BATMAN 3 RUMOR next Villian??

[MyCylon]

I really like the idea of Depp as the Riddler. Depp's a great actor and I think he'd be a great counterpart to Bale's Batman.

And please, please, whatever happens, I do not want Jolie anywhere near this project. I find I cannot take her seriously as an actress, and that would most likely affect my view fo the entire project as a consequence.

 

[Trevacious]

...

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Um...we did see Dent's funeral and the Bat-signal being destroyed. It wasn't a vision. It was called a flash-forward. This was used for dramatic editing reasons.

That's open to interpretation.

Slowly backs out of thread.

 

[Broccoli]

Um...we did see Dent's funeral and the Bat-signal being destroyed. It wasn't a vision. It was called a flash-forward. This was used for dramatic editing reasons.

That's open to interpretation.

Slowly backs out of thread.

Explain the shot during the montage with Alfred and the letter. Was that a vision?

 

[Caliburn24]

What would you guys think if they came up with a new villian just for the movie? Nobody from the comics or seen before.

I think it sort of ties the filmmakers hands to only be limited to the Rogues' Gallery.

 

[Davros]

What would you guys think if they came up with a new villian just for the movie? Nobody from the comics or seen before.

I think it sort of ties the filmmakers hands to only be limited to the Rogues' Gallery.

If you base your fim on an established story, you have an obligation to that established story.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

What would you guys think if they came up with a new villian just for the movie? Nobody from the comics or seen before.

I think it sort of ties the filmmakers hands to only be limited to the Rogues' Gallery.

If you base your fim on an established story, you have an obligation to that established story.

Original villains are introduced into Batman stories all the time. So to introduce an original villain (or villains) would be just as faithful to the established story as retreading yet another of the famous rogues.

 

[Aragorn]

What would you guys think if they came up with a new villian just for the movie? Nobody from the comics or seen before.

I think it sort of ties the filmmakers hands to only be limited to the Rogues' Gallery.

How is it limiting? There are a lot of bad guys in the gallery. Plus if you don't kill them off, you can always bring them back.

 

[JacksonArcher]

And there are a lot of villains that haven't even seen the light of day in a live-action Batman movie: Hugo Strange, Rupert Thorne, Black Mask, Killer Croc, Clayface, Deadshot, The Mad Hatter, and so on.

Perhaps not all of those listed would fit into the Nolanverse, but characters like Strange, Thorne, the Black Mask, Deadshot (especially after his appearance in Gotham Knight) and The Mad Hatter (ironically being played by Johnny Depp in the new Alice in Wonderland movie being directed by Tim Burton; Depp has been recently thrown about as a candidate for The Riddler) are believable enough that they could feasibly and plausibly fit in Nolan's world. I would especially like to see Deadshot, perhaps as an assassian hired by the mob to take out Batman now that he's on the run, and I think The Black Mask would be an interesting persona to help run the mob, since he wouldn't be the average mob boss and help push the themes of escalation and things getting worse before they get better (a disfigured crime boss).

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think they should announce that the next villain will be Count Dooku. Just to watch what happens on the Internet.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

I've thought that Black Mask would work well in the third film, and, barring that, John Lithgow as the Mad Hatter.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The thing is - I read this really nice discussion of TDK that points out one of the reasons that it transcends the genre is that the villain grows organically out of the movement of the story and the world that is established. Unlike most superhero movies, the Nolan-verse first establishes a world with problems (Gotham is corrupt and crime ridden). The hero responds to these problems (Bruce Wayne seeks training and creates Batman). At the same time a villain appears, also motivated by the corruption of Gotham (Ra's and his goal to tear Gotham down). Batman's response to the world causes a response in the world (the mob fights back, hires the Joker, who implies that he's been around but only "found himself" after the appearance of the Batman). By the end of TDK, due to the consequences of his own actions, the hero is forced to take an unconventional and unwanted route in order to keep fighting to solve the original problem (Gotham is corrupt and crime-ridden).

