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

[RustyCage]

Excluding Harley, Riddler is the closest thing to the Joker than any other villain. ...they have A SIMILAR presence.

What? That's a ridiculous generalization.

The Joker has a chaotic, scary, laughing, psychopathic presence. The Riddler's presence is that of a suave, somewhat chivalrous, intellectual god.

 

[jmc]

Not to mention an obsessive compulsive with an ego bigger than Jupiter. They couldn't be further apart in terms of character. The similar presence thing comes from Frank Gorshim and Jim Carrey's portrayals of the character.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Wait, wait, guys, people... are you listening to yourselves? "Couldn't be further apart"?? Ask yourselves: who's more similar to the Joker... The Riddler, Two-Face, or Ra's al Ghul?

For better or worse, the current interpretation of the Joker we have in the movies brings those similiarities more into the spotlight.
- They're both proud and arrogant and have immense egos, and they feel they're intellectually superior to the rest of the people.
- They are often depicted as rather think, caucasian men wearing green and purple in sometimes too elegant wardrobes.
- They both make deathly traps and leave complicated clues to the police and Batman to figure out out to stop them.
- They often communicate to their opponents through screens or written messages, posing challenges those people have to overcome.
- They're obssesed with Batman even to the point of sometimes letting him go when he falls into their (or someone else's traps) and try to engage him in direct confrontation, often of the psychological/intellectual type.

Now, try to apply that stuff to the rest of the rogues gallery. Killer Croc, the Penguin, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, the Ventriloquist, Bane... none of them is more similar to the Joker than the Riddler.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Wait, wait, guys, people... are you listening to yourself? "Couldn't be further apart"?? Ask yourselves: who's more similar to the Joker... The Riddler, Two-Face, or Ra's al Ghul?

For better or worst, the current interpretation of the Joker we have in the movies brings those similiarities more into the spotlight.
- They're both proud and arrogant and have immense egos, and they feel they're intellectually superior to the rest of the people.
- They are often depicted as rather think, caucasian men wearing green and purple in sometimes too elegant wardrobes.
- They both make deathly traps and leave complicated clues to the police and Batman to figure out out to stop them.
- They often communicate to their opponents through screens or written messages, posing challenges those people have to overcome.
- They're obssesed with Batman even to the point of sometimes letting him go when he falls into their (or someone else's traps) and try to engage him in direct confrontation, often of the psychological/intellectual type.

Now, try to apply that stuff to the rest of the rogues gallery. Killer Croc, the Penguin, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, the Ventriloquist, Bane... none of them is more similar to the Joker than the Riddler.

 

[Rodrigo90]

OK. Forget about him trying to outdo the Joker as a goal,but he should openly admit

"Im a fan of his style,but I am 100 times the genius he is".

For the sake of realism he should definitely be inspired by Joker,but the real reason was he wanted to takedown Batman. So it is indirectly Batman's fault.

 

[Jolly C.]

everything is batmans fault, if there was no batman there would be no villains.

 

[Two-Face]

Then mob would rule Gotham.

 

[Jolly C.]

soooo i wonder whats worse lol

 

[jmc]

For better or worse, the current interpretation of the Joker we have in the movies brings those similiarities more into the spotlight.
- They're both proud and arrogant and have immense egos, and they feel they're intellectually superior to the rest of the people.

To an extent, Joker didn't once brag about being intellectually superior.

- They are often depicted as rather think, caucasian men wearing green and purple in sometimes too elegant wardrobes.

Aesthetics, and I'd hardly call the Joker's look in TDK 'elegant'.

- They both make deathly traps and leave complicated clues to the police and Batman to figure out out to stop them.

Complicated clues? Every 'clue' Joker left was as obvious as the nose on his face. Riddler works with puzzles, conundrums, genuine brain testers, the Joker did nothing of the sort in TDK. The Joker delt with absolutes in the film, the boat scene, the hospital, him getting arrested, there was nothing to 'solve'.

- They often communicate to their opponents through screens or written messages, posing challenges those people have to overcome.

So the Riddler should use carrier pigeon in film 3 for his riddles?

