The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane XXIX

[Baneis8feettall]

I think "henchman or not" will be a debate like Bane's size t: And the motivations of course.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

You know, one thing that i was wondering is why didn't Bane have any more visual scars and bruises on his body since he's much older than Bruce and I would assume that he's been doing his thing for much longer than Bruce has and we all know on how banged up Bruce was, but aside from needing the mask, Bane looked fine.

He probably didn't get hurt like Bruce.. since he is not shy to use weapons and doesn't have killing code.. Also he has army.

 

[craigdbfan]

He had scars all over his head and a big one going down from his neck/spine. They didn't make it too obvious in the film though.

 

[Broker]

He had scars all over his head and a big one going down from his neck/spine. They didn't make it too obvious in the film though.

Yeah, I was kinda hoping they would play more with that.

 

[antovolk]

Another script bit with Bane:

Spoiler

 

[Arta]

I found Bane's voice to be utterly laughable for the most part, I just could never take him seriously. Only times his voice got perfect for me were parts of the first fight between Bane and Batman, and during their talk in the Pit.

Even worse were the attempts to give him humorous lines, I rolled my eyes each time.

 

[Jick]

Except the detail that he was someone's partner, I liked everything about Hardy's Bane. From his voice, to the way he delivers the lines and the way he moves. He was a great villain.

In fact, I share some of his mannerisms and his way of talking.

 

[The Guard]

The reason for them attacking Gotham pre-Begins and TDKR is essentially the same, and can be summed up with the above quote. I've always understood the LOS's ideology in these films to be vaguely similar to those of actual terrorists, albeit presented in a more PC "ninja"-esque way.

No, the reason for attacking Gotham in BATMAN BEGINS and TDKR are not the same. The reasons for Ra's burning Wayne Manor and stabbing Bruce and Talia attacking Gotham are the same, but the actual reasons for attacking Gotham are not.

Gotham is attacked in BATMAN BEGINS because it has reached the pinnacle of its decadence, as Ra's stated.

In TDKR, the only "logical" reason for attacking Gotham is revenge, because the other reasons Talia gives to justify its destruction are nonsense based on what we're shown and told in the film.

@Guard:

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your assessment. At all.

Bane's and Talia's motivations are not weak. They are terrorists who sincerely believe that the destruction of Gotham (the actions they take in the process) will inspire citizens from all over the world to take the initiative and fight crime and corruption. Albeit, Bane, Talia and the remaining members of The League of Shadows aren't exactly just destroying Gotham and seeking a fight with Bruce/Batman for 'tribute' purposes (in the memory of Ra's al Ghul and their fallen brothers). This is also obviously personal for Bane, Talia and The League -- it's retribution. They wanted Bruce to watch in horror (while being hopeless in The Pit) as The League of Shadows burned Gotham (with its inhabitants) to the
ground.

Seriously, I don't see what's feeble about their motivations. Would you call Al-Qaeda's motivations weak as well simply because you're a non-believer and an 'infidel'? Of course, but these men and women are so misguided and/or consumed by rage and revenge that their convictions cannot be wavered or shaken. To them, it's more than enough to slaughter the innocent in order to serve a higher cause.

It being "personal" doesn't make their motivations for doing so a strong writing choice, or logical.

And that's the issue. The quality of the plots as writing. "Revenge" and "Because we're crazy and evil" are two of the most cliched, weak writing choices that can be made. And that's what the film gave us, except in Bane's case, where we got a vague "He loves her". So yeah, I think it's incredibly weak.

It isn't that I don't think they have convictions...they obviously do, its that I feel there's no logic behind those convictions...and this is based on what the film shows. The film doesn't explore their ...it just rehashes Ra's Al Ghul's. Bane and Talia really have no strong motivations of their own as characters, and worse, Bane's motivations are clearly derivative of Talia's, who are already derivative and cliche.

I feel that real life terrorist organizations also often have very weak, illogical motivations for doing things, and honestly, I feel that any sane, rational, or logical person should agree on that front. I don't give religious belief the weight that others might, at least not logically speaking. I don't believe purely emotional reasons for doing things always hold weight. I don't agree that religion or fantactical beliefs are "strong" reasons to do horrible things. They can be interesting reasons, mind you, but they are not legitimate or logical ones in my mind. And I'm not even going to pretend that Bane and Talia's motivations were presented in an interesting manner...because they weren't. There was almost no explroation into their fantaticism, which WOULD have been interesting, and a good reason to continus using the League of Shadows, and Talia, and Bane as connected to these elements.

As I've said, their motivations were a rehash of Ra's Al Ghul's, which weren't, in BATMAN BEGINS, really presented in an interesting manner either, but were rather simplistic and illogical.

