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

[StorminNorman]

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".

It only "definitely does NOT include rape" because you say it doesn't. There is nothing that indicates that rape does not happen in Gotham City, nor that Batman would not take down a rapist villain.

I bring up Law and Order: SVU not because Batman = Law and Order: SVU, but because the show is an example that you can introduce sexual crimes into a show and not have it be unwatchable for non-adults.

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").

Simply because Nolan's films doesn't have Batman taking down every sort of crime does not mean that they do not exist in his films. You had Falcone dealing in various drugs in Batman Begins - "flooding Gotham's streets with crime and drugs".

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.

DC and WB have stock in it too - and they have proven to be willing to give their creative minds near complete freedom with their movies. Nolan has stated that BB and TDK are exactly the movies he wanted to make. Zach Snyder is being allowed to film his vision of Watchmen - not the studio-safe version.

Of course WB is worried about the kiddie appeal of Batman - just not the kiddie appeal of the movies. If they did, they wouldn't let Nolan do the films he has.

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.

Would I want to see Batman take down a run-of-the-mill pedophile? Sure, but you are right - it wouldn't fit the thematic elements so it really has no business taking up screen time. It fits, however, if you have a costumed freak being the pedophile - he instantly fits in with a trend in Gotham of costumed freaks making up Gotham's criminal fraternity - Escalation if you will.

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.

A costumed villained willing to throw a high school aged woman or a bus full of kids (neither of which happened - unlike Rachel's big kaboom).

You had a great friend turn to a mortal enemy...who then forgave Peter.

Don't talk down to me trying to paint me as nothign more than a TDK fanboy that believes this movie is the second coming. My belief that TDK is a darker, more intelligent film than Spider-Man is not an unfounded one. All you have to do is look at various reviews by well respected film critics and see that that sentimate is wide spread. TDK is being praised as a Dark Horse Oscar Choice (again - not my words, but professional critics) - if it was simply another Superhero film, that would not be the case.

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.

Again, you are in the minority with that thought. You are entitled to it - but your opinion is no more valid than my own.

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

Every villain needs a crime - the character of Mad Hatter lends itself to being a pedophile. You don't need to show the rape for there to be rape - again, look at SVU.

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.

But it is told in a way that makes it seem realisitic - and thats what matters. A pedophile on the loose in Gotham fits there.

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.

Yes, the Mad Hatter would give the crime a dash of theatricality - but, again, so does some episodes of SVU.

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.

Is it an alteration? Yes. Does it make Begins Ra's Ra's-In-Name-Only? No. That would be like saying Sandman in SM3 was SINO simply because they changed his motivation.

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.

The three stories that are almost universally seen as the most influencial, important and best Joker stories in the characters history are The Man Who Laughs, The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum. Movie Joker and his story in this movie is obviously based heavily on these three stories. Those are THE quintessential stories, and in that regard he is NOT at all different.

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.

So making the Mad Hatter a pedophile doesn't go against the character? You can portray the Mad Hatter as a pedophile and be respectful the characters history.

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.

Only if poorly written is he a Riddler/Hugo Strange ripoff. In fact - I don't see that comparison at all.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

It only "definitely does NOT include rape" because you say it doesn't. There is nothing that indicates that rape does not happen in Gotham City, nor that Batman would not take down a rapist villain.

What matters though is: is there something that indicates it's "does", which there isn't. Movies work only within their OWN confines. Just like you can't have Superman walk onscreen with little explanation, despite the fact that most audience members know Superman and Batman cohabitate universe, you can't introduce a new form of crime, however common it is, into the story without some story change. In Batman(s) he fights mostly mob based villains who rob and murder; and you can almost fit anyone of the two crimes he faces into those two categories. For Batman to go off an tackle rape would simply violate the premise, unless, somehow you want to make Batman a movie that revolves around sexually based offenses.

I bring up Law and Order: SVU not because Batman = Law and Order: SVU, but because the show is an example that you can introduce sexual crimes into a show and not have it be unwatchable for non-adults.

But not for the target audience of Batman which ultimately is a much larger group. Law and Order: SVU might be popular, but compared to classics like the Cosby Show, it has meager ratings at best. It fulfills a very niche' fanbase, and usually those people (knowing several who watch religiously) find themselves also watching Cold Case and other detective/crime shows. Batman is not trying to win over the "crime drama crowd", it's trying to win over the "superhero action crowd" which is a much larger group -- and ultimately one that includes an audience not looking to go watch a movie about rape and pedophilia.

Simply because Nolan's films doesn't have Batman taking down every sort of crime does not mean that they do not exist in his films. You had Falcone dealing in various drugs in Batman Begins - "flooding Gotham's streets with crime and drugs".

Yet those "drugs" are very specifically shown to be Scarecrow's terror drugs. Movies are self-contained, the mark of a good film is one this hides this fact, but it never truly changes the way things are in it. For example, somewhere, while The Godfather is progressing as a story Michael takes a sh**, probably a really big sh**, he also probably has to blow his nose, he probably feels sick to his stomach once or twice, and sometimes he probably falls out of bed while hitting the alarm. These are all things that exist in the everyday lives of people, but ultimately serve no purpose in a film. Same thing applies. Will Batman ever take down a pedophile? Perhaps, but if that's not what the movie is about, which it isn't, then such a crime only serves as a distraction. If you're going to do a small cameo, like Scarecrow, his deed and scene must somehow feed into the overall plot. Scarecrow was dealing with the mob, and he was dealing gas similar to what the Joker used, so that feed into the overall theme of the movie.

DC and WB have stock in it too - and they have proven to be willing to give their creative minds near complete freedom with their movies.

