Which was what I was saying.
No, you were saying that you were getting tired of the popular characters getting their place in the movies. Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul are popular and very well-known among all the Batman comic fans. Anarky is not.
The let me add a lil' bit to that sentence... 'The public and the comic fans deserve new (re-)incarnations of major Batman characters in film. That's the only way they're going to meet them.'
Can we agree that major characters deserve more the spotlight that minor ones? Can we agree that Anarky is quite a minor character in the Rogue Gallery? I'm assuming this as FACT but if you think othertwise, please tell me.
Hush being in a big story line doesn't make him more interesting then Anarchy. He's just more well known since the story line he was in was publicized like crazy with A-list creators and many well known iconic characters showing up in it.
Hush wasn't even the most interesting aspect of his debut arc. He got over-shadowed by most of the villains guest-starring in it.
Being more well known doesn't mean they're better then other characters, either. Anarky is much more interesting then Hush ever was.
Hehe, I agree with everything you say about Hush... and
yet he's better known than Anarky. So, I cannot accept the 'he's a well-known and established villain' motto.
The funny part is when you get to talk about how interesting Anarky is compared to Hush.
Let me ask you this: Do you really want to compare Anarky to major well-known villains to see if he's
interesting enough? Do you really want me to mention every character way more interesting that him?
Not rethorical question at all. Maybe you're aroused by challenges. Sometimes, I am too
Of course not! He's just a thematic character whose
theme happens to be a Real-life Ideology, in a Hollywood movie that must abide by the rules of political correctness.
Not very much.
Anarky: I am Anarky! Chaos is coming!
Batman: Who's that?
Gordon: Oh, y'know, the Joker went off and then he came. Just humour him.
Batman: But he's called Anarky. Is he...
Gordon: Yep, and anarchist. Don't get him started on the topic, we don't have much time.
Anarchy doesn't need that much explanation. All they need to do is say he's a criminal inspired by Joker.
Hmm, that's very good, actually. I love lazy and arbitrary decisions.
Batman: Who's that?
Gordon: (shows him some photos) Name's "Anarky". At least that's how he calls himself. Just another criminal freak. They keep coming and coming...
Batman: And they'll be more. The Joker did a great deal of harm to this city.
Like it? Now put that in any setting, in any scene, and replace the underlined name with any other villain name you want to. It doesn't have to be an obscure one, just a name.
You don't need the most well known Batman villains to do that.
Well, but they are first in line by
merit, aren't they?
Some villains are better then others but I do think you're underestimating the lesser known villains.
Not all of them. But most are less-known for good reasons. Anarky didn't become popular because, first of all, there was already "V" by Alan Moore.
The other lesser known guys... I don't know, I can't go through each one of them. Just because Anarky has some pretty one-liners about social ideology doesn't mean that the concept holds up.
That's exactly why I mentioned Calendar Man... Though Jeph Loeb tried to make him into a Hannibal Lecter-type psychopath, it just didn't work. The guy was obsessed with the days of the week. He may recently have seen a transformation to a more diabolical and effective villain, but his name, appearance and modus operandi command no respect.
Which many of the lesser known Batman villains can be.
You may be right, but the major villains deserve more respect because they are the ones that contributed the most into making Batman one of the biggest comic titles of all time. They were That Good and they earned it. Anarky is not on that list.
I hate to go against this but....
false. You were indeed arguing for just a cameo appearance. Read above...
Batman can still be a success without rehashing villains the public have already seen in film.
And yet I want it to be the most successful it can be. It's the end of the trilogy after all. I know, I know, I confess... I like the Batman comics too much. I should care more about the little characters and less about the whole legacy of the Bat-world. Hmm...
Creative license can be a good or bad thing depending on how it's executed.
Hellboy did this right, Wanted did this wrong.
And it still doesn't matter because they're not in the same league as Batman. They're not embedded in the collective subconscious of today's society. They haven't arrived to that level of 'awesomeness'. When you're a regular Joe, you can eat whatever you want and sleep as much as you care. When you're an athlete aiming for the gold and a new world record... you HAVE to obey a healthy food and sleep regime. You can try unconventional methods, of course. Look at Michael Phelps diet. But he still consumed all thhose calories working out about six hours a day.
There are limits to creative licenses when the stakes are high. If you don't make the Joker perma-white you still need to give him his purple suit. And you add a pair of clown shoes.
If you add Harvey Dent to the movie and have him killed, you have to show him as Two-Face before that. With a proper left side of the face, like in the comics. And you add some burnt areas in the suit, too.
Risky decisions do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be compensated.
I'm not saying I'd prefer Anarchy over Riddler but I wouldn't against it either. Anarky's concept does have great potential in the Nolan universe.
As a cameo? Did the Zsas concept show its potential under Nolan's watch?
Or worse,
hardly a cameo? Just a guy who happens to be inspired by the Joker and that's it?
Maybe you mean a much bigger role than that... in which case yes, it does interfere with major villains like, as you say, the Riddler.
Lesser known villains appearing before well known ones don't mean they're disrespected.
Did you consider it disrespect to Joker and Two-Face that they were in the sequel instead of Batman Begins?
No, because TDK was better, and by the time of Begins my expectatives were lower. Now that we see what they can do with villains that have already been in movies, I want more of that. The zone is safe for major villains to come out. And we probably just have
one more film.
The regular public don't know **** about comics.
