Batman-Online.com

Of the above names who do you think would make a great Catwoman if Nolan does choose to add Catwoman to the next Batman film?

I've limited the choices who are roughly the same age as Bale, and choices who Nolan would realistically pick (and who can arguably act), as opposed to say Megan Fox.

Let me know any names you think should be added, although as I say the criteria should be somebody who is (a) roughly the same age as Bale (i.e. born some time around the 1970s), and (b) somebody that Nolan might pick (i.e. has some degree of credibility as an actress).
 

I chose Charlize - only because she's low profile enough not to be more than the character (who should come first) and she is an oscar winner.

I have mixed feelings about having Catwoman in a sequel though all the same.

I picked Catherine Zeta Jones because she reminds me of the classic, dark-haired Selina Kyle.

well cause of your age discrimination i can't vote for myself so i'll pick charlize.

I am torn between Marion Cotillard, Rachel Weisz and Emily Blunt from the list. Hmmm... I just noticed I didn't pick an American actress to play her.  That could be a great thing.  As for the next villain though I am personally hoping for The Penguin (Phillp Seymour Hoffman as rumored would totally rock my world in this role! or The Riddler (Too bad Charlie Chaplin is dead, because I think in his prime, even in the silent era, he could have made a great Riddler.  But since I am stuck in the living I am thinking Michael Wincott would be a choice from left field that I could live with.)

OK, OK... I'll vote for Rachel Weisz because I like her in almost everything I see her in!

Charlize Theron for me.

Yeah, Charlize Theron. She has both looks and talent.

I LOVE Jennifer Connelly!

But yeah, I think Charlize would be amazing.

i love Charlize Theron.  She'd be great for this part. I wish Eon Flux was a better film. It had potential to rock. But didn't do much to me. Wasn't a bad film, but it was a bit boring.

I think Laurie Holden (The Mist, Silent Hill) would be a good choice for Catwoman.

The fascination for Jennifer Connelly will never make sense to me.  Ever.

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 13:31

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

He's just sharing his thoughts. There's nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 14:04
He's just sharing his thoughts. There's nothing wrong with that.

We all are.

And I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 13:31

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

i'm still trying to work this out

Quote from: ral on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 18:03

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 13:31

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

i'm still trying to work this out

me too. i'm blonde, you're bald, i think we're both f***ed.

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 19:13

Quote from: ral on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 18:03

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 13:31

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

;D

i'm still trying to work this out

me too. i'm blonde, you're bald, i think we're both ****ed.

;D

Charlize Theron appears to be very popular here, which is a good thing bearing in mind her recent expression of interest in the role.  Let's hope this filters through to Nolan (since I suspect that the pre-Begins fan approval for Bale must have helped determine his casting as Batman).

Quote from: ral on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 18:03

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 13:31

It's really easy to understand a fascination for Jennifer Connelly, but if you got someone so positive on simply being incapable of understanding ... then why ever waste the time spelling it out?

i'm still trying to work this out

Me too. I had a stab at what I thought he meant, but I'm still not certain.

Quote from: ral on Wed,  7 Oct  2009, 18:03

i'm still trying to work this out

Quotei'm blonde, you're bald, i think we're both ****ed.

Well you know the saying;

If you can?t convince ?em, confuse ?em.

Though that wasn't the intent, but what the hell?  ;D

QuoteMe too. I had a stab at what I thought he meant, but I'm still not certain.

Here goes nothing ... Not being especially apt to discuss a particular topic, belief, or in this case fascination with who firmly state they will never understand it.

I think I need a drink after all this confusion.  ;)

still lost  ;) :D

Heh  ;D

I think the point The Joker was trying to make was that it would be pointless trying to explain the appeal of Jennifer Connelly to someone who was very firm in their position that there was no appeal to her.  Or something like that... :-\

I couldn't make my mind who to pick, so I let myself be swayed by the majority and went for Charlize Theron, who I think would make an awesome Catwoman.  As it happens, I think most of the people on the list would be brilliant in the role, although based on his previous casting decisions and his current movie, 'Inception', I have a feeling that Marion Cotillard would be the most likely casting in this role, assuming Catwoman appears.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 10:19
I think the point The Joker was trying to make was that it would be pointless trying to explain the appeal of Jennifer Connelly to someone who was very firm in their position that there was no appeal to her.  Or something like that... :-\

...shut up.

What the heck?  What's with all the rudeness?

you know i love you.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 10:19
I think the point The Joker was trying to make was that it would be pointless trying to explain the appeal of Jennifer Connelly to someone who was very firm in their position that there was no appeal to her.  Or something like that... :-\

Johnny, what the dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight are you talking about? I can't understand any of that.

Uh oh, I think I'm ****ed.

;)

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 15:57

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 10:19
I think the point The Joker was trying to make was that it would be pointless trying to explain the appeal of Jennifer Connelly to someone who was very firm in their position that there was no appeal to her.  Or something like that... :-\

Johnny, what the dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight are you talking about? I can't understand any of that.

Uh oh, I think I'm ****ed.

;)

don't be a smart ass. its not becoming.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 16:32
don't be a smart ass. its not becoming.

Neither is writing unfinished fan fic, you know.  :'(

well we all know i'm not becoming anyway.

Please keep the thread on topic from here on out.

No offence Joker, but I don't know what you're on about half the time.  I was trying to put your comments from earlier in plain English and help you out, but apparently you weren't too keen on that.    :(

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 23:32
No offence Joker, but I don't know what you're on about half the time.
I was trying to put your comments from earlier in plain English and help you out, but apparently you weren't too keen on that.    :(

Story of my life. Please excuse the Q-Bert reaction; &$#%!  ;)

Anyways, in keeping with ral's last post, I have to say I was glad to see Cher excluded from the poll list. Following Batman 1989, her casting seemed like a possibility. Following TDK, it seems about as likely as the equally amusing rumor of Eddie Murphy as the Riddler.

Quote from: ral on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 20:56
Please keep the thread on topic from here on out.

i'm not even the one that made it go off topic. don't single me out.

I think he was generally speaking, and not exclusively pointing the finger of shame at anyone (though, if he were to, that would have to be, moi)!

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  9 Oct  2009, 04:45

I think he was generally speaking, and not exclusively pointing the finger of shame at anyone (though, if he were to, that would have to be, moi)!

You?re having delusions of competence. I don't know what makes you tick. But I hope it's a time bomb.  :D

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri,  9 Oct  2009, 03:51

Quote from: ral on Thu,  8 Oct  2009, 20:56
Please keep the thread on topic from here on out.

i'm not even the one that made it go off topic. don't single me out.

I was speaking to everyone.  Now please...keep on topic.

why isnt kate beckslae on there and yes i know i didnt spell her name right

You know, I now kind of hope Nolan doesn't do Catwoman.

These films need sex appeal *badly*, and I rarely turn down a woman wearing skin tight vinyl. But I don't want Pfeiffer's performance challenged. To me, nobody could top her, or the theme Elfman provided. But I know the Nolan crowd would end up hating on it just to justify their new version. Like they did to Jack. I think having Talia Al Ghul would be both a step backward and boring. But at least that would be something unique to Nolan.

I would say that if the role is to be reprised, it should be someone fresh and new. I think the only way we'll be able to swallow a new Catwoman (Halle Ber... bleCH BLARGH BLAAAARGLGGHH) it needs to be someone whom we won't relate to one role or another from her earlier repetiore. I still don't think the role should be touched, as Nolan's "realistic" ideas will likely dull or water-down the acrobatic, devious seductress the comics so faithfully and lovingly portray as our (well, my) favorite femme fatale.

