In hindsight what changes would you do

[The Guard]

I think it could certainly be inferred from the film that Bane wants Bruce to suffer because he represents everything he hates. A man born with nothing vs. a man with a silver spoon. Bruce is given the opportunity to be at Ra's side, something Bane rightfully deserved having saved his daughter, but he's instead cast out. Why? Because he's a monster from hell. Ra's chose the Prince of Gotham over him...only for the Prince of Gotham to turn his back on the League and spit in the face of everything they stood for.

I completely agree with those who have said Bane wanted to succeed where Ra's failed, for these reasons. Couple that with an unwavering loyalty and love for Talia, and you pretty much have Bane's character. It's very much a brotherly battle between Batman and Bane, where Ra's is the father figure. Bruce represents the good aspects of Ra's taken to the extreme, Bane represents the worst aspects of him taken to the extreme.

So...

-Bane hates the rich...because he wasn't born rich.
-Bane, though we're never actually shown this, really wanted to be at Ra's Al Ghul's side, and resents Bruce for not wanting the same thing he did and working against the league.
-And Bane has an unwavering loyalty and love to Talia, and so he does what she wants.

So basically:
Bane hates rich people because he wasn't born rich. Bane hates Bruce for not wanting to be a villain, for fighting against a villainous organization and is...jealous of him? And Bane does whatever Talia wants because he loves her and is loyal to her.

Mind you, none of this is actually explored.

How is that not a thin character again?

[redfirebird2008]

As far as the trilogy itself is concerned, the Batvoice should have been handled better. I think Nolan and Bale will look back on this in 30 years and laugh at themselves. The audience 30 years from now will laugh at it too.

The casting and writing for Rachel should have been handled better as well. I never bought into Bruce's relationship with her because the writing wasn't good on this subject and the chemistry between Bale and Holmes/Gyllenhaal just wasn't good enough. He had a lot better chemistry with Hathaway. Maybe she should have played Rachel.

[redfirebird2008]

Watching the TDKR Blu-ray rip right now and thinking, "Why not fill up the Steelers stadium for the football scene?" They shouldn't have had too much trouble filling the stadium, either with real people or CGI for some of it.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by The Guard

So...

-Bane hates the rich...because he wasn't born rich.
-Bane, though we're never actually shown this, really wanted to be at Ra's Al Ghul's side, and resents Bruce for not wanting the same thing he did and working against the league.
-And Bane has an unwavering loyalty and love to Talia, and so he does what she wants.

So basically:
Bane hates rich people because he wasn't born rich. Bane hates Bruce for not wanting to be a villain, and is...jealous of him? And Bane does whatever Talia wants because he loves her and is loyal to her.

Mind you, none of this is actually explored.

How is that not a thin character again?

Well no, it's not necessarily that he hates the rich because he was born with nothing and is jealous (though I would say he'd be jealous of Bruce getting picked by Ra's), it's that he loathes this idea that they think money can buy them power, when in his experience money has nothing to do with true strength and power. He's a leader that gets his hands dirty and puts himself out there with his men. That earns him the kind of respect and loyalty that's priceless, the kind Daggett wouldn't know a thing about. Couple that with the fact that he was living down in a hole until Ra's schooled him in the ways of the world, and you've got a fully indoctrinated ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

In short, I think the sum total of everything we learn about the character, while much of it is left off screen and for us to infer and interpret ourselves, leaves you with the impression of a complex man with his own epic journey through life, just like Bruce. Deeply evil, downright barbaric in a sense, but very deeply human too. In fact, Ra's felt like a much more fully fleshed out character too by the end of TDKR. I left that theater wishing there was a spin-off novel to read about Bane, Talia and Ra's...and that's a compliment.

So if Bane's primary weakness or thinness as a villain is that he is an extension of Ra's, so be it. I love Ra's as a character and loved the added dimension he gets in TDKR. It actually makes Batman Begins a better movie for me.

[jmc]

Completely ruins Begins for me which is one reason I don't hold Rises to a high regard.

[Ant-LOX]

I would extend the Bat-Pod scenes a bit.

I would have at least 1 scene with Batman eating something.

Catwoman eats the apple, give Batman a bowl of cereal.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

Completely ruins Begins for me which is one reason I don't hold Rises to a high regard.

What ruins Begins for you? Bane's motive?

