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

[Closerframe]

Same goes for Crane. imo

I liked Crane alot more than Ras Al Ghul...

 

[Gianakin_]

While I can understand where chief chirpa is coming from (Endor?), I have to say that I disagree with him.
The way they are heading, it looks more like a continuation of a saga than the new chapter in the adventures of Batman. Of course, if you like the second way of storytelling, more power to you. However, I have a feeling (that is getting more and more confirmed everyday) that the universe for you is the Burton/Schumacher one.
I prefer the Nolan one in that aspect, since we are most likely getting a 3-part story about Batman's origin and establishment in Gotham. Of course, that happened in the previous universe as well; and that was it. No obvious threads were left to be picked up by each sequel (only if you count Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, but then again, not many of the casual audience would know his ultimate fate) and the only strong connections between stories were the mentioning of other names (Vicky Vale in Returns, incinuation of Catwoman by Nicole Kidman in Forever and the Riddler and Two-Face costumes in B&R).
Could there be another villain instead of Scarecrow? Sure. That, of course, means they should have killed him in Begins ('cause if he was to be left alive, there would always be a chance of him returning and you again complaining). The problem with that would be this: There would be a big chance that he would never have been able to make an impact to Batman, Gotham, one of Batman's allies or even enemies (and I'm talking about the way he was presented in Begins). You then would have to change that, so you would change a bit of him in Begins. But then you would have to change another, and aonther and.... Back to the old franchise's philosophy, ergo a big circle.
This way, we get something different. If you don't like it, you can always go back to the previous 4 movies (and I guess Mask of the Phantasm).
As for Rachel? I personally liked her character (but not Katie) and I think it's an interesting and fresh idea to show us what would happen if Batman got a steady female... not neccessarily a love interest. I know, Dr. Thompkins. Sure, she could've worked too. But now, with her being young and always with a possibility of them getting together in the air, we get interesting and never-before-seen dynamics. I personally like that. Makes it more... epic? Saga-like? Exciting? Can't find the right word to express it (ultimatefan? a bit help here?)

 

[The Joker]

When Gordon said at the end of BB that they had not recaptured Crane, you just knew he was going to make a return. Why else would Nolan have put the line in there??

 

[shapeshifter]

to use a tired analogy.
It would be like not seeing R2D2 and OB1 in empire

 

[Gianakin_]

I used 25 lines, you used 2 sentences and made the point clearer that crystal. I salute you.

 

[IamtheBatman]

I can't wait to see what Maggie brings to the table as Rachel. As for Jonahan Crane he'll do great anyway.

 

[shapeshifter]

I used 25 lines, you used 2 sentences and made the point clearer that crystal. I salute you.

if it makes you feel better I was here half the night typing 25 line answers. this was the result of 8 hours of sleep and two cups of coffee.
but thanks all the same

 

[Gianakin_]

Heh, actually it does make me feel better

 

[Shot Gun Shy]

As in of course you just skipped down to the handjob part? t:

My point in my first post is I don't want to see every Batman villian and sidekick in this series just for the sake of having them. I like where the series is going right now (which includes Rachel and Scarecrow - I think Crane awesome) and all I care about is two more great Batman films that follow Begin regardless of who the characters are.

Thats fine, thats great.
You like Scarecrow and your getting him again.
Sooooooo whats the problem, lol ??

 

[the_monk]

I'm not really a big fan of Maggie Gyllenhaal, but Katie Holmes was the weak link in Begins. Maggie will most likely be an improvement.

Spiderman 3 was a gross example of movie by committee, a trend that seems to get worse every year. It's likely that Nolan has a method and reason for the characters he chooses. Batman villains are meant to reveal Batman's character, not be eye candy. It's in fighting crime that Bruce becomes a better person, so Nolan needs to choose the best villains to prod the best out of Bruce. It's clear he understands that, as it was a main theme in Begins.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Your just bored.
Very, very bored & excited for this film to come out.
So in the meantime you complain.
Because like I said, your just bored.
Very, very bored & excited.
nuff said.

