The Batman Spoiler Discussion Thread

[Mindreaper21]

The problem with using Scarecrow again so soon or in general is that there's not much variation there. It's basically the same idea of a whacko psychiatrist who tortures patients, spreading fear toxin in the city, ppl hallucinating, is captured and thrown into Arkham. It was all done in Batman Begins. Most of us would agree that it could be done better or creepier whatever. Sure. Age him up or change the costume. But it's still all the same ground covered by Nolan 15 years ago. It's like doing a remix as opposed to a new plot idea.

I doubt Reeves wants to do that. Which is a shame because he fits this universe so well. But what can you do differently that isn't superficial? The only way Crane would work in my eyes is if him or Mad Hatter are used in the intro of a sequel. Batman takes them down in the city and brings their ass to Arkham. Later in the movie Crane is there with other rogues and he's one of the many villains who has his time haunting Batman while he's trapped inside.

Actually, Scarecrow doesn’t have to be a whacko that tortures patients and spreading his fear toxin around the city. He could be studying how anxiety has risen in Gotham and the affects that the fear of Batman has on his patients. He’d use an early version on his patients to not only make himself seem more intimidating, but to see just how deep the fear of Batman goes. This could fascinate Scarecrow, because he has a fear of bats and he’d go after Batman as a way to not only conquer his fear, but he would get lost in his envy of wanting to become more fearful than Batman. After testing out stronger versions of the toxin on groups of people, gaining Batman’s attention, Scarecrow leads Batman into a trap to. After Scarecrow fails, he could unleash the patients of Arkham onto the city knowing that Batman fears losing the city he’s trying to protect and the citizens fear their safety. Especially after The Riddler.

 

[Mindreaper21]

Your description of Ivy sounds like a gimmick villain though. The florist who poisons ppl is just a gimmick type. I’d prefer her as a activist hippie who speaks many truths but her vision of what the world should be is unrealistic and mental.

She wouldn't be turning Gotham into something it's not. Gotham would already be f'd and she just wants it to stay that way. So you're not rehashing

What she says about society is right on the money, although what Pamela wants for Gotham is beyond irrational. We have too much communication with the outside world. We can barely access money without technology. The state of Gotham is no way to raise children. People have to work here. This makes her sound like a lunatic who needs help. Even if citizens COULD live like the way she's proposing, you wouldn't want to in disgusting Gotham City lol. You want Bruce to rise to the occasion and help his city.

So who would she target? She'd poison and try to seduce anyone who stands in her way. Batman is number one on that list so she'd have to be smart and use her skillset and natural beauty. She'd have her hippy followers who can disguise themselves well and infiltrate a government building or 1 percenter party and poison someone who wants to get Gotham back on track (Harvey?). Think of Rebecca Ferguson and her hippie cult in Doctor Sleep.

Your second paragraph...we’ve seen Riddler out in the wild. Time to keep him in Arkham. I’d also rather Joker make friends with new patients. Keep it going until the third movie.

What I meant about Ivy being a gimmick is her using plants to attack people, because a lot of her stories seemed to have become that. Ivy can be a florist as well as an environmentalist with the goal of wanting to protect the greenery that has grown and making Gotham a safer and beautiful place to live. Those that oppose her ideas and want to get rid of those plants and build more buildings would piss her off. Ivy would use her knowledge in plant poisons and kill them. It’s not too different from what I said, but it’s more thought out.

What do you believe would be a great climax for the second film. I’m trying not to think of this as “let’s throw these villains in, because we haven’t seen them” or “let’s have them, because they’re interesting”. I want to try an envision how we go from a flooded Gotham to an even more devastating event that leads to the Gotham we know and helps to shape Batman into the character he is to become.

 

[shauner111]

Why do you think the Joker is unlikely the main villain for the sequel?

It’s been done twice already. Reeves keeps talking about how he doesn’t want to repeat the past. This Joker doesn’t need to be the main villain imo. I hope he’s more like a demon who enjoys life in his own twisted way without a specific plan. He just ****s things up for ppl, manipulates, trolls, pranks, kills, repeat. No rhyme or reason. Even Heath had a plan, to prove something. If you can’t attach a plot to this new Joker then he’d be perfect as a supporting villain who just comes and goes.

