Bane

[ALP]

Really? Now a twisted urban take on Snow White. Jesus, this is all Tim Burton's fault. They will probably cast Johnny Depp as Snow White :facepalm:

[Lungrocket]

All that means is that the MTV reporter assumes Hardy is playing the villain, and that Bale knows absolutely nothing about the next film.

He knew enough to know Hardy was in the film. Bale watched both Inception and Bronson...called him a "balls out actor".

You don't make a fuss out of an actor playing a small Engel type role. You just don't.

And Bale told one of the interviewers, that he knows a little, but not as much as most people might think he knows.

I'm sure he knows who Hardy is playing.

[Mister H.]

Really? Now a twisted urban take on Snow White. Jesus, this is all Tim Burton's fault. They will probably cast Johnny Depp as Snow White :facepalm:
:funny:

[Mister H.]

I think we have a case of paralysis by analysis going on with some of the fans. Tom Hardy in an Anthony Michael Hall-type role? Nah. He's an in-demand, quality actor who Chris Nolan has cast for a second time now. He's a major character, and most major characters in Batman films, other than Batman himself, are villains.

[Happy Jack]

Yes, in all probability he's playing a villain. The question is really what villain he's playing, or even what type of villain he's playing.

[Lungrocket]

Yes, in all probability he's playing a villain. The question is really what villain he's playing, or even what type of villain he's playing.

Well it sounds like he has to get in shape for whatever role he is playing. But that could still be anyone.

Hugo. Buff.

Deacon. Buff.

Bane. Buff.

KGBeast. Buff.

Deadshot?

Azrael?

The Reaper?

[Solidus]

I still guess Bane though, all of them are buff, most comic characters are though. but I could see him getting into Bronson size again. Give him a challenge.

[The Demon's Head]

When you name your movie "The Dark Knight Rises", the story needs to justify it. The stakes need to equal, if not top TDK's. The story needs to be epic in scope, and the villain needs to provide a legitimate challenge to Batman. Put simply, some serious **** needs to happen in this movie so Batman can "Rise" as the city's hero.

At this point, I'm hoping for either Bane or Hugo Strange. I wouldn't mind Black Mask, but I don't think he can challenge Batman like those two. Bane makes sense to me because he's the one that broke Batman. He didn't only break his back, he was portrayed as a master strategist who unleashed all of Arkham's inmates on the city, exhausting him and breaking his spirits. He's the type of villain that can redeem Batman in the eyes of Gotham's citizens.

On the other hand, Hugo Strange makes sense to me because he's the type of villain that can screw with Batman's head, and get under his skin. As he's shown us in both BB and TDK, these are the type of villains that Nolan loves to use. Plus, he would bring back the focuse towards Bruce Wayne, his motivations, and the inner workings of Batman's head in general.

[craigdbfan]

Don't see why both Strange and Bane can't be in it or maybe Nolan might be combining the two characters and might just call him Bane?

Who knows right? All speculation at this point but I don't see why we can't see both of them in the film I'll give the Nolan's and Goyer the benefit of the doubt and say they are skilled enough to somehow knit these characters into the existing story.

[Gianakin_]

The only thing that isn't speculation is the difference between Hardy's and AMH's status.

[The Englishman]

No disrespect to Anthony Michael Hall, but Hardy isn't a tv actor.

Between one of the leads in THIS MEANS WAR (with Chris Pine and Reese Witherspoon) to upcoming MAD MAX: FURY ROAD (with Charlize Theron) Hardy's star is about to explode and he will soon be an A LISTER. You don't cast him as Mike Engel.

Besides, the MTV reporter asked Bale what he thought of Hardy playing his opponent, to which Bale said "sounds good."

Hardy is pretty much going to be one of the villains.
Well actually ive seen him a few times in TV roles so dont come out with statements like if you havent got a clue...

[Keyser Soze]

Well actually ive seen him a few times in TV roles so dont come out with statements like if you havent got a clue...

Yeah, as recently as a year ago Tom Hardy was still best known as a great British TV actor. Indeed, the last thing I can remember him doing before Inception was a televised adaptation of Wuthering Heights, with him playing Heathcliff and Andrew Lincoln from The Walking Dead as Edgar Linton.

[Lungrocket]

Well actually ive seen him a few times in TV roles so dont come out with statements like if you havent got a clue...

I have got a clue. He mainly does feature films. And people are hanging on all the wrong details about the damn point.

Anthony Michael Hall IS NOT A BIG ACTOR WHO'S STAR IS ON THE RISE, infact it faded.... TV is usually where actors go once they cool off and they stop getting the big pay-days and they are not considered relevant anymore. Its as simple as that.

It's not a reflection on the performer. That's just how it is. And TV these days is better than most features. But they go there to reinvent themselves.

TOM HARDY isn't in the same place he was a few years ago. HALL USED TO BE A FILM ACTOR, but now he does tv. To think they are both on the same level to get the same type of roles is hilarious.

[Mister H.]

I have got a clue. He mainly does feature films. And people are hanging on all the wrong details about the damn point.

Anthony Michael Hall IS NOT A BIG ACTOR WHO'S STAR IS ON THE RISE, infact it faded.... TV is usually where actors go once they cool off and they stop getting the big pay-days and they are not considered relevant anymore. Its as simple as that.

It's not a reflection on the performer. That's just how it is. And TV these days is better than most features. But they go there to reinvent themselves.

TOM HARDY isn't in the same place he was a few years ago. HALL USED TO BE A FILM ACTOR, but now he does tv. To think they are both on the same level to get the same type of roles is hilarious.
Yes, it is. That's the thing about the Hype, you can always find somebody that wants to argue, no matter how cut-and-dry a conversation should be.

[Keyser Soze]

Yes, it is. That's the thing about the Hype, you can always find somebody that wants to argue, no matter how cut-and-dry a conversation should be.

Agreed. I'm a fan of Anthony Michael Hall, but it's not a slight on him to say that, right now, Tom Hardy is a hotter property, involved in bigger films, and that he's more likely to get a major role in a Batman movie than AMH is.

[TheFuture]

Are you seriously having this argument lads? Bronson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that Hall has ever done.

[itsthebatman]

Yeah, as recently as a year ago Tom Hardy was still best known as a great British TV actor. Indeed, the last thing I can remember him doing before Inception was a televised adaptation of Wuthering Heights, with him playing Heathcliff and Andrew Lincoln from This Life as Edgar Linton.
Fixed. For those of us of a certain vintage, Andrew Lincoln will always be Egg.
Not that The Walking Dead isn't great, of course.

[Keyser Soze]

Fixed. For those of us of a certain vintage, Andrew Lincoln will always be Egg.
Not that The Walking Dead isn't great, of course.

I'm more inclined to think of him as Simon from Teachers, which might give a hint of my lesser vintage. :oldrazz:

[The Englishman]

I'm more inclined to think of him as Simon from Teachers, which might give a hint of my lesser vintage. :oldrazz:
You beat me too it i loved him as Simon, i was gutted when he left Teachers...:woot:

[antsman41]

Where can one watch Teachers?

[namtaB]

TV is usually where actors go once they cool off and they stop getting the big pay-days and they are not considered relevant anymore. Its as simple as that.

It's not a reflection on the performer. That's just how it is. And TV these days is better than most features. But they go there to reinvent themselves.

TOM HARDY isn't in the same place he was a few years ago. HALL USED TO BE A FILM ACTOR, but now he does tv. To think they are both on the same level to get the same type of roles is hilarious.

Hardy used to be a film actor as well. One of his first roles was Twombly in Black Hawk Down. Then he got a bunch of tv roles. Only now has he been back on the Big Screen with Inception.

But that type of career trend is rare.

[The Englishman]

Hardy used to be a film actor as well. One of his first roles was Twombly in Black Hawk Down. Then he got a bunch of tv roles. Only now has he been back on the Big Screen with Inception.

But that type of career trend is rare.
Yes but his 1st role was in Band of Brothers which was on TV.....:oldrazz:

[Figs]

Where can one watch Teachers?

At a school... :oldrazz::woot:

[American_Idiot]

With all this gossip of Hardy as Hugo Strange, I decided to do a quip manip.

It was actually easier than I thought. He portrayed a character not to far off from Strange (looks-wise). I took away the 'stache, added Strange's notorious chinstrap (taken from another picture of Hardy). Here's the result:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8233/hardystrange.jpg

[Mister H.]

^ I like it. I'd need to see it matched up with a suit to know for sure, but I think that could work.

[Jack]

With all this gossip of Hardy as Hugo Strange, I decided to do a quip manip.

It was actually easier than I thought. He portrayed a character not to far off from Strange (looks-wise). I took away the 'stache, added Strange's notorious chinstrap (taken from another picture of Hardy). Here's the result:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8233/hardystrange.jpg


Zzzzz....

[childeroland]

From Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/the-uk-movie-star-and-the-vancouver-tattoo-artist-he-cant-get-enough-of/article1815259/page1/)

Hardy's people confirm he's in Rises.

[ALP]

I believe he is going to play Reese. I hear Hall became a diva and demanded more pay. So his role will be taken over by Tom Hardy.

[American_Idiot]

^ I like it. I'd need to see it matched up with a suit to know for sure, but I think that could work.

I almost wonder if Nolan got the idea for Hardy as Strange after seeing him in that role...that is, IF this rumor is in fact the truth.

[raybia]

I have a feeling there is going to be a major letdown when Hardy's role is announced.

[Majik1387]

Only if it's Bane or Strange

[Solidus]

No I think Bane would be the best fit. I mean Nolan would not just rip off purley of Knightfall, he would do what he's always done and taken bits and pieces and formed it for his own purposes and mixed with his new twists or ideas on the characters. I think some of the key parts of Knightfall would be good for TDKR.

[the amazing fro]

I have a feeling there is going to be a major letdown when Hardy's role is announced.

I think so too. Though I trust Nolan knows what hes doing my excitement for this movie will plummet if he's someone like bullock or bane. or deadshot. or black mask. Or anyone that's not Hugo strange

Damn that stupid rumor: Now I can't think of him as anyone BUT Dr strange :oldrazz:

[Keyser Soze]

I have a feeling there is going to be a major letdown when Hardy's role is announced.

