As the link below says, 'Batman Sequel's Release Date Revealed'.
http://www.theinsider.com/news/3294264_Batman_Sequel_s_Release_Date_Revealed (http://www.theinsider.com/news/3294264_Batman_Sequel_s_Release_Date_Revealed)
I doubt it's gonna top Dark Knight at the box office...
Probably not, unless another young star dies semi-mysteriously just before it comes out. But I'd rather hope it's good over setting box office records.
Wow. That's the greatest news I've ever heard. If Christopher Nolan can make a movie even half as good as Batman Begins let alone comparable to TDK, I'd be ok with letting him win the game. Which I just lost.
It all depends on the villain and the story.
EPIC. This is really good news. Means that things are ready to go down...and since he's had so much time, this won't be a rush job. Very, very, very exciting news. I really hope that Nolan can wrap up this trilogy with gusto. I think he's got the stuff. This will be an event to remember.
I'm still holding out hope for The Riddler.
I :wub: The Riddler. And if Johnny Depp DID play him (as was rumored last year) things would be pretty complete, as I have a man-crush on that man's character acting abilities, ha.
-CM :cardmaster
bah david tennet for the riddler or not at all
Nah! Jim Carrey. Oh, and the bat suit needs nipples....
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on May 20, 2010, 03:45:00 PM
bah david tennet for the riddler or not at all
Seconded. Have you seen the fake "Gotham City" poster featuring him as Riddler? It's phenomenal.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on May 20, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
Nah! Jim Carrey. Oh, and the bat suit needs nipples....
i still stand by the fact that carrey would have be brilliant if giving a decent script and director
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on May 20, 2010, 03:45:00 PM
bah david tennet for the riddler or not at all
I'll be honest. I could also get behind that. That would be amazing. :wub:
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on May 20, 2010, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on May 20, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
Nah! Jim Carrey. Oh, and the bat suit needs nipples....
i still stand by the fact that carrey would have be brilliant if giving a decent script and director
Hear, hear! A *competent* director would have reigned-in most of his ad-libbing, and made him actually act!
Riddler doing a scheme to "steal" the stock market would be sweet!
Bah, Carrey ALWAYS ad libs.... Directors don't so much care since he's good at it. He's a standup comic first, actor second.
I would like to see a third Bat film with the Riddler...and with a tighter script.
...and bat nipples.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a constant reminder that Carrey is a good actor. Like others said before, if given a true script (not "do your comedy thing" like he's being told in most of his role) he could make a very convincing Riddler.
Hmm...this question probably belongs in the Comic Book section, but what would be the best Riddler-story to make onscreen? I mean, assuming they do go with Riddler, what was his most compeling scheme ever? or his best enigma ever?
I actually remember when Batman Forever was still in it's rumor stage, I was hearing John Malcovich's name tossed around for the Riddler. I actually still don't think that would be such a bad idea, but the Riddler as a character has been redone a few times so it really depends on how the character is written before we say Malcovich Depp or Carey or anyone really. Beyond that the Joker was as much of a product of Nolan than it was of Ledger. I think he was able to bring the best out of the actor to make a credible character. I'm sure he'll do the same with the Riddler, or whoever it is they choose.
Quote from: Trelau on May 20, 2010, 08:35:34 PM
Hmm...this question probably belongs in the Comic Book section, but what would be the best Riddler-story to make onscreen? I mean, assuming they do go with Riddler, what was his most compeling scheme ever? or his best enigma ever?
This is why I don't like The Riddler for a movie. I've never heard of any story where he was all too compelling. He mostly seems to be ridiculous. A regular badguy who just plans schemes and then DOESN'T leave clues to help him get captured would be more of a threat. And some kind of money heist doesn't seem to be something hardcore enough for this version of Batman to stop. But I'm sure the writers could remake the character into something better like they did with Two-Face. Also I really don't want to see Johnny Depp put on a ridiculous outfit and talk funny without being funny and make the movie terrible while everyone compares him to Heath Ledger's joker and acts like he's actually that good at his job.
Maybe if Depp accidentally overdosed and died he would be received better in the role...
Too soon?
If they did a fairly faithful representation of Bane it'd be pretty sweet I think. Of all the things Batman and Robin did wrong, their portrayal of Bane was perhaps the biggest sacrilege.
They need a female villain. Catwoman maybe....
Quote from: Zippo on May 21, 2010, 08:46:57 PM
If they did a fairly faithful representation of Bane it'd be pretty sweet I think. Of all the things Batman and Robin did wrong, their portrayal of Bane was perhaps the biggest sacrilege.
I have a comic book nut for a friend who suggested this, and it sounds like a really good idea. Here's the way he put it: Ra'as Al'ghul (or however you spell it...) was a foe to Bruce Wayne, both physically and in terms of persona. Joker was a foe to Batman, focusing on his persona. Bane would be a foe to Batman, focusing on his physical aspect. It would prove for some nice symmetry: in Dark Knight, Batman's very persona and ideals were attacked, and now all it would take is his physical beatdown to complete the cycle, and threaten to destroy him completely.
That would be cool.
Quote from: Trelau on May 20, 2010, 08:35:34 PM
Hmm...this question probably belongs in the Comic Book section, but what would be the best Riddler-story to make onscreen? I mean, assuming they do go with Riddler, what was his most compeling scheme ever? or his best enigma ever?
The one "Riddler" story that I recall that was really compelling was not really a "Riddler" story. It was a retelling/recap of his origin from his perspective but at the end, he goes into this really poignant bit about what's happened to all the old guys and how he is the only one who hasn't become a killer.
Having said that, Riddler would make a much better secondary villain ala The Scarecrow.
See, to me a great story to do with Riddler at this point is to tie in what had been done in the comics recently, by having Nigma more in a Private Investigator role trying to solve the riddle of Batman's Identity, all the while acting as the mastermind behind whatever craziness is going on in Gotham at the time.
Quote from: Tomato on May 22, 2010, 12:25:23 AM
See, to me a great story to do with Riddler at this point is to tie in what had been done in the comics recently, by having Nigma more in a Private Investigator role trying to solve the riddle of Batman's Identity, all the while acting as the mastermind behind whatever craziness is going on in Gotham at the time.
would love to see something along that line but i doubt it will come to pass.
I'll be the first to say. No Riddler please. His character doesn't exactly fit in with the existing world Nolan and company have built. I say they go with Harley Quinn and Catwoman. They aren't working together mind you, just have both of them in the movie.
[edit]: Change of heart, they should bring in Talia as played by Salma Hayek. Batman is reaching the limit of of what he can do by himself and grows frustrated as Gotham gets worse and worse despite his efforts. Even a new masked villain (Harley Quinn) has appeared and taken up where Joker left off. Talia swoops in and offers him an organization to aid in his crusade. Blah blah she spends the beginning of the movie convincing him, turning point, he is convinced, tries it out, things seem to be going well then comes the inevitable oh noes the organization isn't what I thought moment, then he has to fight both Talia and round up Harley. Curtain. :P
I've said this before and I will say it again.
The villain of the third film should be Hugo Strange. This is based on what was left in the second film. The police are after Batman. Professor Hugo Strange is called in to offer a psycho-analysis of Batman and become obsessed with him. The great thing about Hugo is that he could also utilize a lesser villain to "draw out" Batman in order to study him.
The secondary villain should be Riddler. Play him as an enigma since that's his M.O. He offers to help solve the riddle of Batman's identity but has ulterior motives. He wants to prove he is smarter than the police and Batman. Alternately, Riddler and Hugo could be swapped out. The big thing to do with Riddler would be to cast multiple big name actors. Johnny Depp? David Tennant? and others? Go for it. Cast all them and have them all be utilized as Red Herrings and not revealed who really is The Riddler till the latter half of the movie. This is only if The Riddler is your main villain.
Then there's Catwoman. Have her as a wildcard. At first, she seems to be a villain but have it revealed that she is stealing to protect an orphanage on the East End. She winds up helping Batman in the end as it serves her purposes.
Also, a Black Mask or Penguin cameo could work too as all the other mob bosses have been killed off. This furthers the notion that the "underworld" in Gotham is now being ran by "the freaks".
Quote from: Ajax on May 23, 2010, 03:56:13 AM
I'll be the first to say. No Riddler please. His character doesn't exactly fit in with the existing world Nolan and company have built. I say they go with Harley Quinn and Catwoman. They aren't working together mind you, just have both of them in the movie.
Well, see, this is Nolanverse, and Nolanverse tends to recast characters in a new light anyway. Compare his Joker with the Mark Hamill Joker. They're very different characters. The Riddler could easily undergo a similar transformation.
sadly nolan has painted himself into a corner with the uber realism, he has essentially blocked 90% of batmans rogues
I think riddler would be good if they did an anti-hero sort of angle.
If they riddler is done well, I think he would be fine. Make him a real threat by actually having him outsmart Batman. This version of the riddler doesn't always leave written clues, but he arrange the crime scene in order to misdirect Batman and the police. When he does begin taunting them with actually riddles, make the riddles themselves deceptive. The first answer that works is actually a trap or misdirection. Riddler's playing mind games with Batman, and they work for most of the movie. Towards the end Batman begins to figure out how he thinks and uses it to trick the riddler into giving him an actual clue that batman can use.
I just don't think the Riddler is a good fit for Nolan's vision of Batman, no matter who was cast in the part. As a major villain, what does the Riddler bring to a film? Interesting heists? Complex clues? What's the threat to Batman and Gotham City? The Riddler just doesn't have a motivation to create a level of danger that would match either of the previous movies.
Expensive thefts just aren't going to cut it after Ra's Al Ghul nearly destroys the city in Batman Begins, and the Joker unleashes a wave of killings and basically terrorism in the Dark Knight. I guess they could change the Riddler to being some sort of serial killer, but I'd rather they use a different villain than change the character so much. They could use the Riddler to attempt to unveil Batman's identity, but they've already toyed with that idea in the Dark Knight as well.
The only way I see the Riddler in a Nolan-Batman film would be as a supporting villain to someone more destructive.
Quote from: CarpeGuitarrem on May 23, 2010, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Ajax on May 23, 2010, 03:56:13 AM
I'll be the first to say. No Riddler please. His character doesn't exactly fit in with the existing world Nolan and company have built. I say they go with Harley Quinn and Catwoman. They aren't working together mind you, just have both of them in the movie.
Well, see, this is Nolanverse, and Nolanverse tends to recast characters in a new light anyway. Compare his Joker with the Mark Hamill Joker. They're very different characters. The Riddler could easily undergo a similar transformation.