[The Guard]

Well no, it's not necessarily that he hates the rich because he was born with nothing and is jealous (though I would say he'd be jealous of Bruce getting picked by Ra's), it's that he loathes this idea that they think money can buy them power, when in his experience money has nothing to do with true strength and power. He's a leader that gets his hands dirty and puts himself out there with his men. That earns him the kind of respect and loyalty that's priceless, the kind Daggett wouldn't know a thing about. Couple that with the fact that he was living down in a hole until Ra's schooled him in the ways of the world, and you've got a fully indoctrinated ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

In short, I think the sum total of everything we learn about the character, while much of it is left off screen and for us to infer and interpret ourselves, leaves you with the impression of a complex man with his own epic journey through life, just like Bruce.

Bane's statement to Dagget is a nice moment, but the idea of a man who thinks that brute force is power isn't all that complex. That's basically just describing a thug, a soldier, or a generic military leader.

This epic journey you speak of is largely unknown.

The nature of his indoctrination is largely unknown.

It'd be one thing if we SAW, or were even told that Bane had a journey similar to Bruce's, or saw or understood any of his indoctrination, but we didn't. Instead, we're teased and then told how he and Ra's ended up in the same organization, and that he loves Talia, and that he was kicked out. And that now he's Bane.

You're right...it's left to us to infer ourselves...because it's not at all present in the film. Any depth or story detail possible for the character is just completely glossed over in favor of building to a melodramatic twist.

Bane is more or less a fully formed but barely fleshed out, evil person.

He just IS evil and sadistic. Why? Who the hell knows?
He just IS a terrorist. Why? Who the hell knows?
He just IS devoted to Talia. Why? Because he was.

This is what I mean by thin.

So if Bane's primary weakness or thinness as a villain is that he is an extension of Ra's, so be it.

Bane's primary weakness and thinness as a character is that he's barely explored as a character.

He's largely reduced to his actions, the initially presented motivations behind his actions are both thinly handled and not apparently, by his own admission, an actual key motivation he has, and then there are a couple of expository passages about his past that turn out not really to be about him for the most part.

There was a fascinating character to be had here. They just didn't get to that point. We only saw glimpses of it. Which is a shame.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by The Guard

He just IS evil. Why? Who the hell knows?
He just IS a terrorist. Why? Who the hell knows?

Yeah, that Joker isn't very fleshed out... oh wait, we are talking about Bane. I forgot.

In the Nolan movies, most of the villains function as forces of nature / archetypal figures. The Joker and Bane are both Satanic sort of archvillain figures who attempt to push the hero to his limits and destroy him ("speak of the devil..."). They seemingly come out of nowhere, are both animalistic (Joker is a "mad dog," Bane a growling, muzzled beast). Nolan isn't making a Sam Raimi Spider-Man film here (not knocking those, btw). The story here isn't as focused on the villains. It is the effect that they have upon the hero and how he overcomes them that matters in the film. Even Talia is simply a force of nature in a way - she is the cutting betrayal that comes out of nowhere for Bruce, albeit too late in the story to be really effective IMO.

See, I don't have to know all this stuff about Bane, just like I didn't have to for the Joker. It isn't necessary in order for Bane to be an effective villain, in my opinion.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Guard

So...

-Bane hates the rich...because he wasn't born rich.
-Bane, though we're never actually shown this, really wanted to be at Ra's Al Ghul's side, and resents Bruce for not wanting the same thing he did and working against the league.
-And Bane has an unwavering loyalty and love to Talia, and so he does what she wants.

So basically:
Bane hates rich people because he wasn't born rich. Bane hates Bruce for not wanting to be a villain, for fighting against a villainous organization and is...jealous of him? And Bane does whatever Talia wants because he loves her and is loyal to her.

Mind you, none of this is actually explored.

How is that not a thin character again?

Actually it is explored, but maybe not to the depth of your liking. What more did you want from them exactly? When you boil things down to bullet points, obviously it's going to seem thin. What makes Ra's in BB a 'full' character versus Bane being a 'thin' character in TDKR? In both cases you only get as much information as you need and as is pertinent to the themes that drove Bruce to seek justice.

I personally was a big fan of getting vague pieces of the characters' pasts that you can match with how they handle situations in the film. IMO this is a great example of getting an idea of a character and his motivations without beating it over the head.


And to the comment that Bane 'just IS evil', the answer is simple - he isn't. His moral code is just different than Bruce's. No Nolan character is as simple as that. That's why it's important that Bane, a man born in an environment that had very little chance of turning out 'nice', saves Talia, an innocent, and takes the responsibility of her safety upon himself. He isn't just a terrorist for no reason, he is because he has seen the horrors of those with power using it unjustly (much like Bruce). Keep in mind both Bane and Bruce operate in ways that are considered illegal, but their methods make them either a hero or a villain. Either way, their goal is to clean Gotham's system of corruption, a noble goal in itself.

[DACrowe]

I have seen The World is Not Enough. Do I think TDKR should have been like that with Talia being the main love interest and then revealing she was bad in the second act like some fans want? Not really. The twist does work better right at the end and the other love interest doesn't get screwed over if you do it like that.

My thoughts on those who wish the twist came sooner in the movie.

[The Guard]

Yeah, that Joker isn't very fleshed out... oh wait, we are talking about Bane. I forgot.

In the Nolan movies, most of the villains function as forces of nature / archetypal figures. The Joker and Bane are both Satanic sort of archvillain figures who attempt to push the hero to his limits and destroy him ("speak of the devil..."). They seemingly come out of nowhere, are both animalistic (Joker is a "mad dog," Bane a growling, muzzled beast). Nolan isn't making a Sam Raimi Spider-Man film here (not knocking those, btw). The story here isn't as focused on the villains. It is the effect that they have upon the hero and how he overcomes them that matters in the film. Even Talia is simply a force of nature in a way - she is the cutting betrayal that comes out of nowhere for Bruce, albeit too late in the story to be really effective IMO.

Being a "force of nature" isn't really a valid excuse for being a thinly written character.

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?

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.

See, I don't have to know all this stuff about Bane, just like I didn't have to for the Joker. It isn't necessary in order for Bane to be an effective villain, in my opinion.

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.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by The Guard

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

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

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

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.

[Vengeance of Bane]

I loved TDKR, but it wasn't what I had in mind seeing the end of TDK. I thought it was great that Batman took the blame for Harvey's acts at the end of TDK. I just don't think that the story we got in TDKR felt like the natural progression of the story.

- No Dent Act.
- Takes place within a year of TDK's ending. (Eighteen months of clean streets)
- Batman is still active, but is being hunted down by a special task force (Blake a member).
- Bruce Wayne is no more. Batman is all BW has left.
- The city fears Batman (terrorized) by him. (Killings)
- Bane publicly breaks Batman (seen as liberator). Bruce will still be taken to prison and Bane's true intentions will be revealed.
- No Foley.
- A more brutal Batman

[The Guard]

Actually it is explored, but maybe not to the depth of your liking. What more did you want from them exactly?

More than melodramatic line readings. I wanted some intellectual content, like we got in previous films.

When you boil things down to bullet points, obviously it's going to seem thin.

So let's discuss the details, then.

What makes Ra's in BB a 'full' character versus Bane being a 'thin' character in TDKR? In both cases you only get as much information as you need and as is pertinent to the themes that drove Bruce to seek justice.

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.

I personally was a big fan of getting vague pieces of the characters' pasts that you can match with how they handle situations in the film.

What do you mean by that?

IMO this is a great example of getting an idea of a character and his motivations without beating it over the head.

Except that they did beat you over the head with the character and any/all motivations he had.

And to the comment that Bane 'just IS evil', the answer is simple - he isn't.

Comments about Bane's moral code aside…he flat out says that he is evil. His actions are decidedly evil. And there's no real exploration of or any suggestion that his actions are not, or that there's any kind of a gray area to what he's doing.

He isn't just a terrorist for no reason, he is because he has seen the horrors of those with power using it unjustly (much like Bruce).

Where? When? How? Other than Dagget, where is this exploration found in the film? Where does anything imply this?

Either way, their goal is to clean Gotham's system of corruption, a noble goal in itself.

But it's not "in itself", is it? Because Bane intends to kill a bunch of innocent people.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Vengeance of Bane

I loved TDKR, but it wasn't what I had in mind seeing the end of TDK. I thought it was great that Batman took the blame for Harvey's acts at the end of TDK. I just don't think that the story we got in TDKR felt like the natural progression of the story.

- No Dent Act.
- Takes place within a year of TDK's ending. (Eighteen months of clean streets)
- Batman is still active, but is being hunted down by a special task force (Blake a member).
- Bruce Wayne is no more. Batman is all BW has left.
- The city fears Batman (terrorized) by him. (Killings)
- Bane publicly breaks Batman (seen as liberator). Bruce will still be taken to prison and Bane's true intentions will be revealed.
- No Foley.
- A more brutal Batman

See I love TDKR too but I felt that this story was a very natural progression from TDK. The Dent Act was the only (very slightly) iffy thing. Bruce however I think they got spot on. He didn't want to be in a Gotham based on a lie he tried and it just didn't work.

I remember in the Empire article in December Nolan says that he adds his reputation as murder to his tasctics but I never saw this in the film at all....

[jmc]

Originally Posted by The Joker

What ruins Begins for you? Bane's motive?

