We are clueless are we? Most film critics agree she is wooden. In fact, Mark Kermode, Britain's most famous film critic gave her the nick-name Akia Knightly (based on the furniture store) because she is so wooden.
As far as Oscars go... you are giving credit to an organization that just awarded Sandra Bullock with a Best Actress Oscar. An orginization that gave Jennifer Hudson an oscar for being able to sing, despite the fact that she holds about as much conviction in dialogue as a newscaster. Besides, studios can certainly buy their way into a actress nomination. It is an unfortunate truth. They have a hard time rounding up actress nominations the past decade because, frankly, most of the great actress performances each year are in small independent films (Winter's Boone, Frozen River) but those aren't "names", so of course they throw is the Meryl Streeps, the Judi Dench's and the popular kids (Portmans and Knightly's).
Last year's Best Actress lineup was really interesting to me, as you had this division between the names and the genuinely great performances. Sandra Bullock got the Oscar for The Blind Side, an average film where hers wasn't even the best performance in the film, while most acknowledged that Carey Mulligan for An Education and Gabourey Sidibe for Precious (my personal pick to win) were the superior performances on the shortlist.
This year, early projections for the Best Actress Oscar race seem to set up a battlefield between the very Oscar-friendly performance of Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole and the more oddball, out-there, unflattering (but better) performance of Natalie Portman in Black Swan. But if Jennifer Lawrence doesn't at least get a nomination for her powerful turn in Winter's Bone, something is way wrong.
As far as Oscars go... you are giving credit to an organization that just awarded Sandra Bullock with a Best Actress Oscar. An orginization that gave Jennifer Hudson an oscar for being able to sing, despite the fact that she holds about as much conviction in dialogue as a newscaster.
Not to mention that they once gave Nicolas Cage one. Nicolas. Freakin'. Cage. The man's as much of a self-parody as Adam West, William Shatner, or Steven Seagal have ever been.
Not to mention that they once gave Nicolas Cage one. Nicolas. Freakin'. Cage. The man's as much of a self-parody as Adam West, William Shatner, or Steven Seagal have ever been.
Yes, but he used to be great. Leaving Las Vegas was a deservedly acclaimed performance. Even now Nicholas Cage is occasionally brilliant. See: The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.
I have to agree I have a soft spot for Cage, Leaving Las Vegas is brilliant and his recent Bad Lieutenant was phenomenally over the top. I can live without most of his work though.
Kiera Knightley got a Best Actress Oscar nomination and a Best Actress Golden Globe nomination for Pride and Prejudice, and a Best Actress Golden Globe nomination and a Best Actress BAFTA nomination for Atonement. You don't earn those kinds of accolades - even if she ultimately didn't win any of the awards she was nominated for - if you don't have some serious acting talent, so, quite frankly, anyone who's questioning her talent is clueless.
Yes, but he used to be great. Leaving Las Vegas was a deservedly acclaimed performance. Even now Nicholas Cage is occasionally brilliant. See: The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.
Time DOES matter. Their arcs are completely parallel which is what makes their future relationship so rich. Having her in now will not do her character justice.
Also in terms of the mob thing, we have her arc with Batman on the side of it all at the same time as the mob arc for three stories, then tying the primary arc to the love story, we find out Selina Kyle is actually the Roman's daughter.
Having her come in now will serve as a cop out and a cheap deus-ex-machina type character.
If you restrict yourself to how the arcs are laid out in the comics, then of course you're not going to find much room for it here. We are discussing two different mediums however. Dealing with adaptations (especially of characters), it's better to consider the package exclusive to the one part as opposed to how it relates to the overall story. In such an instance you will find that Selina works independently of Bruce's own development.
The thing is, the beauty behind Catwoman isn't that she's just a "new cat burglar in town" with a Cat motif. It's that her and Batman emerge at the same time, paralleling paths, and how she is one of the reasons people want Batman unmasked and brought to justice, and that at the same time Batman wants to see her do good with her skills (while he doesn't give a **** about the other villains at this point (with the exception of Two-Face, who was one of his two primary allies).
