Batman Begins 3 Villains

[Sonic]

I Think Four Villains Should Be In The Film.......

I Know Two-Face Is In It
The Riddler
Catwoman
Mad Hatter
:D

[spike772000]

I think that four villian would be too many. There isn't enough time in the movie to cover them all in detail. At most have two, Two-Face and Catwoman. I can pass Catwoman off as a villian and hero, possibly at the end of the film have her helping batman rather than working against him. After that you can throw a twist in their and have her go back to crime. Plus having a female villain would mix things up.

[pisanoj]

I agree that 4 villains would be too many. Just look at the last spiderman movie they had too many villains in the movie and werent able to develop each of them enough and it took away from the movie. I think that it would be interesting to see nolans take on the riddler in addition to two face obviously. But any more beyond that I think would be too much.

[Sonic]

I agree that 4 villains would be too many. Just look at the last spiderman movie they had too many villains in the movie and werent able to develop each of them enough and it took away from the movie. I think that it would be interesting to see nolans take on the riddler in addition to two face obviously. But any more beyond that I think would be too much.

So You Would agree That TDK Have too Many Villains:
1. The Joker (RIP Heath Ledger)
2. Sal Maroni
3. Harvey Dent (Two-Face)
4. The Scarecrow
:D

[ilovebatman]

Yes, but Two-face is not going to ACTUALLY be in Two-face form, the Scarecrow is barely in it, the Joker is obviously the main villain, and the mob boss is just a replacement of the other guy from the first, who was hardly a villain.

[Sonic]

The Story Is About Havrey Turning Into Two Face http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k318/ifeelsick_2006/Two-face.jpg, The Scarecrow Was A Villain In The First One and A Villain Is A Villain, Sal Is A Mob Boss So To Batman Makes Him A Villain.:p

[pisanoj]

Right it is about harvey becoming two face, but the villain of two face will not be present until the end of the movie. The scarecrow is not going to be a major player in the movie, and from the sounds of the trailer it seems that maroni hires the joker, but the joker is the villain for this movie. Having scarecrow return for a small role works for this movie because he has already been developed and we wont need to delve into his backstory. Maroni is simply a crime boss and wont need to be fleshed out too much. In the next movie the focus is going to be on two face. I think if they wanted to add another villain it should be in a much smaller role and i dont think that they should waste time by introducing three new villains in one movie. Too much time would be spent on developing those characters and less time on actually progressing the story.

[Sonic]

You Got A Point But Don't Forget Batman the Movie Has Four Villains (The Joker, The Riddler, Catwoman & Penguin):D


PS: BAtman The Movie Is Better Then Forever, Batman & Robin ;)

[pisanoj]

haha Well you do have a point about batman 66 being better than those other two that really isnt saying much tho is it:)

[TONY STARK]

I agree that 4 villains would be too many. Just look at the last spiderman movie they had too many villains in the movie and werent able to develop each of them enough and it took away from the movie. I think that it would be interesting to see nolans take on the riddler in addition to two face obviously. But any more beyond that I think would be too much.

Yeah, SPIDERMAN ended up being plain silly and the plot was lost along the way with HARRY getting back into the fight....
I didn't like what they did with Gwen Stacy either, what a sacrilege to the MARVEL UNIVERSE.

I think 4 villains in the film would be too many.:(

[Sonic]

OK......If You Think About It The 3rd Flim Might Have 5 Villains (NOT ALL MAIN VILLAINS). Begins Has 3 & And The Dark Knight Has 4!:cool:

What About That.

[pisanoj]

well i guess that it could if it only used villains already established but i think that it would just be unnecessary and detract from the main story. Plus I think that they most likely would not use the joker again because of what happened to heath. I think that it would be better if they cut down on the number of villains and developed a strong story with just one because it works better that way for a movie. Comics can maintain more than one villain because they have all been long established and it is easier to follow in the comic format.

[thunder3]

granted that they don't kill off the joker at the end of tdk, joker will come back at some point, but i really think that the villain of the next batman movie should be someone who could pose a bigger threat as the joker, but without stepping beyond the bounds of reality. two-face should be like the flip side of batman. he should be a vigilante just like batman, but not afraid to kill for what he thinks is justice. so yeah in a sense two-face could be a villain since he would be a murderer, but in his eyes it would be justice. so two-face would really just be batman stepping beyond the moral limits.

[Darksage]

I would agree with you about Two-Face being a vigilante, but you see they have already done that with the punisher. If you think about it the punisher is the flip side of batman, granted he is in the marvel universe. I think that Two-Face should remain a villain.

[TONY STARK]

So does the Joker live at the end of this film?

[the joker]

two-face of course, Riddler, and Ra's al Ghul's daughter that would be pretty good I do not really care for catwomen

[PirateDave128]

Warning Small Spolier Ahead




I think they should leave it at Dark Knight because to be honest how could they follow it. The film, not only being the best batman is one of the greatest films of the 21st century. Also they wouldnt bring Joker back because lets face it who could match Heath Ledger, it would also be disrespectful to him.

If they do do a third then I think Riddler will be in it because there is a hint towards him in Dark Knight with a charcter called Mister Reese. Although Batman saved his life so maybe not =/

[the joker]

it should be two-face and the joker recast the joker

[Sonic]

Two-Face (Main Villain)
Scearcrow
Talia Al Ghul (Love Interest)

[the joker]

I think the villains for the movie should be Scarecrow because he survives in the beginning of the movie I don't think that two-face really died at the end of tdk. I think the new villain for the third one should be the riddler but make him extremely dark and gothic just like they did with the joker and have colin farrell play the riddler


1. scarecrow
2. two-face
3. riddler ( dark and gothic)
4. some mob boss ( do not give the mob boss to much screening time)

[the joker]

I think the villains should be two-face but he might be dead and they should recast the joker that would be what heath ledger would of wanted to finish his role

[Sonic]

Two Face Is Dead And They Done The Joker. So The Next Villains Shound Be
The Riddler (Main Villain), Black Mask (Higherd By The Mob?) & Talia Al Ghul (More Love Interest Then Revenge).:D

[jinglis]

I think that Christopher Nolan should take a page from Silence of the Lambs and cast the riddler as some sort of benign genius locked up in arkham asylum who makes a game of helping batman through riddles to catch a villain on the loose, possibly the joker or some b grade villain who hasn't been in the movies before ( like the Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul in batman begins).

Because batman has such an impressive and well known rogues gallery, it would be hard to include more than one villain, and do them justice in a 2 and a half or three hour film. I think that Spider-man 3 has taught us all that just because it is the third movie in the series, does not mean there has to be 3 villains.

By using the riddler as a central villain, but still having another, more imposing villain on the loose, Christopher Nolan has a chance to display Batman's impressive detective skills, which we caught a glimpse of in The Dark Knight, but has yet to be fully explored in any of the Batman movies.

Finally, whoever they choose for the "other" villain must be a villain who is both physically imposing, but fits with the new feel of the Batman movies (therefore stay away from characters like Man Bat and Clayface). Some one like Deadshot or Black Mask?

[the joker]

I think it is going to be about gordon hunting batman in the movie and then they will have to deal with the riddler along the way.

villain i think should be in it:

1. Riddler

2. Scarecrow

3. catwoman

4. the joker (like a brief scene or something with him locked up in arkham asylum)

[guitar_dudester91]

riddler, clayFace, Poison I vy Would be cool, maybe Mr. Freeze, but that wouldn't work too well Maybe calendar Man

[the joker]

I am not sure how they are going to make this movie but I think Batman is going to try and get revenge against the mob for hiring the joker and killing Rachael they might be able to have the joker but that would be very hard to recast. And they should have talia al ghul in it a bruce waynes love interest and they should have the riddler in it and he should be like the zodiac or something and he will be obsessed with batman and drive him nuts something like they are going to need to try and make the villain eviler then the joker or else the movie will fail and it has to have a good plot or else it will be like spiderman 3 and suck.