Good luck with Angelina Jolie as Catwoman.... I'd expect her to wear khaki shorts and waaaaay too much lipstick. Her schtick got old a few years back- the stress of her seventywhatever adopted babies is putting bags under her eyes ;)

Good points well made. I may have my protege.

Welcome to the site, hunterbat.

I've heard rumurs that appear to have emenated from Nolan's camp that he and his collaborators aren't interested in doing Catwoman because she's 'not realistic' enough.  Which does beggar the question, if Catwoman is too unrealistic for Nolan's Batman universe, what characters can he use?  Certainly not Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Clayface, The Mad Hatter, Bane, or even The Penguin, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nolan's films, but there is much more mileage to be gained from a Batman film series that embraces some of the more outlandish aspects of the characters' world ala the Burton movies, or the animated tv series (as long as it doesn't go too far in the Schumacher direction  ;)).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jan  2011, 14:01
I've heard rumurs that appear to have emenated from Nolan's camp that he and his collaborators aren't interested in doing Catwoman because she's 'not realistic' enough.  Which does beggar the question, if Catwoman is too unrealistic for Nolan's Batman universe, what characters can he use?  Certainly not Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Clayface, The Mad Hatter, Bane, or even The Penguin, etc etc.

Indeed. What a joke. Talia is certainly more realistic, a regular female dressing in regular clothes. But she's a lot more bland in comparison, and definitely not as top tier. The public won't know who she is, nor will they likely care. I think we've all moved beyond Batman Begins now, and this feels like backpedaling.

These films are meant to be exciting for crying out loud. Sure, do your version, but people want iconic comic book characters, because it's a comic book you are adapting.

As I said before, Talia makes sense for HAR because the other two films are pretentious chores as well. Nolan doesn't have a passion for these types of characters. He'll massage the fun out of them. He won't have to do that with Talia, so you can see why she's going to be in it.

Nolan has the chance to do the big three, Joker, Two Face and Catwoman. And he will probably choose not to.  I think most people will view this as a missed chance, and a gap in his trilogy. Burton would've probably done Two Face for his third, and he would've accomplished that goal.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jan  2011, 14:01
I've heard rumurs that appear to have emenated from Nolan's camp that he and his collaborators aren't interested in doing Catwoman because she's 'not realistic' enough.  

If true, it's stuff like this that drives me up the wall.

Ok. A man dressing up in a bat-like costume to take on crime is acceptable, but a woman dressing up in a cat-like costume to steal isn't???

::)

Yep, just like a short, fat guy who wears a tux and carries an umbrella who happens to have an oversized nose is too far of a stretch to use in this "realistic" universe.

But we can have a guy who runs around with a burlap bag on his head spraying drugs in peoples faces and another guy with half his face burned completely off (who isn't dying from infection or in cardiac arrest) is perfectly acceptable. 

Oh, and we can't forget how real it is for a dude to run around seemingly unnoticed with this big microwave emitter turning Gotham's water supply into vapor whilst not effecting a single human being who is 90% water other than sending them on a very bad acid trip. 

Who's have thought??

Seriously though, I love the Nolan films.  Especially since he added my favorite villain into the 2nd installment, but enough with the reality crap.  If I want reality for entertainment, I'll watch American Idol (gag) or the News.   ::)

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 04:15
Ok. A man dressing up in a bat-like costume to take on crime is acceptable, but a woman dressing up in a cat-like costume to steal isn't???

Exactly.

Sure, Nolan can make a decent film with Talia. But a theatrical villain would've still been better. And it's what the audience wants. It was always going to be a tough ask following up The Joker. But this doesn't even try. Perhaps that's the point, but it's still underwhelming.

As an onlooker, it feels like Nolan's trying to be clever. "Oh, you thought it'd be The Riddler, but you were wrong!" And so on for other characters such as Catwoman. Changing it up to surprise and be different for the sake of it. Sometimes the obvious is the way to go. Like the casting of Nicholson as the Joker.

