Meet the New Bat-Guys

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Look, Nolan could Nolanise virtually any Batman character. ANY OF THEM!

Some will translate better than others, but him, his wife, his brother and the team he has are amazing.

Who would have guessed we'd see an amazing film with Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow?? EPIC

Bane (like the Scarecrow) will use a drug as his main weapon, Nolan will be true to this. The only question is, what will happen to him when he's jacked on Venom. It might actually be quite unpleasant, like an addiction with quite grim sideeffects (apart from the strength).

I couldn't care much for Catwoman, but I do not think she will be in the film much (as a woman in a cat costume). Selina Kyle will be a catburglar, and she my even break into Wayne Manor and the Batcave.

What if she auctions off Wayne's alter ego to Bane.

Nolan is going to own us all. Just sit back and enjoy the ride

I'm willing to put money that "I WILL BREAK YOU, BATMAN!" will be in either the teaser or trailer.

GiantRaven:
FANBOY MOMENT INCOMING!

Bane does not suck. For proof; here is a picture of Bane riding a T-Rex.

Or, to put it another way , read Secret Six.

This.
Bane has never sucked. What comic book (especially Batman fans) have ever said "Bane sucks?"
Bane has always been at the very least an "interesting" addition to Batman's already amazing rogue's gallery. He is not only a self-educated GENIUS with chemical-induced metahuman strength, even without his Venom Bane is a fighting force to be reckoned with. You're talking about a guy who has shown himself to be as intelligent as Bruce Wayne (at least), and as arguably as physically disciplined a fighter, even without his Venom.

In actuality, I don't think Bane was a lame character... I believe he was a great character who was rendered lame by bad WRITING.

Thus the Secret Six comes along and we see a MUCH deeper and different side of Bane that makes you at once love the guy, respect the guy, and appreciate what kind of foe he must have truly been to Batman.

On another note, I somewhat assumed Nolan would have gone with the more gritty, realistic Victor Zsasz. Zsasz seems like a better fit for the Nolan films... an unrepentant psychotic serial killing monster whose ability to maim and kill makes him an extreme threat to even Batman.
Plus the body self-mutilation thing would have played out like gangbusters.

Who cares if he re-invents Bane into a villain that is completely different in every way other than the name? Nolan makes good villains with deep and entertaining philosophical conflicts. Why should i assume Bane will be any different.
Also, Anne Hathaway is hot. Does she need a catsuit? no....she's hot. I just said that! Were'nt you listening!?

I think it's safe to say Nolan prefers schemers to bruisers, and Bane is supposed to be both. The name Bane suggests... well, that he's Batman's bane. Since the last movie ended with Batman sacrificing his good-guy status, perhaps Bane won't be a criminal at first but rather a man who sees Batman as dangerous.

And, as Bane "falls" Batman sacrifices himself, "rises". It could very well end with him dying.

As for Catwoman... I'm going to assume the movie will at least in part be about how infinitely more tiring it is to be the good guy when even the police is seriously hunting you (rather than just officially previously), and since Rachel died the only person he can still truly trust is Alfred (whom Bane might actually go after at some point), so him telling Selina Kyle about his secret identity at some point may turn out to be her most important role in the movie.

image

+

image

=

WIN!

DayDark:
image

+

image

=

WIN!

This.

Sixcess:

You do realise that not everyone thinks Nolan is some sort of directorial genius, right?

Begins was boring. TDK was good but overrated. Nolan can't direct a fight scene for shit and his track record with female characters gives plenty cause for concern.

No, everyone clearly does not thinks that Nolan is a directoral genius, but most folks- including professionals- do, so I think you have to say that, on the balance, it is more reasonable to expect that he knows what he's doing, rather than assume that he is going to suddenly start churning out steaming piles of dung based solely upon two casting decisions. Let's face it, if you don't like Nolan, you're probably not going to see the movie anyway.

Now, stipulated that you can call into question Nolan's treatment of women, but I certainly have seen plenty of fight scenes that suffered from much poorer directorial skill, and I think it's reasonable to say that as bad as you may think them to be, they aren't so terrible as to derail the rest of the movie.