Whatever role Tom Hardy is playing, SOMEBODY is going to be majorly let down and on here bleating about how it's ruined the film for them.

[Bat-Mite]

WHOEVER they cast him as, I will be boycotting the film, because he will probably be the main villain and Crispin Glover should have that role. Whatever the role is, he was born to play it. Nolan really dropped the ball on this one. :ikyn

This is a sign of things to come. The third movie curse peeks its ugly head out for all to see. Expect a movie that makes Batman and Robin look like The Godfather in comparison.

[the amazing fro]

WHOEVER they cast him as, I will be boycotting the film, because he will probably be the main villain and Crispin Glover should have that role. Whatever the role is, he was born to play it. Nolan really dropped the ball on this one. :ikyn

This is a sign of things to come. The third movie curse peeks its ugly head out for all to see. Expect a movie that makes Batman and Robin look like The Godfather in comparison.

Please tell me your being sarcastic....

[The Englishman]

Please tell me your being sarcastic....
I think he is....:awesome:

[Doctor Jones]

I really don't care who he's going to play. There's about three or four Batman characters he could play and nail every one of them.

[Bat-Mite]

Please tell me your being sarcastic....http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/746/brucie.jpg

"I meant every word."
:o

[Avengers-Report]

Crispin Glover lmao

[the amazing fro]

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/746/brucie.jpg

"I meant every word."
:o

LOL
good.

[Solidus]

Well of course some are going to consider it a letdown. And some will be griping and crying about it claiming how the movie worries them, or that they will be boycotting the film ect.

The internet is never pleased lol.

[regwec]

"Crying" is a really silly word to use in that context. People dislike some details, so Nolan's self-appointed drones characterise their dissatisfaction as despair. It's just as immature as suggesting that the drones fall asleep each night sucking their thumbs, while cuddling a Christopher Nolan teddy.

[batman11]

**slowly puts Chris Nolan teddy behind back and whistles non-chalantly**

[Solidus]

"Crying" is a really silly word to use in that context. People dislike some details, so Nolan's self-appointed drones characterise their dissatisfaction as despair. It's just as immature as suggesting that the drones fall asleep each night sucking their thumbs, while cuddling a Christopher Nolan teddy.

Even using the words "self-appointed drones" is as immature as that phrase so I guess we canceled each other out. You talked about how immature it is of saying drones fall asleep sucking their thumbs....and yet you use such a degrading word as drones. And I assume what your saying is I'm some blind Nolan drone? I hope not. And a comment such as that your saying that I'm telling people that can't dislike something. I never said that. Some will have legitimate reasons, some will just "cry" because it was not the villain THEY guessed/wanted. Yet, I never said that everyone will be like that, many will have legitimate reasons for liking/disliking and I am not complaining about that. Hence the word I used in my post...."some".

[ALP]

I like Bane but Hardy should not play him for two reasons. The first is that Bane is a steroided out freak. He takes venom like it's candy. That is the only thing that Schumacher got right. Yeah I know what Hardy looked like in Bronson and it's still a long ways off from the 'freak' look that Bane should have. Only way Hardy could do it is if he's got a massive muscle suit like Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. And secondly, Bane is wearing a mask most of the time. Bane is cerebral but it's not a role that really requires a brilliant acting job. I can't see it as something that would really flex Hardy's acting chops. In fact, Arnie Schwarzenegger would have been absolutely perfect as Bane in the 80s.

[Lungrocket]

Whatever role Tom Hardy is playing, SOMEBODY is going to be majorly let down and on here bleating about how it's ruined the film for them.

You know, I hope it's NOT Deacon Blackfire, not because I don't think he's a great cinematic villain, but because that means I won't have guessed the film and will still be instore for surprises.

[batman11]

You know, I hope it's NOT Deacon Blackfire, not because I don't think he's a great cinematic villain, but because that means I won't have guessed the film and will still be instore for surprises.

Guessing the villain = guessing the film?

[Lungrocket]

Guessing the villain = guessing the film?

Well pretty much he has only been in one story. Which if he is used, even if Nolan takes liberties with it, will probably echo to me exactly where its going. If its other villains, they have a bigger well to draw from story wise, so its not so easy to guess how it will turn out.

Speaking in terms of theme and where its going. Just saying I still want to be surprised a little.

[batman11]

Well pretty much he has only been in one story. Which if he is used, even if Nolan takes liberties with it, will probably echo to me exactly where its going. If its other villains, they have a bigger well to draw from story wise, so its not so easy to guess how it will turn out.

Ah okay. I see what you're saying. I guess that is a drawback to some, smaller scale (in terms of place in the Batman lore, not threat) villains, as if the villain is going to be totally faithful to the comics, there's only so much you can do with them. That said, we know that whoever we get won't be totally faithful, so I can see liberties being taken, regardless of the fact the character may only have one or two stories in Batman's history. That is, if such characters are even used.

[Keyser Soze]

You know, I hope it's NOT Deacon Blackfire, not because I don't think he's a great cinematic villain, but because that means I won't have guessed the film and will still be instore for surprises.

But on the plus side, due to bets laid down on these very boards, if Deacon Blackfire IS the villain, me and someone else from this board will be going to the screening of the film dressed as Burt Ward Robin, and someone else will be going dressed as Batgirl.

[Lungrocket]

But on the plus side, due to bets laid down on these very boards, if Deacon Blackfire IS the villain, me and someone else from this board will be going to the screening of the film dressed as Burt Ward Robin, and someone else will be going dressed as Batgirl.

Well taking that into consideration, I change my mind. :woot:

[The Guard]

What is he's not the villain? What is on the line there?

[Lungrocket]

What is he's not the villain? What is on the line there?

I suppose nothing, since everyone seems to consider him such a long-shot anyway. He's the dark horse in the running. 30-1 odds. But I always root for the underdog. But as Wesley Snipes likes to say...

"Always bet on black-FIRE"

Well, the last part of that he might not have said. :cwink:

[raybia]

Whatever role Tom Hardy is playing, SOMEBODY is going to be majorly let down and on here bleating about how it's ruined the film for them.

True but many assume he will be the main villain or at least one of them. Not necessary so.

[Sccmj23]

Is it actually confirmed that he will be the lead villian? Or just confirmed that he's been cast?

[Keyser Soze]

Is it actually confirmed that he will be the lead villian? Or just confirmed that he's been cast?

It's confirmed that he's been cast, and Tom Hardy himself said he was playing " major role", but him playing the villain is an assumption.

[Dark Knight]

Even using the words "self-appointed drones" is as immature as that phrase so I guess we canceled each other out. You talked about how immature it is of saying drones fall asleep sucking their thumbs....and yet you use such a degrading word as drones. And I assume what your saying is I'm some blind Nolan drone? I hope not. And a comment such as that your saying that I'm telling people that can't dislike something. I never said that. Some will have legitimate reasons, some will just "cry" because it was not the villain THEY guessed/wanted. Yet, I never said that everyone will be like that, many will have legitimate reasons for liking/disliking and I am not complaining about that. Hence the word I used in my post...."some".







:up:

[Wolverine1988]

I suppose nothing, since everyone seems to consider him such a long-shot anyway. He's the dark horse in the running. 30-1 odds. But I always root for the underdog. But as Wesley Snipes likes to say...

"Always bet on black-FIRE"

Well, the last part of that he might not have said. :cwink:


Theres a 1 million and 1 chanc that he would be a villain.


The thing you fail to understand is that Blackfire has A ZERO CHANCE OF BEING IN THE FILM, stop aruging for him cuse its pointless, it would be like me aruging that Egghead has a small chance to be in the film.

The only reason Blackfire is getting any talk is because of you, you have been whoring his name all over these forums like a complete idiot, to actually think he has any chance.

Some kid comes on here, sees all this commotion and stupidity you have been causing and goes to another website says that " Blackfire is rumored to be a villain" and than another dumb kid on that website sees it and spreads it.

Just stop advocating for this amazingly stupid villain that was apart of a even dumber storyline,

And for your information i started to read it online, and had to stop reading it after a good half and hour because it was that boring.

[Gianakin_]

Woah, let's lay off the name-calling.

[The Englishman]

Theres a 1 million and 1 chanc that he would be a villain.


The thing you fail to understand is that Blackfire has A ZERO CHANCE OF BEING IN THE FILM, stop aruging for him cuse its pointless, it would be like me aruging that Egghead has a small chance to be in the film.

The only reason Blackfire is getting any talk is because of you, you have been whoring his name all over these forums like a complete idiot, to actually think he has any chance.

Some kid comes on here, sees all this commotion and stupidity you have been causing and goes to another website says that " Blackfire is rumored to be a villain" and than another dumb kid on that website sees it and spreads it.

Just stop advocating for this amazingly stupid villain that was apart of a even dumber storyline,

And for your information i started to read it online, and had to stop reading it after a good half and hour because it was that boring.

Woah, let's lay off the name-calling.
Yeah i agree but you didnt have to call him an idiot..

[Bat-Mite]

...it would be like me aruging that Egghead has a small chance to be in the film.Are you saying that he doesn't? :huh: Ooooh, I get it. You're saying that because he has a great chance of being in the film.

[Grillz]

Wow, not saying he would do this, but what if Blackfire is in TDKR? Not played by Hardy, but someone else? Half of us would go apesh**!:oldrazz:

[Bat-Mite]

Wow, not saying he would do this, but what if Blackfire is in TDKR? Not played by Hardy, but someone else? Half of us would go apesh**!:oldrazz:So long as he's played by Tony Little, I could live with it.

[raybia]

For the sake of spurring discussion. If Hardy was cast to be the main villian (I'm not convinced that he is) then I think it will come down to one of the following:

Clayface
Strange
Deadshot

These are based on the basis of them being some of the oldest appearing villians that I feel would fit in Nolan's series.

[Capt Throbberson]

What is he's not the villain? What is on the line there?

It's sorta late in the trilogy to add a completely new major character, so he has to be from the comics at least. There's not too many good-guys they could introduce that Tom Hardy could really play. That, and he's an amazing actor who I doubt Nolan would waste on anyone other than a villain.

Then again, everyone assumed Gary Oldman was Ra's when they announced he was cast.

[raybia]

It's sorta late in the trilogy to add a completely new major character, so he has to be from the comics at least. There's not too many good-guys they could introduce that Tom Hardy could really play. That, and he's an amazing actor who I doubt Nolan would waste on anyone other than a villain.

