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

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

The Scarecrow was in the movie as a treat to the fans. A lot of folks really liked Scarecrow in Begins and wanted more of him, myself included. Did they have to use Crane? No, but it was a fun thing that established where the character had gotten to since Begins and tied up that storyline. Did they have to use Bill Murray in Zombieland? Or Bruce Willis in Expendables? Nope.

The point wasn't that he had to be used, it was that it was fun to use him and only served to better connect the films in the Nolanverse and bring closure to the first film's story.

Regardless, as someone said, this wasn't about whether they needed to use Crane or not, only that those complaining he wasn't supervillainy enough are wrong. He wasn't a drug dealer. He was as big of, or bigger, a player as Joker was prior to getting Maroni's resources. And even then, his and Ra's' gas attack on Gotham was as nasty a thing as Joker ever pulled.

Basically, my argument here isn't about what serves the film and what doesn't. I'm saying that in-Universe, Scarecrow was a player.

 

[KalMart]

And it reminded some Scarecrow fans how much they diluted the character in the first film, only to have him barely be a walk-on in the next...selling drugs out of the back of a van for a few moments and then back to jail.


Who wants an easter egg, yo?

 

[GothamAlleys]

He was as big of, or bigger, a player as Joker was prior to getting Maroni's resources. And even then, his and Ra's' gas attack on Gotham was as nasty a thing as Joker ever pulled.

That was all Ras and League of Shadows. As Batman said, Crane was just a pawn and didnt even know Ras' real plans. It was what the League has been doing for centuries and their plan and execution, Crane was one of the bought people who worked for them. Falcone smuggled drugs, Crane weaponized them. This is not a putdown of the character, just an explanation as to why I disagree with the statement that Scarecrow pulled off as big of a thing as Joker

 

[KalMart]

Do you know that he's showing up yet again in the next movie? And do you know how? Apparently, he'll be playing the 'judge' in a mock trial made up of deranged escapees.





How much more can they demean a character with each installment? I mean...Joker and Dent got some good story props in TDK, they were scary and serious and tragic, etc....you have these cool modern versions of Bane and Catwoman in TDKR...and there's Crane, graduating from a parking lot drug dealer to a circus ringleader surrounded by crazy monkeys.... They HAVE to have him in a white powdered wig...oh please.....

ed: apparently still a rumor...but oh pleeaaassee....

 

[Boom]

Scarecrow is hands down the most poorly-utilized villain in this franchise.

 

[OutRiddled]

Batman: Arkham Asylum had a better Scarecrow. Making Batman relive his parents death. That's a lot darker than making him hallucinate bats!

Why is Batman afraid of bats, anyway? He got over that fear when he became Batman.

And Ra's Al Ghul should have been a pawn of Scarecrow, not the other way around. Scarecrow should've been using the League of Shadows to spread his fear toxin all over Gotham.... unfortunately we get no motive for Scarecrow or why he is working for Ra's Al Ghul. He is just there to serve the plot.

 

[The Joker]

Why is Batman afraid of bats, anyway? He got over that fear when he became Batman.

So did Bale's Bruce, hence why he was operating in a cave that was full of them. Hence why he used them as a weapon like in the Arkham scene. You remember the scene where he went down the cave and stood among them all flying around him? That was the moment he faced his fear.

And Ra's Al Ghul should have been a pawn of Scarecrow, not the other way around. Scarecrow should've been using the League of Shadows to spread his fear toxin all over Gotham.... unfortunately we get no motive for Scarecrow or why he is working for Ra's Al Ghul. He is just there to serve the plot.

You're joking!

Ra's and the League of Shadows a pawn of Crane? A society that has been around for thousands of years accomplishing feats like burning London and sacking Rome, being used by some psycho doctor?

 

[GothamAlleys]

Batman: Arkham Asylum had a better Scarecrow. Making Batman relive his parents death.

Well outriddled, to be fair thats also what happened in the movie

 

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

How much more can they demean a character with each installment? I mean...Joker and Dent got some good story props in TDK, they were scary and serious and tragic, etc....you have these cool modern versions of Bane and Catwoman in TDKR...and there's Crane, graduating from a parking lot drug dealer to a circus ringleader surrounded by crazy monkeys.... They HAVE to have him in a white powdered wig...oh please.....

ed: apparently still a rumor...but oh pleeaaassee....

I assume no amount of you being wrong about him being a drug dealer is going to stop you from calling him a drug dealer.

And Ra's Al Ghul should have been a pawn of Scarecrow, not the other way around. Scarecrow should've been using the League of Shadows to spread his fear toxin all over Gotham.... unfortunately we get no motive for Scarecrow or why he is working for Ra's Al Ghul. He is just there to serve the plot.

