shifting him above Tony Stark in my 'Ultimate Playboy' list.

What worries me is that plans for the next movie may have been shot to hell. Watching this one, I got the impression that Joker and Two-Face, or Joker and someone else, (Perhaps Riddler or Penguin, maybe even Catwoman, since Bruce is now without love interest), were meant to return in the next movie. I don't think Mr. J would be very happy to rot in jail, but now, he doesn't have much of a choice. Does he get the death penalty? Does another actor take the part? Does another actor take the part and get the death penalty?
Is there even going to be another movie? Will it end as a trilogy? Will it go on and on and on? How many movies? Why are there so many questions?

TheThan
2008-07-22, 02:24 AM
Naw, I disagree with what kidkris says about Two-face.

I believe he’s a strong enough character to deserve his own movie (without playing second fiddle to the riddler that is). Two-face is not simply Batman gone wrong. Two-face relies upon chance, because he thinks that’s the only fair method to make a decision. Side “A” you go free, side “B” you get shot, its as simple as that. There is no social, moral or political motives behind the coin flip. It’s simply a matter of a coin flip. There’s nothing to confuse the matter.

Santanya
2008-07-22, 03:27 AM
Is there even going to be another movie? Will it end as a trilogy? Will it go on and on and on? How many movies?

To quote myself when asked how far I thought they would take it,

They can take it as far as they want if they keep making them this good...

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-22, 07:47 AM
There is no social, moral or political motives behind the coin flip. It’s simply a matter of a coin flip. There’s nothing to confuse the matter.
If that were true, he'd wandering down the street, flipping for every passer-by. No, Two-Face chose specific targets for his twisted sense of "Justice."

Callos_DeTerran
2008-07-22, 08:35 AM
From my understanding there was at least going to be another movie with Ledger-Joker in it, but not known if Nolan was going to direct it, but now that Heath is dead...Not sure. They'd need a good replacement (and make the Joker Diary required reading) to pull off the Joker again without disappointing fans and, this is entirely my personal opinion, Two-Face isn't strong enough to stand on his own as a Batman villian.

Shatteredtower
2008-07-22, 10:09 AM
Regarding a certain non-metaphorical fall:


His death was also kinda weak. I mean, he fell about the same distance that mob guy did.[/spoiler]There was a difference.

The latter was dropped so that he'd land feet first, and given time to prepare for the fall. Dent was unexpectedly shoved from a height and could easily have had the wind knocked out of him. It's not like he was in the best of physical health either.

People die every year from slipping in the bathtub or falling down a short flight of stairs. Harvey's death is a lot more plausible than the idea that Jim Gordon would arrange for him to disappear.

Serenity
2008-07-22, 04:20 PM
Anyone who claims that Ledger's Joker was 'relatively sane' or that he lacks madcap glee was clearly watching a different movie than I did. Ledger was the Joker, a man who has taken the Malkavian creed to heart: "When you find yourself falling into madness, dive." He is utter anarchy and destruction, Chaotic Evil at its most elemental. The tics of his tongue as he drinks in the suffering and chaos he has sown, his delight at making the pencil disappear, the way he hangs his head out of the cop car, or how he laughs as Batman beats him up...he even prefers to keep his past multiple choice.

AslanCross
2008-07-22, 04:33 PM
I found the film really complex and moving. Apart from the conflict between Dent, Batman and the Joker, there were also some very real conflicts even among the minor characters.

I especially found the Joker's social experiment with the boats a moving scene, where the big criminal threw out the detonator.

Ledger's Joker was brilliant. He was the true epitome of D&D's Chaotic Evil---being so single-minded yet not stupidly brutal and predictable.
Like Alfred said, he only wanted to watch the world burn.

I found him terrifying in the
"Why so serious?" scene and ESPECIALLY so in the fake Batman video.

"Come on, look at me, look at me. "
Then he says in the deepest, most demonic voice I've ever heard on screen,
"LOOK. AT. ME."

That was chilling.

Thormag
2008-07-22, 08:20 PM
I found in The Dark Knight one of my new favourite movies ever.
And that's all I have to say about that.



“In the first film we used Ra’s al Ghul and the Scarecrow, who had not been in the movies before and had not been in the ‘60s TV show. There are dozens, if not hundreds of other characters that [are possibilities.] Everyone says you have to use the Penguin or Catwoman. Well, I completely disagree.”


Interesting...

Cristo Meyers
2008-07-22, 08:24 PM
Catwoman...maybe, the Penguin...just no. To me he just won't fit very well with the feel they've been giving the movies. It's much darker, grittier, and such than what most people remember when they think of Batman. Granted, we're talking about a superhero comic to movie, but I look at the past two movies and try to imagine a short, fat guy waddling around with a severe hankering for mackeral and it just doesn't quite work.

turkishproverb
2008-07-22, 08:25 PM
I never knew the comic book Joker, but the only Joker's I ever knew growing up were the Adam West version and the Mark Hamill voiced one. To me they seemed more like clowns than anything, not dangerous psychopaths. But I never followed this too closely (read: at all), so my recollection is probably a bit off.


DId we WATCH the same Mark Hamill voiced joker? The guy killed people left and right. It was just usually with joker venom. His kills were just less visceral because of standards and practices.

and frankly, bringing up the Adam west batman should prevent anyone from taking you seriously.


Naw, I disagree with what kidkris says about Two-face.

I believe he’s a strong enough character to deserve his own movie (without playing second fiddle to the riddler that is). Two-face is not simply Batman gone wrong. Two-face relies upon chance, because he thinks that’s the only fair method to make a decision. Side “A” you go free, side “B” you get shot, its as simple as that. There is no social, moral or political motives behind the coin flip. It’s simply a matter of a coin flip. There’s nothing to confuse the matter.

One of the great scenes in the comics with two face has him on a string of "good heads" and pulling people out of a collapsed building along with rene Montoya. After a while batman goes by and he gets a bad head flip and starts to go after him. Rene manages to not even react as he does this, and her action convinces him a flip wasn't called for at the time, so he goes back to digging people out of the building.



From my understanding there was at least going to be another movie with Ledger-Joker in it, but not known if Nolan was going to direct it, but now that Heath is dead...Not sure. They'd need a good replacement (and make the Joker Diary required reading) to pull off the Joker again without disappointing fans and, this is entirely my personal opinion, Two-Face isn't strong enough to stand on his own as a Batman villian.


have you seen the movie? Face, while strong enough to hold his own movie (trust me on this) is dead, so not an issue


I found the film really complex and moving. Apart from the conflict between Dent, Batman and the Joker, there were also some very real conflicts even among the minor characters.

I especially found the Joker's social experiment with the boats a moving scene, where the big criminal threw out the detonator.

Ledger's Joker was brilliant. He was the true epitome of D&D's Chaotic Evil---being so single-minded yet not stupidly brutal and predictable.
Like Alfred said, he only wanted to watch the world burn.

I found him terrifying in the
"Why so serious?" scene and ESPECIALLY so in the fake Batman video.

"Come on, look at me, look at me. "
Then he says in the deepest, most demonic voice I've ever heard on screen,
"LOOK. AT. ME."

That was chilling.


seconded.


I found in The Dark Knight one of my new favourite movies ever.
And that's all I have to say about that.



Interesting...

seconded. I'm still hoping for a GOOD riddler movie. Him be sort've an obsessive carnival barker type, not a physical match for Wayne, but finally making him REALLY think to figure out where he'll be. Could be done realistically enough.

Thormag
2008-07-22, 08:35 PM
Catwoman...maybe, the Penguin...just no. To me he just won't fit very well with the feel they've been giving the movies. It's much darker, grittier, and such than what most people remember when they think of Batman. Granted, we're talking about a superhero comic to movie, but I look at the past two movies and try to imagine a short, fat guy waddling around with a severe hankering for mackeral and it just doesn't quite work.

I agree (and so does Nolan, I'll stick a quote later), Penguin is just too hard to transform into a "Nolan's Batman" character. Though I want to see Catwoman, my hopes are high on a "Nolanized" Riddler. You can work with the Riddler in a Nolan's world in so many levels...

Grynning
2008-07-22, 08:36 PM
So I loved the film, and I am SUPER picky about comic book movies (I didn't even particularly like "Begins"). Couple of thoughts:

I don't think Dent is dead. The fall probably wouldn't have killed him, and no one said he was dead. IMO the funeral at the end was to preserve his reputation. I know others have voiced this already but after watching the movie twice I'm fairly sure that they are at least leaving the possibility open that he lived.

Nitpicking time, because I can't resist.
1. Did anyone else notice how at the end Gordon claimed that Two-Face had killed 5 people, including 2 cops, when in the movie we only saw him shoot 2 people total (1 cop and Marini's driver)? Even if Marini died in the car crash, the death toll would only be a total of 3, not the 5 that Bats is taking the fall for.

2. Also, why wasn't Marini in a wheelchair or at least on crutches after Batman tossed him down? The rather sickening sound effect in that scene would indicate that his leg(s) broke.

3. Also, Batman taking the fall for the people Dent killed was a bit of a Wall Banger for me. All of the people he shot were dead before the Joker was in custody. Why not just blame their deaths on the Joker, or even the Batman wannabes, or random thugs? The city was in such a state of chaos that if Gordon and the Batman wanted to sweep Dent's actions under the rug there were plenty of options besides blaming Batman. Gordon's family, Ramirez, and maybe Marini were the only witnesses to his actions, and they'll have to be dealt with anyways.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-22, 08:59 PM
I agree (and so does Nolan, I'll stick a quote later), Penguin is just too hard to transform into a "Nolan's Batman" character.
I seem to be the only one that thinks the Penguin can easily work as part of the whole mobster thing they got going on. Essentially, that's all the Penguin really was—a quirky mobster. You'd want to de-emphasize the trick umbrellas, of course, but a one or two properly placed instances wouldn't be out of place.


3. Also, Batman taking the fall for the people Dent killed was a bit of a Wall Banger for me. All of the people he shot were dead before the Joker was in custody. Why not just blame their deaths on the Joker, or even the Batman wannabes, or random thugs? The city was in such a state of chaos that if Gordon and the Batman wanted to sweep Dent's actions under the rug there were plenty of options besides blaming Batman. Gordon's family, Ramirez, and maybe Marini were the only witnesses to his actions, and they'll have to be dealt with anyways.
Batman, and especially Gordon are not the types to pin crimes on a totally innocent victim without said victim's consent. Even the Joker. They're far too into the the Truth and Justice schtick. Hell, Gordon only agreed Batman's plan because he was backed into a corner and he knew Batman had the skills necessary to evade capture more or less indefinitely.

Thormag
2008-07-22, 09:19 PM
I seem to be the only one that thinks the Penguin can easily work as part of the whole mobster thing they got going on. Essentially, that's all the Penguin really was—a quirky mobster. You'd want to de-emphasize the trick umbrellas, of course, but a one or two properly placed instances wouldn't be out of place.

In that case, they might be better off using Black Mask.

Tyrant
2008-07-22, 09:21 PM
2. Also, why wasn't Marini in a wheelchair or at least on crutches after Batman tossed him down? The rather sickening sound effect in that scene would indicate that his leg(s) broke.
Eric Roberts has to be as tough as his career. Able to withstand any blow no matter how severe. Some of that just rubbed off on Maroni. Or only his ankles broke. Or if it were at all possible he would walk because he is a crime boss and wheel chair generally translates to weak which isn't an attribute a crime lord can usually afford to have. Or they got it wrong.


3. Also, Batman taking the fall for the people Dent killed was a bit of a Wall Banger for me. All of the people he shot were dead before the Joker was in custody. Why not just blame their deaths on the Joker, or even the Batman wannabes, or random thugs? The city was in such a state of chaos that if Gordon and the Batman wanted to sweep Dent's actions under the rug there were plenty of options besides blaming Batman. Gordon's family, Ramirez, and maybe Marini were the only witnesses to his actions, and they'll have to be dealt with anyways.
I believe he had at least one other motive for this. If ti becomes publicly believed that he killed those people (which included 2 cops no less), his threat factor with criminals goes way up. Maroni wouldn't talk because he knew he wouldn't kill him. If he thinks he's willing to kill cops, he'll talk because he's a low life that no one will miss. Also, he possibly would prefer it if people didn't view him as their symbol of hope. He will be there to save them, but they need more people like Dent who can publicly help them. Or he just felt bad for how Dent claiming to be him started the chain of events that killed Rachel and disfigured Dent.

Grynning
2008-07-22, 09:22 PM
Batman, and especially Gordon are not the types to pin crimes on a totally innocent victim without said victim's consent. Even the Joker. They're far too into the the Truth and Justice schtick. Hell, Gordon only agreed Batman's plan because he was backed into a corner and he knew Batman had the skills necessary to evade capture more or less indefinitely.

They didn't have to pin it on anyone in particular. They could have just said that random masked men did it and then left the case open indefinitely, or blamed it on someone who was also dead. Hell, they could have blamed Marini's driver on Wertz and then said Wertz offed himself out of guilt over his corruption being uncovered by Dent or something. Batman taking the blame is pure plot trickery to evoke that excellent speech at the end (and probably to set up the events of the next movie).


Eric Roberts has to be as tough as his career. Able to withstand any blow no matter how severe. Some of that just rubbed off on Maroni.

I like that answer :smalltongue:

Cristo Meyers
2008-07-22, 09:22 PM
I seem to be the only one that thinks the Penguin can easily work as part of the whole mobster thing they got going on. Essentially, that's all the Penguin really was—a quirky mobster. You'd want to de-emphasize the trick umbrellas, of course, but a one or two properly placed instances wouldn't be out of place.


I dunno. I think if you toned-down the Penguin you'd be limiting him too much. I think you'd be re-vamping the character almost totally just to make him work.

The Riddler, I think could work. But it would be bringing up bad memories of Jim Carrey.


and frankly, bringing up the Adam west batman should prevent anyone from taking you seriously.

