The Dark Knight Rises 8 years of no Batman or Bruce Wayne, and NO ONE could pick up the trend?

[milost]

All im hearing is SHOULD HAVE THIS AND THAT. Sorry but they told their story the way they wanted to tell it. They dont owe anybody anything. It's their interpretation just like the thousands of different ones in the comics. They wanted to tell THEIR ending story if Batman had a true ending, which it never really does in the comics.

And I'm free to criticize it, just like everyone else does with the comic book movies they dislike.

It's "not batman".......and who are you to say this? Everybody has their own batman, none is wrong. So you should rephrase that to IT'S NOT MY BATMAN.

It's a Batman I guess, but I think most would agree that they had a better go with the character in Begins and Dark Knight. That's why so many are split on this thing.

I don't particularly have "A" Batman. There's no such thing. I have a certain respect for every incarnation, to a point. I dig the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, movies, television show, but there are others that don't sit right with me. I'm not the type that thinks there's one all encompassing type of Batman or any that is definitive.

I absolutely dig Nolan's version, until he slammed it into a wall with TDKR.

I still enjoy TDKR more than any other comic book movie, so i guess im liking a film that has nothing to do with Batman?

Pretty much. It's more of a contemporary tale about the world we live in than it is a truly defining Bruce Wayne or Batman story. Nolan was clearly more invested with a Howard Hughes biopic, "historic epic", a story grappling with modern issues than he was Batman. A Bruce that isn't in pain and lets the hurt of his parents go isn't Batman anymore, is he?

Honestly though, that's probably why Batman has lasted as long as he has. People taking it and bending him in a different way. I can understand it . . . but I don't have to like it.

I guess somebody like Michael Uslan who has been following this character since forever, who is in his 60s, he loved a movie that got Batman all wrong??

The guy hates Adam West 60s Batman, there's plenty wrong with him.

You guys are bold. It's simple, it's not your Batman and that's fine. But it's MY Batman and ive been a fan of this character since i was 3 buddy. I know who batman is, im just aware the medium of film can do things differently. IMO they changed things but still respected the essence of Batman.

Batman don't quit. Period.

In fact, I don't think there's been an interpretation out there that's ever fully hanged it up. There's varying interpretations, sure. Lighthearted Batman, angry Batman, killer Batman, etc. but thus far they've all been pretty dedicated to the cause (until Goyer gets a hold of it and spreads his sick "hope" fetish). You Nolan boys say closure, I say cop out.

If they had any balls, they would have literally made the "legend end" instead of the marketing fluff they vomited.

Anyone who says that the essence of Batman is to be Batman til he's old and grey and never give up the mantle, has no idea what theyre talking about because he's written that way for a reason. To sell their comics, the story needs to continue. Even people in the business have said this.

Who said he has to do this until he's old and grey? Not I.

Fact of the matter is, this particular Batman was Batman for just over a year . . . contemplated quitting and eventually, quit. Sad part is, they unplugged this particular Batman just when the going was good. For years the film interpretation was "a Batman in his prime", then suddenly, bam, we're in the future . . . and he hasn't done a damn thing.

Anyone who thinks Blake getting the mantle was B.S, sorry but it was set up all the way back in Batman Begins that this version of Batman was to continue until he inspired somebody to stand up for their city.

That Bruce was also young and naive and pined for a childhood friend that didn't have any interest in him in the end.

Things change, people change. Back in Begins? That whole speech is before he's even found Batman. He's thinking a loud on the plane, he doesn't know what he wants. He searching, you can see him grasping. Is it about "inspiration" and "hope" (ugh) or is it about striking fear into the hearts of criminals? Or maybe he just has a daddy, inferiority complex he's trying to work out after those preachy train rides.

Begins was more about Bruce facing his fears and embracing Batman than it was about the city. Screw that preachy, idealistic crap. Wanna know what sums up Bale Batman/Begins Batman best? That fantastic teaser trailer with the Bruce monologue. It should have been THAT during that fateful plane trip. True, the character shouldn't be all about revenging and vengeance, but on the flip side, starry-eyed romanticism with Roman allegories and Greek tales is also a little much.

Besides that, the concept also moved on. Whatever the reason, The Dark Knight certainly put the idea of Batman inspiring others on it's head with it's ending. Batman found that he couldn't inspire othersand you know what? It wasn't that bad at all. Batman didn't stand for a "symbol of hope", he says as much. He became something else. I'd say they got the essence of the character just right at their second go than they did by film 3. Like I said, I'll take silent guardians/watchful protector/dark knight descriptions over forced martydom (that isn't even martyrdom when your main character planned the ending before the get go) and freaking Batman statue unveilings.

Until the people fought evil (Bane's revolution). So i guess the next thing you'll say is "cops were the only ones!"...well are they not people of Gotham? They're citizens of Gotham and breathe like anybody else.

I wasn't even going to state that . . . but you're right! Deep down you know it's true!

What did Gotham do? Diddly squat.

They let some weirdo with a breathing problem take it over and hid in their houses for 5 months. The people on the ferries in Dark Knight took more initiative than the ones TDKR. You're right, it was the cops! I didn't have to even mention it. Are they citizens? Sure. But as a whole, Gotham feels pretty worthless.

Honestly, after watching em all recently, I really don't see why Batman is fighting for these people. I really don't. You know what might have been darker and edgier? If Wayne/Batman was doing this for himself. Selfish, sure, but this whole pipe dream of a glistening, gold trimmed city with people standing up for "what's right", and some assistant DA's view of the justice system is too sterile for a gritty Batman story. This Bruce would have made for a better Superman, I'm sure Goyer agrees.

Batman still has to continue though because there's always crime. So what happens when Bruce is 90, are you saying that nobody should be Batman?? So Batman Beyond is rubbish?? Sorry but thousands/millions would disagree. Again...it's not YOUR Batman..

Missing the point.

That's one of the great things about Batman. His vow against crime, his "warring on all crime" is a fruitless one. There will always be crime and he won't always be around to fight it. That alone would make for interesting development and issues that this interpretation doesn't even touch on. Why? Because he never has a sort of vow to rid the world of crime. His mission is one of icky hope and false ideals of a better tomorrow. It's actually sort of hard to believe that this Bruce watched his parents get gunned down in cold blood.

. . . then again, no Rachel, possibly a better Batman.


Batman Beyond Bruce? He's like what, 80s? 90s? And he's still kicking ass! He helps the Justice League, he's in his own Batman armor suit fighting ink before his heart gives out. He's helping Terry, wishing he could still fight the good fight as he watches through the suits eyes. He considers himself Batman in his head. He's fantastic. I love Batman Beyond as well as the animated series shows that depict Batman.

Uh, yeah. Bale Bruce is in his 40s when he hangs up the cape and he clocked in maybe a year. Apples and Oranges. I don't remember old man Beyond Bruce kicking back with some random chick that stole from him and almost got him killed, whilst touring Italian bistros because his fruity, emo Butler wanted him to. In fact, I can't see 30s Batman, 40s Batman, 50s Batman, 60s Batman, Adam West Batman, 70s Batman, 80s Batman, Miller Batman, Keaton Batman, Bruce Timm/Paul Dini Batman, 90s Batman, etc. doing any such thing.

Bale Batman is a puss and Rachel and Alfred made him that way. Which sucks because that character had so much potential post-Dark Knight pre-TDKR.

If i may be so bold to all the people who couldnt stand Rises. The comics are only one way of telling his story. Theyre not definitive. Nothing is. Batman has become something more, told through different mediums. Which all have the potential to tell THEIR take on Batman as they see fit. Just as valid as the so-called source material. Comics go through writers like crazy, film will too, it's all the same. And ill say that i believe Nolan's ending showed the respect that Bruce Wayne truly deserved as a character by giving him a happy ending since the comics CAN'T do this themselves. Theyre not allowed to.

You're preaching to the choir. I know Batman can and has been told in a lot of different ways. That's why the character will be celebrating it's 75th anniversary next year.

BUT

A happy ending for Bruce isn't fulfilling his prissy Butlers contrived and scripted dreams. I'd like to think the character would be much happier training a protege or leading a group in an underground army to carry out his own sense of justice or fulfilling the philanthropic side of his other persona for the city (you know, instead of unknowingly BUILDING A BOMB, or just giving away his house to ORPHAN Annies).

Cafes with Anne Hathaway would get old after a while, I'm sure of it. Especially after you've driven around in the Batmobile or have flown around the Gotham skies.

You know what would be a great story for this Bruce? Feeling that urge or compulsion to come back, true Dark Knight Returns style. Not "well, this cop has piqued my interest since he JUST knows who I am with DEM EYES, I better see what this is all about before I get my ass kicked, then trick everyone into thinking I'm dead with autopilot shenanigans".

A happy Bruce might even be one that *gasp* relishes being Batman!

Nolan tried something different (God forbid somebody tries something fresh! )

Hey now, Begins and Dark Knight were fresh. Ain't got no problems with those.

Hey, i love when batman's doing it for 20 years straight and has this mentality of never quitting...but he still passes the mantle to somebody.

Grayson > Blake
Drake > Blake
Terry > Blake

Need I go on. Atleast he trained them. Not, "oh, here's all my gear, good luck bro".

There's a difference. He knew Blake for maybe a week, atleast with the others he's a surrogate father. Not so with TDKR. He's more like an older brother that just got home from the war, enlisted his lil, inexperienced bro.

But Nolan showed balls and integrity when he payed respect to Bruce, after all he's been through, by giving him peace, instead of condemning him to hell to sell more issues.

After all he's been through.

Are you sure you're a Batman fan?

BTW your last part wasnt even funny. The fact that you came up with that stuff tells me YOU'RE the one who is a little sick lol. So an adult can't love and care for a child? Get outta here!

"My protectah"

Bane is pure evil. Talia and him are both warped individuals. I find it a little sick that you would find yourself looking to sympathize with someone that wants to blow up a city for no apparent reason (they hated Ras and have no reason to conform to his ideals . . . until they somehow find out that Bruce killed him).

Of course I'd concoct something like "Bane is a pedo", I hate his character. He's one of the worst Bat villains in these movies. A better meme than a cinematic achievement. If you look at the story, why wouldn't he? Ra's thought he was a monster, maybe it was because he tainted his daughter mentally and physically. I mean, surely one is not looking too far into it when they say that Talia has daddy issues. She chose Bane instead of her biological father and screwed someone she had a seething hatred for. I didn't write that twisted stuff (and if I did, I'd give it a little more depth and weight than what we got with the character-for-sake-of-twist we got with "Miranda Tate).

Awful, just awful. Ivy and Freeze give Talia and Bane a run for their money. Atleast they had lame puns instead of weird psycho babble and non-coherent motives. Hell, Ivy and Freeze's plan for the world was more in line with Ra's Al Ghul's vision than Talia's and Bane's with the whole "freeze and regrow life" thing they had going on.

 

[JDonaldD]

In defense of the ending of TDKR, these films intentionally set out with a "what if Batman existed in the real world," premise. When dealing with a final chapter to that story, the film has to address the fact that Bruce will die and more specifically, that the he "realistically" cannot do this forever. In the comics, this doesn't have to be addressed. Bruce faking his death allows us to deal with his death on screen while still having him win by essentially overcoming death.

 

[BatLobster]

Jeez milost. I get the impression that you think TDKR is the worst Batman related thing to ever be released in 75 years.

Meanwhile, here I am thinking it's a brilliant and triumphant finale to one of the greatest Batman stories ever told in any medium (that being TDKT).

One of us must not be a true Batman fan.

 

[shauner111]

Hahahah seriously.

Id like to add that i find it funny when a person disses the hell out of TDKR because it's not their kind of Batman movie. Or not a good Batman film. But what about it as a film? Why cant you appreciate the stellar performances, the cinematography and direction, the score, the action sequences shot on Imax in a very unique fashion that is almost unheard of by todays standards? I mean..im a massive Bat fan but im an even BIGGER fan of filmmaking. Cinema is my thing. And so even if i didnt like the batman story i would still marvel at what a great film it is even if one doesn't like the writing or even editing (which i thought was fine).

At the end of the day id rather a good film over a good Batman or superhero film. Why? Because ive seen some good superhero flicks but they leave a lot to be desired when it comes to filmmaking.

 

[milost]

Hahahah seriously.

Id like to add that i find it funny when a person disses the hell out of TDKR because it's not their kind of Batman movie. Or not a good Batman film. But what about it as a film? Why cant you appreciate the stellar performances, the cinematography and direction, the score, the action sequences shot on Imax in a very unique fashion that is almost unheard of by todays standards? I mean..im a massive Bat fan but im an even BIGGER fan of filmmaking. Cinema is my thing. And so even if i didnt like the batman story i would still marvel at what a great film it is even if one doesn't like the writing or even editing (which i thought was fine).

At the end of the day id rather a good film over a good Batman or superhero film. Why? Because ive seen some good superhero flicks but they leave a lot to be desired when it comes to filmmaking.

Who said I didn't dig the cinematography and IMAX sequences? I actually thought the look of the film was brilliant. It was certainly an improvement over the previous films, or atleast Begins anyway.

But that doesn't make an entire film does it? Nolan has always stated that the "story comes first", well, how can you like a film if you're not invested in the story? You can't.

And the performances? Meh, the most convincing actor ironically is of a character I don't even like, and that's JGL as Blake. He actually sells that horrid piece of writing with that reveal speech to Bruce. The others? I've seen them in better things, especially Bale whose performance of Wayne/Batman peaked with Begins and TDK (besides the masquerade scene with his toothy "Bruce Wayne, eccentric billionaire" dialogue, which was quite good).

Meanwhile, here I am thinking it's a brilliant and triumphant finale to one of the greatest Batman stories ever told in any medium (that being TDKT).

One of us must not be a true Batman fan.

I'm truly sorry for your loss!


Kidding of course, we're all Bat-fans in some compacity. I'm not playing that card of "true Batman fans". That's BS. Shauner did bring up that notion though after I was ranting about "for my money, I felt this way", etc. etc. So I was embellishing a bit with my opinions and views. That's what it comes down to in the end, varying opinions. We can all blow smoke underneath each other, but at the end of the day, there's only our unique perspective on something that can't be changed.

 

[shauner111]

Caine and Bale were top form. Hardy is always fantastic with his expressions. A truly fantastic actor especially when you look at what he had to deal with.

I was personally invested in the story. When i watch a superhero movie, i want to just see a good film, think about Batman later. I like to see what new things a director can do with Batman that hasn't been done before while still keeping with the dark/serious character that i love.

 

[milost]

Hardy was hamming it up under that mask. The voice, the expressions, it was as over the top as a mustache twirling villain gets. In fact, is there any evidence that he even took the role seriously? Not saying that every thing needs to be taken "seriously" but I doubt he thinks highly of his portrayal as Bane. There's little to no input other than, "when Nolan calls you, you don't say no".

Anyone could have done what he had done, no? He's acted in better performances, Bane is nothing to write home about.

 

[Shikamaru]

@shauner111 I already reviewed TDKR in every way it can be reviewed - as a Batman film, a stand-alone film, and a sequel to BB/TDK. My opinion on each of those still stands. Bad Batman film, bad sequel, ok/decent stand-alone film. The way I would describe the film as just a film is this way: Let's say x and y both represent great thing a film has to offer. TDKR has both x and y in it. At first that thought excites you but when you sit down and analyse things, you realize it doesn't make sense for both x and y to be present. I consider that to be TDKR in a nutshell. It has a lot of great ideas and great scenes individually, but a lot of them make no sense and/or don't fit when you look at them in context and/or at the bigger picture overall IMO.


@milost
1) I agree with your overall point, but I think it is false to say that story comes first. Story comes second IMO. First would be the characters (including acting). If you're not invested in the characters and/or if your characters aren't likeable, there is not much the film can do overall to pull you in.
2) I have issues with Bane writing-wise, but none in terms of his acting. I thought Tom Hardy did a great job, though I do agree that it isn't untouchable.
3) You brought up a really good point with JGL. Despite the generic characterization of John Blake, JGL does a fantastic job. I think he does the best possible job an actor can do with such character. I think that is what angers those that dislike the "I saw Batman through your orphan eyes" scene even more. If the role was poorly acted, the scene would be more funny in a "look how bad this is" way. But it is the quality of the performance that really bugs me. It is the fact that you wouldn't expect such a stupid moment with such a fantastic performance. Thus when it comes, it hits you by surprise (not in the good way).


Also bumping this up from the previous page since I have a feeling milost distracted everyone from it with his (above) long posts.

Originally posted by Shikamaru

Technically I was here from the beginning (see page 1) . Also the same thing goes for me. I don't think I ever debated a movie more in my life either, though TASM comes close. It was for about an entire year and more specifically, for about an entire year of in-depth long analytical debates.

However, I would argue it wasn't just our love for the character that caused it. It was also the fun and the unpredictability. I still have a passion for Batman. I don't know about your opinions, but I'm not really looking forward to BvS. Every new announcement they make makes the film look like a bigger train wreck and film pushed by suits than the previous one. Yet despite still loving the character and BvS looking way worse than TDKR ever did to me, I rarely discuss the film on here (and when I do, my rants are more short and to the point). Why? Because the unpredictability factor is gone, which makes the fun go away too. We could never predict what any of us would have said next, which made things interesting.

On the other hand, the "new guys" in the BvS thread can almost be read like a book. If I go to the main thread and leave a post reflecting a negative impression of the film, I can already predict the replies I will get. The vast majority of them would sound almost exactly like these:

"Why can't you give the film a chance?"
"I think you're just trying to hate the movie."
"How do you know for sure it will be bad? Do you have a time machine or something?"
"No, actually Goyer and Snyder have been planning this for months."
"Why is this being released prematurely? Because you don't like it? Because you would have done something different?"
"x and/or y being present in the film doesn't mean the film will be bad."
"Have you seen The Town/Argo?"

 

[milost]

@milost
1) I agree with your overall point, but I think it is false to say that story comes first. Story comes second IMO. First would be the characters (including acting). If you're not invested in the characters and/or if your characters aren't likeable, there is not much the film can do overall to pull you in.
2) I have issues with Bane writing-wise, but none in terms of his acting. I thought Tom Hardy did a great job, though I do agree that it isn't untouchable.
3) You brought up a really good point with JGL. Despite the generic characterization of John Blake, JGL does a fantastic job. I think he does the best possible job an actor can do with such character. I think that is what angers those that dislike the "I saw Batman through your orphan eyes" scene even more. If the role was poorly acted, the scene would be more funny in a "look how bad this is" way. But it is the quality of the performance that really bugs me. It is the fact that you wouldn't expect such a stupid moment with such a fantastic performance. Thus when it comes, it hits you by surprise (not in the good way).

Yeah, I agree with that bit with story vs. characters. When I mentioned story, I was sort of involving characters within that. However, now that you bring it up, there have been quite a few instances where a story is better than the characters, or vice versa. So yeah, that's a toughie.

I hope I didn't appear to be condemning Hardy in that post. That wasn't my intent. I do think anyone could have played the part of Bane though. Is the performance awful? No, but there really isn't much to it and in retrospect it is downright silly (like Honest Trailers states, it's Bane's best Adam Sandler waterboy impression . . . "of cawse!"). Then again, that isn't Hardy's doing, that's the direction and script writing for the character. It's not the actors fault where they take the story or character and I think sometimes I lose sight of that when I'm criticizing a movie.

And yeah, I brought up the "I know who you are" JGL speech too. It's another example of what we're talking about. As an acting moment, that's a convincing piece of emotion and it's impressive that he conveys that. In the context of the story and script though, it's absolutely terrible. I wouldn't want to imagine the rage if the script for TDKR was leaked like Begins. People would rip that scene even harder than they do now.

Also bumping this up from the previous page since I have a feeling milost distracted everyone from it with his (above) long posts.

 

[shauner111]

I respect your opinion Shikamaru. And as you know, i love the film and think the whole thing makes sense.

Hardy was hamming it up under that mask. The voice, the expressions, it was as over the top as a mustache twirling villain gets. In fact, is there any evidence that he even took the role seriously? Not saying that every thing needs to be taken "seriously" but I doubt he thinks highly of his portrayal as Bane. There's little to no input other than, "when Nolan calls you, you don't say no".

Anyone could have done what he had done, no? He's acted in better performances, Bane is nothing to write home about.

Hardy is a one of a kind actor. I cant think of any actor who would have been able to create a different voice and express himself as much as he does through his eyes, walk, etc. We most likely would have got some generic tough guy voice mixed with the actor in a mask with zero expression in the eyes.

Bane , next to Heath's Joker is my favorite character/villain in any comic book movie.

 

[BatLobster]

Hardy was hamming it up under that mask. The voice, the expressions, it was as over the top as a mustache twirling villain gets. In fact, is there any evidence that he even took the role seriously? Not saying that every thing needs to be taken "seriously" but I doubt he thinks highly of his portrayal as Bane. There's little to no input other than, "when Nolan calls you, you don't say no".

Of course he took it seriously. He clearly thought into the accent he chose, wanting to pay homage to the Latin origins of the character with the Romany gypsy influence, and he made a deliberate choice to go with a voice that was in his words "a bit camp" to create an unsettling disconnect between his monstrous physicality and his eloquent manner of speaking. To me that's always been the appeal of Bane too...looks like a monster, speaks like a gentleman. A gentleman who is going to tell you his intentions before he breaks you, but a sophisticated person nonetheless. t:

In addition, there were some interesting similarities in both dialogue and body language that felt extremely reminiscent of Ra's, that I'm positive were intentional. It was a well thought out performance and character.

Just because something has elements of "camp" (as regwec would point out, camp =/= "bad"), doesn't mean he was doing a piss take with the character. Ledger's Joker had elements of camp in it too. You could easily say he was just hamming it up as well. And he was. You just didn't like Bane in the movie, that's all it is.

Watch the TDKR special features and it's clear that he took it seriously. I think you're reaching here. Just like people are reaching when they say "Nolan's heart wasn't in it."

 

[shauner111]

Exactly BLR. Hardy's was extremely well thought out, to the point where it even surprised Nolan. Tom really goes the extra mile with all his performances. Whether people liked the voice or not, is irrelevant. It's an acquired taste, but what's art without taking risks? Heath took a risk as well. It doesnt make it any less valid of an attempt from Mr. Ledger just because more people enjoyed what he came up with.

I can smell it a mile away when somebody doesnt put effort into their character. What happens is, you just see the actor. I didnt see Heath in his performance, and for a good chunk of the time i didnt see Hardy either.

 

[shauner111]

Ill use this as an example. Sure he camped it up a little bit more for the ADR/current version that we know. But the original prologue voice that Hardy had, had nothing to do with camp. It was a dead serious and incredibly menacing voice that still gives me chills if i put it on high volume. (whether people can understand it or not hehe)...

[YT]?v=2vBW6jvspF8[/YT]

NOBODY else could have delivered lines like that, in that thought-out voice that he put together. It's truly unique along with his eye movements.

 

[Victarion]

If you want to see an actor whose heart wasn't in the role, see Pirates 4 and Ian McShane's Blackbeard. He's got a flat, dead monotone throughout and a rather bored look. Otherwise Shauner and BatLobsterRises have said it all.

Same time next month, everyone?

 

[shauner111]

If you want to see an actor whose heart wasn't in the role, see Pirates 4 and Ian McShane's Blackbeard. He's got a flat, dead monotone throughout and a rather bored look. Otherwise Shauner and BatLobsterRises have said it all.

Same time next month, everyone?

 

[The Joker]

milost, it's good to see you back. On top form as usual

 

[BatLobster]

If "top form" is reaching, exaggerating, instigating and saying outlandish things to try and prove a point, then I'd have to agree. But that's why we love the guy.

 

[milost]

Of course he took it seriously. He clearly thought into the accent he chose, wanting to pay homage to the Latin origins of the character with the Romany gypsy influence, and he made a deliberate choice to go with a voice that was in his words "a bit camp" to create an unsettling disconnect between his monstrous physicality and his eloquent manner of speaking.

See, that to me sounds like reaching. More so than what I stated.

He sounds latin? Really? Roman gypsy influence? He sounds like the love child of Sean Connery (who, last time I checked was SCOTTISH) and General Grievous without the Toys R Us voice changer.

Then again, I haven't heard too many Latin, Roman gypsies so maybe they all have the dialect that sounds like a brit with a mask over their face . . . which *gasp* Hardy actually is! Such research from Tom Hardy, expanding his horizons and looking for influence!

I'll never forget that ripped recording from Heinz field when an extra recorded his speech. We all thought he sounded like an elderly Lord Humungus from Mad Max (which ironically has claimed Tom Hardy as well). We convinced ourselves that, no, Hardy was clearly having a bit of fun and we wouldn't hear the character until 2012. But nope, that's exactly how he sounded. The changes in the opening "Bane on a Plane" scene were even lolzier than before.

Nolan and Hardy approved that, they approved it! You can show me the original prologue, but it doesn't change the fact of what we actually got nor the criticisms it's ushered in.

To me that's always been the appeal of Bane too...looks like a monster, speaks like a gentleman. A gentleman who is going to tell you his intentions before he breaks you, but a sophisticated person nonetheless. t:

More like Mr. Clean with a muzzle and a sporty Ugg jacket, which is actually closer to nightmare fuel than what we ended up getting. Imagine Mr. Clean in a tarantula gas mask, pouring cleaning products down people's throats until their eyes bulge. THAT is monstrous.

In addition, there were some interesting similarities in both dialogue and body language that felt extremely reminiscent of Ra's, that I'm positive were intentional. It was a well thought out performance and character.

I.e. holding a vest? Spewing the same babble that Talia and Liam Neeson spoke verbatim?

Deeeep. Only Tom Hardy could do such things!

Just because something has elements of "camp" (as regwec would point out, camp =/= "bad"), doesn't mean he was doing a piss take with the character. Ledger's Joker had elements of camp in it too. You could easily say he was just hamming it up as well. And he was. You just didn't like Bane in the movie, that's all it is.

I like camp. But I highly doubt it was the intention of Nolan and filmmakers to have Bane be "campy" or ironic other than a "lovely, lovely voice". In fact, that wasn't the intention. They wanted to create a monster. Bane is meant to be taken seriously in TDKR though, and nobody (well, that's hyperbole), most people don't take him seriously.

The Joker? Yup, very much a "flair for the dramatic", which is the character. He could be eating shrimp cocktail one minute or holding a knife to a man's face the next. He could be acting like a kid feeling grossed out and using hand sanitizer at the sight of the Joker one minute and then pummeling the hero in the head with a pipe. Intention.

Bane in the movie is ridiculous, I've never seen the claim that the Joker is. Joker can chew scenery, ham it up, that's what he does. He wasn't born and raised in a prison. He wasn't intended to be 100% pure monster/terminator with unflinching devotion to some cultist cause. He didn't sound like the love child of Sean Connery and Lord Humungus.

He sounds nothing like Bartley Gorman, which is what he claims was a source. Bane is pretty much the answer to, "what if during Star Wars, they kept David Prowse's voice instead of having James Earle Jones".

Watch the TDKR special features and it's clear that he took it seriously. I think you're reaching here. Just like people are reaching when they say "Nolan's heart wasn't in it."

Sure there's the obligatory interviews, but I seem to recall the red carpet premiere of TDKR and he didn't seem very enthusiastic (which isn't a bad thing).

It doesn't surprise me after the filming stops and the marketing machine ends when actors start to view the superhero thing as a little silly. I don't think it's reaching to say that Hardy was having a bit of fun with Bane and took it no more seriously than he did Star Trek: Nemesis. It'll be interesting to see how the cast and crew look at this thing years down the line. As fans, we take it seriously, probably more serious than we should but the actors? Heh, look at Harrison Ford's views on Han Solo. Or Michael Keaton's views on Batman. It was just a gig for them.

What if one day, Nolan looks back and is "meh" about TDKR? Directors in the past have done that with their own work. Spielberg, Kubrick, Burton, hell, Cameron just revealed recently that he thought Terminator blows and he could have made it better.

Remember, at the time these things are being made, it's made to sell and be pushed. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit there and say in an interview that "it's all a pile of rubbish, I'm having fun in this silly rubber mask for the $$$". It just never happens.

milost, it's good to see you back. On top form as usual

Thanks. Love the avatar change. Very appropriate for this time of season.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Bane is pretty much the answer to, "what if during Star Wars, they kept David Prowse's voice instead of having James Earle

Wow, haha, never thought of that but its true.

 

[shauner111]

Ummm if you did some research Milost (maybe you have) you would know that Hardy wanted his voice to sound like an older man, much older than his years, with a strain on his voice because of the injury he sustained. That's exactly what you hear at Heinz Field. If you dont like it, that's on you, not Hardy or the filmmakers.

Anybody i speak to IN PERSON and most on the internet love Bane and thought he was incredibly menacing mixed with some moments that were fun to imitate. There are scenes where his voice has that natural deepness he had when filming (minus ADR) where it's incredibly scary and dark. Just like the video i posted which you seem to have ignored.

All that counts to me is that i love him as a villain, felt very intimidated AND entertained by him.

 

[ThePhantasm]

ol' shauner is still using the "everybody I talk to" argument I see

haha

 

[milost]

ol' shauner is still using the "everybody I talk to" argument I see

haha

He's probably telling the truth. I bet it's something like 2 people.

 

[shauner111]

Yes because i can go anywhere whether it be online or in person and i never get this kind of nitpicking. But even if you were to take that out of it because of "irrelevance"..i still dont understand how somebody couldnt have felt a menacing quality to Bane if they watched the same prologue i did in Imax back in 2011. When he had that original voice. Which he still uses quite a bit in the actual film. The Daggett death scene for example.

Ive seen countless reviews and talked to MANY people, and everybody thought he was crazy menacing with that voice and then sometimes it would switch and be like a hammy english Bond villain. Even when they didnt understand him, which was a common complaint with the original prologue, they always said it was menacing to hear and made you take this mercenary seriously.

But whatever! To each their own! I dont envy milost that's for sure.

 

[shauner111]

He's probably telling the truth. I bet it's something like 2 people.

Making jokes helps as a nice deflection?

 

[milost]

Nobody is really talking about TDKR any more though, especially around these parts. So it's a moot point. Even this place is dead with old threads getting swallowed up due to inactivity. If we're talking when the film debuted, it seemed like a lot of people were dissing the character and making him out to be a joke. The "oooh scary", "ooooh so intimidating" seemed to come from the die hard fans that ate it all up. You know, the types that will defend even the most ridiculous moment and chalk it up as creative/artistic liberties, or better, blame it on IMAX running time.

But anyway, ALL the people I have talked to hate Bane and his silly, silly voice. I guess it just depends on where you're from. Bane might be the OG on the west side of town, but here, people can't stand him.