Yeah, and EVEN THEY know which characters are more RELEVANT to the comic history. Comic fans around here who are supposed to come up with good ideas mention Anarky as a real possibility just out of boreness until the next WB announcement arrives. Who should we listen to?
He's not the only new character in Batman's rogues gallery with great potential in film.
And yet your example still is
Anarky. No comments.
He's never been used in any of the films before. That's exposure Batman:TAS can't accomplish.
You were arguing Ra's got a film part only because of his exposure in B:TAS. He hadn't been used in any film before either. Care to present a decent point?
Anyone with good creative vision can make good stories from good characters without them having been in good story lines in other mediums before.
Yeah, but you send the ball farther with an iron bat than with a wooden one. There's just so much a creative writer can do with a character like Anarky. Let's give our guys some slack.
True, but they've all appeared in a film before.
It's that some kind of stigma? Because the Joker and Two-Face both had their shots at the big screen before TDK. Are you saying they didn't deserve a second chance? That they shouldn't have been there in the first place??
I want my money back!
They'll get to know the lesser known villains when they get in the films, too.
That's not the way it works, though. They need to realize their full potential first in the comics, maybe make a leap to a TV series. But not directly into film. Characters get privileges by
merit, not by
potential. Even the Joker relied heavily in his (best) comic anecdotes in TDK. That's how it works.
Because that's what happened.[/quotes]
But you're saying which were the causes behind the fact, bot the fact itself. Are you a mind reader? Are you Nolan?
Nolan chose him since he wanted a specific story to tell.
Anarky didn't fit that story but he could, in theory, make sense to appear with events after TDK.[/quotes]
Ra's al Ghul was presented as mortal man lead by his ideology who wanted to tear society apart through fear and chaos in order to punish its corruption and decadence.
In a sense, Anarky was even more fitting than Ra's.
For TDK, Nolan said he chose the Joker first and then asked himself: "We have presented this world. How could this guy (the Joker) fit into this world?" He got a few ideas and THEN he developed the story.
Not at all like you say.
No, I'm saying he has potential in film.
Enough potential to go before some well-known major villains?
Dare to elaborate about that potential?
Ra's isn't the only lesser known Batman villain with depth or numerous appearances in comics.
Whoa, whoa... who said Ra's was a lesser known villain? And more importantly, how can you be a lesser known villain with numerous appearances in the comics? I don't understand.
Maybe because that's what I'm arguing. He got the part in Begins because he's very well-known by comic readers. He's reliable and recurrent. He has enough depth and gravitas to take a place that seems more fitting to more specific villains. He's that good.
Anarky isn't.
Please, do. The commentaries are always the best parts.
I'm not just talking about Anarky specifically, just any of the lesser known Batman villains who haven't appeared in films before.
I know, I know... you stick for the little guy
. Well, I'm introducing again a revolutionary concept called
merit. Take one lesser villain and elaborate on his/her merit and potential. I'll do the same with a major one. My advice to you: don't start with Anarky.
I was using Black Mask as an example of a lesser known villain for the films. He has even less of a following with the public then Scarecrow or Ra's.
And yet he's known by almost every Batman reader out there. But here are people who don't know Anarky. There are divisory lines between the public, the comic reader and the coinneasseur. I suggest to jumping between the third and the first while skipping the mid-level guys. It's not wise.
How many times a character has appeared in comics mean nothing. It's whether they have potential. BLM does, so do many others which haven't appeared in film before. [/quotes]
Of course it means something. It means a lot. It means whether fans demand them or not, if the authors find them inspiring or not, if they're popular or not, how much they've reinvented, how mucho they've been explored and exploited.... in a few words: how good they are.
You can't
feel potential. You have to experiment it. It must be shown. And to do that, well... the more appareances, the better.
Some make more sense then others.
They don't all have to be inspired by Joker to work like Anarky.
Neither does he. Nobody needs to justificate their screen-time. Because, nobody
needs a good movie! We can get lousy villains all the time.
Re-read what you said about the cameo, please.
Joker isn't the only Batman villain which can make anarchy an interesting subject in a film.
Nooo, but he's the one who can make it the MOST interesting subject. Wanna turn down the franchise a noth or two? Wanna make it "not as good"? Wanna loose its freshness?
Then why do you want Nolan to retread old villains who have already appeared in films before?
Because they weren't HIS OWN ideas. Read well before asking these kind of questions, I beg you.
Agreed.
I'm just pointing out new directions he could go with it in sequels with a character like Anarky. Harley Quinn is another.
What are the new directions? New guy guy with a New Suit, New Name, New Alias, and Not So Much Charisma? Please, enlighten me.
And don't even get me started on the joker's cheerleader.
Red Hood is an alias not a real super-villain. Joker and Jason Todd are the people who used to be Red Hood.
Those were plot-twists to an already established character. But he was a character before that, and Nolan loves going back to origins. And character who were one person, then turned out to be ANOTHER character (does it ring any bells?).
I find that argument silly. It's just a plot-twist, and bad ones. As far as we know, in the comics, Anarky could be Alfred's estranged son and they didn't know.
Bane isn't the only lesser known Batman villain with quality.
And Anarky isn't the only villain without it.
(sorry for copying your trademark line)
t: Victory cigar?![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/m/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
And yet it amuses me that neither you nor the Major are capable why it is that Anarky has potential... Tel me something, boy: Why? Because he could be inspired by the Joker? That's equally doable for any number of villains.
