The Dark Knight Rises Which villians are MOST LIKELY to appear?

[TheBatman1979]

That's funny...because I could have sworn I already gave my reasons for him being in it. A. It's a very logical step after the events of TDK B. He's very similar to Batman in some ways, except he doesn't have the one rule, which makes him an imminent threat to Batman and his rules system C. He idolized The Joker which means he would be trying to take what Joker did and make it bigger and better, and pairing him with the newly introduced Harley Quinn would be perfect. See this way, we can have a reference to The Joker even though he's not in it. He doesn't need to be, because he had a whole movie for himself. However, he did change things, and I think that needs to be a point in the new movie. Face it, after what he did, crime in gotham will never be the same again. Hell, his part doesn't even have to be a major one. They could use him like Scarecrow in Batman Begins. He could be working for the main villain, and Batman manages to throw a wrench in Anarky's works, and he is captured, and taken to Arkham. If you are so dead set against Anarky being a main villain, other good choices include but are not limited to: Black Mask, Clayface, Mad Hatter, or **** even Killer Croc. I just don't want to see the same villains we've had shoved down our throats hundreds of times. Yeah we get it, Riddler, Penguin, Mr. Freeze, blah blah blah. Let's see something new. Batman's Rogue Gallery is very extensive, and very interesting. It would be a shame if Nolan only stuck to the "most famous" characters, especially when some of the lesser knowns are just as interesting if not more so. Read more of the comic books instead of sticking with pop culture and you'll know what i'm talking about. t:

Anarchy? Really? I mean talk about throwing in the villain no one cares about. I have read the Anarchy Mini-series. It wasn't that good. I mean if you want to toss in an unknown villain, why not Wrath? Orca? Great White?

I mean I don't know about you but I think there's a much longer list that deserves more attention than that. I think Nolan is trying to go with the more classic villains (that's pre-1979) over bringing up an 80's mini-series villain like Anarchy. I'd bet that you'd see Catwoman, Poison Ivy, The Riddler, The Penguin, The Mad Hatter and more before you'd see Bane or Anarchy.

 

[General_Obol]

Alright, as much as I understand where people are coming from against Anarky, and as much as I don't want Anarky nor do I think Anarky will be in the next film, I just have to throw something out there.

Certain Batman media made characters popular. The prime example is Mr. Freeze from Batman: The Animated Series. Before that, Mr. Freeze was rarely used and a joke character. The Animated Series transformed him from a nothing to one of Batman's most notable rogues. The Animated Series did the same for Poison Ivy. Frank Gorshin did something similar for the Riddler in the campy 1960's tv series. So just because Anarky is unknown doesn't mean he can't be used in the films.

He's just too corny.

 

[The Major]

TheBatman:

Wrath would work in Nolan's films.

 

[Melkay]

A. It's a very logical step after the events of TDK

Logical? I thought Batman sacrifices his own public image to prevent the Joker symbol of terrorism from enduring. Didn't he? Besides, what has logic to do here? Are you pushing for a bad rehash on the Joker themes? Are you looking for a Joker copycat? Why is that logical at all? Why didn't we have a Scarecrow copycat in TDK then?

It's about who got his way in the end... who prevailed in the public image. And that Dent... not Bats, and not the Joker. The image that endured in the eyes of Gotham's citizens was the image of the Law... not vigilantism or terrorism.

The most logic villain would com from within the system, then. So don't give me 'logic' bs.

B. He's very similar to Batman in some ways, except he doesn't have the one rule, which makes him an imminent threat to Batman and his rules system

Anarky?... very similar to Batman? Are you nuts? I thought he was similar to the Joker o Ra's in his quest for breaking down social structure.

Catwoman is way more similar tyo Batman.

I should've told you that making absurd statements is not reasoning at all.

C. He idolized The Joker which means he would be trying to take what Joker did and make it bigger and better, and pairing him with the newly introduced Harley Quinn would be perfect.

OMG... thank God you are not directing the movie.

First of all... you said above that he is very similar to Batman... and now he idolizes The Joker??
Second, Harley Quinn? She is a terrible character and not good for Nolan's world. And she needs the Joker to work well as a character. Are you considering a Joker recast? Fine. But if you're willing to add the girl that takes much of the menacing nature of the Joker away.... in addition to a recast.... well, then it's no surprise you think Anarky would be a great choice. Because you must be a former ARKHAM INMATE (a.k.a. "guy crazy as hell"). But well, I might be wrong here.

