Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by DeGenerate10, Nov 11, 2012.
Those don't qualify as changes, haha. That's what they call a page one rewrite .
I like Batman's reply myself. It was the reason Batman is back, because that was it for Bruce. He's going to stop Bane and this plan of his and then leave Gotham for good, but...I think everyone would have loved the "No. I'm the Goddamn Batman" bit
Bane not escaping the Pit himself just added to the fact that Bane never left that hell while Bruce did and finally climbed his way out by himself as opposed to his father helping him when he was younger. That ideology worked.
Some could relate to Bane's "plan" of turning the poor against the rich(obviously not Bane's real plan) with the whole Occupying thing and what have you, but I have to ask...did you not relate, or at least feel saddened for Bane when he finally becomes "human" to the viewer of how he protected a young Talia and that's why he views the innocence of children("What a lovely, lovely voice.", "For the sake of your children....")?
But, somewhat good idea on your version of the threequel, but I still like Nolan's version of course. I really like the Dent Act(even if you call it nonsense) as well as the LoS returning as it was fitting to end the trilogy(I feel like this will be a problem to some for Iron Man 3 with the Ten Rings return).
Nope, because if he cared about children, he wouldn't let them go through the same suffering he had suffered with "hope". That would include all of Gotham. He wants them to burn too, even other "little Talia's"? All he cared about was Talia, that's all. Not children, not the plight of others, none of that.
The LoS plan is a contradiction to this, which is why Bane should be dead set against it. But he's not and his character suffers for it.
If anything, it would have been cool to see how Bane would react to the LoS overall mission and perhaps, like Bruce, see that it goes against his own ideology. That's why he should have been excommunicated. Maybe even have Talia and him at odds, with Talia forcing her hand and killing him to achieve her father's goal (and having to choose between two fathers, the man that saved her from the pit, Bane, and her real father, Ra's).
Only Talia, really? You just overlooked those lines specifically about children?
Sorry milost, but at times it seems that you just want to overlook things to justify your reasons.
I agree with milost on this one, Anno. You seem to be stretching and getting too much mileage out of those children lines.
Milost, it sounds like you don't even want Bane to be a bad guy. Just a good guy who's mixed up with the wrong people.
Bane and Talia want Western civilization to burn because they see it as a symbol of the decadence that plagues mankind century after century. They're trying to bring down the empire, and they want the world to watch it crumble before it goes up in flames.
And yes, the "lovely voice" line is obviously there to give you a hint into that compassionate side of Bane. Why wait for him to get off the field before hitting the trigger then? He certainly wasn't doing it out of patriotism.
That's exactly what you're doing though with this talk of importance of children in Bane's throw away lines.
If Bane cared "for teh childrens", then he wouldn't be so quick to make Gotham ashes would he? There's not even the slightest detection that Bane is at odds with what he's doing. Or does he not know that children exist in Gotham?
You actually bring a great point up though. It would have made Bane a MUCH better character if we actually saw him grappling with those ideas. What if, because of the childhood he lost at the prison, and saving an "innocent" that was Talia, he was conflicted with sending Gotham into a nuclear hell? That would have been deep and compelling, would it not?
"Innocence cannot flower underground. It has to be stamped out."
"But the child had a friend. A protector who showed the other that this
innocence was their redemption."
Think about that for a second. Let it simmer. Then think about what you said about Gotham's children. That's actually pretty brilliant, he shouldn't even want to eradicate Gotham completely, not with the "innocence" and the orphans and all those kids that are facing turmoil, injustice and the ever fading hope. The same hell Talia and Bane faced. He wasn't cast out for being too extreme, he was cast out for his love for Talia, something Ra's wouldn't be able to handle.
But we never see that. We get cliches, "WHEN GOTHEM IS ASHEZ, YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DIE". "FULLFILL RA'Z AL GHULZZZ DESTINEY!!!" "FIRA RIZES", "YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO IMAGINE DA FIA" etc. etc.
There's no depth to him what so ever. He's the big lackey, the "protectah" for little Talia and adult Talia, that's it. The physical challenge, bad guy of the day, for Batman. That's why I'm shocked when people say he's "an improvement" over comic Bane, or the original character.