Man, you're a mind reader. The bored & excited part is very true (more excited than bored though). I guess because everything has been set in stone, let's just wait for the show to play.

Kudos for Gianakin for his reasonable arguments.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Anyway does anyone notice Maggie Gylenhall looks old for her age (b. 1977) than Katie (b. 1978)?

 

[Gianakin_]

No problemo.
I sometimes get that feeling myself: "How many movies can we see? Villains are many! We should get some of them on the big screen, isn't it about time?".
But then I remember I'm a Star Wars geek and everything that has to do with unresolved subplots always gets me (and I'm not talking about ridiculous cliffhangers like on PotC: DMC and Matrix Reloaded)!
However, I'm sure that after Nolan is done and considering that hopefully the 4th movie won't have to be a restart, you may get your wish... in a way.

Regarding Maggie, I believe she looks more mature. It happens with some people. Take me for instance: I'm 22 and anyone who sees me thinks I'm 18.So, I think it's a reversed situation for Maggie.

 

[shapeshifter]

at least maggie is not married to Tom Cruise. i had a hard time not thinking about that watching katie's performance.

 

[Seraphartman]

I think that is great that they can continue a Scarecrow story. I think Nolan did a great job of not killing off a main villan. Because in a lot of Comic Book movies they always want to kill the villans. Now I do think that you need new and fresh things and that is why the Joker is in the new one and will help to continue you the story of Batman

 

[cryptic name]

Because people want to see Penguin or Riddler (admit that you want to see them). I already see Scarecrow is a pathetic villain in the first film, why do I want to see him linger for the second film?

Actually, after strider said there are 2.5 villains - Dark Knight has enough villains. No need for Cillian Murphy.

maybe the ones writing the script and making the movie should decide what there is and isn't need for?

 

[Spider-Bat]

Scarecrow doesn't bother me, but they could have just gotten rid of Rachel. Nolan sucks, nothing good come from these dull movies, I wanna' see a real Batman movie based on the comics not Nolan's dull thoughts.

 

[-Æ-]

Its called continuity....

 

[-Æ-]

at least maggie is not married to Tom Cruise. i had a hard time not thinking about that watching katie's performance.

Hmm, and I thought I was the only one that thought about that too.

 

[Matchbox]

Scarecrow doesn't bother me, but they could have just gotten rid of Rachel. Nolan sucks, nothing good come from these dull movies, I wanna' see a real Batman movie based on the comics not Nolan's dull thoughts.

Even if you don't particularly like Nolan's take on Batman, I think it's a bit ignorant to say that nothing good came from these movies (which, you should have just cited Batman Begins since, you know...The Dark Knight won't come out for another year)

-Matchbox

 

[chief103182]

I'm glad Scarecrow and Dawes are back. It generates the feeling that this is, in fact, one continuing story. Plus, I'm sure they fit uniquely into the story, they're not just being recycled.

 

[Killing Joke926]

i second that

I third that, if you didn't like them the first time, might as well stay off the boards.

 

[Symbiotic]

I third that, if you didn't like them the first time, might as well stay off the boards.

I quad that.

 

[Kud-Dukan]

Firstly, having Rachel back makes perfect sense from a storytelling standpoint. Nolan spent a lot of time introducing her in the last movie, and having her working in the DA's office is a perfect way to introduce us to Harvey Dent. Not to mention the fact that having Harvey Dent as the DA with no mention of Rachel wouldn't make for very good continuity. Now Scarecrow didn't have to be brought back, but after his story was never really resolved at the end of Begins, it's great that we will see what he has now become (since Crane really only became Scarecrow near the end of the movie). Plus Cillian Murphy was kickass in the scenes he was in, and deserved to be brought into TDK.

 

[Caliber]

So does scarecrow unmask batman?