It's stated by Ra's that Scarecrow thought they were gonna hold the city to ransom.

 

[OutRiddled]

So did Bale's Bruce, hence why he was operating in a cave that was full of them. Hence why he used them as a weapon like in the Arkham scene. You remember the scene where he went down the cave and stood among them all flying around him? That was the moment he faced his fear.

Huh? I was talking about Bale's Bruce.

You're joking!

Ra's and the League of Shadows a pawn of Crane? A society that has been around for thousands of years accomplishing feats like burning London and sacking Rome, being used by some psycho doctor?

Why not? These people are pretty systematic in what they do and Crane is supposed to be a psycho who wants to spread fear.

Well outriddled, to be fair thats also what happened in the movie

Oh ok, I had a momentary lapse of memory there. You are right, that happened a little bit later after he hallucinated the bats.

 

[The Joker]

Huh? I was talking about Bale's Bruce.

So was I.

Why not? These people are pretty systematic in what they do and Crane is supposed to be a psycho who wants to spread fear.

That doesn't explain how or why a thousand year old organization who have accomplished great feats, are extremely wise and powerful, could be used as a pawn by someone like Crane.

That's like saying Dr. Doom and his Latverian empire being used as pawns by the Spider-Man villain, Sandman lol. It's an absurd idea and not only insulting but unbelievable.

 

[KalMart]

I assume no amount of you being wrong about him being a drug dealer is going to stop you from calling him a drug dealer.

It's not me, it's the movie, unfortunately. That's the point, really.

 

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

It's not me, it's the movie, unfortunately. That's the point, really.

Well, actually, no. No, that's not the point. I feel like my opening post covered this pretty well, so I'm not sure why you still think he's a drug dealer? He specifically states he is, at the time of The Dark Knight, the mob's sole large scale manufacturer in Gotham City. And he's poisoning their buyers openly. This isn't subtextual and I'm not interpreting this. All of this is explicit in that scene.

That scene, in summary, goes something like ...

Chechen: Your drugs are poisoning my customers.

Scarecrow: Yep. And I'm the only guy making product so either deal with it or stop selling drugs.

Fake Batmen: Hey!

 

[KalMart]

Well, actually, no. No, that's not the point. I feel like my opening post covered this pretty well, so I'm not sure why you still think he's a drug dealer? He specifically states he is, at the time of The Dark Knight, the mob's sole large scale manufacturer in Gotham City. And he's poisoning their buyers openly. This isn't subtextual and I'm not interpreting this. All of this is explicit in that scene.

That scene, in summary, goes something like ...

Chechen: Your drugs are poisoning my customers.

Scarecrow: Yep. And I'm the only guy making product so either deal with it or stop selling drugs.

Fake Batmen: Hey!

Again, what you're missing is...he could be a candidate for the presidency of the US, for all that matters. But actually watching the movie, does it feel like or matter that he's anything more than a drug dealer who gets caught and sent away pretty quickly and easily? No.

So you can call/define/backstory all you want...heck, let's go ahead and say it's true. As far as a viewer of that movie is concerned...he's just that guy from the last movie, who was caught as a simple drug dealer/buyer/bad guy in this movie.

It's not like viewers are missing some more significance to Crane that matters, because the movie doesn't make any more significance of it that matters. So he's the mob's such-and-such, etc....that's nice. How will this new armor stand up against dogs again?

 

[KalMart]

Jokes aside...the sentiment is understandable...that viewers didn't quite get the full weight of Crane in TDK. Okay let's say that's technically true....


Who's fault is that?


The viewers', for not wanting to be more into Crane? No...it's the movie's fault, because that's how he was portrayed, as not as significant as he could've/should've/would've been...given the mob connections, his role in the prior film, his intelligence, his such-and-such. Viewers are more than willing to pay attention and take it in...but if the movie doesn't let them by essentially just passing it over to get to the next plot point, it's not really up to them anymore. So if people did miss anything about him...it's the movie that made them miss it. The movie didn't seem to care enough in how it was handled...or just not handled, in this case.

 

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

Crane's not important to the story, you're absolutely right, but they make his backstory, for anyone who cares to simply listen to the dialogue, very clear. How you feel about it is one thing, but the facts of what he is relative to Gotham's Underworld are what they are and stated to be in that scene. You say, "Lets go ahead and say that's true" like I'm interpreting something that's subtext or unsaid.

Everything I've said about Crane is 100% from the movie. How you feel they handled it, or how it was expressed, is something entirely different from the factual 'this-is-what-he-is' of it.