[guitar_dudester91]

I dont know.... I would rather see Catwoman in it than talia, because Catwoman had more emotion and was closer to Bruce. I think The Riddler would be an excellent choice, but like the joker said, he would have to be insanely obsessed with Batman's identity. If they brought the joker back, he should only be mentioned as residing at arkham, and not re-cast him. I think it was a poor choice to kill off Two-Face, and Nolan fucked that up good. Now its back to the drawing board to see what maniacal villain they can come up with for the third film. Poison Ivy would be cool, maybe get her to face off against Catwoman, or use her lipstick to mess up Batman.

But since everyone wants the Riddler to be in it, I think I'll have to say another one. If they did the penguin, or someone else, it could still be good.

[TGDirector]

You know, you guys named off all the villians pretty much but we all forget the one that actually won an award in best story in the cartoon. I forgot which batman series did it. But the Mr. Freeze character, he has such a dramatic story layered on to him. He's not entirely a real villian, but he's doing bad for a purpose, to revive his wife and cure her cancer. I really think they could pull it off if they do it right. They gotta work around it and make sure they work it right into a realistic story. I have a ton of ideas how they could do that. What do you guys think? I think Mr. Freeze would be a perfect story for the sequel. Riddler as well, but how they fit that in there with the side-story, I don't know.

[guitar_dudester91]

they could do mr. freeze, but I dont think it would fit in with Nolan's idea of a dark story. It would be an emotional one, cuz mr. freeze would have lost his wife and such, but I think they would do better with a better villian. I am still sticking to Poison Ivy and Catwoman. they should have robin or batgirl in it, it would make it more true to the comics, not nolan's ego-centrical batman universe.

[TGDirector]

It works though, realistically if you think about it. Let's look at it as if it were today's economy and science. Which is what Nolan is already did in his last two films. Mr. Freeze could work: Realistically, Emotionally, Scientifically, and at the same time be a dark story. I mean think about it, even today's science we have those Cyro Freeze faciality that people actually freeze themselves and hope science would bring them back if they found a cure for something like aids or death. It freezes time. I am not talking like the cartoon-type suit for Freeze. What if he had nothing but incredibly pale skin, and little tubes that run outside of his body into certain areas to keep his body able to survive since his accident. He will only use Cyro Freeze Extuquisher to replace his freeze gun. He only steals to fund his cure for his wife that's frozen in that Cryo Facility. Look it, up it's some scary stuff. There's a ton you could do with a Mr. Freeze story.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ya but Freeze hates Batman, and turns into a regular villain, wanting to kill himi and such. So I would rather see a story that is more believable and interesting, rather than playing on the emotions of a character and turning it into a drama film.

[TGDirector]

But that's what made the first two batman, is through emotion of every characters. That's what made them believable. That's what made the movie what it was today. Why do you think Freeze hates Batman in the first place? He hates Batman because he's holding Mr. Freeze back from saving his wife and curing her. He was never a bad guy to begin with, he was just mistaken for one. Batman can't just all be mindless explosion and action, it's gotta have something that leads to that. What's interesting is that a lot of people don't know about those Cyro Freeze Facility and it's a rather interesting topic to go on about. And it's okay if we need to Re-Invent Mr. Freeze some way but still keep the main story about him. I mean, how the hell are you gonna pull of a real-life Poison Ivy? I can see Riddler, but Poison Ivy? Once again, I rest my case though, Mr. Freeze would still make a very interesting and strong story.

[guitar_dudester91]

thats the thing about batman. ITS A FUCKING COMIC BOOK!!! did i say it was real? poison was pulled of in batman and robin, although not very well, but still, she was. Catwoman would be an excellent character to see in the next one. Mr. Freeze is, in the comics, a huge guy, who goes on rampages, killing everybody, just so he can save his wife. when he doesn't he blames batman and turns into a regular villan. i get that. but don't turn him into a character that is good, trying to do the "right" thing. he isn't. he is selfish, and can't handle his wife's death, and it isnt like he is someone your supposed to feel sorry for. Poison Ivy, like I said, would work, because it is a goddamn comic book movie. Comics aren't real, so the movies wouldn't be. look at marvel. Im pretty sure im not seeing a huge greeen guy tearing the shit out of a metropolis, and there isn't mutant genes. so how did they pull that off? oh ya, they said it WASN'T FUCKING REAL, BASED ON A FICTIONAL STORY.

[TGDirector]

Dude, chillax. What I am trying to say is that there's a reason why Mr.Freeze has such a grudge against Batman. The real story is that Mr. Freeze was orginally good, he was scientist living his regular life while his wife has some sort of cancer. He wants to save her. He had an accident where he works that causes him to only survive in cold weather, we have those kind of natural causes in people already when they have to have a suit to go out in the sunlight. What I am trying to say is that the whole Mr. Freeze/Batman story is mixed up. Batman thinks Mr. Freeze is evil because he steals money but he doesn't know what its for or why. Mr. Freeze begins to hate Batman because he always prevent him from trying to save his wife. And he thinks Batman is doing it on purpose. We're trying to make Batman as real as we want him to be. Which is what Nolan's purpose is. It would work. I don't see how Ivy would really work in the real world. I am sure it can, but I don't know how.

[guitar_dudester91]

Mr. Freeze is bullshit. He is not a good villain, and I wouldn't watch the movie if he was in it. IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE, so either make up your mind between a real story or a fictional comic book adaptation you silly dumbfuck.:)

[TGDirector]

I don't think you're gettin it dude. Batman is one of the most layered and most complexed story they have in the DC world. Probably even the most believable and realistic character(s). Something we can all relate to in some way or another. The point of these new movies and why they're so good is because they fit. Christopher Nolan made it even more real. He did a little re-invention but in a smart and real way. He made Batman more real than anybody else ever could. Who knew we would've had a 2 1/2 hour movie and none of those 2 1/2 hour were a disappointment. What's even better about the Batman world is that the villians are more complexed than Batman is. Depending on who it is, one's more than the other. And not all villians are villians, they're just looked at like that. Mr. Freeze can be believiable and I am pretty sure any other character they have left can be as well. Problem is, "Guitar Dudester91" is that you need to take a step back and use your head and see how you can comprehend or if you can at all, how it can or cannot work. See if you can't be creative. If you can't seem to do that, then maybe you're not one to talk, let someone else do that. I want to hear someone else's a opinion about this and maybe they won't be such a dick as you are.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ya but see Normal fucking people cant engineer freeze gun, and Im pretty sure that couldnt even work. Thats the thing with batman. You're saying that the Gotham Police cant catch the joker, and that the have to have some guy in a batsuit run around town trying to get him? In the real world, the fuckin F.B.I. and C.I.A. would be all over his ass. And china wouldn't just let Batman fly out of their country, they would catch him. So before you go mouthing off like a little girl, why don't you pick up a fuckin comic, decide how "real" it is for ya, and then make an opinion. Because comics dont fucking happen. Cinema and entertainment are to get away from the "real" world. In the real world, Batman would probably get his fuckin brains blown out by some fuckin wacko, and then where would "your" franchise be?
I also noticed you said "DC world". There is no Smallville in Kansas, No arrow-wielding vigilante, no Amazonion princess, No Justice League of America, and no Superman in the real world.
So "TGDirector", why dont you go fuck yourself.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ya but fuckhead, Its not our economy, its Gotham City's economy. Also, Cryogenics is not taken seriously, which would make it further away from being a real story in our world.

