Would the Riddler have worked better?
Yes
30.8% (72)
30.8% (72)
No
34.2% (80)
34.2% (80)
After Heath Ledger's Joker nobody had a chance in hell
33.8% (79)
33.8% (79)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Would a Batman movie with the Riddler have worked better than TDKR?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Some people say that the riddler wouldn't work because he is too campy, but nolan could strip the campiness out of him. Bane in the comics walks around with a luchador mask and takes a magical chemical that makes him superhuman. That is kinda campy, but nolan made him a serious character. I don't know if it would have been better than TDKR (since the problems with the film aren't really because of bane imo) but I think it would be great.

To me they would have to use the insecure, neurotic aspect of riddler's personality to make it work. He is so threatening but when you think about it he is a very pathetic person, killing people just to mask his own insecurity. This could make for a great villain. My main problem is that he might be too similar to the joker in TDK, since he did do several riddler-esque things with his hostages (although it wasn't about outsmarting batman).

ZippyDSMlee:

Hjalmar Fryklund:
That may well be so, but I would take Mad as Hatter, Almost Got 'Im, Joker's Wild and Perchance to Dream rather than the Riddler episodes.

If TV was that bad at the time they originally aired, then that simply means that calling the Riddler episodes mediocre is also a damning of the state of early 90s television. It does not make the Riddler episodes good.

Ya but the Hatter is more campy, the EPs might be bad but the character is not.

The character was definitely fun and interesting, it is a pity they left him so woefully unexplored.

The Hatter was really fun too, yet at the same time he could wring out pity for him out of you. He was also the only supervillain in the series that started out as fairly sane and whose descent into madness was more subtle and gradual than the others. A real favorite of mine.

TheKasp:

pilouuuu:

Haha I think Bale is an alright Batman. He is somewhat boring as Bruce Wayne, but I liked him in TDKR. Michael Fassbender would be an amazing Batman and Bruce Wayne!

Sadly, I have only seen TDKR in german, going to see it in english again in two weeks. And it may not have helped (added to my dislike for Bale in that role) that Bales german dub voice, unlike the previous two movies (which I saw in the same cinema right before on the same day), was just bad and unnatural. Have yet to look up if they redid the voice somehow or if they just had two different speaker.

I saw it in Spanish and I was glad that Bale as Batman didn't have the annoying raspy voice. I don't know if that's the case in the original, because I hated it in previous movies. Bane voice in Spanish was great as well!

No, I do believe there should be a Dark Knight film with the Riddler as the villain, but Bane was great for TDKR.

Also, will people get over Heath Leger as the Joker, we get it, he was brilliant, I thought so too, he stole the show (er...film) but saying he will never be topped is a pretty pessimistic attitude.

I don't think so, Riddler is to similar to Joker imo, the series needed a character that could flat out beat the shit out of batman, if it wasn't Bane there would be no reason for batman to have to start getting back into shape, Alfred could probably beat up Riddler.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

ZippyDSMlee:

Hjalmar Fryklund:
That may well be so, but I would take Mad as Hatter, Almost Got 'Im, Joker's Wild and Perchance to Dream rather than the Riddler episodes.

If TV was that bad at the time they originally aired, then that simply means that calling the Riddler episodes mediocre is also a damning of the state of early 90s television. It does not make the Riddler episodes good.

Ya but the Hatter is more campy, the EPs might be bad but the character is not.

The character was definitely fun and interesting, it is a pity they left him so woefully unexplored.

The Hatter was really fun too, yet at the same time he could wring out pity for him out of you. He was also the only supervillain in the series that started out as fairly sane and whose descent into madness was more subtle and gradual than the others. A real favorite of mine.

Ya they did Hatter much better but could you handle a reinvented one? I mean as far as reinvention goes DCU Riddler is for the most part easy to adapt to the big screen, Hatter would be too subdued and over simplified I would think.

ZippyDSMlee:

Hjalmar Fryklund:

ZippyDSMlee:

Ya but the Hatter is more campy, the EPs might be bad but the character is not.

The character was definitely fun and interesting, it is a pity they left him so woefully unexplored.

The Hatter was really fun too, yet at the same time he could wring out pity for him out of you. He was also the only supervillain in the series that started out as fairly sane and whose descent into madness was more subtle and gradual than the others. A real favorite of mine.

Ya they did Hatter much better but could you handle a reinvented one? I mean as far as reinvention goes DCU Riddler is for the most part easy to adapt to the big screen, Hatter would be too subdued and over simplified I would think.

Well, I never said that TDKR could have used the Hatter; I don't think he really works as feauture length movie villain. The DCAU Riddler however, would work really well in a two hour movie, though you would a second villain to spice things up. Penguin perhaps?

Hjalmar Fryklund:

ZippyDSMlee:

Hjalmar Fryklund:

The character was definitely fun and interesting, it is a pity they left him so woefully unexplored.

