It’s gorgeous, innit? Though, as you say, there’s no way they use an almost-identical approach next time.

Which, actually, is kinda why I’m not expecting to see The Riddler. His iconography risks being a bit too ‘Joker B’. Tricky to make work costume-wise, too - but at least his nature would fit the semi-real-world style. Still, it’s as likely as any. A Nolan-ised Catwoman could be nice to counter all the ‘man talk’ with a genuinely interesting female perspective. Talia Al Ghul’s possible in a ‘we’re making it a trilogy’ way.

Me - I want me some Man-Bat. A tough sell, but the science and environmental angles mesh with modern concerns…

I wouldn’t mind seeing a little bit of Harley Quinn myself. There’s not enough of a character there for a full movie, but maybe something fun to be going on in the sidelines.

Batzarro.

That would be better if Batzarro had actually properly existed in the Silver Age, rather than being a relatively recent creation of Jeph “Complete And Total Fucking Hack” Loeb.

I’m sure you meant to say Bat-Mite, though, didn’t you?

And while we’re at it, since they still haven’t really got the costume right, I think they should go with this in the next film : http://www.sebpatrick.co.uk/zurenarrh.jpg

I’d actually like to see Poison Ivy, TBH. I think she could be made to work with the tone, especially if you want an environmentally-themed villain (then again, I know one guy who’s determined it should be Bane). Man-Bat, like Clayface, is an absolute no-go thanks to the “no superhuman” rule they seem to be running with.

Riddler has got two major strikes against him from the start - first, there’s the real name; “E. Nygma”. Second, there’s the gimmick itself - how do you work it so that it’s not camp? (Remembering, of course, that the Riddler was the signature villain of the 60s series. He’s also fallen off the map, with very few uses of him as a proper villain in the last 20 years)

Harley? She’s got a great origin, but under the circumstances she’d be subbing for the unavoidably-absent Joker, yes? I don’t think they want to invite such direct comparisons.

Talking probabilities, I think Catwoman is by far the most likely - Hollywood rules say they need a love interest, and they just killed off the current Bat-movie series’ (I’d like to see a relatively B:TAS-like take on her, with Selina as an “anti-Bruce Wayne” rich-girl-with-a-cause). Talia could have filled that role… but they seemed to write her out of “Ducard’s” backstory in BBegins. Penguin could be the B-villain, though not the A-villain, but I doubt they’d go there if they DID use Catwoman, to avoid direct comparisons to BReturns.

I kind of wonder, incidentally, why they threw away the Scarecrow loose end at the start of TDK…

>I know one guy who’s determined it should be Bane

The reason you can’t do Bane and/or Knightfall is the same reason you can’t do DKR, or a version of Morrison’s current run, or anything like that - it’s far too early in his career, in the film’s world, for him to be this mythical figure that needs tearing down. At the moment, he’s a fugitive on the run - he doesn’t “own” Gotham, so how can Bane (or anyone else) show up wanting to take it away from him?

Yeah, the fact that TDK set up Batman as a fugitive means they can’t have a large time jump between now and the third film as we now has a situation that needs to be addressed straight away.

Persaonally, I think Nolan can un-camp the Riddler just fine, the only problem being that it’s going to be hard to distance him from The Joker.

> Man-Bat, like Clayface, is an absolute no-go thanks to the “no superhuman” rule they seem to be running with.

I know, but I’m a sucker for - in particular - the visuals in Jamie Delano/John Bolton’s Manbat story, I think it would translate (even when shifted to a Gotham setting, though it’s a killer notion for an ‘exile’ film if they’re not committed to ending the saga at 3). And I do think the gothic SF could be made to work - at least more credibly than Clayface, and it has a more ‘main villain’ shape.

Pipe dream, I know.

Truthfully, iconic villains aside, I think The Cult is one of the most Nolan-able stories available. There’s a cinematic quality to Bats’s arc in there, a lot of substance (plus FUNKY dream stuff). You’d have to change the Blackfire backstory, but it’d be worth it for the reaction of the religious right alone.

My image of a credible Riddler is something like the methods of the Zodiac killer from… Zodiac crossed with a terrorist.

Would it be a stretch to essentially make him the Holiday Killer from The Long Halloween? (I haven’t read it, just a plot summary, but that’s how I would make him fit in with the movie tone)

>And while we’re at it, since they still haven’t really got the costume right, I think they should go with this in the next film : http://www.sebpatrick.co.uk/zurenarrh.jpg

The man’s as sane as I am. Baah!

> The Dark Knight Strikes Back or Again

How about “A Shot in the Dark (Knight)”?

