131 replies to this topic

[Steel Samurai]

Not necessarily. Harvey survived the accident, after all.

[Raien]

I still haven't seen The Dark Knight yet (because I'm seeing it on IMAX next week! WOOT!), so don't spoil me. But I have recently been watching the Batman Animated series, and I think the best candidates for next Batman villain should be Poison Ivy and Bane.

You see, people have suggested the Riddler and Mad Hatter as possible villains, but how different are they really from the Joker? Their gimmick might be slightly different, but it still amounts to a madman causing violence and destruction around Gotham. The League of Shadows in Batman Begins managed to be unique by poisoning Gotham's water supply to destroy the city entirely through fear, and I think Batman 3's main threat should be equally unique.

The problem Poison Ivy currently has is her cheesy obsession with plants as competitors with humans as a species, and her plant monsters. But as a master of poisons who works for a successful cosmetic enterprise, she can be set up for a unique storyline, rather than the typical madman blows up stuff/people. She wouldn't be great for fight scenes though, because she isn't tied to the criminal underworld in such a position. So what if she was secretly making drugs (which connects to the plant theme), or perhaps even the steroid that Bane is known to use. Bane is an equally unique character for the steroid plotline alone. Not only does he stand apart from the other Batman rogues, but the addictive steroid could be easily tied to Poison Ivy, which would allow her to manipulate him, thus combing the elements of detectivework and action.

Edited by Raian, 01 August 2008 - 05:26 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Not necessarily. Harvey survived the accident, after all.

Harvey had his seatbelt on. Remember? As he was saying \"But he\'s not.\" \"Who?\" \"Your driver.\" He was buckling up.

I still haven\'t seen The Dark Knight yet (because I\'m seeing it on IMAX next week! WOOT!), so don\'t spoil me. But I have recently been watching the Batman Animated series, and I think the best candidates for next Batman villain should be Poison Ivy and Bane.

You see, people have suggested the Riddler and Mad Hatter as possible villains, but how different are they really from the Joker? Their gimmick might be slightly different, but it still amounts to a madman causing violence and destruction around Gotham. The League of Shadows in Batman Begins managed to be unique by poisoning Gotham\'s water supply to destroy the city entirely through fear, and I think Batman 3\'s main threat should be equally unique.

The problem Poison Ivy currently has is her cheesy obsession with plants as competitors with humans as a species, and her plant monsters. But as a master of poisons who works for a successful cosmetic enterprise, she can be set up for a unique storyline, rather than the typical madman blows up stuff/people. She wouldn\'t be great for fight scenes though, because she isn\'t tied to the criminal underworld in such a position. So what if she was secretly making drugs (which connects to the plant theme), or perhaps even the steroid that Bane is known to use. Bane is an equally unique character for the steroid plotline alone. Not only does he stand apart from the other Batman rogues, but the addictive steroid could be easily tied to Poison Ivy, which would allow her to manipulate him, thus combing the elements of detectivework and action.

Riddler is possible. He\'s VERY VERY different from the Joker, unless you\'re going off of Batman Forever, or Frank Gorshin here. Riddler has been portrayed as a serious character before. I prefer to think of him more as a narcissistic megalomaniac with a certain kind of [url="http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s\""]Asperger\'s Syndrome[/url]... but that\'s just me. This man would definitely not be like the Nolanverse Joker. However, given Batman\'s low, guttoral growl, I would say that many laughs are insured at the thought of him trying to not say \"Ass burger.\"

In fact, I\'d say that considering the qualities I\'d like to see in a Riddler, I think that the man who figured out Batman\'s Identity in TDK could make a jump to these attributes. The nerve of him, being pwned down by Lucius Fox, only to go on Gotham Tonight with the intent of blackmailing Mr. Wayne anyway? Yeah. Narcissism, much? Oh, and what was this man\'s name, again? Oh, yes: Mr. Reese. Mister...Reese... Mysteries? odd.

