The Dark Knight Rises The Joker (The Dark Knight) vs. Bane (TDKR)

[MagnarTheGreat]

Is James Bond any less awesome because he takes orders from M? He disregards some of them or follows them in a very different way than expected. He "protects" M in Skyfall [blackout]though ultimately fails[/blackout] in his own way. James Bond is just a henchman of the government! If you're just being somewhat obnoxiously reductive, then yes.

 

[Ryan]

Is James Bond any less awesome because he takes orders from M? He disregards some of them or follows them in a very different way than expected. He protects M in Skyfall. James Bond is just a henchman! If you're just being somewhat obnoxiously reductive, then yes.

Interesting point. For me its a different comparison though. In the Bond series we are fully aware from the start that Bond has a boss, so I wasn't under any type of illusion that he was. In TDKR, we don't find out that Bane had a boss until the end of the movie. Again, even if he and Talia we equals in the plan, I wouldn't have been happy with that either. I think the Bane character and Tom's performance were more then enough to warrant working alone.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I think that's why Daggett is brought into the story, to give the mild impression and condition the audience that Bane works for somebody.

 

[BatLobster]

I think that's why Daggett is brought into the story, to give the mild impression and condition the audience that Bane works for somebody.

Right. Bane is a mercenary by profession, so the angle of him being brought in by someone else to wreak havoc is always a there as a possibility.

League of Shadows specializes in eliminating compassion. That said, a new layer is always welcome, except when it's a last minute thing thrown just for making an end twist work.

And it's not even this capacity for love what's the problem, but the fact that he passed from the ultimate terrorist to a crying obedient man manipulated by a woman.

So it's okay that he has the capacity for love, but not that this is expressed via him shedding a tear?

If when the Emperor appears, Vader starts crying for his love giving him lost puppy eyes, then you get it. I guess the world would have a different vision of Vader if that had happened.

ROTJ did give the world a different vision of Vader in the end.

Only his "puppy eyes" were for his son and daughter. My point is here that it's not inherently a bad thing for a big bad monster in a movie to have a hidden tender side that only gets revealed at the end. You're free not to like it, I just don't agree when it gets called out as an automatic flaw.

Anyways, this twist wouldn't have been this unpleasant if Talia actually had a personality that could pose as superior to Bane, and if Bane hadn't lost everything that made him so intimidating when she appeared. But the actress wasn't up to the challenge, and Bane was simply and suddenly written as a bland suffering bleeding heart. And it was all lost when Catwoman simply shot him, making me think "So, it was THIS easy to get rid of the guy?"

First of all, Bane lost his intimidation factor when Batman handily defeated him in their fight. It's just like when the ferries don't blow up in TDK. For the first time, Joker looks dismayed and we finally see that he's not right about everything after all. Suddenly he's a lot less scary. It's similar when Bane gets beaten. "I broke you...". He's at a loss and can't comprehend what is happening because Bruce was not supposed to escape that pit and certainly wasn't supposed to prove himself to be the better warrior. Bane was all about "the plan" and this was not a part of the plan.

I also disagree that she wasn't up to it, I thought Marion did great in the whole reveal scene. The tacky death scene gets harped on, but when she says "Feel the fire of 12 million souls... you failed" I find it very chilling. I really enjoy the "slow knife" speech too.

As far as it being easy to get rid of Bane...sure, if you consider getting blown away by canons "easy". Not to mention the fact that everyone in Gotham was too terrified to make a move on him during the occupation for fear of the bomb going off. Somebody blowing him away was long overdue, but that was kind of the point.

The focus changed but not naturally. It was forced to Talia, who emerged as a minute that wasn't developed at all since she didn't have the screen time (or charisma) for it.

Disagree, because on multiple viewings- every single Miranda Tate scene has an ulterior motive or double meaning to it. You can easily just view her as Talia the whole time on all subsequent viewings, and that's what I do. I particularly enjoy the scene in Wayne Manor where she's stoking the fire and vaguely talks about her past. It gives her that exotic quality that's appropriate for Talia, and also serves as a nice mirror to the scene when Ra's tells Bruce about his past (also under the glow of a fire).

No, Bane not escaping the pit was not a problem. But to start again with this "so the enemy was not actually him" thing that had alrerady been done in Batman begins was too much. Because at least in BB, the character played by Liam Neeson had a proper development, before and after the big revelation.

But it is Bane, the way he's portrayed in the movie, the one that feels able to overcome fear and escape the pit. Talia is just a character thrown there who you are left to assume was able to take the jump. Nothing in the performance of the character - except for the verbal information - gives the feeling that she's this woman beyond good and evil.

That's the whole point though, the escape wasn't simply about overcoming fear. Both Bruce and Bane were already beyond fear. Bane risking his life to save Talia's proves that he didn't fear death. He just had something he valued more than his own escape. For him, Talia was his salvation from the hell that was the pit.