But they won't.

Would I want to see Batman take down a run-of-the-mill pedophile? Sure, but you are right - it wouldn't fit the thematic elements so it really has no business taking up screen time. It fits, however, if you have a costumed freak being the pedophile - he instantly fits in with a trend in Gotham of costumed freaks making up Gotham's criminal fraternity - Escalation if you will.

But he doesn't, because the trend is "mob based offenses". Just like a mobster wouldn't fit the mold of SVU.

A costumed villained willing to throw a high school aged woman or a bus full of kids (neither of which happened - unlike Rachel's big kaboom).

Yet both Uncle Ben, Harry Osbourne and Norman Osbourne all died, so the fact that she didn't is immaterial.

You had a great friend turn to a mortal enemy...who then forgave Peter.

...AS HE DIED. Let's not try to warp the truth.

Don't talk down to me trying to paint me as nothign more than a TDK fanboy that believes this movie is the second coming. My belief that TDK is a darker, more intelligent film than Spider-Man is not an unfounded one. All you have to do is look at various reviews by well respected film critics and see that that sentimate is wide spread. TDK is being praised as a Dark Horse Oscar Choice (again - not my words, but professional critics) - if it was simply another Superhero film, that would not be the case.

It's respected because it's a quality film, not because it's some hard hitting, real life drama, but because it's a good superhero movie. Critics aren't going to judge it by the same set of standards applied to Schlinder's List, because unlike that film notions of historical accuracy, and certain emotional attachments and responses don't come into play. So yes, if you're hyping it as something gritty and realistic, and needs to be treated as a very real, very relevant film...you are a Batman fanboy. You're attempting to draw parrallels where parrallels don't exist.

Every villain needs a crime - the character of Mad Hatter lends itself to being a pedophile. You don't need to show the rape for there to be rape - again, look at SVU.

Yet you'd need to show the effects of rape, which Batman wouldn't do.

But it is told in a way that makes it seem realisitic - and thats what matters. A pedophile on the loose in Gotham fits there.

That would break the realism, actually. It would make a crime which presense is thematically inconsistent. Realism thrives on consistency.

Yes, the Mad Hatter would give the crime a dash of theatricality - but, again, so does some episodes of SVU.

Not in the same way, nor is it trying to appeal to the same group. Remember Batman has action figures, SVU doesn't.

Is it an alteration? Yes. Does it make Begins Ra's Ra's-In-Name-Only? No. That would be like saying Sandman in SM3 was SINO simply because they changed his motivation.

Different origin, different real name, different abilities, different backstory, different look....Yep, he's INO.

The three stories that are almost universally seen as the most influencial, important and best Joker stories in the characters history are The Man Who Laughs, The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum. Movie Joker and his story in this movie is obviously based heavily on these three stories. Those are THE quintessential stories, and in that regard he is NOT at all different.

Noen of which feature him as a terrorist.

So making the Mad Hatter a pedophile doesn't go against the character? You can portray the Mad Hatter as a pedophile and be respectful the characters history.

So would not doing so, which was my point.

Only if poorly written is he a Riddler/Hugo Strange ripoff. In fact - I don't see that comparison at all.

He controls minds and warps people psychologically, that's the comparison.

 

[StorminNorman]

What matters though is: is there something that indicates it's "does", which there isn't. Movies work only within their OWN confines. Just like you can't have Superman walk onscreen with little explanation, despite the fact that most audience members know Superman and Batman cohabitate universe, you can't introduce a new form of crime, however common it is, into the story without some story change. In Batman(s) he fights mostly mob based villains who rob and murder; and you can almost fit anyone of the two crimes he faces into those two categories. For Batman to go off an tackle rape would simply violate the premise, unless, somehow you want to make Batman a movie that revolves around sexually based offenses.

You can't? They brought up Scarecrow selling recreational drugs with no previous example of doing so.

Again, you keep trying to word it as if I wish Mad Hatter: Pedophile, to be the backbone of the story - I don't. If the entire movie is a two hour crime thriller involving Batman trying to stop a serial pedophile then I woudl agree, that would be TOO much. To have Batman take down a theatrical pedophile (playing into a larger theme of freak villains taking the place of "normal" crime), is not at all a stretch.

But not for the target audience of Batman which ultimately is a much larger group. Law and Order: SVU might be popular, but compared to classics like the Cosby Show, it has meager ratings at best. It fulfills a very niche' fanbase, and usually those people (knowing several who watch religiously) find themselves also watching Cold Case and other detective/crime shows. Batman is not trying to win over the "crime drama crowd", it's trying to win over the "superhero action crowd" which is a much larger group -- and ultimately one that includes an audience not looking to go watch a movie about rape and pedophilia.

I believe TDK is targeting a much larger demographic than "Superhero Action Crowd" - and it has, which is a major part of its success.

Again - this would not be a movie that is ABOUT rape and pedophilia, this would be a movie about a mans war against crime - the crime including, among other various offenses, a pedophile with a taste for the theatrical.

Yet those "drugs" are very specifically shown to be Scarecrow's terror drugs. Movies are self-contained, the mark of a good film is one this hides this fact, but it never truly changes the way things are in it. For example, somewhere, while The Godfather is progressing as a story Michael takes a sh**, probably a really big sh**, he also probably has to blow his nose, he probably feels sick to his stomach once or twice, and sometimes he probably falls out of bed while hitting the alarm. These are all things that exist in the everyday lives of people, but ultimately serve no purpose in a film. Same thing applies. Will Batman ever take down a pedophile? Perhaps, but if that's not what the movie is about, which it isn't, then such a crime only serves as a distraction. If you're going to do a small cameo, like Scarecrow, his deed and scene must somehow feed into the overall plot. Scarecrow was dealing with the mob, and he was dealing gas similar to what the Joker used, so that feed into the overall theme of the movie.

