Ra's goal wasn't single minded in Begins no but that still doesn't mean his ultimate goals weren't in tune with his comic book and animated series depiction.
Nolan 'verse Batman baddies we'll never see.
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
I feel Mr. Freeze is inextricably tied to his backstory. A cameo would undercut this too much.
I agree. Freeze is nothing without his frozen wife.
There's no evidence that he is. You're projecting motivations onto him that are not established in the film.
ETA:
In fact, several of the League's professed actions -- cause the Great Fire of London, spreading the bubonic plague, and contaminating a major city's water supply -- are fundamentally at odds with a pro-environmental agenda. It's pretty clear that the Nolanvese Ra's is all about fighting his idea of human corruption. There's no evidence he's immortal, or that he's an eco-terrorist.
Which is why he was such a minor villain before Batman: The Animated Series introduced the frozen wife angle.
I never stated that he was immortal in the film (although given the rumours about the India shoot this maybe will be addressed in The Dark Knight Rises 
). Ra's motivations were clearly to reduce the human population in major cities across the world, why else cause the disasters over the centuries as much as he has?
). Ra's motivations were clearly to reduce the human population in major cities across the world, why else cause the disasters over the centuries as much as he has?
Ra's al Ghul said:
His stated goal isn't to reduce human population numbers. His stated goal is to fight decadence and corruption.
^ Theatrics and deception my friend
Victor was used awesomely in Arkham City as well.
I have a personal belief that both the Jim Carrey Riddler and the Tim Burton/Danny DeVito Penguin could fit very easily into Christopher Nolan's 'quasi-realistic' interpretation of the Batman mythos with a few very minor tweaks to their characterization (toning down some of the over-the-top nature of the Carrey Riddler, and doing away with the 'raised by penguins' and 'eating raw fish' aspects of the Burton!Penguin).
Poison Ivy could also fit into Nolan's universe with a few minor tweaks, as could Clayface and Killer Croc (the latter of whom [Croc], incidentally, we've already seen, courtesy of Gotham Knights)
Characters who could fit into the Nolan-verse virtually 'as-is' are as follows:
The Ventriloquist
Red Claw
The Phantasm
The Mad Hatter
Baby Doll
Harley Quinn
Poison Ivy could also fit into Nolan's universe with a few minor tweaks, as could Clayface and Killer Croc (the latter of whom [Croc], incidentally, we've already seen, courtesy of Gotham Knights)
Characters who could fit into the Nolan-verse virtually 'as-is' are as follows:
The Ventriloquist
Red Claw
The Phantasm
The Mad Hatter
Baby Doll
Harley Quinn
I'd cast Hugh Laurie as Riddler and have him keep the House accent.
I'll second the Elena girl for Poison Ivy, though I love Christina.
Man-Bat probably wouldn't fit, being a friggin' monster.
Same for Killer Kroc and Clayface, as awesome as they are.
Solomon Grundy is out.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are fucking stupid - so they're out.
As for villains that would work in Nolanverse...
...Calender Man, despite being an absolute pants villain in the comics, is one creepy SOB in Arkham City.
...The Ventriloquist/Scarface could be creepy. Puppets are creepy.
...I wish Harley Quinn had shown up, but I suppose that's out what with Ledger being dead and all.
The rest have either been mentioned or are meh.
I'll second the Elena girl for Poison Ivy, though I love Christina.
Man-Bat probably wouldn't fit, being a friggin' monster.
Same for Killer Kroc and Clayface, as awesome as they are.
Solomon Grundy is out.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are fucking stupid - so they're out.
As for villains that would work in Nolanverse...
...Calender Man, despite being an absolute pants villain in the comics, is one creepy SOB in Arkham City.
...The Ventriloquist/Scarface could be creepy. Puppets are creepy.
...I wish Harley Quinn had shown up, but I suppose that's out what with Ledger being dead and all.
The rest have either been mentioned or are meh.
I don't think it's a question of whether he could but whether it's desirable. Avoiding a rehash would certainly be one big reason to object to it.
What is with the obsession with turning the Riddler into a serial killer? Doing that would be akin to what Burton did with the Penguin. True, Riddler is known for his Silver Age "death traps" he put Batman and Robin in, but the character generally abhors violence and laments that other villains resort to killing.
At least Carrey's portrayal was true to Riddler's earlier years.
At least Carrey's portrayal was true to Riddler's earlier years.
Arkham City's Riddler was great.
