Bane or the Joker?

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yes, but think about it- they also used him. They used his company to get they wanted. They used it as a means to get a nuclear device that's waiting for them within Gotham City. They took hold of his "precious armory" so they could establish marshal law. It's just like how they wanted to use him to get the microwave emitter in Batman Begins. Bruce was selected because of his status in Gotham in the first place. "As Gotham's favorite son, you will be ideally placed...".

But again, you're arguing major differences, and somehow saying that their motives are exactly the same, when they aren't. Ra's didn't steal the microwave emitter to spite Bruce. Ra's was already full steam ahead on destroying Gotham, with or without Bruce. The only thing that Ra's did to seek revenge on Bruce, was burn down the manor. Other than that, it was still the same plan from the beginning.

They needed Wayne Enterprises to accomplish their mission. We're not shown any comparable corporation within Gotham. His biggest rival, Daggett is into cement pouring. Wayne was the one guy within Gotham who had the resources, and they turned his wealth against his city. The whole point is Bruce Wayne IS Gotham. Attacking one is attacking the other. That's how it coincides. The biggest thing that they do purely out of revenge is keep him alive instead of killing him, so he can watch their plan unfold. If revenge/hatred wasn't a factor, Talia would have had Bane kill him, instead of just break him, just like they killed Daggett when they got what they wanted from him.

See the thing is, you keep acting like Bruce is the only person in the word who has a nuke. Talia waited specifically for Bruce to agree to use his energy project, so they could use that against him specifically. If they wanted a nuke to blow up Gotham, they could have got one 8 years before Bruce was finally stranglehold into agreeing into the energy project with Tate/Talia.

It's like how Rachel tells Bruce in Batman Begins, justice and revenge are never the same. The fact that the LOS' ideals are tainted by revenge here is what makes it so evil and twisted. So in that sense, yes I can agree that revenge was a huge factor. But I think Bane and Talia fully believe that their entire plan is bringing justice and is fulfilling the goals of Ra's' global ideals. Similar thing with Two-Face in TDK. His killing spree is driven by revenge for Rachel's murder, but there's some sense of justice there too...he's taking out a lot of the trash and he's giving his victims a "fair" chance, same one Rachel had. That line between justice and revenge is something the films were always exploring, obviously starting with Batman himself.

I don't see it this way, at all. Again, Ra's ideals were to bring balance to the world, not chaos or destruction due to revenge. Like its been brought up before, Gotham was not even close to a state of needing to be destroyed, so in reality, they're not fulfilling Ra's destiny, if they were, they would be attacking a city that needed to be "purged". But seeing as how they went through SOOOOO many efforts to cripple, both financially and physically, while spitting in Bruce's face, I don't see how it can be anything other than revenge. None of it adds up to what you're saying.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Travesty

But again, you're arguing major differences, and somehow saying that their motives are exactly the same, when they aren't. Ra's didn't steal the microwave emitter to spite Bruce. Ra's was already full steam ahead on destroying Gotham, with or without Bruce. The only thing that Ra's did to seek revenge on Bruce, was burn down the manor. Other than that, it was still the same plan from the beginning.

I never said they did that to spite Bruce, but they were still trying to use him for his status. Would Ra's have handpicked Bruce if he didn't already know his current plan to destroy Gotham involved a device made by his company? Somehow I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Travesty

See the thing is, you keep acting like Bruce is the only person in the word who has a nuke. Talia waited specifically for Bruce to agree to use his energy project, so they could use that against him specifically. If they wanted a nuke to blow up Gotham, they could have got one 8 years before Bruce was finally stranglehold into agreeing into the energy project with Tate/Talia.

Obtaining a nuke and then smuggling into the US/Gotham without alarming anyone...easier said than done man. If that was so easy, Al Qaeda would have done the same thing by now, don't you think? The jig is up for them the moment the US government is even the least bit on their trails. It's not hard to see why cloaking a nuke as a clean energy project would be a pretty efficient means of getting a nuke on Gotham soil without anyone being any the wiser. And yes, Wayne Enterprises is the only corporation in Gotham of its kind that would invest in such a project (that we're ever shown in the course of 3 movies, anyhow).

