RatBot wrote:Overall, I liked it. I was wondering what they were going to do with Bane, since IIRC in the comics he's basically a Luchadore on super-ultra-steroids and not really the kind of "Big Picture" villain as in previous movies.
This is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be.
RatBot wrote:Overall, I liked it. I was wondering what they were going to do with Bane, since IIRC in the comics he's basically a Luchadore on super-ultra-steroids and not really the kind of "Big Picture" villain as in previous movies.
This is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be.
Yeah, Bane is on the fething ball.. educate that man there Manchu, im off to bed.
Went to the movie (enjoyed a totally empty theater ). It was okay for me. I didn't like it as much as The Dark Knight, and I kind of called the ending about 20 minutes in (ironically the movie roughly followed the plot I thought it would, even with the ending reveal of you know what). My biggest problem was that I thought the film was really slow at times.
I thought the ending was a bit of a cop out personally, but overall I enjoyed the film.
Also: For me, I've felt like the Nolan films, while not realistic, were at least somewhat believable. Am I the only one who felt like this movie kind of jumped the shark a bit with its scenario?
RatBot wrote:Overall, I liked it. I was wondering what they were going to do with Bane, since IIRC in the comics he's basically a Luchadore on super-ultra-steroids and not really the kind of "Big Picture" villain as in previous movies.
This is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be.
Yeah, Bane is on the fething ball.. educate that man there Manchu, im off to bed.
In my defense, I haven't read a comic book in something like fifteen years, and was never really fond of DC.
RatBot wrote:Overall, I liked it. I was wondering what they were going to do with Bane, since IIRC in the comics he's basically a Luchadore on super-ultra-steroids and not really the kind of "Big Picture" villain as in previous movies.
This is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be.
In my defense, I haven't read a comic book in something like fifteen years, and was never really fond of DC.
Bane first appeared in comics 19 years ago. The character spent months setting Batman up in fight after fight to emotionally exhaust him before even revealing himself to Batman. He was portrayed as a master criminal, a ruthlessly methodical genius with a penchant for psychological devastation. His physical brutality was merely the proverbial straw that broke the Batman's back.
In his defense Manchu, if you didn't read the comics and have only a passing familiarity or just watched the Batman cartoon this may not be readily apparent.
Ah, that's cool. I think the only media I've seen Bane in are an episode or two of the cartoon (which, incidentally, I also haven't seen in something like 15 years) and DC Universe Online where none of his cunning and intelligence are portrayed adequately.
So then the portray in DKR is more accurate than I thought (and also makes him a much better character than I thought he was).
LordofHats wrote:Yeah. Batman: The Animated Series, presented Bane as more of a brute.
Uh, nope.
Frazzled wrote:In his defense Manchu, if you didn't read the comics and have only a passing familiarity or just watched the Batman cartoon this may not be readily apparent.
In Batman: The Animated Series, Bane was portrayed as an assassin of such reputation and skill that he could demand $5 million on a single contract. He was shown to have studied Batman extensively over the course of a long period of time and to have a bigger plan of taking over Gotham's criminal underworld through betrayal.
He appeared in 2 episodes Machu, and for 1 he only showed up for like, 3 minutes :/ B:AS Bane has nothing on comic Bane in terms of brilliance (or even DKR Bane, who I think came across pretty well on the planning part of his schemes).
Spoiler:
Though, did the film ever make clear who the mastermind was? Clearly Bane was no slouch but how much of the plan was his and how much was Talia's?
OK, I'm sorry I forgot how they portrayed a minor character (minor in the cartoon) in a show I haven't seen in... more than fifteen years and in a comic series I've never read. I just recall him being super-strong and yelling "BREAK YOU!!!".
LordofHats wrote:He appeared in 2 episodes Machu, and for 1 he only showed up for like, 3 minutes :/ B:AS Bane has nothing on comic Bane in terms of brilliance.
So you're saying that the suave, methodical killer with plans to rule Gotham through it's underworld was just a brute because he was only shown in a few episodes?
RatBot wrote:OK, I'm sorry I forgot how they portrayed a minor character (minor in the cartoon) in a show I haven't seen in... more than fifteen years (I just recall him being super strong and yelling "BREAK YOU"), and in a comic series I've never read.
Mea culpa.
Jesus fething Christ, Manchu.
It's always a good idea to talk less about what you know less about.
The one I saw just had him pushing the juice button and him getting bigger and angrier. I'll bow to your knowledge if we're talking the same the series. Its been a long time and I only watched a few of the cartoons becuase I was into cartoons even less then than now.
After all if it's not Pinkie and Brain then I can't remember it.
Manchu wrote:So you're saying that the suave, methodical killer with plans to rule Gotham through it's underworld was just a brute because he was only shown in a few episodes?
No. I'm saying that in the episode, he was presented as a more brutish character, and less of a mastermind. Being a capable assassin doesn't make one a criminal mastermind (of course, the makers of B:AS thought Bane was gimmicky, so that might have played into his presentation in the episode). Half the villains in AS had aspperations to take over the underworld.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:The only part of The Animated Series I didn't like was Bane....because they just presented him as a brute.
Well back when I first watched the series I never read any comics so I didn't know the difference
Holy gak, dude, I said "IIRC", which means, "If I recall correctly", which indicates that my memory might be faulty on the topic, which clearly it was.
I'm sorry my misunderstanding of your favoritest villain of all time deeply offended you.
The one I saw just had him pushing the juice button and him getting bigger and angrier. I'll bow to your knowledge if we're talking the same the series. Its been a long time and I only watched a few of the cartoons becuase I was into cartoons even less then than now.
Yes, THIS is what I think of when I think of Bane. That's the only Bane I've ever seen and the only Bane I know. He just shoots up gakloads of Venom and breaks gak, not a whit of subtlety to the character. I had no reason to assume comic book Bane was any different since, while obviously PGified, TAS's portrayal of villains like the Penguin, the Joker, and the Riddler are at least somewhat accurate.
RatBot wrote:OK, I'm sorry I forgot how they portrayed a minor character (minor in the cartoon) in a show I haven't seen in... more than fifteen years (I just recall him being super strong and yelling "BREAK YOU"), and in a comic series I've never read.
Mea culpa.
Jesus fething Christ, Manchu.
It's always a good idea to talk less about what you know less about.
Dude, you are getting ruder. Is it not possible that you prexisting comic knowledge of Bane coloured your view of Bane when you watched the cartoon? Because he hasn't read the comic he can't make a comment?
RatBot wrote:TAS's portrayal of villains like the Penguin, the Joker, and the Riddler are at least somewhat accurate.
I think the portrayal of Bane was also accurate, given they had less than thirty minutes to introduce the character, have him set up a plan that very nearly defeats Batman, and show the resolution of Batman not actually being defeated at all. For the sake of time, the show focused on Bane being overconfident in his reliance on Venom such that Batman simply jams his controller and proceeds to clean his clock. But Bane is staggeringly arrogant in the comics, as well, so all in all I'd say TAS did a good job with him.
RatBot wrote:I'm sorry my misunderstanding of your favoritest villain of all time deeply offended you.
Oh I wasn't offended. I merely pointed out that you were as wrong as can possibly be.
Bane's claim to fame is breaking Batman's back. Obviously they weren't going to do this in a kid's cartoon so I don't blame them for not having that in there but then they just shouldn't have Bane in it. Some of Batman's villian's are too dark for a saturday morning cartoon version; Mr. Zsasz for example.
@LordofHats: If there was an influence, it's gone now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Bane's claim to fame is breaking Batman's back. Obviously they weren't going to do this in a kid's cartoon so I don't blame them for not having that in there but then they just shouldn't have Bane in it. Some of Batman's villian's are too dark for a saturday morning cartoon version; Mr. Zsasz for example.
Yeah, Bane's name says it all: the point of this guy is that he figures out where you hurt, then he spends forever tenderizing that very spot without you even knowing it, then all at once he overwhelms you by kicking the gak out of you in that same spot. He's about that sense of dread and acceptance after the moment of sheer terror for your life passes. The moment of giving up. That's what the whole "breaking you" deal is about. It was never about phsyically beating Batman. It was about tearing him apart psychologically. Nolan's film tries to do have Bane do that but it's ... botched, I guess. Never feels personal. And then Nolan has Bane provide Batman with all of the psychological motive to get back in the game.
