THE DARK KNIGHT WILL RISE… BUT WHEN?

Why would him quitting as Batman for a bit be 'a major betrayal of the character'? He did that in Dark Knight Returns and no one minded. And given that he was on the run at the end of the last movie it makes sense for things to pick up after the dust has settled.

Not that canon is held in high regard anymore, but Returns was never canonical. Gotham is in shambles after TDK, doesn't seem very Batman of him to up and quit mid-career.

Plus hasn't he been Batman for less than a year at this point? That'd be like him deciding in the last issue of Year One to take off for eight years.

Pretty much the whole theme of the Dark Knight was about whether Batman as a symbol was a positive or negative thing, and the ending has him deliberately sullying his own image for the sake of preserving Dent as a lawful idealistic figure that would have more of a positive impact. Retiring Batman is entirely in keeping with that ending.

Bruce Wayne likes vacations too, guys.

I guess we know when the inevitable new Batman cartoon is going to take place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

Not that canon is held in high regard anymore, but Returns was never canonical. Gotham is in shambles after TDK, doesn't seem very Batman of him to up and quit mid-career.

This doesn't make any sense. Blowing people away with a .45 doesn't seem like a very Batman thing to do now, but that doesn't mean it never was. However heightened his adventures and skills are, the guy is a human being, and human beings get tired and weary and discouraged. This, among several other things, is what makes him special amongst the spandex lot.

Getting really excited about this now. Nolan looks like he has another one up his sleeve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

This doesn't make any sense. Blowing people away with a .45 doesn't seem like a very Batman thing to do now, but that doesn't mean it never was. However heightened his adventures and skills are, the guy is a human being, and human beings get tired and weary and discouraged. This, among several other things, is what makes him special amongst the spandex lot.

 

This. While a big element of his character has been his almost-superhuman drive and dedication, characters are imbued with these kinds of elements so they can be tested. Batman the Unshakeable makes for a great hero, if you want a hero to operate on purely mythological terms or as simply a cool superhero. However, if you want to approach him as a man it's a pretty limited approach in dramatic terms, especially if you're reaching for psychological plausibility like Nolan is.

One possibility is, if Nolan is having Bruce walk away from the cowl, his decision to return ties into his goal to inspire the people of Gotham to stand up for themselves. Instead of it being a lofty ideal held by a guy with the confidence and resources to hit out at crime in a way most people can never accomplish, he himself is forced to experience and conquer the limitations and self-doubt he's asking everyday people to push aside also. this could make him a more inspirational figure to the public by bringing him down to their level, even if it is just in an existential way.

I really wished Nolan could have gone the full The Dark Knight Returns with it.

This will more than do, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

Plus hasn't he been Batman for less than a year at this point? That'd be like him deciding in the last issue of Year One to take off for eight years.

Unless i'm missing something the article didn't say how much longer he went on before he quit in those 8 years.  I suspect he ends up quitting at the start of the movie or just before it.  That would make more sense.

Agreed.  I severely doubt he spent the entire 8 years retired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Savage 

Unless i'm missing something the article didn't say how much longer he went on before he quit in those 8 years.  I suspect he ends up quitting at the start of the movie or just before it.  That would make more sense.

Totally. I'm not saying that this is 100% factual that he's out for eight years. Just speculating and voicing a concern that, if true, well that would sort of suck in my opinion. Like Jackknife was saying, the character's seen a few different iterations. The Batman in my mind wouldn't walk away at the end of TDK. But based on what little we know of the new film that possibility is, at the very least, on the table right now. Prologue will probably confirm one way or the other.

Agreed.  Still a great article ether way :)

So A LOT of sites are reporting that one of the main reasons that it is set that far in the future supposedly has to do with a studio caveat of "well, if you are going to finish this in a way we can't sequelize it, then it has to be set in the future so we can cram stuff in between TDK and TDKR...........be it movies, TV projects, video games, comics, etc.".  Word is that WB supposedly wants any future continuation of the Batman franchise to still be set within the world that Nolan created.

