Meh. I don't know if it's just me, but this doesn't really look like Catwoman, just another generic female badass. I don't see anything particularly feline about her.

 

I think it can be much more effective for her to express the feline nature of the character through movement and demeanor than with cat ears and a tail.

Can Anne Hathaway do that is the question I have.

 

I dont think she is the right actress for this role at all. I'd like to be proven wrong though.

 

Meet the Batwing.

 

Looks quite bad. Hope it looks better on-screen.

 

It looks like a transformer tried the Micheal Jackson crotch grab and pulled too hard.

 

Like with the last movie, this one will have a prologue added before IMAX film. In December we will have a chance to see six minutes of The Dark Knight Rises just before Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

Obviously, there are now many people on the Internet who are saying that they saw it already. One of them named Llortamaisey (yes, I'm aware what his name means backwards) posted one on IMDb. It's almost for sure fake, but I honestly would love the new Batman's movie to start exactly like this (spoiler, just in case):

 

Sounds like they (the troll) just used some of knightfall, obviously fake, don't spread that bullshit.

 

No way that scene can fit in 6 minutes.

 

Okay, new teasers have been released for this film.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/editors-20111013/latest-dark-knight-rises-news-162443069.html

 

Eight years later? That's... a lot longer than I was expecting. So he's been on the run from cops and such all that time?

I don't know if I like that. Isn't this whole series supposed to be about Batman's early years?

 

Not particularly, as far as I know. Begins, sure, but The Dark Knight must have been at least a while after Begins, for Batman to have become enough of a problem to the mob that they're willing to hire the Joker. He'd barely touched them by the end of Begins.

It's surprising though, but interesting.

 

Eight years is a lot of time between The Dark Knight and this one. Why not just three as is between productions? It's not like it's too short time to show Bruce being physical weaker than he was before, considering how much beating he takes from time to time as Batman.

But maybe Nolan wants to show his time as an older man? Not yet a grandpa, but feeling that his prime time is quickly ending, which means he should be in his late thirties I suppose.

Or maybe - what I like the most, because every since seeing Bane as a main bad guy I'm hoping it will happen on screen - this eight years is time that it takes him to heal after his back was broken.

About three more weeks and we will probably know much more from a prologue and a trailer.

 

Eight years after his debut Batman had either already taken on the first Robin, or was about to. That's way too long for me. He's far too established at that point.

Now I'm worried about this movie.

 

8 years so they can not include Robin and et al?

 

Haven't yet seen these trailers so forgive any misconceptions.

That said, PLEASE tell me there isn't going to be a Robin injected into this reboot. There's no non-gay, non-retarded, non-fail way for a serious Batman movie to do it. It's just so campy and yet also full of homoerotic innuendo.

 

Bale and Nolan have said 'No Robin.' So, if WB continues this series (which I'm finding less and less likely, for some reason) with a Robin character, the main reasons for watching will be gone.

 

I wouldn't mind going straight to Nightwing.

 

I mention Robin in the context of the comics and everyone goes apeshit about Robin being in the movies. e_e

I don't want Robin either, as much as I like him -- because these movies shouldn't take place at any point in Batman's career where Robin enters the scene. They should be early Batman. Eight years is, again, too long. I'd accept three years at the most.

They're not. Not Nolan's series at least. That's ending with this one. They are making another Batman series though, IIRC, with different actors, directors, story, etc. Which is pretty stupid.

 

Why should it be about early Batman? As far as I can tell, the only aim they've had that reflects on timing is wanting to tell the origin story, which they've covered. In fact, since this is going to be the last Nolan-verse one by all accounts, it makes more sense to have it later on; origin, early days, then (triumphant?) climax in the later years.

I'm slightly disappointed, because I was looking forward to seeing the immediate-ish aftermath of Batman going on the run, but I can live with it. People thought Heath Ledger was a dreadful choice for the Joker, and look how that turned out.