The fact that the ambiguity about Ra's was removed. I liked how I saw Ra's in Begins, Rises changed everything and did exactly what I feared it would, it told me I was viewing it wrong for 7 years - and I hate that. I haven't watch Begins since Rises and quite frankly I'm not all that keen too.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by jmc

The fact that the ambiguity about Ra's was removed. I liked how I saw Ra's in Begins, Rises changed everything and did exactly what I feared it would, it told me I was viewing it wrong for 7 years - and I hate that. I haven't watch Begins since Rises and quite frankly I'm not all that keen too.

What was it about Ra's that was ambiguous that was clarified by Rises?

I can only think of two things - 1) the warlord's daughter backstory and 2) the fact that Ra's isn't actually immortal (which I guess could be viewed as ambiguous in Begins). One of those?

[The Guard]

Whether his beard would always look as good as it did in BATMAN BEGINS.

The nature of his immortality. Whether he was actually immortal, or whether it was just the idea of an immortal concept/legacy.

[The Guard]

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.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Guard

More than melodramatic line readings. I wanted some intellectual content, like we got in previous films.

IMO it is certainly in there and more than 'melodramatic line readings', so just going to have to agree to disagree here.

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.

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. That line directly explains why Bane might have been enticed into a dark path because of the his experience. The 'secondhand innuendo' is irrelevant as it is not Bane's story. 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. 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. 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). 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.

What do you mean by that?

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. 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. 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.

Except that they did beat you over the head with the character and any/all motivations he had.

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.

Comments about Bane's moral code aside…he flat out says that he is evil. His actions are decidedly evil. And there's no real exploration of or any suggestion that his actions are not, or that there's any kind of a gray area to what he's doing.

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. 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.

Where? When? How? Other than Dagget, where is this exploration found in the film? Where does anything imply this?

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. 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 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. This stuff is explored throughout the film as one GREAT idea, it's never specifically said in one defining moment, it's an accumulation of character building throughout the film.

But it's not "in itself", is it? Because Bane intends to kill a bunch of innocent people.

This is the rationale of a terrorist. He was born and raised in the equivalent of hell for the soul. If anybody would be willing to kill people for the greater good it would be ra's, Bane and Talia, whereas Bruce was raised by a philanthropist, therefore leading him to believe in the good in people, whereas the others saw the bad in people. All of them suffered terrible and traumatic losses and experiences that drove them to seek justice for Gotham's system, but their methods are all born from their life experiences, and Nolan shows this very well throughout the trilogy. So yes, in and of itself, all of them share the noble goal of helping Gotham reach a period of equality and less disparity, not of decadence and corruption. Their methods determine whether they're villains or heros. This is classic story and character convention.

[ThePhantasm]

The Guard, I think we are talking past each other at this point. Your last comment seems to basically agree with what I'm actually saying while pushing my own statements into tangents they were never meant to go. Its gotten a bit confusing for me as I'm now not exactly sure what your critique of Bane is, as it seems to me you've now stripped away the criteria for the critique and boiled it down to... Bane isn't interesting (because?).

I'll respond quickly to the latter bit of your comment before I go:

Originally Posted by The Guard

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

First of all, the point(s?) are conjoined by the word "but", hardly placing them in separate contexts.

Originally Posted by The Guard

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.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is this some philosophical / epistemological point? Are we moving to a discussion of free agnosticism here? Have we actually stepped off into a discussion of the ultimate necessity of knowledge? I'd rather not follow that rabbit trail...

The point about "needing to know" is simple. It isn't about some "imperative." It is about the criterion for what you call an "interesting character." If exploration of a character is necessary to make the character interesting, then YES the audience needs to know (criteria) something to bring about the resulting interest (effect).

Originally Posted by The Guard

He is if he lacks complexity, isn’t he? Without complexity, all you have are the basics, IE, a basic concept.

But you are shifting the terms here. First you discuss the lack of complexity in his motivations, then you shift to the conclusion that this creates conceptual over-simplicity. But a character can be conceptually complex (Bane is symbolically quite complex, much like the Joker was - they both draw from a slew of old archetypes and mix them together) without having complex motivations. "Thin motivations" /= "basic concept character".

Anywho, I think I've made my point and at this stage this discussion is getting a bit repetitive. Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

After my first home viewing this evening I can say until now pacing was not a problem, but now I can truly see everyones gripes.

Ha, that's funny because I felt completely the opposite. I thought there were pacing problems the first time, but when I watched it the second time and at home I had no issues and actually thought the pacing very deliberate and effecient now that I knew the story.

[The Guard]

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:

Because…

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.

[J'adore]

I wouldn't have rushed in Talia's role. But that's just me.