Good, I hate when people take me seriously.

Grynning
2008-07-22, 09:27 PM
I dunno. I think if you toned-down the Penguin you'd be limiting him too much. I think you'd be re-vamping the character almost totally just to make him work.

The Penguin has already underwent this in the comics. Now he's mostly just a legit nightclub owner with nary a trick umbrella to be seen, who brokers information to crooks, cops, and Batman alike. If he shows up in the Nolan films it'll probably be something like that.

turkishproverb
2008-07-22, 09:30 PM
The Penguin has already underwent this in the comics. Now he's mostly just a legit nightclub owner with nary a trick umbrella to be seen, who brokers information to crooks, cops, and Batman alike. If he shows up in the Nolan films it'll probably be something like that.

well, occasionally a blade/machinegun umbrella shows up, but not often. And he's not *entirely* legit.

Besides that, I could certainly see him in the next movie as part of the representation of the fact that the mob is becoming more and more like the "face villains"


I dunno. I think if you toned-down the Penguin you'd be limiting him too much. I think you'd be re-vamping the character almost totally just to make him work.

Read the current version. he could work, but not alone. he needs to be the least important villain in some ways.



The Riddler, I think could work. But it would be bringing up bad memories of Jim Carrey.

Hey jim carrey played a good joker.

*listens to wisper*

WHAT? THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RIDDLER?

anyway, like I said, riddler could work, definitelly.


Good, I hate when people take me seriously.

And yet that quote makes up for your reference.

Grynning
2008-07-22, 10:31 PM
Quick reply to the "Two-face should have gotten his own movie" crowd - According to rumors that I've heard around the (figurative) water cooler, that was the original plan, but they decided that the fall of Dent had to go in this movie because it worked really well with the Joker plot line. And it's a damn good thing they did it too, because we won't ever get another Heath Ledger Joker. I'm fine with the movie continuity having him be the catalyst for Dent's transformation.

If you want to read the current, "official" Two-Face origin in the comics, pick up "The Long Halloween" and "Dark Victory" by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. Great comics, and the current movies have a few shout-outs to them (the names of some of the cops and mobsters, for instance).

kpenguin
2008-07-22, 11:40 PM
As to the next villian... let's see who we have to work with:

Riddler: This is my favorite option. There is precedent in RL with serial killers leaving behind clues to their crime. I'm not sure how the riddles could maintain my interest throughout the film, however. It might get old soon if there isn't some interesting twist

Catwoman: Can't be the main villian. With the death of Rachel Dawes, however, Batman might need a new romantic interest. Because apparently every superhero must have a romantic interest.

Penguin: Could work, if we work with the low-umbrella-trick semi-legit version. It would be interesting if Penguin were set up as a squat, ugly but charismatic and intelligent man who's seeming legitimacy makes him an opponent that must be fought by Bruce Wayne, not Batman.

Bane: Only if they use the Knightfall version of Bane instead of the brute he's decayed into.

Killer Croc: Used in Gotham Knight. He's not coming back.

Black Mask: Standard, slightly insane mobster. Meh. Can be used as a minor antagonist.

Clayface, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat: All have the same problem: too fantastic for the Nolan interpretation.

Hugo Strange: Well, someone needs to take over Arkham after Crane left

Ventriloquist & Scarface: While not entirely fantastic, it would be hard to adapt without making people laugh at the concept.

Zarrexaij
2008-07-22, 11:52 PM
Personally I'm hoping for a grimdark Riddler myself. And I'm sure there'd be plenty of interesting "tweests," we're dealing with grimdark Nolan here.

Maybe then everytime I think of The Riddler, I won't see Jim Carrey. UGH.

Thormag
2008-07-22, 11:56 PM
As to the next villian... let's see who we have to work with:

Riddler: This is my favorite option. There is precedent in RL with serial killers leaving behind clues to their crime. I'm not sure how the riddles could maintain my interest throughout the film, however. It might get old soon if there isn't some interesting twist

Catwoman: Can't be the main villian. With the death of Rachel Dawes, however, Batman might need a new romantic interest. Because apparently every superhero must have a romantic interest.

Penguin: Could work, if we work with the low-umbrella-trick semi-legit version. It would be interesting if Penguin were set up as a squat, ugly but charismatic and intelligent man who's seeming legitimacy makes him an opponent that must be fought by Bruce Wayne, not Batman.

Bane: Only if they use the Knightfall version of Bane instead of the brute he's decayed into.

Killer Croc: Used in Gotham Knight. He's not coming back.

Black Mask: Standard, slightly insane mobster. Meh. Can be used as a minor antagonist.

Clayface, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat: All have the same problem: too fantastic for the Nolan interpretation.

Hugo Strange: Well, someone needs to take over Arkham after Crane left

Ventriloquist & Scarface: While not entirely fantastic, it would be hard to adapt without making people laugh at the concept.

Add Talia al Ghul to the list and don't get your hopes too high with the Penguin and Catwoman, I already gave a quote where David Goyer said he didn't want to work with those characters. Also, Nolan doesn't like the concept of the Penguin (for his movies) either.

You can work with Poison Ivy if you keep her as a "normal" botanist turned crazy, same with Clayface (a master of disguise) or Mr Freeze (liquid nitrogen). Meta-humans, can be worked around like that if Nolan wants to keep realism.

kpenguin
2008-07-23, 12:05 AM
Add Talia al Ghul to the list and don't get your hopes too high with the Penguin and Catwoman, I already gave a quote where David Goyer said he didn't want to work with those characters. Also, Nolan doesn't like the concept of the Penguin (for his movies) either.


I was actually kind of disappointed that they didn't have something with Talia in Begins. It would have been better than having Rachel Dawesm although her character was considerably less annoying in Dark Knight. Whether it was the new actress or a better writer, I don't know.

Speaking of Rachel, I was wondering how it would be like if her character in Begins was replaced with Harvey Dent (i.e. He's a bold assistant DA who also happens to be a childhood friend)

turkishproverb
2008-07-23, 12:15 AM
Personally I'm hoping for a grimdark Riddler myself. And I'm sure there'd be plenty of interesting "tweests," we're dealing with grimdark Nolan here.

Maybe then everytime I think of The Riddler, I won't see Jim Carrey. UGH.

actually, i'd like to see him as a more traditional criminal, being more about the money and his own ego than the killing (though he doesn't mind killing necissarily) to make him a more cerebral villain for Bruce, so we have more detective work. For some reason, I STILL picture Robin williams as a live action riddler...

kpenguin
2008-07-23, 12:18 AM
actually, i'd like to see him as a more traditional criminal, being more about the money and his own ego than the killing (though he doesn't mind killing necissarily) to make him a more cerebral villain for Bruce, so we have more detective work. For some reason, I STILL picture Robin williams as a live action riddler...

Actually... yeah! Riddler could definitely be used like that! We haven't actually scene Batman being the world's greatest detective yet.

Grynning
2008-07-23, 12:20 AM
As to the next villian... let's see who we have to work with:

Riddler: This is my favorite option. There is precedent in RL with serial killers leaving behind clues to their crime. I'm not sure how the riddles could maintain my interest throughout the film, however. It might get old soon if there isn't some interesting twist

Catwoman: Can't be the main villian. With the death of Rachel Dawes, however, Batman might need a new romantic interest. Because apparently every superhero must have a romantic interest.

Penguin: Could work, if we work with the low-umbrella-trick semi-legit version. It would be interesting if Penguin were set up as a squat, ugly but charismatic and intelligent man who's seeming legitimacy makes him an opponent that must be fought by Bruce Wayne, not Batman.


Only responding to these three in particular, as they're the heavyweights of the Bat-bunch.

Riddler will inevitably be compared to the Joker, and simply won't be able to stack up. While he's certainly a different kind of criminal, the Nolan films have emphasized action and gadgets over detective work, and a Riddler plot would seem kind of out of place with the series.

Catwoman will have licensing issues due to the god-awful Halle Berry vehicle. Plus I'm really hoping the won't add a romantic interest, as that is absolutely not essential to Batman's character (they only introduced his relationship with her in the comics so people would stop with the Batman/Robin rumors).

I agree with you on the Penguin, but I'm not sure he's enough to carry a film on his own.

I would also throw another hat (pun intended) into the ring: Mad Hatter. A mind control scheme could work for this franchise, and would let them work in more of Morgan Freeman as the technology guy, which they seem to love. Also he would be good paired with Scarecrow, who they may bring back. The comics have also demonstrated that he can be quite creepy as of late; a lot of writers have had him speak only in quotes from Lewis Carroll and have some rather disturbing obsessions with young blond girls and tea parties (they also have the Scarecrow speak only in nursery rhymes, which I was disappointed did not make the films). Only problem is that few people wear nice hats anymore, so his gimmick is a bit dated.

turkishproverb
2008-07-23, 12:40 AM
I would also throw another hat (pun intended) into the ring: Mad Hatter. A mind control scheme could work for this franchise, and would let them work in more of Morgan Freeman as the technology guy, which they seem to love. Also he would be good paired with Scarecrow, who they may bring back. The comics have also demonstrated that he can be quite creepy as of late; a lot of writers have had him speak only in quotes from Lewis Carroll and have some rather disturbing obsessions with young blond girls and tea parties (they also have the Scarecrow speak only in nursery rhymes, which I was disappointed did not make the films). Only problem is that few people wear nice hats anymore, so his gimmick is a bit dated.

I'd love him, but I worry a Goyer version would be a little too..erm..Michael Jackson for his own good.


Actually... yeah! Riddler could definitely be used like that! We haven't actually scene Batman being the world's greatest detective yet.

And you could just see the end of it taking lines from hush

Riddler sits in prison cell.

Batman appears behind him.

"This won't be recorded, I think you know why."

conversation about film's plot. HOw all the riddles formed their own riddle

"Each and every little crime was all a game while you tried to solve THE riddle."

"And now, the world is my oister, right...Bruce?"

"What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence?"

"What?"

"What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence."

"Time to get a new fence. Everyone knows that one, its worthless."

"And that's why I have nothing to fear from you. Riddles are your compulsion Nigma. (I start modifying it here again) You aren't capable of just giving someone an answer they don't know."

Exasperated look on Nigma's face.

"Get out."

Serenity
2008-07-23, 01:51 AM
The Penguin would be best as a cameo appearance, an information broker/fence/mob boss that Batman squeezes for information. A short, ugly man who always wears the finest tuxedos, earning him the derisive nickname 'The Penguin', a name that makes him fly into a rage whenever he hears it.

Riddler could definitely serve as a main antagonist. However, the easiest way I see to fit him into the movie 'verse would be to make him into a purveyor of Jigsaw-esque deathtraps--something Joker has already dabbled in enough to draw comparisons that could only hurt credibility.

SmartAlec
2008-07-23, 03:45 AM
The main antagonists thus far have all been reflections of the hero. Ras Al Ghul was, essentially, Evil Batman; the Joker was Batman's opposite. Two-Face, though not a 'main' antagonist, was Batman or Bruce gone crazy, a harkback to Young Angry Bruce from Begins. Scarecrow likewise not a major antagonist, but he brought Bruce's fears to the surface and indirectly made him stronger. I would like the villains to continue this trend, at least enough to form a 'trilogy' arc of morality plays.

Talia might work, I'm just not sure how. Though didn't Ras mention he had a wife who died? I suppose he never mentioned if he had children. Maybe if someone like Talia used someone like the Riddler as an unwitting test for Batman, bringing in the necessity of Batman developing his mind whilst touching again on the issue of there being other ways to achieve Batman's goals, e.g. Talia's resurrected version of her father's organisation.

Jerthanis
2008-07-23, 04:55 AM
Add Talia al Ghul to the list and don't get your hopes too high with the Penguin and Catwoman, I already gave a quote where David Goyer said he didn't want to work with those characters. Also, Nolan doesn't like the concept of the Penguin (for his movies) either.


Which is unfortunate, because I've heard somewhere (which I guess makes it a rumor) that Bob Hoskins actually asked Christopher Nolan if he could play the Penguin. If there's anyone who can play the Penguin as a serious threat, it's Bob Hoskins. Watch Unleashed and disagree with me.

I wish people who reviewed comic book movies were required to consult comic book fans before saying things about comic book movies, because I've heard several reviews talk about how The Dark Knight painted a completely different picture of those villains, or that it was a new and revolutionary Joker, and not-your-parent's-Joker. Honestly, where did they think the filmmakers drew the ideas, out of thin air? The Joker in this movie just seemed like the Joker I knew and loved from the comics, or even from Batman the Animated Series. (Lowering a man into an acid bath alive, locked in a coffin to slowly burn to death, physically and mentally abusing Harley, Opening up on a crowd with a Thomson Submachinegun, poisoning people with a gas that would make them laugh themselves to death. Really, look honestly at Batman: TAS; that Joker is worse than Heath Joker, but just isn't so well directed, or so artfully lit)

Still, it was a great movie. I just wish someday they could invent a science that allows them to make a movie that is simultaneously about Batman (as a character) and his villain or villains (as a character/characters)... because that movie would be the pinnacle of cinema. Batman Begins was about Batman, and there were some ancillary villains who had a vaguely integrated plot near the end, and it was great. The Dark Knight was about the Joker's mad rampage, and Dent's fall, with Batman as an ancillary character who acted as a plot device throughout the movie, and it was great.

Now imagine if the two great parts of both those movies came together?

