The New Catwoman Casting Thread

[Crook]

Well, I never said they'd look for the answer on the internet. Just that they're gauging reception based on internet speculation. I think Angelina's out of the question, honestly. Nolan obviously recognizes real unique talent, and I don't think I've ever seen Angelina do anything that a million other actresses couldn't do.
Let me ask the age-old question; have you seen her best roles? I doubt "millions of other actresses" could do 'em, mainly because these same numbers generally suck. Honestly, I can probably only name 15 or so Hollywood actresses in the 25-45 range that are consistently good within roles of differing range. Jolie's roles under this criteria aren't many, but she's made enough for me to realize she's a whole lot more than the media queen.

Also, may I just add, why the hell are we talking about this? This movie's like 5 years away.
You do realize you've posted in the Superman forums, right? A sequel to TDK has a way better chance of happening than a Supes film will at this point. :hehe:

[Cunning Stunts]

Depends on what you'd define as her "best work".

I never really viewed her as a media queen- I never really got that, "She's always in the media, I hate her!" attitude toward her. I just think she's a bit overrated, and got to where she is because she's drop-dead gorgeous and because of her father's status in the film industry.

I realize I'm exaggerating by "millions". I'd definitely consider Jolie and A-Lister, but there's that A+-List group that Nolan seems to be attracted to (or creating), and I don't view Jolie as being in this group.

[Crook]

Depends on what you'd define as her "best work".
Well obviously the work that is reviewed the best, which usually gets acclaim by critics and fans alike. Isn't that the definition for anyone and anything? :o

I realize I'm exaggerating by "millions". I'd definitely consider Jolie and A-Lister, but there's that A+-List group that Nolan seems to be attracted to (or creating), and I don't view Jolie as being in this group.
True to a point. Though he has cast Leo, who right along Depp is probably the most popular and adored male leads in Hollywood. Granted, he isn't in the media spotlight as much as Jolie is. Used to be though.

[Cunning Stunts]

Well obviously the work that is reviewed the best, which usually gets acclaim by critics and fans alike. Isn't that the definition for anyone and anything? :o


True to a point. Though he has cast Leo, who right along Depp is probably the most popular and adored male leads in Hollywood. Granted, he isn't in the media spotlight as much as Jolie is. Used to be though.

I think Leo and Depp are on that A+ level, though, to be quite honest. I mean, I wouldn't throw any fits if Jolie were cast, but I can't say I wouldn't feel a little disappointed. I just feel like there are better women for the role.

I haven't yet seen Changeling, which I know she's received an Oscar for. Other than that, I'm not sure of what of hers was acclaimed.

[Crook]

I think Leo and Depp are on that A+ level, though, to be quite honest. I mean, I wouldn't throw any fits if Jolie were cast, but I can't say I wouldn't feel a little disappointed. I just feel like there are better women for the role.
Oh, I'm not doubting Leo and Depp's level. Just pointing out their media adoration as well. They've no doubt built a better filmography with quite a number of great performances. I just feel like Jolie has it in her, because I've seen it already.

The only other actress I can see in this role who is better at acting is Cotillard. Theron gets a special mention because her best role has technically been better than Jolie's best.

I haven't yet seen Changeling, which I know she's received an Oscar for. Other than that, I'm not sure of what of hers was acclaimed.
Changeline was just an Oscar nomination. Her win was for Girl, Interrupted. As for her most acclaimed roles, off the top of my head; George Wallace, Gia, Girl Interrupted, Life of Something Like it, Good Shepherd, A Mighty Heart, and Changeling. With her vast films, this list is admittedly damn short. Unfortunately she started off with a bang, and then declined with her mainstream success. The last 3 films she was terrific in though. Particularly the last two which she starred in. Very different Jolie you'll see in those. I was impressed thoroughly.

[Figs]

Nolan clearly doesn't care about matching his actors to the comic. Heath Ledger's bone structure looks nothing like the Joker in any incarnation. The Joker has always had long, pointy features and Ledger has soft, round features. Nolan doesn't care about looks. The arguments in this thread like "she's not sexy enough" or "she's not tough enough" are pointless. There's no way that Nolan is being as picky as us fans would be. He's casting general physicality and then the big one, acting ability (as he sees it).

Also, may I just add, why the hell are we talking about this? This movie's like 5 years away.

You make it sound as if other directors actually cared about the actor's bone structure in regards to the villians they were playing. Cesar Romero and Nicholson also didn't have the Joker's facial structure...which is highly exaggerated in just about every comic he's in anyways.

I will agree that he mainly casts on acting ability, see Maggie Gyllenhaal. I don't think she's as unattractive as most fanboys do but I can tell you that out of a lot of my friends and family that saw the film that I would consider part of the GA, they thought it was kind of horse **** that someone like Bruce and Harvey would be going after the same girl, who was rather homely I guess you could say. All in all for me I felt she was a vast improvement over Holmes though.

As for your last question. We're talking about this because it's fun to speculate at times. If you don't think it's worth your time don't come in this thread. :)

[Cunning Stunts]

Oh, I'm not doubting Leo and Depp's level. Just pointing out their media adoration as well. They've no doubt built a better filmography with quite a number of great performances. I just feel like Jolie has it in her, because I've seen it already.

The only other actress I can see in this role who is better at acting is Cotillard. Theron gets a special mention because her best role has technically been better than Jolie's best.


Lol, I wasn't arguing against the media adoration part. I never really looked at that as if it had any effect on her career, nor Leo's and Depp's. I don't doubt that with the Nolan brothers and their team could turn Angelina into the next Heath Ledger in Batman 3, but as another poster here once said... It'd just be "uninspired" to me.

As far as other actresses go, I could see Emily Blunt doing a better job (than Jolie, I wouldn't quite put her over Cottillard, but we never know), honestly. She seems like one of those actresses that really gets into her roles all the time, regardless of what they may be.


Changeline was just an Oscar nomination. Her win was for Girl, Interrupted. As for her most acclaimed roles, off the top of my head; George Wallace, Gia, Girl Interrupted, Life of Something Like it, Good Shepherd, A Mighty Heart, and Changeling. With her vast films, this list is admittedly damn short. Unfortunately she started off with a bang, and then declined with her mainstream success. The last 3 films she was terrific in though. Particularly the last two which she starred in. Very different Jolie you'll see in those. I was impressed thoroughly.

Yeah, I want to say I've seen Good Shepherd and Gia, but I'd have to see them again to make sure. The others, I'm fairly sure I haven't though. I don't doubt that Jolie has it in her, but it's all the other movies around it that make me feel like she has that greater chance to just be Angelina, not Catwoman, in Batman 3.

[Crook]

Lol, I wasn't arguing against the media adoration part. I never really looked at that as if it had any effect on her career, nor Leo's and Depp's. I don't doubt that with the Nolan brothers and their team could turn Angelina into the next Heath Ledger in Batman 3, but as another poster here once said... It'd just be "uninspired" to me.
Turning anyone into the next Heath would be "inspired" though. ;)

In any case, I don't really care for surprise picks, and certainly not for every role. Joker was a special case for obvious reasons. I don't see why we can't go "conventional" here when 3/4 of the cast in this franchise have proven you don't need an ace up your sleeve to fit your character and deliver a great performance.

As far as other actresses go, I could see Emily Blunt doing a better job (than Jolie, I wouldn't quite put her over Cottillard, but we never know), honestly. She seems like one of those actresses that really gets into her roles all the time, regardless of what they may be.
I like Blunt, she's got a good career ahead of her...but not for this role. One, I've never seen her do anything truly remarkable. Second, while hot, she just doesn't have the feline look or the mysterious allure that I feel is necessary for this character. It's unfortunate she didn't get to do Black Widow, because that's a part she really fit.

Yeah, I want to say I've seen Good Shepherd and Gia, but I'd have to see them again to make sure. The others, I'm fairly sure I haven't though. I don't doubt that Jolie has it in her, but it's all the other movies around it that make me feel like she has that greater chance to just be Angelina, not Catwoman, in Batman 3.
It may sound typical to say this, but I've never seen Angelina "just be Angelina" when either the material or director calls for a particular performance. If the part is written like a feisty female lead, and JUST that, then yeah, Jolie will play her typical self. That's only because she's practically defined that role now. Think Eastwood as bad-ass, or DeNiro as the gangster.

Then again, if it is written in that way, then no actress in the world would do much better with that role. At the end of the day, it'd be a shallow depiction of Selina.

[Timstuff]

The studio better have nothing to do with this movie that conflicts with what Nolan wants to do. He just made them 1 billion dollars! It should be up to him.

I do hope the actress is sexy or atleast beautiful behind to go with her acting ability.

I still have a hunch that Selina Kyle will just be introduced in this movie and begin to show her slide to crime by the end of the movie. I don't know I got a million different ideas on how this next movie will play out. I pretty much called the last movie besides no origin to the Joker and I didn't think Harvey would die...

Personally, I'd rather have a pre-established Catwoman in this movie, rather than dragging through her origin. If they want to cover this version of Selina's backstory, I'd rather they did it with a prequel/spinoff movie or something (anything to make us forget that abomination known as CINO would be welcome). Starting us off with Catwoman already being established as a notorious international cat burglar would make it a lot easier to get into the good stuff quickly.

[RachelDawes]

Personally, I'd rather have a pre-established Catwoman in this movie, rather than dragging through her origin. If they want to cover this version of Selina's backstory, I'd rather they did it with a prequel/spinoff movie or something (anything to make us forget that abomination known as CINO would be welcome). Starting us off with Catwoman already being established as a notorious international cat burglar would make it a lot easier to get into the good stuff quickly.

I'm with you, and if history's any guide we won't see Catwoman's origin. So far the only villain birth we've seen has been Two-Face's and that's only because his descent from Harvey Dent is too closely intertwined with Batman's own story to be left out. I think that's how Nolan keeps the focus of his movies on Batman; we rarely see the villain when he's not interacting with Batman and we don't often learn where he comes from or exactly why he does what he does.

[Alex Logan]

Haha, right on! Girls get the chiseled male leads, I think we deserve some eye-candy of our own. Especially with this franchise. We went from the likes of this:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9302/kimbasingergallery5.gif http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9239/basinger4b.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2763/michellepfeiffer3p.jpg http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3576/michellepfeiffer3.jpg

...to this:

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7613/maggiegyllenhaal.jpg http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/5107/hotmaggie15s.jpg


No offense to anyone that's a fan of Maggie, but there's a huge, how shall I say it--- discrepancy in the female lead area? Personally I would just like to know wtf happened and if this will be corrected. :o

Couldn't agree more. Cook, who's that in your avy? Could it be my future wife Miss Fox? :woot:

[elgato]

I definately agree with Crook. The best (or second best) thing from the first franchises were the women, I mean Batman, Kim Basinger, Batman Returns, Michelle Pfeiffer!!, Batman Forever, Nicole Kidman, Batman & Robin, Uma Thurman! (<3) And what we get in these? Katie Holmes and Maggie Gylenhaal ¬¬

[Cunning Stunts]

That said, the old Batman was closer to James Bond than this new one is (sleeping with a new girl every movie). To be quite honest, I've wondered if Chris Nolan went out of his way to make Rachel look ordinary (or even ugly), basically giving the idea that his love was more true and pure rather than just wanting the hottest babe possible.

On top of that, it'll make us that much more thankful when Marion Cotillard hits the scene. :p

[elgato]

Hell yeah Cunning Stunts :D

[KalMart]

I definately agree with Crook. The best (or second best) thing from the first franchises were the women, I mean Batman, Kim Basinger, Batman Returns, Michelle Pfeiffer!!, Batman Forever, Nicole Kidman, Batman & Robin, Uma Thurman! (<3) And what we get in these? Katie Holmes and Maggie Gylenhaal ¬¬
Then again...we still got crappy movies like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. I'll take better films over window dressing.

[Alex Logan]

Then again...we still got crappy movies like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. I'll take better films over window dressing.

Ummm, no.

[Timstuff]

I didn't like those movies, but I suppose that puts me in the fanboy minority. :o

[Cunning Stunts]

Then again...we still got crappy movies like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. I'll take better films over window dressing.

I wouldn't call them crap, but I do agree that I'd rather a better film than a gorgeous love interest. Either way, it still cracks me up to see all the fanboys who grasp onto Batman '89 and Batman Returns like they can even stand up to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Nolan's films are on a new level.

[elgato]

Then again...we still got crappy movies like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. I'll take better films over window dressing.

Emmm I don't think Batman and Batman Rturns fall into the category of crappy movies, and I am not saying I want a hot woman instead of a good movie, I just say an attractive woman complements it

[regwec]

Batman and Batman Returns certainly weren't crap; they just failed to give a lot of Batfans what they hoped for. Some Batfans would make the same complaint of BB and TDK.

[KalMart]

Ummm, no.
Um, yes, actually.

Batman and Batman Returns certainly weren't crap; they just failed to give a lot of Batfans what they hoped for. Some Batfans would make the same complaint of BB and TDK.

I'm not a particular fan of any comic character etc, but I just thought they were pretty lousy films, regardless as to who they were about. I also don't like Burton's work in general, but that's another story.

[elgato]

D= how can you dislike Timmy?!!


:D j/K

[flickchick85]

I'm not a huge fan of the Burton films, either. I mean, they're enjoyable, and they have great music and art direction...but otherwise, they feel pretty empty to me. Well the 1st one, anyway. The only redeeming factors in Returns, imo, were the aforementioned great score and Pfeiffer's performance.

