The only thing that Nolan will truly confirm is that the Riddler will NOT be the villain in the film. Good, he's a shitty, unintimidating villain regardless. Bane, a great villain in the comic wouldn't be a choice yet because not enough villains have been established (remember, he released over a DOZEN of them in Knightfall). The villains I can rattle off the top of my head that haven't been used yet are: Catwoman Poison Ivy The Cavalier Firebug (or is it Firefly?) Mr. Freeze Harley Quinn Bane Killer Croc' Clayface (Mutant. Not happening.) The Penguin I've probably missed a few. By the way, I don't like the title. It sounds like a trip to the well. I would have called it The Caped Crusader.
He's a useless idiot whose plans never come to fruition because he always blabbers them to the heroes beforehand. I can't imagine a dumber failure of a villain. Anyways, call me a bit skeptical about the third Batman film. The first one was really bad and the second one was legitimately great, since it focused on non-stop action scenarios, and was aided by perfect editing and some really nice performances. I guess they can make another picture just like "The Dark Knight", but without the comedy and wacky characters of the Tim Burton Batman films, it will feel like a retread. Maybe an entertaining or even good one, but considering Nolan's established style, and the limitations imposed by the Batman universe and fanboy expectation, I don't think they can top it.
Off the top of my head, here are my thoughts: Catwoman: Possible, if they can ground it in reality (i.e. she doesn't have supernatural powers or nine lives, she is just a really tough, acrobatic cat burglar) Poison Ivy: I don't see it. Nolan's Batman universe tries to stay as grounded in reality as possible, which tends to eliminate villains like Ivy. The Cavalier: Why use a villain that has barely been heard from in decades (the only time I've heard of him was in Knightfall)? No one would know who that is. Firebug: Possible, but again, grounded in reality, meaning he is just a dude who is a pyro, not someone who flies around in a suit. Good for a secondary storyline or a cameo, but not a major villain (for example, the Zsasz cameo in the first movie) Mr. Freeze: See Poison Ivy Harley Quinn: Impossible to have her without the Joker, and Joker ain't coming back. Bane: Like I said earlier, he'd be my first choice Killer Croc: I hear a lot of rumors about him, but I'm not so sure how they'd pull it off. Clayface: like you said, not happening Penguin: I think he is too much of a joke of a character. He is barely in the comics anymore, and for good reason. He is right down there with the Riddler, IMHO. The other one that came to mind was Hush. I could see a scenario where (spoilered for anyone who hasn't read the Hush comic book, which you should): Spoiler Bane shows up and beats down Batman. Batman has Alfred call for Dr. Tommy Elliott, his childhood friend, who is now a renowned surgeon. Tommy helps to heal Bruce, and meanwhile, Bane has taken over the city's organized crime. Bruce has to make a comeback as Batman. Tommy may or may not necessarily reveal himself as Hush in this movie, but it could set up for a future film where Hush is the main villain. As for saying that Bane released all of Batman's enemies from Arkham, I think it could work in the movie universe, too. Bane releases a bunch of inmates, resulting in havoc in the city. Batman attempts to take them all down, but it takes time. Batman ends up working for days on end without sleep in an attempt to round up as many of the crazies as possible, and just when Batman is at his weakest (maybe after Scarecrow makes another cameo), Bane shows up and beats down Batman. They don't need to be "name" crazies for Batman to want to hunt them down, he'd do it just to help the police, because that is what he does. Besides that, in the book, they almost made it a point to say that it was mostly lesser villains Batman was hunting (Szasz, Mad Hatter, the Ventriloquist, Cavalier, Firebug) until he got into it with Joker and the Scarecrow teaming up. None of those villains (except Joker and Scarecrow) ever deserves to lead villain in a film, but it does give them an excuse to use them as villains in the film without giving them more importance than they are worth. It would be a case of his drive to stop all the crime in Gotham by himself being his undoing. The other villain I could see them going through with is Black Mask, who is basically a glorified crime boss who wears a black mask. In the comics he was either Bruce Wayne's business associate (Roman Sionis) and later, the head of Arkham Asylum, Dr. Jeremiah Arkham. In the film, they could just have a new organized crime boss show up and start running Gotham, with Batman attempting to take him down (while also trying to avoid the police, who are now hunting him). I doubt they'd go this way, though, as Black Mask is is fairly obscure to the casual fan.
You never know, a lot of people had no idea who Ra's al Ghul was before Batman Begins. From Nolan's interviews, what I know is he does not want to employ any characters who are supernatural or too absurd for his version of Batman, Clayface being an example. Then again, Ra's al Ghul is supposed to be immortal isnt he? Who knows. I know Riddler would have been an awful choice and I hope they go with someone more menacing like Ventriloquist. (just kidding)
Just for the part about Ra's Al Ghul, I think they made him 'immortal' in a realistic way. Bruce spent his whole time training thinking that the Ken Watanabe character was Ra's Al Ghul, when "Ducard," his trainer, was actually Ra's. They used slight of hand to make Ra's look immortal. In theory, the League of Shadows could simply name it's new leader Ra's Al Ghul, and they could say that Ra's Al Ghul is the name given to the leader of the League of Shadows, in order to make the leader (and by extension, the League of Shadows) look immortal to anyone who knows about it, helping them induce fear, one of their goals. They can do SOME villains in a realistic way, but some are impossible. Firebug can be a pyromaniac who just sets fires on a large scale (instead of a dude flying around in a fire-proof bug suit with flame throws on it). Bane can be a large, muscular guy who is incredibly intelligent (but doesn't use 'Venom' which is what made him all crazy and huge in the comics). Catwoman can be a cat burglar, who is also an astonishing acrobat and skilled at fighting (but doesn't have "9 lives" or any other supernatural powers). Even Ventriloquist could just be a psycho with a Ventriloquist dummy who shoots people. Hell, they could do Calendar Man, Holiday, and even the Riddler as lesser villains for Batman to round up, as they're all realistic (and lame). But, that realism is why I don't think we'll see Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Penguin, or Clayface. Almost by process of elimination, you're left with Bane as the next villain.
Fuck what ya head, insiders tell me this is the true villain of The Dark Knight Rises, prepare yourself...
Countless stories left untold, but Hollywood still insists on re-makes. Aside from the actors and maybe the quality of the acting, I see no real difference between the two. I say that as a fan of both John Wayne and the original "True Grit"*. Acting styles were different in Wayne's time ( which had peaked a long time before ) than they are now so I don't know if that's a fair comparison to make. But Christ, it looks to me like they worked off the same script as the original. Yet I'll probably still watch it eventually, if only to see Matt Damon play Lebeouf ( or however you spell it ). But I sure as hell won't drop 10 bucks in the theater to see the same story with an apparently identical script. * Although I admit, the original Mattie Ross was an annoying bitch.
Upcoming films: Ghostbusters 3 directed by Ivan Reitman 2012 The Lone Ranger w/ Johnny Depp as Tonto 2012
All perfectly fair statements. While I typically despise re-makes myself, I have never seen the original "True Grit", and I'm also an enormous fan of the Coen brothers, so I will make an exception here.
I would watch it, but if you plan on seeing the new one, wait until after. Wayne brings something to the role of Rooster Cogburn I don't think anyone else can. The big shoot out at the end is hands down epic in my opinion, and it's my sincerest hopes they didn't try to recreate that. ( Although I guess they will, it being the climactic end and all. ) Spoiler [Rooster confronts the four outlaws across the field] Ned Pepper: What's your intention? Do you think one on four is a dogfall? Rooster Cogburn: I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned. Or see you hanged in Fort Smith at Judge Parker's convenience. Which'll it be? Ned Pepper: I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man. Rooster Cogburn: Fill your hands, you son of a bitch! Cogburn takes the horses reins in his teeth, draws his guns and charges while Mattie and LeBeouf watch from the mountainside.
There is no way for someone to play that role and do it justice. John Wayne won his only Oscar playing Rooster Cogburn. I won't be watching someone try to reenact his role.
