The Dark Knight Rises 'Social Network' Actor Lands Role in 'Dark Knight Rises'

How integral were the plot points involving Uncle Ben and Billy to their first films? Now what significance does rewriting/adding onto that history later on, do to the perspective of the characters and events that were affected? It flips it entirely on its side, does it not?

I've not found a decent argument that could apply the same to Ra's/Talia. More on that later.

That's why I said I'm not condemning it because I don't know yet what Nolan is going to do with it.

But omitting the fact that he even had a daughter, and only mentioning his wife, in the context of mentioning how he was losing himself in anger is very big omission. Particularly when comparing his pain to Bruce's, when Bruce lost all his family, and Ra's supposedly still had a daughter.

I want to get a better handle of this. You would willingly accept Bruce has no family and is "alone", in spite of having a close and stable relation with Alfred? And when Rachel is still out and about, who is someone he clearly loves? Apparently it wasn't enough for him to stay in Gotham. He sought out meaning to his angst, because the people around him weren't capable of filling that void. It doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't mean their is no compassion both ways.

First of all Alfred and Rachel are not family. To even compare a childhood friend and the family butler to something like a daughter is ludicrous.

Second, the nature of the two relationships is entirely different. Neither Alfred or Rachel are dependent on Bruce for anything. Whereas a daughter who just lost her mother would be entirely dependent on her father for love and support.

For whatever reason this is refused when applied to Ra's. The only reason Ra's could be so focused on a selfless mission, the only viable means that he would be so emotionally secluded, is for him to literally and physically -- be alone. There is no room for interpretation; that is a blatant disregard for human behavior and is a black/white mentality in a world full of grays.

As someone who has dabbled in the clinical health psychology academics for a few years now, this is absolutely baffling that I have to actually write that out. I would think most people have at least a fundamental understanding that our own unique dispositions are shaped by complex mechanics.

Will you stop your blustering for a moment, and actually read what I said instead of reading something that isn't there.

Nobody said the only situation Ra's could want vengeance is if he were alone. I said he was comparing his situation to Bruce's, where Bruce lost all of his family in one go. The family butler and a childhood friend are not family, and don't even come close to a mother and father, or having a daughter.
 
That's why I said I'm not condemning it because I don't know yet what Nolan is going to do with it.

But omitting the fact that he even had a daughter, and only mentioning his wife, in the context of mentioning how he was losing himself in anger is very big omission. Particularly when comparing his pain to Bruce's, when Bruce lost all his family, and Ra's supposedly still had a daughter.

First of all Alfred and Rachel are not family. To even compare a childhood friend and the family butler to something like a daughter is ludicrous.

Second, the nature of the two relationships is entirely different. Neither Alfred or Rachel are dependent on Bruce for anything. Whereas a daughter who just lost her mother would be entirely dependent on her father for love and support.

The family butler and a childhood friend are not family, and don't even come close to a mother and father, or having a daughter.

From some one (and not alone in this) that have lost a parent at a young age, there are people that have no genetic relation to you that can become more of a family to you then you can imagine. I always saw Alfred as his family, he is different, but he is like the grandfather, filled with undying love and support for Bruce. I just have to completely disagree with the notion that since they are not genetically related=can't be a family/love. Lots of adopted children would probably disagree with this as well. Their nature of a relationship is irrelevant to ones genetic coding. I know people that are genetically related, and could care less about them. (I know that from experience)

My point is that Talia in the comics had a very love/hate relationship with her father. And just because he mentioned his love, does not mean that he feels less bad about losing his true love. Especially if his daughter and him do not get a long, and if she does run off with Bane or something where it may not feel such a connection with her anymore. I've seen this in the real world to.

Is it an omission? Not really, it was not part of the context (of even setting up a sequel) in the context of what they talked about was losing those they love to the great unknown (death) and the pain and misery it can cause. Talia being a renegade of a daughter to him, may just see her as an irritant. Not the last thing in the world he loves.

And again I guess I have faith that Nolan will not just create some cheap ploy. I think he has earned a little more then that. But again yea we know so little its hard to formulate a lot of things.
 
That's why I said I'm not condemning it because I don't know yet what Nolan is going to do with it.

