• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

The Dark Knight Rises The "Nolan's views on Batman villains" thread

The Batman

The Dark Knight
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
25,170
Reaction score
3,262
Points
103
As you know, Nolan views most Batman villains as watered down Jokers. Since we dont want this argument invading the Bane thread again, lets put that debate here. Do you agree with that opinion? Disagree? Think that his words were misinterpreted?

Nolans views raise questions for me. Does he see Mr. Freeze or Penguin as watered down archetypes as well? Does he view Poison Ivy as a watered down
Catwoman?
 
I think he said he didn't want a "watered down version of the Joker", in reference to The Riddler, who to some extent could be viewed in that way.
 
^ he then said in a later interview that he views most batvillains as watered down versions of joker
 
I think it's true for a few, especially Black Mask and to a point The Riddler, but characters like The Penguin, just for example, are nothing like The Joker.

He didn't say they were all watered down Jokers anyway, he just felt a lot were, and considering he didn't want The Riddler, I'm guessing he feels that specifically about him, which I can understand.

We don't have any way of having any idea what he thinks about Mr. Freeze, Penguin, or Poison Ivy, and I think it's overanalyzing his comment a little, considering he was only talking about a villain to follow The Joker who wasn't too similar to him.
 
I think the quote has been taken gravely out of context. I'm sure Chris know that there are villains within the Bat-universe that are not like The Joker at all.
 
I think he made a generalized statement about the villains that was never meant to be over analyzed.
 
Here's the actual quote to read in its proper context.
Christopher Nolan said:
Bane is primarily a physical presence," Nolan continued. "He's threatening in a monstrous way and very frightening in a physical way, and that's why we went for him. We didn't want to do any kind of watered down version of the Joker, which a lot of those characters are, and we really found something in him. He's got incredible intelligence as well and a really fascinating backstory that we were able to draw elements from into our story. I'm very excited for the world to see what Tom Hardy has done with this, because he's created this unbelievably unique character.
"A lot" =/= "most." The point he was making was that he wanted to use a character that was absolutely nothing like the Joker. This topic is much ado about nothing.
 
^Agreed.
I took it as a way of promoting Bane more than anything else - like a boxing promoter - "Those other guys aint got ***** on my boy".
 
Last edited:
To me, EVERY villain is shares the same views being the villains they are and racketing up to destroy Gotham and Batman. Take the joker for example:

[YT]-QhiZg5jy-w[/YT]
"Got a statement from one who survived, said it was this Joker character for sure...said he didn't even look at them, like killing them wasn't even important." -Man Who Laughs

Meanwhile Bane:

bane06.jpg


We can't deny sociophath archetypes can sound the same or as you say "watered down versions of the Joker," but when comparing to Bane taking another life to this bulky brute was just another step closer to defeating Batman; both may seem joyous as well to them, but Bane is tactical and will strategize a flawless and un-time consuming plan. Joker is random and will do anything that would comes to mind; once he captures the car, he doesn't know what to do with it next. LOL

So you could say Joker is free-willed and random while the other is far more organized and objective driven. This argument can go on eons at a time, but it's all just a matter of opinion really. What I can't get past is that after Heath Ledger's Joker, every other villain is considered just a knock off or more less fascinating version of this. He did a TREMENDOUS job and no one's a bigger fan of the Joker or Heath Ledger like myself, but just because he set the bar doesn't mean he's the only who can do it.
 
I think Nolan is much more mindful of the source-material than that. If anything, him choosing The Joker had more to do with that damned clown being "The Greatest" of them all, not necessarily the culmination of them all.

I mean, this is the same guy who's used... Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul, Henri Ducard, The Roman Falcone, Maroni, Zsaz, Two-Face, and Catwoman before moving onto Bane.

I loved that last interview where Nolan was talking about these villains having some sort of "archetype". It made me glad and sad at the same time -- on one hand with Bane we have someone who doesn't fall into the same ground as any other bad-guy from the gallery, but on the other... because he mentions archetypes... I just want to see his interpretations of every one else. But that's pushing it. :D

I'm glad we see Selina Kyle though. You can't have a Batman trilogy without mentioning Catwoman!
 
I disagree with the notion that all of them come from the same archetype, or that which archetype they fall into is a matter of opinion... unfortunately, the comics do tend to stick to certain 'types' over the decades when tackling these characters, so they can be at the very least be categorised. Bane will still be the hulking brute/doomsday monster no matter how intelligent he is. The trick for Nolan or anyone writing Batman would be to round-off that archetype in a way that the character--within the context of the story-- isn't reduced to it.
 
