The Dark Knight Rises Batman 3: Without a main villain?

[ChrisB]

There are many rumors of Catwoman, Riddler, and now Killer Croc as possible villains in Batman 3. Nolan has said he wants to finish his story...is it possible he'll focus on the conflicts Batman is dealing with, rather than introduce a new character? Let's keep this topic focused on Batman's conflicts (he is wanted for murder now after-all) and not necessarily new villains.

SHH's own Smit24 wrote an excellent opinion piece, check it out and let me know if you agree or disagree with his article. It's a great read!
http://batman-news.com/2010/10/11/opinion-could-batman-3-not-have-a-main-villain/

 

[Brother Jack]

I don't see why Nolan can't focus on Batman/Bruce's inner conflicts while still having new villains in the fray. But even if he doesn't bring in any new character there will be a villain; based on the ending to TDK the villain in the next film would be Batman himself. This story avenue seems like the obvious next step, along with incorporating Riddler and Catwoman.

 

[Laderlappen]

Explain how you make a superhero movie without villians! What would Bruce Wayne do, sit in his mansion and drink some tea with Alfred for 2 hours?

 

[ChrisB]

Explain how you make a superhero movie without villians! What would Bruce Wayne do, sit in his mansion and drink some tea with Alfred for 2 hours?

You should definitely check out the article: http://batman-news.com/2010/10/11/opinion-could-batman-3-not-have-a-main-villain/

But basically there would be villains, just not a main villain. Supporting villains like Scarecrow/Falcone/Two-Face (in terms of screentime) will definitely be there. But what if Batman himself was the "villain" and the movie focused on his struggle to clear his name and restore faith in the people of Gotham. One has to think a large chunk of Batman 3 will focus around Batman after the way TDK ended.

 

[Smit84]

The main purpose of the article is to speculate why we haven't had any villain announcements or casting. Nolan really emphasized his returning cast and his focus on bringing this trilogy to an end. With Batman a fugitive, that's already plenty of conflict. And you can do a Batman film without a main villain who Batman has to stop.

It's all my opinion, but Nolan likely will do something people aren't expecting.

 

[hatebox]

Since Begins came very close to a no main villain scenario it's not at all difficult to imagine.

 

[Naite22]

Focus should definitely be on batman. Make it intimate around a huge large ****ing scale.

 

[Laderlappen]

You should definitely check out the article: http://batman-news.com/2010/10/11/opinion-could-batman-3-not-have-a-main-villain/

But basically there would be villains, just not a main villain. Supporting villains like Scarecrow/Falcone/Two-Face (in terms of screentime) will definitely be there. But what if Batman himself was the "villain" and the movie focused on his struggle to clear his name and restore faith in the people of Gotham. One has to think a large chunk of Batman 3 will focus around Batman after the way TDK ended.

So like Batman Begins basically?

 

[BestGirl]

No main villain sounds like a real step down after TDK.

 

[The Joker]

No main villain sounds like a real step down after TDK.

I agree. That's why I don't believe it. The Joker left some big shoes to fill. No way they're not having a main villain.

 

[Smit84]

I agree. That's why I don't believe it. The Joker left some big shoes to fill. No way they're not having a main villain.

Well my thinking is just the opposite. Any prominent villain that is used will just be seen as "this is how they (the filmakers) are trying to top the Joker." If Nolan doesn't concern himself with a Big Bad and relies on audience's investment with the core characters which he clearly is, it renders the issue moot.

Stax from IGN believes the villain will be Catwoman for similar reasons. He argues that any male villain will be compared to Ledger but if you make it a female villain, then people likely won't compare the two as much. I think Catwoman would fit the scenario better than Riddler. As much as I love the Riddler, if they make him this guy who is terrorizing Gotham by leaving riddlers and doing heinous acts if they aren't solved, he definately will come across as a Joker knock-off.

 

[Doc Samson]

There's more than likely going to be a villain, but I think people need to remember the genius of BB. Nolan took essentially two lesser known villains (in terms of the general public) and crafted a classic, while still focusing a great deal on Bruce Wayne himself, it can be done again.

Creating a new vision for the Joker/Two-Face was a no-brainer. In most people's estimation, these are the two most iconic (and IMO interesting) villains in the Batman mythos. That being said, using Catwoman, the Riddler or the Penguin doesn't seem so inspired in comparison because EVERYBODY is expecting that. Not to mention that there's a whole host of bad guys who, if done correctly, can be much more interesting, exciting, and threatening.

