Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by milost, Mar 12, 2013.
They were friends when they were kids, yes, it happens.
And when it does, it's weird. Specially when it happens to both at the same time with no reason whatsoever.
Weird to you.
And people who don't suddenly get the hots for a female friend that played the role of their sister in their childhood.
because you know this for sure? Lol. Please don't sound like the type of poster that knows how everyone feels.
There are people that grew up as childhood friends and end up becoming an item. And nonetheless how I don't agree that Bruce and Rachel were ever brotherly or sisterly around each other. Just friendly as young children are.
"And people who..." That engulfs any person who thinks like that, even if it's just two, see?
Now relax. I was just complaining about how gratuitously Rachel was included and twisted into a love interest. I understand because of the executives directives or such (instead of having Harvey Dent).
But you're just one person. So "And people who..." is still wrong when you're not speaking of two people, see what I did there?
The inclusion of Rachel and her being Bruce's friend from the beginning is a lot mare reasonable when she becomes a love interest later on. I find any difficulties in understanding Rachel being a love interest could also be toward Katie's acting as well. Christian Bale had zero chemistry with Katie or Maggie, but impeccable chemistry with both Anne and Marion(if only she had more scenes with Bale ).
Well, yes. Basically the character acquired some relevance (other than being Bruce's speech giver) when she became Bruce's only hope. Basically the character was used for this and for that, being an utilitarian item was her only purpose, which is the saddest reason any character could have to exist. It was just a McGuffin-type of character.
Oh how terrible you didn't get it.
Yes, I am aware of this. It's what happens when you have to create a character all of a sudden because you decided you can't go ahead and use another(Dent).
Loved Bane, especially the Nolan updates to the very essence and visual aesthetic to the character itself. Changes I feel the source material should follow suit with, personally. Of course fanboys won't approve. But their resistant to change in all it's forms.
But it doesn't get any better than Ledger and Nolan's interpretation of a more grounded, "Dark Knight" styled Joker. It was just too captivating, and haunting. A frightening killer clown, who managed to make me at times believe his philosophy on the world. Terrifying.
Not like a sister. Like a friend.
The Joker wins it for me but the fact that Bane was anywhere close to it was stunning to me. At least the Batman trilogy is safe in the knowledge it has the best two cinematic comic book villains on screen.
Marvel has nothing to compete with Scarecrow/Two Face/Raz Al Gul before it even gets close to either of the big two.
The Joker was the best CBM villain so far in my opinion
Loki and Doc Ock were good (though Doc Ock was different from the comics)
Loki was only okay, imo.
And Doc Ock is from a Sony movie. I can't really say it's fair to tack on non Marvel Films movies even if they are marvel properties.
Yeah I would agree these two are their best efforts so far, but having just re-watched Begins, neither are as good as Raz.
But I'm sure Marvel will come up with a good one in the future at some point.
Joker wins but as others have mentioned Bane came real close... The last act let Bane down, Joker being an absolute meant he never wavered in his lunacy.
I would say McKellan's Magneto surpasses Bane. As does Molina's Doc Ock. But yes, no other Marvel villain really has, including all those made by Marvel themselves. But that is because Marvel is trying to be so family friendly, they do not want their villains to be really nasty. Though that might change with the second Avengers if it really features whatever-his-name-is from the end credits.
But while I prefer Marvel comics as a whole, there is nothing in their pantheon that matches the Joker. So, when someone like Ledger realizes that character so brilliantly, it just is not comparable.
Joker wins and bane needed much more to match him. Anyone else think that a better way to have made bane unstoppable and unable to feel pain via a mask an drugs in this universe was to have him being borned or develop some form of a disease known as HSAN? Basically it's a condition that makes one impervious to pain. Would have been more realistic and could have allowed tom to really act and not be hindered by a mask which would have also opened up other exciting possibilities for the character and the movie.
I had forgotten about him to be honest, thanks for the reminder and yes he is probably the best Marvel screen villain so far. Must watch X2 again at some point!!
Heath Ledger's Joker, without question. The Joker stole the show every time he came on screen. With Bane, I couldn't wait for him to get off screen.
Chris Nolan is Genious. Joker was awesome in DK but Bane was other worldly in DKR. The fact that he beat Batman, then everyone thought Batman died, then the emotion of him HAVING to retire made Bane so much better. No disrespect to Heath Ledger.