The Dark Knight Rises Ideas For Incorporating Characters Into the Nolanverse

[KalMart]

Nice, but.....would Catwoman/Selina wear fur?

 

[Ethermatic]

Haha. Good point, Kal.

Still, not a bad manip. Marion is probably my second pick for Selina Kyle/Catwoman.

 

[Darlton]

I could see these writers not wanting to use her, and I'd be fine with that too. These movies don't have to cover as many of the Batman rogues as possible. If they just stick with a few that work best for their approach, I think the cinematic benefits far outweigh the comic elements left out of them.

I really hope they try to use as much of the original characters as they can, because the source material is that good. And Catwoman is one of the ones that work best with Nolan's approach, thematically and cinematically speaking.

If they feel some other less-popular character fits their scheme better than Catwoman, they should go with the other one for the sake of the story/film.

Of course, that argument is irrefutable and bullet-proof. What's best for a film is best for a film, right? But for argument's sake, speaking in general terms, what road do you think the filmmakers will take after the end of TDK? Don't you think Catwoman completely fits this new situation they've created? Do you feel she needs much rewriting to be able to fit in the sequel? Let's get all the ifs out of the question because what you're actually saying is: "if something is better for the movie, then they should do it"... but that encompasses all sorts of things, from a slight rewrite to even removing Batman out of the story, right? After all, if it fits their scheme and it is a good scheme...
... let's be more adventurous in this debate.

Why do we need to explore his psyche more, though? I'd rather explore how he's going to deal with reestablishing his standing and importance with Gotham than who he is.

First, I believe that the only resolute way to end this series satisfyingly is to take the back the focus to Batman, as opposed to the notable importance that Dent and the Joker had in TDK.
Second, because among Batman’s many appealing traits, maybe the most important is his intense, complex psyche. To not delve into that psyche would be like making a Superman movie without any flying scenes.
And thirdly, three question: 1. Why do you think Batman has to reestablish his standing? 2. If he has to, do you think that should be the main story of the movie? 3. Do you think his importance in the city is lessened now that he is a public enemy?

her benefits may be better utilized elsewhere, as opposed to another character who's more of a direct criminal leader or what have you. At this point, it could even be a character created just for this story, but if it works better, then all the power to it.

Again, I think you're dealing with too many "ifs" and "maybes" here. Maybe you should approach her character as a direct criminal leader, only without a gang . Maybe she works, at least initially, in a big high-tech thieves crew. Maybe she starts as major player in some criminal organization and then goes rogue with some major information or important possesions. And this are just from the top of my head. There are many, many possible routes for her character to fit in the next storyline. I don't think you should worry about her not working out.

Possibly, but it'd be more fun if their at constant odds, no?

I'm inclined to say "yes", but that denies a lot of potential.

He can take the heat for the benefit of the city's morale in the aftermath of the Joker's terror...the heat is the court of public opinion. But sooner or later, you have to believe that he wants to be seen as the good guy again...not just for his own ego, but to inspire the good people of the city not to give in to crime and intimidation.

But we already saw in TDK how he had become a bad symbol. Look at the copy-cats. Look at how quickly the general population wanted to turn him in to the Joker. He was not giving the necessary type of inspiration... Dent was. And so, he stepped back. Maybe the game changes in the third film, but so far, there is no need for him to go back to being that symbol.

It's a funny thing, because when you're dealing with Bruce's quest for the right kind of symbol for the city, he hasn't quite found his own. He received inspiration from his two fathers: Thomas Wayne (the philantropist) and Ducard (the vigilante/punisher). He returned to Gotham to inspire people to resist the temptations of corruption and to cooperate with each other... to be good. But Batman cannot be that... he is whatever Gotham needs him to be, but not a symbol of good and hope... at least, not a pure one. Not like the one that Dent was. Thus, Bruce needs to complete himself as an inspiration. He needs to be more like Harvey. He needs to be trusted. And he may not be able to do that.

Catwoman can be the perfect ideological foil for Batman's symbol, one more inspiration. She could be someone who sees herself like some kind of symbol too... but where Batman sees the vast criminal network as the main problem, she sees POVERTY and MISERY as the main problem. She has seen her loved ones turn into criminals to escape misery, and she has seen very rich people living undeservedly good lives. So, Catwoman steals from rich people... and Selina Kyle donates part of the money in the numerous charities she's involved in.

The public Bruce Wayne is a spoiled playboy, a cover-up, but as he does that he's failing to be the example his parents were. One of Bruce's main problem is that, unlike his comics counter-part, he hasn't embraced a public figure like his father had. The symbol of a philantropist... the symbol of a giver, an inspiration of good and not only of "fighting against evil". Selina does this stuff, but she's doing the wrong things for the right reasons. She's still a thief, a criminal... but a very rich and complex character.

She would also bring other issues to the table, like what it takes to be an outcast and how to do the wrong things for the right reasons makes you a solitary, separated from society. This idea would also further Gotham's depiction by showing the economic contrasts... not only good versus evil, but fortunate and unfortunate ones and how those who are on the top should be inspirations to HELP others, through philantropy and generosity... something quite similar to the theme of hope in the public light that Dent represented.

The Batman persona may have redemption and public pardon in store too, but I can't figure a way to work it out.

Not quiet sold on that either. He could be there for a few minutes, just thinking and sitting quietly. But no crying or 'am I worthy' scenes, etc. He knows what he's doing is right. It could be nice if he finds peace in being there, instead of reliving the trauma.

Don't you think that would be a heavy rewriting of the character? His trauma should always go with him, it's his driving force. That's one of the things Mask Of The Phantams got right. Besides, "peace" and "Batman" should never be in the same sentence.

What kind of 'love' would that be, then? If someone's still grieving over a dead girlfriend, and they get involved with someone who's just the opposite....are they really there just for that new person, or are they looking to get their mind off the dead one? Iit was hard enough for Wayne to maintain the possibility of he and Rachel having a future together. And she wanted Bruce...and only Bruce. If Catwoman wants only Batman.....how will that work?

Precisely. It doesn't work. It further complicates things. That's exactly what it should do.

<Wayne suiting up>
Alfred: Off to fight crime again, Master Bruce?

Batman: Nope....got a date.

Come on, you know their dates are always while he fights crime. Often, while he's chasing her over rooftops.t:

If Bats an Catwoman will have some romance thing going on, it should be playful/dangerous. But as we've acknowledged, he's probably still broken up over Rachel's death....not exactly playful-romance material. In fact, he'd be quite a drag.

She's the dangerous, playful rogue, he's the stiff workaholic with no with no sense of humor. If that's not an interesting set-up, I don't know what is.

Maybe.

You like that word a lot.

Not always, though. Sometimes you know if you want to write a jazz or opera piece, or something bombastic as opposed to something light and whimsical. A theme/melody approach to one may not work at all for another. Characters as well.

All of them are composed with notes, arranged in rythm and melody, and with a certain tempo. All of them. Theme and character design should always have priority over plot.

 

[Darlton]

Oh she definitely has appeal, again for various reasons as a concept...but at the same time I don't think people will suffer wthout her if what they do get is good. I don't see her inclusion as being as indispensable, of you will, as the Joker's.

Again, if what they get is good, everything is justifiable. I don't think you can argue the Joker was completely indispensable.

And yes, they've very smoothly worked their films to get the most out of their villains/characters, but at the same time, they have been characters that nicely fit the conflicts that the plots have presented....forces of crime/justice, corruption, social outlook, etc.

Me and others have argued before how she can be exactly that.

as an outsider or 'grey area' character, she might be better suited to something more periodical/episodic in comparison....or at least something that you can dedicate more of a 'slice of life' to, if you will.

Quite the contrary. Her allegiances change, so she can be quite a turncoat and provide several interesting plot twists, while displaying moral ambiguity... and those are three things Nolan likes to use in most of his films. He has proven many different ways of integrating those things in only one film.

Well then they'd have to be more themes than what's presented here. Is she doing what she's doing for more than just herself? Is she making a statement that she wants others to be influenced by, etc.? Some say she doesn't have to...

Well, I strongly disagree with those who say that.

Some fear it may be too contrived and not faithful to the character. It's a tough call.

I strongly disagree with that too.

These things you mention above are already addressed with Batman, and I don't think he needs perspective on it...he's gotten and embodied that thus far.

Focus less on their similarities and more on their differences. It's like listening to the Joker say he and Batman are the same. We all know that's false.

I think he's more than secure with what he is

He shouldn't be. Not after so many of his preconceived ideas failed miserably in The Dark Knight.

what he needs is to get back in good standing with the people of Gotham so that it will inspire them again.

I'm not sure he was being the right kind of inspiration and if being on 'good standing' will help his cause or his character development.

And I see that as being provided by the next plot, the next great conflict.

In which possible way would that conflict return Batman his already weakened public position in Gotham?

And if the writers feel that they'd want something more than that from her if they are going to use her....should they be encouraged to stretch out and create/reinterpret it, or should they use someone else who they feel already fits their motives more inherently?

That is almost a rethoric question. You know the writers should always do what they find best. But it's also true that they're doing an adaptation of a major iconic pop-culture mythos, and they should make their best effort to include the most important elements of that mythos into their adaptation. Catwoman is one of those elements. And I'm one of those who thinks she's a character that writes itself and needs minimum changing to fit in this next film.

 

[Rocaa]

Heya gus, i been reading through some of your ideas for new villians. I'd like to throw my interpretation of what i think should be done next in the next film.

I think there should be two villians. The Joker and the Riddler. Also the Catwomen should be in the third film.The riddler and the joker always look for fun in their crime and against two serious heros, it would be a great clash of indifference. As the joker is in prison and batman is on the run, Catwomen decides to hunt down batman aswell. Nolan could make her a character who is a strong female against injustice and when batman is hunted down, she wants to help get rid of him. The riddler should be introduced as a whack job who admired the work of the joker and wants re inact the chaos that the joker had done. Batman and Catwoman should be enemies as they dont understand one another. Batman thinks Catwomen is another psycho who wants him dead, and Catwomen just believes that Batman is a murderer who killed the cops and harvy. <Catwomen could be interlinked as a girlfriend or close friend of somesort to someone that was killed by the joker, that is now believed to be killed by batman>. The riddler breaks the joker out of prison and they both are obbsessed with batman and catwoman. The riddler finds out that Catwoman is Selina Kyle and leaves his riddles here and there hinting out her real identity. Bruce Wayne figures out that Selina Kyle is Catwoman but hides the fact he is bruce wayne. <Could make bruce and selina have a love hate relationship as bruce wayne and selina and not batman/catwomen as they are enemies since they both have misconceptions about one another>. Batman could save Selina as the joker and the riddler try to kill her and she starts to change her conception on batman and finds out he isnt what the media say him to be. There could be a final battle where bruce is seriously hurt and one of the two villians is left dead. We could make that the riddler and joker in the final battle make each other vunerable to be killed as they turn they own games against each other. When the battle is over and done i think gordon and selina should find out batman = bruce wayne. I could write much more about what i believe would be a steady, more realistic approach to the film, but i think this should suffice :P

Whaddya think

 

[KalMart]

In which possible way would that conflict return Batman his already weakened public position in Gotham?

Saving them from themselves. Maybe something along the lines of The Dark Knight Returns.

That is almost a rethoric question. You know the writers should always do what they find best. But it's also true that they're doing an adaptation of a major iconic pop-culture mythos, and they should make their best effort to include the most important elements of that mythos into their adaptation. Catwoman is one of those elements. And I'm one of those who thinks she's a character that writes itself and needs minimum changing to fit in this next film.

She's important, but I don't think essential for this version of Batman. We're probably only going to get one more installment, so I'd rather they close it out on their terms than feel that they have to squeeze in comic-fan favorites. By now, if they haven't included any one of two of Catwoman, Robin, Batgirl, Riddler, or Penguin....it's okay, there are plenty of other sources/formats to get that in. I'd rather these be the best films that they can be, rather than cover as much of the Batman mythos as it can. I don't think their approach/style naturally suits Catwoman or vice versa, but again, I'd be fine with them remolding her to fit better. It's only a movie version/representation, it doesn't have to be definitive....and given the reinterpretations they've given us on the characters/villains so far, they should be given the same kind of creative freedom for Catwoman or anyone else.

 

[KalMart]

I really hope they try to use as much of the original characters as they can, because the source material is that good. And Catwoman is one of the ones that work best with Nolan's approach, thematically and cinematically speaking.

No one's saying it's not good, But I don't think the quality of these films is based on the quantity of character adaptations.

Of course, that argument is irrefutable and bullet-proof. What's best for a film is best for a film, right? But for argument's sake, speaking in general terms, what road do you think the filmmakers will take after the end of TDK? Don't you think Catwoman completely fits this new situation they've created? Do you feel she needs much rewriting to be able to fit in the sequel? Let's get all the ifs out of the question because what you're actually saying is: "if something is better for the movie, then they should do it"... but that encompasses all sorts of things, from a slight rewrite to even removing Batman out of the story, right? After all, if it fits their scheme and it is a good scheme...
... let's be more adventurous in this debate.

I had one idea that was basically an adaptation of Dark Knight Returns and some other things, mostly on the idea of city crime escalating even more openly now that Joker has eliminated all the former bosses, and Dent is dead. Rioting, diarray, etc. Also with something akin to the mutant gang, some of whom end up emulating Batman then storm the police department...stuff like that. An extension of the crime-drama in TDK, but more apocalyptic, withe the government eventually getting involved. And no I don't see Catwoman fitting that.

First, I believe that the only resolute way to end this series satisfyingly is to take the back the focus to Batman, as opposed to the notable importance that Dent and the Joker had in TDK.
Second, because among Batman’s many appealing traits, maybe the most important is his intense, complex psyche. To not delve into that psyche would be like making a Superman movie without any flying scenes.
And thirdly, three question: 1. Why do you think Batman has to reestablish his standing? 2. If he has to, do you think that should be the main story of the movie? 3. Do you think his importance in the city is lessened now that he is a public enemy?

1) Because his purpose is to inspire the people of Gotham not to give in to crime and hate, and not be indifferent about it.
2) It should be what motivates the story, yes.
3) It's changed...he's demonized and blamed for agitating organized crime and cajoling them into involving them.

Again, I think you're dealing with too many "ifs" and "maybes" here.

And you're not?

Maybe you should approach her character as a direct criminal leader, only without a gang . Maybe she works, at least initially, in a big high-tech thieves crew. Maybe she starts as major player in some criminal organization and then goes rogue with some major information or important possesions. And this are just from the top of my head. There are many, many possible routes for her character to fit in the next storyline. I don't think you should worry about her not working out.

Like I said, I'm not worried or concerned as long as the writers are free to change things should they feel the need, which I'd also hope they'd use appropriately...or even sparingly.

Of course there are many routes, but for the sake of overall story arc, I'd rather that the next movie is a natural continuation/progression....and to me, Catwoman is a character better suited to story after he does what needs to be done in this next installment....which I also hope is the last chapter of this version. Not because I don't like Catwoman. I like her character better than Scarecrow, but I thought he was a good choice (in the way he was used) in BB. Someone else may really like Robin, but hopefully they'd understand why he wouldn't fit this storyline either.

I'm inclined to say "yes", but that denies a lot of potential.

It opens up a lot more, too. It attaches more strings to every bit of possible trust between them.

But we already saw in TDK how he had become a bad symbol. Look at the copy-cats. Look at how quickly the general population wanted to turn him in to the Joker. He was not giving the necessary type of inspiration... Dent was. And so, he stepped back. Maybe the game changes in the third film, but so far, there is no need for him to go back to being that symbol.

Then he has no reason to want to be Batman anymore, since he failed. His taking the heat gave Gotham their martyr. But sooner or later if someone else doesn't fill that role again, and things get bad again, they'll need another symbol of hope. And hopefully they'll recognize Batman as that again.

It's a funny thing, because when you're dealing with Bruce's quest for the right kind of symbol for the city, he hasn't quite found his own. He received inspiration from his two fathers: Thomas Wayne (the philantropist) and Ducard (the vigilante/punisher). He returned to Gotham to inspire people to resist the temptations of corruption and to cooperate with each other... to be good. But Batman cannot be that... he is whatever Gotham needs him to be, but not a symbol of good and hope... at least, not a pure one. Not like the one that Dent was. Thus, Bruce needs to complete himself as an inspiration. He needs to be more like Harvey. He needs to be trusted. And he may not be able to do that.

Catwoman can be the perfect ideological foil for Batman's symbol, one more inspiration. She could be someone who sees herself like some kind of symbol too... but where Batman sees the vast criminal network as the main problem, she sees POVERTY and MISERY as the main problem.

I think that's an interesting start, and what I said way back about making her more than just the self-serving thrill-seeker. Some people ldont' want that level of adaptation, I think she needs it to work in this version.

She has seen her loved ones turn into criminals to escape misery, and she has seen very rich people living undeservedly good lives. So, Catwoman steals from rich people... and Selina Kyle donates part of the money in the numerous charities she's involved in.


The public Bruce Wayne is a spoiled playboy, a cover-up, but as he does that he's failing to be the example his parents were. One of Bruce's main problem is that, unlike his comics counter-part, he hasn't embraced a public figure like his father had. The symbol of a philantropist... the symbol of a giver, an inspiration of good and not only of "fighting against evil". Selina does this stuff, but she's doing the wrong things for the right reasons. She's still a thief, a criminal... but a very rich and complex character.

She would also bring other issues to the table, like what it takes to be an outcast and how to do the wrong things for the right reasons makes you a solitary, separated from society. This idea would also further Gotham's depiction by showing the economic contrasts... not only good versus evil, but fortunate and unfortunate ones and how those who are on the top should be inspirations to HELP others, through philantropy and generosity... something quite similar to the theme of hope in the public light that Dent represented.

Again, if they can expand Catwoman's motives beyond the existential, if you will, it'll be a good start towards fitting her into this world and plot. I'm all for that, but some want her to be more 'spot-on' or what have you.

The Batman persona may have redemption and public pardon in store too, but I can't figure a way to work it out.

Things in the city have to get even worse than they were in TDK...which may be hard to imagine without the Joker, but it could be the ultimate extension of what he was after. Anarchy, chaos, and moral digression.

Don't you think that would be a heavy rewriting of the character? His trauma should always go with him, it's his driving force. That's one of the things Mask Of The Phantams got right. Besides, "peace" and "Batman" should never be in the same sentence.

I think it already has been, and in a good way for these film representations. We don't really need to languish in his trauma any more, I see this all about moving forward in regards to that. He'll always remember it and it'll always be a source of pain, obviously...but he realized in BB that what he is means more than just revenge or compensation for loss...and given the circumstances at hand, it's that much more important to think and move forward. To me, in this take, the murder was his catalyst...his 'drive' is to make the city a better place. I think if his parents were somehow brought back to life, he'd continue being Batman.

Precisely. It doesn't work. It further complicates things. That's exactly what it should do.

Which is why he'd have no need to even entertain it.

