Does Bane being a PURELY physical threat hamper him as a villain?

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I agree. Sure, on paper it sounds like it could be a complete rehash. I remember someone made this WAY back before any details about TDKR were known and it became something of a meme on here if I'm not mistaken:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Now, it is kind of funny how strangely on target that is, but the thing is- the execution of these elements in TDKR made it feel completely fresh and exciting, to me anyway. A lot of that has to do with Bane and the type of evil that he represents.

What's so messed up about Bane and Talia's LOS is that it's like they themselves inflict a situation upon Gotham wherein it's allowed to become more and more morally depraved and in need of "cleansing". Then again, this may not be so dissimilar to Ra's after all since he himself originally attacked Gotham economically, which helped grow it into the cesspool of crime and corruption we saw in Batman Begins. But that's a very subtle similarity.

I also just really love that Ra's al Ghul casts such a shadow over the trilogy. He is given some of the most iconic and important lines in one of the first scenes of Begins, and they echo very strongly into Rises.

If we compare this trilogy to The Godfather, Liam is the Vito to Bale's Michael. Only it would be a story where Michael ultimately rejects the mafia lifestyle and chooses a path of good. There's just a lot of richness there, especially when you get into Bane and Bruce being the two estranged sons of Ra's, individually embodying his best and worst qualities.

It's also awesomely ironice that Bane really is what ra's had intended Bruce to become, but had shunned away out of the pain from his loss. But I do love how Ra's does influence the entire series. Including what kind of a Batman he becomes in TDK and subsequently TDKR.


As for Riddler, he would have been similar to Joker simply because of the kind of threat he provides and the kind of mental strain he would've wanted to implement would be to push Bruce in a way very similar to Joker. Not that he COULDN'T have made him different and interesting, but there would have been so much complaining about the similarity, and lack of a really physical villain.

[Just one more]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Christopher Nolan said it best when he said Ra's al Ghul represented the religious leader of sorts, Joker represents the anarchist and Bane represents the militant tyrant, which the last is always the hardest to try to develop but I feel Bane is developed perfectly enough as this physical threat but also this intellectual man.

I agree with you here and for my complaints about TDKR, Bane the character was not one of them. I thought he had some powerful dialogue which showed his intelligence, despite the flaws in the movie, Bane's character I thought was well developed. I just couldn't stop thinking about the voice and how out of place it felt. Ironic really since I really like what was said, just not how it was delivered.

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Riddler would have felt way too much of the same after Joker was used in TDK, imo.

Also I noticed that Nolan tends to use villains who happen to have some major stories attached to their name(excluding Scarecrow).

What exactly does Riddler have?

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

You're making excuses for one and condemning another. How about telling us how the Joker got a hospital wired to explode on every floor, including doorframes, when it's open and full of people 24/7? Or how come GCPD had nobody on call near either location where Rachel and Harvey were held? If the city is in a state of emergency, why not hold the memorial by City Hall which has a clearing?

It is hypocrisy to hold the realism of the movies at different standards.

QFT,I'm getting sick of hearing about TDKR plotholes when the same plotholes can be found in Begins and TDK.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I agree. Sure, on paper it sounds like it could be a complete rehash. I remember someone made this WAY back before any details about TDKR were known and it became something of a meme on here if I'm not mistaken:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Now, it is kind of funny how strangely on target that is, but the thing is- the execution of these elements in TDKR made it feel completely fresh and exciting, to me anyway. A lot of that has to do with Bane and the type of evil that he represents.

What's so messed up about Bane and Talia's LOS is that it's like they themselves inflict a situation upon Gotham wherein it's allowed to become more and more morally depraved and in need of "cleansing". Then again, this may not be so dissimilar to Ra's after all since he himself originally attacked Gotham economically, which helped grow it into the cesspool of crime and corruption we saw in Batman Begins. But that's a very subtle similarity.

I also just really love that Ra's al Ghul casts such a shadow over the trilogy. He is given some of the most iconic and important lines in one of the first scenes of Begins, and they echo very strongly into Rises.