Then again, everyone assumed Gary Oldman was Ra's when they announced he was cast.

There is still Harvey Bullock.

[regwec]

And that retard guy who Alfred employed as an apprentice mechanic for a while.

I would love to see Hardy go full retard.

[raybia]

And that retard guy who Alfred employed as an apprentice mechanic for a while.

I would love to see Hardy go full retard.

LOL, that was Harold! Whatever happen to him?

[Happy Jack]

LOL, that was Harold! Whatever happen to him?
He got killed in Hush, if I remember correctly.

[Robin91939]

Yup, Hush kills him in like the second to last issue of Hush. Someone (Hush or Riddler, I can't remember) bribed Harold to plant a bug on the Batcomputer to subliminally influence Batman.

-R

[batman11]

Yup, Hush kills him in like the second to last issue of Hush. Someone (Hush or Riddler, I can't remember) bribed Harold to plant a bug on the Batcomputer to subliminally influence Batman.

-R

Yeah, the bug was to get Bruce to subliminally think of Tommy, so that when he was severely injured, his first instinct was to summon Elliot for the surgery. And for his services, Harold got a nice bullet through the skull. Poor guy. :woot:

[Lungrocket]

Theres a 1 million and 1 chanc that he would be a villain.

Batman doesn't have that many villains, so I'm afraid his odds are much better than that.

The thing you fail to understand is that Blackfire has A ZERO CHANCE OF BEING IN THE FILM, stop aruging for him cuse its pointless,

The only thing I fail to understand, is how you came to this zero chance conclusion. This is based on what exactly?

The fact that you don't like him? Uh huh.

stop aruging for him cuse its pointless, it would be like me aruging that Egghead has a small chance to be in the film.

I would say Egghead has zero chance, based on Nolan's tastes. Blackfire already has a greater chance of being in it than Riddler and Mr. Freeze. :cwink:

The only reason Blackfire is getting any talk is because of you, you have been whoring his name all over these forums like a complete idiot, to actually think he has any chance.

Again, your arguement is based on your hatred for an unknown character, not based on anything logical. And plenty of people have chimed in about Blackfire. Read the Blackfire thread. I am not the only one suggesting him as a viable candidate.

Some kid comes on here, sees all this commotion and stupidity you have been causing and goes to another website says that " Blackfire is rumored to be a villain" and than another dumb kid on that website sees it and spreads it.

Oh my god! People might actually talk about a character in other threads and forums! The horror! What will people ever do!? :whatever:

You bring nothing to the table. At all. Nothing. No ideas to discuss. No intelligence. You can't even argue WHY Blackfire has ZERO chance. Here's a big word for you. Articulate. Look it up and then come back and argue why Blackfire has no chance outside of your silly hatred for either me or the character.

Just stop advocating for this amazingly stupid villain that was apart of a even dumber storyline

Yeah, maybe i will do that once you come back at me with an actual viable arguement. Until then just shut up, you whining cry baby.

And for your information i started to read it online, and had to stop reading it after a good half and hour because it was that boring.

Yeah, must have been those big words strung together into sentences that soured you.

[Majik1387]

This is getting as bad as supermodel Aunt May levels. :csad:

[Capt Throbberson]

All the Hugo Strange talk got me thinking.

How important is it to have a visually interesting villain?

[Antonello Blueberry]

All the Hugo Strange talk got me thinking.

How important is it to have a visually interesting villain?
Well, Nolan succeeded in giving us a lame version of a a visually interesting villain like Scarecrow.

[Boom]

And Ra's al Ghul, for all intents and purposes, wasn't that interesting looking.

[Thebumwhowalks]

They might spice up Hugo Strange's physical appearance somehow, my suggestion is to make him a cyclops, no eyepatch, give him a glass eyeball that he has custom made, in fact give him a rack of eyeballs like Luthor's wigs in the Superman movies. So when he is on tv, he uses his Marty Feldman eyeball, and when he is facing Batman in his apartment he uses his Darth Maul eyeball.
Don't have to know the backstory, maybe just a passing ref to how Strange happened to be leaving the gent's toilets in an olde English pub, and got a bit too close to the dartboard.
and at the end of the movie, Batman knocks his eyeball out and crushes it under his boot with an appropriate McBainism/Goyerism..''Eye' don't think so Strange.'

[Boom]

and at the end of the movie, Batman knocks his eyeball out and crushes it under his boot with an appropriate McBainism/Goyerism..''Eye' don't think so Strange.'
I think I just threw up a little bit.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I think I just threw up a little bit.

Good for you, it was an obvious gag, but i still like the idea of a one eyeballed Strange, and if you look at his appearance in Batman no.356, in the last two panels, he looks like he only has one(because he has been punched in the eye), and it's a good look.

But we do need a gag to underscore the dramatic final takedown of the one eyed Strange, so I would have Batman ko Strange, his glass eyeball flies out of his socket, Robin appears on the scene, catches the eyeball and says 'Socket to him Batman!'

Ok, get yourself a bucket.

[Travesty]

.''Eye' don't think so Strange.'....'Socket to him Batman':hehe:

[raybia]

Well, Nolan succeeded in giving us a lame version of a a visually interesting villain like Scarecrow.

I would have to agree. If Nolan hang up was realism then he could have given us a visually interesting image of the scarecrow seen thru the eyes of those affected by the fear gas.

[TheBatman072]

I would have to agree. If Nolan hang up was realism then he could have given us a visually interesting image of the scarecrow seen thru the eyes of those affected by the fear gas.

It's such a shame. What a missed opportunity that was.

He could have been riding a horse through a sea of terrified people, seeing him as a demon, the horse breathing fire.

That would have been SO cool to see.

Oh well. Damn Nolan and his "realism."

[raybia]

It's such a shame. What a missed opportunity that was.

He could have been riding a horse through a sea of terrified people, seeing him as a demon, the horse breathing fire.

That would have been SO cool to see.

Oh well. Damn Nolan and his "realism."

Yes, there was a scene where Scarecrow was seen thru the eyes of those affected but I didn't think his appearance was altered though the horse breathing fire was awesome.

[regwec]

They might spice up Hugo Strange's physical appearance somehow, my suggestion is to make him a cyclops, no eyepatch, give him a glass eyeball that he has custom made, in fact give him a rack of eyeballs like Luthor's wigs in the Superman movies. So when he is on tv, he uses his Marty Feldman eyeball, and when he is facing Batman in his apartment he uses his Darth Maul eyeball.
Don't have to know the backstory, maybe just a passing ref to how Strange happened to be leaving the gent's toilets in an olde English pub, and got a bit too close to the dartboard.
and at the end of the movie, Batman knocks his eyeball out and crushes it under his boot with an appropriate McBainism/Goyerism..''Eye' don't think so Strange.'
I would like to point out that this is a gimmick used by Charles Dance's character in the the critically acclaimed Arnie vehicle, "Last Action Hero".

[Boom]

You know, reading Nolan's recent comment about Hardy having a "key role"... I'm suddenly hit by this feeling that he won't be playing the villain. I have no idea why.

[Solidus]

I still think he will be a main villain. Which I think a major event will happen because of him though.

[Sith Scotti]

You know, reading Nolan's recent comment about Hardy having a "key role"... I'm suddenly hit by this feeling that he won't be playing the villain. I have no idea why.
So the Joker or Two face wasn't a key role in TDK. I think we should know Nolan will not come out and say he is a villian yet .

[Sith Scotti]

You know, reading Nolan's recent comment about Hardy having a "key role"... I'm suddenly hit by this feeling that he won't be playing the villain. I have no idea why.
So the Joker and Two Face werent key roles in TDK ? :oldrazz:

[Travesty]

So the Joker and Two Face werent key roles in TDK ? :oldrazz:Yes, but I mentioned this on another thread, but when Anthony Michael Hall was cast, I remember hearing he would play a "key role", and people were theorizing he was going to be The Riddler, when he was just a new broadcaster.

Although, he could easily play a main villain, it still doesn't mean he'll even have as big of a role as people may think.:cwink:

[batman11]

^To be fair Trav, did Nolan himself ever say that Hall had a "key" role?

[Travesty]

^To be fair Trav, did Nolan himself ever say that Hall had a "key" role?
I'm pretty sure he did. That's why there was such a debate on what villain he was going to be, because Nolan gave his regular vague answers. I remember him saying to the effect of either "key role", or "important role", etc..

[Gianakin_]

I'm pretty sure he did.:cwink:

Link? Cause I remember only AMH selling his role that way.

[Matt Mortem]

To my knowledge it was just AMH that said he himself had a "key role" but then again I haven't read anything TDK related since they film came out

[Travesty]

Link? Cause I remember only AMH selling his role that way.
I don't have one, nor do I care to look. I'm just going off of memory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I swore I remember Nolan saying something to that affect. But you can look if you want.:cwink:

[Gianakin_]

I don't have one, nor do I care to look. I'm just going off of memory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I swore I remember Nolan saying something to that effect. But you can look if you want.:cwink:

Nah, I'll go by my memory, that Nolan never said such a thing, it was all AMH.

[Travesty]

Nah, I'll go by my memory, that Nolan never said such a thing, it was all AMH.
Well, I just tried, and I can't find either of them saying anything. So, I'll go off my memory, and say it was both.:cwink:

Either way, I don't see how it matters. What we know of the Hardy's character, is reminiscent of AMH's character at the time. The point, was both of their characters were vague at one time, and we're just blindingly throwing suggestions in the air from a simple quote.

[Laderlappen]

It wasnt even AMH. It was just the fans overhypeing it as usual.

[Bat-Mite]

"I signed a confidentiality agreement, and I can't say which part I'm playing because it affects the story," says Hall. "I can't give away the suspense — it's a $200 million surprise, and I don't want to be the guy to ruin it."

"It's really a great role. I'm in throughout the whole movie, and I'm really looking forward to working with Christian and Morgan and all these real Hollywood heavy hitters.":hehe:

[raybia]

:hehe:

It took a lot of work on Nolan's part but they were able to edit most of his scenes from the movie.

[ALP]

^My god, reading that, I don't think I've ever seen someone sell such a small and irrelevant role...he acted as if he was going to be the main villain:dry:

[batman11]

Either way, I don't see how it matters.