Come on, you know their dates are always while he fights crime. Often, while he's chasing her over rooftops.t:

And I don't want to see something like that in this next movie. There's plenty other places/versions to get that.

She's the dangerous, playful rogue, he's the stiff workaholic with no with no sense of humor. If that's not an interesting set-up, I don't know what is.

Robin's the young, more jovial and idealistic counterpart, etc....adding some light-heartedness and freshness to the dourness of such-and-such. Also interesting....but also something I don't think is needed in these particular stories.

You like that word a lot.

Do you not like it?

All of them are composed with notes, arranged in rythm and melody, and with a certain tempo. All of them. Theme and character design should always have priority over plot.

But electric guitars or blues melodies have no place in a classical composition, etc. And theme can still be the main focus....but it's up to the composer to want to use that kind of theme to begin with. If Catwoman isn't a theme or character that they want to explore, they shouldn't feel obligated to, despite her popularity. If they do, and they want to morph her a bit, let them do that too. I just don't see her as being a 'natural' choice with little to no reinterpretation.

 

[batman_1982]

Hi everyone. I've been reading posts about how people could include the penguin in the the dark knight storyline and my thoughts would be why not continue one of the storylines from the dark knight?

Batman and Gordon are still working together albeit under more discrete circumstances due to Batman now being wanted for murder. Now last time they worked together they were working on shutting down the mobs financial revenue. What if this time they were now working on shutting down the mobs weapons suppliers? And on this task it leads them to the Penguin who they find out he is dealing through various night clubs(perhaps one of them was the one that Maroni was at when Batman went after him). The penguin doesn't have to be a major villain, but perhaps something along the same lines as what Lau was in TDK.

A scenario like this would allow for opportunities to streamline All three movies together. References to Gordon's speech at the end of Begins about "wearing kevlar, and they use armor piercing rounds", as well as maybe the club that Maroni was at in TDK being one of Penguins fronts for dealing armed weapons such as the rocket launcher Joker had in TDK.

 

[Dark Knight]

Wow.

After all this brainstorming and going over all these ideas for the 3rd Nolan Bat film, I was thinking, how great would it be to just sit down and have some wine or beer with the Nolan brothers, Goyer, Roven, and Emma and just converse, hang out, throw around ideas and talk for hours (if not days) about the next Bat film with them?

That would be great.....

 

[sabetoonth]

days? you think small my friend, i woul sit for weeks if not months doing that! and t would be great

 

[Darlton]

No one's saying it's not good, But I don't think the quality of these films is based on the quantity of character adaptations.

Done correctly, it's a plus. And in just two films, the Nolans have adapted more villains (and more characters, in general) than any of his predecessors, either in live action or animated films. Since they semm to like that option, they're skillful at it, and this is probably the last Nolan installment, I say don't pull any stops.

I had one idea that was basically an adaptation of Dark Knight Returns and some other things, mostly on the idea of city crime escalating even more openly now that Joker has eliminated all the former bosses, and Dent is dead. Rioting, diarray, etc. Also with something akin to the mutant gang, some of whom end up emulating Batman then storm the police department...stuff like that. An extension of the crime-drama in TDK, but more apocalyptic, with the government eventually getting involved. And no I don't see Catwoman fitting that.

That's not bad. Let's talk about it, why did you pick that particular story? Because of the epic images and the potential for intense thriller sequences? What is the human factor there? In TDK, Bruce felt devastated because he felt that he had brought all this new evil upon the city, and that affects his last decision on the film. In your story, we know Batman will try to stop that gigantic threat, but what doubts does he have as a product of doing so? That's the first thing you should ask yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I like many parts of that idea, but allow me to play devil's advocate: Do you believe that, after Batman's sacrifice, Gotham is headed towards chaos? Why do you think the mob bosses being dead would lead to more crime escalation? On the contrary, Batman took the fall to keep people's hope in the system and avert more escalation. Of course, some is bound to happen, but there must be at least a detonating element. I think it should be the intense police/government persecution Batman is going to face now that he's a public enemy. It could be the perfect irony, the system triggering its fall when obsessively chasing its most sacrificed defender.

And that opens up a thousand of avenues for implementing Catwoman. As a secondary character she can be counterpart for that, being a character that despises the system and chooses to do things completely outside of the Law, like Batman has chosen to. And that will add more doubts to his quest, which are, I repeat... ABSOLUTELY necessary. He needs to have internal conflicts for the story to go well... and those conflicts are manifested in doubts and emotional turmoil. When one has to keep paying a high price for defending people outside of the system, and that same people want to stop you and punish you... well, if that doesn't weaken you, I don't know what could. But the internal turmoil is absolutely integral and necessary, and no idea for the sequel should leave that out.

1) Because his purpose is to inspire the people of Gotham not to give in to crime and hate, and not be indifferent about it.
2) It should be what motivates the story, yes.
3) It's changed...he's demonized and blamed for agitating organized crime and cajoling them into involving them.

1. His purpose is to protect the city. Nothing more. In BB, he thought he could do it by being a symbol of resistance against crime, but in TDK he saw how he couldn't be the kind of inspiration he wanted for the people, and that he was even provoking bigger crimes by allying with the Police.
2. Hmm, why? Do you believe that a man who exacts punishment outside of the Law is a right inspiration for society? It's okay if you do, but Bruce didn't. Which is why he stopped the copy-cats.
3. Well, in less direct way, he did. If you can think a way of changing that reputation, let me know.

And you're not?

Not really. You are talking in terms of the writers doing whatever works for them. I'm actually saying what I think that would work for them more. That's what we should be doing, emphazising what we think it's best for the next movie, and see what it has in common. We should avoid getting to the point of saying: "if the writers think something it's better, they should use it" because it's an obvious truth and because it deprive us of any creative process. Let's just wait for what will come and let it be, no?

Like I said, I'm not worried or concerned as long as the writers are free to change things should they feel the need, which I'd also hope they'd use appropriately...or even sparingly.

Worry not, they are going to do exactly that. They've done it before and after TDK's success they're freer than ever. There's no point in arguing over that.

Of course there are many routes, but for the sake of overall story arc, I'd rather that the next movie is a natural continuation/progression....and to me, Catwoman is a character better suited to story after he does what needs to be done in this next installment....which I also hope is the last chapter of this version.

I think exactly the contrary. I think she's most suited now. What do you think Batman needs to do in the sequel and why do you believe it leaves Catwoman out?

It opens up a lot more, too. It attaches more strings to every bit of possible trust between them.

"Possible trust" means that at some point they rely on each other, at some level. It should be the exception, yes, but a possibility nonetheless. If that's what you say, then we agree.

Then he has no reason to want to be Batman anymore, since he failed. His taking the heat gave Gotham their martyr. But sooner or later if someone else doesn't fill that role again, and things get bad again, they'll need another symbol of hope. And hopefully they'll recognize Batman as that again.

No, he needs to refine that symbol. Like he did at the end of TDK, but some more. He can be hope indeed, but always a tainted one. After all, he's a vigilante, and definetely not a role-model. Really, I can't see a scene similar to that one of Spider-Man 2 with the train passengers.

I think that's an interesting start, and what I said way back about making her more than just the self-serving thrill-seeker. Some people ldont' want that level of adaptation, I think she needs it to work in this version.

COMPLETELY agreed.

I'm all for that, but some want her to be more 'spot-on' or what have you.

What is 'spot on' anyway?

Things in the city have to get even worse than they were in TDK...which may be hard to imagine without the Joker, but it could be the ultimate extension of what he was after. Anarchy, chaos, and moral digression.

Which makes Gotham's people a cowardly loot without principles. When things are bad, they turn back to the one they exiled, right? But then you deny what was achieved in TDK with the ferry people, and the Joker would've been right.

I think it already has been, and in a good way for these film representations. We don't really need to languish in his trauma any more, I see this all about moving forward in regards to that. He'll always remember it and it'll always be a source of pain, obviously...but he realized in BB that what he is means more than just revenge or compensation for loss...and given the circumstances at hand, it's that much more important to think and move forward. To me, in this take, the murder was his catalyst...his 'drive' is to make the city a better place. I think if his parents were somehow brought back to life, he'd continue being Batman.

His desire to 'heal' the city was closely linked to his desire of continuing his parent's work. In this moment of defeat, he must think he has failed them.
You say that it should always be a source of pain... but that needs to be SEEN, not taken for granted. It must be remembered, to give the series some kind of circularity.

Which is why he'd have no need to even entertain it.

Oh no, you WANT to complicate things. In any story, you want conflict. Conflict leads to progression. And, in an action-drama adaptation of Batman... you want MORE conflict.

And I don't want to see something like that in this next movie. There's plenty other places/versions to get that.

That can be done with taste, style and in the vein of these series. After all, he has been personally involved with most of his villains (all the main ones except Scarecrow). When I say date I'm not talking about gratuitous, misplaced flirting. The Joker interrogation scene in TDK can be seen as 'a date'. That's what I'm talking about. After all, dealing with Catwoman would probably be part of Bruce's work.

Robin's the young, more jovial and idealistic counterpart, etc....adding some light-heartedness and freshness to the dourness of such-and-such. Also interesting....but also something I don't think is needed in these particular stories.

What I said is that she was had both chemistry with him AND a place in the story. Look at the zany, unpredictable Joker. Also an interesting set-up when pitched against Batman. Of course, the Joker was integral to the story, but having that chemistry it's a plus.

Do you not like it?

No, I think it's a perfect eject button for averting arguments. Maybe the writers shouldn't include Gordon in the next sequel, if it's good the story. Is he needed?
We should think less in terms of 'maybe' and more in terms of "they should...".

If Catwoman isn't a theme or character that they want to explore, they shouldn't feel obligated to, despite her popularity.