- They're obssesed with Batman even to the point of sometimes letting him go when he falls into their (or someone else's traps) and try to engage him in direct confrontation, often of the psychological/intellectual type.

To an extent all the villains are obsessed with Batman in one way or another, that's par for the course with Batman.

Now, try to apply that stuff to the rest of the rogues gallery. Killer Croc, the Penguin, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, the Ventriloquist, Bane... none of them is more similar to the Joker than the Riddler.

All you're points are doing is skimming the surface of both characters. One is a homicidal maniac, the other is an obsessive compulsive loser, even with the vague similarities you brought up they are still completely different people, and that's what's important.

 

[ronny]

everything is batmans fault, if there was no batman there would be no villains.

What nonsense. Do you want to know who to blame for criminals running loose? How about the criminals?

No one forced Harvey Dent to go on a killing spree because he got acid thrown in his face, he even admits (Batman: Crime And Punishment) that many other people would simply lick their wounds and get over it. He made a concious choice to break the law in a quest for some warped justice.

Same with Scarecrow, did Batman make him kill those two kids who mocked him at a party? Nope, he went away, planned, created a costume and then forged a situation in which they would be literally frightened to death.

And Batman never forced Riddler into anything either. He was a cheat and a crook from a very young age, graduating from cheating in a school contest to robbing the place he worked at.
It wasn't Batman who began his obsession with riddles, it was his own perfectionism and boredom.

The whole idea that Batman is responsible for any of these freaks is utterly absurd. No, not even The Joker. I mean, when a guy voluntarily jumps into a vat of bleach how is it the fault of anybody else?

 

[Jolly C.]

ronny im talkin about the way the movies are portraying it...the escalation aspect.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

- They are often depicted as rather think, caucasian men wearing green and purple in sometimes too elegant wardrobes.

I don't think you can really take that purple and green thing too far, as those are the two most used colors in comics. I think it's just more of a coincidence.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

To an extent, Joker didn't once brag about being intellectually superior.

"If you're good at something never do it for free."

"- You think you can steal from us and then walk away?
- Yeah. "

"Look what I did to this town with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets."

Come on. The Joker didn't ever say the words "intellectual" and "superior", but everything (and I mean everything) he did exuded superiority. And seeing how he managed to pull off the most convoluted plans and still be one step ahead of everyone until the end, well, he may have been the intellectual superior indeed.

Aesthetics, and I'd hardly call the Joker's look in TDK 'elegant'.

Neither would Maroni, but let's face it, a green coat and tie and a bowler hat can't really be called "elegant" either. The point is the idea behind it, trying to do elegance but in an zany, over-the-top manner. The Joker was still wearing an expensive suit and an overcoat. More to the point, aesthetics do a great deal of conveying what a character is about, let's not downplay its relevance here, shall we?

Complicated clues? Every 'clue' Joker left was as obvious as the nose on his face. Riddler works with puzzles, conundrums, genuine brain testers, the Joker did nothing of the sort in TDK. The Joker delt with absolutes in the film, the boat scene, the hospital, him getting arrested, there was nothing to 'solve'.

Suuure....

JOKER CARD: "Will the real Batman please stand up?"

RAMÍREZ: Lieutenant! That Joker card pinned to the body, forensics found 3 sets of DNA.
GORDON: Any matches?
RAMÍREZ: All three. The DNA belongs to judge Surrillo, Harvey Dent and Commissioner Loeb.
GORDON: The Joker's telling us who's he's targeting.

Quite obvious, uh?

Add to that the Richard Harvey/Patrick Dent murder and the fake front page obituary. Yeah, those clues may be direct threats (which, considering other stuff he did, like saying he was going to blow up a hospital or two ferries at midnight, are not direct at all) all the Riddler can do is improve on that, make it more mentally challenging... but it's not radically different as you suggest, they're not worlds apart. They're still two psychos leaving indirect clues about where they plan to strike next, in order to taunt the police and even see if they can stop them.

So the Riddler should use carrier pigeon in film 3 for his riddles?