For the record, this is literally my only memory of Bane, and I don't even remember Robin or that chick (I assume that's Talia al-Ghul), and I don't even remember that it took place on a ship:
Golly gee he sure seems like a fething super genius there!
That and his appearance in DCUO where he basically screams about Venom and attempts to beat the player over the head with support beams.
So I get that I'm wrong, I was even open with the very real possibility that I'm wrong, as I was basing my knowledge of a character off of a single episode of TAS that I haven't seen in something like a decade in a half, and you have to fly into a nerdrage over it.
LordofHats wrote:Though, did the film ever make clear who the mastermind was? Clearly Bane was no slouch but how much of the plan was his and how much was Talia's?
I've thought a bit about this and my honest answer is that by the reveal scene nothing really matters anymore. I mean that seriously. The film has pretty much stopped caring about coherency at that point. It was shaky up to then. They tried to hide the stuff that didn't make sense. But when Talia stabs him, everything is out of the window. And the comic-reading audience is like "well duh but why?" But the film doesn't seem to be made for comic-reading audiences so no one bothers to give her a convincing answer. It's just "I really fething hate you, Bruce." Why is that, you might wonder -- of course, because he killed her father who she really fething hated. Wait that doesn't make any ---
No, no. Just move along. Isn't there a bomb about to go off? And to remind us of that, and ironically of Bane's or Talia's or whoever's ridiculous, nonsensical plan, Talia pushes the button to no effect. And just when you thought the irony couldn't get any thicker, Talia herself reacts to this by saying "feth, that doesn't even matter because it's gonna blow up anyway!" Yeah. Exactly. She might as well have said "this movie doesn't have to make any fething sense because I know you'll go to see it anyway!" And we're just like Bruce, stabbed in the back, going "Why? Why? Why?" So she leaves and we're there with Bane who is now revealed to be ... uh, a throwaway goon that the mistress just left to die ... wait, I thought he this massive threat? No, no. Just move along. Look -- it's Catowman! And she just fething shoots him so we can get back to that bomb thing that also doesn't make sense.
So basically, Talia stands for the movie finally being honest about how nothing that has happened so far makes any difference one way or the other.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Bane's claim to fame is breaking Batman's back. Obviously they weren't going to do this in a kid's cartoon so I don't blame them for not having that in there but then they just shouldn't have Bane in it. Some of Batman's villian's are too dark for a saturday morning cartoon version; Mr. Zsasz for example.
Yeah, Bane's name says it all: the point of this guy is that he figures out where you hurt, then he spends forever tenderizing that very spot without you even knowing it, then all at once he overwhelms you by kicking the gak out of you in that same spot. He's about that sense of dread and acceptance after the moment of sheer terror for your life passes. The moment of giving up. That what the whole "breaking you" deal is about. It was never about phsyically beating Batman. It was about tearing him apart psychologically. Nolan's film tries to do have Bane do that but it's ... botched, I guess. Never feels personal. And then Nolan has Bane provide Batman with all of the psychological motive to get back in the game.
Yes, I never felt the pride of Bane beating Batman or the despair of Batman at being beaten. There just wasn't enough hate. The scene where he "breaks" his back should have been as dramatic as possible, like a serious CRACK! sound effect or some x-ray effect or something. I found most people in theatre weren't aware that his back was broken - and I suppose it wasn't because a random prison-chiropractor just came up and "oh, well that vertabrea looks a little crooked, let me straighten that out for you." That beating should have been the most shocking part of the trilogy but, like you said, it was just botched.
I guess that's most people aren't bothered by Catwoman interfering in their duel. The duel hadn't been properly established in the first place.
RatBot wrote:you have to fly into a nerdrage over it
I'm not even mad. U mad. Obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, I never felt the pride of Bane beating Batman or the despair of Batman at being beaten. There just wasn't enough hate.
Exactly. Bane is so nonchalant. I know that's supposed to make him more threatening. But I was just left with the impression that Batman was not very good. Not that Bane was awesome.
Manchu wrote:I've thought a bit about this and my honest answer is that by the reveal scene nothing really matters anymore. I mean that seriously. The film has pretty much stopped caring about coherency at that point. It was shaky up to then. They tried to hide the stuff that didn't make sense. But when Talia stabs him, everything is out of the window. And the comic-reading audience is like "well duh but why?" But the film doesn't seem to be made for comic-reading audiences so no one bothers to give her a convincing answer. It's just "I really fething hate you, Bruce." Why is that, you might wonder -- of course, because he killed her father who she really fething hated. Wait that doesn't make any ---
No, no. Just move along. Isn't there a bomb about to go off? And to remind us of that, and ironically of Bane's or Talia's or whoever's ridiculous, nonsensical plan, Talia pushes the button to no effect. And just when you thought the irony couldn't get any thicker, Talia herself reacts to this by saying "feth, that doesn't even matter because it's gonna blow up anyway!" Yeah. Exactly. She might as well have said "this movie doesn't have to make any fething sense because I know you'll go to see it anyway!" And we're just like Bruce, stabbed in the back, going "Why? Why? Why?" So she leaves and we're there with Bane who is now revealed to be ... uh, a throwaway goon that the mistress just left to die ... wait, I thought he this massive threat? No, no. Just move along. Look -- it's Catowman! And she just fething shoots him so we can get back to that bomb thing that also doesn't make sense.
So basically, Talia stands for the movie finally being honest about how nothing that has happened so far making any difference one way or the other.
Not quite the answer I was looking for but yeah, I can go with that
I honestly found a bunch of things in the film to be kind of... Pointless? Kind of like the third Spider-Man movie, having so much going on at once that it all just stops being consistent enough to follow and everything just kind of crashes together in their baffling way?
Batman was not very good. Not that Bane was awesome.
Doesn't help that somehow he's burned all his cartilegde.... Which I gotta tell you, its pretty damn hard to burn ALL of it. And needed those silly robot legs.
I think Nolan "got" Bane. But he really missed the point of Talia.
Talia's deal is that she really does love Bruce. But she also loves her father. And in the end, she's her own woman so she lives between the worlds of her Ra's al Ghul and Batman. She's dangerous (to both) precisely because she represents a third way.
In this movie, she's just flying rodent gak crazy. She's smart enough to make all of this complicated stuff happen just to hurt one guy who she has no real motive to dislike much less hate.
In effect, Nolan plays her as a crazy bitch. She's the deluded girl who keys your car for cheating on you even though you guys never even went out. Coupled with Rachel "the Shining Idol of Goodness" Dawes and Selena "Won't Someone Take Me Away From All This?" Kyle, Talia makes me wonder about Nolan's view of women.
@Manchu and the saturday-morning-cartoon-moustache-twirling-villian accent didn't help either. Can't believe that's the accent they went for for Bane.
You spoke ealier about Nolan being topical usually but not this time. I kind of got a Occupy Wallstreet (gone crazy) vibe from Bane' army of bad guys especially during the stock market scene which seemed like an interesting angle but then....Bane's masterstroke is revealed: "I'm gonna blow up Gotham!". That stereotype just flushed any point to anything down the toilet. At least that plan matched his accent...and I'm assuming the twirly moustache under the mask.
LordofHats wrote:Doesn't help that somehow he's burned all his cartilegde.... Which I gotta tell you, its pretty damn hard to burn ALL of it. And needed those silly robot legs.
Hold on cowboy -- needed the brace until he was in Bane's torture prison. Then he magically does not need it.
Manchu wrote:I agree. In the end, the film looks like it should be good. It sounds like it should be good. It feels like it should be good. But it is just really, really bad. I don't mean it is an absolute shambles, like the worst possible thing that could happen to any movie. It's watchable. It's got a lot of entertaining pieces. But the heart of any superhero movie is a moral compass and this movie lacks that. It is, in effect, heartless -- which ends up being a pretty good summary of a lot of what's wrong plot-wise and character-wise and ... well, just morally speaking.
