The Dark Knight Rises Do you see TDKR's reputation growing in future years?

[DACrowe]

I can't say I disagree overall.

Good to see you have an appreciation for the Arkham Origins Bane. I loved him, even though they regressed him to the AA/AC Bane at the end. But I guess they were just adhering to the continuity of this universe there.



Let me tell you the truth about Haaaaarvey Dent.

The hilarious thing about using the Arkham Origins Bane as a comparison to Hardy is:

1) There is no way in Freeze's blue Gotham that they'd have ever included Bane as the main villain if not for TDKR.

2) His design was influenced very intentionally by Hardy's Bane with the same exact coat (the one Bane wears before breaking Batman in TDKR) and also having suicidal henchmen who worship his cause. He also wore Hardy's military-styled vest under the coat instead of the pro-wrestling leotard from the comics, which his character wore pre-transformation in Arkham Asylum (2009).

3) He is depicted as Joker's equal. No one ever made that connection until Nolan tried putting him on a pedestal next to the Joker. While Bane ultimately did not measure up to that pedigree-simply because Joker is the best villain in all of comicdom, and Bane was B-list for most of his existence as he was still built around a singular "gimmick" when created--the fact people even consider that is a tribute to Rises.

And they turned him into a gorilla at the end, because that is what Dini, DC, and Rocksteady really thought of the character pre-Rises.

Oh **** it.

Everyone can go back to saying how a purple-faced Two-Face imitating Jack Nicholson's Joker and "Adam and EVVVVVIL!!!!" are better villains with better plots.

And some posters wonder why they are accused of trolling in this thread.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

The important thing though is that Bane felt different than both Ra's and The Joker, while also merging different aspects of them (the same could be said of TDKR itself too).

The whole militaristic feel of the character went hand in hand with the "war film" influence Nolan was going for with TDKR. That's just something that could not have been accomplished with a character like The Riddler. I think it's fair to say that Nolan absolutely settled on the right villain for the type of film he was looking to make, and certainly the right villain for a story that calls for Bruce to be defeated midway through.

Bane also works really well as an endgame villain, especially in the context of the type of ending Nolan and Co. were going for.

The hilarious thing about using the Arkham Origins Bane as a comparison to Hardy is:

1) There is no way in Freeze's blue Gotham that they'd have ever included Bane as the main villain if not for TDKR.

2) His design was influenced very intentionally by Hardy's Bane with the same exact coat (the one Bane wears before breaking Batman in TDKR) and also having suicidal henchmen who worship his cause. He also wore Hardy's military-styled vest under the coat instead of the pro-wrestling leotard from the comics, which his character wore pre-transformation in Arkham Asylum (2009).

3) He is depicted as Joker's equal. No one ever made that connection until Nolan tried putting him on a pedestal next to the Joker. While Bane ultimately did not measure up to that pedigree-simply because Joker is the best villain in all of comicdom, and Bane was B-list for most of his existence as he was still built around a singular "gimmick" when created--the fact people even consider that is a tribute to Rises.

And they turned him into a gorilla at the end, because that is what Dini, DC, and Rocksteady really thought of the character pre-Rises.

Oh **** it.

Everyone can go back to saying how a purple-faced Two-Face imitating Jack Nicholson's Joker and "Adam and EVVVVVIL!!!!" are better villains with better plots.

And some posters wonder why they are accused of trolling in this thread.

So much win in this post.

It's such a same, with regards to Bane, that he's still more often than not portrayed as the brute who jacks up on Venom to punch things really hard. I mean, it's a perversion of the original character himself, the whole point of whom was that he was the brute with a brain, a cold, calculating mastermind. I find it hilarious that in the Arkham games pre-Origins, his character description specifies that he's supposed to have genius intellect. Because, of course, charging blindly into walls is a clear sign of genius. But that just comes across as the designers saying - yes, we know Bane is supposed to be more than just a pseudo-Hulk, but we're still gonna make him a dumb moron anyway, k thx, bye.

