View Full Version : what do you want to see in Batman 3?


Mad Man
May 19, 2010, 01:12 AM
I know you've probably seen like a thousand other threads like this but this one has a poll:D

holy king
May 19, 2010, 01:23 AM
the freaking riddler.

Mad Man
May 19, 2010, 01:46 AM
Damn I took to long making the poll!

classical_hero
May 19, 2010, 03:51 AM
Robin. :mischief:

Jos Ballenbak
May 19, 2010, 04:33 AM
Heath Ledger suddenly turns up as the Joker only to claim the whole dying and :):):):) was a publicity stunt.

on the serious front: Penguin, an ass kicking Bane. As Bane once broke Batmans spine I think he deserves a more satisfying part then the one with Uma and the gang.

Infracted for language - please don't set off the autocensor.

scherbchen
May 19, 2010, 04:43 AM
Harley and Ivy.

holy king
May 19, 2010, 04:52 AM
Harley and Ivy.

too easy to make dark and edgy.

i want to see a dark and edgy riddler, dammit.

azzaman333
May 19, 2010, 05:17 AM
Not going to lie, sex scenes.

holy king
May 19, 2010, 05:30 AM
dark and edgy sex scenes?

azzaman333
May 19, 2010, 05:31 AM
As long as they're sex scenes, I don't mind.

Traitorfish
May 19, 2010, 07:26 AM
Less Nathan Explosion voices would be a nice start. That was the one thing about Dark Knight that still makes me cringe. It's a pity Watchmen kind of flopped, because the way Rorschach was voiced in that should have entirely discredited the Batvoice.

Jos Ballenbak
May 19, 2010, 08:51 AM
I didn't dislike the Batman voice, it was just that Rorschach was better.

Traitorfish
May 19, 2010, 09:07 AM
It's more that Batman's voice ended up a bit jarring. It works for shouts, demands and things like that, but trying to hold entire conversations in it just ends up weird. It ends up highlighting the absurdity of the whole concept. In Rorschach's case, though, the character is putting on an acknowledged in-universe "silly voice", because the absurdity of the archetype is the entire point of the story (even if the film didn't get quite get that right). The former breaks immersion, the latter does not.

GoodSarmatian
May 19, 2010, 09:18 AM
Bat nipples and a bat credit card.
As for the sex scenes: It's a pretty safe bet Catwoman will show up.

warpus
May 19, 2010, 10:29 AM
I want to see Manbat

Traitorfish
May 19, 2010, 10:38 AM
I read that as "manbutt" at first. :crazyeye:

Shekwan
May 19, 2010, 03:24 PM
Arnie reprising his role as Dr. Freeze. Seriously. But still in a "dark and edgy" way. Would be cool to see the contrast. Never going to happen though.

I think the Penguin, The Riddler and Dr. Freeze would all be hard to be taken seriously so I hope at least one of them is in it.

dannyshenanigan
May 19, 2010, 05:50 PM
It's really too bad that Vincent Price is dead. Maybe they can digitally insert him into Batman 3 as Egghead.
http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/egghead1.jpg

scherbchen
May 19, 2010, 06:23 PM
Not going to lie, sex scenes.

dark and edgy sex scenes?

read my lips: Harley and Ivy!

though, in all honesty, we are not going to see Harley in this reiteration of Batman, alas. I think Reese Witherspoon could make a really creepy Harley. Miss Glau for Ivy and we are set. don't really need the sex scenes then, just gonna sit back and be a happy nerd fanboi for 90+ minutes.

Lord Baal
May 19, 2010, 11:03 PM
I think The Riddler has been confirmed for this film. I want to see, to quote holy_king, "a dark and edgy Riddler." It will be an incredibly difficult character to make dark and edgy, so I look forward to having a really good actor running with it. If I had a choice, I'd pick Philip Seymour Hoffman. I think he could pull off a creepy Riddler.

As for non-Riddler things, I'd like to see Wayne Manor re-built, more of the Bat-pod, and Arthur or Lucius Fox come under threat. If any character can legitimately pierce Batman's secret identity without it being annoying, it's The Riddler, so I don't think I'd have a problem with that, though it usually annoys me when the hero is unmasked by the villain in super-hero films.

Mad Man
May 19, 2010, 11:07 PM
I think The Riddler has been confirmed for this film. I want to see, to quote holy_king, "a dark and edgy Riddler." It will be an incredibly difficult character to make dark and edgy, so I look forward to having a really good actor running with it. If I had a choice, I'd pick Philip Seymour Hoffman. I think he could pull off a creepy Riddler.

As for non-Riddler things, I'd like to see Wayne Manor re-built, more of the Bat-pod, and Arthur or Lucius Fox come under threat. If any character can legitimately pierce Batman's secret identity without it being annoying, it's The Riddler, so I don't think I'd have a problem with that, though it usually annoys me when the hero is unmasked by the villain in super-hero films.

