The Dark Knight Rises "We'll use many of the same characters"....

[Spiderine]

The core group of supporting characters except for Rachel of course.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Now THAT would be an amazing third film.

A-thank you. I'm sure it won't happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing it if it did. t:

Will the Ra's who trained Bruce return, or will there be a new Ra's? Will Ra's Al Ghul be immortal not because of the Lazarus Pit, but because Ra's is simply a title for the overlord of the League of Shadows?

Seriously? Are some of you still on this? "But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods... supernatural?"

"Or just cheap parlor tricks to disguise your true identity...Ra's."

I think it was reasonably clear that Liam Neeson was Ra's al Ghul. Ken Watanabe and the imposter at the party were Ubus pretending to be Ra's. Not hard to understand.

Bringing back Ra's would be like having a second Death Star. Sure, it was cool the first time and still kinda cool for the second time, but don't you wish they had come up with something totally different?

I do wish there had not been a second Death Star. However... I don't see how Ra's equates to the Death Star. The first Death Star was big, spheroid, full of stormtroopers and could blow up planets.

Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins wanted Bruce to help him destroy Gotham City in order to strike a blow against corruption.

The second Death Star was big, spheroid, full of stormtroopers and could blow up planets.

Ra's al Ghul in another movie could be driven by any number of things. Revenge. A wish to reconcile with Bruce. Carpathian Kitten Loss. Pick one.

In other words... a space station has no motivation. It has a single purpose. A character can have as many motivations and purposes as the writers want him to. If we learn something new about Ra's there's no reason he couldn't be a suitable character for another Batman film.

Gotta agree. If Ra's was reused then this film would have a massive connection to BB and TDK would feel left out. The first and the third center on Ra's as the villain but the second would stick out with just Joker.

Go re-read my previous post. Joker wasn't the only villain in TDK.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I gotta add, and this may be slightly off-topic... but did you notice among all that talk about DKR being "the end of a story that has begun" Nolan didn't say this would be his last Batman movie? He said "This is not starting over. This not rebooting. We’re finishing something and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value." All he's really saying there is that this film will be in continuity with BB and TDK, and that it's closing out a story arc. I don't see anything there that expressly says "I'm done with Batman after this."

I think it's unlikely that he's thinking about making any more, but I also think that WB will want him to if he's up for it. They're starting to develop other DC characters and they're looking to keep the DC brand going in theaters. There will obviously be more Batman movies and as long as DKR makes a pile of money they'll want Nolan to do keep doing them if he's willing.

Just putting that out there.

 

[Symbiotic]

I could see him staying on as producer/executive producer, possibly writer or co-writer, but I think he'll let himself out as director after this one.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Seriously? Are some of you still on this? "But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods... supernatural?"

"Or just cheap parlor tricks to disguise your true identity...Ra's."

I think it was reasonably clear that Liam Neeson was Ra's al Ghul. Ken Watanabe and the imposter at the party were Ubus pretending to be Ra's. Not hard to understand.



TDK.

Honestly though, since in the Nolan-verse it's highly unlikely the Lazaraus pits exist, it would make sense that there would be a waiting "second in command" so to speak to take over when the existing Ra's steps down/dies. Though for story purposes I really wouldn't want to see another actor playing Ra's version 2.0

And that is a good point about Nolan, though hasn't he said before that he's done after this one? Though, I wouldn't mind if he came back. I'm also glad he said ending the story arc. Lots of people took his earlier quotes to think that he meant ending Batman's story completely (Bruce unmasking/dying) which I always found silly, considering that these movies have been all about the rookie Batman. Bruce still hasn't reached the level of the experienced seasoned Batman yet. I'm expecting this last movie to round out his "early years."

And the title supports this as well.

 

[PreK]

I gotta add, and this may be slightly off-topic... but did you notice among all that talk about DKR being "the end of a story that has begun" Nolan didn't say this would be his last Batman movie? He said "This is not starting over. This not rebooting. We’re finishing something and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value." All he's really saying there is that this film will be in continuity with BB and TDK, and that it's closing out a story arc. I don't see anything there that expressly says "I'm done with Batman after this."

