Nolan Talks About Batman 3, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Penguin - Page 2

Magus · 12-03-2008, 12:54 PM

Clayface could fit into the Nolanverse as long as they went with the Arkham Asylum version, which is where Clayface's power is to suffer from a horribly painful and disgusting skin condition similar to leprosy. So no, you're right, he won't be in a Nolan movie.

Rutger Hauer's character fits the backstory but it would be kind of farfetched to expect someone that old to be a match for Batman, even with guns.

Seil · 12-03-2008, 01:11 PM

Why does it have to be so realistic? Sure, the newer Batman movies are dark and gritty, but the only villains that have been done are realistic, or semi-realistic. Two Face makes sense because it's a deformity, Joker because he's just insane, Ra's because Batman needs both a mentor and an antagonist and Scarecrow has a fancy mask and drugs.

These guys are all realistic, sure - but why does Nolan have to define his Gotham as realistic? He's writing about a character who dresses up like an anthropomorphic bat to fight crime - in the first movie to save his hometown from ninja and in the second from the mob.

That being said, Bane could totally work. If you can pull of Scarecrow's fear gas, you can pull of Bane's venom. And Bane... what - broke all the criminals out of Arkham and waited until Batman rounded them all up? What did Ra's do? Break all the inmates out of Arkham?

Oh, and hey - a comic called "The Resurrection Of Ra's Al Ghul?" So... Ra's and Talia are available now?

Clayface could work. Disguise artist.

Mirai Gen · 12-03-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Why does it have to be so realistic?

Because the Nolan Batman movies have been super realistic.

You could change Clayface - I mean Ra's was immortal in the comics and they didn't do anything more than simply hint at it in Begins - but I think of all the characters for Batman just not doing Clayface would be the best.

Also call me crazy but I really dislike the high-budget actors they picked out as names for Catwoman and Riddler and Penguin. It seems like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie are less actors and more names you drop.

Seil · 12-03-2008, 01:26 PM

They've been a bit realistic. As realistic as Batman can be. When you have a supposedly immortal ninja master riding a subway with a stolen microwave emitter causing panic inducing vapor to cause everyone in town to go batshit and kill each other, then you have to imagine that there's a little wiggle room.

And just because the movies have been realistic, doesn't mean Nolan has to continue. Sure, there's got to be some believability... but as stated above, there's way for a little wiggle room.

The Wizard Who Did It · 12-03-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seil

They've been a bit realistic. As realistic as Batman can be. When you have a supposedly immortal ninja master riding a subway with a stolen microwave emitter causing panic inducing vapor to cause everyone in town to go batshit and kill each other, then you have to imagine that there's a little wiggle room.

And just because the movies have been realistic, doesn't mean Nolan has to continue. Sure, there's got to be some believability... but as stated above, there's way for a little wiggle room.

Let's not forget the complete bastardizations of Physics in those movies, if we really want to be talking about realism.

In any case, at this point I have enough confidence in Nolan that he can take just about any character and make it work. For this reason, I lack a preference as to which Batman villain comes up next.

Meister · 12-03-2008, 01:42 PM

Clayface is a bit far-fetched in the Nolan universe but hey.

Man-Bat.

Other than that I like that Nolan, unlike other directors, doesn't immediately go "oh, of course we're going to make it into a trilogy! I'm already very enthusiastic about it! Did you hear that, producers? Now please let my wife go."

Mirai Gen · 12-03-2008, 01:44 PM

^Agreed.

Here's to hoping he picks the antagonists actors more carefully than playing Wheel Of Celebrities.

Seil · 12-03-2008, 01:46 PM

The neat thing that I will continue to declare about Nolan is that he is a talented writer. Granted, he was given a fleshed out character with a large fan base who were already looking for a decent Batman movie, as well as the freedom to put his own spin on the character because of the many iterations that Batman has gone through; and the ability to bring in big name actors like Bale, Freeman and Neeson allowed him to not only bring in the purists, but the casual movie goer as well.

I'm not saying anything against Nolan here - like I said, he is talented (he was given the tools, and he delivered) - but it drives me nuts the way my brother keeps going "In Nolan We Trust."

Quote:

Other than that I like that Nolan, unlike other directors, doesn't immediately go "oh, of course we're going to make it into a trilogy! I'm already very enthusiastic about it! Did you hear that, producers? Now please let my wife go."