But the overall point I was getting at, and the source of my outrage, was that MovieBob was effectively being a prissy little fanboi bitch, who was complaining that Nolan was going off-cannon by choosing Bane as the villian- regardless of the fact that the first two movies demonstrated that Nolan is telling a new Batman story, only using the characters and the settings from the comic books. It really makes MovieBob look like a terrible, narrow-minded commentator, although I still respect his skills as a reviewer.

I do apologize for the amount of venom, though. Fanbois who try to tell everyone how things 'should be, according to what has already been written/filmed/etc' really are a pet peeve of mine: it's like those snots selfishly think that their 'cherished memories' shouldn't be messed with, because... I dunno, really-- maybe they think they're the center of the universe? Truth is: events will occur, and unless you are directly involved, your opinion means next to nothing.

This is also known as the "Life fucking sucks: get a helmet" axiom.

PopcornAvenger:
My only concern is casting Hathaway. She's never impressed me as an actress. Now playing Catwoman? Don't know about that . . .

This. Catwoman has always been a more capable version of the old film-noir femme fatale trope. Anne Hathaway has never struck the right vibe for me. Maybe it's that her movies haven't shown off this side of her, or maybe that she never really exuded the right balance of sexuality and menace even when she tried, or any number of factors. For all I know, maybe I'm just nuts and I haven't gotten the right information to arrive at that judgement.

There's a persistent misconception, especially among fans of the "classic" franchise, that Batman has this really deep roster of compelling enemies to draw on. That just isn't true: Ras al-Ghul, the Joker, and Two-Face were basically it for the men. Catwoman is it for the women; you simply can't have a Batman franchise that excludes her. After them, and perhaps Poison Ivy -- who unfortunately never got a good film outing before that Batman and Robin fiasco -- the rogues' gallery is mostly just lame (the Penguin, the Riddler and the Cluemaster), or obscure (the Black Mask, Spellbinder, the KGBeast, Hush), or absurd (Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Firefly, Killer Croc, the Man-Bat, Batzarro) or all three (Scarface and the Ventriloquist, the Killer Moth, Calendar Man, Crazy Quilt, Max Zeus). Nolan took a game shot at making the Scarecrow work, and bully for him, that indicates what he can do with patently shitty characters. (And also that he knows where to stop, cf. Zsazs appearing in a strictly cameo role.) But it doesn't mean he needs to pick them right out of the gate.

Bane was far less silly than almost anyone in this extended rogues' gallery (oi, don't give me shit about no "Venom" injectors with Freeze*, Firefly, Croc, Ivy and Clayface sitting right there), and unlike any of them was a refreshingly genuine match for Batman. I know he's disliked by some fans because he comes from The Dark Age of Comics -- and while that era produced plenty of shite, it certainly wasn't Bane's fault; he was if anything one of the better things to come of it, and the fact that he's been so mishandled since his original storyline gives Nolan a great opportunity to go back and do him right. I think anyone who thinks it's a long shot that a character like that could be realized and reimagined effectively in Nolan's setting is sniffing glue.

I also don't understand what this "realism" of the Nolan franchise is supposed to be talking about. Yes, he puts a bit more effort into explaining the costume thing than the average comic book movie, but the enemies of Begins were a millennia-old order of ninjas who could control the stock market from their Tibetan hideout.

(* And forgive me, MovieBob... but Mr. Freeze is just objectively more ridiculous than Bane and his chemical tubes. Sorry, but it's true.)

TetsuoKaneda:
Anne Hathaway has never struck the right vibe for me.

Hands up everyone who expected Heath Ledger's Joker based on his prior movies.

MovieBob:
His real name unknown, Bane was initially pitched as an evil version of Doc Savage - the famous pulp hero who conquered evil by being a master of multiple intellectual and physical disciplines. Born and raised in a brutal South American prison, he's a self-educated genius and self-taught master-combatant who was subsequently the subject of an experiment to test "Venom" - a chemical super-steroid that allows him to transform into a Hulk-like muscle-bound behemoth. You may or may not already have seen versions of him in the various Batman cartoons and the infamous Batman & Robin movie. He wears a face-concealing mask reminiscent of a Luchador, and is generally assumed to be of Latin American descent.

Now, see, if you took just that paragraph, without any of the stuff about his actual comic book history, I could envision a pretty damn cool character who'd fit in the Nolanverse just fine. Maybe you could give him some of the Joker's nihilistic philosophies, make Venom also completely dull pain, and give him a personal vendetta against Wayne Enterprises. Or do something completely different. There's potential.

