The Dark Knight Rises - Pre-release Discussion [** NO SPOILERS PLEASE **]

krudler

Duggy747 wrote: »

Sam Rockwell would be perfectly suited to this Batman universe, I really like that actor and he deserves a wider praise than he gets.

Off-topic but I really think when they go ahead with the MacGuyver movie (it's still been pushed by the creator) and for some godforsaken reason they don't go with Richard Dean Anderson then Rockwell would be be perfect for the role. :pac:

Macguyver? Nathan Fillion ftw

JP Liz V1

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a240709/caine-confirms-batman-3-filming-date.html

Sir Michael Caine has revealed that Christopher Nolan's next Batman movie will begin production next year.
Caine, who plays Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred Pennyworth in the superhero series, told DS: "I think they're going to do it in April, that's about as much as I know."

WolfForager

I can't wait til 2012

tvnutz

The Joker will not be recast. The character will not be in the 3rd movie.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100712/ten-nolan-not-replacing-ledger-as-joker-5f8abb3.html

Christopher Nolan has said Batman 3 won't see a return of the Joker, the maniacal character played by the late Heath Ledger in the last movie.

The director wouldn't disclose what villain or villains might take on the Caped Crusader in the follow-up to 2008's The Dark Knight, which is due out in 2012.

But he revealed the Joker wouldn't be back, saying: "For me, Heath was the definitive Joker. It wouldn't feel appropriate to readdress that character."

Heath's performance earned him an Academy Award a year after he died of an accidental prescription drug overdose in January 2008.

His death stoked fan interest in The Dark Knight, which topped one billion dollars at the box office worldwide.

The next Batman film will be the third in the current Warner Bros incarnation of the franchise, which stars Christian Bale as the vigilante superhero.

syklops

tvnutz wrote: »

The Joker will not be recast. The character will not be in the 3rd movie.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100712/ten-nolan-not-replacing-ledger-as-joker-5f8abb3.html

Its the right decision to be honest. Its a new chapter in Batmans story, and there should be a new villain. I am guessing, based on how the last film ended, Batman himself will be the perceived villain for at least the start of the Movie. Then while the police focus on trying to track him down, a new villain gains power. I would love to see the Ventriloquist as the villain. If done right, it could be very gritty, the main antagonist having a very real, and obvious psychological disorder, while appearing logical and organised. Besides, Dummys have a way of freaking people out.

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Mr Freeze

Definitely would not be opposed to seeing Black Mask or The Ventriloquist as villains in the 3rd film, I'd prefer if they stuck with gangster type villains anyways.

I wouldn't like to see Catwoman or Penguin. Riddler, maybe, but at the risk of Johnny Depp being cast, I hope the Riddler is left out too.

Not recasting The Joker is the right move.

I know Nolan said that Two Face was dead, but circumstances have changed since TDK script was written and he might end up being re-used, who knows?

I'm sure Nolan will do a great job anyways.

syklops

I doubt they will re-use Two-face. There are loads of Batman villains who could be used. The original penguin was just a mobster who wore suits and liked birds. It was only Tim Burton in Batman Returns who depicted him as being as a grotesque penguin mutant. In the comics and cartoons he was just a regular guy who considered himself a gentleman of crime. If they continue the mob theme, he could easily be used as a Mobster with a catchy nick name.

I have already said I would love to see the Ventriloquist, as it would give it a bit of psychological oomph. They could mention that he was one of the guys who escaped from Arkham in Batman Begins.

I think Nolan said some time ago that there would be no Catwoman and no Batgirl. As much as I like seeing hot girls in cat suits, I think most people would say thank christ at the news of both of them being excluded. Once you introduce them, Batman has a habit of becoming childish very quickly.

Mr Freeze

Aye, if they went for the Ice-burg Lounge owning/Arms dealing type Penguin it might work....much like the comics and Gotham Knights animated series version, that could be good.

Handsome Bob

I'm glad to hear that The Joker will not be recast, it would have been too much of a mess in regards to continuity, the problem of do you allow the actor to give his own portrayal or mimic Ledger's etc etc. I am sad because I do think about what might have been, I am convinced that The Joker would have been used again had Heath not died, however this is for the best.

Wouldn't be surprised one bit to see Tom Hardy cast in this film, most likely as Black Mask. I don't think it's lazy of me to think this because it's a fact that Nolan likes to work with who he is familiar with. Hell, there have even been rumours that Hugh Jackman was offered the role of Two Face before Eckhart got the part.

DrumSteve

Bill Fichtner as the penguin.


that is all.

Dempsey

DrumSteve wrote: »

Bill Fichtner as the penguin.


that is all.

Its hard to look past him alright but I doubt that he'll be the only problem for Batman

Scuid Mhór

tvnutz wrote: »

The Joker will not be recast. The character will not be in the 3rd movie.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100712/ten-nolan-not-replacing-ledger-as-joker-5f8abb3.html

good. no one could play the joker on par with heath.

the dark knight was a great movie but terribly overrated. i think batman 3 will have great expectations weighed upon it that it won't be able to meet. no villain will capture the screen like the joker did.

JP Liz V1

http://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/111/1110240p1.html

An intern at Warner Bros. reporting that Inception stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy are all under consideration for the role of Riddler in Batman 3.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be my pick

syklops

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/111/1110240p1.html



Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be my pick

I cant see Leo DiCapri-sun as the Riddler. I just cant.

Don't get me wrong he is a great actor, but he is too good looking.

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe the same was said about Heath Ledger, I dont know.

JP Liz V1

syklops wrote: »

I cant see Leo DiCapri-sun as the Riddler. I just cant.

Don't get me wrong he is a great actor, but he is too good looking.

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe the same was said about Heath Ledger, I dont know.

Maybe Leo could pull off Roman Sionis/Black Mask

bonerm

It'd be cool to see DiCaprio in part 3 but I don't think it's really his thing. I was surprised to even see him in Inception where he gives up a large part of the screen time to other actors. I'd imagine if he played the Riddler that he'd have to take an even lesser role.

Brendog

Deleted User wrote: »

Dear God no. 10 years ago perhaps but in recent times Depp has turned into a light weight comedic actor who plays the same character over and over again.

Johnny Depp now has only two acting styles...

- A Drunk

or

- A Creepy Child Molester

bonerm

Brendog wrote: »

Johnny Depp now has only two acting styles...

- A Drunk

or

- A Creepy Child Molester

He wasn't either of them in Sweeney Todd. He was more like a pissed off David Bowie in that one.

Mr. K

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Maybe Leo could pull off Roman Sionis/Black Mask

Leo would be an excellent choice for Black Mask, he'd be able to do the creepy sadist thing well!

I'd like to see Tom Hardy as Riddler, he gives off that arrogant/clever vibe.

The only problem with Joseph Gordon-Levitt is that he's too physically similar to Heath Ledger.

paddyismaddy

i cant really see leo ever doing a role like this but who knows

i wouldnt mind seeing emily blunt or rebecca hall as catwoman

me-skywalker

No Leo please, he just not suited enough for the comic universe and Johnny Depp would jsut murder the franchise it would jsut become a Johnny Depp film instead of a Batman film.

Peyton Manning

By any chance, in the comic books did the Riddler go nuts and turn into a villain because his wife died years ago, and he is still haunted by ghostly visions and dreams of her to this day?

If so, then yes, Leo would be a great pick.

Dempsey

Archimedes wrote: »

By any chance, in the comic books did the Riddler go nuts and turn into a villain because his wife died years ago, and he is still haunted by ghostly visions and dreams of her to this day?

If so, then yes, Leo would be a great pick.

Basically it would be a rehash of Inception and Shutter Island with a Bat suit involved

Handsome Bob

Mr. K wrote: »

L
I'd like to see Tom Hardy as Riddler, he gives off that arrogant/clever vibe.

I'd love Hardy to be Black Mask but that is an excellent point you made as well. Also, I remember reading an article with pictures showing Hardy before he bulked up and transformed for his role as Bronson. The way he look before his transformation, I hate to insult the guy, but he looked quite skinny and smarmy with greasy hair. :pac: Combine that with the arrogant/clever vibe you mention and I think Hardy could give a very special performance as The Riddler.

TheTosh

Dominic West would be my choice for black mask

Sad Professor

Hopefully we'll start getting some official information about the film soon. It was around this time in 2006, two years before TDK was released, that the title and Ledger's casting were announced.

TonyD79

Sure their not shooting until April 2011. Can see a long wait this time!!!

Handsome Bob

In an industry that has chosen speed/money over quality (Transformers, Twilight), I'm more than happy to wait for quality. :-)

Peyton Manning

Would I be right in saying this movie will have a very, very good chance of breaking a lot of existing highest-gross/box office records? I don't know a whole lot about that side of the movie industry, but surely the hype, expectation and calibre of the first two movies will play a huge part?

syklops

Archimedes wrote: »

Would I be right in saying this movie will have a very, very good chance of breaking a lot of existing highest-gross/box office records? I don't know a whole lot about that side of the movie industry, but surely the hype, expectation and calibre of the first two movies will play a huge part?

If Nolan can pull of a hat trick, and Batman 3 is as good as the previous 2, without any major mistakes, yes I would say it would. By now, most people who had no interest in going to see TDK or BB, will have seen the movies, and hopefully gone, "wow". Some of these people would include people who were Batman fans as kids, but the last Batman movie they saw was Batman and Robin and decided they had grown out of it.

Also, you dont have to be a Batman fan to enjoy TDK. If you like gritty action movies, it still qualifies as an enjoyable flick. In the same way you don't need to be a bond fan to enjoy Casino Royale.

So yes, I think this could break many records. Lets just pray Nolan, or some other force behind him doesn't ruin it.

Handsome Bob

Definitely, the team behind marketing TDK did a second to none job. Also, Nolan has put himself in a position where he's beyond studio interference so I'm really expecting him to deliver a special film to round off this trilogy.

me-skywalker

I dunno im more cynical and I think that the whole Heath Ledger thing really buffed up the figures for TDK hugely... on a small scale I had my mother who went to see the film jsut to see his performance and not because she had any real interest in Batman or I dont even think she saw Batman Begins, anyway thats just one small example. But from the whole 'Red Label' tabloid papers and thrash womens mags going on and on about it just solely because of Ledger I cant really see this film capturing the imagination of such a wide spectrum again....

Open to be proven wrong though, I dont really mind about numbers though once its a brilliant film.

Handsome Bob

Those people you describe went to see the film once. They don't seriously register on the scale of people that went to see TDK. It's the people who went to see the film repeatedly that had more of an affect.

me-skywalker

Well you'ld be willing to right off a few hundred thousand maybe even a few million viewers which translates into huge turnover and profit on the balance sheet just because they only seen the film once?

If you appled that formula to nearly every film then there would never be a market for any film. You can seriously suggest that the people who only seen it in the cinema once dont matter?

Handsome Bob

me-skywalker wrote: »

Well you'ld be willing to right off a few hundred thousand maybe even a few million viewers which translates into huge turnover and profit on the balance sheet just because they only seen the film once?

If you appled that formula to nearly every film then there would never be a market for any film. You can seriously suggest that the people who only seen it in the cinema once dont matter?

I'm not saying their contribution doesn't matter, just that their contribution is miniscule. Some fanboys saw this film about 30 times, they are the ones who significantly contributed to the box office money TDK made.

me-skywalker

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not saying their contribution doesn't matter, just that their contribution is miniscule. Some fanboys saw this film about 30 times, they are the ones who significantly contributed to the box office money TDK made.

True true. 30 is actually nuts I seen it 3 times mostly because 1st time I was literally in row A arching my head up and side to side like trying to follow a game of tennis.

Still dont think after all is said and done this will break the records and capture the imagination of regular non-comic book, non-batman/superhero flicks, due to the crazy circumstances surrounding TDK, but sure only time will tell.

Vokes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Some fanboys saw this film about 30 times, they are the ones who significantly contributed to the box office money TDK made.

Are there really that many people who saw it 30 times? I'm sceptical about the fanboy-effect - i'm sure the amount of fanboys who saw the film (3+ times or whatever) are far outweighed by the number of joe public that saw the film. As mentioned above, I also reckon the Ledger factor also played a large part in the number of average punters going to see it just once, who wouldn't normally bother.

Anyways, anyone else just finished watching Batman Begins on ITV2 there? It still holds up very well, and I can't wait to see what improvements Nolan has planned for the foundations of the southeast corner of Wayne Manor

Handsome Bob

Vokes wrote: »

Are there really that many people who saw it 30 times? I'm sceptical about the fanboy-effect - i'm sure the fanboys who saw the film are far outweighed by the number of joe public that saw the film. As mentioned above, I also reckon the Ledger factor also played a large part in the number of average punters going to see it just once, who wouldn't normally bother.

Anyways, anyone else just finished watching Batman Begins on ITV2 there? It still holds up very well, and I can't wait to see what improvements Nolan has planned for the foundations of the southeast corner of Wayne Manor

In general though, fanboys were the ones who contributed highly to the box office numbers. Some saw it 30 times, some saw it 20 times, and some saw it 10 times. I myself saw it 3 times in the cinema and I'm not even a fanboy. Thus, I think the Heath Ledger affect is overstated. Fanboys went to see it constantly because they couldn't get enough of the fact that their favourite superhero had redefined a genre, it's a badge of honour for them.

And personally, I prefer BB to TDK.

Dempsey

someone saw TDK 30 times in the cinema??

Not even Titanic or Avatar enjoyed that level of anarchism.

leinsterrugby

Wacker wrote: »

I'd cast Vincent Cassel myself.

LA HAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aidofar

leinsterrugby wrote: »

LA HAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and "Mesrine part 1 & 2"

Definately agree with your choice the man is an unbelievably talented actor!

Playboy

LZ5by5 wrote: »

In general though, fanboys were the ones who contributed highly to the box office numbers. Some saw it 30 times, some saw it 20 times, and some saw it 10 times. I myself saw it 3 times in the cinema and I'm not even a fanboy. Thus, I think the Heath Ledger affect is overstated. Fanboys went to see it constantly because they couldn't get enough of the fact that their favourite superhero had redefined a genre, it's a badge of honour for them.

And personally, I prefer BB to TDK.

What are you talking about? The amount of loons who would go see a movie 20-30 times is miniscule and wouldnt even register on the box office scale. Where a movie like this breaks records is when it appeals to as broad an audience as possible .. kids, adults, teenagers, superhero fans, action fans, crime fans etc etc. Add to that the Heath Ledger effect and you have a record breaker. Repeated viewings of 2 - 3 times may also have had an effect but none more so than with Titantic, The Matrix etc.

Handsome Bob

Playboy wrote: »

What are you talking about? The amount of loons who would go see a movie 20-30 times is miniscule and wouldnt even register on the box office scale. Where a movie like this breaks records is when it appeals to as broad an audience as possible .. kids, adults, teenagers, superhero fans, action fans, crime fans etc etc. Add to that the Heath Ledger effect and you have a record breaker. Repeated viewings of 2 - 3 times may also have had an effect but none more so than with Titantic, The Matrix etc.

You've missed the point.

How many times would this "broad audience" see the film? Once, twice at most. It's the people who went to repeated viewings that made the difference. **** all saw it 30 times, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't seen it repeatedly. The general audience wouldn't have seen it repeatedly, thus their contribution is miniscule. Seeing a film once when it comes to breaking box office records doesn't register on the scale.

Playboy

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You've missed the point.

How many times would this "broad audience" see the film? Once, twice at most. It's the people who went to repeated viewings that made the difference. **** all saw it 30 times, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't seen it repeatedly. The general audience wouldn't have seen it repeatedly, thus their contribution is miniscule. Seeing a film once when it comes to breaking box office records doesn't register on the scale.

Really? Millions of people seeing a movie once but their contribution is miniscule. I think you have spent a little too much time on the forum you moderate. The vast majority of the movies revenue will have come from a broad audience seeing the movie once. A small minority of people saw the movie in the cinema repeatedly... for instance if you took a sample of people who went to the see the movie. Say 10,000 people... and if 1000 of those people (been extremely generous with 10%) saw the movie 3 times then you still have only 3000 tickets against 10,000 tickets. I fail to see how you come up with the idea that fan boys who saw the movie a few times account for the majority of the box office. TDK is a movie that nearly everyone you speak to has seen in the cinema .. thats why it broke records.

Renn

Two years for some hype? Really?

Hyndsy85

What i find funny is how people are coming up with their casting opinions.

back in May when iron man 2 came out people were on about sam rockwell to be cast as the villan. Now inception has come out and people are on about, joseph gordon-levitt and Dicaprio as possible villans

Handsome Bob

Playboy wrote: »

I think you have spent a little too much time on the forum you moderate.

I stopped reading after that, take your trolling elsewhere.

nosco

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You've missed the point.

How many times would this "broad audience" see the film? Once, twice at most. It's the people who went to repeated viewings that made the difference. **** all saw it 30 times, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't seen it repeatedly. The general audience wouldn't have seen it repeatedly, thus their contribution is miniscule. Seeing a film once when it comes to breaking box office records doesn't register on the scale.

Couldn't agree less. The repeat viewers certainly do NOT create the critical mass that deems a movie a hit or not. Its the popularity of the movie that drives many many people to go to the cinema that accounts for the numbers. Not the percentage who see it twice, or 30 times(nobody in the world i would wager, but anyway).

mikhail

Hyndsy85 wrote: »

What i find funny is how people are coming up with their casting opinions.

back in May when iron man 2 came out people were on about sam rockwell to be cast as the villan. Now inception has come out and people are on about, joseph gordon-levitt and Dicaprio as possible villans

I vaguely recall one post about Rockwell. There have been a few about Di Caprio all right. However, Gordon-Levitt has been a popular choice for some time; people were going on about his resemblance to Ledger and suggesting him as a possible recasting of the Joker ages ago.

Liamario

You are all talking about the casting of a movie that hasn't even be written yet.
These are all rumours at best. We won't be hearing anything about casting till a little closer to filming.
If any of these rumours do turn out to be true, it's only because every actor in the world was rumoured. You throw enough darts, you eventually hit the bullseye.