Bane or the Joker?

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Beanjuice

but I have to say that whoever thinks Joker had more over Bane in really any area needs a good whack on the head.

Don't be jelly just cos you know it's the truth.

Joker was a lunatic bent on destruction for the attention he would get from Batman.

Nope. Joker was in a battle for Gotham's soul. Batman was just fun he had on the side.

Bane is the polar opposite of Batman and superior to him in almost every way.

Bane only beat Batman cos his body was wrecked. Hospital scene ring any bells? Bane never escaped the pit. Bats did. Bane was gonna shoot Batman while he was tied up cos Batman had just come back and whupped him.

Superior my Aunt Fanny.

Joker is a street fighter- Bane is a pure bred striker and martial artist. Joker makes use of crudely jury rigged explosives, knives, and stolen police firearms- Bane makes use of military grade explosives, vehicles, and weapons. Joker is manipulative and twists peoples minds based on their insecurities and fear- Bane has a genius level intellect and is a master manipulator, tactical planner, and strategist. Though it's never stated outright, Joker clearly learned the ropes of being a mobster and common criminal-Bane was trained by ******* ninjas.

Bane inherited an organization from the daughter of the guy who used to run it, and the only people who followed Bane were the crooks he set loose and the poor. Everyone else was scared as hell of him.

Joker threatens to blow up one hospital and he turns the whole city into a panic squad who try and kill Reese.

Joker > Bane.

As for motivation, "cause chaos and get people to kill each other" just doesn't cut it for me. Ruining Batman financially and physically, seizing control of the city, fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's dream to destroy Gotham completely and make Batman witness his failure is a much more sinister, high stakes sort of plan.

Joker motivation; turn the city against Batman. Successful. Corrupt Harvey Dent. Successful. Become the boss man of Gotham's underworld. Successful. Kill Rachel. Successful.

Bane; destroy Gotham. Fail. Take Bruce Wayne's money. He could have gotten it back when fraud is proven. Complete the work of a guy who kicked his ass out of his gang. What a loser.

The impact they had, again no contest its Bane. Joker got a few dirty cops, punk kids, One conflicted District Attorney, and escaped crazies to put on clown masks and blow stuff up. Bane got the majority of Gotham to side with him, implement martial law , and usurp the wealthy from their positions of power. and I'd like to add that bane succeed where Joker failed in killing the Mayor.

Joker killed Rachel, ruined 'ol Harvey, and made the Bat become public enemy number 1, and put Brucie into 8 years of misery.

Bane gave him a back injury that can be sorted by a good slap on the back and put him in a pit for a few months.

Joker wins again.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Nope, I've said in numerous posts that IMO the Bane characterization is just as good (if not better) as the Joker's. I'm just tired of people coming up with their own reasons for why they feel Bane attacked Gotham when all that's shown in the film is that he did it for Talia. I have no qualms with people being ok with that, a motive is a motive, but we all need to admit that that is what is shown as his reason rather than coming up with our own interpretations and using them as evidence in an argument

Although nothing really shows Bane only did it for Talia either.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Although nothing really shows Bane only did it for Talia either.

Lol, you're better than this Domini. You're arguments are usually more substantive than futile attempts at backward logic

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Lol, you're better than this Domini. You're arguments are usually more substantive than futile attempts at backward logic

That's not backward logic. Its the truth. Nothing in the film supports the "singular motivation hypothesis." It doesn't explicitly contradict it (although I think the accumulation of implied motivations does), but it doesn't necessitate it.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Lol, you're better than this Domini. You're arguments are usually more substantive than futile attempts at backward logic

Lol, it's not backwards logic. We know Bane loves Talia, and most likely Talia loves Bane as much, but while Talia is in the shadows, Bane's doing all of the work and he was supposedly leading a coup for Daggett as well. It just doesn't add up to Bane doing everything for Talia, especially even trying to kill Batman at the very end. It seemed, to me, that Bane and Talia united with one cause but Bane was trying to achieve what Ra's al Ghul couldn't do as much as succeed in what Bruce Wayne never did by even succeeding Ra's.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

That's not backward logic. Its the truth. Nothing in the film supports the "singular motivation hypothesis." It doesn't explicitly contradict it (although I think the accumulation of implied motivations does), but it doesn't necessitate it.

