The Dark Knight Rises Mad as a Hatter:The Official Jervis Tetch Thread

[darkseid26]

mad hatter as a pedo would really strike a cord with the audience and that is what you need for a good character. good idea kyuub

 

[bkey]

Paul Giamatti

 

[ronny]

I rest my case. Anyone really doubt that Andy Serkis could pull it off?

 

[DunDun]

How bout r-n-b singer T-Pain LOL

 

[TheScarecrow]

Andy Serkis.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think the way to approach the Mad Hatter would be to make him the leader of a cult. Mind control seems unrealistic in the Nolan-verse, but appealing to peoples interests and making them so loyal they'll do anything for you is a form of mind control. Obviously, the cult would be heavily Alice in Wonderland themed.

As for casting, I've got no one at the top of my head.

 

[X-Punisher]

Ben Whishaw is the best candidate IMO. He's kinda an unknown, which may help to have an unknown for a Threequel, since those always do worse than the first two, and usually the 3rd had a star-studded cast (Batman Forever/ and Robin, Spiderman 3, Xmen 3). I liked him in "I'm Not There (which both Bale and Ledger were in). So far he's done a pretty decent work on screen.

 

[OwlBoy]

Ian Holm?

 

[alexdunn]

I don't undstand all this "I NeVEr WAnt to SeE HiM iN NlOan'S MovIes!!1!"

Why is that? Not "realistic" enough for you guys? Ditch the mind control ***** and you've got one sick mother *****er!

 

[TheMinorThird]

I think The Mad Hatter is definitely more of an auxiliary character than one that may be featured saliently. I think Nepenthes's idea regarding his demeanor would fit well in Nolan's universe. The most propitious use, imo, would have The Mad Hatter as a number 2 for The Riddler, or any main villain, mostly as an eccentric gadget expert. I also think he would be better fit as a younger man than an older one, as possibly an oppressed quiet intellectual of some sort with a fetish for fairy tale characters.
Ben Whishaw from Perfume story of a Muderer, I think would fit well as one of those quiet brooding misanthropic type of guys who labor for the impossible

 

[Two-Face]

I would love to see Mad hatter in Batman 3, I think he can fit into Nolan's Bat-World..

 

[Infinity9999x]

One idea that i heard about Mad Hatter that I've loved is this.

Have Hatter be a single father with a little daughter named Alice. Alice loves the story Alice in Wonderland, and Jervis will frequently dress up as the Mad Hatter for her. One day, while Jervis and Alice are walking in the park, a mugger comes by. In the resulting scuffle, Alice gets killed and Jervis get hit hard on the head.

The head injury and the loss of Alice cause Jervis to loose it. He goes nuts, adopting the personality of the Hatter and going on a search "looking" for his Alice. He captures any little girl that resembles his daughter, forcing them to play tea party with him like he did with his daughter. When he finally realizes the girl's he's captured aren't his daughter, he goes into a rage and kills the girls thinking that they are trying to trick him, and somehow keep him away from his Alice.

So in this take, Tetch is really just a parent who can't face reality, in a never ending search for the daughter he'll never find.

 

[FVD]

In case you guys hadn't noticed Jervis Tetch was in the film but in a cameo kinda role like Zsasz. Here's the reminder... He was the guy wearing the Rachel Dawes button that Harvey Dent threatens to kill -- and Batman says "That's Jarvis Tetch -- a psycho from Arkham -- the kind of mind the Joker attracts... what do you hope to learn from him?!" and Tetch gives this amazingly good smile at that...

 

[Rikxiepoo]

In case you guys hadn't noticed Jervis Tetch was in the film but in a cameo kinda role like Zsasz. Here's the reminder... He was the guy wearing the Rachel Dawes button that Harvey Dent threatens to kill -- and Batman says "That's Jarvis Tetch -- a psycho from Arkham -- the kind of mind the Joker attracts... what do you hope to learn from him?!" and Tetch gives this amazingly good smile at that...

His name was Thomas Schiff not Jarvis Tetch.

 

[Bishop]

Law & Order: SVU gets away with it everyday.

SVU is a goddamn police procedural and obviously deals with those situations.