It's a perfect storm of extremist terrorism and personal revenge. If you see it more as revenge wagging the tail of justice, that's fine, but it's justice in their eyes either way. As I've said...would Ra's really have left Gotham alone if he had survived that train crash? No way, he'd have come back with a vengeance, still fully believing in his cause every bit as he did before. He wouldn't admit defeat just because technically the streets were cleaner. Not the Ra's al Ghul I know. He'd still monologue about the decadence of Gotham and how the Dent Act doesn't ultimately save it from itself. Would he have led a month-long revolution before destroying it? Harder to say. But he did attack Gotham economically in the past in attempt to get it to destroy itself through desperation.

I still say they are sending a message to the world with the siege. The minute Bane says any interference from the outside world means Gotham gets nuked, he's putting it on a global stage. They want the world to watch Gotham destroy itself just like they want Bruce to watch it.

[BatLobsterRises]

Double post.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

To be fair I should have specified though. My bad

No problem. If you're talking worldwide then I agree a 5 month siege of a city would have bigger ramifications than Joker's terror campaign.

Originally Posted by Grommers

Overall, I feel Bane made a bigger impact than the Joker did on Gotham. Joker however made a bigger impact on Bruce, as Bane never really..."broke" the bat, but just the body, for a while.

Where as the Joker realllllly broke the Bat, what he set in motion, never really got fixed till 8 years later. And although Gotham was fixed, Bruce was so far gone, that suicide became an option.

Nicely put. This is exactly why I think The Joker is the greatest villain of the trilogy. Even with Gotham being "fixed" thanks to a lie, I think eventually that truth would have come out. It was eating away at Gordon and he came within an inch of spilling the beans at the Harvey Dent Day speech.

Of course Joker's effect on Bruce's life was devastating.

To compare the two would be apples to oranges, I don't feel Joker was really ever interested in Gotham, but merely trying to ensure the world was just chaos, that you could reason chaos. That there was justification to chaos, that there really wasn't any other way to view things.

I don't agree. I think the Joker was very interested in Gotham. He was in this for what he called a battle for Gotham's soul. He also wanted to bring Gotham a better class of criminal. Even declaring to the Chechen that "This is my city".

I think it was quite obvious Joker had big designs on Gotham and it's people.

out of sheer preference I prefer the Joker...he really takes someone and makes them see things..differently, with reason. Chaotic reasoning, but it's well-reasoned, and yet bruce/batman does his best to counter that, and doesn't get swayed on his view point or lose sight of whats right or wrong, even at the worst of times. I think thats what I most enjoyed about the Joker, he has a way of swaying people, of manipulating or inspiring(whatever way you want to look at it.) them but in an evil way. Much like Batman tries too, but in a positive good way.

Very well put. That's why for me he was such a fascinating villain. Beyond his theatrical persona, and terrifying antics, his goal and agendas with trying to push people over the line made for nightmarish viewing. He delighted in seeing people crack. To show "Their morals...their code is a bad joke".

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by Travesty

I don't see it this way, at all. Again, Ra's ideals were to bring balance to the world, not chaos or destruction due to revenge. Like its been brought up before, Gotham was not even close to a state of needing to be destroyed, so in reality, they're not fulfilling Ra's destiny, if they were, they would be attacking a city that needed to be "purged". But seeing as how they went through SOOOOO many efforts to cripple, both financially and physically, while spitting in Bruce's face, I don't see how it can be anything other than revenge. None of it adds up to what you're saying.

Ra's was vengeful as well. He said so himself. He was vengeful by leaving Bruce to die in his mansion.

With Talia and Bane it wasn't just revenge. Or at least, revenge wasn't at odds with what they believed in. If they didn't believe that Gotham was 'corrupt', then it wouldn't have been reflected in their dialogue the way it was. It's the same with Ra's, "Justice is balance. You burned my home and left me for dead. Consider us even."

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Very well put. That's why for me he was such a fascinating villain. Beyond his theatrical persona, and terrifying antics, his goal and agendas with trying to push people over the line made for nightmarish viewing. He delighted in seeing people crack. To show "Their morals...their code is a bad joke".