[TGDirector]

What did I say about a little re-invention? I am not saying they can't catch the Joker. Because they did. I am not saying it has to be totally 100% real. But that's the point of comic books dude. making it seem more real to us. That's the entertainment. That's the challenge. I mean, let's think about this for a second, let's look at the Ocean's 11 series. Its about a group of people who steal from high security banks and casinos. Making it seem somewhat possible to do. That it can be done. But they're robbers, they're theives, would you consider them good guys? Or bad guys? They're stealing for themselves. Would you consider Mr. Freeze a bad guy stealing from banks to save his wife and not save the money for himself? I said "DC World" because Batman is from DC comics, they have their own little world. And if I remember right, I said to be creative. Not make a big deal about it by cursing at every little thing. Go to Borders and read a Batman book that talks about how real he can or cannot be. What's plausible and what's not. It talks about it all in there. Don't take it too seriously, maybe try to make it work instead of fighting it. That's what the whole threads about.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ok, lets get one thing straight. I am a hug comic fan, and I would love to see a third batman film. But the thing is, it isn't supposed to be real. Its supposed to be awesome. You want it to seem real, but Im saying that Mr. Freeze sould never make it in Nolans world, because it wouldn''t mak the film as dark as it could be, and it wouldnt be believable. So Im fighting you, not the idea of making another one. there are much better characters to give a chance at life on the big screen than Mr. Freeze.

[TGDirector]

what if I can draw you some concepts and a plot that it could work in some way? Would that somewhat convince you a little?

[guitar_dudester91]

Umm no, because I hate to say it, but i dont think that Nolan wants to get his ideas froma small time low budget filmaker, and so then I wouldnt really be interested if he wasn't

[TGDirector]

I can see where you're coming from. It could've been a good idea if done right.

[bugmenot]

I like how TG kept his composure the entire time while "dudester91" was a little cocksucking fag, barely capable of forming complete sentences.

[TGDirector]

Thanks, Bugmenot. Can I ask you what you think of the idea in all honesty? Go all out, I am all ears.

[guitar_dudester91]

Well, lets see here. Im sure bugmenot still lives with his mother, and TG director just had a bad idea in my opinion, so i shared mine. If your gonna argue, get ready to take heat. So go fuck yourself.
Also, grow a pair the both of you, i mean geez, i totally slammed you, and you just took it.

[TGDirector]

That's just one opinion you horse's ass. You're the only one here making such a big deal out of everything and crying like a little baby. You shared your opinion now shut the fuck up and let other people make their own. If you have a problem with it, then oh well, life's tough. Get over it. You have no brain to even make something work. Everyone's been nice but you, so go somewhere else, maybe back to school.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ok assface. Here it is. READ DARK VICTORY. Your precious mister freeze is in it. HE KILLS PEOPLE FOR MONEY. He may want to bring his wife back to life, but he still FUCKING KILLS PEOPLE. So therefore, HE IS A BAD GUY!!!!!!!!!! You can't have bullshit about someone who isn't really a bad guy, everyone just makes him out to be one. Thats queer-ass homosexual drama. So back to the main point of this thread, Mr. freeze would not make a good villain, because the way you make him sound is wrong.
Well your opinion is just one opinion too fuckhead!
And since Im not fucking David Goyer or Chris Nolan, Im not gonna waste my time trying to write a fucking script. The idea was to see who would be a good villain, not to write up some drawings and an idea, but just to see who a good villain would be for fun.

[bugmenot]

Well, lets see here. Im sure bugmenot still lives with his mother, and TG director just had a bad idea in my opinion, so i shared mine. If your gonna argue, get ready to take heat. So go fuck yourself.
Also, grow a pair the both of you, i mean geez, i totally slammed you, and you just took it.

I just got here, you little prissy fuck. So I find it kinda funny you wanna declare yourself the "winnar of teh intarnets" automatically. Perhaps it's you who can't take shit from other people, even if their arguments are informed and rational. Seriously, the next time you're stuffing your mouth with more cock, ask yourself how you got to be where you are now.

On topic, my personal belief, TG, is that whatever direction Nolan takes if he does indeed return for a third outing, builds on the themes that BMB and TDK began. Unfortunately, Freeze does not seem to fit this bill entirely. There is nowhere for the third Batman movie to go, in all honesty, because there is nothing that he can do to spiritually grow after coming to terms with his actions and rules.

To elaborate, the first movie carried a large existential weight, which was followed by the nihilistic Joker of TDK. Would Freeze be able to build on that idea? In my opinion, as much as I would love to see a third movie, I would forego a third installment if it preserved the quality of the new series. Who says every comic franchise has to be a trilogy? The only direction a sequel can literally go is down, as the only stage Batman has on his journey is a return to form and a tying up all the loose ends. This means nothing but mind-numbing action and a return to shallow plot development.

So in the end, I think with a fair amount of Nolan revisionism, any character in the BM rogue gallery could get the silverscreen treatment, but my hopes are that it will NOT be the Riddler, Penguin, Black Mask, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, etc, etc as all these characters come with a fair amount of camp that no matter how hard they try, will not be removed. For example, as you put it, Freeze could simply be retconned with a medical condition, Penguin could be a hideously deformed smuggler, Riddler (no matter who plays him) will undoubtedly turn into a second-rate Joker, and the others... don't get me started on them. It should be fairly obvious.

That's my observations at least. And it appears many other people (especially critics and Nolan himself) agree with me. The rest are all fanboys.

[guitar_dudester91]

Well I suppose I do owe everyone an apology, especially TGDirector, I was a horse's ass. I shouldn't have gotten so carried away, and I do apologize.

As for bugmenot, I think your observations were good, It would be very hard to outdo themselves a second time. If they stuck to the comics, They can't go wrong. That's what helped TDK, was the took elements from "Long Halloween." Maybe if they carried on through Dark victory, or maybe Year One, or maybe even went back to the Bob Kane days, I think they would pull it off. After submersing myself back into the comics realm, I think it would be a poor idea to leave Robin out of it. See they fucked up with Chris O'Donnell and that whole story. If they made him a teenager again, and Nolan wrote it right, it could definetely work.

Once again TGDirector, I do humbly apologize. Stress from reality carried onto the web, and it was very poor of me to act like that. I still think Mr. Freeze wouldn't make a good character just yet, but maybe after Batman is established good he might be a good villain to introduce. Also, right now, The riddler would be a second rate joker, but maybe if they made him as wimpy as he sometimes appears in the comics, he might be able to terrorize Gotham well.

[bugmenot]

I'm open to Robin being in a Batman movie, unlike most people, even though Bale has basically said Robin is gay and that he wouldn't do a film with Robin.

What I think the next film WOULD need to focus on is Batman getting older and refusing to put down the Mask, even as newer heroes took his place. He'd become sort of like a mentor, but not a perfect one.

A while ago, Cinematical, I think it was, did a Batman 3 storyline contest. The entries were terrible. They were utter fanfiction with no regard to structure, themes, character development, etc! People just wanted to see Black Mask, or the Riddler, and I'm sorry, but I just think both characters don't fit. (Well, the Riddler maybe..) I mean, a guy that carves a face from a piece of rock?

The reason why Batman's villains (and Spiderman's to some degree) are so great is because they're not just warped cliche freaks. They teach him something.

-Ducard/ Raz 'Az' Whatever taught him how to seek justice and overcome his fears. Scarecrow supplemented that.
-Joker helped him understand the boundaries and sacrifices he must make in seeking justice. Two-Face supplemented that, to another extreme.