Contrast this to say Spider-Man, where the hero responds to a fantastic physical change and a personal tragedy - but little is done to establish a unique world with an Overriding Problem. Independently, a villain undergoes a fantastic physical change and begins doing Bad Things. Hero stops villain. In S-M2 we see essentially the same progression. Villain undergoes fantastic physical change, does Bad Things, is stopped by hero.

A lot of the suggestions in this thread seem to be more along the traditional model than in tune with what's already been done in the Nolan-verse. That is, they're more along the lines of "I'd really like to see this" (which is cool, it is a BBS after all), but what about the way these movies have been written? The way they are specifically dealing with the consequences of the hero's actions?

By the end of TDK the leadership of the mob has largely been trashed - by Joker, not by Batman. He kills Gambol and the Chechnyan, and Harvey kills Maroni. All the other criminals are released since Lau has been killed. This leaves a power vacuum to be filled, no doubt by more colorful characters than the traditional mob bosses. But I have to guess that, even though The Long Halloween is repeatedly cited as a source for these movies, the movies are not headed where it was headed. TLH really only exists to retcon a history for Gotham. It doesn't actually deal much with the character or philosophical implications of how Batman's actions have changed Gotham.

It's entirely possible that many of the suggestions here will come to pass, at least as a variety of rogues as a sort of background. But who is useful to solve the character dilemma? And I don't mean Batman's public relations situation at the end of TDK. I'll be surprised if that is in any way repaired by a third movie - because to have Batman become a hero to Gotham again undercuts his effectiveness. Better that he has a reputation as a murderer - it ups the stakes for the character as a whole. The question now is - has Bruce Wayne been forced to accept that he can't fix Gotham permanently and eventually give up being Batman? After all, this is what he's been trying to do so far in these stories. What will be the effect of whatever responsibility he feels for making Gotham worse? How is he to proceed with his war on crime at all? What changes will occur in the character as a result of the events of TDK? He's got to be a changed man after all that - at least if Nolan continues to go in the direction he's been going.

Any villain in the story has to activate these issues, otherwise you've just got the usual superhero formula of "someone starts doing Bad Things and must be stopped". Whilie that can be entertaining enough, it tends to kill the third act of a lot of superhero movies (Iron Man. The Incredible Hulk. Even Superman: The Movie suffers from this a bit), and it just seems far too conventional a route for Nolan who has so far bucked a lot of genre conventions - and made better movies for all that.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I absolutely agree, Lapis. I think it is evident in Nolan's films that he creates a world and most importantly a theme and then fastens the characters and settings around them. The theme of Batman Begins was fear so you had The Scarecrow representing that angle. You also had the themes of Bruce Wayne feeling responsible for his parent's death and trying to vindicate himself internally, and Ra's Al Ghul represented that desire to find atonement through cleansing Gotham -- however both had very separate and different ways about going at it.

The Dark Knight's theme in my opinion was not only just about escalation, but about be forcing to do things because there is no other option. The Joker challenges Batman in ways that he has yet to be challenged -- both internally and externally. Take the interrogation room scene for example. The Joker explains his theory on the world, that they're mindless creatures with no reason, and that he is quite the sane one ("ahead of the curve"). He explains that Batman is a "freak" in their eyes and when they no longer need him, they will cast him out. With the rising of Gotham's White Knight, Harvey Dent, Bruce was hoping for someone to usher in a new era of justice and peace for Gotham and that he could do it "without a mask". Bruce was searching for that type of atonement that he wanted in Batman Begins but never found. He doesn't really want this burden, he was forced into it the moment his parents were killed in front of his eyes. When Dent is scarred and torn down by The Joker, and especially when Rachel is killed, all of those ideas for a normal, safe life die with them.

