Getting 'em all in: Batman comics heavy on the villains, for film adaptation purposes

No sooner had 1989’s Batman started doing blockbuster business then speculation of which villains would be in the inevitable sequel began. I distinctly remember reading Danny DeVito suggested as The Penguin (which came true) and Robin Williams as The Riddler (which didn’t).

The same happened when Batman Begins rebooted the franchise (using some of the last big name Bat-villains yet to be used), and, in fact, tends to happen every time a new superhero franchise starts.

Heroes with a lot of good villains, like Spider-Man, are kind of frustrating to think about, because even the best and most successful franchises can only have so many entries in them, particularly before the quality starts to dip (The first Batman franchise, for example, made it all of two movies before it started falling apart).

And no heroes got better villains than Batman; thanks to the live-action TV show, he has four household name archvillains, and the first set of movies added Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane to the list of Bat-Villains Someone Will Know Of Without Ever Having Read A Single Comic Book.

In his second Batman movie, Christopher Nolan tackled two from that list, and because it made something like $500 zillion, a third one will certainly be around the corner. Odds are, however, the franchise will run out of steam before Nolan, or anyone else, gets to Man-Bat, Killer Croc, The Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist and characters of their cachet.

Maybe the solution, then, is to try and get as many villains on screen as possible in a single movie.

Now, few superhero movies can survive the Two Villain Rule (which states that no superhero movie can excel while having two or more villains). Think Batman Forever (2), Batman and Robin (2-3) or Daredevil (3). Even pretty good two-villain movies—Batman Returns, Spider-Man 3—tend not to be as good as their one-villain fellows.

The reason for this is that you can only spend so much time detailing characters’ origins and motivations in a single movie, and throwing too many characters at a film audience at once has a tendency to destroy the narrative (In the Schumacher Bat-films, for example, not only was time spent detailing new villains, but also new heroes on top of the new villains).

But with Batman, maybe it doesn’t matter so much, since the mainstream movie-going audience is already so familiar with so many of his rogues. Catwoman’s a woman who dresses like a cat, Riddler’s a guy who tells riddles, etc.

So I was thinking of Batman comics that were chockfull of Bat-villains, comics that could potentially be good starting points for future Batman movies that try to get as many Bat-villains in as possible and still be somewhat coherent. Most of them seem to involve Arkham Asylum, as it’s essentially a warehouse for Batman bad guys; the toy box where the comics writers choose the villains they want to use for a story, and put them back when they’re done playing with them.

Presumably, that would work pretty well for film purposes too; viewers wouldn’t need a 10-30 minute origin story for The Mad Hatter or The Cavalier if they’re encountered in the confines of “an asylum for the criminally insane.” Who are these guys dressed like a storybook character and a musketeer? Why, they’re criminally insane guys, of course.

Here’s what I came up with…



ARKHAM ASYLUM

By: Grant Morrison and Dave McKean

Villains: The Joker, Two-Face, (a) Clayface, Maxie Zeus, Killer Croc, The Mad Hatter, The Scarecrow and new characters Amadeus Arkham and Mad Dog (seen in flashbacks)

Other characters: Just Commissioner Gordon

Plot: When the inmates gain control of Arkham Asylum and hold the staff hostage, their demands include Batman coming in to hang out with them. He does so, and ends up playing a pretty dangerous game of hide and seek with his foes, while readers learn of the sinister history of the asylum itself, and the fate of its founder Amadeus Arkham.

Advantages: Oppressively dark and obsessively psychological, its aesthetic is tonally close to The Dark Knight, only maybe multiplied by ten or twenty.

Additionally, the everything-is-a-symbol storytelling lends itself to a real arthouse kind of take on Batman. There are certainly some neat, filmic visuals—that fossilized bat skeleton comes to mind—and the story is flexible enough that a film adaptation could toss in any additional criminally insane Bat-villains the filmmakers wanted to.

Disadvantages: The 1989 book is surprisingly dated today, perhaps in large part because the specific interpretations of many of these villains given here have stuck, so however unique it might have seemed to present some of these goofballs like this in the late '80s, it now just seems commonplace.

