The Dark Knight I feel like some people don't understand Scarecrow in Dark Knight

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

I keep reading about how Scarecrow was a lowly 'drug dealer' in Dark Knight, but I'm not really sure some of you folks complaining ... uh, actually watched it? He was a manufacturer and the only one left in Gotham because he was the only one good enough to keep from being caught. It's right there in the dialogue ("If you don't like what I have to offer, you can buy from someone else ... that is if Batman left anyone else for you to buy from.") That is, he was supplying the mob with the drugs they sell.

Not only that, he was talking down to the Chechen ("I said my compound would take you places ... I never said it'd be places you wanted to go."). He obviously wasn't subordinate to him.

As a matter of fact, until the mob gave Joker their resources, Joker and Crane were on the same level. Joker was robbing their banks and Scarecrow was experimenting on their junkie buyers with poisoned drugs because he's a mad (sadistic) scientist.

Anyway, I just wanted to argue that Crane's spot in the grand scheme of Gotham criminality was pretty tops in Dark Knight.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think there's enough to really care about Scarecrow in TDK. Whether he was only a drug dealer or something else...a couple of minutes, boom on the truck, and that's it. The scene made the dogs more important than Crane in the grand scheme of things. Honestly...all that's really important in his being Scarecrow is oh yeah, he was in the last movie.

 

[uniqueweasel]

To be honest I just saw it in TDK as kinda tying up the loose ends from BB, sort of saying Batmans finally caught up with him and bought him to justice.

 

[The Joker]

To be honest I just saw it in TDK as kinda tying up the loose ends from BB, sort of saying Batmans finally caught up with him and bought him to justice.

It was. But the OP makes great points about Scarecrow's situation since his escape from Arkham. He wasn't just a drug dealer.

 

[KalMart]

It was. But the OP makes great points about Scarecrow's situation since his escape from Arkham. He wasn't just a drug dealer.

But did it really matter?

 

[The Joker]

But did it really matter?

Yes. If you're going to put a notable character in for a cameo, at least given them a little bit of background.

I wanted to know what Crane had been up to since Begins.

 

[KalMart]

Yes. If you're going to put a notable character in for a cameo, at least given them a little bit of background.

I wanted to know what Crane had been up to since Begins.

Well...kudos to making him more than just a drug dealer...but he was still just a film character that had no real significance outside of his forty or so seconds onscreen....regardless of his role in the last one.

Heck...the fat guy in the batsuit was more important overall....and we still know nothing about him. t:

 

[The Joker]

Well...kudos to making him more than just a drug dealer...but he was still just a film character that had no real significance outside of his forty or so seconds onscreen....regardless of his role in the last one.

Heck...the fat guy in the batsuit was more important overall....and we still know nothing about him

It's got nothing to do with the importance of the character to the storyline. It's to do with giving a character a bit of weight in the scene they're used in.

There was no unanswered questions about Crane and what he'd been doing since Begins. We know precious little about Crane personally beyond his name and profession anyway. But that's irrelevant. We knew sod all about the Joker's background or real name either. But that also didn't matter. It wasn't needed for the story and falls in line with Joker being a mystery.

 

[KalMart]

It's got nothing to do with the importance of the character to the storyline. It's to do with giving a character a bit of weight in the scene they're used in.

Again, I really don't think it matters because of how he was used in the film. It could have easily been someone else with no connection from the last film, and the scene would have had the same impact.

There was no unanswered questions about Crane and what he'd been doing since Begins.

There were no real questions in the first place. He wasn't missed, and when it's realized he's that doctor guy from the last film..it's '...oh....'

We know precious little about Crane personally beyond his name and profession. But that's irrelevant. We knew sod all about the Joker's background or real name.

Yet he was a (the) major focus of the story. Crane just happened to be the guy selling those drugs. If that's all that people got out of it...trust me..they're not really missing anything else.

Are some people misunderstanding Scarecrow in TDK? Yeah, maybe some are. Are they actually missing out on anything? Heck no...not in this movie.

 

[Fudgie]

Well...kudos to making him more than just a drug dealer...but he was still just a film character that had no real significance outside of his forty or so seconds onscreen....regardless of his role in the last one.