One was an actor making ridiculous claims to build up his personal hype (and succeeded on our personal Hype :woot:), whereas the other is the director and co-writer of the film. That said, you are on point with Nolan being incredibly vague...like...all the time. :funny: ;)

While I don't see the situation as similar to Hall's, I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility that Hardy isn't playing a huge role. Not my personal opinion, but I don't fault anyone for thinking it. You never know with this Nolan guy. And I mean nevah!

[raybia]

^My god, reading that, I don't think I've ever seen someone sell such a small and irrelevant role...he acted as if he was going to be the main villain:dry:

Thank Goodness he was wrong. AMH was great back in the day but those days are gone.

[Rage]

Don't have the time to read all 100 pages. When I read that Tom was cast, the first thing that went through my head was that we was being cast to play the Joker (since Heath cannot) With the way that TDK piggybacked off of BB... I would think that the Nolans already had an outline/direction that they were heading in for their 3rd and final movie.

Has anyone brought this up?

[Majik1387]

Nolan has distinctly said no return of the Joker. He has also said he doesn't plan or outline future sequels while making a present movie.

[Figs]

Here are what I consider to be facts regarding this next Batman film of his.

1. No Joker
2. No Two Face
3. Nolan's final Batman film

That's just me though...

[rashad]

No Riddler
No Mr. Freeze

[Figs]

No Riddler
No Mr. Freeze

That's right! Forgot about those two.

To stay on the topic of this thread, I'm at a point to where I don't care if Hardy isn't the villian, I just want some news on characters. Even if that includes not saying who Hardy is out of them.

[bullets]

Here are what I consider to be facts regarding this next Batman film of his.

1. No Joker
2. No Two Face
3. Nolan's final Batman film

That's just me though...




1 and 2 were confirmed. I'd like to see both but logistically Two Face would be dead and although I hope he's mentioned the use of CGI for Joker sounded bad.

Nolan said and believes this to be his last Batman film. They may be able to talk him into another one someday but the approach is definitely, last act of a trilogy.

[Figs]

1 and 2 were confirmed. I'd like to see both but logistically Two Face would be dead and although I hope he's mentioned the use of CGI for Joker sounded bad.

Nolan said and believes this to be his last Batman film. They may be able to talk him into another one someday but the approach is definitely, last act of a trilogy.

I would love for him to do a fourth film but I think after TDKR he'll be moving on.

[ModestMr.Green]

1. No Joker
2. No Two Face


No Riddler
No Mr. Freeze

No name.
No other alias.

[byte19]

lol...

[HighFivingMF]

No name.
No other alias.
All we found in his pockets were Tom Hardy's name and a title.

[Wolverine1988]

I doubt he has a ANM type role,

The guy was the first new person to be cast, so hes gotta be a pretty prominent character i would assume.

[ModestMr.Green]

You know, reading Nolan's recent comment about Hardy having a "key role"... I'm suddenly hit by this feeling that he won't be playing the villain. I have no idea why.

I get the same impression. One could easily apply the 'key role' description to Coleman Reese, False Ra's, Brian Douglass, and any number of other characters, but they weren't main villains.

[Sam18]

Michael Caine's Alfred gets injured in an action scene, he explodes and Tom Hardy's Alfred emerges from within him.

[raybia]

I get the same impression. One could easily apply the 'key role' description to Coleman Reese, False Ra's, Brian Douglass, and any number of other characters, but they weren't main villains.

I thought that from the beginning. My sig may still be true.

[Boom]

Which means there could still be hope for Robin Williams as Hugo Strange :o.


I'm a dreamer.

[Symbiotic]

^I wouldn't be against it.

[raybia]

Which means there could still be hope for Robin Williams as Hugo Strange :o.


I'm a dreamer.

Make it so.

[chamber-music]

You know, reading Nolan's recent comment about Hardy having a "key role"... I'm suddenly hit by this feeling that he won't be playing the villain. I have no idea why.

Nolan is going to pull a Raimi and have it turn out that Tom Hardy was Joe Chill's partner and he really killed Bruce Waynes parents. Then his going to stumble onto an experiment become shapeshifting monster clayface, have a fight with Batman have a cry and tell him his sorry for killing his parents then disappear :funny::hyper:

[Jokers_Wild]

Nolan is going to pull a Raimi and have it turn out that Tom Hardy was Joe Chill's partner and he really killed Bruce Waynes parents. Then his going to stumble onto an experiment become shapeshifting monster clayface, have a fight with Batman have a cry and tell him his sorry for killing his parents then disappear :funny::hyper:

Everytime I start to forget how awful SM3 was, someone has to remind me. :csad:

[craigdbfan]

I would love for him to do a fourth film but I think after TDKR he'll be moving on.

It would be really neat if both him and Christian Bale return 10-15 years from now to see an older Batman in one last movie. That'd be beyond awesome if WB/Nolan were to do that.

[raybia]

It would be really neat if both him and Christian Bale return 10-15 years from now to see an older Batman in one last movie. That'd be beyond awesome if WB/Nolan were to do that.

It would be but I think a lot would have to happen for it to workout. Plus, WB would continue to make more Batman movies in the meantime.

[ALP]

Everytime I start to forget how awful SM3 was, someone has to remind me. :csad:

And I am reminded why the franchise is being rebooted.

The horror...the horror. SM3 had a worse storyline than B&R. :csad::wow:

[Boom]

I'm almost inclined to say B&R is better than SM3, because at least the former was aware of its own corniness and stupidity.

[ALP]

B&R just had the better "story" which really does not say a lot though. B&R had a decent storyline, Freeze takes out revenge for his frozen wife, Ivy wants mankind to suffer for destroying the earth. The B&R story is plain but not that awful. It's the execution that is bloody awful. On the other hand SM3 just had the most terrible awful plot ever(as the above poster pointed out) as well as poor execution. Both are difficult to stomach.

[regwec]

Does anyone cry or dance in B&R? I don't remember, and I'm not going to watch it again.

[Gianakin_]

Ivy dances.

[Paste Pot Pete]

Does anyone cry or dance in B&R? I don't remember, and I'm not going to watch it again.

Oh, do they ever.

Ivy and Bane do the forbidden Grape Ape dance, and Freeze sheds a tear that freezes and wisps away.

Now, excuse me while I kill myself for knowing this.

[HighFivingMF]

Oh, do they ever.

Ivy and Bane do the forbidden Grape Ape dance, and Freeze sheds a tear that freezes and wisps away.

Now, excuse me while I kill myself for knowing this.
I picture Pat Bateman saying everything you post, and I love you for it.

[TheWatcher]

SM3 is 10x better than B&R. Hands down.
-Neon,dancing,ape suits,nipples,crotch/butt shots,terrible acting/plot. All things that SHOULD NOT be in a Batman movie.
-While SM3 had its faults,it actually had good parts. The fighting,Sandman,the CGI,JJJ,Franco as GG,etc.

[ALP]

Yeah B&R was just pure poo from beginning to end. SM3 had a handful of decent moments wrapped in a pile of poo. Unfortunately it's hard to spot a gem wrapped in poo.

[The BatDude]

I picture Pat Bateman saying everything you post, and I love you for it.
Then he hits you over the head with an axe while Hip To Be Square by Huey Lewis & The News is playing in the background

[Doc Samson]

SM3 is 10x better than B&R. Hands down.
-Neon,dancing,ape suits,nipples,crotch/butt shots,terrible acting/plot. All things that SHOULD NOT be in a Batman movie.
-While SM3 had its faults,it actually had good parts. The fighting,Sandman,the CGI,JJJ,Franco as GG,etc.

IMO it was the best movie in the trilogy, as far as sheer enjoyment. I couldn't stomach all the pouting in SM2, I understand what the point was, but I just can't make it through that movie like I can SM3. It was just fun, and that's what I watch Spiderman for in the first place. I can take Bruce Wayne sulking in a corner (for a little while) but not Parker.

[Gianakin_]

To me, B&R was a fantastic comedy, fully aware of itself and purpose as someone else said.

SM3 was a bastardisation and for that, I prefer B&R. Besides the drop in quality was expected from BF to B&R, but (imo) not from SM2 to SM3.

[Boom]

To me, B&R was a fantastic comedy, fully aware of itself and purpose as someone else said.

SM3 was a bastardisation and for that, I prefer B&R. Besides the drop in quality was expected from BF to B&R, but (imo) not from SM2 to SM3.
Agreed.

I actually watch B&R all the time. Once you accept it for what it is, it's ****ing hilarious. Especially if you watch it with the RiffTrax.

[Don Corleone]

Wots this lot got to do with the thread?

[Micah12345]

New info:

TOM HARDY will be playing DETECTIVE HARVEY BULLOCK, and after a key encounter with BATMAN, will be transformed into the villain HUGO STRANGE, and in a plot twist at the end, BATMAN will reform him, and HARDY will join his side as ROBIN, THE MAN WONDER.

Source: Teh ItaliX

[Paste Pot Pete]

Oh god, I've stumbled into a parallel universe where a mediocre Spider-Man movie is considered worse than literally the most tasteless, poorly written, eye-raping film of all time.

I could write a novel on the things Spider-Man 3 got wrong. But in the end, it's just another subpar comic book movie in a long line of subpar comic book movies; it just had the misfortune of being the followup to one of the greatest.

Batman & Robin, on the other hand, is an affront to humanity.

[ALP]

As bad as B&R is, I think it does get worse...






















Catwoman.

[ModestMr.Green]

It would be really neat if both him and Christian Bale return 10-15 years from now to see an older Batman in one last movie. That'd be beyond awesome if WB/Nolan were to do that.

Why wait fifteen years when they could do it now with Keaton/Burton?

[HighFivingMF]

Why wait fifteen years when they could do it now with Keaton/Burton?
Because Tim Burton and good movies are a rare combination these days?

[ALP]

Agreed, they don't ever need to return to the Keaton/Burton world. Burton has no interest in Batman anymore, he wouldn't be able to pull it off, but mostly, we've simply moved past their era.

If anything that is sort of the problem with Bale and Nolan returning 15-20 years from now for Dark Knight Returns. Between those years WB will reboot or continue without them and their series will no longer be what's "in."

