Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you were directing your own batman trilogy pick three villains to portray in each of em

Mine
1) Ra's Al Ghul and Lady Shiva
2) Scarecrow and Two-Face
3) Joker and Riddler

1. Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow I thought was perfect
2. Two-Face, Firefly and Rupert Thorne
3. The Joker and a brief cameo by someone small like Lock-Up or something, someone nobody really cares about so he can get taken out very early on and just serves sort of as an opening fight.

Originally posted by DrDoom101
If you were directing your own batman trilogy pick three villains to portray in each of em

Mine
1) Ra's Al Ghul and Lady Shiva
2) Scarecrow and Two-Face
3) Joker and Riddler

Lady Shiva???

You pick the worst villains dude.Seriously I'm glad you ain't doing these movies

1.Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow
2.The Joker and I'd introduce Harvey Dent.
3.Two-Face

Originally posted by NoFate007
...and a brief cameo by someone small like Lock-Up or something, someone nobody really cares about so he can get taken out very early on and just serves sort of as an opening fight.

have a brief cameo of villain like:

-the ventriloquist w/Scar-face - seems to be failry reallistic and would fit in.

Someone like the Ventriloquist is a very psychologically complex villain.You know the whole two seperate personalities in one mind thing??? It's even worse than Two Face.

I mean you can't just have this old guy pop up with a gangster puppet.He needs a little explanation

Zsasz is simple enough.A sicko who likes to butcher people.That's why he was in Begins.He was simple and needed no big explanations.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Someone like the Ventriloquist is a very psychologically complex villain.You know the whole two seperate personalities in one mind thing??? It's even worse than Two Face.

I mean you can't just have this old guy pop up with a gangster puppet.He needs a little explanation

Zsasz is simple enough.A sicko who likes to butcher people.That's why he was in Begins.He was simple and needed no big explanations.

Exactly. Zsasz's cameo is something that I really liked, that's what I'm going for here. That's why I mentioned Lock-Up, because he virtually needs no backstory and can just beat down/get beat down and then be...well...locked..up...

Originally posted by Doc Ock
1.Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow
2.The Joker and I'd introduce Harvey Dent.
3.Two-Face
That's about what I'd like, but no Ra's and Scarecrow. First part ideally would be just like Year One: The focus being on Batman and Gordon finding their niche in Gotham, no huge villains aside from Falcone and, depending on the perspective, Batman/Gordon as they are initially on opposite sides of the law. Dent would be introduced here (take that Katie Holmes!).
As for part two, Joker would be fit into the Long Halloween context: emphasis is on the relationship between Gordon, Dent, and Batman working together (and perhaps the love interest in the part od Selina Kyle). The disappearance of Harvey following the attack on him, either by The Joker or some other criminal, (and the failed relationship Bruce Wayne has with Selina) bring Batman to the sad conclusion that he must be alone in his work.
Part three needs to make us happy for Batman again by the tale's end. So while Two-Face will emerge, dark as ever, Batman needs to find he is not alone. To take from Dark Victory now, my proposition (probably unpopular with some) would be to introduce Dick Grayson. Now, while Bruce will take the boy under his wing, and, yes, reveal his identity and train the boy, Robin will not debut. Something just strikes me wrong with a boy of 12 or 13 fighting criminals. In any case, though Harvey is lost Batman finds the companion he can truly work with as he never could with authorities. Big smile! Trilogy's over.

No villains in the first movie would dramatically decrease the success of your movie.

You'd have to include at least one major villain.

i am unfamiliar with this Zsasz character, explain

Originally posted by DrDoom101


Mine
1) Ra's Al Ghul and Lady Shiva
2) Scarecrow and Two-Face
3) Joker and Riddler

Pifflefizz

Bugswallop

1.Ra's and Scarecrow
2.The Joker and Penguin
3.Two Face and Catwoman

Originally posted by Silverstein
i am unfamiliar with this Zsasz character, explain

He is a sicko who likes to kill people.And every time he kills someone,he marks himself on his body.

1. Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow were perfect in the first one
2. Riddler and Clayface
3. Two-Face and Poison Ivy

Originally posted by Doc Ock
No villains in the first movie would dramatically decrease the success of your movie.