Oh, they won't feel obligated. But if the character is popular, it's because it has great quality and potential.... quality and potential they would want to exploit for the movie. Which is the very same reason Batman got a reboot in the first place.

I just don't see her as being a 'natural' choice with little to no reinterpretation.

After the decisions they made in TDK (opening the door for freak villains, killing Bruce's love interest, isolating him from society, strongly questioning his objectives and methods, etc.) that's exactly what I think she is.... a natural choice. Her quality and popularity only add to that. Some rewrite is required, but nothing more.

 

[StorminNorman]

Aside from being comparatively supporting roles, they represent him....the him they've both known all his life, and the him they know as both Wane and Batman. Can Catwoman be that? Why shouldn't she...or any new character...influence the plot?

The fact both Rachel and Alfred Bruce's whole life was never even mention (or really alluded to) in The Dark Knight, so no dice there. Any new character will influence the plot in some way (or else there is no reason to add them), but they don't need to be the driving force of the plot. Alfred wasn't. Rachel wasn't.

But again, said competent writer may also recognize how the screentime may be better used with someone else. I'm saying it should be up to them, and they shouldn't feel obligated to use Catwoman because she's a traditional Batmamn character if they'd feel better using someone else.

I don't want them to include Catwoman just because she is a traditional character. I want them to include Catwoman because she would be a brilliant addition to the story at hand.

I'm not saying they couldn't. I just think they might either have to make more narrative compromises to accommodate someone like Catwoman, or compromise the accuracy/faithfulness to her character to make her fit. I'm up for the latter if they really want to use her. But if they'd rather not, but feel obligated because she's Catwoman, I'd rather they didn't altogether.

And what I don't understand is how Catwoman is any harder to add than any other character?

Yet you suggested he trust a criminal.

I suggest he learn to trust a criminal. That doesn't mean from their first encounter he trusts her - she has to earn his trust.

Or how about facing his emotions head-on...and dealing with them....as emotions...instead of deflecting them with distractions/thrill-seeking? I believe there's also and old saying like "It won't bring them back". I believe this is a Batman who..while not completely 'over' his parents death...is now doing what he does out of belief and duty, and not revenge. If that's what he wanted, he already got it in BB several times over. And now Joker's in Jail...from here on, his emotions are his emotions, not his M.O.. They could effect what he does along the way, but only after he's decided on what to do based on what he feels is right.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I also don't think any of this is a poitn against the use of Catwoman.

Who is she an anti-hero for? The poor...the socially oppressed....the innocent victims of crime or greed...or just herself?

Depends on what the writer wants to do. She can be any of those, all of those or none of those.

Quite the contrary, I don't think she could be the main antagonist...and I think it'd be difficult making her work as a supporting character in these particular approaches to Batman without making compromises that would negate a good part of the benefit of using her.

I don't want Catwoman to be the main antagonist. I want other characters in this.

But they may not all have to be the 'A-listers'. Was Maroni an A-lister? Maybe not, but he did run a crime family and propagate police corruption...rather important parts of TDK's plot, no? Where would a cat-burglar fit into something like that?

Maroni was not an A-Lister, but the Joker and Two Face were. You seem to be mocking the idea that a cat-burglar can play a major role in the movie, but need I remind you that a good portion of the plot of TDK was dedicated to a mob accountant.

Heres one quick idea I had in mind...
Maybe she steals from the 'wrong guy', maybe like in TDK, the MOB starts taking out innocents to draw her out, and Batman tries to get her to turn herself in...but he's one to talk...and they both know she'll be killed in prison anyway. By bringing her in or forcing her to turn herself in, he's sentencing her to death at the hands of criminals, not the justice system...he's helping the criminals by 'doing what's right'. I think something like that could be a good start, in terms of his own dilemmas. But maybe that's too similar to TDK.

It would work, but there a thousands of stories that could be told in BB3 that could include Catwoman.

And like I said, part of being a skilled writer is also judgment and efficiency. Look at it as being a musician/composer. Someone may like to hear a certain instrument in a song, but that composer would rather not use it for the song they have in mind. They COULD if they absolutely HAD to, but they feel they could do a lot more with that song if they didn't have to bother trying to fit that instrument in. In this case, I'd rather leave it up to the composer to put together the best song they can with the instruments they want to use most.

You seem to assume, though, that the only reason Catwoman would be included in a film is by some mandate. No one is going to mandate Nolan do anything after a Billion Dollar film.

But as it stands, I don't see Catwoman as so obvious of a choice as others that would probably better fit the kind of high-stakes crime stories that have made the last two movies as good as they were....even if she's not necessarily the villain. Plus, I'd like a character we haven't seen in any Batman movies before anyway.

There will be many characters introduced to us in BB3, I am sure a few of them will be new to film.

 

[elgato]

Nice, but.....would Catwoman/Selina wear fur?

:P lol, good question, bro, well maybe she could promote wearing fake fur XD, I just thought she would look more glamorous with that thing on

 

[KalMart]

We could go around in circles forever, but I think we've all stated goo dpoints.....for the sake of streamlining:

After the decisions they made in TDK (opening the door for freak villains, killing Bruce's love interest, isolating him from society, strongly questioning his objectives and methods, etc.) that's exactly what I think she is.... a natural choice. Her quality and popularity only add to that. Some rewrite is required, but nothing more.

I don't think she is, but hey, anything's possible. Like I said, I'd actually LIKE a reinterpretation by these guys. So we'll see.

You seem to assume, though, that the only reason Catwoman would be included in a film is by some mandate. No one is going to mandate Nolan do anything after a Billion Dollar film.

And I believe the writers have already expressed wanting to not use Catwoman or Penguin, and go with someone that hasn't been in a Batman film yet. But no, I didn't assume that anyone would force or pressure then to use Catwoman....I said that I hoped that if they don't see a place for her, they wouldn't use her despite her popularity in the source comics, and that a close decision would still be decided by their story at hand and not her tradition/Comic presence.

Maroni was not an A-Lister, but the Joker and Two Face were. You seem to be mocking the idea that a cat-burglar can play a major role in the movie,

Not at all....I just think that the character being a cat-burglar needs to have more significance/importance to the bigger plot than just them liking to steal.

but need I remind you that a good portion of the plot of TDK was dedicated to a mob accountant.

Need I remind you how important that character and his relationship to the villains were....how his being what he was could drastically effect everything the mob is working for...this accountant character?

There will be many characters introduced to us in BB3, I am sure a few of them will be new to film.

They could also go with very few new characters...or some of them being major characters created just for that story (like our friend the accountant)...whatever works best for the story at hand. Getting back to your 'A-listers' comment, and like you said, they shouldn't be mandated by anything....much less a list. We'll have to see.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Just for the sake of stirring **** up, how hilarious would it be if Nolan returned and rebooted the Batman franchise, therefore putting yet another spin on the characters?

 

[sabetoonth]

that could get hm killed, not by me just people tired of reboots

 

[Darlton]

Good, I think this is coming to an end.

Norman:

The fact both Rachel and Alfred Bruce's whole life was never even mention (or really alluded to) in The Dark Knight, so no dice there.

To be fair, they were both introduced in Begins and their status as the closest people to Bruce gives them some kind of background. She says to Alfred: “You know him better than anyone.” and in the party, Bruce calls Rachel his “oldest friend”.

I suggest he learn to trust a criminal. That doesn't mean from their first encounter he trusts her - she has to earn his trust.

I say this would be a really good idea. The possibility of some goodness among certain criminals has gone completely unexplored in the series. If Catwoman is indeed included, the writers should aim to that.

You seem to be mocking the idea that a cat-burglar can play a major role in the movie, but need I remind you that a good portion of the plot of TDK was dedicated to a mob accountant.

Lol, touché.

You seem to assume, though, that the only reason Catwoman would be included in a film is by some mandate. No one is going to mandate Nolan do anything after a Billion Dollar film.

Couldn't agree more.


KalMart:

And I believe the writers have already expressed wanting to not use Catwoman or Penguin, and go with someone that hasn't been in a Batman film yet.

Both the Joker and Two-Face have been in previous bat-films, yet they were two of the main characters in the last film. A lot of time has passed since that statement, so I hope the writers have had plenty of time to considered.

I said that I hoped that if they don't see a place for her, they wouldn't use her despite her popularity in the source comics, and that a close decision would still be decided by their story at hand and not her tradition/Comic presence.

When working with adaptations, you often craft the story after the elements the source material provides you with. In fact, most of the themes, messages and plot points in The Dark Knight were already there in the comics. They were just selected and organized, but they were already attached to the characters. My hope is that the film writers notice the characters (Catwoman among them) and all the potential they have, and THEN build the story after them, not the other way around.

Not at all....I just think that the character being a cat-burglar needs to have more significance/importance to the bigger plot than just them liking to steal.

This is an undeniable requirement. I believe that when the Joker said he wanted a better kind of criminals, he was speaking for the Nolans. Their stories have always dealt with ideals and principles. Even the Scarecrow, who was working for money, believed in "the power of the mind over the body", which is a very philosophical way to approach his own sadistic nature. The Nolans don't seem to like mundane and simple, and that's how Catwoman shouldn't be. She shouldn't be "just a thief who likes to steal".

Need I remind you how important that character and his relationship to the villains were....how his being what he was could drastically effect everything the mob is working for...this accountant character?

Catwoman should be exactly that. A key character.

 

[KalMart]

Lol, touché.

And negated, if you read the response. By that reasoning, they could just as easily go with a mob lawyer instead of Catwoman if he's integrated well, since it worked so well in TDK...of which I agree.

