The curse of the scarecrow is a well-known legend that has been passed down through generations. According to the myth, anyone who disturbs or brings harm to a scarecrow will be cursed with misfortune. The origins of this curse are shrouded in mystery, but it is believed to have originated in rural farming communities where scarecrows were commonly used to ward off birds from crops. The scarecrow was seen as a guardian of the fields, protecting the livelihood of the farmers. Legend has it that if a person were to disrespect or damage a scarecrow, they would invoke the wrath of the spirits that inhabited the fields. These spirits would then curse the individual, bringing bad luck and misfortune into their lives.
These spirits would then curse the individual, bringing bad luck and misfortune into their lives. Over time, this legend has been woven into many tales and stories, often used as a cautionary tale to scare children from messing with scarecrows. The curse of the scarecrow serves as a reminder that we should treat objects with respect and not underestimate their power.
A character you love but who gets misused a lot? Scarecrow.
Title says it all. Is there a character in fiction that you think is fantastic but get misused constantly? Maybe that character has an amazing origin and never reachers their full potential? Maybe the character has an interesting personality and an awesome ability but gets killed before they have a chance to do anything.
For me, one of those characters is the Scarecrow from Batman/DC Comics.
Now before you all freak out I will say that the Scarecrow is fairly lucky as a Batman's rogue. I mean he's pretty popular, people know who he is, he actually does get adaptions of his character (Even if some aren't that great but that's for a lot of characters), and he has a pretty solid run in the comics where he's the main. So it's not like the character is an obscure or forgotten villain like CORNELIUS STIRK or DOCTOR DEATH. And compared to popular antagonists like Poison Ivy or Two Face he does get better treatment in other media in that he actually gets a chance to be a main antagonist and even when he's not he has a great design and memorable moments attached to him if nothing else.
Still, even with the popularity he has garnered and earned on his long run as a Batman Villain I still think he's heavily misused and is rarely given the treatment he's deserved as a mainstay Batman Villain. I wouldn't say he's as misused as Clayface which I'll save for another post but I do think he has a habit of getting foddered one too many times. This isn't an issue exclusive to him mind you, this has happened to other character in Batman's Rogue Gallery before, it just hurts me more as a Scarecrow fan.
Fair warning before I go any further, I'm not saying Scarecrow should be wanked to the level of power and efficiency the Joker is now in comics. The Joker is a special character and I don't think anyone needs to replace the perfect contrast Batman and Joker have in their rivalry. No, but I do think The Scarecrow could stand to be a little more of an intimidating threat to Batman in his fight against crime instead of just being a one-trick pony.
For one, I think they make him TOO reliant on his Fear Toxin. As in, after a said character breaks out of his fear toxin he's basically harmless. I hate this idea. I'm not saying make him into a superpowered one-man unit but I think you could make him way more interesting if you grant him the ability to fight for himself again.
I mean it's not like the Joker becomes harmless once you get rid of his Laughing Gas. The Joker is still an intelligent and ruthless threat. As such I always thought Jonathan Crane was WAY more interesting when he had to rely more on his mass manipulation skills over his Fear Toxin gimmick.
In an event called "No Man's Land" The Scarecrow hides in a Church with refugees and basically manipulates the lead Priest and people as a whole to give into Paranoia and their violent impulses. I love this Scarecrow because even when he's not the main villain he doing things that are both innovative and suite his character without be boring or derivative. Through subtly and a careful tongue he manipulates victims into become marauders all for the sake of an experiment. The Joker has his grand jokes and The Scarecrow has his grand experiments.
It really comes down to the writers. I think both Scarecrow and Riddler suffer from horrible writers the most when they're basically reduced to performing one gimmick. When you boil anything down to fodder it can lose a lot of depth and mystery. Writing a Riddler story without Riddles doesn't make the Riddler interesting. Writing a Scarecrow story without psychological drama makes a poor Scarecrow story. Interestingly both those characters get odd treatments like this in Arkham Knight despite being present in that game but that's another story.
I understand that EVERY villain gets fodderized at some point. I mean even Joker in the past has been unwillingly a part of another villain's scheme at some point. It happens with Scarecrow several times like in Batman Begins and it even happens with Joker like in Hush. Still, even when Joker gets fodderized I'd argue he's usually still the Joker. He's more defined and the things he does are still in his character. The issue with Scarecrow is his personality isn't as defined or as concrete as The Joker's so his portrayal oscillates between being a mass manipulative Hannibal Lecter-ish Psychopath and a loser who gets one-shot by Robin.
Why I think this is frustrating is because even compared to your average popular Batman Rogue, The Scarecrow has a lot that parallels Batman. Both use fear as a way to get what they want and both are highly intelligent and respected individuals that abandon their identities to role-play as Monsters. How they contrast this is that Batman seeks to better his world where as Scarecrow seeks to control it. It's a fascinating rivalry they have and it blows whenever DC decides to instead have Batman fight Bane for the millionth time because Bane is physically "THICC". No one gives a shit about Bane. Knightfall happened 20 years ago and it was overrated. Stop trying to make him relevant again, The Killer Croc is a better antagonist. (Half Sarcasm).