I won't be surprised one bit if that is all true.  Hell, some of you already guessed the same higher up in this thread!

I doubt WB put any kind of requests for Nolan when he was writing the script. And I don't see Nolan setting the film 8 years later purely because of a studio request. Nolan is not Schumacher.

I can see them asking him to leave it open for the possibility of a follow-up and leaving a large gap would be an easy way to do that while still ending his "saga" the way he wants to.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Bale signed a 4-film contract...........though I could be wrong about that.

I don't know, this is making me doubt that Nolan had the complete creative freedom on this one that he claimed he gets for these movies. This freedom has supposedly helped make them less troubled productions than some of the Marvel features that were fucked up by studio interference (i.e. "X-Men: The Last Stand", "Spider-Man 3"). The first sign was when the title got announced. He said "The Dark Knight Rises" was a title he chose through compromise with the studio.

He also said there was another title he would have liked to use instead, but I forget what it was. When he talked about the title he did end up going with, a lot of people were suggesting that the studio insisted "The Dark Knight" be in the title because of how successful the movie with that exact title was. Makes sense. Typical studio mentality that people would be too stupid to realize that this movie was connected to the previous Nolan Batman movie unless it had the same title as part of its title.

I'm sure he's had more freedom than a lot of directors making studio pictures and he wasn't just lying when he said he enjoys working with Warner Brothers because they give him so much freedom. Still, even someone with as much clout as Nolan can't have total independence from studio meddling. In "Batman Begins", he said the two things they imposed on the movie were that it had to be PG-13 and it had to be "romantic". I think that helps explain the shoehorned-in, unnatural, borderline forced romance with Rachel.

Not that I don't believe you but link please.

Pretty sure Bale was forced on Nolan too.

Although that obviously worked out.

I don't think that's true at all. The studio were after someone like Ashton Kutcher or Josh Hartnett at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

Pretty sure Bale was forced on Nolan too.

 

Although that obviously worked out.

And the Prestige too, right?

Bale wasn't Nolan's choice, in the terms of Nolan telling WB that he has to have Bale.  It  just so happens the fans wanted the same thing as the actor, studio and director.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

And the Prestige too, right?

Hence why I said, "That obviously worked out" and WB had been after Bale for both Darren Aronofsky's Batman: Year One and Wolfgang Peterson's Batman Versus Superman. Not to mention, Nolan wasn't exactly in the same position going into the Batman franchise as he is now.

Nolan definitely has to make some small concessions to the studio. As much money as he has made for them, the Batman property has mad much, much more. And this isn't a Lucas situation where he controls the property. He has to make some concessions. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

 

Hence why I said, "That obviously worked out" and WB had been after Bale for both Darren Aronofsky's Batman: Year One and Wolfgang Peterson's Batman Versus Superman. Not to mention, Nolan wasn't exactly in the same position going into the Batman franchise as he is now.

Nolan liked the idea of Bale being Bruce Wayne, go read any interview with Nolan during the preproduction.  There is no indication that he was FORCED upon Nolan, as you stated.  Bale was the choice of EVERYONE, like I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Nolan definitely has to make some small concessions to the studio. As much money as he has made for them, the Batman property has mad much, much more. And this isn't a Lucas situation where he controls the property. He has to make some concessions. 

I see it as a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship between WB and Nolan.  Concessions are made on both sides.  I can't see WB being "ecstatic" about Nolan "closing" off the Batman series, as Nolan claims he is doing.  Trilogy's are so 90s, it's all about FRANCHISES, and multiple films and spin offs. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Not that I don't believe you but link please.

 

The WB wanting the film to be romantic was very much a caveat from the studio, I do distinctly remember Nolan talking about that during the lead-up to Batman Begins.

