Thought I heard something about Black Mask being a villain in the next flick (after TDK). Maybe Hall is playing him to set up the next one?

That'd be sweet. I like Black Mask, though in a lot of his appearances he comes off as a less-crazy, more-gangsterised Joker. :-\ Always making wisecracks and stuff, but not to the extent Joker does.

*liked Black Mask.

still highly doubt someone like that being used when Penguin, Riddler and various others are still untapped

I'd like to see Two Face set up for a main villian role in 3. Maybe have him roll with another minor villian or even better, Perhaps Penguin as rival/ally mobster.
Penguin would be nice to see set up in 2 or 3 as a straight up mob boss who sticks around for most of the movies.

After that I'd like to see perhaps Riddler team up with Scarecrow to drive the bat/city insane.

Somewhere in the trilogy it'd be nice to see Bane or Killer Croc implemented as a badass to lock horns with Batman on behalf of a more cowardly or physically inadequate main villian.

After that, you'd be at 4 movies and the chances are slim of Nolan and Bale sticking around, same with MIchael Caine and Freeman.
So you'd probably have the series continued, hopefully more successfully and seemlessly than in the 90s.
You'd still have Freeze which could be done well if done the right way, and a few other good villians. All of them have to be done realistically and within the Nolan vision though.

I think Catwoman and Robin are better left out of this interpretation, for a change. However those are 2 characters WB is going to push for hard.

They probably won't do Penguin. Nolan has said he doesn't feel the character fits in with the more "real" take on Batman they're doing. But, never say never. :-\

I swear to God if they put Catwoman in this interpretation, I WILL murder somebody. Because Catwoman would almost literally HAVE to be Halle Berry...and God was that movie awful :'(

Why?

I'd love to see Catwoman make an appearance.

Why would Catwoman HAVE to be Halle Berry? We're talking about a comic book movie here, the Batman franchise nonetheless. Recasting and new interpretations of a role/character are not only normal, they're expected.

You're getting into Spiderman 3 territory with the number of names being thrown around here. Why is 1 villain per film never enough? (that's rhetorical btw, not directed to you per se)

I dont mind when its One major villian and some minor villians...well I shouldnt say minor villians, but lets say under-villians.

Batman Begins had Ras as the main villian while Scarecrow and Falcone were the under-villians in the movie.

Problem with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin was that they tried to make too many people the main Villian and you cant' really focus the story well enough.

Dark Knight will obviously feature the Joker as the main villian, but its not bad to have Scarecrow still running around and interfering or someone else similiar to him.

Yeah, as long as the villains aren't too numerous, a hierarchal deal is perfectly fine.

Traditionally, yes I do prefer the one villian per movie deal. However Batman Begins had 2 or 3 villians and a higherarchal deal. If you're setting up various mob bosses and players throughout the series, while focusing on one or a duo of villians, it works fine.
Batman Begins had Ras and Scarecrow, so you can't really fault the inclusion of multiple villians in following sequels until you see it play out.

For instance, you have Scarecrow set up and still out there.
Joker wil be the focus of 2, with Two Face being set up.
If you focus on Two Face and another small pawn in 3 that will be fine.
Come time for 4, you can focus solely on The Riddler.

However, this whole time that doesn't mean you can't setup Penguin as a recurring arms dealer/mob boss supporting character and player throughout the series. You can also use the whole mobster higherachy like they did with Falcone. It also doesn't mean you can't fit in lesser characters where the plot calls for it. I wouldn't like to see them forced like they have been in other comic movies, but I don't see the flaw in using a strongman asskciker like Bane at some point. He doesn't carry much baggage if you're just using him as a right hand man or a mercenary type called in to beat Batman's ass.

Catwoman and Robin, that's the real baggage that needs to be left out. Even though Catwoman was done pretty well in Burton's continuity, it would clog things up here. Same goes for Robin. Villians running rampant and forming alliances makes sense, but it's when you have more than one protagonist and a handful of heroes that things get confusing and crowded. Batman having his identity known and his career shared with Alfred and Lucius Fox is enough. Plus he's got Gordon as a crime fighting ally. Even Rachel Dawes knowing his identity so carelessly seems a bit much, though I don't mind it.

Catwoman would be awesome as a semi-regular foe.