That all being said, I don't think Talia was the world's greatest villain. I thought Marion was competent as Tate with a few very strong moments during the reveal (and yes, one later dud). But there was only so much she could've done with the small amount she was given post-reveal. As I've said before, her character's inclusion is more for the purpose of thematic linkage and bringing the story full circle than for creating an additional fully fleshed out three dimensional villain. Saving her reveal for the end is also a way to keep the decks stacked against Batman and Gotham even after the defeat of Bane. Even if it wasn't Talia, they needed to chase somebody to stop that bomb. She's also Nolan's latest riff on the femme fatale, which he's played around with in most of his movies. I like to just think of her as the ghost of Ra's al Ghul and a reminder that every choice a hero makes on his journey has the potential to come back to haunt him. He was essentially Talia's Joe Chill.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So it's okay that he has the capacity for love, but not that this is expressed via him shedding a tear?

Underdeveloping is never a good thing. Throwing something there in the last second for the sake of a quick effect is not a good thing.

ROTJ did give the world a different vision of Vader in the end.

Only his "puppy eyes" were for his son and daughter. My point is here that it's not inherently a bad thing for a big bad monster in a movie to have a hidden tender side that only gets revealed at the end. You're free not to like it, I just don't agree when it gets called out as an automatic flaw.

If I'm not mistaken, and I am not, Vader's paternity was not thrown there in the last second, right? It was properly developed.

First of all, Bane lost his intimidation factor when Batman handily defeated him in their fight. It's just like when the ferries don't blow up in TDK. For the first time, Joker looks dismayed and we finally see that he's not right about everything after all. Suddenly he's a lot less scary. It's similar when Bane gets beaten. "I broke you...". He's at a loss and can't comprehend what is happening because Bruce was not supposed to escape that pit and certainly wasn't supposed to prove himself to be the better warrior. Bane was all about "the plan" and this was not a part of the plan.

Joker had a difficult moment when the ferries didn't explode, but was far from being defeated or crying for love. Nor he behaved completely different than before. Not to mention he didn't suddenly have a boss for the sake of a twist.

When Bane was "broken" by Batman it was all still good.

I also disagree that she wasn't up to it, I thought Marion did great in the whole reveal scene. The tacky death scene gets harped on, but when she says "Feel the fire of 12 million souls... you failed" I find it very chilling. I really enjoy the "slow knife" speech too.

She wasn't a disaster, but it was clear that she didn't have the nerve Bane had. And thus it was stepping back as to intimidating villains. She should have been felt as someone who not only can control and manipulate Bane (something extremely difficult already) but also be someone who could trigger love from someone like Bane. Instead, this is only informed to us, not shown. For some reason Bane obeys to her, for some reason he does what she says and for some reason he is in love.

As far as it being easy to get rid of Bane...sure, if you consider getting blown away by canons "easy". Not to mention the fact that everyone in Gotham was too terrified to make a move on him during the occupation for fear of the bomb going off. Somebody blowing him away was long overdue, but that was kind of the point.

For all the strength Bane showed during the movie, I'd have expected a more magnificent death, but he died in an almost comical way. Maybe still Catwoman shooting him, but a little more suspense or gravitas to the moment.

Disagree, because on multiple viewings- every single Miranda Tate scene has an ulterior motive or double meaning to it. You can easily just view her as Talia the whole time on all subsequent viewings, and that's what I do. I particularly enjoy the scene in Wayne Manor where she's stoking the fire and vaguely talks about her past. It gives her that exotic quality that's appropriate for Talia, and also serves as a nice mirror to the scene when Ra's tells Bruce about his past (also under the glow of a fire).

People being able to tell she was Talia is not developing the Talia character.

To tell the truth I'm not even against her being the one behind everything, but that her character was barely developed.

That's the whole point though, the escape wasn't simply about overcoming fear. Both Bruce and Bane were already beyond fear. Bane risking his life to save Talia's proves that he didn't fear death. He just had something he valued more than his own escape. For him, Talia was his salvation from the hell that was the pit.

According to the movie, it is about feeling fear and overcoming fear:

Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Bruce being beyond fear was precisely the problem.

That all being said, I don't think Talia was the world's greatest villain. I thought Marion was competent as Tate with a few very strong moments during the reveal (and yes, one later dud). But there was only so much she could've done with the small amount she was given post-reveal. As I've said before, her character's inclusion is more for the purpose of thematic linkage and bringing the story full circle than for creating an additional fully fleshed out three dimensional villain. Saving her reveal for the end is also a way to keep the decks stacked against Batman and Gotham even after the defeat of Bane. Even if it wasn't Talia, they needed to chase somebody to stop that bomb. She's also Nolan's latest riff on the femme fatale, which he's played around with in most of his movies. I like to just think of her as the ghost of Ra's al Ghul and a reminder that every choice a hero makes on his journey has the potential to come back to haunt him. He was essentially Talia's Joe Chill.

Finally we agree that she had little time for all her character was supposed to mean.