Also: One more thing. Bane and Poison Ivy in one movie is never going to happen again. Never. Just by the thought of that, the knowledge that they\'re in a movie together, no matter how well done they are... it\'s not going to rub execs the right way. Too many bad memories from Batman and Robin. I think I\'d be alright with seeing Catwoman again, but Catwoman was just someone that Batman Returns did so well it couldn\'t be approached. However, I might like seeing a good Mr. Freeze interpretation, a serious one. Though, I think he\'s not \'realistic\' enough for Nolan\'s Universe. But, there are ways to make even the cheesiest things work, Wally Pfister knows his camera angles, and he could definitely make a really, really heart felt Mr. Freeze Tragedy. But, I don\'t expect him to.

I'm still holding out for Harvey, though.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2008 - 06:11 PM.

[Raien]

Well, let me put my point in another light. The Batman films appear to be focusing on different aspects of the criminal underworld, which they highlight to draw morality into play. The first Batman film focused on corruption and fear. The second Batman film (once again, going off my assumptions) appears to be focused on violence and murder (although I would expect insanity to be an accompanying theme). So considering that The Dark Knight is dealing with the loss of life, will the theft of belongings stand out so considerably? Would dealing with the loss of life for another film have the same impact that The Dark Knight has?

Poison Ivy and Bane are both connected with the theme of drugs, which is why I think they would help the third film stand out from the previous two. Drugs cause both physical suffering and emotional suffering. If there ever was a decision to make a Batman Begins trilogy of films, that would be best way to cap it off.

Edited by Raian, 02 August 2008 - 07:30 AM.

[Reflectionist]

Well, let me put my point in another light. The Batman films appear to be focusing on different aspects of the criminal underworld, which they highlight to draw morality into play. The first Batman film focused on corruption and fear. The second Batman film (once again, going off my assumptions) appears to be focused on violence and murder (although I would expect insanity to be an accompanying theme). So considering that The Dark Knight is dealing with the loss of life, will the theft of belongings stand out so considerably? Would dealing with the loss of life for another film have the same impact that The Dark Knight has?

Poison Ivy and Bane are both connected with the theme of drugs, which is why I think they would help the third film stand out from the previous two. Drugs cause both physical suffering and emotional suffering. If there ever was a decision to make a Batman Begins trilogy of films, that would be best way to cap it off.

No, no, no. That's not where these films are going. Drugs was a theme already in Batman Begins, if you consider 'drugs' a 'theme,' at all. While, yes, the film was focused on fear, as a psychological theme, this fear was achieved through a psychotropic hallucinogen. The little blue flowers, made the drug, and the drug was dispersed into the water supply... when the Microwave Emitter was stolen, the drug was vaporized etc. etc. The Fear Toxin was the drug theme.

I still expect the next movie to be about redemption. The first movie was about fear, uncertainty, and motivation. The second movie was about mortality, and ethical dilemmas... duality. Yes, I expect the third movie will be a little more about duality and a lot more about redemption. You'll see how this might play out when you watch The Dark Knight.


Major Spoiler: Script section from TDK.