Heck...the fat guy in the batsuit was more important overall....and we still know nothing about him. t:

The OP didn't say he was a big deal to the movie's main story. He was clarifying what Crane had become in the criminal underworld.

 

[KalMart]

The OP didn't say he was a big deal to the movie's main story. He was clarifying what Crane had become in the criminal underworld.

And I'm saying that's nice.



I'll bet one of those gangsters had a much richer life outside of gang activities than most people realize.


No, I get it...and I mostly agree...but it kinda' makes it more of a shame that they didn't do more with it.

 

[The Joker]

Again, I really don't think it matters because of how he was used in the film. It could have easily been someone else with no connection from the last film, and the scene would have had the same impact.

But it wasn't someone else, it was a villain who had escaped capture in the first movie and therefore it mattered. He wasn't a nobody.

You keep going on about the impact to the main story when that is not even the point the person who made this thread is making.

There were no real questions in the first place.

Maybe not for you. But I wanted to know what became of Crane. When they said he was still on the loose at the end of Begins I fully expected the sequel to address what happened to him in some way, and it did.

He wasn't missed, and when it's realized he's that doctor guy from the last film..it's '...oh....'

Again you're speaking on your own behalf. It wasn't '....oh....' for me. It was "Ah so that's what became of Crane".

Yet he was a (the) major focus of the story.

I know. Yet having no background didn't affect him at all. So why you felt the need to bring up copycat Batman or the fact he had no background is a mystery to me.

You're going off on tangents that are totally irrelevant.

Crane just happened to be the guy selling those drugs. If that's all that people got out of it...trust me..they're not really missing anything else.

There was nothing else to get besides the fate of Crane from Batman Begins. That's the only reason the scene was done. That and establishing the need for Batman to get a lighter suit for combat.

Again you're going off on points that nobody else has raised. This is all you.

Are some people misunderstanding Scarecrow in TDK? Yeah, maybe some are.

What's to misunderstand? If you've seen Batman Begins then you know it's the escaped lunatic in the Scarecrow mask who evaded capture.

Are they actually missing out on anything? Heck no...not in this movie.

I can think of many cool scenes and cameos that had no impact on the overall plot of a movie, but I wouldn't remove them just because they had no significant impact to the main story.

 

[KalMart]

But it wasn't someone else, it was a villain who had escaped capture in the first movie and therefore it mattered. He wasn't a nobody.

You keep going on about the impact to the main story when that is not even the point the person who made this thread is making.



Maybe not for you. But I wanted to know what became of Crane. When they said he was still on the loose at the end of Begins I fully expected the sequel to address what happened to him in some way, and it did.



Again you're speaking on your own behalf. It wasn't '....oh....' for me. It was "Ah so that's what became of Crane".



I know. Yet having no background didn't affect him at all. So why you felt the need to bring up copycat Batman or the fact he had no background is a mystery to me.

You're going off on tangents that are totally irrelevant.



There was nothing else to get besides the fate of Crane from Batman Begins. That's the only reason the scene was done. That and establishing the need for Batman to get a lighter suit for combat.

Again you're going off on points that nobody else has raised. This is all you.



What's to misunderstand? If you've seen Batman Begins then you know it's the escaped lunatic in the Scarecrow mask who evaded capture.



I can think of many cool scenes and cameos that had no impact on the overall plot of a movie, but I wouldn't remove them just because they had no significant impact to the main story.

Again, I think a common reaction by those who do recognize Crane in TDK is...'what was the point...?', and for good reason. Knowing more about him or what have you doesn't help that. It's almost better that he's only seen as a drug dealer or little more, because otherwise it further points out how underutilized and extraneous he is in the movie, seeing that he is a character based on a major villain with a richer history in the comics. So understanding, or recognizing, or acknowledging Crane as anything more than a drug dealer in TDK who's significance is over about minute after he shows up doesn't really speak any better for his character or the film. It points out just how glossed-over he was.

Kinda' like how this thread is doing by now.... It represents more time, text, thought, and significance than was actually spent on Crane for TDK.

 

[The Joker]

Again, I think a common reaction by those who do recognize Crane in TDK is...'what was the point...?', and for good reason. It's almost better that he's only seen as a drug dealer or little more, because otherwise it further points out how underutilized and extraneous he is in the movie.

