Anne Hathaway Cast As Selina Kyle, Tom Hardy Cast As Bane In TDKR

Cool stuff about anne screen test. Really can't wait to see how she is as selina. As for robin williams oh well would have made a interesting strange.

Apologist Puncher wrote:So, will Nolan "flip the script" and use a LOT of CGI in TDK? Because I don't see how you make a 5'10 (And that's being generous) Tom Hardy:



Look like a 6'8 Bane without it:



Nolan either "destroys" his "realism before faithfulness" take, or we get a VERY underwhelming and not quite so intimidating Bane in his next film.

I don't see any middle-ground.

This is how it always goes when casting gigantic, musclebound characters- either cast a smaller actor, bulk him up to a respectable size and accept he'll be shorter than usually perceived, or cast a wrestler who can't act.

I think we have Arnold Schwarzenegger to thank for the brainbug that the biggest=the strongest. But I was reading about the insane feats of strength Jack Lallane was capable of- he was insanely ripped, but he was not quite bodybuilder size(at least by current standards), not even when:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne#Timeline:_LaLanne.27s_feats

The point? We're probably going to just get an insanely strong Bane who may be made to look a little over 6'. But he doesn't need to be the size of that picture to be able to break someone in half. The only problem is that audiences are conditioned to expect someone to be Arnold-huge to be able to pull off those feats of strength. That's part of the reason people think the new Conan the Barbarian is "scrawny:"



Even though bodybuilding is about appearance, not strength:

http://www.shawnlebrunfitness.com/build-muscle/bodybuilding.html

Bodybuilding is not aimed at increasing strength, flexibility, endurance, speed or other athletic factors as ends in themselves. In bodybuilding, these performance qualities are only sought to the extent to which they help the bodybuilder look better onstage.

A good way to fight this perception is to make Bane less of a monolith and have him be as fast as he is strong- like conan is supposed to be, coincidentally enough. meaning- he throws Batman across a room, and sprints after him to start his next attack.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have made this post if Jack Lalanne hadn't just died and I had read about all those feats. And I will cop to the fact that sometimes you have to play to expectations in movies, especially with visuals.

Welcome aboard, Earl.

Some interesting thought earl.

Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:This is how it always goes when casting gigantic, musclebound characters- either cast a smaller actor, bulk him up to a respectable size and accept he'll be shorter than usually perceived, or cast a wrestler who can't act.

I disagree. Did you see Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV?

He was intimidating, muscle-bound, and played his part well. Sly cast him specifically because he fit the character he had written.

Casting the actor to fit the character is much better than trying to change the character to fit the actor.

I think we have Arnold Schwarzenegger to thank for the brainbug that the biggest=the strongest. But I was reading about the insane feats of strength Jack Lallane was capable of- he was insanely ripped, but he was not quite bodybuilder size(at least by current standards), not even when:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne#Timeline:_LaLanne.27s_feats

Actually, take a look at this picture of a young Jack Lalanne:

The guy was NO flyweight, and it showed.

The point? We're probably going to just get an insanely strong Bane who may be made to look a little over 6'. But he doesn't need to be the size of that picture to be able to break someone in half. The only problem is that audiences are conditioned to expect someone to be Arnold-huge to be able to pull off those feats of strength. That's part of the reason people think the new Conan the Barbarian is "scrawny:"

Fixed a new picture for you. The other one wasn't showing.

I wouldn't call the guy "scrawny", but having seen this guy's pics before, I have zero interest in seeing the Conan reboot.

Even though bodybuilding is about appearance, not strength:

http://www.shawnlebrunfitness.com/build-muscle/bodybuilding.html

Bodybuilding is not aimed at increasing strength, flexibility, endurance, speed or other athletic factors as ends in themselves. In bodybuilding, these performance qualities are only sought to the extent to which they help the bodybuilder look better onstage.

Well, as someone who does a bit of working out, you are half right.

I have seen bodybuilders bench pressing 400+lbs during their "bulking" phase. The best way to bulk is to lift heavy weights for less reps. Once they enter the "cutting" phase, then it becomes about less weight for more reps.

