Christopher's 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise that tells the origins of how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
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
Joined:
June 2009
Location: La La Land
Eh, Neeson seems like the better casting choice for the role.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: London town, UK
Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
Z. Cobb wrote: Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
+1
Mortensen was a better choice.
Joined:
February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
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"
Joined:
February 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Mason01 wrote: Z. Cobb wrote: Guy Pearce is Great... but Neeson... was top notch and a great choice.
+1
+2
Joined:
July 2010
Location: Italy
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.
June 10th, 2011, 10:05 pm
Joined:
February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
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"
June 10th, 2011, 11:56 pm
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.
June 11th, 2011, 12:00 am