However, I think the whole "Bale being forced on Nolan" thing strikes me as bullshit. No doubt that the WB were aware of the swell of internet fan support for Bale, but there's no evidence to support that he was ultimately anything but Nolan's choice.

I will say that a few years ago, maybe during the press tour for Rescue Dawn, Bale commented on the changes his career had undegone in the past few years, and made a comment about making the (then) uncharacteristic (but financially necessary) decision to sign up for a role in 2004 purely based on the money, but he declined to mention exactly what role he was referring to. Of course, you only have so many movies of his in '04 - '05 to choose from that it makes it sort of obvious which one he's likely referring to.

None of that matters of course, these people are professionals, and it seems obvious that irrespective of any misgivings about the source material, they are very serious about making a good picture. As a viewer, I think it's foolish to ask for anymore than that.

Speaking of people being forcedupon Nolan, what about Bane? Everything I heard, so far, regarding Bane, he is NOT the same comic character.  Sure, he's a tank, but from what we are understanding about his character; back story, affiliates, medical condition, etc... it is not the Bane from the comics.  I think Nolan met WB half way here.  Nolan envisioned a villian that doesn't exist in the Batman mythos, and WB wanted someone the fans wanted.  Nolan came up with the villain he wanted, and just infused a pre-existing character from the comic to give the fans something recognizable.  This Bane, is Bane in name only, everything about him is basically a "new" character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Nolan liked the idea of Bale being Bruce Wayne, go read any interview with Nolan during the preproduction.  There is no indication that he was FORCED upon Nolan, as you stated.  Bale was the choice of EVERYONE, like I said.

I'm sure Nolan was happy to bring Bale on, the point is that he most likely wasn't really his call to make. If he'd had his heart set on, I dunno, Guy Pearce or someone, he probably wouldn't have had the clout to make it happen.

According to Pearce, Nolan wanted to bring him in for Ra's Al Ghul, whom he intially envisioned as being closer to Bruce's age, but it didn't work out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

 

I'm sure Nolan was happy to bring Bale on, the point is that he most likely wasn't really his call to make. If he'd had his heart set on, I dunno, Guy Pearce or someone, he probably wouldn't have had the clout to make it happen.

It wasn't he call to make, but I'm sure he was asked about Bale when he had the intial meeting with WB.   Bale was such an obvious choice, you look at his past films, his look, his acting abilities, the fans "calling" to have him be cast, the decision was made the moment they decided to take Batman serious again.   When someone says "forced", it brings up memories of Venom being forced on Raimi, or Halle Berry being forced on Singer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Speaking of people being forcedupon Nolan, what about Bane? Everything I heard, so far, regarding Bane, he is NOT the same comic character.  Sure, he's a tank, but from what we are understanding about his character; back story, affiliates, medical condition, etc... it is not the Bane from the comics.  I think Nolan met WB half way here.  Nolan envisioned a villian that doesn't exist in the Batman mythos, and WB wanted someone the fans wanted.  Nolan came up with the villain he wanted, and just infused a pre-existing character from the comic to give the fans something recognizable.  This Bane, is Bane in name only, everything about him is basically a "new" character.

But Nolan has done that with ALL the villains. They've all been re-invented somewhat. Ra's Al Ghul, Joker and Scarecrow are all as different from their comic counterparts as Bane is. No more, no less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Not that I don't believe you but link please.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm referring to news I read in articles published online a long time ago. Can't track them down. I can say my memory is a bit foggy about the title for the new Batman film. I just know I read somewhere that the studio insisted on putting the "Dark Knight" in the title. Without being able to track down the source, I can't be sure if it was confirmed as fact or just fan speculation.

I may not be 100% about that, but I definitely recall an interview with Nolan and Goyer about studio caveats for "Batman Begins". Specifically, they were quoted as saying the studio asked them to make the movie romantic and PG-13 and their response was "Oh, we can do that".

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

But Nolan has done that with ALL the villains. They've all been re-invented somewhat. Ra's Al Ghul, Joker and Scarecrow are all as different from their comic counterparts as Bane is. No more, no less.