One character I did dig up while contemplating this entry (I never entered) was a character called Reaper. Apparently, Gotham that preceded Batman, and ultimately went on to become a murderous vigilante who didn't know where to draw the line. He faded into obscurity during Wayne's overseas absence.

Now, if you have a young Robin/Nightwing - the young, unspoiled vigilante - Reaper, the older, more hardened vigilante, and Batman, the only hero of the group- you may have a story. Not saying it's a complete idea, but with Batman's new role in his city, there would definitely be new people to fill the void.

I don't know. Maybe it's too soon for a Robin character, as I never liked him that much personally, but Reaper and one other villain, might work. Also, leave Gotham. Why?

Because after surviving two major terrorist attacks, this whole realist element that Nolan's going for will soon end.

[TGDirector]

Hmm I agree with Bugmenot. Maybe it's too soon but then again maybe not. Go with me on this one guys, what if..Just what if we do involve Robin. Just not in the way we think. What if he just found Robin on the streets like he did the orginal storyline. Bruce will just take him in, nothing else. We'll slowly form his character. Which one came first Dick or...what's his name? Anyways, this movie will just develop his character really well. And then maybe at the end of the movie we'll have some sort of cliffhanger? Something to move on about?

Here's one more idea, and again, run with me on this one. Why don't we have Bruce have Batman as some sort of addiction? Like he's pushing too far and too hard. The people that care about him Dick & Alfred etc. Start to really want him to stop and he won't. Something dramatic of that sort. Who can help me figure that part out? Sound osmewhat of a good idea, no?

And that's okay Guitar_Dudester. Some people do get too wrapped up in things and sometimes take things too far. It's understandable. And maybe Freeze isn't right just yet. I had the other idea up above. (I'd like it if someone would help me start my Mortal Kombat Reboot thread though!)

[guitar_dudester91]

I totally agree. Robin should be in a third film, because it is true to the comics. I mean, for cryin out loud, Nolan has Barbara Gordon already set up, and was very mysterious about her when he was asked about her. So I definetely think Robin would be a great character to add. Also, I would love to see it come out around the time of Mark Millar's Superman epic. They could work together, it would be awesome. Then they could carry it farther, with Nightwing entering and maybe even Jason Todd making an appearance (and eventually dying). Batgirl, Oracle, Huntress, make it good, and make it what people want to see.
I elaborate on these things a little more in my thread " Future of Comic Book Movies"........

[TGDirector]

There's a lot we could do with the Batman world. It all really depends on what we all choose it to be. Robin could be a great character. But the question raises on just how realistic it is for a adopted teenage boy to fight against crime with a 30 something year old man. And it really does matter where Nolan or anybody for that matter takes that story.

Don't get me wrong, it can work. I am not saying it's a bad idea at all. Its just how we translate that on to the big screen and try to make it realistic.

[jetdog]

everyone is on this "realism" thing.... what's so damn real about a man dressed up as a bat or a man with spider-like powers or a man that can fly! People people... just don't take "wonder" out of the movies... i can my brain... we all know we can't walk on walls.. why do we have to tell each other to use realism in an effing superhero movie!

[bugmenot]

It's not about that, you fool. It IS about proper rules. This holds true for ANY medium of storytelling. Continuity.

If you don't get that, I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the people who owns the whole line of <parody> movies on DVD, just for "shits and giggles".

Let's put it in layman's terms for you. Say Nolan was not asked to sign on for Batman and it was Aronofsky in- no, better. Let's use the OLD Batman series.

The first two were helmed by Tim Burton and were critically praised, at least equaling the weight of the Batman Begins. Everything had a dark, fantastical feel. Then you have Schumacher come in, throw colors onto everything, stamp tits on Batman, and make the whole thing into a Barnum & Bailey's circus stunt show.

That's like cutting the moviegoer's stomach open and pulling out their intestines with a hook.

If your movie is straight-up adapted material, it's noticeably easier: see Harry Potter.

And just when you think directors who stay with a franchise from beginning to end are safe, see Sam Raimi. Here was a man beloved by everyone for Spiderman 2, and then he ditches the whole hard science elements in favor of camp and the "Creatures from Planet X" version of Venom.

Does any of this click for you?

I know I was hard on you in the beginning, but honestly, you need to think these things over. I know it can be especially hard on a comicbook fan to join reality, when you have elemental Supermen running around, causing holes in the spacetime continuum, and creatures from some unrelated franchise spill in (DC vs Mortal Kombat), but my god...

[jetdog]

I'm not talking about all that you got off track if you were even talking to me.. I'm not sure.. I'm talking about what Nolan said and i quote " I'm not sure if Superman belongs in my world" To not put Superman in Batman's world is messing up things for DC period. How realistic is that? You can't get around that unless you change Nolan's mind.. Plus Batman is not Nolan's idea he can't make up things and change the DC world.. How realistic that?

[TGDirector]

Bugmenot is usually someone I agree with in any forum. Reason being is because he's reasonable & smart. But no where in the forum did Bugmenot got off track. No where did he say anything about Superman actually being in Batman.


But what he is trying to ask you is something simple in your previous post. You were asking about why everyone's in this whole realisim thing and the reason being is because it works for everyone in one way or another. It makes a movie what a movie is and should be. The more realistic it is, the more believable it is for the audiences.
Bugmenot was explaining how a lot of movies get off track.


Not Bugmenot being off track.


He was explaining about if you watched the first 2 Batman which were directed by the same man, Tim Burton. They had style, they were loved. A series get fucked if Director is changed in the middle of a movie deal.

Batman & Batman Forever were fine in that point and time. It was fucked after that by other directors. Harry Potter was fucked after Chris Columbus left. Other franchises get fucked because the Directors choosen orginally AND specifically for high qualities of reasons. Those Directors that have those high qualities have a designed and specific Vision!

Most studios if you haven't noticed are just plain stupid and money hungry. They wouldn't give a shit if it flopped, as long as it made money. Their reputation though is on the line doing that stupid shit. It's called "Creative Differences." Directors are in it for the art, the passion. Studios are there to fuck the visions.

Which brings me back to my orginal point that Bugmenot & I are trying to make: The realism is only part of what makes it click. It really clicks when a director stays on target. When studios stay out of the directors way is what makes it even better.

You're right though, Superman wouldn't work in Nolan's Batman World. They're two totally different time and place. It would be a huge mistake to even try to blend those two together. EVEN if they are both considered DC heroes.

Sam Raimi made that mistake in his third Spider-man film. In fact he made many mistakes. Because he didn't stay with his vision. But I am not going to point those out. I am going to give that job to Bugmenot to do in his next post. I'll explain why:

I am not going to finish his rant, he is. I am only backing him up.

But again, like he asked, "Does that click for you?"

[bugmenot]

Thanks, TG. I appreciate it. It seems whenever anyone other than us posts here, it's always a troll. Your reply was pretty close to what I had meant. (Not strictly about the directors, but just change in style and "rules" period.)

I'm not talking about all that you got off track if you were even talking to me.. I'm not sure..

Well maybe I'm not sure if you know how to use periods to form complete sentences or not...maybe I dunno I can my brain...

I'm talking about what Nolan said and i quote " I'm not sure if Superman belongs in my world... Batman is not Nolan's idea he can't make up things and change the DC world.. How realistic that?

It's very realistic. What the hell is your problem? Take reading 101 over again at the CC. My whole response was based on your assumption that what's good in the comics is good for film, and this is what you come back with...my god, so help me...

No, Nolan is NOT the owner of Batman. He didn't ever claim to create Batman as far as I can tell, but what IS his is the adaptation he blazed with film- that's its own self-contained universe, with its own style and laws of physics.