The third film does represent an interesting idea: By the end of The Dark Knight I had a feeling that Bruce was wanting to give up the mantle of Batman. It's obvious that in Nolan's movies he doesn't want to do this forever (as Dent even went on to explain in the dinner scene with Bruce and Rachel). Will he choose to vindicate himself or will he just give up the mantle? Or will a villain force Batman to vindicate himself? Think about it. Bruce could just stop being Batman. He's seen by the police and probably by Gotham as this horrible figure now. How would he inject hope with the reputation of a killer, the very thing he despises? A third movie should be about Bruce cleansing his own soul, and how the villain represents the delimma of just who Batman is, and how long he is going to stick around for.

 

[DBR]

Playing on the theme that Gotham needs a Hero, I too suspect we'll see someone try and take up that role and end up being comsumed by it, or go about it all wrong. I don't think it will be the Riddler, though.

I also think pulling out the big gun villains might take away from the focus of the movie. Maybe a minor character like Azrael who is similar to Batman/Wayne in many ways, but worlds apart at the same time could be used.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Playing on the theme that Gotham needs a Hero, I too suspect we'll see someone try and take up that role and end up being comsumed by it, or go about it all wrong. I don't think it will be the Riddler, though.

This is why I think Hugo Strange is perfect for the third movie. In the comics he was a psychiatrist who became obsessed with Batman and eventually took on the role of Batman, doing what Batman could not do: kill.

He thought that Batman went about it all wrong, and that criminals could not be cured, and must be eliminated.

I could see Strange becoming Batman by thinking he could do what Batman failed to do, and as you said, going about it all wrong. That would force Batman to take him down as the public's perception of him would be tainted, and it would also serve as a way to vindicate Batman by stopping Strange and proving that he is not the killer that everyone suspects.

 

[MyCylon]

Re. Lapis Exilis:

Those are some really interesting points. I hadn't really looked at the natural growth of Batman, Gotham and its villains in such detail in Nolan's Batman. But you're right, I think, and I agree that it's making the movies better than the competition (I can't really think of any exceptions).

So, just based on the situation at the end of TDK and the points you've made, wouldn't the Riddler be a good choice? The Joker arguably threw all of Gotham into incredible chaos and the only way to resolve that chaos and madness was for Batman to go along with it to a degree by accepting responsibility where he's not responsible at all.

With the chaos and the opening left in the underworld wouldn't the Riddler be a pretty natural development? He would seem similar to the Joker at first as his schemes would not at first be apparent. But it would become clear - at least to a character such as Bruce Wayne / Batman - that there's actually a clever mind with a plan at work. However, this would be plan you could actually figure out in some way.

So, on the outside, the Riddler would continue some of the madness and chaos but, really, it wouldn't be like that at the core.

Wouldn't that be a possible direction to take?

 

[JacksonArcher]

Re. Lapis Exilis:

Those are some really interesting points. I hadn't really looked at the natural growth of Batman, Gotham and its villains in such detail in Nolan's Batman. But you're right, I think, and I agree that it's making the movies better than the competition (I can't really think of any exceptions).

So, just based on the situation at the end of TDK and the points you've made, wouldn't the Riddler be a good choice? The Joker arguably threw all of Gotham into incredible chaos and the only way to resolve that chaos and madness was for Batman to go along with it to a degree by accepting responsibility where he's not responsible at all.

With the chaos and the opening left in the underworld wouldn't the Riddler be a pretty natural development? He would seem similar to the Joker at first as his schemes would not at first be apparent. But it would become clear - at least to a character such as Bruce Wayne / Batman - that there's actually a clever mind with a plan at work. However, this would be plan you could actually figure out in some way.

So, on the outside, the Riddler would continue some of the madness and chaos but, really, it wouldn't be like that at the core.

Wouldn't that be a possible direction to take?

Possibly. The Joker had no plans, but if you really think about it, he kind of did. Y'see, The Joker was kind of a contradiction. That was evident when he spewed two different stories about his past.