Nope, but you either acknoledge those similarities, like Rodrigo90 said, or you put a spin on them and make it more specific, like the Riddler only communicating through screens and distorted voices but in a very sophisticated way, maybe with a fake avatarish image... not the snuff films and the tv phone calls, if you get my drift.
Personally, I prefer Rodrigo's option. If the Joker was in fact the first large scale, massively public terrorist, and the Riddler has to retrace some of his steps, the least you can do is slightly admit the inspiration and move on.
In the Fed idea, I would even prefer Nygma noticing this and creating a false psycho criminal that purposely follows some of the Joker M.O., to add authenticity to his con, in order to lure Batman out.
But no matter what route one takes, the audience is going to see these similarities and it's better to acknowledge them instead of pretending they're not there.

To an extent all the villains are obsessed with Batman in one way or another, that's par for the course with Batman.

Many of them are not obssesed enough to even consider letting him go just because he's such a worthy opponent. Frankly, I don't see the Penguin letting Batman go or stopping other criminals from killing him because he wants that right. Neither Two-Face, except for the favorable coin toss. Catwoman would spare him for actual, real sympathy, not because of distorted admiration. In Begins, Ra's just had a very freaky idea of justice and left Bruce to die in a fire, but to die nonetheless. Keep mentioning criminals: You get the idea.

All your points are doing is skimming the surface of both characters. One is a homicidal maniac, the other is an obsessive compulsive loser, even with the vague similarities you brought up they are still completely different people, and that's what's important.

Here to touch a very good point... The 'loser' form is a one of several variations of the character. Granted, it's a very popular one, but not the definitive. Are we 100% sure an obsessive compulsive loser can be a main villain? If not, are we willing to include the Riddler in a role that fits this lessened form? Wouldn't that be a waste of potential? Byt this point in the story, any antagonist must be enhanced and their menace levels increased all the way up to fit the final chapter of the trilogy. Not 'losers' allowed. And I say this about all the villains that are considered "secondary": The Riddler, the Penguin, Catwoman, Killer Croc... if any of them is included, it must be in their greatest and most dangerous form, no less than that. Never, ever, consider lowering the bar.

And once you do that inevitable adaptation to the Riddler, the similarities between him and the Joker become even more evident. He comes from being an "obssesive compulsive loser" to being a maniac too. Maybe less homicidal, but a maniac anyway. We can't have a villain who threatens Gotham's citizens to... rob their bank accounts.

Besides, my comparison was hardly 'skimming the surface'. Read it again, please. You couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I don't think you can really take that purple and green thing too far, as those are the two most used colors in comics. I think it's just more of a coincidence.

The colors are just part of the coincidence, but within Batman's Rogues Gallery there aren't really more villains like them. I repeat: thin, caucasian males wearing suits mostly in green and purple. How many?

 

[Jolly C.]

I like the idea of Edward Nigma/Nashton as a fed trying to lure batman out into the open so he becomes a "villain" and takes the persona of the riddler at first to lure batman out and catch him but then later he divulges into the villain side due to the failed efforts of catching batman and fully becomes the riddler for real.

 

[jmc]

''If you're good at something never do it for free.''

''- You think you can steal from us and then walk away?
- Yeah. ''

''Look what I did to this town with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets.''

Come on. The Joker didn't ever say the words ''intellectual'' and ''superior'', but everything (and I mean everything) he did exuded superiority. And seeing how he managed to pull off the most convoluted plans and still be one step ahead of everyone until the end, well, he may have been the intellectual superior indeed.

Not the issue, the point is The Joker wasn't someone who openly thought and said he was intellectually superior, so you could easily have Riddler be that type of egotistical know-it-all who flaunts his genius at others to make himself feel bigger and not be repeating anyting.

Neither would Maroni, but let's face it, a green coat and tie and a bowler hat can't really be called ''elegant'' either. The point is the idea behind it, trying to do elegance but in an zany, over-the-top manner. The Joker was still wearing an expensive suit and an overcoat. More to the point, aesthetics do a great deal of conveying what a character is about, let's not downplay its relevance here, shall we?

Not down playing the relevance of aesthetics, you said that both characters dress in elegant wardrobe, the Joker looked anything but in TDK, expense of suit is irrelevant, the guy looked like a walking corpse. As for the Riddler, your guess is as good as mine as to what he'd look like, but it won't be anything like The Joker, that I'll put money on. Again not repeating anything.