Bodybuilding IS about look, not ONLY strength.

I can leg-press 1,200lbs. Just thought I'd throw that out there....

A good way to fight this perception is to make Bane less of a monolith and have him be as fast as he is strong- like conan is supposed to be, coincidentally enough. meaning- he throws Batman across a room, and sprints after him to start his next attack.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have made this post if Jack Lalanne hadn't just died and I had read about all those feats. And I will cop to the fact that sometimes you have to play to expectations in movies, especially with visuals.

I would be disappointed in a "scrappy" Bane, to be honest. But I'm not making the movie, so it's not really up to me.

Welcome to The Watchdog.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Casting the actor to fit the character is much better than trying to change the character to fit the actor.

Would you mind e-mailing that to Bryan Singer?

Or does it even matter anymore?

thecolorsblend wrote:Would you mind e-mailing that to Bryan Singer?

Or does it even matter anymore?

Bryan who?

Selina Kyle "in action" pics:

WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com

Just saw these photos of catwoman and batman on site from cbm from just jared:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/debbiedowner/news/?a=47015

Well its nice to know she isnt just sporting those odd looking goggles for the full film. Though just having eye cowl and the odd ear attachment on top of head looks a bit odd. I would have perfered to seen a full/half face cowl sorta a bit like michelle piffer(spelling?) catwoman had.

She is really, really pale. And Christian Bale seems to be doing a


"Ha Cha-Cha-Chaaaa!"

In every picture.

Ya she does look it a bit, and ya i wonder what was up with bale, i guess someone was cracking jokes or something to lighten things up on set.

Well they did say that she'll eventually start looking like Catwoman traditional wise as the film progresses although I was expecting more from the current comics rather than a take from the Batman 60's series! But on a lighter note aleast the masses won't complain about her not sporting a mask and cat ears!

Ya I rqather have gone with modern catwomen look compared to a more julie namore(spelling 60s batman catwoman).

Maybe I'm missing something here but how is this not the modern Catwoman outfit? She's got a mask rather than those gay ass aviator goggles. Big deal. Otherwise, the body suit looks more like the modern comics version (minus the gratuitous boobage, I guess) rather than the sequined thing from the 60's show.

Well for me I would have liked a more complete head cowl with goggles then just the mask/goggles deal and whole head expose.

A few more:
WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com





Does Bale's Batman have the same gloves as the "Batman" in the comics now has?:




There's more at the link.

More pictures here:

WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com

I'd post them, but no one seems to give a shit.

I don't think it's necessarily that or like you said in your PM. I think sometimes it's just getting caught up in other things, i.e., work, family, bills, etc. Sometimes I do just read & leave, especially if I'm pressed for time. Other times I make lengthy posts. It depends. Sometimes there's a dry spell in news, even the Superman reboot. I think there was an initial outpouring of response a few weeks ago but now? Maybe things have died down a bit? But watch & see. There will be some new major development & it'll bust wide open again.

I've been here some nights & no one seemed to be online, especially on the weekend but sometimes even a night like Tuesday. Other nights there might be half a dozen of us online at the same time. I know it seems dead sometimes. However, please don't say you're giving up on the site?! I know we don't rival the membership numbers of, say, duh Homopage, but I certainly think it's more unbiased around here & we do seem to be picking up new members here & there (bots don't count) so the site must be generating some interest.

i am same way too non. its all about the day/time i have. some days i may be on for awhile at different points in day/evenings. Others maybe for a short moment of time if i got a free min.

non_amos wrote:I don't think it's necessarily that or like you said in your PM. I think sometimes it's just getting caught up in other things, i.e., work, family, bills, etc. Sometimes I do just read & leave, especially if I'm pressed for time. Other times I make lengthy posts. It depends. Sometimes there's a dry spell in news, even the Superman reboot. I think there was an initial outpouring of response a few weeks ago but now? Maybe things have died down a bit? But watch & see. There will be some new major development & it'll bust wide open again.