Who's Arthur?

Lord Baal
May 20, 2010, 12:15 AM
Who's Arthur?
Oops, the girlfriend watching Merlin on television in the lounge room clearly messed with me. I obviously meant Alfred.

holy king
May 20, 2010, 02:37 AM
I think The Riddler has been confirmed for this film.

:lol: seriously?

Mad Man
May 20, 2010, 03:00 AM
I'd like to see Deathstroke, Firefly, and Rupert Thorne as the villains in the next batflick, also it would be cool to see Diana Prince(though not necesarly as Wonder Woman) as Bruse Wayne's love intrest.

Virote_Considon
May 20, 2010, 06:11 AM
I would like to see the fall of Byzantium.

Failing that, the Penguin would be nice...

Disgustipated
May 20, 2010, 08:46 AM
dark and edgy sex scenes?

what's an example of a dark and edgy sex scene? What is dark sex?

holy king
May 20, 2010, 08:51 AM
what's an example of a dark and edgy sex scene? What is dark sex?

i guess that's up to the director to explore.

Lord Baal
May 21, 2010, 01:39 AM
:lol: seriously?
Yep. It was rumoured that he would appear as a reported in the Dark Knight - a Mister E. Nygma was a reporter who wrote several articles used in the viral campaign to advertise the film prior to Heath Ledger's death - but the role was changed to that of another male reporter. The actor's name escapes me at the moment, but it's the guy The Joker kidnaps and forces to read his message to Gotham. Nolan said before The Dark Knight was even released that if he was hired for a third film he'd use The Riddler as the primary villain. He also plans to focus on Batman's abilities as a detective in the next film, which makes The Riddler the perfect choice to match wits with him.

what's an example of a dark and edgy sex scene? What is dark sex?
Basic Instinct immediately springs to mind.

Plotinus
May 21, 2010, 03:36 AM
I don't think it makes a great deal of difference which villain it is. I'm more interested in the way the film is constructed and what it's actually about. The new Batman series has been interesting because it hasn't been simply a matter of "Batman versus whichever villain it is", as the earlier series was. In the first film, they didn't really have a major villain at all, other than the Scarecrow's relatively small part. In the second film, they used the Joker to consider questions of chaos and order, what makes a person good, and things of that sort. And, of course, they completely re-interpreted the character of the Joker himself to do that. If the third film is just a not-very-edifying battle between Batman and some other goon in a silly outfit then it's hard to see the point. If, however, as Lord Baal suggests, they use the opportunity to explore Batman's character and do some new things with him, then that's a bit more interesting and worthwhile.

Batman begins and The dark knight were both excellent films (I actually preferred the first, although the second was possibly more interesting), and I think much of their excellence came from the fact that they tried to do something a bit different and more ambitious from the same old superhero stuff (and yes, I know he's not a superhero). They tried to use the character and story of Batman to ask wider questions. If there's to be a third film I hope very much it will continue along these lines and not simply degenerate into a Batman forever retread.

Lord Baal
May 21, 2010, 04:55 AM
Batman's character definitely needs to be explored more. The Dark Knight, while fantastic, focused almost exclusively on developing the characters of the villains, Joker and Two-Face. While this was a pretty original thing to do and resulted in a great film, Batman should never be among the least interesting characters in a Batman film. I found myself more interested in Alfred in TDK than Bruce Wayne, which isn't a good thing.

Now, some people will say that the first film in the new series focused adequately upon Batman's character, to which I offer the following riposte; Batman Begins didn't focus on Batman's character at all. It focused on Bruce Wayne. Batman Begins was a story about the evolution of Bruce Wayne, how he came to adopt the persona of Batman. I think by this time, with the death of Rachel Dawes all-but removing Wayne's chance of ever returning to a normal life, Wayne is set to complete the metamorphosis; it is time for Bruce Wayne to become Batman. Despite what Katie Holmes may have said at the end of Batman Begins, Wayne had not yet become Batman in reality, with Bruce Wayne being a show for the public. The reverse still held true. By the end of TDK, it appears that Batman is super-ceding Wayne in his own mind. The third film should explore this, and knowing Nolan, it probably will.

Thus far the third film appears to have just the one villain, The Riddler, though I've heard rumours of Selena Kyle making an appearance pre-Catwoman, possibly working with Nygma in the newspaper he is apparently reporter for. This should leave plenty of time for the story to focus on Batman. I look forward to a film that is less about action - though I'm sure there'll be plenty - and more about the intellectual battle of wills between the two men.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne defeated Ra's Al Ghul through brute force. He had more resources than the League of Shadows. In The Dark Knight, Batman didn't defeat The Joker; he simply assumed the Christ mantle by allowing himself to be punished for Two-Face's sins, which may well be what The Joker wanted all along. If Batman doesn't take the blame, The Joker wins by breaking Gotham's spirit. If Batman does take the blame, The Joker wins by showing that Batman is corruptible. Either way, The Joker wins, regardless of his capture and presumed imprisonment/execution. The third film needs Batman to defeat his adversary by outsmarting him. Especially when the villain is one whose character is based on his intelligence.