Well as far as the Nolanverse... Penguin and Riddler to some extent were both referenced in the viral marketing material for The Dark Knight. The former in the guise of an ad for The Iceberg Lounge and the latter in the letter to the editor, both in the Gotham Times.
Nashton reference is on the bottom of http://www.thegothamtimes.com/issue2/page2.htm (http://www.thegothamtimes.com/issue2/page2.htm) in the letters to the editor. The Iceberg Lounge ad is here: http://www.thegothamtimes.com/issue2/page3.htm (http://www.thegothamtimes.com/issue2/page3.htm)
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on May 23, 2010, 09:10:25 PM
sadly nolan has painted himself into a corner with the uber realism, he has essentially blocked 90% of batmans rogues
Well, all he needs is a handful of Batman villains...I mean, technically just one villain, to make a good movie.
Plus the rumors that Two-Face will be back. (A nice case of "never saw the body", since we never actually saw him confirmed dead)
Didn't Aaron Eckhart basically confirm that Two-Face is dead? Cause he asked Nolan if his character is dead and Nolan told out right yes he is.
I would like to see new villains (not seen in previous LA movies) in this installment, hence my suggestion for Harley and Talia. Plus both characters would work well in tying up the loose ends of the previous two movies.
Harvey Dent is Dead. Two-Face may not be.
I am with Mr. Hammerick on this Hugo Strange and Edward Nygma would be the best foes for this third film. Penguin as a cameo as a freakish mob
Hugo Strange: psychologist and criminal profiler brought in by Gotham PD to identify and capture Batman. Strange becomes obcessed with Batman and eventually seeks to replace him.
Riddler: A To Catch Predator styled news anchor, who sensationalizes the polices attempt to capture Batman. Secretly is working with the Gotham Mob to find Harvey Dent, and regain their lost fortune from the Dark Knight.
Oswald Cobblepot: Corrupt criminal mastermind and polictical boss who is using the chaos in Gotham to create a new Syndicate.
Here's a novel idea.
Why not have Johnny Depp play the Mad Hatter?
Quote from: Failed_Hero on May 24, 2010, 02:26:05 AM
Riddler: A To Catch Predator styled news anchor, who sensationalizes the polices attempt to capture Batman. Secretly is working with the Gotham Mob to find Harvey Dent, and regain their lost fortune from the Dark Knight.
honestly, i hoped they were going somewhere in that direction with the Anthony Michael Hall character as far as Nygma goes. have him as a minor but significant villain.
I like the Hugo Strange/ Riddler story concept. I think they should throw Black Mask in there as well.
Riddler in the modern comics has actually become a gumshoe....
But for the movie, we can have him as his original persona of a guy who leaves baffling clues that require a genius to figure them out.
Quote from: Ajax on May 24, 2010, 02:16:52 AM
Didn't Aaron Eckhart basically confirm that Two-Face is dead? Cause he asked Nolan if his character is dead and Nolan told out right yes he is.
Yeah, I did some research, came up with this (http://movies.ign.com/articles/907/907656p1.html)...guess that settles it.
Quote from: CarpeGuitarrem on May 24, 2010, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: Ajax on May 24, 2010, 02:16:52 AM
Didn't Aaron Eckhart basically confirm that Two-Face is dead? Cause he asked Nolan if his character is dead and Nolan told out right yes he is.
Yeah, I did some research, came up with this (http://movies.ign.com/articles/907/907656p1.html)...guess that settles it.
That said, Dent could come back easily in a non-Nolan directed Bat film and not undo anything Nolan did really. Why? Because no one saw the body.
I would like to see Death Stroke the Terminator!
I got an odd message this morning. Take this only as a rumor but the announcement of the first villain of the new movie looks to be coming soon. And it looks to be...
Spoiler
Catwoman
and if that is the case, I know two actresses that might be in the mix to play her and its not who you think.
Spoiler
Emily Blunt ... who recently turned down the Capt. America movie part offer. It is being speculated that this might be the reason.
Marion Cotillard was being speculated as well as being a strong contender. She is currently working with Nolan on Inception. I personally thing she'd make an awesome Talia but oh well.
This (http://www.reelcomix.com/837-Dark-Knight-Gotham-City-Posters.html) seems rather appropriate...
Like the Riddler & Harley, Catwoman just looks awful.
I actually kinda like The Riddler. And I might could almost get behind the Harley one. However, Catwoman is kinda bleh and looks a bit too steampunkish for me.
Having said that. Would be nice to see all three of them in Batman 3. I think Ellen Page would be interesting as Harley actually.
And I have an idea about something regarding who might be involved with the third Batman film as a villain but I can't say it.
I will say... look at the cast of Inception closely.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on May 26, 2010, 07:13:28 AM
Would be nice to see all three of them in Batman 3.
No, no, no, no, NO!
I do not WANT to see three villains sharing screen time, especially not those three. As cameos, fine.
One reason why the first few Batman sequels after Tim Burton's suffered badly, and one reason why Spider-Man 3 was not as successful as it could have been, is that the multiple villains just don't fit well together and wind up stealing plot time away from each other.
I don't care that multiple villains make the movie visually striking. If the plot's a mess, I don't want to see it.
I simply can not see how they could tie Catwoman, the Riddler, and Harley Quinn together in the same movie without making a mess. Two out of three, maybe. Or maybe one in a major plotline and another one in a subplot that sets up a possible 4th movie.
Quote from: BlueBard on May 26, 2010, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on May 26, 2010, 07:13:28 AM
Would be nice to see all three of them in Batman 3.
No, no, no, no, NO!
I do not WANT to see three villains sharing screen time, especially not those three. As cameos, fine.
One reason why the first few Batman sequels after Tim Burton's suffered badly, and one reason why Spider-Man 3 was not as successful as it could have been, is that the multiple villains just don't fit well together and wind up stealing plot time away from each other.
I don't care that multiple villains make the movie visually striking. If the plot's a mess, I don't want to see it.
I simply can not see how they could tie Catwoman, the Riddler, and Harley Quinn together in the same movie without making a mess. Two out of three, maybe. Or maybe one in a major plotline and another one in a subplot that sets up a possible 4th movie.
Seconded.
And I've never been sold on Harley as a solo villain - her story is essentially a tragedy, and it's one that requires the Joker to tell. Catwoman would work well as a secondary villain/love interest, but I'm still against the Riddler. He's just not
dangerous enough for a Nolan-Batman film, and no one has suggested how he could be, let alone without radically changing the character.
In Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, both Batman and the people of Gotham City were put in danger. Whoever the villain(s) end up being, one of them at least will have to threaten both Batman
and Gotham or the film will be an anticlimax compared to the previous two. At this point, I'm not sure who that villain would be.
I didn't say having all three as major villains of the film. Harley would have to be a cameo at best. But her in a cameo would bring some sort of closure to The Joker which I have heard was the intended villain in this one prior to Heath's death. I had heard about n actual scene that was intended to be in the second film that would've sat her up but dropped because of Heath's death. (It would've re-established Arkahm too.)
As for Riddler, I've always thought of Riddler as the Secondary villain at best. Catwoman is a wildcard... have her in a few scenes as a thief and introduce her as Selina Kyle. You have your romantic subplot. But she is still a secondary villain.
The most important thing to remember about a third movie is where the second ended. It ended with Batman taking the fall for Harvey murdering those cops as Two Face. Thus, the police are after Batman. Batman is still the hero.
The theme of the second film was the "escalation" between the new kinds of criminal element in Gotham and between Gotham's war on the crime families.
As for three villain, apparently someone is not counting the amount of villains that have been in the first two films. Batman Begins had Rha's Al Ghul, The Scarecrow, Mr. Zsasz and Falcone. Technically, there was Ducard as well but given the reveal at the end... it was basically FOUR VILLAINS! The Dark Knight had Joker, Two Face, Marconi, and The Scarecrow. That is FOUR VILLAINS.
It is entirely possible to put four villains in the third film if you play it right. And honestly, there should be four... and could be five. Again, the fourth and fifth would be cameos, no more than a scene or two.
Main villain = Primary threat of the film.
Secondary villain #1 - costume villain from Bat's rogue gallery. maybe teamed with first villain but probably not. This would depend on who the villain is.
Secondary villain #2 - mob villain. Now, the fun part here is that there are two Bat villains that are "costume" villains and mobsters.
Fourth villain - shown to illustrate the increase in "costume villains" or "freaks" in Gotham. Could be anything from Zsasz being out of jail and on the loose to another Bat villain being taken in to Arkahm and thus reintroducing Arkahm. If it is Zsasz then the villain might be more of a cameo.
Fifth - a cameo that would only be if there was a Harley nod and thus tying up the loose end with Joker due to Heath's death. I would love to see the scene I heard about that might have been cut from the 2nd email.
QuoteAs for three villain, apparently someone is not counting the amount of villains that have been in the first two films. Batman Begins had Rha's Al Ghul, The Scarecrow, Mr. Zsasz and Falcone. Technically, there was Ducard as well but given the reveal at the end... it was basically FOUR VILLAINS! The Dark Knight had Joker, Two Face, Marconi, and The Scarecrow. That is FOUR VILLAINS.
Ok...
Batman Begins. The Scarecrow was part of Ra's plan to destroy Gotham, though he started doing his own thing once his part was revealed. It fit the plot. One plot. Falcone was certainly a bad guy, but he wasn't the focus. I don't remember a Mr. Zsasz. I count TWO major villains and the plot was constructed in such a way that they didn't steal screen time from each other.
The Dark Knight. Actually, haven't seen the movie. Did read the novelization. As I recall, Scarecrow isn't seen at all after the first half. He's a subplot at best. Aside from him, there were lots of bad guys but only TWO major villains: The Joker and Two-Face. Two-Face doesn't appear until the second half and he's really a part of the story being told around Bruce Wayne/Batman and The Joker. He doesn't count as a villain before that because Harvey Dent was one of the protagonists until he got blown up. Even then, he's still more the Joker's victim than anything else.
I will give you that it would be theoretically possible to have a whole cast full of heroes and villains that works if the producers/directors/screenwriters can concentrate on developing a believable plot in which they all actually fit instead of giving in to the temptation to write them in to satisfy the marketing types. The X-Men franchise did a fairly good job of this... until X-3, anyway. I'm hoping that the Avengers movie will also do a good job of this. Ditto for a JL movie. But we've all seen the train wrecks that tend to happen when writers don't respect the source material and/or try to juggle too many plot lines at once. In the movies AND in the comics.
My hope is that Nolan continues to focus on the plot and characterization as well as the visuals and is able to stay away from throwing in random villains for name recognition and flash.