Both the Joker and Two-Face have been in previous bat-films, yet they were two of the main characters in the last film.

Which was my exact reaction when I read what they said, but apparently they were only referring to the next movie and wanting to try different people now.

A lot of time has passed since that statement, so I hope the writers have had plenty of time to considered.

What if they did and stuck to it? Should they take more time until they 'come around'?

When working with adaptations, you often craft the story after the elements the source material provides you with. In fact, most of the themes, messages and plot points in The Dark Knight were already there in the comics. They were just selected and organized, but they were already attached to the characters. My hope is that the film writers notice the characters (Catwoman among them) and all the potential they have, and THEN build the story after them, not the other way around.

Right, and they could select story elements from other comics as well....but that doesn't mean that any one of them has to include Catwoman. There are plenty of great Batman storylines to choose from that don't have Catwoman and may be the best fit for what they're going for. I hope that they choose what they feel is best in terms of story, and whether or not it includes Catwoman shouldn't influence that decision as much as the story/narrative itself. They might look at one with Hush or even a character that shows up only once in that story...if they feel it's a better story, Catwoman being more popular or oft-used character shouldn't matter.

You may prefer that they choose one with Catwoman, I might prefer that they not. But the deciding factor shouldn't necessarily bet he popularity of the character.

This is an undeniable requirement. I believe that when the Joker said he wanted a better kind of criminals, he was speaking for the Nolans. Their stories have always dealt with ideals and principles. Even the Scarecrow, who was working for money, believed in "the power of the mind over the body", which is a very philosophical way to approach his own sadistic nature. The Nolans don't seem to like mundane and simple, and that's how Catwoman shouldn't be. She shouldn't be "just a thief who likes to steal".

I agree...I think she'll have to be more than that...or she could start like that but get inadvertently caught in the middle of something severe....something that could spell her doom either way if she's 'caught', but will perpetuate violence and collateral damage if she's not. But then how would she feel about innocent people continuing to get killed because of her actions? Batman felt awful, obviously, but it was clear that it was more 'par the course' for the sake of the bigger battle. Would Catwoman have a bigger battle as well? If not, and she's okay with people dying because of her as long as it's not her....then she really is a criminal and someone Batman should feel no connection with....even if she does try and throw it back at him because he did the 'same. No, he's not the same in that case. But if she does have a bigger idealism or what have you, then yo can get into the whole "You're one to talk..." dynamic. There's some possibilities there, I think.

Catwoman should be exactly that. A key character.

One would hope so. Screen and story time is precious, especially when things are done well. The smoother things weave into the larger scheme, the more complex and profound you can make it without wasting time on exposition or pathos. Just gotta make sure the weave is right.



Good discussion, yo.

 

[Darlton]

And negated, if you read the response. By that reasoning, they could just as easily go with a mob lawyer instead of Catwoman if he's integrated well, since it worked so well in TDK...of which I agree.

I did read it, and yes, they could, but I fail too see how that is an argument. Plot wise, Lau was great, and if the next film holds us that, all the better... but Catwoman happens to be a better character.

Which was my exact reaction when I read what they said, but apparently they were only referring to the next movie and wanting to try different people now.

I believe that comment was made pre-TDK, but I could be wrong. Either way, comments can be contradicted.

What if they did and stuck to it? Should they take more time until they 'come around'?

No, Catwoman is not worth waiting more time. But that is beyond this topic and you know it

Right, and they could select story elements from other comics as well....but that doesn't mean that any one of them has to include Catwoman.

Nobody said it was an obligation. Just a desired goal.

There are plenty of great Batman storylines to choose from that don't have Catwoman and may be the best fit for what they're going for. I hope that they choose what they feel is best in terms of story, and whether or not it includes Catwoman shouldn't influence that decision as much as the story/narrative itself.

But us fans, seeing what they've done so far, we can venture to predict where the story is going, or even should be going.

Let's pretend we are the writers... what are the paremeters you would use for picking elements from the source material? Which are the pros and cons? If you start thinking that way it will be a lot more creative and will clear out lots of the 'maybes'. What do you think it's a better route for the story?

Because, in the end, every character if good in terms of story. When they don't fit is when you add things like narrative, aesthetic or diegetic/realism elements.

For example, we all know a mutant Clayface that adds no psychological conflict to Batman it's a bad call. Well, I'm sure the writers feel the same. Let's try to think like them. And not that I'm not talking about "what you want to see", but what you think you will see. I want to see Mr. Freeze but I know I won't. On the other hand, I really think they'll use Catwoman, because it fits with the way they've approached the series

I hope it's not confusing.

 

[KalMart]

I did read it, and yes, they could, but I fail too see how that is an argument.

As I failed to see how the original point about the accountant was.

Plot wise, Lau was great, and if the next film holds us that, all the better... but Catwoman happens to be a better character.

But not necessarily better for everything. They might go with a story in which someone else is better...or is better suited to someone else. Catwoman is a good candidate, but may not necessarily better or best for what they have in mind. At best, I think it's completely open with others possibly being a more 'natural' fit for the kind of crime/social stories these Batman movies are, objectively speaking....some feel differently.

Again, this is going off the whole "She steals for herself, and is only doing things for herself" character premise, which is what started this whole thing.

I believe that comment was made pre-TDK, but I could be wrong. Either way, comments can be contradicted.

Y'mean...after BB when they showed the Joker card at the end of it? Fascinating.

No, Catwoman is not worth waiting more time. But that is beyond this topic and you know it

Just like she's not worth pushing to the front of the pile, for that matter, unless the writers have the freedom to reinterpret as we've been discussing.

Nobody said it was an obligation. Just a desired goal.

For those who want Catwoman, sure.

But us fans, seeing what they've done so far, we can venture to predict where the story is going, or even should be going.

Yes, and so can more casual fans of the films who are open to them using anyone without particularly favoring Catwoman or anyone else based heavily on comic tradition/popularity. If it's Catwoman or some other character it's just as attractive (leaving out the love story stuff) or unattractive/undesirable. It's more important that they go with a story that they feel good about making into a good film than whether or not Catwoman will make it into the next movie. If they want Catwoman, fine...if they don't, just as fine.

Let's pretend we are the writers... what are the paremeters you would use for picking elements from the source material? Which are the pros and cons? If you start thinking that way it will be a lot more creative and will clear out lots of the 'maybes'. What do you think it's a better route for the story?

I'd first consider where the story has left off, where Batman is, and what he should accomplish in the next story. Then I'd go back and look for comic examples that resemble that kind of plot arc, as well as the characters that are utilized in those stories. I'd then pick the pieces of them that I'd feel were appropriate and see which ones I'd want to use, and look at the characters involved and see which ones fit the kind of version of the Batman world I'm portraying. There could be a story with Killer Croc...for example... in which I like the story and the dynamics of, but I don't think Killer Croc would fit the world I'm after...so I'd see if I could do a version of that story without Killer Croc. If I felt I couldn't, I'd drop it and pick another story and see if that character would fit.

If the majority of stories that I think work best have Killer Croc, then I'd look at how I could adapt Killer Croc into a version that I think works better for the film than what's been presented....or if that doesn't go anywhere, I'd come up with my own story that has relatively similar dynamics but isn't at all dependent on Killer Croc. I'd take the same approach if it were Catwoman or anyone else aside form the Joker.

Because, in the end, every character if good in terms of story. When they don't fit is when you add things like narrative, aesthetic or diegetic/realism elements.

"Good" is still very much up to the opinion of the person observing it, though. And even if something is good for what it is, it...and even its character....may not be appropriate for what you're after.

For example, we all know a mutant Clayface that adds no psychological conflict to Batman it's a bad call. Well, I'm sure the writers feel the same. Let's try to think like them. And not that I'm not talking about "what you want to see", but what you think you will see.
I want to see Mr. Freeze but I know I won't. On the other hand, I really think they'll use Catwoman, because it fits with the way they've approached the series

I hope it's not confusing.

I think they'll go with a main villain or villainous element that represents the phenomenon of crime and its effects on society...like the League Of Shadows and Joker did in their respective ways. That will set up the main conflict for Batman, what he has to combat and what he has to help save the city from. I think they'll need someone who leads a group/underworld society. Maybe adapt Riddler into that, or Black Mask or the like...someone whose character leads a crime element in their source material form. Then work on Gordon as Comissioner...how things are even more difficult for him now...more corruption, more pressure...both from the city/department, and the secrets he's holding about Batman's true responsibility in the Dent incident. How has his relationship with Batman changed? Is his trust in Batman conflicting too much with his duty now?

They'll probably consider including Catwoman, evaluate how she would be directly involved, even if she's caught up in it, and how she could either affect a chain of events that would influence the bigger criminal's motives/pursuit....or be a target with dire consequences. Then they might look at how to set her up so that's it's not just an easy solution like 'catch her and put her in jail', like you would any other Thief. What is she doing it for, what would be her argument against turning herself in or letting Batman bring her in, and how that could translate into some action and not just expository character drama? From there, look at the love story element and see whether it would really add anything other than just romance.

After that and a few other steps...take a step back and see if it's worth it. Is it bringing down the momentum of the main conflict, have we changed her so much to fit the story that she's only Catwoman in name only, do we find ourselves struggling for story/screen space just to give her and Batman some time so she's not just a side character, are we compromising the flow and impact of our plot to accommodate her? If the answer is yes to any one of those after looking at all the angles....then she's gone, and we can expand more on the main plot and villains. If we can get to a point where the answer to all of those is clearly no, for us....then she's in.

Something like that.

 

[KalMart]

I want to get back to this for a bit....