See this way, we can have a reference to The Joker even though he's not in it. He doesn't need to be, because he had a whole movie for himself.

Ohh, so you're willing to bring Harley Quinn WITHOUT the Joker.
No doubt now. You're out of your mind.

However, he did change things, and I think that needs to be a point in the new movie. Face it, after what he did, crime in gotham will never be the same again.

"Not the same again" and "having Anarky over" are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Check my first response in this post.

Hell, his part doesn't even have to be a major one. They could use him like Scarecrow in Batman Begins. He could be working for the main villain, and Batman manages to throw a wrench in Anarky's works, and he is captured, and taken to Arkham.

See, the Scarecrow IS a major villain. The scarecrow is a better character. He deserved the part even more. He had the merit.
Anarky doesn't. Jonhatan Crane still had a compelling personality and some freakin' notable differences between he and the main villain... he did what he did because he was a sadistic S.O.B. He fitted very well into one of the main themes of the film: fear. And, most importantly... he wasn't a rehash of a previous MAJOR villain.
You're proposing a bad rehash of the Joker.

If you are so dead set against Anarky being a main villain, other good choices include but are not limited to: Black Mask, Clayface, Mad Hatter, or **** even Killer Croc.

Black Mask could work. No doubt there. I just think he is no as compelling as the more classic villains. Anything he does could be done by Oswald Cobblepot.
Clayface no (without the sci-fi is character is dull as hell... "whoa, a guy who is a master of disguise in the 21st century! I'm so thrilled I'm gonna wet my pants!".
I think the Mad HAtter is too far-fetched and not fitting in Nolan's universe.
Killer Croc was used in B: Gotham Knight and I don't see Nolan willing to break continuity there. If they used him and Deadshot was for one reason... Nolan didn't want them.

I just don't want to see the same villains we've had shoved down our throats hundreds of times. Yeah we get it, Riddler, Penguin, Mr. Freeze, blah blah blah. Let's see something new.

Becaaausee....?

Batman's Rogue Gallery is very extensive, and very interesting. It would be a shame if Nolan only stuck to the "most famous" characters, especially when some of the lesser knowns are just as interesting if not more so.

There I disagree. The more famous and classic ones have endured for several reasons, but the first one is this: the writers always found ways tu re-use them and make them interesting. More than with the obscure ones. Plus, the public loves them. Who do you think people are wanting to see the most.... Nolan's version of Catwoman... or Nolan's Anarky?

Read more of the comic books instead of sticking with pop culture and you'll know what i'm talking about. t:

Wow... there's an oxymoron.
I'd love to, but it seems that You don't know what you're talking about either. There's only so much I can do for you...

 

[Melkay]

Alright, as much as I understand where people are coming from against Anarky, and as much as I don't want Anarky nor do I think Anarky will be in the next film, I just have to throw something out there.

Certain Batman media made characters popular. The prime example is Mr. Freeze from Batman: The Animated Series. Before that, Mr. Freeze was rarely used and a joke character. The Animated Series transformed him from a nothing to one of Batman's most notable rogues. The Animated Series did the same for Poison Ivy. Frank Gorshin did something similar for the Riddler in the campy 1960's tv series. So just because Anarky is unknown doesn't mean he can't be used in the films.

He's just too corny.

You're right there. Anarky may just need to be reimagined in a good fashion.
But in some animated series, or live action tv show, or even in the comics...

... Just not in the last film of a Christopher Nolan trilogy, thank you.

 

[General_Obol]

You're right there. Anarky may just need to be reimagined in a good fashion.
But in some animated series, or live action tv show, or even in the comics...

... Just not in the last film of a Christopher Nolan trilogy, thank you.

exactly

 

[[A]]

All this anarchy talking.. just makes me wanna read V for Vendetta again

 

[Punchinello]

Catwoman and Riddler then, even though I don't care for Riddler.

I'd refuse to watch the third film (..or any Batfilm) if they introduce Catwoman, AGAIN. She'd be pointless, because originally in the comics she represented Batman and Robin's fear of women (since Bats is only a 'boy' on the inside), but in Nolan's canon Catwoman's 'role' was taken by his original character Rachel Dawes. That aside, she'd be a very unthreatening, poor villain =D And we don't need another romance sub-plot. I'm voting for The Riddler: Nolan's going with the original Rogues Gallery, so he should continue with that. I do not want to see a Penguin, because he's only a drug dealer- and they had drug dealers already what with Ra's Al Ghul/The Scarecrow, and the mob.

 

[Hole Shot]

I'd refuse to watch the third film (..or any Batfilm) if they introduce Catwoman, AGAIN. She'd be pointless, because originally in the comics she represented Batman and Robin's fear of women (since Bats is only a 'boy' on the inside), but in Nolan's canon Catwoman's 'role' was taken by his original character Rachel Dawes. That aside, she'd be a very unthreatening, poor villain =D And we don't need another romance sub-plot. I'm voting for The Riddler: Nolan's going with the original Rogues Gallery, so he should continue with that. I do not want to see a Penguin, because he's only a drug dealer- and they had drug dealers already what with Ra's Al Ghul/The Scarecrow, and the mob.

I think they'd go the anti-hero more than villain role with Catwoman and she'd be one of several players.

Again, if this is the final chapter in the Nolan series, I really don't want the main villain to be Riddler he just doesn't come off as a climatic villain to me. Honestly the best villains to close out the series would have been Joker or Ra's.

But I'd like Riddler in the film along with several others.

My idea has been:

Blackmask vs Penguin at war for Gotham with Riddler playing a role in the first act but taken down by the midway point. Maybe one of them employing Crane and the other Riddler? And having Catwoman playing every side to set up for Nolan's twist.

Penguin would go by Oswald Cobblepot, be a British non-mutant gangster that the cops and his enemies have mockingly nicknamed Penquin.

 

[Melkay]

I'd refuse to watch the third film (..or any Batfilm) if they introduce Catwoman, AGAIN.

And we're supposed to believe that?

She'd be pointless, because originally in the comics she represented Batman and Robin's fear of women (since Bats is only a 'boy' on the inside), but in Nolan's canon Catwoman's 'role' was taken by his original character Rachel Dawes.

Oh god.... you actually didn't know what the hell you were talking about!
Rachel and Catwoman the same role???
You're actually out of your f****ng mind.

I... I.... I can't even start to explain how incredibly wrong you are. But I have to, now it's a moral obligation.
Click the link in my signature and move to the post that says Catwoman in big bold letters.

Same role as Rachel.... ugh, I think I wanna puke....

That aside, she'd be a very unthreatening, poor villain =D

Unthreatening as.... who? Jonathan 'skinny ass' Crane? Harvey 'I point a gun at a kid' Dent? We're talking about a thief here who can held her own way in fighting but she's there to complicate things for Bats, emotionally and plot-wise. Not to kick his ass (or have any hechmen do that). Are you in fourth grade?
At least... you know... mentally?

And we don't need another romance sub-plot.

hahahahaha...this has to be your best one. "We already had romance previously so we don't need any of that now, blah blah blah". Keep thinking that way and next movie wouldn't need villains, action sequences or The Batman himself because, well, we had those already.
I know, I know, it's your opinion and I should respect it.

I'm voting for The Riddler: Nolan's going with the original Rogues Gallery, so he should continue with that.

But, then again, my opinion is that you're a misogynistic, socially awkward boy who happens to like a villain who's nothing more than an glorified and probably emasculated nerd.
(I'm playing devil's advocate here)

Employ arguments fairly... if that works for the Riddler it works for Catwoman too.


.... alright, I'm starting to feel bad about treating you so poorly, and I'm sorry.

I do not want to see a Penguin, because he's only a drug dealer- and they had drug dealers already what with Ra's Al Ghul/The Scarecrow, and the mob.

The Penguin a drug dealer??

RA'S AL GHUL A DRUG DEALER!!????

Suddenly, I'm NOT sorry anymore.

 

[Nietzsche]

Something new? I agree.

What about The Red Claw as a villain? She was some sort of martial artstress that I remeber featured in one of the Kevin Konroy cartoons. Maybe she could be linked with the league of shadows. I think tali al ghul is a bit cliche with her being releated to the villain of the frist one. Its more like the kind of arc you get in star wars.

I think loads of villains should feature in small ways, being an army of freaks assembled by the main villains, who should be, imo

Red Claw and Bane... the latter being protrayed as an intelligent but highly sadistic combat expert. Bane sees himself as the ultimate man and wants to rule gotham/the world with the freak villains as his minions. Bane could be a scary villain if done right and portrayed as having brains as well as brawn. He shouldn't be at all likeable- just one of those totally sadistic people. The joker was a bit sadistic but I still felt you could sympathy for heath's portrayal and understand, identify with him. I like that version of the joker, who i never saw as being sadistic for the sake of it. Someone like Bane though is.

