The Dark Knight Recycling Villains - How do you feel about it?

[CaptainClown]

That is why I say basically make him like the thing

 

[Nepenthes]

A man trapped inside a grotesque image, after being so used to being the "IT" guy, shows a great downfall. Sure he can take on any image he wants, but the important thing is he can't maintain that look forever. If I remember correctly, he constantly needs to take in that special chemical to retain his form. If that's so, it's even more interesting adding in the addiction element. Something that hasn't been really done before with a villain.

Timm and Dini managed to make something deep out of a shallow shell. All this, for a kid's cartoon mind you. There are limitless possibilities with Clayface. He has more potential than Sandman.

Yeah that's exactly what clayface should be. But does being 'trapped in a grotesque image' have to involve the giant fists and mud slinging? Not if he's what you described above he doesn't. It's great for a cartoon but my point was simply that the same charcter can be preserved in a more realisitc fashion suited for a more mature crime movie. He has a droopy face and has to live by impersonating others. That's enough to make it work.

And yeah he is basically Mystique, except crucially, he can't return to his natural form and he can't accepted for who he is (Mystique is accepted by other mutants). This has got to cause all kinds of identity problems and frustrations for Clayface and creates a clear connection to Batman, a celebrity who juggles different identites. The powers distract from the real meat and bones of the character, they're just for comic book covers and fight scenes, to make him visually exciting and uniquly threatening.

 

[jiggga]

I'd love to see new villains like the Mad Hatter, Scarface, or Clayface be included. I'd also like to see the Riddler, Mr. Freez, Bane, and Penguin get reimagined. The trouble lies in what kind of movies, continuality, and variances you can tolerate. The consensus on these boards seems to be that Batman89 and Batman Returns are flawed because they focus more on the villains than Batman, or are basically villain origin stories. But after Batman Begins, is this approach acceptable now going foward? Otherwise, how else can you cohesively incorporate multiple new villains, especially in a more realistic interpretation that takes pains to explain or justify its strange or supernatural elements. Is it necessary to always focus on Batman's issues in every movie? Do we need a James Bond-like franchise model where different characters may come and go and where the size and scope of the danger Batman faces can vary. I'm not against jumping into a story with no villian origin explained, but there would have to be some sense of familiarity with the Batman world. My guess is that Nolan intends to introduce a lot of villians early in The Dark Knight in so that they might have the ability to resurface later on without the need to recant their origin stories (like a comic or serial). The only problem is, after the 3rd movie, most of the cast and crew will have most likely moved on (especially Nolan and Bale), and every director has their own ideas.

 

[BurtonBegan]

Batman is so far (other than the Hulk), the only franchise to have a reboot so quickly after the last run. That's one of the reasons that having villains who've already featured in the previous Bat-movies kinda gets to me.

Don't get me wrong - I loved Batman Begins and I'm really, REALLY loving what I've seen of TDK. But what about how the general public would see it? It's possible that a lot of people will still be thinking of Jack Nicholson when the movie comes out and wonder, "The Joker and Two-face? Didn't they already do those guys?" And considering that Batman probably has the coolest rogues gallery, it might have been possible to have looked at others.

That's what I liked about BB - I'd never seen Ra's or Scarecrow on screen. But now we're gonna definitely have Joker and Two-face again. Then there's speculation about the Riddler, Penguin and Catwoman in the third installment as possibilities.

I don't know why, but it does kinda bother me.

In fact, I've always wondered why comic-book movies don't utilize their platform to say show us a new villain and this goes for most franchises. I think it'd be kinda cool to announce a new villain who we know nothing about and it would be interesting to see how the hype for that would build up.

Opinions?

I love 89 and returns, but i'm intrigued to see new takes on the same characters. Its similar to watching BTAS and there wonderful villain incarnations, they are similar but seperate entities.

 

[rohitiyer]

After reading a lot of the posts, I kinda wonder if we're taking for granted the very nature of Nolan's interpretation of Batman's villains.

People keep saying, we're finally going to see it done right, etc. when we haven't really seen much to justify that. I mean, who knows? The joker might dominate the film again. We'd need to see the final film.

