Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JoeZhang, Jul 20, 2013.
Man, Bale's Batman voice is perfect in that audition.
The voice doesn't seem as bad there. More of an intense whisper than an OTT growl. It definitely got worse.
If WB hadn't just approached Affleck like they did then he'd have to audition in Bale's costume.
From the Jimmy Fallon interview they went directly to him without even an audition.
Am I right in thinking that Bale is the only actor to play Batman in the movies (not counting the 1966 one) after an audition? I think Burton had Keaton in mind, while Shumacher seems to have offered the role to Kilmer and Clooney respectively after their predecessors quit or were fired. Affleck, as you say, was offered it, but Bale auditioned, along with a lot of young actors around that time.
Nolan's direction turned Bale's WONDERFUL acting in that test into a cancer-striken, word-eating hooligan.
I guess he does deserve all that directing cred people give him, because that seems fucking impossible.
EDIT: I misheard Nolan's attribution of Bale's two voices as "we" rather than "he", so I posted a petty, unfounded rant about him being a talent-less hack here. Despite it being funny, I regret doing so in err.
Now back to blasting Nolan for things he's actually done, like the third act of TDK and TDKR as a whole. Oh, and managing to completely butt-fuck Bane because Tom Hardy got bored of being in horrible rom-coms and wanted to be in a train-wreck of a Nolan joint.
But you still do auditions in case it doesn't fit. Well, usually you do, to save a lot of money.
^ Oh yeah, I understand that. But it looks like Bale was the only one who had to compete with other actors to land the role.
Here is Cillian Murphy as Batman.
He auditioned for Bruce Wayne/Batman in Batman Begins. Nolan thought he wasn't right for Batman, but decided to offer him Scarecrow instead. Nolan made the right decision, but Murphy doesn't look half-bad in the suit.
If nothing else, that would have made for one very creepy Batman.
I am fairly certain Kilmer's suit was black. It was the lighting that made it look silvery, blue.
Cillian Murphy looks a lot like Val Kilmer. Its not just the mask. In it Bale does not look like him. Its the shape of his face and mouth.
So, the Gotham PD series, set between TDK and TDKR, that was announced some time ago turned out to be a non-starter. But it's now being reported that there may be another Gotham-set cop series, here set at the beginning of the career of its central character, one James Gordon. Now this could be interesting - if the Bat-embargo ever lets it take off.
Going to throw out the obligatory Cranston just because he did such a great job in Year One.
^They're saying this is a young Jim Gordon series. They'll probably find an actor in his 30s.
Yeah, keep Cranston for the movies opposite his Argo co-star Ben Affleck!
I'm all for new DC shows, but... one based around Jim Gordon? I'm just not seeing it.
Unless the writing is really damn good, I can't see people wanting to watch a show set in Gotham that doesn't involve Batman to some degree.
Especially after they already tried that with Birds of Prey.
I don't think that's a good example. That show had a number of more fundamental problems, like trying to do a Burton/Schumacher-style superhero show at a time when that style was starting to give way to something more sophisticated, or evidently being under network pressure to be a Charmed clone rather than just a Batman-family series. (I don't know for sure that such pressure existed, but the show sure felt to me like it was trying to imitate Charmed.) So it's not really evidence that a Gotham-without-Batman show can't work, any more than Elektra or Catwoman is evidence that a female-led superhero movie can't work. A bad (or at least fatally flawed) movie or show doesn't invalidate its whole genre.
I think if any non-hero DC character could anchor a show, Jim Gordon is a likely candidate. He's been a lead character before, in Batman: Year One (which was really more Gordon's story than Batman's) and Gotham Central. He's well-regarded as a heroic figure in his own right, and he's got a memorable narrative as the one honest cop who cleans up the corrupt GCPD.
But on the other hand, it's kind of like having a show about Watson without Holmes. Gordon works best as a counterpart to Batman. And having Gordon take on formative versions of Batman's rogues seems like it could be an awkward idea.
You know what, I take it back. The one DC character I'd most like to see as the star of a solo series is Lois Lane. I think her character has grown to the point where she can stand on her own as a solo heroine without needing Superman to save her all the time (as demonstrated in the great Tales of Metropolis with Lois Lane short on DC Nation), and her adventures as an intrepid reporter could be pretty cool. It might be nice to see a prequel series about how she establishes her reputation as the Daily Planet's star investigator.
I can't think of a character I'm sicker of than Lois Lane.
I am beyond tired of being subjected to a character who embodies more than any other the sad, tired misconception that raging bitch = "strong female role model." I didn't like her in the Golden Age Superman stories (even comics historian Les Daniels admitted that Lois was unrealistically hostile and arrogant with everybody). I HATED her in Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut; I couldn't believe how selfish, thoughtless, and manipulative she was in that, what with trying to blow Clark's cover in front of the entire Planet staff and that stupid "tricked you with blanks" scene" (to be fair, Superman and Jor-El came off pretty reprehensible, too). I loathed the "Superbitch" era of the comics from approximately 1995-2005 where she was emotionally abusive and hateful not only with Clark, but with his female peers, and I found the heavily implied-with-the-subtlety-of-a-sledgehammer-to-the-face fling she had with a slimy ex named Jeb Friedman during and post-"death of Superman" that led into said era to be unforgivable. (Then-artist Ron Frenz gave me an earful of anger over it when I met him at a con a few years back, and Gail Simone spoke out against it once in an interview.) I couldn't stomach DC's alternative tack of having Lois' family hurt and and betray Superman (the Lane family siding with Luthor against him, Sam Lane's blind hatred of Clark on principle) during the times where Lois herself wasn't mistreating him. I found Kate Bosworth's live-action rendition of "Superbitch" Lois to be one of the several flaws that hobbled Superman Returns. And I HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE the insane, psychotic Lois Lane fandom that glorifies and celebrates her antics and viciously trolls fans of other characters/possible love interests. Everything about Lois infuriates me to no end. Even her "best reporter ever" boasts in the Tales of Metropolis shorts grates on me. This character has been so predominantly portrayed as unlikable, insufferable, and self-absorbed that every time she shows up, I tune out.
The only way I'd even think of checking out a Lois-centric series is if they drastically revamped Lois into a genuinely strong, likeable woman. Someone who isn't a mean-spirited, selfish nutjob who thinks the world owes her everything and throws a fit whenever her every whim isn't met. But I don't ever expect that to happen, because the meanness has become too ingrained into Lois' character at this point. And frankly, I just don't have the patience to put up with it anymore.
I liked Amy Adams' Lois very much.
"Don't mince words, Bones. What do you really think?"
Paragraphs. Look into them.
Also, Lois Lane is the most significant fictional female character of the 20th century. She's not a "superbitch" or whatever other nonsense you could stuff into that wall of text.
Separate names with a comma.