The Dark Knight Rises Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman IX

[BatmanGoesToRio]

"The Catwoman has to wear a cat cowl."
"What if she doesn`t own one?"
"She must. She must."

 

[kickass]

1: Ofcourse she looked like a zombie. She had that terrible "cheap horror movie" suit.

She's as pale as snow and those zips are terrible.
2: I agree on the fact that she should wear a cowl, but the character is based on the word cat-burglar not on an actual cat person. If she is flexible and feline in her movements as well as independent, strong and beautiful then she is Catwoman.
3: I'm glad we won't get that childish stuff this time.

In every way.

 

[KalMart]

1: Ofcourse she looked like a zombie. She had that terrible "cheap horror movie" suit.

She's as pale as snow and those zips are terrible.
2: I agree on the fact that she should wear a cowl, but the character is based on the word cat-burglar not on an actual cat person. If she is flexible and feline in her movements as well as independent, strong and beautiful then she is Catwoman.
3: I'm glad we won't get that childish stuff this time.

The style of that...and his Joker and Penguin, etc...fit Burton's more 'dance macabre' costume-romp approach. Nolan is treating it more like a grittier crime-drama/thriller...so this Hathaway version may fit it better, even if the Pfeiffer one looked more comic-like.

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

In every way.

Agreed. I have never been a fan of "fantastic Catwoman with nine lives" but the suit and Michelle herself were pretty cool.

 

[papie]

The style of that...and his Joker and Penguin, etc...fit Burton's more 'dance macabre' costume-romp approach. Nolan is treating it more like a grittier crime-drama/thriller...so this Hathaway version may fit it better, even if the Pfeiffer one looked more comic-like.

Exactly.
I only dislike the goggles and would wish for a cowl.

 

[TheVerbos]

That's because no one will literally say that, but something like this can easily affect the perceived quality of the movie, with both the casual and hardcore audience. It's not as if we come to this board to strictly discuss the box office impact of the movie (though you could absolutely argue that this "perceived quality" will influence box office performance). If that were the case, then any minor or major complaint could be answered with a silly "But you're still gonna see it!!!!" response.

He said it would affect the perception and performance.

I said it won't.

I was not wrong. I never said we came here to discuss box office figures. Obviously, we're fans and we will discuss creative decisions.

You didn't exactly tell me anything I didn't know...

 

[Mister Meddle]

This is the first time I'm hearing any complaints about Pfeiffer's Catsuit.

 

[TheVerbos]

^

Dude, it's the Internet.

Everything sux!

 

[kickass]

That's kickass, kickass. Pfeiffer/Burton Catwoman is awesome.

Thank you! Indeed she is

 

[Bat-Mite]

These arguements defending the "Catwoman" suit are ridiculous. I didn't hear anyone mention how awesome it would be if Nolan made Catwoman's suit look nothing like Catwoman before. But now, because everyone wants to trust Nolan and give him their first born, all previous incarnations of the character over the past howmany years makes no sense? And this is completely acceptable? I feel you're all defending this look because it's what Nolan thought looked good, not because it actually looks good. It doesn't.

On another note, we have people using Burton's Catwoman as an excuse as to why Nolan's Catwoman looks far better. Again, funny since no one complained about Burton's Catwoman before. Now all of a sudden she's a "zombie"? I'm reading people say Catwoman should be defined by her personality and character rather than her look. That's what really makes her CATwoman. REALLY? Burton's Catwoman licked herself, had claws, tried swallowing a bird, and was as sexual as she was psychotic. How much more CAT can one be?!

Is it impossible to have a discussion on here without rude, dishonest hyperbole rearing its ugly head? It seems more and more often that this is becoming the case, though I don't suppose that it's anything new.

It's rather amusing that you say all of these past incarnations mean nothing to the people defending the image we've been given, because I've been pointing to those past incarnations in order to defend that image, to point out that she hasn't always had cat ears. However ---and I feel the need to constantly point this out because these boards can be like a witch hunt sometimes --- when I close my eyes, I do think of the cowled woman with cat ears as "Catwoman" when I hear that name, and that is what I want and expect from this movie. In the mean time, however, I don't think it would hurt anyone to cool their heads and not be so prejudicial about a single image that barely has any context whatsoever.