Whereas Bane/Ra's/Talia are more like like real-world extremists, Joker is a total psychological terrorist. All of them have views about humanity in general, but Joker's approach is far more intimate. He takes pure delight in the corruption of the individual, which is indeed terrifying. Once he sets his sights on someone, they pretty much have no chance. They're either going to die or lose their minds. Generally speaking of course.

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Where is this shown in the movie?

Where is this shown in the movie?

Where is this shown in the movie?

It's funny how some of us use solid evidence SHOWN AND CORROBORATED BY THE FILM while others resort to writing fan fiction straight out of their imagination in order to back up their own claims

It doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the film to be true. Film is a subjective art...


The way that they portrayed Bane in the film was as an honorable soldier. A warrior. Someone totally devoted to his cause and who through power, fear and charisma inspired the same devotion from his followers (See the mercenary who stayed "in the wreckage" during the prologue).

Just because it's not explicitly said that Bane wants to honor Ra's... Why would Bane be so set on fulfilling Ra's al Ghuls' destiny?

Bane refers to himself and Bruce as being members of the League of Shadows. He specifically refers to the League as "us." Batman points out that he is not part of the "us" by saying: "Us? You were excommunicated by a gang of psychopaths." This puts Bane into a rage, as he blasts punch after punch into Batman's side... This was a result of the anger of Batman bringing up his excommunication and separating Bane from the "us" of the "League of Shadows." This shows that he has a strong allegiance to the League and to Ra's even though he was excommunicated or that he is ashamed of having been excommunicated and that he wants to prove himself worthy of the legacy of the League. Either way, this exchange is telling.

It doesn't have to be shown in the film that he showed gratitude toward Ra's for rescuing him. Bane knew the difficulty of escaping the Pit. He expresses as much upon discovering that Bruce has escaped, and he knew that it would have been impossible for him to escape on his own.

Why would Bane want to finish Ra's al Ghuls' work and "fulfill his destiny" if not to either to honor him, earn the life that was safed by Ra's, or to prove that he was better than Ra's?

It has to be one (or a combination of the three).

Give me some reasons why it's not? Other than saying that there is not an explicit line in the film. There is a rule in film that is quite good.... it's called "Show, don't tell."

-R

[BatLobsterRises]

^^ I fully concur.

And to back that up, here's a quote from Nolan himself on Bane:

"Bane is absolute...he just knows exactly what it is he's doing. He's completely convinced of the rightness of it in a completely fanatical way."

It's at around 7:00 in this interview with Nolan on The Treatment. A great interview as always.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I still say they are sending a message to the world with the siege. The minute Bane says any interference from the outside world means Gotham gets nuked, he's putting it on a global stage. They want the world to watch Gotham destroy itself just like they want Bruce to watch it.

I have to disagree to some degree here. They could have easily sent the same message without all of the time passing. I feel like all of that was specifically for Bruce's torture, mainly due to them setting up shop in Bane's jail, and adding to the fact that they had the detonator the entire time. If they wanted to see Gotham get destroyed, they would have done it, without all of the hoopla of Bruce's capture. I mean, 1-2 weeks, maybe I could see it as having their cake and eating it too, but for how much time they let Bruce stay in the prison, it seemed clear what they were doing.

Or maybe, it could just be put to bad writing, which, I think may just be the case here. This movie isn't nearly as tight as ANY of Nolan's other movies. But alas, the debate will continue.....


BatLobster, I like you. We disagree with a lot of stuff, but that's ok with me, I still like your posts. You never get out of hand. Keep it up.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Travesty

I have to disagree to some degree here. They could have easily sent the same message without all of the time passing. I feel like all of that was specifically for Bruce's torture, mainly due to them setting up shop in Bane's jail, and adding to the fact that they had the detonator the entire time. If they wanted to see Gotham get destroyed, they would have done it, without all of the hoopla of Bruce's capture. I mean, 1-2 weeks, maybe I could see it as having their cake and eating it too, but for how much time they let Bruce stay in the prison, it seemed clear what they were doing.

Or maybe, it could just be put to bad writing, which, I think may just be the case here. This movie isn't nearly as tight as ANY of Nolan's other movies. But alas, the debate will continue.....

I will say that I think getting Bruce off the island played a functional role in their plan. Obviously keeping him alive and throwing him in the Pit was blatantly to torment his soul, but it does make sense that they didn't move forward with their plan until Bruce was out of the picture and there was no chance for him to interfere.

Granted, yes, they had the classic villain Achilles' Heel of being too overconfident in their plan, and were possibly wanting to revel in the reshaping of Gotham's society to their ideals, and in projecting those ideals to the world. People say that Bane and Talia didn't ultimately care about the revolution, but then I have to wonder why even go through with it all, the kangaroo courts, etc. Bane already had the the US government and its allies by the balls after the stadium attack. Gotham could have just been living in utter chaos and panic for months, not knowing who the triggerman was. This surely could have sufficed as Bruce's torture, no? It only leads me to believe Bane and Talia believed in the revolution as much as they did in fulfilling Ra's' destiny (aka destroying Gotham).

Another interesting thing to consider is, were they were even counting on him returning as Batman in the first place? After 8 years, 3 of which he was a total recluse with a limp, you'd think that would have been nearly impossible to predict. My current theory is that they didn't have any special plans for Bruce (other than making him suffer just like every other one of Gotham's wealthy) until the moment he returned as Batman and showed off his brand new toy (the Bat). Once that happened, getting him off the island would become priority number 1. In the Miranda-Bruce love scene, she even tries to tempt him with her jet, saying they can go anywhere. I'll bet if he had taken her up on the offer, he'd have been on the next express flight to Deshi-Basaraville. Again that is all just some random musing on my part...throwing it out there to see if anyone wondered the same.

I will concede that the convenient-ness of them waiting so long when they're a button push away from achieving their ultimate goal could seem like lazy writing, but I suppose I don't mind it so much because I find it compelling.

Originally Posted by Travesty

BatLobster, I like you. We disagree with a lot of stuff, but that's ok with me, I still like your posts. You never get out of hand. Keep it up.

Thanks brother. Same here. Criticism doesn't bother me, I enjoy thinking about and discussing the film and sometimes a well-articulated piece of criticism sparks a good talking point. Minds are rarely changed on here, but even if we both walk away from the debate even further convinced of our own position...well, as long as we're keepin' it civil, it can still be a rewarding enough exercise.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

If the bomb didn't have the ability to decay what would they do?

Would they still have a set date for detonation? Or would they just detonate it when they thought Gotham was ready to be destroyed?

I guess under the movies circumstances, Talia and Bane just adopted 5 months as the appropriate time for simplicity's sake ("five months is when the bomb decays? Sure, that'll be our torture time"). And when Bruce returned, they only held off detonating it because Talia wanted to pwn Bruce personally (and Bane probably wanted to prove himself by beating Bats again. I mean he Was looking for him in the crowd, no gun or anything, just like before)

--

One thing I'm confused about however:

We know Talia feels revenge on a personal level, and Bane feels a need to honour Ra's, but on the surface level, what is it that the League officially states as their reasoning? is it:

A: their idea of justice? For the corrupt, a slow death is deserved? "Justice is balance"?

B: their idea of justice against Bruce? Revenge against he who betrayed them, stood in the way of true justice and killed their leader. Poisoning Gotham's souls is only for the sake of torturing Bruce.

or C: their idea of sending a message to the western world?

Is it several of these?

[BatLobsterRises]

^ I personally feel it is all of the above.

It's also noteworthy that they're the ones who ushered in the existence of the reactor. The Tate persona and the fact that she was able to buy enough stock of W.E. to end up on the board shows that they were certainly well-funded. I would have to imagine that the reactor was conceived with the foreknowledge of what would result in a gradual decay in mind.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Travesty

I have to disagree to some degree here. They could have easily sent the same message without all of the time passing. I feel like all of that was specifically for Bruce's torture, mainly due to them setting up shop in Bane's jail, and adding to the fact that they had the detonator the entire time. If they wanted to see Gotham get destroyed, they would have done it, without all of the hoopla of Bruce's capture. I mean, 1-2 weeks, maybe I could see it as having their cake and eating it too, but for how much time they let Bruce stay in the prison, it seemed clear what they were doing.