 

[The Joker]

Joker had a difficult moment when the ferries didn't explode, but was far from being defeated or crying for love. Nor he behaved completely different than before. Not to mention he didn't suddenly have a boss for the sake of a twist.

When Bane was "broken" by Batman it was all still good.

Exactly. Joker had a brief moment of frustration. Then he revealed his ace in the hole about what he did to Dent, and the last time we saw him he was laughing his head off about it.

 

[BatLobster]

Underdeveloping is never a good thing. Throwing something there in the last second for the sake of a quick effect is not a good thing.

It's not for the sake of a "quick effect" though. It's just something that allows us to see Bane through a slightly different context with a bit more of human frailty. At the same time it reinforces the feeling that there is something genuinely noble about Bane that has gotten twisted along the way. It's not a total reversal.

If I'm not mistaken, and I am not, Vader's paternity was not thrown there in the last second, right? It was properly developed.

Sorry, the phrasing there amused me.

The fact that he was Luke's father was famously introduced in The Empire Strikes Back. But up until the very end he was said to be fully devoted to the dark side with no good left in him. The revelation of him still having a soft spot for his children and having regret about his actions is saved until the very end.

When Bane was "broken" by Batman it was all still good.

Really? I wouldn't call Bane lying on the floor in a broken heap, putting a feeble hand up in surrender when Batman is hammering away at him "all good". Bane was no longer intimidating nor was he an unstoppable monster. His physicality was perhaps his greatest asset in the film and Bruce had bested him. That's why I say Talia didn't rob him of his mojo. Batman did that first.

She wasn't a disaster, but it was clear that she didn't have the nerve Bane had. And thus it was stepping back as to intimidating villains. She should have been felt as someone who not only can control and manipulate Bane (something extremely difficult already) but also be someone who could trigger love from someone like Bane. Instead, this is only informed to us, not shown. For some reason Bane obeys to her, for some reason he does what she says and for some reason he is in love.

Well, she manipulated and controlled Bruce, Lucius and later Gordon pretty easily in the film. I'd say manipulation was her specialty. Though I don't even necessarily believe she was manipulating Bane in the same sense.

As far as the second part, yes I agree. We don't get the full picture of why Bane loves her ("in love" is conjecture) anymore than we get the full picture of why Bruce loves Rachel in BB other than that they were childhood friends. I didn't think a bit of ambiguity was necessarily a bad thing here. It made Bane and Talia feel like the main characters of their own rich story in which we're not privy to every little detail. Personally, I liked that quite a bit. It lent to the epic scope of the film.

For all the strength Bane showed during the movie, I'd have expected a more magnificent death, but he died in an almost comical way. Maybe still Catwoman shooting him, but a little more suspense or gravitas to the moment.

That's exactly why Bane got the death he deserved. A "grand" death was something he and Talia were both heading towards anyway, but a brutal, abrupt one (much like how he killed many of his victims) felt like poetic justice.

According to the movie, it is about feeling fear and overcoming fear:

Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Bruce being beyond fear was precisely the problem.

I know, that's what I said. My point is it makes more sense for Bruce to overcome that dilemma than for Bane to. Bane is a brutal monster with deeply frayed humanity, not some zen guy who has arrived at enlightenment or whatever.

Exactly. Joker had a brief moment of frustration. Then he revealed his ace in the hole about what he did to Dent, and the last time we saw him he was laughing his head off about it.

But Bane is not The Joker nor is he meant to be. The Joker is supposed to have the last laugh.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

Exactly. Joker had a brief moment of frustration. Then he revealed his ace in the hole about what he did to Dent, and the last time we saw him he was laughing his head off about it.

Yeah, but that's the Joker for you. He's unpredictable and always has an ace in the hole. Bane's shtick is breaking Batman, both physically and mentally. When you take that away from him, by having Batman comprehensively return the favour, his character is left stuck in no man's land basically (pun intended).

 

[Anno_Domini]

I just realised. Both TDK and Rises end with a showdown with the main villain, and then a second showdown with another villain, who was created or nurtured by the first villain. And who is presented as good for most of the film.

I think that's why Daggett is brought into the story, to give the mild impression and condition the audience that Bane works for somebody.

Good point.

And comparing Bane to Bond....never thought of this, although it's a smart comparison. So, all in all, Bane is still awesome, yes? t:

 

[BatmanBeyond]

And comparing Bane to Bond....never thought of this, although it's a smart comparison. So, all in all, Bane is still awesome, yes? t:

Captain Obvious here: The name's Bond. Banes Bond.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Didn't Hardy mention interest in playing Bond too? Well, he had his chance in TDKR

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It's not for the sake of a "quick effect" though. It's just something that allows us to see Bane through a slightly different context with a bit more of human frailty. At the same time it reinforces the feeling that there is something genuinely noble about Bane that has gotten twisted along the way. It's not a total reversal.