I still wonder whether they’ll use the ‘Mr. Reese’ (get it? ‘mysteries’, ‘Mister-Reese’, GET IT??) idea. The Riddler doesn’t have to be the major villain of the third film, but they might have a hard time getting away from how his story was handled already in Batman Forever.

I would definitely bring back the Scarecrow and have him work for Talia al-Ghul. Just because that harks back to Begins doesn’t mean it can’t work. It would help a great deal if there was at least some kind of emotional connection from earlier in the series that can now come into play, especially now that *Dark Knight spoiler* Rachel is dead. Nolan had a lot of balls killing her off. He’s set himself a huge challenge IMO. It goes without saying that Bruce will have a new love interest in the third film, but it’s gonna be difficult because Rachel was everything to him.

>I still wonder whether they’ll use the ‘Mr. Reese’ (get it? ‘mysteries’, ‘Mister-Reese’, GET IT??) idea.

But it’s not his name…

The character of Colman Reese doesn’t actually have to BE The Riddler. Neither does the character of The Riddler necessarily have to be called Edward Nygma. ‘Mr Reese’ could and probably will mean nothing, but I like the fact that it’s out there whether it was intentional from the Nolans or not.

>Neither does the character of The Riddler necessarily have to be called Edward Nygma.

Why? Batman is Bruce Wayne. His butler is called Alfred. Ra’s al Ghul is called Ra’s al Ghul. Two-Face is Harvey Dent. The Scarecrow is Dr Jonathan Crane. The Joker has no real name. Sal Maroni is Sal Maroni. Jim Gordon is Jim Gordon, his former superior is Commissioner Loeb. Why would they substitute one well-known, badly-punning but quite cool-sounding name for another, never-before-used, even-worse-punning but not-as-cool-sounding name?

If the Riddler ever shows up in the Nolan movies, his name will be Edward Nigma (not “Nygma”, by the way, that was Schumacher’s version) - or, if they want to play a bit more cunning with it, “Eddie Nashton”. You can quote me on that when the time comes, and I’ll happily back down if I’m proven wrong (but if that’s the case I think it will be a serious balls-up). The character of Reese from TDK bore no resemblance whatsoever to the style, actions, character or anything else of any previous version of the Riddler - the only reason people are saying it is (a) because of his name (which I think is entirely coincidence), and (b) because in Batman Forever the Riddler was a disgruntled Wayne employee who found out his secret identity.

(in case you hadn’t noticed, by the way, I’m quite a fan of the character - Neil Gaiman’s When Is A Door? is one of my favourite comics stories ever, and Paul Dini has done some great work with him as an avaricious private investigator in Detective Comics recently - and I honestly think Nolan could use him really well)

Ooh, some more Batman 3 fan art here, with some interesting casting choices:

http://joshwmc.deviantart.com/gallery/

Seriously, though: Tennant as The Riddler? That would be… AWESOME. Anyway, there’s some excellent art there, and I’d be more than happy with Gotham City as the title for the third film.

Oh wow. That wouldn’t have occurred to me at all, but he’d be perfect. And that’s a superb bit of art, as well.

Not hugely convinced by their Catwoman, mind. But I like their idea for Harley Quinn, it’s clear what the thinking behind it is.

>Oh wow. That wouldn’t have occurred to me at all, but he’d be perfect.

Funnily enough, I’ve always had the idea that Tennant might make a really excellent Carcer, if anyone ever decided to make a film of Terry Pratchett’s Night Watch. And, even tho’ I don’t know much about the character of the Riddler, Tennant does sort of feel right for the role. (Certainly far more right than Jim Carrey in full-on “aaaaalllll righty then” mode, at any rate.)

I will defend vehemently my assertion that Jim Carrey is actually great in Forever ;-)

(but I actually think he’s great generally. He was Oscar-worthy in all of Truman, Man on the Moon and Eternal Sunshine, and brilliant comedy-wise in D&D, the Mask and Cable Guy. It’s only Ace Bentura that I don’t really like…)

Quite liked Man on the Moon, actually. Kind of liked Dumb and Dumber and The Truman Show. (Haven’t really seen Cable Guy or Eternal Sunshine. I ought to remedy that sometime.) As for The Mask, the last time I saw it—which was a while ago, I admit—I remember thinking it wasn’t as shitty as I remembered. Ace Ventura could fuck right off, tho’.

Maybe I like Jim Carrey more than I thought I do. At least, I don’t hate him as much as I thought I do.

Why all the hate for Ventura? Running around the mental hospital in a tutu was Oscar worthy!!!!!!

I liked Ace Ventura (the first one). Quite a lot, in fact.

Hahaha. Bentura. Stupid phone.