The drugs Falcone smuggles in are not only Scarecrows - he brings in average narcotics, the apparent crutch of his crime organization by the looks of Batman Begins.

Again - a good writer can make a pedophile fit as a small role in a larger overall story, Nolan and Nolan have proven to be good writers.

But they won't.

Do you have some secret source inside WB? WB's recent history lends itself to allowing Nolan do whatever he wishes - if he wishes to make a Mad Hatter a pedophile and give him a role in the movie, I don't think WB is going to fight him on that. Just like they didn't fight Nolan on TDK or fight Snyder over Watchmen.

But he doesn't, because the trend is "mob based offenses". Just like a mobster wouldn't fit the mold of SVU.

The last act in TDK had nothing to do with mob based offenses.

Yet both Uncle Ben, Harry Osbourne and Norman Osbourne all died, so the fact that she didn't is immaterial.

Uncle Ben was an origin death, Harry dies a hero's death and Norman was a villain. None of them equate to killing off a love interest.

...AS HE DIED. Let's not try to warp the truth.

Wait - so he didn't forgive Peter before he came to save him?

It's respected because it's a quality film, not because it's some hard hitting, real life drama, but because it's a good superhero movie. Critics aren't going to judge it by the same set of standards applied to Schlinder's List, because unlike that film notions of historical accuracy, and certain emotional attachments and responses don't come into play. So yes, if you're hyping it as something gritty and realistic, and needs to be treated as a very real, very relevant film...you are a Batman fanboy. You're attempting to draw parrallels where parrallels don't exist.

You are simply wrong here on this account. Its getting praise because it is MORE than a good superhero movie:

Do you really want me to bring out the reviews?

Pitched at the divide between art and industry, poetry and entertainment, it goes darker and deeper than any Hollywood movie of its comic-book kind — including “Batman Begins,” Mr. Nolan’s 2005 pleasurably moody resurrection of the series — largely by embracing an ambivalence that at first glance might be mistaken for pessimism. But no work filled with such thrilling moments of pure cinema can be rightly branded pessimistic

- http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/movies/18knig.html?partner=Rotten Tomatoes&ei=5083

lm is not only one of the year's best; it may well end up as the finest of 2008. At the very least, it deserves consideration for Best Picture and Best Director, along with the expected Oscar kudos for Ledger, a man whose star burned briefly, yet oh so brightly.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Movies/article/461779

But this is not merely a Batman movie. It is not merely a comic-book movie. It is not merely gripping summer entertainment. It is, with Wall-E, one of the two best mainstream films to be released all year and far and away the most hypnotic chiller.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/movies/reviews/5891473.html

And this were just three fairly random samples from the TOP CRITICS selection.

You'd need to show the effects of rape, which Batman wouldn't do.

If this film is not about pedophilia, not necessarily.

That would break the realism, actually. It would make a crime which presense is thematically inconsistent. Realism thrives on consistency.

There is nothing inconsistent here - again, you can easilly write the pedophile Mad Hatter character into this story line and make it flow.

Not in the same way, nor is it trying to appeal to the same group. Remember Batman has action figures, SVU doesn't.

They ARE trying to appeal to the same age group. The biggest demographic for SVU is 18-24 year olds, the same target demographic for TDK.

Different origin, different real name, different abilities, different backstory, different look....Yep, he's INO.

Noen of which feature him as a terrorist.

LOL WHAT? Did you read these stories? The Man Who Laughs paints The Joker as a terrorist. He isn't labled "a terrorist", but that is what he is none the less. The Joker's very first appearance makes The Joker a terrorist.

So would not doing so, which was my point.

IMO, however, any other crime you could have the Mad Hatter do can be done better by another villain. Pedophilia is the only real crime that makes the Mad Hatter unique and compelling. Its what prevents him from becoming, as you put it, a rip off of the Riddler.

He controls minds and warps people psychologically, that's the comparison.

Neither Riddler nor Hugo Strange control minds, if memory serves me right. Hugo Strange has shown an ability to READ minds and memories - but not mind control.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You can't? They brought up Scarecrow selling recreational drugs with no previous example of doing so. [/quote
Scarecrow used drugs to kill people, or cause them pain LIKE A MURDERER. Remember, there is no instance in either of these movies which addresses being a junkie. Batman doesn't develop an "addiction" to Crane's toxins, neither does Rachel. They are no different than shooting someone, except this is a slightly more round about way of doing it.

As I've noted before, certain "crimes" as you can plainly see, are glossed over. Destruction of property. Assault and battery. Restricting or violating the rights of criminal suspects. In fact, it's funny, most of Batman's villains thus far would be released simply due to his involvement. Crane, Joker, Two-Face (if he lived) and any inmates at Arkham he fought would go right back out on the streets because what he does IS A CRIME. See how this world is not so realistic and only works within it's own confines.

There are no drug addictions, pedophiles or even rapists. In Begins and TDK those crimes don't exist anymore than Batman having to pee his own suit does.

Again, you keep trying to word it as if I wish Mad Hatter: Pedophile, to be the backbone of the story - I don't.

That would be the only way to pull that off without breaking the movie's consistency. Remember, if it's not part of the story it's NOT PART OF THE STORY.

If the entire movie is a two hour crime thriller involving Batman trying to stop a serial pedophile then I woudl agree, that would be TOO much. To have Batman take down a theatrical pedophile (playing into a larger theme of freak villains taking the place of "normal" crime), is not at all a stretch.