WB didn't say, "This is the new Catwoman. Deal with it." They released an image of Selina Kyle who could very well be an unmasked or in a pre-Catwoman state. Whether or not this is Catwoman as she'll be throughout the film, the image itself has worked very well for them by setting tongues a-wagging. It's gotten them quite a bit of free publicity. I would imagine that they knew this would happen as they are quite aware of their character's history. And even though Nolan likely has quite a bit of clout by now, I wouldn't be surprised if WB wants certain essential features maintained when it comes to an iconic character like Catwoman. I'm not very fond of the image as it stands, but I'm also not going to count my chickens before they hatch and lash out at an unfinished product.

As for the criticisms about Burton's Catwoman, if you'd taken the time to actually read them instead of ranting in rage, you'd see that they were talking about how his version of her didn't go around stealing things or doing anything remotely like a cat burglar, but instead went around trying to get revenge on her old boss and Batman. She also was a frizzy secretary who got resurrected by cats, which you wouldn't find in any of her origin stories.

 

[Mister Meddle]

 

[Wolverine1988]

How can you call Pfifher pale and not Hathaway?

Seriously, Hathaway is way more pale than Pfifhpher,look at her when she is dancing with Bruce Wayne at the masqeurade ball, she looks stunning and doesn't look pale at all.

Hathaway will always look pale as day.

And it seems all these uber die hard Nolan fanatics are defending Hathaway as Catwoman but resorting to bashing Michelle Pffiphers Catwoman, which was a really good performance and interesting take on the character.

 

[kickass]

This is the first time I'm hearing any complaints about Pfeiffer's Catsuit.

Because people now like to disregard what once was for something that will be, all in the name of the director who's ass they keep kissing. Trust me when I say people are more in love with the director than the characters.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Because people now like to disregard what once was for something that will be, all in the name of the director who's ass they keep kissing. Trust me when I say people are more in love with the director than the characters.

Yeah no kidding. For the longest time I heard nothing but praises (with some people criticizing her origin but still loved the character) about Catwoman from Returns. I knew people would start bashing the character around this time.

EDIT:

 

[Flare]

He said it would affect the perception and performance.

I said it won't.

I was not wrong. I never said we came here to discuss box office figures. Obviously, we're fans and we will discuss creative decisions.

You didn't exactly tell me anything I didn't know...

Excuse me if this comes across as rude but...What on earth are you talking about? Who is "he"? Do you know which poster you are responding to?

My original point was that the concern over Catwoman's appearance is far beyond that of a fanboy issue. You then attempted to counter that point by stating that the general fanbase will still see the movie regardless. I then stated that your counter point was irrelevant. The fact that many will still see the movie does not render complaints about the movie completely invalid.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I still praise Michelle's Catwoman and think that Anne has much bigger shoes to fill than Heath did. It doesn't have to be either/or. I can love Michelle's Catwoman and still look forward to what Anne's Catwoman has in store.

 

[The Infernal]

Is it always like this on the Batboards where both sides descend into conspiracy theories to explain why either sides opinions are wrong?

 

[Saint]

Dude, you can go and on about why two ears matter so muuuuucccchhhh or you agree that people see it differently and do not think the character is splintered because of two ears. Give it a rest, man.

She is not the Joker. She is not Batman.

She is not running around in NOTHING resembling her comics counterpart.

If she were as screwed around as they did Deadpool, I would understand and sympathize. Your logic is correct, but you need to accept that not everyone will care and it does not necessarily ruin the interpretation.

Let me save us all some time, you won't agree and this thread will continue.

You know, I read this entire post, and I didn't find a single comment that was actually a response to anything I wrote.

I'm not sure why you're telling me that I have to "accept the not everyone will care." I know not everyone cares; that's their prerogative. My issue, as we can see by reading my actual post, is not the people who do not care; it's the people who post fallacious arguments.

 

[KalMart]

Exactly.
I only dislike the goggles and would wish for a cowl.

The goggles could be one of many apparatus she uses 'on the job'. It looks like it's a combination light 'for grading jewels, etc. and night-vision or infra-red. But then, maybe it is a complete 'costume' as well, and that's just part of it. So be it, if it works in the film.