Plotinus
May 21, 2010, 05:41 AM
Batman's character definitely needs to be explored more. The Dark Knight, while fantastic, focused almost exclusively on developing the characters of the villains, Joker and Two-Face. While this was a pretty original thing to do and resulted in a great film, Batman should never be among the least interesting characters in a Batman film.

I agree with this, and I did find myself thinking something similar during the second film. However, I disagree that it's unusual for such a film to focus on the characters of the villains. On the contrary, I'd say that this is standard for every single superhero series after the first one. Thinking back to the 1980s/90s Batman films, this was the case with them after the first one. The same with Superman, as well as more recent series such as Spider-man. The problem is that most of these hero characters are really fairly straightforward. Once you've set the character up in the first film, there's not a great deal to say about him in subsequent ones, which is why they become increasingly about the villains.

The third film needs Batman to defeat his adversary by outsmarting him. Especially when the villain is one whose character is based on his intelligence.

Yes, quite right. This is one of the things that make Batman an interesting character (at least in the comics). He can't just out-punch everyone as Superman can. Compare the pretty dreadful plot of the recent Superman film, where he overcomes the villain by just focusing really, really hard on not being overcome by kryptonite. He doesn't really resolve any problem except through brute force. Let's keep Batman more rounded and more interesting by not resorting to this kind of thing.

I also hope that, assuming the villain is the Riddler, he is portrayed in a more original and realistic way, as with the Joker. I think that one of the interesting things about both of the new Batman films is that they were quite believable and seemed to be anchored in the real world - despite being set in a fictional and rather unusual-looking city, and featuring people running around in silly costumes hitting each other. They asked what a costumed vigilante and what a costumed villain really are, rather than just assuming these categories as givens. So let's hope that the Riddler isn't simply presented as another flamboyant by-the-numbers villain in a strange outfit with just a simple gimmick to distinguish him from the others, but is a distinctive and believable character in a story that makes sense.

Lord Baal
May 21, 2010, 06:34 AM
I agree with this, and I did find myself thinking something similar during the second film. However, I disagree that it's unusual for such a film to focus on the characters of the villains. On the contrary, I'd say that this is standard for every single superhero series after the first one. Thinking back to the 1980s/90s Batman films, this was the case with them after the first one. The same with Superman, as well as more recent series such as Spider-man. The problem is that most of these hero characters are really fairly straightforward. Once you've set the character up in the first film, there's not a great deal to say about him in subsequent ones, which is why they become increasingly about the villains.
Focusing on the characters of the villains isn't unusual. Focusing on them well is, however. The characters in TDK actually showed some growth. The characters in the previous Batman series and the Spider-Man films didn't tend to grow or change at all, except for reversing their characteristics from good-to-evil and vice-versa.

Plotinus
May 21, 2010, 07:23 AM
That I can entirely agree with.

Jos Ballenbak
May 21, 2010, 06:12 PM
So if we want smart villains, I think we should hope for a return of Rha's al Ghul the main villain in the first Batman, A Johnny Depp Riddler would be awesome, and the Penguin played by Phillip Seymour-Hoffman.

And Jack Black as Mr. Freeze, just kidding (or not....)

Lord Baal
May 21, 2010, 11:28 PM
So if we want smart villains, I think we should hope for a return of Rha's al Ghul the main villain in the first Batman, A Johnny Depp Riddler would be awesome, and the Penguin played by Phillip Seymour-Hoffman.

And Jack Black as Mr. Freeze, just kidding (or not....)
You know, that's a bloody good idea. I hadn't thought of Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin, but he's one of the few actors that could pull it off. A Johnny Depp Riddler would be great.

Bast
May 22, 2010, 05:28 AM
OMG Christian Bale is SOOO Hot!

http://images.askmen.com/specials/2007_top_49/men/christian_bale.jpg

Bast
May 22, 2010, 05:30 AM
I want to see THIS:

http://www.bangmarrykill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Christian-Bale.jpg

Lord Baal
May 23, 2010, 12:11 AM
It's nice to see the intellectual maturity of this discussion has remained at such a high level. :rolleyes: If that's what we were talking about, there are several positions I'd like to see Jessica Alba placed in. Preferably in lingerie, while handcuffed.

classical_hero
May 23, 2010, 07:30 AM
Hey, quit stealing my fantasies. ;) I am talking to LB, not bast, BTW.

GoodSarmatian
May 23, 2010, 02:22 PM
As a 90+% heterosexual male I have to admit Christian Bale is one of the few guys I'd probably do...

Lord Baal
May 24, 2010, 01:26 AM
As a 90+% heterosexual male I have to admit Christian Bale is one of the few guys I'd probably do...
I'm tempted to do a "Who would you turn gay for?" thread now. For the record, if I were going to go that way I'm more of a Zac Efron kind of guy.

bigdog5994
May 24, 2010, 05:51 AM
I would like to see The Penguin and Killer Croc

i suck at writing :mad: i sat here for 30 mins typing a whole thing about Killer Croc and the penguin and their origins and all that but since i suck i erased it!!!!!!!! :mad: now im just frustrated

Azale
May 24, 2010, 06:54 AM
It's hard to make Killer Croc in any way realistic. The Penguin could at least be some kind of criminal mastermind with an odd nose or something.

bigdog5994
May 24, 2010, 07:59 AM
It's hard to make Killer Croc in any way realistic. The Penguin could at least be some kind of criminal mastermind with an odd nose or something.

Killer Croc can be a thug from New Orleans that moved to Gotham when a Katrina like hurricane hit the gulf and he should run a gang like that of the Zoe Pound gang in Miami that robs boats caring illegal drug shipments instead of being a giant crocodile man like in the cartoons. His crocodile like appearance in the comic books was explained by some sort of skin condition he was born with but i think he shouldn't have weird crocodile skin at all but instead he got the street name Killer Croc being an ultra violent brutish thug

and Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin should be a bizarro Bruce Wayne

GoodGame
May 24, 2010, 08:41 AM
Batman retires.

Traitorfish
May 24, 2010, 08:44 AM
Batman retires.
Batman intends to retire, but is killed two days early (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retirony). ;)

Jos Ballenbak
May 24, 2010, 03:33 PM
I dunno I would like a cool looking Killer Croc, look at Harvey Dent's Two Face. Like that was realistic... A skin Condition would be cool, also voting for a return of Rha's al Ghul in which his lava bath is introduced which keeps him alive.

Villains:

Killer Croc
Penguin
Riddler
Bane
Deadshot
Black Mask

Azale
May 24, 2010, 09:29 PM
At least Two Face was human, though yea, that whole half corpse face thing really pushed the boundaries already. I don't think anything approaching the comic's take on Killer Croc can be swallowed as serious by moviegoers.

Black Mask would be cool though.

Black Mask has no super-human abilities. However, he is a master criminal strategist with vast amount of resources. He was the crime lord of Gotham city for many years as an undercover businessman.
Black Mask is skilled in the use of handguns. He usually carries at least two automatic pistols. He is a capable hand to hand fighter, able to hold his ground against accomplished martial artists such as Batman and Catwoman. He can take high amounts of damage, while continuing to fight.
Black Mask's most important weapons are fear and intimidation. He is known for his brutal and sadistic torture techniques, especially on the face. Black Mask also uses his connections to gather information on his enemies, and then hits them at their weak points, such as family and friends.

Lord Baal
May 25, 2010, 12:35 AM
Killer Croc would be useless as a main villain. He'll probably eventually be used in a manner similar to Bane in the horrible Batman and Robin; a mindless thug. To be fair, that's all Croc was for most of the comics he's in.

Penguin is someone who can rival Bruce Wayne in wealth and power. That gives him a great deal of potential.

Black Mask would be a good choice, but I don't think the character is well-enough known, unlike a Penguin or Riddler. Makes me wish they'd made a Spider-Man film with The Black Tarantula though. He was an under-used character.

Plotinus
May 25, 2010, 02:57 AM
I have to say, I'd rather like to see a Batman film (or similar) that doesn't have a villain, at least not some iconic super-villain who's the principal antagonist. Almost all the discussion about films like these is "who will the villain be?" without any questioning of the assumption that there must be one. Now in most films, you can have character development, interesting plots, challenges and victories for the main character without having to have some maniac in a green leotard cackling at them. Can't that be done for Batman?

(Of course it won't be - but I still think it's a question worth asking.)

Mad Man
May 25, 2010, 05:16 AM
being an action movie people are going to expect him to fight somebody, although I suppose it doesn't have to be one of his traditional enemies perhaps it can be another superhero(in the last movie he was presumed guilty of murder)?

GoodSarmatian
May 25, 2010, 06:50 AM
Killer Croc can be a thug from New Orleans that moved to Gotham when a Katrina like hurricane hit the gulf and he should run a gang like that of the Zoe Pound gang in Miami that robs boats caring illegal drug shipments instead of being a giant crocodile man like in the cartoons. His crocodile like appearance in the comic books was explained by some sort of skin condition he was born with but i think he shouldn't have weird crocodile skin at all but instead he got the street name Killer Croc being an ultra violent brutish thug


No No No, Adapton Decay, Adaption Decay, In Name Only...
Let him at least be be played by Michael Clarke Duncan with a weird skin condition.

Lord Baal
May 25, 2010, 07:11 AM
I have to say, I'd rather like to see a Batman film (or similar) that doesn't have a villain, at least not some iconic super-villain who's the principal antagonist. Almost all the discussion about films like these is "who will the villain be?" without any questioning of the assumption that there must be one. Now in most films, you can have character development, interesting plots, challenges and victories for the main character without having to have some maniac in a green leotard cackling at them. Can't that be done for Batman?