The Batman franchise is beloved by children and making Batman's main antagonist a genius pedophile is marketing suicide. Who's going to put a poster on their wall of this guy? How do you sell a toy based on a leering child molestor?



Save the sex offenders for Watchmen, methinks.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm hoping that "the powers that be" over at WB will ignore those complaints. They adhered to them after the Burton movies, and look at the crap we got with Batman & Robin!

155 Mil OW ensures that they will keep the tone and, if anything, move darker.

SVU is a goddamn police procedural and obviously deals with those situations.

The Batman franchise is beloved by children and making Batman's main antagonist a genius pedophile is marketing suicide. Who's going to put a poster on their wall of this guy? How do you sell a toy based on a leering child molestor?

Save the sex offenders for Watchmen, methinks.

I don't want Mad Hatter to be the main antagonist - I think he can no more support a movie by himself than the Riddler can, but I do want to see him in the movie.

The Batman character may be beloved by children, but this franchise is obviously targeted towards teens. The choices they made with the Joker were not at all kid friendly. The choices they made with Two Face were not at all kid friendly.

This Batman deals with real crime, real scum bags and a sex offender dressed up as the Mad Hatter fits right in.

 

[Bishop]

I don't want Mad Hatter to be the main antagonist - I think he can no more support a movie by himself than the Riddler can, but I do want to see him in the movie.

The Batman character may be beloved by children, but this franchise is obviously targeted towards teens. The choices they made with the Joker were not at all kid friendly. The choices they made with Two Face were not at all kid friendly.

This Batman deals with real crime, real scum bags and a sex offender dressed up as the Mad Hatter fits right in.

Generally and inexplicably, murdering psychopaths are more acceptable to your average theatergoer than sex offenders. That's why no matter how horrible the Joker's crimes are in TDK, people will still proudly display Joker posters (myself included).

Some vague hints that Tetch is ...inclined...towards children would be fine, I imagine, but there's no need to turn Batman into Chris Hansen.

 

[StorminNorman]

Mad Hatter: BATMAN! I wasn't expecting you here!

Batman: Why don't you have a seat?

Seriously, just have Mad Hatter leading a cult of teenagers and young adults trying to take over the city.

Thats less faithful than to the character than Mad Hatter: Pedophile.

Plus thats just a horrible idea for any character.

I’d almost, be more ok, with him just kidnappings and killing kids, then for them to imply in anyway at him being a child molester
him being a rapist (of adults), I could be ok with, even

but, preferable non of those be the case

no matter how evil and brutal there acts are, (like joker or two-face, killing people) you still have to make the character likable( which sound odd)
but, I mean, people cheered and laughing when Joker shoved a pencil into a guy, slit someone’s mouth open, or burned someone alive, (as sick as that is, if you really think about it)
but, I just don't see the audience cheering when some lil girl gets raped (atleast not any audience I’d would want to be in the same room with)

I could ideal with him, adopting people, kidnapping young girls (possibly even Gordon daughter) and they can do that with out implying sex being involved

Just a crazy, obsessed, guy trying to recreate his favorite story

I was thinking more in the lines, of his kidnapping of a young girl, being out of believing that she is in fact, Alice, and that he needs to save her, and return her to wonderland (because he's just that delusional)

(p.s. sorry for continuing, on this, off topic discussion)

You don't have the make the villain likable. Again - I don't want the Mad Hatter to be the only villain, nor the center highlighted villain. I would want him in a role about the size somewhere between Maroni and Scarecrow in TDK.

If Mad Hatter is not a pedophile, there is no reason to have him in the movie - its as simple as that. That is the only crime the character can commit that can't be done, better, by another character.

 

[Bishop]

No - but there is no reason Batman can't have something in common with Chris Meloni's character on SVU.

Again - why is it acceptable for one of the most popular shows on NBC, but not a Batman franchise that has established itself as a dark, edgy series?

Because SVU is on after the watershed, and is explicitly for adults. Batman has a broad appeal and a sizable audience among children, therefore WB being receptive to the idea of a pedophile in a Batman movie is unlikely. The idea is not unacceptable in my eyes - it would just court unnecessary controversy and alienate an entire demographic (not one I care about, but one they likely do).

