"Watered Down Version(s) of Joker"- Chris Nolan's View on the Rogue's Gallery?

[BatmAngelus]

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

"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....

[riddler]

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.

[The Dark Knight]

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. 

[BatmAngelus]

^ 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.

[The Dark Knight]

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?

[gotham22]

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[The Dark Knight]

^ Indeed. Mr. Gobbs gets it.

[riddler]

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.