An improvement over the few words, inaudible, brainless, Poison Ivy lackey from a silly 1997 film? Sure. But being the child, that really isn't the child that made it out of the pit, that was explained to the audience for the sake of a twist, who's really just the guy that makes big elaborate speeches, is inaudible, and is Talia's lackey that wants to stamp out all humanity and innocence in a convoluted 2012 film?
Doesn't seem like an improvement. Bane isn't even honorable in TDKR like his superior counterparts. He really is just a prisoner, turned LoS member psychopath with delusions as big as his little protectee. No better than making Bane a big, hulking video game boss like the Arkham games.
My biggest complaint with Bane is that they set up this incredibly interesting notion of an extremist who comes to Gotham to tear down the structures and give the city back to the people - a FASCINATING idea for a villain - and then we find out it's all just a cover for a generic revenge/blow up the city plot
Yup, that's pretty much my problem with it as well.
If you removed Talia and the LoS out of the equation and focused on Bane as a self made man, a single entity, you'd have fascinating and compelling stuff. The very thing we thought we were getting before the film got closer and closer to release date.
Imagine if Bane didn't even plan for the bomb to go off and was simply using the device to threaten/control the city for his own ideals/crusade. That would have been fantastic. You'd still have the fear and hope elements. Bane not using it in actuality would have been a better twist then, "Oh mah gerd, that woman with the thick accent that we've never seen before is teh secret villain, an Al Ghul, Ducard 2.0!!!"
But nah, we just got these psychos playing out the endgame of Batman Begins, just with bigger, nuclear toys. At least in 2005 with Ra's it was fresh and new. As skewed as his logic was, you at least understood it. With Bane and Talia, it's just nonsense and old hat.
The problem is milost, you're acting like all those lines about innocence are just there for no reason. That is Bane's character development. That is the contrast of where he was to where he is. It's about showing that this monster does have humanity buried deep within him, but his noble ideals have been twisted and warped beyond recognition. It's not about him being redeemable, it's more about how in some alternate reality, Bruce Wayne could've been Bane.
If we saw Bane grappling with those things throughout the film, then he just becomes another typical "sympathetic" villain, when that's not what he's meant to represent. In what I feel was a mature move, TDKR portrays him as this larger than life figure of evil, and THEN hit the oh-so-real note at the end that the monster, like all monsters in history, was just a man. And even evil men can have redeemable qualities while still ultimately being evil due to the choices they have made.
The Joker was never humanized that way. He was a pure monster through and through. And that was the point, there's a reason Nolan and Ledger compared him to the shark in Jaws. That's the intentional contrast that's there with Bane. We do get to see where he came from. We do get to see how he was a victim. We do get to see that he had goodness and compassion in him. We get to pull the curtain back and see that the monster is actually this rather sad, pathetic figure (much like Darth Vader).
The depth might not have been to your liking, and it might not have been explored the way you wanted it to be. But it's there. You act like the whole point of the reveal is just to have a cheap twist and Nolan just wanted to "cheapen" Bane for the lulz. Not even close. The movie deals with two men who shared a surrogate father figure (with equal parts nobility and evil in him) and have taken opposite, yet parallel paths in life. And both of them started with a very simple, pure desire to protect the innocent. The fact that the movie challenges you to feel compassion and sympathy for Bane at the END, when Gotham is minutes away from being a mushroom cloud is pretty awesome when you think about it.
And I'm sorry, but to me that's exactly what makes it epic. And not in a hyperbolic sense, I mean literally that is the kind of stuff that epics are made of.
Forgive me Batlobster but I think you're looking waaaaay too far into it. Then again, you probably think I'm not letting it have enough of my time and "depth" (even though I've honestly tried).
I really do think Bane is "just a physical opponent for Batman and a cheap twist for the end villain". I really do.
There's nothing sympathetic about Bane, unless we're supposed to be saddened with him parting from Talia and crying at the end. But that's not even anywhere near Darth Vader and his REDEMPTION. It's insulting to Vader even comparing the two.
And just "another typical sympathetic villain"? When have we gotten that in any of Nolan's Batman films? We haven't. Nolan did the exact opposite mistake that Raimi did in making them all rotten and evil. It should have ended with the Joker, because you can't top him.
