The Dark Knight Rises An interesting quote

[JP060692]

Somewhere- I don't remember where (it would be great if someone could find the original quote)- Christopher Nolan stated something to the effect that Mr. Freeze wouldn't be in the future installment. What would make him so definitively disregard the character in such a nascent phase of the project?

 

[General Vulcun]

Because he knows what the story is going to be and which villains fit that story, and Mr. Freeze doesn't fit.

 

[JP060692]

Because he knows what the story is going to be and which villains fit that story, and Mr. Freeze doesn't fit.

Really? Well, if that's true, it seems to be a very logical, straightforward answer, but I can't help to think that there might be a deeper reason...

 

[General Vulcun]

Really? Well, if that's true, it seems to be a very logical, straightforward answer, but I can't help to think that there might be a deeper reason...

Well, for all we know Nolan doesn't like Mr. Freeze as a character at all, and in that case it's good that the character isn't in the film because you don't want a director handling a character that they just aren't wild about (ex. Sam Raimi and Venom).

That said, I don't know if Nolan likes or dislikes Mr. Freeze, so I'm just going to assume that he believes the character has the potential to be done justice in another film, just not in Batman 3.

 

[BatScot]

Mr. Freeze is simply not a believable character in the 'real world' context Nolan has created.

 

[Grommers]

Nolan is a pretty straight forward guy, it just doesn't work in his universe. He has a nack of being creative and straightforward at the same time too.

I wouldn't take much of what he says out of context.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's logical for a few reasons.

1. You've gotta think where this plot is going. It's come from being a symbol and changing the ease with which criminals were getting away with things, to inspiring greatness in good men and letting mad men out of the wood work like Joker. Now he's going to be labelled the villain.

And while we don't know exactly what the plot is going to be, if it's going to follow along the same thread, then it's hard to see how Mr Freezes plot line could fit into that.

2. Nothing with a freeze ray will ever be taken seriously. And TBH, I think Nolan's real worldness extends very heavily to weapons. Even Batman's weapons are realistic. And a freeze ray, even if you power it with something a bit more believable and explainable that big diamonds, is never going to be that realistic.

3. I'd personally avoid absolutely ANYTHING that was used in B&R just to avoid the stigma. No poison ivy, no Mr Freeze, no Batgirl etc etc.

 

[General Vulcun]

I personally believe Mr. Freeze could work in Nolan's world. Would he have to get creative? Of course, and that's the exciting part, to take a character we thought knew and see a completely original spin on them. But Mr. Freeze impossible to do in Nolan's world? Nope.

 

[BatScot]

In order for Mr. Freeze to work in Nolan's world the character would need to be so dramatically altered that the result would no longer resemble the original in any significant way.

 

[General Vulcun]

So in a world where there's microwave emitters and giant sonar devices, there's no room for a freeze gun? Even if Nolan had decided to use Mr. Freeze in B3, I really do believe that not only could he pull off a version of the freeze gun, but also a version of the suit.

Would Nolan provide a version of the character that was extremely close to what we see in the comics or BTAS? I think he would be faithful to the character, but I also think Nolan would attempt something new, both visually and how the character functions in story, the world, etc. We've seen Nolan take on villains in new ways, ways that have divided some fans (Ra's doesn't have Talia or the Lazarus Pit, Scarecrow doesn't wear a ragged suit with straw sticking out, Joker isn't perma-white) but have still remained faithful to who these characters are at heart.

I personally feel that what makes Mr. Freeze such an interesting character is his tragic turn moreso than his suit or weaponry, and that you could produce a faithful version of the character without having him wear the suit or having a freeze gun. I think Nolan would try to include those in some capacity, but I do believe the character can be portrayed faithfully without them, even if it did end up divided some fans.

But just taking the character as he is, he's not supernatural at all. His deformity is a freak occurance, and his suit & gun are products of science; ridiculous science, but as I said, look at the other occurances of ridiculous science in Nolan's films so far. In our world these ideas may seem improbable and preposterous, but even in the world Nolan has created this isn't impossible to achieve.