I don't care if Superman shoots him with lasers and turns him into a mutant Krypton bat in one episode from the 70's or whatever and you want that made into a movie. If they want to adapt that, that's too bad: you missed your window with Schumacher.

Batman Begins had NO mention of Superman, Metropolis, Daily Planet, etc, so how would it work if all the sudden Superman just popped up? But of course, you're fine with that aren't you? So tell me, why didn't he intervene during the events of BMB? Or TDK? Where do you draw the line in the sand?

You don't, and are only thinking about YOUR selfish desires to see some juvenile plot transferred onto film, with disrespect to (like TGDirector said) the more artistic elements of the film. So before you declare that Nolan is being a selfish twit, look at yourself.

He's doing his job- which is to make Batman more accessible for millions of people. He knows his audience, he knows what allegory would be most applicable, and he goes out and tells a story.

Comics rarely have any deeper meaning in them at all, so once again, I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this. Ok, maybe I'm "getting off track" again. Whatever, sue me. You're just showing everyone how stupid you are.

[jetdog]

Stop talking to me like I'm stupid. He doesn't have to say anything about Superman in the movies. He shouldn't of said he doesn't think Superman would fit in his version of batman. If he did that then he changed the world to what he wanted to be and that's selfish dude. What don't you get about that? Okay, I'll put it this way by making it so realistic he just written out superman, wonderwomen, flash, and all the rest that make up JLA. Do you get that man? What do I have to do to get you to stop telling me I don't know what i'm talking about? I'm not going to change my mind. Batman and Superman belong in the same world. Just like Fantastic 4 and and Spider-man are in the same world. Just like Iron Man and The Hulk are in the same world too. That's pretty much why DC sucks ans Marvel rules. When you saw Tony Stark at the end of The last Hulk people cheered. You have an whole generation of movie goers that don't know Batman and Superman are in the same world. After all the other superhero movies are done like Superman and wonderwoman then what? Are they just going to make another verion of Batman? I think not. By the way i hated the last Batman movie that Cooney did don't think i liked it. I'm just wondering where is this Batman going to go. I don't care if you make a movie real enough just for people to wrap their head around it (Watchmen/300/Sin City) movies that will work or has worked without being real. Where is Batman going to go without the other superheroes? Or should i say where is DC going to go without BATMAN? BUT bugmenot DON'T THINK YOU CAN CALL ME OUT OF MY NAME WHEN I HAVEN'T EVEN DONE ANYTHING TO YOU. ARE YOU OKAY?

[TGDirector]

Comics are finally starting to get recognized as something more than just a comic book. Something more than just pictures and people saving other people.

We're getting more and more complexed and layered into something more serious. Now what Jetdog is starting to learn is that Batman IS a very complexed and layered character and even the story is the same way. Batman probably is the most serious superhero in the DC World to really be serious and realistic.

But what really pains me is that when people come up and argue with facts that haven't really looked into. People who have no knowledge of depth of emotions or symbolism, or even true reality. It pains me that Bugmenot & I have to sit here and school people like Jetdog who thinks its okay to see a movie like "Disaster Movie" or "Epic Movie".

Kind of makes you wonder if Tom Rothman of Fox himself does the same thing and likes movies like that. Anybody can tell a story, but when someone else tries to tell someone else's story, what happens? It gets manipulated and turned. It's nothing like the orginal idea or story.

Now don't get us wrong with the wrong idea. We're not the kind of people who sit around on the computer all day or read comic books all day long. I am a real filmmaker myself and have a job, a house, a kid on the way etc.

But what's nice is that at the end of the day I get to come home and get in my own little world for passion for films. At the end of the day I get to come on here and talk seriously about films and how we can get them to work or talk about ideas and then work from there. Bugmenot is one of those people that can finally carry on a conversation and wouldn't care if I proved him wrong or if it was the other way around.

Because at the end of the day, I don't want to spend my time trying to explain to people who can't seem to understand true filmmaking or at least have the passion for films or creativity itself. I don't need people freaking out over a stupid arguement.

I'd rather make something, stir an idea, and that's all it takes is one good idea.

[jetdog]

Well that makes two people calling me stupid. Still, Batman and Superman are in the same world. They have been on the same cover of countless covers and still you try to make me look stupid. I'm starting to think you are all the same person. How would i know?

[jetdog]

So do you think it's right to take Superman out of Batman's world?

[bugmenot]

You're stupid because you haven't read our full fucking arguments. You're stupid because two people have been telling you you're stupid, and you still don't fucking get it. You're stupid because you think we're the same person, whereas if you actually bothered to check other threads outside of your own little bubble, you'd clearly realize we're not. You're stupid for keeping on insisting that just because what goes in the comics is good for the movies.

I could go on and on. Fact remains, and you're starting to troll. Be gone.

[jetdog]

You still did answer my question. Do you think it is right to write Superman out of Batman's world? Can you answer? I really don't have to insult you. I never really have. I was Just trying to Join the blog world and you just proved to me why i haven't really gotten into it. You guys just want to talk to people that only believe or talk like you. What kind of smart writer if you call yourself that goes around calling people names to make yourself look cool? You guys are so funny. I could be somebody important for all you know. Oh well again I'll ask you this one more time. DO YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT TO WRITE SUPERMAN OUT OF BATMAN'S WORLD?

[jetdog]

By the way i do read and i do think The Reaper would by good for the third Batman movie. Before i came one here to blog i thought "Year Two" would make a great movie. It was a good book and one of the best stories to do. My problem with nolan's world is you can't just do any of his villains. He has written out most of his villians.

[guitar_dudester91]

Superman is and should be in Batman's world. In Batman Comics, Batman is a dark character. But Superman is written with him, and he isn't dark. So basically it comes down to whether or not Nolan has the balls to write something outside of "his world." He really needs to stop being so egocentric. I mean come on, TDK was good, but the awards won't go on forever.

Also, this is for BATMAN BEGINS 3 VILLAINS! Not for people to come in here with huge egos and argue over how realistic somethings are. Ok, so you need realism in movies. You do. TGDirector explained it well enough. But in adapting comics, you need to stay within the boundaries and worlds of those comics. In Marvel, New York City is one of the main cities, hosting the Avengers, Spiderman, Etc. But in real life, These people don't exist in real life. Gotham City isn't a real place, but it is adapted and made to be realistic.

So back to the original topic, in anybody else's opinions, who would make a good villain for the potential Batman sequel?

Riddler is a good choice and probably the most obvious, but Goyer and Nolan CANNOT make him a psychopath in the terms of the Joker. In most comics, Riddler is a wimpy little shit that has goons do stuff for him, most always collaborating with other villains of Gotham. Mr. Freeze could be a good character, but based on popularity and other things, maybe not the best choice. Penguin has already been done, and in my opinion done well. Poison Ivy is one of my favorites, and could create an excellent story. Catwoman is another obvious choice, but is almost a must, in my opinion anyways. Killer Croc could be done, but that would really be stepping across the line between comics and reality. I suppose most are, but some villains could live more realistically in our world than others could.

Anyways, Jetdog, please take your selfish attitude somewhere else, and stop causing a problem. Create a new thread if you want to talk about superman. Hell, use mine, I have already started one.

Any other ideas for villains?

[TGDirector]

The problem with Superman being in Batman, is only a problem within Nolan's world. Problem is that it wouldn't work. It may in other visions or other project. The key is really to keep those worlds seperate in the way Nolan is doing it.

Sure it won many awards and that's great, I love that. I really do and I think they deserve it. But the real question would ring right now.

"Would it win awards if Nolan shoved Superman into his Batman vision?"