But it IS within the confines of one film. See the problem here. SVU is a show ABOUT SEXUAL CRIMINALS. To avoid confusing the audience or breaking the consistency they don't go into all the other crime WE KNOW happens in New York, just as a DC movie would fly to Metropolis just for some random Superman appearance. The movie has to be grounded in something, in this case it takes a very aesthetic vision of crime, boiled down to two easy to relate to forms, and doesn't deviate. Thus creating an illusion of a sensical world. Movie that violate their own principles are just the opposite: non-sensical. It's the reason you can go see a movie like Lord of the Rings and have it seem just as real as The Godfather, even though both have very identifiable flights of fancy in them.

I believe TDK is targeting a much larger demographic than "Superhero Action Crowd" - and it has, which is a major part of its success.

The superhero action audience is large, much larger than say, the SVU crowd. It's a crowd ranging from middle school aged kids, all the way up to young twenty somethings. SVU is hardly the same crowd.

Again - this would not be a movie that is ABOUT rape and pedophilia, this would be a movie about a mans war against crime - the crime including, among other various offenses, a pedophile with a taste for the theatrical.

It's about one (fantastical) man's war against (fantastical) crime. Remember, it's not about a real man fighting real crime. It's about a fictional universe which has to remain thematically consistent AT ALL TIMES. God, you're dense.

The drugs Falcone smuggles in are not only Scarecrows - he brings in average narcotics, the apparent crutch of his crime organization by the looks of Batman Begins.

Yet how many times do they address "regular" narcotics. Oh that's right....never.

Again - a good writer can make a pedophile fit as a small role in a larger overall story, Nolan and Nolan have proven to be good writers.

Nolan and Nolan are good writers BECAUSE they don't do stupid sh** like that in they're movies. Making nods to things just for the sake of making nods is what fanboyish internet geeks do, and most of their stories turn out pretty bad.

Do you have some secret source inside WB? WB's recent history lends itself to allowing Nolan do whatever he wishes - if he wishes to make a Mad Hatter a pedophile and give him a role in the movie, I don't think WB is going to fight him on that. Just like they didn't fight Nolan on TDK or fight Snyder over Watchmen.

Really, because they MADE Snyder cut down Watchmen. They also pushed for Nolan to wrap up his next two films in one film.

The last act in TDK had nothing to do with mob based offenses.

Harvey was scarred by the MOB, and Harvey took revenge on the MOB, murdering them. Yep, pretty consistent, I'd say.

Uncle Ben was an origin death, Harry dies a hero's death and Norman was a villain. None of them equate to killing off a love interest.

He LOVED Uncle Ben, he LOVED his friend Harry, Harry LOVED his father. I suppose I could also just point out the obvious and say how unpopular Rachel's character was and how much the movie going audience wanted her character gone from the last film. Really now, death in movies is death.

Wait - so he didn't forgive Peter before he came to save him?

That really is immaterial. Now you're just trying to rationalize bullsh** logic with more bullsh** logic.

You are simply wrong here on this account. Its getting praise because it is MORE than a good superhero movie:
And this were just three fairly random samples from the TOP CRITICS selection.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Apparently you aren't familiar with Hype.

Opening the summer blockbuster season with flair, X2: X-Men United overtakes its hype to land the title of best comic book movie ... ever

Spider-Man 2 95%

Spider-Man 2 is much more a grown-up love story than its predecessor.

Spider-Man 2 is a perfect blend of summer action, a big movie with a deeply personal story.

This sequel is a more complete, not to mention more complex, experience.

"Deep", "adult", and several others called in a romance movie, the reviews go on and on. See, every movie gets reviews like that, from top critics. It's called hype, and it's why we have the site. Maybe Heath will get an Oscar nod, cause he's dead, but mark my words, all TDK has to look forward too is visual effects. Even Sin City had rumors of Oscar nods, and how'd that turn out? It didn't.

There is nothing inconsistent here - again, you can easilly write the pedophile Mad Hatter character into this story line and make it flow.

But why? What greater purpose would it serve in a movie that, inherently, will never touch upon those issues. Just like bashing a mask with a baseball bat and never touching upon that again is cumbersome, so too is this story. It's the same reason they try to form personal bonds between the hero and villain, because unlike comics, it's not some periodical where people just come and go. There have to be distinct and identifiable reasons behind each scene. We all know Batman stops purse snatchers too, but we don't see him do that either. Why? Because it's not thematically consistent.

They ARE trying to appeal to the same age group. The biggest demographic for SVU is 18-24 year olds, the same target demographic for TDK.

"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (4.6/12 in 18-49, 12.2 million viewers overall). So, you're wrong about that, and considering that 18-24 is but a small portion of that large group, saying it's the "same demographic" as Batman is also wrong. Furthermore, Batman appeals to a much wider audience. Or do you really think only 12.2 million saw TDK, because that only accounts for 108.8 million in sales, less than it's first weekend.

LOL WHAT? Did you read these stories? The Man Who Laughs paints The Joker as a terrorist. He isn't labled "a terrorist", but that is what he is none the less. The Joker's very first appearance makes The Joker a terrorist.

Own all three, and Joker, in all three, is a serial killer with a gun, NOT a terrorist who goes around blowing up hospitals and putting people on boats.

IMO, however, any other crime you could have the Mad Hatter do can be done better by another villain. Pedophilia is the only real crime that makes the Mad Hatter unique and compelling. Its what prevents him from becoming, as you put it, a rip off of the Riddler.

So basically, leave him out, he's pointless...noted.

