It's a waste of a villain then. Which is why I actually prefer we have 2 villains tops, you go over than that and you tend to have to spread the screentime over those characters, thus decreasing the amount of development that goes into them.Two Face said:Well Nolan could have like Scarecrow screen time for Roman.
The Phantasm?karea07 said:I thought Black Mask was a girl? lol Who was that chick in that cartoon movie???
Spider-Kurt! said:The Phantasm?
E-Mack said:It's a waste of a villain then. Which is why I actually prefer we have 2 villains tops, you go over than that and you tend to have to spread the screentime over those characters, thus decreasing the amount of development that goes into them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mask_(comics)karea07 said:I think that's the one... she shouldn't be in the movie.
Who's black mask?
E-Mack said:It's a waste of a villain then. Which is why I actually prefer we have 2 villains tops, you go over than that and you tend to have to spread the screentime over those characters, thus decreasing the amount of development that goes into them.
E-Mack said:Scarecrow was severely underused. I even felt that Ra's could've used more screentime as well.
BUT I realize this is an origin film, so it's understandable. I expect much more development going into the villains in the sequels.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with that.StorminNorman said:I dislike the idea of every movie all of Batman's troubles comes from a single pair of villians. Come on. If Gotham City is becoming a city full of freaks, then why not have it be a city full of freaks? Besides having a central plot, have other villians make appearances. Now Black Mask is such a villian that deserves to have a fair bit of screentime - like Two Face said, about as much as Scarecrow in BB, however I hope they are not afraid of throwing in smaller villians making cameo appearances.
Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to twist my words?StorminNorman said:- Batman should ALWAYS be the focus, not the villians.
E-Mack said:Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to twist my words?
I never said the focus shouldn't be Batman. That's plain idiotic and I'd feel slightly insulted if that statement wasn't so stupid.
BB felt like 85% Batman, and 15% villains. Like I said, for an origin film, that's FINE.
But with the origin outta the way, there's a bit more leeway to go into other characters as well. Not necessarily 50-50, but 65-35. Get it?
You guys are looking at things in my post that aren't even implied.Cinemaman said:It was much better than B89 with 45% for Batman and 55% for Joker, especially if there was only one villian.
E-Mack said:You guys are looking at things in my post that aren't even implied.
Yeah, BB handled things better than B89, but I also feel the villains should get more screentime now that the origin is finished.
That's....what I've been saying all along.Cinemaman said:Well, I think there should be a bit more villians stuff and action. But Batman should stay like the main character.
E-Mack said:I'm not exactly disagreeing with that.
Let me clarify a bit. With villains that have potential for a good story, I want the best screentime for them. Obviously, for the likes of someone like Penguin, Maroni, Falcone or whatever, a small role is justifiable. There's not much you can do for them.
Black Mask I think has very good potential. He's a mirror of Bruce in many ways, and they can play off that. So that's why I don't want too many villains here if possible.