The Dark Knight Rises Riddle Me This: The Riddler Characterization Thread

[BlueLightning]

OK. A non-existant character created the greatest Riddle of all. What and why would The Riddler wear?

 

[The Guard]

Mainly about the hat thing. If you look at the evolution of the riddler through the years you can see that has at various points wore:

A green three piece suit
A green body suit
A bowler
No hat at all

The Riddler's change to the hat and suit look represents his desire to seem more professional in the more recent versions of the character. I'm not making this up off the top of my head, as this very theme is an element that has been added to The Riddler since about 1990 or so (TAS helped make this popular). It also represents his rise from the lower, "working class" of criminality to something more elite, which is part of The Riddler's character arc in the comics. This is not an accident. Some aspects of The Riddler's characterization has changed over the years.

I personally feel that The Riddler was designed with green and purple in his costume because two of Batman's most popular major villains were also green and puple (The Joker and Catwoman). The Penguin also had purple elements to his look. Other than The Scarecrow (who never caught on like the others until much, much later) and The Penguin, not many Batman villains "caught on" for a while. Most of the other "great" Batman villains had been created around 1940/1941. I believe The Riddler's creation, in 1948, was an attempt to capture some of this "supervillain magic" once more. I don't think green and purple was an accident. He clearly began as a sort of "mirror" for The Joker.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I personally feel that The Riddler was designed with green and purple in his costume because two of Batman's most popular major villains were also green and puple (The Joker and Catwoman). The Penguin also had purple elements to his look. Other than The Scarecrow (who never caught on like the others until much, much later) and The Penguin, not many Batman villains "caught on" for a while. Most of the other "great" Batman villains had been created around 1940/1941. I believe The Riddler's creation, in 1948, was an attempt to capture some of this "supervillain magic" once more. I don't think green and purple was an accident. He clearly began as a sort of "mirror" for The Joker.

Even Two-Face had a green (Red too scary for kids?) scarred face and, the right side of his suit was purple in his first appearances.

 

[The Guard]

Exactly.

 

[protoctista]

I mean for pete' sake we are talking about comic books that were being drawn for pennies a frame designed for a male teen audience. You really think that the illustrators drew on complex psychoanalysis and classical paintings to determine their characters costumes? Man, they went for what was bright and easy to do. Probably had a ton of green ink laying around that they never got to use because everything was dark blue or yellow.

This is exactly where this discussion started.

We said that The Riddler's costume was started as green for reasons that have no relevance to the character. It was purely a printing decision. So, if it means nothing to the character, why keep it for a film translation?

Which lead us to discuss how we could provide the colour green with an actual logical reasoning that could develop/give insight to the character, rather than just stick it on him without thinking about it.

The Riddler isn't the sort of person who'd wear an unusual colour without considering the relevance and impact of it.

As we're dealing with the psychology of these characters in creating a cinematically interesting portrayal, giving such thought into a fundamental aspect of his character isn't absurd.


And it could actually be really interesting, and iconic.

 

[dontplaydead27]

Man, Protoctista, I don't know WHAT the hell you just said...but it touched my HEART.

Sorry, Tracy Morgan ref. I agree on the Riddler color stuff you are talking about. I think us (most of us, the comic community) get stuck on this idea that the paper-to-film adaptations have to carry all the colors, nuances of the suits, etc. from their comic counterpart. It simply isn't the case, but we are weary of anything else on screen. I'll throw in my two cents.

Harvey Dent, done wonderfully on the screen, yet not EXACTLY like the comics. Movie and comics are completely different mediums to do characters on. In comics, a HUGE part of recognizing a character seems to be based solely on the appearance. I figure that's mainly because it's a comic, it's easier to draw the same thing than to write out a few lines of dialogue to let you know. Whereas in a movie, you're working mainly with the depth of the actor, the dialogue and intensity of the actor, with little (but some, especially with comic fans) emphasis on what they're wearing...am I making any sense?

I thought Eckhart nailed Harvey Dent, and I am satisfied with how he looked. If he looked different, not as nasty-faced, i'd still be satisfied (although I think he looks awesome and wouldn't change it) because the character was nailed. I think his performance was my favorite, even over Joker. I'm not sure I even understand what i'm talking about.

 

[protoctista]

I understand. This is what I'm talking about too.

 

[Ekricket]

This is exactly where this discussion started.

We said that The Riddler's costume was started as green for reasons that have no relevance to the character. It was purely a printing decision. So, if it means nothing to the character, why keep it for a film translation?

Which lead us to discuss how we could provide the colour green with an actual logical reasoning that could develop/give insight to the character, rather than just stick it on him without thinking about it.

The Riddler isn't the sort of person who'd wear an unusual colour without considering the relevance and impact of it.

As we're dealing with the psychology of these characters in creating a cinematically interesting portrayal, giving such thought into a fundamental aspect of his character isn't absurd.


And it could actually be really interesting, and iconic.

Precisely the reason why Dave Chappelle would be perfect for the role. A lot of people say "the Riddler is not black in the comics" but WTH does that matter? He could be a black man, in a green trenchcoat, that is full of nasty surprises.

 

[dontplaydead27]

Now on the subject of race changes from the original material. This goes along the same lines as the color (obviously?) but i'm guilty of thinking "what are they doing" when they changed Kingpin to black and used the Ultimate Nic Fury (I know, I must have some southern racist embedded deep down in me). I have no excuse for it other than "it's not what he was in the comics!?!?!"

Something I think they consider with that is if the race is essential to the character. If Nic Fury has nothing about his personality that is exclusive to his race (I.E. a noticable grudge against whites for enslaving his ancestors) then obviously it's something they can change and be more "excepted". But let's take someone like Batman, who if he were depicted as black, people would freak out. "A black well-to-do child whose parents get murdered in an alleyway? yeah right!" That's one racist way to look at it, just an example of what you'd hear. I think this is a topic that could be discussed for some time, and with people who are more capable of understanding it than me, which is why i'm stopping here. I don't want to delve into this where I start offending people and such.

I feel like i've popped a top off of a can and walked off and left it, but this will probably get blown past here anyway.

 

[protoctista]

As far as I'm concerned, Barack Obama just murdered the last remnants of the race issue rather publically.

 

[dontplaydead27]

Yeah, he did in a way. Although you know there's still the diehards out there in their groups. I'm really afraid he's going to get assassinated. I was watching his speech worrying about someone trying to get him. I figure this is the first time I voted, the guy I vote for is gonna win and then he's gonna get shot.

I agree with what you said, and I hope it makes black people (and whites, me) feel better about themselves, and their place in this country. Maybe they will have more respect for themselves (and see that rap music about screwing ho's is childish- but that's another story)

 

[protoctista]

Im not American and I felt patriotic to see that speech. America, ludicrous as this sounds, has, over-night, gotten an entirely different world image - it's hopeful and powerfully positive. If he got assassinated, it would be devastating, not just for America and that new global perception, but for world justice and community as a whole.

 

[Melkay]

Because he calls himself "The Riddler". It's not exactly a high class name, is it?

Says you. Forget your experience with comics... it is a high class nickname, as opposed to "the guy who makes riddles" or "the crossword-puzzler". "The Riddler" is quite elegant.

********.

???

Well, it was a cartoon...

... and this is a movie. What do you mean?
I feel IQ points going down.

I never said esoteric was an awful thing. I just said it was esoteric. It's also a thin connection, at best.

You used the word as an argument against it. Don't backtrack now.

You just went off on a complete tangent. Explain to me how that is relevant with me thinking that your painting shouldn't inspire The Riddler's visual appearance?

You argued how it's esoteric nature would be a good reason to not use the idea. I pointed out an example were providing esoteric data works. And works superbly.

You, because that's how you explained the suit's design in your version of The Riddler. We were, as you will recall, discussing your concept. Not the snake angle.

Wrong... check my original post. I said that to provoke a brainstorm on the matter, so people would mention their ideas on the matter and we could come up with a group of the best ones. I explained it that way because, as I said in the moment, it was the only one I could think of. And I wanted feedback on the subject. Not my idea. The SUBJECT.

I gotta restrain myself from beating you everytime you're wrong about something.

No, of course not. And let's be clear, I'm not talking about "passing someone's work off as their own". But there's a world of difference between asking a question about something and using someone's painting as a design for his costume.

A world of difference?

First, it's not a design, but the idea that comes with the design. Magritte didn't invent suits. Magritte didn't invent coats or bowler hats. Magritte just used them to talk about something, and that something is similar to what Riddler wants to talk about, but still visibly different. Magritte didn't think that people should get obssesed about the unknown, but rather acknowledge it and let it be, since it's such an essential part of our lives... Riddler wouldn't think the same.

They're both fascinated with occult meaning. And that's it.

Was Ledger's Joker plagiarizing Johnny Rotten, or Mikhail Bakunin, or... heck... Pagliacci?
Just because someonte is open about their influences doesn't mean he's losing his identity in the process.

Besides, as Trickster very said in a very clever way... what if his looks are is also a riddle, or part of a riddle?
So no, there's not a world of difference. That's only in your head.