If we compare this trilogy to The Godfather, Liam is the Vito to Bale's Michael. Only it would be a story where Michael ultimately rejects the mafia lifestyle and chooses a path of good. There's just a lot of richness there, especially when you get into Bane and Bruce being the two estranged sons of Ra's, individually embodying his best and worst qualities.

Agreed on all accounts.

Originally Posted by TheBat812

It's also awesomely ironice that Bane really is what ra's had intended Bruce to become, but had shunned away out of the pain from his loss. But I do love how Ra's does influence the entire series. Including what kind of a Batman he becomes in TDK and subsequently TDKR.

Indeed. It's interesting to note that had Bruce joined Ra's in BB, he would've practically been a combination of both Bane (due to his training and physicality) and Talia (as an influential member of the Wayne Board).

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The LoS returning makes it feel like a trilogy though, imo. Coming full circle and taking on the LoS since they were the first major battle for Batman.

It is indeed somewhat of a rehash, but it's not done without a purpose. It's done in order to serve Bruce's story and character arc and in that sense I think it's fully justified.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yup, lol. Just imagine it...



"I live for this sh**!"

[Ryan]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed bane, just felt it would have been better without all this full circle stuff IMO. I really think Nolan was onto something by making fresh and different batman movies in each outing and tdkr definitely felt like a full circle kind of movie. Some love it, some don't. Nothing wrong with having differing opinions.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed bane, just felt it would have been better without all this full circle stuff IMO. I really think Nolan was onto something by making fresh and different batman movies in each outing and tdkr definitely felt like a full circle kind of movie. Some love it, some don't. Nothing wrong with having differing opinions.

It didn't feel like it even came full circle, IMO. Just because a movie decides to dredge up something that was in the first movie doesn't make it full circle. Spider-Man 3 didn't make the trilogy feel full circle because they went back to Spider-Man 1 and connected Sandman to Uncle Ben's death. Technically it didn't contradict anything shown in Spider-Man 1 but it didn't feel like something that Spider-Man 1 left dangling for resolution, much like the LOS in Begins. Nothing in Batman Begins hinted at what we got in TDKR. No Bane, no Talia. Neither of these characters were even vaguely hinted at in Begins. They were both fabrications of TDKR. Begins didn't leave any dangling plot lines that needed future clarification or resolution, aside from Crane being on the loose, and a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at scene of his crimes. Both were dealt with in TDK.

You're so right, there was no need to bring anything back to Batman Begins to make the trilogy feel whole and complete. Take the recent Toy Story trilogy as an example. Toy Story 3 didn't rehash or revisit anything from the original movie. It felt new, unique, and still felt connected to the previous movies and delivered a satisfying conclusion.

The jarring thing is Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both so unique, and yet both felt connected to each other. TDK took what Begins left off on, namely the escalation Gordon mentioned, Joker, the mob adapting to Batman's presence, a new D.A. since Finch was murdered, Rachel's word to Bruce about them being together one day etc. All set up in Begins, and therefore TDK felt like a natural continuation. I expected the same of TDKR, but the plot furniture was basically just a polished up rehash of Batman Begins.

[The Batman]

^ I agree with all that. I think the movie would've been cooler without any LOS ties, just having Bane as a dictator with his own band of mercenaries.

This movie pretty much cements my dislike of third movies trying to make things "full circle". It's like the film equivalent of TV show's "Clip episode".

[Anno_Domini]

Sadly, I think people expected so much out of TDKR even though going back to the LoS made so much sense with it pertaining very closely to Bruce Wayne's arc.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

In retrospect, Two-Face's death and Batman taking the fall for him was the Joker card of TDK. It just played out much differently than many speculated it would.

[Frodo]

I think the problem lies with the character itself. Bane was basically created as a gimmick and a comic stunt back in the 90's, and his character's peak is breaking Batman's back.

Aside from that, he's pretty much a one note character. Aside from TDKR, he really hasn't had a decent story and certainly isnt anywhere near the complexity of characters such as Joker, Two-Face , Ra's Al Ghul, or Catwoman.

Nolan's version is the best on screen, including animated versions of the character, but even then, Tom Hardy's natural charm and charisma isn't utilized to make the character more than what the comics presented. Ditto with Talia who imo, was less complex then she was in BTAS back in the 90's.

