Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Shadowman wrote:

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.

It most certainly does/

The ventriloquist is the villain not the dummy.

And what could be more realistic then a villian with a physiological problem??

I can understand if you dont like the idea....but it does fit with Nolans style of Bat films.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:The ventriloquist is the villain not the dummy.

And what could be more realistic then a villian with a physiological problem??

It doesn't matter who the real villain is! It's a guy with a ventriloquist dummy, that's still not a realistic villain! A villain with psychological problems is one thing, the movies have dealt with Two-Face. But a villain who expresses it through a doll is not a realistic villain. I mean, how would he even fight Batman?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I can understand if you dont like the idea....but it does fit with Nolans style of Bat films.

No, it doesn't. Nolan's movies are about vigilantism against organized crime and the consequences of doing so, specifically retaliation. Not ventriloquism gone bad.

Shadowman wrote:It doesn't matter who the real villain is! It's a guy with a ventriloquist dummy, that's still not a realistic villain!

right..........like a villian wearing a burlap sack and useing a fear gas calling himseld "The Scarecrow" is more realistic .

Or like a guy wearing clown make up, calling himself the joker is more realistic.
Neither were really realistic concepts till Nolan found a way.

I dare say if you cant see it as a possibility then you have a poor imagination,

A villain with psychological problems is one thing, the movies have dealt with Two-Face. But a villain who expresses it through a doll is not a realistic villain. I mean, how would he even fight Batman?

Batman hasnt always physically fought every bad guy.Some of his enemies are mater minds and Bat's has to out smart them....It would be nice to see that aspect of the character.

Besides....the Ventriloquist and Scarface always employed others for those things.

No, it doesn't. Nolan's movies are about vigilantism against organized crime and the consequences of doing so, specifically retaliation. Not ventriloquism gone bad.

Yes it does.

Nolans films have show what some characters cab be driven too.How organized crime as effect some people and the leanths some people are willing to go to for revenge or justice.


The Ventriloquist can just be an other victim of mod families seaking revenge.

If not the Ventrilloquist and Scarface, how about Killer Croc?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:right..........like a villian wearing a burlap sack and useing a fear gas calling himseld "The Scarecrow" is more realistic .

Or like a guy wearing clown make up, calling himself the joker is more realistic.

Scarecrow was a psychology expert who used a biochemical weapon to cause intense frightening hallucination in his victims, and used that mask to spray the toxin, protect himself from it, and use it's visage to exacerbate the hallucinations. The Joker was a psychotic criminal genius who loved to cause panic and chaos, and had tons and tons of contingency plans, and above all else, wanted to prove that everyone is as deranged as he is.

Also, I can't believe you of all people forgot this, none of the characters took either of them seriously at first. Falcone was unimpressed with Crane's mask, and even Crane said it doesn't have an effect on sane people. Everyone though the Joker was ridiculous at first, too. No one took him seriously until he started making his really big power plays. Batman even thought he wasn't a threat at first. "One man or the entire mob? He can wait."

I agree with you, to an extent, though. Despite having somewhat unrealistic aspects, they were still portrayed realistically.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Neither were really realistic concepts till Nolan found a way.

How can you possibly portray a ventriloquist dummy as a realistic, threatening villain? I have an imagination, and I can make sense of just about anything. But if it's between a guy with a ventriloquist dummy and a man in hastily applied clown make-up holding a knife to my face chattering about why he's an insane criminal, guess which one I'm more intimidated by?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Besides....the Ventriloquist and Scarface always employed others for those things.

Of course he does, almost all of Batman's villains do. But you may recall that Batman's best villains can also take him in a fist-fight.

Roadbuster wrote:If not the Ventrilloquist and Scarface, how about Killer Croc?

While I think Nolan can pull it off, I dont think Croc is the type of character he's looking for.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:right..........like a villian wearing a burlap sack and useing a fear gas calling himseld "The Scarecrow" is more realistic .

Or like a guy wearing clown make up, calling himself the joker is more realistic.

Scarecrow was a psychology expert who used a biochemical weapon to cause intense frightening hallucination in his victims, and used that mask to spray the toxin, protect himself from it, and use it's visage to exacerbate the hallucinations. The Joker was a psychotic criminal genius who loved to cause panic and chaos, and had tons and tons of contingency plans, and above all else, wanted to prove that everyone is as deranged as he is.

None of which changes anything I said.

On the surface both characters are pretty ridicules.

It took Nolan to being the level of realism he wanted to these characters for the films.