In fact, now that I think about it, I do believe that the villains in Begins were part of the weaker aspects of the movie.

 

[turtlefocker]

The villains were without a doubt the weakest aspect of Begins. Based on the reactions to the Wizard World footage this promblem appears to have been fixed.

 

[ultimatefan]

The villains were without a doubt the weakest aspect of Begins. Based on the reactions to the Wizard World footage this promblem appears to have been fixed.

I disagree. I think Neeson and Cillian did a brillant job as Ducard/Ra´s and Crane/Scarecrow and they served the story well.

On the topic, recycling villains at this point is inevitable. Almost every important Batman villain has been used in either the Burton/Schumacher movies or Begins. The idea is simply to give them fresh interpretations.

 

[Monster]

I'd love to see a whole new array of villians but they need to be more complicated, their lives entangled in other characters lives that we don't know about.

What IF, Bruce Wayne's father had a previous marriage before his mother causing Bruce to have a half brother. His half brother who could be a psychopath is transported to Arkham and worst to comes to worst, Batman ends up having to fight his half brother.

I guess you'd have to go into so much detail to actually make up these stories, I don't want to see Mr. Freeze in the new films as I find his character too fake, but anything's possible in a film, right?

Quote me if you want to bash me for my thoughtful thinking.

 

[fcrowelle06]

Does it really matter?

If Joker LOOKS the same (deadly clown with white skin, green hair, red lips), and he ACTS the same (homicidal, crazy, maniacal), then what's the difference about what his origin or costuming methodolgy is? I mean, if he's so crazy that he feels he has to dress up like this scary-looking, killer clown - isn't that good? Isn't that yet another indication of just how screwed up he is?

Over the years, Batman characters have changed and evolved - sometimes radically. In the 60s, the Joker was truly a joke of a character - ridiculous, non-threatening. And somebody had to make him deadly, psychotic, and threatening again. Similarly, Nolan is trying to do the same - a twist on an old theme, making it somewhat "new" again, synthesizing the best elements for a new, better mix.

Yeah dude, it kinda matters, because simarlarly, there are people who have been in love with this character for years, they've seen him done in comics and cartoons and the 89 movie, but still it wasn't completely accurate (at least with the movie) comics and cartoons have him the best, so when someone decides to change his perma white skin to...make-up....if you don't feel a sudden whoosh and have to say WHOA STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING...then I'm sure you loved his character anyway, basically all you have is a nutcase putting on make-up...it's like taking CARNAGE from Spider-man and instead of the symbiote he wears make-up...sorry, dude, but your not proving me wrong

 

[fcrowelle06]

For me, the only thing that I didn't like was the lack of the fantastical, EVEN THOUGH I LOVED BEGINS SOOOO MUCH, but do you remember from Batman 89 when Bats took the plane up into the heavens and it silohoutted his symbol through the moon and then started blasted everything....that was awe-inspiring, I miss "fantastical" moments like that...I want more of them with TDK

 

[mcflytrap]

Batman is so far (other than the Hulk), the only franchise to have a reboot so quickly after the last run. That's one of the reasons that having villains who've already featured in the previous Bat-movies kinda gets to me.

Don't get me wrong - I loved Batman Begins and I'm really, REALLY loving what I've seen of TDK. But what about how the general public would see it? It's possible that a lot of people will still be thinking of Jack Nicholson when the movie comes out and wonder, "The Joker and Two-face? Didn't they already do those guys?" And considering that Batman probably has the coolest rogues gallery, it might have been possible to have looked at others.

That's what I liked about BB - I'd never seen Ra's or Scarecrow on screen. But now we're gonna definitely have Joker and Two-face again. Then there's speculation about the Riddler, Penguin and Catwoman in the third installment as possibilities.

I don't know why, but it does kinda bother me.

In fact, I've always wondered why comic-book movies don't utilize their platform to say show us a new villain and this goes for most franchises. I think it'd be kinda cool to announce a new villain who we know nothing about and it would be interesting to see how the hype for that would build up.

Opinions?

