'The Dark Knight Rises' in Gotham with no Riddler in sight
Christopher Nolan also promises no 3D for the final film in his Bat-trilogy
Batman will return to the streets of Gotham City in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight Rises'
If you've spent any time in the last few months reading articles about Christopher Nolan's planned third Batman film, you probably felt confident that the villain in the new film would be the Riddler.
After all, site after site after site reported breathlessly that Joseph Gordon-Levitt had been offered the role of the Riddler on the "Inception" set. And then when word came down recently that Tom Hardy was cast in the film, people began reporting how Hardy had beaten Levitt out for the role. It was reported so confidently and so often that it would seem to be accepted fact... right?
Thing is, no one ever verified that notion, and one of the reasons I try not to run links to every little bit of info during the early days on some of these high-profile sequels is because so much speculation gets mixed into what little original reporting is out there, and eventually, you're playing an Internet-wide game of telephone, and the loser is accuracy.
This morning, Christopher Nolan had a short talk with Geoff Boucher at the LA Times, and two concrete facts were reported as a result of that conversation. First, the film's got a title: "The Dark Knight Rises." Since that came from Nolan, I'd take that as official.
He also said he's managed to persuade Warner and Legendary that shooting IMAX sequences would be more interesting than shooting the film in 3D. More importantly, Nolan said that the Riddler is not the villain in the movie. And again... you can't really do better as a source than Nolan.
Want More...
The Dark Knight Rises?
- Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

Of course, he didn't even hint at who the villain or villains in the movie will be, but once we know, we'll have a pretty good idea of the theme of this film. Nolan's been careful so far to build his movies so that the choices he makes for villain directly feed back into the theme of each film, and I'm sure that will be the case here as well.
The most entertaining thing about this morning's news has been watching fan forums already go ballistic. "WHAT? NO RIDDLER! BUT HE PROMISED!" This is why inaccuracy in reporting is a bad things, folks. Now you've got fans who genuinely think that Nolan decided to dump the Riddler from the movie, as if it was ever true that he was in it. That's amazing to me. And the knee-jerk reaction to the title has been equally hilarious. So many fans had already set their hearts on other titles that now the entire film is "ruined" for them.
I hope Nolan is able to keep a lockdown on information on this one, and I hope the details we do learn are just broad strokes type things. If we've only got one more film in this series from this director, why would we want to know everything right now? For now, a title is fine, and if he wants to tell us who isn't in the film, that's fun. I just hope fans keep some perspective here. The only reason you're this interested in a third film in this series is because he's done such a good job on the first two, and that should buy him some serious benefit of the doubt, don't you think?
News From Our Partners
-
Reese Witherspoon Joins Paul Thomas Anderson's 'Inherent Vice'
CBS Fall 2013 Trailers: Sarah Michelle Gellar's 'Crazy Ones,' Anna Faris' Mom' and More!
Sony Trademarks Possible PlayStation 4 Slogan "Greatness Awaits"
-
'Angry Birds' Film Dive-Bombing Into Theaters In 2016
'Fast & Furious 6' Blasts Forward With Exclusive Clip: Watch Now!
'Riddick' Trailer: Watch Vin Diesel Fight For Survival
-
Grimm "The Waking Dead" Review: Dead On Arrival
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of Arrow, CSI, and Supernatural
CBS's 2013-2014 Schedule: New Nights for Person of Interest and Hawaii Five-0, More Comedy on Thursdays
-
Hear This: Connections gives a Guided By Voices-indebted reason to go for the opener
Watch This: The second half of Twilight Zone: The Movie more than makes up for the first
Tolerability Index: This week we're barely putting up with The Killing
-
Total Recall: Star Trek Movies
Parental Guidance: Star Trek Into Darkness
In Pictures: The Stars of Star Trek Into Darkness
-
Why They Went 'Crazy'
30 EPIC Wedding Disasters
'No One Lives Forever'
-
'Riddick' Trailer: Vin Diesel Is Back and Playing for Blood
'Rio 2' Teaser Trailer Has Landed: Let's Dance!
Cannes 2013: Celebs Invade Opening Ceremony (PHOTOS)
-
Shakira Leaving 'The Voice' Next Season
Source Claims Kanye West + Kim Kardashian Will Most Likely Break Up Before the Baby Is Born
Demi Lovato Gets New 'Warrior'-Inspired Tattoo [Pic]
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
Hollywood's busiest alien spends a little more time with StarfleetThursday, May 16, 2013
-
David Twohy's latest looks lean and meanWednesday, May 15, 2013
-
Can this series really survive the loss of Justin Lin?Wednesday, May 15, 2013
-
Plus how devoted do you have to be to be called a 'Trekkkie'?Tuesday, May 14, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupdamned-dirty-ape
October 27, 2010 at 2:54PM EST Reply to Commenthow long before we get all the morons shouting 'Joseph Gordon Levitt as Joker'?
Brian
October 27, 2010 at 2:57PM EST Reply to CommentSometimes I wonder if you're just too close to the industry, Drew, and have lost a bit of perspective as far as just having fun speculating what could or could not be for a future Batman (hell, a future anything) film. I mean, it was cool reading all of the speculation and watching people come up with casting theories and whatnot. But then watching some of the online "pros," particularly Devin at CHUD, actually get a sense of outrage and take offense at fan-posters of David Tennant as the Riddler or Kristen Bell as Harley Quinn, it just really soured me on some of the online folks who seemed to flaunt just as much ego and faux superiority as the fans who think they have a sense of entitlement to the properties.
Look, I'm a huge Riddler fan and I'm bummed he won't be in the film, but it's not the end of the world...odds are Nolan will do a great film no matter what. And yes, there are idiot fans out there who misunderstand news and mistake rumor and speculation for fact. But by taking this lowest common denominator into account and reporting/writing against it, I do wonder if perhaps you're doing a disservice to the fans who actually comprehend the way things work and just enjoy trying to hash it all out.
Not trying to be critical or a douche. Just thinking aloud…
drew If people want to play and speculate in forums and the like, that's fine. I don't think I've ever said a single word damning that sort of fandom.
October 27, 2010 at 3:36PM ESTSpecifically, what I am talking about are "news" stories based only on speculation and rumor, and the way certain untruths become entrenched in the reporting on certain films. There are sites who have been confidently stating it as fact for months that the Riddler was the villain, and now there are disappointed fans who believed what they read.
That bothers me.
October 27, 2010 at 3:42PM EST Reply to CommentI can't imagine that they're going to spill everything. The marketing campaign for The Dark Knight was brilliant. I can't see them dropping the ball now.
studioplant
October 27, 2010 at 4:10PM EST Reply to CommentIn IMAX not 3D, count me excited. I think that is the smart play. Now about Joseph Gordon Levitt, I am so ready for his big break. Remember Brick? Maybe he could be the Son of the Joker. Am I to far off? Check out Batman Vol 1 #145. Ok so that may be a bit of a stretch. Now about Tom Hardy, what can I say that goofy Star Trek film ruined him a little for me. iMDb is saying Det. Harvey Bullock (rumored). How seriously can iMDb be taken?
Jezzle
October 27, 2010 at 4:14PM EST Reply to CommentDoes this mean the frontrunner is Black Mask now? Also, just because Nolan said the Riddler is not the villain doesn't mean he can't be a factor the overall story. Maybe Nolan mean MAIN villain. Ok, I'm reaching but there still may be hope.
Kim Crawford
October 27, 2010 at 5:57PM EST Reply to CommentThank you for being one of the few journalists that come to mind who values the ethics of the profession. Requiring info from the best source, fact-checking and dismissing rumor is a lost art, and shows your much-appreciated integrity. Count me as a new fan.
I. S.
October 27, 2010 at 6:54PM EST Reply to CommentMaking a blockbuster in IMAX - if they decide to do the whole film that way - is pretty great news. Big studio pictures haven't fully used the format until now. Of course, it will slow down the filmmaking process and add greatly to the cost. And it is going to force some changes to style. Nolan's incoherent flash-cut fight choreography will be even more unwatchable on a super-big screen.
By the way, terrible title - no brand differentiation. People might think they are getting a re-release. Will the fourth film be The Dark Knight Rises Again?
That Sad Elk's Lodge Smell They're not going to do the whole film in IMAX. That's practically a guarantee. He'll greatly increase the complexity and length and number of IMAX sequences, I'm sure (probably increasing the number from "a few big sequences" to "all the action sequences"), but he won't make the whole movie that way.
October 27, 2010 at 11:44PM ESTAlso, Nolan already abandoned "flash-cut" fight choreography in The Dark Knight.
And, finally, when a movie called THE DARK KNIGHT makes a billion dollars, that title becomes a brand itself.
And I really wouldn't be surprised if they're lifting big bits from The Dark Knight Returns for this, especially with the title acronyms matching. Maybe it means Tom Hardy is going to be a certain gang leader who beats the crap out of Batman? Maybe the actresses Nolan's supposedly met over the past couple of weeks are reading for Ellen Yindel, the captain who, with Gordon gone, lassos up the GCPD and sends them after Batman?
I. S. It sounds a lot like Nolan wants to do the whole film in IMAX format. That is the only basis for him to say that he is pushing the medium forward without using 3D, which is how he pitched it to WB. If so, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows just how demanding it's going to be.
October 28, 2010 at 12:56AM ESTThis latest explanation for not using 3D was a lot more reasoned than Nolan's previous throwaway line for fanboys. He doesn't believe it is compatible with the particular look and feel he has set for the series. OK, fine. With WB still lacking even one tentpole movie shot in stereo, they are going to need a good excuse, and keep on needing them.
That Sad Elk's Lodge Smell I didn't know that "we don't shoot for 3D because we (particularly Pfister) prefer shooting on film" is a throwaway line for fanboys.
October 28, 2010 at 2:35AM ESTI sincerely doubt Nolan's interested in making the whole movie IMAX sized. There's not nearly enough IMAX equipment that exists, even after TDK, to capably cover a gigantic, multi-city shoot like this. He could possibly stopgap it and shoot non-action sequences in 65mm to create a more "fluid" look from sequence to sequence. Anything like this would "move the medium forward". There hasn't been a wholly 65mm-shot movie in 18 years. Hollywood abandoned the format. The cameras are available. Pfister got some use out of it for sequences on Inception. Downgrading both to 35mm for regular projection would still result in a cleaner, sharper image. It's a win for everyone: exhibitors, studio, filmmaker.
And I'd bet dollars to donuts that Man of Steel ends up being WB's first big "we shot this in 3D!" movie. Can you really think of any other movie that would be WB's big declaration of how they're handling that format?
Thomas Elliot
October 27, 2010 at 11:48PM EST Reply to CommentTom Hardy will play the villain known as Hush.
Mulderism
October 28, 2010 at 12:22AM EST Reply to CommentThe best part of this news is that this movie won't be in 3D. Thank god. I wish other directors would follow this lead and just say 'no' to 3D.
Nolan really has some clout and I'm glad he's using it for good.
John W
October 28, 2010 at 10:09AM EST Reply to CommentIs Nolan planning to walk away from the Batman series after this film?
Jeff Damn, I really liked the title "Gotham City" better. Granted, that was fan-suggested but it sounded more epic. Not too pumped up by "Dark Knight Rises." Also, Nolan has never confirmed it officially but his interviews mostly suggest he wants this to be his last Batman film. He's talked about how he wants his trilogy to really come to an end for these characters/his universe.
October 28, 2010 at 1:55PM EST
October 28, 2010 at 1:44PM EST Reply to CommentWrite a comment...
joey cash
October 28, 2010 at 2:18PM EST Reply to CommentThank god he didn't go with Gotham City as the title. That sucks balls. I don't care how much "the city itself is a character". It's lame.
JoeK
October 28, 2010 at 4:13PM EST Reply to CommentI still want either Jennifer Connelly or (probably better) Marianne Cotillard as in Catwoman. Google some Adam Hughes illustrations of Catwoman for a good jumping off point for the look - and there is a great mine for the character in 'When In Rome' which would follow since Goyer and Nolan clearly drew heavy inspiration from Loeb and Sale previously.
I have to agree with Drew on how silly this has played out speculatively though. There are so many geek sites now that just vomit out every single speculative chicken nugget out there that it's ridiculous. What's even worse is that they seem to cannabilize one another routinely in the process of doing it.
I get that there is going to be speculation and that the internet loves it some Nolan but personally I'd prefer to see the movie when it comes out and not read everything there is to know about it before the lights go down.
In any case I'm not worried about any of the choices he might make - subtraction or addition.