The "Nolan's views on Batman villains" thread

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I never said it was all about vanity.

It isn't about vanity at all, that's why.

Originally Posted by KalMart

So I don't see it as being purposely 'grungy' or unkempt unkept.

The film makers themselves said it was supposed to be grungy, and un-KEPT

See I can correct spelling as well.

There is no vanity in the Joker. His looks are merely eccentric, theatrical, and flamboyant.

He's not combing his hair, tucking in his shirts, wearing fadoras, dressing like a mobster.

Afterall the Joker is highlighting the differences between himself and typical Gotham criminals from their underworld.

That's why the second Joker does get concerned with his look (IE "hello beautiful") and sloppily moves his hair back ... it's supposed to be comical, because he is so disgusting looking.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

It isn't about vanity at all, that's why.


The film makers themselves said it was supposed to be grungy, and un-KEPT

See I can correct spelling as well.

There is no vanity in the Joker. His looks is merely eccentric, theatrical, and flamboyant.

He's not combin his hair, tucking in his shirts, wearing fadoras, dressing like a mobster.

Afterall the Joker is highlighting the differences between himself an typical Gotham criminals from their underworld.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unkempt



Nice try, though.


He's also not wearing torn or tattered loose-fitting shirts or pants, plaid flannels......

Again...more 'mod' than 'grunge', if you will...or maybe a combination thereof from clothes to face, respectively. 'Modge'....or 'Grud'....

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

He's also not wearing torn or tattered loose-fitting shirts or pants, plaid flannels......

Who said clothes have to be torn to not be expressing a form of vanity?

Oh and he is wearing a plaid flannel, purple and blue, in the bank robbery scene under his blue suit coat.

Either way, you're wrong.

The film makers have specifically said his look was grungy, punk rock, anarchist.

Not vanity, mobster, mod, or whatever you want to call it.

[DaveMoral]

As a punk/hardcore kid, I can confidently say that many punks are very much so vain about their appearance and the "uniform" that is punk fashion. It's pretty lame, if you ask me.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

Who said clothes have to be torn to not be expressing a form of vanity?

I never said his clothes were about vanity.

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

Oh and he is wearing a plaid flannel, purple and blue, in the bank robbery scene under his blue suit coat.

Tucked in....with the buttons all the way up....nice...

And......



.....plaid?

Maybe there's a Nirvana T-shirt underneath there or something.

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

Either way, you're wrong.

Awwwww......!

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

The film makers have specifically said his looks was grungy, punk rock, anarchist.

Not vanity, mobster, mod, or whatever you want to call it.

Punk rockers dress eccentric, but not vain.

I never said he dressed vain.


'Night.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

As a punk/hardcore kid, I can confidently say that many punks are very much so vain about their appearance and the "uniform" that is punk fashion. It's pretty lame, if you ask me.

'Cuz they're all trying to be different in the same way. They're looking for approval and belonging just like anyone else...they're human.

[hafizbat]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

I like that Nolan's Joker looks dirty

Actually, the suit....it wasn't cheap.

Seriously though, that line makes it clear that he's not exactly walking around like a hobo, as you keep trying to say. Yeah, he does get disheveled and his makeup smears, but I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it...Also, why would he then put on fresh make-up every time if he didn't care?

The Joker actually had a pretty classy outfit. Custom made, too. I liked that he had a certain panache to him. And I disagree, I think Bane better suits what you are trying to say, as his outfit is PURELY functional. Nothing stylish about it.

[DaveMoral]

Originally Posted by KalMart

'Cuz they're all trying to be different in the same way. They're looking for approval and belonging just like anyone else...they're human.

And being judgey.

That being said, I once went to a show with a kid that wore a three piece suit. He was the only unique person there and he in no way considered himself a "punk." And yet he just didn't care about fitting into that, he went, he had a ton of fun and he was wearing a three piece suit. That's hilarious to see in a mosh pit.

[NolansKnight]

You can see the plaid undercoat when he's getting into the bus after the robbery.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

And being judgey.

That being said, I once went to a show with a kid that wore a three piece suit. He was the only unique person there and he in no way considered himself a "punk." And yet he just didn't care about fitting into that, he went, he had a ton of fun and he was wearing a three piece suit. That's hilarious to see in a mosh pit.

Maybe he actually.....had a job....or something...? That is pretty unique.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

You can see the plaid undercoat when he's getting into the bus after the robbery.

I heard there's a small hole in his underwear...but it's only a rumor.