 

re-invented, yes, but in this case, Bane seems to be an entirely new character, sans the name.

- Ra's - Comic/Leader of the League of Assassins - Nolan/Leader of the League of Shadows

- Scarecrow - Comic/Mask, fear toxin, used to work at Arkham - Nolan/Same

- Joker - comic/clown prince of crime, anarchy, makeup - Nolan/Same

- Two Face - comic/face scared by acid, used a coin to make decisions - Nolan/ scared by fire and joker, uses coin, same appearance.

Nolan has kept all the villains, similar to their comic book counter parts.  Nolan wrote the parts, around the villains.  I don't see that with Bane (which I'm thankful for).  Bane seems to be the leader of the League of Shadows, is scared badly, and uses a breathing apparatus for pain control.  In the comic, he was a Brazilian prisoner who used drugs to make his physic huge and wore a luchidore mask.  Hardy is a big boy, but he's no where close to what Bane was in the comics.  I think after this film is released, it will come out that Nolan had the character written out, and just used the name Bane since it was established.  You give a Batman fanboy a pic of every villian, they correctly name each one, except Bane.  I was all for Nolan making up his own villian, and I will be happy if this is the case.  Bane is a silly comic character, I think Nolan's "version" will be great for the film, and great for the mythos.

Ra's Al Ghul is immortal in the comics, he isn't in Nolan's universe, so by your parameters, he's an entirely new character (and no, I don't give a shit what any fanboy says, whatever we see in TDKR, an immortal Ra's will not happen).

Bane appears to be, more or less, Bane, just adjusted to not look like a douchebag in a Luchador mask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

re-invented, yes, but in this case, Bane seems to be an entirely new character, sans the name.

 

- Ra's - Comic/Leader of the League of Assassins - Nolan/Leader of the League of Shadows

- Scarecrow - Comic/Mask, fear toxin, used to work at Arkham - Nolan/Same

- Joker - comic/clown prince of crime, anarchy, makeup - Nolan/Same

- Two Face - comic/face scared by acid, used a coin to make decisions - Nolan/ scared by fire and joker, uses coin, same appearance.

 

Nolan has kept all the villains, similar to their comic book counter parts.  Nolan wrote the parts, around the villains.  I don't see that with Bane (which I'm thankful for).  Bane seems to be the leader of the League of Shadows, is scared badly, and uses a breathing apparatus for pain control.  In the comic, he was a Brazilian prisoner who used drugs to make his physic huge and wore a luchidore mask.  Hardy is a big boy, but he's no where close to what Bane was in the comics.  I think after this film is released, it will come out that Nolan had the character written out, and just used the name Bane since it was established.  You give a Batman fanboy a pic of every villian, they correctly name each one, except Bane.  I was all for Nolan making up his own villian, and I will be happy if this is the case.  Bane is a silly comic character, I think Nolan's "version" will be great for the film, and great for the mythos.

 

By that reasoning 

- Bane - Comic/Orphan, hulk of a man, injects body, super intelligence, wears mask - Nolan/Same

Ra's isn't immortal, Joker doesn't have permanent white skin, Joker doesn't use laughing gas, Harvey Dent wasn't scared in the courtroom, Scarecrow isn't a University professor ect. I don't see any massive changes to Bane that weren't taken with the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Speaking of people being forcedupon Nolan, what about Bane? Everything I heard, so far, regarding Bane, he is NOT the same comic character.  Sure, he's a tank, but from what we are understanding about his character; back story, affiliates, medical condition, etc... it is not the Bane from the comics.  I think Nolan met WB half way here.  Nolan envisioned a villian that doesn't exist in the Batman mythos, and WB wanted someone the fans wanted.  Nolan came up with the villain he wanted, and just infused a pre-existing character from the comic to give the fans something recognizable.  This Bane, is Bane in name only, everything about him is basically a "new" character.

