The Dark Knight Rises Best versions of Bane!

[ganon51]

I dont believe that for one second. I never will. He was telling Batman his backstory. Talia and Bane were both born in the prison, Talia escaped by herself (but with help from bane) while he didnt escape on his own (Talia helped him by getting Ras to pull him out).

He didnt see the light until he was a man. He was born there, just like he was in the comics. Probably the same way, because of his father's crimes. Ill always believe that.

Wasn't that also Talia's origin here?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Man, who cares? Bane says he was born in darkness. That could be a metaphor for a million possible things. It's up to you, subjectively, to decide.

And why are painkillers being discussed? The mask keeps the pain at bay for Bane. That's all we need to know, let's move on.

Who is your favorite Bane and why?

 

[The Joker]

Wasn't that also Talia's origin here?

Yes. Talia's mom took Ra's place in the pit instead so he could be set free. She was born in the pit. She escaped from the pit.

Talia had more of comic book Bane's origin than Bane in the movie actually did.

 

[ganon51]

Yes. Talia's mom took Ra's place in the pit instead so he could be set free. She was born in the pit. She escaped from the pit.

Talia had more of comic book Bane's origin than Bane in the movie actually did.

Ah there we go. The puny-Bane sure has a lot more fans than I thought he did lol

Man, who cares? Bane says he was born in darkness. That could be a metaphor for a million possible things. It's up to you, subjectively, to decide.

And why are painkillers being discussed? The mask keeps the pain at bay for Bane. That's all we need to know, let's move on.

Who is your favorite Bane and why?

My favourite Bane is the AO version. Obviously inspired by the Nolan version to an extent but still as close to the comic book version as he gets (until the ending of course)

 

[DACrowe]

No, it's not common sense. If you are on pain killers, especially a specific kind for a specific pain, and you get punched or stabbed or burned or what ever, you would feel the pain. It wouldn't make your whole body immune or numb to it. It's called pain relief, not pain immunity. That's why the guy in the pit says the mask is for the pain in his face. It keeps that at bay. That's what the gas or what ever it is he inhales is for. It's not for his whole body.

If Bane was numb or immune to pain entirely do you really think Nolan would omit mentioning that major detail? Of course not. That's why you've got no proof from the movie that it does. Because it's not true. If you ever do get proof of it, then you can claim it. Until then you've got nothing. That's where you always fall short in these debates, DaCrowe. You get asked to cough up proof to back what you're saying and you never can.

No, I cough up proof usually and then you cover your ears and go "lalalalalala, not listening." Example, AO being influenced by Rises (and not just Bane), the fact that fanboys did in fact complain about Joker's ending (and GA too, as several of my friends who don't read comics had that point). I prove you wrong, and then you change the rules by saying, "It has to be a majority." No, it just has to be a vocal minority. Kind of like how only roughly 1/3 of the votes cast here in this very thread are from a negative perspective on Bane, yet you post inaccurately time and again that the fan base is cut in half, when the majority of fans have moved on because of haters terrorizing these threads.

And to turn your logic around for a second: where in TDKR did they say it was a specific kind of painkiller, for a specific kind of pain? They just said it was painkillers that kept the pain at bay. And general painkillers do effect the chemicals in your nervous system, i.e. they effect all pain, not just one spot. Unless, they say otherwise, or that his mask are injections, which as you like to point out Nolan would be specific about, then they are meant to be taken in the general sense as painkillers, which historically in those who are addicted to the chemical can develop a warped ability to feel pain.

Now did I say he was immune? No. I said that it numbed him to pain, but even said that does not mean he feels nothing. But this what we call changing the goal posts in the argument. It is why you always fall short in these debates, Joker. Now comes the part where you ignore everything that I stated or change your line in the sand once again.

 

[The Joker]

No, I cough up proof usually and then you cover your ears and go "lalalalalala, not listening."

In other words never. Yeah I got that.

Example, AO being influenced by Rises (and not just Bane)

Oh you mean that argument that milost completely destroyed?

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27932429&postcount=335

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27935341&postcount=352

Yeah that was a good one.

the fact that fanboys did in fact complain about Joker's ending (and GA too, as several of my friends who don't read comics had that point). I prove you wrong, and then you change the rules by saying, "It has to be a majority." No, it just has to be a vocal minority. Kind of like how only roughly 1/3 of the votes cast here in this very thread are from a negative perspective on Bane, yet you post inaccurately time and again that the fan base is cut in half, when the majority of fans have moved on because of haters terrorizing these threads.