That's not bad. Let's talk about it, why did you pick that particular story? Because of the epic images and the potential for intense thriller sequences?

Because I think it's a good representation of the city falling into absolute disarray, things becoming almost apocalyptic, and law enforcement verging on complete powerlessness. The kind of scenario ripe for a hero restoring his place as the people's champion by saving them from their own loss of control, and from anarchy. He took the hit/blame at the end of TDK, he can be the hero/leader again this time around.

What is the human factor there?

Not sure what you're looking for here, aside from Batman's sense of duty and faith.

In TDK, Bruce felt devastated because he felt that he had brought all this new evil upon the city, and that affects his last decision on the film. In your story, we know Batman will try to stop that gigantic threat, but what doubts does he have as a product of doing so? That's the first thing you should ask yourself.

I don't see a need for Batman to question himself any more, or blame himself for things getting as bad as they did. He's dedicated to the people of Gotham and believes that once they learn not to succomb, they'll believe in him again, as well as themselves. He has faith, not doubts.

Don't get me wrong, I like many parts of that idea, but allow me to play devil's advocate: Do you believe that, after Batman's sacrifice, Gotham is headed towards chaos?

Yes. Because

a) they don't know that Batman 'sacrficed' anything. They see him as still being at large and responsible for what we know Dent was.

b) Their beacon of hope...Dent...is dead.

and...

Why do you think the mob bosses being dead would lead to more crime escalation?

c) there are still criminals and mobsters on the streets, but with no leaders. So it's more of a free-for-all and struggle for power. Same with police corruption without a stable underworld system....those were their bosses too in a lot of ways. Their harshest critic - Dent - is gone, ties with the older more organized regimes are gone so they'll steal from those who steal, kill mobsters unprovoked, the criminals will retaliate because they have no more protection like before, etc. Without leadership and structure, it's whatever you can stuff in your pocket while fighting off the guy trying to take it from you. Pretty good recipe for escalation.

On the contrary, Batman took the fall to keep people's hope in the system and avert more escalation.

Temporarily. It was at a fever pitch at the time, and they found a certain moral victory in Joker being incarcerated...albeit at the cost of their strongest advocate (or so they thought). But Batman gave them a martyr moreso than giving them another demon (which was basically the side-effect), because the effects on their morale learning of Dent's betrayal would be worse. There was no undoing what Dent had become and commited, but he could at least help keep it from being known at such a fragile time.

But again, now that Dent is gone, and things have escalated, they're feeling the effects of his loss in the fact that no-one's come in to take his place and continue like he did. His assistant is gone too...who the heck is going to be the new DA? As cliché as it may sound, it was the end of a battle, but the real war is just getting started.

Of course, some is bound to happen, but there must be at least a detonating element. I think it should be the intense police/government persecution Batman is going to face now that he's a public enemy. It could be the perfect irony, the system triggering its fall when obsessively chasing its most sacrificed defender.

That and the increase in collateral damage from the escalation of crime. Batman's capture could become more of a PR issue...like the FBI trying to save face after Ruby Ridge by catching criminal or terrorist who may not be directly responsible.

Or....like going after Iraq in the wake of 9/11. "Hey...at least we got somebody...!"

There's your added pressure on Gordon, on top of trying to run an entire police force, deal with internal corruption, and if they can get around to it....make the streets safer....he needs the police to make a good showing by nabbing someone he, and only he, knows is a hero.

And that opens up a thousand of avenues for implementing Catwoman.

Not the way I see it, at least not in a story like this.

As a secondary character she can be counterpart for that, being a character that despises the system and chooses to do things completely outside of the Law, like Batman has chosen to. And that will add more doubts to his quest, which are, I repeat... ABSOLUTELY necessary.

What can I say...I absolutely disagree in this case/story.

He needs to have internal conflicts for the story to go well... and those conflicts are manifested in doubts and emotional turmoil. When one has to keep paying a high price for defending people outside of the system, and that same people want to stop you and punish you... well, if that doesn't weaken you, I don't know what could. But the internal turmoil is absolutely integral and necessary, and no idea for the sequel should leave that out.

Again, I don't see the room or need for that if they were to go with something like the above. Whatever inner turmoil over what's happened should motivate him even moreso....so that his losses/sacrifices won't be for nothing. Rachel, Dent, all those innoccent people...guilt has no place anymore, it's about them giving their lives for a purpose. That should embolden him, not cast doubts. That's why I look at this possible story idea as sort of a 'last stand' (please keep that separate from the Xmen associatoin :P). One big battle that may be his last for the fate of Gotham....something that he'll use the past pains as inspiration for, and not have them hold him back. That's the point that Alfred was making to him after Rachel's death, that he has to go for both himself and them...because ultimately, they wanted what he wanted too.

 

[Darlton]

As I failed to see how the original point about the accountant was.

That you were saying a cat-burglar couldn't really have any major role in a high-stakes conflict of crime wars and losing the city. But Norman pointed out that the profession is meaningless, because a simple mob accountant was made really important. Is what you do with the character what counts.

At best, I think it's completely open with others possibly being a more 'natural' fit for the kind of crime/social stories these Batman movies are, objectively speaking....some feel differently.

Sorry, maybe I'm just too biased, but right now I can't think of a better character from the rogues gallery to fit in (and widen up) the spectrum of the series crime-social theme. Especially the social part.

Again, this is going off the whole "She steals for herself, and is only doing things for herself" character premise, which is what started this whole thing.

I was late to the debate. Excuse me for that. I think the "she steals for herself" premise is dead on arrival. That is not an interesting character. Not enough.

Y'mean...after BB when they showed the Joker card at the end of it? Fascinating.

Yeah, I didn't remember that in the plastic bag with card was also Two-Face's coin. Oh, right, it wasn't.
(please, don't tempt me. sarcasm comes naturally.)

Just like she's not worth pushing to the front of the pile, for that matter, unless the writers have the freedom to reinterpret as we've been discussing.

Well, one more time: they do have the freedom.

Yes, and so can more casual fans of the films who are open to them using anyone without particularly favoring Catwoman or anyone else based heavily on comic tradition/popularity.

Point being..? I said 'fans' in general, including you. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

It's more important that they go with a story that they feel good about making into a good film than whether or not Catwoman will make it into the next movie.

It's not totally about feeling good with the story. You know it. It's an adaptation. Of course, Catwoman it's not a necessary requirement, but if it ws about making the movie based only in what they like, in Begins Bruce and Ducard would've been 19th century British magicians trying to kill each other (The Prestige).
The writers must attain a compromise between what they like, what they think that will work with audiences and what exists in the source material. Catwoman's popularity and longevity in the comics is, along with some not-so-good reasons, due to an extraordinary flexibility and magnificent overall potential for character dynamics and appealing psychological design. Most of what is good for comic writers is also good for the film writers... which is why Harvey Dent worked so well and the Joker worked so well this time.

I'd first consider where the story has left off, where Batman is, and what he should accomplish in the next story. Then I'd go back and look for comic examples that resemble that kind of plot arc, as well as the characters that are utilized in those stories. I'd then pick the pieces of them that I'd feel were appropriate and see which ones I'd want to use, and look at the characters involved and see which ones fit the kind of version of the Batman world I'm portraying.

Excellent method. Does it make you reject Catwoman?

"Good" is still very much up to the opinion of the person observing it, though. And even if something is good for what it is, it...and even its character....may not be appropriate for what you're after.

But if the story is not pre-defined, and there are plenty of reasons to believe exactly that, then every character can be good, because the story could go on any number of routes.
Change "good" for "Valid", if you want. That's what I was saying anyway.

I think they'll go with a main villain or villainous element that represents the phenomenon of crime and its effects on society...like the League Of Shadows and Joker did in their respective ways.

Great. I don't want Catwoman to be a main villain, but she can represent people who are not bad but still came to crime to leave misery (or she may have sympathy for such people). She would also be a criminal who works pretty much alone, which is different of Ra's, Scarecrow, the Joker and every mob member, because all of them had henchmen. She may be a thief for hire, or do some eventual works with a crew or for a mob boss. She may help some innocent people with some of her crimes, and that's a new thing on these films. She may put blame on the Gotham's problems in people's misery and the indiference of wealthy people, and resent the whole political system for that.
... Bottom line, when it comes to representation, she unique and irreplaceable.
But you were talking about the main villain...

That will set up the main conflict for Batman, what he has to combat and what he has to help save the city from. I think they'll need someone who leads a group/underworld society. Maybe adapt Riddler into that, or Black Mask or the like...someone whose character leads a crime element in their source material form. Then work on Gordon as Comissioner...how things are even more difficult for him now...more corruption, more pressure...both from the city/department, and the secrets he's holding about Batman's true responsibility in the Dent incident. How has his relationship with Batman changed? Is his trust in Batman conflicting too much with his duty now?
They'll probably consider including Catwoman, evaluate how she would be directly involved, even if she's caught up in it, and how she could either affect a chain of events that would influence the bigger criminal's motives/pursuit....or be a target with dire consequences.

Well, since Batman is on the run and now receiving fire from both sides, you would need a powerful villain either on the crime organization part (maybe the Penguin) or the Law part (someone in the government is a possibility). Or both.

Either way, we're talking about someone resourceful and powerful that will bring a lot of heat on Batman/Gotham. Catwoman, being someone antagonistic to wealthy people or to those in the establishment, will antagonize this main villain and will want to make some move against him, which opens lots of routes for plot dynamics. Since she's a phenomenal thief able to break and enter in a multitude of places and to place her hands in important sums of money o highly valuable artifacts, she's quite versatile as a character, plot-wise.

Sounds crazy?

From there, look at the love story element and see whether it would really add anything other than just romance.