How does this movie lack a moral compass, it has same morals as every other super hero movie a vigilante trying to bring justice to his city/world, even if you go beyond that there's other things too like vengeance, common man does something heroic, etc. There was nothing morally ambiguous about the Dark Knight Rises, there were clearly defined good guys and villains.
Manchu wrote:Hold on cowboy -- needed the brace until he was in Bane's torture prison. Then he magically does not need it.
OMG your right! It makes that whole minor thing even more pointless. Like, filler pointless. Probably explains why I felt the movie was so sloooooooooow.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:@Manchu and the saturday-morning-cartoon-moustache-twirling-villian accent didn't help either. Can't believe that's the accent they went for for Bane.
I still think of Bane as a El Toro Fuerte's evil twin.
Cheesecat wrote:How does this movie lack a moral compass, it has same morals as every other super hero movie a vigilante trying to bring justice to his city/world, even if you go beyond that there's other things too like vengeance, common man does something heroic, etc. There was nothing morally ambiguous about the Dark Knight Rises, there were clearly defined good guys and villains.
I wouldn't say the movie lacked a moral compass, but I'd say this film lost the sort of complicated ambiguity of The Dark Knigt. That film kind of begs the question "how far will you go" where as this movie is kind of just "go far" which is so much less interesting...
Since the ‘Dark Knight Rises‘ prologue previewed for fans in theaters this past Christmas season, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the voice of the film’s villain, Bane. No one could understand what the heck this guy was saying. Director Christopher Nolan reportedly tweaked the audio but what remains is still unmistakeably…weird. So where did Tom Hardy come up with this?
Hardy spoke with Vulture on the ‘Dark Knight Rises’ red carpet last night and revealed that his Bane is based on Bartley Gorman, who he describes as “the king of the gypsies, and he’s a boxer, a bare-knuckle boxer, an Irish traveler, a gypsy…” (He’s a gypsy, in case you missed that.) It’s likely that Hardy found Gorman when he was researching his role in ‘Warrior’ as a MMA fighter and used the voice when he joined the cast of ‘The Dark Knight Rises.’
If, like us, you’re unfamiliar with Gorman, there’s this YouTube clip from the documentary ‘King of the Gypsies’ (he’s a gypsy, you know…) that gives you a look, and listen, to the man in action.
They changed the metallic/breather sound of the voice several times before the release, so I wonder how much was changed between what Nolan wanted it to sound like and the changes made from complaints about not being able to understand him.
I actually did miss a word or two Bane said because of the whacky effects, but I also think I damaged my hearing at some point in the not so distant past so that probably doesn't help much.
No. I was in an empty theater and at times I couldn't understand what he was saying either. I'm sure I'd probably catch it if I watched it again, but just once and I couldn't catch some of the lines.
LordofHats wrote:No. I was in an empty theater and at times I couldn't understand what he was saying either. I'm sure I'd probably catch it if I watched it again, but just once and I couldn't catch some of the lines.
They should have had subtitles while he was speaking.
Kids these days either fail with understanding accents or need to pull the iPod plugs out of their ears. Geez.
And Manchu's education of Ratbot was most excellent. The only time Bane was portrayed as a pure brute was that gak movie with Uma Thurman.
There's info on Bane on wikipedia and a DC wikia. At least have a passing familiarity with a character before spouting off about how they're portrayed wrong. The only major deviations from Bane are lack of Venom and smaller stature.
I didn't say they portrayed him wrong, I said "I didn't know what they were going to do with him because IIRC he's a big brutal luchadore on super-steroids" and was basing the information on what I could remember about Bane, which amounted to a single scene from TAS that I hadn't seen in a decade in a half, and that based on what Manchu is saying, what I recall from the animated series is not an accurate portrayal, but their portrayals of characters like the Joker and the Penguin, who are much, much more prominent in the series, and therefore more memorable, are definitely accurate.
Next time a semi-obscure character is featured in a comic book film I'll read the entire fething back catalog so I don't dare make any kind of mistake about the characterization ever again.
I don't know how Bane is obscure. He's kind of a big deal for being the guy who broke the Bat.
It's just kind of iconic. I guess Joker is the #1 Batman villain followed by Ras Al Ghul, but after that Bane is probably more deserving of the third spot than anyone else.
The more I think about this movie the more I it bothers me.
I'm of the opinion that they should have made the movie longer prior to Batman getting his back broken, and ended it a little bit after the Bane/Batman confrontation. Kind of a downer ending to be sure, but no more than The Empire Strikes Back, Fellowship of the Ring etc. We all know this isn't the last Batman movie, so I wish Nolan didn't try to make such an abrupt conclusion to his take on the Batman story. Then the next movie(s) could develop Bane/Talia more, introduce more villians (since they all escaped from Blackgate) and heroes, give the recovery in the pit a more realistic spin etc.
With that said, I thought this movie was awesome, but the weakest of the trilogy.
Bane gets alot of flak for not being as good a villian as Joker, but I thought that he was pretty good up until the end, there's just too much going on in the movie for him to develop like the joker. Some of his quotes were pretty funny.
Stock Exchange Guy: "There's no money here!"
Bane : "Really, then why are you here?"
Corrupt Board Member: "I'm in charge here!"
Bane: (Places hand on dudes shoulder) "Do you feel in charge?"
He was in the cartoon fifteen (actually, eighteen) years ago.
He's big and yells "Break You" and wears a luchadore mask.
He is addicted to something called Venom which is presumably some kind of crazy awesome steroids, which is why he's so beastly.
He broke Batman's back in the comic book, and the only reason I know that is because I saw it on IGN or something.
Because of his status as a masked wrestler on drugs, and his prodigious phsyical strength, and his pechant for yelling 'BREAK YOU' I don't think it's a terribly unfair assumption to think he's a character who lacks subtlety. I mean, feth, look at the guy; nothing about him says "subtle criminal mastermind".
That's it.
For people who don't read the comics (IE, me), I'd hazard that the most well-known Batman villains are, in no particular order, the Joker, The Riddler, The Penguin, and Catwoman. I am only vaguely aware of who and what Ra's al-Ghul is and am obviously (well, was obviously) not to up to snuff on Bane's backstory and history.
I'm not even arguing that anyone who's correcting me is fething wrong, I'm a little pissed that people are basically like "NO YOU slow WTF HOW COULD YOU BE SO WRONG LOLOLOLOLOL IDIOT." Instead of saying, "Well, actually Bane is really really smart etc etc."
You've still read more Batman comics than I have. Also I said semi-obscure. I guarantee a lot more people know who the Riddler and The Penguin are than Ra's al Ghul or Bane. I had forgotten that Bane existed until last January when I played DCUO and basically saw "Big strong guy on Venom using a building's support column like a club who broke Batman's back."
Reading a one off Alan Moore GN about the Joker has absolutely nothing to do with Bane and individuals making assumptions about the character based on his appearance.
Chill out. RatBot is a good example of a casual fan and non-comic reader, and should be a good source of info about their perspective. No need to browbeat the guy.
Look, I don't even know what to fething say anymore.
I was wrong about Bane. I'm sorry that I have never bothered to research a character I haven't even thought about since 1994 (which is when that episode of TAS came out, thanks Google) or maybe 1996 when I might've seen him in a rerun on Cartoon Network, other than in passing when I saw the image of him breaking Batman's back (which, without context, does little to diminish the perceived brutish nature of the character) and made an incorrect assumption based on that hazy recollection.
And I still maintain that Bane and Ra's al-Ghul are far more obscure than:
The Joker
The Riddler
The Penguin
Catwoman
Mister Freeze
Poison Ivy
Two Face
I even think of goddamn Clayface, Killer Croc, The Mad Hatter, and that guy with the ventriloquist's dummy with the machine gun who's name I can't even remember and may not have ever been in a comic because they might've made him up for TAS before I think of Bane or Ra's al Ghul.