Ultimately the Bane character , imo, doesn't have much going for him. He works as the final villan for the saga thematically but with Bane, there really isn't much there, there.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Joker

It didn't feel like it even came full circle, IMO. Just because a movie decides to dredge up something that was in the first movie doesn't make it full circle. Spider-Man 3 didn't make the trilogy feel full circle because they went back to Spider-Man 1 and connected Sandman to Uncle Ben's death. Technically it didn't contradict anything shown in Spider-Man 1 but it didn't feel like something that Spider-Man 1 left dangling for resolution, much like the LOS in Begins. Nothing in Batman Begins hinted at what we got in TDKR. No Bane, no Talia. Neither of these characters were even vaguely hinted at in Begins. They were both fabrications of TDKR. Begins didn't leave any dangling plot lines that needed future clarification or resolution, aside from Crane being on the loose, and a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at scene of his crimes. Both were dealt with in TDK.

You're so right, there was no need to bring anything back to Batman Begins to make the trilogy feel whole and complete. Take the recent Toy Story trilogy as an example. Toy Story 3 didn't rehash or revisit anything from the original movie. It felt new, unique, and still felt connected to the previous movies and delivered a satisfying conclusion.

The jarring thing is Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both so unique, and yet both felt connected to each other. TDK took what Begins left off on, namely the escalation Gordon mentioned, Joker, the mob adapting to Batman's presence, a new D.A. since Finch was murdered, Rachel's word to Bruce about them being together one day etc. All set up in Begins, and therefore TDK felt like a natural continuation. I expected the same of TDKR, but the plot furniture was basically just a polished up rehash of Batman Begins.

Pretty much what we've been saying. TDKR reminds me a bit of Avatar (but much more cinematically layered). Huge blockbuster that has incredible nuance and explores some incredibly interesting things, but because it uses some conventional plot points and needs some straightforward dialogue at times to keep the story going and comprehensible, people immediately dismiss it.

TDKR rightfully uses much of what Ra's did, because of the characters' ties to him, and how that ties back to Bruce. Yes, some basic plot points return, but to dismiss the film as just a rehash, just shows how little screenwriting experience a person has. I doubt many people could come up with a film this layered that brilliantly uses the elements it takes from Begins to heighten the symmetry between Ra's/Bruce/Bane/Talia. I've heard quite a few ideas for a third film from fans, but have yet to find one that is truly a decent idea for a conclusion. They all just come off as just "another Batman adventure." Which I'm sure we'll get post-Nolan, but definitely didn't want to see from Nolan. I'm sure Nolan could have made something interesting with every villain from Batman's rogue, but that doesn't mean that they're the best character to tell the conclusion of this particular story of Bruce Wayne from a character and cinematic perspective.


In reading many people's gripes with TDKR and hearing the praise for TDK, it's exactly like DACrowe said, many seem to turn a blind eye to the same kinds of 'issues' that are found in all three movies. But all of TDK's strengths are also present in TDKR, even if sometimes it's not quite as succinctly executed. Not that the film is devoid of errors, but if you appreciated the subtleties of TDK, it's surprising that you don't find the same depth in TDKR, because it IS there.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by The Joker

It didn't feel like it even came full circle, IMO. Just because a movie decides to dredge up something that was in the first movie doesn't make it full circle. Spider-Man 3 didn't make the trilogy feel full circle because they went back to Spider-Man 1 and connected Sandman to Uncle Ben's death. Technically it didn't contradict anything shown in Spider-Man 1 but it didn't feel like something that Spider-Man 1 left dangling for resolution, much like the LOS in Begins. Nothing in Batman Begins hinted at what we got in TDKR. No Bane, no Talia. Neither of these characters were even vaguely hinted at in Begins. They were both fabrications of TDKR. Begins didn't leave any dangling plot lines that needed future clarification or resolution, aside from Crane being on the loose, and a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at scene of his crimes. Both were dealt with in TDK.

You're so right, there was no need to bring anything back to Batman Begins to make the trilogy feel whole and complete. Take the recent Toy Story trilogy as an example. Toy Story 3 didn't rehash or revisit anything from the original movie. It felt new, unique, and still felt connected to the previous movies and delivered a satisfying conclusion.