Nolan's Bane really brought some much needed seriousness to the character, in the sense that he's actually treated as the brute with a plan. Now of course, not all the original details of the character are there, but I'm talking about how, overall, he really comes across as a great threat and a more than worthy opponent for Batman. Which is what Bane is supposed to be after all. I can't say Nolan maximized the character's potential IMO (they still need to find some way around his glaring weakness, be they a bazillion exposed tubes or an in-your-face mask), but he did treat him with the seriousness and respect a character of Bane's potential deserves. And like you say, DACrowe, what Rises also managed to accomplish with regards to Bane was bringing him into the discussion of Batman's greatest villains.

 

[The Joker]

The hilarious thing about using the Arkham Origins Bane as a comparison to Hardy is:

1) There is no way in Freeze's blue Gotham that they'd have ever included Bane as the main villain if not for TDKR.

And you're basing that on what?

2) His design was influenced very intentionally by Hardy's Bane with the same exact coat (the one Bane wears before breaking Batman in TDKR)

I don't see it.

3) He is depicted as Joker's equal. No one ever made that connection until Nolan tried putting him on a pedestal next to the Joker. While Bane ultimately did not measure up to that pedigree-simply because Joker is the best villain in all of comicdom, and Bane was B-list for most of his existence as he was still built around a singular "gimmick" when created--the fact people even consider that is a tribute to Rises.

Poppycock! For a start Nolan never tried to depict Bane as Joker's equal. He never even tried to depict him as a villain equal to his own comic book counterpart. For a start Bane of the comics was a self made man who rose to power in Gotham using his own intelligence and wits, and he figured out Batman's identity by himself. He wasn't saved from prison by Ra's, he escaped prison himself. He wasn't handed down second hand information from the LOS about Batman, and he wasn't serving out the suicidal work of another villain who couldn't stand him. He went to Gotham to prove his own worth.

So how is that a Bane that is equal to the Joker? It's not even a Bane equal to comic book Bane. And FYI Bane's comic book creators at DC, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, were not impressed with Hardy's Bane either.

And they turned him into a gorilla at the end, because that is what Dini, DC, and Rocksteady really thought of the character pre-Rises.

Only in the Arkham verse was he depicted that way. That was Dini's flub.

I love AA and AC, but the WB Montreal people trampled all over Rocksteady when it came to game story. I'm not just talking about with Bane. Playing Arkham Origins, the story is like an excellent Batman comic book story come to life. Batman, Alfred, Joker, Gordon, Barbara, Bane..... even Harley Quinn they all have character arcs in it.

[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]

Just look at that one cut scene alone. More character insight into the Joker there than the previous two games combined. The writing was razor sharp and amazingly good in Origins.

If Bane was the only character with improvement from the previous games I'd agree with you. But just about every character was better written than the Dini scripts for AA and AC.

 

[Travesty]

I find it hilarious that in the Arkham games pre-Origins, his character description specifies that he's supposed to have genius intellect. Because, of course, charging blindly into walls is a clear sign of genius. But that just comes across as the designers saying - yes, we know Bane is supposed to be more than just a pseudo-Hulk, but we're still gonna make him a dumb moron anyway, k thx, bye.

Heh, it's a videogame. They're just making simple boss patterns so you can defeat him as the player. The same thing can be said about all the bosses in the Arkham series. Why would that be such a complaint, and why are you only complaining about Bane? They all did similar things like that. "Why is Subzero just walking around the room in circles, and just letting himself be hit with a batarang? He would never do that in the comics, he's too smart for that!!!"

 

[Shikamaru]

I love how some people assume Nolan *made* Bane intelligent as if he wasn't that before. Bane was intelligent far before Nolan came along. Heck, Nolan's Bane doesn't even have half the intelligence that Knightfall's Bane did. Arkham Origins made Bane much closer to his Knightfall counterpart than any other Bane adaptation so far. The only Nolan influences he had were the costume (kinda) and the mercenary followers. He is essentially everything Nolan's Bane should have been but wasn't. They took Nolan's surface basics and improved on him overall while adding in more Knighfall Bane on the side. I wouldn't give Nolan credit for that. Of course Bane is now mainstream with the GA, but that's only because of the film's popularity and Tom Hardy's great performance. Making a villain "known" to the GA does not automatically mean you did a good job with the villain.

 

[shauner111]

"should have been"..boy do i hate when people say that.

 

[BatLobster]

I'd still say it means you made a positive contribution to the overall mythos. Nolan was basically in a position to make any villain popular that he used, and I'm glad he chose Bane because I think Bane had regressed a lot and didn't have a lot of respect from writers despite being the man who broke the bat.

I haven't even played Origins though, so I can't really comment on their Bane. I'll get around to it eventually.

 

[TheBlur]

I do.

 

[milost]

Bane's film counterparts are lesser interpretations of the comics and video games. Bane has yet to be bettered in characterization between Knightfall and Arkham Origins.

Nolan certainly made the character main stream and easily accessible to a number of audiences, but that doesn't mean the characterization was good. Back in 1997 and 1998, Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy were all the rage. Animated series Freeze and Ivy episodes playing non-stop, promotional tie ins, first appearance comic reissues, etc. Why? Because of the movie.

Same goes for every other Batman and Superman movie. Loki wasn't really mainstream, now the character is a household name. "Mandarin" too. It wasn't that long ago when Iron Man was this C listed character that was relatively unknown to folks other than comic fans. Now? Thanks to the films, he's almost neck and neck to Batman. So of course Bane would be a "thing". Still doesn't mean what Nolan and Co. Did with the characterization was any good. Maybe Montreal saw TDKR and based it off of it, but their final outcome is radically different. Nuff said.


EDIT:

The comparisons above? Okay, where is video game Bane's tarantula gas mask at?

 

[BatLobster]

To me, Nolan still nailed the archetype of who Bane is, what he represents as a threat to Batman, what that's supposed to "feel" like. Yes, some of the particulars were changed around, but that's true of almost any character in most comic book movies and certainly in these Nolan movies.

Mainstream audiences now understand that Bane is a very formidable threat and the only villain in his rogues gallery that can actually defeat Batman in one on one combat. They're not thinking about stuff like "oh but the LoS handed him Batman's identity, he didn't have to deduce it on his own!" etc. Yes, all of that's true but the film still portrays Bane as a very menacing force to be reckoned with that can beat Batman within an inch of his life, all while talking smack in a very nonchalant yet eloquent manner, and then coldly let him rot while Gotham does the same.

Again, even if one personally didn't like the portrayal of Bane in TDKR, it can still recognized as an attempt to treat the character seriously. And yes, for promotional reasons of course there's usually an increase in character appearances after a movie. But we can still hope that more writers will at least see the potential of Bane in the longterm future. Even people here who don't like the movie character can probably at least see the potential of what they were going for. So at the very least it should serve as a big reminder of the character's potential.

Let's face it, he's been very underutilized in the comics. And a lot of fans, even hardcore ones who know the character's history, didn't even want to see Bane in the third Nolan movie because he had become so one-note over the years.

 

[milost]

So basically you're saying that TDKR established to audiences that Bane was a big strong guy that could hurt Batman.

Not that great of an achievement in my opinion. The comics of Bane and his story have been much deeper. That twist of origin pretty much negates everything about Bane. Being part of the League doesn't make him seem like the brilliant tactician that deduced Batman's identity and let Arkham's worst loose on the city to tire out and vanquish Batman. In TDKR, Bruce is already a rusty, crappy Batman. What brilliance is there in that? Bane's feats in the film as a villain are pretty sparse the more you think about it. There's a reason so many people crack jokes and state that he's like a puppy dog or got "friend zoned" during the characterization. The character was bastardized. People complain about Batman Returns Penguin or Catwoman for their "accuracy", but then when it comes to TDKR Bane it's all fine and dandy? Seems hypocritical in my opinion.

We were all rooting and a hollering for a Bane that was closer to what we envisioned since 1997 . . . and it turned out to not even be that revolutionary. We're not talking superficial things like steroid venom or masks and costumes, we're talking about characterization. TDKR Bane had no sense of honor or morality, he was simply a crazy suicide bomber that wanted to watch a city burn because his not-girlfriend wanted to fulfill her father's wishes (the father that didn't even like them). That wasn't the power hungry intellectual from the character's conception. I'm pretty sure most Banes, other than Schumacher, want to rule Gotham as this type of warlord as well as break down it's protector, not raze it with a megaton bomb because he thinks that's what his girl's dad wanted.

Where's the self taught child rising up and escaping the hell he's in on his own? Where's the self made man that physically and mentally trains himself to perfection on his own? Where is the moral code and honor aspect of the character? Why didn't we see HIM depicted as the child who was sent to the prison to pay for his father's sins? Where is his admiration for his opponent, Batman? Why doesn't he want to be a ruler or atleast an actual liberator instead of another, weird, cultish bomber? Why does Batman go to Bane instead of Bane going to Batman's house and hurting those closest to him?

 

[BatLobster]

You know I strongly disagree with everything you've just said, so what's the point regurgitating it for the 100000th time? At least I'm trying to make a different sort of statement now. And as always milost, you don't give me enough credit by thinking that I was talking about venom and masks when I say they changed the particulars. C'mon, we're past that. I know what your beefs are. As far as Devito's Penguin and Pfeiffer's Catwoman goes...I'm a fan, for the most part. I find Devito's Penguin a bit on the repulsive side, but I wouldn't say either are "bad" version of the characters, just not what I'd call definitive. But people still praise the hell of of Pfeiffer's performance and say she "felt" the most like Catwoman. And I totally get that, and even agree to an extent. Well, that's how I felt about Hardy's Bane. To me, he just nailed the personality of the character. The swagger, the eloquence/intelligence in the way he spoke, the smug attitude of superiority, the nonchalant way he threatens people, the commanding presence and power. Hardy WAS Bane for me, even leaving the plot and backstory aside.

What I'm saying is TDKR established to audiences that Bane was a character to be taken seriously. And that hopefully other writers will be inspired to take him seriously in their own ways, and continue to add to his mythology.

As a Batman fan who came up during the 90s, I like the idea of a "C" lister from "my" era taking steps forward and growing in the public conscienceless so that maybe he'll one day be seen as an A-lister. With the exception of Ra's, most of Batman's A-list rogues gallery originates from the 1940s...which is awesome, but I think the mythology should always keep growing and I think Bane is able to fill a very specific niche that none of the other villains do.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ah, these boards are so fun to read. I love you guys .

And people wonder why I love the TDKR threads so much.

 

[DACrowe]

And you're basing that on what?

Common sense. Look at Bane in AA an AC. Look at Bane in AO. Gee, what came between them? I can't put my finger on it....

I don't see it.

Then you choose to put on the blinders:

Poppycock! For a start Nolan never tried to depict Bane as Joker's equal. He never even tried to depict him as a villain equal to his own comic book counterpart. For a start Bane of the comics was a self made man who rose to power in Gotham using his own intelligence and wits, and he figured out Batman's identity by himself. He wasn't saved from prison by Ra's, he escaped prison himself. He wasn't handed down second hand information from the LOS about Batman, and he wasn't serving out the suicidal work of another villain who couldn't stand him. He went to Gotham to prove his own worth.

So how is that a Bane that is equal to the Joker? It's not even a Bane equal to comic book Bane. And FYI Bane's comic book creators at DC, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, were not impressed with Hardy's Bane either.

Not that I care what Chuck Dixon or Graham Nolan really think, as I find Nolan's a massive improvement over their right-wing rah-rah-ing, which didn't do Bane any favors when better writers like Paul Dini rolled their eyes at his gimmickry--

but yes, their Bane was a brilliant tactician. And he was depicted that way in all of two stories: "Knightfall" and the one where he teams up with Ra's Al Ghul and Talia. Otherwise, he has been depicted as a meathead steroid jock for most of his existence. Nolan inarguably made people reevaluate that, and yes, Bane has gone from an unknown in the mainstream to an A-lister who is referenced in other movies and pop culture elements as "the Batman villain." That is because Nolan, made direct comparisons with TDK and TDKR villains being front and center for the film's opening sequence, its marketing and its emphasis. Both also are disposed of intentionally anti-climactically in favor of another threat. Joker is inarguably better, but he certainly raised Bane's profile in pop culture and geek culture. Hence, Arkham Origins.