Bane? Bane wanted violent revolution. He didn't want simple changes in the way the politicians et. al. ran things; he wanted them to answer to the people they wronged *after* said people had been whipped into a frenzy. Bane was more militant than Ra's, a more demagogue than philosopher.

And what was he going to do with that violent revolution? Nothing except hold Gotham hostage, torture and punish the wealthy, and more indirectly, Bruce.

And why? Bottom line? Revenge.

It works, but its not all that interesting.

Agreed 110%. Ra's Al Ghul weren't against revenge as well. He says he had his revenge in BB and asks why Bruce didn't?He even comes back and burn Wayne Mayor down just like Bruce burned LOS temple.

Except that Bruce atually burned down Ra's Al Ghul's home, so Ra's wanting revenge for that action makes sense. Bruce killed, incapacitated and scattered Ra's Al Ghul's forces, so Ra's being pissed about that makes sense.

Bruce didn't actually kill Ra's Al Ghul.

And the things Talia was trying to justify destroying Gotham for...like Ra's thinking Bruce left him for dead, simply weren't true, and made no sense.

Not only is it the old cliche of revenge, but its not even a logical reason for it. Its based on a misunderstanding, which just gets ridiculous.

Bruce killed Ra's mission and himself (at least Talia thinks so).. She & Bane tried to kill everything Batman did and himself and also finish Ra's Al Ghul's mission. That's not so difficult to see. What Ra's Al Ghul wanted Bruce's worst nightmare. Fullfilling his destiny would be killing two birds with one stone.

It's not difficult to see. Its actually very simple. IE, it's very obvious, and its not terribly interesting writing, even though the writers tried to make it so with nonsensical "justifications" which is my whole point about Bane and Talia's plot. That it was simple, cliche, uninteresting, and derivative.

For all of Nolan's talk of trying to find a villain who wasn't derivative of Joker's traits, he ends up purposely making another villain derivative of Ra's Al Ghul's. Given what thread this is, I expect that many people won't agree with Guard's assessment, he is right nonetheless.

Yes. Actually, Bane was deriviative or not only Ra's Al Ghul, but also of The Joker in several respects. Which would have been fine...it would have been a full circle thing (and still is) IF he'd had some motivations of his own to boot. He didn't, though. "Hope breeds despair" is not an interesting enough concept to use without an actual exploration of it. The film sets it up, but never delivers on it.

So Bruce didn't betray the League of Shadows, defeat Ra's and stop his plan of destroying Gotham, and left him to die on the train? Because last I checked, Bruce did all of those things.

Bane and Talia's motivation to me was to complete the last work that their master didn't finish, and in the process, torture and defeat Batman.

And that's fine...but that's not all that Talia says its all about. She tries to justify it beyond being just about revenge, but her justifications don't make any logical sense. Half her motivations are just...nonsense. Its like she's a fanatical dimwit. IE, a crazy person...which is not that good a writing choice.

I did see that inspired hope in the criminals, which of course it would since they were free to roam. I do question if inspired or sparked something in the poor. Selina's friend actually seemed happy at what was going on while Selina saw it as the way it was.

Bane wasn't talking about inspiring hope in Gotham's criminals. He was talking about inspiring hope in those Bruce had hoped to protect...and then causing them to despair and destroying them.

If you're referring to the "You burnt my house and left me for dead. Consider us even." line, I agree. But I don't see how their revenge was derivative of that, as their reasons for revenge made more sense to me.

Because its the same type of "misunderstanding" leading to a character wanting revenge.

Ra's believed Bruce left him for dead, even though Bruce saved his life...even though he pretty much knew Bruce saved his life...

Talia believed Bruce killed Ra's Al Ghul, even though Bruce didn't.

For you, perhaps. But I never thought Nolan was really trying to "hide" anythiabout it. Bane never disputes that he wants to kill Bruce at some point, and seeing as he proclaims himself as the LOS, there to fulfill Ras Al Ghul's destiny, then it stands to reason he would also have a bone to pick about his death. I don't see what the secret is about?

They're trying, as writers, to flesh it out, to make it look like more than it is, which is simple revenge...but all they can come up with for justification falls apart upon analysis, makes no sense...and is illogical nonsense.

Furthermore, If you are to believe LOS as an organization is as powerful as Ras said they were in BB, then it shouldn't be that hard to believe that they could find out what's really going on in Gotham.

Obviously it was, because they clearly had the wrong information about the state Gotham was in.

Presumably it took Talia a good portion of time to infiltrate WE, which means she & Bane were probably coming for Bruce regardless of Gotham's state of being, as DoomsdayApex already pointed out. The plan could've, and probably needed to be, slowly implemented well before the city was clean for 8 years.