The jarring thing is Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both so unique, and yet both felt connected to each other. TDK took what Begins left off on, namely the escalation Gordon mentioned, Joker, the mob adapting to Batman's presence, a new D.A. since Finch was murdered, Rachel's word to Bruce about them being together one day etc. All set up in Begins, and therefore TDK felt like a natural continuation. I expected the same of TDKR, but the plot furniture was basically just a polished up rehash of Batman Begins.

Quoted for truth, couldn't agree more.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Pretty much what we've been saying.

What have you been saying? That the only reason it's disliked is because it didn't meet expectations? What expectations are these? A movie with a strong original story like the previous two movies? That's what I'm talking about about when I said I expected the same of TDKR. A director establishes a level of quality you naturally expect them to continue with it.

But expectations aside, you can get a movie you were not expecting, and love it, or you can get a movie that even exceeds expectations. That happened with me for BB and TDK. Happened with a lot of people actually. TDK blew away most people with it being as good as it was.

With TDKR, I was let down, and not because it didn't deliver what I was expecting, but because what I got was inferior material, rehashed plot points, and generally a lot of lazy uninspired writing.

I would have happily praised a movie that didn't give me what I was expecting, but delivered a great movie nonetheless. But I didn't get that.

TDKR rightfully uses much of what Ra's did, because of the characters' ties to him, and how that ties back to Bruce.

I don't agree. Bruce is not tied to Ra's in order to progress. Just because Ra's trained Bruce does not mean he was needed to progress him for the final movie.

In fact bringing it back to the same foes again trying to destroy the city again with a Wayne Enterprises device was a regression not a progression.

Yes, some basic plot points return, but to dismiss the film as just a rehash, just shows how little screenwriting experience a person has.

You don't have to be a screenwriting expert to see when a movie has repetitive and lazy writing.

I doubt many people could come up with a film this layered that brilliantly uses the elements it takes from Begins to heighten the symmetry between Ra's/Bruce/Bane/Talia. I've heard quite a few ideas for a third film from fans, but have yet to find one that is truly a decent idea for a conclusion. They all just come off as just "another Batman adventure." Which I'm sure we'll get post-Nolan, but definitely didn't want to see from Nolan. I'm sure Nolan could have made something interesting with every villain from Batman's rogue, but that doesn't mean that they're the best character to tell the conclusion of this particular story of Bruce Wayne from a character and cinematic perspective.

What are you trying to prove by saying this? Because some fans on the internet can't write a good movie plot that means we should just be grateful for what we're given?

I don't claim to be a brilliant screen writer. Neither does 90% of the fan base or the audience. Does that mean we should lap up everything we're given with a big smile on our face because we're not qualified or talented enough to write movies ourselves?

That's like saying we should be happy getting served a mediocre meal in a five star restaurant because we're not qualified chefs.

In reading many people's gripes with TDKR and hearing the praise for TDK, it's exactly like DACrowe said, many seem to turn a blind eye to the same kinds of 'issues' that are found in all three movies. But all of TDK's strengths are also present in TDKR, even if sometimes it's not quite as succinctly executed.

I don't see that at all. I see stronger and more organic writing in TDK than I do in TDKR. I see a more original natural story, that feels like a continuation of Batman Begins but at the same time is it's own story doing new things, exploring new themes, developing the characters, and not relying on old plot devices as a crutch like TDKR did.

[Schrute]

To those saying TDK and BB also had plot holes that are not being discussed as frequent as TDKR, I believe it is most likely because the plot holes found in TDKR are valid reasons for why some people do not like the film.

I don't think you can find many people who say they don't like TDK because they didn't like how we didn't see how Joker got out of the Penthouse with Batman outside after he just saved Rachel, or how Batman showed up out of no where to stop Harvey when he had one of Jokers men tied up, or how Joker rigged an entire hospital to blow.--Sure, these can viewed as plot holes, but imo, don't ruin the overall experience of the film.