The Hatter was really fun too, yet at the same time he could wring out pity for him out of you. He was also the only supervillain in the series that started out as fairly sane and whose descent into madness was more subtle and gradual than the others. A real favorite of mine.

Ya they did Hatter much better but could you handle a reinvented one? I mean as far as reinvention goes DCU Riddler is for the most part easy to adapt to the big screen, Hatter would be too subdued and over simplified I would think.

Well, I never said that TDKR could have used the Hatter; I don't think he really works as feauture length movie villain. The DCAU Riddler however, would work really well in a two hour movie, though you would a second villain to spice things up. Penguin perhaps?

Yeah he would work, They had a good Two face in TDK too even if its been done before a serious two face and Riddler film would be awesome.

I would think Hatter could work well but doing his gimmick is tricky then again wearing a tiara like device that can fit under a hat that brainwashes you is not so far fetched but the smart nerd driven to maddens is a bit cliche. Personality wise he would come off a bit more viscous and broken with a touch Joker's(animated series) style. I don't remember if he was crazy with gadgets but I always thought he would go that route build up a gang of brainwashed people to protect a brain washed Alice from the real world.

So on one end you have Crazy(I know I know Hatter is not that crazy/random) and on the other you have cold, calculating and deadly crimes. I think they would play well off each other. But Penguin doing the charming gambler/arms dealer/gang leader thing works too as his and near opposite style wise, not that Penguin is not cold and calculating its just Riddlers crimes are seemingly more random.

God TL:DR ><

Nemesis729:
I don't think so, Riddler is to similar to Joker imo, the series needed a character that could flat out beat the shit out of batman, if it wasn't Bane there would be no reason for batman to have to start getting back into shape, Alfred could probably beat up Riddler.

If you can find him before he offs everyone in the city, one at a time. ^_~

I'm amazed at how limited people are in their interpretation of the Riddler. There's no reason why he would have to be 'campy' or in any way similar to the Joker.

You know what you get when you take the Riddler and strip out all the campiness and over-the-top cartoonishness? The Zodiac killer. How cool would that be? Instead of the waving-his-face-in-your-face style of the Joker, Gotham would be under attack from an invisible killer who waves his intellect in the faces of both the police force and Batman, always ten steps ahead without ever letting them know who he is or where he'll strike next.

There are so many cool angles that they could have worked into the film. The Riddler uses his intellect to work out the truth of the Dent fiasco, and uses that against Batman to hold Gotham to ransom. Or, as in the comics, the Riddler does double time as a consultant for the police, meaning he's playing them the whole time in order to serve his own plans, a la Hannibal in Silence Of The Lambs.

Nolan stripped out the camp (or at least, toned it down) for the Joker, and the results were terrifying. There's no reason the same couldn't work for the Riddler. You only need to read up on the antics of Jack The Ripper and the Zodiac Killer to realise just how terrifying anonymous killers who taunt the authorities chasing them can be. And it would intensify the real world 'crime' feel of the series, rather than the descent into over the top Wagnerian ninjas-and-nukebombs that TDKR falls into.

Oh well, maybe for the next film...

ZippyDSMlee:

Hjalmar Fryklund:

ZippyDSMlee:

Ya they did Hatter much better but could you handle a reinvented one? I mean as far as reinvention goes DCU Riddler is for the most part easy to adapt to the big screen, Hatter would be too subdued and over simplified I would think.

Well, I never said that TDKR could have used the Hatter; I don't think he really works as feauture length movie villain. The DCAU Riddler however, would work really well in a two hour movie, though you would a second villain to spice things up. Penguin perhaps?

Yeah he would work, They had a good Two face in TDK too even if its been done before a serious two face and Riddler film would be awesome.

I would think Hatter could work well but doing his gimmick is tricky then again wearing a tiara like device that can fit under a hat that brainwashes you is not so far fetched but the smart nerd driven to maddens is a bit cliche. Personality wise he would come off a bit more viscous and broken with a touch Joker's(animated series) style. I don't remember if he was crazy with gadgets but I always thought he would go that route build up a gang of brainwashed people to protect a brain washed Alice from the real world.

So on one end you have Crazy(I know I know Hatter is not that crazy/random) and on the other you have cold, calculating and deadly crimes. I think they would play well off each other. But Penguin doing the charming gambler/arms dealer/gang leader thing works too as his and near opposite style wise, not that Penguin is not cold and calculating its just Riddlers crimes are seemingly more random.

God TL:DR ><

The thing makes the DCAU Mad Hatter so special is that he avoids falling into the two types of villains that Batman usually fights. On one hand you got Dent, Isley, Crane, etc. who are damned by by their psyches and have little choice in becoming bad guys, while on the other hand you got small-time crooks who at the end of the day lack the capacity for malevolence to become truly evil. DCAU Hatter on the other hand places himself somewhere in the middle in that his actions are abhorrent and disgusting, yet his motivations and personality make him unnerving and pitiful at the same time.

I think the key to Mad Hatter is that he would rather live in his Wonderland than reality. If he was part of a movie the writers would have to start from that point and work from there. I am gonna have to sleep on this on though.

The Riddler´s character I think is at its best when you focus on what makes him tick, rather than what makes him who he is. How he became the Riddler is not as interesting as what puzzles he can conjure up.

I must be the only person in the universe who was thoroughly unimpressed with Ledger's Joker and the Nolan Batman films in general.

rob_simple:
I doubt it would have made a better film. As you said, Nolan goes for realism in his Batman films, and the Riddler would be almost impossible to take seriously as there isn't much particularly threatening about a crook whose entire MO is leaving brainteasers lying around.

Oh really?

Hjalmar Fryklund:

The thing makes the DCAU Mad Hatter so special is that he avoids falling into the two types of villains that Batman usually fights. On one hand you got Dent, Isley, Crane, etc. who are damned by by their psyches and have little choice in becoming bad guys, while on the other hand you got small-time crooks who at the end of the day lack the capacity for malevolence to become truly evil. DCAU Hatter on the other hand places himself somewhere in the middle in that his actions are abhorrent and disgusting, yet his motivations and personality make him unnerving and pitiful at the same time.

I think the key to Mad Hatter is that he would rather live in his Wonderland than reality. If he was part of a movie the writers would have to start from that point and work from there. I am gonna have to sleep on this on though.

The Riddler´s character I think is at its best when you focus on what makes him tick, rather than what makes him who he is. How he became the Riddler is not as interesting as what puzzles he can conjure up.

True true, I guess you don't have to over think it really, just have Hatter take over the building and turns it into wonderland using the mind control devices.

Definitely Riddler is better when heard and not seen.

Clive Howlitzer:
I must be the only person in the universe who was thoroughly unimpressed with Ledger's Joker and the Nolan Batman films in general.

I am pretty much with you, while I think they are good films I am not sure they are good Batman films, and I liked Ledger's Joker just not as Batmans Joker...sorry guys Mark Hamil is the only Joker for mmmmEEEEEEEE!

hermes200:
Don't think so.

For the most part, Riddler is a campy villain. His whole motif is teasing Batman that he is smarter than him. Haven't seen TDKR yet, so I can't tell if Bane is handled better...

Off topic, but I was just looking at photos of Joffrey from Game of Thrones.. then I see your avatar.. O_o

OT: Hell no, it's not anticlamtic enough.

The Riddler is just too much like the Joker. It might not be a good idea to make a movie about logical traps and difficult decisions when that's exactly what the Joker did in the last one.

now that I think about it, the riddler could work pretty well! A psychotic, egotistical genius trying to show up batman via terrorizing the city could work pretty well, although it would need some more villains in the cast as well for it to work. The one big problem is that it would seem a bit too much like what the joker did in the previous film, so it might seem a little bit repetitive in that regard

No, Riddler would have been cirtisized as a Joker knockoff. Best to put him in an early movie where Batman is still trying to get his footing, because of Riddler's compulsive need to leave clues behind.

Gizmo1990:
However I did not like Bane. I just do not think he worked very well and his voice was beyond irritating (even worse than Bale's Batman voice).

The part where Bane is choking Batman and Bael uses the Bat-Voice was hilarious. I didn't like DKR but the Bat-Voice has never been that hilarious.

As for The Riddler, I think he could have fit well into the Nolan-Verse but the problem is that I see Riddler in those films as being a sort of Son of Sam style murderer: he would leave bodies and, notes and, riddles but the scale of his attacks would just be too small. DKR was striving to be this huge epic thing just like the trilogy as a whole so in that respect, Riddler wouldn't have been a good fit for the grand finale. I think he would have been better suited to Batman Begins or a theoretical movie between BB and DK, working alongside Zsasz (or at least working at the same time as Zsasz) who was in Begins for all of 3 minutes.

Now that I think about it a Batman movie featuring Hush and Riddler could be brilliant if they did their murders in a similar enough fashion to just fuck with Batman's pointy head...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rob_simple:
I doubt it would have made a better film. As you said, Nolan goes for realism in his Batman films, and the Riddler would be almost impossible to take seriously as there isn't much particularly threatening about a crook whose entire MO is leaving brainteasers lying around.

Oh really?

Ah dammit you got me there, although since we already have a Zodiac film starring Iron Man maybe it would have been redundant to stick him in Batman :p

TizzytheTormentor:
No, I do believe there should be a Dark Knight film with the Riddler as the villain, but Bane was great for TDKR.

Also, will people get over Heath Leger as the Joker, we get it, he was brilliant, I thought so too, he stole the show (er...film) but saying he will never be topped is a pretty pessimistic attitude.