Parents, unfortunately, tend to be profoundly stupid. They will take their children to see this movie and wont read any reviews or take heed of the PG13/12A classification. They will sit down to watch it, popcorn in hand, see Tetch leering at some poor unfortunate on screen, and file thousands of complaints about it as though the rating system is somehow flawed and unfair. It happened when GTA IV came out - despite the 18 rating emblazoned on the box and the fact that they actually toned down the violence in the previous instalments.

 

[StorminNorman]

Because SVU is on after the watershed, and is explicitly for adults.

No - SVU is for teens/young adults and above - the same audience that TDK targets.

Batman has a broad appeal and a sizable audience among children, therefore WB being receptive to the idea of a pedophile in a Batman movie is unlikely. The idea is not unacceptable in my eyes - it would just court unnecessary controversy and alienate an entire demographic (not one I care about, but one they likely do).

Again - nothing about The Dark Knight was kid friendly, yet it still succeeded like crazy. WB is not going to prevent BB3 from being as dark as Nolan wants.

Parents, unfortunately, tend to be profoundly stupid. They will take their children to see this movie and wont read any reviews or take heed of the PG13/12A classification. They will sit down to watch it, popcorn in hand, see Tetch leering at some poor unfortunate on screen, and file thousands of complaints about it as though the rating system is somehow flawed and unfair. It happened when GTA IV came out - despite the 18 rating emblazoned on the box and the fact that they actually toned down the violence in the previous instalments.

There doesn't have to be anything close to explicit here, but - again - I think you misjudge the situation entirely. Again, TDK didn't get the controversy Batman Returns had BECAUSE of the way it was marketed. It was marketed as a dark film - so the audience accepted it as such. Batman Returns had tie ins with Happy Meals - thus the outrage.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Again - nothing about The Dark Knight was kid friendly, yet it still succeeded like crazy. WB is not going to prevent BB3 from being as dark as Nolan wants.

I think, again, like most comic fans you fail to distinguish something "dark in tone" and something "adult". An adult movie would be Schlinder's List, aside from it's hard hitting subject matter it's filled with very intense and graphic scenes that would be upsetting to younger viewers. I.e. When Fienes goes around with a gun blowing off the heads of Jews until one confesses to stealing a chicken.

While admittedly Joker killed people, there were a lot of leaps in logic and "kid friendly" changes made to keep the film more accessible to the audience who might, for example, have watched Justice League. I'm sure you noticed in TDK how careful they were to evacuate the Hospital, when an hour is probably a little less time than would be needed to accomplish such a feat. Or how certain sympathetic characters avoided death, such as Mike Engel and Mr Reese. While there was death, and a particularly scary make up job on Eckhart, it was within the confines of the plot and was usually shown using cut away scenes.

Batman really isn't more mature than Spider-Man 2, which also had it's share of violence and death, it's just that the tone of the movie is darker therefore adding a sense of gravity and weight to the movie. In other words; the adult-ness of these films is an illusion. Though this is not to slight the film in any way, being an action movie (more or less) this is just a classic characteristic of that genre. They have to make a more ideal setting for those films due, in large part, to a degree of fantasy that exists within them.

 

[StorminNorman]

I think, again, like most comic fans you fail to distinguish something "dark in tone" and something "adult". An adult movie would be Schlinder's List, aside from it's hard hitting subject matter it's filled with very intense and graphic scenes that would be upsetting to younger viewers. I.e. When Fienes goes around with a gun blowing off the heads of Jews until one confesses to stealing a chicken.

While admittedly Joker killed people, there were a lot of leaps in logic and "kid friendly" changes made to keep the film more accessible to the audience who might, for example, have watched Justice League. I'm sure you noticed in TDK how careful they were to evacuate the Hospital, when an hour is probably a little less time than would be needed to accomplish such a feat. Or how certain sympathetic characters avoided death, such as Mike Engel and Mr Reese. While there was death, and a particularly scary make up job on Eckhart, it was within the confines of the plot and was usually shown using cut away scenes.

