I completely agree. The Joker came off more like The Riddler on more than one ocassion in TDK, and I can't imagine revisiting something like that. "Batman, choose between these two horrible scenarios, but be careful, because I'm probably trying to trick you." Been there, done that.
The Joker creating moral dilemmas for Batman is far different from him creating intellectual challenges and puzzles for him to unravel. How you confuse sadism and anarchy with the Riddler's behavior is beyond me. They're polar opposites.
Not only that, but who says that all Riddler is capable of is making Batman choose between two horrible scenarios?
Okay, so what sort of obstacles are we talking about, because I'm not seeing them in my head, and how do they work in Nolan's universe?
Riddles. The Riddler.. he uses
riddles. 
How does that
not work in Nolan's universe?
No doubt, it's a battle of wits, for sure. But he's still a smaller scale villain, at least in my eyes.
'Scale' is a matter of writing. He can be as big or small as Nolan wants him to be (see Scarecrow or Two-Face). Thing is, he has the potential to be very big, even though he commonly isn't. I don't see how that potential is missable, especially once the name 'Moriarty' is mentioned.
Outside of a more serious personality than the Joker, can't you see even in the slightest that Riddler setting up obstacles, would still be kinda like what Joker does in TDK setting up certain scenarios for Batman to overcome or try to overcome? It's repetative.
Any villain with an interest in directly challenging the hero is going to do that, Lung. Welcome to comics, welcome to superhero films. I could rattle off a number of characters that do it. It's a matter of how and why they go about it that makes it compelling. This sort of thing, I thought, was common sense for fans.
I am not being insulting. I'm just calling it like I see it in my eyes of why Riddler would still feel like dipping your feet in the same water.
You're generalizing him to do so, and that
is insulting, whether you intend the effect or not.
The details might be different, but there still similar enough in concept in the broad stroke of things to make it feel like retreading the same ground covered in TDK.
So I guess putting Venom in a Spider-man movie is pointless if they've already done Green Goblin because both characters antagonize the hero with hard choices and set up traps for them.
I can see why Nolan chose to go in another direction.
I'll reserve comment on that until I see
which direction he went in exactly.
Listen. I am not attacking you personally. That's my reaction or response to those characters and how I see them working (or not working I should say) in Nolan's universe. I am not being insulting.
I don't care whether you're trying to attack anyone personally or not, your angling is simply insulting. I just find it ironic that you expect to be heard out about the characters you want to promote when you brazenly generalize Riddler as a 'Joker clone' and say that Bane's only worthwhile quality is that he broke Batman's back once.
You're misrepresenting them and demeaning them.
So what obstacles do you see happening that aren't cartoonish?
Out of curiousity, I'd just like to take a second to ask you why you replied to the same post twice, but differently.
Secondly, why do you expect me to just whip up some brilliant bit of writing for a riddle scenario? Do you figure me to be a film writer? What's so hard about using your imagination on a very basic level to figure out that Riddler could have some pretty crazy riddles and such for Batman? Look at Nolan's other work, he's great at creating braintwisty, layered stuff. And none of it is 'cartoonish'. (I fail to see why you're even using that word in relation to a Nolan conceived Riddler. Truly baffling.) Riddler's a perfect fit for his style, his context of Batman.
The Moriarty angle means Riddler being Batman's equal or superior in intelect and thats fine. But what then?
What do you mean 'what then'?
Then they use that as a rough guideline for how to write the character in the film. Obviously.
I hear you saying staggering, but nothing screams original so far. So what does that mean in your view?
I don't even properly understand what you're saying here. This is phrased weirdly.
Gathering that you're asking what I mean by 'staggering', does Moriarty not stagger Holmes? Is the reader not impressed by their quarrel? It's
legendary. Surely Nolan can find a way to be original with it, just as he did with Joker. That bit should be the most obvious of all.
Branching from that thought about originality, I'm going to go ahead and assume from your responses that you're saying that you need the entire movie spelled out for you to understand why Riddler has potential. Not sure why you think I'm a writer or something, or why you have so much trouble with the word 'potential', much less do I understand why that's necessary to get the point across.
I also don't see why you keep generalizing him as only being capable of doing cartoony things. I'm gonna straight up tell you that that's stupid. Are you saying this because he was a loopy nutball in the 60's show? Or because he starred in a cartoon? (Even so, you'd be ignoring how he had some perfectly serious stories in that cartoon.) Please, do explain this.