Also, aside from the aggressively gay, ass-slapping, sexual-harassment Joker (maybe the only Joker more inappropriate for the kids than nihilist terrorist Joker of Dark Knight), particularly challenging-to-adapt aspects include the flashback ghost story thread, and the magical symbolism involving a Batman destined to be Batman and fight and then create and re-fight all these crazy people.

Finally, there's precious little in the way of action scenes—just a few one-on-one fights between Batman and the likes of Clayface and Croc—so the necessary car chases and explosions would need to be added in.


“THE LAST ARKHAM” from Batman: Shadow of the Bat#1-#4

By: Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle

Villains: The Joker, The Riddler, The Scarecrow, Two-Face, Black Mask, The Mad Hatter, The Spook, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, Maxie Zeus, Poison Ivy Clayface III, Cornelius Stirk, Crazy Quilt and new characters Mr. Zsasz and Amygdala

Other characters: Nightwing, Gordon, Robin and new character Jeremiah Arkham

Plot: Batman starts acting nuttier than usual, punching out and seemingly killing a policeman at a crime scene, and is therefore arrested and deemed to be criminally insane and put in Arkham. It's a plan he cooked up to get on the inside, though, since he suspects new Asylum chief Jeremiah Arkham may be colluding with a serial-killing inmate. A series of murders match the MO of an inmate perfectly, but said inmate appears to always be safely locked up in the newly remodeled and redesigned, high-security Arkham. (Fortunately, the new Arkham doesn't believe in stripping inmates of their costumes and codenames until their ready, so Batman can keep his secret ID).

Advantages: Like Arkham Asylum, which influenced the story (new character Jeremiah is a descendent of the Amadeus Arkham from Morrison and McKean's book, and when we first meet him he’s tossing his uncle’s journal, which was the vehicle for much of the narration in Arkham Asylum, into a pile of burning trash), "The Last Arkham" provides an easy opportunity to use pretty much Batman's entire rogue's gallery in some capacity, and the unique setting of a gothic Victorian asylum—although here remodeled into a maximum-security labyrinth abutting the original façade.

It is much less dated, however, mostly because it doesn't seem to be trying quite so hard to be deep, dark and mature. It's also set up as a pretty effective mystery—who is committing these murders, and how? Is this Arkham in on it, or just a dupe?—with a few twists along the way (Has Batman really lost it for real this time?).

Finally, it introduced a brand new villain to Batman's rogue's gallery, Mr. Zsasz. Grant and Breyfogle were quite good at coming up with new characters. Some didn't stick as well as others (Pagan, Somnus, The Human Flea, Feedback), but the ones that did proved pretty popular for a post-Crisis Batman villain (Zsasz, Scarface and The Ventriloquist, Anarky). He has the advantage of being a character that's never really made it into a movie or cartoon (that I know of; I've only seen two of the five seasons of The Batman; I think he may have had a cameo in Batman Begins).

Disadvantages: The good guy-pretending-to-be-a-bad guy-in-prison angle might be overly tired, even with a fresh coat of Bat-paint, and it sounds like Warner Bros. is already developing the same story as a Green Arrow vehicle in that goofy sounding Super Max movie I hope never actually gets made. Despite the fact that Batman fights the whole asylum in one three-page sequence, there might be too little action for a big-screen movie (again, no car chases or explosions), and the Nightwing part would need to be either excised or rewritten to include a character from the current Batman movie-verse. Robin or Catwoman would work if they get introduced any time soon, or, I don't know, maybe Commissioner Gordon, Alfred or Lucius Fox if Gary Oldman, Michael Caine or Morgan Freeman are ever like, "Yeah, I'll do another movie I guess, but next time can I have a scene where I crawl through a ventilation shaft, get in a fistfight with some orderlies and, I don’t know, maybe get in a knife fight in a sewer?"


BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN

By: Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale

Plot: During Batman's very busy first year (which had at least five October 31sts in it), the old Gotham criminal underworld of mobsters is giving way to a new Gotham criminal underworld of masked crazy people with codenames and gimmicks.

Our hero has a shot at stopping both forces, essentially “winnng” his war on crime, with staunch allies James Gordon and Harvey Dent in his corner, provided that neither of them get shot to death by Holiday, a mysterious serial killer who takes a life on each holiday.

And then Dent becomes Two-Face and Gotham is fucked forever.

Villains: Carmine Falcone, Boss Maroni, The Joker, Catwoman, The Penguin, The Riddler, Poison Ivy, Solomon Grundy, The Mad-Hatter, The Scarecrow, Calendar Man, Two-Face and "Holiday."

Other characters: Gordon, Dent, Alfred

Advantages: Pretty much every name Bat-villain gets a chance to shine, even if only briefly in a set piece or two, and they are worked into the plot quite coherently (in the two previously mentioned Asylum stories, they mostly function as cameos).

The story does have a little of everything movie producers like, from romance involving Batman/Bruce Wayne and Catwoman/Selina Kyle to big action set pieces like Batman vs. The Joker on a bi-plane on New Year’s Eve to special effects like Poison Ivy's powers or Grundy's appearance. The central mystery is pretty effective—I remember really puzzling over it when these single issues were originally coming out—although I'm still not sure if I completely understood the resolution of it (I'm sure a good screen writer could straighten it all out in the process of making the story less episodic).

Finally, there's a sequel all ready and waiting to go in Batman: Dark Victory, which similarly uses all of the same characters and also has a fairly effective mystery, while adding Mister Freeze and Robin to the mix (the latter in a way that allows Robin to be in the movies without actually being in the movies, since Dick Grayson doesn't become Robin until the very last pages…which include the best panels of Jeph Loeb’s career).

Disadvantages: Christopher Nolan and company already covered a lot of this ground in their last two movies, albeit in a more "inspired by" sort of way, with Dark Knight focusing on the Harvey Dent-to-Two-Face character arc. Therefore if Long Halloween and/or Dark Victory were ever going to be adapted into Batman movies, it would likely mean another franchise reboot.


"Knightfall" from pretty much all the Bat-books in 1993

By: Like a million guys

Plot: Santa Priscan bad-ass Bane, who was condemned to prison as a baby for crimes he didn't commit and did sit-ups for 30 years until he was strong enough to avenge his fallen teddy bear Osoito, comes to Gotham City with one task in mind: Breaking Batman and becoming the de facto King of Gotham City. He does so by breaking everyone out of Arkham Asylum, figuring that will tire Batman out, and then beating him up and breaking his back. The end.

Villains: The Joker, The Scarecrow, Two-Face, The Ventriloquist (and a sockpuppet), The Mad Hatter, Mr. Zsasz, Poison Ivy, Firefly, The Cavalier, Bane, Bane's running crew which never appeared again for some reason, Killer Croc, Amygdala, probably some others I'm forgetting

Other characers: Gordon, Alfred, Robin, Azrael

Advantages: Batman fighting pretty much every villain ever, including a few which would make for good movie action scenes, like winged Firelfy burning shit down or Batman all freaking out and hallucinating on Scarecrow gas while getting his ass handed to him by Bane. Additionally, unlike the other Batman vs. Arkham Asylum stories on this list, this one gets the inmates out into the streets of Gotham, so the settings are more varied and visually interesting than just being in the asylum the whole time.

Disadvantages: The story is kind of repetitive and video game-like, with Batman basically having to clear a level by rescuing some civilians and defeating a boss, working his way up to the big boss, Bane (I got a similar videogame vibe reading Arkham Asylum, except Batman mostly had to just listen to the level bosses speechify).

The complete story took a few thousand pages to tell, including setting up who the hell this Azrael guy is and who the hell this Bane guy is before running Batman through this gauntlet. To make it into a film, it would require a great deal of tinkering to either remove Azrael completely or introduce him more smoothly.

An I wasn’t exaggerating when I said a few thousand. There’s also the matter of “Knightfall” ending with Batman losing; he's beaten within an inch of his life and paralyzed from the waist down, being forced to pass his mantle on to someone else. So a film adaptation would have to have its eye on a sequel or two, or else commit to cramming “KnightQuest: The Search”, “KnightQuest: The Crusade” and “KnightsEnd” all into the same movie (which worked out just awful in that direct-to-DVD cartoon that crammed the death of Superman story, "Funeral for a Friend" and "Reign of the Supermen" all into less than 90 minutes).


