Zev said:
I feel it incumbent to mention that I finished
Nightwing, so if anyone wants to read a more or less faithful "Nightwing: Year One" have at it.
Congrats!
As for villains that wouldn't work in a Batman movie, Ten-Eyed Man. I think I read a story about him once. He got power from being able to see behind him. With his fingers. Hey, I can see reflections in the corner of my eyeglasses, but I don't go around calling it a superpower.
I've never been a long-time avid collector of Batman comics (until a couple years ago, I guess, when I realized that Marvel Comics were no longer worth paying for but felt I still had to buy at least one thing per visit to the comics store if I was going to keep reading various comics while there), but I've done a good amount of research on the mythos as a whole. If
I haven't heard of the Ten-Eyed Man, and he requires as much origin/exposition as I assume he would, then he probably shouldn't be in a Batman movie. Again, it's not about the "reality" of it, it's about... I dunno... "street cred" or whatever. Again, if I ain't heard of this guy, he's a nobody, so leave him out if he can't be anything but a cameo that doesn't raise too many questions.
Killer Croc should look like what he is, a guy with a really bad skin condition that resembles a crocodile's hide. He shouldn't have a tail and a snout and look like a dragon, is what I'm saying. He should look more like he could be the villain in a slasher movie. Just hire Kane Hodder, throw some groovy make-up on him, and be done with it.
I don't know who Kane Hodder is.
Since when did Killer Croc have a tail? Of course there wouldn't be a tail. Not unless I'm wrong about him not being known for having a tail in the comics.
I'd have him be a very large man with leathery, greenish-gray skin, abnormal bone structure, especially around the face (I'm not talking about a snout, I'm talking about making him somewhat resemble the original BTAS version, with those monstrous jaws), and
yes, he'd have sharp teeth. He'd also have abnormally great strength, just like in the comics. This is a character who was born that way (physically speaking... that doesn't explain his antisocial behavior necessarily), so he doesn't require a lot of backstory (like Clayface or Man-Bat, who were created, not born monsters). Say he was born a freak, very likely abused throughout his early life and now he's a stone killer with near-inhuman strength. Nothing about that that "wouldn't work." Not in the least.
I don't know if Firefly would work as a minor action villain. His costume and methods (flamethrower AND jetpack) are so exotic that I don't think audiences would accept him just showing up for one action scene. I think with a little work, he could be the main villain's righthand man, similar to Kronen from Hellboy or Darth Maul from Star Wars.
I still think he would work just fine as a minor villain. He isn't a mutant or superpowered, he just uses high-tech equipment, like many other supervillains, so there doesn't need nearly as much time devoted to explaining his existence.
He'd have fire bombs a-plenty, napalm and a fully loaded military-issue flamethrower. It may be tricky to fit both a jetpack and a flamethrower on his back in a "realistic" fashion, but if not, screw it! Invent something new and don't both explaining where it came from beyond being stolen from a "military warehouse" or "WayneTech R & D storage." He doesn't need to be a disgruntled WayneTech employee, either. Wikipedia doesn't say what job he had in the comics, and I'm not up to further reasearch than that right now, but either find something from the source material that even half-way explains his access to such equipment, make something up that makes sense, or yeah, take the easy way out and make him a WayneTech employee. He should definitely have a mask that looks bug-like. I wouldn't trouble myself over mentalic wings and so forth, if he was just a minor villain, but I'd give him a decent-looking fireproof armor suit. While I think it's important to have the Batman exposit his fire-based paraphilia (pyromania) and mention his gift for invention, which establishes him as another fine member of the citizenry of Gotham, I see him as more of an action villain. Even with the hardcore pyromania issues, I don't find him that interesting, or at least as deserving as other villains of a more complex plot. I think the job of arsonist for hire works well because it allows him to make money doing what he does best, which keeps him paid enough to keep his arsenal stocked.
In fact, an action sequence of Firefly setting fire to a building (maybe the Iceberg Lounge, if he's Penguin's minion) and trying to escape, Batman pursuing him, the chase eventually taking to the skies ala On Leather Wings... that would be pretty *****in'.
That would be great. I still think it would work just fine as a "pure action" sequence, or at least as "pure action" as it gets with the Batman, which should always "tainted" with a briefing or debriefing with the Batman expositing profile information that includes real-world psychology whenever possible.
And as for Joker having a purple tuxedo and Two-Face having dual-colored outfits... How can you possibly complain about that?