Well, it made me look bane through a different perspective. That he was not the powerful beyond-good-and-evil terrorist; he can be a softie pathetic friendzoned character too, because of the short-lived (quick) and poor development that aspect of the characters (his and Talia's) had.
Considering that, I'd rather have stuck to the Bane before the twist.

Sorry, the phrasing there amused me.

The fact that he was Luke's father was famously introduced in The Empire Strikes Back. But up until the very end he was said to be fully devoted to the dark side with no good left in him. The revelation of him still having a soft spot for his children and having regret about his actions is saved until the very end.

The revelation of Vader having a good side came well before when Luke told Yoda he thought that. It wasn't - once again - a last minute thing thrown there for the sake of the surprise. That's why it worked nicely.

Really? I wouldn't call Bane lying on the floor in a broken heap, putting a feeble hand up in surrender when Batman is hammering away at him "all good". Bane was no longer intimidating nor was he an unstoppable monster. His physicality was perhaps his greatest asset in the film and Bruce had bested him. That's why I say Talia didn't rob him of his mojo. Batman did that first.

That's why I said "it was all good" and not "he was all good." I wasn't talking about the character but the movie, the narration. At some point the villain can be defeated. That alone doesn't imply he's going to suddenly reveal he's a soft-hearted manipulated man.

Ra's died a strong man even when defeated.

Well, she manipulated and controlled Bruce, Lucius and later Gordon pretty easily in the film. I'd say manipulation was her specialty. Though I don't even necessarily believe she was manipulating Bane in the same sense.

Which changes everything, doesn't it?

As far as the second part, yes I agree. We don't get the full picture of why Bane loves her ("in love" is conjecture) anymore than we get the full picture of why Bruce loves Rachel in BB other than that they were childhood friends. I didn't think a bit of ambiguity was necessarily a bad thing here. It made Bane and Talia feel like the main characters of their own rich story in which we're not privy to every little detail. Personally, I liked that quite a bit. It lent to the epic scope of the film.

It's not a bit of ambiguity, it's a whole lot. And, much as with Rachel, you're there, scratching you head, wondering why. But, unlike the Rachel-Bruce relationship, this didn't even have a proper and long enough development.

That's exactly why Bane got the death he deserved. A "grand" death was something he and Talia were both heading towards anyway, but a brutal, abrupt one (much like how he killed many of his victims) felt like poetic justice.

More like, we don't have the time to do it bigger, in Talia's case. Or kill me now that Batman knows I've been friendzoned, in Bane's.

I know, that's what I said. My point is it makes more sense for Bruce to overcome that dilemma than for Bane to. Bane is a brutal monster with deeply frayed humanity, not some zen guy who has arrived at enlightenment or whatever.

Bane was believed to be a brutal monster with deeply frayed humanity... until we know he is a man manipulated by a woman... for love.

But Bane is not The Joker nor is he meant to be. The Joker is supposed to have the last laugh.

If Joker is not Bane, why did you compare them in the first place?

"It's just like when the ferries don't blow up in TDK. For the first time, Joker looks dismayed...

 

[BatLobster]

Well, it made me look bane through a different perspective. That he was not the powerful beyond-good-and-evil terrorist; he can be a softie pathetic friendzoned character too, because of the short-lived (quick) and poor development that aspect of the characters (his and Talia's) had.
Considering that, I'd rather have stuck to the Bane before the twist.



The revelation of Vader having a good side came well before when Luke told Yoda he thought that. It wasn't - once again - a last minute thing thrown there for the sake of the surprise. That's why it worked nicely.

But as you might be quick to point out, there's nothing in the performance or the way he's written that suggests that. It's a gut feeling on Luke's part that we are only told about.

The Bane reveal was setup but in a more subtle way. We are told right from the start that the child had a "protector" in the prison who valued the innocence of the child and found redemption in it.

That's why I said "it was all good" and not "he was all good." I wasn't talking about the character but the movie, the narration. At some point the villain can be defeated. That alone doesn't imply he's going to suddenly reveal he's a soft-hearted manipulated man.

Ra's died a strong man even when defeated.

Again, you keep talking about this revelation like it's an inherently bad thing but it's nothing more than a personal preference. Yourself and others didn't care to see Bane in a more vulnerable light. Myself and others actually enjoyed it. Seeing him roll a tear didn't bother me. Bruce has shed his share of them over the course of the trilogy and these guys are supposed to be broken mirror reflections of each other.

But I wouldn't call Bane a soft-hearted man. He's still a brutal monster who has done horrible things with impeccable precision. He just also happens to have a soft spot for someone. I also really don't agree with the use of the term manipulated here. That seems to imply that Bane was doing things with a lack of awareness, when there's nothing to suggest that. Unless someone can prove that Talia was stringing him along and promising him her body and heart if he did her bidding.

It's not a bit of ambiguity, it's a whole lot. And, much as with Rachel, you're there, scratching you head, wondering why. But, unlike the Rachel-Bruce relationship, this didn't even have a proper and long enough development.

It's not completely ambiguous. As I already mentioned, the film tells us early on that the protector thought the child's innocence was to be prized and saw her as a means of redemption. The ambiguity is more about why Bane was down there in the first place. But that's a cool ambiguity. It preserves a bit of Bane's mysteriousness.

More like, we don't have the time to do it bigger, in Talia's case. Or kill me now that Batman knows I've been friendzoned, in Bane's.

I thought that HEMMITT drop was impressive. It mirrored the Ra's train crash, only this was done for real on the streets of Pittsburgh rather than with miniatures. I'd say it was sufficiently big.

If Joker is not Bane, why did you compare them in the first place?

"It's just like when the ferries don't blow up in TDK. For the first time, Joker looks dismayed...

Because as they are both the main antagonists in their respective films, there are similarities and differences. Some of them being major differences. You can compare and contrast. I brought up The Joker's reaction to the ferries because to me that is the moment Batman "beats" him, as their battle is more psychological/philosophical. So that to me is the equivalent of when Batman beats Bane in hand to hand combat. In both cases, the character's show a chink in their armor when they've been shown to be invulnerable for the whole movie up to that point. But from there, Joker just shrugs it off, while with Bane we get to spend more time with him in a defeated state. But that makes sense for both of those characters, because Joker is meant to be more of a boogieman with endless tricks up his sleeve.

To be fair though, I always felt like the final shot of Joker laughing felt kind of strained, like he was laughing "sadly" because the game was over.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

But as you might be quick to point out, there's nothing in the performance or the way he's written that suggests that. It's a gut feeling on Luke's part that we are only told about.

That's the magic of good writing. Vader doesn't have to act or say anything. The theme is well, properly and opportunely through Luke's hunch. It wasn't thrown in the middle at the end of the movie.

The Bane reveal was setup but in a more subtle way. We are told right from the start that the child had a "protector" in the prison who valued the innocence of the child and found redemption in it.

The "protector" thing says nothing about the Talia-Bane relationship, because they're precisely hiding it from us. And, for the very same reason, it says nothing at all about bane having a soft heart.

That's not 'subtle setup.' That's straightly hiding it.

Again, you keep talking about this revelation like it's an inherently bad thing but it's nothing more than a personal preference. Yourself and others didn't care to see Bane in a more vulnerable light. Myself and others actually enjoyed it. Seeing him roll a tear didn't bother me. Bruce has shed his share of them over the course of the trilogy and these guys are supposed to be broken mirror reflections of each other.

Oh, I do care about seeing Bane in a different way. But coherently so, not just changing the character at the end. There are changes that are supposed to broaden the portrayal, others just achieve to contradict what was previously shown and are there without a proper development.

But I wouldn't call Bane a soft-hearted man. He's still a brutal monster who has done horrible things with impeccable precision. He just also happens to have a soft spot for someone. I also really don't agree with the use of the term manipulated here. That seems to imply that Bane was doing things with a lack of awareness, when there's nothing to suggest that. Unless someone can prove that Talia was stringing him along and promising him her body and heart if he did her bidding.

A merciless terrorist that has a soft spot for someone sounds terribly interesting. Specially if that terrorist is Nolan's Bane. But if poorly developed, then it comes out as a "short"coming. Almost ridiculous.

Bane, the brutal monster is manipulated by a woman. Wow. How so? No ansewrr, it's just that way. And all we're left to see is a tear. That comes out lame for a character like Bane. Had we had proper background we could have even shed a tear with him too.

It's not completely ambiguous. As I already mentioned, the film tells us early on that the protector thought the child's innocence was to be prized and saw her as a means of redemption. The ambiguity is more about why Bane was down there in the first place. But that's a cool ambiguity. It preserves a bit of Bane's mysteriousness.

More than ambiguity, just hiding the whole picture.

I thought that HEMMITT drop was impressive. It mirrored the Ra's train crash, only this was done for real on the streets of Pittsburgh rather than with miniatures. I'd say it was sufficiently big.

And then Cotillard gave us a ridiculous death scene.

I agree though that it was nice how it mirrored Talia's father's death.

Because as they are both the main antagonists in their respective films, there are similarities and differences. Some of them being major differences. You can compare and contrast. I brought up The Joker's reaction to the ferries because to me that is the moment Batman "beats" him, as their battle is more psychological/philosophical. So that to me is the equivalent of when Batman beats Bane in hand to hand combat. In both cases, the character's show a chink in their armor when they've been shown to be invulnerable for the whole movie up to that point. But from there, Joker just shrugs it off, while with Bane we get to spend more time with him in a defeated state. But that makes sense for both of those characters, because Joker is meant to be more of a boogieman with endless tricks up his sleeve.

Well, if you hadn't compared Joker to bane I wouldn't have either.

To be fair though, I always felt like the final shot of Joker laughing felt kind of strained, like he was laughing "sadly" because the game was over.

