Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/10/27/christopher-nolan-reveals-title-of-third-batman-film-and-that-it-wont-be-the-riddler/

Yes, it's a crappy title, as was the Batman Begins title.

And Riddler is not the villain, sadly.

Kindda makes me wonder if they'll actually go with Catwoman or Bane.

Its a crappy title just like Dark of The Moon. I guess all awesome trilogies now adays have crappy titles.

And have "Dark" in them...

Rodimus Prime wrote:And have "Dark" in them...

That too!

Roadbuster wrote:
Kindda makes me wonder if they'll actually go with Catwoman or Bane.

I'm hoping for the Mad Hatter or Scarface and the ventriloquist.

I hope for Catwoman, Harley Quinn and the Royal Flush Gang.

I'll put my vote in for Hugo Strange and Hush.

if its someone stupid like humpty dumpty, or calender man, i will set fire to the first two dvds and post it on youtube.

and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

Shadowman wrote:

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

This is why I want Scarface and the ventriloquist.

Shadowman wrote:

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

if thats the case, i'll agree with you about hush being in. him or Mr. Zsaz.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:This is why I want Scarface and the ventriloquist.

No. No no no. A million times no. When I said "realism" I meant "realism." Ra's doesn't come back from the dead, Joker uses guns and knives rather than cartoonish gadgets. A ventriloquist dummy is not a realistic villain.

Dr. Heavy B wrote:if thats the case, i'll agree with you about hush being in. him or Mr. Zsaz.

Zsaz actually appeared in a few scenes in Batman Begins. And according to a tie-in site for The Dark Knight, he's still at large since the mass breakout at Arkham.

Shadowman wrote:

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

Is this why they chose two face? Because we all know in the real world, if you walked around with half a face with nothing to protect it, mold and bacteria would be all over your face. Along with bugs. But I understand what you're saying. Realistic backgrounds, motives, and means to kill people. BUT look at Joker's means to kill people. If any one tried all that stuff in real life, the government would have found them and blown them up within a second!

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

Is this why they chose two face? Because we all know in the real world, if you walked around with half a face with nothing to protect it, mold and bacteria would be all over your face. Along with bugs. But I understand what you're saying. Realistic backgrounds, motives, and means to kill people. BUT look at Joker's means to kill people. If any one tried all that stuff in real life, the government would have found them and blown them up within a second!

Except Joker had the backing of the Mob at first, then he usurped power from them since unlike the mob bosses, he was actually producing results against Gotham's law enforcement. If you look at everyhting Joker did in TDK, you'd see why the thugs and goons turned on their bosses. Joker was willing to stand up to Batman and the Gotham Law enforcement.

Roadbuster wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Dr. Heavy B wrote:and PLEASE reconsider Freeze. i hated his portrayal in "Batman and Robin" (along with the rest of the film) and I think he needs to be redeemed.

The problem is that they're going for villains who can be done practically, since they're going for more realism. Freeze is one of those villains who can't be done realistically.

Is this why they chose two face? Because we all know in the real world, if you walked around with half a face with nothing to protect it, mold and bacteria would be all over your face. Along with bugs. But I understand what you're saying. Realistic backgrounds, motives, and means to kill people. BUT look at Joker's means to kill people. If any one tried all that stuff in real life, the government would have found them and blown them up within a second!

Except Joker had the backing of the Mob at first, then he usurped power from them since unlike the mob bosses, he was actually producing results against Gotham's law enforcement. If you look at everyhting Joker did in TDK, you'd see why the thugs and goons turned on their bosses. Joker was willing to stand up to Batman and the Gotham Law enforcement.

Nah, my understanding is, they truely feared him, because Joker was willing to burn anything and everything to the ground, while the mob bosses wanted a city remaining which they can rule.


I think the Ventriloquist could work if he'd use robotic puppets as messengers.

Freeze... Maybe a man obsessed with using liquid nitrogen to freeze his victims? Nah, couldn't be made to a major villain.

How about Owlman? Or Clock King?

SlyTF1 wrote:BUT look at Joker's means to kill people. If any one tried all that stuff in real life, the government would have found them and blown them up within a second!