[DaveMoral]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Maybe he actually.....had a job....or something...? That is pretty unique.

No, this kid was 15. We went to the show one Friday night... I can't remember why he wore what he wore. He just did it. Good times.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

No, this kid was 15. We went to the show one Friday night... I can't remember why he wore what he wore. He just did it. Good times.

Maybe he's an aspiring art student.

15....was he at least chaperoned?

[DaveMoral]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Maybe he's an aspiring art student.

15....was he at least chaperoned?

Well, you could say that. I was 17 or 18 at the time. Hahaha.

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I heard there's a small hole in his underwear...but it's only a rumor.

It's visible, re-watch the scene. Get a job, upgrade your tv to high def and get a blu-ray.

Slacker.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

It's visible, re-watch the scene. Get a job, upgrade your tv to high def and get a blu-ray.

Slacker.

So we can pick up the few frames of grunge in HD....gotcha'.

I heard they're plaid boxers.

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I heard they're plaid boxers.

They probably are ... long underwear actually. Tucked into his socks to convey the obvious vanity Nolan was going for with his "grunge, anarchist, street" type Joker.

[KalMart]

Worn loosely....like a good grunge-boy should.....




...but it's just a rumor.

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

...but it's just a rumor.

True. Either way, get a job and treat yourself to a new tv.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

True. Either way, get a job and treat yourself to a new tv.

If you only knew...

[NolansKnight]

Originally Posted by KalMart

If you only knew...

You're excessive use of gay emoticons tells me you bought a new tv, while you still live with your parents and don't have to pay: rent, car note, bills, etc. Congrats.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

You're excessive use of gay emoticons tells me you bought a new tv, while you still live with your parents and don't have to pay: rent, car note, bills, etc. Congrats.

That'd be pretty grunge....

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by NolansKnight

Alex from a Clockwork Orange + John Doe from Se7en + Johnny Rotten + Comic book Joker = One of the best and sickest movie villains of ALL TIME.

Heath Ledger's Joker isn't anywhere near Malcolm McDowell's Alex from A Clockwork Orange.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Fair enough. While I don't disagree with you, the idea of no Batman for a long time makes me nervous lol!

Haha, now THAT, I understand, is fair.

Originally Posted by ShadowBoxer

I have to admit I wasn't really excited about this movie as I was for TDK just because Bane isn't really one of my fave Bat villians ( though I do like him and the Knight Fall arch). I would have much rather seen Riddler, Pengiun, or Hugo Strange, Black Mask, or even DeadShot and DeathStroke in the film over Bane.

Even Mr Freeze could be done in a realistic way sorta. I saw a story on Extreme Home Make Over a few years ago, about a family who had daughter with a medical condition that required her to wear a vest with some sort of coolant in it to keep her body from over heating. That could be one way to make him a bit more realistic.

I'll give you Riddler, Penguin, even Strange but... seriously? Mask, DeadShot and deathstroke? Over the guy who crippled Batman and manipulated the entire rogues gallery and had Alexandre Dumas-esque undertones? Nope. I agree about Freeze though - he always brings that sense of grief and justice distorted by the thirst of retribution that fuels (fuelled?) Bruce. He'd have been an excellent character in a Nolan movie where most men usually go bonkers after having their wife die. Fact that Nora is "still frozen" (am I the only one who thinks of Ibsen at the name?) and idolised to the point of deathlessness would've served as a beautiful echo to the loss of Rachel.

But I guess that's not the movie Nolan is making. Freeze is a different archetype altogether. Strange, however, was easily an archetype covered by mad-scientist-with-psychological-fetish Jonathan Crane. And I still think that the Riddler is somewhat different from the Joker in the sense that he's always the invisible trickster, whereas Joker is the more aggressive and I'll say extroverted trickster. But yeah, both are very much alike and an invisible Riddler like he's in Hush would simply make him an anti-Joker. Bane is an inspired choice.

Originally Posted by The Bruce

I love Nolan's Batman, but at the same time I can't wait for a fresh look at the movie franchise. Somebody has to have the skill to make an intelligent movie while still keeping the comic book stuff. More true to the books.

Imagine a Joker like the one in the Red hood movie.

Again, I'd rather we didn't for some time. This already was a fresh look, which managed to be respectful of the source. You don't reboot a reboot.

