The Dark Knight Rises Bane or the Joker?

[The Joker]

When one can convince you to not do something, I would call that being a choice someone is making. MAYBE Batman didn't view it as a choice or didn't want to, but it's simple to realize that it was a choice. If it wasn't, then Gordon would be on board as well with doing the only possible thing and that is to lie about Dent.

Two things;

1. Nobody convinced Batman of anything. So this point is irrelevant
2. Gordon being on board with the decision or not has nothing to do with how Batman viewed the situation. He saw it as having no choice because in his mind The Joker CANNOT win. So that leaves no choice.

You keep saying he had a choice. Yes, he could have just let Joker win. But for Batman that wasn't an option. Hence why Joker literally did force Batman into taking the fall for Dent.

Of course he didn't, but that doesn't take away that even Gordon viewed it as a choice as he tried to convince otherwise.

Who cares how Gordon viewed it? We're not talking about Gordon. We're talking about Batman and how he saw it.

Not to start anything more than what we've started, but Nolan didn't TECHNICALLY say he has been retired all eight years, only that the eight-year period is to show that he has retired.

What's the difference? What other meaning do you think Nolan has when he says the 8 years is reflective of his retirement?

And it did very well show Bruce retired as the Batman, but that doesn't take away the chance that Batman could have still been around until Gotham City was clean of all major crime, and I view it as that.

Of course you're entitled to have any interpretation you like. Nolan's quote and what the movie says don't support anything like that though.

I think you have become confused as to what I said about Dent's crimes having to be hidden. I understand that Dent's image, to Batman's viewpoint, shouldn't be trashed on with the reveal, but I don't see how such a thing would simply take away all of his past prosecutions. Even during such scandals, things such as certain prosecutions still have to move forward if it's for the common good such as getting rid of the mob.

What prosecutions? There had been no convictions yet. That mass gathering in Judge Surillo's court was not a trial and a sentencing lol. It was a hearing of the charges where half of the criminals were locked up pending trial.

That's why Dent said the head guys will get out on bail, but the mid level guys won't. That's why they'll cut deals including jail time, because they can't afford to be off the streets long enough for a trial and an appeal.

It's all in Harvey's quote. 549 criminals, mate. A lot of trials ahead for Harvey. The matter of ongoing trials for hundreds of mob afiliates that was very much dependent upon Dent and any kind of scandal could have disrupted and undone all of that, as Batman tells Dent earlier on in the film.

 

[TheBat812]

Two things;

1. Nobody convinced Batman of anything. So this point is irrelevant
2. Gordon being on board with the decision or not has nothing to do with how Batman viewed the situation. He saw it as having no choice because in his mind The Joker CANNOT win. So that leaves no choice.

You keep saying he had a choice. Yes, he could have just let Joker win. But for Batman that wasn't an option. Hence why Joker literally did force Batman into taking the fall for Dent.

The point is that no matter what choice he made, the Joker had won - either Batman let the White Night fall, or he would become the Dark Knight and betray his code to not kill anybody. Not only that, but that decision to bear that responsibility leads directly to the Dent Act, and a false sense of a fixed system - the very idea that Bruce has been fighting this whole time. The Joker had once again trapped him in a winless situation.

 

[The Joker]

The point is that no matter what choice he made, the Joker had one - either Batman let the White Night fall, or he would become the Dark Knight and betray his code to not kill anybody. Not only that, but that decision to bear that responsibility leads directly to the Dent Act, and a false sense of a fixed system - the very idea that Bruce has been fighting this whole time. The Joker had once again trapped him in a winless situation.

That's another good way to look it. A kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Two things;

1. Nobody convinced Batman of anything. So this point is irrelevant
2. Gordon being on board with the decision or not has nothing to do with how Batman viewed the situation. He saw it as having no choice because in his mind The Joker CANNOT win. So that leaves no choice.

You keep saying he had a choice. Yes, he could have just let Joker win. But for Batman that wasn't an option. Hence why Joker literally did force Batman into taking the fall for Dent.

