The Dark Knight Scarecrow

[Rorschach II]

If only I had a sound gif of that to go with my avvy.. sigh

I'm not even kidding though, every ****ing time. Which is kinda sad considering how much you post. Basically I'm sitting here hearing Mark Hamill's voice constantly.

 

[Spiderine]

Scarecrow will help create the gas.

 

[TromaFreak64]

Scarecrow will help create the gas.

We still have found no evidence of gas - we have all been speculating, but Joker may not use gas at all in this film.

 

[bkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only thing we know for sure about Scarecrow in this film is that he is involved in some sort of drug deal with a Chechen gang that is broken up by Batman.

 

[TromaFreak64]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only thing we know for sure about Scarecrow in this film is that he is involved in some sort of drug deal with a Chechen gang that is broken up by Batman.

Yes, and that is as long as Cillian was in the US during the filming in Chicago. He was accounted for most all other times. But we still don't know what is going on in London for sure, and he is in fact in London at the moment last we heard -- so who knows? It's probably just a coincidence, but we'll find out more eventually.

 

[Mr. Socko]

So has it been confirmed that Scarecrow returns in TDK? Sorry, havent been on this board in a while.

Yes, he does. There's a spy pic of him on set on the previous page.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

fiddy bucks says scarecrow assists the joker make his joker venom

 

[TromaFreak64]

fiddy bucks says scarecrow assists the joker make his joker venom

I don't think anyone is denying it yet, but we just have no evidence, and based on when Cillian was in the US it doesn't seem like he could have filmed any other scenes - therefore people will hold off until we get more info from London filming (if any since almost all studios and hangers) before anyone would take that bet.

Even the person who said they read the script and told us Joker is seen under fear gas, said we were all approaching it the wrong way when we assumed it was Scarecrow and told us to think about other possibilities - some suggest someone who uses the street drug.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

fiddy bucks says i'm either right or wrong about this

 

[TromaFreak64]

brilliant... but seriously hopefully we should know more now that we are getting some extras a pinewood and some of the other studios... I've been trying to track Cillian Murphy's where abouts recently.. someone said he was in fact in London, so I am looking for confirmation, but I think I said this before, but it may be coincidence.... we should know more soon enough I hope.

 

[Luchastyle]

i'm trying to do some thread resurrection. who thinks joker should kill scarecrow? killing an established character is cool to show how important the joker is. also, if he kills a villain that shows he doesn't care about good or evil.

and who would rather crane just get caught by batman early in the movie and tossed into arkham?

 

[CaptainClown]

I don't think Joker will kill scarecrow, would be interesting though.

 

[Luchastyle]

yeah. if the word out there is correct, batman will just apprehend him early on. but i'd like to see him interact with joker

 

[CaptainClown]

I always wanted, Joker to be a member of arkham and Crane didn't recognize him with the make-up. Joker then calls scarecrow in the guise of an alliance but instead Joker beats him senselessly for using his fear toxins on him.

 

[Luchastyle]

that could work. i think a lot of people would be mad if joker was one of the arkham escapees. but that's really not so bad.

 

[CaptainClown]

ya I would be too, but I think something like that would make up for it for me.

 

[Luchastyle]

good venture bros on

 

[Luchastyle]

card sharks. =D that show was awesome

 

[invidwars]

I think Murphy will just appear to give us some Scarecrow closure.

Looks like he's busy filming other projects too

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2007/09/23/sienna-miller-protest/

 

[Savage]

Closure? I hope not. What I like about DC's superhero movies is they don't kill off their villains (Nice goin', Raimi ). Build up Batman's rogues gallery and what I would like to see is the whole thing collapse on him like a house of cards in a Knightfall style movie. I like that Scarecrow is still lurking around since the last movie. Put him in Arkham and have him make yet another cameo in the next movie.

 

[invidwars]

I dont see closure as killing the villians. I think he goes to Arkham better than the last we saw him screaming like a girl tasered by Rachel Dawes.
Not much scenario what really happened to him next.

 

[Savage]

I know you didn't mean kill him but what I'm trying to say is for some characters closure isn't particularly necessary. Sometimes you don't put characters away. They just linger around. Guys like Scarecrow and The Riddler are always around causing some kind of trouble even for heroes that aren't Batman and I always liked that. I want to see that in this movie franchise. People like The Scarecrow and The Penguin wondering around causing trouble. That not every villain or action sequence has to be a part of the main plot.

I'm honestly hoping for a Bane or Killer Croc fight in the next movie. Something like this is what I was hoping to see in the Spider-man series with guys like The Shocker and Rhino but didn't get so oh well.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'd prefer a mix between half the villains dying and half being sent to Arkham. You can't just have 100% of the villains be sent to prison. These superhero film series last a trilogy, more or less.This isn't a television show nor a comic book, it's not on-going. While I'm sure The Joker won't die in TDK, having every villain being sent to Arkham at the end of every Batman film would be a terrible idea.

You've got to have some kind of closure, and sending everyone to Arkham just doesn't do it like it does in a comic book, which will never end. But as I said, I still prefer a mix of half the villains dying and half being sent away, or even open ended deaths. Schumacher didn't kill any villains and we see how that went. In Begins, Ra's died(in an open ended death) and Scarecrow has yet to be apprehended, that's great. But what if at the end of Batman 3, the end of the trilogy, there was just a villain on the loose with no conclusion. It worked for Begins because it was the first film.

Edit: I believe Scarecrow may(or may not) survive TDK, but in Part 3 I see Two-Face being killed. And Joker surviving TDK and Batman 3.

 

[Figs]

I know you didn't mean kill him but what I'm trying to say is for some characters closure isn't particularly necessary. Sometimes you don't put characters away. They just linger around. Guys like Scarecrow and The Riddler are always around causing some kind of trouble even for heroes that aren't Batman and I always liked that. I want to see that in this movie franchise. People like The Scarecrow and The Penguin wondering around causing trouble. That not every villain or action sequence has to be a part of the main plot.

I'm honestly hoping for a Bane or Killer Croc fight in the next movie. Something like this is what I was hoping to see in the Spider-man series with guys like The Shocker and Rhino but didn't get so oh well.

I agree with just about everything you said!

As for the people who find it lame or stupid having the main villians get put in Arkham at the end........yeah let's kill them off like most of the past films have done. I understand that this is going to a be a trilogy or maybe even a few more after that hopefully in this vision, doesn't mean I want the unoriginal and boring and cliche' "How do we take care of the villian at the end?", "Lets just kill him off!" route. I know that with another person's vision in another reboot years from now you can reuse the characters that were killed off in past films but why do it for Batman when most of the time he sends them to Arkham.

Or like Savage stated, don't have some of them get caught or killed. Let them run into hiding for awhile to come up with another plan.

 

[metalhead971]

I'd prefer a mix between half the villains dying and half being sent to Arkham. You can't just have 100% of the villains be sent to prison. These superhero film series last a trilogy, more or less.This isn't a television show nor a comic book, it's not on-going. While I'm sure The Joker won't die in TDK, having every villain being sent to Arkham at the end of every Batman film would be a terrible idea.

You've got to have some kind of closure, and sending everyone to Arkham just doesn't do it like it does in a comic book, which will never end. But as I said, I still prefer a mix of half the villains dying and half being sent away, or even open ended deaths. Schumacher didn't kill any villains and we see how that went. In Begins, Ra's died(in an open ended death) and Scarecrow has yet to be apprehended, that's great. But what if at the end of Batman 3, the end of the trilogy, there was just a villain on the loose with no conclusion. It worked for Begins because it was the first film.

Edit: I believe Scarecrow may(or may not) survive TDK, but in Part 3 I see Two-Face being killed. And Joker surviving TDK and Batman 3.

What do you mean Schumacher didn't kill off any villains? Two-Face anyone?