You'd have to include at least one major villain.
The Roman (Falcone) is a fine villain: besides, Batman has a whole city against him, that's plenty. Batman fans know Year One, and being a work by Frank Miller it is pretty well regarded. Do you really think that people who weren't already big Batman fans knew or cared who Ra's was? Certainly not. Ra's Al Ghul did not draw crowds to Batman Begins. Batman did.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
The Roman (Falcone) is a fine villain: besides, Batman has a whole city against him, that's plenty. Batman fans know Year One, and being a work by Frank Miller it is pretty well regarded. Do you really think that people who weren't already big Batman fans knew or cared who Ra's was? Certainly not. Ra's Al Ghul did not draw crowds to Batman Begins. Batman did.

and the Joker in the sequel will draw more fans. Why doesnt Spiderman just have the villain be chameleon or vulture? figure out why. Great superheroes need great villains.

Don't buy it. If you're the type of person who wants to see the next Batman movie you're not going to boycott it based on who the villain is. Also, I fail to see how the entire corrupt city of Gotham does not qualify as a decent challenge for a single protagonist.

People need to identify with a villain though. They can't identify with half a town. Yes, that is adequate enough for a challenge, however not a movie challenge. Wouldn't you agree that, technically speaking, Chameleon in Spider-Man would be INSANELY destructive? Systems crumbling and identities being stolen, etc....but nobody wants to see that. Its not exciting. Batman isn't gonna fight Joe Idiot on the side of the road for yelling at him or something. You need an evil person when you're dealing with a character that has such a cool gallery of villains to choose from. Fans would go nuts if you had a Batman movie and didn't even at least count in someone like The Ventriloquist....as bad as that would be for the sole villain.

well said Nofate.

-even when making youre own trilogy, think about what the fans want as well

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Lady Shiva???

You pick the worst villains dude.Seriously I'm glad you ain't doing these movies

1.Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow
2.The Joker and I'd introduce Harvey Dent.
3.Two-Face

Oh I dont know about that.Isnt lady shiva the one with the red outfit? I would love to see her if it is.

Mine are almost the same as yours are.
1.Ra's Al Ghul and scarecrow
2.The Joker and introduce Harvery Dent.
3.two face and penguin.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Lady Shiva???

You pick the worst villains dude.Seriously I'm glad you ain't doing these movies

that is hilarious!!

Villains don't need to dress up in asinine get-ups to be appealing. Falcone and the other families, crooked Commissioner Loeb and Detective Flass (ex-Green Beret and enforcer, not fat imbecile), fascist zealot/SWAT commander Branden: these are evil men. It's up to the writers to make them appealing and they can be every bit as appealing as Ra's Al Ghul or any other fixture in the rogues gallery. They are just as sympathetic as Ra's because they too can sit down and explain to you why things need to be done their way: and the police on the roster do just that with Jim Gordon. They're the men that tell you you need to accept things the way they are: make your way and suvive in a tough town like Gotham. There's just no way to make a difference. The apathy, the weakness that they try to sell to you might even pass muster if not for two good men standing up and refusing to settle for second rate. These are just the men to stand next to Bruce Wayne and James Gordon. To quote Gordon, they "Showed me what it takes to be a cop in Gotham".
Frankly, if "the fans" don't want that, I pity them their closed mindedness.

whoever doesnt appreciate the REAL villains of Batman...I pity them. If they had no Villains like Joker and Ra's...Batman would be over in half an hour. Bats took out Falcone and his men in 15mins. Took out Falcone himself in 2seconds: simple head butt

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Oh I dont know about that.Isnt lady shiva the one with the red outfit? I would love to see her if it is.



No.She's this pale white skinned woman,with long black hair and a long dress

o hi Ock didnt know u talked here i usually dont but i was glancing and saw this but anyway
Batman - Ra and Scarecrow
Batman 2 - Joker and Penguin
Batman 3 - Two-Face

Hey Spencer.

Yep I'm a Batman fan too.