Compare that to the criticism of TDKR:
-with Bruce having a broken back and being able to climb a pit 3 times, return back to Gotham, fight bane again...all after a random guy punched him in the back.
-or how Bruce just shows up in a Gotham under siege with no money or indication of how he got there
-Talia's death scene
-Not really knowing why Bane is doing what he is doing. We know he was ex-communicated, but wants to fulfill Ra's destiny...because? Fan speculation tells us because he wanted to prove he was superior to Bruce, to Ras, because he hated those with power---if most here were asked what was ra's motivation, what was The Joker's motivation, we would get most likely a consistent answer...doesn't seem like it's the same with Bane IMO.

I just believe that some of these plot holes (IMO), that have been discussed on this site at least, are discussed more than TDK because they seem to take away the overall enjoyment of the film.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Schrute

To those saying TDK and BB also had plot holes that are not being discussed as frequent as TDKR, I believe it is most likely because the plot holes found in TDKR are valid reasons for why some people do not like the film.

I don't think you can find many people who say they don't like TDK because they didn't like how we didn't see how Joker got out of the Penthouse with Batman outside after he just saved Rachel, or how Batman showed up out of no where to stop Harvey when he had one of Jokers men tied up, or how Joker rigged an entire hospital to blow.--Sure, these can viewed as plot holes, but imo, don't ruin the overall experience of the film.

Compare that to the criticism of TDKR:
-with Bruce having a broken back and being able to climb a pit 3 times, return back to Gotham, fight bane again...all after a random guy punched him in the back.
-or how Bruce just shows up in a Gotham under siege with no money or indication of how he got there
-Talia's death scene
-Not really knowing why Bane is doing what he is doing. We know he was ex-communicated, but wants to fulfill Ra's destiny...because? Fan speculation tells us because he wanted to prove he was superior to Bruce, to Ras, because he hated those with power---if most here were asked what was ra's motivation, what was The Joker's motivation, we would get most likely a consistent answer...doesn't seem like it's the same with Bane IMO.

I just believe that some of these plot holes (IMO), that have been discussed on this site at least, are discussed more than TDK because they seem to take away the overall enjoyment of the film.

None of these are "plot holes." Also just because they don't pinpoint exactly a reason (actually they do, it happens to be a protector/bodyguard type love and devotion), they also imply 3 different motivations. So for those just watching casually, they at least define one (even though it's been misinterpreted pretty badly by many fanboys). Having said that, those are all legitimate gripes. Just like Harvey's performance is sometimes way over the top and not believable, or the stiltedness of the acting in the rooftop scene, the bat-voice, the bad one liners during the chase sequence etc. are also legitimate gripes that do not affect the overall quality of the film/writing.

[Schrute]

But I don't think you're gonna find many people who dislike TDK because of Harvey's performance, the stiltedness of the acting in the rooftop scene, the bat voice, and one liners.

It seems like you can find people who dislike TDKR for the examples I gave.

And regarding Bane, he may very well be doing what he is doing because of the protector/bodyguard type love and devotion, but nothing really pinpoints that IS why he is doing it. We know he protected Talia, he loves her, so IS that why he is willing to destroy an entire city? Because of the protector/bodyguard role? I don't believe it is really stated that's why he is doing this. He tells Bruce he is the LOS, here to full fill Ra's destiny, end the borrowed time Gotham is living on. We also know though that he was ex-communicated. So why, if ex-communicated, does he still want to destroy Gotham? We are never really told WHY he is doing what he is doing.

We know what he WANTS to do, but we don't really know WHY he wants to do it.

And the main villain of your film should not have multiple different motivations

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Originally Posted by Schrute

But I don't think you're gonna find many people who dislike TDK because of Harvey's performance, the stiltedness of the acting in the rooftop scene, the bat voice, and one liners.

It seems like you can find people who dislike TDKR for the examples I gave.

And regarding Bane, he may very well be doing what he is doing because of the protector/bodyguard type love and devotion, but nothing really pinpoints that IS why he is doing it. We know he protected Talia, he loves her, so IS that why he is willing to destroy an entire city? Because of the protector/bodyguard role? I don't believe it is really stated that's why he is doing this. He tells Bruce he is the LOS, here to full fill Ra's destiny, end the borrowed time Gotham is living on. We also know though that he was ex-communicated. So why, if ex-communicated, does he still want to destroy Gotham? We are never really told WHY he is doing what he is doing.