According to the movie, it's because Joker did win. That's why Gordon and Batman had to lie to everyone, remember?

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't see how Batman "beats" Joker at the end of TDK in the same way he beats Bane. Batman stopping the Joker from blowing up those boats in TDK was a case of him winning the battle but not the war, since that battle was followed into another one by the fact that Batman had to go stop Joker's "ace in the hole" and by the "you and I will do this forever" line. Since the war between those two characters was established as not over, it doesn't make the Joker any less intimidating than he was before. On the other hand, Batman beating Bane at the end of TDKR was a case of him winning the war. (and by war, I am talking about the Batman/Bane dynamic coming to an end and not the literal war that was going on that continued through Talia).

On the topic of the Talia twist, the problem people have with it is that it greatly hurts Bane. By that point, we literally know nothing about his character. We don't know his backstory, or his motivations, or his philosophy, or why his men are so loyal to him, or what he's been saying throughout the movie that is true and what was just him making up stuff/lying to manipulate people, etc. That's the main reason why it hurts Bane so much as a character.

The other problem is that Bane was actually an interesting character that people actually cared about and we find out at the end that the true big bad is a character that we don't really care much about, or at least not as much as Bane because we've grown really interested in him throughout the film.

I also hated the decision to make Bane work for someone and take orders from them in the first place. Maybe I wouldn't have minded as much if I didn't know the Bane of the comics. The great thing about Bane was that he was a meticulous badass. He was a tactical mastermind on a level that Batman has never faced before (excluding the Justice League villains). He didn't just break his back; He deduced his identity, came up with a plan to weaken him, and broke the Bat while in his peak condition in every single way (physically, mentally, and emotionally). He did not need Batman to already be crippled and out-of-shape to humiliate him the way he did. Ra's al Ghul later took notice of Bane and even admitted that Bane was his intellectual superior, which is why he wanted him to be Talia's lover. I have a hard time accepting that they took that character and turned him into someone who takes orders from Talia. If the Bane from Knightfall was in the movie, both Talia and TDKR's Bane would've been taking orders from him the whole time.

And Anno, to answer one of your previous posts, there are strong reasons to believe that Bane loved Talia as in him loving Talia. It doesn't seem that rational for Ra's al Ghul to excommunicate Bane out of the LOS just because he loved Talia as a friend, or because he cared for her in the same way two family members care for each other. Technically, Ra's would love Talia in the same way Bane did.

 

[BatLobster]

Bane, the brutal monster is manipulated by a woman. Wow. How so? No ansewrr, it's just that way. And all we're left to see is a tear. That comes out lame for a character like Bane. Had we had proper background we could have even shed a tear with him too.

I'm gonna end the multi-quoting here because it gets tiring. But all I'll say is I did feel emotion during Talia's reveal and Bane shedding a tear. Not in a "aw poor Bane, I feel bad for him" sort of way, but in the sense that it seemed rather unfortunate that Bane had chosen the path he did when there's something redeemable about him.

With both Bane and Talia I get the feeling that they truly were molded by that pit and were children of hell. This was a bond that was mutual, and there is something oddly touching about that despite how horrible they were.

Also Shika, I disagree with your assessment. Bane and Talia's bond probably undermined Ra's as a father to some extent. Like she says, he was a reminder of the hell he left his wife to die in. Must have been a hard pill to swallow to know that his daughter spent the early part of her life in an underground prison where she had to watch her mother die, and that the man who saved her was this savage, uncivilized beast (in his eyes). I think Ra's resented the fact that Bane was more of a father to Talia than he had been, and was protecting her before he even knew she existed. There wasn't enough room for the both of them, so to speak.

The movie never defines the true nature of Bane's feelings. It's possible to interpret it a few ways, but given the age gap I find it highly unlikely that it was purely romantic. It also doesn't really make sense to me why Bane would suddenly want to f*** this supposed beacon of purity and innocence that he cherished as his redemption. Sex would be the quickest way to corrupt that purity and innocence. I have a very close female friend I've known since we were kids, she's a few years younger than me. I could never and would never think of her in a romantic or sexual light for similar reasons, she's more like a sister to me. I'm sure plenty of people can find a similar example in their own lives.

 

[The Joker]

But Bane is not The Joker nor is he meant to be. The Joker is supposed to have the last laugh.

Exactly. So why were you comparing him to Bane?

 

[BatmanBeyond]

Exactly. So why were you comparing him to Bane?

He was (initially) comparing movie scenes in which the characters appeared and how those particular scenes similarly affected the intimidation factor of both villains. I don't see that as a comparison between the characters per se, but you guys then went along with it and it became a full-on comparison between the two villains.

Isn't that the basic premise of this thread anyway?