It's all the more disappointing when I found that Scarecrow was gonna be the antagonist for Batman Begins and then I realize halfway through that he's basically a fodder henchman for Ras Al Ghoul. I mean the idea that both Bruce Wayne and Crane are protege's of Ras in a way is super interesting, too bad's it's never expanded on in the movie or comics. Seriously the way Scarecrow is portrayed in the Nolan films is a downright joke.
I understand I'm sounding like a really big Scarecrow fanboy right now and I am but it's only because I see the potential of a really good Batman run that DC seems utterly blind or avoidant towards. If you were to ask me to establish a definitive Scarecrow here's what I'd do.
+In most stories he's described as more evil then crazy. Emphasize this. He's more of a Lecter then a Buffalo Bill. Have him be in control of his actions. And he is a doctor so have him be cerebral and always invested in other people's business. The interviews in Arkham Asylum handled this beautifully.
+Don't have Fear Toxin be his only gimmick. I feel like this is the biggest weakness/hurdle to his character. It's probably my biggest complaint in something like Arkham Knight. In that story, Scarecrow is the main villain and his plans again keep revolving around the Fear Toxin that he uses. Sure, they elevate the scale of his schemes and don't make him a pawn to Ras or Penguin (Thank God) but I kinda think that if you're in the position of being a Terrorist like Scarecrow was in that game you could do thinks more destructive like Nuke a building or hijack Satellites. You know, something that a Supervillain would actually do?
+Give him some ability to fight again. I know this'll probably be my most unpopular opinion but I think making Scarecrow capable of combat again would add a bit more to his arsenal. It's not like he's never been able to fight. He can straight up do it in the canon and it just seems like people forget about that. I mean he has such a cool design and it's just such a waste to have that design be demystified in a single punch. Again, he doesn't have to be Ras or Bane level in terms of physical combat. Just enough so that when Batman or any other character fights with him it's not gonna be so one-sided.
I should again emphasize that NONE of these traits that I state would make him a definitive Scarecrow are concepts that come from nowhere. These are all things he can do that were already introduced into canon media that he's either forgotten or have been retconned out of his arsenal. OR have been rendered so minuet that they're never expanded upon. And I think that's a shame and it should be changed.
Sure. The Batman has multiple Doctor's as his main antagonists before like Victor Hugo Strange and Doctor Death but even then I'd argue that Scarecrow is not only way more interesting but has a lot more potential to be enthralling and engaging to the narrative. WHEN he's written right. I don't think it's enough to make his design solid or his voice cool, a definitive Scarecrow story needs to have good writing to back it up. A decent pathos can save a mediocre story. And I don't think it's asking too much to have a character simply be competent in what his title states.
Jonathan Crane is an evil psychopathic delusional man who desires revenge and hungers to be a monster that deconstructs and depowers people both emotionally and physically. The Master of Fear masks a broken man behind that. It's a brilliant concept for a character and it's one of the many reasons why Scarecrow is my second favorite Batman villain.
It really comes down to the writers. I think both Scarecrow and Riddler suffer from horrible writers the most when they're basically reduced to performing one gimmick. When you boil anything down to fodder it can lose a lot of depth and mystery. Writing a Riddler story without Riddles doesn't make the Riddler interesting. Writing a Scarecrow story without psychological drama makes a poor Scarecrow story. Interestingly both those characters get odd treatments like this in Arkham Knight despite being present in that game but that's another story.
Many people believe in the curse, taking extra precautions to avoid disturbing scarecrows. Some even go as far as conducting rituals or offering gifts to the scarecrows to appease the spirits. Though it is viewed as a superstition by some, others take it very seriously, especially those who have experienced unfortunate events after disturbing a scarecrow. Whether or not the curse of the scarecrow is real, it serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting our surroundings and the objects within them. It teaches us to be mindful of our actions and to appreciate the role that scarecrows play in our agricultural communities. In the end, the curse of the scarecrow remains a captivating legend that continues to intrigue and entertain people. It serves as a reminder of the mysterious and unexplained aspects of our world, and the power that folklore and superstition can hold over our imaginations..
Reviews for "Cursed Doll or Malevolent Spirit? The Scarecrow Curse Examined"
1. John - 2 stars
I was really disappointed with "Curse of the Scarecrow". The plot was weak and predictable, and the characters felt one-dimensional. The acting was also quite bad, and I struggled to connect with any of the characters on screen. The scares were cheap and relied heavily on jump scares, which became repetitive and predictable after a while. Overall, it felt like a generic horror film that brought nothing new or interesting to the genre.
2. Sarah - 1 star
I don't understand the hype around "Curse of the Scarecrow". The storyline was confusing and poorly developed. I struggled to follow what was happening, and the pacing was off throughout the film. The special effects were also subpar, and the scare factor was minimal. The whole movie felt like a waste of time and money.
3. Mike - 3 stars
"Curse of the Scarecrow" had its moments, but overall, it fell short for me. The concept had potential, but the execution was lacking. The scares were predictable, and the ending felt rushed and unsatisfying. The dialogue was cheesy and cringe-worthy at times, which took away from the overall experience. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone looking for a good scare or a well-crafted horror movie.
4. Emily - 2 stars
I was really looking forward to "Curse of the Scarecrow", but it turned out to be a letdown. The plot was convoluted, and the characters lacked depth. The pacing was off, and the film dragged on for what felt like an eternity. The scares were cheap, and I wasn't invested enough in the story or characters to feel any real fear. Overall, it was a forgettable and underwhelming horror film.