Batman-Online.com

Came across this quote from Chris Nolan this morning...

Quote"Bane is primarily a physical presence," Nolan continued. "He's threatening in a monstrous way and very frightening in a physical way, and that's why we went for him. We didn't want to do any kind of watered down version of the Joker, which a lot of those characters are, and we really found something in him.

http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/dark-knight-rises-prologue/story/across-the-universe/ (contains info for the TDKR Prologue.  If you don't want to know details, don't look at the link.)

What do you guys think?  Are "a lot of those characters" really watered down versions of the Joker? 

Personally, I don't agree.  While I can see comparisons between Joker and Riddler (especially in Frank Gorshin's portrayal), I think it's a disservice to the Riddler character to call him that way and I don't see anything Joker-like in Penguin, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Hugo Strange, Clayface, Mad Hatter, Killer Croc, Ventroloquist, Firefly, Deadshot, etc.

Maybe it's just me....

In the 60's most of the main villains including the penguin were the same; different looks, similar plans.

Shumacher turned all his male villains into versions of the joker.

The riddler has different portrayals, the up beat jokerlike mantra such as Gorshin and Carrey or the darker tragic Animated portrayal. In arkham asylum/city he's more of a hybrid.

I agree that The Riddler isn't a watered down version of The Joker. But I'm going to defend Nolan here, because I see what he means in this context. The context of having to pick a villain with only one film remaining. Nolan wanted to bring the king of their respective field to the table. In TDK, we had The Joker. He gave mind games as well as the added bonus of total chaos. The Riddler does this in a different way with riddles. But even still, Nolan would've found it too close to comfort and not threatening in the same all out way. Even if he made him so, to him, he's already covered that part. He wanted to explore a totally different aspect. And the opposite of that is strength, and instead of chaos, total control with military precision. 

^ See, I definitely agree with that assessment and imagined that would've been an issue if we did get Riddler as the villain for Dark Knight Rises.

On the other hand, I think there's a bunch of ways Nolan could've made the same point about wanting a different type of villain, without sounding like he views "a lot of these" other Batman baddies as Joker-lite.

In the end, though, this is his last movie.  He picked the villains he thought he could do the most with.  I'm not pissed or anything with his opinion on the characters he never used.   I just think it's an interesting subject to discuss.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 16 Dec  2011, 17:06
On the other hand, I think there's a bunch of ways Nolan could've made the same point about wanting a different type of villain, without sounding like he views "a lot of these" other Batman baddies as Joker-lite.

Indeed. I am right there with you. The Riddler is not a watered down Joker. And neither are the majority of the other villains. The way Nolan went about making his point about villain selection did come off as disrespectful. And as said, while I understand the the gist of what he means, it makes me glad he's not coming back for another after this. I mean, if according to him pretty much all of the villains are Joker rip-offs, and on top of that he has these realism constraints, who on Earth would've he gone for next?

I disagree with Nolan. As Joker said "I just do things" I got that with Bane when I saw the new trailer. Him blowing stuff up. Hopefully there is more to Bane than that when the whole film comes out next summer.

I could see Joker blowing up a football field.

Whatever one thinks of Nolan's series, I understand where he's coming from with this comment and think he should be commended for choosing very distinct main antagonists for each of his respective Batman films, rather than using the most popular or well-known villains amongst Batman's 'Rogues Gallery'.  Whilst I like the Riddler and don't consider him to be a watered-down version of the Joker or any other villain for that matter, terrorist tactician Ra's al Ghul, cerebral and psycopathic anarchist the Joker, and physical brute force of nature Bane, each represent the apotheosis of their respective brand of villainy.  Moreover, and at the risk of being controversial, the Riddler is arguably a step down from the Joker, since the former has on occasion been portrayed as a (albeit temporarily) reformed character which is not a development that would easily sit well with the 'Crown Prince of Crime'.  Arguably, Bane, the man who broke Batman's back, is one of the few remaining 'Rogues' who offers at the very least, an equally formidable threat to that posed by either Ra's al Ghul or the Joker in the previous two films.

^ Indeed. Mr. Gobbs gets it.

He's basically gone half and half with his villains, 3 popular (Joker, two face, catwoman), 3 lesser known (Ras al ghul, scarecrow, Bane). I don't think you can commend or criticize his choices. I liked that his film with the weaker villains was the first one; he had to tell an origin, didnt want to give any popular villains the 'Venom' treatment; this is something all the superhero franchises seem to be doing aside from Captain America; use a lesser villain in the first film while they develop the main character and save the arch enemy for the sequel. This will be the 4th incarnation of catwoman on screen including the 66 film and halle berry disaster.

