...And if part of understanding the character is a recognition that he can't be easily understood? It's not a flaw if it's purposeful, and there's a number of reasons why it might be purposeful. Ignoring those reasons doesn't help your fight on this. I really don't think Bane's voice is about realism so much, honestly.... I think it's more about creating a desired effect for the audience.
It does matter "why" it's presented that way. It could add to characterization, or the scene... or what have you. This is just silly. Again and again... there are many great movies where a character's mutability is presented for a desired effect. If Nolan wanted Bane to be fully understandable, believe me, he could achieve that goal. It seems very narrow-minded to say there's no way it can do anything but detract from the film.
And there's no other way to convey the important aspects of a story, except through dialogue?
Nor does it make it bad... we have to wait and see. It sounds like your position is that garbled dialogue can't possibly add anything to the movie, despite it having been done in the past. Do you honestly think that Nolan didn't ask himself, "is Bane a little tough to understand? Maybe we should give him a normal voice?" Clearly he's made Bane into this muzzled character for a purpose, no? Why not give a little benefit to the doubt? Why latch on to this without much of any info?
It'll be fun to sorta keep this conversation going in a week, that's for sure.
t:
