Hathaway and Hardy Cast!

[phantom stranger]

That was a good interview. I always wondered how profit-sharing worked with recent DC/Marvel creations. Of course, there have been so few characters to make it to the big-screen that are 1990's era creations.

The only other one I can think off of the top of my head is the Steel movie starring Shaq. An awful film, but perhaps the character's creators made a nice chunk of change off of it.

[johnnygobbs]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125274-anne-hathaways-dark-knight-rises-costume-test-qphenomenalq

It looks like Hathaway will be Catwoman, as if there was ever any doubt. 

Unfortunately, the jury is still out o whether Robin Williams is going to be playing Dr Hugo Strange, but there's still hope. 

[Azrael]

Yeah, I'd also love to see Robin Williams in the movie.

Nice analysis on your blog there, scarecrow.

I just want to to throw out something else, how long do you guys think the film will be? TDK was around 2 and a half hours and since Nolan is essentially wrapping up his trilogy and all the locations we are hearing they are going to film, plus what happened at the end of TDK. I think there is going to be alot of story to cover as well and exposition of the main villains. I wouldn't mind a bat-film pushing 3 hrs. Just my little 2 cents.

I know it's something small (runtime) but what do you guys think?

I'll go a bit off topic, lol... these last few nights I decided to have a LOTR marathon rewatching, after a pretty long time, the extended editions. I like to have this hiatus with some movies so they feel fresh when I rewatch them. Anyway, in total this was almost 12 hours of sword & sorcery goodness. And you know what, I was almost sorry when RotK ended. "Too soon" I said.

My point is that I can't have enough of a good "epic", and for me a long run-time, 2,5 hours, or even reaching the 3 hour mark, is never a bad thing! As long as it's tight and enjoyable, and doesn't feel padded or slow. The Dark Knight never felt padded, it was 2,5 hours of goodness, so I hope the third film is pretty long too. Of course, your mileage may vary on that, for some over 2 hours is understandably too long, but it's a Batman epic, not a Paul WS Anderson/Michael Bay/Uwe Boll shlock-fest!

[Grissom]

A good movie can never be too long, that's my opinion. In fact Wally Pfister (cinematographer) said in an interview recently he read TDKR script and it's even better than TDK. He said it's very long and Nolan is now cutting it back. I hope no essence of the story or emotional impact is cut during that scale back of the script.

[Paul (ral)]

Slightly old news - Tom Hardy talks Bane with UK's Alan Carr

[Grissom]

200 lbs isn't bad but I was hoping for something bigger, but he's a very good actor, looking forward to his performance.

[The Dark Knight]

200 lbs isn't bad but I was hoping for something bigger

I gather computer trickery will be implemented.

[Grissom]

You may be right and Nolan knows how to use CGI sparingly.

[Azrael]

Something else, and slightly silly. I remember years ago there was so much talk about Keaton being "too short" for Batman. Well, according to imdb, Tom Hardy is roughly the same height as Keaton (it says Keaton is 1,75 and Hardy is 1,78 m, big difference). I wonder if anyone in the online communities commented about that - Bane in the comics is always bigger and taller than Batman, and Bale's height is 1,83. Of course in movies they can make anyone look taller, but here it's really like double standards are at play. Nobody said that Hardy is too short for Bane.

[The Dark Knight]

^ Exactly. That's a good bit of ammunition for us to use.