It really would. That Batman feels something for her complicates things, because it puts his emotions against his sense of duty. If they work collaborate at some point and it's discovered, it would further deteriorate his public image, which is a good plot complication. The love interest angle can also function as the opposite of what Rachel was: instead of a platonic love that made Bruce desire quit being Batman and influenced him with lots of ethic values, Catwoman can work as a temptation to break/abandon some of those values, along with tempting Bruce to perpetuate the Batman persona and isolate completely from society. Rachel was his only hope for a normal life. Catwoman may be the total opposite.

Add some reactions from other supporting characters: Alfred would have his say on the matter; she may antagonize allies like Gordon; she may even try to steal important things from Wayne Enterprises, crossing Fox's path.

Catwoman comes with a multitude of options.

After that and a few other steps...take a step back and see if it's worth it. Is it bringing down the momentum of the main conflict

No, quite the contrary. Her involvement in the main plot raises the stake, especially if her life or othe people's lives are endangered.

...have we changed her so much to fit the story that she's only Catwoman in name only?

It resembles the Catwoman I know a lot.

...do we find ourselves struggling for story/screen space just to give her and Batman some time so she's not just a side character

Seeing how many characters were used in the previous film, I sincerely doubt it.

...are we compromising the flow and impact of our plot to accommodate her?

She's a pretty dynamic character with a lot of versatility. She can be dangerous, unpredictable, radical, zany, flirtatious, irascible, melancholic, determined, mysterious, deceptive, blunt, resourceful, elusive... and so on. She's as versatile as they come and could play well into any number of scenarios.

If the answer is yes to any one of those after looking at all the angles....then she's gone, and we can expand more on the main plot and villains. If we can get to a point where the answer to all of those is clearly no, for us....then she's in.

Congratulations everybody. It's a girl!... t:

 

[Darlton]

Because I think it's a good representation of the city falling into absolute disarray, things becoming almost apocalyptic, and law enforcement verging on complete powerlessness. The kind of scenario ripe for a hero restoring his place as the people's champion by saving them from their own loss of control, and from anarchy. He took the hit/blame at the end of TDK, he can be the hero/leader again this time around.

Yeah, I got that the first time, but that has been the case in every Batman movie ever. The whole city is in great danger and completely falling apart, until Batman saves the day. Since that is almost an obligation for the climax scene, we can agree that the film doesn't have to start like that. And if it doesn't start that way (for rhythm purposes) then it's not the main story. Just the climatic stage of any number of stories.

Not sure what you're looking for here, aside from Batman's sense of duty and faith.

I meant... if the city falls right away into complete chaos and danger and Batman comes and saves the day, being restored to hero status... what does he learn? What personal transformation does he endure? What revelation does he get out of the whole deal?
Which is why I say it's not enough.

I don't see a need for Batman to question himself any more, or blame himself for things getting as bad as they did. He's dedicated to the people of Gotham and believes that once they learn not to succomb, they'll believe in him again, as well as themselves. He has faith, not doubts.

So, he contradicts what he came to believe in The Dark Knight? Or he runs from the choppers and police dogs, wishing for some major catastrophe to happen so he can save the day? Can't see him doing any of those.
He questions himself and blames himself because that's what he does... that's who he is.

a) they don't know that Batman 'sacrficed' anything. They see him as still being at large and responsible for what we know Dent was.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. That ignorance inspires them to keep on being good.

b) Their beacon of hope...Dent...is dead.

They'll work on their own, trying to resist criminals like they learned to do in the ferries, with the hope of find another white knight that emerges from the people.

c) there are still criminals and mobsters on the streets, but with no leaders. So it's more of a free-for-all and struggle for power. Same with police corruption without a stable underworld system....those were their bosses too in a lot of ways.

But without leadership, how can they organize themselves? The crime world has been beheaded. They couldn't solve their internal struggles when Falcone was gone, why would they know? Yes, that can be inducive to street battles, but the less organizaed they are, the easiest for the police to take them down. Especially with less police corruption now that their money supply got interrupted.

Their harshest critic - Dent - is gone, ties with the older more organized regimes are gone so they'll steal from those who steal, kill mobsters unprovoked, the criminals will retaliate because they have no more protection like before, etc.

Nah. Like I said, once the leader no longer pay up the cops, corruption weakens. If you're a corrupt police you do things subtle... you don't risk your position or your life killing mob members, stealing instead of being paid and starting out street battles. That's not how it works.

Without leadership and structure, it's whatever you can stuff in your pocket while fighting off the guy trying to take it from you. Pretty good recipe for escalation.

Without less support and more confrontatio from the police, it's pretty good recipe for wiping out every trace of organized crime.

But again, now that Dent is gone, and things have escalated, they're feeling the effects of his loss in the fact that no-one's come in to take his place and continue like he did. His assistant is gone too...who the heck is going to be the new DA? As cliché as it may sound, it was the end of a battle, but the real war is just getting started.

War against who? The way things ended, I'd be more willing to bet a strong antagonistic force in the government side that on the criminal side. Perhaps on both. (He, could what about a "Cobblepot for Mayor" camapaign?).

But I digress. My point is that things are worst for Batman than for the city, and that how's the movie should start... not with an inminent threat on the city. What's inminent is the threat on Batman's life. The danger over the city can be developed within the movie until it reaches it's climax near the end. But, right now, I don't see the recipe for a crisis involving organized crime. Unless you do one of two things:

1. Introduce a new gang lord who does things different from his predecessors (Penguin again), or...
2. Make the crisis about Freak criminals that were inspired by the Joker.

The problem I see with the second option is that it was hinted that freaks like the Joker emerge out of reaction of radical moves from the system.
But now Batman has separated himself from the Law, there is less chance of that happening. Which brings us back to the encessity of a strong, radical, antagonistic force from within the Law...

See? This is taking form.

That and the increase in collateral damage from the escalation of crime. Batman's capture could become more of a PR issue...like the FBI trying to save face after Ruby Ridge by catching criminal or terrorist who may not be directly responsible.

Or....like going after Iraq in the wake of 9/11. "Hey...at least we got somebody...!"

Great parallel. That chase needs to have LOTS of collateral damage, though.

What can I say...I absolutely disagree in this case/story.

Why?

Again, I don't see the room or need for that if they were to go with something like the above. Whatever inner turmoil over what's happened should motivate him even moreso....so that his losses/sacrifices won't be for nothing. Rachel, Dent, all those innoccent people...guilt has no place anymore, it's about them giving their lives for a purpose. That should embolden him, not cast doubts. That's why I look at this possible story idea as sort of a 'last stand' (please keep that separate from the Xmen associatoin :P). One big battle that may be his last for the fate of Gotham....something that he'll use the past pains as inspiration for, and not have them hold him back. That's the point that Alfred was making to him after Rachel's death, that he has to go for both himself and them...because ultimately, they wanted what he wanted too.

Please, redirect to the questions in bold letters.

 

[KalMart]

That you were saying a cat-burglar couldn't really have any major role in a high-stakes conflict of crime wars and losing the city. But Norman pointed out that the profession is meaningless, because a simple mob accountant was made really important. Is what you do with the character what counts.

Well, considering that mob accountants have always been highly important to...the mob...and those who are trying to take down...the mob......both you and Norman should rethink it a bit more.

Sorry, maybe I'm just too biased, but right now I can't think of a better character from the rogues gallery to fit in (and widen up) the spectrum of the series crime-social theme. Especially the social part.

They could even not draw so heavily from the rogues gallery, as well. If it's for the better of the story, then I'm fine with that too. I don't see there having to be that kind of quota as much anymore.

I was late to the debate. Excuse me for that. I think the "she steals for herself" premise is dead on arrival. That is not an interesting character. Not enough.

I agree.

Yeah, I didn't remember that in the plastic bag with card was also Two-Face's coin. Oh, right, it wasn't.
(please, don't tempt me. sarcasm comes naturally.)

Too bad it sounds so forced. Heh

Seriously, you know what I mean...if they really believed that they wanted characters never seen before after BB, they probably would have regretted setting it up like that.

Well, one more time: they do have the freedom.

And one more time still....I'm referring to the 'steals for herself' box that some don't want to venture out of.

Point being..? I said 'fans' in general, including you. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I don't remember excluding myself from that. Neither did I say that anyone couldn't. At the same time, if you were referring to Batman fans who might have a certain affinity towards Catwoman, her being such a big part of Batman lore, I don't think she'll be as missed by more casual moviegoers if what they get is good. If not, then never mind.

It's not totally about feeling good with the story. You know it. It's an adaptation. Of course, Catwoman it's not a necessary requirement, but if it ws about making the movie based only in what they like, in Begins Bruce and Ducard would've been 19th century British magicians trying to kill each other (The Prestige).
The writers must attain a compromise between what they like, what they think that will work with audiences and what exists in the source material. Catwoman's popularity and longevity in the comics is, along with some not-so-good reasons, due to an extraordinary flexibility and magnificent overall potential for character dynamics and appealing psychological design. Most of what is good for comic writers is also good for the film writers... which is why Harvey Dent worked so well and the Joker worked so well this time.

See, I'd like it if by now they could go into the next one without that compromise. Not that they'd bring in a made-up alien or what have you, but again we're talking about the whole 'obligation' thing....and I know that this is the farthest stretch of my whole outlook on it. I don't think they have a duty to include Catwoman insomuch as it shouldn't be something that they feel bound to if it's not in their best interest, narratively. I think they've built a good enough rep with these movies in that they can still be great Batman representations without having to cover all the key elements that Batman fans want to see 'brought to life'. their whole 'realistic' approach kinda; keeps them from really using a lot of the comic Batman world, but that's okay, because what they do include is so good.