[batboy99]

Who here DOESN'T want Hardy as Hugo Strange? Because I kind of dont.

[Boom]

Oh god, I've stumbled into a parallel universe where a mediocre Spider-Man movie is considered worse than literally the most tasteless, poorly written, eye-raping film of all time.

I could write a novel on the things Spider-Man 3 got wrong. But in the end, it's just another subpar comic book movie in a long line of subpar comic book movies; it just had the misfortune of being the followup to one of the greatest.

Batman & Robin, on the other hand, is an affront to humanity.
I don't know what to tell you. I've just gotten to a place where I can watch the stupidity of B&R and laugh.

Unlike Spider-Man 3, because of which I've completely worn away the grooves on my hand from exessive face-palming.

[Happy Jack]

As bad as B&R is, I think it does get worse...






















Catwoman.
We don't talk about that.

[Paste Pot Pete]

I don't know what to tell you. I've just gotten to a place where I can watch the stupidity of B&R and laugh.

Unlike Spider-Man 3, because of which I've completely worn away the grooves on my hand from exessive face-palming.

Oh, I don't disagree. It's probably the more entertaining watch, but for all the wrong reasons.

It's just that Spider-Man 3, behind it's rushed and lazy writing and numerous wrongheaded decisions, still shows some level of craft. James Franco turns in a fun performance, the effects are top notch, and a few of the action scenes stand up against the best of the genre.

Batman & Robin is inept on almost every single level. Michael Gough is the only one that brings any class to the proceedings, and it breaks my heart to see him in such an awful film. Even normally reliable players like Pat Hingle seem to have the talent just sucked out of them. It's amateur hour all around, even down to the mostly recycled score and shoddy visual effects. It's stunning that it was directed by a seasoned filmmaker.
I get that people are warming back up to it. Time heals old wounds, and Nolan's series is helping ease the pain. It's like how some people are starting to reconsider Bush's presidency, saying "He wasn't THAT bad." No, he was. And so was B&R.

...sorry for derailing.

Tom Hardy is playing Jason Woodrue. :awesome:

[TheWatcher]

Catwoman wasn't the worst CBM ever.


It's the worst thing ever.

[TheWatcher]

Lets get back to Tom Hardy.

I hope he's playing Hugo Strange. He's literally PERFECT for the role.
-He's a great actor.
-He can look really creepy.
-He's pretty intimidating physically.
-Looks natural bald and with a mustache.(Bronson)

[Solidus]

I still think he would play a great Bane as well, as in Bronson he's shown he can sure add the pounds on to be a bigger character. I just wish WB would come out and what's going on and who's going to be picked.

[Bat-Mite]

ROBIN, THE MAN WONDER.I've seen a movie by that title. He does a lot of things with the batpole in it.

[HighFivingMF]

I've seen a movie by that title. He does a lot of things with the batpole in it.
With the Batpole in what? :dry:

[ALP]

With the Batpole in what? :dry:

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5171/1790e.jpg

[Figs]

Hahahaha!!

[PreK]

That is the first time I've noticed a zipper...

[Gianakin_]

It's like how some people are starting to reconsider Bush's presidency, saying "He wasn't THAT bad." No, he was. And so was B&R.

Difference is, nobody claims that B&R isn't bad. It just falls under the "it's so bad it's entertaining" category (unlike Bush or, for some, SM3).

[Micah12345]

I like batman and robin. I've seen it like 50 times.

[Nave 'Torment']

Difference is, nobody claims that B&R isn't bad. It just falls under the "it's so bad it's entertaining" category (unlike Bush or, for some, SM3).

Fans of Adam West, who understand that it's intentional camp, loved Batman & Robin. But the only person who fits that description is Joel Schumacher.

[Gianakin_]

Fans of Adam West, who understand that it's intentional camp, loved Batman & Robin. But the only person who fits that description is Joel Schumacher.

Heh, yeah, I was talking more about posters here.

[Nave 'Torment']

So... who is Tom Hardy going to be? My guess is that this film will be about the symbol of Batman, the idea of it all, being corrupted by all that has occurred in the past. Now, Batman's the bad guy in the public eye (save for a few believers), that places the new guy to be either a) a 'vigilante' who's out to kill bats and do the "right thing", b) a villain who understands that dilemma (Catwoman is the best archetype here), c) a member of the Falcone family, d) another new 'freak' that's overrun the city, or e) a villain never before seen in live action.

Here's the list of possible 'Tom Hardy' roles I can think of (if he's a villain):
Jean-Paul Levisque, aka, Azrael
Bane (Batman & Robin doesn't count)
Hush
Alberto Falcone
Killer Croc (all cannibal hector-esque) or
Paul Sloane (aka THE CHARLATAN, aka that obscure, Harvey Dent lookalike w/ties to Jonathan "guys I'm the ONLY other living supervillain in the batman films!" Crane)

This list ain't exhaustive.

[CrypticOne]

So... who is Tom Hardy going to be? My guess is that this film will be about the symbol of Batman, the idea of it all, being corrupted by all that has occurred in the past. Now, Batman's the bad guy in the public eye (save for a few believers), that places the new guy to be either a) a 'vigilante' who's out to kill bats and do the "right thing", b) a villain who understands that dilemma (Catwoman is the best archetype here), c) a member of the Falcone family, d) another new 'freak' that's overrun the city, or e) a villain never before seen in live action.

Here's the list of possible 'Tom Hardy' roles I can think of (if he's a villain):
Jean-Paul Levisque, aka, Azrael
Bane (Batman & Robin doesn't count)
Hush
Alberto Falcone
Killer Croc (all cannibal hector-esque) or
Paul Sloane (aka THE CHARLATAN, aka that obscure, Harvey Dent lookalike w/ties to Jonathan "guys I'm the ONLY other living supervillain in the batman films!" Crane)

This list ain't exhaustive.

He's gonna play Hugo Strange.

[Paste Pot Pete]

Fans of Adam West, who understand that it's intentional camp, loved Batman & Robin. But the only person who fits that description is Joel Schumacher.

They're only comparable on the surface level of "treats Batman like a joke."

The Adam West show had incredibly clever writing and a devilish wit. It was counterculture spoof, performed to a T by its actors. Adam West had the comic timing that most actors only dream of. Compare that to George Clooney, who just looked bored in the role. Arnold got the tone, though, and that does make his performance very fun.

One of it's biggest sins, though, is that there are long stretches of it that are simply boring. Basically whenever Arnold isn't on screen. The motorcycle race has to be one of the longest, dullest sequences in film history.

[souvlaki]

So... who is Tom Hardy going to be? My guess is that this film will be about the symbol of Batman, the idea of it all, being corrupted by all that has occurred in the past. Now, Batman's the bad guy in the public eye (save for a few believers), that places the new guy to be either a) a 'vigilante' who's out to kill bats and do the "right thing", b) a villain who understands that dilemma (Catwoman is the best archetype here), c) a member of the Falcone family, d) another new 'freak' that's overrun the city, or e) a villain never before seen in live action.

Here's the list of possible 'Tom Hardy' roles I can think of (if he's a villain):
Jean-Paul Levisque, aka, Azrael
Bane (Batman & Robin doesn't count)
Hush
Alberto Falcone
Killer Croc (all cannibal hector-esque) or
Paul Sloane (aka THE CHARLATAN, aka that obscure, Harvey Dent lookalike w/ties to Jonathan "guys I'm the ONLY other living supervillain in the batman films!" Crane)

This list ain't exhaustive.

Not to be a nerd about this, but his name is Jean-Paul Valley.

[ALP]

They're only comparable on the surface level of "treats Batman like a joke."

The Adam West show had incredibly clever writing and a devilish wit. It was counterculture spoof, performed to a T by its actors. Adam West had the comic timing that most actors only dream of. Compare that to George Clooney, who just looked bored in the role. Arnold got the tone, though, and that does make his performance very fun.

One of it's biggest sins, though, is that there are long stretches of it that are simply boring. Basically whenever Arnold isn't on screen. The motorcycle race has to be one of the longest, dullest sequences in film history.

I love the Adam West series. And quite agreed when you said that 'time heals all wounds.'

Really, many of us look back on the Adam west film and the show and love it. We can appreciate how humorous it is. But can you imagine being a serious fan of dark Batman in the 60s? You'd probably be pretty angry with the show. That is how ppl treat B&R now. Give it another decade or so and B&R won't have as many haters just more people who view it as a ridiculous comedy. On the other hand, movies like Catwoman do not even fit the "so bad it's hilarious" thing...it's not even in on the joke:facepalm:

[souvlaki]

Fans of Adam West, who understand that it's intentional camp, loved Batman & Robin. But the only person who fits that description is Joel Schumacher.

Dude, the 60's Batman television show is great. People that cant appreciate that show take their love of Batman too seriously. As for Batman & Robin, I hated it at the time, but as time has passed I've come to accept it as a bad movie that is an incredibly hilarious source of entertainment. In retrospect Batman & Robin was the best thing that could have happened to Batman, because after the success of the previous Batman films chances are WB never would have approved a complete reboot if Batman & Robin hadn't tanked.

[Anti-Moderator]

Not to be a nerd about this, but his name is Jean-Paul Valley.



Correct. Jean-Paul Levisque is Triple H's real name. :funny:

[American_Idiot]

There are some very good points here in regards to B&R.

Although most of us here recognize it as a bad movie all-around, and can now laugh at the various f-ups, from Bane-Ape to Batnips, it still irks me when I get into a discussion with someone who says "Batman & Robin was a good movie". It's at that point I ask "Are you Batman fan?!" and/or "On what basis?!"

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but most of us can agree that it was a guide on How Not to Make a Batman Film. Like I said, we can all look back at laugh at it's stupidity now, but when people actually praise Ahhhnold as Freeze, or claim they enjoyed seeing Silverstone's Batgirl alongside Batman, in reference to Paste Pot Pete's post, it's like arguing with someone who claims "Bush was a phenomenal president!"...makes ya wanna bang your head on something...

[Keyser Soze]

They're only comparable on the surface level of "treats Batman like a joke."

The Adam West show had incredibly clever writing and a devilish wit. It was counterculture spoof, performed to a T by its actors. Adam West had the comic timing that most actors only dream of. Compare that to George Clooney, who just looked bored in the role. Arnold got the tone, though, and that does make his performance very fun.