But omitting the fact that he even had a daughter, and only mentioning his wife, in the context of mentioning how he was losing himself in anger is very big omission. Particularly when comparing his pain to Bruce's, when Bruce lost all his family, and Ra's supposedly still had a daughter.
If Ra's wanted to compare loss, then Talia evidently wouldn't quite be relevant with Bruce as his was permanent. The two related through the death of loved ones; Ra's wife, Bruce's parents.

Incidentally, you do not ever hear Bruce reference Alfred or Rachel in any way. If you are to objectively look at those scenes irrespective of the rest of the film, would you be so adamant that they have no place or importance in Bruce's life?

First of all Alfred and Rachel are not family. To even compare a childhood friend and the family butler to something like a daughter is ludicrous.
Err...Alfred is family in every sense of the word. Have you forgotten he solely raised Bruce since he was a child? Especially in this iteration, he's the closest individual Bruce has ever had. Nolan, Caine, and Bale have all cited Alfred as Bruce's closest thing to another father. Is that ludicrous?

In all my years as a batfan, this is the first I've ever heard anyone relegate Alfred to a mere servant. That is absurd and I'm more than confident most fans would agree.

Second, the nature of the two relationships is entirely different. Neither Alfred or Rachel are dependent on Bruce for anything. Whereas a daughter who just lost her mother would be entirely dependent on her father for love and support.
And just as that's a possible scenario, there are infinite amount of possibilities which takes it in other directions. Talia could just as well have been raised by another family, by people Ra's trusted. Furthermore we do not know how old Talia was when Ra's left. The state of their relationship is also up in the air. There are literally no limits that can be placed because nothing has been established. Nothing is inconceivable if you have just an ounce of imagination and creativity.

Will you stop your blustering for a moment, and actually read what I said instead of reading something that isn't there.

Nobody said the only situation Ra's could want vengeance is if he were alone.
I was grouping a collective opinion I've read over the last few weeks. Since yours diverges from that position just a bit, I've responded to those specific concerns above. However you're still making the same mistake by conjuring up imagined scenarios in which Talia's introduction doesn't transition into the series so smoothly. If she doesn't exist yet, you cannot possibly place restrictions as to how she functions within the story and how she relates to other characters. That is not how fiction works.

I said he was comparing his situation to Bruce's, where Bruce lost all of his family in one go. The family butler and a childhood friend are not family, and don't even come close to a mother and father, or having a daughter.
And it's wrong. If you're going to stand by the notion that Alfred isn't family, I'll gladly leave the discussion as an amicable disagreement. I've no interest in arguing accepted fact of the mythos.
 
Last edited:
From some one (and not alone in this) that have lost a parent at a young age, there are people that have no genetic relation to you that can become more of a family to you then you can imagine. I always saw Alfred as his family, he is different, but he is like the grandfather, filled with undying love and support for Bruce. I just have to completely disagree with the notion that since they are not genetically related=can't be a family/love. Lots of adopted children would probably disagree with this as well. Their nature of a relationship is irrelevant to ones genetic coding. I know people that are genetically related, and could care less about them. (I know that from experience)

Once again, I'm being totally misunderstood. I'm not talking about being genetically related is the only way you can love someone like family. That's BS, of course you can.

I'm saying in comparison to still having a daughter, and having a butler, there is no comparison. I'm talking about from Ra's perspective, unless he is fully aware that Bruce and Alfred have a grandfather type relationship.

My point is that Talia in the comics had a very love/hate relationship with her father. And just because he mentioned his love, does not mean that he feels less bad about losing his true love. Especially if his daughter and him do not get a long, and if she does run off with Bane or something where it may not feel such a connection with her anymore. I've seen this in the real world to.

First of all Talia didn't form a love/hate relationship with her father until Batman came into the equation. Second, unless Ra's lost his wife when Talia was all grown up, which would imply he lost his wife recently, which flies in the face of him being this vengeance/justice crusader for years.
 
Once again, I'm being totally misunderstood. I'm not talking about being genetically related is the only way you can love someone like family. That's BS, of course you can.