Yeah, good thing Nolan is married to his work.

Lumenskir · 12-03-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Because the Nolan Batman movies have been super realistic.

Quote:

They've been a bit realistic. As realistic as Batman can be.

Hey, you guys need to chill out before someone gets sent to the cooler.

Quote:

I'm not saying anything against Nolan here - like I said, he is talented (he was given the tools, and he delivered) - but it drives me nuts the way my brother keeps going "In Nolan We Trust."

Like they said in the article, it's might be due to the "keep Schumacher the fuck away" mentality that's been bred by one guy (and the associated writers) being responsible for two great franchise movies.

What I have trouble understanding is the "a sequel without Heath Ledger is almost unimaginable" line. Again, unless Joker accounts for 90% of Batman stories, it should be relatively easy to imagine a continuation of the Batman saga that doesn't involve a reused villain.

phil_ · 12-03-2008, 06:20 PM

Do you think he could do Mr. Freeze? I mean, Bruce already has super-tech, so it's not that out there in the "Nolan-verse" for someone to have a cryo-suit, as long as the money comes from somewhere- crime, perhaps? Plus, he has his whole sob story, but now that I think about it, that might not be too important, given that the fans have already heard it.

A new take on Mr. Freeze could be as cool as Ledger's take on the Joker.

But no puns, Jesus.

12-03-2008, 12:54 PM	#11
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Clayface could fit into the Nolanverse as long as they went with the Arkham Asylum version, which is where Clayface's power is to suffer from a horribly painful and disgusting skin condition similar to leprosy. So no, you're right, he won't be in a Nolan movie. Rutger Hauer's character fits the backstory but it would be kind of farfetched to expect someone that old to be a match for Batman, even with guns. __________________ The Valiant Review

12-03-2008, 01:44 PM	#17
Mirai Gen We are Geth. Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 14,032	^Agreed. Here's to hoping he picks the antagonists actors more carefully than playing Wheel Of Celebrities. __________________

12-03-2008, 06:20 PM	#20
phil_ Just sleeping Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: At home, probably in bed. Posts: 6,482	Do you think he could do Mr. Freeze? I mean, Bruce already has super-tech, so it's not that out there in the "Nolan-verse" for someone to have a cryo-suit, as long as the money comes from somewhere- crime, perhaps? Plus, he has his whole sob story, but now that I think about it, that might not be too important, given that the fans have already heard it. A new take on Mr. Freeze could be as cool as Ledger's take on the Joker. But no puns, Jesus. __________________ Be T-Rexcellent to each other, tako.

12-03-2008, 01:11 PM	#12
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Why does it have to be so realistic? Sure, the newer Batman movies are dark and gritty, but the only villains that have been done are realistic, or semi-realistic. Two Face makes sense because it's a deformity, Joker because he's just insane, Ra's because Batman needs both a mentor and an antagonist and Scarecrow has a fancy mask and drugs. These guys are all realistic, sure - but why does Nolan have to define his Gotham as realistic? He's writing about a character who dresses up like an anthropomorphic bat to fight crime - in the first movie to save his hometown from ninja and in the second from the mob. That being said, Bane could totally work. If you can pull of Scarecrow's fear gas, you can pull of Bane's venom. And Bane... what - broke all the criminals out of Arkham and waited until Batman rounded them all up? What did Ra's do? Break all the inmates out of Arkham? Oh, and hey - a comic called "The Resurrection Of Ra's Al Ghul?" So... Ra's and Talia are available now? Clayface could work. Disguise artist.

12-03-2008, 01:26 PM	#14
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	They've been a bit realistic. As realistic as Batman can be. When you have a supposedly immortal ninja master riding a subway with a stolen microwave emitter causing panic inducing vapor to cause everyone in town to go batshit and kill each other, then you have to imagine that there's a little wiggle room. And just because the movies have been realistic, doesn't mean Nolan has to continue. Sure, there's got to be some believability... but as stated above, there's way for a little wiggle room.

12-03-2008, 01:42 PM	#16
Meister Pure joy Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 10,689	Clayface is a bit far-fetched in the Nolan universe but hey. Man-Bat. Other than that I like that Nolan, unlike other directors, doesn't immediately go "oh, of course we're going to make it into a trilogy! I'm already very enthusiastic about it! Did you hear that, producers? Now please let my wife go."