One of it's biggest sins, though, is that there are long stretches of it that are simply boring. Basically whenever Arnold isn't on screen. The motorcycle race has to be one of the longest, dullest sequences in film history.

I think Uma Thurman was enjoyable in it as Poison Ivy. But for the most part, the film was a car wreck.

[ALP]

I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone saying Arnold was a great Freeze or they liked Silverstone's Batgirl...or worse, they liked the silver batsuits.

[regwec]

I love the Adam West series. And quite agreed when you said that 'time heals all wounds.'

Really, many of us look back on the Adam west film and the show and love it. We can appreciate how humorous it is. But can you imagine being a serious fan of dark Batman in the 60s? You'd probably be pretty angry with the show. That is how ppl treat B&R now. Give it another decade or so and B&R won't have as many haters just more people who view it as a ridiculous comedy. On the other hand, movies like Catwoman do not even fit the "so bad it's hilarious" thing...it's not even in on the joke:facepalm:
I love the Adam West TV show. It's very much a product of the 60s; the optimistic tone and its playful sexuality are quite evident. It's premise seems to be that the good guys are basically stiff, and the bad guys are pretty cool. It works pretty well, and it's important to remember that the show was not unfaithful to the comics as they were at the time.

B&R lacks the period context, the originality or the innocence. The worst thing about that movie is that it seems like an artless cash-in. It has nothing in particular to commend it apart from belonging to the franchise that it is designed to milk. Yuck. I actually quite like the neon-thugs, but yuck.

[ALP]

I love the Adam West TV show. It's very much a product of the 60s; the optimistic tone and its playful sexuality are quite evident. It's premise seems to be that the good guys are basically stiff, and the bad guys are pretty cool. It works pretty well, and it's important to remember that the show was not unfaithful to the comics as they were at the time.

B&R lacks the period context, the originality or the innocence. The worst thing about that movie is that it seems like an artless cash-in. It has nothing in particular to commend it apart from belonging to the franchise that it is designed to milk. Yuck. I actually quite like the neon-thugs, but yuck.

Almost forgot about this lol

Was probably hard to be a fan of serious dark Batman in the 60s when the comics were just as silly:funny:

And good points.

[Majik1387]

He's gonna play Hugo Strange.
:whatever:

[The Englishman]

:whatever:

:whatever:

[Bat-Mite]

:whatever::whatever:http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/650/rolleyest.gif

[raybia]

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/650/rolleyest.gif

:doh:

[The Englishman]

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/650/rolleyest.gif

:lmao:

[Doc Samson]

I love the Adam West TV show. It's very much a product of the 60s; the optimistic tone and its playful sexuality are quite evident. It's premise seems to be that the good guys are basically stiff, and the bad guys are pretty cool. It works pretty well, and it's important to remember that the show was not unfaithful to the comics as they were at the time.

B&R lacks the period context, the originality or the innocence. The worst thing about that movie is that it seems like an artless cash-in. It has nothing in particular to commend it apart from belonging to the franchise that it is designed to milk. Yuck. I actually quite like the neon-thugs, but yuck.

And this is precisely why, even now, I can't watch that movie with a good conscience. As you stated, The TV show wasn't out of context for the times, or the comics of that period. B&R has no redeeming qualities in my book, and it's just hard to enjoy it even on the "it's so bad it's good" level, like I can, say...Commando. (Maybe the greatest movie of all time :woot:)

SM3 to me was pure, enjoyable fun, exactly what I expect from a Spiderman film, and therefore, I've watched it infinitely more than either 1 or 2. Everything people hate about it, I liked, especially the dancing. It was corny, and stupid, and...funny, at least to me. Well not just me, but everytime I was in the theater, everybody else found it funny too, and I saw it quite a few times.

SM2, was way too heavy for my tastes in this particular character, and even though I loved any Spiderman comic I ever read with those same elements in it, it just didn't translate well for me on the big screen. I can recognize on a technical level, the superiority of the first two in terms of quality, but sometimes that doesn't equate to overall enjoyment, as I suspect BB fans who prefer that over TDK feel much the same way

[The Guard]

I've gotten the the point where I can absolutely enjoy BATMAN & ROBIN and the less serious aspects of BATMAN FOREVER. Because I finally realized they weren't trying to be serious and failing miserably at it, thus creating crap. They set out to be campy, silly, pun-laden adventures with a modicum of heart, and they succeeded marvelously. The excess is fantastic. The sheer absurdity of them is fantastic if you stop expecting them to be Burton's Batman. And there are still some serious moments and weighty themes being tossed about. Despite the neon and the flash, Batman manages to remain somewhat dark and mysterious, even in BATMAN & ROBIN despite the quips, it's just the Batman we saw in the 60's and 70's VS the Burton version. Like SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's not what I wanted, but I can enjoy most of it for what it is.

[The Joker]

I can stomach Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, mainly because:

1. We now have an infinitely better new franchise
2. Both Forever and B&R didn't follow up a brilliant Batman movie (sorry Returns just wasn't a good Batman movie. Good movie, but not a good Batman movie)

Whereas with a piece of crap like Spider-Man 3, it killed the brilliant momentum Spider-Man 2 had given the franchise.

[ALP]

Lots of people lump BF and B&R together but I personally think BF works as an "okay" Batman film. Sure there is camp, a gay Riddler, and a city full of neon but overall I thought the film had a heart and did decent in certain aspects such as Bruce dwelling on his parent's death and attempting to help out a kid suffering the same fate as himself(would have worked much better with Bruce adopting a kid instead of a grown man). I do think that BF was Schumacher giving a genuine attempt at making a real Batman movie, it had plenty of the comic book elements mixed with his own flamboyant style. It's B&R when he just went "**** it all, let's make a toy commercial."

But really, in the end B&R being awful led us to a reboot. Had B&R just been a mediocre film that was a hit like BF, then Schumacher would just just made Batman Triumphant and who knows what after that. Instead it was so bad they they had to re-do Batman altogether.

I can stomach Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, mainly because:

1. We now have an infinitely better new franchise
2. Both Forever and B&R didn't follow up a brilliant Batman movie (sorry Returns just wasn't a good Batman movie. Good movie, but not a good Batman movie)

Whereas with a piece of crap like Spider-Man 3, it killed the brilliant momentum Spider-Man 2 had given the franchise.

I thought it was a brilliant Batman movie, just more of an elseworld story than a conventional Batman story. Not everything has to be completely conventional and follow the dotted line.

[batboy99]

I know he did look kind of hugo strange like in that movie, but I honestly find him to be way too much of a good looking man for that role. Id rather have him as Black mask. Because im sure we would see him pre black face.

[The Joker]

I thought it was a brilliant Batman movie, just more of an elseworld story than a conventional Batman story. Not everything has to be completely conventional and follow the dotted line.

It really wasn't a good Batman movie, IMO. Putting aside the very weird versions of Penguin and Catwoman, Batman himself is pretty much a non entity in the movie. It was like Burton completely lost all interest in the character, even more than he did in Batman '89.

I remember reading an interview with Keaton saying how unsatisfied he was with the Returns script in that regard.

[ALP]

It really wasn't a good Batman movie, IMO. Putting aside the very weird versions of Penguin and Catwoman, Batman himself is pretty much a non entity in the movie. It was like Burton completely lost all interest in the character, even more than he did in Batman '89.

I remember reading an interview with Keaton saying how unsatisfied he was with the Returns script in that regard.

But I've read tons of comics and graphic novels where Batman wasn't the main focus. The main formula is still there, it's just twisted. Villain is introduced, tries to take over the city with help from gangsters, plot is foiled by Batman, etc.

Definitely give you the weird twisted versions of Catwoman and Penguin though. Hey, it's not like Burton portrayed Batman as a blood thirsty killer...oh wait:oldrazz:

[The Joker]

But I've read tons of comics and graphic novels where Batman wasn't the main focus.

This isn't a comic book that comes out like twelve times a year. It's a 2 hour movie that came out three years later after the first movie.

Definitely give you the weird twisted versions of Catwoman and Penguin though. Hey, it's not like Burton portrayed Batman as a blood thirsty killer...oh wait:oldrazz:

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind killer Batman because I know it's based on those early Kane/Finger stories. I loved the gusto performances of Penguin and Catwoman. They just felt very different to their comic counterparts in nearly every way.

[ALP]

I thought penguin was a good one off thing. Like fine and good for the film but I'd never want to see him in the comics(although there are a few influences here and there). But Pfeiffer's Catwoman is probably my favorite of any incarnation!

[Paste Pot Pete]

Forever has a lot of things going for it.

Kilmer is pretty good. The suit, minus the nipples, is possibly the best ever. Batman's fighting style is the smoothest and most satisfying its ever been. Nicole Kidman is impossibly hot. Jim Carrey goes over the top, but he has some good moments where the Riddler's creepy obsessive nature shines through. It brings the focus back on Bruce Wayne and his torment, which is always a good thing.

The way Schumacher bridged the gap between the bloodthirsty Batman of the Burton films with his more classic no-killing version was quite brilliant, actually. Bruce's speech to Robin about revenge was great. Some argue that he just went and broke his code again anyway with making Two-Face fall, but I always saw it as Bruce thinking "I've already sinned, gone down that dark path; I will save Robin from doing the same by doing away with Harvey myself." In that regard, it was kind of noble, in a twisted way.

I think despite not being a Burton film, it concludes what I feel is a solid Batman trilogy. The fourth film is afterbirth. :o

[The Joker]

I thought penguin was a good one off thing. Like fine and good for the film but I'd never want to see him in the comics(although there are a few influences here and there).

DeVito was so good that it was hard not to like him (I still don't get how he got nominated for a Razzie for Returns!). I know a lot of fans liked it better because they find comic book Penguin boring (something I strongly disagree with. Comic book Penguin doesn't get his due anymore).

[craigdbfan]

They set out to be campy, silly, pun-laden adventures with a modicum of heart, and they succeeded marvelously. The excess is fantastic. The sheer absurdity of them is fantastic if you stop expecting them to be Burton's Batman. And there are still some serious moments and weighty themes being tossed about. Despite the neon and the flash, Batman manages to remain somewhat dark and mysterious, even in BATMAN & ROBIN despite the quips, it's just the Batman we saw in the 60's and 70's VS the Burton version. Like SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's not what I wanted, but I can enjoy most of it for what it is.

I can now see it that way too but only for the reasons Joker stated and that is we have a much better series in route to completion.

For me personally it was a shame seeing what happened to what Burton started with the first two movies and what happened thereafter with B&R and Forever. They weren't bad movies but more or less an interpretation of Batman/Bruce Wayne that no one really wanted including its versions of the baddies and Gotham.

This was my mentality before Begins but now that we have this wonderful series in progress I really don't mind those two for what they are.

[Doc Samson]

DeVito was so good that it was hard not to like him (I still don't get how he got nominated for a Razzie for Returns!). I know a lot of fans liked it better because they find comic book Penguin boring (something I strongly disagree with. Comic book Penguin doesn't get his due anymore).

I like what he was going for, but his incessant grunting I just can't take. At all. By the time he takes control of the Batmobile I'm ready to turn the whole thing off

[Gianakin_]

They set out to be campy, silly, pun-laden adventures with a modicum of heart, and they succeeded marvelously.

I agree about B&R, but I'm not so sure they tried to do that with BF.

[Gianakin_]

It really wasn't a good Batman movie, IMO. Putting aside the very weird versions of Penguin and Catwoman, Batman himself is pretty much a non entity in the movie. It was like Burton completely lost all interest in the character, even more than he did in Batman '89.

I remember reading an interview with Keaton saying how unsatisfied he was with the Returns script in that regard.

I'm pretty sure that either Burton or Winter said that they didn't quite know what to do with Batman, being vastly more interested in expliring the villains. And it shows in the film.

[Gianakin_]

I thought penguin was a good one off thing. Like fine and good for the film but I'd never want to see him in the comics(although there are a few influences here and there). But Pfeiffer's Catwoman is probably my favorite of any incarnation!

It's strange because I don't like Nicholson's Joker at all, despite being more faithful to the cmoics than Burton's Penguin and CW. However, I think the Penguin was more interesting in BR than he ever was in the comics. CW... well, I can definitely welcome a new interpretation closer to the comics. Despite being brialliantly written and acted, I know they can do better with her.

[Gianakin_]

Forever has a lot of things going for it.

Kilmer is pretty good. The suit, minus the nipples, is possibly the best ever. Batman's fighting style is the smoothest and most satisfying its ever been. Nicole Kidman is impossibly hot. Jim Carrey goes over the top, but he has some good moments where the Riddler's creepy obsessive nature shines through. It brings the focus back on Bruce Wayne and his torment, which is always a good thing.

The way Schumacher bridged the gap between the bloodthirsty Batman of the Burton films with his more classic no-killing version was quite brilliant, actually. Bruce's speech to Robin about revenge was great. Some argue that he just went and broke his code again anyway with making Two-Face fall, but I always saw it as Bruce thinking "I've already sinned, gone down that dark path; I will save Robin from doing the same by doing away with Harvey myself." In that regard, it was kind of noble, in a twisted way.

I think despite not being a Burton film, it concludes what I feel is a solid Batman trilogy. The fourth film is afterbirth. :o

It tried really hard to stay close to the comics and felt a lot like BTAS at points. The overall story was by far the best of the previous franchise. Miles ahead the other 3. However, the execution was mostly iffy.

[Wolverine1988]

I was actually watching Batman and Robin last night, at this point its one of those movies that is so bad , that it is actually kind of fun to watch and point out all the stupid moments and the horrible performances.

I am sure Uma Thurman made sure that a copy of that movie isn't within 500 feet of her, she i feel has to be the most embarssed one.

[ALP]

It's strange because I don't like Nicholson's Joker at all, despite being more faithful to the cmoics than Burton's Penguin and CW. However, I think the Penguin was more interesting in BR than he ever was in the comics. CW... well, I can definitely welcome a new interpretation closer to the comics. Despite being brialliantly written and acted, I know they can do better with her.

Well hey, I guess we can agree to have the opposite opinion:woot::cwink::oldrazz:

I mean I really enjoyed Burton's Penguin, I just wouldn't want him anywhere near the comics. Burton made the changes to make Penguin his main villain whereas Penguin of the comics is mostly a supporting villain or one who pulls the strings. And for those roles comic Pengy suffices well. Similarly, I loved Nolan's interpretation of the Joker. It was perfect for TDK. But things like the scarred smile, war paint, and grunge feel I do not want in the comics(although the first and third element were present in the graphic novel "Joker" and it was a nice one-off).

As for Catwoman, I loved what Pfeiffer did b/c I thought it was really interesting. The usual cat burglar route is for the most part boring to me. I'll go ahead and say upfront that if Nolan's Catwoman is a diamond thief I will more than likely not like it as much as Pfieffer's twisted crazy cat lady. Unless she has a brilliant dynamic with Bruce. But simply stealing diamonds from the Gotham museum doesn't do it for me(like Two Face robbing the second national bank of Gotham). Although I did like Catwoman: When In Rome. And even then, it presented something fresh for the character.

[The Guard]

I agree about B&R, but I'm not so sure they tried to do that with BF.

Seems pretty obvious that they did, especially with regard to the villains. But even the heroes have their share of puns.

[Gianakin_]

Seems pretty obvious that they did, especially with regard to the villains. But even the heroes have their share of puns.

I know, but the mixed tone of BF really confuses me as to what their intentions were. According to Joel's commentary, he wanted to do a BY1 type of story (or in tone, I don't remember) and WB told him no. So, it seems to me that he wanted BF to be dark, but Goldsman and WB put in all the cheese.

[Gianakin_]

Well hey, I guess we can agree to have the opposite opinion:woot::cwink::oldrazz:

Wow, from the rest of your post, we do have the exact opposite opinions, don't we? On all 3 villains!:woot:

[The Guard]

I know, but the mixed tone of BF really confuses me as to what their intentions were. According to Joel's commentary, he wanted to do a BY1 type of story (or in tone, I don't remember) and WB told him no. So, it seems to me that he wanted BF to be dark, but Goldsman and WB put in all the cheese.

There are some different tones, but the overall tone of BATMAN FOREVER is basically just an action adventure with humor. It's really Bruce's character moments that are the darkest, in an interesting twist on the mythos. Batman's tend to be lighter and more swashbuckling, as do Robin's, save for his parents death. I don't think that's an accident. Schumacher, the Batchler's and Goldsman were aware of Robin's impact on Batman, and as in the comics, they had Batman lighten up a bit. As I recall though, according to Joel himself, he wanted to do a darker story, and WB told him they were going lighter. So he went lighter. And then, with BATMAN & ROBIN, they told him to go even lighter. So, since going lighter worked box office wise for BATMAN FOREVER, he went even lighter.

[Gianakin_]

Action adventure with humor, exactly. I don't think they set out to be camp and silly, just lighter compared to BR. And Batman had some dark stories with Robin in them, so I'm not sure what came first, the lightening up or Robin.

[American_Idiot]

I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone saying Arnold was a great Freeze or they liked Silverstone's Batgirl...or worse, they liked the silver batsuits.

Not many people would, but I from time to time, when discussing Bat-movies with people, I do come across the occasional "See, I thought Dark Knight was overrated. I actually like Batman and Robin." folk. And in their defense, they say something like "C'mon, Arnold as Freeze. That was pretty good!" to which I refrain from saying whats on my mind and sounding like a total fanboy, but say something to the extent of "Well, I thought he was pretty terrible, but that's just me." :cwink:

[antsman41]

B&R was pretty awesome...








when I was 6 years old.

[Nave 'Torment']

He's gonna play Hugo Strange.
I really find that hard to believe. Ignoring the emoti-war from last page, I'm going to go with the argument that Strange and Nolan's Scarecrow were too alike. If Strange would've been used at any point, it would've been Batman Begins, but we have (and for a good reason) Jonathan Crane. Even down to mindless swarms attacking Bats. That's a Hugo Strange motif, seen in The Narrows as unleashed by a combo o' Scarecrow & Ra's. So, no. It will definitely not be Hugo Strange in my opinion. Though, if I'm wrong you are welcome to take my hat.

They're only comparable on the surface level of "treats Batman like a joke."

The Adam West show had incredibly clever writing and a devilish wit. It was counterculture spoof, performed to a T by its actors. Adam West had the comic timing that most actors only dream of. Compare that to George Clooney, who just looked bored in the role. Arnold got the tone, though, and that does make his performance very fun.

One of it's biggest sins, though, is that there are long stretches of it that are simply boring. Basically whenever Arnold isn't on screen. The motorcycle race has to be one of the longest, dullest sequences in film history.
I agree! In fact, a more BRAVE & THE BOLD-esque Batman movie, directed by Joel Schumacher, would've been great. The only complain I have with Batman & Robin today is that it could've been much more fun even with all the kitsch. I only realized that the old show was a product of counter-culture and an emblem of parody only recently - and it's that what made me go back to B&R and Batman Forever and I saw all these little recurrences and allusions to the show. On one note it's sad for me because, well, it was much more fun to think that they were all retarded. The truth is far from it, and much less humorous.

Not to be a nerd about this, but his name is Jean-Paul Valley.

Heh, I'm sorry my bad! I can't believe I made that mix-up... I KNOW it's valley damn it! I must've mixed them up with my OTHER childhood anti-hero - Triple H :P Thanks for pointing this out. No, you are not as guilty of nerdism as I am.

I love the Adam West series. And quite agreed when you said that 'time heals all wounds.'

Really, many of us look back on the Adam west film and the show and love it. We can appreciate how humorous it is. But can you imagine being a serious fan of dark Batman in the 60s? You'd probably be pretty angry with the show. That is how ppl treat B&R now. Give it another decade or so and B&R won't have as many haters just more people who view it as a ridiculous comedy. On the other hand, movies like Catwoman...

But you can imagine Halle Berry's Catwoman going toe-to-toe with Val Kilmer's Batman and we have camp glory!

Dude, the 60's Batman television show is great. People that cant appreciate that show take their love of Batman too seriously. As for Batman & Robin, I hated it at the time, but as time has passed I've come to accept it as a bad movie that is an incredibly hilarious source of entertainment. In retrospect Batman & Robin was the best thing that could have happened to Batman, because after the success of the previous Batman films chances are WB never would have approved a complete reboot if Batman & Robin hadn't tanked.