Aquillion
2008-07-23, 07:30 AM
Still, it was a great movie. I just wish someday they could invent a science that allows them to make a movie that is simultaneously about Batman (as a character) and his villain or villains (as a character/characters)... because that movie would be the pinnacle of cinema. Batman Begins was about Batman, and there were some ancillary villains who had a vaguely integrated plot near the end, and it was great. The Dark Knight was about the Joker's mad rampage, and Dent's fall, with Batman as an ancillary character who acted as a plot device throughout the movie, and it was great.
Well, they already made a movie that was just about a Batman villain. The less said about that, the better.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-23, 08:18 AM
The Riddler, I think could work. But it would be bringing up bad memories of Jim Carrey.
I think the more calm-minded, cold as ice Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard) interpretation from the animated series would probably work better in this franchise anyway. Might wind up with complaints that the series went "too cerebral," though. (God for bid an action movie should make us think! :smallyuk:)


Penguin: Could work, if we work with the low-umbrella-trick semi-legit version. It would be interesting if Penguin were set up as a squat, ugly but charismatic and intelligent man who's seeming legitimacy makes him an opponent that must be fought by Bruce Wayne, not Batman.
Ooh! I like!



Clayface, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat: All have the same problem: too fantastic for the Nolan interpretation.
You can work with Poison Ivy if you keep her as a "normal" botanist turned crazy, same with Clayface (a master of disguise) or Mr Freeze (liquid nitrogen). Meta-humans, can be worked around like that if Nolan wants to keep realism.
Totally. B'sides, I'd say the fact that Dent even survived that kind of head trauma would indicate the franchise has already dipped its toes into fantasy. And a lot of the gadgets are already pretty sci-fi.


Add Talia al Ghul to the list and don't get your hopes too high with the Penguin and Catwoman, I already gave a quote where David Goyer said he didn't want to work with those characters. Also, Nolan doesn't like the concept of the Penguin (for his movies) either.
Eh, the impression I got was that he would be far more open to changing his mind for the Penguin than he would be about Robin. So I guess there's always hope for us Penguin fans. (And, no, that doesn't mean I think he could be more than a secondary villain. I just like the character.)

Jack Squat
2008-07-23, 04:56 PM
Which is unfortunate, because I've heard somewhere (which I guess makes it a rumor) that Bob Hoskins actually asked Christopher Nolan if he could play the Penguin. If there's anyone who can play the Penguin as a serious threat, it's Bob Hoskins. Watch Unleashed and disagree with me.

I'm convinced from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Probably not the best example, but I do really like that movie.

comicshorse
2008-07-23, 06:09 PM
Only problem is that few people wear nice hats anymore, so his gimmick is a bit dated.

There was a Mad Hatter story a bit back where he had updated his gimmick and was using mind-control chemicals in the Gotham P.D.'s cofee.

For a new villain I always liked the KGBeast as he was originally done. A fanatical master assassin, trained as well as Bruce but woth absolutely no regard for human life( and NOT speaking in a stupid bad russian accent, may the writer that started that burn ).
Mr. Zassz, too much of a Joker rip-off in my opinion. But good as a villain with no gimmick to track, just a pure killer.
Hush I always hated, so forget that.
And yes another vote for Penguin as a mob-boss and not a costume villain

kpenguin
2008-07-23, 06:10 PM
Mr. Zassz, too much of a Joker rip-off in my opinion. But good as a villain with no gimmick to track, just a pure killer.

Zsaz had a cameo appearance in Begins.

Jayngfet
2008-07-23, 06:32 PM
Just got back and I've got to say Tv Tropes really does ruin you're life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

You just lost the game.

Athaniar
2008-07-25, 04:19 AM
Saw this film yesterday (the day before it actually comes out in theaters here around, mind you), and I have to say it was probably the best film I've ever seen. I agree with (someone), give the late mr. Ledger an Oscar or two. I cannot fathom how a person could act such unimaginably evil without making it silly. Another thing: people in the cinema actually laughed whenever the Joker did something funny, the same Joker that they just saw horribly murder people without remore just seconds ago. After the film was over, I just sat there, staring at the screen. Seriously, I couldn't even speak properly until about an hour or something later, when I got incredibly tired and fell asleep.

By the way, this film is #1 at IMDb's top 250 Best Movies of All Time right now.

Pronounceable
2008-07-25, 08:47 AM
An awesome movie. Awesomest comic adaptation too, surpassing even Sin City.

This is the best incarnation of Joker to date. To those who think Joker stole the show: Of course he did. He ALWAYS steals the show wherever he appears. And although Ledger WAS flawless, I'm sure a replacement can be arranged. At worst, there was a movie made several years ago starring an actor who was dead. A skycaptain or something, wasn't it? CGI is becoming even better, so that sort of thing could work.


What I want is to see a side plot in the next movie dealing with a psychologist woman working in Arkham... Which will end with Joker breaking out at the end of the movie with his new sidekick.

Dorizzit
2008-07-25, 09:17 AM
Just saw it yesterday. And it was amazing. Just...amazing. If I ever see an actor who can do a role even half as well as the Joker was done...I'll consider myself blessed.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-25, 09:32 AM
Another thing: people in the cinema actually laughed whenever the Joker did something funny, the same Joker that they just saw horribly murder people without remore just seconds ago.
Somehow the inappropriateness of that didn't strike me until…
The Joker performed his Unflinching Walk (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.UnflinchingWalk) from an exploding hospital, dressed in a female nurse's uniform. Even moreso when he got frustrated at half the bombs not going off.

Serenity
2008-07-25, 05:34 PM
Hmm, there's one other villain possibility that I haven't yet seen bandied about yet. It seems to me that Slade could work very well indeed in the context of Nolan's Gotham.

kpenguin
2008-07-25, 05:41 PM
Hmm, there's one other villain possibility that I haven't yet seen bandied about yet. It seems to me that Slade could work very well indeed in the context of Nolan's Gotham.

Deathstroke isn't a Batman villain. You don't see Lex Luthor or Black Manta being discussed either.

I_am_an_undead
2008-07-25, 06:21 PM
You can work with Poison Ivy if you keep her as a "normal" botanist turned crazy

I agree with you, she can work. And here is a proof.Batman: Green Dawn (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2872737/1/Batman_Green_Dawn)

It might be fanfiction, but it's damn good fanfiction if you ask me, and the biggest reason I like Poison Ivy.:smallsmile:

And I soo want to see The Dark Knight, but I can't because I work at night and my stupid bosses are stupidly monopolysing my damn time. :smallfurious:

Doran_Liadon
2008-07-25, 06:35 PM
Im just here to say that The Dark Knight was the best movie ever. Already voted to the top of the list in imdb.com and best box-office weekend ever. Spider-man 3 used to be best box office but The Dark Knight got more than Spider-man 3 EVER grossed in pre-sold tickets alone

CrazedGoblin
2008-07-25, 07:05 PM
Dark knight i the best film ive ever seen, my two cents hehe

Pokemaster
2008-07-25, 07:37 PM
I think the Riddler would work well as a contrast to the Joker. The Joker just went around doing things and it all somehow ended up looking like he had a plan through sheer coincidence, but the Riddler is someone who makes extensive plans when he works out his crimes. He's definitely a schemer.

BRC
2008-07-25, 08:02 PM
I think the Riddler would work well as a contrast to the Joker. The Joker just went around doing things and it all somehow ended up looking like he had a plan through sheer coincidence, but the Riddler is someone who makes extensive plans when he works out his crimes. He's definitely a schemer.

Especially with the Joker's "I'm a dog chasing cars" Comment. The Joker was an Agent of Chaos in his own words, the Riddler is all about order, things making sense in a certain way, not at first glance of course.

Thormag
2008-07-25, 10:54 PM
How interesting... (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/eckhart%20agrees%20to%20third%20batman%20film_1075 154)

turkishproverb
2008-07-26, 12:44 AM
How interesting... (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/eckhart%20agrees%20to%20third%20batman%20film_1075 154)

VERy interesting.

and confusing to those of us who saw the movie...

Not that I'd mind seeing him again.

Pearl
2008-07-26, 12:49 AM
Not really. He's willing, but of course, he made a ton of money. It says nothing about whether he would be taken back, which is pretty unlikely.

Aquillion
2008-07-26, 08:29 AM
A few things to remember concerning the next movie:

Their original plan almost certainly involved the Joker (after all, he survived this one.) Obviously, that plan was shot from the moment Heath Ledger died.

Dent was sort of overshadowed in this one, so I could see some urge to bring him back... but, look, they found the body and buried it, and Two-Face isn't usually the sort of villain who has elaborate ruses to survive death or trick people into thinking he's dead. If it was the Joker, say, I could see him surviving (and I could even see Ra's Al-Ghul surviving his death from the last one), but I can't see any non-fantastic way to revive Two-Face at this point.

Talia al Ghul out for revenge seems like an even better option, though. Batman needs a girl now that Rachael is dead; the League of Shadows from the previous movie was still unresolved and is presumably intact; and it would be easy to come up with a non-fantastic role for her. Out of Batman's remaining high-profile opponents, and particularly the female ones, she's the only one that is neither campy, nor (at least, given the way Ra's al Ghul was handled in Batman Begins) fantastic.

But I'm not sure she can carry an entire film all by herself (in fact, I'll bet their original plans for the third movie were Talia and the Joker, with the two of them using each other indirectly to try and get Batman or something -- this would provide a link to both Batman's origin in these movies, and his most central villain.)

The Riddler could work, but he'd have to be heavily reinvented. Jim Carrey really scarred the role, and that was recently enough for many people to remember it. And even worse, while in this movie they used Two-Face's 'real' name a lot to try and reduce his silliness level... The Riddler's real name is, let's face it, a very stupid pun. (Although at least someone seems to have realized this -- I suppose they could call him Edward Nashton.)

It would probably be best to, like with Two-Face, almost never call him the Riddler at all -- maybe have him say that he's simply a riddler when Batman asks him who he is, or even just someone who loves riddles, and then never have anyone bring it up again. It's a stupid name, doesn't fit well into the setting of the movies, and has a ton of baggage -- it'd be best, really, if only comic book fans even realize that he is the Riddler. The less connection viewers make with Carrey's character, the better.

Poison Ivy and Catwoman would both provide a female role, too, but they tend slightly more towards the campy end of the spectrum, and both have had pretty awful portrayals in movies fairly recently. Talia has the advantage over them of (to my knowledge) never appearing in a movie before, fitting better into the setting and continuity, and so on. I strongly suspect one and only one of the three will be used -- Batman needs a female on screen with him in every movie (much more than any other male superhero, for some reason (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/dmeister/g4techtv/doomed.jpg).)

The established framework for the movies, though, is to use two major villains at once. Obviously the second villain would have been the Joker...

Blackadder
2008-07-26, 09:20 AM
Of all the possible fan ideas out there here is the best one I've seen so far for a third Nolanverse Batman movie. And about the only way the Riddler would make sense


And since I am sure there will be a call to do better then the dreck being spewed, here it is.

In the aftermath of TDK, organized crime in Gotham has been pretty much destroyed. Most of the middleman types are still incarcerated, family funds have dried up and you only have a couple of groups in the game at all. The crime level has remained pretty static, but the crimes are generally committed by Freaks. I'm thinking some of the low key, non supernatural villains in very bit roles. Firefly is a sociopath with a torch fetish who likes wreaking havoc in the slums, the Ventriloquist is a schizo who claims that his doll only talks to him, and considers himself a self-styled gangster much to the actual mafia's disgust, basically lunatics with gimmicks. There's a bit of a cold war going on between them and the old school gangsters.

Enter Roman Sionis, the last scion of one of the less prominent crime families. He thinks the only way to survive is to ally with and then build a new crime empire on the backs of the freaks who generally don't have a mind for long term organization and planning. He still despises them as uncivilized bastards, but he's willing to work with them. We could have a Godfather, Goodfellas esque montage of him murdering his way to the top of the Gotham mafia's food chain before trying to bridge the gap with the freaks. Unknown to many people in his own empire, he's been infiltrating freak society for some time now as the Black Mask, posing as his alter ego's own enforcer. He either uses an actual mask or a thick, oily, claylike face paint and a skull cap to disguise himself. He meets with the freaks individually or in small groups as a mafia liaison to give them tips as to particularly juicy heist possibilities, and takes a large cut of the profits to help rebuild the crime family.

Now, he knows that Batman could catch most of these idiots pretty easily, so he needs someone to play distraction. There is a washed up old game show host living in the Gotham slums going by the name of E. Nygma who, ten years back used to be a big pop culture craze on television but is now relegated to **** if I know, freelance crossword puzzle or sudoku writing for various magazines and papers. He offers Nygma a deal that if he can keep Bats busy with riddles about false crimes, dozens of bad leads and red herrings, he'll receive enough money to live comfortably forever. Nygma is pretty hesitant at first, having never committed a crime before, but eventually comes to see the whole situation as a way back to fame as the man who stumped Batman.

There you go, two prominent villains and some disposable baddies that will make for a couple of fun fights. Overall themes continue previous work, stepping up from "Vengeance vs Justice" and "Prgamatic Justice vs Ideal Justice" to "Justice vs the Law", and Roman's actions allow him to play the law to allow his schemes to come to fruition, thus preventing any attempts at true justice. Just as TDK had call back to recent government actions to catch extremists, this one would be calling back to political actions and games to dodge being brought to justice - twisting the law and using proxies to avoid repercussions while building an empire. Roman could serve as a perfect foil to Batman - both seek order, but Black Mask seeks domination and profit where as Batman seeks justice, while Roman is the philanthropic poster boy and Bruce is the useless fop. It also continues the idea from TDK of citizens stepping up as heroes by twisting it, having the latest hero appear to be good and decent, but rotten to the core.

The important thing would be to ignore the freaks' backgrounds instead of tying the movie up with tons of info about them. Firefly is a punk who gets off to burning buildings and uses homemade incendiary devices, Ventriloquist is just kind of creepy and memorable and turns into a blubbering heap when the doll is broken in a fight, stuff like that. The corny-ass Riddler suit? Actually fits in the Nolanverse if it's the horribly ugly thing Nygma has had in storage since his show in the late 70s, early 80s. I think that this Black Mask would make an interesting parallel to Batman, creating an alter ego so he can interact with and impose order on the criminal world rather than try to make Gotham a safer place. He's a pretty brutal guy as well. Nygma would be almost lighthearted in comparison, and you could keep him as a constant thorn in Batman's side without him having to kill or even hurt anyone. His philanthropic actions will mask his essentially fascist actions.

Daniel Day Lewis as Black Mask, Edward Norton as Riddler.

Dhavaer
2008-07-26, 09:43 AM
Did anyone else see Lucius' comment on the new suit being effective against cats as being possible foreshadowing for Catwoman?

MrEdwardNigma
2008-07-26, 09:50 AM
Did anyone else see Lucius' comment on the new suit being effective against cats as being possible foreshadowing for Catwoman?
I saw it as foreshadowing Batman was going to get bitten by dogs later in the movie, as he was specifically told the suit couldn't take that. And he was.
I was a bit dissapointed that bit was so predictable.

Dhavaer
2008-07-26, 10:09 AM
I saw it as foreshadowing Batman was going to get bitten by dogs later in the movie, as he was specifically told the suit couldn't take that. And he was.
I was a bit dissapointed that bit was so predictable.

He was bitten by dogs earlier in the movie, which was why he was asking about it. That's not foreshadowing at all.

SkanMan
2008-07-26, 03:09 PM
easily the best superhero movie. ever.

Rare Pink Leech
2008-07-26, 07:30 PM
Just saw it, and I loved it. Absolutely loved it.

About my only complaint is that, visually speaking, I do not like his new batsuit. I liked the old one much better.

Grynning
2008-07-27, 08:30 AM
... but, look, they found the body and buried it, and Two-Face isn't usually the sort of villain who has elaborate ruses to survive death or trick people into thinking he's dead.

Gordon and Bats never say he's dead. They never show a casket at the "funeral." It's very possible he lived.

Also, while I loved this film and think it's an excellent movie (hell, I've payed to see it 3 times in the theatre), I'm a bit annoyed that it's already "Number 1" on IMDB. People who think this is the best movie ever made must not have seen that many movies. I'll say it's the best movie made in the last few years, and the best DC comics universe film ever, but calling it the greatest film of all time is a bit much.

Also, one thing I'd still like a response on:

At the end, Gordon says Two-face killed 5 people. In the movie we only see him kill 2, possibly 3 (depending on whether Maroni survived the crash). Does anyone know why they let this blatant discrepancy slip through? Deleted scenes or something?

Sneak
2008-07-27, 11:38 AM
I just saw it last night. It was great. Maybe not one of my favorite movies, but it definitely transcends the superhero movie genre. (That's not really saying much, though. :P)

My only complaint is that Two-Face died pretty soon. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I was expecting a whole movie with Two-Face as the villain.

And of course there's the sad fact that the Joker can never return. But it's good that Ledger's last role was a great one.

He will be missed.

Ganurath
2008-07-27, 12:43 PM
Did anyone else see Lucius' comment on the new suit being effective against cats as being possible foreshadowing for Catwoman?Not at all. The guy who plays Scarecrow took a smaller role in this movie so he could have a larger role in the next one. In all the Nolanverse movies, the villains have common theme elements: Batman Begins had villains that weaponized fear, and Dark Knight villains were agents of chaos. If Scarecrow is going to be a major villain in the next movie, I don't see him being a villain alongside Catwoman. Perhaps Poison Ivy for a corruption theme, or the Mad Hatter for malicious manipulators.

kamikasei
2008-07-27, 12:49 PM
If Scarecrow is going to be a major villain in the next movie, I don't see him being a villain alongside Catwoman.

I wouldn't see them using Catwoman as a villain, but using her as a foil or ambiguous ally could well work.

Rare Pink Leech
2008-07-27, 01:13 PM
Did anyone else see Lucius' comment on the new suit being effective against cats as being possible foreshadowing for Catwoman?

I saw this as more of a nod to Catwoman than foreshadowing. A little in-joke, if you will.


My only complaint is that Two-Face died pretty soon. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I was expecting a whole movie with Two-Face as the villain.


I know there are some people who are pissed that Two-Face got barely any screen time, but I think the important point here is that Nolan didn't portray him as a villain. Sure, he started killing people in the end, but that wasn't killing for killing's sake, nor was it part of a grand plan to make him rich or powerful or take over the world. It was simply revenge. Nolan used Dent to both parallel and contrast Batman, since both are men who fight crime and are willing to bend (or even break) the rules, even though they used different methods. In the end, however, it was Batman who proved to be the true, incorruptible hero, which is only emphasized by Dent's fall. In a way, Dent was a plot device and nothing more. But I would never classify him as a villain, at least in The Dark Knight.

kamikasei
2008-07-27, 01:44 PM
Dent, I thought, was well-handled and perhaps makes more sense if you've read the Loeb/Sale books, The Long Halloween and Dark Victory. The first especially seems to have formed part of the basis for this movie as Miller's Year One did for Begins. I've spoilered the below discussion of similarities as spoilers for the book, not the movie:

For one thing, the banking/money plot parallels a thread in the book where Dent and Batman, aiming to hit the mob where it hurts, find one of the warehouses where they've been stockpiling the cash they can't launder and burn it down. As soon as I saw the stack of notes on the ship, I knew Joker would be taking a torch to it.

For another, Dent's fall was handled similarly to the book. There he is disfigured when Sal Maroni throws acid in his face at the height of the trials. He goes nuts and flees the hospital, eventually deciding to finish the takedown of the mob which he began with Gordon and Batman by gathering the freaks of the city and murdering many of the key mob figures himself - as well as corrupt individuals who helped them. He becomes more villainous in Dark Victory, but at no point is he targeting innocents or out for money or the like. He's an unhinged enemy of organized crime using the rogue's gallery as henchmen. This all has strong echoes in the movie, except that it's Rachel's murder that he's avenging.

Roupe
2008-07-27, 03:09 PM
regarding the Joker

In my opinion, The Joker was similar to V in "V for Vendetta" in that his actions was to improve society by evil acts. V did it because of a personal vendetta and because V felt that the current society needed to improve . The Joker also disliked the current society and acted to "improve" it. The Joker is diffrent the V (obviously) since we never was shown if it was a vendetta that fueled the jokers actions , and since the Jokers were portraid as more "evil". But both where like batman freak vigilanties, seeking to improve society for their point of view.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4601830&postcount=57


Third movie speculation listed as spoiler

With Scarecrow (cameo), Twoface and Joker in 2nd, i think Harlequin could be added to the third movie - with joker gone due death of actor, Harlequin could do the filmmakers joker ideas. That character could have some love interest scenes too
It would be interesting to see a Nolan Robin, Batman needs another "heir" with the "white knight" gone

Responding TheThan post regarding Heath legdger Joker


Antithesis to Batman

The Heath Ledger Joker is the Antithesis to Batman. Where Batman tries to restore order and the rule of law, Joker tries to drag it down.

Batman wishes to inspire people to be better than they are, and joker tries to drag them down to his level.
TheThan

I disagree. The Joker, also desires to inspire people & make them better (stranger at least) but is the opposite of Batman in that he desires to restore chaos -since he hate schemers and laws. Order and Chaos are not the same as Good and Evil.


Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying.
the Joker



If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds!
the Joker


I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair.
the Joker


the joker has no limits, he has no self-restraint.

There are certain lines Batman will not cross, even if doing so he would defeat his enemy. However the joker has no limits, he has no self-restraint.
TheThan

Joker showed in scenes restraints and borders that he didnt cross either.

There was that huge crowd of Bruce Wayne s party guest the Joker had as hostages -what happened to them?. The joker also didnt want to kill Batman, he wanted Batman to break the rules.


The Joker: Now, let's not *blow* things out of proportion here...You know what? You let me know when you start taking things a bit more seriously.
[takes out Joker card and sets it on the table]
The Joker: Here's my *card*.

The Joker: [laughs] Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, you... you complete me.



Joker tries to corrupt purity

Some have said the Joker is an anarchist, not true, Joker just balances the equation. Where Batman is on one side trying to defeat the corruption and crime he sees around him, the Joker tries to corrupt purity and bring down the good he sees around him.
TheThan

I disagree here , in my opinion the Joker tries to corrupt order and bring down the rules he sees around him. If he wanted to corrupt purity and bring down good, he would have corrupted children - for example.

sealemon
2008-07-27, 08:14 PM
**Reading Ender's plot concept for Batman 3: that...actualyl sounds like a fun movie. A better use than having Riddler be a serial killer, which really doesn't fit the character, IMO. I like the idea of the Riddler simply being a cerebral villian for the Batman to match wits against...not even violent.

As far as other Batman villians go, I could see Bane reimagined as a well trained mercenary who would go after Batman not just for the cash but to prove that HE'S the best. forgo the venom drug altogether, or simply have Bane use enhancement drugs of some kind. My main problem with this idea is it's too close to Rahs from the first movie.

sealemon
2008-07-27, 08:15 PM
Oh, yes... and Dark Knight is arguable the best superhero movie ever made. Excellent moviethat was more than a Batman movie but a very entertaining crime drama as well.

Aquillion
2008-07-27, 10:26 PM
Third movie speculation listed as spoiler

It would be interesting to see a Nolan Robin, Batman needs another "heir" with the "white knight" gone Nolan specifically made the studio agree that he wouldn't be using Robin in the movies before he signed on to do them. He hates Robin and Catwoman, and isn't likely to use either.

Thormag
2008-07-27, 10:45 PM
Nolan specifically made the studio agree that he wouldn't be using Robin in the movies before he signed on to do them. He hates Robin and Catwoman, and isn't likely to use either.

I knew he hated Robin, but Catwoman?
Can you provide a link or something, because I don't remember reading anything about that.

I read somewhere that Zack Snyder in the Watchmen panel said that he liked to see "The Dark Knight Returns" made into a movie, and Frank Miller said "you can do it whenever you want" (or something like that, I read it in spanish so it might not be accurate). Does anyone have some more info about that?

WNxHasoroth
2008-07-28, 04:08 AM
Aaron Eckhart has signed up for a third Batman movie, I think thats a fair indication of where the third movie is going.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-28, 04:33 AM
Robin doesn't fit into these movies. He's a Side-Kick. A Side-Kick... it's something that just.. is anathema to the emotions we've been trough.

There is just Batman, period.

As for Catwoman.. I don't like the idea of corrupting the essence of Bruce Wayne as we already see it. What of Rachel, tell me? He will simply forget her? That's not in character. Such a loss has to be felt, and it's a wound Batman will have to bear.

Because such wounds is perfectly fitting in that storyline..

Now.. About the Riddler. I was thinking him to be an.. anti-villain. Batman cannot actually act against him, because he's.. not a bad person. He's simply someone who wants to take the veil off Batman, but his presence is not bad for society. Batman will have to outwit him without actually getting rid of him.

having the Riddler be.. someone like a Judge. Or a detective. The young brillant detective who managed to beat Gordon at catching criminals, and actually has been quicker than Batman at it. But that young detective doesn't actually care about what's good and wrong, he just likes to solve puzzle. And even if he KNOWS that Harvey Dent was responsible for Batman's crime, he cannot stop himself from trying to catch Batman.

What should Batman do? The lad (have him be 23-25) is.. brillant. And he is putting criminals behind bars. Batman cannot get "rid of him", nor can he let him tail him.

turkishproverb
2008-07-28, 04:41 AM
You know who would be the perfect Riddler?

David Tennant.

Thats right, I'm starting the "Doctor For Riddler" organization now.

Nightwing
2008-07-28, 10:17 AM
I liked it a lot. I loved the new anarchist punk thing for the joker. (though if you want to see a film with the good oldfasioned joker, watcher patient J. God bless fan films). The part about trying to drive Harvey inane came from the killing joke, were joker tries to do something similar to Gorden. A lot of inspiration comes from the long halloween, the origin story for two face. as far as acting goes, Leadger killed, bale is buy far the best batman to date (not counting Kevin Conroy). Morgan Freemon gave fox some life. In the comics, he is just an excuse for Wayne to not have to do any work, but in the movie he is a real character.

Aquillion
2008-07-28, 10:43 AM
Aaron Eckhart has signed up for a third Batman movie, I think thats a fair indication of where the third movie is going.He hasn't signed up; he's said that he'd be willing to do it if they ask him. There's no indication of whether or not they want him yet (or even if they've decided themselves -- Heath Ledger's death probably threw a monkey-wrench into their plans, and they might've been waiting to see the reception for this movie to decide what's next.)

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-07-28, 02:30 PM
Especially with the Joker's "I'm a dog chasing cars" Comment.
So what if that's what the Joker said to Dent? What about him screams, "Trustworthy"?

Nothing the Joker did could come up without a plan.

Joker admits as much by telling Batman that Dent was the Ace up his sleeve. Bringing an Ace -> Planning.

Likewise, I'm not seeing the "no planning" bit in robbing only mob banks and leaving the marked bills behind to get the police to crack down so the mob will accept his offer of alliance.

Yes, Joker was an Agent of Chaos, but he needed lots of forethought in pulling this off. Oh, he's a schemer all right. He just knows how to downplay it.

kpenguin
2008-07-28, 04:38 PM
Robin doesn't fit into these movies. He's a Side-Kick. A Side-Kick... it's something that just.. is anathema to the emotions we've been trough.

There is just Batman, period.

What's wrong with side-kicks?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-29, 02:22 AM
They are a "junior" character. To have someone dressed up as a circus trapesist just doesn't feel like "a legendary figure to cower the criminals".

Never Robin's costume will cower anyone. It breaks the whole character we've seen in the past 2 movies.

turkishproverb
2008-07-29, 02:25 AM
They are a "junior" character. To have someone dressed up as a circus trapesist just doesn't feel like "a legendary figure to cower the criminals".

Never Robin's costume will cower anyone. It breaks the whole character we've seen in the past 2 movies.