You really think Talia and Bane's characterizations are mature and sophisticated? Compared to all the stuff we've seen in not just Nolan's films, but other comic book films? I respect your posts, I really do, but I can't agree there. They're this series' worst. That whole surrogate father thing? It doesn't even focus on it anywhere in the film, if anything it brushes over it.
Just because you include all the ingredients you know about in your soup, doesn't make it good. And that's what Nolan did here, in my opinion. He throws it all in there, but never really gives any of it the time of day. Certainly not the time it deserves. He just hammers home the MAIN theme, practically bludgeons you with it. Everything else he just throws it up on the wall and hopes it sticks. He even says as much, that in their script writing they throw in all the ideas. There's no refining.
For me, that doesn't work, not at all. A couple of throw away lines and blink and you miss it scenarios or allusions doesn't make a character great. It takes time and development.
And I never felt sympathy for Bane at the end, I have a hard time imagining you or Anno feeling that way at the end as well, unless you're forcing it. The situation just wasn't enough, not after swallowing the twist not even a minute prior (again, with Nolan throwing everything in the kitchen sink in there).
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to continue the debate because it's the same ol' stalemate that inevitably befalls any TDKR debate. You don't like the film, so you don't care to read into things and don't even care if they're "there" or not because the execution doesn't work for you.
For me it does. I love the film, so I like peeling back more layers to get more out of it. Same way I did with BB and TDK. Layers that, if you listen to what Nolan has to say about the film, are undoubtedly meant to be there. Not that I needed to hear him talk about the film to understand it, but the validation is nice.
But I really dislike and have grown tired of being told I'm looking too much into the film. To me that's no different than me saying to you, "You don't get it!", which I've never said, because I don't think it's true. I think you just didn't like the film. Easy enough.
Ras was far more sympathetic than Bane. You at least got the impression that Ras actually cared about Bruce in a fatherly way, and that Bruce wanted to save Ras.
Bane's few throwaway lines don't show any specific character development. I'd grant that they were actually meaningful if they were given any sort of payoff, but they aren't. As far as I can tell, the LOS plan was always to blow the field after the kickoff. Bane never seems sympathetic in the film.
I'm sorry, but a good story stands and falls on its own merit, not on what the author "intended" or "meant" to convey. You can't argue that these incredible hidden meanings are there if the film itself doesn't convey it convincingly. Anything other than that is more like fanfic.
I don't know how milost feels about TDKR, but I dislike how people on SHH sometimes end debates with "you just hate the film." I don't dislike TDKR, I've watched it numerous times (more than the Avengers), but I'm open about what I perceive to be its faults and I don't pretend that it bears more depth than what it actually makes plain.
Um ThePhantasm, with all due respect, myself and others have been debating milost for the past couple of weeks and he has flat out said he doesn't like the film. He's made no secret of that and would be the first to tell you. So when I say he doesn't like the film, I'm saying it to acknowledge what he and I both know is true rather than fall down the same old rabbit hole of debating the same things over and over.
And again, I've already went into great detail for the past eight months now to articulate and support my beliefs about the film. And none of that has anything to do with what Nolan's said. I have my interpretation, I've stuck to it from the beginning and I reserve my right to discuss what I feel are essential layers of the story. Just because others don't feel something was adequately expressed doesn't mean it's the same for me. I think great movies very often do have depth beyond what is made plain on the screen. And indeed I believe The Dark Knight Rises is a great movie.
I don't condescend when I debate this film. Milost should have a good enough feel for me at this point to know I wasn't condescending him.
I like the plot outline, but slight changes won't suffice. It should be completely rewritten. 95% of scenes and dialogs.
Boom goes the dynamite.
Don't see how it's stretching when we see Bane caring for a young Talia, a real life version of Osito from the comics, that showed Bane true innocence and in TDKR, the young Talia showed Bane the innocence of children and those two lines are not just throwaway lines as they speak miles for how Bane is as a person rather than this monster of a villain. And I don't quite understand how some would just toss the lines away like they're nothing.
Eh, had the second act had a better fallout post-Bane takeover, cops actually being hunted like dogs, Nolan really playing up the social revolution with more Gotham folk, I think the majority of it's problems would have been fixed.
The only dialogue that was clunky was the stuff with the clean slate. What other bits of dialogue is considered bad?
