The Dark Knight Rises OFFICIAL: Batman in New York - Part 5

[Caped Crusader]

No ones pitting down the roddler or penguin. I just think penguin can't carry a movie himself after the joker and riddler would have to be written in a way that makes him different from most comics on order to make him appear not as the jv version of joker. I think the route they ate taking could not have been pulled off with riddler. I think he'd have been a nice side villain tho.

 

[batbax]

Why the confused faces? Lol.IMO riddler woulda been very hard to pull off well after the joker. Not sure why thats confusing?

 

[elsewhere]

No...

Ok? Care to explain why?

 

[HighFivingMF]

Ok? Care to explain why?

I'd be more interested in you explaining how. Joker had no knowledge that Harvey murdered anyone. He knew Harvey went out to cause some chaos and that's that. Last time we see Joker Harvey's alive, Riddler would show up with the knowledge after Harvey died, Batman takes the blame, and Joker's locked away for good.

 

[The Joker]

And yet when mentioning the term, Fanboys instantly focus their thoughts on The Joker and The Riddler.

You're the only one who's labeled The Riddler a poor man's Joker. Nobody else.

Yes, and I hated the attention The Riddler received when the time arrived for a new lead villain: "Yay! Another villain who solely threatens the psyche of Batman and no match for him physically!"

It's too bad for you that you hated it, because The Riddler is one of the most popular and iconic Batman villains who earned his status in Batman's rogues gallery. He's not an "event" villain like Hush or Bane who needed some event story to make him notable.

While The Riddler is not an unstable radical and violent anarchist carrying a bazooka, he does carries around the identical aura and delivery The Joker fancies. So while it's apples and oranges, it would be too uncanny for The Riddler to star in a Nolan sequel following The Joker. The general audience wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between the two.

You have absolutely no basis for such an assumption. You say there the two villains are apples and oranges and then you go on to say the audiences wouldn't have the cop on to be able to distinguish between a villain who embraces chaos and wants to break people's spirits, and another one who challenges Batman with riddles.

Preposterous!

I admire Oswald's political tactics and antics but, at best, I simply see him as a member of the Falcone family. In context, I've never acknowledged him as a massive threat to Batman.

I still don't understand your basis for any of that. The Penguin can run roughshod over Gotham with the most terrible crimes you can think of and avoid getting caught, and you don't see how he can be a major threat?

As a supporting character he could work, but after the Joker was the main villain I don't see any way Riddler could have posed a bigger threat.

Any villain can be made a bigger threat based on how their written, just like how a big threat villain can be reduced in threat level. In the comics the Scarecrow is a major threat, yet Scarecrow was simply made a League lackey in Batman Begins who wasn't even in on the real agenda the LOS was planning, who was taken out by Katie Holmes and her taser.

You're missing my point. To be a compelling and effective cinematic story (especially for a teen-marketed film) it has to engage the audience, you have to make them care about the situation and show some serious threat. For Riddler to use riddles as well as threaten people's safety would seem very similar to some of Joker's threats.

No, it wouldn't. The Joker did not challenge Batman with riddles. He came along and simply created chaos to suit his ends.

The Riddler wouldn't rob a bank, kill all his henchmen in the process, and then burn the money. He wouldn't go to the mob and just make a deal to kill Batman for them. He wouldn't go around killing any mob guys who opposed him by pretending to be dead or feeding them to their own dogs. He wouldn't torture a copycat Batman on TV just to deliver a message. He wouldn't hang mutilated corpses from windows. He wouldn't disguise himself as a Cop to go and kill someone prominent like the Mayor. He wouldn't attack a platoon of SWAT and Cop vehicles with a bazooka. He wouldn't go into a hospital dressed as a nurse to break Harvey Dent. Riddler wouldn't threaten to blow up a hospital just to protect Batman's identity because he thinks Batman completes him. He wouldn't let himself get deliberately captured and then escape using a bomb he put in one of his own thug's stomach. He wouldn't try and force ferries full of people to blow each other up so he can prove they're all like him deep down.

Read this and see that what you got was pure Joker: http://jokerfans.blogspot.com/2011/03/heath-ledgers-joker-comic-book-to-movie.html

Nothing like the Riddler.

It's not about what he does in the comics or animated episodes, it's about what can be marketed and sold effectively to an audience. The scale has to increase, the threat has to be greater.

That can easily be done with a good script.

Case in point, Bane is being written completely against his nature. Bane doesn't turn Gotham into warring factions against authority. Bane doesn't tackle greedy corporations. Bane doesn't post propaganda all over Gotham.

None of this is Bane's style. We might as well have had Deacon Blackfire as the villain because that is right up his alley. A year ago, if someone said the villain in TDKR is going to divide Gotham up into warring factions against authority, and he's going to tackle greedy corporations, would Bane be the villain who springs to mind when you heard that?