Probably not. So let me explain why: It would be the same mistake Sam Raimi made in his third Spider-Man project. It wasn't so much as he was forced to do it, it was more of he didn't listen to himself. He trailed off from something he didn't want to do. You can't make a good film if you don't have any interests in it.

Same thing with Nolan, if he derails his vision right now. It could crash everything he worked hard for to begin with. So to answer your question, it's not right to write him into Batman. Not with this vision.

Guitar_Dudester does have a point, but the only deal is, Christopher Nolan's not being Egocentric. It's not about that, I mean, he's a Director. He has a vision, it's his job to stay with it. It can go one direct or many. If it goes one direction, then it's probably a solid film. But if it goes many directions, then too many people are fucking with it, and it's probably not as solid as it should be.

Again, Guitar_Dudester has a point, this topic is about villians and you are being a little selfish. The ideas to these threads are not about causing problems but arguging each own's point and backing up their own facts.

And the fact is, I think what Nolan's trying to do is bring Characters that aren't used much and bring them life. Even if they are used much, I think he finds a way to translate them from the comics and cartoon into something more. And that's just the point.

If you want to do Riddler, you can and that's pretty much the obvious choice like anybody would say. I could run with that. There's a little glitch though with that character. I could see The Riddler having things in common with Jigsaw from Saw. Being somewhat of a copy of him realistically.

[guitar_dudester91]

TGDirector makes a good point. But I have to say I disagree with him. See, I like the way Nolan has brought his universe together, but putting Superman in his Batman universe won't hurt anything. In Hush, they are brought together, and they even have their own comics line. I think that they could be written within the same movie. But I dont want Superman written just for that movie alone. He needs his own trilogy, like Batman's. I would love it if Mark Millar can get his epic in the air, and be able to interchange with Nolan and the DC properties. I think it would work, but I could be wrong. I know that it can be hard to bring comics into movies, but look at Marvel. They are doing it, and doing it well. So I guess thats what I have to say about it.

[jetdog]

thanks guitar_dudester91 for being decent to me and answering me with an good answer. I'll go somewhere else to talk maybe to one of your threads but i'm not selfish just want to blog. I only speak the facts and the truth.

[bugmenot]

Jet, honestly, the reason I call you stupid is precisely cause I did answer your question- several times. You may be able to read, but read does not equal understanding or full comprehension. I'm sorry that you think I have a huge ego for putting it to you thusly. You will find you're not the only one who is pissed that Nolan doesn't want Superman with his Batman. As you saw, GuitarDudester agrees.

You can't dance around a reply also by involving me. It's not about what I want or what I feel. I'm not arguing that. I'm explaining Nolan's position to you, which I HAPPEN to agree with. I know neither you, nor Dudester, care much about the implications of it, but what works in the comics WILL NOT work in film. If you're gonna nitpick and bitch about this, why not attack Raimi, Singer, Story - especially Story - or Goyer, Johnson, etc... all for the changes they made, or the cameos of other superheroes they omitted. You seem to think that the comics are 100% god in ANY domain, even in the medium of film. No, it doesn't work like that. I've already explained this to you, and your refusal to understand is making you look foolish.

And also, sorry to burst your ego bubble, but if you are "important" somehow, you're still just another person on the internet, and your words are just as equal as mine, until they border on trolling.

Now please, stop hijacking this thread and come up with a competent argument if you truly think Superman can be in Batman. And here's a hint: don't reference the comics.

[guitar_dudester91]

Hey bugmenot, I see where you are coming from. I understand that Nolan doesn't think that Superman could exist in his world. But I disagree, because Nolan's world is DC's world, whether he wants to admit it or not. I also totally agree that comics and film are two COMPLETEY different realms, and if you are going to mix the two, you better do it well.

But in my opinion, I think taht if Nolan can do an amazing job with TDK, which he did, then he can definetely do Superman. I say this because he worked so hard at TDK and BB, and he did an awesome job of adapting, and was very consciencous (did i get that right?) of what the fans wanted to see and how close he could get to the comics. So if a guy can be that good at making a movie, he can definetely put Superman in that world.

Now I don't know how he would do it, maybe the two would unite, or they would have an arguement, or work to gether, or whatever, but it could be done.

Also, I don't think I want to see Superman in the next film. In Batman Comics, the story is about Batman. In Superman Comics, the story is about superman. I would rather see Nolan and Goyer bring in Robin, or Batgirl, and take that direction first. Because right now, it isn't possible to put superman in a batman movie. Brandon Routh Might not be the next Superman, and whoever they would put into that role would have to be the next Superman.

So I think they have to wait until Superman is established again in the movie world. That's how Marvel is doing it, and it works. They don't have random actors all over the place playing superheroes in one movie and having different actors in another. That was some of the problem with Justcie League.

All in all, I would rather wait another movie or two before the cameos start hapenning in the DC universe. But that doesn't mean that the two aren't in the same world.

[bugmenot]

I agree with you that Nolan's world is DC's world, but that doesn't mean DC's World is Nolan's. That's the whole point I'm trying to make to Jet, and s/he can't get it through their head.

I really do not see any plausible way for them to introduce Superman, and the way Nolan has built up his vision of Batman - and yes, it is uniquely his - his execution, is so rugged and human that if you introduced Superman, there would be no comparison like the comics. There are no laser-controlled bats in Nolan's world, or even a mention of kryptonite-based weapons or anything.

He did this intentionally at first, to ground the new series as far away from the original as possible. But it had other effects as well, which no one could have ignored, especially him. He knew what other avenues he was sacrificing by endowing Batman with more fatalist, physical constraints.

I'm not arguing that he COULDN'T have Superman in here, it's whether it fits the story or not - and having an omniscient god in the story of a frail, young man wrestling with his inner demons does NOT mix. It's called deus ex machinae. Which is essentially cheating the audience.

Whether you care or not, Nolan has worked hard at giving Batman an almost literary type of depth that no other comic book character has had yet in film. This would not mesh with Superman at all, from that direction, NOT just physical/realist aspects.

This is the most articulate way I can put it for you... if you still don't agree, there's probably not much else I can say to you. Their ideas are divergent. Their movies do not bear the same foundations like the Marvel ones do. (The coming abomination in Marvel's world, as I have already said, is Thor...) So to compare Justice League to them doesn't seem that much fair of a comparison.

And I prefer that they isolate the Justice League movie, at least paying homage to the other film franchises, but so they can still incorporate their pasts into a workable movie, but it doesn't look like that's the plan they had in mind. That's their own fault. Oh well...

[TGDirector]

That's exactly what I've been trying to say...Thank you! Geez! Finally someone notices. It's the exact same thing I was saying.

It's the way Nolan has created this new Batman series. The way he built it. It wouldn't fit Superman anywhere in it. You just can't. Despite them both being in the DC World, that's something I understand. But what I need people to understand, it just wouldn't work in this vision.

Just what I was trying to say too, is that it can be done in a totally different project, a totally different way. I would like to see that, don't get me wrong. Back to the same thing I am gonna agree with is that I wouldnt want to see Superman in this Batman.

It would ruin everything Nolan did. Everything he worked hard for.

Thank you Bugmenot for explaining further, I was frustrated....

[guitar_dudester91]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Superman could be in this Batman, and not to argue or anything, I still think it can be done.

[TGDirector]

Well anything can be done. I live on that possibility. But the problem is again, Superman wasn't built for the Batman that Nolan has his eyes on.

I wouldn't mind seeing them both in a totally different project that's actually built for it.

[jetdog]

That's why DC will never catch Marvel...

[TGDirector]

It can go the same way in a Marvel film. there' two way streets on both companies. Like let's say for example: Iron Man was built on a vision to be just like Batman. Based on realism and the boundries were set.

