The Dark Knight Scarecrow

[sohojozo]

^very much in agreement This is also correlates with some news that i think was debunked quite awhile ago, someone talking about scarecrow getting killed by Joker. Live or die, he has served his purpose. Nolan could kill off whatever villain he wanted, but keeping them alive will only appease the imagination of the fans past the third film. because he will probably not make more than the three, and i strongly doubt any of the cast would continue on without him.

 

[Figs]

If he hangs him so be it. I personally would like to see a villain/s get sent to Arkham rather than die though. I know the Riddler did in BF, but BF was meh! If it's from the Joker I might let it slide just because I want a twisted homicidal version we haven't seen on screen yet.

 

[sohojozo]

Like Nepenthes said, "send him out proper". Joker doing it would be the best, IMO. Because in almost every Bat-film so far, the number one cause of villains' deaths has been plummeting to their doom in some fashion lol. Please, no more of that.

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

He transforms further than this but I couldn't find a good pic anywhere

Wow thanks. What's the Lance & Eskimo thing?

And does anyone else have a pic/screen grab of Scare Crow with fear gas? (transformed)

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

Found this on Google..

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_Batman_Begins/2005_batman_begins_049.jpg

 

[theDarkerKnight]

I would have to say that i cant realy see the scarecrow and joker teaming up...my thoughts would be that the scarecrow has now taken power in lue of carmine falcone (i pronouce it as fal-cone..not fal cone-ee) and the joker takes the foe down. yep. the scarecrow is a "freak-mobbster" in this one i realy feel it Jim.

 

[Batman jr.]

I would have to say that i cant realy see the scarecrow and joker teaming up...my thoughts would be that the scarecrow has now taken power in lue of carmine falcone (i pronouce it as fal-cone..not fal cone-ee) and the joker takes the foe down. yep. the scarecrow is a "freak-mobbster" in this one i realy feel it Jim.

Good thoughts!

 

[Killing Joke926]

I wonder if Crane will be back to normal in this one or he'll still continue to be the inner pyschotic ScareCrow towards the end of BB. I don't know, what do you guys think.

 

[Batman jr.]

I wonder if Crane will be back to normal in this one or he'll still continue to be the inner pyschotic ScareCrow towards the end of BB. I don't know, what do you guys think.

Yeah, I wonder how they'll explain that. But I still want a "Joker seen under hallucination"-scene! t:

 

[Figs]

I wonder if Crane will be back to normal in this one or he'll still continue to be the inner pyschotic ScareCrow towards the end of BB. I don't know, what do you guys think.

I'm hoping he's the inner psychotic Scarecrow. After getting gassed himself and then tazered in the face lol, I don't see what would cause him to go back to normal. let alone if that would even be possible at that point. Just the look Cilian Murphy had when the two guys from the League of Shadows threw him his mask to me showed how crazy and insane he is from before.

 

[kooguy911]

did anybody think and remember about the peguin rumors? Im thinking that the peguin is in charge of the mob and that sacrecrow is teaming with them.

 

[Mr. Socko]

No more villain deaths at all. Even by other villains.
This is why Arkham was created, to hold the crazies

Sorry, but that will never happen. It will get very cheesy and unrealistic if every villain in all of the films is just thrown in Arkham. The films are not never-ending and in the same continuity like the comics. Some will be sent to Arkham but the death of villains in the films is very necessary.

 

[Dark Phantom]

I always had this concept that Joker forces Scarecrow to work for him under gunpoint. Like from now on Scarecrow must create special toxins (smilex) and antidotes for Joker to use at his leisure. I also wrote a scene where Joker locks Scarecrow up in a stuffy room with test tubes and such where he's forced to work day in and day out.

Ya i know i'm sick

 

[creamyiraq]

Yeah, I wonder how they'll explain that. But I still want a "Joker seen under hallucination"-scene! t:

after hearing the set report on the Scarecrow shoot my thoughts are that Batman is subdued and the Joker reveals himself to Bats for the first time under the influence of the gas. Now, Bats was innoculated in BB, but this could be a new concoction.

 

[smatt584]

after hearing the set report on the Scarecrow shoot my thoughts are that Batman is subdued and the Joker reveals himself to Bats for the first time under the influence of the gas. Now, Bats was innoculated in BB, but this could be a new concoction.

It doesn't have to be, in BB, Fox said it would temporarily innoculate him, so as soon as the stuff is out of everybody's system, they're susceptible again.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

Sorry, but that will never happen. It will get very cheesy and unrealistic if every villain in all of the films is just thrown in Arkham. The films are not never-ending and in the same continuity like the comics. Some will be sent to Arkham but the death of villains in the films is very necessary.

I couldn't agree more and that is why I think Scarecrow's death at the hands of Joker is such a genius idea. Even if they do do a third film I doubt they would put Scarecrow in it anyhow. I personally would be tired of seeing him after three movies. And what i think people forget is, although Nolan is directing it now, once he is done, come five or ten years there'll be someone new to revamp the franchise who may or may not want to renew the various characters, not pull them out of Arkham. It is foolish and completely ignorant to think that Nolan will be the final Batman movie director, so I think what would be best for him is to make two or three movies to tell a great story that intertwines the three movies into one story. If he throws everyone into Arkham expecting to put them into other movies then it's just gonna be cheesy. Why not kill a character for the sake of furthering the character of another character. Does that make sense?