I mean, like you said, there's nothing remarkable about the character other than that he broke the Bat. Which makes him kind of a weird tabula rasa with star power. There's a lot you could do with that.

After the Dark Knight I don't think I can trust Nolan. It was one of the blandest movies I have ever seen. I saw it one week ago(for the second time because a friend made me) and I have already forgotten most of it. Actually that is the thing that happens with EVERY Nolan film. I see it, then totally forget about it.(Yes, that includes Inception)

BobDobolina:

TetsuoKaneda:
Anne Hathaway has never struck the right vibe for me.

Hands up everyone who expected Heath Ledger's Joker based on his prior movies.

*raises hand*

There was at least some indication that he could go there, just that he didn't go there. Also, I followed the ad campaign, so after the early photos went up, I went "Oh. Yeah, I can see that."

Now, I have faith in Christopher Nolan. I love all the movies of his I've seen (though Batman Begins didn't exactly wow me, but it was at least solid), he seems to have similar aesthetics to mine, and he's the one who finally got me to tolerate Ellen Page. I'm willing to wait and see what he does, if only because I believe in a fair shake on this.

But at first blush? With just the cast info and absolutely nothing else to go on? I may have confidence in Nolan, but Hathaway doesn't exactly make me go "yay".

So... just because Bane hasn't done anything interesting in the comics (save breaking Batman's back), that means there's nothing else he can do in the movie. What he's done before isn't really relevant, it's what they do with him now that matters.

ImSkeletor:
After the Dark Knight I don't think I can trust Nolan. It was one of the blandest movies I have ever seen.

Wow. That's not a description of that movie one sees every day. The relentless pacing and plot holes objections I've heard before, but "bland" is... new. Makes it tempting to ask: what would qualify for you as not-bland?

TetsuoKaneda:

BobDobolina:

TetsuoKaneda:
Anne Hathaway has never struck the right vibe for me.

Hands up everyone who expected Heath Ledger's Joker based on his prior movies.

*raises hand*

Well, I did ask.

So, what exactly in his prior oeuvre indicated to you that he could go there? Closest I can think of would be Brokeback Mountain, which at least was a dramatic role, but I didn't see any more range on display there than I'd seen him do anywhere else, and his Joker most certainly came out of left field for me, as indeed it did I think for most mortals. (And promo shots for TDK itself do not count, sorry. I'm asking "based on his prior movies," because I remember having this exact sort of conversation about him as the Joker before any promo shots from the film came out.)

ImSkeletor:
After the Dark Knight I don't think I can trust Nolan. It was one of the blandest movies I have ever seen. I saw it one week ago(for the second time because a friend made me) and I have already forgotten most of it. Actually that is the thing that happens with EVERY Nolan film. I see it, then totally forget about it.(Yes, that includes Inception)

You know, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but have you ever seen Memento? Because I just don't see how you can maintain that attitude in regards to that film: it is simply the most mind-blowing experience I've ever had at a movie. Fascinating storyline, exceptionally well-acted, brilliantly paced and using a completely novel narrative format.

Now you can argue that it was the exception rather than the rule in regards to Nolan's directorial acumen, but even then, it would invalidate your statement that EVERY Nolan film is forgettable.

Again, maybe you don't like his style, but to claim that Nolan is devoid of talent is just... well, silly.

"We shall see what happens... when the world knows your name."

Begins and Dark Knight were at least partly about simultaneously breaking down Batman and breaking down Gotham. For Nolan's big finale, I'd expect him to go all the way here - break Batman physically, emotionally, and intellectually, reveal his nature and identity, break his back and his heart, bring down everything that Batman built up - then let Gotham save its savior. I could see how Bane and Catwoman could play into this (Bane being a physical and intellectual challenge; Catwoman emotional); my main concern if this turns out to be the case is that it would play out too similarly to the Dark Knight in terms of plot structure.

But do note that I don't know any canon outside Nolan's series, so this is solely based on what I noted about the first two films.

First post said it. Bane will be some genius crime lord on experimental government steroids. Not hard to imagine in the Nolan mythos.

