The Dark Knight Rises

[Chocula]

I don't really care if I know the villains or not. These sound really interesting and I think they will be pulled of well.

As for the public, most people are gonna see it because it's a Batman movie (and the sequel to one of the most hyped movies of the last decade). The villains aren't the most important thing to most people (for example, none of my friends knew any Batman characters, but they still watched and liked the movies). If the villains have charisma and are portrayed by good actors, the majority won't care if they knew them beforehand.

[Flux]

Yeah but the thing is it's a finale; a climax. But not only that it's a follow up to 'The Joker' and not just the Joker, Ledger's Joker.

The Riddler would've been the only one who could do a good follow up to The Joker for me. They could've made him some kind of gritty, communicating a-lot-by-computers, Gotham terrorist.

This worked perfectly for Moriarty in Sherlock, and it didn't just work, it was brilliant.

[RobbyBevard]

Though they're obviously gonna set aside their Cliche of the Year award and give Talia some big 'revenge plot' cus Batman 'murdered my father! :c I'm really sad about it on the inside!!!'

Talia is actually a pretty great character and revenge doesn't usually figure into her agenda.

But she's going to be massively undercut without her father around to divide her loyalty.

[Bill]

Yeah but the thing is it's a finale; a climax. But not only that it's a follow up to 'The Joker' and not just the Joker, Ledger's Joker.

Of Bat's early years, on film. They might continue the Nolan verse with Jonathan Nolan and Goyer still writing and Nolan staying as producer. Just with a new director. Nolan said he wanted to conclude his story arc, that and he said this will be the last film he is directing.

The Riddler would've been the only one who could do a good follow up to The Joker for me. They could've made him some kind of gritty, communicating a-lot-by-computers, Gotham terrorist.

That wouldn't fit his character.
The Riddler was originally intended to be one time villain, but changed when Gorshins portrayal in the Adam West show, popularized him. That wouldn't fit his character, he is a match for intelligence for Batman but Batman is this still in "early years era.' That and he would be redundant because he wants to find who Batman is. He'd be a wussifed Joker rehash without the laugh, and he would have some sort of psyche disorder which causes him to kill and leave Riddles. Perhaps they could make it like the comics and have him find out Bat's identity, and a little sympathetic. It would be kinda of forced and really predictable.

This worked perfectly for Moriarty in Sherlock, and it didn't just work, it was brilliant.

They sorta done that with Joker and Batman dynamic
Eh, but not an escalation villain. Batman isn't that brilliant yet, he wouldn't fit. He'd be weird, and out of place. Especially with how the Dark Knight ended. He just isn't very threatening and wouldn't fit very well. Hes best for saved for later films.

I'd have liked to see Hugo. Though they're obviously gonna set aside their Cliche of the Year award and give Talia some big 'revenge plot' cus Batman 'murdered my father! :c I'm really sad about it on the inside!!!'

Looks like I was right and I'm a bit sad Hugo ain't appearing, at least Catwoman isn't appearing. I don't care if she's part of mob story or not, she's more pointless to this story then Ra's' Al ghul less Talia. And I said before that Talia has better chance of appearing in the next film then that character. I really hope Nolan aren't going make the relative of Black mask or something that would be terrible.

Talia is actually a better character then Catwoman. She's a more believable character, and more complex. Catwoman is a generic, seductive figure, that uses a fucking cat motif to steal shit. They might bring in Ra's in the succession and make him closer to the comics, but its doubtful at this point.

[Flux]

Of Bat's early years, on film. They might continue the Nolan verse with Jonathan Nolan and Goyer still writing and Nolan staying as producer. Just with a new director. Nolan said he wanted to conclude his story arc, that and he said this will be the last film he is directing.

I always assumed that would be

'End Film'

...

[Few years pass]

'Batman _______ *Insert Director's name* 's take.
[New Cast, New Sets, New Costumes etc]


I don't think they'll continue in Nolan's canon universe especially if he's leaving cus he considers what he wants to do done. I don't think he'll leave his actors and world for some other director to contrive. And anyway, another director interested in Batman would want to have their own take on it surely.

[Bill]

I always assumed that would be

'End Film'

Lets dissect his comments on this.
...

"I must say that I'm glad — I'm very, very glad — to be embarking on the last chapter of our Batman saga without any sense of obligation or duty to the studio. They did very well with Inception. So I'm able to go into finishing our story in a very enthusiastic way."

"
'Our story' The story of Batman as a rookie, they'll continue into his later years with a time-skip or something if they choose to continue the bat franchise in Nolanverse.

I’m very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we’ve done with the characters,” Nolan said.“My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff. Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we’re telling. And it harkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That’s what we do.”

It would be a waste to do another reboot, these films still have potential. Its not time yet and Jonathan, who Nolan's brother, mentioned that he and Goyer are the ones that come up the stories, and that try hard to convince Nolan to continue directing.

Well, I think that Chris Nolan has said that he wanted to make a trilogy and this is a trilogy. As far as we all know, this is it. This is the trilogy. The Dark Knight Rises is the third part of what Chris created with Batman Begins and we’re not looking past that. I’ve said this about Chris before: I’ve never known Chris to do anything but focus on the movie he’s making. He gets completely immersed in the movie he’s doing and I know that all he’s thinking about right now when it comes to Batman, the Dark Knight Rises, is making it the best movie he can. He’s not thinking, “will there be another one?” And he’s already said, in his mind, it’s a trilogy. So I think he’s just focusing on making this the best he possibly can and that’s it.

I think even if Nolan leaves they the studio may ask them to work with a new director. Plus if they could are willing to could get Nolan to stay as a supervisor, similar to what he's doing with that Superman reboot coming out.


[Few years pass]

'Batman _______ *Insert Director's name* 's take.
[New Cast, New Sets, New Costumes etc]

1;Though Bale not staying is assured, its fine. There are better actors that can make a better Batman than him. That and you can continue with a new man playing Batman set in the same continuity, they did it with Val Kilmer and George Clooney, and if their smart they'll continue the universe with a better actor. Actually the greatest determining factor of whether they will continue this film, or not. There other actors that can keep that vibe, and the others may return. Only Bale has said that this will be his last time in a bat-film.



But there is one hint that suggest, Nolan's trilogy could leave room to continue into his universe with or without him.



2: They'll keep some consistency.

3.New costumes: They have already done that for the Nolan films. See Bat's new suit in the Dark Knight.

I don't think they'll continue in Nolan's canon universe especially if he's leaving cus he considers what he wants to do done. I don't think he'll leave his actors and world for some other director to contrive. And anyway, another director interested in Batman would want to have their own take on it surely.

Again they did this with Burton after he left, they continued it within the same universe but with a different actor playing Bat's.
and Burton did stay as producer for Forever. Folks say their should be a Dark knight returns adaption, but that's retarded and would be waste. Especially since it would need to be rated- R. It wouldn't marketable to the mainstream and it has Superman in it. Batman works better on film alone, then with other heroes with powers. Again with the success of the the 'realistic' Batman, Warner Bros would want a director who shares the same vison for this character as Nolan does. Someone else can continue that vision just as good, if not better.

Even if they do a reboot again it wouldn't be smart, and it would be too soon. I do agree after this film, it will be a long time before another Bat-film can reach the big-screen. But still the audience will annoyed to see another origin played out again with a reboot. There will a be one major determining factor that will determining whether they could continue, or not.


How this film will end. There is one hint.

BOF: We Know--all of us--that Batman is infinite. The story is never ending. Even in your Batman universe, I would venture to guess that the story--that Batman himself--is never ending
CN: Yes. Absolutely.

So its feasible, that Nolan will leave it open-ended. For folks to continue it. Whatever it maybe, its still better than a Dark Knight Returns adaption with fucking Superman in it, and Zack Synder of all people directing it.

I don't think they'll continue in Nolan's canon universe especially if he's leaving cus he considers what he wants to do done. I don't think he'll leave his actors and world for some other director to contrive. And anyway, another director interested in Batman would want to have their own take on it surely.

_

Warner Bros knows a realistic Batman works, so they'll choose a director to that has the same vision for Batman like Chris has, the next director could do just as much a great job carrying out that vision, if not better.

[Badass SnoCone]

I've heard of Black Mask. Not the other two...

Oh! Deadshot's that guy that was in Justice League in that one episode where he tried to kill Aquaman. Ok then.


But....Roland Dagett? He made Clayface. Oh god...I kinda wish Clayface were in this movie. Now they're just teasing us with this guy.

[Zack]

http://tinyurl.com/6jx7tdm

And the villains are to be...

Spoiler:

Black Mask, Deadshot and Roland Daggett (The guy who made Clayface... but not actually Clayface).

Yawn.

I'd be completely unthrilled if at the very bottom of a mountain of text and spoilers it didn't mention that they were also casting for

Spoiler:

Talia.

So, hopefully that character will be the actual big villain and the others just minor cronies.

I'm guessing that it's more likely that Black Mask'll be the main villian with Talia as more of an anti-hero. Deadshot'll be a hired assassin, and...I don't really know anything about Roland Daggett? Corrupt businessman stereotype?

[Flux]

Reboots will keep being made. And I advocate that. These stories need to be passed on. I want to see as many different interpretations under the sun. I want them to stay fresh. For Incarnation films, like Superhero Films, or James Bond. Hence the Superman Reboot in production, hence the Spiderman reboot in production.

Maybe it's just me, but It always seemed obvious to me that this is the end of Nolan's Batman. His films are done, his vision is done, even the title is poetic and Talia comes full circle from her father being the villain in Begins. What director would want to continue, conforming to his leftovers, in his world, in his continuity? Nobody suddenly continued telling Burton's take. Nobody continued telling Schumacher's.

Just my interpretation which I assumed was common consensus.
Regardless, My money's still on it. My money is on a completely new take.

[Thousand Lion-chan]

What the hell is with all these lame ass villains? Give us some hot well known guys like Penguin, Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, Mr. Freeze not some obscure guys. And yes, I know about the bad rep the Joel Schumacher films gave some of them them, it's for that exact same reason they deserve to be redeemed Nolan style.

[Cyan D. Funk]

You know, reading up on Black Mask, I think I can see a way Nolan can use him.

[Hiroy]

I seen Black Mask recently in the Red Hood animated film. He seems like a decent enough madman, though he's a bit predictably generic. A mob-boss with a deformed face that gets mad at anyone that stares? Would kill even his closest subordinates to erase his own tracks? I like him, but he's nowhere near as interesting as other villains.

[Flux]

I seen Black Mask recently in the Red Hood animated film. He seems like a decent enough madman, though he's a bit predictably generic. A mob-boss with a deformed face that gets mad at anyone that stares? Would kill even his closest subordinates to erase his own tracks? I like him, but he's nowhere near as interesting as other villains.

See that sounds like you just described Heath Ledger's joker, which Is why I think Nolan should be careful with this one. Al-Ghul was different enough, Joker a madman, now this guy needs his own motivations and style.

[Freddy G.]

What the hell is with all these lame ass villains? Give us some hot well known guys like Penguin, Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, Mr. Freeze not some obscure guys. And yes, I know about the bad rep the Joel Schumacher films gave some of them them, it's for that exact same reason they deserve to be redeemed Nolan style.

I can't see most of those guys fitting in with Nolan's films. At least not in a way that'd be interesting.

[Bill]

Reboots will keep being made. And I advocate that. These stories need to be passed on. I want to see as many different interpretations under the sun. I want them to stay fresh. For Incarnation films, like Superhero Films, or James Bond. Hence the Superman Reboot in production, hence the Spiderman reboot in production.

Maybe it's just me, but It always seemed obvious to me that this is the end of Nolan's Batman. His films are done, his vision is done, even the title is poetic and Talia comes full circle from her father being the villain in Begins. What director would want to continue, conforming to his leftovers, in his world, in his continuity? Nobody suddenly continued telling Burton's take. Nobody continued telling Schumacher's.

I'm not totally against reboots, I feel that this particular series of films still have potential to tell a few more movies. I want it similar in universe of Nolan's as long as the Burton era films were. Then a reboot, a realistic Batman is still too popular and I feel Nolan's vision laid the groundwork for further films to be created. They can create a new trilogy, starting with a new era in Batman's career. Like Nolan said "We are telling the story of a young Bruce Wayne." So why not continue that universe with beginning with a new trilogy of films that have an "older" Bruce Wayne?' With introducing villains like, Riddler, Bane, Hush, and of course Hugo Strange. There's too much potential for these films to suddenly ditch them that fast. Nolan films unlike the Schumacher/Burton films haven't caused Warner Bros to rethink their strategy, or an immediate reboot. Why break something that isn't broken?

There are many different interpretations for Batman, but I feel this more realistic interpretation is perhaps best for the current mainstream. The new director can still give his own unique spin on it, while keeping it fresh and along the more 'realistic' blueprint that Nolan and Goyer crafted. I know comic fans want to see more fantastical elements of Batman, but that they have to understand Its for the mainstream, and I feel that 'realism' can work well with Batman on film, at the current. There are better directors than Nolan that can really do villains like all those I've listed justice

What the hell is with all these lame ass villains? Give us some hot well known guys like Penguin, Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, Mr. Freeze not some obscure guys. And yes, I know about the bad rep the Joel Schumacher films gave some of them them, it's for that exact same reason they deserve to be redeemed Nolan style.

And those aren't?

The only ones of that that could have fit in, and even be taken half-seriously is maybe The Riddler, or Perhaps Poison Ivy.
Black Mask is a decent villan, but I really want a unique interpretation of him. None of those guys could really work in this film. I really wish they could done Strange they could have pulled of an Hannibal Lector without feeling like a Joker rehash.

Al-Ghul was different enough, Joker a madman, now this guy needs his own motivations and style.

Ra's was also a madman, at least in the comics. He was bat-shit insane eco-terrorist that wanted to wipe out 90% of the world population to preserve the planet. Though he is not a raging psychotic like the Joker, he can be a little nasty.
Behold the awesomeness of Ra's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xK4I...5981D&index=46

[RobbyBevard]

I wrote about this in the Arkham City thread a few weeks back, I suppose its pertinent and worth re-sharing here.

Well yeah. The Dark Knight wasn't a Batman movie.

What Nolan seems to be doing is deconstructing Batman to the point of making all the villains the "super" part of the superhero myth, and turning Batman into an ordinary, brooding schlepp with self-conflicting ideals. How are we ever going to either cheer for this guy, or want to follow his story arc?

This is the problem with taking comic book stories and characters, and bringing them as close to the "real" world as possible. Look at how Iron Man managed to balance real-world concerns with the exaggerated world of comics, and managed to make the hero someone we liked and cared about. Nolan's Batman is one hair away from looking ridiculous in his costume because he's not larger than life. He's just a guy in a goofy costume, who may as well just dress in SWAT gear.

The Dark Knight was more a police action film than a superhero comic book movie. You could have taken Bruce out entirely and replaced him with a generic cop character, and the movie would be largely unchanged beyond the superficial iconography.

It was about the random evil guy in clown makeup who happened to be called the Joker, not about Dirty Harry/Jackie Chan/Harrison Ford/Batman.

It was a good police action movie. A good Joker movie. (Aside from his near psychic prediction skills when it came to setting up traps or crashing buses through walls or having things time out exactly right.)

But it was a terrible Batman movie.

(Batman Begins however, WAS about Batman, and WAS a good Batman movie.)

For my money, Mask of the Phantasm is still the best Batman movie.

With these characters announced, it seems ever more to be the case that its a police drama more than a superhero flick.

[Bill]

Yeah, alright I admit the Nolan's bat-verse may try get a little like a toned down Heat/Seven action/cop film, that's why I want another take in same universe. I don't think it necessarily has to be strongly realistic but I'll digress. I know other folks can do a better bat-film and make it realistic, but I did make some similar critiques in that overrated movie thread, Robby. I feel this particular verse still has potential. Though I do agree batman wasn't larger than life. I should note the original comics have attempted this gritty, realistic, crime thing many times before. In fact the comics have done the whole cop-drama thing starting with year one, and Batman wasn't really all that larger than life there. Those realistic comic stories are the ones these movies primarily draw inspiration from.

I

disagree that the Dark Knight was a Joker film. If you think that then it must be due to Heath clearly doing a frightening, iconic character with such power that clearly overshadows the non-larger then life generic cop Batman was portrayed to be

The Dark Knight is not even a Joker film its a toned Seven/Heat with masquerading as a Batman film. Batman Mask of Phantasm is much better film and has much better romantic chemistry between Batman and and Andrea then that drivel with Rachael, and it made much, much, much, less money than this film.

[Kaiolino]

I wrote about this in the Arkham City thread a few weeks back, I suppose its pertinent and worth re-sharing here.



With these characters announced, it seems ever more to be the case that its a police drama more than a superhero flick.

Yeah, I feel the same way. When Nolan talks about how The Riddler doesn't fit in his Batman universe, I'm just completely speechless.

The Riddler is one of the most iconic villains in the entire Batverse, you dolt. If he doesn't fit into your ideal world, then maybe you shouldn't make films about Batman.

I'm not familiar with any of the villains in the upcoming movie, so unless the focus is completely on Batman again, I'm gonna be dissappointed.

[Bill]

I'm outraged he didn't get me Hugo Strange. He was Batman's first enemy before even the Joker.

[Bill]

Sorry for the double post.
I really respect folks opinions but really I feel folks really just want too see their favorite characters from nostalgia, rather then understanding that the fact that most of you haven't even heard of these guys and is even more of a reason to include them. To bring them to public mainstream, because no-one outside major, major Batman comic readers are gonna know these folks are. I think its time for their spotlight. The ones who you have nostalgia for can wait for later films. I'm sure Goyer who actually decides which villains they could use like those guys as much as you. But I never really saw them working in the vison the director had got.

We really got to understand what characters work for this directors particular take, what characters don't. I'm sure there will be Bat-films along the lines that will include the fantastical elements. Aside from Joker and Two-face, none of these villains have been reinterpreted/re-portrayed on live-action film. We had Ra's, Scarecrow, in the first film. The Joker and Harvey Dent were reinterpreted/re-portrayed in the second, because they work for the themes they are batting for(no pun intended). These new characters that have never appeared on film before, may finally become more well known, maybe even become iconic as those you guys are familiar with. Its not always wrong to give the fans want but I thinks that's what good storytellers do, they give the audience what they need; not what they want. That's spoiling the audience. It'll be same mistake Riami made with Venom in Spider-man 3.