 

[shauner111]

What I meant about Ivy being a gimmick is her using plants to attack people, because a lot of her stories seemed to have become that. Ivy can be a florist as well as an environmentalist with the goal of wanting to protect the greenery that has grown and making Gotham a safer and beautiful place to live. Those that oppose her ideas and want to get rid of those plants and build more buildings would piss her off. Ivy would use her knowledge in plant poisons and kill them. It’s not too different from what I said, but it’s more thought out.

What do you believe would be a great climax for the second film. I’m trying not to think of this as “let’s throw these villains in, because we haven’t seen them” or “let’s have them, because they’re interesting”. I want to try an envision how we go from a flooded Gotham to an even more devastating event that leads to the Gotham we know and helps to shape Batman into the character he is to become.

Fair point.

I’m not sure if I’d go with an “event” per say, to end the second film. But I personally don’t want the sequel to get too big. That’s what I worry about with the whole Poison Ivy thing. As intrigued as I am with Reeves possibly grounding that character after close to 30 years, and going Dawn of the Planet of the Apes on our ass...at the same time my knee jerk response is to keep it small and possibly go smaller if he can.

We don’t know how they follow up on the flood. Does it take place 8 months later in the summer? 13 months later in the winter? 2 or 3 years later? (Reeves like his time jumps). Are they still dealing with the flood or is it the aftermath? Is the population cut in half or the same?

Once you know the answers, then we can figure out the scope of the sequel and the villain. For now Poison Ivy is my number two or three favourite option but I have to go with PREY meets STRANGE APPARITIONS meets ARKHAM ORIGINS (a hint of of it) meets THE LONG HALLOWEEN/TWO FACE PT 1 (BTAS)

 

[Art Vandelay]

Don't you think most audiences would want Batman to face off against the Joker? Especially if this movie ends on a tease of him?

 

[AndyTrevino]

Don't you think most audiences would want Batman to face off against the Joker? Especially if this movie ends on a tease of him?

We're not talking about how they handled it in the first Suicide Squad movie.

But I do think he'd work best as part of an ensemble. My dream ensemble is a turf war between Two-Face and Penguin with Joker messing things up for both of them and/or wanting to be on top or wanting a piece for himself.

That way it's not only Joker who gets most of the spotlight. Penguin and Two-Face also need Batman's attention as well.

 

[Iceman]

We're not talking about how they handled it in the first Suicide Squad movie.

But I do think he'd work best as part of an ensemble. My dream ensemble is a turf war between Two-Face and Penguin with Joker messing things up for both of them and/or wanting to be on top or wanting a piece for himself.

That way it's not only Joker who gets most of the spotlight. Penguin and Two-Face also need Batman's attention as well.

That could be amazing if they could make it work. Love seeing how these villains react to each other.

 

[AndyTrevino]

That could be amazing if they could make it work. Love seeing how these villains react to each other.

I also reeeeally want Joker and Penguin to clash against each other especially since it'll be Barry and Colin working together again. Make it a KOASD reunion

 

[shauner111]

Don't you think most audiences would want Batman to face off against the Joker? Especially if this movie ends on a tease of him?

It’s not about what the audience wants. If that was the priority then every single Batman movie should and would be a Batsy vs Joker storyline. The priority should be and in this case WILL be “where does the story go from here?”. It’s not naivety about the industry either, because Matt Reeves has control over where the story goes. Joker will be in a sequel no doubt but if Reeves doesn’t want him as the main villain, it won’t happen. Story should come first over audience thirst. Luckily Reeves is setting this up where you can have your Joker if you want him but he can use him sparingly if he chooses to.

 

[shauner111]

People might think a Joker scene is the filmmaker setting up J as the next villain. But I’m sure the intention is to show a rogues gallery forming. It’s not about Joker, it’s about the collective and what it means for the future of the city. Not some villain of the week situation.

 

[C Prometheus]

People might think a Joker scene is the filmmaker setting up J as the next villain. But I’m sure the intention is to show a rogues gallery forming. It’s not about Joker, it’s about the collective and what it means for the future of the city. Not some villain of the week situation.

I agree with this. It really seems clear to me that Reeves is building up a Rogues Gallery of some sort that will be developing and interacting with each other over the course of the next two films- and there's a reason IMO why he started with the core four members of the 1966 tv show.

However I will say that I highly doubt that there won't ever come a time in Reeves' trilogy where Joker doesn't take center stage against Batman. Even if it's not for an entire film, you do need to establish that the Joker is Bruce's ultimate foe and explore why. Personally I think the best way to do that would be for him to slowly become more central a player in the third film and culminate to being the Final Threat a la Mask of the Phantasm's third act.

 

[shauner111]

I agree. It’s going to be a huge buildup and on the road to that third movie, we’ll see the rogues gallery become familiar with each other. More criminals will enter Arkham and they’ll probably blame Batman for it. Wouldn’t it be awesome if Two-Face or another villain lures Batman to Arkham and traps him in there with Joker and the rest of the criminally insane that he locked up?

 

[Luke995]

I think the coolest way to use Joker in all the trilogy and in a new way from the past, is this.
You keep him in Arkham for the second movie and build his relationship with Batman in a Clarice-Lecter way from The Silence of lambs, with others main villains. At the end of the second movie he escapes and creates his Clown Gang.
In the third movie, as a climax of the entire trilogy, in the third act or in the second middle of the movie, you force Batman to enter in Arkham just in "Arkham Asylum" comic, with the Joker as the leader of the rebellion of the rogues.

It's an idea, but on the other hand I would like to have a growth of Bruce, so a trilogy which tells a story with jumps of 3 - 5 years, with Grayson and so on...

However, what I can see, like you guys said well, I feel that this trilogy will have movies more linked between them, with more regular characters who have an evolution.

So, more like Star Wars OT, The Bourne Trilogy or The Godfather's and less like Nolan's Batman or James Bond.

 

[Boom]

Something akin to ASHOSE is a perfect way to use Joker if you don't want to make him the main villain.

 

[emielaen]

I think the coolest way to use Joker in all the trilogy and in a new way from the past, is this.
You keep him in Arkham for the second movie and build his relationship with Batman in a Clarice-Lecter way from The Silence of lambs, with others main villains.

Without a doubt. It'd immediately subvert what people are already going to expect w the sequel when Joker has his little Arkham cameo here.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I think the coolest way to use Joker in all the trilogy and in a new way from the past, is this.
You keep him in Arkham for the second movie and build his relationship with Batman in a Clarice-Lecter way from The Silence of lambs, with others main villains. At the end of the second movie he escapes and creates his Clown Gang.
In the third movie, as a climax of the entire trilogy, in the third act or in the second middle of the movie, you force Batman to enter in Arkham just in "Arkham Asylum" comic, with the Joker as the leader of the rebellion of the rogues.

So, wait, the Joker is back in Arkham Asylum for the third movie?

I get not wanting him to hog the spotlight, but I'd rather he not be stuck in Arkham not really doing anything. It's different, but also sounds like a major waste of the character.

 

[AndyTrevino]

So, wait, the Joker is back in Arkham Asylum for the third movie?

I get not wanting him to hog the spotlight, but I'd rather he not be stuck in Arkham not really doing anything. It's different, but also sounds like a major waste of the character.

That's kinda how it goes in most stories. He escapes, wreaks havoc and takes hundreds of lives at a time, gets beat up by Batman, thrown in Arkham, and the cycle repeats itself.

 

[Art Vandelay]

That's kinda how it goes in most stories. He escapes, wreaks havoc and takes hundreds of lives at a time, gets beat up by Batman, thrown in Arkham, and the cycle repeats itself.

Yeah, but here we're proposing an entire movie with him locked up. And honestly, I'm not sure I see the appeal of using Arkham at all. It's a single location, with the villains stuck in their cells. Are you guys really itching for a comic book take on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

Also, why do we assume Reeves has free reign to do whatever he wants? Sam Raimi Had to include Venom in Spider-Man 3 when he didn't want to, if the studio wants more Joker, you're getting more Joker.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, but here we're proposing an entire movie with him locked up. And honestly, I'm not sure I see the appeal of using Arkham at all. It's a single location, with the villains stuck in their cells. Are you guys really itching for a comic book take on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

Also, why do we assume Reeves has free reign to do whatever he wants? Sam Raimi Had to include Venom in Spider-Man 3 when he didn't want to, if the studio wants more Joker, you're getting more Joker.

Because he does have free reign. You’re comparing two studios. The man already walked once when they didn’t give him full control. We’ll know if something sketchy comes up.

What you said about Cuckoo’s Nest in Arkham sounds fantastic. But the way to go about it is ASHOSE. But I don’t expect a full movie to go that route.