Joker just created chaos for fun, I think Bane is a terrorist and like real life terrorists he's doing it to prove a point; instead of terrorizing a country, he's terrorizing a class (rich class). Now the one thing thats rather reduntant is it'll be 10 years into his career with Batman still a wanted man in gotham. Doesn't seem like he's a public hero quite yet.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 20 Dec  2011, 03:41
He's basically gone half and half with his villains, 3 popular (Joker, two face, catwoman), 3 lesser known (Ras al ghul, scarecrow, Bane). I don't think you can commend or criticize his choices. I liked that his film with the weaker villains was the first one; he had to tell an origin, didnt want to give any popular villains the 'Venom' treatment; this is something all the superhero franchises seem to be doing aside from Captain America; use a lesser villain in the first film while they develop the main character and save the arch enemy for the sequel. This will be the 4th incarnation of catwoman on screen including the 66 film and halle berry disaster.

With the first film, Nolan could afford to use 'lesser-known' villains like Ras and Scarecrow since the selling point of the film was the reboot and the focus on Batman's genesis.  With the subsequent two films, Nolan has had to go 'bigger' with the villains and utilise the more popular, well-known rogues like the Joker and Catwoman respectively.

I will commend his choices for the villains however.  Each of the 'main' villains, Ra's al Ghul, the Joker, and Bane pose a genuinely formidable threat to Batman which perhaps cannot be said of some of the other (no less entertaining) villains.  Obviously, Nolan has also been limited by the 'realism' aspect of the film meaning he has had to forego some of the more outlandish villains such as say, Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, who have either an extreme sci-fi or fantastical basis for their origin/powers etc.

I wont overly commend Nolans choices. Still some good villains which haven't been touched on screen (including the pervious series); Hugo Strange, Back mask, man bat, the mad hatter, harley quinn.

I like the way they are used though; several other superhero films mash the villains in. Nolan figured out how to use minor and major villains properly.

Do NOT agree with Nolan on many of Batman's rogues gallery being 'Watered down Joker's', just like I don't agree that the Penguin would be too 'tricky' to do in the movies either. Take the time and read the Penguin's one shot in the 'Joker's Asylum' series, or the recent limited series, "Penguin: Pride and Prejudice" and it's apparent that the Penguin is extremely ruthless, but far from anything that can remotely be suggested as Joker-lite, and a interesting villain in his own right.

The Riddler and others I could mention fit into this as well. But if that's Nolan's perspective, ok. Fine. Whatever.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 22 Dec  2011, 02:22
Do NOT agree with Nolan on many of Batman's rogues gallery being 'Watered down Joker's', just like I don't agree that the Penguin would be too 'tricky' to do in the movies either. Take the time and read the Penguin's one shot in the 'Joker's Asylum' series, or the recent limited series, "Penguin: Pride and Prejudice" and it's apparent that the Penguin is extremely ruthless, but far from anything that can remotely be suggested as Joker-lite, and a interesting villain in his own right.

The Riddler and others I could mention fit into this as well. But if that's Nolan's perspective, ok. Fine. Whatever.

The Penguin is nothing like the Joker nor is he as far fetched as Nolan claims. The penguins aspirations run from politics (while Danny Devitos character did stray from the true essence, the framing of batman and running for mayor are both right up the characters alley) to arms dealing; two things the Joker would not care for (he even says he doesn't like guns, prefers knives). The Joker does what he does more as a game for enjoyment whereas the Penguin is more of a schemer.

The riddler is a hybrid of the 2, he does usually have a plan and goal but for him he gets a kick out of the thrill and the chase. The Penguin only cares about the end result, he doesn't care how he gets what he's after as long as he gets it. The Joker is more like a dog chasing cars, lives in the short term and enjoys causing anarchy and isn't after anything concrete. The riddler usually has a plot but wants to win specifically by outsmarting his foes.


So let's say there was an extremely value artifact from the gotham museum; the Penguin would simply take the best path to get it either by stealth or force. The riddler would try and do it outsmarting people. Joker might go after the artifact but even if he got it, he'd probably destroy it or throw it away. But that's why I like the riddler so much, he's versatile. The penguin would never try most of the jokers plots and vice versa whereas the riddler would try either (just using his riddles).

