We here at Screen Rant recently asked the question, “What Will Batman 3 Be About?” The third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise is easily one of the most anticipated sequels ever – as evidenced by the HUGE outpouring of reader reaction our article is STILL receiving.
Out of the 350+ comments left by you Batman fans, two clear points of debate raged longest and hardest throughout the thread of discussion. After seeing the sparks of that debate, we thought it only fitting that we should fan it into a brush fire. So, without further ado I now ask:
Should Two-Face and The Joker be brought back for Batman 3?
THE NEW IMPORTANCE OF THE VILLAIN
One of the things I really appreciated about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was that it was clear with both films that scribes Chris and John Nolan and David S. Goyer all truly understood the character of Batman and the universe that he inhabited. More than that, the writers also had a keen eye for what made all of Batman’s supporting characters and (most importantly) the villains in his rogues gallery tick. If I have one criticism of Burton’s Batman films, it’s that the villains were mainly evil foils for Batman, there more for (wonderful) theatrics rather than any sort of pointed reason.
In Nolan’s films, the villains (for the most part) have carried much more dramatic weight. Certainly that’s true for The Dark Knight: The Joker wasn’t just there for show of a trademark smile (cough, cough), he added actual thematic meaning to the story, as did Harvey/Two-Face. And for that matter, so did Ra’s al Ghul in Batman Begins (Bruce Wayne twisted by anger).
There has been some debate about whether Batman 3 should position itself as a direct sequel to The Dark Knight, or perhaps as more of a standalone story, set long after TDK. In either case, if Nolan is at the helm you know that whatever villain(s) go into the script will only be in there if they add weight and meaning to the story. And while it would be a novel kick to see a few new villains rolled out for a flashy sequel, if Batman 3 is to be set directly after Dark Knight then there is still a lot of narrative weight still hanging on both The Joker and Harvey/Two-Face.
So do you bring them back?
.
TWO-FACE
Ok, so fans have said it; Nolan has said it; and even Dark Knight star Aaron Eckhart (eventually) said it:
Harvey Dent dies at the end of The Dark Knight. End of story.
However, as many of our readers have pointed out, that “death” marks the end of Harvey Dent’s story. Two-Face has a story all his (their?) own to tell.
I’m going to be honest: I’ve already argued that Batman 3 should bring back Two-Face, so I’m not going to pretend here that I’m not already in favor of that option. TDK did a great job exploring Harvey Dent, what he meant to Gotham and what it meant when he “fell from grace.” Nonetheless, I feel like there is still so much to explore in the character of TWO-FACE, and who that character becomes after the last remnants of Harvey Dent are (seemingly) gone.
Seeing Harvey fully transformed into Two-Face would add the kind of weight and hopelessness which (I think we all believe) is going to be a necessary starting point for Batman’s character in the next film. Picture it: The Caped Crusader is low. He’s hunted. He’s alone. He’s sacrificed much. Lost so much. He’s trying hard to maintain but there is Two-Face, always staring back as a testament to his failure, as morally complicated and conflicted as Batman himself.
Suddenly this character doesn’t sound as creatively exhausted as people are claiming, does he?
Another point of convergence in a lot of our reader comments was that any Dark Knight sequel should involve a flat-out war for control of Gotham City. Of those who held such an opinion, a large percentage also thought that B3 should be titled Gotham City for that very reason. If that is the direction the film goes in, then absolutely Two-Face would be an important cornerstone of the story. After all, as a D.A. Harvey Dent knew the entire inner workings of Gotham city’s businesses, political network, banking network, legal system, prison system, etc… If there was some kind of epic showdown for Gotham, then Two-Face would be one of the most crucial pieces on the chessboard.
Black Mask in Batman 3? (Click image for source)
Of course a lot of people have said that B3 should feature the criminal mastermind Black Mask (above), a classic Bat-villain who has recently enjoyed something of a resurgence in the comic books. But I have to ask: why drag us all through yet another villain origin story, just to maneuver said villain into a position (a crime boss connected all over Gotham) that you could fill with a villain the audience already knows and (for the most part) loves? Putting Two-Face into play frees the story up to introduce whatever secondary villains it wants, without having to exhaust a lot of time getting into their origins.
For example: Two-Face could approach Black Mask, The Penguin or whoever, deliver a few expository lines of dialogue to fill us in on who the villain is, and how he/she fits into the scheme of Gotham (based on his knowledge as a D.A.), and bada-bing, bada-boom, we’ve got a new player in the game, no time wasted.
So where’s the down-side of bringing Two-Face back? “Because it’s boring?” “Because it’s beating a dead horse?”
IMHO, if you truly understand why the character has been so pivotal and important to the Batman universe (I’d rank him #3 behind The Joker and Catwoman), then you should also understand just how much cinematic juice is left in this character. How do you NOT go after that juice when you know you’ve got an actor (Eckhart) who can truly apply the squeeze? Do people really think performances like his just just come with every Summer Movie Blockbuster?
UPDATE: Here’s what Two-Face himself (Aaron Eckhart) has to say on the subject:
MY VOTE: Bring back Two-Face!
Continue reading for pro/con arguments on whether the Joker should return…
Rumor Patrol: Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson to Play a DC Comics Superhero? 
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
‘Supernatural’ Season 8 – Will You Be Tuning In? 
‘Blade Runner 2′ Story to Take Place Years Later; Features a Female Protagonist 
Loading ...
@Amol
I dont think you are getting what im saying…I HAVE READ DARK VICTORY, I UNDERSTAND BATMAN WENT TO RIDDLER FOR HELP. IMO Loeb did not accurately portray Batman in doing so.
JOHNNY DEPP FOR RIDDLER AND JOKER SHOULD RETURN, YES HEATH DID A VERY AWSOME JOB, THE ACTOR TO CONTINUE IT WOULD NOT BE TRYING TO UPSTAGE HEATH RATHER USE HIS PORTAYAL OF THE INCARNATION OF THE JOKER NOLAN AND HEATH GAVE US A TRIBUTE TO HEATH..JOKER SHOULD BE PLAYED BY GORDON LEVITT, WHO BY THE WAY WILL BE IN NOLANS NEW MOVIE INCEPTION..SO THE JOKER CARDS MAY BE FRUITFUL !!!
I HEARD A RUMOR THAT THE 3RD INSTALLMENT’S TITLE FROM NOLAN WOULD BE CALLED “GOTHAM”
Suppose they want the Joker back, maybe they can use something out of the The Dark Knight Returns story and have Batman vanish for several years as if retired. They can bring another actor for the joker part. Plus it can be related to The Dark Knight since the police are chasing Batman.
I totally agree that bringing back the Joker in the third Christopher Nolan Batman movie would be a disrespect not only to the character, but also to Heath Ledger. I also agree that Harvey Two-face should come back, Batman and Gordon could be keeping him hidden in Arkham or in some other place, just like Kofi said. I think that the producers, writers and director should go this way instead of making a movie entirely with new villains.
I didn´t like any of the villains in Batman Begins,when I went to watch The Dark Knight last year I wasn´t enthusiastic because I didn´t think Batman Begins was such a great movie and I thought that casting Ledger as the joker was a strange, even wrong choice. After watching tirty minutes of film I was amazed by Ledger´s performance, just like everybody else.
I´m certain that the third Batman movie directed by Nolan isn´t going to be better than TDK and not even just as good, but at least it could be better than Batman Begins
@Michael
I understood you but the thing is Web pages are stand-alone request-response type technology. Unless you do not request for a page it won’t be refreshed for you.
When I gave you the total details, you had already responded (how you disliked Loeb doing that and all) quickly, which i hadn’t planned for and so I hadn’t refreshed my page. So I was unable to see your response and I posted my part again.
Personally for me, Batman Begins and TDK are two distinct non-comparable parts of the same on-going process. ‘Begins’ for me is the best ever movie depicting the origin of any superhero. It is gritty and deep into the details.
TDK is about Adversity (The Joker and his Chaos theory) and is about testing the guts of our newly-made superhero.
For me, they cannot be simply compared to each other. TDK is a continuation of Begins.
@Amol
It’s cool
@Michael
I understand how you feel.
You don’t have to dislike Loeb for that. It’s just that if you look at the Riddler’s character in Dark Victory, the way Loeb has written him he’s not a well-defined criminal like most other stories, but just a type of a weak informer who helps with Riddles so Batman going to him for help was OK for me (in ONLY DV that is), especially because Batman is not Egoistic and Riddles are Riddler’s speciality and detectives usually go to specialists to make things easy for themselves.
@Hector
I respect your decision to not classify among Bat-stories. (I too don’t want impose myself on anybody. It’s just they are really TECHNICALLY called ‘Novels’. And for a good reason.)
Anyway, I also agree with you about everything about Gotham’s mentality. Also Riddler could be a thief or a mob boss like you said to further more cash on their mentality.
(“And I don’t think that killing makes a character dark. Its the surroundings and general actions of the character that can make them dark.”)
Here too, I agree with you completely but…
Personally for me, Riddler is kind of a petty-level thief, BANK ROBBER (that’s where his money comes from.) who uses goons and at the same time is obsessed with Riddles which is quite harmless in itself.
The Point is: I would not like Riddler to lose this type of ‘innocence’ of his by becoming a gritty murderer/rapist under the pretext of making him Dark. Riddler won’t stay the Riddler for me then. Because making him a Murderer/Rapist/Paedophile WON’T make him Dark, that WILL ALTER HIS NATURE…COMPLETELY. He would then just become another Black Mask, Joker, Bane, Mad Hatter (that paedophilic b*stard). A Killer without a conscience. But then that’s my personal opinion. You can feel free to attack
THIS particular point of mine as a whole OR we could just agree to disagree.
P.S.: But at the same time, if there is ever any one single instance of Riddler killing anyone in his whole history (EXcluding Elseworlds) I will support the group that wants to see Riddler as Cereal oops… Serial Killer/ Rapist/Paedophile. Afterall, there may exist any such story that I may not be aware of. But until then I will defend his ‘innocence’ ….
As for what should happen in Batman-3, friend, I like to discuss characters in the storyline of the movie. The script could be anything but will work perfectly if the Characters are done correctly. My Script-writing will mean nothing to Nolan-Goyer but their Character-writing will mean a lot to me.
@Michael
I know how you feel about Batman going to Riddler for help.
You don’t have to dislike Loeb for that. It’s just that if you look at the Riddler’s character in Dark Victory, the way Loeb has written him he’s not a well-defined criminal like most other stories, but just a type of a weak informer who helps with Riddles so Batman going to him for help was OK for me (in ONLY DV that is), especially because Batman is not Egoistic and Riddles are Riddler’s speciality and detectives usually go to specialists to make things easy for themselves whenever possible.
What I think is Nolan did not convert Batman: ‘Year One’, ‘The Killing Joke’ and ‘The Long Halloween’ wholy into a movie but used them as source for his study and basis of his characters and that is the main thing. The script was his and Goyer’s and not from the comics/novels where Batman was first born.
Similarly if comics/novels say “A Riddler never kills” then that is his inherent nature and if Nolan alters that then I will be hughly dissappointed.
Yeah,… now I’m using even my Home Internet for accessing Screenrant. Am I addicted to it?
I think they should sorta bring back Joker the two face is dead no way to bring that back. Have the Harley Quinn in it aswell have it as Joker seeing the psychiatrist and her breaking him out in the begining then batman ending that like the scarecrow thing leaving space for the new villian & joker present but still in captivity. (:
@Amol
“Riddler could be a thief or a mob boss like you said to further more cash on their mentality.” Far from what I was saying. I think that a bank robber and mob boss have been explored by Nolan and as part of the escalation process they have to find something new to present. But then again there was a lot of sarcasm in my statement.
And dude you’re always going to be disappointed. But it doesn’t hurt to think outside the box.
@Hector
(“While you list great comics one fact is clear, they are all ideas 12-30 years old”)
Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin gave us masterpieces 80 eighty years ago and they are still Masterpieces even today. A Classic at any point of time is still a Classic if it has Quality. Time does not decide the quality of a entity. Quality (Inferior or Superior)is an intrinsic property and cannot be affected by Time.
Thinking out of the Box:
There is a limit to which the boundaries of a character can be extended. For some characters it is high for some it is low. That is the joy of having so many characters of different attitudes,altitudes and INTENSITY. The most gruesome act any living human being or a movie character can do is to kill another fellow-being. The Joker does it, Black Mask does it and Bane does it. Each with his own flavour and own classic behaviour. But if everybody starts doing it under the pretext of making it Dark when it is not in its nature then that would be robbing the joy the character gives us. The Riddler is the Riddler because the intrinsic qualities he possesses.
Thinking out of the box does not mean I would enforce the nature/properties of a Rectangle on to a Triangle under the name of experimentation and still somehow call that Triangle a Triangle. Because by then I would have distorted it FORCEFULLY to become the Rectangle.
And Triangle and Rectangle are two distinct entities with properties of their own.
Lemons, Oranges and Bananas. Lemons (Solomon Grundy) are acidic. Oranges (Joker, Black Mask) are MORE Acidic. Bananas (Riddler) are NOT acidic at all.
Anyway, I don’t know who started this “Riddler as Serial Killer” debate. It was long, long ago just after TDK was done with its job of destroying Box-Office records and everybody had started speculating the next villain for the next Bat-movie.
Also I am VERY SURE, if and When Nolan uses Riddler he will have done his study that the Riddler is a Banana and has no acid in him. Riddler will NOT be serial killer. I will bet all my life-time movie-watching experience on it.
nice article. like your idea on teh second page for just going past his cell in arkham asylum. just wanna say, “Gotham City?” That sucks. Why not go for the audience (wich they’re gonna do) and call it “The Dark Knight Returns??”
“Why not go for the audience (wich they’re gonna do) and call it ‘The Dark Knight Returns??’”
Because that is dumb, why not give it a name like “The Caped Crusader” or “The World’s Greatest Detective” or even “Matches Malone” just to give comic book fans a little something
@Amol
“The most gruesome act any living human being or a movie character can do is to kill another fellow-being.” While this may have been the case 12-80 years ago modern movies have slumped a bit lower with rape. I’m NOT saying that Nolan should do that either. I think rape sences are pointless and ackward, would rather watch 100s of people murdered before I watch a 17 year old get raped.
“(”And I don’t think that killing makes a character dark. Its the surroundings and general actions of the character that can make them dark.”)
Here too, I agree with you completely” Then why do you state this “But if everybody starts doing it under the pretext of making it Dark when it is not in its nature then that would be robbing the joy the character gives us.” I thought we were on the same page, that killing doesn’t make a character dark.
And why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder?
Also you have over looked some questions of mine:
You speak of a top-class mystery but what is it? What would make C. Gordon go to Batman and ask him for help? What would it take to make Batman even want to go after the Riddler if used?
Clearly I’m not the only one that thinks this way of the Riddler just as you said, so you got an up hill battle man. Only time will tell.
@Hector
Friend, I still agree with you that killing does not necessarily make a character dark. But the GAP between your thinking and mine is this one particular belief : For you, Riddler killing someone is OK. For me Riddler killing someone is simply not OK in the very first place.
The thing is:
Primary Stage: Can Riddler kill anyone?
Secondary Stage: IF YES, then can Riddler be portrayed non-dark inspite of the Murders he committed ?
For you, both the answers are ‘YES’.
For me the first answer itself is an emphatic ‘NO’ and so the need for me to think about the Secondary Stage does not arise at all ***AS FAR AS –RIDDLER– IS CONCERNED***.
Had it been Black Mask, Bane or Mr. Freeze instead of Riddler, my answer for first Question would have been a quick ‘YES’. As I result I would have entered the Secondary Stage and very READILY answered again: ‘YES’.
Now, did you get the difference?
I believe if Nolan makes the Riddler ‘Realistic’, he will NEVER kill. And this ‘NEVER’ is not of a Black-OR-White Extreme type (NEVER or ALWAYS) but comes from my PERSONAL understanding of the Character of Riddler.
AS far as your Questions are concerned: Friend, now you are definitely forcing me to write a sample of a script which I never did in my life, He He.
The top-class mystery that I desired from Nolan for the Riddler was just a general request any guy would do for the sake of Riddler. EVERYBODY knows Riddler needs a mystery to be in the limelight. Now I had already stated before that I LOVE to discuss Characters and their behaviour/nature/psyche in any movie (just like how we both are discussing the Riddler just now).
But writing scripts is not my forte. In fact I never even read those of others. But I will try a sample keeping your questions in mind and get back to you. And considering that I personally don’t want and don’t even imagine Riddler in Bat-3 (atleast as a one single villain), it would be more difficult for me to answer those question of yours related to Riddler.
But I will give a try.
I understand nolan’s batman is a more realistic one in every way,and i believed it has worked amazingly well , but lets face it its also a comic book and there should be on some level a supernatural effect to some villains how else can u introduce Mr. Freeze, Clayface,Poison Ivy,Bane etc. I mean they pretty much altered what Ras al Ghul was really about which is a somewhat immortal man who has lived for centuries i guess they could do without it in “Batman Begins”but my point is we cant get to caught up with the realistic part of this new batman franchise cause in the end it could just ruin the fantasy they are science fiction afterall. so Harvey Dent is dead! Two-Face is alive ok? there is much at risk if the people of gotham find out about Harvey’s doing. so a coverup is needed that is why Batman is the scapegoat. there is a history with these charachters so stick with the story of the “DARK VICTORY”comic(what an amazing movie that would b)joker should b mentioned in some way he should b locked up in arkham ready to be played again in the future by another great actor for a continuation of the series. in the meantime why not bring the riddler,catwoman and poison ivy for BATMAN:The Return of The Dark Knight
Science Fiction isn’t fantasy. If it is, it’s fake. Pseudo-Science Fiction, maybe a cop out term like Adventure, which is being applied to “Avatar,” could be alternatives. However, try this on for size. Harvey Dent was dead at the end of “The Dark knight.” Enter, Batman is fleeing the cops, and Gordon is staying with Dent’s body. Ambulance shows up and a Joker henchman steps out whacks Gordon. The henchman takes Dent. Now the thing about a fall is they’re kind of unpredictable regarding survivability. Some people have survived a parachute failure and others have fallen 6 feet and died. But you know even a good script can leave a number of things unsolved. So really the sky’s the limit. Perhaps a Two Face in the shadows, isn’t a bad starting premise for a third installment.
“Why not go for the audience (wich they’re gonna do) and call it ‘The Dark Knight Returns??’”
Thats retarded… and it was not titled Dark Knight because of batman it was titled Dark Knight because of Harvey Dent, If Harvey(two-face) returns it wont be pleasant. I think Cape Crusader is good… idk something involving the comics Gotham City just sounds a little weird to me as a Batman movie.
@Amol
My question was why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder? Not Can Riddler kill anyone? Or can Riddler be portrayed non-dark in spite of the Murders he committed?
I clearly see your point, have seen it from the beginning. While you believe realism stems from comics I find that realism is found in the style of the film.
Example:
Being realistic to the comic: Zach Snyder
Making a realistic film and story: Christopher Nolan
The Riddler is someone who leaves puzzles at his crime scenes, that is the basic foundation, everything else has to be built up. Such as the questions I posed to you. I’m not looking for a script, just a simple answer of what can he do will be fine. But then again the answers are not found in a comic book which will be hard for you to answer, I understand.
And while I also want to see a top-class mystery, I do realize that now a days, here in 2009 about to be 2010, a great mystery is usually poised around death.
Hush is my #1 supporting villain by the way.
@Hector
(“My question was why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder?”)
Ofcourse, EVERY Character involved in a script MUST have a Flavour.
I think for both of us, ANY character HAS to be 1. Realistic 2. Flavoured. The remaining third non-compulsory criterion is ‘Darkness’. It is a preferential issue.
(“While you believe realism stems from comics …”)
I do not remember believing in that. I only said…
(“There is a limit to which the boundaries of a character can be extended. For some characters it is high for some it is low. That is the joy of having so many characters of different attitudes, altitudes and INTENSITY.”)
By that I mean the –PRINCIPLES– that a character follows in the comics/novels.
Eg: The Joker follows the Chaos theory. Black Mask has a personnal issue with Bruce Wayne. Both are Psychotics. Riddler is USUALLY a Bank Robber obssessed with Riddles. Mad Hatter is paedophilic. Two-Face has a Bipolar Personality Disorder.
Now these are Flavours/Principles/BEHAVIOUR/Psyche of that character for me that should be implemented…COMPULSORILY.
AND SO The point is:
“Having Principles” and “Believing realism stems from comics ” are two different issues. I believe in the First and NOT in the Second.
AND THEREFORE again…
(“But then again the answers are not found in a comic book which will be hard for you to answer, I understand.”)
What you call ‘Answers’, I call it ‘Script-writing’ and they are hard for me not because they are not found in comics but because I’m just too lazy to write scripts. If the No. of solutions is EXACTLY one then it can be called an ‘Answer’ but if it can be multiple then it is a ‘script’ and can be developed depending on the director’s imagination. So what the Top-class mystery could be is for the script-writer/director to decide as it requires a script, not an answer.
But I also agree with you that Riddler’s Mystery could be developed around Death. The only thing is FOR ME, it could be that Riddler is NOT responsible for the Death himself but happens to know who (Black Mask/Bane/Mr. Freeze) caused those
and is blackmailing the responsible guy and at the same time is entertaining himself by leading Batman clue-by-clue one-step-at-a-time to the victims.
Again COMING BACK TO THE POINT, the character MUST have those those Principles because they are Inherent Behavioural Principles. It does not matter then whether he is in the campy atmosphere of comics or Nolan’s real world.
EVERYBODY knows comics are campy and Nolan is trying to get rid of that campiness by bringing in Realism. So Riddler Killing Someone is breaking one of those Principles (FOR ME) irrespective of whether he is as campy as comics or as realistic as Nolan’s would-be-Riddler.
But yet again there is a blurred thin line between what are Principles and what is Campyiness.
Eg: Bane surviving on the continous dosage some liquid being injected from his back is being campy and Nolan has to get rid of that just like he got rid of the Joker’s ridiculous Reptile-like permanent skin colour due to falling once in a chemical vat.
BTW, have you read my views on Realism related to Joker in my FIRST post for this article (PAGE 6). If you had read that, this debate about my realism being stemming from comics would not even arose.
P.S: I got your point on the issue of level of modern movies/novels. All the time you were refering to the INTENSITY of the movie/novels that can be depicted(What is more intense: Rape or Murder?) and how it can evolve with time. And all the time I was thinking of the script/dialogues/maturity of those PARTICULAR Bat-novels which is cast in stone and unaffected by time. Overall it was a non-issue for both of us as we both were correct.
@Hector
(“My question was why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder?”)
Ofcourse, EVERY Character involved in a script MUST have a Flavour.
I think for both of us, ANY character HAS to be 1. Realistic 2. Flavoured. The remaining third non-compulsory criterion is ‘Darkness’. It is a preferential issue.
(“While you believe realism stems from comics …”)
I do not remember believing in that. I only said…
(“There is a limit to which the boundaries of a character can be extended. For some characters it is high for some it is low. That is the joy of having so many characters of different attitudes, altitudes and INTENSITY.”)
By that I mean the –PRINCIPLES– that a character follows in the comics/novels.
Eg: The Joker follows the Chaos theory. Black Mask has a personnal issue with Bruce Wayne. Both are Psychotics. Riddler is USUALLY a Bank Robber obssessed with Riddles. Mad Hatter is paedophilic. Two-Face has a Bipolar Personality Disorder.
Now these are Flavours/Principles/BEHAVIOUR/Psyche of that character for me that should be implemented…COMPULSORILY.
AND SO The point is:
“Having Principles” and “Believing realism stems from comics ” are two different issues. I believe in the First and NOT in the Second.
The character MUST have those those Principles because they are Inherent Behavioural Principles. It does not matter then whether he is in the campy atmosphere of comics or Nolan’s real world.
EVERYBODY knows comics are campy and Nolan is trying to get rid of that campiness by bringing in Realism. So Riddler Killing Someone is breaking one of those Principles (FOR ME) irrespective of whether he is as campy as comics or as realistic as Nolan’s would-be-Riddler.
But yet again there is a blurred thin line between what are Principles and what is Campyiness.