Not time-dependent. These are consistent themes associated with much of their featured stories. If it is inherent within the individual, it surpasses the bounds of time. From a narrative standpoint certain arcs will only get in the way if one character has already explored a particular development in an earlier story. But any writer worth a damn would recognize this and simply pinpoint the two unexplored areas in which both coincide with one another.
Batman and Catwoman will always relate to each other so it should not be very difficult to display the appropriate dynamics for any given story.
First of all I would like to add that you aren't going to find much respect on these boards by acting so self-righteous and pretentious in challenging vets to explain in detail why there opinion is the way it is.
Frankly my celestial-titled friend, I don't give a damn.
If you'd like to boast about your petty message board longevity, flash it in front of mom or something because I am not impressed. Challenging opinions for clarity is all part of debating. Don't like it? Don't participate. But for the love of god do not reference high authority due to your length of stay. Contrary to popularly deluded nerd belief, self-proclaimed veteran statuses don't actually impose any sort of power on anyone. You're not above questioning when actively inserting yourself into a one-on-one discussion. If you get nothing else out of this post, understand that much.
Even though I do consider this to be one of the most repugnant statements I've ever read here, I will consider saving this for future amusement. If only to illustrate the pure hypocrisy in accusing someone of self-righteous and pretentious behavior by projecting oneself as having greater rank. On. A. Message. Board. Sweet irony.
Ohhh Hype, even in your darkest moments you manage to light up my day.
However, because I am open to backing myself up, here goes.
Ras Al-Ghul - We get just as much backstory as in the film as we got in the books. In one book, we're introduced to him and how he's lived through countless civilizations orchestrating their downfalls (in the film he talks about the league). In that same issue we know he's very well trained and knowledgeable and a great challenge to Batman. One arc establishes all of this about Batman - In one film, we learn about the league, his wife, his skills and how he is an incredible threat to Batman - also, Ducard, a character shown in a part of one ISSUE initially is elaborated and amalgamated with Ras in about a half hour of the film - one Issue translated to a half hour on film for Nolan - one story arc became one movie.
Zsaz - Initially shown in one issue, not much backstory. All we know about him is that he usses a knife and tallies his kills on his body. In Batman Begins, he is shown as just that with about 10-20 minutes of screentime in Nolan's film. His character is explained and explored to the same extent as in his initial appearance - and he even has a run in with Batman.
Scarecrow - Crane becomes Scarecrow in the same short arc that he is introduced as a Dr. in Arkham - this arc is a relatively short one, but consists of a couple of issues. On film we get the "backstory". He is a psychiatrist to the criminally insane and is affiliated to Arkham. We also know he uses a fear toxin and is the Scarecrow - we also know his fear is of bats. Based on how quickly Batman defeats him, we know he isn't a very big threat. In the movie, all of these character points are shown in about forty minutes - a short story arc becomes about a third of the film.
The Mob - The mob is a complicated antagonist as it is established throughout an entire first arc, continues into the second where Batman, Gordon and Dent take it on, and finally dies out after desperately clinging on in a third arc. The characters are all referenced throughout the three arcs and have connections to almost all the minor plot points throughout these same three arcs. Now look at the films - the first two arcs become the first two of Nolan's films - I'm willing to bet the third film will show the fall of the mob which will be desperately clinging on for dear life.
Gotham - Yes, Gotham is a character. In the first 2-3/4 parts of Year One, we are constantly learning about the character behind Gotham and all the unique points throughout the city - this is then brought to the first film where again the first 2-3/4 parts of the first film are focused on Gotham's character so that by the last act of the film we are comfortable with the look and feel of Gotham.