Suuure....

JOKER CARD: ''Will the real Batman please stand up?''

RAMÍREZ: Lieutenant! That Joker card pinned to the body, forensics found 3 sets of DNA.
GORDON: Any matches?
RAMÍREZ: All three. The DNA belongs to judge Surrillo, Harvey Dent and Commissioner Loeb.
GORDON: The Joker's telling us who's he's targeting.

Quite obvious, uh?

Glad you're not a cop. Police forensics 101: Search evidence for traces of DNA.

Add to that the Richard Harvey/Patrick Dent murder and the fake front page obituary. Yeah, those clues may be direct threats (which, considering other stuff he did, like saying he was going to blow up a hospital or two ferries at midnight, are not direct at all) all the Riddler can do is improve on that, make it more mentally challenging... but it's not radically different as you suggest, they're not worlds apart. They're still two psychos leaving indirect clues about where they plan to strike next, in order to taunt the police and even see if they can stop them.

You can't call them clues if they tell you what he's going to do, it's a direct threat, no getting around it, the Joker made threats. It's vastly different from leaving some vague zodiac style letter to decipher, granted it's even the police the Riddler deals with in the first place.

Again not the issue

Nope, but you either acknoledge those similarities, like Rodrigo90 said, or you put a spin on them and make it more specific, like the Riddler only communicating through screens and distorted voices but in a very sophisticated way, maybe with a fake avatarish image... not the snuff films and the tv phone calls, if you get my drift.
Personally, I prefer Rodrigo's option. If the Joker was in fact the first large scale, massively public terrorist, and the Riddler has to retrace some of his steps, the least you can do is slightly admit the inspiration and move on.

Assuming the Riddler's scheme is as grand as the Jokers to begin with, which it doesn't have to be in order to make him a good bad guy.

In the Fed idea, I would even prefer Nygma noticing this and creating a false psycho criminal that purposely follows some of the Joker M.O., to add authenticity to his con, in order to lure Batman out.
But no matter what route one takes, the audience is going to see these similarities and it's better to acknowledge them instead of pretending they're not there.

They'll only see similarities if the characters are treated the same, which they wont.

Many of them are not obssesed enough to even consider letting him go just because he's such a worthy opponent. Frankly, I don't see the Penguin letting Batman go or stopping other criminals from killing him because he wants that right. Neither Two-Face, except for the favorable coin toss. Catwoman would spare him for actual, real sympathy, not because of distorted admiration. In Begins, Ra's just had a very freaky idea of justice and left Bruce to die in a fire, but to die nonetheless. Keep mentioning criminals: You get the idea.

Thing is the Joker wasn't obsessed with Batman in TDK, simple as that, at no point did Batman get under his skin and make him go crazy, his goal was to prove Batman could break his rule, hell the Joker in so many words admitted defeat: 'You truly are incorruptible'. So again you're not going to be repeating anything if they choose to make the Riddler's challenge with Batman become an obsession because the Joker never had one in the first place.

Here to touch a very good point... The 'loser' form is a one of several variations of the character. Granted, it's a very popular one, but not the definitive. Are we 100% sure an obsessive compulsive loser can be a main villain? If not, are we willing to include the Riddler in a role that fits this lessened form? Wouldn't that be a waste of potential? Byt this point in the story, any antagonist must be enhanced and their menace levels increased all the way up to fit the final chapter of the trilogy. Not 'losers' allowed. And I say this about all the villains that are considered ''secondary'': The Riddler, the Penguin, Catwoman, Killer Croc... if any of them is included, it must be in their greatest and most dangerous form, no less than that. Never, ever, consider lowering the bar.

And once you do that inevitable adaptation to the Riddler, the similarities between him and the Joker become even more evident. He comes from being an ''obssesive compulsive loser'' to being a maniac too. Maybe less homicidal, but a maniac anyway. We can't have a villain who threatens Gotham's citizens to... rob their bank accounts.

Besides, my comparison was hardly 'skimming the surface'. Read it again, please. You couldn't have been more wrong.