The only reason that Nolan thinks they're Joker lite is because he instantly takes every 'psycho type' villains to SAW territory. So yeah, I guess he's right, but only because of his own lack of originality.

It sounds like Nolan's outlook on Batman's rogue gallery is influenced by Schumacher's treatment of them!

Yeah, I agree. Watching the Schumacher films, it feels like the actors approached the villains as variations of the Joker with different names and costumes.

Guess you really can't add a whole lot of depth to a villain when before each take, Schumacher was apparently telling the crew:

"Now remember folks, it's a CARTOON!!!"

:(

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 16 Jan  2012, 15:05

Guess you really can't add a whole lot of depth to a villain when before each take, Schumacher was apparently telling the crew:

"Now remember folks, it's a CARTOON!!!"

:(

Even scenes which had the potential to be dramatic, he ruined; freeze watching his wedding video but they had to have the tear freeze and the stupid subsequent line "I hate when people talk during the movie", also the final conversation between batman and freeze which was one of the stronger points but again contained a silly line "take 2 of these and call me in the morning"

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 24 Dec  2011, 04:28The Penguin is nothing like the Joker nor is he as far fetched as Nolan claims. The penguins aspirations run from politics (while Danny Devitos character did stray from the true essence, the framing of batman and running for mayor are both right up the characters alley) to arms dealing;

I have no clue where this "arms dealer" thing has ever come from. I've never seen a comic where that's been his thing specifically. Not saying they don't exist; just that I've never seen them.

But it's not like the Penguin is a hard character to get right. Implicit in his character is a yearn for acceptance by a society that has in many ways rejected him. Burton really hammered that point again and again but I'd argue that from his first appearance... well, doesn't it say something that he targeted Gotham's upper crust? And as far as characters who hob nob with the 1%, run for mayor, try to appear respectable (no matter what's going on in the backroom), the Penguin takes a back seat to nobody. What he does is motivated primarily by acceptance. Secondarily, I'd argue he's motivated by control. Once society has accepted him, his next logical move is an attempt to control society. This is why politics and elected office would appeal to him. You win their support, you win their donations, you win their votes... and then you own them.

Frankly, I can't think of any characterization of the Joker that's motivated by any of those values.

That said, I think what Nolan was saying was that he wanted to shoot for a different type of villain. Ra's al Ghul challenged Batman's mind (on paper anyway, God knows I don't think much of that comes across in the film), the Joker challenged Batman's worldview and so Nolan probably wanted a villain who would challenge Batman physically. He didn't see the value in adapting a villain who would challenge Batman in the same essential ways the Joker did... which is maybe an argument for not shooting his wad with Two Face in TDK but whatever.

If I'm not mistaken Penguin was briefly an arms dealer of sorts (or at least a hoarder) in No Man's Land.

There had been a rumor that Phillip Seymour Hoffman would play a British arms dealer in The Dark Knight Rises, and the speculation around that rumor was that the BAD would be The Penguin.

Since then, the notion of Penguin as Arms Dealer has more or less hung around. 

A gripe I have with Nolan's use of the characters in TDKR is that they feel like watered down versions of themselves.  Bane was a watered down version of Bane from the comics.  Selina Kyle (though I feel Hathaway was excellent in the role) was not allowed to be called 'Catwoman.'   And so on.  Miranda wasn't all that developed to be Talia--we get that as an easter egg.  Etc.

While I love The Dark Knight and enjoy Batman Begins, I'm a bit stunned by how successful this film has been.  Greg Rucka posted on tumbler that he felt Nolan was ashamed to admit he was making a film about a comic book superhero.  That's kind of the impression I got by the end of TDKR.  It's a shame, as I felt a good series could have been built on the TDK foundation.

As a kid The Joker was my least favourite. Yes believe it or not. Not because I thought he was crap or anything. I just thought he was massively overused. Even to this day. How many times did he pop up in Adam West's show or the animated series in several rows? Too many in my book. He's in almost every major Batman story from The Dark Knight Returns to Arkham Asylum. I got fed up with him. One reason I loved Hush is when it was revealed who the real main villain was at the end. I won't say case some haven't read that one. You know who I mean. It made such a change to say oh look it's not the Joker as chief villain...for once!

What I'm saying is I think the Joker is far too easy a character to fall back on for anyone, especially in the case of Nolan. I was so disappointed when they announced him for The Dark Knight. I wouldv'e liked to have seen new faces never done in live action as was the excellent case with Batman Begins.

