I was more referring to how his face ballooned up.
The Dark Knight Rises Anticipation Station
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I was more referring to how his face ballooned up.
Hardy has admitted to cheating while bodybuilding.
Which he said was "eating lots of chocolate".
Try it kids! and you can look like that too!
The 1/2 brother who's never gotten the respect he deserves.Wait, who's Dart Vader??
He's been bulky ever since Bronson, really.
He didn't look as bulky in Inception as he did in Bronson, which was a few years prior. But whatevers.
Timby's point, though, is that Tom Hardy has remained pretty bulky ever since Bronson verses reverting back to his pre-Bronson physique (see Star Trek Nemesis, The Reckoning, Layer Cake).
Yes he's a big guy. Let's just leave it at that.
I'm still waiting to find out who Dart Vader is. The suspense is killing me!!
Someone you don't want to mess with in the pub.
Haha.
Okay, enough shenanigans and tomfoolery, let's talk about what we know about this movie so far:
Pros (why "The Dark Knight Rises" might be good)
1) It's written and directed by the same team that did "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", which, despite their problems, were quite good overall.
2) "The Dark Knight" was an improvement over its predecessor, so apparently Nolan learned from some of his mistakes in the first movie. It stands to reason that he learned from the mistakes in the second movie as well and this one could therefore be even better.
3) Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are terrific actors, and Anne Hathaway certainly can be a very good actress, as evidenced by her work in "Rachel Getting Married". Since Hardy and Levitt are rising stars like Ledger was going into "The Dark Knight", there's a strong chance we'll see them step up their game and give incredible performances in the movie, as Ledger did when given a similar opportunity.
4) Catwoman is an inherently great character and therefore pretty hard to screw up. The 2004 movie proved that it can be screwed up, but Christopher Nolan is obviously immeasurably more talented than the people behind that debacle, so there's no chance he'll repeat their blunders.
Cons (why "The Dark Knight Rises" could be disappointing)
1) Bane is an okay villain, but... I don't think he's as interesting as The Joker and some of the other villains Nolan thought were too campy for his franchise (i.e. The Penguin, The Riddler, Mr. Freeze).
- Here's are my two biggest concerns, both related to women, which I bet most fans will disagree with me about:
2) I don't think Nolan has done a good job with female characters in most of his movies. (I can't remember all the character names, so I'll refer to actors) - In "Memento", Guy Pearce is supposedly doing everything he does for his wife, who is dead and only seen in flashbacks. The Carrie-Anne Moss character is a manipulator with some nice nasty one-liners and that's all. In "The Prestige", Jackman is doing everything he does for his wife, who is dead. Christian Bale's wife has a few nice tender lines with him, but is mostly a non-presence. In "Insomnia", Hilary Swank is Pacino's sidekick, as he pursues Williams. She's basically a stereotype of a plucky, earnest young cop. In "Inception", Dicaprio is doing everything he does because of his wife, who is dead, but motivating him through flashbacks and fantasies. Come to think of it, most of Nolan's movies are about conflicts between men, with the women having very little to do beyond being vague motivators.
3) Batman has never ever had a good love interest in live action (no, not even in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm") - In every single one of the Batman movies, I felt the love interest was unnaturally forced into the story and never convincingly portrayed as a three-dimensional character who organically comes into Bruce Wayne's life. Nolan tried harder than any previous director to develop a deeper relationship between Batman and a girl, but while I appreciated his effort, I don't think he quite succeeded.
In the first movie she was mostly just a vessel for exposition and in the second she was more of a plot device to get Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne/Batman into conflict with each other. And for much of both movies, she was just a glorified damsel in distress. Like the women in Nolan's other movies, Rachel was far from a fully realized individual. Only the men fit that description, which leads me to wonder if he just can't write strong female roles. It sounds like "The Dark Knight Rises" is his greatest test of that and should prove definitively whether he can or can't.
Even if Nolan did have a good track record with female roles, I'd be worried about the two female characters because as I said, I don't think Batman and girls have ever been a good mix. I don't think he's ever had believable chemistry with any girl he's been paired with romantically, and I wouldn't just blame actors and writers of Batman movies for that.
I just think Batman is too much of a psychologically damaged loner for that stuff. The women in his movies seemed to be there mostly because the studio insisted on them so the movie wouldn't just be a sausage fest. Unlike Superman, Spider-Man, or even Daredevil, Batman just doesn't work with a romance. Him having some flirtation with Catwoman and having arm candy to play up his Bruce Wayne persona is fine, but I've never been able to buy him seriously falling in love.