 

[Figs]

I couldn't agree more and that is why I think Scarecrow's death at the hands of Joker is such a genius idea. Even if they do do a third film I doubt they would put Scarecrow in it anyhow. I personally would be tired of seeing him after three movies. And what i think people forget is, although Nolan is directing it now, once he is done, come five or ten years there'll be someone new to revamp the franchise who may or may not want to renew the various characters, not pull them out of Arkham. It is foolish and completely ignorant to think that Nolan will be the final Batman movie director, so I think what would be best for him is to make two or three movies to tell a great story that intertwines the three movies into one story. If he throws everyone into Arkham expecting to put them into other movies then it's just gonna be cheesy. Why not kill a character for the sake of furthering the character of another character. Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense. The more I hear it the more I like it. You have a solid point there, about how eventually someone else is going to come along with their own take on Batman and the villians. With Two-Face in the third one and possible more of the Joker, I wouldn't want or need Scarecrow to appear again. So like you said with killing a character to further the character of another, im all for.

 

[creamyiraq]

It doesn't have to be, in BB, Fox said it would temporarily innoculate him, so as soon as the stuff is out of everybody's system, they're susceptible again.

Ah, I see. Didn't remember that. Seems reasonable since fear gas is Scarecrow's main weapon that that it would only be temporarily immunized.

 

[Dark Phantom]

I couldn't agree more and that is why I think Scarecrow's death at the hands of Joker is such a genius idea. Even if they do do a third film I doubt they would put Scarecrow in it anyhow. I personally would be tired of seeing him after three movies. And what i think people forget is, although Nolan is directing it now, once he is done, come five or ten years there'll be someone new to revamp the franchise who may or may not want to renew the various characters, not pull them out of Arkham. It is foolish and completely ignorant to think that Nolan will be the final Batman movie director, so I think what would be best for him is to make two or three movies to tell a great story that intertwines the three movies into one story. If he throws everyone into Arkham expecting to put them into other movies then it's just gonna be cheesy. Why not kill a character for the sake of furthering the character of another character. Does that make sense?

But the principles of your conclusion can be said for a dead character

After all Joker died in the Burton/schumacher franchise. And what? he's returning for a new franchise. it doesn't matter about who they keep alive or dead, but how well it's written and how it fits the story. Scarecrow dieing for the sake of developing future characters is unnecessary, but if there's a good solid reason that has purpose within the story then it's allowable. I understand what your saying, but I just don't like the fact that Scarecrow must die. He could die at the arms of the Joker, I don't care, but again he doesn't have to.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Sorry, but that will never happen. It will get very cheesy and unrealistic if every villain in all of the films is just thrown in Arkham. The films are not never-ending and in the same continuity like the comics. Some will be sent to Arkham but the death of villains in the films is very necessary.

It depends entirely on the popularity of the villain. Having The Joker die in Nolan's trilogy is uncalled for. That was already creatively done 18 years ago with another Batman film (which was a bold move by Burton that I doubt Nolan wants to repeat himself). The Scarecrow dying is more reasonable.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I have been severly out of the loop i have been working at a camp all summer with little internet, is scarecrow in TDK?

 

[Dark Phantom]

That makes perfect sense. The more I hear it the more I like it. You have a solid point there, about how eventually someone else is going to come along with their own take on Batman and the villians. With Two-Face in the third one and possible more of the Joker, I wouldn't want or need Scarecrow to appear again. So like you said with killing a character to further the character of another, im all for.

but there's the hypocrisy. you'd rather let Joker live because you and others are tired of Scarecrow.

Face it, it just comes down to some of you aren't fans of Scarecrow. And I find this whole "killing a character to further another character" is bull.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

But the principles of your conclusion can be said for a dead character

After all Joker died in the Burton/schumacher franchise. And what? he's returning for a new franchise. it doesn't matter about who they keep alive or dead, but how well it's written and how it fits the story. Scarecrow dieing for the sake of developing future characters is unnecessary, but if there's a good solid reason that has purpose within the story then it's allowable. I understand what your saying, but I just don't like the fact that Scarecrow must die. He could die at the arms of the Joker, I don't care, but again he doesn't have to.

Agreed, but if they use the death to work into Joker's character, and if done right (like you said, good writing) I think it would be an amazing scene. If done just for the sake of killing Cillian's character, then yeah, dumb. I personally think it (if the scene is even in the movie) would be a matter of Scarecrow getting cocky or saying something smartass-ish to Joker, and then Joker doing a public execution of sorts for Batman to witness to show that the Joker isn't ****ing around. At least, that how i would write it given all the hooplah Nolan is playing around his Joker being so dark.

 

[Figs]

but there's the hypocrisy. you'd rather let Joker live because you and others are tired of Scarecrow.

Face it, it just comes down to some of you aren't fans of Scarecrow. And I find this whole "killing a character to further another character" is bull.

LOL! Dude I am in no way tired of the Scarecrow. No bull****, Scarecrow is one of my favorite Batman villians. I agree that it's not neccesary to kill off villains, just that if he is going to die in TDK let it be at the hands of Joker.

 

[Dark Phantom]

LOL! Dude I am in no way tired of the Scarecrow. No bull****, Scarecrow is one of my favorite Batman villians. I agree that it's not neccesary to kill off villains, just that if he is going to die in TDK let it be at the hands of Joker.

alrighty just lost my cool theret: