Tom Hardy as Bane XXX

[Uroboric Forms]

Originally Posted by Visceral

the fact that bane cannot remove his mask and walk away from the pain and anger the way bruce can is interesting to me thematically. I also notice after repeat viewings that bane has a special care for children having a special care for talia, he also states that he hopes the bob goes off for the sake of Pavel's children, and also his noticing the child singing has a lovely voice its as if he associates innocence only with them. Everyone else is guilty. This kind of reflects the way bruce lost his innocence at a very young age.

I saw the 'for the sake of your children' line as 'if the bomb doesn't detonate, I will kill your children' which is an idle threat instead of caring for a child.

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

I don't necessarily think Batman's always best when he's "grounded and real." Grounded maybe, but I don't think you have to be all that real. (Let's face it, Nolan wasn't all that real, just look at Two-Face for that.)

But I think there are a lot of characters that would work amazingly well on film that aren't realistic in the slightest. Mr. Freeze for example. The trick is to keep it darker in tone.

I wouldn't mind seeing the next batch of films be more like TAS in style, and slightly darker. Basically like the Arkham games. That way we can have the more fantasic villains like Freeze, just handled in a serious way.

I wasn't saying that Batman had to do away with any sci-fi/fantasy elements far from it. batman works as a dark character and he needs to stay that way.

[JDonaldD]

Originally Posted by Uroboric Forms

I saw the 'for the sake of your children' line as 'if the bomb doesn't detonate, I will kill your children' which is an idle threat instead of caring for a child.

This is a strange line that I originally did not take as a threat but it might be. I took it as Bane believing that what he is doing is for the good of the world, the children being the ones who will be living in the new, better world he is helping create. This is in line with thinking of himself as "Gotham's reckoning" and "necessary evil."

How Bane views children/innocence might be the key to making sense of his character. We are told that in the prison innocence must be stamped out. Bane then shows the other's by his actions that innocence must be cherished. I think Bane's love for Talia stems from having never seen innocence in the prison, if at all. There is the the twist where we learn that Bane did not escape but there isn't anything to suggest he was lying about anything, particularly having been born "in darkness," ie the pit. If Bane was born in the prison or there as a child, his connection to Talia is obvious. "That's a lovely, lovely voice" might not have been a joke but Bane lamenting the collateral damage in his plan.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Uroboric Forms

I saw the 'for the sake of your children' line as 'if the bomb doesn't detonate, I will kill your children' which is an idle threat instead of caring for a child.

yea...it was definitely a threat. I don't really see where people are going with this love of children thing. Bane was going to murder many children.

[SuperMike335!!]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

How is he supposed to make a grapple gun with just rope and some metal?

But yah, I see your point...let's make things quicker and just skip over any philosophical or thematic element

He doesn't need a grapple gun just to make it to the next ledge he was having trouble jumping to.

Metal hook on rope, little toss, climb on over. Done.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Uroboric Forms

I saw the 'for the sake of your children' line as 'if the bomb doesn't detonate, I will kill your children' which is an idle threat instead of caring for a child.

I don't think that's the intention of what he says. The film definitely hints at Bane having a soft spot for the innocent, and while he would indeed be killing a ton of children, in his mind, he's saving future children from the decadence of modern western culture. Hence "For the sake of your children, indeed I hope it does." Interesting that it could also be taken as a threat, though, never thought of it that way.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by SuperMike335!!

He doesn't need a grapple gun just to make it to the next ledge he was having trouble jumping to.

Metal hook on rope, little toss, climb on over. Done.

Which again, would take away the ideal that one must climb without the rope or any rope and let fear find him.

You seem to be thinking of ideas that would take away all thematic elements there, bud.

[Brain Damage]

Bane! Friend to children everywhere!

[SuperMike335!!]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Which again, would take away the ideal that one must climb without the rope or any rope and let fear find him.

You seem to be thinking of ideas that would take away all thematic elements there, bud.

Nolan's Visionary "realism" was really NOT realism, and was rather just giving the film a serious tone, and tossing out the Sci-Fi elements.

The point being its rediculous when people say one cannot have those elements in a Batman movie, or it won't be dark/serious enough because somehow Science fiction always has to mean camp, but only if it's Batman.

My point is that it is impossible to make a movie, that as Nolan and his fans who defend every nugget he pinches out as "completely realistic in every single sense and way". - which it is not, nor is even possible.

Therefor, our next go round, can we have out Batman Sci-Fi elements back?

[BatLobsterRises]

Bane can threaten Pavel's children without actually wanting to hurt them. That's part of what makes him evil, there's no line he won't cross. The same applies to the children he'd be killing in the blast- he may not think they deserve to die, but that's why he seems himself as a "necessary evil".

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by SuperMike335!!

Nolan's Visionary "realism" was really NOT realism, and was rather just giving the film a serious tone, and tossing out the Sci-Fi elements.

The point being its rediculous when people say one cannot have those elements in a Batman movie, or it won't be dark/serious enough because somehow Science fiction always has to mean camp, but only if it's Batman.

My point is that it is impossible to make a movie, that as Nolan and his fans who defend every nugget he pinches out as "completely realistic in every single sense and way". - which it is not, nor is even possible.

Therefor, our next go round, can we have out Batman Sci-Fi elements back?

Color me confused now...what does making a grapple gun out of rope and metal have to do with realism and sci-fi elements?

I agree, the next reboot should definitely be aligned with more of the Arkham games with mixing realism and more fantastical or sci-fi elements, if you will, but your suggestion of making a grapple gun.....what does that have to do with your new statement now?

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by SuperMike335!!

He doesn't need a grapple gun just to make it to the next ledge he was having trouble jumping to.

Metal hook on rope, little toss, climb on over. Done.

Yeah....done.

[SuperMike335!!]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Color me confused now...what does making a grapple gun out of rope and metal have to do with realism and sci-fi elements?

I agree, the next reboot should definitely be aligned with more of the Arkham games with mixing realism and more fantastical or sci-fi elements, if you will, but your suggestion of making a grapple gun.....what does that have to do with your new statement now?

I never said a grapple "gun". I thought it unrealistic for Batman to not simply use a rope and a metal hook, he could easily make, and use it to get to that hard to reach ledge.

True, there are much better examples of unrealistic things one could find in a series of movies that some fanboys and the director insist is entirely really possible. - and the reason the movies are good was due to the serious nature, and getting rid of campy elements.

Marvel has proved that it is entirely possible to have Sci-Fi in movies and avoid camp at the same time.

Therefor silly to throw out Sci-Fi universe Batman exists in, in order to make everything realistic, if that realism is futile anyway. The movies never needed "realism", they needed a serious treatment.

Yes, I would be happy with a much more visually sytlized Batman series, with the sci-fi characters, the more artistic look of Gotham city. The Universe in the Arkham games would be a good template to start with.

[theShape]

In terms of "realism", someone said it best when it was mentioned that Nolan's Batman series wasn't necessarily "real', but the sci-fi elements were thrown out...which is perfect for me.

Plenty of fantastical characters/vehicles/sequences can be found in this trilogy, just nothing over-the-top of completely out of the realm of reality. I, for one, NEVER want to see aliens or outer space sequences in a Batman film, though I know that's what we're getting in a JL movie.

[TheBat812]

Nolan has stated himself that his goal was never reality, but relatability. If you see something that looks and feels tangible, no matter how fantastical, it can feel real. Take a look at the difference between the original Star Wars films and the prequels. The one done with all real miniatures and props and costumes just feels much more real and relatable, and therefore our main concern becomes the characters, not how much the movie looks/feels like a fantastic unplayable video game with some live actors inexplicably in that world.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by SuperMike335!!

I never said a grapple "gun". I thought it unrealistic for Batman to not simply use a rope and a metal hook, he could easily make, and use it to get to that hard to reach ledge.

He could have for sure, but he didn't. Don't know why you're so caught up(no pun intended) with this one.

True, there are much better examples of unrealistic things one could find in a series of movies that some fanboys and the director insist is entirely really possible. - and the reason the movies are good was due to the serious nature, and getting rid of campy elements.

Nothing in this trilogy is "entirely really possible". You're taking the word 'realism' too far, even more than "Nolanites" or plain fans of the trilogy when you seriously think everyone believes someone can be a vigilante or that the RICO case could work as well as it does in TDK or that a woman can go around robbing people blind while walking on five-six inch heels.

Marvel has proved that it is entirely possible to have Sci-Fi in movies and avoid camp at the same time.

No one is denying this, nor have I ever read anywhere else that would insist there would be a campy element with anything sci-fi except from you.

Therefor silly to throw out Sci-Fi universe Batman exists in, in order to make everything realistic, if that realism is futile anyway. The movies never needed "realism", they needed a serious treatment.

It's not silly. It's just something Nolan didn't want to use for his series and imo, it worked just fine. He got his story out and he was able to use certain characters without dwelling into any fantastical or sci-fi elements(the trickiest was Ra's al Ghul and I loved Nolan's version of Ra's).

Yes, I would be happy with a much more visually sytlized Batman series, with the sci-fi characters, the more artistic look of Gotham city. The Universe in the Arkham games would be a good template to start with.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind a direct adaptation of Arkham Asylum even. If we don't get Arkham City, fine, but I would at least like to see something like AA. They could even add elements from AC such as using characters like Hugo Strange, Black Mask, Catwoman, etc.

[BatLobsterRises]

Here's the difference between what Nolan does and what Marvel does. It doesn't really have much to do with realism.

Nolan tries to capture of the source material, but not by trying to simply put a comic book on the big screen. He uses the source material for inspiration, but tackles the execution like he would any other movie. Marvel tries to capture the essence and feel of the comics, similar to what Raimi did with the Spider-Man films (in which the camp was true to the Silver Age comics). The Marvel Studios films might be less "campy", but they still feel like comic books. Which is fine. It's two different approaches. The illusion of realism that Nolan went for with the Bat-trilogy makes perfect sense, because that's the way many regular action movies are handled.

[theShape]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Here's the difference between what Nolan does and what Marvel does. It doesn't really have much to do with realism.

Nolan tries to capture of the source material, but by trying to simply put a comic book on the big screen. He uses the source material for inspiration, but tackles the execution like he would any other movie. Marvel tries to capture the essence and feel of the comics, similar to what Raimi did with the Spider-Man films (in which the camp was true to the Silver Age comics). The Marvel Studios films might be less "campy", but they still feel like comic books. Which is fine. It's two different approaches. The illusion of realism that Nolan went for with the Bat-trilogy makes perfect sense, because that's the way many regular action movies are handled.

And simply because Batman is a real man with no absurd powers. I would have never wanted to see Batman face someone like Clayface or the comic book version of Bane in Nolan's trilogy.

But now that we got this amazing trilogy out of the way, bring on a more stylized, Arkham-like series.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I think Bane meant Pavel's children would have a better world if their revolution worked.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

I think Bane meant Pavel's children would have a better world if their revolution worked.

Mmm indeed. I think that line has a touch of that while still being a threat.

[BlueLightning]

My first thought was that he was gonna kill Pavel thus lefting the children fatherless, but is evident that he was threatening his family.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Nolan has stated himself that his goal was never reality, but relatability. If you see something that looks and feels tangible, no matter how fantastical, it can feel real. Take a look at the difference between the original Star Wars films and the prequels. The one done with all real miniatures and props and costumes just feels much more real and relatable, and therefore our main concern becomes the characters, not how much the movie looks/feels like a fantastic unplayable video game with some live actors inexplicably in that world.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Here's the difference between what Nolan does and what Marvel does. It doesn't really have much to do with realism.

Nolan tries to capture of the source material, but not by trying to simply put a comic book on the big screen. He uses the source material for inspiration, but tackles the execution like he would any other movie. Marvel tries to capture the essence and feel of the comics, similar to what Raimi did with the Spider-Man films (in which the camp was true to the Silver Age comics). The Marvel Studios films might be less "campy", but they still feel like comic books. Which is fine. It's two different approaches. The illusion of realism that Nolan went for with the Bat-trilogy makes perfect sense, because that's the way many regular action movies are handled.

Excellent posts, you two.

I think another way Nolan's take could be termed as is 'veritability'/'verisimilitude'. I don't think it's ever been meant to be seen as full-blown realism though.

Originally Posted by theShape

But now that we got this amazing trilogy out of the way, bring on a more stylized, Arkham-like series.

Amen to that.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

I think Bane meant Pavel's children would have a better world if their revolution worked.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Mmm indeed. I think that line has a touch of that while still being a threat.

Ever since my first viewing, I thought that line was rather weird, but yeah, I definitely think it can be seen in both ways.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

I think another way Nolan's take could be termed as is 'veritability'. I don't think it's ever been meant to be seen as full-blown realism though.

I agree. One of my favorite movies is the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It's crafted in such a way that we can believe that these mutant creatures exist on the sewers of NY. It is not realistic of course, but it's grounded, verosimil. I believe the Nolan Batman films work in the same way.

[the last son]

I still think Hardy was way too small for bane. Right casting choice but just way too small. Why not do some type of enhancements to make him appear 5 inches taller and more muscular. I just got done watching the fight between him and batman in the sewer and I'm sorry but a man an inch shorter who is playing bane and beating the crap out of wayne is just really hard to accept.

[Anno_Domini]

Bane is never an inch shorter since he is as tall as Batman in TDKR.

I find Hardy to be the right build as well. He could've been a little bigger but only through working and not awful enhancements through production or any crap like that that would be unnecessary and ridiculous, imo.