What I am worried about is what exactly is in store with catwoman. I mean, Catwoman is barely even a villain. By that I mean she's kinda a flip flopper. I trust Nolan will somehow fit her in nicely, but it would need some skewing.

Gxas:
Sigh... I was hoping for Riddler... I really was. Or Scarface. Scarface would have been amazing. And fairly easy to do. I'm very upset with the pick of Bane. Sadly, I always knew Catwoman would show up. Just thought it would be Rachel, not actually Selena Kyle. Oh well. Hope Nolan knows what he's doing.

I hear ya man. The Riddler would have been the perfect opposite of the Joker. The Joker in the Dark Knight was privy to placing the elements in front of a group of unsuspecting individuals that could cause a situation to go horribly wrong simply to just see what happens. The Riddler would have been a completely obsessive compulsive character who would meticulously set up a trail of breadcrumbs in order to toy with the bat, and ultimately up the ante to a huge finale that would challenge all the aspects of Nolan's Batman that he have seen thus far.

Bane has the capacity to do such a thing, and lets face it Nolan has surprised us before. I'm sure it will be a good close to the storyline, but will it be better than the Dark Knight? That's the question that is in the back of peoples minds right now. I guess we'll have to see.

As far as Selina Kyle goes, it will be interesting to see how this character is managed. The idea of just playing her off as some seductress, while befitting of the character we all know, would be bland and uninteresting.

BobDobolina:

ImSkeletor:
After the Dark Knight I don't think I can trust Nolan. It was one of the blandest movies I have ever seen.

Wow. That's not a description of that movie one sees every day. The relentless pacing and plot holes objections I've heard before, but "bland" is... new. Makes it tempting to ask: what would qualify for you as not-bland?

TetsuoKaneda:

BobDobolina:

Hands up everyone who expected Heath Ledger's Joker based on his prior movies.

*raises hand*

Well, I did ask.

So, what exactly in his prior oeuvre indicated to you that he could go there? Closest I can think of would be Brokeback Mountain, which at least was a dramatic role, but I didn't see any more range on display there than I'd seen him do anywhere else, and his Joker most certainly came out of left field for me, as indeed it did I think for most mortals. (And promo shots for TDK itself do not count, sorry. I'm asking "based on his prior movies," because I remember having this exact sort of conversation about him as the Joker before any promo shots from the film came out.)

I'm Not There, for one. Brokeback Mountain for two. I think there were at least one or two other ones that went to some kind of dark places, but I can't remember very well, so I'm not using 'em here. Was I prepared for the exact performance? Nnno. Was I willing to buy him completely when I found out he was doing Joker? Perhaps not. But it didn't exactly come out of left field.

Gxas:
Sigh... I was hoping for Riddler... I really was. Or Scarface. Scarface would have been amazing. And fairly easy to do.

Just to get this straight... we're talking about the puppet, right? The villain who's a ventriloquist with a puppet on his hand? That's what would have been "amazing"?

I guess everybody's got their thing... but damn am I glad it's Nolan making this movie.

TetsuoKaneda:
I'm Not There, for one.

I was afraid you'd say that, because I didn't and don't recall Ledger doing anything very memorable in that film (the standout chameleon, almost enough to make the pretentious "Dylan is all of us" conceit bearable, was Cate Blanchett). Same with the much-overrated Brokeback. They were all roles very in keeping with his heartthrob image and not involving huge amounts of range. (You may be having trouble remembering any more dramatic roles because he was otherwise known from rom-coms or movies like A Knight's Tale or The Four Feathers.)

We can split all the hairs we please about prior oeuvres, I suppose. What I'm getting at is that the director will typically have access to information we don't, like having seen people in casting auditions, which would be a better resource than us sitting in front of our computers and making like they're crystal balls.

Now, if Nolan had somehow demonstrated a prior lack of competence in good casting I would see the skepticism about Hathaway as justifiable. As it is, not so much. That casting has consistently been one of his primary strengths would suggest to me that whatever problems there are with Rises, the casting isn't that likely to be one of them.

Jeffro Tull:
The Riddler would have been the perfect opposite of the Joker. . . The Riddler would have been a completely obsessive compulsive character who would meticulously set up a trail of breadcrumbs in order to toy with the bat, and ultimately up the ante to a huge finale that would challenge all the aspects of Nolan's Batman that he have seen thus far.