I hope this film is the last we see of "realism".

Quote from: Matuatay on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 04:59
Yep, just like a short, fat guy who wears a tux and carries an umbrella who happens to have an oversized nose is too far of a stretch to use in this "realistic" universe.

But we can have a guy who runs around with a burlap bag on his head spraying drugs in peoples faces and another guy with half his face burned completely off (who isn't dying from infection or in cardiac arrest) is perfectly acceptable. 

Oh, and we can't forget how real it is for a dude to run around seemingly unnoticed with this big microwave emitter turning Gotham's water supply into vapor whilst not effecting a single human being who is 90% water other than sending them on a very bad acid trip. 

Who's have thought??

Spot on.

Realism, especially in that respect, clearly isn't even an issue.

It's how the fantastical elements is approached and taken seriously that gives off the illusion of realism.

But yeah, the fact that a 'fear gas' is perfectly fine, where the Penguin is considered too 'tricky' is simply maddening.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 05:02
Exactly.

Sure, Nolan can make a decent film with Talia. But a theatrical villain would've still been better. And it's what the audience wants. It was always going to be a tough ask following up The Joker. But this doesn't even try. Perhaps that's the point, but it's still underwhelming.

As an onlooker, it feels like Nolan's trying to be clever. "Oh, you thought it'd be The Riddler, but you were wrong!" And so on for other characters such as Catwoman. Changing it up to surprise and be different for the sake of it. Sometimes the obvious is the way to go. Like the casting of Nicholson as the Joker.

I hope this film is the last we see of "realism".

Exactly right.

There's a reason why the Riddler was the foregone conclusion for the villain in the 3rd Nolan Batman movie. There's a reason why Catwoman's name continues to be brought up. Or to a lesser extent, the Penguin. These are the villains fans, and casual fans, are familiar with, and of course would like to see translated into Nolan's Batman films. It's a no brainer really. But if Nolan prefers to make use of lesser known villains for the sake of diverting from the obvious ... fine. But I think that sort of approach is sincerely going to leave audiences disappointed with the final product.

Seriously, this would be like Raimi following up Green Goblin not with Doc Ock, but rather Spencer Smythe, or Hammerhead. Sure, you can do that, but it is a underwhelming to say the very least. As TDK suggested, sometimes going with the logical choice is best. Certainly worked for Burton with Joker and Penguin back in '89 and '92. That's for sure.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 06:45
It's how the fantastical elements is approached and taken seriously that gives off the illusion of realism.

Correct. Batman is not realistic. He?s relatable. Reality is hinted at, but it isn't fully embraced. If Batman's world is so realistic, how can it be that Mr. Freeze exists in the comics? And he does exist. You can pick and choose who you want to show, but you can't delete their existence altogether. The altered reality of Nolan is not what the comics are. The fact Nolan alters the characters proves my point. They were not realistic to start with, but he wants them to be. The comic reality is not to that extent.

The title is unimaginative. The characters seem to be underwhelmingly safe. We haven't seen anything at all yet, but it's not a good start. Seems bland. Bring on Arkham City.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 05:02
I hope this film is the last we see of "realism".

What bothers me is that Nolan's films are very highly regarded within the industry so if Warner Bros even considers rebooting the series once Nolan has completed his trilogy they will need to find an extremely top-class director in order to attract the type of talent who worship at the alter of Nolan.  Very few actors will want to be part of a reboot which follows such a highly regarded series (even discounting memories of Schumacher's follow-up to the Burton films).

Even fewer actors will would dare to take on the role of The Joker following the near-universal acclaim that greeted Ledger's performance since you can pretty much guarantee the press' response to a new Joker (i.e. 'who does this guy think he is daring to follow-up the late sainted Heath Ledger in the role?').  That would be doubly unfortunate since not only would we not get to see Batman's primary antagonist again but it would inevitably rule out a live-action portrayal of Harley Quinn, a character who is surely begging to be put on the big screen.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 06:45

Quote from: Matuatay on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 04:59
Yep, just like a short, fat guy who wears a tux and carries an umbrella who happens to have an oversized nose is too far of a stretch to use in this "realistic" universe.