Don’t see the appeal of using Arkham at all? Huh? It’s one of the most fascinating and creepy things about the mythology. It’s been severely lacking in live-action. Give me an Arkham show as a period piece while they’re at it.

 

[emielaen]

I imagine Arkham will play into the GCPD show in some capacity given the working title.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Don’t see the appeal of using Arkham at all? Huh? It’s one of the most fascinating and creepy things about the mythology. It’s been severely lacking in live-action. Give me an Arkham show as a period piece while they’re at it.

But what do these characters do while they're in there? Maybe if it were like Oz, where security is so lax that inmates can murder each other left and right, but personally I'd rather these characters out on the street.

 

[Luke995]

Without a doubt. It'd immediately subvert what people are already going to expect w the sequel when Joker has his little Arkham cameo here.

Exactly.
Reeves is familiar with taking structure from other movies: he did with the third Apes movie (Apocalypse Now) and now he is doing with Batman (probably mostly Se7en).

Plus, when you use Riddler like a mashup between Zodiac, John Doe and - in some way - Ledger's Joker, you are forced to do something different with other villains and with Joker himself.

I mean, I don't think all of this trilogy will have serial killers, there will be some variations (like in Nolan's movies: we have three terrorists - Ra's, Joker, Bane - but in three different ways).
So, a way to do it is to have a villain similar to Buffalo Bill, a kidnapper/killer with a particular scheme, and the Joker as an ambiguous character that Batman is forced to ask for help.

Yeah, Joker is mysterious and he works better without a real origins story, BUT we know the bond between him and Batman is interesting and, plus, he is a character that, after Ledger and Phoenix, is more then ever a cult figure who generates a kind of empathy and fascination.
So, what a better way to exalt and improve it than making him an enigmatic character like Lecter in TSOL?

So, wait, the Joker is back in Arkham Asylum for the third movie?

Yeah. I meant that he escapes, stays around for some time (years) and at the end of the first act or in the midpoint of the third movie he is caught and put in Arkham.

There, he could create a psychotic show/game like the one he creates in Killing Joke for Gordon with Barbara.

Imagine it: what if Joker kidnaps Robin inside Arkham and forces Batman to face up with all Rogue Gallery like ASHOSE to save him?

It would be an amazing climax and closure of a trilogy about a man growing and trying to not surrender to his madness.

And, plus (and here I close this long post), you use Joker in a fresh way, not as a terrorist (it would be repetitive after Riddler and Ledger's Joker) but as a sadistic showman who doesn't want to "watch the world burn" but wants to turn his crimes into artworks and horrible psychological spectacles.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

Maybe it's petty of me, but I'm a little miffed that yet again, we're not getting a Wayne Manor + BatCave combo. It's one of my favourite aesthetic aspects of Batman.

We haven't had a live action Batman routinely functioning out of Wayne Manor that sits above a fully functional BatCave since 1997. That's 24 years.

(Nolan's "BatCave" in Rises doesn't really count, here. It had a computer and a closet - not really the fully functional BatCave I'm getting at, here. And he used it for 2 brief scenes.)

Not having Wayne Manor + BatCave is one thing the last 3 Batman directors seem to be in agreeance on.

Nolan and Snyder also really loved the idea of a burnt down Wayne Manor.

 

[Luke995]

Maybe it's petty of me, but I'm a little miffed that yet again, we're not getting a Wayne Manor + BatCave combo. It's one of my favourite aesthetic aspects of Batman.

We haven't had a live action Batman routinely functioning out of Wayne Manor that sits above a fully functional BatCave since 1997. That's 24 years.

(Nolan's "BatCave" in Rises doesn't really count, here. It had a computer and a closet - not really the fully functional BatCave I'm getting at, here.)

Not having Wayne Manor + BatCave is one thing the last 3 Batman directors seem to be in agreeance on.

Nolan and Snyder also really loved the idea of a burnt down Wayne Manor.

I totally agree.
Even if I think, in this particular movie, the idea of a "cave" turned in subway tunnel fits very well with the concept that Batman is a product of Gotham and he is going to delve into the secret and corrupted past of the city.

I hope in the sequels we'll have a sort of combo Manor/Cave as you say.

 

[Robbypattypats]

Am I missing something? Pages 50-55 or whatever are just a barrage of questions for shauner and everyone going “yoooo that sounds dope” but the answers are nowhere to be found lol

really curious to what he supposedly “dropped” that started all of this