And he could easily do the same for the Ventriloquist and Scarface.

Also, I can't believe you of all people forgot this, none of the characters took either of them seriously at first. Falcone was unimpressed with Crane's mask, and even Crane said it doesn't have an effect on sane people. Everyone though the Joker was ridiculous at first, too. No one took him seriously until he started making his really big power plays. Batman even thought he wasn't a threat at first. "One man or the entire mob? He can wait."

Didnt forget it, I didnt see the need to bring it up.

Still dont.

I agree with you, to an extent, though. Despite having somewhat unrealistic aspects, they were still portrayed realistically.

Thanks

How can you possibly portray a ventriloquist dummy as a realistic, threatening villain? I have an imagination, and I can make sense of just about anything. But if it's between a guy with a ventriloquist dummy and a man in hastily applied clown make-up holding a knife to my face chattering about why he's an insane criminal, guess which one I'm more intimidated by?

I already made one suggestion, admitally not a very "Nolan-ish" one.

But heres one that has a "Nolan" ring to it.

Nolan could tweek the Ventriloquist origin and make him related to Carmine Falcone in some way.Former employ, ligament son.Either would link Wesker to Gotham’s criminal underground, Wesker would have easy access to thugs and low-lifes when both Falcone and Salvatore Maroni “exit” the family business.

Wesker’s origin could even be tweaked to fit into Nolan’s continuity. What if he was a victim of the fear gas in the Narrows back in BATMAN BEGINS? Or what if Falcone allowed Scarecrow to run early experiments on Wesker......and if his illigetamate child already predisposed to mental illness, the effects of Scarecrow’s toxin heightened his insanity and brought Scarface into the forefront.

The important part, though, would be to keep the Ventriloquist sympathetic. Wesker is a man who has been betrayed, abused, never having any control over his life.

And now, with the swplit personality taking control,a real desire for power at a base level. You see that in how Scarface manifests his bloodlust, but Wesker has a longing to control his own destiny. He’s an easily intimidated boy-in-man’s-pajamas, which renders him subservient to the dummy on his fingers. In stressing this element of helplessness, Bruce Wayne is granted an opportunity to save Wesker from his madness. Further, if Wesker’s origin is tied into the Narrows, it provides Batman a shot at redemption. He can clean up an old mess, save a sick man’s life and find a shred of the inner-peace he so desperately needs after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT.

Now, to really sell the character, you need an actor who can disappear into the role, just as Heath Ledger disappeared into the Joker’s oversized clown shoes. One guy who could do the job flawlessly , thu I hate to admit, is Johnny Depp.Depp could easily slip into the skin of sheepish Arnold Wesker while simultaneously amping up the ruthless insanity of Scarface. He could deliver a performance that is at once both heart and gut-wrenching.

Of course he does, almost all of Batman's villains do. But you may recall that Batman's best villains can also take him in a fist-fight.

You mean "can try" to take him.

I have to agree with Shadowman, Scarface would be pretty silly. I'm sure they can make him into a good villain, but he's still just a guy with a puppet.

Personally I'm hoping for the Phantasm.

The way Scarface/ventriliquist was written which made him more than just a guy with a puppet was that you were never 100% sure that Scarface wasn't really sentient and in control of Wesker. The best parts were always when you were 99%sure Scarface was just a figment of the ventriliquist's immagination then something would happen which would make you second guess yourself. In DC's universe of martians, zombies and gentlemen ghosts etc it seems quite plausable that a haunted or posessed dummy could be as likely as a dual personality disorder. In Nolan's more grounded universe you'd be taking away that mystery behind the character.
I was hoping for the Riddler but I trust Nolan and his team to do any character justice.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Roadbuster wrote:If not the Ventrilloquist and Scarface, how about Killer Croc?

While I think Nolan can pull it off, I dont think Croc is the type of character he's looking for.

Kroc is just a brute, just as Bane, and I don't think either of them could pull a movie alone.

As I understood Sto_vo_kors idea about Ventriloquist, it would be dangerously close to the first Saw movies villain (little scary puppet, abducting people, etc...)

The Legend wrote: In Nolan's more grounded universe you'd be taking away that mystery behind the character.

Not necessarily.

They way I see the story unfolding there might be some question as to wether or not theres really a "dummy" being used or just a short guy that sticks to the shadows.

Chaoslock wrote:
Kroc is just a brute, just as Bane, and I don't think either of them could pull a movie alone.

Croc is a mutated brute.