My original argument was whether the film EXPLICTLY showed any reason for Bane attacking Gotham/Bruce in particular without Talia being a part of it. I think we can safely conclude that no, no other reason is explicitly shown and any further interpretation is on the part of the viewer. Now Domino, a poster who I consider one of the best on the forum though we agree on nothing, states that though Talia is the only motivation shown, this doesn't preclude anything else from being a motive. This is a point I never argued, reading over my previous posts will show that all I argued was whether there were any other motives SHOWN. So yes, he is using an "absence of evidence/evidence of absence" argument which most would agree is often a last resort.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Bane wins every category except motivation in this one for me. The siege on Gotham could have been excellent if Nolan had spent more time with the actual citizens; from characterization to impact, Bane is a fantastic character. I do think the Talia twist takes away from his greatness though

I wouldn't say it is a twist. Nolan tells you flat out that it isn't Bane halfway through the film that Bane isn't the one who climbs the pit but he just doesn't specifically say it. I find it funny how people think Nolan really held the audiences hands with this film sometimes as some say that the twist was there just for the "shock factor" when infact it was the reveal moment for Bruce. Not really for us.

Anyone who has watched BB enough times knows that Talia's quotes and actions through the film knows that she wasn't all she seemed and had something more with the quote about "restoring balance" and as well as her mini-speech at the ball which comes off as about the energy reactor but is clearly about him being Batman. The signposts were all there all we had to do is put two and two together which you could do halfway through the film. I think this is very different to the usual Nolan "twist" with the fact it wasn't really a twist at all. And this is purely by whats given in the film not the fact videos were leaked.

If anything it is the character itself that should be deemed weak or when the reveal was placed NOT the fact there was a reveal.

[Anno_Domini]

Explicitly, it wasn't said if Bane was doing all of this because of Talia either, though. There isn't even any evidence shown of why they're teaming up in the first place.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

My original argument was whether the film EXPLICTLY showed any reason for Bane attacking Gotham/Bruce in particular without Talia being a part of it. I think we can safely conclude that no, no other reason is explicitly shown and any further interpretation is on the part of the viewer. Now Domino, a poster who I consider one of the best on the forum though we agree on nothing, states that though Talia is the only motivation shown, this doesn't preclude anything else from being a motive. This is a point I never argued, reading over my previous posts will show that all I argued was whether there were any other motives SHOWN. So yes, he is using an "absence of evidence/evidence of absence" argument which most would agree is often a last resort.

No other reason is explicitly shown, nor is the reason that you provided explicitly shown. I think you misread "Domino" (sic) here. He is simply pointing out the lack of evidence for your assertion. That's not a fallacy, its a challenge. It isn't an argument from ignorance or negation, its an observation that the burden of proof rests with you to prove what you are asserting.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Explicitly, it wasn't said if Bane was doing all of this because of Talia either, though. There isn't even any evidence shown of why they're teaming up in the first place.

I guess but I'd say the twist technically is Miranda isn't Miranda and she is behind it this whole time. Now this is easily given throughout the film I agree the WHOLE reveal isn't but this key bit is.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Deserana

I guess but people I'd say the twist technically is Miranda isn't Miranda and she is behind it this whole time. Now this is easily given throughout the film I agree the WHOLE reveal isn't but this key bit is.

But with Bane having been involved with that one coup with Daggett which Alfred explains, it doesn't add up with Bane just being some lapdog to Talia. It makes more sense that Bane and Talia are allies not not Bane just doing what Talia wishes.

[Doctor Octopus]

Bane was willing to die for Talia when she was just a child in the pit. He was also willing to die again so she could honor her father by completing his work and killing the man who she thinks killed her father.