Destroying Gotham is just icing on the cake. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Islam & Bin Laden too, but still went against them in certain regards. They even helped give up his whereabouts after he become anti Shia Islam, something Al-Qaeda didn't agree with. Bane was already described as radical in a sense, it stands to reason he & Talia could be extremists who, while loyal to LOS, have their own plan too, whether Gotham was crime free or not.

Except that this is not how its presented. At all.

Talia acts like there are good reasons to destroy Gotham. But they don't make any sense.

Especially if you consider the whole reason for Bruce rebelling against them in the first place, his inability to murder. Why would this man, who couldn't stay with the LOS because he couldn't murder, all of a sudden kill Ras Al Ghul, the cops & Harvey Dent, then disappear? If I were Bane or Talia, it would be enough to peek my interest to come to Gotham.

Too bad Talia never bothered to confirm Bruce killed her father.

You'd think Bruce would be like "I didn't kill your father. He sabotaged the controls".

I also think it fair to point out that corruption does not refer simply to organized crime. Just look at Daggett or, bad place, Bruce's speech about the "fat spreads". Clearly corruption still thrives among the Gotham elite.

Then they should be destroying every city on the planet.

Which, frankly, they should be, based no the comic book mythology. They should be cleansing the Earth.

Dagget is one person. Who is only shown as being corrupt because of Bane's presence. That is not "corruption thriving" anymore than a single thief in a city is "rampant crime".

Oooooh, I see. So, the majority of the thread is wrong because you feel that this is a 'Bane' thread and anything that doesn't support your opinion is wrong (and is of biased sentiments). Duly noted. Ironically, I could just say that Guard's, Joker's and your motivations are weak simply because you weren't satisfied by what The Nolans wrote for the character.

No...the majority of this thread (as you describe them) is wrong because their arguments are illogical, or because they're trying to hold up lousy writing as good writing.

It's fine to LIKE the material. I can enjoy elements of it. It's another thing to consider it strong writing.

Again...their motivations are just incredibly weak. And most of what Bane and Talia say to justify their weakly, cliche-motivated actions is nonsense. Worse, it is all derivative of Ra’s Al Ghul’s own “revenge” motivations in BATMAN BEGINS, which were ALSO illogical nonsense, so its like, layers of weak writing.

Really, this argument is getting as tiresome as beastmode's 'Tom Hardy is too small they should have got Dwayne Johnson' BS over and over. Can we give it a rest?

No. We can't. I'm sorry that what was in the film and discussion of it bores you...but unfortunately, since the filmmakers didn't give us anything interesting to discuss about Bane and his plot, all we can discuss is the nature of it...which was cliche and weak...oh, and a few posters can make up backstory and motivations that we never got to see...and we can talk about what we would have liked to have seen...

I found Bane's voice to be utterly laughable for the most part, I just could never take him seriously. Only times his voice got perfect for me were parts of the first fight between Bane and Batman, and during their talk in the Pit.

Oh, its ridiculous. Its just...he's so into it, its so absurd that it often works. But its kind of hit or miss.

 

[The Guard]

quote]No. The event that happened to him was tragic, but the way he dealt with it peeled back a layer on his character that was hinted at all through out the film. He had a bubbling rage (maybe more so than Batman) ... Bruce keeps it in check with will power, Dent revealed what kind of disgusting human being he is by the film's finale. Putting guns on an innocent family and a child? Vile. Bruce didn't snap when Rachel died, and kill all kinds of cops. Consider that and Bruce knew her for her entire life, where as Dent had only been dating her recently.[/quote]

There's never anything in Dent's character to suggest that he would kill Gordon's child until he just...does. It was horrible, forced writing, and I guess we're meant to assume he just went crazy (weak), because you wouldn't think Dent was that stupid as to think its Gordons fault he was scarred and Rachel died.

Bane is more sympathetic to me because he has done everything and went to great extents to plan a siege on an entire city out of love, and for the fact in a warped way he wants to redeem his life by protecting this little girl in a disgusting prison / pit. Yes, Bane's motivations are warped due to his alliegance and love to Talia, but all through out the film there is hints of his softer humanity.

How on Earth is a person doing something that horrible for love remotely "sympathetic"?

PATHETHIC, yes. Sympathetic, no.

He's mocking the kid and the people at the stock exchange, that's no hint at "softer humanity".

Neither Bane nor Dent are truly sympathetic characters as the film presents them. Remember...Bane was a mercenary before he went into the pit. Regardless of his injuries there, this guy has likely done plenty of evil even before he was injured.