But we can have a guy who runs around with a burlap bag on his head spraying drugs in peoples faces and another guy with half his face burned completely off (who isn't dying from infection or in cardiac arrest) is perfectly acceptable. 

Oh, and we can't forget how real it is for a dude to run around seemingly unnoticed with this big microwave emitter turning Gotham's water supply into vapor whilst not effecting a single human being who is 90% water other than sending them on a very bad acid trip. 

Who's have thought??

Spot on.

Realism, especially in that respect, clearly isn't even an issue.

It's how the fantastical elements is approached and taken seriously that gives off the illusion of realism.

But yeah, the fact that a 'fear gas' is perfectly fine, where the Penguin is considered too 'tricky' is simply maddening.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 05:02
Exactly.

Sure, Nolan can make a decent film with Talia. But a theatrical villain would've still been better. And it's what the audience wants. It was always going to be a tough ask following up The Joker. But this doesn't even try. Perhaps that's the point, but it's still underwhelming.

As an onlooker, it feels like Nolan's trying to be clever. "Oh, you thought it'd be The Riddler, but you were wrong!" And so on for other characters such as Catwoman. Changing it up to surprise and be different for the sake of it. Sometimes the obvious is the way to go. Like the casting of Nicholson as the Joker.

I hope this film is the last we see of "realism".

Exactly right.

There's a reason why the Riddler was the foregone conclusion for the villain in the 3rd Nolan Batman movie. There's a reason why Catwoman's name continues to be brought up. Or to a lesser extent, the Penguin. These are the villains fans, and casual fans, are familiar with, and of course would like to see translated into Nolan's Batman films. It's a no brainer really. But if Nolan prefers to make use of lesser known villains for the sake of diverting from the obvious ... fine. But I think that sort of approach is sincerely going to leave audiences disappointed with the final product.

Seriously, this would be like Raimi following up Green Goblin not with Doc Ock, but rather Spencer Smythe, or Hammerhead. Sure, you can do that, but it is a underwhelming to say the very least. As TDK suggested, sometimes going with the logical choice is best. Certainly worked for Burton with Joker and Penguin back in '89 and '92. That's for sure.

But in that case Raimi listen to the fans on 3 putting vemon in instead of lizard which orignally who he wanted to put in and we know how that turned out.

Quote from: Kingdjack4500 on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 15:50
But in that case Raimi listen to the fans on 3 putting vemon in instead of lizard which orignally who he wanted to put in and we know how that turned out.

Actually, Raimi wanted Sandman and Vulture for Spider-Man 3. Sony really don't care for Vulture (not even when they had John Malkovich signed, sealed, and delivered even), and Venom got thrown in instead. Which added so many subplots to the script that the writing was on the wall at that point.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 15 Jan  2011, 00:18

Quote from: Kingdjack4500 on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 15:50
But in that case Raimi listen to the fans on 3 putting vemon in instead of lizard which orignally who he wanted to put in and we know how that turned out.

Actually, Raimi wanted Sandman and Vulture for Spider-Man 3. Sony really don't care for Vulture (not even when they had John Malkovich signed, sealed, and delivered even), and Venom got thrown in instead. Which added so many subplots to the script that the writing was on the wall at that point.