In addition to BatLobsterRises' views:
Ra's was sincere at the League's mission: maintaining balance through burning out corruption. His relationship to Bane is that of a savior to a victim. Similar to Bane's relationship to young Talia. We know Ra's threw Bane out because he reminded Ra's of the hell hole where his wife was killed.
Everything Bane presents us in the film indicates that Talia allowed him to take leadership of the League of Shadows so long as she could complete Ra's work. Recall Bane's "I am the League of Shadows." line. Also from the first Bane vs Batman fight, recall Bane's dialogue with Bruce about betraying the League. Now, look at each character's situation. They are remarkably similar. Both were rescued by Ra's. Both were given training. Only Bruce was chosen as Ra's successor. Bane was cast out by Ra's.
Bane's apparent disgust at Bruce throwing away the position he was offered by Ra's, taken with the aforementioned dialogue from the sewer fight indicate that Bane simply wanted to prove himself the better man than Bruce. The worthy successor, if you will. This is furthered when Bane uses Gordon's speech to set himself up as a symbol for those oppressed by the Dent Act (also by giving them leave to take back their city, giving its citizens what was rightfully theirs); its very much like Batman setting himself up as a symbol for those oppressed by the mob's grip on Gotham prior to and during Batman Begins.
Bane shared the jacket-grip mannerism with Ra's. Recall that Ra's plan involved spreading fear gas throughout Gotham, leaving the drugged citizens to tear their city down. Bane never gassed the citizens. Bane never forced them to rise up against the others in the city they believed to be their oppressors. He simply presented them with the means to do so. Bane allowed Gotham to show the world how depraved it could be*; the citizens and freed prisoners did so of their own volition. This allowed Talia a sort of innocence in passing judgment on Gotham; after all wouldn't the city and its people be better off dead? The prisoners and the others whose rose up would be dealt with; the families they tore apart and the people they wounded would be put out of their misery.
By allowing the people to effectively be their own executioners, Bane managed to triumph over Ra's who would've relied on an outside agent--the fear gas--to initiate Gotham's destruction. At the beginning of the second act (I count the 2nd act as everything after Bane breaks the Batman, up until Bruce rises from the Pit triumphant) Bane has proven himself superior to Batman. Midway into the second act he has one-upped Ra's overarching goal of destroying Gotham.
The difference between Ra's and Bane lies in their conviction. Ra's truly loved his wife and was trying to numb the pain of her death. Bane wanted to prove himself the worth successor to the League of Shadows and repay Talia's kindness (returning with the League to rescue him from the Pit) by helping her exact vengeance for Ra's death. Ra's Al Ghul wanted revenge for his wife's death. Bane sought apotheosis. Ironically its the Batman who achieves this through ensuring that the bomb didn't level Gotham.
The above is based on the dialogue and everything we're given in TDKR (the stuff for Bane and Talia, with some of Ra's. Ra's motive for being in the LoS is, of course, covered in BB).
Daggett's "You're dumb" to Catwoman could have been omitted.
Excellent post Wooden Alligator.
I wish. It has constant logic and sense issues right from the very first scene till the very end.
The script isn't about dialogues only. "Bits", lol. It was discussed for many times already. Every scene. Every line of the movie. It's all here in the forum. Why repeat that? It's a deeply lacked movie, thanks to fast-baked/lazy writing. Execution suffered too. But at the same time, I'm not saying it doesn't have any positive sides.
Oh, definitely no argument about Dent there. I agree. I thought we were talking about the main big bads. Like Ra's and Joker.
Though, I'd argue that the situation is a bit sad (the fact that Dent turned), not that I actually feel for Harvey (after he threatens Jimmy Gordon). I can't sympathize with him at that point where he's grabbing a little kid, shoving a gun to his head and sadistically grinning and saying "we have a winner" in the darkness. At that point, he's morbid and nasty. We didn't even see Joker going after children, mostly cops, politicians, and the mob. Yes, Dent lost Rachel and half his face, but Batman lost just as much, if not more and knew Rachel his whole life but he didn't turn into a smiling, sadistic murderer that would blow a child's brains out. Dent knew Rachel for what, less than a year and turns into a deranged psychopath? There was always something brewing underneath the "White Knight's" surface I believe, with or without Rachel. Probably some personal trauma like Batman or the Joker.
Dent had a choice, he even acknowledges how bad he's gotten ("there is no escape from this" and "he was right") but there's no redemption. That's what's sad about it, Dent doesn't want to come back from this. I never really sympathize with Dent though, he's clearly in the wrong. Pointing a gun at an innocent child doesn't even make sense (only in Dent's twisted mind to make Gordon suffer the way he suffered). I feel more sympathy for Batman and Gordon to be honest.
If I had sympathy for Dent, that would mean I would sort of agree with him attacking Gordon and intending to kill Jimmy Gordon.
It's more tragic than anything else. That's what's key, it's a tragedy. It's certainly not as sad as other interpretations of Harvey Dent, like in BTAS. Where Bruce loses his best friend, a friend he's known for years. He seems him get driven off the deep end to a point where he's a bumbling, screaming mess when a box of coins are mixed in with his own coin.
We never got a great villain that you could sympathize with or relate to from Nolan. We got Dent's tragic story and outcome, yes but certainly nothing like what was done in the Animated Series where, the villain not only experienced an injustice like Batman, you felt sorry for them too. Clayface, Babydoll, Mr. Freeze, etc. Dent was as close as they came and perhaps Ducard as well (he seemed really hurt that Bruce Wayne "betrayed him") and he lost a son figure.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean I haven't tried though or that I don't understand what they were going for. Right?
Yeah, that's fair.
But I don't hate the film entirely. There are aspects that I like such as Selina Kyle/Catwoman and her story/interaction with Batman. It's the plot, story and other elements like Bane and Talia that bother me.
Yeah, it's true.
It has a few qualities that I enjoy, like I said above, but overall I was disappointed. It's alright, like Spider-Man 3, but after the first two, it just seems like such a disappointing dip with the story and how it's executed.
Batlobster wasn't putting me down or antagonizing and condescending my posts. He's being respectful. I actually enjoy posting with some of you because of this. We can all discuss are thoughts without being mindlessly shot down. While we might not agree on this particular film, that doesn't stop us from not enjoying the other films and interpretations, like Begins, Dark Knight, Batman, the animated series, etc. etc.
We're all here for a similar reason, we clearly love Batman in some capacity. Hopefully we can all agree there.
No, you're twisting it Anno. I'm sure even Batlobster can attest to this.
Bane cares for Talia, plain and simple. Never stated otherwise. In fact, I claimed that's all he cared about.
You're bringing in things like, "he cared about children and others innocence" when he CLEARLY doesn't. He only cared about Talia.
Those throw away lines you keep mentioning, that Phantasm and I jumped on, are throw away lines that have nothing to do with his characterization. "What a lovely, lovely voice" was a quirky line, much like "let the games begin". For all we know, that kid was killed in the blast when it blew. The cuts and kick off are so fast, and the line isn't even in the script, thus not essential to the characterization of Bane. He was waiting for the kid to leave? Really? Maybe they added that so folks weren't thinking, "OH MAN, THE MOVIE JUST KILLED A KID". But that's just as much reaching as, "Bane cares about kids". It has nothing to do with "innocent children". Then his threat against Pavel, "for the sake of your children"? Are you serious? He's threatening Pavel's FAMILY if everything doesn't go as planned with the nuclear device. Meaning, he will KILL his children if anything goes wrong. That doesn't sound like someone who cares about innocence to me.
Seriously, if that isn't reaching, I don't know what is. I mean you really think Bane cares about Pavel's kids if he's threatening them? Better yet, why would he destroy a city that houses innocent children? Or are you going to tell me that he knew that the little orphans were trying to cross the bridge during his fight with Batman too?
Bane cares about Talia, plain and simple. If he really believed innocence and the good of children, he wouldn't be doing what he's doing to Gotham, a city that houses innocent children and orphans. At the very least, he'd be conflicted about it. What you're saying, other than Talia, is complete nonsense and seeing something that's not there. I don't think that's too harsh. Sure everyone has a different POV and perception when it comes to films, but I think those two reasons you listed about the kids is baloney. Let's remember, he's going to blow all of them to hell and back. If that's the case, there is no "innocence is redemption".
Now the idea itself, it's a great idea, it would be fantastic if it was included, but it's not. It's not there. He doesn't care about innocence, like the voice over sequence telling his backstory suggests (other than Talia's), and he doesn't care about the plight of the children. He only cares about Talia, and Talia alone.