 

[Melkay]

Let me toss this quesiton into the air..... is there any GOOD reason to bring the League of Shadows back for the third?

If so, please, elaborate.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

Let me toss this quesiton into the air..... is there any GOOD reason to bring the League of Shadows back for the third?

If so, please, elaborate.

It brings the trilogy to full circle and it also makes sense that something as big and powerful as The League of Shadows would try to give destroying Gotham another shot. It is also a way to bring Talia into the story and give Bruce another love interest. (If they don't want to use Catwoman and the studio forces their hand to have a leading woman). You actually could play around with the theme of redemption and choice just as well if not better then you can with Catwoman.

I'm not convinced its an awesome choice or anything, but there is certainly worse ideas and there is enough there to play with and not immediately rule out as a possible plot.

 

[ScarecrowMan666]

Logical? I thought Batman sacrifices his own public image to prevent the Joker symbol of terrorism from enduring. Didn't he? Besides, what has logic to do here? Are you pushing for a bad rehash on the Joker themes? Are you looking for a Joker copycat? Why is that logical at all? Why didn't we have a Scarecrow copycat in TDK then?

It's about who got his way in the end... who prevailed in the public image. And that Dent... not Bats, and not the Joker. The image that endured in the eyes of Gotham's citizens was the image of the Law... not vigilantism or terrorism.

The most logic villain would com from within the system, then. So don't give me 'logic' bs.



Anarky?... very similar to Batman? Are you nuts? I thought he was similar to the Joker o Ra's in his quest for breaking down social structure.

Catwoman is way more similar tyo Batman.

I should've told you that making absurd statements is not reasoning at all.



OMG... thank God you are not directing the movie.

First of all... you said above that he is very similar to Batman... and now he idolizes The Joker??
Second, Harley Quinn? She is a terrible character and not good for Nolan's world. And she needs the Joker to work well as a character. Are you considering a Joker recast? Fine. But if you're willing to add the girl that takes much of the menacing nature of the Joker away.... in addition to a recast.... well, then it's no surprise you think Anarky would be a great choice. Because you must be a former ARKHAM INMATE (a.k.a. "guy crazy as hell"). But well, I might be wrong here.



Ohh, so you're willing to bring Harley Quinn WITHOUT the Joker.
No doubt now. You're out of your mind.



"Not the same again" and "having Anarky over" are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Check my first response in this post.



See, the Scarecrow IS a major villain. The scarecrow is a better character. He deserved the part even more. He had the merit.
Anarky doesn't. Jonhatan Crane still had a compelling personality and some freakin' notable differences between he and the main villain... he did what he did because he was a sadistic S.O.B. He fitted very well into one of the main themes of the film: fear. And, most importantly... he wasn't a rehash of a previous MAJOR villain.
You're proposing a bad rehash of the Joker.



Black Mask could work. No doubt there. I just think he is no as compelling as the more classic villains. Anything he does could be done by Oswald Cobblepot.
Clayface no (without the sci-fi is character is dull as hell... "whoa, a guy who is a master of disguise in the 21st century! I'm so thrilled I'm gonna wet my pants!".
I think the Mad HAtter is too far-fetched and not fitting in Nolan's universe.
Killer Croc was used in B: Gotham Knight and I don't see Nolan willing to break continuity there. If they used him and Deadshot was for one reason... Nolan didn't want them.



Becaaausee....?



There I disagree. The more famous and classic ones have endured for several reasons, but the first one is this: the writers always found ways tu re-use them and make them interesting. More than with the obscure ones. Plus, the public loves them. Who do you think people are wanting to see the most.... Nolan's version of Catwoman... or Nolan's Anarky?



Wow... there's an oxymoron.
I'd love to, but it seems that You don't know what you're talking about either. There's only so much I can do for you...