I read it the opposite way. Just him saying he's 'finishing' things sounded semi-conclusive to me. While not explicitly stating he's done, the statement being read the other way would suggest he could open up a whole new arc. That would probably require more than one more film. I don't think he's up for that.

 

[ALP]

Go re-read my previous post. Joker wasn't the only villain in TDK.

I know, my comment was just in general about the idea of Ra's returning- an idea I'm not against, just that it might loop to BB more than it should. Two Face joining the mix as well as Ra's may be a nice idea to entertain but no way it will happen.

I gotta add, and this may be slightly off-topic... but did you notice among all that talk about DKR being "the end of a story that has begun" Nolan didn't say this would be his last Batman movie? He said "This is not starting over. This not rebooting. We’re finishing something and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value." All he's really saying there is that this film will be in continuity with BB and TDK, and that it's closing out a story arc. I don't see anything there that expressly says "I'm done with Batman after this."

I think it's unlikely that he's thinking about making any more, but I also think that WB will want him to if he's up for it. They're starting to develop other DC characters and they're looking to keep the DC brand going in theaters. There will obviously be more Batman movies and as long as DKR makes a pile of money they'll want Nolan to do keep doing them if he's willing.

Just putting that out there.

This is why we need better journalists who ask more specific questions.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I know, my comment was just in general about the idea of Ra's returning- an idea I'm not against, just that it might loop to BB more than it should.

It would tie to BB, but I'm sure Nolan could write it in a way were it would seem fresh. However, while I would like Ra's to reappear, I admit I would be surprised, because Nolan's past two Bat-films were, for all intensive purposes, stand alone films. You didn't need to see BB to understand TDK. In fact, many of the people who saw TDK hadn't seen BB.

 

[ALP]

Yeah that is exactly my point. Thus far the movies are very stand alone. If Ra's is in the next one then it will probably lean heavily on Begins, thus TDK would seem out of place.

 

[The Demon's Head]

I wish Scarecrow, Falcone and Zsas would all come back, in order to tie it to Begins, and complete the trilogy.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I gotta add, and this may be slightly off-topic... but did you notice among all that talk about DKR being "the end of a story that has begun" Nolan didn't say this would be his last Batman movie? He said "This is not starting over. This not rebooting. We’re finishing something and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value." All he's really saying there is that this film will be in continuity with BB and TDK, and that it's closing out a story arc. I don't see anything there that expressly says "I'm done with Batman after this."

I think it's unlikely that he's thinking about making any more, but I also think that WB will want him to if he's up for it. They're starting to develop other DC characters and they're looking to keep the DC brand going in theaters. There will obviously be more Batman movies and as long as DKR makes a pile of money they'll want Nolan to do keep doing them if he's willing.

Just putting that out there.

Yeah you are totally right. He has talked about closing the story arc of Batman's origins but he has not said hes done with the character. Batman is his pet project and theres a special attachment there. I personally think a guy like him would want to tell more Batman stories after having gone through an origin. He could always executive produce as well, but theres no need for a change of style specially since it looks like the approach for DC movies is each hero in his own universe.

Hell close this out this story arc nicely, but if he leaves some sort of vague hint after credits or somewhere in the movie the interwebs will explode.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yeah that is exactly my point. Thus far the movies are very stand alone. If Ra's is in the next one then it will probably lean heavily on Begins, thus TDK would seem out of place.

It really all depends on how it's written. If Ra's is more a surprise reveal it won't be as tied to BB. There could be a mystery villain that keeps making things harder for Bats the entire movie, and at the end it's revealed it's Ras.

 

[Conebone69]

I wish Scarecrow, Falcone and Zsas would all come back, in order to tie it to Begins, and complete the trilogy.

Totally agree! would be awesome

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah you are totally right. He has talked about closing the story arc of Batman's origins but he has not said hes done with the character. Batman is his pet project and theres a special attachment there. I personally think a guy like him would want to tell more Batman stories after having gone through an origin. He could always executive produce as well, but theres no need for a change of style specially since it looks like the approach for DC movies is each hero in his own universe.