We know what he WANTS to do, but we don't really know WHY he wants to do it.

And the main villain of your film should not have multiple different motivations

I would be surprised if anyone disliked TDK for Harvey. He was great. This might help you out, Schrute. It is all based on what we are shown in TDKR:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Bane's was more personal: He and Bruce were both rescued from prison by Ra's. Ra's trained both in the League. Ra's distaste for Bane--a monster that emerged from the hellhole where his wife was raped/killed--led him to excommunicate Bane. In contrast to Bane, Ra's wanted Bruce to be at his side when he attacked Gotham. Bruce rejected the opportunity and place in the League Ra's offered him.

Bane was never even given that. Yet, despite the honor offered by Ra's, Bruce rejected the offer. This is where Bane's motive comes in. In leading his mercenaries to Gotham, Bane sought to prove himself the superior man to Bruce. This happened in the sewer fight where he basically took Bruce apart at his leisure. Furthermore, Bane was the first to become the symbol that Bruce wished to be: Bane inspired the people to rise up against corruption.

Through completing Ra's Al Ghul's mission, Bane sought to prove himself the superior man to Ra's. Ra's tried using the economy to bring Gotham to its knees. He tried using the Fear Gas to cause the citizens to tear their city apart. He failed on both counts, thanks to Batman. Bane was also thwarted by Batman in the end; however he enjoyed a greater measure of success than Ra's. He took in the orphans who were kicked out of the orphanage and the lower class. He galvanized the people to strike back against the rich. Under Bane, the Gothamites were in full possession of their mental faculties when they turned on each other.

My interpretation is based chiefly on the dialogue between Blake and the orphan in the beginning about work in the sewers, Bane's dialogue during the sewer fight, the backstory as given by Talia and Talia's line to Bruce: "Innocent (innocence?) is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce."

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

I would be surprised if anyone disliked TDK for Harvey. He was great. This might help you out, Schrute. It is all based on what we are shown in TDKR:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Bane's was more personal: He and Bruce were both rescued from prison by Ra's. Ra's trained both in the League. Ra's distaste for Bane--a monster that emerged from the hellhole where his wife was raped/killed--led him to excommunicate Bane. In contrast to Bane, Ra's wanted Bruce to be at his side when he attacked Gotham. Bruce rejected the opportunity and place in the League Ra's offered him.

Bane was never even given that. Yet, despite the honor offered by Ra's, Bruce rejected the offer. This is where Bane's motive comes in. In leading his mercenaries to Gotham, Bane sought to prove himself the superior man to Bruce. This happened in the sewer fight where he basically took Bruce apart at his leisure. Furthermore, Bane was the first to become the symbol that Bruce wished to be: Bane inspired the people to rise up against corruption.

Through completing Ra's Al Ghul's mission, Bane sought to prove himself the superior man to Ra's. Ra's tried using the economy to bring Gotham to its knees. He tried using the Fear Gas to cause the citizens to tear their city apart. He failed on both counts, thanks to Batman. Bane was also thwarted by Batman in the end; however he enjoyed a greater measure of success than Ra's. He took in the orphans who were kicked out of the orphanage and the lower class. He galvanized the people to strike back against the rich. Under Bane, the Gothamites were in full possession of their mental faculties when they turned on each other.

My interpretation is based chiefly on the dialogue between Blake and the orphan in the beginning about work in the sewers, Bane's dialogue during the sewer fight, the backstory as given by Talia and Talia's line to Bruce: "Innocent (innocence?) is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce."

I agree with all of that. The only thing is, I expected Nolan to go deeper with the mirroring between Bruce and Bane. I mean, it's all there, but it feels like Nolan barely scratched the surface, when compared to the duality between Batman/Joker/Dent in TDK.

[The Guard]

I doubt many people could come up with a film this layered that brilliantly uses the elements it takes from Begins to heighten the symmetry between Ra's/Bruce/Bane/Talia. I've heard quite a few ideas for a third film from fans, but have yet to find one that is truly a decent idea for a conclusion. They all just come off as just "another Batman adventure."

Quite a fans speculated, and even hoped for, pretty much exactly the basic story we ended up getting, save for a few elements of it (The bit about the pit).