Of course not. I can't even recognize Bane visually in this movie let alone characteristically. So why you think The Riddler could not be made a fresh threat, especially since he's nothing like the Joker anyway, is beyond me.

But that means nothing when trying to create a more impressive and fresher film.

Which can be done with the Riddler because he's a different breed of villain entirely to the Joker.

Thanks for posting that blog post, awesome read! And btw, you couldn't be more spot on about Riddler. Still would love to see what Nolan could of done with him. I can't believe some Batman fans on here quickly forgot what kind of villain he was especially in BTAS which were some of the best episodes.

Thank you. I wrote that blog myself.

.....Riddler and Penguin would sure as hell get more people hyped for this movie than most batman villains.

Its funny how certain fans of other characters want their favorite villains to have the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that said character hasnt been a legitmitate threat in years, yet will down other villains for practically the same reason. riddler and penguin are jokes, but for some reason, guys like black mask and deacon blackfire, for example, are the bees knees?

QFT

 

[elsewhere]

I'd be more interested in you explaining how. Joker had no knowledge that Harvey murdered anyone. He knew Harvey went out to cause some chaos and that's that. Last time we see Joker Harvey's alive, Riddler would show up with the knowledge after Harvey died, Batman takes the blame, and Joker's locked away for good.

I'm speaking characteristically. They both share similar methods as antagonists. To the general audience it may come across as a rehash of the Joker.

 

[The Batman]

Didnt Lungrocket get a tatoo if Deacon Blackfire on his butt?

.....I hope not.

I think way too many people think of Burton's Penguin & Joel's Riddler when those two villains come to mind. Not many on here read the comics/graphic novels it seems.

Or if they do, its usually just the buzz comics like Year One, Long Halloween, or Killing Joke.

There's some of us on here that still believe that Riddler would of been just as perfect, he could of kept breaking down Bruce Wayne/Batman mentally. That being said I'm still happy with the choice of Bane but let's not discredit the other villains in the Batman mythology.

Agreed. Hell, he could've used Dr. Hurt or Hugo Strange as well.

 

[batbax]

Lol. Comic book snobbery. If we don't think riddler would've been a great villian for the 3rd film it has to be because we haven't read the right comics. Mmkk. Sure.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Watch the Riddler be the one behind all of Gothams misery at the end of TDKR. Just like in Hush.
We wouldn't even get to see him or know that he was involved until the last ten minutes or so.

That would blow my mind if executed well.

Nolan grabs stuff from lots of story arcs.

 

[The Batman]

And someone has yet to put up a legitimate argument as to how Riddler and Joker are alike.

 

[The_Raganork]

Lol. Comic book snobbery. If we don't think riddler would've been a great villian for the 3rd film it has to be because we haven't read the right comics. Mmkk. Sure.

[YT]3csgF7kbB34[/YT]

Watch the Riddler be the one behind all of Gothams misery at the end of TDKR. Just like in Hush.
We wouldn't even get to see him or know that he was involved until the last ten minutes or so.

That would blow my mind if executed well.

Nolan grabs stuff from lots of story arcs.

That is one of the worst ideas I've heard here.

And someone has yet to put up a legitimate argument as to how Riddler and Joker are alike.

Perhaps their innate characters aren't the alike but the general audience would be subjected to a retread of Batman using detective like antics to figure out complicated clues left behind by Riddler ala the bullet thing in TDK or people having the detonators to their own Bomb...

It's a very similar vein and after TDK's Joker I don't think using riddler would be the most refreshing and new character to use. You're going to want something that's not very similar at all and mainly someone Batman can punch around for most of the film because TDK lacked that for a more psychological approach

 

[The Batman]

....So, its ok to have Bane and the LOS/Mercs...which is very similar to Ras and the LOS...but its not ok to have Riddler after the Joker?

And thats excluding the possiblity that a number of the general audience might've expected Riddler in a follow up to TDK

 

[batbax]

Watch the Riddler be the one behind all of Gothams misery at the end of TDKR. Just like in Hush.
We wouldn't even get to see him or know that he was involved until the last ten minutes or so.

That would blow my mind if executed well.


Nolan grabs stuff from lots of story
arcs.

Oh.. No.. Oh no no no. Dear god.

 

[Ramsay Snow]

....So, its ok to have Bane and the LOS/Mercs...which is very similar to Ras and the LOS...but its not ok to have Riddler after the Joker?

How is Bane & his mercs similar to Ra's? I don't recall Ra's having occupied Gotham and controlling the city, among other things.

 

[The_Raganork]

....So, its ok to have Bane and the LOS/Mercs...which is very similar to Ras and the LOS...but its not ok to have Riddler after the Joker?

If this is directed to me I'll answer in this way:

#1 You have no idea how Bane and his Mercs are going to work out in the film. They could be similar to the LOS or not Similar at all.

#2 Haven't I been vocal enough in the last 7 months about not wanting a LoS story in this film?

 

[The Batman]

If this is directed to me I'll answer in this way:

#1 You have no idea how Bane and his Mercs are going to work out in the film. They could be similar to the LOS or not Similar at all.

Much like how you have no idea how Nolan would portray Riddler, but you decided to grasp at straws anyway?

And now its suddenly a bad thing to have Batman, a character who debuted in Detective Comics (Sorry, that's my "Comic book snobbery" coming into play again, heaven forbid you actually like reading Batman comics) to have back to back films where he does detective work?

Someone shouldve warned WB of that before they decided to make Sherlock Holmes 2.

 

[batbax]

Yes just because bane has mercs doesn't mean he's at all the same as ra's. Joker had thugs and goons just like ra's did. Doesn't mean they were similar at all.

 

[The Batman]

Ok...then Riddler being intellectual dosent make him similar to Joker, neither in character or the way Nolan would portray his and Batman's conflict.

Glad we settled that.

 

[CaptainSpunk]

I think most people would be ok with Bane after Joker if Nolan was gonna do a 4th with either Riddler or Penguin. Now THAT I can see as being a good progression. But isnt the word on the street (hype) that this is Nolans last Bat-Film?
Sorry to cause such a sheet storm. Didnt realize that many people are feeling the same as I am. But on the other hand. What else is there to talk about?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

To The Joker and The Batman:

I really could care less what you think of The Penguin and The Riddler, and Bane's status. It's purely conjecture on your part as well on why The Riddler and The Penguin are superior.

In the end, Nolan didn't select Oswald or Edward. He chose Bane. Could have Christopher selected either one for the finale? Yes, but he did not, because The Riddler and The Penguin didn't fit into his vision. Nolan selected this specific arc and villain for a purpose.

Yes, The Riddler and The Penguin have a far more rich history in the comics, nevertheless, I don't care for them for the reasons I stated before. The Riddler is a colorless and flat villain and The Penquin lacks an intimidating edge, in my personal opinion. It's that straightforward.

If you two feel so strongly against Bane, perhaps you gentlemen can label it as an 'event' film instead of an actual sequel to the franchise.

Good day.

 

[Ramsay Snow]

Ok...then Riddler being intellectual dosent make him similar to Joker, neither in character or the way Nolan would portray his and Batman's conflict.

Glad we settled that.

IMO, a Riddler and Black Mask combo would be fantastic for a 4th film.

Also, I'm not trying to say that the man in perfect, but there must be a reason why Nolan chose Bane and not Riddler to suit his story.

 

[The Joker]

To The Joker and The Batman:

I really could care less what you think of The Penguin and The Riddler, and Bane's status. It's purely conjecture on your part as well on why The Riddler and The Penguin are superior.

The same thing could be said to you regarding your stance.

In the end, Nolan didn't select Oswald or Edward. He chose Bane. Could have Christopher selected either one for the finale? Yes, but he did not, because The Riddler and The Penguin didn't fit into his vision. Nolan selected this specific arc and villain for a purpose.

Whether he chose Riddler and Penguin or not is irrelevant to the point being made. Either of those villains could be written both as fresh and competent threats in a Batman movie.

They have the character history to prove that. They did not last over seven decades as prominent Batman villains for no reason.

If you two feel so strongly against Bane, perhaps you gentlemen can label it as an 'event' film instead of an actual sequel to the franchise.

Now why should we do that when it seems Nolan is changing nearly everything about Bane? From his visual look to his motives, this is not a Bane I've ever seen before and that may just be the best thing Nolan could have done

 

[The_Raganork]

Ok...then Riddler being intellectual dosent make him similar to Joker, neither in character or the way Nolan would portray his and Batman's conflict.

Glad we settled that.

talk about shaving down someone's argument to fit yours.

I attempted to show you how your opposition thought and where there is validity is.

You seemed more interested in being right rather than engaging in a discussion.

 

[kvz5]

Modine interview:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/matthew-modine-talks-short-filmmaking-and-why-the-dark-knight-didnt-shoot-at-occupy-wall-street

Why didn't "The Dark Knight" rises shoot at Occupy Wall Street?

The wisdom of Christopher Nolan and his incredible team was that, while it seemed like a good idea to give [the protestors] an opportunity for work, to give them money, it would send a terrible message. At the end of the day, we're making a movie. What's happening down there is more important than that. To co-opt what's happening there and around the country… we didn't want to trivialize it. It was more important to respect what they're doing than to do anything that could potentially trivialize the political situation downtown.

Considering that your short film deals with the ills of capitalism, were you excited to play a character in "The Dark Knight" named "Nixon"?

I'm not allowed to talk about [the film], but there's a lot of misinformation. I don't know who created it, but it's kind of fun to have everybody speculating about it.

 

[mackblack01]

This thread is clearly off topic now...