To a point, yes, he is. We all know Zorro was a partial inspiration for the creation of the Batman character, and in the comics he's even inspired by it for real. He definitely took some of Zorro's methods. I won't argue that. But he made the role of "vigilante protector" and the visuals and methods of it his own as well. Changing the suit and hat to "green", not so much of a change.

Magritte's selection of suits is pretty generic, so I don't see any mimic there. He just likes the bowler hat. That's the only piece he borrows. He would still wear suit anyway.

No. And the word (or translation) "Superman" is a word, not a visual design. Also, Superman's use of "Superman" has very little to do with the concept Niesztche brought forth. He is not beyond standards of good and evil, or any of that. There are only a few elements Superman shares with some of Niesztche's ideas, and they are not his core components.

Precisely... same case with the Riddler.

And "there is no consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Übermensch, or even the overall importance of the concept in Nietzsche's thought".

Who cares about the overall importance, nobody is sure about what was important in Nietzsche. There was an Aristocrat Nietzsche, a Dionysian Nietzsche, a Nihilist anti-religious Nietzsche and a Perspectivist. And...?

But the precise meaning of the Übermensch is clear. Very clear.

So one could hardly say, Superman, as he exists, has much to do with Nietzsche's own ideas.

No. In fact, Batman is more linked to it... he achieves most of its true potential by breaking societial restrictive rules and uses that new power for the advancement of that very society.
Superman, instead, has a very ironic name.... and?

You do like eclectic debates, but there are other people here.

And I don't see why you can't stay on topic.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... lol... ROFL.... *hits head against the screen*....
I can't believe you said that after all that above. Are you even familiar with the concept of "fair play"?

You're trying to argue that The Riddler's power comes from people knowing his riddles? The power The Riddler has is related to the unknown. What he knows, that others don't. The power he wields is keeping others confused, or in some cases, frightened of the unknown.

Like you said, in some cases.
My point is that 'having the upper hand intellectually' and 'instilling fear' are two very different things. That's why we have two very different villains for them.

No, because he's still a supervillain. Whether one is a supervillain and constantly around other supervillains does not change the fact that he's still part of the group of supervillains. I never said he was around them all the time.

And I meant that he is a different supervillain... one that doesn't follow the rest. So what applies to others doesn't necessarily apply to him.

No I didn't. I said he was part of that wave. "Riding" the wave implies something else entirely.

Hohohoho.... it does? Enlighten me.
(you're the worst semantics fencer I've met in some time).

You need to worry more about what I say and not what you think I meant. You're making too many wrong assumptions without asking for clarification.

You should stop trying to put semantic traps in your arguments... you should explain things without leaving clarification for later. Fair play, remember? I will always give you the benefit of the doubt and think you mean what you say, and not use word meanings in the loose and poor way you use it.

The "extreme criminal" is a status, and could easily be inspired by the presence of Batman and the emergence of The Joker, as a new "criminal movement" or "type of criminal". Or they could just "show up". Which one is more thematically powerful and relevant to the escalation that Nolan and his team have presented thus far in the current franchise?

And again, I go back to the meaning of "wave". The Joker just showed up, attracted by the theatrical methods of the batman. Batman is the only reference needed, because that leaves the door open for many styles and subtleties on different villains. Batman shares (and opposes) many traits with many characters. Joker can't inspire so many diversity, since he was a very specific and understood character, compared to Batman.

For example... Catwoman, Ivy, Riddler, Penguin, Black Mask, Bane, etc... don't have much to with the Joker... but A LOT to do with Batman, since they're mirror opposites of specific qualities of his psyche.

So, if we're talking about large numbers, I would prefer to leave the inspiration where the most diversity lies. Joker wasn't another step in the chain, another part of the causes... he was just the first drop of a very long rain.

Who cares who prevailed? Why does ANY criminal want to commit crimes when so many of them get caught? Do people stop being serial killers or seeking status as master criminals because many of them get caught? No.

... Yes. They do. The less crime pays, the less amount of people get into crime. Remember the drug dealer scene at the beginning of TDK. Batman is a restriction against the emergence of crime. He will attract freaks, of course... but that is a rain of sorts... it doesn't start suddenly. A few drops first, and then it gets in crescendo.
I don't think we will ever see the full potential of a freak-controlled Gotham in Nolan's films.

I would argue it has more to do with Gotham itself, as The Scarecrow was there before Batman ever came on the scene. A wave is not numerically linked. It is simply, a phenomen that occurs.
a movement like that of a sudden occurrence or increase in a specified phenomenon

No, he wasn't. And a wave means a big ocurrence of a phenomenon. But, anyway, I'm glad we agree on that. I'm not interested in seeing who's right here.