 

[Victarion]

@The Guard: Torturing Gotham and Bruce were only the beginnings of his plans. He wanted to use Gotham as a catalyst for widescale revolution. His comment to Pavel in the football stadium as well as his comment on a new era of Western civilization indicate as much.

I agree that Bane wasn't sympathetic. I could understand why Bane worked with Talia to accomplish their goal, but I sure as bad place couldn't sympathize with him.

 

[The Sage]

And that's fine...but that's not all that Talia says its all about. She tries to justify it beyond being just about revenge, but her justifications don't make any logical sense. Half her motivations are just...nonsense. Its like she's a fanatical dimwit. IE, a crazy person...which is not that good a writing choice.

Honoring her father by completing his last work is nonsense? Because that's gist I got out of what she said, along with getting revenge on Bruce.

Bane wasn't talking about inspiring hope in Gotham's criminals. He was talking about inspiring hope in those Bruce had hoped to protect...and then causing them to despair and destroying them.

I'll agree there. They could've shown more of the poor invading the rich's homes and stealing, something more than beyond what Selina's friend said.

Because its the same type of "misunderstanding" leading to a character wanting revenge.

Ra's believed Bruce left him for dead, even though Bruce saved his life...even though he pretty much knew Bruce saved his life...

Talia believed Bruce killed Ra's Al Ghul, even though Bruce didn't.

And clearly Talia knows that Bruce didn't save his life on the train.

It's funny to read this considering I've read people on here argue that leaving Ra's to die on the train is the same as killing him.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

The Guard believes what he see. Same arguments over and over again. So be it.There is no end in this argument for both sides.

 

[georgec]

The Guard believes what he see. Same arguments over and over again. So be it.There is no end in this argument for both sides.

They only see one end to their journeys.

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

I'm really disappointed that they "destroyed" Bane in the last act. From major thread to a love sick henchman. Lame. Apart from that I liked his portrayal. But he still wasn't that smart and brutal badass from the Knightfall saga.

 

[Uroboric Forms]

Bane's not under Talia's thumb though. I fail to see why people think that.

And the whole 'Bane has flimsy motivations' thing is starting to come off a little as picking it apart and making excuses because you don't like the film. Their motivations are pretty clear.

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

They made it to seem like that. Bane may not be under Talia's thumb. But he was not on his own as well. Kinda cheapened the character for me.
I don't need any excuses for not liking the film. As a Batman movie I just didn't like it. Period.
As an action movie it was okay. But still not good.

 

[Uroboric Forms]

From the start of the film they establish that he is a mercenary. Have you read Bane of the Demon, and seen Bane's affections for Talia there?

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

No, sorry, I have not. But it kinda cheapend the character in this movie IMHO.
I just know Bane from the Knightfall saga. Maybe that's my fault. But I did not like that twist in the end. But thanks for reminding me. Bane of the Demon is on my list now.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm really disappointed that they "destroyed" Bane in the last act. From major thread to a love sick henchman. Lame. Apart from that I liked his portrayal. But he still wasn't that smart and brutal badass from the Knightfall saga.

Bane was not some love-stricken henchman for Talia in TDKR. I honestly don't know where people are pulling this from. Bane was established quite clearly as Talia's guardian/protector and loving fatherly-older sibling figure. Not once was Bane ordered around like a lapdog by Talia. He was her most trusted friend and partner.

And I disagree with your notion that The Nolans didn't use Knightfall inspirations for movie Bane. He was considerably intelligent, and equally as badass as comics Bane.

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

I didn't say they they didn't take notions. I just said he was not that badass than in the comics. And when did they show that he was intelligent?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The Guard believes what he see. Same arguments over and over again. So be it.There is no end in this argument for both sides.

At this point, Guard is just clutching for straws. I'll just it go. His points make no sense.

 

[Victarion]

...Can you really argue that "born in darkness" ISN'T an indication of his Knightfall origin?

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

It is. No doubt about that. But I would have preferred that there was no Talia twist in the end. And Bane would have been the one who escaped this prison. But that's a matter of taste I guess.

 

[Victarion]

It is. No doubt about that. But I would have preferred that there was no Talia twist in the end. And Bane would have been the one who escaped this prison. But that's a matter of taste I guess.

Someone had to help Talia escape--I figure it was Bane. So I'd say he was capable, but out of a wish to see her innocent nature unsullied by the darkness of the Pit, he allowed her to escape instead.

 

[BatmanGoesToRio]

It was Bane to help Talia escape. And I guess he was capable too. I guess it's my own view on the Bane character but I still think that Talia background cheapened the character for me. As I said a matter of taste.