Or maybe, it could just be put to bad writing, which, I think may just be the case here. This movie isn't nearly as tight as ANY of Nolan's other movies. But alas, the debate will continue.....

I agree. The only reason the siege lasted 5 months was to give Bruce ample time to come to terms with his inner demons, recover from his injury, and get in shape again. That's it.

The LOS plan could have been done and dusted in mere weeks.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I agree. The only reason the siege lasted 5 months was to give Bruce ample time to come to terms with his inner demons, recover from his injury, and get in shape again. That's it.

The LOS plan could have been done and dusted in mere weeks.

Exactly. I understand that TDKR is a comic book film, but it has some plot points that are pretty stupid once you really think about the. I understand that BB and TDK also had some contrivances, but I never felt like any of them were as blatantly nonsensical as in the third one. A key example of this is with the stock exchange scene

- The stock exchange is attacked by a group of terrorist, this is witnessed by hundreds of traders AND captured on surveillance video but Bruce Wayne has no way of proving fraud?

[BlueLightning]

He could and he was going to (well Lucius was), but it would have took a lot of time.

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by FeedOnATreeFrog

We know Talia feels revenge on a personal level, and Bane feels a need to honour Ra's, but on the surface level, what is it that the League officially states as their reasoning? is it:

A: their idea of justice? For the corrupt, a slow death is deserved? "Justice is balance"?

B: their idea of justice against Bruce? Revenge against he who betrayed them, stood in the way of true justice and killed their leader. Poisoning Gotham's souls is only for the sake of torturing Bruce.

or C: their idea of sending a message to the western world?

Is it several of these?

The League's goals became skewed and mutated under the leadership of Bane and Talia.

Under Ra's it was more clear. Crime, despair, injustice... Eradicate it. All of it. By any means necessary.

But Ra's was doing it only as a function of the greater whole of the League of Shadows... He was doing it as they had done it for centuries, no more no less. So in the end, Ra's was destroying Gotham not because he wanted to -- but because he felt that he HAD to for the greater good of the world...

Bane and Talia took this goal, but perverted it with revenge. They didn't simply want to destroy Gotham for the greater good of anybody. They were using Ra's al Ghuls' original mission as a thinly veiled excuse to reach their own selfish goals... for their own selfish reasons.

Sure, was Gotham still corrupt? Yes.
Was Gotham as bad as it was in Batman Begins? No.

Bane wanted to destroy Gotham to prove that he was worthy of having been saved by Ra's -- or to prove that he should have never been excommunicated from the League originally, or that he was even Ra's' better...

Talia wanted to destroy Gotham to honor her father and to avenge his death and kill Bruce...

Neither of these were 100% inline with the original goals of the League. Vanity, hubris and pride perverted what was once a selfless mission that the League had...


-R

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

The League's goals became skewed and mutated under the leadership of Bane and Talia.

Under Ra's it was more clear. Crime, despair, injustice... Eradicate it. All of it. By any means necessary.

But Ra's was doing it only as a function of the greater whole of the League of Shadows... He was doing it as they had done it for centuries, no more no less. So in the end, Ra's was destroying Gotham not because he wanted to -- but because he felt that he HAD to for the greater good of the world...

Bane and Talia took this goal, but perverted it with revenge. They didn't simply want to destroy Gotham for the greater good of anybody. They were using Ra's al Ghuls' original mission as a thinly veiled excuse to reach their own selfish goals... for their own selfish reasons.

Sure, was Gotham still corrupt? Yes.
Was Gotham as bad as it was in Batman Begins? No.

Bane wanted to destroy Gotham to prove that he was worthy of having been saved by Ra's -- or to prove that he should have never been excommunicated from the League originally, or that he was even Ra's' better...

Talia wanted to destroy Gotham to honor her father and to avenge his death and kill Bruce...

Neither of these were 100% inline with the original goals of the League. Vanity, hubris and pride perverted what was once a selfless mission that the League had...


-R

As much as I've tried to put forth the argument that there was a strong streak of radical extremism in Bane/Talia's plan, I have to say this is a pretty good way to summarize it. I would say that revenge, hatred and pride blinded them into having utter conviction that they would be fulfilling Ra's' destiny and that Gotham was indeed corrupt enough to be razed to the ground and that it's slow destruction would help bring balance to the world. And I still believe if Ra's survived Batman Begins (or had a Lazarus Pit), he'd be back to finish the job.

Again, like Rachel says revenge and justice are never the same. The LOS in TDKR is a manifestation of what happens when those two ideas become tied up in one giant knot.

[BlueLightning]

But also on Begins:

-"Your anger gives you great power. But if you let it, it will destroy you...as it almost did me."
- "What stopped it?"
- "Vengeance."
- "That's no help to me."
- "Why, Bruce? Why could you not avenge your parents?"

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

But also on Begins:

-"Your anger gives you great power. But if you let it, it will destroy you...as it almost did me."
- "What stopped it?"
- "Vengeance."
- "That's no help to me."
- "Why, Bruce? Why could you not avenge your parents?"

And I think that is precisely part of Ra's' arrogance (which Talia and Bane also have). He thinks he can be the moral authority on everything. Bit of a God complex there. Something Batman himself skates dangerously close to a lot of the time. Difference is Ra's wants to be judge, jury and executioner. Bruce tries his best to abstain from the executioner part.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

It doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the film to be true. Film is a subjective art...


The way that they portrayed Bane in the film was as an honorable soldier. A warrior. Someone totally devoted to his cause and who through power, fear and charisma inspired the same devotion from his followers (See the mercenary who stayed "in the wreckage" during the prologue).

Just because it's not explicitly said that Bane wants to honor Ra's... Why would Bane be so set on fulfilling Ra's al Ghuls' destiny?

Bane refers to himself and Bruce as being members of the League of Shadows. He specifically refers to the League as "us." Batman points out that he is not part of the "us" by saying: "Us? You were excommunicated by a gang of psychopaths." This puts Bane into a rage, as he blasts punch after punch into Batman's side... This was a result of the anger of Batman bringing up his excommunication and separating Bane from the "us" of the "League of Shadows." This shows that he has a strong allegiance to the League and to Ra's even though he was excommunicated or that he is ashamed of having been excommunicated and that he wants to prove himself worthy of the legacy of the League. Either way, this exchange is telling.

It doesn't have to be shown in the film that he showed gratitude toward Ra's for rescuing him. Bane knew the difficulty of escaping the Pit. He expresses as much upon discovering that Bruce has escaped, and he knew that it would have been impossible for him to escape on his own.

Why would Bane want to finish Ra's al Ghuls' work and "fulfill his destiny" if not to either to honor him, earn the life that was safed by Ra's, or to prove that he was better than Ra's?

It has to be one (or a combination of the three).

Give me some reasons why it's not? Other than saying that there is not an explicit line in the film. There is a rule in film that is quite good.... it's called "Show, don't tell."

-R

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but thats all it is, an interpretation. People take different things from the film, all we can really argue about is what is really shown. All we're told about the Bane/Ra's Al Ghul relationship is that Bane saved Talia's life and Ra's expelled him from the league. The movie doesn't give us a reason why Bane should be so devoted to Ra's legacy or the League of Shadow's philosophy, all we have are random lines said by Bane to the effect of fulfilling the goals of the League of shadows. Some might disagree, but I think Bane is just a poorly written character with no individual motivations, he is essentially an extension of Ra's/Talia's philosophy without a real personality of his own. I don't consider him a lapdog or anything, but in the end he is nothing more than a glorified henchman

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but thats all it is, an interpretation. People take different things from the film, all we can really argue about is what is really shown. All we're told about the Bane/Ra's Al Ghul relationship is that Bane saved Talia's life and Ra's expelled him from the league. The movie doesn't give us a reason why Bane should be so devoted to Ra's legacy or the League of Shadow's philosophy, all we have are random lines said by Bane to the effect of fulfilling the goals of the League of shadows. Some might disagree, but I think Bane is just a poorly written character with no individual motivations, he is essentially an extension of Ra's/Talia's philosophy without a real personality of his own. I don't consider him a lapdog or anything, but in the end he is nothing more than a glorified henchman

That's basically how I took it too, and like you, I'm just going off of what we are told, without trying to fill in the gaps myself.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but thats all it is, an interpretation. People take different things from the film, all we can really argue about is what is really shown. All we're told about the Bane/Ra's Al Ghul relationship is that Bane saved Talia's life and Ra's expelled him from the league. The movie doesn't give us a reason why Bane should be so devoted to Ra's legacy or the League of Shadow's philosophy, all we have are random lines said by Bane to the effect of fulfilling the goals of the League of shadows. Some might disagree, but I think Bane is just a poorly written character with no individual motivations, he is essentially an extension of Ra's/Talia's philosophy without a real personality of his own. I don't consider him a lapdog or anything, but in the end he is nothing more than a glorified henchman

But The Dark Knight doesn't give us a reason why The Joker should be so devoted to the idea of anarchy either. All we have are random lines about what people will do when the chips are down and how morality is a bad joke. We have no idea what formed that philosophy for him. Yet he's an absolute in terms of being devoted to that ideal.

The Talia reveal does muddle up Bane's motivations at first, but when you think about it he'd have no reason to be saying half the things he said if he didn't believe them. He could have just been portrayed as a brute of few words, but he wasn't.

I think refusing to engage in interpretation leads to a superficial discussion of the film, so that's why I personally persist with it. You are always more than free to counter with your own interpretations.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

But The Dark Knight doesn't give us a reason why The Joker should be so devoted to the idea of anarchy either. All we have are random lines about what people will do when the chips are down and how morality is a bad joke. Yet he's an absolute in terms of being devoted to that ideal, and we know it to be true.

The Talia reveal does muddle up Bane's motivations at first, but when you think about it he'd have no reason to be saying half the things he said if he didn't believe them. He could have just been portrayed as a brute of few words, but he wasn't.

I think refusing to engage in interpretation leads to a superficial discussion of the film, so that's why I personally persist with it. You are always more than free to counter with your own interpretations.

But with the Joker it works, with Bane it just doesn't. The trilogy takes great measures to show why Ra's and Bruce are the types of people who would be devoted to LOS ideals, yet TDKR doesn't do the same for Bane. Yes he has had a horrible life and everything, but what in particular makes him believe in LOS ideals? Why is he so dedicated to fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's goals if he was excommunicated? In the end the only motivation explicitly shown is that he loves Talia, everything else is somewhat ambiguous and up to interpretation.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

But The Dark Knight doesn't give us a reason why The Joker should be so devoted to the idea of anarchy either. All we have are random lines about what people will do when the chips are down and how morality is a bad joke. Yet he's an absolute in terms of being devoted to that ideal, and we know it to be true.

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

But with the Joker it works, with Bane it just doesn't. The trilogy takes great measures to show why Ra's and Bruce are the types of people who would be devoted to LOS ideals, yet TDKR doesn't do the same for Bane. Yes he has had a horrible life and everything, but what in particular makes him believe in LOS ideals? Why is he so dedicated to fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's goals if he was excommunicated? In the end the only motivation explicitly shown is that he loves Talia, everything else is somewhat ambiguous and up to interpretation.

I can agree to this. I guess I just don't see it having some room for interpretation as a bad thing.

For me though, both Bane and Bruce were people in need of some direction in life when Ra's found and freed both of them. If you view Bane as a double negative as Bruce as I believe the film intended us to, I find he becomes a lot easier to understand.

Originally Posted by Travesty

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

I agree, it's apples and oranges. Though I still believe both of them to be absolutes in their own distinct ways, so I couldn't help but draw the comparison. And even if Bane was doing everything for Talia, she herself represents some kind of ideal to him, because it's pretty clear that they are not actually lovers or anything. There's something very pure about Bane's motivation and how it all stemmed from wanting to protect the innocent and how that became perverted to the point where it was unrecognizable...again, a mirror for Bruce and an alternate path he could have taken.