See no matter what I say, you always come up with some ridiculous rebuttal. No matter how ridiculous it is. IF you knew anything about Anarky you would know this: He is both similar to Batman and The Joker. He's more of a Vigilante than a villain. So he can relate to both. He's not like Batman in the aspect that he won't take lives, on the contrary he will do just that to make ends meet. If you think Harley Quinn couldn't be used without The Joker, you my friend know nothing. The Joker simply has to have an influence over the movie, and bringing in Harley would be a great way to have said influence. If she teamed up with Anarky, it would only make sense. See when Anarky first started out, he was very much a villain, and that could be shown. Later on, he could be a vigilante as he was supposed to be. I swear it just pisses me off that people want to see the same villains over and over again. Frankly it gets boring. Why bring back somebody we've seen countless times in some sort of media or another, when we can have something fresh and new? Your argument for the overused villains makes no sense, and you gave no real reason behind it. But I know the reason, because it's what you are used to. See people don't like change, especially most comic book people. If it's a movie they want the exact same thing they have seen in the comic book or animated series 100 times. But in order to keep the series interesting, you have to have something new. Nolan took a chance with Ras and Scarecrow, whether you want to admit it or not. They weren't very well known villains as far as the public was concerned, not at all. Now they are. I'd like to see that happen again with other villains that are just as great in the comics, but haven't been touched upon much when it comes to movies, or animation. Nolan is always trying to surprise us...I think he'll do it again. Am I saying Anarky or Maxie Zeus or Black Mask or Mad Hatter will be in it for sure? No. I'm just saying it would be great if they were. As opposed to the same rehashed tired villains like Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin.
Now, I'm done.

 

[Melkay]

It brings the trilogy to full circle

Full circle? I thought the story was about Bruce/Batman, not about the League. Batman is not dependant on the League and his encounter with them was not seminal to his transformation.
If you want circularity you need to adress the Wayne's and their murder on the Opera House alley. Not the League. The League was just another influence among many, that's all.

...and it also makes sense that something as big and powerful as The League of Shadows would try to give destroying Gotham another shot.

It also makes sense that in the vast world of Nolan's creation, there are still many perils for Batman and his city besides a (perhaps extint) world-wide terrorist organization. And a beheaded one for that matter. Economic turmoil, big corporate corruption, a criminality rise after the Joker's presence in the city, Batman getting heavily chased by the police, etc.

The League waited decades and decades before putting its plan for 'cleansing' Gotham in motions... I'm sure it's normal if they wait a few more years after Batman *killed* their leader, isn't it?

It is also a way to bring Talia into the story and give Bruce another love interest. (If they don't want to use Catwoman and the studio forces their hand to have a leading woman).

I'm sure the studio will give Nolan almost complete creative liberty. And even if that wasn't the case, Catwoman is a far more popular and iconic character than Talia. Talia would be a 'studio risk'.
Besides.... is she worthy? Catwoman and many other character can be introduced in multiple ways into the story. Talia needs the League, and therefore major influence over the plot. Is she worth it? Do we really want to bring back the League and step over familiar ground once again because of her?

You actually could play around with the theme of redemption and choice just as well if not better then you can with Catwoman.

Oohhhh, that's a huge assumption. Talia would follow on the worldview her father had, which is something deeply involved to Bruce's past. He separated himself from those choices and views and redeemed himself by saving Gotham from it and giving the city the oportunity to grow better. Those are options aready seen and embodied by Batman and Ra's. Choices that were thematically linked with Justice, Vengeance, and using fear for and against the innocent citizens.
Everything that had to be said about that was said in Begins.

Catwoman/Batman is different. Their relathionship revolves around being an Outcast, public perception, social differences, opposed ways of bringing balance to society, opposed ways of helping the city, etc. Those have not been fully explored yet and the franchise would improve heavily from it. I invite you to read what I wrote about the potential of using Catwoman for the next movie,
just click the link in my signature.

I'm not convinced its an awesome choice or anything, but there is certainly worse ideas and there is enough there to play with and not immediately rule out as a possible plot.

I'm someone who likes to stick with the best possible option and 'not settle'. I also don't like arguments that use different words for: "I know it's not right but look at what this guy did; it's worse!" If you can't come up with better ideas about a poor character like Talia, maybe it's not your fault and it's the lack of potential in Talia instead. If you want to think of good plots that may not be ruled out, think about alternatives to the ideas already out there about rich characters. Like Catwoman or the Penguin. They can be exploited in much better ways that what has been suggested by me and others.

 

[Melkay]

Okay, since you're done and not likely to teply to this message, then I feel like having a little bit of fun.

See no matter what I say, you always come up with some ridiculous rebuttal. No matter how ridiculous it is.