I actually feel that way about most Burton films though, with a few exceptions. I do appreciate that he does his own thing, but it's usually just not my style.

[Lucid]

----

[Alex Logan]

Um, yes, actually.

I'm not a particular fan of any comic character etc, but I just thought they were pretty lousy films, regardless as to who they were about. I also don't like Burton's work in general, but that's another story.

Umm no, not really.

That's even more ridiculous. If you didn't like them because you're a huge Batman fan then I could understand, but to say they were lousy films? Come on...

FF and & Ghost Rider were lousy films.

[KalMart]

Umm no, not really.

You must have missed the 'um, yes' part. Consider this one a bonus. :cwink:

That's even more ridiculous. If you didn't like them because you're a huge Batman fan then I could understand, but to say they were lousy films? Come on...
Care to explain that....or at least try?

FF and & Ghost Rider were lousy films.

Those were horrendous, actually. Still, they don't really elevate Batman and Returns. Everyone's got their own likes and tastes, but regardless of being based on comics or not, I just didn't find them to be good films. Xmen 1 & 2, and Iron Man were considerably better, even putting modern effects and such aside. Once you take away the novelty of having Batman in live action at the time, the self-caricature by Nicholson etc., you're left with merely a particular visual approach/feel (and not even a very palatable one), and almost no substance or depth to the narrative. It's as if Burton just wanted to put a twisted and meandering circus on film, and just happened to use Batman as the backdrop, rather than really capitalizing on the unique appeal of the character and his story. Pretty much the same thing he does with just about all his other movies. But anyway, that's not what this thread is about, so better to leave it at that.

IF they will be going with Catwoman, the actress should certainly be attractive, but the approach taken with these Batman movies certainly warrants an emphasis on acting ability over pure eye candy. We may not get the kind of glamour of a Bassinger/Pfeiffer/Kidman, but the creative/narrative upside should outweigh that considerably. That said, I think there are a good number of actresses in the appropriate age range that are at least well-stocked in both areas, both of which can be put to good use by the right material and direction.

[Panthro]

I like Keri Russell, but not for Catwoman/Selina Kyle. She might have made a good Susan Storm/Invisible Woman but alas, too late. I would have liked to have seen Carla Gugino take a shot at Catwoman, but that's not going to happen either at this point.

[Crook]

Care to explain that....or at least try?
Read this:

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_bray_returns.html

To call BR a lousy film, by any criteria, is just wrong on all levels. By a large means, BR was more of an art film and display of cinematic finesse than BB and TDK ever were.

Not to sound like a prick, but to be honest most didn't even see beyond the surface of what BR was, which is probably why it's so underrated.

[elgato]

completely agree there, Crook, Batman Returns is not just a comic book movie, it's a godamn piece of art.

[KalMart]

Read this:

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_bray_returns.html

To call BR a lousy film, by any criteria, is just wrong on all levels. By a large means, BR was more of an art film and display of cinematic finesse than BB and TDK ever were.

Not to sound like a prick, but to be honest most didn't even see beyond the surface of what BR was, which is probably why it's so underrated.
I don't agree, and as I said before, I'm judging it as a film first and foremost, and we all have different tastes/preferences. I also felt this way about them when they came out, so it's not even in light of the recent Nolan efforts. I do think BR is slightly better than B89...or less-bad, more aptly. In some ways, you can give it some slack in that there really wasn't anything else in its ilk to compare them to, at least in terms of genre.

But at the same time, the movie wasn't limited by what movies were generally capable of at the time, and it certainly had enough money at its disposal. It was completely possible to make a better film with a different creative direction and better narrative. I don't think that was the best that could have been done, and Burton was the wrong choice, unless they really didn't care how good of a piece of cinema it would be past striking imagery and marketability. I'm sure Burton did his best with it, no-one's claiming that he didn't. But since I have also said that everyone is entitled to their outlook, it's no more ridiculous or non-factual to call it a bad film than to call it a good one....despite what an article on a Batman fan site may suggest....or a fan-site like this, for that matter.

But again, that's not what's really important here, so best to just agree to disagree. We should get back to catwoman.

[Crook]

I have a sneaking suspicion you completely glossed over what was inside that link, because the issue of budgetry and narrative choices wouldn't even be a question had you read it.

[KalMart]

I have a sneaking suspicion you completely glossed over what was inside that link, because the issue of budgetry and narrative choices wouldn't even be a question had you read it.

I did, and it really reads more like something that one would wish the movie to be in theory, but really didn't deliver in execution. Whatever pseudo-ethereal qualities that may have somehow been intended were ultimately mired by overall presentation......and really, if someone has to take a step back or look deeper to find those qualities, they probably chose the wrong piece to do it with. It's as if the film obligates you too look for it, instead of inviting you to....and by that time, it's projecting.

However, not thinking that it was a good film doesn't necessarily negate appreciating how well it did, or what it achieved in terms of taking advantage of its unique spotlight in a relatively vacant and dormant genre. That's not what this is about. I don't think B89 and BR were particularly good films, but they certainly hold an important place in cinema history in terms of staking a claim in the earlier days of what's now a very dense genre. I think it's okay to acknowledge and appreciate that without directly attributing it to its artistic/cinematic quality.

But once again, let's leave this alone...to each their own....and get back to Catwoman.

[Crook]

Fair enough. So to segway into a smooth transition...

Selina; conflicted and adventurous ala comics, or mentally "broken" and disturbed ala BR? A bit of both, perhaps?

[KalMart]

Gotham socialite, or a former hooker from the Narrows?

[Crook]

No one would have the balls to do the latter. At best, there'd be small implications or changing a hooker to dominatrix.

[KalMart]

No one would have the balls to do the latter. At best, there'd be small implications or changing a hooker to dominatrix.

Well, look at it this way....she doesn't have to have once been a hooker in particular, but at the same time, having more 'humble' or tougher street origins may give a more relevant depth as a character. Thus far, the villains (the main ones, at least) have really been more than just them and what they want......they've represented a sociological/crime/corruption element, and utilized what goes deep into the city's social and legal underpinnings. Catwoman's motivation, be it burglary or what have you, may be for personal gain....but does it represent more than that? Is she a sort of Robin Hood, sticking it to the people with power and money in defiance of being s#!t on while growing up in the slums, etc?

Batman may be a symbol for the good, law-abiding citizens who try to lead normal honest lives....but what about the people who have been driven to crime because of capitalist oppression, social decay, et al...issues that aren't necessarily addressed by putting mobsters behind bars and what not? Maybe Catwoman should represent that, and if so, an art-collecting socialite who lives in a snazzy penthouse may not be the best fit, y'know?

I think once they define that, it'll help clarify just what they're looking for in terms of casting.....and in doing so, an uber-glamorous bombshell may not be most appropriate unless they actually downplay her looks.

[flickchick85]

I'd prefer conflicted and adventurous Gotham socialite with a mysterious past (possibly "on the streets" of the Narrows).

[jmc]

Fair enough. So to segway into a smooth transition...

Selina; conflicted and adventurous ala comics, or mentally ''broken'' and disturbed ala BR? A bit of both, perhaps?

I'd say a bit of both, but more the former than the later. I don't like the idea of exploring Selina's origins to the empth degree, we don't need a Catwoman Begins, but I'd like to see her past hinted at, perhaps a moment between Bruce and her that brings out an emotional response.

[KalMart]

I'd prefer conflicted and adventurous Gotham socialite with a mysterious past (possibly "on the streets" of the Narrows).
If that's the case, is she just a thrill-seeker? I'm not familiar with her actual characterization from the comics.

[Luisvet]

http://api.ning.com/files/POWZnUghpyhHdKCTXEeSSBvPc2rCENFtJWIDoIcR3Q7LKjbJ0V MzUngc6*l49ambqSy1dDV9PL8quRiiHh32ilQb5EzqpHyT/batman.jpg

Here's the first fan-made poster i found showing Kate Beckinsale as Catwoman. Obviously not a really good job, but still, nice effort and I like the idea...

[elgato]

I can't see it :(

[Alex Logan]

You must have missed the 'um, yes' part. Consider this one a bonus. :cwink:

Care to explain that....or at least try?

Those were horrendous, actually. Still, they don't really elevate Batman and Returns. Everyone's got their own likes and tastes, but regardless of being based on comics or not, I just didn't find them to be good films. Xmen 1 & 2, and Iron Man were considerably better, even putting modern effects and such aside. Once you take away the novelty of having Batman in live action at the time, the self-caricature by Nicholson etc., you're left with merely a particular visual approach/feel (and not even a very palatable one), and almost no substance or depth to the narrative. It's as if Burton just wanted to put a twisted and meandering circus on film, and just happened to use Batman as the backdrop, rather than really capitalizing on the unique appeal of the character and his story. Pretty much the same thing he does with just about all his other movies. But anyway, that's not what this thread is about, so better to leave it at that.

IF they will be going with Catwoman, the actress should certainly be attractive, but the approach taken with these Batman movies certainly warrants an emphasis on acting ability over pure eye candy. We may not get the kind of glamour of a Bassinger/Pfeiffer/Kidman, but the creative/narrative upside should outweigh that considerably. That said, I think there are a good number of actresses in the appropriate age range that are at least well-stocked in both areas, both of which can be put to good use by the right material and direction.

If you think X-Men is the better film over Batman then there's no point in trying to explain anything.

Batman is superior in every way. Cinematography, art direction, plot, casting, acting, ect.

If you didn't like those films then that's fine, but they're far from lousy.

Atleast we agree on Catwoman.

Read this:

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_bray_returns.html

To call BR a lousy film, by any criteria, is just wrong on all levels. By a large means, BR was more of an art film and display of cinematic finesse than BB and TDK ever were.

Not to sound like a prick, but to be honest most didn't even see beyond the surface of what BR was, which is probably why it's so underrated.

Agreed. Cook, I must know... who's the girl in your avy.

[elgato]

I'd prefer conflicted and adventurous Gotham socialite with a mysterious past (possibly "on the streets" of the Narrows).

Ya, I think she could show up as the rich socialité, but show in flashbacks her as a prostitute, or I prefer, an amateur thief that lives with her friend Holly Robinson, a prostitute, in the Narrows.

[Crook]

Agreed. Cook, I must know... who's the girl in your avy.
That'd be Megan Fox from the newest TF2 trailer.

Well, look at it this way....she doesn't have to have once been a hooker in particular, but at the same time, having more 'humble' or tougher street origins may give a more relevant depth as a character. Thus far, the villains (the main ones, at least) have really been more than just them and what they want......they've represented a sociological/crime/corruption element, and utilized what goes deep into the city's social and legal underpinnings. Catwoman's motivation, be it burglary or what have you, may be for personal gain....but does it represent more than that? Is she a sort of Robin Hood, sticking it to the people with power and money in defiance of being s#!t on while growing up in the slums, etc?
She's sticking it to the rich, no doubt. But I wouldn't necessarily call her Robin Hood. She's out for herself in most cases.

Batman may be a symbol for the good, law-abiding citizens who try to lead normal honest lives....but what about the people who have been driven to crime because of capitalist oppression, social decay, et al...issues that aren't necessarily addressed by putting mobsters behind bars and what not? Maybe Catwoman should represent that, and if so, an art-collecting socialite who lives in a snazzy penthouse may not be the best fit, y'know?
Depends on how you want to look at it. A rich socialite can just as well be a "front". As I said before, she steals from the rich, but isn't giving to the poor. So it wouldn't make much sense to have her be a cat burglar...and reap no profits. I suppose they can always have her throw away the gems, but that would be out-of-character.

The Selina I've known has gone up against the baddies, but only to the benefits of herself and the suffering of theirs. I don't think the oppressed or poor play any role in this crusade. If anything, Selina is the selfish embodiment of that population. Taking what she thinks is deservedly hers, or at least, unworthy of the greedy.

[KalMart]

If you think X-Men is the better film over Batman then there's no point in trying to explain anything.
Apparently not.

Batman is superior in every way. Cinematography, art direction, plot, casting, acting, ect.

If you didn't like those films then that's fine, but they're far from lousy.
If you liked them, all the power to you....but they're just as far from good.

Again, agree to disagree and we've moved on, and back, to Catwoman.

Depends on how you want to look at it. A rich socialite can just as well be a "front". As I said before, she steals from the rich, but isn't giving to the poor. So it wouldn't make much sense to have her be a cat burglar...and reap no profits. I suppose they can always have her throw away the gems, but that would be out-of-character.

The Selina I've known has gone up against the baddies, but only to the benefits of herself and the suffering of theirs. I don't think the oppressed or poor play any role in this crusade. If anything, Selina is the selfish embodiment of that population. Taking what she thinks is deservedly hers, or at least, unworthy of the greedy.

Either way, I don't really see her character being 'big' enough to be a main villain, or even a side-character, in these movies....especially in lieu of where things leave off at the end of TDK, with Batman's standing being in such chaos/jeopardy. Unless what she does is somehow pinned on Batman, or she stumbles into something major that causes some sort of chain reaction amongst a bigger crime element that threatens the entire city, just her stealing for herself isn't enough...and with all that Batman has to do, I wouldn't want to see precious screen/plot time taken up by their flirting etc.

That's the thing about using Catwoman in this version...it seems like there'd be too much stretching and accommodating involved just to fit her in, even as a love interest. But hypothetically assuming that they did want to use Catwoman and find a creative way of weaving it into the bigger scgheme of things........again, defining what side of the social tracks she really comes from will be key in terms of finding who would be a good casting fit for her.

[elgato]

Either way, I don't really see her character being 'big' enough to be a main villain, or even a side-character, in these movies....especially in lieu of where things leave off at the end of TDK, with Batman's standing being in such chaos/jeopardy. Unless what she does is somehow pinned on Batman, or she stumbles into something major that causes some sort of chain reaction amongst a bigger crime element that threatens the entire city, just her stealing for herself isn't enough...and with all that Batman has to do, I wouldn't want to see precious screen/plot time taken up by their flirting etc.

That's the thing about using Catwoman in this version...it seems like there'd be too much stretching and accommodating involved just to fit her in, even as a love interest. But hypothetically assuming that they did want to use Catwoman and find a creative way of weaving it into the bigger scgheme of things........again, defining what side of the social tracks she really comes from will be key in terms of finding who would be a good casting fit for her.

I don't really think so, dude, at this moment Selina fits perfectly ;), look, first, as a love interest, then, as a supporting character filling the place Harvey Dent left, working with Batman some times, and i don't think she would be the main villain, but a supporting character more close to what Alfred means in the franchise than what someone like The Joker does

[KalMart]

I don't really think so, dude, at this moment Selina fits perfectly ;), look, first, as a love interest, then, as a supporting character filling the place Harvey Dent left, working with Batman some times, and i don't think she would be the main villain, but a supporting character more close to what Alfred means in the franchise than what someone like The Joker does
But again, that's trying to justify her purely as a standard plot device, whereas the comparative examples you bring up are much more than that in these movies. They represent more and can't just be transiently replaced or passed along to someone else because they're not there anymore....and certainly not so simplistically to a character like Catwoman whose nature and M.O. is so different. I just think that there are other villains to chose from who would more aptly address the unique narrative needs as established by this take on Batman better than Catwoman, and 'love interest' shouldn't be a major factor (or in this case, possibly, an excuse) in choosing who it should be.

It's a tough call, and these filmmakers are certainly skilled enough to make something work. But I generally don't see Catwoman being an ideal choice in this particular version, and I don't think the next movie needs a love interest for anything other than appeasing a certain market demographic.....which is important, business-wise, but these movies have earned enough accolades and creative respect to be able to work ideally at least one more chapter on its storytelling alone...with or without a love interest. But really, never mind that....let's just say that they will use her, and we can get back to discussing possible casting choices.

[Cunning Stunts]

Fair enough. So to segway into a smooth transition...

Selina; conflicted and adventurous ala comics, or mentally "broken" and disturbed ala BR? A bit of both, perhaps?

I say a mixture of both, but more of the former than the latter.

In my opinion, Selina should start out as a wealthy, carefree, sassy socialite in Gotham who's appearing for unknown reasons. As Bruce gets to know her more, he finds out she's not just the typical naughty-girl she seems to be on the outside.

Here's where the Falcone ties get stressed. I think she should be deeply burdened and/or upset about never having had a real family growing up (perhaps growing up in foster homes and such), and maybe even add another twist that Falcone's men killed what family she did have (whether that's foster parents or a boyfriend/fiance/husband). So, not only is she on Gotham to find her family's killers, she's also there to find out who here biological family really is- the killers of her other family.

Perhaps the theme between Selina and Bruce could be "Is it better to have loved and lost (Bruce) or to have never loved at all (Selina, in this case, she'll have had only foster families I guess)?"

[Alex Logan]

That'd be Megan Fox from the newest TF2 trailer..

I should have known! :wow:

[FlawlessVictory]

Emily Blunt on Catwoman:

Your name's been floated around as the next Catwoman in "Batman."
That's cool. But it's a bit scary to follow Michelle. I don't know if I can do that.
I feel like you probably can.
It's very flattering that people are blogging about it. It would be so funny if I heard all these things, and there's not even a whiff of an offer that comes my way.
We should call up Christopher Nolan.
Why don't you call up Chris and try to make it happen? Show me the Catwoman!


http://www.newsweek.com/id/191409


:applaud:heart:

[flickchick85]

If that's the case, is she just a thrill-seeker? I'm not familiar with her actual characterization from the comics.
I'm not familiar with the comics, either, just the animated series. But she's more than a thrill-seeker, imo, because she truly believes in what she's doing, does not believe in the law in Gotham (for fairly good reasons, as we've seen), and probably sees herself as a Robin Hood type, more than anything else. She just gets more enjoyment out of it than Batman does and is constantly trying to persuade him to embrace her perspective, lol. That's the Catwoman in my head, anyway.

Ya, I think she could show up as the rich socialité, but show in flashbacks her as a prostitute, or I prefer, an amateur thief that lives with her friend Holly Robinson, a prostitute, in the Narrows.
I dunno, that sounds a bit too specific for my taste. I'd prefer no flashbacks or anything, just a few organic hints at her past.

ETA: Just wanted to add that I think this is the perfect time to introduce her, as Batman will be feeling like a persecuted outsider now, more than ever, and Catwoman's "you don't need them" mantra might actually seem pretty tempting to him after a while. I see them both as very kindred spirits, different types of vigilantes who try to help the people of Gotham in their own illegal ways, with the only real obstacle separating them being that little line called The Law (which Batman works outside of, but still in an attempt to work for them, while Selina wrote them off years ago). In Batman's eyes, Catwoman, well-intentioned as she may be, is still on the wrong side of that line, though she might spend the entire movie trying to convince him otherwise. To me, Batman's current outsider status makes Catwoman the most natural addition to the story at this point.

[WeaponXProject]

Emily Blunt on Catwoman:



http://www.newsweek.com/id/191409


:applaud:heart:

I would love if her to get the role.

My other picks are now on Marion Cotillard and Thandie Newton.

[RachelDawes]

I say a mixture of both, but more of the former than the latter.

In my opinion, Selina should start out as a wealthy, carefree, sassy socialite in Gotham who's appearing for unknown reasons. As Bruce gets to know her more, he finds out she's not just the typical naughty-girl she seems to be on the outside.

Here's where the Falcone ties get stressed. I think she should be deeply burdened and/or upset about never having had a real family growing up (perhaps growing up in foster homes and such), and maybe even add another twist that Falcone's men killed what family she did have (whether that's foster parents or a boyfriend/fiance/husband). So, not only is she on Gotham to find her family's killers, she's also there to find out who here biological family really is- the killers of her other family.

Perhaps the theme between Selina and Bruce could be "Is it better to have loved and lost (Bruce) or to have never loved at all (Selina, in this case, she'll have had only foster families I guess)?"

I don't know...it sounds like that particular subplot is straying rather far away from Batman and shifting the focus from him. None of Batman's villains have had much of a plot of their own except for Dent and that tied in nicely with Batman's battle with the Joker.

You'd have to find a way for Batman to be involved in Selina's search if you want that subplot to work.

[Cunning Stunts]

I don't know...it sounds like that particular subplot is straying rather far away from Batman and shifting the focus from him. None of Batman's villains have had much of a plot of their own except for Dent and that tied in nicely with Batman's battle with the Joker.

You'd have to find a way for Batman to be involved in Selina's search if you want that subplot to work.

Oh it should definitely be tied in... I don't know how, but if that were the sub-plot I imagine Batman would have a lot more to do with it.

[regwec]

Emily Blunt on Catwoman:



http://www.newsweek.com/id/191409


:applaud:heart:

Both I and Empire magazine have long been for Emily as Selina Kyle. Lovely young woman, and very talented, too.

[batboy99]

The idea of Blunt as Selina is definetly growing on me.

[batman44]

Blunt=YES!!

[Punisher Rising]

Blunt would be very good and I'd be pleased with her in the role. I haven't seen her performances but as long as she has the acting skills to back up her looks she should be a fine choice if she's chosen.

[elgato]

I really like Blunt, she has those cat eyes and something on her reminds me of Uma Thurman who was my choice for the role before CINO and also before realizing she already had played Poison Ivy xD

[az824]

I wouldnt mind Blunt, theres some i would prefer, but i would be satisfied with her

[Punisher Rising]

I wouldnt mind Blunt, theres some i would prefer, but i would be satisfied with her


Same.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I like Abbie Cornish for the role.

[elgato]

I like Abbie Cornish for the role.

dude, looks nothing like Catwoman!!! :wow: who are you guys going to want next??? Kirsten Dunst???

[flickchick85]

I wouldnt mind Blunt, theres some i would prefer, but i would be satisfied with her
My sentiments exactly.

[Timstuff]

I wouldnt mind Blunt, theres some i would prefer, but i would be satisfied with her
My sentiments exactly.
Same.

Add me to the list. I'd prefer Kate Beckinsale, but I'd be OK with Blunt too.

[Punisher Rising]

I know she's not that famous but Shawnee Smith still remains my pick for Catwoman, but I'd be fine with Blunt in the role too, she'd my second pick and admittedly a much more likely one for the role.

[jmc]

Whilst I think there are a few better options, I could live with Blunt.

[Cunning Stunts]

After seeing Blunt in Sunshine Cleaning, I kind of figure her to do what Heath did to The Joker. She gives me that odd feeling that she'd knock the role out of the freakin' park.

[hegele]

I've been championing Emily for a long time, it's great to hear that she is interested. I hope Chris keeps her in mind if he makes a third, and if Selina is in it.

[elgato]

Emily seems like a pretty good choice, and someone Nolan could choose, but we've got to realize the role's for Marion Cotillard xD

[Johnny Drama]

I know she's not that famous but Shawnee Smith still remains my pick for Catwoman, but I'd be fine with Blunt in the role too, she'd my second pick and admittedly a much more likely one for the role.


:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm
:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm

[Laderlappen]

I know she's not that famous but Shawnee Smith still remains my pick for Catwoman, but I'd be fine with Blunt in the role too, she'd my second pick and admittedly a much more likely one for the role.Is Ted Danson playing batman?

[KalMart]

Is Ted Danson playing batman?

No, but he might be calling to get that joke back.








:woot::oldrazz:

[Johnny Drama]

Is Ted Danson playing batman?

That would be EPIC. Get Burt Reynolds as Harvey Dent and Steve Guttenberg as The Joker and we are golden!

[The Major]

I'm not familiar with the comics, either, just the animated series. But she's more than a thrill-seeker, imo, because she truly believes in what she's doing, does not believe in the law in Gotham (for fairly good reasons, as we've seen), and probably sees herself as a Robin Hood type, more than anything else.

Its a bit more complicated. Selina embraces her criminal tendencies. She will help other people since she does have a conscience. It's nowhere near as strong as Batman's. If there isn't a good enough reason to anything other then steal she'll do that instead. She always keeps the loot for herself, that's where she differs from Robin Hood.

[Timstuff]

I dunno... I'd kind of like it if Selina does have philanthropic interests, but at the same time she's in it for the loot. She has a heart, and wants to make the world a better place for what she can, but unlike Batman who sees Gotham's problems as evil vs. good, she sees it as rich against poor. She wants to steal from the fat cats and give to the strays, while at the same time living in the lap of luxury that she was always envious of.

What keeps Catwoman from being a true modern Robin Hood is that she has selfish reasons for doing what she does, and Gotham's issues aren't as simple as she'd like to think. She's painted a picture of Gotham's upper class as all being selfish, greedy, and uncaring, and that makes them all fair game for her cat burglar escapades.

[Punisher Rising]

Johnny and Laderleppen, it's a personal choice on my part, get over it. The OP asks for someone's pick for a role, the people responding give it. Not necessarily a popular choice some will have, but a choice on their part nonetheless. :facepalm is exactly what describes some of my opinions of some of the casting choices I've seen here and elsewhere, yet I keep quiet about it because I respect that that's a person's own choice and not my own.

On the subject of the character's portrayal is whatever her next film appearance may be, I definitely hope we see her as a Robin Hood-type figure as some people have said.

[FVD]

I'm sticking with Charlize Theron. I think she nails Selina Kyle from the BTAS just nicely. She'll just need to get into tighter shape methinks. I thought she wasn't in stellar shape on Aeon Flux but she still looked good though.

[flickchick85]

Its a bit more complicated. Selina embraces her criminal tendencies. She will help other people since she does have a conscience. It's nowhere near as strong as Batman's. If there isn't a good enough reason to anything other then steal she'll do that instead. She always keeps the loot for herself, that's where she differs from Robin Hood.
What about her charities/community contributions? I mean, I know she keeps a lot of it to herself, but I thought she was using charitable organizations to redistribute the wealth or something like that. Am I totally making this up? It has been a loooong time since TAS...

I am aware she enjoys the criminal side of it, though. I never meant to imply otherwise.

[Timstuff]

What about her charities/community contributions? I mean, I know she keeps a lot of it to herself, but I thought she was using charitable organizations to redistribute the wealth or something like that. Am I totally making this up? It has been a loooong time since TAS...

I am aware she enjoys the criminal side of it, though. I never meant to imply otherwise.

In Batman TAS, they typically focused on Selina's nature conservation efforts, although I'm pretty sure that she's had incarnations that showed philanthropic interests as well.

I think that Selina could be a great chance to introduce the concept of Bruce as a philanthropist into the Begins movie-verse. Her commitment to helping Gotham's needy through charitable foundations causes Bruce to re-think his spoiled jerk playboy persona, because he comes to realize that he can help Gotham as Bruce Wayne in addition to being Batman. Also, the fact that he wouldn't want to be branded as a douche by the girl of his dreams would help too. ;)

[The Major]

What about her charities/community contributions? I mean, I know she keeps a lot of it to herself, but I thought she was using charitable organizations to redistribute the wealth or something like that. Am I totally making this up? It has been a loooong time since TAS...