Gordon: Dent!?
Two-Face: This is where they brought her, Gordon; after your men handed her over. This is where she died.
Gordon: I know. I was here, trying to save her.
Two-Face: But you didn't!
Gordon: I couldn't!
Two-Face: Yes, you could have. If you had listened to me; if you stood up against corruption, instead of doing your deal with the devil!
Gordon: I was trying to fight the mob!
Two-Face: You wouldn’t dare try to justify yourself if you knew what I lost. Have you ever had to talk to the person you love most? To tell them it's going to be alright, when you know that it's not? Well, you're about to know what it feels like, Gordon. Then you can look me in the eye and tell me you're sorry.
Gordon: You're not going to hurt my family.
Two-Face: No, just the person you love most. [points the gun at his Gordon's wife] Is it your wife?
Gordon: Put the gun down Dent! [whispers] please.
[Two-Face moves the gun to his daughter]
Gordon: Please.
[Two-Face puts the gun to Gordon's son]
Gordon: God damn it, will you stop pointing that gun at my family?!
Two-Face: We have a winner.
Barbara: No! Jim, stop him!
Gordon: Harvey? Harvey! I'm sorry! For everything! Please, don't hurt my son.
Two-Face: [seems to consider it but grows angry when he hears police sirens] You brought your cops?!
Gordon: All they know is this is a situation. They don't know who or what, they're just creating a perimeter.
Two-Face: You think I want to escape from this?! There is no escape from this!
Batman: You don't want to hurt the boy, Harvey.
Two-Face: It's not about what I want! It's about what's fair! You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time! But you were wrong. The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world [pulls out the coin] is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair. His son's got the same chance she had: 50/50.
Batman: What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act. We three.
Two-Face: Then why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?!
Batman: It wasn't.
Two-Face: The Joker chose me!
Batman: Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall.
Two-Face: And he was right.
Batman: You're the one pointing the gun, Harvey. So point it at the people responsible.
Two-Face: Fair enough. You first. [flips his coin, it lands "tails," he shoots Batman in the stomach] My turn [puts the gun to his own head, flips the coin and it lands "heads" up so he points the gun at Gordon's son's head]
Gordon: Harvey, you're right. Rachel's death was my fault. Pl-Please, don't punish the boy. Please punish me.
Two-Face: I'm about to. Tell your boy it's going to be alright. Lie; like I lied.
Gordon: It's going to be alright, son.
[Two-Face flips the coin, but Batman tackles him over the side of the building before he can catch it, Batman saves Gordon's son but Harvey falls to the ground; Gordon runs over to the ledge where Batman is holding on to a pole with one hand and Gordon's son with the other, he pushes the boy up over the ledge and Gordon's wife runs over and hugs him, but before Gordon can help Batman, Batman loses his grip and crashes through several planks before he lands next to the unconscious Harvey]
Gordon's Son: Daddy! Dad, is he okay?
Gordon: Thank you.
Batman: You don't have to thank me.
Gordon: Yes I do. The Joker won. Harvey's prosecution, everything he fought for, undone. Every chance we had at fixing our city dies with Harvey's reputation. We bet it all on him. The Joker took the best of us and tore it down. People will lose hope.
Batman: They won't. They must never know what he did.
Gordon: Five dead, two of them cops. You can't sweep that up.
Batman: But the Joker cannot win. [kneels down next to Harvey, whose burnt left side is facing up] Gotham needs its true hero. [turns Harvey's head so that his unmarred side faces up]
Gordon: No.
Batman: "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I can do those things because I'm not a hero, unlike Dent. I killed those people. That's what I can be.
Gordon: No.. No! You can't! You're not!
Batman: I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be. Call it in.

[Raien]

Drugs was a theme already in Batman Begins, if you consider 'drugs' a 'theme,' at all.

The hallucinogen was a plot point, not a theme. To be a theme, it must be explored on a wider level and, to some extent, applicable to debate in the real world. The hallucinogen was in effect, liquid fear, and thus it continues to be an output for the theme of fear, not a theme in itself.

I still expect the next movie to be about redemption. The first movie was about fear, uncertainty, and motivation. The second movie was about mortality, and ethical dilemmas... duality. Yes, I expect the third movie will be a little more about duality and a lot more about redemption. You'll see how this might play out when you watch The Dark Knight.

I'm sure you're quite right, but does this mean that underlying themes cannot exist alongside the main themes? Fear was certainly the main theme of Batman Begins, and I think corruption was the underlying theme that tied the theme of fear to the criminal underworld. If duality is The Dark Knight's main theme, then violence would be a perfect underlying theme to tie it to the criminal underworld (after all, isn't the "dark side" of the mind typically violent?). And if the third film's theme is redemption, wouldn't the underlying theme of drugs be a good and unique avenue to explore that? Someone who regularly deals in the suffering of others must be a hard person to find forgiveness.

I still think the Riddler and the Mad Hatter would not be good villains for the same reason that the Penguin and Catwoman would not be good villains. They either provide us with lesser threats to Gotham compared with what we have seen in the first two movies, or they provide us with threats we have more or less seen before. Poison Ivy and/or Bane would really stand out and define the third Batman movie, and that's why I think they would be the best candidates.