I wasn't even saying "Oh, Bane is definitely a big dumb brute", I said "If I recall correctly, Bane is a big dumb brute", which is pretty much another way of saying "I may be mistaken, but wasn't Bane originally a big dumb brute?" and the answer is no. No he is not.
And it turns out, I fething loved Bane in the movie! I thought he was a badass character because I like that kind of character! It's great to know that he is actually like that in the comic book. It suddenly vaults him higher on my list of cool comic book characters.
kronk wrote:In the comic books, I always felt that Metropolis mirrored New York and Gotham mirrored Chicago, with a hodge-podge of other cities mixed in to fit the canvas of the current storyline. But I could be wrong.
Gotham is a real-world nickname for New York. Yeah, they kind of mix the cities a bit in DC, though, rather than making them direct translations of specific real world cities.
Da Boss wrote:The cheesy love scene with Wayne and Talia. WTF. "Oh, we got rained on, and we're in a film. I guess we gotta shag now. And now that we've shagged, you are obsessively in love with me." I dunno, maybe Talia is a weasel in the sack or something.
I initially got the sense from the movie that they had at least SOME back history, though the other characters making a point of telling him that she was attractive kind of contradicts that. Otherwise my impression was that they had some previous history working together, and might have had some attraction/flirtation at that time, which he wasn't ready to act on until the events of the movie.
Otherwise I agree with a lot of your criticisms. I can't go as far as Manchu in thinking it was bad, though. There was too much in it that I really enjoyed. But yeah, both it and the first one suffered from somewhat incoherent and nonsensical plots.
Its an action movie based on entertaining graphical books. For what the movie is, the actors did a fine job. Except Christian Bale....throughout the trilogy, his character hasn't really had much in the way of uniqueness except in changing from frustrated child into the predator. He's like "Wassup, I'm Batman" Again, for what it is; it was a fine movie with fine actors. It provided me with action, entertainment, and a thought here or there on human nature. But for each and everyone of you looking for deeper character or bigger meaning than what this movie was intended to give you, you're looking at the wrong movie.
Oh, and before Manchu and Amaya break out the pitchforks and torches, I just discovered that the ventriloquist's nom de guerre is... uh, well, The Ventriloquist, the dummy's name is Scarface, and they are, in fact, in the comic, and I'll admit they probably are more obscure than Bane and Ra's al Ghul.
NELS1031 wrote:We all know this isn't the last Batman movie
Brace yourself, but while there will be another Batman film, it will not be related to this trilogy at all, and that has been said since the start. Nolan's little Batman universe isn't a comic book one, where people don't age, villains escape, and no one dies. They couldn't end it like Empire Strikes Back because there is no Return of the Jedi on the horizon. Hell, The Dark Knight does end like Empire: the Joker, while losing a battle, won the war, and the only way to cover it up is for Batman to become one of the city's most hated villains to be hunted by one of his few allies. That isn't exactly an uplifting, feel good ending.
RatBot wrote:Oh, and before Manchu and Amaya break out the pitchforks and torches
My god man you were wrong, It's not a badge of honor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I can't go as far as Manchu in thinking it was bad
FWIW, I think the film was morally bad. It was reactionary and it leaves things ambiguous that should be made clear. It makes too much out of Batman. Batman is no Jesus Christ, even in 2012. And people aren't nearly as awful as that movie may or may not (who the feth can even tell?) indicate.
Agreed no need to and nothing doing on that front. Just a reminder that faulty memory is just that -- faulty. Bane is not a simple thug and no amount of ignorance makes that reading accurate.
I was simply saying that is how I recall him, and the reason I recall him that way is the only thing I remember about him, which is that one scene from that one episode of TAS. I'm not saying that justifies my incorrect assumption, just explains it. Since all I remember about the character is the scene where he takes super steroids and acts like a thuggish brute, I recalled him as a thuggish brute. Thanks to Manchu's informative, if extremely condescending, posts I now see that I am mistaken.
I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to justify my view, because I wasn't.
I'd recommend re-watching the episode. Even in that super-condensed form, you will see that he is portrayed as a sophisticated and suave villain with big plans whose incredible arrogance is his undoing.
I'd really recommend the episodes with Ra's al Ghul and Talia since you seem to not remember them at all. There were a whole slew of them. Ra's was introduced very slowly, through an assassin called the Red Claw, and Talia is so much better in those episodes than the frankly asinine crazy bitch that Nolan gives us.
Anyways, with that tangent aside--I found this interesting:
Spoiler:
IGN wrote:Did you ever wonder about the real origin story of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises? The film's costume designer says it was filmed but didn't make the final cut. *Warning: spoilers to follow!*
One thing that's been consistent about all three of director Christopher Nolan's Bat-movies is the lack of a fully detailed origin story for his primary villains: Ra's al Ghul, the Joker and Bane all have backstories ranging from murky to nonexistent (we think we're seeing Bane's origin at one point, but it's actually that of Talia al Ghul).
In a new interview with GQ, however, costume designer Lindy Hemmings—who's worked on all three films—alludes to a prison sequence in The Dark Knight Rises in which we see how a much younger Bane got the injuries we glimpse in the movie:
The other thing that you should have seen during that sequence is him being injured in his youth. So one of the fundamental things about his costume is that he has this scar from the back injury. Even if he hasn't got the bulletproof vest on, he still has to wear the waist belt and the braces. In that scene in the prison, where he's learning to fight the same way Batman learned to fight, he's wearing an early version of his waist belt. It's showing support, but it's not the finished one he eventually wears. He's also wearing an early version of his gas mask, all glued together.
Asked if she's referring to the scene that's in the film now, where we see Bane with bandages wrapped around his head, Hemmings—who had not seen the finished picture at the time of the interview—continues:
Well, if you look at the film, unless they've cut it—and I'm sure they haven't—there's a whole early section for Tom Hardy where he's fighting and being taunted by people. He's got chains on him, and he's standing on a wooden thing while people are attacking him. And in that scene, he's wearing a much more ragged, primitive version of the mask.
Told that the scene was apparently excised, Hemmings adds:
Well that's an awful shame, but I suppose you have to cut things. I won't elaborate on it too much, because it isn't in the film, but there was another section that showed you why he had the mask and where it came from.
There you have it. An origin for Bane was filmed and then dropped. Would you have wanted to see that sequence, or does Bane work better with a sketchier background? And what else was filmed and then cut from the final film?
We probably have to wait for the Blu-ray release to find out ...
Amaya wrote:I don't know how Bane is obscure. He's kind of a big deal for being the guy who broke the Bat.
.
Amaya, this image is all a lot of people know about Bane, myself included. I didn't read Batman AT ALL, and I knew about Bane breaking his back and Nightwing taking over.
However, I knew nothing of his back story, the build up to that point, and so on.
On the flip side of that coin, I am astute enough not to make comparisons of the movie Bane to the comic book Bane on the nerd forum for that same reason.
Well, yeah, Kronk, but golly jee willikers, doesn't that picture make Bane's tactical genius and mastery of psychological warfare obvious? I mean, clearly a gigantic guy in a unitard using brute force to break a guy's back while bellowing monosyllabic words is the height of nuance and subtlety.
In all seriousness, I've been reading about Bane on the DC wiki and he's pretty damn cool.
I think it would have been more interesting if after breaking his back Bruce had been completely paralysed, and Blake had taken over the role. It would have emphasised the fact that Batman isn't a man but a symbol. He would of course be no match for Bane, but the Bat coming back could have roused the people of Gotham into a revolution against Bane. They could have just not bothered with the Talia thing then too, which would have been for the best. You also wouldn't have to wonder why someone who walked with a cane or robotic exo-leg was absolutely fine a couple of months later.
It will be interesting to see if they continue with the story or just do a reboot.
dæl wrote:He would of course be no match for Bane, but the Bat coming back could have roused the people of Gotham into a revolution against Bane.
I gotta say, that sounds like an awesome movie to me.
