Batman Begins Official Scarecrow Discussion

[*ANTHONY*]

Everyone, lets talk about the scarecrow? What did you think of him? Was he in the film long enough to be considered the main villain? Ideas...

---------------------------------------------------------
I would have liked him to be in the film more. Though, I liked that he never really "Fought" Batman in this film. He was mostly phsycological.

 

[Two-Face]

I think he was awsome in Begins, I don't think scarecrow could have been as a main villain. He probably be used by Joker in TDK.

 

[OctaviusINC]

Scarecrow is one of my favorite villians as far as Batman in general goes, and though he was a little bit different in BB I thought Cillian Murphy was abo****ely great. Every time he was onscreen(though not much) he stole the scene. The way Murphy played him made him so odd and interesting. I simply can't wait to see him in TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

"So stupid" for me. Reasons?

- It looked and acted effemninate rather than the skinny guy having a trauma because of being ugly and looking for revenge.

- It looked and acted effeminate rather than scary.

- Before he went nuts at the end, the mask thing was pointless except as a forced wink to the comics. The "would you like to see my mask" out of the blue in thaty convo with Falcone was laughable and pointless.

- We wait the whole movie for the Scarecrow to appear and when he does... he's defeated embarrassingly in 5 seconds by Katie Hoolmes and a electric device any woman in town can have. What do we need Batman for then? One of the worse way to say good bye a villiain from a movie. If not for movies' Bane, Poison Ivy, Two Face and Mr. Freeze... worst villiain. Really killed part of the movie for me.

In the comics, one of my favourite villiains though.

 

[*ANTHONY*]

One thing I was angry is that scarecrow didn't receive enough credit. You don't see cillian murphy's name on any DVD covers, posters, etc. I just wish he had more screetime.

In TDK, I wonder what he will look like. His face might be like scarred or something. I bet he has something to do with the Joker's origin. I would think that the toxin could be what makes Joker go crazy? Maybe Joker was a patient in Arkham? ANd he was on of the escaped ciminals/ crazy person?

 

[Damiean Dark]

Murphy is a great actor but he didnt seem at all like scarecrow to me where was the spindley tall beanpole? who loved books above all else? it was to far removed from the original watch him in nightfall the scarecrow depicted in that is perfect or for a far darker version see the scarecrow in the Judge Dredd/Batman team up in Judgement in Gotham.

 

[El Payaso]

Dr. Crane/Scarecrow was as changed and different as were Falcone, Flass or Loeb. Same name, different character. Now I didn't care for Falcone too much because the actor (whose name I insist in forget) did wonderfully.

 

[Two-Face]

Tom Wilkinson played Carmine Falcone.

 

[Mee]

I thought he was great. Maybe my favorite Scarecrow, ever.

I was kinda upset by how he went out, but since he's

Spoiler

gonna be back in TDK

all is well.

 

[*ANTHONY*]

I just felt that he needed a bigger part in the movie.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

He was great. A succinct adaptation of the character that worked really well in the context of the film. Like he did with Ra's, Nolan got the essence of the character without having to overexplain his origins. His character is defined by his dialogue. He's a sadistic bastard who, stymied by his unimposing physicality, values the mind's power and enjoys using it against both "bigger men" and innocents. Whether you find his ultimate defeat by Rachel satisfying, it was pretty appropriate. With his gas, he is a god of fear. Without it, he's a pathetic little man.

 

[El Payaso]

Whether you find his ultimate defeat by Rachel satisfying, it was pretty appropriate. With his gas, he is a god of fear. Without it, he's a pathetic little man.

With the Scarecrow claiming for Batman as a character to face him in order to stop him, he's very much the character of the comics. With a girl defeating him, he's not, and either Batman or the Scarecrow are pointless.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

With the Scarecrow claiming for Batman as a character to face him in order to stop him, he's very much the character of the comics. With a girl defeating him, he's not, and either Batman or the Scarecrow are pointless.

What?

Give me one good reason why Rachel, who has been shown to be a woman who can take care of herself (an assistant D.A. in a rough city should), shouldn't be able to take out a scrawny doctor with an unexpected high-voltage shot to the face?

And "she's a girl" or "It's just not how I wanted Scarecrow beaten" are not good reasons.

 

[El Payaso]

What?

Give me one good reason why Rachel, who has been shown to be a woman who can take care of herself (an assistant D.A. in a rough city should), shouldn't be able to take out a scrawny doctor with an unexpected high-voltage shot to the face?

And "she's a girl" or "It's just not how I wanted Scarecrow beaten" are not good reasons.

Because if Lois Lane would be able to beat Metropolis' villiains, narratively Superman would be pointless.

Same way, why can't any brave gothamite shoot Joker? Joker's not immune to bullets, doesn't have super speed and insanity doesn't make you have any kind of super-powers, so any loose bullet could solve that problem. Why not?

If your take of a villiain is to make him so realistic it's perfectly plausible any girl can beat him, then why bothering in making him an important villiain in the first place. I can get Rachel beating those train's thugs, but that's it. If you're taking a popular villiain from the comics, make him face Batman, that was the idea in having him as a popular comic villiain to start with. We have a long development for Crane to become the Scarecrow and when he finally is, when he becomes as dangerous as he could be... we find out any person with a tazer can beat him. Flop.