Sigh. Problem wiht this is, it would just take too long to explain to you, with that mindset, exactly how you could make a robin work. The real issue is that to do it right you'd probably draw alot of criticism of the film.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-29, 02:29 AM
Sigh. Problem wiht this is, it would just take too long to explain to you, with that mindset, exactly how you could make a robin work. The real issue is that to do it right you'd probably draw alot of criticism of the film.

All right, tell me. How do you make a Robin work?

Anyway, my GF and I have a (serious) bet about Robin in the next film. She absolutely thinks there's going to be one, while I think the absolute opposite. Tell me please how I could loose this bet without blowing up the awesomess of the 2 previous movies down to Arny's Mr. Freezer & Batgirl bad taste?

Nevrmore
2008-07-29, 05:05 AM
The horrible magnificence of Ledger's Joker was that he managed to be funny but extremely unsettling at the same time. You watch him and you laugh at his immediate actions, but your guts digests the nuances, the tics, the reasons behind the actions, everything Ledger did to make this Joker, and suddenly you feel scared. It was a wonderful dichotomy that never faltered throughout the entire movie.

Favorite scene:
When The Joker is sitting in his cell and starts the conversation with the guard after asking for his one phone call. When he asks how many of the guard's friends he's killed and the cop (eventually) answers six, he grins and mouths, "Ten." I mean, that just goes beyond levels of badass/hole.

Another Joker Spoiler, because I can:
At the end, when Batman had strung The Joker strung upside down, The Joker says something like, "Anybody can go mad...Madness is like gravity. All it takes is a little push." I thought he was going to quote The Killing Joke: "All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day." Certainly described Dent's situation, to me.

Anyway, if The Riddler is in the third installment, I want the version whose clue-leaving is some sort of OCD tic. I remember once where he talked about how he just can't fight leaving the clues. "You don't understand. .. I really didn't want to leave you any clues. I really planned never to go back to Arkham Asylum. But I left you a clue anyway. So I... I have to go back there. Because I might need help. I... I might actually be crazy."

My favorite interpretation of him is smart, cunning, but underneath the surface slowly breaking. Leaving the clues is some sort of subconscious cry for help that is slowly subsuming his criminal tendencies and as his career goes on it begins to eat at him in a major way. I mean, Seanbaby put it best: "...[The Legion of Doom] are people who have trouble getting to the store without exploding, they don't need someone whose super-abiliy is f**king up."

And that's what it is, and what I want it to be. The superability of self-sabotage. Ahhh, beautiful.

SmartAlec
2008-07-29, 05:31 AM
Bale has gone on record as saying that he'll quit the movie series if a script calls for Robin.

Nightwing
2008-07-29, 09:07 AM
And Nolan has said that he will "chain himself to the camera" before he lets robin in.

Aquillion
2008-07-29, 09:42 AM
All right, tell me. How do you make a Robin work?Three words: Make. Batman. Gay.

(Ok, ok, out Batman as gay. It's not like you'd be changing anything. I mean, come on, I can't be the only one who, when I saw Rachel in the previews telling Batman that she wouldn't be his only choice for a 'normal' life, couldn't help but see it as her telling him she won't be his beard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_%28companion%29).)

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-29, 10:14 AM
First, most awsomness in a film ever. I was creeped out when I laughed at one point.

Second, Batman, especially this Batman, is not gay, Bruce Wayne, that is another mess of fish but adding a sexuality sub plot / undertone to Batman has never gone well, you either crack Batman's mask and make him too human or you make him Bruce Wayne. Batman, especially this Batman, is above these concerns. He doesn't have time or reason to be anything other than diligently asexual.

Third, there are a lot of villains that they could make work, unfortunately all of the ones that the public know are not really options at the moment.

Scarecrow has had too much plot to be able to carry a whole film, they have nowhere to take the character.
The Joker would need recasting, a huge mistake by my reckoning.
Two Face is dead, and even if he isn't that leaves the whole "white knight" thing as a dead fish.
The Penguin and The Riddler both have the joint problems of being 1) too comical and 2) the wrong type of criminal. These films feed off dark and destructive, those two are carrier criminals. Very good carrier criminals of course, but carrier criminals. This Batman will not be inspecting banks any time soon.
Mr Freeze relies on the kind of ultra high tech stuff that would kill the feeling, as would Poison Ivy, although with a bit of creativity she could work, especially seeing as Gotham seems to have a 100 mile wide carbon footprint.

But there are plenty of other villains they could use, they would just have to reinvent them. A good case for Black Mask has been made, but how about a certain Mr Tockman (ok so it is in other media, not the comics that the two have clashed but bear with me, this is an example, not a recommendation). An efficiency expert turned criminal consultant because the money was better, a man with severe OCD and no morals, he takes money from whoever can pay, and the mobs of Gotham, seeing how close the Joker got, called in a man who has helped organise more big bank jobs in more countries than any other criminal alive to work out how to kill the Batman. Mr Tockman, pronounced Toch-mun, sets in place the mother of all Xanatos Gambits, a series of crimes intended to stress the Batman to his limits, simultaneous bank jobs, at opposite ends of the city. A large scale drugs shipment, at the same time as a ram raid on a major jewellery store. Then, when he has all the info he can get on the Batman and Bruce Wayne is wondering if he will ever get to sleep again he has the city explode into chaos and in that chaos one sniper in exactly the right place...

Of course he looses, mostly because things get organised too well and Batman realises a someone is after him. Alternatively Mr Tockman gets a bit too ambitious and tries to use this opportunity to control all of Gotham crime as well as get rid of the Batman. My point is that they can get a lesser known villain to work and it could work well.

Nightwing
2008-07-29, 10:28 AM
Well, Nolan said no Penguin or cat woman, but their is a very strong case for riddler. my idea for doing riddler in the movie would be this: put him in a suit, not tights. Then make him some one who plans crimes for criminals, but as Batman starts foiling his plans he becomes obsessed with Batman, and starts planting riddles. He final figures out Batmans identity (with his mind, not with a stupid machine). The Riddle, who is buy this point completely insane at this point, kidnaps alfred and plots a final confrontation against Batman, in witch he is killed.

Because black mask was supposed to be in Dark night (he got cut out:smallfrown:). he could be the start of a new bread of mobsters. He will start with his original mask for the 80's and 90's and then get scared so that the mask melts into his face and he becomes the modern black mast. I see a ruthless, kind of Cagney feel for him.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-29, 12:51 PM
Well, Nolan said no Penguin or cat woman, but their is a very strong case for riddler. my idea for doing riddler in the movie would be this: put him in a suit, not tights. Then make him some one who plans crimes for criminals, but as Batman starts foiling his plans he becomes obsessed with Batman, and starts planting riddles. He final figures out Batmans identity (with his mind, not with a stupid machine). The Riddle, who is buy this point completely insane at this point, kidnaps alfred and plots a final confrontation against Batman, in witch he is killed.

Because black mask was supposed to be in Dark night (he got cut out:smallfrown:). he could be the start of a new bread of mobsters. He will start with his original mask for the 80's and 90's and then get scared so that the mask melts into his face and he becomes the modern black mast. I see a ruthless, kind of Cagney feel for him.

You know what? I even know how they can get around the dumb name of E Nigma. If we take the previous idea of the Riddler being hired as a distracting side show (possibly or not sticking in my Willaim Tockman (but please, NOT Clock King) suggestion, but that could get busy unless they share most of their scenes as a sort of committee of crime, could work) then we can explain that John Wolfswick was hired back in the 90s to host "IQ 10,000: The smartest quiz show on the planet!" for which he adopted the persona of arch genius E. Nigma. When the show got cancelled he got so depressed in order to try an relive the glory he changed his name to Edward Nigma. This adds an additional dimension to the character, when exactly did John/Edward/Riddler start to loose his mind?

Nightwing
2008-07-29, 02:53 PM
In the comics, his new name is Edward Nashton.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-29, 03:00 PM
Oh, when did they make that his real name? I thought it was an alias, I know it used to be Edward E. Nigma at one point.

kpenguin
2008-07-29, 03:11 PM
All right, tell me. How do you make a Robin work?

By focusing the movie on Robin. Set it quite a bit after the Nolan series, with Batman old enough that his age is beginning to affect his crusade.

Enter a young "Richard" (I can't use his real name) Grayson, who watches the boss of the circus his family works in refuse to pay protection money to mobster Tony Zucco. Zucco threatens them and kills the circus's main act, Richard's parent's, while **** is watching.

Bruce takes in ****. He tries to convince Alfred and himself that it is to protect the boy, since Tony doesn't want him testifying as a character witness in court. In truth, its really because he sees the parallels between his tragedy and Richard's.

Richard is angry at the death of his parents, an anger only amplified without anyone to talk to except Alfred (Bruce is away "on business" every night). He sneaks out of the mansion, wanting to avenge his parents. He catches up with Zucco with combination of intellect and nimbleness. However, Zucco corners Richard and is about to shoot him when... BATMAN STRIKES! Panicking, Zucco pushes Richard into a dangerous situation where Batman has to save him, letting Zucco escape.

Bruce realizes that Richard is going down the same path of anger and vengeance he was before when he was younger that culminated in him almost shooting Joe Chill. Without the influence of someone who could turn him straight, like Rachel was for him, Richard would end up dead sooner or later. Bruce reveals his identity to Richard and begins to train Richard to become someone who would fight alongside him and eventually take over when Bruce is too old to continue to crusade.

Training montage.

The rest of the movie would deal with Richard coming into his own identity as a crimefighter and becoming his own man, leaving the shadow of the Bat.


In the comics, his new name is Edward Nashton.

According to wikipedia:


Director Christopher Nolan took the helm as director of the new Batman franchise with the 2005 film Batman Begins. In The Gotham Times, a viral marketing website promoting the 2008 film The Dark Knight, Edward Nashton, an alias of The Riddler, is credited for a letter to the editor titled "Dent Cannot Be Believed" in Issue 2 page 2. Although Anthony Michael Hall was rumored to be playing the Riddler, he actually played a reporter named Mike Engel. While doing press for The Dark Knight, Gary Oldman alluded that the Riddler could be the villain in the proposed third film. Doctor Who actor David Tennant has recently expressed an interest in playing the role. [5]

Rare Pink Leech
2008-07-29, 03:47 PM
I can definitely see that Robin movie working, kpenguin, but if Nolan decided to do it there are a couple of things: 1) I bet he'd make Robin an older teen as opposed to a young one, since taking in a 13-14 year old and putting him through so much danger wouldn't really fly in such a realistic movie, and 2) that would have to wait until at least the fourth movie, because I think there are more pressing issues to resolve in the third movie (such as the fallout of Dent's death and Batman becoming a villain in the public eye).

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-29, 04:13 PM
David Tennant as the Riddler?

That could work...

UglyPanda
2008-07-29, 04:21 PM
I saw the movie on Sunday. It was unbelievably awesome.

I'm just waiting for Bane and praying Robin doesn't show up. Robin I is never cool. Nightwing maybe, but Robin I is not.

kamikasei
2008-07-29, 04:27 PM
I like Robin. But it'd be very hard to portray him well.

There are a few things that I think are important to the concept of Robin and his role, things that if you leave out or tone down make it pointless to attempt an adaptation. He's young. At least, he starts out young. He is, essentially, a Boy Scout counterpart to Batman, having a guiding authority, an idealism, a youthful enthusiasm etc. that temper the worst brooding, brutality, and despair Batman skirts. It's important that he be taken in and trained at a young age, both to parallel the age at which Bruce lost his parents, and because that's who the character is. He's a kid subjected to a highly abnormal childhood, being molded in the image of an insanely driven and focused man, who eventually breaks out and finds his own path.

The movies so far are showing us Batman growing in to his role. The interesting story for Robin is his growing out of his role. I don't know if you could make one good movie about it, I don't know if it'd stretch to multiple movies on its own, and I don't know if it would work as a running thread between multiple movies with other focuses.

You could perhaps depict the growth of the Batman family as part of a second trilogy, even potentially including Batgirl -> Oracle (though it might be hollow without a Heath Ledger Joker), Huntress, Robin's growth into Nightwing and replacement, etc. ...But I don't know what else such movies would be about. Ultimately the entire extended superhero clan idea may work much, much better in comics than on film.


I'm just waiting for Bane and praying Robin doesn't show up. Robin I is never cool. Nightwing maybe, but Robin I is not.

Heh, it's true I'm much more a Tim/Robin and Nightwing fan than a ****/Robin fan.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-29, 04:37 PM
For my reference, did anyone else actually find themselves laughing at any point? I did. The Joker was that good. For reference the two points I laughed at where the "pencil trick" and the "fire truck".

Nightwing
2008-07-29, 04:42 PM
Oh, when did they make that his real name? I thought it was an alias, I know it used to be Edward E. Nigma at one point.

Recent. It came after the Batman forever.

Hawriel
2008-07-29, 05:13 PM
Here is somthing that didnt sit quite well for me. If there is a plot whole I think this is it. Or at least as close as it gets. Oh yeah and loved the move, bla bla.

Cell phone spy network. I thought this was a little out of Batmans back pocket. Fox only told Bruce about his special phone when Bruce was planing on the Hong Kong trip. How did in a matter of days did Bruce Wayne turn seemingly every phone into a sonar device. As well as create a shadow hub that pirated the network in the batcave. Ok the Bat storage space turned batcave wile the real batcave was being rebuilt. In Begins there is enought time progresion and tinkering seens showing Bruce modifying and developing his costume. The cell phones had no time to mass produce and sell them to enough peaple in Gothem to work.

Yeah I know the whole theme of that was pointing out terrorism, and at what lengs, and or methods the good guys should go to stop it. It was a big finger pointing to the NSA phone tapping. Maybe I would have swallowed it better if Fox's objection was more than its just imoral. Some thing like adding to the threat to quit with "its F**ing unconstitutional!"

On what the thread has become. theories on the next Villain.

Pinguin:
As mentioned befor and I being to late to second it, I tenth, twentieth it?
Pinguin rising as a mob boss, or has rissen is a mob boss. Think God father with more Al Capone. But short, fat, ugly, and always dressing classy. Give him an unbrella weapon. Nothing fancy no unbrella copter. A simple retractibal blade at the end will do. Or a one shot gun cane, or sword. Maybe he took fencing in prep school. he is a kingpin character. Another villain would be used as some one who more directly confronts the police and Batman. It could be Scare Face, Scarecrow, Bane, Catwomen, who ever.

Catwoman:
She is not a main villain. She is well, a cat burgler. She could be expanded to not just stealing artwork, and jewels. Information, corpret espionage, she can do this for the mob or for a corporation. Or she could just be a freelance mercenary that works for who pays. She does not have to be a full love intrest from Bruce eather. There can be a teasing of an attraction between Bruce and Selina. It could be all Selina towards Bruce. Or it could just be a teasing flurtation. She is batmans foil.

Tockmen:
Im glad I'm not the only one who thought of him. The way another poster described him as an efficiency expert for the mob is great. Ive only seen him in the cartoon. I loved what I saw there. His obsession with order and efficiency is what will drive him over the edge.

Riddler:
Jim Carry's portrayal did not perminetly ruine the character. I believe enough time has passed for the public to forget. Maybe not the hard core egotism of a raving comic book fan. The riddler is a very very intiligent man. His ego is driven by how much smarter than every one els he is. He is the geniuse english major arrogant jerk. In the cartoon they have him fall because he was fired from his job. A job he did very well, but him making a mistake and his personality lost him that job. He leaves riddles and clues not because he wants to be caught. He does it because its his way of saying "AH HA I'm smarter than all of you!". He cant ressist rubbing his intilect into peaples faces. Batman is smart enough to see through his clues. Not only that, but he can eventualy through studding the Riddler see how he opperates and starting thinking ahead of him. The riddler cant stand that. Its a personal insult. He is the smartest, he must prove his supperiority over Batman. Thats the little push.

Twoface:
The fall of Dent was a little rushed for me. They did not show his darker side untill Daws was killed. Dent has anger problems. His cruisade against crime is a personal one. As distrect attorny he saw a city full of coruption, to the point ware it was almost holess to fix. He is agressive, pulls no punches. He does have issues with his temper, he might wish he can just cut the BS and knock some heads. However he also has an optomistic side. He wants to bring hope to the city. He wants to be a hero who fights the criminals in the right way. If would have been nice to see more of the struggle that way. The Joker killed that hope. That Idealism. This let Harvey become ruthless and vengeful. For Harvy to become a villain he has to say screw it. If you can't beat them, join them.

Clayface:
This could work well. I second the idea of him being a master of descise. Maybe he is a very plane looking man. Maybe he has a putty like face. I dont meen comic book clayputty. Just one that he can contort with little external helm. He is an impersonator. He is an actor. Hes a con artist. He as a person has no true identity. Thats why he take on the identity of others or creates fake ones of his own.

Ok on robin.

Robin can work. He is not a side kick. He is an apprentice. He his the squier to the dark knight. I see his character develop in a to or three movie arc. In the third move he can be introduced as Richard Grayson. Orphaned by a mob hit on his parents who refused to pay extortion mony. This is a part of the plot in that movie. At the end Bruce takes him on as his word. We all know why. Second move. Grayson starts figuring out Bruce and or goes off to find the guy that killed his parents. Bruce intervenes, and chanels that aggression into becoming his partner. Robin is born. Third movie. Robin is Bruces partner not is squier any more. Grayson feels like his under the bats shadow. Bruce still sees him as a kid. The basic theme of fathers and sons butting heads. Grayson eventualy stikes out on his own as Robin. End of the movie, fencess mended but Grayson is a man. He cant stop fighting crime, and he wants to honor Bruce. Alfred shows up with a newcostume made by Fox. Nightwing is born. The key is treating Grayson as an aprentice, a partner. The friction for conflict is Graysons feeling of being a side kick, of being trapped under the shadow of the bat.

Edit. I like Tim Drake as robin and Grayson as nightwing. If your worried about a movie robin not looking scary. Tim drakes old costume can work. Black cape, yellow in the inside. Black boots. Green sleaves and pants. Red vest. However I really like his new costume. Red black and yellow. For the movie just have the red be the torso the rest black. the inside of the cape yellow, and the belt. There you go.

turkishproverb
2008-07-29, 11:54 PM
All right, tell me. How do you make a Robin work?

Anyway, my GF and I have a (serious) bet about Robin in the next film. She absolutely thinks there's going to be one, while I think the absolute opposite. Tell me please how I could loose this bet without blowing up the awesomess of the 2 previous movies down to Arny's Mr. Freezer & Batgirl bad taste?

I'll tell you, at least as well as I can off my head.

Truth is, the movie would probably make the average moviegoer hate the film for reason's you don't expect (IE: Nothign to do with Arnie or Tommy Lee Jones)

The simple fact is that above all, this movie adds a new level to the crimes batman is committing, and one that moviegoer's aren't likely to enjoy.

Child endangerment. The simple fact is that robin, in almost any story where his presence wasn't reviled that involved the FIRST robin (**** Grayson) was almost invariably middle school aged at OLDEST.

Essentially, use of the character deals heavily with Bruce, having been near enough to the situation to find out quickly (both about the incident and the fact that they were killed in front of him), take custody of the boy, and proceed in possibly the single most misguided act of guardianship in history. In some desire to channel the boy's anger, he'd start training him from day 1 to be like him, someone whom having lost what was most important to him now attacks the shadows and backgrounds of the city. Alfred would obviously object, as little good as it did. So you'd end up focusing a whole lot on this relatively young child effectively being given guerrilla training.


Do you want me to go into more detail, or go further into the picture?

SilentNight
2008-07-30, 02:04 AM
Personally, if they ever make a third installment, I will make some stupid and incredibly ineffective action (ala Animal House). I mean, it would just take away from Ledger's final performance.

banjo1985
2008-07-30, 03:53 AM
Watched this last night, and it is the best superhero film I have ever seen.

Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker will stay in my mind for the rest of my life. It's so unsettling and convincing.

Bale is good as Batman too, as is whatshisname that plays Harvey Dent. The action is pretty impressive...all in all it's probably the best film I've seen this year.

Athaniar
2008-07-31, 05:41 AM
You know who would be the perfect Riddler?

David Tennant.

Thats right, I'm starting the "Doctor For Riddler" organization now.

That's... perfect! Can I join?

Evil DM Mark3
2008-07-31, 05:44 AM
That's... perfect! Can I join?

Do you know what's really cool? David wants to play the Riddler! We are not going to waste our time telling him he is perfect for a role he would never want!!

Mauve Shirt
2008-07-31, 11:29 AM
Heath Ledger was so awesome as the Joker in this movie, and he should get a posthumous oscar, if they give those out.
While Dark Knight was kickass and phrenetic and full of awesome, I still left the theater unsatisfied. I wasn't sure what it was until my cousin pointed out exactly the reason: This movie was not about batman. It was about the Joker and Twoface. It was mostly about Heath. I wonder if they edited more Heath into the movie once he overdosed and it was like "This is his last movie, we need to make him extra kickass!" And they did, but there is much much less batman than I was expecting.
Aaron Eckhart has a better face for comedy than drama. He sort of looks like he'll turn around and say "Just kidding!" But he's full of charm, and made an excellent Harvey Dent. Also, the CG effects of Two Face were really really neat. My friend Adrienne complains that Rachel blowing up was not reason enough for him to go completely psycho, and he should've had more backstory. But I think it's unnecessary. If people needed more justification to go crazy than the death of a loved one, Bruce would not have become batman.
The biggest problem I have with Bale's batman is the whole gravelly voice thing. Can't they handwave the whole voice recognition thing? I mean, Superman gets away with disguising himself by wearing glasses!

Shadowdweller
2008-07-31, 03:55 PM
By focusing the movie on Robin. Set it quite a bit after the Nolan series, with Batman old enough that his age is beginning to affect his crusade.

Enter a young "Richard" (I can't use his real name) Grayson, who watches the boss of the circus his family works in refuse to pay protection money to mobster Tony Zucco. Zucco threatens them and kills the circus's main act, Richard's parent's, while **** is watching.

Bruce takes in ****. He tries to convince Alfred and himself that it is to protect the boy, since Tony doesn't want him testifying as a character witness in court. In truth, its really because he sees the parallels between his tragedy and Richard's.

Richard is angry at the death of his parents, an anger only amplified without anyone to talk to except Alfred (Bruce is away "on business" every night). He sneaks out of the mansion, wanting to avenge his parents. He catches up with Zucco with combination of intellect and nimbleness. However, Zucco corners Richard and is about to shoot him when... BATMAN STRIKES! Panicking, Zucco pushes Richard into a dangerous situation where Batman has to save him, letting Zucco escape.

Bruce realizes that Richard is going down the same path of anger and vengeance he was before when he was younger that culminated in him almost shooting Joe Chill. Without the influence of someone who could turn him straight, like Rachel was for him, Richard would end up dead sooner or later. Bruce reveals his identity to Richard and begins to train Richard to become someone who would fight alongside him and eventually take over when Bruce is too old to continue to crusade.

The rest of the movie would deal with Richard coming into his own identity as a crimefighter and becoming his own man, leaving the shadow of the Bat.

Sounds good to me. Throw in a bit of regret on Batman's part about the loss of Rachel and the emptiness in his life that children might normally fill (probably by contrasting with allies like Gordon) and you've got plenty to work with.

Hawriel
2008-08-02, 05:33 AM
Yeah this time around the gravely voice sounded forced throught he whole movie. Then again Bale's dialog was longer when batman.

On of the things that got me was it felt more like the comic book batman in the I dont kill department. Bale's batman does not kill, but he doesnt go out of his way to not totaly be leathal. At least thats how it was in begins. He would put a guy in the hospital, even permenetly disable a guy. He would also not go out of his way to save a bad buy if it ment needlesly indangering himself or failing his task. exibit A. "I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you eather." spoken to Rais Al gul (sorry for the spelling) right befor Batman jumps from the train befor it crashes.

Shadowdweller
2008-08-02, 06:54 AM
Yeah this time around the gravely voice sounded forced throught he whole movie. Then again Bale's dialog was longer when batman.
I imagine that might be intentional (or considered inconsequential). Notice he doesn't use the gravelly voice as Bruce Wayne? Yet another means of protecting his identity. It doesn't HAVE to sound natural...it just needs to disguise his true voice.


On of the things that got me was it felt more like the comic book batman in the I dont kill department. Bale's batman does not kill, but he doesnt go out of his way to not totaly be leathal. At least thats how it was in begins. He would put a guy in the hospital, even permenetly disable a guy. He would also not go out of his way to save a bad buy if it ment needlesly indangering himself or failing his task. exibit A. "I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you eather." spoken to Rais Al gul (sorry for the spelling) right befor Batman jumps from the train befor it crashes.
One of the primary themes in both movies is Batman's (or his allies') means of differentiating himself from the villains.

turkishproverb
2008-08-02, 10:19 AM
That's... perfect! Can I join?

Sure. Welcome to the group.


Do you know what's really cool? David wants to play the Riddler! We are not going to waste our time telling him he is perfect for a role he would never want!!

Yep. I read that interview (or a transcript. can't remember now)

Adumbration
2008-08-02, 10:36 AM
The latest rumours about the third Batman casting:
Johnny Depp as Riddler, Philip Seymor Hoffman as the Penguin, and possibly Angelina Jolie as Catwoman. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2480975/Batman-sequel-to-The-Dark-Knight-Johnny-Depp-to-play-The-Riddler.html)

Raistlin1040
2008-08-02, 12:14 PM
The biggest problem I have with Bale's batman is the whole gravelly voice thing. Can't they handwave the whole voice recognition thing? I mean, Superman gets away with disguising himself by wearing glasses!

And that is why Superman is made of fail.

On the new casting rumors: Johnny Depp could be a perfect Riddler, and Phillip Seymor Hoffman would be a good Penguin. But please, for all that is good and pure in this world, or evil and decayed if you prefer, don't put Angelina Jolie in the movie. I'm BEGGING you.

Hoplite
2008-08-03, 10:34 AM
Am I the only one who finds it likely that Scarecrow will return in the third movie? I mean, he was in the Dark Knight and I felt it was just to show us that he was still around. They could more easily have used any other random nameless thug, but they used Scarecrow. I believe this is foreschadowing.

So Scarecrow will be one of the villains. I believe he will have a quite central roll, but different from what he was in Batman Begins. I could see Batman asking Scarecrow to help him with something, for example taking down 2 other villains.

Now, about the other villains. I believe they would have used the Joker again, but not they won't because Ledger died. Two-face could return and I believe I saw him breathing while he was lying there on the ground in the end-scene. When he returns, I think they could give him a central roll together with the ridler.


So actually I think we will see Scarecrow, Ridler and Two-face, with Ridler and Two-face working together to bring gotham/batman and Scarecrow just continueing being a thug and turning good in the middle of the movie to help batman.

Ecalsneerg
2008-08-03, 11:06 AM
And that is why Superman is made of fail.

To be fair, it is often shown that it's not just the glasses, but the whole body language and dramatic personality change he affects in the Clark Kent persona.

And Hoffman as the Penguin would be awesome.

Thormag
2008-08-03, 05:32 PM
So actually I think we will see Scarecrow, Ridler and Two-face, with Ridler and Two-face working together to bring gotham/batman and Scarecrow just continueing being a thug and turning good in the middle of the movie to help batman.

That gave me an idea... Scarecrow is a psychologist right? What if he deliver the final blow to Harvey Dent's mind and ends up "breaking"him?
How is he not broken enought? How about an obsession with dualism, and split personality disorder?

