MovieChat Forums > The Batman (2022) Discussion > The Riddler (spoilers)

The Riddler (spoilers)

posted 3 years ago by elmacho (983)
42 replies | jump to latest

90% won right? The only thing he didn't accomplish was not killing Bruce Wayne and the Mayor elect. The Joker lets him know that he did a great job.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

His plan? Yes. But Riddler also loses a lot. What does he lose?

He doesn't know this, but he loses out on Batman's identity. He mocks Batman for not being as smart as Riddler thought he was, but the ridicule loses some edge (in my opinion) given that he's obsessing over Batman and Bruce Wayne and he hasn't figured it out.

He thinks Batman is on his side and when he finds out Batman isn't, Riddler has a temper tantrum. He isn't who he thought he was, and he loses that.

He also has his gunmen largely thwarted by Batman.

Finally, he loses on all grounds of morality. This is tied to his loss with Batman not being on his team. He doesn't get to align himself with the morally superior, even though he probably still thinks he is, and that's the deepest blow. The flip-side of this is that Batman loses a lot trying to stop Riddler's schemes, but realizes in time that he needs to be more than just "Vengeance". Riddler loses that point, Batman gains it. And his new efforts to help the city with more than just his fists means that, long-term, he'll win a lot more.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

I thought in the end the riddler figured out the batman is Bruce Wayne, that was why he kept calling him that.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

He didn't. He goes on to say otherwise, saying he doesn't need to know who Batman is because the mask is his true face and nobody else understands. He then says that he and Batman "almost got them", referring to Bruce. If he knew Batman and Bruce were one and the same he wouldn't have thought he was siding with Batman (would've considered him corrupt like the rest) and he would've killed Bruce.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

Yes, you are right. Upon reviewing, it is clear he did not know.

[–] samoanjoes (57055) 3 years ago

I don't blame you. I was a little confused too. When they went into the Riddler's apartment, there was all those newspaper clippings pinned up on the wall that implies that Bruce and Batman were the same people. Batman even says that this could be the end of the Batman.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

I think that was Batman making connections that other people wouldn't see. Riddler was obsessed with Batman as well as his targets. Somebody like Gordon would look around and go, "Jeez, this guy was nuts," but because Batman knows that thing that everybody else doesn't, he'd see that everywhere and assume he knew.

I read an interview recently of a TV showrunner where they had a BIG plot twist coming up and they were paranoid about people guessing. He described all the measures taken to prevent it. I've seen the show and the measures described were over-the-top (in the interview he even basically says that he was paranoid). But because he knew the twist, he was worried it would be crazy-obvious to any viewer.

[–] samoanjoes (57055) 3 years ago

I did think that Matt Reeves was trying to steer us in a direction that the Riddler knew Batman's identity. On the board in his office with the newspaper clippings, although you see Bruce Wayne and Batman on it, there isn't anything else to suggest that he knew. I'm guessing they wanted to put us in suspense for the jail scene coming up. Even Batman looked surprised.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

And in suspense I was! I think that was their intention, certainly, and I was with Bruce on that. But in retrospect, I think it's certainly sensible that Riddler was just being his obsessive self, and he happened to fixate on Bruce and Batman.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

I think not just obsessed. I think from their conversation he thought the batman was his hero, he was just following batman's footsteps, maybe more.

If it were a show, the batman was his audience. He might even want to partner with batman, the show was his resume.

He was probably a very lonely person.

I think that was why he was so devastated when batman disapproved him, even belittled him.

[–] samoanjoes (57055) 3 years ago

Also, you can say that Riddler loses because Bruce finds out the truth about how his father died and because Batman didn't kill Riddler, he has to suffer in a mental institution because of it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

I thought it was a good move of the film to not "punish" the bad guy by just killing him. They ruined his little world by having Batman say they were nothing alike and by locking him up. Justice gets served, not vengeance alone (a nice little foreshadowing of the climax of the film).

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

He accomplished most of his mission, he killed those corrupted officials, even got to Falcone, more importantly he exposed them, that is why he allowed himself to be arrested.

