Nightwing

Hall certainly was playing a character similar to Ryder (Outspoken T.V. Host), and has the reason (Traumatic Experience at the hands of the Joker). But I think he's bad as a villain, especially in a team-up. The Creeper is more of a loner than anything. Perhaps Hall, having had such a horrifying experience with the Joker, develops a severe cause of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. He can't sleep, starts to become distant and stops appearing on T.V... and at night he goes out (since he can't sleep) and takes out his incredible anger on anyone he finds in a back alley (Mostly homeless people). With a freakish, uncontrollable grin, of course. After that, he becomes more and more distant, afraid of what he's becoming, and it almost becomes a second personality. It's definitely a great set-up, but I don't think it works for anything but a minor character. He wouldn't play a big part, but maybe he gets captured midway in the film after we see one or two of his "Creeper Moments", and suddenly reveal him to be Hall. Hall breaks down, talks about everything that is wrong with him and has happened since the Joker got him, and begs Batman to take him away to a place where he can't hurt people. It shows how deep the wounds the Joker inflicted on the city really were, and that they might never fully heal.

It plays even better when you look at the reaction the Joker got.

Stop hating on Bane. I never had a problem with his approach in Knightfall; I actually thought it was intelligent. Facing the Batman head-on generally results in a one-way ticket to Arkham. He was smart enough to figure out who Batman was and engaged him exactly the way one would want to; where Batman had no chance of winning. He wasn't afraid, just smart, unlike the other villains who know they can't win but fight him anyways. I don't think, after the Joker, the choice of villain matters as much as the story and portrayal. Scarecrow and Ra's were great villains in the first one, and I don't think anyone expects them to top the Joker. Plus, Bane isn't mainstream? He's actually pretty well-known, along the same lines as "Doomsday". Breaking Batman's back will get you press. Has he had some one-dimensional portrayals? Absolutely, but which villain hasn't? Look at Jeph Loeb writing the Joker, for God's sake. Or Mr. Freeze before Bruce Timm and Paul Dini got to him. I think Bane fits very well into the Nolanverse, as he's much more down-to-Earth than most of Batman's villains. Anyways, my choices of characters: The Penguin - James Gandolfini or Bob Hoskins. A well-established entrepreneur who also lost his family at a young age. He has a great many of investments both legal (Most notable being his upscale nightclubs, which are in just about every major city) and illegal (illegal arms and gambling, mainly). He's nicknamed the Penguin, coming from his taste in suits and his cold, methodical approach towards business. In person, though, he's a center-of-attention guy who likes to flaunt his wealth and rub elbows with the rich and famous. He's in Gotham because of the Joker's dismantling of the criminal power structure; he feels this is the perfect chance to expand his "less-than-legal" investments by establishing himself in one of the most lucrative criminal markets in the world. While I like Bob Hoskins, I personally think a (comparatively) younger man like Gandolfini would be better. Sure, he was "Tony Soprano", but I think he is has the right look, age, and knows how to be intimidating. I don't have a problem with him being taller, as I think that the nickname should come from his business savvy rather than his actual looks. The Riddler - David Tennant. A anarchist/anti-capitalist genius who is inspired by the Joker to do what he whatever it takes to achieve his goals. Not one for actually killing people, he tends to focus on the technological side of crime. When he is physically involved in a crime, he doesn't expose himself with theatricality like the Joker did (Which is why he feels the Joker was able to be stopped). He always leaves a riddle behind, which hint at where he'll strike next; a calling card to identify his work by like an artist signing a painting. His main targets are Wayne Enterprises, along with the Penguin's Corporation (I haven't thought up a name for it yet), both stereotypical heartless corporations in his mind. I think Tennant has the looks, though he has some good acting chops. He's also interested in being this character, though he is a fan of the 60's version. Hopefully he'd keep his performance to the grittier side of things. On the character, I think he should be another ideological villain, like the Joker. He doesn't have to share the exact same views, but I think him having an ideological motive fits his more intellectual background. He can be a thorn in both sides, a wild card that needs to be stopped before he can bring the already-weakened system to its knees. Not only that, but we are talking about someone who is not a common criminal and would pose a much different threat than Batman is used to. Bane - A Central-American drug lord looking to expand his US power base. For him, Gotham is a jewel: the city is already corrupt, it just needs a boss to pay the bills to the judges and cops. He's very rich, but he lacks the funds that the Penguin can deal out. Instead, he tends to rule directly and likes to be "Hands-On" with things. His plan is based around what he perceived the Joker's fatal flaw: Killing Batman. If he "breaks the Bat", the Penguin's money will be useless; who would want to go against the man who killed the Batman himself? I've heard some of you guys mention Javier Bardem as a choice, and while he's easily good enough on the acting side his size is just too small (6'). At moment, I don't know any Hispanic actor who is big enough to pull the part, and they'd also have some good acting chops. I'd avoid the mask (Maybe make it an insignia for his gang, or a tattoo), but emphasize the fact that he likes to get things done himself. Other Villains included Temple Fugate: Thanks to Chris for bringing him up. I think he'd be great as a secondary character, perhaps the Penguin's right hand man. He'd fit with him, as he's punctual and thorough. I'll have more later, but that's all I could think about.