I am aware she enjoys the criminal side of it, though. I never meant to imply otherwise.
Catwoman in TAS was good, I'm just using the comic version which is far more ruthless. In the comics she's a certified kleptomaniac IIRC. Selina does care about the community its just her criminals side is something she just can't shake. She will personally save animals and people from bank robbers but that's it from what I've read. When it comes to stealing things nothing stops her form making that her top priority. The character Parker in Leverage is very similar to her. If a hero is around she'll let them do stuff like protecting innocents and stopping super-villains. In that situation she lets her criminal side take over since she knows the hero will deal with the rough stuff and she gets to keep her loot. She will kill under extreme circumstances, too.

[TheScarecrow]

Tell me that this isn't the perfect Selina...

http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Blunt,_Emily/gallery/SPX-022423/

[Alex Logan]

Tell me that this isn't the perfect Selina...

http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Blunt,_Emily/gallery/SPX-022423/

Could be. :cwink:

[TheBatman072]

Tell me that this isn't the perfect Selina...

http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Blunt,_Emily/gallery/SPX-022423/


No problem.


She isn't the perfect Selina.

[Two-Face]

Tell me that this isn't the perfect Selina...

http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Blunt,_Emily/gallery/SPX-022423/

Harley Yes, Selina No.

[regwec]

Huh? She clearly resembles Selina Kyle far more than she does Harley Quinn.

And yes, I think that Emily Blunt would make a pretty impressive Cawoman.

[Ace of Knaves]

Naaa, definitely not a Harley. I think Blunt would be good as Selina. But I'm still rooting for Winona

[Lobo]

Harley Yes, Selina No.

Emily is WAY more Selina than Harley.

[Two-Face]

It's nice to admit, I was wrong

[batboy99]

Way too hot for Harley IMO. Emily has more of a sophisticated beauty to her like Selina rather than the cute, ditzy beauty of Harley.

[Two-Face]

Yes I agree.

[batboy99]

I still like her for Ivy, but shes slowly creeping to the top of my list for Selina. She seems like one of the more reasonable choices for the role. One that actually has more of a chance being cast IMO.

[cerealkiller182]

I still like her for Ivy, but shes slowly creeping to the top of my list for Selina. She seems like one of the more reasonable choices for the role. One that actually has more of a chance being cast IMO.

I agree. I mean Emily would make a very good Selina, although not my fave, but she would make the best Ivy IMO. But I feel like theres a fat chance of getting Ivy anytime soon.

[batboy99]

Its pretty much true though, but I still think shes perfect for Ivy.

[Timstuff]

Although Beckinsale is my top choice for Selina, it does get a bit old how whenever someone likes a particular actress for Catwoman, someone has to say "no, actress X should be Poison Ivy." :o

[Punisher Rising]

Although Beckinsale is my top choice for Selina, it does get a bit old how whenever someone likes a particular actress for Catwoman, someone has to say "no, actress X should be Poison Ivy." :o


Yep, and also when some people criticize you for your choice and talk to you like an idiot for a particular actor/actress you'd like to see in a role and try to invalidate your opinion. I mean a casting thread asks for peoples' individual opinions on who should be who, and whoever that person's choice is should be respected regardless of how much you disagree or not. I especially can't stand it when a singlular post is quoted or singled out, as if someone said something blasphemous or something.

Some of the choices in the thread have my eyes rolling, but I'm not being disrespectful over them.

[Cunning Stunts]

Yeah, but Shawnee Smith is a pretty terrible choice.

[Laderlappen]

Why I sometimes criticize a choice here is becuase of the reasons she is suggested rather than I just dont want her for the role. Nobody would actually believe that of all actresses in the world, Shawnee Smith would be the one that would have made the best acting performance.

[batboy99]

Yeah, but Shawnee Smith is a pretty terrible choice.She did look good for the role in one pic I sa,w but besides that, im with you on your opinion.

Although Beckinsale is my top choice for Selina, it does get a bit old how whenever someone likes a particular actress for Catwoman, someone has to say "no, actress X should be Poison Ivy." :o
Well, to be fair, ive wanted Blunt as Ivy for ages now.

[Johnny Drama]

Yep, and also when some people criticize you for your choice and talk to you like an idiot for a particular actor/actress you'd like to see in a role and try to invalidate your opinion. I mean a casting thread asks for peoples' individual opinions on who should be who, and whoever that person's choice is should be respected regardless of how much you disagree or not. I especially can't stand it when a singlular post is quoted or singled out, as if someone said something blasphemous or something.

Some of the choices in the thread have my eyes rolling, but I'm not being disrespectful over them.

Nobody thinks your an idiot, but c'mon... Shawnee Smith? Be serious.

[AntMan]

Fran Drescher! :hehe:

[batboy99]

Hey, dont be making fun of Fran! I love her, shes awesome!

[AntMan]

Maxwell Sheffield is that you?

[flickchick85]

Goyer didn't pen any masterwork. I read his script for Batman Begins - it was crap. The only reason the movie was decent was because of Nolan's revisions, and even then, the script was kinda weak. Goyer didn't touch the screenplay for The Dark Knight, either - he got a "story" credit (which is why TDK's script was 10x better than BB). Which basically means the only thing he brings to this series is really his knowledge of the comics and characters from them - he and Nolan decide which ones fit for this story, and then Nolan takes the reigns and makes them great. I don't mean to be a pain or anything, but it really bugs me how Goyer keeps getting credit for these movies when, imo, he's one of the absolute worst screenwriters working today. And yes, I believe Chris Nolan is one of the best.

[Punisher Rising]

That just goes to show you how sometimes even the best director can make a terrible story something worthwhile or how the best writer can give a bad director a good story to work with. I haven't really seen too many films Goyer has written aside from BB and TDK (where he's credited for the story), but one trait I notice he seems to have is endless exposition throughout. It gets pretty tiring when the plot of the movie is repeated for about the 893789375983th time within the movie's 90-minute or 2-hour running time when you already get what it's about.

[AntMan]

I like Winona Ryder or Emily Blunt for Catwoman.

[Alex Logan]

Goyer didn't pen any masterwork. I read his script for Batman Begins - it was crap. The only reason the movie was decent was because of Nolan's revisions, and even then, the script was kinda weak. Goyer didn't touch the screenplay for The Dark Knight, either - he got a "story" credit (which is why TDK's script was 10x better than BB). Which basically means the only thing he brings to this series is really his knowledge of the comics and characters from them - he and Nolan decide which ones fit for this story, and then Nolan takes the reigns and makes them great. I don't mean to be a pain or anything, but it really bugs me how Goyer keeps getting credit for these movies when, imo, he's one of the absolute worst screenwriters working today. And yes, I believe Chris Nolan is one of the best.

This is true, but the BB script wasn't that bad. There were a few parts that could have been better just by changing the dialogue, but it really wasn't that bad. The problem is that you're comparing it to TDK. John Nolan is just a better writer, it would be the same if you compared Brian Cox to Anthony Hopkins.

[namtaB]

I'm fine with civil disagreements, civil being the key word. Some users disagreeing with me weren't exactly civil when they said "your opinion sucks." It's one thing to say "I respectfully disagree," which is how you disagree with somebody in a mature fashion.

The thing that's especially ridiculous about how this particular argument is now continuing is that it was over an agreement I made over Timstuff's comment, and this had to spark. Trust me when I say I sometimes feel like saying "Are you out of your mind?" when I see some casting choices people post for certain characters around here, but I either keep it to myself or say "I respect your choice but I disagree with it."

I think you're taking this place too seriously. Granted, quite a few here break down arguments about comic book characters into such minutiae that you'd think they were discussing the particle theory of matter. I'm guilty of this too sometimes but this is dependent on my mood when I'm posting which has a highly mercurial nature. Most of the time I'm having fun and you should too. Just say what's on your mind, so long as you don't violate the forum rules. But don't get your feathers all ruffled b/c those who mock the rules of etiquette insult your delicate sensibilities.

[Punisher Rising]

I have been in a bit of a sour mood for the past couple of days (long story), so I'm sorry if I came off as a bit aggressive earlier.

[Marx]

Fran Drescher! :hehe:

That's...just...scary...to think about.

Yikes.

[flickchick85]

This is true, but the BB script wasn't that bad. There were a few parts that could have been better just by changing the dialogue, but it really wasn't that bad. The problem is that you're comparing it to TDK. John Nolan is just a better writer, it would be the same if you compared Brian Cox to Anthony Hopkins.
Not at all. They were both great actors playing a great character. Yeah, Hopkins made the role iconic, but Brian Cox is nothing to sneer at. David Goyer's writing is. IMO, of course. And like I said before, the BB script was much worse before Nolan got his hands on it. At least when it comes to "famous" screenwriters, David Goyer is seriously the worst one I can think of at the moment. I have no idea how he got to be successful. No. Idea.

Needless to say, I agree that both Jonah and Chris Nolan are far, far, better writers.

[Johnny Drama]

What the hell happened to all my posts in here??

[flickchick85]

What the hell happened to all my posts in here??
Good question, something's screwy. It now looks like my little David Goyer rant was completely out of the blue. That'll teach me to always quote the person I'm responding to, I suppose.

[Marx]

Let's take it down a notch guys. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Let's not get carried away.

[VII7]

i dont understand the fascination with catwoman in B3, in my opinion she is a boring character and not really that evil, plus catwoman was in two previous movies i think a 3rd time would be overkill hell halle berry was overkill. i would like a villain that i would actually be scared of catwoman ?? LOL. please no. i think it would destroy what nolan has been doing with batman.

[flickchick85]

She wouldn't be a villain. She'd be an anti-hero/love interest. And I've never thought she was a boring character.

[Marx]

i dont understand the fascination with catwoman in B3, in my opinion she is a boring character and not really that evil, plus catwoman was in two previous movies i think a 3rd time would be overkill hell halle berry was overkill. i would like a villain that i would actually be scared of catwoman ?? LOL. please no. i think it would destroy what nolan has been doing with batman.

Halle Berry's Catwoman hardly counts as a credible movie.

[TheBatman072]

i dont understand the fascination with catwoman in B3, in my opinion she is a boring character and not really that evil, plus catwoman was in two previous movies i think a 3rd time would be overkill hell halle berry was overkill. i would like a villain that i would actually be scared of catwoman ?? LOL. please no. i think it would destroy what nolan has been doing with batman.


She's not a villain. Hasn't been for years.

Riddler is a villain. Penguin is a villain. Joker and Two-Face are villains.

Catwoman is simply a foil for Batman.

And let's not be so dramatic here. Okay? Destroy? Hardly. If anything, she'd become A LOT more respected here after Burton and whoever the hell directed that ****** Catwoman movie did to her.

[Cunning Stunts]

Uh, she never lost respect because of Burton. If anything, the character gained respect because of Burton's rendition.

[TheBatman072]

Uh, she never lost respect because of Burton. If anything, the character gained respect because of Burton's rendition.


No. Because of Pheiffer's acting.


Burton's actual concept of Catwoman sucked. Hard.

[Cunning Stunts]

I'm not doubting Michelle Pfeiffer but...

You go ahead and believe that.

I mean, really, what role do you think Michelle played? Burton's Catwoman.

[Ace of Knaves]

Catwoman in Returns was great, apart from the whole cats chewing on her fingers deal. But I liked a more mentally unstable Catwoman.

[TheBatman072]

I'm not doubting Michelle Pfeiffer but...

You go ahead and believe that.

I mean, really, what role do you think Michelle played? Burton's Catwoman.


Uh, yeah. I know. And she was great at it.

But Burton's actual concept of Catwoman sucked. Just like his Penguin did. Although DeVito acted awesomely.

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't think either of them sucked. Just because it's different from the comics doesn't mean it sucks. I liked the whole concept behind Penguin

[Cunning Stunts]

Just the typical, "If it isn't a carbon copy, it SUCKS!"

I just can't see how, "They were AWESOME! But their character sucks," works.

[TheBatman072]

I don't think either of them sucked. Just because it's different from the comics doesn't mean it sucks. I liked the whole concept behind Penguin


I didn't. Penguin never lived in a sewer, was never RAISED by "sewer" penguins and never hung around circus people.


Why bother using the character at all? Might as well have used a whole new character.

Same goes for Catwoman. She was never a frumpy secretary, was never "killed" and then "resurrected" by cats, was never insane or emotionally unstable.

Not even the SPIRIT of these characters was retained. Yeah, a few minor changes to Joker and Two-Face and Scarecrow in Nolan's movies, but that doesn't even hold a candle to Burton's bastardized versions of Penguin and Catwoman(and to a much lesser extent his Joker).

[TheBatman072]

Just the typical, "If it isn't a carbon copy, it SUCKS!"

I just can't see how, "They were AWESOME! But their character sucks," works.


My previous post just blew theory out of the water.

[Cunning Stunts]

What's the point in spending a couple hundred million dollars to copy every last detail of the characters, when they could just spend a few thousand and print of half-a-million comics?

[Cunning Stunts]

My previous post just blew theory out of the water.

What's blown out of the water is your sense of creativity. Because a character isn't identical, it's not the character? Of course revisions were made. They have to in order to fit into a new universe. ESPECIALLY one as unique as Burton's.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I hate arguments about comic book accuracy. Because it's different from the comics, it automatically sucks? That is BS and very small minded.

Put it this way, I think Penguin in Returns was a much more interesting character than a mob boss with a nick name of Penguin who likes trick umbrella's.

The essence of the Penguin is still there. Still thirsts to be an aristocrat, still is lecherous towards women, still has his trick umbrella's, still loves his birds.

[TheBatman072]

What's blown out of the water is your sense of creativity. Because a character isn't identical, it's not the character? Of course revisions were made. They have to in order to fit into a new universe. ESPECIALLY one as unique as Burton's.


Did you not even read my post at the top of this page? Or are you too busy making up stuff?


Revisions to a character are fine to an extent. Joker's make-up and scars, Scarecrow working at Arkham, Dent dating Rachel. Those are revisions, and those are fine, even great, within the context of the story. But they're STILL their characters from the comics. They still retain very much of the comic book character's spirits.

Burton's Penguin and Catwoman are not even close to recognizable as far as their characteristics compared to their comic book counterparts. The only similarity Burton's Catwoman had to the comic book version was a somewhat similar costume, and the only thing Burton's Penguin had in common with his comic book counterpart was the name and his love of Penguins.

There's a very fine line between creativity and completely overhauling a character to the point to where you really shouldn't even have bothered using that specific character.

[Ace of Knaves]

Actually, you are wrong. Penguins actual characteristics were pretty close to the comics. He was still a guy trying to become a aristocrat or higher than the average citizen. He was still lecherous over women.

That's two things right there and I haven't seen the film in a couple of years.

[TheBatman072]

Actually, you are wrong. Penguins actual characteristics were pretty close to the comics. He was still a guy trying to become a aristocrat or higher than the average citizen. He was still lecherous over women.

That's two things right there and I haven't seen the film in a couple of years.


There's only been two ways Penguin has been portrayed in the comics that I know of. As a thief that stole bird-themed items, and a night club owner and gun runner/stolen item fencing.

The second one, Penguin IS apart of the upper class. The first one, Penguin probably just pretended to be apart of the upper class. Due to the whole tuxedo thing, which got him his Penguin nickname.

Burton's Penguin was neither of those. At all.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes, and he wants to rise out of the sewers and become part of that upper class. It's all a matter of taste whether you like the portrayal, but when people say they don't like something just because it's different from the comics I just have to laugh.

[TheBatman072]

Yes, and he wants to rise out of the sewers and become part of that upper class. It's all a matter of taste whether you like the portrayal, but when people say they don't like something just because it's different from the comics I just have to laugh.


So you didn't read my post at the beginning of this page either.


Once again, I DON'T MIND DIFFERENT FROM THE COMICS. Most of the villains from Begins and TDK weren't carbon copies of their comic book counterparts. But they were still their comic book counterparts. Burton's villains were not.

Let me put it in percentages:

Nolan's Villain's Differences:
Joker=85-90% similar(to his comic book counterpart)
Two-Face=80-90% similar
Scarecrow=80-90% similar

Burton's Villain's Differences:
Penguin=10-15% similar
Catwoman=10% similar

See? None of Nolan's villains were 100% but they were still so much more faithful to their comic book counterparts than Burton's.

Again, let me repeat myself. I do not mind them being different. But there is a VERY fine line between slight differences and a totally different character.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well then it comes down to taste and opinion. And IMO Burton's Penguin was a more interesting and well rounded character that most of the comic book incarnations of the Penguin.

[TheBatman072]

Well then it comes down to taste and opinion. And IMO Burton's Penguin was a more interesting and well rounded character that most of the comic book incarnations of the Penguin.


The only thing that made him interesting was DeVito's acting. Which was amazing.

[InvisibleWoman]

SELENA!! That's all.

No seriously, I haven't been to this thread in so long so can't contribute anything to any current argument! But saw these pics of Rachel taken yesterday and thought it would be proof to the haters that this lady CAN be sexy! (for some reason, people think she can't be sexy enough for Catwoman :huh:)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/17/article-1183797-04FAF6E3000005DC-385_468x707.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/17/article-1183797-04FAF59C000005DC-881_468x676.jpg

She's still my number one choice!

[Laderlappen]

Rachel is sexy. She just puts on a happy face like a normal person.

[TheScarecrow]

Wow, Rachel looks amazing there. I must admit, I've always thought of her as a good choice for Catwoman but I've never really thought of her as being particularly sexy. She's smoking there.

Still, I feel the need to post this. Kate Winslet (aka, the best and sexiest actress to ever grace the Earth) would make a fantastic Catwoman. P.S. I know I'm not the best manip-er in the world, it's just to give people an idea...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3343/katewinsletcatwoman.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r313/arkhamasylum2265/katewinsletascatwoman.jpg

[Katsuro]

I didn't. Penguin never lived in a sewer, was never RAISED by "sewer" penguins and never hung around circus people.


Why bother using the character at all? Might as well have used a whole new character.

Same goes for Catwoman. She was never a frumpy secretary, was never "killed" and then "resurrected" by cats, was never insane or emotionally unstable.

Not even the SPIRIT of these characters was retained. Yeah, a few minor changes to Joker and Two-Face and Scarecrow in Nolan's movies, but that doesn't even hold a candle to Burton's bastardized versions of Penguin and Catwoman(and to a much lesser extent his Joker).

I've always said that Batman Returns would've been a much better movie if minor changes had been made to characters names, to make it not be a Batman movie. Call him Ratman or something, and you wouldn't really have to change Penguin or Catwoman at all, just dont call them that and no one will ever realize any similarity to the comic book characters. Except for maybe "hey, didn't Batman also have a villain that was a lady dressed like a cat". "yeah, but this one's like a zombie or something"

Yes, and he wants to rise out of the sewers and become part of that upper class. It's all a matter of taste whether you like the portrayal, but when people say they don't like something just because it's different from the comics I just have to laugh.

But people go to these movies to see their favorite characters put on screen. They wanna see the classic stories they love acted out, brought to life. So when you go to a movie, expecting to see The Penguin, and instead it's some other guy just calling himself The Penguin, it's natural to be disappointed.

My question is, why change what works? Batman wouldn't have been getting movies made about him if he wasn't a popular character. And they wouldn't have chosen Penguin either if people didn't like the character. So why change it? Sure, little changes have to be made here and there to update for a different media, as well as different times, but when you fundementally revamp a character, you lose why anyone was interested in them in the first place.

What's the point in spending a couple hundred million dollars to copy every last detail of the characters, when they could just spend a few thousand and print of half-a-million comics?

I hate that argument. Are you really comparing the experience of reading a comic book to that of watching a movie? Are you really telling me that you could sit down and read the graphic novel adaptation of The Dark Knight and enjoy it on the same level as the film version?

I dont know about you, but personally I thought Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was a million times more interesting than looking at still pictures with speech bubbles on a page.

By your logic, why spend a couple hundred million dollars on a film, when they could just spend a few hundred and put the script out online for people to read. Same thing, right?

[Dark Knight]

Wow, Rachel looks amazing there. I must admit, I've always thought of her as a good choice for Catwoman but I've never really thought of her as being particularly sexy. She's smoking there.

Still, I feel the need to post this. Kate Winslet (aka, the best and sexiest actress to ever grace the Earth) would make a fantastic Catwoman. P.S. I know I'm not the best manip-er in the world, it's just to give people an idea...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3343/katewinsletcatwoman.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r313/arkhamasylum2265/katewinsletascatwoman.jpg





Winslet is a good actress but there is something wrong with her lips and smile that just seems a bit off for me. It always has whenever I see her smile.

Did she get some kinda lip job or something?

[StorminNorman]

So you didn't read my post at the beginning of this page either.


Once again, I DON'T MIND DIFFERENT FROM THE COMICS. Most of the villains from Begins and TDK weren't carbon copies of their comic book counterparts. But they were still their comic book counterparts. Burton's villains were not.

Let me put it in percentages:

Nolan's Villain's Differences:
Joker=85-90% similar(to his comic book counterpart)
Two-Face=80-90% similar
Scarecrow=80-90% similar

Burton's Villain's Differences:
Penguin=10-15% similar
Catwoman=10% similar

See? None of Nolan's villains were 100% but they were still so much more faithful to their comic book counterparts than Burton's.

Again, let me repeat myself. I do not mind them being different. But there is a VERY fine line between slight differences and a totally different character.

Considering those percentages came out of your ass, they really don't mean much.

[Marx]

Kate Winslet as Catwoman? Interesting. I think I could go for that.

[StorminNorman]

Kate Winslet seems too...obvious? lol

[flickchick85]

Haha, I think Winslet was my first suggestion in this thread a long way back. And while my picks have changed dramatically since then, I still think she could knock this role out of the park and would have no problem with her casting (largely because I've been dying to see her and Bale work together for years). But as I recall, there are many here who think she doesn't have the right build for the physicality of the role...and I'd kind of agree with them, but it's not a deal breaker for me though.

[Micah12345]

I've always liked the batman returns penguin more than the comic book penguin.

[RachelDawes]

So you didn't read my post at the beginning of this page either.


Once again, I DON'T MIND DIFFERENT FROM THE COMICS. Most of the villains from Begins and TDK weren't carbon copies of their comic book counterparts. But they were still their comic book counterparts. Burton's villains were not.

Let me put it in percentages:

Nolan's Villain's Differences:
Joker=85-90% similar(to his comic book counterpart)
Two-Face=80-90% similar
Scarecrow=80-90% similar

Burton's Villain's Differences:
Penguin=10-15% similar
Catwoman=10% similar

See? None of Nolan's villains were 100% but they were still so much more faithful to their comic book counterparts than Burton's.

Again, let me repeat myself. I do not mind them being different. But there is a VERY fine line between slight differences and a totally different character.

You may not like Burton's Catwoman, but she was way more than 10% faithful to the comics. If Burton's Selina had been a fat Chinese woman who never stole anything but had a strange love for cats, that would 10% like the comics version. Similar deal with Penguin, though he seemed a bit more removed from what I understand the the comics version to be like than Catwoman was.

[Marx]

Kate Winslet seems too...obvious? lol

Haha, I think Winslet was my first suggestion in this thread a long way back. And while my picks have changed dramatically since then, I still think she could knock this role out of the park and would have no problem with her casting (largely because I've been dying to see her and Bale work together for years). But as I recall, there are many here who think she doesn't have the right build for the physicality of the role...and I'd kind of agree with them, but it's not a deal breaker for me though.

She might not be a Michelle Pfieffer, or a Charlize Theron, but I honestly could see Winslet as Catwoman. I also think she would knock it out of the park. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Figs]

Haha, I think Winslet was my first suggestion in this thread a long way back. And while my picks have changed dramatically since then, I still think she could knock this role out of the park and would have no problem with her casting (largely because I've been dying to see her and Bale work together for years). But as I recall, there are many here who think she doesn't have the right build for the physicality of the role...and I'd kind of agree with them, but it's not a deal breaker for me though.

I actually wouldn't mind her as Catwoman.

She definitely has the curves for the role...so long as she doesn't go back to being super thin.

[TheBatman072]

I've always said that Batman Returns would've been a much better movie if minor changes had been made to characters names, to make it not be a Batman movie. Call him Ratman or something, and you wouldn't really have to change Penguin or Catwoman at all, just dont call them that and no one will ever realize any similarity to the comic book characters. Except for maybe "hey, didn't Batman also have a villain that was a lady dressed like a cat". "yeah, but this one's like a zombie or something"



But people go to these movies to see their favorite characters put on screen. They wanna see the classic stories they love acted out, brought to life. So when you go to a movie, expecting to see The Penguin, and instead it's some other guy just calling himself The Penguin, it's natural to be disappointed.

My question is, why change what works? Batman wouldn't have been getting movies made about him if he wasn't a popular character. And they wouldn't have chosen Penguin either if people didn't like the character. So why change it? Sure, little changes have to be made here and there to update for a different media, as well as different times, but when you fundementally revamp a character, you lose why anyone was interested in them in the first place.



I hate that argument. Are you really comparing the experience of reading a comic book to that of watching a movie? Are you really telling me that you could sit down and read the graphic novel adaptation of The Dark Knight and enjoy it on the same level as the film version?

I dont know about you, but personally I thought Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was a million times more interesting than looking at still pictures with speech bubbles on a page.

By your logic, why spend a couple hundred million dollars on a film, when they could just spend a few hundred and put the script out online for people to read. Same thing, right?


Yes. This.

[elgato]

SELENA!! That's all.

No seriously, I haven't been to this thread in so long so can't contribute anything to any current argument! But saw these pics of Rachel taken yesterday and thought it would be proof to the haters that this lady CAN be sexy! (for some reason, people think she can't be sexy enough for Catwoman :huh:)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/17/article-1183797-04FAF6E3000005DC-385_468x707.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/17/article-1183797-04FAF59C000005DC-881_468x676.jpg

She's still my number one choice!

O.O I just can't believe she's so hot!!! :D go Rachel!!!

[Johnny Drama]

So you didn't read my post at the beginning of this page either.


Once again, I DON'T MIND DIFFERENT FROM THE COMICS. Most of the villains from Begins and TDK weren't carbon copies of their comic book counterparts. But they were still their comic book counterparts. Burton's villains were not.

Let me put it in percentages:

Nolan's Villain's Differences:
Joker=85-90% similar(to his comic book counterpart)
Two-Face=80-90% similar
Scarecrow=80-90% similar

Burton's Villain's Differences:
Penguin=10-15% similar
Catwoman=10% similar

See? None of Nolan's villains were 100% but they were still so much more faithful to their comic book counterparts than Burton's.

Again, let me repeat myself. I do not mind them being different. But there is a VERY fine line between slight differences and a totally different character.