I can see it being done with Hugo Strange as the main villain, helping the police track down Batman and to figure out who he is. Hugo could be "creating villains" to analyze Batman, hence Harley Quinn or any other villain. They would have a minor role in the movie. At the end Hugo would escape and continue to analyze Batman. If they ever make a Batman 4, you can used The Wrath and at the end the Wrath would end up being Hugo Strange.
Quote from: BlueBard on May 26, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
Ok...
Batman Begins. The Scarecrow was part of Ra's plan to destroy Gotham, though he started doing his own thing once his part was revealed. It fit the plot. One plot. Falcone was certainly a bad guy, but he wasn't the focus. I don't remember a Mr. Zsasz. I count TWO major villains and the plot was constructed in such a way that they didn't steal screen time from each other.
My hope is that Nolan continues to focus on the plot and characterization as well as the visuals and is able to stay away from throwing in random villains for name recognition and flash.
Mr. Zsasz was only in one scene. He was used to establish the precedent of sending the villains to Arkahm even if they were not crazy. Go back and watch the courtroom scene. The actor playing him was the lead singer of the band James. A cameo appearance to further the plot involving Scarecrow that would also set up a plot point involving Falcone.
Scarecrow had one scene in The Dark Knight that basically wrapped up the fact that he escaped in Batman Begins. It was a wrap up scene and nothing else. That's all it needed to be, though.
I have no doubt that Nolan will continue to focus on plot and characterization. My point is that given the way the previous two films work, it is entirely possible for Riddler, Harley, and Catwoman to figure into the plot somehow. I don't think Harley will, however. The only villain that I am fairly sure we will see is Catwoman.
A side note, the website talking about Catwoman being in the third film removed the post about it. It has been replaced by a note about The Scarecrow perhaps having a cameo in the third film as an Arkahm Inmate. The article said that when asked Cilian Murphy said that all Nolan had to do was ask and he'd do it in a heartbeat.
If they do do an Arkham scene, there would be room for cameos for any number of Batman villains. You could fit in as many as a dozen or so minor ones seen for a split second in the background. That would be fun for the real fanboys.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 26, 2010, 11:54:05 PM
If they do do an Arkham scene, there would be room for cameos for any number of Batman villains. You could fit in as many as a dozen or so minor ones seen for a split second in the background. That would be fun for the real fanboys.
Bingo! And that would be an ideal way to leave a door open for a Joker and even Two Face return in a non-Nolan Batman film
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 26, 2010, 11:54:05 PM
If they do do an Arkham scene, there would be room for cameos for any number of Batman villains. You could fit in as many as a dozen or so minor ones seen for a split second in the background. That would be fun for the real fanboys.
So long as it's done better than all the needless fanservice cameos in X3... sheesh, heh.
I'm fine with cameos. Those ARE fun, and they don't turn the plot into a train wreck.
When I say that I don't want three or more villains in it, I'm not counting cameos or bit parts. If the main protagonist doesn't have to deal with them in any meaningful way then they're just interesting scenery.
Where we get into trouble is when the writers decide that each of the major characters need their own major plot line. That's when it gets harder to keep it together and stay focused on telling ONE story.
Iron Man 2 managed to pull off a rather tangled plot (IMO), and it easily could have gone the other way. Some people didn't think it was executed very well. That's the danger of trying to cram too much in to one movie.
I could easily see Batman 3 featuring a massive number of villains in (rather) smaller roles, with a main, central villain. Why? Because it's the capstone. It's the one that firmly sets Batman's mythos in motion. I don't think the third film can end with the city cleaned up, because Batman isn't a one-shot story. So it's going to have to end with him seen as the hero, having defeated a major villain or plot, also fully capable of stopping crime in Gotham City. Maybe this is where Dick Grayson could come in, you never know. But you're also going to have to have a rogue's gallery for him to face.
Since the theme of escalation was shown through Batman 1 and Batman 2 (explicitly in 1, subtly in 2)...well, we have the first real example of a supervillain in The Dark Knight. The Joker: a costumed supervillain. This opens the door for a flood of costumed supervillains. Maybe the mob collapses, leaving a power vacuum. Villains step up to fill that vacuum, and voila! you have the Batman mythos established.
No one's suggesting we have a bunch of villain with their own individual plots that happen to meet vaguely, like in Spider Man 3. The first two movies already had a bunch of villains, and it worked because each one fit into a vital role in the overall plot. In other words, several villains work when you have a story that demands them, and only then. In the first two, we had on bit villain whose plans involved the others. In the first movie we also had two included to establish the background, Joe Chill and Zsasz. Each of them, however, led right into one of the others and served to feed the main plot. That's how the first movie managed to have 5 Batman villains, and that's how the third could use several as well.
The only poster that was ok with me was the Riddler one.
While I liked the costume, the jawline made Catwoman look too manly to be convincing. And the Harley one looked like she escaped from a zombie movie.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 29, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
No one's suggesting we have a bunch of villain with their own individual plots that happen to meet vaguely, like in Spider Man 3. The first two movies already had a bunch of villains, and it worked because each one fit into a vital role in the overall plot. In other words, several villains work when you have a story that demands them, and only then. In the first two, we had on bit villain whose plans involved the others. In the first movie we also had two included to establish the background, Joe Chill and Zsasz. Each of them, however, led right into one of the others and served to feed the main plot. That's how the first movie managed to have 5 Batman villains, and that's how the third could use several as well.
IF it worked out that way, I'd be fine with it.
I like how they didn't feel the need to retell Joker's origin in TDK. It wasn't necessary to the story. Based on the one movie, we simply do not know how Joker got to be what he was... and it's okay. The story about Batman still got told.
I'm not sure that the movie industry as a whole really gets that. I'm pretty sure Nolan does, and that's great. As long as he doesn't get overruled by meddling movie executives, the third Batman has a promising future.
What worries me is that the industry seems to have this view of "superhero" movies that says every movie needs to introduce a new character whose origins and background needs to be established before you can get on with the rest of the story. You can do that with one new character. Not so much with two or more.
I can deal with 5 minute recaps of who someone is. Actually SHOWing the origins is overkill IMO.
I've been thinking that Clayface would be a good villain for a darker toned film because he can look like anybody - it easily leads to paranoia.
No one with powers is going to appear in a Nolan film. Not "realistic".
Quote from: bredon7777 on June 09, 2010, 12:30:45 PM
No one with powers is going to appear in a Nolan film. Not "realistic".
You don't necessarily have to have "powers" to assume other identities. And the original Clayface didn't have powers when he was introduced. He'd fit right in with the fear theme that has run through both BB and TDK.
Quote--From Wikipedia:
Created by Bob Kane, the original Clayface, Basil Karlo, was a B movie actor who began a life of crime using the identity of a villain he portrayed in a horror film.
But I would doubt that particular character is ever used by Nolan. He's still got plenty of others to choose from.
Quote from: bredon7777 on June 09, 2010, 12:30:45 PM
No one with powers is going to appear in a Nolan film. Not "realistic".
Not necessarily true. As long as you can explain it in a sufficiently pseudoscientific manner (welcome to comic books!), it's possible. And when you consider the ridiculous planning and orchestration that went into all of Joker's plans, that's hardly "realistic". It's not about being truly realistic, it's about feeling realistic.
I mean, come on--finding a magical flower in the mountains that amplifies fears? Amongst a band of ninjas in said mountains? Or the entire concept of a vigilante running around in a bat costume...
The Clayface thing could work if you make him out like he steals identities and commits crimes. Look up the movie Taking Lives (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364045/). Clayface could be something like
that.
Quotea serial killer who takes on the identity of each new victim.
Wifey just shot me an email saying that they are filming the Batman movie by her job (NYC). She said that sh saw the Batmoblie outside. Anybody heard any updates on the movie?
Nope, its for the new remake of Arthur. More info here. (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=67789) The filming for Nolan's Batflick doesn't start 'till April.
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 09, 2010, 02:34:56 PM
Wifey just shot me an email saying that they are filming the Batman movie by her job (NYC). She said that sh saw the Batmoblie outside. Anybody heard any updates on the movie?
I suspect that there will be the reveal of the first villain between this Friday and the end of July. (Inception opens this Friday.)
From there, the word is that the the film starts shooting early 2011.
I just wanted to through a Mr. Freeze concept out there.
Dr. Victor Fries, is acclaimed M.D. who also works with his cryogenist wife Nora attempting to develop a method to help treat lethal wounds quickly. Victor is absolutely devoted to his with but does have a gambling problem, the mob begins to leverage Victor's gambling issues against him forcing him to do off the books operations on lieutenants, to eliminate his debt. During one of these operations Batman crashes the proceedings, Victor and Nora are using one of their advanced techniques Batman's appearance and the ensuing gun fight causes a malfunction in cryogenic continment, resulting in the death of Nora, and Victor developing an increased pain tolerance complete loss of hair and his frigid pale complexion. When he agrees to testify against his former tormentors but is able to set a trap in the court house resulting in several of the defendants dying in the same fashion as Nora. Getting away from the authorities he then sets his sites on Batman.
This idea does involve some suspension of disbelief but a lot less than a guy in containment suit with a freeze ray. Although I do see a pressurized liquid nitrogen weapon coming into play.
Bah, I love TAS style Freeze, he's the only version I have any interest in.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 12, 2010, 01:31:25 AM
Bah, I love TAS style Freeze, he's the only version I have any interest in.
We all know you only care about the TAS version of EVERYTHING, Benton. Why even bother being a fan of anything live-action?
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 12, 2010, 01:45:50 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 12, 2010, 01:31:25 AM
Bah, I love TAS style Freeze, he's the only version I have any interest in.
We all know you only care about the TAS version of EVERYTHING, Benton. Why even bother being a fan of anything live-action?
TAS is the best of all possible Batmen, but that doesn't mean that live-action can't ALSO be awesome. Batman Begins did this admirably. However, Mr. Freeze is my favorite villain from the series (after all, it was pretty much their handling that rescued him from obscurity). That, coupled with the fact that I don't buy into the whole "all characters must be stripped of anything interesting to be believable" line that seems to permeate many movie discussions, leads me to think that I'd like to see a non-campy (read: non-Ahhhnooold) Mr. Freeze show up in a movie and actually resemble himself.
Benton,
I totally agreed with you on Mr. Freeze from TAS. But Nolan has set his rules and I'd really like to see what could be done given Nolan's rules.
While I decided to refuse to speculate on Nolan's future villains, I agree about TAS Mr. Freeze. He was really the best of Timm's take on Batman's villains, which is saying a lot. That's why Sub-Zero was such a great movie. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with Nolan doing him the same way, but I have complete faith in Christopher Nolan and I think he is absolutely the greatest director since Spielberg.
