View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 04:49 PM   #124
The Guard
The Guard's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 31,971
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

I don't understand why you seem to have a decent understanding of how Ra's and Joker work and yet can't see why Bane also works similarly and equally well.
I don’t understand why you seem to not understand my point of view on this. I’ll repeat myself:


Ra's Al Ghul's scenes actually deal with and explore concepts, like the nature of crime itself, the various layers and elements of it, his thoughts on punishing criminals VS seeking to redeem/understand them, and his thoughts/observations on corruption. They deal in specific ways that inform Bruce's crusade, like being invisible, learning to overcome one's fear and using symbols to become more than a man. They form a complete picture of a character and his motivations and desires, instead of a bunch of vague minor details.

The Joker's scenes actually deal with and explore concepts, like the nature of chaos, the various components of society, the reception/reaction to Batman, his place in society, the idea of a "better" class of criminal, etc. They form a complete picture of a character and his motivations and desires, instead of a bunch of vague minor details.

Bane's scenes? Abstract, melodramatic stuff like "I was born in the dark...molded by it...I didn't see the light until I was a grown man, and by then it was nothing to me but blinding", and that he learned the truth about despair by hoping...which explains how he knows to torture others with that knowledge, so we know he's a torturer, but not how he became a person who would do that…and a bunch of secondhand innuendo about a legend that Bane climbed out of a prison...which turns out not to be about Bane at all. Oh, and he punishes the rich...because he hates them for some reason.

Bane’s scenes don’t really explore the inherent concepts as well as Ra’s and Joker’s did.

Bane is not fleshed out remotely as well as Ra’s and The Joker were, nor is his point of view ultimately as relevant to the concepts of the film as a whole. Partially, I assume, because they tried to keep Bane a mystery for the sake of the “twist” at the end of the film rather than exploring the more interesting aspects of him.

That line directly explains why Bane might have been enticed into a dark path because of the his experience.
Not really. It’s a cool sounding line that at best boils down to Bane having a dark past. Certainly doesn’t “directly explain” anything.
Bane had a dark past…okay...that’s pretty thin as character motivations go without any more info or exploration of that idea.
The 'secondhand innuendo' is irrelevant as it is not Bane's story.
More or less.

Bane's story is that he was still trapped in his prison in the dark until Talia (the one piece of light and innocence in his life) convinces her father to free him.
Yes, and how does that tell us anything about why he ultimately became what he did? What his own personal motivations are and where they came from?

Then that figure that saved him (Ra's) casts him out because of who he is (bottom of the barrel). This reaffirms his hate of those with power having control over those without.
No, Talia very clearly says that Bane was cast out because he reminded Ra’s Al Ghul of the wife he had lost. Where in the film does it suggest that Ra’s casting him somehow out reaffirmed Bane’s hatred of those with power having control of those without?

It's not about the rich, but about those in power, (who in Gotham's case has become the wealthy because of the mob's inactivity due to the dent act).
As far as I can tell, there’s really nothing in the film to suggest that Bane, who himself is using power to do terrible things, became a terrorist so that he could actually somehow personally address the issue of people in power using it to hurt those without.

This has been a constant theme throughout the series. It just seems like you have a bias against TDKR and refuse to see that at least in the ways you were just talking about, this film is just as strong as either one and two.
I’m not sure why it would seem that way…I’ve been very detailed in why I think the way I do about this film and its elements.

I meant that you get a great idea of who the characters are by small snippets of their past and the way we see them in the film. It's very similar to what was done with Ra's.
A “great idea”? Not really. You get a vague idea.

It’s really not that similar to what was done with Ra’s, because with Ra’s, they directly explored concepts. They didn’t have him speak in nigh-riddles like “I was born in the dark”, etc. They had Ra’s actually talk about his thoughts and feelings on various concepts.

There are tons of small things that tell you a lot about the character - like Bane disregarding Talia's wish for "Bruce to watch the fire" by simply shooting him in the face so he can't foil their plan.
That doesn’t really tell you anything about Bane except that he’s willing to disobey his partner, willing to kill Bruce so Bruce can’t foil their plan, or because he hates him, or because he wants to beat him. Basically, generic villain stuff. Doesn’t make him any less thin a character.

I still would like some specific examples of what would have helped you feel he wasn't a 'thin' character, because I'm just not buying that argument.
Well, some sort of actual exploration about why he hates the rich and the powerful that didn’t involve thinking they were all horribly corrupt based on one man’s actions would have helped.

Some exploration about the nature of Bane’s evolution into the terrorist he became, not just some scant details about where he was before he met Talia, and then POOF, he’s an indoctrinated terrorist.

Perhaps some actual exploration of the concept about Bane evolving into the kind of person he did because of the trials and disadvantages that he faced in his past.

disagreed. Considering that some of the most vigorous complaints have been about Bane's perceived 'lack of motivation,' it's clear that if anything they didn't say it overtly enough. IMO, they found a pretty great balance of making it work great in context but also have tons of thematic consequence when you dig into it.
I think we’re past “lack of motivation”. Bane has motivations. They’re just not very well executed or explored.

I don’t really see how you can disagree that we’re beat over the head with Bane’s character and the few motivational moments he has when Bane flat out tells us half of the things he's going to do, does them in a very unsubtle, or another character tells us his motivations or character points. There’s very little that subtly handled in this movie.

My interpretation of this scene is that he's simply throwing Daggett's terminology in his face. Evil is such an absolute and meaningless term, and Bane just seems to enjoy how simplistic of a view this rich, pompous, POS has of the world, further proving to Bane that those in power have a detached view of reality.
How is evil an absolute and meaningless term?

It's a bit simplistic viewing of this scene and of the character to think that Bane is convinced he actually is driven by purely evil intentions. He is simply saying that yes, sacrifice and horrors need to happen for the greater good.
I never said Bane was driven by purely evil intentions. I said that based on this scene, Bane admits he is evil. Because he does.

It's unfair to rule out the scene with daggett, because it's very key to seeing Bane's point of view, as I just pointed out.
I wasn’t. I’m asking where else in the film is this element shown? And what point of view is it that we see in the Dagget scene? That Bane thinks its funny or amusing or pathetic that Dagget believes money buys him power given his current circumstances? How is that an interesting character trait, or even a motivation?

Some of you have apparently made this leap from Bane saying “And you believe that gives you power over me?” to believing that this means that Bane does what he does because he hates the rich because they think money buys power, or because they use their power to hurt those with none.

Where is that found in the film?

Bane is driven by the idea that those who need help at the bottom of the barrel are being trampled on by those with power, the same basic ideals of the LOS.
He’s driven by this based on what?

He flat out tells Bruce that all his speeches to that effect to Gotham are a ruse to keep Gotham “in line” while he waits to destroy it.

He really is the perfect heir to Ra's throne because he IS willing to sacrifice many for the greater good to stamp out the corruption and force Gotham to start anew where everybody is playing on an equal playing field.
Yes, he is. Or more to the point, Talia is. But this is still a thin concept. And that’s more or less exactly what Ra’s was, so it’s also a derivative one.

"Perception is the enemy of reason."

The Guard is offline