Oh yeah. Burton talked the studio out of Robin for the first Batman, but when they kept pushing for him, he was making Robin a street-wise young African-American mechanic. His costume was like a mechanic's jumpsuit with an R on it. Wayans actually got paid for both Returns (which they cut due to time) and Forever. I like reading all about the casting decisions too. Like how Bale was in the running for Robin and the final two came down to Chris O'Donnell and Leonardo DiCaprio. They asked kids at like a Comic Con type event who would win in a fight and that is what had them settle on O'Donnell. Gotta love the slight switch in direction.

Crane wasn't with them. He was attacked by them. The Fake Batmen were trying to bust his drug meeting up, it got out of hand, and then Batman tied them all up together for the police to sort out.

I'd like to point out that, as much as Heath did for the Joker, the Nolans were the people who wrote all his lines and scenes. I think the real limiting factor is a story for the Joker, not the actor. If there isn't a good enough story for him, then he shouldn't be used. But if there is, I think it's fine. I don't think Heath would be saying "No, I don't want anyone else to play the Joker after I do!" He'd want people to have their take on it.

For the person who asked about why Johnny Depp would even accept: He's already accepted to play Heath's role in the Terry Gilliam flick (along with a few other actors). I don't see him turning down the role if it's played right, and it's only going to come back if Nolan wants it to. I don't see DC messing up a good thing like Sony/Marvel did with Spider-Man 3. I don't understand the talk in this thread about Two-Face.

MediaFire is easily the best for the downloaders, but your results might vary for the uploaders. Does anyone have the complete Gotham Central?

I think Johny Depp would be the perfect replacement to follow in Heath's footsteps. The problem is conceiving a story good enough to justify bringing the Joker back, making him seem like a convincing threat without making a Batman (Who is now prepared for him) not look like a fool. That'd be a real tough balancing act. I'd say no sooner than the fourth movie in the series, but I don't know if Nolan will want to go that far.

A quick question: For villains in the third movie, I say bring on a Riddler and maybe Bane. Actually, especially Bane; a new, aggressive boss who isn't afraid to get his hands really dirty. Black Mask would also be a decent choice. I suppose , the movie could support a third villain.

You gotta continue that scene, man. The comparisons to Hannibal Lector are a lot closer than I had expected. The execution of that character on the writing and acting front was absolutely amazing. And I have to say, the critics that said it was hard to follow are dead wrong. Maybe it's just that my generation have become better multi-taskers or something, but I never had any sort of problems with the multiple plot threads running around. I do have to admit, if there is one weak point in the movie, it was probably Maggie Gyllenhaal. Her performance was a bit of a jolt from Katie Holmes, mostly in regards to how the character is. In the first movie, Holmes plays her more humble, while Gyllenhaal gives her too much of a swagger and smart-allecky tone at times. Nothing big, just had to say that.

I think what Batman Begins lacked was a truly memorable moment that you forever associate with the picture. The example you gave is easily that moment for this movie, among maybe half a dozen more. Talk about a character-establishing moment. Oh yeah, the film is absolutely great. More comments in a bit.

I honestly don't get all the Keaton Love that those movies get. He's okay, but he has all the personality of a block of wood throughout those movies. I also like Jack Nicholson, but calling his performance "multi-layered" is a stretch. He was fun... but I didn't find his performance to be particularly deep. Burton's Batman was good; it was the Batman that the people wanted at the time, and it was the best one that probably could have made it to the screen. But it's never been the "OH MY GOD!" movie that people seem to remember it as.

