Agreed.Azrael would have been amazing!
Agreed.Azrael would have been amazing!
Because Batman's rogues gallery is almost as popular as he is. He has some of the best known villains in comic history and it would come off as pretentious to suggest that a director/screenwriter could come up with something that one, wasn't a variation on an already existing Batman villain, and two better than any other Batman villain. I really don't think Dark Knight would've been better with just a random new psychopath badguy for Batman to run up against when you have the Joker as his established nemesis. I think Nolan tried what you are suggesting in Batman Begins by using Ra's al Gul and Scarecrow. Both are established Batman villains who the mainstream public didn't really know much about.Here's what I want to know:
Why does it even HAVE to be a known villain? I realize the fan service behind having someone familiar but these sort of things always seem to occur when they do this. Why not make an entirely NEW villain that Batman hasn't met a thousand times and bring them in? You know what I'd like to see? A guy a lot like Batman, just evil. Imagine another guy with seemingly unlimited resources and brilliance then take away his aversion to killing.
He could even dress exactly like the Batman to confuse the authorities and make an enemy out of him. Why always have to retread old paths?
Read up on Hush then. Once you have, you'll suddenly realize that a Hush/Riddler film would have the potential to be better than even The Dark Knight.Hush? Never heard of him. Hmmm. But you get my point. Don't do the same villains we've always seen. Do something Batman hasn't fought. I know it is nearly impossible to do something totally new, but at least don't use an established Batman villain.
As long as it doesn't follow any of the comics. That wikipedia entry makes it out to be a terribly convoluted story.Read up on Hush then. Once you have, you'll suddenly realize that a Hush/Riddler film would have the potential to be better than even The Dark Knight.
Fair enough. Adaptions of DC works tend to simplify/improve the back stories anyway, as Under the Red Hood demonstrated.As long as it doesn't follow any of the comics. That wikipedia entry makes it out to be a terribly convoluted story.
Jason Todd called... he was crying... it's it enough that he got killed by popular vote then resurrected by emo-Superboy punches?! Now you also give his whole stick to a drug addict luchador too.I was telling Tegid a few days ago about an approach to Bane I made up knowing very little of the character. Him could be a young man (or even a teenager) from the slums, extremely intelligent and quite fit, but with a terrible life, a drug addiction and feeling grief stricken from his parent's death by some criminal.
He becomes the first Robin, and everything seems to be working fine until he starts using lethal force to kill Gotham's criminals and abusing an experimental drug that gives him incredible stamina and pain tollerance. Batman's justice and his own collide, and he decides he has to get rid of Bats to really bring justice to Gotham and avoid anything like what had happened to his parents to happen again. This way we have an "evil" batman who is as intelligent as Bruce, or even more, stronger than him and bent on his destruction. And that is actively plotting to kill him.
Nice call.I was hoping for some Mad Hatter action.
Imagine Steve Buschemi.
Oh, damn.I was hoping for some Mad Hatter action.
Imagine Steve Buschemi.