One nice thing about the Batman Begins movie was the villains he fought. They were not really well known to casual fans. I don't know if they plan on introducing hardly known characters like this again, but I think it's a fresh idea. Of course you gotta have Joker, but yeah 'hardly knowns' would be a nice trend.

Ras was a hardly known, but Scarecrow was next in the order of villians to be used by WB. He was slated to be the villian for the 5th movie, and he's pretty well known.

Now you have Joker and Two Face up next, so I think they're gonna go with the usual suspects for the msot part. Which ones and in what order is the question.

Ras has been around for a while, and in more recent comics has aparently become his primary rival. I don't know, haven't picked up a Batman comic since the Dark Knight series broughtiin Robin, but....

Yeah, but you have to remember that that movie didnt come out so long ago...and while the character changing and shit is normal to comic book fans, regular movie goers would be like "well, I thought Catwoman was Halle Berry :?:" I would be totally for a change, but WB might be looking for some kind of continuity....

who knows

not really. You have Rachel Dawes character being recast within the franchise. Plus this is a new franchise, and with every new franchise you have a new interpretation, just like with Batman and all the other characters. Catwoman is like Batman, she's been played by so many actresses that it doesnt matter. That's like saying Casino Royale would be confusing to people if Peirce Brosnan wasn't in it.

Dave, I don't think you are giving the general moviegoing public enough credit.

plus I highly doubt anyone associates Halle Berry with the character or remembers that peice of trash. Michelle Pfeifer played Catwoman with much more success and recognition just years before, and she was following in the footsteps of Ertha Kitt and those 2 other bitches. People don't need to see the same actor in the role because it's a role that isn't owned by the actor. You have to have the same actor for say...Han Solo, or Jack Sparrow, or The Terminator.
Batman, Catwoman, The Joker, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Hamlet etc etc etc...those are different.

:lol: :|

I would kill for an update of Mr. Freeze. Get someone like John Malkovich, put him in armour ala Batman: TAS, and give him the same so-calm-its-terrifying demeanour. Really play on the emotion of his wife's condition and the tragedy of the character. I think it could be pulled off far better than Schumacer's camp-fest interpretation. "Ice to meet you", indeed.

Honestly, the Governator's Mr. Freeze was one of the few things I liked from that multi-million dollar attack on comic fans.

Clayface would be cool, but might be viewed as a bit "Sandman-esque" in light of Spider-Man 3.

I mean...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-Clayface2.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dman_punch.jpg

Really? I hated it. Watching both Super Friends and later Batman: TAS growing up, I always preferred the latter interpretation of Mr. Freeze. I dunno, the campy pun-spewing version just never did anything for me. :-\

You're not sending me to the cooler!

What killed the dinosaurs?








THE ICE AGE!!

I might have said this in this thread on some other page, but anyway...

Batman the Animated Series version of Mr. Freeze could be pretty kick ass in a movie.

absolutely. I always thought Ben Kingsley would make a great Freeze

It just better kick ass.

Or maybe it's because I said it, 6 posts above this one.

Yeah I did see that actually, which is what made me think to say it again.

I have to say: Anything NOT the B&R ersion of Mister Freeze>The B&R Version.

Even the gay ass Batman 70s show.

But the Cartoon's take on Freeze would be pretty cool.

Considering that even the over-the-top shit is more down to earth in this series so far, though....

Couple of small production pics. You get see the Joker (blurrily) in the 2nd pic.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32816

They really don't seem to care much about keeping a lid on the Joker, do they?

Honestly, in today's day and age where even the most well-guarded secret leaks it's way onto the internet, why expend the effort?

I sure hope that they don't go too over the top with the look of the villains. In the first movie it was gritty and not so... I hate to say campy, but that's sort of the word that comes to mind. I guess I'd like 'my' Batman to be more mature and believable.

Would you say the Nicholson version of the Joker was campy?

you will only get the Joker so realistic to a point. You cannot totally rework the character where he is losing the traits that make him so recognizable. Hopefully the performance will be menacing enough for you not to feel like it is campy.

Nah the Nicholson Joker was not campy at all. I was referring to the pictures in the link that was posted here. That worries me a little. That plus the fact the villains in the later Batman movies the last time around became over the top in their campness as that series progressed.