You are Here » Headlines » News Chat » SPOILER: Secret Batman Villain revealed…
Headlines, News Chat
January 20, 2012

SPOILER: Secret Batman Villain revealed…

— Posted by The Amazing Anthony


SPOILER. Seriously, this is a serious spoiler. Don’t read this post. I’m filling this paragraph with text so anything below doesn’t appear on the front page that it’s that big of a spoiler. Ready? So, Christopher Nolan is about to learn a harsh lesson: Never trust a child with a billion dollar secret. Recently Joey King was interviewed about her participation in Nolan’s “The Dark Knight Rises” and let’s just say she’s spilling 1 too many beans…

Source: My Entertainment World

Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise is one of the biggest in the world, was it intimidating jumping on board for The Dark Knight Rises?

It was so cool, I had an amazing time. I got to travel to places I’d never been to before. Christopher Nolan is so nice, so is Christian Bale. I just had the best time.

What’s your role in that film?

I play young Talia al Ghul. I can’t give too much away because I promised Mr. Nolan I wouldn’t say anything. There are too many secrets about the character and the movie.

See that? nobody confirmed that Talia al Ghul was in this film before. I’m pretty f’n confident she wasn’t supposed to tell people that kinda stuff. Hell, Liam Neeson lied through his teeth about being in the film as Ra’s al Ghul and most of us have already speculated that Marion Cotilard’s character will be the older Talia. (Don’t forget there’s a younger Ra’s in this movie too). Notice that she also said “I play young Talia al Ghul”? That implies that there’s another, older, iteration of the character that could fit Cotilard’s ‘Miranda Tate’ character.

I have a long thought out theory on what’s gonna happen in this next movie but it’s so well thought out that I won’t share. Seriously, Elliot almost punched me through the monitor when I explained it to him.

Back to the matter at hand, let this be a lesson for all you readers: Never trust your secrets with adolescents.

This post was written by :

who has written 2547 posts on The Movie Blog

Content Manager | Editor in Chief

visit author's website | Contact the Author

  • ryan3d

    there has been teasers the have hinted to this, and the batman fan would of already known, just saying.

  • Browntastic

    I read this too. Re-iterating what Dave said, Nolan seems to be a “full-circle” director and from the stuff I’ve been reading it seems as though he is going to tie in a lot from Begins. I’m wondering if he is going to tie in the villains with similar elements from the first movie.

    *SPECULATION Alert* :)

    I am thinking that Bane may be in Scarecrow’s role from Begins where he is carrying out the plan while Talia is obviously in Ra’s Al Ghul’s role and she is coordinating the plan. This may be far fetched but I can also see Bane’s Venom serum being some concoction created by the League of Shadows possibly derived from the Lazarus pits since we’ve seen that the pits may exist in the movie.

    I want to see Catwoman as a rogue thief who is taking advantage of the mayhem and chaos in Gotham for personal gain but based on the previews showing the conversation between Bruce and Selena, I hear distinct undertones that may say otherwise. Hopefully she is just stirring the pot because I think we would all prefer the iconic Catwoman role as a thief.

    I’m also going to keep an ear open for the (trademark Nolan) redundant quote throughout the movie that establishes the theme for those ADHD viewers in case you miss it. Batman Begins – “Rattle the Cages”, The Dark Knight – “Play this one close to the chest”, The Dark Knight Rises – “?????”. If you look at these themes you can really see Nolan’s flow and how the circle is coming together for Rises.

    Either way I think Nolan will do what he does best and won’t disappoint. He’s one of the few directors that still pulls from the child inside of him. He remembers why he’s in the business and the thrill of going to the movies. He does what many others should be doing, he creates for himself and that’s why the public loves his work. He believes in his work so much that others believe too. He may not win over the Academy but he’s won over the public. He is a misunderstood abstract artist, a Picasso of our time, “he’s the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now… and so we’ll hunt him… because he can take it… because he’s not a hero… he’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector… a Dark Knight…”

    In Nolan We Trust…

    • giantguy1321

      He’s the hero Gotham deserves, a silent gardian, awatchful protector. Errrr….no, Nolan is a movie director whose gonna get a big head if people like you keep stroking his ego and refering to him as a movie-making genius.

      Warning: I will now express my short negative opinion about his holyship Christopher Nolan’s recent body of work. Please feel free not to read any further if you feel he is a modern directorial god.

      I find if you read this in a snooty British accent it sounds better!!

      Firstly, I find Nolan’s take on caped crusader extremely un-imaginative and rather visually tame. Secondly, I found Inception to be a dull wannabe sci-fi/action flick, with screamingly obvious art-house over and undertones. A movie that gained to much attention as a result of the success of the dark knight.

      Yes, I like my movies a little more grimy, gritty and colourfully iteresting. Rather than bright, modern and artsy-fartsy.

      (End accent)

      That’s just my opinion, but I’m sure I’ll be told I’m incorrect.

      • Danny

        Wow. I haven’t seen Inception so I can’t say anything on it. The first two Batman movies were good but not the greatest thing to grace the big screen.

        But most of all just by you recommending the snobbish accent I ended up thinking such an accent while reading that….and it was FUNNY.

        Thank you for the wonderful laugh!

      • Browntastic

        You’re definitely entitled to your opinion, no matter how skewed from the consensus it may be.

        Firstly, I do agree with you that his take on Batman is not that imaginative and it’s probably because it’s common knowledge that his inspiration comes from Frank Miller’s comics and graphic novels, Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns. I don’t think you can get much dark and gritty than Frank Miller and (in my opinion) Nolan translates his writings extremely well to the screen.

        I don’t want Batman reimagined, he’s a cultural icon. Can you tell me who did a better Batman movie? Joel Schumacher…nope he in fact publicly apologized for his take on Batman. The only one that comes close is Tim Burton who uses the exact same scenery in every film. Thank God he didn’t do Superman.

        I get that you like your movies grimy and gritty but what were you expecting? Decapitation? Batman meets Saw? I think preservation of the comics is what most of the fanboys and the public appreciated about the movie. The story was taken from an already established work of art, the movie was an adaptation which is exactly what it should have been.

        I appreciate your opinion but I am honestly curious as to which Batman movie you thought was better.

        P.S.
        I do not apologize for my love of Nolan :P

      • giantguy1321

        Batman is indeed a cultural icon as you put it, but a fictional one and like all fictional icons he is subject to interpretation. First you say you don’t want re-imagining of the character, but you’re fine with adaptations. When adapting a character to fit a new design, you re-imagine that character accordingly. Sometimes subtly and sometimes not so much. Therefore adaptation and re-imagining go hand in hand in this context.

        I don’t care for Nolan’s bland and grounded adaptation/re-imagining of the character or his environment. I did indeed prefer Tim Burton’s version of Batman. He was able to create a visually pleasing, ominously towering and lavishly GOTHIC cityscape for the DARK knight to exist in. Rather than Nolan’s downtown Miami with shanty town slums style of Gotham.

        I would also rather the Batmobile continue to more reflect the playboy persona of Bruce Wayne, being sleekly stylised and customised accordingly. Rather than simply becoming a disused battle tank.

        Most of all I want villains that have a reason and purpose (other than the Joker, who needs no reason) . The only villains with understandable causes and effect in the trilogy so far have been Two face and Ras Al Gaul.

        Batman has changed many times over the years, both on screen and in print. While Nolan’s movies may draw inspiration from Miller’s novels and help preserve Bob Kane’s legacy, they do not add anything new or overly interesting to the mix.

        P.S.
        I said I like my movies grimy and gritty. By which I meant intriguingly stylish and not gory.

      • Browntastic

        We’re just going to have to agree to disagree because I totally disagree.

        You’ve regarded adaptation as if there is no spectrum or level of adaptation, you cannot take re-imagining and adaptation as on synonymous style of screenwriting.

        You’ve downplayed one of the most well known and diabolical comic book villains (The Joker) as unworthy because he is chaotic and without purpose which also makes him unpredictable and dynamic.

        When I asked if you would prefer more “decapitation” or “Batman meets Saw” I was referencing a dark and gritty nature that I feel is already established in Nolan’s movies.

        I’ve had fun debating this topic but I think we have reached an impass. I appreciate your opinion because it is very interesting to hear the opinions of the other side. Both The Dark Knight and Inception received critical acclaim in the 90th percentile, it’s very interesting to hear the perspective of the 10 percent because we rarely do. Please continue to comment on posts, I’ve had a lot of fun and I love to be challenged.

        Ryan

      • giantguy1321

        By saying the Joker needs no reason to act I meant that he is like a force of nature. He doesn’t need a reason because he is a personification of mania. Any explanation for his actions would be void as they could never be justified.

        I liked Heath Ledger’s portrayal for that very reason. He simply lives to cause chaos and seems to care for nothing. Even when seen attempting to prove a point, the results always turn out to be of little real interest to the clown. Yet another disposable whim of a crazed madman seeking his perfect existence.

        Then there’s the Batman, the only one able to ruin the jokers latest whimsical spark of genius. The only intelligence capable of causing him any personally noticeable mental torment. Hence the long running obsession with the cowled crime-fighter.

        Anyway it’s always good to debate a subject you enjoy. Indeed we will have to agree to disagree over Nolan, but it’s been a pleasure conversing with you.

        All the best.

        • http://www.goosenips.com Anthony

          I disagree with the notion that Joker had no reason for doing what he was doing. I just think it has yet to be explained or made easily apparent.

    • giantguy1321

      I see, but why would he require a reason??

      • http://www.goosenips.com Anthony

        The Joker doesn’t require one, but I think Chris Nolan had him there for a reason. It’s part of my secret theory.

  • DAVE

    Wow. Read that at my own risk. I thought the rumor was confirmed, so it didn’t blow my mind. Glad they’re bring back elements from Batman Begins–full circle, baby!

  • nitinbansal184

    When this movie is going to release

Around the Web
Striker: "Surely you can't be serious." Rumack: "I am serious...and don't call me Shirley."

— Robert Hays and Leslie Nielsen as Ted Striker and Dr. Rumack from Airplane!, 1980

    Archives