Let's say it was dark, gritty, serious. It seems just as real, like it was a possibility that we could have a real Iron Man in real life. Same thing with Batman. If that movie had ended right where it did. Didn't have the extra footage at the end of the credits. It would be hard to try to cheat the audience adding something in there that doesn't belong. Something that doesn't make any sense.

People would react differently, in fact they'd probably even act the same way Bugmenot and I are. It'd be the same exact arguements. Especially if the film was built on a specific vision.

But fortunately, Jon Favereu had a bigger vision that left it open to a bigger possibility. He expanded his vision a bit. People just add to his plan, in fact he let them. Visions like The Hulk, Captain America, etc. Whatever's in the Avengers.

Christopher Nolan had a totally different plan. He wanted Batman seem real to us as it does for him and it worked. He did his job as a Director.

I don't know how else to explain it to you. If you don't agree, oh well. It's just the way it is. If you think you can do a better job, go make a film or a script.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ok look, Im not trying to be an asshole, but I just wanna know why exactly, besides "Nolan's vision" you don't think Superman can be in a Batman movie. Good reason. I mean cmon, it is a comic book movie, first of all, and like I have previously mentioned, people dont go masquerading around in tights and a cape and beat up bad guys. So I agree that Nolan has brought it more into reality, but I don't know why, if it ever comes to this, Superman couldn't be in it.

[guitar_dudester91]

Also, I never said I could do a better job, so no need to get all bent out of shape about it.

And you and bugmenot seem to think you are 100 percent right and nobody else is right if they don't share your opinion. So like I said, not trying to be an asshole, but guys like you two kinda make it hard to even write in forums.

[TGDirector]

I am not trying to be an asshole either, I am just saying if you think it can work. Then make it work. Go write a plot or make a short film or something. Prove your point.

I am not trying to be right at all and I don't think Bugmenot is trying to either. But what we're trying to explain to you exactly why it won't work. It's not just because it is built on Nolan's & Goyer's vision.

It just wouldn't mesh at all dude. DC is designed in fantasy cities where as each and every character they have in the DC World is built differently. In the DC world, they have odd and even characters, meaning:

Realstic Vs Unrealistic enviroments. Try blending the two of those together, it just wouldn't mesh well. It would just turn out stupid, period.

JL is a mesh of every DC comic character... and it pisses me off because it takes away the realism of living in a stationary environment of earth.

So it's like What the fuck, dude? You don't argue with stupidity. Stupidity just makes it more stupid. Would you go see a movie that's stupid? Probably not.

So what you're asking pretty much is for Nolan & Goyer to risk their reputation and their vision just to write Superman somewhere into Batman where it doesn't mesh, doesn't make any sense, based on the world that Batman is actually set it.

Like Bugmenot was saying, it'd be cheating the audiuences. And it'd be cheating them big time. If someone else can make it work, then great, do it in another project and keep it seperated from what BMB & TDK.

Simple as that. Again, I am not trying to be an asshole. It's just frustrating trying to put it in a way everyone would understand.

[guitar_dudester91]

Ok, I understand your opinion, how about this:

Batman is trying to catch a criminal, one that could potentially be shared by both Superman and Batman. So Batman, who is searching for this guy, contacts superman, in need of help. Maybe the two don't get along at this point, making it hard for them to collaborate. This is just one scenario.

Also, I don't think that they should write Superman in as a major character. Only small time. They don't need to, and Im not tasking that they do. Im just saying, that in the right situation, done with the right story, it could work.

I agree that the cities and characters are completely different, Metropolis is nowhere near Gotham. But this is where I would wait, if I was going to put the two in the same movie. I would wait for Superman to be established, and give him his own story. This is the way Marvel is doing it, and Im not saying the Marvel is the same as DC, but that is the direction I would take it. Example: In Hush, Batman is chasing Poison Ivy, which leads him and Catwoman into Metropolis. She has taken control of Superman with her powers of seduction. Batman now has to fight a mind-controlled Superman, using his Detectives wits, and defeat him. As I said, only an example.

Now don't go saying that since it is a comic book story, it can't work in a movie. That's bullshit. Long Halloween is the basic outline, base, whatever you wanna call it, for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. A comic storyline is used, maybe not completely, but is used.

So I get that you don't want the movies to be ruined by some mashed together bullshit. I don't either. In fact, I wasn't even arguing that Superman could be in a Batman movie until jetdog came along. even then I tried to bring the thread back to Villains.

But in my opinion, since they are making a comics movie, I think it would be cool, if one day they put the two together. Maybe you don't agree, thats ok. But theres and idea of what a potential storyline could be.

[bugmenot]

Neither of us said that you couldn't adapt any comic book plot to fit the movie. In fact, that's almost verbatim what I said a few posts back. I've said that time and time again, including the post about TDKR - which, for obvious reasons, would not work as part of Nolan's series as is, or justify a spin-off project. It would have to undergo extensive revisions to fit. See what I'm saying?

Or would it be okay with you to have elements like that in there?

Look. We're not arguing that comic books have silly plots. Not at all. In fact, they're a dime a dozen. Remember Spiderman 2? Tritium? The power of the sun...in the palm of my hands, right? But, goddamn it, it worked - and it worked because Spiderman was born in a freak-of-nature accident via a genetically modified spider. His arch-nemeses were/are common variations of the same trope - except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Did Batman Begins have ANY rogue's gallery even remotely similar? How about TDK? No. Therefore, keep any Poison Ivy, Bane, Catwoman, Superman, "Black Mask", etc out of the movie! I'm sorry if you're a fan of any or all of their storylines, but that's the price you pay for a mainstream, A+ grade product.

Do I like it, too? No, not especially, but I'm willing to accept the fact if it moves beyond its silly little conventions and makes a good transfer to the medium of film. Batman Begins did that. It established certain rules. It even spent a lot of time, deconstructing the cliche that you so fervently point out of "guys running around in capes and tights". The whole first movie was about the nature of symbols, archetypes - etc. It was very basic psychology. And guess what? It clicked. Fans and newcomers alike loved it!

Was everyone in the audience a fan, hoping for a flying Batmobile with turbo-rocket boosters and laser-guided surface-to-air missiles? No. Not everyone in the audience is a comic book junkie. That's the point. So while you and I may be well-versed in the comic mythos, I can guarantee you Warner Bros. would never have greenlit the movie if it were just going to be a love letter to batfans, ie fanfiction.

Also, movies by their very nature, are very deliberately put together and planned far in advance. I can promise you Nolan knew what direction he wanted to go in, as evinced by him setting up the joker in BMB. Comics have a much shorter timeframe, are cheaper to produce, and the medium itself places a stronger emphasis on visuals, so of course those "kick-ass" team-ups are inevitable.

But just remember, Bob Kane, the original Batman creator, didn't plan on Superman and Batman forming a "justice society" or anything of the sort. There were no "multiple" universes. In many ways, the pulpy, camp-filled issues of yesteryear are probably still easy to swallow than today's standard genetic-defect-allows-wrinkle-in-space-time-continuum bullshit, that allows Batman to traverse different worlds or whatever. It's pure marketing. It makes no sense from any other perspective.

Therefore, since films don't have that same cycle, they also don't lend well to multiple continuities, so forking Nolan's trilogy just to have Batman is an inherent disaster. Yes, blame it on how the masses are so stupid, but that's a fact of life- they're not going to receive that as positively as the first two installments, which will in turn lead to the studio shutting down Batman again...which will inevitably lead to its ressurection by an even greater director, and the cycle will repeat, with the fans bitching every time about something and the studio wanting to cater to them for marketing.