Yeah, Ace Ventura is excellent, and I’ll defend the second one to the hilt. Perfect silliness.

> Yeah, Ace Ventura is excellent, and I’ll defend the second one to the hilt. Perfect silliness.

Ace Ventura showed off Carrey’s abilities better than any other film, I think. Just pure rubberiness and gurning, and it felt fresh (arguably still does). After that, with The Mask and so on, it was all repetition as long as these aspects of Carrey’s talents were being foregrounded. I saw Liar Liar a couple of weeks ago which I felt wanted to be a more straight film, but which Carrey strutted around in to steal the show and try and rescue the otherwise dreary plot and script. In a couple of efforts he’s more complementary to the film, but I don’t know how many he’s done of these. I found Eternal Sunshine okay, and the Truman Show, but that these were still very 90s-00s Big-Hollywood explorations of psychological themes and pretty trite in the way they went. And they smacked rather of obviously trying to sell Carrey as a serious actor. In the end if you like Carrey being Carrey I think Ace Ventura pretty much does everything necessary!

> Quite liked Man on the Moon, actually.

Oh yes, I forgot this one. I did too. In fact I saw this before anything with Andy Kaufman and it has meant that much of the real Kaufman footage I’ve encountered reminds me of Carrey-being-Kaufman, which is weird and a bit disorienting. He does a good job and obviously cares about portraying Kaufman sincerely, and I think this sets it apart from his other efforts. I found myself watching isolated parts of it several times, but after seeing it once in its entirety it’s one of those films that I don’t have the urge to see again in full.

I’d argue it’s pretty tough to describe Eternal Sunshine as ‘Big Hollywood’. Sure, it attracted some major names, but Gondry and Kaufman are remarkable cinematic artists. I think it’s as impressive a discussion on the nature of love as I’ve even seen in a film.

I don’t think there was any big attempt to ‘sell’ Carrey as serious in it, either - while I’m not especially taken with him as a straight actor (I find his Truman Show performance ‘capable’ rather than ‘Oscar-worthy’) I thought he was spot-on in this. A down-the-line everyman, played with fearless honesty and simple clarity; not an attention-seeking performance, nor any direction that seemed to beg for us to take him seriously in case we might not.

I’ll watch Eternal Sunshine again sometime. I remember being quite supportive of it when it first came out, when I had friends who wouldn’t see it because it had Carrey in it, and it looked soppy, or a watered-down version of other films about memory and loss or whatever. All these views might be part of the context that made me feel it was selling Carrey as a straight actor, for example, even though probably the film itself creates no such feeling of the sort. If I saw it again I’d probably feel I’m remembering some scenes as being more clunky than they were, and have just unfairly treated the film as more heavy-handed than it really is. The bit where the two leads are whooshing around in Carrey’s memory-scape, for example, I remember thinking at the time “oh this is a more banal and less nuanced representation of unreliable and shifting memory than I’d be liking”, and perhaps since then I’ve misremembered it as taking up more of the film than it does. I’m not sure about that, I’m just trying to give an empirical example to back myself up here, as otherwise I’m just being too vague. But yeah - I’ll watch it again and see if I’ve been unduly harsh. I really remember loving the scenes with the employers mucking around in Carrey’s bedroom while he was asleep - that resonated with some flatmates I’d been lumbered with at the time the film was released!

I’m wondering whether I might just prefer films that are slow and bleak when they’re dealing with internal struggle or psychological anxiety. Or at least achieve something with their filming - in the script and direction in particular - that feels less objective than straightforward narrative storytelling might tend towards. I really enjoyed for example the way in which the subjectivity of the insanity and paranoia creeping over Gotham was depicted in Batman Begins. And I enjoyed Memento for the way in which the distance from time and events became part of the audience’s experience rather than just the main character - and not just due to the hair-pin structure, but seemingly in the very grain of the mood and atmosphere - from moment-to-moment I felt positively alienated (which is a good thing!). Similarly, when I’ve seen 12 Monkeys, I’ve found so much going on on a visceral level that really helps to bring the feeling of “possible madness” into the minds of its spectators. Whereas, for example, what I saw of Magnolia (I don’t know who directed this) seemed to be very lucid and representational. I’m remembering the drive through the empty streets near the start and the look on Tom Cruise’s face that seemed to say “hey this is nuts the streets are totally empty which never normally happens not on a week day anyway what could be happening?!”

Perhaps it’s Nolan’s deftness at direction in this respect that makes me really admire the current Batman films. Especially Begins.

> the employers mucking around in Carrey’s bedroom

Sorry, I meant “employees”, not “employers”, but this doesn’t make much sense either. You know who I mean - the people working for the memory company.