Ridiculous? Mind you, my rebuttal was great.

IF you knew anything about Anarky you would know this: He is both similar to Batman and The Joker. He's more of a Vigilante than a villain. So he can relate to both. He's not like Batman in the aspect that he won't take lives, on the contrary he will do just that to make ends meet.

Oh! You mean like he's similar to Batman, and the Joker.... AND Two-Face! Wow. I wonder why I thought of this idea like a ridiculously redundant rehash?

If you think Harley Quinn couldn't be used without The Joker, you my friend know nothing.

I know, I'm moronic. People tell me all the time and I don't listen. But you, my friend, you know what you're talking about...

The Joker simply has to have an influence over the movie

... he has?
(^WARNING: NO SARCASM DETECTED)

and bringing in Harley would be a great way to have said influence.

Mmm.... why? We can't see the Joker anywhere, to recast him would be a terrible choice, and suddenly you want to introduce his "former-psychiatris-turned-into-psychotic-girlfriend/partner in crime".

Gee, what a great way. Not redundant, time consuming or anti-climatic at all... and certainly NOT something that would go from a SUPERB villain like the Joker to a lesser copy of himself. It's brilliant.
(^WARNING: TONS OF SARCASM! TONS OF SARCASM!)

If she teamed up with Anarky, it would only make sense.

Right. Because she has the clownish aspects of the Joker and Anarky has the... well, the anarchy and the plotting. Brilliant.

The only problem is this: you're coming from a terrific character to other two that are meant to repeat his themes... for the cost of two.
One... repeated... for the cost of two.

See when Anarky first started out, he was very much a villain, and that could be shown. Later on, he could be a vigilante as he was supposed to be.

.......... poor thing, you actually think that idea saves the character, don't you?

I swear it just pisses me off that people want to see the same villains over and over again.

I can see. You're willing to deliver a horde of mindless absurd ideas only to avoid seeing the 'same villains'.

You're willing to see Maxie Zeus before seeing a classic Batman vilain.

No further questions, your honour.

Frankly it gets boring. Why bring back somebody we've seen countless times in some sort of media or another, when we can have something fresh and new?

Countless times? The same villains?

Were you happy with the mutant Penguin raised by a circus crowd and a flock of (real) penguins in the Gotham sewers?

Were you happy with the corny one-liner tossing Catwoman whose life and personality were 'resurrected' by a group of cats?

Were you conformed with Jim Carrey's over the top Riddler who looked like the nightmare of a Frank Gorshin caricature?

.... Arnold's Freeze sayin "let's kick some ice"?

Are those the things you grew tired of? Those characters have at least three times the potential Anarky has and they got robbed of their splendor in those lousy movies. They deserve other opportunities to be explorend and exploited and this is their time.

Your argument for the overused villains makes no sense, and you gave no real reason behind it. But I know the reason, because it's what you are used to. See people don't like change, especially most comic book people.

Oh, and just when I thought you couldn't be more wrong.

See, it's exactly because of my desire for change that I want to see the classic villains again. It's because I want different, redeemed versions of those characters who were wronged more than 10 years ago... nothing more.

You, on the other hand, are proposing a character that is meant to re-address the Joker idea again... and, op top of that, coupled with Harley Quinn. You want a character who can put the Joker's ideas on the table again.

What about that for a spin? Now I'm pro-Change and you are against change.
I know, I'm proud of myself.

If it's a movie they want the exact same thing they have seen in the comic book or animated series 100 times.

Wow... geez, you should really look for new comic-loving friends. Blame them for wanting to stick to the relevant stuff in the original source. Ugghhh...

Actually, that's not what I want. I want new interpretations on some character and classic interpretations on some others, always being faithful to their motives, psychology, and modus operandi. Like the thing Nolan did with the Scarecrow and Ra's. Like that.
You don't believe me? Then I'll prove you wrong. Click the link in my sig.

But in order to keep the series interesting, you have to have something new.

'New'... and even 'interesting'.... it's not synonymous with Good. It's a tricky concept, but you pulled the best example ever: Anarky.

Nolan took a chance with Ras and Scarecrow, whether you want to admit it or not. They weren't very well known villains as far as the public was concerned, not at all. Now they are.

I do admit it. He took a chance. He took two MAJOR characters from the comics, who had not previous movie appearances, and added them into the reboot of a buried franchise. There's no doubt, it was a chance.