Neither Riddler nor Hugo Strange control minds, if memory serves me right. Hugo Strange has shown an ability to READ minds and memories - but not mind control.

They psychologically try to manipulate people, Mad hatter just does it with cards.

 

[StorminNorman]

Scarecrow used drugs to kill people, or cause them pain LIKE A MURDERER. Remember, there is no instance in either of these movies which addresses being a junkie. Batman doesn't develop an "addiction" to Crane's toxins, neither does Rachel. They are no different than shooting someone, except this is a slightly more round about way of doing it.

Thats because the movies story isn't about Craine selling drugs and the impact it has on Gotham, its about Batman's war on crime - crime that includes, among many other things, the selling of drugs. It is not a stretch to include a pedophile into the criminal faternity that Batman is waging war on.

As I've noted before, certain "crimes" as you can plainly see, are glossed over. Destruction of property. Assault and battery. Restricting or violating the rights of criminal suspects. In fact, it's funny, most of Batman's villains thus far would be released simply due to his involvement. Crane, Joker, Two-Face (if he lived) and any inmates at Arkham he fought would go right back out on the streets because what he does IS A CRIME. See how this world is not so realistic and only works within it's own confines.

Its also irrelevant what would occur in real life with the criminals Batman took down. I am not trying to make the argument that the Batman movies are perfectly realistic, simply more grounded in reality.

It is not hard to include a pedophile in the movie and NOT fully delve into the consequences of child rape on the psyche of a girl. You are right that that sort of film would not lend itself to the franchise Nolan has established.

There are no drug addictions, pedophiles or even rapists. In Begins and TDK those crimes don't exist anymore than Batman having to pee his own suit does.

Simply because they do not appear on screen does not mean they do not exist in his Gotham. Again - there was a junkee in TDK, the mob was making money off of selling drugs in Gotham (in both Begins and TDK) - yes, neither film delved into the depths about the horrors of drug addiction and how it can destroy families, friendships and people - but they did acknowledge its pressence in Gotham. There is no reason rape and pedophilia can not be given similar treatments.

That would be the only way to pull that off without breaking the movie's consistency. Remember, if it's not part of the story it's NOT PART OF THE STORY.

Was Maroni's opperation the backbone of TDK? Was Falcone's opperation the backbone of Begins? Was Gamble? It is possible to include criminals/villains and not have their story be the center focus in the movie.

But it IS within the confines of one film. See the problem here. SVU is a show ABOUT SEXUAL CRIMINALS. To avoid confusing the audience or breaking the consistency they don't go into all the other crime WE KNOW happens in New York, just as a DC movie would fly to Metropolis just for some random Superman appearance. The movie has to be grounded in something, in this case it takes a very aesthetic vision of crime, boiled down to two easy to relate to forms, and doesn't deviate. Thus creating an illusion of a sensical world. Movie that violate their own principles are just the opposite: non-sensical. It's the reason you can go see a movie like Lord of the Rings and have it seem just as real as The Godfather, even though both have very identifiable flights of fancy in them.

Fine - perhaps Law and Order is a better example than SVU because it deals with crime in a grand scale - including sexual offenses.

Again - throwing a pedophile into Gotham does not break any of the rules already established by Nolan and Co.

The superhero action audience is large, much larger than say, the SVU crowd. It's a crowd ranging from middle school aged kids, all the way up to young twenty somethings. SVU is hardly the same crowd.

Middle School kids watch SVU though - today's culture is already exposed, for better or for worse, to the threat of pedophilia and sexual dangers. Its constantly in the news, its constantly on TV, its a different world.

It's about one (fantastical) man's war against (fantastical) crime. Remember, it's not about a real man fighting real crime. It's about a fictional universe which has to remain thematically consistent AT ALL TIMES. God, you're dense.

Ha, insults aren't going to get you anywhere and only makes you look rather foolish. Again, I understand the need for the Batman movies to remain thematically consistent - however throwing in Pedophile Mad Hatter does not go agaisnt the themes pressent in TDK. Yes - its a fantastical man's war against fantastical crime - those qualifiers are obvious and didn't need stating - my argument is that you can easily touch upon pedophila in much the same way the movies have touched on drugs, murder and the like.

Yet how many times do they address "regular" narcotics. Oh that's right....never.

You need to rewatch Batman Begins. Falcone was making his money with REGULAR narcotic.

Nolan and Nolan are good writers BECAUSE they don't do stupid sh** like that in they're movies. Making nods to things just for the sake of making nods is what fanboyish internet geeks do, and most of their stories turn out pretty bad.

Again, I would argue that there is nothing stupid about adding a different sort of criminal into a story that is about a man fighting against crime - you differ on that opinion, fine - but, again, your opinion is no more right than mine is here.

Really, because they MADE Snyder cut down Watchmen. They also pushed for Nolan to wrap up his next two films in one film.

They made Snyder cut down Watchmen in terms of TIME, not content - we are getting every single second of Snyder's vision on DVD.

Your comment about WB pushing Nolan to wrap up two movies into one shows your ignorance in the matter. That decision was Nolan's, he did not want to leave the story unfinished because there is a chance he may not come back for a third. Again, WB had nothing to do with that - they gave Nolan full freedom there.

Harvey was scarred by the MOB, and Harvey took revenge on the MOB, murdering them. Yep, pretty consistent, I'd say.

Harvey was scarred by the Joker.

That really is immaterial. Now you're just trying to rationalize bullsh** logic with more bullsh** logic.

LOL, I love the way you are getting more and more insulting as time goes on. Its cute, if not simply adorable.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Apparently you aren't familiar with Hype.