Thanks, just seems to fit better. Bane talks of revolutions and giving power to the people, it seems apt that would be his undoing. He forces Bruce to watch Gotham as he tortures it, Bruce would see that someone else has risen (no pun intended) to take his place, this makes up for his rather crappy fate of being left to rot in the prison. For three films we are told that a symbol is more than a man, because a man can be destroyed, it would be nice if that actually applied. We also wouldn't have had to have 5 months of sweet fanny adams happening while Bruce recovers from a broken spine (Something my girlfriend suffered a few years ago and after 5 months she wasn't climbing any walls). It would be the opposite of the Dark Knight too, there Batman wins the battle with the Joker but loses the war.
It's something of a shame that Nolan isn't interested in any more films, would love to have seen his take on Edward Nigma.
dæl wrote:I think it would have been more interesting if after breaking his back Bruce had been completely paralysed, and Blake had taken over the role. It would have emphasised the fact that Batman isn't a man but a symbol. He would of course be no match for Bane, but the Bat coming back could have roused the people of Gotham into a revolution against Bane. They could have just not bothered with the Talia thing then too, which would have been for the best. You also wouldn't have to wonder why someone who walked with a cane or robotic exo-leg was absolutely fine a couple of months later.
It will be interesting to see if they continue with the story or just do a reboot.
....I think that would've catapulted the movie from "Pretty damn good" to "unbelievably awesome". Damn!
dæl wrote:He would of course be no match for Bane, but the Bat coming back could have roused the people of Gotham into a revolution against Bane.
I gotta say, that sounds like an awesome movie to me.
Thanks, just seems to fit better. Bane talks of revolutions and giving power to the people, it seems apt that would be his undoing. He forces Bruce to watch Gotham as he tortures it, Bruce would see that someone else has risen (no pun intended) to take his place, this makes up for his rather crappy fate of being left to rot in the prison. For three films we are told that a symbol is more than a man, because a man can be destroyed, it would be nice if that actually applied. We also wouldn't have had to have 5 months of sweet fanny adams happening while Bruce recovers from a broken spine (Something my girlfriend suffered a few years ago and after 5 months she wasn't climbing any walls). It would be the opposite of the Dark Knight too, there Batman wins the battle with the Joker but loses the war.
It's something of a shame that Nolan isn't interested in any more films, would love to have seen his take on Edward Nigma.
That would have been a much better idea. Then Batman would have beaten Bane at his own game and showed him he was wrong about everything. Good point about how it contrasts with TDK too.
I was really sad when Bats started punching Bane again. It would certainly have been a better movie if he had used his brain and realized that Bane is a better fighter, and not recovering from a spinal injury, so he'd be much better off World's Greatest Detectiving it up and out-smarting the bad guy. I enjoyed the first two movies so much I really thought Nolan would do this, so that was doubly disappointing.
I also thought Nolan really would kill Batman, and THAT would have been amazing, but in retrospect the clues were there to think that he would/could have fixed the autopilot.
I still do quite like the ending, and Blake taking over. It just wasn't as great as it could/should have been.
Mannahnin wrote:I was really sad when Bats started punching Bane again. It would certainly have been a better movie if he had used his brain and realized that Bane is a better fighter, and not recovering from a spinal injury, so he'd be much better off World's Greatest Detectiving it up and out-smarting the bad guy. I enjoyed the first two movies so much I really thought Nolan would do this, so that was doubly disappointing.
I also thought Nolan really would kill Batman, and THAT would have been amazing, but in retrospect the clues were there to think that he would/could have fixed the autopilot.
I still do quite like the ending, and Blake taking over. It just wasn't as great as it could/should have been.
Once Alfred detailed his vacation plans for the time when Bruce was on walkabout, you knew exactly what was going to happen at the end of this film!
The 'autopilot' fix was just a little extra hint to get you (and Bruce!) there, I guess.
Still, flawed and all, I liked this movie a lot - I especially like a fictional universe in which Bruce finds a way out of the darkness and into the light!
Mannahnin wrote:I was really sad when Bats started punching Bane again. It would certainly have been a better movie if he had used his brain and realized that Bane is a better fighter, and not recovering from a spinal injury, so he'd be much better off World's Greatest Detectiving it up and out-smarting the bad guy.
He didn't have a plan the first time other than just beating him up; the second fight was calculated, and he was better prepared. Batman spent more time guarding blows and waiting for openings to attack the mask, which he now knew was not just theatrics, but was something Bane needed. It was a different fight, and he did use his brain.
Alpharius wrote:
Once Alfred detailed his vacation plans for the time when Bruce was on walkabout, you knew exactly what was going to happen at the end of this film!
The 'autopilot' fix was just a little extra hint to get you (and Bruce!) there, I guess.
Still, flawed and all, I liked this movie a lot - I especially like a fictional universe in which Bruce finds a way out of the darkness and into the light!
Ill tell you what though.. no fething way would Alfred crack his vacation plan just like he told Bruce.
You know... the kid you love like a son, and thought dead, turns round and gives you a wink and you just smile and feth off because you said "You dont speak to me, and I dont speak to you.."
If I was Alfred I would go "feth ME RAGGED!!" followed by "You could have phoned you little gakker!" then ..
Mannahnin wrote:I was really sad when Bats started punching Bane again. It would certainly have been a better movie if he had used his brain and realized that Bane is a better fighter, and not recovering from a spinal injury, so he'd be much better off World's Greatest Detectiving it up and out-smarting the bad guy.
He didn't have a plan the first time other than just beating him up; the second fight was calculated, and he was better prepared. Batman spent more time guarding blows and waiting for openings to attack the mask, which he now knew was not just theatrics, but was something Bane needed. It was a different fight, and he did use his brain.
I guess so, and I get what they were going for with Bruce having (prior to his recovery in the prison) not been properly motivated, and having come out of the pit with renewed focus and desire.
But I still think it would have been much better if (assuming they had to do it as a physical confrontation) he had done it more Wesley/Fezzik-style. Knowing Bane will beat him in a straight fight, and taking a beating on the way in, then going after the mask directly. Getting a grapple and cutting that sucker off with his Batleatherman.
Alpharius wrote:
Once Alfred detailed his vacation plans for the time when Bruce was on walkabout, you knew exactly what was going to happen at the end of this film!
The 'autopilot' fix was just a little extra hint to get you (and Bruce!) there, I guess.
Still, flawed and all, I liked this movie a lot - I especially like a fictional universe in which Bruce finds a way out of the darkness and into the light!
Ill tell you what though.. no fething way would Alfred crack his vacation plan just like he told Bruce.
You know... the kid you love like a son, and thought dead, turns round and gives you a wink and you just smile and feth off because you said "You dont speak to me, and I dont speak to you.."
If I was Alfred I would go "feth ME RAGGED!!" followed by "You could have phoned you little gakker!" then ..
Now that would have been excellent!
Hopefully that scene will make it on to the DVD extras!
Ahtman wrote:The more I consider the film, the more problems arise.
It has a lot of great individual moments and performances, but together they don't quite add up. The whole is less then the sum of its parts.
Yeah, that's basically it. It's very stylish, has strong performances from a very talented cast, and a fair number of interesting things going on. But it doesn't really come together.
I wonder if maybe one truly great action scene like the Joker's attack on the police convoy carrying Dent would have made the whole thing come together, got us to ignore the film's failings?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:In effect, Nolan plays her as a crazy bitch. She's the deluded girl who keys your car for cheating on you even though you guys never even went out. Coupled with Rachel "the Shining Idol of Goodness" Dawes and Selena "Won't Someone Take Me Away From All This?" Kyle, Talia makes me wonder about Nolan's view of women.
Nolan hasn't really ever had a strong, or even a convincing female character in any of his films.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:I wouldn't say the movie lacked a moral compass, but I'd say this film lost the sort of complicated ambiguity of The Dark Knigt. That film kind of begs the question "how far will you go" where as this movie is kind of just "go far" which is so much less interesting...
That's basically it. The previous two movies had philosophical as well as physical contests between the villain and the hero. In this film the debate was purely physical. Bane was obviously a nutter and so the only competition that mattered was stopping him.
The sad thing is I think they had most of the groundwork in place, following on from the last film they had a nice set up for excessive police crackdown. All these street thugs are left with no choice but to start becoming part of Bane's underground army. Forget all the ties to the League of Shadows, and make it about Bane who wants out and out revolution, and Batman, who just wants justice served where it must be.