The Joker - In Year One, the LAST page tells us Batman is going to meet with Gordon on the roof to discuss a crazy lunatic in clown motif. In Batman Begins, we see it. We know that between Year One and TLH, Joker goes ape **** and Batman takes him on - The Man Who Laughs is a short story arc. In the Long Halloween we briefly see Joker - for one issue of it (and for another quick bit after Dent becomes Two-Face). Collectively, Joker's character development would add up to about an arc the length of Year One - possibly even shorter. Again, this length translates to one film - establishing Joker's operation between Batman Begins and TDK, and also showing him as a threat to the main political figures (a la Man Who Laughs). Then Joker is brought to justice... then he gets out and starts terrorizing people again, in the hospitals - like he does in TLH only in TLH, he does it to a large crowd enjoying the holidays. After Dent becomes Two-Face, we see Joker one more time - at the end. Batman quickly defeats Joker, then goes after Two-Face - again just like in TLH. Joker is then in Arkham. He also returns in Dark Victory but his role was a secondary one - Joker was initially meant to return as a secondary character in Nolan's films - which is why Two-Face was killed off (according to Aaron Eckhart), but after Ledger's death, Nolan said he wasn't going to recast the Joker. Understandable.
Two-Face - Although he is introduced in Year One, we only see him in a couple panels and he is only mentioned once or twice. His role was so small, I completely forgot he was even in Year One after reading Man Who Laughs and the Long Halloween. In the Long Halloween, we find out who Dent really is - we learn about his love interest and how passionate he is about taking on the mob. He forms an alliance with Gordon and Batman, he has a special coin as Dent first (in TLH he takes it from a mobster on trial) and about 1/2 through TLH, he is scarred and 3/4 through the book he becomes the main villain. In the end, they cover up that he is Dent and make it seem like he is dead - it isn't until the beginning of Dark Victory that you find out he is in a secret cell in Arkham that only Batman, Gordon and the new D.A. have access to. All of this is like The Dark Knight - the main difference here is that Nolan said he killed of Dent for REAL and he did this because the original plan was to have Joker come back. Again, one of the three installments to this three part arc becomes ONE film.
Ok, you've read and/or researched the appearances of the listed characters. Fantastic. I'm not fully understanding why you typed that all up. Everyone here knows their stories.
If you're trying to point out what Nolan covered with these films, thanks but no thanks, we all watched the same thing you did.
If you're trying to point out that Nolan successfully covered all the main arcs each character has represented in the comic book lore, thanks but no thanks, I assure you we have several posters here who will disagree on any particular character's adaptation.
At the end of the day we have a long-running Catwoman thread that is chock full of great ideas by some of the gifted minds of the Hype. If I'm comprehending your stance correctly, what you've amounted to is saying that they're all wrong as Catwoman can never work in one film or at this particular point of the franchise. I'd advise you to take it there as you no doubt will be challenged profusely.
Uh... what? Batman #49 (might have even been referenced in 48, I don't quite remember) - late 1940's. She was most recently shown this year.
If by "it doesn't exist" you mean Batman having a love interest you are completely wrong. The only time Batman hasn't really had a love interest in New Earth (which is what this Trilogy is based off of) was in Year One. For 2/3 of the parts he has a love interest.
For any particular story Batman may have a love interest, but in the overall mythos he does not actually have the love interest. He's very comparable to Bond in this regard with associating and even getting intimate with his co-stars but ultimately setting off on a road all to himself.
Supes has his Lois. Spidey with MJ. Scott to Jean. Batman has no one. The most qualified for the title (Selina) is constantly in an on-and-off relationship with him. It's arguably the best part about them as a "couple". When his one true love comes with a consistent dissolution, that's all the more telling of how unconventional his romantic life is.
I'd be more than happy to actually provide proof of this, but it is difficult to dig up evidence to support a negative claim. It is, in fact, impossible. But luckily you do have the great number of batfans here at your disposal. You are free to start up your own thread in the comics subforum and ask their opinions. I'm quite confident Vicki will be not likely have much support in that discussion.
Having a relationship with Selina Kyle would not make sense for this Batman based on the character Nolan has established for him - especially considering there is another love interest who ISN'T a villain (based on the rumours) and also taking into account even ending the Mob arc and Batman and Bruce Wayne's character arcs (setting aside my predictions on the cave, mansion and asylum).