Eg: Bane surviving on the continous dosage some liquid being injected from his back is being campy and Nolan has to get rid of that just like he got rid of the Joker’s ridiculous Reptile-like permanent skin colour due to falling once in a chemical vat.
BTW, have you read my views on Realism related to Joker in my FIRST post for this article (PAGE 6). If you had read that, this debate about my realism being stemming from comics would not even arose.
@Hector
(“My question was why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder?”)
Ofcourse, EVERY Character involved in a script MUST have a Flavour.
I think for both of us, ANY character HAS to be 1. Realistic 2. Flavoured. The remaining third non-compulsory criterion is ‘Darkness’. It is a preferential issue.
(“While you believe realism stems from comics …”)
I do not remember believing in that. I only said…
(“There is a limit to which the boundaries of a character can be extended. For some characters it is high for some it is low. That is the joy of having so many characters of different attitudes, altitudes and INTENSITY.”)
By that I mean the PRINCIPLES that a character follows in the comics/novels.
Eg: The Joker follows the Chaos theory. Black Mask has a personnal issue with Bruce Wayne. Both are Psychotics. Riddler is USUALLY a Bank Robber obssessed with Riddles. Mad Hatter is paedophilic. Two-Face has a Bipolar Personality Disorder.
Now these are Flavours/Principles/BEHAVIOUR/Psyche of that character for me that should be implemented…COMPULSORILY.
AND SO The point is:
“Having Principles” and “Believing realism stems from comics ” are two different issues. I believe in the First and NOT in the Second.
The character MUST have those those Principles because they are Inherent Behavioural Principles. It does not matter then whether he is in the campy atmosphere of comics or Nolan’s real world.
EVERYBODY knows comics are campy and Nolan is trying to get rid of that campiness by bringing in Realism. So Riddler Killing Someone is breaking one of those Principles (FOR ME) irrespective of whether he is as campy as comics or as realistic as Nolan’s would-be-Riddler.
But yet again there is a blurred thin line between what are Principles and what is Campyiness.
Eg: Bane surviving on the continous dosage some liquid being injected from his back is being campy and Nolan has to get rid of that just like he got rid of the Joker’s ridiculous Reptile-like permanent skin colour due to falling once in a chemical vat.
BTW, have you read my views on Realism related to Joker in my FIRST post for this article (PAGE 6). If you had read that, this debate about my realism being stemming from comics would not even arose.
Screenrant, WTF is the issue with your Javascripting ?. It’s not allowing me to post even normal statements sometimes.
Hector,
(“My question was why can’t the Riddler have “his own flavour” even if it includes murder?”)
Ofcourse, EVERY Character involved in a script MUST have a Flavour.
I think for both of us, ANY character HAS to be 1. Realistic 2. Flavoured. The remaining third non-compulsory criterion is ‘Darkness’. It is a preferential issue.
(“While you believe realism stems from comics …”)
I do not remember believing in that. I only said…
(“There is a limit to which the boundaries of a character can be extended. For some characters it is high for some it is low. That is the joy of having so many characters of different attitudes, altitudes and INTENSITY.”)
By that I mean the PRINCIPLES that a character follows in the comics/novels.
Eg: The Joker follows the Chaos theory. Black Mask has a personnal issue with Bruce Wayne. Both are Psychotics. Riddler is USUALLY a Bank Robber obssessed with Riddles. Mad Hatter is paedophilic. Two-Face has a Bipolar Personality Disorder.
Now these are Flavours/Principles/BEHAVIOUR/Psyche of that character for me that should be implemented…COMPULSORILY.
AND SO The point is:
“Having Principles” and “Believing realism stems from comics ” are two different issues. I believe in the First and NOT in the Second.
The character MUST have those those Principles because they are Inherent Behavioural Principles. It does not matter then whether he is in the campy atmosphere of comics or Nolan’s real world. So Riddler Killing Someone is breaking one of those Principles (FOR ME) irrespective of whether he is as campy as comics or as realistic as Nolan’s would-be-Riddler.
BTW, have you read my views on Realism related to Joker in my FIRST post for this article (PAGE 6). If you had read that, this debate about my realism being stemming from comics would not even arose.