The last part he lost, but that was optional. Also it did not really fit his narrative, he only killed the corrupted, the last part made no sense.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

The last part makes sense in his demented head. He's not Batman. He hasn't thought this through, much as he likes to think himself above all of the "ants", he doesn't realize he's just as corrupt as those he's "punishing". He's psychotic and narcissistic.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

That is the movie narrative, they have to turn him into a bad guy somehow, but to me that was a bit forced and arbitrary.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Felt like a natural progression to me. Psychotics start out torturing cats as children. They move on to bigger things. Lunatics of this nature go from muttering to themselves in their basements to writing manifestos and declaring a "purge" and anybody who doesn't join their cult is "the enemy". It seemed horrifyingly real to me.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

Unless you are a psychiatrist specialized on the clinically insane, you don't really know that.

You are now throwing out theories on things you don't really know that well.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

If the new mayor elect was dirty, that would somehow fit his narrative. Someone like the riddler he was nothing but thorough, he would have researched her.

But I don't think that was it, he did not say anything about her. The last one was just to paint him as crazy, no other purpose.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

He's clearly crazy throughout the film, though, and even though it makes sense to him, it doesn't make sense to Batman and Gordon.

I've seen people who think like this. They tend to be conspiracy theorists. Everybody's in on it. To Riddler they were all guilty, even of minor infractions. They're all corrupt. He might have decided the mayor-elect was corrupt just because she participated in the system instead of trying to demolish it like him.

Basically he views himself as the only standard by which to measure purity and he's going to annihilate anything that doesn't fit his narrative of "Riddler = Good/ Not Riddler = Bad".

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

But the riddler was not a conspiracy theorist, was he? He got the proof on everyone he killed. When you have proofs, it is no longer a conspiracy theory.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Why is he trying to kill Bruce Wayne, then?

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

The sin of the father. He made it very clear.

It is still revenge, but since his father was dead, so he took it on his son.

Of course the law would not apply to the son, but the riddler was not exactly a law man, he was the vengeance, he demands repercussions.

Bruce Wayne was also not involved in any charitable activities, not even the fake ones for publicity, that probably did not help.

He did not try to undo his father's wrongs, probably considered implicit in the act. Of course these I am only guessing.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Yes, I know his "reason", but it's not reasonable.

The Riddler isn't operating on sound logic or justice. He's not even an avenger. He's just playing god.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

No, the debt of father paid by the son is ancient justice, although not the law.

Also like I said he did not intent to kill Bruce Wayne, just punish him.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

He says something along the lines of almost getting them all, though. His intention as I read it was to kill Bruce, too.

Trying to blow up Bruce Wayne because his father was in with the mob isn't reasonable. There's a lot of stuff in ancient law codes that don't work anymore and their application comes off as excessive. Riddler doesn't see that. He has no self-awareness, strangely enough, and cannot understand his own psychosis.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

I think he understood, that was why he did not finish the job, he did not try to hurt Bruce Wayne again.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

I think he was criminally insane. I think he was a narcissist, clearly obsessed with imposing his judgement on people, and I think he was socio and/or psychopathic. His moral compass lacks a north. It points to him, instead.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

I think he was a narcissist, clearly obsessed with imposing his judgement on people

The batman is different how, exactly?

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Several reasons he's different and one in which he isn't.

First, he wasn't trying to make people conform to his laws. He wanted them to conform to laws outside himself. We see this demonstrated in his willingness to work with the police. His morality isn't based just on his own standards.

Second, he didn't consider himself a final authority. We see this demonstrated in his unwillingness to kill. He doesn't pronounce judgements on people. He stops active crime and helps make arrests.

Where he lines up with Riddler is in his myopic obsession with his mission, and insofar as he is too unbending and focused on it. He isn't completely devoted to others, and does serve himself. He inspires fear in criminals and the innocent - not hope.

But most importantly, when confronted with his obsessions and the unhealthiness of certain aspects of his persona and crusade, he starts to change. Riddler doesn't.