The more I read your posts, the more I get the impression the only reason you think the similarities are as close as they are is because you think the only way the Riddler can work is if he's like the Joker. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I get. And as for your question can an obsessive compulsive loser be the main villain? Yes it he can, but he doesn't need to match the Joker in terms of scale in order to be a credible villain, nor does Batman 3 have to match the scale of TDK to be a credible film, hell it wouldn't surprise me if Batman 3 has a completely different feel all together from films one and two. This is all a pointless discussion anyway cause if Nolan's in charge of Batman 3 and if Riddler's the villain, you can bet you're house on it it will be nothing like the Joker.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Not the issue, the point is The Joker wasn't someone who openly thought and said he was intellectually superior

Did the three quotes I posted mean anything to you? Did you read them?

So you could easily have Riddler be that type of egotistical know-it-all who flaunts his genius at others to make himself feel bigger and not be repeating anyting.

I get it, in a way Crane was also a bit like this, but one has to see the similarities in a group. If it were only this one, I wouldn't be arguing at all.

Not down playing the relevance of aesthetics, you said that both characters dress in elegant wardrobe, the Joker looked anything but in TDK, expense of suit is irrelevant, the guy looked like a walking corpse.

Due to his make-up and posture? Absolutely. But the suit was faultless. Either way, allow me to rephrase: they both wear suits. And it's not only that. They're both thin, caucasian males

Glad you're not a cop. Police forensics 101: Search evidence for traces of DNA.

Police work lesson 1: Make all investigation departments analyze messages from criminals, including but not limited to: decrypting codes and looking for leads and patterns.
Your point again? That it was simple? Absolutely. But I said already that all the Riddler can do now is expand upon that and make them real challenges. Either way, you can't deny that the Joker so far has been the ONLY villain (1 out of more than 6) who sends taunting messages to the Police.

You can't call them clues if they tell you what he's going to do, it's a direct threat, no getting around it, the Joker made threats.

LOL. You know they both point to the objective and form of the next hit, right?

It's vastly different from leaving some vague zodiac style letter to decipher, granted it's even the police the Riddler deals with in the first place.

It's not vastly different, which has been my point all along. See, a complicated, hard to decipher message is different from a direct one, but still more similar to it than to a complete lack of.

Thing is the Joker wasn't obsessed with Batman in TDK, simple as that, at no point did Batman get under his skin

I just said extremely obssesed, not one thing abut "getting under their skin". But now you mention it, I respectfully differ.

- You're garbage who kills for money.
- Don't talk like one of them, you're not!

...which, at their very first conversation, prompted his most sincere rant about his views in the whole film, and you have to see Ledger's subtle change of expressions to realize it (much in the vein of the "Oh, I'm not." when the mobsters called him a freak)... and the second moment being...

- What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone's exactly as you? You're alone.

which, paired with the failure of his plan, got the most sincere reaction out of him with the most insightful comment of the Joker motives. And he wasn't amused.

I believe the Riddler should be more irascible and should be more affected by Batman than the Joker, but you cannot deny their relationship is special. Batman gets the Joker better than anyone ("It's not that simple, with the Joker never is") and the Joker appreciate Batman and gives him a special treatment ("And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun."). And this is even truer in the comics.

his goal was to prove Batman could break his rule, hell the Joker in so many words admitted defeat: 'You truly are incorruptible'. So again you're not going to be repeating anything if they choose to make the Riddler's challenge with Batman become an obsession because the Joker never had one in the first place.

Isn't that admitting obssesion?

The more I read your posts, the more I get the impression the only reason you think the similarities are as close as they are is because you think the only way the Riddler can work is if he's like the Joker. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I get.

I don't want them to be similar, I'm just pointing out at the already established similarities from the comics, which a film adaptation could only increase if done in a loyal yet enhacing way. The Fed route (we were discussing its validity in the first place) diminishes these similiarities by providing new context and role situations for these traits in the Riddler. Being a quesiton of superiority of the Law and intelligence over vigilantism and limited resourcefulness is a different context. It also gives crescendo to his obssesion, as well as making clear distinctions between him and the Joker by giving him a clear origin. Among many other changes it implies.

