Discuss: One Particular 'Dark Knight' Villain???

I like Scott's take.

To me, it seemed to be a graduation transition of sorts. The first film focused on how Batman began and started crime fighting. Now he's graduated into a lifestyle, the biggest initial baddie is no longer as bad. Bruce Wayne is getting better, and Scarecrow isn't as much of a challenge.

But now Batman is in a new league, and I think it set up just how difficult and serious Joker's threat is. The baddies were becoming no match for the good guys, and then new badness came to town to rebalance the equation.

Reply

I think it was a way of saying... "hey the bad guys are still out there giving batman things to do" and rather than showing us a no character thug he brought back someone who was already established... and now after his defeat scarecrow will go back to arcum (sp?) where he will break out in a few months.... it happens all the time... and that is the batman cycle. and i think that is how they are going to have the joker in future films... (not) ledger but the character through the cell door at arcum

Reply

Easy. To make a new action figure. No matter how serious of a comic book movie any director wants to make, it will always be about the merchandise to the men upstairs.

Reply

My view was that this was tied to the never-ending cycle of Batman villains popping in and out of jail as if they were in a Willie Horton advertisement. Originally, this would mean that the Joker could show up in the third movie since Arkham can never quite contain the villains in the Gotham universe. Crane's reappearance was to show that just because Batman beats them once, doesn't mean they can't continue their life of crime in Gotham.

Reply

To be honest, the way Scarecrow just suddenly rides off in Batman Begins was kind of stupid. You should have at least some sort of closure whenever a villian meets defeat.

Maybe Nolan just wanted to show what actually happened to the Scarecrow.

Becoming a low-life drug peddler also seems like a good ending for the character.

Reply

I agree with Joshua's comment.

I thought the re-introduction of scarecrow was to show how criminals might come back even after the defeat, thus challenging Batman's core philosophy of "no kill." The fact that Joker didn't die at the end tells us that in Gotham, vicious circle of crime/criminals never ends.

Reply

I think Nolan was establishing the Rogues Gallery. In all the other Batman Movies, once the villian ended in the previous film, he/she/it was gone. They never were addressed again. This way, Scarecrow still exists. they acknowledge that he is a real guy and not just a "villain of the week" thing. Probably the same reason you never see the Train System in Gotham. These touches establish that Batman Begins was real, that the events happened.

I also would agree that he's resorted to being a drug dealer since losing his license and so forth.

Reply

I didn't really even think about it until after the movie had ended. But here's my take.

I don't recall the exact quote, but the gist of something Scarecrow says is that Batman hasn't left many drug dealers in town. So, to me, the point of that is to show that what Batman is doing is working. That he is cleaning up the city and that things are moving in the right direction.

This sets up the Joker as throwing a wrench into all of that and suggests the possibility that his actions could undo the good that Batman has done.

Reply

A bit of a tangent, but noticably absent: The Gotham rail. Did that go the way of drug dealers too? In the first film it was central to the ability of Gotham citizens to crawl out of poverty, or something like that. It certainly was a very high and green option to get around the city.

Can you imagine the stairs to the platform for that thing? It was like 20 stories tall! Maybe they didn't bother repairing it and tore it down instead after Gordon destroyed one of the towering rail lines.

Reply

I agree completely. In the first movie he is a "super villain" but in the second movie he gets caught within a matter of 30 seconds. it seems a bit ridiculous, I would rather have no closure to his character than the crappy end they gave it. I am surprised Cillian Murphy even accepted such a brush off.

Reply

Yep, I'd agree with that sentiment. My feeling was that this tied the two films together in some respect as well, so it didn't feel as if this were a wholly separate movie. I'll be curious to know the third villain. Mr. Freeze / Poison Ivy / Catwoman are all a little too mythical for the world Nolan has built. I don't think he wants anyone with "super powers" ruining his superhero flick.

My best guess is a Batman-on-the-lam film with the Penguin as the villain. With his money he bankrolls both the capture of Batman and the criminal underworld. I wonder what clues Nolan left for us in Dark Knight? Might deserve a re-watching...

Reply

When I saw it, the scene felt like a bit of a nod to the comics. In the movies, each villain (generally) has their film and then that's it, on to the next, but in the comics they return over and over, becoming part of a rogue's gallery. Being a comic reader, the Scarecrow's appearance seemed perfectly natural to me, I guess I didn't think otherwise of it, other than maybe the filmmakers wanted some closure to the character, who we never saw apprehended (or fall off a tall building, like most movie villains do).

Reply

The inclusion of the Scarecrow in Batman's introductory scene, in the film, puts the film squarely within the greater Batman mythology. Throughout the comics and the Animated Series, B level villains like The Scarecrow crop up time and time again... often after escapes from Arkham (as is the case here). And that his brief defeat did not require his demise lends Nolan's Batman mythology the possibility of an imagined Rogues Gallery. Whether or not the Scarecrow or the Joker are ever again seen on film in the current incarnation, they remain alive, and thus, a threat to Gotham. This, in turn, precipitates the further necessity of the Batman.

Reply

Remember in the first movie Scarecrow was hit with his own drug . the antidote was given to the population but I am sure the Scarecrow didnt get any. So in a sense he is still high on his own drug. Also he was working for The Legend of Shadows which was destroyed by Batman. So Scarecrow was probably living a fugitive life at this point

also as we last saw Scarecrow in first movie he was riding a horse off into gotham - if he hadn' t been in TDK i am sure this article would have been about what happen to the Scarecrow.

Reply

The Scarecrow was a way to wrap up the first movie. At the end of Begins they mention how Crane is still at large along with half the inmates of Arkham. Batman is beginning to clean up the events of the first movie only to have to deal with another major crisis with the Joker. Personally I thought they were going to save Two Face for the 3rd movie but unless he is in a coma doubt that would happen. I really wish they didnt kill him but oh well. If they kept him alive they could have continued the story of him avenging Rachels death. it seemed like TDK was two movies in one. I think the next villain will be Man-Bat. I know they want to keep the movies realistic but I remember hearing how before Begins was made they wanted a movie with scarecrow and man-bat and i think if they have man-bat in a 3rd it would heighten the search on batman and he would have to try to clear his name while also battling someone like scarecrow agian or the riddler.

Reply

i agree with the idea that it was about establishing the "revolving door" idea of arkham, how batman has to constantly stop all these villains from running loose on the streets. it was a nice nod to the comics.

although i really, really wanted joker to beat the scarecrow to death. that was a big rumor for awhile and it would have been incredible.

Reply

It's been said by others, but Scarecrow's presence is there to challenge Batman's no-kill policy, to show that while things are changing guys like Scarecrow are still out there, and to establish the idea of a rogues gallery - something integral to the comics but never addressed in film.

The No-Kill policy -
Bats won't kill. He doesn't want to cross the line because he feels he's helping the system work. Batman isn't judge, jury, and executioner - he leaves the legalities up to the courts because he still believes in the system. Instead, he's more like the cop who's always bucking orders and barking up the chain of command. He's an agent for good.
However, while he's making a difference, the system is still far from perfect. And in that broken system, guys like the Scarecrow are still running free. Batman could stop it, he could kill and put an end to the Scarecrow - but he believes in something more. As a symbol, he champions the system, and as long as he does, he won't take the system out of the equation to dole out justice on his own.

Also, I don't see this at all as the fall of the supervillain. In Begins, Scarecrow was empowered by the League of Shadows - a super organization that named itself the keepers of balance in the universe. In TDK Scarecrow is on his own, and a year after the events of Begins, he was still on the streets, peddling his drugs. In Begins, without the League, what more would Scarecrow have been capable of?
And to nz's comment about how quickly he was taken down in TDK, remember how the altercations between the two went down in Begins. Meeting 1 - Scarecrow uses fear toxin and outwits Bats. Meeting 2 - Bats knows better, uses the toxin on Scarecrow after beating his men in about 30 seconds, and its game over. How is that any different from how quickly Scarecrow went down in TDK?
Sure Scarecrow isn't like the comics character, constantly trying to instill fear into the world and watch itself tear apart through madness. Nolan's Scarecrow is a pragmatist. In Begins he wasn't aware of the scheme to let Gotham burn. He was going to hold the city for ransom. So I don't see how being one of the city's biggest and last drug dealers makes him less of a villain.

The Rogues Gallery -
In bast Batfilms, the villain is introduced, wreaks some havoc, and then dies or is left utterly incapacitated to the point where they are no longer, and can no longer be a threat. Where's the fun in that? The Bat villains are not "one time only" characters. Batman won't kill them, and the system is flawed, so they find ways to keep popping up. Using Scarercrow, even for a 2 minute scene, drives home the idea that even though there's a good guy, the bad guys sometimes get away or get out. Plus it leaves opportunities for future storylines and villains. If a villain died after every movie, the possibilities of future movies would start to run thin, especially with Nolan using 2 sometimes 3 at a time.

Establishing the rogues gallery is important, especially for Nolan's world. It speaks to the character of the man who will do what is necessary to bring someone to justice but won't swing the gavel himself. It is also necessary because of Nolan's realism. The very real take he has on all these characters kind of puts some out of the realm of possibility - Clay Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc - these villains are a little too fantastical for Nolan. He needs guys that are believable enough.

Reply

Okay, I'll agree with all of this, but why didn't Batman arrest him? He just asked them all to politely "stop helping" him because they would get hurt. That confused me into thinking the Scarecrow was trying to help him by setting up those other dudes, which makes little sense and I suppose is not the case...

Reply