There are very few villains that could work at this point
Quite simply, you are aggravatingly short-sighted. Nolan himself could utter these words and I would feel no different -- and it's HIS series! You can imagine how exponentially more confusing it is when you've exclaimed with such certainty what can and cannot work in a fictionalized universe. Allow me to reiterate: fictionalized universe. The realm in which writers and artists create. In the most general sense we are talking about character interplay and you have the audacity to denounce the very candidates that have proven to work in every format, medium, and re-imagining for the better part of this century?
Neither I or anyone else here is innocent of personally backing our own fantasies for this universe, but this is the type of clairvoyant bullcrap that I like to avoid.
Now, please go read the comic books in order to avoid further embarrassment.
The sequel to The Dark Knight will still be shooting in Chicago, as well as the expected shooting location of New Orleans. Hit the jump for more details
As we (and most other entertainment blogs) have reported, The Dark Knight Rises (Batman 3) is expected to begin shooting in New Orleans in April 2011.
It has also been assumed that they would return to Chicago and London (where the first two films were made) as well but there arent too many details about either leg of the shoot being banded about on the internet and most assumed that the entire shoot would filmed in New Orleans as DC's other tentpole franchise Green Lantern was fimled there.
Now, Batman-news.com is reporting that their source has confirmed they will be returning to Chicago for the majority of exterior shooting. They added that the most of the New Orleans shoot will take place in the Warehouse District. There is also a studio being constructed for the film in NOLA.
The Dark Knight Rises opens July 20, 2012 and is directed by Christopher Nolan and stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Tom Hardy.
Wally Pfister: No NOLA For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Posted by Jett @ 1:32 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2010
Via a THEWRAP.COM TWEET, cinematographer Wally Pfister said he doesn't think that THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will shoot in New Orleans as heavily rumored.
BOF had heard a while back (CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY) that BATMAN 3 would be shot mostly in the U.K. Of course, I jumped on the NOLA bandwagon as it really looked like they'd be doing soundstage work in The Big Easy.
As I said when I reported it, the source who told me about the U.K. filming is about as solid as a source can possibly be. It's going to be interesting to see exactly where RISES ends up filming -- though I do think they will shoot in Chicago at some point.
Oh yeah, Pfister also HATES 3D. Thank GOODNESS that RISES is avoiding that fad.
It's true. Sorry. Portman is average, Knightley is marginal at best. I've never seen a memorable performance from either, other than Portman in Closer. I've also never seen people go out of their way to praise Keira Knightley's talent (or lack thereof). It's strange to me.
Naomi Watts and Marion Cotillard are fine actresses though. 10 years later, I still believe Naomi Watts' turn in Mulholland Dr. was one for the ages, and one of my favorite performances of the decade. Also impressive to me is the way she carried The Ring and was pitch perfect in King Kong, proving she takes her craft seriously and wants to be great, no matter the genre. And Cotillard is just a natural. She may not have a long resume, but I think she has a long career when all is said and done.
It's true. Sorry. Portman is average, Knightley is marginal at best. I've never seen a memorable performance from either, other than Portman in Closer. I've also never seen people go out of their way to praise Keira Knightley's talent (or lack thereof). It's strange to me.
I understand your opinion, but you're being a little harsh on both of em. Knightley's performances in Atonement and yes, POTC, and Portman's performances in The Other Boelyn Girl and V for Vendetta, prove that both of them can be just as talented and versatile as actresses like Watts, Weisz and Cottillard.
Naomi Watts and Marion Cotillard are fine actresses though. 10 years later, I still believe Naomi Watts' turn in Mulholland Dr. was one for the ages, and one of my favorite performances of the decade. Also impressive to me is the way she carried The Ring and was pitch perfect in King Kong, proving she takes her craft seriously and wants to be great, no matter the genre. And Cotillard is just a natural. She may not have a long resume, but I think she has a long career when all is said and done.
Wholeheartedly agreed man I first saw Cottillard in Public Enemies, and she literally STOLE scenes from Johnny Depp. And the last good performance I remember before that was Naomi Watts in King Kong. And with a director like Chris Nolan at the helm, you can ONLY expect good things from them.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
He's the master of accents.
t:
