Catwoman Revealed

[BatmAngelus]

Thanks for the love, guys 

As for Hathaway's comments:

"What I am happy to say is, if you didn't like the photo, you only see about a 10th of what that suit can do," she promised.

Then I hope this means that we'll see her in a more Catwoman-like costume.

A few other things that are getting to me about the current state of fandom...
Another argument that I keep hearing (and one that came up time and time again with the Joker in Dark Knight) is "Would you rather have the character look exactly like the comic book character and be poorly written or would you rather have the character be well-written and not look like the character?"
My response is, "What's wrong with both?"  Especially since a bunch of other comic book movies have proven to be capable of doing so.  Just look at this year's Marvel movies.  All well-received by audiences unfamiliar with the characters and by fans who read the comics. 
And visually?  They all looked like the characters, too.  The X-Men got to wear their blue and yellow suits, Thor looked like a combination of the classic look and the Ultimates version, and Captain America: The First Avenger was even able to use both the classic look and the Ultimates-style look in two separate costumes that the writers were able to include in the story.
Also, I doubt anyone is lobbying for poorly-written characters in the first place, so I don't even see how that's an issue, either.
Lastly, I wonder why the look of the character has to be treated as something completely separate from the characterization.  This is a visual medium.  The look is part of the character.  Period.
In general, I just see this argument as a pretentious and snobbish way to treat people who disagree with them. 

Second thing I want to bring up are the people who seem to prefer the current versions of Catwoman and Bane over what was expected.  The ones who say, "I like the way Hathaway looks as she is.  She doesn't need the cowl!" or "I like that Bane sounds that way.  It makes him scarier.  A growling, deep voice would've been cliche"
I really can't help but wonder what's going to happen if, say, it turns out that Hathaway will be wearing a more traditional Catwoman outfit through most of the film.  Or if the Bane voice is dubbed and altered into something deeper and more intimidating than sounding like a wheezing, loony old man.

Are these people really going to be disappointed that things changed?  Or are they just going to like it, too, since Nolan made the decision?

Hell, what would've happened if the Catwoman picture from Friday actually looked like the Jim Lee Catwoman on this site's background? 
Or if Bane sounded like Darth Vader on the set, from the leaked cameraphone videos? 
Would these people really have cried out against Catwoman having a mask?  Or Bane having a strong voice? 
I highly doubt it.

[DocLathropBrown]

No wish to offend anyone, but I might. Here's a rant...

Hathaway's quote doesn't lead to believe there's anything more to the suit than what we've seen. It sounds more like she's trying to say she can do fantastic things in the suit, not that we're missing pieces. I mean, I'd love to be wrong, but I really don't think we're looking at cat ears in the future for this kitty.

It doesn't make much sense from a story standpoint for her to be in THAT much of a costume and not have her identity built already. It could happen but I doubt it. It's the same reason I knew that first photo of Bane (or as I like to call him, Asthmaman) was his final look (mask-wise): the first photo you release of a character will be the immediate impression the audience gets. So you generally reveal what they look like in their final form in terms of their iconography. Bodysuits or belts or whatnot generally can change throughout the movie and the audience will accept it. Nothing, however, is more important than the face. The face never really changes unless it's an entirely different identity.

My bigger problem with the fanbase is, as Batm said, the ignorant thinking. To those who favor Nolan's changes, those complaining are small-minded idiots. What the hell is wrong with people wanting the characters to retain their iconography from the comic book? Isn't the point of an adaptation to adapt, not alter? I'm sorry, but without Cat-ears, Catwoman doesn't resemble a cat. Thus redering the title and iconography of the character nonexistant. Nolanites instead praise the "metaphorical" or "literal" interpretation; that she's "Catwoman because she's a cat burgler, not some stupid cat-person, duh!" What a load. Alteration doesn't ruin a character, but we've never seen the Batman franchise get such wholesale re-imagining before. Bane and Catwoman maintain none of their iconography. Bane's only costume piece, his mask, is gone. I'm sorry, but when Joel Schumacher gets the look right and you don't, that's sad.

