Cannes Film Festival 2013

'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

<p>Batman will return to the streets of Gotham City in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight Rises'</p>

Batman will return to the streets of Gotham City in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight Rises'

Credit: Warner/Legendary

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?
  • Darkknightcycle_thumbnail
    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?

 

Get Instant Alerts - Motion Captured
By subscribing to this e-alert, you agree to HitFix Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and to occasionally receive promotional emails from HitFix.

Follow Drew McWeeny and Motion Captured on

RSS Facebook Twitter
 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Thumbnail_talkback_profile

    damned-dirty-ape

    how long before we get all the morons shouting 'Joseph Gordon Levitt as Joker'?

    October 27, 2010 at 2:54PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Brian

    Sometimes 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…

    October 27, 2010 at 2:57PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      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.

      Specifically, 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 3:36PM EST


  • I 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.

    October 27, 2010 at 3:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • S602160292_2076173_4167_talkback_profile

    studioplant

    In 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?

    October 27, 2010 at 4:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jezzle

    Does 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.

    October 27, 2010 at 4:14PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Kim Crawford

    Thank 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.

    October 27, 2010 at 5:57PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    I. S.

    Making 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?

    October 27, 2010 at 6:54PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      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.

      Also, 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?

      October 27, 2010 at 11:44PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      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.

      This 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.

      October 28, 2010 at 12:56AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      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.

      I 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?

      October 28, 2010 at 2:35AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Thomas Elliot

    Tom Hardy will play the villain known as Hush.

    October 27, 2010 at 11:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    The 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.

    October 28, 2010 at 12:22AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    John W

    Is Nolan planning to walk away from the Batman series after this film?

    October 28, 2010 at 10:09AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      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


  • Write a comment...

    October 28, 2010 at 1:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    joey cash

    Thank 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.

    October 28, 2010 at 2:18PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I 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.

    October 28, 2010 at 4:13PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web