The Dark Knight Rises Johnny Depp Talks Riddler Rumors

[[A]]

George Bush as the penguin, and Binladen as the riddler!! (altho he'd have to shave his beard for the role)if they teamed up they would be unstopable, even for chuck noris. is that unexpected enough. and than we could have charelston heston comeback to life to play soloman grundy. no one would expect that.

The typos are actually funnier than the post itself.

 

[scatterax]

The typos are actually funnier than the post itself.

i was tryin to speed type. that's sorta gives me an excuse

 

[Crook]

I'm not denying that both Hoffman and Depp are amazing, unparalleled actors, (I'm a BIG fan of each of them,) but I simply don't like their selection in this movie. I've no doubt they could do these roles with justice-- in fact, I'm sure they'd be amazing-- but to me their casting seems predictable. I would honestly rather have someone I CAN'T see in these roles playing the part.

That's what makes a villian good and scary for me...the fact that I can't SEE them being a villian.

So basically you're dismissing them because they're undoubtedly qualified.

If Nolan were to follow this method of casting, we wouldn't have gotten Bale. Or Caine, or Freeman, or Neeson, or Aaron. So no thanks. Denying actors because they're proven to be good in that role is just plain wrong.

 

[LemonyFresh]

How Depp would be boring to cast? he's one of the best actors in world.

Apparently you didn't read my response. Look up a few posts.

They'd use other high profile characters with A-list actors and use more then one of them. The Schumacher Batman films both did this.







Agreed.

Ahhh, and look what happened with Schumacher's movies, right? I'm still against it. It's precisely what they're doing now, and I just think it's a bad franchise move.

But thanks for actually understanding where I'm coming from! Again, I'm glad we agree.

 

[LemonyFresh]

So basically you're dismissing them because they're undoubtedly qualified.

If Nolan were to follow this method of casting, we wouldn't have gotten Bale. Or Caine, or Freeman, or Neeson, or Aaron. So no thanks. Denying actors because they're proven to be good in that role is just plain wrong.

That's not what I'm saying AT ALL.

I'm saying these moves are predictable, and from MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION I would like to see people cast that--again-- I can't see as a villian. To me, that makes the role all the more intriguing, deep and scary.

All of the actors mentioned in the movie and even in the rumors are undoubtably amazing. HOWEVER--The casting of Caine was predictable, but it works because he's not meant to shock in the way that the Joker is. It's the same with Freeman. As for Liam Neeson and Aaron Eckhart, they're not typically cast as the antagonists. Sure, they've played some bad characters, but overall their careers pit them in certain archetypes. That's why, to me, their performances are so strong. I'm not expecting them.

Just because someone is a great actor doesn't mean they're the best choice.

 

[The Major]

Ahhh, and look what happened with Schumacher's movies, right? I'm still against it. It's precisely what they're doing now, and I just think it's a bad franchise move.

Exactly.

But thanks for actually understanding where I'm coming from! Again, I'm glad we agree.

No problem.

 

[Crook]

That's not what I'm saying AT ALL.

I'm saying these moves are predictable, and from MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION I would like to see people cast that--again-- I can't see as a villian. To me, that makes the role all the more intriguing, deep and scary.

Depp and Hoffman as villains is predictable? Umm....how? Have I somehow missed these films where they've made a name in playing bad guys?

All of the actors mentioned in the movie and even in the rumors are undoubtably amazing. HOWEVER--The casting of Caine was predictable, but it works because he's not meant to shock in the way that the Joker is. It's the same with Freeman. As for Liam Neeson and Aaron Eckhart, they're not typically cast as the antagonists. Sure, they've played some bad characters, but overall their careers pit them in certain archetypes. That's why, to me, their performances are so strong. I'm not expecting them.

I wasn't referring to their roles as antagonists. Their roles were clearly fit for them because they've done that specific archetype before. Neeson is known for being cast as the sage advisor/leader, while Eckhart basically charms his way through a lot of his roles. They were by no means left-field choices like Oldman and Ledger were.

Just because someone is a great actor doesn't mean they're the best choice.

And what is defined as the best choice? You can't possibly determine any of this unless you've seen every actor actually perform the role. I'll settle my chances on getting a great performance, period.

 

[LemonyFresh]

Depp and Hoffman as villains is predictable? Umm....how? Have I somehow missed these films where they've made a name in playing bad guys?


I wasn't referring to their roles as antagonists. Their roles were clearly fit for them because they've done that specific archetype before. Neeson is known for being cast as the sage advisor/leader, while Eckhart basically charms his way through a lot of his roles. They were by no means left-field choices like Oldman and Ledger were.


