Being the nerd that I am, I just happened to browse IMDb yesterday for the latest news on the Christopher Nolan's latest Batman movie. Upon perusing the latest articles concerning the movie, I realized that Nolan had dropped some very important information concerning the follow-up to 2008's The Dark Knight. So let's get these two big bombshells out of the way, shall we?
First of all, the film will be called The Dark Knight Rises. It's a clever name, continuing the concept of leaving the name "Batman" out of the title that began with the last film in the Nolan's rebooted franchise. Frankly, it's a much better name than I would've thought. Also, while Batman is often called "The Dark Knight," in the comic books, the last film dealt with Batman as the "dark knight" in contrast to Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Gotham City District Attorney, as the "white knight." So it's likely that this title will be indicative of the themes involved in this latest installment.
Second, contrary to the prevailing wisdom and the general consensus of the fanboy rumor mill, the Riddler will not be featured as the villain this time. There has, however, been recurring speculation that Catwoman/Selina Kyle will be the main villain. Rumors of possible casting choices for such a role have included Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, and even Cher! And while Nolan is reportedly in the market for a female lead, it's possible that this may only be a love interest for Bruce Wayne, filling the void left by Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes/Maggie Gyllenhaal).
This opens wide the floodgates of speculation as to who the villain may actually be. So far, Nolan has ruled out the possibility of the Joker, the Riddler, the Penguin and Mr. Freeze. Two-Face, Ra'as Al Ghul, Scarecrow, and the Joker have already been used. So who's left? Considering that Ra's Al Ghul has already been introduced to the franchise, it's possible that his daughter, Talia Al Ghul could be the female role that Nolan is looking to cast. Of course, I suppose the same could be true for Harley Quinn. Although, I personally think that Nolan would find the former more appealing than the latter.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - NancyGail
First group of villains been done for three of them. Joker twice. Heath Ledger won posthumous Oscar for his work. Highly doubt anybody would be cast for the role after that.
2 - Ian
Why do people keep saying Bane is to unrealistic? I mean there are guys in prison who can power lift up to 600 pounds, think about if one of them took steroids...if that isn't good enough for a hardcore Bane fan then have him take false adrenalin before a fight.
3 - Invisible_Jester25
Too unrealistic? Let's recap - Nolan's so far done Scarecrow (whose toxin was made realistic by tying it to a rare flower, but that's still kind of stretching it in my opinion), Ra's (which he blended with Ducard, as someone pointed out, and didn't mention the Lazarus pit thing), and Joker, which he made realistic by giving him a Glasgow grin and make-up instead of the chemical dye treatment.
Personally, I think you could easily make Bane realistic, if you made him a hardcore Steroid/illicit performance-enhancing drug user, possibly tying it into being a drug of Scarecrow's creation if you REALLY wanted to tie things together. I think Killer Croc could also be 'realized' if - and I'm loathe to say this because I know how controversial this GN was for Joker fans - you did something like how he was portrayed in "Joker". Nolan's stretched the 'truth' of the Batverse before; that's what he's been doing this whole time, after all.
I am slightly disappointed the Riddler's not going to be in it, though. I'd have loved to see him more as a Zodiac Killer type of villain, setting people up and then mocking Batman and the police for not being fast enough to stop him...
... Of course, maybe Nolan's trying to cast red herrings at us. You never know. ;)