Nobody is saying that if you took Scarecrow out of the movie the plot would be radically affected in any way. The point was he was a loose end that needed to be tied up. Everyone would be asking about Scarecrow if TDK ignored him when Begins made the point of saying he was still on the loose at the end.

Reducing him to a common drug dealer would have been a worse regression. It was bad enough that the last time we saw him was screaming like a girl from Katie Holmes tazing him.

At least he got some balls back and established himself in the underworld polluting the mob with his fear toxin.

 

[KalMart]

Nobody is saying that if you took Scarecrow out of the movie the plot would be radically affected in any way. The point was he was a loose end that needed to be tied up. Everyone would be asking about Scarecrow if TDK ignored him when Begins made the point of saying he was still on the loose at the end.

Reducing him to a common drug dealer would have been a worse regression. It was bad enough that the last time we saw him was screaming like a girl from Katie Holmes tazing him.

At least he got some balls back and established himself in the underworld polluting the mob with his fear toxin.

Yeah...that mattered for about forty seconds...and then he was forgotten by the forty-first second or so. Nice job.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah...that mattered for about forty seconds...and then he was forgotten by the forty-first second or so. Nice job.

Then mission accomplished. He was defeated and captured. A captured and defeated criminal is not supposed to have any further relevance.

Nice job indeed.

 

[KalMart]

That's nice.

 

[Fudgie]

Scarecrow was lame in Nolan's movies. At least here he got beaten by Batman and not Katie Holmes. That was humiliating.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Well, Scarecrow's whereabouts couldve been easily taken care of with a throwaway line in a dialogue between Alfred and Bruce or Batman and Gordon, like "at least we locked Crane last week, HE wont be a problem. Joker however..."

So I dont really agree the appearance was needed for that at all. Having said that, I think the goal or at least the intentional or unintentional result of this cameo is that we are shown how small of a danger Crane is in comparison to Joker

 

[KalMart]

I think it was just to show that he ultimately didn't get away....since he galloped away shrieking like an electrocuted monkey at the end of the last one.

I always felt they should have tied him to Joker a bit...like Joker was the one patient who didn't react to the fear toxin...he actually liked it. And Joker would eventually catch and torture him or something.

But...he just sold drugs instead.

 

[The Joker]

Scarecrow was lame in Nolan's movies. At least here he got beaten by Batman and not Katie Holmes. That was humiliating.

I never liked that either.

Well, Scarecrow's whereabouts couldve been easily taken care of with a throwaway line in a dialogue between Alfred and Bruce or Batman and Gordon, like "at least we locked Crane last week, HE wont be a problem. Joker however..."

They could have done that, but after making the point that he was on the loose at the end of Begins, only to write him off in a throwaway line in the sequel would have even more pointless. They might as well have just said they managed to recapture him at the end of Begins.

So I dont really agree the appearance was needed for that at all. Having said that, I think the goal or at least the intentional or unintentional result of this cameo is that we are shown how small of a danger Crane is in comparison to Joker

I never thought that was the goal at all. His appearance was too brief and really was used more to establish what happened to him, as well introduce the copycat Batmen to show the effect Batman's having on Gotham's people, as well as establish Batman's need for a new suit. There was three purposes to that scene.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Hmm, the two have quite a history in comic books together, but so did Two face and Joker. I preferred them to have Joker cooperate (in a way) with TF rather than Crane

 

[KalMart]

Oh...he also sold stereo speakers during the day in outdoor parking lots out of the same white van. They cut that part out.

 

[El Payaso]

Problem with this Scarecrow is that he was a weak character in the first one and only came back to tie loose ends only because Nolan and Goyer gave him quite a lame last scene. So basically he came back to say, yeah I'm a lame character but not that lame that any girl with a tazer can beat me forever; Batman still has to do it himself sometime later.

 

[KalMart]

Problem with this Scarecrow is that he was a weak character in the first one and only came back to tie loose ends only because Nolan and Goyer gave him quite a lame last scene. So basically he came back to say, yeah I'm a lame character but not that lame that any girl with a tazer can beat me forever; Batman still has to do it himself sometime later.

But maybe they...y'know...wanted to do that.....which makes it cool because it's Nolan and Goyer doing it and not someone else...so it's gotta be, like, deeper....