Hardy To Play Hugo Strange?

Even before The Dark Knight went into production, we knew exactly who the main villain was going to be. Batman Begins set the film up beautifully and while there was little suspense about the identity, everyone in the world was hungry to see what Christopher Nolan's version of The Joker would be. Unfortunately, The Dark Knight didn't give us any heavy clues of that nature. We've spent years speculating who the Nolan brothers and David S. Goyer would pick as the villain for the next film, titled The Dark Knight Rises. At this stage we know (or at least we think we know) that there will be two villains, one male, one female. Because we have nothing else to go on, we expect that the one with the Y chromosome will be played by Tom Hardy, the most recent addition to the cast. Rumors have been flying around about what character he will play, from Killer Croc to Det. Harvey Bullock. Now yet another villain has entered the arena.

Batman-News has heard from an unnamed source that Hardy will play Prof. Hugo Strange in Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. The article supports the story by saying that the source had identified both Rachel Weisz and Anne Hathaway as possible actresses for the female roles weeks prior to the story that emerged last week, but still makes a point of saying "The following information is a rumor, and should be treated as such." A reality-based character that fits in nicely with Nolan's established universe, Strange is a super-genius who uses his incredible intellect for a life of crime. One of the more interesting aspects of the character in the comics is that he's one of the only villains to figure out Batman's true identity, but it a secret for himself. The character also has a history of using his scientific prowess to create mindless, cannibalistic monsters, but it's highly doubtful that Nolan would include that in his story arc.

Strange would certainly be a cool character to see Hardy play, particularly because he's bat-shit nuts and the Bronson actor could have a ton of fun. At the same time, though, we've already seen a psychotic villain who likes to rob banks and wants to learn Batman's secret identity. If he is ultimately the choice, I'd be willing to bet that Nolan takes some liberties with the character and changes him just enough so that he can be recognized as the original character without being repetitious. Then again, that's a big "if."

Cinema Blend wrote:[Hugo Strange] also has a history of using his scientific prowess to create mindless, cannibalistic monsters, but it's highly doubtful that Nolan would include that in his story arc.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:*sigh*

EDIT- Ya know what, fuck it, I'm coming back to this. I'm one of the few detractors Chris Nolan has so I'm speaking up on this. Rumor or not, fuck Chris Nolan. Fuck him right in his ear. I'm sorry, but REALLY?! THAT'S your move?! Adapt a character and remove the very thing he's defined by?! What kind of idiotic bullshit is that? Mind you, this is the same fuckin nitwit who gave us a Joker in makeup so maybe that should've just about set my expectations.

And no, this isn't an invitation for some fucking Nolan apologist to pipe up with "but it worked for the story he was telling". My answer? Hey dicknose, if the story you're telling requires you to bastardize the character (which is what putting the Joker in makeup does) TELL A DIFFERENT FUCKING STORY!! Prick.

webhead2006 wrote:well i thought the organic webbing thing wasnt that big of the deal in raimi movies, plus it wasnt even made up by raimi or sony. That was a james cameron thing.

webhead2006 wrote:sorry then i misunderstood what you were saything.

Apologist Puncher wrote:You mean like giving Spider-Man "organic web-shooters"? Wasn't one of the big things about Peter Parker his brain, and the fact that he came up with a solution that even the most brilliant scientists in the world couldn't? How'd that work out for Raimi & Sony?

Honestly, I enjoy the Nolan Batman movies, and that's about as far as it goes. There were some mis-steps in both films, and neither are the "be all/end all" of comic book movies. But the Joker wearing make-up instead of having bleached skin is along the lines of the example above. They changed SOMETHING, but not EVERYTHING.

And it worked for the majority. Not EVERYBODY, but most people.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:The difference is that Peter's scientific prowess was established through other means. They didn't take his single defining characteristic.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:That is what happened with the Joker. The Joker's appearance isn't make up and hair dye; it's permanent. He can't change, he can't "take it off", he can't ever be anything other than what he is. To change this about him is to change who he is as a character. It's really not about what works for the majority of people, it's about what serves the character. This change, though overlooked, is about as damaging to the Joker as changing Superman, removing his alien heritage and putting him in a ridiculously high tech suit to substitute for his powers. Sure, he can perform the same rescues but it changes who he is. That's a great shtick for a different superhero but it ain't Superman.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:The other thing? The Joker would never ever ever never ever say "heh, and I thought my jokes were bad".

Apologist Puncher wrote:Actually, if memory serves, plenty of people were arguing that they HAD.

Oh, and Uncle Ben being killed by a thug Parker could have stopped IS his defining "trait", and yet you said you liked Spider-Man 3? Wasn't that bastardized in that flick?

Actually, you are talking his origin.

But unless they had the Joker wearing a techno-suit, shooting lasers at Batman while flying thru Gotham, the character was VERY close to how he should have been.