There is a funny section in The making of the Dark Knight Trilogy book where Nolan rejects Goyer's ideas for villains during pre-production on Begins. Killer Croc, Man-Bat, Clayface, The Mad Hatter and even Calendar Man all get a negative reaction from Nolan. I found it funny because I did agree with his opinion of them for being a bit crap. At the same time though I wish a new director will have the confidance next time to choose somebody obscure. If they simply do the Joker again their gonna be in trouble.

Bob: with you on Hush 100 percent.  :)

As for the Joker: I agree. He's overused.  I remember when the Last Laugh was supposed to be it for a while.  Nope.  Not by a long shot.

Even after Death in the Family they couldn't wait to jump right back in with him during the Secret Origin special.

I think I also have a bit of Joker fatigue.  I know he's a favorite, considered by many to be the 'big bad' yin to Batman's yang, but one thing Batman actually has is a fairly deep Rogue's Gallery. 

That said, I don't fault for Nolan bringing Joker in.  He's the audience's favorite, the one just about everyone wants to see. And as someone who loves much of the animated series/Timm-verse and of course Burton's take on the material, I actually found myself enjoying Heath Ledger quite a bit.  Terrific performance, and a well written character.  He's certainly a different take on the character for many reasons (aesthetics, the lack of laughing gas, the over use of knife) but the Alan Moore 'bad day' 'multiple choice origin' motif felt right for the world of story Nolan had created.

Quote from: greggbray on Sun, 26 Aug  2012, 21:52
Bob: with you on Hush 100 percent.  :)

As for the Joker: I agree. He's overused.  I remember when the Last Laugh was supposed to be it for a while.  Nope.  Not by a long shot.

Even after Death in the Family they couldn't wait to jump right back in with him during the Secret Origin special.

I think I also have a bit of Joker fatigue.  I know he's a favorite, considered by many to be the 'big bad' yin to Batman's yang, but one thing Batman actually has is a fairly deep Rogue's Gallery. 

That said, I don't fault for Nolan bringing Joker in.  He's the audience's favorite, the one just about everyone wants to see. And as someone who loves much of the animated series/Timm-verse and of course Burton's take on the material, I actually found myself enjoying Heath Ledger quite a bit.  Terrific performance, and a well written character.  He's certainly a different take on the character for many reasons (aesthetics, the lack of laughing gas, the over use of knife) but the Alan Moore 'bad day' 'multiple choice origin' motif felt right for the world of story Nolan had created.

I agree and especially with Mark Hamill claiming to retire the character, I think he should be put aside for a while. I know it's tough to pretend gotham city is real but let's say it is; first off the citizens would be getting sick of the Jokers constant chaos; either chain him in a cell or put him to death already! But still in such a world would you not expect the villains to attempt to 'out do' each other similar to how they do in arkham? While the joker's specialties is simply mayhem, the other villains have specialties of their own which haven't been completely explored; the riddler with his genius and riddles, the mad hatter with his mind control, mr. freeze (and i dont mean the arnold version i mean the tragic version), poison ivy, killer croc (they should have him in a crossover with aquaman if they havent yet).

Don't get me wrong the joker is a great villain but they seem to go to the well quite often with him. And with the movies playing a huge part now in the mystique I doubt we see him on film in the next 15 years given the ledger factor.

Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist and Killer Croc and probably Penguin and Clayface would be underwhelming as the and probably even one of two villains in a two-hour + movie so there is something to the dismissiveness. So probably would be Poison Ivy unless you went pretty far in to fantasy which Nolan didn't want to do.

Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 20 Apr  2021, 14:29
Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist and Killer Croc and probably Penguin and Clayface would be underwhelming as the and probably even one of two villains in a two-hour + movie so there is something to the dismissiveness. So probably would be Poison Ivy unless you went pretty far in to fantasy which Nolan didn't want to do.

Uma's Poison Ivy is a very good representation of the character and in all seriousness any future incarnation would have its work cut out. I would like to see another version but think that will be some time into the future. Reeves seems to be taking the real world approach like Nolan, with a touch more flair. Which I'm looking forward to. However, a perfect Batman world would be that of the Arkham games. Darker than BTAS but still wholly fantastical with all villains like Clayface adapted without compromise.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I would have loved to have seen Nolan's take on Clayface. I understand that most fans would prefer a more faithful adaptation of the character and his abilities, but that isn't something I'm terribly fussed about seeing. The idea of a morphing villain is interesting, but it's already been done in Terminator 2 and Spider-Man 3. The prospect of yet another CG animated supervillain rampaging through a city just doesn't appeal to me right now.

