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

recycle Dawes and Scarecrow because Nolan believes in a thing called continuity. unlike the past Batman flicks, which were loosely sequels to each other, this is the same world as in Begins.
 
look
Its obvious you are not happy with the way things are going with these movies, and it seems like a lot of people here myself included are ganging up on you. For that I am sorry, but you have to admit that your thread and many of your posts seem to be aimed at making waves here. If you are so unhappy with this then perhaps there is a haters haven thread you can join, but out here in the general batman movie area you have to expect us to come out and defend this movie.
perhaps you should take this someplace else.
 
shapeshifter said:
look
Its obvious you are not happy with the way things are going with these movies, and it seems like a lot of people here myself included are ganging up on you. For that I am sorry, but you have to admit that your thread and many of your posts seem to be aimed at making waves here. If you are so unhappy with this then perhaps there is a haters haven thread you can join, but out here in the general batman movie area you have to expect us to come out and defend this movie.
perhaps you should take this someplace else.
Click to expand...

I'm not unhappy about the movie. I'm just questioning the reason why Scarecrow is in the movie again because I just know it after seeing the pics in SHH main page (Rachel is secondary). It's my opinion that it's better if Scarecrow should be left out from the 2nd movie. The reality as we know along can't be changed as Scarecrow WILL be in the movie.

But some of you are really like cold blooded Gestapo to want to lock the thread without giving any feedbacks. No hard feelings from my part.
 
The problem is the idea that he is recycling the character. In this version of the story Rachel is as important as Alfred. Like that or not she is. Bruce's moral compass.

Scarecrow showing up again would give the film that much needed idea that once Batman beats someone up they don't just go away. These villians are constants in Batman's life. Much like the comics his inability to kill leads to run ins with those he has banished. Not all nice and clean like past films wanted it to look.
 
I will agree with Darth.

If handled correctly, continuity is a gorgeous thing. Anything can be hammered to death if handled incorrectly. And I have complete and utterly strong faith in the Nolan brothers. They have earned it.
 
chiefchirpa said:
There are going to be 3 movies from Nolan, so a variety of villains is needed.
Click to expand...

No. The only thing it needs is to tell a good story. It doesn't need Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Batgirl, Robin, etc.

If incorporating all those characters make for a good story then I'm all for bringing them in.

But throwing in more characters just to give Batman fans a handjob? See Spider-Man 3.
 
Hole Shot said:
No. The only thing it needs is to tell a good story. It doesn't need Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Batgirl, Robin, etc.

If incorporating all those characters make for a good story then I'm all for bringing them in.

But throwing in more characters just to give Batman fans a handjob? See Spider-Man 3.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

I was pleading the same case earlier. I love what Nolan's doing because he's not thinking "Okay, I need to introduce x-amount of villains and they need to be ____ and ____ and ____" at all. Rather, he's telling a story. He's letting us into his Gotham, this world of Batman and weaving together these intricate stories of how all of the city's inhabitants work together and clash with each other. He's letting us in their heads and telling us their secrets, rather then just setting us *****ty plots and letting Bats save the day by the book. There's actual, real, deep, genuine, emotional conflict going on.

He's telling a story! That's filmmaking.
 
chiefchirpa said:
I'm not unhappy about the movie. I'm just questioning the reason why Scarecrow is in the movie again because I just know it after seeing the pics in SHH main page (Rachel is secondary). It's my opinion that it's better if Scarecrow should be left out from the 2nd movie. The reality as we know along can't be changed as Scarecrow WILL be in the movie.

But some of you are really like cold blooded Gestapo to want to lock the thread without giving any feedbacks. No hard feelings from my part.
Click to expand...
You aren't tired of being PwNd? :huh:
 
chiefchirpa said:
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
Click to expand...

Dude...if Nolan is bringing them back, he has a damn good reason for doing so. So just sit down and relax.
 
I like The Scarcrow.
You leave the Scarcrow alone.
I like The Scarcrow.
 
Recycled in this NEW world of Batman is far different tha recycled from the previous worlds of Batman.
And even the Joker is being touched up =)
 
Originally Posted by chiefchirpa
But throwing in more characters just to give Batman fans a handjob? See Spider-Man 3.
Click to expand...


But thats the difference with THIS film , because we have already been INTRODUCED to the Scarecrow and Rachel Dawes.
Its not like we need to start from scratch and display their backstories all over again, as we did in the first film. Thats what Harvey and Joker will be there for =)

Bringing Scarecrow and Ms.Dawes back is no different than bringing Alfred or Gordon back.
They are already established characters.

And I'll stick to getting those handjobs, thank you very much.
You sound like you may need one, fuq.
 
Shot Gun Shy said:
But thats the difference with THIS film , because we have already been INTRODUCED to the Scarecrow and Rachel Dawes.
Its not like we need to start from scratch and display their backstories all over again, as we did in the first film. Thats what Harvey and Joker will be there for =)

Bringing Scarecrow and Ms.Dawes back is no different than bringing Alfred or Gordon back.
They are already established characters.
Click to expand...

I get the point.

I'm not sure I agree with Scarecrow and Rachel are established Batman characters like Alfred and Gordon. Rachel is a character made for the movie. Scarecrow is Batman's secondary villains.
 
Hole Shot said:
No. The only thing it needs is to tell a good story. It doesn't need Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Batgirl, Robin, etc.

If incorporating all those characters make for a good story then I'm all for bringing them in.

But throwing in more characters just to give Batman fans a handjob? See Spider-Man 3.
Click to expand...


Good thing Nolan's not doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FCEEVIPER
The Dark Knight Has This Been Posted? New Dawes Pic?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
9K
Gianakin_
Gianakin_
Nightwing 52
The Dark Knight The Dark Knight FAQ (Check here first)
32 33 34
Replies
836
Views
90K
The Battousai
The Battousai
boywonder13
The Dark Knight The Official Batman Begins Sequel Plot Details Thread (Spoilers)
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
boywonder13
boywonder13
H
The Dark Knight Rises If you were Christopher Nolan, how would you make the third film in this series?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
TheDarkKnight08
TheDarkKnight08
Mister J
The Dark Knight MSN Retrospective of TDK Articles
Replies
0
Views
985
Mister J
Mister J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,650 (members: 26, guests: 2,624)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,075,220
Members
45,874
Latest member
kedenlewis

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"