Look at it this way....B89 came out 21 years after the 60s show ended...no one thought that was too soon. Now we've got TDK giving us the Joker on screen for the first time in 19 years....that's not much of a difference. Then there's Scarecrow that was never in a previous movie, and Two-Face who will have been seen last 13 years ago (when TDK comes out). Maroni, Falcone, Gamble, not on film.

So out of lots of bad guys, only one will have been on screen in the last 13 years and that's Two-Face.

This thread has no merit.

 

[fcrowelle06]

the merit, is the the fact that some people believe that the Joker and Two-Face are preceding over well, Clay-Face and Croc, and Scar-face, and Harley Quinn, and the Mad-Hatter, and Bane (the one from the comics and tv series not some growling zombie) I mean Ra's didn't even have his original story of the pit...and no Talia (seriously I don't know how they didn't want talia, and wanted rachel dawes) ...(shrugs)

 

[TromaFreak64]

After reading a lot of the posts, I kinda wonder if we're taking for granted the very nature of Nolan's interpretation of Batman's villains.

People keep saying, we're finally going to see it done right, etc. when we haven't really seen much to justify that. I mean, who knows? The joker might dominate the film again. We'd need to see the final film.

In fact, now that I think about it, I do believe that the villains in Begins were part of the weaker aspects of the movie.

Look at this scene list and tell me you think Joker might dominate?

[FONT=&quot]33 - Alfred enters freight container at the railyards

35 - Video of Dent exiting a courthouse with Rachel.

59 - Rachel and Dent find that Wayne has taken the ballet

88/89 - Dent is coy about Lau's presence in Gotham

90 - Maroni's gang is arrested in a montage.

127 - Wayne takes off from the railyards in the MV Augusta

142 - Stephen tells Barbara of Gordon's death. She blames Batman.

155 - In the Wayne Penthouse, Alfred and Rachel speak frankly. Rachel gives him the letter.

201 - Gordon returns home.

203 - Gordon is watching his son sleep when the phone goes off.

255 - In the penthouse, Alfred and Wayne watch Engel promise to reveal Batman's identity.

262 - In the penthouse, Wayne asks Alfred to check recent hospital admissions

303 - Bomb squads search bridges and tunnels

306/307/308 - Maroni gets in car, Dent kills driver but the coin spares Maroni, Maroni's car is destroyed on bridge

318 - Barbara gets Ramirez's call giving her Dent's instructions[/FONT]

 

[TromaFreak64]

For me, the only thing that I didn't like was the lack of the fantastical, EVEN THOUGH I LOVED BEGINS SOOOO MUCH, but do you remember from Batman 89 when Bats took the plane up into the heavens and it silohoutted his symbol through the moon and then started blasted everything....that was awe-inspiring, I miss "fantastical" moments like that...I want more of them with TDK

I think some people might disagree with... people found fantastical moments... I guess maybe you'd have to be more specific on what exactly you consider FANTASTICAL.

 

[TromaFreak64]

Look at it this way....B89 came out 21 years after the 60s show ended...no one thought that was too soon. Now we've got TDK giving us the Joker on screen for the first time in 19 years....that's not much of a difference. Then there's Scarecrow that was never in a previous movie, and Two-Face who will have been seen last 13 years ago (when TDK comes out). Maroni, Falcone, Gamble, not on film.

So out of lots of bad guys, only one will have been on screen in the last 13 years and that's Two-Face.

This thread has no merit.

This is one of the most logical post the hype has ever had.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

Does it really matter?

If Joker LOOKS the same (deadly clown with white skin, green hair, red lips), and he ACTS the same (homicidal, crazy, maniacal), then what's the difference about what his origin or costuming methodolgy is? I mean, if he's so crazy that he feels he has to dress up like this scary-looking, killer clown - isn't that good? Isn't that yet another indication of just how screwed up he is?

Over the years, Batman characters have changed and evolved - sometimes radically. In the 60s, the Joker was truly a joke of a character - ridiculous, non-threatening. And somebody had to make him deadly, psychotic, and threatening again. Similarly, Nolan is trying to do the same - a twist on an old theme, making it somewhat "new" again, synthesizing the best elements for a new, better mix.

I understand that he's reimagining a character for a new medium, but come on.... I don't care how many fanboys protect Nolan or his vision, but Joker is not Joker unless he suffered a chemical-accident. Him dressing up as a clown yes makes him sick in the head, but sorry it doesn't cut it for me, because if that's the case than I guess we'll see Riddler walking around as a big question mark, and Penguin with webbed hands again.

Maybe we'll see a flashback of what really happened to him to make him The Joker, but an anarchist doesn't really become an anarchist unless there is a reason. A protestor doesn't become a protestor unless given a reason to protest.

I mean I had no problem with Scarecrow or Rahs Al-Ghul in "Begins" because it worked. They tied it where Scarecrow was working with Rahs and Falcone had no idea what the two were planning behind his back. To me it fit and worked.

What turned me off about hearing stuff from the new trailer is that Joker's makeup runs and smears. Sorry, the Joker I know and comic-book fans know, does not wear runny makeup. It's stuck, it's permanent, it's a part of his face. He's basically an albino with weird lips and dead hair. If Nolan were to just make Joker that without the chemical bath, I would've been fine, but instead it seems like he had diarreha and took a massive dump on the Joker's origins and made him into some guy who like I said just loves dress-up.

 

[TromaFreak64]

I understand that he's reimagining a character for a new medium, but come on.... I don't care how many fanboys protect Nolan or his vision, but Joker is not Joker unless he suffered a chemical-accident. Him dressing up as a clown yes makes him sick in the head, but sorry it doesn't cut it for me, because if that's the case than I guess we'll see Riddler walking around as a big question mark, and Penguin with webbed hands again.

Maybe we'll see a flashback of what really happened to him to make him The Joker, but an anarchist doesn't really become an anarchist unless there is a reason. A protestor doesn't become a protestor unless given a reason to protest.

I mean I had no problem with Scarecrow or Rahs Al-Ghul in "Begins" because it worked. They tied it where Scarecrow was working with Rahs and Falcone had no idea what the two were planning behind his back. To me it fit and worked.

What turned me off about hearing stuff from the new trailer is that Joker's makeup runs and smears. Sorry, the Joker I know and comic-book fans know, does not wear runny makeup. It's stuck, it's permanent, it's a part of his face. He's basically an albino with weird lips and dead hair. If Nolan were to just make Joker that without the chemical bath, I would've been fine, but instead it seems like he had diarreha and took a massive dump on the Joker's origins.

Well we still don't know exactly what the situation is... so we may be up in arms over nothing, or over something... the reports on the footage are confusing at best with some saying only red and black run, etc. This however isn't really the right thread to continue this debate - there is already a WHOLE thread devoted to this....

 

[Anita18]

I really don't mind, actually. I'd like to see another talented director's interpretation of Joker. The Two-Face in BF doesn't exist.

It's obvious that Nolan is taking a different approach to his characters than the previous directors - from seeing his previous movies, he likes to focus on character motivations and I find that particularly fascinating.

It's true that the older generation, who are used to the "this is how the way things should be!" kind of thinking, may be reluctant to accept it though. I told my parents about the new movie, and they were like, "But Jack Nicholson was so good the first time!" Like they'd ever read a Batman comic and knew what the Joker was like, but..I digress.

 

[Monster]

I've got myself confused again, which film was Two Face in?

I swear I'm going to commit suicide in a moment.

Well, I wouldn't want to make a mess in the office.

 

[SodaPop]

Here's the way i see it. The joker from 89 doesnt really exist in my book. Two-Face from forever was never made. So they have clean slates. These two are batmans greatest foes (IMO) so i think its only fair that since batman got rebooted/new life that these two get rebooted/new life. And that also goes for the other villians that were used in the previous movies. They restarted so they can reuse any character that had been used before and they can also use new ones. Christopher Nolan will surely give them realistic and interesting origin stories that wont completely take away from batman. But then again, that's just what i think.