(Of course it won't be - but I still think it's a question worth asking.)
I remember seeing someone theorise that The Dark Knight had made goofier villains, like The Riddler, unworkable in Nolan's series, and therefore Batman would have to start fighting real-world villains. Osama Bin Laden was mentioned.

Personally, I don't like the idea. In a Batman film, I want to see Batman fighting Batman villains. If you want to create a whole new superhero franchise making up your own villains who re more realistic, go ahead. But if you're working in the Batman franchise, you have to use Batman villains. There are plenty to choose from.

GoodSarmatian
May 25, 2010, 08:19 AM
Seeing what they did with the Joker it shouldn't be too hard to change the Riddler from goofy to creepy.

Plotinus
May 25, 2010, 08:43 AM
being an action movie people are going to expect him to fight somebody, although I suppose it doesn't have to be one of his traditional enemies perhaps it can be another superhero(in the last movie he was presumed guilty of murder)?

Why does Batman have to be all about action anyway? Watchmen was about masked heroes and it wasn't about fighting.

I remember seeing someone theorise that The Dark Knight had made goofier villains, like The Riddler, unworkable in Nolan's series, and therefore Batman would have to start fighting real-world villains. Osama Bin Laden was mentioned.

Personally, I don't like the idea. In a Batman film, I want to see Batman fighting Batman villains. If you want to create a whole new superhero franchise making up your own villains who re more realistic, go ahead. But if you're working in the Batman franchise, you have to use Batman villains. There are plenty to choose from.

Again, I'm not suggesting that they should be making up new villains - I'm suggesting that it doesn't have to be some tremendous battle against "a" villain. It seems to me that if Batman were real he'd spend his time beating up muggers and small-time robbers of that kind, or trying to undermine the work of criminal gangs, rather as Daredevil does with the Kingpin. Now isn't there scope for a story about someone doing that sort of thing which doesn't just devolve into a head-to-head with some single super-villain? What if he deals with a succession of smaller, less dramatic situations, and the film is about the toll this takes on him as a person? Why's it got to be some great big fight against one great big "villain"?

As I said, Watchmen wasn't about the heroes fighting a villain or villains. It was about exactly what I just said - the effect of being a hero upon the people themselves. Certainly the plot featured a dastardly plan which the heroes tried to thwart - but the person behind the plan wasn't exactly a villain, and the heroes were not, in the end, sure about whether to thwart it or not. That was a great book, in part, because it subverted this expectation that superhero stories are just about the hero facing off against a villain. Just as none of the characters was straightforwardly heroic, so too none of them was straightforward villainous either. And indeed The Dark Knight did this too, to some extent, with Harvey Dent, and by making the Joker not a standard villain out for what he could get, but just someone causing whatever chaos occurred to him. And both of the new Batman films tried to explain why Batman is facing increasingly "villainous" villains, with the concept of escalation - the appearance of Batman himself, trying to use drama in his fight against crime, inevitably inspires villains to do the same thing. So the films are already asking why you have a hero versus a villain in the first place. It would be interesting if the third film continues to address that question, at the very least. I remember in Spider-Man 3, Spider-Man fights Sandman and then, recovering afterwards, mutters, "Where do these guys keep coming from?" Well, that's a question that a film like this should ask seriously. Not just "what's the origin story for this particular villain?" - which The Dark Knight cleverly ducked, by not only not showing us where the Joker came from but having him tell inconsistent stories about it himself - but why this weird situation of a hero fighting a succession of mad villains in leotards at all?

Of course a Batman film is still going to be him versus some villain or villains, because that's what people expect; the interest comes from doing it in a different way or with a different emphasis. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be that way, and I think discussion of such things is impoverished when it just revolves around "who the villain will be".

GoodGame
May 25, 2010, 10:49 AM
Why does Batman have to be all about action anyway? Watchmen was about masked heroes and it wasn't about fighting.



Since the comic books, Batman was inherently a vigilante barely within the law so that means finding crooks and abusing their civil rights while apprehending them.

Since the movies, Batman has pretty much been a vehicle for superhero action special FX, besides Superman, since it actually was only recently that Marvel comics' characters were translated into quality films.

Pretty hard to make vigilantism into a discussion about metaphysics, quantum physics, etc.. Other than to interject some social commentary about civil rights of criminals, causes of criminality etc.. But Batman was generally not about sympathizing with psychotic criminals, other than "The Killing Joke". It's more about ruthlessly pursuing the psychotic.

Jos Ballenbak
May 25, 2010, 01:33 PM
excellent deadshot clip, I don't want him to be the main villain but a cool hired gun.

c2Pr33oLAhA

Mad Mikkelsen could play him

Traitorfish
May 26, 2010, 03:55 AM
Since the comic books, Batman was inherently a vigilante barely within the law so that means finding crooks and abusing their civil rights while apprehending them.