Uhhhh... that's pretty much what the Joker did. Toying with the hero through cryptic clues and twisted logic, challenging the Bat to hold to his basic morality, leaving chilling hints about his next crime and daring him to stop him... there's an app for that. It was called the Joker.

That's essentially why the Riddler has always been relatively lame; he's never, when you get right down to it, been much more than a poor man's Joker with a less entertaining schtick. Batman had a metric shit-ton of these ridiculous adversaries who would run around scattering clues to prove they could "outwit" him and provide a showcase for his detective skills. All of these were silly villains. Nolan was absolutely right to pass over them.

Woodsey:
"His recurring theme tends to be no-nonsense masculine professionalism undone by chaotic feminine influence (see: Inception)."

Only the feminine influence is inside Cobb's head and something he's forcibly tried to recreate, so I don't think that holds true - especially since Ariadne is the one who helps him through it.

Great point. I think Mr. Chipman's reading of Nolan's films is off the mark. The 'chaotic feminine' influence can only really extend to Following, The Prestige, and Memento: like you said, Inception doesn't count since it's Ellen Page who helps DiCaprio with his mental problems, while Rachel Dawes was key to Bruce Wayne becoming a hero in Batman Begins, and Hilary Swank was the moral center of Insomnia.

As for the whole 'no sexuality' part of this article, did he even watch Nolan's movies? Sex factored into Following and The Prestige pretty heavily, Robin Williams' character in Insomnia certainly had feelings for the girl he killed, Guy Pearce and Carrie Anne Moss did the deed in Memento, and while nothing about Bruce Wayne's love life is made explicit, his use of 'playboy billionaire' as a cover isn't something that Nolan kept in accidentally (also...what does Bob think Harvey and Rachel are implying with those meaningful lines and handholding in The Dark Knight? That they play checkers together?). Inception I could maybe see where he's coming from, but that's it. Hardly the 'asexual' filmmaker that we're being led to believe.

solidstatemind:
Now, stipulated that you can call into question Nolan's treatment of women, but I certainly have seen plenty of fight scenes that suffered from much poorer directorial skill, and I think it's reasonable to say that as bad as you may think them to be, they aren't so terrible as to derail the rest of the movie.

The fact that there are directors who are even worse at fight scenes doesn't excuse the fact that Nolan usually sucks at fight scenes. And yeah, it can affect the quality of the movie as a whole (see the Matrix trilogy and its painfully slow and stinted fight choreography).

I do apologize for the amount of venom, though. Fanbois who try to tell everyone how things 'should be, according to what has already been written/filmed/etc' really are a pet peeve of mine: it's like those snots selfishly think that their 'cherished memories' shouldn't be messed with, because... I dunno, really-- maybe they think they're the center of the universe? Truth is: events will occur, and unless you are directly involved, your opinion means next to nothing.

They act like that because these are stories they grew up with, and to them it's all sorts of annoying to see the stories reworked in ways that selectively ignore significant parts of cannon. It ruins their sense of what "Batman" is and how he has grown over the years; while they sometimes hold too tightly to those stories, they are completely in the right to complain if a director changes so much about the source material that, to them, the story isn't a "Batman" story anymore, and is just a movie with Batman costumes and names tacked on.

I'd for one argue that Nolan's Batman films are interesting, but they aren't "Batman" films any more than Burton's films were. Batman's often been portrayed as a sexually repressed dude who only seems to fall for the women he has to haul in, for example, and the fact that Nolan crammed Rachel Dawson into the movies wrecks what many consider to be one of the most significant facets of his personality. As a fan of the franchise I am upset that this change was made not just because it's not canon, but because it changes Batman to become something he wasn't, and if he's not going to be Batman, then why the hell does he share the same name?

Similarly, using Harvey Dent merely as a foil, rather than using the breadth of Two-Face material to craft a legitimately good villain? Just because you slap the name Two Face on that character doesn't mean he's anything like the actual Two-Face, and you can whine all you want about "But Nolan's going in a neewww direction," but I can't see that move as anything but a complete waste of a potentially good villain and an indication that Nolan isn't afraid to simply ignore character cannon in an attempt to make bland and uninspired character foils.