I think some of the worry behind this is A) how could Mr. Freeze be portrayed visually?, and B) how similar would Mr. Freeze be to the comics version? I personally don't even think about B) all that much for reasons I listed above, but A) is more interesting. Aside from The Joker, Nolan hasn't gone very theatrical with any of the other villains, but he did allow Two-Face to walk into clear view with half his face missing & his speech unharmed by the fire. Despite the visual faithfulness to the character, his deformity still comes across as ridiculous. I know some people have gone on about infections to Harvey's wound, but for the most part it's an aspect of the film that, despite its over the top visual, most fans love, including myself.

I think this speaks to what Nolan is willing to allow visually and conceptually. A man in intense pain with half his face missing can exist and function in his world, so why can't a man with frozen skin and a weaponized suit & gun exist as well? The science in this world is clearly there to support these weapons, and having frozen skin is no more ridiculous than mising half your face, especially in the manner Nolan showed Two-Face. Some people may dispute how this could be pulled off visually, but as I said in a previous post this is where creativity comes into play, being able to visually reinvent how these characters look and function in this world while still remaining faithful to who the character is at heart.

I strongly believe this is achievable in with Mr. Freeze in Nolan's films.

 

[BatScot]

So in a world where there's microwave emitters and giant sonar devices, there's no room for a freeze gun?

Microwave emitters are real technology and the 'sonar' device wasn't giant per se but an array of devices along the same lines of radio telescopes or peer-to-peer networks. Neither might actually work in the way Nolan presented but the technology upon which the fictional device was based is real technology. Comparatively, the idea of someone running around with a freeze ray is quite ridiculous and so far removed from the Nolan viewpoint that it is self-evident that he would not think to go there. That being said, a 'freeze gun' is not the fundamental problem (prototypes of sorts have been put to use, for example, to extinguish fires). The main problem is a human with a biological condition such that his life functions can only be maintained at sub-freezing temperatures--that human does not and could no exist within a real world context. Freeze is a fantasy character and Nolan does not appear to be at all interested in introducing fantasy elements into these Batman films.

 

[Brother Jack]

The main problem is a human with a biological condition such that his life functions can only be maintained at sub-freezing temperatures--that human does not and could no exist within a real world context.

Neither could Batman, the Joker, or Two-Face but that hasn't stopped Nolan. The fantasy elements are all still there, they're just done in a more grounded and sometimes subtle way.

 

[BatScot]

Neither could Batman, the Joker, or Two-Face but that hasn't stopped Nolan. The fantasy elements are all still there, they're just done in a more grounded and sometimes subtle way.

No matter how unlikely or however improbable, a human could choose to dress in a batsuit, a human could put white makeup on his face, and a human could survive facial disfigurement. People in this world have survived worse and done stranger things. But never in the entire history of human existence has an individual needed to wear a cryogenic suit in order to survive. The Batman, the Joker, and Two-Face could exist. Someone like Mr. Freeze could not. Nolan has chosen only those characters that could exist in the real world, and that includes Ra’s (who, with the exception of the Lazarus Pit—which was discarded—is a human being in the same sense as you and I). Mr. Freeze is not, and never could be. And if you were to strip the character down so that he could exist, very little of the original would be left. Yes, you could retain his tragic back story. But then again, once the fantasy elements of the character are discarded you don’t need a frozen man to tell the tale. And at that point, well there’s really no point in doing it.

 

[Squidboy]

I believe in whatever article you're thinking of, Nolan used Mr. Freeze as a character that would be too unrealistic to use in his movies. Could he, should he with to, make a more down-to-earth version of him? I'm sure he could, but he'd probably rather use a character who is more grounded in reality, so that so much time isn't needed to explain and/or showcase the means by which his powers and tech work.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Nolan's Batman movies aren't realistic at all. They just give off the illusion of realism.

