Your own BAtman trilogy

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.

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

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.

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?

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