And I could go on about the other things I take issue with in Nolan's Batman adaptations. Yes, Nolan is a good director and he has made some very good movies. But he's not so good at the Batman movies (they are entertaining but sometimes barely deserve to be called Batman movies), and people have a right and a fair amount of reason to be skeptical.

I dont quite know how to take these selections. I've never been a fan of Bane and I always wanted Black Mask to appear in the movies. I pictured Michael Jai White's character after getting his face cut by the joker donning the Black Skull and taking over the crime gangs or even Moroni after his car accident.

And even though I like Anne Hathaway as a actress, I was really pulling for Kate Beckinsale to play Selena Kyle/Catwoman. I was hoping for Black Mask vs a resurfaced Two-Face who wants to play judge jury and executioner, while adding Selena in as a love interest for Bruce but Catwoman as a foil for Batman for the final movie.

Based on his background, I can envision Bane as a perfect anti-thesis to batman. Basically he will be batman if he'd been down on his luck and not raised by loving parents etc. Simply do away with the metamorphosis and make him as smart and strong as batman. Maybe then give him access to a drug that will increase his strength even more but has detrimental side-effects.

However, for the female lead I would've thought it would be Poison-Ivy, who to me seems very easy to transform to 'real'.

BobDobolina:

Jeffro Tull:
The Riddler would have been the perfect opposite of the Joker. . . The Riddler would have been a completely obsessive compulsive character who would meticulously set up a trail of breadcrumbs in order to toy with the bat, and ultimately up the ante to a huge finale that would challenge all the aspects of Nolan's Batman that he have seen thus far.

Uhhhh... that's pretty much what the Joker did. Toying with the hero through cryptic clues and twisted logic, challenging the Bat to hold to his basic morality, leaving chilling hints about his next crime and daring him to stop him... there's an app for that. It was called the Joker.

That's essentially why the Riddler has always been relatively lame; he's never, when you get right down to it, been much more than a poor man's Joker with a less entertaining schtick. Batman had a metric shit-ton of these ridiculous adversaries who would run around scattering clues to prove they could "outwit" him and provide a showcase for his detective skills. All of these were silly villains. Nolan was absolutely right to pass over them.

You kind of misquoted me there. The big thing about the Joker in the last movie was that he didn't have any real plans for how anything would be executed. He would set up huge potentials for events to unfold, sometimes that would include being on the front lines shooting the rocket launcher. He was a self proclaimed "agent of chaos."

The Riddler on the other hand was always more orderly. He would essentially craft a giant puzzle that eventually have a solution. Take that frame of mind and apply it to the same goal, "killing the Batman." I thought that that would be interesting and I was hoping for it. To say that he is an uninteresting kind of downplays how the character could be used as opposed to how he has been used. In Nolan's setting I'm sure he could have delved deep within the fractured psyche of this individual and delivered an interesting story with him, but he wasn't chosen, and I'm OK with that.

As I said last time, I'm sure it will be a good movie. It will be interesting to see the result of these character/ casting choices. If anything that is part of the appeal of these Batman movies, and in a way it has been since the Burton flicks.

SamElliot'sMustache:

Woodsey:
"His recurring theme tends to be no-nonsense masculine professionalism undone by chaotic feminine influence (see: Inception)."

Only the feminine influence is inside Cobb's head and something he's forcibly tried to recreate, so I don't think that holds true - especially since Ariadne is the one who helps him through it.

Great point. I think Mr. Chipman's reading of Nolan's films is off the mark. The 'chaotic feminine' influence can only really extend to Following, The Prestige, and Memento: like you said, Inception doesn't count since it's Ellen Page who helps DiCaprio with his mental problems, while Rachel Dawes was key to Bruce Wayne becoming a hero in Batman Begins, and Hilary Swank was the moral center of Insomnia.

As for the whole 'no sexuality' part of this article, did he even watch Nolan's movies? Sex factored into Following and The Prestige pretty heavily, Robin Williams' character in Insomnia certainly had feelings for the girl he killed, Guy Pearce and Carrie Anne Moss did the deed in Memento, and while nothing about Bruce Wayne's love life is made explicit, his use of 'playboy billionaire' as a cover isn't something that Nolan kept in accidentally (also...what does Bob think Harvey and Rachel are implying with those meaningful lines and handholding in The Dark Knight? That they play checkers together?). Inception I could maybe see where he's coming from, but that's it. Hardly the 'asexual' filmmaker that we're being led to believe.