Only in the Arkham verse was he depicted that way. That was Dini's flub.

I love AA and AC, but the WB Montreal people trampled all over Rocksteady when it came to game story. I'm not just talking about with Bane. Playing Arkham Origins, the story is like an excellent Batman comic book story come to life. Batman, Alfred, Joker, Gordon, Barbara, Bane..... even Harley Quinn they all have character arcs in it.

Really?

Yeah, it was definitely more than the Arkham games doing it.

 

[BatLobster]

We love you too Shika. t:

Off topic question, but is the story of Arkham Origins really that good? I held off on buying the game just because I heard the gameplay was the same ol' with nothing new really being brought to the table. I also thought the story of Arkham City was a pretty bad attempt to just squeeze in as many villains as possible.

So is the Arkham Origins story alone worth a purchase?

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't hate the AA/AC stories as much as everyone else does, but AO definitely has the best story. Pacing and character development are also much better done.

 

[BatLobster]

That's pretty ironic considering it's the one that Dini didn't write. Alright, looks like I might be picking it up after all.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's because they got actual video game writers this time. They had far more experience with writing in the video game medium, unlike Dini.

 

[BatLobster]

Makes sense.

 

[The Joker]

Common sense. Look at Bane in AA an AC. Look at Bane in AO. Gee, what came between them? I can't put my finger on it....

Look at Joker in AA and look at him in AO:

Radically different looks. Joker is barely even wearing purple in AO. All the characters got redesigns in AO.

Then you choose to put on the blinders

More like you choose to. You think because he wore a black jacket that means he was inspired by Hardy's Bane? Their vests don't look anything alike. You do know Bane is a black vest wearer in the comics right?

Not that I care what Chuck Dixon or Graham Nolan really think

No of course not, because they're saying something you don't agree with. If they had been complimenting it you'd be all over it I'd say.

as I find Nolan's a massive improvement over their right-wing rah-rah-ing,

You find Nolan's lackey reduced Bane fulfilling the work of another villain who hate him better than their independent self made cunning smart villain?

Ok.

which didn't do Bane any favors when better writers like Paul Dini rolled their eyes at his gimmickry

Where did Dini ever roll his eyes at the way they wrote Bane? The way they wrote Bane was the standard for the character. It's what established him and made him the famous popular character he is.

but yes, their Bane was a brilliant tactician. And he was depicted that way in all of two stories: "Knightfall" and the one where he teams up with Ra's Al Ghul and Talia. Otherwise, he has been depicted as a meathead steroid jock for most of his existence.

Name three stories where he was portrayed as a meat head jock.

Even if Bane had only had one great story in his whole existence, why would Nolan choose to ignore that story as the template for the character and write him as a much weaker, inferior version of the character? One who never learned Batman's identity for himself. Who never escaped from the worst prison ever by himself. Who was not a self made man who taught and trained himself, but rather was saved and taken in by the LOS, and then kicked out, and then decided to fulfill the work of a man who hated him just because he loved his daughter.

Nolan missed the mark of Bane so badly it's unbelievable to think he's the same man who directed Ledger's amazing Joker in TDK.

Nolan inarguably made people reevaluate that, and yes, Bane has gone from an unknown in the mainstream to an A-lister who is referenced in other movies and pop culture elements as "the Batman villain." That is because Nolan, made direct comparisons with TDK and TDKR villains being front and center for the film's opening sequence, its marketing and its emphasis. Both also are disposed of intentionally anti-climactically in favor of another threat. Joker is inarguably better, but he certainly raised Bane's profile in pop culture and geek culture. Hence, Arkham Origins.

No question Nolan made Bane a bigger name. He was the main villain in a blockbuster movie that was a sequel to arguably the most popular comic book movie of all time. No matter what villain Nolan chose, that was bound to happen.

