Gotham City Sirens

Jessica Chastain is open to playing Poison Ivy in 'Gotham City Sirens'

By

·

March 27, 2017

Jessica Chastain is at the top of a lot of fans wishlists for Poison Ivy in Gotham City Sirens, and they're in luck! Chastain is not opposed to it.

In a new interview with CinemaBlend, Chastain was asked if she'd be interested in playing Poison Ivy in the DC Films universe. Here's what she had to say:

I'm interested in all things where the characters are strong and dynamic, and not stereotypes or objects. I like female characters that are subjects, not objects. And so, if Poison Ivy happens to be that, sure. Throw my hat in the ring.

So there you have it! If Gotham City Sirens director David Ayer approached Chastain about Poison Ivy, it sounds like she'd be interested. Poison Ivy is not a stereotype or an object, she'd be a strong, powerful main character helping to lead the movie's story. Gotham City Sirens will also feature Harley Quinn and Catwoman as the other two main characters.

Would you like to see Jessica Chastain as Poison Ivy, or is there another actress in mind that you think would be perfect for the role? Let me know in the comments below!

SOURCE: CinemaBlend

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

133 comments

Sodomizah
March 27, 2017
I would love to poison her ivy gat dayum
1. terrarret
  March 27, 2017
  Aaaand she just changed her mind.
  1. UltimateEdition
    March 27, 2017
    Ha
  2. Vanta Black
    March 28, 2017
    LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOO
2. UltimateEdition
  March 27, 2017
  Come on she's like a 6.7 at best
papasanchez
March 27, 2017
She would be perfect
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Gotham
March 27, 2017
City Sirens feels like a missed opportunity to adapt the Almost Got 'im episode of BTAS.
1. Tammana Mehta
  March 27, 2017
  holy shit you are alive, i remember you in dark knight rises imdb message board.
  1. Cisco007
    March 29, 2017
    Hmm....you should audition for Ivy also! ; )
    1. Tammana Mehta
      March 30, 2017
      thx
2. Six(for instance)
  March 28, 2017
  villains, six short stories. A film structured similar to Batman: Gotham Knight, with a good finale. It could be stretched out to a six-episode series, imo.
Batdan
March 27, 2017
i think scott snyders most recent poison ivy comic shows how intelligent and resilient the character really is
1. BlaqMaq
  March 27, 2017
  Agreed. Just read that yesterday. It would be a cool basis to start her from.
2. Hunter Zolomon
  March 28, 2017
  Yeah he nailed Ivy in that issue, thats the type of Ivy i like.
OGDickGrayson
March 27, 2017
Mmm gurl
TØM
March 27, 2017
Here's Ivy and Selina haha https://youtu.be/C8azftM5puI
1. Jcool
  March 27, 2017
  https://m.popkey.co/603e36/...
  1. TØM
    March 27, 2017
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
The Doctor
March 27, 2017
That would be great casting! I dig it.
Black Adam
March 27, 2017
Jessica lezzing with Margot? I mean... do we even have to discuss this? :D
batwing
March 27, 2017
Robbie as Quinn, Chastain as Ivy, and then Keira Knightley as Catwoman? Only problem I'd have would be being removed from the theater due to excessive drooling.
1. ShadowGuardian
  March 27, 2017
  Keira Knightley as Catwoman? No way. There's way better options for the cat than her.
  1. batwing
    March 27, 2017
    I honestly just want a good, attractive actress with the short, dark hair. I feel like she would play well with Ben on-screen. Who would be your top choice?
    1. towblerone
      March 27, 2017
      Eva Green. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    2. Mark
      March 27, 2017
      Two words: Clairol and scissors. Hell, even Ben doesn't really have the gray temples his Bruce does. And there's no guarantee that we'll even have Catwoman and Batman slated to appear together.
2. TØM
  March 27, 2017
  Dear god no
batwing
March 27, 2017
Since seeing Edge of Tomorrow, I've wanted Blunt to be Black Canary. Her hair just needs to be a little blonder than what it was haha
I'm Batman Man 39
March 27, 2017
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
MURPH!!!
hesh3r
March 27, 2017
yes pls !
Guest
March 27, 2017
I better bring tissues when I go see Sirens in the cinema..
Jack Thorne
March 27, 2017
"I like female characters that are subjects, not objects."
And that's why she's unlikely to play Ivy. Ayer consistently objectifies his female leads.
Get a really good female director for Sirens and you'll have a much better chance.
1. Jack Thorne
  March 27, 2017
  You can be a strong character that's also sexually objectified.
  1. Duddete
    March 27, 2017
    I sort of agree. Harley is kinda developed as a strong character, but also very sexual (Newer comics, Arkham games etc).
    Ivy should be brains over looks, she needs to be a person with PHD first.
    Cannot say if I like or dislike her as casting.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      March 27, 2017
      But Ivy is a seductress as well. She is definitely smart, but she knows that men find her irresistible. She would use her sex appeal to her advantage.
      1. Duddete
        March 27, 2017
        I agree, but she kinda has help with seducing, If you know what I mean, like those Ivy kisses, definitely her siluette should be sexual, but in occasions when needed, and her being very aware doing it, but not necessarily being a person who s only thing is being that, not constantly like Harley. She should be, these stupid men, and make her sexuality as an advantage
      2. Schuyler Finley
        March 27, 2017
        I think the Arkham games got her right. She came off sexual but also showed off intelligence.
      3. Duddete
        March 27, 2017
        Agree, just hope Ayer wont make her a gang member, and tattoo leaves and flowers on you, that can work only few times (Diablo, Joker, Harley), and not bedazzle her with some pimping jewelery. Poison bling bling Ivy
      4. Schuyler Finley
        March 27, 2017
        I doubt he'll do that. Unless Ivy's wearing her BTAS costume, people will complain that she's being sexually objectified based.
      5. Bill Agans
        July 15, 2017
        She should look more like the Arkham version.
  2. Jack Thorne
    March 27, 2017
    Portraying sexiness and being objectified are not the same thing. You can portray her sexual appeal as a part of her identity, without reducing her to a sexual object
    1. Jack Thorne
      March 27, 2017
      I think you need to go back and watch the movie if you think she wasn't treated as a sexual object. Also, you can read the extensive literature about it online:
      https://www.dailydot.com/pa...
      http://www.avclub.com/artic...
      http://www.pajiba.com/dc_mo...
      1. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        "I've only watched SS once, and I remember enough of it to know I'm right"
        Lol. And on that note, I don't need to say anything more.
      2. Mohammad
        March 27, 2017
        lol
      3. Davif
        March 27, 2017
        Yes because you're a moron. I took my wife and sister-in-law to AS. They aren't cb fans, and both saw Harley only as a way to place T&A shots throughout the film. You can bitch and say you're right, but to casual moviegoers those characters were overtly sexualized for no reason.
      4. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        Bullshit.
        The booty shorts weren't shortened in post-production—check out any of the set photos clicked by passersby. They are the same length as they were in the final film.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        Writing at length about an unfounded lie and calling it extensive literature doesn't make it true.
      5. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        What are you even bumbling on about?
        The film is full of lengthy learing shots of a scantily clad Harley Quinn wriggling into a skinny tee while guys just gawk at her, or shot where she suspended in air, with her legs spread apart with guys drooling at her. Or multiple repeated shots of her behind in tight booty shorts. Or the objectification, brutalization or subjugation of her character to demean her as nothing but a sexual object. Or the incessant pin-up poses she gives throughout the film?
      6. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        Oh, so you haven't read the posts you've shared(just read the titles, eh)? They accuse the filmmakers of shortening her booty-shorts in post-production, which is a demonstrable lie. And then continue to apply more projections and fantasies of their own.