Bane is my favorite villain, so you can understand how I'm upset over him most of all. He's too short (but he's as tall-as. I can let that slide), and lacking his mask. So already he looks nothing like Bane. And then he has a British accent, so he's completely missing Bane's heritage (a heritage that qualifies the Luchador mask, no less), so who knows how much of his excellent origin will survive. It doesn't matter if he does anything Bane did in the comics, because it might as well be Amygdala at this point. What I don't get is that why Bane and Catwoman had to have their comic book looks all-but stripped away completely for Nolan's tastes. The Scarecrow's mask and Ra's Al Ghul's facial hair were in-place. Making them clearly identifiable. The Joker and Two-Face were visually correct, again; completely identifiable. And now Asthmaman and Gogglewoman? They sure as hell don't look like Bane or Catwoman!

It would be like if Nolan's Batman had had the correct costume... from the neck down. And for the face? A simple Domino mask. Would that be Batman? No, because his face, the most recognizable piece, would be gone. But would Nolanites let that one slide? No. But it's easy when most of them don't care what the Hell Nolan does with these characters. I mean, hey, it's not like most of them read the comic books, right? And how dare we comic readers be unhappy with the needless visual distortion! It means nothing in terms of the quality of the film, true, but for a Batman fan, who shouldn't be unhappy with the ruination of a character's iconography? I mean, Hell, iconography is more important to comic books that most mediums because 50% of comic books is visual!

And the Nolanites are happy with these changes. I can't begin to rant on how people are now retroactively complaining about the comic book versions looking "cheesy" or "campy" after Nolan's versions arrived ("better than the comic!"), when you know damn-well that if Nolan had made them perfect translations, they'd be lapping it up. Only Batman "fans" and X-Men "fans" (I use the term loosly) would be happier the less accurate their film franchises are. How disheartening. I'm sick of "fans" that don't understand what is truly "cheesy" or "campy," and lack the imagination to understand the truth.

I can't wait until the Nolan films are over.

[Silver Nemesis]

Jett sounds off about the new Catwoman suit.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_book-review_shes-got-to-have-ears_8-7-11.html

Apparently he's the voice of the 'the REAL majority of fandom'...   

[Paul (ral)]

Some people are afraid to rock the boat when it comes to talking about (and criticizing) the current Batman film franchise.

They have built up contacts who they need more than they need them and...who would want to piss those people off.

I suppose I can understand that to a certain degree...but for me, critique is healthy (especially if it shapes a movie we are yet to get) and a spade is a spade.

The fact that they have Selina Kyle (I won't be calling her Catwoman) suited up on the Bat-pod suggests to me that they don't have much faith in the look of "Catwoman"...I mean, you show your strengths and hide your weaknesses when it comes to promotion.

[Gotham Knight]

Thank God for the DOC!

All I'll add is that what you have to keep in mind, is a majority of these "fans" aren't really into the Batman Mythos at all, who had never seen a Batman film before Heath Ledger bit the dust.

[Seantastic]

Jett sounds off about the new Catwoman suit.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_book-review_shes-got-to-have-ears_8-7-11.html

Apparently he's the voice of the 'the REAL majority of fandom'... 

Not to go off topic, but that is one thing that really gets on my nerves.  He's seen as this type of god and the know all of Batman, when really in essence he's probably a guy who had far too much time on his hands, so he made a site.  Not to be a dick or anything, but thats juts what I think.

And I also agree with Paul, no one, no one wants to say anything bad about the current franchise, no one can see a bad point and now its gotten to the point that many are calling the original Batman films awful, and terrible.  The real funny thing is though, the original 4 were comic book films, what Nolan is done is create crime dramas which happen to include a guy in a Batsuit.  Again, thats my opinion, but I just can't wait till we get the reboot in 2013/14.