Yes Schlinder's List is an adult movie. TDK is not an adult movie - its a dark movie. BB3 with a pedophile Mad Hatter would not make it an adult movie either, it would make it...a dark movie. These movies are targeted and marketed towards teens and young adults - not children. This same demographic, teens and young adults, are one of the key target demographics for Law and Order: SVU.

You can't say that TDK went "kid friendly" by not killing off sympathetic characters - they ****in killed Batman's girl friend. They killed off cops. They killed a whole hell of a lot of people.

Batman really isn't more mature than Spider-Man 2, which also had it's share of violence and death, it's just that the tone of the movie is darker therefore adding a sense of gravity and weight to the movie. In other words; the adult-ness of these films is an illusion. Though this is not to slight the film in any way, being an action movie (more or less) this is just a classic characteristic of that genre. They have to make a more ideal setting for those films due, in large part, to a degree of fantasy that exists within them.

Did Mary Jane die? Did Harry try to kill Peter's innocent son? You can't honestly say TDK wasn't more mature than Spider-Man 2.

Again, having Mad Hatter be a pedophile does not hurt BB3 at all. If you aren't going to go that route - there is no reason to use the character at all.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes Schlinder's List is an adult movie. TDK is not an adult movie - its a dark movie. BB3 with a pedophile Mad Hatter would not make it an adult movie either, it would make it...a dark movie. These movies are targeted and marketed towards teens and young adults - not children. This same demographic, teens and young adults, are one of the key target demographics for Law and Order: SVU.

The difference between Law and Order and Batman ought to be pretty damn apparent. Law and Order: SVU (i.e. Special Victims Unit) is a show about rape. It's not aimed at a wide audience either; it's aimed at the same audience who'd watch cop shows. The difference is kids don't watch Law and Order: SVU because it doesn't have Batman in it, and I honestly don't care what Nolan says, it's still an action movie.

You can't say that TDK went "kid friendly" by not killing off sympathetic characters - they ****in killed Batman's girl friend. They killed off cops. They killed a whole hell of a lot of people.

They killed Batman's girlfriend; yes, but they did it in such a way to spare the audiences feelings. There was no body. No blood. It wasn't a senseless murder as it advanced the plot, and there was a set up to it. It's not like The Departed where the elevator door swings open and Leonardo Dicaprio takes a bullet to the head, or a hush fills the room as we see Sheen drop ten stories and then burst into an explosion of blood. Those are hard hitting, true to life, adult scenes. When your death scenes involve a character hinting at death, and then immediately cutting away, you're not dealing with an adult movie.

Did Mary Jane die? Did Harry try to kill Peter's innocent son? You can't honestly say TDK wasn't more mature than Spider-Man 2.

No, but Uncle Ben did, didn't he? So did Doctor Octopus' wife, by glass to the face. Harry and Norman were impailed by their own gliders. Doctor Octopus drowned. All those doctors got torn apart by Octopus arms. Norman incinerated his board of directors. Dr. Strom took a dirt nap and so did "The General". Venom was vaporized. That's quite a bit of death, actually. So what's the distinction, exactly? Well, fanboys will draw countless distinctions, but there are none. The Dark Knight is quality no doubt, but more mature than Spider-Man or even Fantastic Four; not so much. That's the problem here: you're again confusing the tone with it's maturity as a film. Anime is still hyperviolent, even the stuff we throw on television (like DBZ), but at the end of the day it's not that mature, and neither is this. You want maturity, rent Se7en.

Again, having Mad Hatter be a pedophile does not hurt BB3 at all.

Sure it does, on several levels. First, it's an action film, not an expose' on sexually based offenses (SVU), and therefore such a villain would serve no purpose. He'd stick out like a sore thumb against the backdrop of stereotypical mobsters and colorfully maniacal villains that inhabit this universe.

That's what you forget. This is fantasy, not reality. Realism simply means a film is handled in such a way to seem plausible. Ignoring Batman's improbability in general, I suppose it doesn't occur to you that those gadgets Nolan touts as being so reality based: well, three of them actually don't exist at all, in any stage of production, the cape being the most glaring example.

