and he was going to be younger as the character?
never knew this. that would have been pretty cool but i loved Neeson in the part
never knew this. that would have been pretty cool but i loved Neeson in the part
so Guy Pearce was originally considered for Ra's Al Ghul?
Posts: 15900
Joined:
June 2009
Eh, Neeson seems like the better casting choice for the role.
Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
Posts: 18329
Joined:
February 2011
+1Z. Cobb wrote:Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
Mortensen was a better choice.
I like Guy a lot and I wish Nolan used him some more and hopefully will in the future but this would be kind of funny to me. Guy isn't that young, older than Chris but he looks really young for his age. It would work but Liam was perfect casting.
"When art imitates life"
+2Mason01 wrote:+1Z. Cobb wrote:Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
He was first considered for Bruce Wayne/Batman role..
then, for Harvey Dent in the sequel.
In both cases, Nolan then chose another actor.
First choice for Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul was Viggo Mortensen, but he refused.
then, for Harvey Dent in the sequel.
In both cases, Nolan then chose another actor.
First choice for Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul was Viggo Mortensen, but he refused.
Slask wrote:He was first considered for Bruce Wayne/Batman role..
then, for Harvey Dent in the sequel.
In both cases, Nolan then chose another actor.
First choice for Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul was Viggo Mortensen, but he refused.
What? No 
I cannot see him as Ra's
Maybe because Liam was the best choice IMO
"When art imitates life"
Posts: 3861
Joined:
August 2009
Really? I could totally see Viggo as Ra's, in fact he might have been better than Liam (not that he was bad), but we'll never know.
