Bat-villians that would never work in live action.

[Carrieattheprom]

No matter how skilled a film maker, or actor you are there are some things that just don't work in live action. Since a new live action Bat-flick is in the works, it made me wonder which villians would work in a live action movie(if any more after this are made) and which ones should just stay in the cartoons.


I personoly vote for the Ventriloquist(sp?) and Scarface. I don't know, unless your goal is a silly batfick a la Adam West there is no way you can do this character without it looking campy.(plus, even though the scarface dummy doesn't move, it might make people think of Child's Play)


Clayface would be a very expensive villian with all the special effects they'd need fo him, not to mention he'd be pretty gross looking.

[Stu]

Live action stuff goes on the Entertainment board. This forum is for the DC cartoons.

So away he go!

[Griever]

I'd agree with Scarface, and I'd throw in:

Bane - Yeah, I know...
Ra's Al Ghul
The Mad Hatter

[Damien]

The only one that springs to mind is that little doll girl that never ages.

Other than her, I think just about every Bat-villain could be well-translated into live action. Even the Condiment King.
Of course, since I'm more into realism, there are villains I wouldn't want to see, such as Killer Croc. Not that I don't like him. Just sayin'.

[randomguy]

See, I think Scarface could be done just fine. It'd take a damn talented actor, but it could be a very dramatic and eerie angle.

Anyhow... I'd say most of the more horror-ish villains wouldn't work. That means Killer Moth, Clayface, Killer Croc, and Man-Bat, namely. I think Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy are possible, but it'd be an uphill battle.

[Eddie G.]

Killer Croc? I could see Croc being done easily as long as he was played off as a strong man with a skin disease. In short as long as Jim Lee is kept away Croc could be done with no problem.
Clayface and Manbat could only be done if there was a TV series. Of course there is expense, but the word is "could".

I'll say Killer Moth.

[Bejammin2000]

Anyhow... I'd say most of the more horror-ish villains wouldn't work. That means Killer Moth, Clayface, Killer Croc, and Man-Bat, namely. I think Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy are possible, but it'd be an uphill battle.
I agree with you on all of the above... except Killer Moth.

Killer Moth can be done. In fact, he can be done quite easily (he's just a bad guy 'Batman', right?).

But, on the other hand.......

Charaxes (sp?) would be very hard to do or wouldn't work.

So, what I'm saying is that you have to use Killer Moth before he was Neron'd.


Just a clarification.




BJ

[Eddie G.]

No matter how skilled a film maker, or actor you are there are some things that just don't work in live action. You know I disagree with this because I have something called the Five Minute Lord of the Rings theory. Basically anything in art can be good as long as the person (or people) behind it are talented enough.

[The Master Con]

Ra's Al Ghul
Is that a joke?

[kid_flash]

Bane, pure and simple. The thing about Bane is, not only is he like seven feet tall and like three hundred and fifty pounds (hell, why not four hundred?), he's also quick and agile as heck. I don't put many limits on Hollywood these days, but Bane...that's a guy they'll never really nail.

To counter some previous stuff...I also think Scarface would be amazing. He'd scare the crap outta the kids, that's for sure. The Ventriloquist himself would also translate well, since he's such a quiet, meek guy. The Mad Hatter would work, too, although you'd have a harder time selling the Alice in Wonderland angle. Most of these guys, though, just give 'em a reason to be insane and they can get away with anything.

[Batman's Biggest Fan]

See Batman & Robin for how Bane would look in live-action.

[Startrekman700]

The only one that springs to mind is that little doll girl that never ages.

Baby Dahl is her name

she would work, it would be CGI not a real human.

[TimTwoFace]

I could fully see Baby-Doll working in live-action - but you'd have to make the character more interesting.

Ventriloquist/Scarface could work easily, too. I don't think that would come off as campy in the least.

Clayface - the only limitation here is the budget on the effects here. However, if the WB is gutsy enough, and if they sink enough money into it, that could be an Oscar for FX in the making for them...

Ra's al Ghul...uhhh...he'll be onscreen in 2005. We'll judge then.

Mad Hatter can definitely work on screen. I mean, if Tim Burton ever stuck with the Bat-series long enough, a character like this is PERFECT for a man with his vision. Others could do it, too. All you need is a believable actor, and everything will fall into place.

Killer Croc - this is easier than, say, Bane. Bane is a HUGE guy, and there aren't many massive guys out there that can also come off as intelligent and calculating like Bane does. Croc is just a big oversized goon with a skin problem - cool character still, but a lot more people could likely play him.

I fully feel that Harley Quinn can work on screen, too - but it needs to be the right story, otherwise she'll be INCREDIBLY annoying.

Killer Moth can work - but only if they play him for laughs as a "sucky" villain, kinda like he was used in the Batgirl: Year One minseries.

Hmmm...I don't know who COULDN'T work on screen. Given the right story, anyone could. Seriously, maybe Egghead could make a comeback. :) He's about the only original from the 60's series that I think could be reinvented - it is possible!

-Tim

[kid_flash]

See Batman & Robin for how Bane would look in live-action.
Exactly. That's evidence B on why Bane won't work in live action. He moves so damn slowly in this film, it's a wonder he ever got around.

[Mad Monkey 7]

Any character is possible, as long as you have imagaition and money.

[Keiichi]

Exactly. That's evidence B on why Bane won't work in live action. He moves so damn slowly in this film, it's a wonder he ever got around.
Well that "bane" was just a mindless goon who was'nt taken seriously.

[Patrick Bateman]

Well that "bane" was just a mindless goon who was'nt taken seriously.Exactly. The logic of Bane not working on film just because he was crappy in Batman & Robin makes no sense. He sucked in B&R because they screwed up his character and costume, and got some fat guy to play him. Bane could be done very well in live-action. The key is writing him properly and designing him properly. Using B&R as a template for things not working in live-action is never a good idea. :shrug:

[Enrique]

i knew you guys would say clayface... all i gotta say is, if T2 could have the T-1000, and if i could put an all-CG clayface in my fan film, then damnit, there can be a clayface in the movies :D

[Chris Wood]

The Penguin. Just a fat guy with an annoying laugh.

Oh wait, too late.

[randomguy]

The Penguin. Just a fat guy with an annoying laugh.

Oh wait, too late.
Play him as a straight crime lord, with none of the bird trappings other than the name, and there's some genuine potential there.

[guinaevere]

Play him as a straight crime lord, with none of the bird trappings other than the name, and there's some genuine potential there.That's how I've seen so many great characters; ruined by cliché. I had so many hopes that the Burton Catwoman would be more from the lines of feline personality. Not 'purrfect' and the like. I'd have her be friendly and cuddly one moment, when she's in the mood or wants something, and then just get up and walk away without explination or looking back.

Anyway. I'd LOVE to see Scarface & the Ventriloquist. I see the Ventriloquist as such a fascinating character (only know him from B:TAS, but what I saw, I instantly loved!)

[Redi]

I honestly don't think Batman works live in action. Timm's animated version is ahead of anything I can see Hollywood doing with some guy in a rubber suit.

[Patrick Bateman]

I honestly don't think Batman works live in action. Timm's animated version is ahead of anything I can see Hollywood doing with some guy in a rubber suit.Batman can work fine in live action. It's all about who's in charge of the project, it has nothing to do with the character. In my opinion, Spider-Man would be much more difficult do pull off on screen, and yet it's been done, twice. It's not Batman, it's the people that make it.

[Ordinary Guy]

Scarface and Ventriloquest or Clayface would be awesome.

But what about Black Mask.

Possible secondary villians Roxy Rocket, Clock King, Firefly, Deadshot, Copperhead

[Mynd Hed]

i knew you guys would say clayface... all i gotta say is, if T2 could have the T-1000, and if i could put an all-CG clayface in my fan film, then damnit, there can be a clayface in the movies :D

Y'know, before I'd seen the fantastic job done on Gollum in the LotR movies, I probably would've said that doing a good CGI Clayface in a live-action movie would be impossible. As things stand, I'd say it's possible, but there'd still be a good 95% chance that it'd be horrible.


Batman can work fine in live action. It's all about who's in charge of the project, it has nothing to do with the character. In my opinion, Spider-Man would be much more difficult do pull off on screen, and yet it's been done, twice. It's not Batman, it's the people that make it.

I dunno, honestly I can't think of a single actor who could pull off Batman as dark and intimidating while wearing a silly rubber hood with eyeholes. I'm with Redi-- some of the Batman movies have been entertaining, even good movies for the most part, but none of them have gotten Batman himself right from a visual standpoint.

[Redi]

yeah...some actor walking around in the Bat mask and cape is just cheesy no matter how dark they make the movie.
:sad:

[Patrick Bateman]

yeah...some actor walking around in the Bat mask and cape is just cheesy no matter how dark they make the movie.
:sad:If that's the case, you'd better call Spider-Man cheesy, because if not, be prepared to be called on it.

I stand firmly behind Batman working more easily than Spider-Man, and the latter has been done to critical acclaim twice. Costumes don't make a movie cheesy. A guy in a mask and cape isn't any more cheesy live-action than it is in animation. To say Batman doesn't work on film is, to be blunt, ludicrous.

[Mynd Hed]

If that's the case, you'd better call Spider-Man cheesy, because if not, be prepared to be called on it.

I stand firmly behind Batman working more easily than Spider-Man, and the latter has been done to critical acclaim twice. Costumes don't make a movie cheesy. A guy in a mask and cape isn't any more cheesy live-action than it is in animation. To say Batman doesn't work on film is, to be blunt, ludicrous.

I'm not saying he CAN'T work, just that he hasn't yet.

But I do think that animation affords the creators certain opportunities that can make the character work better visually, such as the "no pupils" look with the hood on, and more complete control of light and shadow.

[Redi]

If that's the case, you'd better call Spider-Man cheesy, because if not, be prepared to be called on it.

I stand firmly behind Batman working more easily than Spider-Man, and the latter has been done to critical acclaim twice. Costumes don't make a movie cheesy. A guy in a mask and cape isn't any more cheesy live-action than it is in animation. To say Batman doesn't work on film is, to be blunt, ludicrous.To you, it works...to me, it looks cheesy. Spiderman to degree looks cheesy but atleast there isn't a cape.

I'd take a Timm and co animated Batman over live action any day.

And to make my point clear...superhero customs don't translate well to live action, imo. I'm not just picking on Batman.

[James]

I think Spider-Man was on the ball. Nothing cheesy about it - especially in Spider-Man's portrayal.

I don't think Batman has been done perfectly yet. I think there is still a lot of movie expectations and baggage within and outside the industry which keeps Batman firmly trapped to a degree in Burton's vision.

Batman is tough because it's so anachronistic, and been so for 50 years. So visually he's hard to show off - not just him but the whole city. He lives in a puesdo reality - so it's hard to locate a balance between gothic and realism.

That said it can be done. It took them several attempts with Spider-Man. While I think the costume and effects were harder, they didn't have it easier placing him in a realistic city (since it's simply NY).

For visuals Batman can and will be done one day. It maybe hard to visualise for some, but that's the nature of fantasy, to create the unimaginable. People who say "well he has to have slit eyes/makeup/armour.. etc" - balderdash. Just because it can't be visualised doesn't mean it can't be done. I would never imagined Spider-Man working but it did!

Same goes with the villians. They can all work - given the right people working on the project.

[The Detective]

I really don't think there's any character that just outright couldn't done as it is. Yes, some would be harder than others. Clayface would require an huge budget. Bane also would present a challenge. But a challenge can always be met. It just takes the right people with the right vision to make something happen.

[stwasm]

I'd agree with Scarface, and I'd throw in:

Bane - Yeah, I know...
Ra's Al Ghul
The Mad Hatter
I don't know about the Hatter being bad. I remember a live-action "Alice in Wonderland" on NBC and Martin Short did a pretty good job with it.

[sun]

[QUOTE=Mad Monkey 7]Any character is possible, as long as you have imagaition and money.[/QUOTE
Absoultely, what make up and with GCI combined anything is believeable on the screen, if you streach your mind, if the thing is well directed, acted, written, and put together, they can make you believe in Godzilla, oh that is right, they tried that already...They got me to believe that there was a planet out their with Aliens, and they are everywhere, and they could get us all to believe that any Character from BATS would be real in a live action movie... I remember the DVD describing Speilberg looking at the rushes for the first Jurassic Park, and comparing the modeling to the GCI, and that was it...They can make anythiing on live action, with the money, immagination, and I would add one more, talent..Stuart.:)

[Jave]

The only one I definitely don't see working is Baby Dahl. I mean, a live-action movie about Batman versus a 4-year-old looking girl? I don't see it.

Surprised no one has mentioned him so far, but I think the one that would really make a great film would be the Scarecrow.

[Harper]

I don't think Bane would work at all, and it's not just because he sucked in B&R. If they did try him again, they would need good actor and a very believable CGI version for him post-venom.

On another note, I would love to see Scarface and the Ventriloquist in a future Batman movie. With the right actor and a well-made Scarface dummy, he could be really creepy!

[Carrieattheprom]

Wow. This is actually a hot topic, cool.


Good Call on Baby Dahl. I had forgotten about her. Mad Hatter could work. I think Harley Quinn could work, depending on the script and the actress.

[TimTwoFace]

Surprised no one has mentioned him so far, but I think the one that would really make a great film would be the Scarecrow.
He would be, and that's what the WB suits thought, too. He's going to be in BATMAN BEGINS, along with Ra's al Ghul. :) I can't wait for it, myself.

-Tim

[Keiichi]

I don't think Bane would work at all, and it's not just because he sucked in B&R. If they did try him again, they would need good actor and a very believable CGI version for him post-venom.

CGI is'nt needed at all. All you need is someone who can act and has a very toned body. Arnold back in his prime would have made the perfect bane. The venom did'nt really increase banes body mass as the cartoon and R&W movie would have you believe. Bane was already a phsically fit speciman (growing up inside a prison will do that) and was highly intellegent. Like I said all you need is a good actor who's built and a decent script and bane will come to life.