Spider-Man 2 95%

I am perfectly familiar with Hype.

None of those reviews are close to comments about TDK being more than simply a superhero movie. There are no comparisons to Godfather or Heat. There are no mentions that it is worthy of Best Picture awards.

Again, your comment was that your opinion is right and mine is wrong - that is such an arrogant, assinine statement. To try to state that TDK was not viewed as being a film that was more than just a superhero movie shows an impressive determination to low ball the film.

Here is the Rottentomatoe Bottom Line:

Dark, complex and unforgettable, The Dark Knight succeeds not just as an entertaining comic book film, but as a richly thrilling crime saga.

Richly Thrilling CRIME SAGA - which is exactly the point I was making originally, was it not?

"Deep", "adult", and several others called in a romance movie, the reviews go on and on. See, every movie gets reviews like that, from top critics. It's called hype, and it's why we have the site. Maybe Heath will get an Oscar nod, cause he's dead, but mark my words, all TDK has to look forward too is visual effects. Even Sin City had rumors of Oscar nods, and how'd that turn out? It didn't.

Your comment about Heath getting an oscar nod because he is dead is stupid, but outside of that you are now saying that your opinion is more valid than those that review films for a living. Again, your arrogance in outstanding.

But why? What greater purpose would it serve in a movie that, inherently, will never touch upon those issues. Just like bashing a mask with a baseball bat and never touching upon that again is cumbersome, so too is this story. It's the same reason they try to form personal bonds between the hero and villain, because unlike comics, it's not some periodical where people just come and go. There have to be distinct and identifiable reasons behind each scene. We all know Batman stops purse snatchers too, but we don't see him do that either. Why? Because it's not thematically consistent.

Again - you miss my point entirely. The point of having Mad Hatter be a pedophile is NOT that there is a pedophile in Gotham City, but that crimes are being executed by FREAKS and not "normal people". Thats the point I have been making all along - the theme of the series has been Escalation, having personal crimes like rape, pedophilia, etc. be executed by freaks in costume is perfectly aligned into that theme.

"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (4.6/12 in 18-49, 12.2 million viewers overall). So, you're wrong about that, and considering that 18-24 is but a small portion of that large group, saying it's the "same demographic" as Batman is also wrong. Furthermore, Batman appeals to a much wider audience. Or do you really think only 12.2 million saw TDK, because that only accounts for 108.8 million in sales, less than it's first weekend.

I never said that TDK's audience is the same as Law and Order SVU's - only that they target similar demographics. There is a large difference there.

Own all three, and Joker, in all three, is a serial killer with a gun, NOT a terrorist who goes around blowing up hospitals and putting people on boats.

A terrorist is not defined by a man who blows up buildings - its a man who uses violence for the purpose of acheiving an ideological goal. Thats exactly what The Joker did in those stories.

Also while in A Man Who Laughs his crime was not trying to blow up hospitals and putting people on boats - it was poisoning the water supply. Not all that different, really.

 

[Malone]

If Nolan were to put the Mad Hatter in one of his movies, I think that the character would be handled similarly to the way Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow was, with the character being loyal to the comics in terms of motives, but not as flashy or colorful.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The other worthwhile observation here that SN keeps missing is Jervis Tetch isn't really a pedophile in his most famous incarnations. Outside of TAS and Batman (1960), the only two non-comics in which he's been featured, he's gone through a number of incarnations. Grant Morrison treated him as a habitual user of LSD and hallucinagens in Arkham Asylum, drawing upon the supposed drug use of Lewis Carol. There is some hints to him being a pedophile, but they aren't nearly as strong. In the mainstream universe he's been a number of things. In the 1940s, he war merely a joke villain, along the lines of Mr. Freeze (Mr. Zero) and was an obsessive complusive, suffering from schizophrenia and advanced delusions. In the 1980s, after being dead and replaced, he returned using "mind control devices" and parading around a pet monkey. Ironically that device, later downsized to a playing card, was used to control Scarecrow as a lackey of his. The "mind controlling" lasted for a while, and eventually he used them to extract information from people, namely Lucius Fox, whom he captured. It has not been until OYL that the pedophile angle has begun to used in comics, usually in the Robin title, as he kidnaps several kids. Jervis Tetch pedophilia is most certainly post-Knightfall, where he was still just a mind controlling villain. The cartoon is primarily responsible for his most noteable appearances, still just being a D-lister in the comics.

 

[StorminNorman]

The other worthwhile observation here that SN keeps missing is Jervis Tetch isn't really a pedophile in his most famous incarnations. Outside of TAS and Batman (1960), the only two non-comics in which he's been featured, he's gone through a number of incarnations. Grant Morrison treated him as a habitual user of LSD and hallucinagens in Arkham Asylum, drawing upon the supposed drug use of Lewis Carol. There is some hints to him being a pedophile, but they aren't nearly as strong. In the mainstream universe he's been a number of things. In the 1940s, he war merely a joke villain, along the lines of Mr. Freeze (Mr. Zero) and was an obsessive complusive, suffering from schizophrenia and advanced delusions. In the 1980s, after being dead and replaced, he returned using "mind control devices" and parading around a pet monkey. Ironically that device, later downsized to a playing card, was used to control Scarecrow as a lackey of his. The "mind controlling" lasted for a while, and eventually he used them to extract information from people, namely Lucius Fox, whom he captured. It has not been until OYL that the pedophile angle has begun to used in comics, usually in the Robin title, as he kidnaps several kids. Jervis Tetch pedophilia is most certainly post-Knightfall, where he was still just a mind controlling villain. The cartoon is primarily responsible for his most noteable appearances, still just being a D-lister in the comics.