And as for Superman, you mean like having an "artificial intelligence" Jor-El head floating in a crystal Fortress with no Giant Key? Having him "disappear" for 12 years to be taught by Jor-El? Would you say Donner "damaged" Superman too?

thec0l0rsblend wrote:That doesn't make them any less wrong. Peter's scientific prowess was established in other ways. And while the science thing is important to his character, it's not his defining attribute.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:Eye of the beholder, really. The thief startled Marko which is what set his gun off and killed Uncle Ben. Had Peter stopped the thief, Ben would still be alive. Spider-Man 3 doesn't change that. It overly and needlessly complicates it but it doesn't change it.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:No, I'm talking about the Joker. Whether or not we see his origin, his appearance isn't the result of makeup. In the comics anyway.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:Oh? Where was the Joker's penchant for comedy? Where were his macabre jokes? Sure, he laughed like a hyena a lot but you never got the impression that he thought of himself as the comedian par excellence that the comic Joker had thought of himself as.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:Yeah, as a matter of fact I would. It's always bothered me that Superman, in Donner's world, only came about through 12 years of Kryptonian brainwashing. In the comics, he becomes Superman because his real parents, the Kents, raised him to be the best man he can be. Donner reduced the role of the Kents to a boarding house for brainwashed intergalactic messiahs. It takes something away from his motivations that Jor-El indoctrinated him to be a superhero rather than choosing that for himself.

Hey folks, Harry here with the latest bit of info I've gathered on THE DARK KNIGHT RISES...

How reliable is this? Well, we'll see, right. For now, take this as pure rumor, but don't be too surprised if I'm right.

I'll call my source on this, "Clayface" -

It seems that Chris & Jonathan Nolan and that David Goyer have been digging deep for the villain. In fact, Batman first went up against this guy in 1940 in the pages of Detective Comics. The word is, Tom Hardy is playing Dr. Hugo Strange, who has a bit of an obsession surrounding The Batman. Strange how common that seems to be in Gotham. In fact - it seems that Nolan and crew are exploiting that great PREY arc that was written by Doug Moench and illustrated by the great Paul Gulacy and Terry Austin - and ran from September of 1990 to February 1991.

I remember the storyline right after Clayface spilt the slightest details. This is actually, just about the most perfect storyline to start up, given where DARK KNIGHT left off. It involves a Taskforce out to get BATMAN headed by Gary Oldman's Gordon. I love the idea of Tom Hardy playing Hugo Strange, who plots to kill and takeover being The Batman, himself.

In the comics, the attack on Batman is multi-faceted and extremely psychological, as that is why Hugo has the Dr. in front of his name. It brings the Fear Gas back in a very effective manner. And well, seek out the issues if you want to ... oh, just read a great yarn.

I'm fairly positive that this team is putting their own particular spin on it - but how many of you want to see a crazy fucking Tom Hardy dressing up like Batman? I know I do.

I'm fairly jazzed about... this, um, rumor. Let's see what happens...

I didn't see that hit...
by HEADGEEK Dec 4th, 2010
02:51:17 AM
but I was shown 'proof' in a manner of speaking that convinced me to go with this.

Apologist Puncher wrote:In fact - it seems that Nolan and crew are exploiting that great PREY arc that was written by Doug Moench and illustrated by the great Paul Gulacy and Terry Austin - and ran from September of 1990 to February 1991.

thecolorsblend wrote:If that's what ends up happening, I'll be pretty much onboard. I've been a fan of Prey ever since it came out. Absolutely classic storyline with some phenomenal artwork.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:If that's what ends up happening, I'll be pretty much onboard. I've been a fan of Prey ever since it came out. Absolutely classic storyline with some phenomenal artwork.

I have no idea what it's based on, but if you say it's good, I'll take your word for it.

thecolorsblend wrote:Dunno if it would constitute spoilers for you (or if you even care) but you can get some details about Prey at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Prey.

It originally ran in Legends of the Dark Knight back in the earlyearlyearly 90's. One aspect of it I liked is the art by Paul Gulacy. He understood how to draw martial arts techniques in comics in a way that I've seen no other artist quite match. His pencils tended to veer heavily towards realism. Plus, the writing is by Dough Moench from the 90's so you already know it's going to be good. Prey is a very Nolan'ish type of story overall.

While I've never read the complete run of the title, I hold Legends of the Dark Knight in pretty high esteem. Prey is one reason why. LOTDK was sort of a non-continuity (mostly) Batman title with an ever-revolving creative team. Because of that approach, you could miss entire story arcs and it wouldn't matter since everything was basically a miniseries that all took place under one ongoing title. Pretty good little series, as far as I'm concerned. Big fan.

thecolorsblend wrote:It almost doesn't matter. My argument is that you could make basically TDK2 and even it wouldn't pull TDK numbers. TDK's success came from a perfect storm, a lot of elements that really can't be repeated. I don't picture that any third Nolan film is going to hit those numbers. It's one reason I'm surprised he's even coming back to the franchise. If I were him, I would've hit the road. The third movie could pull $350 mill in the US and another $350 mill in the foreign markets, and people would still consider it a "disappointment". Fuck that noise, Jack, I'm outta here! Ya know?

Apologist Puncher wrote:I do know. But if you're going out, why not go out with a *BANG* and not a *pow*?