I was chatting with a good friend over the weekend and he had a very convincing take on the movie: basically, that the whole trilogy is about Bruce trying to create this symbol to stand against all the things that are wrong with the world, the reasons why his parents got murdered on the street. Yeah -- everyone knows that. But the key insight, the eureka moment for me was realizing that Bruce doesn't really understand what those problems are and therefore doesn't really know what kind of symbol he needs to create. I'm so used to thinking he totally understood what Batman was about from the start that it never even occurred to me that Bruce himself might not get it, that the whole thing might be a little bigger than what even he could understand at first. In that light, the resolution of the second movie is actually a huge mistake. They should never have tried to cover it up -- Dent wasn't the hero Gotham needed at all. We don't see a Batman that really "gets" what being Batman is all about until Bruce comes back from Bane's prison.
I have to say, chatting with my buddy about the film made me take a new look at it and I like it much better. The thing I still can't get over is the villains' dumb plot and especially how dumb Talia is.
Just saw the flick. I have to say, I'm really confused about what this movie was trying to say about Class Warfare? it is obviously a big "theme" of the film, but it has mixed feelings on the subject.
On one hand, it outright shows us that any attempt to remove the wealth inequality is doomed to failure and demagogery. In essence, the little people need the rich to sustain a working society. If you remove them, the whole thing falls apart.
However, to be rich is a huge burden. Wayne is very rich. However all of his welath does NOTHING to help him. In fact, it only brings him anger, pain, and personal loss. At the end, devoid of his riches, he is finally able to connect to others as a real human being, and presumably is allowed to start over without the burdens of wealth.
So, this seems like a pretty big love letter to the 1%, but being part of that 1% is a curse and not a gift. Confusing.
I think I will love to hate this movie, just like TDK.
Easy E wrote:So, this seems like a pretty big love letter to the 1%, but being part of that 1% is a curse and not a gift. Confusing.
No contradiction there -- the "burdens of wealth" is part of the fantasy of the rich. G. K Chesterton once remarked that the poor are often rebels but never anarchists. They object to be governed poorly but it is the rich who object to being governed at all. If Gotham was really so well off thanks to the Dent Act then why did the poor of Gotham resent them so much? Or did they even resent them? Exactly who -- whether Gotham's poor or Bane's storm troopers or the released Blackgate convicts -- was looting the houses of the rich was very confusing. And keep in mind that it was Jonathan Crane who headed up the Revolutionary Court and he's hardly representative of the underprivileged.
So it seems to me that it's mostly likely the Blackgate prisoners who are responsible for the chaos. They are the ones who have really suffered thanks to the Dent Act, with their parole denied and their way of life eradicated. (Although we can't take the movie seriously about stamping out organized crime with mob boss qua industrialist John Daggett mixing explosives in the concrete all over Gotham -- is business the new organized crime?) But in this way, it seems the movie is playing a fast one on us. In real life, which Nolan's films are so eager to evoke, violent criminals are often poor people. Is this Nolan doing a little sleight of hand -- showing us criminals as the symbol of poor people? Where's the middle class anyway?
The middle class is represented by Commissioner Gordon and Deputy Commissioner Foley. Notice that both characters are swept up into the machinations of the rich and powerful, tearing them apart. The congressmen Selina snookers tells Foley that Gordon is a dinosaur on his way out at the mayor's swank party honoring Dent. And later on, Foley holes up in his house and does nothing while the city falls apart -- i.e., the middle class abdicates its leadership in society, its role as a social stabilizer, out of fear and impotence. Remember how Gordon chides him for having his wife answer the door for him? Pretty emasculating. And Gordon yells at Foley "the answer has to come from inside the city!" when Foley says the government will deal with it, eventually.
Nosing through some of the novelisation t'other day.
In that I noted that the Dent Act not only removed parole but also prevented them getting off on an insanity plea, which is of course what they'd been doing back in film 1.
So, presumably, some of the people locked up in Blackgate were the crazies released in film 2.
.. IIRC there's a line about how Arkham asylum is closed down....
.. although there are persistent rumours that it is still open, with the Joker being the sole inmate.
.. with regards to the class warfare angle..
I took it as saying that in essence it is pointless. We are, after all, all in this together, no one class can survive without the other. And people should be very careful when following revolutionaries or the like, as you may well find that what they've said or claim to be doing is often vastly different than what their actual goal or plan is.
Enjoyed the film immensely, looking forwards to the DVD a lot.
.... I do wonder a little bit if Alfred really did see Bruce in... Italy ..? .. or wherever at the end. Given how recognisable Bruce Wayne was/is/would be , especially given his death... well.. wasn't much of a disguise was it ? That said, i think he deserves his happy ending, so I'll let it slide.
... also wonder if, perhaps only a wee bit, the whole bomb disposable thing was something of a hat tip to Adam West's Batman and the meme of the same.
reds8n wrote:.. with regards to the class warfare angle.. I took it as saying that in essence it is pointless.
Could very well be. Problem is, the movie is too confusing on this point. It gives us the impression of class warfare with very heavy references to the French Revolution. But it never gives an account of how or why this is the case, of what's actually going on in Gotham during this five month period. It's weird to have five months of social chaos on screen without any coherent account of what is going on, especially in the wake of the Financial Crisis and the Occupy Movements. The movie gives no similar impression of the tyranny of wealth, just some street walking thief making vindictive jabs ("a storm is coming" &etc) at a rich guy who the audience knows doesn't deserve it. Pretty one-sided stuff, I'm afraid.
( i do think there's a director's cut screaming to be let out, but that's etc etc.. ).
I would suggest though there are hints that things aren't all that for a lot of people --
orphanages are being closed down, there's a growing number of homeless people sheltering/finding work in a ( literal) underground....
.. mainly, it would seem, as the beneficial aspects of capitalism have failed/gone away/hiding in Wayne Manor.
Note how they joke that even after he's lost everything... Bruce -- the idle rich -- gets to keep the big house.. as the rich look after their own.
I think there'a a whole riff about how the Police/forces of order are only able to succeed once they've, so to speak, seen how the other half live and also have nothing to lose. Whilst Bruce/Bats ( and by default everyone else) is saved by a drug addict and criminals who live in a hellhole, yet, somehow, still manage to maintain a small sliver of decentness.
I think that the fact that Gotham didn't look or seem all that different in the x months of unrest was again suggesting or showing that there's no difference, ultimately, between the way things were and the way they will be/would be after the glorious revolution .... the guys holding the guns/bombs/wealth/etc still run things...
Good point about the poor having to find work underground -- so what happened to them? They exist as a clue for Blake and Gordon to follow and then ... disappear. It's pretty clear in the few shots we have of them that they are not on the side of the League. Even the League is not on its own side, with Bane killing two of his own loyal men in that scene (in contrast to the cultist-like dupe who accepts death in the opening set piece). There's a sense of leveling during the five months, with the formerly rich and powerful being knocked down quite a few pegs to the humble condition of the impoverished -- you've got CEOs and board members huddling around campfires in corporate headquarters. (Remember the middle class, however, is comfortable enough hiding at home.) We even get Selina's little friend throwing her previous words in her face as the erstwhile cat burglar ponders whether the rich suffering along with the poor is really better than the poor suffering alone. The movie comes off to me as confusing and ambivalent in its details but pretty sympathetic to the moneyed elite overall. When Batman "rises" it is not as a pauper. He still has what Jack Nicholson memorably called "those wonderful toys" even if all of his furniture (which he doesn't even care about) has been repossessed.
Here is another random thought.... if the Society of Shadows was all down on people, basically Hobsian in nature and focusing on peoples core selfishness and corruption; then would Batman be an anti-Randian symbol or perhaps a Lockian symbol of the power of "people" to do good things for each other?
Alpharius wrote:Maybe - or maybe we're looking deeper into this film than Nolan thought anyone would?
I very much doubt it. I daresay there is nothing whatsoever about these films to suggest they're solely meant to be fluffy entertainment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote:reduced from its previous grand designs to a petty revenge scheme against the man who ruined them?
Well, that is exactly what it turns out to be. But doesn't that kind of suck? Imagine if you were that dude from the beginning. You're waiting around in Hell and suddenly Talia shows up:
Witless Dupe: Mistress! Did the plans work? Is the corrupt world punished?
Talia: Fool! I just wanted to hurt my boyfriend!
Witless Dupe: You mean Bane?
Talia: Silence, slave! Of course, I don't mean Bane. I mean the Batman.
Witless Dupe: Uhhhh ... but you never dated Batman ...
Talia: SILENCE!!!
Witless Dupe: Man, this is what I died for???
After watching it, I still don't get the crazy airplane thing> It just seemed really stupid. I have no idea why the CIA plane didn't.... I don't know.... turn when the other one came up on it?
I also think Nolan and his Btamna team still can't film a decent craftsman like action scenes.
As I said before there was a bit off the "Occupy" movement happening and being taken to the extreme but when Bane's plan devolves into blowing up Gotham with a ticking time bomb the movie stopped being about anything deep and goes into generic super-villian mode.
In the gritty world of Chris Nolan, there can be no generic super villainy. Instead, the best we can say about the Bane/Talia plan is that it is insanity born of emotional immaturity -- and that's being generous. Even the Joker's plans made more sense.
The Joker on DKR: "And they say I'm the crazy one!"
Christian Bale gave an interesting answer to the overdone "is Batman or Bruce Wayne the secret identity?" question. I'm told he said that it was neither -- they're both personas for an 8-year-old kid that stopped growing up when his parents were murdered in front of him. I guess something similar could have happened to Talia at an even younger age. It would explain her infantile motives if not the complexity of her plans.
Manchu wrote:In the gritty world of Chris Nolan, there can be no generic super villainy.
In the gritty world of Chris Nolan, there shouldn't be any generic super villainy. Unfortunately, there is.
I blame Bane's voice. Once they made Bane start talking like that he had to blow up a city with cliched time bomb that gets thwarted at the last second. He just had too.
The voice came after the script. One suspects Tom hardy read the script and said "oh feth it, I'll do my worst Sean Connery impression, this is crap anyway."
Manchu wrote:I was chatting with a good friend over the weekend and he had a very convincing take on the movie: basically, that the whole trilogy is about Bruce trying to create this symbol to stand against all the things that are wrong with the world, the reasons why his parents got murdered on the street. Yeah -- everyone knows that. But the key insight, the eureka moment for me was realizing that Bruce doesn't really understand what those problems are and therefore doesn't really know what kind of symbol he needs to create. I'm so used to thinking he totally understood what Batman was about from the start that it never even occurred to me that Bruce himself might not get it, that the whole thing might be a little bigger than what even he could understand at first. In that light, the resolution of the second movie is actually a huge mistake. They should never have tried to cover it up -- Dent wasn't the hero Gotham needed at all. We don't see a Batman that really "gets" what being Batman is all about until Bruce comes back from Bane's prison.
Interesting insight.
I did think the idea of Batman moving from 'no fear' to 'fear as a motivator' was interesting, and probably could have been better used by relating it to other events in the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The middle class is represented by Commissioner Gordon and Deputy Commissioner Foley. Notice that both characters are swept up into the machinations of the rich and powerful, tearing them apart. The congressmen Selina snookers tells Foley that Gordon is a dinosaur on his way out at the mayor's swank party honoring Dent. And later on, Foley holes up in his house and does nothing while the city falls apart -- i.e., the middle class abdicates its leadership in society, its role as a social stabilizer, out of fear and impotence. Remember how Gordon chides him for having his wife answer the door for him? Pretty emasculating. And Gordon yells at Foley "the answer has to come from inside the city!" when Foley says the government will deal with it, eventually.
To be honest, any meaningful theme of class warfare was lost once Bane was written as an outside force, the leader of an ancient terrorist order.
Had Bane been part of the oppressed, and gained his position of power through appealing to those disaffected by the Dent Act and the income disparity, well then you'd have some real grit to hang social commentary on. Instead his power comes from charisma and outside money, and the script is forced to only make passing and largely superficial reference to class.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:After watching it, I still don't get the crazy airplane thing> It just seemed really stupid. I have no idea why the CIA plane didn't.... I don't know.... turn when the other one came up on it?
I believe the CIA plane wasn't aware of the other plane until the clamps were set and it was too late. Which is hardly a stretch, planes don't really have complete awareness of their surroundings.
The bigger question is why the CIA guys didn't start shooting Bane and his minions once the plan was in motion.
I also think Nolan and his Btamna team still can't film a decent craftsman like action scenes.
Really? The bank heist that opened The Dark Knight? The attack on the police convoy transporting Harvey Dent?
sebster wrote:I did think the idea of Batman moving from 'no fear' to 'fear as a motivator' was interesting, and probably could have been better used by relating it to other events in the movie.
I agree wholeheartedly. This was a very strong theme amid the cacophony and it could have bee used to much better effect.
sebster wrote:To be honest, any meaningful theme of class warfare was lost once Bane was written as an outside force, the leader of an ancient terrorist order.
Had Bane been part of the oppressed, and gained his position of power through appealing to those disaffected by the Dent Act and the income disparity, well then you'd have some real grit to hang social commentary on. Instead his power comes from charisma and outside money, and the script is forced to only make passing and largely superficial reference to class.
I think the idea here is to say that the downtrodden are stirred up by "external" forces that never seek the good of the downtrodden. In other words, a classic reactionary position -- "be careful what you wish for, ye paupers, you might get more than you can imagine." This is pretty explicit with Selina, when her buddy says "oh, I thought this is what you wanted."
Manchu wrote:I think the idea here is to say that the downtrodden are stirred up by "external" forces that never seek the good of the downtrodden. In other words, a classic reactionary position -- "be careful what you wish for, ye paupers, you might get more than you can imagine."
True, and that's ultimately, to me at least, a lot less interesting than the idea of a villain who rises up through the support of people who were downtrodden by an overly zealous law and order campaign put in place in the wake of the Joker. I mean, the Dent act, the army that was literally underground, the commentary this could make on Batman's own rather authoritarian brand of justice... it's all there.
That said, I think it might be a little unfair of me to criticise the film for lacking a strong political core, and instead only making passing reference to political issues. Afterall, that's more than most other superhero movies do, and all the previous Nolan Batman films did.
This is pretty explicit with Selina, when her buddy says "oh, I thought this is what you wanted."
Good pick up.
I remember the scene but missed that line (well, I think so, I'm guessing it was when the two of them were in that looted apartment?)
Was that the last scene with the friend? She just seemed to kind of disappear from the movie. I had thought during the movie that the 'erase a person's life' software wasn't going to be for Selina at all, but for her friend. Afterall, it seemed like Selina was doing fine, and the film even made a point of mentioning she didn't actually have a conviction on her record, whereas the friend seemed to really be struggling.
sebster wrote:That said, I think it might be a little unfair of me to criticise the film for lacking a strong political core, and instead only making passing reference to political issues.
I think it's totally fair of you because (1) the film pretends to have a strong political core with its ceaseless talk of politics and political imagery and (2) Nolan's batfilms are consciously designed to NOT be a "superhero movie" in the usual sense of that term (compare DKR with the Avengers, for example).
I remember the scene but missed that line (well, I think so, I'm guessing it was when the two of them were in that looted apartment?)
There's a montage of "time passing in chaos" after Bane breaks Bruce with Selina walking all over Gotham. At the end of the scene, IIRC, the friend throws Selina's words in her face -- whether out of spite or not is ambiguous. I can't figure out if the friend is supposed to be a deadpan critique of Selina's attitude and lifestyle (like an amalgamated angel-devil on the shoulder) or just a prop. But speak of the angel-devil:
Was that the last scene with the friend? She just seemed to kind of disappear from the movie. I had thought during the movie that the 'erase a person's life' software wasn't going to be for Selina at all, but for her friend. Afterall, it seemed like Selina was doing fine, and the film even made a point of mentioning she didn't actually have a conviction on her record, whereas the friend seemed to really be struggling.