I thank you for correcting me vulture would have been a good charactor you would had some good air combat

Quote from: Kingdjack4500 on Sat, 15 Jan  2011, 00:26
I thank you for correcting me vulture would have been a good charactor you would had some good air combat

Yeah, I think the plan, if I'm remembering correctly, was to have Vulture as an old cell mate of Sandman's. With I assume Vulture being more the the villain between the two since Sandman has always been a morally complex villain the the comic books. Really would have kicked back on the sub plots, but instead of Vulture, the symbiote saga, Eddie Brock, and later Venom had to be unpleasantly factored into a movie that was already pretty packed with sub plots to begin with. *groan*

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 15 Jan  2011, 00:39
Really would have kicked back on the sub plots, but instead of Vulture, the symbiote saga, Eddie Brock, and later Venom had to be unpleasantly factored into a movie that was already pretty packed with sub plots to begin with. *groan*

Even so, I can't see how that was a reboot factor. If the Bond series has an apparent mediocre film, they take the criticism into consideration and have another shot. Comic book films annoy me in that regard.

I think the Bond series can be good because it doesn't have constant villains ala The Joker. Every film has somebody different. Nobody knows what they're going to get, and we accept it. With Batman, everybody wants to see the icons, and when we don't, we get hung up over it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 15 Jan  2011, 01:18
Even so, I can't see how that was a reboot factor. If the Bond series has an apparent mediocre film, they take the criticism into consideration and have another shot. Comic book films annoy me in that regard.

Generally, I think that's how things would play out with a succcessful film series. Not every film in a franchise can continually top the previous one, but with this era of remakes/reboots/reimaging or whatever you want to call it in full swing, rebooting Spider-Man so soon isn't surprising. Just very aggravating. Since it's obvious it wasn't necessary at this stage, but Sony knows it has a winner regardless because, ... it's Spider-Man. And people will see it because of the simple fact that it's Spider-Man.

QuoteI think the Bond series can be good because it doesn't have constant villains ala The Joker. Every film has somebody different. Nobody knows what they're going to get, and we accept it. With Batman, everybody wants to see the icons, and when we don't, we get hung up over it.

Right. With Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, ect, we have a movies about a character that's been in continual print for decades. In addition, there is a rogues gallery that's been around for decades as well and should be taken into account. Some villains have been around longer than others, but I think because of that fact, people naturally have a affinity for wanting to see those said villains brought to life on the silver screen. Especially if these villains have reguarly appeared in other media like comics, animated series, and video games. We have grown up getting familiar with them. Naturally, we want to see them re-introduced in a rebooted continuity. Especially if it's been 19-16 years since they have last appeared in the previous series.

With Bond, I don't think people are sentimental to the villains in that series as they are with Batman or Spider-Man villains. The video games toy with bringing back classic Bond villains like Oddjob and Jaws, but there's really never been any real indication the films will follow suit. Though to be honest, there's a very vague continuity with the Bond films that ultimately wouldn't make much sense to re-introduce villains anyways considering the same continuity was STILL in play until recently. And even that's been a debate in itself.  

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 15 Jan  2011, 02:24
Since it's obvious it wasn't necessary at this stage, but Sony knows it has a winner regardless because, ... it's Spider-Man. And people will see it because of the simple fact that it's Spider-Man.

Yes. Exactly.

And you nailed the Bond villain/superhero thing as well. Nothing much I can add there.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 14 Jan  2011, 08:15
The title is unimaginative.

Agreed! The whole knight/night play on words thing, "The night is darkest just before the dawn" and Gordon calling him a "Dark Knight" etc.... I understand it's thematic, maybe Nolan's pandering to people who will undoubtedly think they're brilliant for figuring out that wordplay is one of the small successful nuances to Nolan's franchises? Heh.... or maybe he just has a very remedial creative-dialog streak....

I'd love it if they used this poster.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffanartexhibit.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Ftdkr.jpg&hash=71b987e39c9a383f699c83db4cf888ca1f08da80)

Great poster, but it would be even cooler if Two-Face was coming out of the ground.

 ;D very good

I saw The Wolfman the other day and I was very pleased with Blunt's performance, she has the eyes, the facial expressions and movements and of course she's quite an actor.

All posts relating to the announced casting of Catwoman have been moved to the same thread

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=1551.0