I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with regards to Timm's Batman being the best. The best as far as animated versions, yes, but NOT THE BEST OVERALL. To say that Timm's Batman is better than Bob Kane's Batman is ludicrous at best. I appreciate your unyielding love for the man but he is not the "end all be all" of writing Batman. I don't think Timm could do a decent live action Batman film just the same as I don't think Nolan could do a decent Batman cartoon. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT MEDIUMS. Three if you count the comics.
As for Mr. Freeze, Timm was given the leeway to develop the character by DC and Warner Brothers. The character didn't previously have that extensive of a back story. Which is fine. However, a lot of the work that Timm did doesn't translate to live action very well. It especially doesn't translate very well given the boundaries and rules set in place by Christopher Nolan with the Bat films.
As for directors to take the reins of The Batman films after Nolan... I would be curious to see what Niels Arden Oplev would do with Batman. I wouldn't mind seeing David Fincher either.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 13, 2010, 06:48:58 AM
I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with regards to Timm's Batman being the best. The best as far as animated versions, yes, but NOT THE BEST OVERALL. To say that Timm's Batman is better than Bob Kane's Batman is ludicrous at best. I appreciate your unyielding love for the man but he is not the "end all be all" of writing Batman. I don't think Timm could do a decent live action Batman film just the same as I don't think Nolan could do a decent Batman cartoon. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT MEDIUMS. Three if you count the comics.
As for Mr. Freeze, Timm was given the leeway to develop the character by DC and Warner Brothers. The character didn't previously have that extensive of a back story. Which is fine. However, a lot of the work that Timm did doesn't translate to live action very well. It especially doesn't translate very well given the boundaries and rules set in place by Christopher Nolan with the Bat films.
As for directors to take the reins of The Batman films after Nolan... I would be curious to see what Niels Arden Oplev would do with Batman. I wouldn't mind seeing David Fincher either.
Hamrick I think you jumped the gun there a bit. Re-read what BWPS said
Quote from: Failed_Hero on July 12, 2010, 02:06:46 AM
Benton,
I totally agreed with you on Mr. Freeze from TAS. But Nolan has set his rules and I'd really like to see what could be done given Nolan's rules.
And what are those rules? I did a quick search and found nothing pertaining to Batman except that the man has "ruled out" the return of the Joker, the Penguin and a Superman crossover.
his rules are "no super powers" or something like that, which rules out Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy, etc. Basically nothing supernatural.
You know, I don't know how ANY writer, director, or what-have-you can say "I'm going to do Batman, but Superman is not allowed and as far as MY Batman is concerned he doesn't exist."
Fine. Do Batman. It's not necessary that Superman is written into his Batman scripts, although a nod here or there to acknowledge the larger DCU would be nice.
Why Nolan feels he has to compartmentalize the two characters, I will probably never understand. But if that's what works for his creative process, I can play along. I just hope that eventually a movie gets made outside of those rules.
A Batman/Superman movie something along the lines of "Superman/Batman: Enemies & Allies" by Kevin Anderson would be awesome.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 13, 2010, 06:23:44 PM
his rules are "no super powers" or something like that, which rules out Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy, etc. Basically nothing supernatural.
Kind of a weird rule for a superhero franchise. That would leave Killer Moth and Firefly, though! :thumbup:
Btw, in the first bunch of comic appearances by Bats he did fight a vampire at least once - looooong before he ever fought the joker.
I say they should bring Wraith. They already had Batman doppelgangers in the second, one guy went that extra step and became Bats equal.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 13, 2010, 06:48:58 AM
As for Mr. Freeze, Timm was given the leeway to develop the character by DC and Warner Brothers. The character didn't previously have that extensive of a back story. Which is fine. However, a lot of the work that Timm did doesn't translate to live action very well.
Not to pick on you but I really can't understand that , to my perception narrow minded feeling. seems to me It could work just fine in live action. One could equally argue the Hulk , Ironman. Superman.Dr Octopus, Hellboy etc etc etc wouldn't translate well.
Might not gel with the Nolanverse but that's a different animal
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 13, 2010, 09:27:56 PM
I say they should bring Wraith. They already had Batman doppelgangers in the second, one guy went that extra step and became Bats equal.
Come again?
Quote from: steamteck on July 13, 2010, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 13, 2010, 06:48:58 AM
As for Mr. Freeze, Timm was given the leeway to develop the character by DC and Warner Brothers. The character didn't previously have that extensive of a back story. Which is fine. However, a lot of the work that Timm did doesn't translate to live action very well.
Not to pick on you but I really can't understand that , to my perception narrow minded feeling. seems to me It could work just fine in live action. One could equally argue the Hulk , Ironman. Superman.Dr Octopus, Hellboy etc etc etc wouldn't translate well.
Might not gel with the Nolanverse but that's a different animal
Not being narrow minded at all. I am merely looking at Timm's credits and what he actually received credits for with Batman: TAS and most of that were as producer and as artist. His writing credits were for overall story and not for the script. Coming up with a story is much different than the script that successfully tells that story. I know this from firsthand experience.
My bigger issue is this notion that somehow because Bruce Timm's name is on it that Batman: TAS is somehow superior to the original work of Bob Kane when Bob Kane is THE CREATOR OF THE CHARACTER. I don't have an issue with Timm's artwork nor do I have a major issue with him as a storyteller. However, the script that created the Post-Crisis origin of Mr. Freeze was created by Paul Dini not by Bruce Timm. Bruce Timm directed the episode but did not write it. I am taking issue with Benton giving Timm credit for Dini's writing perhaps moreso than even the idea that Timm did the character than the guy who created the character..
However, Timm has never directed live action material so I reserve to right to say that he is not proven as a live action director. It's no different than saying that I would not be someone to ask to direct a big budget animation project. (IE: You would not want me directing Toy Story 4 or The Incredibles 2 or anything like that.) I will remain skeptical of his ability with live action work until proven otherwise. It's the same deal with Frank Miller trying to direct something. The Spirit is one of the WORST comic book movies I have seen and is proof that even as a competent artist and writer that he shouldn't be allowed near a live action film. And I don't have a huge issue with Frank Miller's work on comic books.
Wraith was a character in a 1980s story and he paralleled Bruce Wayne/Batman except he was a criminal. I thnik the story was something like, "the player on the opposite team," or something like that.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 14, 2010, 06:36:51 AM
My bigger issue is this notion that somehow because Bruce Timm's name is on it that Batman: TAS is somehow superior to the original work of Bob Kane when Bob Kane is THE CREATOR OF THE CHARACTER.
I am a big fan of the early Batman stories, but I don't see anything wrong with someone thinking other versions are better. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing is better than Len Wein's. Denny O'Neil's Green Arrow is better than Mort Weisinger's. And of course, the TAS people had the advantage of being able to draw on all the previous versions of Batman, picking and choosing the best bits to incorporate into the show.
Also keep in mind that the stories signed by Bob Kane were mostly done by other people anyway. For instance, he had zilch to do with Mr. Freeze, who was created by Dave Wood and Sheldon Moldoff.
ahh, throw Bane in and have the story line be about illegal performance enhancers. i'd be mister all-natural versus mister all-chemical. Bane wouldnt be the huge dummy he was in the other movie.even drop blockbuster in too. the problem with bats and his enemies are no one other than comic fans knows anything about his foes except joker,penguin,catwoman, and joker. ive never been that crazy about them anyway.i'm more partial to guys like killer croc,mr.freeze, and clay-face.
Quote from: herodad1 on July 15, 2010, 03:11:47 PM
ahh, throw Bane in and have the story line be about illegal performance enhancers. i'd be mister all-natural versus mister all-chemical. Bane wouldnt be the huge dummy he was in the other movie.even drop blockbuster in too. the problem with bats and his enemies are no one other than comic fans knows anything about his foes except joker,penguin,catwoman, and joker. ive never been that crazy about them anyway.i'm more partial to guys like killer croc,mr.freeze, and clay-face.
Bane wouldn't be a bad way to go. You could even tie it in to Scarecrow's experimentation. I would think that would be within the realm of 'barely-realism'.
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 15, 2010, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 14, 2010, 06:36:51 AM
My bigger issue is this notion that somehow because Bruce Timm's name is on it that Batman: TAS is somehow superior to the original work of Bob Kane when Bob Kane is THE CREATOR OF THE CHARACTER.
I am a big fan of the early Batman stories, but I don't see anything wrong with someone thinking other versions are better. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing is better than Len Wein's. Denny O'Neil's Green Arrow is better than Mort Weisinger's. And of course, the TAS people had the advantage of being able to draw on all the previous versions of Batman, picking and choosing the best bits to incorporate into the show.
Also keep in mind that the stories signed by Bob Kane were mostly done by other people anyway. For instance, he had zilch to do with Mr. Freeze, who was created by Dave Wood and Sheldon Moldoff.
Bruce Timm was primarily the ARTIST not THE WRITER on the series. While he did come up with stories to be written, that is different than writing the individual script. He only wrote a handful of episodes (3 of the original run and 2 of the new Batman adventures) and the episode establishing Mr. Freeze's origin ("Heart of Ice") was written by Paul Dini. I sort of understand all the love for Bruce Timm as an ARTIST. I am not arguing that Batman: TAS was the best looking of any Batman series. However, I refuse to Timm credit as the writer of episodes that he didn't write. (Timm didn't write "Batman: Subzero" either)
Timm's story credit for the episode just means that he came up with the idea for the script then had someone else write it. It's like if I hired one of you to write a script based on an idea that I had. Essentially, I would get the principal credit for the story but you'd get the credit for the screenplay.
Same thing with Nolan's film, he gets the story credit but his brother Jonathan is the primary screenwriter. If you turn in a script and I do rewrites on it then I would get a secondary screenwriter credit. Hence why Christopher gets the secondary writing credit on The Dark Knight and Jonathan gets the primary.
However, what irks me most is this notion that Bruce Timm is the end all be all to any sort of presentation of DC work. He is great as far as the animation stuff, I'll concede that. But I will say this again, directing an animated feature is different than directing a live action. Furthermore, doing either one of those is different than laying out a comic book and writing and drawing it. And Timm is unproven as a live action film director.
As for Mr. Freeze, Nolan has said that he is not interested in using the character. The same goes for The Penguin. I completely understand why even above and beyond the initial reasoning behind it.
