The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane IX

[Harley2004]

I'm going to wait to see Hardy's performance before making that kind of judgment.

I don't have to see the movie, to make that judgement. Considering I have seen Hardy's other films, mainly Bronson, which Hardy should have atleast been nominated for an Oscar for.

 

[EliteF50]

The arguments about The Rock are unnecessary at this point. He is not a horrible actor by any means, but he wouldn't fit with the caliber of actors in Nolan's film. And we already have Hardy as Bane any way and we can't change that, just hope for the best. Everyone has their opinions, so trying to change others' is wasted energy.

--dk7

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, I'm just trying to say he would have made a great Bane. Especially with someone like Nolan. Dwayne has great potential, he just needs an amazing director to show all of us it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

...actually, I'd go to Javier Bardem first.

Now that seems like a better choice than the Rock by a long shot. Please explain how the Rock as Bane would be any different from Nicholson as the Joker? Too recognizable, and IMHO the Rock has never shown the type of psychotic stuff that Hardy or Bardem have shown in the past.

 

[Marx]

@Marx: I do agree, Nolan's Bane really doesn't resemble the comic character in terms of statue or his mask. Looking at the spy pictures, notice how the mask his strapped to Bane's face. Can you agree that the way the skin is exposed is at least similar in shape to the "fins/wedges/whatever" on the comic Bane's mask?

I can but it was an unnecessary change and the appearance of Bane suffers from it.

 

[Victarion]

^Thanks. Yes to the second part. We'll agree to disagree to the first.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I agree with you 100%.

I can't stand these bandwagoners that think just because you're big means you can't act.

Dwayne played a homo for crying outloud and he played it well! He's not even a homo in real life and he pulled it off in Be Cool where he was supposed to be a gay cowboy. He's not your typical action movie buff. He doesn't have too many action movies.

Dwayne is no Broadway actor but he can act.

I'll admit -- he's got alittle bit of range but he's never played a dark villain, and Nolan isn't about to take a huge risk with Dwayne.

Furthermore, Nolan doesn't cast action stars.

 

[Harley2004]

(actually, I'd go to Javier Bardem first).

Not as good as Hardy, even in No country he was not what Hardy was in Bronson, but that is a decent choice. Javier Bardem could have done it. The Rock, i don't know what you are thinking on that one though.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Not as good as Hardy, even in No country he was not what Hardy was in Bronson, but that is a decent choice. Javier Bardem could have done it. The Rock, i don't know what you are thinking on that one though.

Bardem and Hardy both have psycho eyes. Bardem definitely could have pulled it off, although the fact that he already played one unstoppable badass and won an Oscar for it would possibly make it feel too familiar. Hardy has played a muscled up psycho before, but that performance was nowhere near as widely seen as Bardem's so his work as Bane will likely be viewed by the general audience with more of an open mind.

 

[darknight7]

I believe the characterization and acting is important. Obviously it is. But appearance is as well. The point of Bane's size is to make him menacing. I saw a comment somewhere else that said: What if Drago was the same size (if not shorter) than Rocky. It would have a TOTALLY different feel to it.

And that's the same point here. Of course the acting is important and doing Bane justice as a character, but he SHOULD tower over Batman because it would make for better visuals.

The mask change is the least of the worries. The mask change is similar to the Joker wearing make-up (instead of being perma).

But take the Joker...make him wear yellow instead of purple, and make him a short fat guy...now? does it feel like the Joker?

"Oh but, he laughs, and is violent, and tells bad jokes, and murders people and is a criminal genius, so the characterization is perfect!"

...see what I'm trying to say here?

--dk7

 

[redfirebird2008]

The mask change is the least of the worries. The mask change is similar to the Joker wearing make-up (instead of being perma).

You're downplaying the permawhite controversy. At the time there were plenty of complaints that it changed the psychology of the character. It was a pretty BFD around here, bigger than anything with Bane for sure.

 

[Marx]

You're ignoring dk7's larger point.

 

[darknight7]

You're downplaying the permawhite controversy. At the time there were plenty of complaints that it changed the psychology of the character. It was a pretty BFD around here, bigger than anything with Bane for sure.

Oh believe me. :P I was around hahaha

But my point is, they kept the look of the Joker accurate. They simply made him apply make up instead.

But Bane, it's not just "oh they changed his mask" there seems to be a lot changing from the looks of it. Hence all the worry.

--dk7

 

[EliteF50]

mainly Bronson, which Hardy should have atleast been nominated for an Oscar for.

Agreed 100%.

Now that seems like a better choice than the Rock by a long shot. Please explain how the Rock as Bane would be any different from Nicholson as the Joker? Too recognizable, and IMHO the Rock has never shown the type of psychotic stuff that Hardy or Bardem have shown in the past.