While I like the idea of Batman as "the villain" at least initially, to bring the story full circle he's going to need some form of threat to Gotham City as a whole to reestablish his role as it's protector. They need a rogue enemy for that, and a big one...

 

[Micah12345]

That doesn't sound very interesting. I'll take a main villain please.

 

[jmc]

Could you do a Batman film without a villain? Sure, you could but Batman's rogues gallery are just as much as important part of the mythology as Bruce Wayne himself, many of them have helped to define who Batman is. When Nolan talks about bringing an end to the series I believe what Chris is referring to is bringing an end to this chapter of the Batman mythology, ie the early years. What we're witnessing in this trilogy is not an overarching life story of Batman, it's the beginning of Batman, essentially the title Batman Begins refers to the entire series not just film one. I believe what will end up happening in film three is a return to the status quo of Batman, and you need a main villain in order to do that, a Riddler, Black Mask, or some character that can bring about the change needed to restore that status quo. Batman is never ending in comics and that needs continue on film, and I believe Chris knows this, from what we've seen to date there's no doubt in my mind he knows what this character is about: there is no full stop, there is no timeout, Bruce Wayne is Batman for life.

 

[Smit84]

There's more than likely going to be a villain, but I think people need to remember the genius of BB. Nolan took essentially two lesser known villains (in terms of the general public) and crafted a classic, while still focusing a great deal on Bruce Wayne himself, it can be done again.

Creating a new vision for the Joker/Two-Face was a no-brainer. In most people's estimation, these are the two most iconic (and IMO interesting) villains in the Batman mythos. That being said, using Catwoman, the Riddler or the Penguin doesn't seem so inspired in comparison because EVERYBODY is expecting that. Not to mention that there's a whole host of bad guys who, if done correctly, can be much more interesting, exciting, and threatening.

While I like the idea of Batman as "the villain" at least initially, to bring the story full circle he's going to need some form of threat to Gotham City as a whole to reestablish his role as it's protector. They need a rogue enemy for that, and a big one...

The first two paragraphs are precisely how I feel. After getting the ball rolling with two villains who haven't been used on film before, Nolan's follow-up was to reinvent two of Batman's biggest enemies. With his third and final film it would be fun to see reinventions of Penguin, Catwoman or the Riddler, but it would be more interesting if Nolan went back to using villains who haven't been seen before.

I don't know if plans have changed, but shortly after The Dark Knight opened Goyer and J. Nolan specifically mentioned Catwoman and Penguin as two villains they don't feel like they need to use, and that they were interested in using villains in the comics that mainstream audiences aren't familiar with. Goyer also said that he had a villain and theme in mind, but the theme was more interesting and the villain is somone who simply ties into the theme.

The movie probably could use a major threat, but it's not necessary. We have no idea what direction the story will go in. Frankly I also think Ledger's Joker will be really hard to top.

 

[Smit84]

Could you do a Batman film without a villain? Sure, you could but Batman's rogues gallery are just as much as important part of the mythology as Bruce Wayne himself, many of them have helped to define who Batman is. When Nolan talks about bringing an end to the series I believe what Chris is referring to is bringing an end to this chapter of the Batman mythology, ie the early years. What we're witnessing in this trilogy is not an overarching life story of Batman, it's the beginning of Batman, essentially the title Batman Begins refers to the entire series not just film one. I believe what will end up happening in film three is a return to the status quo of Batman, and you need a main villain in order to do that, a Riddler, Black Mask, or some character that can bring about the change needed to restore that status quo. Batman is never ending in comics and that needs continue on film, and I believe Chris knows this, from what we've seen to date there's no doubt in my mind he knows what this character is about: there is no full stop, there is no timeout, Bruce Wayne is Batman for life.

We can only speculate on the direction Nolan takes the story. I'm willing to bet Nolan won't return things completely to the status quo. The scripts for the last two movies show a lot of "thinking outside the box." Would anyone have guessed the Ras al Ghul twist in Batman Begins? Or that there would be a Hong Kong episode tied into the plot of The Dark Knight? I'm not convinced that Nolan's arc is simply Batman's establishing years, nor do I think it's Batman dying. I just think Nolan will come up with a story that no one can predict.

 

[TheBatman072]

Because that's what the kids want these days. Existentialism.