Wow.... and I thought I had a hard on for the upcoming Tron Legacy movie. How can you beat a blonde pig tailed girl wielding a katana slashing nazi's/orcs/mechs/samurais? Zach Snyder seriously puts out some ridiculous visual eye porn.... whether it has any emotional depth and a story to it is beside the point. http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/sucker-punch/trailer
Well, there have only been a few hundred movies with this premise starting since the early 70s. Some were good, (Lady Snowblood) most were horrible. (Switchblade Sisters) Personally, I feel it's an old and tired concept, if anything. No, but humor, choreography, and pacing is very much the point. More and more these days, a lot of "action" films like to star skinny, attractive females in lead roles as badass warriors/fighters. The reasoning goes that it's sex AND violence, an unbeatable combination! Problem is, the actresses can't do the choreography. So they cover it up with extensive wire work, CGI, shaky cam, smash cuts, and body doubles. It's far more expensive, (which they hope will be more than made up for with a greater audience) but more importantly, it looks like absolute shit. The choreography in "300" was pretty good, since it was just swinging swords and spears around, something a decently strong adult male can do reasonably well for a camera with several weeks of practice. In "Watchmen", where it was bare-handed fighting, it was pretty awful, and doubly so when the females were fighting. Also, a story like "Sucker Punch" needs crazy humor, not a dark, gritty feel. Considering how miserably Zack Snyder failed on that account in all his previous films, don't expect anything different here. So my prediction is a crappy movie that will have a mediocre box-office take nevertheless better than similar failures like Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, Street Fighter 2: The Legend of Chun-Li, etc. (Notice how many of those are among the worse mainstream films of the last 20 years? Think it's a coincidence?)
Calendar Man as a calendar/date obsessed serial killer drawing on the Long Halloween story (Hannibal Lecter rip off) would potentially be awesome. The character presented is so pathetic and incompetent in so many stories thought that it would be a big move away from any of the established major stories to make him a primary villain. Bane's story could be rearranged a bit to make it work. As a orphan from a corrupt third world (prison becomes barrio, used by the prison system for testing becomes abused street kid, etc to keep the mundane/plausible reality) and jump to the story where he believes that he's Bruce Wayne's half brother - drift the conflict into trying to take control of the family fortune as the elder heir, then punishing the city that 'faked' the results of the DNA test and 'conspired' with Bruce to rob him of his inheritance - mix experimental roids somewhere into the story to give him his physical capabilities and make busting open Arkham part of his punishment of the city. Could be workable without the range of villains that were released in his original story introduction and without beating the Mexican wrestler aesthetic and laughably tacky venom tube suit to death and killing the scary/plausible aspect. Clayface I think would be a viable story if they went with the arc where an Actor loses his shit when they remake a film with someone else in the role, and adopts the persona of the film's villain - it'd be a nice nod to the whole Joker recasting debate. It's doable without the mutant thing - but again requires moving away from the established major stories.
Just my two cents, because I have a shameful knowledge of DC comics. Batman, now an outlaw following Dark Knight, operates entirely outside of the law while still apprehending criminals. One night, he foils an attempted robbery in a high class jewelry store, but fails to apprehend the sleek, agile, boobtacular woman due to the intervention of the police. Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne is doing whatever he does to pass the hours between pulverizing criminals and meets Selina Kyle (maybe at an animal shelter or something... I leave that to the hacks) and thus begins the parallel story line of Bruce and Selina falling for each other while at night they suit up and are falling for each other except with all kinds of moral and ethical dilemmas. This runs concurrently with whatever villain you like, although I think that a well cast, well written Riddler is a good move. Give Batman a cerebral challenge, hindered by his conflicting feelings for Selina/Catwoman (cause you know he'd find out who she is with the quickness) but ultimately teaming up with her stop the riddler from doing whatever it is he's doing, only to have something or another force them to realize they can never be together blah blah blah and the Batman goes off once again into the night. Maybe we find some arbitary way to get the police off his back, maybe we don't. I still like the idea of Batman being outside the law, but at the very least he's gotta have some interaction with Gordon. Throw in some Morgan Freeman, and maybe another Scarecrow cameo just because he is the man and it's a tradition worth keeping, and hot damn if we don't have a solid trilogy.
You have exactly described "Batman Returns" minus Batman being outside the law, which still doesn't change much when you think about it. To do what? He was barely even an afterthought in the second picture. Much like Michael Caine in "Inception", he is a respected older actor getting a free check from Nolan.