Did the fans want Bane? When speculation began as to who the villain would/should be, I heard The Riddler and Black Mask way more than I heard Bane.

Bane has a strong groundswell of support amongst the mouthbreathing Batman fans (i.e. Venom).

Masked big guy from a foreign country who is able to kick Batman's ass, intelligent and ruthless leader, dependant on chemicals he needs. How can one not see the similarities? And there have always been different interpretations of the character. Just compare TAS with Batman and Robin and the Arkham Asylum variant. And we shouldn't judge him too early, right now we can only assume the back story of the character and his behaviour.

And wasn't Ra's originally Asian?

I don't think WB wanted a romantic Batman, just a significant female character with a relationship. Of course, because most female viewers demand it. Make an all male super hero movie without any relationships and you get Expendables numbers, not a billion. And Nolan managed to include it without having Hugh Grant in the rain swearing eternal love to Rachel's charred corpse.

edit: most douchebags wanted Johnny Depp as the Riddler. And a CGI return of Ledger. ugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Masked big guy from a foreign country who is able to kick Batman's ass, intelligent and ruthless leader, dependant on chemicals he needs. How can one not see the similarities? And there have always been different interpretations of the character. Just compare TAS with Batman and Robin and the Arkham Asylum variant. And we shouldn't judge him too early, right now we can only assume the back story of the character and his behaviour.

And wasn't Ra's originally Asian?

I don't think WB wanted a romantic Batman, just a significant female character with a relationship. Of course, because most female viewers demand it.

Women might (understandably) want significant female characters, but I doubt they care about romance when it comes to action movies. When Spider-Man 2, came out, I heard a number of woman complain that there wasn't enough action in it, not that it wasn't romantic enough. Women might tend to go to romance movies more often than men, but I'd imagine if they wanted to see some romance they would go to a rom-com, not the Dark Knight Rises. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3cii 

Did the fans want Bane? When speculation began as to who the villain would/should be, I heard The Riddler and Black Mask way more than I heard Bane.

Before the villains of "The Dark Knight Rises" were announced, there were articles on IMDB about fans voting for what villains they wanted in the sequel.

Text from one:

In last week's poll, we asked you which Batman villain you want to see in the next installment of Warner Brothers' record-breaking movie franchise. We already know which "Batman 3" rumors you wish were true, and we've outlined our casting choices for a new Catwoman, but what about the foe (or foes) The Dark Knight will tangle with in the next film? According to readers, the question is the answer—and The Riddler is the villain everyone wants to see in the third "Batman" movie. With 37 percent of the total votes, Edward Nigma ran away with the poll—and was followed far, far behind by Catwoman and skull-faced, modern-era villain Black Mask.

Here's how the results panned out for Batman's rogues gallery:

Riddler: 37%

Catwoman: 11%

Black Mask: 10%

The Joker (with someone new playing the role): 8%

Bane: 6%

Two-Face: 5%

Penguin: 5%

Clayface: 3%

Poison Ivy: 2%

Scarecrow: 2%

Mr. Freeze: 2%

Ra's Al Ghul: 1%

edit:  I also found this text that I believe was from another IMDB article, though I couldn't find a link to the actual article...

Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie have emerged as the people's favorites to play Batman villains in the follow-up to The Dark Knight. Movie fans want to see The Riddler and Harley Quinn in the next Batman film - and they want Depp and Jolie to play them, according to a new online survey. Other top picks for the new film, according to the new poll from video and DVD rental firm Blockbuster, include Cat Woman, The Penguin and tough guy Bane. And the most requested stars to play Batman villains are:

1. Johnny Depp
2. Angelina Jolie
3. Natalie Portman
4. Edward Norton
5. Keira Knightley
6. Daniel Day-Lewis
7. Philip Seymour Hoffman
8. Viggo Mortensen
9. Kevin Spacey
10. Clive Owen

I have to say thank God that Jolie and Depp were not involved in this. Some fans just don't know what is good for them (and I say that as someone who has enjoyed a lot of Depp's work). I thought it was surprising that Bane got votes along with those other more predictable choices. I couldn't help but wonder if the filmmakers were aware of these poll results. Reading about that poll was the first time I thought Bane might have a serious shot at being chosen, because I knew from long ago that Nolan considered The Penguin too ridiculous to use.

I was hoping for The Riddler, but I figured the quirkiness of his look might be too much of a turn-off for Nolan to consider. I was doubtful about Bane too just because the whole venom thing is so weird and his comic book look is even more wacky than Riddler's, but here we are.

I would have preferred Jolie to Hathaway.

We don't even know what kind of character Catwoman is yet, so unless this movie comes out and Hathaway ends up being a sore spot of the picture, I'll reserve judgment if not concern. Also, while Jolie is a fine actress, she's such a tabloid magent that like Holmes / Cruise during Batman Begins, her personal shit would be a distraction insofatr as press is concerned.

Addendum: Having recently seen a few moments of Salt, I think Jolie is looking a little drained and strained these days. Not healthy at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

 

By that reasoning 

- Bane - Comic/Orphan, hulk of a man, injects body, super intelligence, wears mask - Nolan/Same

 

Ra's isn't immortal, Joker doesn't have permanent white skin, Joker doesn't use laughing gas, Harvey Dent wasn't scared in the courtroom, Scarecrow isn't a University professor ect. I don't see any massive changes to Bane that weren't taken with the others.

 

 

Jesus H Christ, I guess you have seen the film... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Masked big guy from a foreign country who is able to kick Batman's ass, intelligent and ruthless leader, dependant on chemicals he needs. How can one not see the similarities? And there have always been different interpretations of the character. Just compare TAS with Batman and Robin and the Arkham Asylum variant. And we shouldn't judge him too early, right now we can only assume the back story of the character and his behaviour.
 

I should have phrased it differently.  I think Nolan and Co. outlined their idea without using a known villain.  They later changed it, be it because of WB, or whatever, so the big bad is Bane.  If Nolan would be doing a straight Bane film, I'd imagine the setup would be much different.  No doubt the mask and chemicals are a direct reference to the Bane of comics, just when compared to what Bane is in the comics, it's a complete 180 and could be argued by "douchebag" fanboys as a betrayal to the Bane character.  Nonetheless, what Nolan has confirmed so far, is head and shoulders better then the "cake and eat it too*" villain of the comics.

*comic Bane is creatively pathetic IMO.  No one will convince we that they didin't draw him up and go "hey, let's make him super smart too... goes against the look!!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I should have phrased it differently.  I think Nolan and Co. outlined their idea without using a known villain.  They later changed it, be it because of WB, or whatever, so the big bad is Bane.  If Nolan would be doing a straight Bane film, I'd imagine the setup would be much different.  No doubt the mask and chemicals are a direct reference to the Bane of comics, just when compared to what Bane is in the comics, it's a complete 180 and could be argued by "douchebag" fanboys as a betrayal to the Bane character.  Nonetheless, what Nolan has confirmed so far, is head and shoulders better then the "cake and eat it too*" villain of the comics.

 

 

*comic Bane is creatively pathetic IMO.  No one will convince we that they didin't draw him up and go "hey, let's make him super smart too... goes against the look!!!"

Where on Earth are you getting this from? Also, Goyer recently stated that he and Nolan started discussing Bane as the villain a few weeks after TDK came out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Jesus H Christ, I guess you have seen the film... 

 

I've seen about as much as you have yet you're already making assessments that Nolan just took a known name and slapped on an original villain he made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Where on Earth are you getting this from? Also, Goyer recently stated that he and Nolan started discussing Bane as the villain a few weeks after TDK came out.

 

I haven't read that, if that's the case, then I guess dead wrong.  Is it in Empire's newest issue, really want to pick that up.