I can at least understand complaints about people wearing skintight spandex,
Which is why I always keep an eye on you...
but these are actual clothes that are just a bit more garish than usual (which fits, considering these are supervillains! They don't go around attending high tea, they go around breaking stuff!). I mean, even Schumacher gave Two-Face a two-colored suit. Schumacher. I don't know how someone can even admit to being or wanting to be less faithful to the comics than Schumacher.
That's just like... whoa. I mean, that's like saying that the plot of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie is too complicated. I never thought I'd see the day where people would say that a Disney movie is too byzantine, too complex, for their minds to follow, but... sheesh. And don't even get me started on the people who complain that the movie has no ending... because it ends on a cliffhanger. That's the whole point, you morons! Did Empire Strikes Back have an ending? NO! Did Back To The Future 2 have an ending? NO! Did the Two Towers have an ending? NO! You had to see the third movie to get the whole story! That's the main idea of the trilogy! Now, you want to talk about no endings, let's talk about Harry Potter! Six books so far, each one of them ends with "we've won a minor victory/suffered a minor defeat, but Voldemort is still out there." SIX BOOKS, NO ENDING! Let's see some shame on that one. Harry Potter, the hero who wins because his mommy loves him.
I suppose after two and a half hours of high-budget action, the new 'Pirates of the Carribean' can end on a cliffhanger, but only if the next one comes out no more than a year later. I heard tell that they filmed this one and the next one back to back (it was in response to me ranting when I heard that Keith Richards wasn't in this one but the next one, which set me off about how they couldn't afford to wait, since the man could keel over or crumble to dust
any day now!!), so I damn well do expect them to leave it hanging for no more than a year. That would just be disrespectful.
If the Harry Potter movies end on a cliffhanger, it's because the books do, so that's an issue with the books, and they should not be changing the movies that much. Hell, I don't even cotton to major changes to a decades-long comics franchise adaptation, much less movies made for individual novels (no matter how freakishly long). So yeah, that's my defense of Harry Potter cliffhangers, but 'Pirates of the Carribean' doesn't have that security, if we're talking about more than a year's wait. It's all about the source material; does the Disney World/Land ride end on a cliffhanger? Seriously, I've never been on it... does it??
...
This is still a Batman thread, right?
It damn well better be!
Okay then.
Poison Ivy, I don't really care, as long as she's wearing something made of plants and scanty. That's pretty much been the only criteria of her costume for decades now and if you can't get that right, why are you even bothering?
Step 1. Cast a hot actress.
Step 2. Make her look hot.
THAT'S. ABOUT. IT.
Agreed. About the appearance, anyway.
As for her part in a movie made by me, if any, I'll admit that I'd be pretty careful which "killer plant" effects I'd use. Whether it's subconsciously related to "realism" or not, the reason is because her effects are often either not interesting or embarrasingly bad. Yes, I think the "sentient vines" could work well, if the filmmakers really want it to. Even a giant mutant Venus Flytrap. I guess I just would demand that if I was going to use Poison Ivy and her classic tricks, I'd want those tricks to actually look scary. Let's face facts, if someone could create and control creatures like that, it would be pretty feckin' scary. If you can't imagine it being that way, then you aren't trying hard enough. Yes, it would take a lot of effort and competence to do it right, but if any given director/producer/whatever isn't up for it, then they should just admit that instead of claiming any "realism" bull$hit. There's nothing wrong with overlooking a character like Poison Ivy for the sake of convenience or lack of confidence in one's ability to capitalize on the available budget in relation to the challenge at hand, as long as the person doing this has the balls to admit it's not about "realism" or even suspension of disbelief. What belief are we supposed to suspend? Only if it was a period piece that took place well before 2001, there's no God damn way a character like the Batman could exist and not get caught, so let's not dwell on what can or cannot "work" in terms of sci-fi/fantasy elements.