I think it is obvious Bane was doing it for Talia.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

Bane was willing to die for Talia when she was just a child in the pit. He was also willing to die again so she could honor her father by completing his work and killing the man who she thinks killed her father.

I think it is obvious Bane was doing it for Talia.

Exactly, how this is even an argument is beyond me

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

No other reason is explicitly shown, nor is the reason that you provided explicitly shown. I think you misread "Domino" (sic) here. He is simply pointing out the lack of evidence for your assertion. That's not a fallacy, its a challenge. It isn't an argument from ignorance or negation, its an observation that the burden of proof rests with you to prove what you are asserting.

Maybe my reading comprehension needs work, but are you saying that I need to prove that part, if not all, of the reason for Bane invading Gotham was because of Talia? I don't see how anyone who watches the film can deny this

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

But with Bane having been involved with that one coup with Daggett which Alfred explains, it doesn't add up with Bane just being some lapdog to Talia. It makes more sense that Bane and Talia are allies not not Bane just doing what Talia wishes.

But I'm not saying that's the twist. I'm saying the fact Miranda is Talia is the twist. Bane and Talia are allies is a reveal that comes with the twist with all twists come exposistion and this was that.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Maybe my reading comprehension needs work, but are you saying that I need to prove that part, if not all, of the reason for Bane invading Gotham was because of Talia? I don't see how anyone who watches the film can deny this

How do you know Bane and Talia aren't equal allies? How do you know that Bane's invasion of Gotham was because of Talia? His joining the League of Shadows seems to have been, but as far as the rest goes that seems to be conjecture.

Of course Bane is bound up in some kind of relationship (either lover or mentor, its unclear) with Talia in the film that caused him to be a part of the League of Shadows etc., but I can't find where it is asserted that his motivations for destroying Gotham and Bruce are because of Talia. He did a lot of things for Talia. The movie doesn't say he did this for Talia. Maybe they just believe the same things, having both grown up in suffering.

In fact, I'd say the movie also implies (for example) that his motivations are because of Ra's. He seems angered when Bruce mentions that he was excommunicated from the League. He calls himself Ra's Al Ghuls successor and identifies himself so closely with the League's mission that he proclaims "I AM THE LEAGUE OF SHADOWS!" He says he is here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. Nothing is mentioned about vengeance for Talia, not even when he has Bruce defeated and in the pit.

[ThePhantasm]

Oh, by the way, that's the parallel / contrast between Bruce and Bane. Bane wanted desperately to be Ra's successor, and was excommunicated. Ra's wanted Bruce to be his successor, and Bruce refused. Bane is driven by the exact opposite impulses that Bruce was. Bane's suffering has shaped him in a contrasting way to how Bruce's suffering shaped him.

[batfreakforever]

I like that we dont really know about this Jokers beginnings and also dont know how his story ends. Is he dead? Not Joker anymore? Still in Gotham? I know it says a sentance of him in the Rises novel, but we have to go with whats in the films.

[AnneFan]

Originally Posted by batfreakforever

I like that we dont really know about this Jokers beginnings and also dont know how his story ends. Is he dead? Not Joker anymore? Still in Gotham? I know it says a sentance of him in the Rises novel, but we have to go with whats in the films.

Yep. A name drop wouldn't have hurt but as it stands, he came out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere. Mysterious.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Oh, by the way, that's the parallel / contrast between Bruce and Bane. Bane wanted desperately to be Ra's successor, and was excommunicated. Ra's wanted Bruce to be his successor, and Bruce refused. Bane is driven by the exact opposite impulses that Bruce was. Bane's suffering has shaped him in a contrasting way to how Bruce's suffering shaped him.

The bolded is neither shown nor implied in the movie. All thats said is that Bane is excommunicated, whether or not he wanted to be Ra's successor is not mentioned

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

How do you know Bane and Talia aren't equal allies? How do you know that Bane's invasion of Gotham was because of Talia? His joining the League of Shadows seems to have been, but as far as the rest goes that seems to be conjecture.

I'm puzzled by your argument. Whether or not they were allies or Bane was subservient to her is not a point I have argued. The only point I've debated towards this context is whether the movie CLEARLY shows Bane having any other motive for attacking Bruce/Gotham if not for Talia.

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

In fact, I'd say the movie also implies (for example) that his motivations are because of Ra's. He seems angered when Bruce mentions that he was excommunicated from the League. He calls himself Ra's Al Ghuls successor and identifies himself so closely with the League's mission that he proclaims "I AM THE LEAGUE OF SHADOWS!" He says he is here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. Nothing is mentioned about vengeance for Talia, not even when he has Bruce defeated and in the pit.

Of course the movie implies that Bane is motivated by Ra's. I agree with you on that respect, he says multiple times that he wants to fulfil Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. The problem with that is that all the movie tells us about the relationship between Ra's and Bane is that Bane saved Ra's daughter and Ra's responded to the kindness by excommunicating him from the league.

- A point I want you to remember is that Talia says that Ra's returned to the pit to "exact terrible vengeance" on those who had killed her mother. It is never mentioned that Ra's returned to the pit specifically to rescue Bane, just that they happened to find him. If Bane is indeed motivated primarily by his desire to fulfil Ra's AL Ghul's destiny, then the film should have spent more time showing why the legacy was so important to him in the first place and why he felt any loyalty to Ra's/The League of Shadows after they excommunicatedhim. So either

A.) You're wrong and this is all a facade that Bane was using to deflect attention from Talia

B.) You're right, in which case Bane is a poorly written character who wasn't fleshed out enough

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

The bolded is neither shown nor implied in the movie. All thats said is that Bane is excommunicated, whether or not he wanted to be Ra's successor is not mentioned

Shown? No. Implied? Perhaps. As I said, it was an "example" of an alternative hypothesis.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I'm puzzled by your argument. Whether or not they were allies or Bane was subservient to her is not a point I have argued. The only point I've debated towards this context is whether the movie CLEARLY shows Bane having any other motive for attacking Bruce/Gotham if not for Talia.

I'm puzzled by your argument. What does it mean "any other motive... if not for Talia?" Obviously his motive comes from Ra's and Talia because he bought into their beliefs about Gotham. But those are his beliefs now just as much as it is their belief. Everyone gets their beliefs from somewhere. So if that's all you mean, well, its such a small point that I'm not sure why bring it up? But if you mean Bane just follows Talia around and only attacks Gotham because she wants to, well then you will have to show me that's the case because that is not "clear."

Here is how the scene goes:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Miranda: Talia. My mother named me Talia before she was killed. The way I would have been killed if not for my protector...Bane. I climbed out of the pit. I found my father and brought him back to exact terrible vengeance. But by that time, the prisoners and doctor had done their work to my friend, my protector. The League took us in, trained us. But my father could not accept Bane.

Miranda: He saw only a monster, whose very existence was a reminder of the hell he'd left his wife to die in. He excommunicated Bane from the League of Shadows. His only crime was that he loved me. I could not forgive my father.

Miranda: Until you murdered him.

Bruce Wayne: He was trying to kill millions of innocent people.

Miranda: Innocent is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce. I honor my father by finishing his work.

Miranda: Vengeance against the man who killed him is simply a reward for my patience. You see, it's the slow knife, the knife that takes its time, the knife that waits years without forgetting, then slips quietly between bones.

Miranda: That's the knife that cuts deepest.

Talia's primary motivation was not vengeance but rather the same belief system that drove Ra's to attack Gotham - a belief system that Bane shows throughout the movie that he has embraced wholeheartedly. Revenge against Bruce? That's just some added icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

If Bane is indeed motivated primarily by his desire to fulfil Ra's AL Ghul's destiny, then the film should have spent more time showing why the legacy was so important to him in the first place and why he felt any loyalty to Ra's/The League of Shadows after they excommunicated him.