I mean, yeah, they could reveal that he's also into eco-terrorism. But, again, to what point? To what end? It's not an aspect of the character that was in any way established or even alluded to in Batman Begins. It's projecting something onto the text that's completely unsupported. Sure, they could add to his list of motivations, but, again, why? What's the purpose of doing an eco-terrorism plot?
To relate the issue of environmental activism to real life, as Nolan did with Ra's (crime and the economy) and the Joker (terrorism and the social contract) in the previous films: Are we really all that concerned about environmental activists posing a threat to society? Is this really an issue begging to be addressed through the urban crime genre? Is there really anything meaningful that can be said about it by dealing with it through the prism of a Batman villain?
He's just not that interesting of a character, frankly. Relating him to a modern urban crime phenomenon -- be it a serial killer or a domestic terrorist -- makes the character a more engaging antagonist.
Which I never had a problem with. The great thing about Burton's Penguin is that he did have a great motivation -- which, as Alidar Jarok noted, he had not had before. Batman Returns might not have had the best plot, but Burton's Penguin was a fascinating character study on class, envy, and revenge.
Totally disagree. B:TAS made him very interesting and entertaining to watch. And the stuff they've done with him in the last 10 years or so in the comics has really made him more of a rounded character. Turning him into a serial killer wouldn't make him more interesting. It would make him more cliched, because movies with serial killer bad guys are about as rare as films about hit men.
Yes, Burton's Penguin was an interesting character. But, as others have suggested, he was the Penguin in name only. That was my objection of the Riddler as a serial killer. I would see it as Riddler in name only as it moves too far from what the Riddler generally is. Also, a serial killer would make for a boring villain for Batman to face off against in a film.
Remember that proposed rumor a few years back of a Batman movie that had something along the lines of Bruce Wayne being a street kid and Alfred was a garage mechanic? Would that have been interesting? Maybe. Was it really Batman, though?
Personally, the best Riddler adaptation was B:TAS version where he was an intellectual who liked to play mind games in order to get what he wanted. I can see that working in a Nolan Bat-film.
That being said, I don't think that he would work as a "main" villain in a Nolan movie even if they turned him into a serial killer.
I think that if Nolan used Oswald...he would probably have been involved with the mob and be the Nightclub owner who acquires things like he's been in the comics recently and Arkham City. Actually Arkham City's portrayal of the character is almost exactly how I thought he would have been like in a Nolan film.
I just thought of the cameo as a way of getting him in there to show that it could be done.
This kind of villain would require significant tweaking, but I think it can be done. Have people around Gotham claim to see a large half man, half bat creature, similar to how people saw the Mothman in The Mothman Prophecies. The spirit of who and what the Man-Bat is supposed to be will play out through wild rumors and stories, but the ultimate reveal and explanation would be fairly grounded and mundane. Or maybe there won't be a reveal and the tale of the Man-Bat will live on, leaving the audience to decide if he's real or not. Oddly enough, this is probably how Batman himself should have been portrayed.
Well, there's nothing realistic, naturalistic or grounded about Nolan's Batman movies, not in any reasonable interpretation of the words. However, the question of a Bat villain who might be tranformable into a plausible, if flambuoyant, character is interesting in its own right.
If they had the balls to do it, Catwoman as prostitute turned killer, a prettified (and queasily glorified) version of Aileen Wuornos. The outfit already screams dominatrix/role-playing.
The Riddler, along the lines of the Ed McBain's Deaf Man. Come to think of it, the Deaf Man might have been McBain's conscious attempt at rationalizing a comic book style villain.
Poison Ivy, except with no nonsense about pheromones. Having a hot bod and being an aggressive slut would be quite enough, and the Batman's attraction could be explained by his having ordinary testicles. Vigilantism is always pro status quo, so conservatism, as in the Nolan movies, would fit right in.
If they had the balls to do it, Catwoman as prostitute turned killer, a prettified (and queasily glorified) version of Aileen Wuornos. The outfit already screams dominatrix/role-playing.
The Riddler, along the lines of the Ed McBain's Deaf Man. Come to think of it, the Deaf Man might have been McBain's conscious attempt at rationalizing a comic book style villain.
Poison Ivy, except with no nonsense about pheromones. Having a hot bod and being an aggressive slut would be quite enough, and the Batman's attraction could be explained by his having ordinary testicles. Vigilantism is always pro status quo, so conservatism, as in the Nolan movies, would fit right in.
Similar threads
