Riddle me this, Batman...

I have decided to acknowledge this blog's existence by sharing my thoughts on the next Batman movie's villian, assuming Christopher and Jonathon Nolan go ahead with it.  Here are Batman villains' major movie appearances to date:

            The Joker (Batman: The Movie, Batman, The Dark Knight

            The Penguin (Batman: The Movie, Batman Returns)

            Dent/Two Face (Batman, Batman Forever, The Dark Knight)

            The Riddler (Batman: The Movie, Batman Forever)

            Catwoman (Batman: The Movie, Batman Returns)

            Mr. Freeze (Batman and Robin, Subzero)

            The Phantasm (The Mask of The Phantasm)

            Poison Ivy (Batman and Robin)

            Bane (Batman and Robin)

            Scarecrow (Batman Begins)

            Ra's Al Ghul (Batman Begins)

Here's my thing:  It would be nice if some different Batman villains were brought into the silver screen stardom.  Certainly, they go for well known characters, but there are other great villains.  I wouldn't mind seeing villains such as The Clock King or Clayface in line for a part in a new Batman movie.  As a side note I think doing The Phantasm would be super super super cool, but unfortunately The Phantasm is kind of self-contained in The Mask of The Phantasm.  Another interesting angle would be invlving Ra's Al Ghul's daughter's.  I guess that ends my honorable mention list, SO... here are my picks for the next Batman villain or two (two, because both Nolan Batman's had two classic villains per movie)

#1

THE RIDDLER

      This is, as it seems, the most likely pick for the next villain.  I have read that Nolan was seriously considering The Riddler as the villain in The Dark Knight before ultimately deciding upon The Joker.  The Riddler is a less used criminal and would be, I think, amazingly portrayed by Nolan.  Also, the talks of either Johnny Depp or David Tennant donning the green suit and question mark tie make this a really exciting possibility.  The Riddler was always my favourite bad guy when I was really little watching 

Batman: The Animated Series.  

#2

THE PENGUIN

      Another favourite of mine, The Penguin needs a new presentation.  After Batman Returns, no one has wanted to get near him.  Please, bring him back.

#3

MR. FREEZE

I can't even begin to imagine how cool a new Mr. Freeze would be.  Haha, get it?  Cool... 

#4

THE MAD HATTER

My fourth and final pick is the Mad Hatter because he's really really neat AND there is a lot of room for him being in the movies.  He is the only one of my picks that has not appeared in a film before.

From NASA's website for the Hubble Telescope:
"The unique planetary nebula NGC 2818 is nested inside the open star cluster NGC 2818A. Both the cluster and the nebula reside over 10,000 light-years away, in the southern constellation Pyxis (the Compass)."

I had to post this because its so cool.  Its a recent photo taken by the Hubble telescope.  Yep, like all Hubble telescope images, its really cool.  If you've never really seen any, check them out in the gallery at hubblesite.org.

Also, the new header at top of the page features a Hubble image of The Andromeda Galaxy.  Its the closest galaxy to Earth, and the only one visible to the naked eye.

Here are some other Hubble images that are among my favourites:

The Triangulum Galaxy

The Antennae Galaxy (its actually two galaxies merging into one)

The Cat's Eye Nebula

The Carina Nebula

"It's only a movie, and, after all, we're all grossly overpaid."

Thriller, horror, and suspense films have really declined in their quality. Using quotes from the master of the genre himself, Alfred Hitchcock, I will, in short order, plot out why. (plot... get it? Alright, alright... back to the actual post)

      "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it."

Story tellers have began to focus on the nasty creature rather than letting the audience come up with their own nasty creature (or whatever the object to be feared is).  This just makes the movie a movie with a nasty creature.  The audience has no personalized monster, and there is no fear of this... just disgust.  When Milton Arbogast is killed in Hitchcock's Psycho(1960), the anticipation of what is coming is built up by his slow ascent up the stairs.  You know something will happen, but you don't know exactly what and when.  It isn't him getting killed, its waiting for it.

            "Film your murders like love scenes, and film

                    your love scenes like murders."

This is one of the huge problems with horror and thriller movies today.  Directors are actually filming murders like murders and love scenes like love scenes.  There is nothing unusual about that, so there is nothing to make an audience member feel uncomfortable.

         "Man does not live by murder alone.  He needs affection,

                  approval, encouragement and, occasionally, 

                               a hearty meal."

Another trait of villain characters in Hitchcock films is they are still natural.  No mutant people or alien creatures are there, and none of them are freaky creations of a prop department.  Because of this, they are inherently freakier to the audience because they are not instantly hateable because they are hideous.

       "To make a great film you need three things -

                the script, the script and the script."

Sorry, but Saw doesn't have a lot of plot to it: Sick man named after a type of puzzle puts people in situations where they must make choices concerning their life with real consequences.  This has now run on for five installments.  Really?  Get something new please.  Scare and suspense can't be made out of disgusting alone.

"Some films are slices of life, mine are slices of cake."

I really don't know what this means, but its funny.  This is the part for my conclusion.  Today's horror, thriller, and suspense movies rely 100% on the visual content, whereas Hitchcock's work was about the story.  Which takes more skill?  Hitchcock's.  Which is actually more frightening and unnerving?  Hitchcock's.  

       "Fear isn't so difficult to understand. After all, weren't we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It's just a different wolf. This fright complex is rooted in every individual."

-Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980)

I've been spoiled by Pat Summerall

I was spoiled enough to hear Pat Summerall announce the Cotton Bowl. And then, in the Sugar Bowl, I was reminded of hot utterly idiotic many of today's sports announcers and commentators are. They don't announce. They annoy.

For an entire football game I had to listen to announcers talk about how Alabama couldn't possibly loose... even until the point where Utah basically had the game in the bag. The announcers and commentators couldn't possibly begin to admit that Utah had the better team. AND THEN. After the game these guys acted like they were the ultimate Utah fans since they were kids. It was pathetic. I really began to notice the state of sports announcers during the Olympics. I felt like they just turned into talking heads disrupting my enjoyment of the events. The sad part about it, is that a number of announcers used to be involved in the sport they announce.

One thing that really struck me about Pat Summerall's commentary is that you couldn't tell that he was a fan of either Ole Miss or Texas Tech... he merely announced the game. It is easy to tell when an announcer is rooting for a particular team or if *gasp* he has put some money down on a team. I don't wish to hear descriptions of Greek gods while I'm watching football.

Final point: I actually heard an announcer say one day that his job (and he implied every announcer's job) is to question what happens on the field. Isn't that a lousy job description? It would seem that the announcer's job is to report what is going on on the field, not tell me how it should be different than it is.