Bale To Be The New Batman; Caine To Be Alfred

[Guest JMA]

Granted, but you must concede that the vast majority of casual moviegoing fans love it to death.

No doubt about that. Most casual fans I know (or know of) are big fans of it.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Granted, but you must concede that the vast majority of casual moviegoing fans love it to death.

No doubt about that. Most casual fans I know (or know of) are big fans of it.

Yeah, that was my point about you being in the minority. Anytime I try to point out some things I don't like about it to my family, they listen (because they know I'm a big fan of Batman) but every time a Marvel movie comes out I'll still here the same thing:

 

"It was good. Not as good as Superman (Which I agree with, BTW. Supes' movie is still the second best of all the comic book adaptations) or Batman."

 

In my opinion, the most artistic, deepest, and most involved comic book film based on a mjor superhero is STILL Batman Returns. The sharp satire of the script and the animalistic subtext add extra layers to the film that no other comic film has.

 

Plus, Keaton and Pfieffer are magic together.

[Guest JMA]

One of the things I enjoy about the Marvel movies are the costumes. The costumes look like the originals (well, most)and still look realistic. Hopefully, DC will take this route with the new Batman movie.

[Tony149 0]

If you look at the IMDB reviews of License to Kill the vast majority are positive. In 10 years, LTK will be a classic Bond film, mark my words.

I wouldn't be surprise at all if that happens. I read an article a few weeks back saying LTK was gaining a cult-like following.

 

Since we're speaking of Bond, there's a connection to him and Batman, as Lindy Hemming, who has done the costumes for all the Bond films since GoldenEye, will be working on Batman.

 

From what has been reported, the rubber bodysuit is out.

[starvenger 0]

And the descent from "it could be decent" to "it's gonna be crap" begins.  Someone from DC needs to start bitchslapping Warner movie suits...

 

DC has given Nolan's film its blessings. Batman screenwriter David Goyer mentioned him and Nolan have talked with DC about what they're doing (and they didn't have to), and has also mentioned they kept strings tight on faithfulness to the character.

Believe it or not I have faith in Nolan, but casting a "name" (Eastwood) in what is essentially a minor part doesn't sound like something he'd do. So my fears are of tampering from higher up, where I have zero faith that they will let a good movie get created.

[Guest El Satanico]

You think the studio would've cast Bale or Caine? It's clear that Nolan is being allowed to do his thing. If Nolan thinks Eastwood fits the role, Clint will be Gordon.

 

I don't really see any reason to predict doom over a rumor of Eastwood being cast. It's not like it's someone like Paul Walker.

[starvenger 0]

You think the studio would've cast Bale or Caine? It's clear that Nolan is being allowed to do his thing. If Nolan thinks Eastwood fits the role, Clint will be Gordon.

 

I don't really see any reason to predict doom over a rumor of Eastwood being cast. It's not like it's someone like Paul Walker.

No, Bale and Caine would definitely be the type of actor Nolan would pick. And you're right, Eastwood is (thankfully) not Paul Walker or Freddie Prinze, but I look and I see stuff like Halle Berry as Catwoman and I can't help but be afraid for Nolan's Batman.

 

And for the record, I really am hoping that I'm wrong and it's a great movie, but I just have a bad feeling about it.

[Sass 0]

Don't worry star, you're not the only one who is worried about the movie being a possible dud.

 

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

No, Bale and Caine would definitely be the type of actor Nolan would pick. And you're right, Eastwood is (thankfully) not Paul Walker or Freddie Prinze, but I look and I see stuff like Halle Berry as Catwoman and I can't help but be afraid for Nolan's Batman.

I'd really hope that you wouldn't base one movie off of another sort of related movie. I'm curiously optimistic myself about Nolan's Batman, and would hope that it is a good movie. Time is just going to have to tell if it is tho. So be patient kemosabe.

 

 

And what happened to the rumor of Dennis Quaid playing Commish Gordon?

[Guest NCJ]

IGN says the Eastwood story is total bullshit.

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

From 411:

 

Katie Holmes Rumored For New Batman Movie

Posted By Ashish on 12.03.03

 

Plus more rumors!

