The Dark Knight Rises What Do You NOT want to see in Batman 3?

[ALittlePush]

Having a female villain would just make the third film a lot less dark, as we haven't seen a good and decent Batman film that can handle a female villain, and plus a female villain in a dark comic-book series just as this, I can't see it working out extremely well. One reason why Nolan didn't care to add in Harley Quinn.

I think it was better to introduce Joker first and then have Harley Quinn appear. However, as Joker will not be reappearing, her chances of appearing are slim. Although she could still appear in some capacity, maybe have her as part of a group that is inspired by and idolises the Joker and then towards the end of the film, have her revealed to be the Joker's new psychologist because he killed the old one or something.

Female villains can work just as well as male ones.

 

[maenalus]

I don't want to see Harley Quinn.

And I know I wont, so me happy.

 

[TheBatman072]

We have a better chance of seeing Crazy Quilt than Harley Quinn now that the Joker is out.

Which I'm fine with. She's a great character but...eh.

 

[LightningFlash]

Female villains can work just as well as male ones.

I'm not sexist or anything, but what I've been in comic-book adaptions...female villains don't look like they work out, lol. And this is coming from a guy who didn't like Batman Returns, so, pretty much every female villain was a 'no-no' in my perspective.

 

[ico]

A female villain done right could work, and I believe if anybody can do it right it's Nolan.

 

[Rodrigo90]

With all your respect,LightningFlash. Catwoman isnt just ANY female villain you know.

Youre not given the character enough credit. You really have to look past your views on female villains,cause she is certainly not a typical one.

 

[baleheadbrasil]

This.

And just because during the conversation between Ra's and Bruce in Wayne Manor, it made it sound like Ducard just became the successor. And, in a way, it can also deal with how there is always a living Ra's al Ghul leading the LoS without a usage of the Lazarus Pit plot device.

Exact...so Ra´s Al Ghul has the total chance to be in the 3rd movie.
Not only him but his daughter too.
Lazarus Pit wouldn´t need to be used to bring Ras back and wouldn´t run away from realism suggested by Nolan.

 

[baleheadbrasil]

No, it really won't. No more than adding the fake Batmen did. Just like it didn't take away any "dark and gritty" away from BTAS.

And do you have any idea how huge the internet nerd hatewave would be if Nolan gave us Selina Kyle for a whole movie and NOT Catwoman?

If you have Selina, you need Catwoman. Simple as that.

Not necessarily ... Nolan could just make an introduction of Catwoman simply.
For example she could appear in the whole movie just as Selina, and in the end she could show up as Catwoman.

 

[LightningFlash]

Ehh, maybe after seeing two Catwomans and a Poison Ivy, I have no faith on Batman's female villains, lol.

Plus, both of them use their "assets" towards Batman instead of being true villains, which is another thing that would make a dark Nolan film less dark and more campy.

 

[ico]

Two Catwomen? Batman Returns and?...

 

[ModestMr.Green]

I don't know about you guys, but I never got the impression that Ducard was Ken Watanabe's successor to the al Ghul role at all. What I drew from that conversation was that Watanabe and the man who appeared at Wayne Manor were figure heads, while Ducard was always the true Ra's.

'Or cheap parlour tricks to conceal your true identity, Ra's.'

'You burned my house and left me for dead.'

Things like that.

 

[Rodrigo90]

5 years...and that part still confuses the hell outta me,lol.

 

[ico]

I'm with Mr Greeny. I thought it was pretty easy to follow.

 

[ALittlePush]

I'm not sexist or anything, but what I've been in comic-book adaptions...female villains don't look like they work out, lol. And this is coming from a guy who didn't like Batman Returns, so, pretty much every female villain was a 'no-no' in my perspective.

Some female villains work. For example, Mystique in the X-Men. The only female villains used so far in Batman have been Catwoman and Poison Ivy. There are more female villains in the Batman mythos that haven't yet been used.

Ehh, maybe after seeing two Catwomans and a Poison Ivy, I have no faith on Batman's female villains, lol.

Plus, both of them use their "assets" towards Batman instead of being true villains, which is another thing that would make a dark Nolan film less dark and more campy.

Catwoman was the only female in Batman Returns, so they were going to have her use her "assets" in order to provide the sex factor for the film. Batman Returns was still a dark film.

The less said about the Catwoman that wasn't Catwoman the better.

Batman and Robin was a crap campy film overall, the fact that it had a female villain had no bearing on that. Batman Forever is often considered campy and that had two male villains.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I'm with Mr Greeny. I thought it was pretty easy to follow.

I never understood,"...and left me for dead" Being kept in the company of that elderly man was bad for Ducard?

I interpret him saying it in regards to Watanabe. In words...

Ra's Al Ghul is an immortal figure to each head of TLOS,they 'channel' Ra's ' spirit. Each leader takes on the role and personality of him. Wantanabe WAS the head,he died and Ducard took on the role.

So when he said that,hes speaking on behalf of Ra's in Wantanabe. Confusing as it is.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

I never understood,"...and left me for dead" Being kept in the company of that elderly man was bad for Ducard?

I interpret him saying it in regards to Watanabe. In words...

Ra's Al Ghul is an immortal figure to each head of TLOS,they 'channel' Ra's ' spirit. Each leader takes on the role and personality of him. Wantanabe WAS the head,he died and Ducard took on the role.

So when he said that,hes speaking on behalf of Ra's in Wantanabe. Confusing as it is.

That, or, Bruce never stayed behind to ensure that his mentor was alive and well, merely leaving his body in safe hands. Left for dead. Besides, if your theory is true, there would have been no need for the 'third' Ra's introduced at Wayne Manor.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I think that was meant to show Bruce that Ducard himself was the new Ra's,and obviously to trick him. It was clearly a shock for Bruce.

 

[DieSmiling]

Neeson was always the true Ra's. Watanabe was always the fake.

This seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Why would their need to be a decoy anyway? The way Ducard acted later seemed he had indeed taken on the role of Ra's from Watanabe.

 

[LightningFlash]

Two Catwomen? Batman Returns and?...

Halle Berry.

Even if she was an "anti-hero" kind of character for Catwoman...it was just as bad as BR's Catwoman, lol.

Catwoman was the only female in Batman Returns, so they were going to have her use her "assets" in order to provide the sex factor for the film. Batman Returns was still a dark film.

The less said about the Catwoman that wasn't Catwoman the better.

Batman and Robin was a crap campy film overall, the fact that it had a female villain had no bearing on that. Batman Forever is often considered campy and that had two male villains.

^^^ Well, my reasoning for Batman Forever was that Jim Carrey was trying to act like a woman, lol.


And...I say Ducard just became the new Ra's al Ghul.

There would be no reason for Ducard to create a decoy anyways.

Was he psychic about knowing that Wayne would become a hero and kill the decoy? No.

 

[maenalus]

The decoys are just plot devices to build up mystery and suspense. Like most plot devices, if you think about it to much, it wont make sense.

EDIT: DUH! As soon as I posted this I remembered that the decoys are for assassinations, as powerful men throughout history have employed them.

 

[ico]

Halle Berry.

Even if she was an "anti-hero" kind of character for Catwoman...it was just as bad as BR's Catwoman, lol.

Oh lord, I forgot all about Halle Berry's "Catwoman". In time hopefully I can block it out again, ha.

As for Ra's again, I thought it was obvious that Ducard was always Ra's. The decoys were just there to distract attention away from potential threats, decoys have long been used for this exact same reason throughout history.

 

[Rodrigo90]

If Ra's ever shows up again,then it will most certainly be somebody else who takes on the role. Ducard took it on after Watanabe died.

Watanabe was Ra's,he must have took it on from his leader before him.
Ducard took on the role and personality of Ra's. He probably hoped Bruce would take it on after him.
The decoy was used as tactic of trick,like what Bruce did to Ducard in his training.

 

[TheBatman072]

Ken Watanabe was not Ra's. It's been five ****ing years guys.

"Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity Ra's?"

That line means that Liam Neeson was Ra's all along, and Watanabe was basically an Ubu. A decoy for would be assassins.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Ken Watanabe was not Ra's. It's been five ****ing years guys.

"Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity Ra's?"

That line means that Liam Neeson was Ra's all along, and Watanabe was basically an Ubu. A decoy for would be assassins.

And what do I not want to see in B3? Simple:

Robin Williams.