[Reflectionist]

I just don't see this 'series' go that way. It's just not likely.

Batman Begins was all about drugs. Sure, the drug was primarily a fear inducing hallucinogen... but it was a drug, nonetheless. The effect was different. That's all that would be different with yours. In this world, that's Scarecrow's thing. Nolan wouldn't dare bring in Poison Ivy or Bane (much less in the same movie) just to do something very similar to what Jonathan Crane and Ra's Al Ghul did in the first movie. Poison Ivy would've come in with something like this:



I mean, the entire premise of the movie was that Dr. Crane had figured out a way to take these Blue Flowers and make them into a weaponized hallucinogen. Then, they had to figure out how to traffick this drug to Gotham, etc. etc. It was all about drugs, dude. All about it.

If you've seen any of the Viral stuff for TDK, you'll see that some of the backstory (and very, very little of one of the first few scenes in The Dark Knight) revolve around Scarecrow's escalation of the Fear Toxin.

Drugs could ONLY be a plot point... Poision Ivy wouldn't have anything new to bring to the table there. However, I would be interested to see a variation of the KnightFall storyline from the comics, if Nolan wanted to go that way and make this next movie darker still.

Edited by Reflectionist, 02 August 2008 - 02:12 PM.

[Raien]

Batman Begins was all about drugs. Sure, the drug was primarily a fear inducing hallucinogen... but it was a drug, nonetheless.

By that logic, Batman Begins was all about tanks because the film featured a tank. No; in order for drugs to be a theme, it has to be discussed on a thematic level. The hallucinogen was not discussed on a thematic level and no recognisable comparisons to the effects of real-world drugs, such as addiction or social and physical breakdowns, were made. Batman Begins was not "all about drugs"; it just featured a drug.

Nolan wouldn't dare bring in Poison Ivy or Bane (much less in the same movie) just to do something very similar to what Jonathan Crane and Ra's Al Ghul did in the first movie.

Are you suggesting that Ra's Al Ghul dealt blue flowers to the criminal underworld in order to make money off people's addiction? No, the blue flower was a biological weapon, which he used to kill people from the point of infection. That is a completely different context to drugs in the criminal underworld.

Edited by Raian, 02 August 2008 - 02:34 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Batman Begins was all about drugs. Sure, the drug was primarily a fear inducing hallucinogen... but it was a drug, nonetheless.

By that logic, Batman Begins was all about tanks because the film featured a tank. No; in order for drugs to be a theme, it has to be discussed on a thematic level. The hallucinogen was not discussed on a thematic level and no recognisable comparisons to the effects of real-world drugs, such as addiction or social and physical breakdowns, were made. Batman Begins was not "all about drugs"; it just featured a drug.

You missed the point here. The entire film was about the drug's use, trafficking, and creation.

Nolan wouldn't dare bring in Poison Ivy or Bane (much less in the same movie) just to do something very similar to what Jonathan Crane and Ra's Al Ghul did in the first movie.

Are you suggesting that Ra's Al Ghul dealt blue flowers to the criminal underworld in order to make money off people's addiction? No, the blue flower was a biological weapon, which he used to kill people from the point of infection. That is a completely different context to drugs in the criminal underworld.

No, Ra's didn't do that. Remember what he says to Bruce, though, at the mansion? Bruce: "Dr. Crane isn't in the League of Shadows?" "No, of course not. He thought our plan was to hold the city for ransom."

Ra's and the League of Shadows may have had honorable intentions, at best... but that doesn't stop Dr. Crane and Falcone from thinking there's going to be $$ involved. Hence the Corruption theme as well.

Edited by Reflectionist, 02 August 2008 - 02:41 PM.

[Raien]

You missed the point here. The entire film was about the drug's use, trafficking, and creation.

The drug was smuggled into Gotham but it was still a biological weapon. The League of Shadows were soldiers, not drug dealers. I would call them terrorists if they weren't actually determined to destroy Gotham.