You guys have to learn to control that. Selfish? Yeah it is. Everyone is. The studio wants to make money, the director wants to make art he'll be renowned for, and the fans want references! No one's scott-free, but it's the masses who decide, and they rarely side with the fans. They're much more forgiving, when say, you recast the roles with new actors, reboot the setting, etc- then just shut down the current plot and say "okay, guys, bring in the man of steel."

And to be fair, Marvel realized this somewhat, and from the start said, "hey guys, we want them to team up in the end, so yeah...let's get this straightened out". And they did. Favreau worked it into Iron Man, Leterrier worked it into Hulk. And both movies, except for the last scene in Hulk, could still function on their own as a whole, without you knowing the whole continuity. So therefore, if you can accept that one character is introduced in the first movie, you can probably be more forgiving if his character turns out to be some cyborg billionaire in charge of a massive defense industry, who fights terrorists on the side in the future. Catch the drift?

Not so in Nolan's Batman- and indeed, to take it further, in Singer's Superman.

[TGDirector]

Exactly. I don't see how else we can explain this any further, guys. Its just the way it is and don't ask why because we already explained it multiple times.

The only further way I can possibly explain this is: Comic books itself has a different law than film does. How we translate that onto film is something that matters. Like Nolan, he took his time to translate carefully. Singer did a good job, but it didn't do as well as Batman did.

Bugmenot & I were talking about that Superman issue in a different thread. Superman just won't work today like it did back then. It was inspiration back then. There's nothing updated or inspirating about the new Superman. It's a new dawn, a new day. Time to get something fresh.

If anybody else cares to argue about this whole thing, that's great, make a new thread about it. Then we'll argue it. But this is a thread about Batman villians for a potential 3rd film. Come on, let's think of something that works.
A REAL potential villian!

[bugmenot]

Thread hijacking ended - Jack Bauer style. ;)

But yeah, in keeping with that idea, I still recommend Reaper. It's not much of a stretch to fit him in somewhere. I mean, BMB3 will definitely be about Wayne finding out how to get back to the man he was before he needed Batman, while trying to clear his name. Reaper is a perfect addition to that.

If you take the unconscious political allegory from TDK and reverse-engineer it, your natural extension would be that next, there's going to be a cascade of new foes and stronger mob bosses vowing to take credit for the Joker's legacy, as well as destroying Batman. It's pure darwinism.

So really, Reaper, or maybe Talia Az'Ghoul would be a good addition. I would welcome the Riddler if they could find some way to make him unique and not a toned-down, Hannibal-esque Joker, but third installments - particularly in a trilogy - always have some special link back to the first part, so bringing Talia to add that element for a new love interest is better than Catwoman in my opinion, and Reaper would do the same thing from TDK...

[TGDirector]

I totally agree. I believe that's what Nolan and Goyer would probably have talked about and I am sure they're trying their best to keep with their own thoughts and not listen too much to the fans. If you think about it, I also believe Nolan knows the audience better than anybody claims to. So him ignoring the fans is not such a bad thing. In fact, I respect it.

We all know that there's two ways for a sequel to go, up or down. Usually down, depending on who it is and what they do with it. Luckily we have people who know how to keep their magic, Nolan, Peter Jackson, J.J. Abrams etc.

And this might be a long shot, but the usual way for a sequel to work is to have some sort of link to the past two movies or the first one mainly. The third movie is going to make Batman's life harder having the whole city looking for him now. We'll get to see his struggle with that. That's probably the best way to carry on that story.

I also believe The Reaper is probably going to be top choice. So I can agree with that. But the Riddler is a quite a toughie without having some sort of personality-relations to The Joker. But if they can find their way around it, then great! I'd love to see The Riddler more than anything. But what matters is what's right and how well it works.

Talia Az'Ghoul could be an excellent choice as well. Like Bugmenot said, it's gotta have some link and I was thinking of that earlier today. I don't see how else it could link back to the first movie unless someone else could think of another way. Could be a big or small way, just gotta be something.

The main thing though, is keeping that fucking magic going either the same medium at the very least or up for the third installment. That's what we want, what we need.

[Sonic]

OK I Thought About The Villians And Who Should Play Them.

Main Villian:The Riddler-Johnny Depp:- Because He Looks The Part And Could Play The Riddler A Hell Much Better Than Jim Curry.
Second Villian: Black Mask- Micheal Keaton:- I Know How That Sounds But For Same Reason When I Think Of Black Mask I Think Of Keaton.
Mob Boss: The Penguin- Bob Hoskins Or P.S.Hoffman:- Because I Don't Know Who Should Play Him. May Be Danny DeVito Ha Ha Ha .

The Riddler Is Trying To Find Out The Truth About Harvey's Murder By Doing What He Knows Best.
Black Mask Is Trying To Murder Bruce Wayne Not Batman Because In the Comic Books He's More Of Wayne's Enemie As Far As I Know.
The Penguin............ Well He Should Be A Mob Boss Like Falcone & Maroni But Have A Bigger Role Maybe Have A Fight With Batman.

[TGDirector]

Part of it wouldn't work. Peguin wouldn't be Nolan's choice at all. You really gotta study a guy like Nolan. He's very mysterious and you pretty much never know what exactly he's planning.

But I do like the idea of having Riddler uncovering Harvery's side of the story and then using it against Batman. But having Depp play it is in questioning. I have my doubts and hopes about the choice.

I'd rather something more different than what we're used to, or some unknown actor. But as far as characters go towards the third film. I'd still agree with The Reaper idea.

Peguin MAY work, I mean who knows? REALLY depends on how Nolan & Goyer tanslate him onto the big screen.

A sequel will only work and go up hill if it tops the last two...

...That's hard to....do...

[Tesuo]

I would like to see some new villians from the batman universe like clayface or crockilisk. Hell even bring in the hand.

[Armpit]

Hi'all,

For THIS universe of Batman:
-Mr Freeze is too sci-fi.
-Clayface is beyond the scope of human limitations as it seems to have been established.
-Riddler might be good but speaking for myself - Carey really ruined it for me.
-Ras As Gul was a little "foggy" - Liam Neeson turned out to be the main event - so, bringing in the daughter might be confusing.
-KillerCroc and all the monsters (Dracula, ect...or magic beings) are out of the question (that would include the VERY stupid Batmite btw).

So - what have we got?
-Joker could be back but fans would compare with Ledger - so it's dubious. If the guy hadn't o.v.ed or whatever - I'm sure he'd be back for 3.
-Penguin sounds ok.
-Catwoman has to pop up some time now. She's a "mirror-Batman". She's get my total vote here.
-Hugo Strange if he's limited in what he does (not create giants but maybe create some sort of mind altering drug to control people but they die after a time, ect...MAYBE at the far limit - he could create Man-Bat - but that goes back to the "monster category", so...)
-Deadshot as a "side dish" - would create a good subplot.

That's all I can think by memory.

[selter626]

id like to see HarleyQuinn, the Riddler, and Two-Face again. Harleyquinn is awesome and they already had Joker but they should bring someone thats been on screen before and someone who hasnt i.e. Harleyquinn or Black mask.

[HarryCanyon]

Mad Hatter and Ventriloquist would make excellent villains.

[Freudian_Nightmare]

So am I the only one who would like to see Deadshot as a villain? Cause I think he is one of the most layered villains in the "Bativerse". He's the deadliest of them all, but at the same time he feel bad for every murder. He wears colourfull clothes so that he can be spotted and killed. I think he fits perfect in the world Nolan created.

And as far as Superman and Robin goes, they should not be included. Robin, because he's just annoying. Superman, because he seems highly implausible in Nolan's "Bativerse", and frankly, Superman sucks. He's the lamest high-profile comic-superhero there is.