Where the hell are you getting these numbers? Did you conduct a poll or did you make these up based on your own warped opinion??

[Majik1387]

Hahaha those percentages are hysterical. :lmao:

[Brian2887]

Who is that? Rachel who?

[Majik1387]

Rachel Weisz.:up:

[Johnny Drama]

Rachel Weisz is dreamy! :heart::heart::heart:
She has always been a safe bet. If it's not her, Cotillard or Rider then we really lost out..

[Cunning Stunts]

Did you not even read my post at the top of this page? Or are you too busy making up stuff?


Revisions to a character are fine to an extent. Joker's make-up and scars, Scarecrow working at Arkham, Dent dating Rachel. Those are revisions, and those are fine, even great, within the context of the story. But they're STILL their characters from the comics. They still retain very much of the comic book character's spirits.

Burton's Penguin and Catwoman are not even close to recognizable as far as their characteristics compared to their comic book counterparts. The only similarity Burton's Catwoman had to the comic book version was a somewhat similar costume, and the only thing Burton's Penguin had in common with his comic book counterpart was the name and his love of Penguins.

There's a very fine line between creativity and completely overhauling a character to the point to where you really shouldn't even have bothered using that specific character.

I think the last couple of posts have more than backed up my opinion... The characters were hardly overhauled. I don't know where you get your interpretations and "percentages" from, but I think you've got things a little skewed. If the characters were not recognizable at all, then why the hell weren't they universally panned like other characters, such as Freeze and Bane? Now those were complete revisions. George Clooney's Batman was a complete revision. Chris O'Donnell's Robin was a complete revision. Why would Batman Returns have so much love if it didn't bear the uncanny resemblance it did to its source characters? It wouldn't. Case in point: Batman & Robin.


I hate that argument. Are you really comparing the experience of reading a comic book to that of watching a movie? Are you really telling me that you could sit down and read the graphic novel adaptation of The Dark Knight and enjoy it on the same level as the film version?

I dont know about you, but personally I thought Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was a million times more interesting than looking at still pictures with speech bubbles on a page.

By your logic, why spend a couple hundred million dollars on a film, when they could just spend a few hundred and put the script out online for people to read. Same thing, right?

I swear, people around here twist and turn words way too much.

No, I never said that it would be more interesting. I said that in such a huge and ever-growing universe that Batman exists in, what in the hell would be the point to create a brand new vision in a brand new "universe", but keep all of its contents exactly the same? If that were the case, I'd rather not see the movie at all, as it offers little to nothing new. Thus, we'd have no new "vision", we'd just have a re-do of a comic on-screen. Why pay my money to see something I've already read a million times?

[WeaponXProject]

Wow, Rachel looks amazing there. I must admit, I've always thought of her as a good choice for Catwoman but I've never really thought of her as being particularly sexy. She's smoking there.

Still, I feel the need to post this. Kate Winslet (aka, the best and sexiest actress to ever grace the Earth) would make a fantastic Catwoman. P.S. I know I'm not the best manip-er in the world, it's just to give people an idea...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3343/katewinsletcatwoman.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r313/arkhamasylum2265/katewinsletascatwoman.jpg


How come you put Kate up next to the "Michael Jackson" version of Catwoman...creepy...jk.

[Alex Logan]

Wow, Rachel looks amazing there. I must admit, I've always thought of her as a good choice for Catwoman but I've never really thought of her as being particularly sexy. She's smoking there.

Still, I feel the need to post this. Kate Winslet (aka, the best and sexiest actress to ever grace the Earth) would make a fantastic Catwoman. P.S. I know I'm not the best manip-er in the world, it's just to give people an idea...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3343/katewinsletcatwoman.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r313/arkhamasylum2265/katewinsletascatwoman.jpg

Now that I see her with dark hair I'm sold. Thank you. :applaud

[cerealkiller182]

She does look good with the dark hair

[KalMart]

I think the last couple of posts have more than backed up my opinion... The characters were hardly overhauled. I don't know where you get your interpretations and "percentages" from, but I think you've got things a little skewed. If the characters were not recognizable at all, then why the hell weren't they universally panned like other characters, such as Freeze and Bane? Now those were complete revisions. George Clooney's Batman was a complete revision. Chris O'Donnell's Robin was a complete revision. Why would Batman Returns have so much love if it didn't bear the uncanny resemblance it did to its source characters? It wouldn't. Case in point: Batman & Robin.

Then again, you could get a character 'dead-on' comparing them to the comics, and still have a crappy movie. I don't 'accuracy' as important as storytelling and adeptness at adaptation/character relationships, in this case. Of course, there is a point where you change a character so much that it's barely 'in name only'....but the above examples I attribute more to the way the stories and movies were made moreso than to the specific degree that the characters were reinterpreted.

[TheScarecrow]

Did she get some kinda lip job or something?

Nah, Winslet's never had any plastic surgery.

I know people are worried that she doesn't look the part physically, and Kate does have a reputation as being "thicker" (certainly not fat) than other actresses, but if you compare her and Marion Cotillard at the Oscars, they virtually have the same body shape and size:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm381848320/nm0000701

[flickchick85]

Nah, Winslet's never had any plastic surgery.

I know people are worried that she doesn't look the part physically, and Kate does have a reputation as being "thicker" (certainly not fat) than other actresses, but if you compare her and Marion Cotillard at the Oscars, they virtually have the same body shape and size:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm381848320/nm0000701
Actually, Marion does look "smaller-boned" than Kate in that pic to me. Still, Winslet's not fat by any means, and I for one don't think she's too "thick" to play Selina.

[TheScarecrow]

Actually, Marion does look "smaller-boned" than Kate in that pic to me. Still, Winslet's not fat by any means, and I for one don't think she's too "thick" to play Selina.

I don't think she is either. Selina's never been 'delicate' and I'm really struggling to think of an instance where the Selina of the comics has ever had delicate body (or features, for that matter).

[Cunning Stunts]

Then again, you could get a character 'dead-on' comparing them to the comics, and still have a crappy movie. I don't 'accuracy' as important as storytelling and adeptness at adaptation/character relationships, in this case. Of course, there is a point where you change a character so much that it's barely 'in name only'....but the above examples I attribute more to the way the stories and movies were made moreso than to the specific degree that the characters were reinterpreted.

Well, I never linked quality to accuracy. Just the movie's vision, and the adjustments needed to made to allow the characters to fit in the films more seamlessly.

[KalMart]

Well, I never linked quality to accuracy. Just the movie's vision, and the adjustments needed to made to allow the characters to fit in the films more seamlessly.

Right...and in movies ranging from Batman & Robin to TDK, they adjusted them to fit the kind of film they wanted to make. It's just that some end up being crappy movies, and some good.....and they either take everything down with them, or lift them all up.

But unlike how comic fans feel, or at least some of them, I look forward to reinterpretations, as long as I like how the films are being made. It was clear that Nolan's version of the Joker would be very different than just about anything we've seen before, and adjusted to fit in that particular version of the Batman world...which I liked...so I looked forward to seeing their take on A Joker, without it having to be THE Joker, so to speak. Singer also changed a lot about the XMen, but I generally liked how it all worked for those films.

[Cunning Stunts]

Right...and in movies ranging from Batman & Robin to TDK, they adjusted them to fit the kind of film they wanted to make. It's just that some end up being crappy movies, and some good.....and they either take everything down with them, or lift them all up.

But unlike how comic fans feel, or at least some of them, I look forward to reinterpretations, as long as I like how the films are being made. It was clear that Nolan's version of the Joker would be very different than just about anything we've seen before, and adjusted to fit in that particular version of the Batman world...which I liked...so I looked forward to seeing their take on A Joker, without it having to be THE Joker, so to speak. Singer also changed a lot about the XMen, but I generally liked how it all worked for those films.

Right, that was exactly what I was saying lol.

I agree though... I always like seeing new spins put on old characters, especially drastic ones in new genres (for example, the Crime Thriller-esque Nolan series).

[jmc]

But unlike how comic fans feel, or at least some of them, I look forward to reinterpretations, as long as I like how the films are being made. It was clear that Nolan's version of the Joker would be very different than just about anything we've seen before, and adjusted to fit in that particular version of the Batman world...which I liked...so I looked forward to seeing their take on A Joker, without it having to be THE Joker, so to speak. Singer also changed a lot about the XMen, but I generally liked how it all worked for those films.

That's my feelings too. I go to see someones take on a character/story. A film like Watchmen which is virtually a panel for panel translation is not enticing cause it's more or less a copy and paste job. All I ask for is that the director keeps the spirit of the story/characters in tact, everything else optional.

[StorminNorman]

How in the world can you call Watchmen a copy and paste job?

The most brilliant, the most faithful, aspects of Watchmen the movie are truly the aspects Snyder added.

[Cunning Stunts]

Exactly. I'd say the only panel-to-film copy would be Sin City.

[RachelDawes]

That's my feelings too. I go to see someones take on a character/story. A film like Watchmen which is virtually a panel for panel translation is not enticing cause it's more or less a copy and paste job. All I ask for is that the director keeps the spirit of the story/characters in tact, everything else optional.

But Watchmen was a single GN, not a long-running comic series that has seen its characters portrayed multiple ways. There's only so much one can do with Watchmen and still remain faithful to the GN. Batman and his universe offer much more leeway to a director.

[jmc]

But Watchmen was a single GN, not a long-running comic series that has seen its characters portrayed multiple ways. There's only so much one can do with Watchmen and still remain faithful to the GN. Batman and his universe offer much more leeway to a director.

Whether a series is 70 years old or only a dozen issues is irrelevant, they can still interpret a story a hundred different ways, but Snyder brought nothing to the film except make it accurate as possible, much to the determent of the film because overall his desire to be comic accurate made it a very ordinary film to watch.

[RachelDawes]

Whether a series is 70 years old or only a dozen issues is irrelevant, they can still interpret a story a hundred different ways, but Snyder brought nothing to the film except make it accurate as possible, much to the determent of the film because overall his desire to be comic accurate made it a very ordinary film to watch.

I didn't think it was ordinary; the subject matter alone would preclude that. If anything, he may have made it too odd by ramping up the gore and making the violence so stylized.

It was very similar to the GN but I shudder to think of what would've happened to him if he'd deviated too much. Those Watchmen fans are a fanatical bunch. :cwink:

But back to Catwoman...

[Cunning Stunts]

Whether a series is 70 years old or only a dozen issues is irrelevant, they can still interpret a story a hundred different ways, but Snyder brought nothing to the film except make it accurate as possible, much to the determent of the film because overall his desire to be comic accurate made it a very ordinary film to watch.

I'd have to side with Rachel here. I think the vast amount of material available for other comic characters like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man allows for more freedom without a bad reaction from the characters' biggest fans. If a comic like Sin City, 300, or Watchmen were deviated from too much- whether or not the characters were the same- I'd bet money that it would get some pretty damned harsh reactions from a lot of people, especially since comics are becoming much more mainstream and "acceptable" nowadays.

[KalMart]

I'd have to side with Rachel here. I think the vast amount of material available for other comic characters like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man allows for more freedom without a bad reaction from the characters' biggest fans. If a comic like Sin City, 300, or Watchmen were deviated from too much- whether or not the characters were the same- I'd bet money that it would get some pretty damned harsh reactions from a lot of people, especially since comics are becoming much more mainstream and "acceptable" nowadays.
Are they, or just the movies based on them?

[Crook]

I think the last couple of posts have more than backed up my opinion... The characters were hardly overhauled. I don't know where you get your interpretations and "percentages" from, but I think you've got things a little skewed. If the characters were not recognizable at all, then why the hell weren't they universally panned like other characters, such as Freeze and Bane?
Because the performances were A-grade and the writing wasn't too shabby either. You can't say the same for the latter.

Now those were complete revisions. George Clooney's Batman was a complete revision. Chris O'Donnell's Robin was a complete revision. Why would Batman Returns have so much love if it didn't bear the uncanny resemblance it did to its source characters? It wouldn't. Case in point: Batman & Robin.

Gotta disagree here. With no particular bias for any of the eras in Batman's comic book life, the characters in B&R were a lot more faithful to the source material than Burton's were. On practically every level.

But as I said above, the difference is that the quality for Burton was on a much higher level than Schumacher's, in spite of deviating further from the source.

[Cunning Stunts]

Because the performances were A-grade and the writing wasn't too shabby either. You can't say the same for the latter.


I know the writing and acting wasn't bad, but that said, the fact that the characters were overhauled (which I feel they were)- I believe- caused a great deal of the downfall of that particular movie and its likability.


Gotta disagree here. With no particular bias for any of the eras in Batman's comic book life, the characters in B&R were a lot more faithful to the source material than Burton's were. On practically every level.

But as I said above, the difference is that the quality for Burton was on a much higher level than Schumacher's, in spite of deviating further from the source.

I don't think so at all. As I said before, I don't think quality is linked to accuracy. That said, I don't think it was totally because of Burton's accuracy that the movies worked, nor the opposites for Schumacher. I think Schumacher's lack of up-to-date knowledge on comic books caused him to resort back to the goofy renditions of Batman's characters, if you could even call them renditions of Batman's characters, which is the only reason I could see people saying the characters were "accurate". They weren't, they were just goofy and colorful like a lot of older comics. That hardly makes them accurate.

[TheBatman072]

Because the performances were A-grade and the writing wasn't too shabby either. You can't say the same for the latter.


Gotta disagree here. With no particular bias for any of the eras in Batman's comic book life, the characters in B&R were a lot more faithful to the source material than Burton's were. On practically every level.