He was an enigma, a mystery, perhaps even to himself. He did everything he did in The Dark Knight to manipulate the world around him and it didn't matter what he did or how he did it. He definitely had plans, despite whatever he spewed to Dent or Batman.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Possibly. The Joker had no plans, but if you really think about it, he kind of did. Y'see, The Joker was kind of a contradiction. That was evident when he spewed two different stories about his past.

Well, that was just more evidence that Nolan is an actual Batman (comics) fan.

The Joker's never told the same version of his origin twice. And that includes times that he's not TALKING to anyone, but rememberig things by himself. It's pretty well established in the comics that most of what he knows about himself is essentially hallucinatory self-delusion...

My personal favorite version of his origin (and thus the one I tend to accept as being closest to the truth) is the one Alan Moore wrote for "The Killing Joke." This is the one that Burton sort of "borrowed" (but not completely) when he did his own "Batman" movie.

He was an enigma, a mystery, perhaps even to himself. He did everything he did in The Dark Knight to manipulate the world around him and it didn't matter what he did or how he did it. He definitely had plans, despite whatever he spewed to Dent or Batman.

The only "plans" the joker has... that he's EVER had... has been to "let everyone in on the joke." The "joke" of course, is the total insanity, harshness, etc, of existence in an unfeeling, sadistic universe... (as he sees it). And he's anxious to win converts to his own personal worldview... what he believes to be the only real TRUTH in existence!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Re. Lapis Exilis:

Those are some really interesting points. I hadn't really looked at the natural growth of Batman, Gotham and its villains in such detail in Nolan's Batman. But you're right, I think, and I agree that it's making the movies better than the competition (I can't really think of any exceptions).

So, just based on the situation at the end of TDK and the points you've made, wouldn't the Riddler be a good choice? The Joker arguably threw all of Gotham into incredible chaos and the only way to resolve that chaos and madness was for Batman to go along with it to a degree by accepting responsibility where he's not responsible at all.

With the chaos and the opening left in the underworld wouldn't the Riddler be a pretty natural development? He would seem similar to the Joker at first as his schemes would not at first be apparent. But it would become clear - at least to a character such as Bruce Wayne / Batman - that there's actually a clever mind with a plan at work. However, this would be plan you could actually figure out in some way.

So, on the outside, the Riddler would continue some of the madness and chaos but, really, it wouldn't be like that at the core.

Wouldn't that be a possible direction to take?

My problem with Riddler is that he simply isn't enough of a threat to Gotham as a whole. He's always been an adversary focused on one upping Batman, or showing off his own intelligence (except of course in the memorable and wonderful Dark Knight, Dark City three-issue arc - but that wasn't really the Riddler). I can see Riddler and a bunch of others showing up in various guises to fill the power vacuum in Gotham's criminal underworld, but I don't see how he challenges the character dilemma enough to be the main threat - unless as was talked about earlier in the thread.

I could see a story in which the escalation theme is carried forward - crazies move into the power vacuum left by the mob leadership being killed. So the other side escalates. A politician or law enforcement leader (FBI or the state's AG) decides that harsh methods must be used to establish order in Gotham, instituting what amounts to martial law, and which includes a full on manhunt for the vigilante. I could see some uses of Hugo Strange in this area, as a profiler brought in to identify the Batman. I could see Riddler or some other Rogue used as a tool to enact chaos, thus justifying even more government control. Gordon and Batman find themselves at first pleased, and then horrified. It would make for a really interesting companion piece to TDK. It gives room to further explore the personal and philosophical dilemmas that have characterized the series. It would fulfill the requirement that Batman works best in a world that's gone to hell. It would follow naturally out of the events of TDK. It could be scary as hell to see a world brought to life where someone uses the Batman's own tactics to control crime taken to an extreme. Now it's not just one vigilante breaking the law, but an entire secret police force controlling the population completely.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Well, I feel compelled to point out that outside my gym today, I saw a guy who looks perfect for the role of the Penguin. I nearly took a picture of him on my cameraphone so I could post it to Nolan and persuade him to cast him in the next movie. Then it occurred to me that that's the sort of thing that gets people barred from gyms.