• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane XVIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrelevant, there is no solid rule when it comes to Nolan and suspension of disbelief. He approaches some things in a way that require it, and other things that are more grounded and naturalistic. Just because you can point out various elements he has taken liberties with doesn't mean he isn't allowed to approach other things with plausibility.
You're just making my point. Liberties will be taken, and suspension of disbelief will follow as appropriate. Obviously Nolan doesn't have to do much work when his actor is already normal-sized. I'm speaking in hypotheticals involving stretching reality with Bane. Being a foot or two bigger wouldnt have affected his character in the least. Chris has already shown he isn't afraid to bend the rules so his designs and concepts can exist.

He has obviously gone that route with Bane and I couldn't see any other way he could have made it better (visually) with a more bulked up actor.
The story of this forum ever since Nolan came along. :o
 
You're just making my point. Liberties will be taken, and suspension of disbelief will follow as appropriate. Obviously Nolan doesn't have to do much work when his actor is already normal-sized. I'm speaking in hypotheticals involving stretching reality with Bane. Being a foot or two bigger wouldnt have affected his character in the least. Chris has already shown he isn't afraid to bend the rules so his designs and concepts can exist.

I wasn't trying to refute your point, just those that think that Nolan is making a grave mistake in shrinking down Bane. I honestly don't see how the character could be portrayed any better or different with a taller or larger frame, if anything it's more along the lines of Craig as Bond and Keaton as Batman, two men physically out of tradition with the character they are portraying using their presence to convey their respective traits instead.

Hardy is a charismatic actor, and he certainly has presence, Using a larger actor would have probably taken focus off all those little quirks and subtleties that Hardy is free to make.

Then again I could be wrong, but I never saw Bane as much in the first place, so anything different is an improvement to me anyway.
 
I wasn't trying to refute your point, just those that think that Nolan is making a grave mistake in shrinking down Bane. I honestly don't see how the character could be portrayed any better or different with a taller or larger frame, if anything it's more along the lines of Craig as Bond and Keaton as Batman, two men physically out of tradition with the character they are portraying using their presence to convey their respective traits instead.
Embodying a character, both in and out, is always better. Of course there is always a balance as there will likely be strengths and weaknesses that sway the pendulum both ways. As with your examples, Keaton and Craig had tremendous presence to make up for their lack of likenesses towards their respective roles. But were they blessed with having it, would it have hindered them in any way? Of course not. It is to their benefit that they move closer to a live-action representation of the character. Whatever that entails.

Hardy is a charismatic actor, and he certainly has presence, Using a larger actor would have probably taken focus off all those little quirks and subtleties that Hardy is free to make.
Needless to say I'm at a loss as to how you've arrived to that hypothesis. Size has nothing to do with affecting third-party perception of how one behaves and emotes. That purely rests on the actor effectively transmitting those intricacies to the viewer.
 
I think someone would have mentioned if he was... this upsets me greatly.
 
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed. A short, British Bane...

I think that is the most radical compensation Nolan has done to accommodate realism to these Batman films. I hope it works out well
 
I wasn't trying to refute your point, just those that think that Nolan is making a grave mistake in shrinking down Bane. I honestly don't see how the character could be portrayed any better or different with a taller or larger frame, if anything it's more along the lines of Keaton as Batman, physically out of tradition with the character they are portraying using their presence to convey their respective traits instead.
Embodying a character, both in and out, is always better. Of course there is always a balance as there will likely be strengths and weaknesses that sway the pendulum both ways. As with your examples, Keaton and Craig had tremendous presence to make up for their lack of likenesses towards their respective roles. But were they blessed with having it, would it have hindered them in any way? Of course not. It is to their benefit that they move closer to a live-action representation of the character. Whatever that entails.
Great point about Keaton, and Craig, I never thought of that before. I bet the Hardy Bane is a great surprise like Keaton was with Batman. The non-traditional casting worked great with Keaton and he blew everyone away despite the "comic accuracy". I'm sure it'll be the same thing with Hardy's Bane. Size matters not, it's all in the performance and how you convey the character.
 
バット人;22049713 said:
Great point about Keaton, and Craig, I never thought of that before. I bet the Hardy Bane is a great surprise like Keaton was with Batman. The non-traditional casting worked great with Keaton and he blew everyone away despite the "comic accuracy". I'm sure it'll be the same thing with Hardy's Bane. Size matters not, it's all in the performance and how you convey the character.
Thats what she said :cwink:. But I agree, I have total faith in Tom Hardy with this. He's a tremendous actor, and he looks huge from what ive seen. Any bigger would enhance the look but lessen the impact of the acting and all the little nuances IMO. Which is something Hardy is brilliant at. I don't think Tom can get any bigger than what he is for TDKR and i can't think of a more built actor who can even come close to having the skills that are needed for Nolans interpretation. So im happy.
 