 

[helloiamben]

If the Hathaway Catwoman is any where near the Pfeiffer Catwoman in terms of quality, then I'll be happy. If she "surpasses" Pfeiffer, that will be even better and then we'll have two great, unique Catwoman characterizations on film.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

2: I agree on the fact that she should wear a cowl, but the character is based on the word cat-burglar not on an actual cat person. If she is flexible and feline in her movements as well as independent, strong and beautiful then she is Catwoman.
3: I'm glad we won't get that childish stuff this time.

2. Childish? What do you mean?

 

[Saint]

Incidentally, Burton's Catwoman may have been a pretty extreme departure for the character, but she was also completely awesome.

 

[kickass]

Is it impossible to have a discussion on here without rude, dishonest hyperbole rearing its ugly head? It seems more and more often that this is becoming the case, though I don't suppose that it's anything new.

It's rather amusing that you say all of these past incarnations mean nothing to the people defending the image we've been given, because I've been pointing to those past incarnations in order to defend that image, to point out that she hasn't always had cat ears. However ---and I feel the need to constantly point this out because these boards can be like a witch hunt sometimes --- when I close my eyes, I do think of the cowled woman with cat ears as "Catwoman" when I hear that name, and that is what I want and expect from this movie. In the mean time, however, I don't think it would hurt anyone to cool their heads and not be so prejudicial about a single image that barely has any context whatsoever.

WB didn't say, "This is the new Catwoman. Deal with it." They released an image of Selina Kyle who could very well be an unmasked or in a pre-Catwoman state. Whether or not this is Catwoman as she'll be throughout the film, the image itself has worked very well for them by setting tongues a-wagging. It's gotten them quite a bit of free publicity. I would imagine that they knew this would happen as they are quite aware of their character's history. And even though Nolan likely has quite a bit of clout by now, I wouldn't be surprised if WB wants certain essential features maintained when it comes to an iconic character like Catwoman. I'm not very fond of the image as it stands, but I'm also not going to count my chickens before they hatch and lash out at an unfinished product.

As for the criticisms about Burton's Catwoman, if you'd taken the time to actually read them instead of ranting in rage, you'd see that they were talking about how his version of her didn't go around stealing things or doing anything remotely like a cat burglar, but instead went around trying to get revenge on her old boss and Batman. She also was a frizzy secretary who got resurrected by cats, which you wouldn't find in any of her origin stories.

The original Selina Kyle without any of the cat features sucked. Plain and simple. She wasn't what comic book fans, Batman fans, and even general fans drooled over. It wasn't until she started becoming more cat-like that the character cemented her IDENTITY within the comic book world.

Straight up, a Catwoman who resembles a cat with her look is the best version of the character there was or ever will be. There's a reason they've never gone back to do the first Selina Kyle.

 

[TheVerbos]

Excuse me if this comes across as rude but...What on earth are you talking about? Who is "he"? Do you know which poster you are responding to?

My original point was that the concern over Catwoman's appearance is far beyond that of a fanboy issue. You then attempted to counter that point by stating that the general fanbase will still see the movie regardless. I then stated that your counter point was irrelevant. The fact that many will still see the movie does not render complaints about the movie completely invalid.

(I don't always keep track of username. That's who 'he' is, you!)

It all comes down to reading of arguments.

You said noise would arise in the general audience due to no cat-ears (as if that's a problem for the film).

I then said 'They'll still go see it', which means that cat-ears will not sink Bat movie.

It kinda does render it invalid from a marketing perspective (which is the perspective I was addressing). All of these comments are multi-dimensional. I can say one thing addressing one surface of the multi-faceted crystal while you were speaking from the other end.

Obviously, box office does not make good movie. Whatever, we probably agree but were addressing different concerns...

 

[KalMart]

Because people now like to disregard what once was for something that will be, all in the name of the director who's ass they keep kissing. Trust me when I say people are more in love with the director than the characters.

Is it not okay to be more interested in a specific director's reinterpretation of Batman than in how closely it sticks to the comics? I'm not comparing Nolan to Kubrick, per se, but just about all his films were based on novels, and I'm more interested in what his movies do as films than covering all the bullet-points from the novels, etc. I completely understand an avid comic/Batman feeling differently, but I don't think that what Nolan is doing should be considered a disservice or what have you...just a different take....and one that's done very well, movie-wise, thus far.