The problem with Mr. Freeze is that he is almost too sympathetic of a villain. Having him as the villain would risk making the film more about him than about Batman (something that been a trademark of Nolan's storytelling with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). They skirted the matter with Harvey Dent/Two Face but it'd be a lot harder to justify with Mr. Freeze. Especially given what has been laid out in the movies' storyline thus far.
As for Penguin, he is not that serious of a Batman villain anymore. He's barely anything more than a trafficker these days of weapons and whatever else. At best, he would be a minor villain.
Having said that, the two villains that are probably going to be Riddler and Catwoman. I wouldn't be surprised to see a cameo by The Scarecrow (as Cilian Murphy said he'd be on board if Nolan wanted him) and I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like The Black Mask or other type of "mobster" figure to be the figure head for "Gotham's Underworld" ala Falcone and Marconi. I'm not saying that Riddler and Catwoman would be my picks but I am saying that that's who it looks like it's going to be. If they aren't then there is a lot of false buzz going around that's led some major name actors to seek non-existent roles. (Which would be kinda funny.)
Mr. Hamrick, We're completely talking past each other . All I meant was I don't see why this concept of Mr. freeze would work any more poorly on the live action screen than lots of others fantastic products that have worked quite well.
Actually though its not a stretch to me someone else could come up with a better interpretation of the character than the original creator. happened lots of times I can think of.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 15, 2010, 06:12:03 PM
Bruce Timm was primarily the ARTIST not THE WRITER on the series. While he did come up with stories to be written, that is different than writing the individual script. He only wrote a handful of episodes (3 of the original run and 2 of the new Batman adventures) and the episode establishing Mr. Freeze's origin ("Heart of Ice") was written by Paul Dini. I sort of understand all the love for Bruce Timm as an ARTIST. I am not arguing that Batman: TAS was the best looking of any Batman series. However, I refuse to Timm credit as the writer of episodes that he didn't write. (Timm didn't write "Batman: Subzero" either)
Timm's story credit for the episode just means that he came up with the idea for the script then had someone else write it. It's like if I hired one of you to write a script based on an idea that I had. Essentially, I would get the principal credit for the story but you'd get the credit for the screenplay.
Same thing with Nolan's film, he gets the story credit but his brother Jonathan is the primary screenwriter. If you turn in a script and I do rewrites on it then I would get a secondary screenwriter credit. Hence why Christopher gets the secondary writing credit on The Dark Knight and Jonathan gets the primary.
However, what irks me most is this notion that Bruce Timm is the end all be all to any sort of presentation of DC work. He is great as far as the animation stuff, I'll concede that. But I will say this again, directing an animated feature is different than directing a live action. Furthermore, doing either one of those is different than laying out a comic book and writing and drawing it. And Timm is unproven as a live action film director.
I don't think Timm is the be-all/end-all of Batman, but more than primarily being the
artist behind Batman TAS, he was the show runner. It's not a post you see listed in episode credits, even though most shows have them. Which scripts got chosen, what story ideas got handed out to more talented writers, voice acting, animation, character design - he had his hand in all of it. He didn't write many (if any) episodes - though he did direct a number, but the tone, feel, appearance and direction of the show should largely be credited to him.
What follows is an involved response to Mr. Hammick's latest posts, and it does not deal directly with the matter of the new Batman movie, so I am putting it in spoilers for those of you who don't want to bother with my lengthy thoughts:
Spoiler
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 14, 2010, 06:36:51 AM
Not being narrow minded at all. I am merely looking at Timm's credits and what he actually received credits for with Batman: TAS and most of that were as producer and as artist. His writing credits were for overall story and not for the script. Coming up with a story is much different than the script that successfully tells that story. I know this from firsthand experience.
My bigger issue is this notion that somehow because Bruce Timm's name is on it that Batman: TAS is somehow superior to the original work of Bob Kane when Bob Kane is THE CREATOR OF THE CHARACTER. I don't have an issue with Timm's artwork nor do I have a major issue with him as a storyteller. However, the script that created the Post-Crisis origin of Mr. Freeze was created by Paul Dini not by Bruce Timm. Bruce Timm directed the episode but did not write it. I am taking issue with Benton giving Timm credit for Dini's writing perhaps moreso than even the idea that Timm did the character than the guy who created the character..
However, Timm has never directed live action material so I reserve to right to say that he is not proven as a live action director. It's no different than saying that I would not be someone to ask to direct a big budget animation project. (IE: You would not want me directing Toy Story 4 or The Incredibles 2 or anything like that.) I will remain skeptical of his ability with live action work until proven otherwise. It's the same deal with Frank Miller trying to direct something. The Spirit is one of the WORST comic book movies I have seen and is proof that even as a competent artist and writer that he shouldn't be allowed near a live action film. And I don't have a huge issue with Frank Miller's work on comic books.
Hmm....well, I've put off responding to your post here for a few days, mostly because I was busy, but also because I was trying to formulate a response that would make sense in light of my confusion about the straw man that you're talking about here, Hammick. Now, according to my reading of your post here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're implying that: A) I am suggesting that Batman: TAS is qualitatively superior to the original Batman stories as penned by Bob Kane, B) that I am Ignorant of Bruce Timm's role in the creation of the various DCAU properties he was involved with, C) that I am giving Bruce Timm credit for what writers like Paul Dini and Dwayne McDuffie have done, and D) am further suggesting that Bruce Timm should be directing the Batman live action films. Would that be a fair appraisal of my views as construed through your post?
As for "A," well, let's come back to "A," shall we? I've mentioned Batman: TAS precisely once in this thread, and in so doing, I referred to it
as "TAS," making no mention of Bruce Timm whatsoever. I did mention the fact that the TAS team had rescued Mr. Freeze from obscurity, which is a factual statement. I've quoted the relevant portion of that post below:
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 12, 2010, 01:50:01 AM
TAS is the best of all possible Batmen, but that doesn't mean that live-action can't ALSO be awesome. Batman Begins did this admirably. However, Mr. Freeze is my favorite villain from the series (after all, it was pretty much their handling that rescued him from obscurity).
I have been known to praise the "Timmverse," though, I suppose. That is not my term, though, and it refers to the settings that came into being while Bruce Timm was at the helm of the DCAU in his role as producer. I'm well aware of the role that Paul Dini has played, and I am eternally grateful to him for penning what I consider some of the greatest Batman stories of all time. No, Hammick, when I refer to the TAS, I am very much referring to the entirety of body of work and all the incredibly talented people who created it. I do have a special respect for Bruce Timm, though, as he was the man with the "vision" who pulled it all together. However, if I had my druthers, I'd put those three, Timm, Dini, and McDuffie, in charge of bringing all DC properties to the screen. That covered "B" and "C," and this brings us to "D."
I am certainly not suggesting that Bruce Timm should suddenly be made the director of the Batman franchise, nor have I ever, with any level of seriousness, made such a suggestion. Instead, I do believe that the team that made JLU would be infinitely suited to the job of overseeing the shape DC properties have in going to the big screen. What I mean by this is that these fellows, especially Timm, have a facility for taking established characters and bringing out the very best of them. It has nothing to do with film-making, and everything to do with ideas. Does Timm have the experience to direct a live action movie like Batman? Almost certainly not, but I never said he did.
Now we come back to "A," and it is here that you are actually right on target. Yes, I do indeed believe that the Timmverse version of Batman is superior to the original Golden Age stories ostensibly penned by Bob Kane. First, let's begin there. Kane was, from all reports, inclined to take credit for the work of others, specifically for the artists he worked with and the myriad ghostwriters who wrote many of the stories he signed his name to. That bit of trivia aside, as it doesn't really have much bearing on the matter of story
quality, I'd still argue that TAS is a superior character and setting.
I love the original Golden Age stories, but they are fairly flat in characterization. Batman does what he does to avenge his parents, but Batman and Bruce Wayne never really get all that much definition. Their villains, generally even less, though I'll grant you that the Joker's early appearances are really quite chilling in their way. These stories are a lot of fun, but they simply don't match the complexity, depth, and maturity (in the true sense) of the TAS version of Batman. I remember watching "Mask of the Phantasm" with my wife, and thinking how moving the scene with Bruce Wayne begging his parent's grave for permission to be happy was, then being utterly surprised when I turned to find my wife quietly weeping. That is the power of TAS, a power that the adventure stories of Bob Kane's Batman, however engaging, however archetypal, simply don't match.
Now, generally I'm a huge defender of the "original" version of a character, but that is precisely why I love the TAS Batman so much. It takes, as others have said, that original concept, and deepens and expands it, while still staying true to it. This is still Bob Kane's character, but it has been magnified and polished until it is something grander than it was.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/07/20/excl-studio-casting-names-the-riddler-as-batman-3-villain/
Updated news
I'm of two minds on this... on the one hand, Riddler is one of my favorite villains and I'm glad to see that he'll get a proper treatment (unlike forever) but at the same time... One of the things Nolan has said before was that he wanted to use characters that hadn't been used as often, and Riddler clearly doesn't fall under that category. A part of me would have liked to see someone like Black Mask or Hush who aren't well known outside of the comics.
Quote from: Tomato on July 21, 2010, 06:13:56 PM
A part of me would have liked to see someone like Black Mask or Hush who aren't well known outside of the comics.
Well each of Nolan Batman films have had more than one villain so there's still room for someone else. I'd like to see either of those two as well. Black Mask could easily fit into a movie as a supporting villain like Scarecrow.
Riddler should make for a good villain.
First of all, I am suspect of James Gordan-Levitt for his involvement in that debacle of a movie last August. Beyond that, I trust the producer fully. However, I don't see him using relatively newer villains like Black Mask and particularly Hush. Nolan saying he wanting to use characters that hadn't been used as often is one thing, but Ras Al Gul, Scarcrow, Joker and Two-Face? Those are some of Batman's more notable villains. I honestly fully expect the villain to be Riddler. I'm not even convinced they're NOT using Two-Face and that storyline again. Other than that, I also wouldn't be surprised if he used Catwoman either.
Okay! So is Julia Stiles going to be Catwoman?
As much as I hate it at first, I'm sure he's going to be completely redone. I mean after all he is being played by a 16 year old. They're good at making Batman movies, they can make The Riddler an interesting villain.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is 29 and he's not a bad actor, just don't ask him to play Cobra Commander again. I think he can play the Riddler.
The problem with Joe playing Cobra Commander (assuming that is the debacle last August in question) is that he played the role that he was given in the script. His reasons for taking that role was more for fun and because he got to wear the costume and the make-up. (Paraphrased from his own words.)
