Batman Begins Official Scarecrow Discussion

[El Payaso]

I still fail to see how Rachel "defeating" Scarecrow somehow makes Batman useless or obsolete.

Batman is created because people in Gotham are defenless against common criminals. That's the whole story's premise in the movie.

Now, it seems girls can handle costumed crazy criminals on their own with no 7 years training and no utilitary belt or memory fabric capes. Looks like some billionaire has been over-reacting. Nolan told us Gotham doesn't actually need Batman. Just more tazers.

You're speaking as if she did something that Batman was incapable of doing, which was clearly not the case.

On the contrary. The thing is that Batman should be able to do things that Rachel can't (that's why he exists). Which is 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.

That would have been lame too.

But I bet if Rachel defeats the Joker in TDK under the argument that "Joker has no super powers, he is a regular sized guy" not many people would be happy because it's "realistic".

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.

That's the way it should have ended. Maybe not in the middle of the movie, but surely you should give the villiain credit enough in order to need a Batman to defeat him. That way both character are narratively justified.

In fact Rachel "cut off that punk's attack from out the corner of his eye" and "scared the living crap out of him," just as you describe Batman did. So Rachel is as capable as Batman respecting to Scarecrow.

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.

Yeah, in a movie you always put the most dangerous and climatic encounters at the end. I fail to see why Nolan didn't in here with Scarecrow. Batman was not there for the final encounter. And please don't narrate me how he was fighting Ra's because any writer is able to write that properly so he can face both.

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.

Once again, I'm all for Crane escaping for TDK. Just not screaming like a schoolgirl after a 5 seconds please. Some dignity required, as much human as Scarecrow could be.

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.

And what if he was secondary? That's an excuse to make him go in such an embarrassing way? "Who cares, he's just secondary, let's not put that much effort in his writing"?

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.

Weird. In comics Batman is always needed in order to beat Scarecrow.

Did BR shortchange Batman by allowing Selina to defeat Max?

Max? A costumed iconic villiain from the comics?

Batman faced both Penguin and Catwoman, villiains straight from the comics, that traditionally have needed Batman to defeat them. Scarecrow is the same, Max isn't. As I said, Scarecrow has always needed a Batman to be defeated. Suddenly, not anymore.

Catwoman was another freak like Batman, had weapons, costume and was crazy. It wasn't the office average girl (not anymore) like Rachel was. Max was his personal enemy, more than Batman's enemy.

And please, what a way to defeat Max Selina had. Not a 5 seconds anticlimatic encounter with Max screaming like a princess.

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?

Is McClane the main character in a story which main premise is how a man had to devote his life and become a symbol to fight crime in a city that is supposed to be unable to defend itself, so that's why it was needed to have one guy taking care of that?

No. Wrong example.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, there's your problem. You've built the character up to be some sort of demigod.

Did I? Where please?

He IS an average guy. He is a pathetic, unthreatening weakling without his gas.

Jesus.

What's next, Batman vs Hans Mole? Because now it seems to be interesting to write Batman against totally inoffensive guys who can be defeated by any girl. The anti-climatic writing fashion?

Nolan got this. And that's why he wasn't the main villain.

He ended up being the new Otis. Otis doesn't need Superman.

I love the character, he's probably my favorite after Joker, but I have no delusions of grandeur when it comes to him.

Neither have I. Just a smart way to write him as a dangerous enough character... that doesn't deflate towards the climax, as in any good, even not that well written story.

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.

Terrific description.

Once again, it's the how what horrifies me. But I already said this.

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.

Both are crazy, both are arrogant. Joker doesn't have the fear gas...

how is it that naturally more appropiate.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

He..was..ok..

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

El Payaso, you're just going to deny every point I make, so why bother anymore?

You didn't like the way the character was taken out; I'm sorry you feel that way. I would've liked to see something more too, but I found the scene to be an appropriate (temporary, as he'll be back in TDK) end for the character within the context of the film.

You, however, are inflating the situation to the point of absurdity. That 5 second scene did not destroy the characters of both Batman and Scarecrow. Rachel did not turn into Milla Jovovich from RE, protecting a cowering Bruce from the big, bad Scarecrow. She fended off an attack from a loon, admist absolute chaos. And where was the Batman? Well, he hadn't gotten there yet. But when he did, he saved Rachel from the advances of another psycho (Zzasz), defeated several ninjas and then defeated the mastermind behind the whole scheme, who also happens to be probably the world's greatest fighter (maybe second now, to Bruce). Those are no small feats, made no smaller by the fact that Rachel fended off one other villain. There was obviously a need for Batman, and saying otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of people. Or, you slept through the rest of the movie.

