lililatigresse
Sidekick
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,018
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
If Bane is in the movie, it's so Tom Hardy.
Javier Bardem is the best choice tbqh.
Can you enter ONE casting thread without blatantly trolling the character for not being Talia?![]()


Whether it's as one of hugo strange's monster men, a mercenary hired by someone in gotham, or as a member of the league of shadows, there are a myriad of ways bane could fit into this movie, and he would be refreshing compared to the type of villains nolan has used already.
Danny Trejo
I can't see Nolan being the least bit interested in Bane.

For the very reasons you give here:Really? Now why is that?
It sounds a lot like a movie that's all about being just as intense as TDK if not more so. Based on what he's said so far, I think Nolan is going to want to tone things down a bit and bring the focus back onto Batman. When TDK came out, we found out that at least some of those criminals who escaped in the first movie ended up working for the Joker. What will become of them in this film? Nolan won't be able to just leave them out there to be dealt with in the next film like he did with Begins. Batman would have to have them all dealt with (or at least, the majority) by the end of the movie, in addition to taking Bane on. That doesn't leave much time for anything else.In Knightfall Bane was one of the only villains who managed to defeat Batman to the primal state of Bruce Wayne unable of being Batman anymore. He is a true mastermind who can meet his match physically and intellectually, and has the same amount of intergrity of actually getting to him; for that short time a decent comparrison can be made of having enough blood in for Batman as much as Green Goblin does for Spiderman.
... I think a severe steroid like-addicted monster who's good at defacing the Batman along with distroying the city by breaking loose every cook in Arkham into Gotham again is a serious contender for a main villain.
This quote is why I don't think a lot of these ideas being tossed around for Bane would work well within the context of the film. They're very busy and Bane-centric, with little room for other villains and storylines. I can't see Nolan devoting that much time to one villain. If he were going to do so, he'd probably have done it with the Joker.Chris Nolan said:Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story.
One does not need B&R as an excuse to find Bane underwhelming, or to think that he might not be a right fit in a movie that's meant to wrap things up. B&R trampled Ivy, Robin, Freeze, and Batgirl also, but I still wouldn't mind seeing a serious depiction of any of those characters in a future batfilm.Bane has been slandered over the years and has been treated as a second rate villain ever since the release of Batman & Robin.
Agreed, but all of this makes him just as fitting for Hugo Strange, who, IMO, has quite a bit more depth to his motivation to take on Batman than Bane does.And for what it's worth, Tom Hardy is a gifted actor who could pull that sort of role off very well; not just in getting in shape for the role, but has the right look, mindset, and feel of the character. There's something with his diversity in voices too that I know he can come up with and make an intimidating sounding Bane as well.![]()
And Hardy as Bane would be ridiculous.
A really big actor would be better.
Sorry but I can´t see him as Bane.
Much less as Strange,as the friend said above.

You guys do know that what Jett implied was Bane AND Hugo Strange, right?

Thank you for going into some detail instead of just going 'This is stupid'.
However, the only reasoning you provided is 'a really big actor would be better'. Hardy can get big. Unless you mean a 9 foot tall guy.