This is what we know about Bane without conjecture from TDKR,
- He was born in the prison pit (if he's telling the truth)
- He's a man when Talia and her mother is brought down
- When Talia's mother is killed, he protects her
- He helps her escape the pit
- She comes back with Ra's and the League of Shadows who comes back to exact terrible vengeance
- He and Talia are taken in and train with Ra's
- Ra's excommunicates Bane because Bane reminds him of the pit (hmmm, I wonder why) and his love for Talia
- Talia can't forgive her father and despises him and leaves the league along with Bane
- Talia finds out that her father, whom she dislikes, is killed. She wants revenge
- Bane comes along with her, wants to FULFILL RA'S AL GHULS DESTINY!
- Involved in an elaborate, convoluted plot to not just destroy Gotham outright, but give it's citizens and Batman a false hope for 5 long months . . .
That's pretty much Bane. He's not religious, he's not honorable, he doesn't care for the plight of the children other than Talia, and he wants to destroy the city, a city that had no involvement with his pain or suffering, to burn to ashes in a horrible nuclear holocaust that will claim the lives of not just innocent men and women, but innocent children as well. Doesn't sound like the original creation of Bane to me, and certainly doesn't sound better.
Little Osito, self-made man > Talia and DA LEAGUE, any day of the week
Nothing to sympathize with TDKR Bane as far as I'm considered. For all we know, Bane's love for Talia, a grown man raised in the confines of a terrible prison, is a SICK love. Perhaps that's why Ra's threw him out. Talia clearly had "daddy issues". Think about it, Talia would be easily impressionable, Bane would be her first parental figure after her mother dies when she's young. They're both clearly twisted and psychotic. They dislike Ra's, but want to fulfill his destiny? They want to honor him? Insane.
Then again, all of this information is literally TOLD to us, in crazy short exposition spurts, and in A TWIST. So who the hell knows.
I don't see how anyone could possibly care for Bane or Talia, I simply don't. Bane would be much stronger as a character if Talia and the League Of Shadows weren't involved and he was his own, self made man, who had risen from the darkness, with convictions, true ideals and a sense of honor. Not a man who was crazy about a little girl, who was ex-communicated for being a MONSTER that LOVED the leader's daughter, and did anything for that little girl including, BLOWING A CITY AWAY IN NUCLEAR FIRE.
At the very least it would have been compelling for Bane to have conflict with Talia and the League of Shadows about destroying innocent lives. If he believes in innocence and redemption, why would then would he be so gung ho with their way of life?
Oh, that's right, because of Talia . . . .
Every scene and line in the film is executed poorly?
So the scene where Bruce meets Selina for the first time trying to steal his mothers pearls, that's executed poorly?
Batman's return scene, you mean to tell me that's a huge mess?
Yes, there are problems with the film, but saying the entire thing, from start to finish is a mess is beyond ridiculous.
milost, I'll probably respond more to your post in detail at a later point, but I just want to clarify real quick...
I don't sympathize with Bane, and certainly not with Talia. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I like that we are presented with another side of him, because I'm interested in what that says about humanity in general, and how even the most evil person can have moral complexity, shades of gray and even good in them. Like you, with Two-Face I found the situation itself sad but didn't actually pity Dent. In the end he was making his own choices even though his fall was pretty tragic. It's the same for me with Bane. I'm not rolling a tear with him, but he is kind of a sad figure when it's all said and done. There's a sad irony about the trajectory of his life. One wonders what he might've been able to achieve if he had someone like Alfred to reign him in, or if he ever had any chance at all having been born in "hell".
I observe these things and consider them, mainly because of how these things reflect on Bruce as a character, but that's as far as I'll go. I don't actually feel bad for Bane, and I cheered when Selina put the creep out of his misery.
I'd like to add to the Bane discussion that we don't really know why he is in the prison to begin with. What if he was a murderer? Should we still have some sympathy if we don't really know why he was there in the first place? Maybe he protected Talia because he felt it was redemption because of his past sins, would've been cool to know what they were.
And I agree with milost, the "what a lovely lovely voice" to me is more of a dark-twisted humor moment, because he is about to go through with a plan to nuke every man women and child of Gotham.