As I understood Sto_vo_kors idea about Ventriloquist, it would be dangerously close to the first Saw movies villain (little scary puppet, abducting people, etc...)

You know, in all these years I havent seen a Saw film.

Chaoslock wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Roadbuster wrote:If not the Ventrilloquist and Scarface, how about Killer Croc?

While I think Nolan can pull it off, I dont think Croc is the type of character he's looking for.

Kroc is just a brute, just as Bane, and I don't think either of them could pull a movie alone.

As I understood Sto_vo_kors idea about Ventriloquist, it would be dangerously close to the first Saw movies villain (little scary puppet, abducting people, etc...)

Bane wasn't just a brute.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:They way I see the story unfolding there might be some question as to wether or not theres really a "dummy" being used or just a short guy that sticks to the shadows.

So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap? And I'm supposed to take either of those seriously as antagonists?

The other villains got by because we already knew what they were capable of. Joker was Batman's most dangerous enemy for good reason. Scarecrow loved spraying people with hallucinogens that made them see their worst fears. Ra's Al Ghul was a terrorist with almost unlimited resources. Two-Face was a psychotic vigilante who would leave his victim's fate in the hands of a coin. They all had some unrealistic element but you could still take them all seriously as antagonists.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:You know, in all these years I havent seen a Saw film.

It's about this murderer called Jigsaw who puts his victims through "games" meant as ironic punishment, though he designs the "games" so that his victims can still escape. (They usually don't) He tends to introduce each game using a distinct puppet as his avatar.

The Legend wrote:Bane wasn't just a brute.

Yeah, didn't he actually figure out Batman's identity on his own?

Shadowman wrote:So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap? And I'm supposed to take either of those seriously as antagonists?

I never said it would "actully" be a midget/little guy.

Just that it should be filmed in a way that both the audience and the characters in the film are unaware that he's a puppet.

It's about this murderer called Jigsaw who puts his victims through "games" meant as ironic punishment, though he designs the "games" so that his victims can still escape. (They usually don't) He tends to introduce each game using a distinct puppet as his avatar.

Thanks.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap? And I'm supposed to take either of those seriously as antagonists?

I never said it would "actully" be a midget/little guy.

Just that it should be filmed in a way that both the audience and the characters in the film are unaware that he's a puppet.

So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap...and they never tell you which? It doesn't actually matter which because I can't take either one seriously.

You know Scarface actually appeared in Batman: Arkham Asylum. Joker played around with it for a minute but decided it was useless and to give it back to the Ventriloquist.

Shadowman wrote:So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap...and they never tell you which?

I dont mean to sound rude but....did you understand what I ment??

No midjet, its just filmed in a way that gives you reason to question wether or not your really seeing a short guy or a dummy.

It doesn't actually matter which because I can't take either one seriously.

But you can take a guy in a burlap sack seriously??

Theres really no logic in that statement.

All these characters require a cretin level suspension of belief.

You know Scarface actually appeared in Batman: Arkham Asylum. Joker played around with it for a minute but decided it was useless and to give it back to the Ventriloquist.

ok.

Dont see how that adds to the converstation.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:So it's either a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap...and they never tell you which?

I dont mean to sound rude but....did you understand what I ment??

No midjet, its just filmed in a way that gives you reason to question wether or not your really seeing a short guy or a dummy.

How is that any different from what I said? It's filmed in a way that you can't tell if it's a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:But you can take a guy in a burlap sack seriously??

A guy in a burlap sack alone? No, of course not. A guy in a burlap sack who's favorite pastime is spraying you with weaponized hallucinogens, though...

Shadowman wrote:How is that any different from what I said? It's filmed in a way that you can't tell if it's a crazy guy with a puppet or a guy with a midget on his lap.

The way I read your words implied a possibility that it might actually be a midget.

A guy in a burlap sack alone? No, of course not. A guy in a burlap sack who's favorite pastime is spraying you with weaponized hallucinogens, though...

Sorry but I dont see how that makes that big a difference.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A guy in a burlap sack alone? No, of course not. A guy in a burlap sack who's favorite pastime is spraying you with weaponized hallucinogens, though...

Sorry but I dont see how that makes that big a difference.

What I meant is that design alone isn't his main characteristic. Scarecrow loves spraying people with hallucinogens, Joker loves mass chaos, Bane can punch a hole through a brick wall. They all have a defining characteristic independent from their design that makes them serious, major threats.

And we're now going around in circles because I already explained all of this to you. Twice.