To me, EVERY villain is shares the same views being the villains they are and racketing up to destroy Gotham and Batman. Take the joker for example:

[YT]-QhiZg5jy-w[/YT]
"Got a statement from one who survived, said it was this Joker character for sure...said he didn't even look at them, like killing them wasn't even important." -Man Who Laughs

Meanwhile Bane:

bane06.jpg


We can't deny sociophath archetypes can sound the same or as you say "watered down versions of the Joker," but when comparing to Bane taking another life to this bulky brute was just another step closer to defeating Batman; both may seem joyous as well to them, but Bane is tactical and will strategize a flawless and un-time consuming plan. Joker is random and will do anything that would comes to mind; once he captures the car, he doesn't know what to do with it next. LOL

So you could say Joker is free-willed and random while the other is far more organized and objective driven. This argument can go on eons at a time, but it's all just a matter of opinion really. What I can't get past is that after Heath Ledger's Joker, every other villain is considered just a knock off or more less fascinating version of this. He did a TREMENDOUS job and no one's a bigger fan of the Joker or Heath Ledger like myself, but just because he set the bar doesn't mean he's the only who can do it.


I actually don't think the Joker is all that random. He was lying about being a dog chasing cars to manipulate Dent. He does have an objective for everything he does (from prologue to the boat scene): point out how everybody is evil/crazy on the inside and that civilization is just a big joke.
 
I'd love to see his explanation for how Poison Ivy, Clayface, Solomon Grundy, Ras Al Ghul, Talia Al Ghul, Killer Croc, Hush, Man-Bat, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Deadshot, Firefly, Zsaz, Red Hood (Jason Todd), are all watered down versions of Joker.

:oldrazz:
 
I'd love to see his explanation for how Poison Ivy, Clayface, Solomon Grundy, Ras Al Ghul, Talia Al Ghul, Killer Croc, Hush, Man-Bat, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Deadshot, Firefly, Zsaz, Red Hood (Jason Todd), are all watered down versions of Joker.

:oldrazz:

The threat that villains beyond those already employed by the Nolans would seem miniscule compared to Joker's antics in TDK. That is how the majority of those not yet used and never to be used by Nolan are watered down Jokers.
 
That's not what he meant. He meant that their personalities were just more tame versions of him. Like Riddler, for instance.
 
That's not what he meant. He meant that their personalities were just more tame versions of him. Like Riddler, for instance.

Their personality is the driving factor in their plots, schemes, plans, what have you. Hence, it is what he meant.
 
But none of the villains I mentioned have a personality ANYTHING LIKE JOKER'S.
 
But none of the villains I mentioned have a personality ANYTHING LIKE JOKER'S.

They all have some rage directed at an authority figure based on a possibly tragic past. Joker's stories implied that in TDK, though they sounded different each time. That common thread was present beneath the morphing veneer.
 
When did he say he viewed most of Batman's villains as watered down Jokers?

I personally think Riddler is a bit of a reworked Joker who is much smaller in scale, so if that means "watered down," I guess so. There are plenty of similar villains, Scarecrow and Mad Hatter, Penguin and Black Mask and Scarface, arguably Catwoman and Poison Ivy (at least in early incarnations...they've both changed greatly since).

However, all of them being The Joker? Only The Riddler strikes me as evidently similar and considering Nolan has found room to use Ra's Al Ghul, Two-Face, Bane, Catwoman and Scarecrow--none of whom are remotely similar to The Joker and the only one of whom I feel he's taken major liberties with is Bane--I really don't see the point.

But I do think there are plenty of repetitive threats and story conventions used in Batman tales. I think if one imagines Nolan doing Riddler, it would look too similar to Joker. Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Clayface are too fantastical for this film series. Mad Hatter is not big enough in scope and repeats Scarecrow. You can't do Harley Quinn without Joker. There is only so much of the A-list left at that point.
 
They all have some rage directed at an authority figure based on a possibly tragic past.

Replace 'authority figure' with 'crime' and you get almost EVERY SUPERHERO EVER MADE.

It's such a vague description.
 
Replace 'authority figure' with 'crime' and you get almost EVERY SUPERHERO EVER MADE.

It's such a vague description.

How?:huh:

@DA CROWE: Initially it was Riddler he said was a watered down Joker. He was never in the considerations for a role in the third movie.
 
...can you actually see someone like the penguin or the ventriloquist walking those stairs to confront batman when you see the trailer? other besides bane? I think I understand the point Nolan is trying to come across:

1- he couldn't use the riddler in TDKR since he's very reminiscent of the joker.
2- batman needed a new threat, someone more powerful physically but also very intelligent.
 
Not to sound like a dick, but if you reallllly crave the more fantastical of Batman's villians portrayed in a serious and respectful way, watch BTAS. I doubt Nolan could do many of the villians better justice then the animated series crew.

In respect to his comments, Nolan was correct in his statement that the Riddler is a watered down Joker. I've never come across an interview where he said *all* of the villians are like that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"