I find it completely and utterly dumbfounding anyone would have the stones to question Bale on a casting decision in a Batman movie after creating the two greatest comic movies of all time, and the massive luls that resulted after the Ledger choice.

I wouldn't ever question Bale after his hearing his rants even if he tried to convince me he casted the last to b-mans.

Or it turns out the Joker has massive insomnia, so he has Harley Quinn, played by Mary-Kate Olson, bring him some sleeping pills, which got him through the events of Dark Knight but then led to an accidental overdose while staying at Arkham.

nailed it in 08

I watched Bronson last night. Whatever Nolan comes up with, Hardy will likely be awesome.

I will have to agree with Phil on this. I'm 30 yrs old and I remember watching the cartoon show quite a bit and when they said Ra's al Ghul I had to try hard to remember who he was. I remembered Scarecrow, but I didn't remember Ghul. Who knows , maybe I just didn't see any episodes with him or his daughter in it.

I think Hathaway is a fine choice for the movie and she is a good actress and quite attractive, but I don't understand why anybody is using Havoc as any sort of proof that she is a "vixen". Sure, her nude scenes were very bonerific, but her acting was terrible and that movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. It was so bad it went straight to DVD.

That gives Joker a weakness and simultaneously mirrors reality just a little too closely.

The Joker wont be in the next movie.

If Ledger were still alive, the Joker still wouldn't be in the next movie (well, maybe a cameo like Cillian Murphy in TDK, but that's it).

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Penguin would be awesome.

not sure if serious

that's nonsense. a few years ago would you have said "pity there are only ever going to be 2 batman films worth talking about?" people make movies in the future. sometimes they are good. in a decade or two someone will come along and make more batman movies and you'll probably think they're great. i also don't see any great reason to assume that if aranofsky did batman it wouldn't be good, but that's actually totally not the point.

if the idea is to use a character just so that they can do whatever they want with it and have it have nothing to do with the comic book character, they can invent a new character. the bane character, in far fewer appearances than many others, is still a massively important batman villain.

not checking right now but i'm pretty sure they were talking about hotness, and i don't think that most people would argue that Halle Berry is hot.

to be fair i was skimming this and thought dids' idiotic statement was yours and yours his. in this one you're mostly right and he's mostly wrong. with respect to why they are rebooting spiderman, what are you, ****ing stupid? people will pay tons of money to see the movies and thereby the studio will make lots of money. it's not that complicated. spiderman is one of, if not the, best known and most popular superhero of all time, so it would be more surprising if they didn't reboot it at this point.

bringing back scarecrow again would be horrible at this point. they've done his bit, twice, and it wouldn't be interesting at all. the only way in which using him again would bmake sense is if they worked the bane organizing the other villains angle, but there aren't enough villains in this universe to work with that.

the larger point is that people who will go because the movie has batman in it or because it's big and has explosions don't care who the villain is, fine. but basically you're saying the only batman villains you had previously heard about were joker catwoman and penguin, or something like that. maybe we'll stretch and say you've seen all the older movies that were awful, or the old tv show? i don't know. i'm guessing that a ton of people have seen either the older animated show or the new one or read the comic books, and while that might not represent the majority of the viewers of a movie, it's a part that will feel slightly alienated if you just take a character, say "mr freeze" and he's only called that because he has blue eyes and is mean, or something like that.

i agree that they shouldn't be limited to joker/twoface/riddler/freeze/catwoman, and i thought ra's was a very good choice, but note that they didn't "just do whatever they wanted" with the character at all, nor with twoface or the joker. i would appreciate never seeing, say, the ventriloquist in a movie, as well!

anyway, my point is that the idea of using existing characters that are little known because then you can do whatever you want is both stupid AND inconsistent with what nolan has done thus far. that, and that even if nolan decided to do that, which he has proven he is unlikely to, he would do so knowing that there's actually a huge number of people who know who the major canonical batman villains are (and yes, bane is in that group).

someone has the hots for phil

That's ridiculous. There would be, at the least, a long and awesome one-scene cameo (more substantial than Scarecrow). I don't even know if Nolan would have a choice in the matter (except to walk away entirely); the studio would be irresponsible to not demand it. The only way it wouldn't happen is if Ledger wouldn't do it, which is certainly a possibility but seems unlikely given the money involved.

It would be worth paying him $30 million just for that moment in the trailer where they show us his return. Theaters would go ****ing bananas, hype would be unreal.

You wouldn't want to see Nolan handle a ventriloquist's dummy? Are you crazy?

IN NOLAN WE TRUST.