Shadowman wrote:Scarecrow was a psychology expert who used a biochemical weapon to cause intense frightening hallucination in his victims, and used that mask to spray the toxin, protect himself from it, and use it's visage to exacerbate the hallucinations. The Joker was a psychotic criminal genius who loved to cause panic and chaos, and had tons and tons of contingency plans, and above all else, wanted to prove that everyone is as deranged as he is.

Shadowman wrote:The other villains got by because we already knew what they were capable of. Joker was Batman's most dangerous enemy for good reason. Scarecrow loved spraying people with hallucinogens that made them see their worst fears. Ra's Al Ghul was a terrorist with almost unlimited resources. Two-Face was a psychotic vigilante who would leave his victim's fate in the hands of a coin. They all had some unrealistic element but you could still take them all seriously as antagonists.

So please, just to finish all of this off, I need to ask: What can Scarface and Ventriloquist do that puts them in league with Batman's A-list villains? And I don't mean "What could they change to make it seem like he's on par with Joker." I mean what does he do that makes him a capable villain?

Remember, Nolan didn't make any major changes to any of the villains, he simply took away an aspect of them. Joker's personality was toned down and he lost his gadgets, Scarecrow's suit was changed to just a mask and spray bottles, Ra's lost his Lazarus pits, and Two-Face was reverted to a psychotic vigilante.

Shadowman wrote:What I meant is that design alone isn't his main characteristic. Scarecrow loves spraying people with hallucinogens, Joker loves mass chaos, Bane can punch a hole through a brick wall. They all have a defining characteristic independent from their design that makes them serious, major threats.

And we're now going around in circles because I already explained all of this to you. Twice.

No disrespect but your explanation failed both times.

You agreed that both characters are pretty ridiculous at a basic level, and that Nolan found a way to make them realistic and relevant, but you imply the same is impossible for Wesker.

Sorry but that only shows a weakness in your imagination.Wesker is no more ridiculous then Joker or Sacercrow.

So please, just to finish all of this off, I need to ask: What can Scarface and Ventriloquist do that puts them in league with Batman's A-list villains? And I don't mean "What could they change to make it seem like he's on par with Joker." I mean what does he do that makes him a capable villain?

Remember, Nolan didn't make any major changes to any of the villains, he simply took away an aspect of them. Joker's personality was toned down and he lost his gadgets, Scarecrow's suit was changed to just a mask and spray bottles, Ra's lost his Lazarus pits, and Two-Face was reverted to a psychotic vigilante.

I disagree.

I feel some major changes were made.

But I quess thats a matter of opinion.

As to your question, I already provided 2 templates for a basic story.

Its up to the writters to fill in the rest.

But with the mob families at war, I see plenty of possibilities.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I feel some major changes were made.

Like what? Give me some examples here.

And you never answered my question: What do Scarface/Ventriloquist do that puts them on par with Batman's other villains?

Though this is really a pointless argument, there's absolutely no chance Scarface will be in the movies. If Joker couldn't have his joke shop weapons, I seriously doubt they'll make an entire movie focusing on one.

I'm hoping for the Penguin. He fits the Nolan style and the only changes they would have to make to make him work in the Nolan movies is his nose and his hands (never realised they where the way they where to make him look more like a penguin I always just assumed he liked the birds so much) and maybe some of his more outlandish umbrella weapons. he can keep the gun and sword ones as weapons like that actually do exist and are possible, or where those walking sticks? who cares almost the same thing.
He could try and take over the Gotham underworld while campaigning against Batman to fool the city officials.

The only way I could see the Ventriloquist and Scare face working in these movies would be if the Ventriloquist would be a crazy mob boss who's a ventriloquist only as a cover identity to get people to trust him and who thinks his puppet is alive just to realise it's not when he expects it to help him against Batman. But I don't know to me he seems to be more convincing as a cartoon villain.

Killer Crock would work as a overly strong henchman the main villain would use against Batman kinda like Scarecrow in Batman Begins but in order for that to work he would have to be designed differently, maybe a guy with sharpened teeth wearing dark green armour?

Dead Metal wrote:I'm hoping for the Penguin. He fits the Nolan style and the only changes they would have to make to make him work in the Nolan movies is his nose and his hands (never realised they where the way they where to make him look more like a penguin I always just assumed he liked the birds so much) and maybe some of his more outlandish umbrella weapons. he can keep the gun and sword ones as weapons like that actually do exist and are possible, or where those walking sticks? who cares almost the same thing.
He could try and take over the Gotham underworld while campaigning against Batman to fool the city officials.

