Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bane? Really? Not sure if I like that but then again I wasn't sure if I would have liked Heath ledger as the Joker too a long time ago as well. Oh well tom Hardy is a great actor so it might work. Not really hot about Ann Hathaway as catwoman but once again I've been proven wrong before. My one last hope is that Talia Al'ghul (still rumored) is in the next movie. We'll see.

In Nolan's fairly grounded Batman universe, can we expect a Catwoman costume?

Almost everything in his Batman films is strictly functional. The scarecrow's mask was partly to freak people out, but it also contained a breathing device to protect himself from his own gas. Ra's Al Ghul had his Ninja outfit, but that was largely for stealth. Two-Face's two sided suit was just Harvey Dent's clothes semi-scorched from the petrol bomb. The Joker is the closest thing he has got to pantomine and even that was fairly realistic.

With all this in mind, I can't see Hathaway being made to squeeze into a skin tight leather outfit, never mind donning a pair of cat ears. If 'Cat Woman' is mentioned at all, I think it will be a soubriquet given to her by Gotham's press and nothing more.

Flashman wrote:In Nolan's fairly grounded Batman universe, can we expect a Catwoman costume?

Almost everything in his Batman films is strictly functional. The scarecrow's mask was partly to freak people out, but it also contained a breathing device to protect himself from his own gas. Ra's Al Ghul had his Ninja outfit, but that was largely for stealth. Two-Face's two sided suit was just Harvey Dent's clothes semi-scorched from the petrol bomb. The Joker is the closest thing he has got to pantomine and even that was fairly realistic.

With all this in mind, I can't see Hathaway being made to squeeze into a skin tight leather outfit, never mind donning a pair of cat ears. If 'Cat Woman' is mentioned at all, I think it will be a soubriquet given to her by Gotham's press and nothing more.

I agree with the not using the name catwoman but it is possible that the skin tight leather outfit is still used if they play a more image obsessed catwoman.

Mannahnin wrote:Interesting choices! Tom Hardy was excellent in Inception, I thought. Anne Hathaway has an interesting duality; still able to give that clean-cut affect from her early roles but also able to play something a bit crazier and wilder (Rachel Getting Married).

I pretty much agree with Mannahnin.

Tom Hardy is a great choice for Bane and should play the part really well.

I still can't get the innocent image away from Anne Hathaway but I don't doubt her abilities.

I think these are both really good choices. Fingers Crossed.

HA! HA! HA fething HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said in the original Batman thread that it should be Bane. EAT THAT!

Bane was one of my fav villains in Batman. Im curious how they do his character, same with Catwoman, Ive never been a big fan of Catwoman so if they win me over then they are doing good.


Also those not so sure of Annes abilities the same could of been said with Heath Ledger as the Joker. Sure he did some movies, but nothing really made him shine. He friggin floored me with his version of the Joker

Yep, a merely good actor under the direction of a great director suddenly becomes a great actor.

His name is Bane!

And hopefully, it won't turn out anything like that movie....*shudders*.

Should be interesting to see how it all pans out.

OMG NO WAY!

I would not be surprised if the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" are never used in the movie.

As far as I know there is still a chance that Talia Al'Gul is going to be in the film as well. There is a third female still being cast.

Ahtman wrote:I would not be surprised if the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" are never used in the movie.

As far as I know there is still a chance that Talia Al'Gul is going to be in the film as well. There is a third female still being cast.

Actually, the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" could be used realistically:

"In the Gotham Museum late last night, a theif was witnessed by Guards to be escaping while moving with a Cats grace. This 'Catwoman' has stolen a very very expensive peice of history."

And because Bane



he could be refered to as the "Bane" of Batman.

Love seeing a hero get "broken."

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Love seeing a hero get "broken."

See, that's an awesome picture/plot point, that's why I put it in a spoiler section

KingCracker wrote:HA! HA! HA fething HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said in the original Batman thread that it should be Bane. EAT THAT!

Credit where credit is due.

I can't see how Bane in any recognisable form fits the Nolan universe, unless we restrict Bane to 'he is a physical and mental match for Batman' but that's not really a character.

And Batman having his back broken by Bane, as iconic as it is, is a goofy thing. It fits in the comic, but they're a lot goofier than Nolan's movies.

Slarg232 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I would not be surprised if the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" are never used in the movie.

As far as I know there is still a chance that Talia Al'Gul is going to be in the film as well. There is a third female still being cast.

Actually, the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" could be used realistically:

I didn't say they couldn't be used, but that I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. BTW, both your examples are some of the reasons why I think Nolan will avoid them generally. They sound really, really forced.

sebster wrote:

KingCracker wrote:HA! HA! HA fething HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said in the original Batman thread that it should be Bane. EAT THAT!

Credit where credit is due.

I can't see how Bane in any recognisable form fits the Nolan universe, unless we restrict Bane to 'he is a physical and mental match for Batman' but that's not really a character.

And Batman having his back broken by Bane, as iconic as it is, is a goofy thing. It fits in the comic, but they're a lot goofier than Nolan's movies.

I don't know. This trilogy is pretty dark, and nothing is more dark than watching an Icon get his back broken over some random dudes knee....

Ahtman wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I would not be surprised if the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" are never used in the movie.

As far as I know there is still a chance that Talia Al'Gul is going to be in the film as well. There is a third female still being cast.

Actually, the words "Catwoman" and "Bane" could be used realistically:

I didn't say they couldn't be used, but that I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. BTW, both your examples are some of the reasons why I think Nolan will avoid them generally. They sound really, really forced.

Oh I know they sound forced, but then I'm not a linguist I'm sure someone else could come up with a better way of doing it, because if you remember right all the villains so far have been given their names.

Slarg232 wrote:Oh I know they sound forced, but then I'm not a linguist I'm sure someone else could come up with a better way of doing it, because if you remember right all the villains so far have been given their names.

Well Ra's is his proper name, not a sobriquet, so it makes sense. Batman always calls Scarecrow by his proper name and the word Scarecrow only pops up once when Crane is discussing Jungian archetypes. The Joker is rarely called that in the film, and is almost always referenced as 'the clown' or something else. They don't go running around calling each other kids names that much.

Slarg232 wrote:I don't know. This trilogy is pretty dark, and nothing is more dark than watching an Icon get his back broken over some random dudes knee....

Nolan's universe isn't just defined by having bad things happen. It's defined by having a general relation to how things work in the real world*. The issue isn't that Bane beats Batman, or even that he breaks his back, it's that he breaks his back with a wrestling move. You might as well have them stamping their feet to make extra noise when they punch each other.





*In it's own way, there's still plenty of implausible things going on, but it more or less rejects comic book rules and makes an effort to make the ones it does keep as being as plausible as possible, such as the batcar.

I'm not sure about the choice of Bane here. the Nolan Batverse seems heavily influenced by the Frank Miller Year One and the Loeb/Sale collaborations (Long Halloween, especially) and I'm not sure Bane fits in that milieu particularly well. I feel for Bane to exist in a way even remotely similar to his comic incarnation, the Batman's reputation would have to be much higher profile than it was at the end of the Dark Knight. I'm not sure Batman's been Batman long enough to have a Bane.

I also don't want to see the Knightfall arc translated to movies as aside from the iconic back-breaking scene, it's mostly garbage, it was basically DC's way of saying not to the Nineties Anti-Hero archetype by showing what a mistake it would be having Batman (Jean Paul Valley) become one. Plus, I'd much rather see Dick Grayson/Nightwing in the film than Azrael.

As to the casting of Anne Hathaway as 'Selina Kyle' (not Catwoman), I can see it working, she's shown she has a solid acting range. I don't think she's really got the look, but I said the same about Ledger's Joker and that worked fantastically. My issue with Selina is that she's presented as yet another dark mirror to Batman being somewhat anti-heroic, and typically operating on the wrong side of the law. This doesn't seem to offer much contrast to Nolan's Batman, who, by the end of the Dark Knight, is kind of an anti-hero and doesn't have the police on his side.

I would have liked to have seen Talia Al'Ghul in this one, just to cap off the story of Ducard/Ra's that begin back in Batman Begins. I'd worry she's too obscure for the casual Bat-Fant to care about, but then again, so is Bane. Heck, so was Scarecrow.

However, I trust Nolan and Bale as this series has been consistently excellent. I just hope Michael Caine, Gary Oldman et al all re-up for this movie, as the supporting cast for the first two was phenomenal.

sebster wrote:

KingCracker wrote:HA! HA! HA fething HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said in the original Batman thread that it should be Bane. EAT THAT!

Credit where credit is due.

I can't see how Bane in any recognisable form fits the Nolan universe, unless we restrict Bane to 'he is a physical and mental match for Batman' but that's not really a character.

And Batman having his back broken by Bane, as iconic as it is, is a goofy thing. It fits in the comic, but they're a lot goofier than Nolan's movies.

Yet, you'll accept a weaponized hallucinogen that doesn't really exist, a secret organization of ninjas that causes great civilizations to fall, a sonar system that utilizes every cellular phone in Gotham City, and numerous other gadgets that batman uses that make absolutely no sense without some suspension of disbelief. Venom is basically a super-steroid, and it wouldn't be that hard to justify it's existance within Nolan's reimagining of the franchise (even if they didn't actually call it venom; that would still work perfectly fine). Bane is more than a physical match for Batman because of his intense use of the drug, and that's what makes him so dangerous.

How is someone getting their back broken at all goofy? If anything, that would make for a great scene, prone to shock the audience and create rather high levels of tension.

Also, name a villain that would actually fit within the confines of Nolan's universe better than Bane would, that you would actually want to see portrayed. Most of the villains are completely out of the question, and the rest of them are just cheesy or not really much of a threat at all.

I wouldn't mind Riddler as a Zodiac-styled seral killer, driven by his mania/compulsion to send 'riddles' to the press a la Jack the Ripper or Poison Ivy as an eco-terrorist.

Both concepts that could work in Nolan's 'verse at least as well as Bane. Heck, the straight up killers like Mr Zsasz and Black Mask would fit just fine also.

Zsasz already had a cameo in Batman Begins. It would be nice to see a bit more of him, but I think he was more of a special nod towards actual fans of the comics than anything.

The problem with both the Riddler and some reimagining of Poison Ivy is that they're both indirect threats, that would basically turn the movie into a stale detective flick. You can't solve riddles or fight eco-terrorism with ninjitsu.

Ahtman wrote: Well Ra's is his proper name, not a sobriquet, so it makes sense. Batman always calls Scarecrow by his proper name and the word Scarecrow only pops up once when Crane is discussing Jungian archetypes. The Joker is rarely called that in the film, and is almost always referenced as 'the clown' or something else. They don't go running around calling each other kids names that much.

Still, they have their call signs in the movie, and that at least makes it where Catwoman and Bane are basically garrunteed to pop up somewhere.

sebster wrote:Nolan's universe isn't just defined by having bad things happen. It's defined by having a general relation to how things work in the real world*. The issue isn't that Bane beats Batman, or even that he breaks his back, it's that he breaks his back with a wrestling move. You might as well have them stamping their feet to make extra noise when they punch each other.





*In it's own way, there's still plenty of implausible things going on, but it more or less rejects comic book rules and makes an effort to make the ones it does keep as being as plausible as possible, such as the batcar.

Fair enough. Still, I would imagine Bane breaking his back in the movie, though it wouldn't make sense for the Dark Knight Rises. Just going to have to wait and see.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:However, I trust Nolan and Bale as this series has been consistently excellent. I just hope Michael Caine, Gary Oldman et al all re-up for this movie, as the supporting cast for the first two was phenomenal.

The same supporting cast, Morgan Freeman, Caine, and the dude who plays Gordon, are all making a return

Chrysaor686 wrote:Yet, you'll accept a weaponized hallucinogen that doesn't really exist, a secret organization of ninjas that causes great civilizations to fall, a sonar system that utilizes every cellular phone in Gotham City, and numerous other gadgets that batman uses that make absolutely no sense without some suspension of disbelief.

The microwave gun that could heat up a river while doing nothing to the water in the human body was sillier than any of that. But yes, as I said in my latter post, there are plenty of bits of comic book silliness in that Batman movies, but they work on a vague level of superscience, and are about as plausible as the idea of single man with a secret identity bringing down whole crime synidicates.

Which is very different thing than the goofiness of a guy using a wrestling move to break your back.

Venom is basically a super-steroid, and it wouldn't be that hard to justify it's existance within Nolan's reimagining of the franchise (even if they didn't actually call it venom; that would still work perfectly fine). Bane is more than a physical match for Batman because of his intense use of the drug, and that's what makes him so dangerous.

Bane taking a super-steroid is fine.

How is someone getting their back broken at all goofy? If anything, that would make for a great scene, prone to shock the audience and create rather high levels of tension.

It would depend how it was done. If it was the result of Batman being thrown off a building, or being beaten while knocked on the ground, it'd be more plausible. Bane picking Batman up and breaking him over his knee is silly. It's a wrestling move.

Also, name a villain that would actually fit within the confines of Nolan's universe better than Bane would, that you would actually want to see portrayed. Most of the villains are completely out of the question, and the rest of them are just cheesy or not really much of a threat at all.

I thought a take on the Riddler, as a guy committing crimes to reveal Batman's identity would work pretty well.

FITZZ wrote: I had really hoped that Talia Al Ghul would be one of the "Villains".

Oh well,guess we shall see how this turns out.

I don't think there is much of a setup for this from the previous two films though.

Granted it would be awesome, but probably is too much of a stretch to make it believable.

I wish they would do Clayface tbh.

..hmm.. I assume that Bane is going to be moving into Gotham as most of the established mobsters are dead/out of the game by the end of the 2nd film.

I hope they avoid the back breaking thing as I fear otherwise it would wind up being a bit too much like that awful Bruce Lee bio pic.

Is anyone else slightly annoyed at the choice of title? It seems like a mouthful, and trying too hard to cash in on The Dark Knight's success. I would have preffered a different title alltogether, even if it was billed as "the sequel to the critically acclaimed Dark Knight".

CadianXV wrote:Is anyone else slightly annoyed at the choice of title? It seems like a mouthful, and trying too hard to cash in on The Dark Knight's success. I would have preffered a different title alltogether, even if it was billed as "the sequel to the critically acclaimed Dark Knight".

I'm not real keen on it at the moment myself either.

Really? It's Tom Hardy people are concerned about?

Was it her role in Bride Wars or The Devil Wears Prada which reasured you Anne Hathaway would make a good superheroine?

They aren't worried about Hardy, I don't know where you get that. What is being discussed is how Bane is going to be interpretted to make him fit in Nolan's version of Gotham. That is a script issue more than the actor, as it deals with mis-en-scene and diegisis of the film, not a particular performance.

whatwhat wrote:Was it her role in Bride Wars or The Devil Wears Prada which reasured you Anne Hathaway would make a good superheroine?

No, it is that same stupid things were said about Heath Ledger being a bad choice for the Joker that makes us think she might pull it off. I swear, you'd think that at this point people would realize Nolan isn't just tossing a dart at a board. He's been spot on this far and I see no reason to believe that he we just say feth it and give up now.

If you want to see something that looks just plain awful, look up X-Men: First Class.

Ahtman wrote:They aren't worried about Hardy, I don't know where you get that.

Among others...

The Kilted Samurai wrote:Bane? Really? Not sure if I like that...

Chrysaor686 wrote:I think that Tom Hardy was an awful choice for Bane, though Hathaway is certainly an interesting choice to play Catwoman.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Was it her role in Bride Wars or The Devil Wears Prada which reasured you Anne Hathaway would make a good superheroine?

No, it is that same stupid things were said about Heath Ledger being a bad choice for the Joker that makes us think she might pull it off. I swear, you'd think that at this point people would realize Nolan isn't just tossing a dart at a board. He's been spot on this far and I see no reason to believe that he we just say feth it and give up now.

If you want to see something that looks just plain awful, look up X-Men: First Class.

woah, calm down. All I did was air my concerns over Hathaway when so far in this thread most of it was going in Tom Hardy's direction. All I'm saying is she makes chick flicks, hence the concern.

In actual fact considering I don't really care either way how this movie turns out the mere fact that Anne Hathaway wont look that attractive in a cat suit is enough to make me "say feth it and give up now."