I'm sure we'll get another Batman film after TDKR that goes back to the comics, at least visually, but I just don't see the point in that. After Batman Returns it would've been excellent to see a 9-year-old traumatised Dick Grayson -centric story that gave us a matured look at Robin and a fatherly Wayne seeing himself in the boy. Like the episodes in BTAS. Now... I just don't see that happening. Maybe it would've worked if Nolan limited his trilogy to the early-years, but he isn't. I don't want to see "whats next for Batman-on-film". I'd like to celebrate this masterpiece for a while longer. No harm there right guys?

Originally Posted by Miranda Fox

Except that's not really what Nolan said at all.

Yup. We should try and listing the different archetypes that comprise Batman's rogues gallery. Anyone game?

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Actually, the suit....it wasn't cheap.

Oh and, excellent post on the Joker NolansKnight

[BlueLightning]

I think it is a little exagerated to think that Nolan takes the remaining characters as "watered down versions of the Joker", because he took almost every A-list villain onto his films. Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, The Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Catwoman, Talia al Ghul, and also taking in count Victor Zsaz, Carmine Falcone, Salvatore Maroni.

We know now that the studio was pushing for The Riddler, which I think it is the wrong choice with upping up the game in the third film. And not necessarily because it would be too similar to the Joker, but because the modus operandi, with his mind games (which I think they are completely different from the Joker in motivation) of the character would make the film feel like another episode of the franchise, hence similar to The Dark Knight. It could have been awesome, but not necessarily progression and culmination, which is what Nolan aimed at first.

Who is left? Besides the Riddler, we have Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat who are to Sci-Fi for this world, though I would have loved to see Nolan's interpretation of Mr. Freeze. Killer Croc can't sustain a movie on his own, and though not impossible to make, it would have been tricky. The Penguin would have fit into this world, but to make it work it would have been retreading into the gangsters of the previous films. The Ventriloquist and Scarface, who are a personal favorite of mine, would get stuck in the same way as the Penguin. Mad Hatter wouldn't fit the bill either, falling into the same territory as Riddler. Harley Quinn well, if the Joker was not returning, there is no reason to have her.

I don't like Black Mask, but then again, we would be back with the mob. Other characters like We have left then with Hugo Strange, Deadshot and Bane, from which Bane is the only one who can offer a physical challenge with plausible characteristics, and he fits the bill of an "ending" villian of sorts.

We have to take into account that Chris Nolan, while being a fan of the character, isn't well versed in the Batman comics.

I recently aquired "The Art and Making of The Dark Knight Trilogy", and in the chapter where there are developing Batman Begins, David Goyer is the man Chris Nolan chooses for developing the story, and Nolan was fascinated by the story. Nolan states that, for Begins, they didn't want to do any of the other villians already made on the previous films. I'll transcribe an excerpt.

They were determined, as well, to feature villains that would be new to Batman movie audiences, and felt strongly that they should avoid using any of the villains that have been seen in previous films. Already introducing audience members to a different kind of Batman, they didn't want to confuse them further with a reinvention of the Joker or Penguin.

It was a tough standard to meet, however, as most of the high profile villains in Batman's rogue gallery had already seen screen time "Chris and I had a long discussion about the various rogues that were left", recalled Goyer, "and I knew them all. He asked me: 'Okay, who's left?' Who can we use?' So I told him, 'Well, there's the Calendar Man.' ''What does he do?' 'He kills people based on holiday themes.' Chris said 'No way. Who else?' 'Well, there's the Mad Hatter.' Gone. 'There is Killer Croc, this half-human, half-crocodile that lives in the sewers' Gone. 'There is Clay Face, the human mud heap' That wasn't going to work either."

"And then I told him that among the villains that hadn't been seen in features yet was one of my favorites - Ra's al Ghul. Chris asked 'Who is Ra's al Ghul?' And I said, 'Funny you should ask', because we'd been talking about coming up with a villain who was older and could function as Bruce's mentor, and then go bad and be the villain. Ra's was perfect for that because, in the comics, he is older and has a paternalistic quality."

Also, funny thing. Nolan at first disliked that the Scarecrow had to wear a mask. He needed a sense of functionality, and Goyer fought tooth and nails to get Scarecrow his mask, and made it a gas mask that protected him from the fear toxin.

From what I have seen, story has come up first in the process of making the films, and a sense of progression with what have been done. I can see that for the third film, Nolan wanted first and foremost, make and ending for Bruce's journey, and there are few villains with the reputation and characteristics that can offer something new that could serve for a finale, instead of a more episodic approach.