Jervis Tetch doesn't have a famous incarnation. He is not an iconic villain. He is ultimately a blank canvas in which Nolan can paint whatever devious picture he wishes and not have it conflict with the way the mainstream views the character.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Jervis Tetch doesn't have a famous incarnation. He is not an iconic villain. He is ultimately a blank canvas in which Nolan can paint whatever devious picture he wishes and not have it conflict with the way the mainstream views the character.

Famous, no, I suppose not. If by fame you mean what's been most exposed though, it's his TAS version. His TAS version is largely based on the way he was used between 1980s-1990s, and well through Knightfall and up until his use in the Secret Six. Him being a pedophile though is a very slight aspect of his character, and often not referenced or written out entirely. Deathstroke technically is a pedophile/statutory rapist, as he had sex with Terra (whose age was about 14 at the time). Strangely, Joker has also been accused of pedophilia, although Alan Moore straight up denies it in The Killing Joke. Point being, before I start doing a who's who of pedophiles, is that it's not all that central to his character and in addition I didn't haphazardly mention storylines there at all. I was showing that, in the comics, there have been moments where Jervis Tetch has done things that could be reiterated in these films (capturing Jervis, capturing Barbara Gordon, and mind warping Scarecrow).

 

[StorminNorman]

Famous, no, I suppose not. If by fame you mean what's been most exposed though, it's his TAS version. His TAS version is largely based on the way he was used between 1980s-1990s, and well through Knightfall and up until his use in the Secret Six. Him being a pedophile though is a very slight aspect of his character, and often not referenced or written out entirely. Deathstroke technically is a pedophile/statutory rapist, as he had sex with Terra (whose age was about 14 at the time). Strangely, Joker has also been accused of pedophilia, although Alan Moore straight up denies it in The Killing Joke. Point being, before I start doing a who's who of pedophiles, is that it's not all that central to his character and in addition I didn't haphazardly mention storylines there at all. I was showing that, in the comics, there have been moments where Jervis Tetch has done things that could be reiterated in these films (capturing Jervis, capturing Barbara Gordon, and mind warping Scarecrow).

Terra was 16, not 14 though really its simply a technicality.

Again - I don't think a handfull of episodes of TAS is enough exposuer to have left an iconic version of Mad Hatter on the average movie goer any more than Clock King did.

I think the Mad Hatter's Children's book motif and the whole Alice and Wonderland bit lends itself well to a sick man who has a fetish for little blond girls who manipulates them into entering his own little Wonderland for some carnal fun. I think this fits far more than an aged assassin or someone like the Joker who seems to place chaos above more simple and human tendancies - like sexual urges.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Terra was 16, not 14 though really its simply a technicality.

Again - I don't think a handfull of episodes of TAS is enough exposuer to have left an iconic version of Mad Hatter on the average movie goer any more than Clock King did.

I'm not trying to argue his fame in the eyes of the general public. His fame in the eyes of the general public is that of a Lewis Carroll character, not a comic book villain.

I think the Mad Hatter's Children's book motif and the whole Alice and Wonderland bit lends itself well to a sick man who has a fetish for little blond girls who manipulates them into entering his own little Wonderland for some carnal fun.

Wow, ummm, that sentence is just a tad creepy.

I think this fits far more than an aged assassin or someone like the Joker who seems to place chaos above more simple and human tendancies - like sexual urges.

I agree about the Joker, but when you're talking about this character you're using a very minor aspect (the pedophilia) and drawing it out. The whole "Wonderland" bit was created as a joke. A character meant to come off as campy and decidedly silly. I think if Nolan ever used the character his role would be small to the point where harping on that aspect would be a bane upon the film. He's mad and he wears a hat, and after that, there's no real reason to even call him by name. That's actually very similar to the lines on which he was used in TLH and DV, as a just a guy, with a gun, wearing a hat. Not much further explanation.

 

[JokersWild]

is anyone else finding this argument between ShadowBoxing and StorminNorman an increasingly exciting one? both have interesting and non-fanboy-esque points, and have remained civil throughout their exchange.

for the record, i agree with StorminNorman that the pedophile-Hatter would be an interesting side villian for BB3, and that WB and DC would be well rewarded for their risk in allowing such an interpretation to be present on screen in a pg-13 world.

as far as the l&o:svu comparisons, ShadowBoxing--- please stop. This is not something that ought to be in your arsenal. l&o in general glosses over crime in such a way that even your descriptions of this batman universe couldn't cover.

and StorminNorman, thank you for not being just a fanboy (i vomitted a little in my mouth as i said that...what an obseqious word!). your wit and intellect in this discussion have truly made me trill with happiness in a restored viewpoint of posters. after all, "people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

in summation, gentlemen, please continue your discourse, and i beseech you to continue doing so with such civility. you truly have made this poster happy.

 

[spideyman101]

I think they should go along with the story... but for Batman 4 (if Nolan comes back: pray he does). Just as long as they don't show him touching girls or anything... which is a duh factor... I imagine it will all be implied...

That's not exactly what I want to see in a Batman film... naked little 8 year old girls running away from Mad Hatter... >_<

 

[Rogzilla]

They should NEVER show it...but leave it clear to anyone looking for it what is going on.

I DO think that Hatter shouldn't be a main villain, he should be there only to show what has happened to Gotham, how fall it has fallen, what stalks the streets and how Batman will have to become vital to the city.