Tragic_Comedian
2008-08-06, 01:28 PM
Saw it the other day and was OVERWHELMED. That is not Heath Ledger on screen, that is THE JOKER. I loved the movie.

And I think the Penguin would be a good villain for the next movie.

Theodoriph
2008-08-06, 01:45 PM
Am I the only one who finds it likely that Scarecrow will return in the third movie? I mean, he was in the Dark Knight and I felt it was just to show us that he was still around. They could more easily have used any other random nameless thug, but they used Scarecrow. I believe this is foreschadowing.

It wasn't foreshadowing at all. Scarecrow was still free as of the end of "Batman Begins" so he needed to be captured to wrap up that loose end.

Besides, he's all used up. They need a fresh villain, instead of just using the same ones over and over.

Scarecrow is done with and Dent is dead.

Tragic_Comedian
2008-08-06, 01:47 PM
I'm telling you, the best villains for the next one are the Penguin and Hangman.

kamikasei
2008-08-06, 01:51 PM
I seem to recall having heard, somewhere, that the reason Scarecrow's appearance in TDK was so brief was that Cillian Murphy had signed up for three movies but wanted to have his part in the second reduced so he could have a larger role in the third.

Seriously, "Scarecrow's captured"? Like that even slows down most of Batman's rogues' gallery?

Innis Cabal
2008-08-06, 02:12 PM
I seem to recall having heard, somewhere, that the reason Scarecrow's appearance in TDK was so brief was that Cillian Murphy had signed up for three movies but wanted to have his part in the second reduced so he could have a larger role in the third.

Seriously, "Scarecrow's captured"? Like that even slows down most of Batman's rogues' gallery?

He didnt want to diminish Ledger's role in the movie, thats why he didnt want to be in it other then a small cameo, he has been quoted to say(cant find the exact one sorry) that "if any other actor had been the joker that was fine, but Ledger was a better actor and deserved the spotlight."

SolkaTruesilver
2008-08-06, 11:33 PM
He didnt want to diminish Ledger's role in the movie, thats why he didnt want to be in it other then a small cameo, he has been quoted to say(cant find the exact one sorry) that "if any other actor had been the joker that was fine, but Ledger was a better actor and deserved the spotlight."

Now that's question... Was the spotlight given to Ledger because he was a better actor, or was he a better actor because he was given the spotlight?

mockingbyrd7
2008-08-07, 12:12 AM
No offense to the people who want to see this happen, but I think that the Penguin would be an awful villain for the next movie. Seriously, the first movie was Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow, two really good foes. The second movie was Two-Face and the best Joker EVER with. The third movie... a short fat man with a bunch of trick umbrellas? I just don't see it at all.

I want to see Batman face a SUPERvillain. Bane is the first who comes to mind, but he'd need to be fleshed out well to be a good villain. He needs to have more than super strength to be even close to Ledger's performance as Joker.

That said, this movie was incredible. One of the best I've seen. :smallsmile:

SolkaTruesilver
2008-08-07, 12:29 AM
I want to see Batman face a SUPERvillain. Bane is the first who comes to mind, but he'd need to be fleshed out well to be a good villain. He needs to have more than super strength to be even close to Ledger's performance as Joker.


What do you mean, "supervillain"? You really wanna go down the street of Supernatural in these Batman movies? I say NO. NO WAY. Period.

And.. come on. Having a super-strong villain, that can make for a good 30-minutes episode cartoon, but not a deep psychological movie like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were. We want a clever villain, we want more of a story than merely "Batman Vs. Villain". The Dark Knight wasn't all about Batman Vs Joker, it also was about rounding up the last crime lords, it was about Harvey Dent's fall, etc... The Joker was merely an.. interesting component, not the movie in itself.

They made that huge mistake in Batman & Robin. Mr Freeze arrive, he dominates the city, and Batman & Co. save the day. I really didn't felt for any people, either hate or sympathy. While I truly wanted the Joker to be stopped. We need more than simply actions and an antagonist, we need a story!!

loopy
2008-08-07, 12:32 AM
I see where you are coming from, mockingbyrd7, but they could take the Penguin, reimagine him, and he could be quite the intriguing villain. I never really imagined him as anyone who would be close enough to combat to need an umbrella with a gun in it.

BRC
2008-08-07, 02:17 AM
I see where you are coming from, mockingbyrd7, but they could take the Penguin, reimagine him, and he could be quite the intriguing villain. I never really imagined him as anyone who would be close enough to combat to need an umbrella with a gun in it.
Hrmm, How about this. The Penguin was originally an Assassin, hence the umbrella-gun (I read somewhere about an assassin who used a poison-tipped umbrella). He's hired by somebody to kill Batman, reaches Gotham, and decides the best way to do that is to take over the criminal enterprise himself, Re-infiltrate the police department, and use it to take down Batman. He should never refer to himself as "The Penguin", that should be a name other people give him due to the way he dresses. Heck, even they shouldn't call him the penguin directly, it's more like "Have you seen this new mob boss" "Yeah, the way he dresses you'd think he was a penguin or somthing". The Penguin goes from being a cartoony guy who lives in a giant umbrella to a cunning, if somewhat odd looking mastermind trying to bring down batman for the sport of it. A Man who believes a true criminal should always dress nicely, be polite, and keep his weapons hidden.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-08-07, 02:31 AM
Hrmm, How about this. The Penguin was originally an Assassin, hence the umbrella-gun (I read somewhere about an assassin who used a poison-tipped umbrella). He's hired by somebody to kill Batman, reaches Gotham, and decides the best way to do that is to take over the criminal enterprise himself, Re-infiltrate the police department, and use it to take down Batman. He should never refer to himself as "The Penguin", that should be a name other people give him due to the way he dresses. Heck, even they shouldn't call him the penguin directly, it's more like "Have you seen this new mob boss" "Yeah, the way he dresses you'd think he was a penguin or somthing". The Penguin goes from being a cartoony guy who lives in a giant umbrella to a cunning, if somewhat odd looking mastermind trying to bring down batman for the sport of it. A Man who believes a true criminal should always dress nicely, be polite, and keep his weapons hidden.

Ohh... I love that. I am not sure about him infiltrating the police department.. Why wouldn't he pass as a false victim that The Batman would have to save, and use that opportunity to kill him? "Gentleman Assassin", in a Tuxedo. James Bond (in style) Vs. Batman.

But 2-villains always work in my book. I'd put the Penguin and the Riddler. The Riddler as my previous proposition of a detective who uncovers Batman, and the Pinguin as a professionnal assassin.

10:51
2008-08-07, 02:45 AM
Seriously, the first movie was Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow...

If that was considered an appearance as the scarecrow, I'll be sorely disappointed. That was definitely the making of scarecrow, but he hasn't done ANYTHING to constitute as the scarecrow himself! If anything, he has had two cameo appearances as the scarecrow. I'd really like to see him have a bigger role in the 3rd, he has so much to offer as a villain.

Also I would like to add that heath ledger was a GOD of a joker. How the hell are they going to replace him?

Aquillion
2008-08-07, 02:58 AM
If that was considered an appearance as the scarecrow, I'll be sorely disappointed. That was definitely the making of scarecrow, but he hasn't done ANYTHING to constitute as the scarecrow himself! If anything, he has had two cameo appearances as the scarecrow. I'd really like to see him have a bigger role in the 3rd, he has so much to offer as a villain.I think it's the same thing people like me have been saying about Bane; sure, the Scarecrow has a lot to offer in an action flick about Batman punching evil people in the face.

But I don't feel he has very much to offer as the primary focus of a Nolan Batman movie. Nolan is trying to use his villains to say something about Batman. Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, and the Joker were all presented as 'dark reflections' of him to one degree or another.

By comparison... the scarecrow is scary and dangerous and, maybe, as a psychologist he can taunt Batman about his mental issues a bit. But there's not really too much room for character-based drama there beyond that. He was fine for cameos and as a part of Ra's al Ghul's supporting cast. But I don't think he could hold a Nolan Batman movie by himself.

10:51
2008-08-07, 03:26 AM
I think it's the same thing people like me have been saying about Bane; sure, the Scarecrow has a lot to offer in an action flick about Batman punching evil people in the face.

But I don't feel he has very much to offer as the primary focus of a Nolan Batman movie. Nolan is trying to use his villains to say something about Batman. Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, and the Joker were all presented as 'dark reflections' of him to one degree or another.

By comparison... the scarecrow is scary and dangerous and, maybe, as a psychologist he can taunt Batman about his mental issues a bit. But there's not really too much room for character-based drama there beyond that. He was fine for cameos and as a part of Ra's al Ghul's supporting cast. But I don't think he could hold a Nolan Batman movie by himself.

I agree. There is no way he could be a focus such as joker, but there has to be more that he can demonstrate as the scarecrow that he couldn't before he changed. I don't see the scarecrow as a used-up source, but rather as a loaded pistol. They haven't given him ANYTHING intricate as the scarecrow. No, he won't be able to carry the plot like the joker, but as an already established personality he wouldn't have to. You could combine his skills with another introduced villain, have him involved so he can actually show what he can do as his alter-ego.

BRC
2008-08-07, 10:29 AM
Ohh... I love that. I am not sure about him infiltrating the police department.. Why wouldn't he pass as a false victim that The Batman would have to save, and use that opportunity to kill him? "Gentleman Assassin", in a Tuxedo. James Bond (in style) Vs. Batman.

But 2-villains always work in my book. I'd put the Penguin and the Riddler. The Riddler as my previous proposition of a detective who uncovers Batman, and the Pinguin as a professionnal assassin.

He would't personally infiltrate the police department, he would just start bribing police officers.


I like the "Fake Victim" Idea at the beginning. He should look as harmless as possible, a bit cartoony in fact. He waits for a point where he knows Batman will be nearby and has a pair of his thugs try to mug him, when batman shows up he shoots him with his umbrella gun.

Inhuman Bot
2008-08-09, 04:27 PM
Just wanted to comment on Joker's " hey want to see a pencil dissapear?" thing. That was terrible.

kamikasei
2008-08-09, 04:28 PM
Just wanted to comment on Joker's " hey want to see a pencil dissapear?" thing. That was terrible.

That was fantastic.

Eldred
2008-08-09, 06:23 PM
That was fantastic.

I second that. I thought it was brilliant. My best friend burst out laughing in the cinema when it happened :smallbiggrin:

I, personally, think the Riddler would make an excellent villain. I'm imagining a well-suited, neat individual who wears a poet hat. As Batman is now on the run from the police, the police call in the Riddler to help capture Batman. The Riddler is highly intellectual and is able to ensnare Batman in a few traps. However, Batman is always able to escape. In the Riddler's desperation to capture Batman, he turns to the criminal underworld who, naturally, want the Batman off the streets too.

It would probably be better to introduce the Riddler by his name, Edward Nigma, and introduce his alias "The Riddler" as a nickname the police officers give him because of his cleverness.

Just my two copper pieces.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-08-10, 12:01 AM
It would probably be better to introduce the Riddler by his name, Edward Nigma, and introduce his alias "The Riddler" as a nickname the police officers give him because of his cleverness.

Just my two copper pieces.

I like it, but I am not too sure about E. Nigma being his true name. It's just too cheesy for my own taste. How about "E. Nigma? Is that your true name? - No, I had it changed a few years ago. It attracts more customers. Never underestimate a good name" or something like that.

StGlebidiah
2008-08-10, 12:44 AM
I think it's the same thing people like me have been saying about Bane;

Wasn't Bane the only villain to ever actually defeat Batman? And I don't mean the ridiculous Bane from the horror of that Mr. Freeze film, I mean the comics Bane. Wasn't he some kind of tactical genius? Or something?

If I'm right (my memory isn't that good at this time of night/beers), then the hardest thing would be explaining why the heck he's there in the first place. Which, if he's treated as some kind of cerebral, physically-gifted assassin, shouldn't be that hard.

Nevrmore
2008-08-10, 03:14 PM
Wasn't Bane the only villain to ever actually defeat Batman? And I don't mean the ridiculous Bane from the horror of that Mr. Freeze film, I mean the comics Bane. Wasn't he some kind of tactical genius? Or something?
He had a bad dream about a bat attacking him while he was locked up in prison and decided that it was a sign to go and ruin the Dark knight's sh*t. So he escapes prison and then breaks down the walls to Arkham Asylum, letting all of Batman's worst foes free. He uses Batman's distraction at rounding up his enemies as time to study him and, in under three months, deduces his secret identity. So, one day he infiltrates his Bat Cave, waits for him to return, and then beats the ever-loving Hell out of him, finishing off with a tasteful coup de grace of snapping Wayne's back over his knee.


If I'm right (my memory isn't that good at this time of night/beers), then the hardest thing would be explaining why the heck he's there in the first place. Which, if he's treated as some kind of cerebral, physically-gifted assassin, shouldn't be that hard.
There have been a few ideas that I've liked. One is that someone higher up than Gordan on the police force hired him to stop Batman (since Batman is officially a wanted criminal as of the end of the third movie), another is taking the (admittedly short) story about Bane becoming Ra's Al Ghul's heir and using that as an origin story, explaining that he is seeking revenge against Batman for killing Ra's and dismantling the League of Shadows. And, of course, they could always just go with the comic book explanation - Just some guy who decides, "Hey, why the Hell not?" and sojourns to Gotham.

Aquillion
2008-08-11, 05:27 AM
Wasn't Bane the only villain to ever actually defeat Batman? And I don't mean the ridiculous Bane from the horror of that Mr. Freeze film, I mean the comics Bane. Wasn't he some kind of tactical genius? Or something?Yeah, but so what? In the a larger audience, only a tiny percentage are going to know that he broke Batman's back.

What do the people interested in Bane feel that the character actually has to bring to the Nolan Batman series? As far as I can tell, he has the following:

* He dresses as a Mexican wrestler. It's an insanely stupid look, and it's obviously not going to happen in the Nolan universe anyway, so Bane's character design is already dead.