Having said that. I have known about The Riddler for several weeks now. It was alluded to by Joe in a video blog which seems to have been since removed (or I just can't find it again, one). Apparently, something got said to him about it while working on Inception with Nolan. He referred to it as an interesting conversation that he wished he could discuss the contents of.
However, don't get your hopes up for Joseph getting the part. The current cast breakdown says (and this is mentioned in the article) that The Riddler is between 35-45 years old. I am actually looking at another Inception cast member has being much more likely to get cast than Joe and that would be Tom Hardy (who plays Eames) though he only a couple of years older than Joe. (He is 32 about to be 33 to Joe's 29.) Heck, given the 35-45 breakdown... Leo is dead in that range as he is 36.
What Joe seems to have going in his favor is that he appears to be a Batman fan and he is definitely a fan of Nolan's work on the franchise.
[EDIT] Having said that.... if Joe DOES get the part of The Riddler... I know WB can save a little on Viral Marketing and probably well. Joe runs this website called www.hitrecord.org and I am sure some of the people there (myself included) would love to be involved in some Batman viral marketing. And that is an idea that I am totally down with.
My first reaction to the idea of JGL as the Riddler is "Not just NO, HELL NO!" ( I have a VERY hard time seeing him as anything other than the goofy '3rd rock from the sun' alien).
But, to be fair, that was pretty much my first reaction to casting Heath Ledger as the Joker (and for that matter the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach) and those performances wound up blowing me away, so I guess we'll wait and see.
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 24, 2010, 10:07:13 AM
My first reaction to the idea of JGL as the Riddler is "Not just NO, HELL NO!" ( I have a VERY hard time seeing him as anything other than the goofy '3rd rock from the sun' alien).
But, to be fair, that was pretty much my first reaction to casting Heath Ledger as the Joker (and for that matter the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach) and those performances wound up blowing me away, so I guess we'll wait and see.
Well, the formal announcement has not been made. I look at it at this point like the rumor that Paul Bettany was shortlisted to play The Joker before Heath Ledger was cast. However, I think it'd be an interesting choice personally.
Hate to double post but no one else has picked up on it yet.
JGL may be out of the mix.
Tom Hardy is in. Well, according to these two sites.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/tom-hardy-reunited-with-inception-helmer-chris-nolan-on-batman (http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/tom-hardy-reunited-with-inception-helmer-chris-nolan-on-batman)
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/10/13/christopher-nolan-casts-tom-hardy-in-lead-batman-3-role/ (http://thefilmstage.com/2010/10/13/christopher-nolan-casts-tom-hardy-in-lead-batman-3-role/)
I mentioned earlier in the thread that I wouldn't be surprised if Nolan went with Hardy for something in the movie.
The question is WHO WILL HE BE PLAYING? One would assume it's a villain. Sure, he'd make an interesting Riddler but there are other villains. And we are not even sure it's a villain he will be playing.
The other news is that they are filming part of the movie in New Orleans. I assume this is because of the tax credits though Georgia beats them on the tax credits.
The thing about the Nolan Batman movies is that they're obviously trying to be closer to reality, which means we can pretty much forget about the more out there, super-powered villains such as Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc and Doctor Phosphorous being used.
Of the non-lame Bat-villains (ie, Cavalier, Kite Man, Signalman The Spook, etc) that haven't have already been used, that doesn't leave a lot of villains left. And other than Deadshot, I can't think of any non-powered Bat-villains I'd want to see that weren't already used in the previous series of Batman movies. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a properly done Bane....
I say Jason Todd/Red Hood.
Quote from: murs47 on October 14, 2010, 03:42:45 AM
I say Jason Todd/Red Hood.
And how to explain him without allowing for the existence of Robin?
Quote from: Tomato on October 14, 2010, 03:53:50 AM
Quote from: murs47 on October 14, 2010, 03:42:45 AM
I say Jason Todd/Red Hood.
And how to explain him without allowing for the existence of Robin?
Bruce mentions multiple times in the Dark Knight that he doesnt intend to be Batman forever. Perhaps he chooses a protege(Jason Todd) to train and eventually replace him. It doesn't pan out because Jason's interpretation of justice isn't the same as Bruce's.
As far as non-powered Batman villains go, Poison Ivy started out as gimmick using street level character posing as a super hero with a plant motif. She didn't get real powers until much later in her development.
She could be re-introduced using her original origin; so, that she can betray Batman at a dramatically appropriate time.
If I was going to write a Batman movie using Jason Todd in it without him being/having been Robin, and without using the Lazarus Pit or the Joker having been the Red Hood before he was the Joker, I'd do it like this:
Jason's parents are career criminals who are gunned down by the police after a standoff. However, unlike Bruce, Jason isn't there to witness it, and isn't exactly upset by their deaths. In fact he hated his parents because they were never there for him (he was either raised by other relatives, taken away by social services and went through several foster homes, or sent off to boarding school) and he trained in martial arts to cope. Their deaths make him snap, and he becomes a bloodthirsty vigilante. Jason and Batman end up at odds throughout the movie, but Jason ends up accidentally hurting (not killing, but enough to require a trip to the emergency room) innocent bystanders while trying to take down some criminals, and that makes him reconsider his methods. He ends up not only teaming with Batman to fight an actual Bat-villain but ends up saving Batman's life at one point in the fight, and at the end he surrenders to police and willingly goes to prison to serve penance.
If you need a Joker connection and/or an explanation for the Red Hood gimmick, its simple: His parents were working for the Joker when they got shot to death by the police, and his father was the first Red Hood.
(This basically combining Jason with a fairly obscure villain called The Wrath, who was sort of an evil version of Batman, whose parents were crooks shot by Gordon)
Have Gail Simone consult, I love her Bane.
Otherwise I'll check it out when it starts take form, it is a little early now. Riddler is a huge challenge, I've seen good Riddler stories but the character lends itself to the worse Batman camp excesses.
I've stated for a while that my top four that I think would be good for part three would be Prof. Hugo Strange, The Riddler, Black Mask, and The Mad Hatter.
Professor Hugo Strange - Noted psychologist called in by the GCPD to get a psychological profile on Batman. He develops a fixation on Batman. He'd be a great secondary villain and maybe a main one.
The Riddler - The character was already alluded to in the viral marketing campaign for The Dark Knight. He is the writer of a letter to the editor in issue 2 of The Gotham Times. He goes off on Dent and claims that Dent is not the shining knight that Gotham believes him to be. In the third movie, he sets out to "expose" the Batman and perhaps still wants to expose Harvey Dent as Two Face. That same issue has an ad for The Iceberg Lounge, by the way.
The Black Mask - Mobster who has an obsession with physical beauty but is somehow scarred and forced to wear a mask to conceal what he feels is his now disfigured face. The twist here would be that the initial scarring would all be psychological. At the end, he winds up scarred for real.
The Mad Hatter - Real simple. He has an Alice in Wonderland obsession. He is kidnapping girls in Gotham. Pretty straightforward but could take a real darker tone.
As for the women...
Catwoman - I will be shocked if she doesn't show up. She is arguably one of the most well known Bat villains after The Joker. Plus, you have the notion that Nolan might be needing to clean up the mess made by that Halle Berry fiasco and even the inaccurate portrayal in Batman Returns. She is a jewel thief first and foremost. I think she should be stealing for the thrills, at first. The key would be her interaction with Batman and Selina Kyle interacting with Bruce.
Posion Ivy - As Tawodi mentioned, Posion Ivy started out with more of a plant gimmick than having super powers. I say push her in the direction of being a deranged environmentalist who is targeting Gotham businessmen for what she deems as their crimes against the Earth. One of those targets is Bruce Wayne.
Talia - Included here only because she'd be easy to introduce given that her father was the villain of the first film.
All that said, I was thinking that we will probably see Arkahm Asylum back. If we do, then we'd need someone to play Jeremiah Arkahm, maybe.
I'm against Bane being the mix. The same logic that keeps Killer Croc out of the mix and Mr. Freeze out of the mix should keep Bane out. Too much bordering on "superhuman ability" that could be explained but the explaining of which would take more effort than really necessary.
Deathstroke would be interesting maybe. However, this is only if he is hired by the mob to go after Batman. The problem here is there is no real mob leader in the film timeline at this point. (Which is why I think Black Mask will be a secondary villain!) However, Deathstroke would not be much of a villain to do a story around. He's not really all that interesting.
I've heard rumor that they may try to go back to Killer Croc's original origin and having him as a circus freak with a skin condition. This rumor apparently got started because of the location scouting in New Orleans. Personally, I hope it doesn't happen.
There are reports that not all of the film would be taking place in Gotham. This could be interesting as well. Especially if it leads to an opening to Bruce discovering that he is not the only "hero" out in the world.
Poor Penguin. I think he works fantastic as a mob boss. I actually had hoped (and I may have mentioned it before) that the third movie would feature a bunch of flamboyant "freak" characters taking over the criminal element of Gotham. Penguin, Black Mask, Ventriloquist, Mad Hatter etc... You can even have guys like Killer Croc, looking far more human (isn't he suppose to just have a genetic disorder anyhow), or Firefly or whoever as enforcers. Just a bunch of weirdos in cameo appearances and Batman's got to deal with the fact that all the maniacs are totally out now.
Butttt whatever... Sure, go with Riddler. Obvious choice. I just hope they write him well unlike almost every appearance of Riddler anywhere ever. I really really love the villain, but don't think he is often well used.
http://blastr.com/2010/10/batman-3-gets-a-title-nix.php
QuoteDirector Christopher Nolan has revealed the title of his highly anticipated sequel to The Dark Knight—and knocked the odds-on favorite Bat-villain out of the running.
The Dark Knight Rises, as Batman 3 will now be called, won't see the Caped Crusader facing off against Edward Nygma, better known as the Riddler. Nor will he don the Bat-thermals to take down Mr. Freeze. Ever-elusive, all Nolan would say was "We'll use many of the same characters as we have all along, and we'll be introducing some new ones."
If the title The Dark Knight was, as Nolan has said, about Harvey Dent as much as it was Bruce Wayne, maybe the new title is a hint toward the resurrection of Two-Face ...
Nolan won't be shooting The Dark Knight Rises in 3-D—he's convinced Warner Brothers that his current plan of using high-definition and IMAX cameras is the prudent course for the 2012 release.
At least one A-list director isn't drinking the 3-D punch.
Yay! It's not going to be 3D, and it's not going to have the Riddler!
As to Two-Face returning, I think the article writer is reading too much into Nolan's comment about the previous title.
The Dark Knight Rises -- I'm thinkin' Lazarus Pit.
.....and yay, no 3-D.
The Dark Knight Rises sounds like:
A Twilight movie
A Pr0no
Any Vampire type movie.
I would have named it KnightFall or something from the comics.
Quote from: JeyNyce on October 27, 2010, 07:39:18 PM
The Dark Knight Rises sounds like:
A Twilight movie
A Pr0no
Any Vampire type movie.
I would have named it KnightFall or something from the comics.
Seriously? I think avoiding "(k)night" puns is pretty much a good idea.
no 3d! that the best news of the day! And no Riddler nor Mr Freeze...i don't buy Two-Face Resurecting, so let's go back to the other possibilities...
So what do you think, Hugo Strange? Azrael/Thalia maybe? (ex league of assassin to tie in with the first movie...meh not convinced either)
Can someone confirm what Nolan ACTUALLY said? I'm hearing both "The Riddler won't be in it." AND "The Riddler won't be the main villian." While both statements are disappointing, there's a crucial difference between the two.
That said, eliminating Riddler virtually guarantees Catwoman.
Well there are three things I got out of this and from another tidbit i read off BleedingCool. The first is no riddler (yay!) Ever since Dark Knight ended for some reason every person has been convinced Riddler is the next villain. I never cared for him in the first place but the rabid conviction that he was the next one and that no other villain would be worthy irked me a bit. No 3D (double yay!). Nolan has put out a casting call for a female character 25-30. No clue as to what the character is, not even to the people going to try out for said character. So either she is a new love interest, a female super villain or both. Didn't Nolan say after the second movie he was going to stray away from villains already done in previous movies? If so that would eliminate Catwoman. I'm still holding my hope out for Talia.
Talia would certainly make sense...an ancient conspiracy like the League of Shadows isn't likely to fall apart just because R'as died. It would be cool to see what kind of interpretation Nolan could come up with for Catwoman, though.
I'd be happy to see R'as come back, but that wouldn't be "real" enough for these films. :P
I would like to see Talia come in and try to get all of the gangs together to take out Bats, because of what happen to her father and then falls for him. There could be a small mention that her dad is still alive.
If you think about the title of the next movie, it sounds like Bats becomes the hero again
Rumored The Dark Knight Rises Female Short List (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/110368-rumored-the-dark-knight-rises-female-short-list)
Please, please, please not Keira Knightly.
I'm kinda against Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley. Portman simply because she is signed on to Thor and any sequels made of Thor. Knightley just because... actually, I'd take her over Naomi Watts anyday! I can't particularly stand Naomi's work.
Blake Lively is signed on to Green Lantern so unless she is playing Carol Ferris in the film then NO!
I'm betting on Anne Hathaway or Rachel Weitz being one of the leads.
That said, Tanit Phoenix, Marion Cotillard, and Piper Perabo are on the list too and were not mentioned in the article. They were met with a few weeks ago. I believe Marion turned it down because of scheduling issues. Tanit Phoenix would be interesting as she is the least known name on the list. I had to actually look her up on IMDB and she hasn't done much but she could be a great choice.
Why can't they do something sensible and put Karen Gillan or Billie Piper on the list? Or better yet... Michelle Ryan! LOL!
I could totally see Rachel Weisz as Catwoman or Poison Ivy. Not sure which I'd rather see her as.
And I would vote against Billie Piper, unless her character is written as having an obvious lisp or speech impediment, unless she's gotten that fixed since the last time I saw her on Dr. Who (and it didn't used to be there, either).
Quote from: Panther_Gunn on November 12, 2010, 06:22:42 PM
I could totally see Rachel Weisz as Catwoman or Poison Ivy. Not sure which I'd rather see her as.
And I would vote against Billie Piper, unless her character is written as having an obvious lisp or speech impediment, unless she's gotten that fixed since the last time I saw her on Dr. Who (and it didn't used to be there, either).
I was being a bit facetious and a tad sarcastic with the comment about Piper, Gillan, and Ryan. I've never noticed Piper having a lisp.
I'm still wondering how they're going to make this movie interesting, or at least more interesting than the last two. They've used up so many of the best Batman villains. It must be awesome if Nolan is back, though. Hurm.
If they are using "normal" villains then I say go with Talia & Hugo Strange
Quote from: JeyNyce on November 13, 2010, 03:01:07 PM
If they are using "normal" villains then I say go with Talia & Hugo Strange
I'm pushing for Talia, Catwoman, and Hugo Strange at this point. Black Mask would work, too.
Update:
Anne Hathaway has been cast as Selina Kyle, whose alter ego is Catwoman, in The Dark Knight Rises.
Tom Hardy will be playing Bane
http://www.slashfilm.com/catwoman/
I trust Nolan, but I can't see Bane in his style of movies. Plus Tom Hardy?
Anne Hathaway can handle the acting part. Not totally sure she fits my mental picture of Catwoman (a bit short and a bit less curvy), and I'm not too sure how believably she can project Catwoman's brand of sensuality, but I'm sure she can pull it off under Nolan's direction. Certainly she's a better choice than some of the other names mentioned. She's not just a pretty face.
Quote from: BlueBard on January 19, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Anne Hathaway can handle the acting part. Not totally sure she fits my mental picture of Catwoman (a bit short and a bit less curvy), and I'm not too sure how believably she can project Catwoman's brand of sensuality, but I'm sure she can pull it off under Nolan's direction. Certainly she's a better choice than some of the other names mentioned. She's not just a pretty face.
Thank goodness it wasn't Talia. Unless Talia is going to be the second female role. I doubt this.
How tall do you envision Catwoman exactly? Anne is 5'8". Catwoman is usually portrayed about that ht in the comics give or take an inch. I think it's the perfect casting choice.
The Hardy casting choice for Bane is curious. I think I know the direction Nolan is going. If so, it could be nothing short of brilliant. The only issue is going to be the size issue. Hardy will obviously be bulking up. However, he won't won't be able to get as big as Bane in the comics. That leaves three options: 1) a smaller Bane than what is in the comics, 2) CGI similar to what was done in The Hulk 3) a muscle suit. I'm betting 1 or 2. I'm leaning toward the idea that this version of Bane will have some sort of "steroid baseball player or pro-wrestler build" hence the smaller than what appears in the comics but maybe augmented with some smaller scale CGI.
He already bulked up for a movie and he was pretty huge. Not Bane huge, but comic book heroes always look buffer than their movie counterparts. I like these choices.
bit of a random choice for a villain in bane, but at least he's be treated with respect this time. though again it proves that the uber realism of nolan does paint the movies into a corner when it comes to characters.
i don't mind the casting of selina she wouldn't have been my choice btu at least she's a decent actress, though is still want rachel weisz as talia no arguments
To be quite honest, we have technology that can make people my height look like hobbits and people my height to look like Juggernauts. I'm certain Hardy will buff up. If they need to make him bigger, I'm sure they can do so seemlessly. I'm not going to question Nolan's decision or choices. He's done a splendid job already.
Credit Hambrick on the call though. But I'd think it'd be kind wierd if we're hearing emphasis put on "Selina Kyle" and not "Catwoman" as if they're fudging the timeline to make Bane appear before Catwoman... maybe I'm reading too much into this.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on January 19, 2011, 08:24:06 PM
To be quite honest, we have technology that can make people my height look like hobbits and people my height to look like Juggernauts. I'm certain Hardy will buff up. If they need to make him bigger, I'm sure they can do so seemlessly. I'm not going to question Nolan's decision or choices. He's done a splendid job already.
Credit Hambrick on the call though. But I'd think it'd be kind wierd if we're hearing emphasis put on "Selina Kyle" and not "Catwoman" as if they're fudging the timeline to make Bane appear before Catwoman... maybe I'm reading too much into this.
It's Hamrick not Hambrick.
And I was a bit off on the prediction. Not to mention that I was flat out BSed by someone a few weeks ago about the Talia thing. (Which I think was leaked to throw people off or something perhaps yet to be announced.) I'm not going to make any judgments obviously. I am very curious to see what Nolan has up his sleeve.
As for the technology, I've no doubt the technology exists. Having been in an editing room with some special effects programs, I can attest to this firsthand. I'm just curious that Nolan would opt for much "CGI visual effects" given his past record. He tends to prefer minimal CGI in his projects, even Inception was minimal CGI and more "old school" effects methods. However, I still think there is a lot of room to play with here.
And I think the emphasis on Selina Kyle over Catwoman is for two reasons, the first being to distance this version from the awful Halle Berry fiasco and the second would be to keep the fans guessing and not let the cat out of the bag too soon. Remember, Harvey Dent was announced before it was announced that we'd be seeing Harvey as Two Face. Though given it's Nolan's last film, we'll see Catwoman at some point.
Oh, and there was a call for TWO female characters. I don't think we are quite done with casting yet. I've an idea that we might yet see Talia in the movie.
I'm calling right now though that
Spoiler
Bane will be hired to "take down" Batman by either the GCPD task force or by Talia. If it's Talia, then we'll see Selina as Catwoman helping Bruce which would be a set up for certain elements of the relationship between Bruce and Selina.
Just a hunch based on what my gut tells me about the possibilities here.
Quite happy about Bane being in it. He's a pretty cool villain when written properly and will fit very well in the Nolan movies.
Quote from: JeyNyce on January 19, 2011, 05:51:25 PM
Update:
Anne Hathaway has been cast as Selina Kyle, whose alter ego is Catwoman, in The Dark Knight Rises.
This makes me very, very happy.
Unfortunately,
THISQuoteTom Hardy will be playing Bane
makes me very, very sad.
I mean, Bane? Seriously? Despite Simone somewhat redeeming him in
Secret Six, he ranks just above Calendar Man and Calculator (the original, not the new semi-cool one) in the list of villains I have any interest in seeing.
I mean even factoring out those Rogues with innate powers (Clayface, Poison Ivy), or ones whose powers are too fantastic to fit in with Nolan's real-world ethos (Mr. Freeeze, Man-Bat) still leaves at least a dozen or so major players that would make a better choice than frakkin Bane. Hell, even Hush would be better.
Nolan's built up a lot of credit with me by delivering several of my personal Top 20 films of my lifetime- he's risking it all here.
Still, he's one of a handful of directors that could overcome the inherent lameness of the character and erase the horrible memories of his first on-screen appearance.
Here's hoping he proves me wrong, I guess. He's done it before.
I thought the TAS version of Bane was pretty cool. Intelligent, powerful, and threatening. Bane can be quite brilliant when done right.
The key it not to just make him a big muscled dude. He's dangerous because he's intelligent. Unfortunatley, his size seems to call out big dumb guy to some people, but that's all wrong.
How would Bane work in a Nolan film?