 

[BestGirl]

The first two paragraphs are precisely how I feel. After getting the ball rolling with two villains who haven't been used on film before, Nolan's follow-up was to reinvent two of Batman's biggest enemies. With his third and final film it would be fun to see reinventions of Penguin, Catwoman or the Riddler, but it would be more interesting if Nolan went back to using villains who haven't been seen before.

I don't know if plans have changed, but shortly after The Dark Knight opened Goyer and J. Nolan specifically mentioned Catwoman and Penguin as two villains they don't feel like they need to use, and that they were interested in using villains in the comics that mainstream audiences aren't familiar with. Goyer also said that he had a villain and theme in mind, but the theme was more interesting and the villain is somone who simply ties into the theme.

The movie probably could use a major threat, but it's not necessary. We have no idea what direction the story will go in. Frankly I also think Ledger's Joker will be really hard to top.

Then why make a movie with the Joker and Two-Face?

 

[El Payaso]

edit

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not anticipating this movie with bated breath in any way right now, but if there's more focus on Bruce and less of a focus on the more interesting characters, I'm probably not going to see it.

 

[Smit84]

Then why make a movie with the Joker and Two-Face?

Well they are arguably Batman's top two villains, and filmmakers like Nolan always try to put his best foot forward. But aside from that, the Joker was teased at the end of Batman Begins. It's pretty natural that after a 2 1/2 hour origin story, follow the film up with him battling his arch nemesis for the first time. A similar approach is being used for Sherlock Holmes.

As for Two-Face, Nolan said Harvey Dent was a character he wanted in Batman Begins but couldn't fit him in. Also, after the events of Batman Begins, Dent as a crusading politician just fits the direction the sequel would go into. It's six months later and things have escalated as Gordon said they would. The Dark Knight really is an elaboration of the final scene in Batman Begins (escalation) and I'm sure the next sequel will be an elaboration on The Dark Knight's closing moments.

 

[Wolverine1988]

While i feel the idea of no main villain is an interesting one and would make for an interesting Batman film for BAT FANS, I think to the general audience they would probably be turned off, lets be real Batmans Rogue Gallery is almost as famous as him (Joker,Two Face,Catwoman Riddler,Penguin,Mr.Freeze etc).After TDK take on Joker and Two Face, people are really anxious to see what Nolan has up his sleeve for Riddler,Catwoman or even Penguin, but main Riddler and Catwoman.


Regardless id really like to see Catwoman and Riddler, I think Catwoman would be a great because it would be a female villain, something we haven't seen yet in the series, and i think with goyer and nolan they have potential to make Catwoman interesting.

 

[Bat-Mite]

There have been plenty of Batman comic books without any actual super villains. Batman: Year One is a good example, though it had a Catwoman cameo in it. And of course there were episodes of Batman: TAS where he just dealt with mobsters like Rupert Thorne... that would kinda be a step backwards after the "escalation" theme they set up, but since they are winding things down, they wouldn't really want to make this one more intense than TDK. I doubt WB would be thrilled at the thought of not having a main villain, because that would make it harder for them to sell the film. But then again, this man made them a billion dollars, so they'll probably let him do whatever the hell he wants to do, anyway.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm just of the opinion that follwing up a film with the joker with a film with either Penguin or Catwoman would be a rediculous retread, not saying they can 't make a good film with either of those characters, I'd just rather not seet, as for there being no main villian, I really don't know about that, if theres still side villians I could see it, as opposed to know villians at all other than common crooks, although that is something I'd like to see, an integration of some of the smaller characters with smaller crime schemes, like the scarecrow scene inTDK. I really have no idea what rout Nolan might take this one, but I trust it will be great.

 

[baleheadbrasil]

Well my thinking is just the opposite. Any prominent villain that is used will just be seen as "this is how they (the filmakers) are trying to top the Joker." If Nolan doesn't concern himself with a Big Bad and relies on audience's investment with the core characters which he clearly is, it renders the issue moot.

Stax from IGN believes the villain will be Catwoman for similar reasons. He argues that any male villain will be compared to Ledger but if you make it a female villain, then people likely won't compare the two as much. I think Catwoman would fit the scenario better than Riddler. As much as I love the Riddler, if they make him this guy who is terrorizing Gotham by leaving riddlers and doing heinous acts if they aren't solved, he definately will come across as a Joker knock-off.

But you never thought that the villains cannot be neither The Riddler,neither Catwoman????
Don´t be so sure that they will be in the movie.
Consider other possibilities too.
You already stopped to think that all these rumors about both are false?
Don´t believe in everything you read around.