I'm saying in comparison to still having a daughter, and having a butler, there is no comparison. I'm talking about from Ra's perspective, unless he is fully aware that Bruce and Alfred have a grandfather type relationship.



First of all Talia didn't form a love/hate relationship with her father until Batman came into the equation. Second, unless Ra's lost his wife when Talia was all grown up, which would imply he lost his wife recently, which flies in the face of him being this vengeance/justice crusader for years.

Ah I see. I see what your saying but I still don't think its a concern.

Yea that is true about Talia, but who knows if they will change that. But I see where your coming from.

But again, I'm just not worried, I think Nolan will do it in a creative way, that is not "standard" kind of flash back.
 
I'm snipping the first part of your post, KRIM, because are once again literally reading something that is not there.

In all my years as a batfan, this is the first I've ever heard anyone relegate Alfred to a mere servant. That is absurd and I'm more than confident most fans would agree.

I am not saying that. I am saying from the perspective of Ra's, who just sees a rich boy who lost his parents, and was left with nobody but a butler, in comparison to himself, who lost his wife but still had a daughter he could love.

Do you see what I'm saying? From an outsider's perspective like Ra's, Bruce lost all his family. Ra's still has his daughter. He's infinitely better off than Bruce.

And just as that's a possible scenario, there are infinite amount of possibilities which takes it in other directions. Talia could just as well have been raised by another family, by people Ra's trusted. Furthermore we do not know how old Talia was when Ra's left. The state of their relationship is also up in the air. There are literally no limits that can be placed because nothing has been established. Nothing is inconceivable if you have just an ounce of imagination and creativity.

Again, that's why I said I'm not condemning it because I have no idea what Nolan is going to do with it.

I was initially pointing out how third chapters in trilogies go back to the first movie and re-write something, or add something that was omitted from the first movie. Very often it comes off as crap.

Ah I see. I see what your saying but I still don't think its a concern.

Yea that is true about Talia, but who knows if they will change that. But I see where your coming from.

But again, I'm just not worried, I think Nolan will do it in a creative way, that is not "standard" kind of flash back.

I'm not particularly worried either. I trust Nolan, especially after The Dark Knight, and don't think he's under any studio interference ala Sam Raimi in Spider-Man 3 to top the highly successful preceding movie.

The only thing I'm worried about is from a personal preference perspective. I'm not interested in re-visiting the LOS.
 
I'm snipping the first part of your post, KRIM, because are once again literally reading something that is not there.



I am not saying that. I am saying from the perspective of Ra's, who just sees a rich boy who lost his parents, and was left with nobody but a butler, in comparison to himself, who lost his wife but still had a daughter he could love.

Do you see what I'm saying? From an outsider's perspective like Ra's, Bruce lost all his family. Ra's still has his daughter. He's infinitely better off than Bruce.



Again, that's why I said I'm not condemning it because I have no idea what Nolan is going to do with it.

I was initially pointing out how third chapters in trilogies go back to the first movie and re-write something, or add something that was omitted from the first movie. Very often it comes off as crap.



I'm not particularly worried either. I trust Nolan, especially after The Dark Knight, and don't think he's under any studio interference ala Sam Raimi in Spider-Man 3 to top the highly successful preceding movie.

The only thing I'm worried about is from a personal preference perspective. I'm not interested in re-visiting the LOS.

I concur with you. My question is what would Talia, Ra's al Ghul, and the League of Shadows do in The Dark Knight Rises? Would they try to destroy Gotham again?
 
I am not saying that. I am saying from the perspective of Ra's, who just sees a rich boy who lost his parents, and was left with nobody but a butler, in comparison to himself, who lost his wife but still had a daughter he could love.

Do you see what I'm saying? From an outsider's perspective like Ra's, Bruce lost all his family. Ra's still has his daughter. He's infinitely better off than Bruce.
I know what you're saying. But I don't see how that hinders, contradicts, or undermines events and dialog, if Talia came into the picture. That discussion by the fire was a connection of two kindred spirits. If Ra's purpose was to relate to Bruce, he would focus on the permanent loss of a loved one. Nothing more. Talia is not relevant to that discussion, and Ra's is not obliged to disclose it even if it were.

Establishing their similarities is most effective when their differences are put to the side. Does it matter how they lost their loved ones? Or how many are left? Or who is suffering more? No. For the purposes of that moment and bond being formed, such details are trivial.

Bruce is alone. Ra's was alone. Bruce feels empty and needs meaning. Ra's has been there. That's all that needs to be conveyed by that scene; "I've been in your position. Now I've found purpose. I can guide you to that salvation". Everything else -- unimportant.

Can you at least understand my position on that?

Again, that's why I said I'm not condemning it because I have no idea what Nolan is going to do with it.
You may not be condemning it, but the questions you've posed and concerns you've brought up seem to be actively challenging just the very concept alone. I'm no fan of it either, but it's all a bit moot if the manner in which Nolan intertwines it avoids those obstacles being raised in the first place.
 
I concur with you. My question is what would Talia, Ra's al Ghul, and the League of Shadows do in The Dark Knight Rises? Would they try to destroy Gotham again?

That's another concern of mine. Like I said I've no idea. Only thing that comes to mind is revenge on Batman for foiling the plan to destroy Gotham and letting Ra's die.

Can you at least understand my position on that?

Yes, of course. You're saying Ra's was only mentioning what was relevant from his situation to Bruce's situation. It's like I said with the Spider-Man 3 and Scream 3 examples, they added stuff that wasn't present in the first movies, and honestly though what they did was terrible, it doesn't contradict anything that was shown or mentioned in the first movies.

I'm not saying what ever Nolan does will follow suit of the trilogy curse and be terrible. But he is following the pattern of going back to movie one and adding something to an established story or character.

You may not be condemning it, but the questions you've posed and concerns you've brought up seem to be actively challenging just the very concept alone. I'm no fan of it either, but it's all a bit moot if the manner in which Nolan intertwines it avoids those obstacles being raised in the first place.

Nothing wrong with raising questions and concerns is there?
 
Yes, of course. You're saying Ra's was only mentioning what was relevant from his situation to Bruce's situation. It's like I said with the Spider-Man 3 and Scream 3 examples, they added stuff that wasn't present in the first movies, and honestly though what they did was terrible, it doesn't contradict anything that was shown or mentioned in the first movies.

I'm not saying what ever Nolan does will follow suit of the trilogy curse and be terrible. But he is following the pattern of going back to movie one and adding something to an established story or character.
It goes back to what I said earlier. The changes in SM3 and S3 didn't contradict previous events, but they did severely disturb the flow and consequence of events and characters arcs that followed. It literally threw everything in a new light and caused a domino effect.

Talia...not so much. I've tried to see where it could go wrong, but that is in relation to the future of the series. Nothing retroactively damaging to previous installments, which is a key difference.

Nothing wrong with raising questions and concerns is there?
Wrong, no. But I'm of the position that raising questions are best served in retaliation to what is observable. At this point in the game there is zilch we can examine. So any and all of them could be rendered merit-less once more information comes through.
 
Having always been under the impression that R'as strory about his murdered wife was just a lie, a deliberate ploy to emotionally manipulate Bruce into a weapon; The dead wife story, I always assumed, was as much a fabrication as the Ducard persona itself.

thats precisely the kind of thing he would do, particularly to a pupil of such potential as Bruce. He's trying to consolidate within Wayne a sense of belonging, a sense of shared experience that bounds them together; In short, he is manipulating Bruce into feeling like one of them.

Now should Marion be playing a dead wife, that blows this out the water, and fair enough. But I aint holding my breath on that one; Twice in back to back movies with the same director? Unlikely.

Having thought about this since it was announced, I have a few theories regarding possible ways i see it working out, and also on the reasoning behind the inclusion of the LOS at all.

Assuming that they will feature, we need to look at why Nolan would want to have another look at them. And i think now i get it. There is arguably one main theme runninh through this trilogy, and that is escalation. Speciffically, escalation as an effect of Bruce's actions and the creation of Batman. With Nolan having said that this will "finish" his story, what better way to examine the impact made by Batman than by harking back to the beginning?