You misunderstand man, I am not dissing the old show. Or Batman & Robin. They are each their own interpretations so it fits well into Batman's history on-screen. Joel Schumacher's films were the equivalent of Bryan Singer's revisit of Superman: The Movie , albeit with a few liberties taken and, surprisingly, a lot darker than the TV show. I agree with the comment that Clooney was no West and was bored at it. If there ever would've been a third Schumacher film (yes neophytes, light thy fiery forks!), I'm almost certain that Kurt Russell would've done the role justice. After Batman: The Brave and the Bold, the Schumacher films should get at least some approval on SOME LIBERAL level among fans of Batman in general.

Correct. Jean-Paul Levisque is Triple H's real name. :funny:

:awesome: again, my bad.

Now then, let's move on from the euphoric, psychedelic 'City of Peace' that was the Gotham of the 60s and focus on something that's actually relevant to the thread: Tom Hardy.

Am I the only one who's thinking of him as The Charlatan?

[Nave 'Torment']

@ ALP, I want to go on record and say that Arnold was a great Freeze for Batman & Robin. He acted like a living, breathing caricature of the character straight from Super Friends or the old New Adventures of Batman (voiced by West). He even looked the part visually (for some reason I can't post attachments from my PC, otherwise I would've added a manip here for validation). And Alicia Silverstone was hot as Batgirl, but maybe that's just my pre-adolescent hormones going overdrive talking. It was a long time ago.

But enough with the old, lets talk with the new.

[Paste Pot Pete]

I would be totally cool with a more swashbuckling adventure Batman ala Brave and the Bold for the next series following Nolan.

I think its important to keep things fresh. Same with the animated versions, which is why they're going back to a darker tone after Brave and the Bold concludes.

[ALP]

Kurt Russell? Was he going to be Batman in Schumacher's Batman Triumphant? I don't think I can imagine that.

[finalrelief]

Kurt Russell? Was he going to be Batman in Schumacher's Batman Triumphant? I don't think I can imagine that.

He would of been better than Clooney though

[regwec]

I could easily imagine a younger Clooney successfully playing a period 1940s Batman.

[Paste Pot Pete]

I remember hearing about Kurt Russell. Triumphant was supposed to be a return to a darker tone, shipping Robin and Batgirl off to college and facing off against the Scarecrow.

Russell would've been good, either as a serious Batman or a lighter one.

[antsman41]

Russell would have been awesome as Bruce/Batman in 1978 with Christopher Lloyd as the Joker.

[ALP]

Haha, Lloyd would have been awesome as Joker. Remember Judge Doom!

I always wanted Harrison Ford to play Batman in the 80s. He would have been Indiana Jones and Batman in '89 lol

[DieSmiling]

My older sister loves Batman and Robin. She simply enjoys the camp. It's not uncommon -- a lot of people (even people with good taste) would rather see a silly, tongue in cheek superhero movie than a dark one that takes itself really seriously.

[Wesley Dodds]

I remember hearing about Kurt Russell. Triumphant was supposed to be a return to a darker tone, shipping Robin and Batgirl off to college and facing off against the Scarecrow.

Russell would've been good, either as a serious Batman or a lighter one.

Kurt Russell would've made a great Batman back in the day.

Such a shame he hasn't been in a comic book movie...

(That Sky High movie doesn't count)

[regwec]

"Big Trouble in Little China" was a comic book movie, even if it wasn't based on a comicbook.

I think Kurt is just too ugly to play Bruce Wayne.

[ALP]

Wow, from the rest of your post, we do have the exact opposite opinions, don't we? On all 3 villains!:woot:

Didn't notice this post until just now. But yeah, it's all cool. It's nice that we have multiple interpretations of many of the Batman characters. There's something there for each of the many different fans. Most prefer Nolan's Batman but there's also an amount that prefer Burton's rendition. And I'm sure even some that like Schumacher best:oldrazz:

"Big Trouble in Little China" was a comic book movie, even if it wasn't based on a comicbook.

I think Kurt is just too ugly to play Bruce Wayne.

Looking at Kurt in the 80s, I don't think he was too ugly for Bruce. I mean, just look at Michael Keaton. Definitely not a playboy, just average looking. And Russell even has that crazy jawline you bat-fanatics always talk about.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/36/3633/PRVEF00Z.jpg

On a related note, Mickey Rourke would be bomb diggidy awesome for Batman in Dark Knight Returns. He looks like him and he was Marv in Miller's Sin City after all.

[Bat-Mite]

I know who Tom Hardy will be playing. It came to me in a vision.
SWAMP THING
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8992/swampy.jpg

[Paste Pot Pete]

Kurt Russell ugly?

I'm no expert on men's appearances, but I always thought Kurt was popular with the ladies.

Maybe it's just my mom that loves him.

[Paste Pot Pete]

I know who Tom Hardy will be playing. It came to me in a vision.
SWAMP THING
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8992/swampy.jpg

Alan Moore's gonna have another **** fit.

[Nave 'Torment']

Kurt Russell could've done well in Triumphant even if it was pure camp. Besides, in the Schumacher movies, he would pass off as a great 'older' Val Kilmer. Wow, I'm really getting obsessed over these films now!

I'm just curious about another thing though, aren't Nolanites putting on a fit that Inception is not a hidden Batman movie? Or are they over all that? I just got the DVD and it's striking how many of the Batman archetypes are present in Inception. Imagining it as a Bat-Film is a good way to watch the film for the 10th time. :) Just sayin.

[hatebox]

B&R was pretty awesome...








when I was 6 years old.


I watched B&R when I was 12 years old at the cinema. I vividily remember feeling bored, even at that age.

[ALP]

I just figured it out. Tom Hardy will play Solomon Grundy born on Monday!

[ModestMr.Green]

Christened on Tuesday.

[the amazing fro]

Married on Wednesday

[Eddie Dean]

Took ill on Thursday.

[ALP]

Grew worse on Friday :D

[chamber-music]

died on Saturday

[batman11]

Emptied his bowels on Sunday.

[ALP]

This is the end of Solomon Grundy.


So we've cracked Nolan's code. Hardy is Grundy :D

[batman11]

Well done everyone. :up:

Take five and we'll come back to try and crack who's playing Crazy Quilt.

[HighFivingMF]

Well done everyone. :up:

Take five and we'll come back to try and crack who's playing Crazy Quilt.
It's Johnny Galecki. The signs are subtle, but many.

[ModestMr.Green]

The wildcard that he is, Nolan will probably give us the female version of Crazy Quilt, portrayed by Naomi Watts.

[ALP]

Actually I read that Jim Carrey is interested in playing another Batman villain. He could be crazy quilt easily. Same performance as he did as the riddler, just rainbow spandex instead of green. Do it Nolan.

[the amazing fro]

Emptied his bowels on Sunday.


Theres always one..... :oldrazz:

[Nave 'Torment']

I watched B&R when I was 12 years old at the cinema. I vividily remember feeling bored, even at that age.

Yeah, but here's the thing, at 6 years of age Batman & Robin would actually be FUN. I was 7 when I saw it for the first time, and it was as awesome as pizza (I happen to like pizza), what with all the merchandising and what-not. At 12, I'm sure it tasted like poo. You're bound to. At 12 kids play Metal Gear Solid rather than Pokemon. Though, admittedly, I played both, and Smackdown! So there's no argument really.

I just figured it out. Tom Hardy will play Solomon Grundy born on Monday!

:awesome:


So we've cracked Nolan's code. Hardy is Grundy :D

:awesome::awesome::awesome:

A Grundy spin-off movie with Hardy would be all kinds of awesome.

[Paste Pot Pete]

The wildcard that he is, Nolan will probably give us the female version of Crazy Quilt, portrayed by Naomi Watts.

Never thought the day would come when I'd find Crazy Quilt hot.

[antsman41]

Naomi Watts will be Roxy Rocket!

[Majik1387]

Naomi Watts will be Roxy Rocket!
And she'll team up with Hardy who'll be playing Firefly! :wow:

[Nave 'Torment']

I'm still voting for Hardy as either Bane or a Golden Age Clayface, maybe Killer Croc. Has any one thought wondered if by 'old characters' Nolan meant 'existing characters in the franchise' (arguably, Killer Croc and Deadshot are part of the canon) or simply Golden Age characters? I want to clear up that I WANT Catwoman to be in the film, she's the one character who naturally flows into the story at this point, but I am becoming more and more uncertain to that now.

[KILLING JOKER]

I'm almost inclined to say B&R is better than SM3, because at least the former was aware of its own corniness and stupidity.

I would actually agree with this. When I watched Batman and Robin I thought "Man, they are going for the pure camp." When I watched SM3 I felt dirty and sick inside.

Anyways, it seems we've moved on. Sorry.

[Hushed]

Just an interesting little read:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/12/10/tom-hardy-breakout-star-of-2010/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%7C189351

[The Guard]

I just watched BRONSON. Lord this man can act.

[Boom]

He's all over the place in that movie. It's great.

[Doctor Jones]

He's really the only great thing in that movie. I find it kind of pretentious but that's me.

[Keyser Soze]

He's really the only great thing in that movie. I find it kind of pretentious but that's me.

I think it's a fair point. I think Tom Hardy in Bronson is an example of a GREAT performance in a merely good film.

[Nave 'Torment']

I've made up my mind. Tom Hardy is the best candidate for THOMAS ELLIOT , aka, HUSH:

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee368/Weeping_Prufrock/BATMANHUSH.jpg
http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee368/Weeping_Prufrock/batman-hush-hc2.jpg

[Micah12345]

Hush would be more fun to see on screen than hugo strange or black mask.

[Majik1387]

Nah, Black Mask is better than both of them

[bert19]

He's really the only great thing in that movie. I find it kind of pretentious but that's me.

The movie is pretty much only about him though. I mean, does anyone really care what any of the prison guards are like? No, it's all about Charles Bronson and what goes on inside his head.

[Figs]

His performance was fantastic, but as some have said in the past, the movie itself was mediocre. If it wasn't for his acting I wouldn't have liked the movie all that much.

I can't wait to hear who he'll be playing in this film.