I'm willing to put money that "I WILL BREAK YOU, BATMAN!" will be in either the teaser or trailer.
Meet the New Bat-Guys
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.GiantRaven said:
Bane has never sucked. What comic book (especially Batman fans) have ever said "Bane sucks?"
Bane has always been at the very least an "interesting" addition to Batman's already amazing rogue's gallery. He is not only a self-educated GENIUS with chemical-induced metahuman strength, even without his Venom Bane is a fighting force to be reckoned with. You're talking about a guy who has shown himself to be as intelligent as Bruce Wayne (at least), and as arguably as physically disciplined a fighter, even without his Venom.
In actuality, I don't think Bane was a lame character... I believe he was a great character who was rendered lame by bad WRITING.
Thus the Secret Six comes along and we see a MUCH deeper and different side of Bane that makes you at once love the guy, respect the guy, and appreciate what kind of foe he must have truly been to Batman.
On another note, I somewhat assumed Nolan would have gone with the more gritty, realistic Victor Zsasz. Zsasz seems like a better fit for the Nolan films... an unrepentant psychotic serial killing monster whose ability to maim and kill makes him an extreme threat to even Batman.
Plus the body self-mutilation thing would have played out like gangbusters.
Who cares if he re-invents Bane into a villain that is completely different in every way other than the name? Nolan makes good villains with deep and entertaining philosophical conflicts. Why should i assume Bane will be any different.
Also, Anne Hathaway is hot. Does she need a catsuit? no....she's hot. I just said that! Were'nt you listening!?
Also, Anne Hathaway is hot. Does she need a catsuit? no....she's hot. I just said that! Were'nt you listening!?
I think it's safe to say Nolan prefers schemers to bruisers, and Bane is supposed to be both. The name Bane suggests... well, that he's Batman's bane. Since the last movie ended with Batman sacrificing his good-guy status, perhaps Bane won't be a criminal at first but rather a man who sees Batman as dangerous.
And, as Bane "falls" Batman sacrifices himself, "rises". It could very well end with him dying.
As for Catwoman... I'm going to assume the movie will at least in part be about how infinitely more tiring it is to be the good guy when even the police is seriously hunting you (rather than just officially previously), and since Rachel died the only person he can still truly trust is Alfred (whom Bane might actually go after at some point), so him telling Selina Kyle about his secret identity at some point may turn out to be her most important role in the movie.
And, as Bane "falls" Batman sacrifices himself, "rises". It could very well end with him dying.
As for Catwoman... I'm going to assume the movie will at least in part be about how infinitely more tiring it is to be the good guy when even the police is seriously hunting you (rather than just officially previously), and since Rachel died the only person he can still truly trust is Alfred (whom Bane might actually go after at some point), so him telling Selina Kyle about his secret identity at some point may turn out to be her most important role in the movie.
No, everyone clearly does not thinks that Nolan is a directoral genius, but most folks- including professionals- do, so I think you have to say that, on the balance, it is more reasonable to expect that he knows what he's doing, rather than assume that he is going to suddenly start churning out steaming piles of dung based solely upon two casting decisions. Let's face it, if you don't like Nolan, you're probably not going to see the movie anyway.Sixcess said:
Now, stipulated that you can call into question Nolan's treatment of women, but I certainly have seen plenty of fight scenes that suffered from much poorer directorial skill, and I think it's reasonable to say that as bad as you may think them to be, they aren't so terrible as to derail the rest of the movie.
But the overall point I was getting at, and the source of my outrage, was that MovieBob was effectively being a prissy little fanboi *****, who was complaining that Nolan was going off-cannon by choosing Bane as the villian- regardless of the fact that the first two movies demonstrated that Nolan is telling a new Batman story, only using the characters and the settings from the comic books. It really makes MovieBob look like a terrible, narrow-minded commentator, although I still respect his skills as a reviewer.
I do apologize for the amount of venom, though. Fanbois who try to tell everyone how things 'should be, according to what has already been written/filmed/etc' really are a pet peeve of mine: it's like those snots selfishly think that their 'cherished memories' shouldn't be messed with, because... I dunno, really-- maybe they think they're the center of the universe? Truth is: events will occur, and unless you are directly involved, your opinion means next to nothing.
This is also known as the "Life fucking sucks: get a helmet" axiom.
This. Catwoman has always been a more capable version of the old film-noir femme fatale trope. Anne Hathaway has never struck the right vibe for me. Maybe it's that her movies haven't shown off this side of her, or maybe that she never really exuded the right balance of sexuality and menace even when she tried, or any number of factors. For all I know, maybe I'm just nuts and I haven't gotten the right information to arrive at that judgement.PopcornAvenger said:
Now, see, if you took just that paragraph, without any of the stuff about his actual comic book history, I could envision a pretty damn cool character who'd fit in the Nolanverse just fine. Maybe you could give him some of the Joker's nihilistic philosophies, make Venom also completely dull pain, and give him a personal vendetta against Wayne Enterprises. Or do something completely different. There's potential.MovieBob said:
I mean, like you said, there's nothing remarkable about the character other than that he broke the Bat. Which makes him kind of a weird tabula rasa with star power. There's a lot you could do with that.
After the Dark Knight I don't think I can trust Nolan. It was one of the blandest movies I have ever seen. I saw it one week ago(for the second time because a friend made me) and I have already forgotten most of it. Actually that is the thing that happens with EVERY Nolan film. I see it, then totally forget about it.(Yes, that includes Inception)
*raises hand*BobDobolina said:
There was at least some indication that he could go there, just that he didn't go there. Also, I followed the ad campaign, so after the early photos went up, I went "Oh. Yeah, I can see that."
Now, I have faith in Christopher Nolan. I love all the movies of his I've seen (though Batman Begins didn't exactly wow me, but it was at least solid), he seems to have similar aesthetics to mine, and he's the one who finally got me to tolerate Ellen Page. I'm willing to wait and see what he does, if only because I believe in a fair shake on this.
But at first blush? With just the cast info and absolutely nothing else to go on? I may have confidence in Nolan, but Hathaway doesn't exactly make me go "yay".
You know, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but have you ever seen Memento? Because I just don't see how you can maintain that attitude in regards to that film: it is simply the most mind-blowing experience I've ever had at a movie. Fascinating storyline, exceptionally well-acted, brilliantly paced and using a completely novel narrative format.ImSkeletor said:
Now you can argue that it was the exception rather than the rule in regards to Nolan's directorial acumen, but even then, it would invalidate your statement that EVERY Nolan film is forgettable.
Again, maybe you don't like his style, but to claim that Nolan is devoid of talent is just... well, silly.
"We shall see what happens... when the world knows your name."
Begins and Dark Knight were at least partly about simultaneously breaking down Batman and breaking down Gotham. For Nolan's big finale, I'd expect him to go all the way here - break Batman physically, emotionally, and intellectually, reveal his nature and identity, break his back and his heart, bring down everything that Batman built up - then let Gotham save its savior. I could see how Bane and Catwoman could play into this (Bane being a physical and intellectual challenge; Catwoman emotional); my main concern if this turns out to be the case is that it would play out too similarly to the Dark Knight in terms of plot structure.
But do note that I don't know any canon outside Nolan's series, so this is solely based on what I noted about the first two films.
Begins and Dark Knight were at least partly about simultaneously breaking down Batman and breaking down Gotham. For Nolan's big finale, I'd expect him to go all the way here - break Batman physically, emotionally, and intellectually, reveal his nature and identity, break his back and his heart, bring down everything that Batman built up - then let Gotham save its savior. I could see how Bane and Catwoman could play into this (Bane being a physical and intellectual challenge; Catwoman emotional); my main concern if this turns out to be the case is that it would play out too similarly to the Dark Knight in terms of plot structure.
But do note that I don't know any canon outside Nolan's series, so this is solely based on what I noted about the first two films.
First post said it. Bane will be some genius crime lord on experimental government steroids. Not hard to imagine in the Nolan mythos.
What I am worried about is what exactly is in store with catwoman. I mean, Catwoman is barely even a villain. By that I mean she's kinda a flip flopper. I trust Nolan will somehow fit her in nicely, but it would need some skewing.
What I am worried about is what exactly is in store with catwoman. I mean, Catwoman is barely even a villain. By that I mean she's kinda a flip flopper. I trust Nolan will somehow fit her in nicely, but it would need some skewing.
I hear ya man. The Riddler would have been the perfect opposite of the Joker. The Joker in the Dark Knight was privy to placing the elements in front of a group of unsuspecting individuals that could cause a situation to go horribly wrong simply to just see what happens. The Riddler would have been a completely obsessive compulsive character who would meticulously set up a trail of breadcrumbs in order to toy with the bat, and ultimately up the ante to a huge finale that would challenge all the aspects of Nolan's Batman that he have seen thus far.Gxas said:
Bane has the capacity to do such a thing, and lets face it Nolan has surprised us before. I'm sure it will be a good close to the storyline, but will it be better than the Dark Knight? That's the question that is in the back of peoples minds right now. I guess we'll have to see.
As far as Selina Kyle goes, it will be interesting to see how this character is managed. The idea of just playing her off as some seductress, while befitting of the character we all know, would be bland and uninteresting.
I'm Not There, for one. Brokeback Mountain for two. I think there were at least one or two other ones that went to some kind of dark places, but I can't remember very well, so I'm not using 'em here. Was I prepared for the exact performance? Nnno. Was I willing to buy him completely when I found out he was doing Joker? Perhaps not. But it didn't exactly come out of left field.BobDobolina said:
Great point. I think Mr. Chipman's reading of Nolan's films is off the mark. The 'chaotic feminine' influence can only really extend to Following, The Prestige, and Memento: like you said, Inception doesn't count since it's Ellen Page who helps DiCaprio with his mental problems, while Rachel Dawes was key to Bruce Wayne becoming a hero in Batman Begins, and Hilary Swank was the moral center of Insomnia.Woodsey said:
As for the whole 'no sexuality' part of this article, did he even watch Nolan's movies? Sex factored into Following and The Prestige pretty heavily, Robin Williams' character in Insomnia certainly had feelings for the girl he killed, Guy Pearce and Carrie Anne Moss did the deed in Memento, and while nothing about Bruce Wayne's love life is made explicit, his use of 'playboy billionaire' as a cover isn't something that Nolan kept in accidentally (also...what does Bob think Harvey and Rachel are implying with those meaningful lines and handholding in The Dark Knight? That they play checkers together?). Inception I could maybe see where he's coming from, but that's it. Hardly the 'asexual' filmmaker that we're being led to believe.
The fact that there are directors who are even worse at fight scenes doesn't excuse the fact that Nolan usually sucks at fight scenes. And yeah, it can affect the quality of the movie as a whole (see the Matrix trilogy and its painfully slow and stinted fight choreography).solidstatemind said:
They act like that because these are stories they grew up with, and to them it's all sorts of annoying to see the stories reworked in ways that selectively ignore significant parts of cannon. It ruins their sense of what "Batman" is and how he has grown over the years; while they sometimes hold too tightly to those stories, they are completely in the right to complain if a director changes so much about the source material that, to them, the story isn't a "Batman" story anymore, and is just a movie with Batman costumes and names tacked on.
I'd for one argue that Nolan's Batman films are interesting, but they aren't "Batman" films any more than Burton's films were. Batman's often been portrayed as a sexually repressed dude who only seems to fall for the women he has to haul in, for example, and the fact that Nolan crammed Rachel Dawson into the movies wrecks what many consider to be one of the most significant facets of his personality. As a fan of the franchise I am upset that this change was made not just because it's not canon, but because it changes Batman to become something he wasn't, and if he's not going to be Batman, then why the hell does he share the same name?
Similarly, using Harvey Dent merely as a foil, rather than using the breadth of Two-Face material to craft a legitimately good villain? Just because you slap the name Two Face on that character doesn't mean he's anything like the actual Two-Face, and you can whine all you want about "But Nolan's going in a neewww direction," but I can't see that move as anything but a complete waste of a potentially good villain and an indication that Nolan isn't afraid to simply ignore character cannon in an attempt to make bland and uninspired character foils.
And I could go on about the other things I take issue with in Nolan's Batman adaptations. Yes, Nolan is a good director and he has made some very good movies. But he's not so good at the Batman movies (they are entertaining but sometimes barely deserve to be called Batman movies), and people have a right and a fair amount of reason to be skeptical.
I dont quite know how to take these selections. I've never been a fan of Bane and I always wanted Black Mask to appear in the movies. I pictured Michael Jai White's character after getting his face cut by the joker donning the Black Skull and taking over the crime gangs or even Moroni after his car accident.
And even though I like Anne Hathaway as a actress, I was really pulling for Kate Beckinsale to play Selena Kyle/Catwoman. I was hoping for Black Mask vs a resurfaced Two-Face who wants to play judge jury and executioner, while adding Selena in as a love interest for Bruce but Catwoman as a foil for Batman for the final movie.
And even though I like Anne Hathaway as a actress, I was really pulling for Kate Beckinsale to play Selena Kyle/Catwoman. I was hoping for Black Mask vs a resurfaced Two-Face who wants to play judge jury and executioner, while adding Selena in as a love interest for Bruce but Catwoman as a foil for Batman for the final movie.