Oh really? Lets all have a look at DaCrowe's words:

Joker was better, but if we wind the clocks back to 2008, I cannot tell you how many people complained that Joker was not the final fight of TDK. I talked to so, so many people who were frustrated that it did not end in a big climax between Batman and Joker, but instead in a moment of complete defeat with Two-Face and Gordon.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27951455&postcount=206

And when asked to show one shred of proof of this "so so many people" guess what he produced? One single person saying it vs a whole thread of people disagreeing with them.

Yeah you sure are good at proving yourself, DaCrowe. Good at proving your claims are based on extreme exaggeration and hyperbole.

And to turn your logic around for a second: where in TDKR did they say it was a specific kind of painkiller, for a specific kind of pain. They just said it was painkillers that kept the pain at bay. And general painkillers do effect the sensory chemicals in your nervous system, i.e. they effect all pain, not just one spot. Unless, they say otherwise, or that his mask are injections, which as you like to point out Nolan would be specific about, then they are meant to be taken in the general sense of painkillers, which historically in those who are addicted to the chemical can develop a warped ability to feel pain.

I never said that they said specific pain killers did I? I said they specified that it's used to keep the pain in his face at bay. That's all. Implying it's a pain killer specifically for the pain in his face. They don't mention any other effects of it.

Nolan, the master of exposition and spoon feeding details, would have said if he had made his villain numb or immune to pain as you keep falsely suggesting.

Now did I say he was immune? No. I said that it numbed him to pain, but even said that does not mean he feels nothing.

Being numb to pain is as good as being immune to it. It's like when you go to the dentist. You get your mouth numb for the drill so it doesn't hurt.

But this what we call changing the goal posts in the argument?

No, it's called you being proven wrong. Again. I can only call your posts for what they are. It's not my fault that you can't back your own claims.

It is why you always fall short in these debates, Joker. Now comes the part where you ignore everything that I stated or change your line in the sand once again.

Yeah, of course it is, DaCrowe. I'm sure in 5 years from now you'll exaggerate this to the hilt, too, and say to someone else here that many many people were saying this to you about Bane's pain threshold back in the day, and you'll only only be able to find my posts.

 

[DACrowe]

In other words never. Yeah I got that.



Oh you mean that argument that milost completely destroyed?

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27932429&postcount=335

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27935341&postcount=352

Yeah that was a good one.

You mean the one where milost completely ignored the obvious, just like yourself? Pretending that Bane's costume was not modeled on a pro-wrestler's but was always "militaristic?" That Bane, with a v-neck to his navel in shiny spandex black, was wearing "a vest?" BTW where is that picture of Bane in a brown jacket from the comics you said you could produce?

Oh really? Lets all have a look at DaCrowe's words:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27951455&postcount=206

And when asked to show one shred of proof of this "so so many people" guess what he produced? One single person saying it vs a whole thread of people disagreeing with them.

Yeah you sure are good at proving yourself, DaCrowe. Good at proving your claims are based on extreme exaggeration and hyperbole.

If you want to go thread diving for posts made six years ago, knock yourself out. I am not going to waste hours of consistently proving you are putting your foot in your mouth for you only to flippantly dismiss anything that does not align with your preconceived notions stemming from your disdain for this movie.

I never said that they said specific pain killers did I?

Ahem, let's see what The Joker actually said:

No, it's not common sense. If you are on pain killers, especially a specific kind for a specific pain

You were saying? Oh, I am sure that I just willed those words you wrote into being with my hyperbolic arguments that always come short.

I said they specified that it's used to keep the pain in his face at bay. That's all. Implying it's a pain killer specifically for the pain in his face. They don't mention any other effects of it.

Implied? Implied? As you said, Nolan spells everything out. If it was something so specific you would think the "king of spoon feeding the audience" (do you want me to pull up that quote too?) would have spelled that out.

He didn't. Ergo, the only thing we can assume is that it is a general type of painkiller. And painkillers generally numb pain synapses in your brain, and do not just target the one that says "facial scars here."

Nolan, the master of exposition and spoon feeding details, would have said if he had made his villain numb or immune to pain as you keep falsely suggesting.

He is, so why did he not specify it was a special kind of painkiller only for his face? He did not. Read above.

Being numb to pain is as good as being immune to it. It's like when you go to the dentist. You get your mouth numb for the drill so it doesn't hurt.

I am not sure being stabbed or kicked in the stomach is equivalent.

No, it's called you being proven wrong. Again. I can only call your posts for what they are. It's not my fault that you can't back your own claims.

Said pot to kettle.

 

[ganon51]

*sighs* and another world war begins

I can already sense this thread will get ugly.

You just had to jinx this thread, didn't you? lol

 

[The Joker]

You mean the one where milost completely ignored the obvious, just like yourself? Pretending that Bane's costume was not modeled on a pro-wrestler's but was always "militaristic?" That Bane, with a v-neck to his navel in shiny spandex black, was wearing "a vest?"

No, I mean the one where milost completely proved you wrong, and successfully refuted all of that, which is why you never even attempted to tackle his posts over it because you couldn't.

BTW where is that picture of Bane in a brown jacket from the comics you said you could produce?

If you want to go thread diving for posts made six years ago, knock yourself out. I am not going to waste hours of consistently proving you are putting your foot in your mouth for you only to flippantly dismiss anything that does not align with your preconceived notions stemming from your disdain for this movie.

Ah the traditional blow off. "I'm not going to waste time going through threads from 6 years ago". You already did, DaCrowe. I know you did. You had to in order to find that thread you dug up from 2008. You went searching and the only thing you could find was that one pathetic thread with one person saying it.

Ahem, let's see what The Joker actually said:

Yes lets....

You were saying? Oh, I am sure that I just willed those words you wrote into being with my hyperbolic arguments that always come short.

What words? Where in that statement did I say the movie said it?

Implied? Implied? As you said, Nolan spells everything out. If it was something so specific you would think the "king of spoon feeding the audience" (do you want me to pull up that quote too?) would have spelled that out.

No it wouldn't, because he already did that when he said the mask keeps the pain from his facial injuries at bay. Not pain in general.

He didn't. Ergo, the only thing we can assume is that it is a general type of painkiller. And painkillers generally numb pain synapses in your brain, and do not just target the one that says "facial scars here."

Again if his mask's painkillers numbed all his pain it would be specified beyond just saying that it's for keeping his pain in his face at bay.

2+2=4

He is, so why did he not specify it was a special kind of painkiller only for his face? He did not. Read above.

He is not. All he said was the mask keeps the facial pain at bay. That's it. Everything else you're saying is unfounded conjecture.

I am not sure being stabbed or kicked in the stomach is equivalent.

The equivalent to what? It was an analogy. Being numb to pain is the same as being immune to it. It doesn't hurt so it's not painful is it.

Said pot to kettle.

Please DaCrowe don't dish out something that you know is not true. You are arguing something you can't prove. You have a history of arguing things you cannot prove (which I have shown).

So have some dignity and don't try and accuse me of something you are.

 

[BatLobster]

Haha, you were warned ganon (not that I blame you). Shika was just pointing out the obvious.

Also, I have somewhat of a pet peeve with the whole "Nolan is the master of exposition" thing. Yes, he's used it a lot in his films, but I'm not a fan of this notion that he never leaves room for inferences in his films. He leaves plenty unsaid for the audience to put together too, especially in TDKR.

And what would happen if say, Interstellar and more future movies he makes rely less on blatant exposition? Would that then make us retroactively allowed to make inferences where we feel appropriate in TDKR?

It's just not a strong argument to rely on.

Also, this whole Bane painkiller thing seems rather pointless. I don't think it matters too much either way. But I think it's being extremely rigid and closeminded to not at least acknowledge the possibility that it might have affected his whole body. "The mask keeps the pain at bay". Yes, of course that's the purpose of it. That says nothing of what the other side effects of taking a steady flow of painkillers may be, which basic knowledge of how painkillers work leads one to infer that it's not localized.

 

[DACrowe]

*sighs* and another world war begins



You just had to jinx this thread, didn't you? lol

Do not worry. Joker and I have been doing this for years, back when Spider-Man 2 was just on DVD, as I recall. Spirited debate and neither of us have threatened one another yet.

Of course, this could change things. Forever....

 

[ganon51]

Haha, you were warned ganon (not that I blame you). Shika was just pointing out the obvious.

Also, I have somewhat of a pet peeve with the whole "Nolan is the master of exposition" thing. Yes, he's used it a lot in his films, but I'm not a fan of this notion that he never leaves room for inferences in his films. He leaves plenty unsaid for the audience to put together too, especially in TDKR.

And what would happen if say, Interstellar and more future movies he makes rely less on exposition? Would that then make us retroactively allowed to make inferences where we feel appropriate in TDKR?

It's just not a strong argument to rely on.

Also, this whole Bane painkiller thing seems rather pointless. I don't think it matters too much either way. But I think it's being extremely rigid and closeminded to not at least acknowledge the possibility that is affected his whole body. "The mask keeps the pain at bay". Yes, of course that's the purpose of it. That says nothing of what the other side effects of taking a steady flow of painkillers may be, which basic knowledge of how painkillers work leads one to infer that it's not localized.

Personally I just didn't like TDKR all that much. I liked Hathaway (even though I like Pfeiffer more) but I hated their Bane, Batman being a moron with that smoker-voice as to just go ill-prepared and take on a more powerful opponent head on like Bane. The amount of unanswered questions and Talia. Talia was probably my biggest complaint about the film.

 

[BatLobster]

Personally I just didn't like TDKR all that much. I liked Hathaway (even though I like Pfeiffer more) but I hated their Bane, Batman being a moron with that smoker-voice as to just go ill-prepared and take on a more powerful opponent head on like Bane. The amount of unanswered questions and Talia. Talia was probably my biggest complaint about the film.

I don't see what that has to do with anything I just said, but okay.

 

[DACrowe]

No, I mean the one where milost completely proved you wrong, and successfully refuted all of that, which is why you never even attempted to tackle his posts over it because you couldn't.

I am tired of this circular argument, because we never tend to reach a point. Suffice to say, I did with milost what I am doing now: you can have the last word.

It's not throwing in the towel to anything but sanity. Milost's entire argument came down to a picture of Bane in Batman & Robin. Read my previous post about what I thought of that argument. But if I had made that point, he would have put in a humorous gif, because he doesn't respond well to logic, and then you would high five him. But no, milost did not prove me wrong--just because Schumaucher also chose not to give Bane spandex, does not mean he didn't have it in the comics, nor does it refute that the black v-net of the comics, which has been his costume for decades on the page, was replaced overnight with militaristic vests and pants...but

This is why I stop here. You clearly think I am lying, and i clearly think you are in deep, deep denial. It will go on forever, and at the end of the day, you just ignore everything I type anyway.

 

[Shikamaru]

I also really disagree with the notion that Nolan is the "master of exposition". I never got that from any of his films and I don't believe it's true.

If he spoon-fed everything to the audience in BB/TDK, more people would realize how much TDKR contradicted and ignored the previous films. If he spoon-fed everything to the audience in TDKR, the film would actually make sense (no offense to those who like it).

If anything, all these debates are the most solid evidence there is that Nolan doesn't spoonfeed everything.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. I know I said that I would not respond to anything in your post, but I just have to add, that that coat does not look like the one in Arkham Origins. The one in Rises does.

Dammit.

I promise, you can have the last word to this, but I just had to say this.

 

[The Joker]

I am tired of this circular argument, because we never tend to reach a point. Suffice to say, I did with milost what I am doing now: you can have the last word.

Suit yourself.

It's not throwing in the towel to anything but sanity. Milost's entire argument came down to a picture of Bane in Batman & Robin. Read my previous post about what I thought of that argument. But if I had made that point, he would have put in a humorous gif, because he doesn't respond well to logic, and then you would high five him.

Show me one post where milost used a funny gif to prove his point in a debate. The only time he uses them is to add humor to a discussion, never as a sole answer to a discussion. He's way too good for that.

But no, milost did not prove me wrong--just because Schumaucher also chose not to give Bane spandex, does not mean he didn't have it in the comics, nor does it refute that the black v-net of the comics, which has been his costume for decades on the page, was replaced overnight with militaristic vests and pants...but

milost said "In those comics, Batman isn't wearing "spandex". There are numerous explanations of what goes on behind that standard, leotard. Kevlar, fire resistant fabric, plating, etc. Essentially what ever the story calls for. In some comics, Superman isn't wearing "spandex" or a strongman duds. It's the material from his home planet, Krypton.

That simplified look makes them easier to draw and more identifiable. They're not REALISTIC, 3D characters made by a video game company using a highly detailed engine. Unless you're Rob Liefeld (who was obsessed with frivolous "tactical" straps and ammo belts) in the comic field, you STRIP down your character. Even now, Batman's "armor" or Superman's "armor" is represented with simple lines. LINES.