But as I said above, the difference is that the quality for Burton was on a much higher level than Schumacher's, in spite of deviating further from the source.

That's a great point.

Freeze, Poison Ivy, and to an extent Riddler and Two-Face(besides their stupid jokes and puns), were very VERY faithful to the source material.

The only thing that made them bad was the horrible movies they were in. Which includes directing, writing, etc.

Also, if it hadn't have been for that horrible directing, writing, etc, they all would have been good, dare I say GREAT, actors and would have given great performances. Except, MAYBE, Arnold. Who isn't a terrible actor, but nor is he an amazing one.

[TheBatman072]

I know the writing and acting wasn't bad, but that said, the fact that the characters were overhauled (which I feel they were)- I believe- caused a great deal of the downfall of that particular movie and its likability.



I don't think so at all. As I said before, I don't think quality is linked to accuracy. That said, I don't think it was totally because of Burton's accuracy that the movies worked, nor the opposites for Schumacher. I think Schumacher's lack of up-to-date knowledge on comic books caused him to resort back to the goofy renditions of Batman's characters, if you could even call them renditions of Batman's characters, which is the only reason I could see people saying the characters were "accurate". They weren't, they were just goofy and colorful like a lot of older comics. That hardly makes them accurate.

Both Freeze and Ivy were incredibly accurate characterization wise.

Riddler to a smaller, lesser extant, and Two-Face to a MUCH lesser extant.

But they were still very accurate.

[Crook]

I know the writing and acting wasn't bad, but that said, the fact that the characters were overhauled (which I feel they were)- I believe- caused a great deal of the downfall of that particular movie and its likability.
Wait, what film are you talking about here?

I don't think so at all. As I said before, I don't think quality is linked to accuracy. That said, I don't think it was totally because of Burton's accuracy that the movies worked, nor the opposites for Schumacher.
I'm not following. This has no relevance to what I said. I've never linked accuracy and quality together. Merely stating that Schumacher was the more faithful of the two.

I think Schumacher's lack of up-to-date knowledge on comic books caused him to resort back to the goofy renditions of Batman's characters, if you could even call them renditions of Batman's characters, which is the only reason I could see people saying the characters were "accurate". They weren't, they were just goofy and colorful like a lot of older comics. That hardly makes them accurate.
Bane, I will concede was a complete abomination of the character. To a lesser extent, Two-Face as well. But everyone else WERE spot-on. As I said, holding no bias to any particular era, the interpretations Schumacher gave were straight from the comics. Not saying it was either good or bad, but between him and Burton, he definitely followed the mythology more closely.

[Cunning Stunts]

Wait, what film are you talking about here?


I apologize, I'm very tired, so I didn't quite elaborate. The first comment (about writing and acting) referred to Burton's movies. The second (about the likability) referred to Schumachers.


I'm not following. This has no relevance to what I said. I've never linked accuracy and quality together. Merely stating that Schumacher was the more faithful of the two.


I was just saying that I wasn't linking the two, as it seemed like you were saying I was.


Bane, I will concede was a complete abomination of the character. To a lesser extent, Two-Face as well. But everyone else WERE spot-on. As I said, holding no bias to any particular era, the interpretations Schumacher gave were straight from the comics. Not saying it was either good or bad, but between him and Burton, he definitely followed the mythology more closely.

I don't feel like they were closer. The closest, I would say, was The Riddler, maybe Ivy. The other three- especially Bane, but everyone knows he's out of the debate regardless) didn't feel so accurate to me. The only thing reminiscent of the comics that I saw from Freeze was when he had his scenes with Nora's tank. Other than that, he was goofy, light-hearted, and became a complete joke.

[Crook]

I apologize, I'm very tired, so I didn't quite elaborate. The first comment (about writing and acting) referred to Burton's movies. The second (about the likability) referred to Schumachers.
It reads like both statements are talking about one film. :huh:

I was just saying that I wasn't linking the two, as it seemed like you were saying I was.
No, that was not my intent. I was disagreeing with your statement that Schumacher's take were complete revisions of the characters, which I feel is much more related to Burton.

I don't feel like they were closer. The closest, I would say, was The Riddler, maybe Ivy. The other three- especially Bane, but everyone knows he's out of the debate regardless) didn't feel so accurate to me. The only thing reminiscent of the comics that I saw from Freeze was when he had his scenes with Nora's tank. Other than that, he was goofy, light-hearted, and became a complete joke.
Again, I point you to the source. Mr Zero (as Freeze was originally named) was far from the grim loner we now associate the character with. He was pulling off heists and escapes with ice cream trucks, to give you an idea of how ludicrous he was. Schumacher basically took the best part of BTAS and mixed it in with the original silliness the character was spawned from. Joel didn't necessarily do it well, mind you, but it was faithful nonetheless.

[regwec]

I haven't seen the Schumacher films for some time, but I really don't recall the villians on the screen as particularly good representations of their comicbook counterparts.

Two Face had no hint of pathos. He crowed and cackled, apparently called in an avantgarde interior designer to decorate his pad, and fooled around with two party-themed bimbos. He seemed to be having a great time. No hint of the core of the character, there.

The Riddler was a highly intelligent former employee of Bruce Wayne. So far so good. But his whooping theatricality sat at odds with the Edward Nigma we know from more modern comics. His mind reading device was too incredible to really countenance.

Freeze's background was perfectly legitimate, but the wise cracking bodybuilder that resulted hardly captured Freeze's rejection of emotional warmth and humanity.

Ivy was reasonable, though played poorly by the wrong actress in a series of dreadful costumes.

Bane....ungh.

[jmc]

It's all a case of execution, I think Crook is spot on that Schumacher's take on the characters are more or less spot on to their comic counterpart, it's just the way in which they were handled that made them seem nothing like the characters.

[regwec]

I don't agree that Two Face, at least, was intact. There was a nod to the theme of duality, and his appearance was a kind of lurid reimagining of the original, but the characterisation was way off.

[TheScarecrow]

There's a difference between backstory and characterisation. While Burton screwed up the backstory of Catwoman, the overall characterisation (more importantly, Pfieffer's performance) was quite good. While Schumacher got the story of Freeze, Two-Face, Riddler and Poison Ivy relatively right, his characterisation of ALL of them (with the exception of The Riddler) was awful.

[Majik1387]

There's a difference between backstory and characterisation. While Burton screwed up the backstory of Catwoman, the overall characterisation (more importantly, Pfieffer's performance) was quite good. While Schumacher got the story of Freeze, Two-Face, Riddler and Poison Ivy relatively right, his characterisation of ALL of them (with the exception of The Riddler) was awful.
I don't see how he screwed up Catwoman's backstory. She never had a definite one at the time, and the hooker/dominatrix thing was retarded, though Burton used what worked from that backstory.

Fanboys really need to quit *****ing about the supposed "origin" of Catwoman.

[regwec]

Nonsense- the character deserves a better origin than the supernatural twaddle that Burton affixed to her.

Stop ****ing yourself.

[Majik1387]

There was no supernatural origin in Batman Returns.
Don't give me the whole 9 lives crap, it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

[regwec]

Being given a mystical kiss of life by a horde of alley cats wasn't supernatural? And why shouldn't we take the idea of her nine lives literally, when she clearly recovers from fatal injury more than once?

[Majik1387]

Being given a mystical kiss of life by a horde of alley cats wasn't supernatural?
There's a difference between breaking out of shock and being brought to life. Her fall from the window, through canopies is nothing new from comic books.
And why shouldn't we take the idea of her nine lives literally, when she clearly recovers from fatal injury more than once?
Because it's a superhero comic movie. Injuries onscreen that may be fatal in real life, aren't as fatal onscreen a lot of the time.

You wanna talk fatal injury, Nolan's Two-Face wouldn't last 10 minutes in real life, but it worked onscreen with no real complaints.

Seriously, you guys can't be so hypocritical about what works onscreen and what doesn't. Despite the 'realism' thing, all Batman movies are fantasy, things happen in them that can't happen in real life. It's how movies work.

[Johnny Drama]

Despite the 'realism' thing, all Batman movies are fantasy, things happen in them that can't happen in real life. It's how movies work.


:up:

[regwec]

Because it's a superhero comic movie. Injuries onscreen that may be fatal in real life, aren't as fatal onscreen a lot of the time.

You wanna talk fatal injury, Nolan's Two-Face wouldn't last 10 minutes in real life, but it worked onscreen with no real complaints.

Seriously, you guys can't be so hypocritical about what works onscreen and what doesn't. Despite the 'realism' thing, all Batman movies are fantasy, things happen in them that can't happen in real life. It's how movies work.
All of that is obvious and irrelevant; the question is whether the events of BR were intended to be seen as supernatural in context. To me, it seems clear that they were; from the echoes of vampiric resurrection via the cats to Selina's mania afterwards, to her adoption of cattish traits.

I am under no illusions that many of the events of Nolan's Batfilms are even faintly plausible. Harvey's injuries, however, were clearly meant to be physical rather than supernatural or magical.

Again, it has nothing to do with the varying degrees of realism of the two scenarios: it is a question of creative choices.

[Majik1387]

Well if you want to see Batman Returns awakening as supernatural, I can't help you. You're taking it quite literally when it's not supposed to be taken that way.

[regwec]

According to whom?

If Burton himself denies the supernatural overtones of the sequence, that proves didn't do his homework, and his intentions weren't properly realised.

(And I'm not taking it literally; I'm reading the symbolism and subtext).

[WeaponXProject]

Well if you want to see Batman Returns awakening as supernatural, I can't help you. You're taking it quite literally when it's not supposed to be taken that way.


I don't interpret it as supernatural, like the Crow for example. I just interpret it as the fall messed up her head. She lost it mentally and became something else. I definitely could see how people would say "she was taken on by the cats" though...but it's Burton. The guy is plain weird but he doesn't always explain why things are the way they are in his movies.

Either way, I enjoyed Catwoman and Pfieffer in that movie.

[Cunning Stunts]

There's a difference between breaking out of shock and being brought to life. Her fall from the window, through canopies is nothing new from comic books.

Because it's a superhero comic movie. Injuries onscreen that may be fatal in real life, aren't as fatal onscreen a lot of the time.

You wanna talk fatal injury, Nolan's Two-Face wouldn't last 10 minutes in real life, but it worked onscreen with no real complaints.

Seriously, you guys can't be so hypocritical about what works onscreen and what doesn't. Despite the 'realism' thing, all Batman movies are fantasy, things happen in them that can't happen in real life. It's how movies work.

Not true at all. I've seen much worse burn victims.

And Catwoman most certainly was supernatural in Batman Returns. She returned from the dead for God's sake. The nine lives was supposed to be taken literally, for the movie. Maybe not so much in the comics, but I'm pretty sure Batman Returns made that clear, if I remember correctly.

[redfirebird2008]

Nonsense- the character deserves a better origin than the supernatural twaddle that Burton affixed to her.


Eh, I enjoyed Burton's version of Catwoman. Then again, I also didn't have any problems with the alleged abomination of Joker wearing makeup instead of having white skin.

[StorminNorman]

Whether a series is 70 years old or only a dozen issues is irrelevant, they can still interpret a story a hundred different ways, but Snyder brought nothing to the film except make it accurate as possible, much to the determent of the film because overall his desire to be comic accurate made it a very ordinary film to watch.

You are probably the only person who has ever described Watchmen as a "very ordinary film".

[redfirebird2008]

You are probably the only person who has ever described Watchmen as a "very ordinary film".

True, usually it's a "love it/hate it" kind of response.

[elgato]

I think there's no doubt, this girl must play Catwoman!!!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[flickchick85]

I think there's no doubt, this girl must play Catwoman!!!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What an odd little video. These "fashion" short films always crack me up just by being cheesy, clichéd, and bizarrely random all at once, lol. Certainly not the best way to advertise her acting skills (not that she was terrible in it or anything, but the whole thing's just so overdone), but she does have the Catwoman look going on in certain parts of it. Random note - I thought I read somewhere that for the actual photoshoot for Dior, she really was walking around on the Eiffel Tower in heels (I could barely walk anywhere in heels that high. There's no amount of money you could give me to do it on the Eiffel Tower.) ...but it doesn't look all that real in the actual film. Odd.

Anyway, as you know I agree, she's the perfect Selina:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6566/mcdior2pj0.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/952/mcselinaarrivalshq006.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2636/mcpremiere.jpg

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7571/mc92128marioncdlady1223.jpg

[ross2287]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2636/mcpremiere.jpg




I've been a fan of Cotillard for Catwoman for a long time but this picture is a selling point. She looks like Selina and Catwoman at the same time. Someone needs to take this pic over to the manips thread. :up:

[Timstuff]

There was no supernatural origin in Batman Returns.
Don't give me the whole 9 lives crap, it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

She died and was resurrected by cats, who also gave her feline attributes / skills. That's pretty supernatural IMO.

[KalMart]

And breaking all the greenhouse windows by screaming.....VERY natural and within the realm of normal human capability.

I don't think the cats gave her 'powers' or what have you. I think that Burton et al just went with what they wanted to see without requiring any fine line between realistic logic or supernatural.

"What if she comes back to life? Cool. And what if she screams and breaks all the windows? Cool. And how about we make this renaissance-lady villain with a tiny lapdog that can catch the batarang, even though it knocked out four thugs? Cool."

Nothing really literal or sensible or poetic about it....just weird for the sake of being weird.

[jmc]

You are probably the only person who has ever described Watchmen as a ''very ordinary film''.