Poor example considering Jack's Joker was/is loved by many. Dwayne just needs the right script and director to show us what he is truly capable of.

Not as good as Hardy, even in No country he was not what Hardy was in Bronson, but that is a decent choice. Javier Bardem could have done it. The Rock, i don't know what you are thinking on that one though.

Javier could have given us better comic book Bane seeing as he's Spanish.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Hardy (although he wasn't muscle bound) was also really good in Star Trek: Nemesis.
The character he was playing was very much like Bane's character, even the backstory, he was genetically mutated and lived much of his youth in a prison, from which he escaped.

 

[KalMart]

Everything looks awesome, but why didn't they just make Bane's stunt double much taller than Hardy/Bale?

Probably to keep the camera angles/coverage consistent...whether they're doing any 'trickery' or not.

 

[Schlosser85]

Shinzon is one of my favorite Trek villains.

 

[Harley2004]

What if Drago was the same size (if not shorter) than Rocky.

...see what I'm trying to say here?

--dk7

No, b/c it like the arnold comment, Drago was like a machine that did not talk, and had no emotions,like a terminator. We don't know this but Bane will most likely talk and be highly intelligent, not just a physical match for Batman. So Hardy was needed. A person who can be intimidating not just physically but with his words, which Hardy obviously can do.

 

[Marx]

Shinzon is one of my favorite Trek villains.

Same here.

 

[.:TheDarkKnight]

I believe the characterization and acting is important. Obviously it is. But appearance is as well. The point of Bane's size is to make him menacing. I saw a comment somewhere else that said: What if Drago was the same size (if not shorter) than Rocky. It would have a TOTALLY different feel to it.

And that's the same point here. Of course the acting is important and doing Bane justice as a character, but he SHOULD tower over Batman because it would make for better visuals.

The mask change is the least of the worries. The mask change is similar to the Joker wearing make-up (instead of being perma).

But take the Joker...make him wear yellow instead of purple, and make him a short fat guy...now? does it feel like the Joker?

"Oh but, he laughs, and is violent, and tells bad jokes, and murders people and is a criminal genius, so the characterization is perfect!"

...see what I'm trying to say here?

--dk7

If anything, Bane's going to be a more plausible villain now. Obviously size has been a part of Bane, but he's still going to appear bigger than Batman. And your argument is pretty funny, because I think it goes against what you're trying to get at. The new Bane - honestly - looks so much better than the old Bane, especially for cinema.

 

[darknight7]

No, b/c it like the arnold comment, Drago was like a machine that did not talk, and had no emotions,like a terminator. We don't know this but Bane will most likely talk and be highly intelligent, not just a physical match for Batman. So Hardy was needed. A person who can be intimidating not just physically but with his words, which Hardy obviously can do.

Yes of course, but that doesn't mean you squash the entire physical aspect of the character.

I'm very optimistic for this film, for Bane, for Hardy and Nolan.

But I can't say it doesn't get on my nerves when people throw away all of thier comic knowledge and just say, ya no worries it's Nolan.

--dk7

 

[redfirebird2008]

Poor example considering Jack's Joker was/is loved by many. Dwayne just needs the right script and director to show us what he is truly capable of.

Considering I've watched it over 1,000 times, I'd say I also fall into the "love" category. But Jack was too recognizable in the role. It was enjoyable, but it could have easily been better.

 

[Schlosser85]

If anything, Bane's going to be a more plausible villain now. Obviously size has been a part of Bane, but he's still going to appear bigger than Batman. And your argument is pretty funny, because I think it goes against what you're trying to get at. The new Bane - honestly - looks so much better than the old Bane, especially for cinema.

You don't know that.

 

[bunk]

Shinzon is one of my favorite Trek villains.

My brain almost just exploded. How did I not realize that was him? I think I blocked that movie out of my mind for the most part.

 

[Schlosser85]

My brain almost just exploded. How did I not realize that was him? I think I blocked that movie out of my mind for the most part.

Well he is pretty unrecognizable compared to Bronson or Inception.

 

[darknight7]

If anything, Bane's going to be a more plausible villain now. Obviously size has been a part of Bane, but he's still going to appear bigger than Batman. And your argument is pretty funny, because I think it goes against what you're trying to get at. The new Bane - honestly - looks so much better than the old Bane, especially for cinema.

It doesn't go against what I'm saying. Because my argument isn't that he has to be a 7ft luchador wrestler.

It's just that he needs to be an intimidating size. Size matters. Because when a big guy walks into the room, people ***** their pants.

He's supposed to appear as Batman's superior. Not only an intelligent threat, but also a monster of a man who could eat Bats for breakfast. He is supposed to be a great wall that Batman overcomes, therefore his size is important for the "theme" of the character or whatever you want to call it

--dk7