* He has a stupid name. Nobody is going to go around calling themselves "Bane" in the Nolan universe. The Joker got away with using his comic book name only because he's insanely iconic and, well, insane. Nobody else did, and nobody else will. If Bane was used, you would get perhaps one reference with him calling himself "Batman's bane" (no caps), and no other use of the word 'Bane' anywhere, like it was with Two-Face. So you're not wanting a character named Bane.

* His iconic plotline (releasing the prisoners, breaking batman's back) is not usable. The release-all-the-prisoners plot has already been done in the trilogy, and the only prisoner worth releasing at this point -- the Joker -- can't appear anyway. Seriously, a prison break consisting of the Scarecrow and nobody else isn't that intimidating. And even on top of that... honestly, "release all Batman's old opponents" is not the intimidatingly Machiavellian scheme some people here are making it out to be, considering that most of them escape bimonthly anyway... letting people out of Arkham amounts to pointing them in the direction of the revolving door.

* No, the movie is not going to end with Batman as a paraplegic. No, Nolan is not going to have Batman magically healing a broken back. So we don't get the iconic parts of Bane's story, either (he doesn't get to be the "man who broke the bat" in the movie -- that status would only be useful as a shout-out to the small percentage of viewers who would recognize him from the one line calling him Bane. Which would be lowered even further because he's not going to be dressed as the iconic Bane, either.)

What's left? Why are you so eager to see Bane on the screen? What does he have to bring to the film that will appeal to people who've never read about him in the comics, which will be most of the audience?

The theoretical film version of Bane that you're asking for comes down to this (keep in mind, this is remaining as accurate as possible to what's left -- if we strip any more out, how is he Bane?) Someone the viewers have never seen or heard of before is introduced. He's addicted to drugs that make him strong. He broke out of prison because he had a bad dream about a bat and decides to beat up Batman. He tries to beat Batman up, and -- in the film, there's no avoiding this -- he loses. This is the heart of a Nolan Batman film to you? This is going to win over people who've never heard of the character before in their lives?

(Alternatively, if you want to try and keep the costume and name, he could actually be a Mexican wrestler with the stage name of Bane who gets addicted to drugs, has a bad trip about a bat, then gets punched in the face by Batman and loses. Maybe he could be a Mexican wrestler employed by the city to take down Batman... I really don't think these are any more likely, though.)

I can see how Bane could be appealing to some diehard Bane fans (although I am a bit surprised to discover there are diehard Bane fans, since he always struck me as one of the more regrettable edger'n'gritter-era villains). But even they have to realize the character has basically zero appeal for anyone else. There is simply nothing there that can be effectively translated to the screen, not the way Nolan is doing it.

So the comic-book Bane beat Batman up. So what? Any villain Batman faces in the next film will, by definition, be a challenge for him. They will come close to beating him and then fail. To most viewers, they're not going to know anything else about it -- all they'll see on Bane is stupidly-steroid-freak muscles. (And, sure, Nolan could write a devious plan for him, too, although he can't use the one from the comic books -- not that it was a particularly clever plan, mind, you, since "let out all Batman's old opponents!" is about as trite and unimaginative as you can get. But any villain will get the same devious plan written for them, and most of them have better lead-ins to them than Bane will.)

Bane is intimidating in the comic books because you know he beat Batman before. On the screen, that status will be stripped away, and beyond that steroid-freak Mexican wrestlers are not as imposing as you might think.

StGlebidiah
2008-08-11, 11:49 AM
See, now you have said something about Bane!

I don't really care one way or the other about Bane being in a movie or not - I was just confused by your comment about Bane and Scarecrow being similar. Now I get what you're saying.

Nevrmore
2008-08-11, 02:12 PM
Words words words
Why. Do. You. Keep. Thinking. That. We. Want. Bane's. Storyline. Adopted. From. The. Comic. Verbatim?

No one has said, "OH MY GOD BANE NEEDS TO BE IN THE MOVIE AND ONLY IF HE BREAKS THE PRISONERS OUT OF ARKHAM AND PARALYZES BATMAN AND IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN THEN I WILL BURN NOLAN IN EFFIGY!!!!"

We are simply using his most famous story as an example of how dangerous and smart Bane really is. Sure, The Riddler is more well-known than he is, but what has The Riddler ever done? Really? Nothing. That's the point.

I would think that Nolan's use of Ra's Al Ghul is a clue that he doesn't particularly care about having more identifiable villains, he cares about having a good story. The second movie had The Joker and Two-Face because they came together to form a good story. Why can't Bane spur a good story?

Mrs Banjo
2008-08-12, 06:05 AM
loved the film watched it last week with banjo 1985. best part was the pencil magic trick

Aquillion
2008-08-12, 07:09 AM
Why. Do. You. Keep. Thinking. That. We. Want. Bane's. Storyline. Adopted. From. The. Comic. Verbatim?

No one has said, "OH MY GOD BANE NEEDS TO BE IN THE MOVIE AND ONLY IF HE BREAKS THE PRISONERS OUT OF ARKHAM AND PARALYZES BATMAN AND IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN THEN I WILL BURN NOLAN IN EFFIGY!!!!"

We are simply using his most famous story as an example of how dangerous and smart Bane really is. Sure, The Riddler is more well-known than he is, but what has The Riddler ever done? Really? Nothing. That's the point.

I would think that Nolan's use of Ra's Al Ghul is a clue that he doesn't particularly care about having more identifiable villains, he cares about having a good story. The second movie had The Joker and Two-Face because they came together to form a good story. Why can't Bane spur a good story?Ra's al Ghul brought with him the League, plus the potential for him taking a mentor role and trying to make Batman his successor, plus his gentlemanly appearance. These are some of the key aspects of the character that would be easy to bring over. Additionally (and this is not so minor) his low profile meant that he wouldn't risk overshadowing Batman in the first movie; this is why the Joker and Two-Face, who were better known, were saved for the second film after Batman had already been introduced. (Even then, of course, Ra's al Ghul has been around a lot longer than Bane; older adults who haven't picked up a comic book in thirty years could easily remember him from their childhood, while they'll never know Bane.)

Bane has... what, he's dangerous and smart? So what? Every Batman villain is going to be described as dangerous and smart.

The point is, yes, you see him as being particularly dangerous and smart because you know he beat Batman before. But most viewers won't know this, and (in the film) he won't have beaten Batman before. Nolan will basically be forced create him from scratch for most viewers... and (unlike Ra's al Ghul, whose vital parts could be recreated pretty easily with his league, an insane idealistic goal, and an effort to make Batman his heir) the important things about Bane -- the things that make him Bane -- are not things Nolan will be able to show on screen.

What the Riddler's done in the past is not important, because most viewers will have only a hazy view of that (if they know or care at all). But they will know that the Riddler is a clever villain who uses elaborate setups and diabolical riddles to taunt his enemy. He'll have been established as that in their minds much more deeply than anything Nolan could show on screen. As soon as Gordon says something like "...he's like some kind of insane riddler..." or whatever, the entire audience will gasp just as sharply as they did when he pulled out the Joker's card at the end of episode 1.

Bane? Bane will get puzzled expressions, if they even realize it's supposed to be a reference to anything at all. They won't know anything about Bane except what Nolan tells them, and Nolan won't be able to tell them the things that are really important... so Bane can't work.

kpenguin
2008-08-12, 12:37 PM
I know Bane.

I knew Bane before I entered the comic book fandom. I've read next to no Batman stories, the ones I have being DKR and Killing Joke.

How do I know him, then? The cartoon series. The one back in the early 90s. The one that ended 14 years ago before being revamped. That cartoon is what defined Batman for me.

I knew Bane the same way I knew my Spider-man villians: from watching Saturday morning cartoons. Most, if not all, people who are my age or up to five years older that I've known have watched those Saturday morning cartoons. I'm quite sure if I asked them who Bane was, I think they'd say they vaguely remember a guy who pumped something into his veins, had a Hispanic accent, and wore a luchador-ish costume.

Theis same age group who watched that cartoon are also a large section of movie-goers.

Kosmopolite
2008-08-12, 12:52 PM
I'm not sure that they're the majority. I understand what you're saying, because I'm in that age group, but the movie-makers are after as many people as possible. That being people younger than us (who may or may not have seen The Batman) and older viewers, who remember Adam West's Batman.

It's all very well calling something a majority when you're talking to that section of people on the Internet, but it really isn't. These films need to be as broad and iconic as possible to draw in as many people as possible. I can't see it being Bane.

Having obscure characters in the first film was fine because Batman was the main character being introduced (as someone said). In the second and future films, there needs to be something to draw non-comic fans into the cinema. I don't think Bane's going to do that.

kpenguin
2008-08-12, 01:03 PM
What about Spider-Man?

Okay, like you said, we can give leeway on the first movie using an "obscure" villain because its supposed to be about the hero.

However, Spider-Man had no previous big movie franchises to draw upon. Just three different cartoon series: one in the 60's, two in the 80's, and one in the 90's.

However, I'm betting that people went into Spider-Man 2 knowing who Doc Ock was. I'm betting that people went into Spider-Man 3 knowing who Venom was. I'm betting that people knew who those villains were without having a movie to reinforce an image in their head. Just cartoons, the most prominent being the one from the 90's.

The Batman had Bane too, btw.

Kosmopolite
2008-08-12, 01:10 PM
But you said it yourself: there's rarely been a year when there hasn't been a Spider-man cartoon airing on one channel or another. Most generations know quite a lot about Spidey's rouges' gallery. The same just isn't the case for Batman, save his biggest and more memorable villains.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 01:33 PM
They made that huge mistake in Batman & Robin. Mr Freeze arrive, he dominates the city, and Batman & Co. save the day. I really didn't felt for any people, either hate or sympathy. While I truly wanted the Joker to be stopped. We need more than simply actions and an antagonist, we need a story!!

Agreed. That said, Mr. Freeze is one of the villians I would really like to see explored in the new series of movies. Him, and Clayface now that they have the CGI for it. Maybe, just maybe, this time around they can cast some good people and actually use the truly tragic and sympathetic backstories of those two characters.



But you said it yourself: there's rarely been a year when there hasn't been a Spider-man cartoon airing on one channel or another. Most generations know quite a lot about Spidey's rouges' gallery. The same just isn't the case for Batman, save his biggest and more memorable villains.

I'm not so sure about that. The WB Batman cartoon that ran for a while was pretty popular. Most folks I know that have any association with comics have seen it and liked it.

All that said, I really like the Riddler as detective idea. I'm thinking pin-stripe suit with a gold question mark lapel pin. I could also see using Scarecrow in that storyline, with scarecrow as someone Riddler goes to talk to in Arkham as he tries to puzzle out the batman.

Anteros
2008-08-15, 08:20 PM
By focusing the movie on Robin. Set it quite a bit after the Nolan series, with Batman old enough that his age is beginning to affect his crusade.

Enter a young "Richard" (I can't use his real name) Grayson, who watches the boss of the circus his family works in refuse to pay protection money to mobster Tony Zucco. Zucco threatens them and kills the circus's main act, Richard's parent's, while **** is watching.

Bruce takes in ****. He tries to convince Alfred and himself that it is to protect the boy, since Tony doesn't want him testifying as a character witness in court. In truth, its really because he sees the parallels between his tragedy and Richard's.

Richard is angry at the death of his parents, an anger only amplified without anyone to talk to except Alfred (Bruce is away "on business" every night). He sneaks out of the mansion, wanting to avenge his parents. He catches up with Zucco with combination of intellect and nimbleness. However, Zucco corners Richard and is about to shoot him when... BATMAN STRIKES! Panicking, Zucco pushes Richard into a dangerous situation where Batman has to save him, letting Zucco escape.

Bruce realizes that Richard is going down the same path of anger and vengeance he was before when he was younger that culminated in him almost shooting Joe Chill. Without the influence of someone who could turn him straight, like Rachel was for him, Richard would end up dead sooner or later. Bruce reveals his identity to Richard and begins to train Richard to become someone who would fight alongside him and eventually take over when Bruce is too old to continue to crusade.

Training montage.

The rest of the movie would deal with Richard coming into his own identity as a crimefighter and becoming his own man, leaving the shadow of the Bat.



According to wikipedia:

Seriously? We already had this movie. It was terrible.

kpenguin
2008-08-15, 10:21 PM
Seriously? We already had this movie. It was terrible.

Really? Was it Batman Forever? I didn't see that one.

The plot I posted was mostly based on the episode "Robin's Reckoning" from BTAS. I, for one, enjoyed that episode.

Tirian
2008-08-16, 02:58 AM
Having obscure characters in the first film was fine because Batman was the main character being introduced (as someone said). In the second and future films, there needs to be something to draw non-comic fans into the cinema.

I don't agree. We go to James Bond movies without knowing anything about the BBEG. It's our familiarity with the actors and our trust in the producer's handle on the franchise that give us confidence that we will be entertained. People will come to see a Batman movie if they are told that the villain is played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman even if it is a completely new character.

I'm not getting a vibe off of Riddler, Penguin, or Bane, either from not being a psychological foil of Batman or from not being a menace that could follow Ra's al Ghul or The Joker. My preference would be for a meatier character with less exposure; perhaps Jeremiah Arkham or The Reaper. The former would give you an opportunity to keep running with the theme that Batman is as much of a threat as his enemies and you could put in a half-dozen cameos for free, and the latter is just because Year Two was such an awesome story that I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

PlatinumJester
2008-08-19, 11:05 AM
Apparently the third film will involve the Riddler which may be played by David Tennant. Unfortunately these are all rumours.

Adumbration
2008-08-19, 01:38 PM
For some reason I simply can't see the third Batman as nothing but a filler. What else could there be to truly menace the audience, after Joker? Any supervillain would look ridiculous after Heaths performance, and a "normal" villain would simply be outshadowed.