If your only argument is Nolan made Bane more famous, then there's no dispute. But if you're trying to say he's the reason Bane was a main villain in Arkham Origins, then you're talking baseless conjecture.

Really?

Really. Lets look at your three pictures. First of all the Batman and Robin Bane? That movie made a mockery of all three of it's villains. Freeze and Ivy, too. So that is an invalid example. It's one of the worst CBMs of all time.

The picture of the huge pumped up Bane, what's that supposed to prove? That the artist exaggerated his look? Happens all the time in the comics.

Look at Venom on this cover:

As for BTAS Bane, what was the problem with him?

Yeah, it was definitely more than the Arkham games doing it.

No, it really wasn't.

 

[BatLobster]

Dini IS on record of saying that they didn't want to do Bane for TAS, he thought the character was stupid but because of Knightfall's popularity they got pressured into doing it.

Ironically though, I think Dini's version is what introduced the "hired gun", "mercenary" aspect of the character that's made its way into other versions too. It's not an entirely bad angle on the character if done right either.

 

[The Joker]

Dini IS on record of saying that they didn't want to do Bane for TAS, he thought the character was stupid but because of Knightfall's popularity they got pressured into doing it.

Link please?

 

[milost]

I think Lobster is right. I think Dini and Timm said that in the DVD set for the Animated series. Something akin to Bane being this gimmicky, "doomsday" character who was just there to break/hurt Batman. There's nothing negative about Dixon or Nolan though, just that Bane isn't their bag. That's also not "rolling their eyes". Not sure why DA Crowe would state that.

Besides, I highly doubt Dini and Timm dug TDKR Bane for the exact same reason, so who knows. Dini clearly doesn't care about Bane, just look at how he wrote him in the first two Arkham games (which, again, is his feelings, not everyones). Just because they might not like Bane doesn't mean that character from the early 90's in Knightfall is less compelling. Christopher Nolan thinks Riddler is a watered down Joker light. Dini and Timm said they loved the Riddler and admitted that he was very difficult to write (the episodes/stories they did about Riddler were great). What's that say about Nolan?

 

[BatLobster]

Link please?

I can't seem to find the interview but I feel pretty certain that I've heard audio of Dini saying this. I'm searching for a link and will definitely post it if/when I find it but for now, just for now just a few leads so you know I'm not just making stuff up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_in_other_media#Animated_Television

Even though producers were reluctant to use him as they felt his comic incarnation was too gimmicky

That would likely refer to Dini, since he didn't write or direct the episode.

I also found this comment on some random blog

I recall from an interview at the time, Dini or Timm really hated Knightfall/Bane. They didn't like that some new guy was created to be the one who "beats" Batman, rather than someone who had earned it like the Joker. Thus, this episode, which builds and builds and builds to the back breaking....and then Batman stabs him with a batarang and takes him out like a punk.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/06/batman-the-animated-series-rewatch-catwalk-bane

I know neither of these are great sources, but they are independent, unrelated sources that are echoing what I've had in my head all along, so I feel pretty confident that Dini did say it and that it's out there somewhere...just a matter of finding it.

Edit: Yeah milost, I think it was on the DVD for TAS too. Not sure which season or disc though.

For what it's worth, Dini praised Nolan's Bane on Kevin Smith's podcast, but who knows, he could've just been being polite too. Though he also praised the movie on his twitter. Again, not that any of this matters in an argument. Just stating for the record.

 

[milost]

If Dini liked and enjoyed TDKR Bane, then his reasons for not liking Knightfall or Bane in general is pretty damn hypocritical.

TDKR Bane was literally thought up to present a physical challenge to Batman and . . . break his back and spirit. Something I believe Dini disliked. If Dini said that, maaaan, I dunno. I know Kevin Smith has a knack for backpedalling. One minute he'll say TDKR made him cry and he thinks it's the best Batman movie ever, the next he'll mock and criticize it with as much fervor as anyone of us "haters" have. It's like the guest on the podcast dictates his feelings on the manner. Weird stuff.