Since the movies, Batman has pretty much been a vehicle for superhero action special FX, besides Superman, since it actually was only recently that Marvel comics' characters were translated into quality films.

Pretty hard to make vigilantism into a discussion about metaphysics, quantum physics, etc.. Other than to interject some social commentary about civil rights of criminals, causes of criminality etc.. But Batman was generally not about sympathizing with psychotic criminals, other than "The Killing Joke". It's more about ruthlessly pursuing the psychotic.
What do you think Watchmen actually was? It even included two different Batmans (Batmen?) in the form of Nite Owl and Rorschach; the former was detective-with-gadgets-and-tights Batman, "goodie Batman", while the latter was the darker Batman which emerged in the late 70s/ early 80s, "Dark Knight Batman", who was, in Moore's own words, "a vigilante pyscopath". The characters were, when considered together (there's a reason they were presented as a former duo) was to contrast the idealistic Batman, and, more broadly, idealistic superhero of the Golden Age with the brutal reality the archetype actually implied (and, increasingly, were being realised with).
If the films continue to approach the character intelligently, as they seem to be doing so far, I see no reason why they can't continue to be more than villain-of-the-week slugfests.

bigdog5994
May 26, 2010, 05:28 AM
No No No, Adapton Decay, Adaption Decay, In Name Only...
Let him at least be be played by Michael Clarke Duncan with a weird skin condition.

ok ok ill allow him to be played by Mike Duncan but i dont like the skin condition though i mean i dont want it to be cliche that every villain has a disfigurement that causes them to be evil

Lord Baal
May 26, 2010, 10:48 PM
Seeing what they did with the Joker it shouldn't be too hard to change the Riddler from goofy to creepy.
Except for the awful period of censorship in American comics, I don't recall The Joker ever being goofy, whereas The Riddler always was. I still think Nolan and a talented actor - Depp is a great choice - could make him very dark though. I like the idea of a criminal for whom crimes are a game. He's not in it for the money like Scarecrow, he's not trying to change the world like the League of Shadows, and he's not trying to tear it down like The Joker; The Riddler should be committing crimes simply because he can and no-one can stop him. Having Batman finally outsmart him and prove his intellectual superiority is the worst punishment a man like The Riddler could ever experience, far worse than prison or death.

Why does Batman have to be all about action anyway? Watchmen was about masked heroes and it wasn't about fighting.
I've never seen The Watchmen. It sounds like I should.

Batman is an action franchise. It always has been and it always will be. That mightn't produce the best possible film, but it is what it is. Read the original script for Die Hard: With A Vengeance sometime. It would have been a very, very good film. But the character in it wouldn't have been John McClane, and it wouldn't have been a Die Hard film. Batman is an action franchise, and Batman is a superhero. I don't see that ever changing, and don't really want it to. Leave that to other films to take care of; it sounds like this The Watchmen film did it very well. Let Batman be Batman.


Again, I'm not suggesting that they should be making up new villains - I'm suggesting that it doesn't have to be some tremendous battle against "a" villain.
I don't care about actual battles; the fist-fight with The Joker in TDK was the least important fight they had. TDK was about a battle of wills between The Joker and Batman. It asked very important questions; can we fight against unscrupulous people without resorting to their own methods? Is it worth sacrificing our principles in order to fight the unprincipled? How do we fight against fanatics? The fist-fight was entirely secondary; even in the film The Joker explicitly reveals it to be a diversion from his real power-play - corrupting Harvey Dent.


It seems to me that if Batman were real he'd spend his time beating up muggers and small-time robbers of that kind, or trying to undermine the work of criminal gangs, rather as Daredevil does with the Kingpin.
Isn't that what Batman did with Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow in Batman Begins? Again, the fist-fight at the end is just the pay-off in an action film; the real story was Batman defeating Ra's Al Ghul's plan, not Ra's Al Ghul.

Now isn't there scope for a story about someone doing that sort of thing which doesn't just devolve into a head-to-head with some single super-villain? What if he deals with a succession of smaller, less dramatic situations, and the film is about the toll this takes on him as a person? Why's it got to be some great big fight against one great big "villain"?
Entirely possible. But I don't think it's as interesting - or, more importantly to Nolan and Warner Bros., as profitable - without there being a pulling all the strings and doing this behind the scenes. This is the sort of thing that The Penguin would be the perfect villain for. In fact, that's largely what Tim Burton had him do for the first half of Batman Returns.