The only way I could see the Ventriloquist and Scare face working in these movies would be if the Ventriloquist would be a crazy mob boss who's a ventriloquist only as a cover identity to get people to trust him and who thinks his puppet is alive just to realise it's not when he expects it to help him against Batman. But I don't know to me he seems to be more convincing as a cartoon villain.

Killer Crock would work as a overly strong henchman the main villain would use against Batman kinda like Scarecrow in Batman Begins but in order for that to work he would have to be designed differently, maybe a guy with sharpened teeth wearing dark green armour?

it was my understanding that penguin was on the "No" list. Hoenstly, I wouldn't take a guy running around in a tux, wearing a monical and tophat seriously. As for the plot, didn't Burton already do that, aside the mob stuff?

My idea for Croc was to have the filed sharp teeth, but with surgical alterations to his face to appear more reptilian and having a full body tattoo to resemble a crocodile skin and prone to cannibalistic tendancies. Such disorders as believing to have an underlying animal within you do exist. I've seen specials of people who went as far as to have their appearance dramatically altered to resemble an animal, like a cat. But in Croc's case, he crosses the big line.

Roadbuster wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:I'm hoping for the Penguin. He fits the Nolan style and the only changes they would have to make to make him work in the Nolan movies is his nose and his hands (never realised they where the way they where to make him look more like a penguin I always just assumed he liked the birds so much) and maybe some of his more outlandish umbrella weapons. he can keep the gun and sword ones as weapons like that actually do exist and are possible, or where those walking sticks? who cares almost the same thing.
He could try and take over the Gotham underworld while campaigning against Batman to fool the city officials.

The only way I could see the Ventriloquist and Scare face working in these movies would be if the Ventriloquist would be a crazy mob boss who's a ventriloquist only as a cover identity to get people to trust him and who thinks his puppet is alive just to realise it's not when he expects it to help him against Batman. But I don't know to me he seems to be more convincing as a cartoon villain.

Killer Crock would work as a overly strong henchman the main villain would use against Batman kinda like Scarecrow in Batman Begins but in order for that to work he would have to be designed differently, maybe a guy with sharpened teeth wearing dark green armour?

it was my understanding that penguin was on the "No" list. Hoenstly, I wouldn't take a guy running around in a tux, wearing a monical and tophat seriously. As for the plot, didn't Burton already do that, aside the mob stuff?

My idea for Croc was to have the filed sharp teeth, but with surgical alterations to his face to appear more reptilian and having a full body tattoo to resemble a crocodile skin and prone to cannibalistic tendancies. Such disorders as believing to have an underlying animal within you do exist. I've seen specials of people who went as far as to have their appearance dramatically altered to resemble an animal, like a cat. But in Croc's case, he crosses the big line.

Yea now that you say it, Burton did do that plot kind off.

As to the full body tattoo, I totally forgot about those people, isn't there this guy who surgically altered his face to look like a cat and implanted whiskers, and there is that woman who tatoed herself to look like a cheeta and a lizard guy. Yea I think a full body tattooed Killer Crock actually makes more sense now.

Shadowman wrote:Like what? Give me some examples here.

Like I said its a matter of opinion.

Meaning some of the things you feel are "minor" I feel are major.

Like the Lazarus pit.

And you never answered my question: What do Scarface/Ventriloquist do that puts them on par with Batman's other villains?

What do you mean I didnt answer??.

I already gave 2 ideas for the character.

Dead Metal wrote:I'm hoping for the Penguin. He fits the Nolan style and the only changes they would have to make to make him work in the Nolan movies is his nose and his hands (never realised they where the way they where to make him look more like a penguin

The fliper hands are a Tim Burton thing.

He has regular hands in the comics.


He could try and take over the Gotham underworld while campaigning against Batman to fool the city officials.

The only way I could see the Ventriloquist and Scare face working in these movies would be if the Ventriloquist would be a crazy mob boss who's a ventriloquist only as a cover identity to get people to trust him and who thinks his puppet is alive just to realise it's not when he expects it to help him against Batman.

That could work too.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:What do you mean I didnt answer??.

I already gave 2 ideas for the character.

I wasn't asking for ideas, I was asking for facts. Not ideas for how they could alter him, I'm not looking for concepts.

It's a simple question: What puts Scarface/Ventriloquist on par with Batman's other villains?

As for what you think of Batman's other villains: If you think Joker is ridiculous, you haven't read The Killing Joke.