Beyond the fact that he spent his life in a warlord's pit in dark suffering that would cause him to hate those who "oppress"? Bane seems like exactly the kind of person who would identify with the League's desire for justice / revenge, just as Bruce initially did.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

A.) You're wrong and this is all a facade that Bane was using to deflect attention from Talia

B.) You're right, in which case Bane is a poorly written character who wasn't fleshed out enough

No, these are not the only two choices. And B hinges upon your personal definition of what constitutes a poorly written character. But I don't want to get into the whole "if we don't have their motivations explicitly laid out for us in undeniable terms the character is poorly written" debate. As I mentioned before, we didn't have that for the Joker either.

[Batman jr.]

Both.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Shown? No. Implied? Perhaps. As I said, it was an "example" of an alternative hypothesis.

Which is based off of zero evidence presented in the movie

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I'm puzzled by your argument. What does it mean "any other motive... if not for Talia?" Obviously his motive comes from Ra's and Talia because he bought into their beliefs about Gotham. But those are his beliefs now just as much as it is their belief. Everyone gets their beliefs from somewhere. So if that's all you mean, well, its such a small point that I'm not sure why bring it up? But if you mean Bane just follows Talia around and only attacks Gotham because she wants to, well then you will have to show me that's the case because that is not "clear."

Here is how the scene goes:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Miranda: Talia. My mother named me Talia before she was killed. The way I would have been killed if not for my protector...Bane. I climbed out of the pit. I found my father and brought him back to exact terrible vengeance. But by that time, the prisoners and doctor had done their work to my friend, my protector. The League took us in, trained us. But my father could not accept Bane.

Miranda: He saw only a monster, whose very existence was a reminder of the hell he'd left his wife to die in. He excommunicated Bane from the League of Shadows. His only crime was that he loved me. I could not forgive my father.

Miranda: Until you murdered him.

Bruce Wayne: He was trying to kill millions of innocent people.

Miranda: Innocent is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce. I honor my father by finishing his work.

Miranda: Vengeance against the man who killed him is simply a reward for my patience. You see, it's the slow knife, the knife that takes its time, the knife that waits years without forgetting, then slips quietly between bones.

Miranda: That's the knife that cuts deepest.

Talia's primary motivation was not vengeance but rather the same belief system that drove Ra's to attack Gotham - a belief system that Bane shows throughout the movie that he has embraced wholeheartedly. Revenge against Bruce? That's just some added icing on the cake.

Ra's was driven to attack Gotham because he felt it was a corrupt city. Talia's speech to Bruce at the end implies she feels the same way when she says, "Innocence is a strong word to throw around Gotham." Nowhere in the film is it shown that Bane feels Gotham is corrupt or that he has any personal reason to attack Gotham. He does say he is "Gotham's reckoning", but there is no further exposition on why HE HIMSELF feels Gotham is anymore deserving of destruction than any other city in the world. It is easy to extrapolate that Bane has embraced the principles of the LOS, yet he never voices his own personal beliefs throughout the movie. I have no problem identifying why Talia is doing what she is doing, why is there such ambiguity with Bane?

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Beyond the fact that he spent his life in a warlord's pit in dark suffering that would cause him to hate those who "oppress"?.

And yet none of this is revealed in the film. If he really is someone who hates those who oppress, why would he launch a siege against a city full of civilians? Gotham has 12 million people and he wants to blow them up to bits even though he has no personal beef with them. Bane's feelings towards those who oppress are never revealed in the film this is again an example of you extrapolating

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Bane seems like exactly the kind of person who would identify with the League's desire for justice / revenge, just as Bruce initially did.

What kind of person is Bane exactly? Where IN THE FILM is it shown that Bane would be more inclined towards the League's philosophy than anyone else?

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

No, these are not the only two choices. And B hinges upon your personal definition of what constitutes a poorly written character. But I don't want to get into the whole "if we don't have their motivations explicitly laid out for us in undeniable terms the character is poorly written" debate. As I mentioned before, we didn't have that for the Joker either.

And yet no one complains about the Joker. Do you think we are just randomly picking on Bane?

[MAKAVELI25]

Again, I want to emphasize that I have no problem with people interpreting movies to their own liking, but you guys needs to stop using your own interpretations as evidence in arguments