Rachel could have easily used his tazer against Ra's when she had him close to her (and he wasn't aware she was close because he thought she was under the gas' effects which wasn't true). It could have been perfectly realistic and plausible and yet a lame way to end the conflict since it rules Batman out of the equation.

 

[Agentsands77]

Same way, why can't any brave gothamite shoot Joker? Joker's not immune to bullets, doesn't have super speed and insanity doesn't make you have any kind of super-powers, so any loose bullet could solve that problem. Why not?

Didn't Grant Morrison have some normal dude in a Batman outfit shoot Joker in the face?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Rachel could have easily used his tazer against Ra's when she had him close to her (and he wasn't aware she was close because he thought she was under the gas' effects which wasn't true). It could have been perfectly realistic and plausible and yet a lame way to end the conflict since it rules Batman out of the equation.

Ra's was a master of martial arts, who had the agility and reflexes to dodge a tazer, whereas Crane was just a normal guy on a horse. It's safe to say that besting Ra's with a tazer is unrealistic. Gladly that never happened in the movie. We know Crane will return, so I'm willing to bet that we do see Batman face off with Scarecrow in a physical fight. Keep in mind that it'll be a very quick fight, taking into account that Scarecrow never was one to whoop much of anyone's ass.

Now in response to the poll itself:

The only complaint I have about Scarecrow is that he didn't have more screentime.

 

[El Payaso]

Didn't Grant Morrison have some normal dude in a Batman outfit shoot Joker in the face?

In a comic issue it could work. In a Batman vs Joker movie, you put that and you ruin the characters connection.

Ra's was a master of martial arts, who had the agility and reflexes to dodge a tazer, whereas Crane was just a normal guy on a horse.

i.e. Ra's was portrayed as a worthy villiain, Crane as just a innofensive average guy. Why to include a villiain if it's no more than a normal guy like you or me? What is the threat to Gotham he represents that we need Batman to stop him? Just the gas invention? We don't need the mask or the Scarecrow identity for that, just a fellow in a lab.

 

[El Payaso]

We know Crane will return, so I'm willing to bet that we do see Batman face off with Scarecrow in a physical fight. Keep in mind that it'll be a very quick fight, taking into account that Scarecrow never was one to whoop much of anyone's ass.

Again, not a threatening villiain. What do we need characters that are no challenge to Batman in a Batman movie for?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

i.e. Ra's was portrayed as a worthy villiain, Crane as just a innofensive average guy. Why to include a villiain if it's no more than a normal guy like you or me? What is the threat to Gotham he represents that we need Batman to stop him? Just the gas invention? We don't need the mask or the Scarecrow identity for that, just a fellow in a lab.

When it comes to Batman, who you want to see contrive a potent fear gas that can bring about the self-genocide of Gotham's population: a fellow in a lab, or a gentleman psychiatrist who is only conspicuously insane when slapping on a burlap sack mask and proclaiming himself as Scarecrow? The latter better fits into the feel of the stories. In comic book movies, (especially when dealing with Batman), the magnitude of the threat has to reflect the magnitude of the derangment of the person who instigated it. Also . . . while Batman needs opponents to fight, the battle doesn't always have to be physical. Think of The Riddler. His battles are of the intellect. The Scarecrow's battles are of the whole mind, most especially fear.

 

[El Payaso]

When it comes to Batman, who you want to see contrive a potent fear gas that can bring about the self-genocide of Gotham's population: a fellow in a lab, or a gentleman psychiatrist who is only conspicuously insane when slapping on a burlap sack mask and proclaiming himself as Scarecrow? The latter better fits into the feel of the stories.

Totally agree. But instead I had the lab geek in a costume. Result? He was defeated in 5 seconds and Batman wasn't even involved in that.

In comic book movies, (especially when dealing with Batman), the magnitude of the threat has to reflect the magnitude of the derangment of the person who instigated it.

Fear gas, absolutely threatening.

Scarecrow, absolutely lame. It need one girl and a tazer to defeat him in a matter of seconds.

Again, I agree with you but had nothing of that in the mvoie.

Also . . . while Batman needs opponents to fight, the battle doesn't always have to be physical. Think of The Riddler. His battles are of the intellect. The Scarecrow's battles are of the whole mind, most especially fear.

Then Scarecrow shold stop riding horeses and doing that creepy voice if he's not supposed to be physical threat.

Or at the very least if he's going to be defeated that soon, give him some dignity in the process.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Fear gas, absolutely threatening.

Scarecrow, absolutely lame. It need one girl and a tazer to defeat him in a matter of seconds.

Again, I agree with you but had nothing of that in the mvoie.

Crane wasn't lame throughout the movie. He was who he was meant to be, and little else: a pawn of Ra's. When you watch Batman Begins, you don't see a lame man in a lab, you see what I described before. It was his time to depart from the camera for the remainder of the movie. Rachel threw a shot, but she did not defeat Scarecrow on the grand scale of things. Gordon says at the end: "We still haven't picked up Crane or half the inmates of Arkham that he freed."