Bane? Bane in that story is not a freaking wrestler just like Batman isn't a ballerina wearing ridiculous underwear outside his pants. They're anatomically perfect, idealized, 2D characters on a page. That look with the mask, the simple vest, the boots, is Bane's character model. Inspired by those wrestlers, perhaps but in the comic world, he's the Arkham Origins one, sans jacket."

P.S. I know I said that I would not respond to anything in your post, but I just have to add, that that coat does not look like the one in Arkham Origins. The one in Rises does.

Le sigh.

You asked: "BTW where is that picture of Bane in a brown jacket from the comics you said you could produce?"

What did you get? A picture of Bane wearing a brown jacket from the comics.

 

[The Joker]

I also really disagree with the notion that Nolan is the "master of exposition". I never got that from any of his films and I don't believe it's true.

If he spoon-fed everything to the audience in BB/TDK, more people would realize how much TDKR contradicted and ignored the previous films. If he spoon-fed everything to the audience in TDKR, the film would actually make sense (no offense to those who like it).

That's different, Shika. That's just people who either miss the obvious, or refuse to believe that he contradicted them, even though you can quote Bruce saying many times that he wanted to inspire people with Batman, not find a new guy to wear the Batman mantle. That was never the goal. Passing Batman onto a successor after he was done.

We know that. It's obvious. It should be obvious to everyone because the dialogue spells it out in BB and TDK. Nolan still made it clear as crystal. Not only Batman saying it, but other characters, too, like Brian Douglas and the copycats. "He's a symbol that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you".

 

[DACrowe]

Alright, despite my disagreeing with much of what you just wrote, I am ready to give you the old Hype smiley. Another day, Joker.

Another day.

 

[ganon51]

Alright, despite my disagreeing with much of what you just wrote, I am ready to give you the old Hype smiley. Another day, Joker.

Another day.

"Yes. Another time."

 

[Shikamaru]

That's different, Shika. That's just people who either miss the obvious, or refuse to believe that he contradicted them, even though you can quote Bruce saying many times that he wanted to inspire people with Batman, not find a new guy to wear the Batman mantle. That was never the goal. Passing Batman onto a successor after he was done.

We know that. It's obvious. It should be obvious to everyone because the dialogue spells it out in BB and TDK. But Nolan still made it clear as crystal in BB and TDK. Not only Batman saying it, but other characters, too, like Brian Douglas and the copycats. "He's a symbol that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you".

Still not everything is explained though. I'll list a few examples off the top of my head.

I lost count of the number of times people asked me back in 2012 "If Batman's character arc is learning he can't quit being Batman, why doesn't he say "I realize I must be Batman forever" at the end?" Then again, did he really need to say that? Is it not obvious based on everything the film presented? Even if he did straight-up state that, it would have only caused more complaints from people that Nolan explains every character arc.

Then there are things like Joker's complex psychology. The film makes it clear that he constantly reinvents his past - that he always remembers it "in multiple choice". The film has him state different stories twice (almost a third time), and then allows the audience to come to the conclusion that he is a "new class of insanity" by themselves (mixed in with everything else they've seen of Joker's complex insanity throughout the film). It's not like you get a scene where a psychiatrist diagnoses him and gives an explanation why he always remembers his past differently.

Then there is Bruce's paranoia. When Bruce builds that sonar device, most of the dialogue between him and Fox is filtered through social commentary. While all of that is present, it is also an essential point in Bruce's character arc, but you don't hear Lucius saying something among the lines of "Your grief for Rachel has only increased your paranoia and motivation". Nor do you get a conversation between Alfred and Fox over how Rachel's death is "changing him".

Then there is TDKR. Regardless of whether one loves or hates the film, this is the one Nolan film I really don't understand how anyone can say it explains everything. You and I already talked in great lengths over the plot holes it has. Just off the top of my head, here are all the things that needed to be explained better and made more clear: Bane's motivation, Bane's philosophy, Talia's motivation, Talia's philosophy, the 99% vs. 1% that is dropped after the first act, the circumstances of Bruce quitting (both post-TDK and at the end of TDKR), why Bane's men are so loyal to him and what they believe in, the Dent Act, how Bruce gets back to Gotham, what was going on during "No Man's Land", etc.

Plus, is the detailed dialogue really that unrealistic? Most of the character criticized for having "speeches" are characters with supposed high intellect - lawyers, district attorneys, detectives, criminal/tactical masterminds, etc. If it came more from average Joe's, I would see it as more of a problem.

 

[The Joker]

Still not everything is explained though. I'll list a few examples off the top of my head.

I lost count of the number of times people asked me back in 2012 "If Batman's character arc is learning he can't quit being Batman, why doesn't he say "I realize I must be Batman forever" at the end?" Then again, did he really need to say that? Is it not obvious based on everything the film presented? Even if he did straight-up state that, it would have only caused more complaints from people that Nolan explains every character arc.

Wait people asked you why didn't Batman say he must be Batman forever even though he quit in TDKR?

Am I mis-reading that because if not then those people are very foolish for asking such a question. Why would he say that when he was quitting?

Then there are things like Joker's complex psychology. The film makes it clear that he constantly reinvents his past - that he always remembers it
"in multiple choice". The film has him state different stories twice (almost a third time), and then allows the audience to come to the conclusion that he is a "new class of insanity" by themselves (mixed in with everything else they've seen of Joker's complex insanity throughout the film). It's not like you get a scene where a psychiatrist diagnoses him and gives an explanation why he always remembers his past differently.

Yeah that's true, but then you get the scene where they spell out that they have no definitive identity for him via DNA, fingerprints, dental work etc. So it's pretty much spelled out they don't want anything set in stone about Joker and who he really is under that make up and how he came to be. He's supposed to stay a mystery.

Then there is Bruce's paranoia. When Bruce builds that sonar device, most of the dialogue between him and Fox is filtered through social commentary. While all of that is present, it is also an essential point in Bruce's character arc, but you don't hear Lucius saying something among the lines of "Your grief for Rachel has only increased your paranoia and motivation". Nor do you get a conversation between Alfred and Fox over how Rachel's death is "changing him".

I don't get this one. How did Rachel's death change him with his crime fighting tactics? He still did what he was always doing; going after the bad guy. He just upped the ante in his methods. He couldn't find Joker with conventional methods (he had tried and failed), so he had to resort to more drastic ones. "I've got to find this man, Lucius".

That was a learning curve for Batman. Like how he was the only one who saw through the Prewitt building set up as not being what it seemed. "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is".

You could definitely say he learned that from being tricked by Joker in the whole deliberately getting arrested/lying about Rachel's and Harvey's address scenario.

Then there is TDKR. Regardless of whether one loves or hates the film, this is the one Nolan film I really don't understand how anyone can say it explains everything. You and I already talked in great lengths over the plot holes it has. Just off the top of my head, here are all the things that needed to be explained better and made more clear: Bane's motivation, Bane's philosophy, Talia's motivation, Talia's philosophy, the 99% vs. 1% that is dropped after the first act, the circumstances of Bruce quitting (both post-TDK and at the end of TDKR), why Bane's men are so loyal to him and what they believe in, the Dent Act, how Bruce gets back to Gotham, what was going on during "No Man's Land", etc.

Yes, that's all true. But it's not really a case of no explanation, it's just that we got bad explanations. We're told Talia is doing what she does to honor her father, and Bane's doing it because he loves her. We don't buy it because it sounds so flimsy and weak, but that's Nolan's explanation/reason for them.

As for things like the Dent Act, or why Bane's men are so loyal to him, is that a necessity for the story to have those explained? We know what the Dent Act did, and we know Bane's men are loyal to him. The ins and outs not being told doesn't hinder the understanding of the story or their purpose in it. It would be better for the story if Nolan did fill in those blanks of those things you mentioned to give the story more dimension and credibility. It's not like say Bane supposedly being immune or numb to pain, which is a big character trait which would affect the character in that nobody could hurt him and the audience would need to know that since he's a physical villain and it adds power to the character. That was my point when I said Nolan doesn't leave out the need to know details.

 

[Shikamaru]

Wait people asked you why didn't Batman say he must be Batman forever even though he quit in TDKR?

Am I mis-reading that because if not then those people are very foolish for asking such a question. Why would he say that when he was quitting?

They asked me that regarding TDK. Their argument was that my argument - the idea that Bruce being retired for 8 years at the start of TDKR contradicts TDK's ending - is invalid because Nolan would have made it explicitly clear if that was the case. Which, at least according to them, wasn't made explicitly clear at the end. A lot of them (though not all) sourced that dialogue as evidence of this, stating things among the lines of "If TDK's ending was about him learning he can't quit being Batman, why didn't he say "Now I learned I can't quit being Batman"?".

Yeah that's true, but then you get the scene where they spell out that they have no definitive identity for him via DNA, fingerprints, dental work etc. So it's pretty much spelled out they don't want anything set in stone about Joker and who he really is under that make up and how he came to be. He's supposed to stay a mystery.

I don't think that was spoon-feeding though, especially since it was extremely brief.

"What do we got?"
"Nothing. No name, no other alias. Clothing is custom. Nothing in his pockets but knives."

I think something at least that brief was a bit needed. There is a difference between mystery with depth and mystery with shallowness (as in, there is just nothing there in terms of film). Plus, I thought that line made sense in the context of the film.

I don't get this one. How did Rachel's death change him with his crime fighting tactics? He still did what he was always doing; going after the bad guy. He just upped the ante in his methods. He couldn't find Joker with conventional methods (he had tried and failed), so he had to resort to more drastic ones. "I've got to find this man, Lucius".

That was a learning curve for Batman. Like how he was the only one who saw through the Prewitt building set up as not being what it seemed. "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is".

You could definitely say he learned that from being tricked by Joker in the whole deliberately getting arrested/lying about Rachel's and Harvey's address scenario.

I don't mean that it changed his tactics or that he became a different person. I meant Rachel's death clearly had an impact in him wanting to catch the Joker at all costs. Despite that fact, Lucius never comes out and says that in that scene. You never hear anything among the lines of "Wow, Rachel's death pushed you this far." In fact, most of the dialogue in that scene is told through social commentary on the safety vs. security debate, despite it arguably putting a larger emphasis on Bruce's character arc than the social commentary itself.

Yes, that's all true. But it's not really a case of no explanation, it's just that we got bad explanations. We're told Talia is doing what she does to honor her father, and Bane's doing it because he loves her. We don't buy it because it sounds so flimsy and weak, but that's Nolan's explanation/reason for them.

I would argue they feel more like incomplete explanations. They definitely don't sound as explanations that are "as subtle as a sledgehammer" to me, which is what I heard people say of Nolan's exposition dialogues in the past.

Plus, Nolan telling the audience Talia wants to honor her and Bane doing it because he loves are, at least on paper and in a different context, necessary explanations IMO, even if they're just one line (much like Gordon's line about the Joker having no known traces).

As for things like the Dent Act, or why Bane's men are so loyal to him, is that a necessity for the story to have those explained? We know what the Dent Act did, and we know Bane's men are loyal to him. The ins and outs not being told doesn't hinder the understanding of the story or their purpose in it. It would be better for the story if Nolan did fill in those blanks of those things you mentioned to give the story more dimension and credibility. It's not like say Bane supposedly being immune or numb to pain, which is a big character trait which would affect the character in that nobody could hurt him and the audience would need to know that since he's a physical villain and it adds power to the character. That was my point when I said Nolan doesn't leave out the need to know details.

Fair point with the Dent Act. I think it belongs in the "bad explanation" category you brought up. However, I disagree on Bane's men. The movie constantly asks the audience to question why Bane's men are so loyal to him and then never answers that. It also never answers what they believe in. The film treats these things are really important.

 

[The Joker]

They asked me that regarding TDK. Their argument was that my argument - the idea that Bruce being retired for 8 years at the start of TDKR contradicts TDK's ending - is invalid because Nolan would have made it explicitly clear if that was the case. Which, at least according to them, wasn't made explicitly clear at the end. A lot of them (though not all) sourced that dialogue as evidence of this, stating things among the lines of "If TDK's ending was about him learning he can't quit being Batman, why didn't he say "Now I learned I can't quit being Batman"?".

Which proves our point. BB and TDK spelled out well Batman's intentions, TDKR took a big dump on them, that's why your friends were like hang on a tick that isn't what they said in the last movies. It's not a case of a lack of explanation it's just a case of contradictory messages in the third movie.

I don't think that was spoon-feeding though, especially since it was extremely brief.

"What do we got?"
"Nothing. No name, no other alias. Clothing is custom. Nothing in his pockets but knives."

Well specifically it was "Nothing. No matches on prints, DNA, dental. Clothing is custom. No labels. Nothing in his pockets but knives and lint. No name. No other alias"

Pretty much spelling out the Joker is a mystery from all angles.

