The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,824 times Debate No: 36321
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I think that the Riddler should have been in Chris Nolan's trilogy, which includes (for those who don't know)
-Batman Begins (2005)
-The Dark Knight (2008)
-The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

First round=acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


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:
My goodness!

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.


Regardless of how bad past Riddlers might have been there is one matter that must be taken into account. How closely the Riddler is to the Joker; or at least how alike they would become if Nolan had to put them on the big screen. Take into account the works that Nolan has done-- Batman and Superman. In both movies the hero's psychology is almost identical. The villains are very alike as well; regardless of who they are-- Bane, Joker, Al Ghul, Zod whoever.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


1. The Riddler is nothing like the Joker.
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?


First, you made some gross misrepresentations of my stance.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


I was not misinterpreting your stance. I was showing how Nolan could have realized that Joker and Riddler are different, thus allowing him to put Riddler in a movie. Nolan's characters are not very much alike. These are Nolan's Batman villains: Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Bane, and some consider Talia al Ghul as a villain. Ra's believed he was doing the right thing by lowering the population (I said this already!) by trying to destroy Gotham City. Scarecrow just wants others to fear him because he's a psycho. Joker just wants to cause chaos and make Gotham City his own. Two-Face wanted to balance between goodness, justice, corruption, and evil. Bane, like Ra's, wanted to destroy Gotham City. As you can see Nolan's villains were not so much alike.

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?


You make a few fundamental errors with your stance.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Very subjective resolution. A bit of a shame it was only a trilogy actually...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
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.