In this world, we can plainly see a very simplified version of crime. You have robbers, murderers, and those evil mobsters who corrupt everything they touch. To this end the reality seems plausible within the confines of itself. The whole pedophile angle is just very anti-thematic. It doesn't fit. It's not a criminal lifestyle you could really glamourize for the screen, nor would you want to because any attempt to do so would only come off as cheapening the crime itself.

In addition, as I said, Batman is still for kids, and whether you keep whining how adult he is or isn't, kids are still going to watch him, and while they can cover their eyes for Harvey, no studio looking to market that character is going to add insult to injury by throwing a pedophile in there. Especially not when they can do something more in line with the superhero genre which the film is still very much a part of.

If you aren't going to go that route - there is no reason to use the character at all.

Well Jervis Tetch isn't really a pedophile, at least not in all his incarnations. Moreover Joker isn't really a terrorist, and a Ra's Al Ghul isn't really a man who kills cities over corruption. Joker is a just a serial killer/classic crazy guy in the comics (and while he does blow up stuff, knives and dynamite really aren't his MO), and Ra's is really an eco-terrorist. So after all this reinvention I don't honestly see why there's any reason to use any character if you're going to say that. Nolan obviously has done plenty of -INO since the movie began, it's just more a question of whether that -INO is a cool character in their own right, or whether the reinvention only proves the character should have never been reimagined.

 

[StorminNorman]

The difference between Law and Order and Batman ought to be pretty damn apparent. Law and Order: SVU (i.e. Special Victims Unit) is a show about rape. It's not aimed at a wide audience either; it's aimed at the same audience who'd watch cop shows. The difference is kids don't watch Law and Order: SVU because it doesn't have Batman in it, and I honestly don't care what Nolan says, it's still an action movie.

Law and Order: SVU deals with rape. Nolan's Batman movies deal with crime and one's man fight with it- rape is a crime. There is no problem in featuring a pedophile minor villain in Batman's universe.

Nolan does not make these movies for kids, he makes them for teens and young adults.

They killed Batman's girlfriend; yes, but they did it in such a way to spare the audiences feelings. There was no body. No blood. It wasn't a senseless murder as it advanced the plot, and there was a set up to it. It's not like The Departed where the elevator door swings open and Leonardo Dicaprio takes a bullet to the head, or a hush fills the room as we see Sheen drop ten stories and then burst into an explosion of blood. Those are hard hitting, true to life, adult scenes. When your death scenes involve a character hinting at death, and then immediately cutting away, you're not dealing with an adult movie.

I never said TDK was an adult movie - I said it was a dark movie. I do not believe the inclusion of a pedophile villain makes these movies an adult movie.

[quot]No, but Uncle Ben did, didn't he? So did Doctor Octopus' wife, by glass to the face. Harry and Norman were impailed by their own gliders. Doctor Octopus drowned. All those doctors got torn apart by Octopus arms. Norman incinerated his board of directors. Dr. Strom took a dirt nap and so did "The General". Venom was vaporized. That's quite a bit of death, actually. So what's the distinction, exactly? Well, fanboys will draw countless distinctions, but there are none. The Dark Knight is quality no doubt, but more mature than Spider-Man or even Fantastic Four; not so much. That's the problem here: you're again confusing the tone with it's maturity as a film. Anime is still hyperviolent, even the stuff we throw on television (like DBZ), but at the end of the day it's not that mature, and neither is this. You want maturity, rent Se7en.[/quote]

I fully understand that death is not the only requirement for making a film "mature". TDK also turned innocent people into villains - you had normal citizens in Gotham city trying to kill an innocent attorney. You had innocent people trying to convince a man to blow up a ship of people. You had our hero actually have to choose between saving two people - and having an actual consequence for his action. You had a former friend put a gun to an innocent boy's head. These moments seperated TDK from any Spider-Man movie.

Sure it does, on several levels. First, it's an action film, not an expose' on sexually based offenses (SVU), and therefore such a villain would serve no purpose. He'd stick out like a sore thumb against the backdrop of stereotypical mobsters and colorfully maniacal villains that inhabit this universe.

Not if done right. Again - there needs not be any on screen act.

