• 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 What was the WEAKEST portrayal of a comic character in TDK

Well, they better are. Otherwise why do we need a costumed well-trained vigilante? Now, if the villiain has some humour like the Joker, it's okay, but Scarecrow was a disservice. He was a comedic relief when comedic reliefs are totally out of place.
Why? There are tons of throw aside villains in comics. The X-Men weren't formed because The Toad was an international menace. The Autobots aren't locked in an enternal battle with Rumble and Frenzy. There are villains in comics which are not supposed to be massive threats to the hero, Scarecrow always seemed like one of those villains to me. Like the Mad Hatter and Penguin it seemed to me like he fell into that crowd of villains that simply did not pose the threat posed by Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, Two-Face and the Riddler. So, IMO, I thought Nolan's use and portrayal of him were very good. My only minor gripes would be his costume, which was very muted, and how short he was (I imagine with a costume, this wouldn't have bothered me). I really like the fact that Nolan opened The Dark Knight with a sequence that showed Batman fighting a villain and it NOT being a major fight. Occasionally Batman has to stop Joker's nefarious plot to destroy Gotham, sometimes he stops him robbing a bank, even in the real world Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, so not everything a villain does needs to be over the top.
 
This is my problem with Raimi's Spiderman. Comics can be cheesey and all, but in movies the cheese is not that suitable as in comics.

For example I see this page and it works. A boy comes with Spiderman's suit and Jameson doesn't even try to confirm it is THE real suit and not just one someone made to fool him. Not even when he acknowledges that his reputation is going down if the suit is fake. He even concludes that the suit being in a trash bin has to mean that he quit. Even if he doesn't really know if it was in a trash bin to start with.

Good.

But in a movie that's far too cartoony to portray a serious editor. Daily Bugle has a reputation and no matter how biased Jameson is, rule number one of any journalist is to confirm the story. In SM2 Jameson even pays for the suit and prints that Spiderman has quit without even checking the veracity of the find.

Awful.

Now hang on a second there, Payaso. You're giving Jonah Jameson waaaaaaaaay too much credit as a newspaper man when it comes to Spider-Man. He constantly prints stories that Spider-Man is a criminal and a menace in spite of the fact that he has no evidence of it, and it flies in the face of all the good things Spider-Man is seen doing for the city.

Since we're on the topic of Spider-Man 2, here's a classic example; when Doc Ock robs the bank, and Spider-Man fights him and saves Aunt May, the crowd on the street cheers him. That evening Jameson prints this:


OckBugle1.jpg



Where is the evidence of that this is true? Why should Jameson be suddenly concerned that a Spider-Man costume found randomly tossed in the trash is not genuine? If Spider-Man is still around, then he's still around.

Jameson prints stories about Spider-Man because first and foremost they sell better than any other headlines he prints. It's the only reason he employs Peter in order to get nice photos to go with his slandering headlines, even though all his slandering headlines are unsubstantiated.

The only time he had "proof" of Spider-Man being a criminal was in SM-3 with the faked photo Eddie Brock made. That was the only that came back to bite him in the ass when it was proven to be a fake. He had to print a retraction.
 
Why? There are tons of throw aside villains in comics. The X-Men weren't formed because The Toad was an international menace. The Autobots aren't locked in an enternal battle with Rumble and Frenzy. There are villains in comics which are not supposed to be massive threats to the hero, Scarecrow always seemed like one of those villains to me.

The point of Batman is that regular authorities are unable to fight crime. Sure they can fight regular criminals but not those who're beyond average. That's when Batman enters.

But what's the point of showing lame criminals that can be beaten by a girl if you're talking about Batman?

Sure, there might be tons of throw aside villains, but when you have just 3 movies you better show the best of them, not the crappy ones.

Like the Mad Hatter and Penguin it seemed to me like he fell into that crowd of villains that simply did not pose the threat posed by Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, Two-Face and the Riddler.

Then don't give them a big role like Nolan did in BB.

OR...

you can pull a Burton and make an uninteresting inoffensive villiain such as the Penguin into a great and deadly villiain.

But putting effort in showing lame villaiins that don't require the presence of Batman to be beaten... what for?

So, IMO, I thought Nolan's use and portrayal of him were very good. My only minor gripes would be his costume, which was very muted, and how short he was (I imagine with a costume, this wouldn't have bothered me). I really like the fact that Nolan opened The Dark Knight with a sequence that showed Batman fighting a villain and it NOT being a major fight. Occasionally Batman has to stop Joker's nefarious plot to destroy Gotham, sometimes he stops him robbing a bank, even in the real world Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, so not everything a villain does needs to be over the top.

I agree about Scarecrow's little role in TDK. Good way to just start the movie. But in BB he had a bigger role and everything went right to... him beaten by a girl in an awkwardly comedic scene.
 
Now hang on a second there, Payaso. You're giving Jonah Jameson waaaaaaaaay too much credit as a newspaper man when it comes to Spider-Man. He constantly prints stories that Spider-Man is a criminal and a menace in spite of the fact that he has no evidence of it, and it flies in the face of all the good things Spider-Man is seen doing for the city.

Since we're on the topic of Spider-Man 2, here's a classic example; when Doc Ock robs the bank, and Spider-Man fights him and saves Aunt May, the crowd on the street cheers him. That evening Jameson prints this:


OckBugle1.jpg



Where is the evidence of that this is true? Why should Jameson be suddenly concerned that a Spider-Man costume found randomly tossed in the trash is not genuine? If Spider-Man is still around, then he's still around.

Jameson prints stories about Spider-Man because first and foremost they sell better than any other headlines he prints. It's the only reason he employs Peter in order to get nice photos to go with his slandering headlines, even though all his slandering headlines are unsubstantiated.

The only time he had "proof" of Spider-Man being a criminal was in SM-3 with the faked photo Eddie Brock made. That was the only that came back to bite him in the ass when it was proven to be a fake. He had to print a retraction.

As you say, he does worry about evidence as in SM3.

Now, if Spiderman is seen with Octopus in a bankl robbery and Spiderman doesn't stay to clear up that he wasn't robbing but preventing the crime, then Jameson can print whatever the scene looked like. After all, a man in a mask from whom we don't even know his name doesn't have to be trsuted.

BUT Jamson is very careful about his money. And he pays some random garbage man without evidence? So anyone can go into his office to sell him fake Spider stuff? Nah.
 
The point of Batman is that regular authorities are unable to fight crime.
Completely disagree. Bruce Wayne fights crime because his parents were murdered, it's pretty irrelevant how "effective" the authorities are, because at the time of his parents murder there were no super-criminals giving the GCPD fits (at least in the movie). The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne wants to avenge the death of his parents, and whether the authorities can fill his role or not he'll still fight crime because that's the oath he swore.
Sure they can fight regular criminals but not those who're beyond average. That's when Batman enters.
Joe Chill was an average criminal, and for Batman, even in the Nolan-verse, he doesn't make distinctions. He went after the mob and Carmine Falcone, who he tossed aside as if they were ragdolls just the same as any other threat.
But what's the point of showing lame criminals that can be beaten by a girl if you're talking about Batman?
Some criminals are lame, I like that a criminal is a little lame, I love that a costumed criminal is a little lame because it shows that not everyone who wears a costume is necessarily the greatest threat.
Sure, there might be tons of throw aside villains, but when you have just 3 movies you better show the best of them, not the crappy ones.
Again, I disagree. I think Spider-Man could've capitalized on it's rogues gallery better by showing some crappy villains.
Then don't give them a big role like Nolan did in BB.

OR...

you can pull a Burton and make an uninteresting inoffensive villiain such as the Penguin into a great and deadly villiain.

But putting effort in showing lame villaiins that don't require the presence of Batman to be beaten... what for?
...And I hated that. I never took Penguin seriously, and it was a struggle for me to see him in the role Burton thurst him into.
I agree about Scarecrow's little role in TDK. Good way to just start the movie. But in BB he had a bigger role and everything went right to... him beaten by a girl in an awkwardly comedic scene.
I'll agree the scene was unintentionally funny, and probably not helped by Katie Holmes, but again, that happens to characters in the comics a lot. Alfred has successfully beaten a Bat-villain or two, I have no problem with ancillary characters beating villains.
 
A VERY key point. Batman being Batman is incidental. He is no saint or nobleman. It is PURELY because of his parents getting killed that he is Batman.

