BF2S Forums The Dark Knight Rises

Well origin stories generally take up a lot and it was Batman Begins, but yeah, completely agrees. Raz would have been a good opening villain, make it all about the student turning on the master and all that - but you wonder why Scarecrow was included. I mean he didn't do much, he has weird expirements at Arkham and oversaw the dumping of chemicals... anyone can do that, why waste a perfectly good villain? Then when his time to shine came in the finale he got less than a minute of screen time before he was shot in the face with a Taser and rode off comically on a horse. By the second movie he was reduced to a peddler of dodgy drugs.

I mean c'mon, you've got a character who uses fear to restore order and fight crime, (Batman,) and then you've got his two-sides-of-the-same-coin character using fear to manipulate and control for his own gain, (Scarecrow.) Why not explore that?

I just hope we get more moments like these:

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-01-20 07:24:19)

I wonder if this thread will still be here when the film's released.

Ty wrote:

Well origin stories generally take up a lot and it was Batman Begins, but yeah, completely agrees. Raz would have been a good opening villain, make it all about the student turning on the master and all that - but you wonder why Scarecrow was included. I mean he didn't do much, he has weird expirements at Arkham and oversaw the dumping of chemicals... anyone can do that, why waste a perfectly good villain? Then when his time to shine came in the finale he got less than a minute of screen time before he was shot in the face with a Taser and rode off comically on a horse. By the second movie he was reduced to a peddler of dodgy drugs.

I mean c'mon, you've got a character who uses fear to restore order and fight crime, (Batman,) and then you've got his two-sides-of-the-same-coin character using fear to manipulate and control for his own gain, (Scarecrow.) Why not explore that?

I agree, Scarecrow getting taken down so quickly was a hell of a letdown, when I first saw it I was really mad. It was like Nolan couldn't figure out how to effectively tie up his plotline, so he just had Tom Cruise's future wife shoot him with a taser and it took all of 20 seconds, so that we could get back to Batman and Liam Neeson without anyone asking "What happened to Scarecrow?"

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Ty wrote:

Well origin stories generally take up a lot and it was Batman Begins, but yeah, completely agrees. Raz would have been a good opening villain, make it all about the student turning on the master and all that - but you wonder why Scarecrow was included. I mean he didn't do much, he has weird expirements at Arkham and oversaw the dumping of chemicals... anyone can do that, why waste a perfectly good villain? Then when his time to shine came in the finale he got less than a minute of screen time before he was shot in the face with a Taser and rode off comically on a horse. By the second movie he was reduced to a peddler of dodgy drugs.

I mean c'mon, you've got a character who uses fear to restore order and fight crime, (Batman,) and then you've got his two-sides-of-the-same-coin character using fear to manipulate and control for his own gain, (Scarecrow.) Why not explore that?

I agree, Scarecrow getting taken down so quickly was a hell of a letdown, when I first saw it I was really mad. It was like Nolan couldn't figure out how to effectively tie up his plotline, so he just had Tom Cruise's future wife shoot him with a taser and it took all of 20 seconds, so that we could get back to Batman and Liam Neeson without anyone asking "What happened to Scarecrow?"

I allways felt Scarecrow was not as much a "main character/villain" in that movie, more like a facilitator of the real villains plot...

Poseidon wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Dances With Wolves was...

As was Gettysburg. Obviously I was exaggerating as there's no way it'll be 4 hours, but a 3 hour finale would be perfect. Seeing as how Batman Begins was a little over 2 hours and TDK was closer to 2 1/2, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities to have TDKR be 3 hrs.

It's also still a comic book movie. 3:15 is about as long as I can imagine it going without getting a bit silly.

IMO, all the Potter films should have approached three hours, given the amount of information they needed to put in for the series to make sense as a whole in addition to all the shit they just invented.

Also, in response to something else I read somewhere, it's quite possible for the Penguin to make it as a Nolanized Batman villain. He doesn't even need the flipper hands.

Ty wrote:

The thing is, the best part about Batman films has always been the villains. Batman himself is kind of dull and one dimentional. And since they've already used the best Villain and they're discounting the more 'supernatural' ones like Croc or Clayface or Grundy or the many other weirdos, how is the third film going to be an improvement on what's already been?

Due in great part to the fact that writers aren't really allowed to do as much with Batman. For me, the character shines when in conflict with other DC heroes, such as when he subdues Superman with kryptonite. Or in the cartoon series 'The Batman,' when he already had his own software installed on the Justice League's space station, and during his first tour, walked up to a console and put the Bat logo on all of the screens. Everyone looked surprised but Superman, who just stood there with a knowing smirk.

Where the movies fail with the character is focusing too much on the gadgetry and action. Bruce Wayne is supposed to be the world's greatest detective, but his dark side is a dark side. Despite his sticking to rigorous principles, he still constantly teeters on the edge of becoming a villain. I always laugh at Christian Bale's growly Batman voice, but I think Nolan's movies have come the closest.

War Man wrote:

Anne Hathaway as catwoman? What the fuck?

Iamokaywiththis.jpg


At least it's not Halle Barry or Michelle Pfeiffer... that shiz sucked....

FloppY_ wrote:

At least it's not Halle Barry or Michelle Pfeiffer... that shiz sucked....

Michelle Pfeiffer did not suck as catwoman.

FloppY_ wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I always laugh at Christian Bale's growly Batman voice

Sure it sounds lame... but it's what he would/should do IRL since it's too easy recognizing the voice of a man as famous as Bruce Wayne...

Why wouldn't Commissioner Gordon (or a villain, for that matter) just take a covert snapshot of Batman's chin and match it up with someone in forensics?

im bateman

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I always laugh at Christian Bale's growly Batman voice

Sure it sounds lame... but it's what he would/should do IRL since it's too easy recognizing the voice of a man as famous as Bruce Wayne...

Why wouldn't Commissioner Gordon (or a villain, for that matter) just take a covert snapshot of Batman's chin and match it up with someone in forensics?

Meh, a chin could look alike someone more easy than a full-face... however that beeing said, Batman artists / casters have allways chosen distinctive looking chins since it's the only human part you see of Batman... durp

Kmar wrote:

Christian Bale playing Batman after seeing him as a crackhead in "The Fighter" might be tough to vision for me. I see what they mean by typecasting now .lol

I only remember him from Cubic (Equilibrium) in which he was badass

Kmar wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Sure it sounds lame... but it's what he would/should do IRL since it's too easy recognizing the voice of a man as famous as Bruce Wayne...

Why wouldn't Commissioner Gordon (or a villain, for that matter) just take a covert snapshot of Batman's chin and match it up with someone in forensics?

All the technology and they can't get a voice modulator ..lol

After buying the new bat-bike Bruce couldn't spare $100 bucks from his bat-budget for it

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-01-20 23:18:04)

Kmar wrote:

You didn't see American Psycho?

nope

barely even heard of it untill this
-bullshit started on 4chan

Kmar wrote:

Not bad.

It hasn't been aired alot on TV here, I have seen little to no announcements on Cinema / DVD and if I saw any, I have forgotten them...

Don't know why... maybe it's because it was named "American-something"...

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-01-20 23:38:52)