And with the style/approach that they've taken, I just don't feel that Catwoman is a natural or desirable choice in concept, even though she may work extremely well in other approaches. Again, that's where we differ and that's how it'll likely stay. I'll still watch it and look forward to it, but we just differ on outlook.

Excellent method. Does it make you reject Catwoman?

Wait for it.

But if the story is not pre-defined, and there are plenty of reasons to believe exactly that, then every character can be good, because the story could go on any number of routes.
Change "good" for "Valid", if you want. That's what I was saying anyway.

Not saying they can't be good or valid, but you start looking ahead to how the pieces will fall together based on the precedent et al, and you can make your judgments.

I take it Robin is someone that right away you can't see fitting, for example. You'd have reasons for that and someone else might disagree with them...albeit different reasons than for Catwoman. But they're there...and yes...you can right away feel that someone has less of a chance depending on how you fitting you feel they are, and/or how you see the story evolving.

Great. I don't want Catwoman to be a main villain, but she can represent people who are not bad but still came to crime to leave misery (or she may have sympathy for such people). She would also be a criminal who works pretty much alone, which is different of Ra's, Scarecrow, the Joker and every mob member, because all of them had henchmen. She may be a thief for hire, or do some eventual works with a crew or for a mob boss. She may help some innocent people with some of her crimes, and that's a new thing on these films. She may put blame on the Gotham's problems in people's misery and the indiference of wealthy people, and resent the whole political system for that.

Cool, more possibilities.

... Bottom line, when it comes to representation, she unique and irreplaceable.
But you were talking about the main villain...

And she doesn't have to be replaced...especially if she never shows up. The question is will there be something inherently missing without her? I don't believe so....not here.

Well, since Batman is on the run and now receiving fire from both sides, you would need a powerful villain either on the crime organization part (maybe the Penguin) or the Law part (someone in the government is a possibility). Or both.

Either way, we're talking about someone resourceful and powerful that will bring a lot of heat on Batman/Gotham. Catwoman, being someone antagonistic to wealthy people or to those in the establishment, will antagonize this main villain and will want to make some move against him, which opens lots of routes for plot dynamics. Since she's a phenomenal thief able to break and enter in a multitude of places and to place her hands in important sums of money o highly valuable artifacts, she's quite versatile as a character, plot-wise.

Sounds crazy?

No, but it's not terribly intriguing either...in terms of her further affecting them with her thievery. Not as much as how they pressured the mob's money/power through the system etc. in TDK. I dunno....I don't see her repeatedly stealing that stuff by herself as enough of a 'move'...it still seems more of a prank. Maybe she steals once from them , and uncovers their books or something fingering their law connections...threatening both them and the law enforcement people involved. The cops threaten to cut all ties and come down hard if it's not found and burned, but the mob threatens to out them in return...so both sides want to find this list or book without it getting out into the open. Catwoman sees it as leverage, but doesn't want to out herself, so maybe she tries to contact Batman or what have you...and the he wants her to turn herself in......such n' such and so forth......

i dunno...I'm getting a bit tired.

It really would. That Batman feels something for her complicates things, because it puts his emotions against his sense of duty. If they work collaborate at some point and it's discovered, it would further deteriorate his public image, which is a good plot complication. The love interest angle can also function as the opposite of what Rachel was: instead of a platonic love that made Bruce desire quit being Batman and influenced him with lots of ethic values, Catwoman can work as a temptation to break/abandon some of those values, along with tempting Bruce to perpetuate the Batman persona and isolate completely from society. Rachel was his only hope for a normal life. Catwoman may be the total opposite.

Add some reactions from other supporting characters: Alfred would have his say on the matter; she may antagonize allies like Gordon; she may even try to steal important things from Wayne Enterprises, crossing Fox's path.

I'd rather not see that kind of element in the next movie, sorry. I don't think it needs it. If it did those would be good ideas, but I don't believe it does.

Catwoman comes with a multitude of options.

And if they feel they want or need those options, then great. If they don't fine as well. They're options, not quotas.

No, quite the contrary. Her involvement in the main plot raises the stake, especially if her life or othe people's lives are endangered.

There's no way of knowing that yet. It depends on the story they go with.

Seeing how many characters were used in the previous film, I sincerely doubt it.

It's not about numbers/quantity of characters that they fit in, though. It's about how efficiently they were used and how well they fit.

She's a pretty dynamic character with a lot of versatility. She can be dangerous, unpredictable, radical, zany, flirtatious, irascible, melancholic, determined, mysterious, deceptive, blunt, resourceful, elusive... and so on. She's as versatile as they come and could play well into any number of scenarios.

And she can remain that way even if she's not used in the next movie. Other characters have a lot of qualities as well, and they may never make it into the movie. It shouldn't be looked at as an opportunity missed if they did something really good with the ones they decided to take.

Congratulations everybody. It's a girl!... t:

You don't know that yet.

But anyway, enough......we're just talking circles here and saying the same thing over and over. You think she's a natural choice, I don't..at least not as much as you do. I think we have good points for each side, and hopefully the writers/filmmakers will do well with whoever they use. Its fun discussing, but it's gone as far as it can. Gotta get some sleep. Thanks for the discussion, man.

 

[Darlton]

Well, considering that mob accountants have always been highly important to...the mob...and those who are trying to take down...the mob......both you and Norman should rethink it a bit more.

Not necessary. I've given you plenty of example of how a high-class tief like Catwoman can relate to the mob.

They could even not draw so heavily from the rogues gallery, as well. If it's for the better of the story, then I'm fine with that too. I don't see there having to be that kind of quota as much anymore.

Joker, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, Scacrecrow, Sal Maroni, Carmine Falcone, Flass, Zsas... apparently, Nolan does seem to be after a quota.

Too bad it sounds so forced. Heh

Lack of practice. I'm trying to quit.

Seriously, you know what I mean...if they really believed that they wanted characters never seen before after BB, they probably would have regretted setting it up like that.

Which is exactly the contradiction I'm talking about.

And one more time still....I'm referring to the 'steals for herself' box that some don't want to venture out of.

That "some" refers to 'some fans here in SHH'? Because they are not being paid by WB to write the movie, are they?

I don't remember excluding myself from that. Neither did I say that anyone couldn't. At the same time, if you were referring to Batman fans who might have a certain affinity towards Catwoman, her being such a big part of Batman lore, I don't think she'll be as missed by more casual moviegoers if what they get is good. If not, then never mind.

She'll be missed. We're talking about one of the top characters ever in the comics, and this is probably going to be Nolan's last bat-movie. Everybody want to see as many interpretations as possible before the next director comes. She will be missed at several degrees.

See, I'd like it if by now they could go into the next one without that compromise. Not that they'd bring in a made-up alien or what have you, but again we're talking about the whole 'obligation' thing....and I know that this is the farthest stretch of my whole outlook on it.

Imagine they made the next film completely with new villains, non-existent in the comics. Would you be okay with it?
Well, at some point between the middle of both cases, is the issue of adding Catwoman or not to the story. And with Catwoman, every other villainous character out there. Nobody is giving her a special treatment. If so many people want her is because she 'feels right'.

And with the style/approach that they've taken, I just don't feel that Catwoman is a natural or desirable choice in concept

Care to elaborate?

The question is will there be something inherently missing without her? I don't believe so....not here.

Something will be missing... the possibility of all exploring that new ground and not falling on redundant territory.

No, but it's not terribly intriguing either...in terms of her further affecting them with her thievery. Not as much as how they pressured the mob's money/power through the system etc. in TDK.

You need to be reminded that the Joker rose to power through a few carefully chosen robberies. And Two-Face's biggest coup was a hostage situation that never got public awareness.

It's all in the execution. Think about all the sensible things/information she can obtain through her skills. Think the leverage that could give her. Think the leverage that could give others. Things like, I don't know, the bat-surveillance computer in Wayne Enterprises. Do we know it's unrepairable? And that's just from the top of my head.

I'd rather not see that kind of element in the next movie, sorry. I don't think it needs it. If it did those would be good ideas, but I don't believe it does.

The concept of "need" it's very subjective. I do think it's the next logical step in Batman's evolution. We need to see him get "lost into that monster of his", like Alfred said. We need to see him sink lower before he can arise from the ashes as the definitive Batman we know from the comics. Catwoman can be very good in that terrain. In fact, I believe she is integral in that evolution. But, like I said, who knows what is "necessary"? For all we know, neither Alfred, Fox, Gordon or even the Joker were necessary.

There's no way of knowing that yet. It depends on the story they go with.

Okay, once more: the story doesn't come down from the sky, already written.
Premises and goals first, story later.

It's not about numbers/quantity of characters that they fit in, though. It's about how efficiently they were used and how well they fit.

All of them fitted, all of them were used efficiently. And they were many. I brought that as a counter-argument to your concern over screen time. I'm reminding you because you seem to be diverting from what you were saying in that line.

And she can remain that way even if she's not used in the next movie.

Haha... what? That doesn't even make sense. This whole debate it's not for the sake of the character, but for the sake of the next installment.

Other characters have a lot of qualities as well, and they may never make it into the movie.

Not so many characters are that flexible/versatile. Not so many fit into so diverse settings. The Joker, Two-Face or the mob members, for instance, are much more specific and restrictive.

It shouldn't be looked at as an opportunity missed if they did something really good with the ones they decided to take.

There's good, and then there's better.

But anyway, enough......we're just talking circles here and saying the same thing over and over. You think she's a natural choice, I don't..at least not as much as you do.

When I ask you why you don't think that, admit it, you don't really elaborate.