View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 02:44 PM   #113
2 sexy 4 a stormtrooper
ThePhantasm's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 19,337
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
Being a "force of nature" isn't really a valid excuse for being a thinly written character.
But just stating this isn't an argument. Not all characters require a great depth of complexity, and in fact one of the popular criticisms of Batfilms in the past was that the villains received too much characterization while Batman received too little. Bane is a rather simple character in the comics as well - driven to fight Batman because of a nightmare of bats in his past, and driven to rule Gotham because... well, just because. But he's an effective character that has remained engrained in fan's minds for awhile.

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
If it's the effect the villain has, and not the villain themself that matters, then why even bother to contest whether they're a complex or well written character...since it supposedly doesn't matter?
I haven't contested that. I've contested two arguments: 1) that the Talia reveal somehow turns Bane into simply a "lackey" with "no motivations of his own," and 2) that Bane's lack of complexity or whatever is a negative aspect of the film. I do think Bane was well written the the context of the film, possibly because I don't identify "complexity" and "well written" as near-synonymously as you do.

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
The Joker, regardless of the idea that he was a force of nature, had fairly clear and relevant motivations that did not rely on another character's. The Joker had a clear reason for doing what he did. The Joker, as a force of nature, also works because he was well conceived and well executed.
The Joker had a clear reason for wanting to cause chaos? What was that exactly? The Joker constantly lied about his past and his motivations, even telling Dent "I'm just a dog chasing cars... I just do things" (which wasn't true). Batman had a theory that Joker wanted to prove everyone was as ugly as him, but it was a theory that the Joker flat out ignored and seemed unfazed by. The Joker is simply the archetypal tempter / moral destroyer who wishes to upset laws of morality with unsettling chaos. He's effective, but that isn't "complex characterization," that's archetypal simplicity.

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
It's not about needing to know something. We don't NEED to know anything.

But some level of exploration is neccessary for Bane to be an interesting or a complex character. Otherwise he's just a basic concept.
Okay, well first I'll point out a contradiction here: if "some level of exploration is necessary" then obviously there is a "need to know something."

Secondly, a character who operates as a force of nature is not an abstract basic concept. Complexity is not a requirement for a character to be interesting - what is required is that the character works well within the story as a whole. Sometimes that necessitates complexity, sometimes it doesn't - sometimes undue complexity weighs the story down too much and distracts from the real focal points of the narrative. Its a question of balance. With Talia, the balance was off kilter, but with Bane I think it was just fine.

Originally Posted by Arrow_22 View Post
Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread
Countdown to Mysterious Heroism | Ɉ |
ThePhantasm is offline