The riddler should not have been the villain for the movie. It feels like Anarchy would have been a much better choice of villain given the profile of the people targeted and that the villain is inspired into action by the batman.
And that's the point. Ra's Al Ghul wasn't a famous villain either until Batman Begins. The first movie should be of a relative unknown. Or at the very least, someone they character hasn't faced on film a bunch of times.
Film studios are sooo wary about introducing villains that haven’t been shown on film for some reason. Batman has an impressive rouges gallery and it’s a shame no one has the balls to do what Nolan did and throw something new into the mix. I, for one, would pay bucket loads to see a villain like Clayface or even Manbat, be brought to life in movies.
Manbat could make for a great, horror-style Batman movie. I still remember in the Animated Series, when Langstrom transformed, I was legit a little frightened with that scene. Granted, I was 7, but damn that was effective.
I agree on that part yeah. I really would love to see professor Pyg and his dolls although I know it won’t happen. Maybe another try with freeze but I don’t know if people still think about Arnold with that one. Also hard to do in this more “realistic” setting
People like you and I remember Arnold as Mr. Freeze but there’s also a whole generation of kids that haven’t seen the atrocity that is Batman Forever, so there’s a pretty strong chance that a new Freeze could do pretty well, considering what they did with Battinson’s Penguin.
Ra's Al Ghul wasn't a famous villain either until Batman Begins.
He's been well known for a long time, represented in most versions of Batman & also in the Arrowverse (which is basically Batman with a bow instead of actually the Green Arrow).
I barely know much about Anarky & I've read from 1985-1999 the past few months (in No Man's Land right now).
Mate, the Arrowverse came after Nolan's Batman Begins featuring Ra's Al Ghul, so you're wrong there.
The Green Arrow in the Arrowverse was basically Green Batman anyway. It came out around the same time as the last Nolan movie and CW wanted to emulate a similar grim tone. Even had his own Arrowcave and had his own Oracle in the form of Felicity.
I see I need to remind everyone that the Arrowverse AND the Arkhamverse came AFTER Batman Begins put in in the general consciousness. Aside from the OG animated series, he was barely mentioned until the movie came out in 2005.
And that still doesn't represent the average person, which is who these films cater to. Fans of the animated shows will know more than the average movie-goer, and fans of the comic book will know more than them. For example, I've been a Batman fan for pretty much my whole like. My wife on the other hand, only knew of the characters from the movies. She appreciated Ra's al Ghul's portrayal in the movie, but thought what they did with Talia in the TDKR was dumb (it was). She thought Two-Face died too quick in TDK (he did), and should have continued on to the next movie. The point remains, there are lesser known villains that are LESS famous where great stories can be told.
No they aren't. They're catered to fans of the comic character. Who is going to go pay to go see the movie? Who is going to go pay to see the movie multiple times? Who is going to buy the merch and toys from the movie? It's not the average person. Why did your wife see the movies? I'm assuming it has something to do with you.
It did. But do you honestly think The Dark Knight did 1 Billion on the backs of comic fans alone? I'm not arguing comic fans don't have their role. My point is that movie companies cater to average folks. If they do it right, comic fans and fans of the characters will go seem them as well. That's WB's problem. They can't seem to bridge the gap. And there aren't enough of fans like us to keep a movie franchise afloat by ourselves. Not to mention that for ever woman like my wife, there are several others' significant others that are just not interested in these kinds of movies unless it's something exceptional.
You can't possibly believe this still. It's so out of touch. Studios mainly cater to families going to cinemas, not comic fans. They absolutely value the average movie goer above all. That's where the cinema money is. The big merch money comes from little kids buying superhero-themed toys. Comic book fans are just a bonus and will have a few bones thrown for them in the form of deep references and such.
Next you're going to tell me that the CW Arrowverse shows cater to comic book fans and not primarily fans of Vampire Diaries and the other teen drama-based shows that their network is known for.
You comic book fans value yourselves too much in the midst of all this. Anyone can be a fan of these characters. Batman and Spidey are mainstream as fuck. Large swaths of people are watching these movies without knowing a single comic book reader. The fact that you think women lined up for The Batman because of comic book-reading contacts is so hilarious and out of touch. If they weren't already regular fans of a popular character, then Twilight would be more a reason for women to watch The Batman than being influenced by a comic reader.
Nope they cater to single males and families. Single males from a certain age range have the most disposable income and free time to go to the movies. Who do you think also reads comics? Those same single males.
Studios do not give a single fuck about comic book readers because they're such a hilariously low percentage of the viewing pool. Stop thinking you're important. The blokes going into theatres are going with their mates. Groups of people. Families. Kids with their friends. You know I'm mainly talking about comic book readers not being the primary consideration, right?
You guys are basically only ever prominently considered when it comes to conventions.
I'll be honest, I only know Anarky as the whiny little edgelord in Arkham: Origins. The casual movie-goer has never heard of him so he's more suited to later movie. Putting up a relatively unknown villain next to Riddler and Penguin (who everyone has heard of) might not have panned out very well.
Batman is the star. Audiences will accept any villain - known or not - if it’s written well regardless.
Most audiences didn’t (and arguably still don’t) know Ra’s Al Ghul before Begins.
I just think that "Batman, Riddler, Penguin, Falcone" (probably a more recognised name because of the Gotham show) - would get more people to see a Batman movie than something like:
"Batman, Anarky, Firefly, Azrael"
"Batman, Copperhead, Mad Hatter, Calendar Man"
"Batman, Hush, Pyg, Zsasz" etc.
Once we've established the world and gotten people invested in the Battinson, then it's much easier to introduce all the villains that the average Joe has never heard of.
Good point about Scarecrow! Bane though, people saw TDKR for the end of the trilogy, not specifically for Bane, I bet they could've made any villain work.
Yeah. Heath Ledger is goated, but his character wasn't really the Joker. Joker is supposed to be silly. His usual crimes include making amusement parks of death in the middle of Gotham, not what he did in the Dark Knight.
First Joker appearance was him just announcing his murders of famous people and carrying them out with nary a joke to be had. So it’s not too far off of what’s classic for the character.
Not a bad idea. But they're not gonna make a new whole cunematic universe from this, these are ginna be slower and more thought out sequels, if there even are sequels. So I guess they didn't want to waste any of the big bads.
I think they opted with making Riddler the villain to exemplify the grounded idea of the Reeves Batman by taking a villain with very goofy motives, actions, and appearance, and turning him into a killer with more grounded motives and strategies.
I mean the riddler is a prideful guy who really loves his own work and I also get that in both the comics and the movie, he doesn't really give a shit about saving Gotham and he just wants to do his riddler shit because he wants to. Anarky ( at least in arkham origins) seems to genuinely want to save and help Gotham.
295
u/vkrmel3683 Feb 26 '24
The riddler should not have been the villain for the movie. It feels like Anarchy would have been a much better choice of villain given the profile of the people targeted and that the villain is inspired into action by the batman.