 

[fcrowelle06]

If the Joker's not Perma-white, then I hate it, the only thing that I don't want revamped or recycled or whatever, he falls into an effing bath and becomes the Joker, period..why is it suddenly okay, for people to neccesarily change it just because it becomes a movie, what to stay realistically, A Man dresses up as an effing bat dammit

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

If the Joker's not Perma-white, then I hate it, the only thing that I don't want revamped or recycled or whatever, he falls into an effing bath and becomes the Joker, period..why is it suddenly okay, for people to neccesarily change it just because it becomes a movie, what to stay realistically, A Man dresses up as an effing bat dammit

Lol yeah, well it's like what someone said they need those "fantastical" moments. Like Wayne said in "Begins" 'a man who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues.' If Joker is not perma-white than I will hate it like you.

I guess that's why I detest and abhor remakes, reimaginings, etc. now. I know this isn't really a remake of "Batman" but reintroducing The Joker and Dent sort of is in a way, just done differently. If Nolan just makes Joker an albino-skinned, dead-haired, ****ed-up-lipped nutcase, I'd be perfectly fine with that, but I mean I'd also welcome seeing the chemical-bath that changed his skin, hair, smile, and appearance as well.

If he's just some guy running around playing dress-up than to me he's not really cool, he's just some looney-bin-loser.

All I ask for is that Nolan doesn't digress too far from the comics to feed his need for realism. Scarecrow's fear gas is pretty unrealistic, but yet it got to stay in "Begins", why not the Joker we know and love?

 

[Mr. Socko]

I disagree. I think Neeson and Cillian did a brillant job as Ducard/Ra´s and Crane/Scarecrow and they served the story well.

On the topic, recycling villains at this point is inevitable. Almost every important Batman villain has been used in either the Burton/Schumacher movies or Begins. The idea is simply to give them fresh interpretations.

So if Joker and Two Face have the same amount of screentime and exposition as Ra's and Scarecrow did in the next two Batman films, you will be satisfied?

Because I know many on this board, myself included, surely won't.

 

[Crook]

Yeah that's exactly what clayface should be. But does being 'trapped in a grotesque image' have to involve the giant fists and mud slinging? Not if he's what you described above he doesn't. It's great for a cartoon but my point was simply that the same charcter can be preserved in a more realisitc fashion suited for a more mature crime movie. He has a droopy face and has to live by impersonating others. That's enough to make it work.

And yeah he is basically Mystique, except crucially, he can't return to his natural form and he can't accepted for who he is (Mystique is accepted by other mutants). This has got to cause all kinds of identity problems and frustrations for Clayface and creates a clear connection to Batman, a celebrity who juggles different identites. The powers distract from the real meat and bones of the character, they're just for comic book covers and fight scenes, to make him visually exciting and uniquly threatening.

He's only that IF you don't include the character elements we've just discussed. Giving him the literal appearance of a monster only helps to amplify what's already there, a man with a lost identity who has to resort to mimicking others and taking in chemicals. I don't see why we can't have both.

Imo, simplifying him into a guy with a messed up, albeit malleable face, isn't enough. It stinks of trying to tone down a character to fit the "real world". A method I'm frankly tired of. We shouldn't be afraid of translating these characters into live-action to fit a certain image. The most important part is treating the material seriously and passion.

The visuals will be backed up by quality writing, not plausibility.

So if Joker and Two Face have the same amount of screentime and exposition as Ra's and Scarecrow did in the next two Batman films, you will be satisfied?

Because I know many on this board, myself included, surely won't.

Damn straight.

I can forgive BB's flaws there, because I knew they had to focus a lot of time on Bruce and his origins. But now that's out of the way, so I wanna see the villains shine again.

 

[Figs]

He's only that IF you don't include the character elements we've just discussed. Giving him the literal appearance of a monster only helps to amplify what's already there, a man with a lost identity who has to resort to mimicking others and taking in chemicals. I don't see why we can't have both.

Imo, simplifying him into a guy with a messed up, albeit malleable face, isn't enough. It stinks of trying to tone down a character to fit the "real world". A method I'm frankly tired of. We shouldn't be afraid of translating these characters into live-action to fit a certain image. The most important part is treating the material seriously and passion.

The visuals will be backed up by quality writing, not plausibility.

Damn right!!