The Dark Knight Rises Should Scarecrow Return In TDKR???

[The Chris]

Not really. I mean what's the point other than pleasing some fans. I mean for TDK there was definitely a reason, which was he was still on the loose. He's been caught. Lets move on.

 

[kid dropper]

well, i just love him(the character and the actor), hes a nice element to tie all the films together, and i want to see him reach full supercriminal potential, one last worthy villainous hurrah, just a little step up from the whole "slangin fear-dust out of the windowless van" (a low place weve all been to, at least i have)

 

[Octoberist]

I just want Cillian in. I feel like he's the world's most underrated actor for no reason. He's got the looks, the talent, and he's Irish. I swear, what's the deal?

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

I just want Cillian in. I feel like he's the world's most underrated actor for no reason. He's got the looks, the talent, and he's Irish. I swear, what's the deal?

Maybe he has crappy agents or he only acts just enough to live a good life and not have to worry about the cons of fame and fortune.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I think a great idea to incorporate him in would be that if you go with the Penguin as an armsdealer, I could see Scarecrow working for Penguin or Black Mask supplying them with a toxic nerve-agent; a newer, conventionalized version of his fear serum, only this time the hallucinations feel much realer and people jactitate and thrash about, feeling as if they are about to die.

Some people committ suicide either by gunshot, leaping off a roof, or doing the unthinkable---burning themself alive, you name it.

 

[H47]

I think other villains should be given a chance. So I voted:

No, Scarecrow shouldn't return.

 

[Ethermatic]

While I've enjoyed Cillian Murphy's Crane/Scarecrow thus far, I'm not sure he's really needed anymore. I'm not opposed to a return, but only if it's a more necessary role than what was shown in The Dark Knight. If he's somehow part of the story, like he was in Batman Begins. But, mostly, I'd prefer to see new villains and see how that goes.

 

[Hooded Justice]

I don't think Scarecrow should return, not after the crappy way they handled him in The Dark Knight.

 

[TwilightPro101]

No, Scarecrow shouldn't return.

 

[The Guard]

Scarecrow was passable in BEGINS.

He was a joke in THE DARK KNIGHT, and I don't think Murphy even bothered to act.

I don't want to see how much lower they can go with him.

Leave him out of it.

 

[Rincewind]

There is no point to bring him back. He escaped at the end of BB and was captured at the beginning of TDK - end of story, move on.

 

[jordanasmith]

bring the Scarecrow back...

 

[El Payaso]

It's too late for Scarecrow.

He has been reduced to the "involuntarily funny" character of this franchise. He was a joke in BB and he was almost non existent in TDK.

He has been portrayed as the most inept villiain ever and therefore there's no reason to bring him back just to show the world how damn easy is to catch him.

 

[kid dropper]

Man hes gotta be seen. I dont think he is that much of a joke, i simply think its a realisitic portrayal of a lifelong bookworm suddenly taking to a life of crime. Hell get it right, maybe he could show up again, and really have his **** together, be pulling off something major and dastardly. As for the whole windowless van narcotics enterprise, im impressed he was even able to get that together, considering the condition he was in when last seen in BB (half-insane, tazed in the face, dragged through asphalt streets by a frightened horse) At the beginning of TDK we are witnessing the meager start of his full-time criminal career, he no longer has a day gig to fall back on, he's a wanted man and he's making it up from the start. Id also like him to be there as a background element linking the films, like Albert Popwell being in virtually all the Dirty Harrys (albeit playing different roles each time)

 

[mjbull23]

Nah, I've seen enough of him. There are plenty of other villains to be seen, so let's move away from Scarecrow.

 

[Jick]

I'd like to have Scarecrow just for the sake of it, but a bigger role than TDK wouldn't hurt.

 

[8wid]

Too overcome by his own toxin, Scarecrow exists as a psychopathic pawn in Ridder's secret trap to bring in the Batman.

 

[Ethermatic]

Honestly, I voted I don't really care.

I enjoy Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow and I feel that if he can do something rewarding in a third film, I'm down. If he can't, I'm down with not seeing him, too.

I don't get the sense that he was a joke, though I'd say he could have been a tad more memorable in The Dark Knight.

And if you think he's "the most inept villain ever" or "involuntarily funny," I think you should see some more films.

 

[El Payaso]

Man hes gotta be seen. I dont think he is that much of a joke, i simply think its a realisitic portrayal of a lifelong bookworm suddenly taking to a life of crime.