I've been here some nights & no one seemed to be online, especially on the weekend but sometimes even a night like Tuesday. Other nights there might be half a dozen of us online at the same time. I know it seems dead sometimes. However, please don't say you're giving up on the site?! I know we don't rival the membership numbers of, say, duh Homopage, but I certainly think it's more unbiased around here & we do seem to be picking up new members here & there (bots don't count) so the site must be generating some interest.

Yeah, that. And the other thing is that 10 or 15 years ago, perhaps the primary metric of a given forum's success was number of members or what have you. But these days, when message boards are a dime a dozen and nobody gives a shit, I think it's more quality than quantity. With an exception or two, I think the members here are mostly rock solid. Don't always agree on everything but all that proves is that we're not a homogenized group ruled over by a single asshole dictator (*cough*Eunuch*cough*).

And at least for me, I look back at my past several posts and it seems I whine and complain almost non-stop. I dig on a lot of Marvel comics right now but my posts in general? Kind of a downer. I don't want to be seen as or thought of a big complainer all the time so I'm trying to temper that stuff... which sometimes means just shutting up.

Take Catwoman's costume for example. It's vaguely like the modern comics, minus the faggoty goggles (which I'm happy to see skipped over here). Frankly, it's a lot more cat-like than anything I would've ever expected from Nolan. That doesn't excuse The Hulking 190 lb "Bane" but at least there's a more tangible cat-motif to the thing.

So yeah...

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=51990

Anne Hathaway Talks THE DARK KNIGHT RISES; Plus Scene Description

On Catwoman's costume:

“I love the costume, because everything has a purpose, nothing is in place for fantasy’s sake, and that’s the case with everything in Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City.”

On Gotham City:

“Gotham City is full of grace. You look at Heath’s performance as the Joker, there was a lot of madness there but there was also a grace and he had a code there. There’s a lot of belief and codes of behavior in Gotham and my character has one, too. A lot of the way she moves and interacts with people is informed by her worldview. Chris has given us all such complex, defined, sophisticated worldviews that it’s just a matter of doing your homework and getting underneath the character’s skin.”

On getting in to comics after she got the part:

“I really got into the comics after I was cast and I like that when she made her first appearance she meets Bruce Wayne and says ‘Let go of me or I’ll claw your eyes out,’ and he says, ‘Careful, claws in or papa spank,’” Hathaway said. “So I’m glad we’ve come a long way since then. I’m not saying anything against Bob Kane, though.”

On How she used Hedy Lamarr's (Bob Kane's inspiration for Catwoman) work to help her:

“I know this sounds odd, but her breathing is extraordinary. She takes these long, deep, languid breaths and exhales slowly. There’s a shot of her in [the 1933 film] ‘Ecstasy’ exhaling a cigarette and I took probably five breaths during her one exhale. So I started working on my breathing a lot.”

On how other interpretations of the character have affected her performance:

“What’s come before doesn’t limit or even affect this new version. It doesn’t affect me because each Catwoman, and this is true in the comics as well, she is defined by the context of the Gotham City created around her. Catwoman is so influenced by Gotham and whoever is creating Gotham at the time. Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman was informed by Tim Burton’s Gotham and Eartha Kitt was informed by Adam West’s Gotham. You have to live in whatever the reality of the world is and whatever Gotham is.”

Hero complex also offers up this scene description from the movie that will feature Hathaway as Catwoman. This also confirms just exactly what those goggles on her head are for.WARNING this small paragraph does contain some spoilers from the film so make your way past the photo if you want to read it.

Spoiler:

Some nice comments from anne

Anne Hathaway wrote:I love the costume, because everything has a purpose, nothing is in place for fantasy’s sake, and that’s the case with everything in Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City.

No shit...

This statement kind of perplexes me:

"You look at Heath’s performance as the Joker, there was a lot of madness there but there was also a grace and he had a code there. There’s a lot of belief and codes of behavior in Gotham and my character has one, too."

Did she even see 'The Dark Knight'? Wasn't the whole POINT of the Joker that he had NO "code"? No "rules"?

Apologist Puncher wrote:Did she even see 'The Dark Knight'? Wasn't the whole POINT of the Joker that he had NO "code"? No "rules"?

Makes you wonder, don't it?