This is where we need to differentiate between the drug and drug-dealing in general. Drug-dealing is an entire criminal subculture and its effects are quite specific to that subculture. When I said "Batman 3 should focus on drugs as a theme", I meant (and I said) that it should focus on that part of the criminal subculture, just as the previous two films focused on corruption and violence respectively. Batman Begins completely ignored the subculture, and thus it is unrelated to the suggestion I'm making.

No, Ra's didn't do that. Remember what he says to Bruce, though, at the mansion? Bruce: "Dr. Crane isn't in the League of Shadows?" "No, of course not. He thought our plan was to hold the city for ransom."

Ra's and the League of Shadows may have had honorable intentions, at best... but that doesn't stop Dr. Crane and Falcone from thinking there's going to be $$ involved. Hence the Corruption theme as well.

Hold the city for ransom? You mean terrorism? What Ra's did and what Dr. Crane thought they were doing amounts to the same thing; the drug was a weapon.

Edited by Raian, 02 August 2008 - 03:09 PM.

[Reflectionist]

You missed the point here. The entire film was about the drug's use, trafficking, and creation.

The drug was smuggled into Gotham but it was still a biological weapon. The League of Shadows were soldiers, not drug dealers. I would call them terrorists if they weren't actually determined to destroy Gotham.

This is where we need to differentiate between the drug and drug-dealing in general. Drug-dealing is an entire criminal subculture and its effects are quite specific to that subculture. When I said "Batman 3 should focus on drugs as a theme", I meant (and I said) that it should focus on that part of the criminal subculture, just as the previous two films focused on corruption and violence respectively. Batman Begins completely ignored the subculture, and thus it is unrelated to the suggestion I'm making.

No, it didn't. There were many, many parts about Bruce's homelessness in Gotham City before journeying outside of it, after his first interaction with Carmine Falcone. Bruce even says, and I quote, "The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve. I lost many... assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong. And when I traveled... I learned the fear before a crime... And the thrill of success. But I never became one of them." Isn't that the criminal subculture? He lost himself among them at the beginning...

By the way, the focus of The Dark Knight isn't on violence. It's a violent movie, sure... but for other reasons that you're not even close to hitting at the moment. It's more about the futility of violence as an answer to everything.

No, Ra's didn't do that. Remember what he says to Bruce, though, at the mansion? Bruce: "Dr. Crane isn't in the League of Shadows?" "No, of course not. He thought our plan was to hold the city for ransom."

Ra's and the League of Shadows may have had honorable intentions, at best... but that doesn't stop Dr. Crane and Falcone from thinking there's going to be $$ involved. Hence the Corruption theme as well.

Hold the city for ransom? You mean terrorism? What Ra's did and what Dr. Crane thought they were doing amounts to the same thing; the drug was a weapon.

No. I meant Ransom. That was also a direct quote.

[CID Farwin]

Batman Begins wasn't about drugs. Or corruption of the criminal underworld.

It was about Batman.

The Dark Knight was about Batman. And the Joker.

I think that the third movie should be about--you guessed it--Batman.

[Raien]

No, it didn't. There were many, many parts about Bruce's homelessness in Gotham City before journeying outside of it, after his first interaction with Carmine Falcone. Bruce even says, and I quote, "The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve. I lost many... assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong. And when I traveled... I learned the fear before a crime... And the thrill of success. But I never became one of them." Isn't that the criminal subculture? He lost himself among them at the beginning...

The criminal subculture is made of different elements, and my argument is that each film focuses on different elements. Batman Begins showed a scene with drug dealing, sure enough but the impact of that scene didn't continue throughout the film. The real focus of that film was on Falcone and his power over Gotham through corruption; all the wrangling between Katie Holmes' character and Dr. Crane was a result of that. Then in The Dark Knight, the most prominent scene shown in the trailers was an armed robbery, in which the Joker kills his teammates. I am making the presumption that this sort of criminal activity is prominent throughout the film, and that's why I make the point about The Dark Knight emphasises violent crime in particular.

