The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane IX

[Banescoat]

We are seeing spy photos of Bane standing on the tumbler in the middle of the day next to a tree. There is a lot of movie magic that happens in between this shoot and when we see the actual movie. I think Nolan will respect Bane and keep the essence of the character.

 

[batbax]

Batman is David when he's against Bane. The TDKR trailer hints at this by showing him back away from Bane. Bane was introduced as a character that Batman had no chance of defeating physically, which is a big part of the David and Goliath story.

Your perception is batman is David. That doesn't mean it's true. In knightfall bane beat batman because batman was Worn down so he could barely fight. In my estimation of course bane is a huge threat physically, but it isn't that batman can't beat him that way, it's that band attacks him from other angles as well so by the time they meet in combat bane has an edge. I hardly think it's a David/ Goliath comparison though.

 

[JAK®]

I think we can see the movie magic; Bane's boots. That's a pretty hefty heel, and that's just what we can see. They're very good at hiding lifts in shoes nowadays. Also, Hardy's stance is quite odd, he's got a very pronounced lean in his legs, which is a common trait among lift wearers.

 

[batbax]

Yeah banes going to be height enhanced. Which was obvious from the beginning. This whole argument us pretty worn out at this point.

 

[Blue Sugar]

The essence of the David and Gholiat story is "being against all odds". Don't need height to convey that do we?

 

[Keyser Soze]

Absolutely none of those quotes are suggesting CGI.

When people talk about "fixing it in post", I think of that as being CGI. Practical effects like lifts and camera angles are stuff that I'd interpret as being done during production. As I originally wrote that first post on the subject, I was going to say "Is making Bane bigger in post-production this year's making Joker permawhite through CGI?" But I swapped the wording around, because the way it stood it seemed too much like I was specifically quoting Hunter Rider rather than making a general remark, which I didn't want to do, as I like Hunter Rider, and he's by no means the only person who make the suggestion.

 

[JAK®]

The essence of the David and Gholiat story is "being against all odds". Don't need height to convey that do we?

You do if Goliath needs to be an actual Goliath.

 

[JAK®]

Yeah banes going to be height enhanced. Which was obvious from the beginning. This whole argument us pretty worn out at this point.

Which is why people should just give up trying to convince me that Bane's height doesn't matter, because it does, and even Nolan seems to recognise that. That's the issue I have, not with the film itself.

 

[CrimsonDeath]

I prefer Bane to be bigger or at least on the same size as Batman. In just don't get these David and Goliath comparison that keeps popping up. Thier rivalry has never seen as similar to me. Bane might be Goliath like but Batman is clearly no David. And height isn't the only way to show Batman is against the odds.

The original creators did not make Bane that much taller than Batman, and just Bane's muscle size increased when taking venom. Only the exaggerated Kelley Jones covers (which I love) depict Bane as truly monstrous in size compared to Batman. Then the cartoons took it even further.

As long as Hardy appears huge enough to take on Batman, and he'll be made to appear bigger, maybe, perhaps. And the only reason Bane ever defeated Batman was because he was psychologically worn out at the beginning of Knightfall, which further continued with his physical ordeal dealing with Bane's chaos. And Bane was taking Venom. And Batman was so physically deteriorated that he never even landed a punch on Bane in that "epic" back-breaking issue, which annoyed me a bit. It wasn't because Bane was a Goliath.

Later on, without the Venom and without Batman exhausted, Bane couldn't defeat Batman in hand to hand combat. So Bane's physicality is not the most important aspect of the character, but the threat that he poses and his cunning and intelligence.

 

[Ryan]

Some of this reminds me of the Wrath storyline.

 

[thewhyteman]

Which is why people should just give up trying to convince me that Bane's height doesn't matter, because it does, and even Nolan seems to recognise that. That's the issue I have, not with the film itself.

You know, I don't think Bane's height will really matter, because It doesn't.
Nolan is going to make Bane perfect for Nolan's world.

 

[JAK®]

The original creators did not make Bane that much taller than Batman, and just Bane's muscle size increased when taking venom. Only the exaggerated Kelley Jones covers (which I love) depict Bane as truly monstrous in size compared to Batman. Then the cartoons took it even further.

Again with the monstrous comments. That is hyperbole. He just needs to be bigger than Batman. In Hardy's case, this requires height-enhancing techniques. Then the muscles will fill in the rest.

 

[Banescoat]

Bane looks pretty big in the last shot of the teaser, and that's all we can really go on size wise.

 

[JAK®]

You know, I don't think Bane's height will really matter, because I doesn't.
Nolan is going to make Bane perfect for Nolan's world.

By giving Hardy platform boots to wear. Exactly.

 

[CrypticOne]

Man, that new video of Bane and the pics are awesome. At least we know Bane will talk in this! Can't wait.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

You know, I don't think Bane's height will really matter, because It doesn't.
Nolan is going to make Bane perfect for Nolan's world.

By not using Bane...

 

[JAK®]

"The Joker isn't about looking like a clown. He's always about being crazy and fighting Batman on a psychological level."

 

[TheLongestDay]

By not using Bane...

 

[JAK®]

Three overused and unfunny memes in one, that's a whole new level of 'fail'.

 

[StarLord]

TomHardyParty has a pic comparing Hardy back in Feb to now:

Spoiler

 

[JAK®]

Yeah, he's definitely big enough. Put him in some platform boots and he's good to go.

 

[Keyser Soze]

What exactly are we all fighting about here? From what I gather, a lot of people seem to basically want the same thing out of Bane, yet we're having one of those "slow news day" arguments where it seems nobody has any particular point they are trying to make beyond, "You wrote this post, and because I am arguing with you, I now have to find a way to disagree with what you say!"

JAK argues that this idea of people wanting Bane made bigger using CGI is a fictional viewpoint. I don't think that's the case, as I've seen people say it. But saying it is, then I'd say it's just as "fictional" a strawman view of the opposition to characterise anyone as being specifically AGAINST Nolan using any camera techniques to make Bane more visually intimidating, or actively campaigning for Bane to be filmed in a manner that specifically makes him shorter than Batman. I don't see anyone fighting for that, but with the way JAK is writing it seems that's what he's arguing against.

The middle ground that most of us seem to inhabit is that Bane doesn't need to be a massive giant, but he should be a physical threat to Batman, and if certain tricks - be it Tom Hardy bulking up or being filmed with a low-angled camera or having lifts in his boots - are used to enhance that effect, then fair dos.

 

[JerseyJoker]

Wonder how all that weight gain/loss does to his tattoos.

The outfit looks fine, the mask in still photography looks a bit meh...but gotta see how it all looks in motion.

 

[conan69]

Looks good to me... and yea ripping up the Dent photograph = win.

 

[JAK®]

I'm just tired of the whole apologist mentality. We have a character who has always been known for his size. We have an actor who can get big but is lacking in the height department. And Nolan has put those two together. At this stage, we don't know how he has managed to reconcile the differences.

So some people, in some sort of blind devotion to Nolan, are trying to convince us that no, Bane being bigger than Batman isn't a big deal, and never has been. Revisionist history is a common tactic for apologists. And that's what bothers me.

So what I'm really arguing about is the people who will use any means necessary to make sure that Nolan is always completely right in his decisions, regardless of the fact whether they even know what that decision is.

You're right, we really are arguing about nothing. But only because some people can't handle the smallest complaint.