So you agree with my assessment that the color green can easily have cultural and character relevance at the same time? I'm not refusing the serpent allegory. But it's thematic connection to The Riddler is thin, and it's not nearly as relevant to the character as he exists.

I never said it was hard to find out. I said that people weren't even trying.

I don't see it as thin, and I see it VERY relevant to the character. The Serpent argued (with Eve) that God was hiding knowledge from them because knowledge granted power, and that's why she and Adam should eat from the fruits. The Serpent was right about knowledge granting power, but it also gave them insecurities and problems.

Batman: "Sometimes the Truth is not enough"

!!!!

Paraphrasing a line from the grat film Adaptation: "If you can't find that stuff in the Riddler my friend, then you don't know crap about the Riddler, and why the **** are you wasting my precious time with your multi-quoting? I have no use for it. I have no bloody use for it."

Then, if he's nothing but a manufactured alter ego, he isn't The Riddler as we've always known him, he's not a faithful rendition of the character, and you're reinventing the character entirely.

Reinventing? Yes. The Waynes didn't go to the Opera, Crane didn't work in Arkham, Dent wasn't scarred by fire, Joker was perma-white and Fox wasn't Q.

Entirely? No. Do yourself a favor and read the Fed idea again. It starts as a fake criminal indentity... as a manufactured alter ego indeed... and then he becames obssesed with the matter and adopts that alter ego. He becames one with it.

History shows that other terrorists were definitely inspired. You'd better believe that.

Some, yeah, but their main source of inspiration was the West supposed counter-terrorist acts. You only work when you see opposition and feel there's too much work to be done. And still, terrorist acts pales against the post-9/11 War On Terror... IMHO.

I'm not talking about people like you and me becoming supervillains. I'm talking about people with criminal tendencies turning into this "new breed of criminal". Do you think it's possible for criminals and psychos to be inspired by The Joker?

Hahaha... do you think criminals are born with those inclinations? How about causes like necessity or a system that fosters crime? On top of that, not all people with criminal tendencies become actual criminals.

Criminals are people too, you know? At least in Gotham City. Remember the ferries scene. Don't you ever forget the ferries.

Semantics. He was a "freak". A man who used his Scarecrow guise to bring fear because he got a sick pleasure out of it. Who uses his fear gas in an evil manner that affected the public. That makes him a villain.

You're right. What about a 'public freak'? Was he one, one with name, identity and looks? One trying to deliver a certain message about himself and his worldview? One trying to be a factor in a changing the world to his view?
Because that's what we are discussing here. About the influence of past freaks.

That doesn't matter. It's more a statement about the lousiness of the character's overall use in the mythology, but he was still Two-Face. His actions ended up affecting the public, and the state of affairs in Gotham.
You can sit here and argue about whether these "freaks" exist as they do in the comics, but them existing has nothing to do with how many people know they exist.

No, his actions didn't affect the public perception of him. For the publi opinion, he was always Dent. Two-Face never existed. That final shot of Gordon at his memorial is evidence of that.

Besides, you got it all wrong... You don't influence other people to become like you if they don't ever know you existed in the first place. You must become a KNOWN ENTITY to influence others to act like you.
If you don't achieve that, your existence per se is irrelevant.

What, that he ultimately was defeated? I have yet to see a Batman villain who isn't ultimately defeated. Being defeated doesn't mean there's no "freak" element present, or that their presence didn't make an impact. It's not like criminals stop commiting crimes because some of them are caught and punished.

Bane wasn't defeated for a while. And when your major act is suddenly stopped, that makes an impression on people. I'm not denying what came before that, but I'm questioning the "certainty" of his actions inspiring a whole new generation of criminals. I think we both know here we stand and wont change our minds about it.

 

[dontplaydead27]

"Im not American and I felt patriotic to see that speech. America, ludicrous as this sounds, has, over-night, gotten an entirely different world image - it's hopeful and powerfully positive. If he got assassinated, it would be devastating, not just for America and that new global perception, but for world justice and community as a whole."

Well I wish I knew the worlds perception of us from another view, like yours. Of course I know what i've heard, that people think we are gluttons, lazy, selfish, etc. But for you to say that our election effects YOU and the rest of the world is amazingly powerful to me. I wish I could comprehend it.

Of course i'll never fully understand that, unless I go and live in another country in another lifetime. I guess I just don't realize how much people pay attention to America (good or bad) because i've lived here my whole life. I'd really like to live in England. I guess because I personally don't pay attention to politics in other countries. If you sat me down and I watched someone in London speak, it wouldn't do much for me probably. Which is another thing you always hear, is that Americans don't pay attention to anyone else but themselves, which is true in my case.