Poison Ivy's big plan could be engineering or altering existing plants to produce something much more toxic to humans than oxygen
or CO2 (but harmless to plants, of course) after absorbing CO2. Her ability to manipulate people through the use of pheromones, expertise with poison and immunity to most toxins makes her a pretty formidable villain, too. Hell, using any female character who coldly and confidently manipulates men adds to the noir elements, regardless of whatever sci-fi elements are present, so in a way, she's another prime example of a Batman villain. I'd still feel compelled to have her to use some form of "sentient" or more powerful plant constructs, and at the very, very least, she should have plants at one of her lairs that can hold a human captive when placed near its tendrils. There's also the possibility of her beginning to create a small army of plant-human hybrid clones, which could easily be done well. They don't need to be giant cactus people like in the BTAS episode where she supposedly went straight and settled down. They don't even need to be able to extend impossibly big vines like in the TNBSA episode where she played match-maker for every rich person in Gotham. They could just be very strong people with a sickly greenish tint to their flesh who can sucrete toxic pheromones and fluids from their skin and maybe extrude nasty thorns, too. See, I wasn't even planning on using her in my franchise, and I've still got all of these ideas that I honestly do find feasible. I think I may have to work her in somewhere. She might even be the "main villain" of a particular movie, given that her grand plan is inevitably bigger in scale than almost every other Batman villain. I'd have to throw in several other villains and subplots in addition, though, because I know I'm not personally as entertained by Poison Ivy as I am by some others. Again, I'd never exclude Ivy solely because she's a sci-fi villain. If anything, I think she's the easiest sci-fi villain to implement in a live action Batman film, now that I've pulled several possibilities other than "poison businessmen and humanitarians and use killer vines and Venus Flytraps." She's got noir, sci-fi
and horror going for her something fierce.
The Darwyn Cooke costume for Catwoman seems to have stuck on, so I say go with that. It's a bit more functional than the purple bodypaint Jim Balent "no, she's not naked, because I'm not drawing her nipples" tailed costume. Besides, I'd like to see Herr Logan's head explode like one of those Star Trek robots when he tries to comprehend a costume that is both faithful to the comics and made of leather. "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
Warning: Drool Alert--
*
You mean
this costume? If so, that's the one I always said I would use.
You probably already know all of this, but I'm gonna rant and exposit anyway (you asked for it, you know you did...):
I'm certainly not opposed to leather if a character has worn it in the comics, and if that suit in the comics was inspired by a
good movie costume instead of a lazy, bland one. See, there's absolutely nothing about the Movie!X-Men costumes that speaks for the characters, specifically. Moreover, ever since the original team got individual costumes back in the 60's, they've always had individual costumes in every other incarnation (except for the little while when they tried all wearing the old school colors, which they didn't like), so when a team of colorful superheroes is brought to a live action movie franchise and they're all wearing not only something blatantly uncreative, but all wearing the same thing, it's not at all innovative or faithful. At least when Catwoman in 'Batman Returns' got a revamp, it actually
suited the character (not the white stitches, but the black latex suit and corset), and not everyone else was wearing it. Sure, Movie!Batman was always in black rubber since Burton's first movie (thanks a lot, Tim), but his was armor, and Catwoman's wasn't. It was purely for cosmetic reasons, and it didn't seem out of character, for either the movie version
or the comics version.
I consider
this Catwoman costume an actual improvement over the purple suit. I especially hate the look where her hair is flowing out the back of her cowl. Yes, I'd grudgingly accept a purple suit, and even a tail, because I don't like to be a hypocrite, but I honestly believe the leather/nylon black suit and goggles are not only fitting for the Post-Crisis version of the character, but visually more pleasing. Again, there's a lot of subjectivity in there, but my position is,
that's my Movie!Catwoman costume.
My pick for actress is Angelina Jolie. No, I'm not roaming with the herd on this one, I honestly think she's got the
perfect look (I'd have her hair died black), and I saw some photomanip of her in the costume, courtesy of DorkyFresh, I believe. Puurrrfect!
* An unnecessary note about Catwoman as portrayed by the the unmanipped live model in the Catwoman costume from Gotham Public Works:
I swear to God, in every human and animal language, I don't care how much of a schizoid personality I was trying to maintain for my grim, holy mission of justice, if I was the Batman and I had that unspeakably hot, voluptuous, leather-wrapped piece of woman waving her tail at me on the rooftops of Gotham for years and years, I would not be able to maintain my "professional distance." Seriously, my guard would be sooo dropped if those were my circumstances (and if I wasn't spoken for, of course). Seriously, I'd make a special entry in Batcomputer files stating that I've officially moved the standard of "hands-the-hell-off" down to "unprovoked violent offenses on innocent civilians" when it comes to female antiheroes. You want to steal priceless items from museums? Hey, they're still just things, right? It's people that matter. Living, warm-blooded, curvy, bursting-out-of-their-catsuit people... that's what's important in life. Mee-frickin'--yoww!
That doesn't count if there's an active distress call at the moment, of course. That weak-willed $hit is for TheatricalReleaseMovie!Daredevil. But just barely...