Well, I guess it depends on what he means by 'no sexuality' - no sex, or no feelings (so sexuality as in hetero/homo)? Because if we're talking feelings, that's the very core of Inception , and you're right, it plays into The Prestige (anyone else think it's underrated by the way?) a lot, especially with Bale's character.

Guess Im the only one who thinks Bane is cool. I read the novelization of Knightfall.....it was pretty epic.

I can totally see him nolanized. Even without the implants....a chemical that causes you to go into roid rage and beating people up and killing woman...isnt really that far fetched. Like you said, scarecrow was the first villain for some reason.

As for only billed as selena kyle....i see her being normal...TILL SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS...and at the end she decides to become....THE CATWOMAN...for like 2 seconds....then credits.

I agree; Bane SUCKS!
But then again... So does Anne Hathaway in a comic book movie.

Look at it this way.
-She was a bad choice for Spider-man 4 as "The Vulturess". A last minute decision BTW.
-She was the reason the Wonder Woman movie got canned.
-She's spent too much of her career playing "safe roles".

Annnnnd

-SHE'S NOT SEXY!

image

No offence to her or her fans but... She's built like a tree trunk!

I can give you TWO reasons why Actresses Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, Eartha Kitt, Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry were all chosen... BAW DEE!

Two things Anne doesn't have!

Woodsey:
-snip-
Well, I guess it depends on what he means by 'no sexuality' - no sex, or no feelings (so sexuality as in hetero/homo)? Because if we're talking feelings, that's the very core of Inception , and you're right, it plays into The Prestige (anyone else think it's underrated by the way?) a lot, especially with Bale's character.

In that case, even Inception only kinda/sorta fits into Bob's paradigm, in that it has an 'emotions get in the way' theme. (and yes, I think Prestige is a teensy-bit underrated. I found it a lot better than Inception).

I don't really have the time to go through the comments today and see if this has already been brought up or if there's already a discussion going back and forth. I just have two reactions I'd like to throw out there.

1) To me, Bane actually makes a lot of sense as a Nolan villain. It is much easier to translate a physically threatening mastermind with a substance abuse problem into Nolan's realistic vision of Gotham than it would be for most of the Batman rogue's gallery. He doesn't need to have tube sticking out of his head for us to identify him (and Bane actually shed his addiction to venom and the tubes that came with it ages ago). What's more, if you look at Knightfall it was actually a fairly twisting plotline where Bane manipulated Batman from the shadows, setting up a complex gauntlet of challenges and biding his time to strike when he was at his most vulnerable. Sounds like perfect fodder for a Nolan script to me.

2) I'm getting a little tired of comic fans of a certain age group dumping on everything that came out of comics in the 90s. Yes there was a lot of crap, but can be said of the comic industry's output during any given decade. Venom did not ruin Spiderman 3. A shitty story that attempted to shoehorn Venom into the last twenty minutes of the movie is what killed Spiderman 3 (amongst many other factors).

need to get a "Must Trust Nolan" stamp!

I'll hold my judgement till its out. I'm gonna be reserved about it till then. Keep expectations low so that you can only me pleasantly surprised!

On a frivolous note, i kinda wished the 3rd movie would have a totally different name too! I mean Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, y not The Cape Crusader? i mean you would totally screw up that any of the movies are even related in like 20 years XD

misterprickly:
[Hathaway] was a bad choice for Spider-man 4 as "The Vulturess"

Even if true, so what? She's hardly the reason that movie got canned. And "the Vulturess" was a bad idea nobody could have redeemed.

She was the reason the Wonder Woman movie got canned.

I somehow doubt Hathaway single handedly caused all the development delays that tanked the movie or the network disinterest that tanked the show.

She's spent too much of her career playing "safe roles".

Again, by this logic, no Heath Ledger Joker.

No offence to her or her fans but... She's built like a tree trunk!

Sort of dirty pool picking the most unflattering photo you can find:

image

Stacks up just fine compared to Kitt or Pfeiffer -- who in any case were both memorable in the role because of their acting, which is something chicks do from time to time.

Incidentally, there is apparently another female role in the works for DKR: Talia al-Ghul. That should be interesting, they must still be screen-testing that one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here