 

[RakuMon]

Michael Emerson as Mad Hatter!!

http://blog.columbusalive.com/Sensory/ben_linus.jpg

 

[ShadowBoxing]

To be clear, though, I don't really think Mad Hatter has any place in the Nolan franchise. period. I feel he ranks pretty low on the list, even after Clayface and Mr. Freeze, who are probably too hard to adapt in the Nolan franchise, but still more interesting than Jervis Tetch. Although, one incarnation to Jervis Tetch I could see working brillantly is to do him along the lines of the "Laughing Man" who was a computer hacker in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I'm not sure if anyone remembers the story, but Tetch once handed out "free coffee and dounuts" invitations to police which later turned out to be mind control devices and callously began killing police officers after that. Could be interesting, in the age of computers, to have him do this via e-mail. However, I think the mind control gimmick, in the end, raises to many questions and would have too much backstory.

Really in my mind with Talia Al Ghul, Riddler, Catwoman, Black Mask (though I dislike him), Rupert Thorne, Roland Dagget, DA Janice Porter, Killer Croc, Ventriloquist, Two-Face [maybe], The Reaper, Bane, Dr. Death, Hugo Strange, Poison Ivy, Penguin, Deadshot and several others really ripe for onscreen adapts there is really no need for someone as unassuming, small time and insignificant as Jervis Tetch, especially when we're entertaining the notion of pedophilia, which would probably be avoided like the black plague by both Nolan and the studio.

Also, as for the crime itself, both mind control and pedophilia present no real connection that could be drawn to Batman, unless your going to have WayneTech producing the devices or have Bruce be molested as a child. Black Mask, Catwoman and Penguin (among others) all can have appearances whose purpose can serve a greater storyline, whether it be a childhood rival, love interest, or anti-Bruce Wayne respectively. Jervis really presents no physical threat, and really no philosophical counter to Batman either, not in the way that Ra's, Scarecrow, Joker and Two-Face have.

 

[StorminNorman]

Wow, ummm, that sentence is just a tad creepy.

Which is exactly what I was aiming for - which is exactly what the Mad Hatter shoul be.

I agree about the Joker, but when you're talking about this character you're using a very minor aspect (the pedophilia) and drawing it out. The whole "Wonderland" bit was created as a joke. A character meant to come off as campy and decidedly silly. I think if Nolan ever used the character his role would be small to the point where harping on that aspect would be a bane upon the film. He's mad and he wears a hat, and after that, there's no real reason to even call him by name. That's actually very similar to the lines on which he was used in TLH and DV, as a just a guy, with a gun, wearing a hat. Not much further explanation.

Simply making a guy with a gun takes away what could make for a demented, interesting, creepy villain - to one that isn't interesting at all. I don't see why you would dull down a villain liket that.

 

[StorminNorman]

To be clear, though, I don't really think Mad Hatter has any place in the Nolan franchise. period. I feel he ranks pretty low on the list, even after Clayface and Mr. Freeze, who are probably too hard to adapt in the Nolan franchise, but still more interesting than Jervis Tetch. Although, one incarnation to Jervis Tetch I could see working brillantly is to do him along the lines of the "Laughing Man" who was a computer hacker in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I'm not sure if anyone remembers the story, but Tetch once handed out "free coffee and dounuts" invitations to police which later turned out to be mind control devices and callously began killing police officers after that. Could be interesting, in the age of computers, to have him do this via e-mail. However, I think the mind control gimmick, in the end, raises to many questions and would have too much backstory.

Yea - I think anything involving actual mind control is a bit too outlandish for these movies. Thats why I would prefer to see Mad Hatter as an expect manipulator - which again, lends itself much better to impressionable children.

Also, as for the crime itself, both mind control and pedophilia present no real connection that could be drawn to Batman, unless your going to have WayneTech producing the devices or have Bruce be molested as a child. Black Mask, Catwoman and Penguin (among others) all can have appearances whose purpose can serve a greater storyline, whether it be a childhood rival, love interest, or anti-Bruce Wayne respectively. Jervis really presents no physical threat, and really no philosophical counter to Batman either, not in the way that Ra's, Scarecrow, Joker and Two-Face have.

Again - there is no reason to now do Black Mask, Catwoman and Penguin with Mad Hatter. Maroni was not a philosophical counter, nor was any of the mobsters (or Lau) in TDK. None of them had personal stories with Bruce Wayne or Batman.

Again - I would have Mad Hatter be one of several examples of costumed freaks being the new trend in Gotham's criminals.

 

[Laderlappen]

Michael Emerson as Mad Hatter!!

http://blog.columbusalive.com/Sensory/ben_linus.jpg

People have suggested him for many other roles. Would anybody believe him as anybody else than Ben fro LOST?

 

[StorminNorman]

Since I have never watched Lost - I will have no problem

 

[RakuMon]

People have suggested him for many other roles. Would anybody believe him as anybody else than Ben fro LOST?

Hey, if the immortal Richard Alpert can be mayor of Gotham, why can't Ben be Mad Hatter?

Since I have never watched Lost - I will have no problem

Actually, it's the "Lost" connection that makes Emerson a perfect Mad Hatter. There are several references to "Alice in Wonderland" on the show ("Through the Looking Glass" was the title of Season 3's finale).

 

[OwlBoy]

I can't believe I'm not getting any support for Ian Holm in the role

 

[StorminNorman]

Actually, it's the "Lost" connection that makes Emerson a perfect Mad Hatter. There are several references to "Alice in Wonderland" on the show ("Through the Looking Glass" was the title of Season 3's finale).

 

[Untilteld]

My bad Mister J I didn't see this thread. But anyways I think the underrated Steve Buscemi would make an amazing Mad Hatter, he's very creepy and looks the part for Nolan's realism.

 

[nolan's roll'n]

Andy Serkis or Johnny Depp