Which is a joke. Realistically a lifelong bookworm suddenly taking to a life of crime would stink. As depicted by Nolan, an average girl with a tazer could beat him. That being the case, I'd have made him a more dangerous character so it could have ended up having some dignity as a villiain.

Hell get it right, maybe he could show up again, and really have his **** together, be pulling off something major and dastardly.

It's possible. But would still be hilarious to see him trying and trying again (and failing so quickly and miserably). Scarecrow would be the Wile E. Coyote-type of villiain in this franchise.

As for the whole windowless van narcotics enterprise, im impressed he was even able to get that together, considering the condition he was in when last seen in BB (half-insane, tazed in the face, dragged through asphalt streets by a frightened horse)

You're right. And that's some incoherence I noticed in BB. Crane got fear-gassed, as all of his victims. But whereas the victims just get scared of everything and useless people (like Falcone) forever, he became a villiain that is not afraid of things.

At the beginning of TDK we are witnessing the meager start of his full-time criminal career, he no longer has a day gig to fall back on, he's a wanted man and he's making it up from the start.

And his brilliant career on crime lasts for like 4 minutes. That's what I call a joke of a villiain.

And if you think he's "the most inept villain ever" or "involuntarily funny," I think you should see some more films.

Sure, it was an hyperbole. I'm aware that Otis (Luthor's henchman) is even more inept, but at least he was meant to be comedic. But what other inept villiains are there (in a serious tome like Scarecreow was meant to be) amyway?

 

[kid dropper]

Well who knows what he'd accomplished in between BB and TDK. apparently he'd been successfully profiting off the fleecing of drug dealers, (probably among other things, i mean he had his own gang I assume he made enough money to pay them) before Batman finally catches up to him, as Batman does everyone eventually. Remember, theres been about a year thats passed in between BB and TDK.

 

[kid dropper]

And is the Joker "inept" because he was eventually apprehended by Batman?Getting shot in the face with an electric tazer is just as insurmountable and beyond your control as getting shot in the face with projectile gauntlet blades.

 

[namtaB]

Please no. He was such a waste in TDK. The scarecrow was a fantastic sadist in BB made even creepier with his whole dialogue to Rachel about the mind giving you power within the walls of Arkham. To think that his last appearance on screen was the pathetic throw away line "Not my diagnosis" is very very sad. Its one reason why I'm against the recast of the Joker. I don't want all the horror Joker committed in TDK getting diluted by a throw away line and appearance in Batman 3 the same way they did Scarecrow in TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

Well who knows what he'd accomplished in between BB and TDK. apparently he'd been successfully profiting off the fleecing of drug dealers, (probably among other things, i mean he had his own gang I assume he made enough money to pay them) before Batman finally catches up to him, as Batman does everyone eventually. Remember, theres been about a year thats passed in between BB and TDK.

It'd be a good thing to have focused on that successful part of his career instead of on how easy is to take him down.

And is the Joker "inept" because he was eventually apprehended by Batman?Getting shot in the face with an electric tazer is just as insurmountable and beyond your control as getting shot in the face with projectile gauntlet blades.

Well, there's a difference between being beaten by Batman himself after a long period of time (and after having done all what Joker did, blowing up a hospital, killing a judge, the police commissioner, Batman's girl, etc etc) and to be tazed off the map by a girl after 4 minutes of having become a villiain. Jonathan crane took all Batman Begins to finally become Scarecrow... and he got his face tazed immediately by an average girl, in hte middle of one of his hollow "fear" speeches.

So no, Joker did far more damage to everyone before Batman himself had to take him down with a absolutely specific weapon nobody else has. Scarecrow barely did anything when an average girl took him down with a weapon everybody can buy. Joker even prove his point after his capture when Harvey Dent was corrupted into a killer. When Scarecrow was tazed, his threat was gone. And when he started to become a menace again, he was once again beaten in no time. When Joker escaped jail he once again had the city in his hand.

Big difference between them.

 

[Majik1387]

Definitely bring him back.

 

[hatebox]

People complaining he was 'wasted' in TDK seem to think he was intended as having a significant role in the first place. He obviously wasn't. It was simply a little nod to Begins, highlighting that yes this is the same world, Batman has been having an effect and for once we actually have some continuity in a Batman sequel.