I don't mean that it changed his tactics or that he became a different person. I meant Rachel's death clearly had an impact in him wanting to catch the Joker at all costs. Despite that fact, Lucius never comes out and says that in that scene. You never hear anything among the lines of "Wow, Rachel's death pushed you this far." In fact, most of the dialogue in that scene is told through social commentary on the safety vs. security debate, despite it arguably putting a larger emphasis on Bruce's character arc than the social commentary itself.

I don't agree, Shika. I don't think it had anything to do with Rachel's death. Heck Alfred had to tell him that Gotham still needs him when he was mourning Rachel's death and blaming himself for bringing it on her. A man out to get the Joker at all costs wouldn't have hesitated in putting the cowl back on to catch Joker. To me that just makes Batman look like a guy who is motivated by revenge.

I like that Nolan depicted it as Batman having learned from his previous experience with the Joker and trying to catch him. Joker is a trickster. Nothing is ever as it seems with him. Learned that the hard way. So he saw through the Prewitt building set up. He can't find Joker by trying to shake down criminals for info. He didn't act against Joker until Joker made his moves first. He protected Mr. Reese. Then he went about finding Joker himself after he made his city wide threat. National Guard was called in. Gotham was being evacuated. Desperate situation. I don't think Batman making the sonar device had anything to do with Rachel's death.

I think it was Batman upping his game because Joker upped his.

I would argue they feel more like incomplete explanations. They definitely don't sound as explanations that are "as subtle as a sledgehammer" to me, which is what I heard people say of Nolan's exposition dialogues in the past. Plus, Nolan telling the audience Talia wants to honor her and Bane doing it because he loves are, at least on paper and in a different context, necessary explanations IMO, even if they're just one line (much like Gordon's line about the Joker having no known traces).

They're explanations, just poor ones. "I could not forgive my father until you murdered him. I honor my father by finishing his work". Flimsy two dimensional explanations but an explanation nonetheless.

Unlike with the Joker, where they never had to tell the audience Joker's a blank slate when it came to his identity. They just chose to confirm that to us.

Fair point with the Dent Act. I think it belongs in the "bad explanation" category you brought up. However, I disagree on Bane's men. The movie constantly asks the audience to question why Bane's men are so loyal to him and then never answers that. It also never answers what they believe in. The film treats these things are really important.

The only time I recall them bringing up the question of why Bane's men are so loyal is when Daggett and Stryver are conversing about the men the Cops caught at the stock exchange, and Stryver says Bane assures them they would die before talking, and Daggett says "Where does he find these guys?".

 

[BatLobster]

I think the "have we started the fire?" line with the hopeful smile, says it all. They all believed in the justness of the cause. They were radical extremists, Bane was the new charismatic figurehead they rallied behind, and he commanded their respect and adoration by being on the front lines with them every step of the way (unlike Talia). He's a cult of personality. To me, that right there is an instance of where Nolan wants us to put 2 and 2 together. There are so many ways besides direct, explanatory dialogue to convey a sense of backstory in a film. There are instances of both approaches in these movies to be sure, but it doesn't mean that we should only rely on dialogue to glean information. That becomes a bit too rigid IMO and precludes the fact that these are thematically rich films ripe for interpretation on various levels.

As for the TDK thing, I have to say that I never necessarily saw the Rachel connection there in the Lucius scene. I think both the film and Bruce suppress that because of the urgency of the situation. The Joker just broke out of the MCU and he's now going full-on terrorist mode, making bigger and bigger threats to the city. I feel like Bruce is just forced to put his personal tragedy aside and is focusing on catching The Joker at all costs. I think the Rachel thread comes in when Bruce decides to trust the people on the ferries not to blow each other up (it reinforces what Rachel says in the letter about Bruce not losing his faith in people, even though Bruce himself doesn't get to read it).

However, because you brought that up Shika I'll keep that in mind next time I watch the movie and see if it holds any weight for me. I mean, I think what happens to Rachel and Harvey definitely does make things personal between Batman and The Joker, but I've always felt that the film did a good job of keeping it about their ideological battle first and foremost. In other words, even if he had managed to save Rachel but Joker still escaped, I still think he'd be using the sonar device to try and find him once The Joker blew up the hospital and made his big threat. He did go through all the trouble of having it built before Rachel's death anyhow.