Say, for example, that Bane is the new head of LOS. What was once a vigilante group dedicated to ridding the world of evil has now become the tool of a man who is only interested in power, in the conquering of others, particularly the man who has dealt the most dramatic of blows to the league itself. This way, we can see the effects the escalation prompted by Batman had on the LOS, and once more we have the concept of his influence not always being for the good?

Alternatively, assume perhaps that Talia is the head of the league, but this is shared with Bane, a prince and princess thing(assuming the flashback of R'as shows his raising of both, maybe taking in Bane and raising him.) Talia shares the ideals of her father, but is faced with a power struggle as Bane increases his influence; so, she tries to recruit, warn or even manipulate Bruce, the one best placed to defeat Bane and thus "save" the LOS. A nice wee bit of irony there, perhaps. Bear in mind that there is every chance Batman's fugitibe status has every possibilty of reaching her ears, so she assumes Bruce has finally had a revelation, has finally come around and is no longer naive as to what is necessary. This would only further enhance his representing to her the best hope of rescuing the LOS from Bane.

With either of these scenario's, we have plenty in way of conflict, plenty in way of character development and fulfilling arcs. Talia may find herself questioning her belief in her fathers philosophy once she encounters and falls for Bruce, who shows that he has not, in fact, reverted to murder. This would then highlight the positive effect Batman and his escalation can have.

Similarly, Catwoman can be yet another example of this. She starts as a thief/thrillseeker/villain or whatever, but interaction with Batman points to a more noble, more meaningful path. She is the personification of Bat-escalation in a way; at first, she is inspired by him to go out and rob or thrillseek, just as joker was inspired by Batman to wreak havoc; this represents the negative effect escalation has on the people of Gotham, and on the city itself. However, she develops into a better person, a figure more inclined with good than evil, after interaction over the duration of the film, perhaps even aiding him in a climactic battle. This would serve as a sort of microcosmic representation of what Batman has done to the city/world merely by existing; "The night is darkest just before the dawn", things get worse before they get better, but the promise is that things get better, and it's almost definatley going to be down to Batman that things improve. Hell, it's in the title. He rises, and his infulence is ultimately proved to be one of good. This is personified in the character arc of Catwoman.

Talia i guess could also join forces with him, although they could also have her decide that she was wrong about Batman and simply wants to let him and bane destroy each other so she can step in, or let them distract each other (as Bane's obsession intensifies) while she tries to finish what daddy started....... or bring daddy back, as she has learned that neither Bane nor Bruce are fit- bane, or willing-Bruce, to take his place, and Nolan blows us all away by bringing in the lazarus pit (come on, let me hope); even as an ambigious myth that we never quite get to see proved real or fake one way or another, Talia believes it cos she is mental or becuase it is real, that could be cool as well.

Anyhow, yeah thats some of my thoughts on this. Very exciting not having much of a clue, isn't it?
 
once again if talia is supposed to be bane's "rachel then i wanna see a seen like this that involves a clown :D

jokerdaw.jpg
 
Does anyone remember that interview with Guy Pearce about a month back where he said that Nolan talked to him about Liam's role because back then he wanted Ra's to be around the same age as Bruce? But then something happened along the way and they ended up making Ra's older. Anyway, I'm wondering if Nolan wants to revisit now whatever he was thinking back then when he wanted Ra's to be the same age as Bruce. THR did say though that Pence will appear in a flashback 30 years prior so maybe I'm just rambling with nothing but I just found that interesting.

Here's the interview:

So there’s this persistent Internet rumor that you were offered the role of Batman in Batman Begins ...
I absolutely wasn’t. Chris Nolan flew me to London to talk about one of the other roles in it, ‘cause he sort of had this idea of going a different kind of way. But it didn’t happen, and I don’t know why exactly, and that’s cool.

Can you say what the role was?
It was Liam Neeson’s role. And there was talk about having the mentor be the same age as Christian Bale, rather than be an older mentor. But maybe they tossed the idea around and other people went, No, that’s not gonna work.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/02/guy_pearce_on_getting_offered.html
 
Last edited:
That's another concern of mine. Like I said I've no idea. Only thing that comes to mind is revenge on Batman for foiling the plan to destroy Gotham and letting Ra's die.

That's a concern I also share. Talia can be a great love interest, but we already have Catwoman in the film. Again, is Talia even confirmed to be in the film?

Yes, of course. You're saying Ra's was only mentioning what was relevant from his situation to Bruce's situation. It's like I said with the Spider-Man 3 and Scream 3 examples, they added stuff that wasn't present in the first movies, and honestly though what they did was terrible, it doesn't contradict anything that was shown or mentioned in the first movies.

I'm not saying what ever Nolan does will follow suit of the trilogy curse and be terrible. But he is following the pattern of going back to movie one and adding something to an established story or character.



Nothing wrong with raising questions and concerns is there?

I agree.
 
Well, how would you interpret the scene? Do you think Ras is havinga simple campfire chat with Bruce, and giving him the lowdown on his family background? And so that's why Talia not being mentioned means ret-con madness?!
Because to me, it reads simply as classic cult indoctrination, make the person feel like they are in the only place in the world that would understand them, and give them a means to deal with their pain. Then at the end of the process , when you have them brainwashed as much as possible, tell them they now have the joyous honour of joining the cult leaders harem of 42 wifes, or in this case, have the honour of killing some crook.
It's easy to say Talia was not relevant to that convo, as he wanted Bruce to feel he was as alone and without family as Ras was.

See what Joker wrote two posts above yours.
 
Ra's didn't even reveal his true ID to Bruce by that point in the film. Why on Earth would he start talking in-depth about his family and history? He was likely lying about everything just like he lied about his role in the organization and his name.
 
This is lame. Increasingly, this appears to be a sequel too far. Maybe it is impossible to make a good trilogy.
 
That's a concern I also share. Talia can be a great love interest, but we already have Catwoman in the film. Again, is Talia even confirmed to be in the film?

No, she's not confirmed. But with the latest revelations, and Marion's casting, it's looking increasingly likely.
 
I'm giving Nolan the benefit of the doubt for now, but its not a guarantee the film's going to be great. No one's perfect. Michael Jordan pretty much dominated his profession more than anyone else in Pop Culture history and even MJ missed shots. Its just as insane to say "This movie IS going to be GREAT" as it is to say "This movie IS going to SUCK"

Good post. :up:

It's never a good idea to choose an extreme IMO, because you're blinded to the other side's valid aspects. That's why I choose to wait and see how this Ra's flashback(and the probable role of the LoS) will work in the context of TDKR, even though I'm not excited by Talia and the LoS' potential inclusion. What I am excited about, as batman11 mentioned, is the reason for why Nolan chose this direction for TDKR. I'm actually really intrigued and 2012 can't come fast enough(I know, that's an understatement).

I'm really torn on the Two-Face issue because on the one hand I got a great movie so I shouldn't complain too much but on the other hand, Two-Face did sort of get the shaft because he is a villain who can support his own film. At the end of the day I walked away alright with things because it's hard to argue with results but it would've been nice to see Two-Face get his own Batman movie to play around in.

I can definitely see where you're coming from with this, but I just think that there was no other choice than for Two-Face to die at the end of TDK. His arc in TDK and as a result this series of Batman movies, was for all intents and purposes complete(IMHO, of course). Harvey even says as much: 'You think I want to escape from this?! There is no escape from this!'. Would I have liked to see him feature more prominently as Two-Face in a future Bat-movie? Definitely. But who knows, we might get that opportunity in a future Bat-franchise. :cwink:
 
That's a concern I also share. Talia can be a great love interest, but we already have Catwoman in the film. Again, is Talia even confirmed to be in the film?

If Devin's plot is to be believed, Talia will be a love interest for Bane (and Selina/Catwoman will be for Bruce/Batman).
 
The quotation marks should be on the word actor in thread's heading. :oldrazz:
 
No, she's not confirmed. But with the latest revelations, and Marion's casting, it's looking increasingly likely.

If she is in the film, I hope Nolan knows what he's doing.

If Devin's plot is to be believed, Talia will be a love interest for Bane (and Selina/Catwoman will be for Bruce/Batman).

Who is Devin? Why would Bane (who would be the antagonist of the film) need a love interest? Did Ra's al Ghul have a love interest? Did Joker have a love interest? No. It also goes against the point of Talia.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"