That's what you forget. This is fantasy, not reality. Realism simply means a film is handled in such a way to seem plausible. Ignoring Batman's improbability in general, I suppose it doesn't occur to you that those gadgets Nolan touts as being so reality based: well, three of them actually don't exist at all, in any stage of production, the cape being the most glaring example.

I do not forget that at all that these movies are fantasy - as you said, much of Batman is no more real than Spider-Man, but the crime aspect Batman faces very much is real as is Gotham City. The Universe built around this fantasy character is what really distinguishes this movie.

In this world, we can plainly see a very simplified version of crime. You have robbers, murderers, and those evil mobsters who corrupt everything they touch. To this end the reality seems plausible within the confines of itself. The whole pedophile angle is just very anti-thematic. It doesn't fit. It's not a criminal lifestyle you could really glamourize for the screen, nor would you want to because any attempt to do so would only come off as cheapening the crime itself.

You don't have to glamourize the crime - the villain does not have to be at all likeable. Again, I am not advocating for Batman's main foe to be a pedophile - I am advocating for a minor villain to be one. Again - you have had the issue of rape and pedophilia dealt with in comics, it has always fit when dealt with talented writers.

In addition, as I said, Batman is still for kids, and whether you keep whining how adult he is or isn't, kids are still going to watch him, and while they can cover their eyes for Harvey, no studio looking to market that character is going to add insult to injury by throwing a pedophile in there. Especially not when they can do something more in line with the superhero genre which the film is still very much a part of.

Kids are going to watch him, kids are also going to play Grand Theft Auto - that doesn't mean Rockstar should make compromises for that. WB will allow Nolan to do anything he wants with BB3 - after 155 Mil OW, he has earned complete control.

Well Jervis Tetch isn't really a pedophile, at least not in all his incarnations. Moreover Joker isn't really a terrorist, and a Ra's Al Ghul isn't really a man who kills cities over corruption. Joker is a just a serial killer/classic crazy guy in the comics (and while he does blow up stuff, knives and dynamite really aren't his MO), and Ra's is really an eco-terrorist. So after all this reinvention I don't honestly see why there's any reason to use any character if you're going to say that. Nolan obviously has done plenty of -INO since the movie began, it's just more a question of whether that -INO is a cool character in their own right, or whether the reinvention only proves the character should have never been reimagined.

I don't think you could make the argument that any of the main villains - Joker, Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone, Maroni, Zsaz - are -INO. While they have been altered, none of them are out of character.

What defines Mad Hatter as a character is his obsession of a childrens story and his ability to manipulate (mind control) others, with a real obsession towards little blond girls. The obvious step there is to make him a pedophile. If you are going to make him a simple murderer, a simple pimp, a simple drug dealer - there are characters that approach those crimes in far more interesting ways than Mad Hatter.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Law and Order: SVU deals with rape. Nolan's Batman movies deal with crime and one's man fight with it- rape is a crime. There is no problem in featuring a pedophile minor villain in Batman's universe.

Wrong. It deals with it's version of crime, which definitely does NOT include rape. Rape isn't even an issue in these films, neither is sexuality. Just as watching Law and Order: SVU you'd never see a "very special episode where the detectives face their greatest foe yet: the entire steroetypical organized crime racket".

I don't mean to say Batman is a bad representation of crime (it is), but it's certainly a very different one. Case in point: Batmn destroying public and private property. This is a crime, and no state or federal office would protect him, but those actions in both movies have been glossed over. It's not until he takes on these "murders" that he becomes truly a criminal within the confines of the movie. Or, as another poster pointed out, the Scarecrow scene in TDK (and in Begins) which seemed to imply that the scarecrow drugs were "bad" and "evil" without really indicating whether the real drug trade was of any consequence at all (and don't tell me that cocaine isn't a problem amongst the crowd Bruce Wayne was trying to "fix").

Nolan does not make these movies for kids, he makes them for teens and young adults.

Nolan isn't the only one making the movie. Both DC and WB have stock in it too, and they are still very much aware of the kiddie appeal of Batman. Otherwise there would've never been a coat-tail series called "The Batman" that followed Batman Begins.