 

[KalMart]

Crane's not important to the story, you're absolutely right, but they make his backstory, for anyone who cares to simply listen to the dialogue, very clear. How you feel about it is one thing, but the facts of what he is relative to Gotham's Underworld are what they are and stated to be in that scene. You say, "Lets go ahead and say that's true" like I'm interpreting something that's subtext or unsaid.

Nothing really, aside from it ultimately doesn't really matter when it comes to the film.

It's not how I feel about it, it's more how the movie feels about it and presents it....that makes people feel that way about it.

Everything I've said about Crane is 100% from the movie. How you feel they handled it, or how it was expressed, is something entirely different from the factual 'this-is-what-he-is' of it.

Yeah again, for someone who already has an existing interest to 'look deeper', sure. You could probably even fill in more than what was intended. But as far as 'people', in terms of moviegoers who aren't comic/Crane fans like that...no. They're basically left with....just a drug dealer ......despite the other raw info, etc. Heck, not even all comic/Crane fans are happy about it, either.

 

[Just_Human]

Scarecrow is a scrawny, insecure person

Most Batman villains dont really respect that string bean.

So I think Nolan has used him very well

 

[El Payaso]

Scarecrow is a scrawny, insecure person

Most Batman villains dont really respect that string bean.

So I think Nolan has used him very well

So Nolan saw this unworthy character and said, okay this is perfect to use in my movies. Someone who represents no danger, no challenge, nothing anyone could respect; that sounds about perfect for my take on Batman.

That said, I've seen comics where Scarecrow has been more than challenging. Why did Nolan prefer to keep it borderline ridiculous and pathetic? Beats me. One would say it is strong characters that are a challenge to the hero what should motivate storytellers.

 

[GothamAlleys]

That said, I've seen comics where Scarecrow has been more than challenging.

Oh of course. In the comics he can turn entire Gotham into chaos and can raise hell. My all time favorite story written by Grant and Breyfogle, Identity Crisis, is about Scarecrow causing an epidemic spontaneous killing grimace among common citizens of Gotham. Then theres the God of Fear storyline which takes place right after Knightfall

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

He's just there to add color to the "Batman beats up random thugs" scene. Wouldn't matter if he was a drug dealer or a rapist.

 

[El Payaso]

He's just there to add color to the "Batman beats up random thugs" scene. Wouldn't matter if he was a drug dealer or a rapist.

And THAT's my problem with this take on the Scarecrow. Well, that and I just didn't like Murphy's acting. At all.

 

[Thos. Rex, ESQ]

Nothing really, aside from it ultimately doesn't really matter when it comes to the film.

It's not how I feel about it, it's more how the movie feels about it and presents it....that makes people feel that way about it.



Yeah again, for someone who already has an existing interest to 'look deeper', sure. You could probably even fill in more than what was intended. But as far as 'people', in terms of moviegoers who aren't comic/Crane fans like that...no. They're basically left with....just a drug dealer ......despite the other raw info, etc. Heck, not even all comic/Crane fans are happy about it, either.

I really don't think they're left with just a drug dealer. The dialogue makes it clear he's not. There's no depth. There's no looking deeper. We could probably fill in more than was intended. But what was intended was the actual stated dialogue. And that was clear.

 

[KalMart]

I really don't think they're left with just a drug dealer. The dialogue makes it clear he's not. There's no depth. There's no looking deeper. We could probably fill in more than was intended. But what was intended was the actual stated dialogue. And that was clear.

And yet still, it ultimately didn't have any more significance than if he was just....<drum roll>...a drug dealer. He could have clearly stated that he was running for congress, or a cross-dresser....still would have played like the same thing.

 

[calibud]

He was indeed a major drug manufacturer, and the dialogue implies that he's kind of got the mob by the balls (which also implies Batman has made it nearly impossible to buy drugs in Gotham).

But the movie didn't deem it important enough to build a subplot around or give it more than a third of a page of dialogue or even mention it more than once.
So yes, when you pay attention, you can see that Scarecrow had made somewhat of a name for himself in the underworld and had a sizable role. In the interim space of BB/TDK there probably is a bit of a The Scarecrow Rises story. That sequence is the last major drug manufacturer in Gotham being taken down by Batman.

It's easy to build that up in a discussion like this that focuses on the wider universe and timeline of the films.

But in the actual movie, they gloss over the significance of the scene and the movie pushes forward. In fact, the most significant part of that night to Bruce wasn't even capturing Scarecrow, but that "more copycats" showed up. He doesn't even mention Crane in that scene with Alfred.

I took the overall purposes of the garage sequence as:
1) Batman is an effective drug deterrent (In the Crane/Chechen conversation)
2) Introduce fake batmen
3) Justify need for suit upgrade
4) Introduce the Chechen
5) Capture Scarecrow