As I said, Watchmen wasn't about the heroes fighting a villain or villains. It was about exactly what I just said - the effect of being a hero upon the people themselves. Certainly the plot featured a dastardly plan which the heroes tried to thwart - but the person behind the plan wasn't exactly a villain, and the heroes were not, in the end, sure about whether to thwart it or not. That was a great book, in part, because it subverted this expectation that superhero stories are just about the hero facing off against a villain. Just as none of the characters was straightforwardly heroic, so too none of them was straightforward villainous either. And indeed The Dark Knight did this too, to some extent, with Harvey Dent, and by making the Joker not a standard villain out for what he could get, but just someone causing whatever chaos occurred to him. And both of the new Batman films tried to explain why Batman is facing increasingly "villainous" villains, with the concept of escalation - the appearance of Batman himself, trying to use drama in his fight against crime, inevitably inspires villains to do the same thing. So the films are already asking why you have a hero versus a villain in the first place. It would be interesting if the third film continues to address that question, at the very least. I remember in Spider-Man 3, Spider-Man fights Sandman and then, recovering afterwards, mutters, "Where do these guys keep coming from?" Well, that's a question that a film like this should ask seriously. Not just "what's the origin story for this particular villain?" - which The Dark Knight cleverly ducked, by not only not showing us where the Joker came from but having him tell inconsistent stories about it himself - but why this weird situation of a hero fighting a succession of mad villains in leotards at all?
I liked how TDK ducked an origin-story for The Joker; it was very clever, and reminiscent of The Joker's explanations of his origin in the comics - he has a new one each time, usually whichever story will benefit him the most, like convincing a pretty young psychologist that he had an abusive father and doesn't really want to hurt people.

I think the theme of escalation is a very interesting one that should continue to be explored. Again, I think The Penguin is a very good choice for this; what happens when Bruce Wayne is confronted by someone as wealthy and powerful as himself, but evil? That provides very interesting material for the theme of escalation.


Of course a Batman film is still going to be him versus some villain or villains, because that's what people expect; the interest comes from doing it in a different way or with a different emphasis. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be that way, and I think discussion of such things is impoverished when it just revolves around "who the villain will be".
I'm more interested in the story than the villain. I just think knowing who the villain - or villains - will be strongly hints at the direction the story will go, at least with a smart director like Nolan, who seems to understand Batman very well.

bigdog5994
May 27, 2010, 05:21 AM
Riddler need to be like the Zodiac Killer

Lord Baal
May 28, 2010, 05:07 AM
Riddler need to be like the Zodiac Killer
That's who I had in mind as well. Don't know much about the actual Zodiac killer though.

Jos Ballenbak
May 28, 2010, 08:18 AM
what other zodiac is there other then the the actual Zodiac killer???

GoodSarmatian
May 28, 2010, 08:39 AM
what other zodiac is there other then the the actual Zodiac killer???

Movie versions ? Like the Scorpio killer in Dirty Harry.

GoodGame
May 28, 2010, 11:06 AM
Riddler need to be like the Zodiac Killer

That might be worth seeing. Or just seeing Batman interrupt that Saw guy with his own tirade.

Lord Baal
May 28, 2010, 08:25 PM
what other zodiac is there other then the the actual Zodiac killer???

Movie versions ? Like the Scorpio killer in Dirty Harry.
This.

Nobody
Jun 03, 2010, 02:00 AM
I think The Riddler has been confirmed for this film. I want to see, to quote holy_king, "a dark and edgy Riddler." It will be an incredibly difficult character to make dark and edgy, so I look forward to having a really good actor running with it. If I had a choice, I'd pick Philip Seymour Hoffman. I think he could pull off a creepy Riddler.

I think Philip Seymour Hoffman as penguin. and maybe edward norton as riddler

Mad Man
Jun 03, 2010, 02:05 AM
It might be bad luck to introduce the Riddler in a third film.

GoodSarmatian
Jun 03, 2010, 04:39 AM
It might be bad luck to introduce the Riddler in a third film.
Was Batman Forever really a "third" film, or was it a reboot ?
I don't count it as Batman 3 because it's very different in tone and they changed the direcor and the lead.

Plotinus
Jun 03, 2010, 05:46 AM
No, Batman forever was certainly intended to be the third in the series, not a "reboot", since thankfully they didn't have that concept back then. It was certainly very different from the first two, and vastly inferior in pretty much every way, but that's another matter.

classical_hero
Jun 03, 2010, 06:01 AM
Is it possible for this series to have a credible Robin?

Jos Ballenbak
Jun 03, 2010, 06:22 AM
yeah a robin can be introduced but not as a superhero side kick

Mad Man
Jun 04, 2010, 03:09 AM
It would be interesting if he starts out as a Batman hunting cop(perhaps as part of Gordon's "Nightwing" of the Gotham PD) seeking revenge for the crimes committed by Harvey in the last film.

Plotinus
Jun 04, 2010, 06:28 AM
Is it possible for this series to have a credible Robin?

A credible Robin isn't possible. Full stop.

As soon as Batman gets a sidekick, he stops being serious.

holy king
Jun 04, 2010, 06:35 AM
he could be a guy who just allies with batman on some issue for some time.