4) On a more trivial note, I've never seen an interview where Bale admits he went overboard with the Batman voice, which suggests to me he'll be doing the same nonsense with it again instead of toning it down like he should.
I know it's not a huge deal and we can easily enjoy the movie in spite of it, but it's still an annoyance that would work against the movie's overall success.
Pros (why "The Dark Knight Rises" might be good)
1) It's written and directed by the same team that did "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", which, despite their problems, were quite good overall.
2) "The Dark Knight" was an improvement over its predecessor, so apparently Nolan learned from some of his mistakes in the first movie. It stands to reason that he learned from the mistakes in the second movie as well and this one could therefore be even better.
3) Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are terrific actors, and Anne Hathaway certainly can be a very good actress, as evidenced by her work in "Rachel Getting Married". Since Hardy and Levitt are rising stars like Ledger was going into "The Dark Knight", there's a strong chance we'll see them step up their game and give incredible performances in the movie, as Ledger did when given a similar opportunity.
4) Catwoman is an inherently great character and therefore pretty hard to screw up. The 2004 movie proved that it can be screwed up, but Christopher Nolan is obviously immeasurably more talented than the people behind that debacle, so there's no chance he'll repeat their blunders.
Cons (why "The Dark Knight Rises" could be disappointing)
1) Bane is an okay villain, but... I don't think he's as interesting as The Joker and some of the other villains Nolan thought were too campy for his franchise (i.e. The Penguin, The Riddler, Mr. Freeze).
- Here's are my two biggest concerns, both related to women, which I bet most fans will disagree with me about:
2) I don't think Nolan has done a good job with female characters in most of his movies. (I can't remember all the character names, so I'll refer to actors) - In "Memento", Guy Pearce is supposedly doing everything he does for his wife, who is dead and only seen in flashbacks. The Carrie-Anne Moss character is a manipulator with some nice nasty one-liners and that's all. In "The Prestige", Jackman is doing everything he does for his wife, who is dead. Christian Bale's wife has a few nice tender lines with him, but is mostly a non-presence. In "Insomnia", Hilary Swank is Pacino's sidekick, as he pursues Williams. She's basically a stereotype of a plucky, earnest young cop. In "Inception", Dicaprio is doing everything he does because of his wife, who is dead, but motivating him through flashbacks and fantasies. Come to think of it, most of Nolan's movies are about conflicts between men, with the women having very little to do beyond being vague motivators.
3) Batman has never ever had a good love interest in live action (no, not even in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm") - In every single one of the Batman movies, I felt the love interest was unnaturally forced into the story and never convincingly portrayed as a three-dimensional character who organically comes into Bruce Wayne's life. Nolan tried harder than any previous director to develop a deeper relationship between Batman and a girl, but while I appreciated his effort, I don't think he quite succeeded.
In the first movie she was mostly just a vessel for exposition and in the second she was more of a plot device to get Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne/Batman into conflict with each other. And for much of both movies, she was just a glorified damsel in distress. Like the women in Nolan's other movies, Rachel was far from a fully realized individual. Only the men fit that description, which leads me to wonder if he just can't write strong female roles. It sounds like "The Dark Knight Rises" is his greatest test of that and should prove definitively whether he can or can't.
Even if Nolan did have a good track record with female roles, I'd be worried about the two female characters because as I said, I don't think Batman and girls have ever been a good mix. I don't think he's ever had believable chemistry with any girl he's been paired with romantically, and I wouldn't just blame actors and writers of Batman movies for that.
I just think Batman is too much of a psychologically damaged loner for that stuff. The women in his movies seemed to be there mostly because the studio insisted on them so the movie wouldn't just be a sausage fest. Unlike Superman, Spider-Man, or even Daredevil, Batman just doesn't work with a romance. Him having some flirtation with Catwoman and having arm candy to play up his Bruce Wayne persona is fine, but I've never been able to buy him seriously falling in love.
4) On a more trivial note, I've never seen an interview where Bale admits he went overboard with the Batman voice, which suggests to me he'll be doing the same nonsense with it again instead of toning it down like he should.
I know it's not a huge deal and we can easily enjoy the movie in spite of it, but it's still an annoyance that would work against the movie's overall success.