Important point.
 
Why? There are tons of throw aside villains in comics. The X-Men weren't formed because The Toad was an international menace. The Autobots aren't locked in an enternal battle with Rumble and Frenzy. There are villains in comics which are not supposed to be massive threats to the hero, Scarecrow always seemed like one of those villains to me. Like the Mad Hatter and Penguin it seemed to me like he fell into that crowd of villains that simply did not pose the threat posed by Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, Two-Face and the Riddler. So, IMO, I thought Nolan's use and portrayal of him were very good. My only minor gripes would be his costume, which was very muted, and how short he was (I imagine with a costume, this wouldn't have bothered me). I really like the fact that Nolan opened The Dark Knight with a sequence that showed Batman fighting a villain and it NOT being a major fight. Occasionally Batman has to stop Joker's nefarious plot to destroy Gotham, sometimes he stops him robbing a bank, even in the real world Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, so not everything a villain does needs to be over the top.

Ha. The war would be over very quickly if all the Autobots had to fight were Rumble and Frenzy.
 
A VERY key point. Batman being Batman is incidental. He is no saint or nobleman. It is PURELY because of his parents getting killed that he is Batman.

Important point.
"Even if there never was a Batman, I'm still Batman. Even if all the evil I fought was a lie...I don't have a choice, I keep fighting".
- Bruce Wayne. "What Ever Happened to the Caped Crusader" Part 1

It really is due to his parents death, and Batman never swore an oath against super criminals. Certainly in the case of Iron Man, Thor, X-Men or even Captain America you have a group of character or a solo hero who devotes himself or themselves to fighting villains the typical authorities are unable to handle. Xavier himself admitted during Stan Lee's run that this was the express purpose of the X-Men: to fight evil mutants. Batman is different though, and another key point about him is he swore an oath against ALL crime. I think you have to believe with Batman he'll tackle all crime great and small.

On the topic of the Scarecrow, if you really take him for what he is both in the comics and in the movie(s), is it really that surprising he could be beaten by a taser? He doesn't have any special skills, and he's usually just some gangley doctor. I do remember in the comics they tried to make him a little more physically threatening by having him be a master of Crane style Kung Fu, which instantly makes you wonder how into his last name he is. I always thought this was stupid, but I guess they just got tired of defaulting to fear toxin every six seconds.
 
Last edited:
Completely disagree. Bruce Wayne fights crime because his parents were murdered, it's pretty irrelevant how "effective" the authorities are, because at the time of his parents murder there were no super-criminals giving the GCPD fits (at least in the movie). The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne wants to avenge the death of his parents, and whether the authorities can fill his role or not he'll still fight crime because that's the oath he swore.

Oh, I see. So once Batman avenges his parents' death he's pretty much pointless, huh. I beg to disagree. Batman fights crime because his point is more than just avenge his parents's death.

And since there's no problems with Gotham authorities I wonder why didn't Bruce become a cop or a lawyer to prosecute criminals. It looks like something else was required.

Joe Chill was an average criminal, and for Batman, even in the Nolan-verse, he doesn't make distinctions. He went after the mob and Carmine Falcone, who he tossed aside as if they were ragdolls just the same as any other threat.

But it seemed like he wasn't satisfied with the authorities performance. That's why he needed something else.

Some criminals are lame, I like that a criminal is a little lame, I love that a costumed criminal is a little lame because it shows that not everyone who wears a costume is necessarily the greatest threat.

It's a bad thing when you choose lame characters to be in your movie. Scarecrow being lame didn't prove anything in either BB or TDK other than a better selection and/or treatment of the character was needed. Or at least a better actor.

Again, I disagree. I think Spider-Man could've capitalized on it's rogues gallery better by showing some crappy villains.

First time I hear about this theory that some crappiness in the middle is better than pure awesomeness. Not sure how it works though.

Now if you are publishing like 100 issues of a character, some crappy funny characters might not hurt. But in a big-budget movie if you use some crappy character too much it does hurt. By the end of BB I was 'so I kept following this villaiin story just to realize he never deserve my attention?'

...And I hated that. I never took Penguin seriously, and it was a struggle for me to see him in the role Burton thurst him into.