And he ALSO took a chance by RE-INTRODUCING an iconic character like the Joker who had been portrayed, also iconically, by Jack Nicholson. It was a chance. And I supported both decisions in their time.

You're proposing a suicide now.

I'd like to see that happen again with other villains that are just as great in the comics, but haven't been touched upon much when it comes to movies, or animation.

JUST AS GREAT???

Anarky... just as great as the Scarecrow and Ra's 'freaking' al Ghul?!?

You belong into a mental institution my friend. And if you ever get there, ask yourself many times over the year the following question: why it is that Scarecrow and Ra's have many many more issues in the comics and have been even used in the animated series?

And please, don't say "because it's a government conspiracy" or I will shoot myself.

Nolan is always trying to surprise us...I think he'll do it again.

Yeah, I know!.... all surprises are the same.

Am I saying Anarky or Maxie Zeus or Black Mask or Mad Hatter will be in it for sure? No.

Didn't you say he's going to surprise us? Then... why the hell not?
because they're absurd characters? That won't stop the mighty Nolan!

I'm just saying it would be great if they were. As opposed to the same rehashed tired villains like Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin.

And I'm saying that would be wrong.

Now, I'm done.

I think you're done too, but my guess is you're going to keep going. If not, then the joke's on me.

 

[CaptainClown]

i like you melkay haha

 

[[A]]

What is that..? Oh I see it.. black text.. actually, I don't see it

 

[solidsnake86]

The way I'm seeing it, is that they basically used all of his bigger threats in the first 2 movies. I'm thinking in the third, especially with the interogation scene where joker said, you changed things, that they might put in a lot more villains than were expecting. Let's face it, most of his rogues can't hold a movie alone, especially being the big threat, but together they pose a challenge, especially with batman's villain status. Just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[wikum]

I must say I would be absolutely shocked if Catwoman doesn't make the sequel. I think the character is a pretty big draw for both male and female audiences, maybe even the biggest character Nolan hasn't used yet. However, I do see her being used as an anti-hero rather than a full on villain, so that might pave the way for multiple rogues.

In some ways this film doesn't even need a major enemy for Batman to tackle. He's already got not only the GCPD, but all of the citizens of Gotham on his case from this point forward. Reese might be forced under oath to reveal his identity ect ect....I could go on forever.

 

[Punchinello]

And we're supposed to believe that?



Oh god.... you actually didn't know what the hell you were talking about!
Rachel and Catwoman the same role???
You're actually out of your f****ng mind.

I... I.... I can't even start to explain how incredibly wrong you are. But I have to, now it's a moral obligation.
Click the link in my signature and move to the post that says Catwoman in big bold letters.

Same role as Rachel.... ugh, I think I wanna puke....



Unthreatening as.... who? Jonathan 'skinny ass' Crane? Harvey 'I point a gun at a kid' Dent? We're talking about a thief here who can held her own way in fighting but she's there to complicate things for Bats, emotionally and plot-wise. Not to kick his ass (or have any hechmen do that). Are you in fourth grade?
At least... you know... mentally?



hahahahaha...this has to be your best one. "We already had romance previously so we don't need any of that now, blah blah blah". Keep thinking that way and next movie wouldn't need villains, action sequences or The Batman himself because, well, we had those already.
I know, I know, it's your opinion and I should respect it.



But, then again, my opinion is that you're a misogynistic, socially awkward boy who happens to like a villain who's nothing more than an glorified and probably emasculated nerd.
(I'm playing devil's advocate here)

Employ arguments fairly... if that works for the Riddler it works for Catwoman too.


.... alright, I'm starting to feel bad about treating you so poorly, and I'm sorry.



The Penguin a drug dealer??

RA'S AL GHUL A DRUG DEALER!!????

Suddenly, I'm NOT sorry anymore.

What is there to prove that what I say is 100% wrong? Would it ruin your day so much if I made a decision to not watch any new batfilms with Catwoman as the villain? It's my personal opinion that I find her over-done, so I'm sorry that my opinion turned you off so much =P

I am not 'out of my ******* mind', as you had put it. If you've read the original comics and the many official and non-official encylcopedias, articles, analytical essays and what not on Catwoman's whole archetype and symbolism: she is a love interest on the 'wrong side of the law'.

