The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.
Debate Rounds (4)
-Batman Begins (2005)
-The Dark Knight (2008)
-The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
1. Let's look at the past Riddler's:
First, we have the late Frank Gorshin. He was the one who played the Riddler in the classic 1960s television show. I say Frank was a good enough Riddler, at least for his time. But, he was not the kind of Riddler we still need on the big screen.
Next, we have John Astin. I'm not saying "late" because he's still alive. Astin's Riddler was pretty bad. I mean, look at this picture. Tell me this isn't bad:
Finally, the most recent, Jim Carrey. Most agree that Jim's Riddler was horrible, I do. I mean, he was way crazier than the Riddler is supposed to act. And his hair was red. What the heck.
As you can see, we are yet to have a great Riddler on screen. Yet the reason Nolan should have included the Clown Prince of Conundrums. This is obviously a feat Nolan could pull off. More next round.
I for one would hate to see the character of the Riddler boiled down to a caricature of the Joker. It would be impossible for any actor, writer or director to compete with Heath Ledger's Joker. And any remaking of the Riddler would inevitably lead to a comparison of the two. Given that the Warner Bros. executives were all looking toward Leonardo DiCaprio coming on board to play The Riddler in the final installment of the trilogy it would, in my opinion, have been a train wreck.
Here are some differences:
a. Joker is an insane clown, Riddler is just a sane criminal.
b. When Joker kills, it is out of the blue, random and for fun. When Riddler kills (barely) it is planned and for a legit reason.
c. Joker does jokes. Riddler does riddles.
d. Riddler likes baffling himself and other people, thus he uses traps on regular citizens and not just Batman. Joker does similar to this, though they are only for Batman.
e. The Riddler likes to make people think. Joker just messes with their heads.
f. Riddler is neutral, often working for not only bad, but also good. Joker always, no matter what, works for bad.
There are plenty more. I could go to Z if I had to.
2. The villains are not similar. Let's compare Joker to Zod. Joker likes chaos and wants to make Gotham his own. Zod thinks he is making peace by trying to turn Earth into a new Krypton. Now let's compare Ra's al Ghul to Lex Luthor. Ra's thinks he is doing the right thing by reducing the popularity in order to solve ecological problems. Lex, like Ra's, thinks he is doing the right thing. However, Lex's methods and ideas are way different then Ra's's (lol). Lex thinks Superman is a problem for humans, thus trying to kill him. As you can see, Batman's villains are not like Superman's. Because of this, it is even more so a good idea to bring Riddler to the screen in order to further explore him and pleasure the fans.
3. Who says that Riddler would HAVE to be like the Joker? Nolan can do more than THAT, you know. It is not possible for no one to compete with Ledger's Joker. Ledger's Joker can easily be competed with and already has been competed with with the likes of Bane and Zod, for example.
4. Why would it be a train wreck?
I didn't say that the Riddler and the Joker were alike I said they would be because Nolan does create characters that are very much alike.
Zod and the Joker are a good set of villains to look at.
Zod's psychology and Jokers psychology are are very much alike. They both feel they are doing what they were created to do. They both feed off the reluctance of the heroes to be heroes.
Also it would be a red herring to bring up Lex Luthor because Nolan didn't present that villain to moviegoers.
However, even Al Ghoul is similar to Zod-- reshaping the world to fit his own utopia. Simply put the psychology and pathology of Nolan's villains and his heroes is such that these characters would be to much alike. How do I know this? Because Nolan said so himself. In interview about the third film he said that the final film needed to "go in another direction," implying he felt that the Riddler character was too close to the Joker character.
While I accept that the Joker and the Riddler are to completely different characters in the comic books on film Nolan clearly thought they were alike.
Also I didn't say that the creation of a new Riddler would have been a train wreck I said that DiCaprio playing a character with the depth of Riddler would have been a train wreck.
And once again, there would have been an overwhelming and inevitable comparison between the character Ledger portrayed and the remade Riddler. You cannot compare Ledger's Joker with Zod because they are two different franchises-- Batman and Superman. However, you can compare the characters psychology and pathology which are very much alike. In fact most of Nolan's characters are alike in the DC comic movies.
Nolan's DC movies are very much alike on a deeper level. Nolan himself wanted to insure that the final film went in a different direction dismissing the Riddler character by saying the film would go in a different direction than the second film. He wanted it to go in such a different direction that he didn't even reference the Joker in the final film. And any effort he would have put into recreating the Riddler would have lead to the inevitable conclusion that his Riddler was just an understudy of Ledger's Joker.
They are not doing what they feel they were created to do. When Zod was born, he was just an alien baby. He had normal parents, and a pretty normal life (I think). As he grew up, he got more violent in his ways and started killing people off. He doesn't feel he was created to do it, he is just doing it because he wants to. Then, when Krypton explodes, he seeks to make Earth a new Krypton by destroying everything and raising Krypton up. He believes he is doing the right thing, thus being what they call an Anti-Villain or a Well-Intentioned Extremist.
Joker does not either. He is doing what he feels like he should/wants to do. Refer to The Killing Joke. Even though Joker's origin was not described in The Dark Knight, The Killing Joke shows it. It shows that Joker thinks he was "created" to make people laugh. He turned to crime after nobody laughed at his jokes.
I can bring up Luthor, because we are just discussing villains in movies. And ugh! How many times do I have to bring this up? Ra's WANTED to kill all those people and destroy Gotham City. Zod DID kill thousands of people and did not TRY to destroy Earth, he just tried to turn it into Krypton. How does that quote have anything to do with Riddler and Joker?
That was just Nolan's thought. If he had put in more consideration and listen to his fans, he definitely could've pullen off the Riddler.
I know that is what you said. You said this, "Given that the Warner Bros. executives were all looking toward Leonardo DiCaprio coming on board to play The Riddler in the final installment of the trilogy it would, in my opinion, have been a train wreck." And that is exactly what I was referring to when I asked why it would be a train wreck. But, why would it be a train wreck? Also, Riddler didn't HAVE to be DiCaprio. Geez.
They obviosuly are different franchises. I find it funny that you tell me not to compare the two while YOU have this whole debate. Lol.
If Nolan's characters are too similar and he "wanted to go in a different direction" so much, why did he add cameos of Scarecrow in both the second and the third film?
First, most of what you stated about the villains isn't in the movies but rather from Comic book information.
Two, I am not sure if you actually watched the newest superman movie but Zod, in point of fact, did do what the was created to do. That was a major part of the film. Zod's genetic engineering lead him to be a soldier and do what he felt he was created to do.
Third, you are only addressing the surface of the characters while I am addressing the deeper core of the characters.
Finally, Nolan clearly stated that he wanted the final movie to go in a different direction. That Scarecrow had cameos didn't change the direction of the film in any way shape or form. Adding a new major villain, which is where I believe your stance is, would have influenced the direction of the film.
The fact is simple, Nolan knew that on film, among fans that aren't comic book wise, Riddler and Joker are very similar. The average movie goer wouldn't have seen the differences unless Nolan completely overhauled the character. And to a greater degree Nolan knew that the average fan wouldn't have cared about the differences because Riddler would have been seen as a weaker less interesting caricature of the Joker.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: CON had a very weak argument. PRO at least used a picture source and explained the difference between the Riddler and the Joker. CON should have made more convincing statements and sources in this debate by showing the Riddlers popularity compared to the Joker and proved he should not have been in there.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.