That's not to say that I don't want to see Clayface appear in a film, because I do. But this is one villain that I'm comfortable seeing adapted to suit the style of a visionary filmmaker (Burton's Penguin and Nolan's Joker would be good examples of this). I already outlined my idea for what a Joel Schumacher Clayface might have been like in another thread: basically a glamorous take on the Sondra Fuller version mixed with elements of Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) from Sunset Blvd (1950), Evelyn Grayce from Batman: Bride of the Demon (1990) and portrayed by Jennifer Lopez.


But what would a Nolan Clayface have been like?

Well, first of all I don't think Nolan would have used Clayface to begin with. But assuming he was forced to by the studio, I think he would have opted for a more psychological characterisation loosely inspired by the Preston Payne iteration. Nolan's version would also have reflected the earliest appearance of the Golden Age Basil Karlo Clayface, insofar as he wouldn't have possessed any superhuman abilities. He'd have been more grounded and realistic. I can see Nolan taking cues from Alan Moore's 'Mortal Clay' (Batman Annual Vol 1 #11, July 1987), which depicted Preston Payne falling in love with a department store mannequin. That sort of obsessive, delusional fixation would be perfect for Nolan's interpretation, though I'm not sure whether it would be directed towards a mannequin or a real person.


There's a French painter, sculptor and performance artist named Olivier de Sagazan whose preferred medium is clay. He's produced numerous paintings and sculptures depicting grotesque figures with horrific deformities. Nolan cited the paintings of Francis Bacon as a visual influence on Ledger's Joker, and much of Olivier de Sagazan's art is redolent of Bacon's work.


One of Olivier de Sagazan's most famous works is a performance piece titled Transfiguration that depicts the creative frustrations of an artist constantly trying to redesign his face using clay. A shortened version of Transfiguration is presented in Ron Fricke's excellent 2011 film Samsara. It's performance art at its most unsettling, and it illustrates exactly what I imagine Nolan's Clayface would have been like.


I see this Clayface as an outwardly normal man who is suffering from an identity crisis and an extreme variation of body dysmorphia. In public he appears to be perfectly ordinary, but behind closed doors he's covering himself in clay and trying to remould his appearance. He'd be a scientist, like the comic book Preston Payne, and would live alone in a large studio apartment filled with sculptures and other works of art. There could be a scene where he invites a lady friend (named 'Helena' in a nod to Moore's story) over for dinner, and in the middle of the meal he asks to be excused and leaves the room. His lady friend is sitting there reflecting on how well the date is going, when suddenly Preston returns to the table – completely naked and covered from head to toe in clay. It's then that his date realises what a complete psychopath he is, but she never gets the chance to warn anyone since she never makes it out of his apartment alive. The next day a new clay sculpture has mysteriously appeared in Preston's apartment, and it bears a striking resemblance to his lady friend...

Anyone who's seen House of Wax (1953) or the third season X-Files episode 'Grotesque' should have an idea of where I'm going with this.


Nolan wouldn't have made Clayface the central antagonist. Instead he'd have been a secondary villain, like Murphy's Scarecrow in Batman Begins. Perhaps Payne would have been hired to develop something for the main villain – cosmetics for Roman Sionis or poison for Pamela Isley. While investigating this connection, Baleman would capture Payne and uncover the murders he's committed. At the end of the film we'd see Preston pouring water on the floor of his cell in Arkham and scooping up the muddy dirt to smear over his naked body.

Just as I can imagine Nolan visually referencing the art of Olivier de Sagazan, I can also see him taking thematic influence from Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis (1915). I think he'd have portrayed Payne as unsure of the line between reality and delusion, constantly questioning whether or not he was actually transforming. For me, this more intense psychological take on Clayface, while only loosely inspired by the comic book Preston Payne, would have made a far more compelling film villain than a straight-up CG monster. But it probably would have been too disturbing for mainstream audiences and too radical a departure from the source material for comic purists.

Still, if DC ever publishes a Nolanverse comic they could always explore some of these ideas there.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 21 Apr  2021, 13:30
(https://www.artistaday.com/wp-content/uploads/olivierdesagazan_32443243_large.jpg)[/center]

I know this is supposed to be disturbing, but it just reminds me of Paul Schaffer! :P