Batman confronts Riddler in the cell. "I'm nothing like you! We aren't on the same side!" or words to that effect. Does Riddle reconsider his position? No. He throws a temper tantrum (this is also in line with sociopathic behaviour; they often display huge bursts of rage when frustrated, even as they frustrate others and think other people are overreacting (this is to a degree outside of what we see in ordinary people)).

When Batman is confronted with his failures in morality or seeing outside himself, he changes. Catwoman gives him pause with her debates. When he hears his own self-given moniker thrown in his face ("I'm vengeance!") he is shocked to his core, descends to the flood below and lights up the darkness. He knows that he can be a demon to criminals, but he must be an angel to others. If not, he will become those he fights, like Riddler or the gunman on the walkway.

Batman changes his behaviour when confronted with truth. Riddler doesn't.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

First, he wasn't trying to make people conform to his laws.

Actually, no. The batman broke laws with his acts, if he is the enforcer of the law, he should turn himself in.

when confronted with his obsessions and the unhealthiness of certain aspects of his persona and crusade, he starts to change. Riddler doesn't. Batman changes his behaviour when confronted with truth. Riddler doesn't.

What truth?

The riddler wasn't given a chance, that was their fist encounter. The batman did not know the final plot yet, he insulted the riddler and belittled him because of the only difference between them: The batman does not kill, but that distinction is not a real difference.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

The difference between a killer and not is a big difference. It speaks to restraint. Riddler isn't exercising that.

Riddler doesn't pause for one fraction of a second when Batman says Riddler is committing evil acts. He doesn't point out any logical parallels or put up an argument. He throws a tantrum because his precious, little self-image was threatened.

Riddler and Batman are confronted with the same truth: you are not the noble hero you thought you were. Riddler responds with a good, old-fashioned tantrum, Batman responds with self-reflection and a correction in his actions.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

The batman thought he was above the law. He will continue to think and act like that.

Face it, without the final act, they are not that much different.

What was the word you used? Right, a narcissist.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Right, they shared uncomfortable similarities, and then the final part of the story happens where Batman's character arc is completed. That's the point of the story. Yes.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

My point, as always, was the final act was out of character and unnatural.

They have to make the riddler the bad guy, otherwise what was the difference?

But by doing that they also undid all of the character development they did for the riddler.

That is why I think it is not going to be rated as highly as "Joker".

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

I don't think it was out of character, but a natural progression of the two characters and the story as presented up to that point. It had great flow. It was definitely in-line with the Riddler's character development as far as I'm concerned.

They had to show what makes a hero, and yes, the diverging paths is one way they show that.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

The batman himself even said something to the effect of:"Gordon, you are safe. He only kills the dirty ones".

Then suddenly, out of nowhere, the riddler just changed? That is natural to you?

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

It didn't come out of nowhere. The Riddler always struck me as unhinged, so his being more unhinged and less reasonable was not a surprise.

He always has a very psychotic vibe. So, yes, it was a natural progression.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

A better plot I think would be that the new mayor elect was dirty too, but the batman chose to protect her due to lack of evidence or something to that effect.

The riddler could not get to the new mayor elect, so he blew the sea walls.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

That just would've been the same plot for another hour. It has to progress. If they didn't want to give Batman a satisfying character arc, that would be both a big mistake (in my opinion) and more easily accomplished by just nixing the third act altogether. End it with the arrest.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

If they went with my idea, then it would make sense to cut it into 2 movies.

There could have also been much more passionate and probably livid discussions.

To me it is a missed opportunity.

[–] Ace_Spade (9575) 3 years ago

Whereas to my thinking they followed through and capitalized on their idea pretty perfectly.

I guess we will have to just disagree on these points, yeah.

[–] fc31 (5508) 3 years ago

Also he did not kill Bruce Wayne personally, like what he did to the others, just mailed a bomb, which has a low probability of killing him. And even opened in such close range, the wound was not fatal.

Unlike the others, he just wanted to show his anger, I suppose.