Drug-dealing involves addiction, social breakdown as the victim becomes separated from friends and family, and the physical breakdown as the result of the drug. It causes quite a lot of suffering, and as a result, it has more emotional impact than something like theft does. Another thing is that the two recognisable villains in each of the past two films have always shared an interesting, if not complicated, relationship with each other. My suggestion is that Poison Ivy as the drug dealer and Bane as the drug taker would not only make another interesting relationship but allow the film to explore that part of the criminal subculture.

By the way, the focus of The Dark Knight isn't on violence. It's a violent movie, sure... but for other reasons that you're not even close to hitting at the moment. It's more about the futility of violence as an answer to everything.

(Answer this next question with as little spoilers as possible please.) I presume that Batman, Two-Face and the Joker all feature duality complexes. Are you telling me that the "dark side" of each of these duality complexes is not inherently violent? Or are you suggesting that the "dark side" is simply inclined to steal (aka kleptomania) or act weird?

No. I meant Ransom. That was also a direct quote.

If you threaten to kill people in exchange for money, that's terrorism. Even when using the word "ransom", Crane is still referring to terrorism.

Edited by Raian, 02 August 2008 - 04:55 PM.

[Reflectionist]

I won't address the rest of your post, I think I kind of got where you were coming from.

(Answer this next question with as little spoilers as possible please.) I presume that Batman, Two-Face and the Joker all feature duality complexes. Are you telling me that the "dark side" of each of these duality complexes is not inherently violent? Or are you suggesting that the "dark side" is simply inclined to steal (aka kleptomania) or act weird?

No. Your presumption is incorrect. It [the duality thing: dark side thing] just isn't that clear cut, and I think that's what Nolan is getting at. ;-) I can't tell you much more than that, however, without spoiler tags. Feel free to cross reference them after you see the film.

The Joker is an absolute... the duality complexes aren't necessarily played down, but played against each other, and causes massive ethical dilemma. The duality is there, but not manifested so much in the characters as in the situations surrounding the characters. The film plays a lot on this one bit of dialogue from the Joker's visit to Harvey in the hospital after he gets scarred.

The Joker: Hi... You know, I don't want there to be any hard feelings between us, Harvey. When you and, uhh, Ra–
Two-Face: Rachel!
The Joker: ...Rachel were being abducted, I was sitting in Gordon's cage. Now, uh, I-I didn't rig those charges.
Two-Face: Your men; your plan.
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. You know? They're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say... [grabs Harvey's hand, Harvey struggles] —come here. When I say that you and your girlfriend [fondly pats Harvey's hand a couple of times] was nothing personal, you know that I'm telling the truth. [starts to unstrap Harvey from the table] It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. And look where that got you.
The Joker: I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look at what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan". Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I told the press that if like a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die? Well, then everyone loses their minds! [pulls out a gun] Introduce a little anarchy. [puts the gun into Harvey's hand, cocking the gun] Upset the established order, then everything becomes…chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair.
Two-Face: [pulling out his coin - heads.] You live.
The Joker: Mmm-hm [smacks lips together].
Two-Face: [tails] You die.
The Joker: Hmmm, now we're talking.

Edited by Reflectionist, 02 August 2008 - 06:31 PM.

[Raien]

No. Your presumption is incorrect. It [the duality thing: dark side thing] just isn't that clear cut, and I think that's what Nolan is getting at. ;-) I can't tell you much more than that, however, without spoiler tags. Feel free to cross reference them after you see the film.

Fair enough. I'll watch the film before I say anymore, in that case.

[Green Goblin]

never thought I'd hear someone argue for ANOTHER on screen performance of Poison Ivy. o_O

Certain villains simply wouldn't work in hte realistic batman universe. Characters that defy the laws of physics too much like Clayface, Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy just have no place in Nolan's universe, which is in itself based closer on reality than anything else.

characters that would fit better into it would be the Riddler (simply holding people hostage with his riddles), Black Mask (rise of a new mafia), Ventriloquist (Once again, new mafia) or Catwoman (thefts and vigilante justice mixed with feelings towards the bat).

