which bat-villains would you like to see next on film?

[johnnygobbs]

I liked Carreys riddler but felt that it was a missed opportunity; riddler truly challenges Batman's persona as the worlds greatest detective.

As it should be. The Riddler from Batman Forever was essentially the Mad Hatter in disguise.

Definitely agree. Actually I don't know if it was discussed here but I created a topic questioning aloud if Carrey's character would have fit Jervis Tech better. I know he did leave Bruce Wayne riddles but I thought the plot was thin; if he can read minds, why does he need two face to help him steal production capital? He even implies that he can steal credit card numbers and such and seeing as how Nygmatech stock outsells Wayne Enterprises 2:1, he should be fine financially.

Well surely Nygma needs capital to produce more of his devices.  Also, unless he is able to mass-market the product how is he going to entice more people to test out his brain-reading invention?

Remember also that this Nygma was as fuelled by ego and an obsession to prove himself against Bruce Wayne, who in his mind rejected him, as it was by material gain.  Stealing credit card details and the like wouldn't be enough to prove himself against Bruce.  He needed to demonstrate that his invention could be a mass success despite Bruce's reservations.  Bear in mind how he gloats over Bruce at the Nygma-Tech unveiling.

Personally, whilst I have many reservations regarding 'Batman Forever' the way Carrey's Riddler was written and performed wasn't really one of them.  Although my ideal Riddler would be a subtler, more quietly menacing figure I thought this interpretation of the character was pretty fascinating and well-played out.  It was certainly more successful than Tommy lee Jones' lamentable Joker-ripoff version of Two-Face.

[The Joker]

Definitely agree. Actually I don't know if it was discussed here but I created a topic questioning aloud if Carrey's character would have fit Jervis Tech better.

Ah, ok! I would say, yeah. The plot certainly did lend itself into Hatter-ville, and if the Mad Hatter had the name recognition of the Riddler, I don't really see why he couldn't have worked out just as well.

I know he did leave Bruce Wayne riddles but I thought the plot was thin; if he can read minds, why does he need two face to help him steal production capital? He even implies that he can steal credit card numbers and such and seeing as how Nygmatech stock outsells Wayne Enterprises 2:1, he should be fine financially.

The way I saw it, and I agree with Johnny, is that Nygma needed Two-Face to jump start his endeavor into the device box business, if even just for the muscle. It also seems evident that Nygma got a thrill out of tagging along with Two-Face during the crime sprees as well. So there's that. But once business got good, I would think Nygma would consider Two-Face a wild card to be dealt with at a later date. As the need for him would diminish more and more over time. Especially since we're talking about a very gloating, egotistical individual who is absorbing a wealth of knowledge (as well as cash) by the day.

[Edd Grayson]

I'd love to see Mr Freeze done right.

[Azrael]

Whoops, I missed the Penguin at the bottom probably because I thought the list was in alphabetical order throughout.

My feeling is why should a new Joker be so controversial bearing in mind we're now getting a new Batman within a three year period of the last?  I realise Bale didn't win an Oscar for his performance or earn the eternal good-will of the world's cinema-goers by dying months before his Batman film was released (and I don't mean that in a snarky way because I really love Ledger's performance yet I still believe that the posthumous effect can't be entirely overlooked either).  However, for some die-hard fans, and unfortunately there are many of them, Nolan and Bale are synonymous with Batman and they're not easily going to give a new version an easy ride.  The same applied to a new Joker but like I say, I don't think it's too different a case from Batman.

Personally, if they do bring back the Joker I'd like to see the flamboyant, supercilious, seemingly educated and slightly effeminate version from 'B:TAS'.  Somebody who can turn in a second from an effete-accented man of culture to a snarling and terrifying raspy voiced bully.

Agreed. And not "war paint" - he is the Joker, he doesn't paint himself to be the Joker. In a universe where Superman exists, a chemical bath isn't too far fetched.

[Edd Grayson]

I agree. A live-action Joker similar to Mark Hamill's would be awesome.

[The Joker]

I agree. A live-action Joker similar to Mark Hamill's would be awesome.

[Travesty]

Clayface. I think it's time that the GA knows how badass he is.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Clayface. I think it's time that the GA knows how badass he is.

I'd only really want to see Clayface if Ron Perlman reprised the role. Because that voice of his is too great not to re-use.

However I doubt he'll see celluoid. Filmmakers tend to choose villains these days that have a relatable quality to the hero and especially if their a cinematic visual that's never been seen before. Unfortunately for Clayface he's been beaten to it by both the T-1000 in Terminator 2 and even The Sandman back in Spider-Man 3. I think he's too similar to translate.

[Edd Grayson]

What about a darker version of The Riddler? I'd like to see that.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

I'd love to see Mr Freeze done right.

It's a shame about Mr Freeze because of all those puns. However I do think Arnie got some of the job right with all his emotional scenes. He really needed a lot more of those but then perhaps they didn't want him too soppy either.

I actually want the next filmmakers to avoid any villains adapted to screen previously. Whereas Aaron Eckhardt was superb, Anne Hathaway was a massive disappointment for me. It can go one way or the other. I tire of all these irrelavant who's better questions too: Pfeiffer or Hathaway, Ledger or Nicholson?

Let's have some totally new blood in there. I honestly never thought Ra's Al Ghul would ever see the screen so his inclusion in Batman Begins was something of utter madness and very thrilling. There is a funny chapter in the making of the Dark Knight trilogy book in which Nolan rejects much of the villains yet to be adapted to screen by David Goyer. While it's amusing I can't help but think Nolan was being lazy. It's far too easy to fall back on the classic villains who have all been done to death in so many mediums. Why not use cinema to revitalise a 2nd rate character into 1st rate status and ultimately feed that back into comics? That's exciting and creative. Do we really need to see another soul stranded in the shadow of say Nicholson or Devito and inheriting their part yet again?