[BatmAngelus]

Hathaway's quote doesn't lead to believe there's anything more to the suit than what we've seen. It sounds more like she's trying to say she can do fantastic things in the suit, not that we're missing pieces. I mean, I'd love to be wrong, but I really don't think we're looking at cat ears in the future for this kitty.

That's probably true, but I'm just trying to hold onto hope 

In the meantime, with Hathaway saying that the picture is only 1/10th of what the suit can do, maybe the other 9/10th involves....breaking cameras?
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/08/catwoman-anne-hathaway-stunt-double-crushes-destroys-imax-camera-batman-dark-knight-rises-blooper-video/

[Silver Nemesis]

Lol. When IGN posted the first image of Catwoman in costume, the highest rated comments were all jokes about women drivers.

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/118/1186306p1.html

How prophetic they were.

[DocLathropBrown]

Jett isn't bothered by it because he's one of those narrow-minded fans. Frankly, since he loathes Batman Returns so much he probably is glad she doesn't have ears, just because she had ears in Batman Returns. But yeah, that post is infuriating; what happened to professional, non-biased journalism? The only bright side is that Jett generally is looked at as a joke, and only the most radical of Nolanites pay him any mind (because he's their leader).

What I can't stand is that egotistical slant the he and other Nolanites haves. As if their opinion is somehow fact just because it is. What makes them any more right to hate the ears than to miss them?

I mean, I don't know how Jett can supposedly be such a fan of the comics and not at least find something to appreciate about Batman Returns. Tastes are one thing: assuming the Nolan films didn't have the larger problems for me (such as the wholesale alteration of Bruce Wayne's characterization and the stilted, unnatural dialogue), and I still prefer the Burton films? That's down to stylistic tastes. Preference of the Nolan films doesn't bother me. I only raise a red flag when one completely denounces all of the Burton films' qualities. What I'm going to say sounds harsh, but it's my opinion: to completely denounce ANY Batman film (even Schumacher's) without any merit is narrow-minded.

I have my problems with the Nolan films, sure. But do I hate them? Nope. Do I hate that specific slice of the fanbase? YES! I have always just thought the Nolan films were way overrated, and it brought forth a tidal wave of fake Batman fans the likes of which I'd not seen since the X-Men films.

I mean, I don't think it's wild to say that for a fan, you can find something to love in every adaptation of Batman. I think the 2nd movie serial (1949's Batman and Robin) is pretty damn lame, but I still like things about it; Spencer Bennet is a great Commisioner Gordon, The early Bat Signal is cool, and so is the inclusion of Vicki Vale. See? It ain't so hard.

But back on the subject of Gogglewoman: I can stand people not having a problem with it. My only wish is that people would note and have a problem with the fact that she's earless. I have my misgivings about Asthmaman, but up until we learned more, I was still willing to give him a go. But no, they don't have a single issue with the change in iconography, because they don't care; they aren't real fans. At least prove you're a fan and bemoan the innaccuracy (since they do it non-stop with Burton's films. Double-standard much?)

[BatmAngelus]

^ Excellent points, Doc.  One thing I want to point out, though, is that Lyle Talbot was Gordon.  Spencer Bennett was the director 

EDIT:  Hathaway seems to have been talking a lot to the press lately, since she's promoting her new film One Day.
One interview that caught my interest was one that asked her about what comic books she's read to research the part:
http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/08/09/anne-hathaway-catwoman-comic-favorite/?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000011

"There is a later one where it's the origin story of Selina [Kyle] and she's [the] Cat. She follows this guy into a museum because she wants to steal this piece, and she touches it and this guy is like, 'You've defiled it with your female hands,'" Hathaway recalls. "[It also includes] her training to become a fighter and she has to battle the guy who was a jerk to her in the beginning, and you get to meet her master who believed in her and who gave her a shot."

This is Catwoman Annual #2, also advertised as Catwoman: Year One.  While I don't think this will have as much bearing on the film, I thought it was cool that this got a mention since it's one of the more obscure comics (as opposed to her presence in Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, and Hush).