I never got the impression that Selina wanted the "fresh start" for anyone but herself ... until the very end when she is finally capable of wanting it for others, specifically Bruce. IMO, Anne Hathaway did a fine job putting a little edge of hysteria into her performance whenever the issue of the inescapable past came up so that the audience could feel that this otherwise cool customer had a very real fear driving her actions. There again was the issue of fear and the need to overcome fear that only too subtly connects to Bruce's own experience in Bane's prison. When Bruce returns, he offers Selina a life without fear by giving her the flash drive. The result is that Selina discovers that the fear of her past is not the only thing that drives her -- now she is driven by the fear of being nothing more than a selfish crook by leaving Batman alone to save Gotham -- in other words, she's afraid that her future, even with the fresh start, will be just like her past and that in this way she will not be able to escape her past even if she can erase the record of her past. This is a new brand of fear for Selina: it's what Christians in times past would have understood as a fear for one's immortal soul over and above one's mortal body. When Bruce makes the jump without the rope, it's not just the fear that he will fall and die that drives him. It's the the fear that if he falls and dies then Gotham will likely die, too.
I also think Nolan and his Btamna team still can't film a decent craftsman like action scenes.
Really? The bank heist that opened The Dark Knight? The attack on the police convoy transporting Harvey Dent?
These weren't good action scenes to you?
Granted, I'm not an expert, however the focus in my statement is craftsmen like.
The editing in those scenes is all over the place, the flow of action is jumbled, and the camera changes directions and angles in a disorienting way. Perhaps the intention was to make it that way to add to the jarring effect of the scenes. I don't know.
However, from a craft standpoint, it was not well executed.
Frazzled wrote:Meh Michelle Pfeiffer did it better, and could act.
Odd, I remember people saying similar things about the Heath Ledger as the Joker.....
Different movies. Burton was going for crazy funny. Heath Ledger just did Charles Manson as the Joker.
I liked Heath Ledger, but he aint gak against Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson invented crazy.
I watched the Heath Ledger one recently again and I got the vibe he was channeling the Jack Torrence vibe from the Shining. You're right Jack Nicholson invented crazy, but he didn't bring it to the Batman set back in 89.
I watched the Heath Ledger one recently again and I got the vibe he was channeling the Jack Torrence vibe from the Shining. You're right Jack Nicholson invented crazy, but he didn't bring it to the Batman set back in 89.
They focused on the darker Joker-- like from Batman R.I.P. and A Death in the Family or the Killing Joke, instead of the goofball joker that Nicholson portrayed. They're both accurate, just different sides to the same character. Although I do love Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's is truer to the more serious comics.
Since this already got brought back up, just wanted to say I thought this post really nailed it! (See quote below)
Da Boss wrote: Overall I liked the film, but I can agree with the people wondering what the hell Bane was doing in between capturing the city and detonating the bomb. I mean, we explicitly see him actually twiddling his thumbs at the court scenes more than once.
The film was extremely longwinded. To me, it seemed it was trying to do too much. It seemed to have several comics that it was drawing on as inspiration:
Dark Knight Returns: Aged and jaded batman pulled back into action by crisis.
Vengeance of Bane: Bane's backstory.
KnightFall: The breaking of Batman by Bane.
KnightsEnd: Batman's recovery and resurgence.
Cataclysm: Gotham is hit by a large disaster and descends into anarachy.
No Man's Land: Gotham, cut off from the rest of the United States and minus Batman, descends into tribalism and gang violence until Batman returns to restore order.
You could bundle the robin plotline into variously, the robin miniseries and nightwing graphic novels of the late nineties, but really it was it's own, separate story, along with Catwoman.
Any one of those comics could have made an amazing film. With all of them being used, you've got something slightly less coherent, overly long, and I suppose a bit stretched.
While as a long time batman fan, I was happy with all the little nods and the execution of the various bits, I felt that as film, it didn't hang together as well as Dark Knight. It was just a bit too ambitious to do everything it wanted to do as well as it could.
Highlights:
The cast. Bale does a brilliant and subtle job as a burned out batman. Caine continues to be awesome as Alfred. The younger fella they had playing Blake (yer man from Brick) was superb, and really drew me in. Hathaway did a great job as Catwoman. Hardy was superb as Bane, and the switch from good to evil for Talia was awesome. As usual, Gordon was bloody awesome as well because everything Gary Oldman does is amazing.
The last 3 minutes: The build up to revealing that Batman faked his own death, and that Blake/Robin is going to take over now (with the awesome "rising" end shot) sent me out of the film on a massive high.
Problems:
The two best protagonists (Gordon and Wayne) were sort of "out of it" for a lot of the movie.
The movie is too long. It has too many parts, and they feel pretty disconnected from each other.
The motivations of the antagonists are not clear, or not compelling. Similarly, the actions of the feds are not believable, to me.
Low Points:
The cops charging the army of goons at the end. I know it was all symbolology, but I didn't like it at all. It took what has primarily been a gritty and "real" franchise and made it silly. It's not WW1 any more, and those cops would not have done that. Anyway, after 3 months in the dark, I'd have said they'd have been suffering uncoupled circadian rhythms as well as probably some nasty infections brought on by gakking in close quarters for that long. And then Bane and Batman have another fist fight instead of someone just nailing bane with a rifle or something. Beh. Didn't work, but I guess they didn't have time for anything better.
Batman's recovery. Totally unbelievable, to be honest. But hey. I guess rage is the best medicine.
The cheesy love scene with Wayne and Talia. WTF. "Oh, we got rained on, and we're in a film. I guess we gotta shag now. And now that we've shagged, you are obsessively in love with me." I dunno, maybe Talia is a weasel in the sack or something.
Manchu wrote: I think it's totally fair of you because (1) the film pretends to have a strong political core with its ceaseless talk of politics and political imagery and (2) Nolan's batfilms are consciously designed to NOT be a "superhero movie" in the usual sense of that term (compare DKR with the Avengers, for example).
True.
I never got the impression that Selina wanted the "fresh start" for anyone but herself ... until the very end when she is finally capable of wanting it for others, specifically Bruce. IMO, Anne Hathaway did a fine job putting a little edge of hysteria into her performance whenever the issue of the inescapable past came up so that the audience could feel that this otherwise cool customer had a very real fear driving her actions. There again was the issue of fear and the need to overcome fear that only too subtly connects to Bruce's own experience in Bane's prison. When Bruce returns, he offers Selina a life without fear by giving her the flash drive. The result is that Selina discovers that the fear of her past is not the only thing that drives her -- now she is driven by the fear of being nothing more than a selfish crook by leaving Batman alone to save Gotham -- in other words, she's afraid that her future, even with the fresh start, will be just like her past and that in this way she will not be able to escape her past even if she can erase the record of her past. This is a new brand of fear for Selina: it's what Christians in times past would have understood as a fear for one's immortal soul over and above one's mortal body. When Bruce makes the jump without the rope, it's not just the fear that he will fall and die that drives him. It's the the fear that if he falls and dies then Gotham will likely die, too.
Yeah, there was never a hint of it being for anyone but herself. I just thought that might be the case, considering that friend was shown struggling and needing Selina to rescue her from guys and things. I thought the friend might have been in the movie for a reason. Turns out she wasn't and just got forgotten about by the end
I agree that Hathaway was excellent. Good breakdown of Selina's story, that summarised it nicely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Granted, I'm not an expert, however the focus in my statement is craftsmen like.
The editing in those scenes is all over the place, the flow of action is jumbled, and the camera changes directions and angles in a disorienting way. Perhaps the intention was to make it that way to add to the jarring effect of the scenes. I don't know.
However, from a craft standpoint, it was not well executed.
I most certainly am not an expert but I thought both those scenes were told really well.
). It was okay for me. I didn't like it as much as The Dark Knight, and I kind of called the ending about 20 minutes in (ironically the movie roughly followed the plot I thought it would, even with the ending reveal of you know what). My biggest problem was that I thought the film was really slow at times.