 

IGN reports that Katie Holmes is rumored to play Bruce Wayne's girlfriend in Christopher Nolan's new Batman movie. Christopher Eccleston is also now rumored to play the role of Scarecrow.

 

One possible plotline right now is that both Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul will be tied somehow to the death of Bruce Wayne's father who was killed when Bruce was a boy.

 

Credit: IGN.com

[spiny norman 0]

While I personally think the cast looks great and I doubt Nolan could get this wrong, how many Batman movies have dealt with the villains being the ones who killed his parents? I understand this is a different franchise, but it's going to cause confusion by people who think Joker/Two-Face killed his parents, plus it plain lacks in originality (unless they can do something special with it).

[Guest JMA]

While I personally think the cast looks great and I doubt Nolan could get this wrong, how many Batman movies have dealt with the villains being the ones who killed his parents? I understand this is a different franchise, but it's going to cause confusion by people who think Joker/Two-Face killed his parents, plus it plain lacks in originality (unless they can do something special with it).

I've always disliked the idea of a super-villain killing Batman's parents. I prefer the random thug (Joe Chill) doing the deed. It makes the death of the Waynes seem all the more senseless. Which is good, IMO.

 

"The world only makes sense if you force it to."

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

While I personally think the cast looks great and I doubt Nolan could get this wrong, how many Batman movies have dealt with the villains being the ones who killed his parents? I understand this is a different franchise, but it's going to cause confusion by people who think Joker/Two-Face killed his parents, plus it plain lacks in originality (unless they can do something special with it).

I've always disliked the idea of a super-villain killing Batman's parents. I prefer the random thug (Joe Chill) doing the deed. It makes the death of the Waynes seem all the more senseless. Which is good, IMO.

 

"The world only makes sense if you force it to."

At least with the Joker you could argue that it was so they could create a "Who Made Who?" subtext and show them as mirror opposites almost fated to battle for a long time. It's more interesting than the Chaos/Order metaphor they use in the comics.

[starvenger 0]

Speaking of which, the Comics 101 column on Movie Poop Shoot is in the middle of a 3-part series on Batman (the Comic). A great read.

[Guest JMA]

At least with the Joker you could argue that it was so they could create a "Who Made Who?" subtext and show them as mirror opposites almost fated to battle for a long time. It's more interesting than the Chaos/Order metaphor they use in the comics.

I disagree. I didn't like so much of the Joker's origin being revealed. He needs to be more enigmatic. The thing is, I used to think the opposite of it. The "You made Me, I made you" thing just never worked for me.

 

Having a future super-villain kill the Waynes kind of cheapens it. IMO, of course. I'm not really a fan of the Joker and Batman having a past before Bruce became Batman.

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

Wasn't that how it was set up in Batman: The Killing Joke? That Joker was some 2-bit thug before he first met Batman and became the Joker.

 

I would have to agree with the fact of not having the villian involved in the death of Wayne's parents tho. Having the villian involved means they have to have a motive, and the reasoning for the thugs killing Bruce's parents was it was a simple mugging.

 

Am I the only one who really doesn't want to see 2 villians in this movie tho? I like to think Batman Forever would have been a better movie if it dealt with either The Riddler or Two-Face, but instead it crammed them together and, with the little character development they had because of this, they both came off as the same character. I think if this movie just dealt with Ra's Al Ghul, they could spend the 2 hours building him up as a major threat in either this movie or perhaps in a sequel.

[Guest The Midnight Rocking Warrior]

Keaton was the greatest Batman of all time because:

 

Adam West was parodying Batman

George Clooney was terrible

Kevin Conroy just had to speak, even though his performances were better than Clooney's ( Not that I'm disrespecting voice acting, because cartoons rule!)

Val Kilmer was good, but I always thought there was something missing

Keaton was just head and shoulders above the rest, he was probably the darkest ( And I'm not referring to skin color)

 

Also, have you noticed that playing Batman will give you a nomination for the either meaningless awards, or a negative award check it out:

 

Michael Keaton ( 1992 mtv award nomination for best kiss with Michelle P.)

Val Kilmer ( 1995 Mtv award nomination for most desirable male)

Clooney ( 1997 Razzie nomination for worst screen couple with Chris O'Donell)

 

The only one whose been nominated for a prestigious award is Conroy for best voice acting for Batman Beyond

 

Have a good week.

[Guest El Satanico]

I liked Kilmer and Keaton, but it's not like it matters. None of the actors to play a live action Batman were anything special. So Keaton and Kilmer were the best of a mediocre group, hooray.

 

They say voice acting is more difficult than live action acting, due to not being able to display emotions with your body.

[starvenger 0]

Wasn't that how it was set up in Batman: The Killing Joke? That Joker was some 2-bit thug before he first met Batman and became the Joker.

That's it, more or less. BTW I recommend that everyone pick up the book. It's a great story from Alan Moore and Brian Bolland, and has some shocking scenes that you wouldn't expect, such as

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Joker paralyzing Barbara Gordon, ending her career as Batgirl

[Guest JMA]

I like Keaton as an actor, don't get me wrong. I just didn't like him for the part of Bruce Wayne/Batman. I have enjoyed his other work, though.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

One possible plotline right now is that both Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul will be tied somehow to the death of Bruce Wayne's father who was killed when Bruce was a boy.

*shudders violently*

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

Here's another one about Katie Homes.

 

Katie Holmes Likely For Female Lead In Batman

Posted By Ashish on 12.10.03

 

Dawson's Creek star likely to land role in new Batman movie...

 

Katie Holmes is the frontrunner right now for the lead female role in the new Batman movie to be directed by Christopher Nolan. She will play Bruce Wayne's girlfriend, Rachel.

 

Christian Bale will play the role of Batman while Michael Caine will play Alfred the Butler.

 

Credit: Variety

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

SHOULDN'T THE LOVE INTEREST BE TALIA?

 

ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THEY PICKED RA'S?

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

I wonder if Batman will reveal his ID to the female like he's done in all the other movies. Man that got old.

[Guest JMA]

Rachel? WTF? Couldn't they have picked a character that actually exists in the comics to be the love interest? Would that be so hard?

[Vyce 0]

Unless Holmes is going to play Talia.......which would just be awful.

 

I'd probably go with Famke Jansen myself.

[Tony149 0]

Seen at least one suggestion the villian may be the Reaper not Ra's as most thought. And screenwriter David S. Goyer did say everything reported online has been wrong. So who knows. Although from what I've read, I trust Nolan/Goyer.

 

BTW, Time Warner finally got their Avi Avad. The guy they signed as the VP of Creative Affairs will report to DC's Pres. TW seems to slowly be getting things right.

[Guest JMA]

Mortensen Up For Batman?

 

Michael Caine, who will play Alfred the butler in the upcoming new Batman film, told SCI FI Wire that director Christopher Nolan is eyeing Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen to play the villain in the film, which is slated to begin production in April 2004. In an interview, Caine wouldn't specify which villain role Mortensen (Rings' Aragorn) is up for.

 

Sources told The Hollywood Reporter, meanwhile, that Katie Holmes is close to being cast opposite star Christian Bale as Rachel, the love interest, contingent on a screen test.

 

Caine said Nolan's Batman script creates a deeper role for Alfred than previous films. "We start when Batman is a baby, so I'm more like a father," Caine said in an interview. "I'm a father who knows how to lay a table with the knives and forks in the right places."

 

Caine said he spoke with Nolan for three hours about his vision for the film, which included some similarities with and some variations on the previously established Batman canon. "[Nolan] said, 'We're going to have a human hero in Batman. He's powerful because he does pushups. Where does he get all his weapons? Because he's a multibillionaire, and he's in the arms business, so he gets the secret weapons instantly. Why does he wear the bloody suit? To scare the s--t out of people, because he doesn't really want to fight.'"

 

Credit: Sci-Fi Wire

[Guest Just J]

From 411:

 

Katie Holmes Rumored For New Batman Movie

Posted By Ashish on 12.03.03

 

Plus more rumors!

 

IGN reports that Katie Holmes is rumored to play Bruce Wayne's girlfriend in Christopher Nolan's new Batman movie. Christopher Eccleston is also now rumored to play the role of Scarecrow.

 

One possible plotline right now is that both Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul will be tied somehow to the death of Bruce Wayne's father who was killed when Bruce was a boy.

 

Credit: IGN.com

Why does Batman have to have a love interest? Just let him be Batman for godsakes.