The Dark Knight What's the need to recycle Rachel Dawes and Scarecrow?

[chiefchirpa]

Is it because of Nolan's loyalty to the actors and scriptwriters? I want to see new villains like the Penguin or Riddler, and less so with Scarecrow. There are going to be 3 movies from Nolan, so a variety of villains is needed.

As for Rachel Dawes, I believe it's even more unnecessary. Batman doesn't require a romantic arc that will cut off some time for action scenes.

Batman:
More action scenes
More detective scenes
Less romance
Less people gawking over Bat-Toys
Less recycled villain

 

[Shoemeister]

Go away.

 

[rijuco]

Go away.

i second that

 

[Rated-X]

Go away.

Agreed.

 

[TheBatman072]

One great big eyeroll.

 

[Anguissette1979]

Scarecrow's end wasn't nearly neat enough to justify never mentioning him again. For all we know he could be running the narrows...

 

[Sam18]

i second that

Thirded.

 

[bosef982]

Go check out the Chicago filming thread and find out both those answers.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Be gone.

 

[strider]

what?

buddy there are 2 and a half new villains in TDK....I guess you're not a hardcore fan but we've got 1. Joker, 2. Maroni and (1/2)Harvey Dent (Two-Face) in the 3rd film.

 

[chiefchirpa]

These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary.

 

[TheBatman072]

These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary.

Becuase it shows a continuation from the first movie, of which both character's stories were unresolved.

 

[Anguissette1979]

These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary.

I think that any character is necessarily once it's created on film until it has been properly disposed of. Jail scarecrow... kill Rachel. Done

 

[shapeshifter]

they were always intended to be in this movie. Nolan wrote BB as a first of three with the other two well in mind. By planning such an arc with characters allowed to develop for more than one movie he sets this series apart from cheesey movies and makes them great. If you don't like it go rent a Luke Wilson movie and leave us alone

 

[Shoemeister]

These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary.

1. Continuity.
2. Escalation.
3. Because the filmmakers said so.

[/thread]
[/close]
[/ban]




[/tapioca]

 

[rijuco]

they were always intended to be in this movie. Nolan wrote BB as a first of three with the other two well in mind. By planning such an arc with characters allowed to develop for more than one movie he sets this series apart from cheesey movies and makes them great. If you don't like it go rent a JOEL SHUMACHER movie and leave us alone

fixed

 

[strider]

I think that any character is necessarily once it's created on film until it has been properly disposed of. Jail scarecrow... kill Rachel. Done

Dude these movies arent really about the "super duper" villains. They are about Batman and how he wants to rid of a city's evil. BATMAN. It's like a journey or adventure that continues for 3 films, kind of like The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix. Cool isnt it? Im really sorry that you dont like it. Im sure someone some day will come out with your complete bada$$ version of The Batman. Till them I'm happy with what we have now.

 

[shapeshifter]

fixed

fair enough

 

[Anguissette1979]

Dude these movies arent really about the "super duper" villains. They are about Batman and how he wants to rid of a city's evil. BATMAN. It's like a journey or adventure that continues for 3 films, kind of like The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix. Cool isnt it? Im really sorry that you dont like it. Im sure someone some day will come out with your complete bada$$ version of The Batman. Till them I'm happy with what we have now.

What on earth are you talking about, dude? The post I quoted said "These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary." I was saying, yes... they are necessary. The characters have not been either developed further or "dispositioned" if you will. It always bugs me in movies when charatcers just disappear without an explanation.

Please tell me where I say that I don't like it (I do), or talk about wanting a badass version of Batman, because I sure as hell can't find it.

 

[Nepenthes]

Does it need it's own thread?

 

[strider]

What on earth are you talking about, dude? The post I quoted said "These hardcore Nolanites might disagree with me, but at least they have to say why Rachel and Scarecrow are necessary." I was saying, yes... they are necessary. The characters have not been either developed further or "dispositioned" if you will. It always bugs me in movies when charatcers just disappear without an explanation.

Please tell me where I say that I don't like it (I do), or talk about wanting a badass version of Batman, because I sure as hell can't find it.

ROFL opps I quoted the wrong dude, dude. Lol Anyways it dont matter what I said is basically true.

 

[shapeshifter]

Anguissette1979 I had a question.
was newsies in 1992? Or was that Mio in the land of far away?

 

[Shoemeister]

Does it need it's own thread?

Spoiler

Spoiler

In before the lock?

 

[Untilteld]

Does it need it's own thread?

No.

 

[Anguissette1979]

Anguissette1979 I had a question.
was newsies in 1992? Or was that Mio in the land of far away?

Newsies. Watched it with my two best friends at my 13th birthday party. Went back and started with Empire of the Sun, Treasure Island, etc... it's been an illness since.