I never said TDK was an adult movie - I said it was a dark movie. I do not believe the inclusion of a pedophile villain makes these movies an adult movie.

Unless you're going to gloss over it, and then what's the point anyways. In a world consumed by Joker gas, and where terrorism is as common as picpocketing (it seems), sexually based offenses really have no place as they don't "fit the themeatic elements". You keep touting crime as if every crime in the Nolan-franchise is on the table, when the truth is it very much isn't.

I fully understand that death is not the only requirement for making a film "mature". TDK also turned innocent people into villains - you had normal citizens in Gotham city trying to kill an innocent attorney. You had innocent people trying to convince a man to blow up a ship of people. You had our hero actually have to choose between saving two people - and having an actual consequence for his action. You had a former friend put a gun to an innocent boy's head. These moments seperated TDK from any Spider-Man movie.

Not really, you still had those things in Spider-Man as well. A man threating to throw a high school aged woman off a bridge, or a bus full of children. You had a great friend turn to a mortal enemy (three consecutive times). You're trying to distinguish the movie based on personal views of quality. As if, because in your mind, TDK is better it must also be more intelligent, adult and mature, when more often than not this isn't the case. Much like fanboys who incessantly scream how brillant Transformers: The Movie (1986) was, it really wasn't anything more than a 90 minute toy commercial. Yet it featured the death of Optimus Prime; an event more controversial than any Batman film to date. That doesn't change the fact, though, that ultimately the movie was little more than a toy commercial.

Same with TDK. While it's quality and snappy dialogue are just good enough to make it seem like more than a superhero action film; it's still just a superhero action film.

Not if done right. Again - there needs not be any on screen act.

Then what's the f***ing point?

I do not forget that at all that these movies are fantasy - as you said, much of Batman is no more real than Spider-Man, but the crime aspect Batman faces very much is real as is Gotham City. The Universe built around this fantasy character is what really distinguishes this movie.

Anyone who knows anything about crime, how it happens, the forms it takes and how it's dealt with would probably tell you that TDK's crime is about as realistic as a man with giant octopus arms.

You don't have to glamourize the crime - the villain does not have to be at all likeable. Again, I am not advocating for Batman's main foe to be a pedophile - I am advocating for a minor villain to be one. Again - you have had the issue of rape and pedophilia dealt with in comics, it has always fit when dealt with talented writers.

Likeable and glamourous are two different things. Mad Hatter is a colorful villain, with a gimmick that draws attention to himself. That would be glamourizing the act. Much like the Joker is used, in the film itself, to add a certain flair and pop to the crimes he does, so too would any version of Mad Hatter.

I don't think you could make the argument that any of the main villains - Joker, Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone, Maroni, Zsaz - are -INO. While they have been altered, none of them are out of character.

Ra's is completely out of character. He's an eco-terrorist. His main concern is the environment, not man, or his decadence. He also thought he should rule over earth, which was abscent from this version. They turned him into a Ninja on a grand scale. I liked it fine, but it's a far cry from the comic version.

Joker is different, I wouldn't say he's completely out of character, but Joker has so many incarnations it's hard to say exactly what is his character. If we're talking about very quintessential, and traditional interpretations, though he is very different.

What defines Mad Hatter as a character is his obsession of a childrens story and his ability to manipulate (mind control) others, with a real obsession towards little blond girls. The obvious step there is to make him a pedophile. If you are going to make him a simple murderer, a simple pimp, a simple drug dealer - there are characters that approach those crimes in far more interesting ways than Mad Hatter.

That, again is not really true. What defines Mad Hatter is hard to say. Mad Hatter was originally one of Batman's joke villains. He's been a pedophile (more recently), a psychological villain, a habitual drug dealer, and even an Adam West villain (which initially brought him back into the fold). He's been dead when they felt the need to 'clean the closet' of bad and campy villains in the 60s and 70s. Bruce Timm made him more single minded, as one girl (not underaged), named "Alice" made him a stalker.

I think Mad Hatter is one of those people want as a side character because they have all these devious, perverse designs for him, but ultimately, he just is a bad version of the Riddler/Hugo Strange in a short, awkward package.