 

[El Payaso]

El Payaso, you're just going to deny every point I make

So are you.

But I don't just deny. I give arguments.

so why bother anymore?

The sake of discussion?

You didn't like the way the character was taken out; I'm sorry you feel that way. I would've liked to see something more too, but I found the scene to be an appropriate (temporary, as he'll be back in TDK) end for the character within the context of the film.

I don't know... so much development to reach the point to find out he's so weak and girly... what else is there to wait for the sequel? Am I supposed to be eager to see a Batman vs Scarecrow encounter now I know he's so easily beatable?

You, however, are inflating the situation to the point of absurdity.

As I felt Nolan deflated it to the point of absurdity.

That 5 second scene did not destroy the characters of both Batman and Scarecrow. Rachel did not turn into Milla Jovovich from RE, protecting a cowering Bruce from the big, bad Scarecrow. She fended off an attack from a loon, admist absolute chaos. And where was the Batman? Well, he hadn't gotten there yet. But when he did, he saved Rachel from the advances of another psycho (Zzasz), defeated several ninjas and then defeated the mastermind behind the whole scheme, who also happens to be probably the world's greatest fighter (maybe second now, to Bruce). Those are no small feats, made no smaller by the fact that Rachel fended off one other villain. There was obviously a need for Batman, and saying otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of people. Or, you slept through the rest of the movie.

No, once again, I didn't make it look like Batman is a poor guy because Rachel defeated Scarecrow. I said Batman became a pointless character - not a weaker one - respect to the Scarecrow; since he was created to fight that kind of criminals, but the dirtector now states that kind of criminal is so easily beatable, even a regular girl can take care.

Scarecrow shouldn't have been another Ra's. But please not some Otis-like in the end.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

No, once again, I didn't make it look like Batman is a poor guy because Rachel defeated Scarecrow. I said Batman became a pointless character - not a weaker one - respect to the Scarecrow; since he was created to fight that kind of criminals, but the dirtector now states that kind of criminal is so easily beatable, even a regular girl can take care.

Scarecrow shouldn't have been another Ra's. But please not some Otis-like in the end.

I've already illustrated how Batman was obviously not a pointless character. You use the one point of the Scarecrow to disregard the rest of the film. Rachel, Gordon, and the rest of Gotham couldn't have stopped Ra's. Batman did. There's no denying that, if it weren't for Batman, Ra's would've won and Gotham would've been destroyed.

Scarecrow was not like Otis. He was more like Riddler, who if you'll remember, was also pretty easy to defeat once the playing field was leveled. These guys have never, and should never, be serious physical challenges for Batman. And they're not. They are psychogically powerful, as Scarecrow proved in his first attack on Batman. But once that power is taken away, they're pushovers. And it's much better to be honest about this than to alter the character simply for a "cool factor". If Scarecrow had suddenly busted out kung fu moves, I would've laughed my way out of the theatre. Nolan knew this, and had Ra's serve as Batman's physical opponent.

And if you really want to get technical, Rachel victory over Crane was only possible BECAUSE of Batman. Had Batman not commissioned Fox to create an antidote for Rachel, she would've been useless and terrified, just like everyone else. So would Gordon. And Ra's would've won. Period.

 

[El Payaso]

I've already illustrated how Batman was obviously not a pointless character. You use the one point of the Scarecrow to disregard the rest of the film.

No way.

You just have to read the words "respecting the Scarecrow" that I've written like 3 times now.

In fact, my point is that the rest of the film says the absolute opposite; Gotham absolutely needs Batman to defeat Scarecrow. My problem is when the same movie tells me in the last minute "Well, Batman or a girl with a taser."

Scarecrow was not like Otis.

It was in the sense that it was reduced to a weak side-kick (which is not in comics).

Give Lois Lane a taser and she can beat Otis as easily as Rachel did with Scarecrow.

Scarecrow is worthy of a better treat.

He was more like Riddler, who if you'll remember, was also pretty easy to defeat once the playing field was leveled. These guys have never, and should never, be serious physical challenges for Batman. And they're not.

For like the fourth time, I agree.

But also they should be at the very least physical threat to an average girl. I mean, i can be physically threatening for a ghirl myself and I'm no comic villiain.

We didn't have Chase Meridian beating Riddler no matter if Riddler is "easy to defeat". And thank God we didn't. Batman was needed in order to do so, as he should have been with Scarecrow. Or just let Scarecrow ride away.

They are psychogically powerful, as Scarecrow proved in his first attack on Batman. But once that power is taken away, they're pushovers.

I just ask that Batman take charge of those. Maybe, perhaps, even Gordon or the police.

But give Scarecrow or any other iconic villiain value enough to not be defeated by a regular Gothamite.

Or maybe nothing would have happened in the first place if Martha Wayne had a taser.

And it's much better to be honest about this than to alter the character simply for a "cool factor". If Scarecrow had suddenly busted out kung fu moves, I would've laughed my way out of the theatre. Nolan knew this, and had Ra's serve as Batman's physical opponent.

Kung fu? To defeat a regular person? How about a knife, flame thrower or even a steel bar?

And if you really want to get technical, Rachel victory over Crane was only possible BECAUSE of Batman. Had Batman not commissioned Fox to create an antidote for Rachel, she would've been useless and terrified, just like everyone else. So would Gordon. And Ra's would've won. Period.

Yes yes.

but in a personal encounter, Rachel is as good as Batman righting Scarecrow. And since Joker is no Ra's, just a mad man in a costume (like Scarecrow), maybe a girl with a taser could be "realistically" able to beat him too.

 

[Rockbottom]

I was disappointed with how he was portrayed to be honest, he was boring and there was no back story on him. Overall he was pretty crappy.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Yes yes.

but in a personal encounter, Rachel is as good as Batman righting Scarecrow. And since Joker is no Ra's, just a mad man in a costume (like Scarecrow), maybe a girl with a taser could be "realistically" able to beat him too.

She's not as good as Batman against the Scarecrow. She had a powerful (concealed) weapon. Batman strongarmed Crane and knocked him out cold with his bare hands.

And you're right, theoretically anyone could get a lucky shot off on Joker, Scarecrow, even Batman. And if it works for the story, power to it. It's happened before, particularly with the Joker (since you mention him). If you've ever seen the BTAS episode "The Joker's Favor", average schmoe Charlie Collins almost kills the Joker. It worked for the story, and it didn't *****fy the Joker in any way. He's still a badass, but **** happens.

This Scarecrow scenario worked for the story too, as the story wasn't strictly about one man's war on crime, but (as he explicitly explains) an attempt to give the people of Gotham something to rally behind. Batman's there to clean up the messes, but he's also there to inspire others to do their part (including Gordon, who possibly would've just continued his career trapped helplessly in a corrupt system). And since, as I detailed, he was directly responsible for Rachel's "ability" to defeat Crane by innoculating her, you can still score it as a personal victory for him.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Scarecrow was okay but when compared with the comics i found the BB interpretation lacking read him in the Knightfall comics thats how he should be portrayed.

 

[*ANTHONY*]

I would like to see scarecrow in TDK stronger or whatever. Have his face scarred. Have him have a connection to the Joker's origin.

 

[TwilightPro101]

He was pretty good. I think they'll increase his intensity a little bit for the next film, but I doubt we'll truly get the comics version.

 

[El Payaso]

She's not as good as Batman against the Scarecrow. She had a powerful (concealed) weapon. Batman strongarmed Crane and knocked him out cold with his bare hands.

She had a weapon, just like Batman, and just like him, she defeated Crane.

Therefore "in a personal encounter, Rachel is as good as Batman fighting Scarecrow."

And you're right, theoretically anyone could get a lucky shot off on Joker, Scarecrow, even Batman. And if it works for the story, power to it. It's happened before, particularly with the Joker (since you mention him). If you've ever seen the BTAS episode "The Joker's Favor", average schmoe Charlie Collins almost kills the Joker. It worked for the story, and it didn't *****fy the Joker in any way. He's still a badass, but **** happens.

For a single issue of the comics or the Tv series, to have a regular guy defeating the enemy could work. At least is an inetresting twist to the usual. But if you're doing THE Batman vs Villiain movie, then it's not that good. Like if in TDK we have Batman vs Joker and at the end we have the clown prince defeated by any girl.

This Scarecrow scenario worked for the story too, as the story wasn't strictly about one man's war on crime,

It was precisely the story about one man's war on crime. They stablish this throughout all the movie, specially the first half.

but (as he explicitly explains) an attempt to give the people of Gotham something to rally behind. Batman's there to clean up the messes, but he's also there to inspire others to do their part (including Gordon, who possibly would've just continued his career trapped helplessly in a corrupt system).

But in his own field? I thought Rachel being incorruptible was her thing. Plus, she had the taser and used it before she knew Batman.

And since, as I detailed, he was directly responsible for Rachel's "ability" to defeat Crane by innoculating her, you can still score it as a personal victory for him.

Oh it is. But when Batman defeated Crane he didn't scream like a girl. I ask some dignity for important villiains. And by important villaiins I include the ones from the comics, specially those with a story behind and a costume.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Would you like to see my mask?

 

[El Payaso]

I think I'm seeing it right now, Jacko. lol Werewolf, right?

 

[Damiean Dark]

^<shudder>

 

[Mr. Socko]

Lol he would have made a good scarecrow. They could have made Crane a sadistic child molester who uses fear gas on kiddies

 

[El Payaso]

Lol he would have made a good scarecrow. They could have made Crane a sadistic child molester who uses fear gas on kiddies

And Michael would have done a cooler schoolgirl screaming after being defeated by Rachel too.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I don't see why Rachel defeating Scarecrow is such a big deal. It's fairly common cinematic practise for a secondary hero to take out a secondary villain. And it gave Rachel a chance to get revenge on him for what he did to her. And, of course, it's not like she permanently took out Scarecrow, only stopped him from killing her at that moment. He's still at large.

I thought Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow was excellent. One of the highlights of the film for me. In the context of "Batman Begins", Cillian brought a smarmy, reptialian energy to his role as Crane, and delivered a chilling, yet restrained performance that was the perfect antidote to the campy villains of the Schumacher films. And in the larger schemes, he served as an effective prelude to the "escalation theory" of freakish villains invading Gotham.

 

[K.B.]

Scarecrow sucked. End of story.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Scarecrow sucked. End of story.

No he didn't. End of story.

 

[K.B.]

I'd rather take 3 Arnies as Freeze and a Sinbad as Robin in the Burt Ward outfit then the Scarecrow Nolan gave us.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'd rather take 3 Arnies as Freeze and a Sinbad as Robin in the Burt Ward outfit then the Scarecrow Nolan gave us.

LOL, okay...

 

[Vile]

Okay, how many times in the comics has Batman (immune to fear gas) gut-punched Scarecrow and dragged him off to Arkham in less than 3 seconds? Dozens of times? Hundreds? Thats the point of the character!

Scarecrow has ALWAYS been protrayed a nobody without his fear gas. In BB, he explains it all to Rachel before gassing her in the elevator...that entire speech leads into Rachel (immune to the gas) taking out Scarecrow in the end. The KID, under the gas, is seeing some demonic demi-god on a flaming horse - Rachel see's a sick skinny regular dude in a silly costume and thats all.

Nolan knew what he was doing. Otherwise...? What? What would he have gotten? Batman walking up and sucker punching Scarecrow in the face.

"...well Thats it for you! onto Ra's!"

 

[El Payaso]

Okay, how many times in the comics has Batman (immune to fear gas) gut-punched Scarecrow and dragged him off to Arkham in less than 3 seconds? Dozens of times? Hundreds? Thats the point of the character!

Totally!

That's the point of the character called BATMAN.

Scarecrow has ALWAYS been protrayed a nobody without his fear gas.

No, it often justify its existence as a haracter by giving Batman morethan just a 3 seconds headache. Mayvbe it has happened but it's not "ALWAYS".

In BB, he explains it all to Rachel before gassing her in the elevator...that entire speech leads into Rachel (immune to the gas) taking out Scarecrow in the end.

???

How is Crane explaining everything to Rachel leading into Rachel's later action?

The KID, under the gas, is seeing some demonic demi-god on a flaming horse - Rachel see's a sick skinny regular dude in a silly costume and thats all.

Btw, the kid is seeing a demonic demi-god yet when Batman appears he's all girly "I told he will come", what's with that fear gas' inconsistency?

Nolan knew what he was doing. Otherwise...? What? What would he have gotten? Batman walking up and sucker punching Scarecrow in the face.

Or making Scarecrow a jusifiable villiain and having a new surprise for Bats, as any good writer/director knows.