Of course, considering his biggest complaint is that it is so "thematically rich" that it basically left him wanting more, it doesn't seem that it is the "big budget popcorn flick" you pigeonholed it into. You should probably quit this thread while you are still ahead. It's really odd that 3 of the 4 critics giving it a bad review are from New York. The New Yorker's review was probably the review I respected most, mostly because it seemed to actually identify what it disliked. The Star and Time Out, New York were too brief to take seriously, and the New York Magazine one was just way too far up its own ass. "Scarier than what the Joker does to anyone onscreen is what Ledger must have been doing to himself—trying to find the center of a character without a dream of one." Really? Really? This isn't even restricted to the Dark Knight; just writing that sentence (which is typical of most of his review) makes me want to punch that guy. Talk about pretentiousness...

I don't think you realize that I agree with you on the "Who cares about what they think?" camp. I just wanted to say that I don't think the way you were pitching the argument worked, as I don't think they would have changed that part of the Constitution in response to what you were talking about. That's all. Don't get all hostile about it. If you want my interpretation, I'd say that the wording would say that most outright bans are illegal (That's an obvious infringement), but that things like mandatory gun registration would (and should) be endorsed by the "well-regulated" part. Other things like weapon training courses for those who want to own certain weapons, as well as increased government scrutiny (as already outlined by Jingus and is pretty much already in place) for certain weapons. Summed up, I'm for the regulation of guns rather than the prevention of guns.

See, the funny part is that every critic who has seen it so far seems to completely disagree with you. In fact, the Newsweek reviewer actually said that he was a bit disappointed that it wasn't more like that. You're using the exact same reasoning that Czech did earlier (Comic Book Movie = Popcorn Flick with limited Depth), and the people who have seen the movie are saying you're wrong. Just because it's a comic book movie doesn't mean it has to be a popcorn flick.

I disagree, actually. I don't think it would change that much, since I think they'd be much more harsh on the idea of the massive standing army that we have today (We never had a big one until post WWII). Let's also consider that they probably wouldn't be fans of the far-more-powerful version of the Federal Government that is around today, either. When it comes to them looking at the common people vs a giant governmental monolith, they'll side with the former rather than the latter. The 2nd Amendment would stay, and the standing army would likely be diminished greatly so that the people actually stand a chance to overthrow it. Not only this, but I don't think it fits their social values to blame "the weapon", so to speak; No one blamed the pistol for killing Alexander Hamilton, or even the honor system that brought about his death. They blamed Aaron Burr. I think they'd much rather focus on the "character" of those committing the crimes rather than the weapons themselves. If they redid the Constitution, we might see restrictions based on class or education rather than the weapons themselves. But that's just me. I always find these "What would the founders think?" arguments to be iffy at best. So if they agree that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be there (or be as expansive), that's okay... but if they change the 1st Amendment's Free Speech guarantee to not be as expansive, since they didn't really want a cross in a bottle of urine to be covered, is that also right?

From the looks of things, Andreas Lilja was signed for insurance reasons if Brad Stuart couldn't be resigned and if the up-and-coming guys in Grand Rapids weren't ready at training camp. If you are in need of a defenseman, Lilja is likely to be on the trading block soon. And in all honesty, I'd probably put Samuelsson up there, too. We have a logjam of possible talent (Quincy, Meech, Ericsson on D, Helm, Kopecky, and possibly Leino up front) and we need to start moving guys out. Mikael is a judgment call, but he's underperformed pretty badly during his tenure with the Wings (Especially considering that the guy is damn big and rarely gets big hits out. Kronwall would KILL people to have that sort of size!) and keeping Kopecky and either Downey or McCarty would likely be better in the long run.

... No, I read it wrong, but now it makes less sense because Tzar is right; that's all the more reason to own your own gun. A police officer isn't likely to show up during a mugging (like you keep citing), but a home intrusion is something much different. Less police presence is a better argument for home gun ownership, not an argument against it. Two points that apparently need to be reiterated: 1) It's the same as an abortion ban within the city limits of Nashville. Say what you will, but the concept has much larger implications that affect laws outside of that municipality. 2) As has been pointed out over and over, gun bans don't take guns off the street. They simply take them out of closets. You're punishing legal gun owners and nothing else. Considering gang-bangers, muggers, and other criminals generally don't care about the 90-Day Misdemeanor that comes with not having your gun registered, you aren't having an impact on those that commit violent crimes. In all honesty, a gun ban like this shows that they don't understand the situation as well as you think. Taking a gun out of someone's hand isn't going to stop gang violence, it will simply change it.