And as for your question can an obsessive compulsive loser be the main villain? Yes it he can, but he doesn't need to match the Joker in terms of scale in order to be a credible villain, nor does Batman 3 have to match the scale of TDK to be a credible film, hell it wouldn't surprise me if Batman 3 has a completely different feel all together from films one and two.

It may have a different feel, of course. But it needs to present a large threat of at least the same proportions to make it a satisfying third act. No other way around it. We're not talking about credibility here but optimization... and in an optimal third act, you need to raise the stakes and have a climax with a huge apotheosis no matter what. The Riddler needs to be a part of that, but he cannot possibly be a major one in his traditional form.

apotheosisThis is all a pointless discussion anyway cause if Nolan's in charge of Batman 3 and if Riddler's the villain, you can bet you're house on it it will be nothing like the Joker.[/QUOTE]

You've said this many times in this pos and I saved my response until now to put the debate back on his tracks... I'm not arguing it WILL be different. I trust in Nolan's judgement too. But I contend he will only achieve this through an adaptation some people may consider too drastic. Case in question, the same idea: I consider the argument that says a Fed Riddler is a complete change of character to be ridiculous. This iswhat I was talking about. Necessary changes must be done to the character and this one provides him:
- A higher threat level.
- More resonance with the story.
- A context that lessens his many similarities with the Joker enough.

In fact, Jolly C. summed it up pretty briefly here...

I like the idea of Edward Nigma/Nashton as a fed trying to lure batman out into the open so he becomes a "villain" and takes the persona of the riddler at first to lure batman out and catch him but then later he divulges into the villain side due to the failed efforts of catching batman and fully becomes the riddler for real.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Ego, traps, riddles, obssesion, inability to accept defeat, collaboration with the police, eventual transformation into a 'freak criminal', it's all there.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I like the idea of Edward Nigma/Nashton as a fed trying to lure batman out into the open so he becomes a "villain" and takes the persona of the riddler at first to lure batman out and catch him but then later he divulges into the villain side due to the failed efforts of catching batman and fully becomes the riddler for real.

As Mary once said

"Practicaly perfect in every way".

But I dont see it happening unfortunately. Im keen to see how they expand Edward from the Gotham Times.

 

[ALittlePush]

I like the idea of Edward Nigma/Nashton as a fed trying to lure batman out into the open so he becomes a "villain" and takes the persona of the riddler at first to lure batman out and catch him but then later he divulges into the villain side due to the failed efforts of catching batman and fully becomes the riddler for real.

I had an idea very similar to that on page 70.

He would appear as Edward Nashton, an FBI agent who is very dedicated to his work, always gets his man, that sort of thing. He becomes frustrated about his failure to catch Batman so his methods become more and more unorthodox in order to lure Batman out. He becomes the Riddler as a trap for Batman. The Riddles are all to lead Batman to Nashton and his arrest. However, the more frustrated Nashton becomes, the more he gets into the Riddler role. He becomes so obsessed with catching Batman that the Riddler isn’t just a trap for Batman anymore but an actual threat to Gotham.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

That idea in that exact same form has been around these boards for more than a year now. The Ace Of Knaves can testify that, right Ace?

 

[ALittlePush]

Really? I know the idea of him being a fed has been kicked around quite a lot but I don't recall the bit about the riddler being a trap for batman initially until he actually becomes a threat.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well basically I thought Agent Nashton would start off as a by the book agent. A very good one. Then as he is investigating Batman and he keeps failing to catch him or figure out who he is, he gets more and more obsessed with Batman. We actually see him descend into an obsessive madness as the film goes on. He starts getting paranoid and stuff like that, maybe suspecting Gordon of being in collusion with the Bat. He then secretly becomes The Riddler, setting traps all over Gotham for Batman. Putting civilians or fellow cops/feds in harms way to lure Batman out. The traps getting bigger and more dangerous as his obsession grows.

 

[ALittlePush]

I like your idea.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Ah, that was it in the Gotham Times,"Dent Cannot Be Believed". I wonder why Riddler hates Harvey?

 

[Crook]

Same reason why many politicians are hated; they're two-faced liars who hide/sugarcoat the truth.