[Raien]

Certain villains simply wouldn't work in hte realistic batman universe. Characters that defy the laws of physics too much like Clayface, Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy just have no place in Nolan's universe, which is in itself based closer on reality than anything else.

When I suggested Poison Ivy, I did specifically say that she shouldn't retain any supernatural abilities that she had in the comics, just like the Joker doesn't have his face bleached by chemicals. My argument is that she would be a perfect villain to explore the avenue of drug dealing in the criminal underworld, a prominent aspect of criminal culture that has yet to receive much importance in the Nolanverse. Likewise, Bane is representative of a drug-user, reliant on the drug to survive, so he would also be interesting to use with Poison Ivy.

Poison Ivy and Bane were just stock villains in Batman & Robin, yet I really think they have potential in the Nolanverse.

characters that would fit better into it would be the Riddler (simply holding people hostage with his riddles), Black Mask (rise of a new mafia), Ventriloquist (Once again, new mafia) or Catwoman (thefts and vigilante justice mixed with feelings towards the bat).

But won't these villains look somewhat underwhelming after psychotic killers? I get the feeling that with these villains, we're either starting to go over old concepts (mafia was done in Batman Begins) or introduce less exciting concepts (loss of valuables is just not as gripping as loss of life) or turn it into an average comic book movie (the Riddler just kidnaps people?). Drug-dealing at least imparts the suffering of the victim both physically and socially.

Edited by Raian, 05 August 2008 - 10:13 AM.

[Green Goblin]

riddler is like Jigsaw. He doesn't specifically kill people. He puts them in situations that allow them to die. More than the Joker, his traps and his riddles are what sell him. Not his overall presence.

Believe me. If you want mediocrity in a movie, that's Ivy. For one, you can't have Ivy and NOT have her be Chlorokinetic (I think that's what it's called). It's like having Mr. Freeze in an eskimo suit putting people in a meat locker. It's just not the character. The only way to have Poison Ivy is to have her with over-the-top powers. Joker's chemical accident doesn't make the character. But his personality combined with a white face sells it. Ivy, Mr. Freeze and Clayface's Powers ARE the basis for their character. Without that, there's really nothing that separates them from random crony #456.

What's more, it wouldn't fit with Ivy's personality to have her selling drugs. She's a feminazi environmentalist. She'd be taking down pharmaceutical companies in a rage of vigilante justice. She'd be manipulating millionaires (like Bruce). Taking them away from what they are is gonna do nothing but alienate long-time fans and confuse new ones.

[Raien]

What's more, it wouldn't fit with Ivy's personality to have her selling drugs. She's a feminazi environmentalist. She'd be taking down pharmaceutical companies in a rage of vigilante justice. She'd be manipulating millionaires (like Bruce). Taking them away from what they are is gonna do nothing but alienate long-time fans and confuse new ones.

I never said Poison Ivy couldn't be an environmentalist; I haven't provided any motivation for her actions. What I'm trying to say is that my main interest lies in the events of the film, not at its' relationship to the comic books. I want a story that can at least match the gripping nature of psychotic madmen as the villains, and I don't feel kidnapping or burglary really matches it. I think such a film would be underwhelming.

Drug-dealing results in a constant suffering for the drug-user, it's not death but a constant struggle at the bottom rung of society. I want to see the next Batman film deal with that on some level, with or without Poison Ivy.

[Green Goblin]

well, how about the crippling nature of advance dellusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcisistic rage? Make the villain somewhat pitiful as well? That's really why I lean more to the Ventriloquist than to Riddler, as everyone else is leaning towards.

And like I said, Ivy's THING is being able to manipulate plants with her mind. Which in itself, is too far our there to be put into Nolan's universe.

[Steel Samurai]

Joker's "thing" was ridiculous clown accoutrements and white make-up with a permanently grinning face and laughing gas etc.

Ra's "thing" was being an immortal rabid environmentalist.