6ba2f.jpg


Bane looks good here.
 
Awesome poster :up: He was enhanced a little bit for sure, Hardy is not that big. Bane's arms look massive in that poster.
 
Awesome poster :up: He was enhanced a little bit for sure, Hardy is not that big. Bane's arms look massive in that poster.

Really? he doesnt look any different from any other photos to me
 
Really? he doesnt look any different from any other photos to me

His arms just look thicker to me, look at the full empire cover image they used (not the subscriber cover).
 
Yeah without of a doubt Bane is enhanced for the picture. Good to see the liquified tool in Photoshop came to good use.

That is one sick poster. :D
 
His arms just look thicker to me, look at the full empire cover image they used (not the subscriber cover).

Ohh yeah they do look a bit thicker. Hope bane looks like that in the film, perfect size IMO
 
Chris Nolan and Emma Thomas comment on Bane/Hardy.
IGN: Did you always want to introduce Bane sort of physically in the middle of an action sequence? I would imagine the first thought would be, "We'll introduce him in prison because that's what people associate him with." Can you talk about the genesis of how you wanted to introduce this character?

Christopher Nolan: Well, when you're thinking about opening a film you want you want to lead in a striking way and with a very striking number of character-driven views. So you're looking for a sequence that showcases this -- in the case of Bane -- his physicality and his aggression and devotion to his prize and this kind of thing. Those are all things that get wrapped up in there.


IGN: We know you selected Bane as the villain of this film because you wanted him to be a physical challenge for Batman. But he's a character that, frankly, I didn't really read up on until I heard that he was going to be in the movie. I knew that he was the guy who broke Batman's back, and that's kind of all I knew about him. But the more I read about him, the more I became kind of fascinated by him, that this is a guy who was raised in prison and all that. How much of that backstory, the elements that made him who he was, do you retain in the film? And if you don't, were you worried at all that that would be like getting rid of Bruce Wayne seeing his parents shot, that impetus for why he is who he is?

Nolan: Well, the liberating thing about dealing with a lesser known villain is you feel more creative freedom to embrace the elements of that character you feel can serve your story and ignore those that won't. But at the same time, we chose Bane because he has some very unique elements to who he is. As far as the emphasis to it in the film, I'm actually editing some right now, so you never quite know until it's done. But we certainly intend to do justice to it, to the character I've written and to the comics. And I think the significance of Bane, in our eyes, is his strength as an antagonist to Batman. Everything must serve that, including the nature of his past and how that will play into the story.

IGN: Can you talk about the idea to start with Bane already being Bane. We don't know how he got there, but --

Emma Thomas: And I think in some ways it's kind of fun. In The Dark Knight we did the same thing when we introduced the Joker, and he was in mid-heist. And it very much, if you remember, it very much gave you the sense of who the Joker was. And I think the same thing goes for this prologue. Bane is already doing his thing, and you can see that he's a brute. He's a smart brute, but some things -- there's a real grandeur.



IGN: I know you guys have worked with Tom on Inception so were you already thinking about Dark Knight Rises and Bane when you were doing Inception? Were you looking at Tom like, "Oh yeah. That's our guy." At what point in the process did you say, "Tom should be Bane"?

Thomas: We already knew that Bane was the villain when we were shooting Inception. And actually as we were shooting, we did talk about how, wow, Tom would be perfect for Bane. We talked about that pretty early on. The issue that we had was that Tom was going to be doing another movie. He was committed to be on Fury Road, and we knew he wasn't available. So every conversation that we had about how Tom was perfect to be Bane was sort of tinged with regret because we knew he couldn't be. So as soon as we found out that that movie had pushed we approached him.

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/121/1214486p2.html
 
Thomas: We already knew that Bane was the villain when we were shooting Inception. And actually as we were shooting, we did talk about how, wow, Tom would be perfect for Bane. We talked about that pretty early on.
Yeah I wonder why they thought that.

normal_tom_hardy_inception_set33.jpg

normal_tom-hardy-inception-set-shirtless-eames.jpg

normal_tom-hardy-shirtless-inception-set-photo-LA.jpg


He's almost always half-naked on set! :lmao:

He was just coming off Warrior was well.
 
I still say that Hardy would've made a killer Batman.
 
When it comes to Hardy's dialogue as Bane from the Prologue. A birdie of mine told me this:

"During the editing process (which is happening as we speak) Nolan and Hardy will do the standard additional dialogue recording sessions or ADR's, so his the lines are much more clear. Trust me, the final print will make Bane’s dialogue sound just fine when the final print is released in July".

:batman:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"