View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 03:42 PM   #120
The Guard
The Guard's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32,192
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

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.
No, but then I wasn’t making an argument. I was making a single statement.

"Not all"? No character “requires” a great deal of complexity. I don’t see how
that’s even a relevant statement here.

The complaints about the previous franchise with regard to unbalanced execution were that the villains received too much characterization…compared to Bruce/Batman, and that they took center stage compared to Bruce/Batman. Not that they received characterization period.

Seeing as how this franchise doesn’t have that problem (as much), I don’t see how this is a valid reason for Bane being a thin character in this franchise.

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.
Bane is not a “rather simple” character in the comics. The nightmare about Batman wasn’t the only reason he ended up fighting and breaking Batman and taking over Gotham, it was just a representation of it, and perhaps the genesis of it. From the time he first appeared, Bane has had a relatively complex origin (much like Batman’s), which I would not describe as “simple”, and he has very much become much more than “A big, strong guy who breaks Batman and takes over Gotham City”, with political, social, moral and personal elements intersecting and changing and evolving to create his character.

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.
You’re right. “I just do things” wasn’t true. He wasn’t “Just doing things”. He very clearly had plans. Big ones.

The Joker quite obviously wanted to stir things up, to create chaos, and to show that under enough strain, pressure and despair, people crack and go crazy, turn to violence, etc. Essentially, The Joker wanted to see what people would do when the chips were down. It was all one big social experiment. He was trying to break Gotham’s spirit. He says as much to Batman. And he also wanted to create a better class of criminal because he was apparently disgusted about how shallow the current class of criminal was.
I never said he was a complex character, though he was certainly a better executed character than Bane.

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."
I made two different points. Why are you pointing out a contradiction between two seperate contexts?

By saying “We don’t NEED to know anything” I mean just that, we, as ourselves, don’t NEED to know anything. There are no imperatives that we must know anything in particular.

But in order to have an interesting or a complex character come into existence, then yes, there must (there needs to be) some kind of exploration of that character. And there was, with Bane. Just not much.

Secondly, a character who operates as a force of nature is not an abstract basic concept.
He is if he lacks complexity, isn’t he? Without complexity, all you have are the basics, IE, a 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.
Which is why I said “complex OR interesting”. Eh…a character can be interesting whether they work within the story as a whole or not.

"Perception is the enemy of reason."

The Guard is offline