And what is defined as the best choice? You can't possibly determine any of this unless you've seen every actor actually perform the role. I'll settle my chances on getting a great performance, period.

Sweeney Todd ring any bells? And the Libertine didn't really cast Depp as a shining silhouette too. Anyway, you missed that this is MY opinion, and as resolutely as you stick to yours, I'm going to stick to mine.

I disagree about Eckhart at the least, (I still think most people identify Neeson in benevolent, fatherly roles,) whereas he is a charmer, no one really remembered him outside of Thank You For Smoking...at least in the general public. A lot of people I talked to were shocked by his casting.

In the same way that I can't possibly know who'll be the best by not seeing every performance, neither can you know so resolutely that both decisions will be great.

Again, I'm saying MY PERSONAL OPINION is that I would rather someone else, someone less expected, were cast.

 

[Crook]

Sweeney Todd ring any bells? And the Libertine didn't really cast Depp as a shining silhouette too. Anyway, you missed that this is MY opinion, and as resolutely as you stick to yours, I'm going to stick to mine.

This isn't about opinion. You're likening Depp and Hoffman as two actors that'd be predictable in villain roles, as if they're somehow tied to that archetype. Which they're not. Todd was far from a villain, ditto for Wilmot. They may have played characters within certain bad-hearted traits, but that is not their image as an actor. They don't have one, because they've played so many characters.

I disagree about Eckhart at the least, (I still think most people identify Neeson in benevolent, fatherly roles,) whereas he is a charmer, no one really remembered him outside of Thank You For Smoking...at least in the general public. A lot of people I talked to were shocked by his casting.

Shocked in what way? Aaron was barely recognizable to the general audience.

In the same way that I can't possibly know who'll be the best by not seeing every performance, neither can you know so resolutely that both decisions will be great.

I have probability on my side that those 2 would deliver great performances. If I recall, you even admitted to thinking the same way. What are the chances of seeing every single actor perform a single role (which is the only real way of determining "the best")? Zero.

Again, I'm saying MY PERSONAL OPINION is that I would rather someone else, someone less expected, were cast.

Yes, I think we all got that idea. If you do not wish for people to comment on your statements, then perhaps discussion boards are not for you.

 

[Darkknight14]

Does no one remember Hoffman's role as the bad guy in Mission Impossible 3? Anyone? cuz he was damn good. I think he'd be a great penguin, as long as it stayed as far away as possible from Burton's vision of penguin. More of a mobster like he is in the comics right now. I can also see Depp doing a great job as the Riddler, however I'm guessing he wont be cast. Remember all the kerfuffle about who would be cast as The Joker and not a single person expected ledger? yeah that'll probably happen with riddler.

 

[Dark Knight]

It would be a great choice, a good script and good supporting cast like Depp would be a nice way to end the trilogy.

I agree...and can you imagine Depp working under Nolans direction?

 

[Dark Knight]

Does no one remember Hoffman's role as the bad guy in Mission Impossible 3? Anyone? cuz he was damn good. I think he'd be a great penguin, as long as it stayed as far away as possible from Burton's vision of penguin. More of a mobster like he is in the comics right now. I can also see Depp doing a great job as the Riddler, however I'm guessing he wont be cast. Remember all the kerfuffle about who would be cast as The Joker and not a single person expected ledger? yeah that'll probably happen with riddler.

That will probably happen...I agree...

 

[LemonyFresh]

This isn't about opinion. You're likening Depp and Hoffman as two actors that'd be predictable in villain roles, as if they're somehow tied to that archetype. Which they're not. Todd was far from a villain, ditto for Wilmot. They may have played characters within certain bad-hearted traits, but that is not their image as an actor. They don't have one, because they've played so many characters.



Yes, I think we all got that idea. If you do not wish for people to comment on your statements, then perhaps discussion boards are not for you.

This is all about opinion, as any aspect of art and entertainment is. And I'm sticking to mine. I think there could be better choices than Depp and Hoffman, both of whom I adore. But that's simply my own opinion. Whether they've played many roles or not, I just feel like I could see where their performances might lead. I could be totally wrong, but, like with Heath, I want to be surprised, and I'm just not sure I would be.

I'm all for debate, and I'm taking offense to none of this. I do find it hilarious, though, that all this hoopla came from my asking whether there was any confirmed truth to the link I posted, but people chose to ignore that and jump right on about me about my opinion on the matter. My opinion doesn't matter one jot, but it's not going to stop me from stating it. Your opinion doesn't matter one jot, but I'm happy to hear it anyway. Maybe if we were running the movie we'd have more to discuss, but as it is, all I wanted to do was to find out if it had been confirmed Depp and Hoffman were cast.

 

[Crook]

This is all about opinion, as any aspect of art and entertainment is. And I'm sticking to mine. I think there could be better choices than Depp and Hoffman, both of whom I adore.

I wasn't questioning whether you think they'd be good/bad. If you read back, you'll notice I was questioning your statement that they're predictable for this type of role.

But that's simply my own opinion. Whether they've played many roles or not, I just feel like I could see where their performances might lead. I could be totally wrong, but, like with Heath, I want to be surprised, and I'm just not sure I would be.

Neither really turn in predictable performances. Depp moreso than any other actor out right now. I highly doubt people "knew" how he was going to portray Willy Wonka, or Ed Wood, or Jack Sparrow. Just to name a few. I can give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when it's of common thought that Ledger would be quite an act to follow.

I'm all for debate, and I'm taking offense to none of this. I do find it hilarious, though, that all this hoopla came from my asking whether there was any confirmed truth to the link I posted, but people chose to ignore that and jump right on about me about my opinion on the matter. My opinion doesn't matter one jot, but it's not going to stop me from stating it. Your opinion doesn't matter one jot, but I'm happy to hear it anyway. Maybe if we were running the movie we'd have more to discuss, but as it is, all I wanted to do was to find out if it had been confirmed Depp and Hoffman were cast.

No, they're not cast. Both have denied any involvement at this point.

 

[LemonyFresh]

I wasn't questioning whether you think they'd be good/bad. If you read back, you'll notice I was questioning your statement that they're predictable for this type of role.


Neither really turn in predictable performances. Depp moreso than any other actor out right now. I highly doubt people "knew" how he was going to portray Willy Wonka, or Ed Wood, or Jack Sparrow. Just to name a few. I can give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when it's of common thought that Ledger would be quite an act to follow.


No, they're not cast. Both have denied any involvement at this point.

Regardless of whether they've turned out very original performances in the past, what I meant to say is that I feel like I can already see them in the roles, and I really rather I couldn't. I completely accept that I may be completely off in this thought, (as Lemony Snicket said "First impressions are often entirely wrong...",) but for the time being, I wish I was more surprised at the casting, just as I was with Ledger.


THANK YOU for definitively answering that for me! I didn't think Caine was right, but I wanted to make sure.

 

[vibeke_T]

depp wouldnt make a good riddler...as everyone has been saying
silly rumors

 

[scatterax]

depp would two make a good riddler. if he can play scissor-hands, jack sparrow, wonka, AND donnie brasco, he can play any1 in my book.

 

[scatterax]

...but he still seems more like the scarecrow to me.

 

[The Major]

...but he still seems more like the scarecrow to me.

He should be Joker IMO.

 

[scatterax]

He should be Joker IMO.

ya, i have joker as th2nd most apropreate roll for johnny, but like i said, scarecrow is #1

 

[nolan's roll'n]

I agree...and can you imagine Depp working under Nolans direction?

Yeah that would be simply brilliant! I loved Depp in Secret Window, Sweeney Todd, Pirates Trilogy, Edward Scissorhands, and Chocolat. He would give a performance for the ages. Imo, it would be the only way to top what Heath created and to end this trilogy brilliantly. The only problem is that he would be better suited to fill Heath's shoes as the Joker, but his face is too familiar and everyone will think Sparrow when he gets on-screen. I could see him as the Joker, Riddler, or even Madhatter. And yes I know he has been cast as Madhatter in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, but that's different. It's Burton 7 films with him and counting and this Nolan one of the greatest film makers of today. Anyways, yeah that would be the problem and my only concern with casting an A list actor like Depp.

 

[nolan's roll'n]

ya, i have joker as th2nd most apropreate roll for johnny, but like i said, scarecrow is #1

I don't see it, plus Murphy has done pretty well as Scarecrow, so far. William Fichtner would be better imo for Scarecrow.

 

[scatterax]

I don't see it, plus Murphy has done pretty well as Scarecrow, so far. William Fichtner would be better imo for Scarecrow.

ya murphy's an awesome scarecrow. but i still like johnny for the part cuz 1, he's the appropriate age imo, 2 he was in sleepy hollow, and was good. 3it just seems like his level of eccentric weirdness.