With a simple "Yes, he could have just let Joker win", that shows how it's a choice. They could have let the revelation of Dent be revealed, BUT, I don't think that would have really done anything too serious anyways.

You're right, to Batman there isn't a choice, but needless to say, it can definitely be viewed as a choice.

Who cares how Gordon viewed it? We're not talking about Gordon. We're talking about Batman and how he saw it.

But I did say to Batman, while it may not be viewed as a choice to him, it still is, no matter what.

What's the difference? What other meaning do you think Nolan has when he says the 8 years is reflective of his retirement?

The other meaning that I am referring to. Nolan doesn't technically say Bruce retired as the Batman for the last eight years, but there would be no reason for Nolan to further elaborate by saying the film is eight years after while Bruce only retired as the Batman for the last six or seven or seven and a half years. He just made a generalization with having eight years having passed since TDK.

Of course you're entitled to have any interpretation you like. Nolan's quote and what the movie says don't support anything like that though.

Actually the movie does support everything I say, especially Alfred's dialogue. You yourself said one can think Bruce visited the Batcave without having to be Batman, but that's all one can do, only think what Alfred's line means, while I think of the other while also thinking Batman stayed around until they truly won with the creation of the Dent Act as well as what Nolan's quote could really mean. Nothing is 100% identifiable for each of our views and it's silly to say who is right and who is wrong.

What prosecutions? There had been no convictions yet. That mass gathering in Judge Surillo's court was not a trial and a sentencing lol. It was a hearing of the charges where half of the criminals were locked up pending trial.

That's why Dent said the head guys will get out on bail, but the mid level guys won't. That's why they'll cut deals including jail time, because they can't afford to be off the streets long enough for a trial and an appeal.

It's all in Harvey's quote. 549 criminals, mate. A lot of trials ahead for Harvey. The matter of ongoing trials for hundreds of mob afiliates that was very much dependent upon Dent and any kind of scandal could have disrupted and undone all of that, as Batman tells Dent earlier on in the film.

So then Batman doesn't know the law? Any scandal would not have done such that with disrupting any ongoing proceedings against those 500-something criminals.

 

[The Joker]

With a simple "Yes, he could have just let Joker win", that shows how it's a choice.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "You leave me no choice" when someone is presented with a decision with one terrible outcome? That's the same thing here.

You keep saying he had a choice. If you think Batman not saving Gotham is a choice for Batman then I wonder do you know who Batman really is at all. No offense. We're talking about Batman taking the blame for Dent's crimes yes? So there's only one person with this "choice" and that's Batman. So if you concede Batman would never give in and let the Joker win, then you know that in this situation there is no choice because for Batman the alternative of Joker winning is not an option.

They could have let the revelation of Dent be revealed, BUT, I don't think that would have really done anything too serious anyways.

How can you say that when the movie busts it's hump to tell you it would. All Harvey's work would have been undone, Gotham's spirit would break, and as Gordon said "Any chance you gave us of fixing our city dies with Harvey's reputation".

Spelled out for you several times in the movie. To say you don't think it wouldn't have done anything too serious is a total contradiction to what TDK bends over backwards to say. It's what the movie is telling you. Choose to ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make it any less true.

You're right, to Batman there isn't a choice

And now you see how Joker forced him into it.

But I did say to Batman, while it may not be viewed as a choice to him, it still is, no matter what.

But we're not talking about anyone else except Batman, and haven't been since the start of this discussion. So again your point is moot. It doesn't matter how you view it, or Gordon, or anyone else.

Batman didn't see it as a choice, and therefore Joker forced him into taking the blame because the alternative of letting Joker win was not an option.

My point is proven.

The other meaning that I am referring to. Nolan doesn't technically say Bruce retired as the Batman for the last eight years, but there would be no reason for Nolan to further elaborate by saying the film is eight years after while Bruce only retired as the Batman for the last six or seven or seven and a half years. He just made a generalization with having eight years having passed since TDK.

Ah here, now you're just putting words in Nolan's mouth to try and make your argument have some validity to it. The words are right there in black and white. The 8 years is Batman's retirement period.

"the eight year period is about showing that he’s retired in a sense, that he’s hung up his cape and his cowl. But he hasn’t been able to move on"

There is no double or hidden meaning there. Facts are facts. He hung up his cape and cowl for 8 years, but mentally he has not been able to move on. That's what you were shown in the movie. To add further info from Nolan; on the special features on the blu ray, he says the limp and cane are from the fall with Dent in TDK. He was limping when he was running away from the Cops at the end of TDK.

No way could he be an active Batman with a limp. It would be a total handicap.

Actually the movie does support everything I say

Lets hear the evidence then. List the quotes one by one and how each one substantiates your stance.

especially Alfred's dialogue.

Which dialogue is that? "You haven't been down here in a long time?". He's down there now, not as Batman isn't he.

You yourself said one can think Bruce visited the Batcave without having to be Batman

Yes, and TDKR gave you an example of it. Does it give any examples of your theories?

but that's all one can do, only think what Alfred's line means, while I think of the other while also thinking Batman stayed around until they truly won with the creation of the Dent Act as well as what Nolan's quote could really mean. Nothing is 100% identifiable for each of our views and it's silly to say who is right and who is wrong.

But unlike Alfred's line, Nolan's line isvery cut and dry. He outright says the 8 years is the retirement period. Those are his words. No way around that.

Any theories that Batman was operating after the night Dent died is just conjecture. Furthermore how do you account for Nolan saying on the blu ray special features that the leg injury with the cane is from the fall with Dent at the end of TDK? How can he be fighting crime with an injury like that?

So then Batman doesn't know the law? Any scandal would not have done such that with disrupting any ongoing proceedings against those 500-something criminals.

Of course it would have. If the prosecuting attorney is revealed to be corrupt or dirty in any way, the whole case is called into question and can be over turned or disregarded based on questionable character of the prosecuting D.A. There have been real life cases of this where cases were appealed or over turned or dismissed based on the prosecution's ethical and moral credibility being in question.

A district attorney who murders Cops and mob bosses would put all of his cases in jeopardy, and give grounds for appeals. Or as the mayor would say "A new record at appeals for quickest kick in the ass".

It wasn't just Batman who said this to Dent btw. So did the Mayor. Gordon said it at the end of TDK, too.

 

[Fudgie]

With a simple "Yes, he could have just let Joker win", that shows how it's a choice. They could have let the revelation of Dent be revealed, BUT, I don't think that would have really done anything too serious anyways.

You're right, to Batman there isn't a choice, but needless to say, it can definitely be viewed as a choice.

I am given the choice to say I killed 5 people or let the whole city go to hell.

Hmmm what a great 'choice' for moi. Lots of lives ruined, crime rates shoot up again, hopeless city again, broken minds versus taking the rap for a few murders as my alter ego.

That ain't no choice. That's a no win scenario. He had to take the blame.

The other meaning that I am referring to. Nolan doesn't technically say Bruce retired as the Batman for the last eight years, but there would be no reason for Nolan to further elaborate by saying the film is eight years after while Bruce only retired as the Batman for the last six or seven or seven and a half years. He just made a generalization with having eight years having passed since TDK.

Hmmm I read Nolan saying that the eight years was Batman's retirement span.

So Nolan is saying it's an 8 year retirement span. Easy peasy.

So then Batman doesn't know the law? Any scandal would not have done such that with disrupting any ongoing proceedings against those 500-something criminals.

Two words; Dent Act.

Phoney baloney law made up by Nolan.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Lol, well I'm going to bow this one out, Joker. Was going to reply, but I'll let you have the last say since our last discussion you didn't when we stopped things.

I bid you adieu though gent

 

[uniqueweasel]

A little late, but to answer the OP I would have to put The Joker above in all respects, like has been described, I found him the ultimate ying to the nolanverse Batmans yang. And it could be argued, he actually beat Batman and helped Bane physically beat him in TDKR.

 

[TheBat812]

I am given the choice to say I killed 5 people or let the whole city go to hell.

Hmmm what a great 'choice' for moi. Lots of lives ruined, crime rates shoot up again, hopeless city again, broken minds versus taking the rap for a few murders as my alter ego.

That ain't no choice. That's a no win scenario. He had to take the blame.

That is a choice, just a ****** one...

 

[BatLobster]

If this was such an inevitable and obvious choice, everyone would have predicted the ending of TDK, yet no one did. The ending is so moving because it makes sense, but you never really see it coming.

 

[Oscorp]

The Joker for every single category. His motivation, characterization, and impact were all better than Bane's.

As for skill, Joker climbed up from being a common bank robber to the top man in Gotham's underworld, he destroyed Harvey Dent, he killed Rachel, turned Gotham into chaos, and he turned all of Gotham against Batman. He did all of that without inheriting a global organization like the LOS and it's resources and knowledge.

This!

 

[Ryan]

The Joker for every single category. His motivation, characterization, and impact were all better than Bane's.

As for skill, Joker climbed up from being a common bank robber to the top man in Gotham's underworld, he destroyed Harvey Dent, he killed Rachel, turned Gotham into chaos, and he turned all of Gotham against Batman. He did all of that without inheriting a global organization like the LOS and it's resources and knowledge.

Agreed. Joker left Batman in a situation that actually made him go underground and give up the cape and cowl. Bane actually made Batman comeback, win and become a martyr in the end.

 

[Ant-LOX]

Categories:

Motivation - Bane

It seems a bit long winded, but Bane does come a long way to fulfill Ra's destiny, he takes the most populated city in the world on a whirlwind ride for a few months. The Joker played mind games for sure, and broke down Batman, but shutting down Gotham, which means shutting down the stock exchange, and a host of other unseen financial/fiscal/global/humanitarian problems pushes Bane to the top of the list.

Characterization - Bane

The Joker relies on his own storytelling. His back story is never seen, it's created on the spot with tall tales that blend into each other. Bane's story is tied and tangled into the LoS, and hits harder on Bruce Wayne, because it takes away his only super power= money.

Impact - Bane

The Joker makes an emotional, physical and mental impact on Gotham that crippled a few hundred to a thousand citizens, cops, prisoners, bookies, scum, low lives for nearly a decade. Bane, Daggett and the LoS tear apart Gotham, again, in so many ways that it would take a book to note the trickle down effect of terror and horror that Gothamites went through during the siege. The stock exchange is shut down. Trading is shut down. Imports and Exports are halted. Gotham is NY, so News most news broadcasts, sporting events (shown), humanitarian causes, cops are under tunnels, dogs, cats, kids, elderly, hospitals, so much terror hanging over the city, and the only aid is shipped in through 1 bridge. It's why this is my favorite movie of all time.

In BB, Gordan fears escalation, THIS is what he feared the most, and we got to see it first hand.

Skills/Talents - The Joker

The Joker's skill set is pitting Bruce against himself, and making him look at how silly his world is. His unseen army of disposable talent keeps him focused on the bigger tasks. His mental games and ability to tap into the media to get his point across are legendary, until Bane came along. The Joker's skill set is not caring. He can die any moment, and he does not care. Bane is a big cry baby that got tossed by Ra's and needed his approval. He's brute, physical and talented as a speaker, much more than The Joker, but the fact that he keeps his pain at bay is a big weakness, and we got to see how weak he was in the end.

Bane was the face and voice of the Siege of Gotham, but doesn't get much credit for the plan. In the end, his right hand man seems to have more control over the flow of details that keep the group moving. Talia, Daggett and a handful of other sneaky men in suits move the plan along, while Bane serves as the logo.



-

I give the Egde to Bane in the end, as he does succeed on a larger scale, and actually took down Batman, in a way that Joker never could.

 

[BlueLightning]

If this was such an inevitable and obvious choice, everyone would have predicted the ending of TDK, yet no one did. The ending is so moving because it makes sense, but you never really see it coming.

I think maybe they could have shifted the blame to someone else, if they weren't Gordon and Batman. But because Batman is Batman and no one else, he did what he did, if that make sense.

 

[Aesculapius]

Motivation & Characterization - Joker. Bunching these two together because they intertwine. Bane's motivation was stated. He was a false revolutionary and Talia's general. There was no proper build up of these characteristics of Bane. He was just kind of a 2d villian. Joker had depth. He stood for the idea that life is a joke. This was not only told to us but shown brilliantly. When Batman triumphed over him, he didn't just beat him but his ideology. My biggest gripe about TDKR is that when Bane was defeated, it was good for a 'hell yeah' moment for Catwoman, and little else. There was no deeper meaning to it. Really, neither villain had a lot of substance. The romance in this movie had more depth than the action, which I found to be a huge hindrance.

Impact: On the audience: Joker. On Gotham: Bane. On Batman's mind: Joker. On Batman's health: Bane.

Skills/Talents: Comparing Apples and Oranges.

Overall, I just wish Bane were better presented. Watching that movie it felt like a chunk of exposition had to have been left out, because when Bane showed up it just felt like Batman was freaking out over an unknown in hockey pads, or he psychically already knew what a threat Bane was. I don't mean to rip on the character. While he was leaps and bounds better than Shumacher's Bane, his presentation in TDKR was a letdown compared to the Villains from the other two movies. Even Scarecrow had more depth if you think about it. That movie needed more exposition, and Bane should have been shown to present more of an ideological challenge to Batman than he did, when he only really presented a physical challenge...

Joker is great, but Bane could have been and should have been even better... and he fell short of that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

He took Bane for granted by going after him straight forward in the sewers. What led you to believe Batman was freaking out?

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Motivation & Characterization - Joker. Bunching these two together because they intertwine. Bane's motivation was stated. He was a false revolutionary and Talia's general. There was no proper build up of these characteristics of Bane. He was just kind of a 2d villian. Joker had depth. He stood for the idea that life is a joke. This was not only told to us but shown brilliantly. When Batman triumphed over him, he didn't just beat him but his ideology. My biggest gripe about TDKR is that when Bane was defeated, it was good for a 'hell yeah' moment for Catwoman, and little else. There was no deeper meaning to it. Really, neither villain had a lot of substance. The romance in this movie had more depth than the action, which I found to be a huge hindrance.

Impact: On the audience: Joker. On Gotham: Bane. On Batman's mind: Joker. On Batman's health: Bane.

Skills/Talents: Comparing Apples and Oranges.

Overall, I just wish Bane were better presented. Watching that movie it felt like a chunk of exposition had to have been left out, because when Bane showed up it just felt like Batman was freaking out over an unknown in hockey pads, or he psychically already knew what a threat Bane was. I don't mean to rip on the character. While he was leaps and bounds better than Shumacher's Bane, his presentation in TDKR was a letdown compared to the Villains from the other two movies. Even Scarecrow had more depth if you think about it. That movie needed more exposition, and Bane should have been shown to present more of an ideological challenge to Batman than he did, when he only really presented a physical challenge...

Joker is great, but Bane could have been and should have been even better... and he fell short of that.

I agree with the part where you said Bane was 2D. I said in an earlier posts how Bane isn't a fully fleshed character. All of his beliefs and philosophy seem to be an extension of either Talia or Ra's, which is why he is just not that great of a villain. While I would not call him a lapdog, I think at best he is a glorified henchman. Some motive independent of any other character would have done wonders for Bane.

 

[Fudgie]

Bane was 2D. Him being chained to Talia and the LOS ruined him for moi.

 

[BatLobster]

I was at the "A Conversation with Christopher Nolan" event last night, and we all got these little pamphlets that featured an interview with reviewer Scott Foundas and Nolan. Here's a quick excerpt relevant to the topic at hand:

Can you talk about the conception of each film's villain- none of them are boilerplate figures bent on world domination.

With my co-writers David Goyer and my brother, we decided earlier on that the greatest villains in movies, the people who most get under our skin, are the people who speak the truth, So with Ra's Al Ghul, we wanted everything he said to be true in some way. So, he's looking at the world from a very honest perspective that he truly believes. And we applied the same thing to The Joker and Bane in the third one. Everything they say is sincere. I think truly threatening villains are the ones who have a coherent ideology behind what they're saying. The challenge in applying that to The Joker was to have part of the ideology be anarchic and a lack of ideology in a sense. But it's a very specific, laid-out lack of ideology, so it becomes, paradoxically, an ideology in itself.

And then in The Dark Knight Rises you have followers of Ra's Al Ghul trying to enact his plans by masking it as class warfare.

Class Warfare but also in a militaristic, dictatorial approach. If you look at the three of them, Ra's Al Ghul is almost a religious figure, The Joker is the anti-religious figure, the anti-structure anarchist. And then Bane comes in as a military dictator. And military dictators can be ideologically based, they can be religiously based, or a combination thereof.

Edit: Transcribed that for no reason lol. Here's a link to the full interview.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Bane was a 2D character

Him being someone that actually cared and loved someone besides being this tyrant that wanted to destroy a city and its citizens....yah, sure sounds like 2D to me.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, it's interesting how different the reactions to a single plot element can be. I found Bane to be 2D (but thoroughly entertaining and badass) up until the moment we learn about his and Talia's past, which gave him some depth to me and made him a more interesting figure in the mythology of the whole trilogy. He was a very human monster in the end, who started off with a simple urge to protect the innocent.

 

[BlueLightning]

Two things;

1. Nobody convinced Batman of anything. So this point is irrelevant
2. Gordon being on board with the decision or not has nothing to do with how Batman viewed the situation. He saw it as having no choice because in his mind The Joker CANNOT win. So that leaves no choice.

You keep saying he had a choice. Yes, he could have just let Joker win. But for Batman that wasn't an option. Hence why Joker literally did force Batman into taking the fall for Dent.

I guess it is a different point of view. If Batman were someone else, maybe they would have done things different, maybe they would sink even lower, or something worse. We view it as a no choice because we know that Batman would do the heroic thing and take the fall, in his mind is the right thing to do, but saying that the Joker forced him into it is taking a leap. The Joker only knew he had corrupted Harvey, but saying that he counted on Batman stopping him on time to hide the truth is a taking things a little beyond.

 

[The Joker]

I guess it is a different point of view. If Batman were someone else, maybe they would have done things different, maybe they would sink even lower, or something worse. We view it as a no choice because we know that Batman would do the heroic thing and take the fall, in his mind is the right thing to do, but saying that the Joker forced him into it is taking a leap. The Joker only knew he had corrupted Harvey, but saying that he counted on Batman stopping him on time to hide the truth is a taking things a little beyond.

Good thing nobody is saying that then!

 

[Aesculapius]

Bane did have a compelling enough backstory at the end, but that didn't make him have depth in the way other villains in the series did. With the Joker they were able to give depth to the conflict between him and Batman without you knowing a damn thing about what he was like before the events of the movie, and it worked really well.

Really he was an anti-batman when you stop to think about it. He is basically what Bruce would have been if he executed that one random criminal at the beginning of Batman Begins. The problem with that is you actually have to stop to think about it. It wasn't a feeling conveyed in the action of the movie. There are no real brash contrasts of character like what you saw between Batman and Joker, or even him and his teacher Ra's Al Ghoul. While we know the contrasts are there from dialogue, they needed to be shown more.

He took Bane for granted by going after him straight forward in the sewers. What led you to believe Batman was freaking out?

No, he just underestimated Bane's fighting ability going into the sewers. Before that he was already calling Bane 'evil' without knowing anything about him and then he went on an uncharacteristic rampage in the Batmotank that Alfred made it a point to scold him about. The whole scene felt so cheesy, and while they tried to lampshade it, it didn't really work for me at all. It was a leap in logic that should have been better addressed in the exposition.

 

[AnneFan]

He took Bane for granted by going after him straight forward in the sewers. What led you to believe Batman was freaking out?

Indeed. Bruce just thought he would have to fight harder for longer, because it worked in the past. But the past was well and truly the past by the time he put the suit on again.