Harvey's "thing" was a split personality and committing crimes that had to do with 2's (and the coin)

I don't see why Nolan wouldn't change Ivy slightly. Bane would be hella interesting, though I don't think they've established the world well enough to do anything approaching a Knightfall.

[Raien]

Bane would be hella interesting, though I don't think they've established the world well enough to do anything approaching a Knightfall.

I think a bigger problem is finding someone muscular who can not only act well but portray an intelligent character.

[Raien]

Excuse me for double-posting, but I've just come back from seeing The Dark Knight at the IMAX and I have some new views to share on it. First of all, I really enjoyed the film; I think it earned every one of those high review scores and I'm happy to see it sitting at the very top of imdb's "best films" list. Furthermore, I would even consider the film a work of art in it's own right as the subject of justice that it addresses, and the style in which it addresses that subject, makes the film much more than a traditional "comic-book movie".

With regards to the next Batman movie, the problem that I forsee is that they made the Joker too powerful in this film. In the same way that Batman was built up as a "legend" in the first movie, the Joker was clearly built up in the same way in the second film. How can you top a villain who has gained a kind of "demi-god" status through his presence alone? Will another villain be able to tear Gotham City apart as the Joker had done? I think that any successor to The Dark Knight is going to be ultimately underwhelming, and that is the sad tragedy of following a film so great. It's like a Zelda game trying to follow in the footsteps of Ocarina of Time.

That said, there is clearly room for one more film (aka. the Dawn) and so long as the writers just try to follow The Dark Knight's storyline, and not compete with it, they should be able to find some way to twist things before the closure (perhaps the legend of Batman falls as it had once been built). But I don't see how they can just continue to make new films; the Nolanverse is not made for variety, and that's why the choices made so far stand out much more.

PS:

As far as The Dark Knight is concerned, Harvey Dent is clearly dead. All the characters later refer to him as a dead man, and it allows Batman to take the fall for his crimes. If he does turn out to be alive in a later film, that would be a plot twist.

Edited by Raian, 07 August 2008 - 07:22 PM.

[Ducci]

My opinion:

Ledger was good. Like, real good. Really fudging good (can we curse on here? I forget). Bale was a douche. What was with his voice? Batman use to be a bit comedic. Why.. So.. Serious?! Cane was consistent and did a good enough job. The scenes with The Joker in were the only good parts. I didn't bother paying attention to anything else, it was too boring.

[Reflectionist]

As far as The Dark Knight is concerned, Harvey Dent is clearly dead. All the characters later refer to him as a dead man, and it allows Batman to take the fall for his crimes. If he does turn out to be alive in a later film, that would be a plot twist.

No, it's not clear. After Batman tackles Harvey, he and Gordon talk about how if people find out about the 'bad shit' that Harvey has done, then his reputation is dead. That's all they were saying.

[Oberon Storm]

That was a funeral at the end was it not? If he is not dead then Batman and Gordon had to have done something with him. I doubt that would be the case.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 09 August 2008 - 08:06 AM.

[Reflectionist]

That was a funeral at the end was it not? If he is not dead then Batman and Gordon had to have done something with him. I doubt that would be the case.

Did you see a casket?

also, use spoiler tags, please.

[Raien]

Did you see a casket?

Did you need to see a casket? The photo of him during the speech makes it pretty obvious that he's dead.

[Oberon Storm]

also, use spoiler tags, please.

It's been out three or four weeks now.

Why do we need to see the casket? Even if there was no casket and that scen wasn't at least a memorial service then you still have to consider that Batman and Gordon must have done something with him. Where could they hide him? And why would they? It defeats the purpose of letting Gotham think Batman is the bad guy.

[Raien]

It's been out three or four weeks now.

Not everyone gets the chance to see a film within the first few weeks, even if they want to. I only saw it last Thursday, because I wanted to watch it at the IMAX. Also, some countries tend to release films later than the U.S., so please take that into account.

It probably doesn't matter so much with the smaller films, but with blockbusters like The Dark Knight, try and wait a full month before dropping the spoiler tags. It was released July 16th, so I would say August 16th would be an appropriate date.