Plotinus
Jun 04, 2010, 06:38 AM
Then he wouldn't really be Robin, would he?

holy king
Jun 04, 2010, 07:49 AM
well, he would temporarily be his sidekick.

being batman's side kick is pretty much the whole character description of robin, right?

Plotinus
Jun 04, 2010, 09:13 AM
No, there's more to Robin than merely being Batman's sidekick. He is a teenager who is rather naive and idealistic, for whom Bruce Wayne is a mentor in his "civilian" role as well as in his Batman role. If Batman were to acquire a sidekick who is a cynical middle-aged man with a drug problem and family of four to support, that wouldn't be Robin.

warpus
Jun 04, 2010, 10:22 AM
How about Oprah as penguin and the olsen twins as the robinettes?

Kullervo
Jun 04, 2010, 01:45 PM
A very good plot. I don't need another almost all-powerful supervillain vs. almost-all-powerful-but-more-all-powerful-than-the-almost-all-powerful-supervillain-superhero, cheesy ending about 'I'm the only one that can do this job' stuff. I want a very good, psychologically intense, active, SENSIBLE plot line with no obvious stupidities Like the situation with the barges in the second one. In real life, both buttons get pressed within a few minutes.

And I want good acting. If Heath Ledger was up for the role again, I'd definitely go see it, because that's what made the second one worth watching. As it is... Johnny Depp or Kevin Spacey (or maybe Downey Jr.) might make the third one better.

GoodSarmatian
Jun 04, 2010, 02:27 PM
No, there's more to Robin than merely being Batman's sidekick. He is a teenager who is rather naive and idealistic, for whom Bruce Wayne is a mentor in his "civilian" role as well as in his Batman role. If Batman were to acquire a sidekick who is a cynical middle-aged man with a drug problem and family of four to support, that wouldn't be Robin.

Scrap the middle-aged and there's no contradictions.
Robin could be a teenaged drug-addict with a child. A very clicheed and offensive depiction of a black youth growing up in the ghetto. The twist ? He's white !

I'm half-kidding. Robin the child/teenage-sidekick would be very hard to pull off in a such serious and dark movie. The above version could work, but might as well turn out too angsty and annoying.

scherbchen
Jun 04, 2010, 07:23 PM
well the only comic book (I read) that ever did a decent sidekick was x-men imho, even before the joss whedon-kitty-spidey stuff wolverine and shadowcat had a very uncreepy sidekick relationship which might be due to shadowcat's defensive powerset and Logan's penchant for ultra-powered red-heads and dead asians.

Robin is really just a wannabe-bats or a miniature bats that dons colours and gets himself caught.

Mad Man
Jun 05, 2010, 12:58 AM
Then he wouldn't really be Robin, would he?

In the current comics Robin has evolved past being a sidekick and is more less his own Super Hero with his own(mostly crappy) villains.

Jos Ballenbak
Jun 05, 2010, 04:00 AM
in the past comics the readers wanted robin dead.

Mad Man
Jun 05, 2010, 04:05 AM
That was post Tim Drake;)

Plotinus
Jun 05, 2010, 07:58 AM
I want a very good, psychologically intense, active, SENSIBLE plot line with no obvious stupidities Like the situation with the barges in the second one. In real life, both buttons get pressed within a few minutes.

How do you know that? And isn't the fact that you might expect people to behave badly in such a situation, when in fact they don't, kind of the whole point of that part of the film? The Joker is right to think he can corrupt Harvey Dent, but he is wrong to think he can do the same thing to ordinary people.

Scrap the middle-aged and there's no contradictions.
Robin could be a teenaged drug-addict with a child. A very clicheed and offensive depiction of a black youth growing up in the ghetto. The twist ? He's white !

Yes. But he still can't be middle-aged. That's enough to establish the point I was making, which is that for a character to be Robin requires something more than merely being Batman's sidekick. He also needs, at least, to be young.

In the current comics Robin has evolved past being a sidekick and is more less his own Super Hero with his own(mostly crappy) villains.

So it's possible to be Robin without even being Batman's sidekick. In other words, being Batman's sidekick is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for being Robin. Although I suppose that being, having been, or going to be Batman's sidekick at some point is a necessary condition for being Robin.

Kullervo
Jun 05, 2010, 10:07 AM
How do you know that? And isn't the fact that you might expect people to behave badly in such a situation, when in fact they don't, kind of the whole point of that part of the film? The Joker is right to think he can corrupt Harvey Dent, but he is wrong to think he can do the same thing to ordinary people.


I'm just saying that that is extremely idealistic. Both ordinary people and people higher up the ladder can be corrupted by the same things. I've seen this before, I've been at the butt of people choosing themselves over everything else, albeit on a smaller scale. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But all my experiences so far point to my conclusion as being correct.

And, to keep this OT, I'll add that I'd like a decent soundtrack to the film. The ones used in the first two were OK, but they were so monotonous.

err, in this case, OT stands for On-Topic