 

[The Answer]

Bane was more intimidating imo

But Joker was 10x more interesting.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I don't see how Batman "beats" Joker at the end of TDK in the same way he beats Bane. Batman stopping the Joker from blowing up those boats in TDK was a case of him winning the battle but not the war, since that battle was followed into another one by the fact that Batman had to go stop Joker's "ace in the hole" and by the "you and I will do this forever" line. Since the war between those two characters was established as not over, it doesn't make the Joker any less intimidating than he was before. On the other hand, Batman beating Bane at the end of TDKR was a case of him winning the war. (and by war, I am talking about the Batman/Bane dynamic coming to an end and not the literal war that was going on that continued through Talia).

But even when he dealt with Joker's "ace in the hole", he still took away Joker's plan of corrupting Gotham when they find out that Harvey Dent was corrupted. Wouldn't that still be beating Joker even after he literally bested him earlier in the Pruitt building?

On the topic of the Talia twist, the problem people have with it is that it greatly hurts Bane. By that point, we literally know nothing about his character. We don't know his backstory, or his motivations, or his philosophy, or why his men are so loyal to him, or what he's been saying throughout the movie that is true and what was just him making up stuff/lying to manipulate people, etc. That's the main reason why it hurts Bane so much as a character.

His backstory is still known even in the end of TDKR. He was born in the prison and in the darkness and only saw light when he was a man(when Ra's al Ghul rescued him). And when he was in the Pit, he saved Talia al Ghul from the cowards that raped and killed her mother. The only things not accurate was he climbing out of the Pit himself and him being ex-communicated from the LoS for being too extreme.

But what do you mean about what he was saying being true or not throughout the film?

And one final thing on this, do we need to know why those men are so loyal to Bane? Did we ever find out why there were men so loyal to Ra's al Ghul in BB?

The other problem is that Bane was actually an interesting character that people actually cared about and we find out at the end that the true big bad is a character that we don't really care much about, or at least not as much as Bane because we've grown really interested in him throughout the film.

I cared more about Bane in the end because he finally looked human compared to just a monster earlier in the film. He represented only this monster for the most of TDKR, which, I don't understand how some cared for him until they made Bane seem human.

I also hated the decision to make Bane work for someone and take orders from them in the first place. Maybe I wouldn't have minded as much if I didn't know the Bane of the comics. The great thing about Bane was that he was a meticulous badass. He was a tactical mastermind on a level that Batman has never faced before (excluding the Justice League villains). He didn't just break his back; He deduced his identity, came up with a plan to weaken him, and broke the Bat while in his peak condition in every single way (physically, mentally, and emotionally). He did not need Batman to already be crippled and out-of-shape to humiliate him the way he did. Ra's al Ghul later took notice of Bane and even admitted that Bane was his intellectual superior, which is why he wanted him to be Talia's lover. I have a hard time accepting that they took that character and turned him into someone who takes orders from Talia. If the Bane from Knightfall was in the movie, both Talia and TDKR's Bane would've been taking orders from him the whole time.

All great attributes of Bane from the comics, but I found Nolan did his best to make them work in TDKR, which I applaud him for. He had a tactical mind on making Gotham City into this martial law state(and no one can honestly say it was all Talia, because there's no proof). And Batman was sick when Bane broke his back in the comics by the way, so should we continue to say Batman was at his peak? I certainly wouldn't.

And Anno, to answer one of your previous posts, there are strong reasons to believe that Bane loved Talia as in him loving Talia. It doesn't seem that rational for Ra's al Ghul to excommunicate Bane out of the LOS just because he loved Talia as a friend, or because he cared for her in the same way two family members care for each other. Technically, Ra's would love Talia in the same way Bane did.

Strong reason to believe, okay, I'll go ahead and give you that...but you also have no literal proof to say Bane was in love with Talia in that way.

Exactly. So why were you comparing him to Bane?

Why are we all trying to compare the two with this poll?

 

[The Joker]

Why are we all trying to compare the two with this poll?

To see which one people liked more.

Clearly it's the Joker.

 

[BatLobster]

He was (initially) comparing movie scenes in which the characters appeared and how those particular scenes similarly affected the intimidation factor of both villains. I don't see that as a comparison between the characters per se, but you guys then went along with it and it became a full-on comparison between the two villains.

Isn't that the basic premise of this thread anyway?

Bingo.

 

[Anno_Domini]

To see which one people liked more.

Clearly it's the Joker.

The two should never be compared because they're so different, but hey, if you like the poll just because of the results, then cool

 

[The Joker]

He was (initially) comparing movie scenes in which the characters appeared and how those particular scenes similarly affected the intimidation factor of both villains.

A scene where Bane is defeated, sheds a tear, and is basically reduced to doing it for Talia, in comparison to Joker's disappointment at the ferries not blowing each other up.

Brilliant comparison.

I don't see that as a comparison between the characters per se, but you guys then went along with it and it became a full-on comparison between the two villains.

Isn't that the basic premise of this thread anyway?

Nope. It's which villain do you like more.

The two should never be compared because they're so different

It's not a comparison. It's a which one is your favorite, hence the poll. You're choosing which one you like more.

but hey, if you like the poll just because of the results, then cool

I love the poll results.