Well he's Q, isn't he? Someone has to introduce the Bat Shark Repellant spray, and the man has about the most soothing voice and disposition on the planet. Plus he played an integral role in the second film, he was comic relief, moral compass, and weaponer to the main man. You take him out of that movie and the Joker wins, hands down. Did you even watch Dark Knight? You have a point about the Batman Returns thing, aside from every single detail that I listed, the meet cute, Catwoman's motivation (jewel thief as opposed to crazy secretary with dubious cat powers) the villain, the resolution, but what are details? I was thinking more along the lines of the animated series, which is derivative of BR. Not your best work KI, you used to be sharper than this.
I can't even tell whether you are being sarcastic or not. The parts in bold are funny and/or random, I just don't know whether you meant them to be. Lucius Fox had about 2 minutes of screentime in the Dark Knight, if even that. I still don't have a clue why you listed him when there were at least 8 more important characters in that picture, and there was virtually nothing required from his role. Your "details" sound pretty damn similar, too. More importantly, they don't change a thing. Batman still falls in love with Catwoman's real life persona while battling her in the middle of the night, all in the context of some more dangerous, third villain. (Penguin in "Batman Returns") Maybe that's because there isn't anything to be "sharp" about here. Batman films fail or succeed based on how funny they are, how well the villains are played, and how exciting and action-packed it is, which is a function of the set pieces and directing. The premise and scripts are all pretty much the same; "Batman Returns" isn't that much different than "Batman and Robin", and "The Dark Knight" isn't that different from "Batman Forever". It's just the first one was presented and acted a whole hell of a lot better than the second.
It's a shame that Mr. Freeze isn't a viable option, at least not in the way that Nolan wants to take the story. If they were to find a way to properly adapt Heart of Ice to the big screen, I think it'd make for a helluva story. If they were to make Freeze more anti-heroic given him trying to save his dying wife it would resonate with Batman give the whole Spoiler Rachel exploding thing . Which would make him a more sympathetic character with Bats and a more compelling tale overall.
Yeah, umm... The Dark Knight is very different from Batman Forever, even at the script level. Sure, if you look at it in the broadest possible terms, they're 'the same.' Batman takes on two villains. Only, there are unbelievably significant differences: 1) The Dark Knight revolves around not just The Joker and Two Face/Harvey Dent, but the mob. The Mob is a major driving force in both of Nolan's Batman films. The Mob is pretty much ignored in Batman and Robin (and Batman Returns for that matter). You can bet that the Mob will be a major driving force in the next Batman film, too. 2) The Dark Knight has significantly better action set pieces than Batman Forever. There is not a single action scene in Batman Forever that can even come close to the worst action scene in The Dark Knight. 3) The Villains are obviously extremely different. Sure, they both have "Two Face" but if you can honestly tell me that the Batman Forever version of Two-Face is even close to The Dark Knight version of Two-Face (outside of their names), then you're smoking something unbelievably strong. And don't even get me started on Riddler versus Joker, or how they were written. 4) Robin. Robin is in Batman forever. Robin is no where near the Nolan Batman universe, and I don't expect him to show up any time soon in that movie universe. 5) Batman Forever's love interest was awful. Really? Bruce Wayne's shrink? And she learns Batman's secret identity as Bruce Wayne? And Bruce is totally cool with that? Batman is way, way more protective of his secret identity than that. In Nolan's universe, only Alfred and Lucius Fox know he is Batman, and I'm damn skippy that ain't changing in the next flick. Hell, the crux of Batman Forever was that the two main villains figured out that Bruce Wayne was Batman, and they didn't run and tell anyone, they didn't just shoot Bruce Wayne in the face, they played a silly little fucking game with him. The Joker spent most of The Dark Knight trying to get Batman to unmask, and when it looked like Batman was finally going to be revealed, The Joker turned it right the fuck back around, because that is just what he does. I could seriously go on and on. The tones of the two films are completely different. Nolan plays his films much more seriously (which makes the humor that much more effective), while Batman Forever goes for over-the-top camp (seriously, Robin actually said "Holy Rusted Metal, Batman!" I wanted to punch Schumacher in the face right fucking there). They are similar the same way that apples and bananas are both fruit. They're both fruit, and they're both edible, so in the broadest sense of the word, they are 'similar.' The minute you take a closer look, you realize they are almost completely different. We don't always agree, but that seems like an outlandish statement, even from you. It's gotten to the point where I read all of your posts with the voice of "Sheldon Cooper" from The Big Bang Theory in my head.