I think the problem lies with the character itself. Bane was basically created as a gimmick and a comic stunt back in the 90's, and his character's peak is breaking Batman's back.

Aside from that, he's pretty much a one note character. Aside from TDKR, he really hasn't had a decent story and certainly isnt anywhere near the complexity of characters such as Joker, Two-Face , Ra's Al Ghul, or Catwoman.

Ultimately the Bane character , imo, doesn't have much going for him. He works as the final villan for the saga thematically but with Bane, there really isn't much there, there.

...

No.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Quite a fans speculated, and even hoped for, pretty much exactly the basic story we ended up getting, save for a few elements of it (The bit about the pit).

The layers are not found in a basic story....

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Schrute

But I don't think you're gonna find many people who dislike TDK because of Harvey's performance, the stiltedness of the acting in the rooftop scene, the bat voice, and one liners.

It seems like you can find people who dislike TDKR for the examples I gave.

And regarding Bane, he may very well be doing what he is doing because of the protector/bodyguard type love and devotion, but nothing really pinpoints that IS why he is doing it. We know he protected Talia, he loves her, so IS that why he is willing to destroy an entire city? Because of the protector/bodyguard role? I don't believe it is really stated that's why he is doing this. He tells Bruce he is the LOS, here to full fill Ra's destiny, end the borrowed time Gotham is living on. We also know though that he was ex-communicated. So why, if ex-communicated, does he still want to destroy Gotham? We are never really told WHY he is doing what he is doing.

We know what he WANTS to do, but we don't really know WHY he wants to do it.

And the main villain of your film should not have multiple different motivations

They definitely explore his motivations through his dialogue. He has a clear detest for the wealthy and those who abuse power (ie corruption), just like the LOS. They also imply (and this is admittedly conjecture based upon the information the story provides) that Bane feels strong hate for Bruce for betraying the LOS, and resents that such a disgrace to the LOS had been chosen as Ra's heir, whereas he had been cast out. This mission is his attempt to prove that HE is the true successor to Ra's mission. This is why he is no lackey. His devotion to Talia is not what provokes him to attack Gotham.

[The Guard]

The layers are not found in a basic story....

Not to worry, plenty of people on here speculated on the more or less exact details of the layers as well.

[godisawesome]

I actually thought Bane was well portrayed as a nefariously intelligent bad-guy and that the main purpose of the LOS's return was to illustrate the idea of consequences and, in a way, respond to those who may have figured that Joker vindicated or lessened the evil of Ra's' actions.

Bane is kind of a deconstruction of the "well intentioned" part of Ra's' "well intentioned extremist." Like Bruce, when he was found in that prison he was "lost," but whereas Bruce (and Ra's) had a previous context in which to compare their new codes and philosophies, Bane was born in darkness and basically took to the LOS code and creed at it's starkest and most absolute. He even recognizes that he doesn't fit into the code: he's a "necessary evil," fully expecting to die alongside his city-full of victims.

And I kind of agree that if the Joker's plans seem well executed to you, than you really shouldn't harp on Bane's plans all that much. And there was no way that the LOS defeat in Begins had destroyed their organization-somewhere there was going to be a remnant that would rise to avenge their defeat. And I really couldn't come up with my own scenario that would stand a chance at matching the Joker's rampage without calling back up the LOS in turn. You needed the stakes raised high, and the mob or singular bad-guys not be-decked in make-up or a purple outfit weren't going to cut it for the whole audience. The more imaginative bad-guys can be executed masterfully, but for an ending to the trilogy their threat scale needed to be raised.

[MagnarTheGreat]

Bane was entertaining. Whether Tom was hamming it up in ADR or in his last significant words in the movie (the Blackgate prison scene), or when more serious and introspective like the monologue in the Pit. He broke the Bat. That's what makes him good to me.
In terms of structure, it's true there's no big philosophical debates going back and forth here with Bane and Batman/Bruce like with Ra's, The Joker, Two-face, or to a lesser extent, Talia (some of her philosophical arguing with Bruce has a double-meaning). But it doesn't bother me enough to be disappointed. More of a twist on the LoS philosophy (more originality) could have worked for their return but I've made my peace with it as is.