I'm sorry if it's a moral obligation for you to demand that I click on a link in your signature, and that you also disagree with the above official and unofficial explanations from DC writers/editors and comic/author critics, too. Because they all said that: Catwoman represents Batman and Robin's underlying fear of the unknown/love from a woman. Superheroes, by default, do not have the time for a love life; and this is a proven dilemma for BATMAN, not Bruce Wayne. =D

I did not say that: -Rachel- has the same purpose as -Catwoman-: a love interest. Now that Nolan's killed the girlfriend of Batman/Bruce Wayne, it would be pointless/repetitive to introduce ANOTHER girlfriend who may or may not also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same man. It doesn't help that Catwoman is a canon, whilst Rachel is Nolan's own creation; so if a director had to pick a love interest, technically they should go for the canon character (who happens to be a villainess), not another tacky original character like the other ones in the Burton batverse or the other filmverses.

Go ahead and puke if it makes you feel better =D

Catwoman is only a thief, in the end: Nolan's Batman (like in the original comics) only starts fighting against the various mobs, smugglers, and serial killers. A thief (master thief though she is) isn't really up there with the League of Shadows/Assassins from Batman Begins, or the entire mob in The Dark Knight. A thief who steals Gotham's biggest diamond: big whoop for Nolan's Batman: he has better things and criminals to deal with, like racketeering groups and psychopaths.

Crane is exactly like he is in the comics: he is meant to come off across as a 'skinny ass' weakling: but he isn't, on the inside. Harvey Two-Face is, like in The Long Halloween, other novels, and The Dark Knight: one of the white knights. The Joker proved that 'anyone' can snap and take the fall. How else do you expect a D.A to react to one of the people who failed to see the truth? Do you want him to kick a puppy instead of threaten his best friend's own family, an ironic twist to Dent's own tragic accident with his family?

It's amusing that your post is reeking of a typical flame; immature, overblown insults resorting to 'omgz r u in 4th grade'. As if that'd mean anything; most kids at that age would know more about the Batman fandom then you've already shown to 'know' in your silly reply. Because, as we all know, Batman comics can be read by most ages; except for the of course adult comics that should only be read by the of-age, like Arkham or Dark Victory.

Romance is an important part of Batman and Bruce Wayne; in Nolan's verse, he's already decided to prove that Batman wants a real life, but hey, bad things happen if he tries to lead a normal life. He can't go back. It would also be out of character for Bruce to take on another love interest, after how it destroyed Harvey Dent and nearly destroyed Gordon, and his own life.

LMAO! You base that label on me, from reading these opinions of mine? Did you miss Nolan's interviews in which he said he chose to go with the Rogues Gallery? By all rights, he can pick whoever he wants: it's his film trilogy. So he could add Hush, or Le Bossu if he very well wanted to; but it'd go against what he started out to do- adapt Batman to the screen in a gritty, semi-realistic adaptation, going back to the fandom's roots in the vintage comics. That means Penguin, Riddler, Joker, Catwoman, Clayface, etc. Not a 10ft tall anthropomorphic Killer Croc, the Werewolf (known as, of course, just 'the Werewolf'), and the other High-Fantasy characters that would not fit in Nolan's verse.

The Penguin is a drug dealer. What else does he do in the comics? Both vintage, retro, and modern? He deals in drugs and artillery in return for loyalty and power. Nolan's Ra's Al Ghul provided the blue flower for Nolan's Crane's fear toxin: which is a drug, which Crane then sold to drug addicts or dealers that wanted it, which was explained in The Dark Knight novelization.

 

[CaptainClown]

oh no! huge chunk of text! MY EYES!

 

[Hole Shot]

I am not 'out of my ******* mind', as you had put it. If you've read the original comics and the many official and non-official encylcopedias, articles, analytical essays and what not on Catwoman's whole archetype and symbolism: she is a love interest on the 'wrong side of the law'.

OK, dude, once it goes that far you really need to consider investing in better channels on cable or a bicycle or something.t:

 

[Punchinello]

OK, dude, once it goes that far you really need to consider investing in better channels on cable or a bicycle or something.t:

How so? Reading books about comics because I also happen to have an interest in comics?

Thanks for.. pointing out the fact that I may in fact be a geek? When I read comics in the first place. =D

 

[Hole Shot]

How so? Reading books about comics because I also happen to have an interest in comics?

Thanks for.. pointing out the fact that I may in fact be a geek? When I read comics in the first place. =D

Hence the smiley. I laugh at myself just as much because I appreciate how ridiculous our enthusiasm can be at times.