I'm far from being the only one.

[bryanss3]

I'd describe it as inside baseball

[Ethermatic]

http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff334/a_avelar/140.jpg

Eva Green. Jus' sayin'...

[TheBatman072]

http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff334/a_avelar/140.jpg

Eva Green. Jus' sayin'...


Yes. I am behind this idea 100%.

[TheScarecrow]

How about Ayelet Zurer? I just got back from Angels and Demons. She's very good.

[Cunning Stunts]

http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff334/a_avelar/140.jpg

Eva Green. Jus' sayin'...

Yes. I am behind this idea 100%.

I've been pushing this idea for months... You guys are only the 3rd and 4th I've seen to agree with this (including me).

I'm all for her. :up:

[KalMart]

How about the girl from that show 'Chuck'?

[jmc]

^ The sister or the spy?

[Ethermatic]

I've been pushing this idea for months... You guys are only the 3rd and 4th I've seen to agree with this (including me).

I'm all for her. :up:

Me, too. I like to sprinkle the thread with pictures of her from time to time. Though, it's been awhile since I've done it. Though the actress from Chuck is attractive, I would prefer a natural brunette, myself.

[Ace of Knaves]

Winona Ryder :D

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc123/danasito/winona_ryder.jpg
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o114/Tejada_bucket/Winona_Ryder.jpg

[Majik1387]

Winona or Rachel Weisz.:up:

[Dark Knight]

Top choices for Selina Kyle/Catwoman

Eva Green
Marion Cotillard
Rachel Weisz
Natalie Portman
Kate Winslet

[Two-Face]

Rachel Weisz, that's the way to go but I'm still hoping for Jolie.

[RachelDawes]

Eva Green is a cool idea. I know lots of people want her for Talia but I don't think we're going to get her in the Nolan series.

[Majik1387]

I honestly don't want Eva Green as Catwoman, Talia, or Ivy.

[KalMart]

Eva Green is a cool idea. I know lots of people want her for Talia but I don't think we're going to get her in the Nolan series.

Honestly, I don't think there'll be a Catwoman, either. But it's fun to speculate.

[Two-Face]

Honestly, I don't think there'll be a Catwoman, either. But it's fun to speculate.


We will see Kal.

[[A]]

Winona Ryder :D

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc123/danasito/winona_ryder.jpg
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o114/Tejada_bucket/Winona_Ryder.jpgshe would be too easy to spot in a robbery

[Two-Face]

She could say "I was just borrowing this" :funny:

[Dark Knight]

Rachel Weisz, that's the way to go but I'm still hoping for Jolie.



Yeah, almost have to throw Jolie in the mix....

[Alex Logan]

Winona Ryder :D

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc123/danasito/winona_ryder.jpg
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o114/Tejada_bucket/Winona_Ryder.jpg

She's already too old IMO.

[VenomVsSpidey]

im ready for the onslaught, but IMO michelle pfiefer's (sp?) catwoman is the ONLY catwoman, much like keaton is the only batman to some [imo, both fit the series perfectly, i have no favorite over either one]

[Cunning Stunts]

She's already too old IMO.

She's 37... Barely older than Bale.

When an actress hits her 50s, then I'd begin worrying about her for this role.

[Cunning Stunts]

Eva Green is a cool idea. I know lots of people want her for Talia but I don't think we're going to get her in the Nolan series.

I don't know, I've got a little hope. She's very talented, and not too well known at all.

Plus, how can you deny those boobies a skin-tight suit? :hehe:

[TheBatman072]

Eva Green is a cool idea. I know lots of people want her for Talia but I don't think we're going to get her in the Nolan series.

Kate Beckinsale for Talia.

I honestly don't want Eva Green as Catwoman, Talia, or Ivy.


Haha, why?

[RachelDawes]

Honestly, I don't think there'll be a Catwoman, either. But it's fun to speculate.

No Catwoman or Talia? Who do you think the female love interest will be then?

I don't know, I've got a little hope. She's very talented, and not too well known at all.

I meant Talia won't be in the movie, not Eva Green

Plus, how can you deny those boobies a skin-tight suit? :hehe:

It wouldn't be hard for me to deny them at all. That's not what interests me. :woot:

[Crook]

Plus, how can you deny those boobies a skin-tight suit? :hehe:
Joking aside, I don't even think we'll be getting that. The tight suit, that is.

[KalMart]

No Catwoman or Talia? Who do you think the female love interest will be then?
Honestly, I don't see a pressing need for there to be one anymore, at least not for one more movie. And if there is, just make it a love interest, instead of using it as an excuse to use Talia or Catwoman. The character itself...as a villain/antagonist... should be what should work best in the story first and foremost, and right away I think there would be better villain choices than Catwoman/Talia considering how the storylines have developed. Them being able to flirt with Batman doesn't elevate that.

I know that some would find it too male without a love interest, but considering how things have turned out for Batman at the end of TDK, and how he has to regain his standing, I don't think female companionship/love is something he has time for. There should be bigger things at stake. And this storyline has earned enough interest not to be obligated to fill that love-interest quota if they don't want to. But as it stands, having a love interest is the strongest argument for a Catwoman, and to me that's not strong enough.

Let them exhaust all villain possibilities, and if they still land on Catwoman, then fine....and then they can work the love story in if they want to. But if they prefer other villains, and they're somehow forced to include a love interest, then let it be just that instead of sacrificing precious story time/space in the villain category as well.

But in the meantime, it's still fun to hypothetically speculate over who could be a good pick for the role. :O

[Cunning Stunts]

I meant Talia won't be in the movie, not Eva Green

It wouldn't be hard for me to deny them at all. That's not what interests me. :woot:

Gotcha... I think Eva is at least on Nolan's radar, although if its awards he's looking for, he might be out of luck. She's fairly new to the game.

Joking aside, I don't even think we'll be getting that. The tight suit, that is.

Yeah, so do I. I think we'll get some sort of armored ****, but not quite as complex as Bale's. Maybe something resembling Motocross-type armor.

[jmc]

I can not understand what possible reason there is to Catwoman having Motocross style protective armour, if you're a thief the last thing you want is clunky crap weighing you down and getting in the way whilst you're trying to maneuver past the highly sensitive alarm system.

[Mrs.J]

lol this thread is still going! NICE :D
but seriously i agree ^^^ KalMart
I dont see the neccissity (butchered that word) for a love interest. I doubt bruce would fall head over heels for a new woman. I mean he knew Rachel his whole life and loved her since he was young. so. It would take a lot for him to fall for someone agian. IMO.
PLus i think he kicksa** a hell of a lot better with out all that baggage!!!!! Women are a big burden to carry lol in batman's case ne ways hahah

[Ethermatic]

I can not understand what possible reason there is to Catwoman having Motocross style protective armour, if you're a thief the last thing you want is clunky crap weighing you down and getting in the way whilst you're trying to maneuver past the highly sensitive alarm system.

Agreed. I know some people make manips, which are very good in most cases, but I think the current Catwoman outfit in the comics is so easily adaptable to film that it would work the best, in my opinion. Granted, I know some people don't like the goggles. I happen to be a fan of them, and wouldn't mind if there was a little technology sprinkled into them. But in terms of armor and whatnot, I don't see a reason whatsoever.

[regwec]

Why the hell to people always "re imagine" Batman characters to fit "Nolan's world" by adding armour plates to them? It is ridiculous.

You might as well give Alfred a kevlar tie, just in case.

[jmc]

I think people just over think it a little bit in terms of armour. The thing about armour for Catwoman, assuming they go the thief angle, is what exactly would she need armour for? Confrontation? Confrontation with whom? Secuirty guards? If you're stealing a $10 million diamond the last thing you're trying to do is be battle ready, just in case. Really, they only thing she'd need is the proper tools and equipment which could easily be built into the costume itself via back pack or in pockets and what not.

[KalMart]

What would she need the cat-ears for? Certainly if she's a thief, the last thing she'd want is to be seen....much less with an identifying feature on her wardrobe. If she's seen she could be caught...especially if she doesn't have anything to confront people with. If she's only stealing for herself, and not to make a 'statement', why would she want any kind of identifying features....or even a nickname?

So never mind armor etc......why the ears?

[jmc]

^ I theorize it could come down to her wearing a Cat mask as more of a superstition, cats are the one thing she feels connected with so when she doing a heist, being inside that cat mask gives her a level of comfort and security and helps her to focus, a security blanket if you will, kinda like how certain sports stars have their own little idiosyncrasies and trinkets they 'need' to help them play.

[CaptainClown]

I would say that a catmask would be a mocking kind of thing just to be cocky

[Laderlappen]

Well why does batman have ears?

[Cunning Stunts]

I can not understand what possible reason there is to Catwoman having Motocross style protective armour, if you're a thief the last thing you want is clunky crap weighing you down and getting in the way whilst you're trying to maneuver past the highly sensitive alarm system.

By motocross armor, I don't mean actual motocross armor. I mean something that resembles this:

http://motorhelmets.com/pics-products/fox-racing/apparel-fox-racing-offroad-bodyarmor-2007-men-roost-deflector-450-rockstar.jpg

It's very lightweight, and obviously it wouldn't be that, I said something resembling.

Why the hell to people always "re imagine" Batman characters to fit "Nolan's world" by adding armour plates to them? It is ridiculous.

You might as well give Alfred a kevlar tie, just in case.

I only thought Catwoman should have it. :huh: For my reason why, see below.

I think people just over think it a little bit in terms of armour. The thing about armour for Catwoman, assuming they go the thief angle, is what exactly would she need armour for? Confrontation? Confrontation with whom? Secuirty guards? If you're stealing a $10 million diamond the last thing you're trying to do is be battle ready, just in case. Really, they only thing she'd need is the proper tools and equipment which could easily be built into the costume itself via back pack or in pockets and what not.

And thieves don't ever run into dangerous people? Or even people that they're stealing from? She's been under gunfire before in comics. If I were robbing people for a living, I would certain load up on Kevlar, whether or not I planned on running into people who might try to stop me, no matter how good I am.

[RachelDawes]

Honestly, I don't see a pressing need for there to be one anymore, at least not for one more movie. And if there is, just make it a love interest, instead of using it as an excuse to use Talia or Catwoman. The character itself...as a villain/antagonist... should be what should work best in the story first and foremost, and right away I think there would be better villain choices than Catwoman/Talia considering how the storylines have developed. Them being able to flirt with Batman doesn't elevate that.

I know that some would find it too male without a love interest, but considering how things have turned out for Batman at the end of TDK, and how he has to regain his standing, I don't think female companionship/love is something he has time for. There should be bigger things at stake. And this storyline has earned enough interest not to be obligated to fill that love-interest quota if they don't want to. But as it stands, having a love interest is the strongest argument for a Catwoman, and to me that's not strong enough.

Let them exhaust all villain possibilities, and if they still land on Catwoman, then fine....and then they can work the love story in if they want to. But if they prefer other villains, and they're somehow forced to include a love interest, then let it be just that instead of sacrificing precious story time/space in the villain category as well.

But in the meantime, it's still fun to hypothetically speculate over who could be a good pick for the role. :O

I know how you feel. I want Catwoman in the next movie but I worry that she's an easy villain to get wrong. The actress playing her could be terrible, her dialog could be ridiculous, she could have no chemistry with Bale, she could be only awkwardly inserted into the story...There are a lot of reasons for me to be nervous about her being the next villain.

What would she need the cat-ears for? Certainly if she's a thief, the last thing she'd want is to be seen....much less with an identifying feature on her wardrobe. If she's seen she could be caught...especially if she doesn't have anything to confront people with. If she's only stealing for herself, and not to make a 'statement', why would she want any kind of identifying features....or even a nickname?

So never mind armor etc......why the ears?

I just took the cat ears as being a piece of flair. She likes cats and thought it would be cute and fun to have cat ears. *shrugs* Probably she was inspired by Batman.

[batboy99]

I think there's no doubt, this girl must play Catwoman!!!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IL5Nnay5sKY&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Quite possibly the coolest thing ive seen regarding Cotillard for Catwoman. Yes it was over the top, but it was so cool. It was so Selina like. And say what you want, but she looked great with blond hair and reminded me of the TAS Selina.

This video has moved Marion into the #1 spot for me again. It was so good!

[jmc]

And thieves don't ever run into dangerous people? Or even people that they're stealing from? She's been under gunfire before in comics. If I were robbing people for a living, I would certain load up on Kevlar, whether or not I planned on running into people who might try to stop me, no matter how good I am.

If they are good thieves they wont run into dangerous people, and Catwoman is considered to be the best there is. The whole point of being a thief/con artist/grifter is that you don't get caught, dressing in armour is a waste of time coz if you're that good, you have no reason to fear any sort of confrontation because you know how to avoid it. It's just unnecessary garnishing.

[Cunning Stunts]

But not being prepared for the off-chance that you will get caught is just plain stupid. The best screw up occasionally- perhaps they miss a detail, things don't go according to plan, or it has to be altered on the fly. It's not like she's some sort of omnipotent God.

[jmc]

Alright, she gets caught, then what? Guards are just going to shoot her? She has no firearm, if she gets caught she get arrested, simple as that. She is not a combat soldier, she's not going out looking for a confrontation with heavy gun fire, it makes no sense that she'd be suited up in protective gear when her only goal is to get in and out of where ever she's going and quickly and as quietly as possible. Things screw up sure, but you're still not expecting to be involved in a shootout, it makes even less sense since she has no weapon to counter any gun fire attack with.