fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2059 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2059 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #294.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But they would be too over the top for Nolan's style. How do you do a realistic, crime thriller version of Poison Ivy? Ra's al Ghul was easy to do. He was a terrorist. Joker? Psychopath with nods to likes of Charlie Manson? Bane? Another terrorist mixed with dictatorship qualities.

All three have the possibility to exist in real life because they have real life counter parts.

Who would be the real lift counterpart to The Riddler and Poison Ivy? The Zodiac Killer? A.L.F.? Yeah, again, I don't see it fitting in Nolan's trilogy.

jigsaw lol

Ivy is like the plant version of PETA, mixed with some terrorist qualities.

I could see her being a bio-terrorist, too.

As for the Riddler, he'd be one of those criminals who likes to toy with/leave clues for the police.

Well Nolan's "style" sucked. It was dark, depressing, and pretty unpleasant. Not to mention Batman couldn't save shit. Sorry if I like my Batman being competent and actually about to fucking save things. And sorry if some of us want Villains that have fun with what they do.

Fuck Nolan's Joker too. It was a amazing performance by Heath, but it wasn't the fucking Joker.

the 1960s called to let you know they have this tv show you might like...

Or BtAS? Or Burton's Batman? Or anything that isn't fucking Nolan? There is a middle ground between the 60s Batman and fucking dark depressing grim-dark Nolan.

fuck burton's batman

Yes please.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-08-22 23:41 (UTC) - Expand

othellia - 2012-08-23 01:04 (UTC) - Expand

...Yes, because Burton's Batman was so fucking good.

It was terrible. Even worse than grimdark Nolan. It was ridiculous in a bad way.

dethtoll - 2012-08-23 00:23 (UTC) - Expand

This. Taking the noir and intelligent psychological aspects out of the show make it bland and uninteresting. Batman can be depressing, but it's all about the characters that makes even the more depressing stuff work. Nolan's films could have been better in theory, if not for the bad writing and extremely large plot holes.

Haha, I forgot how completely useless Nolan's Batman actually was. Seems like Nolan was so focused on dramatically grimdark events that he forgot that he was dealing with a superhero story in which the hero has to actually save the day sometimes.

I feel as if the movie would have been fine if Batman had just not been in it. Possibly better.

Which is bad for a Batman movie.

Considering I wanted to punch him in the throat in each scene he appeared, I have to agree.

Replace Batman with Bruce Willis and you have a new Die Hard film.

You know, there's a part of me that's like, "BUT, BUT, BUT!"

...and I actually don't know where that part came from, because I agree with you. Holy fuck, I agree with you. I probably will not see 'The Dark Knight Rises' because *gasp* I didn't like 'The Dark Knight.' Watching it felt like swallowing nail filings. There were some great performances in it, Ledger's among them, but I came away from it wondering what the point is and why anyone would want to see it a second time.

And man, I don't like Burton's Batman, either. I don't think the proper balance has yet been struck live-action wise.

Nolan's Dark Knight films are realistic? I... what?

More realistic than Schumacher's movies, anyway. The Nolanverse movies could theoretically happen in our world more believably than Schumacher's movies.

i dunno, riddler can be pretty damn menacing. there's an arc called dark knight, dark city that ran in batman #452-454 that basically turned riddler from campy clue-obsessed villain into a sadistic psychopath -- up to and including forcing bats to perform an emergency tracheotomy on a baby. combine that with his genuinely insufferable-genius "if you weren't so dumb you wouldn't be dead" attitude they usually write him with these days and you have the perfect nolanverse villain.

I don't want to give away the ending of that story, but I never liked it because, iirc, it wasn't like the Riddler could claim full responsibility for his actions/motives, could he? He wasn't a chess-master, and that undermines it a little. Plus I've never liked the Riddler as an outright murderous lunatic (Batman has enough of those in his life), I prefer him as a sort of gentleman thief who is more interested in the game than the prize...and who may just kill you in a death trap if you're not playing right (or if you just really piss him off). Obviously other people expect other things from the character, and considering how across the board he's been over the years almost any interpretation is valid.

I think the Riddler would work in the Nolanverse, in fact he may have been JUST the thing to show audiences WHY Batman is called 'the world's greatest detective.'

all very valid points, but i was just trying to point out that the riddler isn't just some campy B-list villain.

Fair enough. He certainly CAN be a campy b list villain if that's what you're going for (Eddie is versatile) but you're absolutely right, writing him off as JUST a B-list villain is doing him (and a bunch of writers) a disservice.

I prefer him as a sort of gentleman thief who is more interested in the game than the prize...and who may just kill you in a death trap if you're not playing right (or if you just really piss him off).

Yes! The BTAS version of the Riddler comes to mind (well, the first version of him there).

I think the Riddler would work in the Nolanverse, in fact he may have been JUST the thing to show audiences WHY Batman is called 'the world's greatest detective.'

Exactly! He's all about the chase! Batman would have actually had a puzzle to figure out, instead of another terrorist plot to foil.

*sigh* There's always the reboot...

BTAS Riddler is one of my favourites. Dini generally did a good job with him in the comics too, though I wish he (the Riddler) had been a little more...competent at times.

Fingers crossed for some interesting puzzles and riddles in the reboot (Are they already planning one? Yikes!.

Realistic Crime Thriller with a giant sci-fi generator plot device and bat jet that no one noticed under a tarp.

Riddler is honestly way more fitting that Joker-- a great mind who could really twist things around on Batman and potentially outsmart him. Would have made motivation behind the generic terrorist character psychopath way more believable in the second film.