Not necessarily. Joker made a point not only to cover his tracks, but to make new ones going off into random directions and then over a cliff. And not only that, they never actually had time to catch him. Just when the GCPD was about to move in on the Joker, then he issued his bomb threat, and they had to divert everything towards that. The one time they DID catch him, he had already set up his escape.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:This is why I want Scarface and the ventriloquist.

No. No no no. A million times no. When I said "realism" I meant "realism." Ra's doesn't come back from the dead, Joker uses guns and knives rather than cartoonish gadgets. A ventriloquist dummy is not a realistic villain.

I disagree.

The real villain is the ventriloquist, with a serious mental problem.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I disagree.

The real villain is the ventriloquist, with a serious mental problem.

But it's still a guy with a ventriloquist dummy. I don't take Jeff Dunham as a serious threat. Compared to the villains they used previously, a crazy guy with a dummy is just silly.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I disagree.

The real villain is the ventriloquist, with a serious mental problem.

But it's still a guy with a ventriloquist dummy. I don't take Jeff Dunham as a serious threat. Compared to the villains they used previously, a crazy guy with a dummy is just silly.

Like I said, I dont agree.

I find the idea very interesting....and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

Do you mean a child who happens to be a killer? Because again, it's just silly. I cannot for the life of me imagine a child being able to contend with Batman.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

Do you mean a child who happens to be a killer? Because again, it's just silly. I cannot for the life of me imagine a child being able to contend with Batman.

No, a grown man with a split personality that hunts and kills kids trew his shows.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

Do you mean a child who happens to be a killer? Because again, it's just silly. I cannot for the life of me imagine a child being able to contend with Batman.

No, a grown man with a split personality that hunts and kills kids trew his shows.

i cant see that working because I think they are trying to stay close to the comics.

maybe, just maybe, they could try somthing simmiler to what they're doing with arkham city. rather then 1 enemy, have MANY lose in the streets of gotham. add that to batman himself being wanted in the death of harvey dent. could be fun

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

Do you mean a child who happens to be a killer? Because again, it's just silly. I cannot for the life of me imagine a child being able to contend with Batman.

No, a grown man with a split personality that hunts and kills kids trew his shows.

No, that's just disturbing. If killing children is what it takes to make a villain a credible threat, then the writer has failed and needs to begin again. It's also a gigantic departure from the movies which deal more with organized crime.

And even then, it's still a ventriloquist dummy. There's no getting past that. It doesn't work in the style of the movies.

Dr. Heavy B wrote:maybe, just maybe, they could try somthing simmiler to what they're doing with arkham city. rather then 1 enemy, have MANY lose in the streets of gotham. add that to batman himself being wanted in the death of harvey dent. could be fun

There's a problem with that; remember how Spider-Man 3 tried to have three villains in the movie at once? Remember how that turned out, that they couldn't properly focus on any of them? And what happened to Venom as a result?

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:and if they ad the twist of making him a child killer?

Do you mean a child who happens to be a killer? Because again, it's just silly. I cannot for the life of me imagine a child being able to contend with Batman.

No, a grown man with a split personality that hunts and kills kids trew his shows.

No, that's just disturbing. If killing children is what it takes to make a villain a credible threat, then the writer has failed and needs to begin again. It's also a gigantic departure from the movies which deal more with organized crime.

And even then, it's still a ventriloquist dummy. There's no getting past that. It doesn't work in the style of the movies.

Again I completely disagree.

A plot can involve the Ventriloquist taking revenge on mob families by targeting their children.Wether killing them, torturing them or holding them for money.

And a sub plot having the heads of these families turn to Batman for help, further making him look bad in the eyes of the public...at least at first.

Seems to fit the style and tenure of these films perfectly.

And if the dummy is handled like he was in his earlier, if not first. appearance in the animated series, where it wasnt apparent that he was a dummy till the end of the episode.......perfect fit.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:A plot can involve the Ventriloquist taking revenge on mob families by targeting their children.Wether killing them, torturing them or holding them for money.

No one wants to see a movie about children being killed and tortured and I'm amazed you'd even suggest something so horrible. If the next movie IS about that, I wouldn't even bother with it.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Seems to fit the style and tenure of these films perfectly.

No, it most certainly doesn't.

To put it simply: A ventriloquist dummy is not a realistic villain in any way. There is no two ways about this.