In The Dark Knight it definitely was manipulated in post-production. I'm not sure about Batman Begins. I brought this up in another thread here -- I don't get why Bale is blamed for the Batman voice, since it was done in post-production and wasn't his choice.
Called it.
I haven't actually being paying attention to Dark Knight news like, at all, but I was pretty convinced back when The Dark Knight came out that the next movie would feature Catwoman. Iconic villain, female (now that the series' token girl is dead), contrast to Batman's now less-reputable vigiliante stance...
Wait. Bane?
Do we really need to retread Batman & Robin ground so soon?
I know he apparently has fans from people who read the comics who feel he's an interesting villain, but... eh. I'd rather have the Penguin, but then, if Nolan could make Ra's al-Ghul interesting, I'm sure he has something up his sleeve for this character.
I'd beg to differ here. I liked the Batman/Catwoman stuff in Batman Returns. Actually... I can't off the top of my head think of a superhero movie with a better romance (granted, they almost always tend to be dismal at that so big surprise).*
And while Nolan's track record with female characters may not be replete with Bechdel Moments, I'd say he handled villainous women who have a destructive influence on the male protagonist decently enough, so I figure he has the chops for Catwoman.
Yeah. I'm more worried about the wrestler. What is this, Iron Man 2?
*The Incredibles, on further thought. That's all I've got, though. The Superman movies have been game enough with Lois, but I've never invested in that.
I never realized it was done in post. It always just sounded to me like Bale was intentionally making his voice low and scratchy.
Whether it was altered in post or a conscious decision by Bale and/or a preference dictated by Nolan is irrelevant. The bottom line is, that stupid voice has to go! 
Whether it was altered in post or a conscious decision by Bale and/or a preference dictated by Nolan is irrelevant. The bottom line is, that stupid voice has to go!
This is a valid point.
The character who appeared in Batman & Robin bore no resemblance to the original Bane beyond the name and costume. I expect Nolan's Bane to be closer to the comics version, in which Bane is essentially the anti-Batman, a cunning strategist and chessmaster who studies his enemy and orchestrates a master plan to weaken him physically and psychologically before finally confronting him head-on. Everyone remembers the image of Bane breaking Batman's back over his knee, but what tends to be forgotten is that it was the culmination of a lengthy storyline where Bane arranged a mass breakout from Arkham, studied Batman's technique while watching him fight foe after foe, deduced his secret identity, and finally confronted Batman in his own sanctum when he was completely exhausted. So Bane didn't just break Batman physically, he defeated him intellectually first.
Which would actually fit very well with where Batman currently is in the movie continuity, already on the run from the police and emotionally vulnerable after the events of The Dark Knight. We could get an effective psychological thriller out of this as Bruce/Batman finds himself and everything he's built being systematically torn down by a shadowy mastermind.
So I've been told, but the costume is what I'm worried about. Not a wrestling fan, not interested in Batman battling a wrestler.
And that your summary makes him sound like someone the writers tried way too hard to establish his credibility as a villain doesn't help. However unfair, Heath Ledger's Joker will likely be the barometer given for the film's antagonists, and if they overcompensate with a story like that it could backfire.
So yeah, Bane is going to be hard sell for me. Nolan may be able to make that but I'm not holding my breath. I do hope Catwoman is the more important of the two, in the manner Scarecrow and Two-Face had back seats to Ra's al-Ghul and the Joker.
I'm really curious about what they're going to come up with for the costume, perhaps even more than I was curious to see what Nolan's version of The Joker would look like. Bane doesn't necessarily have to look like a wrestler.
He kinda looks like a mexican wrestler in his debut episode of "Batman: The Animated Series", but then in "The New Batman Adventures", he looks more like the gimp from "Pulp Fiction". Yeah, not much of an improvement.
They've got their work cut out for them to not make him look dumb, but I think it can be done. At least with The Scarecrow they got rid of his silly hat. I didn't like him being in a suit with that burlap sack mask, though. Not every villain needs to be wearing a suit and tie. The Joker, The Penguin, The Riddler, and Two-Face, yes, but not The Scarecrow or Bane.
He should at least give us the novelty of not just being another guy in a suit. I don't know if they'll go with a tanktop, though. Perhaps a 'muscle shirt' with cut sleeves? They've got to show off his arms, right?
Last edited:
