The Dark Knight Scarecrow

[Joker'sHenchman]

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.

Unfortunately, although in many instances i do agree with you, that's Hollywood. On the whole, way more people would love to see a lesser character like Scarecrow get killed by a more major charector like Joker, and although Nolan is trying to stay true to the comics, he also has to make a film that will do well within Hollywood (that will do well with the people who are just coming to see a good film and aren't emotionally attached to the various charectors).

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

Besides, everyone keeps saying that they don't want any villians to die, but yet everyone seems to forget about Ra's and he died in BB...

 

[Dark Phantom]

Unfortunately, although in many instances i do agree with you, that's Hollywood. On the whole, way more people would love to see a lesser character like Scarecrow get killed by a more major charector like Joker, and although Nolan is trying to stay true to the comics, he also has to make a film that will do well within Hollywood (that will do well with the people who are just coming to see a good film and aren't emotionally attached to the various charectors).

It's just my problem is why would you want to kill off a character if he wasn't thoroughly developed yet? Scarecrow had his brief but yet glorious screentime in Begins (on youtube there's a collection of all his scenes which adds up to 10 minutes). Probably in TDK he'll have again a short amount of screentime. So why would general audiences get tired of him? if anything they'd be craving for more.

 

[Dark Phantom]

Besides, everyone keeps saying that they don't want any villians to die, but yet everyone seems to forget about Ra's and he died in BB...

touche

but i think the reason is because he isn't really a theatrical rogue of batman. You can't really fit him into context with the "Freaks" theme now being developed in these films. He served his purpose in this arc of the story and i guess there was no more use for him. Who knows? maybe Ras is still alive.

 

[Figs]

alrighty just lost my cool theret:

Hey, it happens to everyone at some point or another.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

It's just my problem is why would you want to kill off a character if he wasn't thoroughly developed yet? Scarecrow had his brief but yet glorious screentime in Begins (on youtube there's a collection of all his scenes which adds up to 10 minutes). Probably in TDK he'll have again a short amount of screentime. So why would general audiences get tired of him? if anything they'd be craving for more.

I guess what it boils down to is, they didn't IMO do Scarecrow any justice in BB, and neither did they make him seem like any macho villain who would be able to hold his own as a single villain in any of Nolan's movies, so with that established why not kill him. I was a huge Dooku fan, and frankly they had a lot of potential with Dooku, I even thought that he was gonna be the one to kill Padme, but no within the first 15 min.s of Ep. III his head is rolling off screen... I feel your pain, but i think a death for Scarecrow would be best.

 

[TheCaptain]

I don't think Scarecrow should die, and here's why:

Nolan's Batman movies set themselves apart from other comic book franchises because (it looks to me, at least) Nolan is gradually creating a framework for Batman to live in, with the freaks pushing out the mob and such. I'm confident that by the end of movie 3, Nolan would have created the Gotham that exists in the current Batman comics in one form or another (I know, different writers portray Gotham differently, that's not the issue), the way that Year One and The Long Halloween did in the comics. These movies aren't "one-shots," and I feel Nolan understands that by not killing off any of the major villains and allowing them to survive in either future movies past Nolan's franchise or even in our imaginations. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Having said that, I think Joker hanging Scarecrow would be badass, and would love to see it, but hopefully, Batman gets to him before he's killed.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

Besides, everyone keeps saying that they don't want any villians to die, but yet everyone seems to forget about Ra's and he died in BB...

But they killed off the one character that could actually be brought back by another director, while remaining true to the comics.

 

[Mr. Socko]

^Allegedly

Y'know, everyone is talking about Joker and Face being the villains in the following two films, but honestly, I'd love it if Ra's returned for Batman 3.

 

[Anguissette1979]

Y'know, everyone is talking about Joker and Face being the villains in the following two films, but honestly, I'd love it if Ra's returned for Batman 3.

It might be nice to see him in a smaller role akin to what Scarecorw will have in TDK.