So what you're basically arguing is that the ban will not stop criminals from getting guns, but rather it will allow us to say that "Well, that gun is certainly illegal!" while we are getting mugged instead of wondering if they purchased and registered it properly. I suppose, though, peace of mind really is the most valuable thing I can have if I no longer have my wallet... I'd say your argument falls apart, but it was never really stable enough to get that far. If someone gets the drop on you, yes, you are screwed. But, generally speaking, people are much less likely to rob people in a place with high ownership of guns because the chance the guy might pull one on you (Or worse still, another person on the street pulls one). Most criminals aren't about to put a high risk of life on a wallet or something. Taking legal guns away doesn't stop crime. Generally speaking, it puts criminals more at ease because they know any person they assault will likely be unarmed. A final note: I laughed at your "Po-po" comment. You must live in a very nice city, or stay away from the bad areas. There are places in Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, etc, that cops "take their time" or even just ignore. I'd argue you're more likely to have police response in the country quicker than you would in the really bad areas of inner-cities, which is saying something.

Oh, so you're basically talking about a completely unrealistic scenario. Have you ever heard of Pandora's Box? And they are symptoms, not a means of promotion. Again, legal gun owners are rarely the people who commit crimes with guns. How can it be a means of promotion if there is nothing that ties legal gun ownership with an increase in crime? Simple answer: It isn't. Would you rather me go out there with a spear or an axe? I don't see why I can't have a rifle for such a purpose. Hurting and killing life is generally a byproduct of nature itself. Even if you don't want to, other people in the world will; that's the nature of crime and free choice. Unless you want to brainwash everyone into being obedient, people are going to hurt and kill people one way or another. If gang-bangers can't use guns anymore, they'll construct other weapons to hurt people with (I'd wager explosives, considering their ease of construction). If police aren't using guns, how are they defend themselves against criminals who inevitably will? If you think guns are horrible, fine. But talking about completely eliminating them is childish, as it won't happen and it's not going to solve the problem, only change it. Unless you can stop the fundamental urges that drive people to hurt each other, eliminating guns does nothing.

Well, you're entire concept of the issue is ridiculously simple. A lot of things can assist a violent urge, from a lamp to a steak knife to a car. Do guns serve a useful purpose? Yes, yes they do. They are a tool of defense. And saying "We have guns to protect ourselves from more guns" is not what I mean. My family has a pair of rifles (A little trainer rifle and a hunting one) to keep things like badgers and other wild animals away from our house and consequently our pets (And to a lesser extent, us). The fact of the matter is, taking away legally-owned guns doesn't stop violence in any real way. As I've already noted, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained in the first place and laws preventing them to the sale of law-abiding citizens wouldn't do anything to stop that. Considering that legally-owned guns generally don't lead to crime, I don't see why they have to be arbitrarily taken away. If people want them, let them have them; Just register it with the government (That's my only stipulation) when you do. If you want to cut down on violence, cutting down on the causes of it is far smarter than simply restricting its implements. A healthier society isn't one that bans guns, but deals with the problems (such as the plethora of inner-city problems) that result in violence. Cure the disease, not the symptoms. Because the legally-owned ones aren't actually that much of a problem.

Jagr is going to Russia to play.

Are you kidding? It's totally going to be beat out by Hancock.

A Marvel thread to just talk about anything going on in the comic book company, from books to direction to anything else. Anyways, a few topics to get discussion moving. 1) Ed Brubaker's current run on Iron Fist: Best thing ever, or merely one of the best things ever? Has anyone ever taken a character concept and so totally made it his own without compromising the character? Man. 2) Incredible Herc 114: One of the best books of the year. My God, I'm not big on Greg Pak, but when he gets away from Hulk and Amadeus Cho, he is so sort of brilliant. His version of Ares is so beyond hilarious, and yet still threatening. I love it. Plus, Herc's acid trip is great. 3) Is Jeph Loeb the worst writer ever? He's essentially destroyed the Ultimates in only 3 issues (and arguably, after 1), and his run on the Hulk is not looking too inspiring, either.