        Do you even know what the character of Harley Quinn is supposed to be? You clearly don't.
      7. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        You know, if you had bothered to read the previous lines of argument you would have realized why I posted those pieces. The pieces support the view that the character Harley Quinn was objectified and sexualized in the film. Anything they say beyond that like what happened in post is irrelevant because that was clearly never my argument in the first place. Where did I say the shorts were shortened? My argument is what we saw in the final cut .
        Next time you want to pretend to be a smart ass, you might want to use your head and think before you write.
      8. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        The fact that none of those are trades and just your usual run-of-the-mill clickbait blogs makes them lose half the credibility. The fact that they're filled with lies cuts away at the other half.
        You're basically defining what cherry-picking facts to legitimize your opinion looks like. And doing a great job at that too.
        Of course, she was sexualized (because did you even know who Harley was until this movie?) but not objectified—there's a difference you're intentionally trying to blur.
        Keep at it. I've made my point.
      9. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        It’s funny that you put your whole reply in bold. (hahaha you removed it) You're hysterical...
        It doesn’t help you, everytime I read your comments on here they're full of nonsense and errors. You’re probably one of the worst on here to make sense along with Finlay. I even remember having to correct your schoolboy errors before too. This time is no different. But sure, knock yourself out with the full bold if you feel it makes you look serious. Lol.
        Each of these links (and more) explain how the film sexualizes and objectifies Harley Quinn in the FILM. You complain they're not trades but click-bait (you always carp on about this), and you can complain they lie, but if you cannot show why (proper use of bold) they shouldn’t be trusted as websites, and if you cannot show how they lied specifically about the FILM portraying Harley Quinn as a sexualized object, then you have no argument, and not for he first time, you shouldn't be taken seriously.
        Please, tell me where I conflate sexualisation with objectification? If you had bothered to read you would have realized I clearly define the difference of both from one another. Harley Quinn was sexualized and objectified, and it’s absolute comedy gold that you are deliberately avoiding all the examples I gave above to show this. You're the gift that keeps on giving!
        Please, put your whole reply in bold again! It’s f#@king hysterical.
      10. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        Try the refresh button. A typo in the HTML formatting caused the entire comment to go bold. If you've truly ever read my previous comments, you'd know I properly use both bold and italics.
        What's comedy gold is how you make a big deal out of the bold characters and then proceed to make such pathetic grammatical blunders!
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        You're mistaken if you think I'm here to argue with you. I'm just pointing out your mistakes. But since you seem to have gotten this wrong impression, let me say that both you and those websites I've never heard of, either knowingly or not, are trying to twist the sexualization of Harley Quinn into Objectification.
        All the sensual scenes—not even truly sexual—are part of the sexualization. It would be Objectification if that sexualization was everything the character was in the film, which is not the case. It's one of the most respectable incarnations of Harley Quinn and that's part of the reason why it blew up all of a sudden and has even been embraced by many women. If it was just Objectification then every action-movie chick should be just as popular but they're not.
        P. S. All you did in the past is plug some Batman website over and over and deluded yourself into thinking you've corrected me by repeating their rumors.
        Oh, please! I'd edited the bold-format typo way before your reply.
      11. Jack Thorne
        March 28, 2017
        ”What's comedy gold is how you make a big deal out of the bold characters and then proceed to make such pathetic grammatical blunders!”
        Ahem…
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        What a total clown.
      12. AquaCthulhu
        March 30, 2017
        Oh, yes, a missing hyphen is more of a grammatical violation than writing their instead of there, a tell-tale sign of an average idiot-on-the-internet. Or did you think passers-by is not a word?
        Your desperation is showing.
        You can call me as many names as you wish, they won't stop being the projections that they are.
      13. Jack Thorne
        March 28, 2017
        “And you're in a dire need of some grammar classes.”
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        Jesus, you couldn't even get that right.
      14. Jack Thorne
        March 28, 2017
        LOL. I raised the issue of you writing in total bold because it was obviously bizarre and unseen before, and you respond by picking up on my grammatical errors? We all make grammatical errors (you did too), there’s nothing odd about that, less so when one tries to correct it. That’s how I know now you are a small minded person riven by a debilitating inferiority complex.
        “All the sensual scenes—not even truly sexual—are part of the sexualization. It would be objectification if that sexualization was everything the character was in the film, which is not the case.”
        That’s absolute, incoherent rubbish.
        Firstly, even if everything about a character is sexual, it doesn’t therefore mean they are necessarily objectified. You can display sexual behavior without the objectification. All sexual objectification is sexual, but not all sexualization is sexual objectification. Secondly, a character can be strong, developed, or non-sexual for large parts of a film, and STILL be sexually objectified in other parts, and therefore be sexually objectified. In other words, being always and only sexualized are not sufficient or necessary conditions to being sexually objectified.
        You said that those websites I linked are not “trades and just your run-of-the-mill clickbait blogs makes them lose half the credibility”. I explained to you that you need to show why they shouldn’t be trusted as websites (as well as why they are “clickbait”), and show how they lied specifically about portraying Harley Quinn as a sexualized object”. And your reply to this?
        “…let me say that both you and those websites I've never heard of…are trying to twist the sexualization of Harley Quinn into Objectification.”
        In other words, you have NOTHING. No reasons, no justification, no argument. You’re special pleading deluded nonsense, and you’re upset because I’m not letting you get away with it. So, I’m going to ask you again, show me why they shouldn’t be trusted as websites, and how they lied specifically about portraying Harley Quinn as a sexualized object? Don’t worry, I can wait for as long as it takes.
        You want to revisit previous discussions? Sure! Fine by me! Your chronic incoherence is clearly affecting your memory too, so I suppose I have to remind you how ridiculous you’ve sounded to me before.
        You criticized me about the possibility of Manganiello leaving after an interview without realizing it was given BEFORE Affleck had left as director. Smart! You then, hilariously, went on a baffling tirade about “making stuff up” and “clickbaits blogs” which had absolutely nothing to do with anything we were talking about. I mean, it was hysterical if I didn’t feel sorry you were making a fool of yourself. Was that the end of it? No! After I held your feet to the fire about your comment, what was your response?
        “I meant the ones running clickbait blogs—now I have no idea if you have a blog or a website.”
        Huh? But you still couldn’t tell me what clickbait blogs you were bumbling on about in the first place, or why you brought it up if none of it was relevant to me! Needless to say, you quietly and pitifully dropped that line. I would call that spineless, but that would be an insult to spines everywhere.
        Is that all you did? No! You wanted “evidence” that Joe Manganiello was leaving, even though I explained to you that that’s not how evidence works, in the same way no-one had ‘evidence’ of Ben Affleck leaving the director’s chair, even though people suspected it. As for BOF, you asked me what they got right, I told you, and then you shut up and didn’t say anything. Every single line of your ‘argument’ was taken down until you were stripped bare.
        It’s amusing to think that there is now a greater possibility than before that Joe Manganiello will not be in THE BATMAN. So, this seems the ideal time to remind you what you wrote:
        “I'd like to bet that Deathstroke will play a part in the Batman whenever it comes out and there's no amount of uncertainty about that.”
        Like I said, you are the gift that keeps on giving! What a total farce…
        The second discussion we had was more concise, and yet also showcasing your failed grasp of conceptual ideas:
        I had to explain to you something conceptually simple as ‘a statement stated as an opinion can still be a fact (you said it couldn’t)’. For example, if I say: ‘AquaCthulhu has the conceptual awareness of a colossal donut’, it’s not only an opinion, it’s a fact too, as these three lines of discussion show in great detail.
        “You're mistaken if you think I'm here to argue with you. I'm just pointing out your mistakes. But since you seem to have gotten this wrong impression…”
        Wrong impression? I was HAPPY for a spirited and respectful debate too, as I have been everytime I have discussed with you and others. What did I even say to you once?
        "At least then we can have a conversation about the opinion itself rather than complain about someone's right to HAVE an opinion. Let's all be responsible adults here and respect each other's opinion, even if people don't like them."
        YOU ended that with the first word in your first reply: “bullshit”. That’s not insulting, but that’s no way to conduct a respectful discussion. You disrespect me, I have no hesitation now in retaliating. At least admit your response was rash instead of bemoaning how I’m mistaken and you’ve done nothing wrong. Take ownership for your failures.
        Ready for the next round? I'm saving some special stuff I've got.
      15. AquaCthulhu
        March 30, 2017
        Let's be clear: the only reason I pointed out your errors is because you made your entire opening about the obviously mistaken bold characters as if you knew your so-called argument didn't have substance. Had you not acted foolishly then I wouldn't have bothered telling you where to write 'there' and not 'their'—if I told everyone on the internet who did that mistake then I'd still be replying to last year's comments.
        Firstly, even if everything about a character is sexual, it doesn’t therefore mean they are necessarily objectified.
        Congratulations! You've just put the exact thing I said into different words. Bravo, sir!
        All sexual objectification is sexual, but not all sexualization is sexual objectification.
        Exactly. You just keep repeating my original point in so many words. Harley was sexualized, not sexually objectified—something I've said three comments ago.
        Is it perhaps because common-sense dictates otherwise than to trust every other blog online that acts as an echo chamber to a bunch of people? No?
        Especially the ones with factual errors! You might cry some more about how that doesn't pertain to your argument but it does diminish the credibility of the said blog and I'm left with no reason to believe it other than you telling me to believe it.
        You think you've got such an argument with that thinly-veiled, self-professed argument but did you, at any point, realize I could do the same?
        What's the credibility of the blogs you've shared? Do you have any way of substantiating them other than claiming they've been around for a long time (which proves nothing)?
        Didn't think so.
        …without realizing it was given BEFORE Affleck had left as director. Smart!
        Unless you'd rather delude yourself it's clear the article first reported it as a statement after Ben Affleck's departure at first! There was an update later on that I hadn't checked. It neither means I'm stupid or smart, it was simply a lack of information. But I'm sure it's hard for you to consider because then you wouldn't have an argument and you seem to always need one.
        “I'd like to bet that Deathstroke will play a part in the Batman whenever it comes out…
        Now might be a good time to understand that a bet is something that has a 50-50 chance of becoming true, I mean that's the concept of betting—it's based on the outcome of an unpredictable event. Also remember how you couldn't, and still can't, provide any proof because unpredictable is what it is. Deathstroke could still end up in the Batman but I'm mature enough to not come back here and gloat if that happens.
        Huh? But you still couldn’t tell me what clickbait blogs you were…
        Actually I did. I was referring to the Collider guy who was relevant enough that someone would even listen to him (although you said it first showed up somewhere else but clearly no one cared then, probably because none cared about the source, or it would've blown up then itself).
        The thing about made-up stuff is that there's no evidence, by your own admission, and when that's how it is it could go either way. 50-50, you see.
        So if I say, "There's no way Jack Thorne didn't write this on a word-processor and copy-pasted it here since he previously couldn't tell their/there apart," it won't just be an opinion but a fact as well because it's so self-evident?
        Er, the wrong impression I'm talking about is how you thought I was interested in arguing with you. I wasn't and I'm still not. I informed you about a factual error in a blog you've shared and you reacted with "don't care, don't matter".
        Unless you prove to me why those blogs are credible my statement about them being bullshit still stands. Did you seriously think I called you bullshit? I'm sorry for you if you did. Of course I was rash and that's because I think those blogs are bullshit, do I need to make it any clearer?
      16. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        And you're in a dire need of some grammar classes. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      17. AquaCthulhu
        March 27, 2017
        Those articles are bullshit anyway—I checked. Harley was never gratuitously sexualized in the movie and the only ones that thought so are the ones that don't know the character at all.
        People just needed something Harley-related to complain about when they got bored of dissing Leto's Joker. What other way to generate clicks than by accusing an anticipated blockbuster of sexism?
  3. UltimateEdition
    March 27, 2017
    the first comment I've seen you make That I agree with. I tip my hat to you fine sir.
    1. Jack Thorne
      March 27, 2017
      Now why can you always be that respectful?
      You don't agree with much I say, but does that mean you always have to personally attack me?
      1. UltimateEdition
        March 28, 2017
        Lol easy there... I've never "personally attacked" you... called you a troll? Yep, guilty.
2. Duddete
  March 27, 2017
  He might have a look at your comments beneath and above mine.
  And then we can talk about trols.
  1. Duddete
    March 27, 2017
    My point exactly ;)
    1. Duddete
      March 27, 2017
      ;) ;) ;) Love me more
3. Jack Thorne
  March 27, 2017
  I haven't, and it really doesn't bother me.
  Just shows that I'm living rent-free inside their thin-skinned heads.
  1. Duddete
    March 27, 2017
    Give me a head ;)
4. Seb
  March 27, 2017
  Or maybe get a good director regardless of gender. I am continuously amazed how people think gender would actually matter. And besides, Ayer objectifies women? I don't even know what you're talking about.
  1. Jack Thorne
    March 27, 2017
    I did say the director has to be good. Obviously it can't be any female director.
    I think it's a fair point to make that a female director is more likely to have a better understanding of portraying female characters without instinctively objectifying them than a male would.
    I have a suggestion. Watch SUICIDE SQUAD.
    1. Seb
      March 27, 2017
      Then wouldn't you think it's fair to say that most comic book movies "should be" directed by men, given that most of these movies have male leads? You'd be called a patriarchal white supremacist neo Nazi for even daring to push such an idea. I simply don't buy into "objectification". It's a non-issue. And they do it to men, ALL the time and no one gives a fuck.
      But to your point, I have seen pretty much all of his films. I can't remember one character that was there just for the sake of having some eye candy.
      1. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        Sure, if you want. The point is that there is a distinct under-representation of female filmmakers portraying female leads. That's obviously, factually, not the case for male leads.
        I'm old-fashioned: women are better at understanding women than men, and that would be the case here.
    2. Seb
      March 27, 2017
      Let me just say this...
      When this happens, there is an outrage.
      http://scifanatic.wpengine....
      Yet when this happens (repeatedly throughout multiple films, and to multiple actors)
      http://cdn.collider.com/wp-...
      https://healthandfitnessdm....
      http://d12gru76acl07x.cloud...
      Guess what... No one gives a shit. And that is precisely why I don't take this "objectification" bullshit seriously. Because ultimately, who are we to judge? ALL of these actors and actresses, agreed to show off their fit bodies, and quite frankly, I'm pretty sure they wanted to. It was THEIR choice to do it. It seems we should always "respect women", except if they make other choices some would like them to. They decided to do it. Who cares? Why is this a problem, I really don't understand.
      1. Jack Thorne
        March 27, 2017
        Ok, simmer down. That's the Red Herring fallacy.
        That's got ZERO to do with this topic. I know you always like injecting politics into this but it's utterly irrelevant.
        I made my point that was specific to David Ayer and his portrayal of Harley Quinn.The media representation and sexualization of males vs females is a total distraction.Not only that, men have no problem in being sexually objectified, because you can't be if you're powerful. That's not the case for women. Sex crime statistics attest to this. It's a can of worms and it's not relevant to this specific issue. Total red herring distraction.
        Why is it a problem? Because it's about respect and proper treatment of people, not objectifying them. It's not about showing off bodies, it's about their objectification. Just because actors say yes to a role doesn't mean you should objectify them or their character. And, if some great actors like Chastain are going to say no on principle, then it's a good idea to re-evaluate again why we have to objectify women like that. The argument is a MORAL one.
        It's not rocket science.
      2. Seb
        March 27, 2017
        Lol, I am calm... Why do people always assume frustration? And I rarely say anything about "racism". In fact, I pretty much NEVER talk about it, because I think it's stupid.
      3. Seb
        March 27, 2017
        I also don't see how this has anything to do with "racism" in the fist place. You know exactly what I mean, and who exactly is bringing "politics" into this? Not me, that's for sure. I am only arguing against double standards. That is all. If you think "objectification" is an issue, that's fine. But then I expect you to show the same concern over "male objectification", which happens all the time yet is never talked about. Or you can be just like me, and recognize this is a TRIVIAL, NON-issue, and shouldn't even be talked about.
      4. terrarret
        March 27, 2017
        You have a point except men aren't anywhere near as likely to be the vicitms of sex crimes. Perhaps it's under-reported. I don't know.
      5. Seb
        March 28, 2017
        That's actually statistically incorrect. But I also don't see how this is relevant?
5. Nahuel Benvenuto
  March 27, 2017
  "objectifies" man, feminists really got your mind, huh?
  1. Tiger Quinn
    March 28, 2017
    Aww, scared of women so have to use the feminist term. Sorry, they don't need you.
6. AnonymousHero
  March 30, 2017
  How was Katana objectified?
Akko Kagari
March 27, 2017
Margot for Harley (of course lmao)
Evan Rachel Wood for Ivy
Eva Mendes for Catwoman
Just saying :')
1. towblerone
  March 27, 2017
  >Eva Mendes for Catwoman
  EVA GREEN for Catwoman.
towblerone
March 27, 2017
Ivy is a pretty sexy subject, though.
Danny Rodriguez
March 27, 2017
To old IMO. It would be awesome if Emma Stone were up for it.
Kriss_Kringle
March 27, 2017
I remember she was rumored to be in the running to play Mera at one point.She would have been great for that one,but I can see her as Pamela Isley,too.
Anyway,good luck not making the protagonists in the Siren movie not be objects.
Seb
March 27, 2017
"as much as possible"
... more like once. And who cares? No one gives a fuck when male actors show off their ripped bodies. That's completely fine, but if they dare show off female "sexual" parts, that is an outrage.
1. Seb
  March 27, 2017
  Rant? I just explained my opinion. How could anyone even think I was getting angry? Lol.
  1. Seb
    March 27, 2017
    What are you talking about, man? Seriously. I simply explained to you why I don't care. Because just like I don't give a crap when it happens to men, I equally do not give a damn when it happens to women. That is all. How is that being emotional?
    1. Seb
      March 27, 2017
      ?? You could just respond to my comments with reason. What does this have got to do with anything? I guess you realized yourself you weren't making any sense at all.
      1. Seb
        March 27, 2017
        I guess that's why you keep replying? Keep trying to convince yourself, buddy. Expressing a different opinion is not the same as preaching.
LordofFlies
March 27, 2017
I will be really really really happy if Jessica plays Ivy...
Jordan Kenney
March 27, 2017
Lock that down. NOW.
Schuyler Finley
March 27, 2017
I don't remember her bending over a lot.
1. Schuyler Finley
  March 27, 2017
  Which scenes? The only one is where she broke the display window.
  1. Seb
    March 27, 2017
    Yeah, that is the one scene in which she bend over. I'm pretty sure it didn't happen twice. And even if it did, why would that be an issue? I don't understand.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      March 27, 2017
      I didn't feel uncomfortable like I felt whenever Megan Fox was on-screen in Transformers. Even as kid, I felt that was lingering too much on Fox's ass.