This is the internet, despite TDK being a good film and the Jokers performance being pretty great, everyone will say until the end of time that they are perfect. I've learnt to just ignore anyone who thinks that way.

This may or may not be answering your question, but I have to say it.

It depends on how they make the character, who plays him, and what they do in the film. Even a character as silly as the penguin can actually work effectively (realistically or just made awesome) if thought out well. That's the great thing about art, any thing is possible and there is always a way to improve on ideas.

So my answer is: it doesn't make a difference who they choose, it's how they present them.

Saying that, Heath Ledger made an amazing Joker.

Nope. In a broad universe like a comic book or a show, where it can go on for a while, it would have been fine. But I feel like them making Riddler the main baddy would have just felt like they were trying to recreate Ledger's Joker. No matter how good it would have been, it would have failed in comparison. If you only have a limited amount of time to flesh them out, they would have both just boiled down to the same character.

Bane was a good choice.

I think the Riddler would have worked better since he is just more interesting than Bane and while he wouldn't have been as good as the Joker he probably would have been better than Bane and possibly on par with Scarecrow...

Probably not, I dont know.

What I do know is that Tom Hardy as Bane was just as goddamn amazing as Heath Ledger as The Joker, its a just a slightly more subtle performance, and Heath will automatically be thought of as better simply because he died right before the movies release.

(Not saying that his performance was bad, it was incredible, its just that people feel that simply because he died , nothing could ever match him)

I've not seen the newest Batman...that said.

I don't like the trend of multiple villains in a superhero movie. Bane and Catwoman (who probably played villain/hero roles) seems inherently less successful than just one villain.

People probably would have preferred the movie if it was just one iconic villain be it the Riddler OR Catwoman.

the Riddler is kind of seen as a "poor mans joker" and while that may not been the case it would have felt too much like a rehash of TDK villan-wise....or at worst trying to capitalise on the popularity of Ledgers Joker

imahobbit4062:
This is the internet, despite TDK being a good film and the Jokers performance being pretty great, everyone will say until the end of time that they are perfect. I've learnt to just ignore anyone who thinks that way.

and everyone will be saying they were awful

its ok to belive the films were absolutely brilliant (or perfect) and even ok to think they were horrible (though if somone were write them off as horrible without actual valid cirticsms....well)

love/hate balance each other out..somtimes you just ignore it completly, because its nice to enjoy things without hearing the screaming of thousands of fanboys/anti fan haters...

...still that part is my fault

..just can't stay away

8bitmaster:
I don't know if an obvious "the riddler is the villain" aspect would have been good, but him being in the background would have been a better motive for bruce wayne to get back in as batman. They could show different murders and other heinous crimes with baffling riddles showing on how hes always 2 steps ahead of the police and a step ahead of batman to get him back in the game. Essentially they should have had the riddler as a secondary villain instead of catwoman. I think it would have made for a more interesting side plot. Essentially, they should have given him a presence the same way he was given a presence in the batman arkham games.

Deshin:

xbox hero:
*SPOILER REMOVED FOR QUOTE PURPOSES* Im sorry for the spoilers,but I didnt put them on intentionally! I have no idea how he made a movie where bane is the enemy that long!

Spoiler tags god damnit, I've not seen the movie yet. How can you say "sorry for the spoilers" and "you didn't put them on intentionally" when you literally just wrote them? Did your fingers magically become self-sentient, type out the whole sentence, then break off your backspace key?

On Topic: Movie Riddler (Batman Forever) was campy BECAUSE it was Batman Forever. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin managed to make Riddler, Two Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane all camp villains. If we're talking Riddler in Nolan's Batman world? Honestly I can see that working, but I'm not sure if could carry the movie by himself.

It'd probably at best be a good secondary character to the movie in the way Two Face was to Dark Knight's Joker. The angle with him being a savant hired to hunt down Batman is pretty good to be honest; but perhaps Nolan felt that there was already enough psychological back and forth going on in Dark Knight so this time we needed a "meaty" Batman villain. The usual whack-em-up rogue's gallery (Croc, Clayface, Freeze, etc) would have been harder to implement then Bane who is really just "Brick Shithouse".

Final thought: I think Nolan wanted to spread the three tests of courage across all 3 movies but did them in totally the wrong order. The first movie tested his 'heart' (determination, not killing, etc), the second movie tested his 'mind' (not going nuts despite everything going on), and now this third movie seems to be testing his 'strength'. The normal progression is supposed to be Strength -> Mind -> Heart so the hero can see if despite everything else he can still keep sight of what he set out to do, as opposed to coming into his own right from the start then proving the other points as the years went by.

Well first off,I meant to say that i intentionally didn't want to put on the spoiler tags on because that is pretty much why Bane exists!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked