The Dark Knight Rises

[Saya]

I'd say it could still happen but I think Nolan has a policy on how many women can appear in films.

[AshleyO]

I guess. I looked on iMDB and it doesn't say anything about Talia even being rumored to be a part of the movie.

My initial gripe is that while Catwoman CAN be relevant, her appearance might seem a little forced as in "Well, we need someone who's also iconic because Bane and Raz isn't really going to cut it, so let's just throw Catwoman in there because it's cool." I feel that's what Catwoman is to this movie initially, while Talia is apparently just as capable as Catwoman in doing anything Catwoman does, she's just not a burglar, but a crime empire boss.

[Grausamkeit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke

The Killing Joke was the main influence for Tim Burton's Batman in 1989. Bob Kane was even hired as a creative consultant for Burton's movie and had lunch with Jack and discussed the character. Same source material as Nolan's, except Nolan's bores me. And I'm not saying that to be inflammatory or insulting as some people may have originally thought(?). I just can't get into his movies. The suspension of disbelief that is supposed to mark a good story just doesn't exist when I see his stuff. Burton creates a setting that makes the things going on in his stories believable in the character's world. I can't reconcile the idea of 'realism' with the kind of 'comic book heroes' for which Nolan wants to write. You can't say you're adding 'realism' and still have a guy dress up as a freaking bat. Joker may have been more 'real world like', but Batman sure as shit wasn't.

This is scarier...


than this????


Yeah, right. Jack looks like a shark, Heath looks like he's some guy wearing smeared make up and dirty clothes. Perhaps I have left over residual traumatization from watching Jaws as a kid, but I think Jack makes the scarier guy by far. I wanted to like Ledger's performance in TDK because I liked the other movies I saw him in. He's like Steve Buscemi or Gary Oldman in the fact that normally when you seem them in a movie, you know it's probably going to be good and they are going to act their asses off. I just didn't like this version of Joker. It didn't appeal to me in the least. There didn't seem to be any other facet to the character other than 'it's gotta be dark and explody!'. Okay, but Joker's already dark and twisted. People know this. Without the insane levity to contrast it and make it look darker it just seems to be the same in every scene. Talk, talk, talk, dark, dark, dark, blow shit up. The insanity coupled with narcissism in Nicholson's performance highlights how insane his character truly is and creates a contrast for the darkness, however slight. If someone walked up to you with a feather pen and then killed you with it....that would be humurous in a sick and twisted way. The pencil scene was similar to that, but not funny. Another similar scene was him staring Batman down as he's flying at him in the 'batpod'. Are those both in the comic or just similar for similarities sake?

I don't know why it's not enough for me to simply say that I liked Burton's version better because I found it more entertaining than Nolan's. And somehow it's perfectly fine for others to parrot the idea that: "Jack played jack, Heath WAS the Joker!" that I've seen all over the web since the movie came out. I know you people are far more intelligent than that so please quit using such a lazy argument if you tell people to 'back their shit up.' Describe the actual layering and nuances if you really know what they are, cuz I sure as fuck do not! Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're not really there? Please enlighten me as to how an accomplished actor who had a career of diverse roles long before he ever acted in Batman(41 movies before) was somehow not as good or nuanced/layered(wtf does that even mean?) in his performance as a guy who only had 16 roles before The Dark Knight? Does that even make sense? If you're going to go with the lame idea that Batman(1989) is a kids movie because of it's PG-13 rating....it's the same as that for TDK! I guess that would make them both kiddie movies.

At the end of the day who the better Joker is is just a matter of opinion and neither is 'right' or 'wrong.'

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke

The Killing Joke was the main influence for Tim Burton's Batman in 1989. Bob Kane was even hired as a creative consultant for Burton's movie and had lunch with Jack and discussed the character. Same source material as Nolan's, except Nolan's bores me. And I'm not saying that to be inflammatory or insulting as some people may have originally thought(?). I just can't get into his movies. The suspension of disbelief that is supposed to mark a good story just doesn't exist when I see his stuff. Burton creates a setting that makes the things going on in his stories believable in the character's world. I can't reconcile the idea of 'realism' with the kind of 'comic book heroes' for which Nolan wants to write. You can't say you're adding 'realism' and still have a guy dress up as a freaking bat. Joker may have been more 'real world like', but Batman sure as shit wasn't.

This is scarier...


than this????


Yeah, right. Jack looks like a shark, Heath looks like he's some guy wearing smeared make up and dirty clothes. Perhaps I have left over residual traumatization from watching Jaws as a kid, but I think Jack makes the scarier guy by far. I wanted to like Ledger's performance in TDK because I liked the other movies I saw him in. He's like Steve Buscemi or Gary Oldman in the fact that normally when you seem them in a movie, you know it's probably going to be good and they are going to act their asses off. I just didn't like this version of Joker. It didn't appeal to me in the least. There didn't seem to be any other facet to the character other than 'it's gotta be dark and explody!'. Okay, but Joker's already dark and twisted. People know this. Without the insane levity to contrast it and make it look darker it just seems to be the same in every scene. Talk, talk, talk, dark, dark, dark, blow shit up. The insanity coupled with narcissism in Nicholson's performance highlights how insane his character truly is and creates a contrast for the darkness, however slight. If someone walked up to you with a feather pen and then killed you with it....that would be humurous in a sick and twisted way. The pencil scene was similar to that, but not funny. Another similar scene was him staring Batman down as he's flying at him in the 'batpod'. Are those both in the comic or just similar for similarities sake?

I don't know why it's not enough for me to simply say that I liked Burton's version better because I found it more entertaining than Nolan's. And somehow it's perfectly fine for others to parrot the idea that: "Jack played jack, Heath WAS the Joker!" that I've seen all over the web since the movie came out. I know you people are far more intelligent than that so please quit using such a lazy argument if you tell people to 'back their shit up.' Describe the actual layering and nuances if you really know what they are, cuz I sure as fuck do not! Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're not really there? Please enlighten me as to how an accomplished actor who had a career of diverse roles long before he ever acted in Batman(41 movies before) was somehow not as good or nuanced/layered(wtf does that even mean?) in his performance as a guy who only had 16 roles before The Dark Knight? Does that even make sense? If you're going to go with the lame idea that Batman(1989) is a kids movie because of it's PG-13 rating....it's the same as that for TDK! I guess that would make them both kiddie movies.

At the end of the day who the better Joker is is just a matter of opinion and neither is 'right' or 'wrong.'

This had better be your last post on something that isn't completely related to Nolan's Batman series, or I'll be forced to whip you.

[Grausamkeit]

Psh! Like you can tell me what to do!

It is my last comment, that is why it is so long.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Burton creates a setting that makes the things going on in his stories believable in the character's world. I can't reconcile the idea of 'realism' with the kind of 'comic book heroes' for which Nolan wants to write. You can't say you're adding 'realism' and still have a guy dress up as a freaking bat. Joker may have been more 'real world like', but Batman sure as shit wasn't.

So you're saying that you accept a world where a shark-lookin' motherfucker runs around with a bunch of Gaga rejects painting (because?) to a Prince song and making women hold on to their popcorn bowls is believable to you; but a guy with a Glasgow grin and makeup committing terrorist actions designed to prove a philosophical point? "Man fuck that, that shit's FAKE".

The reason WHY Nolan's joker resonated so much is that he is relevant to our world. The guy is an Osama Bin Laden figure, except instead of Bin Laden who did what he did for Islam, the Joker does it for sheer anarchy. (Interestingly enough, the Joker is in alot of ways what jingoistic Americans imagined Bin Laden to be: "A madman spreading terror "For teh Evulz")

That's why that camcorder scene was so terrifying, we can actually see that happening.

The fact that you were not able to suspend your disbelief is not the fault of Christopher Nolan, nor Ledger. The Willing Suspension of Disbelief (read WILLING) is prevented not by a failure in Nolan's storytelling or world-crafting, but your own prejudices and biases.

If Nolan truly had failed to craft a believable world (Like Joel Schumaker did with Batman & Robin) the move would not have had the success it did. TDK has a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Batman 1989 only pulls in a 71%

Burton wasn't even TRYING to craft a believable world, he was just doing his thing with his typical gothic aesthetic, and he threw Batman in their because he was being paid to make a Batman movie.

This is scarier...


than this????

Yes.

I just didn't like this version of Joker...The insanity coupled with narcissism in Nicholson's performance highlights how insane his character truly is and creates a contrast for the darkness, however slight. If someone walked up to you with a feather pen and then killed you with it....that would be humurous in a sick and twisted way. The pencil scene was similar to that, but not funny.

Wait, so in your book "insanity + narcisim = levity" and "Feather-Pen death = funny" "pencil disappearing gag = not funny" but you don't (Can't) explain why this is. Your point against Ledger's joker relies once again, solely on dismissing the performance (In a really stupid way, might I add) as "Talk Talk Talk Dark and Explody".

You haven't actually backed up your thought process Graz, you've just made your initial assertions in a new way.

Try again.

Another similar scene was him staring Batman down as he's flying at him in the 'batpod'. Are those both in the comic or just similar for similarities sake?

That's a pretty common scene in movies actually. You see that "Chicken Showdown" in the 300, In Lord of the Rings, in Troy, etc. I'm sure that trope was done in the comics at some point as well.

But let's take a look, here are the two scenes back to back:

Burton's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyA3BMltIUI

Nolan's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSmt...tailpage#t=88s

Pretty similar, but do you notice the difference? In Burton's batman is actively TRYING to kill the joker, but despite his Star Wars viewfinder, machine guns and missiles he FAILS and the Joker gleefully shoots him down.

in Nolan's the Joker is actively TRYING to get Batman to kill him. He is attacking other people specifically to enrage Bruce Wayne and force him to break his one rule. The Joker is willing to DIE to prove the point that deep down everyone is a product of their environment, and when Batman wipes out rather than Kill him, the Joker actually mouths "Fuck" and furrows his brow. HE WANTED TO DIE.

Nolan's scene is actually far more true to Batman (Batman doesn't kill, WTF are you doing Burton? That's rule #1), and contains far more subtext and depth than Burton's. In Batman, it's just a cool scene in TDK it's a clash of ideas. It's two men putting their ideology on the line to the point that they are both willing to suffer and risk death for it.

So while the scenes are superficially similar, there's just no comparison and Nolan's is far superior.

I don't know why it's not enough for me to simply say that I liked Burton's version better because I found it more entertaining than Nolan's.

Because you think you actually have a valid point (You don't).

And somehow it's perfectly fine for others to parrot the idea that: "Jack played jack, Heath WAS the Joker!" that I've seen all over the web since the movie came out. I know you people are far more intelligent than that so please quit using such a lazy argument if you tell people to 'back their shit up.' Describe the actual layering and nuances if you really know what they are, cuz I sure as fuck do not!

I've allready done that multiple times (see above for the most recent).

Maybe I'm missing something?

Yes, you are.

Maybe they're not really there? Please enlighten me as to how an accomplished actor who had a career of diverse roles long before he ever acted in Batman(41 movies before) was somehow not as good or nuanced/layered(wtf does that even mean?) in his performance as a guy who only had 16 roles before The Dark Knight? Does that even make sense? If you're going to go with the lame idea that Batman(1989) is a kids movie because of it's PG-13 rating....it's the same as that for TDK! I guess that would make them both kiddie movies.

No one's saying Jack's performance was bad. It worked very well for that movie, and he was the highlight of it, but when you compare it to Ledger's it pales. Now part of this was the script he was working with, because Burton's movie didn't require any level of philosophical depth or subtext, Batman 1989 wasn't a clash of ideas or archetypes, it was a guy in a bat costume fighting a guy in a clown costume.

TDK was a benevolent dictator fighting against a malicious anarchist. TDK was conservatism vs. liberalism. Batman's use of the Cell Phones was synonymous with the Bush administration's wire-tapping. Harvey Dent's revolver interrogation was synonymous with US's waterboarding. BATMAN GOES TO CHINA, IGNORING THEIR RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY TO APPREHEND A CRIMINAL. This movie was testing American ideology, in a post 9-11 world. Instead of the twin towers collapsing, Batman's appearance is the Catalyzing event, and in the end it is more important that Batman, who is the ultimate benevolent dictator, be deposed from power and step down (despite having done no wrong) and a corrupt and broken, but still populist, democratic system be propped up despite it's failure (Harvey Dent - an elected official dies a hero).


TDK is a conversation about whether or not America still works

At the end of the day who the better Joker is is just a matter of opinion and neither is 'right' or 'wrong.'

Sorry Gras, what you have said is a thought terminating cliche Which joker you LIKE better is a matter of opinion, but which Joker is a better piece of art can and has been judged objectively: Nicholson's has been found wanting.

In all categories one can reasonably use: The skill displayed by the performer, the subtext inherent in the role, the aesthetic congruence/unity of the work, how true it was to the source material, etc. Ledger wins hands down.

You don't have to like it. Your tastes are based upon what you enjoyed as a child. Your artistic tastes seem to be grounded in nostalgia and an adherence too a specific aesthetic and specific type of story. You wanted TDK to be a different movie, that doesn't mean it's failed as a movie, that means you have failed as an audience member.

If you want a campy superhero movie, go watch the 1989 Batman movie, If you want a modern version, go watch Iron Man, Go watch the Hulk go watch Spiderman. If you want to see Tim Burton do what he does best, go watch Sweeney Todd, but don't say that the Dark Knight failed as a movie, or Ledger's performance was "lackluster", or that it's popularity is due to a "Cult of Personality" or that Nolan is unable to craft a believable world: that is just straight pig-headed stupidity, and patently, objectively WRONG.

Let's be real here: you admitted defeat the second you played the "Everyone's opinion is equal and valid" card, because your point was never "I just don't like it" From the beginning with your snarky, dismissive comments and attitude you tried to give it outside legitimacy. The SECOND you employed the "it's a matter of opinion" you shot your own argument full of holes.

All opinions are NOT equal. My opinion will plow your opinion's girlfriend from behind while staring it RIGHT IN THEY EYES and your opinion will fap and cry itself to sleep in the corner.

[JCC]

Despanan SMASH!

[Solumina]

Good, that's all finished. Now can we get back to talking about whether Catwoman will be a well done, complex character or just some t&a with name recognition?

[AshleyO]

Talia would make more logical sense in regards to the League of Shadows and Bane.

I expect Catwoman will be t&a name recognition, but still done intelligently.

[Despanan]

Seriously,

When Rachael Daws first showed up I said: "Where's Cat Woman?"

When she died I said: "Cat Woman will be in the next movie"

I thought of Cat Woman before I thought of any other villian. Before I thought of Penguin, Before Riddler, Before the League of Shadows, and WAY before Bane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catwoman

Seriously, do some reading on her. She makes WAY more sense than Talia, She's Batman's most enduring love interest, and she fits in perfectly to the World Nolan has created as another person inspired by Batman (just as the Joker was).

Seriously people, the Batman chain of Mythos goes:

Batman.
Joker.
Cat Woman.

She'll be fine as long as no one screws this up, and I doubt Nolan will. He's already proven he can take the superhero franchise and the Batman character to new heights. He can certainly do something with a hot chick who dresses up like a cat and is always threatening to get Batman laid.

Talia is BORING. She has no powers, no hook, and no personality other than: "Hot Chick" and "Birth Canal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talia_al_Ghul

Though I WILL say that with Bane and the League of Shadows involved, a love-triangle between her Batman and Catwoman, would have been really interesting.

The other option that might happen is if the fuse the two characters - Catwoman is an assassin trained by the league. She could even be of high enough rank to be a Talia-type character, and the love triangle is between her Batman and Bane.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Seriously,

When Rachael Daws first showed up I said: "Where's Cat Woman?"

When she died I said: "Cat Woman will be in the next movie"

I thought of Cat Woman before I thought of any other villian. Before I thought of Penguin, Before Riddler, Before the League of Shadows, and WAY before Bane.

That's just a common expectation and it's not a surprising one at that. You're not talking to Graus anymore, so I'll do you the favor and be vulcan about this. Catwoman is in every way a predictable go-to character for a love interest. She's easy and not at all that challenging to make relevant in Nolan's world. Catwoman certainly has her uses. Just because everyone expects Catwoman doesn't mean she's the most logical one to tie into this story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catwoman

Seriously, do some reading on her. She makes WAY more sense than Talia, She's Batman's most enduring love interest, and she fits in perfectly to the World Nolan has created as another person inspired by Batman (just as the Joker was).

Seriously people, the Batman chain of Mythos goes:

Batman.
Joker.
Cat Woman.

Eh... I don't really have anything to say here. It's obvious that she's useful.

She'll be fine as long as no one screws this up, and I doubt Nolan will. He's already proven he can take the superhero franchise and the Batman character to new heights. He can certainly do something with a hot chick who dresses up like a cat and is always threatening to get Batman laid.

Again... that's kind of a sad cop out to create compelling characters. You simplified Catwoman into a sexualized anti-hero "villain" that Batman could fall in love with. Great. Nolan could have made Talia just as interesting. It's just so god damned predictable and it simply strikes me as fan lip service than really considering what love interest would actually be more relevant.

Talia is BORING. She has no powers, no hook, and no personality other than: "Hot Chick" and "Birth Canal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talia_al_Ghul

Talia has SEVERAL reasons as to why she makes at least just as good of a fit or at least a just as logical fit, if not more:

Reasons Talia makes sense:

1. She is the daughter of Rhaz Al Ghul
2. She is an anti-hero wrapped up in her father's work out of loyalty to the family business
3. She is in every way just as physically capable and dangerous as catwoman. The chick was trained by her friggin dad as was Batman. You mean to tell me she couldn't take on an acrobatic sex kitten in a vinyl cat suit?
4. It is true that she eventually wanted to be with Bruce because she knew Bruce was a perfect specimen of a human and she wanted to continue that legacy of perfect warriors in the League of Shadows' bloodline.

THIS MAKES SENSE because the whole Nolan thing was explicitly started with The League of Shadows and if it weren't for the fact that League wasn't involved in the third movie and that Nolan was ending it on a League note, that Bane was actually meant to become what Batman would not become for the League according to the comics AND that at one time, Talia was a love interest for Bane, it makes sense. It just does.

Catwoman:

1. She's easy to write. She's easy to incorporate into the Nolan universe.
2. Everyone just expects it, really much like everyone expected Joker.
3. Nolan can and WILL and it's not going to change now anyway to make her an interesting character.

Nolan is drawing a lot of inspiration from the Bane and League of Shadows story arc. Does Catwoman deserve to be in there? Sure... why not? But what it looks like to me is that Catwoman may end up being a quick T&A love interest solution that's easy for everyone to identify with.

Seriously, it just doesn't seem much like Nolan to do that. He started with Rhaz Al Ghul for crying out loud. Who in their right mind would EVER consider that dude one of Batman's greatest villains? And now, he's ending it on Bane? Between the League and Bane, there's a strong reason why Talia would make more logical sense. She would be very natural in this story arc according to the canon. However, Catwoman at the moment can just be cleverly written in and forced into the arc to serve the exact role she ALWAYS serves and it looks like it's entirely predictable and easy. I kind of expect more of Nolan, especially if he's invoking Bane.

Seriously, Poison Ivy makes just as much sense as Catwoman. Talia was born into this story arc. Just look it up. But Catwoman is just catwoman. If Catwoman was actually somehow VERY important to the Bane story arc and the League arc, I'd be willing to change my mind. However, when those story arcs are discussed, Catwoman isn't being brought up at all unless I'm missing something.

Again, to make it short: We want Catwoman because it's Catwoman and Nolan can write a good Catwoman into the story. I'm just saying that Talia is a more natural fit, even if you don't like her or don't know much about her except for being a deadly birth canal... Which is weird because Catwoman could just as easily be just a deadly fuck... which it seems like she will be. Whoopty doo.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

The suspension of disbelief that is supposed to mark a good story just doesn't exist when I see his stuff.

Of all the stupid arguments that could be said, calling out on the willing suspension of disbelief as an argument in favor of Tim Burton has got to be in the top three. That's as much an insult to Burton as it is to Nolan.

[Saya]

Catwoman isn't just tits and ass. Its a comic book universe, all women superheroes/villains are titillating, and Talia is just as bad, just not as quickly mentioned compared to other Gotham female villains. Catwoman is predictable as a love interest because she is THE love interest, consistently since she first appeared. Yeah, Batman has other women, but Catwoman is iconic as the only good match. Talia isn't as well known outside of the comics and no where near as well loved as Catwoman, as Desp pointed out, she's the logical follow up to the Joker. Plus, Talia doesn't make sense unless they bring Ra's back so it can be the tragic Romeo And Juliet that it was in the comics.

And there's a limit to who he can put into the movies, he seems to want to stay away from supernatural elements and keep it as realistic as he can. Poison Ivy is OUT. Catwoman can be done with no supernatural beginnings. He can do the Miller no-woman-isn't-a-slut-or-prostitute origin as an abused prostitute, or keep to her own comic beginnings as a teenage runaway who becomes a successful business woman, being a pretty good counter to Bruce Wayne. I think they're probably going to give her the Two Face treatment though, have her Selina Kyle for most of the movie then decide to become Catwoman.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Catwoman isn't just tits and ass. Its a comic book universe, all women superheroes/villains are titillating, and Talia is just as bad, just not as quickly mentioned compared to other Gotham female villains. Catwoman is predictable as a love interest because she is THE love interest, consistently since she first appeared. Yeah, Batman has other women, but Catwoman is iconic as the only good match. Talia isn't as well known outside of the comics and no where near as well loved as Catwoman, as Desp pointed out, she's the logical follow up to the Joker. Plus, Talia doesn't make sense unless they bring Ra's back so it can be the tragic Romeo And Juliet that it was in the comics.

Despanan already made those arguments, sure. BUT, I digress, Rhaz is coming back, Liam Neeson is listed on imDB. I'm not trying to discuss the validity of what we identify as culturally iconic and what we naturally expect out of a Batman movie, I'm saying that Talia, BECAUSE Nolan is invoking Knight Fall and the League of Shadows again, Talia just makes more logical sense. It doesn't mean we have to like it. To say that Talia doesn't make a more natural and logical fit for this story arc is just blatantly arguing with the source material that's been used and is considered canon. Talia married Bruce and had his son. Catwoman was just a hot trick, really. But yes, I'm not disputing that culturally we all know Batman <3s Catwoman and it's entirely expected of us to want Catwoman. Obscurity isn't exactly a sufficient argument here though, so we can go ahead and dismiss the popularity contest. Nolan was flirting with obscurity as soon as he invoked the League; may as well go whole hog with it.

And there's a limit to who he can put into the movies, he seems to want to stay away from supernatural elements and keep it as realistic as he can. Poison Ivy is OUT. Catwoman can be done with no supernatural beginnings. He can do the Miller no-woman-isn't-a-slut-or-prostitute origin as an abused prostitute, or keep to her own comic beginnings as a teenage runaway who becomes a successful business woman, being a pretty good counter to Bruce Wayne. I think they're probably going to give her the Two Face treatment though, have her Selina Kyle for most of the movie then decide to become Catwoman.

All Catwoman has on Talia is fame and iconography. But she doesn't hold relevance to the actual story arc that is plainly evident in the DNA of Nolan's Batman. Great. We get Catwoman. Wonderful. We all love her. But Talia, obscure or not, popular or not, MARRIED Bruce, ran the League of Shadows, had his son, and ISN'T supernatural. She's just a badass assassin bitch. How is that less relevant to this story than shoehorning Catwoman into the mix just because we want it?

I'm discussing the story relevance of characters. Can you prove to me with canon examples as to how Catwoman is a better fit in Nolan's universe than Talia?

I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll stop there and wait for the retort. I'm actually quite interested to see what kind of canon you guys can bring up, other than just popularity, that can prove that Catwoman is a much more logical fit for this story arc instead of the blatantly obvious Talia.

[Saya]

Catwoman had a kid with Bruce Wayne first, Helena, who grew up to be Huntress. She isn't a quick lay, they're pretty on and off. Anyway, Talia is only temporary still, and fakes the kid's miscarriage. With Catwoman, it also won't boil down to an angst fest of "But my father disapproves!". Talia's only interesting because of her conflict between Batman and her father, Catwoman is an interesting enough character to have her own comic series. She's independent, has her own problems, and is also light hearted enough to be able to be done with no tripe, cliche romance. She's Batman's rival because she likes the life she lives and doesn't want to compromise that. Talia IS Juliette with some martial arts skills.

Also, we don't know how Liam Neeson ties in, except maybe he left Bane in charge, if the League is important in this film at all, or the remnants of the League are using him. For all we know he's just there for a flash back. And I hope its not of a huge importance, Batman Begins was pretty weak. It would be when Silent Hill keeps going back to the creepy cult plot. And I'd be pissed if they bring Ra's back but still keep Two Face dead, I mean really. Introduce an awesome villain and then kill him off right away with no mention about how Batman killed someone and therefore even if they cover it all up Joker still wins...

Erm, rant aside, it still might turn out that someone's character turns out to be Talia, I just don't think she's going to be much of a love interest, and they should keep it that way. After Rachel angst I will hurt someone if we get more of "I want to be with her BUT WE CANT BE TOGETHER" shit.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Catwoman had a kid with Bruce Wayne first, Helena, who grew up to be Huntress. She isn't a quick lay, they're pretty on and off. Anyway, Talia is only temporary still, and fakes the kid's miscarriage. With Catwoman, it also won't boil down to an angst fest of "But my father disapproves!". Talia's only interesting because of her conflict between Batman and her father, Catwoman is an interesting enough character to have her own comic series. She's independent, has her own problems, and is also light hearted enough to be able to be done with no tripe, cliche romance. She's Batman's rival because she likes the life she lives and doesn't want to compromise that. Talia IS Juliette with some martial arts skills.

Salient points for sure, lady. Compelling. But what we know so far is that Nolan has invoked OTHER canon and not the Catwoman canon and he's going back to the League canon by using Bane. Hence, Catwoman seems more like sexy window dressing initially than anything relevant.

Nolan: Derp. I use teh Knight Fall comics and the League of Shehdoows fer inspiration. People will thnik imma genyus!

People: You're a genius!

Nolan: Imma goin back to teh League elements n usin' Bane. Also. A wild Catwoman appears. Derpina Kyle will just be thar cuz yew want it!

People: OMGLieksogenius!!!

Me: Wait wait wait... Catwoman is cool and all and hell yeah for having a part in the third movie... But wouldn't Talia be more relevant?

People: CATWOMAN IS MORE POPULAR! WE WANT CATWOMAN!

Me: Yeah... but the logical destination is saddled on Talia.

People: CATWOMAN IS COOL! TALIA IS TEH BORINGS! FECK OFF!

Me: I know it seems quite painful, but I agree with you on the sheer iconography of the Catwoman, but she doesn't really seem to have any good logical reason to be in this movie. She kinda had next to nothing to do with the Bane story arc. I can't seem to find any correlation between the League and Catwoman either. Can you help me understand why Catwoman makes a better fit?

People: CATWOMAN IS COOL! RAGH!

Me: Well... okay. If you say so.

Also, we don't know how Liam Neeson ties in, except maybe he left Bane in charge, if the League is important in this film at all, or the remnants of the League are using him. For all we know he's just there for a flash back. And I hope its not of a huge importance, Batman Begins was pretty weak. It would be when Silent Hill keeps going back to the creepy cult plot. And I'd be pissed if they bring Ra's back but still keep Two Face dead, I mean really. Introduce an awesome villain and then kill him off right away with no mention about how Batman killed someone and therefore even if they cover it all up Joker still wins...

Erm, rant aside, it still might turn out that someone's character turns out to be Talia, I just don't think she's going to be much of a love interest, and they should keep it that way. After Rachel angst I will hurt someone if we get more of "I want to be with her BUT WE CANT BE TOGETHER" shit.

I don't know what to tell you about all that madness. All I can say is that IF our suspicions are correct and the League will play a part and Bane will actually be the Bane that we know of from the comics, Talia SHOULD have been part of that arc. It only makes the most sense according to canon. We don't have to like it, but it is more solid to the stories original intentions.

[Saya]

The second movie had nothing to do with the League, so how do we know this one will? Nolan isn't loyal to comic canon, I mean, remember when Two Face died as soon as he became Two Face, right? And Scarecrow got taken down by a taser? Besides, in the comics Bane doesn't start out with the League, he doesn't join them until after he breaks Batman. It'll be dumb to gloss over The Man Who Breaks Batman and rush into that. This is the origins of Batman, they didn't go into Harley Quinn with Joker or Scarecrow going on a rampage against his highschool bullies, that didn't come along til later. Catwoman fits into the continuity, she's a very early villain and has been around from the start, why would they wait?

Its stupid to say Talia ties in more when we don't even have the fricken plot. For all we know Bruce just has flashbacks to Liam Neeson saying inspiring shit to get himself back in the game, and Bane is on his own.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

The second movie had nothing to do with the League, so how do we know this one will?

I'd much rather it not, but Bane goes sort of hand in hand with the League and well... because Neeson is back and well... Bane was destined to be what Bruce refused to be. True facts.

Nolan isn't loyal to comic canon, I mean, remember when Two Face died as soon as he became Two Face, right?

You've got a point there. I simply have a nuance. It just makes logical sense that Talia would have a presence. I kinda want to go to this movie seeing Catwoman and being wrong. I don't want to feel like she's just being shoe horned in because she's cool and she's cosmically more relevant, but initially, that's what it looks like. If Catwoman were never mentioned and we saw Talia, we'd be fine with it. It'd make sense and we'd be all like, "Yeah, that makes sense."

And Scarecrow got taken down by a taser? Besides, in the comics Bane doesn't start out with the League, he doesn't join them until after he breaks Batman. It'll be dumb to gloss over The Man Who Breaks Batman and rush into that. This is the origins of Batman, they didn't go into Harley Quinn with Joker or Scarecrow going on a rampage against his highschool bullies, that didn't come along til later. Catwoman fits into the continuity, she's a very early villain and has been around from the start, why would they wait?

Well, glossing over that and jumping to the League is one thing. But I stress that what we KNOW is that Rhaz is in the movie somehow and it almost looks current instead of flashback AND it has Bane in it. What conclusions, based on what we currently know on canon can we draw?

Its stupid to say Talia ties in more when we don't even have the fricken plot. For all we know Bruce just has flashbacks to Liam Neeson saying inspiring shit to get himself back in the game, and Bane is on his own.

I think that was Rhaz that looked like he was all laid up in the hospital. Let me double check. Nah, it wasn't. Looked more like Gordon. Anyway, we just don't know. I'll argue that if the League has no presence beyond flashbacks, it would make sense for Catwoman only because well... there's no actual league beyond the flahsback scenes. However... I stress that Bane and Talia would be perfect leaders of the League if they invoke the league.

We really don't know what the script will be like. We only have the information from the trailer and what's going on in the canon. From that, it's not unreasonable to draw conclusions that Bane has ties to the League and if that is the case, Talia would actually make more sense, even if it's in passing or hell, if she actually had to compete for Batman's heart with Catwoman.

I just personally have a hard time seeing why one would use the League to carry the story and then NEVER mention Talia. That'd be kinda silly. Based on what we know of her, she's very relevant to Bruce and Rhaz.

[Saya]

From what I can glean, Ra's is involved in flash backs that will include his life as a young man. Neeson has only been caught once filming, its likely that his role will be minor, whatever it is. There's rumours about Miranda Tate, Marion Cotillard's character, will turn out to be Talia, and there's speculation that she'll bring Ra's to the Pit but I think with all the supernatural elements Nolan's been leaving out, it would be dumb. If she's in it, I see it as a "I must avenge my father" sort of way and its a shock in the end when she reveals who she is. Pretty boring, and I mostly see her like a mob villain in the background pulling the strings and not a big bad villain like Bane.

The Joker and Two Face is going to be a tough act to follow, lets face it. I'm not holding any hopes that its going to be as good as The Dark Knight, but it can still be good, and he can rely on the holy-shit-its-the-guy-who-broke-Batman's-back scariness of Bane, and the personality of Catwoman. The villains are what made TDK, and I don't think Batman Begins measures up because the villains are pretty bland or misused, and I really don't think Talia has enough charisma and personality to carry a movie as one of the main villains. As a minor one? Sure, but I haven't heard too many people were compelled by Bale's Batman and would LOVE to see him be heartbroken yet again when it turns out his girlfriend is Ra's al Ghul's daughter. If this was a few movies later from the whole Rachel thing, fine, but too much too soon.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

I have seen both and was bored enough to go read a book rather than finish them. Their meh-tacularness did not impress me. I was severely disappointed in the fact that a lot of people thought Ledger as Joker was the best portrayal of Napier or that it was Legder's best role. Obviously those people never actually watched him in any of his other movies. It's sad that such a poor role in a lackluster, overhyped film is now his legacy.

So... You prefer the portrayal of Batman as Superman with more black? Wow hey, if that works for ya... I hated the ones where he was a goody two shoes pussy. And no, Heath Ledger was the best Joker by far. And that's coming from a total Nicholson fan boy.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

From what I can glean, Ra's is involved in flash backs that will include his life as a young man. Neeson has only been caught once filming, its likely that his role will be minor, whatever it is. There's rumours about Miranda Tate, Marion Cotillard's character, will turn out to be Talia, and there's speculation that she'll bring Ra's to the Pit but I think with all the supernatural elements Nolan's been leaving out, it would be dumb. If she's in it, I see it as a "I must avenge my father" sort of way and its a shock in the end when she reveals who she is. Pretty boring, and I mostly see her like a mob villain in the background pulling the strings and not a big bad villain like Bane.

Not sure about that whole Pit part. That would be annoying. Then again, Bane will be juicing up with venom. And all this talk about the idea of Talia being boring is kinda pointless. Make no mistake, it's going to be incredihard for Nolan to even repeat TDK. It wont happen. Bane and Catwoman, and Talia aren't even CLOSE to as cool as the Joker and Two Face was goddamn scary when he went on his murdering rampage. Personally, when you want to talk about villains that can carry movies, not even Catwoman comes close to the kind of powerhouse that Joker was.

The Joker and Two Face is going to be a tough act to follow, lets face it. I'm not holding any hopes that its going to be as good as The Dark Knight, but it can still be good, and he can rely on the holy-shit-its-the-guy-who-broke-Batman's-back scariness of Bane, and the personality of Catwoman. The villains are what made TDK, and I don't think Batman Begins measures up because the villains are pretty bland or misused, and I really don't think Talia has enough charisma and personality to carry a movie as one of the main villains. As a minor one? Sure, but I haven't heard too many people were compelled by Bale's Batman and would LOVE to see him be heartbroken yet again when it turns out his girlfriend is Ra's al Ghul's daughter. If this was a few movies later from the whole Rachel thing, fine, but too much too soon.

My whole point in this conversation is to get people to realize that Talia is the more organic, sensible, and logical choice for a Batman love interest IF all we have to go on is the canon that the first and third movie seems to be based on. I never argued that Talia would be a more popular, better, or entertaining choice. Catwoman has all that in spades.

[AshleyO]

http://www.slashfilm.com/dark-knight...a-alghul-bane/

This is interesting. It's a few months old, but I think these rumors may still be the consensus unless we've heard anything from Nolan about the characters so far.

All we know for now is that Catwoman and Bane will be in. But he hasn't confirmed or denied the relationship between Bane and Talia.

This would almost make sense. When you think about it, in TDK, Batman had a huge community of supporters behind him. Dent, Gordon, copycats, Rachel, and Alfred. Really, when it came to defending Gotham from the Joker, it was a team effort.

It almost sounds like Nolan may be putting a twist on the dynamic where Bane is clearly negative Batman and could have the support of the League and Talia, much like Batman had in TDK with Gotham's finest and with the end of TDK leaving Batman singled out as the bane of Gotham... puns, we seem to have a reversal of roles. Bane is the face of the Gotham community with the support of the League and Batman, being isolated from his own community only now has Gordon and Catwoman to rely on. And Catwoman being as enigmatic as she is, would really highlight that isolation for Batman.

[Ben Lahnger]

Okay. I'll be the fanboy and say I only got into Catwoman in a significant way when Michelle Pfeiffer donned the latex (or was it vinyl?) suit, and really got into Catwoman when Jim Balent started drawing her as a feminist-offending vixen with big tits and big attitude. So I'm all about the T&A, but that's not Nolan's style ... so I suppose he's likely to explore some "story" with her like Brubaker did. *sigh*

Also, I'm not sure why she's considered so necessary to be in this movie. She was in the second Burton flick and then got her own movie. I thought it was time to show some love to the many other epic females in Batman's life, but I like what Nolan's done so far so I accept that his plan will make sense when I see it.


Oh, and may I say (and this is only an expression of personal taste and has no validity beyond my own appetites) ... I fucking HATE the goggles. They look ridiculous on Catwoman. I'd say that if any man or woman in the comics was wearing them. I remember when they had Starman wearing some very similar goggles, and THEY looked ridiculous too. [/sidetrack]

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Okay. I'll be the fanboy and say I only got into Catwoman in a significant way when Michelle Pfeiffer donned the latex (or was it vinyl?) suit, and really got into Catwoman when Jim Balent started drawing her as a feminist-offending vixen with big tits and big attitude. So I'm all about the T&A, but that's not Nolan's style ... so I suppose he's likely to explore some "story" with her like Brubaker did. *sigh*

Also, I'm not sure why she's considered so necessary to be in this movie. She was in the second Burton flick and then got her own movie. I thought it was time to show some love to the many other epic females in Batman's life, but I like what Nolan's done so far so I accept that his plan will make sense when I see it.

The Halle Berry film was a disaster, Catwoman deserves better. I don't think doing Batman remakes is a bad idea because after the Schumacher films, he deserves better. After the last few Superman movies, I'm glad Nolan is doing the next one and will probably make Superman amazing again.

Also, Catwoman doesn't need to look like a porn star to be sexy and amazing. Hisss. And honestly I found Pfieffer's Catwoman to be far too disturbing to do much for my lady boner, awesome performance but I find her really unsettling. I'd like to see her in a movie as maybe not so psycho. I liked Batman Returns but I honestly don't watch it very often, it still bothers me.

Oh, and may I say (and this is only an expression of personal taste and has no validity beyond my own appetites) ... I fucking HATE the goggles. They look ridiculous on Catwoman. I'd say that if any man or woman in the comics was wearing them. I remember when they had Starman wearing some very similar goggles, and THEY looked ridiculous too. [/sidetrack]

I like them, and I think they're a really good throwback to the old costume:



Without looking that silly and serve a function. They bring something from the original costume back and you complain, they change Wonder Woman's ridiculous outfit and you complain XD

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Saya

I like them, and I think they're a really good throwback to the old costume:



Without looking that silly and serve a function. They bring something from the original costume back and you complain, they change Wonder Woman's ridiculous outfit and you complain XD

They don't look like the old school Catwoman getup, not silver age, nor 80's or 90's Catwoman, nor the TV show Catwoman you reference by picture. They look ugly and unnecessary and remind me of the TV show Rat Patrol (... there's an oblique cat pun for you.)