It's unlikely that someone with Dent's injuries would survive as long as he did outside of the hospital, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to just ignore the pain, and the painkillers would make them languid. So he wouldn't be able to go out and kill multiple people, survive Maroni's car crash, etc. And then there's the microwave emitter, fear gas, cape that glides through Gotham and Hong Kong with amazing precision (and functions as a parachute so that Bats and Rachel fall onto a car without a scratch), tumbler that can hop into a parking garage from seemingly out of nowhere, batpod, etc.

What I'm trying to say is, Mr. Freeze could definitely work in this version of Batman. Nolan likely just has another villain in mind for the movie.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

He's recently said no to Riddler as well. So who knows what that man (or his brother and friend) is (are) thinking.

Freeze is a great villain, but his defining quality isn't cold tragedy, it's generating science-fiction oriented ICE GUNS. I think the series calls for characters less fantasy-laden. Science Fiction and Fantasy often go hand in hand, and Batman's a detective story.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

No matter how unlikely or however improbable, a human could choose to dress in a batsuit, a human could put white makeup on his face, and a human could survive facial disfigurement. People in this world have survived worse and done stranger things. But never in the entire history of human existence has an individual needed to wear a cryogenic suit in order to survive. The Batman, the Joker, and Two-Face could exist. Someone like Mr. Freeze could not. Nolan has chosen only those characters that could exist in the real world, and that includes Ra’s (who, with the exception of the Lazarus Pit—which was discarded—is a human being in the same sense as you and I). Mr. Freeze is not, and never could be. And if you were to strip the character down so that he could exist, very little of the original would be left. Yes, you could retain his tragic back story. But then again, once the fantasy elements of the character are discarded you don’t need a frozen man to tell the tale. And at that point, well there’s really no point in doing it.

Excellent post! Your logic is spot on mate! A great, serious version of Freeze should be saved for the Bat-movies that come after the Nolan series. I definitely think WB will eventually introduce more live-action movies that are serious, but also include the fantasy or science fiction elements that Nolan tends to cut out or shy away from. I really do enjoy his take on a real-world Batman, but to make Mr. Freeze work in it, he really can't even be Mr. Freeze...so there's ultimately no point.

 

[Al-Pennyworth]

I think by ruling him out so quick he was obviously having a small jab at Batman & Robin.

 

[CrimsonDeath]

Well, based on the last two movies, whatever villains Nolan does end up using will be complex enough to drive the story of a 2 hour plus movie.
In Nolan I trust.

All the villains so far have retained their spirit, so to speak, especially the Joker, and these clash against everything Batman stand for in thematic contrast.
Can the Batman villains be distilled of their fantastical elements to their very essence, and still be the comic book villains? Joker and his lack of white skin, Ra's Al Ghul and no Lazarus pit, they still were the comic book villains in the Nolan films, brought to life.
Whatever villains are picked have to be able to retain their essence on screen without their "fantasy" elements. But many will argue that without the "whole" package, it's just not the same villain. I will give Nolan the benefit of doubt.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

...besides, there are much more interesting villains out there who don't push the realm of believability. Don't get me wrong, Freeze has been one of my favorite rogues since Heart of Ice (and even after B&R) but there are certainly less over-the-top antagonists out there who are just as challenging to put into the big screen. I don't think Nolan and co (even Bale with his comments about Batman's cinematic history) ever harangued the Schumacher films. Nolan himself said he loved Burton's films when he was younger but always wanted to watch a Batman origin story like Donner's Superman: The Movie (which should give Superman fans a hint at what's going on behind the scenes in the upcoming reboot). If anything, the reason he won't use Freeze is because the villain has been used prominently before and the team behind Batman films are willing to take the challenge of adapting characters who haven't been adapted before. Freeze falls into that category, as well as others, diminishing his usefulness. For all we know, the next film (if they use two villains) could be either a character who had been used before as well as a new one, or some new villain(s) completely.

 

[CJ]

What would make him so definitively disregard the character in such a nascent phase of the project?

Because Mr Freeze was the villain of B&R, a movie which killed the franchise. Obviously, Freeze wasn't the reason B&R sucked, it was the writing and casting of the film. But people will always associate Mr Freeze (and Robin) as being the reason for the film's suckitude. Nolan was skirting around the question of who will be the villain of TDKR, by referencing the worst film in the series, basically saying in a joking manner "Well HE definitely won't be in it, lol."

 

[Team Andino]

Because Mr Freeze was the villain of B&R, a movie which killed the franchise. Obviously, Freeze wasn't the reason B&R sucked, it was the writing and casting of the film. But people will always associate Mr Freeze (and Robin) as being the reason for the film's suckitude. Nolan was skirting around the question of who will be the villain of TDKR, by referencing the worst film in the series, basically saying in a joking manner "Well HE definitely won't be in it, lol."

If Joker had been done horribly in a Joel Schumacher film then would it be ok to ignore him in a future reboot? I'm not saying Mr. Freeze NEEDS to be in a Nolan Batman film just you can't blame characters for a bad movie when the people who put it together are the ones who truly butchered it. I'm happy to finally have a Two-Face that I can look at in a live action movie and say how bad ass he is instead of how ass bad he is. If Nolan doesn't wanna use Mr. Freeze it's because he must feel it doesn't fit the world and rules hes created in his Batman world not because it was apart of a bad movie back in 1997.

 

[CJ]

If Joker had been done horribly in a Joel Schumacher film then would it be ok to ignore him in a future reboot?

That's a different scenario. The Joker is known as Batman's greatest villain. Even before Nicholson's take on the character, he was very much beloved. If he was mishandled, the general moviegoer would just wait for the next director to do him justice.

Freeze, however, was a villain mostly known by die-hard Batman fans. He wasn't a household name like The Joker. His appearance in B&R was for many people, their introduction to the character, and so, mainstream audiences will always associate Mr Freeze with Arnold and the B&R film. Thus, the character has become a complete joke, and the general moviegoer doesn't really want to see him return.

 

[Mister Meddle]

It bothers me when Nolan attempts to go above and beyond with his personal approach rather than accepting the fact that the Batman Universe isn't necessarily "realistic". The reason the characters in the Schumacher films didn't go over well was because they weren't convincing and at times it was hard to take them serious.

Personally I think Mr. Freeze is very fascinating, especially the character from Batman The Animated Series. The character shouldn't look so "toyetic" like the character from Batman & Robin. If only a director gives him the proper treatment and makes the character as convincing as anyone featured in the previous Nolan-Two then I'm sure everyone would be sold and have an entire new view on Mr. Freeze.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

^ Batman has a reputation of being the most 'believable' superhero in comics, his stories are also all centered around noir, crime genres (DETECTIVE comics). Sure, his stories aren't realistic, but they are fitted with a strong sense of naturalism, almost scientific in deliverance, that makes him more factual than his peers. As for Schumacher's films, they weren't supposed to be convincing, they were supposed to be over-the-top and a nod to the equally superfluous Adam West interpretation.

Having said that, yes Mr. Freeze can definitely be written well and exist in the same world as Batman, but if his freezing-gun isn't something that Nolan wants in his retelling, then it shouldn't be there. Each bat-villain has a gimmick, or a defining quality. For Scarecrow it was the fear-gas (something that Nolan, showing a penchant for all things cerebral, wouldbe interested in); Ra's Al Ghul was his international-terrorist faction (he's primarily the 'head' of a league, not necessarily an immortal man--but even that's been alluded to in the series to better define both the nature of the retelling as well as the character); The Joker's was the clown-get up (and madness); and Two-Face it's that blown-up-face-symbolising-his-split-sense-of-morality. All four were more or less grounded in the realm of possibility (except for Scarecrow), is that the same for a man with a freezing gun?

I think Victor functions better as an archetype of a super-villain; a mad-scientist with a strange, demented vendetta (his wife isn't dead, his project isn't ruined in Heart of Ice) wielding a freezing ray (a near-universal characteristic in comics). Sorry if I'm bantering.