Wht role? A true monster-man who can put Gotham in danger? Isn't that what a good villain is about?

I'll agree the scene was unintentionally funny, and probably not helped by Katie Holmes, but again, that happens to characters in the comics a lot.

And that makes it agood idea?

Alfred has successfully beaten a Bat-villain or two, I have no problem with ancillary characters beating villains.

Once in a while yes. But in the context of a movie developing a chartacter throughout the movie just to have him beaten by anyone makes the point that with more old butlers and girls out there lame villiains such as Scarecrow or Joe Chill could be stopped.

Makes you wonder why the Waynes didn't stop Chill. Oh, had tasers been invented before...
 
Oh, I see. So once Batman avenges his parents' death he's pretty much pointless, huh. I beg to disagree. Batman fights crime because his point is more than just avenge his parents's death.
No:huh: Batman isn't Batman because he woke up one morning and said "hey the authorities are doing a piss poor job protecting people", he's Batman because his parents were murdered. You take that event out of his life and he never became Batman. This much is obvious. As for you sarcastic retort, he'll never avenge his parents death because, well, they're dead.
And since there's no problems with Gotham authorities I wonder why didn't Bruce become a cop or a lawyer to prosecute criminals. It looks like something else was required.
Now you're just purposefully being stubborn. In answer to your question though, Bruce is f***ing mental, that helps. However I pose a question to you, when has Bruce ever had a problem with the GCPD? He works with them, they put his strobe light on the top of their building, and he and Gordon are partically BFFs.
But it seemed like he wasn't satisfied with the authorities performance. That's why he needed something else.
Comics tend to make typical authorities look inept to make the hero look better. You're simply shoving real world implications onto a movie to make your point. If some dude was running around dressed like a clown, committing very outlandish atrocities he be caught within hours. There's not much Batman can do that an effective swat team couldn't accomplish in a fraction of the time.
It's a bad thing when you choose lame characters to be in your movie. Scarecrow being lame didn't prove anything in either BB or TDK other than a better selection and/or treatment of the character was needed. Or at least a better actor.
First of all, I like Cillian Murphy as an actor, I imagine Christopher Nolan must agree as he casts him in several of his movies. Scarecrow wasn't "proving" anything though, he was a plot device to set up the third act. He wasn't the main villain at all, Ra's was. While his role could've been filled by some unnamed henchman, I'm glad Nolan choose a tertiary villain to fill the role, as often times happens in the comics.
First time I hear about this theory that some crappiness in the middle is better than pure awesomeness. Not sure how it works though.
In comics the hero isn't always stopping the most nefarious criminal of all time. Sometimes Spider-Man just stops the Rhino from robbing a bank, or stops The Enforcers from beating up some lady, and that's precisely what Nolan showed Batman doing: fighting crime no matter what form it took.
Now if you are publishing like 100 issues of a character, some crappy funny characters might not hurt. But in a big-budget movie if you use some crappy character too much it does hurt. By the end of BB I was 'so I kept following this villaiin story just to realize he never deserve my attention?'
The movies are supposedly adaptations of the comics. This is a common element of the comic. I see no problem with using a character in that fashion. Do you hate that video games have multiple "bosses" that aren't as hard as the final boss. Scarecrow wasn't the main villain, I see no reason to treat him like one.
Wht role? A true monster-man who can put Gotham in danger? Isn't that what a good villain is about?
Yeah, Ra's Al Ghul I can buy as a threat. Joker is a threat. Two-Face is a threat. That's the way they've typically been written. Penguin just doesn't scare me, and the fact that Burton tried to make him scary just highlighted how lame he was to begin with. I would've rather seen him as a throwaway villain, some sort of arms dealer Batman brushes aside.
Once in a while yes. But in the context of a movie developing a chartacter throughout the movie just to have him beaten by anyone makes the point that with more old butlers and girls out there lame villiains such as Scarecrow or Joe Chill could be stopped.
Of course a lame butler could've stopped Joe Chill! I could stop Joe Chill. Joe Chill was just a bum, like any other bum who lives in my neighborhood. What was that line "training is nothing, will is everything". You keep searching for this grand point for Scarecrow when there wasn't one. He was a tertiary character used to serve a particular place in the plot and set up the big battle in the third act.
 
His parents dying is really what separates Batman from the other more noble and good-hearted heroes like Captain America and Superman. It's what makes him interesting.
 
His parents dying is really what separates Batman from the other more noble and good-hearted heroes like Captain America and Superman. It's what makes him interesting.
Actually parents dying is pretty common, although Batman supposedly started the trend (even though Superman's parents' originally died, it wasn't treated as a catalyst for his heroics). Batman is vengenful though, however my issue is with this notion that Scarecrow MUST be this massive threat that no police or girl with a taser can best. I see no reason for this. Batman pursues pretty much all crime. I also think Nolan used Batman's rogues fairly well by introducing some as ancillary villains.
 
Last edited:
No:huh: Batman isn't Batman because he woke up one morning and said "hey the authorities are doing a piss poor job protecting people", he's Batman because his parents were murdered. You take that event out of his life and he never became Batman. This much is obvious.

That started it all, but if he wanted justice he could have been a judge, a cop or a lawyer. The Batman thing started because he didn't think a judge, a lawyer or a cop was enough.

As for you sarcastic retort, he'll never avenge his parents death because, well, they're dead.

Maybe I'm not following you right but... doesn't death of the aprents need to happen in order to avenge them? I mean, "revenge" doesn't mean "resurrect." Had his parents never been killed, what is there to avenge then?

Now you're just purposefully being stubborn. In answer to your question though, Bruce is f***ing mental, that helps. However I pose a question to you, when has Bruce ever had a problem with the GCPD? He works with them, they put his strobe light on the top of their building, and he and Gordon are partically BFFs.

Batman Year One, Batman Begins and a bunch of comic books. Batman has had problems with the police.

Now... what has that to do with anything I said?

I just said that since police in Gotham worked just fine catching thieves and burglars, as you claim, why didn't Bruce become one of them? Your answer was that he's juts crazy. According to you that alone is the reason why he wears a bat costume.

Comics tend to make typical authorities look inept to make the hero look better. You're simply shoving real world implications onto a movie to make your point.

On the contrary, as you say I'm trying to find the logic within the comic book world. That's true, comic book tend to make authorities look inept to emphasize the need of the costumed hero. That's my whole point. I'm sure though that that's far from anything "real world."

If some dude was running around dressed like a clown, committing very outlandish atrocities he be caught within hours. There's not much Batman can do that an effective swat team couldn't accomplish in a fraction of the time.

But not in a comic book world. Namely Batman.

That said, I remember the case of Pogo the Clown. It took them 5 years to catch him.

First of all, I like Cillian Murphy as an actor, I imagine Christopher Nolan must agree as he casts him in several of his movies.

Or maybe Murphy is very receptive of Nolan's opinions and suggestions so he keeps calling him.

Maybe in some other role he can do something better, but opening your eyes a lot doesn't make you look creepy.

Scarecrow wasn't "proving" anything though

That's what I said, remember?

"Scarecrow being lame didn't prove anything"

It was you the one saying "I love that a costumed criminal is a little lame because it shows that not everyone who wears a costume is necessarily the greatest threat."



So what is it, Optimus, do lame characters such as Scarecrow show something or not?

he was a plot device to set up the third act.

Which made the character even worse. A good character needs flesh, not just being a device. Good writing could have made a device into something worthy, but this wasn't the case.

He wasn't the main villain at all, Ra's was. While his role could've been filled by some unnamed henchman, I'm glad Nolan choose a tertiary villain to fill the role, as often times happens in the comics.

A useless selection if he's treating the character just as a narrative device, as you said. If that's all what he was going to do with him, I'd rather have a unknown nameless henchman and keep good characters unharmed.

In comics the hero isn't always stopping the most nefarious criminal of all time. Sometimes Spider-Man just stops the Rhino from robbing a bank, or stops The Enforcers from beating up some lady, and that's precisely what Nolan showed Batman doing: fighting crime no matter what form it took.

And then again wqhen you have two or three movies you better choose the best of the universe, no matter how many lame characters Batman might have fought in comic books.

The movies are supposedly adaptations of the comics. This is a common element of the comic. I see no problem with using a character in that fashion. Do you hate that video games have multiple "bosses" that aren't as hard as the final boss. Scarecrow wasn't the main villain, I see no reason to treat him like one.

He didn't need to be a main villiain to have been treated as a worthy criminal.

If we're talking about comics, I've seen many comics where Scarecrow is a real problem to Batman, not someone an average girl can defeat.

Yeah, Ra's Al Ghul I can buy as a threat. Joker is a threat. Two-Face is a threat. That's the way they've typically been written. Penguin just doesn't scare me, and the fact that Burton tried to make him scary just highlighted how lame he was to begin with. I would've rather seen him as a throwaway villain, some sort of arms dealer Batman brushes aside.

Well, at least your stance about this is different. Being against improvement is not something you see everyday.

Of course a lame butler could've stopped Joe Chill! I could stop Joe Chill. Joe Chill was just a bum, like any other bum who lives in my neighborhood.

Which makes you wonder why a doctor and his wife couldn't and died instead.

What was that line "training is nothing, will is everything". You keep searching for this grand point for Scarecrow when there wasn't one. He was a tertiary character used to serve a particular place in the plot and set up the big battle in the third act.

He could have been used all its potential like in many comics where he's not beaten by a girl but by Batman after a worthy fight.

But I'm still impressed by your enthusiasm for lame unworthy characters and how they shoudln't be improved.
 
That started it all, but if he wanted justice he could have been a judge, a cop or a lawyer. The Batman thing started because he didn't think a judge, a lawyer or a cop was enough.
In Batman's earliest incarnation there was never an issue made about the police (in fact the comic made the point that Batman indeed walked a fine line between vigilante a criminal -- may have been no better than those he fought). Why didn't he become a judge? That's a great question that has literally no place in a superhero movie. It's kind of like asking "why don't people act sane and rational in comics"? Why doesn't Superman just take what he wants, f*** a whole lot of women, and become excessively wealthy like all superhero analogues do in The Boys? That's all part of the suspension of disbelief. Certain actions these heroes take simply don't line up with what we know is typical for the real world, otherwise they wouldn't be superheroes.
Maybe I'm not following you right but... doesn't death of the aprents need to happen in order to avenge them? I mean, "revenge" doesn't mean "resurrect." Had his parents never been killed, what is there to avenge then?
Projection: Batman projects his anger over his parents onto all criminals, as if everyone he fights is just an avatar of Joe Chill/unnamed assailant who killed his parents.
Batman Year One, Batman Begins and a bunch of comic books. Batman has had problems with the police.
In Batman Year One you get the first mentions of Gotham having a corrupt police force. That's not something that is found in every telling of his origin, and has little, if anything to do with him becoming Batman. In The Man Who Falls the police, namely the FBI is not corrupt at all, and Bruce tries to join them, but ultimately becomes bored and unsatisfied with how they deliver justice. Most incarnations of Batman have him espousing a very myopic view of justice. In fact, the whole premise of Batman Year One pretty much perverts the purpose of having police. Comics do this regularly because the form crime takes in comic books is no more true to life than the heroes who fight it.
I just said that since police in Gotham worked just fine catching thieves and burglars, as you claim, why didn't Bruce become one of them? Your answer was that he's juts crazy. According to you that alone is the reason why he wears a bat costume.
Well it's not really a logical decision now is it. Bruce hardly wears the costume to fight super-criminals, considering the first time he wore it no such animal existed.
On the contrary, as you say I'm trying to find the logic within the comic book world. That's true, comic book tend to make authorities look inept to emphasize the need of the costumed hero. That's my whole point. I'm sure though that that's far from anything "real world."
It's not a logical decision, it's a storytelling decision. Why doesn't Gordon just shoot the Joker in the back of the head in The Dark Knight? Even by the internal logic of the film that doesn't make sense?

Moreover by internal logic, Scarecrow wasn't impervious to a taser, didn't have any impressive combat skills either. Rachel Dawes on the other hand was shown capable of defending herself, and considering what Scarecrow had done to her earlier it was karmic for her character to be the one to defeat him. By internal logic the scene makes perfect sense. You keep arguing that because Scarecrow IYO is a good comic character he deserved more.
Or maybe Murphy is very receptive of Nolan's opinions and suggestions so he keeps calling him.

Maybe in some other role he can do something better, but opening your eyes a lot doesn't make you look creepy.
You're really just using straw man, his performance was much better than you're giving it credit for. I'm sure he just offers sexual favors in exchange for his roles in Inception and Batman, yup that's it :rolleyes:
That's what I said, remember?

"Scarecrow being lame didn't prove anything"

It was you the one saying "I love that a costumed criminal is a little lame because it shows that not everyone who wears a costume is necessarily the greatest threat."

So what is it, Optimus, do lame characters such as Scarecrow show something or not?

Which made the character even worse. A good character needs flesh, not just being a device. Good writing could have made a device into something worthy, but this wasn't the case.
Not every character in The Godfather is a "good" character, some just exist to move the plot along. You'd hope that the characters more intergral to the plot were more interesting than him, that in part was a problem with The Dark Knight: that the supporting cast was more important than the supposed main character. Scarecrow was good for the purpose he served, but he wasn't the main villain. What's so hard to understand:huh:
useless selection if he's treating the character just as a narrative device, as you said. If that's all what he was going to do with him, I'd rather have a unknown nameless henchman and keep good characters unharmed.
Again, you keep insisting Scarecrow is this "good character" that was "harmed" by his use in these films. I simply don't agree. He's a C-Lister at best, and he's not a novel character in the slightest. He's usually not anything more than filler in the comics either. He probably benefitted from that movie, as people wouldn't have given two sh**s about him before he appeared onscreen. I suppose you could make Scarecrow an epic villain, make him a main villain, like he was intended to be in previous unproduced Bat-movies, but at the same time he works well as a ancillary character. Much like Victor Zsasz. Were you disappointed with his use in the Nolanverse? Or do you accept since he was not the lead and simply a cameo he didn't need some epic sendoff?
And then again wqhen you have two or three movies you better choose the best of the universe, no matter how many lame characters Batman might have fought in comic books.
Again, completely disagree. I like to see obscure characters used, and used appropriately. Batman Begins benefited from having tertiary villains for Batman to fight, otherwise it would've just been a dragged out build up to the third act. Scarecrow helps give Batman a colorful villain to deal with before Ra's Al Ghul arrives. Knightfall did the same thing. Made Bruce run through a guantlet of villains, even lame characters like Crazy Quilt, before he reached the title villain; Bane.
He didn't need to be a main villiain to have been treated as a worthy criminal.

If we're talking about comics, I've seen many comics where Scarecrow is a real problem to Batman, not someone an average girl can defeat.
You could say this about the Penguin too, but at the end of the day he's typically not Batman's great threat, and the incarnations of Scarecrow you're referring too would simply not work in Nolan's films.
He could have been used all its potential like in many comics where he's not beaten by a girl but by Batman after a worthy fight.

But I'm still impressed by your enthusiasm for lame unworthy characters and how they shoudln't be improved.
No, I just like the way Nolan used him. Why does Nolan have to treat everyone the same way? It would be pretty stupid to have Scarecrow upstage the main act villain now wouldn't it? Scarecrow certainly fit in well with the movie's theme of "fear", meshed well with the Arkham setting, and was an important aspect in setting up the third act.
 
Last edited:
They were all weak apart from Dent and Joker.

Alfred was nothing but a exposition dumper or device to move the plot forward. Same with Lucius.

Bruce Wayne was a *****e who tried to steal the girl of the guy he wants to save Gotham. His Batman sounded like he had throat cancer and the fight scenes were abysmal.

Crane was a laughable villain. He had one good scene in Begins where he sprayed Batman with the feat toxin and set him on fire.

I thought Gordon was ok... until the ridiculously overwraught, exposition dump in the last monologue. Which for some strange reason people think was brilliant.
My thoughts exactly. Also, in that scene I would've replaced the son with barbara instead.
 
Using the son was a homage to the ending of Year One, when Gordon's baby falls and Bruce saves him. It worked better.
 
Homage or no homage, the scene was over-written and came across as too pretentious and obvious.
 
Using the son was a homage to the ending of Year One, when Gordon's baby falls and Bruce saves him. It worked better.

Correct. I didn't cop that until I'd read Year One again after seeing TDK.

Homage or no homage, the scene was over-written and came across as too pretentious and obvious.

There was nothing obvious or over written in it. How many superhero movies have had the villain threaten a child's life in the climax? It's always kidnap the love interest or threaten the whole city.

It's one of the most suspenseful and well acted scenes. Sheer brilliance.

Now, if Spiderman is seen with Octopus in a bankl robbery and Spiderman doesn't stay to clear up that he wasn't robbing but preventing the crime, then Jameson can print whatever the scene looked like. After all, a man in a mask from whom we don't even know his name doesn't have to be trsuted.

I'm sorry, but how many bank robber partners engage in beating the living crap out of each other? There was dozens of eye witnesses to substantiate that. They saw Ock pummel Spidey with bags of coins, try to crush his head, and Spidey slamming a table into Ock sending him flying out into the street and straight into a taxi. All Spider-Man did was delay Ock long enough for the Cops to show up, and force him to take drastic measures.

If they were in cahoots for a bank robbery then that is hands down the WORST tactics used to rob a bank :cwink:

BUT Jamson is very careful about his money. And he pays some random garbage man without evidence? So anyone can go into his office to sell him fake Spider stuff? Nah.

What evidence? It's a Spider-Man costume. Unless there's been sightings of copycat Spider-Men, what would anyone gain from throwing a Spider-Man costume in the garbage for some random garbage man to find?

Even if Spider-Man did come back, which he did eventually, it's not going to make the Bugle look bad. Just like all the slander stories they had printed didn't affect them in Spider-Man 3 when the whole city was in love with Spidey and even threw him a Spider-Man day festival.
 
Last edited:
A VERY key point. Batman being Batman is incidental. He is no saint or nobleman. It is PURELY because of his parents getting killed that he is Batman.

Important point.

I think this was probably true when he was a young man, but I don't think it's true any longer, and it hasn't been in a long time (in the comics, anyway). The core value of Batman has always been to protect life, and regardless of whatever notions of vengeance he may entertain, that has always been his ultimate truth. Fundamentally, Batman isn't driven by vengeance or anger; what makes him Batman is his ability to overcome that.
 
I'm sorry, but how many bank robber partners engage in beating the living crap out of each other? There was dozens of eye witnesses to substantiate that. They saw Ock pummel Spidey with bags of coins, try to crush his head, and Spidey slamming a table into Ock sending him flying out into the street and straight into a taxi. All Spider-Man did was delay Ock long enough for the Cops to show up, and force him to take drastic measures.

If they were in cahoots for a bank robbery then that is hands down the WORST tactics used to rob a bank :cwink:

Ah, we know how the Marvel New York has seen different villiains in cahoots fighting each other because of their massive egos. Or maybe both of them wanted to rob the bank and Octopus just wanted to take Spiderman's thunder and do it by himself.

What evidence? It's a Spider-Man costume. Unless there's been sightings of copycat Spider-Men, what would anyone gain from throwing a Spider-Man costume in the garbage for some random garbage man to find?

All Jameson knows is that someone is telling him the suit was in the garbage. From what Jameson knows the suit can be fake and the garbage bin story as fake as the suit.

Jameson wouldn't buy that, even if for the sake of his own money.
 
Last edited:
There was nothing obvious or over written in it. How many superhero movies have had the villain threaten a child's life in the climax? It's always kidnap the love interest or threaten the whole city.

It's one of the most suspenseful and well acted scenes. Sheer brilliance.

That scene was great until Gordon went into his silly little diatribe explaining the whole film as though we were all too stupid to understand it. It pulled me staight out of the movie because some guy was telling me what happened. It was like Gordon broke the fourth wall.
 
"because you were the best of us!!!!"

"someone as gooooooooooooooood as you..."
 
I think this was probably true when he was a young man, but I don't think it's true any longer, and it hasn't been in a long time (in the comics, anyway). The core value of Batman has always been to protect life, and regardless of whatever notions of vengeance he may entertain, that has always been his ultimate truth. Fundamentally, Batman isn't driven by vengeance or anger; what makes him Batman is his ability to overcome that.

Right you are sir.

Oh and Gordons end speech rocked. Always great to Gordons faith in the Bat.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"