 

[Kakihara]

It's odd that Ra's was "killed" in BB. Eventhough Nolan is trying to keep with the realistic approach, he offed the only villain know for his trademark resurrections. It would be an incredbible nod to the comics if he returned, but I can't see it.

 

[StorminNorman]

Ra's will return - its just a matter of time.

 

[ScarecrowDance]

It's odd that Ra's was "killed" in BB. Eventhough Nolan is trying to keep with the realistic approach, he offed the only villain know for his trademark resurrections. It would be an incredbible nod to the comics if he returned, but I can't see it.

he never killed him off, did you ever see Ra's actually DIE on screen? I don't think so, he survived no doubt about that, and he will return. He has to.

 

[Nepenthes]

No he doesn't HAVE to, and he won't. You don't make people go back to the first movie of a trilogy in order to understand the third. He'd need to be present in TDK for it to work.

 

[dark_b]

Ra's will return - its just a matter of time.

i agree. the way it was filmed......like he did something.

 

[Frank Noir]

Ra's will say to us:

"You never learned to mind your surroundings..."

 

[El Payaso]

i agree. the way it was filmed......like he did something.

Dying?

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

Ra's will not return. I agree with you his death was suspicious to say the least, however he is not an exciting enough villain to ressurect. Simply, why resurrect a character, when they're dozens of other characters that haven't been done, or haven't been done well. I don't think Nolan will bring Ra's back. I know I wouldn't. I would however gamble, that there will be a flashback or dreram or something with him in it that is somewhat important to the plot of the 2nd or 3rd movie.

 

[Darknightnomis]

I find it funny that you're saying Ra's al ghul won't be resurrected since that is what the character (in the comic at least) is MOST FAMOUS for i.e. the Lazarus Pit.

I see him coming back in the 3rd movie (hopefully with Talia).

 

[DieSmiling]

I don't see him coming back simply because there are more worthy villains to take the spotlight in the third movie.

 

[chitownballer]

No he doesn't HAVE to, and he won't. You don't make people go back to the first movie of a trilogy in order to understand the third. He'd need to be present in TDK for it to work.

Are you serious?? the majority of movie trilogies have the 3rd one directly go back to or reference the 1st, where we find out something we didn't know about in the 3rd one that references directly back to the 1st movie.

Ex: Spiderman 3: the person we thought killed uncle Ben in the 1st one didn't, it end up being a character that was in the 3rd one

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Are we talking about Batman killing his enemies here? If so, then no, Batman should not kill any of his enemies. In the comics, Batman tries to hold back from killing the Joker. Bruce even realises in Batman Begins that if he kills his enemies, then he is just as bad as them. Nolan will respect the source material, and it's not in Batman's character to destroy an opponent.

Just chuck Scarecrow into Arkham, along with his pal Joker.

 

[Bandyt]

Mmm, I'd rather Catwoman than Ra's. ^_^. Can't wait to see how Scarecrow has evolved since the last movie, most probably much more badass.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

Are we talking about Batman killing his enemies here? If so, then no, Batman should not kill any of his enemies. In the comics, Batman tries to hold back from killing the Joker. Bruce even realises in Batman Begins that if he kills his enemies, then he is just as bad as them. Nolan will respect the source material, and it's not in Batman's character to destroy an opponent.

Just chuck Scarecrow into Arkham, along with his pal Joker.

Dude, did you even bother to read any of the posts on the past 3 pages? We're discussing Joker killing Scarecrow. I am in absolute agreement with you about Batman. No killing. Period.

 

[nightwing07]

Are you serious?? the majority of movie trilogies have the 3rd one directly go back to or reference the 1st, where we find out something we didn't know about in the 3rd one that references directly back to the 1st movie.

Ex: Spiderman 3: the person we thought killed uncle Ben in the 1st one didn't, it end up being a character that was in the 3rd one


spiderman is different all together
ra's is dead
no doubt
he was on the ground with his eyes closed
he had accepted that he was going to die