Hell close this out this story arc nicely, but if he leaves some sort of vague hint after credits or somewhere in the movie the interwebs will explode.

considering that despite what we all believe, his coming back for this film was not a forgone conclusion. In interviews in 08 he said that even if he found a story that initially pulled him back, he feared that it would start to feal redudant halfway through production. he also questions the quality of third films in general. If he felt that way after 2 films I doubt hed want to come back at all after a third.

 

[Avengers-Report]

Pretty sure Nolan was talking about the general cast, but when I heard this I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the return of Ras? The League of Shadows?

 

[Gianakin_]

Just putting that out there.

Sushi's back...? Oh my God, Sushi's back! Welcome, man! Now all we need is some StorminNorman and the Hype is complete!

 

[BatFan88]

A scene like this could be possible in a Nolan movie

 

[baleheadbrasil]

Many of the same characters from the two previous movies, I guess...
Bruce/Batman,Alfred,Gordon,Fox,Zsasz,Ra´s,Crane/Scarecrow,Falcone,Maroni,etc
We´ll let´s see what he will do.

 

[Mister H.]

A-thank you. I'm sure it won't happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing it if it did. t:



Seriously? Are some of you still on this? "But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods... supernatural?"

"Or just cheap parlor tricks to disguise your true identity...Ra's."

I think it was reasonably clear that Liam Neeson was Ra's al Ghul. Ken Watanabe and the imposter at the party were Ubus pretending to be Ra's. Not hard to understand.

Uhh...not sure where you are coming from or why you are insulting my intelligence. I'm well aware that Neeson was Ra's and Watanabe was an imposter and that there was no real supernatural element. I've been aware of that since the first time I watched Batman Begins. That was the point of my post. If Ra's truly died, maybe he can still be immortal because Ra's is a title that has been passed down to those deemed worthy of it through the centuries. Just because a Lazarus Pit wouldn't fit in Nolan's films doesn't mean Ra's can't be "immortal". A new Ra's could enter Gotham. Or Neeson's Ra's could have simply survived.

 

[ChocheTheHero]

There´s a lot of characters that can be back:

Scarecrow
Falcone
Flass
Earle
Anna Ramirez
Anthony García
Mike Engel
Coleman Reese
Gerard Stephens

It´s easy!

 

[hatebox]

Alfred, Gordon, Fox... that's all I took it as.

 

[CConn]

I hope Reese comes back.

With his sexy little buttocks.

 

[The Guard]

As much as I want to see the story move forward, I would love to see Ra's again, though I kind of doubt it. "I jumped out of the train at the last second is compelling." I'd expect to see Talia rather than Ra's. She could basically fill a similar role that he did.

I don't think we're going to see Two-Face again, but if we do, it could as simple as "No one checked for a pulse" and they spirited him away. I think it's actually a fairly logical.

Pseudo Two-Face sounds a bit like Holiday, which is kind of cool.

I've said this elsewhere, but I wouldn't hate seeing Scarecrow return to work with Hugo Strange.

 

[Figs]

What would be the point of bringing back Falcone? He's too far gone in the head and it's too late to give him some kind of antidote. Unless people want him in the film just to watch him drool and say "Scarecrow" over and over, he would add nothing to the story.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I would love to see Scarecrow come back and redeem himself. I love Christopher Nolan but for him to have liked Scarecrow like he said he did, he sure let him get punked out big time. I mean come on...freakin Rachel Dawes took him down in the first movie, then in TDK he was in it for all of 5 minutes before Batman apprehended him. Scarecrow is supposed to be one of Batman's biggest threats...it's been stated in the comics many times before. So he deserves some redemption if you ask me.

It is a shame that Scarecrow's only moment to shine was when he set Batman on fire, but it's not like Scarecrow's wimpy nature in Nolan's movies is without precedent. Without his bag of tricks (fear gas, etc.) to aid him, he's not much of a threat. And now that Batman has the antidote to his gas in Nolan's films, he pretty much can't touch Batman unless he makes a different form of it.