The Dark Knight Rises Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think people have got way too much of an Inception mindset for the characters of this film. One could easily draw a similar conclusion with JGL character of John Blake. Blake can mean black or dark in old English, therefore John Blake is gonna be Black Mask.
 
Last edited:
In regards to all this playing with names and all, remember when Mr. Reese was the Riddler? ME TOO! :awesome:
 
In regards to all this playing with names and all, remember when Mr. Reese was the Riddler? ME TOO! :awesome:

Ah memories! I like to think that Nolan is conjuring up all the character names just so conspiracy theorists will go nuts trying to decipher something that isn't there.
 
Well, Miranda Tate is an anagram for "Radiant Meat," and John Blake is an anagram for "Lank Job He," so based on this, it should be pretty clear that Anthony Michael Hall is actually playing Ra's Al Ghul's dead wife. :up:
 
Well, Miranda Tate is an anagram for "Radiant Meat," and John Blake is an anagram for "Lank Job He," so based on this, it should be pretty clear that Anthony Michael Hall is actually playing Ra's Al Ghul's dead wife. :up:

:lmao:
 
the argument against collitard being talia is that rachel dawes was a completely original character. she had a big role in both of the previous films, played by two famous actresses.

but i must say, both marion and gordon-levitt's roles do seem a bit "fishy" to say the very least. i'd say that out of the two, the latter is more likely to be the real role..but maybe he could turn out to be alberto falcone after all. who knows?

maybe miranda is just bruce's love interest. the woman he settles down with at the end of the film after retiring as batman. or maybe there's something a bit more sinister there.

i just hope we don't end up with a talia vs catwoman in some cliched ridden popcorn movie ***** fight. i have faith nolan will do something more original than that.
 
Last edited:
I hope to God Nolan doesn't mean "retirement" when he's saying "to end the story". It would really make the themes in TDK rather redundant in the overall narrative.
 
I hope to God Nolan doesn't mean "retirement" when he's saying "to end the story". It would really make the themes in TDK rather redundant in the overall narrative.
I'm sure he won't. It has become increasingly obvious to me a lot of people here didn't even "get" TDK. Not even close to speculate those kinds of plot points.
 
I hope to God Nolan doesn't mean "retirement" when he's saying "to end the story". It would really make the themes in TDK rather redundant in the overall narrative.

same here. i think it would be totally unnecessary. but those sorts of rumours won't go away.

didn't wb confirm they are going to reboot batman after this film anyways? in that case, nolan doesn't need to worry about anyone harming his baby.
 
Reboot's bandied about quite a bit these days, unlike how Nolan used it to indicate a new continuity. We could see 'this' Batman a few years later, training Robin and with more classic villains established, with a new cast and crew.
 
**** that!


WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER.

Tate is doing Mr. Charles.

No, you have it wrong!!!!!! :cmad:

tumblr_l6huh5SQTv1qd0idoo1_500.jpg


Hardy is such a babe. :awesome: :hrt:
 
Look... the word 'reboot' isn't exactly anything innovative, neither to Hollywood nor to mainstream comics. We've been telling and retelling the same stories again and again since time immemorial, the Bard didn't reboot any of the stories he was retelling.

There will obviously be another Batman movie, he's too popular to stay dead. It'll be a retelling. Hell, the SCHUMACHER movies would've been called a 'reboot' if they were released today. I don't mean to get pedantic or anything, but there will always be other Batman movies out there. Nolan's true creative freedom in the grand franchise is in portraying these stories so early in Batman's career. Imagine THE INCREDIBLE HULK, still possible and non-contradictory to Ang Lee's HULK, but clearly different. That's what will happen and has continued to happen, even in the nature of fiction itself. And I'm more than fine with it.

Heck, if that's the kind of "ra's al ghul" that comes around -- a reinterpretation of the original ra's -- I wouldn't be surprised. I dont want to see that, mind u, just that it's all possible, even "realistic" :P

We don't need to see 'this' Batman. Moreover, he's "Batman" in all the different incarnations. Isn't that the point of Batman Begins? To see the man behind the legend.. the truth behind the myth? The real behind the ideal? By the time Nolan is done with the character, I'd like to think taht it's much more of an artistic achievement to tell a story where the character can now be of any possible incarnation. Yes, a lot of it was done in BATMAN BEGINS, but that movie in particular is clearly about the start, not the total exploration of Batman proper, even in his early years. The legend just began in the first film, in the second it's perpetuated, it remains to be seen how it's established.
 
And to keep **** relevant - Tate, yes. I'd love to see her pushing Bruce for marriage :) What? Good storytelling. Then kill her off. I still don't know what we should do with Miranda Tattays (the character, I'm sure the possibilities of what to 'do' with her is too long to list here). Uh...sorry.
 
does bruce really need another friend,family member and/or associate killed off? give the guy a break.
 
does bruce really need another friend,family member and/or associate killed off? give the guy a break.

It happens literally ALL the time in the comics.

Recently, they've all be coming back to life though.

But yes, Bruce is practically a magnet for tragedy.
 
It happens literally ALL the time in the comics.

Recently, they've all be coming back to life though.

But yes, Bruce is practically a magnet for tragedy.

Everyone he sleeps with, they all magically disappear. :ninja:
 
There will obviously be another Batman movie, he's too popular to stay dead. It'll be a retelling. Hell, the SCHUMACHER movies would've been called a 'reboot' if they were released today. I don't mean to get pedantic or anything, but there will always be other Batman movies out there. Nolan's true creative freedom in the grand franchise is in portraying these stories so early in Batman's career. Imagine THE INCREDIBLE HULK, still possible and non-contradictory to Ang Lee's HULK, but clearly different. That's what will happen and has continued to happen, even in the nature of fiction itself. And I'm more than fine with it.

Precisely. I just don't fancy a retelling of how Bruce became Batman so soon, just as I don't fancy sitting through an hour or so retelling the origin of Spider-Man in the new movie just to see Lizard. :) I just wanna see another good Batman movie. I believe the way Nolan's done the films is very clever, he was ambigious about Ra's al Ghul's immortality, Joker's origin or Two-Face's survival so another filmmaker could expand and build and make it more like the comics once he left, while his own trilogy acted as an Elseworld 'real world' version of Batman.
 
Why would Miranda Tate end up being Talia Al Ghul when she's trying to encourage Bruce Wayne to become a philanthropist like his father was? I mean surely if she really was Talia she would be trying to manipulate Bruce into doing things that will hurt Gotham, not improve it.
 
Why would Miranda Tate end up being Talia Al Ghul when she's trying to encourage Bruce Wayne to become a philanthropist like his father was? I mean surely if she really was Talia she would be trying to manipulate Bruce into doing things that will hurt Gotham, not improve it.
Maybe she will do just that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"