Here are a few ideas:
1 - Make him have a military background
2 - Don't put Venom in the movie - they didn't use Joker's laughing gas so don't use Venom, keep it somewhat real
3 - Make him a mob boss type
What are your ideas?
Here's how I think Nolan could do Bane.
1. Little to no Venom - he could treat it as a concoction made by scarecrow that just fuels rage, instead of fear... Not a super steroid.
2. Give Bane his original character of an unscrupulous criminal, not a meathead. He could be a contracted killer or bounty hunter on the lookout for Batman
3. The costume... Keep the luchadore mask, but give him a bady armor vest like in the punisher: war zone movie.
Anne Hathaway is great I think, and it will be interesting how far they'll go to make her Catwoman,
There is talk of a third villain or major role yet to be announced.
I'm betting on Talia because of the ties to the first movie and the fact that there was a mention of two major female roles being cast. However, it'd be interesting if it was Black Mask.
I keep thinking about themes in the movie. The issue of identity has been something running through each film. (Bruce becoming Batman and the idea that the "Playboy Bruce" is the mask where Batman is the real, the dual nature of Harvey/Two Face, the lack of an apparent mask in The Joker, and Bruce's inner debate on rather or not it was worth continue to maintain the facade.) Black Mask and Hugo Strange could both be tied to this as could Talia. Bane could too arguably but in a less effective way. I suspect Catwoman will be tied into it.
Bane is an interesting character in my opinion. I think it's a good choice for the way they can take him and use him.
To me, Bane is a really intellectual character that seems to be enlightened and self-assured, but he'd be dependent on a drug essentially. It's kinda like how I see Darth Vader. You see him being this big and bad guy, a powerful former Jedi, but he can't even breathe on his own. It's that kind of dynamic that makes characters interesting. With that, I can see them theming DKR in that light. It's noted that BB was about the dynamic of two sides of a mask, TDK was about revealing your true self. I can see DKR exploring the need of crutch or props to be who you are. Does Bane need Venom? Does Batman/Bruce need Bruce/Batman? Just trying to to imagine how a Selina Kyle/Catwoman can swing dyamic even more.
Another thought I'm having is the balance between the villains in the films. In TDK, the balance was between chaos and order. Joker(chaos)/Batman(order), Two-Face(chaos)/Harvey Dent(order). BB, the balance was fear. Fear being used as a weapon for good and evil. I could see a simple David/Goliath theme being used in DKR as well. Batman being man and being reliant on his humanity as opposed to Bane who is reliant on a drug.
In DKR, it's hard for me to imagine Venom NOT being used in some sort of way, considering awareness of steroids as of late in the real world. I could easily see it being used in that sort of way as a "drug", not percisely like a weapon. Of course, with this being Hollywood, you can expect Bane to put the luchador mask on three or four times in the film, maybe in conjunction with Venom use.
Something else that just came to mind as well was how the villains have been used in each movie as well. In both movies, one villain has been used as more of a "inner struggle" or more of a challege to the identity of Bruce Wayne, a "Bruce Wayne villain", while the other villain has been the overt fight or a "Batman villain".
Batman Begins had Bruce Wayne challenged by Ducard/Ra's al Ghul, while the Batman Identity had his fight with Scarecrow. In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne had his inner struggle with Harvey Dent/Two-Face, while the Batman Identity had the overt fight with the Joker.
In The Dark Knight Rises, it would make sense(and seem clear to me) that the struggle for the Wayne Identity would be with Selina Kyle, who I can see challenging him to embrace Batman or to embrace Wayne, while Bane would be the villain for the Batman Identity.
They can also use Catwoman like the Black Cat in Spider-man: She loves Batman, but thinks that Bruce is a spoiled playboy.
Quote from: JeyNyce on January 21, 2011, 02:01:26 PM
They can also use Catwoman like the Black Cat in Spider-man: She loves Batman, but thinks that Bruce is a spoiled playboy.
I don't see that, at least not that way. Other people might be fooled by the mask and the playboy act, but as Selina/Catwoman she's too clever and too close not to see the connection. Especially since she's got her own dual identity thing going on. It would not be any stretch if she figures it out, any more than Bruce/Batman figuring out her secret.
Personally, I think they should skip any big reveal moment like in previous movies. They should
both figure it out, realize that the other also knows
their secret, and then we have that tension where they never have a sappy "I've got to tell my secret" moment and instead keep it just under the surface every time they meet. It's more subtle but leaves a lot more room for drama.
It would be cool if Bane struggles with using Venom (but is not 100% clean like the gail simone run) since Nolan has been a huge fan of giving each and every character (even villains) their own personal drama.
Two more cast rumors though one of them is the result of a misinterpreted tweet.
Robin Williams and Joseph Gordon Levitt
The Williams rumor is the result of a misinterpreted tweet from Jett over at Batman On Film. It seems that there were two different conversations that got meshed into one. The first that Hugo Strange might have a small role in the movie. The second that Robin Williams has made it known that he'd love to be a part of the film and would happily do a bit part for Nolan if asked just to say he was a part of this. (By bit part, I'm guessing he meant something akin to what Anthony Michael Hall did in TDK based on what I heard.) The tweet read "RW as Hugo Strange... hmmm?" A few outlets ran with it. Jett was actually just thinking out loud with the tweet it seems.
The JGL rumor though is another matter. It's been around since early last year. During that time, Levitt let slip something about talking with Nolan about a really cool future project in a video blog. There was a project he worked on with Nolan via the HitRecord community but this was a comment made after that. That blog was removed. There was an additional comment about him being interested in playing the Riddler that apparently made it as far as a casting matrix of some sort. That lead to an IMDB rumor. Sometime after that, it was announced that Riddler wasn't going to be a villain.
Well, now Deadline.com and BoF have picked up a resurfacing rumor about Levitt being in negotiations for a role. MTV.com has an article up about it too.
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/02/02/joseph-gordon-levitt-dark-knight-rises-cast/
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/joseph-gordon-levitt-in-talks-to-join-the-dark-knight-rises/
I'm not going to speculate who I think Levitt is playing. He'd have made a good Riddler but given what Nolan has already said, that is out. I do think Levitt would be great for the movie. Nolan could get some excellent viral marketing potentially out of the HitRecord community.
I do think there will be a few more major casting announcing between now and the beginning of May when film is set to start.
Joseph Gordon Levitt would be the best Robin ever. He's a great enough actor to play a really smart and witty counterpart to Batman and he doesn't look 30 at all. Brick is an incredibly good movie, that's not exactly related, but it is true. Since Robin won't be in the movie, I think he should play a guy in a suit. There are a lot of those in these movies, and two costumed villains have already been cast.
Black Mask maybe?
I can't see Robin being in this kind of movie. Nightwing, maybe but not Robin. Also does Venom has a drug/ addiction? Can Bane just use it to get pumped up/ as a weapon? Almost like he did in the young justice episode. He used venom to fight, but most of the time he was planing and double-crossing people.
Robin is an impossibility imo. The first movie shows Barbara Gordon as a baby, which a lot of people interpreted as "no sidekicks" since that also implies Robin is similarly infant sized. I'm still holding out hope that Talia is in this movie.
Quote from: Ajax on February 10, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Robin is an impossibility imo. The first movie shows Barbara Gordon as a baby, which a lot of people interpreted as "no sidekicks" since that also implies Robin is similarly infant sized.
Yeah, that's absolutely true as they've proven time and again with these movies that they are following Batman's comic book history to the letter and are against any kind of diversion from the original takes on the characters.
Robin isn't going to show up. Nolan has said as much before, and nothing that's been said would lead me to believe that's changed. Move on.
While there is no word on who JGL is playing, a fourth Inception alumni looks to be possibly joining the DKR cast.
http://www.slashfilm.com/french-newspaper-reports-marion-cotillard-cast-the-dark-knight-rises/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/french-newspaper-reports-marion-cotillard-cast-the-dark-knight-rises/)
There is also reference to it over at Batman on Film too. The site's owner "Jett" says he had heard about a "third major character" who ties everything together. Thus, he betting on Talia being the character that Cotillard is playing.
The interesting thing here is going to be timing. Cotillard is pregnant and due in May. TDKR begins filming in May and will probably film for six months. So... looks like there could be something to the rumor.
Let's get DiCaprio and Page in there for cameos and be done with it.
I mean technically... Watanabe and Murphy have already done a Batman film with Nolan. Maybe they could get cameos, too.
Well, here's Catwoman:
http://www.majorspoilers.com/movie-catwoman-revealed#more-111660
I knew that Anne Hathaway didn't look anything like Catwoman, but this picture really brings home just how bad of a fit she is....plus, the costume isn't really helping. A cowl would go a long way towards fixing the 'blah' factor here.
It's a little plain but it is close to the Cooke costume without the cowl and goggles. I don't know, regardless the appearance of Catwoman is not a game breaker for me.
it's ok. Nothing blow-your-socks-off here, but it's a decent enough costume. Besides, it's still better than Bane's, and you'd be hard pressed to go worse than the last movie catwoman.
It's just me or it looks like Julie Newmar's Catwoman costume?
Quote from: John Jr. on September 25, 2011, 04:44:35 PM
It's just me or it looks like Julie Newmar's Catwoman costume?
You may be on to something. The hairband/cat ears combo, especially when combined with the rest of the costume, does seem to evoke an image from the old series. Not sure how I feel about the heels, but at least they're not open-toed. Like Tomato said, it's not bad, but it's not really a solid hit, either. It looks more like Anne Hathaway is just headed to a costume party.
Shifting gears a little bit, please tell me those tires I see in the background are *not* going to be for the new "batmobile". I really didn't care for the tumbler. It was practical, but it was missing the
style that pretty much all of the other batmobiles have had.
Here's a long shot:
There's a costume party in the movie and that's her outfit for the party. Something happens and she's mods it to be more practical. Think about it, why would they show here in one outfit on the bike and then bring this one out. I'll stick with the press release from WB, not a behind the scenes pic.
sorry but i know the cry in bat fans blindly is in nolan we trust and i'm sure hathoway will be fine as the character but a poor design is a poor design, its bland boring and basically the 60's show look
so far the design for this film between bane and catwoman has been extremely poor.
I trust Nolan to craft a good movie, NOT to give us cool movie looks. The Bane look is flatly ridiculous, and Catwoman is blah.
Truth is though, while I'm all set for a final go-round, I'm ready for the upcoming reboot. Nolan's films are great, but the present a very narrow view of the character... there's so much more to the batman mythology that cannot be done.
The thing is, both looks shown for Catwoman thus far are pretty terrible ones. A bad costume does not make a bad movie however.