 

[protoctista]

In Britain politics is a relatively formal, subdued affair. We're not interested in flashy aesthetics - or else we wouldn't have voted in Blair, or Thatcher, or all the other people who's name no-one particularly cares to remember. It's just about getting the job done. Elections aren't even that big a thing, even when the current PM is quite likely to go out.



I, and my friends, and everyone in Britain I have ever encountered, has perceived America for a long, LONG time as being full of stupid, fat, moronic, blindly patriotic and arrogant arse-holes who are busy destroying the planet because they can and because it's easy.

(Sorry)

We hate George Bush more than you do, not because he's stupid, corrupt and brash, but because he's indecent. At least, for Americans his overt patriorism is a plus - for us, and the rest of the world, its repulsing. He defined the above perception of America.

Because British Patriotism is no less strong than American, it's just not so tangible.

There isn't a symbol, or a song, or an image, or a person that is British patriotism. Not even our flag, and certainly not our queen. Every year the mayor of London tries to increase patriotism by flying the flag and vying for a national holiday. It's not how we operate.

We celebrate the country by going to the pub, having a not-cold beer, and making jokes that the rest of the world wouldn't understand. We don't identify ourselves under a Prime Minister, or a flag - we're just British, it's us, not the label, and we're like that.



So for me to see the pomp and spectacle of the American elections was baffling. The only equivilant for yourselves that I can think of was when the Queen went to Washington, and the Americans went nuts - to one nation it's normal, to another is excitingly different.



I'm not dismissing the American way of patriotism, and hell - I may be way off the mark, I'm just trying to highlight our differences.


Basically, to go from one personality that defined America in such a trashy, negative way, to an opposite personality that is everything I would want to personify America as - the world as - was quite powerful.

Let's hope he's as genuine as he seems to be.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

In Britain politics is a relatively formal, subdued affair. We're not interested in flashy aesthetics - or else we wouldn't have voted in Blair, or Thatcher, or all the other people who's name no-one particularly cares to remember. It's just about getting the job done. Elections aren't even that big a thing, even when the current PM is quite likely to go out.


I, and my friends, and everyone in Britain I have ever encountered, has perceived America for a long, LONG time as being full of stupid, fat, moronic, blindly patriotic and arrogant arse-holes who are busy destroying the planet because they can and because it's easy.

(Sorry)

We hate George Bush more than you do, not because he's stupid, corrupt and brash, but because he's indecent. At least, for Americans his overt patriorism is a plus - for us, and the rest of the world, its repulsing. He defined the above perception of America.

Because British Patriotism is no less strong than American, it's just not so tangible.

There isn't a symbol, or a song, or an image, or a person that is British patriotism. Not even our flag, and certainly not our queen. Every year the mayor of London tries to increase patriotism by flying the flag and vying for a national holiday. It's not how we operate.

We celebrate the country by going to the pub, having a not-cold beer, and making jokes that the rest of the world wouldn't understand. We don't identify ourselves under a Prime Minister, or a flag - we're just British, it's us, not the label, and we're like that.

Not to get further off topic, but I think a big part of it comes with the age of a nation. The USA being a newer nation is not as comfortable, with its to be honest, not fully developed yet culture. We need the things that the British, French and Germans have not needed since the first half of the 20th century to feel proud.

But to get back on topic, as for Nashton being a fed, just thinking if he were an FBI agent, wouldn't the national government send in a huge contingent after him once they realized he was breaking laws? I don't know if this could be accounted for in the movie, but would it be better to make him something with a bit more freedom like a private investigator with a special order from the mayor or something?

 

[Melkay]

^ I'm not quite sure they'd want big exposure on the issue of an agent gone rogue. They wouldn't cover it up, but sending some kind of force after him it's the natural thing to do.

PI's aren't required for big operations, and catching the Batman is a high as it gets. I preer the Fed angle. It talks about how evil guys can be WITHIN the System and yet not be corrupt cops. Remember Inspect Javért, from Les Misérables?

I want Inspector Javért gone completely mad.

Besides, I think the Riddler can avoid a fed team, especially if he's acquainted with their methods.

 

[Mindreaper21]

Not to shatter dreams, but the Agent idea is just horrible. I'd rather The Riddler be a Librarian with a secret life. Fascinated with books, puzzles, and death traps. A disturbing sexuality. A suave pervert. A smooth criminal. Someone that you would least expect if you seen his face (like Ted Bundy). Dresses cool when he goes out, but like a freak when he commits his crimes. Toys with your mind before he kills you and takes your money. Uses a cane that remotely activates certain things for quick getaways and to chastise whoever gets out of order. Feels that no one is smarter than him so he calls people things like "Stuipid" and "Morron". The Riddler's fascination with Batman is that he knows that Batman is has wits enough to play his game and chase him.

 

[Crook]

You lost me at "librarian with a secret life".

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Not to shatter dreams, but the Agent idea is just horrible. I'd rather The Riddler be a Librarian with a secret life. Fascinated with books, puzzles, and death traps. A disturbing sexuality. A suave pervert. A smooth criminal. Someone that you would least expect if you seen his face (like Ted Bundy). Dresses cool when he goes out, but like a freak when he commits his crimes. Toys with your mind before he kills you and takes your money. Uses a cane that remotely activates certain things for quick getaways and to chastise whoever gets out of order. Feels that no one is smarter than him so he calls people things like "Stuipid" and "Morron". The Riddler's fascination with Batman is that he knows that Batman is has wits enough to play his game and chase him.

Sorry, but serial killing, pervertedness and weird sexuality is totally not the Riddler's thing. The agent idea I like as long as he has his own agenda and is a villain by the end.

 

[Melkay]

Since most of what I'lll say here have been said already, I'll try to keep my answers as short as I can. Consider this a favour.

I'll stop wasting your time when you admit that not every color can be tied to a character's actual, overarcing theme. You can't explain to me why they picked purple, other than the royalty connection. Neither can you explain to me how it directly ties into clowns VS using other colors, without using the royalty connotation to explain the connection.

And heirein lies the problem. You're asking me to explain why green "must" mean something in the context of The Riddler, but I'm not allowed to question why The Joker HAS to wear purple because he's a clown.

For a zillion times, I don't care about the color, I care about it's weirdness in a normal enviroment and about the significance of the whole appearance. I've never said anything else. Green doesn't have a significance by itself... a green suit does, and that's what I'm trying to get at.

Clowns have hardly ever used purple compared to other colors.

Look at the Clown Historian. It was pure speculation.

So again, explain to me how him wearing green can explain how mentally superior he is. I'm pretty sure that my explanation, with my cultural signifances of green, have come the closest to explaining how green can be tied to his intelligence and his ego and ambitions.

Unless we just REACH for the "snake" angle.

Read above. It's not about green, it's about weirdness and justification for it. We (me and Trickster) got a safe ground... he changes initially the color of his suit to include it into a riddle or a clue. And he can work out on the green later.

What's that? A character who wore a suit to project professional status?

But...but...I seem to recall saying:

It presents him as a professional in his field, which is what he desires to be seen as. This is undeniable.

Eureka! We have found, if you will, as you apparently have, accept The Scarecrow's suit in BEGINS as appropriately significant to his character, a reason for The Riddler to wear his suit as well!

t: you're so cute.

Suit =/= Green suit.

Suit = Professional/Bussiness Man.
Green Suit: Game show host/Fair entrepeneur.

To stand out even more. To present an absolutely iconic image that people will recognize as distinctly his (just like almost every other hero and villain in most versions of the Batman mythology). Because he wants to be known as a supervillain. As one of the greatest criminal minds of his time. The Riddler, in the comics, has made a conscious choice to stop being "normal", and to try to be "great". He wants to be iconic, and different, and recognizeable.
Now, if you don't want that element to carry over from the comics, fair enough. But I would argue you'd be watering down the character something fierce.

I guess what his intentions are. I want that to be seen too. It's just the methods that fall short of achieving this.
A green suit doesn't achieve that. A green suit in Nolan world wouldn't convey much 'greatness'.
Just plain kookiness.
Unless you... come on, you can say it.... give it new meaning!

Asking why he chooses strange clothing, given who he is and what he wants and does is just...silly.

Strange an ridiculous are category and sub-category. I want him in the first one and not in the second. Scarecrow and Joker were strange but did not look stupid. Riddler would.

Elaborate. How does a suit, by itself, indicate intelligence?

If you attach it to a moment where he displayed great philosphical insight and cutural knowledge. It's all about your perception of it. English people saw hindu people quite ridiculous, until they understood the greatness of their milenary culture. It's all about perception. It's all about meaning. That's really the only reason of why Bale's batsuit seems awesome and Kilmer's didn't.
Well, that, and the two things that must not be named.

The snake thing is thin, my friend, It relies on "some snakes are green" and reinventing the character, as well as using a "tired" Bible allegory to describe evil and deceit. That is not a strong thematic connection. I will agree that if you redefine his character a bit to be a hunter, there are ways to tie The Riddler to snake metaphors, but an appropriate connection has yet to be found for green in the use of this metaphor without REALLY reaching.

You are a bit obsessed with green. Maybe you should lay down.

Green is the main color of reptiles, right? And Magritte's apple is green. And in the most famous Adam&Eve paintings, both the snake and the apple are green aren't they? So? Why is green so important to you? He can incoporate green into his suit to later use it as part of a riddle.
You're grasping at straws here to keep the debate as long as you want.

So...explain to me how a suit itself indicates intelligence, without having to "make up" an entire new cultural meaning for what certain styles of suits mean.

The suit itself denotes professionalism, which is linked to intelligence, elegance and higher status.
A green suit does not, but it can be adressed in the ways explained throughout the entire debate.

You're dodging my point, because it apparently destroys the validity of your desire to have every little thing on The Riddler's costume be relevant to his character. I've presented several culturally valid reasons for The Riddler to look like he does, and I've pointed out, that, even on Batman's suit, not every element ties into his overall concept as a bat. And yet, every element can still be relevant to the character, just not to the exact same themes.

With every post you make you confirm my suspicions that you dont get a word I'm saying, or you're just too obssesed with little details and arguments.
I don't want every little thing on the Riddler costume to be relevant. Just big things. Little details annoy me.
I don't care if they all serve his main archetype, only that they serve to talk about the image he's trying to convey... an image that doesn't have to be formed by a single idea, but by many.
Batman doesn't have only one idea to convey with his appearance. That's why his belt serves one thing while his bat-theme serves another.
The Green Suit and Bowler hat didn't contribute to the Man Who Makes Riddles angle, but I asked if they could be linked, just for argument's sake. From that point, I've made clear several times that I don't want both thngs (costume and question mark) to serve the very same idea, but you just don't want to believe me.
Your problem.

Yes I can.

Good for you.

In the comics, he is trying to look "professional" in the context of being a supervillain. I didn't say he was "in fashion". I said "dapper". The use of this type of clothing conveys, even now, a particular idea or image. That of someone attempting to look dapper and elite.

But we're concerned about his origins... is he going to look like that even when he's not a supervillain? Even when he has no eccentric actions to justifty his apperance? First impressions are very important after all.
Nowadays, bowler hats don't say someone is "dapper" and "elite", but that he's trying to much and in the wrong direction. The Riddler should be able to realize that.

BTW, I should point out, so there's no confusion, that I mean this definition of "dapper": neat, trim; stylishly dressed, neatly dressed; spiffy

Not the definition that means "up to date".

The definition of stylishly dressed NEEDS to contain the "up to date" one. You can't look in style I you look like a clown or a circus announcer.

By the way...our friend Wikipedia says of the bowler:

Cultural significance
The bowler became a cultural identifier, ironically with two completely different meanings: throughout most of England it was associated with professional servants, e.g. butlers, and so upon seeing a man wearing a bowler in a pub or on the street, it was fairly safe to assume he was a "gentleman's gentleman," meaning a valet, manservant or butler; in London itself, however, it was associated with professionals, and so a man wearing a bowler in The City could safely be assumed to be a lawyer, stockbroker, banker or government official.

In other countries
In the United States this hat is also known as a derby hat, after Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby, founder in 1780 of the Epsom Derby. The cultural significance of this style of hat was slightly different in the United States; though certainly not exclusively so, the derby tended to be associated with urban culture, and particularly with well-to-do people who had risen from the working class

Don't argue with me again about whether the bowler hat can have cultural signifiance, or if it significant to The Riddler's character. He's not only making a statement about where he is, but where he came from, if he wears it. Which ties right into his ego theme.

The hat did have tat cultural significance back then. It doesn't have it today. And Wikipedia doesn't contradict this. The whole text is in past tense, isn't it?

Why doesn't he wear an egyptian noble attire?
Or carries a very big stick? For Neanderthals, big sticks meant superiority. t:

Your ideas involve having to reinvent The Riddler almost completely as a "hunter", and then forcing all snakes to be green. My ideas allow The Riddler to remain who he has always been. I won't say your ideas don't have some merit, but don't poo poo mine, which don't require me to REINVENT a classic character in order for my ideas to fit and make sense in context.

And people call me crazy.
I already explained to you the possibles uses of the serpent figure. So, since I did my homework, allow me to keep pooing on your ideas.

The car salesman thing was a joke. A lot of people have used the term "geniuses pick green".

And you call the serpent idea thin.

So? Are you really sitting here telling me "But...but things can mean different things"?

You don't say. By the way, snakes aren't only representative of intelligence or evil.

Three medical symbols involving snakes that are still used today are Bowl of Hygieia, symbolizing pharmacy, and the Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius, which are symbols denoting medicine in general.[20]

Saying "But that color can potentially be interpreted differently" hardly invalidates a color meaning.

He has to adress earlier in the movie which meaning is going to be used. The Genesis reference is very good to make people understand that we're not talking about Caduceus. It's classy.
Are you willing to have a similar scene in you idea where Riddler says: "You know, they say geniuses pick green"?
Hardly classy.

He's an attention seeker. Always has been, with his crimes, his look, and his personality. He is almost completely ego-driven. I can't believe you're even trying to argue that point.

Again, if he's just seeking attention, he can wear that Hello Kitty Darth Vader costume, right?
Attention =/= Respect.

Well, if we're going to go that far into semantics, then actually they all wore costumes, because they were all in a movie, and the actors wore costumes for the movie. Sorry. I should have elaborated, as you appear to more interested in semantics than addressing any logical points I've made.

They all had "distinct looks that draw from the comic book visuals that include elements that are not considered normal, everyday, appropriate clothing".

Better?

No, wrong. Which elements did Bruce Wayne had that falls into that category? Or Alfred? Or Gordon? Or Dent? The list is to big to go on.
Yes, I'm interested in semantics... I'd like you to talk about the concept of the word "all".

The Scarecrow had his mask and the brown color scheme, The Joker has makeup, the green hair and the purple outfit. Two-Face has his scarred visage and his two-toned suit.

Brown suits are far from being a weird element.
Two-Face and his suit are not the result of design, but of chance. We're talking about outfits that are designed by those who wear them.

Uh...he obviously does care for people to solve puzzles, because he presents them with puzzles to solve. Yes, he wants to prove he's smarter, but he also, and this cannot be ignored, wants a challege. He wants to be facing down people who are intelligent and capable, and he wants to prove he is more intelligent than they are.

Then you're proving my point.

And...you think there would be no context for these "assumed" color meanings I have presented?

Of course there would be, your dialogue line: "They say geniuses pick green".

This coming from the "The layman associates snakes with green, so I will use green to represent myself because of my snakelike attributes" crowd.

I never ever mentioned the word layman. Trickster was wrong to use it. Are you getting so desperate you have to throw that on me too? I can be less hard on you, if you only ask.

Does every single thing someone says have to indicate they are a genius? Even supervillains "banter" and have casual conversations once in a while.

Riddler is obssesed with proving his wits and knowledge all the time. Take that in whatever way you want to.

His IQ has nothing to do with it, Melkay. He's simply saying "Whether green has any bearing on whether someone is a genius or not, I am arrogant enough to take this cultural idea and accept it and reinforce it in my dress,
because it allows me to brand myself as a genius".

Faulty logic, because he's taking something that is far from being "high knowledge" and applying it to something as essential as his looks. He has to see that there's no logic behind that link between green and intelligence, and therefore he would dismiss it. As simple as that.

 

[Melkay]

Not to shatter dreams, but the Agent idea is just horrible. I'd rather The Riddler be a Librarian with a secret life. Fascinated with books, puzzles, and death traps. A disturbing sexuality. A suave pervert. A smooth criminal. Someone that you would least expect if you seen his face (like Ted Bundy). Dresses cool when he goes out, but like a freak when he commits his crimes. Toys with your mind before he kills you and takes your money. Uses a cane that remotely activates certain things for quick getaways and to chastise whoever gets out of order. Feels that no one is smarter than him so he calls people things like "Stuipid" and "Morron". The Riddler's fascination with Batman is that he knows that Batman is has wits enough to play his game and chase him.

That is so frivolous, superficial and predictable I don't even know where to start making fun of you . The Fed idea fits into TDK's finale, and it provides lots of character dynamics inside the GPD and Batman's chase, making the whole thing about Batman again and not just about the villains... and many other reasons. Go to sleep early today.

 

[dontplaydead27]

I've often wondered why everyone here is "God let's watch football and be patriotic!" I hated that everyone gave Obama **** for not wearing a flag pin when he first came on the scene. Of all the stupid mundane **** people can pick at, they are going to say "Well...why's that black man not wearing a flag pin!?!? he's not supporting our country".

I loved his response to that, and of course the pressure on him from that has caused him to wear that damn pin now to please the masses. I think I got way off topic, but yeah I hope he's as geniune as I think he is, and even more, I hope he can make things better for this country, and not any worse.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Toys with your mind before he kills you and takes your money.

Great hobo skills

Uses a cane that remotely activates certain things for quick getaways...

That might be pushing it...

 

[Mindreaper21]

It all depends on how you see it. It's not my fault that you see it in a corny way. I can laugh with you tho