      1. Seb
        March 27, 2017
        I never cared about it tbh. I just don't understand how anyone could say this is actually an issue. Not because I disagree (that's obvious). I sincerely do not understand their perspective on this matter. I don't get it.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        March 27, 2017
        I understand it if a character like Harley or WW were treated it as only eye candy. But if the actresses themselves don't have a problem with it, then I see no reason to complain.
      3. Seb
        March 27, 2017
        Exactly, it's still the actresses CHOOSING to play the part. People pretend as though "men are forcing them"... It doesn't happen. And I'm pretty sure most of these women like to show off their bodies anyways, just like ANY other good looking women around the world.
        Concerning the dreaded "eye candy" - I can totally understand why people would want more than just a superficial character that's pleasing to look at, but then you're not really taking issue with "objectification", you're basically taking issue with lack of depth and character development, no? That I understand, and I think that's justified. Because you're criticizing lazy writing. But to be completely honest here, I can't think of one female character whose only purpose was to be hot. Sure, we have things like Megan Fox in Transformers, and OBVIOUSLY she was picked for that role cause she's insanely hot, but it's not like she had no character. Sure, it wasn't much... but the same can be said for literally every male character in Transformers. Again, I don't see the difference.
  2. Schuyler Finley
    March 27, 2017
    Give me examples.
Billy Batson
March 27, 2017
Too bad she looks like a man
1. Diego!
  March 27, 2017
  WTF? Are you blind or just silly?
  1. Billy Batson
    March 27, 2017
    Look at that big square jaw and cleft in the chin. Male features
    1. Diego!
      March 27, 2017
      Oh please! I can't take your comment seriously
      1. Billy Batson
        March 27, 2017
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        I don't care. Doesn't change the fact that this looks like a man.
      2. He's
        March 28, 2017
        right. She doesn't look like a man out and out, but she does have noticeable masculine facial features.
  2. Ezee23
    March 28, 2017
    I think it's madness, Billy has officially lost his mind!!!
2. Ezee23
  March 28, 2017
  Get the f**k outta here!!
  1. Billy Batson
    March 29, 2017
    Hey, if you have a thing for masculine women, that's cool. I always thought Poison Ivy was supposed to be the most beautiful woman. So this would be shyte casting.
    Here's a female face: https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    And here's Jessica Chastain: https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    1. Ezee23
      March 31, 2017
      Jessica Chastain is a "masculine woman" now? Honestly, you need to stop.
      1. Billy Batson
        March 31, 2017
        It should have read masculine-looking, but I think you knew that. And need is a strong word. So it continues.
Diego!
March 27, 2017
Hmmmm though I'd love to see her as Poison Ivy, she has the skills and presence for a major character. What about Cheetah? Or even Hawkgirl? 🤔
Diego!
March 27, 2017
She was great on The Martian!!! Very cool movie!
John Johnson
March 27, 2017
Well, only from what I've read, it seems that Ivy has merely been a villainous object and excuse for artists to draw T&A. Please inform me of any arcs/books that would change my perspective.
Otherwise, I believe Chastain could MAKE Ivy a subject. The character is a great manipulator (one of my favorite manipulators has been Hannibal Lector), so I think Chastain could add some more layers if given the opportunity.
OptimistPrime99
March 27, 2017
So she objects to playing a sexual object? And David Ayer is directing the movie? Well, I guess she's OUT! LOL But she definitely has the classic BTAS Poison Ivy look. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
OmegaCorleone
March 27, 2017
I hope that Ayer will cast her. She is talented as fuck and very easy on the eye too. I hope she gets the part.
residentgrigo
March 27, 2017
That´s fine and all but can someone name me a social media "self casting" that actually went though?
The Shamalama Avatar comes to mind.
(She is 40, wow. I look older on bad days...)
Sense
March 27, 2017
Sweet zombie jesus Yessss!

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com