Imagine that

Originally posted by Silverstein
whoever doesnt appreciate the REAL villains of Batman...I pity them. If they had no Villains like Joker and Ra's...Batman would be over in half an hour. Bats took out Falcone and his men in 15mins. Took out Falcone himself in 2seconds: simple head butt
Sure, that was in Batman Begins. The writers in this case chose to make him into a stepping stone before the main villain rather than the untouchable kingpin of Gotham Carmine "The Roman" Falcone was created as. In Batman Year One and The Long Halloween Batman fought with The Roman and his men for two years before he finally went down: even then he only stopped being a menace to Gotham because Harvey Dent murdered him.
Please, explain how Ra's, foiled every time he concocts a James Bond scheme to wipe out half the world, is a better villain than Falcone, the man Batman can't touch. Because his goal is mass murder instead of gaining wealth through drugs, robberies, and various other criminal enterprises? That makes him easier to defeat: he's a bigger target and once foiled in a given plan, he's done for the day. Sure, he'll come back again, but the immediate threat is over. Falcone? Batman stops his drug racket on the East side of town, he starts it up to the West. He takes down five enforcers, they clam up and Falcone has ten more on the street by morning. The Roman's empire is all over Gotham all the time: he owns the streets, he owns the businesses, he owns the cops. Every day and every night he is a threat to the city, and the only ones standing in his way are Batman and Jim Gordon. Maybe this is not the stuff of Saturday morning cartoons, but it makes for a damn good comic book and a damn good movie. You want a REAL villain. You got one.

The Joker, Ra's, Two-Face. They're great villains. That doesn't mean a story without them is going to be crap. Wake up.

Anyone who thinks a Batman movie without a villain,I mean a proper villain,would be a huge success then you're deluding yourselves.

Oh look a new Batman movie.Who's the villain??

Carmine Falcone.

Who???

He's a Gotham gangster.

Wait,you mean there's no Joker,or Penguin,or Two-Face or Scarecrow or anyone like that in it???

Nope.Batman just fights regular crooks and gangsters.

How BORING!!!!

I don't believe for one second that Batman Begins gained a huge financial benefit from having Ra's Al Ghul in the line-up. People that aren't Batman fans have never heard of him. People that are Batman fans would go to see Batman Begins no matter who was the villain because the movie is about Batman's beginnings and the challenges he faces: that is its appeal.

Even if I did believe it though, I don't need to make money on this because I'm not making a movie. Just honestly tell me how the film itself, not its profits, would suffer from the lack of a Halloween costumed or Bond-esque villain?
How is Falcone even less effective a villain than Ra's? He's Gotham city's answer to The Kingpin.

They had Ra's,Scarecrow and Falcone.

Three bad guys.

How is Falcone a less effective villain?? Let's see.He's not immortal,he's not a high class fighter,he's not the leader of the society of shadows,he doesn't try and destroy cities.

Falcone is a mobster.Nowhere near the scale Ra's is on.

1. The Joker. Falcone. Harvey Dent is introduced.

2. Two-Face. Catwoman.

3. Open the movie with Batman punking someone like Riddler or The Clock King. Catwoman reappears, and Batman has to rescue her from The Joker.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
How is Falcone even less effective a villain than Ra's? He's Gotham city's answer to The Kingpin.


Daredevil had Kingpin, Bullseye and Elektra, not just Kingpin.

what's wrong with Lady Shiva? you don't want Batman to get out-staged by a woman huh? I read that she trained Bruce and he's never beat her without help..that could be a cool battle..student vs master. she could work in a movie...just as long as she's not alone..it's not like she's the Mad Hatter or anything.

Batman 1: Ra and Scarecrow (don't f**k with perfection)
Batman 2: Black Mask, Joker (main villians) Bane and Lady Shiva (seconday villians who want to collect on a reward for killing Batman sent out by Black mask) havery Dent and Selina Klye introduced. Pegiun minor kingpin villian (or not could work without without little bird man)
Batman 3: Catwoman and Two Face (main villians) Posion Ivy, Riddler, Joker (secondary villians) Tony Zucco (minor villian) introduction of young Dick Grayson. storyline based heavy on elements Long Hallooween and Dark Victory.

Originally posted by Doc Ock

How is Falcone a less effective villain?? Let's see.He's not immortal,he's not a high class fighter,he's not the leader of the society of shadows,he doesn't try and destroy cities.

Falcone is a mobster.Nowhere near the scale Ra's is on.
That's just the thing. Ra's is a far less effective villain for his efforts because he always loses. Big gestures that constantly fail are still failures. Note that there are no Lazarus Pits mentioned in Begins, by the way. The fact that Ra's is a good fighter is only relevant because he has to have a direct physical confrontation with Batman, loses, and then his big master plan to kill off humanity go up in smoke. Falcone doesn't need to do that because Batman can't touch him. While Ra's has a band of assassins, Falcone owns Gotham: the streets and the law belong to him. Batman can fight assassins, but he can't fight the law: Falcone's troops are far more effective than Ra's Al Ghul's. Now tell me, who's the more effective? A criminal you cannot defeat or put in jail: The untouchable head of the "Roman Empire" in Gotham? Or an Arab terrorist that shows up every now and again, gets beaten in hand to hand combat, and then withdraws to lick his wounds?

Ra's is a joke compared to Falcone. He tries to destroy cities, sure... guess what: "Tries" is the operative word. He fails. Batman beats him every time. Batman has, at best, pyrrhic victories against The Roman.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Daredevil had Kingpin, Bullseye and Elektra, not just Kingpin.
If that's your complaint about Falcone, consider that Daredevil was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen that wasn't Highlander II. It's not at the best of times a film you ought to use as criteria for how to properly implement villains. The point is that The Kingpin is a great villain and if the film-makers could make a halfway decent movie he would have been sufficient. As it was, Daredevil was awful.

-umm, Falcone lost a fight against Batman, infact it wasnt really a fight...he got head butt once and got knocked unconscious.
-His men were defeated in no time. guess what, Batman grabbed Falcone out of the limo...grab...physically.
-And Ra's league of shadows are more skilled and more effective than the law. They infiltrated every infrastructure with ease...the law cant do that.
-Besides Batman DOES fight the law everyday, its called being a vigilante.

Originally posted by Silverstein
-umm, Falcone lost a fight against Batman, infact it wasnt really a fight...he got head butt once and got knocked unconscious.
-His men were defeated in no time. guess what, Batman grabbed Falcone out of the limo...grab...physically.
-And Ra's league of shadows are more skilled and more effective than the law. They infiltrated every infrastructure with ease...the law cant do that.
-Besides Batman DOES fight the law everyday, its called being a vigilante.

The version of Falcone you saw in Batman Begins was radically altered into a bastardized version to suit the movie's needs. I'm fine with the movie retaking the Batman mythos on its own terms, but if they had chosen to play Falcone closer to his comic-book version, the movie would be radically different.

Firstly, Falcone would never have been at that buy in person. He would have been back in his luxurious upstate manor, kicking back with some brandy in a million-dollar study in a hundred-thousand dollar robe. Meanwhile Batman beats up the hoods and stops the buy, maybe exposes one corrupt cop, but at the end of the day Falcone would remain untouched. He'd buy off all the witnesses and judges he needed, so that no matter what the hoods testified, he wouldn't be convicted.

Secondly, even if Batman had simply busted in on Falcone and beaten him up, no jail would hold him. The comic book Falcone has the courts under his virtual control. Before Batman would know it, the full force of Gotham P.D would be brought to bear in a city-wide manhunt for his "psychotic assault" on "the respectable Mr. Falcone."

The Falcone you saw in Batman Begins is not the Carmine Falcone these posters have been talking about. They are different characters, written towards different purposes.

Originally posted by Piedmon
The Falcone you saw in Batman Begins is not the Carmine Falcone these posters have been talking about. They are different characters, written towards different purposes.

crap! well...this guy is untouchable. I still wouldnt like him as a villain. Nobody who is a real fan knows who he is. He'd be a great villain no doubt, but he has no soul. The Joker, Two-Face...Ra's they have souls. That's why they never had a Kingpin vs Spider-man movie.

Originally posted by Silverstein
and the Joker in the sequel will draw more fans. Why doesnt Spiderman just have the villain be chameleon or vulture? figure out why. Great superheroes need great villains.

You people need to stop dissing the Vulture!

Vulture sucks dude. Falcone was cool in Batman Begins but not cool enough to withhold an entire new film by himself.

A gangster from Gotham or an international immortal terrorist who destroys cities.

Hmmmm which one would provide more of a challenge to Batman??

Falcone was good.But he hasn't got ANYTHING over Ra's Al Ghul.Simple as that.

That's why Falcone was a side character who was defeated half way thru the movie.That's why Ra's was the main villain in Begins.That's why Ra's has been around in the Batman comics in the 70's.

Nuff said.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Vulture sucks dude. Falcone was cool in Batman Begins but not cool enough to withhold an entire new film by himself.

You know nothing about the Vulture. Learn to speak only when you have the knowledge to justify it.



It is true, Falcone should never be the primary villain in a Batman movie. While organized crime is an enormous part of what the Batman faces on a nightly basis, it's simply not a worthy Batman movie unless you have a psychotic rogue villain or at the very least a criminal who is eccentric enough to use a gimmick like the Penguin. That's what the Batman universe is all about. Period.

If I re-wrote 'Batman Begins,' the main villains would be Falcone (the primary crime boss), the Penguin (a rising star in the world of organized crime, not working for Falcone, who essentially defeats the Batman when the relatively inexperienced vigilante returns to Gotham and visits all the primary players in Gotham's underworld and tries to intimidate him into simply giving up his trade), and the Scarecrow, who would have a much bigger part and would be his own master in the main villain plot. Dr. Crane's origin would be more filled in and he'd become so whacky by the end of this film he would be in full costume, with the long, blond hair look from the animated series. Think Tom Petty in the video for 'Mary Jane's Last Dance.' Creepy, creepy stuff. The Scarecrow would attempt to poison all of Gotham City with fear gas just to be a bastard, but also asking for money (even though he'd do it anyway, just to be a bastard).

R'as Al Ghul would not appear, or at the very least he will not meet Bruce Wayne face to face. He may get a cameo watching Bruce train with some other master during his youth. Brief training sequences would include the use of boomerangs, shuriken, and crime scene investigation equipment. As the Batman (he would be in costume for at the very least twice as much as he was in 'Batman Begins'), he would use smoke bombs and do more actual detective work.
In his first fight with the Penguin in the Penguin's office, the Cobblepot would surprise him with his umbrella weapons (because who sees that coming when intimidating a short, well-dressed man?) and then release dozens of vicious, trained birds from their cages to attack the Batman. From this incident, the Batman is inspired to aquire the high-frequency transmitter that summons thousands of bats to attack the police in a later scene, like in 'Year One.'

Harvey Dent would be the D.A. starting in the first movie and Rachel Dawes' name (or anyone like her) would never even stain an early draft of the screenplay. No love interests. Just an overview of Bruce Wayne's habit of taking hot women out and leaving them hanging at the last minute instead of taking them to bed.

The fact that I and many other people don't like a character, does not mean that I know nothing about it. If you want to take your own line into reference, learn to speak about me only when you have the knowledge to justify it - you have no idea what I know, so don't assume because I disagree with you, that I'm an idiot. End of conversation.

Many of us agree that using one of the primary villains is the way to go, and that's gonna stay our opinion, right Ock? You're entitled to your own but don't start saying I'm an idiot because I disagree with you pal.

If you believe that a gangster is somehow more interesting if he carries around a trick umbrella or flips a coin to make decisions, have fun with those gimmicks.
Such things are just that, though: gimmicks. They're spectacle. They're the least important thing in drama. Batman Begins, or Year One, should be about who Batman is. About his development and the ultimate challenge he faces: a city it seems he can never change. Falcone is the embodiment of that. If he's handled properly he is the equal of any other villain. His world is dark and down to Earth. It's hopeless and a victory there is the most profound. Ra's or The Joker or other big time baddies are, admittedly, probably better for big action sequences when they try to blow up half the city, films which may or may not make use of speeding trains or plane-crashes. They're things Batman tries to STOP, and that's what makes for the exciting action-oriented story. It is not, I would argue, what Batman is all about. Batman's goal is change, not protecting things as they are from destruction. Real change that a duel with Ra's can never accomplish, and which, perhaps, seems utterly impossible. Not always exciting but, I believe, far more interesting. Once Batman's identity is established with a whole film, then he can stop speeding trains.

Maybe that's where we see things differently.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
If you believe that a gangster is somehow more interesting if he carries around a trick umbrella or flips a coin to make decisions, have fun with those gimmicks.

I was talking about a Batman movie, not a generic crime drama. Maybe that's where you misunderstood the point of using an eccentric, gimmicky villain.

Don't worry, that seems to happen a lot around these kinds of threads.



Okay... maybe you weren't confused about what I was talking about. Apparently you just don't understand what Batman stories are about.

In that case, feel free to worry. And don't expect me to bothering caring about anyone's ideas regarding "down to earth" villains being more appropriate than a member of the Batman's rogues gallery. That's just not going to happen. If you think the only benefits a story can get from having that type of villain are "big action sequences," then I'm not going to fruitlessly try to educate you on the truth of the matter.

Batman's goal might be change, but the reason his ongoing story has existed the way it has is that he can't attain change. Anyone with half a brain knows that even if the "down to earth" criminals like corrupt cops and generic mobsters become less of a problem, the Batman's brand of deterrence will never have a huge impact on eccentric and insane supervillains. That is why they are necessary. Oh, that and the minor little detail that they've been the Batman's primary villains for several decades. But who cares about that when there are thousands of internet posters out there who are so gullible that they'll believe anything labeled "realistic" by studio propaganda mongers is automatically better than actually presenting the essential elements of Batman lore, not to mention people simple enough to believe that eccentric villains automatically preclude an interesting crime drama plot.

Hey, Batman's eccentric villains are plenty interesting: my point was not to suggest otherwise. Their gimmicks, however, do not make them innately superior to another villain and it is up to the specific writers to make them interesting or uninteresting. Falcone represents things as they are, and that is why he's more appropriate for a film about Batman's beginnings. His is the world that Batman was born into. The colourful cast of characters are and have always been a RESPONSE to Batman. It's endlessly stated that this is the case, and even The Joker only came into being after a couple years of gangsters in Batman's comics. Thus being a response to him, they should only appear after Batman has established himself, not as he is beginning his work.

The point is not to say that, say, Two-Face can only do big action sequences. It's to say that that's the only thing he can do that Falcone can't.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Hey, Batman's eccentric villains are plenty interesting: my point was not to suggest otherwise. Their gimmicks, however, do not make them innately superior to another villain and it is up to the specific writers to make them interesting or uninteresting. Falcone represents things as they are, and that is why he's more appropriate for a film about Batman's beginnings. His is the world that Batman was born into. The colourful cast of characters are and have always been a RESPONSE to Batman. It's endlessly stated that this is the case, and even The Joker only came into being after a couple years of gangsters in Batman's comics. Thus being a response to him, they should only appear after Batman has established himself, not as he is beginning his work.

Fair enough. Perhaps I was overly defensive.

I disagree that they should only appear after Batman has fully established himself. It's perfectly acceptable to go either way depending on which villains are used, and I actually think it's important to open up with both kinds of criminal, which 'Batman Begins' did. They did go overboard, however, by having an untouchable traditional crime boss, a colorful, crazy supervillain and a powerful international terrorist. I think that a threat like R'as Al Ghul should not cross paths with the Batman until the Batman is fully established as the world's greatest detective. As for the other villains, some of them should only be used afterwards, because that's how the story is supposed to play out. The Joker showed up after the Batman did because the Batman was partially involved in hios origin. The same is true of Two-Face. Batman and Harvey Dent should be allies before the former becomes Two-Face, for maximum story value.


Originally posted by Zarathustra
The point is not to say that, say, Two-Face can only do big action sequences. It's to say that that's the only thing he can do that Falcone can't.

That's not true at all. The other thing Two-Face can do is act unpredictably and garner sympathy, at the very least. He doesn't have much more physical power than Falcone's top thug and certainly not more underlings. His motives are entirely different and only someone who thinks outside the box (like the Batman) can handle him. All it it took to take Falcone down was some balls and some muscle. For Two-Face, the Riddler, the Joker, and every other brilliant, gimmicky villain it takes brains and an independent schedule from the police beurocracy.

Granted, I think that's all rather fair, and perhaps I was a tad offensive: no biggie. Killer instinct sets in when arguments come about.
Now, Harvey may be a poor example. His particular relationship with Batman is exactly the reason that I would want his participation. The Joker, too, is a given. This is not to say The Roman can't garner sympathy: his favourite son Alberto's "death" humanizes him, even if he still won't see reason after losing him. His sympathy just doesn't come from an abnormal psyche, though.
You may have something valid with the unpredictability thing. That is what sets The Joker, for one, apart from other villains which I was mistaken in overlooking.

Perhaps, to take if from a different angle, I would justify Falcone's main role thematically thus: How does Batman articulate himself when a colourful nutcase comes out of the woodwork to threaten Gotham? Or, for that matter, when a well intentioned hero shows up to fight crime there, be it Superman or Huntress? I guarantee you that 9 times out of 10, at least with a recent version of Batman, he says something about it being "My City". It's his rightful territory, his to protect. Well, Batman needs to make Gotham his city before that claim is valid. It's not his city, though, and he knows that. It's Falcone's. Also, what's the famous promise? To rid the city of the evil that killed his parents. Now, that must be his goal from the get go.. even the writers of Batman and Begins knew that as their heavy-handed attempts to make The Joker and Ra's into his parent's killers. However, it is more accurate to say that the city Falcone and his type created is what kills the Waynes. The indifference, the lawlessness of a city where the criminals rule and the police are on the payroll... except for one noteworthy exception. Now, I'm convinced that the story of Batman and Gordon taking back their piece of Gotham from Carmine Falcone is the most compelling of introductions to the story. From there, the natural progression is to include The Joker and others.

I really want to see talia in one of the new movies!!

Originally posted by Doc Ock
No.She's this pale white skinned woman,with long black hair and a long dress

sounds like the one i am thinking of because the one i am thinking of HAS long black hair and a long red dress,sounds like were tal;king about the same person,that being the case,i think she would be a great villian.i mean isnt she the one in the 90's animated series that fought batman on a train and said something like you have finally meant your match batman,someone you cant handle. not surprising the one enemy you could not defeat is a woman.

wasnt that her?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
wasnt that her?
That was Red Claw, actually. She's a completely different character from Lady Shiva and was, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe was created simply for the animated series.

Ok so I just posted these on another thread, but I'm gonna repost them here. Keep Batman Begins as it was, and here are the sequels in my eyes...

Film 2....Batman: Dark Crusade (or something along those lines)

Rupert Thorn, Sal Maroni and another man (Grissom possibly, or they can make up a new guy, or maybe there's another man I don't know about or something, but he could be "The Red Hood" are having a feud over who should take over Gotham (including Falcone's men). Introduce Harvey Dent as the new D.A. and focus (instead of a Bruce-Girl love thing going on) on their friendship as the "sacrificial lamb" character.

Say that The Red Hood has a man on his team named Jack Napier (that name I was always fond of, it just seems perfect) who is a complete psycho. Under Rupert Thorne is a Russian arms dealer named Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin. To knock Maroni out of the race, Red Hood wants Napier to destroy Axis Chemicals, a major investment under Sal. Batman foils it, and Napier is tossed in the acid vat, thought to have been killed. He comes back and kills Red Hood, saying he always knew he could do a better job than him - essentially, he becomes the new Red Hood, but he calls himself The Joker. Now he has a mob full of men behind him, and he's the leader of a mob, versus Thorne/Cobblepot and Maroni. Joker is insane with this war though, and instead of just putting hits on Thorne/Maroni's men, he just starts wiping everybody out. First on his list is Batman. Insert some "mass destruction" plotline and at the end, Joker is killed in some way where he is laughing (or possibly making others laugh).

Film 3....Batman: Genesis

Dent, with the help of Batman, has captured a lot of criminals in these mobs...Sal Maroni himself included. Under Sal Maroni is a man named Tony Zucco. Zucco becomes the head of Maroni's organization while Sal is absent, in court. We all know what happens in that courtroom - Maroni tosses acid on Dent's face, scarring him. Later on, Dent gets revenge and kills Maroni, as TWO-FACE. Zucco tries to assassinate Rupert Thorne at a circus event: what a coincidence, The Flying Graysons. While the Grayson family tries to stop him (since they don't know what's going on, they think Thorne is a normal guy), Zucco kills them all besides a 13 year old boy named Richard. Two-Face, now a murderer, sees how the only way to get anything done in this town is to kill people - The Batman has created a lot of controversy in the town. He makes a pact with Zucco, Thorne and Penguin to kill Batman and take over the town, reinvent it and so forth. Penguin, being an arms dealer, hooks up all his men with some awesome weapons, and calls an associate of his...an inventor of weaponry...Firefly. The combination of Two-Face, Firefly, Penguin, Thorne and Zucco take over the town and it is up to Batman, Gordon, and a firey little boy, Dick, to take it back.

Weaponry is what the mass destruction thing is on this one, some sort of weapon, idk what. Batman brings them down. Penguin is arrested, Thorne is arrested, Zucco is killed, Firefly is killed, and Two-Face is either killed or arrested - not sure which I'd prefer, but it is a very emotional part nonetheless. Dick vows to help Bruce, and Bruce agrees - in this town, he is going to need more allies as time goes by, and seeing as how Harvey is no longer a friend, he thinks he can benefit. Robin is born. The end.

I really want to see Bane in a movie, but it's only going to work if he's a main villain that the movie focuses on a lot. His storyline's too complex for him to just be a henchman (see Batman and Robin). I think in one of the movies, Bane should be going on rampages or something and one of the smart villains hires him. And they'd have to make Bane talk too. A lot.

Originally posted by apoc001
I really want to see Bane in a movie, but it's only going to work if he's a main villain that the movie focuses on a lot. His storyline's too complex for him to just be a henchman (see Batman and Robin). I think in one of the movies, Bane should be going on rampages or something and one of the smart villains hires him. And they'd have to make Bane talk too. A lot.

"One of the smart villains..."?

Did you miss the part where Bane is one of the Batman's smartest enemies?

aw jeez... I'm a retard... SAM I AM!

I'd personally like Hush to be in one of the movies. It would be cool if they actually made a Hush movie.

1. Bane (like he is in the comics, not Schumacher's version.)
2. Croc
3. Two Face, or Ventriloquist.

"no mans land" would make a good movie, IMO

How come everyone keeps saying Ra's and Scarecrow for the first?
It's your own Batman trilogy. Just cause it was one of the greatest movies of all time doesn't mean if you do the same villains your movie will come out perfect.

Batman--Penguin as a substitute for Falconi, Dent is introduced, Scarecrow

2--2 Face. It has 2 be 2. Haven't you noticed that all the best stories starring 2 face are 2 parters? My favorite is Jurispendence from NML. Also have Catwoman.

3. the Joker and Mr. Freeze (yes, Mr. Freeze. He can be a really cool character if you do him right.)

Not that three movies is enough; here I'd change the cast and do a second trilogy

4. Riddler, Poison Ivy, kill off Robin if I'd introduced him

5. Ra's, Zsasz

6. Bane, David Cain

the ones id choose might not make for the best story, but their me favourites.

1: scarecrow and two face with a hint that the joker is pulling their strings, maybe a shadowy outline of him talking to one of them.

2: mr freeze and clayface with a very unstable alliance. with a brief shot of the joker laughting at the end after setting them up to lose to batman

3 joker

mr freeze can be one of the best bad guys around, hes tragic, hes smart and with a decent suit he can phycially smack batman around. i like the scarecrow but id have him alot more inhuman and twisted than batman begins. clayface is awesome and can be used as a real heavy hitter that keeps getting up. and the joker is the batman bad guy, there doesnt need to be two bad guys to a movie, i think thats just something they do these days to add more action and make up for lack of plot.

Originally posted by eleveninches
"no mans land" would make a good movie, IMO

I agree.

A very gritty movie too.

Originally posted by eleveninches
I really want to see talia in one of the new movies!!

It's extremely stupid that she wasn't in this one. Instead of Katie Holmes they could have had two characters, Talia al Ghul and Harvey Dent. Key word: 2

Originally posted by eleveninches
"no mans land" would make a good movie, IMO

It would be the stupidest story ever if they try to squeeze it into two hours.

First ten minutes: Introduce the characters with previous movies recapped, whatnot:
Fifteen more minutes: Introduce a couple of villains then the quake.
Ten minutes of politics. That's how long it takes for America to kill a city.
Ten minutes of Black Monday, centering around Gordon.
Fifteen minutes showing what all the characters are doing...

So in the first half of the movie, we've covered... the prelude. One more hour to talk about the origin of Cassandra Cain, Bats getting a foothold, Huntress as Batgirl, "Oracle. Call them.", Bane coming back, the alliance between Harvey and Gordon, the fall of Two-Face, the Joker, and Lex Luthor's coming before the liberation of Gotham.

How's this: a season of a Batman TV show. That way, we could also have Fear of Faith (one of my favorite Batstories ever) Fruit of the Earth, Jurispendance, Bread and Circuses, etc. etc.

Batman 1: Frank Miller's Year One, more Background Story. Falcone as villain. No real defeat in the end but only a small victory for Gordon and Batman

Batman 2: Joker is introduced. Falcone gets killed by him, Batman defeats him. Selina Kyle and Harvey Dent are introduced.

Batman 3: Catwoman and Two Face. Maybe some sort of Love Interest. in the end Two Face is beaten and Catwoman leaves the City.

Well that would be a first Trilogy but we'd need a second Trilogy to round it up.

Batman 4: Ra's Al Ghul and Talia. Not in gotham but in some Middle Eastern Country. Azrael should be introduced. Maybe some sort of war between St. Dumas and Ra's

Batman 5: Knightfall. Bane free's all Arkham and Blackgate. Batman catches Joker, Riddler, Two Face. gets beaten in the end. Azrael takes over the costume.

Batman 6:Batman's recovery. Azrael as Batman (beating Bane). Batman takes his place back.


Well I know that would totally fail to get a greater audience to watch it...but I would enjoy it. And yes, I left out the 12 year old Boy Wonder...

I decided that 6 movies are just not enough for batman. We need at least 2 seasons 24 episodes each season every episode 2 hours with an enormous budget to do the minimum Batman deserves.