“Hush” from Batman #608-#619

By: Jeph Loeb, Jim Lee and Scott Williams

Villains: The Joker, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, The Riddler, Clayface II, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, Talia, Two-Face, new character Hush and perhaps a resurrected back-to-life Jason Todd (depending on who you ask)

Other characters: Gordon, Alfred, Robin, Oracle, Huntress, Nightwing, Superman, Lois Lane, Krypto the Superdog and Harold

Plot: One-time childhood friend of Bruce Wayne's turned evil plastic surgeon Hush begins manipulating various elements of Batman's rogue's gallery long enough to give Jim Lee the opportunity to draw all the Batman characters he wanted to draw. It's also kind of a mystery, but I never really understood the answer.

Advantages: There are a lot of characters in this thing, many of them of the sort that are difficult to get into the same story (Joker and Ra's al Ghul, for example), there are some big action scenes (the skydiving Batman scene) and new designs (like a more reptilian Killer Croc) and it does introduce a new marquee Bat-villain, one who's never, ever been in any of the mass media adaptations.

Disadvantages: That new Bat-villain is one of the lamer Bat-villains, in the same neighborhood as Feedback and Metalhead (The Ten-Eyed Man, Signal Man and Killer Moth may be lame, but they're lame in a way that is actually kind of cool; Hush just kind of sucks).

I've read the story at least twice now, and I still don't understand what Hush's deal was (Was he just trying to drive Batman crazy and kill him for revenge?) or who was Hush at various points (I think it was another of those combination deals, with different characters being Hush at different times?)

Some aspects would probably never make it into a movie, like Superman and Krypto guest-starring, and the likes of Nightwing, Oracle, Huntress and Harold would likely make for way too much backstory in a superhero movie. It's really a comic book story that plays to things comic book readers like about comic books.

Harold’s appearance, for example, is an out-of-left field surprise that would only really matter if you remember reading Batman comics from the brief time in which the hunchbacked handyman was a supporting cast member.

Or, for perhaps a better example, when people who have been reading Batman comics for 20 years saw a grown up Jason Todd appear, minds were blown. That scene probably wouldn't even make it into a film, because who outside Batman comics readers actually knows/cares about Jason Todd?



Those are the only ones I could come up with. Most of the bat-crossovers in the time since “Knightfall” tended to involve Batman and his allies, but relatively few villains. Most of the villains appear at some point in the “No Man’s Land” era, but that was more of a long-term status quo change than a single story. And I guess “War Crimes” had most of the villains and heroes in it at some point, but it is also, like, the worst thing ever.

Any other suggestions for Bat-comics with a substantial swathe of Bat-villains involved?

"Excuse me Mr. Nolan, there's a villain here to see you; shall I show them in?"

I went to the movies, then I went to Wal-Mart, and then I came home and posted all this stuff

I saw The Dark Knight today, almost a full week after it’s midnight opening.

What took me so long? Well, it wasn’t that I wasn’t looking forward to it, but I had missed the critics’ screenings due to my day job, and then decided I’d just wait for a matinee and save myself a few bucks and, as it turned out, I didn’t have an afternoon off until today (Of course, the difference between a matinee ticket and a full-priced ticket is only about $3, so I guess I could have just forgone a Secret Invasion tie-in and saw an evening showing, but my brain just doesn’t work like that—movies are luxuries, whereas comics are more like food, gas and rent in my personal budgeting).

Anyway, I’m not going to bother with a formal review or anything, since you’ve all already read about 80 reviews and have probably already all seen it at least once yourselves.

I will say that I was kind of expecting to be disappointed, given all the rave reviews and even Oscar talk—Oscar talk!—the film’s been receiving. My expectations were raised to the point where if I didn’t walk out of the theater with a full head of hair I was probably going to be disappointed. And I was particularly skeptical because I thought Batman Begins wasn’t really very good. (Not a bad movie per se, but not exactly a terribly good one either).

But my expectations of being disappointed were themselves disappointed. Everything I (and you) have heard about the movie turns out to be pretty much true—it really is that good.

Some more or less random thoughts:

1.) I was particularly impressed with Heath Ledger’s Joker, in part because in the back of my head I was wondering if some of the praise he’s been getting for it had something to do with the his death. That is, when critics spoke of how good this performance was, it was with the knowledge that it was his last, and they were thus not only inclined to be a bit generous, but to conflate it with his entire career, and that man could act.

But no, Ledger’s that good too.

Me and (I think it’s safe to assume) you aren’t your average movie-goer when it comes to something like this; we see The Joker at least once a month, if not more, and have experienced about seven decades worth of different versions of him in every conceivable media, many of those different versions specifically geared at being as scary as all hell. I was pretty confident I’d seen it all when it comes to interpretations of The Joker, and that Ledger, director Christopher Nolan and his team couldn’t surprise me.

Wrong again. This Joker was like nothing I’ve seen before, save perhaps his “multiple choice” origin story from The Killing Joke, and he was by far the scariest, not so much a killer clown as a killer period.

If you would have told me a week ago that Bat-villain The Joker would be a perfect avatar for nihilistic terrorism in a superhero movie about the post-9/11 War on Terror, I wouldn’t have believed you, but they sure pulled it off, without making the character an iota less terrifying (I was actually squirming every time he stuck a knife in someone’s mouth).

Nolan and Ledger really gave us the very best kind of perfect in their version of The Joker. The kind of perfect that you don’t even realize you would think is perfect until you’ve experienced it.

2.) They could have probably gone ahead and knocked the words “The” and “Knight” right off the title and it would have more accurately described the film.

3.) How often do you see a summer superhero movie where the bad guy wins? Ever single character in the movie is forced to compromise their morals for what they believe to be the greater good, and sometimes they’re wrong. The main difference between The Joker and Batman seems to be that the former does the wrong things for wrong reasons, whereas the Batman does the wrong things for the right reasons…but then, do I know what’s right and wrong, really?

4.) I reeeaaalllly wasn’t expecting to see Batman-as-the-Bush-administration in this movie, and I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that.

5.) I still think Batman’s costume looks stupid. The one he switches to after his first few scenes is less stupid, but he never stops looking stupid to me. Perhaps there is no way to make it look right in a live action movie—there have been at least eight movies now and no one’s figured out how to make it look awesome yet—but Nolan’s realistic take on Gotham and its inhabitants only accentuates how goofy Batman and his goofy-ass gadgets look.

6.) Did it strike any of you as odd that The Joker didn’t get any sort of epilogue? Given how important he was to the film—Gordon and Batman are talking about him and not letting him “win” even after he’s been defeated and captured—it seemed odd that there was no scene of him in a straight jacket in a padded cell laughing or anything.

I wonder if this was because of Ledger’s death, or if they simply wanted to leave him hanging upside down at the end.

The lack of closure on the Joker’s status quo seemed especially sudden in light of the fact that the previous time he was captured it was on purpose and there was a spectacularly complex escape plan in place to get him out of it. It seems reasonable to assume he had another trick up his sleeve to escape again at the end. If we weren’t already pushing two and half hours by then, of course.

7.) Other than the Batman-related design work—the villains both looked great—the only other aspect of the film I found wanting was the action. Batman seemed to have a pretty well-choreographed fast, efficient and brutal hand-to-hand fighting style, but it sure was hard to see what he was doing and to who he was doing it.

Maybe making violence shaky and confusing was an intentional style choice Nolan made to buttress the realism, but it’s not like what I like to see when I see people fight in movies.

8.) I honestly can’t imagine where Nolan could take the franchise next, in terms of villains. Catwoman and/or Robin seem like the obvious addition/s regarding the story being told in this film—how Batman was hoping to “win” his war on crime and be able to retire his Batman gig at some point to be with Rachel, and how there’s this talk of a successor and so on—but both seem unlikely to fit into this realistic Gotham. That realism seems to rule out so many of the villains too. Like, if the Joker’s just a guy with smile-shaped scars and face paint and the Scarecrow’s a guy with a bag over his head, I have a hard time imagining most of the rest of the Bat-villains.

Villains who can be given a gangster-like touch like The Riddler, The Penguin, The Vetriloquist or Black Mask seem to “fit” Nolan’s Gotham best, but they’ll also seem rather dull after The Joker and Two-Face, and, hell, the whole city seemed on the brink of destruction in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, what’s The Riddler going to do to compete with that?

Maybe a faked-death Two-Face (hey, Gordon did it) and The Reaper…?

9.) Seeing “Harvey Two-Face” in this made me think a Jonah Hex movie could look pretty damn cool after all, skin-bridge and all.



Other things—Dark Knight related and not—that don’t deserve a whole post of their own:

—Immediately after seeing The Dark Knight, I found myself in a Wal-Mart for the first time in memory, with a half-hour to kill. The only thing more dark and depressing than The Dark Knight is driving into one of Columbus’ most depressing suburbs to visit the most depressing store in the world for rather depressing reasons which I won’t get into (Because they’re so depressing).

The plus side of spending a half hour in the saddest ring of retail hell, however, was that I got to wander around Wal-Mart’s toy section, and I was pretty surprised by all the Batman stuff.

Having actually seen the movie now, the rather inappropriate nature of Batman “Battle Rolls” Fruit Roll-Ups and toy Jokers free inside your box of Lucky Charms sure is made rather clear.

The action figures I found were mostly different versions of Batman in different suits, something that used to frustrate me as a child—I already had He-Man, I didn’t want Battle-damaged He-Man, but someone else for He-Man to punch or hang out with—and none of which seemed to have anything to do with the movie (There weren’t any after the credits scenes where Sam Jackson or Robert Downey Jr. show up and Batman fights them off with big neon guns, are there?).

I only saw one Joker, and it was “Destructo-Case Joker.” No sign of “Nurse Disguise Joker,” “Body Bag Joker,” or “Pencil Disappearing Joker.”

I was quite amused to see the “Wayne Tech Combat Gauntlets” that fire plastic spikes, allowing kids to reenact the scene in which the guy wearing them shoots another guy right in the face, and the “Wayne Tech Mega Cape” which folds out into some rather awesome bat-wings, allowing kids to reenact the scene in which Batman jumps off a building.

Why in my day, we didn’t have fancy “Wayne Tech Mega Cape” toys; the dumb kids just tied towels around their necks and hurt themselves jumping off roofs and porches.

It was especially weird seeing these because Dark Knight was PG-13. If you’re old enough to see the movie without your parents, you’re too old for combat gauntlets and mega capes.

The action figures I could see guys my age buying—I mean, I combed through the Indiana Jones action figures looking for Temple of Doom figures pretty thoroughly—but if you could fit into the gauntlets and cape, you’re way too young to see a two-and-a-half-hour movie about moral compromise in the face of terrorism.

The boys toys section was at least half superhero, if not more so, but while I could get cute little Hulk and Silver Surfer toys based on the “Planet Hulk” story arc from The Incredible Hulk comics, I couldn’t find any actual comic books among the magazines nor any actual graphic novels among the books.


— “Finally?”


—Speaking of—well, linking to—Heidi MacDonald, her archenemy Dirk Deppey parsed one of NPR’s mentions of her in his Tuesday post, the one with the amusing headline.


—Wow, I just realized that Frank Miller wears a hat kinda like The Spirit's all the time now, huh? That's kinda cool. More superhero movie directors should dress more like the stars of their films. Like, Christopher Nolan should wear a cape all the time and Zak Snyder should walk around his set nude with a symbol painted on his forehead. (Link seen at and stolen from The Beat).


—The Blurred Vision people have chosen some interesting blurbs: One from my review, and one from Frank Santoro’s response to Jillian Steinhauer’s review.


—Finally, the fifth issue of So Super Duper, containing a back-up story by yours truly, is now available. If you’re in San Diego, track Brian Andersen down and try to buy a copy or ten. If you’re not, check out his site for how to get a copy.