 

[Shikamaru]

But even when he dealt with Joker's "ace in the hole", he still took away Joker's plan of corrupting Gotham when they find out that Harvey Dent was corrupted. Wouldn't that still be beating Joker even after he literally bested him earlier in the Pruitt building?

It would still be a case of him winning the battle and not the war. The Joker establishes this to be a long ongoing war when he says "You and I will be doing this forever." (which didn't happen for obvious reasons)

His backstory is still known even in the end of TDKR. He was born in the prison and in the darkness and only saw light when he was a man(when Ra's al Ghul rescued him). And when he was in the Pit, he saved Talia al Ghul from the cowards that raped and killed her mother. The only things not accurate was he climbing out of the Pit himself and him being ex-communicated from the LoS for being too extreme.

Us knowing a bit of brief information on his backstory is not enough to tell us about his character. What does he believe in? What is his philosophy? Why is it that he believes this? What formed him as a character? How did that prison and darkness form him? All we get is a throwaway line where he states he was born into darkness and molded by it. That is barely anything. Another thing that hurts both Bane and Talia is that unlike the other main villains in the previous films (Ra's and Joker), Bane and Talia don't have a philosophy to counter Batman's, or at least not one that is addressed or that we are made aware of.

But what do you mean about what he was saying being true or not throughout the film?

The reveal in a nutshell is "Bane is not the main big bad that runs the whole show, Talia is." Due to this, we don't know how much truth there is or isn't to whatever Bane has said throughout the film. We don't know what was him telling the truth and what was him just lying/BS'ing to manipulate people.

And one final thing on this, do we need to know why those men are so loyal to Bane? Did we ever find out why there were men so loyal to Ra's al Ghul in BB?

The difference is that Batman Begins doesn't constantly ask the viewers to question why Ras' men are so loyal to him. TDKR constantly asks its viewers to question why Bane's men are so loyal.

Ra's al Ghul is also given a philosophy and his followers presumably follow that philosophy as well. Like I already said, Bane is not given a philosophy to counter Batman's. Due to that, we don't know what his followers even believe in. Do they follow the same values of the LOS? Do they believe in power to the people? The movie never answers these questions.

I cared more about Bane in the end because he finally looked human compared to just a monster earlier in the film. He represented only this monster for the most of TDKR, which, I don't understand how some cared for him until they made Bane seem human.

It's not about people no longer caring about Bane. That's not what I was talking about. I said that they revealed the true big bad of the plot was actually a villain that is far less interesting than who we thought was the main villain (Bane).

All great attributes of Bane from the comics, but I found Nolan did his best to make them work in TDKR, which I applaud him for. He had a tactical mind on making Gotham City into this martial law state(and no one can honestly say it was all Talia, because there's no proof). And Batman was sick when Bane broke his back in the comics by the way, so should we continue to say Batman was at his peak? I certainly wouldn't.

Yes. A villain with tons of honor for those who defeat him is turned into a man who grabs a shotgun and points it at the head of his wounded opponent (who is only wounded due to a third party intervening) right after the opponent beat him fair and square. That sounds like the Bane from Knightfall.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Bane came up with the plan. Even if that is the case, that still doesn't make Bane the intellectual of Knightfall because the plan is completely stupid and does not many any sense. The plan in a nutshell is that Bane plans to prove to Bruce Gotham is still just as corrupt as it was before and just needs a slight "push" to fall back into the corruption it got out of. And how does he plan to prove this to Bruce? By closing all entrances to the city, causing fear among the public, trapping all the cops underground, and then releasing all of Gotham's criminals back on the streets to cause chaos just so that he could justify blowing up the city 5 months later. On top of that, what evidence did Bane have that Gotham can still be as corrupt as before? He has no knowledge of the Dent coverup until he got to Gotham. His plan was already planned out by then.

You're misinterpreting what it means to be at your peak. A professional soccer player in his 20's who is very tired after a long game would still be considered to be in his peak. A professional soccer player in his 60's would not be considered to be at his peak regardless of how much energy he has during a specific game. The other difference between Knightfall and TDKR is that it was Bane himself in Knightfall who weakened Batman. It was all part of his plan. Batman being weakened in TDKR had nothing to do with Bane. I would be curious to know if Bane would've been able to come up with a plan to beat Batman if he fought the Batman that we saw at the end of TDK.

Strong reason to believe, okay, I'll go ahead and give you that...but you also have no literal proof to say Bane was in love with Talia in that way.

That's right. I don't. I'm just going by what I feel is heavily implied. Obviously I can't say I know for sure (partly the movie's fault for not exploring their relationship).

Plus, there are also good reasons to believe that Bane was a pedophile. He "loved" a little girl and was excommunicated from the League of Shadows for being a "monster". I'm not trying to claim this is true; just that it is a theory that wouldn't be too out of the blue.