Then Scarecrow shold stop riding horeses and doing that creepy voice if he's not supposed to be physical threat. Or at the very least if he's going to be defeated that soon, give him some dignity in the process.

In your view, how should that have been done?

 

[El Payaso]

Crane wasn't lame throughout the movie.

Crane wasn't. Scarecrow was.

Not throughout the movie, but at the end, when things are suppose to be climatic and dangerous, Crane became a inoffensive character with an anticlimatic ending.

It was his time to depart from the camera for the remainder of the movie.

True. It was the how what stinks.

Rachel threw a shot, but she did not defeat Scarecrow on the grand scale of things. Gordon says at the end: "We still haven't picked up Crane or half the inmates of Arkham that he freed."

Sure. They need at least two girls with tazers to finally fry him. For what I saw, it's that easy to hurt him and demolish his believability as a threatening villiain.

In your view, how should that have been done?

The complex way: He faces Batman and bats is either to busy to defeat him so Scarecrow escapes or they fight and batman gets him to Atrkham again - from where he'll escpae again in TDK - claiming revenge.

The simple way (my favourite): Crane escapes in his horse, mask on, totally nuts and we see how he actually is more dangerous than before, maybe he kills some people savagely and goes away claiming his day is near (Oh, what will happen next? Stay tuned. Perfect cliffhanger). Nobody tazes(?) him, he doesn't scream like a schoolgirl in a pathetic attempt of humour or whatever that scene was.

 

[Rorschach2012]

i just hope he comes in an all out scarecrow costume like the comics in tdk!
he was great in bb

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Same way, why can't any brave gothamite shoot Joker? Joker's not immune to bullets, doesn't have super speed and insanity doesn't make you have any kind of super-powers, so any loose bullet could solve that problem. Why not?

If your take of a villiain is to make him so realistic it's perfectly plausible any girl can beat him, then why bothering in making him an important villiain in the first place. I can get Rachel beating those train's thugs, but that's it. If you're taking a popular villiain from the comics, make him face Batman, that was the idea in having him as a popular comic villiain to start with. We have a long development for Crane to become the Scarecrow and when he finally is, when he becomes as dangerous as he could be... we find out any person with a tazer can beat him. Flop.

Rachel could have easily used his tazer against Ra's when she had him close to her (and he wasn't aware she was close because he thought she was under the gas' effects which wasn't true). It could have been perfectly realistic and plausible and yet a lame way to end the conflict since it rules Batman out of the equation.

I still fail to see how Rachel "defeating" Scarecrow somehow makes Batman useless or obsolete. You're speaking as if she did something that Batman was incapable of doing, which was clearly not the case. I would be able to see your argument (and agree with it) had Rachel defeated Crane immediately following Batman's flaming dive out the window. It would've showed that, where Batman failed, Rachel succeeded. And that would've been lame.

But Batman faced Crane again, and DEFEATED him, incredibly quickly, at that. He cut off that punk's attack from out the corner of his eye, doused him with his own medicine, scared the living crap out of him, and bashed his head against a pole, knocking him out cold. He was then hauled off to Arkham where he would've remained had it not been for Ra's goons. It was only during Crane's third attack, during which Batman was not present, that a prepared and clearheaded Rachel was able to surprise Crane with the taser. And since his defeat at Rachel's hand is decidedly even less final than his first defeat by Batman, as he was simply sent off into the night instead of sent to Arkham, we'll likely be seeing Batman in TDK, doing what he does best - defeating Crane a second time.

And besides, if you really want to get out of personal preferences and into narrative and dramatic technicalities, Scarecrow was not the primary villain, anyway. That role goes to Ra's, who was dispatched by...who? That's right, Batman.

The secondary villain is traditionally fair game for the sidekick or secondary hero (in this case, Rachel) to take out, without lessening the importance of the main hero. Did BR shortchange Batman by allowing Selina to defeat Max? Or what about Die Hard? McClane beat Gruber, but it was Sgt Powell who ultimately took out Karl (who apparently McClane was unable to defeat by himself). Does that make McClane less of a hero?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

i.e. Ra's was portrayed as a worthy villiain, Crane as just a innofensive average guy. Why to include a villiain if it's no more than a normal guy like you or me? What is the threat to Gotham he represents that we need Batman to stop him? Just the gas invention? We don't need the mask or the Scarecrow identity for that, just a fellow in a lab.

Well, there's your problem. You've built the character up to be some sort of demigod. He IS an average guy. He is a pathetic, unthreatening weakling without his gas. Nolan got this. And that's why he wasn't the main villain. I love the character, he's probably my favorite after Joker, but I have no delusions of grandeur when it comes to him. In fact, CRANE is the one with delusions of grandeur; he thinks he's a god of fear, but he's not. He was able to terrorize those under his spell, but those unaffected (Batman during their second encounter, Rachel) see him for what he is, and he's not hard to take down. I much prefered this refreshingly honest portrayal of villainy (petty, arrogant, and ultimately inadequate) over the constant barrage of UNSTOPPABLE MONSTERS, which we're sure to get anyway with Joker, a character for which it is infinitely more appropriate.